Week in review – science edition

By Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past several weeks

Early humans escaped the worse impacts of massive volcanic eruption [link]

“Since 1951, the number of heavy rainfall days per year for the whole of Germany has hardly changed, almost independently of their definition” https://mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/7/1950/htm…

Wild boars pose greater climate risk than a million cars [link]

Summer flooding in Europe is scarcer than in the past. Summer flooding in western Europe over past 500+ years (red line) Blöschl et al 2020 https://nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2478-3

Observed extreme precipitation trends in Central Europe [link]

Observational evidence of positive cloud feedback [link]

Long-term decrease in Asian monsoon rainfall and abrupt climate change events over the past 6,700 years [link]

Yet another new analysis of >8000 stations with daily rainfall data confirming that that heavy precipitation events have become more frequent when aggregated globally. (Thread: 1/n) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018WR024067

Flood costs are declining (2nd row), not only for rich countries but for developing countries Costs are declining for almost all extreme weather for rich and poor for flood, flash flood, coastal flood, cold and drought and for all extreme weather https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378019300378

According to UNDRR report out on drought today, human-caused climate change is expected to have a discernable effect on drought, but that effect is not generally expected to be detectable today https://undrr.org/publication/gar-special-report-drought-2021

“Our study stresses that from the long-term (1851–2018) perspective there are no generally consistent trends in droughts across Western Europe.” https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6719…

Blocking and its response to climate change [link]

It’s not the heat, its the humidity that’s killing us [link]

A new study points to microbial sources of methane , such as livestock, landfills, wetlands & more. https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2769/New-analysis-shows-microbial-sources-fueling-rise-of-atmospheric-methane

A study of 700-million-year-old banded iron formations suggests that changes in Earth’s orbit may have allowed complex life to emerge and thrive during the most hostile climate episode the planet has ever experienced [link]

These tree rings from Redding, California show burn scars every 3 to 5 years until ~1855. Natural fires and Indigenous burning practices were suppressed as European settlers arrived, allowing fuels to reach to dangerous levels and ignite in wildfires. https://vox.com/21507802/wildfire-2020-california-indigenous-native-american-indian-controlled-burn-fire

A “profound” ~1°C cooling trend has swept through E. Antarctica (1979-2018). Cooling extends across most of the continent and into the Southern Ocean. Madden-Julian Oscillation forcing is “likely to accelerate” the cooling in coming decades. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/26/eabf9903.full

Earth Has a 27.5-Million-Year ‘Heartbeat’, But We Don’t Know What Causes It [link]

Is the marine ice cliff hypothesis collapsing? [link]

Multidecadal poleward shift of the southern boundary of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current off East Antarctica [link]

“Outsize Influence of Central American Orography on Global Climate” 1/ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020AV000343#.YMI6Ugjsb_U.twitter

Data-driven reconstruction reveals large-scale ocean circulation control on coastal sea level’ https://nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01046-1…

8 century record of Atlantic hurricanes [link]

Miraculous mosquito hack cuts dengue fever by 77% [link]

Compound natural disasters in Australia: An historical analysis [link]

Policy and technology

Carbon removal technologies can make electric sector deep decarbonization more affordable and alter investment decisions Summary: https://esca.epri.com/pdf/Back-Pocket-Insights/EPRI-CDR-Impacts.pdf Full manuscript: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23554-6

Characterizing the role of socioeconomic pathways in shaping future urban heat-related challenges. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133941

Combining socio-economic & climate projections to assess heat risk. [link]

Bjorn Lomborg: Climate change and deaths from extreme heat and cold. Global warming may be saving 100,000 lives a year from extreme cold. [link]

How the American South is paying the price for Europe’s ‘green’ biomass energy [link]

Congressional testimony from Roger Pielke Jr [link]

“Beyond bouncing back? Comparing and contesting urban #resilience frames in US and Latin American contexts” [link]

Wildfires, floods and other crises are influenced by climate, but we can do much more to save lives and property by focusing on urgent practical changes on the ground [link]

Carbon capture isn’t economically effective. And Chevron wasted $3 billion finding that out. [link]

How markets adapt to climate change [link]

South Asia risks water security as warming affects Himalayas [link]

California is planning to shut down its last nuclear plant soon. From a carbon-free electricity standpoint, this is the equivalent of tearing down every wind turbine in the state, or half of our solar panels. https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/treadmill

Use of wastewater and sustainable agriculture can ensure water security in India [link]

The economic and reliability impacts of grid-scale storage in a high penetration renewable energy system [link]

Results show a clear decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability, with global average mortality and economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980–1989 to 2007–2016 [link]

“In most parts of the U.S., a switch from natural gas to electric heat pumps would raise household heating bills and increase damages from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.0c02705…

The climate left is a useful farce [link]

Is hydrogen the new oil? [link]

California is nearing a major – & under-appreciated – roadblock in its quest to produce 60% of the state’s electricity from renewables, as excess solar supply during sunny times undermines the economic case for building more plants: https://technologyreview.com/2021/07/14/1028461/solar-value-deflation-california-climate-change/

The @Energy Department is targeting vastly cheaper energy storage solutions for “long duration” applications (days, weeks). [link]

A deep look at the Texas blackout [link]

Ecological Forest Thinning and Prescribed Burns Lower Insurance Premiums Significantly https://nature.org/en-us/newsroom/ca-wildfire-resilience-insurance/…

Energy poverty is bad for health [link]

Impressive compilation of information about California wildfires [link]

Solar panel waste will make the electricity produced by solar panels *four times* more expensive than experts had predicted Here’s why everything they said about solar was wrong https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/why-everything-they-said-about-solar

Why CO2 removal is not equal and opposite to reducing emissions | https://j.mp/3j3kqbL

The U.S. uses 30-40% of its corn supply for ethanol, which accounts for only ~7% of U.S. transport fuel. That’s a lot of land use to produce a relatively small amount of energy. https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/us-bioenergy-statistics/

Richard Tol: The economic impacts of weather vs climate [link]

Agriculture alone will cause us to blow past 1.5C and potentially even 2C. Its a hard to decarb sector, but there are solutions today (higher yields, reduce waste, better practices, less meat/alt meat). [link]

Why won’t the U.S. reprocess nuclear fuel ? [link]

A new estimate suggests one third of global emissions comes from the food system. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac018e

Solar power’s land grab hits a snag: environmentalists [link]

About science and scientists

No science is ever settled [link]

Micro aggressions are finally called out for being a load of speculative tendentious nonsense [link]

A new dimension of uncertainty: how does noise generated by researcher decisions undermine the credibility of science? [link] This is REALLY interesting

Rare events need different methods [link[

The neuroscience of intellectual openness [link]

Suppression of the ivermectin debate: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/why-has-ivermectin-become-a-dirty-7bd

The obesity wars and the education of a researcher [link]

The practice of science – an essay by the editors of the New Atlantis [link]

The end of reductionism could be nigh. or not [link]

The People’s Republic of Campus [link]

On the Peril of Politicizing Science, by a scientist of the Soviet Union. [link]

670 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. https://www.vox.com/22577431/germany-flooding-europe-climate-change

    I wonder how much land has been transformed from forests and plants that would prevent the floods to land with roads and concrete to hold windmills and solar panels that are upstream of the floods with no added water retention to account for the changes.

    The worst flood we had on our farm was in the year that a 160 acre field was plowed and planted, uphill from us. Hard rain caused no floods in years before they plowed up all the plants that hold the soil and water.

    Look uphill from the worst flooding in Germany, this is not climate change, this is a green energy disaster.

    I may later look at Google Earth to Confirm this, but unprecedented floods very often are caused by land use changes uphill from the floods. The change to add wind and solar power caused this horrible flood, all the vegetation they replaced with concrete uphill from the flood. Just guessing right now.

    In addition, the heat island influence, the slowing down and heating up of the wind that passes through wind and solar farms will increase precipitation. If there are new wind and solar installations at or upwind of the most rain, it is likely some of the cause. I can see the Houston Downtown and all the major freeways in the rain patterns in and around Houston. Wind and Solar Farms would most likely show up in a similar or even worse way.
    Just some thoughts,

    • Yes, I think you make a good point. It’s similar to the disaster flooding in China where the prodigious use of dams has been pointed out to exacerbate the problem due to the disconnect between rivers and natural floodplains.

    • From my readings, the urban flooding situation is largely resulting from waterways (streams, rivers, etc.) being filled in. Over time there is no place for rainfall to disperse, except to attack drainage infrastructure. Philadelphia is a good example of this.

      https://rclutz.com/2019/04/18/urban-flooding-the-philadelphia-story/

      • Roger Knights

        Has dredging been neglected, as was the case in the British Somerset (or Shropshire?) floods a few years back?

  2. Is the marine ice cliff hypothesis collapsing? [link]

    They wrote:
    developed a model that reliably captures the complex behavior of ice cliffs as they deform and fracture. In doing so, they find that marine-terminating parts of Antarctica may be less vulnerable than previously suggested to rapid and irreversible collapse (4, 5).

    Duh, Ice Core Records shows Antarctic ice sheet has been growing for at least 800 thousand years. This includes 8 or more time periods when temperatures were much warmer than now and the records show the most ice accumulations on Antarctica were during the warmest years.

    This is simple theory based on observing the actual ice core data. It snows more when the oceans are warmed by tropical ocean currents and polar sequestered ice is replenished.
    It does not snow when the oceans are colder and covered by sea ice.
    Buffalo New York gets lots of snowfall when Lake Erie is thawed.
    Buffalo New York gets little or no snowfall when Lake Erie is Frozen.
    Polar oceans and polar evaporation and snowfall and increase of sequestered ice works the same way. Warm times with open Arctic is necessary to replenish sequestered ice on Greenland. Warm times with open Antarctic is necessary to replenish sequestered ice on the Antarctic Continent.

    • “It snows more when the oceans are warmed by tropical ocean currents and polar sequestered ice is replenished.” – Herman

      Yes, this simple observation makes a mockery of Milankovitch insolation theory of the glacial cycle. How did 5km high glaciers from the Arctic to Bristol accumulate in an ever cooling world due to ice albedo?

      (A new physics tidal forcing solution would push warm equatorial waters to higher latitudes, therefore negating this logical conundrum).

      • “How did 5km high glaciers from the Arctic to Bristol accumulate in an ever cooling world due to ice albedo?”

        There’s a paper, can’t find it now (I think is on PNAS), that shows how Milankovitch alone doesn’t explain, but if one adds black carbon deposited after vaste fires burn due to death of plants by low CO2 then thick ice can reduce suddenly.

      • “..that shows how Milankovitch alone doesn’t explain, but if one adds black carbon deposited after vaste fires burn due to death of plants by low CO2 then thick ice can reduce suddenly.” – robertok06

        The paper sounds like a laughable attempt to account for the deglaciation process in the regular glacial/interglacial cycle.

        It doesn’t provide an answer to the concept of evaporation required to produce snow from the poles to the equator in an ever cooling Snowball world.

  3. From Bjorn Lomborg:

    100,000 more heat deaths but 200,000 fewer cold deaths

    https://mailchi.mp/lomborg/jbpl570n9d-623860?e=cd46d6390c

  4. Bjorn Lomborg says:
    We need to hear the full story on heat and cold deaths

    “100,000 more heat deaths, but 200,000 fewer cold deaths from climate change”

    “Headlines from around the world tell us of hundreds of deaths caused by recent heat waves. The stories invariably blame climate change and admonish us to tackle it urgently. But they mostly reveal how one-sided climate-alarmist reporting leaves us badly informed.
    https://mailchi.mp/lomborg/jbpl570n9d-623860

  5. Dr. Judith, thanks as always for a host of interesting articles. One small point—the link to the Richard Tol piece isn’t there.

    My best to you and yours,

    w.

  6. On the suppression of the Ivermectin debate the question is which is more dangerous, people being fooled by populist’s misinformation, or having their communication monitored and censored in accordance to the leftist elitist savior agenda. I personally think populism is gaining in popularity,

    Is there an Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine cocktail that works? We may never know.

    “All science, all medicine, is a hypothesis,” Hazan says. “Until you have a valid, verifiable, reproducible cure, it’s all hypothesis. You need humility about what you don’t know. It’s like Einstein said: if we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research.”

    • Ron: There allegedly are five large random assignment clinical trials with ivermectin underway right now. We should get a useful answer.

      The answer for HCQ is already in: A recent paper showed that the antiviral activity of HCQ and some related compounds was caused by lipidosis, as disruption of host cell lipids. So the mechanism of antiviral activity is toxic and if patients received an effective anti-viral dose of HCQ, there would be significant harm to the patient.

      • Joshua, there is a big difference between “evidence free” and proof. The left in particular seems to disrespect the distinction. I have no proof of this assertion, btw. It is my personal observation, just like the attitude I witnessed in articles written by doctors that declared HCQ treatment failure settled after results of the initial studies, the ones that did not use HCQ as part of the cocktail initially reported by Gautret. The studies also gave HCQ in late hospitalization the way one would do for a last resort, Hail Mary.

        There was no clinical ethics behind designing studies in that way since HCQ and the other ingredients of the cocktail are sufficiently safe to give to patients on admission or even as out-patient. The Henry Ford Institute, realizing this, had success. But before these positive results and those of NYU were published the doctors reporting the early failures had no curiosity if HCQ would work in a different protocol.

        It makes no difference to my point whether the HCQ worked or not. The lack of interest is the point. They were rooting for Trump being wrong more than rooting for finding a treatment. If you are truly curious you would have seen examples of this. Looking back for the articles I remembered reading in Medpage when the Lancet and NEJM studies on HCQ were published are gone now. But here is a WaPo article starting with an editor’s note that the study was retracted but it doesn’t look like the rest of the article was changed since it starts out with: “A study of 96,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an antimalarial drug promoted by President Trump as a “game changer” in the fight against the virus had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.” (my bold)

      • Ron –

        > The left in particular seems to disrespect the distinction.

        I suggest to you that’s another evidence-free assertion. The expression of your ideologically-driven biases is not evidence of anything other than your ideologically-driven biases.

        There is an extensive effort to investigate Ivermectin, just as there was with HCQ, and just has there have been with many, many other treatments for COVID. Just because you don’t like the results of those efforts doesn’t mean that they didn’t take place!

        And assigning causality for COVID outcomes you don’t like to TDS is a convenient, but completely unfalsifiable assumed etiology. That isn’t to say that TDS doesn’t exist, but it has become such a convenient catchall for some people that claims of its existence at this point serve no viable purpose other than, once again, to express antipathy.

        It’s basically TDSS (Trump Derangement Syndrome Syndrome).

      • joe the non epidemiologist

        Joshua | August 7, 2021 at 2:41 pm |
        Ron –

        > The left in particular seems to disrespect the distinction.

        I suggest to you that’s another evidence-free assertion. The expression of your ideologically-driven biases is not evidence of anything other than your ideologically-driven biases.”

        pot calling kettle black!

      • I don’t make claims about “the right.” I try to avoid the fundamental attribution error and its many closely related brethren.

        I don’t assume that just because people disagree with me politically or identify with any particular political group that they’re any particular way in how they reason. It would be illogical to do so, and more a sign of a lack of control fo bias more than anything else.

      • Joshua: “There is an extensive effort to investigate Ivermectin, just as there was with HCQ, and just has there have been with many, many other treatments for COVID. Just because you don’t like the results of those efforts doesn’t mean that they didn’t take place!”

        Consider this: it took just 11 months from being supplied the virus sequence to developing 7+ vaccines and having 3 of them (Sputnik, Pfizer and Sinovac), completed testing in live clinical trials and approved for use. All the vaccines were new biologics, the 2 RNA types being also brand new technology. HCQ is a front line drug for the WHO, with a long history of safety and thus off label use. It was found effective against SARS1 in vitro a decade ago and reported successful in its initial French case study used in a cocktail that was the result of the most successful Chinese trial cocktail matrix. The health establishment decided for some reason to set up the trial using HCQ without the cocktail and in some cases in late stage disease when it was never intended to be used. Two of the largest initial studies published, the Lancet and NEJM, indicting HCQ and ineffective or harmful, were fraudulent. Twenty months now since the HCQ Chinese cocktail matrix study HCQ is still being studied. The western countries have highly discouraged it from being used by any doctor off label until it is proven effective. Why?… Safety?… No. Expense?… No. Availability?… No.

        Why was the obvious possibility of a WIV lab leak banned from discussion for a year? Could there be a common denominator to both of these mysteries?

        With Ivermectin an Australian researcher reported success in vitro in April of 2020. Again, that was how many months ago? Do we know if its effective? There are ongoing RCTs of Ivermectin now. Are there ongoing trials of Remdesivir? Do we know how ineffective it is? Was Ivermectin slowed down due to safety? Safety for whom?

        The left mindset does not ask these questions. I don’t know why? I also don’t understand their willingness to give socialism just one more shot.

      • Ron –

        > The left mindset does not ask these questions.

        Keep telling yourself that, Ron. Self-sealing mindset. You can believe whatever you want to believe that way. You can just Invent ehsrcer you want.

        No evidence necessary. How do I know? Show any evidence for your theory there about the “left mndset.”. You have none that doesn’t come from your own belief system. Go ahead. Challenge yourself to find some. You won’t.

      • Joshua,
        Clearly if we both engage in an honest dissection of are assumptions we could produce a productive result. The impression that many others I hear express is that you run off when you don’t like the logic only to come back later again and again to take a bite or swipe.

        You accuse me of not presenting evidence but I believe I did. And I pointed out that you conflate evidence with proof. Then you basically assert without evidence “evidence-free assertions.” People comment “pot calling kettle black” but it goes over your head. To avoid hypocrisy just try addressing the points that lead to my conclusion rather just denying it.

        What am I saying? Let’s dissect your last paragraph.
        “No evidence necessary. How do I know? Show any evidence for your theory there about the “left mndset.”. You have none that doesn’t come from your own belief system. Go ahead. Challenge yourself to find some. You won’t.”

        This was your response for my giving examples of the left’s mindset. So you are asking for more? Do you sincerely want my to make a list? Or, are you trying to blow up things up rather than address the points that I just made in my prior posts?

        Calling someone biased is not likely to cure their bias. I admit I have bias but you are making me more secure in that I am the logical one and not the emotionally sensitive one.

        One thing we might agree on is that we are good representatives for the respective right and left type thinking. And we might agree that it is frustratingly rare to hear a honest and detailed discussion dissecting differences. Most want to preach to their respective choirs. We have the opportunity to provide something valuable if you were willing to put down the weapons and just drill down to find the assumptions where we can agree without fearing that we might lend legitimacy to the other by understanding them.

      • Ron –

        > This was your response for my giving examples of the left’s mindset.

        You gave no evidence of a “left mindset.”. None. You declared some vague thing a “mindset” and then declared it “left.”.

        No evidence. . It’s argument by assertion. It’s remarkable that apparently you don’t know the difference.

      • And seriously, Ron. –

        > This was your response for my giving examples of the left’s mindset.

        That’s freakimn beautiful. Not sure I’ve ever seen a better example of a circular argument. I’m tempted to think it’s a Poe, but given some of the other arguments you made I highly doubt it.

        Absolute classic.

      • Joshua,

        Instead of attacking the messenger try making a case against my weakest point among the following:

        1) HCQ and Ivermectin received a much resisted reception by the health establishment when introduced from those dedicated technicians diligently searching for treatments using safe on-the-shelf antivirals. This can be demonstrated simply be the amount of time that it took to get studies that were

        2) This was contrasted by their hype for Remdesivir and their red carpet for it.

        3) The health establishment, instead of waiting for RCT study results for HCQ that replicated the Gautret study, published fraudulent retrospective studies.

        4) The WaPo investigative reporters, instead of discovering the first studies on HCQ were fraudulent, reported the negative results as a punch in the mouth to Donald Trump.

        5) Socialists do not defend the Soviet Union, Cuba (except Bernie), Venezuela or North Korea. There are a few that praise China but even they do not defend the breaking of the deal to allow Hong Kong to remain free or China’s plans to annex Taiwan or the government sanctioned genocide of Muslim minorities.

      • Ron –

        I’m not attacking the messenger. I’m attacking vapid arguments.

        Your argument by assertion leaves no room for meaningful discussion.

        1) Quality X is a “left mindset”

        Notice no evidence that quality X is more prevalent on the left.

        Quality X s not even actually defined.

        Then you claim that example Y, which again isn’t held to any kind of definitions scrutiny, is “an example” of a made up quality, differentially attributed to one group as opposed to another, with zero supporting evidence.

        It’s just a circular argument all the way down. But if it works for you, go for it.

      • Joshua, let me clarify what I meant by “left thinking.” It is simply the bias that would be applied to any perception or conclusion that supports left leaning dogma. There is no biological aspect to this. Of course, this is why child indoctrination has become an issue. Families are now divided as a result of left bias in schools and in Hollywood popular culture. Therefore, my assertion is self-evident to any thinking person and I would have though required little proof.

        Your fixation with what you think is circular logic is nothing more than your own bias trying to deflect your thinking from other points that you can’t defend, IMO. In essence you are choosing the safety of an inarguable point.

        I recognize that every living organism has bias. I became enthralled with science at a young age because my teachers told me fascinating stories about absurd consensus beliefs of the past. Science was developed as a tool to address bias in determining truths. It is slow and tedious, but combining science with the invention of publishing changed the world. Further, I became interested in secondary school with philosophy and logical thinking, and then political ideologies. The question of why some things work and some things don’t continues to interest me.

        Religion and bias in my mind are of the same fabric. In many ways both of them are a human need but clearly both are an impediment to the progress of collective knowledge. This is because they stop us from taking the tedious and painful work to use the scientific method. I should also point out that before science there was progress made by intensive logical thinking. The flaw is that logical thinking can be sabotaged by one false premise. What we think of science today is really a combination of the scientific method with logical thinking. Critical thinking is just and extra layer of logical thinking using Devil’s advocate and extreme cases as tests of the logic. You have to work to want to prove yourself wrong to overcome bias.

        Bias without critical thinking or the scientific method indistinguishable from religion. Not to knock religion, which is constitutionally protected in the USA. BTW, extreme bias is also protected. There is no dangerous information, only dangerously uneducated thinkers.

      • Ron –

        > Joshua, let me clarify what I meant by “left thinking.” It is simply the bias that would be applied to any perception or conclusion that supports left leaning dogma.

        You called something (vaguely described) a “left mindset” with zero evidence that it’s a “left mindset” (as opposed to a characteristic of how some humans reason irrespective of political ideology).

        You then went on to point to an “example” of a “left mindset” (with no reasonable quantification or qualification) based on your evidence-free determination of a “left-mindset.”

        And you continue to argue from that self-sealing, tautological, circular reasoning.

        You can repeat this recursive loop all you want. You have every right to continue to do so. But IMO, there’s no meaningfully way to engage with you when you continue to do so.

        Have a nice day.

      • Joshua => “You called something (vaguely described) a “left mindset” with zero evidence that it’s a “left mindset” (as opposed to a characteristic of how some humans reason irrespective of political ideology).”

        Joshua, In my last comment I clarified your mistaken assumption that I was referring to “a characteristic of how some humans reason irrespective of political ideology.” I specifically said it was not a matter of biology. It is a matter of poor reasoning, which I also clarified as stemming from the bias of the leftwing dogma. You are acknowledging we are in agreement by not being able to distinguish any disagreement of this.

        Regarding your assertions of tautology and circularity, nobody can tell what you are saying (but maybe you.)

      • Let’s take a closer look at Joshua’s argument that there is no such thing as left type thinking. I happened to strike this nerve as an aside in this paragraph about anti-Trump and pro-pharma biased [corrupted?] establishment affect on the investigation for safe, cheap, on-the-shelf treatments for Covid-19.

        Me=> “With Ivermectin an Australian researcher reported success in vitro in April of 2020. Again, that was how many months ago? Do we know if it’s effective? There are ongoing RCTs of Ivermectin even now [8/8/21]. Are there ongoing trials of Remdesivir?[There may be.] Do we know how ineffective it is? [It was initially approved even after trials failed.] Was Ivermectin slowed down due to safety? Safety for whom? [Big Pharma.]

        The left mindset does not ask these questions. I don’t know why? I also don’t understand their willingness to give socialism just one more shot.”

        Though my statement could easily be interpreted as an accusation of bias in favor of leftwing ideological dogma, as I thought I meant it, Joshua took it as being a unique defect in leftwing thinking as if they have invented a different logic or way of thinking.

        This is a bizarre accusation but it got me wondering that if that might be true. The implication would be that a mind-set unique to the left that has more extreme excursion from sound logic. That is an interesting topic to explore and what builds a left versus right point of view.

    • “Is there an Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine cocktail that works? We may never know.”

      That may be due to the control group taking Willis Eschenbach’s Rx advice:

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/04/of-quinine-and-chloroquine-willis.html

      • My vote would go for a post with the title Quining Quinine.

      • Would you care to ghost Willis V. Chloroquine’s next book, Climate : My Role In His Downfall ?

        Between 2001 and his brain death some years later , Chloroquine rose from WUWT moderator to become Professor of Pharmoclimatology at Trump College of Alternative Knowledge , President of the Modern Pigin Language Association, and an internationally recognized authority on the analytical philosophy of sheet rock construction He is also the author of best-selling Amazon self-help book, ‘ Chloroquiddities’

      • Ivermectin, a US Food and Drug Administration-approved anti-parasitic agent, was found to inhibit severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in vitro. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the rapidity of viral clearance and safety of ivermectin among adult SARS-CoV-2 patients. The trial included 72 hospitalized patients in Dhaka, Bangladesh, who were assigned to one of three groups: oral ivermectin alone (12 mg once daily for 5 days), oral ivermectin in combination with doxycycline (12 mg ivermectin single dose and 200 mg doxycycline on day 1, followed by 100 mg every 12 h for the next 4 days), and a placebo control group. Clinical symptoms of fever, cough, and sore throat were comparable among the three groups. Virological clearance was earlier in the 5-day ivermectin treatment arm when compared to the placebo group (9.7 days vs 12.7 days; p = 0.02), but this was not the case for the ivermectin + doxycycline arm (11.5 days; p = 0.27). There were no severe adverse drug events recorded in the study. A 5-day course of ivermectin was found to be safe and effective in treating adult patients with mild COVID-19. Larger trials will be needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33278625/

      • Overall, if I had just discovered I had COVID-19, I would take a chance on ivermectin. It has been used safely for 40 years now so it more than likely won’t do any harm. The small clinical trials have mixed results, but quite a few show ivermectin to have a beneficial effect against COVID.

        https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2c/

      • Jim2: To quote the authors of the abstract you posted: “Although the study sample was too small [treatment groups of 24] to draw any solid conclusions …”

        If you read the paper, you’ll find that the faster clearance of virus reported in the abstract did NOT result in patients being released from the hospital any earlier. PCR tests for virus were only run on on day 3 (before dosing of ivermectin was complete), Day 7, and Day 14. It is common for recovering patients to test positive for COVID many days after recovering, and even 50% of the ivermectin group tested positive on Day 14, 4 days after the average patient was released from the hospital. It would have been better if they had reported the quantitative REDUCTION in viral load during and after dosing and then were able to show that those patients that showed the greatest reduction in viral load from treatment were those who were released from the hospital earlier. Since quantitative PCR is commonplace, it is suspicious that these authors only reported the presence or absence of detectable virus. Viral RNA (often non-infectious fragments, not the full length RNA) is often detectable for many days after a patient has recovered and is no longer infectious. The CDC allows doctors and nurse recovering from COVID to return to work one day after their symptoms are gone, whether or not they test positive by PCR.

