by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks
Enhanced winter, spring, and summer hydroclimate variability across California from 1940 to 2019 [link]
When climate ruled the dinosaurs of Grand Staircase, Utah [link]
A minimal model to diagnose the contribution of the stratosphere to tropospheric forecast skill [link]
A probabilistic framework for quantifying the role of anthropogenic climate change in marine-terminating glacier retreats [link]
Biased estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity [link]
Long‐term trends in extreme precipitation indices in Ireland https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joc.7475#.Ycmw-o9JX7k.twitter
How does the wind generate waves? [link]
Intrinsic water-use efficiency by plants in the American Southwest is increasing at an extremely rapid rate, due primarily to the ongoing “megadrought” in concert with rising CO2 concentration [link]
How weather forecasts can spark a new kind of extreme-event attribution [link]
2021 one of the largest Antarctic ozone holes on record [link]
The cause of the Little Ice Age [link]
Climate-invariant machine learning [link]
Pielke Jr, R. Catastrophes of the 21st Century (July 25, 2020). https://ssrn.com/abstract=3660542… or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3660542…
A roadmap towards credible projections of ice sheet contribution to sea level [link]
Ghil and Lucarini: The physics of climate variability and change (of relevance to recent blog discussion on natural internal variability [link]
Policy and technology
Responding to bushfire risk: the need for transformative adaptation. Environmental Research Letters, 7(1), 014018. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014018/pdf
Climate Litigation Rising: Hot Spots to Watch [like]
Rentiers of the low carbon economy [link]
Why we can’t leave nature alone. We shouldn’t be so bashful about tinkering with the environment to try to save it. [link]
GM crops like golden rice will save countless children [link]
Why is California slashing rooftop solar incentives? [link]
We can build homes to survive tornadoes. We just haven’t [link]
The concept of plausibility in a risk analysis context: Review and clarifications of defining ideas and interpretations [link]
Top 2021 stories in carbon removal [link]
Holland: Wealth and technology can overcome nature’s wrath [link]
Geothermal energy is surging [link]
“Finding consensus on how to improve food systems in the United States or elsewhere—or even what constitutes ‘improvement’—is very difficult, [link]
China has connected its first small modular nuclear reactor to the grid [link]
Breaking out of the Malthusian trap: How pandemics allow us to understand why our ancestors were stuck in poverty [link]
There never was a ‘population bomb’ [link]
Bubble curtain could reduce hurricane intensity in the Gulf of Mexico [link]
Innovative strategies for sequestering CO2 in the oceans [link]
Novel perspective on climate impacts of fossil fuels in today’s energy systems https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3968359
Tornado vulnerability and safety [link]
The race to defuse the Congo’s carbon bomb [link]
To tackle climate change, take on corruption [link]
About science and scientists
Saltelli and Ravetz: Uncertainty, risk and ignorance [link]
Saltelli et al.: Science, the endless frontier of regulatory capture [link]
The 10 quirkiest stories from physics in 2021 [link]
Abigail Shrier on Freedom in an Age of Fear [link]
The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Of Prof. Jason Kilborn by U. Illinois-Chicago John Marshall Law School [link]
How to detect politically biased psychology [link]
Why scatter plots suggest causality and what we can do about it [link]
Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science. Disruptive research and novel ideas needed [link]
Fishy science: concerns about scientific integrity in the White House [link]
The double-edged sword of catastrophe climate reporting [link]
The 60-year old scientific screw up that helped Covid kill [link]
Princeton students strike back: let students think for themselves [link]
Universalism, not centrism [link]
The climate change conformists [link]
The Overton Window: the most misunderstood concept in politics [link]
Politics of attributing extreme events and disasters to climate change [link]
Does the CCP control the Extinction Rebellion? [link]
Special issue on the psychology of climate change [link]
Please don’t label your roundup “A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks” because it’s too easy to scroll past it. Even if you find that reaction shallow, consider including a couple of phrases about key items so we’ll know when something that is on our own minds, or should be, is in the “Week in review”. Thanks.
Yeah I’m a bit over having serious discussions with multiple commenters. Peter should try it some time. He has a single idea that we have heard many times. Then there are the culture warriors who take disagreement as a personal affront.
So Peter Lang was cancelled this time. There seems to be a pattern. 🤣
Re Antarctic ozone hole: the linked article says: “These two longer-than-usual episodes in a row are not a sign that the Montreal Protocol is not working”. To my mind, they have never established that the Antarctic ozone hole was not a cyclical or periodic phenomenon, and until they get data which definitively shows otherwise the increased ozone holes of the last two years support the cyclical or periodic hypothesis. How many years of the ozone hole not closing do we have to observe before they are finally forced to admit that the Montreal Protocol was a fraud set up by Du Pont?
Why would DuPont perpetrate a fraud to destroy its own product line?
Freon 12 was out of patent, they had to get it off the market and replace it with a new patented product. They have since replaced the R134a for the same reason. Look at how something that cost 25 cents now sells for orders of magnitude more and the new replacement stuff costs almost nothing to make and costs much more. You scare people so they will allow you to tax and control them.
2021 one of the largest Antarctic ozone holes on record, yes, proving that R12 had nothing to do with ozone holes.
It was a natural cycle and they caught it as the patent on R12 running out made R12 almost free.
> yet there was no follow-up of the paper’s observation that “unusually high solar activity was recorded in the late 1300s”.
Actually there was, emphasis mine:
China has connected its first small modular nuclear reactor to the grid [link]
That’s the second unit installed at the facility.
Will be interesting to see how the 2 reactors on a single steam turbine work operationally over time. Pretty common configuration for gas turbines where exhaust heat used with boilers that feed single steam turbine. As I recall, US NRC does not allow configuration Chinese are using, but may be just another instance of the bureaucrats dictating plant designs. That is a major problem for the US nuclear industry and helps explain the exorbitant cost to license and build US facilities.
Rolls Royce recently announced funding of US$550 M for it’s SMR – about half from government. They a dual unit facility providing 24/7/365 energy for 60 years. The dual units fill in the gaps when one unit is offline plus power hydrogen production, industrial and urban heat and making liquid fuels and fertilisers.
Leaving wind and solar for niche applications – which is all they are good for.
https://youtu.be/cFFS_P3EnMk
The link contains only one number – 93.4 – a “percent[age] of the material used in the plant domestically sourced.” What is the power of the reactor is anybody’s guess. Nowhere does the article refer to an SMR.
It’s not clear whether George is referring to Rolls Royce or the Chinese. But he could always look online for both. Rolls Royce’s conventional light water reactor they say will produce 450MW of power. The Chinese helium cooled, pebble bed reactors are rated at 20\0MW.
… 200MW.
The Chinese reactors are a pebble bed design and largely based on a German design that operated a few decades earlier. Interesting approach and looking forward to see how well the Chinese machines run.
As far as the Germans are concerned, can only look on in disbelief as they march towards economic oblivion. On the bright side, their exorbitant energy prices will give everybody else a competitive leg up.
@mike heller
“their exorbitant energy prices will give everybody else a competitive leg up.”
Nope!… not in EU, as the new german government will drag in the renewbabble energy mud all other countries.
Right now they are mounting a final assault on the arch enemy across the Rhine river, France, trying to put nuclear out of the “green” taxonomy, i.e. the possibility to get preferential financing rates guaranteed by EU, at lower rates. At the same time they are increasing their and EU’s dependence on russian gas… comrade putin must be really happy about that.
Since a couple of days, low winds in Germany (and also other countries) low solar (its January and cloudy) and guess what?… Germany is at 500+ gCO2/kWh, while France with all its “troubled” reactors its at 100 or less.
It’s totally crazy over this side of the Atlantic right now…
This is the real energy future!
China will make it work first and then they can take out our unreliable Grids and blackmail us to do what ever they say.\
Each Region needs Reliable Fossil fuel and Nuclear Energy Power so it can operate independently.
Large Grids with unreliable power coming from far away will go out with the smallest natural or man made disaster or foreign or domestic enemy attacks.
Our lawmakers and energy regulators are personally invested in these green energy scams and they get richer and more powerful as energy gets more unreliable.
Democrats are worst in this, but it is Republicans who destroyed the reliable power in Texas.
Shutting down Reliable Coal Power in different regions and changing to remote solar and wind and gas from far away can never be reliable.
I will not use the appropriate adjectives to describe this evil mess or I would have my comment removed.
The Chinese are using 60 year old technology. General Atomics are pioneering advanced materials and core design and fabrication to build reactors that can run without refuelling for a decade or two. They are working on a 50 MWe plug and play version of their helium cooled research reactors. It will be built in a factory and come in different colours.
https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/
@Robert I Ellison
“General Atomics are pioneering…”
That product is non existent, just a screen shot of a computer-made object.
Very small reactors will never be competitive, price-wise, with big ones. The modularity is not necessarily an advantage, in fact it simply increases the complexity and the need for trained personnel, which is in the end the bottleneck of large-scale nuclear expansion.
I’d rather move to large fast-neutron reactors, to close the fuel cycle as much as possible, like the BN-1200 under design in Russia, taking advantage of almost 40 years of operation of the smaller BN-600 and more recent BN-800. BN-600’s lifetime capacity factor ~ 65%.
Factory fabrication is the revolution. Modularity allows assembly line economies of scale, simplified on site construction, a faster build and easier financing. The technology has a collective 400 years of operational experience. 21st century materials make it cheaper, safer and better.
e.g. https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/accident-tolerant-fuel
re the cause of the Little Ice Age (LIA): Am I alone in thinking that this paper is a load of twaddle? The paper leaps from observing that there were unusually warm temperatures before the LIA to the “finding” that these high temperatures caused the LIA. A collapse of AMOC was trotted out as the reason – one of today’s climate scientists’ favourite boogeymen – yet there was no follow-up of the paper’s observation that “unusually high solar activity was recorded in the late 1300s”. If high solar activity was a factor in the earlier warm period, then surely low solar activity such as the Spörer minimum at the start of the LIA could equally well have been a major factor.
It is such a shame that after committing the heresy of mentioning that there was high solar activity before the LIA (how did that get past pal-review?) this paper failed to follow through and instead sank back into the morass that is climate science today.
No, you are not alone. In science when the orthodoxy declares that the most likely cause of something just can’t be, then it suddenly becomes unexplainable and multiple explanations are offered.
It happened with the Pause, that found perhaps 50 different explanations, and it happens also with the LIA. Possible explanations to the LIA:
– It didn’t happen
– Just random variability
– Volcanic forcing
– Oceanic memory to volcanic forcing
– Oceanic variability
– Increased seasonality
The problem is one of energy. As climate change has been defined within a narrow radiative balance paradigm and the LIA doesn’t show sufficient GHG radiative forcing, then the outstanding question is where did the energy that should have been there keeping the LIA warmer went.
Volcanoes cannot explain that fully. The radiative effect from volcanoes is too limited both in intensity and time, as sulfate aerosols are gone in just two years. Besides, volcanic eruptions actually result in warmer NH high latitude winters, the opposite of what was observed during the LIA.
The way models are made, they can only offer the oceans as the place where that energy could have gone. It is the result of painting oneself to a corner with the radiative paradigm. Non-radiative forcing climate change becomes inexistent and natural climate change becomes unexplainable.
The paper leaps from observing that there were unusually warm temperatures before the LIA to the “finding” that these high temperatures caused the LIA.
Exactly Right, Ice Core Records show the most ice accumulation in the warmest times in polar regions, more ice expands and spreads and causes ice ages. It only snows a lot in polar regions when polar oceans are thawed.
Ice ages are the result off warmest times, it cannot snow in polar regions after the polar oceans freeze. The initial snow around the Arctic spreads and promotes more snow further south until the oceans run out of enough water to maintain the land ice. It took a hundred thousand years for the great ice sheets of the last ice age to spread and thin and then finally retreat 20 thousand years ago.
The warmest time and deepest oceans cause the most ice accumulation for the longest and coldest ice ages.
Ice Core Records Prove this to be True!
Mike Jonas, somehow I put this in the wrong thread earlier.
***
> yet there was no follow-up of the paper’s observation that “unusually high solar activity was recorded in the late 1300s”.
Actually there was,, emphasis mine:
IIRC, the thing I noticed was a shift from large to small volcanos during the maunder min. Frequent small volcanoes do affect climate, chemical processes propagate cooling aerosols to the upper atmosphere rather than the blast force.
I enjoyed the Nordhaus piece …
> As with so much of the environmental literature, past and present, Under a White Sky focuses almost exclusively on all that goes wrong when we attempt to control nature, even as it acknowledges that we often have no choice. What is almost entirely absent from the story is all that goes right, or any recognition that, at least for humans, the new problems are almost always better ones to have than the old ones.
He can write the above, yet he’s still a prisoner of a mindset. The mindset that something must be done.
People have been in charge of the planet – with fire, ploughs and resource use – for 10,000 years. Doing nothing is just not an option. What matters is what we do.
True, Robert. But that’s not what I was referring to. There’s making things better, then there’s we better make things because …
Robert
it also matters how many of us are doing it.
tonyb
It matters what millions of farmers do.
For food security as much as anything.
e.g. https://4p1000.org/sites/default/files/francais/original_partenaires_membres.pdf
Ireland:
“Our findings also show that the contribution of heavy and extreme precipitation events to annual totals is increasing, while there was no persistent trends in annual totals..”
Probably wetter during a warm AMO phase.
_______________________________________
Extreme event attribution:
“We tested our approach by assessing the European winter heatwave of 2019 – an event the model successfully predicted.”
For the UK, humidity through the 24-27th February 2019 was down to around 50%, so maximum temperatures were higher but minimum temperatures fell to near zero. It was accompanied by heavy air pollution, like with the record warm 2011 Easter, partly industrial pollutants from Europe and partly Saharan dust. I don’t see what CO2 levels have to do with it.
_______________________________________
Little Ice Age:
“…a sudden change from very warm conditions in the late 1300s to unprecedented cold conditions in the early 1400s, only 20 years later.
Using many detailed marine records, Lapointe and Bradley discovered that there was an abnormally strong northward transfer of warm water in the late 1300s which peaked around 1380.”
Moore et al 2001 sees a rapid cooling at 1375 for Baffin Island, which makes more sense, as it was hot in Northern Europe then, with a positive NAO regime.
“Fast-forward to our own time: between the 1960s and 1980s, we have also seen a rapid strengthening of AMOC, which has been linked with persistently high pressure in the atmosphere over Greenland.”
Really? a Greenland high is negative NAO, the mid 1970’s and mid 1980’s had positive NAO regimes, driving colder AMO anomalies.
The cold conditions in the 1400’s were on land, and due to low solar and negative NAO conditions right then, not the state of the Atlantic decades previously.
An ‘accepted’ version of the Michael Ghil and Valerio Lucarini publication can be found here.
https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/91299/1/GhilLucarini2020_RevModPhysics.pdf
‘As is often the case, the complexity of the physics is interwoven with the chaotic character of the dynamics. Moreover, the climate system’s large natural variability
on different time scales is strongly affected by relatively small changes in the forcing, anthropogenic as well as natural (Ghil and Childress, 1987; Lucarini et al., 2014; Peixoto and Oort, 1992).’
That’s how science is meant to be written about – citations in which one can review the evidence. Without evidence it is not science. .
The ‘chaotic character’ includes the inevitability of tipping points.
Robert I Ellison: The ‘chaotic character’ includes the inevitability of tipping points.
This quote shows that tipping points are not considered inevitable by Gihl and Lucarini:
The fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) has its
roots in the classical theory of many-particle systems in
thermodynamic equilibrium. The idea is very simple: the
system’s return to equilibrium will be the same whether
the perturbation that modified its state is due to a small
external force or to an internal, random fluctuation. The
FDT thus relates natural and forced fluctuations of a
system (e,g., Kubo, 1957, 1966); it is a cornerstone of
statistical mechanics and has applications in man
I provided another example of a stochastic chaotic system not having all the properties of the deterministic system: “Chaotic Brusselator Destroys Hopf Bifurcation.
Hypothesis cannot refute the evidence of change in the Earth system. That is a fundamental of science formally defined in Isaac Newton’s rules of experimental philosophy.
oops Pamela 1947 is supposed to be Matthew R Marler
Robert I Ellison: Hypothesis cannot refute the evidence of change in the Earth system.
Is someone trying to refute evidence of change in the Earth system?
‘The FDT-based response of the system to perturbations in the above examples reproduces the actual changes at a good qualitative, rather than strictly quantitative level. An important limitation of these insightful
studies is the use of a severely simplified version of the FDT that is heuristically constructed by taking a gaussian approximation for the invariant measure of the unperturbed system. This approximation amounts to treating the climate as being in thermodynamic equilibrium…’
The Ghil & Lucarini paper is also freely available on Arxiv here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1910.00583.pdf
mikeedwards13, thank you for the link
I would like to add the current very weak and predicted to end soon La Niña to the discussion of events and forecasting
All models with BOM show the La Niña and all predict its immanent demise.
–
Statistically it is a 51% chance of diminishing to 49% chance of becoming stronger.
We know it runs in a band which oscillates around a mean.
Any disturbance creates a temporary trend ( for share market analysts here).
So it should continue to go up.
At the same time the further it goes away from its natural level the less support it has so it should go down.
–
I understand this arcane field of prognostication is in Prof Curry’s field and like the weather forecasters they must be using observations and models which show sub trends that will amplify or reduce the main trend.
–
At the same time there is a large disconnect in between the various models.
We know that the natural history is for a diminution in SH autumn so it does not take much courage to follow the seasons.
–
Yet at this slightly elevated level the dice only have a slight crookedness to them, certainly not 86%.
–
I would be quite happy to hope for a continuing La Niña knowing the odds in general of 24.25 % are much better than the 0% of the BOM assembled experts.
–
Being right 1 in 4 does not sound very good but the odds the BOM would have to give should be much greater than this due to their certainty.
–
I would not like to be a forecaster.
Judith, this and most CE posts focus on projections of climate change but few analyse the impacts of global warming to justify policies to mitigate it. However, empirical evidence indicates that global warming is net beneficial, not harmful. Therefore, there is no valid justification for policies to reduce global warming.
In 2020, could you include posts evaluating the impacts of global warming on the world economy, health and and biosphere.
Lang and Gregory (2019) [1] evaluated empirical evidence on the impact of global warming on energy consumption and found that warming is net beneficial for the world economy.
Empirical evidence of the impacts on the other main impact sectors indicates that warming is likely to be beneficial or have negligible impacts (the impact of warming on sea will be slightly negative, but the impact is likely to be negligible).
1. Lang and Gregory (2019) ‘Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming‘ https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm
Economic models of global warming are so, well, laughable that they are useless in saying anything at all about whether global warming is beneficial or harmful.
https://phys.org/news/2020-07-climate-economics-nobel-good.html
For one thing, they never recognize the possibility of tipping points.
They say the very big Antarctic ozone holes in the last two years do not show that CFC’s were falsely accused. It is just “natural variability”, which is always handy when your hypothesis seems clearly falsified.
Here is the dodge: “Both the 2020 and 2021 Antarctic ozone holes have been rather large and exceptionally long-lived. These two longer-than-usual episodes in a row are not a sign that the Montreal Protocol is not working though, as without it, they would have been even larger. It is because of interannual variability due to meteorological and dynamical conditions that can have an important impact on the magnitude of the ozone hole and are superimposed on the long-term recovery.”
https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-tracks-ozone-hole-closure-2021-one-longest-lived-antarctic-ozone-holes-record
They would have been even bigger with CFCs! Grasping at hypothetical straws.
These two longer-than-usual episodes in a row are not a sign that the Montreal Protocol is not working though, as without it, they would have been even larger.
The Ozone Hole that was when R12 was banned, closed naturally well before significant R12 was off the market. Well respected engineer and director of the Engineering Directorate told me that, some years ago.
They continue to lie and keep banning products that prevent them from getting richer and more powerful.
More CO2 can only cause crops and plants to grow better, while using water more efficiently.
The people who reduce CO2 emissions and sequester CO2 are common criminals who are taking plant fertilizer from the air and people who depend on green things that grow should form a class action law suit against the lot of them.
The people who make these evil laws and rules are personally getting rich with the subsidies and tax credits for building wind and solar and all the scams they promote.
“These two longer-than-usual episodes in a row are not a sign that the Montreal Protocol is not working though, as without it, they would have been even larger.”
How can they prove their assertion without a controlled experiment? It is a rationalization to attempt to prop up a flawed hypothesis.
Regarding Covid, have I missed something or has the topic of “herd immunity fallen” from grace.
Here is a fun combination.
Psychology of Climate Change (2021) (lots of left wing stuff)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/current-opinion-in-psychology/vol/42/suppl/C
With
How to Detect Politically Biased Psychology
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/202112/how-detect-politically-biased-psychology
The detection article is all about left wing bias. Starting with this point: “Psychological scientists are overwhelmingly left in their politics.”
Also this hummer: “The political distribution of psychological scientists is so skewed that the numbers sound like delusions of right-wing propagandists. Over 98% of the psychological scientists in this survey voted for Obama over Romney, and, at elite colleges and universities, 90-100% of faculty identify as Democrat or left. In addition to the results shown above, this 2020 survey also found that about 40% of social science faculty identify as radicals, activists and/or Marxists. Although people on the right (including scientists) may be just as likely to be biased as those on the left, there is hardly any right in psychology.”
Hence the psychology sub field that finds climate alarm skepticism to be a mental disorder.
That Psychology Today should run this is very interesting. A sign of the times?
We will all get exposed. It’s time to let it rip.
‘Ultimately, Pillai said, a combination of vaccines and omicron could help transition the world from a pandemic to endemic state, meaning that most people will have some pre-existing immunity to the coronavirus and spikes in infection will become less disastrous in terms of hospitalization, severe disease and death.’ https://www.livescience.com/omicron-overtaking-delta
In the for-what-it’s-worth-department. My daughter-in-law had COVID at the onset of the pandemic, received the the two shots as well as booster. She just got COVID (likely Omicron) as confirmed by testing. Never was that sick the 1st time or now. Did have reactions from all 3 shots.
My point? The COVID situation is pretty murky. However, I have no-doubt the political class is exploiting the situation. I recall a major Democratic politician boasting that is exactly what they do.
Remain calm, do not panic, and vote the politicians out of office. However, I suspect the-new-boss-same-as-old-boss. Keep-on-trucking.
Mike Keller wrote:
However, I have no-doubt the political class is exploiting the situation. I recall a major Democratic politician boasting that is exactly what they do.
Who? When? Where? Have a quote? Have a link? Have any facts, not just an “I recall?”
This may be of interest.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/omicron-makes-bidens-vaccine-mandates-obsolete-covid-healthcare-osha-evidence-supreme-court-11641760009?st=s8twa8er5pspy6h&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
So much of research today is delusional. Today’s favorite: “Rentiers of the low-carbon economy?” by Sarah Kluth.
“Progressive movements today call for transformative state-led investment in renewable energy and other climate infrastructures — in the United States, a vision that confronts inherited legacies of austerity.”
Austerity in the US! Federal government debt in the US has grown faster than GDP for generations: from 32% in 1982 to 122% now. Debt/gdp of 100% has long been considered the standard red line.
State debt has also risen. Especially the broader category of State’s liabilities, which includes employee pension and medical plans. Several States are effectively broke, sustained only by their ability to roll over their debts and borrow more – and continued low interest rates. Those include many of the States with the largest subsidies for renewable energy.
Larry: Interest on the federal debt is still quite low:
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
02
Quite right, historically the payment is low, but only because the Fed has kept rates artificially low. Let’s assume the Fed let market forces dictate the rate paid, which they won’t, and rates return to the mean of the last 60-70 years. That would increase payment on the Debt Held by the Public by $400 to $500 Billion per year. To put that amount into context, when Biden came out with his FY 2022 he proposed increasing the top marginal tax rate from the current 37% to 39.6%. The projected added tax revenue was $35 Billion per year.
The Fed is going to let rates revert to the mean but very slowly, otherwise the Street will have a meltdown. We are in historic times. Not just the US. The German 10 year Bund just recently got out of negative territory. Mortgage rates in Denmark have been negative for quite a while. Not sure if still there. When I applied for a mortgage in 1982, the rate was 17%.
Between 1945 and early 1960s, the Debt Held by the Public rose by ~1%.
In 2000, the Debt was $3.4 Trillion with $223 Billion in debt service on net interest. Today, Debt Held by the Public is $23.3 Trillion. In FY 2021, debt service on net interest was $353 Billion. Do the math.
The sweetheart deal the Fed is giving us won’t last forever.
Meat and Livestock Australia – an industry body – on carbon neutral red meat by 2030.
This quote from a citation in the Little Ice Age paper is not to suggest anything about the specific issue but rather to demonstrate that debates exist within the community to a greater extent than is popularly believed. That is exactly how science should work.
“ Many previous studies have consistently attributed observed AMV primarily to internal variability associated with the AMOC (e.g., DelSole et al., 2011; Knight, 2009; Ting et al., 2009; Trenberth & Shea, 2006; Z. Wu, Huang, et al., 2011; Zanchettin et al., 2014). On the other hand, some recent studies have proposed the hypotheses that AMV is primarily a direct response of the North Atlantic SST to either changes in external radiative forcing (e.g., Bellomo et al., 2018; Bellucci et al., 2017; Booth et al., 2012; Murphy et al., 2017) or stochastic atmospheric forcing (e.g., Cane et al., 2017; Clement et al., 2015, 2016), although these views have been questioned (e.g., Drews & Greatbatch, 2016, 2017; Kim, Yeager, & Danabasoglu, 2018; O’Reilly et al., 2016; Sun et al., 2018; Yan et al., 2017, 2018, 2019; Zhang, 2017; Zhang et al., 2013, 2016).”
AMV is an inverse response to solar wind variability, it is colder when the solar wind is stronger.
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New Equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ gives wonderful results
Tmean.mercury = 325,83 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
Tmean.moon = 223,35 K,
Tmean.mars = 213,21 K
Using the new equation, the new estimate closely matches the estimate surface temperatures from satellite observations:
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
It is time to abandon Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ old incomplete equation. You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
In the 1984 version of “Dad, are we there yet?” we seem to have leaped beyond anything Orwell might have had in mind with this research into trying to understand climate deniers so they too can more easily be brainwashed. Given Dr Roy Spencer’s recent post I wonder if any Google researchers have their eyes set on him.
Bizarre and sick. Individual liberty is suffering one whack on the knee caps at a time.
“ Bern [Switzerland], January 8 (ANI): During a recent study by the University of Bern researchers used brain stimulation to demonstrate that the ability to sympathize with the future victims of climate change encourages sustainable behaviour.
…
“The fact that people aren’t acting in a more climate-friendly way isn’t because we know too little about this critical situation, though,” explained Daria Knoch, Professor for Social Neuroscience at the University of Bern.
To find out more about the reasons that prevent us from acting sustainably, Daria Knoch and her team have conducted a neuroscientific study.”
