Americans Increasingly Choose a Warmer Life

May 9th, 2023 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

We hear that a new El Nino forming in the Pacific Ocean is likely to push global-average temperatures to new record highs in 2023.

Setting aside the fact that we have no idea if current temperatures are warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period of ~1,000 years ago, I have to ask…

So what?

Doing something about global warming depends a lot on how much we are asked to pay to fix it. If it was cheap and practical, we would have already transitioned to renewable energy sources.

It also depends upon just how much global warming we have experienced, and whether it is enough to be concerned with. For the global oceans, the climate models enlisted to scare us in a steady stream of alarmist news reports over-predict ocean warming by a factor of 2. In America’s heartland during the summer, the discrepancy is a factor of 6(!). So, clearly, public concern is being inflated by factually incorrect information.

What Temperature do Americans Choose?

When it comes to life in these United States, roughly 50% of U.S. residents have at least a moderate worry about climate change and global warming. As mentioned above, I believe this is largely due to their response to what is reported by the news media, which is routinely exaggerated.

An interesting question that the late Dr. Pat Michaels asked about 25 years ago is, what temperature do Americans choose to live with? We have a large country with a wide range of climates, from frigid winters to tropical year-round, so there is considerable choice of what climate we decide to live in.

Dr. Michaels pointed out (most recently in 2013) that over the years, Americans tend to migrate to warmer climates. Some of us might claim to be concerned about global warming, but we increasingly choose to live where it’s warmer. I’ve updated those calculations to 2022, and the results are the same:

The blue curve is the usual area-averaged temperatures for the Lower 48, while the orange curve is the state population-weighted average. While the area average temperatures have warmed modestly over the last century, the temperatures where people choose to live have increased by twice that amount. (The possibility that Urban Heat Island effects have spuriously warmed these NOAA-reported temperatures is part of a research project we have been involved in).

Some might claim that the migration to states with warmer temperatures has more to do with economic opportunity than with temperature. But who creates economic opportunity? People. And where do people choose to live? Where the weather is warmer.

There’s a reason why people are flocking to Texas and Florida, and not to the Dakotas or Maine. Ultimately, it’s due to the climate. So, while some of us like to think we are Saving the Earth by buying a Tesla, our migration habits are telling a different story.


1,945 Responses to “Americans Increasingly Choose a Warmer Life”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Willard says:

    > roughly 50%

    39 + 22 = 61.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      Are those your IQ’s for the left and right sides of your brain? C’mon, your IQ has to be at least 70.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      Another official narrative myth biting the dust. The spinners in here seem to find joy in being a punching bag.

      • Willard says:

        Indeed, Gill.

        Twas about time people realize that 39% was roughly 50%.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard desperately tries to change the topic to 61% of the nation consists of stooges who believe the government when they say their life is in danger from man-made climate change. I didn’t even realize that was an official narrative, much less a spinner narrative. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

        Willard the myth I am talking about is the claim that there was a mass migration of climate refugees underway due to global warming when in fact the mass migration is in the opposite direction to warmer locations. A fact brought forward here by Roy and confirmed by the literature.

        https://www.science.org/content/article/expanding-tropics-will-play-greater-global-role-report-predicts

      • Willard says:

        Gill is once more trying to deflect from a simple point:

        > roughly 50%

        39 + 22 = 61.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1483790

        Confusing natality and migration might not help him, but who knows?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Yep definitely shows what the weaponization of an over sized government can do even when the science is going the other way.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        Your gang had the keys to the Whitehouse and a few years and you *never* reduced the size of the gubmint. I am sure migrants will appreciate your myth that they come to America because it is warmer:

        https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/wmr-2022-interactive/

        Three cheers for your larger than life fight for freedom!

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard your response merely tells me the Republicans are almost as corrupt as the Democrats. Like no sheet.

        I am not a member of a political party. As they say there isn’t much difference between the two.

        what you idiots do is oppose stuff rather than build something. Your political disposition is one of disassembly. Rather than contributing to society your aim is to tear it down and rebuild it in your image because you believe its absolutely terrible how America became such a magnet.

        then you come in here in defense of your viewpoints by pointing out some other political party was just as bad. I would suggest you have no personal vision by which to rebuild the world. All you are is a tool for somebody else’s vision. . . .which you defend by comparison to what others did wrong.

      • Willard says:

        Wait, Gill. You. Do. Not. Vote?

        Must be fun to live in a minarchist fantasy!

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard that just another example of you incorrectly deducing something. Jumping to conclusions seems to be your primary mode of operation.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        That you’re a freedom-luvin’ libertarian creep is not that hard of an inference to make when we read your anti gubmint comments.

        Unless you voted for Ralph Nader?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard being for ‘small’ government isn’t anti-government. Its pro-small government. And no again you jump to a conclusion. I am not a libertarian fully realizing that some government is needed.

      • Willard says:

        Gill, Gill,

        You care confusing minarchism with a caricature of anarchism.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Unlike you Willard we all don’t strictly ascribe to any ‘ism’.

  2. RLH says:

    The El Nino of 2016 is probably no greater than that of 1878.

  3. bdgwx says:

    Setting aside the fact that we have no idea if current temperatures are warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period of ~1,000 years ago

    We do know. The Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Warm Epoch as was originally called) was from 1150-1300 or about 700-850 years ago [1]. It is definitely warmer today than during that period…globally. It is even warmer today than during the peak around 800 AD [2].

    [1] Lamb 1965: The early medieval warm epoch and its sequal

    [2] Kaufman et al. 2020: Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach

    • Really? Where are the 1,000 year old thermometer measurements?

      • bdgwx says:

        Lamb used botanical proxies and historical accounts. Kaufman et al. used various ecological, geochemical, and biophysical proxies including but not limited to planktic foraminifera, δ18O, Mg/Ca, alkenones, pollen, chironomids, macrofossils, dinocysts, glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraethers, chlorophyll, tree rings, isotopic composition of ice, etc.

      • Ah! Magical proxies accurate to tenths of a degree C!

      • Willard says:

        Is this why you portray a 2013 op-ed by Pat as recent, Roy?

        I said, “Dr. Michaels pointed out (most recently in 2013)…”, so I’m not sure what your point is here. -Roy

      • bdgwx says:

        Kaufman et al. 2020 say it is about +/- 0.3 C during the period in question. Magical?

      • Billyjack says:

        I am still looking for the cause of all of the ice & snow on Greenland being green instead of white during the Medieval Warm period when Greenland was named by the Vikings living there ;).

      • bdgwx says:

        BillyJack, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is the leading hypothesis for the MWP. Note, however, that Greenland was still mostly snow/ice covered during this period. There were areas along the coasts that were snow/ice free, but that isn’t unlike how it is today.

      • RLH says:

        “the ice & snow on Greenland being green instead of white”

        were they Irish?

      • bdgwx says:

        And in case anyone missed the irony here I’m being dismissed for using “Magical proxies accurate to tenths of a degree C” by someone who used a proxy based temperature reconstruction advertised with a tenth of degree C accuracy to make statements about the MWP and presented it to congress.

        See, this is where we differ… I move on when the science changes. The non-treering plot that Craig Loehle published (which you are referring to), as well as other evidence, finally convinced Loehle that none of the proxies can be trusted (personal communication). So, we move on… no point relying on “science” which cannot be proved right or wrong since no one recorded actual thermometric temperatures 1,000 years ago. -Roy

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        BillyJack,
        It is the old “local temperature” argument. They not only know the proxies are very accurate but that any data contrary to their views means it must have been local.

      • Bindidon says:

        Billyjack

        ” I am still looking for the cause of all of the ice & snow on Greenland being green instead of white during the Medieval Warm period when Greenland was named by the Vikings living there ;). ”

        What’s that for a nonsense? Is it from the Goddard guy?

        Anyone knows since quite long a time that Greenland is covered since millions of years by a ~ 2 km high ice sheet, which of course didn’t disappear during MWP – especially because at that time, it wasn’t warm at all there.

        There was no more green than the small traces visible today on the southwest and southeast coasts.

        The major reason for the Norses to move to Greenland via Iceland and to finally come back from there was not warming and farming, but… walrus ivory.

        Maybe you spend some time in reading this article:

        Glacier maxima in Baffin Bay during the MedievalWarm Period coeval with Norse settlement

        Nicolás E. Young, Avriel D. Schweinsberg, Jason P. Briner, Joerg M. Schaefer

        https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/sciadv.1500806

      • bdgwx says:

        I find it suspicious that Loehle thought proxies could be trusted enough to advertise an accuracy of around 0.1 C until he learned that BP (before present) in academic literature meant 1950 (not the literal “present”) thus missing at least 57 years of warming (now 72) which if included causes the contemporary period to easily surpass both the MWP era and the peak around 800-900 AD even despite the other mistakes.

      • Willard says:

        That personal correspondence with Craig must be recent, Roy:

        As a reminder, all temperature change in an object or system is due to an imbalance between rates of energy gained and energy lost, and the global warming hypothesis begins with the assumption that the climate system is naturally in a state of energy balance. Yes, I know (and agree) that this assumption cannot be demonstrated to be strictly true, as events like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age can attest.

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/12/climate-sensitivity-from-1970-2021-warming-estimates/

        Why should you believe that the MWP happened without proxies – paintings?

      • John Boland says:

        Dr. Spencer still has his sense of humor, so thats good.

      • bdgwx says:

        And when you add in the last 22 years of warming to the Ljungqvist 2010 reconstruction that he presented to congress you can see that it is significantly warmer today than the MWP. Like, it isn’t even close.

      • Hank Hancock says:

        bdgwx,

        I’ve done a lot of work with Ljungqvist’s paleo-proxy reconstructions as well as Marcott et. al. 2013, working with their SI materials and raw datasets.

        When you add the last 22 years of warming to Ljungqvist’s 2010 reconstruction, how do you compensate and weight for the different spatial and temporal resolutions and physics of the instrument record vs. proxies when adding it to Ljungqvist’s results? Marcott attempted to do the same as you are suggesting and failed so miserably that he admitted his attempt was not robust and should not be used to compare current temperatures with the past. Ljungqvist made no such attempt.

        So, I’m guessing you solved Marcott’s methods and dilemma? How?

      • RLH says:

        There has been global COOLING since 2016.

      • Nate says:

        Wishful thinking.

        This shows that the warmest year in each decade is an El Nino year. Coolest in each decade is a La Nina year.

        https://www.climate.gov/media/10685

        But each decade’s average T is warmer than the previous one, since the 1970s.

        So the fact that 2016 was warmest in last decade is not evidence of a cooling trend.

        In fact after accounting for the ENSO contribution, we can see that underlying warming is still evident.

        http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/Nino34+Tglb_2015-2023.pdf

      • RLH says:

        Nate: So if it has been cooling since 2016, when do you expect this to change?

      • bdgwx says:

        RLH, I know. And even with the transient cooling since 2016 it is still significantly warmer today than during the MWP and even the global peak around 900-1000 AD using the Ljungqvist 2010 reconstruction.

      • Nate says:

        “So if it has been cooling since 2016, when do you expect this to change?”

        False premise.

        The fact that 2016 was warmest in last decade is not evidence of a cooling trend.

        Do you not understand that statistically, a single event does not define a trend, RLH?

      • An Inquirer says:

        Greenland did have snow and ice during the MWP; however, it was less than today. Under today’s ice & snow are the rye fields that Vikings cultivated during the MWP.

      • Nate says:

        The warmest year in each decade is an El Nino year, and the coolest in each decade is a La Nina year, yet RLH wants us to compare them to determine if there is a cooling or warming trend.

        This is as misguided as comparing the warmest day of this week with the coldest day of next week to determine if we are headed for summer.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:

        ”See, this is where we differ I move on when the science changes.”

        You mean you move on when the science you accept changes.

        Proxies have been shown to move in the opposite direction such as in the ”hide the decline proxies” were found out in 2009 Climategate affair.

        folks have been trying to make more of proxies than they can deliver since the beginnings of science. One who is trained in this knows to not trust appended records from different measurement means. . . .and appending records is the only way to get back a 1,000 years. Its just not reliable and the science you quote isn’t universally accepted.

    • John Baglien says:

      bdgwx — No you don’t know and Kaufman et al. 2020 has the unwarranted, agenda-driven temerity to compare 200 year mean temperatures to the “most recent decade”.

      to quote from Kaufman et al. 2020:

      “To bracket the likely range of the temporal resolution of the GMST reconstruction, we focus on intervals of 1000 and 200 years…For 80% of the ensemble members, no 200-year interval during the past 12,000 years exceeded the warmth of the most recent decade. For the other 20% of the cases, which are primarily from the CPS reconstruction, at least one 200-year interval exceeded the recent decade.”

      They and you have no idea of how many decades within a given 200 year period may have exceeded the “most recent decade”. Unless temperatures were extraordinarily stable during the “20% of cases” wherein “at least 200-year interval exceeded the recent decade” those intervals that exceeded the current decade would have likely had multiple decades that exceeded the most recent decade. Even 200-year intervals that came somewhat close to the most recent decade would likely have had decades exceeding “the most recent decade”.

      A temporal resolution of 200 to 1000 years to assess the warmth of a period you assert to be about 150 years??? Roy Spencer is right we, you and Kaufman et al have know idea if current temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.

      • bdgwx says:

        I’m not looking at figure 4 or any of the 200/1000 yr binned data. I’m looking at figure 3 and specifically the PAGES2K inset with interannual resolution.

        Even the older Ljungqvist 2010 reconstruction that Dr. Spencer presented to congress was decadal using proxies with annual resolution. Adding in the last 22 years of warming puts the modern warm period almost 5-sigma above the 900-1000 AD peak and almost 8-sigma above the MWP. So even using Dr. Spencer’s preferred it is way…WAY…W-A-Y warmer today than during the MWP.

      • John Baglien says:

        The hockey stick in the Pages2k inset of figure 3 in Kaufman is created by a 1900-2010 modeled warming that exceeds measured warming warming from 2000-2010 by a factor of 4-8X. Not comparable Pages2K reconstruction. Estimates of 5-sigma to 8-sigma have no basis.

      • bdgwx says:

        First the concern was of the 200/1000 yr bins. Then when I explained that has nothing to do with the topic you moved the goalpost to the instrumental record. That’s okay. Let’s talk about it now.

        The instrumental record in Kaufmann et al. 2020 comes from ERA20C. It does indeed use a model. But that’s no different than any other global average temperature dataset including UAH. And note that HCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST show almost exactly the same amount of warming as ERA20C…about 1.2 C. So if you don’t like the ERA20C methodology then look at other datasets and compare the results. Furthermore, even our spot temperature measurements require complex models involving material science, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, etc. to produce a meaningful temperature value. If you don’t like models then you probably aren’t going to be satisfied with temperature observations or science in general for that matter.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        bdgwx says:
        ”The instrumental record in Kaufmann et al. 2020 comes from ERA20C. It does indeed use a model. But thats no different than any other global average temperature dataset including UAH. And note that HCRUT, GISTEMP, and BEST show almost exactly the same amount of warming as ERA20Cabout 1.2 C.”
        —————————
        Everything uses a model to find a global mean temperature. That fact provides zero assurance of any particular means of estimating GMT.

        What provides assurance is consistency and accuracy in the equipment, consistency in location of the equipment, random distribution of the locations, adequate numbers of observations, frequency of observations and the controls over all the above and the controls over the data after collection. . . .among others. That is what separates good models from bad models.

        bdgwx says:
        ”If you dont like models then you probably arent going to be satisfied with temperature observations or science in general for that matter.”

        If you just like models, in general, and pay no attention to the above then you are going to be soon calling everything you like to hear science. . . .because you already are cherry picking the models you like.

  4. Nate says:

    ” If it was cheap and practical, we would have already transitioned to renewable energy sources.”

    Uhhh..Obviously what is cheap and practical changes over time.

    Car – 1905. Not cheap or practical. Stick with a horse.

    Car – 1925. Cheap and practical.

    Solar wasnt cheap or practical 20 y ago. Now certainly is.

    • Scott says:

      Which is exactly why I drive my solar powered car to work and use solar power to light my office, laptop, and equipment. Then I travel on a solar powered airplane (at night of course), to visit my parents who live in a solar powered facility that powers their solar powered heart monitors. I then use my solar powered cell phone to call my wife and tell her how my day was.

      After all, solar is “cheap and practical”.

      Nate, do you have solar panels on your home? Oh you don’t? Hmmm. Wonder why.

    • Nate says:

      “Nate, do you have solar panels on your home? Oh you dont? Hmmm. Wonder why.”

      Wanted to, but my roof wasnt the right size/orientation. But plenty in my town do have it.

      Cars? Of course, indirectly.

      Airplanes? Etc. Nah, there is no energy source does that fits all the needs.

      • Scott says:

        “Nah, there is no energy source does that fits all the needs”.

        You’re right Nate. Fossil fuels can’t power ALL the airplanes at night, nor can they run ALL the cars, or power my parents heart monitors. Fossil fuels can’t generate the electricity to run my battery powered cellphone either.

        Oh, wait–yes they can–And they do every day.

        You may rethink your statement. After all, EVERYONE should–no–MUST–get off fossil fuels–including you. Why don’t you go first? You may need to move to a more solar panel friendly home though. But hey–it’s “cheap and affordable” right?

      • Nate says:

        “Fossil fuels cant generate the electricity ”

        In some cases that is true.

        Talk to Western Europeans about natural gas used as a cudgel against them.

        Go ahead an invest in a Coal power plant in the Great Plains, instead of Wind, and lose your shirt.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Did Henry Ford require subsidies?

      • Willard says:

        FYEO:

        By using a combination of subsidies, tax breaks, and direct investment, the Nazi government spurred the [automobile] sector to unprecedented levels of profitability and production; in 1934, production was already 50 percent higher than the previous peak which had been reached in 1929, and infrastructure expenditures (roads) were 100 percent higher than in the peak years of the 1920s.

        https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=hist_honors

        Every penny to pave a road should be regarded as a grant to the automotive industry.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Your point is we should be like Nazis? I guess California already is.

      • Willard says:

        The point is rather that troglodytes like you never really minded fascists if it meant cheaper commodities, Troglodyte.

      • Nate says:

        Yes oil exploration has been subsidized over the last century.

      • Nate says:

        And yes,

        “The United States Congress first funded roadways through the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916, and began an effort to construct a national road grid with the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921. In 1926, the United States Numbered Highway System was established, creating the first national road numbering system for cross-country travel. The roads were state-funded and maintained, and there were few national standards for road design. United States Numbered Highways ranged from two-lane country roads to multi-lane freeways. After Dwight D. Eisenhower became president in 1953, his administration developed a proposal for an interstate highway system, eventually resulting in the enactment of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.”

        “Following the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, use of the railroad system for moving passengers and freight declined sharply, but the trucking industry expanded dramatically”

      • Rick says:

        Energy subsidies, if any, should be compared in dollars per kWh.
        Federal and state highway’s have until recently been wholly paid for with user fees (fuel taxes).
        So, except for trucks not paying their fair share, any economic argument in favor of alternative energy sources or subsidies is wishful thinking.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        So you’re saying funding interstate commerce is analogous to funding solar panels and electric cars? Have you read the Constitution lately? Funding roadways isn’t picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        However, I do think even funding interstate highways is probably unconstitutional. There’s no authority in the Constitution to do that.

      • Willard says:

        > Funding roadways isnt picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

        When was the last time you took the train, Troglodyte?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        The government has equally funded railways and rail construction. But, it isn’t practical for people to own their locomotive. We can’t bring a train to everyone’s house. And the government didn’t intentionally try to drive people to use autos. People drove autos on the same dirt roads that wagons used. But you know all this, don’t you?

      • Nate says:

        “Funding roadways isnt picking winners and losers in the marketplace.”

        It had that effect.

        “Following the passage of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, use of the railroad system for moving passengers and freight declined sharply, but the trucking industry expanded dramatically”

        Especially compared to Europe which has excellent, affordable rail transport.

        “However, I do think even funding interstate highways is probably unconstitutional. Theres no authority in the Constitution to do that.”

        And Lincoln’s transcontinental railroad? Also unconstitutional?

        Well, thankfully for the development of the country, you would be an outlier on that view.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Part of that was train travel was much more advanced and more convenient in Europe when the automobile was invented, so rail was still heavily used. There has always been crony capitalism, but electric cars and solar panels will never be self-sustaining unless a much more efficient battery is developed.

    • stephen p.anderson says:

      So you argue that green energy just hasn’t scaled up enough? And Henry Ford needed government subsidies to get his cars off the ground? Is that your argument?

  5. Nate says:

    “over the years, Americans tend to migrate to warmer climates”

    Most of human civilization has flourished in the temperate zone. Not in the extremes.

    • David Pentland says:

      Flourished-
      since the industrial revolution.

    • David Pentland says:

      Would we have flourished fueled by whale oil?

    • Nate says:

      There were no civilizations before 1800???

      • Swenson says:

        Werent there? News to me!

        Oh wait, were you trying to be sarcastic, or just trying to be annoying?

        Stupidity through obscurity?

      • RLH says:

        “1750 and 1850. Those are the years historians commonly use to bracket the Industrial Revolution.”

      • Willard says:

        “Most of human civilization has flourished in the temperate zone.”

    • Bill Hunter says:

      thats not true.

      the tropics are home to 40% of the worlds population while only making up 36% of the worlds land mass.

      Basically what is true the further north or south you go from the tropics the less the population density.

      And what is projected:

      ”By 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in the tropicsthe relatively warm belt that girdles the globeaccording to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today.”

      https://www.science.org/content/article/expanding-tropics-will-play-greater-global-role-report-predicts

      • Bill Hunter says:

        The reason populations in the temperature regions have flourished was necessity of fossil fuels and what else arose from the development of those resources.

        this is where the ”big dumb” comes into effect as stupid people who have grown up privileged and think they know it all and what is good for the world but have just simply forgotten what made the world for them.

      • Nate says:

        “was necessity of fossil fuels”

        Fossil fuels are a recent blip in the history of human civilizations.

      • Nate says:

        “By 2050, half of the worlds population will reside in the tropicsthe relatively warm belt that girdles the globeaccording to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today.”

        The tropic is where the 3rd world, and its rapidly growing population, lives, but not by choice.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Children like it warm too Nate. Rapidly expanding populations hardly suggests the problem is the environment. When you can sleep outside year round, or in a tent why would anybody want to move? People move due to violence and oppression and that’s a small part of the population. You can sit behind your desk and proclaim that they don’t want to live there because of the climate but thats nothing but you spewing your daddy’s propaganda. And what does your daddy stand for? Violence and oppression?

      • Nate says:

        Ugggh. The usual rot.

  6. Mark Wapples says:

    Nate .

    I live in the UK, which has renewable electricity generation capacity to meet over 60 percent of our requirements.

    At best,due to our weather, it reaches 50 percent and frequently supplies less than 10 percent.

    While the cost has come down we are still dependent on gas fired units.

    I hardly call the current situation as practical.

  7. Willard says:

    Alright, let’s be serious for a change:

    Despite the pandemic upheaval, the long-term trend of migration is slowing on a historical basis, according to the Brookings Institution. For instance, from 2021 to 2022, about 9% of Americans moved, ranging from local to long-range moves.

    That’s far lower than the roughly 20% of Americans who moved each year from the 1940s to 1960s – decades when more households were single-earner homes, making it easier to pick up and relocate versus double-earner households today.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/states-where-americans-are-moving-florida-texas-north-carolina-south-carolina/

    I call 793.

  8. skeptikal says:

    Everyone knows that older people move to Florida. The population is aging. In 1980, 11.3% of people were 65 or older…. that’s now 16.3%. A larger fraction of the population being older and looking for a warmer climate in their old age could explain most of what’s happening in the graph.

    • gbaikie says:

      More people die from the cold, than warmer conditions. But it’s mostly older people from either cause of death.

    • Bindidon says:

      skeptical

      This is absolutely correct.

      Roy Spencer is a bit naïve here and should refine his stats by age and personal wealth.

      I’m sure he would wonder a lot.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        “Roy Spencer is a bit nave here and should refine his stats by age and personal wealth.

        You’re a bit arrogant here, and should poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle for my amusement.

        See – I can make silly comments as well.

        Who won?

    • Bill Hunter says:

      skeptikal says:
      ”A larger fraction of the population being older and looking for a warmer climate in their old age could explain most of whats happening in the graph.”

      Demonstrating of course its easier to live in a warm climate. But its not just Florida.

      Currently about 40% of the world’s population lives in the tropics and the projection is:

      ”By 2050, half of the worlds population will reside in the tropicsthe relatively warm belt that girdles the globe according to State of the Tropics, a hefty report released today.”

      https://www.science.org/content/article/expanding-tropics-will-play-greater-global-role-report-predicts

      And even Key West, Florida isn’t in the tropics.

      What needs to be stopped is the murder of people who can’t afford to move and can’t afford the upward pressure on energy prices that are being foisted on them by corrupt governments.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        6 days and no response. Obviously there isn’t even an argument about another ”official” government climate narrative biting the dust.

  9. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Visible influence of the geomagnetic field in the north on the circulation in the stratosphere. It promises to be a cool May in the US.
    https://i.ibb.co/618KpgY/gfs-z100-nh-f240.png
    https://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif

  10. Willard says:

    > I said, Dr. Michaels pointed out (most recently in 2013), so Im not sure what your point is here. -Roy

    Pat and Chip wrote their editorial more than 10 years ago.

    Roughly.

    • Swenson says:

      Witless Wee Willy,

      You wrote-

      “Pat and Chip wrote their editorial more than 10 years ago.

      Roughly.”

      Bully for Pat and Chip!

      Someone wrote

      “Bridegroom, dear to my heart,
      Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet,
      Lion, dear to my heart,
      Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet.” more than 4000 years ago.

      Roughly.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you roughly braying about?

      • Swenson says:

        Witless Wee Willy,

        You wrote-

        “Pat and Chip wrote their editorial more than 10 years ago.

        Roughly.”

        Bully for Pat and Chip!

        Someone wrote

        “Bridegroom, dear to my heart,
        Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet,
        Lion, dear to my heart,
        Goodly is your beauty, honeysweet.” more than 4000 years ago.

        Roughly.

      • Willard says:

        You already said that, Mike.

        Roughly speaking.

        What you haven’t done is to say what you’re braying about.

  11. David Pentland says:

    Would we have flourished in the temperate zones with whale oil?

    • Nate says:

      No flourishing going on in the Age of Exploration, the Renaissance or the Ming Dynasty?

  12. David Pentland says:

    Would we have flourished in the temperate zones fueled with whale oil?

    • gbaikie says:

      We have a lot cows, likewise we could farmed whales. Whale meat would be cheaper than chicken.

  13. Gee Aye says:

    Interesting.

    Do the data dig into where people came from and went to?

    Those early frontier days meant a lot of labor required on site in the colder and hotter regions. I see nothing in this analysis that precludes a population movement out of hotter regions as well as colder regions. The graph could just indicate the relative numbers living in the two extremes from where they originated.

    The conclusion could be that, with modernity allowing for the possibility in various ways, people will move to a more mild climate if they can.

  14. Tim S says:

    I would like to know how the Medieval Warm Period deniers explain the 1,000 year-old tree stumps at the base of retreating glaciers. Was it warmer then, or just less snowfall? How did those trees get there? I am open to suggestion.

    All of the reasonable estimates I see require each person to have a very large and expensive battery if they want to have reliable energy without fossil fuel. The clear answer is nuclear power, but the green people don’t want that either.

    • Nate says:

      “The clear answer is nuclear power” if price doesnt matter.

      Out energy mix is evolving as it always has, with both subsides and mostly market forces.

      It takes ~ 30 years for significant shifts in the energy mix.

      Electrification
      The gasoline automobile
      Hydropower
      Nuclear power
      Natural gas

      All these took ~ 30 y to rise to a peak fraction.

      There is no expectation of an immediate sharp transition to 100% renewables, so I don’t see an immediate need for home energy storage.

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        Why does price matter? If you can’t afford something, don’t buy it. If some idiot wants to waste their money providing a good or service at less than cost, take it!

        Why not?

      • Nate says:

        “If you cant afford something, dont buy it.”

        Good tip. Perhaps Swenson should focus full-time on such helpful pearls of wisdom, as opposed to trolling.

    • Entropic man says:

      “I would like to know how the Medieval Warm Period deniers explain the 1,000 year-old tree stumps at the base of retreating glaciers. Was it warmer then, or just less snowfall? How did those trees get there? I am open to suggestion. ”

      http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg

      There you go, Tim. During the MWP it was warm enough for the glaciers to retreat and boreal forest to grow. Then the glaciers advanced and covered the forest during the LIA. Now the climate is warmer than the MWP and the glaciers are retreating again.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        If you are not a Medieval Warm Period denier, why are you answering Tim’s question with facts he obviously already knows, by virtue of his comment.

        By the way, why do you say it is warmer than the MWP, and the glaciers are retreating – again?

        Surely, before the MWP, glaciers existed. At the height of the MWP, the glaciers had retreated, to be replaced by forests. As far as I know, this has not happened again, so the temperatures cannot be as high as they were during the MWP.

        Maybe in the future? Or maybe not? I don’t know – and neither do you!

  15. Jon says:

    Hi. I’m a layman. I try to follow you all, but I’m just someone who became interested in the climate out of curiosity. It seemed to be integral in my developing an anxiety disorder so I had to quit caring as much. Took 6 months before I could even return to this website. In NZ we had an atmospheric scientist/ meteorologist called Augie Auer, now deceased. But, I was wondering if his views on global warming from circa 2007 still held up today. I’m particularly interested in the CO2 saturation idea that Dr Spencer also mentions. I’ll post a clip where he discusses his views. Curious what people make of it as I find he’s good at explaining things in an easy way for all to undetermined.

    https://youtu.be/E7-12y1GycI

  16. CO2isLife says:

    This is the biggest irony of them all, people move to experience global warming. Global warming allows more people to live and thrive in more hospitable environments. People will die in the next ice age. Simply put, civilization thrives in the warmth, they die in the cold. Study history.

  17. Tim Folkerts says:

    Where people choose to live is only one factor. Wherever we choose to live, we still need food to eat.

    From the beginning of humanity, people lived where the food was produced, both because it took a lot of people to raise/collect/process the food and because transportation of food was expensive and difficult. Thanks to modern agriculture and modern transportation, people are no longer tied to the land. So we can live one place and do our farming somewhere else. We don’t have to keep most of the population on farms or near deer or fish or chickens.

    The other side of the coin is that we still need food, and climate change impacts food sources. The temperature changes in the past 50 years are about 2C from the graph, or about 3-4 F. This roughly corresponds to moving about 1 state south in the US. So the farmers in northern Iowa are growing the crops that had been grown in southern Iowa. Trees and birds and insects that that flourished Kansas will now flourish in Nebraska. (To say nothing of changes in precipitation).

    Sure, there is some leeway to adjust what variety of corn to plant, or even to switch to wheat instead of corn. But trees can’t just move north. And switching crops is not trivial.

    Where humans choose to live is only one small part of the equation; only one of many impacts of climate change.

    • Swenson says:

      Tim,

      “Where humans choose to live is only one small part of the equation;”

      What “equation” would that be?

      If I “choose to live” in the White House, or Buckingham Palace, does the equation help me to achieve my desires?