        A SINGLE 10 mg dose of Ivermectin has been shown to be safe and effective for treating the worms that cause river blindness. In the study you cite, they are giving FIVE DOSES of 12 mg over five days. 24 patients is not proof of safety. Ivermectin immediately kills worms by binding to a receptor on nerves much like sarin (which is why only a single dose is needed. That same receptor is found in the human brain, but ivermectin doesn’t normally cross the blood-brain barrier. The blood brain barrier is damaged in some patients including: bleeds in the brain including stroke, MS, meningitis, and possibly Alzheimer’s. For those patients, ivermectin could be an extremely dangerous drug. A study with 24 otherwise healthy young COVID patients doesn’t prove higher doses of ivermectin are safe for the Americans most at risk of dying from COVID.

        The “research” done in third world hospitals – where funding is often dependent on success in treating patients – simply isn’t very reliable. As one advocate for ivermectin puts it: It is improbable that all of these reports of success are likely to be right.

        Jim says: “Overall, if I had just discovered I had COVID-19, I would take a chance on ivermectin.”

        If I discovered I has COVID, I would demand infusion with the synthetic antibodies that were given to President Trump, who recovered remarkably rapidly. These antibodies were develop by sorting through serum from patients who have recovered from COVID to find the neutralizing antibodies that bound most tightly to the spike protein. We know that such antibodies prevent infection or severe illness in those who have been vaccinated or are and have recovered from COVID! However, getting an IV infusion as an out-patient can be challenging. I recommend that you try to get antibodies first and then try ivermectin as a last resort.

      • Frank, thanks for such and informative comment. I agree that bias is a big problem in science, just not the science that agrees with my prior notions. :)

        I also agree that the RNA vaccine is the best prophylactic right now for those who have it available to them, (like the entire USA). But many can’t get vaccinated, for whatever reason, and because of that the health establishment should keep a top priority for treatment research. The lack of interest in treatments due to anti-Trump or pro-pharma motives in 2020 are reprehensible. You can say there is no proof of this and sure it’s hard to separate incompetency from ill-intention. But the NYT reporters now admit they were told not to pursue stories that might support Trump’s assertions, like the Covid origin. It is not that much of a leap to see Fauci and his like in the establishment sabotaging HCQ and Ivermectin studies, just as we can see they sabotaged the investigations into the Covid origin.

        It is this corruption that has drained the trust from the vaccine hesitant population, not ignorance. Even if Ivermectin and HCQ are completely ineffective that does not excuse the establishment attitude and more that it excuses Surgisphere from publishing a fraudulent studies that might have gotten the right answer.

        The RNA vaccine is a success in safety as well as effectiveness for adults. Even one does provides a good measure of protection for the otherwise vulnerable and it is now proven to even increase the immunity one had from a previous infection.

        https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w

        Kentucky residents with previous infections who were unvaccinated had 2.34 times the odds of reinfection (OR = 2.34; 95% CI = 1.58–3.47) compared with those who were fully vaccinated; partial vaccination was not significantly associated with reinfection (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 0.81–3.01).

      • Ron –

        > The lack of interest in treatments due to anti-Trump or pro-pharma motives in 2020 are reprehensible.

        There are a massive amount of resources and a massive amount of dedicated scientists and medical researchers and medical practitioners who are making an unprecedented effort to fight COVID via investigation f various treatments.

        I have to say, your evidence-free assertion of “lack of interest in treatment” is bizarrely insulting to them in addition to just being flatly untrue.

  7. At the last and now-closed post on COVID, I hypothesized that more transmissible variants became more transmissible by replicating to higher levels in vivo and thereby increasing the number of virus particles in exhaled aerosol and/or sprayed droplets. This has now been demonstrated in an article awaiting peer review and reviewed by Nature

    “We report the first local transmission of the Delta SARS-CoV-2 variant in mainland China. All 167 infections could be traced back to the first index case. The investigation on daily sequential PCR testing of the quarantined subjects indicated the viral load of the first positive test of Delta infections was ~1000 TIMES HIGHER than that of the 19A/19B strains infections back in the initial epidemic wave of 2020, suggesting the potential faster viral replication rate and more infectiousness of the Delta variant at the early stage of the infection.”

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.07.21260122v1.full.pdf
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01986-w

    I also also hypothesized that more transmissible variants would cause more hospitalizations and deaths. Given a 1000-fold increase in viral load, this seems more plausible. Demonstrating this is challenging because hospitalization and death depend on the age, co-morbidities and perhaps the socio-economic status of those infected, and these have changed as vaccination progressed. My informal analysis shows that the ratio of detected infections to hospitalization to deaths has remain roughly the same between January and June. Since the most vulnerable were first and most-likely to be vaccinated, this is consistent with the hypothesis that COVID has gotten more dangerous, even though the Delta variant didn’t become dominant until late June. So non-Delta variants appear to have become more deadly.

    This 1000-fold increase in viral load might prompt us to think of the Delta variant as a new and probably more deadly pathogen, perhaps like pandemic and seasonal influenzas. The Delta variant is capable of infecting and mildly sicken those thought to be immune because of vaccination or previous infection and those people can infect others. The number of new cases in the UK has risen 20-fold since late May to 700/million/day, nearly as high as in early January (900/million/day). The US and UK have similar reproduction numbers which are higher than any experienced in the US since April 2020. The death toll among the unvaccinated could explode.

    • Three papers have now appeared claiming that the Delta variant. From one

      “Compared to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 strains, the adjusted elevation in risk associated with N501Y-positive variants was 59% (49-69%) for hospitalization; 105% (82-134%) for ICU admission; and 61% (40-87%) for death. Increases with Delta variant were more pronounced: 120% (93-153%) for hospitalization; 287% (198-399%) for ICU admission; and 137% (50- 230%) for death.”

      https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.05.21260050v2.full.pdf

      https://www.sciencenews.org/article/delta-variant-studies-cdc-coronavirus-covid-pandemic

      • Not entirely surprising that much of the rationale behind the anti-masking activism was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how infectious diseases (outside of tuberculosis) can be spread through aerosolized particles.

      • Masks were sold as protection against droplets not aerosols. I stated here about 1 year ago that it was transmitted by aerosols or it would never have become a pandemic IMO. Masks are ineffective against aerosols. Social distancing and well ventilated areas are most important for aerosols. Most respiratory infections are transmitted primarily by aerosols.

      • doug –

        > Masks are ineffective against aerosols.

        Lol.

        Did you even read the article? If you did, did the whole thing just pass right over your head?

      • It`s an article not a scientific study or analysis, and I read it nearly 3 months ago when it was written.

      • So did it fly over your head?

        What is the line of demarcation between “droplets” and “aerosols” with respect to COVID infections?

      • The article established no line of demarcation. I assume you mean the 100micron value that defined where most particles that size fall from the air within a short time and particles smaller may become aerosols. I have no issue with that assertion. The best definition I have seen is if it follows a ballistic path and falls out of the air then it is a droplet.

        The article also talks about the importance of effective ventilation of spaces and the need for N95 masks.

  8. Geoff Sherrington

    Thank you Judith, for another lot of relevant reading.
    The 100-page report on the Texas electricity failure in winter 2021 has promises in its stated objectives but equivocation in its short summary. Was there failure of some gas fuel supplies because the protective devices had been mandated to run on electricity rather than natural gas? Best answer I could find after a short search is at page 79 “We also did not explore whether any natural gas infrastructure facilities were committed to providing an ancillary service during the event, but were unable to perform due to a disruption in their electricity supply.”
    Leaving the Texas electricity paper, I opened the link to “The neuroscience of intellectual openness”.
    The two papers make interesting reading side-by-side.
    Sadly, “interesting” is not the adjective of importance to hard scientists. Try “conclusive”. Geoff S

  9. The world needs massive amounts of new energy. On the grid by 2028?

    • While I appreciate your support of nuclear power, the practical reality of deploying new reactors types in the U.S. and Europe is daunting. The regulatory hurdles are immense and getting worse. That translates directly into excessive costs to design and build the machines that are actually generally fail-safe. Until that issue is resolved, the nuclear option in Western countries is highly unlikely because the technology is not even close to being competitive as a direct result of massive overregulation.

      • Herman Pope

        I do not think you are correct. Fail-Safe designs are easier and cheaper, just turn it off and it shuts down. The engineering of that is already done. The problem with that is the politics. Safe Nuclear Power does make the Alarmist Green Wind and Solar show up as the “scams that they are”.

      • While many of the designs are passively fail-safe, bafflingly the regulatory process is becoming more complex. Specifically, see 10CFR53, regulations.gov, docket nrc-2019-0062. Politics is not really the problem, the regulatory bureaucracy is the issue.

  10. Geoff Sherrington

    In a previous post on Climate Etc., I faced denial of my simple findings that Australian heat waves in our 6 State capital cities had not overall become hotter, longer or more frequent. Responses typically assumed that higher decadal average national temperatures or global temperatures would automatically produce more severe heat waves. This easy, reflex assumption is not everywhere supported by data.
    Judith gave a link here to “Frequency Trend Analysis of Heavy Rainfall Days for Germany”. Here are some sentences from it –
    “Several scholars claim that the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events are already increased as a consequence of global warming and are expected to increase further. In 2012 the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on extreme events pointed out a statistically significant global trend towards more heavy rainfall days with regional and sub-regional variations [18]. Various trend analyses of extreme rainfall across Europe provide evidence for significant changes also in its frequency; however, the strength and direction of trends vary regionally and seasonally [19], also in Germany ([20], based on percentiles). Climate change projections also typically indicate increases in extreme precipitation [19].”

    https://t.co/ruEC7TZftq?amp=1

    These words about German rainfall are very similar to mine on heat waves in Australia.
    There seems to be lesson, that data are superior to assumptions.
    I would not find it strange if some natural events like rainfall and heat waves are capped by a mechanism(s) yet to be fully understood. After all, surface sea temperatures are measured to be mostly capped at 30 degrees C. Geoff S

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      This extreme precipitation will prove to be the extreme snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere this winter.
      http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/surface/SMB_curves_LA_EN_20210723.png

    • Yes – I still deny it. I suspect that data can be tortured until it confesses.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969720340432

      But then the world is warmer. Precipitation on the other hand hasn’t intensified.

      https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/3899/2020/

      • “But then the world is warmer. Precipitation on the other hand hasn’t intensified.” – Robert

        This is an oxymoron and shows that manmade global warming is a fallacy. Heat is being redistributed to the higher latitudes. The overall global precipitation remains the same.

      • Real science is falsifiable.

      • Robert
        Yes it is warmer, but what is the true value. The great graphic below identifies exactly where the warmth and cooling is for this century.

        At the end of the post by Willis Eschenbach, he stated “I haven’t a clue. In my opinion, the most important words that anyone studying the climate can learn to say are “I don’t know.” I admire people that are open and honest.

        There is an Anomaly in the Anomalies caused by atmospheric blocking that inflates high NH latitude anomalies, especially during El Nino years. There is good reason to question the accuracy of comparing the satellite era 2meter temperature record with historical warming periods such as the 1930’s unless in specific small regions immediate to where records were taken. Satellite data from the 1930’s would produce a similar image to the one below, it is nothing new.
        Regards

        https://i2.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/ceres-decadal-temperature-trends-20171.png?w=680&ssl=1

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/24/where-the-warmth-is/

      • We can see the evolution of mean annual temps in Australia from 1910. It’s a simple proposition.

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/history/temperature/

        And I am not about to insult my intelligence at WUWT.

      • Roger Knights

        Jo Nova has said that the reason the record keepers in Australia provide data only from 1910 onward is that earlier temperatures (back to 1875 or so IIRC) were considerably hotter, putting the rise since 1910 in a less alarming context.

      • 1910 was about when there was sufficient sampling density along with a standardized methodology to make a realistic stab at reliable records in a continent spanning grid. It was performed intelligently, diligently and professionally – records are preserved and methods documented. I have seen amateur claims to the contrary but they have no value.

      • That’s a meme:

        Meteorologist Clement Wragge, in an 1886 report (Wragge, C. L. 1886. Meteorological Inspection and Proposals for a New Meteorological Organisation, Report to the Colonial Secretary, Brisbane, presented to the Queensland Parliament, 14 pp.), pointed out that some thermometers:

        are hung under verandahs and over wooden floors; others are placed against stone walls and fences. Such exposures (not to mention the several remarkable instances of thermometers being placed and observed indoors) give results which are not only not intercomparable and so valueless to meteorology, but which are affected by artificial and secondary conditions, giving misleading values.

        Wragge convinced the Queensland government to introduce the Stevenson Screen as the standard method for housing thermometers, but failed to convince meteorologists in the other Australian colonies. So for much of the country, temperatures continued to be recorded on what was known as a Greenwich (or Glaisher) Stand, or even just mounted on a wall, leaving the thermometers exposed to radiation from the ground and their surrounds.

        https://theconversation.com/factcheck-was-the-1896-heatwave-wiped-from-the-record-33742

      • So, is the gist of this conversation that we can not measure global temperatures change as far back as the industrial revolution- generally taken as 1850 or earlier?

        Reliable measurements -small in number and not widespread-mean we only have records that should be used back to say 1910?

        That is a blink of an eye and somewhat makes the IPCC desire to measure mans impact from 1850 or earlier rather pointless

        tonyb

      • While it is true there was no reliable, systematic and nationwide approach to monitoring temperatures pre 1910, I’m sure they had enough brains to have fairly reliable individual readings during heatwaves. If the thermometers were off by a couple of degrees and didn’t meet today’s standards, who cares. They had heat waves in Australia just like everywhere else. The media’s portrayal, just like every rare event, is that everything is “unprecedented “.

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image735_shadow.png

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Image777_shadow.png

      • Hard to believe but even in 1878 they knew enough to take readings in the shade.

        https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Image0409342019.png

      • OMG – there were past heatwaves!!!!

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE,
        Yes, data torture can decrease confidence in the outcome. The paper you reference has torture of just the type I am trying to expose by using simple metrics and simple treatment, mainly addition and subtraction.
        Compare this with the paper you quoted, by a group of young greens who wrote “Daily minimum and maximum temperatures for the 11 downscaled models were bias corrected against observations based on daily gridded data from AWAP (Raupach et al., 2009) over the 1981–2010 period. Bias correction was necessary to align observed and modelled temperatures and produce reliable estimates of extremes such as heatwaves. ”
        I produce a reliable estimate of heatwave intensity by taking the average of the daily Tmax over consecutive days of length 3, 5 and 10 days. My comments are based on this simple display of a heat index.
        Point is, if a pattern is shown by this simple analysis, why try to finesse it to extremes in the hope of a result that fits your preconception that heat waves are getting longer, hotter and more frequent? These authors seem to advise that you do it by altering the data (e.g. models were bias corrected against observations…”)
        Come on, Robert, you know better than that. Geoff S

      • Again Geoff confuses downscaling of models for regional projections with sources of historic data. It seems the mere mention of models throws him into a tizzy.

      • Chief

        I know you know but the media and Gretazens seem to believe that every drought, every flood, every forest fire, every hurricane, every snowstorm every cold spell, every receding glacier, every iceberg, every summer breeze, and every heat wave is because of AGW.

      • stevenreincarnated

        CKid, you forgot hurricanes, tornadoes, and stubbed toes.

      • stevenreincarnated

        OK, you didn’t forget hurricanes but you did forget every war and species extinction.

    • UK-Weather Lass

      These days the heavy alarmist agenda influences on measurements hardly seems conducive to good professional attitudes towards the whole point of keeping accurate local meteorological anomaly records. Just imagine what those folk in olden times may have done to manipulate their records if they had known then what we think we know now. We dismiss historic data at our peril and we misinform future generations when we fail to keep records in the right spirit of record keeping. Legacy needs to be taken seriously and not reduced to telling lies because it buys you fame.

  11. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Threat of downpours in thunderstorms in western Germany.
    https://i.ibb.co/M7gbpPB/Screenshot-1.png

  12. Thank you Dr. Curry for the interesting talking points.

    ….

    New analysis shows microbial sources fueling rise of atmospheric methane
    ..
    Lan said the data pointed to microbial sources, such as natural wetlands, shallow lakes and rivers, and human-managed sources like livestock, landfills, rice paddies, and wastewater treatment.
    ….

    I noticed how the idea of an ocean microbial source has been ‘cancelled’ from the conversation. Methane clathrates used to be the scare story of climate feedback – a warming ocean releasing a potent greenhouse gas that then exacerbates the situation endlessly.

    Of course an ocean bed source is a possibility, with increasing earth-tides due to the Sun a contender, albeit off the radar of mainstream consideration.

  13. ‘To see a World in a Grain of Sand
    And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
    Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
    And Eternity in an hour’

    From auguries of innocence by visionary poet William Blake. I don’t know about other but for me there is a reality very like that in which I have a personal relationship with God. She’s not a jealous God. I’ve wondered since I first read of quantum mechanics and consciousness whether entanglement might have something to do with cosmic consciousness.

    ‘The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness argues that microtubules (in the brain) are structured in a fractal pattern which would enable quantum processes to occur… In recent research involving a scanning tunneling microscope (STM), my colleagues at Utrecht and I carefully arranged electrons in a fractal pattern, creating a quantum fractal.’ In which they trapped photons.

    https://www.sciencealert.com/is-consciousness-bound-by-quantum-physics-we-re-getting-closer-to-finding-out.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Robert I Ellison: The Penrose-Hameroff theory of quantum consciousness

      Assiciative respons: I am currently slogging my way through Roger Penrose’s book The Road to Reality .

      Greatest introduction to physics since Feynman, Leighton and Sands? Worth a look, I think.

    • An even better quote for us today from the same poem:

      A truth that’s told with bad intent,
      Beats all the lies you can invent.

  14. An event does not a trend make

    More about heavy rainfall

    https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7QF

  15. Thank you for this very interesting analysis of rainfall in Germany. I understand the threshold approach, but wonder if you looked at actual amounts? While the “number” of intense rain events has remained constant over a very long period, is it possible to state how often extreme precipitation levels such as 150mm in 24 hours have occurred? We frequently hear these described as “thousand year events” or similar; but would it be more useful to say how many events have been recorded, if at all?

  16. No Science Is Ever Settled was an interesting piece on the much needed philosophy of science & truth in general:

    ….
    Evidently, some things that seemed obviously correct turned out wrong, and others that for long stretches of time were wrong, unthinkable and even heretical, turned out right.
    ….

    I sent the author an email:

    ….
    Thank you for your excellent article in AIER. Is it possible that gravity could be the driver of climate change?

    Could tidal range increase simply be from an increase in tidal energy from the Sun?

    Could the unexplainable gamma-ray anomalies emitted from the Sun, indicate new exotic physics at play?

    Could ice age theory *not* depend on sunlight but instead on changing gravity when on the plane of the planets?
    ….

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Total solar radiation may change slightly, but UV radiation is much weaker than in the previous cycle. The long-term decline will affect ozone production in the upper stratosphere and stratospheric temperatures.
    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/05mb2525.png

  18. Earth Has a 27.5-Million-Year ‘Heartbeat’, But We Don’t Know What Causes It

    This article was a bit lame and disappointing, with there being previous articles which hypothesised on dark matter & new physics as an explanation, occurring midway in the solar systems travel above and below the galactic plane on this timescale:

    ….
    Rampino isn’t the first to implicate dark matter in periodic extinctions: Harvard physicists Lisa Randall and Matthew Reece proposed that perhaps 5 percent of dark matter is made up of a type of particle that interacts just a little more strongly, and that stuff could form a disk.
    ….
    https://slate.com/technology/2015/03/did-dark-matter-cause-mass-extinctions-asteroids-volcanoes-and-the-end-of-the-dinosaurs-and-trilobites.html

    (I propose exotic matter at the centre of the Milky Way has an even stronger gravitational interaction on the galactic plane).

  19. “A study of 700-million-year-old banded iron formations suggests that changes in Earth’s orbit may have allowed complex life to emerge and thrive during the most hostile climate episode the planet has ever experienced.”

    The Snowball Earth evidence which shows a hydrological system surviving on the planet is yet another example of the ludicrousness of Mikankovitch insolation theory. How can such a cold planet evaporate enough water to form clouds & precipitation that accumulates as glacial snow all the way to the equator??

    It simply doesn’t make sense.

  20. The contribution of a newly unraveled 64yr common oscillation on the estimate of present-day global mean sea level rise

    “We find that the 64yr oscillation has significant contributions on the estimate of reconstructed GMSL trend: it contributed about 24% to the sea-level trend during 1993-2014 and cause a relative deceleration during 2024-2055”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021JB022147

    Paywalled. I wonder what’s the remaining acceleration term after removing this

  21. From the California Indigenous burning practices article

    “ In 2019, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order to mitigate wildfire risk, with an emphasis on fuel reduction. In 2020, California reached an agreement with the US Forest Service to conduct fire mitigation treatment across 1 million acres in the state per year. That’s a big step up. Currently, California land managers conduct controlled burns on 125,000 acres per year across state, federal, and private lands. By comparison, Florida, a much smaller state, permits about 2 million acres of controlled burning each year.”
    “ And California has a lot of fuel it needs to eliminate. ‘An estimated 20 million acres of forestland in California with high wildfire threat may benefit from fuels reduction treatment to reduce the risk of wildfire,’ according to a 2018 state report.”
    “ However, California has been falling far short of its targets. CapRadio and NPR’s California Newsroom reported that while the state has claimed that fire prevention work was conducted across 90,000 acres, the true number is less than 12,000”

    Whichever acreage of treatment being done in California is correct, it is significantly less than Florida.

    • Curious George

      In a state budget proposal, Gov. Gavin Newsom assigned $1 billion for fire prevention, and $4 billion for a high speed rail Modesto-Bakersfield.

  22. Geoff@large

    Rare events need different methods https://www.theinsight.org/p/rare-events-need-different-methods.

  23. The Neuroscience of Intellectual Openness was a good read:

    ….
    Taken too far, this over-dependence on left hemisphere categorisation may not only affect a person’s ability to listen and relate to others, but could lead to the development of mindblindness.
    ..
    Just educating people about free speech won’t cut it. We need to educate them about the mind. Neuroplasticity, the idea that the brain can rewire itself, suggests that we can change our thinking and should form the focus of education. Imagine how much discussion would improve if we were all deeply versed in the fallibility of our own thought processes, the different ways in which we perceive the world and the cognitive distortions endemic to certain ideologies.
    ….
    https://areomagazine.com/2021/06/21/the-neuroscience-of-intellectual-openness/

  24. re “Observational evidence of positive cloud feedback [link]”: This looks like a classic case of over-complication. They say they have performed “a statistical learning analysis”, which looks like a brilliant way to extract required results by using an unfathomable technique, when in fact a simple straightforward analysis can give very straightforward results.

    I did a straightforward analysis here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/06/05/cloud-feedback-if-there-is-any-is-negative/
    … and it is blindingly obvious that cloud feedback is negative or zero.
    “increases in sea surface temperature are associated with increases – not decreases – in cloud cover over the next few months. Moreover, the cloud cover increases tend to intercept a greater proportion of incoming solar radiation than they do of outgoing ocean radiation. The inevitable conclusion is that cloud feedback is negative.”.

    • David Wojick

      Increases in surface temp correlated with cloud increases sounds like a positive feedback. How not?

      • It’s a positive feedback if it causes more warming. That depends on cloud height.

      • David,

        I’d like an answer too. Either he has mistyped something or his argument makes no sense since he asserts that increasing ocean temperature is associated with increasing cloud cover.

        At any rate, the results could be different for different types of cloud cover as well as the altitude of the cloud cover. So, a blanket statement isn’t likely to tell us much.

      • Speculating, until David returns to this discussion –

        Warmer SST could lead to higher water vapor content leading to more clouds. The clouds would then reflect more sunlight, and there would be a negative feedback.

      • Curious George

        I can’t find the body of the article. I get Abstract, Footnotes, and Data Availability. Not even a request to pay.

    • This is interesting, did you sort by latitude? or cloud regimes (e.g. tropical convection, arctic stratus?)

    • Thank you for the straight-forward language Mike. I was thinking the same thing as I was reading through:
      ….
      There is an obvious possible mechanism for cloud feedback being negative:- as oceans warm they release more water vapour into the atmosphere, which then forms more clouds over the next few months.
      ….

      I wish you luck but can almost guarantee that the fact that you are openly casting doubt on the validity of IPCC climate models will make them so nervous as to not publish.

      (P.S. Could you kindly assess my assertion that the global map in AR5 for policy makers only shows the mid-high latitudes pixelated in reds & oranges with the equatorial oceans pixelated white. I interpret this as evidence that only the mid-high ocean latitudes are known to be warming. Thanks.)

    • Robert Clark

      Any molecule, solid, in the cloud is absorbing radiant heat from the solids around it. What ever the final surface temperature of that molecule is will always be higher than absolute zero. It will lose heat to the black sky.

    • ‘Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.’
      https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

      Closed cells rain out to leave open cells and persist for longer over cooler oceans. Where sea surface temperature varies most dramatically over a major portion of the global tropics and subtropics is the eastern Pacific Ocean. It is a positive feedback to warm and cool oceans and a dominant source of global top of atmosphere radiant flux variability.

      https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
      https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/htm

    • Mike and other commenters: Changes in percent cloud cover with surface temperature can’t tell us anything useful about cloud feedback, because emission of LWR depends on the altitude of cloud tops. Marine boundary layer cloud are the most cooling clouds on the planet, because they reflect incoming SWR and emit almost as much LWR as the surface below. If marine boundary layer clouds were replaced with higher clouds, that would cause positive cloud feedback. For this reason, feedback is always reported in units of W/m2/K and usually in terms of W/m2/K of LWR emitted by cloud tops reaching space and W/m2/K of SWR reflected by cloud tops back to space.

      The effect of seasonal surface temperature change on LWR emitted and SWR reflected by clouds has been studied from space several times, most recently by Tshushima and Manabe PNAS (2013). This is my favorite climate science paper, because it CLEARLY illustrates WITH OBSERVATIONS FROM SPACE so many feedback phenomena. Figure 1 shows that LWR feedback from clear skies is essentially the same as LWR feedback from all skies – that LWR cloud feedback is slightly negative (-0.16 W/m2/K). The dotted line in Figure 1 shows Planck feedback (-3.2 W/m2/K) and the difference in slope for clear skies is water vapor + lapse rate feedback of about +1.1 W/m2/K. The authors have also processed the LWR output from all climate models in response to seasonal warming, and most incorrectly show positive LWR cloud feedback averaging +0.26 W/m2/K.

      For reasons I don’t understand, the authors use the term LWR “cloud radiative forcing” rather than LWR cloud feedback, but I suspect it may have something to do with changes in percent cloud cover. Their information for clouds is always calculated by subtracting clear sky data from all sky data and includes changes in how much of the sky is covered by clouds. If anyone understands or has a reference to this terminology, I would be grateful.

      The plots of dLWR/dTs in response to seasonal warming are remarkably linear, but those of dSWR/dTs are not. For cloud radiative forcing, the plot suggests a lag between temperature change and the change in reflection of SWR. Remarkable, both Lindzen and Spenser find a better correlation between reflection of SWR and Ts using a lag of about 3 months. There is a small insignificantly positive cloud radiative forcing in two of the three data sets analyzed (ERBE and CERES SRBAVG), but CERES EBAG shows about +0.8 W/m2/K of positive cloud feedback. Since all three data sets show similar all sky SWR feedback, this discrepancy appears to be caused by how clear and cloudy skies are separated from cloudy skies

      Except for LWR feedback through clear skies, climate models show little ability to reproduce the feedbacks that are observed from space during seasonal warming AND they disagree substantially with each other about the origins (LWR vs SWR, clear skies or cloudy skies) of the feedback they predict.

