Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2025 was +0.46 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down substantially from the December, 2024 anomaly of +0.62 deg. Most of this cooling was over the global oceans.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged temperature trend (January 1979 through January 2025) remains at +0.15 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.77 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.20 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.70 | +0.75 | +0.41 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.61 | +0.64 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.88 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.53 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.46 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.06 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
Well, finally.
If it keeps dropping precipitously, it won’t look all that different to 98. If.
“If it keeps dropping precipitously, it wont look all that different to 98. ”
Except 1998 was a single year, where 2023 and 2024 were both record breaking.
Here’s what it looks like using a 24 month rolling average.
https://i.imgur.com/Ducv1ii.png
Here’s a direct comparison of the years from 1997 and 2023.
https://i.imgur.com/PEllNHw.png
The recent spike lasted much longer than in 1998.
That confirms what I perceived going by eye: This peak looks wider. I was actually starting to consider that it might be a step-change, and not go back down at all. But that would have been a real surprise. If the trend were so strong as to drown out periodic fluctuations we would be in real trouble. Fortunately there’s no indication of that.
For the past 15 years, Ive been curious about how ENSO would respond to global warming. Until recently, I hadnt considered how the frequency of its fluctuations could shift if the area under the temperaturetime curve continues to grow for El Nino spikes. If theres more heat in the system, then it makes sense El Nio events might last longer and release more energy. Still, I suspect this latest spike was influenced by the Tonga eruption. It will be fascinating to watch how everything unfolds over the next decade.
It was affected by the HTE. There were multiple Tonga effects which are only now dissipating. We are likely to see continued cooling all year as a result.
The biggest effect was an immediate reduction in clouds. This was initially offset by SO2 injection into the stratosphere. However, the SO2 faded away about the same time as the El Nino took hold. This was why we the warming took off so quickly in mid 2023.
Some of the water vapor injection is still present in the stratosphere although some of it has moved downwards into the upper troposphere. That continues to dissipate as well. I think most of that warming influence will end this year.
We now know the warming this century was caused by cloud reductions leading to increases in solar energy reaching the surface.
“Some of the water vapor injection is still present in the stratosphere although some of it has moved downwards into the upper troposphere. That continues to dissipate as well. I think most of that warming influence will end this year.”
What warming effect did the water vapour increase have? Could you explain a little?
Yea I suspect ENSO frequency will remain same and eventually this anomaly will be associated with Tonga. The physics will change how we consider natural climate change.
Two potential candidates include changes in radiative forcings due to the Tonga eruption in 2022, which injected water vapour into the stratosphere16, and the introduction of shipping regulations in 2020, which have reduced visible ship tracks
Twelve months at 1.5 C signals earlier than expected breach of Paris Agreement threshold, Nature
In what way does the water vapour in the atmosphere affect the radiative forcing?
GHG AGW is a slow continuous phenomenon. Transient temperature excursions have nothing to do with AGW from GHGs. Any concerns about this are overwraught. And ICPP AR6 chapter 12 pg 1856 reveals essentially no extreme weather trends outside natural variation for everything EXCEPT temperature extremes, although it would not be unexpected or alarming that some small trends do occur. See also
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/what-the-ipcc-actually-says-about
Certainly the benefits of burning carbon fuels are so great as to be almost beyond our ability to appreciate, and far offset any of these proposed minor “extreme” weather variations (excluding temperature increases over centuries, which are a concern). And it is true CO2 is a green gas that is greening the planet. The plants and animals love this recent human intervention. And the true global ECS is about 2 C, which has been grossly over evaluated for over 40 years by the AGW alarmist propagandists in and out of academia.
Does anyone have a link to a graph of the lower stratosphere which is up to date? Thanks.
Buzz
I just generated one with data up to Dec 24:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc1t5nzQ3EZv5SQPSbZCq3Z1yGeFQx4/view
A bit more about LS:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1697881
La Niña is here: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/january-2025-update-la-nina-here
blog test
blog test2
Interesting contrast to ERA which has this January warmer than last year.
UAH still makes this the 2nd warmest January. The ten warmest Januaries so far.
2024 0.80
2025 0.46
2016 0.42
2020 0.42
2010 0.36
1998 0.34
2013 0.31
2007 0.29
2017 0.26
2019 0.24
I wonder if the strong solar activity over the last two years could have something to do with it. Sure, the data do not indicate something unusual with the peak of cycle 25, but observations tell a different story.
Over the past two years again and again there were northern lights over Austria, and large parts of Europe over all. They almost became a common sight. The last time that happened was in the years 1938 to 1941, during cycle 17. Since then there was nothing.
Also interesting is the energy emitted by these mass ejections. Although it is hard to get any precise figures, using the few hints there are, they should not be negligible.
E. Schaffer
Oh what a miracle! Weren’t you one of those who claimed a few years ago that SC25’s activity would barely exceed that of SC24?
In any case, apart from a sudden quiet phase from August 2023 to March 2024, SC25 is quite active, isn’t it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZXKy96mHyuMttcg2vy7k0b3DeLfKzmML/view
Isn’t the question then rather: what exactly do the northern lights have to do with the solar power that actually warms the planet?
1. No, I was not.
2. Radiation is not the only vector by which the sun transfers energy. It ejects high energy (or high speed) particles into space, aka “solar wind”. Depending on the level of solar activity, we see enormous variation in the temperature of the thermosphere, ranging from 500 to 2000K.
” It ejects high energy (or high speed) particles into space, aka solar wind. ”
For example:
https://i.ibb.co/r21cv5jH/number-of-days-with-a-ge.png
Slightly cooler than I expected with only a weak La Nina. Could be a sign the recovery from Hunga Tonga is accelerating. More likely, last month was just a slightly higher than is should have been.
If we assume a recovery from HTe of around 0.05 C / month, it’s going to take about 6-8 months to fully recover.
We still could see UAH continue to drop about 0.1 C / month through May but then flatten out as this La Nina, ends.
With this cooling on top of the Willis E article showing the CERES data (which verified Miskolczi 2010), there can be no doubt that AGW is fiction.
There is no ‘recovery’ from Hunga Tonga as it had no influence.
Something led to a large reduction in clouds which started the month after the eruption. In this case the correlation is solid.
The HadCRUT dataset has not yet been updated, but I expect a similar drop. This plot compares the current spike to the spike following the 1875 eruption of Askja — a wet volcano. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss HT.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO.png
You said it had no influence. I’ve read that it increased stratospheric humidity by as much as 10%. That would explain the temperature spike.
If Hunga Tonga’s water vapor upload in January 2022 had had any influence on LT’s temperature increase: then there should have been since the eruption a very strong decline in LS temperature, corresponding to an inverse of LS temperature increase after the Pinatubo eruption in 1991:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fCc1t5nzQ3EZv5SQPSbZCq3Z1yGeFQx4/view
There was no decline AT ALL in LS temperature since 2022:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K42APGS89jCON0dAmdWgDj0aNw6z4iir/view
And the small 0.5 C drop in 2023/24 is absolutely negligible compared to the peaks after El Chichon and Pinatubo.
*
All people insisting on the 150 Mt water vapor and its supposed effect ‘forget’ that Hunga Tonga’s SO2 upload, though much smaller than El Chichon’s or Pinatubo’s, was in turn not negligible at all.
*
The Estimated Climate Impact of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption Plume
Schoeberl & al. (2023)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL104634
” Scaling to the observed cooling after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, HT would cool the 2022 Southern Hemisphere’s average surface temperatures by less than 0.037°C. ”
*
To understand what Schoeberl & al. mean, you just need to compare LT’s reactions to the huge LS warmings after El Chichon and Pinatubo with the supposed reaction of LT to LS after Hunga Tonga:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jFVD4AOyXQXIAotsDflm6ISagb5SpOtb/view
There is hence few probability that the strong LT peak starting in 2023 (quite similar in size and slope to the El Nino peak in 1997/98) was due to Hunga Tonga.
By the way, this is what Roy Spencer wrote about one year ago on this blog… but I’m sure that the hyperspecialists posting here know all this much better than Mr Spencer!
Why are you just looking at the area where the underwater volcano happened.
At one point the stratosphere all over the world contained an extra 15% water vapour.
Why are you just looking at the area the underwater volcano happened.
At one point the stratosphere all over the world contained an extra 15% water vapour.
It was WAY cooler than I expected, Richard M.
I saw the battle between La Niña (cooling), weakened Polar Vortex (warming) and HTE (warming). Just looking at the charts, I expected the anomaly to be higher (warmer).
Maybe this means the HTE is, finally, no longer a factor?
HTE is still a factor. It’s move a little.
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/h2o_MLS_vLAT_tap_75S-75N_146hPa.png
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/mls_h2o_taperecorder_lat_45S-45N_10hPa.png
Good point, Richard M.
I should have said, “…no longer as big a factor as it was”.
You’re saying the greenhouse warming from HT may have had a significant impact, right?
Is there research showing the HT volcanic eruptions are still having an effect? The research I know concluded its influenced ended a year ago, and the effect was a slight cooling.
Hunga induced circulation changes that reduce stratospheric ozone and lower temperatures also play a role in the net forcing. The change in the radiative flux would result in a very slight 2022/3 cooling in Southern Hemisphere. The Hunga climate forcing has decreased to near zero by the end of 2023.
Evolution of the Climate Forcing During the Two Years After the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai Eruption, M. R. Schoeberl et al, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, v129 i14 Jul 2024.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024JD041296
==
News article:
Atmospheric Effects of Hunga Tonga Eruption Lingered for Years: A new study builds on previous research into the underwater volcanos effects on the climate, Rebecca Owen, EOS, 22 August 2024.
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/atmospheric-effects-of-hunga-tonga-eruption-lingered-for-years
The first source failed in the very first sentence:
“We calculate the climate forcing for the 2ys (sic) after the 15 January 2022, Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai (Hunga) eruption.
Any “calculation of the climate forcing” is based only on beliefs.
And the second source merely regurgitates the first source.
That ain’t science.
As opposed to the zero calculations that you did…
Bwa ha ha!
Nate believes all ”calculations”.
Figures don’t lie, but liars do figure
Clint is simply pointing out that it is not at all understood how the GHE occurs, thus calculation based on an unproven theory of how the GHE works trump rwh
where is nothing but bunk.
Nah. And Clint simply denies the ordinary physics behind the GHE, as explained by Roy Spencer.
Nate says:
“Nah. And Clint simply denies the ordinary physics behind the GHE, as explained by Roy Spencer.”
The ordinary physics are fine. What hasn’t been addressed is the wide acceptance that the GHE exists because the “sky” mean temperature is warmer than outer space 3C.
Thus, it is also accepted that if the sky gets warmer so will the surface.
But that runs somewhat afoul of the idea that the sky is warmed by the surface. A little chicken vs the egg problem.
We can only conclude that there are chickens and eggs and that there is a surface temperature and a sky temperature.
Closure of the atmospheric window is one method of warming the surface from the perspective of the surface seeing less outer space without physically changing the temperature of the sky.
Seems a lot of reliance on band broadening. The higher the diffusion the greater the broadening. But in S&O increased concentrations don’t seem to create the effect expected from band broadening.
Perhaps Nate can take another attempt at explaining that.
As I see it the thermosphere provides a clue of what a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere looks like in the absence of GHGs. i.e. the atmosphere being warmer than the surface. Thus that implies a saturation point occurring when the surface temperature becomes the same apparent temperature as the atmosphere.
That provides some interesting gaps in the theory. . .that are actually recognized by Nate’s favorite proof of ever increasing CO2 being a relentless control knob of GHE but these gaps are not recognized by Nate who just assumes that one can handwave that away as his proof does verbally but no scientifically.
Poor short term correlation with surface temps, which showed a rise this month.
Rise for January on surface.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/monthly-trends/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2025.2434494
Article finds recent T step-up is due to shipping aerosol reductions.
“This temperature jump was spurred by one of the periodic tropical El Nino warming events, but many Earth scientists were baffled by the magnitude of the global warming, which was twice as large as expected for the weak 2023-2024 El Nino. We find that most of the other half of the warming was caused by a restriction on aerosol emissions by ships, which was imposed in 2020 by the International Maritime Organization to combat the effect of aerosol pollutants on human health.”
Global surface temperature relative to 1880-1920 in Figure 1 is the GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) analysis through October 2024.2 The 1970-2010 warming rate of 0.18 C/decade almost doubled in 2010-2023, but this higher rate is not a prediction of the future.
If the higher rate isnt a prediction of the future, then its odd how confident its presented as evidence of acceleration.
Their guessing Nate, looking for scapegoats as usual.as if those events never happened before before man took to the seas.
They had predicted acceleration a few years ago.
Hansen links the alleged post-2010 warming acceleration to a decline in planetary albedo.
Yet, albedo variations remain poorly understood. In fact, the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s second most recent analysis highlighted how the December 2024 recovery in Antarctic sea ice extent has sparked debate over whether a true regime shift occurred after August 2016, when persistently below-average extents became common.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/analyses/ringing-new-year-warm-arctic
The political and policy assertions in that publication rest on the claim of an acceleration in global warming.
“Yet, albedo variations remain poorly understood.”
Agree. This is one paper. Others may find different results.
In addition to shipping, there has been a reduction in air pollution from China, which has been suggested as a mechanism for the warming of the N. Pacific.
Red,
“the December 2024 recovery in Antarctic sea ice extent has sparked debate over whether a true regime shift occurred after August 2016, when persistently below-average extents became common.”
The year to year, month to month fluctuations in sea ice are normal. For example 2017-2019 had well below average minima. Then 2020-2021 were near normal. Then 2022-24 were well below normal again.
BTW at the moment it looks like 2025 will again have well below average minimum.
https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today/sea-ice-tools/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph
If these year-to-year variations were truly normal, it’s worth asking why the CMIP6 models struggle to reproduce the magnitude of the 2023 Antarctic sea ice anomaly. As noted in recent research, this event had a return period of over 1,000 years under internal variability and was essentially unprecedented in models that align closely with observed variability.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2024GL109265
Cimp 6 models apparently don’t include effects of when and where orbit speeds of earth are affected by celestial objects other than the sun.
The length and amplitude of current variations are in the same pattern as planetary alignments that only occur in concert with the patterns of planetary movement such as our ability to see all the other planets at same time at night over the past several years at a rate seldom seen.
These effects also enabled NASA the ability to slingshot Grand tours of the solar system.
They are talking about winter maximum sea ice level, nothing to do with current summer levels. It was quite a bit lower than average in 2023 and 2024.
We will see what 2025 brings. Obviously modeling Antarctic sea ice ain’t easy. Which is why it is called science.
“We will see what 2025 brings. Obviously modeling Antarctic sea ice aint easy. Which is why it is called science.”
I know. Modeling Antarctic sea ice and albedo is extraordinarily difficult, as even the CMIP6 models fail to reproduce anomalies like the 2023 winter sea ice extent.
That’s why Im perplexed as to why Hansen would not only claim a clear acceleration in global warming tied to albedo but also use that claim as a basis for political proclamations.
“Thats why Im perplexed as to why Hansen would not only claim a clear acceleration in global warming tied to albedo”
No need for perplexedness. He made a scientific argument based on data, and the physics of aerosols and clouds.
red krokodile says:
”Thats why Im perpl’exed as to why Hansen would not only claim a clear acceleration in global warming tied to albedo but also use that claim as a basis for political proclamations.”
Hansen is more activist than scientist and he isn’t shy about saying that.
I am convinced that the 2023 temperature anomaly is connected to Jupiter’s last pass through prime planetary alignment most affecting earth’s orbit speed by slowing it through the austral summer. Of course if the sun becomes brighter (it is also solar max) or closer/slower through the summer thats going to likely drive some change in albedo, even if not a change in albedo percent.
Recent press has been talking about this alignment with all 8 planets observable at night on one side of earth.
I have paused my analysis because of not actually having a calibrated access to long term or real time solar brightness records which has been known to be a necessity for over a decade when TSI constant was lowered to about 1360watts correcting older analysis due to lack of adequate calibration.
It does not require all the data analysis shown in the paper to simply guess, as several here are doing in assigning the warming to HT with no analysis at all.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1697908
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698013
??
The billions of gallons of water that Trump ordered to be released from N. California reservoir was being stored for the dry season, when it is actually needed by farmers and others.
This is the wet season!
Trump has been in office less than a month and already the satellites see a reduction in global temperatures!
(Just something for the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” kiddies.)
I’m going to need more popcorn….
Yet another non-sequitur from Clint, our resident specialist in that.
Oh he’s just strolling.
More learning for the TDS kiddies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGPTBsEBJlw
Clint’s videos need a warning label:
‘Viewer discretion advised. This program contains material intended for gullible or racist audiences only’
Nate says:
“The billions of gallons of water that Trump ordered to be released from N. California reservoir was being stored for the dry season, when it is actually needed by farmers and others.”
What Nate, and Politico, CNN, and etc., does not want you to know is that the water releases Trump proposed for LA amounts to about 4% of the mean amount of water, unavailable to farmers, released annually in the fall to protect the delta smelt. Of course Newsom will make the farmers suffer instead of the smelt and would prefer LA residents also go without decent fire protection.
I will say it again….
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2024/05/12/surface-air-temperature-sat-versus-sea-surface-temperature-sst/
Henry Pool
1. ” Note that I am not blaming Spencer and Christy for giving a wrong impression. What they are doing is completely correct, if you look at it linearly. They are simply averaging and averaging of what is inherently a very unequal warming of the earth going by same UAH data… ”
Anyone interested can look at Spencer’s file containing the anomalies for 8 zones and 3 regions:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
and combine the info with UAH’s world anomaly and trend maps available below:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Why don’t you fill the gap, by providing us each month on this blog with what you yourself miss on it?
*
” RECOMMENDATION
To avoid confusion, it would be better to rather look at reporting on the warming of the northern- and southern hemispheres separately instead of reporting on the warming of land and water separately. ”
Did you ever compare the two pairs?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kAirJhRCdzGrDV2YulBDq8eVQtnwWSaz/view
versus
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PoYuPP-alL-mbraAjRW8OMQk-Lzyq1gP/view
Why, do you think, is the difference so small?
*
3. ” He determined that the water of the major European rivers that end up in the North Sea, have warmed considerably due to the water being extensively used for cooling by many factories and energy companies nestled along the way from London, Holland, France, Germany and Switzerland. ”
That’s really 100% amazing!
How the hell is it possible to focus on small, since years decreasing trickles flowing into the oceans on the one hand, and on the other hand ignore that at the same time, increasing amounts of cubic kilometers of cold water are being washed into the same oceans by the worldwide melting of icebergs, glaciers and sea ice?
*
In my native tongue we love to say:
” Au royaume des aveugles, le borgne est roi. “
Brrrrr!!!! Cold!!!!
Looks like global cooling for sure.
Chances are pretty good we will see continued cooling. The La Nina only became official with the December number. We won’t see that show up in the UAH data for a couple more months and we are likely to remain under La Nina conditions for several more months.
During this time we should also see further dissipation of the warming due to the Hunga-Tonga eruption.
We could see another 0.2 C drop in the global temperature, maybe even more. All this while the AMO remains in its warm phase. Just think what will happen when the AMO cycle eventually flips as all cycles do.
The last AMO cycle flip occurred from 1995-1997. The next flip is most likely to occur during the current Trump administration.
henry…”In my opinion, the extra global warming of earth in the last 50 years, is coming from a change in sea surface temperature (SST). SST appears to be affected by combination of factors…”
***
Under ‘other factors’, how about the facts related to the way averages are calculated the past 50 years, the way surface temperatures are fudged, and the better accuracy of the sat telemetry?
According to UAH, it has warmed about 0.5C since 1980. According to the fudged surface record, it has warmed over 1C, and some have reported a warming since 1970 of 1.5C.
The actuality is a warming of about 1C since 1850 and that can be explained as a rewarming from the Little ice Age. The rewarming should not be linear due to the large amount of ice built up over the 400+ years of the LIA. That is compounded by Earth’s orbit and axial tilt, which serves to build up ice in either hemisphere during winters.
It makes sense that warming should accelerate slightly as the ice from the LIA melts.
Geophysicist, Syun Akasofu, has estimated a rewarming from the LIA of 0.5C/century, and he seems to be right.
Lol. Geophysicist Akasofu’s and your simple maths are just a little off, eh?
The first 75 years after the LIA end in 1850 the global temperature stayed static. Since 1925, or in 1 century, the global temp has increased near to +1.4*C.
Even if you claim 175 years since the end of the LIA, the global temperature is now nearly double that of yours and Akasofu’s claims of +0.5*C per century.
Even UAH shows a +1*C rise in lower atmosphere temps in less than 50 years.
Your maths? Not even close to right.
Mr. Maytrees:
Lol is unnecessary in response to Mr. Robertson’s statement.
Nor is: Your maths? Not even close to right.
A simple refutation with support would be congruent with Mr. Robertsons statements. There is no need to show the insecurities which are bound up in the emotionalism of preening about who is right or wrong.
“A simple refutation with support would be congruent with Mr. Robertsons statements.”
You are obviously not familiar with all of Mr Robertson’s statements, or you would not take on the role of the tone police.
Actually, why are you taking on that role anyway? Didn’t you just spruik for substance while offering none?
So that is why its snowing here today.
https://i.ibb.co/N2VkkpRq/ventusky-pressure-20250210t1200.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/sJgvVT41/ventusky-temperature-2m-20250210t1200.jpg
Europe
https://i.ibb.co/j9LTx3dg/ventusky-pressure-20250209t2100.jpg
La Nina
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202502.gif
Here is the picture you preferred around 2020-2022:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Do you remember?
https://i.postimg.cc/5yHYfPtN/nino34-Mon290322.gif
That was a FULL REAL La Niña!
We have a 3-month trend that suggests the atmosphere experienced a peak temperature last year, and is now cooling. The January number is a big drop, but monthly numbers have a history of making big moves that are not trends.