      You’re babbling, Tim. No GHE.

    • Tim S says:

      It almost seems that you are being sarcastic. Is there some “new” science that CO2 actually hurts plant growth? I have heard about the studies that faster plant growth means less mineral content, but there are many different nutrients that are not mineral based. I am also curious why you think warmer and more humid weather is a problem. Do you disagree that increased instability in the atmosphere should cause more rain?

      • Willard says:

        > Is there some “new” science that CO2 actually hurts plant growth?

        You’re on a roll, Tim:

        A significant reduction in maize yield is found for each day with a maximum temperature above 32C, in broad agreement with previous estimates. The recent increase in such hot days has likely contributed to the observed yield stagnation.

        […]

        We conclude that, to offset the projected increased daily maximum temperatures over France, improved technology will need to increase base level yields by 12% to be confident about maintaining current levels of yield for the period 20162035; the current rate of yield technology increase is not sufficient to meet this target.

        https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12069

        On a geological time scale, 2012 is quite recent.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Tim S asks ” Is there some “new” science that CO2 actually hurts plant growth? ”
        That is not the point of my post. The point is whether climate *change* (related to CO2 *change*) hurts plant growth.

        “I am also curious why you think warmer and more humid weather is a problem.”
        Again, the question is about whether a *change* in weather/climate is a problem.

        The answer is pretty clearly “yes”. Plants in a region thrive when they are suited the the conditions there. Change the conditions significantly (whether that is hotter or colder or more humid or less humid or more rainfall or less rainfall) and you will change how well different plants thrive in the region.

      • Tim S says:

        Let me be less subtle and more explicit. There is every reason to believe that increasing CO2 makes food crops grow faster. Increasing instability in the atmosphere should cause more rain which should also increase the growth rate of food crops. None of this seems like a negative. Is there data to show that staple crops such as corn and wheat are sensitive to climate? Rice needs water and there are reports of problems from lack of rain in rice growing regions, which tend to be in tropically areas. Is there any scientific basis to say that tropical regions should have less rainfall in the long term?

      • Willard says:

        > increasing CO2 makes food crops grow faster

        Again, up to a point:

        Plants that survive solely on C3 fixation (C3 plants) tend to thrive in areas where sunlight intensity is moderate, temperatures are moderate, carbon dioxide concentrations are around 200 ppm or higher, and groundwater is plentiful. The C3 plants, originating during Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras, predate the C4 plants and still represent approximately 95% of Earth’s plant biomass, including important food crops such as rice, wheat, soybeans and barley.

        C3 plants cannot grow in very hot areas at today’s atmospheric CO2 level (significantly depleted during hundreds of millions of years from above 5000 ppm) because RuBisCO incorporates more oxygen into RuBP as temperatures increase. This leads to photorespiration (also known as the oxidative photosynthetic carbon cycle, or C2 photosynthesis), which leads to a net loss of carbon and nitrogen from the plant and can therefore limit growth.

        C3 plants lose up to 97% of the water taken up through their roots by transpiration. In dry areas, C3 plants shut their stomata to reduce water loss, but this stops CO2 from entering the leaves and therefore reduces the concentration of CO2 in the leaves. This lowers the CO2:O2 ratio and therefore also increases photorespiration. C4 and CAM plants have adaptations that allow them to survive in hot and dry areas, and they can therefore out-compete C3 plants in these areas.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Let me me more explicit — “more” does not always equal “better”.

        And every plant and animal is sensitive to its environment — including the weather.

        Sure, some plants in some cases will do better with more moisture. But there are always trade-offs. The *direct* effect of more CO2 is indeed improved plant growth, but this must be weighed against climate change, which tends to be a negative for the plants native to a region.

        ************

        And again, the bigger point is that it is very myopic to base ‘good’ on where humans choose to live — as implied by the top post. Humans choosing to live now in warmer regions is NOT evidence that warming is good.

      • Tim S says:

        Tim Folkerts, I have to do it: Predictions are difficult — especially about the future. I believe that the USA, Europe, and some other places will go carbon neutral within the next 50 years, but it will not matter. Other nations will keep burning and producers will keep pumping until all of the fossil fuel is burned up. Then and only then will future generations know the true cost. By that time, with 20 billion people on earth, there will be many other problems.

  18. Entropic man says:

    Some odd ideas here.

    Greenland was never green. The name was propoganda by Erik the Red, invented to persuade Norse settlers to live in a freezing wilderness.

    Rather like persuading people to settle in the wasteland West of Philadelphia by calling it William Penn’s woodland paradise.

    The climate sceptics set great score on the Vikings growing barley in Greenland, as evidence that it was warm. They fail to mention that it was grown in small walled enclosures designed as suntraps and wind shields. This was the only way to get the soil above barley’s minimum germination temperature of 4C.

    • Bindidon says:

      Entropic man

      The only reason the Norse moved to Greenland was that at the time they were leaders in the processing and trading of walrus ivory.

      They had already decimated the walrus colonies in Iceland, so they moved to Greenland.

      A few centuries later, a new era began: elephant ivory from Africa became known and the jewelry made from it far surpassed that made from walrus ivory.

      End of the story.

      This barley stuff is just ridiculous.

      • gbaikie says:

        Did the Romans grow grapes in Scotland?
        The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century, says Avery, and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages. Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age.”

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        “The only reason the Norse moved to Greenland was that at the time they were leaders in the processing and trading of walrus ivory.”

        Read a few peer reviewed articles which say you are wrong, and that farming and raising cattle came first.

        Feel free to denigrate, deny, and dismiss any research with which you disagree.

      • Entropic man says:

        Bindidon

        I don’t think the Greenland colony was ever very successful. The total population of the two settlements peaked early at about 5000 and there were never enough children to keep up the numbers.

        They were never economically independant, dependant on trade for tools etc. When the walrus ivory trade declined and they could no longer trade, the colony was abandoned. The last couple who married in Greenland were later recorded living in Iceland.

      • Bindidon says:

        Again, the Flynnson stalker comes out with his usual unproven stuff:

        ” Read a few peer reviewed articles which say you are wrong, and that farming and raising cattle came first. ”

        *
        1. Do you think the Flynnson boy would post even ONE link to such a
        ‘peer reviewed article’ ?

        You would be plain wrong.

        *
        2. Suppose you would dare, in a discussion thread on this blog, to post ONE link to a ‘peer reviewed article’ when you are arguing about anything.

        Flynnson’s automatic, dumb reply:

        ” Oh you refer to a ‘peer reviewed article’, and appeal to some ‘authority’ ! Are you a delusional Sky Dragon cultist?

        *
        Flynnson is one of the worst, most stoopid trolls on this blog.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        Delusional SkyDragon cultists seem to be unable to find anything which disagrees with their beliefs.

        If you don’t believe that what I say is correct, fine. If you want to provide some support for your disbelief, even finer.

        You “believe” that “Flynnson is one of the worst, most stoopid trolls on this blog.”, presumably attempting to be annoying – or something.

        You can’t name one person who values your beliefs, can you? How galling that must be!

        Maybe you could try explaining why nobody can even describe the GHE in any way that agrees with reality.

        Only joking – you can’t.

        Keep whining.

  19. Entropic man says:

    The optimum temperature for economic activity is 13C.(55.5F)

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283293885_Global_non-linear_effect_of_temperature_on_economic_production

    The annual average temperature of the United States is now almost 13C.

    Perhaps the time has come for the US to stop further global warming so that the country can stay on the temperature sweet spot.

  20. Entropic man says:

    What of the snow geese?

    These Winnebago owners Winter in Florida and then move North as temperatures rise until they reach Maine in midsummer.

    They then move South again as temperatures fall.

    They are not seeking a single location, they are seeking to live at a constant temperature.

  21. Tim S says:

    Nate wrote this:

    [ If it was cheap and practical, we would have already transitioned to renewable energy sources.

    Uhhh..Obviously what is cheap and practical changes over time.

    Car 1905. Not cheap or practical. Stick with a horse.

    Car 1925. Cheap and practical.

    Solar wasnt cheap or practical 20 y ago. Now certainly is.”]

    This is the most fundamental of all errors when trying to use talking points in a technical discussion. I see this a lot from poorly educated people. Energy is NOT a “technology”. Energy is reality. The laws of physics such as the First Law of Thermodynamics are not negotiable. I admit there are creative ways to harness energy, but to compare energy development to advances in manufacturing technologies is very naive.

    • Entropic man says:

      You may have heard of the Kardashev Scale.

      It classifies civilizations according to their energy use.

      A Class 1 civilization uses all the energy falling on a planet from its star.

      A Class 2 civilization uses all the energy output of its star.

      A Class 3 civilization uses all the energy output of a galaxy.

      We are Class 1 minus. Our total energy budget is about 1/10,000 of the solar energy available from the Sun.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale#:~

      • Entropic man says:

        For example, to become a Class 2 civilization we would need to build a Dyson Sphere around the Sun.

        This would trap all its visible output. The waste heat would be radiated as infrared from the outside of the sphere. The James Webb Telescope would see such a Class 2 civilization as an object radiating the energy output of a G type star at infrared wavelengths, but not in visible light.The

        Similarly a Class 3 civilization would be detectable as a visually dim galaxy radiating mainly in the infrared.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        I can’t see any connection to AGW due to human energy use.

        Is there supposed to be one, or are you just trying to avoid the fact that you can’t even describe the GHE?

    • Nate says:

      “This is the most fundamental of all errors…”

      What error is that?

      Quote me saying “Energy is a ‘technology'” or any such thing.

      Quote me ignoring the First Law of Thermodynamics.

      “to compare energy development to advances in manufacturing technologies is very naive.”

      All I see here is the usual grasping for something, anything, to bitch about, but coming empty.

      • Tim S says:

        Nate, energy is a very difficult problem. In many ways, the solar panel is a step backwards, not forward. They are not cheap, and they have an end-of-life problem where they have progressively less output. They do not require additional expendables in use, but they are only really practical when a battery is involved for nighttime use. The battery is another end-of-life element in the system that stops working after enough cycles. The electric transportation economy needs a better battery that is fully and easily recyclable. Your comparison of moving from horses to cars is actually backwards when used as a political talking point. Horses are renewable energy.

      • Tim S says:

        Your graph is for utility investment which is different than homeowner or commercial installation, and it does not seem to account for the reduced capacity of solar panels over time. It also shows that natural gas is a good investment. Then, there is this:

        “Care should be taken in comparing different LCOE studies and the sources of the information as the LCOE for a given energy source is highly dependent on the assumptions, financing terms and technological deployment analyzed.[10] For any given electricity generation technology, LCOE varies significantly from region to region, depending on factors such as the cost of fuel or energy resources such as wind.[5]

        Thus, a key requirement for the analysis is a clear statement of the applicability of the analysis based on justified assumptions.[10] In particular, for LCOE to be usable for rank-ordering energy-generation alternatives, caution must be taken to calculate it in “real” terms, i.e. including adjustment for expected inflation.”

      • Nate says:

        ” In many ways, the solar panel is a step backwards, not forward.”

        Nah. Clean renewable energy acquired. No fuel to be mined, transported, no emission of pollutants, except for manufacture, which as been shown to be a small fraction per unit energy generated compared to others.

        “They are not cheap, and they have an end-of-life problem where they have progressively less output.”

        Yes they are cheap, on $/GWh basis, compared to other types of power plants. Much cheaper than Nuclear. Better than coal. Closing in on Gas.

        “They do not require additional expendables in use, but they are only really practical when a battery is involved for nighttime use.”

        False premise. Solar without storage contributes to the energy mix during peak daylight hours. For homeowners they can sell this energy to the grid which needs it during these hours, so homeowners dont NEED batteries.

        Large scale storage would be helpful as the renewable percentage becomes high, but that is in the works, and down the road.

        All energy production power plants have a lifespan that is part of their $/GWh

      • Willard says:

        To think that incredulity can power an argument is to believe in magical thinking, Tim.

        Perhaps you’d prefer, you might wish to take a look at the Sensitivity to Cost of Capital table:

        https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/

        And that’s notwithstanding the fact that investments, policies, and infrastructure of the energy industry as a whole are skewed in favor of fossil fuels.

        You misread the figure, BTW. It’s for solar panels in general.

      • Tim S says:

        I am not making the case that solar panels are worthless. I am making the case that the claim of cheap and practical is not true, and comparisons to other technologies such as cars and airplanes do not fit with the problem of producing energy. Already, I have to correct myself that energy is never created, it is converted from one form to a more useful form.

        Solar panels need space. It is not possible to compare solar panel cost for a utility company project without including the cost, or at least the value of the land. There was a case several years ago that a solar project in the desert was protested by environmental groups because it would affect desert animals. No type of alternative energy is cheaper or more practical than fossil fuel. There is always a trade-off. Knee-jerk reactionary proposals like the new one to require utilities to install carbon capture are just stupid when the rest of the world is moving forward with projects that will increase world-wide emissions.

      • Willard says:

        > I’m making the case

        You’re not making any case, Tim. You’re just arguing by assertion, running around all the Bingo squares.

        Solar is cheap. Its main problem is that it’s still relatively new, at least at large scale. And the scale can get bigger, e.g.:

        [A] hypothetical solar farm that covered the entire desert would produce 2,000 times more energy than even the largest power stations in the world, which generate barely 100,000 GWh a year. In fact, its output would be equivalent to more than 36 billion barrels of oil per day thats around five barrels per person per day. In this scenario, the Sahara could potentially produce more than 7,000 times the electricity requirements of Europe, with almost no carbon emissions.

        https://theconversation.com/should-we-turn-the-sahara-desert-into-a-huge-solar-farm-114450

        There are side effects to such projects, insofar as you believe modulz output. But then you’re skeptical of these, aren’t you?

      • Swenson says:

        Wonky Wee Willy,

        “Solar is cheap.” Yeah. Right.

        You are mentally deficient.

        I can support my assertion. You can’t support yours. That supports mine, don’t you think?

        How much does “solar”cost? Where can I buy some? What can I do with it?

        Idiot.

      • Willard says:

        > I can support my assertion.

        What are you braying about, Mike?

        Did you make an assertion?

        Where?

        Cheers.

      • Swenson says:

        Wondering Wee Willy,

        I asserted that you are an idiot. Are you proffering comprehension deficit rather than idiocy for your idiotic comment?

        Tut, tut – you would appear less than fully functional in either case.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You said –

        “I asserted that you are an idiot.”

        You did?

        Where?

        What a buffoon!

      • Swenson says:

        Woebegone Wee Willy,

        You are an idiot.

        Please stop trolling.

      • Willard says:

        These are not the magic words, Mike, and you evaded another question.

        Long live and prosper.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, please stop trolling.

    • RLH says:

      Nate: “to compare energy development to advances in manufacturing technologies is very naive”

  22. Willard says:

    > Energy is NOT a technology. Energy is reality.

    That’s the problem with contrarians.

    They still believe in magic.

    • RLH says:

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      – Arthur C. Clarke

      • RLH says:

        Idiot.

      • RLH says:

        There is nothing new about vertical wind turbines.

      • Willard says:

        Next you’re gonna argue that there’s nothing new with fracking because China harnessed gas 500 BC.

        Speaking of which:

        https://www.quaise.energy/

      • RLH says:

        Next you are going to argue you don’t have a brain. I agree with you.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, you are an idiot, linking to “green hydrogen”.

        You obviously don’t realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.

        The most abundant so-called “greenhouse gas” is, you guessed it, H2O!

        Don’t believe me? From Wikipedia –

        “The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
        Water vapor (H2O)
        . . . ”

        Gee. Using “green hydrogen” increases the amount of “the most abundant greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere!

        Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?

        You might just as well run around professing implied homosexual love for other commenters. That would be equally idiotic.

        Keep it up!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, and any sufficiently stupid contrarian is indistinguishable from a crank.

        Keep braying!

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, you are an idiot, linking to green hydrogen.

        You obviously dont realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.

        The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!

        Dont believe me? From Wikipedia

        The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
        Water vapor (H2O)
        . . .

        Gee. Using green hydrogen increases the amount of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere!

        Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?

        You might just as well run around professing implied homosexual love for other commenters. That would be equally idiotic.

        Keep it up!

      • Willard says:

        Mike, Mike,

        You say –

        “The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!”

        You really have no idea what you’re braying about, don’t you?

        What an absolutely useless sock puppet!

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, you are an idiot, linking to green hydrogen.

        You obviously dont realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.

        The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!

        Dont believe me? From Wikipedia –

        “The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
        Water vapor (H2O)
        . . .

        Gee. Using green hydrogen increases the amount of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere!

        Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?

        You might just as well run around professing implied homosexual love for other commenters. That would be equally idiotic.

        Keep it up!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You wrote –

        A lot of irrelevant stuff nobody read.

        Doesn’t that bother you?

        Oh! Oh! Oh!

      • Swenson says:

        Willard, you are an idiot, linking to green hydrogen.

        You obviously dont realise that burning hydrogen to generate heat creates dihydrogen oxide, also known as H2O, or water.

        The most abundant so-called greenhouse gas is, you guessed it, H2O!

        Dont believe me? From Wikipedia

        The most abundant greenhouse gases in Earths atmosphere, listed in decreasing order of average global mole fraction, are:
        Water vapor (H2O)
        . . .

        Gee. Using green hydrogen increases the amount of the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere!

        Do you have to work hard at providing information that demonstrates your idiocy?

        You might just as well run around making silly masturbatory references. That would be equally idiotic.

        Keep it up!

      • RLH says:

        “Willard, you are an idiot”

        Yup.

      • Entropic man says:

        Swenson, RLH

        You are both idiots.

        Water vapour is in equilibrium in the atmosphere. Add extra water vapour from burning hydrogen and the extra H2O promptly precipitates out again.

        Unlike that other GHG, CO2 which accumulates.

      • RLH says:

        “the extra H2O promptly precipitates out again.”

        I wondered where Tulare Lake came from
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/may/12/california-ghost-lake-nasa-images

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        You wrote –

        “Water vapour is in equilibrium in the atmosphere.”

        There doesn’t seem to be a lot of water vapor in the atmosphere over Antarctica, but it seems there used to be, before the water vapour from somewhere became ice. The extreme example occurred when the surface was above 100 C – all of the water vapour was in the atmosphere.

        Equilibrium?

        Then you wrote –

        “Unlike that other GHG, CO2 which accumulates.”

        No it doesn’t. CO2 is plant food. Maybe you don’t realise the CO2 created by burning hydrocarbons comes from plants which have removed CO2 from the atmosphere in times gone by. By the way, you use the term GHG. Does this have some magical significance? Was CO2 responsible for the Earth cooling over the past four and a half billion years?

        Powerful stuff, that CO2!

        Luckily, humanity is trying hard to restore CO2 levels to a healthy state. If global CO2 levels drop below about 200 ppm, we all die. Plants start to die off.

        You sound like you need assistance to rise to the intellectual status of idiot, if you truly believe the fantasies that you write. Even idiots realise that the “greenhouse effect” cannot be described in any way that agrees with reality.

      • Entropic man says:

        Silly Swenson.The

        You remind me of Schiller’s aphorism.

        Against stupidity
        The gods themselves
        Contend in vain

  23. Swenson says:

    Nate made a strange assertion –

    “For homeowners they can sell this energy to the grid which needs it during these hours, so homeowners dont NEED batteries.”

    The homeowner still needs to be connected to the grid, does he?

    Maybe homeowners face additional charges, too –

    “But then she found out about a monthly $5-per-kilowatt solar fee from the state’s largest utility, Alabama Power.” – NPR.

    Photovoltaic power may be cost effective or not, depending on circumstances. There may even be some SkyDragon cultists not connected to a power grid, potable water supply, or sewerage system. I don’t know of any, but someone might.

    Peasant subsistence farmers depend on solar and wind power – working from sunup to sundown, and utilizing wind for winnowing grain, etc. Not my choice of lifestyle. Give me reliable electricity, pressurized potable water, and sewerage, and I’m a happy chappy.

    • Nate says:

      “Green energy groups say this solar fee is a key reason why, according to Wood Mackenzie and the Solar Energy Industries Association, Alabama comes in 48th out of 50 states in residential solar capacity. (North Dakota and South Dakota trail Alabama).”

      Obviously Alabama is a deep red state, and it can be deduced that for political reasons it has no desire to encourage solar.

  24. Nate says:

    “Some might claim that the migration to states with warmer temperatures has more to do with economic opportunity than with temperature. But who creates economic opportunity? People. And where do people choose to live? Where the weather is warmer.”

    Except for Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and some others, which were below average in population growth. Probably because of lack of economic and educational opportunities in those states.

    https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states/

    On a personal notes, I’ve lived in Houston, and visited Florida many times. Their heat AND humidity is not appealing.

    Up North some would rather avoid the cold in January and February and stay inside.

    But I’ve spent time in Dallas in July and August, with many days exceeding 100. Few people want to spend time outside.

    The few that can afford to be Snowbirds have the right idea.

    • gbaikie says:

      “On a personal notes, Ive lived in Houston, and visited Florida many times. Their heat AND humidity is not appealing.”

      I tend to agree.
      But it could be something you can adapt to- and I rather not adapt.
      When I first move to LA, it took quite a long time to adapt, but wasn’t constant thing, just some times, the heat and humidity was uncomfortable. Now, I would say there are even rarer times, where there very high humidity conditions that are noticeable- or I would think this must be what it’s like living in Houston or Florida is like {and didn’t like it}.
      Generally I would say it’s mostly UHI effect.
      But in terms of this “even rarer times” event, it was not UHI effect but rather was a freak weather effect, lasting about a day or so, which wasn’t particularly warm, but very humid.

      Anyways, an interesting question is does global warming, cause more
      Houston and Florida?
      Well, first, there large differences within Houston and Florida- I know there is large difference within LA county {though it a big county- ranging from high desert to beach areas] and the biggest effect in regards Houston and Florida [or LA] is the UHI effects.

      One aspect related to UHI effects, is human population and poorly built urban areas. And it’s possible we could build ocean settlements- low income and everyone can live on the beach- without the current problems of living on a beach.
      And we have latest problem, which people are increasing becoming more aware of, which is human populations are going to crash.

      Govts have proven they can’t do anything about CO2 emissions, and they going to prove they can not do anything to about a crashing populations.

      But what is global warming. It’s warming our cold 3.5 average temperature, ocean. Or more directly, it’s warming the average ocean surface temperature which about 17 C.
      Which about 26 C in tropics and about 11 C in 60% of the rest of world’s ocean. Or if 60% was 12 C [or more] you get global increase in surface air temperature- which means on land, a higher average nighttime temperature which in turn increase the average daytime temperature.
      I suppose in short term, what will mostly likely cause global temperature increase is the weather effects from a strong El Nino.
      That seems to be what is hoped for.

  25. Clint R says:

    This is an interesting post from Dr. Spencer. Especially with the evidence from UAH that temps aren’t anywhere near *catastrophic* or *unprecedented*.

    My experience has been that the preference for warmth comes with age. Senior citizens tend to prefer warmer winters, as opposed to shoveling snow. Younger folks see cold and snow as recreational opportunities — skiing, snowmobiling, ice skating, etc. My older relatives either lived in the South, or found ways to vacation there in winters.

  26. gbaikie says:

    Episode 2106 Scott Adams: Trump Changed Everything On CNN, Migrant Surge, Economy, Twitter CEO!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQE9ZB4FHbk

    “Trump ended the war, with just interview”

    Yeah, …sort of.

  27. Tim S says:

    I remain unconvinced that solar panels are either cheap or practical for the long run. The end-of-life problem remains that at least 4% of panels in use have to be replaced each year. More than 50 years ago there was a movie called The Graduate. Dustin Hoffman was encouraged to work in plastics because they are the future. Now, there is a huge waste problem with plastics, and they are discouraged. There may be a similar problem brewing for solar panels and batteries.

    https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power

    “it costs an estimated $20$30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1$2.”

    • Tim S says:

      Cut and paste problem”

      it costs an estimated $20 to $30 to recycle one panel. Sending that same panel to a landfill would cost a mere $1 to $2.

    • Willard says:

      > I remain unconvinced

      Pardon me for asking, Tim, but who cares what you believe or not?

      I’m glad that you finally saw the hippie light:

      The Lac-Mgantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mgantic, Quebec, Canada, on July 6, 2013, at approximately 01:15 a.m. EDT, when an unattended 73-car Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA) freight train carrying Bakken Formation crude oil rolled down a 1.2% grade from Nantes and derailed downtown, resulting in the explosion and fire of multiple tank cars. Forty-seven people were killed. More than thirty buildings in Lac-Mgantic’s town centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed, and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining buildings had to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite. Initial newspaper reports described a 1 km (0.6-mile) blast radius

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster

      It’s really hard to outcompete fossil fuels in a race to the waste bottoms.

      • Swenson says:

        Weary Wee Willy,

        Only 47 dead? A mere bagatelle.

        Much better to ban fertilizer, wouldn’t you think? Terrible stuff – creates “ships of death”. Here’s a US example –

        “The Texas City disaster is generally considered the worst industrial accident in U.S. history. Witnesses compared the scene to the fairly recent images of the 1943 air raid on Bari and the much larger devastation after an atomic bomb was dropped at Nagasaki. [] Official casualty estimates came to a total of 567.”

        Or ban motor cars – about 50,000 deaths per annum in the US.

        Fossil fuels? Just carbon and hydrogen in plant remains. All natural and organic – no harmful chemicals added by dirty filthy money-grubbing humans.

        I like cheap electricity, running potable water, and sewerage. If you can provide me with these for less than I currently pay, please let me know.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        You stupidly go all in –

        “ships of death”

        That’s not ships of death. Here are ships of death:

        On the morning of 6 December 1917, the French cargo ship SS Mont-Blanc collided with the Norwegian vessel SS Imo in the waters of Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The Mont-Blanc, laden with high explosives, caught fire and exploded, devastating the Richmond district of Halifax. At least 1,782 people were killed, largely in Halifax and Dartmouth, by the blast, debris, fires, or collapsed buildings, and an estimated 9,000 others were injured. The blast was the largest human-made explosion at the time. It released the equivalent energy of roughly 2.9 kilotons of TNT

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion

        Is this all you got, silly sock puppet?

      • Swenson says:

        Witless Wee Willy,

        Do you realise that explosives are designed to “explode”?

        In relation to your comment “Its really hard to outcompete fossil fuels in a race to the waste bottoms.”, you have just reinforced my contention that it is quite easy, when the best you can offer in your original “fossil fuel” comment is 47 lives lost!

        I even tried to help by pointing out that motor vehicles kill about 50,000 people per annum in the US, but you would probably whine that some were due to electric vehicles which only used fossil fuels to charge their batteries!

        Anyway, your stupid attempts at diversionary trolling can’t disguise the fact that neither you nor your associated crowd of dimwits and idiots can produce a valid description of the GHE.

      • Willard says:

        Mike, Mike,

        Two plus two equals four.

        Four minus four equals zero.

        You realize that zero is also the amount of sense you make?

        Keep braying.

      • Swenson says:

        Willy, Willy, Willy, Willy,

        You seem to have lost it completely.

        Is it a revelation that two plus two equals four?

        Tut, tut, Willy – your trolling attempts get progressively lamer.

        Carry on.

      • Willard says:

        So you cannot the facts submitted to you, Moron Mike?

        Is it because you are a moron?

        Go ahead, prove me that you are not a moron –

        How do we call an object with an emissivity of 1, again?

        Moron.

      • Willard says:

        Damn Otto Pilot:

        > you cannot *refute* the fact

      • Nate says:

        “Fossil fuels? Just carbon and hydrogen in plant remains. All natural and organic no harmful chemicals added by dirty filthy money-grubbing humans.”

        Nah, Coal and oil has sulfur, and produces sulfuric acid which burns human lungs.

        Coal also has a neurotoxin, Mercury, which gets concentrated in the fish we consume.

        And Lead was added by money grubbing humans to gasoline for decades, which ended up in soil and humans everywhere, who lost a few IQ points, some (eg Swenson) more than others.

      • Swenson says:

        All natural. Do you realise fossil fuels were created before mankind was?

        If you don’t like the way fossil fuels were created, don’t blame me. If you are complaining about impurities, blame the refiners. I would.

        Things like water, oxygen, electricity, are all completely lethal if incorrectly used. Are you now saying that you don’t like fossil fuel use because of “toxins”?

        Fine, don’t use it. Go and live somewhere where you are not exposed to air (it contains all sorts of harmful substances, viruses, bacteria etc), and don’t drink water. Stop exhaling CO2, if you consider it a pollutant.

        I’ll laugh as you worry about what is going to kill you.

        Fair enough?

      • Nate says:

        As mentioned toxic Lead was added by humans to gasoline.

        The others are natural in FF but still toxic to people, as is snake venom and arsenic.

        Just because a thing is natural doesnt mean its good for humans to breathe in or swallow, as most sensible people understand.

    • Nate says:

      “The end-of-life problem remains that at least 4% of panels in use have to be replaced each year.”

      Current wholesale price < $1/Watt. @ 2000 h per year in a medium sunny place, @ 25 y, that is 50 KWh generated. So the replacement cost is $1/50 KWh or $6/Million BTU.

      In 25 years, the replacements will be cheaper.

      Consider Natural Gas. "United States' electricity producers paid about 4.98 U.S. dollars per million British thermal unit for natural gas in 2021."

      Only about 33% of that is electricity output. So $15/MBTU = $15/300 kWh.

      Compare to $6/MBTU for solar panel replacement.

      All power plants need maintenance and upgrades to expensive hardware, not sure why you think only solar has an issue.

      • Nate says:

        And there is an environmental cost for all energy sources. The question is what is the relative cost.

      • Swenson says:

        Numbskull Nate,

        And of course you have no answers whatsoever.

        All you can do is state the blindingly obvious, and whine and whine about it.

        Very useful – not!

      • Tim S says:

        Since you are not trolling or posing a ridiculous strawman question, I will answer. Once again, I will state that solar panels are not worthless, but they are not cheap and practical either.

        Energy is a difficult problem. Even after people come to their senses and we get started on a competent nuclear power program, solar panels will still have a place. They work really well in remote areas were there are no wires, but that is another problem. Transporting solar electricity from New Mexico, Arizona, or Texas deserts to New York is a difficult problem.

        Another point is that an oil refinery or natural gas power plant costs a lot of money, but the metal is easily recycled. They produce very little solid waste over time. Refineries produce byproducts such as ammonia which is used for fertilizer (injected into the ground as a gas), coke (dirty carbon) which is either refined or sold overseas for fuel, and sulfur which gets dumped into huge stockpiles in some countries, but sold really cheap in this country as raw sulfur or sulfuric acid.

        Intelligent and rational people are already discussing the need for standardized nuclear breeder reactor designs of various sizes. Just like most refineries, one big expense in a nuclear plant is the massive engineering and design effort for so much unique and custom equipment and plant layout. Admittedly, there is also a very high construction cost because so much inspection and testing is need for QC.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” Intelligent and rational people are already discussing the need for standardized nuclear breeder reactor designs of various sizes. ”

        Really?

        I would rather say: intelligent and rational people are aware of the problems that arise from nuclear breeder reactors.

        Such reactors were designed and implemented in France decades ago.

        First, they generate even more nuclear waste than conventional nuclear power plants because of the extensive blanket reprocessing that must be carried out in addition to the reprocessing of the fuel rods.