      Unlike global warming, seasonal warming (3.5 K) is the net result of a larger surface warming in the Northern Hemisphere (40% land) and a smaller surface COOLING in the SH (20% land). Seasonal warming is amplified in temperate and polar regions compared to tropical regions to a much greater extent than will be seen in global warming, So I suspect feedback from the tropics is underweighted. SWR feedback seen through clear skies (aka ice-albedo feedback, about +1 W/m2/K) is presumably mostly due to large hemispheric differences in seasonal snow coverage on land. Consequently, the feedbacks that are observed during seasonal warming are not the same as the feedbacks that will result from global warming. The authors say:

      “One can argue whether the strength of the feedback inferred from the annual variation is relevant to global warming. Nevertheless, it can provide a powerful constraint against which every climate model should be validated.”

      The authors aren’t candid enough to say that models fail this validation test and are also mutually inconsistent in the origin of feedbacks.

      As Judith suggested, it would be wonderful if someone looked at how LWR and SWR feedbacks in response to seasonal warming varied geographically. Some clouds are produced from local phenomena. Marine boundary layer clouds, however, are a consequence of the descent of extremely dry air that arose thousand of kilometers away, the upwelling of cold water and turbulent mixing of the boundary layer. The emission of LWR from and the reflection of SWR from these clouds isn’t likely to be controlled by the local SST below them.

      • Isn’t this just a case of “..as oceans warm they release more water vapour into the atmosphere, which then forms more clouds over the next few months”.. which blocks direct sunlight from inducing further evaporation?

      • Alan asks: Isn’t this just a case of “..as oceans warm they release more water vapour into the atmosphere, which then forms more clouds over the next few months”.. which blocks direct sunlight from inducing further evaporation?

        No necessarily. The average water molecule that evaporates from the surface remains in the atmosphere for only 9 days, and 5 days in the tropics. (This can be calculated from the average daily precipitation rate and the absolute humidity in the air over the ocean.) Furthermore, it is worth remembering that tropical trade winds move air about 1000 kilometers to the east every day. In winter in the continental US, weather fronts typically sweep eastward across the US in about 3.5 days. At the top of the atmosphere, the jet stream is an order of magnitude faster. Meridional transport is slower. The convective link between surface temperature and air temperature higher in the atmosphere is quickly disrupted, but transfer of energy by radiation is continuous.

        On the other hand, ocean SSTs change only slowly. A day of tropical sun warms the surface of the equatorial Pacific less than 1 degC (which is why Willis’s thermostat hypothesis only applies over tropical oceans). So, even though the air above the ocean moves elsewhere quickly, the conditions in the air over the ocean may not change quickly.

  25. David Wojick

    My latest on the EPA HFC phaseout, their first major rule based entirely on stopping nasty climate change:
    https://www.cfact.org/2021/07/19/epas-illegal-hfc-phaseout-rules-are-innovation-killers/

    “It is immensely ironic that EPA’s ham-handed implementation of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act stifles innovation in manufacturing. They do it with a single rule that has no legal basis, tucked away in a 276 page regulatory proposal.

    To make the point I am going to look at a single case, although I am sure there are many others, since HFCs are crucial to many different industries, from semiconductors to medical inhalers. In this case the industry is one I had never heard of — structural foam — where HFCs are what are called the “blowing agent”. That is, it is the gas that makes the foam.

    As a civil engineer I find structural foam to be fascinating. My education comes from lengthy comments on EPA’s proposal filed by Structural Composites, Inc (SC). I used to think of structural foam as used in flimsy stuff like drink coolers, cups, etc. Turns out it now rivals materials like aluminum, fiberglass and concrete.”

    Lots more in the article.

  26. David Wojick

    I hate to say it but all this discussion of science may be irrelevant to policy. A recent Heartland/Rasmussen poll found a whopping 37% of respondents feared human extinction within a century due to CO2 emissions.

    https://www.cfact.org/2021/06/29/unfounded-fear-of-extinction-drives-climate-hysteria/

    No science there, right? Nor are we addressing this widespread irrational fear. Too busy debating the science! Fear drives policy.

    • ‘A new Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 61% of Likely U.S. Voters consider it likely that climate change will be catastrophic for humans, plants and animals, with 36% who say it’s Very Likely. This compares to 63% and 43% respectively a year ago. Thirty-five percent (35%) don’t view such a catastrophe as likely, but that includes only 16% who say it’s Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

      Forty-seven percent (47%) believe climate change is caused primarily by human activity. Thirty-eight percent (38%) disagree and say long-term planetary trends are to blame. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure. These findings are virtually unchanged from last year at this time.’

      To be realistic – what matters is winning the politics. That requires proactive policy and not reactive ‘debate’ of a science 97% don’t have a clue about. I’d start with these guys.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x67Q58dJw4E

      • David Wojick

        A different poll but note the glaring inconsistency in this one. Just 47% think climate change is caused by humans but 61% think it will be catastrophic. So naturally catastrophic? The poll I cited had a similar inconsistency, which needs to be explored.

        In any case these fears need to be addressed, because politics depends on what people believe. My point is that addressing these irrational fears is very different from arguing with the IPCC and far more important.

        We have a radical alarmist movement that is successfully spreading irrational fear. This needs our attention.

      • I was amused by the inconsistency. But I’d suggest proactive policies just in case. Pick some. Thinks that make social and economic sense.

        https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions

      • David Wojick

        That a lot of people have been sold irrational fears is no reason for doing stupid things. The drawdown list is actually a great list of stupid things.

      • Joe - then non engineer

        David Wojick | July 25, 2021 at 3:37 pm |
        “That a lot of people have been sold irrational fears is no reason for doing stupid things. The drawdown list is actually a great list of stupid things.”

        Drawdown comes up a lot of things they think are great and easy to accomplish. But a lot things look easy when you dont know anything about what your talking about. Drawdown ‘s proposals fit that description to a T

      • Joe is a glass half empty sort of guy industriously losing climate politics. What was it Einstein said about madness?

      • It’s not inconsistent. There can be catastrophic climate change that is not human caused.

        https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1411006670768115712

    • Since when is doing things that make social and economic sense stupid? Family farms and regenerative agriculture? Advanced nuclear reactors? Conserving and restoring landscapes? Building resilient infrastructure? There is plenty of scope for conservative policies that allay fears at the same time.

  27. @judith
    The link in
    “Rare events need different methods [link[” is not active…

  28. Because heretofore I had not done any research into the Himalaya glaciers I was surprised by this study’s finding of impacts from TSI, ENSO, AMO and NAO on the mass balance of the glaciers.

    “ Although, the study acknowledges the contributions of anthropogenic drivers of climate change in the Himalayan region, it also highlights a strong effect from the increased yearly concurrence of extremely high TSI with El Niño in the past five decades, resulting in severe glacial mass loss. A global study by Solomina et al. (2016)59 also correlates the glacier advances with the increased volcanism and low solar irradiance and deglaciations with the anthropogenic activities, thus depicting the significance of external controlling factors on the glacier mass balances. While the instrumental records are inadequate to convincingly assess the extent of anthropogenic climate change, ~180 years of industrial-era warming has already resulted in rising surface temperatures above the preindustrial values, and natural background variability for several regions including the subtropical latitudes in which the Himalaya is situated60. Although, this external anthropogenic forcing can partly control the glacial regime in the Himalaya, the natural climate variability still emerges as the key deciding element governing the Himalayan glacier mass balances5. Similar to several other studies for the region30, 43, 54, our study also identifies ENSO, NAO, and AMO as the primary drivers of the regional mass balance variability. The fact that the past few decades have experienced intensified episodes of NAO, closely correlating with rising temperature61, 62 also suggests a robust natural climatic control over the Himalayan glaciers”

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09212-2

  29. New observational study of largest observed SSW event.
    https://phys.org/news/2021-07-sudden-stratospheric-affected-northern-hemisphere.html
    “In an SSW-caused anomaly, changes over the pole cause changes in the opposite hemisphere. This important interhemispheric linkage was identified as drastic shifts at altitudes greater than 100 km—for example, in total electron content (TEC) measurements as well as variations in the thermospheric O/N2 ratio.”

    No causal mechanism has been identified to my knowledge. Earlier research pointed to large mesoscale air mass displacements over Asia. SSW events are linked to extreme weather anomalies like the winter storm Uri (2021).

    • Very interesting- thx.

      ….
      In September 2019, an extreme, record-breaking SSW event occurred over Antarctica. Goncharenko and colleagues found significant resulting changes in the upper atmosphere in mid-latitudes over the Northern Hemisphere following this event; more observations are available for this region than in the Southern Hemisphere. The changes were notable not only in severity, but also because they are limited to a narrow (20–40 degrees) longitude range, differ between North America and Europe, and persist for a long time.
      ….

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        “Another factor is differences in magnetic declination angles; in areas with greater declination, the zonal winds can more efficiently transport plasma to higher or lower altitudes, leading to the build-up or depletion of plasma density.”
        During extended periods of weak solar wind magnetic fields, the Earth’s magnetic field plays a larger role in the distribution of ionized particles.

  30. mesocyclone

    Dr. Curry, thank you for the interesting and wide ranging set of links. Much to study.

    Also, are you considering another article on COVID19, with the arrival Delta? The topic is getting interesting again, and will invade any other comment thread anyway.

    Finally, the wild boar article is, well, funny. I can imagine some biologists or agronomists chuckling over the funding they are getting from government climate change funds for studying the emissions of wild boars. I also understand that hunting wild boards, including from helicopters, is now a popular and useful sport in Texas.

    • dougbadgero

      Over a year ago I stated I saw no reason to believe that this virus was going away. I still see no reason to believe it will. After the delta variant there will be another, and then another, and another…

      Vaccination or natural infection will provide the adaptive immune system with what we need to probably survive the variants. Other CoV can have an 8% IFR in the infirm. When we die of “old age” it is frequently an infection that would have been no issue when we are young that finally takes us. There is another virus that can cause a “cold” we are going to have to learn to deal with it.

      • AstraZenac ‘is made from a weakened version of a common cold virus (known as an adenovirus) from chimpanzees. It has been modified to contain genetic material shared by the coronavirus – although it can’t cause the illness.’ https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55302595

        I’m hoping that the protein spike remains a characteristic of CoV variants.

      • stevenreincarnated

        But I’m on the internet so I can be whatever I want.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Sorry, wrong spot.

      • You’re on the Internet and can be in whatever spot you want.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Willard’s comment – (joe’s comment )Frequent hand washing has very little benefit in the reduction in the spread.

        “I like when you say stuff, Joe, more so when it’s new:

        This large trial looked at the impact of online advice to the public about effective handwashing. It found that using soap and water or hand gel reduced the number of cases of colds and flu, the severity of symptoms, the length of time people were ill and the spread of infection within households.”

        https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/handwashing-advice-reduces-the-number-of-colds-and-their-severity/

        Willard – you obviously did not read the study you cited. The study is consistent with my statement which is that of the 4 highly touted NPI protocols, frequent hand washing is a relatively minor reduction in the transmission of viruses.

    • An interesting article about 68% of the India population having COVID19 antibodies. Especially interesting given only 2%+ of population has tested positive.

      https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/67-6-population-above-6-yrs-found-to-have-covid-antibodies-in-4th-national-serosurvey-lok-sabha-told/articleshow/84673504.cms

      • So an IFR of about 0.09%

        Oh, wait…

        -snip-

        …Estimating COVID-deaths with statistical confidence may prove elusive. But all estimates suggest that the death toll from the pandemic is likely to be an order of magnitude greater than the official count of 400,000

        https://cgdev.org/publication/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic

      • J

        I wasn’t trying to prove anything since I haven’t followed the debate in a year. I thought the incredible disparity between the 68% and 2% positives was weird.

        Since you have been following all the statistics, here is another situation that has me puzzled. Jon Rahm, a Spanish golfer had to drop out of the Memorial Tournament after the 3rd round in early June because he tested positive. He was leading at the time.

        Today he dropped out of the Olympics today for testing positive again.

        I assumed after recovery or what ever you want to call it after the first positive, he would be immune from contracting again, or maybe in such a short period after the first infection.

        Give me what we know and don’t know about such situations. Has there been any coverage of other similar instances?

      • dougbadgero

        Multiple positive tests in the same individual…IMO we are finding things for the first time because we have never looked for them before. Over the last year I have discovered how little we know about the transmission of infectious disease. We don’t even know why seasonal respiratory infections are seasonal.

      • “… how little we know about the transmission of infectious disease..”

        I agree. That is why I lost interest in the Spring of 2020 and didn’t really follow the various issues and debates. It seemed more and more questions and theories but few concrete answers.

        It might take a few years and completion of many studies before there is some clarity of what happened and why.

      • Kid –

        The range of uncertainty reported in that article doesn’t inspire confidence. My sense is that the seroprevalence surveys are just not reliable. Still, it seems clear that India did have many, many more cases than those identified.

        As for multiple infections, I haven’t looked at that issue even a little bit.

      • What a long and unedifying thread. Masks are too ineffective to be a primary line of defence. Joshua’s purpose is as always to denigrate and disparage a fantasy of a collective that is other in his farcical left groupthink cognitive disorder. Now he will call me ‘butthurt’ because he imagines that his habit of marginalising others matters to me.

      • You’re not monitoring the proper thread, Chief of Judy’s halls.

      • Poor wee willies oeuvre is pettifogging slights.

      • Chief –

        As always, thanls for reading my comments (I can’t tell you how much it means to me).

        I know you’ll deny doing so as you have so many times before. But amusingly enough, you then always go on to make it plainly clear that you do read my comments.

        It’s a curious behavior.on your part.

        I think a compulsive and masochistic attraction to butthurt is a likely explanation.

      • Joshua’s distemper deepens with every keystroke. I noted a comment in passing on whining about masks, deaths, disease and Trump’s stolen election – intended to denigrate and marginalise a cohort of others on the most risible pretence. That was distasteful enough to prompt lurking about a thread in which I have little interest. His comments are devoid of substance otherwise – this last being typical. Best passed over.

        Rio’s comment on masks elsewhere seems about right. My comment about Joshua’s groupthink cognitive disorder seems about right too. It’s a farcical left madness. How else to explain it?

      • They work, Chief.

        Simple enough to understand even for a Freedom Fighter like you, no?

      • Too ineffective to be a primary line of defence is what I said. But I am not about to argue common sense with a bugaboo chaser like you.

        Here’s what Rio said.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/23/week-in-review-science-edition-128/#comment-956415

      • And here’s what I cited:

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/23/week-in-review-science-edition-128/#comment-956422

        I can cite more until you fold:

        Community mask wearing substantially reduces transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 2 ways.

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2776536%C2%A0

        So not only “the only mask that fits that bill is…drum roll…the N-95 mask” is false, but it’s a dangerous meme.

      • stevenreincarnated

        That’s going to depend a whole lot on your definition of working. I wouldn’t call them effective when enough of the virus consistently gets through to cause infection. Reducing the viral load though, yes they will do that.

      • Effectiveness is not for you to define, Steven.

        You’re just a random guy on the Internet.

      • So can I poor wee willie. The difference is that I read and don’t just wave something around like a demented loon. Cloth masks are not effective enough for a primary response. Without even considering compliance and the chin strap syndrome.

        ‘One recent study looked at the aerosol filtration efficiency of common fabrics used in respiratory cloth masks, finding that efficacy varied widely, from 12 to 99.9%, at flow rates lower than at-rest respiration (89). Many materials had ≥96% filtration efficacy for particles of >0.3 μm, including 600 threads per inch cotton, cotton quilt, and cotton layered with chiffon, silk, or flannel. A combination of materials was more effective than the materials on their own. These findings support studies reported in 1926 by Wu Lien Teh (4), which described that a silk face covering with flannel added over the mouth and nose was highly effective against pneumonic plague.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

      • Steven –

        > I wouldn’t call them effective when enough of the virus consistently gets through to cause infection.

        Do I need to explain again how marginal risk reduction of an individual transmission compounds at the population level?

        What is effective? Reducing the amount of virus that gets though can lead to fewer infections, which leads to fewer 2nd order infections, which leads to fewer 3rd order infections, and so on. It’s about conditional probability.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joshua, rest assured I understood your argument long before you even presented it. So what are the other risks of wearing masks and are you reducing risks or increasing risks and to whom?

      • Steven –

        > Joshua, rest assured I understood your argument long before you even presented it.

        Perhaps so, but a number of your statements seemed to suggest otherwise, that you thought that masks reducing the chances of individual transmissions by 10% would (at most) translate at the population level to a 10% reduction in infections.

        > So what are the other risks of wearing masks and are you reducing risks or increasing risks and to whom?

        Risks of wearing masks? Early on, I thought that mask-wearing (or wearing gloves) would give people a dangerous confidence and encourage risk-taking to a negative effect. I’ve seen no evidence that has occurred to any significant extent with COVID, although I wouldn’t rule it out to any degree. As I’ve said, this is a matter of risk assessment. So you do the best you can to weigh the probabilities. But given the relatively low rate of spread in many areas of Asia – where the rates of mask-wearing have been high throughout the ppandemic – I think the risks of mask-wearing are likely low. The idea that wearing masks traps virus from your own breathing that then causes you to get sick seems both nonsensical as well as not supported by any evidence I’ve seen. Although, of course I’ve seen that considered as a matter of faith among many anti-masking advocates. The putative damage from mask wearing to children seems vastly exaggerated from what I’ve seen, but that’s another issue anyway from where we started – was statements by you and others who are quite certain that masks don’t prevent infection to any significant level, if at all.

      • > The difference is that I read and don’t just wave something

        And then Chief waves to a study in which we can read:

        The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high. Given the current shortages of medical masks, we recommend the adoption of public cloth mask wearing, as an effective form of source control, in conjunction with existing hygiene, distancing, and contact tracing strategies.

        https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118

        No wonder he’s stuck with a True Scotsman.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joshua, my statements are consistent with someone that understands that a 10% chance of avoiding infection with multiple opportunities for infection gets you exactly nowhere in even the short term.

      • Few understand exponential functions, Steven.

        Most do not understand stocks and flows, and there are even some who fail at modus ponens.

      • ‘There are two considerations when looking at efficacy: 1) the filtration of the material and 2) the fit of the design.’ op. cit.

        Masks are better for source control than personal protection. Even then – my experience is that paper masks commercially available from pharmacies were poorly fitting with less filtration than escape around the edges. This is before the chin strap effect where masks were so uncomfortable that they are pulled to neck level. Tests on materials show widely varying filtration efficacy.

        https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/4/e2014564118/F1.medium.gif
        Impact of public mask wearing under the full range of mask adherence and efficacy scenarios. The color indicates the resulting reproduction number Re from an initial R0 of 2.4 (40). Blue area is what is needed to slow the spread of COVID-19. Each black line represents a specific disease transmission level with the effective reproduction number Re indicated.’

        ‘Impact of public mask wearing under the full range of mask adherence and efficacy scenarios. The color indicates the resulting reproduction number Re from an initial R0 of 2.4 (40). Blue area is what is needed to slow the spread of COVID-19. Each black line represents a specific disease transmission level with the effective reproduction number Re indicated.’

        Masks are not an effective primary or even secondary public health response – certainly not viable as the only line of defence. And not practical over more than short periods.

        But these guys are so so clever they know it all from 5 seconds on the interweb.

      • > In my experience […] certainly not viable as the only line of defence

        Your anecdata and your strawman are duly noted, Chief.

        Meanwhile, your own damn cite says that The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts.

        Have another citation to spit on:

        Our study suggests that, for a population of 10.5 million, approximately 1.8 million infections and 8000 deaths could be prevented during 11 months with more efficacious COVID-19 vaccines, higher vaccination coverage, and maintaining NPIs, such as distancing and use of face masks. Moreover, our findings highlight the importance of continued adherence to NPIs while the population is vaccinated, particularly under scenarios of lower vaccine efficacy and coverage. Maintaining NPIs throughout the 6-month vaccine distribution period appeared to reduce infections to levels seen at the beginning of the pandemic. In contrast, under scenarios with low vaccine efficacy and coverage, premature removal of NPIs could result in a resurgence of infections with a magnitude exceeding that before vaccine distribution.

        doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.10782

        There’s a reason why researchers speak of NPIs.

        I’ll let you find it.

      • Steven –

        > Joshua, my statements are consistent with someone that understands that a 10% chance of avoiding infection with multiple opportunities for infection gets you exactly nowhere in even the short term.

        Like I said, perhaps you do understand it as you’ve claimed but everything you’re saying other than that you understand it suggests you’re just hung up on the conditional probability thang.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Joshua was riding the bus one day and because he is a conscientious person his mask was new and properly placed. Unbeknownst to him a person boarded that bus with COVID and Joshua rolled a 10 on a 10 sided die and escaped contracting the virus. He later found out that had happened and was happy that not only he but also the people he would have infected and the people they would have infected escaped. Then a month later the same thing happened but this time Joshua only rolled a 3. and contracted the disease. He then went on to spread it to an entirely different group of people than he would have if he had caught it the first time. In the meantime because Joshua is all knowing and all seeing he discovered that 90% of the people he would have infected if he had caught it the first time were actually infected by someone else.

        Joshua, this is an airborne disease that is highly contagious and reducing the odds of catching it by 10% is meaningless. Your argument is better suited to a situation more like condoms and AIDS where you are actually breaking a chain. This disease has chains going every which way and doesn’t really need that guy that can roll a 10 once in a while to keep spreading.

      • My experience was with standard masks available commercially and the comment involved a quite obvious observation that the fit was not very good. The contrived conflation with the statement that masks were not reliable on their own is just one of poor wee willies silly little games. No one is suggesting that other more reliable non pharmaceutical interventions be dropped. Social distancing, contact tracing, isolating and hygiene – with the primary pharmaceutical intervention being vaccination at herd immunity levels.

        This is a multifactor minimization problem – in which community wide masks become a low priority – and not a simple Markovian chain. Is this a time and place for masks? Not where I live. In the real world that is.

      • > No one is suggesting that other more reliable non pharmaceutical interventions be dropped. […] Is this a time and place for masks? Not where I live. In the real world that is.

        Is this some kind of a joke, Chief?

        Study after study shows that NPIs work together:

        Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.

        The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends fabric masks for the general public. People who haven’t been fully vaccinated should continue to wear face masks in indoor public places and outdoors where there is a high risk of COVID-19 transmission, such as crowded events or large gatherings. The CDC says that N95 masks should be reserved for health care providers.

        The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends medical masks for health care workers as well as for anyone who has or may have COVID-19 or who is caring for someone who has or may have COVID-19.

        https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

        Consider yourself lucky that I’m going on vacation.

      • ‘Consider yourself lucky that I’m going on vacation.’

        He’s so butch. It’s part and parcel of the farcical left groupthink. They will persist with talking past you until the sheep go on vacation. Which was where I started from. The sententious certainty and the contempt of the other. It’s a sort of madness.

        We were talking about community wide responses – and of course more effective masks should be reserved for clinical use.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Willard’s comment – “Study after study shows that NPIs work together:”

        “Can face masks help slow the spread of the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) that causes COVID-19? Yes. Face masks combined with other preventive measures, such as getting vaccinated, frequent hand-washing and physical distancing, can help slow the spread of the virus.”

        Willard – what you and Josh continue to fail to grasp is the relative benefit of each different NPI protocols. Social distancing and reduction of time of interaction are by far the most effective NPI for reducing the spread. While masking does have some benefit in reducing the spread, its benefit is significantly less that the 1st two NPI protocols. Frequent hand washing has very little benefit in the reduction in the spread.

        What you and Josh have done is elevated the perceived benefits masking far beyond the actual benefits. Quite simply if masking was the primary NPI protocol as imagined, then the IR delta between high mask compliance areas and low mask compliance areas would be significantly large – but the delta is relatively minor.

      • > Frequent hand washing has very little benefit in the reduction in the spread.

        I like when you say stuff, Joe, more so when it’s new:

        This large trial looked at the impact of online advice to the public about effective handwashing. It found that using soap and water or hand gel reduced the number of cases of colds and flu, the severity of symptoms, the length of time people were ill and the spread of infection within households.

        https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/handwashing-advice-reduces-the-number-of-colds-and-their-severity/

        Well, new by Denizens’ standard, that is.

        You might need to fight that one with Chief, BTW.

      • > We were talking about community wide responses

        No, Chief – we were talking about Doug’s silly claim that masks don’t work. Then you went on minimizing their effectiveness. Here we are.

        Freedom Fighters fighting for the freedom to pontificate on whatever they fancy, once again.

        This is all so silly.

      • I was talking about the farcical left groupthink talking past everyone. As is poor wee willies avowed objective. Poor wee willie made it about community masks because the groupthink can’t possibly be wrong.

        Freedom fighter is of course an attempt at denigration of the other. It takes what I regard as the most sacred gift of God and trashes it. I have no problem owning the term and being a freedom fighter. If that’s what opposing these few and dimwitted representatives of the farcical left is.

      • > I was talking about the farcical

        Nothing prevents you from punching hippies, Chief.

        They’re your Doritos.

        Do you know the Doritos story?

        It’s a good one:

        [Vaughan]: Well, predicting is hard, especially futures anomalies.

        [MattStat]: Yeah, this is a bummer. But how do you think that people

        [Don Don]: Hey guys, you talking Doritos?

        [MattStat]: Come on, Don Don. Dont do this again.

        [Don Don]: I just thought maybe you were having the old Doritos discussion.

        [Vaughan]: Dude, for the last time: well tell you if we ever have a conversation about Doritos.

        [Don Don]: You promise?

        [MattStat]: Of course, Don Don. We know how you love Doritos.

        [Vaughan]: Yeah, man. Everyone knows.

        https://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/40263311176

      • … look doritos,,,

      • Hippies.

        Hippies everywhere.

      • Just whine about weaing a mask and ignore the virus and ignore the illness and ignore the death and we can get Trump back where he was before the election was stolen from him.

      • dougbadgero

        Masks don’t work because masks can’t work. Telling people they do could be killing them though. When will you and yours accept over 100 yeats of epidemiology?

      • That’s irresponsible idiocy, Doug.

      • What does “work” mean Doug?

      • So over 100 years of epidemiology proves that masks can’t possibly ever reduce the transmission of COVID under any circumstances even by a small amount?

        And this was proven in over 100 years of epidemiology before the effects of masks on COVID transmission was ever even studied?

        Fascinating.

        And clearly all that mask-wearing is killing people in Asia. That’s why people all over Asia have been dropping like flies all throughout the pandemic.

      • I just want to say officially, I love me some Clinate Etc.

      • stevenreincarnated

        To be considered effective against viruses you have to get to the N95 level and just having the mask isn’t good enough because without proper training in the fitting of an N95 mask it is no more effective than a surgical mask. They gave them to health care workers used to wearing surgical masks for the study and I am assuming the general public would be as bad or worse at fitting them. That doesn’t mean they can’t stop droplets which might be useful in lowering the initial viral load should you find yourself being sneezed or coughed on by a stranger.

      • stevenreincarnated

        BTW, if you’ve never worn an N95 mask you should get one. They are a treat to wear.

      • > To be considered effective against viruses you have to get to the N95 level

        Citation needed.

