by Ross McKitrick
Last year I had the privilege of working with a small team (me, Judy Curry, John Christy, Steve Koonin and Roy Spencer) on a draft report for U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the topic of climate change impacts on the United States. After its release two environmental groups sued the Department of Energy (DOE) under something called the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) alleging our group was not legally constituted, which led to a suspension of our work.
We don’t have comparable legislation in Canada so I found the process baffling. Politicians in Canada routinely assemble groups of experts and ask them to write reports. In the U.S., FACA applies if an expert committee has been convened to advise on policies. We were not asked to do so nor did we. Nonetheless the judge decided that we should have been bound by the terms of FACA, including requirements to hold public hearings, and since we hadn’t done so we were out of compliance. The court ordered our work suspended and our drafts and internal emails to be released. The green groups must have found them tedious to go through, but there was one with a bit of spicy language which I’ll explain later.
Meanwhile let me clear up a few misunderstandings about our project.
First, it is alleged we were “secretive” and kept our work from public scrutiny. Far from it. I’ve been an invited reviewer for many Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The IPCC selects chapter authors in a closed-door process, the chapter drafts are written in secret, reviewers are bound to secrecy, and we are forbidden from sharing either drafts or our own comments until after the final version is published. Academic journals likewise demand secrecy of referees regarding submitted drafts and review comments. Our group, by contrast, knew that our draft would be released for public comment, the comments would be published before our responses were, and everything would be out in the open. The process under which we have been working was far more transparent than either the IPCC or academic journals—indeed uncomfortably so.
Second, our report is sometimes described as “attacking climate science.” Such nonsense is intended to discredit it and stop people from reading it. We quote extensively from past IPCC reports and rely on mainstream peer-reviewed science and data. We aimed to explain important topics and lines of evidence that have typically been downplayed in public discussions, in other words to broaden the scientific discussion, not attack it.
Third, it has been alleged that we were ordered to write a report attacking the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF), a rule underpinning US greenhouse gas regulations. In truth we were kept well away from the EF reconsideration process. In early conversations we learned that the EF was up for reconsideration but also that we weren’t going to be involved in the draft rulemaking. For our part we demanded, and received, complete editorial independence. The EF team was housed at the Environmental Protection Agency while we were at the DOE, and we neither met them, knew who they were, nor what they were doing.
When news broke that the EPA would publish a draft rulemaking rescinding the EF we asked that our report be published separately so the two projects would not be conflated in the public mind. Alas the Administration did not avail themselves of our wisdom on that point and confusion ensued. But the final version of the EF rulemaking contains a footnote clarifying that they did not rely on our report for their decision.
Fourth, and on that point, there is now a view out there that—ha ha—the Administration “abandoned” our report. No, the EPA neither accepted nor rejected it because they concluded they lacked statutory authority to do either. The rescission of the EF was based on recent court rulings that limit U.S. Agency powers to regulate in areas not specified in legislation. The EPA concluded they lacked regulatory authority over greenhouse gases, so neither can they issue findings on climate science, just as they have no authority to issue scientific findings on vaccines or cancer treatment.
Fifth we have been accused of ignoring our critics. No, due to the FACA lawsuit we are under court-imposed conditions not to function as the Climate Working Group, not even to respond to the comments we received, and not to publish a revised report. The “follow the science” crowd succeeded in using litigation to shut down the debate. But we have been individually going through the critical comments, corresponding directly with colleagues and developing response material. If the legalities get sorted out we will finish what we started by releasing a final report and a complete set of responses to the public comments.
There seem to be a lot of misconceptions out there, abetted by careless reporting from hostile media. For instance, a friend sent me a Desmog newsletter quoting one of my emails as saying “The extreme weather alarmism angle has been non-stop for years. … At this point, I want to hold the readers’ faces in it until their limbs stop twitching.” The omitted part changes the meaning of the quote. Far from recommending we repeat the media’s lies over and over, the “it” I referred to was material from the IPCC. I had inserted into our extreme weather chapter 12 pages of extracts from IPCC reports that contradict media hysteria about extreme weather trends. Others on our team questioned why we needed it. In my reply I argued, grouchily, that an extended tutorial on what the IPCC says on the subject would alleviate public fears, even at the risk of boring readers to death.
I’m very proud of the report our team produced. I hope we get to publish a final edition and if we do, people will see how open and constructive debate among people with differing perspectives can lead to top quality science. Stay tuned.
Hi Ross- The ability to present diverse views on climate science is very much needed. The IPCC and other assessments completed by a subset of climate scientists has ignored critically important aspects of the role of humans within the climate system.
I am glad you were convened to write your report and hope you are given an opportunity to put in a final form.
In my next comment, as an example, of why such a report is needed, I will provide links to my review of the most recent IPCC WG1 report and their failure to even respond to me
Best Wishes
Roger Pielke Sr
Roger –
Good to see you stepping up in support of “stealth advocacy.”
Good to see you back in the familiar role of trolling, Joshua.
RPSnr,
I second your comments.
It is sad that since 1980 or so, the progress of science has been distorted by players, often not scientists, using a bag of dirty tricks in preference to reasoned debate.
You and I can see this because we are old enough to have worked in better times. Young scientists should seek the benefits of understanding those golden years. Geoff S
You try to claim you are for diverse views by linking to your own blog. My god, the hypocrisy is astounding.
AI- Pielke Sr. uses the term “alarmism” to describe what he sees as an anti-scientific political movement that prioritizes narrative over evidence.
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2019: A Review of the AR6 First Draft of IPCC Working Group I (WG1) report, May 2019.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-wg-final-3.pdf
Pielke, R.A. Sr., 2020: Comment on the AR6 Second Draft of IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) report. February 2020.
https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/ipcc-letter-1.pdf
Roger –
Interesting logic:
I was hoping that this time the IPCC process would be inclusive and assess the diversity of perspectives
by climate scientists. This is clearly not the case.
So because they didn’t respond to you, you have therefore determined that the process didn’t include or assess a diversity of perspectives.
Seems a bit narcissistic, bro. Also like how you blame them for your decision as to how should spend your time..
Not that your constant self-victimizing, whining, disparaging others, and pointing fingers is a valid reason to reject your work (which I think does have value) or insult, demean, etc., you, but I have always failed to understand what value you think you get from those behaviors.
the doe report repeated the same error of every climate report i have read since 1997
the authors of the report all start with the same conclusion — there is no diversity of opinion
past reports were written by climate consensus alarmists. skeptics were never allowed to present their opinions.
the doe a report was written by 4 skeptical scientists and 1 skeptical economist
in my 28 years of climate science reading i have never found a fair and balanced climate report
why would a fair in balanced report be important?
a report that presented a diversity of opinions would quickly show that not one scientist has any idea what the climate will be like in 100 years.
fortunately i know, and although i’m not a scientist i do have a BS degree and i do know BS when i hear it
the global average temperature in 100 years will be warmer unless it is cooler
based on anecdotes over the past several thousand years people prefer a warmer climate and hate a colder climate
the ideal climate for people on our planet is a warming period during an interglacial
we are currently living in a 50 year old warming trend during an interglacial and we should be celebrating that fact … especially during a cold winter … and not fearing the future climate.
spending perhaps $10 trillion in a failed attempt to change the global climate is the worst investment in human history except for the money spent fighting wars
net zero = nut zero
Thank you, Ross and your team members, for taking the time, effort and hassle for producing the report. It was sorely needed.
I commend the world class scientists who formed a group, as requested by the Secretary of Energy to speak to the science of an ill defined term, climate change. Their report of last summer, has stimulated both fierce legal battles and scientific battles, which unfortunately was to be expected. Reputations for competency and integrity among experts, is on the line.. as are careers and oceans of money. America has a soup of lawyers, journalists, politicians and technical people, both pure science and applied science, and the outcome may define the survival of our society. You bet your life.
In this and other advanced technologies, the American public can have no rational determination of the complex concepts. In energy, I can summarize. If we greatly constrain the use of fire, the combustion of carbon in air; this will drive up the cost and cut back on the wide spread usage of the only cheap means of survival. Without cheap, plentiful energy, America will cease to exist. Our nation, our people, cannot survive. Other sources can and should be used but the alternate energies, particularly nuclear energy, are too expensive to supply the base load. AI can help (not my expertise).
My two cents.
“… of an ill defined term, climate change.”
The term in question is “National Climate Assessment”. It is precisely define in law – 15 U.S. Code § 2904. The CWG and it’s ‘report’ did not, and still does not, meet those requirements nor replace the NCA.
McKitrick complains that “…it has been alleged that we were ordered to write a report attacking the 2009 Endangerment Finding (EF), a rule underpinning US greenhouse gas regulations.”
Perhaps critics were impressed by the fact that the document begins (Part 1, Chapter 1) with a rationale for rejecting the EF (disclaimer aside). Why begin a “Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate” with a discussion that explicitly addresses (and implicitly critiques) regulation, but is climatically irrelevant?
I think they’re trying to prove that their “pure” science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with politics or “stealth advocacy.”
Pat Cassen, what are you talking about? Part 1 Chapter 1 of the report does not even mention the 2009 Endangerment Finding.
It just states facts about CO2 which no reasonable person could contest. If those facts seem to you to conflict with the basis for the EF, then Welcome to the Climate Realism Movement.
Manmade climate change is modest and benign, and the most important effects of CO2 emissions have been highly beneficial, rather than harmful.
Global crop yields have tripled over the last sixty years, and rising CO2 levels are responsible for an important part of that improvement. Here’s a graph:
https://sealevel.info/ourworldindata_cereal_yield_4regions_1961_and_2022_annot1.png
Drought impacts have also greatly decreased, thanks to rising CO2 levels.
Here’s a list with some good papers:
https://sealevel.info/negative_social_cost_of_carbon.html
Here’s a valuable report:
Taylor, C & Schlenker, W (2021, 2025). Environmental Drivers of Agricultural Productivity Growth: CO2 Fertilization of US Field Crops. National Bureau of Economic Research, no. w29320. https://doi.org/10.3386/w29320
To understand a contentious, politicized issue like climate change, you need BALANCED information. I’m here to help:
https://sealevel.info/learnmore.html?0=1612340_Honolulu_thru_2025-11_vs_CO2_annot1.png
That’s my resource list with:
● accurate introductory climatology information
● in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
● links to balanced debates between experts on BOTH sides
● accurate information about impacts of CO2 & climate change
● links to the best blogs on BOTH sides of the climate debate
I hope you find it useful.
Dave –
It’s rather remakable that you seem completely oblivious to the problem here:
in-depth science from BOTH skeptics & alarmists
Joshua, I realize that most of what comes from the most well-known names on the alarmist side doesn’t resemble “in-depth science.” But it would be a mistake to dismiss the work of people like Pierrehumbert & Wilson because of people like Mann, Hansen & Hayhoe.
It’s like what Kissinger said about politicians: “90% percent of them give the other 10% a bad name.”
Dave –
I can see how there could be more that one point interpreted there.
My comment was related to your appeal to balance even as you used “skeptic” and “alarmist” for the respective “sides.” Aiming for balance while using a pejorative is futile. You’re just confirming a bias.
Ah, I see. I didn’t mean “alarmist” and “skeptic” pejoratively.
In a domain in which one side commonly refers to the other as “deniers” (an analogy to Holocaust deniers), the terms “alarmist” and “skeptic” didn’t seem very pejorative, to me.
https://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/16/hamilton-denying-the-coming-climate-holocaust/
How about this? Would it have have been better?
“…BOTH from scientists who are worried about manmade climate change, and from scientists who are not.”
Seems a bit wordy, but more precise, and perhaps less likely to offend.
Dave –
The term “alarmist” is almost uniformly used as a pejorative outside of the climate change context. Maybe even more so within the climate change context. If you didn’t realize that, it probably reflects a hole in your thinking
Dave –
To take it a step further. I have always found it interesting that so many in these pages, who take offense at the term “denier” because of its pejorative connotation, just turn right around and throw around the term “alarmist,” apparently without a second thought. It suggests that either they’re oblivious, or triggered and either way, it’s not a good indicator about their approach to the science.
As for your suggested alternative, yes that seems better. I realize that being “wordy” is problematic but it’s a worthwhile tradeoff for accuracy and demonstrating good faith..
In fact, I think it’s actually important to be wordy, and along those lines your alternative taxonomy in accurately overlays the issues onto a binary framing. The level of “worry” is relative, and not dichotomous. Even the term “worried,” as compared to not worried, has a pejorative connotation and framing.
daveburton: “Part 1 Chapter 1 of the report does not even mention the 2009 Endangerment Finding.”
True. Perhaps the authors lead off with references to the Clean Air Act, regulation of Criteria Air Contaminants, CO2 as a benign substance, and so forth (none of which have anything to do with climate), just to dispel any silly notion that their review has any bearing whatsoever on the EF (which shall not be mentioned).
daveburton: “I’m here to help”.
Noted.
The report did not discuss water vapor feedback at all. Yes, the term “water vapor” is found 6 times and “lapse rate” once. It just bluntly says “Water vapor feedback is positive”, and that’s about it.
As I have extensively shown, the water vapor feedback complex (including lapse rate f.) is clearly and definitely negative! If Lindzen, Choi had done a (far) better job, that could have been proven 15 years ago. On this issue consensus science barely missed an opportunity to fail..
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-climate-kill-switch-why-feedbacks-are-actually-negative
Water vapor feedback is the only large positive climate feedback mechanism. There are numerous large negative climate feedbacks, and there are also many other minor positive and negative climate feedbacks, but water vapor is the main positive one. See:
https://sealevel.info/feedbacks.html
The net effect of positive water vapor feedback and negative lapse rate feedback is also almost certainly positive, though not wildly so.
The sign of the net effect of positive water vapor feedback, negative lapse rate feedback, and negative water cycle / evaporative cooling feedback is less clear.
Read my articles. You will find a lot you do not know..
How can we get a copy of your report?
There’s a link to the report in the first sentence of this article.
Thank you for this, Drs. McKitrick & Curry! I’m going to bookmark it for citing whenever I see some climate industry shill repeat the accusation that your work and your report was “illegal,” to refuting that lie.
If there’s one lesson that every child should learn before being allowed to graduate from high school, it is that the media is not a dispassionate debating forum based on presentation of rigorous evidence.
It is, on the other hand, an emotionally charged set of echo chambers allied to campaigns of smearing against those who disagree with the echo chambers’ views.
It really amazes me how people get so het up about a bit of carbon dioxide but really couldn’t give a monkeys about 100,000+ dead women and children.
The human condition is indeed one which is not always rigorous, logical or rational.
Last year I had the privilege of working with a small team (me, Judy Curry, John Christy, Steve Koonin and Roy Spencer) on a draft report for U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the topic of climate change impacts on the United States…
Funny thing. I’m old-enough to remember when anthropogenic climate change “skeptics” used to claim that policy advocacy has no place in “true” science.
True story. What happened to that, anyway?
Troll, troll, troll. As usual you’ve got it completely wrong, Joshua. What skeptics advocated for both now and back in the day was for people to declare their biases. That when a scientist ventured into the realm of policy discussions that their opinions be heard but not granted undue weight because they were a scientist–and that when politicians entered into scientific discussions the same lack of kowtowing be extended to them.