…
“It is precisely our inability to mentalise with these strangers that discourages climate-friendly action,” said Daria Knoch, commenting on the findings of the new study that she carried out with her research group in the “Social Neuro Lab” at the University of Bern.
During the study, participants received stimulation to a part of their brain which plays an important role in taking the perspective of others. This stimulation led to more sustainable behaviour.”
Instead of studying the deniers, perhaps they should study climate science itself and have some basis for judging who the real deniers are.
https://www.aninews.in/news/science/research-on-brain-explores-how-to-slow-down-climate-change20220108221444/
The researchers should try their electric brain stimulation on themselves, to see if they become more likely to empathise with a rational perspective of no climate crisis. Nothing else has worked.
CKid: I’d like to apologize for questioning your experience with censorship on social media (Facebook and Twitter, IIRC) about six months ago. It now seems apparent from Google’s demonetizing of Roy Spenser that conspiracies theories about the election being stolen and vaccines have merely opened the door for the social justice warriors from Silicon Valley.
“The 60-year old screwup” article is a great read. It is an object lesson on ‘believe the science’ vs understand the science.
Not seeing the forest through the trees. Dr. Curry, Curiosity Stream has a documentary on Old Kingdom Egypt. Guess what? You got it, the Old Kingdom ended because of Climate Change. Only problem, documentary after Documentary I’ve been watching claim Climate Change was the cause of their Demise. They also provide evidence that Egypt was a lush savanna at the time as depicted by the wildlife in their hieroglyphs. Problem is, SUVs and Coal Burning Power Plants didn’t exist in 2,200 BC. All these new Documentaries claiming that Climate Change caused the end of all these great ancient civilizations don’t seem to understand they are undermining the narrative that Man and CO2 is the only factor driving climate change. Nothing we see today comes close to the rapid climate change that occurred to end the Old Kingdom in 2,200 BC and the Bronze Age Societies in 1,200 BC. They also all show that the Sea Levels were much different AND HIGHER. The Pyramids were close enough to the water that boats delivered the stones. If anything, these documentaries demonstrate that 1) Climate Change is the Norm 2) Sea Levels were much higher in the past 3) Starvation leads to social unrest 4) Higher CO2 reduces the likelihood of starvation through higher crop yields 5) Lowering CO2 to the level of 2,200 and 1,200 could be catastrophic as demonstrated by the past history so lower CO2 may not be better than higher CO2. Anyway, if you simply open your eyes, Climate Historians are giving everyone all the evidence they need to debunk the CO2 drives climate change narrative. If Old Kingdom Egypt existed today, it would be a society powered by Wind and Solar just waiting for the wind to stop blowing and a volcano to block out the sun. That would make a nice chapter in your book. Societies in the past had no trouble destroying themselves from within, today’s society doesn’t need any additional help with this divisive and ineffective Green Economy False Narrative.
Nothing we see today comes close to the rapid climate change that occurred to end the Old Kingdom in 2,200 BC
Marie-Agnes Courty, an expert in ancient soils microfabrics, has been defending for decades that the 4.2 kyr event bears the signature of a comet cataclism in the Indian Ocean. I find her explanation consistent with the available evidence for such an abrupt event that had a huge regional impact.
The Holocene Impact Working Group proposed the Burckle Crater as the likely impact place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater
This is all highly contentious obviously. There is no clear evidence for the impact and date.
Simultaneously the Old Kindom in Egypt ended, the Akkadian Empire in Sumer was brought to its knees initiating its collapse, and the Harappan civilization in the Indus Valley ended its urban phase.
Javier, your fig 122 here https://judithcurry.com/2018/06/28/nature-unbound-ix-21st-century-climate-change/ was a major discovery (for me anyway). Since 6150bce all Eddy roots were times of collapse. Near all – as I’m finding – start midway at peaks, when change starts to be felt.
Latest finds: besides others, Assyrian at post 800bce -climate shift- ploughing and sowing salt is apiece of historical obfuscation for desiccation and increased soil salinity rendering agriculture impossible. Repeated for Carthage at next peak.
We are 10 times better able to deal with climate change than we used to be. We don’t have to migrate, hauling or meager possessions in an oxcart while fearing for our lives. We buy a new furnace or A/C unit instead.
Only ten times?
The circulation over Alaska is still blocked, which is why temperatures are so low in Alaska and central Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/JqQcy0L/mimictpw-alaska-latest.gif
This stratospheric intrusion looks like an Arctic bomb.
https://i.ibb.co/4tZyppQ/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f024.png
And Minnesota. – 23F a few days ago. Toughen up buttercup.
A different kind of snow sculpture in Fairbanks, Alaska
https://twitter.com/ResusCGMedia/status/1479821052033134592/photo/1
“Plugging wind power into the national grid is akin to the infamous mixing of junk bonds in with higher quality assets – the criminally stupid activity that played a huge role in breaking the world economy in 2008. The higher quality assets did not strengthen the junk bonds in the mix. Rather, the weak link of junk bonds broke the whole cable (cabal) the world economy hung on. We see the same thing play out with wind power. And we’ll keep seeing it play out – at some of the worst times for it to play out – until the madness ends.” – Matthew Schilling
————————
Wind power is junk. It cannot be dispatched. It cannot provide baseload. Wind is a parasite. A little bit of it can be added and the overall performance of the grid is still good. As with junk bonds, the return looks good. The idea seems to work. They were hyped. The regulators went along.
————————
Wind exploits. It’s a con. It steals from what does work which is coal, hydro and nuclear. But with most cons, you can only run them so long until too many people are conned and the new money runs out.
Wind is very good at selling natural gas at large profit margins. And nothing else.
President Trump encouraged oil and gas production and LNG terminal construction. Lucky for Europe! Several LNG tankers diverted to Europe due to the high prices there.
For the article, “Winter is coming: Researchers uncover the surprising cause of the little ice age: …, triggered by unusually warm conditions.”, the authors have, at best, established a correlation: “… they noticed something surprising: a sudden change from very warm conditions in the late 1300s to unprecedented cold conditions in the early 1400s,” They don’t mention the Volcanic Winter of 1257. Nor that glaciers were advancing in the far north by 1275.
However, a fundamental question was not answered, let alone even acknowledged. WHY did it suddenly become warm in the late 1300s? Could it be that whatever caused the warming, flipped and caused the cooling as well? Might they have the causation backwards? They mention increased solar activity in the 1300s, but ignore the well documented Maunder Minimum starting about 1645.
They appear to have ignored the truism that correlation does not establish causation. They also seem to have ignored many well-documented events that confound their simple hypothesis.
–
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability. It happens because ice and snow have higher albedo.
But at very high latitudes, where the sea ice covers the ocean there is a very poor insolation absorption.
Thus the sea ice’s higher reflecting ability doesn’t cool significantly the Earth’s surface.
On the other hand there is a physical phenomenon which has a strong influence in the cooling of Earth’s surface. This phenomenon is the differences in emissivity.
The open sea waters have emissivity ε = 0,95.
The ice has emissivity ε = 0,97.
On the other hand, the snow has a much lower emissivity ε = 0,8.
And the sea ice is a snow covered sea ice with emissivity ε = 0,8.
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
Also we should have under consideration the physical phenomenon of the sea waters freezing-melting behavior.
Sea waters freeze at – 2,3 oC.
Sea ice melts at 0 oC.
The difference between the melting and the freezing temperatures creates a seasonal time delay in covering the arctic waters with ice sheets.
When formatting the sea ice gets thicker from the colder water’s side.
When melting the sea ice gets thinner from the warmer atmosphere’s side.
This time delay enhances the arctic waters IR emissivity and heat losses towards the space because of the open waters’ higher emissivity ε = 0,95,
compared with the snow covered ice ε = 0,8.
Needs to be mentioned that Earth’s surface emits IR radiation 24/7 all year around.
And the Arctic region insolation absorption is very poor even in the summer.
That is why Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
On the other hand it is the open Arctic sea waters that have the cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
Feedback refers to the modification of a process by changes resulting from the process itself. Positive feedbacks accelerate the process, while negative feedbacks slow it down.
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance. It is a negative feedback.
The melting Arctic sea ice, by opening the waters, slows down the Global Warming trend. This process appears to be a negative feedback.
The LIA was a long negative feedback response period. The general trend was then and is now a continuous orbital forced global warming.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The Arctic sea ice has a warming and not a cooling effect on the Global Energy Balance.
Absolutely Right! IR out and the formation of ice only occurs when the tropical warm ocean currents are exposed to the fierce polar winds.
That polar IR out mostly cools the climate later when the piled up ice is pushed into the oceans and/or flows and spreads on the continents, hundreds or thousands of years later.
“It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability.”
It is NOT true! It GENERALLY has a higher reflectivity, but not always. Open water on the limbs can have a reflectivity of 100%
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
” Open water on the limbs can have a reflectivity of 100%”
Yes, exactly !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“It is true that the sea ice has a higher reflecting ability.”
Who would actually think about this and even care? Only Climate Alarmists who want to promote thawed sea ice as a disaster.
Thawed sea ice is absolutely necessary to have evaporation and snowfall that rebuilds polar sequestered ice.
Solar into the Arctic is little or none and Albedo out due to sea ice is little or none.
IR out when polar oceans are thawed is huge, IR out when polar oceans are frozen is little or NONE. This is what is most important.
In summer, the sun in the polar regions is on the horizon all day, in winter the sun in polar regions is not visible. Why would any actual thinking person think that Albedo Out from polar oceans even matters?
“IR out when polar oceans are thawed is huge, IR out when polar oceans are frozen is little or NONE. This is what is most important.”
Right!
IR out when polar oceans are frozen is much less.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: We have several decades of OBSERVATIONS about retreating Arctic and Antarctic sea ice and how reflection of SWR from these regions has changed. IIRC, for the most part, retreating sea ice has been replaced by increased cloud cover, but that doesn’t completely compensate for the loss of reflective sea ice. Years ago, Tamino’s Open Mind reviewed the literature and tried to calculate the global forcing from retreating sea ice and I read a few of the papers. I’m not endorsing Tamino’s work, I’m endorsing the idea that the answer to you issue is known from OBSERVATION. When you understand what is known from observation, then maybe it makes sense to speculate about how relevant those observations are to the future.
Best, Frank
The Wired article about aerosols is 7 months old and largely misses the point. I read it months ago. It focuses on the failure to recognize that large droplets can remain airborne as aerosols. That may be true, but is not particularly relevant. The only useful differentiation between aerosols and droplets is based on how they behave when released. If it follows a ballistic path and falls from the air then it is a droplet. Whether 100microns or 5microns they are capable of containing dozens or thousands of individual viruses.
It was always intuitively implausible that a disease that became a pandemic was spread primarily by droplets. Studies have demonstrated that modeled as droplets there simply aren’t enough source and receptors to credibly spread a disease as quickly as respiratory infections spread.
“90% of Americans view climate change as a threat to some extent. Over the last year, we have seen conservatives across all levels of government begin to tackle this issue head on. As our polling has consistently shown over the last half decade, voters are skeptical of lofty liberal political rhetoric. Rather, voters continue to be more comfortable with pragmatic policy leadership from conservatives that produces meaningful economic development gains while reducing emissions.” https://www.conservativeenergynetwork.org/new-cen-poll-shows-voters-want-america-first-clean-energy-and-climate-solutions/
At either end of the climateball court are a few percent of people who craft narratives superficially in the objective idiom of science. Continuing a ‘discourse’ long after it has ceased to be relevant.
90% of third grade children believe in the tooth fairy. Therefore, the tooth fairy MUST exist.
99% of contrarians wouldn’t recognise pragmatic politics if it fell on them.
“a few percent of people who craft narratives superficially”
Take a Select Congressional Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack. More frequently they refer to a “deadly insurrection”. No weapons. The only person killed was a protester acting badly, shot without warning. In Washington DC, not in Kazakhstan.
https://january6th.house.gov/
Yeah, more like an unruly frat party than an insurrection.
“…meaningful economic development gains…”
Examples of the above are what?
Economic growth based on productivity gains and not pump priming.
Which is a different subject. The issue is tackling climate change and I assume with meaningful economic development gains. What are examples of those gains?
Lower cost low carbon energy and the innovation windfall that brings is not possible? My mistake.
“…meaningful economic development gains while reducing emissions.”
The fracking revolution actually did this. Reduced emissions and brought meaning economic development gains.
jeffnsails850:
Unexpected answer. I’ll buy it. BEST said, natural gas as an answer. And it was deployed. And it was good. Until it kind of got restricted about a year ago. Another example might be the Chevy Volt.
Ragnaar | January 9, 2022
The issue is tackling climate change and I assume with meaningful economic development gains. What are examples of those gains?
–
Interesting question.. Climate change that may occur with current warming and its long term consequences cannot be evident now. The time period is to short.
–
Tackling rising CO2 by changing to solar wind etc again can show no gains because they would take 60 years to show potential gains or losses.
What they are doing is altering our energy structure, and politics and economics, not our climate.
–
Apropos your question numerous examples exist throughout the world of practical methods of tackling past climate change with possible gains.
The damming of the Nile and irrigation in Egypt would be my first guess.
Irrigation generally around the world. Perhaps the Chinese dams which mitigate flooding.
It is really about developing and deploying energy sources for the future and reducing pressure on climate triggers. Very few people believe that it can be done with wind and solar.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-cycle.jpg
‘The report does not focus on large, abrupt causes—nuclear wars or giant meteorite impacts—but rather on the surprising new findings that abrupt climate change can occur when gradual causes push the earth system across a threshold. Just as the slowly increasing pressure of a finger eventually flips a switch and turns on a light, the slow effects of drifting continents or wobbling orbits or changing atmospheric composition may “switch” the climate to a new state. And, just as a moving hand is more likely than a stationary one to encounter and flip a switch, faster earth-system changes—whether natural or human-caused—are likely to increase the probability of encountering a threshold that triggers a still faster climate shift.’ NAS 2002
There has been deployment of farm irrigation. I am talking about the center pivot corn field kind. The field is then drought hardened. They have been deployed. With drone technology and cheap computer chips, more efficient watering may be in the works. I am talking about zone control.
To survive and thrive a capitalist economy needs constant innovation. These guys seem to be in an ideological rut. Not very useful.
Most people with strong views that dangerous warming is occurring and is our most critical issue would never have encountered anything similar to the above discussion. How can a vastly wider adience be reached?
Albedo is the wrong measure of reflectivity for modeling climate.
Please read the Clyde Spencer’s very important article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
Aluminum use has skyrocketed for autos, including EVs. It is therefore doubly ironic that “green” energy policies in Europe have caused the price of this metal to go through the roof.
LONDON, Jan 6 (Reuters) – It’s turning into a winter of discontent for Europe’s aluminium smelters as they struggle to cope with rocketing power prices across the region.
Four operators have announced curtailments totalling over half a million tonnes of annual production capacity, with others flexing output to mitigate power-load price spikes.
European aluminium consumers are already paying the price. Physical premiums have surged, the CME’s duty-paid spot contract jumping from $290 per tonne at the start of December to a current $423.
That’s over and above the London Metal Exchange (LME) aluminium price, which has also opened 2022 with a bang, hitting a two-month high of $2,938.50 per tonne on Wednesday.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/column-europes-power-crunch-sparks-144646022.html
Regarding the Norwegian bubble curtain article, if it works this will be a game changer. Sea level rise is mainly a problem due to tropical cyclones. Take away the threat of 100-year storm surges and the coast becomes safe. Of course, the warm water starved storms will be without 100-year wind speeds too.
It is amazingly simple, they just pump air down to a perforated pipe at the cool depth of 300-400 feet and the bubble mix the cold water with the warm water laying on the surface. They had been doing this for years in Norway to keep the fjords from freezing. The only question is can they have enough ships and pumps to do it fast enough and safely.
I wonder what the reaction will be from the alarmists if this works. Will they warn about the dangers of technofixes? How will it affect Climate Bingo?
I predict it will work and they will find that they can increase the effectiveness by 10X by simultaneously spraying surfactant over the stern to create a giant bubble bath of sea foam (aka spume). Foam blankets suppress evaporation by blocking aerosols, further starving the storm. Spume would also insulate the freshly cooled surface from warm the warm air while reflecting sunlight. No patent pending.
Spraying millions of tonnes of surfactant chemical across the worlds oceans? Yay, love the sound of that, what could possibly go wrong?
Although cyclones/hurricanes are associated with warm sea surface temperature at their inception, overall they cause a lot of local climate cooling. The towering nimbus clouds convect and radiate a lot of heat to space. And the strong winds impel the upwelling of deep cold water, lowering regional sea surface temperatures quite significantly in the wake of a big storm.
So stop cyclones with your squeezy liquid apocalypse and one result will be accelerated warming.
“what could possibly go wrong?”
The surfactant can be biodegradable. It only has to last for a day. Also, the expense of the mitigation would not be wasted on anything less than preventing a category 3 or higher from coming to landfall.
‘Also, by the late 1800s, geologists and geographers had reached even the most remote parts of the world and mapped the extent of mountain glaciers (see Fig. 1 for an example). The bottom line is that, in both the north and the south temperate zones of our planet, snowlines (that is, the boundaries separating zones of net accumulation from those of net ablation) were about 100 m lower than they were in 1975. This difference is comparable to a snowline lowering of 900 to 950 m during full glacial time and to a roughly 350-m lowering during the Younger Dryas (Y.D.). Because the major factor influencing these elevations is air temperature, the suggestion is that, during all three of these cold intervals, the cooling was symmetrical about the equator. Based on present-day lapse rates, the mountain cooling during glacial time was about 5.5°C and that during the LIA was about 0.6°C.’ Boecker 2000 – Was a change in thermohaline circulation responsible for the Little Ice Age? – https://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1339
20 and more years years ago Wally was on the right track.
‘Earth’s radiation budget describes the balance between radiation from the sun intercepted by Earth and radiation returned back to space through reflection of solar radiation and emission of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. This balance is a fundamental property of Earth’s climate system as it describes how Earth gains and sheds heat. Here we use observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) to evaluate how seven state-of-the-art climate models represent changes in Earth’s radiation budget during and following the so-called global warming “hiatus” of the early 21st century. The models were provided observed sea-surface temperature and sea-ice boundary conditions as well as natural and anthropogenic forcings. We find remarkable agreement between observed and simulated differences in reflected solar and emitted thermal infrared radiation between the post-hiatus and hiatus periods. Furthermore, a model’s ability to correctly relate Earth’s radiation budget and surface temperature is found to depend upon how well it represents reflected solar radiation changes in regions dominated by low clouds, particularly those over the eastern Pacific ocean.’ Loeb et al 2020 – New Generation of Climate Models Track Recent Unprecedented Changes in Earth’s Radiation Budget Observed by CERES – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
Science is based on evidence. Fast changes in cloud cover and slow changes in ice and snow cover. Compared to which blogoscience narratives are unmitigated flimflam. Then you have to wonder why cloud cover changes so dramatically in the tropical and subtropical Pacific Ocean – and what causes changes in thermohaline circulation and associated changes in ice and snow.
Robert, you said, “Because the major factor influencing these elevations is air temperature, …”
Certainly, air temperatures above freezing will melt ice. However, it is well known that direct sunlight can melt snow and ice even when the air temperature is below freezing. Therefore, cloudiness can be important in determining the snow lines or zone of ablation.
Wally Broecker – and I presume you haven’t read the paper – discussed ‘the boundaries separating zones of net accumulation from those of net ablation’ based on evidence.
So do you have any evidence to show on anything of any significance – or relevance – or are you simply indulging in a blogoscience narrative?
‘The severity associated with Omicron is still unknown, but early reports indicate mild disease, at least in the younger population…
There is no evidence to date that the vaccines Australians have been given are any less effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalisation or death from Omicron.’ https://www.health.gov.au/health-alerts/covid-19/symptoms-and-variants/omicron
92.1% of Australian were double vaccinated as of 9 January 2022.
https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2022/01/covid-19-vaccine-rollout-update-10-january-2022.pdf
‘National Cabinet agreed to a plan to transition Australia’s National COVID-19 Response from its current pre vaccination settings, focussing on continued suppression of community transmission, to post vaccination settings focussed on prevention of serious illness, hospitalisation and fatality, and the public health management of other infectious diseases.’ https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/national-plan-060821_0.pdf
This may interest you.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/speeding-it-may-be-safer-omicron-mandates-antigenic-drift-shift-covid-supervariant-mask-social-distancing-lockdown-vaccine-11641847062?st=hrxy8wm6fl80oga&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Robert I Ellison: There is no evidence to date that the vaccines Australians have been given are any less effective at preventing severe illness, hospitalisation or death from Omicron
Is there evidence that they are equally effective against Omicron, or is there simply no evidence. No evidence is presented in that link, and I have not found any on my own. AFAICT, most cases of COVID19 are not tested for the genetic variant.
Judith Curry, Thank you again. This is my favorite part of your blog.
Dutch Lawmaker Refutes the Claim that ‘97% of Scientists Agree on Manmade Global Warming’
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/michael-van-der-galien/2022/01/10/dutch-lawmaker-refutes-the-claim-that-97-of-scientists-agree-on-manmade-global-warming-n1548277
The perfect is the enemy of the good. But does it matter here?
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/omicron-vaccine-coming-in-march-experts-warn-it-could-be-too-late.html
‘Strong evidence suggests that booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines may enhance protection against symptomatic disease due to the Omicron variant. This is primarily based on in vitro studies of neutralising antibodies demonstrating that the decreased binding seen with the Omicron variant compared with ancestral strains can be overcome by increasing antibody concentrations with a booster dose. Multiple studies have shown a 2 to >20-fold decrease in neutralising antibody titre against Omicron compared with wild type and/or Delta variant in sera after the primary vaccination course. Studies demonstrate that neutralising antibody titres are higher against Omicron following a booster dose of an mRNA vaccine.1,2’ https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-the-omicron-variant-and-the-timing-of-covid-19-booster-vaccination
Consult the bibliography.
Matthew’s habitual pettifogging quibbles aside – a booster shot of an mRNA vaccine may be in order.
It’s amazing how different papers in one of JC’s reviews can both ostensibly address climate on the same planet, while existing in different universes. Universes with nothing at all in common?
For example, this paper by Ghil and Lucarini sets out a paradigm of the climate as a complex-chaotic, dissipative system out of which complexity spontaneously emerges:
https://journals.aps.org/rmp/abstract/10.1103/RevModPhys.92.035002
Then there’s this paper from a parallel universe which is sterile of any chaotic self-organising phenomena. Where there are no complex systems with multi-dimensional phase spaces; no, everything is simple. Every change in any direction has but a single linear cause. The appearance of complexity in a jagged sawtooth plot is deceptive, since each single up and down has a separate, unrelated, single cause. (And if in doubt – it’s usually volcanoes.)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/12/211215142052.htm
This extraordinarily minger of a paper fails before it even starts by asking this question: what “caused” the little ice age. “What caused??” Seriously? If you are looking for a separate, discreet cause for each and every twist and turn of a climate plot? As if every time the curve inflects, one universe ends and another one is grafted on. It’s like standing in the rain and wondering which separate volcano was responsible for each individual raindrop.
Stratospheric “bomb” in eastern Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/DCqGJS5/Screenshot-2.png
La Niña for January 10.
https://i.ibb.co/jTRGbyk/IDYOC007-202201.gif
There has to be a huge dollop of wisdom present in David O. Prevatt’s article on building houses that can survive tornado strikes. It’s sobering to think we have had this knowledge since 1897 and yet there is still no standard building regulation to save properties from devastation and the lives of those who live within them.
For Oxymoron of the Year award, I nominate Bloomberg’s “Green Insight.”
re “Biased estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity” . The authors conclude: “If the recently observed SST trend pattern is a result of model biases in the response to GHG forcing (e.g., Seager et al., 2019; Coats & Karnauskas, 2017), the lower values of E↵CShis and TCRhis from observations may persist over the coming decades, in which case 21st century warming may be lower than that projected even by GCMs with real412 istic ECS values. ” This is interesting, in Fig. 3a they compare TCFR estimates from CMIP6’s to the value found in L/C 18.
The SST mentiones SST-pattern comes mostly from the tropical Pacific which shows a LaNina-like pattern of warming in Observations in contrast to a more uniform warming in the GCM leading to much more ElNinos. However, the question if there are model-biases in the estimated tropical Pacific warming is IMO solved with this paper: https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/8/10/nwab056/6212231?login=true . Tang et al (2021) show this and after the bias-correction they find a much more realistic pattern of warming then former simulated. This is a giant leap for the projection of the warming during this century: The value of LC18 for TCR ist the one we can await: 1.3K/ doubling CO2. Not 2K from the CMIP6’s multi model mean. Let’s hope that this is also the end of CMIP6’s generated doom’n gloom.
It’s a Pacific Ocean pattern that evolves over years to millennia and more,
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png
Models can be trained to reproduce CERES measured energy out using observation based SST and ice cover.
e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
Predicting the future however remains a little difficult.
In the meantime – atmospheric CO2 levels may – with high economic growth – approach 1000 ppm by the end of the century. Rolling the dice is neither necessary or desirable.
frankclimate: Would it be reasonable to conclude that great minds think alike? Just found your comment. See:
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-968840
Enjoyed reading Tang (2021). Perhaps AOGCMs that remove common biases of CMIP5 models will also produce realistic marine boundary layer clouds in the Pacific.
If models are forced with observed cloud and ice – they seem to work. That doesn’t get us very far.
New Generation of Climate Models Track Recent Unprecedented Changes in Earth’s Radiation Budget Observed by CERES – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
Robert: You may find Tapio Schneider’s discussion of the problems modeling clouds and especially marine boundary layer clouds useful. Sorry this is a video, but I haven’t found a paper that described the well-known problem of MBLCs are candidly as Schneider does in this talk. Start at 12:30. Key figure at 16:40. “MBLC cool the planet by 8 degK” and “AOGCMs produce 40% too few”. It is likely AOGCMs contain compensating errors for the lack of MBLCs, since they are the most cooling clouds on the planet.
Keep the planet healthy?
How about adding CO2 to the atmosphere ti accelerate plant growth which will support more human and animal life? That seems like a great goal.
Soils and terrestrial ecosystems have lost some 500 GtC over 10,000 years – more than the 350 odd GtC from human activities in the modern era. Rattan Lal says that some 157 ppm could be returned to soils and ecosystems by the year 2100. With benefits that far exceed that of modest CO2 fertilisation.
Peter Lang wrote:
“In 2020, could you include posts evaluating the impacts of global warming on the world economy, health and and biosphere.”
Although Mr. Lang and and Junpin’ Joe Biden believe we are in 2020,
Mr. Lang made a brilliant point:
Real climate science requires data.
Data are available for the past and present climate.
There are no data for the future climate
“Climate Change” is data-free predictions of the future climate.
In the past 120 years such predictions have not been accurate.
They can not be based on data,
They can only be based on unproven theories and speculation.
In my opinion wrong predictions are not real climate science.