      • Steve –

        > To be considered effective against viruses you have to get to the N95 level

        What does “considered effective” mean?

        Are you saying that anything short of a well-fitted N95 won’t reduce by ANY extent, ANY transmission of ANY infectious particles, no matter their size, from one person to another under ANY circumstances?

        ‘Cause that must be what you’re saying. So what is your evidence for such a statement?

      • See.

        This is exactly why I love me some Clinate Etc.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Effectiveness of face masks in preventing airborne transmission of SARS CoV-2 PubMed.gov

        I stated they stop droplets, Joshua. Didn’t I? You think if you stop 10% of the potential cases that does anything more than slow down a highly contagious disease? What is the purpose of slowing it down? Are our hospitals overrun? It’s nice to have a goal but you should have a purpose behind it.

        Also, you have to actually wear the mask to get even the droplets. People don’t wear them properly so they aren’t even doing that.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Re masks, here is yet another comment, this from a pharmacologist.
        https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2021/07/the-who-how-and-why-of-covid-19-and-its-treatment/
        Geoff S.

      • Tony Banton

        There seems to be an attitude amongst certain denizens that for some idiosyncratic purposes there needs to be 100% certainty in things pertaining to CC and COVID.
        As if that were possible.
        As if we do not know enough now.
        As if CAN know enough now.
        As if what we are doing is not enough.
        And the whole thing must be delayed.
        Made 100%
        As if we have got it wrong because there is something that can be done better.
        In this case masks.
        As if all the world’s population could be given N95 masks.
        Which are the best.
        So ergo all others are no good.
        Don’t do a blind thing.
        No GOOD I tell you.
        As if any sort of barrier to breath (in and /out) is useless in preventing some if not much of aerosols to escape and be ingested.
        No, cannot possibly.
        FFS

      • stevenreincarnated

        Tony, it’s nice to want to be useful but when this is all said and done studies will show that mask wearing did more harm than good and this is especially true for the children. That’s my prediction and feel free to hold me to it.

      • Steve –

        > You think if you stop 10% of the potential cases that does anything more than slow down a highly contagious disease?

        Of course it would. Thank you for making it abundantly clear how your opinion on the use of masks results from you not having yet thought it through clearly.

        The thing about infectious diseases like COVID is that yes, there is a compounding effect at the population level from marginal changes in the risk of spread in a single event.

        Consider an area has a high rate of community spread and where there are likely a few people waking around in public who are infectious.
        .
        Say occasionally, one of those people goes into a supermarket where there are another 100 uninfected people shopping over the course of the 30 minutes that person’s in the supermarket.

        So say with a 10% reduction in transmission due to masks, just one fewer infected person would transmit COVID to another person, in the 3 supermarkets in that community, over the course of a week. Seem possible?

        So that one newly infected person didn’t go home and transmit the virus to 2 of the other 6 people in his/her family. And those two people each didn’t transmir the virus to two of the 20 other people that they are in closer contact with. And those 4 other people each didn’t transmit the virus to two other people they’re in close contact with. And those 8 other people didn’t transmit the virus to 2 people they’re in close contact with. And if those16 other people, one SUPERSPREADER didn’t transit the virus to 30 other people they attend church with.

        And so on. .

        Do you understand now how masks reducing the risk of just one transmission by 10% could have a very significant impact at the population level?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Except the disease is still there and there will be plenty of other opportunities to get infected. So now I understand where your confusion lies. You aren’t stopping 10% of the people from being infected. You are merely changing the timing.

      • > Re masks, here is yet another comment, this from a pharmacologist.

        Oh. A comment from a phamracologist.

        Now that we’ve settled thst issue…

      • Steve –

        > . You are merely changing the timing.

        Yes, its theoretically possible to think of a model where over the long haul, you are changing the timing.but not how many people get infected.

        But – people live parts of their lives during that change in the timing. If you slow the progression of a pandemic virus, it means many, many years of lives not lost.

        And then there are developments during that change in that timing such as the creation of vaccines, or the improvement in therapeutics. (which actually results in more than “merely changing the timing.”

        And with that change in the timing you reduce the speed at which variants develop, which compounds the “merely changing the timing.”

        “Merely changing the timing” may mean a significant benefit.

      • stevenreincarnated

        A highly contagious disease and a low rate of prevention isn’t likely to change things much but hope springs eternal so feel free to keep yours.

      • Why was the spread of Covid highest in the EU in the countries with the highest compliance in wearing masks- like Spain?
        People thought masks protected them and were more likely to gather with others as a result. Masks were less effective than believed.

        When we can get beyond Post-normal “science” as a political tool, I think we’ll all realize that masks were better than nothing- they helped a bit. That does not translate into what our betters are mandating- vaccinated teenagers wearing masks while playing singles tennis outdoors in the summer heat right now, today.

        If you tuned in to any of the Olympics last night, you saw the women’s gymnastics team hugging and giving high fives maskless while huffing and puffing after their routines. Then, once their heart rate and breathing rate was back to normal, then they donned the mandatory face covering of virtue for the televised walk to the next apparatus.
        In an empty stadium in a country where wearing masks was common before Covid. Why can’t vaccinated people who traditionally wear masks attend the Olympics? How does the virus know to transmit in only politically approved situations? Who told the network to show video of them interacting without masks and then interposing shots of them marching in masks?
        Nobody knows, but our warmist denizens insist that you may not question their truth- that the vaccines and masks work and that’s why the whole world is currently watching the Olympic committee assume they don’t. Intermittently. This is supposed to give everyone confidence in the deductive powers of the elite.

      • > Why was the spread of Covid highest in the EU in the countries with the highest compliance in wearing masks- like Spain?

        Why do you repeatedly fail to understand basic logic and the importance of controlling for confounding variables when evaluating cause and effect?

      • “…controlling for confounding variables…”

        Of the two of us, I’m the one controlling for confounding variables. If you were relying on a mask mandate pre-vaccine, you needed to get your hospitals ready for an influx in Covid cases.
        If Covid is present on the floor of the Olympics gymnastic stadium, you need to be making some preparation other than mandating intermittent partial mask wearing.
        Speaking of “confounding variables”- what happens when you translate hosting the Olympics into mandatory economic suffering in a nation next door to China at about the same time “science!” admits this whole thing could have been due to shoddy security in a Chinese lab?

      • >… our warmist denizens insist that you may not question their truth

        Lol.

      • Hi Joshua,

        The simplest reply to both sides of the debate is that many ideas essential if mainstream view are correct make perfect sense regardless e.g of the nature, extent, cause and direction of climate change e.g. less waste, restoring fish stocks, regenerative agriculture, combining conservation with careful use and developing cleaner energy given the pollution from extraction and use of fossil fuels. Win-win anyone, especially if you look up 1816’s year without a summer and it’s volcanic cause.

        Regards,

        Iain

      • > That’s my prediction and feel free to hold me to it.

        You can count on it, Steven.

      • Joe- the non epidemiologist

        Joshua | July 26, 2021 at 9:58 am |
        > Why was the spread of Covid highest in the EU in the countries with the highest compliance in wearing masks- like Spain?

        “Why do you repeatedly fail to understand basic logic and the importance of controlling for confounding variables when evaluating cause and effect?”

        Jeff is accounting for the important confounding variables which is the big key, not the trivial confounding variables.

      • Handwaving to a wishing list of things contrarians might like to know won’t work to support the claim that masks don’t work, Joe:

        The available evidence suggests that near-universal adoption of nonmedical masks when out in public, in combination with complementary public health measures, could successfully reduce Re to below 1, thereby reducing community spread if such measures are sustained. Economic analysis suggests that mask wearing mandates could add 1 trillion dollars to the US GDP.

        https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118#sec-22

      • Joe –

        > Jeff is accounting for the important confounding variables which is the big key, not the trivial confounding variables.

        Trivial confounding variables like % of difference in mask-wearing over a fixed period of time, differences in baseline health, rates of comorbidities, NPIs initiated, rates of mobility, household sizes, ability of peope to work from home, SES, population density, access to healthcare?

        Jeff has accounted for nothing. Thus far, he’s mere asking (inane) questions that handwave at theoretical controls for any kind of confounding variables at all.

        But maybe you know what analysis he’s referring to, and that it’s carefully controlled for any non-trivial variables? I assume you must – in which case I’d appreciate a link. Because if you don’t then it makes zero sense for you to be defending the veracity of his assertion of cauality.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Willard, I’d be disappointed if I weren’t. I usually include caveats in talking about things that haven’t happened yet. I didn’t feel the need to in this case. So if it doesn’t happen I deserve to have my bubble burst. But considering how long people are wearing them at a time I already know many masks have mucus and bacteria growing on them and are warmed and moistened by breath so basically people are wearing petri dishes on their face. There’s a reason I change mine after every patient. Then you also have the social problems they cause children which I don’t really pretend to understand at this point but have only heard of.

      • There is no way of controlling for confounding variables. Studies across multiple epidemics and decades…including this epidemic, fail to show any discernable impact from community mask use. Maybe it’s because we don’t wear them properly or we don’t wear them in the right places, but it is clear across multiple studies and multiple decades…they don’t make a difference.

      • For that reason I would have considered cotton masks that you wash when you wash your hands instead of paper masks, Steven.

        My gut feeling is that hand washing is probably the single most efficient thing there is for kids, and that any other alternative should be considered where water is too important.

      • Doug –

        > There is no way of controlling for confounding variables.

        There is no perfect control for confounding variables. Over time, however, though relatively well-controlled studies you can gain some insight into probabilities. Here’s a relevant study:

        https://voxeu.org/article/unmasked-effect-face-masks-spread-covid-19

        Your “100 years of epidemiology” argument is particularly uninformative. We have never encountered COVID before and not all infectious respiratory diseases are the same w/r/t transmission dynamics. The existing evidence of community masking from previous contexts is mixed w/r/t whether there is a marginal benefit from widespread mask usage. The evidence from the COVID pandemic is likewise mixed, in terms of community usage and in terms of empirical evidence.

        This is a matter of risk assessment.

        I suspect your mistake comes from not accounting for the compounding effect at the population level of marginal reduction of risk from individual events.

      • “This is a matter of risk assessment.”

        Then accurately assess risks.
        The Wall Street Journal reports that the Olympics committee is making medal winners pick up sanitized and untouched medals and placing them around their own necks- forgoing centuries of ceremony for a “risk” that was debunked months ago. Their doing this on global television- telling the world that either the CDC and WHO are lying to them about surface risk or the global elite on the world’s biggest stage are beclowning themselves.

        What’s the risk of telling young people they’re “safe” as long as they wear a mask? Answer: Spain. Assessment, be honest about what masks can and cannot do.

        What’s the risk of ordering vaccinated teens to wear a mask while playing tennis alone outside? What’s the risk of having your most visible pro-mask advocate (the governor of California) sitting maskless with a group of friends at an indoor restaurant before the vaccine is out? Answer: people get angry, raise reasonable questions about irrational mandates and, as a result, are more likely to ditch the rag entirely. Assessment: the medical establishment and media should do more to push back on irresponsible leaders.

        The fact that there have been zero consequences for the many politicians who got caught flamboyantly ignoring their own mandates has caused more covid spread than anything anyone has said on Fox News.
        Seriously think about it for a minute. Gavin Newsome was in a small, closed restaurant room, unvaccinated and maskless with a group of unvaccinated, maskless friends and associates. During a pandemic that killed 4 million people. After he ordered people in his state specifically not to do that under penalty of law. Not only did he avoid any consequence at all, but the entire media will happily tell you the only people who found that wrong were “conservatives.” All of California learned that they can eat out with friends without masks, indoors, safely as long as there are no pictures. Good job.

      • Jeff

        Wtf are you rambling on about the Olympics?

        Can I assume because you’re not interested in discussing whether there’s possible benefit from mask-wearing?

        I mean don’t let me interfere with you’re rambling about the Olympics.

        I’m just asking a question.

      • joe - the non climate scientist

        Josh – 18 or so months into this Covid and you are still elevating one of the least effective mitigation protocols into the belief that it is the most important mitigation protocols.

        In the grand scheme of mitigation, masks wearing reduces the spread of covid by very trivial amounts, at least compared to the two most effective mitigation protocols.

      • Joe –

        18 months in and I’m going to guess that you STILL don’t understand how a marginal reduction in risk of transmission in an individual interaction compounds at the population level.

        There’s uncertainty imo, as to how much that marginal reduction. In the risk of transmission for an individual event is. But to say something like this:

        > In the grand scheme of mitigation, masks wearing reduces the spread of covid by very trivial amounts,

        You either think there’s no uncertainty (and the reduction is nil), or you don’t understand the conditional probability involved.

        I’m going to guess it’s the latter. Even a cursory look at the issue would show that the evidence is at least mixed..

        In the least you could go with Steve’s fallback position that the benefit is “merely” delaying transmission. It’s not very sophisticated but at least there’s something of a logic to it.

      • “Wtf are you rambling on about the Olympics?”

        The opening ceremony alone drew 17 million viewers in the US- which was way down from previous but was about 4 times as many viewers as the primetime lineup of CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, combined.

        The hot topic throughout this major media event was how the world’s experts came together to figure out how to do the Olympics during Covid. Millions of people who wouldn’t waste five minutes on Tucker or Rachel or Anderson were asked to pay close attention to what the word’s foremost experts on Covid and sports came up with in terms of “risk assessment” and policy.
        And it was appalling. It is the complete opposite of everything they see going on in their own lives.
        it’s not even red/blue. In Washington DC (Biden 98%), the local government will let you watch baseball in a packed stadium without a mask or a suit soaked in hand sanitizer. At least when the gangs aren’t shooting at each other and they evacuate the stadium (that really happened).
        Either DC is lying to its people and endangering us all, or Tokyo is being silly at the behest of the expert class.
        And it’s being noticed. It was actually one of my kids who noticed the gymnasts- “why are they making her put on a mask to walk? She was just hugging everyone without one.”
        Last week’s news tone was: how Tokyo will show the world how to deal with Covid. Today’s front page is: the list of ridiculous things is pretty long, and bad.
        But hey, have at it. Tell your friends the importance of double masking and staying home and bleaching every surface they touch. But do it quick before they leave for the concert.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Fallback position, Joshua? It is my position. Your position is a position that is so full of false hope that one has to wonder if you think clouds are made of cotton candy. Do you?

      • I just did a few searches on “respiratory disease trends 2021” and when you exclude COVID-19 there has been a across the board reduction in almost all air borne virus respiratory disease.
        Why?
        As a second line of evidence I scanned the most recent quarterly earning reports for retail drug stores and every one of them reported drastic declines in sales of cough and flu medications.
        Why?

        What if universal mask wearing became the new normal? Just think of all the illness and death that could be avoided. If I could think of one thing that might extend the Medicare system’s funds that might be it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Masks aren’t effective against any virus including the influenza types. In fact most of the studies of mask effectiveness vs viruses were done before COVID and used influenza viruses as the pathogen. If you want to know why there were fewer cases of the flu the answer lies elsewhere.

      • joe the non epidemiologist

        stevenreincarnated | July 26, 2021 at 5:54 pm |
        “Masks aren’t effective against any virus including the influenza types. In fact most of the studies of mask effectiveness vs viruses were done before COVID and used influenza viruses as the pathogen. If you want to know why there were fewer cases of the flu the answer lies elsewhere.”

        The two most effective mitigation protocols to reduce the spread of Covid (and regular cold and flu viruses) are 1) social distancing / stay at home and 2) reduction in the time of interaction with other individuals. While masks do work to slow the spread, in the grand scheme , the reduction in the spread using masks is relatively trivial.

        Far too much emphasis has been placed on mask wearing when the reality is that the two aforementioned protocols provide significantly better reduction. – and that summarizes the most important confounding variables

      • > Far too much emphasis has been placed on mask wearing

        Freedom Fighters keep harping about masks.

        Then they wonder why so much emphasis has been put on them.

        Troglodytes make irresponsibility an absolute art.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Part of the reason could be viral competition. It’s an interesting hypothesis regardless. Could we get rid of COVID by purposely giving everyone a cold?

      • See. This is why I love me some Climate Etc.

        This:

        > Masks aren’t effective against any virus including the influenza types.

        Then this:

        > In fact most of the studies of mask effectiveness vs viruses were done before COVID and used influenza viruses as the pathogen

        I freakin’ love it.

      • stevenreincarnated

        What about my comment confuses you, Joshua?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Although I do need to correct my comment to state they aren’t effective against airborne viruses. They obviously are against fluid borne ones. Is that the problem? If so thanks for the correction.

      • It takes literally five seconds to search for “airborne viruses mask”:

        Guidelines from the CDC and the WHO recommend the wearing of face masks to prevent the spread of coronavirus (CoV) disease 2019 (COVID-19); however, the protective efficiency of such masks against airborne transmission of infectious severe acute respiratory syndrome CoV-2 (SARS-CoV-2) droplets/aerosols is unknown. Here, we developed an airborne transmission simulator of infectious SARS-CoV-2-containing droplets/aerosols produced by human respiration and coughs and assessed the transmissibility of the infectious droplets/aerosols and the ability of various types of face masks to block the transmission. We found that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks all have a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols of SARS-CoV-2 and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by a virus spreader. Importantly, medical masks (surgical masks and even N95 masks) were not able to completely block the transmission of virus droplets/aerosols even when completely sealed. Our data will help medical workers understand the proper use and performance of masks and determine whether they need additional equipment to protect themselves from infected patients.

        https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00637-20

        Go team!

      • “Freedom Fighters keep harping about masks.”

        That would be almost interesting if it were true, but it’s not. This troglodyte wore a mask in indoor settings or around people until he was vaccinated. All of my troglodyte friends did as well.
        Now we’re laughing at the people who still want to mandate masks for teens in outdoor play. And, of course, your favorite- the university that will require masks for vaccinated students in the library, but not the gym, in the classroom, but not game room in the student center. Because “science!”
        Nobody is stopping you from wearing a mask alone in your Prius or demanding that all your friends and family do as well, just don’t try to force me to follow suit or get mad at people you know when they roll their eyes.

      • dougbadgero

        Regarding why other respiratory infections disappeared…
        During every pandemic so-called normal infectious diseases disappear. It was predicted a year ago that there would be no real flu season in 2020-2021. It is no different than one or two virus types dominate each flu season. No flu season is a homogenous mix of all known viruses. This is another issue we don’t understand about infectious disease.

      • > but it’s not.

        Start here:

        Masks don’t work because masks can’t work.

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/07/23/week-in-review-science-edition-128/#comment-956337

      • “Telling people they do could be killing them though. When will you and yours accept over 100 yeats of epidemiology?”

        You forgot that part.
        Back to Monmouth University’s mask policy. It tells students that it’s unsafe to come to campus and vaccination makes no difference. That disincentivizes vaccination. Yes, yes, they “require” the vaccine, but they don’t require going to school and why bother if it’s not safe?
        But there is a safety caveat- you’re “safe” if you wear a mask in the classroom and you can safely take the mask off around the exact same people when you gather with them in the small dorm room after class. Which means Monmouth’s official policy is that masks make no difference, just like vaccines.
        Now, you could argue that Monmouth’s mask policy protects faculty and the students are doomed by decree, but that approach has issues as well.

      • > Back to Monmouth

        Look! Squirrel!

      • Steven –

        > Joshua, my statements are consistent with someone that understands that a 10% chance of avoiding infection with multiple opportunities for infection gets you exactly nowhere in even the short term.

        Like I said, perhaps you do understand it as you’ve claimed but everything you’re saying other than that you understand it suggests you’re just hung up on the conditional probability thang.

      • stevenreincarnated

        Willard, if they insist on children wearing masks which you may have gathered I consider a worthless gesture and most probably harmful by now, then what they probably should do is take some of those COVID funds and issue each child a new mask on a daily basis, There are too many parents that can’t be relied on. I see unreliable parents all the time in my profession. I don’t see how anyone could argue against handwashing. I do it all the time so I don’t spread disease from one person to the next.

    • It’s time to let the virus run its course. No masks, no lock downs. We have a large vaccinated population and many people have already had it. Neither of those will necessarily keep people from getting it again, but the masks and lock downs at this late stage do more harm than good.

  31. Positive cloud feedback? What a joke! “Climate science” has no clue about the role of clouds within the GHE, let alone any “feedbacks” or stuff. People will have to start again and learn things from scratch. Here is where I started..

    https://greenhousedefect.com/the-cloud-mess-part-2-data-data-data

  32. Beta Blocker

    From Dan Yurman’s ‘Neutron Bytes’ blog:

    https://neutronbytes.com/2021/07/18/china-breaks-ground-for-first-small-modular-reactor/

    ————————————————-

    NuScale Downsizes Idaho Plant from 12 to 6 Units

    “A project to build a first-of-its-kind nuclear reactor in eastern Idaho has been significantly downsized cutting in half the number of small modular reactors (SMR) from 12 to 6, but boosting the amount of power produced by the installation of six SMRs from 300 MWe to 462 MWe.

    The change in the power output results from a change to the design of the NuScale SMR from 50 MWe to 77 MWe. NuScale submitted the 50 MWe design to the NRC for licensing and the revised power rating will likely be a follow on action.

    Downsizing the project in terms of the number of SMRs built for the first of a kind installation reduces the project’s overall costs (12 units to 6) and the amount of power it can produce (600 MWe to 472 MWe). The [Idaho FallsPost Register reported that the energy cost that project partners will pay rose from $55 per megawatt-hour to $58 per megawatt-hour.

    NuScale told the newspaper the slightly higher cost “is still an exceptional price for carbon-free, dispatchable (always available) electric power.”]

    “The (cost rate) of other advanced reactor projects, green hydrogen, storage, batteries, etc., are all projected to far exceed $58MWh. The CFPP would still be the most competitive non-carbon, dispatchable resource,” NuScale said in a statement to the Post Register.

    The reactor is planned to be built on a site at the DOE’s 890-square mile desert site west of Idaho Falls at Idaho National Laboratory. The plant is expected to be in revenue service by 2029.

    While the company declined to tell the newspaper the exact cost of the revised design and power rating, in the past NuScale has cited several cost estimates that range between $4,000/Kw and $4,400/Kw. A plant with 462 MWe would cost between $1.85 billion and $2.03 billion.

    In October 2020, DOE approved a $1.36 billion multi-year cost-share award to UAMPS to fund the development and construction which covers between 66% and 74% of the estimated cost if the cost ranges previously cited by NuScale are used. Since the cost of power from the facility is going up, it is reasonable to assume that the higher cost range is a more plausible estimate.”

    ————————————————-

    IMHO, what is seen in this announcement is an aggressive move on the part of NuScale and its customer UAMPS to keep nuclear’s capital costs under tight control. Compare NuScale’s estimated capital cost range of between $4,000/Kw and $4,400/Kw with Vogtle 3 & 4’s current capital cost of roughly $13,000/Kw.

    It is widely recognized inside the nuclear industry that the future of new-build nuclear power in the United States depends upon how successful the project team of NuScale, Fluor, Energy Northwest, and UAMPS can be in keeping their Idaho SMR project on cost and schedule for completion in 2029.

  33. Iain Climie

    The article on wild boar was interesting as invasive or introduced species, whether wildlife or livestock, often create havoc. Rabbits, cane toads, camels, cats, foxes, cattle and sheep are prime examples in Australia for example although some were introduced as intended predators of pests e.g. case toads to consume insect pests of sugar cane. Sadly the toads are toxic but many such species, along with naturally occurring pests (even locusts) are potentially edible. I know this may cause outrage but, if such animals are killed, shouldn’t we be eating them? Myxomatosis never struck me as a better idea than shooting and eating them.

    • Not enough bullets. But rabbits have of course adapted to the myxoma virus. A virus identified in Korea and another French sourced virus have been introduced into Australian rabbit populations.

      • Hi Robert,

        Thanks for the rabbit info – much appreciated.

        Iain

      • Who believes that the resurrection of the Tasmanian Tiger is justifiable and is the natural solution to the rabbit problem??

        ….
        He died of the cold. His name was Benjamin, the thylacine, Ben, the last Tasmanian Tiger – only we didn’t know that when he was captured and put in a zoo in 1933.

        In grainy black-and-white footage, Benjamin paces his enclosure, yawning and baring his jaws. He lies down, he sniffs the concrete. At one point (off-screen) he even gives the cameraman a cheeky bite on the bum.
        ….

        https://www.smh.com.au/national/the-de-extinction-club-could-we-resurrect-mammoths-tassie-tigers-and-dinosaurs-20210703-p586jg.html

      • REI: video with memories attached. A photo of a long line of dangling rabbits held by four men, one an ancestor relative. From a point of view with the Sydney harbour bridge in the background and the spot where today is the opera house. All in the original wild state.

        Re the wire fence, rabbits died against the fence, where they piled up for other to jump across. Pictures that stick in one’s mind.

    • Cane toads are edible – avoid the poison sacs.

  34. Matthew R Marler

    Thank you again for this recurring list of readings. It takes me quite a while to read through them.

  35. Rowan Dean makes the point among many that the morning after Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympic Games, promising to make it an Olympics devoted to climate change, the city woke up to record low cold temperatures – with snow falling in sub-tropical Queensland:

    https://youtu.be/-tU4UoIOiRE

  36. Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison

    These ( Tmean, R, N, cp and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured.

    These planets’ parameters are all observations.

    Planet….Earth….Mars
    Tsat.mean..288 K…210 K
    R……….1..AU…1,525 AU
    1/R…….1…….0,430
    N……….1…….0,9747
    cp………1…….0,18
    a……..0,306…..0,250
    1-a……0,694…..0,75
    coeff…….1….0,72748

    As we can see Earth and Mars have very close (1-a); for Earth 0,694 and for Mars 0,75.

    Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.

    Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.

    Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
    Comparison coefficient calculation

    [(1/R²) (cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Earth:
    Tsat.mean = 288 K

    [ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    = [ 1*(1)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = 1

    Mars:
    Tsat.mean = 210 K

    [ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    = [ 0,430*(0,18)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )¹∕ ⁴ =
    = ( 0,2801 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,72748

    Let’s compare

    Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =

    = 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746

    And

    Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =

    = 288 K /210 K = 1,3714

    It is obvious, one can calculate Earth’s mean surface temperature by simply multiplying Mars’ satellite measured mean surface temperature by the comparison coefficient.

    Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
    = 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746

    Tmean.earth = Tmean.mars*1,3746 = 210 K * 1,3746 = 288,7 K

    Very close!

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Thank you Robert!

        Please share.

        Sharing is caring!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • A brilliant illustration you provided for the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!

        Yes, thank you Robert!

        Homer: “… in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”

        Even Homer claims that.

        Rotational Warming obeys the laws of Thermodynamics!

        Thank you Robert!

        You always accepted – from the very beginning – and you always supported the New physics about the planet surface temperatures.

        You even – jokingly – lovingly – called the Rotational Warming a Planetary Rotisserie Phenomenon.

        I know, you did it to help readers understand the very essence of what is going on with the planet surface temperatures development. You resembled a rotating planet with a chicken on rotisserie as a populistic approach to a very serious scientific issue.

        Thank you for your help. I hope you will continue propagating the New Planet Rotational Warming Theory by always sharing and widely spreading the basic ground:

        Rotational Warming obeys the laws of Thermodynamics!

        Thank you again Robert!

