Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks

A critical assessment of extreme events in times of global warming [link]

Gavin confirms that climate models are running too hot. Only 2 years in last 25 are above the CMIP6 model mean, screened for “reasonable” TCR values. [link]

How much temperature related mortality in England and Wales changes at different levels of global warming https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac50d5

Evaluating Coupled Climate Model Parameterizations via Skill at Reproducing the Monsoon Intraseasonal Oscillation [link]

New paper on US flood risk [link]

Sixfold Increase in Historical Northern Hemisphere Concurrent Large Heatwaves Driven by Warming and Changing Atmospheric Circulations [link]

Weather regimes in a changing climate [link]

Combining machine learning and SMILEs to classify, better understand, and project changes in ENSO events https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-105

A regime shift in seasonal total Antarctic sea ice extent [link]

What causes Arctic Ocean warming? A new study suggests internal atmopsheric variability accounts for ~60% of accelerated warming since 2000. [link]

CLIVAR Variations: Improving the value of #climate data and models for assessing climate impacts and policies [link]

Application of deep learning to capture the nonlinear response of glacier mass balance to future climate change [link]

Impact of paleoclimate on present and future evolution of the Greenland Ice Sheet [link]

A new climate model suggests that conditions associated with severe storms will arise 5%–20% more often for each 1°C of global warming. [link]

Does disabling cloud radiative feedbacks change spatial patterns of surface greenhouse warming and cooling? Chalmers et al. 2022 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-21-0391.1…

Assessing the Potential for Compound Storm Surge & Extreme River Discharge Events at the Catchment Scale with Statistical Models [link]

Safeguarding critical minerals for the energy transition [link]

Did volcanoes accelerate the fall of chinese dynasties? [link]

Radionuclides from ice cores and tree rings reveal that an extreme solar storm hit Earth about 9200 years ago during a quiet phase of the Sun within the 11 year solar cycle. [link]

Overcoming the challenges of ocean data uncertainty [link]

“Storms drive outgassing of CO2 in the subpolar Southern Ocean” [link]

Policy and technology

Good overview of water mismanagement in India, with impacts on their energy transition [link]

McKinsey Report: Bigger spend needed for net-zero world than assumed [link] $9.2 trillion/year for 30 years to achieve netzero

Satellite finds massive methane leaks from gas pipelines [link]

Limited impacts of carbon tax rebate on public support for carbon pricing [link]

Closing California’s Diablo nuclear plant results in a loss of carbon-free generation equivalent of tearing down every wind turbine or every rooftop solar panel in California. [link]

“Belgium’s plan to close its nuclear power plants by 2025 could put energy supplies coming under pressure and further increase the price of electricity” [link]

Germany’s Nuclear Phase Out Delayed its Coal Exit by 8 Years [link]

Germany’s nuclear phaseout ignores energy realities [link]

A Soviet-era snafu caused a methane-filled pit in Turkmenistan to burn for half a century. Now, the country’s president wants to extinguish the eternal fires at the ‘Gateway to Hell’. [link]

A new study reveals that the loss of even a hectare of wetlands costs society an average of $1900 in flood damages per year. https://l8r.it/yD72

The economics of greenium: How much is the world willing to pay to save the Earth? Sadly, not much. [link]

Pielke et al.: Plausible 2005-2050 emissions scenarios project between 2 and 3C warming by 2100 [link]

Indicate separate contributions of long-lived and short-lived greenhouse gases in emissions targets [link]

Energy transition risks and red herrings in 2022 [link]

How a debate over carbon capture derailed California’s landmark climate bill [link]

New AMS Best Practice Statement: Extreme Cold Temperature Outbreaks: A Call to Action for Better Preparation [link]

Texas Electric Grid Failure was a warm-up [link] little has been done to prevent the next one

Improving judgements of existential risk: better forecasts, questions, explanations, policies [link]

The promise of geothermal energy [link]

As coal use surges, America finds it hard to unplug from carbon [link]

Rare Earths: Fighting for the fuel of the future [link]

What are solar trees, and could they replace solar panels? [link]

California is poised to kill rooftop solar [link]

Recycling electric vehicle batteries [link]

Drop in transportation emissions since the onset of the pandemic, and how a long-term shift to remote work could help make that change a bit more permanent. (1) https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/pandemic-and-vehicle-miles-traveled…

Yachts to be exempt from EU’s carbon pricing plans [link]

Wildfires, climate change, and the courts [link]

Burning Sugar Cane Pollutes Communities of Color in Florida. Brazil Shows There’s Another Way. [link]

Climate ripe for nuclear advances [link]

How green policies are fueling the energy crisis [link]

About science and scientists

What college students really think about cancel culture [link]

Scientists must resist cancel culture [link]

Why is Covid modelling so controversial [link]

Fun article: culinary fluid mechanics [link]

Hong Kong’s contested academic freedom [link]

Jordan Peterson resigns tenured Professor position [link]

We need to talk about the vaccines [link]

The importance of academic impartiality [link]

How our universities became sheep factories [link]

America’s top environmental groups have lost the plot on climate change [link]

Strengthening scientific integrity [link]

UK’s scientists failed the pandemic test [link]

Edward O. Wilson (1929–2021) https://go.nature.com/33mCWWr

Stop blaming th climate for disasters [link]

Andy West’s Part II interview on Strong and Free podcast [link]

563 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. David Strickland

    Thank you for your emails and articles. Good reading !.

  2. re Gavins Post: The trend estimate of the “TCR screened models” is, according to Tokarska et al (2020) is 1.60 K/2*CO2: “Our results from CMIP6 observationally constrained TCR (of 1.60°C) …” .
    The Model-Mean Trend is 20% higher than the one calculated from observations (GISS):
    https://i.imgur.com/LlgNfWD.png
    (Digitized from the figure of the blogpost by Gavin)
    Therefore the most likely reason for the model overestimation is a by 20% overestimeted TCR in these models.
    This gives: 1.6*0.8=1.28 K/2*CO2 which bolsters the result from L/C18 and other papers.
    Nice surprise!

    • Not exactly a rate of warming that leads to doom and gloom

    • Gee, Frank, almost exactly the 43-year trend of UAH6. I wonder why?

    • Also, Frank, please note the model vs surface observational temperatures graph only goes back to 1980. Beginning in 1880 would give a whole different picture of model vs observations; the models wouldn’t show the late 1800 through early 1900 cooling and the 1915 to 1945 warming, such warming being of a similar rate and duration as the late 20th Century warming to which the models are tuned.

      The models are tuned from the 1970s forward; it would be awfully strange if they deviated much through the early 2010s. Note Schmidt’s weasel-wording about atmospheric modeled vs observed temperatures: CMIP6 models still show the phantom tropospheric hot spot which CliSciFi modelers refuse to address.

      The Deep State continues to spin words and selectively quote data so as to politically and ideologically convince rather than unbiasedly inform the public. A truly educated public is a danger to authoritarian governments.

      • Dave, I’m aware of your points. However, the model issues with the overestimated (negative) Aeorosolforcing and the overestimated sensitivity become clear after the reduced ( clean air ect…) Aerosolforcing in the years after 1990. The too steep slope of the GMST in the younger past is mostly due to an oberestimated TCR. Therefore the younger past is a good benchmark to estimate the TCR of the real world.

      • Back in the real world, a truly educated public is laughing out loud at the denizens of the What Global Warming ? echo chamber:

        https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2022/02/january-global-surface-templs-up-008.html

    • When you factor in plausible emissions scenarios, it is extremely unlikely that costs ever outweigh the benefits.

      • aaron writes- ‘ it is extremely unlikely that costs ever outweigh the benefits.”

        Can you please define the specific benefits that you see occurring? If in 75 years if CO2 concentration is at 500ppm vs 490 ppm does it matter?

      • Increased food productivity, decreased energy use, decreased maintenance costs, decreased winter traffic, decreased winter deaths/injuries, increased soil moisture.

        Cost don’t really grow until around 800s iirc.

      • Also, increased wildlife (this is likely much bigger than agricultural effects) Particularly sea life. CO2 and fertilizer run off (despite some areas sometimes being stressed too much at times) have probably kept fish populations up and help whales, walruses, polar bears, etc recover and reduces stress on fished species.

        Increased CO2 has probably helped corals more than hurt them.

  3. Re: “We need to talk about the vaccines.”

    Here we go again: no proof that early treatment is helpful and plenty of proof that it’s harmful.

    Author is apparently unaware of the website https://c19early.com/#fpearly

    And did we talk about Meryl Nass’ finding that the studies on HCQ were highly flawed? https://ahrp.org/how-a-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative-was-created/

    • ************
      Conclusions
      The available reports indicate there is a large > 60% mortality risk reduction associated with multidrug treatment regimens that utilize two or more intracellular anti-infectives (HCQ and either AZM or DOXY) combined with other agents including corticosteroids, anti-thrombotics (anti-platelets), and nutraceutals

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8178530/

      ************
      Conclusions
      HCQ has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is provided early in the outpatient setting; in general, it appears to work better the earlier it is provided. Overall, HCQ is effective against COVID-19. There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has also been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

      ************
      Conclusions:
      Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

      ************
      DISCUSSION
      Currently, as of December 14, 2020, there is accumulating evidence that demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Large-scale epidemiologic analyses validate the findings of in vitro, animal, prophylaxis, and clinical studies. Epidemiologic data from regions of the world with widespread ivermectin use have demonstrated a temporally associated reduction in case counts, hospitalizations, and fatality rates.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

  4. What causes Arctic Ocean warming? A new study suggests internal atmopsheric variability accounts for ~60% of accelerated warming since 2000. [link]

    Warm, Thawed, Arctic Ocean is required to promote evaporation and snowfall that rebuilds the ice on land in Greenland and all around, inside and outside the Arctic. Warm times with a thawed Arctic Ocean is necessary to rebuild ice that later cause colder times. More land ice dumping into turbulent tropical currents is what does chill them to cool the climate with cold water returning in ocean currents to the tropics and it is what chills the Arctic to form sea ice and turn off the evaporation and snowfall until the excess of ice on land is depleted.
    A warmer atmosphere results from the lack of cooling by the sequestered ice dumping into the oceans.

    You study immediate correlations and do not study history and ice core records to even try to understand natural alternating warm and cold time periods.

    Snowfall in warmest times causes coldest times later, hundreds or thousands of years later. Lack of snowfall in coldest times causes warmest times later, hundreds or thousands of years later.

    • It might be worth looking at oil pollution from the North Slope and Alaska. Smoothed ocean surfaces have lower albedo, less evaporation, fewer CCNs generated as wave breaking is reduced.
      Check the history of dissolved silica and nitrates — both feed diatoms which produce smoothing lipids and… see above.

      Well, when all you’ve got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

      JF

    • ” More land ice dumping into turbulent tropical currents is what does chill them to cool the climate with cold water returning in ocean currents to the tropics and it is what chills the Arctic”

      It’s scandalous that the BBC hasn’t aired Pope’s home video of manatees falling to their deaths from ice cliffs fronting the Gulf Stream, and Nature has rejected his magisterial study of Ocean Coolth Content.

      Let’s hope he has better luck at WUWT:

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2022/02/climate-denier-gets-off-on-wrong-foot.html

  5. George Turner

    The culinary fluid mechanics article was great! Far too many cookbooks omit the Navier-Stokes equations, or just barely touch on them.

  6. Methane releases from pipelines – deliberate? Yes. Common? Yes. Blowing down piping for cleaning and repairs occurs often. I’ve done it quite a few times during initial start-up testing at very large power plants.

    That being said, should the gas be faired-off/burned instead? Maybe. Would be more expensive than just opening a valve; special equipment is required to flair the gas.

    Venting a gas line can result in gas drifting into areas where a spark could set off an explosion. That occurred at a power plant in Connecticut and scores were killed. Was a clear case of criminal negligence by the firms building the power plant.

    Venting large amounts of gas is really nerve racking. Flair the gas off because it is significantly safer – spend the extra money. Happy byproduct – better for the environment.

  7. climate models are running too hot. Only 2 years in last 25 are above the CMIP6 model mean…

    Much like use of ivermectin to treat a covid-19 infection is a form of faith healing, belief in the AGW hypothesis requires faith in an analysis that has forsaken the scientific method.

    • Ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 148 studies, 97 peer reviewed, 78 with results comparing treatment and control groups.

      c 1 9 i v e r m e c t i n . c o m

    • John Shewchuk

      It’s comforting to know the model with the worst statistics got the prize … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98zl8SlObLE

      • We look forward to Wojick’s study of ivermectin covid prophylaxis in white tailed deer.

    • https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/12/21/did_dismissals_of_safe_outpatient_drugs_cause_needless_covid_deaths_dissenting_doctors_say_yes_808045.html

      On what basis would anyone say that the use of ivermectin is akin to “faith healing”? Truth be told, the overwhelming fact about Covid-19 treatment is our failure to treat it early with repurposed drugs used safely for decades.

      • 2 – Ivermectin/IVM – Review of 20 meta-analyses IVM in COVID0-19: If remove studies with fraud, impossible data – No effect on mortality. Note FLCCC authors (links to sellers of IVM and IVM Zoom consult$) had their studies sanctioned in multiple journals.

        journals.lww.com

        Meta-Analyses Do Not Establish Improved Mortality With… : American boo Journal of

      • Try again, Wagathon. You give no (legible) reference for what you say. Linked to sellers of IVM? Do you have any idea how cheap IVM is (although price has climbed because of demand)? Yes, there are people giving Zoom consults; they have to because physicians everywhere are refusing to prescribe these safe drugs. Case in point: I live in New England. My doctor refused to prescribe IVM. I got Covid. I had to get a doctor in Chicago to prescribe meds, total cost to me was about $150 for everything– consults and meds. The consult itself was I believe $50. Meds had no connection to doc; most were from my local pharmacy.

        Please give clear references for your points. You can be sure that I’ll do the same.

      • American Journal of Therapeutics 29, e87–e94 (2022)

        Meta-Analyses Do Not Estab tolish Improved Mortality With Ivermectin Use in COVID-19

        Steven G. Rothrock, MD,1,2* Kurt D. Weber, MD,3 Philip A. Giordano, MD,3 and Mitchell D. Barneck, MD3

      • Shortened version of my reply that I don’t think got through: we have to look at all the evidence, not just what Rothrock et al say. For example, here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf

        Lots of evidence points in the same direction. Some naysayers are pointing in the other direction.

      • You are making my point…

      • Wagathon, you aren’t going to win any arguments here by failing to refute anything except to say, “you are making my point….”

        Here, let me try that: “Wagathon, you’re making my point.” How many people have I convinced?

        You might want to start, for example, by demonstrating how your one piece of evidence trumps all the other streams of evidence that indicate that ivermectin has good efficacy and is safe.

        Other streams of evidence:
        1. Ivermectin shows in-vitro inhibition of many viruses, including SARS-CoV-2
        2. In animal models, ivermectin has shown anti-inflammatory and immune modulating effects.
        3. Observational controlled trials show that IVM reduces hospitalization and mortality.
        4. Epidemiological evidence shows that IVM reduces hospitalizations and deaths.

        These are some of the streams of evidence, not including the meta-analyses. Why does your one study trump all the other evidence?

      • He is making your point in your dreams, perhaps.

      • The crazy cranks and quacks of misinformation whose tactics have been used to spread fears about vaccines was preceded by the anti-science cult of climate change alarmism since the ’90s.

    • Dominion Energy generate 40% of its power from nuclear reactors. They have hydro and the largest pumped storage capacity in the world they say. Dominion is a responsible corporate citizen treading a fine line between wowsers whining about coal and gas on the left and troglodytes on the right bemoaning wind and solar. All the while providing value for customers.

      Dominion has an energy mix. It is not and can never be 100% wind, solar and batteries. The latter is a straw man argument – the informal fallacy of refutation by misrepresentation.

      https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2017/7/6/42116756-1499338113041014.png

      There has to be a way forward when squeezed between gas generation and rising fuel prices – and an aging nuclear fleet. A small part of it is renewables – but much more modular reactors once they start rolling off factory floors.

      I have no truck with wowsers or troglodytes – they should leave these things to practical engineers at coal faces. For whom anything is possible. Like with all good investments – time is on our side.

      • You should read their IRP for compliance with the VCEA which mandates zero emissions by 2045. They start closing down plants next year. You seem to have no idea what is going on. Have you even read this: https://www.cfact.org/2022/01/21/vcea-makes-virginias-electric-grid-dangerously-unreliable/

      • If you too are saying their present plan is no good then we agree! It is hard to tell with all your silly name calling.

      • Let’s make it simple. Dominion has about 3,000 MW of nuclear but they peak around 16,000. This is presently covered with coal and gas, but the law says that must all go away. So where do they get the 13,000? Their proposed plan says they add 1,600 in new nukes but the rest is wind and solar with almost no storage. This is not a straw man, it is their official plan.

        Does not work so I developed a generic reliability analysis on a 1,000 MW solar basis, that can be scaled to any size case. It uses 5 cloudy days as the peak event. Turns out you need 120,000 MWh of storage per 1,000 MW of reliable solar. Their big pumped storage plant is just 24,000 MWh, so no go even for that small power need and theirs is much bigger, over 10,000 MW.

        Dominion knows all this, making their completely unreliable plan just politically correct engineering. On Thursday there was a VA House hearing on repealing VCEA. Dominion testified against repeal!

      • ‘RP8 assumes that the three coal-fired units at Wateree and Williams Stations are retired in 2028. The sole remaining coal plant, Cope Station, is converted to natural gas only in 2030. The missing Williams and Wateree coal capacity is replaced with a new high-efficiency, low-emitting combined cycle natural gas unit and several large-frame natural gas
        internal combustion turbine (“ICT”) units. This replacement generation protects reliability and provides a base of dispatchable generation to support the addition of 1,900 to 2,000 megawatts (“MW”) of solar and 700 to 900 MW of battery storage from 2026 to 2048. Reliability would be
        supported by also adding quick-start aeroderivative ICTs as needed. This plan creates a diverse and reliable portfolio of both renewable and dispatchable resources while providing a significant reduction in CO2
        emissions and a large increase in clean energy generation.’ https://www.dominionenergy.com/-/media/pdfs/global/company/desc-2020-integrated-resource-plan.pdf

        It helps to understand what is being modelled. While keeping the door open to disruptive technologies. And ignoring both wowsers and troglodytes as marginal extremists who just add confusion to the mix.

        https://www.dominionenergy.com/our-company/clean-energy

      • You are looking at the wrong IRP (and the wrong scenario therein). The new 2021 IRP has three plans, with only plan C complying with VCEA. It has over 14,000 MW of solar and over 5,000 MW of wind by 2036. By 2045 every bit of fossil is retired, as the law requires. This is clearly very different from your citation. No wonder you do not understand what I am talking about.

      • The 2021 update is in review by the SCC. Resource plan 8 remains the preferred option for an inevitable energy transition.

        ‘Key Points of the Filing:

        1. In 2020, DESC achieved top-of-class results in safety, reliability, storm resiliency, speed of restoration, and generation unit reliability.

        2. In 2021, DESC initiated a robust stakeholder process, facilitated by a recognized third-party professional consulting firm, that provides an open
        and transparent process for multiple stakeholders to explore how DESC can best transition to a cleaner energy future.

        3. As the stakeholder primarily responsible for safety and reliability, DESC intends to retain a primary role to ensure that safety, reliability and affordability are preserved in the current transition and that South
        Carolina does not experience reliability disasters similar to the recent reliability failures in Texas and earlier outages in California.

        4. Resource Plan (RP) 8 remains the preferred resource plan under the updated modeling. RP8 assumes the retirement of DESC’s three remaining coal-only units in 2028. Analyses are underway to determine
        the specific timing for replacing those units and to identify the assets needed to reliably meet customer demands when they are retired.

        5. DESC also modeled alternative versions of RP8 which include the near-term addition of 400 megawatts (MW) of solar and 100 MW of battery storage. The modeling shows these plans to be potentially beneficial to customers if the assumed prices for solar and battery capacity are correct.’ https://dms.psc.sc.gov/Attachments/Matter/531e91d9-05ff-48e2-938f-adccf3548768

        Sure I understand David. You have a straw man energy mix argument that is preposterously unrealistic.

  8. At 31:30 Andy West hits it out of the park:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON9Cldvd2eg

    Link as noted in this article. It’s (Climate change alarmism) a culture that isn’t meant to solve the problem because that would kill the culture. He comments that nuclear might solve the problem. This situation appears similar to religion.

    You all can share this video. Come on.

    • George Turner

      Many years ago I wrote up the math for controlling sea-level rise using the simple solution of simply pumping sea-water onto permanently frozen areas of the arctic and Antarctic. You must take the amount of sea-level you want to drop per year, multiply that by the area of the ocean to get the volume of water, figure up how high you’ll pump it, then figure in pump efficiency and power plant efficiency. That gives you the required powerplant capacity you’ll need, and that lets you cost out the project based on how much it costs to make and run powerplants, which is a known-known because everybody is always installing new powerplants.

      It works out that we can control sea-level, even drop it, using far fewer additional coal plants than China builds every year. If shared out globally, the US cost would be about 2% of our military budget.

      And of course nobody would ever allow such a project to proceed because the people who don’t worry about sea-level would see it as a waste of money, and the people who do worry about sea-level want to worry about sea-level, and the project would ruin that for them. Solving the problem takes away their power. There’s now a huge climate-alarm industry and simple and cheap climate solutions would ruin it for everybody.

    • That would make skepticism a counter culture. Two religions, theirs and yours? I think Andy overlooks that there is a rational disagreement here. Alarmists really believe the threat and they have arguments to support their position. This blog shows that clearly.

      Culture is not an explanation, just a description. Liberals and conservatives are named after what they think. The names do not cause them to think that way.

      • “That would make skepticism a counter culture. Two religions, theirs and yours? I think Andy overlooks that there is a rational disagreement here.”

        No, not a counter-culture, generally speaking (albeit specific cultures, such as Rep/Con tribalism in the US, can add their weight to opposition). But indeed driven by an *instinctive* anti-cultural reaction, so in other words, not rational. Across international publics, this is measurable in a straightforward manner, and is highly robust. Because ‘public’ also encompasses public authority (whose attitudes aren’t directly measurable, but for sure their expression of Catastrophe Narrative can be catalogued across most such – with the notable exception of Trump as was – and for decades), then policy has also become a function of culture. For instance, renewables commitment across nations, follows a cultural pattern – see:
        https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/

        “I think Andy overlooks that there is a rational disagreement here.”

        Not at all. But the rational disagreement, such as is expressed on climate blogs, for instance, is *not* driving publics, nor public authority and policy. The rational argument, thus far, occupies a tiny and ineffectual space.

      • “Liberals and conservatives are named after what they think. The names do not cause them to think that way.”

        There are both such who think rationally. There are both such who follow tribal political behaviours (aka culture). There are both such who will do both, depending on the topic being expressed, and even if this is political.

      • “Because ‘public’ also encompasses public authority…”

        Sorry, I had switched to talking of the cultural belief side in publics here, which encompasses public authority. The instinctive rejection side, to date, is has not entered or swayed authority to any significant degree. The burdens of Net Zero will likely change that soon, however.

      • John Shewchuk

        At least Russia, China and India voted to reject net-zero — as we should have … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg4gztn5APk

      • David Wojick:
        Let’s try looking at it this way. Who in their right mind would deploy solar panels in MN? The reasons for that are cultural more than logical. The best bet seems to win with culture. Not with flow charts and plots. We are familiar with what hasn’t seemed to work.
        On the other hand, I am hopeful some economics will rain down on California and Germany and they will see the error of their ways. The natural gas crisis or whatever it is, is starting to get traction. Natural gas has delayed the reckoning until recently.
        We have failed at marketing. It’s true. We can point to a lot of failures on their side, but that doesn’t do much good.
        We don’t have the schools. Someone else does. We may lose the hard sciences if we haven’t all ready,
        We can still win. I don’t think logic is going to do it though.
        What is not failed marketing? Providing people with what they need. Not what we have to sell.

      • Andy, I’m curious why you don’t emphasize the use of propaganda as a primary tool to redirect contemporary culture, specifically as it relates to the religiosity behind CAGW. When one political party controls most levers of power; schools, media, etc., this enables overwhelming power to bend culture towards a specific POV, or worse case, brainwashing. A minority of radicals within a party can wield disproportionate amounts of power if given the right levers.

        Out of curiosity I did a quick search within your essays in CE going back to 2017, you mentioned “propaganda” in a paragraph one time in two articles: 1) in reference to Vietnams communist past, how communism infuenced its culture, and similarly 2) a paragraph about state propaganda, put out by an extremist regime. That’s it. As the divide widens in the US many see todays federal government lurching into extremism; embracing socialism, also including a subset who embrace fascism, and communism.

        Propaganda can be a powerful change agent if cultural critical mass is captured (this doesn’t have to mean a majority). Politically aligned forces at play today are utilizing the influence of extreme propaganda, and money. Historically, a minority with the right tools have proven quite capable of changing cultures of entire nations within a few years.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Andy …

        > But indeed driven by an *instinctive* anti-cultural reaction, so in other words, not rational.

        Labeling it instinctive doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not rational. We are all bombarded with memes that gain traction in the culture. It doesn’t mean that a knee-jerk response wasn’t well thought out in the first several iterations.

      • Hi Jungle,

        The problem with talking about propaganda, is that it is as much a symptom, as a cause. And to the extent that it’s a cause, it is generally (certainly for the big players such as Communism or Fascism or climate catastrophism or zealous religious regimes or whatever) anyhow another part of how cultures operate (like narrative policing, or demonization of out-groupers, or whatever). IOW, it’s a cultural amplifier, yet still a part of the culture. And I want to stick to root causes, in the main. Most people involved in pushing ‘climate propaganda’ (e.g. endless ‘journalists’) are not dishonestly pushing the message, they passionately believe in the message, which is why they push it so damn well. In this respect, and also regarding below, people’s perceptions of what propaganda means, can skew what they think I’m trying to say. Some will typically think of ‘dishonesty’ and ‘nefarious motive’ when they think of propaganda, but even though some propaganda can be appalling, believers ‘serving the culture’ in this manner, typically think they’re doing the right thing, even if there’s some noble-cause corruption along the way.

        And people tend also tend to think that ‘propaganda’ means a political dimension. But this isn’t necessarily so; religion or catastrophist climate-culture or any other culture can have propaganda in its own name too, i.e. this isn’t owed primarily to politics. In the US, politics is hugely polarized around climate-change (as on much else too), so climate propaganda is often thought of as Democrat propaganda, or at least more informally, Dem/Lib propaganda. And indeed there’s an alliance. But this isn’t the case in all other countries. [The nearest on this aspect are maybe Oz and Canada, but they are still a very long way behind the US, up to end of 2019 (most of my data ends here) at least]. For instance, the *conservative* government here in the UK is busy pushing a very ambitious (and getting more so each year) Net Zero plan. And all main UK parties actually represented in parliament support the climate agenda to the hilt. This is much more the typical case across the world. In Germany, most climate policy has always come from the *right* anyhow, and Merkel (now departed) was known as ‘the climate chancellor’. In this situation, ‘climate propaganda’ is largely apolitical, and the culture has subsumed all party hierarchies. Those who oppose climate policies have no formal political representation (although the burdens of Net Zero, now beginning to bite, will likely change that). Hence to bring up ‘propaganda’, tends often to obscure the real issue; it is just an aspect of the root cause. And the cause is that ‘climate catastrophism’ is a culture *in its own right*.

        When I need to look at such aspects, I often use a different term, like ‘proselytizing’ (as used in the guest post here ‘Child Prophets and proselytizers of Climate Catastrophe’). I think it more accurately reflects what’s happening, plus doesn’t come with the above preconceptions. And ‘propagandizing’ can be a subset of ‘proselytizing’.

      • Bill, ‘Labeling it instinctive doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not rational’

        I’m not just ‘labelling’ it instinctive. Generally speaking, we can’t tell for an individual whether their expressed attitude is due to rationality, or due to instinct, or whatever mix. But we can tell for bulk publics. We can actually measure it. For instance (outside of the US, because of the polarization mentioned above, which is an extra consideration), the publics in religious nations have by far the highest concerns (e.g. from ‘harm’) in the world about climate-change. And they also express the least priority in the world for action on climate-change! And the gulf between these two expressed attitudes is huge (about 60% the former, about 5% the latter). While in irreligious nations, the concerns and priorities overlap more, the *opposite* is nevertheless true; i.e. they express very low concern about climate-change, but give it relatively high priority. And for nations with intermediate national religiosity, their attitudes match where they sit upon the trendlines, for a given religiosity. I think you’ll struggle to find any rational motivation behind this (there are some potential candidates, but they’re easily ruled out; doesn’t match wealth, climate or climate exposure of nations, or whatever else). However, it is easily explainable via cultural motivations. See the chart that is put up towards the end of the podcast!

      • “See the chart that is put up towards the end of the podcast!”

        This includes instinctive *disbelief* in a culture, as well as cultural belief. But both these behaviours are actually different for reality-constrained, and unconstrained, scenarios. The instinctive disbelief, is a kind of ‘anti-cultural’ cultural mechanism, a kind of balance mechanism. It may itself be sponsored by (another) culture, or it may not stem from another culture at all, only rejection of one.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        Andy … thanks for your response.

        All I’m saying is that a ‘public’ can be concerned about climate change, i.e. increasing heat, and not want to pay a dime for it and those choices may be quite rational for their group. Just as in your example that another group can not have much concern about climate change but give it a high priority.

        My brother has a saying, people tend to know where their bread is buttered.

      • If you look properly you will find the rational debate at all levels of knowledge. Of course it is less precise where there is less knowledge, but the same arguments appear. Culture does not create opinion, it merely reflects it. You have the causation backward.

      • Ragnar, calling people who think differently from you irrational is just name calling, especially since they do the same.

        I am very curious as to how this culture thing works. People from the same family, school, workplace, location, etc., often disagree. Where and what then is this culture that supposedly causes certain people to think a certain way?

      • Bill Fabrizio

        David …

        > Culture does not create opinion, it merely reflects it.

        Yes and no. Or, maybe instead of saying ‘creates opinion’ it might be more instructive to say influences opinion?

        My comment to Andy was not to say culture doesn’t influence opinion nor is reflective of it, but rather a caution on the word ‘instinctive’. As we all know humans can hold seemingly contradictory beliefs or opinions and not see them that way. Setting up the poles of instinctive and rational, for me, tends to lose the focus of the dynamics of culture. For the most, part I tend to agree with his observations, which remember are on a very macro level.

      • Bill Fabrizio

        If I may, another thought on instinct and rationality.

        We tend to associate the word rational with deliberative. And instinct with immediate, or quick, reaction. But I would say that culture gives us what I’ll call ‘social memories’ that become embedded, so much so that when we encounter a situation in our environment an embedded social memory is activated so quickly, influencing/dictating our response that it seems to an observer to be a reaction more in line with instinct. Social memories can be overcome or changed via a rational process through time. Instincts, one could say, are by definition unchangeable.

        I hope that isn’t too vague or off topic.

      • By the way, Ragnaar, if your goal is to cut emissions then solar in MN makes good sense. Lots of sun in summer.

      • Bill, “All I’m saying is that a ‘public’ can be concerned about climate change, i.e. increasing heat, and not want to pay a dime for it and those choices may be quite rational for their group. Just as in your example that another group can not have much concern about climate change but give it a high priority.”

        For the first case, this is typical behaviour for virtue-signalling cultural adherents anyhow. The second case is less common; the higher priority is relative to the religious nations (rather than being very high in the absolute), and is due to the innate skepticism (‘instinctive disbelief’) of the irreligious folks, not having any religious values to defend from the competitive aspects of the newer (climate) culture.

        But if either behaviour was due to rationality, then there would not be an outstandingly strong relationship with national religiosity in *both* cases. Given national religiosity is an entirely cultural phenomenon, it would be a very strange rationality that happens to exactly match its trend across 64 nations of all religiosities, and a couple of dozen different (independently sampled) attitudes, plus climate activism and policy too.

        Not to mention that rational behaviour can only occur if there is knowledge to feed it, but publics have no significant knowledge on climate-change. Whether they accept it or reject it (or both per the apparent paradox above), all they really know is the cultural narrative of certain catastrophe, that they have been soaked in from all authority sources over decades, from presidents and prime ministers and religious leaders on downwards. Only small percentages of people likely know much outside this narrative, and at any rate not enough to make a big impact on overall attitudes.

        The only way the first case would be rational, is if publics knew rationally, not instinctively through detection of cultural pushing, that the science does *not* say there there is going to be certain catastrophe (absent crash Net Zero). But publics do *not* know this; it contradicts the prime narrative they’ve been soaked in for decades. The second case is also enabled via lack of knowledge; in this case of the stupendous costs (and downsides) of a crash Net Zero program, as such have constantly been hidden by the cultural narrative that has prevailed for decades in the public domain. Indeed, ‘build back better; implies it will be an advantage *as well as* fixing climate-change. Without this lack (and the cultural mechanics above as a driver), no public would rationally choose high priority if they were also not concerned. Which is why, as the huge burden of Net Zero starts to become clear, significant swathes of the public might soon be swapping cultural behaviour for rational objection.

      • David: “If you look properly you will find the rational debate at all levels of knowledge. Of course it is less precise where there is less knowledge, but the same arguments appear. Culture does not create opinion, it merely reflects it. You have the causation backward.”

        Rationality cannot operate without knowledge. Hence below a basic threshold of knowledge, little or no rational argument can occur. The public domain has been absolutely soaked in a cultural narrative of certain global climate catastrophe for decades, and in the main, knows little else. We also know this covers public authorities, who indeed have been the main transmitters, as extensively catalogued here. Publics don’t have significant knowledge of climate-change, they have a cultural myth that has been preached at them, and which is not knowledge. Hence, it’s not at all surprising that whether they accept it, or reject it, or indeed both per above as dependent on the scenario, their attitudes in the great majority, are not rational.

