by Judith Curry
A few things that have caught my eye these past several weeks.
Regional imprints of changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation [link]
A deadly summer in Africa [link]
**Abrupt Common Era hydroclimate shifts drive west Greenland ice cap change [link]
Emergence of representative signals for sudden stratospheric warmings [link]
Scientists now blame geothermal heat for melting Antarctic glaciers [link]
Large-scale atmospheric drivers of snowfall over Thwaites Glacier, Antarctica [link]
Confusion over ENSO and global warming: [link] [link] [link]
Constraining the date of a seasonally ice-free Arctic Ocean [link]
Contributions to Polar Amplification in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models [link]
Review of airborne transmission of respiratory viruses [link]
Atmospheric blocking and weather extremes over the Euro-Atlantic sector [link]
Ambiguous stability of glaciers at bed peaks [link]
Seasonal Arctic sea ice forecasting with probabilistic deep learning [link]
**An extremeness threshold determines the regional response of floods to changes in rainfall extremes [link]
Europe’s July Floods: So rare and extreme, they’re hard to study [link]
**The anti-greenhouse effect: Antarctic radiative and temperature response to a doubling of CO2 [link]
**High tide floods and storm surges during atmospheric river events on the west coast [link]
Biomass burning smoke and its influence on clouds [link]
Pielke Jr: Catastrophes of the 21st Century [link]
Radiative feedbacks on land surface change and associated precipitation shifts [link]
Co-occurrence of California drought and northeast Pacific marine heatwaves under climate change [link]
Coral reef islands are growing [link]
**Earth’s energy imbalance from the ocean perspective [link]
**Arctic ocean stratification set by sea level and freshwater inputs since the last ice age [link]
**’Recent Emergence of Arctic Amplification’ in the past century of the observational record. Using a large ensemble, we explore why Arctic Amplification didn’t occur for much of the past century [link]
** A simple explanation for declining phenological temperature sensitivity with warming [link]
**Lower peak for last interglacial ice melt and sea level rise [link]
Global-scale human impact on delta morphology has led to net land area gain [link]
Increasing probability of record shattering climate extremes [link]
**An evaluation of CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate models in simulating summer rainfall in the Southeast Asian monsoon domain [link]
The bushfires that ravaged Australia in 2019 and 2020 were so intense they actually cooled temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere last year [link]
Frequency of extreme precipitation increases extensively with event rareness under global warming [link]
Policy and technology
Farmers restore native grasslands as groundwater disappears [link]
Long duration energy storage: A blueprint for research and innovation [link]
MIT designed project achieves major advance towards fusion energy [link]
Australian startup is beating China to efficient and cheaper solar panels [link]
How Bangladesh transformed itself into a modern and resilient society [link]
Change of extreme snow events shaped the roof of traditional Chinese architecture in the past millennium [link]
Big carbon removal plant in Iceland [link]
Framing nature based solutions to climate change [link]
“Risk? Crisis? Emergency? Implications of the new climate emergency framing for governance and policy” [link]
Restoring coastal wetlands in the Gulf of Mexico [link]
Major hurricanes can develop faster than cities can evacuate: we’re hitting the limits of hurricane preparedness [link]
Biden’s welcome hypocrisy on climate policy: The Paris Agreement has completely untethered the global climate discourse from actual policy-making.[link]
Economic development and declining vulnerability to climate-related disasters in China [link]
Cost of nonuniform climate policies [link]
The radical potential of nuclear fusion [link]
Federal regulators declare first-ever shortage on the Colorado River as water officials look toward a drier future. [link]
California’s NIMBY cities pushed millions of people into housing in fire hazard zones – and is now abandoning them. [link]
Advancing bipartisan decarbonization policies: lessons from state-level successes and failures [link]
Managing the political economy of limate change policies [link]
Wildfire burning is key to increasing biodiversity [link]
**Climate litigation has a big evidence gap [link]
Energy independence doesn’t mean what it used to [link]
A soil-science revolution upends plans to fight climate change [link]
Western drought highlights the need for action to reduce wildfire risk [link]
Potential CO2 removing from enhanced weathering by ecosystem responses to powdered rock [link]
Lomborg: Welfare in the 21st century: increasing development, reducing inequality the impat of climate change, and the cost of climate policies [link]
About science and scientists
**Ioannidis: How the pandemic is changing the norms of science.[link]
**Philospher Peter Boghossian resigns his faculty position: My university sacrificed ideas for ideology [link]
**Cancel culture in academia: The New Puritans [link]
**Dan Sarewitz: How good is science? [link]
The social science monoculture doubles down [link]
A postmodern inquisition: today’s activists closely resemble Gallileo’s inquisitors [link]
“water studies needs to confront the reality that it may be pursuing too many publications and not enough ideas” [link]
On scientists’ failure (refusal?) to acknowledge when they got it wrong. [link]
**Matt Ridley: How science lost the Public’s trust [link]
Since it seems like I’m the first one to comment, let me just thank our gracious and most knowledgeable host for her endless contributions to both the science, and the discussion of the science, of climate. Dr. Judith, most well done!
w.
Seconded x100
Seconded
Many thanks to you both for your work on this issue.
NASA has submitted the evidence that current warming is human caused. The debate is over. Goodbye and God bless.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-8Bv
solar wind drives climate, not CO2
https://opagos.tumblr.com/post/662000091855568896/solar-wind-drives-climate-not-co2
Yes indeed! Most welcome in the current atmosphere of hate and negation.
> today’s activists closely resemble Gallileo’s inquisitors
But Galileo never gets old:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/the-bingo-core/
Wow! That’s simply brilliant, Willard! Brillant, I say!
I too want to thank Dr. Curry.
It will be interesting to see comments on Ionnidis’ article.
Also, the Galileo myth appears (things were are lot more complicated than the standard story – the main reason for house arrest wasn’t heresy, but intentionally ridiculing the Pope). It was already well established, in the Church if not in doctrine, that the Earth orbited the Sun.
Finally, does anyone else here use Safari to post comments. Starting about a month ago, that quit working for me. But Firefox works fine.
You might like:
http://intellectualmathematics.com/blog/the-case-against-galileo-s01-overview/
Galileo was first and foremost a self-promoter.
Perfect model for contrarians, if you ask me!
I am glad that Al Gore and Michael Mann are so self effacing.
tony –
Is it possible to get past the personality contest? Is there a more sure sign of tribalism than that?
C’mon, J.
Al is WAAAAAAAYYYYY fatter than Galileo!
joshua
I suggest you redirect that comment to Willard as by directing it to me you have shown your own bias.
Tony,
Your whataboutism is duly noted.
As you may know, New Discourse has been founded by Jimmy Concept and Michael O’Fallon. Speaking of whom:
https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/michael-ofallon-the-jacobins-are-back-to-reset-everything-dun-dun-daah
Would you care to comment?
tony –
> I suggest you redirect that comment to Willard as by directing it to me you have shown your own bias.
How do you figure? John thought up Galileo. You brought up Al, and Mike.
meso –
Not that you’ll be interested, but a comment on Ioannidis piece below.
As for commenting and browsers, I’ve had a very hard time getting comments past the filter lately, using Chrome. I doubt it’s related to my browser, but who knows?
Regarding the comment below, I tried numerous times with no success. Then I broke the comment up into two separate comments and the went through with no other changes (except I change “anonymous/pseudonymous” “anonymous and pseudonymous.”
Which is pretty dang weird.
Been using Firefox for years, but it now seems the Fox is under fire – with frequent updating and very slow to respond.
Re Ioannidis’ article….
I always enjoy his writing, but it’s disheartening that he too seems to have succumbed to the end-of-the-world catastrophe porn purveyed by the bulk of media – mainstream and social. To wit: “Amid pandemic confusion, the powerful and the conflicted became more powerful and more conflicted, while millions of disadvantaged people have died and billions suffered.”
As of this morning, 224,117,770 cases of COVID-19 had been recorded worldwide. Of these cases, 4,622,583 resulted in death. The world population at the time I checked those stats was 7,892,844,357. So 2.84% of the world population has had the disease. Of those, 2.06% died. That means that 0.058% (58 one thousandths of one percent) of the world population has perished from COVID-19.
During the Spanish flu epidemic, 500 million of the 1.8 billion people on Earth caught the disease – 27.8%. At least 50,000,000 died, 2.8% of the world’s population.
People have lost whatever sense of proportion they might once have had. This pandemic is wimpy. I’m sorry, but it just is. The unrelenting assault on us by media of all kinds has beaten us into submission. We have to start looking at it in more realistic terms, or we will travel down a road from which there may be no return.
P.S. I write this as one who lost a parent to COVID-19. We held her memorial service this afternoon.
I don’t know about the world figures quoted by Ioannidis, although I suspect that what he says regarding the numbers is more likely to be true than not, especially as there is evidence of under-reporting in the figures.
I am prepared to trust the figures for the UK, with a well-organized system of measuring and reporting – and it makes grim reading.
The known cases (confirmed by testing) represent 10.9% of the population. This is certainly an under-representation of the number of UK citizens who have caught the disease, but by how much is still a matter of debate.
0.79% of the population has been hospitalized by the disease.
0.2% of the population has died of the disease.
What is less well known is the number of people who have been debilitated by the disease – so called “long Covid”. It is seemingly quite widespread, maybe up to 2M people (that would be about 3% of the population).
Sure, it is not anywhere near as bad as Spanish Flu – or the Black Death outbreak of the 14th century. Just as well. They were horrific.
However, its effects have been pretty dire. The hospitalization figures brought the health system in the UK close to being overwhelmed back in January. It is certain that substantial numbers of people have died of other non-covid diseases because of the stress on the health system.
Much of the reaction to the disease in the UK has been one of keeping the numbers of infected down to a level where the health system is not overwhelmed. And it ain’t over yet, despite the various measures. At least we now have effective vaccines and improving treatment protocols for those who get infected.
I am sorry for your loss.
“I am sorry for your loss.”
Thank you, I appreciate your sentiment.
Both of my sons, age 31 and 29, have had COVID. It had long COVID effect on both of them, until each got vaccinated after the fact. Then the effects disappeared, and they were able to see for the first time what those effects had been.
This is nothing new with respect to viruses that attack the central nervous system. I received a deep scratch by a racoon (long story), and thought nothing of it until a week later, when I developed flu-like symptoms. It was some time after that – and much deterioration in my condition – that I went to an ER, and was immediately given rabies vaccine and human rabies antibodies. My flu-like symptoms disappeared within hours, and after three subsequent rabies vaccine injections, were gone completely.
But the effects lasted for nearly a year. I was in a mental fog (much like COVID fog), whose extent was not apparent to me until after I recovered. My neurologist (who was surprised that I survived after waiting so long to get treated) filled me in on the effects of the rabies vaccine. He was right. COVID seems to have similar effects.
But the figures I cited were ones I found on worldometer for COVID, and various sources for the Spanish flu. I don’t recall Ioannidis citing any figures.
The figures are unquestionably wrong, since they don’t include any accurate data from China (which doesn’t have any itself), and since they DO include horribly skewed and altered data from the United States. But they are all we have to go on, and are probably within an order of magnitude accuracy.
One thing that should be remembered, and is not, is that the original “lockdowns” were for the purpose of “flattening the curve.” Epidemiologists knew that this virus had the potential to sicken hundreds of millions of people, and kill millions. But they didn’t want the first wave to overwhelm hospital Intensive Care Units, so recommended the unprecedented quarantine of the healthy to limit the spread.
This initial effort has evolved into “defeating the virus” – as if we could eradicate it the same way we did with smallpox. That has never been done with a virus of this type, and will never be done with COVID-19. The vaccines were nothing short of a miracle of science (sorry for the extremely mixed metaphor), but we have made little progress with treatment of the illness. That’s largely because of political opposition from people who don’t like the proponents of certain treatments. The blood of hundreds of thousands of Americans (my mother included) is on their hands.
Please don’t quote COVID statistics with the impression that they are anywhere close to being accurate.
The lying and exaggeration should make you NOT trust the data.
COVID data make climate data seem accurate !
I know it is not simple to study any data accuracy.
And even tougher to estimate the “right numbers”,
because people are very reluctant to say “we don’t know”.
The PCR test with a CT of 35x or higher was used in 2020, when it was well known that high CT would create a lot of false positives — usually people with no symptoms.
The CDC recommended CT was reduced to 28x in Spring 2021, but ONLY for vaccinated people !
Prior to 2019, people with no symptoms were NOT claimed to be a “case” of any respiratory disease.
That changed in Spring 2020.
Many hospitals do a PCR test for COVID (such as Veteran’s Administration hospitals) for every patient who comes in, for any reason.
1/4 or more VA hospital “COVID hospitalizations” were for people who came to those hospitals for other reasons, and had no COVID symptoms, and may have had a false positive from a PCR test …
… or they had such mild COVID symptoms they didn’t even realize they had a COVID infection (in addition to whatever sent them to the hospital in the first place).
For deaths prior to 2020, a person in a nursing home who got influenza, or pneumonia, and died would NOT have influenza or pneumonia listed as the cause of their death on their death certificate.
They would have had heart disease listed as the cause of death, or whatever disease sent them into the nursing home, with influenza or pneumonia listed as a contributory factor, if listed at all.
That all changed in Spring 2020 for COVID.
Suddenly COVID was listed as the cause of death, and heart disease would have been the contributory factor.
On the COVID vaccines, the record keeping is even worse.
For people who get a two injection vaccine, three weeks apart:
They are considered unvaccinated until two weeks after the second vaccination … which could be five weeks after the first.
So any hospitalization or death in that five week period would be counted as an “unvacinated” hospitalization or unvaccinated death.
For VAERS adverse side effects, where the most favorable study claimed 90% are never reported (A Harvard study said 99% were never reported):
The adverse short term side effects for COVID vaccines are unprecedented — the worst in the history of US vaccines, by far.
The adverse long term side effects are unknown … but anyone expecting mild adverse long term side effects, after the adverse short term side effects “disaster”, is performing wishful thinking.
Having spike proteins in your body is bad news.
That’s why getting COVID19 is bad news.
The mRNA vaccines trick your body into creating spike proteins. In my opinion, that is asking for long term trouble.
It could take years to discover adverse long term side effects — most vaccines take 5 to 15 years to develop, and 99% are failed experiments.
A the “nine month” COVID vaccines did NOT following a standard testing procedure.
Then we have the unprecedented fast decline of vaccine antibodies that may require a booster shot as often as every six months.
In a few years a person will most likely have taken far more than two shots.
In my opinion, the more shots taken, the higher the probability of getting adverse long term side effects.
The current COVID Delta variant is less deadly than COVID was in 2020 … but even in 2020, 99.8% of people under age 70 survived the disease.
There is no way vaccine manufacturers can revise vaccine formulas faster than the COVID virus will mutate.
The result will be much lower effectiveness than the claimed 95%.
Perhaps in the 40% to 60% range, like typical influenza vaccines?
This adds up to:
“You can’t trust the COVID numbers”, and the unprecedented censorship of information does NOT improve accuracy of COVID data in the mainstream media.
Emergence of representative signals for sudden stratospheric warmings. Authors analyze the arctic stratosphere, based on data from a 2.5×2.5 degrees grid. Polar coordinates have a singularity right in the middle of the area of interest. For analyzing arctic events another coordinate system should have been used. This severely diminishes my trust in their impressive formulas. They probably know what they are doing, but I don’t feel like wading into it.
George: How do you know they’re using polar coordinates? And who is “they?”
Earlier this month, I posted an assessment of the vertical profiles from observations compared with GISS model E runs for the RAOB era, the MSU era and the twenty-first century so far.
There are confirmatory and disconfirmatory aspects you may see here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
McGee: Just explain the problems here. We’re not going to go read some blog post to try to figure out what you’re alluding to. Thanks.
Oh, yeah – good point.
On the basis of qualitative assessments:
* obs confirm modeled warming of the troposphere
* obs confirm modeled cooling of the troposphere
* obs confirm modeled maxima of warming over the Arctic
* obs tend to contradict an upper tropospheric maxima of warming for the RAOB and MSU eras
* ERA5 and RAOB do include upper tropospheric maxima of warming over the brief twenty-first century so far
* RAOBs do not capture any coherent zonal wind speed trends
* ERA5 zonal wind speed trends tend to confirm the “t-bone” shaped maxima in both NH and SH
* ERA5 zonal wind speed trends tend to contradict the model in many regions
* RAOBs and ERA5 contradict the model by indicating significant areas of decreasing water vapor over time for all three periods.
* At the same time, RAOBs and ERA5 both indicate a greater than modeled increase of water vapor over high latitudes
* ERA5 greatly contradicts the model with respect to changes of cloud fraction.
Correction:
second point should read:
“obs confirm modeled cooling of the stratosphere”
A typically (unfortunately) unqualified opinion dressed up as fact from Ioannidis:
> Anonymous and pseudonymous abuse has a chilling effect; it is worse when the people doing the abusing are eponymous and respectable.
How does one measure the “chilling effect” from anonymous/psuedonymous VS. eponymous abuse, respectively? How has he done so in order to make this statement? Ioannisis infamously had to walk back personal-level antipathy he embedded within a scientific piece he authored.
Perhaps his logic is more than a bit self-serving.
A typically (unfortunately) unqualified opinion dressed up as fact from Ioannidis:
> Anonymous and pseudonymous abuse has a chilling effect; it is worse when the people doing the abusing are eponymous and respectable.
How does one measure the “chilling effect” from anonymous and psuedonymous VS. eponymous abuse, respectively? How has he done so in order to make this statement? Ioannidis infamously had to walk back personal-level antipathy he embedded within a scientific piece he authored.
Perhaps his logic is more than a bit self-serving.
I can think of no group better qualified to measure chilling effects than climate scientists.
Then again, a lot of them can’t be trusted to read a thermometer.
George Turner wrote: I can think of no group better qualified to measure chilling effects than climate scientists.
Then again, a lot of them can’t be trusted to read a thermometer.
Exactly the kind of hatred that has caused so many problems.
Here is the Matt Ridley article not behind a paywall.
https://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/how-science-lost-the-public-s-trust/
I liked the discussed example “Climate science has also been “infected by cultural relativism and postmodernism,” Mr. Ridley says. He cites a paper that was critical of glaciology—the study of glaciers—“because it wasn’t sufficiently feminist.” I wonder if he’s kidding, but Google confirms he isn’t. In 2016 Progress in Human Geography published “Glaciers, gender, and science: A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research.””
That explains in a nutshell why science is distrusted. If it doesn’t conform to political norms, it is not allowed. Science as a religion, not a discipline.
Article re, ‘Heatwaves and wildfires’… in Africa…
Reminds me me of some of the latest archaeological take on, out of Africa– nothing we humans can do to stop climate from changing… the latest ‘news’ (archaeological evidence) is hominids traversed the Arabian peninsula from Africa to Eurasia — back and forth due to changes in climate– many times over hundreds of thousands of years with possibly several species of hominids living together at the same time.
It may well be that migration out of Africa many times over many years may well have been motivated by life in the real world such as perhaps… Africa was just too damn hot!
Is it just me or are others having difficulty with downloading or view Roger Pielke Jr’s paper on catastrophes of the 21st Century? Judith’s link opens the root page for the publication but the links to either download the paper or view it in the browser fail to open. I’ve tried Safari and Chrome.
On the policy side:
Countdown to COP26 on the road to failure
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2021/09/07/countdown-to-cop26-on-the-road-to-failure/
The beginning:
“It is less than 60 days until COP26 convenes in Glasgow. We can expect a flood of climate horror stories (including flooding). But there will also be some discussion of the actual issues, so here is a brief breakdown of the big four.
Keep in mind that the alarmists have a bit of a civil war going on, between what I call the moderates and the radicals. The moderates have been at it for over 30 years and the radicals are fed up. The moderates now have a net zero target of 2050, while the radicals want 2030, so the difference is pretty stark. The last two COPs were partly paralyzed by this split, especially COP25. This fight will be a major factor in Glasgow.
The first two big issues are old business, money business to be precise. Of course it is all about money but these two are that by name trading and finance.”
The analysis is in the article. Please share it.
COP26 could be great fun!
Two of the three links under “El Niño confusion” seem to go to the same article. Both articles are on how future warming will change El Niño. I have a reverse twist on this. All of the warming to date in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño. There is no GHG warming at all. I first pointed this out almost three years ago but it is still valid. Why should be the big research question.
http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/
https://www.cfact.org/2021/01/15/the-new-pause/
The third flatline continues.
The basic points:
1. Why the CO2 increase has had no effect is a big research question, as I said. Possible negative feedbacks include clouds (Lindzen’s iris for example) and convection. Countervailing forces might be indirect solar (Svensmark for example) and ocean stuff. As a logician I just analyze the data. I study the reasoning, not the climate.
2. I see nothing random in the satellite record. There is a non-warming oscillator, probably simple chaos since we know the weather and climate are both chaotic. Climate is average weather and chaotic weather will give what are called “strange statistics” which means the averages will also oscillate.
3. If we flatten the non-warming oscillations we find three flat lines, each a bit warmer than its predecessor, separated by two super El Niño. We know these cause energy to be added so it is merely a matter of some residual energy raising the successive flatline. The explanation is painfully simple.
4. I consider the surface and ocean temperature graphs to be statistical junk. Each method violates statically sampling theory in several different fatal ways. But assuming one or both are actually warming, I know of no way an increase in atmospheric CO2 can warm the surface or ocean without also warming the atmosphere, which we do not see. Happy to hear a conjecture.
David Wojick wrote: Two of the three links under “El Niño confusion” seem to go to the same article. Both articles are on how future warming will change El Niño. I have a reverse twist on this. All of the warming to date in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño.
David: How does an El Nino generate heat that’s added to the climate system?
Where does that heat come from?
DA
Where did the heat come from 4,000 years ago?
CKid: You’re another one whose emailed comments are now filtered straight to trash for your past insulting comments.
David
Looks like my comment got straight through and my comment was a question. Where did the heat come from 4,000 years ago? Or do you think things like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, blizzard, floods, etc, etc, only start after AGW rose its ugly head? Do they allow you to know those things, or are they on the pay no never mind list?
El Ninos rearrange heat — they bring some ocean heat to the surface, where that heat will affect sea surface temperatures.
In the long run (30 to 40 years), all the ENSOs have offset each other, for a net change of near zero.
It is too soon to declare that the strong 1998 and 2015/2016 El Ninos will never be completely offset by La Ninas.
David Wojick wrote:
I consider the surface and ocean temperature graphs to be statistical junk.
David W has no qualifications for making this judgements, which is why he doesn’t give any reasoning.
.
“Wojick has a Ph.D. in the philosophy of science and mathematical logic from the University of Pittsburgh and a B.S. in civil engineering from Carnegie Tech.”
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/david-wojick-ph-d
Just another sell-out.
“All of the warming to date in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño.”
OK
Then please explain the physics of that process.
When what is happening is that an EN transfers sensible and mostly LH to the atmosphere, which in a matter of a weeks after the EN’s ending at most escapes to space as LWIR.
Pray tell, IYO, how that process manages to “lift by it’s own braces” and stay within the climate system until the next EN?
For 40 years.
Meanwhile, of course we have had many LNs as well.
Fascinating the lengths to which some go to bolster ideological bias.
Additionally, how come this new physics of yours (as that is what it must mean) is only happening at at time of increased RF from CO2.
Do tell and in addition write a paper to share with the climate science world that stands agog.
On the responsiveness of atmospheric composition to fossil fuel emissions
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-5oU
Wowwowwow. WordPress or JCurry won’t allow comments about m_Ridl_ey owning a coal_mine
Such a shame I had to sneak that in
David
(repeated as this reply disappeared)
It is hardly a secret that the family you mention own a you know what mine and have done for nearly a century.
It is however just one of a number of businesses supporting the local economy that the family in England has owned since 1700, which you will recognise as being the start of a remarkable rise in temperatures for the next 39 years that ended in 1740, one of the coldest winters ever.
Here is the proper context
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/explore-blagdon/
Did you have some point to make?
tonyb
Is that censorship your doing, Judith?
David
I have tried three times to reply to you on the subject but each one has disappeared. Curious
The ownership is hardly a secret and the facility in question has been in operation for nearly a century providing jobs for local people.
It is one of a number of enterprises owned by the family since 1700 which you will recognise as the start of a remarkable 39 year rise in temperature that ended in 1740 in an extremely cold winter. Phil Jones investigated this in 2004 and he wrote that it demonstrated far greater natural climate variability than he had previously believed possible
do you have a point to make on his ownership?
Tonyb
David –
The filter is acting weird. Attributing that to intent to “censor” is weak thinking.
David
It is hardly a secret that the family of Matt Ridley own a coa* mine and have done for nearly a century.
It is however just one of a number of businesses supporting the local economy that the family in England has owned since 1700, which you will recognise as being the start of a remarkable rise in temperatures for the next 39 years that ended in 1740, one of the coldest winters ever.
Here is the proper context
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/explore-blagdon/
Did you have some point to make?
tonyb
After the 20th of September, Arctic air masses will arrive in central and southeastern Europe. The front may bring snow to the Apennines.
https://i.ibb.co/XWL80yP/hgt300-1.webp
A weak La Niña will not form a strong turning wave in the western Pacific, so it is unlikely that wintertime La Niña will be followed by El Niño formation. If solar wind continue to be as weak as they are now then La Niña conditions could drag on.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
Bjorn Lomborg says “… climate change now causes 116,000 additional heat deaths annually but avoids almost 283,000 cold deaths. Each year, warming saves 166,000 lives.
Today, we no longer see 500,000 or even 18,000 lives lost to climate-related weather disasters but 6000. This year could achieve a century-long climate-related death risk decline of 99.7 per cent. For a smart climate conversation, we need to insist on seeing all the data.”
The Australian ‘Do the maths for the real story on climate disasters’
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/do-the-maths-for-the-real-story-on-climate-disasters/news-story/3599246ae2ca9f5de31eb4a5abf5240d
The full article in three quotes:
“Media gives outsized attention to plane crashes. But lots of stories of plane crashes do not provide a good insight into transport safety. You need statistics to realise that planes are much safer than cars.
Climate alarmist reporting is causing the same problem with ever-proliferating stories about extreme heatwaves, floods and fires. This gale of ghastly tragedies argues that out-of-control climate change is causing ever deadlier calamities. Yet this narrative is contradicted by the data.
One of the best documented impacts of global warming is more heat extremes, which made headlines across the world this northern summer.
While rarely reported, the new UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report also tells us “the frequency and intensity of cold extremes have decreased”. That matters because, globally, more than 4.5 million people die from cold compared with fewer than 600,000 from heat.
A new study in medical journal The Lancet shows temperature rises during the past two decades in the US and Canada mean 7200 additional heat deaths each year – many more than the widely reported 624 deaths from this summer’s heat dome.
But the study also shows that warming means each year we avoid 21,000 cold deaths. We are badly informed if we don’t hear both parts of this story.
Similarly, the tragic floods in Germany and Belgium are blamed on climate change. But the data doesn’t support that river floods have increased.
Globally, a large study of more than 9000 rivers shows that while some rivers see increasing flood trends, many more rivers see decreasing flood trends. This is also true in Europe, where the new UN IPCC report tallies all rivers and finds most flood less.
Stories of the rivers that still flood inevitably will dominate, but this doesn’t help us understand the global picture. Most German flood deaths occurred on the river Ahr.
cont …
… cont.
“While it did experience a very high flow on July 14 this year, it was still much lower than flows in 1804 and 1910. What matters most for riverine flooding is that ever more people build on flood plains, leaving the water nowhere to go. This highlights the necessity of a well-functioning warning system.
Here, Germany failed spectacularly. Since previous deadly floods in 2002, Germany has built an extensive warning system, but last September, during a “national warning” day, most warning measures didn’t work. Models warned of flooding up to nine days ahead, but most people were left unaware.
The hydrologist who set up the European Flood Awareness System called it “a monumental failure of the system”. But, of course, blaming the deadly floods on climate change is convenient for politicians who were responsible for the missing early warnings.
Similarly, US fires frequently get blamed on climate, but the real reason is mostly bad forest management.
Overall, the US government’s statistics belie the hype: this year’s burned area to date is the seventh lowest of the past 20 years. Last year, 11 per cent of the annual area burned compared with the early 1900s. Contrary to climate cliches, globally burned area has declined dramatically since 1900 and continues to fall through the satellite era.
The world is vast, and with cameras everywhere there is a torrent of new fires, heatwaves and floods vying for attention daily. Newspapers earn clicks, politicians brandish their virtue and climate campaigners fund¬raise from these calamities. But just like plane crashes, a steady stream of bad news doesn’t inform well.
We have statistics on global deaths from all climate-related weather disasters such as floods, droughts, storms and fire from the International Disaster Database. In the 1920s, these disasters on average killed almost 500,000 people each year.
The current climate-alarmed narrative would suggest that climate-fuelled disasters are deadlier, but that is untrue. During the past century, climate-related deaths have dropped an astounding 96 per cent to about 18,000 dead in an average year. Because the global population has quadrupled, global death risk from climate in the 2010s has dropped by more than 99 per cent.
This doesn’t negate that climate change is a real problem that we should fix smartly. But contrary to the current narrative, our adaptive capacity is vastly larger than changing climate risks.”
cont…
… cont.
“Look at 2021, which seems to be branded the year of climate catastrophes. Add the 624 deaths from the North American heat dome, the 358 dead from floods in Germany and Belgium, the 559 dead from Indian climate-related catastrophes that you may not even have heard about and 1378 more fatalities from more than 200 other catastrophes. Adjusted to a full year, and climate-related weather disasters will likely cause about 6000 deaths this year.
Each death is a tragedy, yet many more tragedies are being avoided. Globally, the Lancet study shows that climate change now causes 116,000 additional heat deaths annually but avoids almost 283,000 cold deaths. Each year, warming saves 166,000 lives.
Today, we no longer see 500,000 or even 18,000 lives lost to climate-related weather disasters but 6000. This year could achieve a century-long climate-related death risk decline of 99.7 per cent. For a smart climate conversation, we need to insist on seeing all the data.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/do-the-maths-for-the-real-story-on-climate-disasters/news-story/3599246ae2ca9f5de31eb4a5abf5240d
… cont.
“Look at 2021, which seems to be branded the year of climate catastrophes. Add the 624 deaths from the North American heat dome, the 358 dead from floods in Germany and Belgium, the 559 dead from Indian climate-related catastrophes that you may not even have heard about and 1378 more fatalities from more than 200 other catastrophes. Adjusted to a full year, and climate-related weather disasters will likely cause about 6000 deaths this year.
Each death is a tragedy, yet many more tragedies are being avoided. Globally, the Lancet study shows that climate change now causes 116,000 additional heat deaths annually but avoids almost 283,000 cold deaths. Each year, warming saves 166,000 lives.
Today, we no longer see 500,000 or even 18,000 lives lost to climate-related weather disasters but 6000. This year could achieve a century-long climate-related death risk decline of 99.7 per cent. For a smart climate conversation, we need to insist on seeing all the data.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/do-the-maths-for-the-real-story-on-climate-disasters/news-story/3599246ae2ca9f5de31eb4a5abf5240d
From one of the Geothermal links.
“High geothermal heat flow beneath Thwaites and Pope glaciers could further contribute to rapid past and future changes in the glacier system. Our results in the Amundsen Sea region provide a new base for discussing the location and extent of crustal-scale thermal anomalies. This is a key finding to better characterize basal sliding properties and subglacial hydrology, as well as refine thermal boundary conditions for studies of ice sheet dynamics in the most rapidly changing sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
Yet another study to add to dozens of other studies that most likely will be excluded from IPCC7, and will be included in the voluminous list of studies absent from IPCC5 and IPCC6, joining SLR studies that found little or no acceleration.