        You are the hope for the New knowledge to become widely known and thoroughly explained to the wide range scientific community…
        Ok, it is one step at the time. Our truth will eventually prevail, because of its rightness.
        And always we shall have you Robert by our side. We are together in the New science’s fortresses!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  37. Matthew R Marler

    from Yang et al: Time Series Analysis. We used the regime shift analysis method (STARS) to determine the timing and magnitude of regime shifts (31). The regime shift index was calculated to measure the magnitude of the regime shift (SI Appendix, Materials and Methods). Significant changes in temporal trends of the time series were identified by the “segmented” package in the R environment (66) that indicates turning points of different evolution phases. We identified four statistically significant (P < 0.05) trend change point years at 2000, 1501, 709, and 544 CE (Fig. 3B). We used the Ensemble empirical mode decomposition (EEMD)method (67) …

    31. S. N. Rodionov, A sequential algorithm for testing climate regime shifts. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L09204 (2004).

    66. V. M. Muggeo, Segmented: A R package to fit regression models with broken-line relationships. R News 8, 20–25 (2008).

    67. Z. Wu, N. E. Huang, Ensemble empirical mode decomposition: A noise-assisted data analysis method. Adv. Adapt. Data Anal. 1, 1–41 (2009).

    Obviously worth further study.

    • Matthew R Marler

      MRM quick followup: years at 2000, 1501, 709, and 544 CE

      Where comparable (i.e. 2000, 1501), this is tolerably close to the result of Kelly and O’Grada: no reegime change for hundreds of years preceding end of 19th century; though Yan el al were not examining temperature

    • ‘(B) Reconstructed precipitation (blue) and 95% CIs (light blue shading). The sky-blue step lines represent regime shifts, and the associated shading indicates 95% CIs for each subperiod (SI Appendix, Materials and Methods). Significant changes in temporal trends (yellow line, with magenta circles indicating trend change point years with P < 0.05: 544 CE, 709 BCE, 1501 BCE, and 2000 BCE; SI Appendix, Materials and Methods). The red horizontal line is the reconstructed mean precipitation of the entire period (4680 BCE to 2011 CE).' https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2102007118#F3

      https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/118/30/e2102007118/F3.medium.gif

      Nice study. Note the actual dates and the difference between regime shifts and trend change. Trend is significant for changes in rainfall over time but does not directly reflect the causal mechanism of regime change. High resolution data shows regimes shifts originating in the Pacific Ocean at 20 to 30 years intervals and at 1250 CE and 1920 CE.

      e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/12/10/the-illusion-of-climate-cycles/

      “Static equilibrium equations may be useful for building a bridge, he said, but it’s time to abandon the search for equilibrium in the complex, nonlinear systems that nature produces.”

      https://www.quantamagazine.org/chaos-theory-in-ecology-predicts-future-populations-20151013

  38. Joe - the non climate scientist

    “In most parts of the U.S., a switch from natural gas to electric heat pumps would raise household heating bills and increase damages from carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants.” https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.0c02705…

    While Heat pumps are very efficient, much more so than gas heat when outside temps are above 32f, heat pumps lose efficiency as it gets cold, to the point that they are extremely inefficient below 0f,

    The fatal flaw Which should be obvious even to the green advocates , is that electric generation from wind and solar become very inefficient in the northern latitudes during the winter which is also when heat is most needed.

    Wind and solar electric generation combined with heat pumps will become a deadly combination in the winter.

    • dougbadgero

      Heat pumps make sense if they are backed up by fossil fuels in cold weather. My backup heat is propane with ground loop heat pump as primary. If you back up with resistance heaters then they can cause winter peak to be far worse than just heating with natural gas or propane.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        Heats are good if backed up as you say
        But the greens don’t want backup

  39. Interesting video reviewing the forensic analysis of the Oroville disaster.

  40. “According to UNDRR report out on drought today, human-caused climate change is expected to have a discernable effect on drought, but that effect is not generally expected to be detectable today”.
    Interesting. I’m sure all other people who live in drought-prone areas, as I do here in Santiago de Chile, have heard otherwise, as per usual when talking about climate attribution. We’ve been having droughts for the majority of the last decade here…I wonder how much of it can be considered natural (of course in the public discourse it’s all about climate change). The government and private sector are trying to adapt though, although building new dams and reservoirs has been proven very difficult, not only for geographical reasons but by the opposition of environmental groups, surprisingly enough! Desalinization plants are also met with some distrust. I don’t know how those groups imagine we can cope with droughts without trying to adapt!

  41. Ulric Lyons

    “Extreme precipitation has intensified at most stations in Central Europe since 1901.”

    Annual rainfall for England looks like that, unless the late 1800’s centennial solar minimum is included.

    https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/pub/data/weather/uk/climate/actualmonthly/17/Rainfall/England.gif

    • You guy’s got great talent.

      As to the meaning of the song – it can apply to the entire space industry imo. A nation strives to make it on the world stage by sending a probe to another planet – like they’ve done it. Does it really help the people? The human race?

    • Seen on social media- what if UFOs are just billionaires from other planets?

  42. The Blöschl et al. paper points to a richest period of floodings in Europe in the last 30 years. Not scarcer.

  43. David Wojick

    My latest on climate policy:
    https://www.cfact.org/2021/07/26/the-greens-threaten-us-with-floods-but-fail-to-protect-against-them/

    “The devastating European floods reveal an incredible hypocrisy in the green agenda. They want to spend untold sums, supposedly to prevent natural floods by cutting emissions. But they spend nothing to prepare for these same floods, which they predict will get worse!”

    • How much do you want to spend? There’s still time for the Republicans to get it into the bipartisan infrastructure bill. I don’t think the Democrats will object.

      • Where are you looking to spending? Charging stations and electric bases, or axtual infrastructure?

  44. Pingback: Kalifornian metsäpalojen voimakkuus palokuorman ansiota | Roskasaitti

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Thunderstorm threat in Central Europe, including overnight.
    https://i.ibb.co/1fyh6WW/hgt300.webp

  46. Dr Curry and denizens, this might also be of interest:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2617-x

    “Given assumptions concerning the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases, ice sheets and mineral dust aerosols, this cooling translates to an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.4 degrees Celsius (2.4–4.5 degrees Celsius), a value that is higher than previous LGM-based estimates but consistent with the traditional consensus range of 2–4.5 degrees Celsius3,4.”

    It might be wrong but it sounds like an interesting way to look at pre-interglacial climate and how it might inform modern climate. The problem atm is the number of assumptions made – given how uncertain they are I’m not sure that their estimate of climate sensitivity is particularly sound. What if an empirical estimate (Lewis & Curry) were fed in and worked backwards? Would the proxy evidence be consistent?

    How would they have validated their modelled proxies against other “independent” proxies? That doesn’t make much sense – and the article is paywalled.

    I suppose I find this curious simply to try and imagine what the climate during that period was like.

  47. I realize this is ancient history because it pertains to Tuberculosis, the number one infectious disease killer in the world, even today.

    Tuberculosis aerosol droplet transmission has been known for almost 100 years now with the @ 1930’s dramatic picture of aerosol production from one cough made using stroboscopic light techniques that is still relevant as we speak. A spectrum of particle size in one cough is evident in transmission of COVID today. The increased transmission of the delta variety is facilitated by the mRNA virus being 1000 times more abundant in any one cough. More virus=more infectivity. Really a mechanical explanation without having to delve into the immunobiology of the virus and its uptake into cells.

    This brings me to…reducing the number of particles that escape from an infected person’s respiratory system, results in less transmission. Same as in tuberculosis which is an acid fast bacillus not a virus.

    To reduce transmission, reduce the number of particles the infected person sheds; ie, use a mask that significantly reduces the number of particles. The only mask that fits that bill is…drum roll…the N-95 mask. The N-95 mask does reduce the number of viral particles one inhales but..it substantially reduces the number of viral particle one expels with a cough.

    The host in the case for Tuberculosis is relevant for susceptibility and the body response, primarily, in regions with high burden of smoke from cooking fires etc, there is more transmission of tuberculosis; ie, the respiratory defense systems are overwhelmed by the particulate burden. For people who are malnourished, then their response to exposure is suboptimal and disease gets established.

    What I have said above is…well… been known for 100 years or more. Its just that the COVID virus is playing in part, the same mechanical game.

  48. Robert Clark

    Ms. Psaki said over 90% of those hospitalized with COVID-19 have not been vaccinated.
    The other question that needs to be answered is what percentage of those are legal United States residents?
    When I got my shots I had to show a photo ID proving I was before each shot.

  49. Everyone in the US has had time to decide to get vaxxed or not, or take whatever measures that individual feels necessary, guided by his doctor or not. Now that the choices have been made, let the virus run its course without masks or lock downs. It isn’t right to punish everyone for the bad decisions of a few – and I remind you we don’t know yet who made the bad decisions.

    • Your blog was an interesting read and good luck with the book etc.
      ..
      I’ve just discovered stretching and have started a 30 day challenge with a 6 month goal of achieving a particular pose.

  50. joe - the non climate scientist

    In Mann v Steyn / Simburg lawsuit
    We have a judge that understand Daubert

    Judith curry excluded from providing expert testimony – since she could only opine on climate science, but not on Simberg’s of Steyn’s state of mind regarding Mann
    Mann failed to get Dr Wyner excluded since he has actual knowledge of the statistical methods in the Hockey stick

    All of Mann’s experts were excluded because the did not have actual first hand knowledge of the climate science or the statistical methods used in the HS.
    One so called expert had acquired his knowledge of climate science from wikipedia. (holden)

  51. JC … Thanks for the Hossenfelder piece. She has a mind like a steel trap. So much so, that although she can see the possibilities beyond the trap, or even the steel, her method of sense making restricts her … from having a little fun. There even seems to be a little self-guilt tripping with the ‘weak emergence’ being rather uncomfortably rendered synonymous with emergence. Why not just get it over with and call it emergence and argue it as such? Maybe it’s doubt … just a wee little one?

    • A lot of particle physicists think Hossenfelder has a mind like a paper airplane.

      • Lowell Brown

        Very true. Depth of understanding paper thin.
        From personal experience I know that, for example, she has no
        knowledge of Maxwell’s contribution to electromagnetic theory.

  52. Chevron paid $3B to deep sequester 5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide – and are up for $200M to purchase 10 million tonnes of offsets elsewhere.

    Not difficult or expensive.

    https://www.abcfoundation.org.au/carbon-farming/savanna-burning#:~:text=In%202018%2C%20across%20Northern%20Australia,by%20Aboriginal%20savanna%20burning%20projects.

  53. Resplandy et al (2019)

    Abstract

    The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system. Ocean heat uptake during recent decades has been quantified using ocean temperature measurements. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainty due to sparse coverage, especially before 2007. Here, we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) – levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases – as a whole ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.29 ± 0.79 × 1022 Joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.80 ± 0.49 W watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks. Our result – which relies on high-precision O2 atmospheric measurements dating back to 1991 – leverages an integrative Earth system approach and provides much needed independent confirmation of heat uptake estimated from ocean data.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56490-z

    • I quite like the idea as I said at the time. But the proximate cause of ocean warming in the period – seen in TOA radiative flux data – is cloud feedback to warm sea surfaces in the eastern Pacific.

      e.g. – https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/16/jcli3838.1.xml

    • Robert Clark

      Before man discovered fire the CO2 level in the atmosphere was controlled by the height of the ocean. As the ocean rose, the surface area of the earth covered by land decreased, which decreased the amount of green foliage. The % of CO2 in the atmosphere dropped.

    • Dietrich Hoecht

      Wait! Resplandy et al 2019? Isn’t that the paper Nic Lewis had taken apart? Besides, their concept of correlating changes in atmospheric gases in old stored bottles to ocean temperature sounds crazy far fetched as compared to direct ocean temperature measurements

    • Jim2, what are the error bars on Resplandy (2019)? If I recall, the the Nic Lewis supplied correction needed to get the paper republished placed the error so high as to make the measurements insignificant.

      • I wasn’t aware Nic had weighed in on the 2019 one. Do you have a link to that analysis? TIA!

  54. Robert Clark

    % rose.

  55. David Wojick

    ScienceMag says IPCC AR6 reporting begins next month. Says things are getting worse but the models are too hot! Balanced on the knife edge.

  56. The planet mean surface temperature equation is for planets WITHOUT ATMOSPHERE the whole planet equilibrium emission concept.

    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    When applied to the planets the equation produces remarkable results. The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

    Planet………Te………….Tmean…Tsat.mean

    Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
    Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
    Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
    Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K

    The results speak for themselves – it has become possible to calculate planets mean surface temperatures very closely matching the measured by satellites.

    When we compare the results for Planet Earth we realize that there is very small difference between the Tmean = 287,74 K and the Tsat.mean = 288 K.

    This observation can only be attributed to the fact that there are only traces of greenhouse gasses in the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Also the Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any significant Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  57. The year 2020 in the UK was the third warmest, fifth wettest and eighth sunniest on record, scientists said in the latest UK State of the Climate report.

    In the space of 30 years, the UK gas become 0.9°C warmer and 6% wetter.

    • Well not according to the CET. Over the last 30 years, temperature has not really increased, though there was a big increase from 1970 to 1990.

      I would also suggest that the claim 3rd warmest, 5th wettest and 8th sunniest, on record needs to be put in context the extent of the record, which, apart form the CET is not really very long in climatological terms.

      • https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
        Apologies – link to the CET at the met office.

      • Looking at the link you gave at the temperature graph, 0.9°C increase in the last 30 years doesn’t seem unreasonable.

        You didn’t provide any source to contend the 5th wettest & 8th sunniest, so I’ll go with the official BBC data.

      • I’m not contending the BBC data, I am saying the context is not long enough to draw meaningful conclusions. The BBC say “on record” but instrumental records (with the exception of the CET) only go back 150 years.

        The CET clearly shows no warming over the last 30 years, the warming was all prior to that.

      • Also according to Metoffice records, there does not seem to be a strong trend in increase rainfall:

        https://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/january_comparison.gif

      • …and winter rainfall since 1860. I there is a trend but it’s very slight. The world HAS warmed so it’s at least consistent.

        https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Figure5_winterNAO-892×1024.jpg

      • “The CET clearly shows no warming over the last 30 years, the warming was all prior to that.”

        ?? I don’t understand how you come to that conclusion. I know figures and graphs can be misleading and it states ‘The graph above shows annual anomalies relative to the 1961-1990 average’, but even so, the overall conclusion of significant warming over the last 30 years seems reasonable to me.

        Perhaps Dr. Curry could give her opinion on how the BBC claim relates to the data and context?

      • Alan, look at the graph closely.

        It shows a warming from between ~1980 to 2000, but no subsequent warming trend. The CET itself shows a trend line over the period 1970 to 2020 of 0.165 C per decade.

        If the reason for the warming had been anthropogenic we could reasonably expect that warming to have continued past 2000, since during that time we have continued to emit and emissions increased.

        This increase in temperature of around 0.9C degrees also not unprecedented. During the period of 1700 to 1725, warming was nearly 2 C!! Go back and actually really look at the CET and put modern warming into that historical context.

        There have been periods of warming and cooling, but the general trend, long before human emissions could have significantly impacted UK temps, is warming as we came out of the LIA. So that we have more warmer temps now than we have since we started records ought to be no surprise. Sunniness probably explains that warmness, so no great surprise there either, and raininess – well actually raininess actually has not really increased since 1850s though it has since the 60s. There is a very slight increase in recent years, I am surprised how small since there is reasonable and well tested expectation that warmer climates hold more moister and therefore rain more.

        And picking out individual data points doesn’t tell us anything. If last year was the “8th sunniest” what if 1 through 7 were all in the 1800s? That is terrible terrible science communication – and more like snake oil salesmanship.

        And none of this speaks to attribution.

        It’s assumed recent climate change is anthropogenic and MSM do not miss an opportunity to tell us it’s worse than we thought. It’s only when you dig into the figures and put it into its historical context that you see the bigger part of attribution puzzle are natural phenomena. When did you last hear MSM discussing the natural phenomena causing the weather we are experiencing?

        This is why they talk in these generalities and do not show data in its historical context. Nearly all recent global warming can be attributed to El Nino and as we go into a La Nina, if it is as large and deep as the El Nino it could wipe out almost all 21st warming. The next couple of years will be interesting.

      • “..historical context that you see the bigger part of attribution puzzle are natural phenomena. When did you last hear MSM discussing the natural phenomena causing the weather we are experiencing?”

        Are you aware you’re replying to the guy who believes in natural variation attributed to tidal increase from the Sun via new physics? I’m not a supporter of manmade global warming.

        I attribute the La Niña/El Nino phenomena to tidal variation from the Sun, with a study making a clear link between switching and the solar 22-year magnetic field reversal.

      • Alan, I am not really talking about what you believe, simply what you regarded as reasonable from the BBC website. I don’t think it is reasonable to accept that there is 0.9C degree rise without putting it into its proper context.

        So I have outlined it here. Taking a 30 year average from one period to the next doesn’t tell you much about what is going on, and the implication that it is entirely anthropogenic is what bothers me. If you think that solar variations are responsible for modulating ENSO then you probably will find people on this site who are supportive. I certainly think that there are likely solar effects that are on unaccounted for in the standard model of climate.

        I am guarding against the characterisation of current climatic phenomena using flawed logic coming from actual climate scientists and meteorological institutions. I do NOT think the BBC in this article is characterising it correctly, I think it is alarmist and uninformative – if not actually downright misleading.

  58. Dietrich Hoecht

    This is how the news was described: “For Britain, the period 1991 to 2020 has been on average 0.3 degree Celsius warmer than 1981 to 2010 and 0.9 degree Celsius warmer than 1961 to 1990” This is confusing. Does it reference an averaged number between the time periods? If so, it is not meaningful but confusing or even confounding. I found the text in Xinhua News (a Red Chinese source?). Reading the charts at the Met Office site, the UK mean annual temperatures rises 0.6 deg C from 1990 to 2020, and 0.4 degrees from 1960 to 1990. The temperature curve is quite undulating, even dipping, not straight rising.

    • This is the new double speak that will be necessary to keep the fear factor up when global temperatures are no longer being boosted by ENSO or AMO. They will have to rely more and more on their creative juices to find something that shows a warming world.

      Omissions will accompany commissions to keep the illusion of CAGW. While the above average Antarctica Sea Ice this year is no big deal in the long term context, mum is the word in press releases. If it was below average, I’m sure there would have been coverage.

      • “They will have to rely more and more on their creative juices to find something that shows a warming world.” – CKid

        I think they will have to use their creative juices to show that the equatorial oceans *aren’t* actually cooling and to sidestep the issue of why climate change warming is affecting the Northern hemisphere more than the Southern hemisphere.

    • The Met office data given above shows a significant warming over the last 30 years on the UK.

      The increase in rainfall and warmth agrees with my experience and also with the hypothesis of the Sun’s gravitational influence increasing, bringing warmer waters from the equatorial regions.

  59. stevenreincarnated

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.19.21257467v1

    Time to get the kids back in school and leave them alone.

  60. A new physics solution to climate change isn’t so extraordinary when you listen to an open minded expert talk about humanity’s pursuit of ignorance to ever greater precision:

    ….
    Pedro G Ferreira, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Oxford, addresses what he calls the ‘cosmological chasm’ between ‘the physics we know and love, and some of the phenomena that we observe, but simply can’t make head nor tail of’.
    ….
    https://aeon.co/videos/building-bigger-and-better-has-pushed-cosmology-forward-can-it-take-it-any-further

  61. Robert Clark

    To any of the AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE, testers, contact tracers and vaccine designers I apologize for not being able to find a way to stop the GOVERNMENT. I wonder how many translators each COVID-19 emergency room needs.
    NOVEMBER 2022 IS TO LONG.

    • Robert Clark

      They are testing the boarder crossers they catch before they send them on their way. There is probably no spike as we see it in the report among residents of the US.

  62. ‘Much clearer, however, is what the stalemate tells us about China’s position in the world. Ultimately, Beijing’s attempt to use Australia to warn other countries of the costs of taking on Chinese power has ended up instead highlighting Chinese weakness.’ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/07/china-australia-america/619544/

    What we have learned is that China is not a reliable trade partner. At a cost of some $7.6B. Chicken feed in the scheme of things.

  63. The ozone crisis established the success of the “fear sells” model

    The climate crisis is its next incarnation

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/03/31/list-of-posts-on-ozone-depletion/

  64. Simple question

    I have asked people to explain to me why the earth acts differently to any other irradiated object in the universe.

    Why when it has a set source of power it is allowed to siphon off and store energy from the sun.

    It is not acting as a generator.*

    There is no mechanism to hold back the energy, none.

    The fact that the earth surface [mm] Ocean surface [metres]

    and atmosphere [100 kilometers]

    are warm is due to the fact that they are emitting the energy back that they just received.

    If the earth were a cold rock and one switched on the sun it would immediately be hot on the surface at the same rate it was being received.
    To do so the surface would become extremely hot immediately.
    Both land and sea.
    Over time the radiating areas would be spread out.[rotation earth]
    and radiation would be less due to albedo from developing clouds

    Whether the atmosphere has CO2 or not in it. Whether the CO2 composition was increased.
    No extra energy is coming into the system.
    If a CO2 atmosphere is hotter some other component land or water must commensurately be cooler.

    • “Whether the CO2 composition was increased.
      No extra energy is coming into the system.” – angech

      Under standard physics, no extra energy is coming into the system, yes. Under new physics, it’s possible extra energy *is* coming into the system in the form of gravitational forcing. I propose the Sun’s exotic core is tilting towards the plane of the planets, increasing the tidal energy emanating from the Earth’s exotic core.

      • Curious George

        Standard physics produces reliable results. New physics is different.

      • “Standard physics produces reliable results.” – CG

        No, you are deluded. There’s a “cosmological chasm” opening up between theory and what is being observed.

      • Curious George

        Please publish your results regarding the exotic core.

    • David Wojick

      Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.

      A crude analog would be that when there are customer lines in the bank there will be more people inside, even though everyone gets served and leaves.

      • David,
        That is what I used to think.
        But considering it closely this may not be the case.

        The problem is that we see the 33 C temp.
        We see the warmer atmosphere and we think it has taken time to get to this equilibrium from a colder form so more energy trapped or stored.

        The point everyone is missing is that what we see is exactly how the earth responds to 1360 W/MS constant input

        The air has to be that hot to send the energy back.
        The earth and sea surfaces also.

        Imagine the earth as a cold icy ball. Flick the switch on.
        A reflective source sends the energy back instantly.

        An absorptive surface sends the heat back virtually instantly.
        So an atom of dirt hit by light absorbs it and sends it back as a series of IR pulses or transmits it virtually instantly through excitation/movement to nearby molecules which can release it as IR.
        -It goes back to space as IR.

        It is like turning a light bulb on.
        Click and the energy is going out.
        It does not take a decade or a millenium for the sea surface atoms to heat up and IR back.
        The sea surface at the equator would become instantly hot.

      • 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
        Tmean.earth

        So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)

        S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So

        Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

        Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47

        (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

        β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant

        N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin

        cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.

        σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

        Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:

        Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

        Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

        Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K

        Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ

        And we compare it with the

        Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

        These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

        Conclusions:

        The planet mean surface temperature equation

        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        produces remarkable results.

        The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

        Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
        Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
        Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
        Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
        Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K

        The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

        There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.

        The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

        There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

        Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:

        Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

        There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.

        The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

        There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • David Wojick

        Sorry Angech but I simply cannot follow what you are saying. I am pretty sure that GHGs absorb radiation and release the energy kinetically to the surrounding air and vice versa. So there is energy in the air that would not be there absent the GHGs.

        Christos, I presume those who derive the 33 degrees use different numbers than yours. I am in no position to make a judgement between theirs and yours, but can you tell us where the primary disagreement lies?

        However, I think water vapor, the primary GHG, is quite a bit more than a trace gas.

      • “”Sorry Angech but I simply cannot follow what you are saying. I am pretty sure that GHGs absorb radiation and release the energy kinetically to the surrounding air and vice versa.””

        Thanks, David.
        I am trying to understand the concepts better myself and some things do not make sense.

        Part of the problem is the initial state

        “Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs.'”

        Part of the problem is that this “gap'”
        may be only a seeming gap.

        The definition is energy in equals energy out but there is a minuscule time difference compared to reflection because the energy being re emitted is being re emitted in smaller packets of IR and not necessarily from the same molecule..

        The gap is vanishingly small.
        There is no difference between a GHG and water or earth molecules in their ability to absorb energy and then re emit it as infra red. This is happening in the surface levels all the time. and the amount of energy that goes back to space is exactly that which came in , not the amplified back radiation.

        I admit to having a problem with the cooling down time side of things..
        Perhaps when the source stops the residual energy would be heat storage.
        On the other hand it might just be due to the now cooling sources of IR being slower to finally discharge that last incoming bit of energy?

      • David
        “So there is energy in the air that would not be there absent the GHGs.”

        Found the problem there.

        In other words you are claiming that the GHG are heat sources producing their own extra energy.

        In my view all the energy in the air is there because of the current solar input, not the GHG which are merely transmission, not heating nodes.

        There is no extra energy. It is just taking a slightly longer transit time out.
        A bit like the concept of gravity.
        The energy transiting through matter seems to be taking a longer route than that going straight out but the net result at TOA is the same energy in, energy out..

        Do you really think a GHG atom is a new heat source?
        That is what the science and energy diagrams of Willis are showing.
        We all know they are not producing new energy.

      • David
        “Christos, I presume those who derive the 33 degrees use different numbers than yours. I am in no position to make a judgement between theirs and yours, but can you tell us where the primary disagreement lies?”

        Well, it is this Universal law I have discovered…
        Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!

        It says “Planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root .

        The planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature equation is
        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ which is based on the above Universal law.

        When calculating by the use of this equation the every planet mean surface temperatures, the results are very much close to the satellite measured.

        Earth’s calculated without-atmosphere mean surface temperature T.mean = 287,74K is almost identical with the well known and widely accepted Earth’s average surface temperature of T.average = 288K.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • ‘Well, it is this Universal law I have discovered…
        Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon!’

        🤣

        New physics or weird physics? I think Homer’s got it right.

      • David Wojick

        Angech, GH theory says the gap is not vanishingly small. Because of the GHG molecules some of the outgoing surface energy takes a significantly longer random walk before going out into space, longer in both distance and time. Some of the energy even returns to the surface. This wandering about means there is more energy in the system, even if all the incoming energy ultimately leaves.

        The GHGs do not create energy, but they do redirect it.

  65. stevenreincarnated

    What heats up faster while adding the same amount of heat, a pot with a lid or an open pot? Like the pot the earth isn’t a closed system.

  66. I hope carbon capture never becomes economical.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891482105954304

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In southern Brazil, frost and snow are destroying coffee and sugar cane plantations.

    • This is probably the only place I will read about cold in Brazil. Doesn’t follow the preferred narrative so no interest by the media. Thanks.

  68. David Wojick

    Latest climate modeling found to be “implausibly hot” by the modeling community!

    The issue here is very specific, not about climate models in general. I have been tracking it for a year or so, wondering how it will play out. Now the time has come.

    Every five years or so most of the world’s major modeling centers run a joint exercise, the results of which feed into the latest IPCC report. About 100 models are involved, mostly run by national centers. The latest exercise was called CMIP6, feeding into IPCC AR6, which begins to be released on the 9th of August. This was the 6th CMIP.

    We got an extreme event! About half of the CMIP6 models ran much hotter than they had in CMIPs 1-5. The hot shots show climate carbon sensitivities (CS) above 5 degrees C, while IPCC has always said the range was 1.5-4.5 degrees. Oops!