This would seem to support the HT volcano theory and not the ship fuel theory. The comment that most of this cooling was over the global oceans, seems to suggest is not ship fuel. ENSO forecast is for a weak La Nino.
The oceans have not cooled much outside of the ENSO regions.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
I think that UAH is very sensitive to convection from the tropical oceans. So it oscillates more with ENSO than the surface.
I’m not an excessive amount of deviation from the blended GHG, aerosol, TSI, and ENSO expectation. If the HT eruption is having an influence it isn’t manifesting enough in the UAH TLT values to be detectable.
Absorption of water radiation bands in the Stratosphere and above means less intense surface heating of the ocean, which has stopped Atlantic Hurricanes. It also means a less intense water cycle, with reduced precipitation and lower plant transpiration, and a generally dryer climate. Where I live stream flow has reduced to a trickle.
“Absorption of water radiation bands in the Stratosphere…”
Que?
Brrrrr!!!! Cold!!!!
Looks like global cooling for sure.
-3C here in Vancouver, Canada and forecast is for -8C soon.
binny…”The Estimated Climate Impact of the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haapai Eruption Plume
Schoeberl & al. (2023)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GL104634
Scaling to the observed cooling after the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, HT would cool the 2022 Southern Hemispheres average surface temperatures by less than 0.037C. ”
***
Hilarious….Binny cites a paper by uber-alarmist Dessler and his grad-student co-authors, who use computational methods and unvalidated models to guesstimate a warming of 0.03C due to Hunga Tonga injecting millions of tone of water into the stratosphere.
I am not sure that Dessler knows about gas laws or any other science. He is confident in his unvalidated climate models.
Dessler appears to agree with his alarmist brethern that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere has a warming effect of 9% to 25% yet WV injected into the stratosphere, an arid place, has only a 0.03C effect.
Alarmists are hilarious as are alarmists like Binny who blindly quote them as authority figures.
A first remark before I zoom once again into Robertson’s mix of arrogance, ignorance and incompetence
You just need to look for the number of publications Dressler shared with his alleged ‘grad-student co-authors’ to understand that Robertson is ready to any lie.
No wonder from a guy who is known as a 360 degree denier of anything that doesn’t fit his megalomaniacal self-assessment.
Has anyone remarked that the comments are all gone from posts in the past?
For instance, I went back to February 2021 temp update to recall the baseline differences for each month, but though there are 1616 comments in that thread, they are wiped out.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
For numerous posts I looked at there is often one spam comment. That’s it.
barry
Yes, this is known (to me) since quite a while.
Whenever you need older drroyspencer.com now lacking the comments, please think that numerous instances permanently crawl the entire Web and sore into the Web Archive.
Here is what you miss:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210302082317/https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/
Simply invoke the Web Archive and enter the link to the source you want to obtain original data from.
You probably won’t find everything back – but a lot of it, I guess :–)
Yes, I use WM regularly. Didn’t think to apply it here. I was just curious how this had happened.
These were the numbers Bellman gave when the baseline shifted forward 10 years to 1991-2020.
1 0.143
2 0.16
3 0.128
4 0.122
5 0.124
6 0.132
7 0.130
8 0.126
9 0.166
10 0.161
11 0.134
12 0.119
But as there has been a new revision (6.1) and a shift of all values due to the truncation of NOAA19 satellite data, these values won’t be the same. I’ll see about it tomorrow maybe.
barry
You hardly could see any difference in the baselines because the differences between 6.0 and 6.1 first appeared after 2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JGKYhqvumAaD71Yvb_WbEAPdzmB4v_lR/view
The 12 month baselines for 6.0 and 6.1 are therefore identical down to 3 digits atdp:
Jan 263.179 (K)
Feb 263.269
Mar 263.427
Apr 263.843
Mai 264.448
Jun 265.099
Jul 265.418
Aug 265.233
Sep 264.637
Oct 263.945
Nov 263.406
Dec 263.191
*
Incidentally, when I look at UAH LT’s grid baseline I posted above, it is always astonishing to compare Robertson’s endlessly repeated, completely stupid attacks against NOAA’s allegedly fudged data with his stubborn, uneducated fixation on NOAA’s trivial definition of anomalies – a definition definitely useless for anyone having to actually compute them!
Thanks. I guess there would be little to no difference.
I wanted to compare the 30-year monthly anomaly averages for 6.0 and 6.1, and for the two different baseline periods, but couldn’t figure out the formula to average every nth row in Excel (2007). Partly also to check whether the unflagged changes to anomalies had made much difference.
Ultimately, I wanted to check a prediction I made a while ago that that it was very unlikely an anomaly would fall underneath the old baseline after 2016. Far as I can make out we haven’t had a negative anomaly on the old baseline since 2012. But in 2013 the old value for May was within a few thousandths of a degree of zero, and in one of the unflagged changes was actually zero to three decimal places.
https://web.archive.org/web/20171007124215/https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
https://web.archive.org/web/20181123112505/https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
Not a big deal, just wondering about that prediction, and how long it had been since a negative anomaly on the old baseline.
https://i.ibb.co/r21cv5jH/number-of-days-with-a-ge.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_EQ_2024.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_EQ_2025.png
The man appointed to head NOAA:
“Jacobs was also cited for misconduct after the “Sharpiegate” incident, in which he and other Trump-appointed NOAA officials were found to have exerted pressure on scientists to alter the forecast for 2019’s Hurricane Dorian to align with misstatements made by President Trump, suggesting the hurricane would veer into Alabama. It did not, and the weather modeling had not indicated that it was likely to.”
The noise made about hiring the best people for the job when they tried to blame DEI on the air accident last week…
Check the credentials of some the people Trump has appointed? The new Sec Def is perhaps the least qualified person ever to hold the position. Looks like being a white male doesn’t actually guarantee you expertise, but it does get you jobs.
This guy had the audacity to jump on Trump’s bandwagon suggesting DEI hires lack competence.
It’s seriously funky. Compare Hesgeth’s credentials with Biden’s Sec Def.
Pete Hesgeth:
“After graduating from Princeton University, Hegseth began his career working as an analyst for Bear Stearns. From 2003 to 2014 and again from 2019 to 2021, he served as an infantry officer in the Army National Guard, attaining the rank of Major. He received the Bronze Star while serving in the special operations forces during a combat deployment to Iraq in 2005.[3] In 2014, he voluntarily deployed to Afghanistan to train the Afghan security forces. Following his military service, Hegseth became an active figure in conservative and Republican politics and was the executive director of Vets for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America. From 2014 to 2025, he was a political commentator for Fox News and was a weekend co-host of Fox & Friends from 2017 to 2024.”
Lloyd Austin:
“Before retiring from the military in 2016, Austin served as the 12th commander of United States Central Command, beginning in March 2013. Prior to that he served as the 33rd vice chief of staff of the Army from January 2012 to March 2013, and as commander of United States Forces Iraq from September 2010 to December 2011. He is the first African American to hold each of these positions. After retiring from the armed services, Austin joined the boards of Raytheon Technologies, Nucor, Tenet Healthcare, and Auburn University…
He graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point with a Bachelor of Science degree in 1975… He later earned a Master of Arts degree in counselor education from Auburn University’s College of Education in 1986, and a Master of Business Administration in business management from Webster University in 1989. He is a graduate of the Infantry Officer Basic and Advanced courses, the Army Command and General Staff College, and the Army War College.”
The Wiki entry charts his career, which is much lengthier than this overview, detailing multiple command positions, including the Pentagon and CENTCOM in Iraq.
Lloyd Austin is black.
Maybe, just maybe, you can hire someone who is not white, male or cis-gendered, and still get a quality hire.
Trump’s DEI comments in the press briefing following the crash were entirely disgusting. The more so because he had no idea whatsoever what caused the crash. Pure dog-whistling, and slighting minorities while doing it. Simply disgusting for a leader. Hesgeth’s parroting of these views is eye-popping, considering his complete underqualification for the job Trump put him in.
Not to mention Trump’s children held positions in the White House. Lara Trump became chair of the RNC last year. Her qualifications were that she worked at Fox News and released a song. No previous experience in politics.
And he talks with a serious face about meritorious employment.
*yawn*
Oh look… One of these smallbrained 101% admirators of the Trumping boy doesn’t like to see the truth, and… yawns.
Oh look … someone who thinks we have any influence on who Trump chooses for his government ,,, as is his privilege. If you don’t like his choices … run for President yourself.
Too, most of us here don’t even get to vote for USA President.
This is supposed to be a blog about climate. Yeah, I’m guilty of straying into politics too. But its ridiculous to complain here about Trump’s choices for government posts.
*yawn*
“who Trump chooses for his government … as is his privilege”
Ken, Trump doesn’t get to install whoever he likes into these positions. Are you not familiar with the mechanisms? Congress has to approve.
In this way, yes, the people have some say in how successful a president’s nomination will be, particularly if the senate majority is not the same party as the president. The senate can and has rejected the president’s top pick, though it is rare. More often nominations will be withdrawn if an unfavourable outcome is anticipated. In Trump’s last term, three of his top picks for cabinet positions withdrew went it became apparent they would not be confirmed.
It’s not a dictatorship (yet), where the pres just installs whoever they want.
Elon Musk is a different story. Neither elected nor confirmed, he has been given extraordinary power and access beyond anything a “special government employee” has ever been given, with his functions and security clearance unknown, and with no congressional oversight or audit, as his team has been described as outside the government.
As someone here remarked, it would be like a Democratic president giving George Soros the power to access classified information, restructure government departments and fire and hire at will, with no congressional oversight.
Not only am I not familiar … I also don’t give a tinker’s damn.
There is nothing I can do about the appointments even if I were a US citizen … and I am completely not interested because I’m not (at least until USA becomes the 11th Province).
I don’t care about the machinations of US politics; we in the 51st state have enough problems of our own, particularly with the current bunch of perpetual liars.
“I don’t care about the machinations of US politics”
I’m perfectly fine with you ignoring this conversation.
“Nothing I can do”
Yes there is. Call and ask your senator to grow a pair, stop being a sycophant, and not consent to loser appointments, especially the next 3.
But you wont.
Err..if your a Canadian, never-mind about your senator, just stop posting BS.
Nate and barry, you need to realize your comment-count is becoming excessive. Please control your TDS cultism.
> I dont care
As long as his beloved Christian fascism is up and running, Kennui could not care less about small details such as illegality and unconstitutionality.
Yet, Army recruiting has skyrocketed after Trump and Hegseth came into office. Young Americans know that Hegseth will be a soldiers’ Secretary of Defense. Austin wasn’t.
the services surge in enlistments began nearly a year ago as the Army overhauled much of its nearly $2 billion recruiting enterprise
https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army-recruiting-increase-trump/
I have often read posts by people asking for UAH’s reason to use anomalies rather than absolute values, and replied always in the same manner.
*
When you observe the temperatures recorded for various atmospheric layers, you compare temperatures differing by a lot:
– for LT, about 260 K;
– for LS, about 210 K.
This is then what you obtain when comparing LT and LS using absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HQnEudaqrspBrACM_7-xyxHM_Hp7vprK/view
And this is what you obtain when comparing anomalies (i.e.: departures from a mean with annual cycle removal) wrt the same reference period:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jFVD4AOyXQXIAotsDflm6ISagb5SpOtb/view
*
This is really not a matter of taste.
Doctor Spencer, is it possible to assign the zero line to a temperature in degrees Celsius, for example zero equals 14 C ?
Dr. Spencer would know the exact value, but -9C is in the ballpark.
99.9% of what Clint R posts is BS but this time exceptionally it isn’t.
Averaging UAH LT’s 12 month climatology gives 264.09 K i.e. -9.06 C.
Bindi, stop with the false accusations.
You can’t understand 99.9% of the science I present, and you can’t learn.
Grow up.
In contrast to UAH, This January was another new record in the surface data.
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-january-2025
ERA5’s data assimilation process combines observational inputs with physics-based modeling to estimate temperatures in regions with limited data coverage. The model’s nonlinear equations are highly temperature-sensitive, meaning even minor systematic errors in nearby thermometer readings will propagate and lead to cascading errors in the final estimates.
There is well-documented evidence that shows many U.S. surface temperature stations are poorly sited, which artificially suppresses measured diurnal temperature ranges.
I posted that study here a while back, but some dummkopf found it too inconvenient to handle and decided that attacking my intelligence was the way to go.
Reanalysis uses more weather variables than just surface T, thus is less sensitive to UHI effect. Roy Spencer likes this approach.
Less sensitivity does not equal no sensitivity.
UHI appears to have little impact on global temperature. Compare long-term satellite records with surface. Hardly any difference.
There is a known lag with ENSO variation, where the lower troposphere response is slower than surface. That’s one of the reasons why the UAH excursion this month is interesting.
We’ll see what RSS comes out with in a week or so.
Barry, as I tried to convey to you back in late December, relative trends can align even if both datasets contain independent errors. Anomalies improve comparability between different datasets, but this does not mean that the absolute data is free of bias.
Many assume that because climate science often focuses on anomalies, the accuracy of absolute temperature is less important.
I have already touched on how ERA5’s temperature assimilation process relies on temperature-sensitive physics, but this also applies to IPCC climate models, which depend on accurate absolute temperatures to correctly simulate radiative balance, land-atmosphere interactions, etc.
“ERA5s data assimilation process combines observational inputs with physics-based modeling to estimate temperatures in regions with limited data coverage.”
Yes, it uses weather model physics, which is tested everyday across the globe, and is highly successful at short term prediction.
It makes sense to use these to fill in missing data that needs to be self consistent with all surrounding observations.
“Anomalies improve comparability between different datasets, but this does not mean that the absolute data is free of bias.”
You mean free of error.
Of course. No measuring system is perfect. There is always error. And yet planes fly, buildings stand, and you and I can communicate over long distances.
The point is not that data is imperfect. That is a given. The issue is how well the data capture the ‘truth’, and how well we understand the degree to which it doesn’t.
Regarding UHI, it is of great significance that data that is not encumbered by it (lower troposphere O2 radiance brightness) is a close match to surface data.
Absolute values are useful for some contexts, anomalies are useful for others. Neither is intrinsically better than the other.
“Yes, it uses weather model physics, which is tested everyday across the globe, and is highly successful at short term prediction.
It makes sense to use these to fill in missing data that needs to be self consistent with all surrounding observations.”
The observations anchor the data and minimize model prediction errors. However if the weather station reading itself is compromised, then it’s not really a validation. Instead, the assimilation process just forces the model to conform to a flawed baseline.
So, it wouldn’t make sense to use these to fill in missing data.
Barry,
I agree that climate science has developed methods to derive precise measurements. But, this precision should not be conflated with accuracy, as the two serve different purposes.
UHI can still corrupt data, even when trends align with more pristine records.
A ghost town with no population growth wont experience spurious warming from active urbanization, but it’s temperatures still arent an accurate representation for the rest of the region. Streets, buildings, etc. will continue to distort the local temperatures there relative to surrounding rural areas.
The fact that planes fly, buildings stand, and we can communicate over long distances is a testament to engineering disciplines that carefully distinguish between those two concepts. These systems function reliably because they are designed with an understanding of both.
Red,
“However if the weather station reading itself is compromised, then its not really a validation. Instead, the assimilation process just forces the model to conform to a flawed baseline.
So, it wouldnt make sense to use these to fill in missing data.”
You might familiarize yourself with how reanalysis works before assuming how it works.
For example:
“Reanalysis combines all distinct weather observations available on one given day in the past. It not only factors in one single variable, like e.g. temperature, but takes into account almost all available weather observations for that specific day. Depending on the reanalysis components set, these can include a variety of variables such as wind or humidity, but also measurements of atmospheric composition, like ozone or carbon monoxide. They can also include data on ocean and land variables such as waves and soil moisture.”
https://climate.copernicus.eu/reanalysis-qas
So what you are saying is reanalysis isn’t actually a mean temperature but an apparent temperature.
From Google AI:
“”Apparent temperature” refers to how hot or cold it feels to a person based on a combination of the actual air temperature and other factors like humidity and wind speed, while “temperature” simply refers to the measured air temperature without considering these additional elements; essentially, “apparent temperature” is the “feels like” temperature, whereas “temperature” is the actual measured value. “
As always, my stalker Bill has no idea what the topic is. Posts anyway.
Nate,
Bill Hunter’s description of reanalysis as producing an ‘apparent temperature’ (in the sense of a modeled representation rather than a directly measured value) is fitting. The variables your link mentioned help reanalysis capture broader conditions well, but this does not equate to achieving the accuracy needed for reliable surface temperature estimates in areas with sparse observations.
red, the point is, which you haven’t really acknowledged, is that the lower tropospheric (satellite) data is unaffected by UHI.
Thus, when there is a very good correlation between surface and satellite data on hemispheric and particularly global scale, it strongly suggests that UHI either isn’t a significant factor at these scales, or that adjustments for that in the surface records seem to work well.
If there was something significantly off with global surface measurements, why on Earth do they show such excellent correlation with global satellite temperature, not only in trend, but also in the sign of each annual change?
Thermometers capture air temps at about 2 metres altitude. Satellites capture radiance brightness of O2 through the depth of the atmosphere, centred on 3km altitude. The difference in the metric strengthens the corroboration in terms of global and hemispheric temperature. Also well corroborated is the difference in trends between ocean and land temps.
All data has error. But when several groups working with two completely different metrics and different methods corroborate each other, that strongly suggests that the results are good despite the error.
“‘apparent temperature (in the sense of a modeled representation rather than a directly measured value) is fitting. the sense of a modeled representation rather than a directly measured value) is fitting.”
Not at all the sense of meant by Bill to mislead people, which was the ‘feels like’ temperature that humans feel.
Whereas the reanalysis attempts to find actual temperatures, even in places not measured.
Look Roy Spencer is a meteorologist and skeptic, and likes the reanalysis approach.
Because it uses known physics of the atmosphere to constrain temperatures that are missing, as opposed to just simple averaging.
Barry, I did address this with my ghost town analogy. A ghost town’s surface temperature time series will align well with its assigned grid cell in the lower troposphere measured by UAH, precisely because there’s no spurious warming from active urbanization.
That doesn’t mean it provides an accurate representation for nearby rural areas.
You are too focused on relative trends. Relative trends and anomalies cannot, by themselves, provide the accuracy needed for physics-based modeling. These processes depend on accurate absolute temperature data as well.
Nate, small errors can exist while reanalysis provides a modeled representation of broader conditions.
As for Roy Spencer, it is odd of you to suggest he is incompetent. Recognizing the strengths of reanalysis doesnt require pretending it’s flawless.
“odd of you to suggest he is incompetent.”
Don’t be silly. I was saying he understands meteorology way better than you or me.
Nate as usual is full of it and assumes without any evidence I have something against reanalysis. And worse via a knee jerk reaction he immediately assumed I was trying to mislead people.
Fact is almost 50 years ago I became aware that there was more than temperature involved in surviving comfortably in an uninsulated cabin in the northwest by analyzing temperature and other things. But that is only one of many reuses for reanalysis. Google AI though notes only the most popular notion of reanalysis.
I agree that reanalysis can be a superior mode of analyzing temperature data. But one needs to be smart about what it can do and can’t do. For example it can’t fix errors in measurement or poor sampling of temperature data (e.g. UHI). To claim that one must first recognize the error and second explain how it was corrected.
Its like the interest in effects of changes in orbital speed caused by other planets, if you don’t look you won’t find, nor can you claim you fixed or improved it via reanalysis.
But Nate apparently doesn’t understand its strengths and limitations and tries to offer it as a superior product for all purposes.
barry says:
”If there was something significantly off with global surface measurements, why on Earth do they show such excellent correlation with global satellite temperature, not only in trend, but also in the sign of each annual change?”
Natural climate change is occurring. Not only do you have global climate temperature variation occurring over climate length trends they are occurring at less than climate length trends. We also understand that these weather variations can favor say El Nino or La Nina over the other and that they have feedbacks that can accumulate in accordance with Milankovic theories.
This board has mulled the recent rapid warming out of time with El Nino and La Nina and its extended stay at a warm peak. I believe thats in sync with the unusual alignment of the planets that has been occurring and increasing becoming aligned over most of the last 44 years. . .an event that has an orbital periodicity of about 175 years.
If this is true we should know so within the next few decades. Or OTOH our scientific funding cabal could surprise us and actually build a computer model over a few years and establish that sooner. Who knows maybe somebody actually has a copies of Milankovic’s original works that hasn’t disappeared yet and it could be made available again to the public.
“So what you are saying is reanalysis isnt actually a mean temperature but an apparent temperature.
From Google AI:
Apparent temperature refers to how hot or cold it feels to a person based on a combination of the actual air temperature and other factors like humidity and wind”
Yes, Bill you falsely tried to suggest the T as determined from Reanalysis has something to do with ‘feels like’ temperature, which it has nothing to do with.
Now you know.
red,
“Barry, I did address this with my ghost town analogy. A ghost towns surface temperature time series will align well with its assigned grid cell in the lower troposphere measured by UAH, precisely because theres no spurious warming from active urbanization.”
Clearly towns with no UHI will have no UHI signal aloft. But this doesn’t address the point that UHI don’t show up in the LT record.
Roy Spencer: “…the only truly global temperature measurements, unaffected by artifacts such as urban heat island effects, are for the bulk atmosphere from Earth-orbiting satellites…”
Spencer has been working on UHI with land surface records and with surface records obtained by satellite (eg, Landsat). He does not use the MSU bulk atmosphere records at all, because they do not capture UHI.
It because the LT record is “unaffected by artifacts such as urban heat island effects,” that the excellent correlation with global, or land or sea surface or hemispheric records provides a good source of corroboration that the surface records are fairly robust.
Nate says:
”Yes, Bill you falsely tried to suggest the T as determined from Reanalysis has something to do with feels like temperature, which it has nothing to do with.
Now you know.”
You still have it wrong Nate. Apparent temperature is primarily ”feels like” temperature as most people don’t make your error.
An apparent temperature is a reanalysis. Its one of many reanalyses.
