Home/BlogThe comment portal at the Federal Register is now open for comments relating to our DOE report. If you think we weren’t alarmist enough, post your comment and explain why. If you think we were too alarmist, post your comment and explain why. I believe the comment period is open for 30 days.
Well, I get this message:
We’re sorry, an error has occurred
The feature you are attempting to access is currently unavailable.
Same here.
Well I get the link.
Thanks for the link. Comment submitted to Federal Register.
I just went to the portal and posted my two comments from the previous thread.
I tried to read the Federal Register cooments. The link is “unavailable”.
Not for me. I get the link.
When it comes to government sites, I have had issues access outside of the Country and/or not using a particular browser. I tried the link and it works for me using Firefox from Georgia USA.
My bad, I can’t see comments early. Says… The feature you are attempting to access is currently unavailable.
For your consideration:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/how-the-doe-and-epa-used-and-misused
And
https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-reframes-climate-consensus-as-a-debate/
https://bsky.app/profile/richardtol.bsky.social/post/3lvbowurbe222
https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-say-new-government-climate-report-twists-their-work/
https://richardtol.substack.com/p/is-climate-change-dangerous
https://www.science.org/content/article/contrarian-climate-assessment-u-s-government-draws-swift-pushback
From a RB post by a friend.
List of scientists who so far say the report cites but misrepresents their work. No doubt there will be more, I’ll update this as required. Please add any you find as a comment.
. “The DoE published a scientific report in support of the EPA’s legal argument. I am cited 3 times, incorrectly all three times. I am not the only one, as reported by Science and Wired.”
(I also liked this quote ‘If President Obama had asked me to write his Endangerment Finding I would have given him two words: “well duh”.)
. The report cites his paper on climate model performance, which fundamentally found they perform well, but cherry-picks a single, fairly irrelevant figure from the SI.
“They appear to have discarded the whole paper as not fitting their narrative, and instead picked a single figure that was in the supplementary materials to cast doubt on models, when the whole paper actually confirmed how well they have performed in the years after they were published,”
Hausfather says this is representative of the authors approach : “cherry-pick data points that suit their narrative”. He has previously said the EPA’s interpretation of his work got it “completely backwards” which seems relevant.
. Internationally recognized evolutionary plant biologist. The report cites her work in the section promoting CO2-induced ‘greening’. However she claims the authors neglected that the work was conducted under “highly controlled growth conditions” and the report omits other confounding factors,
“With rising CO2 in natural ecosystems, plants may experience higher heat loads, extreme weather events such as droughts and floods, and reduced pollinators—which can have severe net negative effects on plant growth and crop yields,” she says. “Furthermore, our studies indicate that major disruptions in plant development such as flowering time can occur in direct response to rising CO2, which were not mentioned in the report.”
“” ‑ Assistant Professor, Department of Earth and Space Sciences & Astrobiology Program at UW (Seattle). The report cites his work to support its claim that ‘“the recent decline in [ocean] pH is within the range of natural variability on millennial time scales’. But Josh points out ‘“The much more gradual changes in ocean pH we observe on geologic timescales were typically not accompanied by the rapid changes in carbonate saturation that human CO2 emissions are causing, and so the former are not useful analogs for assessing the impact of ocean acidification on the modern marine biosphere”
, a climate scientist at Rutgers University, claims the report misrepresents his sea level research by cherry-picking a single tide gauge.
Kristie Ebi and Micahael Allen have both posted on BlueSky to say they have also been misrepresented, without so far giving details. Professor Richard Tol amusingly also claims ‘They even got Ross McKitrick’s research wrong.’
I’d love that to be true.
Quote : “The much more gradual changes in ocean pH we observe on geologic timescales were typically not accompanied by the rapid changes in carbonate saturation that human CO2 emissions are causing.”
The proxies used in those researches simply don’t have the required bandwidth to say that.
First Step – Pure Denial
I get the page to post comments.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/01/2025-14519/notice-of-availability-a-critical-review-of-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-us-climate
But not the page to view comments. Given the very short address, I think it may be a bad link. I tried with 2 different browsers:
https://www.regulations.gov/service-down
We’re sorry, an error has occurred
The feature you are attempting to access is currently unavailabl
Link in the post woks for me.
The link to view comments is now updated to this:
https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001/comment
But in then crashes and goes here. I think “service-down” is the explanation:
https://www.regulations.gov/service-down
Goes to here for me. https://www.regulations.gov/document/DOE-HQ-2025-0207-0001/comment
No crash.