    The new hotness was traced to greatly increased positive cloud feedbacks, for which there was no big scientific breakthru to justify it.
    What is the IPCC and the modeling community to do? If they accept these hot results it means they were very wrong for 40 years. If they reject the results it calls the modeling into serious question, for the first time by the modeling community itself.

    This ScienceMag article indicates that at least some of the community is rejecting the hot results. What the IPCC does remains to be seen, hopefully shortly but maybe not, as the full 1000 page report is not due out soon, just the summary.

    We might even get a split in the modeling community.
    We skeptics need to make the most of this clear failure.

    Here is URL
    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
    Note “implausibly hot”. Woohoo!

    The modelers dilemma is either (1) all the models have been wrong for 40 years or (2) half are wrong now. Be still my heart!

  69. ‘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.’ https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png

    One of the things it has congealed into is insistence against all odds of the verisimilitude of models. Nonlinear math says otherwise. They need to maintain the illusion that they know what they have been talking up for decades.

  70. -snip-

    The Cochrane review cannot confirm whether ivermectin (administered in hospital or as an outpatient) compared with placebo or usual care, leads to more or fewer deaths after one month, whether it improves or worsens patients’ condition, increases or decreases unwanted side effects, nor whether it increases or reduces negative COVID-19 tests 7 days after treatment. Likewise, the review cannot confirm whether or not ivermectin prevents SARS-CoV-2 infection or reduces number of deaths after high-risk exposure.

    https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210728/Systematic-review-explores-the-effects-of-ivermectin-in-preventing-and-treating-COVID-19.aspx

    • -snip-
      Main authors on the review, Maria Popp and Stephanie Weibel said: “The lack of good quality evidence on efficacy and safety of ivermectin arises from a study pool that consists mainly of small, insufficiently powered RCTs with overall limited quality regarding study design, conduct and reporting. Current evidence does not support using ivermectin for treating or preventing of COVID-19 unless they are part of well-designed randomized trials.”

      • Dietrich Hoecht

        With the Ivermectin hoopla I am reminded of the Zelenko regime. Dr. Zelenko, early in the pandemic, treated his tight living community of Hassidic jews with a cocktail of high dose Vitamin D3, zinc, antibiotic and hydrochloroquin, not just with HCQ alone. Great success in prevention of the disease and in preventing hospitalization. Who determines what dose with a single medicine is the yardstick for its efficacy? No consideration of a cocktail treatment? At what stage of the disease progression or prevention? Can a petri dish experiment give the right answers?

      • stevenreincarnated

        Unfortunately in vivo is often quite different than in vitro.

      • Dietrich –

        > . Who determines what dose with a single medicine is the yardstick for its efficacy?

        There are obviously complications when trying to draw conclusions from findings reported by people conducting open experimentation with multi-faceted treatments with multiple largely uncontrolled variables.

        That’s why people try to replicate such findings, often including controls for any variety of the variables..

        How else would you have it before wide-scale recommendations are made?

      • “Who determines what dose with a single medicine is the yardstick for its efficacy?”

        Good field doctors determine the treatment regiment from their reading combined with their professional experience. Others rely more on the digestion of the literature from pharma salesmen and health ministry guidelines.

        Treatment regiments in clinical studies are influenced by the anticipated ability to draw conclusions, ones that have powerful financial and political interests. We don’t know if that influences the results but we should expect that it might.

        Whereas one would think it common sense to have repeated the pilot study by Gautret that reported success with a larger RCT, the health establishment clinician chose things like using the less safe cholorquine rather than HCQ, they dropped the azithromycin, zinc and other vitamins, and they treated only well advanced disease rather than early or outpatient.

        The result is Wikipedia, the CDC and Lupus foundation can flatly say HCQ does not work for covid at the same time have the doctors around the world suspect that it does have benefit.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Joshua,
      If the experts are so unsure about the efficacy of Ivermectin, how do they stand on Astra-Zeneca Covid-19 vaccine? Geoff

      • Goeff –

        > If the experts are so unsure…

        There’s a whole series of on-going research into Ivermectin, started because of promising observational/retrospective studies.

        The “experts” conducting those studies haven’t reported on their findings yet.

  71. Dr. Curry, I suggested on another post that you go point by point exposing all the climate myths. It looks like GWPF has compiled much of the data. It would be great if you did a series of posts on all these myths and the data backing the refuting of them.
    https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2021/02/Goklany-EmpiricalTrends.pdf

  72. Robert Clark

    Delta varient

    In September, 2021m the AMERICAN PEOPLE came up with the 6-day rule and the testers and contact tracers used it to control the spread of the virus. In December the scientests came up with the vaccines. Together thew had the daily positive down to 40,000 a day.

    On January 20th things changed. The Southern Border was opened. It took until July 1st for the border crossers to overcome the dedicated testers and contact tracers and vaccine.

    Now we must see if we are on our way back to where we were September 1st. !80,000 unvaccinated are entering the country monthly, and of those HOW MANY ARE ASKED TO FOLLOW THE 6-DAY rule?

    • Two sensible voices indeed. Margaret Thatcher’s last paragraph:

      “Fifth, can global warming be stopped or checked at an acceptable price? At Kyoto, the United States answered “no,” at least to the proposals on offer. Perhaps the answer will always be “no.” On the other hand, perhaps a more realistic package may emerge. But in any case, it will be necessary to resolve many remaining uncertainties before taking action that makes the world poorer than it would otherwise be, by restraining economic growth.”

      It will be necessary to resolve the forthcoming gravity uncertainty which the James Webb space telescope is destined to reveal in under a year’s time.

    • Millions of the poorest people likely to be impacted by potentially unnecessary/futile attempts to lessen climate change new report warns:

      ….
      Net zero targets are often a “greenwashing exercise” that may trigger “mass hunger and displacement across the world”, Oxfam has warned.

      The charity said commitments to reach net zero emissions – in attempts to curb climate change – rely on “virtually unproven new technologies, or on a level of land use that is completely impossible and would lead to mass hunger and displacement of people across the world”.
      ….
      https://news.sky.com/story/net-zero-targets-could-trigger-mass-hunger-and-displacement-across-the-world-charity-warns-12371482

  73. Today’s GWPF Press Release:
    Lord Lawson warns Boris Johnson over real costs of Net Zero

    “London, 2 August – Nigel Lawson, Britain’s Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1983 to 1989, has warned Boris Johnson that he is being misadvised on the real costs of Net Zero.

    In a letter to the Prime Minister, Lord Lawson warns that “the overall costs are likely to be twice and probably three times the Government’s £1.4 trillion estimate.”

    Read the rest of the press release here:
    https://mailchi.mp/5d5f2e439604/lord-lawson-warns-boris-johnson-over-real-costs-of-net-zero-182962

    Follow the link to the GWPF report here: https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2021/05/Alternative-Decarbonisation-Policy-1.pdf

  74. David Wojick | August 1, 2021 at 4:33 pm |

    Angech, GH theory says the gap is not vanishingly small. Because of the GHG molecules some of the outgoing surface energy takes a significantly longer random walk before going out into space, longer in both distance and time. Some of the energy even returns to the surface. This wandering about means there is more energy in the system, even if all the incoming energy ultimately leaves.

    Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.

    A crude analog would be that when there are customer lines in the bank there will be more people inside, even though everyone gets served and leaves.

    In other words you are claiming that the GHG are heat sources producing their own extra energy.

    There are no extra customers inside.
    Like the magic infinity hotel the guests coming in are a known number and equal the customers going out.
    They might be doing a bit of covid room hopping but they are not splitting into new customers. That would be creation of energy from nothing.
    When more crowd into the lobby the lobby gets hotter but that just means there are less guests in the room.

    When you heat a piece of metal in a fire the atoms in the metal reach a new energy level that lets them radiate infra red.
    They do this because they were in a steady state but now have to get rid of the extra energy to return to that basal state.
    Previously the fire would have burnt you, now the hot metal does.

    Take it outside and it rapidly cools down until all the last of the incoming energy can be dissipated.
    This energy is not extra energy or stored energy or energy waiting in lines.
    It is the last of the energy that went into it.
    At the time you removed it from the fire it was in a steady stae at the energy in/energy out.
    No energy it cools down.
    Not instantaneously because unlike its heat source as it cools down it can only radiate the heat away slowly.

    Living on earth we conceive of such a cooling as if night comes on forgetting that the sun is still pumping its millions of hydrogen bombs into the other side of the earth.
    In reality no sun , extremely rapid freeze, as that last lots of nuclear energy to enter more slowly leaves. being exactly that last bit of energy to come in.
    Your lines of wandering customers make a dash for the exit as that 1360 W/M squared warming the earth returns to space.

    GHG’s are not heat sources producing their own extra energy.
    It is a chimera.

    • angech

      “Greenhouse theory does not say energy is stored. GHGs just briefly increase the average amount of time the energy is in the Earth system. Thus at any given time there is a little more energy wandering around in the system than there would be without the GHGs. This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.”

      angech, you say
      “…This adds an estimated 33 degrees C to the average temperature at the surface.”

      I have shown in my site that

      The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.

      There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.

      The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

      There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  75. Correction * When more crowd into the lobby the lobby gets hotter but that just means there are less guests in the rooms.

  76. The word ‘may’ has over 30 hits– Is ‘potentially’ like all the other ways of saying, may, might, possibly, perhaps…i.e., anything but ‘likely’ as then I’d have to show some evidence that would indicate something had even a remote chance as opposed to a feckless wet dream to get attention and feel important?!

  77. A combination of some current views I dispute
    ” the notion that the Earth cools via radiation to space only. It makes no scientific sense. Warming of the atmosphere is a very complex process, and the cooling of it just as complex.
    A heat budget based on EM in vs EM out is science fiction. There is obviously a lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted. The difference in heat levels in the oceans and atmosphere, due to the delay, is the warming we call the GHE.
    The oceans and atmosphere store heat, with most heat being absorbed in the Tropics. Then it is distributed via the atmosphere and oceans.”

    There are no doubt some ways that Earth might cool other than radiation to space. The fact remains that in terms of natural events and science that the usual, main and only way for the earth to cool from incoming radiation is by exiting radiation.
    How and why the heat gets to where it exits, despite Willis recent article at WUWT, is immaterial.
    The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.
    There is no new energy generated by GHG.
    Just a redistribution of where the energy gets to in a GHG system.

    There is no lengthy delay between solar EM input and the time before it is re-emitted. People see a hot atmosphere and a hot ocean and think that it must take months or millennia for the energy to build up.

    There is no store of heat in the atmosphere or the oceans.
    Only an illusion because we see the sun working all the time and then seeming to stop at night with a slow drop of energy.
    In reality all the suns energy that came in previously has already gone out.
    The last millennium, the last year the last minute, the last second.
    The fact is that the heat that exits does match the heat that comes in.

    If we turn the sun off,completely bang,gone,evaporated, teleported, what happens. First we have 8 minutes of energy still coming in.
    Next we have nothing in.No infrared warming the upper GHG layers.
    Instantly the upper atmosphere cools markedly as the IR radiated to space is not replaced.
    The surface is still heated for a millisecond but now there is no upper buffer stopping it coming out.
    CO2 freezes and drops,TOA drops rapidly to the surface. Water turns to ice.
    Oxygen and Nitrogen freeze.

    As the surface turns stone cold there is a decay in the release time of the remaining heat as it radiates more slowly as it gets colder.
    It would be like placing our hot sword into the depths of outer space. almost instant cooldown. The temperature outside the earth is now nearly 0 Kelvin.
    Instantly.

    All that so called heat storage is a mirage.

    more comments
    “The oceans take up 163W/m^2 from above and 0.1W/m^2 from below. The equilibrium temperature is determined almost entirely by the solar input.
    Tim: Atmospheric pressure is the same as a water column of 34 feet. Based on 71% ocean coverage and water having about 4 times the specific heat of air, the first 12 feet of the world’s ocean depth has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere.”

    Now how many Hiroshima bombs hit the Earth surface every second?
    Are there enough of them to warm the atmosphere and sea surface as the the energy in the sea surface air and land exists each second.
    If so then the so called heat storage is a myth.Would love someone with actual knowledge on this to corroborate or refute these facts.

    I realise doubting TOA energy imbalance is a heresy.
    but technically if a TOA exists then there can never be an imbalance by definition. Heat storage is an impossibility in terms of non battery/photosynthesis radiation. The GHG are neither energy producers or energy storers, just absorbers and radiators like everything else.
    This is not disputing warming of GHG gas atmospheres [33C] Just saying the explanation of heat storage is scientifically wrong on two major standards .
    Heat redistribution is valid, not heat storage.

  78. angech
    “This is not disputing warming of GHG gas atmospheres [33C] Just saying the explanation of heat storage is scientifically wrong on two major standards .
    Heat redistribution is valid, not heat storage.”

    “Heat redistribution is valid, not heat storage.”

    Exactly, the same amount of solar energy in – the different way of absorbing-emitting process.

    It is the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon we observe here…

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  79. Not only is there anomalous gamma-ray emissions from the Sun which I attribute to an exotic (perhaps dual) core but the centre of the Milky Way similarly has a gamma-ray mystery which can be attributed to dark matter:

    ….
    There is a glow of gamma rays at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy — known as the Galactic center gamma-ray excess (GCE) — with properties that are difficult for astrophysicists to explain given what they know about the distribution of stars and gas in the Galaxy. There are two leading possibilities for what may be producing this radiation: a population of pulsars, or, more enticingly, a cloud of dark matter, colliding with itself to produce a glut of gamma rays.
    ….
    http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/annihilating-dark-matter-milky-ways-center-07900.html

  80. This month the USIC is due to report to President Biden on the origin of Covid 19. We don’t know if they will have any new information but they might point out that if an outbreak of chocolatey goodness happens in Hershey, Pennsylvania, its probably connected to the chocolate factory there.

    To remind the USIC of all the pieces of evidence pointing at the WIV the US House of Representatives Republicans put a report yesterday. The conclusion is: “This was the greatest coverup of all time and has caused the deaths of more than four million people around the world, and people must be held responsible,” said Rep Michael T. McCaul.

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/aug/2/house-gop-report-on-covid-19-origins-wuhan-lab-lea/

    • jungletrunks

      The below is the direct link to the GOP Foreign Affairs Committee addendum to their 2020 report about the origins of COVID-19. Rep Michael T. McCaul. elaborates about: “Report uncovers additional evidence showing the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and World Health Organization are culpable in the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic”

      https://gop-foreignaffairs.house.gov/press-release/mccaul-releases-addendum-to-origins-of-covid-19-report/

    • Ron and Jungletrunks: Some of the Republican report is interesting and some seems to be nonsense.

      WIV demonstrated the ability to genetically engineer SARS1 by reverse transcribing a cDNA copy of its genome, amplifying segments that could be individually genetically engineered, assembling a full genome by ligation of these fragments, and transcribing infectious RNA capable of producing modified infectious virus particles. Introducing a furin cleavage site would be trivial. However, this work was done with SARS1 which is only 80% homologous to SARS2. In addition to the furin cleavage site, there are 6,000 other base changes needed to convert SARS1 to SARS2. RaTG17 is 97% homologous and was estimated to be 50 years of natural evolution distant from SARS2, so SARS1 would be about 350 years distant. It sure isn’t obvious to me how WIV’s work on SARS1 could have led to SARS2. Now, WIV could have done the same thing with RaTG17 or some of the new SARS2-like viruses that have been discovered. But why would anyone waste their time doing such work before the discovery of SARS2? Any genetic engineering program will start with a virus that is special in some way. The only reason we think these natural SARS2-like viruses are important is that they are close to SAR2. And they aren’t particularly close (50 years of natural evolution). Until someone comes up with an answer to this dilemma, the genetic engineering hypothesis – though possible – doesn’t make any sense to me. The fundamental problem is that we haven’t discovered any virus close enough to SARS2 that serve as a sensible starting place for its development by natural evolution OR genetic engineering.

      Furin cleavage sites are found in several distant branches of the coronavirus family, but not all. Either they are the product of convergent evolution (meaning there is precedent for natural evolution to have introduced it into the beta family) or by recombination between distant branches of the family (meaning there is precedent for betacoronaviruses acquiring a furin cleavage site via recombination from those distant branches,) So the presence of a furin cleave site doesn’t prove genetic engineering was used.

      Finally, it is extremely unlikely that COVID-19 was present at the World Military Games in October 2019 and we didn’t find out about it. Since people live in close quarters in the military and at such competitions, they are ideal places for starting a pandemic. And there would be clusters of participants and those close to them with antibodies. Diarrhea has many causes and isn’t tightly linked to COVID. If they were complaining about loss of sense of smell, that would be more meaningful.

      If search queries for cough and diarrhea in November were indicative of the beginning of a pandemic, those queries should have continued to increase in Dec, Jan and Feb as the pandemic exploded. They didn’t. Likewise the Oct-Nov increase in satellite-observed traffic around hospitals should have continued into December and January (until people were told to stay home). It didn’t.

      Furthermore, the idea that SARS2 was optimized for humans and didn’t evolve much now appears dubious to me (although SARS1 did evolve faster). Today we see that there are variants of SARS2 that are much more transmissible, even though SARS2 was already unusually transmissible when it was first identified. However, back then SARS2 did a lousy job of sickening people. Early in the US pandemic only 1 out of every 10 infected people were sick enough to want to get tested. (Test positivity quickly declined to single digits, showing the problem wasn’t test availability). By the end of summer, that number had dropped to 1 in 3-4. If even FEWER than 1 in 10 infected people got seriously sick in December or November or October of 2019, COVID would have appeared to be a serious of isolated unexplained pneumonias\, not a highly transmissible disease. It would have been detected only when it arrived in a densely populated city sophisticated enough to identify a new viral disease. In that case, Wuhan could have been the site of the first “super-spreader” events, but not the home of Patient Zero.

      • jungletrunks

        Thanks, Frank, but are you really describing the edge of the science frontier for gene editing in China? What do any of us really know? The judgement surrounding the genesis of the virus ultimately falls on the preponderance of evidence, it doesn’t look good for the Chinese. It’s difficult to know where the Chinese are at with gene editing technology; but that’s the nature of iron curtains and a closed society.

        I’ve not read all the CE threads dealing with COVID-19, but from what I’ve read I haven’t seen discussion elaborating on leading edge capabilities of CRISPR technology for gain of function research on SARS. The Foreign Affairs Committee report does reference China’s use of CRISPR technology; I delved into this topic months ago as a technological means to develop COVID-19, or worse.

        The Chinese have been exploiting CRISPR technology for over a decade; they were the first to use CRISPR clinically for lung cancer treatment in 2016.

        CRISPR is being explored today in research to find a way to destroy the COVID-19 virus and its variants:
        https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/07/new-research-suggests-crispr-can-destroy-virus-that-causes-covid-19/

      • jungletrunks

        Some interesting reads. The red flag went up over CRISPR gene editing capabilities in 2016 in a report provided to Obama:

        https://www.seeker.com/could-crispr-gene-editing-produce-a-biological-weapon-2104864761.html

        https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/26/could-rogue-scientist-use-crispr-create-pandemic/

      • Frank, thanks for your thoughtful analysis. We all have a bias and I know yours since you shared your thoughts a year ago that the virus traveled under the radar in southern China until it made its way to densely populated Wuhan, where the lab would identify it. That was a valid theory in the rough a year ago but we have new detail that must be reconciled in order for it to stand.

        1) Zhengli Shi concealed that RaTG13 was associated with six miners with coronavirus symptoms, three of whom died. When confronted with the master’s paper documenting the incident Shi still denied they had SARS-like infection and instead says they died of a fungal infection. Though the fungal aspect could have been the lethal secondary infection, like the Black Fungus deaths in India’s covid peak, the behavior of Shi matched a keen interest in the mine. She admitted in November mounted at least two expeditions per year for at least 3 years to the mine and discovered at least 9 SARS-like viruses, one of which was RaTG13. It was only the masters paper controversy that forced her to acknowledge the extensive sampling and 9 SARS-like un-shared viruses.

        2) The outrage is not the lack of volunteering this information in January 2020, and having to drag it out 10 months later, it is the lack sharing from 2013-2020. In this same time interval the French donated the BSL4 upgrading of the WIV and the US donated $600,000 to support SARS-like virus research them. One of the main questions was surrounding the original SARS epidemic and whether it truly was from civet cat zoonosis or a direct infection from contact with bats, which Ralph Baric suspected in his 2015 podcast announcing the results of the WIV-NIH venture to manufacture a SARS-like chimera. By that time it was discovered by Eco-Health that civet cats do not carry corona virus except in captivity. In other words, the people and the civets could have been infected independently, directly from bats. in 2015 Zhengli Shi had concrete evidence in the Mojiang miner incident that she concealed from Baric and the world, but certainly not from the CCP and the PLA.

        3) From all her expeditions to the mine, Shi only published one paper on it and acknowledged only half the expeditions, was silent on the six miner’s sickness, and revealed only one partial RNA of one SARS-like virus. Shi claims she fully sequenced the virus in 2018 only because of new equipment and exhausted the sample. PCR, the method to amplify the RNA to sequence it seems to preclude the possibility of exhausting the sample, especially an important one. Nobody has yet asked if and when the other 8 SARS-like viruses found in the mineshaft were fully sequenced or if they were also exhausted. This is probably because asking that question makes obvious that RaTG13 was not likely the one of the nine viruses that was the most important. That one was likely chosen for special further research in humanized mice. That one was likely 99% similar to SARS2 less a few tweeks like the furin cleavage site.

        The New York Times reporters are confessing now they were blocked by their bosses from questioning the Chinese and Who on the Covid origins. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/new-york-times-quashed-covid-origins-inquiry/

      • The 2020 finding by Eco-Health Alliance that pangolin cov is only found in captive animals parallels the situation for civet cov. It makes one wonder is China’s illegal trade in exotic animals is large enough to perpetually support species specific viruses that evolve for decades. The only other explanation is that these viruses were evolved in the lab and escaped with poor animal disposal protocols. If this is the case then it’s possible that both pangolin cov and civet cov came from the lab, a thought I have not seen contemplated.

        Eco-Health published a 2020 paper showing that SARS-like (beta) bat coronaviruses are specific to particular bat species, not able to jump species even of other bats in close contact, in contrast to alpha coronaviruses.

        We find that host-switching occurs more frequently and across more distantly related host taxa in alpha- than beta-CoVs, and is more highly constrained by phylogenetic distance for beta-CoVs.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17687-3

        A possibility beyond the imagination of any western public health official is that China may have been experimenting on bat coronaviruses prior to SARS1. What if the 6 miners in Mojiang were not the first case of people getting infected by a SARS-like virus and it occurred prior to 2002? How would have the WIV have reacted? How curious would the PLA be in such a virus?

    • Ron and Jungletrunks: Thanks for reading my comment and your replies.

      Ron wrote: “We all have a bias and I know yours since you shared your thoughts a year ago that the virus traveled under the radar in southern China until it made its way to densely populated Wuhan, where the lab would identify it.”

      Ron, I try to separate my biases from facts. The zoonosis hypothesis says that SARS2 crossed over to humans from bats, possibly via an intermediate species. It is a fact that the Wuhan area was unlikely to be the location where SARS2 first crossed over to humans or a traded wild animal. This casts doubt on the zoonosis hypothesis. It is a fact that SARS2 traveled unnoticed to France in December (where it apparent died out) and the US in January (even though doctors knew exactly what to be alert for). Therefore, before being identified, SARS2 could have crossed over to man or a traded wild animal in Southern China – and then traveled undiscovered to Wuhan unnoticed until after the first super-spreader event occurred. Therefore the zoonosis hypothesis remains a reasonable hypothesis despite the disease being identified in Wuhan. Without evidence from South China (or less likely the Wuhan area), the best reason for preferring the zoonosis hypothesis over the genetic engineering hypothesis is that numerous pandemics have been caused by pathogens crossing over from animal hosts to man. By stating this as a viable hypothesis, I hope to be reporting facts, not personal biases.

      The CDC’s info page on fungal infections says: “Fungal infections in the lungs can be more serious and often cause symptoms that are similar to other illnesses, such as bacterial pneumonia or tuberculosis.” “Harmful fungi can be found in air, dust, and soil. Histoplasma grows especially well in soil that contains bird or BAT DROPPINGS. During activities like digging, gardening, cleaning chicken coops, and VISITING CAVES, you could inhale fungi that may cause infection.” (It would be interesting to know if this information has changed since COVID was discovered.) As best I can tell, the Mojiang miners could have died of a fungal infection or a novel coronavirus. I tried reading the technical information about their illness and gave up without forming an opinion either way.

      https://www.cdc.gov/fungal/features/fungal-infections.html

      I have little factual information to contribute about the possibility of Chinese biological warfare studies going on at WIV, or less nefarious gain-of-function studies that went wrong. Without facts, I can’t evaluate these hypotheses and so choose to say little. It is a fact that the two adjacent arginine codons (GGCGGC?) do not prove that the furin cleavage site was genetically engineered. The furin consensus sequence for the cleavage site is RXXR, not RR. As best I can tell, this issue has been overblown. The other “fact” is that BOTH the zoonosis and genetic engineering hypotheses are missing a “starting” viral genome much closer to SARS2 than any publicly known today. And the genetic engineering hypothesis needs a rational for picking that unknown genome for time consuming investigations.

      The Republican report is the work of attorneys, not scientists. Scientists would be discussing the merits of various hypotheses for the origin of SARS2 and focus in on one or two of the best. Attorneys writing briefs for judges or talking to juries include every possibility that supports their client’s interest, no matter how absurd. If the judge or jury stupidly accepts one of many dubious arguments an attorney might confidently make, but not personally believe, there isn’t a problem. In an adversarial system for determining guilt or innocence, the objective is to win, not personally seek justice. The Republicans agenda was to convict China, not discover the scientific truth.

      In the end, without a solid scientific explanation for the origin of SARS2, I predict that the origin will spawn more conspiracy theories than the Kennedy assassination. It is my understanding that experts today believe in the single bullet theory and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, but hope to someday prove that Oswald conspired with Russians, pro-Castro Cubans or anti-Castro Cubans.

      • “It is a fact that SARS2 traveled unnoticed to France in December (where it apparent died out) and the US in January (even though doctors knew exactly what to be alert for).”

        I would agree that zoonosis would be the Occam’s raiser conclusion without any other evidence. But when evidence is expected to be available and is not supplied that becomes evidence in itself. As Ralph Baric now says, China needs to supply some answers. One must try not to throw away evidence unless it truly spurious. I won’t give the long list again of huge pattern of concealment and misdirection by Chinese authorities but it is real, and the explanation that the Chinese are always like this is unconvincing in the face of a global catastrophe. There is not been any sharing of the 8 other SARS-like viruses found in the Mojiang mine. The one that they shared was only their word on the sequence, not the live virus. If they were telling the truth that they lost this most valuable sample then they should have found it in the cave again. They should have been inviting the world to explore the mine rather than covering it up and have the world only find out about it by Twitter researchers. Don’t you consider any of this as evidence?

        On the JFK assassination your opinion represents the minority.
        https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-one-thing-in-politics-most-americans-believe-in-jfk-conspiracies/

        I would very much like to see a forum where historical cases could be openly debated by experts, the more the merrier. This is where Bayesian analysis would be a great tool.