Reanalysis is not done to correct a temperature it is to adapt it to something else including a ”feels like”.
In the case of ecmwf reanalysis is done to create a 3D climate, not to correct a temperature monitoring system. Its results will be different due to the reanalysis and it has many uses like climate modeling of the atmosphere. But when you claim its better than the instruments that record the temperature you have completely lost touch with the purpose of a reanalysis.
When you start combining datasets you also introduce their errors, but the biggest error is to conclude they corrected the errors.
You screw up in the same way with with the consensus warming expected from CO2 which is nothing more than combining multiple models and finding a mean.
One or none of the models might be right, one better than all others and also no doubt when you have enough of them better than the mean of the whole bunch too.
“A ghost town with no population growth wont experience spurious warming from active urbanization, but it’s temperatures still arent an accurate representation for the rest of the region. Streets, buildings, etc. will continue to distort the local temperatures there relative to surrounding rural areas.”
In the same way dark coloured natural rock will be a few degrees warmer than a nearby shady glen? How about the temperature at the surface of a broad river compared to stony ground half a kilometre away?
Highly localised temps within the same region – even within the same square kilometre – can be very different depending on terrain. There can even be areas that are generally warmer than ghost towns, both at day and night.
But when we anomalise the data we remove the differences in order to determine change over time. Thus, a ghost town with no growing UHI is perfectly fine for this analysis. A thermometer at 1 km altitude is going to have a very different absolute temperature to the thermometer at the base of that mountain, but when we anomalise the data for each to a common reference, the absolute differences no longer interfere with our time series analysis.
Increasing UHI does affect the analysis. Temperature records try to account for this. Comparison with lower tropospheric temperatures indicate that UHI is either not a significant factor in very large sample sizes (global/regional), or is being adequately addressed.
This is harder to determine for regional analyses, owing to the greater variability in the data.
“Reanalysis is not done to correct a temperature it is to adapt it to something else including a ‘feels like'”
Totally false. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Read about and quote from the source given above that explains how reanalysis actually is done, rather than telling us your feelings about what you think it is doing.
Lacking quotes, we can safely ignore your opinions.
Barry,
“It because the LT record is unaffected by artifacts such as urban heat island effects, that the excellent correlation with global, or land or sea surface or hemispheric records provides a good source of corroboration that the surface records are fairly robust.”
This is not true. The fact that an inaccurate temperature time series can correlate with an accurate one keeps being overlooked by you. Correlation alone does not validate the robustness of surface data. To refresh your memory:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/
“Before inclusion in a global average, temperature series from individual meteorological stations are subjected to statistical tests for data quality. [13] Air temperatures are known to show correlation R = 0.5 over distances of about 1200 km. [14, 15] The first quality control test for any given station record includes a statistical check for correlation with temperature series among near-by stations. Figure 6 shows that the RM Young error-contaminated temperature series will pass this most basic quality control test. Further, the erroneous RM Young record will pass every single statistical test used for the quality control of meteorological station temperature records worldwide. [16, 17]”
To scientists, both surface temperature data and satellite data are complementary tools for understanding climate as a whole. Surface temperature records provide insights into near-surface phenomena, while satellite data reveals bulk atmospheric changes. Treating them as mere cross-checks oversimplifies their value and undervalues their individual contributions.
Barry,
“But when we anomalise the data we remove the differences in order to determine change over time. Thus, a ghost town with no growing UHI is perfectly fine for this analysis. A thermometer at 1 km altitude is going to have a very different absolute temperature to the thermometer at the base of that mountain, but when we anomalise the data for each to a common reference, the absolute differences no longer interfere with our time series analysis.”
Except absolute differences are not an interference because they provide valuable insights into the spatial variability of a region.
Temperature records from the base of a mountain and higher altitudes help understand how conditions change with elevation. If there are glaciers at those higher elevations, knowing the absolute temperatures would be important for regional modeling. This data helps predict the future trajectory of glacier melt and its cascading impacts on the surrounding environment and the regional climate itself.
A ghost town, on the other hand, represents a very small percentage of land and functions as its own microclimate.
“Temperature records from the base of a mountain and higher altitudes help understand how conditions change with elevation. If there are glaciers at those higher elevations, knowing the absolute temperatures would be important for regional modeling. This data helps predict the future trajectory of glacier melt and its cascading impacts on the surrounding environment and the regional climate itself.”
Sure, absolute temps and anomalies are used for different purposes, and they can even be used for the same purpose while examining different metrics of the same problem.
I asked below what your interest in absolute temperatures are, on a board where the main topic is climate change, so perhaps I have something of an answer here?
I had imagined we were talking about the fidelity of the temperature records in terms of climate change, as that is the background topic here. And for that purpose anomalies solve many problems that absolute temperatures do not, and are more malleable to homogenisation and correction.
red, is part of the impetus behind your discussion to get ‘warmists’ to understand there is value in absolute temperatures? Because you don’t need to convince me.
“I asked below what your interest in absolute temperatures are, on a board where the main topic is climate change, so perhaps I have something of an answer here?”
Absolute temperature is important for ERA’s data assimilation process to produce physically meaningful estimates of temperature in data-sparse regions. Even small errors in absolute temperature will amplify and propagate through nonlinear equations, leading to erroneous estimates.
ERA5 is one of the world’s leading global temperature datasets. It was developed by the ECMWF, an institution regarded as one of the most prestigious in climate science.
Replied in the thread below.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698351
” There is well-documented evidence that shows many U.S. surface temperature stations are poorly sited, which artificially suppresses measured diurnal temperature ranges. ”
Show us this again!
Hopefully you are able to show something more consistent than the ‘results’ published in 2011 by surface stations.org, claiming that of all USHCN stations, only 71 would be ‘well sited’.
Here is the list of these 71, published in 2012 by NOAA (which I luckily downloaded, the original link is lost):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ipzDRdJppZDM6ii4qj9h1AKFrC3t0h94/view
And here is the comparison of these 71 ‘well sited’ USHCN stations with 329 GHCN daily stations, respectively located in the same 1 degree grid cell as the 71:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14OiHmTn0DjbJF_s7cEZXicQd6-oAiCqe/view
*
As the arrogant anything-all-time-better-knowing krokodile very certainly knows
– the GHCN daily station set (over 20,000 in the US) contains stations with arbitrary location with no respect to ‘UHI’ considerations;
– GHCN daily data is ‘raw raw’, 0% adjusted;
– a comparison of daily (Tmin+Tmax)/2 to the 24h average computed out of USCRN hourly data coming from all 137 stations shows no relevant difference between the two:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k8oNXAY0hFrkcRo7x5eEVTEWBGsAK-CX/view
nor can it be seen in the same comparison based on the hourly data of the German ‘DWD’ stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/171KaOg775MFB0jHqcN7PtySU-IXP3fwa/view
*
Show us YOUR results, krokodile – aka Ho~g~le, aren’t you?
For Figure 1:
You are making the same mistake Fall et al. (2011) specifically warned about. If you had read the paper, you would know that while mean temperature trends across sites may be similar, the Tmin and Tmax trends show opposite-signed biases due to poor sitting.
As for your Figure 2, your y-axis spans a range from +25 C to -5C. That is so broad that it masks the very differences were discussing.
No, he’s not making that error because he’s not commenting on that. All he is saying is that the median and the diurnal min/max average are virtually identical.
And yes, Fall et al confirmed the official US temperature records (NOAA etc) for average US temps (min/max average method). The max/min bias was already known about, and this research contributed to the field.
They buried the corroboration of average temps at the bottom of the study, but that was understandable, given who was writing it.
Anthony Watts learned something valuable – time of observation bias is a necessary correction to make to avoid spurious results. 4 years prior to that paper he co-authored, he was casting very negative aspersions on this adjustment.
“No, hes not making that error because hes not commenting on that. All he is saying is that the median and the diurnal min/max average are virtually identical.”
He’s not? Lets revisit what he actually said:
“Show us this again!
Hopefully you are able to show something more consistent than the results published in 2011 by surface stations.org, claiming that of all USHCN stations, only 71 would be well sited.”
This clearly relates to the surfacestations.org analysis. His comparison between the median and the diurnal min/max average is irrelevant here because it was based on USCRN data, which avoids the siting issues documented in the 2011 study. The two datasets are not comparable in this context.
Moreover, his apparent discovery that the median and the diurnal min/max average are similar is trivial. When there are only two values (tmax and tmin), the median is effectively the average.
“They buried the corroboration of average temps at the bottom of the study, but that was understandable, given who was writing it.”
The corroboration of average temperature trends was not “buried”; it was simply not the focus of the study. The main finding was that poorly sited stations produced opposite signal biases in Tmax and Tmin. The best-sited stations showed no century-scale trend in DTR.
On the contrary, Menne et al. overlooked this significant finding. How could they have missed this key point? A lack of DTR has implications for the physical accuracy of climate models.
“Moreover, his apparent discovery that the median and the diurnal min/max average are similar is trivial. When there are only two values (tmax and tmin), the median is effectively the average.”
This is wrong. Scratch this.
Bindidon didn’t address diurnal range change, he only used averages.
“On the contrary, Menne et al. overlooked this significant finding.”
No, this contribution to the field was not overlooked.
Reassessing changes in diurnal temperature range: A new data set and characterization of data biases
“Field-based studies and statistical analyses have consistently concluded that the CRS to MMTS transition led to a positive bias in Tn and a negative bias in Tx, artificially reducing DTR in the raw data [Fall et al., 2011; Williams et al., 2012c, and references therein].”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015JD024583
Menne is a coauthor. Fall et al is cited twice in that paper, such as the above.
The corroboration with mean temps was buried in the paper. And no wonder, Anthony Watts, coauthor, had been impugning the mean US temp records for years, saying they ran too hot, made wild adjustments, etc. So it was quite something for those who like me had been visiting his site since it started to discover this result. I remember how the long conversation went. I also remember Mosher and John V in the bowels of climateaudit doing some preliminary analysis with the surfacestations best-sited stations as they came in. Mosher went on to work with BEST.
surfacestations.org and the resulting paper Fall et al contributed to understanding of biases in the US temp record. I congratulated Anthony on surfacestations in the late 2000s. It was a worthy, grassroots effort.
At the same time, he authorises a lot of rubbish posted at his website.
I was referring to Menne et al. (2010), which concluded that there is no evidence of an inflated trend in mean temperature. But thanks for sharing your link.
Now, the study you referenced relies on adjustments. Adjustments only align monthly anomaly time series with data from neighboring stations deemed “reliable,” without addressing the errors embedded in the raw data itself. If these adjustments truly resolved systematic errors, they would also correct the absolute temperature records (but they don’t). The authors explicitly claim that systematic errors are being corrected based on differences in trend distributions between adjusted and raw data (Figure 6), but this assumption is flawed.
Systematic errors are not strictly breakpoints in a time series that can be resolved through statistical homogenization. Such errors can only be accurately identified and corrected through field calibration tests using multiple thermometers under controlled conditions.
Do you recall the study I shared back in late December?
“I was referring to Menne et al. (2010)”
Then you should know exactly why they “missed this key point.” Fall et al (2011) hadn’t been published.
I don’t recall the study you shared back in December.
Fall et al find the same trends for average temperatures between their 80 well-sited stations (CR1&2) and the full USHCNv2 network.
From 2005 USCHN full network pairs very closely with the ‘pristine’ subset of USCRN, referenced in Fall et al.
What you are proposing for verification would require significant funding. How many weather stations would be sufficient? Probably half the USHCN network. A researcher looking for a grant would have to demonstrate that the current verification methods are so inadequate as to require the extra spending. I think the case against it is too strong.
“From 2005 USCHN full network pairs very closely with the pristine subset of USCRN, referenced in Fall et al.”
If relative trends were all that mattered, you could simply normalize all data to a common reference, and there would be no need for rigorous attention to absolute temperature data. However, the developers of the USCRN intentionally prioritized installing high quality instruments and implementing standardized data collection to ensure both accurate absolute temperatures and reliable long term records.
In contrast, USHCN data is limited to relative analysis because its adjusted dataset relies entirely on statistical homogenization.
That’s right, most weather stations were not planned with long term climate monitoring in mind.
“If relative trends were all that mattered, you could simply normalize all data to a common reference”
Could? That is ongoing for decades.
“and there would be no need for rigorous attention to absolute temperature data.”
On this board relative trends are the main interest. The general topic is climate change. No problem if you bring other interests, but it would be good if you could illuminate them so we don’t talk at cross purposes.
I’m familiar, but not very conversant with, ERA5.
If I investigate your comments that “small errors in absolute temperature will amplify and propagate through nonlinear equations, leading to erroneous estimates,” by searching ERA papers, what will I learn?
For example, will I learn that this is a serious issue, or that the propagation of errors is minimised by the processing, or that this has not been considered at all by the researchers?
You will discover that, during the assimilation process, the assumed error distributions for the surface temperature parameter, derived from a thermometer affected by a non-constant systematic error, are smaller than the actual magnitude of the error.
https://confluence.ecmwf.int/display/CKB/ERA5%3A+uncertainty+estimation
The reference clearly states that systematic model errors and systematic observation errors are neglected:
“The EDA takes into account mostly random uncertainties in the observations, sea surface temperature (SST) and the physical parametrizations of the model. In principle, as long as these uncertainties are properly described and there are no additional sources of uncertainty, then the EDA will properly describe the reanalysis uncertainties. However, systematic model errors are not taken into account by the EDA and”
I see that EDA mostly assesses for random error, and not systematic error.
Are you implying that systematic error is not considered atll, just because the EDA uncertainty tool doesn’t quantify it?
That would seem to be the case.
As absolute temperature observations are fed into the model every 12 hours (or 24 for when there is only daily data), and the model tailors the previous 12 hours to meet the new observations over and over again, how can an error in an absolute temperature propagate if the model is ‘trained’ every 12 hours by real observations? The model window is only 12 hours. And errors are also constrained by the suite of other observations that feed the model,every 12 to 24 hours.
Maybe it is not a coincidence that ERA5 temperature time series is a close match with the surface and satellite series? If errors propagated, wouldn’t we see significantly different results from the other temperature time series?
Am I going to find out that systematic error IS, in fact something that the ERA team have considered and worked to resolve?
Because your last post suggests that it is completely overlooked.
“As absolute temperature observations are fed into the model every 12 hours (or 24 for when there is only daily data), and the model tailors the previous 12 hours to meet the new observations over and over again, how can an error in an absolute temperature propagate if the model is trained every 12 hours by real observations? The model window is only 12 hours. And errors are also constrained by the suite of other observations that feed the model,every 12 to 24 hours.”
The real observation is also the systematic error that all ensemble members in the spread are anchored onto. The model does not “know” that the anchor is corrupted.
For example, if a thermometer incorrectly reads 23.4C instead of the physically correct 21C for a daytime maxima, the model uses 23.4C as input alongside its physics to estimate values for nearby data-sparse regions. Even though the assimilation window is only 12 hours, the systematic error persists because it remains in the input and influences the models dynamics.
“Maybe it is not a coincidence that ERA5 temperature time series is a close match with the surface and satellite series? If errors propagated, wouldnt we see significantly different results from the other temperature time series?”
No. Reanalysis output and the input data will correlate when normalized to a common reference because both are responding to the same regional variability. So the final global temperature anomaly should correlate significantly among all datasets because the SEM in each dataset will be very small after averaging together regional anomalies.
“Am I going to find out that systematic error IS, in fact something that the ERA team have considered and worked to resolve?”
This would be very challenging to resolve. To get an accurate estimate for a data sparse region would require assigning the correct error distribution to each of the members in the ensemble. A systematic error influenced by environmental factors would have a varying magnitude, necessitating detailed and precise metadata for accurate modeling.
“The real observation is also the systematic error that all ensemble members in the spread are anchored onto. The model does not “know” that the anchor is corrupted.
For example, if a thermometer incorrectly reads 23.4C instead of the physically correct 21C for a daytime maxima, the model uses 23.4C as input alongside its physics to estimate values for nearby data-sparse regions.”
I read that if the temperature reading is at odds with the other surrounding values in the ensemble – that is, the other members of the ensemble contraindicate the value of an individual member – the model assigns less weight to the temperature. ERA5 is good at picking up random errors in this way, particularly when the field is obs data rich. Thus, the temperature reading could down-weighted if it is at odds with the estimation provided by the short-term (eg, 12-hour) forecast. The outputted temperature is then adjusted to the background estimate of the model.
However, not all errors will be detected by the weather model, and can pull the 12-hour (or 3-hour) forecast off the mark.
“Even though the assimilation window is only 12 hours, the systematic error persists because it remains in the input and influences the models dynamics.”
This would persist only for the model features that are not constrained by observations. These are outputs for which there are no or very little data, such as evapotranspiration and latent and sensible heat fluxes.
As far as I’ve read, the output variables that have no observational inputs are not used to constrain observations. While they are part of the dynamic physics of the atmospheric model, they are not fed back into the next forecast window. So some outputs with a persistent error (within the 12-hour window) have consistent jumps at each window boundary.
That’s not to imply that persistent model error does not exist – it is discussed in the literature, and I see that it is given significant attention by the researchers involved with ERA5 – but I’m not sure that absolute temperature errors propagate beyond the 12-hour window. A systematic temperature bias from a weather station, however, could contribute to a persistent error in the output when paired with systematic bias in the weather model. At least as far as I’ve read.
I found a slide show from one of the chief ERA5 people that simplifies what I think is your contention about model bias.
https://events.ecmwf.int/event/376/contributions/4294/attachments/2463/4262/Weak_Constraint.pdf
Here is a 2020 article on systematic model bias and attempts to correct for it.
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/163/meteorology/improving-handling-model-bias-data-assimilation
This is a list of variables which mentions how they are handled in the model.
https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/reanalysis-era5-single-levels?tab=overview
And a research paper describing ERA5.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.3803
I asked: “Am I going to find out that systematic error IS, in fact something that the ERA team have considered and worked to resolve?”
You replied: “This would be very challenging to resolve….”
Which sidestepped the question.
Can we agree that systematic model error and propagating error is something the researchers are very much aware of and have developed methods to address? If so, then the next step would be to assess the quality of those efforts.
I read back to get the context for this discussion. Nate’s post that the surface temperature for January 2025 was different to UAH was based on the ERA5 output.
So just to clarify the issue, you are saying that ERA5 is prone to propagating errors for monthly global temperature output due to systematic model bias (perhaps coupled with bias in global monthly temperature).
Is that correct?
Just checked – GISS and NOAA have updated and now show global data for January 2025. Both have the highest January anomaly on record. Had.CRUt, JMA and RSS are not yet updated.
Satellite data tends to lag surface WRT ENSO events, so possibly we are seeing some lag here? RSS will be interesting to see.
nate…just goes to show that fudged surface data is unreliable.
Which data did you rely on to claim that the annual US temp in 1934 was as hot as recent years?
Forecast of the feels temperature for February 10.
https://i.ibb.co/GfGWf0Sr/ventusky-feel-20250210t1200.jpg
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
Normal Average Annual Temperature ( 1991-2020 ) : 54,7 F =12,661 C
This result corresponds to severe hypothermia
Klaus
Please give us the link within
https://www.weather.gov/
to the page presenting this data.
https://futurism.com/elon-musk-conflict-interest-shutting-down-usaid
https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf
Thanks a lot.
Amazingly cold but correct.
When downloading CONUS TAVG monthly data out of NOAA’s Climata at a Glance
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tavg/1/0/1895-2024/data.csv
and averaging for 1991-2020, I even obtain 53.27 F aka 11.81 C…
Thank you.
Amazingly cold but correct.
When I download the CONUS TAVG monthly data from Clim at a Glance
https://tinyurl.com/2uxa7rfz
and average all months in 1991-2020, I obtain 53.27 F i.e. 11.81 C
Oops?! The comment I thought lost suddenly is on the thread…
A lot of confusion here, as usual.
CONUS is NOT Global and surface is NOT Lower Troposphere.
Klaus posted US national temps at the top of this thread. Feel free to start your own.
Bindi-dingdong thinks that 53.27F is totally different from 54.7F when you’re freezing to death.
No one is freezing to death when the air temperature is 53F, unless you’re naked and wet in wind overnight. Who said anything about freezing to death at 53F?
The discussion about carbon neutral has increasing public interest. Some claim the goal is rapidly approaching. What does the data show? Coal seems to have peaked, but oil and gas are still increasing. This data source shows that fossil fuels still amount to about 83% of global energy. That is down just slightly. Wind and solar remain small contributors in the renewable category compared to nuclear (renewable or just carbon free?) and hydropower.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
tim…I doubt that the public in general has much of an interest in the carbon neutral meme. Our government in Canada is beginning to concede that the Canadian public either don’t want carbon neutral or they have little interest.
We have a Green Party running federally who are struggling to get minimal support. They have 2 seats in a 338 seat Parliament. That reflects Canada’s interest in climate change, since that’s what the Green’s are all about.
Looks a bit like the Australian Greens, with focus on environmental issues and short on details when it comes to fiscal policies, national security and social policies compared to the major parties.
klaus…from your link…
https://www.weather.gov/media/slc/ClimateBook/Annual%20Average%20Temperature%20By%20Year.pdf
***
Note that 1934 was as warm as today. No one has attempted to explain that warming.
Someone brought up hypothermia, a condition that is inaccurately related only to freezing conditions. Hypothermia can happen at room temperature.
Hypothermia is a better example of ‘energy in – energy out’ than the fictitious Earth energy budget. The body can only maintain it’s 37C core temperature if it has energy input from food. Without food, the core temperature drops toward the ambient temperature.
Of course, the rate of cooling, a la Newton’s Law of Cooling, depends on temperature difference. The greater the temperature difference the higher the cooling rate. We need to remember that a room temperature of 20C represents a 17C temperature difference wrt core body temperature. Freezing water at near 0C represents a 37C temperature difference.
https://health.clevelandclinic.org/hypothermia-can-happen-indoors-surprising-facts
I might add that we must be careful with the global averages in the document due to how they were measured and calculated. It has not been till recently that we have developed a fetish for calculating global averages and it has been done largely with a huge alarmist bias.