You have a decades long record of being wrong about everything. Glad to see you are at least consistent.
Lol. Not worth responding beyond just saying not worth responding.
Thank you. Is the court opinion available?
Yes.
McKitrick: “…FACA applies if an expert committee has been convened to advise on policies. We were not asked to do so nor did we.”
The judge in the case McKitrick refers to found otherwise:
“The conclusion of the report itself shows that it is no mere “review” of the literature. To suggest otherwise borders on sophistry….the authors of this report have provided “advice or recommendations”….No reasonable jury could find that these words [quoting words in the Report], arranged as they are, do not constitute advice or recommendations for a renewed approach to climate policy.”
FACA applies if an expert committee has been convened to advise on policies. We were not asked to do so nor did we.”
What a remarkably low level respect for the reader Ross must have to think that this particular group of scientists being selected, by a politician, to write a review for a policy agency, is somehow independent of “advise on policies.” It’s just transparently disingenuous.
The Judge was District Judge William G. Young of Massachusetts. He was appointed by President Reagan, but supported by both of Massachusetts’ Democratic U.S. Senators, Ted Kennedy & John Kerry. I’m reminded of the definition of bipartisanship:
“We have two parties here. One is the evil party, and the other is the stupid party. I’m a member of the stupid party. Occasionally, the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.”
– variously attributed to M. Stanton Evans, Sen. Alan Simpson, or Sen. Everett Dirksen
It is also worth noting that the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) has long been considered Constitutionally dubious:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/i-know-that-some-law-review-st-gPfQN3_fQW6XicrrfBiLNw
https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/j0s1oj2lwi027ldk6y45xnnx3353t1y2.pdf
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
For empirical temperature data that shows that CO2 does not cause warming of air, please go to the late John L. Daly’s website “Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.john-daly.com. From the home page, page down to the end and click “Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map” click on “North America”, and then page down to “U.S.A.-Pacific”. Finally, scroll down and click on “Death Valley”.
Shown in the chart are plots of annual mean seasonal temperatures and a plot of the annual mean temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 was 303 ppmv (0.59 g CO2/cu. m. of air) and 2001 it had increased to ca. 371 ppmv (0.73 g CO2/cu. m. of air), but there was no corresponding increase in air temperature at this arid desert. The reason there was no increase in air temperature at this remote desert is quite simple: There is too little CO2 in the air to absorb enough out-going long wavelength IR light to warm up the air.
At the Mauna Loa Obs. in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is currently 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has a mass of 1,290 g CO2 and a mere 0.84 g of CO2, a 15% increase since 2001. This small amount of CO2 in air can not have any effect on air temperature, weather and climate.
The above empirical data and calculations, and the work of John L. Daly falsifies the claims by the IPCC that CO2 cause global warming and is the control knob of climate change. The purpose of these claims is to ensure the preservation and generous funding of the IPCC and its workers at it headquarters in Bern, Switzerland.
Harold Pierce said, “This small amount of CO2 in air can not have any effect on air temperature, weather and climate.”
Why not? The ‘why’ is CO2’s infrared absorption centered near 15 um which is near the center of Earth’s thermal emission spectrum, and is (partially) within the H20 transmission window.
B A Bushaw:
Harold Pierce is largely correct.
It can be proven that CO2 has no climatic effect, apart from decreasing Earth’s albedo because of its greening of our planet.
The control knob of our climate is simply changing levels of SO2 aerosol pollution in our atmosphere.
Google the Research Gate article “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
Whenever SO2 aerosol levels decrease, temperatures increase. And vice versa.
Burl said, “It can be proven that CO2 has no climatic effect”
No, it can’t, on a number of ground we have discused previously. You are a willfully ignorant fool with serious analytical and memory deficiencies.
Burl,
Please do not address any more comments to me. They are stupid, false, repeated over and over, and thus not of interest at any level.
“A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
No thanks, I have no interest in revisiting your earlier papers – they are all crap. I will note that this one (above) has zero citations after 6 years – I guess nobody else (of sufficient competence to be making citations) believes or cares about your ‘work’.
B A Bushaw:
What kind of an incompetent “scientist” ARE you?
You simply refer to something you have not read as “crap”, indicating that you have a closed mind, too weak to be able to try to refute anything contrary to what you think you know.
No one should pay any attention to you.
Burl ” Whar kind of scientist are you?”
A real one, unlike you. And yes, I ‘ve read your papers – they are pure crap, not science, and that is why nobody cites your silliness. One comfort for the rejectionist – you can always find place to publish crap.
Harold, so-called GHGs like CO2 are colorants, which tint the atmosphere, though in the far infrared, rather than visible part of the spectrum. It doesn’t take much “colorant” to have a substantial effect on absorption of radiation.
In the case of CO2, the effect is huge, as you can see from the big “notch” in Earth’s LW IR emissions, around 15 µm, which I’ve marked in green, here:
https://sealevel.info/slide16_excerpt2_FTIR_data_from_a_satellite_tropical_western_pacific_annot12_wide_1203x630.png
That’s Earth’s LW IR emissions, measured from a satellite over the tropical Pacific. The big green notch represents radiation that was absorbed in the atmosphere by CO2, and so NOT radiated out into space. I.e., it is “cooling that was prevented” by the CO2 in the atmosphere.
That absorbed radiation warms the air. (Since energy is continuously being collisionally exchanged between air molecules, when CO2 or another GHG absorbs radiation, the heat is shared among all the components of the atmosphere, not just held by the molecules that absorbed the radiation.)
Additional CO2 added to the atmosphere has only a small warming effect, not because CO2 has a small effect, but because there’s already so much CO2 in the air.
The more radiation escapes to space, the greater the cooling effect. So anything which reduces the amount of radiation that escapes to space has a warming effect.
At some wavelengths, CO2 is transparent, so the amount of CO2 in the air has no effect on those wavelengths. In fact, at some wavelengths none of the GHGs in the air absorb appreciably, so most radiation passes right through. The “atmospheric window” around about 10 µm is the most important range of such wavelengths.
But at some wavelengths, CO2 absorbs and emits so strongly that ALL of the radiation at those wavelengths which escapes to space originates within the atmosphere. If you “look down” from space at the Earth with a spectrophotometer, the radiation you “see” at any given wavelength will be from some average altitude, called the “emission height.”
The intensity of that radiation depends on the air temperature where it is emitted.
Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere increases the emission heights. The question you should be wondering is how that affects the air temperature at the emission height.
At some of those wavelengths, the emission height is so high that it is approximately at the tropopause. At the tropopause, changes in altitude have little or no effect on air temperature. So for those wavelengths, additional CO2 has no warming effect.
But at fringe wavelengths, where CO2 absorbs and emits only weakly, the emission height is lower, i.e., down in the troposphere. Within the troposphere, increasing altitude decreases air temperature. So raising the emission height lowers the temperature at the emission height, which reduces the intensity of the emissions which escape to space. That reduces energy lost to space, so it has a warming effect.
The effect is small, but not zero. The most comprehensive analyses are by van Wijingaarden_& Happer. This figure is from one of their papers. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.16465 I added the blinking ovals, which highlight the small effect (only about 3 W/m²) on radiative emissions to space from doubling the CO2 level:
https://sealevel.info/Earths_radiative_emissions_0_400_800_ppmv_v2_annot1.gif
“Additional CO2 added to the atmosphere has only a small warming effect, not because CO2 has a small effect, but because there’s already so much CO2 in the air.”
Great quantitative science – not. So, how did we manage to increase atmospheric CO2 by over 50% in less than 200 years? Pretty simple – by burning a whole lot fossil fuels.
BTW, The van Wijingaarden & Happer work referenced is a manuscript (not a paper) – it has never been published. Only the desperate pay it much attention.
Daveburton, why there is no any reference of hour(hours) of the day the satellite measurements were taken.
I see now, I studied it more, I see why there is no references on the hour op the measurments were taken. It is because they are the global average IR emisssions measurements.
So those measurements cannot be taken at some particular hour of the day – they are global IR emission averages.
Next they do is to compare the measured global average IR emission spectrum curve with the global average surface temperature’s blackbody emission spectrum curve.
We face here some non-existing fallacies comparison.
“Circular reasoning can appear in several common forms, each illustrating a different way the conclusion and premise reinforce each other without independent support.”
B A Bushaw:
Now that you have finally read my publication “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”, do you still characterize it as “Crap”?
I am sure that you learned some new facts.
Burl, yes.
Harold,
“This small amount of CO2 in air can not have any effect on air temperature, weather and climate.”
Yet others say the CO2 greenhouse effect is “saturated” because there is so much CO2. You deniers are entertaining, if nothing else.
I fear you will have as much chance of opening the debate up with the likes of the de smog brigade, as Galileo had of changing the Pope’s Inquisitor’s views on the heliocentric universe idea.
I submitted a long comment on the US DoE (draft) Report ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’ I have been hoping for a response, but I haven’t received one. I guess that the people are very busy, even overloaded, and that my report is nowhere near a top priority for them.
Not busy on this. There will not be a final version that in any way resembles the draft.
https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/j0s1oj2lwi027ldk6y45xnnx3353t1y2.pdf
I submitted a long initial comment on the US DoE (draft) Report ‘A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate’, but I would now like to add to my initial comment.
My initial comment reasoned as follows: observation shows that the one the relevant time scale and in the appropriate averaging, the earth’s energy transport process is dynamically stable. That means that external perturbations are followed by relatively quick return to a reasonably anticipated trajectory. Such dynamical stability rules out overall positive feedback and ensures overall negative feedback. Consequently, the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is less than the no-feedback virtual warming of perhaps 1.2°C.
My initial comment’s reasoning was limited to the direct primary perturbative effect of added CO2 on atmospheric optical thickness, and to the feedbacks from that. I would like to add another direct primary perturbative effect that is not a feedback from the direct optical thickness effect. This other direct perturbative effect is the primary stimulation of plant growth, otherwise recognised as ‘global greening’, as observed in satellite photos. I now submit that this global greening will act as a global cooling factor. This strengthens or adds to my initial comment’s conclusion that the ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ is less than the no-feedback virtual warming of perhaps 1.2°C.
I do not live in the US, I am an Australian. Here, you do not dare contradict the Climate Falsehoods. Thank you for standing up and being heard.
A few comments on the report:
1. Secretary Wright’s forwarding message includes the line “Climate change is real and deserves attention”. I would guess 80% of those who post on this site would stridently dismiss that line if it were made here by one of us “alarmists”.
2. Wright goes on to say, “Climate change is a challenge, not a catastrophe.” I would agree with him on that. I am alarmed by the pace of anthropogenic climate change and see a lot of uncertainty in my grandchildren’s future, but I suspect they will get through it. Most climate scientists I know think as I do, though one at least is more worried than I, and she is more knowledgeable on many issues. Of course it depends what you mean by “catastrophe”. Human extinction would certainly qualify, but the “existential threat” notion is not taken literally by anyone I know. Would the flooding of Florida be considered a catastrophe or maybe a blessing?
3. I really don’t like the report’s framing of the climate question as “how much will US emissions effect the US economy”, though I recognize that was the charge to the committee and not their choice. It reminds me of when Dr. Curry told us a couple of years ago that had she been called to testify in the Held vs Montana case, she would have testified that “Montana emissions have negligible influence on Montana’s climate”. With that as her argument, it is no wonder she was not called by the defense, and my Montana tax dollars paid her to keep quiet. I would have thought Ross, at least, would have argued for a more global perspective.
4. There were other narrow-minded statements. Mentioning the fact that US tidal gauges showed no acceleration of sea level rise, when the committee knew full well that European satellite data did was at best a half truth. This suggests the committee had an agenda, but that is hardly a surprise.
An optimistic view of the report is that if it moves the conversation away from the non-productive “hoax” vs “imminent doom” narrative, perhaps some sustainable policies can be developed. But the new world order certainly makes concerted global action more difficult. And I suspect that the usual suspects will continue to dominate from the fringes on this blog.
Hi David,
You wrote, “Mentioning the fact that US tidal gauges showed no acceleration of sea level rise, when the committee knew full well that European satellite data did was at best a half truth.”
I disagree. Relying on tide gauge data instead of satellite altimetry is justified by the fact that sea-level measurements from the best tide gauges are vastly superior in quality to the satellite altimetry data.
(Also, satellite altimeters measure sea-level in the wrong places. It only matters near the coasts, which is where tide gauges measure it. But satellite altimeters can only measure it in the open ocean, far from the coasts.)
Honolulu has one of the very best sea-level measurement records in the world. Unlike many other locations, is not much affected by vertical land motion, sedimentation, or erosion. It has 121 years of continuous measurements, with a very typical trend, and without even a single missing month. It’s at a nearly ideal measurement site, near the middle of the world’s largest ocean, on a tectonically stable island with near-zero vertical land motion, small tides, and little ENSO distortion. Data just doesn’t get much better than this:
Annotated:
https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2025-11_vs_CO2_annot1.png
Interactive:
https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=honolulu
As you can see, rising CO2 levels have had no detectable effect on the sea-level trend there.
In fact, most of the best long coastal sea-level measurement records show little or no acceleration in sea-level trend over the last 80 years, despite CO2 levels rising from about 310 ppmv to 427 ppmv.
Careful analyses using data from many measurement sites show a barely detectable average acceleration of only about 0.01 mm/yr². That is negligible. An acceleration of 0.01 mm/yr², were it to continue for 150 years, would increase sea-level by just 4.4 inches:
https://www.google.com/search?q=(0.01+%2F+2)+*+(150%5E2)+%2F+25.4+%3D
Some papers claim much higher rates of acceleration, but they’re based on cherry-picked endpoints, or splicing together data from different locations for different times, or other errors. The best long measurement records do not show enough acceleration in sea-level rise to be worrisome.
In contrast to the excellent measurement data from tide gauges, sea-level measurements from satellite altimeters are subject to a dizzying barrage of corrections and adjustments.
They are impressively malleable. They WERE showing deceleration. Then the SAME data were “corrected” to get rid of that deceleration, and show linearity. (Cazenave, Dieng et al. The rate of sea-level rise. Nature Clim Change 4, 358–361 [2014] doi:10.1038/nclimate2159.)
Then the same data, with additional corrections, plus a few more years of data, were FINALLY made to show acceleration, triggering the press releases. (Dieng, Cazenave, et al. New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach. Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 3744–3751, doi:10.1002/2017GL073308.)
A cynic might say, “this suggests the team had an agenda, but that is hardly a surprise.” Or, “if you torture the data enough it will always confess.”
Read about it here:
https://sealevel.info/satellite_altimetry.html
Here are some of the corrections and adjustments that AVISO reported using to improve the satellite altimetry data:
https://sealevel.info/satellite_altimetry_corrections_aviso1.png
Additionally, they add a 0.3 mm/yr isostatic adjustment (GIA) fudge factor to all reported satellite-measured sea-level trends. It used to be optional, but they removed that option.
Of course, that sum isn’t actually the rate of sea-level rise (SLR). It’s what they think the rate of sea-level rise WOULD be if the ocean floor weren’t sinking. Calling it SLR is misleading.