I wonder if the radical environmental NGO’s have launched a DNS attack on the government websites? When the Endangerment Finding is rescinded, their charitable fund donations will rapidly decline and they all will go bust.
” I wonder if the radical environmental NGO’s have launched a DNS attack on the government websites? ”
And I wouldn’t be surprised if you were paranoid.
My comment will be on sea level rise. Melting glaciers, ok. but back radiation? I don’t see it.
I have yet to see a calculation on evaporation vs radiative forcing using first principles, so I made one on X since that is right in my wheelhouse of what I do at work. This isn’t new science. If you doubled CO2, radiative forcing would increase 3 W/m², back radiation imparted on the sea surface would increase to 5 W/m². SST would only need to increase 0.2°C so that the combined emission from the SS and evaporative increase would balance the increase in downwelling. To arrive at this, I assumed a characteristic length and average wind velocity and fixed relative humidity. Most of this heat gets rejected during ENSO cycles as the ocean turns over. There would be little change in the bulk temperature.
” Melting glaciers, ok. but back radiation? ”
Why to speak about the minuscule back radiation?
Why not to speak about rising sea temperatures instead, which not only
– are the main cause of glacier melting (ice melts from the bottom and not at the surface)
but also
– contribute to rising sea levels because warmer oceans need more volume than colder ones?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/fig10-ncar-nh-sh-rmsat-1948-2024.gif
Thermal expansion from warmer oceans causes seal level increase. That is trivial. CO2 doubling can’t cause the oceans to warm. My calculation shows that CO2 doubling would only contribute to a 0.2°C increase in SST. The bulk temperature of the ocean would increase much less than that as most of the Sea Surface turns over every 5 to 7 years.
sam shicks
” My calculation shows… ”
YOUR calculation?
What exactly are your scientific / technical skills?
Engineer. Qualified heat transfer specialist. I think that qualifies me to calculate atmospheric heat transfer. We figured this stuff out long before climate scientists came around and tried to reinvent the wheel.
Oh oh oh, an engineer. I’m one too, Sah.
Please show us your detailed calculation.
Just because you are an engineer doesn’t mean you can do heat transfer. I’m in an exclusive club. Few have reached my level.
Sam
Your results bear no resemblance to observed and measured reality.
You have probably made the usual errors that happen when an expert in one field tries to operate outside his field.
Please make your working accessible so that we can critique it properly.
Ent, Sam specifically said “CO2 doubling would only contribute to a 0.2°C increase in SST.
You believe that is wrong. So the correct thing to do is show why you believe that. IOW, do you have ANY science to go along with your beliefs?
Not going to play head games with you. Here is a homework problem for you. If downwelling increased by 3.2 W/m² which caused SST to increase and the air temperature above the SST to increase. Assuming constant relative humidity and convection remained unchanged for simplicity, how much would the SST need to increase in order to balance the energy at the SST?
Assume 7 mph wind and turbulent boundary layer.
“I have yet to see a calculation”
Second Step – Sammich Request
Have you ever calculated the evaporation rate off a spent fuel pool under loss of cooling scenario? I use the mass transfer method. This method is grounded in the physics of mass transport and can be and adaptable to flow regime and environmental variables.
If you believe we achieved 2.5 W/m² of radiative forcing and treated the atmosphere as a single layer grey model, downwelling will have increased 4.2 W/m² after the atmosphere heated up. Absent any other feedbacks and assuming no clouds or water surface, the average earth surface would have heated up 0.76K and the atmosphere would have heated up 0.64K. The total increase in GHE would be 2.5 W/m². This comes from the basic procedure provided by Daniel Jacob.
Since there is water, we need to calculate what the increase in SST would be with the additional back radiation of 4.2 W/m². We only need to be concerned with what changed and that is back radiation. While it doesn’t penetrate the SS, it does get added in the surface energy balance. This is implicitly solved with a few assumptions.
1. The increase in air temperature equals that of the sea surface increase
2. The RH of the air remains constant. This is conservative (provides a lower bounding limit of evaporation rate) as it limits evaporation (vapor pressure deficit) to just that given by the expansion of air at higher temperatures.
3. Constant wind velocity. Again conservative. Thus, we can ignore convection.
Taking credit for increase long wave emission at higher SST and taking credit for an increase in evaporative heat loss from the SST due to evaporation.