“Note that 1934 was as warm as today. No one has attempted to explain that warming.”
The worst North American drought year of the last millennium: 1934 Cook et al (2013)
For one.
You sound exactly like Donald Trump telling a lie. Just put his accent on that quote and it could have come out of his mouth.
Which dataset did you refer to when you determined that 1934 was so warm compared to recent years?
If it’s the one Klais linked, that’s NOAA.
Are you saying their dataset is reliable enough for you to refer to when talking about which year is warmer than another?
If not, which dataset are you relying on?
To see the years in context, here they are lined up in a time series:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/national-temperature-index/time-series/anom-tavg/ann/12
If you can’t see earlier than 2005, just pull the slider underneath the graph to the left. Or you can look at it here.
https://tinyurl.com/yzb4mbnx
Short story, it’s warmer now than in 1934.
But the summer of 1934 is still a humdinger.
https://tinyurl.com/yzb4mbnx
Hmmm tinyurl seems to be messed up.
If you want to see the amazing summer of 1934, which has only ever been tied in recent times, click on the NOAA link and choose
Parameter: Average Temperature Anomaly
Time Scale: 3-Month
Month: August
But don’t listen to Gordon if he says no one’s ever investigated it.
As usual, Barry side-steps the question. Why was it as warm in 1934 as today? Also, Barry dismisses 1934 as an anomaly while ignoring an entire decade of drought conditions in North America in which consecutive heat waves records were set that still stand today.
The heat wave record was set in 1936…
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/the-great-heat-wave-of-1936-hottest-summer-in-us-on-record.html
but the entire ’30s decade had droughts. We were taught in first year Geology that the great dust storms produced were due to fields being ploughed incorrectly. I regard that as nonsense today since the soil needs to dry out first and for a long time with consecutive droughts.
What caused those droughts in the 1930’s…the trace gas C02???
barry…NOAA surface data is so fudged and corrupt as to be unreliable.
“As usual, Barry side-steps the question. Why was it as warm in 1934 as today?”
I literally posted a study into that year in my reply. Did you forget your meds today? There are tons of studies on it – contrary to your inane comment
“No one has attempted to explain that warming.”
” barry… NOAA surface data is so fudged and corrupt as to be unreliable.”
How do you know what the annual temperature was in 1934? Which data set are you using to say that it is the same temperature as ‘today’?
Please tell me it’s not just your gut feeling. Which serious source provided you with the information that the annual temperature in 1934 was “as warm As today”?
Sorry about the diversions into politics, but these are extremely interesting times. If Roy asks for it to cease, I’ll oblige. Till then….
Areas that Trump wants America to take possession of:
Greenland
Panama Canal
Canada
Gaza
I wonder if this list will grow.
When do we get to call him an imperialist? Do we need one more portion of the globe to be an stated acquisition, or is it more than one?
barry…you should know by now that Trump specializes in opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble. He thinks he is running a non-union corporation where workers are at his mercy, and that he can bully them into submission.
Trump must obey the Constitution and if he does not, that is grounds for impeaching him. Unless he manages somehow to bypass the Constitution, he is doing nothing more than venting.
There is zero chance that he will take over Canada as things stand. To do that, he’d need complicity and popularity from within and that’s not happening. All he has done is manage to make us stronger, in defiance of any US takeover of our resources.
The only chance he has is if the Tories get into power, and if the Liberals are smart, they will play that card and keep them out.
His threats against Greenland have brought the entire European Union into the fray in support of Denmark.
The US became great by getting along with its Allies and friends. In a single week, Trump has gone a long way to alienating them.
“you should know by now that Trump specializes in opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble.”
Oh, fully aware. He just says stuff regardless of consequences or facts.
In simple terms, he continually lies. In more forgiving terms, he makes stuff up.
He constantly bypasses the constitution. DOGE is currently operating outside the constitution.
SCOTUS recently ruled that a president’s actions are immune to law for the most part. So not only does Donny now have the yes men around him and the crazies that will go even further than him, he has the license to do a lot more than last time.
Not that legality was a big issue for him to begin with, but SCOTUS has just endorsed his own ideas that the constitution is beneath the presidency.
Herr’s a ‘forecast’ for you. Trump is going to cause turmoil and chaos on the global stage, with an escalation in ME conflict. He is also going to cause economic hardship at home and abroad. Unless Ukraine wins the war and Russia limps back home. Trump will screw that conflict up, too.
Barry, You’ll be pleased to know BC Conservative Party will have its annual AGM in Nanaimo on 1 March 2025. A new executive board will be elected. BC Conservatives are currently the opposition party in BC Legislature.
Knowing nothing about BC I’ve just had a quick google. The election last year followed the global trend where the incumbent lost or did much worse.
While one could pick at economic failures, the economy since 2020 has done reasonably well compared to the rest of the world. Low unemployment, a reasonable but not completed recovery from the COVID depression, but the cost of things has risen higher in BC than the global average increase post-COVID.
All this with a domestic and commercial energy supply that is mostly renewable. BC has an advantage with hydro, it seems.
barry, Klaus
Klaus’ idea to show how cool CONUS normals for 1991-2020 are was a good catch.
For years I have regularly shown Robertson’s utter incompetence even wrt things as simple as CONUS’ temperatures since their ‘official’ begin in 1895.
All the time he endlessly repeats the same allegation that the 1930s were warmer than today. They were not – even if you restrict the view to a monthly TMAX series whose descending sort shows, at its top 10, a tiny bit more Julys out of the 1930s than out of the 2000s:
1936 07 90.81
1934 07 90.52
2012 07 89.92
1901 07 89.92
2006 07 89.55
1980 07 89.49
1931 07 89.49
1954 07 89.26
2022 07 89.22
1930 07 89.10
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/national/time-series/110/tmax/1/0/1895-2024/data.csv
*
But months are months and years are years; for these, you have to look at their averages and not at their Julys.
Here is a descending sort of National Weather Services’ yearly data posted by Klaus:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/185pXddFq-22Fs_cqCcQlIuptRtHCFvhu/view
You immediately see the dominance of the 2000s with the top 10 full of them; the first of the 1930s is at position 11, the second one at position… 58.
*
{ In fact, the posted list was published in April 2024, hence 2024 is missing, which is actually the new topmost year. }
*
Even worse: ignoramus Robertson apparently never had a look at the end of such a descending sort.
Otherwise, he would have seen that the 10 bottommost positions contain 3 of the 10 1930s, with 1932 being even the coldest of all years.
*
Finally, let’s hammer on the nail one last time, by averaging the two decades:
– 2000s: 54.3 (F)
– 1930s: 51.3
*
But Robertson is known to always deliberately ignore contradictions and to soon resort his unchanged blah blah.
**
So much also about the stupid polemic posted above by hyperdummkopf ‘red krokodile’:
” Bindi-dingdong thinks that 53.27F is totally different from 54.7F when youre freezing to death. ”
A difference of 3 F i.e. 1.7 C is in such a series a fairly relevant number, ¡basta ya!
Big talk from someone who thinks a 30C y-axis is a genius move. If Im a dummkopf, what do we call someone who botches basic chart scaling?
In a previous comment, I showed a comparison of daily (Tmin+Tmax)/2 to the 24h average computed out of USCRN hourly data coming from all 137 stations shows no relevant difference between the two.
But accidentally I selected absolute data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k8oNXAY0hFrkcRo7x5eEVTEWBGsAK-CX/view
*
Hypergenius red krokodile’s reaction:
” As for your Figure 2, your y-axis spans a range from +25 C to -5C. That is so broad that it masks the very differences we’re discussing. ”
This is completely ridiculous, as using absolute data shows even more the similarity between the two averages of hourly data because of the higher deviations with regard to the dmall differences in the polynomials.
*
But the genius wants a y-axis spanning a smaller range, hence we show the same stuff in anomaly form, giving smaller deviations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cVtzEpaL5S_QLLDTLADqcMiad-KgrVkv/view
The same can be shown of course for the German hourly DWD data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FoEq50ao5rfZepgQGVY1MtV56lal0TMe/view
*
That’s the reason why ‘red krokodile’ 100% deserves the mention ‘hyperdummkopf’.
Like Robertson and Clint R, who discredit anyone showing GHE, global warming or even the lunar spin, the hyperdummkopf can’t contradict technically with own results, hence keeps polemically discrediting.
Comprehension failure!
For 30-year trends, the difference in (Tmax + Tmin)/2 trends between the entire network and only the CRN1&2 (best-sited) stations was less than 0.01C/decade. So, a y-axis spanning 30C is clearly excessive and obscures the very differences under discussion.
Furthermore, the data you’re using was derived from the USCRN dataset, which does not include the stations analyzed in the 2011 study. This means youre not addressing the central issue I raised. You are just deflecting with irrelevant comparisons.
barry
I saw above another blah blah, for years and years endlessly repeated by ignoramus Robertson:
” barry… NOAA surface data is so fudged and corrupt as to be unreliable. ”
*
Robertson lives in such a deep, persistent hatred against NOAA that he can’t stop denigrating what they do – of course without having ever been able to technically, let alone scientifically contradict their results.
Instead he posts links to prehistorical ‘Musings from the Chiefio’ (Techno bits and mind pleasers) like this incredibly incompetent stuff:
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
No need to say that E.M. Smith is his favourite contemporary authority figure!
*
But let’s forget this ridiculous chiefio figure and his tremendously absurd evaluations of GHCN V2, and go to a more productive, concrete data comparison with as example – by accident, he he – the region around Vancouver (a 2.5 degree grid cell centred on 49N-123W), in which we can see how close are actually the data of
(1) NOAA’s Climate at a Glance based on GHCN V4’s adjusted and homogenized variant,
(2) GHCN V4’s raw, unadjusted source GHCN daily
and
(3) last but not least, UAH LT’s data for the same 2.5 degree grid cell.
*
Here it is (chart design dated end of October ’24):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I2_U77XFXLJJSjYovH525LBkwtpqgY8_/view
*
Linear estimates in C / decade for the period Dec 1978 – Aug 2024:
– UAH LT: 0.24 ± 0.11
– GHCN daily: 0.17 ± 0.04
– NOAA CaaG: 0.14 ± 0.02
*
I can only repeat:
Who credulously believes Robertson’s incompetent lies 100% deserves it.
**
Sources
NOAA CaaG
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/49,-123/tavg/land_ocean/1/0/1937-2024/data.csv
GHCN daily
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily
UAH LT (old version 6.0 at that time)
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
Yes, one wonders how it is that such small differences between the favoured dataset and the rest excites such withering dismissal.
I’m still keen to know which dataset Gordon relies on – assuming it’s not just his gut feeling – to say that 1934 US temperature was as warm as recently in the US.
He has rubbished every single dataset that could give him that answer, so it’s a mystery how he comes to this conclusion.
Bindidon seems quick to criticize others with an insult, but slow to admit mistakes. In a previous topic, I correctly stated that there have been periods of rapid sea level rise in recent history. The response was to post graphs (not raw data) that had been smoothed with 10-year averaging along with suggestions about being an expert on the topic. Data smoothing is the oldest trick in the book to hide rapid or erratic changes.
I found raw data from a reliable government source to show a rapid rate of sea level rise between 1930 and 1950 with a long period of rather slow rise after that. The obvious conclusion being that the current 40-year period is not exceptional even though it is longer and at a faster rate. I did not see an apology or acknowledgement.
More recently, Bindidon seemed to confuse the concept of latent heat of vaporization as it relates to heat pumps. I very politely posted a detail explanation of the error, and once again received no acknowledgement.
Dottore Tim S
This is not an insult, Dottore. It is just a somewhat sarcastic reaction to your all trhe time condescending, professoral tones.
**
1. ” Bindidon seems quick to criticize others with an insult, … ”
*
Your behavior on this blog luckily is free of all the discrediting, denigrating, insulting and lying you seem, unlike me, to politely overlook or, unlike me, avoid to reply, possibly because you fear the harsh responses following your replies.
*
Starting for example with Robertson, insulting years ago Andrew Motte, one of the ten main direct translators of Newton’s Principia and historically the very first one, a ‘cheating S O B’ – just because he was unable to follow Newton’s (New) Latin and thought Motte woulkd have it plain wrong.
Robertson even insulted someone with ‘a$$hole’, a few years ago too.
Continuing for example with Clint R, who regularly denigrates and insults hundreds of historical and contemporary astronomers, mathematicians and physicists as ‘astrologers’ – just because all of them understood how to compute the lunar spin whose existence he denies.
Such people insult me since I visit the blog – either still under the same pseudonym or under other ones – just because I don’t share anything of their 360 degree denial attitude.
*
2. ” … but slow to admit mistakes. ”
Unlike some opinionated posters who endlessly repeat the same nonsense despite having been contradicted and corrected, I always have admitted my mistakes; this then was cowardly misused by these people with further discrediting of my positions and results.
But… to admit a mistake, I first have to admit it is one.
**
3. ” I found raw data from a reliable government source to show a rapid rate of sea level rise betweeI found raw data from a reliable government source to show a rapid rate of sea level rise between 1930 and 1950 with a long period of rather slow rise after that. ”
*
On January 19, I stored the beginning of an inevitably complex reply to your somewhat superficial comment about sea levels and therein your brazen claims about
– the reasons for my smoothing you manifestly did not understand;
– the allegedly raw data you found,
but was at that time too sick to finish the intended comment.
*
I’m recovering now, but it’s a bit late here at UTC+1, and will reply in detail tomorrow, including a reaction to your heat pump blah blah which didn’t have the least relevance in the context of the recent discussion about these devices.
*
Ayez donc un peu de patience, Dottore.
I have criticized Gordon, Clint, and others on occasion, but I try to be professional and not use overt insults. I am sure they do not like it, but I at least attempt to make my comments objective and include some kind of explanation or justification.
As for being condescending, I try to follow two important rules. I only comment on things that I know to be true, and I will admit my mistakes or modify my comment if necessary. If I am speculating or expressing an opinion, I try to make that obvious or directly state that it is an opinion. If you notice irony, sarcasm, or attempted humor, that is usually on purpose.
I admit fully that I am not a climate expert. I am a student of climate. On the other hand, I am very well educated and have significant professional experience working with most of the raw science involved. I am really good at doing investigative research, and I know how to write effective statements.
As you point out, I try not to comment on criticism or other things that are obviously incorrect.
In other news, Avian Flu has joined the growing list of things made worse by Climate Change. The claim is that migratory habits have changed. Just today, there is news of an infected cat. The pandemic potential is probably rather weak. There already is a vaccine (scary bad word for some people) in short supply that can easily be ramped-up if needed. More notably, this could become a case study in zoonotic pandemic development.
Historically, zoonotic development takes time for the many mutations to develop. This is compelling evidence that COVID-19 was a lab leak of a gain-of-function experiment. COVID did not need any time at all to develop the ability to spread asymptomatically as an aerosol. The original SARS and MERS never became highly infectious because they were identified in their early development.
Lab leak is still a possibility. There is no compelling medical evidence that GoF was involved. Pretty much all medical research on that points to natural origin.
There is more volume of research (number of published papers) on zoonotic development, but that does mean it is correct. None of it is conclusive, that’s right, none because the crossover animal has not been found and to that extent, does not exist. The lab does exist, but the Chinese Communist Party will not let any outside observers go anywhere near it (okay, the street out front), while they also deny that it has any military or state secret functions.
My bad. Insert this lead sentence:
There is more volume of research (number of published papers) on zoonotic development, but that does NOT mean it is correct.
“This is compelling evidence that COVID-19 was a lab leak of a gain-of-function experiment.”
No.
“There is more volume of research (number of published papers) on zoonotic development, but that does NOT mean it is correct.”
Yes.
There has been a huge amount of research on the origins. Shutting the world down can be inspirational in some respects. Non-zoonotic origins has been explored and not entirely rejected, but that’s very different from “compelling evidence.”
So we have two very opposing views. The strongest case for a lab leak comes form Dr Robert Redfield, who actually is a Virologist.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/vargasreports/declassify-scovid-docs-former-cdc-director/
[The man who headed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when the COVID pandemic began says still-classified State Department documents add credibility to his long-held contention that the virus spread because of a leak from a laboratory.
Once they are declassified, the American public will get a much better understanding of the knowledge base we have, Dr. Robert Redfield told NewsNations Elizabeth Vargas Reports.
Rep. Brad Wenstrup, R-Ohio, chair of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, says he recently viewed the State Departments documents, which he says strongly hint that the Chinese Communist Party attempted to cover up the fact that COVID first spread due to a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.]
The other point of view for zoonotic origins has many proponents. They all have the problem that the crossover animal does not exist. My favorite nonsense argument is the fact that SARS-CoV-2 virus was found at the wet market and on animals at the wet market — the smoking gun! This is actually humorous since infected people tend to sneeze and none of animals were infected — it was all external.
Anyway, I will agree it is not fair to use guilt by association to develop a stereotype. Nonetheless, this is the most extreme view for zoonotic release I found. It comes from the World Socialist Web Site:
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/01/28/thlk-j28.html
I couldn’t find any research by Redfield on the issue, but I did find research papers that he co-authored with Fauci on COVID 19.
So, no, we don’t have Redfield on one side of medical evidence, we have testimonial from him – his opinion.
You can read the wiki entry on him regarding COVID.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._Redfield#COVID-19_pandemic
“The other point of view for zoonotic origins has many proponents. They all have the problem that the crossover animal does not exist.”
This is also the case for, Ebola, Spanish Flu (H1N1) and HCV. All assumed to have a zoonotic origin, owing to similarity with viruses found in animals, but the precursor animal group was never found.
Yes it’s a problem, but it’s hardly definitive.
Why would you provide an ‘extreme’ view? Isn’t the mass of evidence and a balanced view better?
No barry, I am not going to chase 10 different strawman arguments at once. Do you have an intelligent question or comment? In 1918 things were different.
My comments are intended to be sincere and not reflexive arguments just for the sake of argument. You are on the verge of becoming irrelevant like so many others.
I might regret this, but I am going to explain why Wikipedia is so very useful and reliable on some technical subjects and complete junk on anything political or controversial. I am a Wikipedia editor. It is nothing special. Anyone can just sign up. Anyway, I have access (maybe the public does also — not sure) to the inside debate process.
There are different levels of editors depending on the “importance” of the subject. Every topic has a main editor who commands the input. Period. The way the game is played is that nothing is supposed to be published on the public page unless it has a reference of some kind which is usually a media reference. Sometimes you will see notes that a better reference is needed.
That sound good, right? The problem is that anything at all can be included so long as it came from a source with a reference — any reference. This is at the discretion of the prime editor.
The prime editor gets to decide. I am not even close to that level, and I am not sure how that privilege gets earned. So there you have it. One person, or maybe a small group with seniority get to decide at their discretion what references get posted and which ones do not.
I witnessed one discussion where a climate change claim was made. Someone made a comment that it should be left out because the site was getting a reputation for being too liberal and it was not needed for the topic. The prime editor disagreed. End of discussion.
I tend to lay low and not make waves for two reasons. One is that I do not spend much time working as an editor. The other reason is that I do not want to get a reputation as a trouble maker. I want to preserve my ability to argue things that I think are important. I want to save my battles for things that count.
The comments on this editors page do not get saved because the purpose is to screen content before it gets posted. Once a decision is made the discussion is deleted. These people who all know each other fight like cats and dogs about trivial little details — just like some of you on this site.
Rant is over.
I have no idea what your issue is. I disagreed with you that there is compelling evidence that SARS CoV2 arose from GoF manipulation. We discussed it. I think I was polite.
I get the impression that you are leaning more heavily than I am on a lab leak/gain of function theory. All I’ve said, and am happy to back up (though you already seem to be aware) is that the lab leak theory remains in contention, and the weight of medical evidence is against GoF cause without entirely rejecting it.
I’m well aware of how wikipedia is put together and its limitations.
I have no idea why you cited a socialist magazine on a medical question. Could you explain your thinking? Were you trying to achieve some sort of balance in the two sources you chose?
My homespun research on this topic has usually taken me to google scholar. I often look for review papers on various science-based topics, that cite and summarize the prevailing view, as well as explaining and contextualising alternative views.
I also checked the NIH contract with Wuhan Lab and the US medical group requesting funding 3 years ago. I tend to go to source wherever possible. I certainly don’t rely on news media (or wikipedia) to get a grounded view.
Barry made a perfectly valid point, that the ‘precursor group was never found’ for many infectious viruses , and thus this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, as Tim suggests.
But Tim has no response other his standard condescension and insults:
“No barry, I am not going to chase 10 different strawman arguments at once. Do you have an intelligent question or comment? In 1918 things were different.
You are on the verge of becoming irrelevant like so many others.”
What are the statistical odds this outbreak would occur that the place they are doing the gain of function research?
It’s not clear that the Wuhan lab was conducting regulated gain of function research. They manipulated a virus to infect ‘humanised’ mice, but it is a matter of debate whether this transgressed GoF prohibitions in terms of the narrow definition determined by the US health services, which is about the risk posed to human safety. Gain of function research is routinely done to, create vaccines and antibiotics, strengthen crop resistance and find cures for cancer, to name a few activities which fall under the broad category which are not prohibited.
The Wuhan lab is under a cloud of suspicion because it refused to share its research data with the NIH via Eco Health Alliance, a US non profit that had secured the grants for Wuhan research on coronaviruses. NIH withdrew funding early 2020 and restored it a few months later, finally withdrawing funding altogether in 2023 after reporting failures both from EHA and Wuhan, particularly that the research had increased virus virulence in mice.
BREAKING NEWS:
barry has full access to all of the secret records of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. He knows what work was done and what activities did not occur. He has proof that there was no military work being done.
Please tell us more (yes, sarcasm for those who do not get it!).
Tim, you’ve claimed that you’re trying to have a sincere conversation. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt. Now I don’t buy it.
