Week in review – climate edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past weeks.

Important paper:  Coupled stratosphere-troposphere-Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its importance for near future climate projections [link]

Stability of the Antarctic Ice Sheet during the pre-industrial Holocene [link]

Do we need a new theory of evolution? [link]

can pumping nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean to the surface drawdown CO2? [link]

Tropical cyclones now ‘13% less frequent’ due to climate change [link]

Regimes and transitions in the basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves [link]

Impact of riverine fresh water on Indian Summer Monsoon [link]

New battery to enable 1000 km range and fast charge [link]

Technology & policy

How treating climate change as a security issue backfired [link]

Biggest cryptominers in the U.S. use as much power as Houston [Ilink]

The two degree temperature target is arbitrary and untethered [link]

Dutch farmers protest EU’s militant green regulations [link]

Europe and and UK pour 17,000 tons of cooling oil into vehicles each day [link]

The politics of austerity is back.  So is the resistance [link]

Whole county rooftop solar in China [link]

A shock-proof energy economy [link]

Preparing for extreme weather is a community concern.  Here’s how to be ready [link]

Green dogma behind fall of Sri Lanka [link]

Emerging small nuclear reactors may significantly contribute to grid decarbonization by 2050 [link]

Land footprint of low carbon energy system varies massively depending on mix of clean energy sources. [link]

Energy enters a perilous era of supply chain risks [link]

Europe’s battle over “green” natural gas and nuclear [link]

Revising Germany’s “clean” energy transition [link]

Solar plus storage for islands [link]

EU’s proposed bioenergy policies risk additional deforestation [link]

Blanket bans on fossil fuels hurt women and lower-income countries [link]

Sand battery could solve green energy’s big storage problem [link]

Vaclav Smil:  Time to get real on climate change [link]

Green energy minerals: Key role in the race for climate action [link]

MIracle fuel hydrogen can actually make climate change worse [link]

Climate pledges abandoned as Putin sparks global coal crunch [link]

@NuScale_Power has announced it is making a strategic shift from product development to product delivery as commercialisation of its VOYGR small modular reactor power plants approaches #nuclear tinyurl.com/4ea8ttez

COP26:  No countries have delivered on promise to improve emission reduction plans [link]

About science & scientists

Misinformation is here to stay (and that’s ok) [link]

Professors are leaving academe during the Great Resignation [link]

The courage to dissent . . . from the left [link]

The importance of stupidity in scientific research [link]

363 responses to “Week in review – climate edition

  1. Coupled stratosphere-troposphere-Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its importance for near future climate projections

    (repeat) Stratosphere-troposphere coupling is the biggest atmospheric surprise in decades. Once meridional transport increased at the 1997 big climatic shift, climate initiated a different regime that does not favor surface warming, and the coming AMO decrease is just the central phase of this regime that could last until the early 30s. This is part of what Marcia Wyatt and Judith Curry studied as the “Stadium wave,” and I discuss about its causes in my coming book offering some interesting new evidence.

    • Small perturbations in orbits, solar activity or atmospheric gases trigger climate shifts that are in essence abrupt shifts in patterns of global fluid and energy flows. Hydrodynamics and thermodynamics with feedbacks in ice, cloud, biology, dust… It can add some 0.3 C to AGW over 40 years (Kravtsov et al 2018).


      I’m expecting a millennial scale shift – as seen in a Law Dome Antarctica Pacific state proxy. Is now a millennial peak in Pacific warm surface state frequency and intensity?


      But the not so great post 1997 climate shift may just be a decadal blip emerging from randomly cooler than average eastern Pacific sea surface temperature – and more low level cloud as a feedback.


      Satellites have global coverage and capture all the heat in the troposphere as water condenses – making the data ideal for recognising climate shifts in hindsight.

      • “the not so great post 1997 climate shift may just be a decadal blip”

        You clearly haven’t studied all the climate variables that shifted in the 1995-2005 period. You can start with the Pacific fisheries, that was one of the variables that lead to the discovery of the PDO.

        You can start reading:
        Chavez, F.P., Ryan, J., Lluch-Cota, S.E. and Ñiquen C, M., 2003. From anchovies to sardines and back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science, 299 (5604), pp.217-221.

        It has “only” 2035 citations.

      • There is a comment that remains missing for 2 days now.

        The periodicity of Pacific state shifts is by no means a simple matter. There are state shifts at all scales. The ENSO beat changed around 1900 to a 2-5 year periodicity from a 5-7 year periodicity. The PDO has a 20 to 30 year period. The two are physically distinct systems driven by oceanic gyres in the north and the south.

        Within that framework there are vagaries – changes in eastern Pacific upwelling and thus sea surface temperature – that may as well be random for all we know.


        Javier dogmatically insists that his views are the obvious truth but it is not so. Satellites show the planet warming over the past 40 years. This means that a shift to a mean cooler state could be happening now.

      • Robert I. Ellison:

        “Satellites show the planet warming over the past 40 years”

        Yes, and the reason is that global Clean Air efforts have reduced the amount of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution by more than 53 Million tons over the past 40 years, from 125 Million tons in 1982 to 72 Million tons in 2019 (latest data available)

        Imagine how HOT it will be when Net-Zero efforts drive those 72 million tons to near zero, by eliminating the SO2 produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

      • About half the warming of the past 40 years was internal variability – the other half was greenhouse gas emissions (Kravtsov et al 2018). Satellites show how and by how much.


        Climate science is complex and uncertain. Science requires that we systematically review our assumptions. Like many sceptics Burl makes hugely unlikely and completely unquantified assumptions relayed with dogmatic certitude.

      • Robert I. Ellison:

        I make my assertions “with dogmatic certitude” because I have the data to support them, and no one has ever scientifically refuted them.

        Regarding the millions of tons of reduction in reflective (dimming) Industrial SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere, what isYOUR explanation as to why they would not cause our climate to warm up? Volcanic SO2 constantly cools and warms our planet.

      • Robert I Ellison:

        I had asked a question, which you did not answer.

        If I am wrong, surely the eminent Robert I Ellison should be able to tell me why

      • I gave you links to the most relevant science. 😀

        Now go away and read and understand it if you can

      • Sofía Jimenez


    • Matthew R Marler

      here is the abstract: Northern Hemisphere (NH) climate has experienced various coherent wintertime multidecadal climate trends in stratosphere,
      troposphere, ocean, and cryosphere. However, the overall mechanistic framework linking these trends is not well established. Here
      we show, using long-term transient forced coupled climate simulation, that large parts of the coherent NH-multidecadal changes
      can be understood within a damped coupled stratosphere/troposphere/ocean-oscillation framework. Wave-induced downward
      propagating positive stratosphere/troposphere-coupled Northern Annular Mode (NAM) and associated stratospheric cooling
      initiate delayed thermohaline strengthening of Atlantic overturning circulation and extratropical Atlantic-gyres. These increase the
      poleward oceanic heat transport leading to Arctic sea-ice melting, Arctic warming amplification, and large-scale Atlantic warming,
      which in turn initiates wave-induced downward propagating negative NAM and stratospheric warming and therefore reverse the
      oscillation phase. This coupled variability improves the performance of statistical models, which project further weakening of North
      Atlantic Oscillation, North Atlantic cooling and hiatus in wintertime North Atlantic-Arctic sea-ice and global surface temperature just
      like the 1950s–1970s

      Definitely worth reading.

      • The stadium wave – btw – is a manifestation of a globally coupled, spatiotemporal chaotic flow field. The turbulent hydrodynamics of flow in oceans and atmosphere are the source of climate shifts when triggered by change in external forcing.

        e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

        At this stage – only a focus on fundamental mechanisms can begin to explain climate. Solar UV heating of ozone in the polar stratosphere is a place to start. It ends in upwelling in the eastern Pacific and heat bombs in the Arctic.

    • Upwelling in the eastern Pacific brings nutrients to the surface stimulating biological production. The patterns of upwelling and consequent surface warming and cooling shift irregularly at many scales causing a positive feedback to sea surface temperature and planetary warming and cooling.


      The data to look at when the mechanism is understood is tropospheric heat content – not ocean productivity.

    • I have read extensively in this field for 30 plus years. There are no hard and fast rules. Internal spatiotemporal patterns in the Pacific state shift when triggered by small changes in external factors. Sound familiar?

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

      Javier likes to pontificate without being able to see the wood for the trees and then dismisses out of hand any suggestion that he is utterly oblivious on fundamental nechanisms of climate variability.

    • Very sad. Current climate academic environment makes replacing skeptic scientists very difficult. He will be missed.

    • Rob Starkey

      Anything on the cause of death? Had he been ill?

    • David Wojick

      A giant dies. I worked with (and for) Pat while he was at CATO. Always fun. When you are sitting there petting his cat and drinking his fine beer you do not think about how great he is, but he truly was. He was often the loud voice of skepticism, but always with the science in clear view.

      None better.

    • Did much to expose the federally funded AGW hoax research dollar ‘gravy train.’

  2. Javier. Be careful of your support of the stadium wave concept. It doesn’t exist!

    • Concepts are just human categorizations of a complex reality. They exist as long as they are useful to enough people. It is like the concept of species. Nature doesn’t care much about that concept, yet it is useful to a lot of people. The stadium-wave is a better description IMHO of what other people describe confusely as intrinsic modes of variability, teleconnections, atmospheric bridges, and the rest of the vocabulary used to describe oscillatory regional climate phenomena that it is clearly coordinated.

      • Javier

        You mention oscillatory phenomena. Again this does not exist, I jhav made an analysis of Jan Dec anomalous temps. for the years 19850 2020 and every temp. Change correlates with a change I atmospheric levels Of Sulfur Dioxide aerosols in the. Atmosphere, primarily of volcanic origin. Which occur randomly. All of this is easily verifiable.


      • Javier:

        You suggested that a single chemical could not explain something as complex as climate change.

        The SO2 aerosol is Sulfuric Acid, H2SO4.. According to NASA, H2SO4 reflects sunlight , cooling the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.

        There are millions of tons of it in our atmosphere, and they certainly DO effect our climate.in a major way , .

      • Matthew R Marler

        Burl henry | July 16, 2022 at 6:15 pm |

        You have a well-developed concept in competition with other well-developed concepts. Have you published it? Code and data? Those would be welcome.

      • Matthew R. Marler;

        No code, but a number of papers on Google Scholar supporting SO2 aerosols as being the Control Knob for Earth’s climate. And more to come.

      • “every temp. Change correlates with a change I atmospheric levels Of Sulfur Dioxide”

        This most common of scientific errors – confounding cause with effect – makes every correlation become a new theory.

      • Phil Salmon:


        For a theory to be correct, there HAS to be correlations. To advance science they need to be sought and investigated, not dismissed out of hand.

    • The Stadium Wave concept boils down to the observation that certain climate phenomena tend to repeat in a particular sequence. The observation appears to be valid even if the mechanisms are not known and the name “Stadium Wave” is not very good.

      • Mike Jonas

        What climate phenomena do. you know of that tend to repeat?

      • Burl Henry – Just about every climate phenomenon repeats, because just about everything in climate is cyclical. NB. I use “phenomenon” in its general sense which doesn’t mean extraordinary (as in “phenomenal”) but really means just an observable feature.

      • Mike Jonas

        You maintain that everything in Climate is cyclical, This is NOT correct.

        Our climate is driven solely. by varying amounts of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, of both volcanic and industrial origin, both of which are random in nature.

        I have a number of papers on Google Scholar which support my comments

        If the greenhouse gas hypothesis were correct (it is NOT) nothing should be cyclical, unless CO2 levels drastically changed, up and down, and they do not!

      • “Our climate is driven solely by varying amounts of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere”

        I think you need to study climate much harder if you think a single chemical substance can explain something so complicated as climate change. But every person is entitled to his faith, no matter how weird. Good luck making converts, though.

  3. Pingback: Review of the week - climate edition - News7g

  4. David Wojick

    Posted previously but way down in.

    Virginia’s offshore wind proposal threatens endangered whales
    By David Wojick
    A good NEPA case that could constrain OSW.

    The beginning: “The massive offshore wind (OSW) project proposed by Dominion Energy may pose a serious threat to the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale population. A comprehensive environmental impact assessment is required to determine the extent of this threat and the mitigation it might require. The same is true for the other proposed Mid-Atlantic OSW projects.

    The North Atlantic Right Whale is reported to be the world’s most endangered large whale, with an estimated population of just a few hundred critters. They winter off of Florida and Georgia, but summer off New England. So they migrate through the coastal waters off of Virginia twice a year, including that year’s baby whales. They can grow to over 50 feet in length and weigh more than 70 tons. Protecting them is a major challenge.

    For background see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale

    Phase one of the huge proposed Virginia/Dominion OSW project looks to occupy something like 400 square miles. Pause two might bump that up to 800 or 1,000 square miles and the proposed federal lease area for OSW is even greater, much greater in fact.

    The obvious monster question is how will all this development affect the severely endangered Right Whale population? Answering this question must be central to the project’s required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under NEPA. This is Federal land.”

    Lots more follows.

    • Then we have wind energy companies killing hundreds of eagles in defiance of several laws, while aided and abetted by several presidential executive orders. The Federal courts actually showed some backbone and fined the offenders millions of dollars and warned the companies of additional severe future financial penalties.

      The offshore wind turbines the state of New York is hell-bent on building are right in the middle of areas full of whales. You can see the whales right off the beaches of Long Island feeding and breaching. Impact of the wind turbines on right whales? Guess will find out after the infernal machines are put in place. Whole thing clearly violates several laws, but then the renewable industry is above the law.

      The motto of “green energy”: we had to destroy the environment to save the planet.

  5. Ukraine, Sri Lanka, and the Netherlands give a lie to the utility of green energy policies and AGW in general. The entire movement should be put out of its misery. Human flourishing should be our primary objective.

  6. In How treating climate change as a security issue backfired [link]:
    “If in fact the Department of Defense were taking climate change seriously [..], it would focus on mitigating its own emissions.”
    The claim is that DoD does not focus on mitigating its own emissions. I don’t call that a backfire, I call that common sense in the DoD – something they are often accused of lacking.
    +1 for the DoD! (If the report is correct)

  7. In New battery to enable 1000 km range and fast charge [link]:
    “CATL unveils Qilin Battery, says it can easily achieve 1,000 km vehicle range
    The Qilin Battery will have an energy density of 255 Wh/kg and will be in mass production in 2023, CATL said.”
    Given that a typical Tesla needs about 25kWh per 100 miles (https://thenextweb.com/news/ev-battery-basics-kw-kwh-electric-vehicle-charging-lingo), the Qilin battery with 1,000 km range (600 miles) will weigh 600kg (1300lbs) which is more than half a ton.

    • As I understand it the Tesla battery pack are already this order of magnitude

    • Typical Toyota Camry hybrid requires about 82 pounds of gasoline to go 1000 km. Refuels in a matter of minutes versus hours (?) for a comparable electric vehicle, depending on the charging approach and how far the battery is routinely depleted. The battery powered electric vehicle is significantly more expensive to buy than the hybrid.

      Clearly, in order to justify electric vehicles, the government must make the cost of gasoline exorbitantly high. Oh wait, that is exactly what the Biden regime is doing.

  8. Do we need a new theory of evolution? [link]

    Just another failed ‘consensus of opinion’ like AGW and the ozone hole being caused by us humans.

  9. Clyde Spencer

    In your list, “Europe and and UK pour 17,000 tons of COOLING oil into vehicles each day”

    That should be COOKING oil.

  10. Clyde Spencer

    From the article, “MIracle [sic] fuel hydrogen can actually make climate change worse”:

    “Much higher up, in the stratosphere, the hydrogen leads to an increase in water vapor, …”

    Actually, being used as a fuel, whether burned directly or used in a fuel cell, it will create water in the lower troposphere. Used in a vehicle, if it is condensed and carried around until the tank is purged, it will increase the weight of the vehicle and reduce the mileage and performance. Having to regularly purge the water tank will be an annoying maintenance that many people may ignore, and may create some unusual environmental problems with everyone purging their water tanks on streets or driveways. If it is released directly into the air, it will increase the relative humidity and heat index in the Summer, probably contribute to Black Ice in the Winter, and act as a local greenhouse gas for urban regions.

    • Clyde – consider how much energy the battery consumes in an EV. About 25% of the energy goes to just moving the battery around. About 14% of the energy of an ICE vehicle goes to moving the engine around.

      • Clyde Spencer

        How much energy us used to move the engine, transmission, and fuel tank in an ICE vehicle?

    • Maybe it’s easier to understand in terms of payload.

      Tesla tri-motor S weight: 4766 #
      Tesla tri-motor S kwh: 100
      charge time: 7 hours with 3-phase 32A (22 kW)
      battery weight: 1377 pounds
      payload: 1056 pounds
      real range: 522


      Range Rover weight: 4,762 – 5,203 pounds
      fuel tank: 27.6 gallons
      fueling time: 3 minutes.
      equilvalent kwh: 901
      payload: 1765
      range: 540

      • See my post on the Toyota Camry hybrid. Range Rover comparison is inappropriate as it an expensive toy for the rich.
        Camry hybrid weighs about 3500 pounds. Gets about 45 miles per gallon. Needs about 1.6 million BTU to go 1000 km.