        All known breeders produced plutonium-239 from uranium-238 bombarded by high-energy neutrons in such blankets placed around the core.

        The higher energy neutrons generate much more heat and therefore require a more complex primary cooling system than traditional pressurized water technology.

        The only technique known so far is liquid sodium.

        A breeder reactor with a capacity of over 1 GW like the French Superphnix requires over 5,000 tons of liquid sodium operating at 800 C.

        This reactor clearly demonstrated that no metal alloy could truly withstand a material as aggressive as liquid sodium when subjected to such extreme temperatures during longer periods.

        To start Pu239 generation from U238 you need fuel rods containing Pu239 because the neutrons produced by U235 fission are not strong enough.

        Such MOX fuel rods, in which Pu239 and U235 are mixed, already exist and have been used in conventional nuclear power plants for a long time: the delay in reprocessing requires significantly longer rod cooling phases after use.

        *
        Surprisingly, breeders that convert thorium-232 to uranium-233 have been very en vogue for quite some time, although no reactor based on this technique has ever shown success in the last 60 years.

        The main problem with generating U233 from Th232 is that one cannot avoid the cogeneration of U232, which is not only known to be non-fissile but also highly toxic; There is currently no technology that separates U232 and U233.

        *
        Breeding is a dead end.

        As is D+T (deuterium plus tritium) based fusion, because while deuterium is present in oceans (approximately 25,000 Gt), tritium does not exist on Earth and must be breeded from lithium blankets to which beryllium is added for additional neutron flux.

        The neutrons generated by D+T are even more aggressive than those used in 4G breeders.

        Other fusion candidates require much longer plasma heating and confinement times than D+T.

        *
        Come back to us when all these problems will be really solved…

      • Bindidon says:

        I forgot one tiny detail.

        At the time of its conception in the 1970s, the cost of dismantling Superphénix was estimated at 300 million French francs (about US$ 50 million).

        After US$ 10 billion was invested in the operation and the sodium cooling problems worsened, the reactor was decommissioned in 1997 and the dismantling costs were then estimated at US$ 1.5 billion.

        The dismantling began in 2007 and should originally last until 2027. In 2017, as far as I remember, the neutralization of the extremely aggressive sodium was not yet complete. The date for the end of the work was no longer spoken of as the 2030s :–)

      • Tim S says:

        If Bill Gates says nuclear power is possible and he is investing his money, it must be a good investment. He could corner the market. What could go wrong?

        https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/bill-gates-future-nuclear-energy-ai/story?id=99160110

        https://www.terrapower.com/

      • Swenson says:

        Bindidon,

        China intends to build more coal fired power plants, not nuclear.

        India, with about the same population, intends to build more nuclear power plants, not coal fired.

        About 2.8 billion people between them.

        Which country is proceeding down the correct path?

        Do you have an alternative? Do you think either country (or any of their 2.8 billion inhabitants) really gives a brass razoo for your opinions?

        Feel free to let me know your relevant opinions. Or just complain and whine in general.

        Have you figured out how the Earth managed to cool for four and a half billion years with more CO2 in the atmosphere than now? That might seem a bit contradictory to anybody but a delusional SkyDragon cultist, don’t you think?

      • Bindidon says:

        Oh… chattering stalker Flynsson once again has nothing relevant to say but, as always, urges something unimportant to say.

        Will that never end?

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You can’t commit yourself to anything at all?

        Not prepared to declare you believe in anything?

        Maybe you could try describing the GHE in some valid way – that would everyone a good laugh.

        Or you could keep whining and complaining about how pathetic you are, being picked on by figments of your imagination.

        What’s your choice, Binny?

      • Bindidon says:

        Tim S

        ” If Bill Gates says nuclear power is possible and he is investing his money, it must be a good investment. ”

        If this is all you are able to say about such a complex matter, then we don’t need to discuss further: you belong to the Robertson / Clint R / Flynnson poster class.

      • Tim S says:

        Some of you are so busy trolling each other you completely missed my sarcastic comment:

        “If Bill Gates says nuclear power is possible and he is investing his money, it must be a good investment. He could corner the market. What could go wrong?”

        Bill Gates is a very clever businessman, but he is not someone you would rely on for important information. In fact, one should assume that everything he says and does is a matter of self interest. That includes includes his foundation and his association with that creepy guy who had a private island.

      • Willard says:

        If that comment was sarcastic, TS, that would mean that your previous one was sarcastic too.

        You may have little honour, but at least you feed my Climateball Bingo.

        Thanks for that.

      • Nate says:

        “Once again, I will state that solar panels are not worthless, but they are not cheap and practical either.”

        Coal was initially cheap and practical, but it has great environmental costs, and is no longer that cheap and practical.

        In 1930, one could have said building Hoover Dam is not going to be cheap or practical. In fact it was quite a challenge. But it worked. And now we know there are environmental costs.

        Before we had the natural gas pipeline network, one could have said hauling gas around by train or truck makes it not cheap or practical. But the pipeline network was built, incrementally, and with govt support.

        When we started building nuclear, with lots of govt support, we probably thought this is going to be the cheap and practical solution.

        Nuclear is useful, but it certainly has an unsolved waste issue, and costs. Right now, not cheap or practical. Might be again.

        It was true that solar was not cheap or practical 30 years ago. Same for wind. Off shore wind seems not cheap or practical, yet.

        I suggest that as part of the current energy mix, solar is evidently cheap and practical, as is land-based wind. Whether they will dominate in the future remains to be seen.

        It may require a yet to be built gravity storage network, and long distance power transmission lines. We have to try it incrementally, and allow better solutions to develop, to see if it is going to be cheap and practical.

      • gbaikie says:

        For most countries which use coal {and a lot do} coal is still
        cheap:
        “Nigeria’s Coal Market Report 2023 – Prices, Size, Forecast …
        What is the average export price for coal in Nigeria? In 2021, the average coal export price amounted to $68 per ton, remaining stable against the previous year.”
        Europe:
        “Benchmark European thermal coal prices remained close to historic highs throughout 2022 on sustained higher use across the continent, averaging roughly $285 per tonne for the year, compared with about $115 a tonne in 2021”

        I would guess it’s due supply and demand, and can’t import natural
        gas from Russia. Pipeline natural gas can be quite cheap.

        In US it’s less than $40 per ton.
        And China imports at cost of $165.50 per ton, the cheapest it’s been
        since beginning of 2022. And if generating electrical at where you
        mine coal it cost a lot less- which is done in US and in China- and I know Germany does that- it imports the electrical power where coal is
        mined and made into electrical [low quality coal, but cheap coal]. With US, low quality coal is not mineable- but lots higher quality coal in US.

      • Nate says:

        And yet Coal: “but it has great environmental costs”.

  28. Willard says:

    > Admittedly, there is also a very high construction cost because so much inspection

    If only TS could be 10% as serious as he portrays himself.

    Nukes immobilize Very Big capital for generations:

    The cost of capital is typically a key component of the overall capital cost of nuclear power projects. Over a long construction period, during which there are no revenue streams from the project, the interest on funds borrowed can compound into very significant amounts.

    V. World Nuclear Association’s website.

    • Swenson says:

      Wavering Wee Willy,

      The Indian Government is proposing to build many more nuclear plants.

      They seem to be ignoring your comments. Why is that, do you think?

      Maybe you could send a letter to each of the 1.4 billion inhabitants of India, telling them how clever you are.

      How many do you think might agree with you?

      Inept and powerless troll – that’s all you are.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        India will indeed increase its nukes by half. From 3% nukes should produce under 5% of Indian energy. India will then have two thirds of Murican capacity. A great feat, considering that it needs to import uranium. But then it also needs to import gas.

        The new nukes will cost them between 3 to 4M per MW. Some of the cash has been put forward by Russian banks. Would you have taken that deal, and are you stupid enough to suggest that they should go all in on fusion?

        Long live and prosper.

      • Swenson says:

        Weird Wee Willy,

        Do you have a point?

        I repeat “They seem to be ignoring your comments. Why is that, do you think?” pointing out that your influence is precisely zero.

        Does anybody at all value your opinions? It would seem not, but if you feel like producing evidence to the contrary, go ahead.

        I can always use an extra good laugh, on top of the never-ending supply you deliver.

        Go for it, Willard.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Yes, I do have a point.

        Do you?

        Repeating your inanities will not make them relevant.

      • Swenson says:

        Weak Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Yes, I do have a point.”

        Sure you do, Willard, sure you do.

        You’re just going to keep it secret, and not tell anybody what it is, aren’t you you?

        Do you think that will make you look clever, or make you look like a delusional SkyDragon cultist idiot?

        The world wonders.

      • Willard says:

        Why would I waste my time stating the obvious, Moron Mike?

        Do you keep repeating the same things over and over again because you are a moron?

        Moron.

  29. CO2isLife says:

    An interesting post would be a graphic of the global temperatures and then showing a 1-degree shift. Basically, we may lose NYC but we gain all of Siberia to grow crops, we would have unlimited fresh water with the melting of the iceland and Greenland glaciers, more land would become inhabitable. Anyone thinking that global warming would cause starvation doesn’t even understand the basics. Much of the Earth’s landmass in uninhabitable. Michigan getting the climate of Ohio is a good thing, Ohio getting the climate of Tennesee is a good thing. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

    • Entropic man says:

      There’s a problem with your suggestion that global warming g will create an increase in uninhabitable land.

      The classic Mercator projection world map distorts the areas of countries, making higher latitudes look bigger.

      On an equal areas projection like Gall-Peters you can see that high latitudes contain less land area than you think.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%E2%80%93Peters_projection#/media/File%3AGall%E2%80%93Peters_projection_SW.jpg

      Overall global warming will make more tropical land area uninhabitable than it will make high latitude land habitable.

      We’ll lose more habitable land than we’ll gain.

      • Entropic man says:

        I hate autocorrection. That should have been

        “Theres a problem with your suggestion that global warming will create an increase in habitable land.”

    • Entropic man says:

      “An interesting post would be a graphic of the global temperatures and then showing a 1-degree shift. ”

      The temperature gradient between equator and poles averages 30C over 6000 miles.

      Your map of global temperature contours would show that 1C of warming would move each contour by 6000/30=200 miles further from the Equator.

      Lapse rate is 9C/kilometre. IC of warming would raise vertical temperature contours by 110 metres, about 360 feet.

      What does this look like on the ground? The boreal forest is moving northwards as it’s northern edge encroaches into the tundra. It’s southern edge is being colonised by temperate forest species where rainfall allows near the coasts, and the trees are dying or burning to be replaced by prairie in drier areas.

      The Midwest grain belt is extending North, but the Southern edge is getting too hot.The

      Treelines are moving higher up mountain slopes. Cold climate species such as ptarmigan surviving on mountains in Scotland are going to disappear as the mountain tops get too warm for them.

      Deadlines are

    • gbaikie says:

      We are living in the Holocene interglacial period.
      We are living between glaciation periods- we are in a very long
      ice age.
      Thousands of years ago, the Holocene was much warmer than the present
      time. For thousands of years global temperature was above 15 C and sea levels were 1 to 2 meters higher than present sea levels.
      And the Holocene was not as warm as past interglacial periods, which had periods of thousands of year where sea level were more the 4 meter higher and global average temperature were 17 C or warmer.

      The last interglacial period is called:
      “The Eemian (also called the last interglacial, Sangamonian Stage, Ipswichian, Mikulin, Kaydaky, penultimate, Valdivia or Riss-Wrm)”

      The Eemian during it’s warmest time {peak temperature- which lasted thousands of years} had ocean with average temperature of about 4 C [or more].
      More than 90% of global warming is warming our present ocean which has average temperature of about 3.5 C.

      In past times when ocean was 4 C or warmer, there was less deserts on
      Earth and Sahara Desert had many people living in it, and it was mostly grass lands with rivers and lakes and forests which no longer exist. The desertification of Sahara began about 5000 years ago, and global temperature have gradually lowering over last 5000 years.

      All past glaciation periods “started” after the peak temperatures of the interglacial period and has always been a gradual cooling which eventually leads ice sheets on the North American continents [and other continents] and ice sheets wax and wane, until one reaches glacial maxinium, which then has rapid global warming and peak interglacial period.
      The last glacial maximum:
      “The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) occurred about 20,000 years ago, during the last phase of the Pleistocene epoch. At that time, global sea level was more than 400 feet lower than it is today, and glaciers covered approximately: 8% of Earth’s surface.”

      I have explained why I think this happens, and many other have tried to explain it. But everyone agrees it’s related to changes in Earth’s orbit- which is called the Milankovitch cycles.

      • gbaikie says:

        Anyhow, the ice sheets are only about 8% of Earth’s surface, but they
        are only on land, and land is only about 30% of Earth surface.
        Or in terms of land it’s about 25% of land area and most land area in in the northern hemisphere.
        Currently, more than 30% of land area is desert area. So, one gets 25% of ice sheets and more desert area then we have now. Or total around 50% of land area, which you call frozen waste land.
        But humans are quite clever, and they could transform these wasteland- there is one huge advantage- there is a lot frozen water on the land.

        But we had the industrial Revolution and now we in the Space Age/information Age. And we currently attempting to explore the lunar polar region to see if there is mineable water. Then we going to explore Mars, and also see if there is mineable water.

      • gbaikie says:

        We exploring the lunar polar regions, because in 1998, water was detected in the moon’s polar region {I was very excited at that time]. But it really was not particularly unexpected- in 1962, some NASA guy mentioned this was possible- but humans very good at ignoring things. Also it was long considered “likely” that Mercury’s polar region had ice {a lot more than we generally think our Moon has]. Mercury btw, is the shortest distance to Earth, when using hohmann transfer- it’s 104.5 days. Easy to flyby, very hard to get into orbit around Mercury {or land on it’s surface- which has never been done}. Messenger did orbit it, and another mission is still going to try to orbit Mercury. Mercury is interesting planet- that we don’t much about, but in terms delta-v which requires changes in vector [hohmann isn’t about changing vectors- it’s adding or removing for the vector, but not changing the direction of vector. Example of change direction of vector, is if you want to go to Geostationary orbit, from 28 degree latitude, you have 28 degrees inclination of orbit, and need something close to zero inclination orbit. There number ways to solve this, but “easiest” is to launch from equator so you don’t have change it].
        Anyways, some might wonder why we explore the Moon during Apollo Program. The reason is it wasn’t about exploring the Moon, Apollo was race to land humans on the Moon- Cold War PR reasons which worked quite well- and was factor in starting the global warming cargo cult.

      • gbaikie says:

        I thinking of climate question- what was the temperature of Sahara Desert, during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)?

        No one can answer what Venus temperature would be if it was at 1 AU distance from the Sun.
        And I had easier question which no one could answer, but I am thinking the above question should be quite easy, assuming someone knew anything about global climate.

      • gbaikie says:

        Google gets first hit:
        “Abstract

        We present a new reconstruction of Mediterranean sea surface temperatures (SST) during the last glacial maximum (LGM). A calibration data set based on census counts of 23 species of planktonic foraminifera in 129 North Atlantic and 145 Mediterranean core top samples was used to develop summer, winter and annual average SST reconstructions using artificial neural networks (ANNs) and the revised analogue method (RAM). Prediction errors determined by cross-validation of the calibration data set ranged between 0.5 and 1.1 C, with both techniques being most successful in predicting winter SSTs. Glacial reconstructions are based on a new, expanded data set of 273 samples in 37 cores with consistent minimum level of age control.

        The new LGM reconstructions suggest that the eastwest temperature gradient during the glacial summer was 9 C, whereas during the glacial winter, the gradient was 6 C, both some 4 C higher than that existing today. In contrast to earlier studies, our results tend to suggest much cooler SST estimates throughout the glacial Mediterranean, particularly in the eastern basin where previous SST reconstructions indicated a decrease of only 1 C.
        ….”
        [I will look for others- and I will also read this more.]

      • gbaikie says:

        grr,:
        ttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379104002124

      • gbaikie says:

        “India set to launch next lunar mission. India’s space agency is targeting July for the launch of its Chandrayaan 3 mission to the Moon on a Launch Vehicle Mark-3 rocket, DNA reports. The first edition of ISRO’s Moon missions, Chandrayaan 1, was launched in 2008 and was successfully inserted into the lunar orbit of the Moon. Chandrayaan 2 was launched in 2019, but its lander had crash-landed on the lunar surface due to a software glitch.

        Launch in less than two months … Chandrayaan 3 will have a lander and a rover, just like Chandrayaan 2, with the hope of better luck this time in the landing process. The project has a budget of about $80 million and, on the current timeline, will launch in the first week of July. (submitted by Ken the Bin)”
        https://arstechnica.com/science/2023/05/rocket-report-spacex-hits-success-milestone-vulcan-to-resume-testing/

        $80 million dollars to land on the Moon is quite cheap.
        The lunar Prospector orbiter was considered very cheap and it
        was, wiki:
        “The Lunar Prospector mission was the third mission selected by NASA for full development and launch as part of NASA’s Discovery Program. Total cost for the mission was $63 million including development ($34 million), launch vehicle (~$25 million) and operations (~$4 million).”
        And lander is a lot harder than something that orbits- and it’s both orbiter and lander.
        Though Prospector did work, the first time:)

        Also from article:
        “Ranking the UK launch companies. The website Orbital Today has published a ranking of six launch companies in the United KingdomSkyrora, Lockheed Martin, SmallSpark, Astraius, Newton Launch Systems, and Orbex. “This is a way to keep tabs on what these companies are doing, and how they are developing new technologies and craft that will turn the UK into a hotbed of space launch activity!” the list author wrote excitedly. I’ll be honest, I have never heard of some of these companies. And the only one I feel fairly confident will ultimately reach orbit is Lockheed, which is partnering with ABL Space to launch the RS1 rocket from the SaxaVord. Both companies are also based in the United States.”

  30. gbaikie says:

    —The CLINTEL Report is edited by Marcel Crok and Andy May, with contributions from Javier Vinos, Ross McKitrick, Ole Humlum, Nicola Scafetta, and Fritz Vahrenholt.

    The Chapter topics are:

    No confidence that the present is warmer than the mid-Holocene
    The resurrection of the Hockey Stick
    Measuring global surface temperature
    Controversial Snow Trends
    Accelerated sea level rise: not so fast
    Why does the IPCC downplay the Sun?
    Misty climate sensitivity
    AR6: more confidence that models are unreliable
    Extreme scenarios
    A miraculous sea level jump in 2020
    Hiding the good news on hurricanes and floods
    Extreme views on disasters
    Say goodbye to climate hell, welcome climate heaven

    https://judithcurry.com/

    “With regards to IPCC AR6s error ridden assessment of extreme weather events, see also this analysis by Roger Pielke Jr that demonstrated egregious errors in incorrectly reporting the conclusions from papers that were actually cited by the IPCC.

    With regards to ignoring natural climate variability, Chapters 1 (mid-Holocene), 2 (Hockey Stick) and 6 (the sun) are excellent.”

    And nearer the bottom:

    –JC reflections

    The CLINTEL Report provides a much needed critical evaluation and intellectual counterpoint to the IPCC AR6.

    There is a lot of good material in the AR6 WG1 Report, but there is also a lot of cherry picking and flat out errors in the Report (the AR6 WG2 Report is just flat out bad). With any kind of serious review, or if the author teams have been sufficiently diverse, we would not see so many of these kinds of errors. Unfortunately, the IPCC defines diversity in terms of gender, race and developed versus underdeveloped countries; actual diversity of thought and perspective is dismissed in favor of promoting the politically mandated narrative from the UN. —

    • Willard says:

      You might also like:

      In some sense, its quite remarkable. It repeats many of the climate myths that have been debunked time and time again, and relies on the same small group of contrarians whose work has also been regularly debunked. It talks about the Holocene Thermal Maximum and the Little Ice Age. It criticises the Hockey Stick. It suggests that estimates of the global surface temperature arent reliable. It argues that the IPCC ignores the role of the Sun, and that models are unreliable. It suggests that climate sensitivity is lower than the IPCC reports suggests and, in a somewhat more modern twist, it also criticises the use of scenarios in climate models.

      There are many other topics, but you probably get the general idea. It would do well in a game of Climate Bingo.

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/05/08/clintel-report-bingo/

      • Swenson says:

        Wayward Wee Willy,

        You wouldn’t be linking to the site run by your delusional buddy Ken Rice, would you? Only joking, of course you would!

        Do you think that Ken Rice merely repeating criticism of the hockey stick, unreliability of models etc., is supposed to make people question those criticisms?

        By the way, is Climate Bingo an attempt to revive your silly Climateball, hoping that it won’t attract the same lack of interest? Good luck with that. I suggest if you are actually aiming for comedic effect, that you don’t give up your day job.

        Have you found a description of the role of the GHE in nighttime cooling? No?

        Colour me unsurprised.

      • RLH says:

        But now 2 out of 3 satellite agree one with the other, UAH and STAR agree. RSS is now the outlier.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Moron Flynn,

        No, I am linking to a post written by an astrophysicist.

        Why are you now self-employed when you worked for 30 years in the oil and gas industry?

    • gbaikie says:

      “There is a lot of good material in the AR6 WG1 Report,…”
      Hmm.
      –Foreword
      It is unequivocal that human activities have heated our climate.
      Recent changes are rapid, intensifying, and unprecedented over
      centuries to thousands of years. With each additional increment of
      warming, these changes will become larger, resulting in long-lasting,
      irreversible implications, in particular for sea level rise.
      …–

      It does seem that humans have cause the sea level to rise- at least by some small amount.
      But I don’t think humans have warmed our cold 3.5 C, ocean, much.
      Even the underwater nuclear blasts, didn’t do much.

      “…Unless deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions
      occur in the coming decades, global warming of 1.5 C and 2 C above
      pre-industrial levels will be exceeded during the 21st century.”

      It’s not clear what the global temperature was during “pre-industrial”, and it’s possible our current average global temperature of about 15 C is already 1.5 C warmer.
      It has been claimed that 20th century average global temperature was about 14 C, and it seems to me, it was cooler before the 20 century.
      Or having lived during 20th century, it seems they didn’t know the global temperature was back then, and more likely did not know what was before the 20th century. And it seems we don’t even know exactly how cold it is, now.
      Our satellite measurement, doesn’t indicate much warming, lately.

      And using such a term as pre-industrial lacks clarity- or is actually, profoundly unscientific.

      I am going read more, and see what Judith means by “a lot good material”.

      • gbaikie says:

        Response of the climate system relative to 18501900
        Pg 106 of 2409

        Today, +1.1 C 1.5 C
        {today, 2020 AD}:

        Temperature: +1.2 C 1.9 C
        Hottest day in
        a decade (+C)

        Drought: x 1.7 x 2
        A drought that used to occur
        once in a decade now
        happens x times more

        Precipitation: x 1.3 x 1.5
        What used to be a wettest
        day in a decade now
        happens x times more

        Snow cover extent: -1% -5%
        change (%)

        Tropical cyclones:
        Proportion of intense tropical
        cyclones (%) 10%

        We got get to 0.3 plus add .4 C
        Or get to highest year temperature, stay that high.
        1.5 C = +0.7 [average]

      • RLH says:

        Th El Nino of 1878 is considered by experts to be the same/similar to others that are more recent.

      • Entropic man says:

        The 1878 Eo Nino precedes the start of systematic measurement in 1880.

        https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Monthly_Mean_Global_Surface_Temperature/graph.txt

        The first recorded El Nino in 1882 peaked at anomaly 0.16C on the 1951-1980 baseline(14.0C). That is a true temperature of 14.16C.

        The 2016 El Nino peaked at anomaly 1.37C, a true temperature of 15.37C.

        Please explain how 14.16C is the same as 15.37C.

      • RLH says:

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/33/11/jcli-d-19-0650.1.xml

        “How Significant Was the 1877/78 El Nino?”

        Boyin Huang, Michelle LHeureux, Zeng-Zhen Hu, Xungang Yin, and Huai-Min Zhang

        Don’t take my word? Do you believe the ‘experts’?

      • RLH says:

        “The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”

      • Nate says:

        “Please explain how 14.16C is the same as 15.37C.”

        RLH can’t explain it.

        Nor can he explain why he thinks large El Ninos in the 1800s somehow falsify AGW.

      • RLH says:

        “Please explain how 14.16C”

        Please explain how 14.16C is associated with the 1878 El Nino?

      • RLH says:

        “Nor can he explain why he thinks large El Ninos in the 1800s somehow falsify AGW”

        Maximums are not important for AGW, apparently.

      • Nate says:

        How so?

      • RLH says:

        Nate do you think that the El Ninos represent a maximum for T in the tropical Pacific?

        Do you also accept that the ‘experts’ think that the El Nino of 1878 is similar to those that occurred more recently (see paper quoted above).

      • Willard says:

        Richard still forgets to comment on the last sentence of that article he keeps peddling.

      • RLH says:

        Willard demonstrates that he is unable to read the thread.

      • RLH says:

        “The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.”

        is the last line of the papers conclusion I quoted.

      • Willard says:

        Check out the series, Richard –

        1877, 1982, 1997 and 2015.

        Anything that stands out?

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1483059

      • RLH says:

        Does a bathtub curve mean anything to you?

      • RLH says:

        Willard: Please see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1485795 for a comprehensive list of probable El Ninos.

      • Willard says:

        Richard still forgets to comment on the last sentence of that article he keeps peddling:

        The strength of the 1877/78 El Nino appears approximately equal to those during 1982/83, 1997/98, and 2015/16.

        He also forgets to tell which numbers between 1877, 1982, 1997 and 2015 stands out and why.

      • RLH says:

        Willard cannot read

        1977-78, 1880, 1865, 1888-89, 1891, 1896-97 and 1899-1900
        1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915 1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931 1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952 1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970 1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987 1991-1992 1994-1995 and 1997-1998.
        2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. July 2009-May 2010

      • RLH says:

        edit: 1877-78

      • Willard says:

        So Richard disputes his own authority, but won’t say it because he does not have the fortitude or the competence to do so.

      • RLH says:

        Willard won’t admit he is an idiot. (Read the paper and see).

      • Willard says:

        Once again Richard is biting more than he can chew:

        [I]t remains an open question whether the 1877/78 El Nio is truly among the strongest events. The answer may affect our understanding of the relationship between ENSO and a warming climate. If the 1877/78 El Nio is indeed among the strongest, it may suggest that the warming climate has not necessarily enhanced the ENSO amplitude (Enfield 1988; Quinn and Neal 1995; Grove 1998; Rsnen et al. 2016; Singh et al. 2018). However, this does not exclude the idea that these stronger events have become more frequent in the recent record (Lee and McPhaden 2010; Newman et al. 2011; Stevenson 2012; Cai et al. 2014).

        Op. Cit.

      • RLH says:

        Willard hasn’t heard of a bathtub curve.

      • RLH says:

        If the 1877/78 El Nino is indeed among the strongest, it may suggest that the warming climate has not necessarily enhanced the ENSO amplitude (Enfield 1988; Quinn and Neal 1995; Grove 1998; Rsnen et al. 2016; Singh et al. 2018).

      • RLH says:

        “El Nino/Southern Oscillation behaviour since 1871
        as diagnosed in an extended multivariate ENSO
        index (MEI.ext)”

        https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.2336

      • RLH says:

        “The most extreme El Nio events (18771878, 19821983, and 19971998) occurred at the beginning and end of the 135-year record”

      • Swenson says:

        Mind reading again, Willard?

        Tut, tut.

      • Willard says:

        What are you braying about, Moron Mike?

      • Willard says:

        The difficulty in quantifying the strength of the 1877/78 El Nio is that there are limited in situ SST observations (Fig. 2a), and therefore an ensemble analysis from ERSSTv5 is used in this study. In addition, regardless of the ultimate characterization in the strength of the 1877/78 El Nio, it is important to document dataset availability and reliability, which was not analyzed closely in the aforementioned studies. Generally, observations over the global oceans are sparser and less reliable in the past compared with modern times (Freeman et al. 2017). For example, the areal coverage of in situ SST observations in 2 2 grid boxes is lower in the 1900s and 1950s (30%40%) than in the 2000s (70%) (Huang et al. 2017). Consequentially, biases and random errors of SST observations are larger before the 1950s than after (Kennedy et al. 2011a,b; Huang et al. 2016b, 2020).

        Our cycle nut has very selective concerns for data.

      • Nate says:

        “Nate do you think that the El Ninos represent a maximum for T in the tropical Pacific?”

        An all time maximum? Doubtful. Why can’t it happen in 1878?

      • Swenson says:

        Witless Wee Willy,

        You don’t seem to realise that El Nino, and similarly named phenomena, are just names given to a group of historical temperature observations.

        Historical observations have no power to affect anything at all, contrary to the delusional thinking of SkyDragon cultists.

        Primitive societies thought things like lightning and thunder were due to gods who needed to be placated. Modern societies are not much better. ENSO, El Nino, La Nina, PDO and all the rest, are just observations – nothing more, nothing less. No two sets of observations are even the same – just like no two clouds are ever the same. Chaos in action.

        Luckily, there are simple souls such as yourself, who are too dim to accept reality, and give people like me much amusement.

        Keep it up.

      • Nate says:

        “Based on the estimated uncertainties, the differences among the strength of these four major El Nio events are not statistically significant.”

        Again, RLH, unless you can show that AGW predicts this cannot happen, this is a red herring, a nothingburger.

      • RLH says:

        All El Nino, not just this one. Mind you, as others have pointed out, 1878 was well before humans could have influenced climate.

      • Willard says:

        Just to make sure, Richard, are you suggesting that one single El Nino event can influence climate, which is a 30y average? I thought you were trying to argue the other way around, i.e. AGW does not make El Ninos stronger.

        If you could keep your red herrings straight, that would be great.

      • RLH says:

        “AGW predicts” that CO2 is not important for climate. You heard it here first from Nate.

      • RLH says:

        Willard: What I am observing is that maximums are not dependent on CO2. According to you and Nate.

      • Nate says:

        “AGW predicts that CO2 is not important for climate. You heard it here first from Nate.”

        Quote me saying that, troll.

        Still waiting for you to shows us any relevance of the 1878 El Nino to climate change.

      • Willard says:

        Richard: do you realize this is not Roy’s monthly death thread?

      • RLH says:

        Nate:

        Do you agree

        1. That the 1878 El Nino happened?
        2. That in 1878 CO2 was not that important?
        3. That the 1878 El Nino caused (or was part of) world wide high temperatures, droughts and deaths?

      • RLH says:

        Willard doesn’t like facts.

      • Willard says:

        Richard has no courage.

      • RLH says:

        Willard just doesnt like facts.

      • Willard says:

        > Famine had been a recurrent feature of life in the South Asian subcontinent countries of India and Bangladesh, most notoriously under British rule. Famines in India resulted in more than 30 million deaths over the course of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Famines in British India were severe enough to have a substantial impact on the long-term population growth of the country in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India

        I wonder if Richard has any colonial ancestor or relative.

      • Nate says:

        RLH, El Ninos have been happening for presumably a long time, with varying strengths. Sometimes they are strong.

        Same can be said for other regional weather phenomena, Droughts, Monsoons, Hurricanes, etc.

        Also, globally, there has been a long term warming trend.

        These things have not been shown by you or anyone else to be mutually exclusive.