Interesting paper. I had always thought that the higher geothermal heat flux could have something to do with glacier flow. Is it the only factor though?
I have always found the historical failures in citations at the end of papers annoying. It means that the good paper from 2010 often fails to cite useful ones from 2016, say. It is sad to see IPCC reports doing the same thing.
This graphic displays the mass loss in the Pine Island and Thwaites Glaciers region, which is of utmost concern for SLR contribution.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S092181811630491X-gr1.jpg
The depiction in Figure 2 illustrates how waters are melting the glaciers from beneath. There is agreement that these dynamics have the largest effect on the glaciers in question.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092181811630491X
This link shows the highest level of geothermal activity, which is in the same area as the greatest mass balance loss.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Suze-Guimaraes/publication/340086938/figure/fig2/AS:878416169549825@1586442143439/New-heat-flow-map-of-Antarctica-based-on-revised-data-sets-For-details-see-the-text.jpg
The relative impacts of these two factors are unknown. Even if geothermal is relatively minor, since it is part of the Ice Sheet and glacial system, the IPCC report should acknowledge such.
The Atlantic article on cancel culture and the new Puritans is sobering. It made me realise that this phenomenon has a lot in common with the purges of Stalin’s CCCP in 1936-1939:
(an) academic … told me that his university “never even talked to me before it decided to actually punish me. They read the reports from the investigators, but they never brought me in a room, they never called me on the phone, so that I could say anything about my side of the story. And they openly told me that I was being punished based on allegations. Just because they didn’t find evidence of it, they told me, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.”
Stalin’s purges in the 1930’s likewise acquired a terrifying momentum. What was in common was that there was no process of inquiry or justice, no opportunity for defence. The show trials and forced confessions were part of the punishment and never changed the outcome. Likewise now when an academic or writer is tarred by the social media or campus mob, no-one even wants any real inquiry or an apology – it’s just permanent unconditional excommunication and – for many creative trades – execution.
The Russian mindset to this day is haunted by the purges and deeply wounded, even mutilated by it. Those sent to Stalin’s gulag left behind abandoned children and no-one would even touch them. Such was the state of fear that is now back and resident in America’s campuses and media circles. The bible called this “turning your back on your own flesh and blood”.
What happens to people and a whole society when everyone repeatedly engages in mob killings? When fear for one’s own safety mixes with a murderous self-righteousness and one even derives satisfaction at the demise of former friends and colleagues. First once or twice then on a routine basis. One long term consequence is a loss of honesty. The ability to be open and frank including being able to discuss one’s own mistakes, dies. A kind of paranoia sets in in which one must aggressively defend oneself from even the tiniest, most apparently trivial suggestion of an accusation against you. Behind every conversation, even casual ones, looms the shadow of the Gulag. Fanatical defence is mounted at the merest suggestion of impugned guilt of the most trivial thing.
Of course, soon nothing is casual. That’s gone forever. Get used to a beady sheen of sweat over your face and under your clothes – all the time. Eyes fearfully darting left and right, all the time and everywhere you go. You never relax. Then comes a tsunami of deceit within which you live your whole life. Creating fictitious narratives with which to justify ourselves and impugne anyone else at a moment’s notice, becomes second nature. Now we’re all fiction creators! And friends are a thing of the past, a distant distrusted memory.
I’ve seen all this – still alive and well in post-Soviet societies half a century after those disastrous purges and the frenzy of voluntary mutual betrayal that fuelled them. And the suppressed guilt of the abandoned friends and their abandoned children for which there will never be absolution. That’s where our society is now headed, the locked-in consequence of our own ongoing purges.
It is nicely captured in a single German word, Gleichschaltung.
Geez! And that’s just a summary of some recent articles. One could spend hours in this dystopian rabbit hole. I had somehow missed the news about fires in Africa.
If it’s a 2.5×2.5 *degree* grid *on the Earth*, then how could it *not* be effectively polar coordinates???
Paul, thanks. The only way to handle David is to ignore him.
The soil article (“death of humus”) is very interesting.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-soil-science-revolution-upends-plans-to-fight-climate-change-20210727/
Life uses carbon but life is not carbon.
Study life. Not carbon (unless you’re a chemist).
I have a financial interest in coal mining on my family’s land. The details are commercially confidential, but I have always been careful to disclose that I have this interest in my writing when it is relevant; I am proud that the coal mining on my land contributes to the local and national economy; and that my income from coal is not subsidized and not a drain on the economy through raising energy prices. I deliberately do not argue directly for the interests of the modern coal industry and I consistently champion the development of gas reserves, which is a far bigger threat to the coal-mining industry than renewable energy can ever be. So I consistently argue against my own financial interest.
https://www.mattridley.co.uk/explore-blagdon/
I have a financial interest in coal mining on my family’s land. The details are commercially confidential, but I have always been careful to disclose that I have this interest in my writing when it is relevant; I am proud that the coal mining on my land contributes to the local and national economy; and that my income from coal is not subsidized and not a drain on the economy through raising energy prices. I deliberately do not argue directly for the interests of the modern coal industry and I consistently champion the development of gas reserves, which is a far bigger threat to the coal-mining industry than renewable energy can ever be. So I consistently argue against my own financial interest.
w w w dot m a t t r i dley.co.uk/explore-blagdon
jim –
Just wondering if you feel totally foolish about the whole Sydney Powell/Lin Wood thingy?
Are you in the Pillow Guy camp?
“Review of airborne transmission of respiratory viruses [link]”
The article by Chia C. Wang et al provides a rationale for respiratory aerosols being the major route of transmissibility for COVID-19. That is, infectious viral particles in the <5 micrometer size become the dominate modes for infectivity as they are large in number when speaking, singing, coughing, etc. and their residence time in the air is long, mostly influenced by environmental airflows, ie, still air (like inside) vs relatively fast moving air (as is outdoor). Indoor air is also impacted by the number of room air turnovers per hour, recirculating as well as air filtering and disinfecting systems.
Many people will recall a number of years ago environmentalists and then Governmental officials promoting and subsidizing "tightening up our homes and buildings" including recirculating indoor air all to reduce heat and air conditioned air loss with the outside. This article helps illustrate and define the errors of such advice and practices.
I have a small criticism of the article when they have inserted complex equations such as Stokes and others along with their derived assumptions when the science/data on aerosols is not that precise for their use or understanding.
A cough is a concoction of liquid and solid materials including the virus of interest forcefully expelled into the environment that extend from the person coughing to across the room. All this was known in the 1930s regarding tuberculosis observed in a picture of a person coughing using stroboscopic lighting. Speaking and signing and shouting generate such mixtures as well.
It isn't too far fetched to surmise and then investigate viruses as having such capabilities.
A very worthwhile review. Thank you Dr. Curry
From the article: “Additionally, the physical plexiglass barriers designed to block droplet spray from coughs and sneezes in indoor spaces can impede the airflow and even trap higher concentrations of aerosols in the breathing zone and has been shown to increase transmission of SARS-CoV-2. ”
Every retail setting in the country (maybe world) was encouraged to put up plexiglass barriers. This was all on the assumption of Covid being transmitted primarily on droplets, the same reason for the six-foot rule and masks. However, masks, according to the article have shown to be effective in models.
An RCT study published last week on masks showed cloth masks to be 0% effective in preventing wearers from becoming infected, though surgical masks were 11% effective. That study did not address the obvious higher effectiveness of a mask would have when worn by infected from transmitting to others. I suppose that was what was modeled in the above linked study.
One wonders why when the NIH was sending millions to China to study and manufacture novel SARS coronaviruses that they didn’t think to run any experiments to see how they transmit from humanized mouse to humanized mouse in ambient conditions. One also wonders if the Chinese also neglected to think about this while they were working with the viruses under BSL2 protocols, no bubble suits or glove boxes, just latex gloves and fume hoods.
The mysteries of the retrospective discovery of early infection in Spain and Italy and of the novel pangolin SARS cov could be that the WIV had been leaking like a sieve for years. The thousands of lab animals, especially the exotic ones, may sometimes have ended up in the wet markets. Perhaps the elusive natural reservoir of SARS that Baric and others were postulating was co-infecting only captive civet cats and people in parallel was the WIV.
Europe’s July floods:
“This is the sort of event where we’d expect climate change to have an influence. Warmer air can hold more moisture, and so we’d expect it to enhance precipitation, which it has. But the data indicates that we’re not seeing more rainy days; instead, we’re seeing more intense rain on those days when it does rain.”
Not true, northwest European summers have become wetter since 1995, apart from summers with higher indirect solar, e.g. 2003, 2006, 2013, and 2018.
The Met Office and IPCC circulation models predict drier summers for northwest Europe with rising CO2 forcing as the they predict increasingly positive Northern Annular Mode conditions. That didn’t work out too well did it.
Predictably, northwest European summers will generally be wetter during a warm AMO phase, and especially during centennial solar minima and the associated increase in negative NAM conditions.
“Increasing probability of record shattering climate extremes”
Those heatwaves are weather events not climate extremes, and being discretely solar driven they are a cause and not a product of climate change.
“Arctic Amplification”
Is nonsense, AMO and Arctic warming are a negative feedback to weaker solar wind states.
JC … Great selection and followup to the last post. Thank you.
PNAS papers now behind a paywall??
That’s bad – PNAS always used to be open access.
Anyway according to this paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/33/e2026839118
the sea level rises during the Eemian (previous interglacial) are not the extravagant tens of meters claimed in previous stratigraphy from the Bahamas and elsewhere, but a more modest and believable meter or three.
Without getting behind the paywall I can’t see if they mention the short sharp sea level rise peaks that happened right at the end of the Eemian interglacial.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo1890
The interesting thing here is that ice sheet collapse and abrupt – but short-lived – sea level rise happened at the end of the interglacial, just before glacial inception, at which both sea level and temperatures (although not CO2) went down sharply. Can we expect such developments at the end of our current Holocene?
‘Research funding activities, initiated in 2007 “to revolutionize existing fields, create new subfields, cause paradigm shifts, support discovery, and lead to radically new technologies.” More recently, NSF launched its Big Ideas program, “to position our nation at the cutting edge—indeed to define that cutting edge—of global science and engineering leadership and to invest in basic research that advances the United States’ prosperity, security, health, and well-being.” https://issues.org/how-good-is-science-editors-journal-sarewitz/
The big picture says that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are a problem to be addressed. The solution is big ideas.
‘In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO₂ amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.’ https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/integrate/teaching_materials/coastlines/student_materials/diagram_shows_sea-level_position_1473264652694424243_744.jpg
https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/coastlines/student_materials/901
Dr Curry, the ship track phenomenon is attracting attention again. Aerosols pumped into ocean stratocumulus cover are suggested as a way of brightening the clouds and thus reducing warming. There are suggestions that anthropogenic aerosol production, cars, dust etc, are already doing this and so masking the CO2 effect.
If oil and surfactant pollution is reducing salt aerosol production then the opposite effect is happening. If (OK, ‘fess up,’ when’) I point this out to researchers in the field my emails go, no doubt, into the spam bin. Even the redoubtable Willis ignores my pleas to look at this most obvious potential AGW effect.
Observation: I have observed a smooth covering thousands of square miles which was able to resist wave breaking in a Force 4 breeze. I’ve seen smooths from the Mediterranean to the Arctic – the oceans even produce their own smooths as plankton blooms die and release their lipids.
Lake Michigan is warming anomalously rapidly. Why? Are all lakes subject to major city effluent and run-off doing the same?
One of the cloud brightening teams is quantifying the results of more and different aerosols. Perhaps someone who does not automatically go into spam could suggest to them that it would be useful to quantify the results of spilling millions of tons of aerosol suppressing pollutants onto every water surface on the planet? The could start by looking at Lake Michegan.
JF
Low level marine stratocumulus form as water vapor rises and cools as open and closed cell cloud over ocean – Rayleigh-Benard convection in a plana atmosphere. Closed cells rain out faster over warmer oceans – leaving open cells and reduced albedo over a lot of the planet.
I’d thought over oceans that natural sulphate production supplied enough sulphate for cloud condensation nuclei?
e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/cloud-and-dimethyl-sulfide-e1536287377755.jpg
Robert, if you look at ship track images you can observe that sometimes more aerosols released into stratocu make it denser – ie whiter. It is thus reasonable to expect that reducing aerosols would make the cloud less dense ie darker, lowering its albedo.
Research Latham and Salters cloud ships.
The proposed cloud whitening effects were so subtle that they proposed going a lot further than required as politicians would not understand how little albedo change is required to counter CO2 warming.
JF
I am always surprised that people don’t expect albedo to vary.
Open and closed cell cloud – a positive feedback to SST that is naturally highly variable over large regions of the global tropics and subtropics.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific
“There are suggestions that anthropogenic aerosol production, cars, dust etc, are already doing this and so masking the CO2 effect.”
Low altitude industrial aerosols amplify daytime maximum surface temperatures over land with cloud free skies.
If technology is ever able to create a global temperature control knob it will be with manipulation of albedo. They only question is whether it will be the through creation surface reflectors or stratospheric emitters.
In the case of reflectors I see two modes, sea surface reflectors or low level cloud enhancement or creation. For sea surface reflectors the question is which is more practical, making sea foam (spoom) or other liquid surface films by industrial manufacture or by using bioengineering to produce them naturally. Or, would surfactants have a negative effect on cloud brightness as you point out?
If surfactants harm cloud formation then perhaps the way to go is to enhance low level reflective aerosols (fog, cloud).
The most talked about geoengineering plan is the placing of emissive aerosols like SO2 in the stratosphere. Of course both reflectors and emitters could used.
WHAT’S WRONG WITH SCIENCE?
Something to do with a lack of Mertonian* norms of science?
Saw something about fusion energy on my phone. ‘They’ fired one up for a fraction of a second. The one on better magnets here is another step. 😂
It inspired me to solve global cooling. Many fusion generators burning water and putting out heat and power.
* e.g. https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/open-social-science-research/0/steps/31422
RIE writes “Saw something about fusion energy on my phone.”
Robert, please be assured that it will be quite a few years before fusion is minimized to the size of a mobile phone. The mobile phone is likely to be driven by batteries for some years ahead.😉
BTW, I once owned a fast neutron generator and spent many instructive hours working with related topics, also on a different scale. Geoff S
My phone shows science and technology alerts. It isn’t fusion powered.
I met a nice bloke who sold me the sun a few years ago. I don’t actual have legal possession yet (some technicality with the title, apparently) but when I do I will be the full bottle (magnetic?) on fusion power.
Dr. Robert Merton, a sociologist, believes that science should be communistic. But should, for example, IBM become more altruistic, give up all their proprietary science for the good of humanity, or is the good of humanity elevated by IBM’s success?
It’s hard not to agree with Merton’s views on Universalism, Disinterestedness, Organized Skepticism. But Merton’s view of communism as a tenet of the sciences is absurd, even within the context framed in the article … “that the findings of science are common property to the scientific community and that scientific progress relies on open communication and sharing”. Science done in the public domain, yes, in the private domain, no. The bread and butter of industry that creates the better half of cultural advancement relies on heavy proprietary investment in the sciences to maintain a competitive edge in the marketplace. It drives competition, not just in industry, but also the sciences in general.
Someone who’s degreed in the field of understanding humanity’s foibles should be able to see the cracks in the logic better than this article articulates. Though it’s possible Merton does elaborate better than the author of this article describes, perhaps the author is injecting confirmation bias; is it so hard to believe the media has a communistic tilt?
trunks … Merton wasn’t a leftist. Far from it. He was speaking about about public domain.
” scientific progress relies on open communication and sharing. Science done in the public domain, yes, in the private domain, no.”
In reality, even science done in the private domain is tied to open communication. The way to gain commercial advantage from knowledge is through the patent process – and the patent process requires public disclosure.
Without patents, there is the risk that the relevant knowledge will either leak out or that another organization will make the same advance in knowledge and commercialize it. This is why organizations like IBM put such significant efforts into creating patents.
It is hard to conceive of commercial organizations doing research purely “for the good of humanity”, since by their very nature, such organizations are set up to make profits. I would argue that benefits do flow to humanity as a whole from the activity of commercial organizations, but that such activities must clearly benefit the organizations first, otherwise they would simply not undertake those activities in the first place.
Thanks, Bill.
Obviously I’m not familiar with Dr. Merton’s philosophy, which is why I appropriately hedged my criticism. The article doesn’t mention “public” when defining Communality (a translation from Merton’s usage: communism), it also implicitly reads as all science, the way it’s described. I think my last paragraph is closer to the mark, typical in the way contemporary academia filters information.
“the findings of science are common property to the scientific community and that scientific progress relies on open communication and sharing.”
It misses qualification that I’m sure Merton must have expressed.
No worries. There’s a chasm between Marxists and the rest of sociology, which I’m sure you know. The left has been working tirelessly to marginalize the ‘other side’ for the last hundred years from Weber, Parsons, Merton, Mills, Wilson, Banfield and many others. Any analysis that doesn’t share preconceptions with the left are denigrated. They have a soft spot for Mills, but only because they think he echoed some sentiments they share, i.e. White Collar Crime. Of course my readings were decades ago, but my impression of Merton and the others was an effort to recognize preconceptions and to look at social structures as mechanisms influenced by the totality of human culture, past and present. The Marxists relay far more on philosophy and a resulting interpretation of history.
Today the word communism is mostly taken by us as a political system, which is hard for us to disassociate, whereas Merton used it literally in the above article. This is in keeping with the left’s emphasis on reconstructing language, with which they have been extremely successful. Just to throw something out there to think about: over the past 70 years, or so, the words discrimination, prejudice and racism have all been conflated to essentially mean racism. This has been a signal victory for them. Although Mr. Blair might see this type of work as Syme’s doing.
Enjoy your day!
The tension is between the ideal of science as a open community and commercial interests. There is nothing wrong with commerce as such – it is accommodated as necessary.
Do those who propose complete switch to nuclear energy realise they will be releasing energy stored within molecules of the same order of magnitude as naturally concentrated and stored energy in oil and coal?
And, does it matter anyway? I believe increasing temperature would increase greening of the planet which would in turn reduce reflected energy and trend back to equilibrium.
Yes – we do realise. The difference is how greenhouse behave in the atmosphere. And reduced reflected sunlight in response to warming would be a positive feedback.
The difference is how greenhouse (gases) behave in the atmosphere.
solar wind drives climate, not CO2
https://opagos.tumblr.com/post/662000091855568896/solar-wind-drives-climate-not-co2
The ONI Index dropped sharply after the solar minimum on 2009 and attempted to rise in 2011, but solar activity remained low. Only when solar activity increased strongly in 2014 did ONI spike.
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.png
https://solen.info/solar/images/cycle24.png
An analogous situation to 2011 occurred in the summer of 2021. The Niño 3.4 index tried to rebound, but solar activity is increasing even more slowly than it did in the 24th solar cycle. Until solar activity increases significantly, no El Niño will form.
https://i.ibb.co/w4Gv3T1/nino34.png
The difference in the increase in solar activity in 2011 and in 2021 is very well illustrated by the level of galactic radiation.
https://i.ibb.co/w4Gv3T1/nino34.png
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/
The level of galactic background radiation is constant, and changes in the number of particles reaching the Earth depend strictly on the strength of the magnetic field of the solar wind. The distribution of GCR in the Earth’s atmosphere depends on the strength of the geomagnetic field.
https://i.ibb.co/MNRM1GM/onlinequery.gif
thanks for the interesting links especially the oulu monitor
it shows that solar wind increased till the 90ies.
this is in accord with the ACRIM measurements showing TSI increased till 2000. contrary to the NASA popular TSI graphs..
Perhaps, someone is trying to hide how much the strength of the sun’s magnetic field is dropping.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
Pingback: “A fiction that elevates my soul is dearer to me than a host of base and despicable truths”. – Not The Grub Street Journal
A person noted for frequent comments on this blog, initials RIE, might find interest in Judith’s choice above –
“A soil-science revolution upends plans … ”
It can be read to show the difference between observation and measurement, on one hand, as opposed to romantic green dreams of a future under waving wands. Geoff S
‘A new generation of soil studies powered by modern microscopes and imaging technologies has revealed that whatever humus is, it is not the long-lasting substance scientists believed it to be. Soil researchers have concluded that even the largest, most complex molecules can be quickly devoured by soil’s abundant and voracious microbes. The magic molecule you can just stick in the soil and expect to stay there may not exist.’
There is no ‘magic molecule’. Never was. That’s why carbon loss from agricultural soils is such a problem. Fixing it is a matter of management practices to create optimal soil moisture and temperature conditions and a positive carbon and nutrient budget. Farmers using 21st century science to increase productivity and reduce input costs.
Energy prices in Europe reach record highs as nations scramble to find fossil fuels to burn as a result of the fact that renewables don’t work.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy-prices-in-europe-hit-records-after-wind-stops-blowing-11631528258
If the media follows the Texas cold snap formula, they’ll be publishing stories soon about how this is all the fault of natural gas because it just couldn’t compensate for bad climate policy fast enough.
China is slated to build 200 more coal fired utilities near-term. The Left ignores this; instead the Left applauds China’s super duper high-tech prowess, they’re stealing the market, and supplying the world its energy salvation. No mention that China can use all their production throughput in solar/wind “very high-tech” to dismiss their coal vision. Just how stupid can this logic get? Stay tuned.
Oh BTW, Germany did an about turn several years ago, they’ve been adding coal power to supplement their world class position as the globes model for alternative energy. No news at 5, and don’t expect too many exposés about it.
Germany also paid for Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline and approved plans for Wolfsburg to switch to gas.
COP meetings are designed to move CO2 emissions, not reduce them. They always have been, you can see it in any chart of global emissions. US and EU tax policy is now designed to do so as well. Notice how, per the article, EU grid operators were ordered to turn on fossil fuel plants and then penalized for it with carbon credit mandates- all applied to the power bills of EU businesses with the implicit instruction that you can avoid all this as long as you don’t build anything in the EU. At least Germany is (quietly) calling BS on the whole charade.
“BS on the whole charade.” is apropos.
Beijing Biden has shut down US pipelines to restrict US fossil fuel production, yet has facilitated opening the fossil fuel pipeline between Russia and Germany. Can one say hypocritical manipulation of an agenda? All the Lefts rage in recent years that not enough sanctions were being levied against Russia, the lip service media hyperventilation about the dangers that Russia poses to “democracy” while they quietly plan to institute their fascist foundations for “changing the world”. Please. These lying jokers are now in spin control/slight of hand overdrive to misdirect the Afghan retreat fiasco. I’ve never seen anything so politically inept in just about everything this administration does.
Jeff mentions the Texas fiasco
What is not reported is how close, the other US grids came to collapsing during the Feb 2021 freeze. The other grids survived in a large part because the other grids are not as dependent renewable sourced electricity as it is in Texas.
the Texas grid failed from 2.15.2021 until 2.18.2021
Renewables lost 70-90% of electric generation across the entire North american Continent (not just Texas – but the Entire North American continent-
from 2.12.2021 until 2.19.2021.
It takes someone with child like fantasies, to believe renewables are viable solution. Anyone believing Mark Jacobson 100% delusion lacks basic critical thinking skills.
The warm are the “merchants of doubt.”
The analogy I use for this is: You are in NYC at the headquarters of the company you run. The chief financial officer rushes into your office and says you will be bankrupt if you do not attend a meeting in Los Angeles tomorrow. You start pulling up flight information when the CFO says that you must walk there.
There are three things you know:
1. Someone competent should look at your books.
2. Your CFO isn’t competent
3. You don’t know if something is wrong with your finances, but you know you don’t need to be in LA tomorrow.
This is the status world leaders face with climate. Some, like China and Russia, are simply more honest about it. Some, like Germany, play the game better. And some, like the current US administration, are just using it as an opportunity to ramp up government spending.
There are 29 million people in Texas.
25 million did NOT lose electric power
in February 2021.
Wind power was near zero just before the blackout,
but was expected to be low in February, with near zero
for an hour once and a while.
Actual wind output was about one third lower
than expected due frozen windmills.
But with those hours that have
very little wind, having one bazillion non-frozen
windmills would not have helped much.
Windmills belong in museums.
The windmills didn’t cause the problems with
every other source of electric power, all of which were not
prepared for extreme cold weather (a similar problem in
February 2011 caused rolling blackouts that affected
3.2 million Texans even though windmills were rare at the time).
The Texas problem was spending far too much money on windmills,
and too little money on new fossil fuels power plants, in addition
to NOT spending money to winterize the entire energy infrastructure,
even beyond the power plants (recommended in 2011).
Richard greene
concur with your comments. Astonishing that the advocates of wind power, somehow believe those limitations on wind and solar power are a relatively trivial engineering hurdle
Atomic Chickens: Texas Lawmakers Reject Proven Plan To Store Nuclear Waste (Dr. James Conca at Forbes)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/09/13/with-nuclear-waste-vote-texas-anti-science-cowardice-on-display-from-both-parties/?sh=18a61699536a
“The best, safest, least expensive solution to our nuclear waste problem gets a near-unanimous bipartisan negative vote from the Texas Legislature. The lawmakers banned the storage of high-level radioactive waste in Texas, including spent nuclear fuel, at their approved nuclear waste disposal site near Andrews, Texas.”
Model bashers ought to rejoice:
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-are-the-economic-effects-of-extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change
I’m sure John Christy’s fans will agree.
Throw all the climate models in the garbage can, where they belong.
There were no costs of the mild, harmless global warming in the past 45 years. There were BENEFITS from CO2 greening the planet and improving plant growth.
As a group, US economists have never predicted even one US recession.
I could not care less what they predict about the future climate.
Here’s how you reacted to a similar argument in a different case, RG:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/17/new-confirmation-that-climate-models-overstate-atmospheric-warming-2/#comment-957928
Would you say that, in the current case, models are computer games that deliberately make wrong predictions used for climate denial propaganda?
Response to Willard (reply button did not show up next to his name)
I was referring to econometric computer models in my comment, used to predict the “cost” of climate change. They are very unlikely to be accurate.
The other computer models are climate models to predict the future climate (global average temperature).
General Circulation Climate Models are intended to project (predict) the future climate (global average temperature) based on an assumption of CO2 level growth in the atmosphere
For three reasons I believe accurate predictions are NOT a goal:
(1) Predictions have not been accurate for 40 years — models consistently over-predict actual global warming,
(2) Predictions have not improved in 40 years, with the latest CMIP6 models (as a group) appearing predict even faster global warming than the CMIP5 models (as a group), and
(3) The one climate model that least over-predicts the global warming trend, the Russian INM model, gets no special attention.
In fact, it is usually buried in an average where ALL the other models over-predict global warming by MORE than the INM model does.
(I can’t imagine meteorologists ignoring their best weather forecasting model, and using an average of all models instead).
My conclusion is that climate models are really climate computer games whose primary purpose is to scare people about climate change.
The reality of climate change since humans began adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere, let’s say starting at the trough of the Great Recession in 1932, was some mild warming, and some mild cooling — NOTHING like the past 64 years of predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming.
The Climate Alarmists claim the gradual increase of the CO2 level will have VERY DIFFERENT effects on the climate in the FUTURE, than it had in the past.
Very different outputs from the same CO2 growth inputs?
That belief meets the definition of insanity, in my opinion — wild climate speculation, not real climate science.
Thank you for your very well ordered rant, RG.
You have not addressed the point I made, which is that, by your logic, IAM economic models are computer games that deliberately make wrong predictions used for climate denial propaganda.
What’s good for the AGW goose is good for the Contrarian Matrix gander.
Houston is threatened with heavy rainfall as the tropical storm is blocked by highs and will remain on the Texas coast for an extended period of time.
The storm is collecting moisture from over the very warm western Gulf of Mexico and will lead to flooding.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/conus/mimictpw_conus_latest.gif
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/houston/77002/weather-radar/351197
I recently wrote this for a listserv so thought it might be interesting here:
Climate chaos
I used to lecture on the role of chaos theory in science. It does not get the attention it deserves in the climate debate. In fact climate change may be nothing more than simple chaos, in which case nothing controls it. Here is a brief explanation.
Chaos is a mathematical property. That is, certain equations, including very simple ones, can exhibit a complex form of behavior. They jump up and down in a random looking way. This is called a periodic oscillation. Chaos math was discovered by the great Poincare around 1910.
Chaos has a fascinating feature called extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. The slightest change to the numbers rapidly causes big changes in behavior. This is because an infinite number of behaviors is packed into a finite box of possibilities, called the strange attractor.
This raises the scientific question, do these equations describe anything in the physical world. Lorenz discovered the first the first such case in the weather, in the 1960s. He built a little computer model, basically of the interaction of highs and lows. It behaved strangely. The miracle was that Lorenz had read Poincare and recognized chaos.
He coined the term butterfly effect for the extreme sensitivity, although it is just a metaphor. Chaos has since been found in a great many different natural phenomena, making what is called nonlinear dynamics a major branch of science.
The butterfly effect makes a chaotic phenomenon unpredictable, even though it is still completely deterministic. This is because you can never know which of the possible behaviors you are seeing. In the weather, moving one molecule an inch can completely change the future and we can never know where all the molecules are. This practical limitation is called intrinsic unpredictability. It is universally ignored because there is no money in unpredictability.
Irregular oscillation is a glaring feature of most climate data, ranging from minute to minute out to very long term data over centuries. The chaos in weather is sufficient to explain this because chaotic phenomena exhibit what are called strange statistics. This means the long term averages also oscillate aperiodically. In a sense there is no such thing as average weather because different time periods give different numbers.
Given that climate is average weather, the chaos in weather is thus sufficient in principle to explain climate change. Climate change may just be strange weather statistics.
The climate modelers know all about this so they go to great lengths to keep large scale chaos out of their models. There is a lot of small wiggling but not enough to affect predictability. Or if that occurs they make a probabilistic argument that has no scientific validity. The butterfly effect is not probabilistic in the normal sense of that term. In fact average weather is a rare event, not the most likely.
That climate change is simply due to chaos I call the chaotic climate hypothesis. We never hear about it in the great climate debate.
Scientists dislike intrinsic unpredictability.
> We never hear about it in the great climate debate.
“But predictions” is right next to “But Science” in the bingo.
From the horse’s mouth:
Climate scientists blame chaos for the lack of warming (mostly in the Western Pacific) over the past few decades that has resulted in ECS_historic being much lower than the ECS produced by climate models performing historic runs. In fact, the chaos produced by 100 runs of the MPI model never came close to producing one run with an effective ECS as low as we calculate from this period.
That should tell you something about the lowest bounds justified disingenuousness can buy, Frank.
You might like:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-959737
David,
First of all thanks.
“Chaos has a fascinating feature called extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. The slightest change to the numbers rapidly causes big changes in behavior. This is because an infinite number of behaviors is packed into a finite box of possibilities, called the strange attractor.
This raises the scientific question, do these equations describe anything in the physical world.”
–
What the theory neglects to mention is that the chance of such big chaotic changes occurring is microscopically small.
So much so that in general my kicking the rubbish bin in frustration will still not help the 76’s throw the basket that wins the flag.
So mathematical,
Fascinating and generally not very important.
One needs lots of time for the event arrows to flow and work.