The mass transfer method, also known as the aerodynamic or Dalton-type method, estimates evaporation as a process of vapor transfer from the water surface into the air through diffusion and convection. The fundamental equation for mass transfer can be expressed as:
E = kc × (Cs – Ca)
Where:
• E = Evaporation rate (kg/m²·s)
• kc = Mass transfer coefficient (m/s)
• Cs = Vapor concentration at the water surface (kg/m³)
• Ca = Vapor concentration in the air (kg/m³)
The mass transfer coefficient (kc) is a central parameter and can be estimated using dimensionless numbers that characterize transport phenomena in the system, such as the Schmidt number (Sc) and Sherwood number (Sh).
The result is SST increase of 0.25°C, assumed equal amount of air temperature increase of 0.25°C which produces an increase of 1.503 W/m² of long wave emission and 2.697 W/m² of evaporation.
The key here is that even though I assumed constant RH, a 0.25°C increase in air temperature at fixed RH results in a decrease in the density of the water vapor in the air by 0.000293 kg/m³. This is what drives the increase in evaporation rate.
Third Step – Saying Stuff
I see one problem with your calculation, sam. Where is the energy coming from? What happens to that area after the energy is lost.
You are probably assuming the energy comes from the sun or ?, but that is not quite right. The energy comes from the lower atmosphere. In fact, just a few meters above the surface.
If you are now thinking this would cool the lower atmosphere, you are on the right track. This creates a problem.
When you cool the atmosphere and warm the surface, you create a difference between the two bodies. Since they are touching and conduction is ongoing between these two bodies, you will increase conducted energy from the surface into the atmosphere.
How much energy conducts back into the atmosphere?
A “Red Team” / “Blue Team” exercise has aleady occurred. It led to APS statement on climate change .
Climate Change Statement Review Workshop transcript of proceedings https://share.google/pR3HcPHm53dyRB8f9
Hi Roy,
I think Wim Rost and I found an error in the report fyi.
Page 41:
“Since ocean is less reflective than land, the NH should have higher albedo. Clouds (which are highly reflective) are more common in the NH and so compensate the surface albedo…”
Replace “NH” with “SH”. Clouds are more common in the Southern Hemisphere.
** Looks like you are right, thanks. -Roy
Typos are getting more and more prevalent. I know….
This is clearly caused by CO2. The correlation is obvious:
ΔT = τln(C/Co)
Exact number is obtained from transient CO2 response (TCR) and the long-term equilibrium CO2 sensitivity (ECS), as additional funding is approved.
New atmospheric data shows strong easterly winds descending through the tropical stratosphere, which could bring notable changes to Winter 2025/2026 across the United States, Canada, and Europe. Known as the Quasi-Biannial Oscillation (QBO), this wind pattern shifts direction every 1 to 2 years and can play a major role in shaping seasonal weather patterns.
Past winters with a similar setup have seen a weakened Polar Vortex, leading to colder and snowier conditions across parts of the United States, Canada, and Europe. Fresh forecasts now suggest that Winter 2025/2026 could be influenced in a similar way.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/long-range-2/winter-2025-2026-qbo-stratospheric-polar-vortex-cold-forecast-pattern-united-states-canada-fa/?fbclid=IwY2xjawL_zixleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHuLLa5inXVF8cEgdxnEw-_-Cmwh5UwZAcQRQJhCUuHk275JJFn_4NIaibO15_aem_vRrn6aXFT5lL_TR_mu-nLQ
The report references the Great Barrier Reef several times, talking of record cover and a ‘rebound’. And it reproduces coral cover charts from the Australian Marine Science Institute’s 2023 Annual Report, mistakenly saying it was the most recent (2024 was available, showing a small fallback in cover, maybe they wanted to ‘Hide the Decline’).
We now have the 2025 report and sadly it is pretty grim news for the reef. Cover is down in all three regions and two regions have experienced the greatest annual drop in cover on record. This reverses most or all of the gains from the last few years when the reef was relatively undisturbed, taking cover back or near to long term averages.
Clearly, talk of a ‘rebound’ is now misleading. I assume the figures will be updated to use the up to date versions and the language modified to meet reality.
The AIMS report is here https://www.aims.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-08/AIMS_LTMP_Report_GBR_coral_status_2024_2025_final_web.pdf
Here are some quotes from the exec summary
-The 2024 mass coral bleaching event was the fifth mass coral bleaching event on the GBR since 2016 and was part of an ongoing (fourth) global event that began on Northern Hemisphere reefs in 2023.’
-The 2024 event had the largest spatial footprint ever recorded on the GBR, with high to extreme bleaching prevalence observed across all three regions of the GBR.
– Fast-growing Acropora corals, which facilitated the rapid recovery observed across many reefs between 2017 and 2024, were among the most severely impacted by the bleaching event.