“it… means their ‘mean sea level’ is now floating, phantom like, above the waves.” – Greg Goodman
I wrote to AVISO, asking them to restore the option, but they politely refused.
When I was an AR6 expert reviewer, in comments about several different parts of the Report I complained about their inclusion of the 0.3 mm/yr GIA adjustment to arrive at their reported 1.7 mm/yr rate of 20th century sea-level rise. In every case they rejected my complaints. But their reasons varied.
Sometimes their response claimed that they did not include the 0.3 mm/yr adjustment (“the 1.7 mm/year rate does not have a 0.3 mm/year correction applied,” they said).
Other times they claimed that it was proper to include the 0.3 mm/yr adjustment (it was “done to extract the 1.7 mm/yr SLR supposed to reflect climate processes only,” they said).
I suppose that inconsistency happened because they had multiple people writing the responses, but it is telling that those anonymous people didn’t agree except about the result: “Rejected.”
Unfortunately, we expert reviewers weren’t shown any of those responses until after the final report had been released (>2 years later, for the FOD!). So there was no way to point out their confusion to them.
The IPCC named that process “expert review,” which invites confusion with peer review. But it did not resemble peer review. In real peer review, the authors could not have just ignored the reviewers’ complaints about errors in the report, and published it anyhow, errors included, before ever even responding to those complaints. But that’s how the IPCC’s assessment reports are done.
Dave
Thank you for providing the AVISO corrections and adjustments to the satellite altimetry data.
Looking at the totality of evidence from the tidal gauge data should lead to a reasonable conclusion that a significant acceleration in GMSLR doesn’t exist. Looking at all the studies identifying errors, biases, corrections and adjustments in the satellite data should lead to a reasonable conclusion that it doesn’t deserve much confidence.
The differences in trends are significant and should be addressed in the next IPCC report. I won’t be holding my breath.
DAVEBURTON, So you claim to be an expert? Your blogs (kindergarten level) don’t support that.
Dave Burton,
The sea level rise plot that you link to has no associated. narrative, and is contradicted by the lead plot in this link.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
What publication did your plot come from?
to Mr. Bushaw…..
talking down elevates neither the message nor the messenger
Mr. Potsniron,
It’s not about me. You are free to examine Mr. Burton’s self-promotional materials and form your own opinion.
David Andrews wrote, “The sea level rise plot that you link to has no associated. narrative… What publication did your plot come from?”
Are you asking about the Honolulu plots?
Annotated: https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2025-11_vs_CO2_annot1.png
Interactive: https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=honolulu
That’s my sealevel.info website. The “annotated” version is just a screenshot from the “interactive” version, with manual annotations added.
At the top of the “interactive” version, there are links to the NOAA and PSMSL webpages about the same tide gauge, and if you scroll down the page you’ll find the citations to the sources of the data. I encourage you to click those links.
My website has analysis and visualization features for sea-level data from several different sources, from over 1200 sea-level measurement sites. The Honolulu data is from NOAA.
The default format and colors of my plots were chosen to resemble NOAA’s, because I think their oceanographers did a good job (and I like their graphs better than PSMSL’s). But I added many features, such as quadratic regressions, smoothing options, the ability to select desired time periods, different color schemes, etc. My site also has some limited ability to analyze and visualize combined data from multiple sites.
David wrote, “[It] is contradicted by the lead plot in this link.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level ”
Climate.gov is an Obama administration “climate communication” (propaganda) project. It was run by “climate communicators” (activists, like Rebecca Lindsey), not geoscientists. It was and is a very untrustworthy source of information.
Climate.gov had no “comments” feature on the site, but it has a Facebook page for that purpose. Lindsey and her team censored the climate.gov Facebook page, to prevent viewpoints different from their own from being mentioned, and to prevent inconvenient facts from being mentioned. To that end she personally blocked me from accessing that Facebook page.
Their censorship was flagrantly illegal “viewpoint discrimination” by a federal government agency, in violation of what is called the “Public Forum Doctrine.” They knew that what they were doing was illegal, but they didn’t care; I still have the emails, BTW. (The NOAA Office of General Counsel didn’t care, either.)
Their plot splices measurements from different locations for different times, into one graph. Since sea-level trends vary from one place to another, if you measure at different places for different time periods, you can create the illusion of acceleration or deceleration.
If you want to know whether sea-level trends have ACTUALLY accelerated, you need to use measurements from the SAME place(s). Fortunately, we have some excellent continuous or near-continuous measurement records which extend back over a century from quite a few places. So there’s no need to splice disparate data like they did.
The righthand part of their graph is from an apparently unpublished analysis by someone at the University of Hawaii. The lefthand part of their graph is from a 15 year old paper, one of a series of papers by Church & White, which I wrote about here:
Burton, D.A. (2012). Comments on “Assessing future risk: quantifying the effects of sea level rise on storm surge risk for the southern shores of Long Island, New York,” by Christine C. Shepard, Vera N. Agostini, Ben Gilmer, Tashya Allen, Jeff Stone, William Brooks and Michael W. Beck (Volume 60, Number 2, 727–745, DOI: 10.1007/s11069-011-0046-8). Nat Hazards 63, 1219–1221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-012-0159-8
Preprint: https://doi.org/10.1038/npre.2012.7067.1
or on my site, here: https://sealevel.info/jnathaz1/
Here’s an excerpt:
— BEGIN EXCERPT —
The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report noted the “observational finding of no acceleration in sea level rise during the 20th century.” But there is still a lot of confusion about sea level rise. Much of it results from misunderstanding the findings of a key paper, Church, J. A., and White, N. J., 2006, “A 20th Century Acceleration in Global Sea-Level Rise.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L01602, 4 PP. DOI: 10.1029/2005GL024826
Church & White fit a quadratic to averaged and adjusted tide gauge data, and detected a small acceleration in rate of sea level rise for the 20th century as a whole. But it turns out that all of that acceleration occurred in the first quarter of the 20th century (and the late 19th century). After 1925, their data showed a small deceleration in rate of sea level rise, rather than acceleration.
Since nearly all of the anthropogenic contribution to CO2 levels occurred after 1925, that means Church & White detected no acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to anthropogenic CO2.
In 2009, Church and White released a new data set, based on a different set of tide gauges. I applied their 2006 analysis method to the new data. I found that it not only showed deceleration in sea level rise after 1925, all of the acceleration in sea level rise for the full 20th century was also gone. I shared my results with Drs. Church & White, and on June 18, 2010, Dr. Church replied, confirming my analysis: “For the 1901 to 2007 period, again we agree with your result and get a non-significant and small deceleration.”
In 2011, Church and White released a third data set. This one shows a very slight acceleration in sea level rise after 1925, though much smaller in magnitude than the deceleration seen in their other data sets. The post-1925 acceleration in this data set, if it continued to 2080, would add just 0.8 inches of sea level rise, compared to a linear projection.
— END EXCERPT —
(Note: When combining data from many tide gauge records from different places, many of them short, as Church & White do, it is easy to mistake local “sloshes” or local differences in trend for actual global changes in trend. I much prefer using just the long measurement records, to avoid those pitfalls.)
Each of the Church & White studies used different sets of tide gauges.
Church & White’s 2006 paper was the first paper that I’m aware of which claimed detection of an acceleration in global sea-level rise. It got a huge amount of publicity, and it has been cited over 1500 times.
But their data actually showed no acceleration at all after 1925, though the paper failed to mention that important fact. Here’s my plot, using their data:
https://sealevel.info/jnathaz1/CW06_1925-latest.png
Church & White’s 2009 dataset showed deceleration, rather than acceleration. So they didn’t publish a paper about it, and you probably never heard of it. (They’ve since removed the dataset from their website, too, but I saved a copy of it.) Here’s my plot:
https://sealevel.info/jnathaz1/CW09_1925-latest.png
In Church & White’s 2011 dataset, sea-level between about 1950 & 1965 is lower, which causes the quadratic regression fit to finally show a slight positive acceleration, even since 1925. Here’s my plot:
https://sealevel.info/jnathaz1/CW11_1925-latest.png
When you think of cherry-picking, you probably think of people selecting the data which supports their desired conclusions, and finding excuses to discard other data. But that’s not the only kind of cherry-picking which can mislead people. Cherry-picking between analyses, and only publishing or highlighting those which support a chosen narrative, can be just as misleading.
daveburton,
Thank you for your detailed comments on the Church & White papers on sea level change. These authors are both Australian from our CSIRO. As an Australian scientist myself I am interested in their claims, which I studied in detail after their publication in the 2006 to 2011 era.
I found their conclusions on acceleration to be unsupportable in just the ways that you describe. Geoff S
David Burton,
Got it. The sea level plots you posted were from your website and all others shoiuld be ignored.
“Mentioning the fact that US tidal gauges showed no acceleration of sea level rise, when the committee knew full well that European satellite data did was at best a half truth” Why is the satellite data of equal weight to the tidal gauges? Has the difference been reconciled? Isn’t it the gauges that are the relevant reference as they show whether places are at risk of flooding?
Without addressing the validity of current SLR measurements, two items stand out.
A – a google search for SLR using only tide gauges shows the most recent study is the Church White 2011. Perhaps is the algorithm in google that is heavily biased to finding the satellite SLR studies. Are there no SLR studies using only tide guages since 2011?
B – circa 2000-2002, the satellite measurements showed 3.3mm ish SLR rise while the tide gauge measurements showed about 2.2mm to 2.4mm. That gap persisted from about 1993 to about 2002-2004. Then the satellite measurements from 1993 to 2002 ish- were adjusted downward to match the tide guage measurements.
Chris, yes tidal gauge measurements are useful for local predictions. That does not make them the best approach for GMSLR. Both are good measurement systems, taken together they make a better measurement system. It is not a battle of which is better.
Joe, yes there are recent TG-only studies.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/17/5507/2025/
Chris, tide gauge data is vastly superior to satellite altimetry, and much longer duration than even the best satellite’s altimetry data. Those satellites typically only last a decade or so, but quite a few tide gauges have high quality measurements going back more than a century. The main advantage of satellites is coverage of regions which have few or no tide gauges, but for detecting changes in “global” (average) sea-level trends, the tide gauge data is far, far better.
Plus, tide-gauges measure sea-level where it matters (at the coasts) instead of where it doesn’t (in the mid-ocean, where satellite altimeters measure it).
Joe, there’ve been quite a few good studies of tide gauge data since Church & White (2011). Houston (2021) contains this table, summarizing the conclusions of ten of those studies:
https://sealevel.info/Houston2021_Table2_annot2.png
That’s from:
Houston, J.R., 2021. Sea-level acceleration: Analysis of the world’s high-quality tide gauges. Journal of Coastal Research, 37(2), 272–279. Coconut Creek (Florida), ISSN 0749-0208, https://doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-20-00101.1
One of those ten studies was Hogarth (2014). It reported, “Sea level acceleration from extended tide gauge data converges on 0.01 mm/yr².” Which is right.
That’s negligible. An acceleration of 0.01 mm/yr², were it to continue for 150 years, would increase sea-level by just 4.4 inches.
David on the CO2 coalition: “…you routinely confuse political arguments with scientific ones.”
You too, David.
In this instance both sides of the argument hinge around opinions that in reality are irrelevant to the OHC discussion–there’s not enough data. OHC is relevant to heat, which may or may not correlate with CO2 over the course of 2k years.
The 70 years worth of OHC data that science currently has (decidedly CO2 driven attribution data) is a joke relative to the historical science about OHC in general. Providing 2000 years worth of data is about the amount of time it takes for ocean water to turn over completely–only then does the data become an interesting discussion, relative to ocean heat content–causation(s).
This remains futures science.
JT – The lack of information before a certain time is not a valid reason to disregard what is known since that time. Of course, if you are trying to propagate the ‘we don’t know enough to do anything’ mantra . . .
https://www.mercator-ocean.eu/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Global-ocean-heat-content-in-2000m.png
I didn’t disregard any info.
Describing a mean temperature to the depths indicated will demonstrate a dramatic curve in a chart when the 1st 100 meters warms rapidly, even when deeper layer temperatures remain little changed.
The 0–700 m shallow layer is the upper ocean, where most of the oceanic heat exchange with the atmosphere occurs. The intermediate layer (700–2000 m) is less responsive to short-term atmospheric changes, though important for long-term heat absorption. The temperature in the bathypelagic zone 1k-4k meters, is near constant at around 39°F. The layer within the 2000–6000m depth range, known as the deep ocean layer stores heat over centuries to millennia.
So we know there’s been warming since the end of the LIA. If “record heat” is indicated, the data used is from the last 70 years. This says little about total OHC per prior discussion.
JT, I know it strains your intellect – but if something is a record it means it has been recorded. Your deflections from reality are not convincing. Squawk.
JT, “I didn’t disregard any info.”
Yes you did, and the prior discussion was about OHC anomalies which are differentials of measured values, not totals. But then, you are plain stupid and unacknowledged AI use makes you look even more insecure. Piss off, ignorant boy with a psychological fixation on Psittaciformes.
I brought up the topic of OHC because of statements like this, from a Google AI description of El Nino:
“As of early 2026, forecasts indicate a potential return of El Niño following a weak La Niña, with models suggesting a moderate to strong event developing later in the year, potentially making the planet hotter.”
I believe that it is more accurate to say that El Nino will make the MEASURED Earth Surface Temperature higher, because more of the heat will be near the surface, rather than at lower depths. EST will overestimate how hot the planet has become relative to previous years. When La Nina dominates, EST underestimates how hot the plaet has become, because the hotter water at depth is ignored. EST may temporarily fall during La Nina, but the planet will stilll be hotter. Meanwhile, the steady rise of the anamalous OHC shows that the radiative imbalance is continually with us.
As has already been pointed out, the CHANGE in heat content of the top 700 or 2000 m is what is important. That is a more solid measure of global warming than just surface measurements sensitive to decadal variations in circulation patterns, even if it ignores possible changes at deeper depths.
David Andrews writes “I am alarmed by the pace of anthropogenic climate change and see a lot of uncertainty in my grandchildren’s future,”
I don’t see any abnormal rate of change and I don’t think there is a reasonably accurate attribution of the anthropogenic portion.
I’m sure there are lots of things that you don’t see, particularly if you don’t look. – doesn’t change reality.
David Albert
You see nothing fast happening to alarm you? Here is one of many plots you could find of CO2 concentration over the last 800,000 years, that is, most of human history and prehistory:
https://earth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/co2-graph-083122_scaled_scrunched.jpg.webp
Do you see the spike on the far right? It’s easy to miss because it is so narrow. That’s us burning fossil fuels. To his credit, Dave Burton was one of many that effectively debunked the Berry/Harde/Salby/Koutsoyiannis… arguments, once made on this blog but thankfully not recently, that the current CO2 rise is “natural”. I didn’t mention it in yesterday’s post but a plus of the DOE Climate Assessment Report we are discussing was this statement
“The annual increase in concentration is only about half of the CO2 emitted because land and ocean processes currently absorb “excess” CO2 at a rate approximately 50 percent of the human emissions. Future concentrations, and hence future human influences on the climate, therefore depend upon two components: (1) future rates of global human CO2 emissions, and (2) how fast the land and ocean remove extra CO2 from the atmosphere.”