It is worth noting that this is a physical system – aquasphere, atmosphere, cyrosphere, biosphere and lithosphere – in which interactions and feedbacks between subsystems drive abrupt state changes. State space is constrained to physically feasible behaviours of the coupled subsystems. Meaning that there is a limit to variability – albeit a very broad one.
The probabilistic forecasts copied and pasted by poor wee willie – make 1000’s of runs from slightly different initial values and one might be right – is one approach. The new generation of Earth system models – big data initialised seasonal to decadal scale probabilistic forecasts – is a better way to go.
Texas and Louisiana are at risk for flooding.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=conus×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
The storm merged with a tropical wave from over the Atlantic. Louisiana at risk of flooding.
The amount of rain over the three days will be tremendous.
Australian BOM continues to blacklist NASA from their 8 combined models of International climate model outlooks
They were removed after the 19/1/2021 and presumably will be blacklisted by BOM until they bring their findings into line with approved climate change models like NOAA, JMA NAD UKMO.
NASA were predicting a much longer and stronger La Nina.
This enables BOM to continue using a forecasting ensemble with models that produce warmer outcomes. Arctic sea Ice made a brave attempt to get to 11th lowest but has run out of puff.
Cooler temperatures [still above average] persist around the globe with sea temperatures being relatively neutral for large swathes.
Warming seas had been a big contributor to warmer air temperatures.
The moderate fall in temps for this year combined with a weak La Nina in the offing suggests temperaures may actually continue to fall or at least stay around there current UHA levels.
Currently equal 6th warmest year it may yet spiral down to 9th highest which would be an amazing global cooling for 1 year.
Mornin’ Angech (UTC),
You will no doubt be overjoyed to discover that the provisional Arctic sea ice minimum volume and extent numbers for 2021 have duly arrived in answer to a metaphorical prayer:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/09/facts-about-the-arctic-in-september-2021/#Sep-21
https://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/piomas-trnd-20210915.png
Volume calculated from the thickness data currently show that 2021’s minimum was reached on September 7th at 4.64 thousand km³, which is the 8th lowest value in the Polar Science Center’s record.
Whoops!
It seems as though I’ve forgotten how to embed an image here.
Mind you it looks like everybody else has too?
Jim
Everyone comes at this from a different angle
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2021/09/22/arctic-sea-ice-recovers-strongly-in-2021/
I would say that is quite a strong recovery and going the opposite way to certain of the forecasts
How is the Antarctic doing?. A little while ago it was at one of its highest measured extents
Grockles still here, worst luck.
tonyb
Jim
The Antarctic ozone hole (probably driven by temperature) also doesn’t seem to be behaving. After last years virtually record size it seems to be heading that way again, although as the season normally ends in October its a little too early to judge its final position.
Surely models and expectations for Arctic and Antarctic ice and the ozone hole can’t be wrong. Its surely a blip?
tonyb
From tony’s linked article – “In short sea ice extents are not going to simply return to pre-2007 levels just like that. Indeed, it will probably not start to happen until the return of the AMO cold phase, which saw rapid refreezing in the 1970s.”
Gotta be impressed when the great white Con uses a start date of 1979 to show the “rapid” decline.
Evenin’ Tony (UTC),
Plenty of emmets on this side of the Tamar too. Boscastle was still heaving yesterday :(
Not a lot of people seem to know that Mr. Homewood knows not of what he speaks. Surely a man of your Arctic experience doesn’t agree with:
The message from the data is by now abundantly clear – Arctic sea ice is going nowhere.
The IPCC’s AR6 WG1 report certainly doesn’t!
Barring a by now improbable late surge the Antarctic sea ice extent has posted the earliest maximum in the satellite era by a considerable margin.
I’d include an image, but I don’t know how!
Jim
Evenin’ Joe,
When do you and/or Paul predict that “the return of the AMO cold phase” will take place?
FYI 1979 is the start of the SMMR equipped satellite era op. cit.
Greatwhitecon / jim hunt comment – “FYI 1979 is the start of the SMMR equipped satellite era op. cit.”
Jim – fully aware of that – Just noting that you prefer to present data from a starting date when the sea ice was at a maximum. Hiding a fuller historical context.
Deceptive perhaps!
Joe – Not a lot people know that if you want a graph of Arctic sea ice extent going back further than 1979 you could always consult this ancient article inspired by the great Paul Homewood:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2015/04/gross-deception-measuring-arctic-sea-ice-trends/
I’d include an image, but….
Jim Hunt
“Mornin’ Angech
You will no doubt be overjoyed to discover that the provisional Arctic sea ice minimum volume and extent numbers for 2021 have duly arrived in answer to a metaphorical prayer:”
Thank you Jim.
Fairly overjoyed and thank you for putting the links up.
I learnt a long time ago that Arctic and Antarctic ice are temperamental, strong willed and not to be taken lightly.
Rather like the femmes in our lives.
Antarctic is dipping badly but still a lot better than 3 years ago.
The arctic has been having very slow recoveries after the minimum has been reached.
The only difference this year is a colder world generally and a higher albedo for the start of the freezing season.
It will make for a very good spy v spy as Albert would say this year.
[not the alligator] the other one.
My pleasure Angech,
“This year is a colder world generally”
Not according to Berkeley Earth, amongst others?
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1440732813079179285
“A higher albedo for the start of the freezing season.”
If so, the additional snow cover will insulate the ice beneath, leading to thinner ice at the start of the next melting season.
Is there some secret method for embedding images on here these days?
Is there some secret method for embedding images on here these days?
Lot’s of tech savvy people here to help you, I hope.
Typical Zeke playing up to his audience
“Summer 2021 was the warmest summer on record for the Earth’s land regions (where we all live!). Temperatures for June, July, and August were around 1.5C above pre industrial levels””
To clarify [Zeke]
“If we look at global average temperatures (including the oceans), summer 2021 was the fourth warmest summer on record.”
Never mind the very cold start to the year and the current position, possibly equal 6th.
Nor the fact that it was on only one global set.
Still have to keep the narrative running.
Evenin’ Angech, you old cynic you!
What other “global sets” of summer 2021 surface temperature are you thinking of?
Can I safely assume that “lower troposphere” data sets are not amongst them?
Can I safely assume that “lower troposphere” data sets are not amongst them?
Why not.
Mornin’ Angech,
Because “Lower Troposphere” != “Surface”?
Here’s Carl Mears on that contentious issue:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/for-life-on-earth-ice-is-not-generally-a-good-thing/
Senator Cruz focusses on one data set, mine, from one type of instrument, satellites, and he ignores all the other evidence. For example the surface temperature record, things like the Arctic sea ice declining….
Morning Jim
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/15/jcli-d-19-0008.1.xml
A link to a more comprehensive history of arctic sea ice
Afternoon Joe,
Sure, but that’s a “A Model-Based Reconstruction” of volume.
I thought the ‘M’ word was considered to have 4 letters in here? If not see:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/03/the-2021-maximum-arctic-sea-ice-volume/#comment-431443
Mind the gap between 20C and 21C!
Jim:
He also said …..
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”
And:
“They are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data … were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.”
Afternoon Tony,
I was leaving that part as an exercise for the interested reader. However you appear to be the only one in here!
Jim’s blog post quoting Christopher Monckton accurately.
“for life on Earth, of course, ice is not generally a good thing. The less of it the better.”
Now that we are all agreed let’s move on.
“this year is a colder world generally”
Jim
“Not according to Berkeley Earth, amongst others?
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1440732813079179285
“A higher albedo for the start of the freezing season.”
If so, the additional snow cover will insulate the ice beneath, leading to thinner ice at the start of the next melting season.”
The old hotter weather gives more snow, colder weather gives less ice argument.
Say it quickly because the more times you say it the more obvious the logical flaws.
If the ice is thicker leading to more albedo then the world must be colder than when there is less ice in general.
Mornin’ Angech (UTC, just)
I’m not going to repeat that, quickly or slowly, because that’s not what I said.
“Hotter weather gives more snow”
Perhaps. The cryodenialosphere has been bleating about “increased NH SWE” for several years now.
“Colder weather gives less ice”
I must have fallen unconscious when I said words to that effect. Perhaps you can provide me with a link to remind me?
Tony Banton | September 27, 2021 [better than Anthony, I like it]
Jim: He also said …..
“A similar, but stronger case can be made using surface temperature datasets, which I consider to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).”
“What other “global sets” of summer 2021 surface temperature are you thinking of?”
And:
“They [The satellite [temperature] data ]are not thermometers in space.”
Hold on a second.
The MSU are designed to work as thermometers.
Thermometers measure temperature.
The microwave emissions occur at different temperature frequencies and are an extremely accurate measure of temperature.
Pretending that they do not measure temperature, very accurately, is just
denying reality.
The satellite [temperature] data … were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.”
Afternoon Angech (UTC, just),
Here is one example of what a surface air & water temperature “thermometer” in the Gulf of Mexico looks like:
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=gisl1
What does an MSU look like?
Jim Hunt: https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=gisl1
Thank you for the link.
My pleasure Matthew,
If you’ve not been there before you’ll no doubt have lots of fun finding buoys (and ships) measuring met (and wave) numbers in all sorts of unexpected places.
Here is one example of what a surface air & water temperature “thermometer” in the Gulf of Mexico looks like:
Thanks for the link also.
Site elevation: 2.7 m above mean sea level
Air temp height: 3.9 m above site elevation
Sea temp depth: 0.8 m below MLLW
Amazing it is still working after the recent storm.
Should have blown away.
Listed in their buoy data but obviously not a buoy.
Is it still working or are they just rehashing last years figures?
If the structure is still extent how do they compensate for the shadow of the wharf at 0.8 meters depth?
What is the temperature of the water discharged into the water nearby, if any?
What does an MSU look like?
Here is a verbal picture for you, Jim.
Christy
An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the
Igor Polyakov can’t be cancelled that easily.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/polyakov-et-al-2003.png
Try the real deal, Chief:
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/usbhatt/publications/polyakov.etal.2003a.pdf
Is he smarmily insinuating that the graph is not the real deal? It simply adds the first decades of the satellite record to Polyakov’s historic data. The study abstract poor wee willie googled and copies and pastes with bolding I have read. Igor Polyakov is one of my favorites. It says something about decadal changes in surface temperature and sea level pressure – but the sea ice graph comes from a different study.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/16/12/1520-0442_2003_016_2078_liviam_2.0.co_2.xml
Such superficial dismissal of data on such oddly self contradictory grounds is a sign of poor wee willies anti-science fanaticism. It is all about counting coup in the climate war. Truth as an objective comes a distant second.
Mornin’ Robert (UTC),
I’m afraid you’ll need to expand upon your overly brief comment. Perhaps you know what you meant by it but I’m a bear of very little brain, so I don’t.
Apart from anything else I was referring to Arctic sea volume whilst your invisible image appears to be of extent.
Willard seems to be of the opinion that you’re referring to “natural variability”?
We all know there is no natural variability. But poor wee willie googled and copied and pasted the wrong Igor Polyakov et al 2003 abstract.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/16/12/1520-0442_2003_016_2078_liviam_2.0.co_2.xml
Afternoon Robert (UTC),
Thanks for the link, which makes slightly more sense in this context.
However a whole lot has changed in the “Arctic marginal seas” since 2002/3.
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind expanding further on your point?
It makes a lot more sense.
Evenin’ Robert,
Not yet to me it doesn’t, perhaps simply because I’m an infrequent visitor to this particular echo chamber.
Which may of course be of no concern to you whatsoever!
I reposted above due to the comments about El Nino
over “Confusion over ENSO and global warming:”
David Wojick | September 11, 2021 “El Niño confusion” Both articles are on how future warming will change El Niño. All of the warming to date in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño’s”
David Appell | September 11, 2021 “How does an El Nino generate heat that’s added to the climate system? Where does that heat come from?
Richard Greene | September 13, 2021 got it mostly right “El Ninos rearrange heat — they bring some ocean heat to the surface, where that heat will affect sea surface temperatures.In the long run (30 to 40 years), all the ENSOs have offset each other, for a net change of near zero.
Christian Wengel used the butterfly wing argument
“The current generation of climate models does not properly resolve oceanic mesoscale processes in tropical oceans, such as tropical instability waves”
Christopher W. Callahan, makes the surprise finding that their models actually show exactly what they were looking for.
“higher temperatures are associated with a ‘permanent El Niño”
While confirming ENSO as an outcome, not a causation [David Appell was right, due to large natural variability]
“El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the primary mode of interannual climate variability, and understanding its response to climate change is critical, but research remains divided on the direction and magnitude of that response.”
If ocean heat did not come to the surface in the right spot at the right time there would be no El Nino.
This does not mean that the ocean currents are a cause of El Nino.
Whether currents of heat go deep for a thousand years or 2 days does not mean that they area source of new heat into the system.
El Nino’s occur when the earths atmosphere receives more energy. Less clouds, less albedo mean more energy into the system. When the earth is warmer the seas are warmer, the “hot” currents appear to stay warm.
The question is not some arcane new heat coming into the system.
The system with hot and cold currents is already in balance and stays in overall energy balance [chiefio quite a few current comments on this}.
The question is what are the natural variations occuring that allow the heat to rise in the system.
Solar output variation, distance from sun over north or south hemisphere , cloud cover. changing vegetation water blooms sandstorms , and the ongoing butterfly effects from these real and large changes explain ENSO.
So, “”All of the warming to date in the 40+ year satellite record is due to two super El Niño.;s”
No.
It would be nice but it is not true.
The temperature rise is just natural variability.
Factors we have not got a handle on yet.
Judith and others would argue a bit of warming due to CO2 .
Nothing wrong with that either.
How much natural variability is possible?
A lot more than what most people are prepared to factor in.
How quickly can it change?
Big world, CO2 is a very small butterfly.
Time will tell.
It’s worth wondering why surface temperatures drop so slowly when the Peruvian Current brings cold water below the surface? In my opinion, the easterly wind along the equator is not constant. The meridional jet current, which is created by weak spikes in solar wind strength, makes it difficult for La Niña to develop.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202109.gif
Surface temperatures in the central Pacific are dropping by leaps and bounds. Each spike means a weakening of the east wind.
https://i.ibb.co/1ryJw11/nino3.png
ENSO and the PDO have added energy to the Earth system in the past 40 years through a cloud effect feedback.
But the effects emerge in patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation. In a La Nina strong trade winds pile warm surface water up against Australia and Indonesia. At some stage the trade winds falter and warm water surges eastward. Comprehension is founded on physical oceanography.
Angech: Judith and others would argue a bit of warming due to CO2 .
Nothing wrong with that either.
How much natural variability is possible?
A lot more than what most people are prepared to factor in.
How quickly can it change?
Big world, CO2 is a very small butterfly.
Thank you for that post.
Thank you.
Jakobshavn Glacier in west Greenland viewed by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 mission on 29 April 2019. In recent years, Greenland has been losing more ice through this glacier than from anywhere else on this huge ice sheet. Various types of satellite data have been used to understand and monitor the glacier’s flow over the last 20 years. This revealed that the glacier was flowing at its fastest and losing the most ice in 2012–13. In places, the main trunk of the glacier was deflating by 10 m a year as it adjusted dynamically to ice loss and melting. However, information from satellites such as ESA’s CryoSat and the Copernicus Sentinel-1 mission show that between 2013 and 2017, the region drained by the glacier stopped shrinking in height and started to thicken. The overall effect is that Jakobshavn is now flowing more slowly, thickening, and advancing toward the ocean instead of retreating farther inland.
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Images/2019/05/Jakobshavn_Glacier
Jakobshavn Isbrae has been the single largest source of mass loss from the Greenland Ice Sheet over the last 20 years. During that time, it has been retreating, accelerating and thinning. Here we use airborne altimetry and satellite imagery to show that since 2016 Jakobshavn has been re-advancing, slowing and thickening. We link these changes to concurrent cooling of ocean waters in Disko Bay that spill over into Ilulissat Icefjord. Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid 1980s. Observations and modelling trace the origins of this cooling to anomalous wintertime heat loss in the boundary current that circulates around the southern half of Greenland. Longer time series of ocean temperature, subglacial discharge and glacier variability strongly suggest that ocean-induced melting at the front has continued to influence glacier dynamics after the disintegration of its floating tongue in 2003. We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient, and that accounting for external forcing is indispensable.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0329-3
The map shows the degree to which the Greenland Ice Sheet has become either thicker or thinner during the three-year period from January 2017 until December 2019. It is evident that near many of the large outlet glaciers, the ice sheet has thinned by several metres each year, but we do also see that large parts of the ice sheet have thickened due to precipitation during the three years.
In this map we see a thickening at the front of Jakobshavn Isbræ; a signal that has been confirmed by air-borne measurements (Khazendar et al., 2019)
http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/polarportal/mass/CS2_uk_HD_large.jpg
Here you can see Disko Bay, into which the glacier flows. The fjords into which Greenland’s glaciers flow can be as deep as 1 km.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Disko/20210913TERR.jpg
Ireneusz Palmowski |The fjords into which Greenland’s glaciers flow can be as deep as 1 km.
Raises an interesting question.
How far down can ice go?
Cannot go to deep under the earth due to increasing heat.
I might surmise that ice could not be found 500 meters under the earth surface anywhere on the globe.
–
But how deep can it go in the oceans before having to break off and float to the surface?
50 meters?
100 meters ?
500 meter’?
Seeing 8/9 ? of an ice berg is under water how deep does a Manhattan sized chunk of ice go below the surface?
Guessing 50 meters maximum.
David Baltimore explains his “smoking gun” comment about the origin of COVID during this interview:
https://www.caltech.edu/about/news/the-debate-over-origins-of-sars-cov-2
“Recently you were quoted as saying: “When I first saw the furin cleavage site in the viral sequence, with its arginine codons, I said to my wife it was the smoking gun for the origin of the virus. These features make a powerful challenge to the idea of a natural origin for SARS2.” Can you unpack this quote for us?
Let me be clear, even though I used the phrase “smoking gun,” I DON’T REALLY THINK THERE’S A SMOKING GUN IN THE GENOME ITSELF. [My emphasis].
Now, within the SARS-CoV-2 genome there is an insertion of 12 nucleotides that is entirely foreign to the beta-coronavirus class of virus that SARS-CoV-2 is in. There are many other viruses in this class, including the closest relative of SARS-CoV-2 by sequence, and none of them have this sequence. The sequence is called the furin cleavage site.
To back up a little bit: In order to infect a cell, the spike protein on the surface of viruses like SARS-CoV-2 needs to first be cut, or cleaved. The cut needn’t be terribly exact, but it needs to be cut. Different viruses attract different kinds of cellular “scissors,” so to speak, to make this cut; the furin cleavage site attracts the furin protein providing the most efficient way to make a cut. You don’t need a furin cleavage site to cut the protein, but it makes the virus more efficiently infectious.
So where did it come from in SARS-CoV-2? There are other viruses that have furin cleavage sites, other coronaviruses, though not the family of beta-coronaviruses. So this sequence’s nucleotides could have hopped from some other virus.* No one has identified a virus that has exactly this sequence, but it could have come from something close, then evolved into the sequence that we see today.
I’m perfectly willing to believe that happened, but I don’t think it’s the only way that that sequence could have appeared. The other way is that somebody could have put it in there. You can’t distinguish between the two origins from just looking at the sequence. So, naturally, you want to know were there people in the virology laboratory in Wuhan who were manipulating viral genetic sequences? It’s really a question of history: What happened?
When I first saw the sequence of the furin cleavage site—as I’ve said, other beta coronaviruses don’t have that site—it seemed to me a reasonable hypothesis that somebody had put it in there. Now, I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I do know that it’s a hypothesis that must be taken seriously.
_______________________
* Some have asserted that furin site “hopping” [recombination] between distant branches of the coronavirus family is unlikely. That may be true. In that case, the furin cleavage site MUST have been developed in MULTIPLE branches of the coronavirus family by convergent evolution and could have happened in the beta branch too. Baltimore doesn’t mention the convergent evolution hypothesis, so he apparently doesn’t think recombination between distant branches is problematic. I tend to believe Baltimore is correct about the likelihood of recombination, but the existence of furin cleavage sites in three branches of the coronavirus family means finding it is SARS2 is “not a smoking gun” … as best I can tell.
Frank, there does not need to be a smoking gun to make an airtight case. The FCS is just one piece of evidence. It was odd enough for Anderson to run to Fauci first thing when he saw it and say the virus showed potential for lab manipulation (before Fauci gathered all the troops to say we are not going this direction).
Two days ago we learned that a new book coming out will reveal that Wei Jingsheng, a prominent Chinese defector to the US, learned from his contact in China in November 2019 that a new deadly virus was spreading in Wuhan since the October World Military Games and was being covered up. He went to the USIC and did everything in his power to get the message to the White House but is uncertain if he succeeded. It sound like the USIC blundered again but there should be an investigation.
In any case China has overwhelming evidence against it and is culpable for the spread of the virus throughout the world by covering it up for three months, whether it came out of a lab or not. But what would give anyone doubt that the Chinese military would not have been doing their own gain of function research on SARS viruses? Real question.
https://nypost.com/2021/09/14/chinese-defector-warned-us-intelligence-of-covid-19-in-2019/
Ron and Tom: The problem much of the NYP’s “evidence” doesn’t point to a single hypothesis.
As Baltimore says, the furin cleavage site could have been introduced by genetic engineering or recombination (and I added or convergent evolution). Those who asserted the furin cleavage site MUST have been genetic engineered mislead us. It isn’t evidence that points to any hypothesis. The official report given to Biden believed that SARS2 wasn’t genetically engineered as part of a biowarfare project.
Wei Jingsheng says he learned about a mysterious virus at the WMI games in OCTOBER 2019 from a high-level contact in Beijing, told that story in front of witnesses on 11/22/19, and to contacts with access to Trump. This hypothesis makes little sense to me. If the virus at the WMI (an ideal place to start a pandemic) were the SARS2 discovered in late December, the pandemic would have been obvious to all in November. In the initial stages of the pandemic in most places each infected person on the average is infecting 3-4 others every 5 days and this number could easily at such an event and flying home. The number of US cases increased 5000-fold in March of 2020 (before lockdowns had time to work) and the same thing of worse should have happened after the WMI by mid-November 2019. Absurd. Sure, there could have been an unusual number of illnesses at the WMI, but it wasn’t what we recognize as SARS2 today. And the WMI hypothesis doesn’t add and support for (or against the genetic engineering hypothesis.
Then Asher is talking about a third hypothesis, intelligence that workers at the WIV were getting sick in Nov. That certainly could have been the start of the pandemic, but it is also totally independent of the WMI hypothesis and the genetic engineering hypothesis. The virus that infected these workers could have come from a collected sample of a virus that evolved in nature or more sophisticate study of some coronavirus that remains unreported today. RaTG17 differs at 1000 positions from SARS2.
Trump is a conspiracy theorist. Scientists should treat conspiracy theories lacking any evidence as conspiracy theories, If the US government had evidence to back Trump’s conspiracy theory in the spring, they might have made sure the WH was aware they had evidence to back up Trump’s conspiracy theory and might have made the WH aware of that evidence and scientists would have taken that hypothesis more seriously, as they do today (mostly because a close relative of SARS2 hasn’t been found in animals as it was with SARS1). Of course, the intelligence bureaucracy may not have wanted Trump dealing irresponsibility with their evidence and kept quiet,
Ron wrote: “there does not need to be a smoking gun to make an airtight case.” Multiple pieces of evidence that support different hypotheses – none of which are smoking guns by themselves – never add up to an air-tight case. That’s called “throwing everything against the wall and seeing what sticks”. So far, nothing is sticking.
I’m sure there is an “Institute of Virology” in many major Chinese cities with a medical system sophisticated enough to identify SARS2. You’ll probably find one in many in US cities too, though they might be called Institutes of AIDS Research in the US. (I checked Stanford and Berkeley before finding one at UCSF, UC’s top medical school.) And all major Chinese cities have (or had) wild animal markets. Wuhan, however, is special because they have THE premier virus research center in the whole country and the only BSL4 facilities.
FWIW The head of the Chinese CDC (Gao) called the head of the US CDC (Redfield) on January 4 (who was on vacation) and again on January 8 and – in great distress – informed him that they had discovered a novel coronavirus that may have gotten out of control in Wuhan. If this were known to have been the result of a lab accident at the WIV that was already being covered up, all information would likely have been released by official channels. Communications, especially about human transmission, through official channels to the WHO were delayed and misleading.
Ron wrote: “It was odd enough for Anderson to run to Fauci first thing when he saw it and say the virus showed potential for lab manipulation (before Fauci gathered all the troops to say we are not going this direction).”
If I were Anderson, I certainly would have “run to Fauci” and others with my hypothesis about the furin cleavage site. Smart scientists know that confirmation bias makes it easy for them to fall in love with their latest great idea. As Feynman said in Cargo Cult Science: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person [for you] to fool.” So, many test their ideas by trying out their ideas on others they respect – as Anderson did immediately with a group Fauci informally assembled. Nothing suspicious about that.
Now I’d like to believe the consensus they came to was a purely scientific and unforced consensus after properly considered all of the evidence. After SARS1 and MERS, zoonosis was the obvious origin hypothesis – until we failed to identify a host between bats and people. But I won’t insist that you accept that politics didn’t determine the outcome, because you are inherently much more suspicious than I. Experience has taught me to be cynical about climate science, but not scientists in general. (Peter Dazsak may be more policy advocate than scientist.)
Ron also wrote: “In any case China has overwhelming evidence against it and is culpable for the spread of the virus throughout the world by covering it up for three months, whether it came out of a lab or not.”
This assumes that SARS2 was at the World Military Games in October or was responsible for the US intelligence report of infectious disease in November. In the early days of COVID in a new location (like the US in March), the number of cases doubles roughly every 2.5 days = 4,000 fold in a month. You just can’t have what we know of as SARS2 expanding in a major metropolitan area for months and keep it a secret. Maybe in an isolated area or military base. Maybe a less virulent strain. The news about identification of a new coronavirus spread over social media quickly once the virus was sequenced. Taiwan was screening passengers on flights from Wuhan on 1/2/20. Gao called Redfield in tears on 1/4/20 confessing that they had lost control of a new form of SARS. China did outrageously deny having evidence of human-to-human transmission for far too long.
Frank wrote: “If I were Anderson, I certainly would have “run to Fauci” and others with my hypothesis about the furin cleavage site.”
I suspect Anderson had spoken to his virology colleagues before warning Fauci (the Big Kahuna). This was likely the reason for Fauci’s need to have his deputy round up all of them in emergency fashion the next day.
Fauci has zero evolutionary biology expertise compared with the virologists yet you believe it is appropriate that his judgment prevail over theirs. Because why?
Anderson clearly could find no justification on that question which is apparently why he deleted his Twitter account, which he had before that point been using daily. He might have had different thoughts if he knew of yours and others willing acceptance of his behavior. (Especially now seeing the MSM applauding General Milley’s revealed coup against Trump.)
In Anderson et al (2020) the number one evidence given for SARS2 not being from a lab is that the backbone virus that would have been lab manipulated is not seen in the published databases. I wonder what Anderson’s thoughts were when Zhengli Shi coughed up the confession in November 2020 that she had collected 8 other SARS viruses (unpublished) from the same location that RaTG13 came from.
Why didn’t Anderson use his Twitter account to demand that China publish the sequences for these 8 novel SARS viruses? The reason is clearly that had allowed himself to be compromised, just like Fauci and Daszak.
At lease Ralph Baric signed the March letter with Alina Chan and others demanding China be more cooperative. Baric must have been devastated when he learned that 6 miners had been directly infected by bat SARS in 2012 and Zhengli Shi had been analyzing their hospital labs and the location site for years without telling him.
Also in Anderson et al (2020) they predict that an intermediary species will be identified due to the evolution of the spike relative to RaTG13. In fact the FCS, which broadens infectivity and range of possible hosts, strongly suggests it. Not only has no intermediary been found for SARS2, it has also became questioned for SARS1 in 2009, (likely unbeknownst to Anderson).
From Anderson et al:
Given the geopolitical ramifications, were I Dr. Fauci I would not want to be the first, second or third American to suggest a virus had escaped a Chinese laboratory, even if I had strong suspicions about it, which does not seem to be the case here.
By the time Fauci began to use his influence to cast a false narrative about the science the president, secretary of state and several senators had already made the obvious connection to the WIV and Wuhan that comedian Democrat John Stewart would make a year later. The virus came from a city that housed an institute with the same name: The Institute for Novel Coronavirus Gain of Function Research and Evolution.
A new paper awaiting peer-review asserts that two separate variants (A and B) of SARS2 existed from the start of the pandemic – strongly implying that it crossed over twice from animals to people. Only a few early sequences show characteristics of both strains in one isolate and these sequences led to the initial assumption that there was a common viral ancestor in humans. The new report argues that these few isolates had sequencing errors. The A variant was found in patients associated with one wild animal market and spread only in China. The B variant was found in patients associated with a second wild animal market and spread worldwide (as well as in China).
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02519-1
https://virological.org/t/evidence-against-the-veracity-of-sars-cov-2-genomes-intermediate-between-lineages-a-and-b/754/1
FWIW, I’m not advocating this hypothesis. I’m merely passing on the news that a reputable source is reporting it.
Thanks for the links. I guess you anticipated my question of whether a reservoir infecting China markets is evidence of a natural origin or a very leaky lab if they can’t find the animal reservoir.
Ron: I don’t like a paper which claims there could be mistakes in the data indicating that the A and B variants had a common origin in one “Patient Zero”. If mistakes were made, get the data to prove it and THEN publish. Hopefully they chose a different path because the data that needs to be reviewed is in many different labs and files.
IIRC, there are two major variants of HIV and both have been traced back to two different crossovers of Simian Immunosuppression Virus into two human “Patient Zeros” many years apart in Africa before 1950. And there were two crossover events with SARS1.
These articles for raised a distressing number of questions for me, beginning with why two crossovers in a very short period of time in one location where bats aren’t a problem? And why so many sequencing errors at these two key locations?
Frank, I appreciate your open mindedness. I’m trying too.
But this character, Gary, from the article is not at all thinking clearly when he says: “If you can show that A and B are two separate lineages and there were two spillovers, it all but eliminates the idea that it came from a lab.”
Evidence of spillovers is evidence of the existence of a reservoir, nothing more, obviously, as you recognized.
OTOH, if it is verified that the transitional varieties found of the virus containing parts of both version A and version B, then this is evidence of recombination event(s), which rarely happen in the wild, and thus would seem to preclude a natural reservoir. Yet it would be highly supportive of a scenario of ongoing lab leaks of a virus undergoing accelerated (artificial) evolution in a lab.
Were any of the WIV’s lab animal species in also ones available for sale in wet markets? I have not seen anyone voicing this question.
If the virus had a natural origin then tracing infections to separate wet markets is only the beginning of the trail. Finding the reservoir that infected the market animals is the key. Few people outside of the SARS1 researchers are aware that the origin of SARS1 was re-opened years after the case had been closed. Ralph Baric can be heard here in 2015 postulating that civet cats were not the reservoir for SARS1. Although he doesn’t state why one can find in the literature that an Ecohealth Alliance funded 2009 study found civet cats in the wild do not carry the coronavirus. This was also their finding on a study of wild pangolins in 2020 after Covid. (BTW, Baric’s lead investigator, Menachery, has taken down his website where I originally found the podcast though the podcast still remains floating in cyberspace.)
Mystery1: what reservoir formed SARS1 ?
Mystery2: where did pangolin cov come from?