    • Hydrogen is a very inefficient jet fuel with environmental risks. As jet fuel only 25% of H2 is used for propulsion, the rest just diffuses away uselessly into the atmosphere.

      Hydrogen rising and leaving the atmosphere has another interesting effect. It increases oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. By separating H and O in terms of global inventory. In the same way that anoxic carbon sediment burial increases atmospheric oxygen by separating C from O.

      Higher oxygen in the atmosphere might be nice for Everest climbers. But it will make bugs 🐜 (arthropods) bigger 😨. And make wildfires worse.

  11. A planet surface doesn’t absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.

    No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.


  12. Is it any wonder the media is held in such low regard. This attitude that the media know best did not exist 60-70 years ago. It’s all too obvious today.


  13. The first two links at the top of the post

    “ Coupled stratosphere-troposphere-Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and its importance for near future climate projections”


    “ Stability of the Antarctic Ice Sheet during the pre-industrial Holocene ”

    plus this new paper about the so called Tasman leakage


    represent the best of climate science. Trying to push the envelope and expand our knowledge while recognizing there are still many unknowns and questions yet to be answered.

    These examples are contrasted with the IPCC approach. Having all the answers and making conclusions before even knowing what the questions should be.

  14. Beta Blocker

    Re the news article about NuScale’s pivot from a focus on SMR development to a focus on working towards SMR delivery.

    SMR company NuScale pivots from development to delivery

    Last week, I was talking with a long time acquaintance who is employed by a power generation utility here in the US Northwest which is a potential customer for SMR nuclear technology.

    He tells me that his corporate management views NuScale as being far ahead of the pack in becoming the first SMR provider to deliver a working design to a power utility in the United States. A 6-unit NuScale SMR plant is slated to go online in eastern Idaho in 2029.

    Keeping nuclear’s capital costs under control is the biggest challenge facing new-build nuclear power in the US.

    NuScale’s advantage over its competitors is the recognition that if the capital costs of a new-build nuclear plant are to be managed successfully, then their SMR nuclear technology — and the processes used to design and produce that technology for delivery to a customer utility — these must be managed closely together as One Thing.

    • The ‘One Thing’ that haunts nuclear power is one of the hardest to protect against… human error and malfeasance. Terrorist (including Eco-terrorist), cyber saboteurs, crazy human saboteurs as well as being an instant high priority military target can never be completely ruled out and we will have to live with that.
      On a slightly philosophic point of view of where technology is heading, it seems the macro view would point to a world of decentralized microgrids. For example, having a 80-100 kWh battery in your car/truck plus a bi-directional Vehicle-to-Grid home connection is the keystone of a microgrid based infrastructure. I have one myself (but I only have a 15kWh battery).

    • “Pivot”???
      Those are just the normal business milestones.

      • Beta Blocker

        In the current environment where SMR’s are thought to be the only means we now have available in the US to keep the capital costs of new-build nuclear under control, then designing, producing, and deploying first-of-a-kind nuclear reactor designs is a different kind of business management animal.

        After the VC Summer and Vogtle 3 & 4 cost overrun debacles, it is well understood inside the industry that the future of new-build nuclear power in the US depends on the first SMR projects being delivered on time and on cost. As the current leader in the SMR delivery horse race, all eyes are on the NuScale project team.

        That NuScale is now into the transition from development into delivery indicates that investors have confidence that the NuScale project team has a technology approach and a project management approach which can successfully deliver their SMR design under what will be a very demanding project management environment.

    • Modular design and mass production solves the cost problem. If they can’t melt down and are not water cooled they can go anywhere.


      There is accident tolerant fuel cladding. A silicon carbide stable to 1700 C – twice that of current aluminium alloy cladding – and higher than theoretically highest temps in fission reactors.


      The GA and FT modular fast neutron concept – based on GA’s EM2 – uses nuclear waste – a fuel in ample supply – to produce 3% waste as short lived fission products. To be used in betavoltaic batteries?


      Expect a prototype by the end of the decade,


      • Not so sure there is enough demand to justify the GA fast reactor that is primarily designed to reduce some of the nuclear waste that is long-lived. That feature requires a premium cost adder that is very hard to justify in a competitive sense. Basically, requires infrastructure to reprocess fuel and those facilities are extremely expensive.

      • We will see – but I don’t think there is sufficient cause to reject the technology out of hand.

    • The BWRX-300 small reactor is better economic fit because it’s output is about 5 times more than the NUSCALE . Easier to just build one reactor instead of five. Also, the BWXT is just a scaled down version of a much larger natural circulation boiling water reactor that has been licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

      That being said, remains unclear if any of the small reactors are financially competitive. Normally, costs are reduced by making things bigger and more efficient. However, the small reactors are going in exactly the opposite direction. Claims of savings due to mass production are doubtful because mass production is unlikely; demand will not be that great, so the number of units will not be that great.

      • Mike – I’m thinking the savings will come from less regulatory and “green” extremist litigation. It’s not only a smaller reactor, it’s a smaller target.

  15. link missing from can pumping nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean to the surface drawdown CO2?

  16. Regarding Sri Lanka death by ESG, the mainstream media repeat like a mantra that it is China loans that are bankrupting them. This is a lie – the country’s IMF loan with all its usual colonialist condescending strings, is much bigger than the Chinese loans.

  17. How to have a shock-proof energy economy?
    1 Don’t be a western country
    2 Don’t take any “advice” (colonial orders) from western countries about energy – or about anything in fact.

  18. Sri Lankan governments have done everything wrong.


    We have seen it before. It’s about being massive knobs in control. As if any sane person wound ban agricultural chemicals.

    e.g. https://watertechbyrie.com/2022/04/13/the-chicago-boys-v-salvatore-allende-fidel-castro-and-che-guevara/

    But to characterise ammonia and NOX from agriculture as a green delusion is throwing the scientific baby out with flows to water and atmosphere. ESG is an analytic framework developed by economists and scientists over decades. It’s possible to reduce farm inputs while increasing productivity by better targeted applications of chemicals and nutrients.

  19. What is very seldom discussed about a country’s problems is its culture. More federal spending doesn’t fix culture. Culture fixes culture.



  20. Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists and cut off local fossil fuel development in favor of solar and wind. They were fools to listen to the Unicorn crowd. Now they face an ever sickened energy sector where energy companies are on their last leg. We in the US need to vote out any politician who promotes the 21st century snake oil cure-all: green energy.

    It’s a falling chain of energy dominoes — one in which each tile is worth many billions of euros. A failed utility here, a nation’s supply there. When the dust settles, the total bill for rescuing the European energy market this winter will easily top $200 billion.

    This may sound flippant, and it’s admittedly a rough estimate. But the calculus is conservative and based on what we know today. It doesn’t cover the worst-case scenario of both Russia fully shutting down natural gas supply to Europe and a colder-than-average winter.


  21. Comment of | July 18, 2022 at 7:34 am | trapped in moderation.

  22. The direct use of natural gas is 92% efficient from source to point of use within the home, more than twice the efficiency of traditional electricity generation. By switching to natural gas, you’re reducing the amount of energy required to run the appliances you need in your home, saving you money on your bill and minimizing your carbon footprint.


  23. Green energy minerals: Key role in the race for climate action

    To secure our energy future while promoting our values, the United States and the global community must redouble their efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and good governance in the extractive sector. Costly supply chain disruptions are more likely to occur when sourcing minerals from countries with weak governance or where corruption and conflict are common. China dominates global mineral supply chains and has taken aggressive steps to control production in resource-rich developing countries with poor governance records.


    • Looks like a problem that will solve itself at the rate we are going.
      Earth Overshoot Day lands on July 28 this year.
      Earth Overshoot Day marks the date when humanity has used all the biological resources that Earth regenerates during the entire year.

      Of course extraction and consumption of raw materials is following a similar path. Massive recycling might delay the final reckoning but there are hard limits how long some key materials will remain economically viable to support a world of nearly billion people trying to attain western standards of living.

      • So you are saying there will be no plants and animals left after July 28?

      • No it’s like a bank account with interest. On July 28th. we will have consumed everything the planet regenerated since Jan. 1st.. From the 29th onward we are borrowing from the future to sustain current consumption faster than the planet can regenerate it.
        Anecdotal evidence would be the acceleration decline in insect, bird, reptile and marine populations. The plant populations are more complicated. When measured as just biomass it’s holding pretty steady thanks to monocrops and algae blooms but the mix of plant species has shifted due to habit loss.

        At some point long after you and I are gone humanity will deploy geoengineering and genetic engineering to fix it so I’m pretty opportunistic homo sapiens will remain the planet’s apex predator.

      • This smells like another fake metric to me. I’d like to know how that is measured.

      • jim2,
        It might be a bogus number but they do provide their source of data:

        Since the world population since 1970 has grown by 121% and I’m pretty sure it takes more energy and resources to lift all those people to a 2022 standard of living.

      • We would be naïve to think that there aren’t powerful forces inside the deep state working to ‘fix’ the environment. Some of the ideas are really insane.

      • I had gone to the web site earlier. They do present some output, but I don’t see the detail of how they generate that output.

  24. A planet surface doesn’t absorb solar energy first, gets warmed and only then emits IR EM energy.
    No, a planet surface emits IR EM energy at the very instant solar flux hits the matter.

    1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
    So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
    S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So

    Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306

    Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
    (Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)

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

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

    σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
    Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
    Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K

    Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ

    And we compare it with the
    Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.

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

    The planet mean surface temperature equation
    Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
    produces remarkable results.
    The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
    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


    • There are not one, but TWO MAJOR MISTAKES should be CORRECTED in order to maintain the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation:
      1) The HUGE correction of the planet radiative “ENERGY IN” estimation
      instead of (1-a)S
      where Φ is the Planet Solar Irradiation Accepting Factor
      2) The use of the very powerful the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon
      which states:
      Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root!


      • The planet mean surface temperature New equation is written for planets and moons WITHOUT atmosphere. The results of calculations are remarkably exact!
        When applied to Earth (Without Atmosphere) the New equation calculates Earth’s mean surface temperature very much close to the 288K.
        It happens so because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and, therefore, doesn’t have any essential greenhouse effect on the Earth’s average surface temperature.


  25. Javier:

    You suggested that a single chemical could affect anything as complex as climate change.

    The Sulfur Dioxide aerosol is Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4). According to NASA, it “reflects sunlight, cooling the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface.

    There are currently millions of tons of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, and they certainly DO affect Earth’s climate

    • You misquote me. What I said is that no single chemical substance can explain something so complicated as climate change.

      And that refers as much to CO2 as to SO4(2-), or any other chemical substance.

      Lots of things affect climate change. That you decide to focus on only one greatly reduces the possibility that you will gain insight into such a complex phenomenon. And it doesn’t reflect well on you, in my opinion.

      • Javier::

        Yes, I am focusing on a single substance:because its origin and behavior can explain essentially every aspect of our climate, now and in the past.

        I have a number of papers on Google Scholar addressing its climatic effects.–LIA temps, Stalled High pressure weather systems, A Graphical
        Explanation of Climate Change, etc.

        If you have time–and an open mind–you can see why I persist in pushing the SO2 effect. You will find that the problem is not as complex as you think!

      • “a single substance … can explain essentially every aspect of our climate”

        You don’t understand. Science is not about explaining. Science is about finding evidence. Before science people already had explanations for everything. Without evidence there is no science.

        There is no evidence that anthropogenic emissions are responsible for most or nearly all observed warming, as the IPCC claims, despite tens of thousands of scientists working on it and trillions of dollars spent. You are deeply delusional in your single-man sulfate conjecture. Finding google scholar articles means nothing.

      • Javier:

        I agree that CO2 has no climatic effects, but there is abundant evidence that SO2 aerosols have major climatic effects.

        Whenever there is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption, reflective SO2 aerosols are injected into the stratosphere, and cool our planet, often resulting in a La Nina.

        When they eventually settle out of the atmosphere, after about 24 months, they usually cause an El Nino, because the cleansed air allows sunshine to strike the Earth’s surface with greater intensity.

        Industrial SO2 aerosols have the same climatic effect.

        Your rejection of these observations does not speak well of your competence.

        And DO read some of my supportive papers on Google Scholar

      • Javier

        Given your extensive contributions here and elsewhere I hope you let us know when your book is available. I look forward to reading it.

      • CKid, thank you for your interest. It is scheduled for a September publication, but it doesn’t have a date yet.

        I am writing a series of six articles about what is included in two of the book chapters. Andy May is helping to polish their English, and if Judy accepts them they will appear here first. The idea is to start posting them before the book comes out.

      • Quote from Javier “There is no evidence that anthropogenic emissions are responsible for most or nearly all observed warming,—“.

        If one goes back five(5) Eddy cycle peaks from today’s, circa 2700bce, abrupt warming commenced. Half cycle later it peaked, about the time of the 4k2 event.

        That can be followed from the ice-cores of Vostok, Gisp-2, and Kilimanjaro Temperature anomaly curves (all from deuterium).

        Volcanic SO2 likely a collateral element.

      • Burl, there is an unsurmountable problem with your conjecture. The evidence clearly shows that Holocene climate cooled as volcanic sulfate decreased. Even the LIA cannot be explained in volcanic terms since during most of the LIA, volcanic activity was well below Late Holocene average, which was much lower than the Holocene average.
        Zielinski et al. 1996 data by century

        It is a little known fact that volcanic activity has almost no effect on climate change while climate change has an important effect on volcanic activity, even though I wrote an article on it.

        “And DO read some of my supportive papers on Google Scholar”
        Who is DO?

      • Javier:

        I have a paper on Google Scholar titled :”The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”, based upon the Central England Instrumental Temperatures data set, which spans the years 1659=2020, and encompasses about the latter third of the LIA..

        For those years,EVERY temperature decrease was due to the eruption of a known volcano somewhere around the globe. There was a hiatus in the cold temperatures between about 1727 and 1739, due to no volcanic eruptions, clearly showing that they were responsible for the cooling.

        Where our data sets differ is that VEI4 eruptions were responsible for most of the cooling during the LIA, whereas they were ignored in your cited data, where only the scarce, well-separated VEI5 -VEI8 eruptions were thought to cause any temporary cooling..

        So, you have no “insurmountable proof” against my conclusions

      • “I have a paper on Google Scholar titled :”The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures”

        In an Indian web-only journal founded in 2019 that will publish on any subject whatever they are sent as long as the author pays the fee.

        According to Google scholar your paper has been cited in two years zero times. I just hope you didn’t spend much time or money on it.

        There is no way I am going to waste any time reading that, sorry.

      • Javier:

        I read your WUWT paper, and in your conclusions, IN BOLD PRINT, you stated “it is impossible that the LIA may have been caused mainly by volcanic activity”

        Unfortunately, you were misled by some of the references that you cited, probably from “respectable” journals.

        In my 3 -page paper, I prove you WRONG, for the reasons given in my previous post..

        (As Willis once said, if E=MC squared were written on toilet paper, it would still be correct). This applies to your comments about where my paper was published..

        But now I understand the reason for your adamant refusal to acknowledge the major role of SO2 aerosols in Climate Change!.

    • Burl Henry’s statement re “The Definitive Cause of Little Ice Age Temperatures” and the connection to volcanism invites a little delving into the details.

      LIA date ~1645ce (it is an Eddy cycle root; similar to the earlier 536ce the “one of the worst periods to be alive, if not the worst year,” https://www.science.org/content/article/why-536-was-worst-year-be-alive

      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_historical_volcanic_eruptions Tambora and Krakatoa come too late (Krakatoa is an important example that shows the time delay of its effect world-wide and its duration). ~600ce and 1645ce are Eddy roots > cold periods.

      Mediaeval warm P around 1200ce has mount Salamas at 1257ce, somewhat late again. Like RWP (year 173ce in particular), MWP and today’s WP are near Eddy peaks. The volcanism arrives just late, possibly a sign that it is an after-effect of geological stress raptures from a distorting geoid.

      Unlikely volcanism produces extreme opposites.

      • Melitamegalithic:

        My paper was simply an analysis of the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set, 1659-1850, which continues to the present..

        I found that every temperature decrease was coincident with a known volcanic eruption, primarily VEI4’s, confirming that it was also a world-wide event.

        This would also apply to the other periods which you mentioned.

      • Burl

        I have done a number of papers on CET and the effect on temperatures of external factors. This one includes sunspots and volcanoes


        I looked closely at volcanoes because of claims by such as Mann as to the global and long term impacts they had, with one of his claims that a group of them ushered in the LIA.

        It is certainly true they had an impact, for example researching Cathedral records often back to the 12th century, I would see reference to alms being paid to the poor because of unusually cold weather.

        However, my overall conclusion was that the impacts were short lived (often no more than a few months) and temperatures (and weather) after the volcano quickly reverted to that of the years before the volcano.


      • Tonyb:

        Your stated overall conclusion is that the (volcanic) impacts were short-lived, often, lasting only a few months.

        The maximum cooling from a VEI4 eruption occurs (on average) 16 months from the date of the eruption, as their aerosols circulate around the globe– and even longer for larger eruptions. No volcanic cooling lasts only a few months.

        In many instances during the LIA, the next eruption occurred within a year or less than the previous eruption, so there was really no time for any significant warming (or melting) to occur, allowing ice to build up. .

        We know that the MWP had only 31 eruptions in 300 years, the Alps were largely free of ice, they were farming in Greenland, and there were world-wide droughts and famines, because of high temperatures from the clean, unpolluted air.