– The summer of 2024 brought multiple stressors to the GBR including cyclones, flooding and crown-of-thorns starfish, but the mass coral bleaching event was the primary source of coral mortality.
One year does not determine a long-term trend. If you have a legitimate point to make, submit it at the DOE report comment portal, don’t adjudicate it here. -Roy
Thanks to Australian agriculture, the north-east coast near the Great Barrier Reef is one big nursery for starfishes (crown of thorns). Grown-up starfishes eat large quantities of coral, with each starfish eating up to 10 square meters per year. The corals have no time to recover when they are eaten again. Australians call it bleaching.
Leading scientists told Agence France-Presse (AFP) on Thursday, July 31, that their research, cited in a landmark report from the U.S. Department of Energy, had been misused to minimize the role of human activity in climate change.
This report, published on July 29, sets out the arguments that led the Trump administration to reverse a key 2009 decision regulating greenhouse gas emissions on Tuesday, further undermining the fight against climate change in the United States.
It was written by a working group that included John Christy and Judith Curry, both associated with the Heartland Institute, a lobby group that frequently challenges the scientific consensus on climate change.
The document “completely misrepresents my work,” Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist and honorary professor at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, complained to AFP. He explained that a section of the report devoted to “stratosphere cooling” contradicted his conclusions.
AFP and other media outlets, including the US news website Notus, found inaccurate quotes, flawed analyses, and editorial errors in the report.
This is the third time in 2025 that scientists have complained to AFP that a US government agency misrepresented academic research to justify its decisions. In May, the White House notably moved quickly to amend a report on diseases affecting young Americans, which was initially based on nonexistent scientific studies. “Misinterpretation of numerous studies”
“I am concerned that a government agency has published a report intended to inform the public and guide policy without undergoing a rigorous peer-review process, while misinterpreting numerous studies that have been,” Bor-Ting Jong, assistant professor at the Free University of Amsterdam, told AFP.
She pointed out that the document contained false statements about the climate model studied by her team and used different terminology, which led to misinterpretations of its results.
James Rae, a climate researcher at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, who also denounced the misrepresentation of his work in the US Department of Energy report, told AFP that the change in the administration’s use of science is “truly chilling”; it “has been at the forefront of scientific research for decades.”
Yet his report resembles a student exercise aimed at distorting climate science,” he added.
*
Yeah.
It’s amazing how Trump gets it right, yet has very little science background. Maybe he can just recognize fraud when he sees it.
The thing is, Bindi, REAL science is about reality, not beliefs. For example, not one of your heroes mentioned can explain scientifically how CO2 can “heat the planet”. Specifically, link to where Benjamin Santer, Bor-Ting Jong, or James Rae ever explained the REAL physics behind their CO2 beliefs.
You won’t find it.
Also, you have yet to present a viable model of “orbital motion without spin”.
Here’s a layperson’s view of all this, and when I say layperson, I mean someone who designed and built data analytics platforms for large healthcare companies for 15 years. I have lost faith in scientists. I watched firsthand as big pharma companies distorted the data coming out of our systems to market their products. The handling of the mRNA fiasco was nothing more than a butchery of the truth. I remember seeing professors at a major university lie like thieves to get funding. I strongly believe in the scientific process when applied honestly, but I don’t trust anything most “scientists” say these days. Most of you are no better than the snake oil salesmen of 100+ years ago. But I do trust the scientists behind this report, mainly because they paid a huge price to speak their views of the truth when it would have been so much easier for them just to cave in to the mob.
I love gas and diesel engines, and believe that CO2 helps the planet. We have enough fossil fuel for thousands of years. However, I do hope one day that Commercial Fusion Power is developed and battery technology continues to improve. EV’s would make a lot of sense, and possibly send combustion engines the way of the horse and buggy.
stephen p anderson
What is your source for thousands of years for fossil fuels remain (assuming you are talkong about current levels of sonsumption). The current assesment is about 50 years left for oil and natural gas and a little over 100 years for coal. I certainly would like to see your source material for the thousands of years!??
“What If We Never Run Out of Oil?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/?single_page=true
Wayne Williams
I fully understand and respect what you wrote.
{Except for the paragraph about mRNA, because of the scientifically undeniable successes in the field of cancer, which preceded those with COVID-19 by years.
Furthermore, doubts about mRNA-based vaccines here in Europe are essentially limited to ultra-right groups who are against everything; and I doubt that ALL the anti-vaccine people in the US ALL have actually refused the COVID-19 vaccine.}
*
I come back to what I wrote above:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/notice-of-availability-a-critical-review-of-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/#comment-1710283
*
It’s one thing to correctly contradict results that one considers technically or even scientifically incorrect, on the same technical or even scientific level.