        In the public domain, we can *measure* these attitudes, and as noted to Bill above, no rational motivation can possibly explain them. And we can measure bulk policy implementation too, such as the commitment across nations to renewables. They both clearly follow a cultural pattern. If you believe that you can explain these attitudes without culture as the main causation, then go ahead and put up your explanation. The chart shown towards the end of the podcast, is a great place to start.

        The most familiar cultural entities are religions, of which there have likely been many thousands, with religious behaviour long pre-dating Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If you think that they merely reflect opinion, rather than create it, I’m wondering just what and from whom were they reflecting the numerous creation myths, the many arbitrary laws, and so on an so forth. Such creation doesn’t mean that all the laws are bad, or cultures must always be net negative. Far from it. However, via behaviours evolved over the above timescale, all cultural entities don’t just communicate their message, they do indeed create it too. Yet not from some conscious act of nefarious intent or whatever; it’s emergent via emotive selection (and so evolves, too). The message of certain global climate catastrophe, is just such an emotive cultural myth, which contradicts the knowledge of mainstream science, as well as the knowledge of skeptical science.

      • Bill, “If I may, another thought on instinct and rationality.”

        Generally, I think this is a good thought. Strong adherents of a culture don’t just act with bias in the spur of the moment. Indeed, rather than just bypassing rationality at times, as Dan Kahan has helped to show, it might be better to say that culture hi-jacks rationality. Hence, believers can have long-term deliberative thoughts that are nevertheless in service to their culture. As Kahan showed for the climate-debate in the US, as knowledge and cognitive capability increased, people were *more* polarized on the issue, not less. So instead of the extra knowledge leading to each side to rationally reach some middle ground, they diverged even further! This is because those who were more cognitively capable and knowledgeable, were better able to defend their cultural positions!

      • If you have time you might take a quick look at my crude 1975 textbook on the nature of complex reasoning. It was written just two years after I discovered the logical structure of complex reasoning, which I named the issue tree.

        http://www.stemed.info/reports/Wojick_Issue_Analysis_txt.pdf

        It begins with a silly looking argument over why someone bought a Ford. The issue tree of that argument reveals the complexity and epistemic sophistication of what these debaters say. That was my big discovery, that ordinary people do complex reasoning all the time and with ease.

        Having studied the reasoning in the climate debate for 30 years I can say that there is an enormous amount of reasoning, at all levels of knowledge. In fact every argument, on either side, has a counter argument on the other side.

        Of course usually only one side can be right, but it is not irrational to be wrong. Mind you sometimes both sides are right, as in the 100 year debate over wave versus particle theories of light, settled by wave-particle duality in quantum physics. And sometimes both sides are wrong, but I digress.

        In any case I find Andy’s theory of rationality to be unsupportable and probably incoherent if carefully analyzed. People think what they do for lots of personal reasons, but a hidden force called culture is not one of them.

      • David: “In any case I find Andy’s theory of rationality to be unsupportable and probably incoherent if carefully analyzed.”

        Hmmm… so you find this without any analysis whatever, and even without raising anything to counter my explanations to your questions above. And nevertheless, do futurology on the outcome of analysis. Great. And it’s a theory of culture.

        “People think what they do for lots of personal reasons, but a hidden force called culture is not one of them.”

        a) Cultural belief / characteristics are not hidden, are loud and proud in society, unless you think cassocks and cathedrals and mosques are not cultural, are easily measurable, and have a huge literature in support that long predates climate-change, for instance. b) while the social sciences generally don’t acknowledge the cultural nature of attitudes to climate-change as expressed outside the US (they haven’t go that far yet), they most certainly acknowledge the cultural nature *inside* the US, placing causality on Rep/Con and Dem/Lib tribal culture (in reality there’s a 4-way split, which also includes religion and climate culture in its own right). c) You don’t think religion or mid-twentieth century Fascism, to quote a couple of examples, are mainly about culture? If so that’s a very far-out position indeed.

      • “Having studied the reasoning in the climate debate for 30 years I can say that there is an enormous amount of reasoning, at all levels of knowledge. In fact every argument, on either side, has a counter argument on the other side.”

        This misses the point. The vast majorities in international publics neither engage with such arguments, or express rational attitudes (if they did so engage, then maybe their attitudes would indeed be rational, or at least more rational). The cultural narrative of certain catastrophe muscles out all such rational argument in their minds. So yes, it exists, fine. But no it doesn’t drive the vast majority, who likewise have no actual knowledge with which to engage in such argument. Their attitudes *do* match what we’d expect from belief in / rejection of, or both, cultural narrative. If you’re studying these arguments, no doubt a noble and very useful study in its own right, you are nevertheless studying what publics are largely *not* driven by.

      • Thanks for the reply, Andy.

        “The problem with talking about propaganda, is that it is as much a symptom, as a cause.”

        Niether are good.

        “Most people involved in pushing ‘climate propaganda’ (e.g. endless ‘journalists’) are not dishonestly pushing the message, they passionately believe in the message.”

        Sure, but why do journalists passionately believe the message? Consensus, right? And what’s that exactly, how has this messaging been sculpted? All science, no propaganda involved? It used to be that consensus meant one believes in AGW, today it means if you don’t believe in CAGW you’re a denier. Memes are constantly evolving, advanced by appeals to authority; trust, media messaging; hysteria. Everyone believes what they hear on TV. CAGW has gone beyond the science, it’s now an evolving cultural meme redefining itself via cultural energy, whatever urgency is required to accomplish net zero. It’s no longer enough to simply believe that humans have contributed to warming and to consider practical policies.

        Global climate standards bodies used politics to get started. While I agree with you that propaganda can come from many sources, including religion, what have you; climate alarmism was built on the back of careers, global political ambition, and world order; explicitly stated as such at the beginning of their organization.

        Political operatives use propaganda to sculpt the publics views on myriad topics, and because the Left own most of the media, it uses this media to press on the message. Climate is really no different than the way the Left foments division with identity politics, it’s just another power grab. Why wouldn’t politics use propaganda to coerce climate messaging with global economics as the take? Politics pays handsomely for authority. Honesty isn’t the point, it’s the numbers of the rank and file who buy into off the rails memes, the new base.

        I believe most scientists are honest brokers, but not all. It only takes a few authoritative talking heads to rally media messaging. Once in media hands, science is played by sound bite. If creating mass hysteria works, why not, it’s just another tool in the art of propagandistic coercion. The political minded know this as self evident. This is why “most people” is an unreliable metric as it relates to cultural beliefs; what drives herds is what strategists look for in politics. A cattle prod is a simple device that drives herds, CAGW is a cattle prod.

        “In Germany, most climate policy has always come from the *right* anyhow, and Merkel (now departed) was known as ‘the climate chancellor’.

        You go on to imply it’s conservatives leading the charge on climate policy. This seems rather odd. And I’m not sure why you go down the path of opining about Merkel’s political pedigree; it’s a spurious assessment. Your inference has to do with Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany, which is defined as conservative center right. But what does that mean in Germany? Truly understanding conservatism means one understands it means different things in different countries. Conservatism by definition means that one has a sympathetic appeal to an earlier form of governance. Merkel followed in the footsteps of her father, an ex N@zi hitler youth troop leader who went on to become a Lutheran minister, he was known as the red pastor because of his ambition to spread socialism in the church. Much like the current pope, actually. Merkel’s roots herself are Marxist. She educated herself at Karl Marx University. I could go on about her hard left background, but simply put, it’s another example of global political obfuscation used to keep cultures off balance relative to meanings of political alignment, just like many today still believe fascism is of the right. That’s how propaganda works.

        “And the cause is that ‘climate catastrophism’ is a culture *in its own right*.”

        The culture was started by way politics propagandizing catastrophism; following where power and money leads is still the easiest path to finding truth.

        Andy, I respect many of your viewpoints, and your research, it certainly has strong anthropologic value. But I think where we differ is that yours is a more varied organic multicultural global focus based on how personal belief systems are arrived at; the energy levered to instill, or call attention to these varied beliefs comes from orchestrated politics, and a good deal of propaganda, that’s where I land.

      • Thanks for your answer, Jungle.

        “Sure, but why do journalists passionately believe the message? Consensus, right?”

        Because they are emotively convinced (what culture does), not rationally convinced. Consensus and consensus policing is a big part of this; cultures are the ultimate human consensus machine, bypassing rationality at the brain architecture level to create (and maintain) one; this is due to gene-culture co-evolution.

        “And what’s that exactly, how has this messaging been sculpted? All science, no propaganda involved?”

        Propaganda is muchly involved, as noted above (and you agree), honestly propagated, in the main. It’s a symptom, not a cause, albeit in emergent phenomena, its more like an amplifying loop, so to speak.

        “It used to be that consensus meant one believes in AGW, today it means if you don’t believe in CAGW you’re a denier.”

        Absolutely. Outgroup demonization is another primary function of culture. And indeed, they very statement above underlines that this cannot be rationally motivated, unless entire disciplines and authority orgs and whoever else, are engaged on some nefarious and consciously co-ordinate hoax, which in practice could never be sustained for decades and across the globe, and for which there is not evidence.

        “While I agree with you that propaganda can come from many sources, including religion, what have you; climate alarmism was built on the back of careers, global political ambition, and world order…”

        There are many aligned agendas. This is typical. But the direction of causation is emergent globe-spanning culture believed by millions both in and out of authority -> agendas. Not agendas -> globe-spanning culture etc.

        “I believe most scientists are honest brokers, but not all. It only takes a few authoritative talking heads to rally media messaging.”

        Of course there’s always a few bad apples. Such bad apples simply cannot create a globe-spanning culture in which many millions, if not hundreds of millions irrationally believe (or irrationally reject) the message of certain catastrophic climate change. Which has entered practically every org and area of society in practically all corners of the globe, and has *measurable* public responses in reaction that a) clearly cannot be rational, and b) match the patterns as expected for a culture, indeed interrogating climate culture produces the same patterns as interrogating religion.

        “You go on to imply it’s conservatives leading the charge on climate policy.”

        No, I don’t say any particular politics ‘is leading the charge’. I’m saying that across the globe it has far less political dependence than in the US, and that in some countries all main parties are signed up to it, and it so happened in Germany that the main lean happened to be to the right. The situation of heavy left-right polarization in the US, is either muted or very muted outside the US.

        “This seems rather odd.”

        If you are only used to what happens in the US, it would indeed seem odd. OZ and Canada are some way along the path to the US situation, but still far less polarized.

        “Truly understanding conservatism means one understands it means different things in different countries.”

        I didn’t say, or imply, that conservatism was specifically pushing climate-change outside the US, or that if it was, it “can’t really be conservatism.” Merkel’s party is understood by everyone to be right of centre, and dictated most climate policy for years, and Merkel *was* known as the ‘climate chancellor’. The point here is *not* that there’s some strong alliance between climate culture and ‘conservatism’ in Germany or anywhere else in the rest of the world (e.g. the UK, where the conservatives are busy on a very ambitious Net Zero), but that it is largely *not political* everywhere else outside the US, so whoever happens to be in power, still pushes it.

        “The culture was started by way politics propagandizing catastrophism”

        The culture was already developing its characteristics before it even reached politicians. Group-think was endemic in those early stages, and group-think is just culture writ small. Propaganda is merely one of many features that are typical of emergent cultures.

        “Andy, I respect many of your viewpoints, and your research…”

        Ditto. Mutual on the viewpoints. However, I think I can back my viewpoints with hard social data. The chart towards the end of the podcast is a great start. I think culture causes the ‘orchestrated politics’; as noted above it is the original, deepest, and by far the most powerful means of ‘orchestrating’ humans. Its main orchestration mechanisms are ultimately subconscious too. The problem with reversing this situation and making the politics causal, is that the orchestration would then have to be conscious, which not only means a gigantic hoax conducted globally and over decades, but indeed given the nature of the issue, also a very nefarious hoax indeed.

      • Andy …

        > Which is why, as the huge burden of Net Zero starts to become clear, significant swathes of the public might soon be swapping cultural behaviour for rational objection.

        >Not to mention that rational behaviour can only occur if there is knowledge to feed it, but publics have no significant knowledge on climate-change.

        I’m sorry but I have to be a stickler on the semantics. In the first quote of yours above, I’m saying that the rational objection has already happened. And I think maybe your usage of rational behavior in your second quote is our difference. Rational behavior takes place with any available knowledge, where you seem to imply that there must be a certain level of knowledge. And I believe this is also where David has an issue.

        I do agree with your first quote above that as the costs become evident that a larger portion of the public will be aroused, and/or that portion that is already aroused will be confirmed. Just because a group doesn’t have the scientific wherewithal to understand the science doesn’t mean they can’t make a rational objection, or support, to what they assess it means to their lifestyle.

      • Bill, you’re a gent and can be as stickely as you like :)

        “I’m saying that the rational objection has already happened.”

        According to the measurements of global public attitudes, in very limited measure, at most. Look at the chart towards the end of the podcast, there is no way these attitudes can be explained by any rational motivation, objection or otherwise 0: If you think so, provide one :)

        “And I think maybe your usage of rational behavior in your second quote is our difference. Rational behavior takes place with any available knowledge, where you seem to imply that there must be a certain level of knowledge.”

        Consider the boundary case, zero knowledge. No rational opinions can be formed with zero knowledge, except ‘withheld judgement’, which is what some of the international publics do (whether rationally or not, we can’t tell), but not the majority. Now consider the case where the only thing most of the public know above zero, is a fairy-tale about certain global catastrophe. This is *not* knowledge, it contradicts both mainstream and skeptical science, and is (cultural) misinformation. And this is the case, that message is hugely dominant, and is also catalogued here from a raft or world authorities.

        So essentially, publics (largely) still have no knowledge, but a highly emotive cultural fairy-tale. From a rationality perspective, this is just like the boundary case, because there is still zero knowledge. And their majority reaction is not withheld judgement either, but exactly what we’d expect from either emotive endorsement of, or rejection of, or both per the ‘paradoxical’ chart noted above, the fairy-tale about catastrophe. Plus as noted above, *all* these reactions have a hugely strong relationship with national religiosity across all nations (and religiosities), yet religiosity is *purely cultural*. Nothing rational would do that! Rational attitudes should be largely independent of cultural identity, of cultural phenomena. When all else looks blurry, go always to the data.

      • Andy: “I think I can back my viewpoints with hard social data.”

        I know you can. I must reiterate that your studies, while far reaching, are a detailed analysis targeting global cultural perceptions; you provide an organic global cultural measure of attitudes. But the feelings of global multicultural denizens are a superficial consideration relative to global politics; which is only driven by the desire to rally massive support for what otherwise would be deemed draconian measures for climate mitigation. The tool used to gradually whittle away all apprehension is the cudgel of CAGW, fear mongering. CAGW is the cattle prod for the global herd to rally behind, if not immediately, then eventually. Continually turning up narrative juices captures mindshare, such is the path the political class recognize as a requirement to garner enough critical mass for political support; CAGW pushes the globalist agenda forward.

        My overarching premise is that it doesn’t matter what the global masses currently believe about climate change, cultural differences, religiosity; while interesting, none of this matters really. Politically it’s all about gradually eroding resistance on a global scale. It’s working. That’s why we’re progressively seeing the dividing lines of culture, and politics increasingly blurred. You can indeed claim that plenty conservatives, or collectively the Right and Left, together they’re becoming believers. Ten years ago you couldn’t easily say that. The conclusion is that CAGW propaganda works, it’s progress for global activists.

        Any knowledge a global citizen has, whether based on fact, or propaganda, simply feeds into the global political filter, it’s all a design to capture mindshare.

        The global presentation that there’s AGW in the beginning was only a marker. But an individuals feelings in regards to what’s actionable involves a process, relative to what an individual will either actively, or passively submit to. If one is going to ask global populations to pay out the arse for heating and cooling, and maybe even take their cars; then politics better bring it.

        So on the political scale, the goal is only to coerce global populations to shrug their collective shoulders and fall in line with group think sensibilities. That’s what propaganda does.

        You’ve described, in so many words, that the pendulum will swing the other way once the pain of mitigation is truly felt—the causation being the onerous costs of simply staying alive. Any idea that global denizens will be able to vote out authoritarianism is a non thought out pipe dream. There’s no authoritarian culture that will give up their power once they have it. History shows what happens when critical mass of culture falls behind authoritarianism. In this example we’re talking global scales, to say it will get ugly is an understatement.

      • A global conspiracy lasting 40 years involving thousands of scientists and engineers for global domination through climate change. I think you need serious psychiatric help. You next step is a rubber room and a strait jacket.

        CAGW is based on science — nothing else. That’s why none of the pseudo-science that you find here ever is taken seriously by the scientific community. You want junk science to be given the same weight as science based on data and know scientific principles. That’s never going to happen.

      • Hard social data is an oxymoron.

      • Jungle:
        “But the feelings of global multicultural denizens are a superficial consideration relative to global politics; which is only driven by the desire to rally massive support for what otherwise would be deemed draconian measures for climate mitigation.”

        What is your researched basis for claiming that the attitudes of the entire world’s publics are ‘superficial’? What is your evidence for saying that politics creates the culture and the global public attitudes, rather than that the culture creates the politics and the attitudes? A) The data matches exactly what we’d expect from a culture. For instance we get the very same patterns from religion, and B) to claim that politics is the root cause and not culture, is to switch motivation from the (largely) subconscious, to the (largely) conscious. Which then is equivalent to saying that it must all be a huge and nefarious and consciously co-ordinated conspiracy and hoax, which spans the globe and spans decades, plus incorporates huge numbers of people; which would be unique at this scale, and for which deliberate global conspiracy there is not evidence. Whereas cultural causation on this scale (and every scale) has examples throughout the whole of history where such processes occur. C) My theory not only says that global public attitudes will be cultural (indeed they are measurably so), but so also will policy implementation. And it is! I think that massively matters for the ‘draconian measures’ being implemented; and if this is not due to culture, why on Earth would it clearly follow cultural patterns? See:
        https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/

        “The tool used to gradually whittle away all apprehension is the cudgel of CAGW, fear mongering… …CAGW pushes the globalist agenda forward.”

        Again, this amounts to a conspiracy theory. Via emotive selection, ‘CAGW’ is an *emergent* emotive fairy-story (featuring various emotions including fear, but also hope etc), a product of the process that is at the heart of all religions and other secular cultures too, like Communism and Fascism for instance. Politicians have been (largely) captured by the culture, they didn’t consciously conspire to produce it. Come to that, the nascent culture preceded political interest anyhow. My theory says that politicians are largely honest, but emotively *believe* in certain climate catastrophism as one would believe in a religion (which likewise motivates hundreds of millions of followers, no problem). Same as journalists (whom you agreed were largely propagating honestly), and all the rest. Your theory says they must (largely) be dishonest, and *consciously* coordinating across all nations (including of every ethnicity, every political system and party therein and including theocracies and whatever else, and every financial system and level, and every other national characteristic, including some nations that are actually at war with each other). Which of these two theories do you really think is more plausible? Mine has plenty of supporting data, per above. What data speaks to yours?

        “My overarching premise is that it doesn’t matter what the global masses currently believe about climate change, cultural differences, religiosity; while interesting, none of this matters really.”

        But this is tantamount to ignoring the data. All global public attitudes on climate-change (except the US, where it’s a 4-way cultural dance, not 2-way like the rest of the world), are incredibly strongly related to religiosity (at national level). My theory explains why. If your theory is to survive, it must also explain why. You can’t simply say this ‘does not matter’; it is absolutely fundamental. And indeed per C) above, policy and spend exactly mimics per country what the cultural attitudes are for each nation. If it’s a global political conspiracy of united elites from all nations, why on Earth would these attitudes to climate-change exactly track national religiosity across the world anyhow; this would be nonsensical from that theoretical perspective. And how do you know “it’s working” too, if you don’t even acknowledge what the publics attitudes are to start with and what causes them, but instead just say ‘they don’t matter’.

        “The conclusion is that CAGW propaganda works…”

        Of course it works. This is not an issue between us. The issue is that you say the root causation for the propaganda and all else is political, and by inference must therefore also be conscious, nefarious, a giant and globally co-ordinated conspiracy over generations, while I say the causation is cultural, largely subconscious, and works the same way that every culture in history has ever worked, including the religions. And indeed, the social data leaves exactly the fingerprint expected from same.

        “But an individuals feelings in regards to what’s actionable involves a process, relative to what an individual will either actively, or passively submit to. If one is going to ask global populations to pay out the arse for heating and cooling, and maybe even take their cars; then politics better bring it.”

        It’s highly likely that politics will run aground on this. However, whether publics accept or not and to what extent depends on their cultural identity, and this is easily demonstrable. And it’s been demonstrable for many years, that the tighter the reality-constraint, the harder the reality of policy choices against other priorities, then the more people bail out. This is exactly what happens for cultures, because they would never have survived as influential entities if they didn’t ‘negotiate’ with reality (just a turn of phrase, they are not sentient or agential, their actions all occur via emotive selection).

        “So on the political scale, the goal is only to coerce global populations to shrug their collective shoulders and fall in line with group think sensibilities. That’s what propaganda does.”

        To what end? Cultures have a goal, an agenda so to speak, albeit we should think of it in a similar (but not the same) fashion that diseases have an agenda. To survive, to prosper, to expand. This matches all the observed social symptoms. Alternatively, why would you think that the entire world’s elite, from every kind of country and ethnicity, friends and foes, democracies and autocracies and everyone in-between, are bent and indeed conspiring together upon making everyone poorer and less secure in very major ways, which in the end will also make those elites poorer and *far* less secure (from revolution and revenge), *unless* they all believe in a secular religion, which large swathes of the public also believe in, or reject, or indeed believe in and reject at the same time depending on the scenario, which the data clearly shows.

        “You’ve described, in so many words, that the pendulum will swing the other way once the pain of mitigation is truly felt—the causation being the onerous costs of simply staying alive.”

        It will, to some degree. To *what* degree, I do not know and I did not say; I don’t think anyone knows.

        “Any idea that global denizens will be able to vote out authoritarianism is a non thought out pipe dream. There’s no authoritarian culture that will give up their power once they have it. History shows what happens when critical mass of culture falls behind authoritarianism. In this example we’re talking global scales, to say it will get ugly is an understatement.”

        It may well ‘get ugly’. Who knows? But history also shows, that in a two steps forward and one step back kind of manner, sometimes relatively peacefully and sometimes most certainly not, more and more freedom, accompanied by more and more wealth for ordinary people that both enables and makes meaningful freedom, likewise health, has occurred as the centuries roll forward.

      • Jungle, reply has fallen into moderation, no doubt it’ll be released soon.

      • Andy –

        > This is because those who were more cognitively capable and knowledgeable, were better able to defend their cultural positions!

        Yoi state that as if there’s some kind of proven causality there. Theee isn’t. And it’s a poor reflection on or theories that you conflate correlation with causation.

        And btw, I think that David is correct in his analysis of the problems with your thesis.

      • J: “Yoi state that as if there’s some kind of proven causality there.”

        Oh dear, you appear to have inadvertently missed out part of the quote:
        ‘As Kahan showed for the climate-debate in the US, as knowledge and cognitive capability increased, people were *more* polarized on the issue, not less. So instead of the extra knowledge leading to each side to rationally reach some middle ground, they diverged even further! This is because those who were more cognitively capable and knowledgeable, were better able to defend their cultural positions!’

        This was Kahan’s working conclusion. Yes, it can be challenged, of course. I cited the source (albeit without link, you can look it up yourself).

        “And btw, I think that David is correct in his analysis of the problems with your thesis.”

        Well of course; your oft-stated opinion has been likewise. But a) David has presented no analysis whatsoever of my work; he has made some statements, some of which mistakenly assume I’m saying something different anyhow, and all of which I’ve answered, and b) not only have you never been able to present any analysis yourself, which might support your opinion, you have at various times said you won’t read through my posts / work anyhow, which removes your right to claim there are problems; essentially, you don’t even know what it is you’re objecting to.

      • J: reply fallen into moderation…

      • Andy …

        > … essentially, you don’t even know what it is you’re objecting to.

        I think David, Joshua and I (to one degree or another) are pointing out your usage of ‘rationality’ which I think causes unnecessary confusion.

        Have you ever met an editor you liked? Just teasing you..

        Why not just summarize your thesis in a paragraph, or two, with clear language. Instead you seem to try to avoid what you think are incoming criticisms before they even exist. The result is confusion. So, you’re right, in a self-fulling way, that some of us don’t know what we’re objecting to.

        I’ve always agreed that culture is upstream of politics. Just be more succinct with your thesis, and replies, so we can engage you on what I think is an interesting topic.

      • Bill –

        > I think David, Joshua and I (to one degree or another) are pointing out your usage of ‘rationality’ which I think causes unnecessary confusion.

        Yes, I think that’s right. The extent to which that fully captures my disagreement with Andy’s thesis remains a bit unclear. Even after years of engaging with him on these topics, I’m not sure I understand what he’s saying well-enough to know with much confidence just exactly what parts I agree and/or disagee with.

      • Andy –

        Glad you agee that Kahan’s theory about the causality behind the association is entirely speculative.

        My own view is in line with David’s. Imo the “rationality” (or validity, or sophistication, etc.) of reasoning that lies underneath strongly held views is not likely associated with one’s ability to perform on tests of certain types of cognitive reasoning. IMO, Kahan was pointing to a spurious correlation.

        I disagee with David on some of this, but I think his pointing to how someone might reason when buying a Ford is directly on point here. An example I’ve often pointed to is the kind of reasoning someone (who scores poorly on tests of certain kinds of cognitive tasks) might engage in to argue about whether Jordan or LeBron is the GOAT.

      • Bill: “I think David, Joshua and I (to one degree or another) are pointing out your usage of ‘rationality’ which I think causes unnecessary confusion.”

        My work is featured in the guest posts here :) However, you’re in luck, there will soon be a book out that puts the whole thing neatly in one place, and including all the supporting charts / data (plus also pointing to an accompanying Excel held by the publisher, for detail / verification).

        What ‘rationality’ is has never been an issue at question before, so far as I recall. I don’t think that I mean anything different by it than the common understanding. I’ve a feeling this is a mistaken right-angle of some kind, in that I do not question rationality or its existence is any way shape or form. So I’m not sure why there are questions about this, or even what the questions are trying to get at.

        Nor do I say that there isn’t rational thought / argument at every level in humanity, and on every topic (including climate-change), with the caveat that for folks with *zero* domain knowledge, ‘withheld judgement’ is the only rational option (and may in practice be the only rational option even with some knowledge, in some cases).

        But that people can engage in rational thought upon topics, doesn’t mean in all topic domains that this is what some people, or sometimes possibly even the majority within publics, actually do! This is widely accepted by the literature, for eons (joke exaggeration!) And most people having no social psychology knowledges are aware of the theme behind this. For instance, everyone is aware of bias, which is a subconscious subversion of rationality that can occur for various reasons. One of those reasons is cultural bias, say from religious fervour, or belief in extreme political ideology (these are obvious examples, but bias occurs in lower levels far more commonly – groupthink is just culture writ small for instance, same mechanisms). I don’t think you, or anyone, thinks such biases don’t exist, or don’t deflect (or indeed sometimes subvert), our rationality.

        Cultural bias is systemic in populations (for successful cultures). Indeed most of the world is still religious, for instance, and only 150 years ago, all of it was. This means there are (subconsciously) co-ordinated biases across populations. Similarly for (again picking another obvious example) mid-twentieth century Fascism and Communism. For certain topics that are culturally ‘hot’, like the status of Jews in 1930s Germany, say, the rationality of large swathes of publics is swayed or subverted. And this doesn’t just happen for cultural believers, but sometimes it can happen for cultural rejectors too (whether or not another culture sponsored their *instinctive* rejection, and which mechanism by no means rules out rational skepticsm too).

        So… back to climate-change. Due to the measurement and analysis work of Kahan and others, it is more or less accepted that attitudes to climate-change in the US public are not rational, but cultural. At least, challenges to this in the literature are running out of steam. As he puts it, their attitudes reflect ‘who they are’, not ‘what they know’, where the former is essentially their cultural identity, a large part of which is owed to Rep/Con or Dem/Lib identities. This is systemic cultural bias, per above, swaying or subverting their rationality.

        So, in a nutshell and side-stepping complication / secondary features for now, my own measurements show that the paraphrase of Kahan is *true everywhere*, although the main cultural identity that matters elsewhere is not owed to Rep/Con or Dem/Lib (quite obviously, but indeed, politics generally). Or IOW, these attitudes globally are (in majority) not rational either. This is hardly a surprise, since the bulk of global publics do have essentially zero domain knowledge (unlike the plethora of experts on this blog!) The only thing that they know is an emotive narrative of catastrophe preached for decades by all their authority sources, which they either emotively commit to, or emotively reject, or indeed both depending on scenario, and this is easily measurable (see the chart towards the end of the podcast).

        This does not call into question in any way whatsoever, the definition of rationality, or its exercise by very many folks at all levels and all topics, including climate-change (hence my puzzlement as to questions about rationality). But it just so happens, that the measurable attitudes of publics on climate-change are not rational, they are cultural.

      • Andy …

        Okay. I just saw the first 40 minutes of the podcast Ragnaar posted. He’s right that you did hit it out of the park at 31:10, and you started your swing at 22:09, with your words on group identity. (I’m going to watch the rest later.)

        So, I’m much clearer now on your thesis, which I was in general agreement with … but wasn’t quite sure. :-)

        As for your use of rationality and knowledge, let’s see what the rest of the video can illuminate with my easily confused brain. Thanks for being patient. Cheers.

      • Andy … Just saw your most recent post above. Thank you. I’m now clear on your use of rationality and knowledge, as well. There was something you said prior in the thread which through me for a curve (to stay with Ragnaar’s baseball analogy). Got it now.

      • Thanks, Bill, and no worries :)

      • Andy, I’m not challenging your data as much as your interpretation of it. “Politicians have been (largely) captured by the culture”; we’re not that far apart on this point, I agree that a great number honestly believe the narrative and that politicians reflect the culture of their constituents. It’s been a long march however, the people behind the genesis and evolution of the narrative I can’t say the same about, and certain power brokers. It’s factual that there’s AGW, but the distance from this realization, to now, only having 10 years to live, is a world apart; it’s a decadal march from ambiguity to true believer, to hysteria. When I say the publics attitudes don’t matter, I’m referring to the disparate level of cultural knowledge about climate, that this is irrelevant; instead it’s how people vote that matters, this is ushered along for the purpose of centralizing power. One can be ambiguous on many subjects, but find comfort in group think, especially when it deals with issues of safety; such facilitates turning ones personal power of the vote over to the state. It’s undeniable that the Left targets emotive reasoning to acquire votes, to carve out demographics.

        “What is your researched basis for claiming that the attitudes of the entire world’s publics are ‘superficial’?”

        Yellow journalism/Marxist education = Greta’s. Since this is CE, I’ll simply point to the myriad essay posts throughout the years that detail the propaganda pushed by media, higher education, and science. I hope I don’t need to prove the Marxist bent of faculty in higher education? Or do you believe it too is “right of center”, that it’s still a place to plumb the depths of critical thinking, a proving ground for all ideas? Since the 1930’s, it’s well understood how power can be accrued by controlling media and education.

        “What is your evidence for saying that politics creates the culture and the global public attitudes, rather than that the culture creates the politics and the attitudes?”

        The public doesn’t get its information spontaneously; it mostly gets its science information from media, and/or the campus relative to the educated.

        The IPCC was specifically founded as a partnership between climate scientists and world governments: http://journal-iostudies.org/sites/default/files/2020-01/JIOSfinal_5_0.pdf
        Excerpt:
        “Fostering transnational scientific links became an explicit policy for many of the world’s democratic governments, not least the United States. It was not just that gathering knowledge gave a handy excuse for creating international organizations. Beyond that, the ideals and methods of scientists, their open communication, and their reliance on objective facts and consensus rather than command would reinforce the ideals and methods of democracy. As political scientist Clark Miller (2001, 171, passim) has explained, American foreign policy-makers believed the scientific enterprise was “intertwined with the pursuit of a free, stable, and prosperous world order.” Scientists themselves were still more strongly committed to the virtues of cooperation. For some, like oceanographers, international exchanges of information were simply indispensable for the pursuit of their studies. To many, the free association of colleagues across national boundaries meant yet more: It meant advancing the causes of universal truth and world peace (e.g., Hamblin 2002, 14).”

        Coercion doesn’t require huge numbers of people to facilitate change, relatively speaking—early 20th century Germany, and Russia is evidence enough.

        EU governments are politically based on varying degrees of soft socialism; todays US Left aspires for the same, or worse; many influential figures factually espouse Marxism, and Fascism; as previously described, these ideas are groomed in higher education. The global Lefts grand vision is to unify the worlds sovereign governments under a central authority, perhaps under UN governance; not unlike EU’s European Commission, headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. European Commission has gradually usurped the powers EU sovereign nations over decades, it was the impetus for Brexit. The European Commission is a nascent authoritarian model trying to get legs on a global scale, it must inch along to prevent further “Brexits”; like the fable, the frog will ultimately get cooked.