And no science website should spend much time on predictions made by people with a poor track record of predictions in the past.
Does any science website need to waste much space with
even more very likely to be wrong climate predictions?
>” … unproven theories and speculation”
More succinctly described as hypotheses. Unfalsifiable ones are preferred by activists.
Greene,
My comment was not about climate change predictions. It’s about the impacts of global warming. The empirical data is clear: warming has been beneficial and cooling damaging for ecosystems. Warming has been net beneficial or had negligible impact on the main impact sectors (except sea level rise). Climate policies need to be justified on the basis of the impacts of climate change (warming and cooling) not on predictions of the amount and rates of change of global warming and cooling.
The focus needs to change to analysing the economic, human and ecosystems impacts of global warming, not trying to project the amount of global warming.
Did you read this:
1. Lang and Gregory (2019) ‘Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming‘ https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/12/18/3575/htm
Courtesy post to give everyone a Heads Up about the opening of the Comment Period.
Now is your chance to make your thoughts known……..
Public Comment Period for the 5th US National Climate Assessment is Open
by Charles Rotter
The time to review and remark is now. Once this report is published, it will be too late, and all our crabby complaints will be useless. All public comments filed via this system become a part of the record. If significant critiques and facts are ignored, this will be apparent when the comments are published.
The Federal Government’s 5th National Climate Assessment (NCA5) public comment period has officially opened its 45-day public comment period. During this time, the draft outline for the NCA5 is being shared for the first time with the purpose of seeking public feedback. Those wishing to participate in the public comment period must submit their comments via the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) Review and Comment System by 11:59 PM ET on February 20, 2022.
https://review.globalchange.gov/
Over the next several months, the USGCRP will also launch public engagement workshops for each chapter; please join if you are interested in providing feedback. For more information on the NCA5, contact Emily Osborne (emily.osborne@noaa.gov).
Read more of this post
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/10/public-comment-period-for-the-5th-us-national-climate-assessment-is-open/
I did not see reference to this opinion piece by A. Gary Shilling who is a noted economist that I follow. He suggests a certain optimum economic solution, that would not involve holding to nearly impossible CO2 targets. First attempt by Shilling to address this issue, to my knowledge.
https://news.bloombergtax.com/tax-insights-and-commentary/carbon-reduction-costs-will-turn-off-investors-gary-shilling
Thanks
A wind turbine at New Brunswick’s largest wind farm has collapsed.
According to the TransAlta Corporation, the Alberta-based company that owns and operates the Kent Hills wind farm, no one was injured when the structure toppled onto an access road.
“The cause of the incident is under investigation,” TransAlta spokesperson James Mottershead said in an email to CBC News.
The area surrounding the wind facility has been closed while the investigation is underway.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/wind-turbine-collapse-under-investigation-in-southeast-new-brunswick-1.6211106
Mr. Ellison’s claim that a booster shot is the answer to Omicron shopws he has no knowledge of the Omicron structure or symptoms. Omicron is a new coronavirus common cold — it is not a new Covid variant. It has 50 mutations, 30 of the spike protein, versus Delta Covid. Prior Covid variants had one or two mutations of the spike protein. Omicron has the same symptoms as a coronavirus common cold. Real Covid variants have much more serious and sometimes deadly symptoms. If a new virus has the same symptoms as a common cold, then it is a common cold. No Covid baccine will have any effect, and the evidence so far shows vaccinated people are just as vulnerable as unvaccinated people with Omicron. In fact, vaccinated people tend to reduce their social disancing, or even eliminate social distancing, and that behavior change will make them more vulnerable to Covid and Omicron infections.
Ths vaccines reduce Covid hospitalizations and deaths for at least a few months.
Omicron rarely requires hospitalization and death is as rare as death from a common cold. There are no serious symptoms for a vaccione to reduce even if they were effective for Omicron,, which they are not.
I don’t rely on anything but evidence from reputable sources. Not citing reputable sources means that Richard’s comments can be safely ignored. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ARGUE WITH FIXED NOTIONS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.
https://www.health.gov.au/news/atagi-statement-on-the-omicron-variant-and-the-timing-of-covid-19-booster-vaccination
There is a bibliography that should keep Richard occupied for days. 🤣
Richard: 50 mutations means that omicron and the original isolate of SARS2 are 99.83% homologous at the nucleic acid level and may be more homologous at the amino acid level. The Omicron variant is not one of the coronaviruses that causes the common cold. The closest known virus to SARS2 is RaTG13, which is differs by 1,200 bases.
It will soon be moot….Two new Omicron Studies Are Fantastic News That Should End Mandates, Forced Vaccinations, and Restrictions…time to cut the cord and open the world back up.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2022/01/15/two-omicron-studies-are-fantastic-news-that-should-end-mandates-and-restrictions-n1549676
TEWS_Pilot: The risk of dying from an omicron infection is much less than the risk of dying from an infection with earlier variants. That risk is modulated by vaccinate with or without boosters and previous infection. However, we have four times as many confirmed cases of COVID as we did a year ago. Limited testing means that we are undoubtably missing a lot of cases, and this conclusion is supported by 40% of PCR tests (vs 15% a year ago) are coming back positive. So we have a whole lot more people (with more resistance than a year ago) infected with a somewhat less dangerous variant. That is why stressed or overflowing hospitals have record number of admissions and total COVID patients. Deaths lag infections and hospitalizations, so the death toll from this surge won’t be apparent for a few weeks.
Some of the early information about IFR is obsolete and grossly wrong. If the IFR were 0.1% and all 330 million Americans had been infected with COVID, only 330,000 would have died. With 850,000 deaths so far, that isa minimum IFR of 0.27% and not everyone has been infected. An IFR 0.4% would be a better estimate. The IFR has been perturbed by vaccination and resistance from previous infections, more deadly variants (delta) and now less deadly variants (omicron). No matter how you look at the data, anyone still saying the IFR for COVID is 0.1% doesn’t know what they are talking about or is deliberately misleading you.
In a typical year, seasonal influenza infects 30 million according to seroprevalence studies, which detect about 4 times more cases than PCR does. If we average over a 100 day flu season, that would be 900 cases/million/day and perhaps 225 cases/million/day confirmed by PCR. The US was over 500 cases/million/day confirmed by PCR for several months last fall – despite lockdown, masks and social distancing that totally eliminated flu last winter. About 450,000 are hospitalized with influenza, 14 people/million/day, well within the capacity of our hospitals with 1 million beds and 100,000 ICU beds. Last winter hospitalization peaked at 350 admissions/million/day, and has been above 100 admissions/million/day for 1.5 years except in May and June! In an average year, 37,000 die of influenza, about 1 per million per day. Deaths from COVID peaked at 10 per million per day – despite masks, social distancing and lockdowns and people working from home – and have been at least 2 per million per day since April except for May and June. It really doesn’t make sense to compare COVID to seasonal influenza. Comparing to the 1918 influenza pandemic makes far more sense with an estimated cumulative death rate of 0.67% vs 0.25% (and rising today).
Franktoo, that is all good to know. I have two high school age granddaughters who apparently got OMICRON at some point in the past and recovered from it without ever knowing they had it and would not have known now except they were exposed by a classmate at school last week and had to be tested and the antibodies showed up in the test results.
The PCR tests are, were, and always have been worthless and have been recalled and are not supposed to be used any longer.
The CDC just admitted that almost all of those who have died with COVID or any variant all had at least FOUR underlying comorbidities that actually caused the death…I could dig up the link and post it but a simple search should find several media reports.
In other news,……Official Covid death totals from New South Wales for January 12th.
NSW Health
@NSWHealth
·
Jan 12, 2022
Replying to @NSWHealth
One person was aged in their 60s, eight people were aged in their 70s, seven people were aged in their 80s, five people were aged in their 90s and one person was aged 100+.
Of the 22 people who died; 14 were vaccinated and eight were not vaccinated.
Does anyone die of OLD AGE any more?
‘Of the 21 people who died; 12 were vaccinated, eight were not vaccinated and one person had received one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.’
As the vaccination coverage approaches 95%? To calculate a weighted mean…
Another HEADS UP…….They Know What’s Coming, White House Prepares for Terrible December Inflation Data with Prepared Script
January 11, 2022
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/01/11/they-know-whats-coming-white-house-prepares-for-terrible-december-inflation-data-with-prepared-script/
The snowball effect of cumulative inflation is going to be on display tomorrow when the BLS inflation data from December is released. We have previously discussed the unavoidable price increases as noted within the November data Here, and within the producer price data Here.
While the data being released tomorrow is backward looking, we are in the eye of the inflation storm right now. The consumer prices at end of January and through February are all reflecting new purchase order prices and contract prices to wholesalers, buyers and retailers. As a result, the December reports will be the precursor to what will be much more damaging data in Feb and March.
[SNIP]
When you see the wholesale level of prices almost double the increase in consumer level inflation rate, you can predict that consumer prices will likely go even higher.
Future finished goods, at a retail level, will carry the current wholesale price increase.
Stuff costs a lot now… and because the inbound stuff to make the finished goods is still climbing in price…. stuff is about to cost even more.
You can see from Table A (above) that finished good prices are still climbing. That’s the higher price inflation you are feeling when you buy a product.
What will change this scenario is an actual drop on the demand side, as U.S. consumers see their income values wiped out. Unfortunately, that appears to be part of the policy agenda for the White House.
If they can reduce demand by making things unaffordable, they can claim victory over inflation (mid/late 2022) and proclaim their economic policies a success. The prices will never drop, but the percent of change will stall out.
The downside of the White House achieving what they call “success” is unfortunately, by the time we reach that point we will have nothing left; we’re broke. Prices will finally level off, but the savings of Americans will have been depleted and wage growth will then take years to catch up.
FUBAR…All by design.
“Under Biden, it faces probable reform, but may need more comprehensive reimagination.”
The rich get rich off of renewables with the aid of government. Same story, different day.
Rentiers of the low-carbon economy?
Reimagination. The first imagine didn’t work. The second imagine shall henceforth be known as the reimagination. Isn’t it nice we’re saving the planet, the polar bears and ourselves? I am going to tell you how we’re doing that. With imagination. Like Disney saved us. Like Sesame Street did.
We can wish upon a star. Yes we can.
The SCAMDEMIC is falling apart and becoming END-DEM-PANIC…Rearrange the letters in “OMICRON” and it spells MORONIC.
……Spain downgrades pandemic to flu.
https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/516819/Spanien-behandelt-Corona-fortan-wie-gewoehnliche-Grippe
Spain now treats Corona like an ordinary flu and downgrades the “pandemic” to an ordinary ho hum seasonal flu. The predominant virus is the mild “Omikron” variant with exactly the same symptoms as the common cold.
TEWS
That was a very long article about inflation in November 2021
It’s January 11 now.
I had a more concise paragraph on inflation
on my Economic Logic blog:
The pandemic led to huge increase
of Federal Reserve Bank liquidity
(+$6.4 trillion Fed Credit, and
+40% M2 money supply growth
in 120 weeks).
Federal Reserve Credit
over the past 121 weeks,
expanded $4.994 TN, or 134%.
The December CPI
is forecast to exceed 7%
for the first time in 40 years.
When I read stories about capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, I want to scream, “Are you all idiots?”
Until we have captured CO2 from point sources (such as coal plants or natural-gas combined cycle plants), we are wasting time and energy (in more than one way) talking about recovering CO2 from the atmosphere. I’m just a lowly retired chemical engineer (not an exalted climate scientist), but anyone with any sense knows that it is much easier to process flue gas with CO2 at 12 to 18% versus the atmosphere at 400 ppm. This is simple thermodynamics and chemical equilibrium. The capital and energy costs would be much lower for these point sources.
If I’m missing something, please enlighten me.
High temperature modular nuclear providing baseload electricity but also – at periods of lower demand – electricity for carbon capture and heat and power for efficient high temperature production of hydrogen and oxygen from water. These can be catalysed with carbon dioxide from whatever source to produce liquid fuels and fertilizers. 100% energy availability requires almost 100% energy redundancy. With low cost and abundant energy – anything is possible.
Carbon Engineering is working on one approach. Whether this is ultimately economically feasible depends on costs and ancillary markets.
‘The process starts with an air contactor – a large structure modelled off industrial cooling towers. A giant fan pulls air into this structure, where it passes over thin plastic surfaces that have potassium hydroxide solution flowing over them. This non-toxic solution chemically binds with the CO2 molecules, removing them from the air and trapping them in the liquid solution as a carbonate salt.
The CO2 contained in this carbonate solution is then put through a series of chemical processes to increase its concentration, purify and compress it, so it can be delivered in gas form ready for use or storage. This involves separating the salt out from solution into small pellets in a structure called a pellet reactor, which was adapted from water treatment technology. These pellets are then heated in our third step, a calciner, in order to release the CO2 in pure gas form. The calciner is similar to equipment that’s used at very large scale in mining for ore processing. This step also leaves behind processed pellets that are hydrated in a slaker and recycled back into the system to reproduce the original capture chemical.’ https://carbonengineering.com/our-technology/
I’m not sure if you understand my point. With limitless energy and capital, anything is possible. However, we don’t have limitless energy and capital. So the question is why would anyone promote capture of CO2 from the air versus point sources? Once we have “mined” all of the CO2 from point sources, then maybe we can move on to the atmosphere to “mine” CO2.
As an aside, between 2005 and 2008 or so, I worked on a petroleum coke gasification project. The idea was to gasify the coke via partial oxidation to synthesis gas, which is a mixture of CO, CO2, and hydrogen. And then we would do a water gas shift to convert the CO to CO2 and hydrogen and CO2. After separation of the gases, we were going to use the hydrogen to replace natural gas in fired furnaces, and use the CO2 in oil fields for a miscible flood. When natural gas was going for $8 to 10/MM Btu, it looked economic. But the shale gas revolution killed it.
I get it. You haven’t understood my reply – one predicated on innovation and abundant, low cost energy. Nor am I advocating any technology without knowing what it costs. Many people have suggested that a more concentrated CO2 source may a better option – but it is not something determined on thermodynamics alone.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2vnuc.jpg
I thought you might find it of interest – my bad.
Marginal benefit v marginal cost – a concept that spans so many disciplines.
Bridges comment – ” I’m just a lowly retired chemical engineer (not an exalted climate scientist), but anyone with any sense knows that it is much easier to process flue gas with CO2 at 12 to 18% versus the atmosphere at 400 ppm.”
That is a very good example of the value of the concept of margin benefit v marginal cost.
Everyone who understood that concept and basic medical history knew that the covid mitigation protocols would never accomplish what was intended.
The fiscal health of the US is dismal. But it is not the world. The only solution is austerity.
The 2008 financial crisis was predicted. It started in America after the dotcom boom and 911. In a looming recession the government lowered interest rates – and continued to lower them further over the next several years. With low interest rates the housing market boomed. At the same the government funded subsidies for low income earners that further fueled the asset bubble in a self-sustaining cycle possible due to rising house prices. The emerging problem was compounded with hundreds of billions of dollars of high risk and outright fraudulent loans. The banks channeled funds to politicians to keep the subsidies rolling. Neither the banks nor governments insisted on normal prudential practices of making loans to people who had the ability – and an incentive with skin in the game – to repay without continuing price rises. These high risk loans were then packaged and on sold with AAA ratings supplied by companies paid by the banks. When interest rates ultimately were raised again – the house of cards collapsed.
The international Basel III Convention has since raised minimum capital reserve requirements to cater for bad debt. A fairly safe recommendation from ‘rock star economists’ – but not nearly sufficient. Following the crash of 2008 governments embarked on bailout and stimulus programs that were vaguely Keynesian but were poorly targeted and created an immense debt overhang that persists. The question now is who will bailout governments? This is a very real bubble and all bubbles burst. Cutting interest rates, deficit spending and quantitative easing – printing money – all result in an increase in money supply which cause price bubbles in economies.
see – https://watertechbyrie.com/2016/03/11/all-bubbles-burst-laws-of-economics-for-the-new-millennium/
Mr. Ellison provided a good comment on economics.
I will add that mortgage companies had a tendency
to “revise” mortgage applications to make sure
loans would be apprived.. The AAA ratings were
based on the fact that rrsidential rea;l estate prices
were in a general uptrend since the Great Depression
and it was easy to assume home prices would never go down.
Financual bubbles climb a ladder of confidence..
When confidence peaks, so do security prices.
The US stock market is more overvalued than at
any other time in history based on valuation metrics
that have a strong correlation with ten yrear stock returns.
Such as The S&P500 Price to Sales Ratio
and
Wilshire 5000 stock market capitaliuzation
as a percentage of GDP.
These valuations should lead to poor ten year returns
for stocks purchased (or owned) today.
While a orudent person might see
their government borrowing money
at interest rates far under
the inflation rate, governments
see low interest rates
as an excuse for even more
reckless spending.
Trump started the reckless spending
to “fight Covid” and Biden wants to do the same.
Meanwhile, Covid is still here but the money is gone.
The reckless spending started long before Trump. There is hardly an Administration that didn’t increase debt faster than the prior Administration.
Alex Berenson exposes the CEO of Pfizer for his coded message explaining that the vaxx is a scam, doesn’t work, and he is trying to back out of it using weasel words and slimy language.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/if-you-are-a-vaccine-company-executive?r=sl8h5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
The hundreds of millions of people who have received shots of mRNA/LNP and DNA/AAV Covid vaccines had no real idea what they were taking.
They did so on the urging of the vaccine companies and health authorities, who told them that in doing so they would protect themselves and their families and end the Covid epidemic. The statements were public. Many are less than a year old. They cannot be suppressed or memory-holed, no matter how hard anyone wants to try.
Every single one of those statements has proven wrong – so wrong that the companies, which are at much greater legal risk than the public health authorities – no longer even try to defend them.
Here’s what Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s chief executive officer, said on Monday in an interview on CNBC:
The hope is that we will achieve something that will have way, way better protection, particularly against infections because the protection against the hospitalizations and the severe disease, it is, it is reasonable right now, with the current vaccines as long as you are having let’s say the third dose.
CNBC Video and transcript here.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/first-on-cnbc-cnbc-transcript-pfizer-chairman-and-ceo-albert-bourla-speaks-with-cnbcs-squawk-box-today.html
Read those words very carefully.
Protection against “severe disease” is “reasonable right now” for people who have taken a “third dose” of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Put aside the fact that even those words are at best an optimistic interpretation of current data.
Put aside the fact that Pfizer has NEVER compared a three-dose vaccine regimen to a placebo in a clinical trial.
Put aside the fact that “reasonable right now” suggests that any effect of a third dose will not last.
What the chief executive of Pfizer is telling you is, “IF YOU RECEIVED TWO DOSES OF HIS COMPANY’S VACCINE LAST YEAR, YOUR PROTECTION IS GONE.
Mr Ellison apparently believes that anyone who does not
repeat what government bureaucrats say about a subject,
like a trained parrot, must be wrong.
Ellison is a slave to government authority — rule by bureaucrats
who claim to be experts. they know all.
You must agree and reference the government bureauctrats
or Mr. Ellison will accuse you of providing misinformation.
I imagine that “logic” applies to climate science too.
Trust the government bureaucrats and the IPCC.
Or Mr. Ellison will challenge whatever you say here.
The government knows all,
about every subject.?
Look how they defeated Covid !
The sources I provided have live links to empirical studies. That’s how science is done. I read only source material and carefully vetted reputable sources.
Robert I. Ellison
The sources I provided have live links to empirical.
I read only source material and carefully vetted reputable sources.
I read CNN and Breitbart, ATTP and Real Climate Science.
Not to mention Skeptikal Science.
You need to get out more.
I have vetted them all.
Tews I read the Berensen column before you posted it
The Pfizer CEO is pumping his very profitable new medication
which probably won’t be as effective as ivermectin and will be less safe.
But it will make billions of profits for Pfizer,
with a mucg higher profit margin than vaccines.
The Pfizer CEO is a smarmy salesman.
He came straight from the CDC where he was in charge of approving…..drum roll….PFIZER applications…
BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!! Just when you thought it was safe to…..
Biden administration planning unconstitutional lists of employees seeking ‘religious’ vaccine exemptions violating every privacy protection known…time to wake up and smell the TYRANNY.
An obscure federal agency (Biden “Schutzstaffel” something or other) has proposed creating a database capturing the names and “personal religious information” of employees who submit “religious accommodation requests” to be exempted from the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Read More in the Washington Times >
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jan/11/biden-administration-planning-lists-employees-seek/
Better yet may be 3 low risk vaccinations and catching omicron when it is transmitted to you.
‘Two-doses of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccines are only about 10% effective at preventing infection from omicron 20 weeks after the second dose, according to the U.K. data.
A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data.
However, Bourla said it’s unclear how long a booster dose will provide protection against Covid. The U.K. Health Security Agency also found that boosters are only 40% to 50% effective against infection 10 weeks after receiving the shot.
“The question mark, it is how long that protection lasts with the third dose,” Bourla said.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now recommending that some people with compromised immune systems receive four shots, three primary doses and one booster. Israel has rolled out fourth Pfizer doses for people over the age of 60. Israel found that fourth doses increase protective antibodies fivefold.’ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/pfizer-ceo-says-two-covid-vaccine-doses-arent-enough-for-omicron.html
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Asks A Big COVID Question Big Pharma Doesn’t Want You To Know The Answer To [VIDEO]
They definitely don’t want you spreading it around.
https://www.redvoicemedia.com/2022/01/clarence-thomas-asks-a-big-covid-question-big-pharma-doesnt-want-you-to-know-the-answer-to-video/
While Lying Justice Pinocchio DODO-mayor might be feeding into the hysteria with outrageous lies about 100,000 children on VENTILATORS due to COVID, another Justice, Clarence Thomas, isn’t having it.
In the video, which can be watched at the link above, Justice Thomas asked a simple question that Big Pharma definitely doesn’t want to answer. “Is a vaccine the only way to treat COVID?”
While Big Pharma and the JoeBama Crime Cabal and Fearmonger Fauci keep trying to convince the world that everyone must take a Poison Jab every 30 days for the rest of their lives,….in other news…
NCAA Now Recognizes COVID Natural Immunity For Student Athletes…
https://welovetrump.com/2022/01/11/ncaa-recognizes-covid-19-natural-immunity-for-student-athletes-in-updated-guidelines/
……Spain downgrades pandemic to flu.
https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/516819/Spanien-behandelt-Corona-fortan-wie-gewoehnliche-Grippe
Spain now treats Corona like an ordinary flu and downgrades the “pandemic” to an ordinary ho hum seasonal flu. The predominant virus is the mild “Omikron” variant with exactly the same symptoms as the common cold.
TEWS’s news about Spain is wrong. The Spanish president said on 1/10 that ” I believe we have conditions so that, with caution and little by little, we BEGIN to evaluate the EVOLUTION of this disease with different parameters [similar to those used in the flu].” He believes the time for change is ripe, given the current low lethality of COVID. The president plans raise his suggestion with the Center for Coordination of Health Alerts and Emergencies. My guess is that Center will remind the president that COVID cases and hospital admissions are currently skyrocketing, that test positivity is 36% (meaning many more cases that usual are being missed and that it is too early to be sure how lethal Omicron will be in Spain.
https://spanishnewstoday.com/spain_to_monitor_covid_like_the_common_flu_1714952-a.html
Nevertheless, the day is coming soon when we can treat COVID as an ordinary endemic disease like seasonal influenza. For that day to come, the number of people needn’t hospitalization needs to not exceed the capacity of the hospital system to comfortably meet the demand created by those infected with COVID. Having people die unnecessarily while waiting in the emergency room or hallways for a bed or being sent home to die isn’t good for the popularity of any politician no matter how eager the people are to return to normal. The UK and Israel are currently ending some restrictions because they are confident they can handle the hospital patients the current surge will send to hospitals and that the death toll will be modest. New cases peaked about 5 days ago in the UK. Hospitals contain half as many COVID patients as the peak last January. More than 50% of Brits have received a booster.
The day the US can treat COVID as an endemic disease has not arrived yet. Only 60% of Americans are fully vaccinated and only 25% have received a booster. Hospitalization for COVID has already exceeded the peak in last January and admissions are already higher. Confirmed new cases are triple last January and could be much higher (since we don’t have adequate testing capacity and more than 30% of tests are coming back positive, more than in April of 2020). 1.4% of schools are already closed, with more to follow (from lack of staff and teacher’s unions at a minimum) and some businesses are suffering significant damage from this surge. (The UK is planning a new relief bill to deal with Omicron.) If we could avoid these deaths and problems by mandating vaccination (as we do for many other diseases), wouldn’t it be worth it?
Thank you for that update. Without vetting it properly, I relied on a message with that news story included it it that was emailed to me from a former colleague who lives in Barcelona…maybe he was being overly optimistic.
The SCAMDEMIC will never end, it was engineered to effect a paradigm shift from free, sovereign, prosperous nations into puppet states ruled with an iron fist by tyrants, and as you can see, it is working very well. Capitalism is being replaced with Communism everywhere, and only the elites are prospering while the coordinated effort to destroy Western economies is in full swing.
The third great idea in 20th century physics – along with relativity and quantum mechanics – is dynamical complexity. Dynamical complexity has many applications in ecology, population, epidemiology, physiology, weather and climate, planetary orbits, earthquakes and economics to name a few. We tend to accept relativity and quantum mechanics as great ideas without understanding much about them. Dynamical complexity is more widely known as chaos theory – and is as little understood. The broad class of dynamical systems is known by certain behaviours. This is shown in economics by the potential for small initial shocks – a few hundred billions in toxic debt for instance – to cause a global economic meltdown as a result of collective emergent behaviour. Fear and greed ran rampant putting an end to decades of economic stability and growth.
It helps if there is an economically rational plan and not just conspiracy rants. In robust democracies we may argue for laws and tax regimes as we see fit – but not everything is up for grabs if we are holding out for economic stability and growth. Economic stability is best served with government at about 25% of GDP, price stability through management of interest rates and money supply, balanced government budgets, effective prudential oversight, effective and uncorrupted enforcement of fair law and a commitment to free and open trade.
Markets exist – ideally – in a democratic context. Politics provides a legislative framework for consumer protection, worker and public safety, environmental conservation and a host of other things. Including for regulation of markets – banking capital requirements, anti-monopoly laws, prohibition of insider trading, laws on corporate transparency and probity, tax laws, etc. A key to stable markets – and therefore growth – is fair and transparent regulation, minimal corruption and effective democratic oversight. Markets do best where government is large enough to be an important player and small enough not to squeeze the vitality out of capitalism – government revenue of some 25% of gross domestic product. Markets can’t exist without laws – just as civil society can’t exist without police, courts and armies.
Balanced budget would be a great Amendment, although a pipedream. 25% government is far, far too much, since government is both a drain on productivity and a suppression of freedom and individuality.