You can’t tell from the linked plot, but if you look at Mauna Loa data for the last century only, you will see that the rate of atmospheric carbon growth is still increasing. We may need to turn the curve over, but we are not yet at the inflection point. Yet the CO2 Coalition laughably tells us “we are in a CO2 famine”! I am afraid Dave Burton loses credibility from his association with that group, and by dutifully diverting to the silly plant food advertisement while ignoring the real issue.
It is easy for you to find and compare the present rates of change in published mean global surface temperature (about 1 C in the last century) to the changes coming out of ice ages (maybe 1 C per millennium). But I prefer plots of ocean heat content since they are less sensitive to decadal scale fluctuations in ocean currents. Thise currents then push warm surface water down, it is replaced by colder water, and the heated submerged water is not included in the metric. Ocean heat content keeps track of that and is therefore smoother. It is not hard to see an acceleration in ocean heat content. https://en wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content That does not look to me like a curve about to turn over.
So we are in territory uncharted since dinosaur days, when the oceans had a different shape. While the DOE report says we should pay attention, it discouraged action.
Try again on Ocean Heat Content link.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/1955-_Ocean_heat_content_-_NOAA.svg/1920px-1955-_Ocean_heat_content_-_NOAA.svg.png
David Andrews, that Wikipedia OHC graph is from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content
There are two points that I want to make about it.
First, assuming that the numbers depicted are correct (a dubious assumption!), do you know WHY they show ocean heat content in “zettajoules” (10²¹ joules)?
After all, they don’t measure ZJs, they measure TEMPERATURES.
It’s not just the Wikipedia graph, all the OHC papers all do it. They report ZJs or tens of ZJs (10²² joules), instead of average water temperature changes.
That Wikipedia graph credits climate.gov, but the climate.gov graph that I found is of “upper half mile” (top 805 meters) OHC; it uses tens of ZJs:
https://sealevel.info/climatedotgov_NOAA_top_half-mile_OHC.png
Source: https://www.climate.gov/feeds/dashboard/dashboard-data-ocean-heat-graph (scroll way down)
Anyhow, why do you think that they report obscure units like ZJs or tens of ZJs, instead of units that are meaningful to most people, like averaged ℃ or ℉?
To grok the answer to that question, do the conversion back into temperatures.
That graph shows about a 225 ZJ increase in OHC in the top 700 meters, and a 375 ZJ increase in the top 2000 meters. So calculate what that means the average temperature change must have been, in the top 700 or top 2000 meters of ocean, over that 65 year period (1957-2022).
I believe doing that exercise will ease your worries about OHC changes, David.
Let me know what you calculate, and we can compare your results to mine.
The second point is that you need to consider the source of the data. OHC is estimated by models, informed by temperature measurements, made by Argo floats. The first Argo float was deployed in 2000. They didn’t reach 3000 units (i.e., one float per 120,000 km²) until 2007.
Prior to about 2005 those OHC numbers are really just guesswork, because there was very little deep ocean temperature measurement data back then.
Typical OHC graphs depict average seawater temperature changes for the top 2000 meters of the entire world’s oceans to a supposed precision of ±0.02°C, all the way back to the late 1950s (except that this climate.gov / Wikipedia version omits the CIs). That’s beyond preposterous.
Even now, with the Argo floats fully deployed, we only have about one float per 100,000 km² of ocean.
Before about 2005 we had some convenience samples of surface layer temperatures, and almost nothing else—certainly not at 700m or 2000m depth. But climate.gov / Wikipedia nevertheless graph it as if the numbers were precisely known.
There are people out there using these OHC estimates to derive estimates of Earth’s radiative imbalance. They need to be warned that the data are nowhere near accurate enough for that.
daveburton: “Anyhow, why do you think that they report obscure units like ZJs or tens of ZJs, instead of units that are meaningful to most people, like averaged ℃ or ℉?”
Because Joules are the the standard SI unit for Energy and zeta is the prefix for 10^(21). The energy required to raise the average ocean temperature by ~1 K is mass of ocean (~ 1.4 zeta-kg) x c_p (~4×10^3J/kg) ~ 5600 ZJ. Or inverting: 0.18 mK average temperature increase for each zetaJoule of energy increase.
Dave Burton,
You ask why ocean heat content is expressed in joules. Would you prefer ergs or calories or BTU’s instead? Maybe electron-volts or foot-pounds? Obviously they express it in joules because that is part of the standard mks system of units.
You ask me to express a 225 x 10^21 joule ocean heat content change in 700 m of ocean depth in terms of a temperature change. OK. I looked up the ocean area and found it to be 361 million km2. I will not bother trying to correct for continental shelves that are less than 700m deep. So the volume of water to a depth of 700 m is something less than (because of the shelves) 700m x 361 x 10^6 km^2 = 2.5 x 10^17 m^3 = 2.5 x 10^23 cm^3. I will ignore the difference in density between salt water and fresh, and also the difference in heat capacity between salt water and fresh. So that volume of water weighs 2.5 x 10^23 g. The average temperature rise is then something more than 2.25 x 10^23 j /(2.5 x 10^23 g = x 4.184 j/gC) = .24 degrees C. I am pretty sure I got all the powers of 10 correct, because it has to be less than 1 C to line up with the Mean Surface Temperature numbers, and I wouldn’t expect the warming at 700m to be nearly as high.
I suppose your point is that the oceans are not boiling yet and won’t be for a while. Again, I like the OHC metric because it is insensitive to El Nina and the like, whose modulation of MST makes it appear that the radiative imbalance is variable when in fact it is not. MST misses some of the heating when the surface water is submerged. I also presume, since I trust scientists, that OHC includes the latent heat associated with the ongoing melting of arctic ice, which is real heating from the radiative imbalance without a corresponding temperature change. MST misses that.
Ignoring the “unit” discussion, but:
Burton: “OHC is estimated by models, informed by temperature measurements… The first Argo float was deployed in 2000. They didn’t reach 3000 units…until 2007. Prior to about 2005 those OHC numbers are really just guesswork… there was very little deep ocean temperature measurement data back then…Typical OHC graphs depict average seawater temperature changes for the top 2000 meters of the entire world’s oceans to a supposed precision of ±0.02°C, all the way back to the late 1950s”.
Andrew: “I like the OHC metric because it is insensitive to El Nina and the like, whose modulation of MST makes it appear that the radiative imbalance is variable when in fact it is not. MST misses some of the heating when the surface water is submerged. I also presume…that OHC includes the latent heat associated with the ongoing melting of arctic ice”
How much does contemporary OHC measurement capture relative to residual pulses of stored heat from: the MWP, the RWP, deep ocean vulcanism, or long lasting marine heatwaves; mixed oceanic heat stored from hundreds to thousands of years ago?
The deep ocean current system plays a significant role in heat distribution across the globe. Ocean water turnover time can take hundreds to thousands of years to circulate completely. This slow-moving water holds historical temperature signatures—essentially “storing” heat from previous climatic periods like the RWP, MWP. Upwelling mixes layers of ocean water, transporting historical stored heat to the upper ocean layers. It impacts current climate, and measurement.
OHC does not evolve linearly. The intricate workings of thermohaline circulation and upward mixing can obscure the historical signatures of heat in deep ocean waters. The mixing of old, temperature-laden water with surface layers makes it difficult to ascertain how much of the heat being measured is tied to recent anthropogenic changes versus natural variability.
Old water—new heat, or cold. All translating to thermal characteristics reflective of earlier climatic conditions.
Over the last couple thousand years there’s been net warming over cooling (the LIA). This includes the RWP, the MWP and the Maya warming period (200 to 1100 CE), it overlaps. There’s no way to determine a number of long lasting marine heatwaves occurring before modern instruments—there’s little known about these—out of sight, out of mind, I suppose. Not many would have survived such an event stuck in still waters of the South Pacific Gyre to report. There’s no way to capture the extent of deep sea vulcanism either, the amount of heat released, its effects on ocean circulation, ice shelves, or the poles. A lot of naturally occurring remote events are certainly not accounted for relative to heat distribution throughout the last couple thousand years; or when said stored oceanic heat is finally released via complex circulation patterns after it being sequestered for thousands of years.
JT, probably not at all since those ‘pulses’ are hundreds of years long (if they exist at all in a coherent pulse sense). they are further spread by strong mixing along current boundaries. Certainly they are negligible (unmeasureable) components of the baseline for the increase in OHC over the last 75 years.
It’s no surprise that you fell off your perch, Polly.
Just one possible example where historical latent heat can’t be quantified, the challenges in its measurement:
Latent heat from severe marine heat waves lasting hundreds of years (say similar to the RWP, and perhaps during the same period; or any other historical period), remain unidentified. For reference, the South Pacific Gyre is 14 million square miles.
Measurements from long lasting heat waves over such an expanse are nonexistent. This alone would lead to an underestimation of historical ocean heat content from significant warming.
From AI:
Significance of Latent Heat in Contemporary Ocean Records
The potential significance and measurability of latent heat from historical marine heat waves (MHWs) in contemporary records is an important topic in oceanography and climate science.
Potential Significance of Latent Heat
Magnitude of Historical Heat: If historical MHWs were significant in duration and intensity, the latent heat stored in the oceans from these events could contribute substantially to overall Ocean Heat Content (OHC). This contribution could be measurable, especially in the context of precise oceanographic assessments.
JT, Squawk!
The change in OHC since 1955 has been studied by both NOAA and NASA
Descriptive, and graph showing uncertainties
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/ocean-warming/
Data download source for world, northern and southern hemispheres, including standard errors for each datapoint
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/data/oceans/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/pentad/pent_h22-w0-2000m.dat
JT, since these are differential measurements (so-called anomalies) referenced to 1955, your deflection to possible influences of millennia old heat ‘pulses’ is kinda moot in this context.
Using 70 years worth of data to describe OHC is what’s moot, actually it’s banal– in consideration that oceanic heat can be stored for millenia before it’s finally recirculated back to the surface. Latent in this conext refers to a historical measure for stored heat, stored in the deep ocean.
Polly wanna?
Using 70 years worth of OHC data points when oceans can store heat for millenia only to be released within same period is the definition of obfuscation. Or a cracker starved moronic bird can define it their own way I suppose.
Part quote: “—– and see a lot of uncertainty in my grandchildren’s future,”. You are not the only one.
Something most here are oblivious of. In the last 7k yrs the earth changed its obliquity four times; and by amounts that make earth thermal absorption increase or decrease substantially. What is being discussed is only one instance of one particular orientation. That can change, and change is abrupt. Obliquity is key
It is here, re-linked, https://earth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/co2-graph-083122_scaled_scrunched.jpg.webp
The spike is less than a century. The others are averaged (possibly in kyrs).
David Andrews, thank you for doing the math. Yes, I got almost exactly the same number: +0.226°C from 225 ZJ into the top 700 meters of ocean.
I calculated +0.114°C from 325 ZJ into the top 2000 meters of ocean.
So,
1. Do you still think that temperature changes that tiny, over 66 years, are worrisome?
2. Do you have confidence that the temperatures of all the world’s oceans were known to a precision of 0.2 or 0.1°C, at depths of up to 700 or 2000 meters, before Argo float deployment, i.e., from 1957 through 1999?
I think the reason they report obscure units like ZJs or tens of ZJs (or “Hiroshimas”), instead of units that are meaningful to most people, like averaged °C or °F, is because they anticipate the sniggering which would result at headlines like this:
“Top 700 meters of oceans warmed by almost 1/4 °C in 66 years! Global boiling imminent!”
For scaring people into supporting “climate action,” it’s more effective to talk about Hiroshima bombs exploding in the ocean:
https://eos.org/research-and-developments/in-2025-the-ocean-stored-more-heat-than-weve-ever-recorded#:~:text=Twenty%2Dthree%20zettajoules%20in%20one%20year%20is%20equivalent%20to%20the%20energy%20of%2012%20Hiroshima%20bombs%20exploding%20in%20the%20ocean%20every%20second
daveburton, ‘they’ (and most everyone else that pays attention to OHC) use zettajoules instead of temperature, because they understand the difference between energy and temperature – do you?
David Burton,
When you suggest that using joules instead of degrees C to measure ocean heat content is a PR exercise to scare the public into worrying about climate, you expose the difference between a scientist and a hack from the CO2 Coalition. Energy is the quantity of interest in studying the radiative imbalance (not temperature) so a scientist chooses the standard unit to measure energy. He is communicating to his peers, not to the public. The hack from the CO2 Coalition thinks differently. He is not interested in getting the science right. He is only interested in how it is presented to the public. How would I have spun “ocean heat content” he asks himself. The CO2 Coalition is not interested in good science, only in spin.
Tell me, David, why do you say we are in a CO2 famine now, when CO2 levels are higher than any our species has seen before? Is that the conclusion of the CO2 Coalition’s best scientists?
Tell me, David, why does the Co2 Coalition talk so much about plant food and avoid the topic of warming oceans that people care about?
David Andrews wrote, “He is communicating to his peers, not to the public.”
I was talking about communication to the public, like this:
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/ocean-warming/
David Andrews continued, “The hack from the CO2 Coalition thinks differently. He is not interested in getting the science right.”
That is beneath you, David. I am disappointed.
David Andrews continued, “The CO2 Coalition is not interested in good science, only in spin.”
The CO2 Coalition is a very, very fine scientific organization, which is DEDICATED to good science. I am deeply honored to have been invited to be a member.
David Andrews continued, “why do you say we are in a CO2 famine now, when CO2 levels are higher than any our species has seen before?”
In spite of the modest increase over the last couple of centuries, the CO2 level is still lower now than during >98% of the Earth’s history. Elevated CO2 is very beneficial for plants, and harmless for animals.
Thousands of rigorous agronomy studies have confirmed that CO2 levels elevated far above the current average are very beneficial for ALL major crops. Wild plants benefit, too.
The “CO2 fertilization” benefit of rising CO2 levels increase nearly linearly before beginning to taper off above 1000 ppmv. Commercial greenhouses tend to target daytime levels of about 1500 ppmv, for a good balance between cost of CO2 generation and benefit for the plants.
https://sealevel.info/C3_and_C4_Pflanze_vs_CO2_Konzentration_en_1750_2023_linearity_highlighted3.png
Unfortunately, 1000 ppmv is far above what we could ever hope to achieve outdoors, even by burning all the Earth’s recoverable fossil fuels.
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution we’ve managed to raise the atmospheric CO2 level by only about 150 ppmv. To get to 1000 ppmv would require an additional increase nearly 4 times as large as the increase we’ve managed so far. What’s more, the higher the CO2 level goes, the faster natural negative feedbacks remove it from the atmosphere, making it increasingly difficult to raise it further.
In addition to the CO2 fertilization (“plant foot”) benefit, elevated CO2 benefits plants in another important way. It mitigates drought impacts on crops, through reduced transpiration and improved water use efficiency, thanks to reduced stomatal conductance.
David Andrews continued, “Is that the conclusion of the CO2 Coalition’s best scientists?”
Of course. The fact that the Earth is in a CO2 famine cannot be seriously disputed.