      • Ron correctly wrote: “China needs to supply some answers.” However, China is only going to supply answers if those in power think those answers will help the Communist Party. If this pandemic occurred because of zoonosis and the wild animal trade – that the Party failed to correct after SARS1 – the Party will suppress that information. And if the they are guilty of worse actions, they will suppress that information. So I don’t expect answers from China. The suspicious events that many point to may not be so damning on closer scrutiny. Blaming the Mojiang miner’s illnesses on a fungal injection seemed dubious to me until I found bats and caves mentioned on the CDC’s webpage on fungal infections. (I should have spent more time on the master’s thesis about them, but if they had SARS2, a pandemic could have started five years earlier with them.)

        The polls about the JFK assassination 538 discuss don’t properly define what type of conspiracy most Americans believe in, nor what evidence if any supports their belief. Were there at least two gunmen firing at JFK in Dealey Plaza? Did a bullet fired by Oswald from the Texas book depository kill JFK? Those are the “big” conspiracy questions. The real experts who have been following the story for decades reportedly think Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza. The wild theories that were popular for several decades (like a hungover Secret Service agent accidentally fired the fatal shot or conspiracies involving LBJ) haven’t withstood the test of time. The “smaller” conspiracy theories suggest Oswald was ordered, paid, encouraged or assisted in killing JFK by Russians or Cuban Communists or anti-Castro Cubans or the Mafia or … Former CIA agent Bob Baer has episode about his investigations on the History Channel. Those conspiracy theories are harder to dismiss. FWIW, the head of the Committee on Assassinations later said that Communism was the main motivating force in Oswald’s life. I have lately become enamored with an old movie “Yuri Noseko: Double Agent” based on a book by the CIA agent who handled this KGB defector. Noseko told the Warren Commission that the KGB wanted nothing to do with the looney Oswald. After some inconsistencies were found in Noseko’s story, he was subjected to more than two years of hostile interrogation in an isolated compound. Anyone in Intelligence Community management personally invested in the Warren Report grew to believe Noseko was a genuine defector, others grew more skeptical. His story is in Wikipedia, but not the “true answer” which I think rests in the Mitrokhin Archive, which was unknown until nearly 2000. Mitrokhin worked with Chris Andrews at Cambridge, who ironically is connected with the Flynn-Lokhova-Page-Halper part of the Trump-Russia story. My take-home lesson from the movie and the intelligence business is that most amateurs see in intelligence reports (about WIV, Trump, Noseko and JFK) what they want to believe and have no idea about the uncertain picture painted by ALL of the available intelligence.

  81. Robert Clark

    Right now we have only one problem that concerns me.
    THE PROBLEM WE MUSTADDRESS IMMEDIATELY IS CLOSE THE BORDER. INSTESD OF SENDING THEM ARROUND THE COUNTRY, SEND THEM HOME.
    That is the only thing CONGRESS should be concerned with at this time.

  82. “If I have seen further,” Isaac Newton wrote in a 1675 letter to fellow scientist Robert Hooke, “it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”

    Where the atmosphere meets space – all energy is electromagnetic. Incoming from the Sun and outgoing from reflected light and emitted heat. At most times incoming and outgoing energy at the top of atmosphere (TOA) are not equal and Earth warms or cools – mostly in the oceans that are by far the largest planetary heat store. Conservation of energy gives the first differential global energy equation.

    The equation can be written as the change in planetary heat and work is equal to energy in less energy out at TOA.

    Δ(heat&work) = Ein – Eout

    Average power flux in is some 341 W/m2 – being incident TSI on one half of the sphere at a time. Energy is the power flux over time.

    Energy out is in emitted IR and reflected SW. Emitted IR is temperature dependent – as the world warms and cools. Reflected SW depends on ice, cloud and vegetation – as well as volcanic sulphur emissions.

    A 1% change in cloud cover is some 3.4 W/m2 change in average SW TOA power flux. It is offset by cloud effect IR changes. High cloud is net warming low cloud cooling.

    https://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif

    The cloud effect is overwhelmingly the dominant change in the global energy budget in the satellite era. Changes reflect changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Before satellites we can only infer that patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation modulated the cloud effect over decades to millennia.

    https://watertechbyrie.com/2019/10/18/thresholds-and-epochs-in-the-grand-climate-system/

  83. Robert Clark

    I have been doing. the pile of numbers all along. below is the last month plus. As I have said previously the numbers are from the 2300 GMT chart for the last 34 days.
    date Positive increase % total tests % Pos/Total
    7/1/2021 16,192 3,740 30 549,109 3
    7/2/2021 16,777 585 3.6 825,994 2
    7/3/2021 7,392 -385 -56 258,317 3
    7/4/2021 3,985 -3,407 -44 161,132 3
    7/5/2021 4,351 366 9 209,004 2
    7/6/2021 8,578 4,227 97 1,117,989 1
    7/7/2021 13,873 5,295 62 608,803 2
    7/8/2021 18,854 4,981 36 764,316 3
    7/9/2021 24,614 5,760 30 840,067 3
    7/10/2021 14,535 -10,079 -41 409,551 4
    7/11/2021 6,642 -7,893 -54 134,862 5
    7/12/2021 11,837 5,195 78 1,116,175 1
    7/13/2021 24,172 12,335 104 1,852,531 1
    7/14/2021 33,611 9,439 39 876,846 4
    7/15/2021 32,899 -712 -2 627,261 5
    7/16/2021 36,127 3,228 8 870,541 4
    7/17/2021 23,269 -12,858 35 229,748 10
    7/18/2021 9,502 -13,767 -59 269,926 5
    7/19/2021 19,016 9,514 10 1,288,148 1
    7/20/2021 41,066 22,050 116 944,512 4
    7/21/2021 49,272 206 0.5 635,115 8
    7/22/2021 54,483 5,211 11 953,340 6
    7/23/2021 63,898 9,315 17 935,173 7
    7/24/2021 36,779 -27,119 -42 489,152 7
    7/25/2021 37,245 466 1 1,667,645 2
    7/26/2021 28,228 -9,017 -24 1,656,060 2
    7/27/2021 51,252 23,024 81 1,773,243 3
    7/28/2021 73,742 22,490 44 1,193,480 6
    7/29/2021 84,721 10,979 15 889,069 9
    7/30/2021 90,400 5,679 7 1,048,052 9
    7/31/2021 51,898 -38,502 -43 922,986 6
    8/1/2021 23,900 -27,998 -54 718,177 3
    8/2/2021 48,773 24,873 104 1,709,787 3
    8/3/2021 96,062 47,289 10 7,135,579 1
    They are again playing with the total tests.
    It does show it is quickly going to numbers positive similar to last September.

  84. The end game of the climate change debate is upon us. It’s either new physics or manmade CO2 emissions:

    ….
    The findings undercut a key argument used by people who do not believe human activity is responsible for the bulk of climate change to explain trends in global warming,
    demonstrating that the planet’s energy imbalance cannot be explained just by Earth’s own natural variations.
    ….
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna1562?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=discover&utm_campaign&utm_content

    • From the link: Q “The research also offers important insights into how greenhouse gas emissions and other consequences of human-caused climate change are upsetting the planet’s equilibrium and driving global warming, sea-level rise and extreme weather events.”

      However the “sea-level rise” bit raises questions. What caused the Melt-Water Pulse at the end of the YD?

      There are other possibilities:
      Linking two sources together. One is from video. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpUkPPtkPVc&t=1343s at 22:22. Chart on left shows two instances of earth temp; a higher and more even temp with latitude in one case, and a lower and more pronounced difference in the second case.

      The other from https://www.terrapub.co.jp/e-library/ecp/pdf/EC0301.PDF Change in insolation with latitude for various values of obliquity. See fig 5 .

      Superimposed (with suitable scaling) the temperature change with latitude for both ages give an indication of earth orientation. Link (posted here to be linked to): https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/1957722401069222/

      Note the change in ‘stable temp’ with latitude. And how low obliquity makes lat 60 and over a permanent freeze.

      • Dr. Nikolov & Dr. Zeller aren’t going to convince the mainstream that atmospheric pressure is the driver of climate change. There is no mechanism proposed which changes the atmosphere pressure imv.

        New physics gravitational forcing is a solution for the Earth’s energy imbalance. It’s the only viable alternative to the manmade CO2 emissions causing global warming theory.

      • They have, incidentally, come up with evidence of other mechanisms.
        ‘The song not the singer’.

      • “They have, incidentally, come up with evidence of other mechanisms.” – mm

        Are you able to spell these out in a clear & concise way??

      • Look at the curves in the last link above. There is the source of both data. The middle link by Ito et al is superimposed on the other graph – two instances, one on today’s temp latitudinal variation, the other on the Eocene. Best match in both cases indicates likely Earth orientation. Today’s is near, the other gives an indication of what it might have been.
        There is growing evidence that the earth’s orientation is not dynamically stable.

      • “There is growing evidence that the earth’s orientation is not dynamically stable.” – mm

        You think that the Earth has an unknown tilt cycle?

      • The cycle is the 980yr Eddy cycle. Tilt change is one of the variables. It is why many things don’t make sense unless that factor is included.

      • “The cycle is the 980yr Eddy cycle. Tilt change is one of the variables. It is why many things don’t make sense unless that factor is included.” – mm

        It just so happens that the Sun’s exotic core tilt hypothesis could induce a tilt of the Earth’s exotic core as well as increasing the tidal bulge.

        Your hands-on work of ancient megalithic calendars which indicate a tilt of the Earth may one day be famous.

      • Quote “—which indicate a tilt of the Earth may one day be famous”. More likely our undoing if it repeats.

    • Oh goody, another newspaper article written by a rabid journalism major. I like how both you and the article butcher concepts, such as conflating the arbitrary global average temperature with climate change.

      A global average temperature is not a measure of climate change, and it provides no utility for anything other than supporting a poorly supported theory. A global average temperature does not describe any point on the planet.

      This would be akin to a global average wind speed, global average rainfall, and the global average color of the planet. It means nothing to everyone.

      Natural variability on the decadal to centennial scale is most likely primarily driven by changes in the oscillations. On the centennial to millennial scale it appears to be most driven by orbital control. That’s according to science, not newspapers or politicians.

      • “On the centennial to millennial scale it appears to be most driven by orbital control. That’s according to science, not newspapers or politicians.” – crypto666

        So where exactly is the energy imbalance coming from due to “orbital control”?

      • Curious George

        Alan – re-read your Milankovitch.

      • “Alan – re-read your Milankovitch” – CG

        No, it’s you and crypto that need to realise that there is no official tilt or wobble on the “centennial to millennial scale” to cause an ” increase in insolation of Northern latitudes.”

      • Alan Lowey said: “No, it’s you and crypto that need to realise that there is no official tilt or wobble on the “centennial to millennial scale” to cause an ” increase in insolation of Northern latitudes.”

        Alan is a science denier. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4805

    • David Appell

      Alan Lowey wrote: The end game of the climate change debate is upon us. It’s either new physics or manmade CO2 emissions:

      There is no “new physics.” Dream on. Join reality.

  85. Increased insolation of northern latitudes, obviously.

    BTW, “energy imbalance” is another meaningless concept. There is no “balance” and never has been.

    • Radiation goes in, radiation goes out, where is the balance? And who is it exactly that determined the “energy balance” of the planet? And what is the metric and how is it measured?

      Again, a tool makes a tool that has no relevancy outside of a poorly supported theory.

      • Robert Clark

        When the oceans are at their lowest the earth is retaining more heat from the sun than it looses to the black sky. At that point it begins making the ice sheet. The access energy is stored in the oceans. The oceans rise.
        When the oceans reach their peak the earth begins loosing more heat than it retains and the oceans begin to drop. The Ice sheets begin to break off and melt.
        At one point, where we are now, the heat lost to the black sky equals the heat needed to melt the floating ice. Eventually the ice sheet is gone, the ocean drops rapidly, in millennia terms, and the next ice age will begin.
        We will remain here for about the next 120,000 years.

      • crypto666 | August 4, 2021 at 12:48 pm says “Radiation goes in, radiation goes out,–“. That is fundamental (as in most thermodynamic systems). The crux of the matter though, is the energy ‘residence time’,; time/amount between absorption and rejection. Since it is all thermal (there is no mechanical work as input or output) the evidence is temperature change.

        This makes an interesting read: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/167729/1/PastClimatesFinal.pdf

        However, in an above post this link (re-posted here: https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/1957722401069222/ ) the source of that material have inadvertently provided a good comparison between two very different ‘thermodynamic’ states of the same object – the earth- . Those states survived for millennia.
        On the other hand the ‘Melt-water pulse’ at the end of the YD, in less than 6kyrs, has to result from some abrupt change/increase to the thermal residence time.
        The major question is: what was the mechanism that caused the change?

      • David Appell

        Robert Clark When the oceans are at their lowest the earth is retaining more heat from the sun than it looses to the black sky.

        …loses….

        I can’t believe how many people get this wrong.

        What’s going on?

      • David Appell

        crypto666 wrote: Radiation goes in, radiation goes out, where is the balance? And who is it exactly that determined the “energy balance” of the planet? And what is the metric and how is it measured?

        Several papers have been published about exactly this.

        Look them up. Start with “Greg Johnson.”

        Imbalance is about 0.7 W/m2 inward.

        PS: Judith, I can’t subscribe to comments for this post.

  86. Maybe some of my much beloved “skeptics” friends who are “vaccine-skeptical” and/or Ivermectin-credulous will find this pod intersting since it comes from one of the IDW luminaries:

    https://open.spotify.com/episode/4vUNrRZ7K24dZWykNsQLGt?si=71UNifwuQGeTpnAPCEBjEQ&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1

  87. ‘Because EEI is such a fundamental property of the climate system, the implications of an increasing EEI trend are far reaching. A positive EEI is manifested as “symptoms” such as global temperature rise, increased ocean warming, sea level rise, and intensification of the hydrological cycle (von Schuckmann et al., 2016). We can therefore expect even greater changes in climate in the coming decades if internal variability associated with the PDO remains the same. If the PDO were to reverse in the future, that reversal would likely act to decrease the rate of heat uptake.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/a0d8bf72-7142-4d60-8ece-3d578f515bcb/grl62546-fig-0001-m.png

    From the study by Norman Loeb et al (2021) that was the subject of ignorant commentary just above.

  88. Mike Edwards

    Katherine Flegal’s account of the vile treatment of her work and of her personally by other senior “scientists” is illuminating – and it was brave of her to be so public about it. How people react when their pet theories are undermined by clear analysis of good data is very revealing.

    I think that there are sadly similar stories to tell in relation to climate science and in particular in relation to our esteemed host here, Prof. Curry. Name calling and “cancel culture” will never advance science and our understanding of the universe.

    • Thx for the interesting tale:
      ….
      I began working with a CDC colleague and two expert statisticians from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) on a method to estimate the number of deaths associated with overweight and obesity.
      ..
      She learned first-hand the antagonism that could be provoked by inconvenient scientific findings.
      ….
      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033062021000670

      Now we’ve become a bit more aware of over-consumption in general, I think the anglosphere should be promoting a yoga-style existence. I’ve just taken it up and my shopping & alcohol bill has drastically reduced. I’m on my way to a fat-free waistline at age 52. I highly recommend taking a 30 day challenge.

    • The Great Harvard biologist E O Wilson once said “I must always remember I might be wrong”.

  89. 1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
    Tmean.earth

    So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
    Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

    β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
    N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
    cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant

    Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
    Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K

    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
    These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.

    Conclusions:
    The planet mean surface temperature equation
    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

    produces remarkable results.
    The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.

    Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
    Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
    Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
    Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
    Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K

    The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
    There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
    The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.

    Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
    Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Planetary surface does not emit average values, surface emits at the every infinitesimal spot and at every infinitesimal moment differently.

      Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.

      In the GHE theory they compare the 255K with the Earth’s actual average (mean) surface temperature Tmean = 288K.

      It is a huge mistake, because they treat the 288K as Earth’s uniform surface temperature, which is not.

      Earth does not emit at the average 288K…

      https:/www.cristos-vournas.com

      • There is a New theory related to the above…

        There is a method I use, which is the comparison method.

        In case of the planets surface temperatures it is the “Planets Temperatures Comparison Method”.

        The Method lead to discovery of the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.

        It states that planet mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.

        And I have demonstrated it in my site, by doing the on various planets the satellite measured mean surface temperatures comparisons, which proved the rightness of the Phenomenon statement.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • David Appell

        CV wrote: Also, the blackbody effective temperature 255K is by definition a uniform surface temperature.

        It’s the average surface temperature, yes, uniform, an approximation.

        So trivial it’s not worth discussing further.

      • David Appell

        CV wrote: Earth does not emit at the average 288K…

        Right, seen from space the Earth emits at its brightness temperature, 255 K.

        Everyone and their mother knows this, Christos.

      • Earth doesn’t have uniform surface temperature…

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  90. “ As the United States staggers through another year of devastating wildfires, drought, storms and other calamities, the infrastructure bill before Congress would pour major resources into a response. The measure agreed to over the weekend includes billions of dollars to better prepare the country for the effects of global warming, in what could be the largest investment in climate resilience in American history.”

    “ It’s not just infrastructure that would be relocated. The bill would provide $216 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs for climate resilience and adaptation for tribal nations, which have been disproportionately hurt by climate change. More than half of that money, $130 million, would go toward “community relocation” — moving groups of Indigenous Americans away from vulnerable areas.”

    Good luck determining “disproportionately hurt”.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/02/us/climate-infrastructure-bill.html

    • David Appell

      Good luck determining “disproportionately hurt”.

      Having a continent taken away from you, and ~100 million of your ancestors slaughtered, seems like the very definition of “disproportionately” itself.

      No?

  91. Mike Edwards

    The research article “Outsize Influence of Central American Orography on Global Climate” linked above is a timely reminder of how difficult it is to create climate models that are an accurate representation of the Earth system.

    It is eye opening to see just how far current models are from a proper representation of the important ENSO climate pattern. Just how many more such patterns are also misrepresented, especially those on longer timescales from 10s to 100s of years?

    Each parameterization in the models is fraught with potential problems – in this case, the handling of orography and how it can affect wind patterns over wide areas.

    The climate system is wickedly complex, with interacting chaotic elements that are a formidable challenge to model well, especially when models have to rely on sub-grid-scale parameterizations for important processes.

  92. Robert Clark

    Dr. Ben Carson just made the statement! of the year!
    “The chances of dyeing from the DELTA VARIENT is about the same as dyeing from a bee sting.”
    It is time to get back to normal life.

    • Interesting US stats.
      Chance of dying from:
      Hornet, wasp, and bee stings; 1 in 59,507
      Gun assault; 1 in 289
      Suicide; 1 in 88
      COVID-19; no official US estimate yet.

      On a brighter note is the US about to experience a rare population decline!?
      The Wall St. Journal reported last week that the US population grew by just 0.35% in the year that ended on July 1, 2021. If you subtract all those illegal immigrants and deport the tens of millions of the undocumented we could be negative by now.

    • How does a bee sting “dye”? Unusually it just hurts, maybe it gets a little red.

      Carson’s numbers are off by a factor of about 10,000 but Republicans never have been too good with numbers.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      BF,
      This reporting by WSJ is simply wrong.
      The purpose of the Australian lockdowns was initially to flatten the curve to get hospitals organised. After that, the main purpose was to minimise infections over the time needed to vaccinate as many people as possible.
      As a Melbourne resident in the high risk group, I keep up with the news. Nowhere have I seen an official statement that the lockdowns are to rid the country of the virus. There might he a statement I have missed, but it is not part of the daily national conversation. Geoff S

      • It’s not reporting. It’s an editorial, co-authored by a medical researcher COVID activist right winger.

        As you note, there is zero evidence presented for any of their claims, and no discussion of obviously related factors such as the miniscule COVID morbidity and COVID mortality in New Zealand and Australia – absurdly, as if they don’t even matter or aren’t inextricably related factors in the discussion of COVID policy.

        Also missing from their silly op-ed is the overwhelming popularity for the public health policies in those countries. The co-authors apparently thinkthey they need to teach citizens down under what how they should feel about their policies. Absurd.

      • The question is whether the costs of extreme police state policies are justified given the very high cost. Battacharia argues it is not. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion. The science says that we will never get to zero Covid and will only exit the crisis via herd immunity. Given the fact that vaccines are only partially effective and grow less so with variants, we are going to be in a situation similar to that with influenza.

        As for Joshie’s characterization of them as activists, that’s nonsense. They are serious scientists with good credentials who have scientific opinions. Joshie has no credentials to be taken seriously on this issue. He has no idea whether the costs of tyrannical policies are a net positive or a net negative. Certainly, they are not a long term possibility unless one is talking China or North Korea. Fantasies of lefties of leveraging this crisis into a permanent suspension of the Constitution and massive transfer payments is not sustainable and must fail. The Weimar Republic proved that.

        BTW, We went to the zoo today and most people are just refusing to comply with rules such as masks for unvaccinated people. Social distancing is no longer a thing. Compliance with unreasonable and ineffective mitigation’s is also over at least in the US. Even Biden is powerless to force local police to enforce his silly ideas about masks.

  93. 62 people in the U.S. on average die each year from bee stings. I think Dr. Carson should re-think his statement of the year.

  94. Is it a coincidence that just as the gravitational forcing hypothesis predicts, all of the planets with an atmosphere are much hotter than expected?

    (Earth, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune & Uranus)

    https://www.independent.co.uk/space/jupiter-energy-crisis-nasa-jaxa-aurora-b1897375.html?amp

    • Alan: The gravitational forcing hypothesis is pseudo-science. Review you basic physics. Temperature is proportional to the internal energy an object possesses and heat capacity is the factor that converts temperature into energy. Force is not a form of energy. Force times distance moved is energy. For gases, (force per unit area) times (distance times area) is energy. Work = P*dV.

      If pressure without compression could create heat, the ground under the foundation of heavy buildings would be warmer than the ground nearby. The pressure created by the weight of a heavy building is enormously greater than atmospheric pressure.

      • Frank too – there’s forever growing evidence that “basic physics” is wrong.

      • Alan: It’s too bad you don’t understand how science actually works. Hypotheses become established theories only after careful testing shows that the predictions of theory agree with observations under as wide a range of conditions as possible. Yes, Newtonian mechanics was eventually displaced by a new theory, general relativity, when it was shown that relativity made better predictions under some extreme conditions than Newton’s Laws did. However, under the “normal” non-extreme conditions under which Newton’s Laws were repeatedly tested, those Laws still make great predictions about what we observe. Under non-extreme conditions, Newton’s Laws and relativity make the same predictions – they must because Newton’s Laws were experimentally validated. So, even though we now know Newton’s Laws are “wrong” in the sense that relativity offers a better EXPLANATION for what we observe, the predictions of Newton’s Laws remain extremely useful under the conditions for which they was found valid.

        Likewise, we know understand the temperature of a gas to to be proportional to mean kinetic energy of gas molecules, and pressure to be caused by elastic collisions of molecules with the walls of a container, and entropy to be molecular disorder. However, the Basic Laws of Thermodynamics – created from observations before we knew all of these things – are still correct today.

        Quantum mechanics may some day be replaced by a more satisfying deterministic theory, but the interactions of GHGs and radiation have been carefully studied in the laboratory. The radiative forcing from rising GHGs predicted by laboratory experiments and QM is not going to disappear even if quantum mechanics does. Both QM and a new theory need to make the same predictions about things we have carefully studied in the lab.

        The predictions of basic physics under familiar circumstances will always be correct, because that basic physics has been shown to be correct in numerous experiments.

        The ground under heavy building will be no warmer than the ground nearby UNLESS the building is pressing the soil under that building. And after moment stops, that warmth will diffuse away.

      • “The predictions of basic physics under familiar circumstances will always be correct, because that basic physics has been shown to be correct in numerous experiments.” – Franktoo

        You’re missing out the philosophy of science. Only 5% of the universe can be accounted for under known physics. Gravity as only a weak force is incompatible with the other known forces, which are all of a comparable strength. Imagining exotic cores that self-interact via a strong force but only very weakly with surface matter resolves the issue.

        An even stronger interaction on the plane of the planets resolves the inconsistencies & anomalies with Milankovitch insolation theory of the glacial cycle.

        A tilting exotic core of the Sun resolves the millennial climate cycle.

        It’s worth consideration by the science community but unfortunately the elite are all entrenched in the same thought processes that you adhere so vehemently to.

      • Alan Lowey criticized: “the elite are all entrenched in the same thought processes that you adhere so vehemently.” That criticism may be correct: There are things we don’t understand about the large scale structure of the universe (dark matter, dark energy) and there is no explanation for various parameters in the standard model of the fundamental particles that make up matter. This doesn’t mean that the answers to these mysteries will have any detectable impact on the physics of our climate – general relativity did not. When one postulates the presence of exotic heavy particles in the center of planets or the sun, one has so many degrees of freedom that one can “explain” almost any phenomena or putative phenomena you want. As Feynman wrote in Cargo Cult Science:

        “If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.”

        I know zero about some of the exotic ideas you discussed, so it is up to you to decide whether they are “cargo cult science” of “real science” that “makes something else come out right” in addition to the phenomena they are trying to explain. String theory has been derided as philosophy because it hasn’t made any testable predictions. Several final points:

        Lorenz showed that chaos can produce changes that look regular and like the result of causation for an indefinite period of time. Ocean and air currents are inherently chaotic.

        Pressure can’t create heat – force has the wrong dimension (kg-m/s2) to be converted to heat/energy (kg-m2/s2) without some sort of distance (movement) being involved. The same is true for pressure (force per unit area) and volume change.

        The strong, weak and electromagnetic forces are equally strong only at some grand unification temperature shortly after the big bang. From my perspective, there is no reason to presume that gravity, a pseudo force created by matter warping space-time, will ever be unified with the other three forces, which are produced by force carrying particles. (Physicists who solve such problems are invariably half my age.)

      • “String theory has been derided as philosophy because it hasn’t made any testable predictions.” – Franktoo

        The gravitational forcing hypothesis can be tested by using satellites to directly measure the change in solid body earth-tides. These are currently around 1m at the equator.

        A relatively simple test that could save the world economy from the unnecessary cost & pain of trying to achieve net-zero.

      • David Appell

        Alan Lowey wrote: The gravitational forcing hypothesis

        Alan, state this hypothesis, in mathematical form…..

      • David Appell

        Alan Lowey wrote: Frank too – there’s forever growing evidence that “basic physics” is wrong.

        Alan — explain.

        Of course, you can’t.

      • “Alan — explain. Of course, you can’t.” – David

        You don’t listen to the experts who I constantly post detailing the “Cosmological chasm” between theory and what is being observed.

      • David Appell

        Alan, you post news articles from clickbait sites that are basically press releases. Never any hard, real science.

      • David – you can’t get any more “hard real science” than current physics can only account for 5% of the universe. The rest is “missing” from standard theory.

        Fact.

      • “Alan, state this hypothesis, in mathematical form…..” – David

        Open your mind David. There’s more than one way to model reality. The gravitational forcing hypothesis starts with a dynamical picture in one’s mind, followed by simulation modelling. There’ll still be work for mathematicians once the framework has been established.

        The gravitational forcing hypothesis makes testable predictions:

        1. The geothermal flux is increasing.
        2. Solid body earth-tides due to the Sun are increasing.

  95. After reading one of Chief’s links above I looked up a couple of IPCC documents. The most recent one I read was Second Order draft 11/2018 and it had this in 4.2.2.2.

    Since AR5, several studies
    using two independent approaches based on tide gauge records (Watson et al., 2015) and the sea level budget
    closure (Chen et al., 2017; Dieng et al., 2017) identified a drift of 1.5 (0.4–3.4) mm yr–1 in TOPEX A over
    the period January 1993 to December 1998. Accounting for this drift leads to a revised rate of the global
    MSL from satellite altimetry of 3.0 mm yr–1 (2.4–3.6) over the period 1993–2015 instead of 3.3 mm yr–1
    (2.7–3.9) as stated in the AR5.