      • RLH says:

        Willard talks as though India was the world.

      • RLH says:

        “Also, globally, there has been a long term warming trend.”

        Only if you start your data in the 1900s.

      • Willard says:

        Richard wishes to forget that his own government once was as conservative as he is.

        Its laissez-faire policies killed millions of people.

      • Willard says:

        Richard wishes to downplay the human decisions that led to millions of deaths.

        Humans decisions related to his political philosophy and perhaps his own ancestors.

      • RLH says:

        Willard doesn’t like data which confronts his illusions.

        “From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”

        https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/

      • Willard says:

        Richard does not read his own sources:

        > El Nio didnt work alone in generating the Great Famine. Singh and her colleagues found evidence of exceptional conditions in the Atlantic and Indian oceans as well.

        Op. cit.

      • RLH says:

        A combination of natural factors caused the 1878 event, not CO2 at all, as I have observed before.

      • Nate says:

        RLH seems blissfully unaware that droughts and famines have happened throughout history.

        Is he claiming that they shouldnt have existed before CO2 rose? Why?

        RLH suggests large El Ninos should not have happened in the past before CO2 rose, but he can cite no evidence nor anyone claiming this is a prediction of AGW.

        He implies that unless AGW has been uniform and monotonic, the theory is falsified, but can cite no evidence nor anyone claiming this is a prediction of AGW.

        He is grasping at straws.

      • RLH says:

        Nate seems blissfully unaware that a combination of natural factors caused the 1878 event, not CO2 at all, as I have observed before.

      • RLH says:

        “He implies that unless AGW has been uniform and monotonic”

        No I don’t. Nate just wants it to be true that maximums (El Nino) are not dependent on CO2.

      • Nate says:

        He implies that unless AGW has been uniform and monotonic

        No I dont.”

        Then what is your point, if any, that has relevance to AGW?

      • Willard says:

        > the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The formation of the long-dormant Tulare Lake was the product of an extraordinarily wet winter, culminating with a series of big storms in March.

    The basins many dams, canals, levees and ditches normally contain the water that runs out of the Sierra and into the valley, but this year it was too much. The lakebed, which is mostly farmland with the exception of a few communities like Corcoran, has subsequently flooded. Earlier this month, more than 100,000 acres was under water.
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/newsom-tulare-lake-levee-18094733.php

  32. Bindidon says:

    It’s always amazing to see that while Coolists (and among them, especially those who claim not to be) always switch to MEI when NOAA’s Nino3+4 no longer is lanina-ish enough, they suddenly come back to the Nino3+4 temperatures when MEI conversely no longer supports their narrative.

    This is easy to see in the HadISST1 SST record, by generating time series for the respective regions:

    5S-5N — 170W-120W
    versus
    30S-30N — 70W-100E

    While in a descending sort of the Nino3+4 series, the 1877/78 El Nino phase occurs at the top, this is not the case for the MEI series.

    *
    The major point however is something else.

    To say ‘There is no temperature difference in the Nino3+4 region between 1878 and 2016, hence there was no warming in between’ is dumbest cherry-picking.

    Simply because we can’t compare what happens within a tiny part of Earth (about 1 %) with the whole figure: this is exactly the same mistake as that made by US people thinking that US temperature evaluations are valid for the Globe.

    • RLH says:

      The maximums do not appear to have changed much in the period since 1878, but that is not important to warmistas like you.

    • RLH says:

      P.S. 1878 was world wide (see elsewhere), not just in the central Pacific.

    • RLH says:

      “a large disruption in global climate that occurred during 1877/1878, when human influence was negligible.”

  33. Entropic man says:

    RLH

    Thanks for the paper.

    It gives me enough information to summarise the relationship between late 1800s El Ninos and modern El Ninos.

    ENSO produces an approximately +/-0.2C variation either side of the global average for their time.

    When the peak temperature is expressed as an anomaly relative to baseline sea surface temperatures at the time the 1887 El Nino is of comparable size to the modern El Ninos. This suggests that the anomaly amplitude of the cycle has not changed significantly over time.

    Measured by their effect on peak monthly global temperature modern El Ninos show a peak temperature 1.2_C higher than in the 1880s.

    Since the global average has increased by 1.2C since the 1880s you would expect the true temperature of El Nino to increase by a similar amount.

    Since this agrees with the conventional global warming narrative I’m glad to see you agreeing with me for once.

    • RLH says:

      So you don’t accept Micelle (and others) conclusions?

    • RLH says:

      “The 1877 record-breaking El Nio was accompanied by a record strong Indian Ocean Dipole (1878), and a record warm North Atlantic Ocean (1878), according to Singh et al. (2018). This extraordinary set of events resulted in severe droughts in Asia, Brazil, and Africa, with total human fatalities likely exceeding 50 million (Davis, 2001; Endfield and Nash, 2002; Singh et al., 2018).”

    • RLH says:

      “What may be the greatest El Nio ever identified may have caused record-breaking droughts that helped trigger disastrous famines, likely killing more than 50 million people globally, a new study finds. Moreover, such an extreme El Nio could repeat in the future, scientists added.”

    • RLH says:

      “a large disruption in global climate that occurred during 18771878, when human influence was negligible. The mechanisms explaining this global disturbance are not well established, but there is considerable evidence that the major El Nio episode that started by the end of 1876 and peaked during the 18771878 boreal winter contributed significantly to it. The associated regional climate anomalies were extremely destructive, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, where starvation due to intense droughts in Asia, South-East Asia and Africa took the lives of more than 20 million people. In South America regional precipitation anomalies were typical of El Nio events, with rainfall deficit and droughts in the northern portion of the continent as well as in northeast Brazil and the highlands of the central Andes (Altiplano). In contrast, anomalously intense rainfall and flooding episodes were reported for the coastal areas of southern Ecuador and Northern Per, as well as along the extratropical West coast of the continent (central Chile, 30 S40S), and in the Paran basin in the southeast region. By far the most devastating impacts in terms of suffering and loss of life occurred in the semiarid region of northeast Brazil where several hundreds of thousands of people died from starvation and diseases during the drought that started in 1877.”

    • RLH says:

      “a large disruption in global climate that occurred during 18771878, when human influence was negligible”

      https://www.newscientist.com/article/2183901-a-freak-1870s-climate-event-caused-drought-across-three-continents/

      “Its not easy to forget the deaths of 50 million people, but we have managed it.”

    • RLH says:

      Very likely El Nino events from history have so far been identified for:

      16th Century: 1500, 1525-26, 1531-32, 1535, 1539-41, 1544, 1546-47, 1552-53, 1558-61, 1565, 1567-68, 1574, 1578-79, 1581-82, 1585, 1587-89, and 1596.

      17th Century: 1600-01, 1604, 1607-08, 1618-19, 1621, 1624, 1630-31, 1635, 1641, 1647, 1650, 1652, 1655, 1661, 1671, 1681, 1683-84, 1687-88, 1692, 1694-95 and 1697.

      18th Century: 1701, 1703-04, 1707-09, 1713-14, 1715-16, 1718, 1720, 1723, 1725, 1728, 1731, 1734, 1734, 1737, 1744, 1747-48, 1751, 1754-55, 1761-62, 1765-66, 1768-70, 1772-73, 1776-78, 1782-84, 1785-86, 1790-93, 1794-97 and 1799.

      19th Century: 1802-04, 1806-07, 1810, 1812, 1814, 1817, 1819, 1821, 1824-25, 1827-28, 1830, 1832-33, 1835-36, 1837-39, 1844-46, 1850, 1852-53, 1857-59, 1860, 1862, 1864, 1865-66, 1867-69, 1977-78, 1880, 1865, 1888-89, 1891, 1896-97 and 1899-1900.

      • RLH says:

        edit: ….1867-69, 1877-78, 1880….

      • RLH says:

        20th Century: 1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915 1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931 1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952 1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970 1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987 1991-1992 1994-1995 and 1997-1998.

        21st Century: 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2006-2007. July 2009-May 2010

      • Nate says:

        No one knows why you think this one-off weather event has anything to say about Global Warming.

      • RLH says:

        Because the maximum T has not changed that much (if at all) since well before CO2 became of importance.

      • Entropic man says:

        RLH

        From your link.

        “Several factors played a role. The most obvious was a big El Nio in 1877-78. During an El Nio, warm water spreads over the Pacific, releasing heat into the air. This affects weather all around the world, bringing storms to some places and drought to others.

        It has been clear since the 1980s that the 1877-78 El Nio was intense. Now we have a lot more data, says Singh. This event was the strongest El Nio that has occurred since the 1850s. Sea surface temperatures remained high for 16 months. That makes it bigger than the huge El Nios of 1997-98 and 2015-16.

        A nexus of impacts
        But thats not all. In 1877 a second climate cycle, the Indian Ocean Dipole, was active meaning the western Indian Ocean was warmer than the east. This typically weakens Indias monsoons. It was the strongest Indian Ocean Dipole on record, says Singh.

        The Atlantic Ocean was also unusually warm from 1877 to 1879. Following the El Nio, it peaked to the most extreme temperatures on record, says Singh.

        To determine which factors were significant, the team ran a climate model with the global sea surface temperatures, and with just the Pacific temperatures simulating the El Nio alone. They found they could only explain the droughts using the global pattern, suggesting all three climate cycles were involved. ”

        The 1878 famine was caused by a year with three climate cycles peaking at once and giving an extreme temperature peak.

        We are now seeing larger peaks every few years without the three cycle amplification. I wonder why?

      • RLH says:

        The maximum T has not changed that much (if at all) since well before CO2 became of importance i.e. in 1878.

      • RLH says:

        “three cycle amplification”

        As in a recent triple year La Nina.

      • Willard says:

        “The regular export of grain by the colonial government continued; during the famine, the viceroy, Lord Robert Bulwer-Lytton, oversaw the export to England of a record 6.4 million hundredweight (320,000 tons) of wheat, which made the region more vulnerable. The cultivation of alternate cash crops, in addition to the commodification of grain, played a significant role in the events.”

      • RLH says:

        The 1878 famine was not just confined to India.

      • Willard says:

        The British Crown is responsible for the death of millions.

      • RLH says:

        “From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”

      • Willard says:

        > El Nio didnt work alone in generating the Great Famine. Singh and her colleagues found evidence of exceptional conditions in the Atlantic and Indian oceans as well.

        Op. cit.

      • RLH says:

        “Since the conditions that cooked up the Great Famine arose from natural climatic variation, theres nothing to stop a global drought from recurring.”

        Well before CO2 rose in the later part of the 1900s/2000s.

      • Willard says:

        As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.

      • RLH says:

        If it gets warmer than 1878, that is probably true.

      • Willard says:

        the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.

      • Nate says:

        “Because the maximum T has not changed that much (if at all) since well before CO2 became of importance.”

        Are you suggesting that a single year regional warm spike has any statistical significance to a century long global warming trend?

        Remove the spike, and how much does the trend change? Significantly?

        If not significant–and those of us familiar with statistics know that it won’t be–then why should we care?

      • RLH says:

        Are you suggesting that the El Nino of 1878 didn’t happen?

      • RLH says:

        Statistics that include maximums are not significant. You heard it from Nate first.

      • Nate says:

        OK so you’ve nothing to connect this insignificant blip to the Global Warming trend of the last century.

        But you are obsessed with it anyway.

      • Nate says:

        “Statistics that include maximums are not significant.”

        ??

        Here is the Global Temp data including 1878.

        https://tinyurl.com/u5zephmm

        You can clearly see that the maximum reached in 1878, is ~ 0, much lower than the average today, 0.9.

      • RLH says:

        Are you suggesting that El Nino is not the maximum temperatures in the central Pacific?

      • RLH says:

        “this insignificant blip” that killed 20 million people (or so)?

      • Willard says:

        “The famine occurred at a time when the colonial government was attempting to reduce expenses on welfare. Earlier, in the Bihar famine of 187374, severe mortality had been avoided by importing rice from Burma. The Government of Bengal and its Lieutenant-Governor, Sir Richard Temple, were criticised for excessive expenditure on charitable relief. Sensitive to any renewed accusations of excess in 1876, Temple, who was now Famine Commissioner for the Government of India, insisted not only on a policy of laissez faire with respect to the trade in grain,[9] but also on stricter standards of qualification for relief and on more meagre relief rations.”

      • Nate says:

        RLH,

        You can clearly see that the maximum reached in 1878, is ~ 0, much lower than the average today, 0.9.

        Are you suggesting that this has not been happening?

      • RLH says:

        Are you suggesting that 20 million people did not die?

      • RLH says:

        https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought/

        “From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”

      • Nate says:

        Off topic, but nice try at distraction..

      • Nate says:

        BTW,

        Your attempts to highlight past warming episodes neglects the associated cooling episodes.

        “But the extreme El Nio may have been primed by cooler waters in the central tropical Pacific from 1870 to 1876. This prolonged period of coolnessthe longest on the recordmay have led to immense buildup of warm water in the western tropical Pacific. “

      • RLH says:

        “You can clearly see that the maximum reached in 1878”

        where the southern hemisphere oceans T is almost non-existent.

      • RLH says:

        “Off topic”

        That was for Willards consumption, not yours.

      • RLH says:

        Nate: BTW

        “The team’s findings suggest that the 1876-78 droughts extended far beyond Brazil, India, and China, although that’s where famine struck the hardest.”

        Also interesting that you come up with reasons for the large EL Nino that do not include CO2. Looks like it is not the main driver of Global T and drought.

      • Willard says:

        Speaking of consumption:

        > the famine arose from an engineered profit inflation, described by John Maynard Keynes in general terms as a necessary measure for forced transferences of purchasing power from the mass of working people, entailing reduction of their consumption in order to finance abnormal wartime expenditure.

        https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/42/special-articles/profit-inflation-keynes-and-holocaust.html

      • RLH says:

        “The team’s findings suggest that the 1876-78 droughts extended far beyond Brazil, India, and China, although that’s where famine struck the hardest.”

      • RLH says:

        “Remove the spike”

        Ignore the maximums and all is well.

      • Willard says:

        > The excess mortality in the famine has been estimated in a range whose low end is 5.6 million human fatalities, high end 9.6 million fatalities, and a careful modern demographic estimate 8.2 million fatalities.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_18761878

      • RLH says:

        https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2017/12/15/causes-great-famine-drought

        “From 1876 to 1878, the Great Famine killed between 30 and 60 million people around the world. Drought enveloped much of the planet, causing food shortages all the way from Brazil to India and China, and wiping out approximately three percent of the global population.”

      • Willard says:

        > In 1877, the Indian Ocean experienced exceptionally warm temperatures, particularly in its western portion, generating a dipole in sea surface temperatures. These contrasting conditions in the Indian Ocean can often lead to dry conditions in Australia and South Africa. But in 1877, the thermal contrast between the two halves was the strongest ever recorded before or since, which likely assisted El Nio in generating severe droughts in those regions.

        Op. cit.

      • RLH says:

        “Since the conditions that cooked up the Great Famine arose from natural climatic variation, theres nothing to stop a global drought from recurring.”

        Nothing to do with CO2 at all.

      • Willard says:

        As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.

      • RLH says:

        If it gets warmer than 1878, probably true.

      • Nate says:

        “‘Remove the spike’

        Ignore the maximums and all is well.”

        Not at all.

        The question is whether T spikes significantly impact the T trends that are relevant to AGW.

        Do they or not?

      • RLH says:

        How accurate do you think the estimate of T in the southern oceans was before the satellite era? What we have is mostly guesses that depend on extrapolating backwards assuming that AWG is present.

      • Nate says:

        “How accurate do you think the estimate of T in the southern oceans was before the satellite era?”

        You tell me. You are claiming warm SST in that period.

        In case, that is a different topic.

      • Willard says:

        Richard does not have the fortitude to confront his denial of the implication:

        the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.

      • RLH says:

        How accurate do you think the estimate of T in the southern oceans was before the satellite era?

        Almost non-existent. You can make up whatever you want to make things come out how you want it to.

      • Nate says:

        Red herring.

        The Southern Ocean is a tiny fraction of the globe.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        the southern ocean may be a small percentage of the globe Nate but add to that the arctic ocean, then add in Russia and China and their disinformation programs and you have a whole lot of totally unreliable temperature histories predating the satellite era.

      • Nate says:

        “and their disinformation programs ”

        Sure they must have been keeping temperature data a secret because…

        Grasping at straws.

        Look, show us real evidence that observed natural cycles can explain the record or admit that it is just pure speculation.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Are you denying that Russia and China run disinformation programs for the purpose of influencing American citizens? That has been a Democrat talking point that they do now for 6 years.

      • Nate says:

        Buzz off.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Gee not only Nate has no sensible statistical argument for CO2 effects now he doesn’t even have anything to defend the surface temperature record.

  34. RLH says:

    https://imgur.com/Ulah5KV

    Distribution of ocean data 1955-2017

  35. RLH says:

    “A Comparison of Daily Temperature-Averaging Methods”

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml

    “The daily temperature curve does not typically follow a normal (i.e., bell-curve type) distribution, an important assumption made by the traditional method, but is instead skewed toward the right (i.e., Tmin) on average.

    This skew of the daily temperature curve varies spatially, seasonally, and temporally, with recent variability potentially being enhanced by anthropogenic climate change (Shiu et al. 2009).

    The hourly method lessens or eradicates artificial effects on the temperature from the time of observation bias, for example, the difference between determining Tmax, Tmin, and thus the average daily temperature from a midnight-to-midnight period versus a morning-to-morning period. In the United States, Tmax, Tmin, and the average daily temperature are determined from midnight local time to midnight local time, occasionally introducing a reset high or low temperature, which is not representative of the true Tmax or Tmin from the diurnal curve. (McKinnon et al. 2016; Karl et al. 1988; Schaal and Dale 1977)”

    • Swenson says:

      RLH,

      Luckily, no facts were harmed by being averaged this way or that way.

      Nothing changed at all. A colossal waste of time, effort, and money. I suppose if people want to apply resources to pointless arithmetical calculations instead of improved health or education facilities, or many things of more immediate impact, that’s their right.

      Bad luck for anyone who expresses a contrary opinion.

      • RLH says:

        As the article says, high frequency analysis is more accurate for various reasons.

    • Willard says:

      Do you dispute that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe?

      • RLH says:

        If it gets warmer than 1878, probably.

      • Nate says:

        “If it gets warmer than 1878, probably true.”

        Its already been warmer.

        Even in the central Pacific.

        https://bmcnoldy.rsmas.miami.edu/tropics/oni/ONI_NINO34_1854-2023.txt

      • RLH says:

        Based on what assumptions about T in the surface of southern oceans before 1979?

      • Nate says:

        ??

      • Willard says:

        Richard seeks to deny that it is warmer now, but does not have the audacity to do so explicitly.

        So he Just Asks Questions.

      • RLH says:

        I do like how STAR/NOAA agree that the past was warmer than that recorded before by RSS.

      • RLH says:

        The question was from Nate (who still thinks that no data in the southern oceans means that warming has been constant for the last 1000 years).

      • RLH says:

        1854 01 25.90
        1854 02 26.06
        1854 03 26.91
        1854 04 27.63
        1854 05 27.90
        1854 06 27.23
        1854 07 26.88


        2022 01 25.60
        2022 02 25.88
        2022 03 26.33
        2022 04 26.72
        2022 05 26.83
        2022 06 26.98
        2022 07 26.59

        Nate does not even read his own sources.

      • Willard says:

        I do like that Richard cited approvingly a scientist reminding (cycle nuts) that warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.

      • Nate says:

        “(who still thinks that no data in the southern oceans means that warming has been constant for the last 1000 years).”

        Quote me thinking anything like that, troll RLH.

      • Nate says:

        RLH you show me your selection of months in a small part of the ocean then and now.

        What was the ENSO state during those two periods? The same? Not the same?

        What is this supposed to tell us?

        Here is the 30 y average up to the data shown, for that region (climatology).

        And the change.

        30 y average
        1871 1 25.9
        1871 2 26.03
        1871 3 26.55
        1871 4 26.99
        1871 5 27.16
        1871 6 26.93
        1871 7 26.57
        1871 8 26.13
        1871 9 26.03
        1871 10 25.85
        1871 11 25.93
        1871 12 25.87
        Change 2022-1871
        2022 1 26.55 0.65
        2022 2 26.76 0.73
        2022 3 27.3 0.75
        2022 4 27.83 0.84
        2022 5 27.94 0.78
        2022 6 27.73 0.8
        2022 7 27.29 0.72
        2022 8 26.86 0.73
        2022 9 26.72 0.69
        2022 10 26.72 0.87
        2022 11 26.7 0.77
        2022 12 26.6 0.73

        The average change is 0.76.

      • Nate says:

        30 y average up to the DATE shown.

      • Nate says:

        RLH,

        Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C, it should be no shock to anyone that selected months today can be found that are cooler than selected months in the past for that region.

        And yet there has been a net warming in the region (0.76 C) and globally.

        Try to understand that these two facts are compatible.

      • RLH says:

        “And yet there has been a net warming in the region (0.76 C) and globally.”

        Based on what sampling error in southern oceans temperatures from before the satellite era?

      • RLH says:

        “RLH you show me your selection of months in a small part of the ocean then and now.”

        I was demonstrating that individual T has not changed that much.

      • RLH says:

        “Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C”

        Only 2C from El Nino to La Nina? I think not.

      • Nate says:

        “I was demonstrating that individual T has not changed that much.” by selecting El Nino in the past and comparing to La Nina in the present.

        In any case T in that region are behaving exactly as expected for a warming world.

      • Nate says:

        Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C

        Only 2C from El Nino to La Nina? I think not.”

        plus minus 2C means a range of 4 C

      • Nate says:

        “Based on what sampling error in southern oceans temperatures from before the satellite era?”

        Equatorial ocean. Ships and buckets measured pretty well.

        What is error on 1878 ONI values that you showed?

      • Nate says:

        “AWG, based as it is on CO2, says that the 1878 event did not happen.”

        Non sequitur.

        Both GW and the 1878 El Nino have happened.

        ENSO is an independent natural ocean cycle. It doesnt require rising CO2.

        You need a new logic chip.

      • RLH says:

        I said AGW not ENSO. You need to upgrade your reading ability.

      • Willard says:

        So Richard admits he has not RTFR.

      • Nate says:

        “I said AGW not ENSO. You need to upgrade your reading ability.”

        You claimed AWG, based as it is on CO2, says that the 1878 event did not happen.”

        Both GW, as predicted by AGW, and the 1878 El Nino happened. Both can be independently true.

        Specifically, AGW has predicted global warming. AGW doe not predict the warming will be uniform or monotonic. That is your strawman.

        AGW does not predict there could be no large El Ninos in the past. Your Strawman.

        In the specific region of ENSO, there has been warming of the climatalogical 30 y mean, comparable to the rest of the tropics.

        And yet, the ENSO caused variation in the 3.4 region is larger than the NET GW.

        AGW of this region does not cause ENSO variation to cease!

        No one but you claims this is a problem for AGW.

        Because you fail at logic, and statistics.

      • RLH says:

        “AGW doe not predict the warming will be uniform or monotonic. That is your strawman.”

        I do not claim that warming will be uniform or monotonic. That is your strawman.

      • Nate says:

        “I do not claim that warming will be uniform or monotonic. ”

        OK, then you have absolutely no logical basis to claim that AGW says the 1878 spike could not happen.

      • RLH says:

        Willard ignoring facts as usual.

      • Willard says:

        Richard ignoring the blog post as usual.

      • RLH says:

        Willard ignoring facts.

      • RLH says:

        1 + 1 = 10

      • RLH says:

        1 + 10 = 11

      • RLH says:

        1 + 11 = 100

      • RLH says:

        1 + 100 = 101

      • Willard says:

        The East India Company helped kill off India’s once-robust textile industries, pushing more and more people into agriculture.

      • RLH says:

        The East India Company was confined to India. The 1878 famine was world wide.

      • Willard says:

        > The East India Company (EIC)[a] was an English, and later British, joint-stock company founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia. The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world.[vague] The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company’s three Presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time. The operations of the company had a profound effect on the global balance of trade, almost single-handedly reversing the trend of eastward drain of Western bullion, seen since Roman times.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

      • RLH says:

        The East India Company did not trade in the South Americas. The famine of 1878 covered that area.

      • Willard says:

        Most of the deaths caused by the famine were caused by colonialist policies.

        Most of these policies were made by the British Crown.

        And of course Richard refuses to acknowledge that the East India Company was *not* confined to India, in contradiction to what he just said.

      • RLH says:

        “It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies (the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia), and later with East Asia.”

        I should have said ‘mostly’ in India. My bad.

      • RLH says:

        “Most of the deaths” were caused by the climate and droughts.

      • Willard says:

        Richard should have rather said that the company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong.

      • RLH says:

        Despite Willards thinking, it is highly probable that the East India Company did not effect the climate.

      • Willard says:

        Despite Eichard playing dumb, it is quite certain that colonial policies from his own country killed millions of people.

      • RLH says:

        The East India Company did not influence the climate.

      • Willard says:

        They actually might have, but the point here is that in a trading world famines are for the most part man-made.

      • RLH says:

        So you agree that the East India Company did not influence the climate.

      • Willard says:

        The East India Company and the Natural World is the first work to explore the deep and lasting impacts of the largest colonial trading company, the British East India Company, on the natural environment. The EIC both contributed to and recorded environmental change during the first era of globalization. From the small island of St Helena in the South Atlantic, the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia, and as far off as New Zealand, the Company presence profoundly altered the environment by introducing plants and animals, felling forests, and redirecting rivers. The threats of famine and disease encouraged experiments with agriculture and the recording of the virtues of medicinal plants. The EIC records of the weather, the soils, and the flora provide modern climate scientists with invaluable data. The contributors drawn from a wide range of academic disciplines – use the lens of the Company to illuminate the relationship between colonial capital and the changing environment between 1600 and 1857.

        http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/47788/

  36. gbaikie says:

    We have separation: Stratolaunch reaches milestone with release of test payload
    by Alan Boyle on May 14, 2023 at 10:01 pm
    https://www.geekwire.com/2023/stratolaunch-separation-release-hypersonic/

    “Stratolaunch says its planning to launch its rocket-powered, expendable TA-1 hypersonic test vehicle from Roc in late summer.”

    And, Virgin Galactic planning to launch crew at end of May:
    https://www.virgingalactic.com/news/virgin-galactic-announces-crew-for-return-to-space

  37. Pat Smith says:

    Roy, have you seen this? How does this fit with your temperature record for the 48 states?

    https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series

  38. RLH says:

    1 + 10 = 11

  39. Willard says:

    GRAND SOLAR MINIMUM BLAST FROM THE PAST

    In January 1877, Temple reduced the wage for a day’s hard work in the relief camps in Madras and Bombaythis ‘Temple wage’ consisted of 450 grams (1 lb) of grain plus one anna for a man, and a slightly reduced amount for a woman or working child,[12] for a “long day of hard labour without shade or rest.” The rationale behind the reduced wage, which was in keeping with a prevailing belief of the time, was that any excessive payment might create ‘dependency’ (or “demoralisation” in contemporaneous usage) among the famine-afflicted population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_18761878

  40. gbaikie says:

    Guardian: Climate Change is Linked to More Pirate Attacks

    Climate change is just another word for bad government.

    So, when mob stealing or “pirate attacks” is just bad government.
    Or could say, that lots pooping on the streets is linked with climate change.
    Huge banks failing, climate change. Wars, climate change.
    Over taxation climate change.
    Joe Biden is climate change.
    Putin is climate change.
    Pooh Bear is climate change.
    Having political prisoner is climate change.
    Lock downs are climate change.

    • gbaikie says:

      “There is skepticism over Beijings ability to manage and resolve a conflict as complex, bitter and deeply entrenched as the one between Ukraine and Russia. Its neutrality has also been questioned because of its closeness to Moscow.

      Meanwhile, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is visiting the U.K. on Monday as Kyiv tries to drum up more military support ahead of a highly anticipated counteroffensive.

      Ukraine claimed more gains in the besieged and largely ruined town of Bakhmut in Donetsk, eastern Ukraine, this weekend. Fighting has been raging there for months between Ukrainian forces and mainly mercenary fighters belonging to the Wagner Group.

      The town holds little strategic value to either side, but after nine months of intense combat there, winning back the town has a deep symbolic importance for Ukraine.

      The Wagner Groups leader has complained of a lack of ammunition supplies for his troops in Bakhmut amid a very public dispute with the Russian Defense Ministry.”
      Updated Mon, May 15 20234:36 PM EDT
      Share
      Ukraine war live updates: China set to visit Ukraine; 8,800 civilians killed in Russian invasion so far, UN says
      Amanda Macias Holly Ellyatt

      • gbaikie says:

        Elon Musks Starship Wont Save Astronomy from Satellites Cluttering the Sky

        Launching a fleet of space telescopes is not the solution to the Starlink problem
        By Phil Plait on May 15, 2023
        [Phil Plait bad astronmy- I used to read his blog a long time ago.]

        “But, in a potential irony, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has claimed that the cause of this woe may also be its cure. The company is currently testing its huge Starship rocket, which, if it works as planned, will have the capability to launch extremely large and heavy payloads. This, Musk said, can be used to send large telescopes into space above the fleet of Starlink satellites, potentially alleviating the contamination issue and ushering in a new era of widespread space-based astronomy.

        Historically, Musk has made a lot of claims over a wide range of topics that didntor cannotpan out. His flawed hyperloop plan, for example, or nuking the Martian poles to create an atmosphere, or basically anything hes promised about Twitter. These claims, in general, are more than just unrealistic; they also lack any of the specificity necessary to actually carry them out.”

        I think they using hyperloop, Musk is building town which will have it, apparently that black fashion guy who apparently called antisematic, Ye or something {oh I got it right- not losing my mind, or something}.

      • gbaikie says:

        Goes on:
        “A lot of cutting-edge astronomy is done with very large telescopes, some with mirrors eight or more meters across. At the moment, no rocket is capable of launching a monolithic mirror that size into space.
        Both the American Delta IV Heavy and the European Ariane 5 rockets have a payload fairingthe part at the top of the rocket that encloses a would-be space telescopewith an inner diameter of about five meters. These are two of the largest rockets flying, but unfortunately both are being retired (and the planned next-generation Ariane 6 is having some development issues). Neither is large enough to house the biggest telescopes anyway.”

        Falcon 9 and Heavy have fairing dimension: “13 m (43 ft) long, 5.2 m (17 ft) in diameter”.
        Falcon Heavy is cheapest rocket in the world, and lifts a lot
        payload.
        The Vulcan Centaur test launch will be sometime in the summer
        and it’s fairing diameter is 5.4 meters.
        New Glenn might have test launch in 2024, it’s 7 meter diameter and
        does far more payload than Delta IV Heavy and the European Ariane 5 rocket.
        Starship has tested it raptor 3 engine- it gets more thrust than than current raptor 2.
        If you want large telescope capability, you could dust off, the Space Interferometry Mission which NASA canceled:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Interferometry_Mission
        “SIM Lite would have been the most powerful extrasolar planet hunting space telescope ever built.”
        There other ways to make large telescopes in space, cheap, if not just trying to see to end of universe.
        But many small telescopes is probably what Musk is talking about, because there are a lot people who use small telescopes, and you make better small telescopes for them to use.
        So, you make lots better telescopes then most people use, and make some better then any of them use.
        And instead of setting up a telescope some place away from city lights, you use it from your computer.
        A question is how much does it cost and how many more people are going use telescopes, if there cheaper and easier to use?