‘Named after Cato Institute’s Richard Rahn, the Curve shows that modest amounts of government spending – for core “public goods” such as rule of law and protection of property rights – is associated with better economic performance.’ https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/we-all-know-government-is-too-big-but-heres-the-evidence/
10% is modest. 25% is profligate, wasteful, and corrupting.
Robert I Ellison: ‘Named after Cato Institute’s Richard Rahn, the Curve shows that modest amounts of government spending – for core “public goods” such as rule of law and protection of property rights – is associated with better economic performance.’
“modest” and “core” require some explication. Government spending in the US now produces sufficient inflation that most people are getting materially poorer year by year — the costs of stuff are growing faster than their incomes. Like the “stagflation” of Nixon/Ford/Carter.
Let me know when the US gets to a balanced budget and a government sector that is 25% of GDP.
https://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates
Lying or ignorant? Pathetic.
https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-06-01-2022
And he might at least either reply directly to the comment or at the barest minimum quote the entire sentence.
‘Better yet may be 3 low risk vaccinations and catching omicron when it is transmitted to you.’ https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-968549
Robert I Ellison: And he might at least either reply directly to the comment or at the barest minimum quote the entire sentence.
Good advice
Orphaned again. Judith needs to stop cancelling people. 😊
Robert I Ellison: https://www.tga.gov.au/periodic/covid-19-vaccine-weekly-safety-report-06-01-2022
Thank you for the link.
The IPCC isn’t isn’t science and they wouldn’t be missed. Neither is whatever it is tews is doing.
TO INFINITY ….. AND BEYOND !!!!…Impfstoffe machen frei !!!
Victoria, Australia Announces Vaccinated Workers Must Get Booster Shot in 30 Days or Will be Fired
January 11, 2022
The shifting sands of COVID vaccination mandates are happening stunningly fast. During a press conference today the state health officials in Victoria, Australia, announced that vaccinated workers have 30 days to take their mandatory booster shots, or they will lose their jobs….the saga continues…..
The announcement occurs at 07:07 of the video below. Prompted, WATCH:
https://youtu.be/a9HyVgbDsVM
92.1% of Australian are double vaccinated. I’m about to book my third. As for mandates.
‘This will apply to healthcare, aged care, disability, emergency services, correctional facility, quarantine accommodation and food distribution workers.’ https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/keeping-victorian-workers-key-sectors-safe
Australia is a robust democracy. If it came to it the blood of tyrants would stain the wattle. In the meantime some sanity please. We overwhelmingly chose to be vaccinated.
“ We overwhelmingly chose to be vaccinated.”
Good for us. Let the others suffer their fate rather than forcing them to take a shot. Personal freedom requires personal responsibility.
There are certain professions where we don’t want COVID super spreaders. They are free to get a jab or another job.
The vaxed can and do spread Covid. So fire everyone.
So what.
“Fully Vaccinated Tennis star appears to clutch chest while being ‘out of breath’”
“Georgian tennis star Nikoloz Basilashvili was forced to quit just two games into a match in Australia after finding himself struggling to breathe.”
Basilashvili told the trainer that even though he is fully vaccinated, he contracted Covid “10 days ago”. Practiced a couple days and felt all right, but says now he’s struggling to draw any more than shallow breaths. Got crushed in his first singles, didn’t play the second tie, retired today…his career is OVER!
Richard Greene
Ellison, the Covid vaccinations have far more adverse side effects
than any vaccine in history.
Not true.
The word “safe ” is a lie
I think he said low risk , sort of means not safe.
I fail to see the reasons for your and Mr Tews? problems.
Pharmacy companies promote themselves
Vaccines may have slide effects.
People take vaccines primarily to prevent much worse problems from the disease when over 70 or with severe medical problems.
I feel safer with 2 shots
A big relief.
Do young kids and adults need the vaccine for their safety?
Generally no.
The more people vaccinated the less the disease burden on the community
Great rewards for minimal risk
Can you buy me some Pfizer shares?
The quality of tews sources leaves a lot to be desired.
…does BLOOMBERG meet with your approval?
European Union regulators Warn Against Frequent Booster Shots…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says
European Union regulators warned this evening that frequent Covid booster shots could adversely affect the immune system and may not be feasible for Europe.
Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said.
The advice comes as some countries consider the possibility of offering people second booster shots in a bid to provide further protection against omicron infections. Earlier this month Israel became the first nation to start a second booster, or fourth shot, to those over 60. The U.K. has said that boosters are providing good levels of protection and there is no need for a second booster shot at the moment, but will review data as it evolves.
Boosters “can be done once, or maybe twice, but it’s not something that we can think should be repeated constantly,” Marco Cavaleri, the EMA head of vaccines strategy, said at a press briefing on Tuesday. “We need to think about how we can transition from the current pandemic setting to a more endemic setting.”
The EU regulator also said at the briefing that oral and intravenous antivirals, such as Paxlovid and Remdesivir, maintain their efficacy against omicron. The agency said that April is the soonest it could approve a new vaccine targeting a specific variant, as the process takes about three to four months. Some of the world’s largest vaccine-makers have said they are looking at producing vaccines that could target new variants.
TEWS_Pilot | January 11, 2022 at 11:20 pm |
“https://principia-scientific.com/covid-vax-death-rate-21-times-higher-than-all-other-vaxxes/“
Begs the question.
Are you related to that website?
Where is Willard when you want to find a sock puppet?
The tone and tenor of your arguments suggest such.
Every word I wrote is true. There are more than 10,000 people in our church, and I have scores of friends inside and outside the church…so do the math on how many have had COVID during the past TWO YEARS and treated it with REAL cures and recovered and how many have died because they were denied the cures by ACTIVISTS in local hospitals. Many have bought the drug packs online from Frontline Doctors and many from India and other foreign countries. One farmer I know buys it at Tractor Supply. I believe it was a family in Ohio who went to court and SUED the hospital to provide Ivermectin to a family member who would have died without it. There have been others, too.
My family extends to 38 states that I know of, probably more with children and grandchildren of cousins, etc. One niece created a family tree going back to before the Revolutionary War, and every time a baby is born or a death occurs or a marriage, she sends us a new updated copy of the document in MS Word format and in PDF format…not that you need to know this, but I am revealing it to show how easy it is to keep track of and contact with large families.
We have been tracking how the SCAMDEMIC has affected our family, and the numbers I gave are correct. We had more than 1000 at our last week long family reunion….maybe you are a hermit.
The 23 year old had a heart transplant 10 years ago and was doing FINE until the POISON JAB. It SEVERELY DAMAGED the heart, and the cardiology team all agreed that it was the POISON JAB that damaged the heart, so now a new heart is needed or DEATH will occur.
Hundreds if not thousands of similar stories are being BLOCKED by media and Social platforms and people are punished for even trying to get the word out. All the Social platforms DELETE accounts for the “violation” of people simply reporting what the “FACT CHECKERS” deem “misinformation,” i.e.,ANYTHING that does not conform to the SCAMDEMIC NARRATIVE. A prominent pro-cure doctor with over 500K followers had his account abruptly deleted.
Please refrain from insulting me or publicly insinuating that I am a liar. It reflects poorly on YOU, not on me. If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them. You react like all LEFTISTS, try to CANCEL all opinions or voices with which you disagree. That is cowardice and has no place in the public square.
The source document for the Pentagon Paper conspiracy hustle. Understand the paper or just read the conclusion.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
As for Bloomberg – it is a reputable news source – it is not science. However:
‘Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said.’
Who knows what will emerge other than more craziness. But I’ll think I will take their advice and not get multiple booster shots.
The Science is SETTLED!!!!
Ivermectin ‘Works Throughout All Phases’ Of COVID According To Leaked Military Documents
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/hidden-military-documents-reveal-nih-intent-create-sars-cov-2-using-gain-function-research
Update (1505ET): As more and more information pours out of the Project Veritas leaked military documents, there appears to be a damning section in support of Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment.
“Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response.”
The reality is that there is no conclusive evidence on ivermectin one way or the other.
https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub2/full
From the source document.
‘We have summarized published results on the inhibition of multiple viral and host targets that could be involved in SARS-CoV-2 replication and the disease COVID-19. Although multiple antiviral and host target activities have been reported for ivermectin in SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, it is still unclear if any of these activities will play a role in the prevention and treatment of the disease. The controlled clinical trials that are underway will reveal if these activities will translate into clinical efficacy.’ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-021-00491-6
Triple vaccinated: AZ/AZ/Moderna. Aged 79, no reactions. I possibly didn’t need to get vaxed, as I seem to be immune to flu. There were two pandemics (Asian flu?) in the UK when I was in high school in the 1950s, I was one of five in my year who weren’t absent with flu in one case, I had flu in the other pandemic, not since. But it seemed sensible to get vaxed for Covid. My thoracic physician son, who has been running Covid clinics from the outset, certainly thought so.
Hi Michael – good to see that you are hanging in there. 😊 I booked my third shot yesterday for 12 February. I catch every lung infection going – so I have been especially wary of COVID-19. The virus now seems to have morphed into a more infectious and less virulent form as these things are wont to do – as they adapt to human physiology. We are all bound to catch it – but it makes sense to limit damage by whatever preexisting immunity we can muster.
I had a reaction after an AZ shot that was probably not the vaccine. But it triggered the safety protocols and my GP organised a platelet count. No big deal.
Messages like this need to be removed
“I personally know more than three dozen people who are taking the I-pack or who recovered easily using it. The vaccine, NOT COVID, has killed or severely injured more than a dozen of my acquaintances and family members or all ages. An extended family member, 23 years old and in perfect health until making the FATAL mistake of taking the POISON JAB now needs a HEART TRANSPLANT.“
I don’t mind Tews putting out ideas, I do mind putting out misinformation and scaremongering.
The first claim is anecdotal what a wonderful product malarkey.
The second is just not possible.
More than 12 people dead and severely injured in a small sample of family and friends?
Where are the newspapers and journalists and lawyers and drug companies and health departments are not to mention conspiracy theorists who should be all over this
This is an astonishing claim.
Who have you reported it to?
As to all ages children up to now have not been being vaccinated
The third is the best. In this incredibly small sample a family member just happens to get a rare side effect not serious enough to kill him but so serious he needs a transplant?
Give us a break.
Stop posting misleading rubbish.
Would his cr@p survive on FB? I’m beginning to see their rationale.
unfortunately yes
I live in a town of 6,634 souls in coastal Central Queensland. Not one COVID-19 case ever – and we are all vaccinated. Not even one vaccine death. 🤣
Your anecdote about an isolated small town in Australia is an apples to oranges comparison.
Now look at New York.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page
Table
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/42c8e928f9eae21cb725c4c5fd84fe9cf073beacb2e02577f03abdb70eb8dc04.png
It’s a lifestyle thing. And we are connected by air, road and sea to major global population centers. But the amusing thing is how after nothing from you but anecdote and conspiracies – my object lesson on the silliness of anecdote as evidence evades you.
The information you supply says nothing about deaths from vaccines. It is in other words another red herring. You can fool some of the people…
“A Double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.”
FRIGHTENING: W.H.O Joins EU and Changes Direction — Suddenly Warns AGAINST Taking Continued COVID Booster Shots
On Tuesday, (in full agreement with several commenters here, myself included) European regulators warned that the COVID booster shots could adversely affect the immune system.
This was a huge admission for European officials after pushing booster shots just weeks earlier and having their Police checking papers and beating and arresting people who chose WISELY and REFUSED to take the POSION JAB. What happened?
Then later on Tuesday the World Health Organization joined the EU and also condemned the continued booster regimen.
That was quick.
What happened?
What do they now see about the experimental mRNA vaccines that they did not see just a month ago?
VAERS COVID Vaccine Mortality Reports
https://openvaers.com/covid-data/mortality
….more detail….
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/boosters-are-over/
The recommendation is that going forward shots be based on seasonal flu protocols. The one pushing fear and doubt is tews. And of course raw reported deaths is just the first step in determining vaccine safety. The next steps require expertise that neither tews nor I have.
The comments just below are orphaned responses left after tews and Richard have been cancelled. 🤣
Science requires evidence to be science. The IPCC discusses science – but doesn’t do any itself. I like to go to the source and make up my mind – as I have for too long to mention. I trust evidence.
Stop twisting my words.
Peer review doesn’t guarantee truth – just that the methods are more or less sound. ONLY THE EVIDENCE MATTERS.
We do have local media – including a very active grapevine. What else can we do but fish, dive, sail or gossip.
WHAT DATA WOULD THAT BE?
Your source? Or do you expect me to take your word for it?
Does anyone know what this incoherent ramble means? I ask for sources and we get this?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/us-covid-deaths.png
All of these hidden infections had no symptoms? There are testing facilities for people with coughs and fevers. Any positive result would have set off an intense contact tracing exercise.
Do they have any data at all on deaths attributed to vaccines or are they whistling Dixie.
The chart extends to January 11.
Deaths after Covid vaccines are 50x to 100x greater than
deaths in any year from 1990 through 2020
for all vaccines in that year.
I’ve said this before but you don’t listen
VAERS data include 1% to 10% of all vaccine adverse side effects
based on studies of the data..
21000 reported edeaths from COVID vaccines in 2021
versus 200 to 400 deaths reported in a typical year
for ALL vaccines in that year
is unprecedented.
Similar data are available for the EU and the UK.
Australia may be completely different.
So what?
‘More than 496 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through December 20, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.’ https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html
The problem then is to determine which are causal and which coincidental. In Australian there have 44,730,133 doses and perhaps 9 deaths caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. Do we assume this is a special case because of the vitality and vigour of the average Australian?
Building on your numbers: 0.0022% of 2021 vaccine recipients died in 2021. That is a life expectancy of 40,000 years.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS.
If 0.0022% of a group containing people of all ages die in a year, that group has a life expectancy of 40,000 years.
It is the data you decided to post. What did you want to prove?
You might consider that people die of other things – including most of that cohort.
That’s not what your post says. It says “VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.” Do they receive only reports of deaths caused the vaccine? I don’t know. It seems to be a totally meaningless number.
P.S. I am asking CDC for a clarification. If and when they reply, I’ll post more, probably on a new thread.
As I quite clearly said – the problem then is to determine which are causal and which coincidental. In Australian there have 44,730,133 doses and perhaps 9 deaths caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Richard and Robert. How many Americans should have died simply by chance within 1 day or 5 days of being vaccinated?
In the average year, 3.4 million Americans die, about 10,000 per day. So to a first approximation, we would expect 10,000 Americans to have died within one day of any single vaccination. With boosters, the average American had two chance to die within one day of vaccination. So we would expect 20,000 to have died within one day of vaccination. And 100,000 Americans would have died by chance within 5 days of any vaccination.
Now, someone on their death bed with cancer is unlikely to run out and get vaccinated the day before they die. However, those who have serious health problems are most vulnerable to COVID and are likely to get vaccinated. There is nothing scary about stories that 10,000 deaths have been recorded in the VAERS database.
So why don’t other vaccines given to older people like flu vaccines contain 10,000 reports of death after vaccination every year? Everyone knows that flu vaccines are safe, we’ve been giving them for decades. There is no need to report incident that aren’t clearly associated with vaccination. The CDC know that most incidents with flu vaccination are not indiscriminately reported because they don’t hear about 10,000 deaths a year! However, scary stories about the COVID vaccine widespread. People report their side effects. Furthermore, VAERS texted me to report on side effects after my three COVID vaccinations this year, but not after my flu vaccination. (It wouldn’t surprise me if the VAERS system were deliberately being fed false information.)
The best place to learn about vaccination side effects is during clinical trials, where those judging side effects have no idea of whether the victim received vaccine or placebo. More than 100,000 Americans have received a COVID vaccine in clinical trials this year and none has died. One young girl in a clinical trial tragically apparently has suffered serious immunological side effects after vaccination and she received vaccine, not placebo. Nevertheless, it is almost certainly far safer to get immunity to SARS2 through vaccination (which causes parts of the spike protein to be transiently express in muscle cells near the site of infection than get immunity from natural infections where the virus invades cells everywhere in the body with ACE2 receptors and TPSS (airways, heart, lung, kidney …) in an uncontrolled manner and the immune system sometimes gets out of control killing those invaded cells and kills the patient).
I linked several very recent studies with very different conclusions to each other, It’s a bit murky. Why don’t you try reviewing the 60 studies you say exist?
Another orphaned comment.
Ekkison continues his consistent Covid misinformation
Ny falsely claiming:
During this time, VAERS received 10,688 reports of death (0.0022%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.’
In fact, the VAERS database reflects 21,382 reported deaths
These reported deaths include US citizens and citizens from
other nations that used US vaccines and did not have
their own reporting system. The EU and UK both
have their own vaccine adverse effects reporting systems,
for two examples.
The deaths reported in 2021 for Covid vaccines can be
compared with deaths reported for ALL vaccines in
every year from 1990 through 2020.
A typical year has 200 to 400 deaths reported.
In case you had not noticed from my prior comments,
200 to 400 is MUCH different than over 21,000
Data Source:
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19
https://vaersanalysis.info/
Ellison some people would give you extra credit for consistency
but not for consistent Covid misinformation !
As I have said – reported deaths are the starting point. Each case then needs to be reviewed to distinguish between causality and coincidence. When that’s done – the vaccines are seen to be low risk. Sowing fear and doubt seems to be the real problem here.
Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature?
NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin. The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.
With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts?
What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?
I’ll tell you what it is:
It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.
Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ
This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.
Conclusion:
From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected VALUES of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.
Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47
Planet…….. Te…. Te.corrected…..Tsat…Rot/day
Mercury…..440 K…….364 K……340 K…0,00568
Moon……….270 K…….224 K……220 K.…0,0339
Earth………255 K…….210 K……288 K..….1
Mars……….210 K…….174 K…..210 K..…0,9747
Europa…….95,2 K……78,8 K….102 K…0,2816
Ganymede..107,1 K…..88,6 K…110 K….0,1398
Notice:
The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Note to the Website Comment Section Czar:
This may only apply to my old 2009 computer:
The comment box only displays one line at a time
and cuts off roughly the bottom quarter of every letter I type.
As a result I can barely see what I am typing to
correct typing errors. I wondered if anyone else had
this format problem.
While it is easy to refute Mr. Ellison’s Covid misinformation
and fun
it is difficult to proofread my comments as I type them
And that’s no fun.when trying to eliminate spelling errors.
I am not deliberately misspelling Mr. Ellison’s
name to insult him. I just can’t see what
I am typing clearly on the computer screen.
I would prefer to spell Mr. Ellison’s name correctly
when I refute his Covid comments
and then insult him !.
Anyone else have readability problems.
that started in the past week?
I encounter that same irritating situation of a peep-hole-sized comment box occasionally on other sites, so I create my comments in a Note Pad application and then paste them in after all editing is complete.
I have noticed several of my comments become covered with slime and mud, however……pun intended.
Not that “certain critics” will care, but a lady in my wife’s circle of friends has just been hospitalized this morning after suffering severe chest pains….she received her second or third Poison Jab last Friday…..what a coinckidinky.
We shall remain “Pure Bloods” in spite of the illegal “mandates” and offers of prizes and money for taking the Poison Jab. I understand that with the 10th Pfizer Jab, you receive a DONUT.
What i learned about Covid in 2020 and 2021:
My summary of what I learned about Covid in 2020 and 2021:
Masks do almost nothing. If you are infected, and do not social distance, and you cough or sneeze in the direction of a healthy person, without covering your mouth / nose with your hand, then a mask will reduce the spray distance. That does not add up to much.
Tests are inaccurate. You could get infected ten minutes after a negative test. Especially with Omicron.
Social distancing works for Covid. But for Omicron, social distancing requires you to be in a different room from an infected person, or in a different home!
Delta Covid is a Covid variant. It had two spike protein mutations versus the prior Covid variant, very similar symptoms (meaning it is sometimes deadly).
Omicron is not a Covid variant. It is a new coronavirus common cold. It had about 50 mutations versus Delta Covid, including about 30 mutations of the spike protein.
The symptoms are the same as any other coronavirus common cold. If there is a new virus, and it has the same symptoms as a common cold, then it is a common cold.
Omicron is nothing to fear, whether you are vaccinated or not. I am not vaccinated, to avoid adverse short term side effects, and unknown adverse long term side effects. I do take the following food supplements to strengthen my immune system: Vitamin C, Vitamin D, zinc and quercetin.
Vaccines are designed to prevent severe Covid symptoms and death. They do that, at least for a few months, at the expense of the worst adverse side effects,by far, of any vaccine in US history. But remember that 99.8% of Americans under age 60 survived Covid infections. So for them, the vaccines could only reduce deaths by 0.2 percentage points, even if they were 100% effective. That would be a tiny absolute risk reduction.
Omicron rarely requires hospitalization, and death is extremely rare (it would be a death with Omicron, not from Omicron). There are rarely severe symptoms that a vaccine could reduce, even if the vaccine was effective for Omicron, which it is not.
Natural antibodies after recovering from a prior Covid infection may be useful to prevent Omicron.
Natural antibodies after recovering from a coronavirus common cold are somewhat useful to prevent Delta Covid infections — suggesting Omicron natural antibodies may be somewhat useful to prevent Delta Covid infections too. But that remains to be seen.
Now for the good news:
If it is true per the CDC that almost all “Covid cases” are now Omicron, that suggests the pandemic will end in a few months. Mutations into a less deadly variant are how every pandemic ended in the past 100 years. Omicron is a lot less deadly than any Covid variant so far.
I can’t predict when the Covid fear porn and government fascism will end, or if it will ever end. I do know that Democrats want lots of Covid fear to exist this Summer, so they can implement absentee ballots for everyone voting in November 2022.
I wonder why?
European central banks have a new weapon against inflation that rivals the tool of raising interest rates. All they have to do is supply cheap money for more wind and solar. That will wreck the economy and eventually cool prices.
Soaring energy prices are putting the squeeze on European consumers desperate for some relief after two years of coronavirus, lockdowns and job worries.
The financial pain is taking a toll on households, who are more worried about prices than at any time this century, and feel less inclined to splurge, according to a European Commission survey. If demand suffers as a result, that has implications for how quickly the economy can fully recover from the destruction wrought by the pandemic.
Wholesale gas prices are up almost 300% in the past year because of unusually low storage levels, increased demand from economies emerging from the pandemic and capped flows from Russia.
That’s driven inflation higher, and Bank of America says the economy has “come under pressure from the consumer purchasing power squeeze.” It estimates that household energy costs will rise 50% this year, and aid from governments to shield households will only offset about a quarter of that.
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/energy-price-surge-squeezing-europe-050004574.html
December CPI up 7% over a year ago. Fasten your seat belt, this is going to be a bumpy ride.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/consumer-prices-rose-7-percent-december-previous-year-marking-third-st-rcna11668
I see Senator Liz is whining about Kroger having a profit and apparently in her economic and financial illiterate eyes this is the driving force in the global inflation phenomenon. Shame on them for having a gross margin of 1.93%. To the gallows with the corporate leadership team.
All this success shaming while she and the Democrats are trying to relax the $10,000 cap on SALT which will benefit her fat cat donors by some portion of $300 B in deductions that they will be taking in the future.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FI7biK5XIBICT7t?format=jpg&name=large
“Green” lefties seem to believe they can dictate solutions to what are sometimes imaginary problems, like CO2 emissions for instance. But they don’t even try to take into account the realities involved in the implementation of those solutions. The European energy crisis is one of those realities. Raw materials are another.
“Nickel stocks in LME warehouses are being drawn because they can be used to make nickel sulphate for the batteries used in electric vehicles,” said ING analyst Wenyu Yao.
https://globalrubbermarkets.com/2022/01/11/nickel-price-buoyed-by-strong-demand-dwindling-stocks-2/
The Limits of Soil Carbon Sequestration
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food/carbon-farming
I know some farmers. They have some program land. How well it works has doubt somewhere in the neighborhood. I am all for root mass and rich glacial till. Even if it doesn’t make the author happy, program land does other good things. Improves the watershed. It makes the soil better for the long run.
I came across another article that said words to the effect of, they’ve known for 10 years the carbon doesn’t stick in the ground long term very well. After a number of attempts to locate that article, no luck.
Let’s think about this. Healthy soil lives. Carbon is part of living plants. Sure the plant dies. Then what? Something eats that plant. If we want bricks of carbon two feet under the surface, how would you imagine they would be 100 year bricks? We know tree roots might be able to pull that off. We are not growing trees. This is prairie. When we plow, does the plow bring up all kinds of durable roots? No. We want that stuff to break down. We want corn. Not roots. Nobody is buying roots. Except the government in this case. Only we aint got many.
‘The global depletion of soil begins with a method of agriculture in which crops are harvested, but little or nothing is given back to the soil. The resulting loss of organic material, nutrients, and organisms leads to weakening of the soil’s structure. Structure is essential to the proper functioning of soil. Loss of structure leads to increased erosion and widespread compaction. When the physical environment no longer functions as a habitat, functional groups of organisms disappear. Key processes in the soil come to a halt. Among other things, this can result in the soil having reduced capacity to hold water or allow precipitation to flow through the soil profile. In areas where the soil is severely damaged, this in turn leads to poverty, hunger, refugees and war.’ https://northsearegion.eu/carbon-farming/news/carbon-capture-in-soil-a-bridge-to-the-future/
It is a matter of practices that create a positive moisture, nutrient and carbon balance. It’s permanent if these practices become the norm. Reversing ecological degradation is a key to the future regardless of global warming or cooling.
This may be what you were looking for. It laments the lack of a magic molecule that never was.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/soil-revolution-climate-change/619611/
Yes the Atlantic one was what got me thinking. Thank you,
“Soil researchers have concluded that even the largest, most complex molecules can be quickly devoured by soil’s abundant and voracious microbes.”
At the cartoon level, grow something underground that sticks. Carbon is the money of the plant world. It is a medium of exchange. If it were turned into something less a medium of exchange, it would stick better.
Mr. Ellison’s top lie about Covid vaccinations in Australia
“We overwhelmingly chose to be vaccinated’
Not mentioned are the mandates
pressuring people to “volunteer”.
Lying by omission of important facts.
I invested one minute to find a link
for one Australian state:
These rules are from October 2021
before Covid cases in Australia exploded:
https://www.wa.gov.au/government/announcements/mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-policy-wa-workforces
Bob Ellison, King of Covid Misinformation
continues his Reign of Error !
This of course applies to critical sectors – health, age and disability for instance. The COVID vaccination coverage is 92.1% of the population. Other vaccines have 95% coverage – sufficient to maintain population immunity. .
From the link above “ Politics of attributing extreme events and disasters to climate change”
“ Politics-sensitive analysis is needed to gauge the strategic value of climate-centric disaster attribution in any given context. Attributing the damages, even incremental damages, only to the climate change increment is incomplete and thus misleading—since even the increment can only be a function of the degree of vulnerability; the incremental damage, like disaster writ large, does not fall from the sky. We caution awareness: climate change never causes loss or damage independently of the social conditions on the ground in specific places; the degree to which climate change can trigger disaster depends on the degree to which people are already exposed and precarious. When explaining disaster, whether or not climate-related, we must explain and address such vulnerabilities—for which there are well-established analytic methods.”