    I thought the 3.0 mm yr was a find but later in the same chapter a higher number was used.

    At the bottom of each page it says “Do not cite, quote or distribute.” So, since the Army I’ve always followed orders, the above from 4.2.2.2 is an unquote not a quote and since this was on Google it has already been distributed.

    Reading said chapter in this document reminds me of looking at a Dali painting, you see what you want to see. There is something for everyone. It also reminds me that they could eliminate 99% of the verbiage without adversely affecting the intent to inform. I was debating whether the writing style could be best described by the word turgid or turbid. Both seem spot on.

  96. David Wojick

    Atlantic ocean circulation shutdown forecast yet again:
    https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/566602-new-report-warns-of-climate-change-threat-to-system-driving

    “Weakest in 1000 years.” Don’t ask how they know that. They don’t.

    • It’s yet another indication that it’s the tidal forces which drive the ocean currents which are changing.

    • At least this article gives us a little breathing room.

      “Under scenarios of continued high greenhouse gas concentrations, a number of models project an effective AMOC shutdown by 2300.”

      I’ll leave a note to my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren to check out whether this prediction comes true.

      They don’t mention that IPCC5 finds no trend. Let’s see what IPCC6 says.

      A review of several articles about this study found no mention about 2300 or the IPCC5 statement or that this study included data beginning in 1870 or that another study found the change in circulation could have begun as early as 1750. When a study says something could have begun that early, we all know what it signifies.

  97. “Carbon Dioxide has never been shown to drive climate change.” – Ian Plimer

    • That is true, there is no evidence that CO2 drives climate change. Most often it can be showed that climate change is completely decoupled from climate change, or that it lags.

      • Should have been; “co2 is decoupled from changes in climate…”

      • David Appell

        crypto666 wrote: That is true, there is no evidence that CO2 drives climate change.

        What you mean is, “My knowledge of climate science is so meager I have never learned that CO2 drives climate change.”

    • David Appell

      Alan Lowey wrote: “Carbon Dioxide has never been shown to drive climate change.” – Ian Plimer

      Who is Ian Plimer — never heard of him — and why should we care what he says about atmospheric carbon dioxide?

      • “Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.”

        He’s an expert on climate change and is the author of many books on the subject.

        Professor John Christy also explained that CO2 has never been shown to drive climate change.

      • David Appell

        Alan Lowey wrote: Professor John Christy also explained that CO2 has never been shown to drive climate change.

        I highly doubt it. Prove it.

      • David – you don’t retain any information that goes against your set-in-stone worldview. I’ve previously posted the youtube clip of Professor John Christy explaining the history of laboratory testing of CO2 as a “greenhouse gas” but don’t feel my time would be well spent doing the same again.

        You don’t listen.

    • Be my guest and pull this experiment apart, as being unreliable/uncertain etc etc …….
      Ah, the classic get-out of anthro-warming naysayers.

      Apart, of course from “it’s a fraud” … beyond which it is impossible to reason.

      Well first off – many would never accept one if there was.
      Just as they don’t accept current scientific evidence, it’s either “adjusted”, or not measurable due uncertainties … or we get the sky-dragon slayers.

      Second there cant be, as putting a second Earth in a lab is a tad unfeasible.

      Nothing we scientifically prove will EVER be good enough for those types.
      Even though we can never be 100% scientifically certain of anything.
      Not even gravity.
      And to use it as an excuse to do bu**er all is a repudiation of mankind’s advancement.

      All we can go on is the scientific evidence … which the vast majority of experts without motivational reasoning accept.

      That certain denizens here will come up with any ABCD reason as an explanation is a given.
      And of course, whatever – it just magically coincides with the rise in a GHG of ~ 50%, with know radiative forcing (cue, no we don’t – it’s only 0.04% etc)

      https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

      BTW: I see that Plimmer thinks volcanoes emit more CO2 than mankind’s burning of fossil fuel.
      Apart from isotopic ratio’s debunking that ……

      https://media.wired.com/photos/59372d07714b881cb296f23a/master/w_2240,c_limit/RubinoCO2Isotopes.jpg

      – this is what the USGS says in response to Plimmer’s ….

      “Over the past 250 years, humans have added just one part of CO2 in 10,000 to the atmosphere. One volcanic cough can do this in a day.”

      “The US Geological Survey (USGS) states: “Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes.”

      “Plimer responded by saying that this does not account for undersea eruptions. However, when Randerson checked this point with USGS volcanologist Dr Terrence Gerlach, he received this reply:

      “I can confirm to you that the “130 times” figure on the USGS website is an estimate that includes all volcanoes – submarine as well as subaerial … Geoscientists have two methods for estimating the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges. There were estimates for the CO2 output of the mid-oceanic ridges before there were estimates for the global output of subaerial volcanoes.”

      Yes, yes I see where Plimmer’s coming from.

  98. 4:30 … “It’s highly unlikely” that methane emissions from Martian rocks started just 28 years ago. On the contrary, this timescale fits with the increase in warming of the UK of 0.9°C, and is a sign of gravitational forcing imv:

    https://youtu.be/un_JqC9nvRk

    I predict the mystery will deepen with the methane eventually being detected not only by the rover but also by the orbiter.

  99. The only random assignment trial of masks (done in Denmark, see link below) has been widely reported to have shown no statistically meaningful reduction of infection among mask wearers. One intervention group of 2,400 wore surgical masks with 98% filter efficiency (which likely filter about 80% of the air breathed). Half wore masks “as recommended”, half “predominantly as recommended” and 7% “not as recommended” (good compliance, IMO). The control group did not. After a month, roughly equal number of both groups tested positive for antibodies to SARS: 31 vs 37 for IgM, 33 vs 32 for IgG. However, 5 in the control group got sick enough to go or be sent for PCR testing and tested positive, while ZERO in the mask group tested positive. At the end of the month, everyone self-swabbed and was tested by PCR with 5 positives in the mask group and 10 positives in the control group. Since the study had pre-defined the primary outcome as any evidence of an infection, the headline result was an insignificant reduction in infection from 2.1% of the control group to 1.8% of the mask group (odds ratio 0.82, 0.54-1.23, 95% CI).

    From a pandemic and personal perspective, however, this is an extremely promising result. Those who get sick enough to go in for a PCR test and test positive are the ones most likely to transmit the virus. The larger number who gained immunity from asymptomatic or mild infection are individually much less important to transmission. At the end of the month, half as many people tested positive in the mask group, so half as many were potential capable of infecting others. Given that the reproduction rate during most of the US pandemic has been 1.3 to 0.7 new infections per current infection, a 50% reduction in the infectious population would be huge. Unfortunately, with such small numbers (5 and 10), the CI for the odds ratio was 0.18 to 1.53. Despite following almost 5,000 people for a month, this result is statistically insignificant. (This is why statistically significant clinical trials of vaccines needed 20,000 in each group and were completed in about a month when confirmed cases/day were nearly an order of magnitude higher and there were rough 200 positives detected.)

    From a personal perspective, no one in the mask group was sick enough from COVID to go in for testing and receive a positive PCR test. So none of them were in danger of needing hospitalization or were in danger of dying. Unfortunately, one can’t properly calculate an odds ratio when one group has zero infections.

    So when someone cites that study and says that masks “didn’t work” in the only random assignment trial performed during this pandemic, ask them if they have actually read the paper and how they define “work”.

    https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817

    • Masks may have helped me avoid infection. My father (age 97) tested positive for COVID (delta) last week. He is currently in the Dallas VA hospital and the whole campus is in quarantine now. Just before the the lockdown and his positive test results were known I visited him in person for 30 min. in a indoor setting. He was showing some symptoms of respiratory distress but since he had just had a lung biopsy that could be expected. Even though I have had two shots of a mRNA vaccine I decided that being in a hospital environment I chose to wear 2 masks (KN95 and a blue surgical). This morning my PCR tests came back negative. I know this is just a personal antidote but is sure seems masks+vaccine is pretty effective.

    • The Danmask study was inconclusive at best. It was basically underpowered to determine anything particularly useful, as it was only designed to determine if there was a 50% benefit TO THE WEARER from mask usage, based on an assumed background infection rate, and without control for adherence. . It’s information – but it didn’t even test did the effect that is primarily advocated for in the use of masks – relative benefit in source control w/r/t transmission.

      Again, the study is useful but it’s hardly a study that should be used as conclusive in anything regarding the efficacy of masks in reducing COVID transmission.

    • This includes a good overview on transmission:

      https://tinyurl.com/FAQ-aerosols

      • Would be great resource … if I knew what experts compiled it … and if they had included references to the primary literature … and if some of their vague answers didn’t send you to 50 page government documents that might have an answer somewhere.

        I had family member who flew last fall and quarantined in our plush basement for two week while we socialized outside. Unfortunately, the same HVAC system that serves the basement serves the first floor. The recommendation:

        “Our current recommendation is to use a filter with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) of 13, but a MERV 14 (or better) filter Is preferred. Of course, the ultimate choice needs to take the capabilities of the HVAC systems into consideration. Generally, increasing filter efficiency leads to increased pressure drop which can lead to reduced air flow through the HVAC system, more energy use for the fan to compensate for the increased resistance, or both. If a MERV 13 filter cannot be accommodated in the system, then use the highest MERV rating you can.”

        None of the geniuses who come to service our HVAC can tell me what the maximum MERV filter our system can handle is or how I can find out. They don’t come with an assortment of filters to test, and the flow through filters slows down as they get dirty.

  100. Unusual early June heatwave in Greece that has continued and dried out the vegetation is causing severe wildfires, burning homes and threatening to get worse with high winds forecast:

  101. Outrageously the natural source of methane release from rocks and the ocean seabed has been omitted from this MSM scare story:

    • ‘Methane is also emitted from a number of natural sources. Natural wetlands are the largest source, emitting CH4 from bacteria that decompose organic materials in the absence of oxygen. Smaller sources include termites, oceans, sediments, volcanoes, and wildfires.’ https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases

      But the bottom line is that 50-65% of methane emissions are anthropogenic. There are practical responses.

      e.g. https://www.afr.com/companies/agriculture/the-innovators-behind-a-start-up-reinventing-cattle-feed-are-farmers-20210519-p57t7e

    • It’s warming seabeds around the world that are the most likely source of increasing methane atmospheric concentrations imv:


      Huge amounts of methane are stored around the world in the sea floor in the form of solid methane hydrates.
      ….
      https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/

    • ‘The inclusion of hydrate dissociation as a possible source of atmospheric CH4 in the IPCC reports is a rightful acknowledgement of the fact that the amount of CH4 sequestered in this reservoir dwarfs that in some other parts of the Earth system. On the other hand, the IPCC reports cite no direct sources that constrain emissions of CH4 to the atmosphere as a result of gas hydrate dissociation. Indeed, while gas hydrate deposits are likely dissociating and releasing CH4 to sedimentary sections and the ocean on contemporary Earth, there remains no evidence that this hydrate-derived CH4 reaches the atmosphere or that the amounts that could potentially reach the atmosphere are significant enough to affect the overall CH4 budget. In the following sections, we discuss some of the difficulties in discerning methane released from gas hydrates from other populations of methane in the ocean and atmosphere and also underscore the powerful role of sinks in mitigating the transfer to the atmosphere of methane released by dissociating gas hydrates.’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016RG000534

    • ….
      Large quantities of methane hydrate are stored not only in the sea floor, but also on land, especially in the perpetually frozen permafrost ground of the Russian tundra, such as here in the Russian republic of Komi. Scientists are concerned that the permafrost soils could melt due to global warming and thus release the methane hydrates.
      ..
      In the field of methane emission research today, the Arctic is one of the most important regions worldwide. It is believed that methane occurs there both in the form of gas hydrate in the sea and as free gas trapped in the deep-frozen permafrost. Methane deposits in permafrost and hydrates are considered to be very sensitive in the expansive shallow-shelf regions, because with the relatively low pressures it would only take a small temperature change to release large amounts of methane. In addition, new methane is continuously being produced because the Arctic regions are rich in organic material that is decomposed by microbes in the sediment. The activity of these microbes and thus the biological release rates of methane are also stimulated by increases in temperature. Hence methane emissions in the Arctic have multiple sources. International scientific consortia are now being established involving researchers from various disciplines – chemists, biologists, geologists, geophysicists, meteorologists – which are intensively addressing this problem. No one can yet say with certainty how the methane release in the Arctic will develop with global warming, either in the ocean or on the land. This research is still in its in­fancy.
      ….
      https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-1/ocean-chemistry/climate-change-and-methane-hydrates/

    • The quantitative estimate from the linked study – as opposed the qualitative world
      oceans narrative – says that methane hydrates in permafrost are some 1% of the total. Very little of which reaches the atmosphere.

    • This is an old story about an unlikely global warming catastrophe. Alan is all over the place with science pap.

    • The bottom line is that it may be relatively easy to measure an increase in atmospheric methane concentration but it’s still guesswork as to where it’s coming from.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        AL,
        Ang guesswork whether it represents any danger to man or beast.
        Yet another example of comic-book standard masquerading as science.
        Geoff S

      • I totally agree Geoff but it looks like methane increase is going to be making the headlines for the indefinite future, with it’s ‘scary’ implications. Now CO2 emissions have dropped due to the pandemic lockdowns, methane is the new ‘fear factor’ which has to be applied to human activity.

        I can only hope that the Mars orbiter makes a first detection of methane, confirming the rover’s measurements of an increase in emissions which change with orientation to the Sun. This would be a shock revelation that emissions have only just started in the last 20 years or so, being comparable to emissions here on Earth.

        Otherwise it’s fingers crossed for a successful launch and deployment of the James Webb Space Telescope late in the year.

    • There are sources that have nothing to do with dissociation of methane hydrate at the margin of stability.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Atmospheric_Concentrations_of_Methane_Over_Time.png

    • David Appell

      Phil: No. (This science is well over 120 years old. You’re not smarter than that.)

      • David how is that Hockey Schtick coming? You disappeared for a long time after I destroyed your fantasy. You were probably embarrassed to realize how you were scammed.

      • David Appell

        I left because you had nothing worth discussing. Still don’t.

    • David Appell

      Phil. 0.2 W/m2 is not “almost in the same order of magnitude” as 1.6 W/m2. In fact, it’s one order of magnitude less.

  102. Phil … Thanks for the piece. I have to ask, was there a typo? Wouldn’t 0.05 W/m2 times three be 0.15 W/m2, not 1.5 W/m2? Of course I can barely balance a checkbook, so … let me know.

    • Bill
      You’re right, that’s an order of magnitude error.
      Thanks – I’ve corrected it now in the post.
      (It was late at night.)

  103. Robert Clark

    date Positive increase % total tests % Pos/Total
    8/1/2021 23,900 -27,998 -54 718,177 3
    8/2/2021 48,773 24,873 104 1,709,787 3
    8/3/2021 96,062 47,289 10 7,135,579 1
    8/4/2021 117,718 21,656 22 1,475,820 8
    8/5/2021 113,502 -4,216 -4 1,195,446 10
    8/6/2021 121,695 8,193 7 1,346,327 9
    The total positive % to total tests at the beginning of July was running between 1 and 3. Now it is 8 to 9. I do not see any way they can be using the 6 day rule since they have no way of knowing where those not positive in contact with the positive are no where to be found 6 days later.
    Remember they are loading up the country with unvaccinated.
    I SAY OVER 25% BY THE END OF THE MONTH.

  104. Robert Clark

    I believe our only hope now is, after the 3 resignations, President Leahy and his new Chief of Staff, Donald Trump, clean up the border. Then they can straighten out Congress.

  105. Robert Clark

    date Positive increase % total tests % Pos/Total
    8/1/2021 23,900 -27,998 -54 718,177 3
    8/2/2021 48,773 24,873 104 1,709,787 3
    8/3/2021 96,062 47,289 10 7,135,579 1
    8/4/2021 117,718 21,656 22 1,475,820 8
    8/5/2021 113,502 -4,216 -4 1,195,446 10
    8/6/2021 121,695 8,193 7 1,346,327 9
    8/7/2021 67,627 -54,068 -44 952,538 7
    I believe we have completely lost control of the virus.
    To the AMERICAN PEOPLE I believe we have only one way to regain control. We must get the members of Congress to close the border now. You believed in me and you beat it. I am asking you to send a copy of the below to each of your senators and your member of the House of Representatives.

    Because of the border crossers we have lost control of the virus.
    I am asking you to stop working on the Infrastructure Bill and work on closing the border. You can go back to the Bill when the border is under control.

    Only once to each.
    Thank-you
    Robert D. Clark

    • Robert Clark

      Just listened to one of my Senators, Ricki Scott, on Fox News and no mention of putting COVED-19 ahead of the infrastructure bill.
      320 individuals died of COVID-19 yesterday. I failed in June to see the 6-day rule and many died. I am now 0-for-2.

  106. Rowan Dean summarises the unusual cold weather around the world including snow storms in Brazil:

  107. “ The Antarctic continent is covered by an ice sheet, which is a potential main driver of global sea-level changes. Heat flux of the bedrock significantly affects the melting of the ice sheet bottom, which may influence the ice sheet mass balance. Geothermal heat flux (GHF) is an important boundary condition of ice sheet dynamical models. For the areas below freezing point, a higher heat flux causes the ice bottom to heat up, reducing its viscosity and increasing its lubrication, and significantly accelerating the ice sheet flow [1]. Heat flux can also simulate past basic melting rates and help to explore the climate record of old ice cores [2]. Studies showed that East Antarctica has a smaller heat flux than the West Antarctica. This may be one of the reasons why the West Antarctic ice sheet is changing more rapidly [3].”

    This is all common sense, which might be one reason IPCC in the past has been silent on possible effects of geothermal activity on the Ice Sheets. Published July 2021.

    https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/14/2760/htm

    • Very interesting- thx:

      “Our calculation results showed that the high geothermal heat flux is better correlated with the melting of the bottom ice and the distribution of water in this area.”

      I’ve pointed out in the past that there’s good evidence for a significant increase in geothermal heating at the bottom of Lake Tanganiyka, along the African rift valley.

      I even emailed an IPCC Professor who admitted it was “interesting” but eventually gave the usual excuses of the warming being too insignificant relative to solar surface heating.

      The gravitational forcing hypothesis predicts an increase in the geothermal heat flux.

      • See ‘The Physics Of Warming Of Lake Tanganiyka’ by Verburg and carefully study Fig 3. to see a sharp increase in temperature at 800m+ (also over time).

        Other sources say that the lake is stratisfied with no surface waters mixing with the waters of the depths.

      • Curious George

        “The gravitational forcing hypothesis predicts an increase in the geothermal heat flux.”
        Every four billion years?

      • Curious George – you win the prize of lowest content provider on this site 👏

    • David Appell

      Ckid: Did this basal melting factor just start in the industrial era?

    • Robert Clark

      Maybe it is just the 35degree salt water melting the 32degree ice and the lighter 32degree fresh water fights its’ way to the surface and is replaced causing an overhang.
      As this is happening Nature is taking moisture from the ocean, freezing it and dropping it on top of the ice shelf causing it to breakoff.
      The oceans remain at their present height, the earth maintains a constant surface temperature and your heat flux is just simple science.

      • Robert Clark

        You must understand the ice shelf is sitting on the ocean floor. IT IS NOT FLOATING. When it breaks off it becomes a floating glacier.

  108. ‘Because EEI is such a fundamental property of the climate system, the implications of an increasing EEI trend are far reaching. A positive EEI is manifested as “symptoms” such as global temperature rise, increased ocean warming, sea level rise, and intensification of the hydrological cycle (von Schuckmann et al., 2016). We can therefore expect even greater changes in climate in the coming decades if internal variability associated with the PDO remains the same. If the PDO were to reverse in the future, that reversal would likely act to decrease the rate of heat uptake. ‘ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

    The Pacific state and the cloud effect feedback varies over moments to eons as a substantial component of climate variability. At least that’s what is observed in satellite data.

  109. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Visible very slow increase in solar magnetic field activity.
    https://i.ibb.co/mXtL48y/onlinequery.gif

  110. Ireneusz Palmowski

    I predict a very snowy winter in the northern hemisphere this year. I am taking three factors into account.
    First, galactic radiation is concentrated in the high and mid latitudes, according to the geomagnetic field.
    Second, the oceans are warm enough that there will be enough water vapor to produce plenty of snow.
    Third, there will already be La Niña in November, which will cause temperatures to drop in high latitudes.
    In this situation, we can expect frequent stratospheric intrusions and snow fronts in the middle latitudes.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

  111. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A team was duly dispatched to the site at Belaya Gora, on the bank of the Indigirka River.

    What they found there was one of the most beautifully-preserved Ice Age animals ever found: a 28,000-year-old cave lion cub, curled up under the permafrost with its teeth, skin, claws and even whiskers still intact.

    The cub, whom scientist Dr Valery Plotnikov and colleagues initially dubbed Spartak, was found just 15 metres away from another cave lion cub, Boris, that locals had discovered the previous year.
    https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/08/06/stunning-ice-age-lion-cub-found-in-siberia-russia-is-28-000-years-old-scientists-say

  112. I recently analyzed available GHCN Tmax temperatures from the 2021 NW heatwave: https://climateobs.substack.com/p/2021-nw-heatwave-perspectives

    * analysis of WA & OR is for stations 80% or more complete since 1895

    * June 2021 reports for some stations not yet through GHCN process

    * for reporting stations, Tmax above 110F has regularly occurred

    * for these stations, statewide all time high Tmax first set in 1898

    * the WA&OR mean of reporting stations’ high Tmax set in 2021

    * this indicates the area of heatwave was large

    * for WA, nine stations set 2021 Tmax records, nine others occurred earlier

    * for OR, four stations set 2021 Tmax records, seven others occurred earlier

  113. David Wojick

    Here is CLINTEL’s statement on the new AR6 WG1 SPM, including a link:
    https://clintel.org/statement-clintel-new-ipcc-report-provides-little-objective-basis-for-policymaking/
    Seems the IPCC ignored the ScienceMag critique of the CMIP 6 models and opted instead for “insanely scary and wrong” forecasts.

    • David Wojick

      Google news search on “IPCC Report” full of “Code red for humanity” headlines. Truly stupid run up to COP26 no doubt.

    • “The SPM graphic of global temperatures over the last 2000 years inspires little confidence in that it fails to note the Roman and Medieval Warming Periods (with temperatures similar to or higher than now) nor the Little Ice Age (with the coldest temperatures over those two millennia).”

      This should be a clue that CO2 is not a control knob for climate change.

    • David Wojick

      Here is an extreme prediction: “Extreme sea level events that previously occurred once in 100 years could happen every year by the end of this century.”
      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/08/IPCC_WGI-AR6-Press-Release_en.pdf

  114. Robert Clark

    Last August I thanked the AMERICAN PEOPLE for my wife’s hip replacement. Now it is their turn to thank the testers and contact tracers.
    Do the above and contact your members of Congress. The closing of the border is the most important task.
    August 7th entry

  115. Robert Clark

    today 334 deaths
    8/9/2021 92,520 68,237 281 1,969,246 5

    Still hoping they work on the border.

  116. Robert Clark

    In June we had to find a way to find the asymptomatic. That was the 6-day rule in September. We had to wait 6 days after contact with infected for virus to be detected by test.
    Now we know the problem is the infected coming across the border, and those in contact with the infected are not being tested 6 days later.
    The only way to stop the growth is to close the border.
    Heard immunity will never be reached if you keep letting in the unvaccinated.
    Our Government is just going to keep killing us off along with the border crossers.
    !!!!!!CLOSE THE BORDER!!!!!

  117. Vietnam cumulative death total increased by 10% in just one day today up to 4,100. Deaths increased by 100% in the last week.This happened in a country that had 0 deaths for months early 2020.

  118. Robert Clark

    The Senate passed and sent both bills to the House of Representatives.
    They are now on their well disserved August vacation.
    COVID-19 is completely out of control. Yesterday 657 individuals died of COVID-19. The % of positives to total tests was 9%.
    HEIL SANDERS!!!!!
    HEIL BIDEN!!!!!

  119. Robert Clark

    This is wishful thinking on my part but anything is possible.

    Copy the below and send only 1 copy to your representative in the House of Representatives.

    Because of the border crossers we have lost control of the virus.
    I am asking you to stop working on the Infrastructure Bill and work on closing the border. You can go back to the Bill when the border is under control.

    350 mullion AMERICAN CITIZENS (plus?) voted for President last election. I hope that many individuals show an intrest.

  120. Robert Clark

    Today
    Total positive 105,477
    Total tests 1,313,415 Testers & contact tracers working hard
    % positive of total tests 8%

  121. Robert Clark

    Forgot
    DEATHS 689

  122. After a record start, followed by a near-silent July, the Atlantic hurricane season looks like it may be busier than meteorologists predicted a few months ago.

    The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Wednesday updated its outlook for the 2021 Atlantic season, slightly increasing the number of named storms and hurricanes expected in what is predicted to be a busy — but not record-breaking — year.

    The agency is now forecasting 15 to 21 named storms instead of the 13 to 20 it predicted in May. Meteorologists also said the number of expected hurricanes is seven to 10, instead of six to 10.

  123. I have sent a note to (share your thoughts with Donald Trump) asking him to announce that he is running for Congress from his Florida district in 2022.
    I see no other way to get the border closed NOW!!!!

  124. -snip-
    Ivermectin, the latest supposed treatment for COVID-19 being touted by anti-vaccination groups, had “no effect whatsoever” on the disease, according to a large patient study.

    That’s the conclusion of the Together Trial, which has subjected several purported nonvaccine treatments for COVID-19 to carefully designed clinical testing. The trial is supervised by McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada, and conducted in Brazil.

    https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-11/ivermectin-no-effect-covid

  125. A handy place to check on the results of COVID treatments including HQC, Vitamin D etc.:
    https://c19early.com/
    Most of the claimed miracle treatments fall flat when they do large double blind random controlled trails with 50% taking placebos.

  126. Robert Clark

    Today 8/12/2021
    Total positive 113,773
    Total tests 3,535,183
    % positives to total tests 3%
    Testers are working hard.
    I do not know how the contact tracers are doing so well since on day 6 they have no idea where the ones to test have gone.
    looks like the CDC is playing with the total numbers again. % positive of total looks good though.
    The American residents not getting vaccinated are really infecting many.

  127. Robert Clark

    Forgot again.
    Total deaths today 658

  128. Robert Clark

    !!!!!WOWW!!!!!

  129. Robert Clark

    Let us hope that I was wrong about over 25% by the end of the month and it will be the border wall is completed by the end of the month!!!!!

    • Robert Clark

      When I heard that they admitted the border was a crisis I thought you had gotten their attention. My mistake.
      8/13/2021
      Total positives 126,236
      Total tests 1,491,598
      % positive to total tests 8
      Total deaths today 738

      • Robert Clark

        Total positive 30,883
        Total tests 1,438,957
        % positive to total 7
        Total deaths today 122

    • Robert Clark

      I apologies for the above. It looked like they realized the border was our major problem. I was incorrect. 738 individuals died from COVID-19 Friday.

      • 531 members of Congress are at home enjoying there barbeque today while 738 families are making funeral arrangements.

      • In the last 4 days there has been 2,725 deaths from COVID-19 in the USA.
        In the Afghanistan conflict, up to today, the military has had 2372 deaths.