Mystery3: why couldn’t they find the wet market reservoir with it being one of the most urgent questions in the world?
Mystery 4: why is nobody asking for samples of the 8 other SARS-like viruses found in the same copper mine as RaTG13? (Zhengli Shi admitted their existence but nothing more in November of 2020 after prodding.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2951-z
Eco Health Alliance proposed using SARS research to be funded by DARPA as a 2018 defense contract. He, of course, would have Baric and Shi oversee injecting the chimeric bat SARS into humanized mice.
DARPA said, “Naaah. We think it’s GOF which is banned research.”
https://drasticresearch.org/2021/09/20/1583/
Peter Daszak forgot to mention that he and Zhengli Shi had their eye on inserting a furin cleavage site into novel SARS covs to increase pathogenicity in humans in their 2018 grant application to DARPA.
DARPA claims they said “no” to Shi and Daszak but nobody has asked the PLA what their response was.
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-grant-darpa/
I find it a notable omission that in her 2020 Nature article introducing SARS2 that Zhengli Shi does not mention the furin cleavage site. Could Shi and her team have missed the very attribute that had warned could make a SARS virus a potential human pandemic risk just one year before? Or, did they immediately recognize it like Anderson but realize that it was too embarrassing a coincidence that the feared mutation appeared practically outside their front door?
Why did nobody at DARPA speak out? Didn’t they hear the president’s 90-day intelligence gathering order? Shouldn’t they have mentioned it to somebody in the one of the 19 agencies?
Did Daszak go to DARPA only with his grant proposal? Or, is there other yet to be disclosed agency grant proposals with furin cleavage site experiments?
Frank, what are your thoughts on the furin cleavage site insertion research proposal in 2018 on the smoking gun scale?
Ron asked “what are your thoughts on the furin cleavage site insertion research proposal in 2018 on the smoking gun scale?”
Ron, What are your thoughts about putting a furin cleavage site in the far more deadly SARS1 virus to make it more transmissible?
“Furin cleavage of the SARS coronavirus spike glycoprotein enhances cell–cell fusion but does not affect virion entry”
“The fusogenic potential of Class I viral envelope glycoproteins is activated by proteloytic cleavage of the precursor glycoprotein to generate the mature receptor-binding and transmembrane fusion subunits. Although the coronavirus (CoV) S glycoproteins share membership in this class of envelope glycoproteins, cleavage to generate the respective S1 and S2 subunits appears absent in a subset of CoV species, including that responsible for the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). To determine whether proteolytic cleavage of the S glycoprotein might be important for the newly emerged SARS-CoV, we introduced a furin recognition site at single basic residues within the putative S1–S2 junctional region. We show that furin cleavage at the modified R667 position generates discrete S1 and S2 subunits and potentiates membrane fusion activity. This effect on the cell–cell fusion activity by the S glycoprotein is not, however, reflected in the infectivity of pseudotyped lentiviruses bearing the cleaved glycoprotein. The lack of effect of furin cleavage on virion infectivity mirrors that observed in the normally cleaved S glycoprotein of the murine coronavirus and highlights an additional level of complexity in coronavirus entry.”
Oh, BTW, this grossly irresponsible research was done in 2006 in the US and did not cause a global pandemic. The SARS virus they are talking about is SARS1, not SARS2. Yes, the University of Montana does have a BSL3 facility to do such work. Google scholar turns up dozens of other papers about SARS and furin cleavage sites published before 2020.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682206000900
SARS2 does have a furin cleavage site that could have been deliberately introduce into an unknown virus However, doing so in RaTG13, or any other known coronavirus would still leave us 1000 base pair changes away from SARS2.
My thought is that we should both trust the judgment of the experts who recently reported to President Biden. They know vastly more about this subject than we do. As the moment, they favor the zoonosis hypotheses, reject the biowarfare hypothesis, and think a lab escape is still a viable hypothesis. Unfortunately, they didn’t disclose enough to understand why some of the evidence you cite didn’t dominate their thinking. We should encourage Congress to ask for the declassification more of their report.
Those hyping other positions haven’t proven accurate in their claims.
Frank, I like that you appreciate putting the fine details under the magnifying glass. That is the correct way to search for truth. However, in addition to this one also has to sit back and use some common sense. Just because adding a furin cleavage site was a hot topic for GOF by others beside the WIV does not mean they did not go forward with what they clearly expressed a desire to do. Just because there was no leak in the BSL3 lab in Montana in 2006 does not mean that the WIV did not have a leak in 2019.
I respectfully say you should check your logic again. And you are forgetting that these same experts that you want to trust were caught lying to us in the spring of 2020.
I cannot think a historical example of an experts that allowed themselves to be compromised in supporting a coverup later confess their sins and bring down their colleagues, which would then impugn their entire field.
They might be willing to do it for a $10 million book advance but I can’t think of an example where a publisher bribed someone to tell the truth.
John Dean is the closest example I can think of. He spilled his guts to lesson his sentence on top of building a new career of writing about things that were “worse that Watergate.”
Joshua | September 16, 2021 at 10:01 am | Reply
To be clear, I personally don’t think that comparing COVID outcomes across states has much utility.
So why have you been so fixated/obsessed on comparing Covid outcomes across states?
Joe –
> So why have you been so fixated/obsessed on comparing Covid outcomes across states?
I’ve given my view on that. More than once. Can’t hurt to give it again I guess.
My comments were specifically directed at those who previously attributed better results in Florida to supposedly superior policies.
If Florida’s policies were superior, then why were the results so bad more recently (particularly in ccomparison to NY? Because suddenly Florida’s policies go so much worse than NY’S POLICIES whereas before they were superior?
My point, obviously, and as I’ve stated over and over, is that it’s facile to think you can attribute differential COVID outcome to state-wide policies. If only because states are so internally heterogenous with respect to important predictors of health outcomes. But for many other reasons as well, generally that fall under the headings of confounding variables, interaction effects, spurious relationships, mediator and moderator variables, and timing (in particular related to the timing of interventions related to the precipitating trends).
I mean I probably would find it convincing if someone made a very careful analysis, where they expertly controlled for confounding variables, discussed mediators and moderators and interaction effects, and talked about timing, I would come around to believing attribution of COVID outcomes to state-wide policies.
But I haven’t seen that. Instead we get nonsense like what Jeff posted just now, where he systematically goes through a cherry-picked collection of skewed descriptions of a few variables and filters them in such a way as to reinforce his desired partisan outlook. It’s quite amusing, actually.
Of course that happens on the other side as well. Just as nonsensically.
And then trunks weights in, with a similarly predetemined conclusion because of his partisan outlook
And of course, as well, with his typically bizarre scata0gical reference. Dude is obsessed with particular body functions and a select few of my body parts. I wonder why.
Notice how trunks ignores any factors that might complicate his confirmation of preexisting biases – like DeSantis’ stated support for testing only symptomatic people: an official policy that would necessarily limit the number of identified positive cases relative to the number of actual infections.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzz.
It’s all so predictable. Even down to the bizarre scata0gical references in his case.
Joe –
And what do you think the people ho are now arguing that New York has reached or closely approached a “herd immunity threshold” will argue if the rates of infection and death continue to increase in NY as they have been doing recently (although arguably, as to whether the R value is above a “herd immunity threshold” standard)?
It may not it happen (at least dramatically) but then again it may, in which case I predict we’ll see similarly internally incoherent arguments from the likes of Trunks and Jeff as we did when Nic and the rest of the “let it rip” crew got egg on their faces after they concluded NY, Sweden, India., etc. had all reached “herd immunity” well over a year ago only to see infection and mortality rates subsequently increase exponentially.
To be clear, I personally don’t think that comparing COVID outcomes across states has much utility.
That given, many of my friends here have been making such comparisons, and…for my many and much beloved “denizen” friends who in these threads have been repeatedly praising the outcomes of COVID policies in Florida relative to NY…
As such, I’m curious to find out their thoughts about the current status and related trends in COVID outcomes across the states.
I notice that Florida, lately, has been marching up the charts (particularly relative to NY) in per capita deaths from COVID. It is near the very top in per capita cases, even though it is well down the chart in per capita testing.
Given trends, it seems likely to keep moving in the wrong direction relative to NY along each metric for the next month or so, or maybe longer? Maybe those trends will reverse once the Fall and Winter settle in up North?
NY, on the other hand, has fallen back towards the pack in per capita deaths, is well down the chart in per capita cases, even as it is near the top in per capital testing.
I certainly hope some of my friends will help me to understand these trends. If you think comparing across states has value for evaluating different policies in different states, what do you think the implications are of these trends?
I was definitely in the camp that thought that comparisons across states would give us some information about methods that are effective versus ones that are not. The very early vaccination (once available) of Israel’s population to very high levels (in comparison to other countries), and the subsequent very high levels (again in comparison to other countries) of incidence of disease has changed my mind. There are too many confounding variables to make these comparisons. However, I found that the post that was previously published on this web site to address this was reasonably done and worthwhile reading. That post talks about voluntary versus mandatory controls, and how that information about increased risk can lead to actions that limit the spread. Conversely, in the case of Israel, a relaxing of the population (in this case due to vaccination) can lead to a spread before the information reaches the population that the risk has increased despite the vaccination. This is especially true of a vaccination that does not completely make a person immune like the ones that are available for COVID.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-959893
Joshua,
I had not seen those articles, but both are very good, and I highly recommend them. Further, just to clear up any misunderstanding, I am not saying that COVID vaccinations are not worth the risk of getting them. I was vaccinated, and as I have explained previously I have no idea if I have had COVID or not due to allergies that could mask a mild infection.
atandb –
> Further, just to clear up any misunderstanding, I am not saying that COVID vaccinations are not worth the risk of getting them.
Sure. I didn’t interpret your comments to be unsupportive of vaccines.
What I’ve seen of Israel thus far along with the UK or Iceland or Chile or the Seychelles or Gibraltar, just goes to reinforce my view that trying to extrapolate cross-nationally is very tricky and should only be done with a lot of circumspection, by people who have the best data and a lot of experience with this kind of analysis. Armchair epidemiologistsz it seems to me, have a very hard time getting past confirmation bias.
I have looked at several maps that are supposed to show risk of COVID vs State or Country. Just looked at some data that makes those maps suspect. Grenada, Bermuda, and Saint Lucia are all pretty high in terms of risk if you use new cases/1M pop + New Deaths/10k pop. As best as I can tell most of the “risk” maps are using total incidence over the entire COVID time period, which does not give a current picture.
Covid-19 specific data can be (and I believe are) manufactured at will. The “clean” data are total (all-causes) death rates (deaths/population).
Sweden provides a very useful example of what works and what doesn’t. The link also shows covid-19 related ICU numbers even though I just said I’m not a big fan of any covid-19 specific data.
Sweden did not panic and the results are quite good. So what Sweden did worked. Of course if the goal was to create panic then Sweden was a very bad actor for not playing along.
https://ibb.co/ZgMFcxC
atandb –
> The very early vaccination (once available) of Israel’s population to very high levels (in comparison to other countries), and the subsequent very high levels (again in comparison to other countries) of incidence of disease has changed my mind
I assume you’ve seen information like this?
https://www.covid-datascience.com/post/israeli-data-how-can-efficacy-vs-severe-disease-be-strong-when-60-of-hospitalized-are-vaccinated
And this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/08/31/covid-israel-hospitalization-rates-simpsons-paradox/
In Israel, from around two weeks after booster shots were initiated:
> Still, vaccination reduced the rate of hospitalization more than 10-fold in the population under 50.
[…]
> In the older population, vaccinated people were less than one-sixth as likely to be hospitalized as the unvaccinated.
jdigreg –
Sorry, I mis-nested that response. Your comment didn’t merit one
Jeff –
Here’s what you said in Sept 23.
> Deaths in New York (including NYC) over the last seven days per the CDC- 246
Deaths in Florida over the last seven days per the CDC 116
Now I tried to explain to you why you wee totally wrong there. I told you that the magnitude of your error would only grow over time as the lag in recording filled in.
As of today, on September 23 the recorded 7 day average for deaths per day were:
Florida: 135
NY: 40
So in actuality the deaths over the previous week in NY was @280 where as the deaths over the previous week in Florida was @945.
Your number for Florida was off by around 815%! And the magnitude of your error will only grow with the next update from Florida.
Do you want to eat your crow now or do you want to wait until the serving will be even bigger?
Was that the string where you said Florida was going to rapidly outpace NY in deaths? And that the number of deaths in Florida was about 400 a day? And now it’s fourth of that with case counts and hospitalizations down 70% from when you were so excited?
If the case counts stop declining entirely (not going to happen) and New York manages to avoid suffering from going into cold weather with that massive number of unvaccinated New York City residents (not going to happen), you might see Florida almost catch up to New York in a little over 60 days if the numbers you provide hold steady for those two months (not going to happen).
Cuomo will always have handled Covid worse than DeSantis. Cuomo will always be the governor who lied about deaths, will always be the guy who filed lawsuits against other states to enable infected New Yorkers to be the source of Covid in Florida and almost every other state in the US, and Cuomo will always be the guy who got caught playing political games with health care settings (the empty Javitts center and Hospital ship) and the vaccine (prioritizing family and supporters and having his vax czar call local health officials and insist on political support before chatting about vaccine availability.
For those reasons, Joshua will always be hollering about Florida and I will always be willing to point out he is still wrong.
Here are the CDC data (all causes deaths/100 in age group) for the first 36 weeks of the year by age group from 2015-2021 for Florida and New York in side-by-side plots. Florida is doing just fine and it’s highly unlikely this will change in the next few weeks.
https://ibb.co/MgfNFTC
Jeff –
> Was that the string where you said Florida was going to rapidly outpace NY in deaths? And that the number of deaths in Florida was about 400 a day? And now it’s fourth of that with case counts and hospitalizations down 70% from when you were so excited?
Not even close on any of that. Do you know that and are lying? If so, it’s rather spectacular lying.
> Was that the string where you said Florida was going to rapidly outpace NY in deaths?
I noted the rapid increase in deaths in Florida relative to NY since the spring.up to a few days ago. From around 17,000 fewer deaths to less than 1,000 fewer a few days ago and possibly more (total, not per capita) deaths relatively soon.
> And that the number of deaths in Florida was about around 400 a day?
I noted that the deaths in Florida were fairly around 360 per day at te beginning of September.
> And now it’s fourth of that
No. The deaths count now is much higher than one fourth of 90.
> with case counts and hospitalizations down 70% from when you were so excited?
This “when [I]was so excited” is of course, bull. I was responding to your incredibly wrong characterization of the numbers on Sept 23, where you were off by over 800% (and counting). Just to get you in the record, are you saying that case counts and hospitalizations today are down 70% from Sept 23?
oh for goodness sakes, you commented on Oct. 1 that you thought Florida already outpaced New York (conveniently ignoring the rate per 100k in order to attempt to make yet another fake point).
Your glee in counting dead old people in Florida is self evident and is only possibly surpassed by your obsession with Swedish morgues. Your implication that vax rates are terrible in Florida is self evident even though they’re higher for old people in Florida than it is in New York.
Joshua
I saw this today on your favourite web site and thought it would be of interest to you. It shows excess deaths for Europe
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/04/u-k-suffers-high-death-toll-despite-massive-spending-to-combat-covid/
I have no idea how it compares to places like Florida
Tonyb
Jeff –
> oh for goodness sakes, you commented on Oct. 1 that you thought Florida already outpaced New York
What I said was that once the lag was accounted for, at close to that date the absolute number of deaths in Florida was likely to have eclipsed that number on NY. We will see once the lag is accounted for.
The RATE of daily deaths on Florida is certain to be higher than in NY on that date and likely going forward for a good bit more.
I notice that you provided no quote. That’s because you can’t find Any quote supporting your characterization of what I said.
> (conveniently ignoring the rate per 100k in order to attempt to make yet another fake point).
That’s absolutely not true. I was careful to make the distinction. But amusingly enough, in that date once the lag is accounted for the daily death rate in Florida will absolutely be higher than in NY.
OK. Now the needle is definitely tipping towards lying.
> Your glee in counting dead old people in Florida is self evident and is only possibly surpassed by your obsession with Swedish morgues.
I take no pleasure in people dying.ny your logic we could say that you take pleasure in people in NY dying. I highly dobbt that’s the case.
> Your implication that vax rates are terrible in Florida is self evident even though they’re higher for old people in Florida than it is in New York.
You will find ABSOLUTELY zero comments from. My about the vax rate in Florida. Do you and Chief talk to each other about your fantasies about me?
tony –
> This evidence shows that spending billions of pounds above normal on health services and staff, and enticing a large proportion of a population to get vaccinated, do not necessarily correlate with a lower number of deaths.
I’m just curious if you understand the concept of confounding variables?
tony –
Or for that matter, spurious relationships?
Joshua
I merely passed you a link I thought you would find interesting and relevant to your extended discussion here. I made no other comment on it.
Tonyb
Joshua: State-to-state comparisons are extremely useful. I’m distressed that there aren’t bigger differences between states that were more aggressive in their restrictions, but that is reality. The spread in cumulative infections is barely two-fold. We need to learn what interventions help the most in the real world and abandon or improve the others. (I live in a small town that reports separately from the large suburban sprawl that fills the entire county. For some reason, we have 3-fold fewer cumulative cases than the county that surrounds us and 5-fold fewer than the national average. I don’t know why. Are we richer? More socially responsible about wearing masks and social distancing? When the Dakotas led the nation in cumulative cases last fall, I looked at the various counties to see how much population density mattered. “Rural counties” appear to be composed mostly of small towns with local population densities similar to major population centers. Fewer are social distanced on farms. (The counties with state prisons stand out.)
FWIW, yesterday I made an X-Y scatter plot of state % vaccination vs the number of current cases. For all 48 continental states, a linear fit showed a 1% increase in vaccination was associated with a 4/100,000/day decrease in new cases. The relationship explained 50% of the variance in infections. When I dropped out the poorly fitting 8 hardest hit states (where other factors may be enhancing transmission), the decrease was 9/100,000/day. Extrapolating the latter relationship to 100% vaccination yielded a central estimate of zero cases. Both plots tells me that transmission from the unvaccinated is currently the main driver of this pandemic, despite the fact that transmission from breakthrough cases has been documented. Even with the limited vaccines we have today, mandatory vaccination (plus immunity acquired by infection) might bring the delta variant under control despite breakthrough infections. If this included a mandatory booster (increasing antibody levels 10X immediately after vaccination), the chances of success would be higher. (Those who revolt at the term “mandatory” might want to reflect where we would be if vaccination for smallpox, polio and a half dozen other infectious diseases had not been mandatory.) Voluntary vaccination was good enough to beat the alpha variant, but delta is more challenging. The Great Barrington Declaration crowd are already beginning to advocate a burnout strategy.
If I understand correctly, the upper respiratory system apparently has access to less antibody than the lower respiratory system. Breakthrough infections of delta replicate to high levels in the upper respiratory system, but the lower respiratory tract is protected, preventing most serious infections and hospitalizations. Aerosols are generated by sheer in the narrowest air passages in the lungs, which means that the most challenging form of transmission (and super-spreader events) may be limited by vaccination.
Frank –
I just think there are way too many confounding variables for state-to-state comparisons to be of much use. Drawing conclusions from such comparisons is further complicated by the heterogeneity of states in and of themselves. How could we know which regional attributes make which (and how much) contributions? In that sense, country-to-county comparisons would make more sense to me – except that there, also, there are so many, important, confounding variables.
Again, I go back to the relative rankings of New York or California or Florida on metrics such as per capital infections (relative to per capita testing) and per capital mortality. What could explain why Florida and New York have so drastically shifted relative to each other?
> Aerosols are generated by sheer in the narrowest air passages in the lungs, which means that the most challenging form of transmission (and super-spreader events) may be limited by vaccination.
One issue I think is relevant here is that there seems to be much uncertainty as to the relationship between particle size and viral load. I saw a study recently that speculated that the smaller particles may not be particularly infectious. I wish I could find it but I can’t.
Actually, I did find it:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78110-x#author-information
I was speaking to someone recently who is involved in developing new ways for modeling aerosols. He spoke of how different the different behaviors of differently-sized particles is, and how they are so affected by ambient air movement and how they dry out and fall to the ground an all of that.
…county-to-county comparisons would make more sense…
Joshua wrote: “I just think there are way too many confounding variables for state-to-state comparisons to be of much use.”
You are right, there are confounding variables. However, interventions need to work in a world of confounding variables. Contact tracing and quarantine work on Taiwan and South Korea, so they can work here for the next pandemic, if we understand and eliminate the confounding variables.
The effectiveness of masks depends on compliance, snugness of fit and quality of the filter. Without understanding those factors, you can’t tell how well masks can work, just how well they did work.
At the moment, there may be few confounding variables in the X-Y scatterplot I described above. Current new cases are a function of the growth of the delta variant over the past 10 weeks in states with differing amounts of vaccination. What I really needed to plot was the growth in new cases, not the absolute number of cases, in areas with different percentages of vaccination.
I was shocked when ourworldindata.org started showing data on the reproduction number. After the initial surge and before delta, the US reproduction varies only from 0.7 to 1.3. In March, the reproduction number was 3.5. The average infected person has gone from infecting 3.5 people to between 0.7 and 1.3 for more than a year. That is a huge change due to people working from home, masks and social distancing. All those large changes in new cases are due to small changes in transmission integrated over a month or two. It seems as if individual and government fear are powerful enough to keep the reproduction number below 1 when hospitals begin overflowing, but it doesn’t stay below 1. (Europe did a good job in late spring and fall.)
The US is a very heterogeneous place. The variation in reproduction number in a small country like Israel may be more representative of how local people and governments are changing.
Thanks for the info about emission of aerosols and droplets under a variety of circumstances. We breath all the time, but we speak, sing, talk and cough only a small fraction of the time. The larger particles that are emitted during the latter activities quickly fall and can be avoided by masks and social distancing. The former remain suspended. FWIW, I’m optimistic that the protection that vaccination provides to the lungs will have a significant impact on emission of infectious aerosols and lower transmission despite breakthrough infections with high viral titers in the upper respiratory tract of the vaccinated with breakthrough infections. As you can now see from reproduction rates, even a 20% change in transmission can be a big difference.
Frank –
FYI
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/22/1039272244/is-the-worst-over-modelers-predict-a-steady-decline-in-covid-cases-through-march
Re the models and state to state comparisons. The death rate in Florida .8 per 100k in the last 7 days, is lower than that in NY minus NYC (1.5 per 100k) and lower than NYC (1 per 100k) and New Jersey (1.4) and Michigan (.9) and is four times less than Washington state and Oregon (3.8 and 3.5 respectively). Alabama leads the pack at 15 per 100k right now.
If there are no more deaths at all in NY (including NYC) it would take Florida almost 5 months to catch up to NY (if you assume no decline in the death rate in Florida). But there were more deaths in NY over the last 7 days than in Florida, so catching up will never happen.
But the big problem with state-to-state comparisons is that New York’s “lockdown” or “stay at home” order was never real. Most cases in the US had their origin in New York and as late as March 28 the NY governor was suing other states to force them to allow infected New Yorkers to visit.
https://www.providencejournal.com/news/20200328/ny-gov-andrew-cuomo-threatens-to-sue-ri
Little Rhode Island had a higher death rate than Florida cumulatively and still does today (1.2 over the last 7 days)
The biggest lessons from Covid is that “stay at home” is the most important restriction and people will not stay at home.
Second biggest lesson, get the vaccine into the most vulnerable population first (FL has a higher vaccination rate for old people than New York does).
Third, don’t politicize the virus- those “sophisticated, vaccinated” crowds at Obama’s NY birthday party and the Met gala thought they were safe because they weren’t in red states or hanging out with evangelical Alabamians. Ditto the ridiculously low vaccination rates for Black people in NYC that nobody will mention or address because of the narrative.
Masks? Anyone really want to argue that folks in Oregon or NYC are less likely to mask up than they are in Tampa? You can’t get any bluer than NYC, 78% of Democrats tell pollsters they wear a mask “all the time” (51%) or “most of the time” and 80% tell pollsters they are vaccinated.*
Why is NYC doing worse than Florida? We don’t know and politics insist we don’t try to find out. That’s sad.
Poll: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/h4zvi2yb6c/econTabReport.pdf
Jeff –
> But there were more deaths in NY over the last 7 days than in Florida, so catching up will never happen.
It’s truly hilarious how many times, so many so many of you, are so driven to confirm a bias, that you make the sale mistake, over and over, of not accounting for the lag in reporting (in this case exacerbated by the recent change in how Florida is reporting covid stats).
No way that once all the data are in, Florida will have seen fewer deaths than NY in the last week, even if they are REPORTING fewer deaths at this point. You really think that Florida has gone from over 340 deaths a day @ 3 weeks ago to less than @40 deaths a day now?
Really. Hilarious.
I’m not saying that Florida will catch up all the way (because of the huge lead NY built up early in the pandemic) and I repeat that comparing across states is basically nothing other than an exercise in confirmation bias, but Florida had made a very large jump over the past couple of months in per capita deaths relative to NY, and even in the last month, and even in the last couple of weeks,
Thanks for the chuckle.
Jeff –
From August 21 to Sept 7, Florida went from @45,513 deaths to 50,781 deaths.
From August 21 to Sept 7, New York went from @55,472 to 55,044 deaths.
So assuming that the difference in their deaths for that period doesn’t grow any more as more Florida reports come in (it may well grow more) during that period, Florida had about 4800 more deaths, or about 1600 a week more. And you think that some two weeks after that period ended, New York had more weekly deaths than Florida?
That says about we need to know about your analytical skills. Thanks for chiming in with your opinion. It was quite useful
Lol.
Oops.
> From August 21 to Sept 7, New York went from @55,472 to 55,044 deaths.
Should be 54,472 to 55,044
“Really. Hilarious.”
Got it, Joe Biden’s CDC (where I get the numbers from) is lying to pump up DeSantis.
Really.
Hilarious.
You know that the CDC says Florida’s reporting change made it more accurate, right? You grasp that the date of the actual death is more accurate than the date that the report came in when you look to count who died and when, right?
Oh, and you know this change in reporting happened in August, right? August was not within the last seven days.
Deaths in New York (including NYC) over the last seven days per the CDC- 246
Deaths in Florida over the last seven days per the CDC 116
By the way, did you know that one of these two states actually got caught fiddling with Covid stats for political purposes?
It’s not the one you think.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/nyregion/cuomo-nursing-home-deaths.html
They also got caught tying vaccine distribution to political support:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cuomo-vaccine-czar-called-county-execs-assess-their-loyalty-n-n1261105
and testing:
https://www.tampabay.com/news/health/2021/03/25/cuomo-told-health-officials-to-prioritize-his-relatives-associates-for-coronavirus-testing-report-says/
But, DeSantis! I guess something had to replace TDS
Jeff –
> You know that the CDC says Florida’s reporting change made it more accurate, right?
I never said word one about the merits of their cjsnf Don reporting.
What I said was that your interpretation of the numbers is laughably wrong and bard in ignorance.
It’s simply not true that more people died in NY from COVID last week than in Florida.
Wait two weeks and it will become in arguable even for you.
Never said word one about their change in reporting.
Of course, I never said word one about DeSantis either, etc.
Your squirrels are even more ridiculous than understanding of the numbers.
bard in ignorance = based on ignorance.
>
Deaths in New York (including NYC) over the last seven days per the CDC- 246
Deaths in Florida over the last seven days per the CDC 116
When the data are all in from Florida, there will be significantly more deaths recorded in Florida over the last week than in New York. How do I know that? Do I have a crystal ball?
No. I know that because I’m not trying to push a partisan agenda and a victim of confirmation bias in order to do so – as you are.
“It’s simply not true that more people died in NY from COVID last week than in Florida.”
Understood.
You think the CDC is lying, I don’t.
Interesting that using the actual date of the death presumably causes no lag in reporting by New York (which is known to fiddle with their stats) but is yuuuuge in Florida (which is known to have been falsely accused of fiddling with their stats).
Since the NY Times reports that most of the deaths and cases in Florida are courtesy of the state of New York, how should we factor that into our state to state comparison?
It’s a pretty nifty trick to be responsible for infecting another state and then complaining that other state is mishandling things. But partisans gotta partisan.
My main point is that the partisan (and false) attacks on Florida are counterproductive if you actually want to influence an epidemic. If less than 30% of your adult Black population 18-44 is vaccinated (as is the case in New York) and 300 people a week are dying of Covid (as is the case in New York) you aren’t doing anyone any good by running constant attacks on Florida, evangelical white people, and Republicans (as is the case with the entire MSM). All while claiming New York is a bastion of Covid perfection.
You tell me- how do you find a bureaucrat in New York willing to say the governor, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, the NY Times, and CNN are all wrong and the state needs to step up its game and do a vaccination program designed with reality in mind?
You can’t, of course, unless you give the poor dear the cover of honesty in which to do her job. But that won’t happen, so that number in CDC report for New York will tick up and up and up causing the yelling at Florida to get louder and louder and louder.
Jeff –
> You think the CDC is lying,
Stop being a dope.
I don’t think the Cdc is “lying.”
I’ve already explained this to you.
The CDC will be updating their reporting as more data comes in from Florida’s reportkng. Check back in two or three weeks.
We’ll see then whether you have any sense of accountability.
Jeff –
> Interesting that using the actual date of the death presumably causes no lag in reporting by New York (which is known to fiddle with their stats) but is yuuuuge in Florida.
If you bothered to read about the methodological change Florida made in how it reports COVID data, maybe a month or so back (which is different than NY) then you would understand why there is a different lag in Florida than In NY.
Here. This may help. Ignore anything that triggers your partisan defensiveness and just look at how it describes how the data are handled.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253796898.html
Jeff –
7-day rolling average on August, 31: Florida 352, NY 27
.
And you think the 7-day total from Sept 15-22 was higher in NY than in Florida?
Freakin’ hilarious.
I love me some “skeptics.”
I see many squirrels in my future.
Are, that crystal ball came in handy after all.
Herd immunity kicks in at some 80% exposure for polio and 95% for measles. We can get there by exposure to the virus itself or by vaccination.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-1.png
I note that Joshua dominates the comment count in this thread by a lot. And indulges in his usual partisan fanatic food fight.
RIE.
“I note that Joshua dominates the comment count in this thread by a lot. And indulges in his usual partisan fanatic food fight.”
The secret is to be nice to him.
When you are he may go away.
Not much help I know.
.
There is a cohort of neo-socialist fanatics with a slew of tawdry and scurrilous behaviours they use on those they deem to be deniers. They cannot admit to not being smarter because then the flimsy flimflam edifice would crumble. Classic groupthink. Ignoring them doesn’t work. It encourages them – they pile on. It’s not as if communication is the game. So for good or ill – Joshua has my attention now.
Jeff –
Please note:
While at that time that article was written, the 7-day average of deaths per day in Florida for August 30 was reported to the CDC as 46, now at Worldometers the 7-day average of deaths per day in Florida for August 30 is listed as 352.
Please, get started rustling up those squirrels ASAP. It’s always so entertaining when you do it. I don’t want to have to wait.
Jeff –
Since you find value in comparing the trends in NY and Florida…
You might want to take a look at this:
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23381256
“And you think…”
I think we can trust the CDC’s numbers.
Where are you getting 7-day “rolling averages” that are a fraction of what the CDC is reporting for New York?
Or are you claiming that something very very recent has happened to cause a greater than 40% increase in daily deaths in New York? Maybe a convention of Brooklyn white evangelical Trump supporters.