        So how does the Left capture enough mindshare to convince global populations to support them, to give up notions of personal liberty and freedom; to sign up to programs that increase central authority, while taking great wealth away from the masses to feed the statist beast? A climate crusade is one way, dividing cultures another; cancel culture; critical race theory; identity politics—the programs are many; just call it a decadal march of many trojan horses pulled into cultures with Marxists in the belly. I’m okay if you wish to call me a conspiracist; but ignoring what has been happening on college campuses for decades, to those students who are now in politics, in positions of power and influence globally, including the sciences; this requires a conspiracy of denial surrounding causation. I just find it exceedingly difficult that you don’t put weight into decadal propaganda as the fundamental basis for cultures attitudes. “It may well ‘get ugly’. Who knows?” Put together a simple thought experiment: imagine a centralized global government, when the abuse becomes too much for one (an unavoidable conclusion relative to absolute power); how would they go about changing it? The vote? If one is going to march to the beat of the global centralized model, they had better start thinking about this, a question mark just won’t do.

      • Jungle, to shorten the thread length, I replied under my comment below at February 6, 2022 at 9:22 am. It’s in moderation though…

    • Thank you, Ragnaar :)

      • Jungle, replying here to cut down thread length…

        “I agree that a great number honestly believe the narrative and that politicians reflect the culture of their constituents.”
        While there are many ‘believers’ in international publics, as the chart in the podcast shows, ‘belief’ is itself complex, and huge swathes of publics who clearly and even strongly ‘believe’ in one scenario, show little support for climate-change in another (this is an expectation for the current cultural setup). So, indeed, ‘disbelief’ is similarly complex. And I don’t believe that politicians are largely reflecting the view of their constituents, though indeed they are largely honest; politicians can’t be measured like publics, but they leave official statements official and unofficial, that allow them to be catalogued, as it were, and along with other elites seem generally much deeper in belief, and much less conflicted in respect of the different scenarios above, than publics are.

        “It’s been a long march however… it’s a decadal march from ambiguity to true believer, to hysteria.’

        Yes, but per our prior exchange, what it comes down to is who or what is in ultimate) control of the march. I think it’s (largely) a ‘what’, and you think it’s (largely) ‘who’, or rather various particular whos in coordination. High worry, and quite soon hysteria, existed pretty early in the cycle; they just didn’t exist in large numbers of people. But this is the point about cultures and the long-evolved behaviours they trigger in us. Existential (or perceive existential) worry and hysteria is emotively *catching*, they spread autonomously; one can describe an aspect of culture as a pandemic of fear, albeit its more complex, just for instance actually a pandemic of ‘fear with coupled hope’, and various other emotions too. When a heavy influencer adds their weight, you think he/she is doing it (for most of them) nefariously, deliberately; I think (for most of them) they are doing it because the belief system captured them too..

        “When I say the publics attitudes don’t matter, I’m referring to the disparate level of cultural knowledge about climate, that this is irrelevant; instead it’s how people vote that matters, this is ushered along for the purpose of centralizing power.”

        And I repeat that it matters hugely, because what happens in the real world, exactly matches these cultural attitudes per national public across nations. So for instance, the commitment of nations to renewables (Solar and Wind), matches these attitudes. What could matter more than that? The level of climate activism across nations matches these attitudes. Do you think that climate activism (XR, Children’s strikes etc) are irrelevant? We can’t measure the impact on votes, because these are anonymous, but given that there is essentially no realistic choice on offer in most countries to oppose climate policies, because *all* parties support them, then up to ~2020 at least it is voting on the issue that’s irrelevant, except in the US of course. In the UK you can have crash net zero (conservative), more zealous crash net zero (labour), or bonkers cave living (greens). It’s more like this in most places than it is like the US, although where the greens have real power, like Germany, they’ve moderated from bonkers to ‘more zealous crash net zero’.

        “Yellow journalism/Marxist education… …Since the 1930’s, it’s well understood how power can be accrued by controlling media and education.”

        I don’t in principle disagree with any of these things. But again, and you mention group-think for instance, they are ultimately symptoms not causes. Because they’re emergent, it’s hard to untangle what is not a simple linear cause-and-effect, but if you think that Communism or Fascism in early / mid twentieth century, say, would ever have got off the ground without the culture of idealism and hope and fear and virtue-signalling and all the rest, spreading like wildfire autonomously through populations (which had to happen at a certain level long before any official or state sponsored propaganda could appear), then indeed I must disagree with you. And those attitudes show where the populations are at, and I think for most people what their actual attitudes to climate-change are, will be a real revelation. But in any case, they certainly also match real world events, per above. That intelligent individuals with personal agendas and, say, pushing propaganda, can act as accelerant, doesn’t detract from the fact that the whole phenomenon is an emergent one, and that these individuals are ultimately in service to the culture.

        “The public doesn’t get its information spontaneously; it mostly gets its science information from media, and/or the campus relative to the educated.”

        In percentage terms, the people having any *knowledge* on climate change, while perhaps not ‘vanishing’, is extremely small. And indeed most of their information does come from the media, which cumulatively, contains essentially *no science at all*. And publics also get much from their leaders, religious / political / business / etc. which involves trust for their favoured ones, and an array of secondary authority sources too. To a first approximation (and outside of the US) all these source transmit *no knowledge at all* on climate-change. They transmit only a cultural narrative, which is unsurprisingly why all public reaction is relative to this fairy-tale of certain global catastrophe. Even bulk rejection is also devoid of knowledge, it is instinctive skepticism at the cultural invader, *not* rational skepticim; which doesn’t mean of course that there are plenty of places, like here, where rational skepticism is expressed. It just doesn’t drive a sizeable proportion of global attitudes.

        “The IPCC was…”

        What’s the IPCC definition got to do with it? UN leaders and even IPCC leaders simple believe in, and spout, the cultural narrative. In complete contradiction to the mainstream science at the bottom layer of the IPCC which does *not* support certain global catastrophe. Through the layers on the way up, starting with the SPMs, reality is gradually muscled out by fervent belief and rampant bias. Scientists at the bottom who know it doesn’t support certain global catastrophe, turn a blind eye, a familiar and common if also extremely grating (to us) reaction to cultural pressure.
        “EU governments are politically based on varying degrees of soft socialism…”

        Whether that is so or not, as noted above, it hasn’t mattered who anyone votes for and who is in power, outside the US and pre-Covid at least. They all do full-on climate policies; across the board. For example: across France at this election cycle, the left has utterly collapsed. Only the right and the centre (several parties) have any chance. But Marine Le Pen’s nationalists are the only lot who half heartedly made a stab a while back at opposing climate policies, then got frightened and de-emphasized the stance again. Whoever wins, there will only be net zero, net zero+ or net zero++. And the left have no chance whatsoever of gaining power.

        “I just find it exceedingly difficult that you don’t put weight into decadal propaganda as the fundamental basis for cultures attitudes.”
        It isn’t. Once you know how they work, which is right down to co-evolved gene-culture mechanisms, and roots that even precede language never mind propaganda, you realize that propaganda is just one of the many facets of culture, but also the one that tends to raise the most preconceptions when it is mentioned, which just cloud the picture.

        “Put together a simple thought experiment: imagine a centralized global government…”

        I don’t think there’s enough in this thought experiment to help us. Many times in history there have been violent resets. Many times dodgy times has been exited much more peacefully. And I’m not a betting man. But I think you are largely arguing against yourself with this line about deliberate, coordinated, essentially nefarious and conscious implementation of control via climate-change policy (and whatever else). Quite apart from there being no evidence for such plot, the fingered movers are intelligent too – they know about history as much as you or I, if nothing else they’re highly unlikely to engage in such a plot precisely because they know the likely reaction. And I don’t think you’re a conspiracy theorist, as such; I still don’t think you really ‘get’ the implication of saying that it can’t be cultural (primarily), means this. Bit then, no doubt, you think I don’t ‘get’ your PoV either 0:

    • How to win with culture: Climate change memes. Someone named Josh still does those right? Pay for them. Distribute them.
      There is direct participation. Someone proposed solar nearby. I tried to persuade against it on local social media. Some discussion group like they have on Facebook. Can you stop all commercial solar and wind turbines in your local area. Maybe. Throw the infidels out. Just kidding.
      Can you influence your electricity provider? How about your politicians?

  9. California is poised to kill rooftop solar [link]

    “Utilities should encourage new and existing home- and building-owners to go all electric. This involves using electric heat pumps instead of natural gas air or water heaters or clothes dryers and using electric induction cooktops instead of natural gas cooktops.”

    In the article, opposition to roof-top solar subsidy cancellations, is that the proposed tariff to connect to the grid, which at this point is wholly supported by other rate payers and not the solar sources.

    Not mentioned, those in energy poverty (those below 300% of the Federal poverty income level), are already paying for access to the grid through rent or directly with utilities. In addition, new appliances purchases, on a wholesale basis are not within the reach of the majority of citizens unless of course, the State of California would purchase said appliances from some green fund as yet to be established.

    The proposed withdrawal of roof-top solar panel subsidies and impending grid access tariffs are based upon some economic realities. And, the objections to such new policies are based upon some mythical future appearances of a hoped for panacea to issues that require concrete here and now solutions.

    It seems to me that magical thinking is not the sole province of the 5 year old mind.

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      RiHo08 | February 5, 2022 at 9:01 pm | Reply
      “Utilities should encourage new and existing home- and building-owners to go all electric. This involves using electric heat pumps instead of natural gas air .

      Fortunately, CA has relatively mild climate.
      However heat pumps, while very efficient at outside temps above 30f, become inefficient below 20f and almost completely disfunctional below 0f, which makes extremely stupid in most of the upper midwest and viturally all of Canada.

      • And when those heat pumps cut out at low temperatures frequently resistance heaters kick in. Turning a 3kw load, or so, into a 10+kw load. I think Professional Engineer has also pointed this issue out. Heat pumps, either air source or geo, are great until it gets really cold and the auxiliary heat kicks on. This applies to geo in the upper midwest also.

        When this occurs across a large region, which it inevitably does, then grid balancing power requirements obviously increase accordingly. This was no small part of the Texas issue last February. Homes in the south are frequently heated by air source heat pumps, most of the time that is all they need.

  10. *How much temperature related mortality in England and Wales changes at different levels of global warming

    *Sixfold Increase in Historical Northern Hemisphere Concurrent Large Heatwaves Driven by Warming and Changing Atmospheric Circulations

    *Radionuclides from ice cores and tree rings reveal that an extreme solar storm hit Earth about 9200 years ago during a quiet phase of the Sun within the 11 year solar cycle.

    All the same subject, extreme solar storms have occurred at the same Jovian configurations as some of the largest heatwaves, irrespective of global temperature change. The 2003 heatwave and solar storm had the same Jovian configuration type as the second largest solar storm, in 775 AD, at a sunspot cycle maximum. The 7176 BC solar super storm was at a sunspot cycle maximum, it is beyond the range of my ephemeris but it is provable with an analogue at 4627.33 years later. That Jovian configuration type next occurs in 2079-80, at a sunspot cycle maximum.

    https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQemMt_PNwwBKNOS7GSP7gbWDmcDBJ80UJzkqDIQ75_Sctjn89VoM5MIYHQWHkpn88cMQXkKjXznM-u/pub

    • After reading your last comment about the 2079-80 cycle maximum, I looked at my experimental climate model — and there it was — just as you said … http://www.climatecraze.com/pix/JSCM.jpg

      • John, you cannot verify the year of a sunspot cycle maximum with an AMO envelope projection. Neither can the AMO be predicted with a fixed length cycle, it will be warmer from 2095 during the next centennial solar minimum.

      • John Shewchuk

        I completely realize that. The AMO/PDO cycles vary greatly compared to sunspot cycles, but they do help explain “recent” climate trends versus longer-term, direct solar forcing. The exercise is just to show you can replicate past climate changes with solar-derived forcing — something the IPCC climate models fail at.

      • The AMO responds to indirect solar forcing, inversely, it is warmer when the solar wind is weaker, which is at least during each centennial solar minimum. The reason for the most recent 60 and 70 year AMO envelopes is that the previous centennial solar minimum started 130 years before the current centennial minimum. That is very rare, the nominal AMO envelope pitch should be about 54 years.

      • John Shewchuk

        Thank you for the information.

    • ‘Inner planets order the weekly-monthly scale anomalies, with the 1976 example, the hotter months start from when the inner planets group on the Saturn line, on either side of the Sun.

      The hottest known European heatwaves of the last 800 years all occurred during the configuration of Saturn opposite Neptune, roughly square to Jupiter. In 1361, 1540, 1757, and July 2006. (and the US heat-wave of 1936)

      The apparent logic dictates that 3 body major hot and cold events have to occur on T-squares.’ Ulric

      Is this the new astrology? I think it has commercial potential. We could sell predictions. 2079 is a bit far out – can we have one for the rest of the year? Hot summer – cold winter – wet spring – that sort of thing. Let’s call it there be dragons. Dragons being Wally’s chaotic climate beast and my favourite animal – although butt monkeys come close. Because of course if it ain’t testable it ain’t science.

      • True. That model is not meant to predict, but only to show that past climatic changes (over the last 2,000 years) can be replicated without with the use of CO2. This is something none of the IPCC climate models can do — and since they can’t replicate past climate changes, their forecasts can’t be trusted. Heck, they don’t even acknowledge we are still thawing out from the Little Ice Age.

      • Robert, that is rather irksome calling order chaos, and obviously it’s your favourite dragons which ain’t testable.

      • Tipping points in the Earth system are ubiquitous. Internal shifts in turbulent fluid dynamics drive surface temperature, hydrology, and ecologies. Behaviours observed in the real world at scales of moments to eons.

        But the topic was Ulric’s climate astrology and the lack of testable predictions.

      • Robert, those listed major heatwaves would not have occurred without their discrete solar forcing, they are the largest noise in the climate change signal. The same goes for many extreme winters. I have examined many hundreds of temperature extremes through some 1500 years of weather chronologies to establish the observed quadrupole rules. The quality and quantity of correlations suggests that the effect is real, and reveals a novel celestial mechanism. Being the heliocentric planetary ordering of solar activity, not astrology. Hindcasting is testing, and there is nothing to stop it being tested in prediction. On the other hand you can never test for whether such a major heatwave was a product of internal fluid dynamics, let alone predict them.
        I’ll show you fluid dynamics, ENSO and the AMO are colder when the solar wind is stronger, that’s very bad news for imagined climate tipping points.

      • ENSO and the AMO are indices – two of many – that track regional change in globally coupled fluid flow dynamics. The state of the Pacific is better understood with the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. What can be said is that the state of the Pacific will behave as it always has.

        e.g. https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/tpi-sst.png

        The Pacific state is biased to warm or cool states by high or low solar activity respectively – mediated through turbulent ocean and atmospheric flow. Warm phases are associated with more zonal polar annular modes – and cooler with more meridional modes. The NAO feeds into North Atlantic currents that are such a big part of abrupt climate change in the Pleistocene.

        ‘Hindcasting is testing, and there is nothing to stop it being tested in prediction.’

        Go for it.
        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ocean-gyre.png

      • El Nino conditions normally increase during centennial solar minima, true, because of meridional atmospheric circulation. A zonal pattern (positive NAO/AO) favours faster trade winds.

      • La Nina are caused by upwelling in the eastern Pacific and consequent Bjerknes feedback.

        https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/ENSO/New/bjerknes.html

        The Pacific state changes emerge from changes in the polar annular mode in both hemispheres facilitating or not deep ocean upwelling. Changes in the polar modes have many causes – including the sun – that trigger shifts in patterns of turbulent fluid flow.

        But – more to the point – are you unable to make predictions?

      • Robert, “La Nina are caused by upwelling in the eastern Pacific…” This is not the cause itself, it’s a product of stronger tradewinds than usual.

      • Upwelling results in Bjerknes feedback into Walker Circulation. And stronger tradewinds.

  11. Strengthening scientific integrity – the answer lies in separating science from government. Government exists for the purpose of exercising power – i.e., coercive force over people and their property. Power always corrupts, that’s just human nature. When government pays for science to justify more coercive power, it gets the corrupted science that it pays for. That’s inescapable and incurable. Imagine if top “climate scientists” reached a consensus that climate change was mostly natural, and that free people would most readily adapt to whatever climate change occurs, and that government intervention would require the suppression of individual liberty and the destruction of private forms of ownership over natural resources. Imagine if the studies of climate scientists showed that government efforts to control climate inevitably caused disastrous unintended consequences, resulting in harm to human health and the environment. That kind of science can’t result – even if it is honest – as long as government is funding the scientists. Government-funded scientists must generate opinions which justify government action. Government scientists will inevitably seek to cancel and suppress independent-minded scientists, especially those who question government programs, mandates, etc. Just look at Frances Collins and Anthony Fauci, the CDC, and the entire Covid mess. You won’t see scientific integrity as long as science is employed to justify political power.

  12. ‘Rare Earths: Fighting for the Fuel of the Future
    Rare earths are as critical to the modern economy as oil – and China has quietly secured a near-monopoly.’ – https://thediplomat.com/2022/01/rare-earths-fighting-for-the-fuel-of-the-future/

    It’s a beat up. China has 50% of the global resource of rare earth oxides, the USA 12% and Australia 3%. Production here is just starting – with two working projects – and a number more at some stage of development. There are dozens of listed prospectors on the ASX. There is even one calling itself American Rare Earths working on projects in Arizona and Nevada. The nerve of them.

    https://americanrareearths.com.au/

    Rare earths are used ‘in rechargeable batteries for electric and hybrid cars, advanced ceramics, computers, DVD players, wind turbines, catalysts in cars and oil refineries, monitors, televisions, lighting, lasers, fiber optics, superconductors and glass polishing.’ Reuters 29 May 2019 They make super magnets for motors.

    Lucky rare earths are not really that rare. Demand is growing strongly with population and incomes – and supply is catching up incentivised – what a hateful word – by high prices.

  13. The European Physical Journal Plus’s 2022 “A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming” Abstract came right out and said that there are no positive trends to extreme weather events nor are there any increasing negative impacts to natural disasters, floods, droughts, ecosystem productivity and yields of major crops. The Abstract also said that based on observational data we are not experiencing a climate crisis. [I’ll bet they will catch hell from the CliSciFi practitioners for that last slip-of-the-lip.]

    In closing, the Abstract said: “It would be nevertheless extremely important to define mitigation [!] and adaptation strategies that take into account current trends.” I would agree that it is appropriate to take cost-effective measures to cope with current extreme weather events. However, since CliSciFi’s mitigation schemes are all about reducing Man’s emission of GHGs in an effort to control the climate, an absence of a climate crisis makes it impossible to define a “mitigation strategy” (cost/benefit) without identifying specific increasing costs to humanity.

  14. Ivermectin efficacy studies from NIH
    ************
    Conclusions
    The available reports indicate there is a large > 60% mortality risk reduction associated with multidrug treatment regimens that utilize two or more intracellular anti-infectives (HCQ and either AZM or DOXY) combined with other agents including corticosteroids, anti-thrombotics (anti-platelets), and nutraceutals

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8178530/

    ************
    Conclusions
    HCQ has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is provided early in the outpatient setting; in general, it appears to work better the earlier it is provided. Overall, HCQ is effective against COVID-19. There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has also been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

    ************
    Conclusions:
    Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

    ************
    DISCUSSION
    Currently, as of December 14, 2020, there is accumulating evidence that demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Large-scale epidemiologic analyses validate the findings of in vitro, animal, prophylaxis, and clinical studies. Epidemiologic data from regions of the world with widespread ivermectin use have demonstrated a temporally associated reduction in case counts, hospitalizations, and fatality rates.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

  15. David from canandaigua

    From NIH website re: Ivermectin efficacy
    ************
    Conclusions
    The available reports indicate there is a large > 60% mortality risk reduction associated with multidrug treatment regimens that utilize two or more intracellular anti-infectives (HCQ and either AZM or DOXY) combined with other agents including corticosteroids, anti-thrombotics (anti-platelets), and nutraceutals

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8178530/

    ************
    Conclusions
    HCQ has been shown to have consistent clinical efficacy for COVID-19 when it is provided early in the outpatient setting; in general, it appears to work better the earlier it is provided. Overall, HCQ is effective against COVID-19. There is no credible evidence that HCQ results in worsening of COVID-19. HCQ has also been shown to be safe for the treatment of COVID-19 when responsibly used.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7534595/

    ************
    Conclusions:
    Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

    ************
    DISCUSSION
    Currently, as of December 14, 2020, there is accumulating evidence that demonstrates both the safety and efficacy of ivermectin in the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Large-scale epidemiologic analyses validate the findings of in vitro, animal, prophylaxis, and clinical studies. Epidemiologic data from regions of the world with widespread ivermectin use have demonstrated a temporally associated reduction in case counts, hospitalizations, and fatality rates.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8088823/

    • This is amazing that NIH studies find ivermectin– an extremely safe drug– helpful, and yet hospitals and doctors throughout America are either prohibiting its use or refusing to prescribe it. Dr. Marik, who early-on promoted the use of IVM, was prohibited from using it (and the promising drug fluvoxamine) for Covid-19 patients.

      Even more, this fight against safe repurposed drugs to fight Covid-19 has all the fingerprints of being a deliberate world-wide orchestration. Why? The simple answer is that if these drugs (there are several) stopped Covid-19 from progressing into a serious inflammatory disease, then the vaccines would never have been able to get EUA, because EUA depends on no other available treatment. If Covid-19 could be reduced to just another flu with low mortality then EUA would be unnecessary; then the vaccines would’ve had to undergo the usual 10-year-long studies to win standard FDA approval.

      This is truly the crime of the century. This is the one thing that people really need to understand: we had the tools to stop serious Covid-19 and these tools were suppressed. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

      • John Shewchuk

        Ditto. I’m still waiting for the animal testing to be completed.

      • Oops … these aren’t actually NIH studies. These are simply listed on the NIH portal for biotechnology information. Even so, one can find many such studies that support the use of ivermectin for Covid-19 in doses that, contrary to what the NIH website states in its dismissal of IVM, are perfectly safe. Here’s what the NIH says on the dosage for IVM: “… pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.” It may be true that “studies suggest,” but the NIH is being disingenuous when it fails to acknowledge the many studies that do more than just “suggest” that the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models are wrong. Why is the NIH still saying this? Is this really “science”? Or is it more in the realm of big pharma propaganda?

        https://c19ivermectin.com/

      • Joe - the non epidemiologist

        Effectiveness of Ivermectin ?

        A) The studies on Ivermection range from neutral / no improvement to modest improvement (debate remains on the quality of those studies though that issue can be skipped for purposes of this post)
        B) The covid waves in the regions of the world with high ivermectin usage for other diseases are significantly shorter and significantly lower volume of infected individuals than the waves in most other regions of the world.

        The vastly different levels of results of the studies and the results of the waves in regions of the world with high ivermectin usage indicate that something else is in play. The delta is too large to be explained by ivermectin.

        We should be attempting to find out what is the other factor in play instead of blindly arguing that ivermectin is the wonder drug.

      • Joe, when I look at the studies for prophylaxis, I’m certainly not seeing “neutral” to “no improvement.” I’m seeing overwhelming evidence of significant improvement. https://ivmmeta.com/#fig_fp What are you looking at?

        “The covid waves in the regions of the world with high ivermectin usage for other diseases are significantly shorter and significantly lower volume of infected individuals than the waves in most other regions of the world.” And from that, you’re trying to say that something else might be responsible? Yes, might. But all the evidence taken together I think gives a clear signal for ivermectin use, including the latest study out of Brazil: https://flccc.substack.com/p/large-peer-reviewed-research-study

        There’s a convergence of evidence that favors ivermectin for Covid-19. https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/SUMMARY-OF-THE-EVIDENCE-BASE-FINAL.pdf

        But it’s not just ivermectin; it’s any cheap, off-label drug that treats Covid early that’s being dismissed and even suppressed. Of course, hydroxychloroquine is the most famous of these. Two doctors treated 7,000 Covid patients early with HCQ and no deaths, and they wrote a book about it: “Overcoming the Covid Darkness” by Fareed and Tyson. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09PVNF24K/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

        The remarkable thing about all this is that the proposed drugs for prophylaxis are cheap and many of them have been used safely for decades. So why all the resistance, and why even forbid doctors from using them? It’s not like doctors aren’t trained in medicine or biochemistry and so can’t be trusted to use their best judgment.

      • Clyde Spencer

        Don132, you said:

        “But it’s not just ivermectin; it’s any cheap, off-label drug that treats Covid early that’s being dismissed and even suppressed.”

        With more than three dozen drugs that have at least shown in vitro efficacy, wouldn’t you want to take the best drug? How do you arrive at the choice? Well, you look at the high-quality studies, see which trials have shown the best results. By that criteria, neither hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin really stand out as wonder drugs. Even if they did, what do you do? Toss a coin as to which to use? Or risk drug interaction and take both?

        Personally, if my life were at stake, I wouldn’t go ‘on the cheap.’ I’d go with the best I could afford. That’s why I carry medical insurance. And, unless my personal physician was a major stockholder in one or more pharmaceutical companies, I’d trust his judgement over an anonymous blogger. My physician carries medical malpractice insurance and he doesn’t want to see his rates increase.

        I wouldn’t look for investment advice from a doctor. And, I wouldn’t put much stock in medical advice from a real estate developer.

      • My comments aren’t getting through. I’ll try again later.

      • OK, that comment worked.
        Do in reply to Clyde,

      • Right. One more time.

      • Good Lord. OK, one more time.
        To Clyde: not sure what “real estate” has to do with any of this.

        Point is, doctors are being prohibited from prescribing inexpensive drugs that have shown good efficacy in treating Covid-19. It doesn’t matter whether you or I think so; doctors think so. So why is the jackboot being put on virtually every single drug used for early treatment of Covid-19?

      • You do understand, Clyde, that many doctors are forbidden to use HCQ or IVM? Dr. Meryl Nass has her license temporarily suspended and was ordered to undergo a psychiatric exam. Her crime? She prescribed HCQ for Covid. WTF is that about?

  16. In our world of 7-8 billion people it’s difficult to find one answer that works for everyone. When a intern solution is found some of those living in the wealthiest countries disagree with it. While it doesn’t suit their degrees in science it becomes easy to forget the billions in lower income nations that won’t be given a free choice to live or die. The culture of pseudo-science will disagree with your list by making it about how many likes can be scored.

  17. Apropos current literature relevant to climate science, this past winter I grew intrigued by its historical origins. The expression ‘convective equilibrium’ had always seemed a trifle oxymoronic as hurricanes etc. are rarely deemed equilibrium structures.
    “On the Convective Equilibrium of Temperature in the Atmosphere” by Professor Wm. Thomson, LL.D., P.K.S., &c, Manchester Phil. Soc. Proc. Vol. ii. 1860-1862, pp. 170-176 [Jan. 21, 1862];
    https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/39422#page/178

    Sir William, later Lord Kelvin, proposes an isentropic model for atmospheric stratification and deduces a gradient of 1 degree per 329 ft (10K/km) and is puzzled by a discrepancy with observation. Dr. Joule suggests condensation of water vapor may be relevant and recalculation leads to values ca. 6K/km. Today, Kelvin’s model has been restyled ‘the adiabatic lapse rate’.

    In 1866, J.C. Maxwell, using a then novel statistical methodology, calculated a temperature gradient for an atmosphere in thermodynamic equilibrium. Shortly thereafter, he writes, “When I first attempted this investigation, I overlooked the fact that is not the same as . The result as now given is, that temperature in gases, when in thermal equilibrium, is independent of height.”

    For the balance of the 19th century, the thermodynamic pantheon was consumed by heated debate over whether equilibrium in a gravitational field necessitated thermal gradients or whether there were loopholes in the proposed 2nd Law. For an entertaining, if somewhat irreverent, recapitulation thereof,
    “Tales of Thermodynamics and Obscure Applications of the Second Law”, Wolfgang Dreyer, Wolfgang H. Müller and Wolf Weiss, Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. (2000) 12: 151–184 https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~mtamash/f320_termo/continuum_mech_thermodyn12_151.pdf

    Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. – Santayana

  18. Gavin is freakin’ hilarious. In your link he says:

    As we’ve discussed previously, the CMIP6 ensemble contains a dozen models (out of ~50) with climate sensitivities that are outside the CMIP5 range, and beyond the very likely constraints from the observations. This suggests that comparisons to the observations should be weighted in some way. One reasonable option is to follow the work of Tokarska et al (2020) and others, and restrict the comparison to those models that have a transient climate response (TCR) that is consistent with observations.

    In other words, the climate models give good results as long as we first throw out the models that give bad results.

    Genius. Absolute climate genius.

    w.

    • “This suggests that comparisons to the observations should be weighted in some way.”

      H ll yeah. AKA Validation.

  19. nice

  20. Clyde Spencer

    “Safeguarding Critical Minerals for the Energy Transition”

    It seems that the author doesn’t know the difference between minerals, elements, and refined metals. It gives me pause in considering whether he really knows what he is talking about when he hasn’t mastered the basic vocabulary of the subject. Maybe I’m just being pedantic. However, I think he is either a careless writer, or pretending to be more knowledgeable than he is.

  21. There is rationality and then there is rationality. Usually the tribe is rational and the other irrational. I can’t decide whether being part of a tribe is a beta monkey strategy for dominating alpha monkeys – or altogether altruistic in supporting freedom by law and democracy. With one it comes down to mob rule – the other to bums on seats and the usual muddle of politics. Albeit one sometimes looks very like the other.

    ‘The Roosevelt Conservation Caucus for the 117th Congress is led by Co-Chairs Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and John Thune (R-South Dakota) and Reps. Brian Mast (R-Florida.) and Buddy Carter (R-Georgia). Vice Chairs are Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Capito (R-West Virginia) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan). The caucus applies right-of-center solutions to a litany of challenges, including clean air and water, next-generation affordable and lower-emission energy sources, wildlife conservation, and access to public lands and waters. These policies stress markets-based approaches, private property rights, smart regulation, and cooperative federalism in lieu of top-down and centralized planning.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/caucushttps://www.conservamerica.org/caucus

    The Roosevelt Conservation Caucus has been busy.

    https://www.conservamerica.org/legislation

    Let me make a prediction. Modular nuclear reactors will start rolling off factory floors this decade. It hardly matters at all what type – my favorite kind is helium cooled fast neutron – what matters is the model T advantage of factory fabrication. Imagine what could be done with cheaper and vastly more abundant energy.

    https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/ga-em2.jpg

  22. Lance Arthur Wallace

    Quondam–

    Thanks for the link to Wolfang, Wolfgang and Wolf. Reminiscent of Alpher, Bethe and Gamow. Delightful discussion that I will save and go over more carefully some day.

  23. The nuclear power industry is betting its future on a new generation of reactors small enough to fit on a truck—an emerging technology that mostly uses alternatives to water for cooling, runs at lower pressure than traditional units, and costs far less than the behemoth power plants and cooling towers that define the nuclear landscape today.

    But advocates of the idea insist that the folks in Washington who police their business have no idea how to assess it. Today’s rules are “really a square peg in a round hole for these advanced reactor designs,” says Amy Roma, a partner with the law firm Hogan Lovells who’s worked on dozens of license applications. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, she says, is “largely divorced of actually understanding—in depth—the technology.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-07/nuclear-industry-says-government-regulators-don-t-understand-new-small-reactors

  24. Oil is on fire! (Figuratively and literally!)

    The rally is mirrored in other corners of the oil market. Whether it’s crude oil, or refined products like diesel, futures curves are moving into the realm of super-backwardation — where prompt prices are higher than those in the future — indicating a scarcity of supply. The latest runaway strength comes amid a heady mix of robust demand, patchy supply additions from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, and heightened geopolitical risks.

    “The more people we speak to, the common theme remains that they have never seen a tight market like this before,” said Keshav Lohiya, founder of consultant Oilytics Ltd.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/

  25. The pleas asking California Gov. Gavin Newsom to delay the closure of PG&E’s Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo County keep coming. On Thursday, Dr. Steven Chu, former U.S. Secretary of Energy under the Obama administration and a Nobel laureate, and more than 75 scientists, academics and entrepreneurs sent a letter to Newsom urging him to find a way to keep the plant open because of the necessary carbon-free, clean electricity it provides to the state’s electricity grid. Diablo Canyon currently provides about 18,000 gigawatt-hours of clean electricity annually, comprising of about 10% of the state’s electricity portfolio.

    https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article258017318.html

  26. Ragnaar said: “We don’t have the schools. Someone else does. We may lose the hard sciences if we haven’t all ready,”

    Lose the hard sciences? How do you do that? It’s science. It’s not something that you win or lose by marketing. The reason “we don’t have the schools” is that they teach science — not junk science and conspiracy theories.

  27. “Gavin confirms that climate models are running too hot. Only 2 years in last 25 are above the CMIP6 model mean, screened for “reasonable” TCR values. [link]”

    In today’s Wall Street Journal there is a nice article “Climate Scientists Encounter Computer Models’ Limits and an interview with Gokhan Danabasoglu, chief scientist for the climate-model project at the Mesa Laboratory in Boulder Colorado at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) who also discussed the new $40 million dollar HP supercomputer Derecho. A dozen climate-modeling groups around the world produced similar forecasts as NCAR which disagree with 20 older climate models and they believe have been thrown off kilter by new calculations of the physics of clouds in a warming world says Andrew Gettelman a physics specializing in clouds.

    Gavin Schmidt has a cameo appearance in the article “We have a situation where the models are behaving strangely,” “We have a conundrum.”

    I am reminded of the song by Joni Mitchell “Both-Sides-Now”

    “It’s cloud illusions I recall
    I really don’t know clouds at all”

  28. The Rogers paper on NH increase in heat waves could have been more informative if the period covered began before 1979. The world was just coming out of a time when some were concerned about the next Ice Age

    https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html

    https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/2018-07-17174527_shadow.png

    Back then we had been coming out of a global Little Ice Age for over 100 years and another Ice Age was on the radar. Sort of an Ice Age Squared. Establishing a baseline for increased heatwaves analysis doesn’t prove much when the starting point was during such a cold time.