        The LIA was ushered in by the VEI7 eruption of Rinjani. (Samalas) in 1257, a VEI6 in 1262, and 1280, and 6 annual VEI5 eruptions from Tarawera, 1310-1315.

        Here, I agree with Mann.

        Cooling from the heavily polluted air.would have led to glaciation, and its growth from the subsequent 135 eruptions during the LIA, which included at least 31 VEi5-VEIi6 eruptions.

        Just a glance at the graph of Central England Temperatures shows much more volcanic activity during the portion of the LIA shown, compared to later years..


        The RWP also ended with increased volcanism, so volcanoes have a major impact upon Earth’s climate.

      • This link may be found interesting: http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

        Quote part “The Challenge of the Present Century

        When it comes to the Earth’s climate, it should be recognized that far greater fluctuations than the “global warming” attributed to human activity, are measured in the recent geological past. Volcanic eruptions, like those of 1883, 1815, and 535 A.D., or going back many millennia to Mazama (about 8,000 years ago), or Toba (74,000), all created cooling episodes. However, if we restrict the discussion only to the warmer cycles, we find that, in fact, these are just as large as the cool cycles, but simply in positive sense. It seems they must derive from solar relations. The Sun’s emissions definitely fluctuate. For the last 10,000 years or so, we are provided with several “time-series” that quantify such events, or intervals (some lasting several centuries).”

      • Burl Henry

        There is no evidence that the LIA started at the dates you mention (1257) or for the reasons you stated. As CKid mentions above we can trace heatwaves to 1276 1277 1303 1304 1393 1394. The LIA was intermittent as I set out in the paper I linked to. The seas were sill rising strongly in the 13th and 14th century, glaciers were still melting and the various wars fought at that time give good indications of the weather at the time.

        Data I have collected from Cathedrals and from the archives of the met office give no credence to the start of Extreme LIA type cold weather from 1257.

        The annual weather records demonstrate that weather was affected for a short time but invariably reverted to the type prevalent before the eruption.

        I am not disputing for a moment the realty of the Minoan warm period, The Roman Warm Period, the medieval warm period nor the LIA but think we need to be cautious about attributing eruptions as being the cause for anything, let alone that they precipitated a huge climatic change from a warm to a cold period.


      • Tonyb:

        It takes about 5 years for all of the dimming SO2 aerosol pollution from a VEI4 volcanic eruption to settle our of the atmosphere, and cause temperatures to increase, and about 15 years for a VEI7 eruption.

        For the 1276-1277 warm period, there were 18 years between the 1262 VEI6 and the 1280 VEI6 eruptions .

        For the 1303-1304 warm period, here were 10 years between the 1390 VEI4 and the 1490 VEI4 eruption

        For the 1393-1394 warm period, there were 10 years between the 1390 VEI4 and the 1400 VEI4 eruption.

        In each instance, the Earth’s atmosphere would have eventually been free of volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution, and Earth’s insolation would have increased..

        This is clear evidence that volcanism is the control knob for Earth’s temperatures. In its absence. temperatures rise, and when it occurs, temperatures fall.

        I have seen this pattern over and over. Between 1850 and 1996, for example, there were at least 8 instances where temperatures rose because of volcanic “droughts”, even though there were industrial SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere to suppress the warming. Before 1850 there were none, and higher temperatures would have occurred.

      • Burl Henry

        Thought you might be interested in this official item which relates to our local Abbey built in the 12th Century (on the Southern coast of South West England)

        Torre Abbey is a slightly longer stroll. From 1370 it was altered to cope with a colder climate following on from the clement Medieval warm period that gave rise to the Viking habitation of Greenland . “The original cloister had wide walkways with gently sloping roofs where canons could sit and study or pray . As the climate became colder and wetter, this was no longer possible. The cloister was rebuilt with narrower walks and less shelter. The pitch of the roof was increased to shed heavy rains and even snow.. The thatched barn was re-roofed with slate . New fireplaces were added.”

        As you can see, when it was built it was designed to cope with a warm climate but somewhere around the 1360’s the climate cooled sufficiently to require a radical revamp. This surely heralded the start of the LIA?

        Generally the 15th Century was cool, the first part of the 16th century carried this on but around the 1530’s we had a decade of some of the warmest summers in our history as can be noted in the sequence of heatwaves. This was during the Dissolution of the monasteries and we have many records from the period telling of the heat. By the 1560’s intense cold had returned. In the link to my paper I provided above you will note I reconstructed CET back to 1539 and the intermittent nature of the LIA can be clearly seen.

        Whilst there were long periods of cool weather that didn’t mean there weren’t periods of warmth as well.


      • Burl Henry

        I thought you might be interested in this item from research carried out by Historians which relates to our local Abbey built in the 12th Century (on the Southern coast of South West England)

        “Torre Abbey. From 1370 it was altered to cope with a colder climate following on from the clement Medieval warm period that gave rise to the Viking habitation of Greenland . “The original cloister had wide walkways with gently sloping roofs where canons could sit and study or pray . As the climate became colder and wetter, this was no longer possible. The cloister was rebuilt with narrower walks and less shelter. The pitch of the roof was increased to shed heavy rains and even snow.. The thatched barn was re-roofed with slate . New fireplaces were added.”

        As you can see, when it was built it was designed to cope with a warm climate but somewhere around the 1360’s the climate cooled sufficiently to require a radical revamp. This surely heralded the start of the LIA?

        Generally the 15th Century was cool, the first part of the 16th century carried this on, but around the 1530’s we had a decade of some of the warmest summers in our history as can be noted in the sequence of heatwaves. This was during the Dissolution of the monasteries and we have many records from the period telling of the heat. By the 1560’s intense cold had returned. In the link to my paper I provided above you will note I reconstructed CET back to 1539 and the intermittent nature of the LIA can be clearly seen.

        Whilst there were long periods of cool weather that didn’t mean there weren’t periods of warmth as well.


      • Tonyb:

        Thank you for the interesting historical information.

        With respect to the 1330-1340+ period, it would have been quite warm because there was only one VEI4 eruption per decade.

        This changed in 1350, when there were three VEI4 and a VEI4+ eruption, followed by a VEI4+ eruption (circa 1357), and a VEI5 in 1360 and 1362. These eruptions would have caused significant cooling.

        Again, in the 1500’s temperatures would have been quite warm because there only three VEI4 eruptions between 1482 and Nov 1532.

        There were three eruptions in 1550, with one described as Plinian (VEI unknown), but at least a VEI5 per your temperature reconstruction, a VEI4+ in 1560, a VEI5? in 1563, and a VEI6 in 1580. These eruptions would have caused temperatures to plummet.


      • Burl

        Thanks for your response at 9.42. As I illustrated there is no evidence that the LIA started with the 1257 volcano. It was 100 years later before the warm climate turned sporadically cooler.

        Ckid illustrated some of the heatwaves. I have access to storm data covering many centuries and also sea level change.

        What weather conditions would you expect the change in climate (whenever it occurred) to bring? Stormier less Stormy? Wetter drier?. No impact except on temperatures?


      • Tonyb.

        Others have cited 1257 as the start of the LiA, and I tend to agree with them.

        Samalas was a VEI7 eruption, whose cooling effects would have lasted for 15 years, or more. The next eruption was a VEI6 in 1262, which would have intensified the Samalas cooling, and another VEI6 in 1280., which would have maintained the cooling.for 5 years, or more.

        A quarter century of colder temperatures would lave initiated a lot of snowfall, and probably some glaciation, and albedo changes, which the following warm period between about 1285 and 1320 may not have completely melted away .

        With respect to temperature changes , I would expect stormier, wetter weather AROUND THE GLOBE for the colder periods, and droughts, fires, and famines during [he hotter periods.

      • Tonyb,

        “there is no evidence that the LIA started with the 1257 volcano. It was 100 years later before the warm climate turned sporadically cooler.”

        There is actually quite a lot of evidence that the climate was cooling after 1200, but coming from a warm period it took time for it to become a problem for the people of the time. The northern the people lived, the earlier they had problems with climate. The first of the 7 viking farms in Vatnahverfi was abandoned around 1250, and the last by 1350-1400.

        The start of the LIA is a subjective matter. Summer weather and winter weather did not react the same to the LIA. I have checked lots of proxies and it appears that there were four “worse” periods separated by improving periods. They can be seen in Christiansen & Ljungqvist NH reconstruction of 2012.


        Human demography and human agriculture and food prices agree quite well with climate proxies.

        More proxies can be seen in this figures:

        Not all proxies reflect all four periods. An example is Bond series of petrological detrital drift-ice, that shows three. This is likely due to diferences in precipitation. The Sporer period appears to have been very dry at certain locations.

        I find the Rinjani eruption a good mark for the start of the LIA, but different authors chose different dates.

      • Javier says [part quote] “There is actually quite a lot of evidence that the climate was cooling after 1200, but coming from a warm period—“.

        Several point to note there:
        1 it is a peak of the Eddy cycle.
        2 a peak in warming as seen in temp anomaly, polar and equatorial
        3 it is a point from where there is a downward trend (in hiccups) in temp. Half a cycle later -~490y- arrives the LIA.
        4 It depends on latitude.

        But more. There is a stubborn assumption that earth axial tilt is very stable. It is not, and is effected by planetary alignment. Plotting the available historical measurements, near 1200ce is evident a disturbance, a flicker (Eddy peak). Another appears at the LIA, c. 1650ce, also an Eddy cycle root, half cycle later.

        Anyone interested see link https://www.facebook.com/melitamegalithic/photos/a.433731873468290/2093466177494843/

        Note the scatter plot only gives the measured value of obliquity at the particular date; the sample point. The actual transient limits would be larger. For year 173ce the Roman WP, the transient left its legacy in glacier ablation and lake sediment. {at 2345bce -in lake sediment- one can see similar, the initiation of the 4k2 event – and GF Dodwell’s vindication).

      • Javier

        ‘The Viking World’ By Spinks described in great detail the various Viking settlements in Greenland.

        There were, as you know, some good years and some bad years in Greenland and more than once numbers dwindled, especially in the smaller settlements.

        Very cold periods of what could be described as the LIA occurred sporadically throughout the 400 years the Viking colonised Greenland. In the middle of the 14th century ice started to regularly choke the sea lanes between Norway and Greenland and Greenland and Iceland and around 1380 the bishop of Greenland lapsed due to difficulty in travel because of the ice. So around 1400 the climate had deteriorated sufficiently to make growing crops more difficult, trade with other countries difficult and without a bishop normal life of marriage, christening, deaths etc wound down

        In normally habitable lands-not those at the fringes-such as Europe the warmth started to seep away during the middle part of the 14th century. Until around 1400 sea levels continued to rise as can be seen from the great sea castles such as Harlech in Wales.

        As the ice returned the sea gates of such castles were stranded far from the sea as sea levels fell. Numerous observations demonstrate the warmth was mostly supplanted by cold around the 1360’s. That is not to say that in warm periods there were no cold spells nor in cold spells there were not warm periods.

        However, generally, according to written records, built structures, medieval fields, tree lines, Sea levels and glaciers movement, 1250 is in my opinion a century early to be taken as the start of the LIA. We could however think of an ‘interim’ period where the climate neither strongly featured either heat or cold.


      • I took a rough look at the Kennick activity back in 2009, I IRC. The only thing that was noticeable to me what is a change during the Maunder minimum. There was a decrease in high level volcanic activity and an increase in low level of activity VEI3 and below. This actually makes sense as low level volcanic activity does make its way to the stratosphere through chemical processes.

      • Tonyb,

        Have you heard of Bruce Campbell, professor of medieval economic history? I have used some of his data in my figures about the LIA.

        He gave a wonderful 1h talk about the 14th century crisis in 2008. Well worth the time for those interested in the intersection of climate, economy, and demography.


        I fully recomend it, and I don’t usually watch videos.

      • Viewed Memorial lecture. Informative.

        Best part towards end, with date and outcome of named volcanic eruption (Huaynaputina) of Feb 19th 1600. Inner planets including Jupiter in-line with sun, all on same side. But more, three days earlier the night with no moon, or as in Hindu annals ‘when the sun and the moon are together’.

        That points to the volcanic eruption as a secondary effect of major planetary forces.

      • Additional to the above post:
        Year 1600 saw a disturbance in obliquity. This is evident from the ancient -really not so ancient – measurements, where there is an inflection point in the readings. As in earlier instances, the reading does not indicate the peak of the disturbance, but just the value at the moment of the ‘sampling’ test.

        The times when the inner planets and -always- Jupiter as the dictating heavyweight- and the days when the moon advances and recedes from in-line position between earth and sun, appear to be times of gravity induced geological stress shifts on earth, as apparent in volcanism and tsunamis.

      • Melitamegalithic::

        With respect to the LIA temperatures around 1600, there was a VEI5 eruption in 1593, VEI4’s in 1595,,and 1597,a VEI6 in 1600, and VEI4’s in 1605, 1606 (2), and 1612. .

        This was followed by a 10 year period when there were no eruptions. Tonyb has extended the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data set back from 1695 to 1540, and he shows a HUGE temperature decrease at 1600, and a spike of warm temperatures coinciding with the 10 year period when there were no eruptions.

        All of those changes appeared to rapidly to have been caused by any orbital variations.. Clearly due to volcanism!

      • Burl

        Thanks for referencing me. It was partially an artefact of the graphing package and partly that 1540 was at the extreme edge of my calculations and partly because I could not be confident of what appeared to be the true warmth, but now I would certainly increase the temperatures of the years 1538, 1539 and 1540 substantially and certainly put them at least in line with current temperatures. I suspect that one of those years would have been the warmest (in England) in the last 500 years.

        Phil Jones was very interested in the very warm decade of 1730 and the ferociously cold winter of 1740 and wrote a paper about 2004. . He sent me a copy. I don’t know if you read it?

        I don’t know if any of this reinforces your theory or not

        best regards


      • Tonyb:

        Thanks for getting in touch again.

        No, I have not read the Phil Jones paper. Do you have a link to it?

        The warm period between 1730 and 1740 was also caused by a pause in volcanic eruptions of VEI4 or greater magnitude:

        The next eruption after Fuego (VEI4) on 1727 Aug 27, was the VEI5 eruption of Shikotsu on 1739 Aug 19.

        The 10 year warm period between the 2 eruptions must have been quite pleasant, but the VEi5 eruption at the end would have caused temperatures to plunge. There was another VEI4 just 2 years later, 1741 Aug 29 which would have also contributed to the cooling.

        And, yes, it does confirm my theory that whenever SO2 aerosol pollutants decrease, anomalous global temperatures increase and vice versa. I have never seen any exceptions.

      • Burl

        No, not orbital variations (due to orbit eccentricity; that is minor and long slow secular). It is planetary alignment.

        The available obliquity measurements for that period give an indication (but not as good as desirable, saying that now with ‘historical’ hindsight). We have readings for 1587, 1590, 1646, 1650, and in that range they indicate a flicker. (Pls note that with large gnomons these measurements are very accurate for this purpose).

        But as I said earlier at 1600 there is the best alignment including the moon between earth and sun (historically both Akkadian and Hindu know this as a time of fear). Moon movement is relatively fast so expect any change to be in less than 48hours.

        In fact the 1600 alignment was near best on 15th Feb, and your VE16 was on the 19th; Huaynaputina. (to me those are geological stress raptures; the earth is far from a homogeneous geoid, dimensionally and gravitationally).

      • Tony:

        Thank you for the link.

        Dr. J.ones did a very detailed analysis o the 1730-1740 era , but ended up concluding that it was due to natural variability, of a range that he could not predict. He briefly mentioned volcanic eruptions as a possibility, in the abstract, but that was all Nothing in the Conclusions.

        Again thank!s

      • Burl

        I am sure you are aware of Hubert L:amb


        He founded the University of East Anglia Climate section and probably investigated more causes of climate change than any other scientist.

        He was the mentor of Phil jones who then took over his position.

        I personally found Phil very helpful when I was trying to extend Lambs work on wind direction-they closely correlate to weather and climate.

        Basically in the UK winds from the South are warm and dry, from the West mild and wet, from the North cold and from the East warm in summer and cold in winter. When these directions are extended over a period long enough to be the basis of climate we can clearly see the effect in CET and older weather records. I think these are the biggest impact on climate but whether they are impacted by volcanoes I would not hazard a guess.

        Anyway the point is that The Lamb Archives are held at the UEA and I believe Phil Jones after taking retirement is still associated with them.

        I think it very likely that Phil or Lamb would have looked closely at Volcanoes over the years so why not email Phil and ask him for his opinion ?



      • Tony:

        If one examines the CET data set, and your backward extension of it, one thing is obvious: the ONLY time that temperatures increase is when are no VEI4 or larger volcanic eruptions.occurring.

        One can thus conclude that our climate is being controlled by the presence or absence of volcanic SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, at least up until the start of the Industrial revolution (circa 1850), when SO2 from the burning of fossil fuels also entered the atmosphere, having the same effect.

        I will try to reach Phil about his thoughts on the effect of volcanoes. I suspect that he considered only the VEI5 or VEI6 eruptions as having any climatic effects, and they are widely spaced.