You’re going to have to work on your humour, too. Sarcasm works better if it even slightly accurately characterises what it’s satirising.
Tim,
Yes we have discussed it thoroughly before. I showed you a number of facts that point to the zoonotic theory. The covid DNA found near live animal cages in the wet market, the first identified cases in workers in the wet market, the analysis of all first cases consistent with spread from the wet market.
And even though the virology community and the intelligence community express no certainty in either scenario, you still do.
Redfield was appointed by Trump. That is all you need to know.
barry says:
“Its not clear that the Wuhan lab was conducting regulated gain of function research. They manipulated a virus to infect humanised mice, but it is a matter of debate whether this transgressed GoF prohibitions in terms of the narrow definition determined by the US health services, which is about the risk posed to human safety.”
Here in lies the problem. “Corruption” and “government” are synonymous. That will always be the case when bureaucrats are made responsible for OP money without any personal risk being attached.
At least some of the authoritarian societies would just take them out back and shoot them when they F’d up. I am not advocating for any authoritarianism at all. But we would be better off allowing private entities engage in the research with full recourse against all their assets and in extreme cases criminal liabilities when they negligently screw up.
—————–
barry says:
“The Wuhan lab is under a cloud of suspicion because it refused to share its research data with the NIH via Eco Health Alliance, a US non profit that had secured the grants for Wuhan research on coronaviruses.”
And that’s a surprise in authoritarian China? That’s expected. Which im becile thought different? We should not be funding anybody who is beyond full accountability.
——————-
barry says:
“Its not clear that the Wuhan lab was conducting regulated gain of function research. They manipulated a virus to infect humanised mice, but it is a matter of debate whether this transgressed GoF prohibitions in terms of the narrow definition determined by the US health services, which is about the risk posed to human safety.”
Here in lies the problem. “Corruption” and “government” are synonymous. That will always be the case when bureaucrats are made responsible for OP money without any personal risk being attached.
At least some of the authoritarian societies would just take them out back and shoot them when they F’d up. I am not advocating for any authoritarianism at all. But we would be better off allowing private entities engage in the research with full recourse against all their assets and in extreme cases criminal liabilities when they negligently screw up.
——————
barry says:
“NIH withdrew funding early 2020 and restored it a few months later”
LOL! Sure thing Fauci wanted no hint that Wuhan would be the source. Reinstating the funding was part of the coverup. It was closed due to suspicions and restored without any scientific answers to the suspicion. That’s a crime or should be.
Fortunately an ever growing dissatisfaction is well planted and we now have some leadership that is going to dive into this. I certainly hope that growth skeptical of an authoritarian administrative state grows back to its historic levels of a 100plus years ago. That was the original vision of the civil service to get away from administrative corruption. Today the civil service has been lap dogged to thousands of commissions, boards, publicly funded institutions, and special interests.
“LOL! Sure thing Fauci wanted no hint that Wuhan would be the source.”
Funding approval is decided by committee, but well done soaking up the arch villain rhetoric. The truth is usually much more boring than the political narrative.
barry says:
”Funding approval is decided by committee, but well done soaking up the arch villain rhetoric. The truth is usually much more boring than the political narrative.”
There are lots of different kinds of committees. For instance and not fully inclusive of all committees.
You have committees where one member controls the program budgets of the others,
You have committees where the majority or all of the members has the same special interests.
You have committees where the majority of all of the members are independent and represent a vast majority of stakeholders.
Only one of those types of committees is capable of decisions that is satisfactory as the ”arch villain” can be any of the others.
Maybe figure out which chair is the right one before flicking your locks, Goldy.
Nate, you of all people know better. We had this discussion before. There are two primary issues that separate the two theories. The zoonotic path needs a crossover animal. This is a new virus, not something that has been in nature for a long time. The Chinese have not been able to find or manufacture a bat virus in nature that is a precise copy of SARS-C0V-2. It does not exist. Without the crossover animal, the zoonotic route is pure theory, and zero substance. Are any of the vast array of scientists who support this theory working on finding this crossover, or is it easier to leave it out there as possibility?
I posted a news link and video from a reliable person, Dr Redfield, who claims to have proof, or at least really good evidence of the lab leak. I got a response from barry with a complete trash piece from Wikipedia. They worked long and hard to find any and every bit of trash they could find on Dr Redfield. Realize that opinions are fair game to the Wikipedia editors if they can find a link to show it was published. Please comment on the content in the 5-minute video in the news article. Do not attempt to trash Dr Redfield. There is zero evidence that he has any evil intent, or does not fully believe what he says.
The comment from the Socialist news was a joke. Maybe barry really did not see the humor. My apologies if he took it seriously. For the record, I think it could have been written by a comedian. The fact is that it was a prominent result in my search along with Newsweek, CBS, NYT, WP, and all of the rest. Here is my comment in context:
[Anyway, I will agree it is not fair to use guilt by association to develop a stereotype. Nonetheless, this is the most extreme view for zoonotic release I found.]
Yes, I didn’t get the joke. I probably lack some context for it. I totally didn’t understand this comment.
“Anyway, I will agree it is not fair to use guilt by association to develop a stereotype.”
No idea if you were referring to me, socialism+zoonotic theory or something else.
“Without the crossover animal, the zoonotic route is pure theory, and zero substance.”
That would be true if there was nothing at all to indicate the virus is of animal origin. There is plenty of evidence of that, including strong similarity to bat coronaviruses, the fact SARS CoV1 almost certainly originated in a wet market, the fact that the controversial furin cleavage is found in other viruses in animals, and the fact that many of the earliest cases were clustered around the Wuhan market.
But we may have different ideas of the meaning of the word “substance.” No crossover animal has been discovered, although SARS CoV2 readily infects certain animals, including those that spread SARS CoV1, and some of these types animals were sold at Wuhan market when the outbreak started. There is certainly empirical evidence to build a theory of zoonotic origin.
Unfortunately – or suspiciously, depending on your politics – the animals at Wuhan market were destroyed before genetic testing could be done. SARS CoV2 was found in animal trace samples at the market, but no way of determining if this was the source, or if humans infected the animals.
(I had a lot of free time during lockdown)
BTW, I wasn’t attempting to trash Redfield, but I thought it was worth getting some context. As well as criticisms, that section also describes his correct interpretations of the COVID outbreak as opposed to the US executive of the time. I also noted his early research of COVID.
But my main point was that dedicated research trumps personal opinion, even from experts.
This is how I would refer to expert opinion on both sides of this debate.
“We offer a perspective on the notable features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome and discuss scenarios by which they could have arisen. Our analyses clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
“Under a series of NIH grants and USAID contracts, EHA coordinated the collection of SARS-like bat CoVs from the field in southwest China and southeast Asia, the sequencing of these viruses, the archiving of these sequences (involving UCD), and the analysis and manipulation of these viruses (notably at UNC). A broad spectrum of coronavirus research work was done not only in Wuhan (including groups at Wuhan University and the Wuhan CDC, as well as WIV) but also in the United States.”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119
And a review article to summarise the research in general:
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/mbio.00583-23
As I’ve revisited the issue, I find that the side of the debate falling on the GoF/lab leak theory is not as rooted in science as the zoonotic origin. But I haven’t dived very deeply. The second paper above is typical of what I found – some political language injected into a purportedly medical research paper. Much alleging, not much research.
In that regard, here is a paper that discusses the politics surrounding the outbreak and later study of the disease.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11673-023-10303-1
Despite it looking to me that the science clearly favours a zoonotic origin, I’m no expert. I can weigh the evidence as well as I can read and understand the research. Therefore, I have to allow that the issue is not settled, though i note the political emphasis behind the GoF/lab leak theory, which may have muddied the waters rather than illuminated them.
Tim S, Barry
There is a possible smoking gun for the zoonotic hypothesis.
Case zero, the first identified covid infection, occurred in December 2000 in Wuhan city and was associated with the market.
However, there were informal reports of earlier flu cases in the rural villages supplying animals to the market. This would suggest that the animal trappers were picking up Covid from the animal population they were harvesting.
Unfortunately neither the American investigation team, nor the Chinese authorities followed up on the reports at the time, so any evidence is now lost.
“The zoonotic path needs a crossover animal. The Chinese have not been able to find or manufacture a bat virus in nature that is a precise copy of SARS-C0V-2. It does not exist”
Again ignoring the quite valid point that historically, absence of evidence for that has not been evidence of absence.
But there is available other evidence, as I mentioned above, which you will likely again ignore, because you have decided.
Nate, you continue to reveal yourself by not answering questions that bother you. You provide a partial quote of me, but leave out the part that answers your question about the absence of evidence. Could it be a strategy of people who are pushing the zoonotic theory?
[Without the crossover animal, the zoonotic route is pure theory, and zero substance. Are any of the vast array of scientists who support this theory working on finding this crossover, or is it easier to leave it out there as a possibility?]
I will expand on that. In the modern world with DNA technology, these questions can be answered.
This part is fun. They found DNA at the wet market, but no infected animals. That is easily explained by infected people sneezing. We know the virus can survive in dried mucus.
I hate to bring science into this, but there is a risk management tool that looks at probabilities. For those who do not know, probability fractions multiply, they do not simply add. For example, if 4 thing happen at the same time, and each one is a 1 in 1,000 chance, the resulting probability is 1 in a trillion, not just 1 in 4,000. So the question is how many mutations did it take for SARS-CoV-2 to develop? Then the followup is whether that series of mutations is more likely to occur in a controlled lab experiment, or randomly in nature in a succession of interactions back and forth between 2 different animal species? What are the odds?
“This part is fun. They found DNA at the wet market, but no infected animals.”
Because the animals were destroyed and the site cleared of them before they could be tested.
“or randomly in nature in a succession of interactions back and forth between 2 different animal species? What are the odds”
When one of the species is humans, and the other live animals in cages, the chances are much higher.
Nor do you answer for facts that are inconvenient.
The first identified cases were workers in the wet market. The analysis of the homes of all first cases consistent with spread from the wet market.
Absence of evidence of the precursor animal has not been evidence of absence in many cases that Barry named.
In other viruses that spread from animals to humans, there were workers in close proximity to the animals for extended periods, allowing the virus to bounce back and forth and evolve more quickly.
“Tim S says: Then the followup is whether that series of mutations is more likely to occur in a controlled lab experiment, or randomly in nature in a succession of interactions back and forth between 2 different animal species? What are the odds?”
I’m curious what you think of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection?
It is interesting that Nate claims to not understand the concept of virus mutation. I thought that was obvious. The evolution of COVID to different variants took millions of infected people with trillions of virus replications for each person. It is a slow process. A few people at a wet market is not significant. Speaking of the wet market as a point of origin, that is exactly what the Chinese want you to believe. Hmmmm
As I recall, Tim, neither of us are virologists.
Here’s a map of the earliest cases and their links to the wet market.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454#f1
Seems clear the clustering around the market and not the lab.
The paper does a good job discussing where the data is from, mostly from the various local hospitals who reported before this was known to be a new infectious disease.
I have to admit that I am very impressed with Nate’s investigative skills. The failure to find virus on the sidewalk in front of the lab and in the surrounding area would be proof that the virus could not have somehow originated from the lab and spread elsewhere — like a wet market maybe. People need to decide on their own whether that is sarcasm or not.
Note: I do not have Nate’s account. It seems that he wrote that himself.
Trying to have a serious discussion.. But just get the usual condescension, and a dearth of answers from Tim.
Innuendo and sarcasm aren’t substance or sincerity.
The wet market is not a viable issue. There are no clues or leads there and you both know it, so who are you trying to play? How many people do you think are buying that story? I am willing to bet that if the Chinese were being transparent, you would find shopping malls, sporting events, and many other places with outbreaks.
I remember very early-on, there was a video showing a fleet of small excavators (probably 30 to 50) working on building a temporary hospital for hundreds of people. I could be mistaken, but I remember being surprised and wondering if the story of building a hospital was true, because I think this was before they admitted to human-to-human transmission. Obviously, they knew something was serious at that point.
So did all of those early cases come from the famous wet market, or was that a smoke screen put on by the Chinese because they already knew full well they had a big problem?
Here it is, For the record, I was mistaken. You guys will be thrilled. Construction started 3 days after the announcement of human-to-human transmission. Oh, but wait a minute. That was the announcement. When did they actually know?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huoshenshan_Hospital
Look at the photo in the upper right. Construction of the hospital began on the evening of 23 January 2020 with a scheduled completion of construction on 2 February.[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_January_2020
14 January
WHO sent a tweet which said “preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in Wuhan, China”.[76] According to Reuters in Geneva, WHO said there may have been limited human-to-human transmission of a new coronavirus in China within families, and it is possible there could be a wider outbreak.[77]
20 January
On 20 January, after two medical staff were infected in Guangdong, China National Health Commission confirmed that the virus was human-to-human transmissible.[102] The investigation team from China’s National Health Commission confirmed for the first time that the coronavirus can be transmitted between humans.[103]
From the wiki timeline:
“Respiratory wards in Wuhan hospitals began reaching capacity around 12 January, with some people being denied care.”
Perhaps contributory to the hospital being built? As may be for the following?
“18 January
An epidemiological team from Beijing led by renowned Chinese scientist Zhong Nanshan arrived in Wuhan and began an investigation into the epidemic.[91] [On 19 January] Officials reported 17 additional laboratory-confirmed cases, three of which were in critical condition. This brought the number of laboratory-confirmed cases in China to 62. The patients’ ages ranged from 30 to 79. Nineteen were discharged and eight remain critical.”
……
20 January
Chinese Communist Party general secretary (Paramount leader), Xi Jinping said “people’s lives and health should be given top priority and the spread of the outbreak should be resolutely curbed.”[102] State Council premier Li Keqiang urged decisive and effective efforts to prevent and control the epidemic.[105]”
Tim, it’s well-known Chinese authorities were at times secretive and often prevented unfettered investigation. It’s par for the course. This raises legitimate suspicions but doesn’t answer many questions.
On the flip side, it was Chinese medicos who were quickest to sound the alarm (and get punished for it by the CCP) and were first to publicise the genome sequence.
“The wet market is not a viable issue. There are no clues or leads there”
Tim blatantly denies the facts shown to him in the published scientific literature, while focusing fully on conspiracy theories promoted by right wing media and 4chan etc
Nate continues to pretend to be clueless while making false accusations about associations that I do not have. Maybe he is not pretending. Maybe he really does not understand the most basic facts about virus transmission.
No clues at the Wuhan market?
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(24)00901-2?_hsmi=324423428
Tim,
When you claim certainty that no other expert claims, then you just make yourself look foolish.
Sorry, you do not know more about virology than virologists. Nor do you know more about how epidemics spread than epidemiologists.
You consistently reject contradictory evidence linking most of the earliest cases to the wet market.
But a lack of evidence on the lab leak theory, for you becomes evidence of a conspiracy.
This is a standard logical fallacy adopted by conspiracy obsessed people.
Nate, I have been honest with you and given you a fair opportunity to have an intelligent conversation. Instead, you resort to this crap. I have supported every statement with the reasoning I am using, but to no avail. You insist on making it personal rather than rational.
You had your chance.
This
“The wet market is not a viable issue. There are no clues or leads there
is unsupportable BS, given the scientific research that has been shown to you, revealing loads of leads present there.
Read the paper just cited by Barry.
There are three ways to debunk the GHE/CO2 nonsense.
First, there is “common sense”. People can look at Al Gore, Greta, Michael Mann, and many others, to see a common thread of irrationality. Additional examples are on blogs, where the “believers” can hardly make a comment without throwing out insults and false accusations. The political agendas are easy to spot.
Second, there is the “Data”. This is how Drs. Christy and Spencer combat the nonsense. Temperatures in the past have varied enough that nothing today is “unprecedented”. The most reliable modern temperature record comes from the satellite measurements of the atmosphere. We’re likely in a 50/60-year warming trend, all based on natural variability.
Third, there are the sciences of “radiative physics” and “thermodynamics”. Although these sciences are obscure to over 99% of the population, they can be easily understood with a little effort. The REAL science quickly debunks the CO2 nonsense.
One of the reasons this nonsense has gone on for so long is that Skeptics are divided on which of the three ways to combat it. Too often, ego gets in the way. One group of Skeptics wants ONLY their thinking to be considered. The Warmists/Alarmists, on the other hand, pretty much march in lockstep.
As an operational weather forecaster for 40 years, I never was interested in climate because I always thought forecasting climate was impossible. Forecasting the weather 3 days out was hard enough already. Forecasting months and years into the future – forget it!
However, when I got a gig up in Alaska to forecast the oceanic weather and ice conditions from 2007 to 2015, my interest in climate was started by these dire predictions that the Arctic would experience an ice free summer within a decade. It was around 2007-2008 when I first heard these alarming predictions by the Arctic “climate experts” being blasted out by the news media. Then the politicians (certain ones you all know) hopped on board the global warming bandwagon and demanded immediate action to stop fossil fuel use now, or else a global catastrophe would happen.
I asked the sea ice analyst (my boss) if he thought the ice was going to melt away soon. He told me quietly like he did not want anybody else to hear it, “not in our lifetimes.” The both of us are not atmospheric or climate researchers. But we both thought these predictions for the melting ice were absurd. At summer solstice, there is still about 10,000,000 km^2 of Arctic ice. There is no way that much sea ice will melt away in 3 short months. By the time the autumnal equinox arrives, the Arctic sun drops below the horizon and the temperature drops like a rock. On top of that, the average Arctic temperature (80N-90N) in the summer is only 1.0C. It will take much more than that to bring an ice-free summer.
I think what got the ball rolling for these alarmist predictions was that the Beaufort Sea had become ice free in late summer 2007. The global warming zealots had a field day with that. They tried to make that event mean that industrial CO2 emissions caused that to happen. But the ice analyst and me knew that it was storms and ocean currents that shoved the ice out of the Beaufort Sea into the Arctic Ocean.
I think the tide is beginning to turn. Common ordinary people no longer have “climate change” at the top of their list of concerns.
This is an interesting comment in the light of the fact that Arctic sea ice extends are currently near record lows.
Here is a simple question for you:
What is the probability that a new record low Arctic sea ice extent will occur some time between now and the end of the year?
If you believe the “tide is turning” then you must have in your mind a relatively low probabilty number – say, only 1%.
In which case you should be happy to offer to pay me about $100 it it occurs or else take my $1 if it doesn’t.
Maybe 1% is a bit too low for you. Lets make it 10% in which case you should be happy to offer to pay me about $10 it it occurs or else take my $1 if it doesn’t.
Still not sure? Why not simply make it 50%. I pay you $1 if it doesn’t occur and you pay me $1 otherwise.
Just tell me what number you would be happy to put your money on.
rob…good comment, I agree with you. I might add to your comment if you don’t mind.
The Arctic Ocean is a dynamic ocean in every sense of the word. It has two main currents of water flowing, the Beaufort Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. Of course, there are also typical atmospheric wind currents.
It’s not unusual that the Beaufort Sea would be ice free considering the above. Captain Henry Larson was captain on the RCMP cutter St. Roch, the first boat to successfully sail through the NW Passage both ways. The voyage reveals the dynamic properties of the Arctic Ocean and how variable its ice pack can be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Larsen_(explorer)
On the first leg of the journey from Vancouver to Halifax, the St. Rock was hemmed in my sea ice on the northern shore of Canada. It took two years to complete the journey. On the return leg, the St. Rock sailed straight through, unimpeded by ice, in 86 days.
Larsen explained that the ice is always moving, making the journey unpredictable. It moves because it is always being broken up into section, driven by the Gyre and the Transpolar Drift. I personally think that makes it impossible to determine sea ice extent from satellites. When the ice drifts, one slab gets driven onto another, producing ridges that are up to 40 feet high. There are thousands, if not millions of such ridges, which surely belies the telemetry on sats.
In other words, the ice is constantly compacting and expanding.
In addition to what you and your boss claim, as long as the Earth maintains its current orbit and axial tilt, there is no way that any amount of anthropogenic warming will affect Arctic sea ice. There is no way that a 1C average warming will do anything, not even a 5C warming.
Rob Mitchell
“On top of that, the average Arctic temperature (80N-90N) in the summer is only 1.0C. It will take much more than that to bring an ice-free summer.”
No. There is a reason why high Arctic surface temperatures stay close to 0C even in Summer.
For thermodynamic reasons heat entering the high Arctic as warm air or insolation melts ice rather than warming the air. Turning ice at 0C to water at 0C absorbs a lot of heat without changing the temperature.
Sustained warmer temperatures can only occur once the ice is all gone.
You can demonstrate this in your kitchen. Fill a glass wit ice. Add cold water and a thermometer. The temperature in the glass stays close to 0C until all the ice has melted.
In 1979 the minimum ice extent in September was 7 million square kilometres.
In 2012 it was 3.5 million, reduced by half in 34 years.
2012 was exceptional. However 2024 was around 4.5 million, so the trend is definately downward.
The back of my envelope suggests that the shrinkage rate is about 0.5 million/decade and we’ll see our first ice free ocean (1 million) somewhere between 2037 and 2085.
I don’t know your age, but if you are retired like myself, neither of us will probably see an ice free Arctic.
Proxy data says maximum sea ice extent occurred ~1400, about a hundred years after the start of LIA.
Why would you be concerned that the annual minimum sea ice extent is retreating this year when its been generally in retreat since ~1400?
What would be the cause for alarm if all the sea ice were gone? The geological data says its happened before and everything survived just fine.
I would suggest that robust increase in annual minimum sea ice extent would mean a return to LIA conditions. Cooling would be a cause for alarm as last time Europe lost half its population and China had a dynasty change.
Humans flourish when its warm; not when its cold.
> Proxy data says maximum sea ice extent occurred ~1400,
With higher Sea Surface Temperature anomalies, no less:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Proxy-records-of-climate-change-over-the-last-millennium-a-changes-in-Arctic-sea-ice_fig1_281674965
@studentb
I meant “the tide is turning” on the concerns about climate change from common ordinary people. The general public used to be much more concerned about climate change than today. When they see Greta or AOC squawk about the world ending soon because of our fossil fuel use, the public just rolls their eyes.