During the lush Cretaceous, when complex life flourished on land an sea, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are believed to have averaged three to four times the current level. During much of the equally lush Jurassic the levels were even higher. Yet, the oceans were still alkaline, and there’s no evidence that those high levels and less alkaline oceans were harmful to either marine or terrestrial plants & animals.
Unfortunately, carbon-hungry living things removed most of that CO2 from the air, sequestering the carbon in carbonaceous rocks and sediments, depriving us of it now.
David Andrews continued, “Tell me, David, why does the Co2 Coalition talk so much about plant food and avoid the topic of warming oceans that people care about?”
Nobody with any sense thinks that the claim that the top half-mile of the oceans have warmed by an average of 1/4 degree in the last 70 years is as important, compared to the benefits of elevated CO2: improved crop yields (so much so that crop yield improvements have outpaced population growth!), and reduced drought impacts.
Those two benefits have greatly improved global food security, and helped eliminate catastrophic drought-triggered famines. That is a VERY, VERY ＢＩＧ DEAL.
A few days from now will be my grandfather‘s birthday. When he was born, the average atmospheric CO2 level was only about 290 ppmv, and the Earth was in the grip of a near-global drought and famine which is estimated to have killed about 3.7% of the Earth’s human population. That’s in spite of the fact that at that time there were only 1/6 as many human mouths to feed, compared to now. (For comparison, Covid-19 killed about 0.1% of the Earth’s human population.)
Which do you think is more important? The fact that those catastrophic famines no longer happen? Or the fact that the oceans have warmed by a fraction of a degree?
“…non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial… possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and… the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.” – Freeman Dyson
ALL the IMPORTANT consequences of CO2 emissions are positive. All of the supposed negative consequences are either minor, merely hypothetical, or obviously fictional.
When my grandfather was born, pioneer climatologist and Nobel laurate Svante Arrhenius was 19 years old. Not quite 30 years later, Arrhenius correctly predicted that the effects of CO2 emissions would be extremely positive. He wrote:
“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”
History has shown that he was exactly right. Rising CO2 levels have proven very beneficial, just as he anticipated. The Earth is bringing forth much more abundant crops, and we are enjoying more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the Earth.
https://sealevel.info/ourworldindata_cereal_yield_4regions_1961_and_2022_annot1.png
https://sealevel.info/famine-death-rate-since-1860s-revised-annot1_900x471e.png
Look at those plots. Can you tell me with a straight fact that you really think those improvements are less important than 1/4 degree of warming in the top 1/2 mile of ocean over 70 years?
David Burton,
OK, I am taking some shots at you and you are disappointed in me. I noted before we were on the same side exposing fatal flaws in the work of Berry, Harde, Salby, Koutsoyiannis and others. But that good work does not earn you a pass on other issues. I judge your current statements on their scientific merits alone. But as I look at your website and other writing, I see that you routinely confuse political arguments with scientific ones. You may be preaching to your choir, but I am not in it.
In a Feb 22 post you dismissed a sea level rise plot published on climate.gov which conflicted with one on your “sea level” website. Your reason was: “Climate.gov is an Obama administration “climate communication” (propaganda) project. It was run by “climate communicators” …, not geoscientists. It was and is a very untrustworthy source of information.” Well, you are not a geoscientist either. Your political argument probably convinced Wagathon, but there is not a trace of science in it. I am disappointed in you.
CO2 levels today are substantially higher than at any time in the history of homo sapiens, yet the CO2 COALition insists we are in a drought! You suggest you would love to return to the levels of dinosaurs. While you celebrate the “lush Jurassic” I find no discussion on your “sea level” website about sea levels in that era. Exxon in the 1980’s estimated they were 100-200 meters higher than today, and that was corroborated by others using different methods. (See Wikipedia entry on Past Sea Level. I have not read enough myself to defend these estimates.) I note further from an article in the current (February 2026) issue of Physics Today about efforts to understand melting of Antarctica ice shelves that the Antarctica ice sheet contains enough water to raise sea levels by 58 meters. This estimate is from two geoscientists. Are you sure the Jurassic environment is what we should aim for? It seems kind of reckless to me.
All the happy talk about CO2 from the COALition, while it ignores potential harms, tells me that it is not a serious organization.
Thank you for your reply but your CO2 hocky stick link exhibits the same problem as M.Mann’s. It attaches modern sensitive measurements to inaccurate proxy measurements. There are other accurate measurements that show CO2 concentrations as high as today in the last 150 years.
David M. Albert wrote, “There are other accurate measurements that show CO2 concentrations as high as today in the last 150 years.”
I think you’re referring to the “chemical methods” papers of the late Dr. Ernst Georg Beck. His numbers are wrong. Or, more precisely, they are wrong for the planet as a whole.
To his credit, the Dr. Beck was extraordinarily diligent at compiling the sparse early records of CO2 measurement data. But the data he collected was mostly of poor quality, and heavily distorted by local effects.
He reported differences of >150 ppmv in one year from one paper to another. Even in the same paper he reported a 70 ppmv change from one year to the next, which is obviously physically impossible for the planet as a whole.
The big problem with that data wasn’t the chemical methods used to analyze air, it was the fact that nearly all of the samples were taken near ground level, too near large CO2 sources and/or sinks.
Ferdinand Engelbeen has a very good review of Dr. Beck’s work, here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Dr. Beck’s website is long gone, but some pages are preserved in various places: Here’re two:
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20101008134250/http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/
2. https://archive.ph/yCAbl
Ferdinand Engelbeen has a very good review of Dr. Beck’s work, here:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
To avoid the problems which ruined those early “chemical method” measurements, modern measurements are taken from locations carefully chosen to minimize local effects, such as the usually-windward side of Mauna Loa Mountain.
Atmospheric CO2 measurements also exhibit a large seasonal signal in most places, so the plots on my site are of annual averages:
https://sealevel.info/co2.html
Pingback: Glibertarians | Sunday Morning Capital Trek Links
Pingback: Clearing up some misconceptions about the DoE report – Climate- Science.press
We’ve come face-to-face with the possibility that a belief in global warming theory is more than a symptom of a small, culturally and socially disordered subgroup of society. The anxiety, fear, hypochondria, hysteria, phobias and quixotic societal maladaptation to challenges in the world around us can no longer be treated by simply throwing more money at the specter of climate change.
Here is the latest release of satellite GMSL measurements 1992 – 2025 from the University of Colorado Sea Level Group. The acceleration is quite clear (to those that understand it). It is both statistically and impactfully significant, e.g., the (average/fitted) rate (slope) of sea level rise at the end of the graph is twice that at the beginning.
https://sealevel.colorado.edu/data/2026rel1
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01761-5
Let’s correct the record- GMSL measurements are accuracy-challenged due to physical interference and data manipulation and correction.
Global warming alarmist science is nothing more than liars lying to liars because Western Academia has been politically corrupted.
“data manipulation.”
Ah, the ol’ unfalsifiable conspiracy theory. The perfect, all-purpose response. There’s a bottomless reservoir, and it can be used to explain anything at any time.
Joshua, I don’t think there’s any evidence of “data manipulation and correction” in the best long tide gauge measurement records, like Honolulu:
Annotated: https://sealevel.info/1612340_Honolulu_thru_2025-11_vs_CO2_annot1.png
Interactive: https://sealevel.info/MSL_graph.php?id=honolulu
But there has been LOTS of “data manipulation and correction” of the satellite altimetry data, and it is not a secret.
The satellite altimetry data WERE showing deceleration. Here’s a 2012 plot from AVISO:
https://sealevel.info/jnathaz1/MSL_Serie_ALL_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.png
Then that same data was “corrected” to get rid of that deceleration, and instead show linearity:
Cazenave, A., Dieng, H-B, et al. (2014). The rate of sea-level rise. Nature Clim Change 4, 358–361. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2159
Here’s a pair of plots from that paper, showing how the “before” data showed a sharp deceleration, but the “corrected” data did not:
https://sealevel.info/nclimate2159-f1_large_trimmed1.png
https://sealevel.info/nclimate2159-f2_large_trimmed1.png
A subsequent study by the same group further revised the data to finally show the desired acceleration.
Another example illustrating the malleability of the satellite altimetry data is a widely-hyped 2018 paper by U. Colorado’s Dr. Steve Nerem et al, which claimed to have discovered “acceleration” in the satellite altimetry measurement record of sea-level — by reducing the rate of measured sea-level rise in 20 year-old Topex-Poseidon data, thereby making more recent measurements appear to have accelerated, by comparison:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200516023623/https://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/%E2%80%9Ccal-mode%E2%80%9D-correction-topex-satellite-altimetry-and-its-effect-global-mean-sea-level-time-se
This graph is by Steve Case:
https://sealevel.info/CU-2016-2018-With-Trend_with_caption.png
There is every possibility Gavin Newsom will be elected president in 2028 and will enter the Oval Office in January of 2029.
Newsom is the clear choice of the Democratic Party elites; he has the Pelosi Machine and its Silicon Valley money behind him; and for those who support the socialist economic and environmental agenda, his governance of California is viewed as a shining example of socialist policy success.
Newsom’s job assignment will be to quickly and totally reverse every decision made, every policy adopted, and every implementing action taken by the Trump Administration while it was in control of the Executive Branch.
In short, Newsom’s task will be to completely erase the Trump legacy and to quickly return the state of the nation to what it was in the summer of 2024 when Joe Biden was president.
Climate activists assert that aggressive American leadership in achieving Net Zero is essential for convincing China, India, and the developing nations to abandon their reliance on fossil fuels.
While he was president, Joe Biden didn’t go nearly as far as either current law or past historical precedent allowed him to go in using his Article II authorities to quickly suppress America’s carbon emissions.
For one important example, Joe Biden could have declared a climate emergency and then could have implemented a carbon fuel rationing scheme along the lines of the one that was adopted in World War II. But he didn’t.
While climate activists were asserting that aggressive American leadership in achieving Net Zero was essential for convincing China and India to work towards Net Zero, little or no pressure was being exerted on Joe Biden to make full use of his Article II powers in pushing a truly aggressive anti-carbon agenda.
So it seems just a bit disingenuous for climate activists to be harping on the Trump Administration’s alleged criminal lack of action on climate change when they themselves did not push Joe Biden to fully walk the talk of his spoken climate concerns.
If and when Gavin Newsom enters the Oval Office, will the climate activists be pressing Newsom to make full use of his Article II powers in suppressing America’s carbon emissions in a way that Joe Biden never did?
Truncating and splicing data and choosing the data desired over the data that’s not desired is usually sufficient for a preferred analysis– Michael Mann is the AGW poster child for that. Then as with this, none of the findings can be independently replicated.
See – an endless supply. All purpose. Can be used in any context.
A birch tree in the NW corner of a property in SoCal is leafing out this year. The tree was pruned 2 Autumn’s ago but not last Autumn. It’s currently snowing NYC and hasn’t done that this time of year in 20 years but that’s deemed not relevant. Finding: AGW!
A man walked on water ~2,000 years ago. There was firsthand evidence to that event based on direct observation. Nevertheless, in a geological or evolutionary sense, 2,000 years is a blink of an eye. The trend line is flat– that’s the science. Belief is something all together different.
It appears to me that Ross’ and Judy’s group and/or their sponsors were attempting to obtain some widespread publicity for their tempered views on climate change and its consequences by using a government platform.
Unfortunately, if your views these days are not within the intelligentsia mainstream, they can be shouted down by a crowd or a government authority and particularly so when they might reach a wider audience and cannot merely be ignored. Politicians, their parties and supporters talk about free speech but too often let their emotions and strongly held views on matters get in the way.
I would personally stay away from a forum in dysfunctional government (just as I judge that government is not capable of mitigating climate change) no matter who the party that is in power. If I were Ross and Judy, I would make my arguments in non-government settings.
Excellent rebuttal to the blob critics. You hsve done great work for civilisation!
I would like the group to focus more on Happer`s work on essential plateauing of CO2 GH gas effects from c300ppm, the importance of oceans in modulating CO2 concentrations rather than industrial emissions, and the fake science around CO2 GH “equivalence” of gases in concentrations much,much lower then CO2 such as methane and especially HFCs at pptrillion which are now being emphasised by the greenies.
Thanks once more.
Haydn,
Thanks for your interpretation. The differences depend on molecular structure and spectroscopy – more important than the rather obvious concentration dependence. It is rather well known science.
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/what-makes-methane-more-potent-greenhouse-gas-carbon-dioxide
The behavior of CO2 forcing with concentration is examined in detail here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/35/13/JCLI-D-21-0275.1.xml
Haydn,
I will address your question about “the importance of oceans in modulating CO2 concentrations rather than industrial emissions.” Look at the plot I posted previously of CO2 concentration for the last 800,000 years. The oceans had something to do with the CO2 variability 100’s of thousands of years ago. When the oceans warmed from Milankovitch cycles they could hold less CO2 and outgassed But the spike over the last century should look different to you than anything in the previous 800,000 years. It is much more abrupt and fast growing. Even though it is growing fast, it is growing at only half the rate of industrial emissions. That is because the oceans (and the biosphere) are now absorbing carbon, in the ocean’s case because Henry’s Law says that if the partial pressure of a gas over a liquid is raised , the amount of that gas dissolved in the liquid increases. Natural processes are removing carbon from the atmosphere, not adding it. Multiple papers have gotten this wrong, but this is one area where “consensus science “ and the DOE Climate Assessment report agree.
I thought the report was well written, covered a lot of climate science that has been ignored by the “mainstream”, and was sorely needed. I am looking forward to subsequent comments and the final report.
Thanks to the team for doing this.
The climate industry doesn’t approve of covering climate science that has been ignored by the so-called mainstream, so the EDF and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts, to stop it. They obtained a court order from a District Judge, to that effect.
Yeah, and it was so obvious that the judge didn’t even need to grant an injunction, instead moving dirrectly to summary statement, holding Chris Wright solely responsible for the ‘SNAFU’. Read it.
Gotta ask, how does a BS, MA in computer science, and no signficant publications, become an “expert reviewer” for AR5 WG1?
The team should have been hired as consultants. I heard early on that it only became a FAC because one member failed to file some paperwork. If so it was a minor administrative error and the Court overreacted.
B A Bushaw | February 23, 2026 at 9:38 am | Reply
David, that is their excuse. It doesn’t ring true as a reason for disbanding the CWG.
Read the court opinion. –
Joe, you read it. I’ve posted links to the court’s summary statement twice. If you were aware and serious, you’do the same.
This is not how ‘science’ is supposed to be and Western Academia has sacrificed its honor and integrity on the altar of the almighty Buck… e.g., The for sale academic global warming narrative has turned into a deep state political corruption machine–
AI may respond- The intersection of climate science, funding, and politics is a subject of intense debate, with various stakeholders raising concerns about corruption from different angles.