        And other question is what orbit are they going to be in?
        It seems the lowest orbit could be 600 km- that is above starlink, but lots companies doing satellite internet and they much higher [though less of them]. And of course the telescopes can be connected by using satellite internet.
        And those better at using telescopes, can be paid, by others wanting to see, whatever they find interesting to look at.
        Or you pay by the hour, and you could waste an hour, just trying find
        something, as compared having “more of pro” do that work. And pro might renting one the better telescopes. And pro might take suggestion/requests in term what to point at. Or rather than paying for telescope use, he/she makes money doing it. But one could also the freedom to use it, however you want- or not use a pro.
        Of course one possibility, is that rather looking up, you look down at Earth’s surface.
        Of course you might want use telescopes on Earth’s surface various
        reasons, but the atmosphere, even at it’s clearest and at high elevation, is impaired by looking thru the atmosphere. And from space, you don’t have wait for night and you don’t have problems with weather conditions.

  41. CO2isLife says:

    Dr Spencer, you should produce a graphic that shows the average annual temperature for the USA based upon latitide. That way people can see that a 1 Degree increase basically means that people in Minesotta may get the temperature of Tennessee, and Tennesse gets the temperare of Florida. They make is sound like climate change will make the world uninhabitable, whereas it really makes more of the world habitable. Imagine being able to grow crops in Siberia? There will be a food and energy glut if the earth continues to warm, and the iceland ice sheet would stake thousands of years to melt.

    • Nate says:

      Minneapolis average low in Winter and high in summer: 6 F, 80 F
      Memphis average low in Winter and high in summer:: 32 F, 91 F

    • Tim S says:

      The difference is bigger than some might think. This did not take long on Wikipedia. Others may have better data. I looked at the average July high and overnight low (deg F):

      Winnipeg 78/56 (26/13 C)
      Minot 80/56
      Minneapolis 83/65
      Sioux Falls 85/63
      Lincoln 89/67
      Kansas City 90/72
      Tulsa 94/73
      Dallas 97/78
      San Antonio 95/74

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      CO2, it doesn’t matter. We have no control over temperature. It is going to do what it is going to do.

      • RLH says:

        Yup.

      • Willard says:

        As the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, says Singh.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        “Catastrophic flooding on the scale of the disaster hitting Queensland and New South Wales is becoming more likely as the planet heats due to greenhouse gas emissions, climate scientists have warned.” – some rag or other.

        More severe droughts and more severe flooding. Whereabouts, do you think?

        Tricky stuff, this CO2. No wonder nobody can actually describe the GHE, supposedly involved in hot, cold, wet, dry, change, no change – the list goes on.

        You’re a bit simple, aren’t you?

      • RLH says:

        Natural factors, not CO2, might get together and influence future climate.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Wait until the next ice age, and then we’ll have a drought to worry about.

      • Willard says:

        Keep denying that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, freaks.

      • RLH says:

        Please state why you think that ocean temperatures in the southern oceans prior to the satellite era is in the slightest bit accurate.

      • Willard says:

        Please tell us why you think that Whig policies have not killed millions of people in the British colonies.

      • RLH says:

        Willard being an idiot as usual.

      • Willard says:

        Richard once again fails to see that I could reply NO U.

      • RLH says:

        Willard being an idiot as Usual.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Wiltard,

        Nature’s going to take care of your thermostat. It might be more prudent to prepare for the imminent deflation.

      • Willard says:

        Nature takes care of troglodytes, Troglodyte.

        Enjoy your swan song!

  42. Entropic man says:

    ” They make is sound like climate change will make the world uninhabitable, whereas it really makes more of the world habitable. ”

    Not going to happen.

    Half the land area is already too hot, cold, wet, dry, steep or lofty to live on.

    The land area of the tropics is considerably larger than at high latitudes. The area of tropical land rendered uninhabitable by global warming will exceed the area of high latitude land rendered habitable.

    You are looking at a net loss of habitable land.

    • billy bob says:

      Entropic,

      Humans are quite adaptive as are most animals. Those that cannot will go extinct (natural selection), but humans would try to intervene and save those that they could.

      Tropics will expand into the higher latitudes, high temperatures will move moderately up, and low temperatures more so. Humans will eventually expand into the Oceans, mostly the continental shelves. We will learn urban farming, vertical farming, ocean farming. Deserts will change, frozen tundra will thaw, and humans will thrive, that is if they avoid nuclear annihilation or large meteor hit.

      The sun will continue to get hotter as it has done for billions of years. And billions of years from now, the inner planets will be toast. We do have time, but we should probably focus on living with climate change then deceiving ourselves into thinking we can stop it from happening.

  43. For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.

    Link:

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • gbaikie says:

      It seems that since Venus is warmed in it’s upper atmosphere and this
      atmosphere rotates every 4 to 5 days, that this warmer effect is greater as compared to a situation where it’s rocky surface were to rotate every 4 to 5 days.

      This is one factor why I think that if Venus was at 1 AU distance [Earth distance from the sun} it would colder than Earth is.
      Or at 1 AU, Venus upper atmosphere would rotate at same speed as it’s rocky surface.

  44. gbaikie says:

    SpaceX Raptor 3 Starship engine sets new world record for larger Starships!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1Czl7poAvM
    Another weekly report. And lots of stuff- will Starship land crew on Moon in 2025?
    It would almost be a first in terms meeting schedule- you have to go back to Apollo program, to get targets which are, more or less, actually met.
    It does seem Starship wouldn’t get another test launch within a month of time, but would be nice if was close to 4th of July.

  45. CO2isLife says:

    This graphic would make a nice blog post.
    https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-temperatures.php

    Warming simply make inhospitable states more hospitable, and warm states even better. Most of the earth’s land mass is in the N Hemi, and much of it is frozen. A warming N Hemi simply allows for much much much more food to be grown and oil to be drilled.

    No one will ever convince me that Wisconsin getting the climate of Illinois is a bad deal for anyone.

    • Bill Hunter says:

      How true. The sad thing is even if warming was bad, which its not, climate has changed forever. Used to be and still is, surreptitiously, that global warming started 150 years ago but today all we see is defense of global warming since 1980, which lays well within the boundaries of natural multi-decadal variation. The southwest has gone through longer droughts before nothing unusual is occurring since 1980. And when you make that argument then they jump back a hundred years to days of poor global record keeping and proclaim it has been warming longer. But as recently as a couple decades ago no warming was noted in the US over the past 100+years which had one of the best weather records of all nations.

      As Roy has found in his series the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and cant be found in thermometer records, not to speak of the yet to be explained multi-decadal warming of early 20th century.

      The climate religion seems to be a product of a lot of fables and story telling.

      https://youtu.be/JX9B5tnj-xI

      • Bindidon says:

        ” As Roy has found in his series the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and cant be found in thermometer records… ”

        Please give us the exact place where Roy Spencer explained what you wrote.

      • RLH says:

        Please give your exact reasons for RSS being SO much better that STAR and UAH.

      • Willard says:

        Please tell us why you deny that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.

      • RLH says:

        Please state why you think that ocean temperatures in the southern oceans prior to the satellite era is in the slightest bit accurate.

      • Willard says:

        Please tell us why you think that Whig policies have not killed millions of people in the British colonies.

      • RLH says:

        Please tell me why UK history is so important to you.

      • Willard says:

        Please tell us why you think peddling your pet topic of the moment everywhere you comment matters to you.

      • RLH says:

        Pleased tell me why you think that being an idiot matters to everybody else.

      • Willard says:

        Please tell us why you keep poisoning your own well, dummy.

      • Bindidon says:

        Blindsley H00d

        Could you stop being SO opinionated, and start telling me where I wrote that RSS would be SO much better than STAR and UAH?

        You are all the time insinuating things on this blog, especially about what others write (not only me) – without being able to prove your insinuations.

      • Bindidon says:

        Moreover, your preference concerning the LT evaluations do not have anything to do with what I was asking.

        If you are not able to answer what I ask the Hunter boy: why do you insert a post which is of no interest in the point being discussed?

      • RLH says:

        Getting Blinny in a twist is nothing new.

      • Willard says:

        > You are all the time insinuating things on this blog, especially about what others write (not only me) without being able to prove your insinuations.

        Richard just peddles his pet talking point wherever he goes.

        That dummy trolls the blog on which he should play defense.

      • RLH says:

        Taking points like about 1878 being nothing to do with CO2 and everything to do with natural oscillations.

      • RLH says:

        “without being able to prove your insinuations.”

        Go on then. Prove my 60/50/39 low pass filter is not a VP CTRM. You have said it often on here. You are wrong.

      • Bindidon says:

        Blindsley Hood

        You yourself admitted in the previous thread that, contrary to my results, both your S-G and 60/50/39 filters follow neither the original Savitzy-Golay filtering nor Pratt’s recommendation for CTRM, but are the result of subsequent filtering . Read your comment carefully!

        No one would have the audacity to pass off a Savitzky-Golay or CTRM 5 year filtering as such when it’s subsequently being smoothed down by 5 further passes. You do it!

        Where is your link to a document by Vaughan Pratt (and NOT by Greg Goodman, let alone you, oh no!) that proves Pratt ever did what you did in addition to the cascaded running mean?

        *
        And again: why do you endlessly divert to your egomaniacal stuff, instead of telling us where Roy Spencer claimed that grid cell area weighting would lead to unduly warming in US temperature time series?

      • RLH says:

        My 60/50/59 monthly filter follows exactly VPs recommendations (as I can show). I have never said anything else. You lie.

      • RLH says:

        edit: 60/50/39

      • RLH says:

        Vaughan Pratt’s recommendation of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 is in the comments he made to Greg’s thread.

        60/59/39 follows exactly those ratios.

      • RLH says:

        Mt fingers, edit: 60/50/39

      • RLH says:

        “No one would have the audacity to pass off a Savitzky-Golay or CTRM 5 year filtering as such when its subsequently being smoothed down by 5 further passes. You do it!”

        I do not. The CTRM is not filtered further as you would know if you actually looked at the results.

        The S-G is a 5 pass (the same as CTRM is a 3 pass) as I have long acknowledged and I am just following recommendations that others made.

        Are you saying that they are wrong?

      • RLH says:

        c.f. https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/rlh-simple-rss-plot.pdf

        “#I ran a 5 pass-multipass with second order polynomials on 15 year data windows as per the Savitzky-Golay method. Nate Drake PhD”

        now amended to 60 month/5 years.

      • RLH says:

        P.S. This was before VPs full recommendations were taken on by me.

        It should now be


        f1 = period
        f2 = round(f1/1.2067)
        f3 = round(f1/1.5478)

      • Bindidon says:

        As usual, you don’t tell us the truth.

        Not the 60/50/39 ratio (OF COURSE due to Pratt’s 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 factors) is the problem, you know that very well.

        You yourself DEFINITELY wrote in the previous thread that both your S-G and CTRMs are post-processed. And SO they LOOK like, Blindsley H00d!

        Finally, your trial to sell us the tail of an S-G output as an alleged ‘projection’ in all your charts is incredibly brazen.

        *
        Where is your link to a document by Vaughan Pratt (and NOT by Greg Goodman, let alone you, oh no!) that proves Pratt ever did what you did in addition to an original cascaded running mean?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard says:

        ”Please tell us why you deny that as the global thermostat rises, the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe.”

        Did I deny that Willard? I am not aware of that.

        IMO, you need some science to deny or claim that is true. Why do you seem so convinced?

        And as I pointed out Willard people are moving to warmer locations and are projected to do so over the next few generations. Since already the tropics are the most densely populated it seems the benefits have been outweighing the negatives.

        So where does that leave your claim?

      • Willard says:

        Bill, Bill,

        Why do you think I was talking to you?

      • RLH says:

        “You yourself DEFINITELY wrote in the previous thread that both your S-G and CTRMs are post-processed.”

        NO I DID NOT. Only the S-G is a 5 pass and there is no post processing other than that. The CTRM is a 3 pass (as VP demanded). You are just deluded. As usual.

        “Where is your link to a document by Vaughan Pratt”

        It is in the comments to Greg’s thread. Not that you read those at all.

        In any case, 60/50/39 is what his factors of 1, 1.2067 and then 1.5478 comes out to for 5 years and that I use for his triple pass filter, my CTRM 5 year low pass filter for UAH data, see below. (My 12 month is 12, 10, 8).

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg

      • RLH says:

        Willard: Why do you think it is getting warmer now than in 1878? Are the various natural factors getting that big? Obviously CO2 was not the reason in 1878.

        Why do the various satellite series (2 out of 3) show less warming than those the are based on 2m temperatures? Could it be that the methodology used is suspect?

      • Willard says:

        Richard: as the global thermostat rises, do you think the warmer temperatures could make future droughts more severe, as per your own source?

      • RLH says:

        Is it as warm now as it was in 1878?

      • Willard says:

        Do you deny it is warmer now than in 1878?

      • Nate says:

        RLH,

        Given that the anomaly in the 3.4 region can be +- 2 deg C, it should be no shock to anyone that selected months today can be found that are cooler than selected months during the strong 1878 El Nino in that region.

        And yet there has still been a net warming of the (30 y) average temperature in the region (0.76 C) and globally.

        Try to understand that these facts are compatible, and thus are not informative on AGW, at all.

      • RLH says:

        AWG, based as it is on CO2, says that the 1878 event did not happen.

      • RLH says:

        edit: AGW

      • Willard says:

        Richard still fails to RTFR:

        The internal variability of global surface temperature in any single year is estimated to be about 0.25C (595% range, high confidence) {WGI SPM footnote 29}.

        https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_LongerReport.pdf

      • RLH says:

        The IPCC does not take into account 1878.

      • Willard says:

        Richard is wrong as usual.

      • RLH says:

        You mean the IPCC doesn’t think that CO2 is the cause of climate change? Or that CO2 had nothing to do with 1878?

      • Willard says:

        You mean that you still haven’t RTFR?

      • RLH says:

        You mean the IPCC doesnt think that CO2 is the cause of climate change?

      • RLH says:

        The IPCC doesnt think that CO2 had nothing to do with 1878?

      • Willard says:

        So Richard admits that he has not RTFR.

      • Nate says:

        “AGW does not rely on CO2 being the main cause? Give me a break.”

        And nobody said otherwise. You are thoroughly confused, and flailing RLH.

        Here’s the reality. ENSO happens independently of CO2 or AGW. Sometimes it produces large El Ninos. Their size is not dependent on CO2.

        GW has happened as predicted by CO2 driven AGW, independently of ENSO, and without uniformity, as predicted.

        You are the only one trying to illogically claim the presence of the ENSO oscillation before the onset of AGW, in some way falsifies AGW.

        But you have no statistically sensible argument.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:
        ”Heres the reality. ENSO happens independently of CO2 or AGW. Sometimes it produces large El Ninos. Their size is not dependent on CO2.”
        ——————————-
        Yes it does. And so do multi-decadal ocean oscillations in the Pacific Ocean that determine multi-decadal global temperature changes that are disconnected from CO2. In fact a single ENSO cycle can result in global mean temperature varying by as much as the entire industrial age once you smooth out and properly match the cycle suggesting that normal temperature variation is perfectly capable of explaining the industrial age warming.

        ——————————-
        ——————————-
        ——————————-
        ——————————-
        ——————————-

        Nate says:
        ”GW has happened as predicted by CO2 driven AGW, independently of ENSO, and without uniformity, as predicted.

        You are the only one trying to illogically claim the presence of the ENSO oscillation before the onset of AGW, in some way falsifies AGW.

        But you have no statistically sensible argument.”
        ———————
        Whats good for the goose is also good for the gander. You respond with a suggestion that a singular correlation is a statistically sensible argument when clearly it is not. . . .that is it isn’t if you able to pass a single college class in statistics.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Willard says:

        ”Do you deny it is warmer now than in 1878?”

        Should anybody expect it to not have warmed? After all we experienced a solar grand maximum in the 20th Century that ended in 2008. We will have to see if the next decade is able to produce more than .2c warming before throwing the entire CO2 theory in the trash can. I’m patient, some others are not.

      • Willard says:

        Have you read the Questions Richard kept Just Asking in this thread, Gill?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Its fair to wonder if there has been any warming Willard. With all the out front data fudging going on over the past 25 years, mostly of temperatures more than 45 years old but still plenty in surface records post the satellite era, one can indeed wonder.

        But seems rather uncertain that we are currently warmer than 1944.

        Explain to me why UAH shows a total of approximate .57C warming over the last 4.3 decades and that is virtually identical to the amount of warming seen from 1911 to 1945 in 3.4 decades and actually explain why you believe both were from CO2. . . .noting that if you don’t do that. . . .that means total warming from CO2 can’t be more 6 tenths of a degree far short of the 2C benchmark for taking action.

      • Nate says:

        “Explain to me why UAH shows a total of approximate .57C warming over the last 4.3 decades and that is virtually identical to the amount of warming seen from 1911 to 1945 in 3.4 decades”

        Did we have lower troposphere measurements in 1911-45?

        “But seems rather uncertain that we are currently warmer than 1944.”

        But we are certain about the 1911-45 change being 0.57 C?

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Did we have lower troposphere measurements in 1911-45?”

        ———————-
        That response wasn’t to you Nate. You are supposed to be telling us why, if you ever had a course in statistics, that you believe that the sloppy correlation of CO2 to sloppy records of warming is supposed to be a ”statistically sensible argument”.

        But you instead seem intent on changing the topic.

      • Nate says:

        Bill, you are saying contradictory things.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        this is where Nate plays dumb. We certainly don’t want to discuss the details of or especially the statistical validity of the science behind the CO2 AGW theory.

      • Nate says:

        ” In fact a single ENSO cycle can result in global mean temperature varying by as much as the entire industrial age once you smooth out and properly match the cycle suggesting that normal temperature variation is perfectly capable of explaining the industrial age warming.”

        Not really.

        https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:6

      • Bill Hunter says:

        LMAO!

        First you have to deal with bias. The idea that you can process thousands of thermometers in the continental US and double or triple the warming by simply redefining which thermometer affects which area that thermometer never measured is rather preposterous.

        I am not sure how Roy is going to deal with that issue but he is working on it. But it has to be an immense issue. I live in a micro-climate very unlike my nearby airport which has an actual weather station. So NOAA models my weather forecast. They aren’t all that bad at it but we aren’t talking about small misses here. A typical miss for my location is like right now they are only off by about 8 degrees.

        Worse probably is USHCN probably uses a different model with a different objective in mind.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        And of course I completely failed to note that Nate is still dodging the topic he initially brought up because he is one giant hypocrite.

      • Nate says:

        Nah. You are bloviating.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        I’m bloviating about you not having a statistically sensible argument for the IPCC projected effects of CO2 while you run around like a banshee hypocrite calling out everybody else’s opinion on how climate changes by saying they don’t have a statistically sensible argument.

        All I am doing Nate is calling a hypocrite a hypocrite.

      • Nate says:

        “Im bloviating about you not having a statistically sensible argument for the IPCC projected effects of CO2”

        First of all, thats not what the topic of this thread was. Go back and read what it was about.

        Second, I thought you have been visiting this site for several years. If so, you would have encountered various lines of evidence in support of AGW, way beyond just the correlation between temperature and CO2.

        Your claim of no ‘statistically sensible argument’ is just hot air.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Nate says:

        ”Second, I thought you have been visiting this site for several years. If so, you would have encountered various lines of evidence in support of AGW, way beyond just the correlation between temperature and CO2.

        Your claim of no statistically sensible argument is just hot air.”

        So your claim is a statistically sensible argument for your viewpoint on this topic has been presented in this forum in the past few years?

        Can you support that claim? Just claiming its so isn’t a statistically sensible argument. You should know that.

      • Nate says:

        Bill,

        This is just your usual baiting. Attempting to get people to rehash things discussed many times.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Here we go again Nate drifting off in a trance where he fools himself like an alcoholic believing he ever discussed a statistically sensible argument for CO2 effects on the climate.

        The only one I am aware is Ben Santer’s attempt that way stretched the discipline of statistics is now nearly 25 years old and failed to meet future projections followed immediately by an even longer lived pause. Further it was never updated as a result. I think even Ben Santer has come to his senses on this.

        What we have is a science denying bunch of dinosaurs hanging around the IPCC and politically injecting non-science into the IPCC reports to desperately trying to keep the fear alive.

        https://judithcurry.com/2023/05/13/clintels-critical-evaluation-of-the-ipcc-ar6/#more-30093

      • Willard says:

        If you are to start your Climateball career as a peddler, Gill, you need to copy-paste your links properly.

        There are numbers missing at the end.

  46. gbaikie says:

    It seems we in a Solar Grand Min.
    I don’t think it will have much effect upon global average temperature, but it probably have large effect upon global weather.
    My view is that we have recovered from the Little Ice Age within the last 10 years, so one could say, it’s good time to have a Solar Grand Min, which is predicted not to last very long- unless you think that 20 to 30 years is long.
    Also it seems possible we could have an El Nino within next 10 year which tends to have a weather warming effect. As Roy Spencer has proven on this blog. Of course also possible we could back to back severe La Nina, which doesn’t have global weather warming effect. Or
    we could long period of neither.
    Various factors might cause it to get a cold as 1970’s, but it seem more like we get to “Pause” back, and have a Great Pause. Which I don’t think would be caused by a Solar Grand Min. But if add in some
    major volcanic activity into the mix, which cause cooling, then it could be tempting to see it as related to Solar Min and could get the 1970’s type thing. Anyhow we somehow survived the 70’s.
    After Solar Grand Min, we are predicted to get big Solar Grand Max period, but again, don’t think it’s going to much effect upon global average temperature.
    What is more important is Solar Grand Min will effect space weather, in terms Mars crewed exploration. And will effect radiation levels on ISS, and will effect radiation effect from flying over north polar region. Or will effect Airline personnel- and perhaps increasing cancer and other health effects.
    So, I think higher levels of radiation on ISS, will cause to program to end sooner, though it’s not scheduled to last long.
    But space stations not flying in highly inclined orbits, would have less radiation than ISS, or despite having higher GCR levels it’s could reduce it by 1/2 the current radiation levels- which is still worse industrial standards, allow. So anyhow I think biggest change will about flying airlines over the poles.
    And Mars crew. so this period will continue past 2060 AD.
    But if Starship works as planned, it can add enough shielding so that crew get less radiation per year, then ISS crew have getting over the decades. But, it’s not really, good enough. And seems we can more than that- but it’s a added cost.

  47. Eben says:

    The planet would greatly benefit from 5-6 C warmer temperature and 800-1200 ppm CO2
    Not that one has much to do with the other

    • gbaikie says:

      If you are living in a home, it’s higher temperatures and a higher CO2 level.
      Or there a lot more warming of a house, than the cooling of a house.

      I guess the serious global climate cargo cult believer are the homeless- only problem is they don’t think it’s warm enough- but they aren’t living in a warmed house.

  48. Tim S says:

    The flooding in Italy brings out the typical claims of climate change. Oddly, if climate change is to blame, it could be cooling of the upper atmosphere causing instability and not warming at the surface that is be to blame for increased rain intensity.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” … and not warming at the surface that is be to blame for increased rain intensity. ”

      Who said such simple things besides yourself, Tim S?

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        The Climate Council, for example.

        “A warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. In fact, for every degree of warming the atmosphere can hold around 7% more moisture. More moisture can then mean that more rainfall comes in short, intense downpours. This can increase the risk of flash flooding.”

        Or the IPCC.

        “A warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts (Wetherald and Manabe, 2002;”

        Would you like some more, or do you think you could find them yourself?

        I hope you are not silly enough to think that CO2 makes the surface warmer. It’s the sun, stupid. At night the surface cools, even faster than the atmosphere, in clear dry conditions.

        No sunlight, you see.

        Keep dissecting history. Try dissecting nighttime temperatures to get rid of the Sun’s influence.

        See how you go.

    • Tim S says:

      I realize that trolling is more fun and easier than being educated, but there is a fundamental concept in weather forecasting (rain is weather) that high pressure days are warm and sunny and low pressure days are cool, cloudy, and raining. Why is that?

      • Swenson says:

        Tim S,

        Interesting question. Even more interesting, to me at least, what causes pressure variations?

        Here’s what the Met Office says –

        “Areas of high and low pressure are caused by ascending and descending air. As air warms it ascends, leading to low pressure at the surface. As air cools it descends, leading to high pressure at the surface.”

        Of course, if the air column just expands vertically, it just gets taller, and the pressure doesn’t change at all. Standard pressure is 1013 mb at the equator and the poles. Cold or hot – still 1013 mb. The depth of the troposphere varies from about 9 km at the poles, about 17 km at the equator.

        The Met Office explanation is a tad lacking, or even wrong, it might seem.

        An example of delusional SkyDragon cultist preference for fiction over fact?

      • Norman says:

        Swenson

        YOU: “Of course, if the air column just expands vertically, it just gets taller, and the pressure doesnt change at all. Standard pressure is 1013 mb at the equator and the poles. Cold or hot still 1013 mb.”

        You are wrong with this statement. The surface pressure IS a measured value not a guess. They build pressure maps (High/Low) using the measured values. Not sure why you have chosen to think the pressure does not change at all or where you came up with this understanding. It is wrong.

        Here look:

        http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/sfc/ussatsfc.gif

      • Mark B says:

        Re the Met Office explaination:

        Descending air compresses and warms as it descends. As it warms, if the absolute humidity remains the same, the relative humidity drops. Hence fewer clouds and/or precipitation.

        Ascending air associated with low pressure systems cools and expands causing it’s relative humidity to increase. If it increases sufficiently you get clouds and rain.

      • Mark B says:

        The most extreme low pressures we see on Earth are, of course, at the eye of a hurricane. Not coincidentally at the center of the most extreme wind and precipitation events.

      • Tim S says:

        The answer is that high pressure is associated with a smaller change in pressure with altitude and a smaller reduction in temperature with altitude. High pressure system are considered to have stable air. Sometimes there is an inversion.

        Low pressure is associated with a larger change in pressure with altitude. The lower pressure is associated more rapid cooling at altitude. The atmosphere in a low pressure system is unstable.

        The greenhouse effect causes cooling in the upper atmosphere and increased instability leading to the prediction of more intense rain. Both affects increase the potential for rain fall — high humidity at the surface and an unstable atmosphere.

  49. Bindidon says:

    I would like to show how wrong it is to think that ‘the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and can’t be found in thermometer records’.

    This is a very simplistic view. Here is an example.

    *
    Some years ago, John Christy published a document about ‘Record Temperatures in the United States’, presented on this blog but which unfortunately had to be retired:

    https://tinyurl.com/3uparkhw

    In this document, he showed the ratio of temperature maxima/minima per 100,000 daily observations as reported by USHCN weather stations with at least 105 years activity.

    I did the same job, but with as source the GHCN daily originals of the USHCN stations: because this data of course is restricted to the US, and I wanted to extend the view to the Globe as a whole.

    Moreover, I wanted to show how highest minima behave compared to lowest minima, what recently was extended to lowest maxima.

    The job was restricted to the period 1920-2022 to avoid absence of data at any time.

    *
    1. GHCN daily for CONUS

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view

    The red and blue plots correspond to John Christy’s bar charts.

    2. GHCN daily for the Globe

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m95BCNnhwpS1yO1LSVCrf6gOy2EOWCcl/view

    The similarity to the CONUS graph was very unrealistic; a switch to a generation with an area weighting into 2.5 degree grid cells a la UAH gave this:

    3. GHCN daily for the Globe (with grid area weighting)

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view

    Where does this huge difference between charts (2) and (3)?

    Simply from the fact that while in chart (2) about 20,000 US stations ‘compete’ with about 20,000 stations outside of it, in chart (3) about 200 US grid cells compete with about 2000 cells outside of it.

    When you realize that some US cells encompass over 300 stations, and many non-US cells one or two, you easily understand that these no-US stations can’t play any role when you don’t perform grid area weighting before the yearly maxima/minima averages.

    *
    But interesting is as well that when generating a chart for CONUS out of area weighted data, the difference still exists – even if much smaller:

    4. GHCN daily for CONUS (with grid area weighting)

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_OjIZLluXonnGUjzX5wvjXxA4pS4frJn/view

    *
    When my faster computer gets ready to work again in 2 weeks, I’ll generate more ‘classical’ time series and associated data for CONUS showing a similar behavior.

    • Eben says:

      Pleez hurry up

      • Bindidon says:

        Hi ankle-biting German-like dachshund stalker, nice to hear from you again.

        “I will do my very best!”.

      • Eben says:

        Maybe when you get the real fast computer you can figure out the global temperature has been falling for the last 8 years

      • Bindidon says:

        Which one, dachshund?

        UAH?

        How could it have increased since 2016, after having reached the highest anomaly since Dec 1978?

        Did you forget what it was due to?

        Never heard about the 100 % natural, ‘Super El Nino’ of 2015/16?

        I don’t need fast computers for explaining that, dachshund: unlike you, I have a working brain.

        *
        The very best would happen if ENSO didn’t collapse this year as it already seems to intend:

        https://i.postimg.cc/3RvWGF39/nino34-Mon170523.png

        and we had for the next two years another 100% natural ‘Super El Nino’.

        And 8 years later the dachshund would proudly write again:

        ” Maybe when you get the real fast computer you can figure out the global temperature has been falling for the last 8 years ”

        *
        Ha ha ha…

      • RLH says:

        ” I have a working brain”

        That is fairly disputable.

      • Bindidon says:

        ” That is fairly disputable. ”

        Then start doing to dispute this, Blindsley H00d, e.g. by proving that you really are able to beat me in all what you until now were simply unable to achieve, e.g.:

        https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/americans-increasingly-choose-a-warmer-life/#comment-1487231

        *
        Until now, you show only trivial, technically disputable stuff, like your 5 year low passes which all don’t look like 5 year low passes, what you recently admitted.

        And about your so-called S-G ‘projection’s, any statistician would laugh (apologies: Google’s translator wasn’t able to accurately translate ‘se tordrait de rire’).

      • RLH says:

        Blinny still doesn’t get that the CTRMs are to VPs specifications.

      • RLH says:

        “you recently admitted.”

        Show me where.

      • RLH says:

        “so-called S-G ‘projection’s'”

        S-G is not accurate when it ventures into non full kernel mode. i.e. at the ends.

    • Swenson says:

      Binny,

      Well, blow me down.

      If you had a really, really, fast computer, you could tell me what the temperature used to be even quicker, couldn’t you?

      I can’t wait. Will your really, really, fast computer change the old temperature records, or will the past stay just the same?

      Maybe your really, really, fast computer will allow you to see into the future better than an old, slow, computer. Is that it?

      Fool.

      • Bindidon says:

        Blather blather blather from the boring Flynnson.

        He forgot his pathological ‘4.5 billion year’ blah blah, oh dear…

        Un peu de repos lui ferait probablement du bien.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        Well, blow me down.

        If you had a really, really, fast computer, you could tell me what the temperature used to be even quicker, couldnt you?

        I cant wait. Will your really, really, fast computer change the old temperature records, or will the past stay just the same?