The NSIDC record Arctic sea ice extent low of 3,387,000 km^2 occurred in Sep 2012. For 12 years in a row the Sep ice extent min has closed higher. How many years in a row will it take before you global warming zealots realize the Arctic ice is not melting away to oblivion?
> The general public used to be much more concerned about climate change than today.
Said with a confidence that is inversely proportional to the evidence provided:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/global-surveys-show-peoples-growing-concern-about-climate-change
Perhaps Rob is only referring to Americans.
Even then, more than 70% of them believe that climate change will harm future generations:
https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/climate-change-american-mind-beliefs-attitudes-fall-2023.pdf
The same minority we see here is running or applauding Donald’s clown show.
“Why would you be concerned that the annual minimum sea ice extent is retreating this year when its been generally in retreat since ~1400?”
The concern is the high rate of retreat, since late 1990s.
The general natural trend is one of very slow cooling since the Holocene Optimum, which should be increasing sea ice..
tim s …”I have criticized Gordon, Clint, and others on occasion, but I try to be professional and not use overt insults. I am sure they do not like it….”
***
For what it’s worth, I have no issues with criticism. Having said that, I have considered any criticism from you to be rather weak. My interest is more in basic physics and how closely climate science follows it. Thus far, I have found any similarities to be few and far between.
A basic tenet of thermodynamics is the 2nd law as proposed by Clausius. He was very precise with his definition and there has been no new science in the interim to overrule his original definition, even though many arrogant scientists have tried to re-state it.
He stated in words that heat can never be transferred, by it’s own means, from cold to hot. Modern scientists tend to interpret the 2nd law using the concept of entropy, which only muddies the meaning. Entropy tends to be a concept that befuddles people even though Clausius stated it simply as the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at a temperature, T. The meaning is clear, entropy is the heat used up in a process and not available for doing work.
It is clear because entropy has a value only in an irreversible processes in one direction only, hot to cold.. That means any heat transferred from a body disappears and is no longer available. In a reversible process, entropy always equals zero.
The 2nd law is a law, as defined by Clausius, that can be applied generally to all energy. It is really a general observation in physics that energy can only move from an energy of higher potential to one of lower potentials BY THERE OWN MEANS. That applies to water running downhill, a boulder falling from a cliff, electrons moving from a higher to lower potential, and heat moving only from hot to cold.
The 2nd law disqualifies the AGW, which allows heat to flow from a colder region to a hotter region simply by incorrectly redefining the 2nd law. It has been redefined as a NET flow of energy, where energy includes electromagnetic energy and thermal energy. A net flow requires a summation of energies, and energies of different forms cannot be summed.
As G&T pointed out, the 2nd law is a law about heat, therefore a net flow must only be about heat. Ergo, EM cannot be included since it is not heat. The 2nd law claims that heat cannot flow from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface, there is no net flow, only a possible one way flow, cold to hot, which is zero.
I have never seen you tackle this issues even though you claim to have expertise in this science. If you are going to objectively criticize me, then do it based on the science.
tim s…”This is a new virus, not something that has been in nature for a long time. The Chinese have not been able to find or manufacture a bat virus in nature that is a precise copy of SARS-C0V-2″.
***
Talking about a cause of covid is ingenuous since no virus has been PHYSICALLY isolated. There is all sorts of arm waving and faked images of viruses, but no proof. It is not enough to post an image of a virus and claim it is the virus in question, and quite another to accompany the graphic with the method used to get it.
Back to science. This is about your statement above re a new virus, which has never been proved. First, we need to talk about why no virus has been physically isolated and that goes back to the HIV controversy. Both HIV and covid are related based on the method used to allege them.
Every virus claimed since HIV has been based on an inferred method proposed by Luc Montagnier, the scientist credited with finding HIV. Prior to HIV, there was a gold standard put forward by the Louis Pasteur Institute, of which Montagnier worked as a scientist. In fact, one of Montagnier’s team, Dr. Barre-Sinoussi, sat on the LPI panel that created the gold standard. She subsequently ignored the method she helped create.
The team used the LPI method which required that a suspected virus be centrifuged in a sugar solution with a density gradient. If viral material was present, it should flow to a specified density in the sugar solution. If there, the material is removed and prepared into a slide of about 90 nm thickness, suitable for viewing on an electron microscope. If a virus is there, it must appear as particles of similar size and dimensions.
Here’s the problem as explained by Montagnier. When the team prepared the specimen and viewed it on an EM …………..***THEY SAW NO VIRUS!!!***.
Why did they continue the search??? Peter Duesberg, an eminently qualified researcherwho discovered the first cancer gene, had already pointed out that HIV could not cause AIDS and that the real cause was lifestyle. Montagnier eventually agreed with him.
Montagnier had specialized in the new field of retrovirology, a field not fully accepted in the day. Retrovirology was not invented till 1970 and a pioneer in the field warned against RNA being used to identify a virus. He gave the warning because RNA is also a common component of many bodily functions.Montagnier’s inference re HIV was based on RNA taken from a person with AIDS. He presumed the RNA was from a virus but he never proved it.
More on that in a minute.
Montagnier has freely admitted that he did not discover HIV, he inferred it based on RNA theory. Furthermore, he went on to claim that HIV will not harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
All viruses ID’d since HIV have used Montagnier’s inferential method (SARS, including covid, bird flu, and swine flue). None of them have seen a virus on an EM even though the Net abounds with fake inferred images of viruses. Because HIV could not be seen directly on an EM, rocket scientists like Fauci and David Ho came up with the idea of trying to amplify it. For those hung up on the notion that HIV and SARS have been physically isolated, why is the identification an indirect method based on converting RNA to DNA and measuring the number of iterations involved in producing the DNA.
Fauci and Ho used the PCR method for DNA amplification. The inventor of PCR, Dr. Kary Mullis was adamant that PCR could not be used to find a virus that could not be seen on an EM. His reasoning was sound, if the virus was not visible on an EM, amplifying it would not reveal a virus since PCR amplifies everything equally. PCT does not act like a visual microscope, it is a very indirect method based on inferences about RNA.
There is not a shred of proof that the RNA used as the basis of HIV and covid tests comes from a virus. There is a far greater likelihood that the RNA comes from a condition in the body related to disease. The original ID of covid by Wuhan scientists is based entirely on inference with no physical proof that a virus is there. The scientist credited with inventing the covid RNA/PCR test, Drosten, is on record as admitting he isolated no virus, only that he went on the reports by the Wuhan scientists.
Since the modern covid test is based on RNA claimed to be from a spike protein in a virus, the test is not testing for a virus. The same can be claimed for the vaccine, which is based on a modified form of the same RNA (mRNA). In fact, they could not extract RNA from the spike protein because they can barely see it on an EM at about 100 nm. There are no tools to extract the RNA so we must take their word for it that the RNA extracted is from the spike on a virus.
Modern virology is getting away with sheer speculation. However, they are adamant that the vaccines and tests are legitimate, based on this speculation.
Where’s the proof to back my claims? For one, we were told that HIV would spread to the heterosexual community. Never happened. We were told HIV was a highly contagious virus but the scientist who inferred it claimed it does not even cause AIDS. He claimed that a healthy immune system will handle it and that the real cause of AIDS is oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
Same with covid, after all the hysteria and hype it was written off as endemic and disappeared. There is no doubt that something serious happened but it barely affected more people globally than a serious strain of flu. In Canada, it affected less than 1/10th of 1% of the population of 40 million(34,205 deaths)(0.085% of 40,000,000 people).
Most deaths by far involved people over 80 (19,729 deaths). Nearly 58%.
The truth is that only people with depleted immune systems, most with at least one other serious health issues.
“Talking about a cause of covid is ingenuous since no virus has been PHYSICALLY isolated.”
This is your first comment and it is, as usual, completely and utterly wrong. Abysmally wrong.
You read that somewhere and your brain can’t let go of it even after many studies linked for you that demonstrate it has been isolated and sent to other research groups. Multiple research teams around the world have isolated it. The isolated virus was sold or given freely to research institutes.
I’m going to cite 5 papers from different teams that isolated the virus and see what your brain does with the information.
“The etiologic agent of the outbreak of pneumonia in Wuhan China was identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome associated coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in January, 2020. The first US patient was diagnosed by the State of Washington and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on January 20, 2020. We isolated virus from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, and characterized the viral sequence, replication properties, and cell culture tropism. We found that the virus replicates to high titer in Vero-CCL81 cells and Vero E6 cells in the absence of trypsin. We also deposited the virus into two virus repositories, making it broadly available to the public health and research communities. We hope that open access to this important reagent will expedite development of medical countermeasures.”
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.972935v2 [US team]
“Isolation and Full-Length Genome Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from COVID-19 Cases in Northern Italy”
https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00543-20 [Italian team]
“In this study, we describe the isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from the first two patients diagnosed with the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Brazil. We describe its genomic sequence (SARS-CoV-2/SP02/human/2020/BRA) and in vitro replication characteristics. Virus stocks (infectious particles and lysates) were set available and distributed to the research community.”
https://www.scielo.br/j/mioc/a/3hzYZ4W4m4bHGTNX8fJS65p/ [Brazilian team]
“We used isolates from the first passage of an OP and an NP specimen for whole-genome sequencing. The genomes from the NP specimen (GenBank accession MT020880) and OP specimen (GenBank accession no. MT020881) showed 100% identity with each other. The isolates also showed 100% identity with the corresponding clinical specimen (GenBank accession no. MN985325).”
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article [US team]
“Isolation and Characterization of SARS-CoV-2 from the First Reported Patients in Japan”
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/yoken/73/4/73_JJID.2020.137/_pdf [Japanese team]
I can go on and on and on citing papers from all over the world where researchers isolate the SARS CoV2 virus and then test it and often make it available to other research teams.
So what happens in your brain when you get multiple sources corroborating the opposite of what you believe? Do you write them all off as frauds? Do you imagine they don’t know what they are talking about? Do you invent a new definition of “isolating” and announce that no team has done x, y or z?
Or do you admit that you are wrong? Could you ever do that?
Tim S,
Watch this chat. Watch what Gordon does in the face of overwhelming evidence. It will teach you something about the general interaction here.
Barry,
You’re a fountain of knowledge. I remember you are one who argued very adamantly that the 2020 election was fair and that Biden received 81 million votes. Where did those 15 million Biden votes go in 2024?
As always, the 6.9 L pickup driver, great fan of the dumb ‘2000 mules’ manipulation, is a fountain of misrepresentation and misinformation.
1. All attempts from the Trumping Boy and his campaign team to question election results in numerous judicial proceedings failed 100 %: the Trumping Boy definitely lost the 2020 election
2. Without the absolutely relevant ‘help’ of
– an absolutely miserable television appearance from former President Biden;
– the false selection of Vice Harris as replacement candidate who not only seemed unsuitable for many but also … was a woman, OMG;
– the incredibly undemocratic decision of the Supreme Court, which silently but unmistakably supported Trump by redefining presidential immunity in an unprecedented way, as a kind of Lex Trump, and thus prevented his legal persecution;
the Trumping Boy would never have won the last presidential election.
“Where did those 15 million Biden votes go in 2024?”
Yeah, it’s crazy, isn’t it? Somehow Biden stole 15 million votes while Trump was in power, and yet couldn’t rig an election when he was president.
Oh, OK, so now you’re doubling down that all those extra 15 million votes were legit in 2020 but in 2012, 2016, and 2024 the Democrats were flatlined at 66 million votes. Is that your assertion?
It’s not just ‘my assertion’, stephen, plenty of Repubs in Trump’s circle, Republican governors and Sec State of the states he pointed at, his AG Bill Barr, his federally appointed watchdogs all agreed the election was fair.
So don’t make this a personal issue, nor a partisan one. There is Donald Trump on the phone pressuring the Georgian Sec State to find him votes out of thin air, 60+ lawsuits that couldn’t prove the widescale fraud that wasn’t there, multiple recounts in many states, even by politically biased auditors (Cyberninjas), the fake code My Pillow guy offered $5 million to prove was fake and was done by a Republican Trump voter and plenty of other busted claims and hole-filled evidence.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was if the Dems could rig the election while Trump was in power, why couldn’t they do it when Biden was president?
Because the stolen election narrative was generated entirely by one Donald Trump, which was vigorously taken up without skepticism by his ardent followers.
By the way, the Dems lost 6 million votes between 2020 and 2024, comparable to Carter’s loss his second go-round. Which cracked up source are you getting your numbers from? Some double-counting witchcraft there.
“so now youre doubling down that all those extra 15 million votes were legit in 2020”
Sure Stephen, the DEMS arranged for Biden to get 12 Million votes more than any previous Democrat…but also enabled Trump to get 11 Million more votes than any previous Republican.
I suppose you think only those extra R votes were legit?
Bin Wigly – the climate expert
https://youtu.be/LU5Aces15Fc?t=2874
Real coffee with Scott Adams, the dachshund’s absolute authority figure…
Merci beaucoup de m’avoir bien fait rire, mon petit teckel hypernerveux!
binny bundtcake doesn’t like anything that smacks of truth. He relies on GHCN, failing to grasp that it is a “Historical” network full of fudged data from the past.
Ironically, NOAA, the owner, sells it as a justification for slashing global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. They claim that, although the record of real stations has shrunk, the number of stations in GHCN has increased.
Actually, that’s a lie. GHCN’s number of stations has shrunk by 90% since 1990. Binny is still using old data from it and passing it off as current.
of course, Scott is no climate expert, what he is a brilliant bullzshit detector.
https://youtu.be/REteSlY63do
Really?? Is a cartoonist the best you can find to tell us the scientists are doing it wrong?
barry…frothing at the mouth…”Watch this chat. Watch what Gordon does in the face of overwhelming evidence. It will teach you something about the general interaction here”.
***
Barry posts several articles from authority figures without the slightest understanding of what they are talking about. Not one of the papers mentions ***PHYSICALLY*** isolating a virus, they are all referencing genomes sequences without revealing how they got the genome sequence.
The genome sequences are created on a computer model from ***THEORETICAL*** constructs related to RNA. Not one of those papers has indicated they used an electron microscope to SEE a virus. The genomes are created by guessing.
The source of those genome sequences are the inferences produced by Luc Montagnier after he failed to see HIV on an EM. Montagnier admitted freely that the sequences are inferences. He and his lab assistant, who does his EM work, admitted, at no time did they see HIV on an EM.
This practice of passing off genome sequences as a virus is fraud. If they got the genome sequences from an actual virus, isolated physically using an EM, that would be one thing. However, the genome sequences in question are fabrications on a computer attained by splicing theorized RNA strands together to get a complete fabricated genome.
At one point, Montagnier revealed the hoax by pointing out that one covid genome contained the entire HIV genome “INFERRED” by Montagnier. All these rocket scientists are doing is taking inferred RNA sequences and applying them wherever they think they fit. In other words, genome sequences created on a computer model are fraudulent.
Proof??
1)The Wuhan team admitted they had not physically isolated covid, they had simply applied the aforementioned fraudulent genome sequencing, created theoretically on a computer model and not retrieved from an actual virus.
2)Christian Drosten, who is credited with the first covid RNA_PCR test, admitted he did not isolate a virus. All he did was read the Wuhan report and take the word of the Wuhan scientists that they had created a genome, albeit fraudulently.
3)from the Italian paper…”Swab contents were seeded on Vero E6 cells and monitored for cytopathic effect and by an RT-PCR protocol using primers for the N region (5). Cell culture supernatants from passage 1 (P1) of four isolates were collected, and RNA was extracted with QIAamp viral RNA minikit (Qiagen) and quantified with an in vitro-transcribed RNA standard (S. Rajasekharan and A. Marcello, unpublished data). The quantity and quality of the RNA were assessed using Qubit 2.0 fluorometer…”
Not a word about an EM or images from the EM. That’s because they did not use one.
4)from the US team…”We isolated virus from nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal specimens, and characterized the viral sequence, replication properties, and cell culture tropism”.
This is an outright lie, they isoated nothing, all they did was go one the word of authority figures that a sequence for covid had been determined from a real physical virus.
5)from the Brazilian study…they claim to have used an EM, but first…”The detection of viral RNA was carried out using the AgPath-ID One-Step RT-PCR Kit…”.
According to Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR test this method is fraudulent, simply because PCR cannot be used diagnostically to amplify a virus that cannot be seen on an EM.
The Brazilian team go on to contradict themselves by viewing something on an EM that looks like a pimple. They offer no proof this is a virus nor do they show a group of them as required.
And where are the spikes that are claimed to surround a virus, the mechanism with which they allegedly attach to a human cell? Even with a cross-section, the spikes should e apparent. After all, the vaccine is based on sequences claimed to be from the spikes.
Sorry, more fraud. They obviously used the EM as an after-thought when they were already convinced they had isolated a virus using RNA_PCR.
6)Japanese study…”The Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Public Health (TMIPH) has initiated testing of individuals and close contacts suspected of harboring the SARS-CoV-2 by using nucleic-acid based methods including real-time RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) (4) as described in the manual distributed by the National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIID) (5)”.
Once again, more fraud, using a method that does not even identify a virus but infers one indirectly.
Re their EM assertions, “Our results revealed a virion size of about 100 nm (Fig. 3), andconfirmed the characteristic envelope structure of coronaviruses as reported by NIID (8)”.
Note the word virion in lieu of the word virus. A virion is related to a virus but it is inert and cannot be claimed as a virus. In other words, they are passing of a virally-related particle as an actual virus.
Note: The first claimed isolation of the SARS virus was rejected after the paper was submitted. The auditors claimed the so-called virus identified could have been any viral particle and not a virus per se.
This is a cheap trick used by researchers. They see ‘something’ on an EM and want desperately to use it as proof but they cannot claim it as an actual virus. At least the Japanese called it a virus whereas the Brazilians passed it off as an actual virus.
Barry if you are serious about this, you will read the work of Dr. Stefan Lanka on the subject. He exposes the fraud surrounding modern virology and he does it using damning proof.
Lanka has essentially proved that the research done to claim a measles virus is fraudulent.
correction…”At least the Japanese called it a virus whereas the Brazilians passed it off as an actual virus”.
should read…
At least the Japanese called it a virion whereas the Brazilians passed it off as an actual virus.
The message is clear, neither team has any idea what they are looking at.
Yep, you redefine what “isolated” means and airily decide that medical researchers either have no idea what they are looking at or they are committing fraud.
I can produce dozens more papers like this from teams of medical researchers all over the world, and you will just do the same song and dance.
You, with no medical degree or experience.
“Virus Isolation from the First Patient with SARS-CoV-2 in Korea”
https://synapse.koreamed.org/upload/synapsedata/pdfdata/0063jkms/jkms-35-e84.pdf
“Isolation of infectious SARS-CoV-2 from urine of a COVID-19 patient”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/22221751.2020.1760144 [Chinese team]
“First isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from clinical samples in India”
https://journals.lww.com/ijmr/fulltext/2020/51020/First_isolation_of_SARS_CoV_2_from_clinical.22.aspx
“Whole genome sequencing of the viral isolate and phylogenetic analysis indicated the isolate exhibited greater than 99.99% sequence identity with other publicly available SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Within 24 hours of isolation, the first Australian SARS-CoV-2 isolate was shared with local and overseas reference laboratories and major North American and European culture collections.”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5694/mja2.50569
Team Australia here sent copies of the isolated virus abroad for study. Not physical isolation?
“The SARS-CoV-2 virus SARS-CoV-2/Finland/1/2020 was isolated in a biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory in Vero E6 cells from the Day 4 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and nasopharyngeal aspirate (NPA) specimens (Table).”
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.11.2000266
Are the Fins frauds? Or do they fail to fully fysically flip the firus?
“Virus isolation and neutralisation of SARS-CoV-2 variants BA.2.86 and EG.5.1”
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00682-5/fulltext [Europe]
“Isolation of SARS-CoV-2 from the air in a car driven by a COVID patient with mild illness”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1201971221003751 [Team USA]
“Natural SARS-CoV-2 infections, including virus isolation, among serially tested cats and dogs in households with confirmed human COVID-19 cases in Texas, USA”
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7743065/ [Team America]
I can go on and on, Gordon, and you will actually tell us that all the medical research teams around the world are either frauds or incompetent. As if you actually know better than the scores of international research groups that have not only isolated the virus from January 2020, but do it routinely.
Because you would rather look like a complete f00l than admit you are wrong.
Of course they physically isolated the virus, Gordon. They grow the isolates in culture and test if they infect. They do. Then they compare the genomic sequence of their isolates with other SARS CoV2 sequences. They match.
That is the definition of isolated viruses – they cab replicate outside the host, in artificial frameworks and be studies without contamination from other biological matter.
But hey – you think electron microscopic pictures would convince. Voila!
Electron microscopy images and morphometric data of SARS-CoV-2 variants in ultrathin plastic sections
“In the present study, four of these five VOCs were examined using the thin plastic section technique3 for transmission electron microscopy: Alpha (B.1.1.7)18, Beta (B.1.351)19, Delta (B.1.617.2)20 and Omicron BA.2 (B.1.1.529)21. In addition to the VOCs, two reference isolates from the beginning of the pandemic, Munich92922,23 and Italy-INMI124,25, were included in the study to allow direct comparison.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-04182-3
“SARS-CoV Germany/Frankfurt and SARS-CoV-2 Italy-INMI1 isolates showed similar ultrastructural characteristics, including a particle size distribution with a median of around 100 nm without spikes. The maximum spike length of both viruses was 23 nm [35].”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457923000904
Ultrastructural analysis of SARS-CoV-2 interactions with the host cell via high resolution scanning electron microscopy
“SARS-CoV-2 isolate (HIAE-02: SARS-CoV-2/SP02/human/2020/BRA (GenBank accession number MT126808.1) was used in this work. The virus was grown in Vero cells (Monkey African Green kidney cell line ATCC CCL-81) in the Laboratory of Molecular Virology, at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil…
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73162-5
And I can go on and on with these. I don’t have to, because EM images of viruses are NOT the gold standard for demonstrating isolation, but even if it was, there are scores of papers on that, too.