Your dream of FL catching up is dying: Florida hospitals are seeing a 60% drop in patients. Maybe the New Yorkers are going home.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/dramatic-drop-in-covid-patients-at-south-florida-hospitals/ar-AAOKI5V
Jeff –
> Your dream of FL catching up is dying: Florida hospitals are seeing a 60% drop in patients. Maybe the New Yorkers are going home.
Nice big fat squirrel. Good job.
I’m not “dreaming” of people dying in Florida at a faster rate than in NY. It’s really interesting that you’d think I’m wishing for people to die. At any rate…
I doubt NY will catch up all the way in per capita deaths, as I said more than once above. But it has dropped very, very dramatically relative to Florida over the past few months while Florida has steadily climbed up the charts.
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533
Obviously, to the extent that seasonality plays a role, it will differentially increase morbidity in NY relative to Florida in the coming months.
> Maybe the New Yorkers are going home.
That raises an interesting question. Do you know if Florida still fails to count non-residents when they tally the number of people who die in Florida?
That said, I hate to break it to you but usually around this time of year and in the next few months the flow is from NY to Florida, not the other way around.
Jeff –
In May of this year, NY had seen about 52,500 deaths from COVID while Florida had seen about 35,000 deaths. Apparently you think that’s because Florida had superior policies for dealing with COVID.
Since that time, Florida has seen about 18,000 deaths while NY has seen about 3,100 deaths. Do you have any idea why Florida has seen close to 5 times as many deaths during that period as NY?
Do you consider that as a reflection of policy differences? If so, what policies do you think caused 5 times as many deaths in Florida during that period?
Florida is the purple line. Past infection gives greater collective immunity – so New York plus New York City are ahead of the curve.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-3-e1632519378629.png
We know Joshua is all tawdry and scurrilous partisan political games.
> Past infection gives greater collective immunity – so New York plus New York City are ahead of the curve.
Lol. The Chief of unintentional irony strikes again.
Florida has had far more identified infections per capita than NY, with far fewer tests per capita.
So by that logic, Florida should be much closer to “herd immunity” than NY, and has had a much higher mortality and morbidity rate for months.
Once again, Chief contributes a work of art and a thing of beauty. (If you appreciate unintentional irony).
Jeff –
While you’ve been busying yourself with rustling up squirrels, my questions remain unanswered. Here, let me try again (Thanks in advance for answering):
To be clear, I personally don’t think that comparing COVID outcomes across states has much utility.
That given, many of my friends here including Jeff have been making such comparisons, and…for my many of my much beloved “denizen” friends, who in these threads have been repeatedly praising the outcomes of COVID policies in Florida relative to NY…
I’m curious to find out your thoughts about the current status and related trends in COVID outcomes across the states.
I notice that Florida, lately, has been marching up the charts (particularly relative to NY) in per capita deaths from COVID. It is near the very top in per capita cases, even though it is well down the chart in per capita testing.
Given trends, it seems likely to keep moving in the wrong direction relative to NY along each metric for the next month or so, or maybe longer? Maybe those trends will reverse once the Fall and Winter settle in up North?
NY, on, the other hand, has fallen back towards the pack in per capita deaths, and is well down the chart in per capita cases, even as it is near the top in per capital testing.
I certainly hope some of my friends, including Jeff, will help me to understand these trends. If you think comparing across states has value for evaluating different policies in different states, what do you think the implications are of these trends?
Joshua: I read a little about the projections that the pandemic will be “over” by next March. Rising immunity acquired by infection that is longer-lasting that immunity acquired by vaccination implies the pandemic will end sometime. March is a reasonable guess. I don’t think we yet know enough about transmission by those with breakthrough Delta infections or how many children will get vaccinated or how boosters will change the situation or how many can be coerced into getting vaccinated, etc. to be making predictions about next March. For the near term, I look to Britain, which was hit by the Delta variant about a month before the US. When the surge from Delta there has clearly gone into permanent decline, maybe I’ll be more optimistic.
Joshua is a champion of deliberate prevarication. For polio herd immunity kicks in when some 80% of the population has antibodies. For measles it is some 95%. What matters is antibodies in the population and not ephemeral 7 day flimflam from Joshua.
Frank touched on longer lasting immunity from the actual virus than with vaccines – something I would need to see more evidence of. I refuse to argue speculatively on this. CoV2 has fuelled more than enough of that. But there are are two ways to build immunity – vaccines being by far the best option. Even if one still catches the virus the health impact is attenuated. And if you lived in Florida you could access monoclonal antibody treatment.
I showed the CDC data as cumulative cases per 100k. New York plus New York City are way ahead of the curve despite Joshua’s habitually tawdry and scurrilous prevarications. New York started fast and went hard. Let’s see the data on cumulative deaths per 100 k.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
Who does he imagine he is fooling other than poor wee willie? It is of course about Ron DeSantis – head and shoulders smarter than Joe Biden – and the 2024 presidential race.
Frank –
> Joshua: I read a little about the projections that the pandemic will be “over” by next March. Rising immunity acquired by infection that is longer-lasting that immunity acquired by vaccination implies the pandemic will end sometime. March is a reasonable guess. I don’t think we yet know enough about transmission by those with breakthrough Delta infections or how many children will get vaccinated or how boosters will change the situation or how many can be coerced into getting vaccinated, etc. to be making predictions about next March. For the near term, I look to Britain, which was hit by the Delta variant about a month before the US. When the surge from Delta there has clearly gone into permanent decline, maybe I’ll be more optimistic.
That all seems reasonable to me. But I will now that predicting the trajectory of this pandemic has proven to be very difficult – as well demonstrated in these pages by Nic’s erroneous modeling and by the nonsense such as that demonstrated by Jeff and Chief above in this thread.
What measures would you use to define the end of the pandemic?
Joshua’s politically – inspired by Joe Biden – motivated comparison between the CoV2 numbers in greater New York and Florida are almost entirely wrong. The only things he gets right is the number of tests. Even there the percentage of positives in Florida is more than double that of New York. It might suggest a regime more targeted to vulnerable populations.
The pandemic will end when vaccination rates are sufficiently high.
Chief –
Although I’m not surprised that you don’t understand it, it’s really not that compacted. Florida has had far more positive tests than NY despite conducting many fewer tests.
Cases per capita: Florida, 163,110 per million; NY, 127,166 per million
Tests per capita: Florida 1,827,000 met million; NY, 3,357,000 per million
So your notion that NY currently has a lower rate due to being closer to “herd immunity” is obviously based on ignorance.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Chief –
Stop acting like a dope:
> The only things he gets right is the number of tests.
Florida has had significantly more positive test per capita even as it has conducted significantly fewer tests per capita:
Cases per capita: Florida, 166,908; NY, 127,166
Test per capita: Florida, 1,827,520; NY, 3,557,135
So your notion that New York’s much lower (current) per capita rates of infection and mortality are explainable by New York being closer to “herd immunity” is obviously nonsense.
Stop acting like a dope.
Joshua asked: “What measures would you use to define the end of the pandemic?”
I’m nor sure how I would defined the end of the pandemic or control of a pandemic or reaching herd immunity.
EMPIRICALLY, it is easy to spot when Israel brought the alpha pandemic under control. I like to look at ourworldindata.com, because it tracks many different parameters. Look at the log plot of new cases vs time. Beginning about March 8, there is a 2.5 log linear decline in new cases until June 1. A 10-fold decrease per month or about a 2-fold decrease every 10 days that lasted a long time. That decline brought new cases below South Korea and approaching Taiwan, two countries that define for me how well this pandemic can be controlled. That decline ended exactly when the Delta variant appeared. March 8 is about two weeks (the time needed to develop immunity) after the time when the vaccination rate reached 50%. Israel and the US both had about 8.5% cumulative detected infection about then, which would be 25-38% immune assuming there were 2-3 undetected case for every detected one (or choose your preferred ratio). That would put herd immunity at about 60-70% immune, a reasonable value (especially if you expect effective herd immunity a little before the classic value of 1- (1/R0) due to heterogeneity and early depletion of those most likely to transmit (as discussed by Nic).
You can look at the data for the US and see some of the same themes, except that the Delta virus arrived here before new cases had dropped by 2 log units (100-fold). The “final” US decline (before Delta) began about two weeks after vaccination reached 30% according to this data (which is 30% of the entire population rather than the vaccine-eligible).
The story in the UK is somewhat more confusing and the Delta variant arrived a month earlier. I just threw several other European countries on my plot and saw somewhat similar patterns without trying to quantify them.
So, empirically I’d judge the Delta variant controlled after a fairly log-linear decline in detected cases of more than one log unit in magnitude. There is nothing rigorous here, just empiricism.
Robert Ellison commented: “Frank touched on longer lasting immunity from the actual virus than with vaccines – something I would need to see more evidence… ”
This conclusion comes from an Israeli study that showed the vaccinated were 13X more likely to suffer a detected breakthrough Delta infection within six months of vaccination than within six months of an earlier infection. When controlling for other variables (health care workers likely suffered more infections and a greater chance of re-infection), infection was 27-fold more protective than vaccination. Ignoring the six month period (since vaccination started, but infections started earlier) there was 6-fold more protection from infection vs vaccination. So protection from infection is waning, but not as fast as with vaccination.
This paper suggests that those who have been infected and claim they don’t need vaccination have a good case. The anti-vaxxers are making a big deal about this study, but gaining immunity from infection comes with roughly a 2% average chance of death. I’m hoping my booster scheduled for Friday will give me protection equivalent to infection and possibly reduce the risk of transmission to a very elderly family member. Antibody levels are supposed to increase 10-fold over second dose.
Moderna administers 3-fold more RNA than Pfizer and we now know its protection lasts longer and hasn’t detectably waned.
Could mandatory vaccination control Delta? Most detected infections involve transmission to and from the unvaccinated right now. Given some transmission by breakthrough Delta infections in the vaccinated, mandatory vaccination with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine might not be good enough. However, if ones adds a third dose and/or a larger dose of RNA or a new RN targeted to Delta, I’m highly optimistic. However, I haven’t heard such long-term optimism from any experts yet.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
“SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees had a 13.06-fold (95% CI, 8.08 to 21.11) increased risk for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant compared to those previously infected, when the first event (infection or vaccination) occurred during January and February of 2021. The increased risk was significant (P<0.001) for symptomatic disease as well. When allowing the infection to occur at any time before vaccination (from March 2020 to February 2021), evidence of waning natural immunity was demonstrated, though SARS-CoV-2 naïve vaccinees had a 5.96-fold (95% CI, 4.85 to 7.33) increased risk for breakthrough infection and a 7.13-fold (95% CI, 5.51 to 9.21) increased risk for symptomatic disease. SARS-CoV-2-naïve vaccinees were also at a greater risk for COVID-19-related-hospitalizations compared to those that were previously infected."
“It is near the very top in per capita cases, even though it is well down the chart in per capita testing.”
You have no idea how many cases there have been in NY. The pandemic hit NYC hard before there was an accurate test in any quantity. And then New Yorkers fled- spreading the virus and causing deaths throughout the nation while the NY Governor sued any state that demanded quarantines of visiting New Yorkers.
State by state comparisons are worse than squirrels, they are partisan fantasies. The list of bizarre, false attacks on Florida in the media is long and growing and entirely due to the belief that DeSantis will run for president in 2024. The poor man is not alone- left-leaning media outlets (which is all of them now) went hard after Georgia, Texas, the Dakotas, etc etc. One famous headline claimed Georgia was conducting “an experiment in human sacrifice.” That was back when Georgia had less than half the death rate of New York, which was putting out a book about their superior Covid leadership.
New York is the benchmark because the list of bizarre, false attempts to promote Cuomo as some sort of Covid super-star was long and entirely partisan and lasted right up until the point where he resigned because it was all make believe.
Speaking of squirrels, look again at that giant spike in cases this summer. Last year the story was that such a spike proves the incompetence of the president of the United States. This year? “Science” says anyone with a “D” by their name in the press has done no wrong so we all must scream at Florida some more.
Florida will not “catch up” with New York. Florida has lower death rates than many states (have you seen Oregon and Washington lately? Yikes) Florida’s biggest problem right now is that it has an unusually high number of old people (compared to other states) and those are dying with Covid even though their vaccination rate is in the 90s. Their other problem is that the season is coming when the few remaining New Yorkers – particularly older ones – will be coming for the winter.
Cases? Lower per 100k than Michigan, Oregon, Washington, Virginia, and on par with New York.
Vaccination rates? In NYC, the bluest demographic of the city- Black people age 18-44, has a vaccination rate of under 30%.
Pause for a minute in political diatribes to ask yourself how you can get a pandemic under control in a tightly-packed city with a vax rate like that. Then explain how screaching nonsense at white evangelicals in the Florida panhandle is going to improve the situation.
The answer to both those ponderables is you can’t, it won’t, and they don’t care because, like climate change, the interest lies in promoting the cause as a political wedge and opportunity for spending/regulation rather than trying to find any solutions.
Jeff –
Remember when you said this, on September 23:
> But there were more deaths in NY over the last 7 days than in Florida,…
Remember when I laughed at you when you said that because you weren’t accounting for the lag in reporting, as so many of your compatriots here at Climate Etc. had foolishly done in the past?
Well, now according to Worldometers the 7-day moving average for September 23 in Florida is 135.
And remember the 7-day moving average for September 23 in NY? 40. Do you know what it is now? It’s 40. Hasn’t moved a lick.
Do you remember when you said this?:
>Deaths in New York (including NYC) over the last seven days per the CDC- 246
Deaths in Florida over the last seven days per the CDC 116
Lol. You actually thought the deaths in Florida over that previous week were 116. Not per day. TOTAL!!!
In actually, the per day average or that period now stands at 135. Considerably higher than what you thought the total was for the week? And you know what? That number is only going to get higher.
Remember when I asked you what you were going to say when I came back and pointed out to you how wrong you were? When I told you it was obvious that you were wrong? Remember when you wouldn’t answer?
Well, here’s your chance for accountability for being wrong. What do you have to say about being so wrong. Oh, and btw, you’re only going to get even more wrong over the next few weeks. How do I know?
On September 23, the 7-day moving average for deaths in Florida on August 31 was 352. What do you think the 7-day moving average for deaths in Florida on August 31 is now? Wanna guess? It’s 366.
Weeks after, they’re still updating, and with the lag the number got larger.
Do you know that the 7-day moving average for August 31 in NY was on September 23? It was 27. You know what it is now? It’s 27. Hasn’t moved a lick.
So while you said that there were more deaths in NY than in Florida in the week ending on September 23, as of right now the count is Florida @945, NY @240. And the disparity is only going to grow. The number for Florida is going to grow a lot. The number for NY? Not so much.
See, that’s why I was laughing at you, Jeff. I tried to explain your error to you, but you accused me of saying the CDC was lying. Remember that?
Yah. I was laughing at you because you were ignorant and proud of it.
But here’s your chance. Show some accountability.
Jeffnsails: It is worth looking at the time-course of deaths in Florida and New York side by side. The worst period for deaths per capita in NY was early April of 2020. After locking down businesses on 3/20, there was little to anyone could do to stop the coming deaths over the next few weeks. People typically begin to get sick and test positive 5-7 days after being infect and often take another 5 days to get sick enough to need hospitalization. Some of those dying in early March had already been infected by the time the lockdown was imposed and many others who died were by people who were infected when lockdowns began.
In constrast, the largest death toll in Florida occurred in the past six weeks. IIRC, Governor DeSantis was the first to remove all restrictions. I has been opposed to any school district requiring students to wear masks or schools or businesses to require vaccination. He even refused to let cruise ships (the most dangerous location for a highly contagious disease) require all passengers to be vaccinated. (Since few passengers would want to board a ship with unvaccinated passengers, cruise ships left Florida.)
The latest death rates are 1.27/100,000/day in Florida and 0.21/100,000/day in New York. At that rate, FL will close the gap with NY (256 vs 282/100,000) in about 25 days, but the FL death rate is certain to follow the dramatically falling new case rate FL.
I sure don’t own a crystal ball, but DeSantis’s popularity has dropped because of COVID. 2/3’rds of Floridians have been personally vaccinated and know dozens of others who have been vaccinated. Most likely realize that the conspiracy theories about vaccination are wild exaggerations. Some should realize that COVID vaccines are as safe and important as other required vaccinations and wonder why DeSantis doesn’t want businesses and universities and private schools requiring vaccinations and/or masks. If DeSantis wants to run in 2024, he needs to win re-election in 2022. DeSantis won by only 0.4% in 2018 and Trump by 2% in 2016. It looked like there was some chance that CA Governor Newsom might be recalled before COVID replaced Newsom’s failures as the key issue. However, I suspect COVID won’t be one of the crucial issues in Nov 2022 unless another new variant appears during the campaign.
Frank –
> The latest death rates are 1.27/100,000/day in Florida and 0.21/100,000/day in New York. At that rate, FL will close the gap with NY (256 vs 282/100,000) in about 25 days, but the FL death rate is certain to follow the dramatically falling new case rate FL.
It should be noted that in March, Florida ranked 28th in deaths per capita among US states.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210301092205/https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
Now it ranks 9th.
Also, as we see in that web archive, in March, NY had seen about 17,000 more deaths.
Now, NY has seen about 900 more deaths – with many deaths in Florida in the pipeline and not yet counted.
It’s quite likely that if we considered the deaths not yet officially counted Florida’s total has already passed NY’s by a good amount.
How much of those contrasting trends are due to “seasonality?” I think undoubtedly quite a bit – perhaps nearly all of it. We may have a better sense in mid-winter when deaths have climbed in NY and perhaps continued to decline in Florida.
As for this:
> …but the FL death rate is certain to follow the dramatically falling new case rate FL.
Do you have a method for accounting for the lag in the official tally of cases. I”m assuming you know about this…
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253796898.html
Frank –
Of course, while “seasonality” might seem to offer some important clues as to why Florida has done so much worse than NY in recent months, it’s a little tough to see how that would also explain why Florida has done so much worse recently than California, or even Texas:
-snip-
COVID deaths since April 1
Florida – 19,590
Texas – 14,169
California – 6,408
Pennsylvania – 4,021
Illinois – 3,839
The picture gets grimmer when accounting for population, a Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board analysis of COVID data found. In the last six months, Florida has recorded nearly 90 deaths for every 100,000 residents, by far the highest among the six largest states. Florida’s death rate over that period is more than three times higher than in New York and more than five times higher than in California. In fact, only Texas has a rate that is at least half of Florida’s.
-snip-
More discussion here:
https://www.tampabay.com/opinion/2021/09/30/florida-has-some-explaining-to-do-about-its-recent-covid-record-editorial/
I resist the use of superlatives or qualifiers when dispassionate objectivity is the goal. It is not with Joshua. I try not to overinterpret data – especially short term trends.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/compare-state-trends-9.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/compare-state-trends-10.png
The 2021 (so far) all causes deaths/100 in age group for Florida and the 50 state averages are shown below. Bottom line: Florida is doing just fine.
FLORIDA US Average
0-24: 0.05 0.04
25-44: 0.19 0.16
45-64: 0.63 0.55
65-74: 1.53 1.47
75-84: 3.29 3.52
85+: 9.20 9.69
Jeff –
Do you remember how, on Sept. 23, you said that Florida has seen a total of 116 deaths over the previous week? Remember when I tried to explain to you that you didn’t know what you were talking about?’
Here, look at this.
-snip-
In the past seven days, on average, the state has added 270 deaths and 4,962 cases per day, according to Herald calculations of CDC data.
-snip-
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254709207.html#storylink=cpy
Now of course, that could well be an overestimate – but yah, I do still think your belief that the deaths were at 116 over the week previous to September 23 was laughable. Maybe on Oct. 2 the 7 day average really isn’t 270 per day but I think it’s a safe bet that more are dying per day than you thought were dying in a week.
And your belief that more were dying in NY than in Florida at that point is just flat out nonsense.
Will there ever be a point at which you will be accountable for being so wrong?
Frank,
DeSantis isn’t anti-vax. He’s pro-vaccine. He actually did a better job (higher vaccination rate) among the elderly in Florida than New York did.
You might have noticed that is the population that has the highest death rate from Covid.
In fact, he did such a great job getting the vaccine out faster than other states that the national media invented not one but two false stories about his efforts. The first fake narrative was that he prioritized the elderly not because Covid is most dangerous to them, but because they tend to vote Republican. The second fake story happened when he approved letting the largest chain of grocery stores (all of which have pharmacies) give the Covid 19 vaccine. This effort to make the vaccine more available was alleged (falsely) to be a payoff to donors.
If there is vaccine hesitancy in Florida, you can thank 60 Minutes and the Miami Herald for telling Floridians to avoid wicked Ron’s vaccination centers.
Refusing mandates makes you anti-vax? My blue state (Democrat governor and legislature) doesn’t have mandates either. In fact our largest U has football games with over 60,000 unmasked fans screaming their heads off. It’s up to the local school boards to require masks. Two giant amusement parks have been running full steam- no masks no vax mandates. Beaches have been packed. Bars and restaurants full, no mask or vax mandates.
But no national media attacks our governor or our legislature for this because the one thing that makes you immune from Covid is membership in the Democratic Party- the post-normal science says so.
Speaking of mask and vax mandates, one of the reasons I keep saying Florida will never catch up to NY is because of this myth that New Yorkers are vaccinated. The African American 18-44 age range in New York City had a 28% vaccination rate in September. Based on your own logic re vaccinations, they’ll never get an epidemic under control in a tightly-packed city with that kind of vax rate. And winter in NYC is different than Miami. Why is the rate so low? Because, as CNN will patiently explain, unless you’re hanging out with white evangelical Alabamians, you’re safe. And there aren’t any of those in Brooklyn.
Florida deaths peaked at 401 on 27 August 2021 and have been in decline since to 18 on 3 October. Joshua insists that the CDC data is unreliable based on another newspaper article. God this is nuts.
Chief –
> and have been in decline since to 18 on 3 October.
Wow. You really think after the lag is accounted for it will be 18 on October 3rd?
It’s really amazing how presumably math literate people are unable to put their head around such a simple concept as the lag.
Motivated reasoning is a very powerful force.
Chief –
> and have been in decline since to 18 on 3 October.
Don’t forget about that comment, because I’m going to quote it back to you in a week or two. I wouldn’t want you to forget that you made it. Incredible.
Chief –
> Joshua insists that the CDC data is unreliable based on another newspaper article. God this is nuts.
Jeff tried this nonsense also. No I’m not insisting that the CDC data is unreliable. Not at all. I’m suggesting that you don’t understand how the CDC data updates over a period of time and what you’re looking at now for recent past does not reflect updates that will come in the near future. That was explained to you in that newspaper article. But you were too pompous to even bother looking at it apparently. Or maybe you just didn’t understand it?
Jeff –
Remember how in Sept 23 you said that over the previous week in Florida 116 people had died from covid (fewer the. In NY, you said).
Remember how on September 30 I told you that actually with updating the count was up to 135 PER DAY? In other words, the daily average over that week was skf idicsnrly higher than the number of deaths you had for the entire week!
Well I just noticed that the numbers have been updated again. Now the rolling average for per day deaths on September 23 in Florida is 168.
So you thought more people died in NY from COVID than in Florida during that week. As of now:
Florida: 1,176
NY: 280
(also, fyi, whereas the officially recorded number of deaths total in Florida was 900 behind the number for NY yesterday, today Florida is only about 450 behind.)
I think that 1,176 is higher than 280. What o you think, Jeff? Do you think 280 is higher than 1,176?
Btw, as of now your number for Florida was off by around 1,015%. That’s quite a feat to be that wrong. But actually that number will go up in the near future.
How do you like your crow cooked, Jeff?
The newspaper article discussed reporting to the CDC by date of death vs date recorded. Florida reports by date of death. With no numbers or credible mechanisms in the article for why that makes a difference. Despite the simple minded and quite obvious unreliability of the source – Joshua creates a whole mythology around this.
The latest reporting by Florida is for the 3rd October. Is he assuming that there are huge numbers of deaths yet to be reported? That for some reason deaths are reported in batches? This has not been demonstrated. I assume that reports are definitive and the CDC authoritative,
The reduction in deaths it should be remembered is consistent with the trend since late August.
The reason Florida is a thing is party political. The reason for Joshua’s strange behaviour is the absence of discrimination between sources if it suits his insanely obsessive partisan games.
Chief –
Pick a date in the last week. Write down the number you see reported for deaths on that date.
Come back in a week.
If I a week the number is significantly higher, what will you say? Will you acknowledge that I was right? And that you were wrong? Of course you won’t. The number will be higher and you will be shown wrong and I will be shown right. It you won’t admit it.
On September 23, Jeff thought that 116 deaths had occurred in the previous week in Florida. The number is now up to 168 per day for that week. You Boyz are hilarious.
This has been happening all pandemic. The same misunderstanding occurred over and over with Sweden.
I’m not criticizing Florida’s choice of reporting methodology. Florida officials say it’s more accurate. It may be for all I know. But it creates a lag.
It’s all explained in this article. And yet you still don’t understand?
It’s not a matter of questioning the accuracy of the CDC’s accounting at all. I have absolutely no reason to wiesrik their accounting. But because of policy in Florida (and Alabama) it creates a lag.
Try reading the article again. Maybe you’ll understand this time.
Here’s the link again. Try reading it again. I’m sure if you try hard enough you’ll understand.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253796898.html
Here’s an article on the lag in Swedish reporting that some folks here had a hard time understanding also:
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-sweden-death-reporting
On the 25th of September the 7 day moving average was 116. Is he sure he hasn’t got the date wrong? It is currently 18 and not 400.
Here’s another article on the phenomenon in Florida.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/florida-changed-how-it-reports-covid-data-the-result-the-pandemic-appears-less-severe-with-fewer-recent-deaths/
Once again, I am completely agnostic about the change Florida made to it’s reporting methodology. They claim its more accurate and it may well be. They might have done it purely for the sake of accuracy or they might have done it because it always creates the impression of a rapid decline in the last week or so. I assume it’s the former but I have no way of knowing.
But none of that changes the simple fact that there is a significant lag in the official recording of deaths in Florida.
Check in a week or two. See if the official report of deaths in Oct 3 is still 18. Report back on what you find.
Then we’ll see who acknowledges being wrong.
-snip-
Florida on Monday reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 5,775 more COVID-19 cases and 608 deaths, according to Miami Herald calculations of CDC data.
In all, Florida has recorded at least 3,586,802 confirmed COVID cases and 55,619 deaths. Of the deaths added Monday, about 87%, occurred over the past 28 days and about 48% occurred in the last two weeks, according to Herald calculations of CDC data.
It is unclear when these newly reported deaths occurred. The Community Profile Report updates Florida’s county death tolls and rates about once every seven days, on or after the COVID-19 weekly situation report is published by the Florida Department of Health on Fridays.
-snip-
I guess they’re probably lying, eh? You know, to get Ron.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article254749437.html#storylink=cpy
Chief –
More fake news from another source on Sept 20.
-snip-
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – Florida has reported an increase of 1,067 COVID-19 deaths from the number the state was reporting Friday, according to the latest data from the CDC.
The state has also added 18,828 new cases since Friday, though the CDC lists zero new cases for Sunday, so that total may be incomplete.
The state has now verified 3,503,976 cases and 51,884 fatalities connected to COVID-19 since the start of the outbreak. according to the CDC’s metrics posted Monday.
The CDC reports daily data from the Florida Department of Health, which only publicly puts out a full report of its metrics weekly on Fridays. The deaths are often delayed being reported and then backdated to the day when they happened, so that increase of 1,000+ fatalities since Friday doesn’t mean that those deaths happened over the weekend.
My guess is you think those 1,067 deaths just happened to occur over that weekend. “Cause, you know, the lag isn’t real.
Lol.
I love you boyz.
Sorry –
Here’s that link for that other fake news story:
https://www.local10.com/news/florida/2021/09/20/florida-adds-1067-more-covid-19-deaths-in-latest-cdc-data/
How long does it take Florida to update counts? Surely it is all electronic? Cases and deaths were declining over September – but it’s all the lag? 🤣
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/us-state-trends.png
It’s all nuts is what it is.
Chief –
> Cases and deaths were declining over September – but it’s all the lag?
Oy. Now we get the binary thinking.
It’s like you all use the same playbook.
NO ONE SAID THE ENTIRE DECLINE (specifically, since early September not late August) IS AN ARTIFACT OF THE LAG.
In this very thread I have said (more than once) that cases (and thus hospitalizations and deaths) are down significantly in Florida. NO ONE DISPUTES THAT. They are down in many areas in the South where spread was high very recently.
But that doesn’t mean that there is a significant lag in the official tallying of deaths.
You boyz truly are hilarious.
…that doesn’t mean that there ISN’T a significant lag…
If you want a good example of how bizarrely partisan things are getting, look at the Virginia governor’s race.
The Democrat is promising a vaccine mandate and bashing his GOP opponent for not requiring a mandate.
All pretty mundane and common, except for one significant fact- the current governor of Virginia is a Democrat. And Virginia only has a mandate for state employees- not teachers or students- which is why the guy running for office can promise to do one.
Got that?
The Democrats in charge of Virginia say they could issue a mandate anytime they want. But they don’t because they want to play political games with the question.
Only by voting Democrat in November, the argument goes, will you get a mandate that the Democrats refuse to impose now. And presumably you’ll have to wait until the new guy takes office in January because Democrats firmly and decisively believe the mandate is necessary today.
Only Republicans, the story goes, refuse to implement mandates that the Democrats have refused to implement.
Here’s CNN on the story- note that you will not see anywhere in this story that Democrats hold the governor’s office and the legislature.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/28/politics/virginia-governor-debate-covid-vaccine-mandate/index.html
How’s Virginia doing with the virus? Early September there were 46 deaths a day. Now it’s under 10 and none since Saturday (unless there is a data lag, but of course no blue state would do that. Joshua says so.)
Jeff –
> (unless there is a data lag, but of course no blue state would do that. Joshua says so.)
Perhaps you have nothing else than squirrels? You need them so much that you just regularly make sh1t up and put words in my mouth?
There are “blue” states that also report deaths in a way similar to Florida. I have no idea if there’s a lag in those states similar in magnitude to the lag in Florida although I tend to doubt it (it would be harder to tell because the overall numbers would be smaller).
But none of that changes how your numbers were over 1000% off, and counting.
Hi Robert
Cases aren’t rapidly declining everywhere. New York for example. Their count of new cases over the last seven days is higher than Florida’s and New York has a lower population.
New cases over the last 7 days 33,806 in New York, 32,347 in Florida. Per 100k- New York 174, Florida 151.
Maybe their plan to “catch up” to Florida is to give everyone Covid right before they go to Florida for the winter.
New York City’s vaccine mandate for school employees kicked in Oct. 4. The Wall Street Journal reported that 18,000 school employees got their first dose between Sept. 24 and Oct. 4.
8,000 still aren’t vaccinated.
Remember all those stories assuring you only southern Trump supporters were vaccine hesitant? There were more than 26,000 unvaccinated people on the NYC school system payroll alone in the country’s most densely populated area as late as Sept. 24. That we know of.
Jeff –
Intersting.
> New cases over the last 7 days 33,806 in New York, 32,347 in Florida. Per 100k- New York 174, Florida 151.
Now that I’ve made it clear that you were off by more than 1,000% on your statejrs about deaths in Florida and laughably wrong on your claim that the 7-day moving daily death rate (per capita or otherwise) was lower in Florida on Sept 23 than in NY, you want to move to case counts and ignore death rates?