Here is a listing of possible errors in the orbit alone in the satellite data
“… various factors impact the quality of altimetry satellite orbits. They include:
type of observations used for orbit determination or their combination (SLR-only, DORIS-only, GPS-only, DORIS+SLR, DORIS+GPS),
observation quality (unmodeled time biases, range biases, frequency biases, frequency drifts, etc.) as well as the distribution of observations in time and space,
proper corrections of measurements (tropospheric refraction, center-of-mass, ionospheric refraction, satellite phase center corrections, etc.),
proper modeling of satellite shape, size, optical properties of its surfaces (macro-model), mass and its orientation in space,
accurate modeling of gravitational and non-gravitational forces acting on a satellite,
accurate terrestrial and celestial reference frame realizations and the transformation between them,
proper modeling of geophysically caused displacements of tracking stations,
a proper parameter adjustment algorithm, observation weighting,…
The Certitudes believe because they want to believe, regardless of the litany of uncertainties.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-022-09758-5
Thanks kid,
So the list of possible systematic errors is understood, and thus correctable, down to the smallest of effects, as you list.
Could you provide a similar list of corrections & adjustments used for tidal gauge measurements.
In many fields, even an acknowledged small error is nonetheless not necessarily “fixable” in the sense that, e.g., even something as simple as 1/3 cannot be reduced to a simple number and the fact that when something is measured 10 times it will be different all 10 times and not necessarily in any systemic or predictable direction.
The sea surface is not smooth. There are waves feet to meters tall. How do they measure the true “sea surface elevation” with a precision in millimeters?
Waves have corresponding negative troughs – the corresponding average height does not change, and rather large areas ( scale on order of 10 km) are sampled by each radar pulse. The central tendency of the return signal does not change, although probably broadened by a few nanoseconds. I’m sure NASA/NOAA can give more details.
Here is a nice discussion about tidal gauge data and corrections.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/tide-gauge-sea-level-data#:~:text=For%20some%20applications%2C%20it%20is,may%20lead%20to%20erroneous%20conclusions.
Thank you. Tidal gauge measurements also require extensive correction.
Study identifying corrections in coastal areas
Ionospheric correction
Dry tropospheric correction
Wet tropospheric correction
Sea state bias correction
Solid earth tide correction
Geocentric ocean tide correction
Dynamic atmospheric correction
Mean sea surface height correction
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/21/133/2025/
JT, So you still don’t know what latent heat is (clue, it is not the same as stored heat), and are too proud to figure it out. Squawk. It is only a fool, like you, that thinks AI, without source question or source references for the answer, has value. Cows regurgitate too. Squawk!
Melitamegalithic,
Here is real data matching your CO2 plot, and covering the last 7000(+) years where you claim 4 (observable) ‘events’ – where are they?
https://berkeleyearth.org/dv/10000-years-of-carbon-dioxide/
Many of the problems we face when measuring things are based on a parallax view of things. If, for example, anti-drillers are good for America look at the size of your AC bills in the future. As for the economy, here are some hard numbers about the political change to business-hating liberal Utopia: the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression. The ugliest job scene ever: lost jobs – many Americans unemployed for years – and targets on the backs of small business, essentially guaranteeing an agonizing no-growth recovery, permanent under-employment and joblessness with increased business costs, skyrocketing consumer prices and more dollars going to China and the Mideast.
My AC costs in the future will be lower, because they don’t and won’t depend on a dirty, limited, finite energy resource.
Really? The fallacies of LCOE has been explained to you more than once. The subject is not difficult to understand.
Thanks Joe, I was talking about MY particular situation (read the first word again, please). MY AC costs in the future will be lower – true statement. The capital investment – solar array – has already paid for itself, and of course the fuel is free and doesn’t run out. In my location (Rocky mountains), days that need AC almost always have abundant sunshine and the solar handles it easily.
Don’t you have something better to do than incessantly butt in and launch your stupid and futile attacks? It seems to impair your reading comprehension, as if you had much to begin with.
Only if entirely off the grid…solar does not usually eliminate the fixed monthly charges I’ve been connected to the utility and once you add in the cost of massive battery arrays needed to go off-grid, natural gas will be less expensive.
Gas provides more resilience than solar for off-grid applications. Propane tanks provide reliable, long-term power during outages without needing sun to recharge, unlike battery systems. Anyone who doesn’t understand that must believe China depends on solar for its power needs…
Arctic amplification has peaked.
“ It has been demonstrated that the Arctic has warmed at almost four times the global average rate since 1979, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. However, this rapid Arctic warming is tightly linked to the retreat and thinning of summer sea ice, and so may be expected to weaken as the Arctic transitions to seasonal ice cover. Here we show evidence from gridded observations and climate reanalysis that Arctic amplification peaked sometime in the early 2000s.”
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ace273
Which means the transition to seasonal (only) sea ice is nearing completion.
This study finds high sea state errors in SSH in the satellite altimetry data to be up to 67 mm. A challenge when trying to determine the difference of .01 or .05mm/yr2 acceleration.
We are not talking about a bluegill induced ripple on a glass surfaced farm pond at daybreak. Oceans have constant swells and waves that are of multi meter magnitude, constantly changing because of thermosteric, atmospheric, current, salinity, tidal, gravity, wind and other conditions.
There physical properties errors are in addition to those associated with the satellite and concomitant errors discussed elsewhere.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/5/986
Nasa states that each measurement is accurate to within 3cm. Each measurement is taken 20 times per second, the same location is measured every 10 days (the time it takes the satellite to return to the same spot)
As cerescokid notes its nearly impossible for the satellite to adjust the measurement for the crest or the trough of the waves. Likewise with the satellite adjusting for measuring during either a high or low pressure zone. Thus the reason for the tolerance with 3cm for measurement error. (1000x the alleged accuracy down to the 0.0x annual sea level rise?)
Waves and troughs don’t matter, as I aready explained. Geometry is hard, eh?
Quote ” Each measurement is taken 20 times per second, the same location is measured every 10 days ”
Something’s not right.
Orbit position depends on gravitational force: [ m r ω ^2 = G m M r ^2 ]. ‘G’ appears on one side only.
G varies depending on moon + planetary orientation and changes more during inferior conjunctions. 10 days can make a lot of difference. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant
“The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy”.
‘Land tides’ may be as high as 50 cm. From Ch 4 Hale Bradt “Earth tides and Loche lobes”.
No expert here, but had occasion to ask someone involved in this ‘business’, and he confirmed. It is what triggers obliquity and precession abrupt changes.
Melita –
The every 20 sec stat came directly from the NASA website in the same paragraph as the 3cm accuracy statement.
I agree with your comments
Your comment and Ceresco’s comment are also consistent with the admission by NASA of the inherent difficulties of getting accurate measurements. ie the “within 3cm ” limitation.
Scientists have to respect the limitations.
Joe
Notice that Gannon doesn’t tackle the study. The scientists doing the study know more about the subject than this former low level non Federal employee.
Mr Adams,
Who is “Gannon”, knucklehead. You’re just another wannabe hobbyist who can’t do math or science; however, you are an excellent cherry-picker. I have addressed both MM’s hypothesis and the NASA data process. Too bad you are so willfully ignorant that you have to make up lies to cover for it. Piss off.
Quit being a jerk
Gannon is the name previously used by Baby
Cerescokid
Agreed – both Pat C and Bushaw know (or should know) that you cant cure systemic errors with increases in the number of measurements. 3cm remains a large error margin.
Thanks for another joke from the Joke. I know (and pretty sure Pat does too), that increasing number of measurments decreases statistical uncertainty. Systematic error must be addressed differently. Perhaps you can tell us how that is done – The NASA-JPL article that you quote from (but do not reference) discusses the systematic errors in detail. Manybe you should actually read and comprentd, instead of scanning for possible “gotcha’s” thaat you really don’t understand and/or misprepresent. One last question: Are you really as stupid and ignorant as you appear to be?
MM, The gravitational constant G is (surprise, suprise) a constant 6.67430(15)×10−11 m3⋅kg−1⋅s−2. It does not change with planetary alignments.
G: “It does not change with planetary alignments”
The 101 G metrics eluding Polly.
While “G” is a constant, the gravitational effects from different bodies change depending on their positions relative to each other.
When planets align, their gravitational pulls can combine or interfere. So while “G’s” equation remains unchanged, combined net gravitational forces experienced in a given scenario can vary dramatically due to the distribution and distance of the masses involved—via cumulative effects.
The gravity experienced at a point in space is influenced by the masses nearby and their distances. Therefore, the gravitational effects can fluctuate based on the configuration of these masses, even though the underlying constant of “G” remains a stable metric.
A bird in hand doesn’t pull more than the two in the bush.
You are correct. MM doesn’t know the difference between G and g. That is what I was responding to. Thanks for your AI explanation of the obvious – hope you learned something.
Sure, AI’s bird metaphor was quite novel. Go warm an egg or something, Polly.
Nah, I’d much rather point out all you failings.
Now you’re just pulling feathers to tickle your G spot, Polly.
Thanks for the replies. I copied and pasted the formula and it came out a mess. I corrected the power sign but not a reciprocal d^2 (/d^2). Just to be clear.
Re G or g (BA’s point) it is the effective that matters. In lunar orbit it is roughly 1/6 of earth. ‘g’ is a vector, such that not only the scalar portion varies but also direction (as in the Allais effect) giving rise to possible vertigo in some people (including vision problems) [so with no or zero ‘g’ and no ground underneath—???]
How strong is the effect of a ‘g’ variation? I had reason to study/check several. One, mentioned before, the planetary orientation the precise moment St Helens erupted; reduce g and the rock burden gets lighter (recent Etna blowoff at 90deg from conjunction; crust compression).
[also suggested study: effect of Allais ‘gravity anomaly valley’ for setting altimeter before flight].
It is nice to have a fixed/constant value for the maths, but nature does not work that way. I find the site on earth that is effected seems limited in area but the effect is much stronger. But here I am out of my depth (perhaps BA may enlighten).
Now you’re just pulling a feather to tickle your “G” spot, Polly.
MM, yes I can enlighten – you are indeed out of your depth, but that is not at all unusual around here. I’m still waiting for the CO2 data that shows your four obliquity ‘events’ in the last 7000 years. I respond to what you write, not what you think you meant.
Junge, Tickle yes, but the spot is on you.
B A : I did not refer to CO2 in my posts here, but I will answer your question just the same.
The answer is in this link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/12/15/comparing-proxies/
A short explanation: the data presented is from 2017, and at the time it was effort to link the evident obliquity changes to any possible evidence. In top fig, there are multiple proxies compared on same timeline. In the fourth chart there is ‘calendar viewing angle’ and show change at approx 2345bce; 3550bce; 4375bce, and a not so clear 5600bce. As of today the 2345bce is a precise May 8-9th 2346bce.
One may note also that CO2 (always if the proxies are dependable) starts to rise at about 6200bce, the 8k2 event, the sinking of Doggerland. [here in the Med there are cart-ruts from that period, but no sign of carbon or hydrocarbon burning engines].
Re the calendars, the change due to earth axial tilt that was first indicated in that structure, is now proven beyond any doubt. Not by the proxies since they are ambiguous, but by what humanity lived to tell. And that is a lot of detail, all with perfect correlation.
MM, reference the CO2 data you are referring to, and respond to why your ‘events’ don’t show up in the BerkelyEarth CO2 data, which you did not answer when asked previously. You might work on the physical causality as well.
yes geometry is hard – especially when you ignore geometry and the limitations knowing what is being measured. Tell us how the satellite knows whether the measurements are parallel or perpendicular to the waves? Do you think that might affect the “average”?
Curious why you skipped the accuracy within the 3cm issue?
The satellites can tell because they measure perpendicular to the ocean surface, and perpendicular to the run of the waves. That pesky geometry again.
I skip it because it is obvious statistical analysis on something that is measured 20 times a second, which you apparently don’t understand.
“This accuracy figure [3 cm] pertains to a few-kilometer spot on the ocean surface directly beneath the satellite. By averaging the few-hundred thousand measurements collected by the satellite in the time it takes to cover the global ocean (10 days), global mean sea level can be determined with a precision of several millimeters.”
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/technology/
Maybe you should just accept that NASA and NOAA know what they are doing, and that neither you nor the kid really have the competence (math and science) to understand it. Don’t worry, there are plenty of competent scientists that do understand that of which you are willfully ignorant.
Yes, you ignore the known geometry – perpendicular. No, I don’t think it changes the average.
As for skipping the accuracy, the 3 cm is for a single radar pulse. An accuracy of a few millimeters is obtained with statistical analysis of the several hundred thousand radar pulses measured over a 10 day cycle covering the entire earth.
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/technology/
“This accuracy figure [3 cm for single radar pulse] pertains to a few-kilometer spot on the ocean surface directly beneath the satellite. By averaging the few-hundred thousand measurements collected by the satellite in the time it takes to cover the global ocean (10 days), global mean sea level can be determined with a precision of several millimeters.”
Joe, you can find your answers here:
https://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/technology/
They are (1) perpendicular, (2) statistical analysis on hundreds of thousands of radar pulses in a 10 day cycle covering the earth.
Sorry Joe, censors haven’t let me answer you. Probably just as well.
your censors wont let you admit the limitations and your over reliance on the science
Still cant address the accuracy within 3cm issue?
Still cant address your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of “averages”
“B A Bushaw | February 25, 2026 at 9:01 am |
Waves and troughs don’t matter, as I aready explained. Geometry is hard, eh?”
You attempted to correct me – But you got it wrong. The average only works if the measurement is exactly perpendicular to the direction of the waves.
Yes Geometry is hard.
can’t help. One of my ‘intercepted’ comments told you that it is exactly perpendicular, another told you that the 3 cm uncertainty refered to a single radar pulse. not the overal GMSL determination. Both are covered in the NASA article you are pulling your information from.
B A Bushaw | February 25, 2026 at 12:15 pm |
“One of my ‘intercepted’ comments told you that it is exactly perpendicular”
Backpedaling trying to hide your error?
The first time you ever mentioned “perpendicular” was when I pointed out why your “average ” of the waves cancels out the error is wrong.
B A Bushaw | February 25, 2026 at 12:15 pm |
“…another told you that the 3 cm uncertainty refered to a single radar pulse. not the overal GMSL determination…”
Another backpedaling attempt to cover your error.
Not once did you mention or defend the 3cm margin error until it was mention 3 times. Nor have you explained how gmsl be measured with an accuracy of 1/3000 of the measurement margin error.
MM and ceresco mentioned several other factors affecting measurement. Not once have you provided a coherent response.
Real scientists have respect for the limitations
Nope, no backtracking, you can’t know what was in my censored comments. You’ll just have to take my word for it.
Easy way for you to settle this is for you to provide a reference to the NASA-JPL article that you are misrepresenting. Censor won’t let me post a link, but the title “Ocean Surface Topography from Space” is searchable.
The ‘perpendicular’ comes from simple geometry and the phrase “directly under”. You misrpresent it as being unknown, maybe unknown to you.
The 3 cm uncertainty is for a single radar pulse, not the overall determination of GMSL. You can read about it article you use but don’t reference.
Disingenuous and incompetent, LMAO.
doubling down on backpedaling.
Your censored comment came after I exposed your errors.
Did you think your backpedaling would hide the time stamps?
Still trying to figure out how a 3cm margin error can have the precision of 1/3000 of the margin error?