        Maybe your really, really, fast computer will allow you to see into the future better than an old, slow, computer. Is that it?

        Fool.

      • Bindidon says:

        Blather blather blather from the boring Flynnson.

        He forgot his pathological 4.5 billion year blah blah, oh dear…

        Un peu de repos lui ferait probablement du bien.

    • RLH says:

      What you have really shown is that tmin and tmax are a very bad way to get a true taverage for the 24 hour period, world wide. As many previous papers have shown.

      • Bindidon says:

        Instead of stalking with your non-committing blah blah, do the same job, Blindsley H00d, and show us YOUR results in four similar charts.

        But I think we all on this blog can wait quite a long time because you’ve never been able to process such data the way I did, no matter what kind of data source you would use.

        All you were able to do until now has been to insinuate and discredit what others do.

        *
        Come back to us by the way when you
        – have understood when and why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviate from the 24-hour average values,
        and
        – finally achieved something similar to my monthly anomaly-based USCRN time series comparing means, medians and true hourly averages:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1b4RCt-RkYqO8bRqHXzyswglC5M1z9pOt/view

        Your trivial college boy evaluation made at that time was in comparison absolutely laughable.

      • RLH says:

        “why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviate from the 24-hour average value”

        (tmin and tmax) /2 is inadequate when the length of the day is not a simple 12 hours. It makes that simple assumption. Only true for a few days a year, world wide.

      • RLH says:

        “Td1 = (Tmax + Tmin)/2 is calculated from the daily maximum temperature (Tmax) and minimum temperature (Tmin), and Td0 is integrated from hourly values during a day, defined as being from midnight to midnight. …. The standard deviations between daily Td1 and Td0 in winter seasons are generally larger than those in warm seasons. Spatially, the standard deviations between the daily Td1 and Td0 are higher in the northern high latitudes and the global arid/semi-arid regions (Eurasia, North America, South America, Africa, and Australia)”

      • RLH says:

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/10/jamc-d-19-0001.1.xml

        “A Significant Bias of Tmax and Tmin Average Temperature and Its Trend”

      • RLH says:

        “Overall, the present analysis indicates that the previously applied method to calculate daily and monthly mean temperature using Tmax and Tmin significantly overestimates not only the climatological mean of the national stations and mainland China on a whole, but also the upward trends of surface air temperature at most of the stations and in the country. “

      • RLH says:

        “you’ve never been able to process such data the way I did”

        My maths is a lot more accurate than yours. As are my graphs.

  50. gbaikie says:

    Study: Climate Believers Are More Likely to Trust Strangers
    Eric Worrall
    “Perhaps greens find it difficult to imagine that scientific authority figures can be self serving lying toads, just like anyone else.”
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/17/study-climate-believers-are-more-likely-to-cooperate-with-strangers/

    I think it’s similar, populations are aging.
    And they want them to get off their lawn and Greens want to kill their lawn.
    Green also are happily killing a large amount of whales.

    Lefties are just using the religion of global warming- all they always care about is power over people.

    • stephen p. anderson says:

      The left love using the old “existential threat.” They’re the masterminds who can fix it. Of course, their fixes always mean less liberty for everyone.

    • Nate says:

      Today its the Right trying to take away liberties.

      Banning books and media from libraries and schools that don’t fit the conservative agenda.

      Using government to control corporate free speech.

      Banning free expression and taking away parental rights if adults and kids don’t conform to their religious views of gender norms.

      Taking away established constitutional right to reproductive choice.

      • gbaikie says:

        “Taking away established constitutional right to reproductive choice.”
        Right, and it should be mentioned that China and North Korea have always been world leaders “protecting this constitutional right”.

      • gbaikie says:

        wiki: Abortion in Finland:
        “Abortion will be legal and free of charge upon request in Finland in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy starting from 1 September 2023. Between 1970 and 2023 abortion was widely accessible in practice for a variety of reasons (including socioeconomic factors) but nevertheless the law required the pregnant woman to state her motivations and get approval from one or two doctors.

        By international standards, political controversy in Finland regarding abortion has been mild and incidence is low. Abortions in Finland have been decreasing since the 1960’s. In 2021 about 7600 abortions were performed.”

        “In Finland, abortion was illegal until 1950, when the Parliament of Finland legalized abortions to preserve the physical or mental health of the woman, if the woman was under 16, if the fetus might be deformed, or the woman had been raped.[9] Under pressure from the women’s liberation movement and supportive editorials from most national newspapers, Finnish law was further liberalized in 1970.[10] The 1970 law allowed abortion up to 16 weeks of pregnancy for broad socioeconomic reasons, if the woman was younger than 17, if the woman was older than 40, if the woman had already had four children, or if at least one parent would be unable to raise the child owing to disease or mental disturbance.”

        Such a backward country compared to China.
        China was so progressed, it aborting babies when citizens were illegally having them- no country [other than North Korea} has openly, done this.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        An established Constitutional right? Do you mean like established in the Constitution? Chapter and verse?

      • Nate says:

        The Constitution as interpreted by SCOTUS 50 y ago.

        Stephen,

        I get it, you dont like people who don’t agree with YOUR religion’s views on gender norms, sexuality and reproductive freedom, so you are fine with restricting their liberties.

        And you are fine with weaponizing govt against peoples right to free expression and free speech by corporations, if you don’t like the expression or speech.

        A similar backlash and govt crackdown on deviants and free expression happened in Germany in the 1930s.

  51. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    Rural communities also tend to lean Republican politically, which can put them at odds with climate activists and environmental protection groups, which tend to be more aligned with Democrats. And the agriculture sector accounts for an estimated 11% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, putting farmers directly in the crosshairs of climate advocates.

    But farmers in this region, across the political spectrum, say they also want solutions on climate issues now.

    https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176657700/arizona-farms-running-out-water-farmers-climate-change-colorado-river

  52. Bindidon says:

    Blindsley H00d

    ” My maths is a lot more accurate than yours. As are my graphs. ”

    As usual, you persist in superficial, absolutely unproven smalltalk instead of technically proving your claims by showing something more relevant than your typical ‘5 year low pass’ stuff.

    I therefore repeat:

    Come back to us when you

    have understood when and why the mean of TMIN and TMAX deviates from the 24-hour average values

    and

    finally achieved something similar to my monthly anomaly-based USCRN time series comparing means, medians and true hourly averages.

    As long as you won’t be able to do such things, your ‘my math is better’ blah blah is and keeps of no interest.

    *
    And when you finally you will have proven that you are able to replicate what I did with USCRN, feel free to start replicating this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YkJvOTEqJbecLFHUBpGpjChWnzA-u5xX/view

    and this:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dvz115qfZXH95nkoIXF091JJsaasaAEn/view

    *
    We’ll then see clearly how much better your math and your graphics are than mine when you have to leave your little, trivial, comfortable, endlessly repeated low-pass corner!

  53. gbaikie says:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_5ltDjun3g
    SpaceX’s New Raptor 3 Smashed The World Record!

    Video gives more detail and reminds us that 350 bars probably
    will not done soon, in terms rocket launch. Or after hundreds of
    more tests, and maybe within a 1 year or two we might get rocket launch going at 360 bars.
    That test was full burn test- or Starship first engine only burn just over 1 min, though engines way reduce thrust as it approach Max Q.
    And video reminded me, again, on how many engine tests SpaceX does.
    It huge amount which would be been impossible if the rocket engines
    were expensive {as they have been throughout rocket’s history} and
    also raptors use a cheap rocket fuel {cheaper than kerosene and a lot cheaper than LH2/LOX}.

    What tells you we in the Space Age, is cheap rocket engines and cheap satellites- and cheap satellites, is probably more important.

    • gbaikie says:

      Will Space Age has radically change the world as did the Industrial
      Revolution. Or should it be called the Space Revolution?
      Or the Revolution of Heaven?
      Will it transform our Universe?
      We might have to find some space aliens to know. Though in terms of just human mind- the Universe, will likely/probably be radically transformed- but I was thinking of a big picture- will humans radically affect life [if there is any} in our universe?

      Another question is when will the space age have considered to have
      started, and when will it end. We typically say it started in the 50’s and 60’s, but by 2050 AD, will that still be counted as the beginning. We don’t count, the Vikings maybe going to North America,
      as discovering the New World- the 1492 Columbus mistaken trip to China. Or maybe Space Age will begin, when more people are ready- maybe it will start when Indian or African steps on the Moon.
      Or Space Age = Spacefaring. And then, whenever people land on Mars or
      maybe whenever people are living in the orbit of Venus. Or related
      to both, whenever artificial gravity is tested, thereby allow people to live in space, rather than visit space for less than 1/2 a year.
      When it ends, seems harder. But it maybe after any possible war with any space aliens, it will be when we have a peaceful relations with space aliens- which could be like Star Trek and first contact with the Vulcans {space aliens are a war and we have peaceful relation with a faction of those at war}. Or something else, like movie Alien. Or it could like Hitchhiker Guide to Universe- which roughly is humans, sort of become aware of universe filled with numerous kinds of idiots. Which might make a lot idiots, feel “normal”.
      So, Age of Normal.

      • gbaikie says:

        I just started listening to: I’m Obsessed With Venus Now. Here’s Why
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuhaJu-GNM
        And I am taking notes:
        Dr Paul Byrne, Planetary Evangelist

        Don’t know what rocks are like
        don’t know what interior is like
        Don’t know how active it is
        Don’t understand how it keeps it’s cloud layer- {sunlight should/could break it up}
        Why doesn’t it have a magnetic field?

        [I would say, the Moon has magnetic fields which are regional/localized,
        and Mars- check that:
        “The magnetic field of Mars is the magnetic field generated from Mars’ interior. Today, Mars does not have a global magnetic field. However, Mars did power an early dynamo that produced a strong magnetic field 4 billion years ago, comparable to Earth’s present surface field. After the early dynamo ceased, a weak late dynamo was reactivated (or persisted up to) ~3.8 billion years ago.
        …the southern hemisphere possesses strong remanent magnetization, showing alternating stripes.”
        -wiki
        So somewhat like the Moon. And I would say, it’s good thing that Venus doesn’t have magnetic field like Earth- as Earth’s magnetic field causes radiation problems in most of LEO- and at Venus
        distance, it seems to me- it would be worse if exactly like Earth’s
        magnetic field.
        {God winking, again??}

    • Willard says:

      Cheap is Elmo’s middle name:

      A new lawsuit alleges that Elon Musk told an investor during a 4 a.m. conversation that Twitter would only pay rent for its offices “over his dead body.”

      https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-told-twitter-advisor-124041523.html

  54. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    According to a new paper published on Thursday in the journal Science, 53 percent of lakes worldwide have shrunk between 1992 and 2020.

    This level of water loss is equivalent to 17 Lake Meads, the authors say, which is the largest reservoir by volume in the U.S.

    https://www.newsweek.com/lakes-drying-worldwide-science-1801165

    • gbaikie says:

      Lake Mead isn’t filled, yet. Filled or unfilled?

      “Lake Mead is 167.78 feet below Full Pool (Elevation 1219.60 )
      By content, Lake Mead is 30.2% of Full Pool (25,877,000 af)

      https://lakemead.water-data.com/
      The inflow has been fairly high, about 21,000 cfs, but outflowing
      a lot for power which about 16,000 cfs- per day.
      And it’s slightly higher than it has been in last year, and could go significantly higher in coming months. And:
      Total inflows for water year 2023: 5,384,554 acre feet
      This is 140.97% of the May 17th average of 3,819,733 acre feet
      And:
      Total releases for water year 2023: 4,563,395 acre feet
      This is 50.7% of minimum required release of 9,000,000 acre feet

      So, in about 4 months they have used about 50% of the amount of
      water they feel they must use for the year.
      I tend to think they will get their 100% or maybe more, but unlikely
      to filled this year.
      So, average or “normal” isn’t a Full Pool.
      The other one which is also likewise still in region of drought is

      Lake Powell:
      Lake Powell is 158.39 feet below Full Pool (Elevation 3,700)
      By content, Lake Powell is 26.93% of Full Pool (24,322,000 af)

      Inflowing about 50,000 cfs per day and out flowing about 17,000 cfs
      per day- and obviously is rapidly rising.
      And unless they increase outflow [which they probably will- though been near constant of 17500 for month and just went to 17916 and then back down little to 17753] it would get near a full pool.
      https://lakepowell.water-data.com/

    • Willard says:

      > Lake Mead isnt filled, yet.

      It’s just a metaphorical unit to give an idea of the size.

  55. Eben says:

    The planet has been global cooling for 8 yearz
    The chart Bindiclown cannot make

    https://i.postimg.cc/sDBmRJXC/offset.png

  56. RLH says:

    Blinny still wont admit that my graphs are correct to VPs CTRMs and Nate Drake PhD’s S-G.

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Blinny still wont admit that my graphs are correct to VPs CTRMs… ”

      And Blindsley H00d can’t argue without lying.

      He does NOT show original Cascaded Triple Running Means as shown by Vaughan Pratt but a multipass smoothing of what one obtains when doing the same as did Vaughan Pratt.

      The same holds of course for Savitzky-Golay.

      • RLH says:

        “He does NOT show original Cascaded Triple Running Means as shown by Vaughan Pratt”

        Completely wrong as always.

        “The same holds of course for Savitzky-Golay.”

        I use what Nate suggested.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny thinks that Cascaded Triple Running Means are not a 3 pass process.

      • RLH says:

        Perhaps he wants it in Excel.

      • Bindidon says:

        Wrong, as usual, Blindsley H00d: NO ONE on Earth doubts about the fact that a TRIPLE running mean is a 3-pass process, me the least.

        You insinuate in the most underhand way and lie as always.

        What is beyond doubt, HOWEVER, is that YOUR CTRM outputs are DEFINITELY NOT from a 3-pass process, but are the result of further smoothing, which you also admitted to.

        The same holds of course for your Savitzky-Golay outputs.

      • RLH says:

        “What is beyond doubt, HOWEVER, is that YOUR CTRM outputs are DEFINITELY NOT from a 3-pass process”

        You are wrong. Simple as that. The code that does it (in C#) is below


        float[] firstPass5 = RunningAverage(temperatures, 60);
        float[] secondPass5 = RunningAverage(firstPass5, 50);
        float[] thirdPass5 = RunningAverage(secondPass5, 39);

        thirdPass5 is what is plotted (at 60+50+39)/2 centered) for my % year low pass just as VP requires.

        “The same holds of course for your Savitzky-Golay outputs.”

        Again wrong (as usual).


        double[] filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(noisySignal);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);

        is the code used. Just as Nate required for his 5 pass, multi-pass process.

        Show me where the plot actually differs instead of your futile claims that I am wrong (with absolutely no evidence to back that up).

      • Bindidon says:

        ” … thirdPass5 is what is plotted (at 60+50+39)/2 centered) for my % year low pass just as VP requires. ”

        Where can I see this claim ‘just as VP requires’ ?

        *
        ” filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);
        filtered = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(60, 2).Process(filtered);

        is the code used. Just as Nate required for his 5 pass, multi-pass process. ”

        Exactly what I claim, Blindsley H00d!

        It is NOT a real, pure Savitzky-Golay filter process, but a SEQUNCE of such processes.

        Why are you so dishonest, Blindsley H00d?

      • RLH says:

        “Where can I see this claim just as VP requires?”

        In the comments to Greg’s thread that I have pointed you to many times already. Are you saying my code does not follow VPs recommendations?

      • RLH says:

        “It is NOT a real, pure Savitzky-Golay filter process, but a SEQUNCE of such processes.”

        As Nate Drake PhD required (and I have long acknowledged). A single S-G pass leaks too much high frequency as your graphs show.

      • RLH says:

        Blinny does require this in Excel. I have posted such a thing before. I can do it again.

      • RLH says:

        Why are you so stupid Blinny?

  57. Willard says:

    Richard won’t admit that environmental changes can impact the climate.

    • RLH says:

      Willard wont admit that 1878 happened as a very large EL Nino (along with other natural oscillations) without CO2 being involved.

      • Willard says:

        Richard won’t admit that a bunch of very large El Ninos in a row might mean a bit more than one El Nino of similar size.

      • RLH says:

        So now we switch to a different argument, where multiples count more than a single.

        The maximum of 1878 has not been exceeded, even in the recent past.

      • Willard says:

        So now Richard can’t even realize that this was the argument all along.

        As if he believed anyone would fall for his squirrels.

      • RLH says:

        Willard just doesn’t like facts. Especially that maximums are important in climate.

      • Nate says:

        Regional warm spikes happen now and happened in the past.

        They don’t nullify anthropogenic global warming. Because spikes and GW are statistically quite different phenomena and not mutually exclusive.

        They are apples and orangutans.

        But RLH is hyper-fixated on spikes anyway. He imagines if we find apples, there can be no orangutans.

        He has very strange notions.

      • RLH says:

        “Regional warm spikes happen now and happened in the past.

        They dont nullify anthropogenic global warming.”

        AGW assumes that CO2 is the principle component of rising T. CO2 was not significant in 1878. Natural factors drove it then. Why should now be any different?

      • RLH says:

        “RLH is hyper-fixated on spikes”

        aka maximums. Are you saying that maximums are not important (or only when you think that they are)?

      • Willard says:

        Where has Richard read that AGW implies bigger ENSO related events?

        Certainly not in the reports, for he did not RTFR.

      • Nate says:

        “Natural factors drove it then. Why should now be any different?”

        Exactly.

        And yet GW also happened.

        Because apples don’t cancel orangutans.

        But you keep trying to claim they do.

      • RLH says:

        “GW also happened.”

        How long do you think that natural oscilations take?

      • RLH says:

        Also, how much do you think natural cycles contribute, compared to AGW?

      • Willard says:

        Contribute to what?

      • Willard says:

        Global warming?

      • Willard says:

        Why does Richard always forget that it’s more than 100%?

      • Willard says:

        Why does Richard always forget that the natural cycles had a cooling effect?

      • RLH says:

        “the natural cycles had a cooling effect”

        Except in the case of 1878.

      • Willard says:

        How does an El Nino *cause* warmth?

      • RLH says:

        Is Willard saying that El Nino does not cause warmer air temperatures in the central Pacific?

      • RLH says:

        Make that ‘air and sea surface temperatures’.

      • Willard says:

        Is Richard saying that El Ninos are in fact heat pumps?

      • Willard says:

        Does Richard have an argument or is he full of hot air?

      • RLH says:

        Willard says that measuring higher temperatures does not occur during El Nino.

      • Willard says:

        Richard claims that El Ninos generate energy.

      • Nate says:

        ‘How long do you think that natural oscilations take?”

        changing the subject, are we?

        GW happened, as predicted by AGW.

      • RLH says:

        Willard invents things as always.

      • Willard says:

        Richard painstakingly tries to hide his cycle nuttery behind leading questions.

      • RLH says:

        “GW happened, as predicted by AGW.”

        But CO2, which is the heart core of AGW, did not cause the 1878 event.

      • RLH says:

        Cycles are the go to of Willard, even though I am cautious enough to say oscillations (which are cycles with varying length).

      • Willard says:

        Richard still insists that AGW must cause El Ninos.

  58. gbaikie says:

    Try again. Just started listening to:
    I’m Obsessed With Venus Now. Here’s Why
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXuhaJu-GNM

    • gbaikie says:

      That worked, try this, part:

      And I am taking notes:
      Dr Paul Byrne, Planetary Evangelist

      Don’t know what rocks are like
      don’t know what interior is like
      Don’t know how active it is
      Don’t understand how it keeps it’s cloud layer- {sunlight should/could break it up}
      Why doesn’t it have a magnetic field?

      [I would say, the Moon has magnetic fields which are regional/localized,
      and Mars- check that:
      “The magnetic field of Mars is the magnetic field generated from Mars’ interior. Today, Mars does not have a global magnetic field. However, Mars did power an early dynamo that produced a strong magnetic field 4 billion years ago, comparable to Earth’s present surface field. After the early dynamo ceased, a weak late dynamo was reactivated (or persisted up to) ~3.8 billion years ago.
      …the southern hemisphere possesses strong remanent magnetization, showing alternating stripes.”
      -wiki
      So somewhat like the Moon. And I would say, it’s good thing that Venus doesn’t have magnetic field like Earth- as Earth’s magnetic field causes radiation problems in most of LEO- and at Venus
      distance, it seems to me- it would be worse if exactly like Earth’s
      magnetic field.]

      {God winking, again??}

      • gbaikie says:

        So, found 85,000 volcanoes which mostly small and small is about 5 km diameter using resolution of 100 meter per pixel and quite noising data. And talked about active volcano change over 8 month period time
        during Venus Magellan radar survey, which began in 1990-09-15 and mission ended: 1994-10-13.
        They also say, one could look at data a lot more than has been done,
        and want better radar with much better resolution- and NASA has delayed that mission for 3 years. For unknown reasons related to budgeting problems.

        Or probably a lot more active at the present times, and a lot more volcanoes, then I thought there was. And also evident of past volcanic activity would been erased, due possibility of it being a younger surface then Earth’s ocean surface- which is very young.

        Or I say it, this way Io is most volcanic body known, Venus might be more active, but we don’t know, because of lack of exploration.

      • gbaikie says:

        I am taking my time listening to it [doing other things] and talking about exoplanets which mostly have CO2 and Venus distance from star.

        So what would Venus temperature be if it had 10 atm instead of 92 atm at Venus distance.
        First question is could it have H2SO4 acid clouds?
        I am sure it could.
        So, let’s do both, H2SO4 acid clouds and no significant H2SO4 acid clouds.

        With Venus acid clouds the surface would be dim and without the clouds the surface would a lot less dim.
        With Venus not having Venus thick clouds and allowing for a similar similar topography as Venus has, it could have brighter sunlight in higher elevations. Or it’s dimmer in the deeper basins.
        And this Exoplanets could have more difference in terrain- be like Earth with ocean removed. Or it could less difference in terrain because it has ocean.
        Or lets say terrain same as Venus but has 70% of it’s surface being an ocean. Oh, it can’t acid clouds, and it has water clouds and reflect more sunlight than acid cloud, and clouds absorb less sunlight than acid clouds. But the lighter H20 clouds can higher.
        Earth has clouds reaching to tropopause. With more atmosphere, you have higher tropopause.
        Though height would depend also on global surface air temperature.

        At Earth distance if added 10 atm of CO2, Earth freezes.
        At Venus distance, you get more sunlight, you get higher clouds, you get very uniform temperature. And probably cooler than 40 C.
        Which ok for life, the problem is no oxygen to breath. But thing like plants could live and evidence of no life is plants didn’t remove all the CO2. Why would world have so much plant food, other than, no plants.
        Let’s skip idea of having water. Problem with that is we know no life that can existence without water. Of course Venus might life and it’s roughly has no water- unless count the water held by the acid clouds.

  59. gbaikie says:

    May 18, 2023
    Editors’ notes
    Scientists discover past climate change to blame for Antarctica’s giant underwater landslides
    https://phys.org/news/2023-05-scientists-climate-blame-antarctica-giant.html
    “They also highlight that the layers formed at a time when temperatures in Antarctica were up to 3C warmer than they are today, when sea levels were higher and ice sheets much smaller than at present.”

    It still could happen, what could we do about it.

    One thing could do, is live in ocean settlements.

    • RLH says:

      Tsunamis (although devastating) only produce a momentary sea surface change.

      • Willard says:

        As opposed to what?

      • RLH says:

        The tides 🙂

      • Willard says:

        Tides are not temporary?

      • RLH says:

        Depends on what timescales you think in. The ups and downs of a Tsunamis is usually a lot shorter than a tide.

      • Willard says:

        At which timescale do tides become permanent?

      • RLH says:

        That all depends on the Moon’s orbit.

      • Willard says:

        “Large tsunamis may continue for days in some locations, reaching their peak often a couple of hours after arrival and gradually tapering off after that. The time between tsunami crests (the tsunamis period) ranges from approximately five minutes to two hours. Dangerous tsunami currents can last for days.”

      • RLH says:

        The time between tsunami crests (the tsunamis period) ranges from approximately five minutes to two hours.

        Tsunami are natural ocean waves. They are amplified to importance by land.

      • Willard says:

        “Dangerous tsunami currents can last for days.”

      • gbaikie says:

        And roughly little effect if in deep water.
        And ocean settlement have breakwaters and breakwaters near coast would not help much. Though ocean settlement could locally reduce the effect on the coastal area- depending on how big ocean settlements are and are within say 5 km of coast- reduce pulse though not lowering and rising of water on the coasts {which obviously generally the larger effect} but people should not live on beach, they should live on beach in the ocean settlements. Let beaches go back to “nature”. People could visit, but not live.

  60. Bindidon says:

    No one doubts about the fact that there were huge El Ninos in the past, me the least: I was the one who first posted the link to Quinn’s well known picture

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2023/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2023-0-18-deg-c/#comment-1482980

    originating from his great article

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98PA00401

    which was one of many, as you can see here:

    https://academictree.org/chemistry/publications.php?pid=498185

    *
    But who compares the 1877/78 El Nino edition to 1982/83

    1983 5: 2.89
    1983 4: 2.79
    1983 2: 2.74
    1983 3: 2.68
    1983 1: 2.57
    1998 4: 2.55
    1878 3: 2.50
    1982 12: 2.48
    1998 2: 2.43
    1878 2: 2.36

    should not forget that 1982/83 was completely hidden by the extremely SO2 rich eruption of El Chichon in 1982:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gC_g3NQQi-J2GQMwXX8a04QpOAUk-SUj/view

    *
    Thus of course: the 1877/78 El Nino led to devastating famines in many places of the world.

    The questions remain:

    – what would have happened in 1877/78 if that event would have had the same power as the one in 1982/83?

    – what would have happened in 1982/83 if El Chichon’s eruption had not taken place?

    *
    And above all: we should not forget that earlier famine events were not only due to climatic exceptions but to the extreme average poverty in earlier times as well.

    The eras around Tambora’s eruption (1815) and Samalas’ (1257) are full of reports dealing with famine. London lost 33 % of its population in 1258/59.

    *
    An interesting article (possibly mentioned by other posters before I do here):

    Unraveling forced responses of extreme El Nio variability over the Holocene

    Allison E. Lawman & al. (AGAIN: with Terrence Quinn!) 2022

    https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm4313

    • Eben says:

      You forgot to mention that each time when the last three La Ninas were coming you were the last one to ever figure it out

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/new-nasa-study-earth-has-been-trapping-heat-at-an-alarming-new-rate/#comment-736483

    • Bindidon says:

      ” Blinny thinks that La Nina are unimportant. Only his El Nino are interesting. ”

      As always: stupid, insincere, insidious insinuations.

      *
      If I would think that La Nina is unimportant, I wouldn’t show that this last edition was the fourth strongest in MEI’s complete record since 1871:

      Year / Index sum / Nr of months below -0.5 treshold

      1892: -54.67 40
      1908: -52.22 41
      1973: -48.71 36
      2020: -46.80 34
      1954: -40.45 31
      1915: -38.97 31
      1998: -37.66 36
      1873: -36.82 33
      2010: -32.99 22

      *
      ” I note that he doesn’t claim that 1878 did not happen. ”

      Why should I ignore what every one can see in MEI, Had-CRUT and similar data?

      *
      ” So much for 1983. ”

      We talk about the effect of ENSO and eruptions on the Globe, and not on the Tropics.

      Samalas’ eruption in 1257 took place in the Tropics, but it is not known to me that London would be located there as well.

      *
      Why are you always diverting, and distorting discussions such that they fit your personal narrative?

      Blindsley H00d behaves like a 12 year old college boy.

      • RLH says:

        Why are you always so wrong in your conclusions? Even when consulted with proofs?

        Do you want me to post RSS, GISS, etc. for the impact world wide in the tropics (not that the tropics then feed into the ROW) of 1983?

  61. bdg says:

    Since Dr. Spencer mention ENSO at the beginning I feel like it is fair game to discuss. Based on the latest ENSO forecasts my model is now predicting that 2023 will come in 0.09 C shy of the record in 2016 using UAH. Using GISTEMP my model is saying that we will eclipse the record by 0.05 C. And Berkeley Earth just posted that there is a 56% chance that a new record will be achieved. This is a bit of surprise as I had all but written off a record in 2023. I still think it is unlikely in the satellite record, but the surface record?

    https://berkeleyearth.org/april-2023-temperature-update/

    • RLH says:

      Don’t forget the spring predictability barrier for ENSO predictions.

      • bdgwx says:

        I’m using the IRI ensemble which only peaks the El Nino at 1.2. But, yeah, it is possible it falls short of that even due to the SPB.

      • RLH says:

        It will be next month at the least to tell what is going to happen this year I think.

  62. gbaikie says:

    “Weve seen this before. In the space law book I co-authored with Rob Merges, we quote Samuel Eliot Morrison on Columbus and his impact:

    At the end of 1492 most men in Western Europe felt exceedingly gloomy about the future. Christian civilization appeared to be shrinking in area and dividing into hostile units as its sphere contracted. For over a century there had been no important advance in natural science and registration in the universities dwindled as the instruction they offered became increasingly jejune and lifeless. Institutions were decaying, well-meaning people were growing cynical or desperate, and many intelligent men, for want of something better to do, were endeavoring to escape the present through studying the pagan past. . . .”

    Reflections on a death, and life on the final frontier
    No, it’s not morbid.
    Glenn Harlan Reynolds
    May 18, 2023
    https://instapundit.substack.com/p/reflections-on-a-death-and-life-on?sd=pf
    linked: http://www.transterrestrial.com/

  63. Swenson says:

    And still deranged SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon pursue their never ending, ever more complex dissections of the past, vainly hoping that it will allow them to peer into the future.

    They might just as well argue interminably about the “best” method of achieving nothing useful at all.

    Such is life.

    • Bindidon says:

      Aaaah… Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog, can’t think of anything better than to copy/paste the text of the second dumbest stalker.

      Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.

      Quel crétin ce mec, ma parole.

      • Swenson says:

        And still deranged SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon pursue their never ending, ever more complex dissections of the past, vainly hoping that it will allow them to peer into the future.

        They might just as well argue interminably about the best method of achieving nothing useful at all.

        Such is life.

      • Bindidon says:

        Aaaah Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog, can’t think of anything better than to copy/paste the text of the second dumbest stalker.

        Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.

        Quel crétin ce mec, ma parole.

      • Swenson says:

        And still deranged SkyDragon cultists like Bindidon pursue their never ending, ever more complex dissections of the past, vainly hoping that it will allow them to peer into the future.

        They might just as well argue interminably about the best method of achieving nothing useful at all.

        Such is life.

  64. Bill Hunter says:

    Climate Migrants on the move and another spinner narrative bites the dust.

    • Bindidon says:

      Hunter boy

      1. I remind you that you still haven’t provided us with a clear reference to the passage of the alleged allegation by Roy Spencer:

      ” As Roy has found in his series the entire US warming is found in the processing of raw data into gridded data and cant be found in thermometer records… ”

      Was that your invention again?

      *
      2. Didn’t you understand the difference between no gridding

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a2Zike4y2GgZ5NdRqdElapLcEJiQiyVZ/view

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m95BCNnhwpS1yO1LSVCrf6gOy2EOWCcl/view

      and gridding

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/17KWfBfbbCs8u4AHIbu8XGrONYskYDKeD/view

      If you don’t perform data gridding, i.e. (grid) area weighting, the entire Globe looks like CONUS’ backyard because the 20,000 CONUS stations located in 6 % of the Globe’s land surface completely push away the remaining 20,000 others located in 94 % of that surface.