      • Seems the earth itself want to confirm; see https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/june-29-was-the-shortest-day-in-recorded-history-%E2%80%94-a-wobble-in-the-earths-spin-shaved-off-159-milliseconds/ar-AA10b6fv?li=BBnb7Kz

        An abrupt change in mass distribution? (so momentum is unchanged). June 29 has an interesting planetary orientation, but more importantly it is the darkest night with no moon (Akkadian) or when the moon and sun are together (Hindu).

        The moon is a key player.

      • Melitamegalithic:

        I was wondering whether 1600 alignment that you mentioned might have triggered the VEI6 eruption at that date (or is that what you were inferring?

        Including the 540 (+ or – 100 yrs) VEI6 eruption of Rabaul, and the 1991 Pinatubo VEI6 eruption, there have been 18 VEI6, and 3 VEI7 events.

        Have there been similar alignments for any of them?

      • Burl

        Allow me first put the matter into some perspective. Planetary alignments were suspected because they seemed to also align with events in the past five millennia (besides other factors). See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/searching-evidence-keplers-trigons-and-events-in-the-holocene-2/
        The dates were still +/- several years. It was early this year that dates began to come closer to months, or even days. Still on trial.

        Planetary alignments seem to matter, however the effect of the moon seems to be the triggering element. There are ‘many’ alignments that may effect the earth in some way. Then also the effect may be major or minor.

        Volcanism may be a collateral, that of inducing geological stresses leading to raptures, or (like Etna) a release valve.

        Examples (re your question)
        Raboul 683ce. On 26 October a good alignment mainly Jupiter earth venus and sun and moonless night (moon in-line towards sun+venus.

        ??? of 536ce. A close orientation of E moon (moonless night) V sun.

        It seems the approaching and receding moon from in-line position is a stress raiser and trigger.

        See link in earlier post re June 29th shortest day. A short day is likely a precession jump (and/due to a flicker in obliquity). But full info is needed. The planetary requirements were met.

      • Hi Burl

        I can’t remember where I read the paper, but it concerned droughts and winds and how vast amounts of soil and sand were pushed into the atmosphere. In Roman Times as you know, North Africa was their breadbasket but the sands then moved in. Presumably these have an impact . I note this from the Smithsonian


        How significant soil and sand (and other small scale contaminants) are compared to volcanoes I don’t know, but if they coincided with them that might have a significance.


  26. Well, well, well … we’re in a mega-drought! I had no idea!

    The western and southwestern U.S. is wilting under the biggest drought in 1,200 years — a megadrought. As of writing this, most of the country is experiencing drier-than-normal conditions, but things remain particularly severe from Texas to Washington state.

    Scientists have identified climate change as a significant contributing factor to the extent and severity of droughts in general. And one study pegged about 40% of the current dry conditions in the Southwest on human-caused climate shifts.


  27. 117th CONGRESS
    2d Session
    S. 4242

    To provide for the preservation and storage of uranium-233 to foster development of thorium molten-salt reactors, and for other purposes.


  28. Nuclear power is the way to go, not renewables

    1.1 Renewables are expensive, unreliable, short life

    Renewables (solar, wind, hydro, biomass, etc.) are hugely expensive, unreliable and have short operating lives (e.g. 15 to 30 years). And they require huge energy storage capacity.

    The disposal costs for solar panels and wind turbines are very high, adding to the cost of the electricity they generate.

    The transmission costs are huge because the transmission line to each renewable plant must be sized to carry the full output of each plant but, on average, transmit only 15% to 35% of the output capacity of solar and wind plants.

    Also, the transmission lines must be very long because the renewable plants are widely dispersed in country areas away from where the power is used. The transmission lines need to run to energy storage sites (pumped hydro and batteries) and from the energy storage sites to the areas where the power is required.

    The transmission system will become increasingly vulnerable to disruption by foreign powers. The economic cost of disruption can be huge as it disrupts manufacturing and transport.

    Furthermore, wind energy:
    • is almost always a net economic liability to host communities,
    • has many proven problematic environmental consequences,
    • can cause well-documented adverse human health impacts.

    1.2 Nuclear power is safest and cheapest

    Nuclear power is the safest and can become the cheapest way to supply power as:

    • The enormous regulatory impediments that are making them so costly to build are removed;

    • Small modular reactors (SMR) are built in factories, shipped to site and installed rapidly;

    • Their costs come down as more and more are built on production lines in factories, and they are improved and their production and construction costs come down;

    • They can operate for up to 60 to 80 years, thus greatly reducing the cost of replacements;

    • Transmission costs can be greatly reduced over time as smaller reactors replace large ones and they are installed close to demand centres; and, eventually, as micro reactors replace SMRs. Micro reactors can be sized for industrial estates, commercial properties, shopping centres, apartment complexes, and eventually for individual residential properties, thus greatly reducing the size of and, eventually, the need for an electricity grid.

  29. Much is being made about the current European heatwave. Many articles imply the obligatory causative relationship to AGW, as if heatwaves didn’t exist pre IPCC.

    Here is evidence to the contrary. The media would have a field day with some of these events.

    Heat and drought in Europe in 1132, 1152, 1160, 1276, 1277, 1303, 1304, 1393, 1394, 1440, 1538, 1539, 1540, 1541, 1556, 1615, 1616, 1646, 1678, 1701, 1702, 1703,, 1718,, 1723, 1724, 1746, 1748, 1754, 1760, 1767, 1778, 1788, 1811, 1818, 1830, 1832, 1835, 1850.


    • “Much is being made about the current European heatwave.”

      I don’t think so. For 9 days we have been between 27-40ºC in Madrid. Our apartment temperature didn’t go below 29ºC and reached 32.5ºC several days. We couldn’t open the windows until 1-2 am because it was still warmer outside. It was not fun, and another heatwave may be coming over the next weekend.

      Regardless of causes and contributions, the world is warming. This is a fact. The only weather phenomenon that can be safely predicted (and the IPCC has high confidence) is the increase in frequency and intensity of heat waves. If the world warms you cannot have less of those.

      • Javier

        The thrust of my comments was that the media, in their usual shoot from the hip fashion, are blaming AGW for heatwaves when the attribution issue is not cut and dried. I agree it is warming. I agree that the IPCC sees a causative relationship between AGW and heatwaves.

        I don’t know that a warming world necessarily means more heatwaves. Beyond trying to systematically define a heatwave and all the characteristics therein and concluding that we have more of precisely the same kind over centuries, I’m not sure the data shows a relationship.

        There is general agreement that it’s warmer now than in the 1930s and yet we have this.


        We have this analysis



        John CHRISTY from UAH has recently said

        “…. but what we have done in many, many ways is examine these claims about things getting worse, and they simply are not, whether you’re talking about hurricanes or tornadoes or floods or droughts, or heat waves and so on, we’ve examined those trends and they just are not significant one way or the other.”


      • >> Regardless of causes and contributions, the world is warming.
        well, there is a lot of good data showing about 1.2°C warming over the last 150 year or so.

        >> Our apartment temperature didn’t go below 29ºC and reached 32.5ºC several days.

        There is no evidence that this maybe unusual weather is in any way related to CO2 (apart from the part in the average warming)
        Meteorologists seem to put most the responsibility for this phenomena in Europe onto a fluctuation for the polar vortex (like almost all unusual European weather events)
        I do not think we have the knowledge to claim certainty about any anthropogenic influence on the polar vortex and thus whatever weather you experiencing right now.

      • CKid,

        I don’t know about the 1930s. In Spain there is good data since 1975. Before that date the number of stations was too low to get a good geographical coverage of heatwaves and coldwaves. The data for heatwaves is here (in Spanish):

        They have their own definition of heatwaves:
        “A “heat wave” is considered to be an episode of at least three consecutive days in which at least 10% of the stations considered recorded maximum temperatures above the 95% percentile of their daily maximum temperature series for the months of July and August of the period 1971-2000.”

        The data shows a decrease in coldwaves and increase in heatwaves, that is what should be expected given the warming since 1975. Given the nature of the phenomena analyzed, that is exceptional with years when there are no occurrences, the statistical trend is not significant, which doesn’t mean heatwaves have not increased. They have.


        A heatwave in this hemisphere takes place when a mass of air from the South moves over. It is obvious that if the world is warming those masses will sometimes be warmer. As it is a meridional displacement it is linked to the meridional circulation, which responds to the strength of the polar vortex (and jet stream). Atmospheric blocking conditions make them worst by increasing the number of days they last. Blocking conditions are also linked to the meridional circulation and the jet stream.

        I have not talked about anthropogenicity in any way related to heatwaves. Their increase is linked to the warming of the planet. In my opinion it is the only weather phenomenon that should show an increase with the warming, even if it is affected by changes in atmospheric circulation.

      • “”” It is obvious that if the world is warming those masses will sometimes be warmer. As it is a meridional displacement it is linked to the meridional circulation, which responds to the strength of the polar vortex (and jet stream). “””
        is correct

        “””heatwaves. Their increase is linked to the warming of the planet. “””
        seems overconfident to me, at least for heatwaves in Europe.
        I believe the proven science is still looking into this.
        James Overland for example said the following about the polar vortex in 2016
        “Because of the complexity of the atmospheric physics behind circulation patterns, though, it’s unclear exactly how a warming Arctic may give rise to a wavy jet stream. ”

        There are many claims about climate and “model proven statements”, but the reality is, the understanding of this planet has not improved much over the last 30 years.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        I have often shown Australian data in direct contradiction of the assertion that heatwaves are becoming longer, hotter and more frequent in our 6 State capital cities.
        Cherry picking of raw data, like starting time series at year 1910, is a popular alarmist tactic. Another is to ignore UHI. Another is to “define” heatwaves in ways that favour alarmism. Another is to “homogenise” raw data subjectively. Yet another is to assume, without evidence, that heatwave temperatures are not capped and do not get hotter if ambient temperatures rise.
        Whatever, but the simple analysis of raw data over its full term says nope, the Establishment is wrong, wrong, wrong.
        A report update and expansion is in progress, trying for release in a week or two.
        Geoff S

    • CKID

      That is a very good list although a number are missing, including that of 1666 which was supposed to have caused the great fire of London.

      What is interesting with heatwaves is how often they are grouped, as you will readily see from your list, the most prominent being the scorchingly hot ones in 1538 1539 1540 and 1541. I suspect they were the hottest in the last thousand years. Our hot summer of 1976 was grouped with that of 1975

      Droughts (not always associated with heatwaves) also tended to be bunched together as does storminess, with the latter often providing the characteristics for the best part of a decade.

      My conclusion overall would be that the last 100 years have been relatively benign and do not compare with some of the truly cataclysmic events of the past, whether it is storms, floods, drought, heat or snow , which shaped the landscape and destroyed towns and infrastructure.

      Of course in the modern world there are far more people, often detached from nature with 24/7 news eager to report mishaps from around the world.

      Many of the events of the past will not have been seen or recorded and therefore not make it into modern science papers.

      • climatereason – Is the 104 F temp in Britain, being splashed all over all the lame stream media, actually the highest? If so, do you have any documentation as proof? TIA.

      • cKid

        This article shows the maximum temperatures. Worth reading the comments as well


        The eastern side of Britain is susceptible to the weather on the continent. On the western side in Coastal Devon our temperatures were very much lower ; 25C on the Monday and 29C on the Tuesday. The heat wave lasted these 2 days then obviously the CO2 must have blown away as the temperature dropped 10 to 15C. Or of course it could have been that an Azores high sat over England in just the wrong position that it drew up very hot air direct from the Sahara and when that drifted away and wind direction changed then temperatures dropped..

        My estimate from looking at the 40C plus figures is that some were at Airfields, one in the middle of London and the other on sandy heat retaining and.. As regards Cambridge I wrote a whole article on this last year as urban encroachment make the site unsuitable for measuring temperatures.

        So I think the desire was to be able to proclaim we reached over 40C which I doubt, but there is no doubt that somewhere in the UK reached at least around 39.5C which would have been a record.

        However it is only short lived weather and if we had our coldest ever July day then no one would have said we were entering an ice age


      • jim2

        Sorry I addressed my reply to ckid instead of to you


      • Geoff Sherrington

        I enjoy your objectivity, thank you.
        Where historic temperatures allow it, I try to encourage researchers to place uncertainty calculations with the temperature numbers. One aim is to see if temperature differences are merely noise, or are “statistically” separated. It is frustratingly hard to get official uncertainty estimates at all, let alone done by the book. Geoff S

  30. Do we need a new theory of evolution?

    It’s good to hear people question the evolution cult.
    Natural selection has always been a pagan mythology, a force endowed with every possible unscientific and anti statistical ability to create like a diety.
    Natural selection could possibly improve an existing feature, but it has absolutely no ability to create, and, therefore, the ‘scientific’ cult of evolution explains absolutely nothing about the emergence of life.

    • BS. Evolution is not a cult.

      Natural selection is an unavoidable fact of nature due to differential reproduction and survival. COVID evolution is a perfect example of natural selection. I predicted it would evolve towards more contagious less damaging strains, as many other biologists and epidemiologists did.

      Natural selection is not the way diversity is created, it is a force that acts on diversity altering the genetic frequencies. It has been long known that it is not the only force, but the main. Things like genetic drift or founder’s effect also alter genetic frequencies.

      You should not talk about things you have no clue. Everybody has an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valuable.

      • “Natural selection is not the way diversity is created, it is a force that acts on diversity altering the genetic frequencies. It has been long known that it is not the only force, but the main. Things like genetic drift or founder’s effect also alter genetic frequencies.”

        Nonsensical drivel.
        Natural selection as a force can tune an existing mechanism.
        Natural selection can never tune to a nonexisting mechanism because there is no benefit accrued by a nonexisting mechanism.
        A lump of cells that can sense light might be tuned into an eye (ridiculous, but I grant for the sake of argument).
        But a lump of cells is a tumor before that moment and will be selected away.
        To think of things statistically, the creation of any mechanism is a target which must be hit by a random walk of prodigious improbability. Most walks lead to tumors and death.

        If there is some mystical, magical force other than Natural Selection that you claim creates the wonder of life, NAME it and lay it one the table so it can be destroyed just as the concept of Natural Selection has been destroyed.

        Our very framework of thermodynamics tells us exactly how the mechanistic universe plays out. We are inexorably headed to a state of maximum entropy, a universal soup of hyper atmoic particles zipping about at light speed. To argue for a local minimum of entropy like life is to essentially make the argument that we live in a poem by shakespeare randomly typed by a monkey, i.e. to argue that our very existence is the ultimate improbablity, i.e. a product the LEAST of all scientific expectation- basically insanity.

      • You are the one writing nonsense.

        I have a PhD in molecular genetics so, unlike you, I know what I am talking about.

        I am one of the few people today that has read “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” by Charles Darwin from cover to cover, and I enjoyed it immensely. I have read what Ernst Mayr and Theodosious Dobzhansky had to say about evolution. I have studied the experiments of Thomas Hunt Morgan and Hermann Muller on the mutagenesis in Drosophila. I have personally genetically modified thousands of organisms and conducted selection experiments on them. I have studied evolution for four decades.

        Everything you say speaks volumens about the size of your ignorance on the matter. You should be ashamed of expressing those opinions. They aren’t worth nickels, not even a cent.

  31. David Wojick

    Virginia’s offshore wind proposal threatens endangered whales
    By David Wojick
    A good NEPA case that could constrain OSW.

    The beginning: “The massive offshore wind (OSW) project proposed by Dominion Energy may pose a serious threat to the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale population. A comprehensive environmental impact assessment is required to determine the extent of this threat and the mitigation it might require. The same is true for the other proposed Mid-Atlantic OSW projects.

    The North Atlantic Right Whale is reported to be the world’s most endangered large whale, with an estimated population of just a few hundred critters. They winter off of Florida and Georgia, but summer off New England. So they migrate through the coastal waters off of Virginia twice a year, including that year’s baby whales. They can grow to over 50 feet in length and weigh more than 70 tons. Protecting them is a major challenge.

    For background see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/north-atlantic-right-whale

    Phase one of the huge proposed Virginia/Dominion OSW project looks to occupy something like 400 square miles. Pause two might bump that up to 800 or 1,000 square miles and the proposed federal lease area for OSW is even greater, much greater in fact.

    The obvious monster question is how will all this development affect the severely endangered Right Whale population? Answering this question must be central to the project’s required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under NEPA. This is Federal land.”

    Lots more follows.

    • This does call for a study. Turbines make noise, including infrasound. We know whales communicate via sound. What is the frequency range of their “hearing?” This could definitely be catastrophic to the whales and maybe even other marine life.

      • Less noise would be better all around but that’s probably the least worrisome. Ship engines, sonar and under water seismic surveying should be better studied too.

        Since 1970, nearly half of all documented North Atlantic right whale deaths have been due to two human-related causes—ship strikes and entanglements in fishing gear.

        Counter intuitively offshore wind farms will divert shipping from sailing through those areas and prevent ship strikes. On the other hand if wind turbine pylons are anything like the oil platforms in the gulf of Mexico it will enhance fish stocks.

      • Joe - the non climate scientist

        doesnt the salt water corrode the cables fairly quickly – 10-15 years or so.

        leakage from the electric current probably not a good thing.

        How well are the maintenance costs figured into the total costs?

      • Rob Starkey

        Hopefully those funding the project are considering the life of things in a saltwater environment. Pretty silly if they weren’t.

      • Can anyone point to any study of the impact of ocean wind turbines on sea life. If they exist, surely the wind turbine companies would be touting them. Right? No?