JoKe: “Nor have you explained how gmsl be measured with an accuracy of 1/3000 of the measurement margin error.”
Why should I explain that 3 cm/3000 = 0.01 mm when they don’t measure GMSL to that level of accuracy. A single 10-day measurement has uncertainty of a ‘few’ mm (your unlinked reference, YUR). Would you like me to explain how several hundred thousand individual measurements can improve precision by a factor of ~ 10 (has something to do with the square root of the number of measurements).
Seems a units arithmetic refresher might order, before moving on to a meaningful discussion of statistical and systematic errors. Be assured, these are well understood, but apparently not by you, even though they are covered in detail in YUR.
MM and kid are not reliable sources of scientific information – I’ll go with NASA and NOAA, who spend the lives dedicated to understanding what you, MM, and CK don’t.
Joe, how do you know when my censored comments were made? And no, you didn’t expose any errors – all you did was misrepresent you own source.
Hey, it’s a tricky business to get accurate global sea level trends. But this whole conversation about sea level measurements from space could be cut short if (1) it’s just accepted that Joe K and JT don’t believe them, and leave it at that, or (2) Joe and JT could suspend their mental image of a stormy sea and spend a little time trying to understand the referenced articles, instead of just pulling scary looking variabilities out of them. Maybe some basics of signal processing would help.
(Can’t help picturing Joe trying to measure the depth of a turbulent stream with a yardstick, worrying about all those waves.)
Thanks, Pat. I think you summed it up nicely. I would note that some absolute calibrations are done against ground stations, but that typical sea level rise is reported as anomalies (referenced to a specific data range). This addresses many systematic errors.
” …typical sea level rise is reported as anomalies….This addresses many systematic errors.”
Right. My neighbor’s temperature measurements never match mine exactly, but the trends in the anomalies are dead-on. (Just an easy to understand example.)
Quote from Pat C above “— but the trends in the anomalies are dead-on.”
Science has been following trend on obliquity for the past 3000 yrs, and was still very wrong. The reason: ignoring the outliers. It was the outliers that told the very serious but abrupt events.
See here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
The research into glacier ablation was invaluable, but still kept the reality hidden; like many other proxies. (Science threw out the baby and kept the bath water with trends).
As to B A’s “MM and kid are not reliable sources of scientific information – I’ll go with NASA and NOAA, who spend the lives dedicated to understanding what you, MM, and CK don’t.”
I attempt to understand the ‘error spread’ in the NASA calculations, as a ‘yardstick’. Especially with satellite derived data.
Here’s an example why: Using a 6000+ year old megalithic calendar in model form the solstice day and time prediction was only some 3 hours different from NASA. The prediction was done weeks in advance of the moment, to test the theory. The question is how wide are the error spreads in the two sources? (the model was re-structured and a second test repeated: same result)
The test is recorded here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/02/24/first-blog-post/
This is the structure that was modified due to a change in earth axial tilt (something science still has no concept of). It is the only hard evidence that exists; the rest is in the several ancient texts whose primary aim was to record the event for posterity, – and as a warning.
MM, you don’t answer my legitimate questions. You are an ingnorable who will does not how to do scientific analysis. Have fun with your hobby.
B A Keep your cool.
The “The 5 Stages of Business Grief” apply to many a situation, both corporate and individual. Your reply reflects the second, for no logical or other apparent reason.
https://strategiccfo.com/articles/management-ownership/5-stages-business-grief/
It is frequently directed to and experienced by those who find good reason not to sing from the established hymn sheet.
Something else found while looking up sources: https://robwilson1.wordpress.com/2023/03/06/the-allais-effect/
but particularly the second comment at the end:
Maurice Allais: “Two perversions have constantly hampered the development of science: the abuse of mathematics, and the dogmatic tyranny of “established truths”.” He discovered something very important.
Remember G F Dodwell. He guessed some, but ultimately proved to be both correct and precise on events and dates re obliquity. It is more complicated, but he deserves some credit .
You asked about the CO2 curve in my earlier links. Lost track on that paper, but it appears here https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2023/05/26/the-holocene-co2-dilemma/
It was not important since the events I referred to did not make any remarkable impact to CO2; whereas the other proxies reflect a change. Abrupt trend change.
MM, you haven’t answered my simple questions, presumably because:
AI(ChatGPT):
Dodwell’s 1936 obliquity curve requires a 2–3° axial shift around 2345 BCE followed by exponential relaxation on a 1000‑year timescale. Modern rotational dynamics show that such a shift would require catastrophic mass redistribution orders of magnitude larger than anything in the Holocene, and the damping timescale is off by 2–3 orders of magnitude. When his ancient gnomon data are reanalyzed with realistic uncertainties, the anomaly disappears. Independent constraints from precession, eclipse records, and Laskar’s secular solutions rule out any such event. The Dodwell curve is therefore physically impossible and observationally unsupported.
B A: Send AI(chat–) packing. The change is bigger, abrupt, cataclysmic. Modern rotational dynamics is fine and works superbly. (I never thought I would revisit my ancient eng maths ever again in my retirement). I repeatedly said before the Med geology changed twice; it is in the links; micro-plate rotations.
But it is obliquity variations that were difficult to pinpoint. Laskar’s work is fine for the secular. Except the math model does not consider ‘step change’, much less the why’s.
Strange as you may see it, I stumbled on the evidence. (It was not obliquity I was after but women :) ; here: https://www.amazon.es/-/en/C-R-Sant/dp/1500530476/ref=monarch_sidesheet_title ; something different from turbine rotor dynamics and balancing problems)
In situations like this AI’s are worse than useless. I have tested some; as a point of departure. They average out info to find most common, and in one case it extrapolated blindly. It was dead wrong.
You should have stuck with the women. You are chasing an already cooked goose – looking for coincidences that have no value without a plausible physical cause.
[AI]
Dodwell’s 1936 obliquity curve is not dismissed because it is “unaccepted”; it is dismissed because every physical mechanism required to produce his curve is ruled out by orders‑of‑magnitude constraints.
1) Physical impossibility of the required axial change
Dodwell’s curve implies a 2–3° obliquity jump around 2345 BCE. That magnitude requires:
* A change in Earth’s moment of inertia of order 10^19 – 10^20 kg.km^2
* A global mass redistribution comparable to a planetary‑scale impact
* A relaxation timescale of ~1000 years, which is 10²–10³× too fast for any real Earth process
* Known mechanisms behave differently:
> True polar wander operates on 10^6 – 10^8 year scale
> Viscoelastic relaxation of the mantle, 10^4 – 10^5 years
> Lunar torque strongly resists rapid obliquity changes
The mismatch in timescale and energy is so large that no plausible geophysical mechanism can be invoked without violating conservation laws or known Earth structure.
2) The observational data cannot resolve the claimed signal
* Dodwell’s ancient gnomon measurements have uncertainties of ±1–2°, which is the entire amplitude of his anomaly. The main issues:
* Shadow edges are diffuse; ancient gnomons were not standardized
* Latitude and horizon corrections were unknown
* Calendar drift of even 1–2 days produces degree‑scale errors
* Many “observatories” have uncertain historical coordinates
When the same data are reanalyzed with modern uncertainties, the curve collapses into noise around the standard secular solution.
3) Independent astronomical constraints contradict Dodwell
If obliquity had been 2° higher in the Bronze Age, we would see:
* Different precession frequency
* Different eclipse paths
* Different heliacal rising dates in Babylonian and Chinese records
* Different paleoclimate precession cycles
* Inconsistency with Laskar’s La2011 secular solution, which matches all of the above
These constraints are independent of gnomon data and mutually reinforcing. A 2° anomaly would break multiple well‑verified systems simultaneously.
Dodwell’s obliquity curve is wrong (in a previous attempt of mine I had something similar; and wrong as well). I repeat a link that tells it better: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2022/10/31/searching-evidence-astronomy-for-the-heretic/
It was the research paper on glacier ablation that revealed the facts. Earth’s orientation can be disturbed (rotation dynamics). The data correlation was for year 173CE, but glacier data also shows the change at 2346bce. The former a mild disturbance the later a major one. Dodwell was right on the mark on date.
AI is talking truckloads of BS (trying to describe a horse while looking at an octopus). In fact it is a good example of why such engines should not be trusted.
But you make it interesting: So:
Point 2: that is clutching at straws. Ancient simple techniques were very accurate. I showed with a model of a 6000 yr structure that the solstice time can be predicted accurately weeks in advance, something wiki says cannot be done today.
Point 3: Obliquity changed ~10 degrees; from about 14-14.5 to some 24-25. That can be measure directly for meg calendar. Precession was 150deg/~150 days forward. In fact all four points mentioned have been noted, but that is not reliable evidence. (Karnak water clock was designed for obliquity 14.5 degrees -see Borchard, Babylonian design; that was a lucky snippet, but the devil is always in the details).
Point 1 The tricky bit; there are other modes but proving so was not easy. Cannot be tested at will (and destroy everything) takes a lot to build a reliable picture of events; gravity variations matter; ergo the subject above earlier. Satellite orbit ‘anomalies’ exhibit gravitation change (but not all sources can be relied on – it appears).
ps the ‘women’ turned out to be biological cycle personifications of the cereals and linked to the solar year -‘The Divine Triad’. You don’t walk away from science in this life, not even in religion.
I looked at your blog site a while back. Same problems you have here, and are not able to address. Let us know when you can give a coherent discussion and publish it, under your own name.
“Point 3: Obliquity changed ~10 degrees; from about 14-14.5 to some 24-25. That can be measure[d] directly for meg calendar.”
No, what can be measured directly is spots on a rock. And you still have no plausible physical causality, whether it is 2 or your (even more ridiculous) 10 degrees.
B A you are back to stage two. Does not help.
Two points from your above replies; change of equation.
a) your two long replies are from the Chat-bot. Any idiot can ask a technical question and post the reply. Without ever realising the both is wrong on many issues; because the bot itself does not realise its own inconsistent answers.
b) it appears the only interest from your end is to troll. Pity.
B A: your above replies raise a couple of questions. But here’s why I ask. On deeper reflection there are some nitty-gritty bits in your relies that I missed earlier. You have been replying with long AI(ChatGPT) texts.
Q1 What were the questions you actually asked the bot? (I have not tried it but one can ask a bot to lie about something. Knowing the original question one can then fact-check).
Q2 Why did you use [AI]? If you did not know the answers yourself, you would not know what [AI] is delivering. And that raises several more questions, and over many more issues.
MM, Are you really that stupid? Yeah, I guess you are.
MM you can’t/don’t answer my questions, e.g., physical causality, and resort to ad hom attacks to deflect from that. I see no reason to pay any further attention to the that you can’t defend scientifically.
B A: you answered my questions; indirectly.
Since this is a public site, for the sake of others, I refer just to these points from your AI reply.
* Different precession frequency
* Different eclipse paths
* Different heliacal rising dates in Babylonian and Chinese records
* Different paleoclimate precession cycles
All four points have been observed and are recorded. Extensive record for change in heliacal rise times from Babylon/Hebrew and Hindu sources.
No references for your claims. No physical causality, No understanding of science, No Interest. Enjoy your willfully ignorant hobby.
“The current rate of warming is much faster and more extreme than anything seen in the past.”
That’s right! Now, that there is much less sea-ice to melt in the yearly spring-summer seasons, the sensitive / latent ratio of absorbed heat shifts towards the sensitive side, so temperature rises much faster. Because oceans – resemblance with drinks on ice-cubes – the warming is faster at the party’s end!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
daveburton,
You still haven’t answered my question: How does someone with BS & MS in computer science, who runs his own computer company, and has a very limited publication record, become an “expert” reviewer on the physical science basis of climate change (AR5 WG1)? Is it something you apply for?
Thanks for you answer.
“Because the aim of the expert review is to get the widest possible participation and broadest possible expertise, those who register are accepted unless they fail to demonstrate any relevant qualification.”
“But because the review is essentially open to all through a self-declaration of expertise, it follows that having been a registered expert reviewer does not by itself serve as a qualification of the expert or support their credibility in a different context.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/2020/12/04/what-is-an-expert-reviewer-of-ipcc-reports/
All my support to your excellent work
Joe K, you quit being a Joke, and so ignorant. I have never gone by Gannon or Baby, so you have to make up lies because you don’t have anything else. Of course, what would you expect from someone who can’t spell “can’t” (and multiple times). I don’t mind the insults, they only reflect on you.
BTW, what did you call yourself before Joe K, it seems that “Joe the non-climate scientist”, disappeared when you showed up. Well, whether that was you or not, we do know most definitely that you are not a scientist, and cannot understand (or simply lie) about even the simplest science that is written for general public consumption. Basically it is seems you are very stupid scientifically and it make’s you an ignorant asshat, that has nothing left but insults. That’s alright, I wouldn’t expect an accountant, who deals in exact values, to understand statistical analysis and data processing, and you have made it clear that you don’t.
Yes you did go by Ganon – gannon typo)
BA Bushaw (ganon1950) | August 30, 2024 at 11:55 am | Reply
[proper thread placement]
Ganon Gannon –
You have an extremely long and well known history of lying, dishonesty and other ethical issues.
In your example, I go by “BA Bushaw”. You are the one with an extremely long and well know history of unsupported lying, obfuscation, and plain stupidity, as you again show here. Your errors are your own, thanks for taking credit.
Its a systemic error which can not be corrected by averaging as you alleged.
Just another example of your ethical issues.
AI Yes, systematic error can be eliminated or significantly reduced, but not through averaging repeated measurements.
I didn’t allege that, you did. Sometimes you have to repeat things for ignorant fabricators (yes, you Joke)
B A Bushaw | February 25, 2026 at 2:56 pm |
JoKe: “Nor have you explained how gmsl be measured with an accuracy of 1/3000 of the measurement margin error.”
Why should I explain that 3 cm/3000 = 0.01 mm when they don’t measure GMSL to that level of accuracy. A single 10-day measurement has uncertainty of a ‘few’ mm (your unlinked reference, YUR). Would you like me to explain how several hundred thousand individual measurements can improve precision by a factor of ~ 10 (has something to do with the square root of the number of measurements).
Seems a units arithmetic refresher might order, before moving on to a meaningful discussion of statistical and systematic errors. Be assured, these are well understood, but apparently not by you, even though they are covered in detail in YUR.
MM and kid are not reliable sources of scientific information – I’ll go with NASA and NOAA, who spend the lives dedicated to understanding what you, MM, and CK don’t.
[see, it’s not that hard, if you’re not trying to hide something]
Joke, you have vocabulary issues (to go along with your spelling and grammar issues); I have ethical standards; you are the one with ethical issues, particularly logical fallacies, lying, and willful ignorance. And while base stupidity is not an ethical problemm you have that too.
Thank you, for answering. Because I would like to note, that the higher CO2 content in ice core samples relates to colder periods, not to warmer, as it is mistakenly thought! CO2 is a solidised gas in some local extremely low temperatures that may occur in Earth’s cold periods.
That is why I consider the time of the Holocene optimum as the coldest, and the following natural orbitally forced warming pattern followed, and that warming pattern resching its culmination phase in our times.
That is why we are witnessing a rapid warming in our epoch!