Of course, case counts are affected by testing rates and although I don’t know what the comparison is at this point (perhaps it is higher in Florida?), testing in Florida has been consistently much lower than in NY. Not to mention, it’s possible there could be a lower ratio of hospitalizations, severe disease, and deaths to cases in NY than in Florida since the vax rate is higher in NY – although certainly the comparative vax rates among those at high risk would be most important in that regard.
But your endless effort to deflect is indeed quite impressive. You are, beyond question, the Climate Etc. squirrel master.
“…you want to move to case counts and ignore death rates?”
Not at all. You firmly believe the CDC is lying about deaths in Florida and I continue to address your strange desire to see Florida “catch up” with New York.
It’s kinda hard to have deaths from Covid without cases of Covid, don’t you agree? And besides, since you believe firmly that IFR is really high, then you must believe I am correct- Florida will not catch up to New York. Testing? Here’s a news flash- those who don’t get sick from Covid are the ones who aren’t getting tested and are, therefore, unlikely to appear in death statistics (even the most accurate ones, like Florida uses).
No comment from you on the fact that 8,000 unionized public school employees in New York City alone allowed themselves to be fired this week instead of complying with the mayor’s authoritarian mandates? No comment on the Democrat who is Virginia’s governor refusing to mandate so that the Democrat running for the office can promise a mandate?
With Delta dwindling, how’s it working out for the party to simultaneously insist that mandates are necessary now or must be delayed several months depending on partisan need?
Jeff –
> You firmly believe the CDC is lying about deaths in Florida
You’ve been told over and over that just isn’t true.
I try to be very circumspect about accusing people online of lying. Usually people are going to believe what they say.
But at this point there’s simply no conclusion other than for some bizarre reason you’re just flat out lying.
I have great trust in the CDC’s numbers. But there is a matter of there being a lag in the recording of deaths.
> … and I continue to address your strange desire to see Florida “catch up” with New York.
I also said that I think it isn’t particularlyokelubtjst Florida will reach the same per capita level of covid deaths as NY even if it currently is seeing a higher rate of deaths (in an absolute sense and in a per capita sense) despite your claims otherwise. Even if Florida does surpass those levels in NY, it could likely reverse in the winter as the rates in NY would likely surpass those in Florida.
I have absolutely no “desire” to see that happen as it means more illness and death.
Again. You’ve been told this. In contrast to the issue related to the CDC, you may well believe that I have such a desire.
And of course there would be no way for me to convince you otherwise. But I am the one who says that I don’t think that covid outcomes are particularly a function of statewide (partisan-oriented) policies whereas you are uniformly focused in a partisan signal in the outcomes. I am saying that the reversal of fortunes in Florida compared to NY is more a signal that the causality is complicated more so than just party-related factors.
“And of course there would be no way for me to convince you otherwise. But I am the one who says that I don’t think that covid outcomes are particularly a function of statewide (partisan-oriented) policies whereas you are uniformly focused in a partisan signal in the outcomes. I am saying that the reversal of fortunes in Florida compared to NY is more a signal that the causality is complicated more so than just party-related factors.”
Against my better judgement, for the benefit of any lurkers instead of the lost-cause who wrote it, I’m going to address this. This is a meaningless word salad in a squirrel suit.
The partisan attacks on Florida have been relentless, bizarre, dishonest and entirely driven by the assumption that Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, will run for president in 2024. Anyone as obsessive over Florida numbers as Joshua has been is either duped by a partisan press or playing politics with a virus. Full stop.
As smarter people than I have noted, Florida is doing just fine with Covid and has done considerably better than many states. This is the truth that must be attacked at all times and at all costs for some reason. And that has a cost to society.
It is that relentless obsession to push a fake narrative, rather some fealty to the state of Florida, that causes me to comment. If you want to control a pandemic:
Do Not politicize the stats
Do not politicize the vaccine
Do not offer contradictory and often just plain ridiculous mandates and messages then allow yourself to get caught ignoring them over and over again.
Do not repeatedly push an easily debunked narrative.
At a high level, a government must have three things to control an epidemic:
Accurate information
Credibility
Reasonable, consistent policy
All three got tossed out the window deliberately in the zeal to make Florida the national whipping boy for partisan purposes.
Jeff –
As of this morning, Florida has reported more COVID deaths than NY.
The 7-day moving average did September 23 in Florida is now 197.
Rembee when you said that the number was 116 FOR THE ENTIRE PREVIOUS WEEK?
Just to update you. At this point your number was off by around 1,189%
Congratulations. That’s quite an impressive error.
Jeff –
Here you go. Just in case you wanted a reminder. Here is what you posted:
-snip-
jeffnsails850 | September 23, 2021 at 10:46 am |
[…]
Deaths in New York (including NYC) over the last seven days per the CDC- 246
Deaths in Florida over the last seven days per the CDC 116
-snip-
The actual numbers?
Florida: 1,386
NY: 280
So you were the one making the comparison. You said there were more deaths in NY. Not only were you wrong, you weren’t even close. Not even close to being close.
You said I was accusing the CDC of “lying” – when what I was trying to do was explain to you how you didn’t understand the CDC’s numbers.
I told you I didn’t think that the. CDC was lying – that I trusted their numbers, but that you had to account for the lag in Florida’s recording of deaths.
But you continued to repeat the lie that I was saying that the CDC was lying.
It’s actually quite hard for me to understand this behavior on your part. I generally asumme that people in these threads do as a rule believe what they say in their comments.
I don’t think you started out intending to lie about the numbers
Why would someone knowingly put up comments with foolish and obviously bad statements? That wouldn’t seem logical. Soy assimotik is that you were just posting about the numbers on ignorance.
But I do think in this case you were just knowingly lying afterwards because in that way you thought you would distract from your notable error..
Jeff –
Your number for Florida was 116.
The actual number is 1,386 (and counting).
You were off by well over 1,000%.
Inasked you at the time what you would say when it became apparent just how wrong your numbers were, how wrong your statement was that more people died in NY over that period than in Florida.
You didn’t answer then.
Here’s your opportunity now to show some accountability. What do you have to say about being so wrong?
For any lurkers rather than the lost cause:
Florida has not caught up to New York. Florida has a much larger population than New York.
I still do not apologize for using CDC numbers, nor do I think using them is a “lie.”
Joshua continues to obsess over Florida and mislead on its statistics for literally no other reason that political observers believe the current governor of Florida will run for president as a Republican.
They believed the governor of New York would run for the other party’s nomination based on his “heroic” performance with Covid until members of his own administration admitted it was a fairy tale and the man resigned.
Florida is doing fine.
In New York, case counts are higher than those in Florida (despite smaller populations), huge numbers of NYC residents are unvaccinated despite the handwaving, mandates and bluster, and winter is coming to the nation’s most densely populated area- one that is desperately trying to reopen businesses and office buildings. That significant unvaxxed population in NYC is largely African American. That’s the demographic with abnormally high death rates, but also the demographic nobody is trying to help get vaccinated because it conflicts with the narrative that only white, evangelical Republicans are refusing the jab.
Oh, and one other interesting fact, this is a diversion for another partisan reason. Biden literally claimed every Covid death was the fault of the president of the United States, that Donald Trump was uniquely bad. That this must drive people’s vote
There have been more Covid deaths in 2021 than there were in 2020.
Let’s repeat that. There have been more Covid 19 deaths this year, under Joe Biden, than last year under Donald Trump.
Now you know why he spends all day screaming at Florida.
The craziness continues.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/compare-state-trends-12.png
Jeff –
> Florida has not caught up to New York. Florida has a much larger population than New York.
Florida has absolutely caught NY in absolute number of deaths – despite being behind by 17,000 deaths just a few months ago. It is still somewhat behind in per capita deaths although it is closing fast in that category as well. I doubt it will catch up but it will be close – at least before the trends in cases and deaths in NY relative to Florida reverse when winter hits in NY.
> I still do not apologize for using CDC numbers, nor do I think using them is a “lie.”
No one is asking you to apologize for using the CDC numbered. No one said using them is a lie. Why did you put lie in quotes? I never said that using the CDC numbers is a lie – although you have lied and aid that I have said that.
I have absolutely no reason to doubt the CDC’s numbers.
> Joshua continues to obsess over Florida.
I’m pointing out your huge error in the numbered. Here – I’ll show it again.
-snip-
jeffnsails850 | September 23, 2021 at 10:46 am |
[…]
Deaths in New York (including NYC) over the last seven days per the CDC- 246
Deaths in Florida over the last seven days per the CDC 116
-snip-
The actual numbers?
Florida: 1,386
NY: 280
Latest available 7 day average deaths per the CDC.
Florida 13
New York 23
New York City 16
Seriously weird.
Chief –
There’s a lag in Florida’s reporting of deaths.
This has been explained to you many times.
It’s very odd indeed that you still display a total lack of understanding.
Chief –
Here’s an article that describes how reporting of covid deaths in Florida can lag by more than a month, and frequently by weeks.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2020/09/10/spike-in-reported-covid-19-deaths-again-shows-lag-in-florida-data/
This has been explained to youamy times.
What accounts for your failure to understand something so simple?
There is a difference of 2 days between the latest available Florida data and that for New York – and a further 2 days for NYC data. Like it’s going from 13 to more than a 1000 Florida deaths as a 7 day average. It was a third that at the late August peak. It’s completely nuts.
Chief –
This has all been explained to you many times.
The Florida reporting to the CDC has lags of weeks sometimes, sometimes more than a month. Plus they repoet in batches maybe twice a week. Any numbers you have for today or yesterday or a week ago are only temporary. They will go up.
I have explained all of this to you any times. I have shown you examples.
Your inability to comprehend something so simple is truly strange.
I’ll keep explaining it in hopes sooner or later it will get through – as improbable as that seems.
It has been explained to Joshua many, many times too many that yellow journalism is far from an authoritative source on anything let alone such a silly urban myth. Handwaving at some imagined months delay making a huge difference in such critical numbers is an absurdity that allows the invention of data.
We may wait some more for the chickens to roost – but the count isn’t breaking anywhere near Joshua’s way.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/compare-state-trends-13.png
Chief –
It really is sad to see you making such a fool of yourself. But I did warn you. Remember a few days ago when you said this?:
-snip-
Robert I. Ellison | October 4, 2021 at 7:30 pm |
Florida deaths peaked at 401 on 27 August 2021 and have been in decline since to 18 on 3 October. Joshua insists that the CDC data is unreliable based on another newspaper article. God this is nuts.
-snip-
Remember when you thought that the moving 7-day moving average of deaths in Florida was 18 on October 3 – because that’s what the CDC website said on October 4 when you looked at it?
Remember what I told you at the time? I told you that number would be going up in the coming weeks – due to a lag in how Florida reports deaths to the CDC. Apparently that was too complicated for you to understand.
I warned you that I was going to refer back to your foolish belief that the number wasn’t going to go up as the lag was filled in.
So what does the CDC say today about deaths on October 3 in Florida?
It says 23.
So that means that for the period of those seven days, the total number of deaths went up by 35 deaths.
You insisted it was 18. You insisted it wouldn’t go up – as I told you it would.
Do you feel foolish? Do you want to admit your error now? Or do you want to wait and watch that number go up a lot higher and suffer even more embarrassment?
Up to you. You can just own up to your foolishness now, or you can wait until its much worse for you.
Chief –
And just to clarify – on the off chance that your mischaracterization of what I said was unintentional rather than a deliberate lie….
I don’t think that the CDC’s data are unreliable. Not at all.
I think that the CDC reporting of data is a result of Florida’s reporting to the CDC – which includes a lag of weeks and sometime longer – as long a a month or more.
Do you understand now? It isn’t that the CDC data are unreliable. It’s that the CDC updates over period of time as Florida reports the data to them. Is that really too complicated for you to understand? Or are you just a flat out liar?
Chief –
Here’s an article that talks about how the lag in Florida reporting can sometimes be more than a month. Are you going to continue to ignore this and make an even bigger fool of yourself?
Spike in reported COVID-19 deaths again shows lag in Florida data
About 50 of 213 newly reported deaths occurred more than a month ago
Analyzing data released Thursday by the Florida Department of Health again highlights a significant lag in the state’s reporting of COVID-19 related deaths.
The state’s total of resident and non-resident deaths related to coronavirus increased by 213 in Thursday’s data, bringing Florida’s total to 12,482 since the pandemic began.
But a chart showing when those deaths occurred indicates 14 were from Aug. 21, and 10 were from Aug. 12. From Aug. 22 to Sept. 2, between two and eight newly reported deaths were added each day, the data show. But roughly 50 of the newly added deaths in the state data were not registered on the chart, which only includes the last 30 days, indicating those deaths occurred more than one month ago.
https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2020/09/10/spike-in-reported-covid-19-deaths-again-shows-lag-in-florida-data/
Chief –
So what are you going to do?
Remember when I said this?:
>
We’re not a week out yet. Only four days. And already the number that you thought was “definitive” has increased by 27%. But it’s going to go higher. Much higher.
Remember when you said this?:
>
Sad. Sad to see you insist on making such a fool of yourself. You insisted the 18 number was “definitive.” It wasn’t. It has already increased by 27% in less than a week and it will go up more.
I tried to warn you. But unfortunately you’re so full of yourself you wouldn’t listen.
So sad.
But of course you won’t own up to your foolishness. Your grandiosity wouldn’t allow it I’m sure. So you’ll just double-down on your foolishness.
Chief –
Ah wait, my bad. I see now that you weren’t referring to the 7-day moving average but to the deaths on Oct 3.
So indeed, that number has gone up by 27% (to 23). But actually the 7-day moving average for that date is…wait for it….50.
And it’s going to go up;. As will the number of deaths recorded for that date after the lag.
How high will it go? How long will you continue to make a fool out of yourself?
Chief –
Actually, it’s not clear what you were referring to with the 18.
-snip-
Robert I. Ellison | October 4, 2021 at 10:48 pm |
On the 25th of September the 7 day moving average was 116. Is he sure he hasn’t got the date wrong? It is currently 18 and not 400.
-snip-
But it seems most likely you meant the deaths for the single day Oct. 4.
So we’ll go with that. You were wrong regardless.
And interestingly enough, you were also totally wrong there in assuming that the 7-day moving average at 116 for September 25 was “definitive.”
As just four days later it’s up to 159.
Hmmm. It’s up by 43 in just four days? Now why would that be?
Do you suppose maybe there’s a lag?
Comment after verbose, obtuse and pettifogging comment. The deaths in Florida have been falling since late August. They are not currently at whatever mad numbers Joshua has distilled from newspaper stories.
Florida reports weekly and one hopes that the official source is as accurate and reliable as possible. Cases and deaths have been declining for more than a month which is entirely a good thing. Deaths for the week to 7 October were 147.
http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/covid19-data/covid19_data_latest.pdf
Chief –
> The deaths in Florida have been falling since late August.
I was wondering how you were going to try tibwewsel your way through.
So now we have it made clear: you state something obvious that was never in dispute (well, the decline started in early September) and then act as if that’s what was being disputed. Go ahead, provide a quote where I ever disputed that statement.
You can’t. You’re shameless.
How dishonorable. But very Chief-like indeed.
Too bad I have a quote where you made a false sfawnr that will only get more untrue over time.
> Florida reports weekly.
Also false, of course.
Let’s see how much more wrong your “18” on October 3 turns out to be, shall we? Oh Chief of the dishonorable.
The delta variant wave in Florida is effectively over. It is a simple truth Joshua cannot simply acknowledge for partisan political reasons. This week, next week and the week after the truth will remain simple.
What Joshua brings to the table obsessively is bad faith games demonstrating to himself how dumb denizens are.
And what I actually said was that the 7 day average was 18 and not Joshua’s 400. It is currently 13.
Chief –
> And what I actually said was that the 7 day average was 18 and not Joshua’s 400. It is currently 13.
“Joshua’s 400” is if course meaningless. I never said to was 400, let alone that it was 400 on Oct 3.
I did provide the quote and the wording was somewhat ambiguous but whatever, that’s fine. So on Oct 4 you said the 7-day average (for October 3) was 18. I told you that it might be reported as 18 at that time but that number didn’t reflect the lag in reporting. I told you that number would rise.
You insisted the number was “definitive..” That it wouldn’t rise.
You rejected all the newspaper reports that explained why there was a lag. You said it was “nuts” to thing there was a lag.
The 7-day average for Oct 3 at the CDC website is now 50. The number rose by approaching 300%. Tjars how far you were off at this point. And it will rise further still.
And amazingly enough you just deny that you were wrong. What a fascinating study you are.
What is significant?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/compare-state-trends-13.png
What is pointless is the endless repetition of Josh’s empty headed partisan nonsense peppered with supercilious constructs and tawdry insults.
Chief –
You’re obviously just trying to distract from your embarrassing errors that resulted from your inability to understand a simple dynamic that causes the lag in reporting.
And again you resort to deliberate misleading. I have repeatedly said I don’t think the poor results in Florida are particularly due to state-wide policies.
You couldn’t understand the lag even though it’s a simple concept and I explained it to you many times.
That led you to declaring that a 7-day moving average of 18 on October 3rd was definitive.
I told you that number would rise. You responded with typical pompousness and gorilla dust.
The number is now 50 (actually 59 at Worldometers) and if will go higher still.
It’s nearly 3 X higher from the number you declared “definitive.”. And it will rise.
Stop trying to detract and deflect. Just acknowledge you were wrong and move on. Your attempts to deflect ard pathetic.
Chief –
This is all remarkably similar to when you had such a hard time understanding the simple concept that she vaccines tend to wane somewhat in their efficacy against infection although not so much in their efficacy against severe disease and death.
And there, just like here, your reaction to being so embarrassed by your ignorance was to misrepresent what I said as somehow “attacking” vaccines when I’m fact I never did so and continue to think that prettyicj everyone, including people previously infected, should get vaccinated as soon as they can.
So sad that you have so much difficulty understanding such simple concepts as the lag in Florida’s reporting and the waning, somewhat, of the vaccines in protecting against infection.
Even sadder that you can’t just learn when I explain these simple concepts to you, and then move on – but feel compelled to protect your silly grandiosity by being unwilling to admit your ignorance and feeling compelled to make unsupported and absurd attacks against me because I explained things to you.
I said that the 7 day average was currently18. Which bit of currently doesn’t he understand? The latest Florida weekly CoV-2 report puts deaths in the week to 7 October at 147 – that is 21 per day. It clearly states that the number may be revised. Although it is hardly likely to increase to the 2800 deaths in a week that is the febrile product of Josh’s fervid imagination. It will be minor and make absolutely no difference to observation of the course of the pandemic in Florida. You go with data from authoritative sources and assess accuracy and reliability. We can see where the wave of delta variant infections is going in Florida. Much to Josh’s political discomfiture.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/compare-state-trends-13.png
Josh is not authoritative, accurate or reliable. It is all mad handwaving at trivia. It is all obfuscation in the service of partisan political gamesmanship. It is utterly mad.
Less remarkably similar than fraudulently misrepresented.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-960660
Less remarkably similar than wildly misrepresented.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-960660
Chief –
Why do you act so foolishly?
I know you have a very active fantasy life, but do you really imagine that somehow it’s difficult to quote what you actually said, and how foolish and wrong it was?
Here’s what you said, that was obviously wrong (well, it’s only a small sampling of what you said that’s ‘wrong)
You said that the number for the 7-day moving average for October 3 was 18, that it was definitive, and you mocked the idea that Florida reports in batches and updates the numbers over a period of weeks and sometimes more than a month.
I patiently explained your error to you over and over. I told you over and over that there is a significant lag in the reporting in Florida.
I told you that the number 18 would increase significantly, and that I would keep pointing that out to you to demonstrate how foolish you were being
The number has now increased by some 300%. And it will continue to go up for a while now.
Do you seriously fantasize that you can hide from your obvious errors simply by throwing out a constant list of insults?
Sheece. How sad to see you make such a fool of yourself. Why do you do it? It’s an enigma wrapped up in a mystery.
Chief –
Here’s what I said. I predicted that when the number went up, you’d deny that you were wrong. You’re so laughably predictable, and foolish to boot:
There we go. The number was 18. It’s now 50. It will go up even further.
But you won’t admit that you were wrong. You won’t deal with how you insulted me when I told you that the number would go up. Your absurd grandiosity won’t allow you to face any of it.
I suspect that case studies in psychology textbooks have been written about you.
Chief –
Here’s another quote of something foolish you said. Why do you want me to keep posting what you said to exposure how foolish you were? Why don’t you just admit you were wrong (despite my explaining the lag to you) and move on?
Why do you want me to keep posting what you said to exposure how foolish you were?
As I explained to you at that time, its not “all the lag.” But yes, there is a significant lag in their reporting. Yes, it take quite a while for Florida to finish updating their counts. Weeks, as much as a month or more. Yes, even though the process is electronic.
No, pointing out that there’s a lag isn’t “nuts.” What’s “nuts” is to do what you’re doing. Make foolish and obviously wrong statements, and then insult me when I point out your errors.
And then fantasize that somehow it’s not easy to just quote you to show how foolish you were.
Anyway, have a good night. Thanks for making it so easy to point out how foolish you are.
Does this ever end? It has ended recently with increasingly tawdry, salacious and scurrilous disparagements that were extensively moderated.
I said that the 7 day average was currently18. Which bit of currently doesn’t he understand? The latest Florida weekly CoV-2 report – on which the CDC base their numbers – puts deaths in the week to 7 October at 147 – that is 21 per day on average. It clearly states that the number may be revised. Although it is never increasing to 400 deaths in a day as Josh suggested – that exceeds the number of deaths in the delta variant surge at its peak.
Josh makes the same irrational points endlessly. The CDC is authoritative and definitive within reasonable limits. 400 a day is 100% pure over the top political propaganda with not the remotest resemblance to present realities. The drawn out verbose and repetitive commentary is all because he needs to beat opponents into submission with his ethical and intellectual superiority. It is a not uncommon behaviour taken to extremes by pissant progressives everywhere in every period.
“From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step.”
— Friedrich August von Hayek
Josh has crossed the threshold to fanatic and I’m now calling him out on it.
Chief –
You’re like a little child who stands there with chocolate all over his face and Stomps his feet and insist that he’s not the one who ate the ice cream. But I’ve got the video tape. I can just quote you right here I’m sure what it was that you said. No chip you can’t just stop your feet and wish that away as if you didn’t say it. Here look at this again:
Remember when I said this?:
-snip-
If I a week the number is significantly higher, what will you say? Will you acknowledge that I was right? And that you were wrong? Of course you won’t. The number will be higher and you will be shown wrong and I will be shown right. It you won’t admit it.
We’re not a week out yet. Only four days. And already the number that you thought was “definitive” has increased by 27%. But it’s going to go higher. Much higher.
Remember when you said this?:
>
-snip-
The latest reporting by Florida is for the 3rd October. Is he assuming that there are huge numbers of deaths yet to be reported? That for some reason deaths are reported in batches? This has not been demonstrated. I assume that reports are definitive and the CDC authoritative,
Sad. Sad to see you insist on making such a fool of yourself. You insisted the 18 number was “definitive.” It wasn’t. It has already increased by 27% in less than a week and it will go up more.
I tried to warn you. But unfortunately you’re so full of yourself you wouldn’t listen.
So sad.
But of course you won’t own up to your foolishness. Your grandiosity wouldn’t allow it I’m sure. So you’ll just double-down on your foolishness.
Robert, it’s only going to get worse. They’re not just going fanatic, they’re going post-truth.
In NY you can’t buy a hamburger without a mask and proof of vaccination, yet the case counts are higher than in Florida. Significantly.
And it’s worse in Michigan, where the governor is distracting by attacking Canada over fossil fuel pipelines.
And, of course, Joe Biden’s numbers keep dropping.
Expect the obsession with FL to go into overdrive
Jeff
Josh argues nothing. He repeats tawdry and scurrilous insults and misrepresentations. I will wait for the next weekly report from Florida. That will hopefully – for humanitarian reasons – show a decline from the 147 deaths last week – 21 per day on average. Continuing the trend of the past 6 weeks.
Chief –
>… show a decline from the 147 deaths last week – 21 per day on average.
You just really can’t learn, can you? Despite my best efforts to explain. I consider that my failure (but then again, given what I have to work with I have something of an excuse).
Anyway, once the lag is closed, the moving average number of daily deaths for last week (the week prior to Oct. 7) will be 75+.
Of course there will be a decline this week from last week. Just as there was last week from the week before that.
Again you state the obvious and undisputed as if you think it’s a sign of your genius. Such a cheap and transparent way out of just acknowledging being wrong.
Sad.
Chief –
And of course, the moving average for October 3 is already some 300% more than the number you said was “definitive” as you rejected the simple fact of the lag in reporting.
It will go higher. Too bad you passed up on the opportunity to just admit being wrong.
“Josh argues nothing. He repeats tawdry and scurrilous insults and misrepresentations. I will wait for the next weekly report from Florida. ”
It doesn’t matter what the numbers are in Florida. They’ll make those up. Or declare Florida a basket case, without evidence, and go find a different state with a red Governor. This is about political power, about diverting attention from Biden, about cementing the post-truth narrative.
I’m fascinated with it because of the absurd lengths they’re going to it in my state- Virginia.
The Democrat running for Governor in Virginia on Thursday announced on live television a number of “children” in the “ICU” “for Covid” that was actually higher than the total number of people of all ages hospitalized at any level in Virginia. In fact, the number he cited was higher than the total of hospitalized persons, of any age, that Virginia has ever hit during this pandemic.
He tossed out this whopper in support of his demand for mandates, which aren’t in place because the Democrats in Virginia have not put them in place. And to argue that his Republican opponent was uniquely bad because he wouldn’t impose a mandate that Democrats won’t impose and therefore we have children (not actually) in the hospital.
I’m also fascinated by this because it is so obviously the opposite of what any thinking human being would do if they genuinely were interested in helping during a pandemic.
The only way you have any chance at all of compliance with pandemic policy is via honesty, consistency, and rational policy. So we have stats that are fake, mandates and restrictions they apply selectively, and policy so irrational that they’re routinely video taped ignoring them. The only rational explanation is that they literally don’t care about anything except the next first Tuesday in November.
I actually feel a bit sorry for Josh- Biden is turning out to be a disaster in the polls, so the need for ever more excruciatingly ridiculous diversion will be necessary.
And he does seem to be mildly interested in climate, where the news is that the entire world is about to be see the actual effects of, and be furious with, the utter failure that is global climate policy.
Chief –
Do you remember this comment from me?
Ok, so now it’s about a week later. And as of today the moving average for deaths per day for Oct. 3 is….wait for it….95.
Wait. You said that the number of 18 was “definitive.” You scoffed at the notion that there’s a lag in the reporting. Over and over you said that the idea that there is a significant lag in Florida’s reporting is “nuts”. The very idea was just a product of yellow journalism, you said.
Could you have been more wrong?
So here’s your chance to acknowledge your error and your ridiculous over-confidence.
You said 18. It’s now 95
You were off by almost 530%. I suppose you’ll claim that being off by less than two orders of magnitude is proof of your genius? That would be fairly typical of you.
Or, you could just step up and admit you were wrong. Way wrong. And that I was right.
Heh. Yeah, like that’s going to happen. Too funny.
I will note that Florida has moved down a couple of notches in per capita cases (of course, don’t forget their testing rate is still pretty poor), and a smidgeon in per capita deaths.
So those are good developments for Florida.
But a problem still remains for those who were on here in these pages praising COVID results in Florida more than a few months ago, only to see Florida climb steadily up the charts in per capita cases (with pretty poor levels of testing) and per capita deaths subsequently.
If you thought their relatively low numbers early on in the pandemic were a function of their better policies then you need to explain why their climb up the charts isn’t a function of worse policies later on.
But of course, you won’t bother with logical consistency. Why bother with that when squirrels and insults will suffice?
Australian startup is beating China to efficient and cheaper solar panels
Potentially. Yet to be demonstrated via mass production.
Ireneusz Palmowski, thank you for your several links.
Hey all, here is a novel non-CO2 based mechanism for anthro climate change — via low freq high power broadcasts affecting ozone –
https://youtu.be/g51uWNCeTGo
Judith, thank you again for this selection. It does take me a while to read them, but I appreciate your posting them.
Yes, lets hope that people do not derail this thread and go off at irrelevant tangents like they did the last one.
tonyb
It’s an open thread, Tony.
One does not simply derail an open thread..
Besides, it’s never really one thread: comments branch out.
We are already past the stage where Climate.etc should change its name to Psychiatrics.etc
The carbon tax and renewables (unreliables) have sent Europe spiraling into Energy Hell. It will happen here in the US if we don’t change course very soon. This crisis will arrive sooner and be much worse than any hypothetical “climate crisis.”
Of course, the usual id-eeee-ots will blame the problem on natural gas. If unreliable energy and carbon taxes are such a great thing, why does Europe need any natural gas at all? They have completely mismanaged their energy infrastructure. Now the Devil has come for his due.
MOSCOW (Bloomberg) –Europe is bracing for a tough winter as an energy crisis that’s been years in the making leaves the continent relying on the vagaries of the weather.
Faced with surging gas and electricity prices, countries from the UK to Germany will need to count on mild temperatures to get through the heating season. Europe is short of gas and coal and if the wind doesn’t blow, the worst-case scenario could play out: widespread blackouts that force businesses and factories to shut.
The unprecedented energy crunch has been brewing for years, with Europe growing increasingly dependent on intermittent sources of energy such as wind and solar while investments in fossil fuels declined. Environmental policy has also pushed some countries to shut their coal and nuclear fleets, reducing the number of power plants that could serve as back-up in times of shortages.
“It could get very ugly unless we act quickly to try to fill every inch of storage,” said Marco Alvera, chief executive officer of Italian energy infrastructure company Snam SpA. “You can survive a week without electricity, but you can’t survive without gas.”
Read more: Europe isn’t buying LNG despite record gas demand – here’s why.
Energy demand is rising from the U.S. to Europe and Asia as economies recover from the global pandemic, boosting industrial activity and fueling concerns about inflation. Prices are so high in Europe that two major fertilizer producers announced they were shutting plants or curtailing production in the region.
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/9/17/europe-faces-a-winter-energy-crisis-years-in-the-making
Jim2: I think the usual idiots are likely to blame Trump, who delayed completion of the Nord Strem 2 natural gas pipeline. Now, I personally think it is idiotic to allow Putin to control even more of Europe’s energy supply and bypass Ukraine, but Trump never had the power to stop Nord Strem 2 – only the power to sanction any European company that finished the pipeline. Since Russian companies didn’t care about US sanctions, they would finish the project if a European country didn’t. This probably explains why Biden abandoned Trump’s sanctions. There was some possibility that the other European countries could have used anti-monopoly laws or legislation to block the project, but Trump doesn’t believe in working with allies.
FWIW, carbon taxes and renewables don’t have to make electricity unreliable. Natural gas generation is the ideal technology for converting unreliable renewable energy into reliable energy. The bulk of the cost of generating electricity from natural gas is the cost of the gas. It costs only about $0.01/kWh to have a natural gas plant standing idle when renewables are delivering electricity to ensure 100% reliability. When renewables are not delivering, you just turn on the gas and pay for it (which is no problem, since you don’t need to pay wind and solar farmer when they aren’t producing.) The problem is that the idiots are focused on 100% CO2-free electricity from renewables, rather than 100% reliable electricity from renewables while emitting as little CO2 as practical.