      Is it really what you wish? ‘What is good for Uncle Sam is for the rest of the world as well’? Hard to imagine.

      *
      ” … and another spinner narrative bites the dust. ”

      By the way, Hunter boy: what exactly do you mean with ‘spinner’?

      Ever notice that the posters nicknamed ‘RLH’ and ‘Eben’ don’t share your weird, personal take on our Moon’s spin?

      And… who is biting which dust here?

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        No description of the GHE yet? How hard can it be?

        Make sure to include the role of the GHE in surface cooling at night.

      • Bindidon says:

        Aaaah!

        Finalement, l’idiot d’Oz a récompensé ma patience.

      • RLH says:

        Some of us speak English too.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        Todava no hay una descripcin del GHE? Qu tan difcil puede ser?

        Asegrese de incluir el papel del GHE en el enfriamiento superficial por la noche.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        Bindidon denies:
        Ever notice that the posters nicknamed RLH and Eben dont share your weird, personal take on our Moons spin?

        And who is biting which dust here?

        ———————-

        Who do you think bit the dust Bindidon. . . .the imminent massive movement of humanity from global warming!

        Instead the movement appears to be away from the policies of the Democrat party. Your club of morons is folding up like a Chinese paper tiger.

        And as to where to find your request. Even you posted it showing us the entire US warming was a result of kriging and homogenizing the raw data. Now you are in denial of your own posts?

      • Bindidon says:

        ” And as to where to find your request. Even you posted it showing us the entire US warming was a result of kriging and homogenizing the raw data. Now you are in denial of your own posts? ”

        Please show me where you have read Spencer’s and my claims.

        When you show me these sources, I can reply.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        LMAO!

        Now you are denying your own posts in response to me? Refer back to your most recent post to me re: USHCN and where you claimed to regrid it. You posted links to the raw data and your processed data and essentially all the warming arose in the processing of the data.

        AFA Roy is concerned review his most recent posts regarding his work with USHCN. Probably goes back to the beginning of the year.

      • Bill Hunter says:

        another spinner narrative bites the dust.

  65. Every planet and moon has for its surface the unique properties and the unique features.

    Inevitably, for every planet and moon, there is a different, for each planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean).

    The planet or moon average surface temperature (Tmean) is dependent on the distance from the sun and on the celestial body’s average surface Albedo.

    What is new in present research is the DISCOVERY of the very POWERFUL, the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.

    The role of this discovery in planets’ and moons’ average surface temperature (Tmean) is very important.

    For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is SIGNIFICANTLY amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.

    Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Bindidon says:

      ” For every planet and moon… ”

      On Vournas’ web site we can read:

      ” N.moon = 1 /29,53 rotation /per day, is Moon’s rotation spin ”

      Does our Moon suddenly spin again? Or is it still orbiting only?

      Strrrange things happen these days, don’t they?

      • Antonin Qwerty says:

        Hahahaha – Why haven’t the rest of his denier pals rushed in to silence him. Deniers treat science like a smorgasbord.

      • Swenson says:

        AQ,

        You wrote –

        “Hahahaha Why havent the rest of his denier pals rushed in to silence him. Deniers treat science like a smorgasbord.”

        Presumably, you believe that Christos has made a factual error. Rather than “silencing” him, why not use your vast knowledge and intellectual prowess to make him look foolish?

        You really are a sandwich short of a picnic, aren’t you?

        No valid description of the GHE yet? How hard can it be, even for a delusional SkyDragon cultist?

        Idiot.

      • Clint R says:

        Bin and Ant, have you two ever heart the expression, *Two wrongs don’t make a right*?

  66. Bindidon and Antonin

    I have invited you to discuss the:

    “For every planet and moon, the average surface temperature (Tmean) is SIGNIFICANTLY amplified by the Planet Surface ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.”

    Link: https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Bindidon says:

      Please first answer the question:

      Does our Moon suddenly spin again? Or is it still orbiting only?

      • Bindidon:

        “Does our Moon suddenly spin again? Or is it still orbiting only?”

        What do you mean by:
        “Does our Moon suddenly spin again?”

        Can’t you observe moon not spinning again?

        Moon has stopped spinning a long time ago. Why should moon suddenly spin again?

        Bindidon, is your question a rhetoric one?

        Bindidon, if you see any inconsistence in my research, please offer me your help.
        I think you know what I should say instead of moon’s rotations/per day, when compared with a planet’s spin.

        Please, don’t hesitate, your help will be very much appreciated.

        ***
        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Bindidon says:

        OK, you keep on this blog in the denial of what was in earlier times certainly evident to you.

        No problem! I just thought you would become honest again.

        Who knows?

        Maybe one day even posters like ‘RLH’ or ‘Eben’ will behave like you, and start telling us the that ‘Moon has stopped spinning a long time ago’.

        Good luck!

      • RLH says:

        Blinny always posts what he thinks I will do.

      • Eben says:

        The only way Bindiclown can pretend he is right on something is to make up imaginary posts nobody made and argue about things nobody argued about

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Blinny is an angry white Nazi.

      • Entropic man says:

        stephen p. anderson says:
        May 19, 2023 at 6:49 PM
        Blinny is an angry white Nazi.

        You have proved Godwin’s Law and I claim my 5.

      • Swenson says:

        Spa,

        You wrote –

        “Blinny is an angry white Nazi.”

        How do you know he’s white?

      • Bindidon says:

        All people naming others ‘Nazi’ are prevented fascists.

        And as long as the Anderson fascist and people like that continue to call me a Nazi, I will call them an asshole.

    • gbaikie says:

      Well, we don’t have any fast spinning planets.
      But we have fast spinning space rocks and if they spinning every 10 hours [or faster] I think the average surface is at 1 AU from the sun is about 5 C.
      But in terms of moons of Mars…
      “Phobos orbits closer to Mars, with a semi-major axis of 9,377 km (5,827 mi) and an orbital period of 7.66 hours; while Deimos orbits farther with a semi-major axis of 23,460 km (14,580 mi) and an orbital period of 30.35 hours.”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Mars

      “Temperatures vary on Phobos, reaching highs of 25 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 4 degrees Celsius) during the day, while nights can be as cold as minus 170 degrees F (minus 112 degrees C).”

      “The average temperature of Deimos is -40F.

      This is a similar temperature to that of Phobos, ranging from around −4C (25F) on the sunlit side of the moon, down to around −112C (−170F) on the shadowed side. ”

      One thing about fast spinning small space rocks is they can throw off dust and/or can have bare rock- which can absorb more energy.

      • gbaikie says:

        Tiny Asteroid That Buzzed Earth Is a Fast-Spinning Rock
        By Tariq Malik
        published November 20, 2010
        https://www.space.com/9571-tiny-asteroid-buzzed-earth-fast-spinning-rock.html

        “”We measured the rotation rate of the asteroid at about 31 seconds,” astronomer Eileen Ryan, the observatory’s director, told SPACE.com in an e-mail. “This makes it the second fastest rotating asteroid discovered to date.”

        The fastest spinning asteroid currently known is an asteroid called 2010 JL88, which spins once every 24.5 seconds and was also discovered using Magdalena Ridge Observatory’s telescope, Ryan said.”

  67. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    Last year was “part of a trend of hyperactive disaster years across the US”, said Adam Smith, an applied climatologist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), which released the data. Since 2016, there have been 122 separate billion-dollar weather and climate events that have, in total, killed more than 5,000 people and caused more than $1tn in damages.

    “We are seeing several trends of climate-enhanced disasters,” said Smith, noting that the US is seeing longer, more intense wildfire seasons, severe rainfall events and the sort of huge, category four and five hurricanes in the past few years that NOAA has not documented before in its historical record, which stretches back to 1851.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/10/extreme-weather-climate-crisis-us-deaths-financial-damage

  68. RLH says:

    Blinny still wont admit that my graphs are correct to VPs CTRMs and Nate Drake PhDs S-G. Even when I post my code to show he is wrong.

    VP (CTRM low pass) came up with a 3 pass process.
    Nate Drake (S-G usage) came up with the 5 pass process.

    • RLH says:

      Or I could go to 5 pass VP

      1, 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757: Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB

      • Bindidon says:

        This is well known, Blindsley H00d.

        You are not the only one who reads Vaughan Pratt’s comments:

        2: 1.3937 Leakage 2.5% or -31.9 dB
        3: 1.2067, 1.5478 Leakage 0.31% or -50.1 dB
        4: 1.1252, 1.3440, 1.6275 Leakage 0.039% or -68.3 dB
        5: 1.0832, 1.2343, 1.4352, 1.6757 Leakage 0.0047% or -86.5 dB

      • RLH says:

        So do you now agree that I am using a 3 pass VP low pass filter?

  69. RLH says:

    https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/current/?enso-sst_table

    Why is it that BCC RZDM thinks that we will get a La Nina again this year?

  70. Nate says:

    Some cycles exist, but one can’t just assign arbitrary strength and period to them to explain away systematic warming.

    One has to determine how much they actually have contributed.

    Here is how the PDO may have influenced the T record.

    https://tinyurl.com/4rachdks

    It shows the surface T over the last century with the plateau in the middle.

    Then a linear warming trend is removed.

    It then shows the integrated PDO can explain much of the residual variation in global T after a linear trend is removed.

    Obviously the overall (nonlinear) warming trend is not explained by the PDO cycle.

  71. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    A study has found that the costs to B.C.s economy from 2021s extreme weather events could be more than $17 billion.

    The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/9316074/2021-bc-extreme-weather-events-cost/

    • Swenson says:

      Willard,

      “The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”

      Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who don’t know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        Do you have a point except to show you’re a moron?

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        “The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”

        Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who dont know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.

      • Willard says:

        So you don’t have any point, Mike.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        “The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”

        Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who dont know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.

      • Willard says:

        Repeating your comment won’t help you make a point, Mike.

        Try again.

      • RLH says:

        “Repeating your comment wont help you make a point”

        Kettle – black.

      • Swenson says:

        Willard,

        “The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.”

        Why do you appeal to the authority of mental defectives? People who dont know the difference between weather and climate? Climate is just the statistics of historical weather observations, dummy.

      • Willard says:

        Moron Mike,

        Please ask me the Question Answered a Thousand Times.

      • RLH says:

        What is the point of Willard?

      • Willard says:

        Has Richard anything to counter that 2022 was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters, and what it implies regarding the OP?

      • RLH says:

        Recently we have more people with more stuff.

      • Willard says:

        More stuff and more power in general, which means people can more easily protect themselves against an empire that tries to exploit their resources, inducing famines along the way.

      • RLH says:

        Like the USA?

      • Willard says:

        Like everywhere, relatively speaking.

        It’s not like the Brits are going to try to do what they did for “roughly” (H/T Roy) 400y, right?

      • RLH says:

        The British Empire faded from view some 50 or more years ago.

      • Willard says:

        While empires fade with the rise of social democracies, there are still famines caused by resource misallocation. The trend is going in the right direction, however:

        https://ourworldindata.org/famines

        This trend may reverse if the world continues to polarise. Inflation makes commodities more expensive for everyone, and this taxes the poorest the most. With the rise of interest rates capital may go again in the USD. Last time it did Latin America basically went bankrupt. But for that the GOP must stop pouting and stop their debt ceiling standoff.

        The actual speeds of the changes in our climates is far from reducing the risks of witnessing more resource curse around the world.

      • RLH says:

        “While empires fade with the rise of social democracies”

        Puerto Rico will be very happy.

      • Willard says:

        When Puerto Ricans will have the right to elect their President?

        You bet.

      • RLH says:

        Puerto Rico might be happy to know it is not part of the USA Empire.

      • Willard says:

        Porto Ricans surely appreciate that somewhere on the Intertubes there’s a Whig who dreams that one day we all become part of the United States.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is just an idiot.

      • Willard says:

        By serendipity:

        A wide range of effects of climate change are currently being felt in Puerto Rico. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, it is more affected by climate change than any other country in the world.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_in_Puerto_Rico

      • RLH says:

        The USA will spend some money really soon in PR.

      • Nate says:

        Flynnson clearly hates when people discuss temperature trends, climate change, and science in general.

        It is quite perplexing that he repeatedly visits and posts at a blog discussing those very things.

        Maybe he is trying ‘exposure therapy’ in hopes of curing his affliction.

  72. Bindidon says:

    It’s amazing to see that Sunny Boy’s activity hasn’t been worth showing this chart on the blog for a while now:

    https://tinyurl.com/29urrx7w (EISNcurrent.png)

    But… wait! One day, SSN will drop again below the famous Coolista alarm treshold, and then…

  73. CO2isLife says:

    Dr. Spencer a similar blog post would be to address all the things that have gotten better with higher CO2:
    1) Global standards of living
    2) Falling Global Rate of Child Labor
    3) Falling real energy prices
    4) More women in the workforce
    5) Higher crop yields
    6) Lower global poverty
    7) Lower global hunger
    8) Greater leisure time
    9) Life expectancy has increased
    10) and the list goes on and on and on.

    There is hardly a single demographic metric other than obesity and health-related issues having to do with a longer life span and better living. Why if increasing CO2 from 300 to 400 caused so many good things, by what mechanism would increasing CO2 from 400 to 500 suddenly reverse that well-established trend of improving lives wiht higher CO2?


  74. The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.

    All planets and moons are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.

    *****
    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Entropic man says:

      Except the ones which are not rotating. Presumably in your universe the Moon’s temperature can be explained without the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

      • Bindidon says:

        According to Vournas newest thoughts (of course 100 % derived from the non-spinners’ opinion), all moons in tidal locking (i.e. all moons in our solar system) stopped rotating long time ago.

        Hence these poor celestial bodies unfortunately CAN’T be subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.

        Thus, Vournas should have written:

        ” All planets are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON. “

      • Bindidon:

        “Thus, Vournas should have written:

        All planets are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON. ”

        ***
        And, moon’s axial rotation supporters (Bindidon Etc) should then confirm:

        “All planets and moons are INEVITABLY subjected to that UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.”

        Thank you, Bindidon. Your acceptance of the UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON should not be obscured because of moons’ not existing axial rotation.

        A moon does not rotate about its axis, but a moon orbits its mother planet. By doing so moons are subjected to their, a unique for each moon, the moon’s DIURNAL CYCLE!

        The celestial bodies having a DIURNAL CYCLE, when considered in terms of the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON,

        for those celestial bodies’ the surface interaction processes with the incident solar flux are exactly the same as for the planets, which have axial rotation.

        Please compare planets’ and moons’ mechanical movements:

        Planets orbit sun and rotate about their axis.

        Moons orbit sun and orbit their mother planets.

        See now! Both planets and moons are performing two distinguished movements.

        That is why for planets and moons the DIURNAL CYCLE’s duration is longer than their respected (with reference to the steady stars) the planets’ and moons’ the respected sidereal cycles’.

        Now it is explained to you, Bindidon, that in spite of moons not rotating about their own axis, they are like-wise subjected to the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.

        ***
        Thank you, Bindidon. Now you can accept the moons’ not rotation, because it is not anymore for you an obstacle when discussing the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon, which is a UNIVERSAL PHENOMENON.

        Thank you again.

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Bindidon says:

        Very good, Vournas!

        You have nowm proved that you belong to the top deiner class of this blog.

        Look at what you yourself write in your own blog, Vournas.

        ” NASA has precisely measured the solar system planets and moons the rotational spins. ”

        ” The rotational spin (“N” rotations/day) ”

        ” The real subject matter is the reality of a dynamic process of a fast spinning ball lit by incoming radiation of 1.362 W/m from one direction. ”

        ” N – rotations/day, is the planet’s axial spin. ”

        ” N.earth = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotation spin. ”

        ” Earth is on average warmer than Moon not only because of the Earth having 29,53 times faster rotational spin. ”

        ” N.moon = 1 /29,53 rotation /per day, is Moon’s rotation spin

        ” 3. The planet’s axial spin N (rotations/day). ”

        ” N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths rotational spin in reference to the sun. Earth’s day equals 24 hours= 1 earthen day. ”

        ” And It is a confirmation that the planet axial spin (rotations per day) “N” should be considered in the (Tmean) planet mean surface temperature equation in the sixteenth root… ”

        etc etc.

        Don’t try to kid anyone on this blog, Vournas.

        It is absolutely evident that if you would mean ‘axial spin’ for Earth and Mars but would claim that Moon doesn not spin about its axis, you then of course would have written ‘orbiting’ for the Moon.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote –

        ” . . . you then of course would have written ‘orbiting’ for the Moon.”

        But of course he didn’t did he?

        He wrote what he wrote, not what you thought he should have written!

        Just accept reality.

      • Bindidon says:

        Aaaah

        Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog.

        Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.

        Quel crétin ce mec, ma parole.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote

        ” . . . you then of course would have written orbiting for the Moon”

        But of course he didn’t did he?

        He wrote what he wrote, not what you thought he should have written!

        Just accept reality.

      • Bindidon says:

        Once again, Flynnson, the dumbest stalker on this blog.

        Never has anything relevant to say and therefore always pushes to say something unimportant.

      • Swenson says:

        Binny,

        You wrote

        “. . . you then of course would have written orbiting for the Moon”

        But of course he didnt did he?

        He wrote what he wrote, not what you thought he should have written!

        Just accept reality.

        As a matter of interest, what mental deficit causes you to think that you are so important that anyone at all would bother stalking you?

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Swenson,
        Ever met a Nazi?

      • Willard says:

        Yes, and I might even encounter a second one eventually.

        When do we meet?

  75. Entropic man says:

    As sceptics repeatedly remind me.

    Correalation is not causation.

    • Correlation is not causation, but the matching is striking!!!

      ***
      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Entropic man says:

        They all correlate with fossil fuel burn, and the temporary increase in living standards will end when the fuel runs out.

      • Swenson says:

        EM,

        We might as well enjoy better living standards while we can, then.

        By the way, who are these skeptics to whom you refer? Are they perhaps people who do not believe in a GHE that you cannot even describe?

        Are you a delusional SkyDragon cultist, who has redefined “realist” as “skeptic”, just like redefining “slow cooling” to mean “getting hotter”?

        For example, surrounding a thermometer with CO2 may result in it cooling slower compared with a vacuum, but it does not make the thermometer hotter, does it?

        As Feynman said “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.” Write down your theory. Show me your experimental results.

        Only joking, of course. If you think I’m taunting you, I won’t disagree.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ent…would help if you gave a hint as to what you are talking about.

  76. gbaikie says:

    –Hateful Attacks

    Curry said Twitter has vastly improved under Musk, but its a work in progress.

    There are people on both sides of the debate on climate issues that are exceedingly ignorant about science and the impact of climate change, she said. But they speak loudly on the topic.

    However, its those on the alarmist side of the debate whose rhetoric of extinction and crisis is the most out of touch with reality, she said.

    Curry said that despite the bad information they spread, she thinks its more important to reign in what she calls libelous and hateful attacks by climate scientists who hold faculty positions at universities.

    Lately, Mann has been on a rampage on Twitter, attacking figures who express viewpoints he doesnt like. Some might call the Tweets abusive.

    In one tweet, Mann called Curry a go-to figure on the denial circuit. —

    Mann is less of “a go-to” figure- and he is jealous.

    Mann is not global warming cargo cultist- he is a fake- and corrupt bureaucrat.

  77. RLH says:

    Blinny will no doubt be able to show how this differs from what I plot.

    https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:12/mean:10/mean:8/plot/uah6/mean:60/mean:50/mean:39

    https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/uah-global.jpeg

    (excluding the 5 pass S-G which WFT does not offer)

  78. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    The billionaire recently said remote work is “morally wrong” in an interview with CNBC, adding that remote workers need “get off the goddamn moral high horse with the work-from-home bullshit because they’re asking everyone else to not work from home while they do.”

    The Reddit Thread, which links to a video accusing Musk of being out of touch with the average Joe, is titled “Karen Musk: Working from home is IMMORAL!” The name “Karen” is a moniker used to refer to white women who are thought to be acting inappropriately or who are perceived as entitled.

    It’s now being used to insult Musk who is the owner of five companies including Twitter, Tesla, Neuralink, SpaceX, and The Boring Company.

    One Redditor said that remote working “allows companies to not have a large real estate footprint, while employees spend less time in traffic reducing carbon footprint. This is all immoral coming from a guy who’s trying to “save the world” with his EVs?”

    Another mocked Musk by saying that it’s “immoral to work in an office if the company isn’t paying rent,” referring to reports that Musk hasn’t paid rent to the landlords of some of his offices.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-called-karen-musk-reddit-over-remote-working-stance-2023-5

    • gbaikie says:

      ” And like a pendulum, his net worth dropped in 2022 due to the falling share price of Tesla, of which he owns 13%. Musk also had to sell many of his shares in Tesla to fund his acquisition of Twitter. This resulted in him losing the top spot of the richest person in the world to Bernard Arnault.

      Tesla’s share price moved upward in Jan. and Feb. 2023, allowing Musk to take the top spot of the richest person in the world once again, but as markets fluctuate, he is currently the second-richest person in the world.”

      It should be noted that french stock market has gone up a lot, and US stock markets have been declining during this time.

      ” 2. Elon Musk

      Age: 51
      Residence: Texas
      Co-founder and CEO: Tesla
      Net Worth: $165 billion
      Tesla Ownership Stake: 13% ($67.5 billion)
      Twitter Ownership Stake: 79% ($9.65 billion)
      Other Assets: Space Exploration Technologies ($48.9 billion private asset), The Boring Company ($3.33 billion private asset)”
      https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/012715/5-richest-people-world.asp
      It seems twitter is worth more than 10 billion and is somewhere around 50 billion.
      SpaceX owns starlink. Starlink has about 1.5 million subscriber, and by end of year could have about 3 million subscribers.
      And SpaceX and/or Starlink could go public somewhere near the end of this year.
      SpaceX launched about 60 rockets in 2022, and looks like it will launch about 60 in 2023. And 2024 looks better.
      Bezos won a +4 billion contract for crew lunar lander, so US should have two possible crew landers landing on Moon around 2025 AD and US will be only country which will have lunar crewed lander within this time frame.

      • Willard says:

        > Co-founder

        Hmmm:

        While Elon Musk is sometimes referred to as the founder of Tesla, his part in the carmaker’s history is more complicated.

        Martin Eberhard cofounded Tesla in 2003 with his longtime friend Marc Tarpenning. Musk led the company’s $7.5 million Series A funding round and became chairman of the board in 2004.

        But Eberhard and Musk butted heads, and Musk ousted Eberhard from his CEO role in 2007. Musk said that Eberhard was holding up production of Tesla’s first car, the Roadster, and that Eberhard was responsible for other operational issues.While Elon Musk is sometimes referred to as the founder of Tesla, his part in the carmaker’s history is more complicated.

        https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-cofounder-martin-eberhard-interview-history-elon-musk-ev-market-2023-2

        Founders are usually on the other side of a Series A trade our Space Karen was.

      • stephen p. anderson says:

        Musk is a thief. If it weren’t for Everhard, then Musk would be selling shoes somewhere.

      • Willard says:

        Elmo might still have enjoyed his 175M from PayPal tho.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      gb…”The name Karen is a moniker used to refer to white women who are thought to be acting inappropriately or who are perceived as entitled”.

      ***

      Karen is just another ignorant moniker applied by ignorant people. Karens are a race of people who are black, but ignorant people would not be aware of that. They are the same people who derived the word woke, which is supposed to mean ‘awakened’. However, as applied, it is a term of ignorance derived from a reference to ‘awake’ as In I am awake. Those who apply is are actually saying, I’m woke, as in woke up, illustrating an ignorant application of English.

      The message is that people who indulge in the woke culture, or calling white women Karens, are ignorant SOBs.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        It’s “Karen” even in plural. They’re Sino-Tibetan, not black. And the “Karen” meme derives from a generic name to designate an entitled white woman. Ken and Karen from St.Louis are the epitome of that idea.

        Meanwhile, you got your “woke” upside down. It is a term originating from the African-American vernacular that has been transformed into a derogatory term by Freedom Fighters such as your very sorry self.

        You can step down your soapbox now.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The point is, the idiots calling women Karens are the jerks, not the women who are the targets of their venom.

        Please do try to keep up, wee willy. How am I supposed to teach you physics and teach you to be a better person at the same time?

      • Willard says:

        Your pearl clutching rests on mere fabrications, Bordo.

        C’mon.

      • Nate says:

        Shocker, Gordon stands up in support of racists.

  79. gbaikie says:

    “Japan’s population peaked in 2009 with 128.56 mn people after Japan’s population decreased year by year. The Japanese population is projected to reach 120.76 million in 2030 and decrease further to 105.80 million in 2050 and 74.96 million by 2100.”

    Does it seem likely that by 2100 AD Japan’s population will be about 75 million, within about 80 years?

    Are all the people giving such future projections, wrong?
    And/or can Japanese government prevent this large loss in population?

    Of all nations, it seems to me, Japan could count their population, adequately and could manage to do the math correctly.

    It seems to me, it difficult to accurately predict the future- it seems possible we discover how to reverse aging, for instance.
    Or the population of humans, could less important than the population of AI.
    It’s possible we living on Mars within 80 years.
    It’s possible humans can’t live on Mars, but instead AI can live on
    Mars. And nation of Japan has a billion AI living on Mars, ie, Futurama.
    Anyhow, it seems the government of Japan, regards it, as problem.
    And the government of Japan has spent over 40 years trying to do something about global warming, and has completely failed to do anything about it.

  80. Tim S says:

    The Indy 500 is this weekend, so I have a science question. If a race car requires 100 horsepower to go 100 mph, how much power is required to go 200 mph? Explain your answer.

    • RLH says:

      Drag rises geometrically with velocity.

      “Drag force is proportional to the velocity for low-speed flow and the squared velocity for high speed flow, where the distinction between low and high speed is measured by the Reynolds number.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

      • RLH says:

        https://www.cradle-cfd.com/media/column/a153

        “We can see that the Reynolds number reaches approximately 1.4 million. Because of its complicated shape, it is difficult to know the critical Reynolds number of a car; however, the equation shows the Reynolds number is very large and thus the flow is turbulent.”

      • Tim S says:

        You are on the right track (pun?). We can assume the flow is fully turbulent and the flow regime does not change from 100 mph to 200 mph. The car is sufficiently streamlined that significant wake separation does not occur from the body or from the low downforce wings. Nonetheless, form friction is much larger than skin friction.

      • RLH says:

        Why do you think that most Indy cars top out around 240 miles an hour?

      • Tim S says:

        My question is academic. If we had real data, we could do a better analysis. I will note that top speed is in the straight where cornering force is not a factor. Top speed assumes zero acceleration and no power used to increase kinetic energy.

        In the old days they had more Hp and and also more drag, I think.

      • RLH says:

        “the squared velocity for high speed flow”

        We can assume that this applies. So 100 ^ 2 compared to 200 ^ 2.

        So at least 40 times as much power.

      • RLH says:

        edit: … 4 times …

      • Tim S says:

        4 Times the drag force is a good start, but how does that relate to the power requirement?

      • gbaikie says:

        “Indy 500: 1,590 pounds, 201.7 inches long, 76.5 inches wide, 40 inches tall, 117.5-inch wheelbase, 25-27.5-inch diameter tires, 550-700 horsepower”

        needs 4 times power, 400 horsepower

      • Tim S says:

        gbaikie, Nice try. Go back to school or read my spoiler.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim s…seeing as you are being an ass to gb, here’s the formula and wiki article…

        Pd = 1/2 p.v^3.A.Cd

        Pv = required power
        p = air density
        v = velocity
        A = cross-sectional area
        Cd = drag coefficient

        The drag is Fd = 1/2.p.v^2.A.Cd

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

        “Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome aerodynamic drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW).[21] With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting 4 times the force over a fixed distance produces 4 times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, 4 times the work done in half the time requires 8 times the power”.

    • Tim S says:

      SPOILER ALERT: I will give the answer as a text description. The equations can be taken from that. It is just basic physics.

      The easy assumption is that all of the drag forces are increased as the square of the speed. Rolling resistance of the tires may actually decrease with speed as the tire expands and decreases the contact patch and reduces the standing wave effect (?), but is not a big factor. The physical properties of the air do not change, so the drag force is related to some constant times velocity squared. The key concept is that power is energy per time. It is dynamic. The energy to overcome drag is work, which is force times distance. Work divided by time becomes velocity squared times distance divided by time, or velocity cubed. It takes eight times as much Hp to go twice as fast. This is why cars tend to run into a brick wall at top speed. Enzo Ferrari was wrong when he said aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines. He did not understand aerodynamics.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        It seems obvious that the faster you go the more you compress air molecules and the less they have time to get out of the way. The formula is on Wiki and I won’t spoil it by posting a link. However, to analyze it analytically becomes complex.

    • Eben says:

      Nnobody youses math on my planet, but generaly
      The drag goes up with the square of the speed
      the power required goes up with the cube of the speed

    • Tim S says:

      The reason they have modification to the front wing and covers for the rear wheels is that the top of the tire is actually going twice the speed of the car and represent a significant amount of drag.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      This is a dumb question. It is set up as a gotcha so you can have an ego-trip whereas the problem is far more complex than you are letting on.

      • Tim S says:

        For people who are paying attention, sharing information for fun, and not looking at it with a trolling mindset, it is amazingly simple and only requires basic physics because the comparison involves the same fluid (air) with the same properties that do not change (c), and an object that is the same.
        F= (c)(v^2) simple.
        W = F x D simple.
        Hp = W/t = (c)(v^2) x D/t = (c)(v^3).
        To be fair it is not precise, but very close to reality.
        Happy trolling Gordon.

      • Bindidon says:

        Sounds good, Tim S.

        No wonder that the usual ignorant troll tries to denigrate what you wrote.

      • Willard says:

        Bordo stated why:

        > seeing as you are being an ass to gb

        No need to invent.

      • Eben says:

        It is not a dumb question, I work for a dragster racing team and this is a basic formula.
        But why post it on this board, here it is just more off topic trolling.

      • Tim S says:

        You are absolutely correct. The orbit of the moon is much more relevant, and also has a simple and indisputable explanation.

  81. Eben says:

    You better be a skeptic

    https://youtu.be/SqC4zPYKdSg

  82. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy…”While empires fade with the rise of social democracies…”

    ***

    Why not call it what it is, socialism. Apologists have come up with the alteration ‘social democracy’ because as socialists they were usually compared to communist Russia and China.

    I dare say that most true socialists support capitalism but they want it controlled by various degrees to curb the excesses of unfettered capitalism. On the other hand, some socialist governments went overboard with taxation while supporting unionists who hid behind unionism as an excuse to goof off.

    Having experienced both sides of the fence, I feel positive about both sides working out their differences to make this world a better place for everyone.

    In an ideal world, capitalists would be responsible citizens who took a fair share of profits and tried to better society. Ideal socialists would put in a fair days work for a fair days pay and not try to penalize capitalists.

    In the real world, that’s not how it works. Social democrats have been invaded by special interest groups who are trying steer us away from democracy into a world of stupidity based on lies about catastrophic climate change and perverted lifestyles.

    • Willard says:

      C’mon, Bordo.