Ok, Professor Robertson, what did these scientists get wrong?
ent…”…for thermodynamic reasons heat entering the high Arctic as warm air or insolation melts ice rather than warming the air. Turning ice at 0C to water at 0C absorbs a lot of heat without changing the temperature”.
***
Exactly how does warm air get to the Arctic? The thermohaline system does not reach much farther than a line drawn between Greenland and Scotland. Obviously, heat is not being transported to the Arctic via warmer water from the south.
Air currents in the atmosphere would not fare much better. Seems obvious that heat is generated in the Arctic only during the brief Arctic summer, when adequate solar energy is input.
ken…”I have never seen any assessment of WWI that would support this statement. Sure Canada punched above its weight, but it was still a very small contribution. Vimy Ridge was a success even though it was a minor event in WWI”.
***
It was not the size of the battle that mattered, it was the timing. Vimy Ridge occurred toward the end of the war and the tactic used by the Canadians was a turning point. Up till then, the Allies had been mired in age old tactic in which leaders like Haig tried to solve impasses by throwing men mindlessly into the battle.
That’s what I found so horrific about WW I, the constant and brutal loss of life due to mindless military leaders. Time after time, and battle after battle, they sent men over the top and into the brutal firing lines of well positioned machine guns.
At Vimy, the Canadians had perfected the rolling barrage, wherein the soldiers followed a barrage of shells that advanced in front of them. It was highly successful and that’s why the Canadians took Vimy after many failed attempts using traditional tactics.
Mind you, it was no cakewalk, but the leading barrage got them into the desired position since the defenders had to disappear underground while the barrage was on. Reports from defenders claim it was horrific facing the barrage.
With regard to the state of our current youth, it’s hard to assess. Things were much the same pre WWI and WWII, but young people volunteered en masse and got into shape due to the training. The point is, they all wanted to help.
I have not mingled much with young people locally but while working on Tar Sands projects, I encountered young people from across Canada. I have little doubt they’d perform if required.
barry…”Ye Gods, Ive been reading about unappointed, unelected Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)”.
***
This is Trump’s honeymoon period where he is enacting legislation using executive orders. He will likely crash to Earth once Congress gets going and Republican congress people find their seats threatened.
Already, two Republicans congressmen from Kentucky have complained about the tariffs. Canada has countered with tariffs against their whisky and it is obviously hurting them.
This is Trump’s MO, to raise Cain mindlessly and let the chips fall where they may. He has praised Kim Jong Un of North Korea as an alright guy, a seriously questionable assessment of a known brutal leader.
I think he has served his purpose of terminating the ridiculous Biden admin who were leading the US down the tubes. If he continues with his current rhetoric, Republican congressmen will become antsy as their two year of remaining vote mandate approaches. It only takes the loss of 3 Congressmen to lose Congress.
I have a reply to your post to me about isolating the virus.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/02/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-january-2025-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1698237
barry
Robertson once again proves in this virus exchange that he is a both egomanian and megalomanian liar.
When you post 100 or 200 nm pictures showing viruses by use of transmission electron microscopy but lacking the scale bar, he replies with ‘No scale bar, thus not verifiable’.
If you post pictures with scalde bar, he replies ‘No electron microscope known to me has a resolution of 200 let alone 100 nm; this, the picture is 100% faked’.
And if the picture if from the German RKI (Robert Koch Institute), he will reply ‘Lanka knows that all RKI pictures are 100% faked’.
More stubborn, barazen and stupid you die.
*
Here is SARS-COV-2:
https://i.postimg.cc/vmV639zg/Screenshot-RKI-SARS-Co-V-2-Italy-INMI1-100-nm.png
https://www.rki.de/DE/Themen/Forschung-und-Forschungsdaten/Nationale-Referenzzentren-und-Konsiliarlabore/EM-Erregerdiagnostik/Aufnahmen/EM_Tab_covid.html
*
Here is measles:
https://i.postimg.cc/3wj0sGyk/Screenshot-Masernvirus-Paramyxoviren-Transmissions-Elektronenmikroskopie-200-nm.png
https://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/Bilder/InfAZ/Masern/EM_10_53483_b_Masernvirus.jpg?__blob=poster&v=4
*
Liars a la Robertson perfectly know why they post here: anywhere else they would be banned within one hour.
Heil dictator freedom of speech!
To make things clear, I should add that Lanka, one of Robertson’s major authority figures, is himself a brazen liar – exactly as is Robertson when he writes:
” Lanka has essentially proved that the research done to claim a measles virus is fraudulent. ”
*
Never did Lanka ever prove that. On the contrary: he proved himself a fraudulent person, by brazenly claiming in the context of his denial of the measle’s existence:
” Pharma-Lüge aufgeflogen – BGH-Urteil bestätigt: Masern-Viren existieren nicht ”
https://www.anonymousnews.ru/2017/01/20/pharma-luege-aufgeflogen-bgh-urteil-bestaetigt-masern-viren-existieren-nicht/?fbclid=IwAR2YAxMQeVy50jPnk0Ukf0xuNZIxIsXniY_DWafAGfOqt0kf1OisFccVn_Q
*
Translation
” Pharmaceutical lie exposed Supreme Court ruling confirms: Measles viruses do not exist ”
Sentence’s text:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200511152301/https://impfen-nein-danke.de/u/BGH+I_ZR__62-16.pdf
” The plaintiff’s appeal against the non-admission of the appeal in the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart – 12th Civil Senate – of February 16, 2016 is rejected because
– the legal matter has no fundamental significance,
– the complaints based on the violation of fundamental procedural rights are not valid
and
– the development of the law or the securing of uniform case law do not otherwise require a decision by the appeal court (Section 543, Paragraph 2, Sentence 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
No further justification is required in accordance with Section 544, Paragraph 4, Sentence 2, Clause 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the appeal proceedings (Section 97, Paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
Value in dispute: €100,000 ”
*
As anyone having the least bit of knowledge can see, Germany’s Supreme Court did not decide in the matter at all but simply rejected a request by Lanka’s unlucky contradictor for admission of an appeal to a Higher Court’s decision.
Lanka and Robertson: two persons ready to any lie.
Bindidon
There is a deeper layer going on with Gordon and Lanka. Both are into alternative medicine. It is a huge money making industry and it needs its salesmen to convince others to get into it. Hence the denial of established science on viruses (that has been quite successful in greatly reducing illness in the first world Nations were vaccinations are available. Gordon admits to taking so much Vitamin C he gets the runs. I think Vitamin C has some ability to fight illness and I take some. Gordon is probably totally into alternative medicine. Most blogs that sell alternative medicine also go deep into unproven Conspiracy Theories. The idea is if someone is gullible enough to believe unproven ideas with no evidence, they will be prime targets to sell alternative medicine to.
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/research/research-results/americans-spend-30-billion-a-year-outofpocket-on-complementary-health-approaches#:~:text=Americans%20Spend%20%2430%20Billion%20a,on%20Complementary%20Health%20Approaches%20%7C%20NCCIH
“If you post pictures with scalde bar, he replies ‘No electron microscope known to me has a resolution of 200 let alone 100 nm’ ”
100nm is typical of the SARS CoV2 virus size mentioned in the above papers, so apparently these research groups are all frauds.
So let’s find out if the people who use and make these things can help us.
“In practice, the actual resolution of an SEM can range from 1 to 20 nm…
While magnification and resolution are distinct concepts, they are closely related in SEM. Increasing magnification often leads to the perception of higher resolution, as finer details become more apparent. However, its important to note that magnification alone does not guarantee improved resolution. As a general rule of thumb, the minimum feature size you can measure with a reasonable margin of error is ~10 times the resolution, so at 10 nm resolution you can measure 100 nm particles.”
https://www.nanoscience.com/blogs/understanding-the-difference-between-magnification-and-resolution-in-scanning-electron-microscopy/
And
“The word resolution simply refers to the smallest observable feature in an image. For the human eye, that is about 0.2 mm. SEM resolution is typically between 0.5 and 4 nanometers…
While SEMs cannot provide atomic resolution, typical floor model SEMs can achieve resolutions of the order of 1 to 20 nanometers some SEMs are even capable of sub-nanometer resolutions.”
https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/learning-center/applications/sem-resolution.html
The latter source has an interesting mention of viruses.
“Thanks to this nanometer-scale scanning electron microscope resolution, SEMs have opened a whole new world to researchers. A virus, for example, is between 60 and 140 nanometers. A DNA strand has a radius of one nanometer. A glucose molecule is about 0.9 nanometers in size. You can resolve all of these with an SEM.”
Gordon announces that in order to prove a virus has been isolated it needs to be visible under an electron microscope. If they are smaller than the resolution he believes is possible with an EM, he is relying on a mistaken belief to set an impossible task.
In a few days, the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere will split into two vortices, one over eastern Canada and the other over Siberia, according to the distribution of the geomagnetic field in the north. The geomagnetic center over Canada will weaken and strengthen over Siberia.
https://i.ibb.co/wrb4CHjv/gfs-z100-nh-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/kgDWYRbb/MF-n-f.png
Welcome to the Gordon Robertson blog where you can read endless reams of meaningless drivel replete with endless reams of equally meaningless responses.
Here is some more science on the Avian Flu problem. It demonstrates the dangers of natural spillover, and it also provides a contrast to COVID-19. The very first strain of SARS-CoV-2 virus was exceptional at asymptomatic spread. People typically were infectious for 3 days and spreading virus without symptoms as an aerosol with a very high death rate. The 6 foot distancing was never effective or necessary. It was lingering in the air. It did not require any time at all for successive mutations to develop its ability to directly and effectively infect humans. Was it a natural miracle?
This H5N1 bird virus is taking the normal slow path to become effective at spillover. How many wild birds, domestic birds, and cattle are there? How many mutations does that represent?
Here is the story:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/bird-avian-flu-virus-infect-dairy-cows?
What [experts] are concerned about is that it could indicate another independent spillover event into dairy cows, says veterinarian and environmental epidemiologist Meghan Davis of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The risk of H5N1 still remains low for most people, she notes.
Save the Ostrich. What happens when avian flu fears goes bonkers.
https://bcrising.ca/save-our-ostriches/
“The 6 foot distancing was never effective or necessary.”
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0252963&utm
https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/375/bmj-2021-068302.full.pdf
Your studies are mostly about social isolation. One did not even mention physical distancing and the other said this:
[These three studies were rated at moderate risk of bias 40 61 to
serious or critical risk of bias 47]
Here it is in full:
[physical distancing and transmission of SARS-CoV-2
and covid-19 mortality
Studies that assessed physical distancing but were not
included in the meta-analysis because of substantial
differences in outcomes assessed, generally reported
a positive effect of physical distancing (table 2). A
natural experiment from the US reported a 12%
decrease in SARS-CoV-2 transmission (relative risk
0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 0.89),40 and
a quasi-experimental study from Iran reported a
reduction in covid-19 related mortality (β −0.07,
95% confidence interval −0.05 to −0.10; P<0.001). 47
Another comparative study in Kenya also reported a
reduction in transmission of SARS-CoV-2 after physical
distancing was implemented, reporting 62% reduction
in overall physical contacts (reproductive number
pre-intervention was 2.64 and post-intervention was
0.60 (interquartile range 0.50 to 0.68)).61 These three
studies were rated at moderate risk of bias 40 61 to
serious or critical risk of bias 47 (fig 2)]
Science Fact: SARS-CoV-2 can survive and remain viable in mucus droplets that are so small they remain airborne due to Brownian motion — aerosols.
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7181938/
This paper makes no mention at all of distancing but it does consider Respiratory Etiquette (coughing into your sleeve etc) as follows:
quote There is no evidence about the quantitative effectiveness of respiratory etiquette against influenza virus. unquote
2 meter distance to prevent the spread of viruses is based on nothing but misguided imagination.
Tim, they both mentioned physical distancing, but I admit the first one it’s too hard to tease out the physical distancing (personal distancing and number of people congregating indoors/outdoors) from other measures.
For the meta-analysis (review paper):
You just cited the three out of 8 studies they did NOT use for the analysis. It even says so in your quote.
Of the 5 they used these were the pooled results:
“Five studies with a total of 2727 people with SARSCoV-2 and 108 933 participants were included in the analysis that examined the effect of physical distancing on the incidence of covid-19.37 53 57 60 63 Overall pooled analysis indicated a 25% reduction in incidence of covid-19 (relative risk 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.95, I2=87%) (fig 6). Heterogeneity among studies was substantial, and risk of bias ranged from moderate (37 53 57 60) to serious or critical (63) (fig 2).”
Side note – this is how science is done, quantifying the uncertainty and including it in the analysis. Also ‘bias’ refers to methodological bias, not personal or ideological, when studies are non-randomized.
All the studies that reckoned on the success of physical distancing, whether indicating strong methodological bias or not, whether they were included or not, concluded there was a net benefit from physical distancing.
So I offer this against your remark:
“The 6 foot distancing was never effective or necessary.”
The research that we have on it does not corroborate your view.
What informed your opinion?
“2 meter distance to prevent the spread of viruses is based on nothing but misguided imagination.”
Rubbish.
The WHO recommendation is one meter. Even this recommendation is pulled out of nowhere.
Please provide an RCT study that shows transmission of viruses is reduced by 1 meter or 2 meter distancing.
No, Ken, it’s not pulled out of nowhere. There were scores of studies on droplet dispersion and the risks of proximity that came up with various physical distancing numbers early in the pandemic. There were studies in hospitals that assessed the risk in situ with live CoV2 virus present, and there were meta-studies that looked at different policies on physical distancing and the outcomes while the policies were in force, for example.
RTC are scarce if not non-existent, as it would be unethical to deliberately expose unvaccinated people to a known disease.
This:
“2 meter distance to prevent the spread of viruses is based on nothing but misguided imagination.”
Is horsepucky.
If I listed a bunch of studies that informed policy would that make any difference, or would I be wasting my time?
tim…”This H5N1 bird virus is taking the normal slow path to become effective at spillover. How many wild birds, domestic birds, and cattle are there? How many mutations does that represent?”
***
Stefan Lanka, an expert in viruses, who discovered the first virus in the ocean, reveals the truth about the swine and bird flus. Basically, neither have been proved to exist.
The bird flu is nothing more than an extension of a long-standing ailment in birds related to the abysmal conditions in which they are raised. The rocket scientists who have declared a virus are gassing millions of birds because a few were found to have symptoms related to the long-standing issues that affect domestic birds.
Let’s get it straight. We keep baby cows penned up so they can’t move and become anemic just we we humans swine can have veal. Anemia is a serious condition for humans but when animals get sick via such treatment we blame it on a virus. The mind boggles at the thought of our cruelty, intentionally making animals sick while penning them for their miserable life just so we animals can have veal.
Chickens are penned up en masse and other animals are kept in abysmal conditions. They become sick and some rocket scientist, lacking proof, declares a virus as the cause.
That was the official diagnosis of a pellagra outbreak in the southern US states circa 1915. A young official sent to investigate immediately concluded the cause was diet-related. He was ignored while officials looked for a viral cause. They had no proof that pellagra was caused y a virus and they blindly followed that reasoning till the 1940s when the real cause of pellagra was found…a B-vitamin deficiency.
In Africa, where maize is a food staple, similar issues arise that lead to malnutrition. That leads to wasting syndrome and the rocket scientists at the WHO claim it is caused by a sexually-transmitted virus.
This article is available elsewhere if this site does not work.
http://whale.to/b/lanka.html
“Since the late 19th centrury, diseases of poultry in mass animal farming have been observed: Blue colouring of the crest, decrease in egg laying performance, sagging of the feathers, and sometimes these animals die too. These diseases were called bird pest.
In present-day mass poultry farming, in particular when hens are being raised in cages, many animals die each day as a result of species-alien animal farming. Later, these consequences of the mass animal farming were no longer called bird pest, but bird flu. Since decades back, we are experiencing that a transferable virus is being maintained as the cause of this, in order to deflect from the actual causes”
Then…
“I have studied molecular biology.
In the course of my studies I demonstrated the existence of the first virus in the sea, in a sea alga. This proof was first published in a scientific publication in 1990, in accordance with the standard of the natural sciences. The virus whose existence I demonstrated reproduces itself in the alga, can leave it and reproduce itself again in other algae of this kind, without having any negative effects, and this virus stands in no connection whatsoever with any disease.
For instance in one litre of sea water, there are over 100 million viruses of various kinds very different from each other. Fortunately, the health authorities and the doctors have not become aware of this, otherwise there since long would have been a law permitting sea bathing only for persons attired in total body condoms”.
A perfect example is the HIV/AIDS scam. The theory that AIDS is caused by HIV was put forward by the Reagan administration and rushed out without peer review. After that, any researcher who questioned the theory, like Peter Duesberg, had his funding blocked and he was summarily ostracized.
Duesberg was no lightweight. He was the youngest scientist of his era inducted into the National Academy of Science based on his discovery of the first cancer gene. Duesberg put forward elegant explanations of why HIV was not causing AIDS and forwarded equally elegant reasoning of how AIDS was caused by lifestyle. A few years later, Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, came to agree with him.
Montagnier joked about his admission. He knew that since he had won a Nobel, he could speak the truth without being ostracized.
Meantime, the WHO put out propaganda that HIV would spread to the heterosexual community. Did not happen. To support their propaganda, they went to Africa and picked on poor, starving Africans. AIDS is classified as up to 30 opportunistic infections related to immune deficiency. The WHO included wasting syndrome as one of them and used that as proof that African heterosexuals suffered from AIDS.
Problem is, wasting syndrome was around long before HIV was identified and the cause was already known: malnutrition. contaminated drinking water, and parasitic infections like malaria. However, the scam artists at the WHO were desperate and not about to allow fiction to interfere with their corrupt dogma.
Gordon, your fake science is not humorous in this case. It is an important issue. There is already too much confusion about vaccines and a whole host of other issues.
I do not believe in censorship, but I do think errors — whether made intentionally for humor or not — need to be corrected. Anyone who wants to get good advice on any of this should consult a licensed and board certified medical doctor. I assume most countries have something similar to board certification in this country.
tim…it amazes me that you can get to the level of education you claim and be so naive. I base my naivete claim on your desire to accept any scientific paper as being kosher.
I see no refutation of what I claim. I am not asking for papers, I am asking for objective reasoning. Disprove anything I have said about HIV/AIDS or the relation I have developed between HIV theory and covid.
I take this very seriously. I first began investigating AIDS due to the propaganda being spread by the WHO and the US CD.C that AIDS would spread to the heterosexual community. In the early days, the US counterpart of Montagnier was Robert Gallo, who was censured for stealing data from Montagnier. It became an international incident that was swept under the rug by US officials.
If you want to go on sucking up to authority figures, fill your boots. My interest is objective science and fields like HIV/AIDS are so corrupt they can no longer be categorized as science.
I first began investigating the anthropogenic theory due to the claim that 90% of scientists agreed with it. Such a confidence level flew in the face of probability theory I had studied in engineering. Turn out the claim was based on twp papers that has interviewed about 1000 scientists each. One of the papers was written by an alarmist, Naomi Oreskes, who felt that consensus is a valid for of scientific research. Her claim to fame was berating 3 dead scientists who could not defend themselves.
My doubt were soon confirmed when I encountered articles by Richard Lindzen. He revealed the abject corruption of the IPCC and the theory itself. That was some 20 years ago and further investigation has served to deepen my suspicion that anthropogenic research is corrupt as well.
tim s…”Science Fact: SARS-CoV-2 can survive and remain viable in mucus droplets that are so small they remain airborne due to Brownian motion aerosols”.
***
Tim…care to explain that when a virus is so small it can barely be seen on an electron microscope? If what you say is true, and it has never been proved, any mask fibres would appear as the Grand Canyon to a virus.
Any virus is far too small to be examined on an aerosol. The claim is only inferred, there is no way to observe it for real.
The official N90 masks used in hospitals must be treated with chemicals that act as an attractant to aerosols. Even at that, they are not 100% effective. Straight cloth is useless for such an application.
Can you prove that the covid virus has ever been physically isolated? I mean the actual process where a virus is separated from the host and viewed on an electron microscope?
I am aware that certain micrographs are being trotted out as proof but most are photos of viral particles (virions) with no proof provided that they are in fact a virus.
ken….”Welcome to the Gordon Robertson blog where you can read endless reams of meaningless drivel replete with endless reams of equally meaningless responses”.
***
You sound like a soldier. I would venture that most people who enter the military are reliant on authority figures. Heck, you are unaware of the immense contribution of Canadian infantry in WW I.
Your authority figure is Will Happer. I have no real issues with Will, in fact, I like his style. He called climate change theory a scam and I agree. The only problem I have with Will is that he has subscribed to the anthropogenic theory, which I regard as a scam as well. You seem unable to read Will with any degree of objectivity.
I recall early on in the Moon discussion that you insisted the Moon orbits the Sun, not the Earth. You insisted on that despite the fact the articles you referenced claimed the Moon orbits the Earth.
That means to me that you are incapable of reading scientific articles in depth yet you are slamming me for reading articles in depth and reporting them. Hence, I take your criticism for what it is worth.
BTW, all of my posts are in support of Roy and science in general.
tim s and others…why is there no vaccine against HIV yet a vaccine was created for covid in 3 months? If they have the genome for both, why can’t they produce a vaccine for HIV? They’ve had over 40 years to produce an HIV vaccine but none is available.
How long must this naivete go on? The major drug companies have all been fined billions of dollars for essentially lying about and misrepresenting their products. Yet you lot go on naively defending them. Pfizer was granted immunity from prosecution for the covid vaccine. Why???
The truth about HIV/AIDS is well know to anyone with an objective mind. AIDS is not caused by a virus and the very scientist, Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, is on record as essentially claiming that. He is on record as claiming that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and that AIDS is caused by oxidative tress related to lifestyle.