      • jim2

        Although not directly related to your comment thought you might be interested to see there are other disturbances to sea life. This was part of an email i received asking for funds to stop the air blasting

        ““This summer the marine life of the Irish Sea, off the West Coast of Cumbria, will be blasted with airguns every five seconds for twenty days, unless we can stop it,” says Marianne Birkby, founder of environmental campaign group Radiation Free Lakeland.

        She’s launching a last minute legal challenge against plans for seismic blasting—blasting the seafloor with high-powered airguns—by Nuclear Waste Services (NWS) “who want to investigate the geology beneath the Irish Sea bed for a deep and very hot nuclear waste dump”.

        This area is home to common and bottlenose dolphins, porpoise, minke whale and sea turtles, which are all European Protected Species, as well as basking shark whose plankton food source is likely to suffer significant impacts from the blasting.


      • David Wojick

        There is a large research literature on the potential impact of offshore wind arrays, including on marine mammals. Here is a good place to start:
        The attached database has over 2,000 studies.

        But the NA Right Whale is both severely endangered and little studied, especial in migration. The issue is whether NEPA will cause this $10-20 billion project to be delayed for a decade or so while the necessary research is carried out? Wind versus whales. Stay tuned.

  32. “ The European Union set out emergency plans on Wednesday for countries to cut their gas use by 15% until March, warning them that without deep cuts now they could struggle for fuel during winter if Russia cuts off supply.

    Europe is racing to fill its gas storage ahead of winter and build a buffer in case Moscow further restricts supplies in retaliation for European support for Ukraine following Russia’s invasion. A dozen EU countries are already facing reduced Russian deliveries, and EU officials say a full Russian gas halt is likely”


  33. Ulric Lyons

    “This coupled variability improves the performance of statistical models, which project further weakening of North Atlantic Oscillation, North Atlantic cooling and hiatus in wintertime North Atlantic-Arctic sea-ice and global surface temperature just like the 1950s–1970s.”

    The last 8 years have seen an increase in positive NAO conditions compared to the previous 20 years. The three coldest AMO anomalies in the mid 1970’s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s, all had positive NAO regimes. The AMO and Arctic warming was during the negative NAO regimes 1995-1999 and 2005-2013:


  34. The Climate Alarmists and Green Energy Zealots are making great piles of hay out of the weather events of the day. It’s sad, really.

    Headlines from around the world serve as a dire chronicle that long-standing predictions rooted in careful scientific analysis have become a reality: the planet is in an increasingly dire set of climate and ecological crises—raising fundamental questions about sustainability, governance, geopolitics, and security. India just experienced a record-breaking heat wave. Corn crops in middle America are facing an increasingly constrained growing season. Germany suffered devastating floods. In the Congo, a race is on for essential minerals to build batteries. Meanwhile, from the Pacific to the Caribbean, the ocean is encroaching on small island states. Insect infestations leave trees deadened into kindling for wildfires. Texas, an oilman’s state, is becoming a bastion for wind power. A battery-making iconoclast is the richest man on earth.


  35. Matthew R Marler

    Judith, thank you again for these suggested readings. I don’t spend as much time here as before, but I always look forward to the “week in review.

  36. Do we need a new theory of evolution? Well, someone does.

    The death of a science due to politicization is analogous to a caterpillar being parasitized by the injected eggs of an ichneumon wasp. The eggs hatch into larvae which eat the caterpillar from the inside, hollowing it out. Eventually only the dead husk of the caterpillar remains but the multiple offspring of the ichneumon hatch forth into the world.

    Thus what was once climate science now only has the appearance of a science from the outside; but it is full of larvae of political activists which are busy destroying the functional and living elements of the science. Essential foundations such as climate records, and even logical structures such as falsifiability and the null hypothesis, are being destroyed. Geological climate reconstructions are being magicked into conformity with pre-ordained CO2 dogma. Soon all that will be left are the names and logos of scientific societies and journals and universities, but no science, only activists.

    And this has not happened only to climate science. It happened previously to radiation biology when it was decreed that the science must serve the political function of shutting down the nuclear industry. This was to be achieved by inflating the dangers of ionizing radiation and birthing the corrosive fiction of the linear no-threshold radiation carcinogenesis (or mutagenesis) hypothesis-fact. This burdens the nuclear industry with needless and costly regulations and redundant measures, renders politically impossible the disposal of nuclear waste and allows activists to say with affected innocence “nuclear is interesting – but way too expensive”.

    Now this ichneumon parasitization is being injected into another science – biological evolution. Ironically the arguments of creationism are being turned against classical Darwinian evolution not by bible-belt evangelicals, but by (equally religious) scientists concerned about the political correctness of evolution. The language and paradigm of life from natural selection and sexual reproduction are an awkward fit with current emerging political narratives, particularly that concerning gender, trans-gender and sexual orientation. The question for instance of what – if anything – is a woman, or a man?

    So the new synthesis brings in a crowded and confused narrative of apparently new (but generally not new) ideas and mechanisms, such as epigenetics and statistical models of group selection. By the familiar smoke-and-mirrors wave of a wand, these new arguments sufficiently confuse the evolutionary and selective basis of living organisms to allow activists to effectively deny the need to acknowledge biology in political decisions, definitions and power structures.


    So science after science is being hollowed out by the ichneumon larvae of political activism. Any science that causes any kind of obstruction to the advancement of the progressive political empire must be wasp-injected in this manner. More and more, science is servile to politics. As Russell Brand puts it so well – “don’t follow the science because the science only follows the money”. Science must be shaped to serve and not oppose new political mandates. And they’ve now got an efficient mechanism of changing science from the inside. Ironically it borrows from the same nature whose truths it so fears – the subversive, deadly genius of the ichneumon wasp.

  37. An article about AGW induced flooding in Pakistan prompted me to read the following about droughts and flooding in the region. I doubt any journalist would have asked the obvious, how do the recent floods compare with those in the past.

    “Evidences from proxy records indicate that past monsoonal variations were dominated by decadal- to millennial-scale variability and long-term trends….Reconstruction of SW monsoon variability based on stalagmite oxygen isotope ratios from Central India indicates a gradual decrease in monsoon during the beginning of the mid-Holocene from 8.5 to 7.3 ka BP, followed by a steady increase in monsoon intensity between 6.3 and 5.6 ka BP. This overall trend of monsoon during the mid-Holocene is punctuated by abrupt megadrought events spanning 70–100 years. During the past 1500 years, centennial-scale climate oscillations include the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) during 900–1300 AD—with relatively stronger monsoon, and the…(LIA) during 1400–1850 AD—with the relatively .. Severe drought, in India, lasting decades occurred during fourteenth and mid-fifteenth centuries in LIA. Nearly every major famine, including the devastating Durga Devi famine during 1396–1409 AD, coincides with a period of reduced monsoon rainfall, …. A possible influence of ENSO is suggested for the Indian monsoon variability during the mid-Holocene, MWP and LIA .”
    “ In general, the increasing trend in the heavy rainfall events is found to be the major factor for the rising trend in flood occurrences in India. However, with the limited observational flood records, it is difficult to ascertain whether the increasing trend in floods is attributed to natural climate variability or to anthropogenically driven climate change.”
    “ Palaeoclimate records from Indian peninsular rivers have indicated the occurrence of floods in the ancient period as well… Moreover, considerable variations in the frequency and magnitude of large floods during the last two millennia are observed in some of the western, central and south Indian rivers such as Luni, Narmada, Tapi, Godavari, Krishna, Pennar and Kaveri. The Late Holocene period witnessed clustering of large floods whereas extreme floods were absent during the late MWP and LIA… This suggests a close association of century-scale variations in river floods with the variations in monsoon rainfall across the Indian subcontinent. However, a comparison of the Late Holocene floods with the post-1950 floods over palaeoflood sites in the Indian peninsular rivers indicates that the recent flood events are more intense than those during the past”


  38. Patterns of surface warming and cooling in the eastern Pacific drives flood, drought, biology and temperature across the planet. Floods and droughts in different places I should add. I presume it contributed to cooler conditions in the middle of the last millennium. Just as it added to warming over the past 40 years.


    The mechanism likely involves the polar annular modes spinning up oceanic gyres. A mechanism that forces polar westerlies into lower latitudes bringing storms and freezing temps.

    e.g. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decadal-Patterns-of-Westerly-Winds%2C-Temperatures%2C-A-Oviatt-Smith/4c7e808e87991c7240015953799e79b11d53bc5a

    Sceptics indulge in dogmatic eyeballing and then whine about the state of science. It’s regrettably anti-science and shows no sign of improving.

  39. What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula?
    What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?

    Why is the actual mean temperature of the moon so much lower than the effective temperature? NASA lists the effective temperature of the moon at 270.6 kelvin. The mean temperature of the moon at the equator is 220 kelvin.

    With no atmospheric effects, why is the surface temperature so much lower than the effective temperature predicts? What factor is NOT part of the effective temperature formula that so dramatically affects the actual temperature of the moon?

    I’ll tell you what it is:
    It is the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface Moon Φ= 0,47.

    Te.correct.moon = [ Φ (1-a) So /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
    Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (1-0,11) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Te.correct.moon = [ 0,47 (0,89) 1.362 W/m² /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
    Te.correct.moon =
    [ 2.510.168.871,25 ]¹∕ ⁴ =

    Te.correct.moon = 223,83 Κ

    This simple example clearly demonstrates the CORRECTNESS of the Φ -the planet solar irradiation accepting factor. For smooth surface planets, like Moon, Φ= 0,47.

    From now on, for every smooth surface planet and moon, we should take in consideration instead of the planet blackbody effective temperature Te , the corrected VALUES of the planet blackbody effective temperature – the Te.corrected.

    Table of results for Te and Te.corrected compared to Tsat and to Rotations/day for smooth surface planets and moons with Φ=0,47

    Mercury…440K….364K…….340K …0,00568

    The number 0,47 for smooth surface in a parallel fluid flow is taken from the well measured and long ago known Drag Coefficient Data, where Cd =0,47 is for sphere. It is the portion of incident on sphere energy which should be resisted by sphere to remain in balance.


  40. An interesting piece about the level of knowledge and sophistication regarding hydrology in ancient India.

    “ Hydrologic knowledge in India has a historical footprint extending over several millenniums through the Harappan civilization (∼ 3000–1500 BCE) and the Vedic Pe- riod (∼ 1500–500 BCE). As in other ancient civilizations across the world, the need to manage water propelled the growth of hydrologic science in ancient India..


    “ The decline of the Harappan civilization is still a puzzle; there is no clear reason, and the topic is still being debated in historical and scientific circles. Many factors such as climatic, economic, and political factors have been attributed to the spectacular decline of the Harappan civilization.”

    Possible factors

    “ Climate change. The dry epoch that lasted for about 900 years due to weakening of the Indian summer monsoon (around 4350 years ago) adversely impacted the agrarian society of this civilization… The period of a long dry spell reduced the snow cover in the northwest Himalaya, causing reduced water availability in the Indus River .”

    “ Natural disasters. The presence of silt deposits and topographic and geological anomalies suggest that the occurrence of massive floods might have caused the de cline of the Harappan civilization. Tectonic disturbances might have altered the course of the Indus River, affecting the water availability…”


  41. From a 1983 interview with an EPA official

    • The only way to avert catastro-
    phe from an inevitable buildup of carbon dioxide in
    the atmosphere is to learn to live with major
    changes that will start showing up in a decade and
    eventually disrupt food pro-
    duction and melt polar ice
    caps. government scientists
    said Tuesday
    Scientists at the Environ-
    mental Protection Agency
    pictured a world in the next
    century in which New York
    City could have a climate like
    Daytona Beach. Fla.. and to-
    day’s Midwestern wheat belt
    could shift significantly north-
    ward into Canada.
    Stephen Seidel
    “We are trying to get people to realize that
    changes are coming sooner than they expected.”
    said John S. Hoffman. EPA director of strategic
    studies. “Major changes will be here by the years
    1990 to 2000 and we have to learn how to live with them”

    The Detroit Lions were losing in 1983, 1990 and 2000 and they are still losing today. No major changes there.


  42. Something tells me there will be a number of comments about this paper that just came out this afternoon. A lot of red meat.

    “ Knowledge overconfidence is associated with anti-consensus views on controversial scientific issues”

    “ Public attitudes that are in opposition to scientific consensus can be disastrous and include rejection of vaccines and opposition to climate change mitigation policies. Five studies examine the interrelationships between opposition to expert consensus on controversial scientific issues, how much people actually know about these issues, and how much they think they know. Across seven critical issues that enjoy substantial scientific consensus, as well as attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines and mitigation measures like mask wearing and social distancing, results indicate that those with the highest levels of opposition have the lowest levels of objective knowledge but the highest levels of subjective knowledge. Implications for scientists, policymakers, and science communicators are discussed.”


  43. The link to ‘green energy minerals’ – https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3538648-green-energy-minerals-key-role-in-the-race-for-climate-action/

    These minerals are key to advanced technologies proliferating across the planet. Supply bottlenecks are not at the mining end but in midstream processing. I get news of discoveries in my inbox every day – what counts is the ability to transform rock into oxides and then produce the product at low cost.

    e.g. https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/3538648-green-energy-minerals-key-role-in-the-race-for-climate-action/

  44. David Wojick

    More on Wind versus Whales offshore Virginia:


    BOEM may be hiding data on Right Whale migration in order to protect the huge proposed wind project.

    • ‘Construction and operation of hundreds of wind turbines is likely to introduce increased ocean noise, vessel traffic and possibly habitat alteration. All of these factors have the potential to affect right whales.

      Increased vessel traffic in the region will bring with it a greater risk of vessel strikes, one of the leading causes of serious injury and death of right whales.

      Increased noise from wind turbine construction and operations and vessels could also directly impact important whale behaviors and interfere with the detection of critical acoustic cues. These types of impacts may also be associated with physiological stress and could affect the whales’ use of the region.

      The presence of wind turbine foundations may impact oceanographic and atmospheric conditions including potential changes in ocean stratification. This might alter the formation of plankton aggregations and thus foraging opportunities for right whales.’ https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/right-whale-use-southern-new-england-wind-energy-areas-increasing

      Here’s the study.


      This are the first steps in risk analysis from which monitoring and mitigation strategies emerge. I am not convinced of the severity of these risks. But the only way to find out is to build and monitor.

      • Not so sure it’s a wise idea to deploy the machines and then hope for the best. How about careful and unbiased analysis, including reviewing existing information from European offshore wind as well as the units offshore from Rhode Island.
        There is no pressing environmental reason to rapidly deploy thousands of the behemoth contraptions. Looks to me more of a pressing desire to line the pockets of investors.

      • Read the study linked. There is insufficient knowledge to be definitive. And insufficient risk to justify vetoing the projects. This is more often than not the case for large projects.

        Monitoring and risk management is SOP.

  45. Climate trajectory.
    Since Climate change is based only on CO2 change (IPCC)
    and causes Climate change by increasing the surface temperature of the world (IPCC),
    any reliable measure of the amount of energy ( hence temperature by default) on a daily basis in the world should equate ti the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    We do not have this figure available.
    Sheer temperature is not enough because of the multitude of interacting factors such as actual Solar output for the day and actual received energy due to albedo and cloud cover changes.

    Currents, in my opinion, have no effect on the amount of incoming or outgoing energy.
    This is controversial but correct when considering heat transfer physics.
    Something is either hot or cold or in between and the whole sum of what is given off by deep hot currents or cold surface currents ( ignoring the inherent contradictions) and the rest of the atmosphere and surface day side, night side, poles or equator is the amount of what comes in that day.

    So what are we left with?
    Proxies, models and proxy (is that proxy?) models.
    ATTP has a good post up on logical fallacies which compliments this comment.

    A good long term proxy model is the SOI.
    Falling rapidly at the moment to 10:1 from somewhere in the low 20’s.
    Why not use this as a Proxy for global energy daily input?
    According to such a model (one has to use the inverse) the energy for the last 6 months has been below average. This has resulted in a cooling of Global temperatures for the second year running.

    Yes there are problems, the Pacific, the rest of the globe, but as a measure used this way it probably has a higher correlation with the temperature rises we have seen.
    It does not exclude CO2 as a cause as both suggest rising temperatures but it cautions against the use of only one of the many causes of temperature. (Climate) change.
    The fact that the IPCC and warmists ignore these other factors claiming they all balance out, when they obviously cannot, is the basis for rejecting the scientific validity of such claims.

    • See
      Geoff Sherrington
      Jun 19, 2022
      There is so much guessing going on with fluxes that subjective “arguments from data lack” could be proposed as a category for logic arguments.
      There seems to be no data-based way to determine if a location on the global surface is a source or a sink, apart from direct indicators like vegetation increase/decrease. I know of no instrument that can be placed over a spot of ocean to measure the direction of flow of CO2. Over land, a tree phytometer can sort of answer part of the question.

      • Sherrington is a clueless ideologue whose one recourse is to reject data.

      • “Anyone who disagrees with me is a clueless ideologue whose one recourse is to reject data.”

        An example of tact v tact.

        Skeptical science ironically put up this post in 31 March 2020 by John Cook A history of FLICC: the 5 techniques of science denial.