      You can call anything however you want. Liberal democracy, social democracy, Western democracy, democracy tout court, ordoliberalism. Ideological talk is boring. For the point I was trying to make, it does not matter much.

      I rather like how Sidney portrays it:

      A liberal believes money should be taken from the very rich and handed over to the poor. But he stands exactly at the point at which no money should be taken and no money should be given. In contrast, the social democrat believes she, too, has to give money.

      https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/liberal-or-social-democrat

      If you ever find the round Tuit, search for his quips. He was a funny guy. Just like Mike Flynn, but funny.

  83. Gordon Robertson says:

    swenson…”Michael Mann is a faker, fraud, scofflaw and deadbeat”.

    ***

    And not necessarily in that order.

  84. Gordon Robertson says:

    wee willy continues his alarmist propaganda…

    “A study has found that the costs to B.C.s economy from 2021s extreme weather events could be more than $17 billion.

    The report said it was the single most expensive year in B.C. for climate disasters.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/9316074/2021-bc-extreme-weather-events-cost/

    ***

    From someone who lives in BC and knows what is going on….

    1)a major amount of the ***ALLEGED*** stated money went to flood-control infrastructure that should have been done a long time ago. Dikes broke in a weak part of a local river and caused considerable damage over a wide area.

    If you look up the damage costs you will find they are nowhere near the amount stated.

    I live near a major river with proper dikes and we were never close to being in danger, even when a high tide occurred during the deluge. Those affected were unprepared for high river levels. No one in the metropolitan area of Vancouver was affected.

    We have proper dikes.

    2)the people claiming the damage was due to climate change are liars. The first incident, a heat wave in June 2021 was certainly unusual but it was localized and unless CO2 can act over a small part of the planet, blaming it for the heat wave is idiocy.

    NOAA, who are uber-alarmists put both incidents down to La Nina conditions.

    The second incident occurred in November 2021, when torrential rains from the Pacific drenched the province. If you try to claim that much rain is unusual in the Vancouver area to anyone who has lived here any amount of time you’ll get laughed out of the room. Rain jokes in Vancouver are part of our culture since we live in a rain forest climate and expect deluges every so often.

    It was weather, nothing more. a simple variation in precipitation patterns. The heat wave did not appear last summer and we’ve had no similar floods since. Again, how could a trace gas cause such havoc in a small corner of the planet?

    We just went through another mini heat wave, which is unusual for May. Again, how does one explain that as being caused by a trace gas in the atmosphere?

    • Willard says:

      > From someone who lives

      C’mon, Bordo. (1) This is not an anecdote tournament and (2) your incredulity is your own problem.

      Quick question. When you say:

      it seems obvious that the faster you go the more you compress air molecules and the less they have time to get out of the way

      you’re talking about when you fart under your blanket, right?

      • Swenson says:

        Wondering Wee Willy,

        “. . . youre talking about when you fart under your blanket, right?”

        Not very mature, are you? Did you get that from a pre-schooler?

        Maybe you could try describing the GHE? Show that you are more intelligent than a preschooler. Only joking.

      • Nate says:

        Yeah, out of bounds, Willard.. Swenson has exclusive rights to juvenile humor in this territory!

      • Willard says:

        Too bad. I was about to ask if it was the blanket or the greenhouse gases that was warming Bordo.

        Aw, diddums. Such a nice setup.

      • Nate says:

        Actually it was funny..

      • Swenson says:

        Nate,

        You’ll no doubt roll around laughing at this – Fart. Bum. Dick. Shit.

        How funny was that?

        You don’t need to thank me.

      • Nate says:

        You are overestimating your comedic talent.

  85. Entropic man says:

    You think you’ve got an immigration problem now. Plan for 1 billion refugees trying to move to a cooler climate.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-023-01132-6

    • Swenson says:

      EM,

      From your link –

      “To estimate future exposure, we use an ensemble of eight climate model outputs”

      All “tuned” by delusional SkyDragon cultists, of course.

      Maybe Americans are all mad. Dr Spencer titled his post “Americans Increasingly Choose a Warmer Life.”

      In any case, there will be room and more for a billion refugees if Antarctica reverts to its former verdant self – along with Alaska, Canada, Siberia etc.

      Where is this planet warming heat to come from? Is the Sun about to increase its output?

      Your Bump Of Gullibility is likely to be exceptionally pronounced, if my Phrenological studies are any guide. I can describe phrenology, at least. You can’t even describe your silly greenhouse effect, can you? Which is more pseudoscientific?

      Gullible cultist.

    • Willard says:

      Nice find.

      If scientists continue to study stuff that makes cranks crankier because there’s nothing they can do about it, that’s life.

  86. Nate says:

    https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1910114117

    “We show that for thousands of years, humans have concentrated in a surprisingly narrow subset of Earths available climates, characterized by mean annual temperatures around ∼13 C. This distribution likely reflects a human temperature niche related to fundamental constraints. We demonstrate that depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, over the coming 50 y, 1 to 3 billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 y.”

  87. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Tulare Lake, the historical lake that surprisingly reemerged in the San Joaquin Valley with this years wet weather, could grow to a peak of 182 square miles next week, nearly the size of Lake Tahoe.

    • RLH says:

      But heat and drought are supposed to grow under AGW.

      • Willard says:

        More than that, Richard –

        Unless there is more heat and drought everywhere and at all times, AGW does not exist.

      • RLH says:

        Willard believes that if the extremes are not reached, AGW does not exist.

      • Willard says:

        More than that, Richard –

        Unless extremes are not increasing everywhere second by second, AGW does not exist.

      • Nate says:

        Yeah that pretty much is what he argues.

      • RLH says:

        Willard believes that if the extremes are not reached in a second, AGW does not exist.

      • RLH says:

        Nate: Still think that we will get an El Nino this year?

        https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

      • Willard says:

        Richard: still think that this is a good beurre blanc recipe?

        https://www.billyparisi.com/beurre-blanc-sauce-recipe

      • Nate says:

        Yeah, why not?

        Again, you are led astray by short term noise.

      • RLH says:

        So if we don’t get one, what will you say?

      • Nate says:

        “shows what is likely to happen to Nino 3.4 in the immediate future.”

        How’s that?

        Are you looking at the down wiggles while ignoring the up wiggles?

        They are standard short term noise in a positive but still neutral ENSO state.

      • Nate says:

        Does the model predict the noise? No of course not.

      • Nate says:

        For reassurance look at this data:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml

        See noise throughout, eg during January-June 2022

      • RLH says:

        Meiv2 seems to show a continuous downwards trend.

        https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2023/05/meiv2-1.jpeg

      • Nate says:

        Ur dreamin..bad projection and not updated.

      • RLH says:

        That is the latest data. Care to plot it?

      • RLH says:

        P.S. See source provided on the graph.

      • RLH says:

        1979 2023
        1979 0.47 0.27 -0.04 0.26 0.35 -0.14 -0.13 0.50 0.42 0.28 0.58 0.68
        1980 0.42 0.30 0.52 0.85 0.71 0.55 0.52 0.13 0.19 0.06 -0.09 -0.09
        1981 -0.28 -0.19 0.16 0.15 -0.38 -0.63 -0.51 -0.25 0.03 -0.05 -0.16 -0.18
        1982 -0.44 -0.61 -0.31 0.13 0.66 1.42 1.87 1.93 1.74 1.87 2.25 2.45
        1983 2.59 2.73 2.71 2.74 2.60 1.58 0.88 0.03 -0.41 -0.44 -0.42 -0.44
        1984 -0.38 -0.36 -0.06 -0.06 -0.78 -0.75 -0.23 -0.02 -0.06 -0.01 -0.59 -0.32
        1985 -0.31 -0.57 -0.51 -0.68 -1.04 -0.24 -0.02 -0.36 -0.35 0.05 0.11 -0.36
        1986 -0.42 -0.33 -0.37 -0.30 0.24 0.61 0.77 1.24 1.38 0.57 0.73 1.07
        1987 0.96 1.12 1.49 1.62 1.85 1.78 1.74 1.49 1.18 1.05 0.89 0.86
        1988 0.64 0.39 0.27 -0.13 -0.59 -1.35 -1.77 -1.82 -1.80 -1.53 -1.65 -1.56
        1989 -1.15 -1.14 -1.26 -1.09 -0.98 -1.04 -1.11 -0.74 -0.60 -0.59 -0.35 -0.14
        1990 0.13 0.40 0.47 0.12 0.07 0.15 0.27 0.11 0.26 -0.06 0.07 0.26
        1991 0.13 0.04 0.21 0.49 0.74 1.07 0.85 0.41 0.65 1.17 1.14 1.23
        1992 1.63 1.51 1.69 2.00 1.71 1.66 0.82 0.13 0.56 0.95 0.84 0.77
        1993 0.91 1.00 0.85 1.05 1.40 1.11 0.73 0.57 0.63 0.93 0.72 0.27
        1994 0.06 -0.09 -0.02 0.19 0.17 0.40 0.93 0.86 1.03 1.52 0.93 0.80
        1995 0.75 0.53 0.21 0.34 0.39 -0.08 -0.27 -0.59 -0.78 -0.57 -0.62 -0.85
        1996 -0.78 -0.71 -0.63 -0.78 -0.93 -0.70 -0.59 -0.50 -0.18 -0.29 -0.18 -0.46
        1997 -0.83 -0.89 -0.41 0.39 1.15 2.35 2.07 2.27 2.16 1.93 1.95 2.00
        1998 2.24 2.43 2.26 2.25 1.72 -0.25 -1.53 -1.79 -1.39 -1.19 -1.27 -1.20
        1999 -1.17 -1.11 -1.04 -1.20 -1.42 -1.26 -1.21 -1.12 -1.16 -1.33 -1.36 -1.40
        2000 -1.22 -1.24 -1.38 -1.03 -1.17 -1.12 -0.55 -0.17 -0.34 -0.50 -0.77 -0.75
        2001 -0.81 -0.82 -0.75 -0.74 -0.78 -0.57 -0.02 0.23 -0.09 -0.28 -0.36 -0.07
        2002 -0.07 -0.41 -0.26 -0.36 -0.06 0.42 0.39 0.81 0.74 0.72 0.72 0.79
        2003 0.70 0.56 0.57 -0.04 -0.51 -0.22 -0.07 -0.04 0.14 0.30 0.36 0.18
        2004 0.12 -0.15 -0.50 -0.29 -0.38 -0.05 0.37 0.69 0.51 0.30 0.44 0.49
        2005 0.10 0.56 0.75 0.13 0.14 0.14 -0.08 -0.03 -0.08 -0.80 -0.80 -0.72
        2006 -0.67 -0.50 -0.58 -0.77 -0.30 -0.06 0.15 0.57 0.63 0.62 0.83 0.56
        2007 0.61 0.46 -0.13 -0.47 -0.65 -0.98 -0.65 -0.90 -1.15 -1.19 -1.19 -1.27
        2008 -1.12 -1.24 -1.57 -1.27 -0.96 -0.81 -0.94 -0.99 -1.01 -1.15 -1.13 -1.08
        2009 -0.99 -0.88 -0.89 -0.68 -0.63 0.25 0.58 0.54 0.41 0.61 1.18 1.06
        2010 1.03 1.34 1.28 0.42 -0.47 -1.70 -2.45 -2.45 -2.41 -2.21 -2.08 -1.94
        2011 -1.86 -1.64 -1.82 -1.86 -1.35 -1.13 -0.87 -0.89 -1.18 -1.43 -1.33 -1.24
        2012 -1.12 -0.71 -0.56 -0.48 -0.40 -0.14 0.37 0.03 -0.27 -0.25 -0.17 0.00
        2013 -0.00 -0.04 -0.17 -0.44 -0.87 -1.11 -0.79 -0.46 -0.37 -0.20 -0.16 -0.26
        2014 -0.49 -0.45 -0.19 -0.24 -0.26 -0.02 0.39 0.21 -0.09 0.04 0.30 0.32
        2015 0.17 -0.04 0.06 0.52 1.22 1.74 1.66 1.85 2.14 2.12 1.87 1.94
        2016 1.90 1.75 1.30 1.23 1.15 0.16 -0.51 -0.21 -0.28 -0.47 -0.30 -0.16
        2017 -0.23 -0.25 -0.47 -0.36 -0.10 -0.57 -0.86 -0.89 -0.84 -0.62 -0.54 -0.68
        2018 -0.76 -0.75 -0.92 -1.35 -0.89 -0.61 -0.34 0.13 0.49 0.38 0.19 0.13
        2019 0.04 0.46 0.71 0.29 0.20 0.28 0.20 0.26 0.13 0.22 0.44 0.40
        2020 0.22 0.13 0.09 -0.14 -0.36 -0.87 -0.88 -0.94 -1.21 -1.19 -1.14 -1.16
        2021 -1.18 -0.93 -0.81 -1.04 -1.16 -1.29 -1.53 -1.35 -1.45 -1.50 -1.43 -1.19
        2022 -1.06 -0.96 -1.28 -1.76 -1.88 -2.07 -2.10 -1.79 -1.76 -1.71 -1.48 -1.25
        2023 -1.11 -0.81 -0.67 -0.41 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00 -999.00
        -999.00
        Multivariate ENSO Index Version 2 (MEI.v2)
        https://www.psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei
        Row values are 2 month seasons (YEAR DJ JF FM MA AM MJ JJ JA AS SO ON ND)

  88. Willard says:

    Dolly is choosing a warmer life:

    https://youtu.be/MLIGxNZeW78

  89. Nate says:

    Yep not predicted for May.

    JJA.

  90. Gordon Robertson says:

    Bleh!!!

  91. Swenson says:

    Earlier, Nate wrote –

    “Shocker, Gordon stands up in support of racists.”

    Was Nate playing the “racist” card, the woke notion that there are no racial differences.

    The US government might beg to differ.

    “For race, the OMB standards identify five minimum categories:

    White
    Black or African American
    American Indian or Alaska Native
    Asian
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
    We use a sixth category, Some Other Race, for people who do not identify with any of the OMB race categories.” – census.gov

    As do scientists such as anthropologists. Some people even believe that there are no physical differences between males and females! How woke would that be.

    If that makes me racist and sexist, so be it.

    • Nate says:

      As usual you post nothing nothing to do with the topic of ‘Karens’.

      I met a doggy ‘Karen’ at the public dog park the other day. She had a pure bred fancy Visla dog. My mixed breed rescue mutt tried to play with her dog. Her dog barked at my dog. She then suggested I needed to put my mutt dog on a leash, or if not, stop bringing her to the dog park to keep it from potentially harming (by trying to play with) her dog.

      That is a good example of how a ‘Karen’ behaves, except more often with people rather than dogs.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        The woman was expressing intelligence, your dog needed to be on leash so you could control it. One of my walks takes me through a dog park along a river and I have to be constantly on alert for idiotic dogs taking a run at me. I have no idea if they are being friendly or vicious and I won’t wait to find out. I’ll simply boot the mutt in the face. Then I’ll need to deal with the owner who will insist his dog was just being friendly.

        The use of the word Karen to describe a white woman is racism, pure and simple.

      • Willard says:

        > your dog needed to be on leash

        A public dog park, Bordo.

        The encounter was in a public dog park.

        You have no idea what’s a dog park, right?

        C’mon.

  92. Tim S says:

    BREAKING NEWS:

    A “new” study says that climate change is causing people to lose an average of 44 hours of sleep per year. I am not making this up. And you guessed it, poor and underdeveloped countries are being impacted the worst. After looking at millions of sleep records and controlling for every other factor, climate change is the only possible cause.

    It appears that the IPCC will now have even more data to show that developing countries need more assistance from the industrialized world to combat this social injustice and ease the suffering.

    Others will say that if you fund a study looking for a particular outcome, you are likely to get exactly what you asked for.

    • Nate says:

      I think more people are losing sleep over mass shootings.

      Many institutions like schools now have to train and drill employees for the possibility of active shooters. Although unlikely to happen to any of us, when they happen, they are in the news and do widely affect people.

      • Willard says:

        Civilized countries do not lose much sleep over mass shootings.

      • RLH says:

        Do all civilized countries have that many mass shootings?

      • RLH says:

        Google Mass Shootings by Country 2023

      • Willard says:

        Something tells me you misread my comment, Richard.

      • RLH says:

        I don’t think so. Please state what you intended to say.

      • Willard says:

        P1. USA loses sleep over mass shootings.
        P2. Civilized countries do not lose sleep over mass shootings.

        C. Richard has problems with syllogisms.

      • RLH says:

        You calling the USA not civilized?

      • Willard says:

        Are you always that tone deaf, Richard?

      • RLH says:

        So you are.

      • Willard says:

        You might need this translation manual, Richard:

        https://youtu.be/8JtnEUPvpus

      • RLH says:

        Laughing at mass shooting is all that Willard is capable of.

      • Willard says:

        Good grief, Richard.

        You can’t really be that dumb.

      • RLH says:

        Willard is dumb enough to laugh at mass shootings.

      • Willard says:

        I am mocking idiots who think guns do not kill people, dummy.

      • RLH says:

        I am mocking idiots like you.

      • Willard says:

        Playing dumb and repeating “idiot” over and over again may not be the best way to mock, Richard.

      • Nate says:

        Not civilized when it comes to gun regulation.

      • Clint R says:

        School shootings are caused by schools. More specifically, school shootings are caused by the crap the kids are being indoctrinated with.

      • Willard says:

        Exactly, Pupman.

        Hence why there’s no school in Japan and Australia.

      • Clint R says:

        Wrong again, Karen. Both Aus and Japan have schools. In fact Japan’s students typically excel in math and science. IOW they’re NOT worthless, like you.

        I won’t respond to any more of your trolling today. You had your one chance and you blew it.

      • Willard says:

        Good point, Pupman:

        > Results from the longest running large-scale international assessment of maths and science show Australia has significantly improved in Year 8 maths and science, and Year 4 science.

        https://theconversation.com/australia-lifts-to-be-among-top-ten-countries-in-maths-and-science-150275

        Interestingly, Aussies became good at maths and science a few years after they banned guns.

        “Roughly” speaking, of course (H/T Roy).

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        “Interestingly, Aussies became good at maths and science a few years after they banned guns”.

        ***

        Like most countries they likely banned them for law-abiding citizens and have done nothing to prevent criminals carrying them, until caught. Here in Canada, the government is focused on confiscating legally registered guns from law-abiding Canadian gun owners while doing absolutely nothing to confiscate them from criminals.

      • Willard says:

        Funny you mention Canada, Bordo. It finished in the leading pack.

        You should watch Justin every day, it may improve your math and science skillz.

      • Swenson says:

        Weepy Wee Willy,

        You wrote –

        “Funny you mention Canada, Bordo. It finished in the leading pack.

        You should watch Justin every day, it may improve your math and science skillz.”

        Are you trying to win a logorrhea competition?

        Only joking, you are just naturally incomprehensible, along with demonstrating sloppiness and poor English. Take pride in your idiocy. It’s better than nothing.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        wee willy…you don’t know Justin the way I do, being one of the poor sap citizens who has to endure him. One day he is pushing carbon taxes and the alleged evils of climate change, the next he is pushing pipelines. It all depends on where the votes are and Justin will leave no stone unturned to get a vote.

      • Willard says:

        Mike,

        Conservatives relaxed gun control in Canada. Canada now has the third highest rate of firearm homicide among populous high-income countries, after the U.S. and Chile.

        Like you, Bordo is a buffoon.

      • Nate says:

        “school shootings are caused by the crap the kids are being indoctrinated with.”

        Such as?

        Are they being taught in schools to be white supremacists, neo Nazis, far-right fanatics, and Incels?

      • Clint R says:

        “Such as?”

        Racism, sexism, Capitalism is bad, there is no evil, we’re only here by accident, Government is “god”, your sex isn’t determined by your body, it’s determined by your perversion, your life has no purpose, Freedom is bad, there is no realityon and on and on.

      • Willard says:

        Right on, Pupman:

        Garcia’s online activity also betrayed a fascination with white supremacy and mass shootings, which he described as sport. Photos he posted showed large Nazi tattoos on his arm and torso, including a swastika and the SS lightning bolt logo of Hitler’s paramilitary forces.

        Other posts indicated Garcia had researched when the Allen Premium Outlets in Allen, one of the Dallas-areas most diverse suburbs, would be the busiest – Saturday afternoons, the time he carried out the massacre, which ended when police shot and killed him

        https://apnews.com/article/texas-mall-shooting-mauricio-garcia-424607c69a5df0adab64f236924ae4e2

        CRT obviously Made Him Do It.

      • Nate says:

        So mass shootings are conveniently caused by people being taught things that Clint doesn’t agree with.

        It doesn’t even need to make sense.

      • Entropic man says:

        “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilisation in between. ”

        James Agate

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      “After looking at millions of sleep records and controlling for every other factor, climate change is the only possible cause”.

      ***

      Cause of what, the idiocy underlying such a paper? What kind of idiots would presume to know the sleeping habits of more than a couple of people in a lab?

      Besides, what kinds of idiots sit around worrying about climate change when they can look out the window and see for themselves that nothing is happening?

  93. Peter says:

    Not me. Any day the temperature is above 75 is too warm for my liking which is why I live close to the Canadian border.

  94. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    What is the truth about the ozone hole in the South in recent years?
    https://i.ibb.co/NNm98rC/ozone-hole-plot.png

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ren…all I know is they banned fluorocarbons to combat one hole in the atmosphere and now we have two holes.

      In a similar move, they banned DDT because it was believed to cause a deterioration in the egg shells of one species of bird. Studies after the fact revealed those same egg shells had been deteriorating before the invention of DDT and after it was banned.

      Meantime, millions of people died in Africa and other Third World countries from malaria caused by mosquitoes, and DDT is one of the only really effective agents against malarial-borne mosquitoes.

      That should go down as Rachel Carson’s legacy. She’s the eco-weenie upon whose book the ban of DDT was implemented.

  95. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    According to WMO, weather, climate and water-related hazards caused close to 12,000 disasters between 1970 and 2021. Developing countries were hit hardest, seeing nine in 10 deaths and 60 per cent of economic losses from climate shocks and extreme weather.

    https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136897

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      Water it down all you want, wee willy, it’s weather, not climate.

      1970 – 2021 is 51 years and any climate change should be apparent. There is simply no evidence that any regions of the world have seen a significant change in climate.

      • Willard says:

        2021 – 1970 = 51, Bordo.

        Your move.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        Your mental faculties are deteriorating rapidly, wee willy. Now you are muttering to yourself.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo.

        You’re dismissing 51 years of data as weather.

        Have you been tested for senility?

      • Swenson says:

        Cmon Willard,

        Youre being idiotic.

        Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.

        Try another way of wriggling out of the reality that you cant even describe the GHE, let alone explain why the surface cools each night!

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        What are you braying about?

        A deceitful cretin is a deceitful cretin.

        Try to refute that, deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        C’mon Willard,

        You’re being idiotic.

        Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations.

        Try another way of wriggling out of the reality that you can’t even describe the GHE, let alone explain why the surface cools each night!

      • Willard says:

        Mike, Mike,

        Deception is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true.

        A cretin is a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person.

        “Deceptive cretin” befits you splendidly!

      • Swenson says:

        Wasteful Wee Willy,

        you wrote –

        “Deception is an act or statement that misleads, hides the truth, or promotes a belief, concept, or idea that is not true.”

        Perfectly true. Delusional SkyDragon cultists are deceptive. They believe that surrounding a thermometer with CO2 will make it hotter! Even an idiot like you accepts that such a thing is completely untrue.

        Deceptive? Or just stupid and ignorant?

        Michael Mann was deceptive when he claimed in a court document (supposedly true), that he was the recipient of a Nobel Prize. The claim wasnt true, so that makes him deceptive, a fraud and a faker. And an idiot into the bargain, for thinking he would get way with telling untruths in public.

        Are you a complete idiot, or do you believe that Michael Mann has never been deceptive?

        Idiot.

      • Willard says:

        Here, Mike:

        https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2007/summary

        Is that all you got, deceitful cretin?

  96. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Far from El Nio, as seen in the western Pacific. Typhoon in the Philippine Sea and tropical storm over Guinea.
    https://i.ibb.co/B2b5JqY/mimictpw-wpac-latest.gif

  97. Gordon Robertson says:

    tim s…”F= (c)(v^2) simple.
    W = F x D simple.
    Hp = W/t = (c)(v^2) x D/t = (c)(v^3).

    ***

    It’s plain to me that physics is not in your everyday experience.

    What does F = c.v^2 mean?

    I understand f = ma, and KE = 1/2mv^2,

    I also understand f = m.dv/dt, but where the heck do you get f = c.v^2?

    In physics, you are supposed to explain your variables, maybe it would have helped had you done that. But then you offer the formula for work correctly as w = f.d.

    I don’t think it is correct to write HP = W/t for the simple reason that HP is only one form of work rate. It should be power = w/t. You simply cannot presume that power will be in HP unless you specify the required factors.

    Then you state…hp = w/t = (c.v^2.d)/t = c.v^3

    You failed to explain where the extra v came from to get v^3. It’s obviously from d/t = v. But what is c?

    Your approach may be mathematically correct in general but it fails to offer an intuitive understanding of the actual forces working on the car to produce drag. That’s why I was critical of the problem you posed because it is far more complex, and interesting, than the gotcha you presented.

    It would have come across to me better had you presented the problem as a shared interest rather than trying to set posters up with you as the guru. That’s how you tend to come across with your propaganda sessions related to AGW.

    • Tim S says:

      On the possibility that you are not trolling, you have my sympathy that you put so much effort into demonstrating that you do not understand very much science. The answer is in my spoiler to which you actually responded:

      “SPOILER ALERT: I will give the answer as a text description. The equations can be taken from that. It is just basic physics.

      The easy assumption is that all of the drag forces are increased as the square of the speed. Rolling resistance of the tires may actually decrease with speed as the tire expands and decreases the contact patch and reduces the standing wave effect (?), but is not a big factor. The physical properties of the air do not change, so the drag force is related to some constant times velocity squared. The key concept is that power is energy per time. It is dynamic. The energy to overcome drag is work, which is force times distance. Work divided by time becomes velocity squared times distance divided by time, or velocity cubed. It takes eight times as much Hp to go twice as fast. This is why cars tend to run into a brick wall at top speed. Enzo Ferrari was wrong when he said aerodynamics are for people who cant build engines. He did not understand aerodynamics.”

      Here is the full quote that has you confused:

      “For people who are paying attention, sharing information for fun, and not looking at it with a trolling mindset, it is amazingly simple and only requires basic physics because the comparison involves the same fluid (air) with the same properties that do not change (c), and an object that is the same.
      F= (c)(v^2) simple.
      W = F x D simple.
      Hp = W/t = (c)(v^2) x D/t = (c)(v^3).
      To be fair it is not precise, but very close to reality.
      Happy trolling Gordon.”

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        I can usually tell, when someone leads off with a paragraph of ad homs, insults, and how much my understanding of science is lacking, that I am dealing with a twit. Even after your long explanation you are still confused about the physics.

        I finally figured out that you have incorrectly lumped several terms of an equation under ‘c’ for constant. Only one of the terms can be considered a constant and even that’s not certain.

        Overall, we are dealing with a complex function with 5 variables…

        f(Fd, u, A. p, v) = 0

        u = speed of air mass and v = speed of vehicle.

        Fd = drag force, p = air density, and A = area affected

        For drag force, Fd = 1/2.p.v^2.Cd.A where…

        p = air density
        A = cross-sectional area of surface impinging on the air mass
        Cd = drag coefficient

        and you have written it as F = c.v^2.

        The drag coefficient, Cd, is a complex quantity that cannot easily be determined. It is not a constant because it varies with velocity, therefore you had no right lumping it under ‘c’ as a constant. The same applies to density, which will vary with velocity as well.

        Furthermore, Fd is proportional to the force applied to the front of the car, which is the pressure over an area and that force can be written in terms of kinetic energy, as Pd = 1/2 pv^2, where density is substituted for mass. So, that seems to be the derivation of the v^2 term.

        I was trying to point out that such calculations are not trivial and can be quite complex.

        You have lumped all other terms in a convenient term you call ‘c’ while incorrectly maintaining that Fd is proportional only to v^2. That’s why I asked what F = c.v^2 means in physics.

        Power is calculated using a variation of work = f.d, that is force x distance.

        Since d also = v.t = average velocity.time, it can be substituted for d as .. v.t

        but…

        Pd = work/time = (Fd).d/t = ([Fd].v.t)/t = (Fd).v

        There’s your cube term from (Fd).v when you substitute Fd into Pd = (Fd).v …

        Pd = 1/2 p.v^3.Cd.A

        Still, all that tells us is that Pd is proportional to v^3.

      • Tim S says:

        For your continued education without insult, I will explain Cd. Have you noticed that car manufactures often quote their drag coefficient? It is a shape factor that is so complex that it can only be found experimentally for a complex object such as a race car. It remains constant because movable aerodynamic devices are not allowed for Indy Cars (F1 has the drag reduction system, DRS, which opens the rear wing and adds about 10 mph of top speed). Further, doubling the Reynolds Number does not change the flow regime because turbulence is already fully established and wake separate is only slightly affected (trust me). As I stated, the air does not change and the car does not change from 100 mph to 200 mph. One very subtle effect is that the downforce also increases as a square of speed, so the suspension is compressed, putting the car closer to the ground with an effect that could only be measured in a wind tunnel. To a first approximation, and with significant accuracy, the various complexities remain constant over the speed being analyzed.

  98. Willard says:

    A WARMER LIFE

    Using more than 200 mother-daughter-granddaughter triads, Cohn’s team found that the granddaughters of those in the top third of DDT exposure during pregnancy had 2.6 times the odds of developing an unhealthy BMI. They were also more than twice as likely to have started their periods before age 11. Both factors, Cohn says, are known to raise the risk of later developing breast cancer and cardiovascular disease. These results, published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, mark the first human evidence that DDT’s health threats span three generations.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/consequences-of-ddt-exposure-could-last-generations/

    Is there an urban legend for which Bordo will not fall?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ww…”had 2.6 times the odds of developing an unhealthy BMI…”

      ***

      An unhealthy Body-Mass Index??? That’s an indicator of how much fat you are carrying, an unlikely outcome of DDT exposure.

      Wee Willy, you are a waste of space.

      • Willard says:

        C’mon, Bordo. DDT is connected to children’s midlife heart health and breast cancer rates. If you want to know how it’s connected to the BMI, read the damn study:

        https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article/30/8/1480/671027/Grandmaternal-Perinatal-Serum-DDT-in-Relation-to

        Or just continue to rant. In ten years you’ll do the same.

      • Swenson says:

        Wasted Wee Willy,

        From the paper – “Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.”

        On the other hand, they may not.

        Correlation is not causation.

        You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn,

        That’s all you got – correlation is not causation?

        Deceitful cretin.

      • Swenson says:

        Wasted Wee Willy,

        From the paper “Ancestral exposure to environmental chemicals, banned decades ago, may influence the development of earlier menarche and obesity, which are established risk factors for breast cancer and cardiometabolic diseases.”

        On the other hand, they may not.

        Correlation is not causation.

        You are not the brightest bulb in the box, are you?

      • Willard says:

        Mike, Mike

        Only a deceitful cretin would confuse “correlation is not causation” with a r