The difference between Montagnier and Lanka is that Montagnier still believed he had isolated a virus whereas Lanka called a spade a spade and insists that none of the major viruses have been scientifically and physically isolated. Montganier admitted that he did not see HIV on an EM but he felt his ad hoc claim that RNA from a person with AIDS came from the HIV virus. He did not prove that nor has anyone proved a causal relationship between said RNA and any virus, including covid or any of the SARS family of viruses.
When Peter Duesberg claimed the same thing long before Montagnier, he was ostracized and his funding stopped by Anthony Fauci. There was nothing they could do to Montagnier without shooting themselves in the foot. he had already been awarded a Nobel for discovering HIV.
I don’t care what anyone believes, it is simply wrong to ostracize and or censor a scientist for expressing his POV. Yet, people here on Roy’s blog seem to think that’s OK. Roy is essentially ostracized and censored by his peers, hence he can likely understand what it must have been like for a top scientists like Duesberg to be treated the same way.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “tim s and otherswhy is there no vaccine against HIV yet a vaccine was created for covid in 3 months? If they have the genome for both, why cant they produce a vaccine for HIV? Theyve had over 40 years to produce an HIV vaccine but none is available.”
You do not understand what a vaccine does! HIV attacks the immune system CD4 (T helper cells). A vaccine works by priming the immune system to attack a certain structure entering the body so it has a heads up on fighting off the invader. Smallpox vaccine was just a weakened form of the more deadly one. Vaccines do not stop viruses they just prime the immune system. You can’t prime the immune system to fight something that destroys it!
Here is what is used to treat people infected with HIV.
https://hivinfo.nih.gov/understanding-hiv/fact-sheets/fda-approved-hiv-medicines
They stop the virus from replicating.
Gordon Robertson
Here is an article on Duesberg. Because of his credentials he was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 Africans because the leader believed him. One can offer alternative ideas. His flaw was he rejected evidence supporting HIV caused AIDS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg
“In a 2010 article on conspiracy theories in science, Ted Goertzel highlights Duesberg’s opposition to the HIV/AIDS connection as an example in which scientific findings are disputed on irrational grounds, relying on rhetoric, appeal to fairness and the right to a dissenting opinion rather than on evidence. Goertzel said that Duesberg, along with many other denialists frequently invoke the meme of a “courageous independent scientist resisting orthodoxy”, invoking the name of persecuted physicist and astronomer Galileo Galilei.[12] Regarding this comparison, Goertzel wrote:
…being a dissenter from orthodoxy is not difficult; the hard part is actually having a better theory. Publishing dissenting theories is important when they are backed by plausible evidence, but this does not mean giving critics ‘equal time’ to dissent from every finding by a mainstream scientist.
Goertzel, 2010[12]”
Once again, it is amazing to see how many people do not understand that Trump is a very simple minded person who is also amazingly effective at using his power to negotiate deals. In the last administration, North Korea Kim was forced to concede that he has no desire or intention to join the civilized world. One train ride to Beijing to meet with his daddy, and the deal was over. They will remain isolated and totally dependent on China.
Now we have Trump taking over Gaza. People are running around with their hair on fire and their minds exploding. Anyone watching the press conference today with the King of Jordon, and paying attention, can now see the strategy. He wants the various leaders of the countries in the region to step up and take over the situation. He actually wants them to solve the problem. Message received!
Oh, by the way, Putin is shaking in his boots and releasing spies (improperly detained prisoners?).
Trump mania has reached epic proportions,how would the self riteous citizens of the west like to live in the Middle East? never knowing when the next atrocity will occur.spending your life looking over your shoulder, all we here is free palastine, which only makes Hamas and others stronger,as with Ukraine the Isreal Arab conflics can all be traced back to WW2. Trump may be right, or maybe not, but the crux is, no one else appears to want to end the revolving door of conflics. there is a paperback titled, Down To A Sunless Sea, its only fiction but every Western leader should read it.
“Oh, by the way, Putin is shaking in his boots”
Absurd take on events, Tim.
If anything Putin is shaking with excitement at the prospect of gobbling up huge swaths of Ukraine, and no NATO membership for what’s left of Ukraine.
All facilitated by the Trump Administration.
As far as the Russian release of the prisoner, Trump indicated it was a trade for something or someone unspecified.
Putin is playing a very weak hand. He released a prisoner and his strongman buddy in Belarus released 3 just so Putin could get a phone call from Trump. He has agreed to talks with Ukraine. That is weakness compared to one month ago.
Putin needs something to claim a victory, otherwise there is no deal. It is not clear what that will be. Fairy tale endings where the evil dictator is defeated do not happen in real life. The war is mostly a stalemate. Neither side is advancing except Ukraine taking Russian territory. That will be huge bargaining chip.
“strongman buddy in Belarus released 3 just so Putin could get a phone call from Trump.”
Where is this information from?
Apparently you think you can read Putin’s mind?
What kind of strong negotiator would give up a key Putin demand, that Ukraine not join Nato, BEFORE the start of negotiations?
“never knowing when the next atrocity will occur”
or how would you like to be a Palestinian, having your homeland bombed to smithereens then have the US President tell you to leave and go somewhere, because he wants to acquire your homeland for the US.
Otherwise known as ethnic cleansing.
On the contrary, forcing Palestinians to remain in a land that is constantly bombed is inherently inhumane.
Constantly bombed by the Zionists or the USA?
Israel had the right to take action, as the events of October 7, 2023, demonstrated that peaceful coexistence with Hamas is not feasible.
The bombing of civilian locations would be horrific if there were any genuine civilian areas. Hamas hides within the population. More horrific is this behavior. There is no justification for treating innocent civilian hostages this way. There also is no reference in civilized human behavior to compare with Hamas. People say that Hamas behave like animals, but even the worst animal behavior in not this bad:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/war-and-conflicts/military-organizations/hamas-to-free-3-more-israeli-hostages-for-dozens-of-palestinian-prisoners-under-gaza-ceasefire/ar-AA1yDrYG
Your argument is that every Palestinian is a member of Hamas.
Before the war support for Hamas among Palestinians was 22%. now it stands at 40%.
So says the Times of Israel.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-support-for-hamas-on-the-rise-among-palestinians-now-double-fatahs/
I made no such “argument” or any statement that could be reasonably interpreted that way. Your response barry, says that you are now irrelevant to me. Good Bye!
Argue with people who like that sort of thing.
“The bombing of civilian locations would be horrific if there were any genuine civilian areas.”
This is the comment. Either Gaza is mostly civilian, in which case most of it is civilian area, or Gaza is not civilian, and has no civilian areas.
Once you say there are no civilian areas, you are saying there are no civilians. This has been suggested quite a few times by the Israeli government, to international and domestic condemnation, although they, like you, have also separated Gazan civilians from Hamas, and said they are trying to minimise collateral damage,
If that is the case, they are doing a horrifically bad job.
“On the contrary, forcing Palestinians to remain in a land that is constantly bombed is inherently inhumane.”
Who is doing that?
Red,
“Israel had the right to take action”
Yes. Just as Assad in Syria had a right to take action against enemy fighters there.
He did so by leveling cities, killing 10’s of thousands of civilians. And he was universally condemned as evil, even by the US for this. And he was finally booted from his country.
Yet when Israel adopts the very same approach, leveling cities and killing 10s of thousands of civilians. This is not condemned by the US, on the contrary it is defended.
Nate,
Of course civilian lives matter, but what choice does Israel have when Hamas uses human shields?
What would you suggest Israel do differently?
Have rules of engagement like the rest of the civilized world’s militaries have, and follow them.
The problem is that the current Israeli government has no concern for Palestinian lives. They treat them as vermin.
If violent criminals put themselves in a crowd of civilians, then you suggest the police should just open fire?
Or if bank robbers take hostages, you suggest that the police just blow up the bank?
“Have the rules of engagement like the rest of the civilized worlds militaries have, and follow them.”
It can be argued that Hamas is the state violating the rules of engagement by operating within civilian areas and using the population as human shields while continuing its terrorist agenda.
Hamas deliberately exploits this strategy to undermine Israel’s military responses and manipulate global perception. By framing civilian casualties as evidence of oppressive Israeli aggression, they aim to garner sympathy from Arab states and the broader international community, which helps further their narrative.
And this tactic works, not just for optics, but also to hinder the opponent, as long as the opponent operates with concern for reducing civilian casualties, which the Israeli government has said it strives to achieve, but which it has consistently failed to achieve.
According to the lower estimates, around 50,000 Palestinians have been killed, which includes civilians and members of Hamas. Twice that many have been injured. A small fraction of that number are actual militants. By the Israeli government’s estimate of militants killed, that is collateral damage of two civilians for every militant.
Unsurprisingly, Hamas has been able to recruit new members during the conflict.
Around 70% of the buildings in Gaza’s urban areas have been destroyed. That is an extraordinary result from ‘surgical’ attacks.
But it does comport with the notion that there are “no civilian areas” in Gaza.
Breaking News: My apology to the teacher for calling him a spy. He was caught with medicinal cannabis obtained in the USA. Most of these cases are spies, but my apologies anyway. And yes, there was a swap for a money launderer after the phone call, or at least announced only today.
Trump and Putin have agreed to a meeting in a neutral country to be named later. It looks as if Ukraine is an ultimate loser in this. Putin is a loser also, but not personally since he could probably care less about the death and damage he has caused.
Why do you unable to post in the right place?
barry…”Gordon announces that in order to prove a virus has been isolated it needs to be visible under an electron microscope. If they are smaller than the resolution he believes is possible with an EM, he is relying on a mistaken belief to set an impossible task”.
***
Huh???
SEMS are not used to confirm a virus, the TEM is used. All a SEM can offer is a superficial surface scan of material viewed where the scanned surface is no more than 2 -3 nm deep..
The TEM, or transmission electron microscope, fires electrons right through the sample, therefore the sample slide thickness can be no more than about 90nm. Otherwise, the electrons cannot pass through it. As the electrons pass through they are collected on an image, which is comprised of the affected areas, shading the image in areas of black and white, representing electrons that made it through in various intensities.
What is viewed re a virus is a very thin cross section of the virus. The SEM, on the other hand, produces a 3-D view of the external surface, not the innards.
The question arises as to how the image is known to be a virus. That leads to confusion, since viral particles are sometimes confused with a real virus. Not only that, there are particles in normal tissue that can be mistaken for a virus.
One clue is that the viruses themselves should be of uniform size since they have the same density. Density = mass/volume. Although it is claimed that a virus has spikes protruding that it uses to attach itself to a cell, with a TEM it is virtually impossible to see such spikes.
The alleged corona virus is thus named because it appears to have a corona around it. Where then are the spikes for attaching to a cell?
And the goalposts move again, Gordon. You have exclusively used the acronym EM, never specifying what kind of electron microscope, and as soon as you are linke to a bunch of studies confirming EM capture of isolated SARS CoV2 virus, you suddenly find a new loophole.
Ok, here is yet another paper. TEM captures of isolated SARS CoV2, including spikes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-024-04182-3 [You can see the spikes]
I can, as before, produce many studies like this.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457923000904
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.02.972927v1.full.pdf [Figure 2 is the TEM images, and you can see the spikes – they also used cryo-EM separately]
There are also plenty of studies using cryo-EM to image SARS CoV2, and they also see the spikes.
So, Lucy, are you going to pull the football away again, or are you going to give up this preposterous stance of yours in the face of all the evidence accrued from perhaps the world’s most studied virus?
Here are 2 more studies where the researchers isolated the virus, tested it in culture, observed its replication, used the isolated virus to infect other cells, and used transmission electron microscopy to image their results.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7239045/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7454076/
For interest, here is a study that tested which kind of cultures were more efficacious for hosting the isolates.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-75038-4
“Note the spikes that adorn the outer surface of the virus, which impart the look of a corona surrounding the virion, when viewed electron microscopically.”
richard…all viruses apparently have such spikes, why don’t all viruses show the corona. It seems apparent to me that the said corona is nothing more than a uniform diffraction of electrons as they pass through whatever it is they are moving through.
It is well known that a TMS is destructive to the sample. Makes sense, since the high velocity electrons collide with atoms in the sample, knocking them apart. How would you like a stream of high velocity electrons aimed at your body? Of course, they’d have to put you in a vacuum first since electrons collide with air molecules, which block them and divert them.
When the first SARS virus was claimed in a paper, the paper was rejected at peer review. The reviewers claimed the nature of the viewed specimen virus was uncertain, that it could have been any virion.
What has changed??? How can anyone be sure they are seeing an actual virus and not simply viral material (virion) or even cell debris?
I am afraid the average researcher lacks the qualifications to differentiate a virus from a pomegranate.
ps. when I look at the supplied EM micrographs, the thought occurs to me as to why they seem congregated in groups with vast spaces between the groupd. Does that mean viruses are social creatures who hang out in groups, while lined up to enter a cell?
Gordon,
“It is well known that a TMS is destructive to the sample.”
So after insisting the scanning EM was not sufficient, and that only transmission EM was good enough, you now turn around and say that TEM damages the sample!
Incredible, self-fulfilling ‘reasoning’.
But I’ve had my fun. I’m content to let you believe that you know better than hundreds of different virus research teams, and thousands of virus researchers all over the world, who must all, according to you, be either incompetent or fraudulent.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[Donald]’s job reduction order could hit most at this major Huntsville employer
https://www.al.com/news/huntsville/2025/02/trumps-job-reduction-order-could-hit-most-at-this-major-huntsville-employer.html
We had to do the same after Pierre Trudeau policies laying waste to Canada’s economy. Its really hard on the people involved.
There is no single high cost item that will bring government budgets under control. Even if salaries are just ‘5%’ of the spending … there have to be cuts. It all adds up to a whopping trillions of dollars of deficit spending.
There should be laws restricting deficit spending by governments so these situations don’t happen.
It really matters who you vote for … and this job reduction order isn’t Trump’s fault. You can’t blame him for decades of waste that are leaving USA in a situation where default is a real threat.
It is his fault based on the extent of what he plans. You can’t simply turn workers out into the street, justifying it as a means of balancing the books. At least, you can’t under a democracy that is supposedly based on compassion.
I did not see a word of this in his platform. Had he revealed these plans, I doubt that he’d have been elected. No, his current executive order comes after consultation with billionaires like Musk.
He vowed to slash government spending and prune the bureaucracy. And he got a mandate to do that. It should have been expected that he would come in with sledgehammers and machetes and ignore the constitution.
“And he got a mandate to do that.”
Did he? He did not get a mandate to enact Project 2025. During the election he specifically disavowed these plans.
I don’t know about Canada, but in the US we have separation of powers. Congress makes laws and controls the spending. They create agencies.
The President does not have the authority to unilaterally turn off the spending, nor to liquidate agencies, like USAID or the Dept of Education.
If he did, then whatever programs and spending this Congress passes and is signed into law, the next President could just cancel.
Separation of powers isn’t going to resolve a looming sovereign debt crisis unless they work together.
So ends justify the means for you?
The only way to solve the US debt crisis is to take on the Social Security deficit, which is very simple to do, but Republicans refuse to consider is required, which is to have well-off people contribute more.
Yes.
Layoffs are a frequent occurrence in private sector.
There is no reason to not do the same in government.
In the corporate sector financial auditing firms may make recommendations, but the layoffs are determined by the businesses themselves.
What Trump is doing would be like Deloitte sacking people working at
Telstra. It’s not Trump’s money paying for the ‘businesses’, and the businesses are owned by congress, not the presidency.
Also in the corporate sector, an auditor from Deloitte would be barred from auditing any company where they or their family could benefit from inside news or decision-making post audit. Musk would be in severe violation.
It doesn’t matter if he has the power or not; it needs doing. Else government go bankrupt and everyone … everyone … gets thrown into poverty.
So go ahead, keep obfuscating the critical factor of imminent sovereign debt crisis. You’re not immune.
I don’t think it is reasonable to abandon the constitution and the law to fix federal debt, which is definitely an issue. No one is denying it. The methods to deal with it are being criticised, quite appropriately.
barry…And the goalposts move again, Gordon. You have exclusively used the acronym EM, never specifying what kind of electron microscope…”
***
Barry…I had presumed, based on your apparent expertise in the field, that you’d know the difference between a SEM and a TEM. The original gold standard as put forward by the Louis Pasteur Institute obviously postulated a TEM since the electrons had to pass through the sample.
Most micrographs you see of a claimed virus are obvious cross sections of the virus. That happens when suspected viral material is prepared on a slide where the sample is about 90 nm thick. You cannot pick a virus up with tweezers and deposit it on a specimen plate, and you most definitely cannot slice a virus in half to create a cross-section. The cross-section obviously comes from slicing through multiple viruses prepared on some sort of substrate.
Here’s a good article on how samples are prepared for SEMs and TEMs.
Lanka’s argument is that artefacts are often mistakes for a virus. He offers examples of how common viruses like measles have been mistaken in papers for artefacts and even cell structures, where the implication is that the virus is inside. They don’t go out of their way to make that clear.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/500-preparing-samples-for-the-electron-microscope
“Micelles and strange-shaped mitochondria are examples of artefacts structures that are seen under the microscope but arent found in living cells. Its very important to be aware that artefacts can be introduced during fixation so that you dont mistake them for real parts of your sample. Telling the difference between an artefact and a real structure can be difficult”.
“For TEM, samples must be cut into very thin cross-sections. This is to allow electrons to pass right through the sample. After being fixed and dehydrated, samples are embedded in hard resin to make them easier to cut. Then, an instrument called an ultramicrotome cuts the samples into ultra-thin slices (100 nm or thinner). TEM samples are also treated with heavy metals to increase the level of contrast in the final image. The parts of the sample that interact strongly with the metals show up as darker areas”.
“Samples destined for the SEM arent cut into thin sections, because the SEM visualises the surface of three-dimensional objects. Instead, SEM samples are coated with a thin layer of metal (usually gold or gold-palladium). The metal coating makes samples conductive. It acts in a similar way to an electrical wire, drawing away the electrons that are bombarding the sample. Without the metal coating, many samples build up electrons, and this can cause charging artefacts. These are strange-looking areas on SEM images that give a false impression of how the sample looks”.
Gordon,
I’m glad you brought up the Pasteur Institute. Gold standard?
Here is an article from the institute about them isolating SARS CoV2:
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/institut-pasteur-isolates-strains-coronavirus-2019-ncov-detected-france
And here is a research paper by the institute detailing the replication and TEM imaging of the SARS CoV2 virus. They also used SEM.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24521-x
The cult kiddies like to deny reality. They have to, to support their cult beliefs. One such reality they like to deny is “natural variability”. This winter are seeing many signs of this natural variability, as La Niña sets record snowfall in multiple areas.
https://www.pnj.com/story/weather/2025/01/22/what-part-florida-snow-pensacola-panhandle-photos-state-records-coldest-ever-days-temperatures/77872545007/
Absolute tosh. No one denies natural variability.
Keep burning those straw men.
Got a link to support your opinion, barry?
But at least you recognize you’re a cult kid. That’s progress….
You want me to prove a negative?
Don’t be silly. No one denies that there is natural variability. Witness the endless discussions about ENSO as an example. No one denies the existence of that natural variable.
Clint R
Who here denys that “Natural Variability” exists? You deny science by proclaiming, with zero evidence and complete lack of understanding of physics, that increase on CO2 in atmosphere can’t lead to higher surface temps (because CO2 acts as a radiant insulator as shown in several graphs of outgoing IR, graphs you refuse to consider).
It’s been a while since you’ve trailed me with your insults and false accusations, Norman.
But thanks for proving me right, as usual.
It will be an Arctic hit in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/B5G2Dc0s/gfs-z100-nh-f00-1.png
” … as La Niña sets record snowfall in multiple areas. ”
*
I always get a big laugh about these self-assessed specialists – who in act are rather High Priests of the ‘360 Degree Denial’ Cult – when we see them talking about GHE, HTE or even simply about La Niña.
*
Record snowfall, eh?
Let’s look at the reality of snow cover that they always manage to ignore:
https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_sce.png
while intentionally misinterpreting the information below, which deals with snow mass hence tells us how wet the snow is on average (and not so much how voluminous it is):
https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/nh_swe.png
*
Finally, let’s look at the power of this short season’s natural variability compared to earlier, year-long La Niña events:
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/mei_lifecycle_current.png
*
Until Sep ’23, I watched an unusually long lasting La Niña which started in 2020 and ended in 2023:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OFB3GczUOmJ-T1IwbmVFa3NuRaWpSIaO/view
I recall having totally underestimated its power in 2021, because Japan’s Met Agency did as well: this ENSO event lasted 35 (thirty five) months below the ‘-0.5’ treshold.
Anyone can see how the current La Niña would look like when inserted into this picture of superposed eventrs.
**
And when I look today at NOAA’s NINO 3+4 forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
I emit some doubt about the current La Niña being able to explain anything about ‘everything being natural’ in today’s climate affairs.
Fizzix is broken
https://youtu.be/qPaB1nZgR9Y
Entropic Man: Re your post at https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2024-0-62-deg-c/#comment-1696594
The method that you used implicitly assumes that the WV level at the beginning of a period of study is the same as it is at the end. Instead, the assessment is path dependent. The temperature trajectory can be accurately approximated by 432 straight line segments (the temperature data is reported monthly so 36 years times 12 months per year = 432 segments). The month-to-month average temperature difference (which is what drives WV change) is half the difference between reported values. The solution is obtained via numerical integration: WVn = WV(n-1) + 0.5*(Tn-T(n-1) * 0.067 * WV(n-1).
The rate/C varies with temperature. It is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure vs temperature curve at a temperature divided by the pressure at that temperature. Area-weighted average is closer to 6.7 % than 7 %.
Also, I believe that UAH temperatures should be used because they are not subject to UHI uncertainties.
The result of this analysis is a WV increase due to temperature increase of 0.39 mm.
Roy,
Far as I can see the January anomaly doesn’t yet appear at https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/ .