    Further, the US had an extremely high Heatwave Index in the 1930s. Why wasn’t there some comparison to that period? And to put the heatwaves into an even more meaningful context, why not see how the trend compares to that of the global Medieval Warm Period?

    When looking back on the last 40 years, I wonder if the verdict will be similar to that of a study on the infamous 2010 Russian Heatwave which, found this.

    “ We conclude that the intense 2010 Russian heat wave was mainly due to natural internal atmospheric variability.”
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL046582

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      CKid | February 7, 2022 at 2:47 pm | Reply
      The Rogers paper on NH increase in heat waves could have been more informative if the period covered began before 1979.

      CKID – whats wrong with cherrypicking ?

  29. With oil and gas prices so high – and America now shipping natural gas to regions with better returns – it seems insanity and not rationality to put all your energy eggs in the fossil fuel basket. You – you know who you are – assume that an energy transition will cost trillions in wasted dollars – based on assumptions that don’t add up. Someone says 100% wind and solar and you fly off at wild tangents. It is far more obvious that failure to innovate in energy technologies for the 21st century is what will cost trillions in lost economic growth.

    ‘ConservAmerica seeks to build common ground between policymakers and stakeholders around policies that protect the environment and economic growth. Our priorities are conservation; public land access; clean, abundant, and affordable energy; and sound environmental stewardship.’
    https://www.conservamerica.org/priorities

    Energy will sort itself out as entrepreneurs jostle for position in an emerging low carbon energy market. The rational response is to avoid policy that puts a brake on growth, to take land and water management to a new level and to support energy innovation with a few billion dollars.

    As Rolls Royce says – 100% wind and solar is a pipedream.

    • ConservAmerica and the conservative solution to climate change. What a joke!

      The conservative solution will be like all conservative solutions. It will pretend to address the issue but won’t actually do anything. Like the website, it
      will be all imagery and nothing of substance. Conservatives need talking points when climate change starts to get really bad.

      It will line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. When has a conservative policy not done that?

      Here’s the last conservative attempt to address climate change. An industry friendly idea which gives the fossil fuel industry blanket immunity from lawsuits in exchange for a toothless carbon tax.

      https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/6/22/17487488/carbon-tax-dividend-trent-lott-john-breaux

      “As Rolls Royce says – 100% wind and solar is a pipedream.”

      Nowhere near the pipedream that distributed nuclear power is.

      • ‘EM2 is a helium-cooled fast reactor with a core outlet temperature of 850°C. It is designed as a modular, grid-capable power source with a net unit output of 265 MWe. The reactor employs a “convert and burn” core design which converts fertile isotopes to fissile and burns them in situ over a 30-year core life. The reactor is sited in a below-grade sealed containment and uses passive safety methods for heat removal and reactivity control to protect the integrity of the fuel, reactor vessel and containment. EM2 also employs a direct closed-cycle gas turbine power conversion unit for added efficiency.’ https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors

        They are working on a 50 MWe version – with a core that will burn for a decade. The unit is then returned to a factory. The US government is putting money into this and other nuclear players. Just as governments are the world over. Including Rolls Royce.

      • Here’s what happens when you follow the green extremist loony left energy policies:

        The plan could be approved as soon as this week, and would come into effect in the second quarter, the people said, asking not to be named as the measures are not yet finalised.

        A spokesperson for the treasury declined to comment.

        Draghi has been facing calls from parties in his coalition to ask parliament for permission to spend more than budgeted to finance the new measures. But the premier hopes to use available funds, and is resisting the push.

        His government has so far allocated a total of about 11 billion euros to cushion the blow of rising prices — like the rest of Europe, Italy is experiencing one of the worst energy crunches in history, and it threatens to impact the economic recovery.

        https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-08/italy-s-government-readies-new-energy-package-to-curb-bills

      • Here is another consequence of losing nuclear power in France. Yes, these reactors are getting old, but the electricity they supply is crucial to Europe.

        European electricity prices jumped after the region’s biggest producer cut its nuclear output target for a second time in a month, the latest sign that this winter’s energy crisis is far from over.

        Electricite de France SA said its nuclear production could fall this year to levels not seen since 1990, and Morgan Stanley says there’s a “meaningful likelihood” of a production cut for 2023. The shortfall has forced France to import electricity at times, tightening supplies in neighboring countries used to relying on the French nuclear giant to keep the lights on.

        EDF’s reactors are the backbone of an increasingly integrated European power system, but the fleet is getting more unreliable because of long periods of planned and unplanned maintenance. A slew of recent outages has worsened the energy crisis in Europe just as Russia is flowing less natural gas to the continent and tensions over Ukraine are running high.

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/european-power-prices-soar-france-071532208.html

    • UK-Weather Lass

      This is an article about risks we have all taken and will all take daily throughout our lives compared to our risks of dying from COVID-19.

      https://www.city-journal.org/understanding-the-covid-odds

      Wouldn’t it be perfect for our ‘experts’ to do much the same study/risk assessment for the likely effective outcome of present Net Zero by 2050 policies compared to all other alternative routes we could contemplate to provide reliable, efficient and effective energy output for every person on the planet whilst mitigating for the possibility we may all be self –harming simply by buying and using a smart ‘phone let alone filling a vehicle with a tank of fossil fuel?

      In other words we compare the here and now harms and risks with future additional harms and risks occurring a) because we did nothing, all the way through to z) because we banned fossil fuel completely and returned to something closer to a Stone Age life style with deaths from hypothermia, starvation, and the complete shutdown or breakdown of society when our grids sequentially failed and collapsed.

      Perhaps that may just reverse the climate change brainwashing process that has turned sensibility into nonsense and beyond, and made a lot of dishonourable people rich. We need perspective because it would put climate change alarmists on the spot since the way forward and out of a climate change crisis would require them to admit that solar, wind, EVs and batteries are not going to be enough to have Net Zero at any time in the future unless we make a major new technology discovery that works in principle and practice sometime very, very, soon. Yesterday would have been ideal. And so where is our required energy going to come from other than nuclear and why are we not seeing planning for developing and building it now? If the planet is doomed then tell us when doomsday is going to happen, how and why.

      I can tell you with complete honesty right now that you climate alarmist guys have no idea what is going to happen by 2050. I can tell you today that western society as we know it is collapsing bit by bit under the sheer weight of the lunacy we have now and it isn’t going to be long before the enemies show us just how weak we have become and are (Look at our truly poor response to SARS-CoV-2).

      You alarmists need to start being honest about the cards you are holding because I don’t fancy you beating the running flushes the enemies’ have.

  30. ‘Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.’ https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

    Can we anticipate abrupt changes in Earth’s temperature, hydrology or biology?

    ‘Abrupt climate changes were especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. Thus, greenhouse warming and other human alterations of the earth system may increase the possibility of large, abrupt, and unwelcome regional or global climatic events. The abrupt changes of the past are not fully explained yet, and climate models typically underestimate the size, speed, and extent of those changes. Hence, future abrupt changes cannot be predicted with confidence, and climate surprises are to be expected.’ op. cit.

    This – I repeat – is the rationale for the 1.5 or 2.0 degree C warming objective. The science of anthropogenic pressure on the spatiotemporal chaotic system is one thing – pragmatic policy to reduce risk is another entirely.

    Think patterns of shifting ocean and atmospheric circulation manifesting in climate indices as nodes on a globally coupled Earth system.
    Here’s Tomas Milanovic on CE talking about spatiotemporal chaos.

    https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/#:~:text=Spatio%2Dtemporal%20chaos%20deals%20with,QM%20is%20from%20classical%20mechanics.

    The foundation was laid by Poincare, Harold Hurst found it in 1000 years of Nile River instrumental data, Andrey Kolmogorov found it in turbulent flow, Edward Lorenz found it in a numerical convection model. The results have profoundly altered our understanding of complex dynamical systems in many fields. It was the third great idea in 20th century physics. There is no science claiming that the Earth system is not chaotic. There is a whole new discipline built around the idea. So it seems a little churlish to dismiss out of hand the risk of catastrophic climate change. We would do better to reduce pressures on the system and build prosperous and resilient communities able to withstand any climate surprise.

    • You can’t mitigate and adapt to climate change and continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at increasing rates. That’s the BS the fossil fuel industry is trying to sell because it’s impossible for them pretend any longer that climate change is not occurring and caused by dumping CO2 in the atmosphere which is a byproduct of using their products.

      Apparently, that message is lost to some on this site who think CO2 is harmless. To them, the fossil fuel industry is in on the conspiracy.

    • Curious George

      “build prosperous and resilient communities able to withstand any climate surprise.”
      With today’s technology, these communities can be either prosperous, or resilient – not both. We simply can’t expect the unexpected.

  31. Is JJ capable of responding to point or does he automatically go into motor mouth mode? I may be wrong but that characterisation bears no resemblance to anything I have ever said. I’m an enthusiast – even for limited amounts of wind and solar. As well as biomethane from landfill, sewage and animal manure. Existing hydro may as well be maintained and used. Geothermal steam is good where available. Biomass is problematic – it is better retained as organic carbon in landscapes.

    I’m also a climate catastrophist – equivalently tipping points, bifurcations, abrupt climate changes – in the sense of Rene Thom. So there is real if difficult to quantify risk in human changes to the Earth system. However minor and manageable that may be at this time in the relatively balmy modern climate optimum.

    e.g. https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm#:~:text=The%20changes%20had%20been%20rapid,not%20a%20world%2Dwide%20phenomenon.

    An energy transition is inevitable with emerging disruptive technology. And I am equally sure that a precipitate transition is not something anyone anywhere is choosing. They are all seeking prosperity and security. That means fossil fuels for 80% of energy at the moment. Transitioning that requires vastly more abundant and cheaper energy sources. Right now – there is only nuclear fission – in this decade coming off mass production factory floors – that are fit for the task.

    Then there is the critical task of taking land and water management to a new level. It’s not something to be trusted to the loony left. Rattan Lal – doyen of soil scientists – the 2021 winner of the World Food Prize – Director of the Carbon Management and Sequestration Center at Ohio State University – estimates a soil and terrestrial ecosystem sequestration potential of the carbon equivalent of 157 ppm CO2 by 2100.

    The hungry bellies btw – at our general level of development – more so than in Hayek’s day – should be assured of relief to those in need.

    • “…They are all seeking prosperity and security…”
      It all depends on what one means by “security”. One man’s security is another man’s impoverished hell-hole (like Venezuela).

      “…But this condition of human circumstances [the right to live in a social protectorate which relieved him from the burden of “self-determination”] was seen to be impossible unless it were imposed upon all alike. So long as others were permitted to make choices for themselves not only would his anxiety at not being able to do so himself remain to convict him of his inadequacy and threaten his emotional security but also the social protectorate which he recognized as his counterpart would itself be disrupted. The security he needed entailed a genuine equality of circumstances imposed upon all. The condition he sought was one in which he would meet in others only a replica of himself. What he was, everybody must become…”

      Michael Oakeshott
      “The Masses in Representative Democracy

      • Venezuela is not the first thing that comes to mind when considering life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stable, high growth economies – and the security that brings – are built on free markets.

    • “…Venezuela is not the first thing that comes to mind when considering life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Stable, high growth economies – and the security that brings – are built on free markets…”

      I agree. My point is that places like Venezuela are a cautionary tale. People with different worldviews mean very different things by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Facts and figures do not change hearts and minds. I don’t know what does actually. Therefore the necessity to battle for a particular worldview.

  32. (Orphan planet is a planet not having a mother star to orbit).
    Orphan planet is not solar energy irradiated, therefore it has a surface temperature because of its own internal heat sources.

    Two orphan planets may have the same average surface temperature, but the more differentiated surface temperatures orphan planet has the greater amount of IR outgoing radiative energy the orphan planet emits. (It is in accordance with Stephan-Boltzmann emission law nonlinearity.)

    let’s consider two orphan planets emitting the same amount of IR outgoing radiative energy. The more surface temperatures differentiated orphan planet – the colder on average surface temperature planet.

    An orphan planet with uniform surface temperature would have approached the planet effective radiative temperature Te.
    Te is the highest possible average surface temperature for an orphan planet.
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • When rotating the planet surface has larger surface areas exposed to solar flux in unit of time.
      When rotating faster – more areas are exposed.
      Thus the faster rotating planet (everything else equals) is capable to accumulate larger amounts of transformed into HEAT solar EM energy.
      That is what makes a faster rotating planet on average surface a warmer planet.
      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • I will bite.
      An orphaned planet is a rara avis indeed.
      One of my pet conjectures with regard to energy.

      First point.
      Try to consider it rotating in space.
      No matter how fast it rotates the Te remains the same
      Scary but true.

      An orphan planetTE does not approach Te, it is always at Te.

      Two orphan planets emitting the same Te do not care about their surface differentiation.
      To be blunt surface differentiation, like in a car radiator or human lungs or a planet surface affect the distribution of heat on that surface.
      When they both have the same Te it can only be because the surface radiating to space in both instances have the same effective surface area radiating.
      You are confusing the total surface areas. A colder planet for the same energy has a larger surface area.
      Once you say their Te are the same, with no external heat sourcethey must have the same effective emitting surface area.

      Hope this helps.

    • Thank you, angech, for your respond. Yes it helps a lot.
      Now back again to my topic of the planet surface rotational warming phenomenon explanation.

      When rotating the planet surface has larger surface areas get exposed to solar flux in unit of time. When rotating faster – more areas get exposed.

      Since surface’s the slower ability to accumulate HEAT than emit IR , the faster rotating planet is capable to TRANSFORM larger amounts of SW EM radiative solar energy into HEAT.

      Thus the faster rotating planet (everything else equals) is capable to accumulate larger amounts of transformed into HEAT solar EM energy.
      That is what makes a faster rotating planet on average surface a warmer planet.
      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • CV
        The reason for a rotating planet average surface temp heating up is purely mathematical. When not rotating the hot side getting all the energy goes ups slowly in temperature compared to the huge amount of energy put back out by the SB law.
        Nothing else.

        When a planet has an atmosphere this can lead to it having a surface temperature greater than the effective radiating temperature due to the GHG effect which is a totally different phenomenon and not explained by your ideas on rotation.

        Exactly because it can be higher than the effective radiating temperature, even on a non rotating atmospheric planet is why a theory trying to match rotation to surface temperature of any atmospheric planet cannot work.

        Give it a rest.

      • angech
        “CV
        The reason for a rotating planet average surface temp heating up is purely mathematical. When not rotating the hot side getting all the energy goes ups slowly in temperature compared to the huge amount of energy put back out by the SB law.
        Nothing else.”

        When not rotating the planet surface doesn’t reach the effective temperature Te, if that is what you mean.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas | February 9, 2022 at 3:02 am |
        When not rotating the planet surface doesn’t reach the effective radiating temperature Te [ ERT ], if that is what you mean
        .-
        When not rotating the planet surface without atmosphere cannot reach the effective temperature Te

        Since you treat planets like earth as effectively not having any atmosphere as it is too thin [your choice of words]
        You cannot have a formula giving any rotating airless or near airless planet a surface temperature greater than the effective radiating temperature.
        – The fact that planets with atmospheres have so called surface temperatures greater than the ER shows that the reason for their higher temperature is unrelated to rotation.
        It is a GHG effect.

      • angech
        “Since you treat planets like earth as effectively not having any atmosphere as it is too thin [your choice of words]
        You cannot have a formula giving any rotating airless or near airless planet a surface temperature greater than the effective radiating temperature.”
        I don’t understand, please explain.

      • angech, first I had the equation discovered and, only then, I checked the equation on planets like Earth and Titan and found the satellite measured and by equation calculated temperatures so much precisely matched.
        It was then I concluded those atmospheres are thin…
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • please explain

        “Since you treat planets like earth as effectively not having any atmosphere as it is too thin [your choice of words]
        You cannot have a formula giving any rotating airless or near airless planet a surface temperature greater than the effective radiating temperature.”

        3 steps.

        Any orphan planet with an internal heat source and no atmosphere radiates heat from its surface and has the effective radiation temperature equal to the surface temperature.
        Since there is no other planet or heat source around the planet could be spinning infinitely fast or standing still, relative to an uninvolved observer.
        In its own reference frame it is always still.
        Hence if there is nothing else around it .

        .

      • Yes, assuming orphan planet has a homogeneous physical properties surface…

      • 3 steps.

        Any orphan planet with an internal heat source and no atmosphere radiating heat equally from its surface and has the effective radiation temperature equal to the surface temperature.
        Since there is no other planet or heat source around the planet could be spinning infinitely fast or standing still, relative to an uninvolved observer.
        In its own reference frame it is always still.
        Hence if there is nothing else around it, it can be assigned any rotation one likes but it’s temperature does not change.
        Rotation does not effect TE and surface temperature of an internally heated planet is the effective radiation temperature.
        This argument rules out rotation affecting Te on airless orphan planets

        Step 2

        For a planet with an external heat source the rules change.
        Whether airless or with air if the planet is still in relation to the heat source theheated side puts out all the energy and the temperature rise due to SB is far less for double the energy as it is for half the energy.Te is a measure of radiation from a surface of uniform heat distribution and so is always higher if the surface is evenly illuminated.
        The temperature of an airless planet will increase towards the Te with rotation but cannot reach or exceed it.
        As will the temperature of a planet with translucent atmosphere.
        Planets have different surface temperatures to the Te.
        As I have shown this can be due to rotation but should always be less than the Te.

        Step 3

        Why then do a lot planets have a surface temperature greater than the Te?
        The answer is that they have GHG’s in the atmosphere.

        Note that the atmosphere is actually part of the surface though it is not treated that way.
        Measuring a surface temperature is now not a simple solid planet surface but an interplay between emitting particles in the atmosphere and emitting particles on what is left as the solid or liquid surface.
        In essence, with the light that gets through, the surface has to first heat up due to the incoming light.
        This is always below Te.
        Then some of that energy going out as IR is back radiated numerous times causing a higher surface temperature at ground level as the energy takes a longer time to get itself back out to space.
        This back radiation is what gives the higher temperatures at the surface.
        Note that the energy going out is till at the same rate as the energy coming in.

        This phenomenon is difficult to explain but relates to the warping of time and distance.
        We see it as a longer distance hence time based on human perception.
        We argue there is more energy in the system.
        Physics wise it is like the planet in orbit round the sun is really traveling in a straight line.
        The energy in equals the energy out in real spacetime.

      • angech, thank you for responding at a very late hours in Australia. Would you like we shall continue tomorrow, because I need some time to read and to prepare my answer?

    • angech, what we discus is a very important topic.
      I’ll try to explain my views, because I need your support.

      • Think about it. If you could beam radiation at a sphere and let it equilibrate to a steady state temperature and then rotate the sphere and without increasing the radiation to it raise the temperature higher, you have created a new source of energy. It would be green, and you wouldn’t have to bother with solar panels.

        Why is it a new energy source? Because I can transfer energy from the hotter sphere to a lower temperature body. The faster the sphere rotates the more energy gets transferred. Energy has been created from nothing. That’s why your planet rotation theory is nonsense, and you should stop trying to spread it.

      • Thank you JJ for your participation in a very important topic’s discussion. I’ll try to explain my views, because I need your support.
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • angech, we agree on the Step1 conclusions. Let’s discus the Step 2.
        “For a planet with an external heat source the rules change.
        Whether airless or with air if the planet is still in relation to the heat source the heated side puts out all the energy and the temperature rise due to SB is far less for double the energy as it is for half the energy.”
        Yes.
        “Te is a measure of radiation from a surface of uniform heat distribution…” the emphasis I did in bold
        “…and so is always higher if the surface is evenly illuminated.”
        By “evenly illuminated” you say that the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux, when evenly distributed, will be absorbed as evenly distributed heat.
        And, you conclude,
        “The temperature of an airless planet will increase towards the Te with rotation but cannot reach or exceed it.”
        We partly agree in
        The temperature of an airless planet will increase with rotation…
        We argue on the use of Te – you say “temperature cannot reach or exceed it.” – I say Te is a mathematical abstraction, and the temperature increase with rotation is not limited by Te.

        A hot body to double its emission intensity J1 = σ(T1)^4
        2J1 = J2 = σ(T2)^4
        T2 = (2J1/σ)^1/4 = 1,189T1
        To double its emission intensity a body should be 1,189 times warmer.

        Radiative flux is not heat. You can average heat, you cannot average radiative flux. Those are different physics terms.
        A body losses energy by conduction and convection (heat). When body radiates energy – it is not heat.

        When radiation hits a body the energy interacts with matter. Radiation cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface, because the radiation’s interaction cannot be averaged.

        If Earth’s surface was a flat disk of the same diameter, it would receive solar radiative energy 960 W/m^2. The corresponding
        Te = 360,7K or 87.7C.

        If we wrongly average the 960 W/m^2 over the entire sphere, the alleged averaged solar flux will be 240 W/m2. The corresponding Te = 255K or -18C.

        Let’s put the planet in a room, with one wall at 87,7C and the other walls at 0K.
        The faster the planet rotates, the warmer planet it is.

        Let’s put the planet in a room with walls at -18C…

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • We argue on the use of Te

        you say “temperature cannot reach or exceed it.” – I say Te is a mathematical abstraction, and the temperature increase with rotation is not limited by Te.

        That is the nub of the issue.

        Te is more than a mathematical abstraction.
        You can only get an emission from a surface that has energy in it or delivered to it.
        All bodies with energy emit heat.
        I showed, in step 1 that rotation makes no effect on Te in an orphan body.
        You agreed with this.
        Because it is both a result of entropy and frame of reference considerations-

        By introducing a second body that is a heat producing source you now provide both a source of energy and a number of frame of reference restrictions.
        These are not absolute in that we can never be sure which of the two bodies or both are moving or orbiting or rotating but from the point of view of the source we can claim that the planet is rotating or not.

        It is fairly clear (JJB) that any new energy incoming must also go out and is equal.
        You cannot create new energy from rotation ( implication of agreed step 1).

        Te is a calculated quality for a whole surface when the energy is evenly distributed by definition.
        It is not abstract.
        Any and every evenly heated surface will return 100% of the absorbed energy at a specific temperature (Te) dictated by the SB law.
        Whether it is white black, brindle or brown.
        Whether it has corrugations in it or not.
        This temperature can be said to be inviolate to both spin and composition and shape and has to be by definition.

      • A hot body to double its emission intensity J1 = σ(T1)^4
        2J1 = J2 = σ(T2)^4
        T2 = (2J1/σ)^1/4 = 1,189T1
        To double its emission intensity a body should be 1,189 times warmer.

        I am a bit lost here on this statement and maths.
        You seem to be confusing temperature and energy definitions.
        You almost seem to be saying that a doubling of an energy output would lead to a temperature increase by a multiple of 1,189 (1189 times warmer) which makes no sense.
        The normal way of doing it would be to say that an increase or doubling of a temperature , say 1 Kelvin to 2 Kelvin, would require 16 times (^4 ). the energy output

        Radiative flux is not heat. You can average heat, you cannot average radiative flux. Those are different physics terms.

        Again terminology issues.
        The sum of the radiative fluxes over a surface is the total heat (energy) that is outgoing
        A Te is the sum of all the outgoing fluxes, energy, heat, whatever over the surface area emitting the fluxes as an average emission for that surface.
        You can average it if the source, in this case the surface area of the planet, has different fluxes.
        You must, to get its Te.
        It is simpler to calculate it by a simple incoming absorbed radiation over surface area.
        In this case the radiative incoming energy is uniform anyway.

        – A body losses energy by conduction and convection (heat).
        When body radiates energy – it is not heat.

        No.
        Stating something that is not correct does not make it correct.

        A body loses energy (heat) by conduction. Gets colder.
        A body loses energy (heat) by convection. Gets colder.
        A body loses energy (heat) by radiation. Gets colder.
        Spot the difference?
        No.

        When radiation hits a body the energy interacts with matter. Yes.

        Radiation cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface, because the radiation’s interaction cannot be averaged.
        You have radiation known.
        You have surface area known
        Both radiated and irradiated.
        You simply, mathematically , can average it out over the entire planet surface.
        Everyone does. That’s science, maths , physics.



        If Earth’s surface was a flat disk of the same diameter, it would receive solar radiative energy 960 W/m^2. The corresponding
        Te = 360,7K or 87.7C.

        The actual earth surface is 4 times larger,
        If the earths surface was a flat disc it would be twice the diameter.
        Half of it would have to be shaded because it does not receive any sun.
        The corresponding temperature has to be worked out on those actual facts.

        If we wrongly average the 960 W/m^2 over the entire sphere, the alleged averaged solar flux will be 240 W/m2. The corresponding Te = 255K or -18C.

        It is not wrong to average it out over the sphere.
        That is exactly how a Te is calculated.

        Let’s put the planet in a room, with one wall at 87,7C and the other walls at 0K.

        Sure

        The faster the planet rotates, the warmer planet it is.

        Of course

        The point you refuse to accept is that the planet at rest has an emission temperature much less than the Te because it is radiating from all its surface but only being heated effectively a quarter of it.
        No matter how fast it rotates it can only increase in temperature from rotation towards the overall Te .

      • It is morning in Greece now, 8:55 am.
        Thank you, angech, for your respond.
        Let’s continue our discussion.

        “A body loses energy (heat) by radiation. Gets colder.
        Spot the difference?”
        The difference is that by losing heat by radiation, heat should be transformed into EM energy. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and molecules. EM energy has not kinetic energy.
        To produce kinetic energy, the EM energy should interact with matter first.
        When SW EM energy interacts with matter the following processes occur:
        1). Instant SW energy reflection (diffuse and specular) of a portion of the incident SW solar flux.
        2). Instant transformation into IR emission energy of another portion of the incident SW energy.
        3). Instant transformation into heat by accumulation in the atoms and molecules and transferred then into inner layers.

        Thus, the not reflected portion of incident SW EM energy is partly IR emitted at the very moment of EM energy interaction with matter, and partly is emitted later on, when this previously accumulated heat is getting transformed into IR emission EM energy.
        Not the entire not reflected portion of the incident SW EM energy is transformed into heat.
        That is why Te is a mathematical abstraction. Te has not the analogue on what is really occur when EM energy interacts with matter.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • “The point you refuse to accept is that the planet at rest has an emission temperature much less than the Te because it is radiating from all its surface but only being heated effectively a quarter of it.”

      I do not refuse to accept, in contrary, I insist on that. The planet average surface (mean) temperature is less than the Te when planet is not rotating, or if it is rotating very slow.

      “No matter how fast it rotates it can only increase in temperature from rotation towards the overall Te .”

      The ideal blackbody is a thermodynamic limiting case against which the performance of real radiating bodies can be compared.

      Blackbody theory was developed initially by Kirchhoff for bodies in thermal equilibrium. It never has applied to bodies of different temperatures.

      We are dealing with the long ago established blackbody EM ENERGY emission THEORY by applying it to the real rotating planets surfaces with the use of our very precise and 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=σT⁴, 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

  33. If George Orwell would have written 1984 in 2022, he would have been censored.

  34. Under the category of “Never let an opportunity pass to mislead the public about global warming when you have the world stage”

    In the weeks leading up to the Beijing Winter Olympics there were articles about the Olympics organizers having to use artificial snow. The usual bemoaning followed about the difficulty of holding winter events when global warming wiped out the white powder. It turns out the reason they are using artificial snow is not because the venue is warming but rather it’s because they don’t have snow. Period. The mean precipitation for February in that region is 10% of Aspen, Colorado. More recent articles are having to admit the facts, which probably tough to accept for some.

    It was choice hearing complaints by the athletes about how difficult it was to compete in such cold conditions.

  35. Geoff Sherrington

    This paper on Judith’s list –
    Sixfold Increase in Historical Northern Hemisphere Concurrent Large Heatwaves Driven by Warming and Changing Atmospheric Circulations [link]
    ……………….
    I have just completed a major update to a study of heatwaves in Australia’s 6 State capital cities, home to some 70% of our population and where some of the longest official weather records have been taken.
    I have used both raw official BOM data (CDO) and the data adjusted by BOM as ACORN-SAT, latest version released in December 2021.
    I have calculated for every year, the hottest average temperature over 1, 3, 5 and 10 consecutive days. The result is 96 Excel graphs that you can peruse here.
    http://www.geoffstuff.com/sixcity2022.xlsx

    The most obvious finding is that these hottest heatwave Tmax averages vary so little that one cannot find a useful pattern. It is just noise caused by Nature, nothing to do with climate change.
    Co-author of the referenced paper is Australia’s Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, who makes a living out of trawling through data like this and making deductions to scare small children.
    Readers here should do similar studies for their home towns. It is dead easy Excel work, no interpretation needed as the numbers speak for themselves.
    Here, they do not indicate that Australians should be building hospitals to cope with future global warming heatwaves in the main cities of Australia.

    • Really interesting data. I was a true believer in the 1980s and had no reason to question any of the narrative until about 10 years ago, when I was fascinated by the debate and the ad hominem attacks against skeptics.

      Because I’ve been following extreme weather for 70 years in the media, I felt what we were witnessing now wasn’t anything different from when I was a child.

      Over the last few years I’ve collected old news articles about heatwaves in Australia and elsewhere. They come from the 19th Century but they are just news articles and so have to be taken with a little grain of salt.

      I’ve wanted to see something with some scientific rigor pre 1900 and you seemed to have provided that. My understanding is that the official MET data doesn’t go back before 1900. Which means it excludes the Federation Heatwave of 1896. When I read those facts, I thought, how convenient. The usual argument about methodology etc, is used so that is for another discussion.

      This is one of those articles I’ve bookmarked.

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

      It’s because of your previous comments, and now your research, and that of Jennifer’s, that I’ve found yet another area that makes me question the official narrative. Thanks.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        CKid,

        Thanks for your feedback.
        You can’t describe this work as sceptical. It is about the simplest re-arrangement of official data possible and it carries no emotional or belief component.
        The CDO data start date varies from place to place, but Sydney 1959 and Melbourne 1856 or so are the earliest of Australia’s systematic official set. The adjusted ACORN set has a BOM-chosen start date of 1910 or later.
        Suggestion – do this for you own cities. Show other people how raw reality compares to official story lines. It is boring work, but the claim that global warming has increased temperatures by 1.X degrees C in 100 years is foundational to the whole narrative. Show it is wrong and the edifice has to crumble. Geoff S

      • I appreciate your work, Geoff.

        “Show it is wrong and the edifice has to crumble.”

        Upthread I posted an essay about the history of the IPCC, it discusses the mechanics of the IPCC in detail. While the paper celebrates the organization, it unwittingly describes a destructive cancer that fuels motivated reasoning within science. The political apparatus within the IPCC has veto power. What are the odds that politics are weighted to one political philosophy? The politics within the essay are described, no need to guess. This sets the tone for what will be funded. The structure motivates science careers, also mentioned. How can it not be mostly a political “edifice” built on crafting a particular type of scientific consensus? From the essay:

        “A steady diet of fresh scientific perspectives helps to maintain regular doses of funding, helped in turn by an endless round of conferences” (O’Riordan and Jäger, 1996, 2).

        Responding to pressure from the U.S. and others, in 1988 WMO and UNEP collaborated in creating the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change … IPCC was neither a strictly scientific nor a strictly political body but a unique hybrid. The political representatives, by virtue of the consensus rule, would hold veto power over every word of the summaries that were the essential product for policy-makers. But the scientists, represented by the lead authors of their reports, would also hold an effective veto by virtue of their prestige and unimpeachable expertise. Once a consensus was forged among all parties, it would not be questioned by any well-constitutedand representative political or scientific body.

        International Regimes and Democracy

        The roots of IPCC’s strength reached very deep. Most people were scarcely aware that IPCC, and virtually every other international initiative discussed here, relied on a key historical development: The worldwide advance of democracy. It is too easy to overlook the obvious fact that international organizations govern themselves in a republican fashion, with vigorous free debate among all members and votes in councils of elite leaders. Often, as in IPCC, decisions among the dozens or hundreds of elite leaders are made by a negotiated consensus in a spirit of equality, of mutual accommodation, and of commitment to the community process—all of which are seldom celebrated, but essential, components of the republican political culture (Weart, 1998, 61). Note also that majority voting is normally important in this political culture, but in many cases consensus is even more important.

        The international organization of climate studies helped fulfillsome of the hopes of those who, in the aftermath of World War II, had worked to build an open and cooperative world order. If IPCC was the outstanding example, in other areas, ranging from disease control to fisheries, panels of scientists were becoming a new voice in world affairs (Miller, 2001, esp. 212–13). Independent of nationalities, they wielded increasing power by claiming dominion over views about the actual state of the world—shaping perceptions of reality itself. Such a transnational scientific influence on policy matched dreams held by liberals since the eighteenth century. It awoke corresponding suspicions in the enemies of liberalism.”

        An edifice is the correct way to look at it; and not one of enlightenment.

      • What do you know? Do you have any background in science applicable to climate change? Do you think you and the others are going to knock down this “edifice”? That doesn’t pass the laugh test. You’re a member of a shrinking minority.

        Climate change is not political and it’s not brain washing. It’s based on sound fundamental science. If you had any idea what you are talking about, you’d realize it.

      • Sure JJ, we know you have no problem filtering science through politics for approval.

      • I never try to hide my politics. It has nothing to do with my position on climate change.

        You, on the other hand, don’t have a clue about climate science. All you do is cling to junk science and conspiracy theories. Just another insignificant member of a shrinking number of climate denialists shouting at the rain.

      • That’s nice, JJ. I’ve provided an essay with bountiful citations where anyone but a political cultist can see the profound basis for motivated reasoning and conformation bias within the IPCC; the construct of the IPCC is literally, irrefutably, equal parts science and, politics. You roll around these parts like a donut, lips firmly welded to your arse; an intellectually inbred looping reactor fueled by collectivist scat, which you’re full of.