The best way to prevent natural gas from being used to make renewables 100% reliable is to restrict fracking and create shortages that drive up the price. That is what Biden is doing. (:)) Of course renewables will always cost whatever they agreed to pay when the plant was being built. Electricity from solar farms in cloudy, high-latitude German is always going to be relatively expensive. It was even more expensive when contracts were signed when the price of solar panels was 10-fold higher than today (:)). Stupidity takes many different forms. Today solar panels can produce electricity in Southern California for $0.02/kWh, but often they are already buying all the power they can use from older, more expensive solar farms.
In any case, the Europeans must import a lot of natural gas. If gas doesn’t come from Russia, it will likely come from the US, which wasn’t much of a reliability improvement under Trump. And tankers with US gas must be off-loaded at special facilities in major harbors – great targets of terrorist and alarmists.
Hey Jim –
What’s your updated view on Sydney Powell and Lin Wood?
Still think they’re going to come up with the goods on how the election was stolen?
Where is that Kraken, anyway?
The red herring fallacy.
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…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet………..Te……..Te.correct…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….364 K……….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………210 K………..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ…….224 K……….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……..209,91 K…….174 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
Christos: Φ – your the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor – is just an arbitrary fudge factor needed to make predicted surface temperature agree reasonably with the observed surface temperature in the absence of a GHE.
“In optics, Lambert’s cosine law says that the radiant intensity or luminous intensity observed from an ideal diffusely reflecting surface or ideal diffuse radiator is directly proportional to the cosine of the angle θ between the direction of the incident light and the surface normal; I = I0cos(θ).” When integrated over a hemisphere, Lambert’s Cosine Law shows that the power absorbed by an illuminated hemisphere is the same as the power absorbed by a radiation arriving perpendicular to a disk of the same radius with the same albedo (absorptivity). In other words, Φ = 1.
In the “reality-based” community, real scientists don’t add arbitrary fudge factors to established physics. Schwarzschild’s equation for radiative transfer predicts that the average 390 W/m2 of LWR exiting an average 288 K surface of the earth will be reduced to an average of 240 W/m2 of LWR crossing the TOA by absorption and temperature-dependent emission. (390-240/390 is 0.38, roughly equal to your dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor. Both Lambert’s Cosine Law and Schwarzschild’s equation for radiative transfer can be found at Wikipedia.
This explains why your methodology doesn’t work for Venus.
Franktoo
“Christos: Φ – your the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor – is just an arbitrary fudge factor needed to make predicted surface temperature agree reasonably with the observed surface temperature in the absence of a GHE.”
Franktoo
“When integrated over a hemisphere, Lambert’s Cosine Law shows that the power absorbed by an illuminated hemisphere is the same as the power absorbed by a radiation arriving perpendicular to a disk of the same radius with the same albedo (absorptivity). In other words, Φ = 1.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert%27s_cosine_law
“In optics, Lambert’s cosine law says that the radiant intensity or luminous intensity observed from an ideal diffusely reflecting surface or ideal diffuse radiator is directly proportional to the cosine of the angle θ between the direction of the incident light and the surface normal; I = I0cos(θ).[1][2] The law is also known as the cosine emission law[3] or Lambert’s emission law. It is named after Johann Heinrich Lambert, from his Photometria, published in 1760.[4]”
the radiant intensity or luminous intensity observed from an ideal diffusely reflecting surface or ideal diffuse radiator is directly proportional to the cosine of the angle θ between the direction of the incident light and the surface normal;
Lambert’s cosine law does not say anything about absorbed power.
I am explaining about Φ -factor in my site:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you Franktoo for your respond.
Christos: I skimmed your explanation at your website before commenting here. The phrase “dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor” was copied and pasted from there. That translates to a fudge factor. Did you read about Lambert’s cosine law and Schwarzschild’s equation for radiation transfer (in an atmosphere)? Both are discussed by Wikipedia?
Earth has an atmosphere that absorbs and reradiates infrared photons.
Joshua | September 24, 2021 at 2:44 pm |
Jeff –
> Your dream of FL catching up is dying: Florida hospitals are seeing a 60% drop in patients. Maybe the New Yorkers are going home.
Nice big fat squirrel. Good job.
I’m not “dreaming” of people dying in Florida at a faster rate than in NY. It’s really interesting that you’d think I’m wishing for people to die. At any rate…
I doubt NY will catch up all the way in per capita deaths, as I said more than once above. But it has dropped very, very dramatically relative to Florida over the past few months while Florida has steadily climbed up the charts.
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533
Obviously, to the extent that seasonality plays a role, it will differentially increase morbidity in NY relative to Florida in the coming months.
> Maybe the New Yorkers are going home.
That raises an interesting question. Do you know if Florida still fails to count non-residents when they tally the number of people who die in Florida?
That said, I hate to break it to you but usually around this time of year and in the next few months the flow is from NY to Florida, not the other way around.
Sorry, Christos. Lambert’s Cosine Law applies to both emission and absorption. By Kirckhoff’s Law, absorptivity must equal emissivity. You can’t have Lambert’s Cosine Law apply to emission at an angle to a surface and not have it apply to absorption by a surface.
What you say is right.
Also smooth surface planets have strong specular reflection, which has not been taken in consideration yet…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: Thanks for admitting that Lambert’s Cosine law applies to absorption of energy by the planet. Integrating that law over the surface of a sunlit hemisphere means that its absorption is the same as that of a disk of the same radius.
Now both the absorption by a disk and by a hemisphere depend on absorptivity (and the related phenomena of reflection, scattering and albedo). There are a lot of details I don’t fully understand about this subject. However, we have satellites that continuously monitor how much incoming SWR is being reflected back to space.
Actually, AOGCMs serious disagree about how much SWR actually reaches the surface and is absorbed. They produce far too few marine boundary layer clouds. They get the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation about right by tuning parameters, not because they have everything right. Plenty of room for skepticism here.
Franktoo, it is very important to estimate the SW EM “energy in” the correct amount.
It is the amount of energy which will be transformed to the outgoing IR emission, and, therefore, the correct estimation allows then to theoretically calculate the planet mean surface temperature.
Smooth surface planets have very strong SW specular reflection which cannot be “seen” by satellites.
The coupled term Φ(1 – a) is what makes the energy in estimation correct:
Φ(1 – a)Sπr² (W)
We have six (6) planets and moons with Φ = 0,47 and seven (7) with Φ = 1.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Specular reflection is the reflection of a plane surface like a mirror. The angle of incidence is the angle of reflection. Diffuse reflection is everything else. Satellites don’t mind which it is.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/refln/u13l1d6.gif
Robert, the example you linked to corresponds to the Φ = 1 case, or to the only diffusely reflecting surface properties.
The solar incidence is angular, so there always is an opposite directional reflection, which, for smooth surface is mirror like and, therefore, leads to the Φ = 0,47 for the smooth planetary surfaces.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote: “Smooth surface planets have very strong SW specular reflection which cannot be “seen” by satellites.”
When you have a flat surface, you can miss specular reflection when you aren’t observing from a location where the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. However, planets are spheres. As best I can tell, every satellite viewing the sunlit surface of the planet is can see some point on the surface where the angle of incidence from the sun and angle to the satellite are equal. Satellites in polar orbit see the planet from every possible angle. Nothing is “lost”.
The same is true for photos of the Earth from space. If specular reflection were an important phenomena, all such pictures would contain a bright spot somewhere on the surface where the angle of incident from the sun and reflection to the camera are equal. Pictures of the planet from space show no such bright spot.
If you want to know more, see Grant Petty’s “A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation”, a relatively inexpensive textbook that comprehensively covers everything about the physics of radiation interacting with our planet for meteorology students. (This isn’t a book about climate change.) The author has chapters on remote sensing comprehensively covering the physics of what meteorologists observe from spacecraft. Section 5.3 discusses the angular distribution of reflected radiation, including two idealized limiting cases, specular (all energy is reflected with angle of incidence equal to angle of reflection and Lambertian (reflected light is scattered equally in all directions). Petty says that real surfaces on the planet reflect a mixture of these extremes. If water is smooth enough, its [modest] reflection can be “quasi-specular” and we can observe a diffuse image of the sun reflected by the surface. However the absorptivity of water is about 0.99 and little power is reflected.
Finally, most of the planet’s albedo is not due to reflection by the surface. Clouds are tiny spheres of water that reflect an average 125 W/m2 in all directions and cover about 2/3 of the sky. About 50 W/m2 of SWR escapes through clear skies and 32 W/m2 of that is due to Rayleigh scattering of incoming SWR in all directions. This is the phenomena that makes the sky appear blue when scattering is towards the surface. So a relatively small fraction of the SWR leaving the TOA actually arises from reflection by the surface.
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/19/7568
http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/71370/1/albedo.pdf
As best I can tell, the Earth is not one of your hypothetical “smooth surface planets” that have strong SW specular reflection that can’t be seen by satellites. If this were an important phenomena, scientists like Petty involved in remote sensing who compare theory to observations would have identified the problem long ago. So there is no need for a massive Φ fudge factor to reduce the amount of SWR absorbed.
To summarize, your website fails to take into account:
1) Lambert’s Cosine Law means that the sunlit hemisphere of the Earth absorbs as much power as a flat disk of the same radius and albedo. To get the power absorbed over the entire surface of the planet, you need to divide by 4. S_0/4 = 340 W/m2. (1-a)*S_0/4 = 240 W/m2. Your factor of Φ = 0.47 would reduce this to 113 W/m2.
2) The average 390 W/m2 emitted by the surface of the planet is reduced to 240 W/m2 as that radiation travels upward through the atmosphere by absorption and emission by GHGs. The emission from GHGs gets weaker as the troposphere cools with altitude while the absorption remains unchanged. (Schwarzschild’s equation for radiative transfer is also discussed in Petty’s book.)
It’s time to explain to your readers why your previous analysis is wrong.
She’s BACK! Greta marches resume on Friday:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/global-protest-seeks-to-turn-up-heat-on-leaders-over-climate-1.5592774
Fun to watch.
Judith: You may want to include this link in your next Week in Review. There is a common misconception that COVID isn’t much more serious that influenza. However, influenza can only infect cells in the respiratory tract, while the ACE2 receptor used by SARS2 also allows infection of heart, brain and other tissues. Serious problems (including dementia) arising from infection of some of this tissues in patients needing hospitalization. (The author is not a medical professional, but the article contains links to primary sources.)
The Case for Covid Booster Shots Is Strong
https://www.wsj.com/articles/long-covid-19-booster-shots-third-dose-vaccine-delta-cognitive-decline-severe-illness-11631651778
“Emergencies” have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have eroded.”
― Friedrich Hayek
Hayek’s single-minded idealist of the Road to Serfdom has taken that single step to climate socialism fanaticism.
These academicians have identified German National Socialists and Italian Fascists as close relatives to the revolutionary socialist Left. Why? Because Nazi and Fascist authority figures often proclaimed to be on the “Left” side of the political spectrum, embracing a slew of “revolutionary socialist policies.
The ‘Fascist Left’: Myth or Reality? – https://stoppingsocialism.com/2021/09/the-fascist-left-myth-or-reality/
Mornin’ Tony (UTC),
I’m trying a little experiment, especially for you and Joe:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1440947540128681990
Sadly the experiment seems to have failed :(
In case you’ve seen some of our “skeptic” telling us how in India they’re using ivermectin (and HCQ) widely because of the overwhelming evidence there proving its efficacy:
-snip-
NEW DELHI:
Indian Council of Medical Research
(ICMR)-Covid-19 National Task Force Joint Monitoring Group dropped the usage of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) drugs from revised clinical guidelines for the management of adult Covid-19 patients.
[ …]
Among the key guidelines which are routinely stressed include – wearing masks, physical distancing and hand hygiene.
-snip-
https://m.timesofindia.com/india/icmr-drops-ivermectin-hydroxychloroquine-drugs-from-covid-treatment/amp_articleshow/86475906.cms?__twitter_impression=true
So it slips off the approved treatment list why? Possibly because there are better treatments such as monoclonal antibodies. And this is an excuse to patronise all ‘sceptics’? Defined as espousing anything other than catastrophe memes I suppose.
Chief –
I haven’t said that all “skeptics” think that ivermectin is a miracle drug or that HCQ has been proven effective.
In fact, we’ve some “skeptics” voice objections to both views.
We don’t even know how prevalent such views are among people who identify as climate “skeptics.”
But we do know that among the people who comment on those topics, the prevalence of people who express those views is very high in the online “skeptic” community at places like Climate Etc. an WUWT.
If you would read more carefully and stop fantasizing about me you might embarrass yourself less, Chief.
But anyway, thanks for reading. I can’t tell you how much it means to me that you do so.
If all skeptics don’t think like that – why make a point of it? It’s a convenient lie to then deny it’s one of his things. Along with the usual tawdry assertions. But he’ll be happy that he has my attention now as it means so much to him.
Chief –
I’ll repeat the point since you’re stuck between fantasizing about what I’ve said and outright misrepresenting what I’ve said.
The point is that ivermectin miracle drug belief and faith in HCQ are disproportionately prevalent at websites like this one where “skeptics” hang out.
Therefore, I’m sure there’s a lot of people on the audience here that will appreciate being informed on the topics. So if you run into one of the many “skeptics” here at this “skeptic” hangout that are convinced that ivermectin is a miracle drug because of the results in India, you ought want to inform them of the change in India’s COVID protocol
Thanks in advance.
And as always, thanks for reading. Can’t tell you how much it means to me.
Oh, and I hope you understand now why your comments about COVID trends in Florida and NY revealed you were totally ignorant on the topic?
Here, in case you missed it:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/11/week-in-review-science-edition-129/#comment-960288
CDC data is what I referred to. The only other point was the development of immunity through exposure to the virus or through vaccination. That contrasts with Joshua’s Joe Biden inspired short term flimflam on Florida.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
And I am not about to buy into another of Joshua’s long winded repetitive rants.
Lol.
Stop being a dope.
The relevant metric for assessing “a herd immunity threshold” is the level of “herd immunity.”
Once again, the number of cases has been much higher in Florida even as the level of testing has been much lower.
Those simple facts make it obvious that your reasoning that the much higher rate currently, in deaths and infections in Florida is due to NY being closer to “herd immunity” is nonsense.
Of course, vaccination also comes into play – but not so much in rates of infection – which is the stat that’s relevant for assessing nearness of “herd immunity.” Vaccination rates are much more relevant when assessing death rates.
Stop being a dope.
Chief –
> CDC data is what I referred to.
Stop being a dope.
CDC data make it clear that Florida has a much higher per capita rate of infections despite a much lower per capita rate of testing.
Of course, there could be confounding factors; it could be that Florida focuses it’s testing much better on people who would likely be positive. But you’ve offered no evidence of such, and besides there’s no way that accounts for the huge differential in testing rates (plus more cases identified).
And referring to the number of deaths only shows that you don’t even understand the issue.
Stop being a dope.
Oh, and always thanks for reading.
I’m so glad that you’ve changed your policy of
not reading my commentslaughably claiming that you don’t read my comments.I can’t tell you how much it means to me.
Herd immunity for polio kicked in at some 80% of the population vaccinated. For measles it is some 95%.
While the number of tests in Florida is lower than New York – the percentage of positives in Florida is more than double that of New York. Was it better targeted in Florida? The bulk of his claims are incorrect politically inspired nonsense.
Josh – for all the harping about skeptics believing in HCQ or ivermectin, – those two drugs seem to be about as effective as Remdesivir – which isnt very much. India has demonstrated a much shorter time frame for each of their waves which may or may not be due to the high usage of ivermectin, though it is probably too early to tell.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/study-remdesivir-speeds-recovery-hospitalized-covid-patients
Of the 570 matched patients, 82.8% of those given remdesivir and 74.7% controls clinically improved after a median of 5 days and 7 days, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.47). Remdesivir recipients who breathed ambient air or received oxygen via nasal cannula reached clinical improvement after a median of 5 days, compared with 6 days in controls (aHR, 1.41).
Likewise, severely ill patients needing more intense respiratory support achieved clinical improvement after a median of 8 days, versus 9 days in controls (aHR, 1.59).
Rates of death by 28 days were not significantly different between the two groups in a time-to-death analysis, at 7.7% in remdesivir recipients and 14.0% among controls (aHR, 0.70). Median time to death was 8.6 days for patients receiving remdesivir and 8.2 days in controls.
Josh – you and cheif probably need some marriage counselling.
You keep harping on the Florida’s current infection and date rate vs NY.
first as you should be aware, Florida should be having a higher death rate and infection rate at this time of year. Dont ignore the Hopes simpson curve. NY and the rest of the north should be having higher infection and death rates in the Nov/Dec/Jan/Feb time frame. Nothing different that understanding centuries of pandemics.
Secondly, Florida cumulative death rate should also be higher than NY since its over age 65 population is approx 21-22% vs NY 15%-16%. As such, it would be expected that Florida’s cummulative deaths would be approx 25-35% higher. But its not!
Josh – You have been harping on Nic’s bad estimate of Herd Immunity in Sweden ove several months, including a comment today.
Sweden’s cummulative death rate is slightly below the European average, and the current infection rate and death rate is way below the current european average.
While it is too early to tell, Sweden’s choice to bite the bullet early, will likely result in faster overall immunity and overall fewer deaths.
Joe –
Aside from being a squirrel, the efficacy of remdesivir is somewhat in doubt but there is evidence of efficacy depending on when in the course of the disease it is used:
https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2021/9/veklury-remdesivir-significantly-reduced-risk-of-hospitalization-in-highrisk-patients-with-covid19
Joe –
> Sweden’s cummulative death rate is slightly below the European average,
We’ve been over this many times so it’s obviously no coincidence that you’re ignoring the comparisons to the most similar countries where a “natural” control for many confounding factors would be in play
Anyway, the choice of policy in Sweden is a matter for the Swedish to evaluate. The notion that what happened in Sweden should be considered as a model for what would have happened here with similar policy choices is juat facile. Basic intervention science makes that obvious.
And Joe –
> Secondly, Florida cumulative death rate should also be higher than NY since its over age 65 population is approx 21-22% vs NY 15%-16%. As such, it would be expected that Florida’s cummulative deaths would be approx 25-35% higher. But its not!
I have to give you credit for considering confounding variables, but only considering one of the myriad confounds, and one that might confirm a particular bias. That’s not just a pedestrian form of motivated reasoning. It’s high class motivated reasoning. Congrats.
Sorry – forgot the other remdesivir link:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309921004850
And BTW, regarding the miracle drug:
https://gizmodo.com/ivermectin-research-has-a-big-fraud-problem-scientists-1847730533
CDC data shows much higher incidence of CoV2 cases (and deaths) in greater New York than Florida despite having a low positive percentage. One has to wonder what Kool-Aid Joshua sucks on.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-3-e1632519378629.png
Chief –
I really do like the doofus graphs that look like you drew them with magic markers. Lol.
Look, I’ve provided you with quality graphs done by professionals who know what they’re doing at legit websites. If you get your rocks off with your silly little drawings that’s just fine. But you’re just wrong:
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23451263
Florida has had many more cases with far less testing.
I mean I really do appreciate that you’ve
started reading my commentsstopped laughably trying to pretend that you don’t read my comments. I mean really, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that.And have a nice night.
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23451263
Do you see the recent rise in cases and deaths in NY as well? Before too long the trend may well be higher than in Florida (of course, after you’ve allowed for the lag in Florida reporting – which of course you were too ignorant to do in your silly little scribble.
Neither state has reached a “herd immunity threshold”
The ‘doofus’ graphs come from the CDC and not some cruddy little volunteer site. And they cover the period of the pandemic – not just the bits that fit Joshua’s political snake oil sales pitch.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
Chief –
This is from back in July. Obviously, Florida is only further ahead now:
-snip-
Florida jumped ahead of New York in confirmed cases of COVID-19 according to the CDC’s data, after the Sunshine State reported another 12,199 infections on Saturday.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-florida-coronavirus-deaths-cases-saturday-july-25-20200725-3xhncrfynndv7eaqnxtz3fd7w4-story.html
Meanwhile:
-snip-
Since Delta began circulating widely in the U.S., Covid has exacted a horrific death toll on red America: In counties where Donald Trump received at least 70 percent of the vote, the virus has killed about 47 out of every 100,000 people since the end of June, according to Charles Gaba, a health care analyst. In counties where Trump won less than 32 percent of the vote, the number is about 10 out of 100,000.
-snip-
Almost every red state has a lower vaccination rate than every blue state.
Joshua shifts the goalposts in his political zealotry. Florida has a similar vaccination rate to that of greater New York – and a much lower number of cases despite having a higher positive test percentage.
https://wordpress.com/media/watertechbyrie.com
I am uninterested but DeSantis is heads and shoulders smarter than Joe Biden.
“…-snip-
Since Delta began circulating widely in the U.S., Covid has exacted a horrific death toll on red America: In counties where Donald Trump received at least 70 percent of the vote, the virus has killed about 47 out of every 100,000 people since the end of June, according to Charles Gaba, a health care analyst. In counties where Trump won less than 32 percent of the vote, the number is about 10 out of 100,000.
-snip-…”
The total (all causes) death rates in 2021 (Jan-July) vs. the mean rates from 2015-2019 (Jan-July), show no significant difference between the 24 states where the popular vote went for Trump (RED) and the 26 states where the popular vote went for Biden (BLUE).
The data also show that the 2021 uptick relative to 2015-2019 is getting quite small for the very old. Unfortunately for young people the panicked response to the new coronavirus has exacerbated “deaths of despair”.
https://ibb.co/zx3jYxp
jdigreg –
Good point.
Yes. It’s all a conspiracy and people didn’t really die of COVID. And life expectancy didn’t really drop in the US. And many more times that didn’t really get sick. And nurses and doctors didn’t really have to take care of them at huge emotional stress and expense.
Or
Hey, it’s mostly just old people that got sick or died. Or poor people. Or non-whites. Or people with cormorbidiries. So who cares anyway?
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalcases
So Joshua ditches his cruddy little volunteer site on CoV2 data and is still trying to skew results to match his political bias,
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends_cases-cum-rate-lin
That went wrong.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#compare-trends_cases-cum-rate-lin
Chief –
At the CDC link I gave you (it’s even worse than I thought).
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 1,328,061
Cases per 100k
FL: 16,552
NY: 12,013
Chief –
You can also click the CDC link I gave you to see that Florida is behind on testing (although they only give it in ranges not precise numbers).
Personally, I don’t attribute the relatively poor performance to DeSantis’ policies. The causal mechanism is too complex for such simplistic explanation.
No that doesn’t work at the CDC site I gave Joshua. But the recent rise in Florida is seen in the graph I provided previously.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-3-e1632519378629.png
Blue and green are New York and New York City.
As for tests – compare the percent positive.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalpositivity
Chief –
At the CDC link I gave you (it’s even worse than I thought).
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 1,328,061
Cases per 100k
FL: 16,552
NY: 12,013
In addition to which I also gave you the link to Worldometers that shows you’re wrong.
And I gave you the link to Covidactnow that shows that you’re wrong.
It’s fascinating that you persist in this. And pretty downright hilarious.
Chief –
Actually, I was wrong.
I apologize.
That link to the CDC DOES give specific numbers on tests performed:
FL: (per 100k) 184,145.95;
total 39,550,382
NY: (per 100k) 289,327.85;
total 56,284,570
Here Chief –
Let me give this to you another way, maybe that other layout was too difficult for you to understand
Florida has conducted fewer tests per capita; 184,145 per 100k to 289,327 per 100k. Do you see that? The number for Florida is much lower.
Also, the total number of tests performed is lower in Florida. In Florida they performed 39,550,382 tests whereas in NY they performed 56,284,570 tests. Do you see that the number for Florida is lower? that means that in Florida they performed fewer tests.
Do you understand now? In Florida, they have conduced many fewer tests. And even though they performed many fewer tests, they identified far more positive cases.
Do you understand that now? I hope that wasn’t all too confusing for you.
Lol.
In his zeal Joshua loads it on quicker than I can reply. As I have said a couple of times – the rate if test positives in Florida is much higher than in New York. Is this better targeting?
“I really do like the doofus graphs that look like you drew them with magic markers. Lol.
Look, I’ve provided you with quality graphs done by professionals who know what they’re doing at legit websites. If you get your rocks off with your silly little drawings that’s just fine. But you’re just wrong:
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23451263 ”
The doofus graphs were from the CDC – not the amateur hour at covidactionnow. I am a bit bored – again – with Joshua’s tawdry little games.
Chief –
Here’s the data from the CDC website:
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 1,328,061
Cases per 100k
FL: 16,552
NY: 12,013
Testing:
FL: (per 100k) 184,145.95;
total 39,550,382
NY: (per 100k) 289,327.85;
total 56,284,570
Here’s the link again. Notice it’s to a CDC URL.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalcases
If you look closely, you will find where you can click on a little circle to find the testing data as well as the case data. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I’ll be happy to describe it to you further.
Now you can see that Florida has had many more cases identified even though they’ve tested far less.
Of course the info at Worldometers and Covidactnow are both accurate but you can believe all your conspiracy theories if you want. But you also mentioned the CDC data
Here – I’ll explain it again:
I GAVE YOU THE DATA FROM THE CDC AND GVE YOU A LINK TO THOSE DATA.
(There, I used all caps for you because you seem to be having trouble reading)
Chief –
Here’s the data from the CDC website:
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 1,328,061
Cases per 100k
FL: 16,552
NY: 12,013
Testing:
FL: (per 100k) 184,145.95;
total 39,550,382
NY: (per 100k) 289,327.85;
total 56,284,570
Here’s the link again. Notice it’s to a CDC URL.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalcases
If you look closely, you will find where you can click on a little circle to find the testing data as well as the case data. If you have trouble finding it, let me know and I’ll be happy to describe it to you further.
Now you can see that Florida has had many more cases identified even though they’ve tested far less.
Of course the info at Worldometers and Covidactnow are both accurate but you can believe all your conspiracy theories if you want. But you also mentioned the CDC data
Here – I’ll explain it again:
I GAVE YOU THE DATA FROM THE CDC AND GVE YOU A LINK TO THOSE DATA.
(There, I used all caps for you because you seem to be having trouble reading)
I gave Joshua the data from the CDC site – that he dismissed as doofus graphs. And I am not repeating myself for some silly little point Joshua imagines he has but that frankly I have lost sight of.
There has been a recent uptick in Florida cases – of delta variant I presume – that doesn’t mean squat in the scheme of things. The cumulative total is what counts – neglected in Joshua’s original sources he gave in misguided support of Joe Biden’s partisan rhetoric.
Immunity is the result of exposure to the virus or vaccination. Looking at data from the beginning of the pandemic is required. Herd immunity happened at some 80% vaccination with polio and 95% for measles. That was my original point obscured by Joshua in his habitually silly and tawdry little games repeated endlessly.
Josh – So what if Fl is behind in testing, the only important number is severe illness and death.
from CDC website – Per 100k
NY deaths total 188
NY average deaths last 7 days 1.6
NYC deaths total 407
NYC average daily deaths last 7 days 1.3
FL deaths total 251
FL average daily deaths last 7 days 1.0
US deaths total 251
US average daily deaths last 7 days 2.8.
Corrected numbers for NY from John Hopkins
NY deaths total 284
NY average deaths last 7 days 1.6
a little due diligence on your part and you would have notice the errors in the CDC numbers for NY. A hint – NY has a smaller population than FL and more total deaths.
Josh’s comment – “Florida has conducted fewer tests per capita; 184,145 per 100k to 289,327 per 100k. Do you see that? The number for Florida is much lower.
Also, the total number of tests performed is lower in Florida. In Florida they performed 39,550,382 tests whereas in NY they performed 56,284,570 tests. Do you see that the number for Florida is lower? that means that in Florida they performed fewer tests.
Do you understand now? In Florida, they have conduced many fewer tests. And even though they performed many fewer tests, they identified far more positive cases.”
Josh – total tests are meaningless
how many people got mutliple tests?
how many people got tested even with no symptoms?
The CDC Data doesnt provide that information.
The only inference from the greater number of test in NY is that a higher percent of people in NY are paranoid.
Josh -focus on something meaningful
I suppose there were higher IFR in the early days.
https://wordpress.com/media/watertechbyrie.com
Ah….
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
Joe –
The point about testing is that they’ve identified far more positive cases despite far less testing.
The utility of that information is limited but it does have some utility when you’re comparing seropositivity in the two regions, when foolish people make arguments about relative proximity in the two states respectively, to a “herd immunity threshold.”
Of course, the data on testing parallels data on hospitalizations and deaths – another reason that the data on cases isn’t totally without any value
Essentially what we see with all three metrics is that New York obviously suffered far worse damage early on in the pandemic and Florida has suffered significantly worse damage after that first wave was over. Florida has had more illness and death, in particular, in recent months.
Of course, there’s a relevant point to be made that in New York the worst was early on, when you would have expected a far less efficient reaction. And of course the death numbers from that period was before clinicians learned better ways of dealing with the severely ill.
But anyway, I don’t personally attribute the worse outcomes in Florida to state-level police per se. That’s because I think the infection dynamics are complex and there’s a lot of uncertainty.
But my point is that there were a lot of people who were pointing to Florida’s numbers relative to places like NY to make the argument that the numbers proved that DeSantis’ policies were superior. Well, if that’s the case then the recent numbers make that argument obviously bogus.
And Joe –
> The only inference from the greater number of test in NY is that a higher percent of people in NY are paranoid.
That, of course, is ridiculous and nothing other than “motivated reasoning.” The utility of testing data is certainly limited. But no metric is perfect. Death data isn’t perfect and hospitalization data has problems also:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/01/hhs-hospitalization-pandemic-data/617725/
Nonetheless, you go to war with the data you have. And even if all of it is problematic none of it should just be dismissed as you foolishly do.
One thing we have seen throughout the pandemic is that hospitalizations, ICU admissions, and death all track with case data.
I thought that people learned from their errors with all the nonsense last summer when they said the increases in cases was meaningless only to watch hospitalizations and deaths track with cases. I thought they learned from their empty talk about a “casedemic” – claiming that the pandemic was “over” – only to watch rates of illness and death soar afterwards. But I guess some people are just impervious to learning from their errors.
Of course, the introduction of vaccines has certainly altered the basic ratio of cases to deaths, but still the basis trends of cases is a meaningful leading indicator.
Why don’t people learn from their errors? I can only assume it’s because of identity-protective and identity-defensive “motivated” reasoning.
Sad.
The only reason I mentioned deaths is that they are hard to hide, Even with Joshua verbose politically motivated prevarications.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
Chief –
> The cumulative total is what counts –
I’ve been giving you cumulative data from the CDC and elsewhere (some of which, of course, is based on CDC data).
It’s just bizarre that you continue to pretend otherwise.
And sad.
Florida has had far more positive cased identified with performing far fewer deaths. After being significantly behind NY on per capita deaths, it has been marching up the charts steadily in recent months and almost caught up.
This is true as seen on the CDC website as well as elsewhere.
That’s quite remarkable, sadly, given that IFR has, of course, decreased since early on when NY was hit – due to much improved treatment protocols and vaccines, if nothing else.
It’s quite likely, of course, that soon the mortality will increase in NY relative to Florida given that weather does see to have a material effect on the spread of the virus.
Joshua gave ‘covidactionnow’ data for the past few months – I gave him the cumulative data from the CDC. That you dismissed as doofus graphs. I just said that IFR was likely higher in the early days. It’s complete insanity.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
Chief –
I’ve given you data on cases and testing in Florida and NY. I’ve explained to you that cumulatively, there have been far more positive cases despite far fewer tests performed in Florida compared to New York.