        The person who describes most of these techniques in full and knowledgeable detail puts them up in a blog so that everyone can understand the techniques of undermining another sides scientific arguments.
        This was most courageous and decent of him

        For a moment I thought Willard might be John Cook, but one of them,the charming, erudite and logical man has a much better grasp of English subtlety than the other.

        ATTP said, and I agree with him
        ” I tend to think these are useful heuristics that can help to identify misinformation, but they’re not perfect and there is probably a difference between someone who might sometimes seem to use these techniques, and those who do so regularly.”
        DM said ,and I agree with him
        “If the science is on your side, there is little to be gained by using these sort of rhetorical strategems.”

      • Unless you address the data elephant in the refrigerator your latest is a gigantic red herring.


        Just ignore science and data and you can indulge in any fantasy you like.

      • Dogmatic verbosity isn’t a substitute for discovery.

      • And that there are clueless ideologues at large is indisputable.

    • UK-Weather Lass

      Probability theory was born to help those who liked to gamble. At one end of the scale 1 represented certainty and, at the other, 0 represented, originally at least, the impossible. But neither end was actually finitely true because the elephant in the room was infinity and infinity cannot be tamed. Does infinity mean nothing is impossible and everything is possible and is nature the mechanism exploring, by accident or by design, just how far a probability scale stretches no matter what nominal finite units are used at either end?

      In fact should the whole probability theory be based around a circle which simply cannot be squared and has no end or beginning? What of Phi, the Golden Ratio, and their appearances in harmonics and other infinite series? Don’t they suggest there is something very magical about the way things change and that humans are seldom able to demonstrate that magic because that is the nature of all life?

      For forty odd hours on Monday and Tuesday this week it got very hot where I live (38C – no record breaking here) but when the temperature eventually tumbled back to average it did so very rapidly. The sudden heating up was just as easy to understand too – it just didn’t cool down overnight and with a head start the sun just couldn’t help itself. And yet these are the things some wish us to believe are proof of climate change and that mankind is the driving force behind it?

      Most of the calories we burn are keeping our body temperature at an optimal level whether we are sleeping, being sedentary or exercising actively. The more excess weight you carry the tougher the task our body faces since it was designed to have healthy weight whatever shape we are. You can change shape and weight but does only nature know who you really are? Is fitness primarily a state of mind and not a state of body?

      Likewise is a healthy planet one that thrives or one that cannot cure its own hypochondria? Thank goodness nature isn’t a human being, a control freak with a desire to get everything just perfect.

      Nature doesn’t do perfection in anything and that’s something we could do well to understand.

      • Jean-Paul Sartre that being and nothingness cannot coexist – therefore the universe is infinite. Douglas Adams demonstrated that in an infinite universe the probability of any anything at all happening approaches unity.

        You assume – however – an improbable planetary homeostasis.

      • UK weather Lass

        Here on the South Coast of Devon we only reached 25C on Monday and 29C on tuesday. So obviously the huge CO2 bubble causing the high temperatures reached you but avoided us.

        Or it could be just ‘weather’ that was caused by a very warm plume of Air sucked up by the southerly wind from the Sahara and directed by the position of the Azores high sitting over us. It disappeared as quickly as it arrived.


      • Tonyb:

        I noted your comments regarding the cause of the recent high temperatures in Great Britain.

        You mention a large CO2 bubble. as a possibility. CO2 is a well-mixed gas, comprising about .04% of our atmosphere, and as such a bubble of just CO2 is an impossibility…

        You also mention the possibility of warm air being drawn in from another area. This was the cause attributed to the European heat wave of June 2019, hot air being drawn in from Africa. However, temperatures at that time were actually hotter in Europe than those in Africa

        What probably caused your higher temperatures was a temporarily stalled high-pressure weather system, where temperatures always rise drastically, and are characterized by low wind velocities, clear skies, and a lack of precipitation.

        Meteorological records should be available to determine whether that may have been the cause.

      • UK-Weather Lass


        Given your deep knowledge of Britain’s historic weather you may be interested in providing some added context to this article which appeared in today’s Guardian.


        One would never have imagined how a blitzed London survived WW2, but for the very detailed planning and fire regulations that existed both before and after the war courtesy of the LCC and then the GLC. One wonders how academics such as those quoted have not been more outspoken about fire dangers before an event that satisfies the ‘new woke agenda’. It feels like Grenfall all over again or the day cladding dropped off a building in Sutton, Surrey taking a brick wall with it. Fortunately there were no casualties in the latter case.

        These guys are always so wise after the event.

      • Burl Henry

        As regards my co2 bubble comment I was being facetious as I am sure my Fellow Brit-UK weather Lass- realised. As xco2 is supposed to be the cause of everything then a big bubble of it causing the warming would be the explanation of choice from the media

        .I am not disputing your second last paragraph but the heat originated from the Sahara and beyond, travelled over a number of mountain ranges possibly causing a fohn effect and stalled, so by the second day of the heatwave and without significant cooling overnight the day got off to a very warm start.


      • Tonyb:

        I initially thought you that were being facetious, but you mentioned it again in a later post, and I wasn’t sure.

        The key word in your reply was “stalled”.. Such events always result in much higher temperatures.

        I have a paper on Google Scholar explaining the reason.for the temperature spikes.

      • Samuel Pepys described the great fire of London well in his diary. several months of hot dry weather, no fire brigade, a strong wind, wooden houses touching each other and that fires were a frequent occurrence probably meant they did not realise how serious this one was as Pepys says in his diary.


        I suspect that in the events a few days ago, that on a hot day many people were in their garden having barbecues. You only need one or two to catch fire to a fence or a tree and the fire would quickly spread. There was a private members bill going through Parliament to ban these barbecues but it ran out of time. Certainly on nearby Dartmoor they are the cause of many wildfires. Fashionable compost heaps also often combust and these are invariably surrounded by much combustible material.


  46. “ The stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is threatened by the incursion of warm Circumpolar Deepwater which flows southwards via cross-shelf troughs towards the coast there melting ice…. Here, we use single and multichannel seismic reflection profiles to investigate the architecture of a sediment body on the shelf of the Amundsen Sea…l. We suggest this indicates a southward inflow of deep water which probably supplied heat and, thus, prevented West Antarctic Ice Sheet advance beyond the coast at this time. We conclude that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has likely experienced a strong oceanic influence on its dynamics since its initial formation.”

    Basal melting from incursion of warm water onto the ice shelves in the Amundsen Sea is a major contributor to SLR from Antarctica. This language indicates that this dynamic has existed since formation of the AIS, which means pre AGW. The warm water is not warmer water. It is the same warm water that caused Hughes 1981, to say the AIS is inherently unstable.

    Another example of natural variability finally being recognized.


  47. ‘Word is that after years of demonising the fossil fuel sector, some “environmentally responsible” themed fund managers are now warming up to it.’ https://stockhead.com.au/news/the-ethical-investor-esg-funds-are-quietly-buying-oil-and-gas-stocks-to-chase-return/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekend-07-22-2022&utm_content=httpsstockheadcomaunewstheethicalinvestoresgfundsarequietlybuyingoilandgasstockstochasereturn&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Weekend%20newsletter%20Saturday%20July%2023&utm_content=Weekend%20newsletter%20Saturday%20July%2023+CID_c0cb768fd3bc05b33b4a58f32837c86f&utm_source=Campaign%20Monitor&utm_term=The%20Ethical%20Investor%20ESG%20funds%20are%20quietly%20buying%20oil%20and%20gas%20stocks%20to%20chase%20return

    I keep Stockhead coming as a bit of light relief. ESG fund managers are post hoc justifying buying oil and gas as one of the few sectors with recent growth. But it is too late to buy oil and gas.

    e.g. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/

    I am intrigued by the idea of oil and gas trading – I have just sold CFD’s for oil and gas on a virtual eToro account to see what happens.

  48. The ‘social studies’ piece on austerity is complete claptrap. I have read it twice and still don’t know what the point was.

    The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets. So what are these laws of capitalism?

  49. Burl

    What is the exact title of your paper?

  50. ‘We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example… It is the goal of pattern formation to understand nonequilibrium systems in which the nonlinearities conspire to generate spatiotemporal structures or pattern. Many of these systems can be described by coupled nonlinear partial differential equations, and one could argue that the field of pattern formation is trying to find unifying concepts underlying these equations.’ https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

    Climate at it’s core is a fluid flow problem with feedbacks in ice, cloud, biology, winds, greenhouse gases… – that we recognise in physical indices that reveal climate shifts. An underlying paradigm based on classical hydrodynamics that are observable at all scales. Climate shifts evolve in spatiotemporal patterns.

    ‘You can see spatio-temporal chaos if you look at a fast mountain river. There will be vortexes of different sizes at different places at different times. But if you observe patiently, you will notice that there are places where there almost always are vortexes and they almost always have similar sizes – these are the quasi standing waves of the spatio-temporal chaos governing the river. If you perturb the flow, many quasi standing waves may disappear. Or very few. It depends.’ Tomas Milanovic

    • Sounds like someone believes our world was at one time in equilibrium. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

    • Matthew R Marler

      Robert I Ellison: We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium.

      Is this news? Plenty of people have written about the climate system not being an equilibrium system. I referred to the book “Modern Thermodynamics” by Kondepudi and Prigogine some years ago, especially the last few chapters which had explicit empirical and computational “patterns” in non-equilibrium systems.

      • So your point is that is an nonequilibrium thermodynamic system? Matthew doesn’t live in the real world – it is all weird abstractions without any application. Rather than focusing on the opening sentence of the Max Planck Institute for purposes of God only knows – drill down to where they discuss well defined PDE and then go deep on very limited real world applications. The math of spatiotemporal chaos is in its infancy.
        Handwaving at a textbook is ridiculous and pointless and I think that’s all Matthew is capable of.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: So your point is that is an nonequilibrium thermodynamic system?

        No. My point was that the knowledge has been around for a long time, illustrated by the thermodynamics text I cited.

        Matthew doesn’t live in the real world … then go deep on very limited real world applications.

        “limited real world applications” another point that I and others have often written.

      • And thee sum of substance remains zilch.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: Matthew doesn’t live in the real world – it is all weird abstractions without any application.

        I have frequently written that models should not be relied upon before they have been well-fitted to real (and out-of-sample) data. I have also written that technical mathematical definitions (like “bifurcation” and “catastrophe'”) should be respected.

      • I was very excited to learn in a Michael Boyd lecture that I could numerically model rainfall and runoff. A very useful tool I used throughout my career. A simple but powerful model that was calibrated to 100’s of east Australian catchments.

        e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13241583.2006.11465280

        In the spatiotemporal chaos of the real physical world a better term is shifts between climate states – best seen in time and/or space in ocean and atmospheric ‘oscillations’. There has been some success with network math using climate indices. .

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: Matthew doesn’t live in the real world – it is all weird abstractions without any application.

        By coincidence I just resumed reading Peter Webster’s book “Dynamics of the Tropical Atmosphere and Oceans”. It’s a rich but tough slog, so I read in fits and starts.

        I say by coincidence because chapter 3.2 presents pde models for the influenced in upper ocean water movement. Eqns 3.53, 3.54 and 3.55 present solutions for a simplified case, and figure 3.3 presents the measured trajectory of a parcel of water that is drifting north while following a series of anti-cyclonic revolutions..

        I recommend the book for readers who are interested in climate, etc

      • Matthew R Marler

        oops, “influences” for influenced and figure 3.11 for figure 3.

  51. These are 9 so called planetary boundaries from the Stockholm Resilience Centre. They are useful in delineating what is known from unknown – and where people are making changes to nonlinear Earth systems that are sensitive to small changes. Populations of 1000’s of animals have crashed over the last 60 years. There are many millions more unknown. Runoff from farms and cities change ecologies in wetlands, rivers, estuaries, coasts and oceans. Regenerative farming and water sensitive cities reduce nutrient loads. Conserving and restoring soils and vegetation tips the balance to more abundant life. Modern energy innovation delivers cheap, abundant and safe energy alternatives to dwindling oil, gas and coal.


    I don’t want to save the world – I just want people to make headway on all these environmental problems. All rational people want to see reduced impacts on natural systems – along with economic growth and food security.

    • Robert I Ellison

      In the YouTube two points struck me:

      The largest hog producing companies have ownership and headquarters in Brazil and China. Accountability for their corporate behavior can not be held accountable for the methane nor liquid pollution produced in the US.

      There is a difference in the terms and practices of “sustainable” and “regenerative” farming and moving forward, government policy should reflect the distinction as one size does not fit all.

      • Regenerative agricultural practices focus on soil health. A subset of sustainable practices.

        The 2023 trillion dollar US farm bill is an opportunity to tweak policy settings.


        Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement and steel manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding.

        There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximising the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.

        Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions. A global program of agricultural soils restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology.

  52. Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists, cut local fossil fuel supplies, and then “invested” in green energy. Now they reap the “profits” of that “investment.” They now realize they can’t, literally, live without fossil fuels!

    EU Gas-Cut Fears Prompt Nations to Seek Watered-Down Plan

    More nations required to trigger emergency mandatory cuts
    States can seek certain opt-outs based on individual needs


  53. I saw a headline on Bloomberg TV stating Americans are more united on “fighting” global warming than we realize. But what do Americans really want? Trucks and SUVs. Not “fighting” anything in particular.

    There is a thing that is obvious, that you can see with your own eyes every day — that Americans are buying lots of trucks and SUVs; in fact the vast majority of new car purchases are trucks and SUVs — but then you read a stat about it, and it becomes astounding all over again. The stat is this, via JD Power: That in October 2021, over 80 percent of estimated new vehicle sales in the U.S. were SUV and trucks for the first time ever. Over 80 percent!


    • They are making fewer cars and charging more for them.
      7/22/2022: The average U.S. list price for a new car has risen by 20 percent over the past two years, to $45,975, according to data provider Cox Automotive. The average for a used car has soared even more — by 40 percent, to $28,012.

      Remember the good ol’ days back in 2016 when Congress lifted a 40-year ban on exporting oil? Maybe it was just a coincidence but a few months later in 2017 OPEC and Russia declared war on US shale drillers and pushed dozens of US oil companies into bankruptcy. And everybody knew at the time it was Russia who was funding the anti-fracking movement to cripple our oil & gas industries.

      Let me add that our stupid move to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has done little to lower gas prices and left us at a disadvantage.

    • Joe - the non climate scientist

      jim2 ‘s comment – | July 25, 2022 at 9:17 am | Reply
      I saw a headline on Bloomberg TV stating Americans are more united on “fighting” global warming than we realize. But what do Americans really want? Trucks and SUVs. ”

      Surveys on global warming (along with crappy surveys on abortion). Wording of the questions can skew the survey results by 30+ points

      Best example was the survey claiming that 80% of republicans were “in favor of banning the pollution that causes global warming”

    • Jim2 says ” But what do Americans really want?” Not only Americans.

      It used to be said that the car is an extension of the human psyche or character; in some ways to make up for a trait. It used to be that the more diminutive the person the bigger the car they drove. Then there is fashion and peer pressure. The fashion mentality at present is EV’s are for the richer. Not a ‘People’s car’.

      But see here (plus price) https://www.forbes.com/sites/neilwinton/2022/07/05/chinas-assault-on-european-electric-car-market-gathers-momentum/?sh=29ffb6d203fb

  54. The world doesn’t need oil, gas or coal. It needs energy and at this time we need to be developing alternative sources.

    • Unfortunately, we need energy RIGHT NOW! Not 5 or 10 years from now. The energy source for which we have supply and infrastructure is oil and gas. End of story.

      • Research and development brings safe, cheap, abundant and reliable energy. Innovation as always is the engine of prosperity.

      • Cliches won’t cut it Ellison. Oil and gas will.

      • It is a fundamental economic principle. Innovation is the source of productivity gains that drive economic growth. Going around in circles chasing his own arse with irrelevant flippancies is Jim’s job.

        In reality I am long on cloud computing, biotech, metals and fertilisers. If I were looking for advice it wouldn’t be Jim’s.

      • Research and development brings safe, cheap, abundant and reliable energy.

        Wind and solar never made sense for Germany, which, you may recall, went all in for them.

        Sadly, they were leading the way in pebble bed nuclear, but abandoned efforts.

        They were left with relatively clean and low carbon Russian natural gas.

        Now they are stuck with tacit approval of Russian genocide or sacrificing natural gas and economic viability for what they have left: lignite coal.

        An ugly choice.

        Population is declining in a growing number of countries, but reversion to domestic fuel supplies means coal for many. RF rates from all GHGs have declined in recent years to less than .04W/m2/year. Will this fuel change for many countries bump these rates back up?

        More gd interesting times.

      • Rob Starkey

        What is so terrible about a few years use of lignite coal?

      • What is so terrible about a few years use of lignite coal?

        Lignite “is considered the lowest rank of coal due to its relatively low heat content.” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite

        And they may not be able to mine enough to keep the lights on.

      • WSJ believes Germany has made its choice already:


        Energy, starvation, world order, nuclear conflict.

        These appear to be real world challenges that probably no one knows optimal solutions for, but starvation, nuclear conflict, and even energy availability would all seem to be actual ‘existential threats’.

  55. After South Africa listened to the Green Energy Extremists and throttles electricity plants with a licensing scheme, the economy there is going down the tubes due to a lack of electricity. The government there finally got rid of the Unicorn glasses and will ditch the licensing scheme. They will allow anyone to build as big a plant as they want. The US needs to pay attention and act now. Vote out any politician who wants to hobble fossil fuel exploration, production, and use in the US. Our lives and livelihoods depend on it.