      • What is your background is science?

        The reports put out by IPCC represents the consensus of climate scientists from around the world. It is endorsed and signed by climate scientists — not politicians.

        The only thing you ever present is a rationale for paranoid delusions supporting a conspiracy involving climate scientists from around the world and the fossil fuel industry which, according to you, has been, for the past 40 years, perpetrating a massive hoax trying to subjugate the human race. How rational is that? It isn’t.

      • Sorry to burst your gaseous sphere of intoxicating influence, JJ. IPCC governance is equal parts science and politics, deal with the facts.

      • The UN? That’s about geopolitics. Climate scientists couldn’t care less. They wouldn’t sign on to those reports if their research didn’t agree with the conclusions.

        This is what political interference looks like:

        https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-change-research-distorted-and-suppressed

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/17/whistleblowers-scientists-climate-crisis-trump-administration

      • “…conformation bias”. Maybe a Freudian slip, but I like it.

      • CKid wrote:
        Because I’ve been following extreme weather for 70 years in the media

        OMG, how old are you?

      • CKid wrote:
        Because I’ve been following extreme weather for 70 years in the media, I felt what we were witnessing now wasn’t anything different from when I was a child.

        Surely you understand that reading newspapers articles don’t prove a single thing about the frequency and intensities of extreme weather. Right?

        Right???

      • 02

        I’m old enough to have formed opinions about human behavior that is obviously shaped by ideology rather than knowledge of science. Anyone who is dependent upon 8th grade equations fits that profile.

    • Geoff Sherrington wrote:
      I have just completed a major update to a study of heatwaves in Australia’s 6 State capital cities, home to some 70% of our population and where some of the…

      Why don’t you ever submit your studies to peer review? No one that matters is going to see them here and they will have zero impact without publication in a peer reviewed journal. That’s how the world works (for good reason).

      • Geoff Sherrington

        David02,
        For a senior scientist, a publication worthy of peer review deals with a major, significant advancement of scientific knowledge.
        Publication is inappropriate for this elementary Excel exercise.
        If you were a senior scientist, you might instead ask why official curators of public data resist corrections to data and concepts that might not harmonise with their preconceptions. Our BOM is guilty of poor science when it advises (as it did to me) that it could not consider this Excel exercise unless it passed peer review -in an adequate journal of their liking, I presume. The system is sick.
        BTW, David, did you even look at my link above? If you did, could you fault it? Was there a reason why you did not write here that it was good and relevant, but chose a negative style of comment? Geoff S

      • UK-Weather Lass

        “No one that matters is going to see them here and they will have zero impact without publication in a peer reviewed journal.”

        Speak for yourself, Mr Appell …

  36. Arctic sea ice extent Java has broken the 14,000,000 sq K barrier and now is 5th lowest.
    Still over a month to go.
    Would need a lot more increase before worth any more comment

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Another cold front is coming down from Canada towards the southeast.
    https://i.ibb.co/tzGX49C/Screenshot-1.png

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Still cold Peruvian Current. Little chance of El Nino. Will La Nina reappear in the Pacific in November?
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
    https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_pacific_current.png
    The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts La Niña to continue into autumn 2022.

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski

    La Niña is present.*
    Equatorial sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are below average across the eastcentral and eastern Pacific Ocean.
    The tropical Pacific atmosphere is consistent with La Niña.
    La Niña is likely to continue into the Northern Hemisphere spring (67% chance
    during March-May 2022) and then transition to ENSO-neutral (51% chance
    during April-June 2022).*

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski

    SOI has been rising again since late January.
    https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/

  41. Wagathon,

    Please pay attention. We aren’t talking about vaccines. We’re talking specifically about an inexpensive drug used safely for decades that studies and doctors say is useful in treating Covid-19. More generally we’re talking about a variety of repurposed drugs that numerous doctors assert are helpful in preventing serious Covid, but that medical authorities are for some reason intent on suppressing.

    Calling people crazy quacks and cranks isn’t evidence. It’s ad hominem.

    If you’re going to call something “misinformation” then you have to come up with more than one study that says what you want it to say against an arsenal of other evidence.

    • RE: Andy West. It’s a cultural thing. Wagathon must say that in order to feel he belongs to his preferred culture. The rest of us can read the studies and anecdotes and make what is hopefully a more rational decision. People: Can’t live with ’em, can’t live without ’em.

  42. The 60% of Arctic Warming due to NV is not an outlier. Here are some other papers identifying internal variability associated with Arctic warming.

    “ Our results reveal two main variability modes: the Pacific sector mode and the Barents and Kara Seas mode, which together explain about two-thirds of the melt-season Arctic sea ice variability and more than 40% of its trend for the study period.”

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/5/jcli-d-18-0301.1.xml

    “ This observational evidence supports recent modeling studies that have suggested that Arctic sea ice is intrinsically linked to Atlantic multidecadal variability”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013GL058084

    “ That is to say, in the middle-to-late 21st century, when the AMO shifts to its cold phase, with all other factors being equal, the Arctic amplification might slowdown”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076210?utm_campaign=buffer&utm_medium=social&utm_content=buffer91269&utm_source=twitter.com

    “…we show that the contribution of sea-ice loss to wintertime Arctic amplification seems to be dependent on the phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).“

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3011

  43. The future of high energy density and lightweight batteries may be more of the same. With sales growing in a growing market.

    https://cobaltblueholdings.com/assets/COB-Website-Content-Batteries-01.png
    https://cobaltblueholdings.com/commodities/cobalt/

    https://www.marketindex.com.au/commodities/lithium

    Cobalt blue have a high yield low cost cobalt play near Broken Hill – which is back-o-beyond.

    • Dietrich Hoecht

      Three parameters need to be extracted from battery materials comparisons.
      – Energy density based on Watthours per weight (i.e. dead weight for vehicles)
      – Relative cost (Cobalt will be much more expensive with China holding the majority of Congo’s minings)
      – World reserves (Cobalt is already in short supply and Lithium will predictably be depleted well before all vehicles are powered by batteries)

  44. Let us take a minute to salute the green energy extremists who continually attempt to erode oil and gas companies and replace that reliable energy with continually unreliable wind and solar. Congratulations on wrecking the global economy. Good job!

    Isaac Larian, founder of MGA Entertainment Inc., thought he’d withstood the worst of last year’s tsunami of costs from supply chain snags and labor shortages. But now the maker of Bratz and L.O.L. Surprise! dolls and Little Tikes toys is bracing for a second wave of profit destruction: $100-a-barrel oil. “It’s just a disaster,” says Larian, who like many toymakers has some material costs closely tied to the price of oil and natural gas. “There’s not much you can do.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-10/crude-oil-s-price-climb-toward-100-squeezes-company-profits-hurts-consumers

    • Green energy advocates increasing oil prices. What a lie. As are all of jim2’s posts. Never any evidence whatsoever.

      This is why I filter all his comments to trash.

  45. What is the green energy extremists solution to high electricity prices and scarcity of electricity? You don’t get any!

    What is happening?

    From February 11 to March 31, up to 1.4 million British households will be paid for cutting their electricity consumption at certain times of the day.

    The “domestic reserve scarcity” trial run by National Grid Electricity System Operator (ESO) and Octopus Energy will see customers given a target for low energy usage during set two-hour periods, such as 9am to 11am, 12pm to 2pm and 4.30pm to 6.30pm. If they can keep their usage below these targets, all of the electricity they use during that period will be provided for free.

    https://theworldnews.net/uk-news/electricity-rationing-what-is-the-national-grid-and-octopus-trial-and-can-i-take-part

  46. So now, a practical nuclear fusion energy source is only 50 years away ;)

    European scientists say they have made a major breakthrough in their quest to develop practical nuclear fusion – the energy process that powers the stars.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60312633

  47. Moving towards wind, solar, and nuclear is strictly a public policy decision. In the absence of zero carbon mandates, the electricity markets would move decisively towards gas-fired generation.

    The largest obstacle which prevents policy decision makers from adopting nuclear as a zero carbon backup for wind and solar is the perception that the nuclear industry lacks commitment for keeping its capital costs under control. The massive cost overruns at the VC Summer and the Vogtle 3 & 4 projects are the most recent examples of the industry’s current inability to meet its cost commitments to private investors and to the public.

    Critics of strong regulatory oversight of the American nuclear industry claim that reducing the NRC’s role would greatly reduce nuclear’s capital and operating costs.

    History shows something different. The project management discipline needed to fulfill the NRC’s regulatory requirements is the same discipline needed to deliver every other component of a nuclear project on cost and on schedule. Any management weaknesses present anywhere along the line in any of the major project phases will result in significant cost overruns and project delays.

    The adoption of SMR technology, combined with a realistic approach to doing NRC-compliant project management, is the only pathway we have in the US for getting nuclear’s capital costs under control. I’m betting on NuScale’s 77 MWe unit to be the first SMR design installed in the United States. A 462 MWe NuScale plant comprised of six 77 MWe modular units is scheduled to go online in eastern Idaho in late 2029. It will be owned by UAMPS, will be constructed by Fluor, and will be operated by Energy Northwest.

    Here are the reasons why I think the NuScale design will be the first SMR out of the gate to go operational in this country:

    — Their SMR design is a light water reactor derivative which leverages proven reactor technology. It uses half height conventional fuel rods and it integrates the reactor vessel and the steam generator into a single module which can be produced in a factory using a consistent and repeatable approach to manufacturing.
    — Every SMR module in production is always being fabricated under the same stringent nuclear-grade QA requirements. The skill base needed to produce these modules isn’t in danger of being lost between reactor orders.
    — The NuScale design delivers nearly all of an SMR’s theoretical operational advantages — scalability, load following capability, ultra-high resistance to meltdown, grid islanding capability, black start capability — but at the least overall technical and financial risk for the power plant’s constructors and owners.
    — NuScale’s project team is taking the time and effort needed to create a fully NRC-compliant industrial infrastructure which can cost effectively support the manufacture, installation, and startup of their SMR design.
    — Their SMR design will not go into production until its design is reasonably complete and stable, and until the manufacturing infrastructure needed to produce their design cost effectively has been reasonably well tested and optimized.
    — The NuScale project team works very closely with the NRC to ensure that no regulatory surprises or regulatory bottlenecks will occur while their SMR manufacturing infrastructure is being developed, optimized, and deployed.
    — The UAMPS customer is being completely realistic concerning long-term spent fuel management. Enough on-site spent fuel capacity is included to handle 60 years of output stored safely in NRC-compliant dry casks.

    A decade of hard work is needed to build the SMR industrial supply chain infrastructure. If the initial SMR plants built in the late 2020’s and early 2030’s are brought in on cost and schedule, it will be the mid to late 2030’s before the numbers of SMR plants under construction in the US begins to accelerate.

    But here’s the reality of the situation. These new SMR plants can’t be constructed nearly fast enough to make a real difference in supporting the Biden administration’s net zero by 2035 target for the power sector. That target is impossible unless highly coercive energy conservation measures are being imposed on the American people.

    What will happen in places like New York State and California when acute shortages of electricity occur which can’t be solved by importing power from other states and/or from Canada because of a lack of transmission capacity?

    Diesel engine gensets will be used initially when the power shortages first appear. But as these shortages begin to accelerate and multiply, aero-derivative gas turbine gensets like those available from Rolls Royce and GE will be quickly installed on a crash basis wherever these are needed to shore up the grid.

    More often than not, the LNG or the diesel needed to fuel these gensets will be delivered by diesel-powered locomotives pulling railroad tank cars, or else by over- the-highway diesel-powered tanker trucks.

    • The energy source is a public policy decision until the public gets sick of getting poor. Then it becomes a political decision, or worse.

      • Public policy decisions are inherently political decisions.

        Within the next decade, coal-fired capacity in the US will be shut down faster than any possible combination of wind, solar, and nuclear could cover in that time.

        With the consequence that over the next ten years, the price of electricity in the US will rise significantly.

        In addition to higher unit prices, less of it will be available assuming the grid isn’t being stabilized with diesel engine gensets and/or with aero-derivative gas turbine gensets.

      • Coal *must be* eliminated in the US, and elsewhere — it emits too much carbon, and is warming the planet too fast.

        This isn’t controversial in the least. There are cheaper solutions now anyway.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      BB,
      You can be sure that regulators will impede the growth of small reactors until other crippling matters, like the Biden admin is ordering, are complete (unless there is a change of Government with a leader strong enough to curb bureaucratic excesses.)

      • I repeat and reemphasize what I originally said above.

        The project management discipline needed to fulfill the NRC’s regulatory requirements is the same discipline needed to deliver every other component of a nuclear project on cost and on schedule.

        Any management weaknesses present anywhere along the line in any of the major phases of a nuclear reactor construction project will result in significant cost overruns and project delays.

        The NRC will not step back from its quality assurance and nuclear safety requirements. Nor would public opinion allow the NRC to do so, even if it ever seriously considered making such a move. Which it can’t and it won’t.

        NuScale has taken all the time and all the effort needed to work closely with the NRC to be sure every requirement is being covered.

        Every other vendor of a small reactor design must do what NuScale has been doing from the very beginning and that is to recognize that without a close working relationship with the NRC, a successful nuclear project is impossible.

  48. Hello Judith:
    The item…

    “The economics of greenium etc…”

    has the wrong link…

  49. ‘So what? Water vapor is responsible for most of the 33 C rise in the earth’s temperature but it’s not a driver of climate change. It’s positive feedback for CO2’s greenhouse effect. Internal variability is the same thing.’ JJ

    Ocean and atmospheric fluid flows are driven by planetary rotation and heat transfer. But instead of a steady state there is a dynamic multi-equilibria state space emerging from global fluid flow mechanics.

    e.g. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000037493.89489.3f

    It matters little whether extra energy in the oceans comes from a positive cloud effect feedback – changes in low level marine stratocumulus over the eastern Pacific prominent – or from a warmer atmosphere slowing ocean cooling – once the energy is in the oceans and keeping the planet warm like a cozy hot water bottle.

    ‘An additional factor that explains the trend in net TOA flux is the shift from a negative to a positive PDO index in 2014 (Figure 4a). The PDO is a large-scale climate pattern associated with substantial shifts in sea-surface temperatures (SSTs) and clouds and has been previously linked to variability in the EEI as estimated at the TOA by satellite data (Loeb, Thorsen, et al., 2018).’ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

    • Water vapor has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WCyMkvRWvBVGT-7Eu6SRgJjY8XKG9qpV/view?usp=sharing

      • Matthew R Marler

        San Pangborn: Water vapor has been increasing about twice as fast as possible from just feedback.

        JJ Braccili: You still don’t have an energy source that can drive climate change.

        One of my favorite questions: as average surface temperature has increased about 1C-1.25C over the last 135 years or so, annual rainfall has increased about 6%. How much increased energy input to the system has been required to boost global rainfall (the hydrologic cycle) by that amount? I have been seeking quantitative answers to that question, but have found only a few narrowly focused papers (e.g. Romps et al over part of the US)

      • Mat,
        6% which amounts to about 20 W/m^2. The change results from more resistance to emission rather than increase in input. The added resistance to emission results from increase in water vapor.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Dan Pangburn, I’m sorry I misspelled your name.

        The change results from more resistance to emission rather than increase in input. The added resistance to emission results from increase in water vapor.

        What does the increase in water vapor result from?

      • Mat,
        I did a study described at Sect 6 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com that showed about 90% of humanity’s contribution has been from irrigation. This is in agreement with a previous assessment at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2001WR000355

        All of humanity’s contribution to planet warming since before 1895 can be explained by water vapor increase.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Dan Pangburn: All of humanity’s contribution to planet warming since before 1895 can be explained by water vapor increase.

        You have avoided my question, which is your right: where did the energy come from to increase the rate of rainfall? Related, what “explains” the water vapor increase?

      • Mat,
        Given that energy cannot be created or destroyed and the assumption that energy-in remains constant, the extra energy for increasing water cycle must come from decreased energy transport by radiation. I hope that helps explain what I meant by “The change results from more resistance to emission rather than increase in input.”

      • Matthew R Marler

        Dan Pangburn: the extra energy for increasing water cycle must come from decreased energy transport by radiation.

        Is there evidence for decreased energy transport by radiation? Has something caused that decreased energy transport by radiation, if it has occurred? it seems that you are going in circles.

      • Mat,
        Energy transport from surface to TOA is the sum of three ways: Latent heat, radiation and convection. The total is constant for steady state conditions. If you increase one of them, latent heat, the difference has to come from the others. It has to be from the sum of changes to convection and radiation. I don’t think convection would change much so that leaves radiation. Fig 0.7 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com is an approximation of a transition of the ways up through the atmosphere as I see it.

        What leads you to speculate that I might be going in circles?

      • Matthew R Marler

        Dan Pangburn: The total is constant for steady state conditions.

        You are assuming a steady state when I am asking what powered a significant change in mean temp and rainfall, which contradicts the assumption of a steady state.

        Why do you hypothesize a steady-state in the presence of a change since the late 1800s?

        You have temperature change resulting in water vapor change, and water vapor change resulting in temperature change; while assuming a steady state

      • Mat,
        I asserted steady state simply to make it easier to visualize. It’s always true eventually.
        Water vapor change is about twice what it would be from just temperature change. That’s the point. There has to be another source of water vapor increase besides temperature increase and that other source has to be humanity. Humanity’s biggest contributor to WV (about 90%) is from irrigation. This is covered much more extensively at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . If you still have concerns, please refer to specific excerpts from there.

    • So?

      You still don’t have an energy source that can drive climate change. Internal variability, if it’s anything, is positive feedback for radiative forcing caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

      If you want to keep posting meaningless weather reports, knock yourself out.

      • How about 2000 years of weather – combining 3 of my favourite climate science authors.

        When it comes to Earth system operating modes there are a couple of possibilities. Climate is a stable equilibrium? Probably not. Purely periodic? Highly unlikely. And now for something real.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/ghil-sensitivity.png

        Evidence supports random and chaotic. In this 663 years of Nile River levels are compared to a purely random series of equal duration.

        https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/nilometer.png

        Chaos was famously found in weather modes.

        ‘Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.

        Figure 12 shows 2000 years of El Nino behaviour simulated by a state-of-the-art climate model forced with present day solar irradiance and greenhouse gas concentrations. The richness of the El Nino behaviour, decade by decade and century by century, testifies to the fundamentally chaotic nature of the system that we are attempting to predict. It challenges the way in which we evaluate models and emphasizes the importance of continuing to focus on observing and understanding processes and phenomena in the climate system. It is also a classic demonstration of the need for ensemble prediction systems on all time scales in order to sample the range of possible outcomes that even the real world could produce. Nothing is certain.’ https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161

      • … weather models… that should be… Lorenz and his 1960’s convection model.

      • RIE: how does “weather” produce external energy to drive climate?

      • It’s like opening a curtain and letting the light in.

    • RIE: Internal variations don’t add energy to the global climate system and hence cause global climate change.

      Why is this so difficult for you to understand???

      • stevenreincarnated

        David is calling the models complete garbage again? Of course internal variability changes the energy budget. You’d have to be brain dead to believe otherwise.

      • If you are going to follow climate, it’s worthwhile to have a copy of:
        ‘The Physics of Climate’ ( Peixoto and Oort ) ( also at the library ).

        One of my favorite quotes:

        “Thus, the whole climate system must be regarded as continuously evolving with parts of the system leading and others lagging in time. The highly nonlinear interactions between the subsystems tend to occur on many time and space scales. Therefore, the subsystems of the climate system are not always in equilibrium with each other, and not even in internal equilibrium.

    • The national debt is $23.5 T, not $30 T, and it is being easily serviced at a very lower rate/GDP now. Not a problem.

      • 02

        Learn to keep up. Your knowledge of the federal debt is worse than your mastery of 8th grade equations.

        Total debt is $30 Trillion. That includes intragovernmental debt to Social Security and other federal trust funds. The $23.5 Trillion is the amount of debt held by the public.

      • joe - the non economist

        national debt is $30T

        though liberals seem to count the SS system as solvent because the money is invested in that “lockbox ” filled with US T-bills.

        though they lack the ability to understand those T-Bills only source of repayment is the future tax revenue from the taxpayers.

      • joe

        One of the many myths about taxes and government funding that are perpetuated by the Democratic Party is that Social Security and Medicare don’t add to the deficit. Their rationale is that since the government has been borrowing from SS for decades, then the fund is owed back all that has been borrowed. The problem is that the budget is on a cash flow basis. What comes in that year is compared to what goes out.

        The following paragraph has been in the Social Security Trustees Report for the last decade or so. I always knew where to find it. Except in 2021. It’s gone. That allows the politicians to continue the myth since no one can easily refute it. This is from the 2020 Social Security Trustees Report which indicates that the deficit is increased by $465 Billion. The amount varied but it was in the hundreds of billions each year for the last decade.

        “ In 2020, the projected difference between Social Security’s expenditures and non-interest income is $73 billion. The Trustees anticipate a deficit of $15 billion in non-interest income for the HI program.The projected general revenue demands of SMI are $377 billion. Thus, the total general revenue requirements for Social Security and Medicare in 2020 are
        $465 billion, or 2.1 percent of GDP. Redemption of trust fund bonds, interest paid on those bonds, and general revenue transfers provide no new net income to the Treasury. When the unified budget is not in surplus, these payments are made through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.”

      • joe - the non economist

        CKid | February 14, 2022 at 5:21 pm |
        joe

        “One of the many myths about taxes and government funding that are perpetuated by the Democratic Party is that Social Security and Medicare don’t add to the deficit.”

        Concur
        Along with huge deficits in Basic logic and math proliferate among liberal economic concepts

    • Hilary proposed brilliant plan to eliminate Donald Trump.
      Turns out it was a bit Suss….

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Heavy frost on the Great Lakes in two days.
    https://i.ibb.co/dkWX44v/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f060.png

  51. Looks like the divestment policy of the Green Extremists is a dismal failure!

    The number of rigs drilling for oil in U.S. basins jumped the most in four years this week, the latest sign that the shale patch is booming again as crude prices soar.

    Oil rigs in the U.S. rose by 19 to 516 this week, the biggest gain since February 2018, according to Baker Hughes data released Friday. While the expansion was seen across several regions, Texas added a combined 13 rigs in the Permian, Eagle Ford and Barnett plays.
    Shale drillers launch largest expansion in years

    U.S. drillers’ pledges of financial restraint are being tested like never before as crude prices march higher, with Raymond James seeing $125 a barrel by mid-year as demand outpaces supply. Citigroup Inc. warned that shale explorers are poised to boost spending by almost 40% this year, showing all signs of abandoning promises to hold the line on drilling budgets.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-11/u-s-oil-rigs-jump-most-in-4-years-as-shale-revival-accelerates

  52. NIO’s ET5 start to roll off the line. Luxury performance – 0 to 60 in 4.3v seconds – for US$41,000 with battery swapping. I

    https://www.caricarz.com/en/news/what-a-progress-nio-et5-has-reached-its-validation-prototypes-stage/1547

  53. I cannot find solid details of this plan, but I will throw it out there anyway. From the bits and pieces I could find, they will use smart meters read every 15 minutes. If they don’t like what you are doing, they will throttle your electricity, which you will need dearly because you will no longer have an ICE vehicle. They will match demand to supply by load shedding. It mentions batteries, but again no detail on what size to be found. It’s probably too much battery storage to even be feasible to build. Yeah. Good luck with that.

    A European wide ‘supergrid’ could cut almost a third from energy costs according to a new study from the UCD Energy Institute.

    https://techxplore.com/news/2022-02-pan-european-supergrid-energy.html

  54. So much for mid century cooling from aerosols.

    “ Anthropogenic aerosols are believed to have a net cooling effect at the surface, although the magnitude of the forcing remains highly uncertain (Boucher et al., 2013). Considering that anthropogenic aerosols emitted from North America and western Europe increased during the early to mid-20C and decreased after the 1970s (Smith et al., 2011), while greenhouse gas concentrations increased steadily over the 20C, some influence of anthropogenic aerosols on AMV may be expected. Given sufficient temporal smoothing, it may appear that the forced basin-averaged NASST from historical coupled simulations captures the timing of the observed AMV. However, the high temporal correlation can lead to overly simplistic mechanistic interpretations. As shown in this study, the externally forced AMV in LENS not only shows a much weaker amplitude, but also the spatiotemporal evolution of NASST and related fields are highly inconsistent with available observations and observation-based reconstructions. There is also emerging evidence that aerosol effects are weaker than initially thought (Stevens, 2015, 2017). In particular, the second indirect, cloud lifetime effect of aerosols are likely overestimated in the current generation of coupled models (Sato et al., 2018), including CESM (Malavelle et al., 2017). If this is true, then the externally forced NASST signal in current climate models is likely an overestimation of that in nature.”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL080474

  55. 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 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
    There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
    The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.

    There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
    Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
    Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Here is a Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
      From the above…
      for every without-atmosphere planet (ι) we have:
      Tmean.ι = [ Φ.ι (1 – a.ι) S.ι (β *N.ι *cp.ι)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
      or
      Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
      or it can be re-written as
      Tmean = Te * [(β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴

      The Theorem:
      The planet mean surface temperature Tmean numerical value will be equal to the planet effective temperature Te numerical value
      Tmean = Te
      only when the term
      (β*N*cp) = 1
      and, since the
      β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal

      the planet N*cp product should be then
      N*cp = 1 /β
      or the numerical value of the product
      N*cp = 1 /150
      ……….

      The Theorem leads to the following very important conclusions:

      1). In general, the planet effective temperature numerical value Te is not numerically equal to the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.

      2). For the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature numerical value Tmean to be equal to the planet effective temperature numerical value Te the condition from the above Theorem the (N*cp = 1 /150) should be necessarily met.

      3). For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .

      Consequently, Earth’s effective temperature numerical value Te cannot be equal to Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  56. The belief by some in the efficacy of ivermectin makes my point that, from global warming alarmism to the global use of ivermectin to treat covid-19, superstitious and ignorant anti-science sells well.

    Use of ivermectin has definitely increased business at poison centers. The anti-science misinformation industry acts like it doesn’t realize the original study out of Egypt was pulled. Like Michael Mann’s hockey stick, it was a pack of lies.

    The disinformation peddlers pretend they don’t know Dr Kory (FLCCC) does not believe in double blind studies because a control group would be depriving needy covid sufferers from receiving needed treatment. Similarly, the mathematical modeling supporting the global warming alarmis AGW hypothesis can never be verified.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/24/ivermectin-covid-peru-misinformation

    • Joe - the non epidemiologist

      Wagathon – I agree that Ivermectin is most likely ineffective as a treatment. I will note that regions of the world that have high ivermectin usage (for other diseases) have had much shorter covid waves and much smaller volume of infected during those waves.

      That indicates to me that something else is in play that reduces the ability of covid to get a foothold into the human body. Whether it is cross immunity to a virus that is prevelant in those regions with high ivermectin usage or if there is something associated with ivermectin that triggers some form of immunity is unknown.

      I do think it is worthwhile to explore the cause.

      Note – at no point am I claiming that the studies show that ivermectin is an effective treatment.

      • Probably has something to do with a lower median age of the population and the relatively greater amount of time spent outdoors in warmer weather, none of which would affect controlled studies in the same population in the same area done at the same time. Controlled studies show no mitigation of morbidity.

      • Many studies show it’s effective. https://c19ivermectin.com/

        Do we know how to read forest plots?

        I’m failing to understand why everyone wants to beat up on this remarkably safe drug that doesn’t require high doses to be effective. If doctors want to use it, let ’em. Why the jackboot?

      • A telling observation from the article linked to below on methodological weaknesses and questionable conclusions…

        Health Nerd@GidMK·Dec 15, 202119/ All of this makes the “limitations” and conclusions sections absolutely bizarre. Turns out you can just declare things are causal as long as you believe it hard enough I suppose?

    • Wagathon,

      OK, I did some digging into your reference.
      This is weird. The Guardian references their own reporting, claiming that the ivermectin story was based on a study with non-existent data by Surgisphere.

      No, it was not. In fact there was a paper published in The Lancet claiming that hydroxychloroquine was useless and even harmful, but after numerous readers stated that they knew nothing of the supposedly numerous trial sites, the paper was retracted because the trials never existed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32450107/

      The Guardian’s link to their evidence on the bad science on ivermectin is here: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/unreliable-data-doubt-snowballed-covid-19-drug-research-surgisphere-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine Yet this is about the above retracted study on hydroxychloroquine.

      A search of Pubmed for the terms ivermectin AND Surgisphere yielded no results. There was no study by Surgisphere. However, a search of hydroxychloroquine AND Surgisphere yielded the retracted study.

      So why does The Guardian imply that a study by Surgisphere on ivermectin had to be retracted? The Guardian is pretending that the flawed study somehow involved ivermectin.

      Ivermectin poisoning? https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/another-ivermectin-story-and-false-reporting-this-time-by-ap/ Maybe if the authorities would stop putting the jackboot on ivermectin, a remarkably safe drug, people wouldn’t have to resort to the animal product?

      Perhaps you’re the one being naive if you swallow what the mainstream media says without applying some critical scrutiny. The main point about ivermectin should be: since this drug is so safe and doesn’t require high doses (as modelling studies falsely suggested) why not focus on some bigger problems rather than trying to stop trained, educated, licensed physicians from using this? Why the jackboot?

      I’m not finding any retracted studies on ivermectin from Egypt. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=ivermectin%20AND%20Egypt%20AND%20Covid-19

      Suggest you do some real research instead of relying on The Guardian.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Wagathon: The belief by some in the efficacy of ivermectin makes my point that, from global warming alarmism to the global use of ivermectin to treat covid-19, superstitious and ignorant anti-science sells well.

      modest evidence in support of Ivermectin use for COVID19:
      https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matching

      The disinformation peddlers pretend they don’t know Dr Kory (FLCCC) does not believe in double blind studies because a control group would be depriving needy covid sufferers from receiving needed treatment.

      For some reason, such thinking about depriving some people seldom seems to be accompanied by thinking that some people will be needlessly exposed to side effects.

      • I really don’t understand why everyone wants to beat up on ivermectin. A lot of studies say it’s helpful; doctors on the front lines using it say it’s helpful. It’s a very safe drug. The stories about the dangers of this are wildly exaggerated. https://sharylattkisson.com/2021/09/another-ivermectin-story-and-false-reporting-this-time-by-ap/

        The Guardian story (Wagathon ref) referenced a false study on the ineffectiveness of HCQ, not about a false study on IVM. Yet The Guardian pretended that this story demonstrated that IVM studies were flawed. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/04/unreliable-data-doubt-snowballed-covid-19-drug-research-surgisphere-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine

        The Surgisphere study was about HCQ, not IVM. Search for HCQ and Surgisphere on Pubmed and you’ll find the retracted study; search for IVM and Surgisphere and you’ll find nothing.

        Search Pubmed for the supposedly retracted Egypt IVM study and you won’t find one.

      • BBC –
        Ivermectin: How false science created a Covid ‘miracle’ drug

        https://www.bbc.com/news/health-58170809

      • Wagathon, you just don’t let up.

        The BBC (your reference) tells us that the Together Trial showed that ivermectin didn’t work. But this study hasn’t been published; the ivermectin arm was closed early for futility. OK, fair enough. But we don’t have the peer-reviewed study.

        The Cochrane review cited couldn’t find evidence one way or another. But since Peter Grotzsche was booted out of Cochrane, many believe this organization has since become captive of big pharma.

        A basic point of study review is that virtually any study can be subjected to the “show me the study and I’ll show you the crime” syndrome. This is a way to discredit treatments that moneyed interests may not want to see.

        Consider that if IVM or HCQ did show efficacy, then that points to problems with the EUA for the Covid vaccines since EUA is only granted if no treatment is available. If we now find that ivermectin works, retrospectively we can say that it also worked before EUA, implying a concerted effort to block it so that EUA for these vaccines– which we’re paying for through our taxes– could proceed and the drug companies could make billions.

        Hard to believe that so many doctors are risking their careers to promote an inexpensive drug that has been shown to have remarkable properties against RNA viruses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7564151/ It certainly isn’t anyone’s pie-in-the-sky to suppose it might work against Covid-19.

        In any case, shouldn’t treatment be up to individual physicians? We’re not talking about thalidomide here. We’re talking about something as safe as aspirin.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Wagathon: Again, making my point–

        I made the same arguments about 2 years ago on the weaknesses of studies of HCQ that were not proper clinical trials. Hence my claim of “modest” evidence from a prospective study of Ivermectin that entailed propensity score matching. Sadly, there are no studies without methodological weaknesses, most commonly sampling biases. It is not fair, imo, to claim that ivermectin supporters are ignoring the science, though some may be. It’s foolish to claim, as some have, that clinical trials take too long or are biased against patients. But most of the evidence is just not clear-cut.

    • Wag – I love how you reference journalists to back up your ivermectin case. You don’t seem to want to listen to the real science – in the form of research papers. Just a lot of hot air from a lot of politically motivated urinalists. Even if one or two are actual scientists, why aren’t they publishing in a journal rather than The Guardian?

      • Wagathon is putting up one study against numerous other studies.

        If we look at all the studies on IVM and all the meta-analyses, my bet is that it’s at least 50-50 favorable versus unfavorable/no decision. So at least that tells us that there’s significant opinion for its efficacy and safety. So why the big fight over this drug?

        It starts to make sense if we realize that both HCQ and IVM were separately each part of a combination of drugs/nutraceuticals to treat Covid-19 early, and that both of these were accepted among many physicians before the Covid vaccines came out. Hence, their widespread acceptance as valid treatments before the vaccine EUAs would have eliminated EUAs for the vaccines: here’s a very strong motive to suppress them, as the vaccines have been very lucrative.