Every institution can benefit from some introspection, even climate science.
Builds character.
Case in point. I’m sure if the right consultants were hired by greens and given enough imagination they could develop a narrative on why the nationwide electricity blackout in Kenya should be blamed on global warming.
https://www.voanews.com/a/kenya-experiences-nationwide-power-outage-after-electric-line-collapses/6392174.html
that or insufficient renewable energy
“Insanity cubed . . . “The tragedy of climate science.” How does stuff like this get published?”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/17565529.2021.2008855?needAccess=true
I agree with the final point of the article. There is no point in doing an AR7. Cut funding to climate science since the science has been settled for decades as the authors claim.
A view of the Duke test to stay study.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/deceptive-covid-study-unmasked-abc-misleading-omicron-north-carolina-students-duke-mask-test-to-stay-11641933613?st=yjdn9wow94mdcdx&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
2030th Unicorn Cavalry GREEN adiers, MOUNT UP!!!
The Cost of Net Zero Electrification of the U.S.A.
by Guest Blogger
The cost to achieve “Net Zero” is estimated at US$433 TRILLION !!!….the equivalent of over 20 times the US 2019 GDP. It would cost every adult (18 years and over) a total of US$1.7 MILLION !
Read more of this post
https://wp.me/p9SOJY-GGFJ
Is this a straw man or a windmill? Curious minds want to know.
$435 trillion?
Nut Zero is not feasible so will not happen by 2050.
I don’t kow how you can estimate costs for a project that can’t happen. Then there is the puzzle of whether or not nuclear power,
burning wood and maybe even natural gas are considered “green”
Finally, the 2018 AOC “Grrn New Ordeal” was costed by
a reputable budget analyst and the total was $93 trillion
over many years assuming the goals weere feasible
But when examining that number iit became obvious
about two thirds was for social programs unrelated
to energy. I wrote an article saying that at the time.
The Green New Ordeal as presented by AOC was mainly
socialist social programs. The bottom line is that
$$435 trillion for the USA alone is VERY hard to believe.
My qualification for judging the original $93 trillion
estimate are a Finance MBA and 43 years as editor of the
financial newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC,, from 1977 to 2020.
closing in on nominees for Climate Etc’s version of Godwin’s Law
Covid vaccines do nor provide immunity
They also have no effect on Omicron
Even the Pfizer CEO, your hero, admitted that
A broken watch appears to be right twice a day.
You can’t even manage that on Covid claims.
But I am happy your village escaped Covid destruction.
…told ya so….Omicron is hitting Vaccinated states hardest… Monster thread…
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/omicron-is-hitting-vaccinated-states-hardest-monster-thread/
Ivermectin success:
Indonesia cut Covid by 98% with Ivermectin while Australia grew cases 500% with Lock-n-Vax, Uttar Pradesh, India, wiped out Covid with ivermectin. In Peru, Ivermectin cut covid deaths by 75% in 6 weeks. The virus mysteriously disappeared in Japan. Can’t we copy them? Meanwhile countries that use hydroxychloroquine appear to have 80% lower Covid death rates. Maybe that matters?
India had much shorter waves and much smaller volume in their Covid waves that most every other European country and the US. India does have much greater use of Ivermectin in the general population. The pro – ivermectin studies show a slightly moderate positive results while the anti-ivermection studies show at best a neutral results.
India’s sucess with ivermectin is significant greater positive results from the pro-ivermectin studies. Given that huge delta between India positive results and the pro-ivermectin study results would indicate that there is some other factor that played/plays s a role in India’s sucess.
If ivermectin is playing a role in the shortness of India’s covid wave, it is more likely due to ivermectin playing a role in blocking covid from getting as big of a foothold in the infected person as opposed to being a viable treatment of covid.
It should be noted that treatments such as Ivermectin, HQC , the drip, etc work at the individual level, as a treatment for the infected, not so much at the at the population level to control the spread.
India has had very short and very small waves which are indicative of covid not getting a big foothold in the population. So a drug that is used for treatment is not going to have that big of an effect on controlling case rates
Joe, Ivermectin ‘Works Throughout All Phases’ Of COVID According To Leaked Military Documents
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/hidden-military-documents-reveal-nih-intent-create-sars-cov-2-using-gain-function-research
Update (1505ET): As more and more information pours out of the Project Veritas leaked military documents, there appears to be a damning section in support of Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment.
“Ivermectin (identified as curative in April 2020) works throughout all phases of illness because it both inhibits viral replication and modulates the immune response.”
‘In the United States, the highly transmissible Omicron variant is driving an uptick in COVID-19 cases, primarily among people who are unvaccinated—and this latest variant is infecting some people who are vaccinated as well. But the good news is that vaccines have proven to be effective against severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
It’s important to keep up, but it’s also a daunting task, given the flood of information (and misinformation) coming at us from so many directions.
Vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are being administered in the U.S. The Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC) endorses a preference for the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna vaccines. Booster shots are also recommended, and a “mix-and-match” approach allows adults to choose a different vaccine for their booster than the one they started with.’ https://www.yalemedicine.org/news/covid-19-vaccine-comparison
‘Real-world data from the United Kingdom has found that two vaccine doses are 52% effective at preventing hospitalization 25 weeks after receiving the second shot, according to data from the U.K. Health Security Agency…
Two-doses of Pfizer’s or Moderna’s vaccines are only about 10% effective at preventing infection from omicron 20 weeks after the second dose, according to the U.K. data.
A booster dose, on the other hand, is up to 75% effective at preventing symptomatic infection and 88% effective at preventing hospitalization, according to the data.’ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/10/pfizer-ceo-says-two-covid-vaccine-doses-arent-enough-for-omicron.html
Dick’s relentless pursuit of nonsense could get annoying – if I let it.
Ivermectin_Prophylaxis_Used_for_COVID-19_Reduces_COVID-19_Infection_and_Mortality_Rates_A_City-Wide_Prospective_Observational_Study_of_223128_Subjects_Using_Propensity_Score_Matching
Results: Of the 223,128 citizens of Itajaí considered for the study, a total of 159,561 66 subjects were included in the analysis; 113,845 (71.3%) regular ivermectin users and 67 45,716 (23.3%) non-users. Of these, 4,311 ivermectin users were infected, among 68 which 4,197 from the city of Itajaí (3.7% infection rate) and 3,034 non-users (from 69 Itajaí) were infected (6.6% infection rate), a 44% reduction in COVID-19 infection 70 rate (Risk ratio (RR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (95%CI), 0.53 – 0.58; p < 71 0.0001).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356962821_Ivermectin_Prophylaxis_Used_for_COVID-19_Reduces_COVID-19_Infection_and_Mortality_Rates_A_City-Wide_Prospective_Observational_Study_of_223128_Subjects_Using_Propensity_Score_Matching
Mom, what is “hypocrisy?”
It is claiming that healthcare is a basic human right while denying it to the “unvaccinated.”
Here goes Ellison again
“In the United States, the highly transmissible Omicron variant is driving an uptick in COVID-19 cases, primarily among people who are unvaccinated”
NOT TRUE
Vaccines make no difference they do not stop Covid infections much less
Omicron common cold infections
In fact vaccines encourage people to stop ort reduce social distancing which
does increase infections.
Every statement by Mr. Ellison on Covid has been wrong.
Unbelievable consistency.
There are no data for booster shots
They are for Covis
Omicron is not Covid
They will not work
Booster shots are to reduce serious Covid symptoms
Omicron rarely has serious symptoms to be reduced
At a recent Christmas part a friend in Birmingham
Michigan
invited 20 people to her small home. 18 were vaccinated
and two were unvaccinated. The host jokes to us that
she was throwing a “super spreader event”
The wife and I are not vaxxed and we warned her
that vaccines did nor prevent Omicron and it spread
verty easily, considering the large crown in her small house.
Everyone at the party caught Omicron and was sick
for a few days except the host who was triple vaccinated
and had recovered from COVID in 2021 — Lucky her.
Since the symptoms were justy like a cornonavirus common cold
the host was not too upset about her actual super spreader event.
You may return to spouting your Covid misinformation
Mr. Ellison. No one with sense is listening when you
falsely claim the Covid vaccines are safe and there was no pressure
on Australians to get the vaccines. Of course there was !
Give us a break from your coontinual Covid misinformation !
COVID vaccines are very low risk based on good quality adverse event monitoring in Australia. But the the point was on the difference in numbers of infections in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. It follows logically from the data on vaccines efficacy – and is consistent with information collected by health agencies.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/01/10/briefing/11-MORNING-CASES-CHART/11-MORNING-CASES-CHART-superJumbo-v3.png
Sources: New York City Department of Health, Washington Department of Health
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/briefing/omicron-deaths-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated.html
The only way they get to ignore it is to wave it all away as a conspiracy.
‘Pandemic of The Vaccinated’: Latest UK Health Data Shows Vaccinated Deaths Higher than Unvaccinated Deaths in Last Three Months by a whopping 4 of every 5 total Covid-19 deaths!
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf
The latest official health data from the British government shows that “fully vaccinated” individuals are not experiencing the robust protection against hospitalization or death that they were promised, but rather have alarmingly been contracting the virus, getting hospitalized, and even dying at a much higher number than the unvaccinated have been over the past few months.
As of December 5th, the vaccinated have accounted for a whopping 4 of every 5 total Covid-19 deaths in England since August 16th, 2021, according to The UK Health Security Agency’s Covid data.
Over those four months, there were 3,070 Covid-19 deaths among the unvaccinated population in England, compared to 12,058 deaths among the vaccinated population during the same time frame.
From the report TEWS cites – comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated populations.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/vaccine-effectiveness.png
See my quote fro Marx (Groucho that is) below.
There are any number of approaches to COVID therapeutics. Corticosteroids, antivirals, monoclonal antibodies…
The clinicians role is to chart a course to the safest and most effective treatment.
‘High-priority, evidence-based clinical COVID-19 guidelines updated with the latest research.’ https://covid19evidence.net.au/
Dick can’t find his arse with a map.
My neighbor, triple vaccinated, got COVID. He is a nurse. Therapeutics: vitamins, fruit, vegetables, aspirin, hot tea.
Vitamin D plays a role in bone health and the immune system. Vitamin D levels are associated with better lung function. Vitamin D has an impact on lung structure, respiratory muscle strength and immune response to respiratory pathogens. Sunshine works – as part of getting the nutrients we need. And we are all going to get COVID – triple vaxed or not. Maximise the chances of emerging free of long term morbidity. .
Be sure to avoid Ivermectin, HCQ, or Isoprinosin. They don’t generate any income for Pfizer.
I’d rather get the best treatment if it comes to it.
https://covid19evidence.net.au/
Me too. No ivermectin there, but it lists hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis. In the US, I asked my doctor to prescribe HCQ, he refused. Is an Australian doctor allowed to prescribe it?
Most things involve trade offs. You can’t bankrupt yourself for every threat. It’s evolution.
Sorry to hear about the many people you know.
You obviously know a lot of people
I don’t know that many people and those I know
were not volunyteering their vaccine side effects
(both DemocratsZ). One missed work for three days
and the other was exhausted for three days — beither ever
hheard of VAERS. Both were relative.
Another friend who produces special events and knows many hundreds of peopl reported that two apparently healthy aquaintanced died after Covid shots, so there was no way he was getting vaxxed.
Those deaths changed his thinking … and mine.
This is a friend of many decades who is trustworthy.
Is America Ready To Accept The Democrat Terms Of Surrender?
…So here they are. No one really believes Biden won. Leftist response to the pandemic was 100% politically agenda driven. The treasonous and humiliating retreat from Afghanistan, and the abandonment of American military assets, was fully intentional.
The vaccine is not lessening the spread, it is accelerating it and magnifying the adverse effects. Antifa/BLM riots were coordinated with Leftist governing officials, from municipalities to the federal level. As such, they constitute a full-fledged war on America. Big Tech censoring of free speech is willful participation in government suppression of its political opposition, making those corporations de facto militarized arms of the government.
Media collaboration in all of this, with their universal Fake News narrative, is on a par with any dictatorial propaganda machine.
It is imperative that Americans not grow weary of the battle or accept their “fate,” as dictated to them by the illicit powers claiming to be solidly in control over the Nation. Despite the entire DNC/media/Hollywood/Big Tech effort, the Biden Cabal is on the ropes with the American public. The crowds that show up to voice their disapproval, whenever the Biden motorcade drives through any American city, vastly outnumber the handful of muzzled and “socially distanced” minions who were brought to his staged campaign “rallies.” The willingness of the “Deep State” to lie through its seditious teeth, as it attempts to rewrite history and reality, changes nothing. This is no time to lose heart and throw in the towel.
https://conservativeplaybook.com/2022/01/11/is-america-ready-to-accept-democrat-terms-of-surrender/
https://thenewamericanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ENEMIES-1536×307.jpg
https://thenewamericanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/BBB-1536×307.jpg
https://thenewamericanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/000-26.jpg
I was in the mood to buy this morning. On the advice of Motley Fool I went outside my comfort zone and settled on George Kurtz’s cloud cybersecurity company Crowdstrike. Customer growth is good and each additional customer is pure profit. But I was and am interested in BHP’s counter cyclical potash play in Canada – and came across a series of vignettes on YouTube on energy, commodities and market demand and supply to 2040.
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 INTERACTING-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
The 288 K – 255 K = 33°C 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
But we know roughly what the mean temperature of the Earth is from measurement without needing any ‘new physics’ for which there is neither theory or observation.
And we should recognise that satellites do not measure the surface temperature of Earth.
But you, Robert, have admitted the 288K is Earth’s radiative temperature?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s a surface temperature.
> “And we should recognise that satellites do not measure the surface temperature of Earth.”
How it is measured then?
Do you have any published paper to refer to?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is a surface temperature that is higher because of absorption and emission of IR photons in the atmosphere – something not considered in your schema. Most IR emissions are not from the surface.
Have you seen this?
https://ibb.co/v1j1mms
I mean this:
https://i.ibb.co/xh7hGGm/IR-spectra-for-the-entire-atmosphere.jpg
How Earth’s 288K is measured then?
Do you have any published paper to refer to?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
After trashing Europe’s economy by enacting “green” energy policies, this BOE analyst now wants to trash the entire World’s economy with a global carbon tax. This depth of hubris and complete disregard of reality is breathtaking. Could it be willful ignorance or does she just hate everybody?
Mann has become an increasingly vocal advocate for global carbon pricing as a way to deliver on reducing emissions and stimulating growth. Last week, she called it a “holy grail” that could lead to “higher level of economic performance in the medium term” in addition to benefits for the climate.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/global-carbon-price-could-be-game-changer-boe-official-says-1.1707020
So Europe eschews nuclear power and instead uses coal? Go figure.
Another factor being highlighted is the aggressive energy transition goals put forward by the European governments without any safeguards in place. European leaders have been pushing to limit dependence on fossil fuels in favour of sustainable energy like solar and wind.
By the end of 2020, renewables surpassed fossil fuels as Europe’s main energy sources, accounting for 38 per cent of Europe’s electricity production as opposed to fossil fuels at 37 per cent. However, the effectiveness of using solar and wind is hindered by the main problem: intermittency. Though solar and wind are able to produce enough energy with the right environmental conditions, it is largely affected by seasonal changes, influencing the level of energy output.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the wind in the North Sea off the coast of Britain stopped blowing last September. This rendered wind farms in the area ineffective in producing adequate electricity consistently to meet energy demands. Britain’s system operator ended up having to ask Électricité de France, a state-owned multinational French company, to restart a coal plant in Nottinghamshire to supply electricity. However, this fallback option will not last long as the British government called for all coal plants to close by 2024.
https://iasgazette.com/2022/01/13/europes-energy-crisis-present-to-future/
While reading “The concept of plausibility in risk assessment “ I thought back to an interview I was watched of Zbigniew Brzezinski in 2011 within which he was discussing the protests in Egypt and the movement to remove their President Mubarak. Brzezinski confidently said “They will never get rid of Mubarak.” Literally the next morning Mubarak was gone.
Brzezinski was arguably one of the foremost experts on Egypt and the political dynamics involved. And yet he was completely wrong.
Expertise is based on what was. That doesn’t necessarily translate into expertise of what will be.
The disaster at Fukushima happened at about the same time. Risk analysis was certainly performed for the facility. Or was it? I found this “ ….the National Diet of Japan concludes that its investigative commission ‘found ignorance and arrogance unforgivable for anyone or any organization that deals with nuclear power”
And “ …(the US National Research Council) discusses probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), which it frames into three questions, what can go wrong, how likely is it to happen, and what are the consequences if it does happen. The report states that there were no PRAs for tsunamis in Japan in 2011, and were still under development in November 2012.”
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2014.0379
In the quest for knowledge about plausibility and probability, perhaps the first step is to gain as much knowledge as we can about ourselves and what we know versus what we think we know and our proclivity for hubris.
What we don’t know is the consequences – much as people like to imagine they do – of pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a complex dynamical Earth system.
So if we don’t know what the consequences are of pouring CO2 into the atmosphere, why are we asked to commit trillions to stop it? Prudence would seem to dictate to wait, observe and then make decisions.
Certainty – other than that there are risks – is not possible. But I do not suggest spending trillions on transforming societies and economies. Perhaps you should consider Plan B. That always works.
I’m sure there are many plans, B or otherwise, that may one day work. Obviously I’m saying why consider any if there’s no need. If we don’t know the consequences, nor have any present evidence of catastrophe, there is no need to change. Note that I’m not saying we shouldn’t experiment with, nor introduce, different technologies. We should but not through any false representation of reality, and in a more ‘natural’ ordered pace. Fossil fuels work quite well, and should serve us long into the future, not to mention 3rd world societies.
Innovation is delivered by entrepreneurs and not Monday
True. But they shouldn’t use snake oil to sell their wares.
Reality is that world energy systems are rapidly changing one way or another. Innovation is delivered by entrepreneurs. The race may not always go the the swift – but it’s a good bet that it will.
And the evidence shows that at 1000 odd ppm CO2 – possible this century with high fossil fuel powered economic growth – the world was a very different place.
Yes, the earth was lush.
I haven’t been in Arizona long, yet I can see how it has greened substantially. Arid and semi-arid areas should do remarkably well with more CO2. More CO2 less water consumption. Where’s the evidence of catastrophe? Someone (NASA?) just said 2021 was 1.5 degrees F warmer. Okay. Is that a catastrophe?
There are no clear answers. People can believe that CO2 is dangerous. That’s their right. They can pass the collection plate around, but till I’m a believer they should get their hand out of my pocket.
And there were crocodiles in the Arctic circle.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/cloud-ts.png
Besides in a democracy people may argue for whatever – and the majority want sensible solutions.
You use the word ‘solution’. Again, that’s assuming there’s a problem. Where’s the problem? I am open to listening.
Solutions are energy innovation, conserving and restoring global ecosystems, pollutant reduction and building resilient infrastructure.
CKid: Brzezinski, a Polish exile, was an expert on Eastern Europe and Russia. See the books he published. As Carter’s National Security Advisor, he was closely involved with the Israel-Egypt peace negotiations, but Mubarak was overthrown thirty years later, when Brzezinski was in his mid-80’s. Since he supported Bush over Dukakis in 1988 and opposed the invasion of Iraq under Bush II, Brzezinski wasn’t a trusted insider of any administration in his later years. To consider him an expert on Egypt in his mid-80’s seems absurd.
The Diet is Japan’s Congress. Of course, the Japanese Congress was highly critical after Fukushima. That’s what politicians do.
You questioned whether tsunami risk analysis was performed at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. The authors of the paper you linked cited a quote from an NRC report about Fukushima, which has seven pages comparing how the US and Japanese use of probabilistic risk assessments (PRA) in has evolved. The sentence you quoted is from this section and doesn’t accurately convey the conclusion this section or the report. The main criticism in the report was Japan’s slow response to new information about the tsunami hazard.
https://www.nap.edu/read/18294/chapter/20
Almost 20,000 Japanese lost their lives in the largest earthquake in Japanese history. Although some radioactive material escaped and massive damage was done at one of five sites with 15 nuclear reactors, no one died. Arguably, no increased risk of cancer (especially thyroid cancer which can be easily cured) hasn’t materialized. Depending on your perspective and the scope of the natural disaster, one could look at this as a success or failure.
It has been nearly 15 years since stupid remarks at RC about the unimportance of An Inconvenient Truth’s failure to distinguish between correlation and causation and nasty remarks about someone I didn’t know named McIntyre prompted me to investigate Climateaudit. After carefully checking, I decided Steve’s allegations were usually reliable. I cheered each new post on dubious science and then the revelations of Climategate. However, as the disdain for experts and the establishment has grown and conspiracy theories have exploded since then, I have come to the conclusion that there are very few McIntyre’s in the world. And while I’m sure that the political preferences of many experts too often pollute the scientific message they should be conveying, their critics rarely have nothing informative or reliable to add. The critics and conspiracy theorists deserve more scrutiny.
Raising the price of energy to a level where more expensive alternatives are economically viable is not a way to increase productivity. They may argue for it but the world is still not listening. The BOE should stick to its knitting – stop printing money and target inflation.
The world – public and private – is pouring billions into advanced nuclear reactors. It is known how to reduce nuclear costs by half. Standardised designs and an experienced workforce and regulators. Factory fabrication of reactors takes that to another level.
‘Blessed are the cracked, for they shall let in the light.’ Marx
U.K. government says vaccinated are dying at a rate 286% higher than unvaccinated
Wednesday, January 12, 2022
https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-01-12-uk-government-vaccinated-dying-286-percent-higher-unvaccinated.html
The latest data from the British government shows a disturbing trend among the “fully vaccinated,” who are very clearly dying at a significantly higher rate than the unvaccinated.
According to the figures, there are 286 percent more deaths occurring now among people who got jabbed for the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) compared to people who left their immune systems and DNA alone.
Upwards of one million people have suffered serious injuries or died so far from the shots. And this is a conservative estimate based on official government data, which is known to be under-reported.
From the source – comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated populations.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/vaccine-effectiveness.png
See the comment above.
BABYLON BEE – “Unvaccinated Man Feeling Left Out As All His Vaccinated Friends Have COVID”
https://youtu.be/tfR7Qfhy_XI
Let’s join cancel culture. I’ve reported this video. It might mislead people into not getting vaccinated – when the UK government health agency data shows that vaccines work. 🤣
Again if yo missed it.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/vaccine-effectiveness.png
TEWS_Pilot | January 13, 2022
–
“U.K. government says vaccinated are dying at a rate 286% higher than unvaccinated”
–
Despicable choice of statistics on your part.
Unvaccinated people include children and teenagers and younger who are extremely unlikely to die in the first place.
–
What this says is death is related to your age, Older people who have a much higher rate of death die 286% faster than young people. Vaccinated or not.
–
Take a sample of old vaccinated people compared to old unvaccinated people [same death rates in general] and check what happens when they get Covid. Far more older people then die.
It is not what the report says. It simply isn’t true. A wildly distorted product of… God only knows what.
The Aussies are ready for anything
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJBHFXaXoAAANy9?format=jpg&name=small
No Vax Djokovic is not being allowed to stay.
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/53e57b_6265e005de2c49f9890198b5aaabf6d6~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_709,h_490,al_c,lg_1,q_90/53e57b_6265e005de2c49f9890198b5aaabf6d6~mv2.webp
These two papers indicate that in the last decade or so, formation of highly saline cold deep water formation around the margin of Antarctica has increased and strengthened. In the long term more cold deep water supply from Antarctica will result in a cooling effect on global climate. Antarctica is the biggest global source of cold saline bottom water which drives the Thermo Haline Circulation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-71290-6
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav2516
Both good and interesting papers
Related to the same dynamics.
“ Changes of these thermohaline characteristics in the RS linked to AABW formation will likely have substantial impacts at the global scale by impacting thermohaline circulation ”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc995
A citation in the above link
“ Deep-water formation in the Northern Hemisphere has long received much attention as the axis of climate change. The upwelling branch in the Southern Ocean is now being recognized as a vital component of our climate system and an equally important agent of global change”
http://oceans.mit.edu/JohnMarshall/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Closure-of-the-meridional-overturning_134.pdf
Thanks! I really like Marshall and Speer’s new 3D THC diagram and the recognition of the importance of Southern Hemisphere upwelling. The SH bosses the ocean generally – there’s just more of it there.
New study confirms nature controls atmospheric CO2…Skrable, Chabot, and French limit human CO2 effect to 48 ppm
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/skrable-chabot-and-french-limit-human-co2-effect-to-48-ppm-in-2020/
It begs the question of what’s different this time around.
https://nca2009.globalchange.gov/sites/default/files/images/1_Global_Page13-e.png
Here is a link to some Japanese newspaper articles:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/30/year-in-review-2/#comment-968736
Here is some translated text about ivermectin from one of those
https://judithcurry.com/2021/12/30/year-in-review-2/#comment-968737
These can be translated via Google Translate. Just copy the Japanese text to the left pane and the English translation appears on the right pane.
https://translate.google.com/
Results: Among 556 screened patients, 400 were enrolled and 363 completed follow-up. The mean patient age was 40 years, and 59% were men. The median recovery time was 7 (4-10, treatment group) and 9 (5-12, placebo group) days (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.90). The number of patients with a ≤7-day recovery was 61% (treatment group) and 44% (placebo groups) (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.09). The proportion of patients who remained RT-PCR positive on day 14 and whose disease did not progress was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the placebo group.
Conclusions: Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04523831.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/
Mr. Elllison’s source claims vaccines reduce infections
They do not reduce infections
Therfore no other data from the source can be trusted
More Covid misinformation
from the King of Covid Misinfoemation.
Dick has pulled a major boner yet again.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1039677/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_49.pdf
Throughout the pandemic, senior advisers and institutions have failed to challenge a post-truth government. It bodes ill for the climate crisis.
https://www.newstatesman.com/health-science/2022/01/quiet-uncritical-obedient-how-the-uks-scientists-failed-the-pandemic-test
In the weeks before Christmas, as Covid case numbers rose again, Conservative MPs targeted England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty. He was “unelected”, Joy Morrissey wrote in a since deleted tweet: “This is not a public health socialist state.” In the Commons, backbenchers accused Whitty of excessive caution in his advice to reduce socialising. Greg Smith complained that the chief medical officer had “press[ed] the panic button way beyond what this House voted for”.
The dismissal of scientific expertise was the natural endpoint of a relationship between science and politics that has been problematic since the pandemic began. The barbs aimed at Whitty were shameful, especially in the wake of the public harassment he had received. And although England’s deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam received less overt opposition from MPs, it was notable that, when he announced on 13 January that he would be stepping down from his role, he thanked his fellow scientists but none of the politicians he had worked alongside.