_
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, atmospheric CO2 does not condense to solid at a partial pressure of 0.00042 atm, not even at 0.007 atm (7000 ppm). Study the CO2 triple point diagram.
AI [ChatGPT5]
My question: Can CO2 condense to solid at the concentrations found in the atmosphere and coldest earth temperature?
AI answer:
Carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere cannot condense into solid (dry ice) under natural surface conditions, even at the coldest temperatures ever recorded. The key constraint is partial pressure, not just temperature.
❄️ Why CO₂ Doesn’t Freeze Out of Earth’s Air
Solid CO₂ forms only when the temperature is low enough for the given CO₂ partial pressure. At Earth’s current atmospheric concentration (~427 ppm), the CO₂ partial pressure is only about 40 Pa. At such a low pressure, CO₂ would not deposit into a solid until temperatures reach roughly –140 °C, far colder than anything observed on Earth.
Even the coldest reliably measured temperature on Earth—–89.2 °C at Vostok Station—is nowhere near cold enough. At that temperature, the vapor pressure of solid CO₂ would still be over 100 mmHg, far above the actual CO₂ partial pressure in the atmosphere (<1 mmHg), meaning solid CO₂ would instantly sublimate.
🧊 What About Claims That CO₂ “Falls Out of the Air” at Vostok?
Some popular accounts suggest that CO₂ freezes at Vostok because the temperature is below the sublimation point of pure CO₂ at 1 atm (–78.5 °C). But that value applies only to pure CO₂ at 1 atmosphere, not to trace CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere. The real deposition temperature depends solely on CO₂’s partial pressure, which is extremely low.
Thus, even at Vostok’s extreme cold, CO₂ frost cannot form.
🌍 Comparison With Mars
Mars does experience seasonal CO₂ frost because its atmosphere is 95% CO₂, giving a partial pressure high enough for deposition at Martian polar temperatures. Earth’s atmosphere is far too dilute in CO₂ for this to happen.
🧩 Bottom Line
– CO₂ concentration in Earth’s atmosphere: ~427 ppm (0.0427%).
– CO₂ partial pressure: ~40 Pa.
– Temperature needed for CO₂ deposition at that pressure: ~–140 °C.
– Coldest measured Earth temperature: –89.2 °C.
– Conclusion: CO₂ cannot condense or freeze out of Earth’s atmosphere under any naturally occurring surface conditions.
Thank you, BA.
“Bottom Line
– CO₂ concentration in Earth’s atmosphere: ~427 ppm (0.0427%).
– CO₂ partial pressure: ~40 Pa.
– Temperature needed for CO₂ deposition at that pressure: ~–140 °C.
– Coldest measured Earth temperature: –89.2 °C.
– Conclusion: CO₂ cannot condense or freeze out of Earth’s atmosphere under any naturally occurring surface conditions.”
–
You have not all the required measurements though! You do not have measured the temperatures occured when CO2 freezed out of Earth’s atmosphere.
_
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Bottom line: you didn’t understand what you were talking about.
I don’t have to make the measurements, I understand the physical chemistry and do relevant literature research. You, not so much.
Like I said, study the triple-point plot; try to learn something instead of being angrily reactive when your intuition is challenged. You might also study the use of modal verbs to indicate possibility.
P.S. You are the one that claimed CO2 freezes out of earth’s atmosphere. Thus, you (not me), are the one that needs to have the ‘required’ measurements and observations. Your deflection is pathetic.
Thank you, B A! Is it true then, it was warmer than now at Holocene Optimum times? Because there were a higher CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, that is not true.
To the religious fervor of The Left simply adds a pinch of government science to the heavy-handed Leftist politics that stokes the flames of global warming alarmism until yet another helping of socialist despotism is ready to be shoved down the folks’ throats. The use of global warming as a political tool to consolidate federal power over the states and the people demands that we live in fear.
Paralyzed by fear of adverse consequence. ~Gen. Jack Keane (Ret.)
25th sunspot cycle.
https://i.ibb.co/v4PX5BdT/solar-cycle-sunspot-numb.png
https://i.ibb.co/vxbJBhCY/Zrzut-ekranu-2026-02-28-224744.png
The systematic decline in solar wind speed correlates with the blocking of zonal circulation in the northern Pacific and Atlantic.
Which is correlated with the 11-year solar cycle, which itself is not the primary driver of blocking, according to AI?
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/real-time-solar-wind
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=global2×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
Renewed growth of ice cover on the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/XZMnSh9V/bas-ice-compare.png
Record drought and warmth in the Rocky Mountains. Will places like Las Vegas and Los Angeles have enough water?
Yes.
https://i.ibb.co/fd7pYFZW/gfs-o3mr-250-NA-f084.png
Antarctic ice growing…!
Snow and freezing rain in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/d4dS7b0L/Zrzut-ekranu-2026-03-03-101744.png
https://apps.glerl.noaa.gov/coastwatch/webdata/glsea/cur/glsea_cur_3.png
What Western academia’s AGW Hot World agenda was all about boils down the Left’s,s preference for the socialist and theocratic despotism of Russia, China and Iran to the principles of individual liberty, self-actualization and free enterprise capitalism.
The Leftists’ anti-Americanism/misinformation industry now faces a great danger that we taxpayers are finally coming to understand that, (1) we’ve been lied to by our putative Democrat-Socialist Overlords and (2), only we have skin in game. It’s time we stopped baring our backs to the whips of the special interests who are busily cranking-up the ongoing fear-mongering machine that is used by the prognosticators of climate doom to maintain political power over the productive.
True. I’ve been reviewing You Tube videos describing the history of Fascism. Its understanding by the Left is inept, disturbing, politely speaking. The echo chamber, sadly, is off the charts delusional.
Ah. So.the prognosticators of doom are using the fear-mongering machine that’s being cranked up by the special interests that are whipping our bare backs. And this is how they maintain political power over the productive. Just as I thought.
Take your time, but please unpack this inane undecipherable AOC styled word salad expressed from your fine feathered softer side, Polly. Thanks.
Jungle – I think Wagathon can help you out here – see comment at 1:41 pm above.
“History offers a gloomy precedent of such poisoning of science by ideology and special interests: the infamous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union, the ruthless opposition to genetics headed by Trofim D. Lysenko and his cohorts between the 1930s and 1960s. In addition to the physical elimination of stubborn scientists who resisted the ‘consensual official line’ (the `skeptics’ of the time), the price of such an irrationality pandemics was enormous, costing the Soviet biological and agricultural sciences a half a century hold-up whose consequences are felt still today. The AGW scare and its political agenda of restricting the use of fossil fuels are serious candidates to the condition of post-modern equivalents of `Lysenkoism.'” ~Geraldo Luís Lino
JT
“ True. I’ve been reviewing You Tube videos describing the history of Fascism. Its understanding by the Left is inept, disturbing, politely speaking. The echo chamber, sadly, is off the charts delusional.”
That applies to the understanding, or lack thereof, by the left regarding everything. The shallowness of their worldview is breathtaking. The gullibility is astounding. Non stop Utopian views.
I just watched a young liberal woman say that life for women in Iran was better than in the US. Ok, then.
cerescokid: “That applies to the understanding, or lack thereof, by the left regarding everything.”
I should have just led with that. The reference to Fascism I was referencing came from a NYT writer who has a side gig producing You Tube videos. One episode of his deals with how Fascism came about.
It actually starts out historically accurate, I was beginning to be impressed by the honesty, a breakthrough maybe, but the video inevitably took a turn to the hard Left (surprise) as an effort to rewrite history. over 15k thumbs up posts.
Not that this is new, it’s been the rage by Leftist academia since the end of WW2 to frame Fascism as being of the Right. This NYT writer however took his rewrite to another level. For example, the Fascist bound sticks logo, the “fasces”, that Mussolini’s regime came up with represented collectivist unity. While individual sticks can be easily broken, a bundle is much stronger. This NYT writer spun this to mean this a s metaphor for masses of individualists uniting in nationalism—a monumental attempt to rewrite history. Of course he referenced some Left wing sources to create an appearance of historical accuracy.
The fasces was a collectivist inspired logo. Mussolini was a socialist. Fascism was his radical new vision for socialism. Mussolini’s inspiration wrapped nationalism, militarism, and collectivism together to create a powerful centralized state. His vision saw a hyper-nationalistic agenda that prioritized the state above the individual. Mussolini sought to break down individualism, his was a collectivist vision. It’s insane. The Left continues to rewrite history, which is why we risk reliving it, the irony is that their collectivism will embody Fascism if they continue to increasingly ratchet anarchy to a high enough level of destructive malevolence.
Mussolini viewed the individual as subordinate to the state. NThe word “nationalism” unto itself is meaningless, the word is used to define something the Left wants it to mean, yet it requires doctrine to truly mean something substantive. Nationalism in the US embraces the principles behind how the nation was founded, the founding documents, these empower the individual over the state—case closed.
Allegations to the contrary, the earmarks of fascism are all on the Left. “Fascism, Nazism, Communism and Socialism are only superficial variations of the same monstrous theme—collectivism.” ~Ayn Rand
Pingback: #DoEDeepDive: Tornadoes, flooding and droughts, oh my! - Climate Discussion Nexus
‘One reason that the academic world has not taken the problem of Communist infiltration more seriously may lie in the fact that far too many educators even yet fail to realize that Fascism does not change its character simply because it flourishes as a Soviet-directed conspiracy to conquer the world…’ ~Tenth Report of the Senate Fact-Finding Committee On Un-American Activities (California legislature), 1959
‘And the question we should be asking our politicians are, what climate are you actually aiming to produce and when we get there won’t it change anyway?’ (Philip Stott)
It is nearly impossible for human to contemplate the volume of the world’s oceans in comparison to the amount of visible land. According to AI, if all of the Earth were scraped into the sea, ‘the entire planet would be covered by an ocean 2,700 meters deep.’
OHC is not ‘hidden’ at depth. It is expressed at the surface as the steric portion of GMSLR.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
While it’s not hidden, it’s also not known on a relative basis. Total OHC is relative to the limitations of current data capture, in other words, the dimensional time frame of variations. Since Argo floats have only been in use for a few decades, it limits the historical context for determining total OHC to before/after steric calculations within said periods. So while the current known additional OHC content is calculated by steric measure; the difference between what was calculated via measure in 2000, and comparing it to the most current measure only represents time relevant data.
Total OHC is not the subject. Anomalies – changes in OHC which are indeed known ‘on a relative basis’ is the commonly used metric (and the subject), just like temperature anomalies used for GMST or GSST.
The point is that we know less about the evolution of ocean climate than we know about atmospheric climate. Since ocean climate is integral to understanding atmospheric climate, this makes understanding long-term ocean climate a big deal. While decadal data is indeed near-term relative, so what, the same questions remain about the evolution of climate.
“While decadal data is indeed near-term relative, so what.”
So what? You changed your lie after being called on it. That’s what.
Nonsense, you’re the obfuscation artist.
Go go back to your spinning perch to recharge your dizzy logic.
JT’s original “While it’s [OHC] not hidden, it’s also not known on a relative basis.”
I always appreciate the birdman ad homs, they are tells.
Your spinning perch isn’t helping your truncation, Polly, you truncated the original language, including the broader context on historical stored heat up thread.
The complete paragraph included more context “…it’s also not known on a relative basis. Total OHC is relative to the limitations of current data capture, in other words, the dimensional time frame of variations.”
I’m referring to stored heat beyond current ability to quantify, causation in the “dimensional time frame” other than near-term.
Tropical storms over northern Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/LdDqjNpk/himawari9-wv-rgb-92-P-202603041940.gif
Despite the 19th century naming of the event, for how many years, centuries or longer have Santa Ana winds hit Southern California in March?
AI responds- While the specific term “Santa Ana winds” was popularized in the 19th century, the meteorological phenomenon itself has hit Southern California for over 5,000 years…
and, e.g… Ancient History: Evidence suggests these winds and their associated wildfires have been an integral part of the Los Angeles Basin’s ecosystem for more than five millennia, dating back to the habitation of the region by the Tongva and Tataviam peoples.
Earth’s thermal inertia is tremendously large. It is the reason Earth is never in equilibrium with incoming solar energy.
Either there is a slow, orbitally forced rise in global accumulated thermal energy, or, decline in thermal energy, because of the orbitally forced the lessened the surface accumulative abilities.
In our times the total yearly SW reflection along with the total yearly immediate IR emission are lower, than some few millennia previously. Lowering radiative losses resulted to increased heat accumulation and global temperature rise.
The warming is because of orbital circumstances, not because of extensive fossil fuels burning. The phenomenon originates from the planet’s changing ability to accumulate solar energy.
When Earth is closer to sun on winters, Earth gets warmer, than when Earth is closer to sun on summers. A big differencies occur, with the intermediate phases in between. You will be immediatelly convinced by a single glance at a classroom’s demonstration globe.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Over the next 10,000 years, the Earth’s axial tilt will decrease to a minimum, causing slower ice melt in the north, and the perihelion will shift in the northern hemisphere toward summer, causing increased snowfall.
In order for a thick glacier to form, heavy snowfall is needed, which will begin slowly due to warm oceans. This will be accompanied by adequate circulation at high latitudes, which is why snowfall will not be uniform in different regions, as it was in the past when there was no glacier in Alaska.
Despite the record that AI is based on has been corrupted, if you ask AI the question in the right way, it is inarguable that the claimed scientific AGW Global Warming consensus is nothing more than a matter of opinion, not science, e.g.,
Asking AI- What are findings counter to claimed evidence that the lower atmosphere (troposphere) is warming while the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling?
Response- While there is a strong scientific consensus that the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling, some historical and regional findings have been presented as counter-evidence or as requiring additional context.
I just asked AI how many times that IPCC6 used the term “low confidence”.
AI said 550 times. It also said “low confidence” was in the Summary for Policy Makers 2 times.
Sounds about right. That disparity exemplifies how the public’s belief in what they think the scientific consensus is versus the reality of what the science says.
I’m looking forward to reading dozens more studies from 2026 on Antarctica to see how many of the 2024 and 2025 Antarctica studies are cited in the new papers. Science evolving before our eyes.
A dangerous squall line on the thunderstorm front.
https://i.ibb.co/WWKRjPQy/Zrzut-ekranu-2026-03-07-190018.png
Peak Bloom forecast for cherry blossoms in Washington, D.C. are expected to be later than historical averages this year and not earlier as the global warming alarmist handbook of the feckless Western academic consensus predicts.
Another stratospheric wave will bring a strong thunderstorm front to the Midwest. Snowfall is also possible behind the front.
https://i.ibb.co/XxCryJ2f/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f096.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
It doesn’t stop with a phony Global Warming alarmist consensus. As Martin Hackworth (Idaho State Journal) called out, ‘bad science, bad scholarship, administrative bloat, corruption, lack of oversight, uncollegial governance, grade inflation, DEI, and pretty much everything on the spectrum of what’s wrong with higher ed,’ is what passes for the anti-Americanism of modern Western Academia.
Test
Seems to be time for a new post. Comments are drying up.
Michael Mann has a new book out. Should be good for a couple of comments. And a couple of giggles.
Is it a book on personal and professional ethics?