    The presidency’s plans would add 7,165 megawatts of capacity within three months, a further 5,663 megawatts in a year and 9,770 megawatts in 18 months, meaning that the amount of available generation capacity could almost double.

    Those gains would come from Eskom units returned from outages, demand management, new generation capacity, private investment, power from solar panels on rooftops and the completion of the Medupi and Kusile coal-fired power plants. Beyond 18 months, there is scope to see a further 8,700 megawatts of new generation capacity procured, the presidency said.


  56. Canada is not my nation.

    And outrage is easy enough for all these days.

    But this:

    for a world in which the UN forecast millions of deaths from famine this year and following the immediate example of Sri Lanka,

    this seems criminally insane.

    What’s up Canadians?

  57. Elderly Americans are suffering under the Dimowit/Green Energy Extremists fight against fossil fuels. We are all suffering higher prices because of them. Vote them out!

    Data from the University of Massachusetts-Boston show more than half of older American women don’t have enough income to afford essential expenses.


    • I bet almost everyone on this blog is “elderly”. How is it affecting your lifestyle? I blame the FED for ignoring inflation for decades. The whole damned thing is based on the monthly reading the entrails of a select group of citizens revealed by the University of Michigan’s Consumer Inflation Expectations.
      “The University of Michigan’s preliminary survey of consumers for July published on Friday showed consumers see inflation running at 2.8% over a five-year horizon, the lowest in a year and down from 3.1% in June.Jul 15, 2022”.

  58. Ain’t technology marvelous. I went to a hospital this morning and had my eyeballs laser ablated. Apparently it’s routine for the elderly. You wouldn’t believe it – a minute an eye. I have lately been impressed by betavoltaics – the fission product cousin of photovoltaics. The perovskite photovoltaic – printable, lightweight, flexible – market is taking off. I’m holding my breath on nuclear fusion: https://www.ga.com/ I can see much more clearly now – other than for the startling floaters I was told would go away.

    Germany took a 10% energy hit this year – that’s always going to have economic repercussions. Although very sad – and even with the human tragedies of the war – it is not the end of the world.


    If solar can be much less costly yet – it is then a resource that is there when the sun comes out. What you need is cheap storage to waste less of it.

  59. ‘GAMBL advances the design for the breeding blanket, a critical component of a fusion reactor that absorbs neutrons, produces heat, and creates tritium to make the fusion fuel cycle self-sufficient. It is described in an article published this month in the journal Fusion Engineering and Design.’ https://www.ga.com/ga-advances-fusion-technology-with-silicon-carbide-based-materials


  60. First – the Φ -Factor!
    in order to have the Planet RADIATIVE BALANCE calculated precisely!
    Second – the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon –
    in order to have the Planet Mean Surface Temperature NEW Equation completed!

    Not one, but two issues should be seen differently – that is why the WHOLE ISSUE is not obvious at first glance,

    and it cannot wait, and … it is not some difficult things, people have decoded DNA, people have invented INTERNET, the Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not difficult at all, just FOCUS.
    It is not a Revolution in Physics, it is just the CORRECT PHYSICS!


    • It is the planet (N*cp) product in sixteenth root that matters.
      For Earth (N*cp) = 1
      For Moon (N*cp) = (1\29,5)*0,19 = 0,00664 = 1\155,6

      If Moon had (N*cp) = 1 Moon would had been warmer than Earth, because of the Moon’s lower than Earth’s Albedo.

      If Moon rotated 155,26 times faster,
      155,6\24h = 6,47rotations\day, or Moon’s (N*cp) = 1
      Moon’s mean surface temperature would have been warmer than Earth’s.


  61. “ BRUSSELS, July 26 (Reuters) – European Union countries approved a weakened emergency plan to curb their gas demand on Tuesday, after striking compromise deals to limit the cuts for some countries, as they brace for further Russian reductions in supply.”


    • I’m not sure Hitler or anyone else in history was able to jerk around so many societies and nations and threaten the global social order the way Putin is right now.

  62. Roubini, also known as “Dr. Doom,” said debt ratios are historically high at 420% for advanced economies and climbing, while bailouts during the pandemic have resulted in “zombie corporations” that put the economy at risk.

    In contrast, the stagflation seen during the 1970s was accompanied by low debt ratios, and the debt crisis during the 2008 financial crash saw falling inflation.

    “This idea that it’s going to be short and shallow, it’s totally delusional,” Roubini said.


  63. jim2 | July 26, 2022 at 9:23 am comment trapped in moderation

  64. David Wojick

    My latest on Wind versus Whales:

    The beginning: “The Virginia wind-versus-whales story has taken a turn for the worse. Worse for the severely endangered Right Whales that is. My research has found what may be some really bad news.

    Meet Tethys. Not the real Tethys, the mythical Greek titaness of the sea, but DOE’s center for reporting research on the environmental impact of energy technology on sea life, including whales. This is the science side of DOE (where I used to work), not the Ocean Energy development side.

    Tethys has some profoundly disturbing things to say about offshore wind and really loud underwater noise. Noise that could easily adversely affect the North Atlantic Right Whales.

    It is all about pile driving, or in this case tower driving. The hundreds of huge offshore wind towers proposed for Virginia do not have poured concrete foundations like onshore towers do. Instead they are literally driven into the solid seabed by floating pile drivers. The lower part of the tower is designed to be driven.

    In fact these driven-in tower bottoms are called “monopiles”. Here is what Tethys says about them:

    “The environmental concerns associated with offshore wind farms vary with foundation type. Monopiles, for example, require pile-driving, which produces INCREDIBLY LOUD NOISES that tend to propagate far in the water, even after mitigation strategies such as bubble shields, slow start, and acoustic cladding are employed.” (Emphasis added)

    From “Fixed offshore wind” at https://tethys.pnnl.gov/technology/fixed-offshore-wind

    Note that not only are the wind tower pile driving noises INCREDIBLY LOUD, the available mitigation technologies do not change that fact.”

    Lots more in the article. This serious problem exists for all the huge offshore wind facilities proposed along the Mid-Atlantic Coast. Wind versus Whales.

    • The oil companies should deploy geophones and prospect for oil while the pilings are being driven.

    • Re underwater noise: Coastal areas are quite to very noisy in the water. Especially if there are pebble beaches and a boulder strewn sea bottom. Apart from a lot of man-made objects left in the sea and being dragged about by it. Near a pebble beach underwater it is like near the coal mill of a boiler, except that the noise is cyclic with the waves.

    • It depends on how the animals use the areas and at what times. Construction schedules can be adjusted. I imagine they avoid uncomfortably loud noise. I do. Most creatures run away.


      Ramping up the necessary data collection – with suitable confidence limits I’m sure is happening. If David’s end game is to obstruct and delay and drive up costs – that’s been a deplorable tactic over decades. It’s abjectly dishonourable behaviour when done by greenies.

    • David Wojick

      I would like to see an honest EIA. If the right whales are threatened then these projects shouod not be built, since they are completely unnecessary.

      Plus I want to know why BOEM has not released the 2018 study on right whale migration? People are starting to call this whalegate. I agree.

      • EIA are done by professionals and are rarely deliberately dishonest. And the usual reason for not releasing a report is that they can’t agree on the content.

      • “turbulence created by deepwater wind turbines could upset the spring phytoplankton bloom has researchers warning the rapidly emerging industry to proceed with caution.”

        It’s not the noise they are worried about but disturbing water stratification.

      • Sorry Jack – that was one of many risks mentioned in the scoping report I linked to. When done in a framework of what can go wrong – it’s an exercise in risk management. I don’t think it’s likely a significant risk for the whales. I have done a lot of coastal hydrodynamics. And diving, sailing and swimming. The surface few hundred metres are always turbulently mixed. And how turbine foundations interact with wind and water is a matter for design.

      • Thanks for your contribution. Do you follow the Hikai organization and their activities?

  65. David Wojick

    Anthony Watts has led another study of heat contamination of US temperature stations. Says things are worse than in 2009 and they were terrible then.

    • I’ve read the report and the many comments. Some are very critical of its findings. I will let others decide on the value of those findings.

      If this was the only piece of evidence against CAGW, for me it wouldn’t be a game changer. But it’s not. The list of reasons to doubt CAGW is endless, including new papers that are published every year.

      In isolation, none of those reasons is persuasive enough to discount the IPCC and the establishment narrative. But in totality the evidence should at least make reasonable people think a little harder and wonder if there is more to the story that we just don’t understand.

      I will never figure out the absolutism that exists in the scientific community.

      • David Wojick

        I am doing an article on the game changing, as I see it. Working title (and conclusion) is “US temperature readings are junk negating climate science”.

        If the warming in excess of the modest UAH increase is instrumental error then the $2.6 billion a year US climate change research program is fruitlessly trying to explain something that does not exist. The models already run hotter than observation, so if observation is too hot then the models are doubly so.

        Science is only as good as its basic data, which in this case is very bad.

    • http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/jun/a3.php

      “seed N concentration was significantly higher under ET and ECET treatments as compared to ambient,” which finding indicates elevated CO2 had a positive influence on the nutritional quality of the wheat.

    • Rob Starkey

      Fighting the temperature record is a losing strategy. Defending that the increase in temperature is not causing all bad weather and that humans adjust over the long term is a better response.

      The goal is to improve the quality of life of humanity. That entails the release of CO2. Said CO2 release is a net benefit to humanity.

  66. Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t work vice-versa !

    The T = ( J /σ )¹∕ ⁴ is a mistake !
    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.

    Let’s see:
    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 (vise-versa) 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 (vise-versa) 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, which doesn’t describe the real world processes.


  67. All the green virtue signalling goes out the window when people can’t get or afford electricity or fuel. After spending billions upon billions on unreliable and environmentally UNfriendly wind and solar, the world goes back the the most reliable and abundant fuel: COAL!

    Global coal consumption this year is set to match a record set in 2013 as European economies work to conserve supplies of natural gas, according to the International Energy Agency.

    Demand for coal is rising even as countries target a reduction in carbon emissions over the coming years that will require curbing the use of the most polluting fossil fuel.

    Coal consumption in the European Union is set to rise by 7% this year as member states save scarce gas supplies, the IEA said. It expects strong demand to continue in the second half of the year after a number of EU countries extended the life of coal plants or reopened others to safeguard power supplies. Nations are trying to save gas for winter as Russian flows become increasingly uncertain.


    • On a long-term basis, the additional use of coal today will not noticeably impact the CO2 growth curve.

      Simple truth prevails. 1/3 of humanity currently doesn’t have regular use of electricity much less other luxuries. This will change over time and require CO2 to be released. Ultimately the planet will get to 550-600 ppm in the atmosphere and the only option is to adapt.

      • I bet we will turn to geoengineering at some point and use ocean plankton and algae to suck out gigatons of CO2. This will be integrated into vast ocean fisheries situated around giant ocean gyres. The algae will be genetically engineered to also breakdown plastic.

      • Hopefully, by the time the geoengineering has an impact on CO2 we will have enough nuclear power to put the CO2 back when we realize how stoop id it is to bring it down. Then we will have time to build some more fossil fuel plants.

      • Liquid fuels from CO2 and hydrogen from water in a cerium dioxide foam?

      • REI’s posted video (whatever its supposed to mean) is a lesson to many. It is the first stage of what I call here “Stages of Boardroom grief” (there is a standard term for it but now escapes me).

        They are ‘laughter > ridicule > silence > admittance’. Any new ideas beyond the herd’s beliefs face that hurdle.

        If nature can do it with sunlight and CO2, then there must be a way. Good luck to those who find it.

      • It’s a mad scientist pop. culture thing. CeO2 foam oxidising water to make hydrogen is an intriguing idea as I said.

  68. Rattan Lal wants plants that are scientifically cultured to speak to him. He says that 50 ppm CO2 can drawn down by 2100. He reminded me of something a 4 year old said to me. Hungry hungry hippos don’t have rules because they are very hungry.

  69. ‘Then, at the suggestion of German Climatologist Vladimir Koppen, he chose summer insolation at 65 degrees North as the most important latitude and season to model, reasoning that great ice sheets grew near this latitude and that cooler summers might reduce summer snowmelt, leading to a positive annual snow budget and ice sheet growth.’ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch/milankovitch_3.php

    The wooly mammoth on the tundra?


    • …orbital variations remain the most thoroughly examined mechanism of climatic change on time scales of tens of thousands of years of a direct effect of changing insolation on the lower atmosphere of Earth (National Research Council, 1982).”

      “and are by far the clearest case”

    • REI’s second link is a ‘speculative’ extrapolation of the Newcomb obliquity formula. In the last four year enough evidence has surfaced to make clear it is a grave mistake (which has misled science for more than a century).

      In Christos’s piece re ‘orbital variations’ these are minor and of long duration compared to the obliquity disturbances. Milankovitch based extrapolations are way past being obsolete.

      • Yes, please visit the Reversed Milankovitch Cycle.

      • @ Christos V

        I take it that you are still assuming smooth mathematical change (polynomials based, as with the various obliquity formulae). What is becoming evident is that there is also abrupt transients superimposed. They are evident in the old measurements and corroborated by various proxies.

        Obliquity is a driver. Precession is a collateral change from that, and is equally abrupt (the fundamentals of rotating bodies under varying external force vectors – gyro effect). The transients appear near semi-millennial and, it appears, linked to planetary alignments.

        Discussing here and elsewhere in the past months these correlations have become evident. Small changes in the last two millennia, but much larger earlier. ( in this field only the evidence is real, the theory is only convenient near-religious belief).

    • Well I was more wondering why summer insolation at 65N triggered ice sheet feedbacks and quasi regular glacials and interglacials. What geophysics govern the internal planetary system where powerful mechanisms respond dynamically to transient perturbation.

    • “‘Then, at the suggestion of German Climatologist Vladimir Koppen, he chose summer insolation at 65 degrees North as the most important latitude and season to model”

      Very little truth in this, as usual coming from NASA. Wladimir Koppen was Russian (Russo-German at best), and Milutin Milankovic did not choose summer insolation but caloric half year insolation.

      Milankovitch theory was corrupted when c. 1980 Berger decided to use 65º 21st June insolation because it was easier to code into models. This has caused a host of problems to the corrupted Milankovitch theory because caloric half-year insolation depends on obliquity, while 65º 21st June insolation depends on precession.

      Apparently most people and climate scientists are unable to understand Kepler’s second law, as the higher the 21st June insolation the shorter the summer.

      Essentially scientists learn the wrong Milankovitch theory and don’t have a clue where its problems are originating.

      • No one but cranks and crazies use Milankovic theory for anything in climate but that there is a quasi-regularity in glacial/interglacial transitions over the past 800,000 odd years – before that it was a different periodicity of course.

      • Extract from Javier post: “–Milankovitch theory because caloric half-year insolation depends on obliquity–“. This is critical.

        Because the obliquity used by Milankovitch is derived from Newcomb’s formula extrapolated back in time. The old measurements are real and differ.

        Take the 1600CE date (discussed elsewhere in this thread; an abrupt change (Burl above ‘ he shows a HUGE temperature decrease at 1600,’), the old readings 1587>1590 show near 0.1degree change in obliquity. It is larger in year 173CE.

        For yr173 see para before last here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2019GL082649

    • Currently the Southern Hemisphere’s summer solstice ( 21st of December) almost coincides with Earth’s Perihelion (4th of January).
      Thus, Southern Hemisphere (with its vast oceanic areas) when closer to sun, it is also tilted towards sun.

      As a result, Earth experiences currently a Global Warming Trend!


  70. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:

    Planets’ mean surface temperatures RELATE (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ SIXTEENTH ROOT.
    ( N*cp ) ^1/16
    [ (N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴

    N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin .
    cp – cal/gr*oC, is the planet’s average surface specific heat.

    This discovery has explained the origin of the formerly observed the planets’ average surface temperatures comparison discrepancies.

    Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster than Moon and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
    What we do in our research is to compare the satellite measured planetary temperatures.
    The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon can be expressed now also QUANTITATIVELY . And it happens so to be a very POWERFUL the planet surface warming factor.


  71. If you don’t quibble about the Bloomberg characterization of “All time high inflation”, this is still impressive.


  72. “A shock proof energy economy”

    “A pig which has wings and flies”

  73. This new paper by Alkama et al 2022 in Nature Communications, confirms that global plant greening – leaf level enhancement of photosynthesis from rising CO2, is an effective and significant negative feedback on warming from the same CO2.


    The increased transpiration and extended vegetation cover and land hydration, outweigh the albedo effect of darker land from leaves. Water trumps light.

    • Thank you. An important paper in trying to think through possible impacts from the activities of an increased population of 7 billion people over the last few hundred years.

  74. Every spot on planet surface experiences its peak hot and cold temperature. The less are those differences, the higher is the average surface temperature for the same not reflected portion of the incident solar flux.

    The (N*cp)^1\16 is the way the planet average surface temperature “responds” to that.
    The faster the rotation, the less time every spot is exposed to the solar flux’ EM radiative energy, the less the skin surface layer’s INDUCED temperature is.

    The more atoms (higher surface cp) are getting exposed (INTERACTED) on the skin layer to the solar flux’ EM radiative energy, the less the skin surface layer’s INDUCED temperature is.