Yet it would be a mistake to portray this as a conflict between ignorant politicians and forthright scientists; at times there has been a dangerous complicity between the two. The Johnson government has lied to the public, disregarded its own rules, handed out deals to friends, destroyed public trust, and been generally incompetent. And yet its scientific advisers have pursued their jobs as if it were business as usual. It is delusional to think you can give advice to Boris Johnson in the same objective manner as you would to, say, Gordon Brown. The determination to do so has contributed to “one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced”, in the words of a damning report on the early pandemic response published last October by two parliamentary science committees.
[SNIP]
If in Britain chief scientists aren’t willing to openly criticise bad policy and poor performance on climate issues, we will have to expect the worst. And if scientists and their institutions continue to shrug and carry on as before, to consider themselves objective public servants while indulging in the fantasy that they boldly “speak truth to power”, they will be fatally complicit.
Mr Ellison’s source is the UK Health Security Agency COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report – Week 49
On which tews blogononsense link is supposedly based!!!!
OH! NOES! Could the GOVERNMENT have LIED to the PEOPLE?
You must have missed this……Throughout the pandemic, senior advisers and institutions have failed to challenge a post-truth government. It bodes ill for the climate crisis.
https://www.newstatesman.com/health-science/2022/01/quiet-uncritical-obedient-how-the-uks-scientists-failed-the-pandemic-test
In the weeks before Christmas, as Covid case numbers rose again, Conservative MPs targeted England’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty. He was “unelected”, Joy Morrissey wrote in a since deleted tweet: “This is not a public health socialist state.” In the Commons, backbenchers accused Whitty of excessive caution in his advice to reduce socialising. Greg Smith complained that the chief medical officer had “press[ed] the panic button way beyond what this House voted for”.
The dismissal of scientific expertise was the natural endpoint of a relationship between science and politics that has been problematic since the pandemic began. The barbs aimed at Whitty were shameful, especially in the wake of the public harassment he had received. And although England’s deputy chief medical officer Jonathan Van-Tam received less overt opposition from MPs, it was notable that, when he announced on 13 January that he would be stepping down from his role, he thanked his fellow scientists but none of the politicians he had worked alongside.
Yet it would be a mistake to portray this as a conflict between ignorant politicians and forthright scientists; at times there has been a dangerous complicity between the two. The Johnson government has lied to the public, disregarded its own rules, handed out deals to friends, destroyed public trust, and been generally incompetent. And yet its scientific advisers have pursued their jobs as if it were business as usual. It is delusional to think you can give advice to Boris Johnson in the same objective manner as you would to, say, Gordon Brown. The determination to do so has contributed to “one of the most important public health failures the United Kingdom has ever experienced”, in the words of a damning report on the early pandemic response published last October by two parliamentary science committees.
[SNIP]
If in Britain chief scientists aren’t willing to openly criticise bad policy and poor performance on climate issues, we will have to expect the worst. And if scientists and their institutions continue to shrug and carry on as before, to consider themselves objective public servants while indulging in the fantasy that they boldly “speak truth to power”, they will be fatally complicit.
Yet deaths of vaccinated people are still not 296% greater than deaths in the unvaccinated.
Terry suggested above that any ‘government is both a drain on productivity and a suppression of freedom and individuality.’
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-968782
But there is a more profound freedom for a classic liberal that neither conservatives or socialists value sufficiently. Within a context of democracy and the rule of law – we may argue for balanced budgets and modest government. Socialists may equally argue for whatever.
‘When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.’ https://press.uchicago.edu/books/excerpt/2011/hayek_constitution.html
“ yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.’
As, for example, mandating vaccination for people.
Thanks for making my point.
Misconstruing Hayek shows that you have no point.
Misunderstanding plain English means you are being obtuse.
When I think about it – I am classic liberal in tradition of the Scottish Enlightenment. Thinking that influenced the US founding fathers. The use of the term by Hayek must be understood in the historic cotext.
‘Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called “liberalism” was here the common
tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves “liberals.” I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal
the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term “liberal” in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of
rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.’ https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf
The specific passage – from Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty – reflects on the commitment of a ‘classic liberal’ to democracy and the rule of law.
Misunderstanding plain Englisg means you are being obtuse.
The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared
We are dealing with the long ago established blackbody EM ENERGY emission THEORY with a very precise and a very accurate approach.
Here’s the Wikipedia definition of a black body – “A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence. … It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.”
“It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.”
Please, anyone, where in the definition of the blackbody is said that blackbody is warmed by the “incident electromagnetic radiation”?
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
“absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
It is said so in the definition for the necessary reason to underline the notion that blackbody’s emission is purely the blackbody’s surface state temperature function, and should not be confused with any other source’s incident radiation reflection.
…………………………..
In real objects, when deriving the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law J=σT^4, the incident from surrounding environment the low temperature radiation falling upon the surface of hot filaments’, which filaments were used in experiments for blackbody emission measurements, this environment originated low temperature incident radiation was simply omitted as negligible…
The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.
…………………
But to come to terms with this very important notion the real radiating bodies’ radiative balance (energy in =energy out) should be very much correctly estimated. Thus we come again to the Φ -factor and to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Chistos’ ruminations are utterly misguided.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/90/3/2008bams2634_1.xml
Why, Robert? I always agree with your ruminations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Blackbodies are entirely irrelevant.
Yes, and now the blackbody term is applied to every possible case, and it is applied to the irradiated surfaces too, which is not correct. Matter does not absorb EM energy in total, matter interacts with EM energy.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It works better if the planet doesn’t have an atmosphere.
For that you need Schwarzschild’s equation for radiative transfer.
Does Schwarzschild’s equation for radiative transfer calculate Earth’s surface temperature
Tmean =288K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Radiative transfer is obviously more to do with power flux in the atmosphere. The skin temperature is determined from a global network of meteorological stations. More recently skin temperature from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite is looking more reliable.
https://cfn-live-content-bucket-iop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/journals/1748-9326/14/4/044030/1/erlaafd4ef1_lr.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAYDKQL6LTV7YY2HIK&Expires=1642881948&Signature=T7Y%2ByvsQZgCMUo43UO3vvKRFT2Y%3D
https://cfn-live-content-bucket-iop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/journals/1748-9326/14/4/044030/1/erlaafd4ef2_lr.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAYDKQL6LTV7YY2HIK&Expires=1642881948&Signature=H9y92RjKKwj86trxApKsDFCOVSM%3D
Learn how to do a literature review. Everything starts there – one can’t build without understanding foundations.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018JD029522
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aafd4e/meta
Blackbody theory was developed initially by Kirchhoff for bodies in thermal equilibrium. It never has applied to bodies of different temperatures.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That’s the least interesting climate fact imaginable.
It appears the US is approaching a peak in Omicron infections. The UK already passed peak and deaths are still increasing a bit, but nothing compared to past peaks.
https://graphics.reuters.com/world-coronavirus-tracker-and-maps/countries-and-territories/united-kingdom/
The “Green” energy joke is on Europe!
(Bloomberg) — A Swedish power plant that’s vital to keeping the country’s lights on used almost eight times more oil last year as the energy crunch boosted demand for the dirtiest fuels.
It’s the latest evidence of how combating global warming has taken a backseat as Europe faces a historic energy crisis. Burning oil is a reliable source of generating power — but among the most polluting methods — and adds to the rising use of coal and natural gas needed to meet demand in the region.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/swedish-power-plant-burns-lots-more-dirty-fuel-to-keep-lights-on-1.1707628
The efficacy of vaccines is determined by comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Repeating your narrative nonsense endlessly is a bit of a bore.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/vaccine-effectiveness.png
Living in the UK I have a rather different perspective on this subject, RIE.
While I acknowledge statistical ‘evidence’ I am suspicious of it at the same time. So much of the UK data has been proven to be mistaken or misleading with several highly competent statisticians showing why.
Leading (often non-conformist) epidemiologists and others in England have argued that the datasets provided by the NHS/PHE & ONS have major shortcomings and omissions and are therefore misleading. Some have argued this has been deliberate government and public health authority massaging of data in order to add to the scare factor.
Certainly there’s much cause to question official COVID-19 data across the board from the very beginning of the epidemic to the present day. It is highly likely the pro-vaccine policy is also being massaged via misleading data and studies. This isn’t a time to trust politicians or their ‘experts’ because they have been shown to be consistently wrong for two whole years now. The first expert I heard speaking about SARS-CoV-2 in late February 2020 said – ‘You have to learn to live with a virus because you are never going to stop it. It may stop itself, but we are largely powerless because it may mutate and get worse before it gets better.’
When we have a jab, like any other medical procedure or treatment we are warned about dangers, harms and side effects etc., and asked if we consent to the procedure or treatment. If we choose not to consent to a procedure or treatment we are likewise advised of the consequences (we may get sick, sicker, etc.). There has never been victimisation via refusal before (perhaps because the evidence has itself been very persuasive) and that is where intelligent concern to protect those who don’t want to be jabbed from intimidation should enter the frame when there are doubts about the data. There are still good reasons for people to doubt the efficacy of the vaccines although that is not the reason I remain unjabbed.
At no time during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic have I been tested for COVID-19; at no time have I been asked if I have suffered the symptoms of it; at no time have I been sure that I have not been in contact with a COVID-19 infected person. I refuse to use my mobile ‘phone as a government tool.
I will not waste money on unnecessary testing or GP visits just to be told (as has happened before) ‘it’s probably a touch of ‘flu’. How would I know of the need to be tested given that Omicron symptoms have been described as similar to a cold whereas previously Delta was clearly stated as ‘flu like with a temperature, an impediment to smell, and a cough? Well I had a temperature and a cough prior to the UK’s first lockdown and spent four days in bed prior to feeling much better, returning to work and socialising again after a week. No one else in my cohort was sick before me or got sick around me and so what caused my illness and if it was COVID-19 haven’t I now got better protection than a jab according to all the data there is?
Why should I get a vaccination for something I may have had, recovered from and are just as likely (if not more so) to be infected again and then infect someone else after I have been vaccinated?
Why have we made such a dog’s dinner out of dealing with this virus when I have seen much worse go by in my lifetime and not be met by such hysteria. I know COVID-19 has led to many excess, even unnecessary, deaths but I do wonder how many have been caused by misguided policy rather than the seriousness of the virus and the disease itself.
.
The clinical trials for the two mRNA vaccines was cut short. They didn’t have time to determine the long term efficacy and certainly not long enough time to get a handle on adverse events. That’s why there had to be an “emergency” approval. They let people die needlessly by ignoring existing drugs, some OTC and some that had to be prescribed.
h t t p s : / / c 1 9 e a r l y . c o m /
John Sutherland
While this comment is not related to the previous discussion, I would welcome some input about the role that methane is purported to have on global warming.
As I understand the matter, greenhouse gases function by absorbing some of the infra-red radiation emitted by the earth, thereby delaying its return to space.
Methane’s concentration in the atmosphere is about one five thousandth that of water vapour, the dominant greenhouse gas. In addition, its absorbs infra-red only in two wave lengths, 3.5 and 8 microns. In both of these wave lengths, it competes directly with water vapour.
Although methane is a very effective absorber in those two narrow bands (perhaps about 100 times greater than water vapour), the fact that it only absorbs in those bands and that its actual concentrations is so much lower than that of water vapour would seem to rule it out as a significant greenhouse gas.
I don’t endorse mindlessly spewing methane into the atmosphere; but my understanding is that methane only lasts about 8 years in the atmosphere. So while it may be a significant GHG, it doesn’t have a profound long-term effect on AGW. This won’t stop the greenies from lobbying against it as a clean energy alternative, it’s a fossil fuel after all, and therefore must be damned in order to remain politically correct.
Jungletrunks: Greenies mostly object to methane as a source of CO2, which persists in the atmosphere for centuries. It doesn’t matter that methane produces roughly four-fold (IIRC) more electricity per ton of CO2 emitted than coal (and far fewer particulates). If the greenies were clever, they would let wasted methane drive up temperature now, knowing that it will be mostly gone when more severe difficulties arrive in the second half of the century. However, they are trapped in their illusion that climate changes is already a serious problem.
Let’s first see what the science is.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/aad832cd-2f85-4aec-bbce-c1c230bf9584/grl55302-fig-0003-m.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL071930
And while fugitive CH4 emissions from pipes and mines is an issue – most comes from agriculture. In a red meat industry under threat – carbon neutrality is not just possible but profitable.
https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/Environment-sustainability/carbon-neutral-2030-rd/cn30/
The paper Judith linked above on “Biased Estimates of Climate Sensitivity” is quite interesting, because it identifies multiple “pattern effects”. The low climate sensitivity calculated from energy balance models during the satellite era is attributed in part to unforced variability (chaos) producing cooling in the Eastern Pacific during this period (that is not seen in hundreds of AOGCM historic simulations). However, the low climate sensitivity deduced from the instrumental period (Lewis and Curry 2018) is associated with a different pattern of warming (mostly in the Indian Ocean?) that also isn’t seen in historic simulations. The authors also found that the ocean heat uptake efficiency observed in the GFDL and Hadley models differed substantially between 1% pa experiments (where only CO2 increases) and historic experiments (with all forcing changes) reducing the calculated TCR by 0.7 degK. This brought the TCR of the GFDL model (1.32 degK) into agreement with LC18. Four of eight models agree with LC18 when TCR is deduced from historic simulations. Although the authors didn’t explicitly say so, differences in ocean heat update are likely the result of different patterns of warming. A non-paywalled version of the paper can be found here;
https://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Dong_etal_2021.pdf
Though I may be imagining things, the authors (which include Armour, Andrews and Forster) may be having more doubts about models. They conclude by saying:
“the projections by GCMs are confronted by not only uncertainties associated with atmospheric physics, for example, cloud feedback response to a given SST pattern, but also an open question: how reliable are model projections of future SST patterns? AOGCMs generally fail to reproduce the observed historical SST pattern, which led to an inconsistency between EffCS estimates from coupled historical runs and those from amip runs and observations. If the observed SST trend pattern is caused by natural variability, which will reverse sign in the coming decades according to AOGCM projections (Watanabe et al., 2021), then the higher values of EffCS and TCR found within AOGCMs may be more informative about near-future climate change under continued CO2 forcing. If the recently observed SST trend pattern is a result of model biases in the response to GHG forcing (e.g., Coats & Karnauskas, 2017; Seager et al., 2019), the lower values of EffCS_his and TCR_his from observations may persist over the coming decades, in which case 21st CENTURY WARMING MAY BE LOWER THAN THAT PROJECTED EVEN BY GCMS WITH REALISTIC ECS VALUES. This work suggests that both understanding the causes of the recent observed warming pattern and making accurate projections of future warming patterns are important for constraining transient and near-equilibrium climate change.”
The authors imply that some models have unrealistically high climate sensitivities and then cast doubt on the remain models???
Personally, I’ve always believed that the failure of 100 historic runs of the MPI model to simulate the pattern of warming observed in the Pacific in the satellite era rejected the hypothesis that this pattern was caused by unforced variability. In science, observations that fall outside the 95% confidence interval of model predictions traditionally invalidate any hypothesis, and here the observations are outside the 99% confidence interval! At a minimum, it invalidates the hypothesis that the model can simulate both climate sensitivity and unforced variability. The same rational applies to the multi-model mean.
One big (though poorly publicized) failing of AOGCM is that many produce 50% too few marine boundary layer clouds. (Most of those clouds are found in the Eastern Pacific where models predict too much warming in the satellite era, though this may be a coincidence.) Since MBLCs reflect SWR without a major reduction in OLR, they are the most “cooling” clouds and the planet. When models are tuned to produce the appropriate imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, it is likely that a compensating error is introduced.
‘This non-equilibrium behavior is due to a combination of nonlinear and random effects. We give here a unified treatment of such effects from the point of view of the theory of dynamical systems and of their bifurcations. Energy balance models are used to illustrate multiple equilibria, while
multi-decadal oscillations in the thermohaline circulation illustrate the transition from steady states to periodic behavior. Random effects are introduced in the setting of random dynamical systems, which permit a unified treatment of both nonlinearity and stochasticity. The combined treatment of nonlinear and random effects is applied to a stochastically perturbed version of the classical Lorenz convection model. Climate sensitivity is then defined mathematically as the derivative of an appropriate functional or other function of the systems state with respect to the bifurcation parameter.’ http://research.atmos.ucla.edu/tcd//PREPRINTS/Math_clim-Taipei-M_Ghil_vf.pdf
Models can be forced with observed cloud and ice and cad simulate CERES data.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL086705
Models mostly miss internal variability.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
But the elephant in the climate sensitivity room is something else.
Michael Ghil, 2013, explored the idea of abrupt climate change with an energy balance climate model that follows the evolution of global surface-air temperature with changes in the global energy balance. The plot below originates from work for Ghil’s Ph.D. thesis in 1975 (Ghil pers com) and was reproduced in a 2013 World Scientific Review article to illustrate a dynamic definition of climate sensitivity.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/unstable-ebm-fig-2-jpg1.jpg
Ghil’s model shows that climate sensitivity (γ) is variable. It is the change in temperature (ΔT) divided by the change in the control variable (Δμ) – the tangent to the curve as shown above. Sensitivity increases moving down the upper curve to the left towards the bifurcation and becomes arbitrarily large at the instability. The problem in a chaotic climate then becomes not one of quantifying climate sensitivity in a smoothly evolving climate but of predicting the onset of abrupt climate shifts and their implications for climate and society. The problem of abrupt climate change on multi-decadal scales is of the most immediate significance.
Climate models solve a boundary value problem, not an initial value problem, and it doesn’t matter whatsoever whether they captured a few years of fluctuation in surface temperatures, it matters whether they can project temperature decades in the future.
When adjusted for actual forcings, which of course must be done before judging them, climate models hold up quite well:
“We find that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful [14 of 17 projections] in predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between model‐projected and observationally estimated forcings were taken into account.”
“Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections,” Hausfather et al, Geo Res Lett 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378
figure:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1202271427807678464?lang=en
When people like Robert, who like to forever complain about everything but can’t calculate something as simple as the Hurst exponent of the HadCRUT5 time series, show how a climate model is supposed to incorporate the nonlinear equations he wants and still calculate in a reasonable amount of time (viz, in less than the 1-2 months they already take to run), he might — might — be worth listening to.
Until then he’s just blathering as usual.
BTW Robert: Where is the hiatus?
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.html
The Hurst exponent has been calculated for hundreds of hydroclimatic series – as well as in other fields. What it shows it that similar sixed events cluster in regimes and then shift to new mean and variance.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02626667.2015.1125998
Surface temperatures inflect at multidecadal shifts in ocean and atmospheric circulation. It is not remotely comparable to the data in hydroclimatic series – and is not a suitable subject for analysis of Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics. Yet again David wants to play this silly little game. Let David waste his own time instead of ours.
e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030288
What is this about models yet again? Does he understand nothing of Lorenzian dynamics?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/cmip-6-1.png
Each of the models in the CMIP 6 opportunistic ensemble have an ‘irreducible imprecision’ or ‘evolving uncertainty’ – however one wants to put it. Below is an example of a single model run 1000’s of times with slightly perturbed parameters. The rest is a work in progress. Yet they somehow continue to insist on the verisimilitude of models.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/rowlands-fig-1-e1612040479369.png
He might say something useful one day – until then it is just simple minded pestilence.
Solutions to boundary value problems satisfy both (1) the differential equations and (2) the specified boundary conditions. Boundary value problems have conditions specified at the extremes of the independent variables. If the independent variables include time, then values for the dependent variables, in the form necessary for a well-posed problem, must be specified at the extreme value of time that is of interest in the applications.
Therein is one of the problems with application of the concept Boundary Value Problem to applications for which time is an independent variable. Values of the dependent variables at future time cannot be specified whenever projecting dependent variables to future time is an application objective. Simply does not make any sense.
Every GCM/ESM is formulated as an Initial Value Boundary Value Problem, wherein values of some dependent variables are specified along the spatial boundaries, in a formulation that is necessary to set a well-posed problem, and initial values specified for dependent variables throughout the spatial domain. Values of dependent variables at the future end time of the application cannot be specified. You can’t specify what you’re trying to project.
Additionally, all GCMs/ESMs employ non-linear equations. In the absence of non-linearity, the observed chaotic trajectories of the solutions of the equation system could not be present.
For systems in the physical domain that are open with respect to energy flows, the energy leaving the systems cannot be specified as a boundary condition. That energy flow is determine completely and solely by the physical phenomena and processes occurring within the domain.
ps: The Laws of Physics do not require that systems open with respect to energy flows attain any specific state.
Some animals are “more equal” than the others…Yachts To Be Exempt From EU’s Carbon Pricing Plan
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/yachts-be-exempt-eus-carbon-pricing-plan
Small beer that serves as an excuse for another extremist rant hinting at a conspiracy to save the uber-rich a few bucks. Whether true or not – experience with tews suggests the latter – there is a much
bigger picture.
We can and likely will replace avgas with synthetic alternatives.
e.g. https://www.flieger.news/first-flight-using-100-net-zero-synthetic-fuel/
As for the 1%ers – who gives a rat’s arse.
Hey, PRISON COLONY Australia, wipe that EGG off your face……
Tiny Crack Appears in Narrative:
https://www.mikehuckabee.com/latest-news?id=833F7D82-6539-4977-BC15-FDE817F35251&s=2O47
The NCAA has relented and will consider unvaccinated athletes who’ve had a documented case of COVID in the past 90 days as “fully vaccinated” so they can participate in the basketball playoffs.
https://trendingpolitics.com/breaking-a-return-to-sanity-ncaa-to-allow-those-w-covid-herd-immunity-to-participate-in-sporting-activities-ethom/
This may defy the continuing narrative that ignores the efficacy of natural immunity, but it makes sense. A recent study found that natural immunity provides 90% protection against previous versions of COVID and nearly 60% protection against reinfection with the Omicron variant, which is still better than the protection vaccination provides. It was also found to provide “robust” protection against hospitalization and death from all known variants.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.01.05.22268782v1
But why the 90-day limit? Another recent study found that while natural immunity does wane a bit over time, it’s still protecting people better from reinfection and hospitalization than the vaccines, even when infection happened as long ago as March 2020.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1
The linked story at Trending Politics theorizes that this 90-day timeframe still allows any athlete who tests positive in the next 90 days to play, which will save March Madness, the NCAA’s biggest money maker. Even if so, in this case, “following the money” might actually result in the NCAA following the science better than some people who claim to follow the science are.
“Wowser is a simple, satisfying, succinct, single word which aptly distinguishes the whole race of windy, watery, cantankerous, snuffling Chadbands, Stiggines, Holy Joes and Scripture-sprouting sneaks, hypocritical humbugs, and unctuous, dirty-minded rotters, who spend their time interfering with the healthy instincts and recreations of healthy-minded, honest humanity.” http://www.convictcreations.com/history/larrikin.htm
It was only a matter of time. Low risk COVID-19 vaccines provide protection against infection – meaning that less of the virus is passed on. Important in sensitive settings such as aged and disability care. If subsequent infection happens – as is quite likely – there is less associated death and morbidity.
There are currently 1,075,186 mild cases and 361 more serious cases. Infections are some 90% omicron – but with the more problematic variants still present and killing people.
UK Prime Minister announces that Great Britain will be lifting virtually all of its COVID restrictions:
While our “leaders” in DC continue to ramp up the COVID fear and authoritarian anti-virus measures, other nations are starting to recognize that the time may be here to just learn to live with it. I reported recently on Israeli researchers who say too many vaccine shots may actually harm your body’s ability to fight the virus, and on the former head of the UK’s virus task force saying that Omicron is a mild variant, and Britain’s mass vaccination effort is a “waste of time” and should come to an end. He said the government should focus instead on protecting the most vulnerable, such as unvaccinated elderly people.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/waste-of-time-to-keep-vaccinating-people-ex-head-of-uk-vaccine-taskforce_4216302.html
Apparently, that message sank in, because yesterday, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that Great Britain will be lifting virtually all of its COVID restrictions. Johnson said the Omicron wave has peaked nationally and infections are leveling off. So the UK will end mask mandates and requirements for vaccine passports. He said, “We will trust the judgment of the British people, and no longer criminalize anyone who chooses not to wear (a mask.)” Imagine that: trusting the judgment of the people! Why, it’s almost like a free country!
https://www.westernjournal.com/boris-johnson-makes-massive-covid-announcement-forcing-biden-hot-seat/
Meanwhile, our leaders continue to make a bad situation worse by pressing more draconian mandates over strong public resistance.
https://www.westernjournal.com/truck-drivers-become-biden-trudeaus-worst-nightmare-disrupt-us-canada-border-protest-vax-mandate/
Which brings up an interesting discussion: what if the Omicron wave is doing exactly as predicted by spreading natural immunity and ending the pandemic? COVID would become just another endemic problem like the flu that people have to periodically deal with. Will our leaders be willing to give up the unconstitutional power they’ve seized in the name of the “health emergency?” How will Americans react if they don’t? What about Americans who’ve been so frightened of this disease that they’ve become addicted to wearing masks, hiding out at home and finking on their neighbors for just wanting to live their lives?
Dennis Santiago at RedState.com examines those questions and ponders what’s next and whether people who’ve adopted a “bunker” mentality will ever be able to come outside, blink at the sun and go back to living normally again.
https://redstate.com/dennis_santiago/2022/01/20/if-omicron-creates-herd-immunity-then-what-n509435
A transition plan for Australia was agreed to by the commonwealth and all states and territories on 6th August 2021.
https://www.pm.gov.au/sites/default/files/media/national-plan-060821_0.pdf
We have done precisely what was intended.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-deaths-cumulative-per-100k-economist?country=OWID_WRL~CHN~IND~USA~IDN~BRA
Our economy is travelling well.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-economic-recovery-is-tipped-to-continue-through-2022-even-as-omicron-bites-and-other-major-economies-grapple-with-inflation
The medrxiv paper hasn’t been peer reviewed.
Newton, Einstein, Watson and Crick were not peer reviewed …”Peer review by anonymous unpaid reviewers is not a part of the Scientific Method.” ~ Joanne Nova
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/05/newton-einstein-watson-and-crick-were-not-peer-reviewed/
The empirical evidence was examined by numerous experts from every medical field and overwhelmingly supported the assertion that natural immunity following recovery from the virus far exceeds any quickly fading temporary protection from the deadly poison jabs…and theyt are approaching having to be administered monthly for the rest of the victim’s live. Isreael is now at 4 with #5 in the pipeline.
davidappell02 | January 14, 2022 at 9:36 pm | Reply
“The medrxiv paper hasn’t been peer reviewed.”
Your complaint about a lack of peer review in a covid study is meritless.
Developments and increase in knowledge regarding Covid is rapidly evolving. The speed of learning is moving much faster than the speed of peer review.
A simple example is there are few if any peer reviewed studies showing that the vax’s effectiveness wanes considerably after 6 months since that discovery wasnt well known prior to August 2021. How many of those studies have had time to be peer reviewed after only 5 months.