That’s cumulatively.
From the CDC as well as other sources.
I’ve given you that over and over.
From the CDC AND other sources.
Cumulative data.
At those same links you can easily see the data on deaths.
Which of course isn’t relevant to your initial entry here about proximity to “herd immunity” – where seopositivity (for which case data is an imperfect reference point) is what matters.
The question is why Joshua repeats the same junk over and over?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-6.png
And my point was that there are two ways to get to herd immunity. Contracting the disease and vaccination. For which you need info over the course of the pandemic – and not just for the past few months from a cruddy volunteer site as he originally said.
Some 70% of Americans have had at least 1 shot. With higher vaccination rates in over 65’s in Florida.
I mentioned some numbers for polio and measles as a comparison. Almost there in both New York and Florida – despite Joe Biden’s incompetent political posturing.
Chief –
> And my point was that there are two ways to get to herd immunity.
Wow. What a freakin’ genius. Such deep knowledge of virology and epidemiology.
Your point was that “herd immunity” explained why the rate of infection was so much higher in Florida than In NY.
Only problem there is that despite any disparity in vaccination rate, given vaccines don’t as much prevent infection as compared to severe disease and death, evidence shows that due to many more identified infections cumulatively in Florida (along with many fewer tests performed) than in NY there’s no particular reason to think that NY is significantly closer to herd immunity. Behavioral differences associated with the season of heavy air conditioning use in Florida could well be one obvious factir as could possibly other behavioral differences.
So your “point” was a combo of irrelevant and ignorant.
Nice job. Not everyone can come up with a twofer like that one.
Chief –
> And my point was that there are two ways to get to herd immunity. Contracting the disease and vaccination.
Because these vaccines are IM injections their primary benefit is in generating T and B memory cells, not as much antibodies and mucosal resistance to infection.. As such, their contribution to “herd immunity” is not the key feature as evidence suggests infections may happen as much in vaccinated as unvaccinated although not as severely and the period of infectiousness may not be as long.
Not to say they don’t contribute to reaching “herd immunity” at all. And not that the marginally higher rate of vaccination in NY would cancel out the much higher CUMULATIVE rate and number of infections in Florida as a contribution to “herd immunity,” particularly since it seems that infection-enduced immunity appears to be longer-lasting than vaccine-enduced immunity.
My point was that reliance on a few months data is BS. Especially as it came from a site that is less than authoritative.
As for herd immunity –
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808
Quibbles and prevarication. Stop wasting our time with politically motivated nonsense.
Your point was a twofer of ignorance and irrelevance.
The CUMULATIVE data show many more infections in Florida than In NY, despite much less testing.
And the marginally higher rate of vaccination in NY is unlikely to explain the lower rate of infections recently for the resins ice spelled out.
Because COVID vaccination has limited limited effect in preventing infections and thus infectiousness. And because immunity from vaccines (higher in NY) doesn’t prevent infection nearly as much as previous infection (higher in Florida).
Vaccines don’t create the mucisoal antibody resistance to the dame extent as infections do. Their primary benefit is the T and B memory cells that fight lower respiratory illness and severe demisdase and death.
Why do you require things to be explained to you so many times? .
The CDC cumulative graphs per 100k – the doofus graphs remember – reveal the lie. Now he dismisses the Mayo Clinic with more arm waving prevarication. He has not remotely the credibility to pull it off.
It’s drawing inferences from minimal data that are well beyond what can be reasonably supported. But no one has ever accused Joshua of being reasonable. I’m not sure whether it’s delusional or deliberate. I’m surprised it hasn’t slipped over the line of the salacious and scurrilous for which he has had many comments removed just this week.
Chief –
The CUMULATIVE showing more infections along with fewer tests in Florida are from THE CDC (and other sources)
The info I gave you about vaccine- and infection-enduced immunity are well-established at this point related to COVID.
IM injections aren’t primarily intended to produce mucisal antibody protection against infection.
THEY’RE INJECTED INTO MUSCLES AND THEN GET INTO THE BLOODSTREAM TO STIMULATE THE DEEPER IMMUNE REPONSE RELATED TO MEMORY T AND B CELLS.
There, I typed it in all caps for you.
Have a nice night, Chief. Thanks for the laughs.
Chief –
Here, I’ll take pity on you and give you this.
Listen to it and you may not make such inane mistakes in the future.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/00S6bGAwv4x5GexIyyVPdx?si=aXh2XHnbTaiNJe5UkOHySw&utm_source=copy-link&dl_branch=1
A podcast? It seems completely nuts. Quite apart from the risible condescension. I’d say his credibility is shot to pieces – if he ever had any.
Both mRNA and vector vaccines promote the production of antibodies targeting the CoV2 spike protein. One can still get infected but hopefully with a better outcome. 80% efficacy after two shots I was told.
‘At Day 57, almost 100% of vaccine recipients had positive/detectable antibody response by all four markers (Table 1). This was also true at Day 29 for Spike IgG and RBD IgG, whereas cID50 and cID80 titers were detectable in 82% and 64% of vaccine recipients, respectively.’ https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.09.21261290v4.full-text
I’m pretty sure Joshua just makes it up as he goes.
‘A lymphocyte is a type of white blood cell that is part of the immune system. There are two main types of lymphocytes: B cells and T cells. The B cells produce antibodies that are used to attack invading bacteria, viruses, and toxins. The T cells destroy the body’s own cells that have themselves been taken over by viruses or become cancerous.’ https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Lymphocyte
Oh – and cumulative cases per 100k.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-6.png
Joshua | September 27, 2021 at 10:09 pm |
ignorance and irrelevance?
“The CUMULATIVE data show many more infections in Florida than In NY, despite much less testing.”
I love this comment.
Take a little step further and one could say
“The CUMULATIVE data show Florida is fully infected with none in NY especially when no testing is done at all.”
A bit like when it gets warmer more snow falls and when it gets really warm everything is covered in snow.
Chief –
Hard as it is to believe, I’ll need to explain this yet again.
Infection-induced immunity creates more mucosal immunity, which is what fights off infection in comparison to the protection conferred against severe diseas induced by vaccines.
Here you’ll find the same guy who’s in the podcast, which will each you much if you give it a listen:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/hybrid-immunity-people-covid-still-get-vaccinated-rcna1974
And Chief –
Here’s the data from the CDC website:
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 1,328,061
Cases per 100k
FL: 16,552
NY: 12,013
Testing:
FL: (per 100k) 184,145.95;
total 39,550,382
NY: (per 100k) 289,327.85;
total 56,284,570
Here’s the link again. Notice it’s to a CDC URL.
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_totalcases
So in FLORIDA, CUMULATIVELY, there are many more identified cases with far less testing performed.
Infection (higher in Florida) produces more mucosal immunity which prevents infection.
Vaccination (higher in NY) benefit (which comes via IM injections) isn’t as much about protection of mucosal iIMMUNITY, as much as immune responses (memory T and B cells) that fight lower respiratory infection and severe disease.
Which is why people who have been infected have significantly better protection against reinvention than people who have been vaccinated (at least thus far).
Which is why people who have been infected have significantly better protection against reinfecrion.than people who have been vaccinated (at least thus far).
(reinvention is like when your fantasies about me evolve from one mistaken belief to another)
Joshua | September 28, 2021 at 8:17 am |
And Chief –
Here’s the data from the CDC website:
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 1,328,061
Cases per 100k
FL: 16,552
NY: 12,013
Josh – you do realize the case totals for NY reported on the CDC website doesnt include NYC. Add NYC and the NY state total is approx 2.4m almost twice the total you have reported multiple times for the last several days.
Note – the CDC has a separte line for NYC in the graph you keep citing.
Joe –
Thanks. I did see that but forgot to put it into the numbers. Adding them together makes the numbers from the CDC site align directly with those from the other sites I mentioned above where the total in NY isn’t as far below the total in Florida.
Still significantly higher in Florida, of course.
Cases total:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 2,407,892
I’ll look on my computer to see how it affects the per capita numbers.
Joe –
Doesn’t look like much with the per capita numbers for tests performed and positive tests changes much after putting NYC and NY together. I’m assuming they aren’t breaking it out for test performed and positive tests looks like it would be somewhere in between the NY and NYC numbers – again right in line with what Worldometers has. So I’ll go with that despite Chief’s ridiculous conspiracy-based protestations:
Tests performed (per million)
Florida: 1,841,459
NY: 3,583,798
Positive tests (per million)
Florida: 167,653
NY: 127,933
So nothing much about the implications changes.
Florida did much less testing and had significantly more positive tests. Bad combo.
Again the case surge in Florida in recent months – with what presumably is the more infectious delta variant – is when the case curves diverge.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-6.png
The surge seems to be under control with numbers coming come. Over sixties have especially high vaccination rates. The test regime seems relatively efficient – high positive percentage – with contact tracing and self isolation in place. Deaths remain relatively low with effective treatment available including monoclonal antibodies.
Vaccines have some 80% efficacy after two shots. They promote production in bone marrow of systemic antibodies. Even where the virus is subsequently contracted they reduce the severity of symptoms. Does he imagine they don’t work?
There are oral vaccines emerging that promote production of ‘mucosal antibodies’ – but the mRNA and vector vaccines are what we have. They are a triumph of science.
e.g. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210913/An-oral-COVID-19-vaccine-induces-mucosal-and-protective-immunity.aspx
Joshua has got the numbers wrong twice now. Considering only short term data and leaving half of the New York population out of case numbers. He repeatedly to the point of immense tedium spins other numbers beyond their breaking point for rhetorical purposes.
Joshua is a fanatic who will go to extreme and very silly lengths to what ends I don’t know. It’s a blog not an arena where opponents are bludgeoned into silence with arguments and salacious and scurrilous insults repeated endlessly. It’s totally nuts.
“…It’s a blog not an arena where opponents are bludgeoned into silence with arguments and salacious and scurrilous insults repeated endlessly. It’s totally nuts…”
Leftists/Progressives/Marxists/Maoists/Socialists/Communists/Fascists (whatever they call themselves) are mainly interested in destroying their enemy (anyone who isn’t sufficiently one of the above). A typical ploy they use is to engage in a debate but it’s really just a distraction while other members of their cohort circle around behind you to put a bullet in the back of your head. It’s not at all nuts…it works pretty well.
They don’t engage in good faith discussion.
Chief –
Here are the numbers again:
FL: 3,555,095
NY: 2,407,892
Tests performed (per million)
Florida: 1,841,459
NY: 3,583,798
Positive tests (per million)
Florida: 167,653
NY: 127,933
I never referenced short term numbers. I never suggested that the vaccines aren’t effective.
I merely pointed out that your statement about the rate of infections and death being lower in NY compared to Florida because of “herd immunity” has obvious problems.
Florida has identified many more cases despite doing much less testing. Your notion that a higher vaccination rate in NY would cancel out the higher number of infections in Florida doesn’t make much sense because vaccination doesn’t reduce transmission nearly as much as infections do.
I”m sorry that you get so upset when I point out how wrong you are. But that’s ok. Doesn’t bother me in the least.
But at least you aren’t crying to mommy and threatening to take you ball and go home like you used to do. So I consider that an improvement.
Vaccine efficacy is some 80% after two shots. Must I repeat myself on the recent surge as well, the contact tracing efficiency of Florida testing and the low death rate? I presume his message – like Joe Biden’s – is nothing more than political bad faith. DeSantis is way smarter than Trump – his policies are science based and Biden well past his prime if he ever had one. There we have Joshua’s fanatical motivation in a nutshell.
He repeats bad arguments and salacious and scurrilous assertions endlessly and gets inevitably wholesale moderated for it. And then wonders why I think it a complete waste of time.
Like climate change they imagine they have the imprimatur of objective science. They don’t – it is motivated reasoning serving a fanatical neo-socialist ideology.
Chief –
> Vaccine efficacy is some 80% after two shots.
You state obvious truths as if they’re relevant or as if they contradict anything I said because you have some cheap need to be right. It’s weird. You’re wrong on the issues we were discussing so you repeat obvious truths no one disputed.
it’s a weird thing to do.
Vaccine efficacy against severe disease and death isn’t relevant to your vacuous reference to “herd immunity.”
As I keep telling you, but you seem determined to deny? Ignore? is that vaccines (more prevalent in NY) aren’t as efficacious against infection as infections (more prevalent in Florida).
So vaccine efficacy is an ‘obvious truth’. The other obvious truth is that herd immunity is achieved through infection or vaccination. And only the total exposure or percentage immunized matters. As the Mayo Clinic says – herd immunity via infection is not a good idea.
Any late surge in the delta variant is tragic but not something to score political points with. Which is what Joe Biden did and which Joshua dutifully focussed on with his original ‘covidactionnow’ nonsense. It was completely nuts. I was simply correcting his political spin with some ‘obvious truths’.
Adjusted for populations of Florida and New York even raw case numbers over the course of the pandemic don’t seem to justify the political games. Unlike New York – Florida stats are at least heading in the right direction. Effective contact tracing and self isolation is the key.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/new-york-covid-cases.html
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/florida-covid-cases.html
This is an excuse to patronise all ‘sceptics’?
Defined as espousing anything other than catastrophe memes I suppose.
> Past infection gives greater collective immunity – so New York plus New York City are ahead of the curve.
Florida has had far more identified infections per capita than NY, with far fewer tests per capita.
If all skeptics don’t think like that – why make a point of it? It’s a convenient lie to then deny it’s one of his things
Josh – you do realize the case totals for NY reported on the CDC website doesn” include NYC. Add NYC and the NY state total is approx 2.4m almost twice the total you have reported multiple times for the last several days. Note – the CDC has a separte line for NYC in the graph you keep citing.
Joshua | September 28, 2021 at 2:07 pm |
I did see that but forgot to put it into the numbers. Adding them together makes the numbers from the CDC site.
Oops.
> Joshua gave ‘covidactionnow’ data for the past few months
I gave a link to the covidactnow graph which has the whole pandemic
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23561273
Cumulative data
I gave the link to Worldometers which has cumulative data
I gave the link to the CDC website.
Over and over I gave the correct per capita numbers before I switched over to the CDC site that split off NYC and NY State.
Cases per capita: Florida, 166,908; NY, 127,166
Test per capita: Florida, 1,827,520; NY, 3,557,135
I characterized the data correctly :
> Florida has had significantly more positive test per capita even as it has conducted significantly fewer tests per capita:
Cases per capita: Florida, 166,908; NY, 127,166
Test per capita: Florida, 1,827,520; NY, 3,557,135
Chief –
> As the Mayo Clinic says – herd immunity via infection is not a good idea.
Another obvious truth that I never questioned. I gave a link to a podcast and an article that explained why, in detail, beyond the obvious risk of severe illness and death, immunity through infection not a good goal (because the level of immunity from infection is quite variable) as had been long advocated by the “let it rip” crowd so well represented in these pages.
People infected and recovered should still get vaccinated.
I can read much faster than a podcast. I supplied a couple of recent references and links to a number of authoritative sites. This is more pointless prevarication from Joshua.
> his original ‘covidactionnow’ nonsense
Covid act now is entirely accurate. I gave you a link to cumulative data.
Although you falsely claimed otherwise.
Here it is again
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23561273
Completely in line with the CDC data
As well as the worldometers data which I also gave you.
I went straight to the CDC. But this is another lie. He now accesses all the available data on the ‘covidactionnow’ site and implies that it was always so.
Here’s cases per capita.
For the entire oamdemic:
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23561273
It’s deaths per 100k. Here’s the cumulative deaths.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
Why does he bother dragging it out like this? Endless prevarication and insults?
Let’s try this to see if it works:
https://covidactnow.org/share/48877/?redirectTo=%2Fexplore%2F48877
Joe Biden made political capital out of a molehill and Joshua dutifully sniffed his ancient butt.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/compare-state-trends-5.png
> But anyway, I don’t personally attribute the worse outcomes in Florida to state-level police per se. That’s because I think the infection dynamics are complex and there’s a lot of uncertainty.
>> But my point is that there were a lot of people who were pointing to Florida’s numbers relative to places like NY to make the argument that the numbers proved that DeSantis’ policies were superior. Well, if that’s the case then the recent numbers make that argument obviously bogus.
>>> To be clear, I personally don’t think that comparing COVID outcomes across states has much utility.
>>>> Personally, I don’t attribute the relatively poor performance to DeSantis’ policies. The causal mechanism is too complex for such simplistic explanation.
Anyway. Have a good night, Chief.
I’m sure you’ll keep up with your cute little fantasies about me.
Stating obvious truths never in dispute as if you’re making some kind of relent point.
It’s what you do.
And good night to you also, angech. I’m glad to see you’ve dropped any pretenses. I actually consider that an improvement.
I don’t give a rat’s arse for Joshua. He has my attention now after recent relentless, tawdry, salacious, scurrilous and fallacious assertions and insults. A great number duly moderated. Although I am struggling to get past his often tortured syntax. Perhaps his profundity is lost in translation?
> He now accesses all the available data on the ‘covidactionnow’ site and implies that it was always so.
LOL. The fantasizing continues:
Joshua | September 25, 2021 at 10:58 pm |
Chief –
I really do like the doofus graphs that look like you drew them with magic markers. Lol.
Look, I’ve provided you with quality graphs done by professionals who know what they’re doing at legit websites. If you get your rocks off with your silly little drawings that’s just fine. But you’re just wrong:
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23451263
Florida has had many more cases with far less testing.
I mean I really do appreciate that you’ve started reading my comments stopped laughably trying to pretend that you don’t read my comments. I mean really, I can’t tell you how much I appreciate that.
And have a nice night.
…………
Joshua | September 24, 2021 at 2:33 pm |
Jeff –
Since you find value in comparing the trends in NY and Florida…
You might want to take a look at this:
https://covidactnow.org/explore/48533?s=23381256
Etc.
I provided Joshua with graphs from the CDC that he dismissed as doofus graphs. How much of this relentlessly repetitive nonsense will he inflict on us?
Chief –
> It’s deaths per 100k. Here’s the cumulative deaths.
I never disputed deaths per capita data.
It’s higher in NY. NY got swamped early, before IFR dropped. But it is what it is. Mistakes were made in NY.
But that isn’t relevant to your vacuous cloak that cases per capita were tending more in Florida because of NY being closer to immunity.
Florida has had significantly more identified cases with far fewer tests performed.
Infections (higher in Florida) result in better protection against reinfection than than vaccines (higher in NY). There’s probably a lot of uncertainty around actual levels of seropositivity, respectively, but your assertion that NY has had much slower spread over the summer because of proximity to a herd immunity threshold is just facile.
My assertion was that we need to look at both cases and vaccinations over the course of the pandemic – and not just the past few months in a context of political point scoring. New York got hit hard and early – there is now a delta variant surge in Florida. The differences are not sufficient to play pointless political games.
I gave numbers from the Mayo Clinic on herd immunity for polio and measles vaccinations – 80% and 95% respectively. It is another obvious truth that both Florida and New York are rapidly approaching those levels. It is not magic.
Chief –
>… we need to look at both cases and vaccinations over the course of the pandemic –
Here we go again.
You make an obviously true statement. No one has argued with that statement. Certainly not me.
Then you act like I argued with it in order to pump yourself up.
What you falsely argued was that NY’s event much lower rate of morbidity and mortality compared to Florida was because of NY being much closer to a “herd immunity” threshold.
I patiently explained that’s not likely because Florida has had significantly more identified cases despite less testing than NY. And infections actually create a more robust defense against infection than vaccines*
You then tried to argue as if I’m suggesting that vaccines don’t work or that people go out and get infected. Of course I didn’t argue that.
This pattern where you search desperately to find statements to make that are obvious and then argue as if I disagreed with them, in order to run away from the incorrect statements you make is transparent and just weird.
* (I part because they’re IM injections vaccines have limited benefit in creating mucosal immunity and so people can still get infections in their nasal passages even as vaccines stimulate the immune system very well to activate the parts of the immune system that sight against severe disease such as infection in the lower respiratory system).
At any rate, per capita, Florida has identified significantly more cases than NY despite conducting many fewer tests. Their recent much higher rate of per capita deaths has moved them up the chart to approach New York’s level daoite having the advantage of greater knowledge in how to treat COVID so as to prevent cases among the infected, and to learn from NY’s mistakes early on in the pandemic.
I have said that I don’t personally think it’s easy to attribute that poor performance in Florida to state-level policies, because the causal dynamics are very complicated.
Long winded motivated arguments repeated many times in the course of this thread. Joshua has an us and them mindset. It is all too evident in the language he has used over many years here. It is accompanied by insults, condescension, misrepresentation, prevarication, denigration, disparagement… For which he is routinely moderated. All in the service of a political ideology in which it is paramount that he demonstrate his intellectual dominance. He has to be smarter than any denier – defined as anyone not subscribing to the tribal memes. The entire sham edifice would collapse otherwise. This foundational dynamic is utter insanity taken to extreme lengths that Joshua then insists I have imagined of him.
RIE: “My assertion was that we need to look at both cases and vaccinations over the course of the pandemic.”
NY will have much slower spread today because of its proximity to a herd immunity threshold.
Reasonable.
Joshua: “Florida has had significantly more identified cases with far fewer tests performed.”
Unreasonable.
Joshua intrinsically is arguing an Apple to apples proposition; typical of Joshua’s lack of sense. Testing wasn’t robust in the early years, in NY especially; testing technology had yet to be fully developed, and there certainly was a lack of availability for what was available. Less robust testing in the early years of COVID undoubtable means large numbers of unidentified early cases in NY. Having many more early unidentified cases necessarily translates into a faster path to herd immunity in NY. Joshua’s silly argument comparing total identified cases between states in context is Apple to oranges ridiculous, its an unquantifiable metric.
Common sense suggests NY has advanced far more than any other state towards herd immunity, because they had far more unidentified early cases.
Joshua’s sphincter is dilating; we know what will come forth, stand back.
Specular Reflection and Diffuse Reflection
“An object can have both diffuse and specular reflection. Most automotive paint finish is specular, but it also has a diffuse reflection. The surface does not perfectly reflect all incoming light at the same angle as a mirror does. Ocean surface has ripples, and thus cannot be perfectly specular. Sunglint is the result of specular reflection on the ocean’s surface. It is only visible at a sufficient height where the local variation of the ocean’s surface is small enough compared to the height of the observer.”
https://flatearth.ws/reflection
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…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K…..340 K
Earth……….287,74 K…..288 K
Moon………223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars………..213,21 K…..210 K
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet………..Te……..Te.correct…….Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….364 K……….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………210 K………..287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ…….224 K……….223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……..209,91 K…….174 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
How about we give this one a break? You’re not convincing too many. I suggest moving on to black holes. There’s also the solar system and all its moons to ponder. Planet X. There a many possibilites. Life is a Caberat. Man does not live by bread alone.
Ragnaar
“How about we give this one a break? You’re not convincing too many.”
Nevertheless the New equation calculates very much precisely the solar system planets’ without-atmosphere mean surface temperatures.
The equation leads to the right conclusions. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any significant GE.
And of course there is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Does it work for Ceres and Titan? Of the 4 bodies you refer to, Earth has an atmosphere and Mars doesn’t have much of one. Its atmosphere doesn’t moderate. Because there aint much of it. And it doesn’t have any oceans to moderate the atmosphere it does have. Earth just happened to get the right results. The 3 bodies with no or very little atmosphere are doing what? Get a 2nd body with an atmosphere to also line up. What’s wrong with Titan?
Ragnaar
“Get a 2nd body with an atmosphere to also line up. What’s wrong with Titan?”
There is nothing wrong with Titan. I have long ago calculated Titan’s mean surface temperature. Actually it was very important for me to check on the Titan’s case.
Thank you Ragnaar for asking and pointing out about the Titan’s case.
9. Titan’s (Saturn’s satellite) Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.titan
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Titan’s albedo: atitan = 0,22
1/R² = 1/9,5826² = 1/91,826 = 0,010890
Titan’s sidereal rotation period is 15,9 days
Titan does N = 1/15,9 rotations per day (synchronous rotation)
Titan is a rocky planet, it has atmosphere of 95% N2 and 5% CH4, but very opaque. Titan’s atmosphere is 8 times larger with respect to square meter planet’s surface compared to Earth, so we consider Titan a gaseous planet and Titan’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φtitan = 1.
Titan can be considered as a liquid methane ocean planet,
Cp.methane = 0,4980 cal/gr*oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Titan’s Without-Atmosphere mean surface temperature equation Tmean.titan is
Tmean.titan = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.titan = { 1*(1-0,22)*1.362 W/m² *0.010890*[150 *(1/15,945)*0,4980]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.titan = 93,10 K
Tsat.mean.titan = 93,7 K (- 179,5 oC)
Titan has an atmosphere of 95% N2 nitrogen plus 5% of greenhouse gas methane CH4. Titan has a minor greenhouse effect phenomenon. This phenomenon is so insignificant that it hasn’t appeared in calculations.
Thank you again.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Blah, blah, blah. Ceres.
Ceres’ (Dwarf planet) Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.ceres
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Ceres’s albedo: a.ceres = 0,090±0,0033 (V-band) Geometric
R = 2,77 AU semi-major axis (distance from sun in astronomical units)
1/R² = 1/2,77² = 1/7,673 = 0,13033
Ceres’s sidereal rotation period is 9,074 h
Ceres does N = 24/9,074 = 2,645 rotations per day
Ceres’ surface irradiation accepting factor Φceres = 1.
Ceres’ surface is water ice and hydrated minerals, such as carbonates and clay. Ceres can be considered as water ice surface planet.
Cp = 1 cal/gr*oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Ceres’ Without-Atmosphere mean surface temperature equation Tmean.ceres is
Tmean.ceres = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.ceres = { 1*(1-0,09)*1.362 W/m² *0.13033*[150 *2,645*1]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
= (3.176.345.599,84)¹∕ ⁴ = 237,4 K
Tmean.ceres = 237,4 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
To get to the point, I think there’s another explanation. With atmospheres, you have Earth, Venus and Titan. You got Botlzmann’s plus albedo? Fine. What the hell else could it be? GHE and tidal heating. Which of these things are variable and which are fixed? If this is just some backdoor way of getting around the GHE, life is too short. For the average person.
“What the hell else could it be? GHE and tidal heating. ”
No, it is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, and in the Venus’ case it is also the very strong GHE…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It doesn’t work for Earth where neglecting the atmosphere is a hypothesis too far.
“Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet by Calisher and colleagues, we do not think that scientists should promote “unity” (“We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture”). As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy.” https://globalcovidsummit.org/news/lancet-fauci-daszak-criticized
Wait, it’s not unity? What was that bozo Cook going on about writing those papers on the 97% consensus? And all those people helping him? Aren’t they scientists now?
The Lancet ought to apologize for 2 years for that first paper they let through for being so blind while saying the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory.
This reminds me of a great meme:
The difference between conspiracy theories and facts is about 3 to 6 months.
Meanwhile some scientists have been pursuing bat viruses in Laos (many different species) one of which which could well be the ‘missing link’ in the SARS-CoV-2 human infection chain. Their pre-review findings are discussed by virologists.:
https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-809/
Afternoon Ragnaar (UTC),
Pardon my enduring ignorance as a somewhat intermittent denizen, but what has “that bozo Cook… and all those people helping him” got to do with allegedly dodgy Covid-19 papers?
Ragnaar is just noting that lancet, fauci daszak et al are using the same playbook used by cook with his 97%
Yes. We’ve seen this more than anyone. We are veterans of the climate wars. Same playbook for this. With climate science, I follow the science. When if fact, the science of pandemic is being written.
Something else I’ve come across recently. Science as revealed truth. It is not that. Truth has not been revealed by science. That is not the job of scientists. But if it was, it would be like revealed truth from the Bible. So when you hear, I believe the science, hear I believe in revealed truth. To deny this revealed truth is to be a heretic. Cook counted the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Nothing more.
A simple explanation for declining temperature sensitivity with warming
So when it is warmer, plants grow more. Then after millions of years of evolution, they grow so much, they all die. Maybe not.
From the plants point of view, that would be bad. Plants have got skin in the game. They don’t want their descendants to die or never live. So what do they do? Keep it warmer, but not so hot they all die. They could store CO2 into the ground for later or store it in trees. To help survive the asteroid strikes or whatever.
So did plants evolve to have this negative feedback attribute?
Arctic sea ice at highest minimum since 2014
“September 22, 2021
On September 16, Arctic sea ice likely reached its annual minimum extent of 4.72 million square kilometers (1.82 million square miles). The 2021 minimum is the twelfth lowest in the nearly 43-year satellite record. The last 15 years are the lowest 15 sea ice extents in the satellite record. The amount of multi-year ice (ice that has survived at least one summer melt season), is one of the lowest levels in the ice age record, which began in 1984.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
This is important why?
I’ll second that question.
What do you think is the significance of the news you impart Edim? (I hope I got that right?)
It’s not that important. It’s the latest analyisis of the Arctic sea ice and it includes the last 15 years. It’s pretty flat. Turning around.
Not that important. Just the latest analysis. The last 15 years pretty flat.
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water
We had to answer these two questions:
1. Why Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t affect the Global Warming?
It is proven now by the Planet*s Mean Surface Temperature Equation calculations. There aren’t any atmospheric factors in the Equation. Nevertheless the Equation produces very reasonable results:
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
calculated by the Equation, which is the same as the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K,
measured by satellites.
Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, calculated by the Equation, which is almost identical with the
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
2. What causes the Global Warming then?
The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing.
And… what keeps Earth warm at Tmean.earth = 288 K, when Moon is at Tmean.moon = 220 K? Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day…
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
Does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?
No, it does not.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You have not proven anything. Your formula is simple to disprove. When N=0 then your formula goes to 0 as well, which is not physical. You somehow think that physics changes from the surface of the planet to space. It does not. The formulas for heat absorption and radiation have been experimentally determined with procedures that can be duplicated, not just fit with arbitrary parameters. There are not enough planets with good information to determine the formulas like you propose. However, if the experiments are run like scientist have done in the past, the data points are numerous enough to determine the formulas, and the value of the constants.
It could be that at some point an universal law of physics will change our understanding of the formulas, but for now the standard formulas are the simplest way to describe the physical phenonium, and apply within the significance of values for any experiment yet thought of. If you propose a experiment that can be duplicated to show how you prove your theory then a change from the standard formulas would be warranted, but you do not.
Further, by your own admission the distribution of temperatures is very important in calculating the average temperature. Your formula supposes that the only variable that affects that distribution is spin. That is simply not the case. The wobble of the planet, the alignment of the spin axis with reference to the orbit axis, the distribution of albedo (light versus dark spots), and other things affect the distribution of temperatures, and thus the average temperature.
You are simply taking something that is real and counter-intuitive to make a point that will lead to endless discussion with no resolution.
The inevitable limitations
Every theory based on physical phenomena, every theory described by mathematical equations has its inevitable limitations. The limitations always occur because our scientific “instruments” cannot intercept in the very grounds of being, not can we approach everything in one effort.
Our research ended up with an Equation which theoretically calculates planets’ without atmosphere Mean Surface Temperatures:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
The Equation very much precisely calculates for the solar system planets’ without atmosphere Mean Surface Temperatures.
But there are two mathematical limitations. Equation doesn’t “work” for the marginal extremes. The planet rotational spin (N) cannot have values of N = 0, and N cannot exceed to infinity.
When N = 0 – it is the case of a not rotating planet (a tidally locked to sun, a planet facing sun with its one side only) the Equation will result t