    • The planet has an average lower tropospheric temperature – what is more interesting is how it changes.

    • CV. ”
      The faster the rotation, the less time every spot is exposed to the solar flux’ EM radiative energy, the less the skin surface layer’s INDUCED temperature is.”

      A planet can be rotating very fast on an axis yet not be rotating in regard to the heat source.
      Therefor in rotation the amount of exposure depends on the current axial presentation.
      When the planet is rotating without axial tilt the planet surface, being near spherical, has more energy per square meter ( more solar flux) at the equator than at the poles.

      Ignoring these nitpicks
      Faster rotation leads to more even input of the constant solar radiation and more even energy output which causes the temperature of the surface skin layer to be higher , not lower than the temperature of the surface of a non spinning or slow spinning planet:

    • Thank you, angech, for your respond
      “Faster rotation leads to more even input of the constant solar radiation and more even energy output which causes the temperature of the surface skin layer to be higher , not lower than the temperature of the surface of a non spinning or slow spinning planet:”

      The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon:
      It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.
      But there is something else very interesting happens. When a planet rotates faster it is a warmer planet.
      “”Faster rotation leads to more even input of the constant solar radiation and more even energy output which causes the temperature of the surface skin layer to be higher…”

      I think you mean by “the temperature of the surface skin layer to be higher…” it is the average planet surface temperature to be higher.
      I agree with that. Also I agree with your thesis that it should be a minor warming effect, when considering a “constant solar radiation input and output.”
      Thank you, angech, for the physics notion: solar radiation input.
      It is important to differentiate between the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux ”
      and the “solar radiation input.

      Well, the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux” is not even ” with solar radiation input.

      The “solar radiation input” is only a part of the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux”, it is only a part of “Energy in”.
      The “solar radiation input” is only the energy accumulated in inner layers. It is not the entire “Energy in”.

      Energy in = energy out

      Energy in = πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W) is the “not reflected portion of the incident solar flux”

      Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W) is the energy out

      Planet Energy Budget:
      Jnot.reflected = Jemit

      πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
      Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
      Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

      When hitting matter the solar EM energy INDUCES surface skin layer’s temperature
      The higher this temperature, the more the instantly emitted IR EM radiative energy out, and the lesser the solar radiation input.
      The lesser this temperature, the less the instantly emitted IR EM radiative energy out, and the more the solar radiation input.

      When planet rotates faster it has for a constant “Energy in = πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W)” a larger solar energy input.

      The entire “Energy out” = Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
      consists from both
      “the instantly emitted IR EM radiative energy out” plus the solar radiation input.
      When rotating faster, planet surface has more “solar radiation input” to get rid of, thus the Tmean gets “balanced” at higher level.
      So, the higher the (N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ is,
      the higher should be the Tmean⁴.
      That is why it is so powerful the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
      Thank you again, angech.


      • “When rotating faster, planet surface has more “solar radiation input” to get rid of”
        The amount of solar radiation received does not change because a planet spins faster.
        It has to radiate away what it receives.
        Your assertion is wrong.

      • Thank you, angech, for your respond:

        “The amount of solar radiation received does not change because a planet spins faster.
        It has to radiate away what it receives.”

        Yes, I agree with that, it is a basic principle!

        The difference is that, when interacting with matter, the “not reflected portion of solar flux” is not getting inside the skin layer in its entirety.
        A very considerable part of it gets IR emitted on the very instant the solar EM energy hits the surface. This part of energy goes immediately out, it INDUCES the surface temperature on the instant of incidence, and that temperature is the temperature of that spot at that particular instant.
        And, there is another part the “SOLAR RADIATION INPUT” which is on that instant is accumulated in the inner layer.
        And this part is radiated away later…
        Planet always radiates away what it receives. Planet with a higher (N*cp) product has this second part, the “SOLAR RADIATION INPUT” larger, and the on the instant of incidence IR emitted amount of solar EM energy is smaller, because a planet with a higher (N*cp) product INDUCES a lower on the spot of incidence the skin layer’s temperature.
        We shall call from now on as “the “SOLAR RADIATION INPUT” the amount of energy the Solar Flux – Planet Surface INTERACTION process manages to PUT IN the planet inner layer.
        Thank you again,


  75. Preview of Koonin versus Dessler


  76. In Sri Lanka, the green movement has conspicuous blood on its hands.
    Global elite ESG greens have conducted an actual genocide.


    Forcing a weak developing country with the trademark combination of celebrity glad-handing persuasion and a Whitehouse concoction of threats, the country’s 22 million people have been unwillingly and in democratically enrolled into this cynical experiment. Let’s suddenly withdraw all fertiliser, what could possibly go wrong? A lot, evidently. A whole country and its people. But the Eichmanns who ran this whole show with the blessings of Washington and the New Economic Forum, are safe from any accountability. That’s how the world seems to work now.

  77. Robert I> Ellison is thread bombing – again !!!

    He’s posted 20% of the comments on this thread.

  78. Why fertiliser restrictions in Canada are such a profound mistake:


    Government by ideological townies knowing nothing about agriculture and caring less.

  79. I just read the analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation of the infamous Biden/Schumer/Manchin proposal now featured in the MSM.

    While the increase of tax revenue for 2023 is modest and perhaps worthy of the attention, by 2025 the difference from current law is almost nonexistent. The additional tax revenue from tax filers with incomes over $1 million is $17 billion going from $908 billion to $925 in 2023. But by 2025 the difference between current law and the proposed law shrinks to only $5 billion with a total base of $4 Trillion.

    The Average (Effective) Tax rates for both incomes over $1 million and for all income levels in 2025 and beyond increases by only .1%. The entire oxygen will be taken out of the political debate in DC in the next few months for a measly .1%.

    This .1% increase in Effective tax rates is what occurred from 1988 to 1993 when the top marginal tax rate went from 28% to 39.6% in 2 steps and went up from 13.4% to 13.5%.

    The increase in tax revenue of $17 billion and $5 billion mentioned above will be getting all the attention shortly. At the same time an increase in spending of perhaps $130 billion in Social Security next year will be ignored because it is on auto pilot and neither side wants to touch it. And that $130 billion will just grow and grow and grow in future years.


  80. David Wojick

    My take on a powerful study.
    US temperature readings are junk, negating climate science

    By David Wojick


    The beginning: “Anthony Watts has done it again. He and his intrepid brigade of field workers have done what the super rich US Global Change Research Program cannot seem to do, or does not want to do. They actually went out to see how well the Federal thermometers met the required performance standards.

    The thermometers fail, in fact they fail miserably. Thus their readings showing rapid warming are pure junk. Much follows from this. The whole $2.6 billion a year USGCRP is trying to explain something that does not exist. Science is only as good as its data and the temperature data is very bad.

    The issue is local heat contamination. Not the famous urban heat island contamination; that error goes on top of what Watts and Co found. We are talking about visible sources of heat contamination, many just a few feet from the contaminated thermometer.

    The report has a great many pictures of these contaminated thermometers, which would be hilarious if it were not so serious. Okay it is still funny, as in “You call this junk scientific instrumentation?”. See https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/2022_Surface_Station_Report.pdf

    There has always been this puzzle as to why the surface statistics show a lot more warming than the satellites do? Heat contamination looks like the answer. This should be a major research question, but the Feds ignore it because they like the erroneous extra warming. It supports their alarmist agenda.”

    Lots more in the article. Climate science has been junked!

  81. Carla Aguilar

    Dewapoker merupakan game slot online yang lagi buming digolongan milenial dikala ini. Game ( ) ini awal kali diluncurkan pada tahun 2021 dini. Provider ini sediakan lebih dari 200 permainan slot yang dapat kamu mainkan. Tidak hanya itu, dewapoker senantiasa menamban serta pembaharuan tiap minggunya.

  82. Sofía Jimenez

    Dewapoker adalah game slot online dari provider poker indo yang pula jadi slot andalan provider tersebut. Dikala mulai memainkan permainan ( ) ini, kamu hendak merasakan grafik, animasi serta sound yang memukai dari permainan ini. Game slot online menawarkan RTP besar yang pastinya hendak memudahkan kamu memperoleh jackpot di dalamnya. Tidak hanya itu, kamu pula bisa memperoleh gratis spin dengan mengumpulkan simbol scater dengan jumlah 4 ataupun lebih.

  83. Update on the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

    Senator Sinema from Arizona apparently has agreed to support this proposal. One of the changes that was made involved reducing the Carried Interest taxes provision. This reduced taxes by $13 Billion over 10 years.

    The overall package for 10 years is about $48 Trillion. With a T.

    Campaign contributions are such a wonderful thing.

  84. What’s buried in the small text paragraphs?

    Reducing nitrogen fertilizer in the name of saving the planet.
    ( a la Sri Lanka, Netherlands, Canada ).

    Reducing crop yields in the face of global famine – that seems to be where we are.

    • Glib, politically motivated nonsense masquerading as informed commentary. Capitalism produces perpetual improvement in methods and systems to be more productive – farmers survive in hyper competitive markets.

      Rational government policy is to facilitate lower cost and more productive farming through precision farming technologies.

  85. 1/3 of Americans are obese and we waste 30%-40% of the food we buy.
    Our pets eat better than some countries. Meanwhile we are dispersing 250,000 man-made compounds into the biosphere. We could do better.

    • Keep pounding on those man-made chemicals, Jack. But it appears you aren’t getting any traction. Those chemicals equal progress for mankind. Good luck with that.

    • Smith and Ellison using “progressive” tactics to demonize all that is great about Mankind’s ingenuity.

    • Jim’s extremist political posturing is a sad joke. Science is quite up to developing alternatives – to for instance POP’s. Progress isn’t made by turning our backs on reality.

      • Ignoring reality is Progressive’s Super Power. Your comment is a bad joke. So we will use science to come up with thousands of new chemicals to replace the ones we already have? Do you have no self respect?

      • Novel compounds require safety assessments. It is science serving humanity otherwise we are flying blind. Some substances fail the test. Much as Jim invariably does. Is he quite incapable of saying anything of any substance?


      • Ellison. If you knew anything about the chemical industry, you would know all commercial chemicals undergo biological and other testing. Or are you now running a chemical company?

      • Oh for God’s sake Jim – get a clue. If you knew anything about pollution that would be a start.

      • ‘Governance of toxic chemicals in the United States and elsewhere has failed many times, and scientific responsibility is the first line of defense against potential harm. Knowledge production is the first step of this governance and falls clearly into the purview of those who produce and assess scientific publication.’

        Not to acknowledge what has gone wrong – and create solutions – shows a lack of moral decency.

      • You and your ilk are continually attempting to scare people to achieve your political ends. Much of the time based upon specious science, like for instance climate models. No science there. It’s as if an artillery team were trying to hit a target but knew nothing of how gravity worked. They can write programs all day long, but to no avail.

      • Just what would my political ends be Jimbo?

        Economic growth and nuclear power?

        Try being honest for a change.

      • Part quote from jim2 “–all commercial chemicals undergo biological and other testing.–”

        I’ve been around long enough, and in contact with agriculture, to have seen and experienced the supposed chemical advances. The list of pesticides is very long, and a lot of the semi-empty containers still around. They were all supposed to be very safe. All are banned today.

        I also followed the development of one substance that could have proven a benevolent change. When its efficacy became encouraging it was bought and shelved.

        Worse, the effect has been detrimental long term. Most of the fauna that naturally were a help have all disappeared. The only thing that survived and proliferated is the pest itself. Now we go ‘organic’. The only assurance one has that the fruit is not poisoned is that the worm inside is alive.

      • @ melitamegalithic

        Please name the substance that could have proven a benevolent change and also the fauna that have disappeared. Any links for proof should be presented, not empty sentences.

  86. “ Top Physicist Admits “Distant Star” Photo Was Actually Chorizo”

    “ In view of some comments, I feel compelled to clarify that this tweet showing an alleged snapshot of Proxima Centauri was a form of amusement. Let us learn to be wary of arguments from authority as much as of the spontaneous eloquence of certain images…”

    Well, scientists have done worse.


  87. European “Progressives” “designed” Europe’s future decades ago. Now they reap the rewards.

    Europe is suffering its worst energy crunch in decades as gas cuts made by Russia in retaliation for sanctions drive a surge in prices. The extreme heat led to the driest July on record in France and is underscoring the impact that a warming climate is having on vital infrastructure.


  88. ‘Record-high and volatile oil and gas prices, a running problem that was given a shot in the arm when Russia invaded Ukraine, have convinced oil bulls that their product has a crucial role to play for decades yet. While renewables proponents suggest that wind, solar and battery technologies are crucial to energy independence, there remains a place for some oil and gas in the medium term.’ https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/australian-lng-wont-fix-europes-gas-crisis/


    At a wind and solar penetration of some 5.2% – backed up with substantial dispatchable renewables – is not a problem. A phased transition to nuclear as coal and gas plants reach the end of their service life – or as oil and gas prices stay too high for too long – would seem the optimal longer term solution.

  89. “Green” energy is killing Europe. Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists, killing local fossil fuel development in favor of wind and solar. Now countries in Europe find themselves in dire straits because of it. People around the world need to recall or vote out any politician who is against fossil fuel development and use.

    The UK’s largest electricity distribution business said a hit of £280 million from energy companies failing will be passed on to customers.

    UK Power Networks Ltd has received the claims under the so-called supplier of last resort scheme — a regulatory plan that ensures domestic supply isn’t interrupted when suppliers fail.


  90. “Green” energy is killing Europe. Europe listened to the Green Energy Extremists, killing local fossil fuel development in favor of wind and solar. Now countries in Europe find themselves in dire straits because of it. People around the world need to recall or vote out any politician who is against fossil fuel development and use.

    Across Europe, Gas-Strapped Cities Prepare to Power Down

    Energy-saving limits on lighting and air-conditioner use have drawn heat in Spain, France and Germany.


  91. jim2 | August 7, 2022 at 8:24 am | Reply trapped in moderation.

  92. August 8, 2022 at 5:00 AM EDT

    Another scorching heat wave is set to hit northwest and central Europe this week, putting further pressure on the continent’s strained power infrastructure.

    Sizzling temperatures are expected to hit the UK, Germany and France — reaching almost 36 degrees Celsius (96.8 Fahrenheit) on Friday — according to Maxar Technologies LLC. The heat will boost demand for cooling, aggravating already dry conditions that hurt crops and force limits on water use.


  93. I bought some EV stock today. The package passed by the Senate and due for approval by the House shortly should give some momentum to the sector for the next 11 years.

    The reason I say 11 years is that by 2033 it will be 50 years since the EPA released their infamous report which said that by 2100 seal level rise could be 12 feet.

    I believe some people will get out their pencil and paper and realize that after having 50 years elapsed and having SLR rise by only 5-6 inches they are nowhere near the rate needed to reach the target of 12 feet by 2100.

    Light bulbs will be turning on in the heads of the investor class and they will be asking what gives. That will be the time to get out.

  94. Europe continues to pay the price for not developing local sources of fossil fuels. It just gets worse and worse for them. Bad decisions reap bad consequences.

    Norway is gearing up to limit power exports, an early sign of the tests Europe’s cross-border solidarity will face this winter as the energy crunch deepens.

    Refilling reservoirs will be prioritized over power production when levels fall below seasonal averages, Energy Minister Terje Aasland said Monday. The country is one of Europe’s top exporters of electricity, sending about a fifth of its output to its neighbors but low water levels in southern Norway mean the government says it needs to act now to prevent domestic shortages this winter.


  95. A non AGW comment. I provide these pictures of Hopewell Rocks supposedly home of perhaps the highest tides in the world, exceeding 50 feet, where my brother-in-law is visiting this week.


  96. At the same time that the Beltway Bandits are patting themselves on the back for ending CAGW as we know it, and the chronic weepers are bemoaning that it’s not enough, others are saying the flooding in Seoul is because of a warming planet.

    Ignoring that Seoul has 9 million people people than 100 years ago and it’s population density is twice NYC, and setting aside the obvious that urbanization and increased impervious surfaces increase flooding levels, there are scientific papers raising the question of how much CO2 affects such flooding.

    “ The hydrological cycle is expected to intensify in response to global warming.Yet, little unequivocal evidence of such an acceleration has been found on a global scale”


    From China “ The results show that there were 29 extreme droughts and 28 extreme floods in North China from 1736 to 2000.” And “ Decreasing trend in severe weather occurrence over China during the past 50 years.”



    In Korea “ Study area was divided into three periods: (1) a relatively wet period (1720–1810 CE), (2) a dry period (1810–1960 CE), and (3) a wet period (1960 CE–present)” And “ Multicentennial frequent flooding periods in the study area (2900–3400 cal yr BP, 3600–3900 cal yr BP, 4600–5300 cal yr BP, and 5800–6400 cal yr BP) corresponded to stronger El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) activity periods.”



  97. Watch out for this alarmist tripe. It’s getting totally ridiculous, but where do you turn to stop it? This time, it’s about rain water.

    Rainwater everywhere on Earth unsafe to drink due to ‘forever chemicals’, study finds

    They found at most 5.5 ng/liter, a ridiculously low amount. These compounds have not been found to be problematic from a biological perspective, but that doesn’t stop the Chicken Little headlines!


    • It’s much easier to get published if you write “alarmist dribble”. This allows a constant barrage of alarmist headlines in the misleading mainstream media.