Same with better long term effectiveness of natural immunity over vaxes. that fact wasnt well known prior to August / sept 2021
Same with the effectiveness of vax protection against the omicron variant being very low. Kinda hard to get a study completed after 4-5 weeks, much less being able to get that study peer reviewed.
Peer review is far too cumbersome in such a fast moving environment – but results of a single paper must be seen as provisional.
The NCAA made the right decision for the wrong reason…follow the money.
Not allowing perfectly healthy athletes to play just because they refused the poison jab would have cost MILLIONS of dollars in lost revenue and could well have caused cancellation of the very lucrative and popular “March Madness” basketball season-closing series of tournaments.
“Another Record: Ocean Warming Continues through 2021 despite La Niña Conditions,” Lijing Cheng, John Abraham, Kevin E. Trenberth, et al.,
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences (2022)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-022-1461-3
Abstract:
“The increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from human activities traps heat within the climate system and increases ocean heat content (OHC). Here, we provide the first analysis of recent OHC changes through 2021 from two international groups. The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 ± 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 1021 J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 ± 10 ZJ using NCEI/NOAA dataset. The long-term ocean warming is larger in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans than in other regions and is mainly attributed, via climate model simulations, to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. The year-to-year variation of OHC is primarily tied to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). In the seven maritime domains of the Indian, Tropical Atlantic, North Atlantic, Northwest Pacific, North Pacific, Southern oceans, and the Mediterranean Sea, robust warming is observed but with distinct inter-annual to decadal variability. Four out of seven domains showed record-high heat content in 2021. The anomalous global and regional ocean warming established in this study should be incorporated into climate risk assessments, adaptation, and mitigation.”
The oceans are warming – but the causes go beyond greenhouse gas forcing. We have yet to see much understanding of ocean and atmosphere circulation that cause large changes in TOA energy dynamics (Loeb et al 2017). Just what is it that causes this David?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/ceres-sw-october-2021.png
“The world ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans, and the 2021 annual OHC value is even higher than last year’s record value by 14 ± 11 ZJ (1 zetta J = 1021 J) using the IAP/CAS dataset and by 16 ± 10 ZJ using NCEI/NOAA dataset.”
So much winning. You’re going to get tired of winning. Record levels two years in a row which is better than having a rebuilding year or two in between records.
But, we are going to tell you how much it warmed by using Zetta Joules. I am going to guess the world ocean warmed by 0.03 in 2021 compared to the prior year.
“Below the sea surface, historical measurements of temperature are far sparser, and the warming is more gradual, about 0.01°C per decade at 1,000 meters.”
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/voyager-how-long-until-ocean-temperature-goes-few-more-degrees
This new record by 0.03 C is really gong to tip the balance, break the camels back and lead to coastal flooding. I think I’ll go out and buy some solar panels.
And has a hat tip to Trenberth, “Global warming is still happening – our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren’t able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can’t definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That’s a travesty!” – Trenberth – 2009
The oceans might be warming but there is no proof that it is warming at a higher rate than from the end of the LIA. What ever data that goes back to 1850 is spatially too sparse to have a high level of confidence.
Even as late as 1950 the data for the oceans at depth were under 20%.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/f473b21c-746a-4b4b-8711-e8ac52dea2fe/rog20022-fig-0013-m.jpg
From Roemmich, 2012
“ Enormous advances in ocean-observing technology have occurred from the time of the Challenger, when about 300 deep-ocean temperature profiles were acquired over three-and-a-half years by a ship with more than 200 crew on board, to today’s Argo Programme, obtaining more than 100,000 temperature profiles annually by autonomous instrumentation.”
This map depicts the track of the Challenger in the Pacific. Tens of millions of square miles were not sampled during that 1870s expedition.
http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/map-800/a-800.jpg
Some studies have tried to recreate OHC from historical SST data but pre 1900 there was virtually no in situ direct measurements.
https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/436974/fmars-06-00441-HTML/image_m/fmars-06-00441-g003.jpg
It’s a pipe dream to think we know that the recent rate of warming of OHC is any different from that during the 19th and early 20th centuries.
John Sutherland
Robert Ellison’s referenced publications provide absolutely no answer to the questions I raised. Given the information I provided, he has offered no reason why methane should be considered a meaningful contributor to global warming.
The solid science behind the reference gives the right answers. John provides narrative blogoscience.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-968839
But he should stick to the thread or link to the comment if he is going to whine about it.
“How Bad is my Batch”
The story of my vaccine injury
Robert W Malone MD, MS
Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech.
Jan 13
One of the people who comments on my Substack articles pointed me to this website:
https://www.howbadismybatch.com/
This site matches up vaccine batch codes with information from the VAERS system, which is the event reporting system run by the CDC. This site matches the vaccine batches to adverse drug reactions, death, disability and life threatening illnesses from the VAERS system
According to the website above, the data reported in VAERS, reproduced on the site, show that adverse events triggered by Moderna batches have varied widely.
5% of the batches appear to have produced 90% of the adverse reactions
Some Moderna batches are associated with 50 x the number of deaths and disabilities compared to other batches.
With that knowledge, I entered my batch code in the search box. The first injection had almost no significant adverse events associated with it. The second jab, frankly shocked me
Here are the results:
https://cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdc54aabe-d44b-4953-a526-11398b56e177_1782x94.png
Now, I don’t know how many doses are in each batch. But I do know my batch was most definitely in the top 5%. So, not really a surprise in retrospect that I had such a serious adverse event profile.
…Read the rest…
https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/how-bad-is-my-batch
The strongest volcanic eruption in 30 years just took place today in a small uninhabited volcanic island in Tonga, North of New Zealand and East of Fidji.
As per No Tricks Zone
https://notrickszone.com/2022/01/15/large-volcanic-eruption-vei5-ash-up-to-20000-meters-possible-climatic-implications/
It might be a VEI 5 and the eruption cloud has reached 20 km height in the stratosphere.
As it is located in the Southern Hemisphere it should not have a big climatic impact.
According to Liu et al. 2018 a La Niña-like response is to be expected, so it could prolong the current Niña more than projected.
Liu, Fei, et al. “Divergent El Niño responses to volcanic eruptions at different latitudes over the past millennium.” Climate dynamics 50.9 (2018): 3799-3812.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Fei-Liu-109/publication/318873065_Divergent_El_Nino_responses_to_volcanic_eruptions_at_different_latitudes_over_the_past_millennium/links/5a1775060f7e9be37f958cea/Divergent-El-Nino-responses-to-volcanic-eruptions-at-different-latitudes-over-the-past-millennium.pdf
Whether it does or doesn’t actually have an impact on global climate, it is sure to be injected into the narrative if the expected flattish temperatures play out.
If fertile imaginations can’t come up with excuses for no warming there is always Mother Nature.
As Roseanne Roseannadanna said “Well it just goes to show you, it’s always something!”
Javier,
There might be some extra CO2 in the atmosphere from the Tonga volcano. Whether or not it is measurable remains to be seen. However, events like this sometimes provide data that helps or hinders some of the many climate assertions that float around all of the time. Geoff S
Geoff,
Only some volcanic eruptions emit significant amounts of CO2, and the Hunga Tonga is not one of those.
The effect on CO2 from strong stratospheric-reaching explosive eruptions is opposite. Sulfate aerosols at the stratosphere not only reflect incoming solar radiation, but also scatter it. The scattered light is a tremendous boost to photosynthesis, resulting in an increased flux of CO2 from the atmosphere to the biosphere. As a result the increase in atmospheric CO2 dropped greatly after the Pinatubo eruption. You can see it very clearly in this graph at 1991:
https://i.imgur.com/Z4CV9t7.png
El Chichón wasn’t strong enough, and Hunga Tonga is even weaker. There shouldn’t be any detectable global or hemispheric climatic effect from Hunga Tonga.
“The world’s ocean, in 2021, was the hottest ever recorded by humans … ”
I have enjoyed the summer beach on the Gulf of Mexico with surface water temperatures around 82F. Of course, the average ocean temperature is considerably lower, around 39F. One will die of hypothermia very quickly at this temperature.
The point that heat content is increasing is not lost, but the ocean is also not hot.
I have updated an analysis of climate change vertical profiles
for the RAOB, MSU, and Twenty-First Century eras here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/climate-change-vertical-profiles
Major points:
Observations and reanalysis tend to support:
stratospheric cooling, tropospheric warming and an Arctic maxima of warming for each era.
Observations and reanalysis contradict the hot spot for the RAOB and MSU eras, but there is some indication of the hot spot for the TFC.
Absolute humidity trends of reanalysis and raobs indicate areas of significant decrease for all three periods.
Cloud cover trends from reanalysis bear little resemblance to those modeled.
There tends to be an emphasis on global mean temperature trends, but there are many questions as to whether climate models are capable of accurately modeling the state of the atmosphere.
‘Finite systems of deterministic ordinary nonlinear differential equations may be designed to represent forced dissipative hydrodynamic flow. Solutions of these equations can be identified with trajectories in phase space. For those systems with bounded solutions, it is found that nonperiodic solutions are ordinarily unstable with respect to small modifications, so that slightly differing initial states can evolve into considerably different states. Systems with bounded solutions are shown to possess bounded numerical solutions.
A simple system representing cellular convection is solved numerically. All of the solutions are found to be unstable, and almost all of them are nonperiodic…
Perhaps we can visualize the day when all of the relevant physical principles will be perfectly known. It may then still not be possible to express these principles as mathematical equations which can be solved by digital computers. We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer. We must therefore express the pertinent statistical properties of turbulent eddies as functions of the larger-scale motions. We do not yet know how to do this, nor have we proven that the desired functions exist’.’ Lorenz E. N.. 1963 Deterministic nonperiodic flow.
It is still the case. It is not the modelers themselves who claim something else.
e.g. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
VACCINES & SAFETY…some commenters INSIST that the Poison Jab is “safe.” Really? Would YOU want to take a chance on THIS happening to you or a loved one while participating in a worldwide clinical trial of an experimental gene-modifying concoction that does NOT prevent contracting the virus, does NOT reduce the severity of the virus, does NOT prevent the spread of the virus and must be repeated every few months for the rest of your life instead of simply risking contracting a virus with a better than 99% survival rate with cheap medications? Oh, and now even the CDC and NIH and WHO and every other flock of quacking medical quacks admit that NATURAL immunity is superior to any that can be obtained from the poison jabs and lasts far longer.
Rare Spinal Cord Condition Flagged as Potential Adverse Effect of COVID-19 Vaccines: EU Drug Regulator
By Mimi Nguyen Ly January 15, 2022
https://www.theepochtimes.com/rare-spinal-cord-condition-flagged-as-potential-side-effect-of-covid-19-vaccine-eu-drug-regulator_4215008.html
The European Union’s drug regulator has indicated that a change to the product information for COVID-19 vaccines from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson has been recommended to include a warning of a rare spinal cord condition called transverse myelitis.
TM is a rare condition that involves inflammation of one or both sides of the spinal cord. Symptoms can include weakness in the limbs, and tingling, numbness, pain or loss of pain sensation, or issues with bladder and bowel function.
The Pharmacovigilance and Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) committee that assesses the safety of human medicines, recommended the change on Jan. 14 after concluding that a causal link between the two vaccines and TM is “at least a reasonable possibility.”
It recommends changing the product information for the COVID-19 shots—AstraZeneca’s Vaxzevria and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen–to include a warning of “very rare cases of transverse myelitis (TM) reported following vaccination.” TM will also be added as an adverse reaction with an unknown frequency to the vaccine profile.
Inflammatory rhetoric and massively over-egging the pudding.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/transverse-myelitis/symptoms-causes/syc-20354726
How about, I don’t care? I just want the experts to go away. They can work in nursing homes and hospitals. But they should leave us alone until we ask for their help.
And, I do not accept that pudding exists. Said eggs are therefore a non-factor.
And BTW, the failed Mayo Clinic fired its unvaccinated nurses. Next they’ll be telling you it’s your body, their choice.
Sanity Returns as New Virginia Governor YOUNGKIN ENDS VAX AND MASK MANDATE MADNESS
https://www.theepochtimes.com/virginias-new-gop-governor-ends-vaccine-mandate-for-state-employees-mask-mandates-in-schools_4215711.html
Taking a vanishingly small risk of something that might possibly be there – and elevating that to the hysterical demands that we ditch the baby with the bathwater. The epitome of over-egging the pudding. What it does suggest is that the least effective and most problematic AstraZeneca vaccine be ditched.
And while the virus seems to have adapted to human physiology to be more infectious and less virulent – as these things do in the normal course of natural selection – I am getting a spikevax jab early next month to boost immunity to the earlier variants still present in the population. And boost immunity to omicron to some 90%. Nor is a shot every 4 months reasonable or recommended by anyone. What might be reasonable is an annual shot of a tailored vaccine at about the same time as a seasonal flu shot.
In Australia – where there is competent record keeping – we have had 9 deaths from the AstraZeneca vaccine, 2621 from COVID and amazingly none recently from seasonal flu. Silver linings…
https://www1.racgp.org.au/getattachment/3c8711f0-634c-448c-86a1-4e4e359a63e7/attachment.aspx
And AFAIAC – hysterical old codgers can do whatever they like.
“But almost everyone appears to agree on one thing. In some way or other, space-time itself seems to fall apart at a black hole, implying that space-time is not the root level of reality, but an emergent structure from something deeper.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-most-famous-paradox-in-physics-nears-its-end-20201029/
What is climate? It’s not the root level of reality. It’s you with your psychological issues. What is real? You waking up, walking to your car and driving to work. Given that your car starts and is not washed away in the flash flood on your way to work, you’re good. You are functioning at an acceptable level in reality. The people that made the car and the gasoline are also doing that. They are in touch with the universe. What is climate? It’s the monster under your bad that no one else can see. They say it’s not real. You say it is. You point to a thermometer and reams of data. You tell scary stories. You prep to ward off the end times. You teach the children like we used to teach them in Sunday school. You look for signs. You learn rituals like sorting your plastics. You flog yourself, you stone people.
We are making progress on black holes. So we got that.
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained [NW note: Hayek was writing not in prosperous post-war America, but in war-torn, austerity-ridden Britain in 1943] the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. …. [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. … Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.
Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to super-cede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatability in principle between the state’s providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.’ Freidric Hayek, 1944, The Road to Serfdom, pp 148-149
But you want someone to build infrastructure to withstand the worst onslaught nature can throw at us. Feigning indifference in the best of times is the worst hypocrisy.
Ironically – I was looking for additional broker. One that handled Australian meat producer stocks specifically. On the basis that demand for meat will double over the next 20 years – and that the industry here has committed to carbon neutrality by 2030.
https://www.mla.com.au/research-and-development/Environment-sustainability/carbon-neutral-2030-rd/cn30/
The Australian Agricultural Company might fill the bill.
https://aaco.com.au/
But I came across this article on Beyond Meat.
https://www.superhero.com.au/spotlight/beyond-meat-company-analysis/
The company site is here. A range of iconic American food traders are buying into it. I may still compromise with Tyson Foods as they have feet in both camps. .
https://www.beyondmeat.com/en-US/products/
Replacing protein grown on 5 billion hectares of grazing land that is largely marginal for crops with plants seems a big ask – but due diligence demands that I eat some of their products.
“There is nothing more conservative than conservation” – Russell Kirk
https://www.conservamerica.org/
“The best conserver of land in use will always be the small owner or operator, farmer or forester or both, who lives within a securely placed family and community, who knows how to use the land in the best way, and who can afford to do so.”
— Wendell Berry
Shared values of a middle America?
‘Belief in the existence of a moral order that links our past, present and future.
Tradition matters. Custom, convention, and continuity are important connections to the wisdom of our forefathers and the natural world they entrusted to us.
Character matters. We are defined by the relationships we create and nurture.
Personal freedom and individual responsibility are inextricably linked.
Environmental protection and economic growth, prosperity and progress are not mutually exclusive.
Private property rights are part of the solution, not the problem. Natural resources on private property are managed more sustainably and in better condition than those subject to political management or left in the public commons.
Market-based solutions are preferable to government regulations and mandates.
Conservation begins at home. Decisions about conservation and land management should be made by the least-centralized authority available in cooperation with those who have the greatest incentive and the best information to protect the environment – the local community.
Competition improves performance.
Performance-based standards provide more efficient incentives for meeting objectives and allow for innovation and greater flexibility compared to prescriptive mandates.’
https://www.conservamerica.org/values
‘Welcome to 2022, which may just look a lot like 2021. Before Congress adjourned for the holiday break, the President and Democrats hit against the rock called Joe Manchin over the Build Back Better spending package. Negotiations broke down over the price of the bill, once again proving that big spending doesn’t seem to go over easily. The Congressional Budget Office has since projected the bill would cost $4.73 trillion over ten years, increasing the deficit by $3 trillion over 2022 to 2031. A hard pill to swallow under any circumstance, particularly now, given the current economic environment. But what is in the bill, and what, if anything, should conservatives embrace? ‘
https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/as-congress-enters-a-new-year-will-there-be-progress-on-energy-and-environment-policy
The Moderator(s) here
has been deleting
too many comments
arbitrarily, after they have
been published. A private
website is entitled to censor
comments. Happens often
these days. But not at any
websites I continue to visit.
I delete incoherent or insulting or meaningless or way off topic comments. This is a serious blog and I don’t want the comment threads overly junked up. Not only does this reflect poorly on me, but it discourages and distracts the more serious commenters.
I have had to delete several of your comments for formatting issue. Having only 4 words per line makes the comment very long and takes up too much space in the thread.
Indeed, it looks like e e cummings poetry but alas is not. It is just nutty and annoying.
iPhone input, maybe?
Very heavy rain and snowfall in the southeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/19hQt9b/Screenshot-2.png
The Planet Mean Surface Temperature New Equation.
It is time to abandon Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) the old incomplete equation. You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ is a mathematical abstraction, it is not planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related equation.
Here it is the planet 1LOT energy balance analysis related equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The old ‘incomplete’ Stefan-Boltzmann formula is founded in observation. The new abstraction is a bit murky. But frankly science itself – even the murky blogoscience variety – is incapable of comprehensively explaining the complex and dynamic Earth system for us. Yet – aspects remain utterly fascinating.
‘Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation (see ref. 26).’ https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
This is a bit of an experiment. I have changed my wordpress email and ticked the notify box. Let’s see what happens with Christos’ inevitable reply.
The Navier-Stokes equation for fluid flow – as elegant as it is – in the Earth system is a massively incalculable algorithm.
“The old ‘incomplete’ Stefan-Boltzmann formula is founded in observation.”
Please clarify, you refer to what Stefan-Boltzmann formula?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is there more than 1 SB equation?
Please, Robert, paste it here the SB formula you refer to.
Is it the J=σT⁴ the SB formula you refer to?
I never said the J=σT⁴ is incomplete…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is always possible to add an albedo term and solve for T. Being deliberately obtuse is far from a good look.
It is time to abandon Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) the old incomplete equation. You have to wonder how some people can so consistently get it all so wrong.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K) is not Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
It has not used for serious climate analysis.
Robert and Christos: The “old incomplete Stefan-Boltzmann equation” was derived by integrating Planck’s Law over all wavelengths. Planck’s Law was derived by assuming the existence of a radiation field that is in equilibrium (absorption = emission) with “quantized oscillations” with a Boltzmann distribution of energies at all wavelengths. Under the theory of quantum mechanics, the rotational, vibrational and electronic state of molecules function as quantized oscillators. (We have created special devices using electricity to create a non-Boltzmann distribution of excited states that emit visible light without being several thousand degK.
However, at the interface between two different media, radiation can be reflected or scattered. This produces emissivity less than 1 and (by symmetry) absorptivity equal to emissivity. There is no interface between a planet’s atmosphere and space, to emissivity doesn’t apply to the emission of a planet with an atmosphere (just to the emission from the planet’s surface).
Boltzmann’s law doesn’t apply when absorption and emission are not in equilibrium or when molecular collisions aren’t frequent enough to maintain a Boltzmann distribution of molecules in all energy states. In atmospheres (and thin layers of solids and liquids) absorption and emission at all wavelengths is not frequent enough to ensure an equilibrium between the temperature of the atmosphere and the radiation field, especially at weakly absorbed wavelengths. Under those circumstances, the “old incomplete” Boltzmann’s Law never applied and knowledgeable scientists like climate scientists apply Schwarzschild’s equation for radiation transfer (though they often don’t use Schwarzschild’s name). Schwarzschild’s equation does an excellent job of predicting the spectrum and total intensity of the radiation traveling through our atmosphere and escaping to space and the emission of nearby planets whose surface temperature we know. The Schwarzschild equation simplifies to Boltzmann’s law when absorption is in equilibrium and Beer’s when an intense light source (in the lab) makes emission is negligible compared with absorption. There is absolutely no need to invent planetary solar acceptance fudge factor Φ, if you use the correct physics, especially when that fudge factor can’t explain Venus.
At the most fundamental level, absorption and emission of photons are controlled by Einstein coefficients for absorption and spontaneous emission of photons (and emission that is stimulated by the presence of other photons, a phenomena that is negligible in the Earth’s atmosphere). After line broadening from collisions and the Doppler effect, Einstein coefficients become the macroscopic adsorption and emission coefficients we measure in the laboratory. Conservation of energy demands that the ratio of these coefficient is the Boltzmann function B(lambda,T) when absorption is in equilibrium with emission.
Thanks – that’s the radiative basics. Climate of course is so much more.
Thank you Franktoo.
“There is absolutely no need to invent planetary solar acceptance fudge factor Φ, if you use the correct physics, especially when that fudge factor can’t explain Venus.”
I have explained about Φ -factor importance in my site. Also Φ -factor explains Venus. Please visit:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you Franktoo.
I have explained about Φ -factor importance in my site. Also Φ -factor explains Venus. Please visit:
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The New equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
is based both, on precise radiative “energy in” estimation and on the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon“.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
A powerful snowstorm in North Carolina is moving into Virginia.
https://i.ibb.co/vsYR9Cx/Screenshot-2.png
A foundation of democracy is the rule of law preserving individual freedoms while protecting the rights of others. A perpetual balancing act. The US Supreme Court has determined that the balance on vaccine mandates is to endorse mandates for specific occupations but to reject broader mandates.
‘The U.S. Supreme Court today reached split decisions on the so-called vaccination mandates issued, respectively, by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The Court allowed the CMS vaccination mandate to go into effect by staying injunctions preventing its enforcement pending disposition of the government’s appeals or any petitions for writ of certiorari. However, the Court stayed enforcement of the OSHA (vaccination or testing) mandate pending similar legal proceedings.’ https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2022/01/us-supreme-court-stays-osha-vaccine-mandate-but-allows-enforcement
Pissant progressives and contrarian curmudgeons – fringe extremists all – have been arguing the same points for decades. This is of course Einstein’s definition of insanity. Extremists have closed the door on mature and balanced discussion of energy and environment. They do not represent aspirations of middle America. Democrats are in thrall to left extremists and cannot change their spots. It is however an opportunity for Republicans.
‘But these voters understand that promoting renewable resources and new energy technologies doesn’t mean that traditional energy sources are out of the picture, which is why they support all-of-the-above. Almost three-quarters (73%) believe natural gas and oil will still be a significant part of America’s energy needs 20 years from now. We can take this to mean that they support the transition to a lower carbon energy economy, but they also understand it will likely take much longer than some activists are promising. And in the meantime, they appreciate that natural gas and oil make our daily lives safer and healthier by providing the fuel, power, and products we need.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/its-time-to-get-the-politics-out-of-energy-policy-as-new-polling-show-voters-overwhelmingly-support-all-of-the-above
Wonder how many of those voters understand that fossil fuels change the climate for the next 100,000 years.
CO2 traps 3.5 million times more heat than is gained by burning it.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/04/impressive-fact-about-carbon-dioxide.html
So you are saying CO2 is a gift that keeps on giving? Remember, we are in an ice age and CO2 is greening the desert and elsewhere. It’s a net positive externality. The more the merrier.
It seems that argument by factoid convinces no one
This forecast is a warning of severe winter weather for the eastern US and Europe.
https://i.ibb.co/XtvdB7b/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
No-VAX Djokovic
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/191d1bc1e98419d17eab7850cd1198e6c133d24aa7e40be8d8b7d1e30cc9d553.png
.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0dda299a0e3d4f9a9b51b7b2149ca2b004d1da60c063e07ca8a15695fdfe061e.jpg
.
World #1 Tennis Player and Reining Australian Open Champion Pure Blood Novak “No-VAXX” Djokovic was deported from Australia prior to the start of the tournament as a threat to “social cohesion” (herd submission) after losing his visa appeal
https://youtu.be/jPcvXB6xrsg
.
Now we get to the key distinction between Americans and Australians. This is the point where many Americans find it difficult to reconcile with the outlook of Australians. This is where the distinctions in democracy become very important to understand.
Americans view any form of tyranny as bad. Americans, on the whole, view any effort to crush their freedom as a negative. Australians only view tyranny as bad if it is not applied equally. As long as everyone suffers the punishment of government equally, the pain is approved.
Let me repeat that, in Australia, government oppression is only bad if it is applied unequally.
If every Australian is forced to have their right hand removed to comply with government rules, then the removal of the hand is permitted and acceptable. Everyone gets in line at the hand-chopper. However, if someone jumps out of the line and tries to escape because they don’t want their hand removed, all the other people in line will chase him down, bring him back and hold him down while the government hand-chopper does the removal.
The concept of minority rights or individual sovereignty, restrictions on the mob’s ability to interfere in your life, is unfathomable to Australians. Once a law is passed by majority consent, they all agree to follow it. That is their social compact.
As a result, when the government of the majority tells them to do something – they comply.
This is the “social cohesion” that was threatened by Novak Djokovic being allowed to exist as an unvaccinated sovereign citizen in the country.
o One man standing against Tyranny brings Americans to their feet in support.
o One man standing against Tyranny in Australia immediately triggers the crabs in the bucket.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FJQOTxiaUAA-Jib?format=jpg
I’m an American and I’m glad Australia tossed Djokovic out of their country. He deserved it.
This is perhaps as stark a contrast between Conservatives and “Progressives” as could be made.
Incoming Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin Issues 11 Executive Orders on Day 1 Restoring LIBERTY to Virginians.
https://youtu.be/_poDAqmzIdY
Incoming Virginia’s New Attorney General Fires 30 “Woke” Do-Nothing CRT Staff Members, Announces Major Investigations within Hours of Taking Office. “No more FREE RIDE for Criminals.”
Outgoing Virginia Governor Ralph “Blackface” Northam Pardons Democrat State Senator Jailed For Underage S e x Crimes in His Final Act as Virginia Governor…his LEGACY SEALER.
LOL, CRT isn’t taught in Virginia.