        But even more, what if we now acknowledge that IVM and HCQ actually work? Or, more exactly, what if we acknowledge that IVM and HCQ along with their adjuvant therapies worked, as many physicians and studies claim? What would that tell us about the EUA process and the billions the US gov’t has spent to vaccinate its citizens with vaccines coming under increasing suspicion for causing serious adverse events in a portion of the population?

        “We had no choice” would be a valid defense for EUA even if we find that these vaccines are unduly harmful. But “we had a choice” would demolish any defense for EUA for experimental vaccines untested in the long run and found to have serious effects. Don’t think there might be (I say “might be”) serious effects? Maybe we need to talk to some embalmers who find otherwise. They’re finding massive and highly unusual clots never before seen, ever since the vaccines were rolled out.

      • ‘Conclusion: Ivermectin had no significant effect on preventing hospitalization of patients with COVID-19. Patients who received ivermectin required invasive MVS earlier in their treatment. No significant differences were observed in any of the other secondary outcomes.’

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34215210/

      • Wag, whose protocol were they testing? It seems to make sense that they should have tested the most prominent and widely-publicized IVM protocol, which is the FLCCC protocol. In that protocol, the dose for Covid-19 early treatment is 0.4-0.6mg/kg daily for five days until recovered. In the trial you reference (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8250562/) the dose for up to 80 kg is 12mg on day one and 12 mg on day two. That’s it. According to the FLCCC protocol, the dosage (averaging to 0.5mg/kg) should have been 40mg each day (for 80 kg person) for five days or until recovered, meaning that the dosage, of course, could be continued additional days.

        Do you see any problems? Another study designed to fail? Because we cannot allow any evidence that IVM works; doing so threatens the validity of vaccine EUA.

        In any case, as the study itself says, “the dose of ivermectin adjusted to the weight of the patients was low, which on the one hand could corroborate that these doses are not effective, but alternatively could provide the opportunity to study the efficacy of higher doses of ivermectin.” What??? They had the opportunity but passed this by. Exactly whose protocol were they following? Answer: probably no ones, they just made it up.

        Wagathon, you really need to be more critical of the information you get.

      • EFL CCC is not competent to establish a protocol.

        Wiki-

        Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance

        Not to be confused with America’s Frontline Doctors.

        The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is a group of physicians and former journalists formed in April 2020 that has advocated for various treatments for COVID-19, most of them ineffective (e.g. the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin) and some other drugs and vitamins of dubious efficacy.[1][2][3][4][5][6] The group is led by Paul E. Marik and Pierre Kory.[3]

      • 96% of all US physicians are vaccinated. They don’t take recommendations from fringe groups…

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fringe-doctors-groups-promote-ivermectin-for-covid-despite-a-lack-of-evidence/

      • Wagathon, the most widely used and reliable protocol for IVM is the FLCCC protocol, period! You want to prove that the FLCCC IVM protocol has “dubious efficacy”? Then test it. Don’t test a fake low-dose protocol. Test the one actually being used and the one that physicians claim works.

      • So this is an analysis of a meta-analysis by P. Kory, et al? At least you have something other than the Atlantic!

      • I don’t know about anyone else, but surely I’m turning to the FLCCC first for my medical advice. With docs like these why would I turn anywhere else?:

        https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87797

      • Wag, your Scientific American study is just a hit piece. If they really knew what they were talking about they’d know that the VITAMINS trial, which supposedly tested Marik’s treatment for ARDS using vitamin C, was designed to fail because it had no urgency to treat early, and with ARDS early treatment is key.

        It’s all misinformation. But the ones doing it are accusing the other side of misinformation, and now the DHS is going to make sure that only the proper narratives are allowed in public discourse. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/02/07/dhs-issues-national-terrorism-advisory-system-ntas-bulletin

        Because, you see, censorship of narratives is the lifeblood of democracies.

        Look, if docs want to prescribe IVM, let ’em. If patients want to sue for malpractice, they can. Problem solved. What do you care if all the right-wing nutcases overdose on IVM and end up as vegetables? As for the whole vaccine trip … well, Israel is one of the most highly vaccinated countries and cases and deaths are soaring there, so I don’t think there’s any strong case to be made for “all the IVM people won’t be taking the vaccines and will be endangering the rest of us.” Because it looks to me like the vaccines are doing a decent job of endangering people all on their own.

      • My personal favorite

        https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/02/09/1079183523/what-a-bottle-of-ivermectin-reveals-about-the-shadowy-world-of-covid-telemedicin

        :> Cullen, 54, is based out of Florida and has a troubling professional history. She spent most of last year under investigation by the state of Alabama, which eventually revoked her medical license in November, two months before Berquam entered the hospital. The cause was her involvement in a separate telemedicine company, according to E. Wilson Hunter, general counsel at the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners

        “She was working with a telemedicine company and was utilizing her medical license to further their ability to generate billable events, without actually providing health care to the patients,” he says.

        In other words, Cullen was ordering a battery of expensive genetic tests remotely, without ever seeing or speaking to the patients she was testing. It was so bad, Hunter says, that she was ordering prostate cancer screenings for female patients, who do not have prostates.

        The company Cullen was working for at the time was called Bronson Medical LLC. It no longer has a functioning website, and its owner pleaded guilty in 2020 to federal health care fraud charges.

        .

      • I also love that the “denizens” who think 9/11 was a hoax and the Sydney Powell had proof the election was stolen, respectively, are in here recommending docs for covid treatment.

      • Josh, what do you care if doctors make millions off of HCQ and IVM, although I doubt that’s the case? Lots of doctors are losing their jobs for promoting these treatments– you think they’re doing it so they can make money?

        Pharma is making billions, not millions, off the vaccines. Does that prove anything?

        You folks just love to throw dirt at people.

        Liberty and tolerance go hand-in-hand. Those who are intolerant of trained physicians’ medical judgments want to take their liberties, and if you don’t know this is happening then you live in a cave. If doctors want to use whatever, let them. The patients can always sue and complain to the medical boards. Problem solved. You don’t like IVM? I got news: no one is forcing you to take it. You don’t like those doctors? Too bad, a lot of people do. Get over it.

        But no, now the censors gotta come out and make sure everyone is following the proper narrative. I guess that’s OK because that’s what our Constitution is about, right? No narratives except those approved by the government. Once the authorities proclaim, disobey and only yourself to blame (original rhyme.)

      • Don. It’s info. Use it as you wish.

        I don’t dismiss doctors just because they make money off of practicing medicine. If I did I’d never get treatment.

        I don’t abide by impugning motivations because of assumptions about financial interests – as we see so ubiquitiousky anywhere in the “skept-o-sphere.”

        But it is kind of funny that those who reject mainstream medicine because of the profits involved ignore the profit taking on the treatments they prefer.

        The more salient point us that at least some of these docs are prescribing meds in highly unethical medically unsound ways. They’re surely not the only ones who do so, but that doesn’t excuse their malpractice.

      • Joshua, you’re confusing the FLCCC group with the Frontline Doctors. The FLCCC group’s two main members are both critical care specialists who worked on the front lines and were tops in their field until they decided to promote ivermectin, whose widespread adaptation would obviate the need for EUA vaccines. Do you suppose the fact that they were promoting a drug that would harm (extremely lucrative) vaccine EUA had anything to do with vicious attacks against them? Do you suppose that if the vaccines were found to be harmful (as the huge number of VAERS reports and reports from embalmers finding huge clots might suggest) and if ivermectin were a reasonable treatment to prevent serious Covid, that might be a reason for continued suppression? I had Covid; I’m over 65; I followed the FLCCC protocol; at no time did I ever have trouble breathing. It was flu. I treated early.

        “But it is kind of funny that those who reject mainstream medicine because of the profits involved ignore the profit taking on the treatments they prefer. ” Do “they” reject all of mainstream medicine? And is it really because of profits? There are by now dozens of books on the corruption of medicine and you might want to pick one up.

        If some doctors are taking advantage of people regarding ivermectin, then yes, that’s wrong. But I don’t see a lot of that, and if there are clinical trials and meta-analyses and epidemiological studies and clinical practice and mechanisms of action (and there are) that gives good reason to believe that IVM is effective and safe, then you’d be hard-pressed to prove that using it is malpractice. You might argue that the studies are flawed but we have to be fair about this, because virtually any study can be picked apart for supposed or minor flaws, and the public wouldn’t be in a position to know if the criticisms were valid. Suffice it that a lot of studies say IVM works, and some don’t.

        If a medicine is safe– and IVM is– and if there’s reasonable science to back it up, then doctors should be left alone. Why are they being attacked? Does it all have to do with the legal aspects of EUA and the threats to that if there were valid treatments for Covid prior to EUA? I don’t know, but if you think the drugs companies are beyond any such attacks, then again, pick up one of the many books on the corruption of medicine and you’ll be convinced otherwise. I take that back: any reasonable, open-minded person would be convinced otherwise.

      • Don –

        > Do you suppose the fact that they were promoting a drug that would harm (extremely lucrative) vaccine EUA had anything to do with vicious attacks against them?

        This is the kind of sloppy advocacy that only serves to undermine any evidence that IVM might be effective. They promised a “miracle drug” and promoted terrible studies, some of which were likely outright fraud. They, themselves, presented spotty data.

        It’s always the same with these things. Advocates characterize all opposition as if its monolithic and invalid. They present unfalsifiable theories about why what they support is above reproach. OF COURSE IVM IS A MIRACLE DRUG!!!!! WE HAVE PROOF BECAUSE PEOPLE OPPOSE IT AND CRITICIZE THE BAD ARGUMENTS SUPPORTERS MAKE. OH, AND ALSO, BIG PHARMA!!!!!


        > ‘Do you suppose that if the vaccines were found to be harmful (as the huge number of VAERS reports and reports from embalmers finding huge clots might suggest) …

        and then you attach weak arguments like those, to suggest that the harms of the vaxes are anywhere near the beneifts.

        > I had Covid; I’m over 65; I followed the FLCCC protocol; at no time did I ever have trouble breathing. It was flu. I treated early.

        Oh yeah, and never forget to add in generalizing from personal experiences and giving testimonials – as if that’s in any way actually relevant to this discussion.

        > But I don’t see a lot of that, and if there are clinical trials and meta-analyses and epidemiological studies and clinical practice

        https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/qvsw91/ivermectin_much_more_than_you_wanted_to_know/

        > and mechanisms of action

        I’ve seen none that cross a reasonable standard of proof there. And no, in vitro and in silico don’t count.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H95VCYLBh-A&lc=Ugy36-SbVJ_TDhJKTPd4AaABAg.9UwEVgat0hw9UxGPA3zeLx

        > (and there are) that gives good reason to believe that IVM is effective and safe, then you’d be hard-pressed to prove that using it is malpractice.

        I haven’t said that using it is malpractice.

        Please read harder.

      • Joshua said:

        “I haven’t said that using it [IVM] is malpractice.

        Please read harder.”

        and earlier,

        “The more salient point us that at least some of these docs are prescribing meds in highly unethical medically unsound ways. They’re surely not the only ones who do so, but that doesn’t excuse their malpractice.”

        Josh sounds like my young daughter who attacks minor, inconsequential points to try to refute the thrust of an argument. You clearly imply that doctors prescribing IVM is malpractice; we all know that patients cannot prescribe but can only “use,” so it’d be impossible for patients to practice malpractice by using IVM, wouldn’t it? So yes, I misspoke, didn’t I, because I very clearly meant “prescribing” and not “using.”

        The rest of what you’d say is just what I’d expect from you, and I don’t have any more time to waste on this. Only– why is everyone so hot and bothered about IVM? Don’t want it? Don’t take it! Unhappy that some people are taking it? Too bad, get over it, some people want to take it. Don’t like it that doctors are “using” it? Too bad, some doctors find evidence that it works. Don’t like the evidence? Too bad, some doctors do. Now please go away and leave the rest of us alone.

      • Don –

        > You clearly imply that doctors prescribing IVM is malpractice;

        Well, you clearly thought I was. But I wasn’t. And I provided a link that describes the unethical practice.

      • “The more salient point us that at least some of these docs are prescribing meds in highly unethical medically unsound ways. They’re surely not the only ones who do so, but that doesn’t excuse their malpractice.”

        There is no link provided.

        Arguing with Josh is like arguing with someone who insists the world is flat.

      • Response of FLCCC group to JAMA ivermectin study:
        https://flccc.substack.com/p/jama-ignores-peer-reviewed-evidence?utm_source=url

        Bottom line, whether it’s statistically significant or not, over 3x as many people died in the control group as in the IVM group. Period. This is not a case for IVM being a junk drug for Covid, no matter what the headline says.

        Once again, why is everyone so intent on putting down a safe drug? Hint: EUA depends on no treatment available. IVM was available before the vaccines. If studies against IVM are eventually shown to be rigged, then that calls into question the obviously rigged studies on HCQ (studies that failed to test that drug in the right dose for the right patients at the right time) which was available long before IVM or the vaccines.

        Oh, and the Pfizer trial was rigged, too. https://tinyurl.com/24sat57z This is all going to unravel.

      • Doesn’t seem to me that that study supports much in the way of strong conclusions either way. And the one study rule applies anyway. However….

        > “This study was clearly designed to fail. The authors selected out patients with mild or moderate disease who were at low risk of having a major event. Consequently it was grossly underpowered for any meaningful patient-centered outcome,” said Dr. Paul Marik, FLCCC Chairman Chief Scientific Officer.

        A strange comment from a chief medical officer. The way the study achieved sufficient power to assess the primary outcome was by selecting for subjects with a worse prognosis – and that wouldn’t affect the relative efficacy among the control and intervention arms.

        It’s not underpowered for the primary outcome. They did power analysis with an estimated 17.5% progression in control group, and powered the study to observe if ivermectin dropped it by half. That seems like a large effect size on the surface, but it’s exactly what ivermectin advocates have been saying Ivermectin would do. One of the nice things about the study (IMO) is that the cohort was selected (50+, laboratory confirmed, at least one co-morbidity) so that the expected proportion of patients who progressed to severe disease was relatively high even though the patients were enrolled early with mild to moderate disease. They based their estimates on clinical characteristics of Covid-19 patients in Malaysia, and progression in the control group ended up being 17.3%.

        https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/02/18/efficacy-of-ivermectin-treatment-on-disease-progression-among-adults-with-mild-to-moderate-covid-19-and-comorbidities-the-i-tech-randomized-clinical-trial/#comment-2045675

    • ‘The paper’s irregularities came to light when Jack Lawrence, a master’s student at the University of London, was reading it for a class assignment and noticed that some phrases were identical to those in other published work. When he contacted researchers who specialize in detecting fraud in scientific publications, the group found other causes for concern, including dozens of patient records that seemed to be duplicates, inconsistencies between the raw data and the information in the paper, patients whose records indicate they died before the study’s start date, and numbers that seemed to be too consistent to have occurred by chance.’

      https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

      • I see parallels between the ‘explosion of disinformation’ defining the unscientific views of the two phenomena – Western academia’s AGW hypothesis and their forecasts of impending doom with those who proselytize for the use of hydrochloroquin and ivermectin to treat the covid 19 virus. Both are examples of what has come to be called any infodemic. The scientific method has become the victim of self-defeating, superstitious and ignorant cancel culture!

      • Trust the science. But verify!

  57. Apparently bison are better adapted to North American climates than cattle. Any beast in a more natural grazing system works wonders – but bison are such magnificent beasts.

    ‘Across North America, there are approximately 350,000 bison in private sector herds, over 30,000 in public sector (Jones et al., 2020) and not-for-profit non-governmental organization herds (NGO; i.e., American Prairie Reserve and The Nature Conservancy) (Martin et al., 2021), and approximately 20,000 in tribal sector herds (ITBC Today InterTribal Buffalo Council, 2021).

    Re-establishing bison on reservations can contribute to change in Native American communities in multiple ways: (1) spiritual, by healing the spirit of the buffalo and the people (Haggerty et al., 2018b); (2) cultural, by restoring people’s connection to their heritage (McClintock, 1910) including enabling food sovereignty and security on reservations; (3) economic development (e.g., tourism, bison hunts, sale of live bison, or bison meat); (4) and ecological, by supporting ecosystem resiliency through sustainable bison grazing.’ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.826282/full

    • I am disinclined to acknowledge the “Noble Savage” and their relationship to bison, particularly the image of the solitary Native American, head dressed in a bison’s head and robe with a flint stone arrow and wooden bow, stalking a cornucopia of unconstrained bison. Truth be told, native Americans acting together, drove bison herds over cliffs with their fire brandishing, and then slaughtered the injured bison below.

      As for today’s indigenous people’s survival, they go to their local grocery store, just like most Americans and purchase their beef, poultry, and fish at the butcher’s counter. No dependency upon hunting and gathering. Any hunting indigenous people do is with a .306 caliber rifle with telescopic sights. Native Americans arriving on “kill” sites via All Terrain Vehicles (ATV) or snowmobiles.

      The decline in American bison populations was predicated upon barbed wire fencing of their free range territories and their indiscriminate hunting using modern day firearms.

      This history of the decline in bison is ignominious and not spoke about for a political reason.

      • I’m for practical conservatism – and I don’t know how possible free roaming bison are – whether on native American land or not – but they are tough SOB’s.

        ‘Each of us is responsible for ensuring the land that shaped our heritage and culture is well cared for and continues to define who we are for generations. As conservatives, we live our conservation values every day. Whether we are farmers, hunters, fishermen or all of the above, we care for the land and water because they are what sustain our bodies and our souls.’ https://www.conservamerica.org/priorities

        Megafauna were hunted all over the world. By all means possible. A spear and a spear thrower are portable and powerful.

      • Bison get a lot of their water from veg – and create sources for themselves in wallows. Restoring as much of that as possible would transform flora and fauna habitat.

        ‘Water samples were collected on site for analysis as potential drinking-water sources. Within the area available to bison at KPBS, over 3000 bison wallows exist (A. Joern, unpublished data). These wallows vary in size (from 2 to 10 m diameter), their frequency of utilization, and in the duration of time with standing water following a rainfall event (typically 1–5 days).’ https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/ES12-00359.1

      • I suspect some portion of sea level rise will be mitigated by increased transfer to land by both increased evaporation from ocean and storage on land from fertilization. Much of it will be in plants, fats, and carbohydrates. There is an obesity epidemic in the natural world, far from man.

        https://phys.org/news/2018-01-discrepancies-satellite-global-storage.html

  58. The life giving benefits of CO2 simply explained:
    https://www.cfact.org/2022/02/12/farming-the-air/

  59. This in a new paper.

    “ In conclusion on the basis of observational data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident yet.”

    Many have wondered what crisis? It’s being asked again.

    The nice thing about this paper is that it is a compilation of various extreme events. In the whole, the findings just corroborate other conclusions reached elsewhere.

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

    Although, tonight about 11 pm, there will be a few in either Cincinnati or LA who will be having their own personal crisis.

    • c kid

      Anyone who studies the climate or extreme events knows that events in the past were often worse than todays relatively benign climatic period.

      That is why some commentators here say the past is irrelevant and all that matters is modern data -preferably since the satellite era-demonstrating that rising co2 and extreme events are linked.

      It is convenient for them to disregard that static co2 also resulted in extreme climate events in the past

      tonyb

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        climatereason | February 13, 2022 at 11:46 am | Reply
        “That is why some commentators here say the past is irrelevant and all that matters is modern data -”

        Adding to you comment – You cant know where you are going if you dont know where youve been.
        If you dont know what caused the changes in the past, how can you know what is really causing the current change

      • The Northern Hemisphere climate was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years have been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNuclearDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

        If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNUCLEARDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

  60. How Algae Could Help Us Fight Climate Change

    https://aggietranscript.ucdavis.edu/not-all-heroes-wear-capes-how-algae-could-help-us-fight-climate-change/

    “Algae can be used to fight climate change because it removes carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, stores it as biomass, and replaces it with oxygen. Arguments have been made in many directions over the best method of algal cultivation. Triggering open-ocean algal blooms is certainly the most cost-efficient of these methods, and it produces the most algal biomass.”

    The essay goes on to describe the risk of seeding oceans with algae for the purpose of removing atmospheric CO2: “The problem with using this technique is that these algal blooms have devastating ecological effects on the biological communities they come in contact with.”

    This concept isn’t new, but the concern in doing this center on potential harm to coastal regions, the effects on biodiversity. But I haven’t seen the theory applied to remote oceanic deserts, far from biodiverse areas; the many remote regions of the worlds oceans that are dead zones (regions where there is so little oxygen that almost no life exists beneath the surface waters). Why can’t these regions be seeded with non harmful algal varieties? Simply allow them to go through their life cycle to become deep ocean CO2 sinks.

    2018:
    The latest World Climate Report (IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ° C) acknowledges the global relevance of the process.
    https://phys.org/news/2018-11-algae-sustainably-carbon-dioxide-atmosphere.html … the current World Climate Report winks at a technology developed by chemists at the Technical University of Munich.” A wink seems to be a rather coy response to a promising solution, doesn’t it?

    There’s significant investment within the fossil fuel industry to industrialize algae farming, the byproducts are many, but this isn’t my focus.

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A little chilly in the northern and eastern US.
    https://i.ibb.co/TWmZZXd/gfs-T2m-us-1.png

  62. “Here’s another question. Suppose Mars was in Earth’s orbit around the Sun, same atmosphere as it has now, what would its temperature be?”
    The answer to this question will illustrate the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon complete rightness!

    The measured Mars’ mean surface temperature at the actual Mars’ distance from sun
    R.mars = 1,524AU is Tmean.1,524AU =210K

    R = 1AU is the Earth’s orbit distance from the sun in AU (astronomical units)
    Let’s apply the inverse square law
    (1/R²) = (1/1,524²) = 1/2,32

    Mars has 2,32 times less solar irradiation intensity than Earth has

    Let’s calculate using the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law 4 power. When estimating the emission temperature the 4th root of the emission intensity should be applied.
    Thus, by analogue, Mars at the earth’s orbit being irradiated 2,32 times higher, should have (2,32)¹∕ ⁴ times higher the mean surface temperature, than on its actual orbit of R.mars=1,524AU, but with the same rotational spin…
    Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot/day.
    Thus:
    (2,32)¹∕ ⁴= 1,23416
    And:
    Tmean.mars.1AU = 1,23416*Tmean.mars.1,524AU =
    = 1,23416*210K = 259,17K or rounded 259K

    Conclusion:
    Mars at earth’s orbit would have Tmean.mars =259K.

    When comparing with the measured moon’s, because Moon also orbits sun at earth’s distance, and Moon having a lower than Mars Albedo (a.moon =0,11; a.mars =0,250), thus Moon at earth’s orbit being more intensively irradiated
    Moon/Mars = (1-0,11)So /(1-0,250)So = 0,89/0,75 = 1,187 times Moon is more intensively irradiated, and the measured
    Tmean.moon =220K

    It is a solid prove of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
    The higher Mars’ average surface temperature at Earth’s orbit than Moon’s, the 259K vs 220K, and
    the huge and undisputable difference of

    259K -220K =Δ39C
    can be explained only by the Mars’ rotational spin being
    28,783 times faster than that of Moon’s.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • OGNA (oh God not again) – I propose an experiment. A black sphere on a spit and a Testo 810. Hypothesising that a faster rotating sphere will be warmer.

      https://www.instrumentchoice.com.au/instrument-choice/meters/environment-meters/ir-thermometers#:~:text=The%20Testo%20810%20infrared%20thermometer,automatically%20displays%20the%20temperature%20difference.

    • Robert, I have demonstrated that when rotating fast enough, planet mean surface temperature exceeds the effective radiative temperature.
      The current formula for calculating the planet effective radiative temperature Te doesn’t take in consideration the very strong specular reflection the smooth surface planets have.
      Thus, the not reflected portion of the incident solar flux should be calculated instead of (1-a)S as
      Φ(1-a)S.

      Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature calculation Te.correct.earth = 210 Κ

      To calculate Earth’s Corrected Effective Temperature we should use the following data values
      σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
      Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor (dimensionless)
      a = 0,306 Earth’s average albedo
      So = 1.361 W/m², solar flux on the top of the Earth’s atmosphere

      Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Corrected Effective Temperature Equation Te.correct.earth is:

      Te.correct.earth = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
      When substituting values:
      Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (1-0,306) 1.361 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
      Te.correct.earth = [ 0,47 (0,694) 1.361 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
      Te.correct.earth = ( 1,957.367.636,68 )¹∕ ⁴ = 210,34 K

      and rounded
      Te.correct.earth = 210 K

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos, if your theory is simply the faster the rotation the warmer wouldn’t that be an obvious effect of lowering its emission? Since emission is related to T exp(4) anything that smooths out high T areas on the surface lowers overall planetary emission. Is not the driving cause of Earth’s glacial cycle changes in obliquity, with high obliquity acting to smooth out the higher temps?

        I realize also that NH ice sheet albedo feedback amplifies this effect many times. But isn’t obliquity’s effect on T exp(4) the underlying driver? And if so, rotation speed is just another route to smoothing T, just like obliquity.

    • Today is the Third Anniversary since February 15th, 2019 when I had applied the very much well known and measured the Drag Coefficient Cd=0,47 for smooth spheres in a parallel fluid flow (Reynolds number Re<5000).
      By applying the Cd=0,47 to the smooth surface planets and moons, the SW EM incident solar irradiation – the correct SW EM energy reflected portion become able to be very much precisely estimated.

      Thus, the coupled physics term of Φ(1-a) was born. Since that day, I calculate for planets and moons Effective Radiative Temperature in a New and a very much correct way.
      ……………
      The Planet Corrected Effective Temperature :
      Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴


      Te – planet effective temperature
      Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

      Te.correct – the planet corrected effective temperature
      Te.correct = [ Φ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

      Φ – is the solar irradiation accepting factor (it is the planet surface spherical shape, and planet surface roughness coefficient)
      Φ = 0,47 – for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
      Φ = 1 – for heavy cratered without atmosphere planets
      Φ = 1 – for gases planets
      …………….

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

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

      Or Tmean = Te.correct * [ (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴

      Table 1.
      Comparison of Predicted (Tmean) vs. Measured (Tsat) Temperature for All Rock-type Planets

      …………………Φ….Te.correct ..[(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴..Tmean …Tsat
      ……………………………..°K ……………………………..°K ………°K
      Mercury …..0,47….364,0 ……..0,8953…………. 325,83 …340
      Earth ……….0,47….210 ………..1,368…………….287,74 ….288.
      Moon ……….0,47….224 ………..0.9978………….223,35 …..220
      Mars ………..0,47….174 ………..1,227…………..213,11 …..210
      Io ………………1…….95,16 ……..1,169…………..111,55 …..110
      Europa ……..0,47….78,83 ……..1,2636………….99,56 …..102
      Ganymede…0,47….88,59 ……..1,209………….107,14 ….110
      Calisto ……….1…..114,66 ……..1,1471………..131,52 ….134 ±11
      Enceladus …. 1 ……55,97 ……..1,3411…………75,06 …….75
      Tethys ……….1…….66,55 ………1,3145 ………..87,48 …….86 ± 1
      Titan ………….1…….84,52 ………1,1015 ………..96,03 …….93,7
      Pluto ………….1…….37 …………..1,1164 ………..41,6 ………44
      Charon ………1……41,90 ………..1,2181 ………..51,04 …….53

      Conclusion:
      We can calculate planet mean surface temperature obtaining very close to the satellite measured results.

      Tmean = Te.correct * [ (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
      where [ (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ – is the planet surface warming factor

      Warming Factor = (β*N*cp)¹∕₁₆

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  63. RE: Joshua | February 13, 2022 at 5:27 pm |

    I also love that the “denizens” who think 9/11 was a hoax and the Sydney Powell had proof the election was stolen, respectively, are in here recommending docs for covid treatment.
    ************************************************************
    There are no denizens who “think 9/11 was a hoax and the Sydney Powell had proof the election was stolen”. If in your muddles mind you believe that is true, name them.

    • Re the Ivermectin discussion of Don132 and Wagathon, I side with allowing doctors to prescribe FDA approved medications off label without government political interference. Also, regardless to the effectiveness of the cheap, safe, off-the-shelf treatments I see an unhealthy bias of the health establishment against these treatments. Time after time the studies are done with altered protocols from what was being reported as successful in the smaller studies, whether it was low dosage or excessive dosage. The most maddening thing is the the FLCCC protocols call for treatment as early as possible. They stress that across the board the most significant variable is early treatment. This should come as no surprise and it leave inexplicable why these expensive RCTs had to be done only in hospital settings, where the average patient is very sick and past the viral infection stage and is suffering the cytokine response and clotting.

      Joshua, Wagathon, it cannot be stressed enough that Dr. Kory, co-head of the FLCCC, is the one who brought Dexamethasone treatment to light. He faults the FDA for holding up doctors from prescribing it until the results of their RCT finished, an RCT that vindicated its use despite using a fraction of the dose Kory suggested. Since the treatment was for the cytokine stage, the fact that it was being given late and to the sickest did not mask its effectiveness thankfully. Dr. Kory says the low dosage is all the FDA would allow added to standard Covid treatment protocol, condemning thousands that could have been saved by his higher dosage or his switch to the more effective Prednisone.

      I am against censoring Dr. Kory and Marik and the like.

      • Ron –

        It’s clear that you’re selectively considering the different aspects of Kory’s advocacy on IVM.

        What isn’t clear is WHY you’re being selective like that.

      • So far, I’m not seeing Joshua “prove” anything.

      • Sydney Powell may or may not have been right about some things, but that is beside the point. Anyone can make a mistake. What isn’t in question is that she has run afoul of the Dimowit Lawfare machine, just like General Flynn, and others. When it comes to elections, there have been those who refuse to supply evidence and other issues. IMO, neither you nor I have enough evidence in hand to denigrate Ms. Powell’s efforts.

      • They approve a vaccine that didn’t have a proper clinical trail and which features toxic spike proteins, but hold up a well-known drug that works. That tells you a lot about our Government Overlords.

      • Joshua: “Personally, I think there some change [sic] it might have some benefit. But I think that the theories about it as a “miracle drug – as promoted by people like Kory – are highly implausible…”

        Just so you know, thinking that Ivermectin is anything but a horse dewormer is considered misinformation and not allowed. Otherwise you risk being flagged with warnings or censorship from social media. The reasoning is in part that it would imply a dangerous conspiracy theory to block cheap available drugs that might compete with expensive ones or interfere with emergency approvals of expensive vaccines.

        If you persist your fellow leftists may denounce you — possibly permanently.

      • Don –

        > I don’t think his views are correct” isn’t a valid argument.

        You keep saying things like that even though I keep explaining how that’s (at best) a misreading.

        Let’s try this again. I observed that your reasoning leads to you having a firm belief in theories that I consided highly implausible.

        Your (apparently firm) belief that 9/11 was a hoax is a prime example of how you’re reasoning leads to you holding (apparently firm) beliefs in theories I consider extremely implausible. There are others – with some of your beliefs about the pandemic as other examples (including your beliefs about IVM).

        Now it is entirely possible that you are absolutely correct about any given viewpoint you have on any given topic. I’m quite sure that you must be correct in some of your views. You may even be correct about 9/11 being a hoax. But yes, you’re also prone to believing things that I consider highly implausible. It seems to me that you (at least sometimes) put your beliefs to a low test of plausibility.

        Now I get that you think that means that you’re not afraid to think outside the box. I think it means that you’re willing to (firmly) believe in things that are highly implausible. Those aren’t entirely diametrically opposed or mutually exclusive frames, but neither are they the same thing.

        You’ve implied that I’m not able to think outside the box and I believe things simply because I’ve been told by some authority that’s what I should believe in. I would fully expect that if you think that’s true, you would use that observation to evaluate my reasoning. I have no objection whatsoever that you apply that line of thinking And clearly, based on your comments above, you have done so.

        Of course, it’s a wrong belief on your part – and once again it’s directly in line with your belief in things that are highly implausible. What we know about human reasoning is that how people reach their conclusions is very complex. You think it can be validly reduced to some simplistic metric that just so happens to fit with your ideological orientation. Your take lacks due diligence, a reasonable application of skepticism, and fails to get over even a low plausibility bar.

        Consider if I said that the only reason a person thinks that ivermectin works is becuase they aren’t capable of thinking for themselves and will believe anything that Trump says is true just because he says it.

        Of course you’d rightly reject that line of reasoning, yet you willingly apply that line of reasoning to me without much critical evaluation.

        Yet another example of your firm belief in a mechanism of opinion formation that’s highly implausible. It’s like those people running around and listening to Joe Rogan and Robert Malone who argue that billions of “sheeple” have been “hypnotized” in a “mass formation psychosis” to get vaccinated.

        So at least your not alone in holding (firm) beliefs in things that are highly implausible.

      • Joshua’s argument goes like this. 1. I don’t agree with something you said. 2. Therefore, you are wrong about everything.

      • Jim

        My argument goes like this: (1) you’ve stated belief in highly implausible theories, and you have a pattern of believing implausible, (2) that may be instructive about how you reason, (3) you should consider being less of a snowflake. You won’t melt just ’cause I said your pattern of belief in implausible theories may be instructive as to how you reason.

      • Joshua said: “… that may be instructive about how you reason….”

        If you want to start a new argument about the validity of someone’s reasoning, fine. You’ve in essence already done that in an underhanded manner by bringing in assumptions about personal attributes (“he believes implausible things.”) In the meantime you’ve distracted from the matter at hand, which was the efficacy and safely and legitimacy of prescribing IVM, which is a completely different topic from how someone reasons. You may have done that deliberately because you felt you were running out of ammo regarding IVM.