Don Wolt
@tlowdon
UK HSA data shows infection rate growth correlates with vaccination rate for age cohorts >50. The more highly vaxxed an age cohort is – whether fully vaxxed or boosted – the faster the infection rate growth. Infection rate growth in the unvaxxed is fairly consistent across cohorts.
https://twitter.com/tlowdon/status/1482795018871971841
Here’s the weekly vaccine effectiveness surveillance report on which this fake news is supposedly based.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1046431/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-2-2022.pdf
THE COVID VAX CARD REQUIREMENT MANDATED BY D.C. PROGRESSIVES IS ANTI-EQUITY…D.C.’s African-American residents have the lowest vaccination rates of any racial group in the city and will be discriminated against the most.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/the-covid-vax-card-requirement-is-anti-inequity.php
For people who advance “equity” theory, this makes D.C.’s vax card requirement racist, pure and simple, no matter what rationale the city might set forth to justify it.
But if one is serious about equity, the burden must be on the city to establish its justification with unambiguous, reliable, and well-tailored health and safety data. The city would have to document the extent, if any, to which having received one vaccine dose at any time in the past year meaningfully reduces the likelihood of infection from the prevailing covid variant in the coming months. Beyond that, it would have to present unambiguous, reliable, and well-tailored data showing that the requirement will appreciably reduce the spread of the virus in each category of public place to which it applies. Evidence of extremely low rates of infection and transmission by unvaccinated people of all age groups mingling in public from all over the world proves that NOT to be the case.
A mere expectation based on the say-so of experts shouldn’t be enough to justify a rule that comes down disproportionately hard on Blacks — not for the “equity” crowd, if it has any desire to be consistent
SHOW US YOUR PAPERS, OR NOT?…More Useless Progressive Virtue Signaling.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/01/show-us-your-papers-or-not.php
Cities including Washington, D.C., Minneapolis, and St. Paul have implemented vaccine mandates requiring vax cards to enter restaurants and other public places. The Star Tribune endorsed the Minneapolis-St. Paul mandates last week in the editorial “Lessons learned from vaccine mandates.”
The Star Tribune’s lazy reference to the “hospitalization” rationale is not only a substitute for thought, it is part of the liturgy at this point. Just absolutely pathetic, a credo delivered without an argument.
Minneapolis and St. Paul residents who would like to dine out without showing their papers can still hit the drive-through or hike a few miles to Edina, or Bloomington, or Brooklyn Center, or Eagan, or Roseville, or Maplewood, or any of the many other suburbs that ring the Twin Cities. And let us not apply the disparate impact analysis that otherwise governs Minnesota discourse with an iron hand to decry the mandates as racist.
These measures will do little, if anything, to slow the spread of the omicron variant, which we know is more transmissible and less lethal than previous variants. Vaccinated people can contract and spread the virus, and people providing a negative test within 72 hours to go to restaurants or sporting events can contract COVID-19 after testing.
So, in short, this is a half-measure. It won’t protect anyone, it will anger and inconvenience everyone, but it is designed to avoid unpopular economy-destroying total lockdowns while appearing as if something is being done, another typical do-nothing ANTI-Progress policy which is the only kind “PROGRESSIVES” know.
You be the judge.
The circle will be closed when you’ll need a vax card to enter the office issuing vax cards.
Let’s destroy the environment to save it!
Countryside campaigners have warned that swathes of rural southern England face being ruined by “massive industrialisation” with plans for one of the country’s largest solar farms given the go-ahead.
The approval of plans for a large solar power plant in Oxfordshire has sparked fears of a “tidal wave of solar farms” despoiling rural areas.
There are now proposals for several more solar farms covering between 160 to 300 acres each, close to the Chiltern Area Of Outstanding Beauty and the north part the Oxford Green Belt.
One planned for Nuneham Courtenay, near Oxford, is set to be one of the biggest in England at more than 300 acres, after councillors gave it the go-ahead in December in the face of mounting opposition from environmental groups.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/02/tidal-wave-new-solar-farms-will-ruin-countryside-say-campaigners/
It’s Time to Get the Politics Out of Energy Policy as New Polling Show Voters Overwhelmingly Support All-of-the-Above
https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/its-time-to-get-the-politics-out-of-energy-policy-as-new-polling-show-voters-overwhelmingly-support-all-of-the-above
Ray Dalio, the founder of hedge fund Bridgewater Associates, warned against transitioning away from fossil fuels too rapidly and said that cutting off the supply of finance to the industry would have a destabilizing effect as inflation soars.
“Thank God for the oil producers” because they are providing reliable supply, Dalio said Monday on a panel at the Abu Dhabi Sustainability Week summit.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-17/dalio-says-thank-god-oil-is-still-pumping-amid-inflation-scare
It’s Time to Get the Politics Out of Energy Policy as New Polling Show Voters Overwhelmingly Support All-of-the-Above
https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/its-time-to-get-the-politics-out-of-energy-policy-as-new-polling-show-voters-overwhelmingly-support-all-of-the-above
Low hanging carbon mitigation fruit putting a few billion dollars into rural Australia.
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/auctions-results/october-2021
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/ERF/Choosing-a-project-type/Opportunities-for-the-land-sector/Agricultural-methods
“Newsom is right to take advantage of this windfall to do more to adapt to the warming climate and push the state toward a carbon-free future, and the Legislature should support his proposal. But allocating money is not enough. We need action from state lawmakers, who have yet to mandate emissions reductions that are fast, steep or broad enough to get California on track to avoid truly catastrophic warming.”
Notice reality sneaking in. Adapt. Appearing before the reduction of CO2.
Then, California can be on track to avoid catastrophic warming. Being on track is just that. It will not do anything more than prevent 0.01 C of warming in the next 20 year. But, they would get a participation trophy for being on track.
“We need action from state lawmakers, who have yet to mandate emissions reductions that are fast, steep or broad enough to get California on track to avoid truly catastrophic warming.”
So what’s the real problem here?
https://workcoverobservertas.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/tilting-at-windmills2.png
The problem is the optimum allocation of resources. In the above quote there is no mention of costs. California could avoid most of the costs of truly catastrophic warming but not with solar panels.
The problem is the calls for government to impose draconian control. Duh!!!
Geothermal energy is a cheap and reliable energy source. There are two types – although one wouldn’t know it from the article on a geothermal energy surge. That is mostly greatly exaggerated reports of the death of oil and gas.
Energy is derived from tectonically heated water relatively close to the surface. The other type is when water is injected into deep radioactive decay
heated rock. The former is a geologically very limited resource and the latter hasn’t worked yet.
Nonetheless – geothermal is a useful addition to the energy mix in places like California.
https://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/thinkgeoenergys-top-10-geothermal-countries-2021-installed-power-generation-capacity-mwe/
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Geothermal energy is a cheap and reliable energy source.
The world runs on about 20 TW. What fraction can the geothermal potential provide of that?
What percentage does wind and solar provide?
It can moreover – along with hydropower – supply energy when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun don’t shine.
I have a very serious vision
disabilitythat makes readig what I type
very difficult unless I type narrow
rows. Sorry you can’t spare a few inches
of space for my comments.
I’ll go elsewhere.
Interesting theat this comment
did meet the standards of the Moderator:
Robert I. Ellison | January 13, 2022 at 7:04 pm | Reply
Dick has pulled a major boner yet again.
A boner is an error. So what? Although there may be a touch of the double entendre. Honestly!!!! 🤣
A carbon tax of US$30/tonne CO2 adds some 25% to the LCOE of electricity from fossil fuels.
Try it – https://www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator
What’s included in LCOE calculations is well defined.
e.g. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
But for system costs a VALCOE calculation is needed.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/valuecoe-1.png
A discussion of which can be found here.
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
Two things stand out. The value of high LCOE peaking gas generation given it’s availability and flexibility. And the minor system costs of wind and solar given current penetration. And 80 or 80 percent penetrations are impractical and unfeasible. Not even Joe Biden is contemplating that – let alone middle America. Although he would prefer to hide that with wild and wooly woke bread and circuses. 80% of electricity generation i- 25% of emission – in 2040 will be by fossil fuels. To move beyond that to industrial heat and transport requires nuclear energy.
As for the past – we have had quite enough of socialists transforming societies and economies. The fight is for the future.
Does the Wind and Solar cost include shutting down aluminum smelters and rolling blackouts? What about the documented high energy prices in countries with high “renewable” energy penetrations? You are livin’ the “green” dream, and that’s all it is – a dream.
I don’t pay attention to narratives. But as I say frequently only nuclear can supply the energy the world needs at the price and in the quantity the world needs this century.
RIE – coal, too. Oil, too. Natural gas, too.
RIE comment – “What’s included in LCOE calculations is well defined.
e.g. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf ”
RIE – go to table 1b – see if can find the easy to spot math error & erroneous assumption
Go to table 1b – see if you can figure out what costs have been omitted
If the LCOE is actually lower for renewables, please explain why overall electric costs are higher in regions with greater renewable penentration.
What is include by the EIA in LCOE is explicitly listed? And I was as surprised as anyone that wind and solar LCOE is now as low as it is.
Robert I. Ellison | January 18, 2022 at 12:00 pm |
“What is include by the EIA in LCOE is explicitly listed? And I was as surprised as anyone that wind and solar LCOE is now as low as it is.”
RIE – I am suprised that you did not pick up the obvious errors.
For starters, the actual capacity of renewables is much less than used in the assumptions, Capital costs are understated since the life span is significantly less than used in the assumptions, Omitted are the costs of redundancy, omitted are the additional costs of maintaining stability in the grid,
I will repeat my question which no renewable proponent has answered coherently.
If the LCOE is actually lower for renewables, please explain why overall electric costs are higher in regions with greater renewable penentration.
Technology capacity factors are reasonable. Hand waving doesn’t change that. And obviously wind and solar costs – as I hinted at – were much higher 10 years ago. Lower costs are the current reality.
I’m not an advocate for any technology – I am a technology enthusiast. I expect that further progress will be made in wind and solar. Let’s see where the technology goes. 😊
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_article_width/public/2021-03/NREL%20Cell%20Efficiencies%20Chart.png
https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/perovskite-solar-cells
The problem with wind and solar at it’s core is energy density. Lots of land and materials needed to utilise the resource. There are better ideas for supplying most of a vastly increased demand for energy this century.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-cycle.jpg
“And 80 or 80 percent penetrations are impractical and unfeasible. Not even Joe Biden is contemplating that – let alone middle America.”
Actually, it is required by law in New York and many other states.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/6/20/18691058/new-york-green-new-deal-climate-change-cuomo
“In total, over 100 million people now live in a community with an official 100% renewable electricity target.”
According to the Sierra Club, which specifically does not count any plan that allows nuclear energy.
https://www.sierraclub.org/ready-for-100/commitments
As you can see from the Vox article, the goal was Democratic Party supermajorities sold on a fairy tale, not actual emissions reductions. As of the end of 2021, New York has no idea how it will do that plan and no funding for it. Which makes sense given that it never was a plan to begin with.
That it is required by law is no guarantee of practicality or feasibility.
Again:
“Not even Joe Biden is contemplating that – let alone middle America.”
Sure they are.
In fact, by going beyond merely contemplating it to actually mandating it, they are preventing any plan that is practical or feasible.
It will be decades before New York can take a thoughtful look at actually lowering emissions. To do that, a majority of the NY legislature would have to admit they were wrong and tear up their law.
Or they can just spend the next 20 years winning elections by saying the plan is great and would be done if it weren’t for Mitch McConnell.
Take a guess as to which “practical” plan they’ll follow.
Lok at what they do not what they say.
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/search?search_api_fulltext_op=or&search_api_fulltext=nuclear&type=All
What they did was close a nuclear power plant and burn more natural gas, which they said would be temporary while they built more windmills and solar panels.
https://apnews.com/article/us-news-business-government-and-politics-environment-and-nature-d11a514c2017e4683a4d50c956ff327a
Again, for a Biden proposal for nuclear for New York would be opposed by Biden’s party, which has already told the press that nuclear is entirely unnecessary.
100% low carbon energy is not 100% wind and solar.
https://energy.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj9971/f/diablocanyonnuclearplant_report_11.02.21.pdf
‘America has made great strides in meeting its energy needs through innovation and the development of technologies that have delivered economic growth and energy abundance and affordability while progressively reducing environmental impacts. Our nation must remain competitive in order to continue the research and development needed to ensure access both here and abroad to energy that is abundant, affordable, clean, reliable and secure. The most efficient way to achieve these goals is through policies that encourage competitive markets, private investment, and expanded trade. Policymakers should resist the urge to impose centralized regulations that place a drag on the economy without delivering measurable environmental benefits.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/priorities
The right policies will win hearts and minds. Memes don’t mean a thing.
Yeah – just collect a tax and then deduct it at the bowser and from power bills.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
A carbon tax of US$30/tonne CO2 adds some 25% to the LCOE of electricity from fossil fuels
Not if it’s all reimbursed back to Americans on an equal per capita basis, as thoughtful Americans like James Hansen and me advocate.
Yeah – just collect a tax and then hand it back at the bowser and deduct it from power bills. 🤣
davidappell02 | January 20, 2022 at 12:12 am | Reply
“Robert I. Ellison wrote:
A carbon tax of US$30/tonne CO2 adds some 25% to the LCOE of electricity from fossil fuels
Not if it’s all reimbursed back to Americans on an equal per capita basis, as thoughtful Americans like James Hansen and me advocate.”
Appell – Is there a contest for who is the least knowledgable about micro and macro economics? Who do you think eventually pays for that carbon tax? Hint – it is shared by the business, the shareholders and the consumer. The elasticity of the product determines how the additional costs are absorbed by those groups. In the case of energy, most of those additional costs will be borne by the consumer.
Reimbursed back to the americans – Do you have any concept of what mechanism is going to be implemented to accomplish that goal? do you really think that mechanism is going to be efficient.
All that money shuffling is a bureaucrat’s dream. They will be the net beneficiary, not the citizens.
davidappell02 | January 20, 2022 at 12:12 am | Reply
“Not if it’s all reimbursed back to Americans on an equal per capita basis, as thoughtful Americans like James Hansen and me advocate.”
Appell – you do realize that scheme is just another variation of a wealth redistribution scheme – which has never worked
It’s worse than that. If you power the city with nuclear then all the carbon taxes the ‘burbs and rural areas have to pay get “refunded” to the urban areas. The geographic distribution of coal use is not homogenous.
That creates winners and losers in carbon taxes and therefore an incentive to prevent people from switching. What’s the political base in New York to subsidize energy transition in southwestern New York when all the tax money those guys pay gets shoveled right into the pockets of New York City residents?
And, of course, if you amend the plan to give the money back to those who actually pay it, there’s no reason for them change anything. And the incentive reverses- NYC residents are just paying the taxes on energy the factories and farms use and watching their “refund” go outside the city where the farms and factories are.
The good news is they shut down nuclear so the cities are powered by fossil fuels now. Which means a carbon tax is just a tax on stuff they force you to use. And that’s why nobody is doing it.
For a few weeks now, Salvadorans have been receiving a blue box in their homes with the label “Outpatient treatment for COVID-19”, which is part of a government health strategy to care for people who alert by telephone that they have symptoms associated with COVID-19. new coronavirus The kit contains acetaminophen and acetylsalicylic acid (anti-inflammatories), loratadine (antiallergy), ivermectin (antiparasitic), azithromycin (antibiotic), vitamin C, vitamin D and zinc.
The same measure and with the same medicines has begun to be applied in its neighbor Guatemala and, as of this weekend, Bolivia is following in its footsteps with the distribution of one hundred thousand kits to the homes of people with suspected COVID-19 who They live in La Paz. However, there are doctors who warn about the risk of this health decision.
https://saludconlupa.com/noticias/el-salvador-guatemala-y-bolivia-ofrecen-kits-de-medicinas-para-covid-19-sin-prever-reacciones-adversas/
Somehow I’m more comfortable – should I require it – with a more sophisticated treatment regime. But I hope it helps in La Paz without too many unforeseen consequences.
https://covid19evidence.net.au/
It’s odd how you implicitly characterize the Salvdoreans as less “sophisticated.”
And there I was trying to be woke.
https://tradingeconomics.com/el-salvador/gdp-per-capita
So you believe GDP is a measure of sophistication?
Of course not – but it does buy sophisticated medical technology, training, facilities, systems…
But in the case of the US, money won’t buy you a cure.
GDP is also a measure of grifters per person.
El Salvador has a quarter the population ]of Australia and more COVID deaths. Is it a cure worse than the disease?
Cumulative deaths in Australia is going straight up. It’s leveled off in El Salvador. Oz will catch up and surpass E.S. real soon now at that rate.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?facet=none&Interval=Cumulative&Relative+to+Population=false&Color+by+test+positivity=false&country=AUS~SLV&Metric=Confirmed+deaths
Deaths per million in Australia are 107 and in El Salvador 587.
El Salvador: Daily confirmed cases: how do they compare to other countries?
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/el-salvador
Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people, Jan 17, 2022
7-day rolling average. Due to limited testing, the number of confirmed cases is lower than the true number of
infections.
El Salvador 200
Australia 4050.94
Apples and oranges.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/tests.png
I’v pointed out errors in your cherry picked charts and self-created unsourced charts before, is this another one? I even cited an Australian government tracking site that showed how your main government tracking site fudges and omits orders of magnitude numbers to make the vaccines appear to be working.
The statistics comparing AUSTRALIANS and EL SALVADORANS are about as clear as possible in the data I posted, and the policies being followed in El Salvador are trumping the Australian Reich hands down. So which ones in your chart are the “APPLES” and which ones are the “ORANGES?”
Israeli Vaccine Chief comes clean…‘Vaccine Passports are no longer relevant’
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/stunning-interview-with-israeli-vaccine-chief/
Professor Cyrille Cohen is head of Immunology at Bar Ilan University and a senior member of the advisory committee for Vaccines for the Israeli Government.
Israeli vaccine chief: “We have made terrible mistakes…we were completely wrong in our assumptions and our approach.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnMMYJKZvnU
The Green Pass / vaccine passport concept is no longer relevant in the Omicron era and should be phased out (he expects it to be in short order in Israel) Boris Johnson in the UK has also dropped all restrictions.
The Israeli vaccine chief and his colleagues were surprised and disappointed that the vaccines did not prevent transmission as they had originally hoped.
The biggest mistake of the pandemic in Israel was closing schools and education and NOT allowing herd immunity to develop naturally as we have always done in the past with other similar diseases – he apologized for that.
Widespread infection is now an inevitable part of future immunity — otherwise known as herd immunity.
Omicron has accelerated the pandemic into the endemic phase, in which Covid will be “like flu.”
SOURCE
https://unherd.com/thepost/israeli-vaccine-chief-we-have-made-mistakes/
All together, now, “I am fully vaccinated but I got COVID. Thank you for vaccinating me so I could be sure to get COVID.”
https://citizenfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Covid-Vaccine-Mask-Mandate.jpeg
The source is given on the table. TEWS should compare tests per million in El Salvador and Australia. It makes direct comparisons dubious ate best. And disagreeing with an extreme, chest beating anti-vaxxer is not the same as being wrong.
Here’s another way to look at it.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-969224
Test numbers in Australia nd El Salvador are very different. Apples and oranges. And the reported per capita COVID deaths in El Salvador are some 4 times that of Australia.
There is another way of looking at it.
https://judithcurry.com/2022/01/08/week-in-review-science-edition-132/#comment-969226
‘To enter El Salvador, you must present either a hard copy negative COVID-19 (PCR or Antigen) test taken 72 hours before travel or proof of full vaccination. If you’re staying in El Salvador, follow the advice of local authorities and maintain social distancing. Be aware of movement restrictions. You must wear a face mask at all times in public spaces.’
No Vax Djokovic may not be welcome in El Salvador either.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Somehow I’m more comfortable – should I require it – with a more sophisticated treatment regime.
Is he? Wow. Good thing Robert is fortunate enough to live in a rich country, isn’t he? Good thing he’s not so unfortunate as to have been born in a poor country, right? Just an accident of birth, that’s all it took.
GDP/capita, PPP basis, 2019:
El Salvador: $8,891
Australia: $54,891
Good for Robert, working so damn hard to be born in Australia than in El Salvador. Some truly first-rate fetal entrepreneurialism there, by gosh and by golly. What a superb capitalist in the womb!
The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets. So what are these laws of capitalism David?
“El Salvador has a quarter the population of Australia…”
Australia is a lab experiment we aren’t sure was ethical. Let’s not compare things to Australia. I can’t tell you how disappointed I am by Claire Lehmann sitting on her hands about it all.
‘All decent people can agree that the inconveniences caused by Covid restrictions should never be compared to the genocide.’ Claire Lehmann
No one is compelled to vaccinate.
Is it “dangerous misinformation” to link to a peer-reviewed medical study of over 223,000 subjects in Brazil if that study found that regular doses of ivermectin were associated with a 44% reduction in the COVID-19 infection rate, a 67% reduction in the hospitalization rate and a 70% reduction in the mortality rate?
https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
There must be some Americans who get Australian culture.
‘…never be compared to the genocide.’
I brought up ethics.
Check out the second chart in this post. E.S. is doing way better than the USA, cases per million. Note this is Johns Hopkins data, so it’s not from some “nut job” site.
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/01/if-only-our-covid-healthcare-was-as-good-as-el-salvador/
Jo Nova!!! 🤣
She posted charts from JOHNS HOPKINS!!! Get over yourself.
She is as nutty as a fruitcake.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/el-salvador
I hope Australia does not eclipse E.S. in deaths, but it could still happen.
Pierre Kory, MD MPA
@PierreKory
Largest study of IVM in COVID passed rigorous peer-review & was published this week. Found IVM use led to a massive reduction in infections, hospitalizations, & death. Crickets from across the worlds major media. The global war on repurposed drugs marches on
FLCCC—Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance
@Covid19Critical
A new, peer-reviewed study from Brazil of over 150k subjects finds regular prophylactic use of IVM “was associated with significantly reduced COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and mortality rates.”
https://cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching
Meanwhile….
El Salvador: Daily confirmed cases: how do they compare to other countries?
https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/el-salvador
Daily new confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people, Jan 17, 2022
7-day rolling average. Due to limited testing, the number of confirmed cases is lower than the true number of
infections.
El Salvador 200
Australia 4050.94
It’s 95% omicron – it’s peaking – and knock on wood – there have been few if any deaths from this variant.
Truth Seeker
@Amy21407287
While the Australian Reich Prison Colony doubles down on tyranny and Junk Science…End of Covid !!!! All restrictions in England to be scrapped within DAYS.
ALL covid restrictions in England will end in 10 days, a senior Government source has confirmed.
express.co.uk
End of Covid! All restrictions in England to be scrapped within DAYS
ALL covid restrictions in England will end in 10 days, a senior Government source has confirmed.
1:52 PM · Jan 17, 2022
Sunday Express reported:
The news comes as Boris Johnson continues to fight for his political life as fury rages over lockdown parties in Downing Street and a member of his own cabinet demands an end to the drinking culture in his Government.
The end of restrictions means mandatory mask wearing at schools, on public transport and at indoor events, controversial covid passports, and demands that people work from home will finish on January 26.
All that will remain will be a requirement to isolate for five days with a positive covid test and the need to take lateral flow tests for international travel.
….further supported by these tweets….
.
https://twitter.com/Amy21407287/status/1483165379392376834
https://twitter.com/SizweLo/status/1482737183714914305
https://twitter.com/hughosmond/status/1482989403312173056
https://twitter.com/thisisheart/status/1483054049683517443
More Than 60,000 Doctors & Scientists Have Signed The Great Barrington Declaration, including Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya & Dr. Sunetra Gupta…meanwhile, the 300 “doctors” who criticized Joe Rogan were posers…almost none were even licensed medical professional, but that is how the Left operates, lies, fraud, slander.
https://thepulse.one/2022/01/17/more-than-60000-doctors-scientists-have-signed-the-great-barrington-declaration/
The Great Barrington Declaration is a statement written in early 2020 that proposed a focused protection approach to handling COVID. It was written by Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine and epidemiologist at Harvard University, Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor and epidemiologist at Oxford University and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a physician, epidemiologist and professor of medicine at Stanford University.
https://gbdeclaration.org/
It also has an impressive list of co-signers that you can see on the home page that include some of the most renowned scientists in the world, along with nearly one million signatures from doctors, scientists, concerned citizens and healthcare workers.
The Facts:
o More than 60,000 scientists and doctors as well as more than 900,000 people have now signed The Great Barrington Declaration.
o The declaration advocates for a more focused protection approach to combat COVID-19, and has done so since the beginning of the pandemic.
o -19 mitigation strategies have been ineffective and perhaps more harmful than the virus itself.
Reflect On:
o Why are opinions and narratives that oppose government health authorities censored, ridiculed, and largely ignored?
o Why aren’t they discussed openly and transparently?
Street Artists on Both Coasts Take Aim at COVID Authoritarianism and the Lefties Can’t Cope
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2022/01/17/street-artists-on-both-coasts-take-aim-at-covid-authoritarianism-and-the-lefties-cant-cope-n1550184
Thanks! Good piece.
A study in the journal Pathogens found that in a lab setting, Listerine mouthwash significantly reduced COVID-19 virus infectivity and that use of it could reduce viral spread. So, one more thing that might help end the pandemic that you probably won’t be able to find on store shelves.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/10/3/272
Correction: The paper says mouthwashes have the POTENTIAL to reduce the spread of viruses. Nothing has been demonstrated except that mouthwash ingredients can kill COVID in a test tube, and sometimes cells they invade. No evidence yet that mouthwash can even reduce the amount of virus in the mouth. Lots of questions remain: What fraction of exhaled viruses come from surface of the mouth that can be reached by gargling? How long can any reduction in the mount be maintained? FWIW, infectious aerosols originate in the narrowest passages in the lung, where sheer rips tiny droplets from the surface.
Might be useful for dentist offices.
Here is another set of studies for a second substance.
https://c19pvpi.com/
jim2:
Can you give a one line summary of the iodine study you linked please?
Ragnaar – this is a list of studies. If you go there, you can read a summary of each and even read the entire paper for each study if you like.
Ragnaar – it’s this link to the list of studie: https://c19pvpi.com/
1% Povidone Iodine solution after close contact sprayed into one’s nose. I buy that your Listerine worked. Explain to me why the U.S. government hasn’t hardly mentioned such things? I am going with incompetent.
Is triggering Godwin’s law and wowsering it up in the same sentence a mixed metaphor or an oxymoron?
Either way such extreme and unpopular views as TEWS’ is not the way to win the hearts and minds of middle America. Fringe extremists on both sides have been arguing the same points for decades. This is of course Einstein’s definition of insanity. Extremists have closed the door on mature and balanced discussion of energy and environment and the vast majority are heartily sick of it.
https://www.conservamerica.org/latest-news/its-time-to-get-the-politics-out-of-energy-policy-as-new-polling-show-voters-overwhelmingly-support-all-of-the-above
https://www.conservamerica.org/priorities
This article was initially retracted. The article has been revised to remove references to clinical studies, focusing exclusively on the mechanisms of action of ivermectin. Not sure why they got twisted over the inclusion of clinical trials.
New art