        Get it through you think skull, attacking someone’s character or abilities is ad hominem, period, no if’s, and’s, or but’s, and it’s universally considered a distraction from the real argument and an invalid form of argument, whether you like it or not. Calling someone out for an ad hominem argument is not, however, itself an ad hominem argument. It’s a statement about the form of the argument at hand and the illogic of mudslinging, which is basically what ad hominem is.

      • Joshua knows it is true that green extremists policies in Europe are ruining the economy over there and are pushing more people into fuel poverty. He knows that my advocacy of natural gas and nuclear power instead of wind and solar is the correct path. More and more people are coming to realize this. He knows the Dimowits are corrupt and conduct a lawfare campaign against conservatives of any stripe. He knows that the dire predictions of “climate change” catastrophe are not panning out. He has NO substantive counter-argument. All he has is pathetic, small-man niggles and innuendo. Nothing of any substance at all. And he knows it.

      • Joshua’s entire argument is that you are a dope with mad theories. Not disparaging at all. My experience with his verbose, well rehearsed and often repeated plaints is that it is not worth reading. That annoys him a lot.

      • ‘Ivermectin is a safe, inexpensive and effective early COVID-19 treatment validated in 20+ random, controlled trials. Having developed combination therapies for Helicobacter pylori, the authors present a highly effective COVID-19 therapeutic combination, stemming from clinical observations. Patients & methods: In 24 COVID-19 subjects refusing hospitalization with high-risk features, hypoxia and untreated moderate to severe symptoms averaging 9 days, the authors administered this novel combination of ivermectin, doxycycline, zinc and vitamins D and C.’ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8826831/

        Results of a clinical trial on a drug combination – all almost completely innocuous. There are too many trails happening still to be definitive – but for safe and cheap it seems to be worth consideration. I’m sure Joshua would agree if he was capable of being objective.

      • Don –

        Do you think it’s plausible that a study found an association between vaccination and spontaneous abortions in 82% of the women enrolled in the study? And that such a finding was covered up?

      • And while I’m at it, do you think it’s plausible that there has been a “mass formation psychosis” whereby public health officials have “hypnotized” billions of “sheeple” to get vaxed?

      • The comments section here just about sums this all up. This is what happens when extremely gullible people experience cognitive dissonance.

        https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/to-the-ivermectin-fanatics/comments

      • https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/cnn-vs-ivermectin?utm_source=url

        Seems that according to the study, IVM does work. Josh needs to pay more attention: sometimes the truth isn’t in the headlines.

        What’s “progression to severe disease”? Wouldn’t it be the need for mechanical ventilation? Well, to me it would be. Six more people in the control group needed mechanical ventilation. Two more in the control group needed to be admitted to ICU. Seven more people died in the control group. Wait, Josh says, that’s not statistically significant!!! Josh yells and screams. Umm, Josh, what’s the p-value for the primary outcome??

        Now Josh, do you really care so much that you might need oxygen, or do you care that you might need mechanical ventilation or die? Josh will say: I don’t care, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and besides, 9-11!!

        Josh, please understand this conspiracy: they have to beat up on IVM. If it shows effectiveness, then that puts the case for EUA for the vaccines into question if, and I say “if,” there are ever lawsuits brought for undue vaccine damages. Which, IMHO, are most likely coming. If they admit that IVM is even somewhat effective (and the vaccines are found unsafe and only a little effective) then that would force people to re-evaluate HCQ, and that’s when the poop would really hit the fan. Because we had a remedy and this was deliberately and brutally suppressed.

        And, how could “By day 5 of enrollment, the proportion of patients who achieved complete symptom resolution was comparable between both groups” be true? Because seven more people died in the control group. But they died after day five, didn’t they? So that makes everything cool?

        Josh, this study has convinced me: if I get Covid, I have a better chance with no IVM, right? Whaddaya think? Josh doesn’t care, his mind is made up. And, 9-11.

      • Don –

        Berenson isn’t right about much, but you should consider what he says about primary vs. secondary endpoints, and statistical power.

        Here, maybe this post and the comments will help:

        https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/02/18/efficacy-of-ivermectin-treatment-on-disease-progression-among-adults-with-mild-to-moderate-covid-19-and-comorbidities-the-i-tech-randomized-clinical-trial/

      • Joshua,

        Here, see if this helps: https://byjus.com/maths/p-value/

        Not sure why I bother. Josh believes what he wants to believe.

      • And Don… As far as my mind being made up…

        There have been many claims made about ivermectin being a “miracle drug” with a “100% cure” rate.

        That doesn’t as very plausible to me given the full range of the evidence out there.

        What makes it even more implausible is that people making these claims have been promoting highly flawed, and actually likely fraudulent studies – as well as making misleading claims about the usage of IVM in places like India and Japan.

        Now you may well has your mind made up about IVM, but my mind isn’t “made up.” from what I’ve seen there isn’t sufficient evidence to support the “miracle” claims. My sense is that it isn’t yet conclusive as to whether it has any effect at all, but that there have been many claims made about its efficacy that outpace the evidence basis in support.

        My guess is that this overview is in the ballpark as far a describing the state of the evidence:

        https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/ivermectin-much-more-than-you-wanted

        But that’s only a guess.

      • Now you may well has your mind made up about IVM, but my mind isn’t “made up.” from what I’ve seen there isn’t sufficient evidence to support the “miracle” claims. My sense is that it isn’t yet conclusive as to whether it has any effect at all, but that there have been many claims made about its efficacy that outpace the evidence basis in support.

        My guess is overview at astralcodexten is in the ballpark as far a describing the state of the evidence:

        But that’s only a guess.

      • And Don… As far as my mind being made up…

        There have been many claims made about ivermectin being a “miracle drug” with a “100% cure” rate. That doesn’t register as very plausible to me given the full range of the evidence out there.

        What makes it even more implausible is that people making these claims have been promoting highly flawed, and actually some likely fraudulent studies – as well as making misleading claims about the usage of IVM in places like India and Japan.

      • What makes these “100% cure” claims more implausible is that people making these claims have been promoting highly flawed, and actually some likely fraudulent studies – as well as making misleading claims about the usage of IVM in places like India and Japan

      • And Don… As far as my mind being made up…

        There have been many claims made about ivermectin being a “miracle drug” with a “100% cure” rate. That doesn’t register as very plausible to me given the full range of the evidence out there.

        What m*kes it ev*n more impl*usible is that p*ople m*king th*se cl*ims h*ve been pr*moting h*ghly fl*wed, and actu*lly s*me lik*ly fr*udulent st*dies – as well as m*king misle*ding cl*ims abo*t the us*ge of IVM in pl*ces like Indi* and Jap*n.

    • Don is on record with his views on 9/11, as yours are in Sydney Powell.

      • Quote what I said an give a link or shut up about it.

      • Official Statement from Sidney’s Lawyer

        HOWARD KLEINHENDLER, ATTORNEY FOR SIDNEY POWELL, RESPONDS TO MEDIA ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING MOTION TO DISMISS FILED AGAINST DOMINION COMPLAINT

        New York, New York March 23, 2021

        Yesterday, several news media outlets cut and paste out of context portions of our motion to dismiss the Dominion complaint to “spin” a message that the election fraud allegations that Ms. Powell presented to various courts and to the public were not credible. I’d like to clarify what actually was presented to the court. First, let me be clear: any suggestion that “no reasonable person” would believe Ms. Powell or her comments on the election is false. The language these reports referred to is a legal standard adopted by the courts to determine whether statements qualify as opinions which are exempt from defamation liability.

        As the DC Circuit reaffirmed just last week, there is no claim for defamation when the alleged “defamatory” statement is a legal opinion. Ms. Powell’s statements fall precisely into this category. Ms. Powell reviewed sworn affidavits, declarations, expert testimony, and other highly corroborated evidence concerning the election which Ms. Powell filed with the courts and shared publicly. She continues to stand by those opinions today. Our motion, in part, argues that the Dominion case should be dismissed because legal opinions are not grounds for defamation.

        In sum, the legal standard of a technical legal defense crafted by the courts has been improperly manipulated by the media to tell a false narrative. Ms. Powell is not backing down or retracting her previous statements concerning Dominion. Dominion’s case lacks legal merit and should be dismissed in its entirety.

        https://www.sidneypowell.com/

      • https://judithcurry.com/2021/10/31/week-in-review-science-edition-130/#comment-963878

        A good place to start.

        So it isn’t known to what extent what Powell had to say was correct?

        Lol.

      • OK. If that’s the best you have, it’s a sad attempt on your part.

      • OK, so to what extent Powell was correct isn’t known:

        Sidney Powell Claims All Votes Go to a Secret Server So People Can Manipulate Them

      • For some reason, this post seems disappeared. As I recall it had some good ones:

        judithcurry.com › 2021/01/07 › biden-administration-iiBiden Administration II – Climate Etc.

      • Well, Frank, I guess we’ll be finding out how Sidney’s legal theories hold up as she will be appearing in court. I was disappointed in the election court battles and from what I’ve read Giuliani wouldn’t present evidence of fraud. The Giuliani story was covered in great detail by Patrick Byrne. It certainly looks like Powell would have been a better choice as lead attorney by Trump, but Trump wanted Giuliani in that role. The trial will be interesting. Given the TLA’s actions in the past including spying on all of us, I wouldn’t dismiss any accusation against them no matter how unlikely it appears at first glance. We shall see what we shall see.

        No doubt. The attorney that promised to “release the kraken” would have been a great choice. Clearly.

      • With the missing Climate Etc. posts, we don’t have as much evidence of your foolishness as we once had.

        Here’s your appeal to Powell’s authority:

        https://judithcurry.com/2021/01/12/the-big-cancel/#comment-944815

      • Josh, stop trying to prove the other person is wrong because of their past views that you disagree with. Stick with the argument at hand.

        Ad hominem arguments are considered invalid. I guess you haven’t figured out why. Hint: it means “to the man.” As in, “not to the argument.” Please, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself with these childish attacks that are “to the man.”

      • Don –

        The fact that you think that 9/11 was a hoax doesn’t definitely prove that you’re wrong about any other particular argument. I have never said that it does, and I would never say that.

        But your belief that 9/11 was a hoax IS information as to how you weigh evidence, and evaluate the plausibility of conspiracy theories.

        It’s not like I simply argue that your views should be dismissed because you think that highly implausible theories are, in fact, plausible. I have also disagreed with your specific arguments on a number of fronts. But it’s information. It would be no different than you referencing your view that resorting to ad homs is typical of me. It’s funny that you do so even as you try to argue that your belief in the plausibility of highly implausible theories isn’t relevant to how you reason.

        I’m sorry that you find it inconvenient that point out that you think that something like a 9/11 hoax is plausible. I could point out other highly implausible theories you’ve supported here, if that would be any better?

      • Josh, the issue isn’t your presumption/opinion about how I weigh evidence. The issue is the evidence itself. I suspect that point is too subtle for you.

        You have all kinds of opinions about all kinds of things and you’re quite certain you’re right because “everybody knows” about the things you know about for certain. But you might just be living in a bubble.

        I don’t want to waste any more time with this so I guess I have to temporarily unsubscribe from Climate, Etc., which is a shame because I sometimes forget to re-subscribe. But I don’t know how to shut off comments and I have better things to do than argue with someone who’s certain he’s right no matter what the evidence is, because “people in the know” have told him what the right answer is. And we can never, ever consider evidence outside that box, can we? So have at it; I’m gone. I don’t want to be tempted to waste my time by having your comments in my inbox.

      • Don –

        > You have all kinds of opinions about all kinds of things and you’re quite certain you’re right because “everybody knows” about the things you know about for certain. But you might just be living in a bubble.

        This is a mischaracterization at multiple levels. For example, I haven’t said that I know “for certain” that 9/11 wasn’t all a big hoax. But I know that you subscribe to a highly implausible conspiracy theory as an explanation for what happened.

        You could be right in your belief. But the problem is that you fully believe in things that are highly, highly implausible.

        I think that’s relevant to your beliefs about IVM. Personally, I think there some change it might have some benefit. But I think that the theories about it as a “miracle drug – as promoted by people like Kory – are highly implausible, because of the weight of the available evidence. Perhaps it is a “miracle drug,” as Kory says, and perhaps yes there’s a huge conspiracy to cover that up being perpetrated by tens of thousands of people who are indifferent to millions and millions of death. I just think that’s highly implausible and I think it’s relevant that someone who thinks that other highly implausible things are true also thinks that the IVM conspiracy is a plausible theory.

        > But I don’t know how to shut off comments and I have better things to do than argue with someone who’s certain he’s right no matter what the evidence is,

        Well, I don’t think that’s a fair characterization, but regardless, have you considered just scrolling past my comments?

        > because “people in the know” have told him what the right answer is.

        Again, a total mischaracterization.

        > And we can never, ever consider evidence outside that box, can we?

        Of course we can. But that doesn’t mean we have to believe in things that are highly implausible.

      • Joshua said:

        “It [allegations of believing in implausible things] would be no different than you referencing your view that resorting to ad homs is typical of me. It’s funny that you do so even as you try to argue that your belief in the plausibility of highly implausible theories isn’t relevant to how you reason.”

        I call you out for not sticking to the argument at hand. Bringing up other things (that you suppose you’re right about and that I must be wrong about) detracts from the argument at hand, since to defend myself I’d then have to explain my reasoning about the other argument(s.)

        This is why your assumptions about how I’ve argued about other things aren’t relevant and are an attempt to argue against me without arguing the evidence/facts in front of us, by referring not to facts and evidence relevant to the argument at hand, but to the (very debatable) “fact” that “see, he’s been so wrong before!” But my calling you out for these ad hominem moves, which you apparently can’t understand, is highly relevant to the argument at hand: stick to it.

        (I am somehow still getting comments. I don’t know why I even bother, though, if someone can’t understand the simple, well-recognize concept of an ad hominem argument. Argue the facts, not the man.)

      • Although someone’s analytical track record is far game in judging their credibility, like in gathering any statistic or evidence there some tendencies of cherry picking and bias involved. Some might call it muckraking.

        I’m sure that Joshua would equally remind anyone here about their past successes.

        I would praise Joshua for his past successful insights if he took more chances in stating his prognostications to us.

      • Ron –

        > Although someone’s analytical track record is far game in judging their credibility, like in gathering any statistic or evidence there some tendencies of cherry picking and bias involved.

        I don’t recall Don particularly offering statistical analysis. I do recall him weighing in to express beliefs that I think are highly implausible. His (apparently firm) belief that 9/11 was a hoax is just one example.

        > Some might call it muckraking.

        Some might. But I consider noting a pattern of believing in things that I consider as highly implausible to be entirely reasonable and not at all “muckraking.” And I welcome anyone to assess my reasoning in light of my past stated beliefs (that they might consider to be in support of implausible theories). That seems entirely reasonable to me. I would hope that they would not necessarily assume that I’m wrong about one thing because I stated a viewpoint they disagreed with (or thought implausible) in the past. But it would be all together unreasonable for me to have an expectation that anyone would just disregard my history of stated viewpoints – particularly if they think those viewpoints were belief in things they think are highly implausible – when evaluating my reasoning on another topic.

        Seems like basic accountability to me. It’s almost as if there some expectation that people should be treated like snowflakes that might melt if there’s a basic standard applied to their reasoning.

        > I’m sure that Joshua would equally remind anyone here about their past successes.

        Do you think that I have some obligation to balance critiques of implausible arguments with seeking out “successful” prognostications? I don’t see it that way at all. Do you feel an obligation to remind people of “past successes” in your comments here?

        And the whole idea of “success” or failure seems pretty off target to me anyway. For me, all this is mostly about evaluating probabilities. We all make mistakes. We’re all right and wrong about things. Not a one of us is categorically different in those regards.

        But none of that changes that Don has expressed beliefs in a number of views that I consider highly implausible. With his view that 9/11 was a hoax as a notable example. Jim2’s belief that Sydney Powell’s claims about the election were even remotely plausible is another amusing example of strange views I consider relevant for assessing someone’s reasoning.

        > I would praise Joshua for his past successful insights if he took more chances in stating his prognostications to us.

        I don’t make prognostications.

        I’m generally more than happy to explain my sense of the probabilities of different analyses. I’m pretty much always happy to express my opinions on topics. My sense is that you seem to consistently imply that somehow I’m not.

        You’re wrong about that.

      • Joshua,

        Look up, and understand, what an ad hominem argument is. We don’t argue about someone’s supposed views. We argue about facts and evidence regarding the matter at hand, not whether or not we agree in general with the plausibility of someone’s views.

        To argue that “I don’t think his views are correct” isn’t a valid argument. It may be a value judgment, but it’s not an argument. It’s irrelevant to any argument except an argument about someone’s views, which is not what we were arguing about regarding IVM.

        Understand why arguments such as you’re making are really just mud-slinging, and why ad hominem arguments are universally considered invalid. Please.

      • > Attorney Sidney Powell, who has claimed the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump in a rigged election, now says Democrats have committed murder to cover it up.

        Appearing last week on far-right preacher Andrew Wommack’s Gospel Truth TV, Powell alleged that a staffer to then-Senator Kelly Loeffler had been murdered. That staffer, Harrison Deal, 20, was killed in December after his vehicle was involved in a multi-vehicle accident.

      • Deal, 20, was close with Kemp’s 19-year-old daughter Lucy. “It’s impossible to put into words just who Harrison Deal was,” Lucy Kemp said in a statement issued through the governor’s office. “He was so special to me and I can’t imagine my life without him.”

        Witnesses who posted on the Pooler Police Department’s Facebook page reported hearing an explosion at the crash site. Some said the explosion could be heard a mile away.

        “We live in the area and heard a loud explosion,” one poster wrote.

        “My son works at Savannah Quarters and said he and his coworkers heard a loud explosion,” another wrote.

        “I have a college friend in the apartment complex facing that road. The complex is fairly new and does not show up on google maps. Its directly across the street from where the accident took place (Mosby Lakeside). They originally thought it was one of those tanker semi trucks that exploded because it was so massive. Rattled the building.”

        Others on the Pooler PD Facebook page noted that Georgia election official Gabriel Sterling had in the days prior to Deal’s death called on Trump’s team to halt its contesting of the election.

        https://www.worldtribune.com/driver-indicted-in-georgia-accident-that-killed-harrison-deal-witnesses-heard-explosion/

      • Joshua regarding track record: “And the whole idea of “success” or failure seems pretty off target to me anyway. For me, all this is mostly about evaluating probabilities.”

        Joshua, you are saying on one hand that if somebody 20 years ago misjudged the circumstantial evidence surrounding a political event then that creates an established pattern to discount the probabilities that any judgement they make now is credible? As you point out, everyone makes mistakes. So keeping a dossier on people’s mistakes is a little unfair. Right? Because if you were truly evaluating probabilities then you would also have to include in your evaluation of someone’s track record all of the times they turned out to be correct, especially the improbable ones.

        You see, if everyone only states things that are widely accepted then echo chamber group think is the result. And, if that is the case then the contest is who is the best at controlling the dominant narrative. We see yesterday Hillary Clinton calling John Durham a Fox news collaborating Trump flunky trying to cover up Trump scandals by creating fake ones about her. Do you buy that? I shudder to think of the millions of your fellow leftists who do, especially the ones in charge of the legacy media.

        Justin Trudeau has been calling Canadians who protest his vaccine mandates all sorts of bad names and thus has justified his declaration of emergency powers in order to crush them. Do you think that is reasonable behavior? Do you support it? These should not be hard questions but you seem to rarely take a stand on anything so as to insulate yourself from ridicule. Sometimes that is smart, sometimes that is just pitifully weak.

      • No Josh, your niggling innuendo is without merit. I’ve never said everything Sydney Powell has said or does it or is not correct. I often withhold judgement and just see how it plays out. Whatever the case with her, I’m pretty sure the Dimowits did steal the election. Dinesh D’Souza has a new video coming out, 2000 Mules, that show the use of cell phone records to track mail-in ballot box stuffers. You are the one with the implausible ideas.

      • Ron –

        Don was on here within the last couple of years professing the belief that it wasn’t the planes crashing into the towers that brought them down.

        This wasn’t just some mistaken evaluation of the evidence 20 years ago.

        It’s not unlike your belief in the Seth Rich conspiracy nonsense, or Jim’s belief in the Seth Rich nonsense or Sidney Powell’s election nonsense.

        It’s interesting that the three of you are all on here arguing that one’s history and pattern of beliefs are irrelevant to one’s reasoning process.

        I guess it’s just a coincidence, huh?

      • Ron –

        Don was on here within the last couple of years professing the belief that it wasn’t the planes crashing into the towers that brought them down.

        This wasn’t just some mistaken evaluation of the evidence 20 years ago.

        It’s not unlike your belief in the S*th R~ch conspiracy nonsense, or Jim’s belief in the Seth Rich nonsense or Sidney Powell’s election nonsense.

      • J, the 9/11 truth was mainly a leftward conspiracy theory. I remember Michael Moore making a movie with evidence. BTW, I think this proves that people on the left have a tendency toward conspiracy ideation (/sarc).

        As for the fake moon landing theory, I’m not sure if that was right or left or just Russian propaganda. I think people have different degrees of open-mindedness. Just because once in a while one goes a little too far does not mean their brains have fallen out forever.

        The JFK assassination has a lot of unanswered questions and the official story is very unlikely and rejected by many who officially investigated it, including Robert Blakey. Does this definitely mean that Oswald was a patsy? Read one book and the answer is no; read another and it’s yes. It is undisputed that the Warren Commission had a directed outcome and most people reject it as complete. It’s undeniable the CIA withheld that Oswald was under their eye at the time.

        Is there a reason that the government still is withholding documents regarding 9/11 and Saudi Arabian VIPs? Sure. How nefarious the official omissions were is a matter of speculations, but there was definitely something covered up.

        Similarly with the Seth Rich case the FBI only admitted last year that they have been holding Rich’s laptop. (They have it next to Hunter’s.)

        Will the CIA ever release all of the JFK documents with nothing missing? Not likely.

        After ninety years we still don’t know what truly happened to Charles A. Lindbergh, Jr. Most researchers now question Lindbergh Sr.s’ behavior as suspicious. This would have been unspeakable for the first 50 years after the crime. Then some people looked at the police files with fresh eyes.

      • You are still lying about me Joshua. No one should take anything you say seriously.

      • I’d like to point out that while Joshua tells us that one’s reasoning ability is relevant and can be judged by past implausible notions, what’s really happened is that the debate over IVM has been wildly sidetracked into a debate over 9-11, JFK, Sydney Powell, etc., any one of which would require a vast debate to get anywhere near a resolution. So no, Joshua, your assumptions about one’s reasoning ability based on your assumptions about past instances aren’t relevant to facts and evidence about IVM. If you can’t see why, you’re blind.

        You are allowed to attack concrete points of reasoning regarding the matter at hand: this is why I attack you for using ad hominem arguments. You are not, however, allowed to make assertions of character as proof of anything except your own ignorance. If, that is, you want to reason properly, which I suppose you don’t.

        Once again, attacking character is called ad hominem. It’s invalid for a reason. So once again, just stop. It makes for wildly irrelevant side-issues as you force opponents to defend things that have nothing to do with the central argument.

        Maybe you can’t defend your stance on IVM and that’s why you resort to these distractions?

      • Don –

        > So no, Joshua, your assumptions about one’s reasoning ability

        I haven’t made any assumptions about your reasoning *ability.* I have no idea about your ability to reason.

        But you think it’s plausible that planes crashing into the towers isn’t what caused them to collapse. I’m guessing you think it’s plausible that there was some coordinated coverup of the actual cause of the collapse. You prolly think there were people involved who have covered up the truth and hit it from the public, etc.

        That says nothing about your “ability” to reason. But it is evidence of a characteristic in your reasoning. It’s clear that you think that highly implausible things are, in fact, plausible. And that’s a pattern evident with other views that you’ve expressed – specifically with regard to the pandemic. And that could be relevant to your reasoning about IVM as well – that you’d believe that highly implausible things related to IVM are, in fact, plausible.

        > You are not, however, allowed to make assertions of character

        Nor am I making any statements about your “character.” I have no reason to make an assumptions about your character. I have never met you. For all I know, you’re a wonderful person in all respects.

        But you (not unlike others on here arguing in favor of IVM’s efficacy for treating COVID) have demonstrated that you have a pattern of believing that highly implausible things are, in fact, plausible.

        I’m sorry that it upsets you that I state my observations about patterns in your reasoning. But it is what it is. I suggest that you not be snowflake-y about it. It doesn’t make you a bad person. It isn’t an insult to your reasoning ability. And it doesn’t say anything bad about your characters. It’s just that you have a pattern of believing highly implausible things are, in fact, plausible.

      • BTW –

        Yet another study not consistent with the “miracle drug” claims.

        Of course, the people conducting this study were prolly in on the conpsiracy.

        https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2789362

      • BTW –

        I’d say the conclusion is over-stated (given the small sample size).

        Basically, it’s simply that their findings didn’t support the use of IVM.

      • Oh, and that it’s. not a “miracle drug” for COVID, or a “100% cure,”

      • Jessica Rose has some comments on the new ivermectin paper.
        https://tinyurl.com/3bzbdfrk

      • Even if the protocol were not exactly what some people recommend, would you think that a “miracle drug” that is a “100% cure” might have shown SOME benefit in the study?

      • Sorry – this belongs here:

        Don –

        Do you think it’s plausible that a study found an association between vaccination and spontaneous abortions in 82% of the women enrolled in the study? And that such a finding was covered up?

    • Ron speaks truth.

      Joshua once again resorts to ad hominem arguments, in this case assuming that since he must be right on other issues and I and Ron must not be, then his assessment that we’re wrong on other views is an argument that we’re wrong on this as well.

      This argument only works for those with prejudiced minds who think that they must be right, therefore they are.

  64. Like I’ve been saying all along, natural gas and nuclear will save the day. (Save it from corrosive green extremist energy policies, that is.)

    France to build up to 14 new nuclear reactors by 2050, says Macron

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron

    • If we were properly focused on energy security, greenhouse gas emissions would be a moot point.

      The Northern Hemisphere climate was much more extreme in previous centuries. The past 150 years have been unusually kind. We are not prepared for reversion to the mean. #AntiFragileEnergy #GreenNuclearDeal #HighlyFlexibleNaturalGas #IncineratePlasticPollution #WasteToEnergy

  65. The demise of coal has been greatly exaggerated.

    Peabody Surges as Coal Demand Drives Up Fourth-Quarter Sales

    Biggest U.S. coal miner has already sold everything for 2022
    Global energy crisis has boosted prices for fossil fuels

    By

    Will Wade
    February 10, 2022, 9:33 AM EST

    U.S. coal giant Peabody Energy Corp. surged after posting quarterly profit that was almost triple what analysts expected, driven by strong demand and high prices for the dirtiest fossil fuel.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-10/peabody-surges-as-demand-for-coal-drives-up-fourth-quarter-sales

  66. Coal Is Still Raising Trillions of Dollars Despite Green Shift

    Banks, funds financing coal even after climate pledges
    Report finds $1.5 trillion of coal finance since start of 2019

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-14/coal-is-still-raising-trillions-of-dollars-despite-green-shift?srnd=premium

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In three days, Arctic air will return to the Rocky Mountains.
    https://i.ibb.co/rdVrD0x/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f072.png

  68. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The pattern and strength of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere indicates low February temperatures in North America.
    https://i.ibb.co/JndMMZ9/Screenshot-1.png

  69. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The negative temperature anomaly in the lower stratosphere is moving into the upper troposphere, which could be a harbinger of a long winter in the northern hemisphere.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2022.png

  70. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Let’s look at ultraviolet radiation in the 25th solar cycle. Sunspots are weak, no strong flares on the Sun.
    Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
    https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png

  71. Papers that estimate warming since the 19th Century often use the Challenger expedition findings as a baseline for Ocean Heat Content in 1870s. But what level of confidence should be given when much of the Ocean was never sampled.

    Here are maps illustrating the track of the expedition and the stations where the measurements were taken.

    http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/map-800/a-800.jpg
    http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/map-800/b-800.jpg
    http://www.19thcenturyscience.org/HMSC/HMSC-Reports/map-800/c-800.jpg

    This study compared current data against data from about 200 samples obtained by the Challenger. The authors developed estimates of how much warming had occurred at various depths. Besides the track and thus the locations of measurements leaving out millions of square miles of the oceans content, even making location vs location comparisons leave open the question of how has the thermocline changed from the 1870s and what kind of variability occurred during that period. Is it possible to compare like to like when there are so many unknowns and uncertainties at those locations?

    https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/roemming12nat_238484.pdf

  72. It never hurts to ask questions about things that are held to be the most sacrosanct. Although, if you do, the dinner invitations might drop off precipitously.

    Are tree rings good proxies for temperatures? If recent rates of warming fall as expected, this might be a more investigated question.

    “Over the last few decades – at a range of northern sites – changes in tree-ring width and latewood density have not followed mean summertime temperature fluctuations. This discrepancy sharply contrasts an earlier correlation between those variables. As the origin of this inconsistency has not been fully deciphered, questions have emerged regarding the use of tree-ring width and latewood density as a proxy in dendrochronological climate reconstructions. I suggest that temperature is no longer the most limiting factor in certain boreal areas, which might explain the observed divergence”

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09596836211011661

    • I’m pretty sure tree rings suck as a temperature proxy. Cloudiness affects incident light, drought, flooding, nutrient availability, disease, fire, precipitation variations – all affect the growth of a tree. Some believe certain trees will work, but can the conditions for those to work be consistent over decades or centuries?

  73. An acknowledgement that green extremist energy policies are a cause of inflation. But they don’t care how much pain it causes, they want us to go through that pain. They don’t care because they are green extremists.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-10/greenflation-is-a-crucial-step-in-the-energy-transition-central-banks-take-note

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-10/greenflation-is-a-crucial-step-in-the-energy-transition-central-banks-take-note

    • Schnabel, a German economist, argued that greenflation is very real and, not only is it not transitory, it’s likely to get worse. Central banks will need to react to it. Speaking at an ECB virtual panel over the weekend, she said: “While in the past energy prices often fell as quickly as they rose, the need to step up the fight against climate change may imply that fossil fuel prices will now not only have to stay elevated, but even have to keep rising if we are to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement.”

  74. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The Niño 3.4 index is falling again.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

  75. The Biden administration doesn’t want a judge to release a report on Dominion Voting Systems equipment in Georgia, claiming that doing so would “threaten election security,” Just The News reports.

    The report was written by the Director of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society, J. Alex Halderman. Halderman was previously profiled in a video by the New York Times back in 2018 when he demonstrated to a group of students how easy it would be to rig a voting machine.

    In the 2018 video, Halderman demonstrated how voting machines are “dangerous” and “obsolete” by holding a mock election with University of Michigan students. Halderman had previously testified before Congress, warning that computerized voting is “vulnerable to sabotage” and “cyberattacks that could change votes.”

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/02/14/is-the-biden-admin-trying-to-hide-a-report-on-dominion-voting-systems-n1559084

  76. A faster rotating planet has less time to IR emit the same amount of absorbed EM energy – to put it simple.

    Let’s J1 = σΤ1⁴ (W) is the amount in (W ) of the energy to be IR emitted from a uniform surface temperature planet in order to keep the balance (energy in = energy out).

    When rotating faster (but having uniform surface temperature), say, rotating twice as much, there (in half of the time) will be J /2 emitted if the temperature were the same T1. Thus, the outgoing energy intensity should now be 2*J1 (W), and, consequently, there should be an inevitable higher emitting temperature to have the (energy in = energy out) concept to met.
    The new uniform surface temperature T2 should have emission intensity J2 = 2*J1

    Thus, 2*J1 = σΤ2⁴

    T2 = (2*J1 /σ )¹∕ ⁴ = (2*σΤ1⁴ /σ )¹∕ ⁴ = (2)¹∕ ⁴ *Τ1
    Τ2 = 1,189 *T1

    Example
    Moon rotates once in 29,5 days. Earth rotates once in 1 day.
    For earth’s Albedo, moon’s average surface temperature would have been T1 = 210 K.

    T2 = (29,5)¹∕ ⁴ *T1 = 2,33*210K = 489 K

    By this example we have demonstrated that planet average (mean) surface temperature Tmean – when rotating fast enough – necessarily exceeds the radiative equilibrium temperature Te .

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
      Planet’s mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root“.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa!

      The old convincement that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law works vice-versa is based on assumption, that EM energy obeys the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (1LOT).
      That assumption was never verified, it was never been confirmed by experiment.
      The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law states:

      J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux (1)

      The mathematical ability to obtain T, for a given J led to the
      misfortunate believe that the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law formula can be used vise-versa:

      T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the surface radiative emission temperature “definition”.

      Well, this is theoretically right for a blackbody theoretical approach. Blackbody surface behavioral property is compared with a tiny hole in a stove.
      The incident in the hole radiative energy vanishes inside the stove… The hole is infinitesimally smaller than the stove’s inside walls area.
      Thus the incident in the hole EM energy cannot escape out of the stove.

      After multiple interactions with the stove’s walls, the incident in the hole the entire EM energy is transformed into heat and is, eventually, evenly dissipated and accumulated as HEAT in the stove’s inner walls…

      The EM energy emitted out of the stove’s hole is then only the inside stove uniform surface temperature T dependent function
      J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²).

      But the
      T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K) (2) as the irradiated surface radiative emission temperature “definition”… is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
      That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
      Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
      as a mathematical abstraction.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  77. A new estimate of global glaciers.

    “ Here, we present a comprehensive high-resolution mapping of ice motion for 98% of the world’s total glacier area during the period 2017–2018. We use this mapping of glacier flow to generate an estimate of global ice volume that reconciles ice thickness distribution with glacier dynamics and surface topography. The results suggest that the world’s glaciers have a potential contribution to sea-level rise of 257 ± 85 mm, which is 20% less than previously estimated.”

    Unclear if it includes or excludes those glaciers on the peripheries of the AIS and GIS but some of the citations did. So ~10 inches SLRE globally.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00885-z

  78. Kid … Thanks for the article. Not sure if this applies much but may be of interest.

    When I lived outside NYC off Long Island, I had an elevation certificate done for insurance purposes after Sandy on a beach front property. In June 2013 I was given my elevation via NAVD 88. At the time, they were still converting the numbers from NGVD 29 (VERTCON). Not sure if they’ve updated from NAVD 88, which they said they were in the process of doing.

    Long story short, what I found interesting was that my particular location had a datum shift of – .337 meters, or about 13.25″, in 59 years. That’s .225 inches a year through a period that used to be identified as the worst for glacier melt.

    Only one small point on the globe, although of interest being 25 miles from midtown Manhattan, and one that was significantly under predictions. And many papers, including yours, seem to show that rate is slowing down.

  79. Ireneusz Palmowski

    GLSEA (The Great Lakes Surface Environmental Analysis) is a digital map of the Great Lakes surface water temperature and ice cover which is produced daily at GLERL. The lake surface temperatures are derived from NOAA polar-orbiting satellite imagery.
    https://i.ibb.co/ts6fpbN/glsea-cur.png

  80. A potential reduction of gas supplies to the euro area would diminish economic activity in the region and worsen the hit from already-high energy prices, European Central Bank researchers said.

    Companies and households in the currency bloc are reeling from higher costs after the West’s standoff with Russia over Ukraine sent gas prices soaring. While diplomatic efforts are ongoing and Russia denies it plans to attack, any escalation in the conflict risks worsening the crunch.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-15/euro-area-economy-is-at-risk-from-gas-supply-shock-ecb-says

  81. FDA Executive Officer, Christopher Cole: “You’ll have to get an annual shot [COVID vaccine]. I mean, it hasn’t been formally announced yet ‘cause they don’t want to, like, rile everyone up.”

    Cole on President Joe Biden: “Biden wants to inoculate as many people as possible.”

    Cole on plans to approve vaccine for toddlers: “They’re not going to not approve [emergency use authorization for children five years old or less].”

    Cole on pharmaceutical companies: “There’s a money incentive for Pfizer and the drug companies to promote additional vaccinations.”

    Cole on the financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies: “It’ll be recurring fountain of revenue. It might not be that much initially, but it’ll be recurring — if they can — if they can get every person required at an annual vaccine, that is a recurring return of money going into their company.”

    FDA Official Statement: “The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA.”

    https://www.projectveritas.com/news/fda-executive-officer-on-hidden-camera-reveals-future-covid-policy-biden/

  82. FDA Executive Officer Chris Cole: “The drug companies, the food companies, the vaccine companies. So, they pay us hundreds of millions of dollars a year to hire and keep the reviewers to approve their products.”

    Cole on FDA fees: “Congress approved user fees for [the] FDA. Basically, we charge the industry millions of dollars in order to hire more drug reviewers and vaccine reviewers which will speed up the approval process. So, they [pharmaceutical companies] make more money.”

    Cole: “They [FDA] tone down the impact of the user fees on their operations because they know they’re dependent on the drug companies, and the vaccine companies, and these other companies for their agency to operate.”

    Cole on blowing the whistle: “There’s not an incentive to speak out in government, surprisingly. You would think there would be, but there’s not. It’s better just to just not say anything and just ignore it.”

    Cole on retaliation in government: “You’ll be marked from getting other jobs because another office is not going to want to hire you if you’ve spoken out about something, right or wrong. They don’t look at what you’ve spoken out about. They’re just not willing to- government’s about rocking the boat and they don’t want to- which is the problem I have with- one of the problems I have with government is, like, they don’t like people rocking the boat, for right or wrong, at all costs. They want to hire a safe person that can do the job, but doesn’t necessarily- is a great hire.”

    FDA OFFICIAL STATEMENT: “The person purportedly in the video does not work on vaccine matters and does not represent the views of the FDA nor does he speak on behalf of the agency. User fees provide instrumental funding for the FDA’s independent review of medical products that make a difference in the lives of all Americans, without compromising the agency’s commitment to scientific integrity, public health and regulatory standards, patient safety, and transparency.”

    https://www.projectveritas.com/news/fda-executive-officer-exposes-close-ties-between-agency-and-pharmaceutical/

  83. Judith: When I try to comment here your site says

    “Error: your Facebook login has expired.”

    and offers no other option.

    Is this your way of locking me out? Seems so. Can’t subscribe to comments otherwise. Why not?

  84. Of course, this will make Joshua scream:
    https://winteroak.org.uk/2022/02/17/our-insurrection-will-be-impure/

  85. Elon Musk waded further into the political controversy over vaccine mandates that’s gripped Canada for weeks, tweeting a meme making a satirical comparison between Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Adolf Hitler.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-17/musk-ratchets-up-trudeau-criticism-with-hitler-comparison-meme

  86. Danchenko, 43, was a key figure in the compilation of the infamous Steele dossier that led to the now discredited investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 presidential race. But Danchenko, a Russian emigre living in the U.S., seems unlikely to be the Durham investigation’s apex defendant. In fact, Durham describes him at points more like a shill than a spy, an “investigator” who was fed what to report by Clinton operatives such as Dolan.

    Durham is known as a methodical, apolitical and unrelenting prosecutor. Thus far, his work seems to betray a belief that the FBI got played by the Clinton campaign to investigate the Trump team. The question is whether Durham really wants to indict just the figurative tail if he can get the whole dog — a question that now may weigh heavily on a number of Washington figures, just as it did following Durham’s indictment in September of Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Danchenko’s indictment on five counts of lying to the FBI serves two obvious purposes. First, these counts — with a possible five years in prison on each — are enough to concentrate the mind of any defendant about possibly flipping for the prosecution. Second, indicting Danchenko “hoists the wretch” for potential targets to see and consider that there but for the grace of God — and Durham — go they.

    https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/580391-durhams-latest-indictment-more-lines-drawn-to-clintons-campaign

  87. The latest from the “Vast Right-wing Conspiracy”

    Hillary Clinton on Wednesday criticized former President Trump and Fox News for “spinning up a fake scandal” over special counsel John Durham’s investigation into Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

    “Trump & Fox are desperately spinning up a fake scandal to distract from his real ones. So it’s a day that ends in Y,” Clinton tweeted. “The more his misdeeds are exposed, the more they lie.”

    Clinton also shared a Vanity Fair article that she said included “a good debunking of their latest nonsense.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/news/594608-hillary-clinton-on-durham-report-trump-fox-are-desperately-spinning-up-a-fake

    • If we had made her president would she have become more insane of less? BTW, I think Trudeau is finished.

      • Trudeau admires China’s Xi. The world will be a safer place when Trudeau takes his well-deserved place as an Uber driver.

        https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-trudeau-said-he-admired-chinas-dictatorship-believe-him

      • Here’s a scandal worth paying attention to:

        https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/why-is-merrick-garland-defending-the-trump-administration-again/ar-AATSsXy?ocid=uxbndlbing

        Typical corporate cover up. Pin the crime on a low-level flunky while the executives get away and probably wind up with bonuses and stock options. American style capitalism at its finest.

      • I’m buying 1,000 pounds of popcorn. That’s what will be needed before the Hillary scandal is over.

      • Here is best article so far in explaining the details of the Alfa bank portion of the Clinton-Obama Russia hoax.

        It seems they employed the tactic of mining hundreds of thousands of data points to find something they could concoct as derogatory. Joshua should appreciate this. The found on Trump’s servers what they knew were a few garbage pings communicated with some server in Russia and then lied to the FBI and CIA about its significance. Once they leaked to the media that Trump was being investigated by the FBI for secret communications with Russia. Our current national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, was a key person in doing that.

      • Multiple parts of the government, Fed, state, and locals, are engaged in all-out Lawfare against Trump, his associates, and his supporters. The depth of corruption of the left is astounding.

      • The president and his son are emblematic of how our government works. He essentially took bribes in support for his crackhead son and, according to him, took kickbacks from that.

        The reason I voted for Johnson instead of Clinton was because she would’ve been the greatest gift to Russia and OPEC ever imagined. Well, before Biden anyway.

        The status quo is far more dangerous than Trump ever was.

      • Ron: Trump allies and his DoJ have known about Joffe for five years. If his actions were illegal, he likely would have been charged long ago. For that matter, if there were a good case against Sussman, he would have been charged while Trump was still president.

        If Joffe’s settling a lawsuit for false merchandising 30 years ago (in his twenties) for hundreds of thousands of dollars were disqualifying for a position of trust, what about the recent $25 million settlement for Trump University. (Sorry for the cheap shot, but the article you linked did exactly the same thing.)

        These days, ALL politicians from both parties are subject to intense and sometimes unfair scrutiny. HRC’s use of a private email server was the result of her paranoia about the press, FOIA and seven years of Whitewater. IMO, Trump’s scrutiny has been no different, except for the fact that there is so much more in the record to scrutinize. His numerous scandals make it difficult for the public to remember the details of any one and easy to wrongly blame press bias for his “persecution”. As Bannon infamously said, flood the zone with sxxt and make it difficult for a lazy public to believe there is a truth behind any story can be ascertained. In the case of the Alfa Bank story, the truth is that story wrongly suggested an internet connection between Trump and Russia. However, the reality of an unusual and suspicious relationship between Trump and Russia was clearly demonstrated by: Russia’s massive effort to help Trump get elected in 2016 including hacking the Democrats, Trump’s attempts to negotiate a deal to build in Moscow during the 2016 campaign and before, his pro-Russia campaign advisors Manafort, Page, Flynn and Papadopoulos (two of whom were dismissed for their extreme views on Russia, a third for being paid under the table by a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, and the fourth for lying to the VP about calling Russians), Felix Slater, Aras Agalarov, the Moscow beauty pageant, the meeting with Veselnitskaya in Trump Tower during the 2016 campaign, and above all Trump’s fawning treatment of Putin (behavior he exhibited with no other foreign leader. However, the Alfa Bank story is still providing a single convenient example of the press unfairly persecuting Trump over his relationship with Russia BEFORE THE 2016 ELECTION.

        After the election, the Trump-Russia story gets much more complicated, so I’ll stop here.

      • Frank: “However, the reality of an unusual and suspicious relationship between Trump and Russia was clearly demonstrated by: Russia’s massive effort to help Trump get elected in 2016 including hacking the Democrats…”

        Frank, you are conflating the Russian hack with the WikiLeaks releases. They have never been connected by any evidence. The high confidence in Brennan’s unusual Obama ordered intelligence community assessment was solely backed by the Steele dossier, which the FBI knew at the time was a highly suspicious document, who’s author was a political actor, going to the media and lying about his primary source. A month later when they confirmed that Danchenko fed Steele brainstorming bar talk, (which it turns out now they knew even that was a lie), they gave Danchenko unconditional immunity and perpetual anonymity, a policy that does not exist in the FBI. They then kept up Steele’s lie for him by telling the congress and senate for two more years that the dossier was still a credible document under investigation.

        The Russian SVR hacked the DNC in the summer of 2015. The Dutch intelligence saw them do it because they had hacked the SVR. The Dutch tipped off the FBI, who tried for on ~6 attempts over that many months to unsuccessfully notify the DNC to clean their server. Then in March 2016 the Dutch again contacted the FBI to supply them a ream of documents the Russians had downloaded from the DNC, including an email to Debbie Wasserman Schultz being assured by a Clinton Aid, Amanda Rentaria, that Lorretta Lynch had told a Soros go-between that the Clinton email investigation would be a whitewash.

        That email is what James Comey used in part to justify his usurping Lynch’s power and exonerating Clinton himself not to put Lynch under scrutiny when the intel community knew she was compromised. This was mentioned by Comey in a senate hearing and confirmed by Comey in his book later what it was about.

        The point is that Clinton was completely compromised by the Russians and just about everyone in the Obama WH and USIC. Her answer was to compromise them as well by having them partner is her crime. All the evidence that you think is evidence of Trump-Russia collusion; all of the prosecutions of Trump aids and investigations of Trump Jr. were all bogus setups carefully crafted by HRC, her contractors and the Obama-Biden regime. The FBI either knew or had to be suspicious that the DNC hack was a scam, which explains why they did not want to touch it and further dirty their hands. They let Crowdstrike to that.

        Look at the entire picture now.

        https://spectatorworld.com/topic/connecting-dots-russiagate-hillary-clinton/

      • A timeline along with a little reasoning reveals the Clinton-DNC hack was not Russia.

        Summer 2014 — Dutch Intelligence hack the Russian SVR and see the US State Dept. and DNC are hacked by the SVR.

        Summer 2015 — Dutch inform the NSA and CIA of the US compromises. The State Department server is cleaned of Cozy Bear and the FBI sends the Dutch AIVD flowers.

        Fall 2015 — The FBI allegedly makes many attempts to call the DNC IT contractor, MIS Inc. to tell them a virus is on their server.

        Winter 2016 — The FBI pays a visit to the DNC and tells DNC’s IT contractor, MIS Inc., the Russians are on the DNC server. MIS Inc. supposedly forgets about it.

        Winter 2016 — Hillary’s homebrew email server is discovered and the FBI opens investigation Midyear Exam.

        Early March 2016 — Dutch AIVD delivers to US a newly intercepted Russian documents showing Wasserman-Shultz assured Clinton aid Amanda Renteria that Lorretta Lynch would not indict her.

        March 9, 2016 — John Podesta’s is hacked after he asks MIS Inc. tech if the warning screen to change his password is a phishing email. The tech emailed him back that it was legitimate when he meant to type illegitimate. MIS Inc. worked for both Clinton Campaign and DNC. Although Clinton did not officially control DNC until June Donna Brazile, the later acting DNC chair, would later write that Clinton controlled the DNC finances and vendors all the way through.

        Late March, 2016 — Clinton called Crowdstrike to clean the Hillary For America server. Although MIS Inc. worked with Crowdstrike they neglected to mention the FBI had been calling and visiting about running anti-virus on the DNC server. Hmmm.

        March 2016 — Oleg Deripaska hires Christopher Steele, who hires Glenn Simpson to investigate Paul Manafort’s finances as he comes to US from Ukraine to volunteer to work for the Trump campaign for free.

        Late March — Hillary hires Simpson through Perkins to hire Steele to investigate Manafort and Trump-Russia and Steele assigns his team including Nellie Ohr (wife of Bruce Ohr, #4 in US DOJ, who is working with Oleg Deripsaka at that time, attempting to recruit him as friendly Putin oligarch), to dig up dirt on Trump, starting with Manafort. Igor Danchenko was also assigned to do the same. The Trump dossier begins.

        March 30 — Manafort becomes campaign manager and emails colleague Konstantin Kilimnik that he will offer Deripaska daily briefings and hopes he can use to “get whole.”

        Late April — MIS Inc. says they see “unusual network activity” on DNC server. DNC calls Perkins who calls Crowdstrike who “finds Russians” on server on May 1 after running an antivirus scan.

        June 10 — Crowdstrike, after weeks of apparent fruitless attempts at quarantining the virus, shuts down the DNC server and builds a new one.

        June 12 — WikiLeaks announces they have emails related to Hillary Clinton. All reporters wrongly assume it is from the illegally wiped homebrew server.

        June 13 — The DNC and Crowdstrike makes public that the Russians hacked the DNC.

        Later it is found the FBI did not investigate but instead accepted Crowdstrike’s word for all forensic conclusions. The ICA report ordered by Obama after Trump won implicated Russia as the culprit with the motive of helping Trump win. Besides the Steele dossier the other intel that conclusion was based on was the knowledge of the Dutch intel from 2015 of Cozy Bear on the DNC server, a point that would only be revealed in January 2018 when all the other facts are forgotten except that Mueller is still investigating. This prevented people from asking the following questions:

        Why did the USIC, the DNC, MIS Inc. and Hillary all allow Cozy Bear to sit on the DNC server for a year since being tipped off by AIVD?

        If the Russians wanted to hurt Hillary why didn’t they release the most damaging email, the Lorretta Lynch assurance of no indictment to Hillary through her aid Amanda Renteria?

        The NYT is the only paper to give AIVD the credit for the Renteria story. All the other news outlets covered that up and said the source was not credible, (though it was credible enough for Comey to use it as his reason for shielding Lynch).

        “In early March 2016, hackers working with Dutch intelligence had reportedly provided a highly-classified Russian government document to the FBI” -NYT

        https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/leak-investigation-james-comey.html

      • Ron wrote: “Frank, you are conflating the Russian hack with the WikiLeaks releases. They have never been connected by any evidence.”

        Sorry I’ve been away and slow to respond. Serious, Ron, I know you are smarter that this. The DNC has confirmed that the documents released by WikiLeaks came from their servers. However, the first releases came from Guccifer 2 and DCLeaks. Guccifer 2 was identified as a GRU officer and indicted by Mueller. The DCLeaks domain was paid for by cryptocurrency from the account of GRU officer. The Dutch monitored some of the hacking. Yes, we apparently don’t have any witnesses or evidence for how the hacked material was transferred from the Russians to WikiLeaks. So what? CIA Director Pompeo said it was: “time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is — a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia”. Stone contacted Guccifer 2 and was aware more than a month ahead of time that documents stolen from Podesta would be released in October.

        I was very disappointed when the Mueller report said absolutely nothing about the allegations in the Steele Dossier. However, after a few months, I realized that the Trump-Russian investigation was NEVER about the allegations in the Steele Dossier. The Steele Dossier was mostly unconfirmable second-hand hearsay. Mueller was never going to be able to produce testimony from the alleged prostitutes in Moscow, from someone who saw Page meeting with Sechin, or from the Russians who tried to cultivate Trump, or subpoena the FSB’s tape of Trump’s hotel room. (The FSB almost certainly taped Trump’s hotel room; they do so with all potentially influential visitors. We even know that Czech intelligence forced Trump’s Czech father-in-law to report what he learned about Trump from his daughter back in the 1980’s.)

        The Trump-Russia investigation was about finding evidence that could be presented in a US courtroom concerning Russian attempts to influence the 2016 election and whether anyone from the Trump campaign criminally conspired in that effort. That is the subject of nearly 200 pages of Volume I of Mueller’s Report – which doesn’t mention any allegations from the Steele Dossier. A quick glance at the index might remind you of what the investigation was REALLY ABOUT: Manfort (who owed Deripashi $20M) and Page, who both had open investigations when they joined the Trump campaign in 2016 and earlier investigations, the Mifsud dangle to Papadopoulos (which Barr now admits wasn’t a Western op) that led to the opening of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation incorporating these earlier investigations, the Trump Tower meeting, the hacking, the IRA campaign via social media, Trump Tower Moscow … At the time, the report was written, the investigations and prosecutions of Roger Stone and Paul Manafort (who had lied and violated his cooperation agreement) were still under way and partially redacted. Finally, only the FBI (and not the CIA) is allowed to run agents inside the US. Page was talking WITH the CIA, Russian Intelligence agents based in the US and Russian government officials, but he was never being DIRECTED BY the CIA.

        https://archive.org/details/MuellerReportVolume1Searchable/Mueller%20Report%20Volume%201%20Searchable/page/n5/mode/2up

        The sloppiness of DNC cyber security was absurd, but it is more absurd to suggest that the DNC allowed themselves to be hacked as part of a plot to ensnare Trump or the Russians. (IIRC, the RNC was also hacked. but the Russians didn’t release any RNC documents.) The dubious nature of the Crowdstrike investigation, the adequacy of the information shared with the FBI about the hacking, and the reliability of hacking reports released by the Obama administration are totally irrelevant – unless you are arguing that someone else hacked the DNC. The Dutch intelligence, Guccifer 2, and Mueller indictments make THAT extremely unlikely, especially given Russia’s larger campaign to help Trump win the election.

        The Russian intercept wasn’t the only reason Comey circumvented Lynch. She was also compromised by having been mentored by the Clintons, meeting Bill at the Phoenix airport, and Obama’s inappropriate public comments on the need to prove HRC’s criminal intent. In 2004, both Comey and Ashcroft had recused themselves from the Scooter Libby investigation, and it was obvious Lynch should have recused herself too. Instead, she idiotically pledged to accept whatever the FBI recommended – while still retaining the power to shape that recommendation in private. So, Comey effectively recused Lynch from the decision by publicly refusing to consult with her about the FBI’s recommendation. That prevented the Russians from being able to compromise Lynch after she had declined to prosecute HRC. (If the Russians had released the information before Lynch’s announcement, she could have simply recused herself.)

        With 20/20 hindsight, the Steele Dossier has been Trump’s best weapon in converting the Trump-Russia investigation into a hoax: Pretend the FBI was ONLY investigating a salacious uncomfirmable Dossier funded by the Clinton campaign. Manafort, Page, Flynn and Papadopoulos disappear along with their crimes and weaknesses. (Two of these four were fired for being too pro-Russian during the campaign, Manafort was destined to be indicted secret payments from a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, and Flynn was quickly fired after lying to Pence (and possible Trump) about his phone calls with Kislyak. For good measure, have the DoJ IG release out-of-context, grossly unprofessional text messages between Strzok and Page to obscure the key fact that the Crossfire Hurricane team didn’t receive any of the Steele Dossier until late September (and then only part), seven weeks after the umbrella Crossfire Hurricane was launched and Manafort, Page, Flynn and Papadopoulos were selected as the main targets. Never mention the fact that these innocent campaign officials (except Page) immediately incriminated themselves by lying to the FBI about their actions. Ignore the hacking of the DNC and other Russian efforts to elect Trump. Your Peter Van Buren article follows this script perfectly.

        A more balanced article covering all aspects of the story can be found below. Unfortunately, I’ve read that most people would rather pay money than be forced to read an article that contradicts their preferred political position. Are they right?

        https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/trump-russia-investigation-dossier.html or
        https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2021/12/03/discredited_dossier_doesnt_undercut_russia_probe_558027.html#!

  88. More evidence that mainstream science (MSS) is bad, corrupted science.

    Meta-analysis reveals an extreme “decline effect” in the impacts of ocean acidification on fish behavior

    “Using a sys tematic review and meta-analysis of 91 studies empirically testing effects of ocean acidification on fish behavior, we provide quantitative evidence that the research to date on this topic is characterized by a decline effect, where large effects in initial studies have all but disappeared in subsequent studies over a decade.”
    “Furthermore, the vast majority of studies with large effect sizes in this field tend to be characterized by low sample sizes, yet are published in high-impact journals and have a disproportionate influence on the field in terms of citations. We contend that ocean acidification has a negligible direct impact on fish behavior, and we advocate for improved approaches to minimize the potential for a decline effect in future avenues of research.”

    • Well, maybe it’s not acidification that’s messing with the biosphere. Could it be that unrestrained release of over 350,000 different man made molecules could have unintended consequences?
      https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158
      “Production of Novel Entities
      Production of novel entities is rapidly increasing. The chemical industry is the second largest manufacturing industry globally. (1) Global production increased 50-fold since 1950, and is projected to triple again by 2050 compared to 2010. (34) Material extraction as feed stocks for novel entities was approximately 92 billion tonnes globally in 2017, and is projected to reach 190 billion tonnes by 2060. (1) There are an estimated 350 000 chemicals (or mixtures of chemicals) on the global market. (35) Nearly 70 000 have been registered in the past decade; many chemicals (nearly 30 000) have only been registered in emerging economies, where chemical production has increased rapidly, but chemicals management and disposal capacity often are limited. The production of intended chemicals entails the unintended production of byproducts, transformation products, and impurities which may not be considered under chemicals assessments and management measures.”

      It’s the second and third order effects that will be the hardest to mitigate. Stopping GHG emissions will turn out to be the easiest to fix. Those other hundreds of thousands of chemicals will be much harder to deal with.

      • Yep, we owe the chemical industry for the best standard of living in the history of the World.

      • I agree jim2, I think mRNA vaccines would be one of those novel molecules.
        We are capable of editing DNA now. Imagine what’s possible with CRISPR/Cas9 and Gene Drive? I think the gestation period of the Blue Whale would be a great modification for homo-sapiens to humanely stabilize the population.

      • In that case, Jack, I’m pretty sure women would want you modified to gestate and have the baby.

  89. This reminds me of some saying in the movie Forrest Gump. What was that saying??

    After grappling with the lowest stockpiles in more than a decade this heating season, there’s once again no economic incentive for energy giants from RWE AG and Uniper SE to Gazprom PJSC to store the fuel. That’s because traders usually buy cheap gas in the summer to sell it at a higher price later in the year, and that premium has all but vanished from the market.

    Policy makers are concerned. Europe is relying more on intermittent sources of energy such as wind and solar, and with domestic gas production in decline, dependency on imports from Russia is only increasing. Germany plans to force energy companies to build up reserves as part of a package of measures to be considered in the spring, but a number of countries still have no rules in place.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-16/europe-risks-another-energy-crisis-without-mandatory-reserves

  90. Ireneusz Palmowski

    In five days, another wave of Arctic air will sweep over the western US.
    https://i.ibb.co/5vQFfwL/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png

  91. ‘Australian minnow Liontown Resources has nabbed Elon Musk’s Tesla as a foundation customer for its WA lithium mine in a five-year deal that sent its share price soaring more than 15 per cent.’ https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/tesla-signs-major-lithium-deal-with-australian-mining-minnow-20220216-p59wxd.html

    It’s the tip of an iceberg. I’ve been researching the sector. The metals underpinning technology itself. This Forbes article for the graphic.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2019/11/06/australia-may-be-the-saving-grace-for-the-rare-earth-metals-market/?sh=e7ec1f341cd4

  92. My latest on the absurd Virginia Clean Economy Act:

    “Dominion’s VCEA Compliance Plan is Disastrously Unreliable”
    A research report
    By David Wojick

    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/VCEA-Reliability-Research-Report.pdf?mc_cid=a4827a5419&mc_cid=8d1127ec83&mc_eid=af7d3e4fc4

  93. It’s really great to have all this battery storage!!! …

    The company took offline its 100-megawatt Moss Landing battery facility after a safety system activated late on Sunday, according to a statement. It’s the second incident at the plant in less than six months.

    Early findings from the most recent incident indicate that water hoses leaked and some batteries shorted, causing smoke in the building, similar to what was observed with the prior issue, Vistra said.

    Vistra said it will now pause bringing its 300-megawatt facility back online because of the latest issues at the plant, located nearly 100 miles (161 kilometers) south of San Francisco.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-15/california-s-largest-battery-storage-shut-down-by-smoke-again

  94. New York passed a law in 2019 requiring the state to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2040. But over the last two years, the exact opposite has happened: CO2 from power plants has climbed nearly 15 percent, according to EPA data.

    New York’s experience is hardly unique. In neighboring New England, where six states are united by a single electricity market, power emissions are up 12 percent over the last two years. And in Pennsylvania, emissions from electricity generation have grown 3 percent.

    The rise in emissions follows the closure of three nuclear facilities in Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania since 2019. While all three states have expanded their renewable energy generation, natural gas has largely filled the void left by shuttered nuclear facilities, prompting emissions to rise.

    The increase is further fueling a raging debate within climate circles over the role of nuclear power in the transition to a zero-carbon grid. Some researchers argue nuclear provides a reliable source of emissions-free power that can complement wind and solar.

    “If the goal is that we’re moving to 100 percent zero carbon electricity,” said Melissa Lott, director of research at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, “closing zero-carbon resources doesn’t make a lot of sense. We’re just digging the hole deeper.”

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/17/3-states-with-shuttered-nuclear-plants-see-emissions-rise-00009034

  95. The big picture: In the past, when oil prices spiked, the impact on the U.S. economy was straightforward: It made America poorer, as more of our income went overseas to pay for imported energy.

    Now, after the shale gas revolution of the last 15 years, the impact is more subtle. Higher fuel prices disadvantage consumers and energy-intensive industries, yes. But there is a counteracting surge in incomes for domestic energy producers and their workers.
    Higher oil prices no longer depress overall measures of prosperity like GDP and national income, but rather shift it around toward certain regions. Texas and North Dakota win; Massachusetts and North Carolina lose.

    By the numbers: As recently as 2010, America imported 9.4 million barrels a day of oil more than it exported. That had swung to a 650,000 barrel per day surplus in 2020, and preliminary numbers for 2021 show trade pretty much in balance last year.

    https://www.axios.com/us-energy-independent-petroleum-2982ed18-9110-4c31-ad67-82abe643f661.html

  96. When we use batteries for electricity supply, it is the cost of batteries plus the cost of electricity producing devices, whatever they are.
    Batteries do not produce electricity. Thus batteries are a supplementary devices cost burden.
    Nuclear electricity plants produce electricity 24/7. They do not need batteries to support the grid.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Energy produced in low demand times can be stored in batteries to be sold at times of high demand at higher prices. It works if the cost of storage is less than the supply price. This is not the case yet. An alternative is pumped hydro storage if possible, geothermal where available, landfill and piggery methane or costly peaking gas to fill in the gaps.

      Low cost new nuclear – also not yet available – should change the energy equation.

      Green hydrogen at scale might work.

  97. The notion:

    T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K)

    is a misfortunate scientific mislead, because it is a huge mistake.
    The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa.
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on observations and is a foundation of modern physics. However it – and any odd derivation thereof – cannot be used to calculate Earth’s surface temperature.

      • “The Stefan-Boltzmann law is based on observations and is a foundation of modern physics. However it – and any odd derivation thereof – cannot be used to calculate Earth’s surface temperature.”
        Yes, Robert!
        Please share that. Tell that to all of them!

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • S-B is used all the time to calculate an ‘effective temperature’. That is not the surface temperature – as a direct result of atmospheric radiative transfers.

        I think everyone but Christos understands that. It is his odd offshoot of the S-B law I was referring to. Surely he get’s that at the very least.

    • “S-B is used all the time to calculate an ‘effective temperature’.”

      Planet effective temperature is written as:

      Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

      Planet effective temperature uses the notion:

      T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K)
      which is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
      That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
      Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
      as a mathematical abstraction.

      The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux, doesn’t work vice-versa.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The effective average radiating temperature is not 288 K no matter what Christos does to it.

      • J is an average emission. (1-a)S simply estimates IR emissions based on absorbed radiation. It works because it is empirical physics – but it does not give the surface temperature.

      • Robert
        > “J is an average emission.”
        It is an emission of a body at temperature T.

        > “(1-a)S simply estimates IR emissions based on absorbed radiation.”
        It was thought that (1-a)S is entirely absorbed, but it is an assumption.
        It is a very much mistaken assumption.

        > “It works because it is empirical physics – but it does not give the surface temperature.”
        No, it does not work that way…

        The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux, doesn’t work vice-versa.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Energy is conserved – it is either reflected or absorbed and reemitted. Christos has a factor he calls the solar radiation acceptance factor – with no justification other than an analogy with hydraulic drag.

      • “Energy is conserved – it is either reflected or absorbed and reemitted.”

        It is either SW reflected or transformed into IR EM energy… and to HEAT which gets accumulated.
        When rotating faster and when having a higher cp, less SW energy is transformed into IR EM energy, and more SW energy is transformed to HEAT, and, therefore, more HEAT is accumulated.
        Later HEAT is also IR emitted, but when there is more HEAT accumulated and more energy emitted later in the night, the planet on average surface is warmer.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • “Christos has a factor he calls the solar radiation acceptance factor – with no justification other than an analogy with hydraulic drag.”
        The New equation
        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
        actually can be simplified as:

        Tmean = Β*(N*cp)^(1/16)* [ Φ(1-a) S ]¹∕ ⁴

        Planet effective temperature is written as:
        Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
        Planet effective temperature uses the notion:
        T = ( J /σ ) ¹∕ ⁴ (K)
        which is utterly unacceptable, because it has not a physical analogue in the real world.
        That is why we should consider planet effective temperature
        Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
        as a mathematical abstraction.
        The Stefan-Boltzmann emission law J = σ*Τ⁴ (W/m²) EM energy flux, doesn’t work vice-versa.
        Not the entire not reflected portion of incident solar flux is transformed to HEAT.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • When averaging solar flux
        Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
        we do not know how much SW solar energy is transformed to HEAT…
        That is why flux cannot be averaged.
        it irradiates planet from one side, and the amount of SW energy transformed and accumulated to HEAT is determined by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

        The New equation considers planet in total. There is not any averaging taking place.
        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴

        the Tmean = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
        is a partial case, when a planet has N*cp = 1 /150 and therefore, since β =150
        (β*N*cp) = 1
        and
        Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (150 /150)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
        thus
        Tmean = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

        There cannot be any planet effective temperature. Planet average surface temperatures are strongly dependent on the Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • “Christos has a factor he calls the solar radiation acceptance factor – with no justification other than an analogy with hydraulic drag.”

        I explain everything about the Φ -factor (the solar radiation acceptance factor) in many pages in my website.
        Please visit:
        https://www.cristos-vournas

      • 90% of incoming energy is converted to kinetic energy in oceans – measurable by thermometers. 4% is in latent heat in liquid water and vapor. The rest goes to warming land.

        Long winded errors repeated endlessly is the most charitable description of Christos’ odd notions.

      • “Long winded errors repeated endlessly is the most charitable description of Christos’ odd notions.” :-)

      • ‘When averaging solar flux
        Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
        we do not know how much SW solar energy is transformed to HEAT…
        That is why flux cannot be averaged.
        it irradiates planet from one side, and the amount of SW energy transformed and accumulated to HEAT is determined by the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.’ Christos

        All solar irradiance that is not reflected heats the planet – one way or another. The sun heats oceans and land – that’s what results in IR emissions – that are recycled between surface and atmosphere when photons are not being emitted to space. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon – repeated endlessly – misses the basics and neglects all the fun bits of climate science.

        Inventing a new physics means that they don’t understand the old physics.