It’s quite another when people simply distort and misrepresent what their opponents write. This cannot be done without malicious intent.
*
I can’t imagine you supporting that.
wayne…you are right about the mRNA scam. Stands for modified RNA and the rocket scientists who believe in the scam are under the delusion that RNA is the basis of a virus.
An expert in mRNA, Dr. Robert Malone, came right out and stated that mRNA cannot prevent a covid infection. He was barred from places like Google on the pretext that he was spreading misinformation.
The RNA misinformation began with Luc Montagnier in 1983, the scientist who won a Nobel for allegedly discovering the virus that allegedly causes AIDS. Montagnier himself never claimed to have ‘discovered a virus’, in fact he admitted that he could not see HIV on an electron microscope. Later, he admitted that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system and that the real cause of AIDS is oxidative stress related to lifestyle.
When Montagnier and his team failed to see a virus on an EM, as required by his institute, the Louis Pasteur Institute, they went on to use retroviral theory, that was only 10 years old, to INFER a virus based on RNA taken from a person with AIDS. A pioneer in the field warned that RNA is not a good marker for a virus since…ta da…it is readily found all over the body as a naturally occuring agent.
LPI laid out the gold standard at the time for identifying a virus and the final step was seeing it on an EM and one of the LPI team who helped create the gold standard, Dr. Barre Sinoussi, was on Montagnier’s team. Not a peep out of her when they could not see a virus on an EM and helped infer one using RNA technology.
Then the rocket scientist, Fauci, got in on the scam with David Ho. Since they could not see HIV on an EM, and it was regarded as very scarce, they decided to amplify it using the PCR method for DNA amplification. So, they took RNA, ***THOUGHT*** to indicate a virus, converted it to DNA, and amplified the DNA using PCR.
No one can explain to this day how the test is supposed to identify a virus.
The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, said, “wait a minute, you can’t use PCR to amplify a virus that you can’t see on an EM”. Fauci had the audacity to tell him he was wrong. To this day, all viruses are declared using they new inferential scam hypothesized by Montagnier.
The same scam was used to put the world into a hysterical frenzy over covid. The test is a scam as is the alleged vaccine. In fact, the real scare that motivated the hysteria came from…ta da….an unvalidated computer model. Never mind that the model had been wrong about viruses data back to 2000, it was accepted readily by the fear-monger epidemiologists who declared covid a pandemic.
Christian Drosten is credited with developing the RNA-PCR test for covid but he freely admitted he had never seen the virus either. In fact, the scientists who announced the virus in Wuhan in 2020 also admitted they had not seen the virus but merely inferred it from RNA in crap taken from a victim’s lungs. Drosten simply used the info they provided and inferred a test.
After a couple of years of ineffective fear-mongering, they simply made covid go away by declaring it endemic, like the flu. That’s all it was in the first place, a bad case of the flu.
Gordo,
The “m” stands for messenger.
The map of CO2 distribution at the surface shows how terrestrial plants, marine algae, and cyanobacteria use CO2 during the growing season. It is worth noting that the increase in ocean surface temperature in the tropics favors cyanobacteria, which have the ability to assimilate carbon dioxide and nitrogen.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular
Solar cycle 25 is stronger than cycle 24 in terms of sunspots and UV radiation. However, since 2008, the number of geomagnetic storms has dropped dramatically. The graph shows the number of geomagnetic storms per year. This direct impact of solar wind on Earth’s magnetosphere (geomagnetic storm) has a very large effect on waves occurring in the stratosphere and above. I am sure that this may affect circulation in the stratosphere and upper troposphere.
It should also be remembered that we are already in this cycle after the reversal of the poles on the Sun, i.e. after the peak of solar activity.
https://i.ibb.co/gZVHdP61/liczba-dni-z-burz-geomag.png
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_WAVE1_MEAN_JFM_NH_2025.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_NA_f000.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
” I am sure that this may affect circulation in the stratosphere and upper troposphere. ”
No doubt is allowed: just one 100% scientific proof would be far more convincing than 1,000 Palmowski’s I am sure.
100% scientific proof. That should be easy.
No such animal as 100% proof because there is always the possibility that the next experiment will prove you wrong.
Does the stratosphere affect summer weather?https://i.ibb.co/hx89WkbJ/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f000-1.png
https://i.ibb.co/cc52jzhG/archive-2-image.png
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
It’s 43C today in France.
Not in Paris its not.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/fr/paris/623/weather-forecast/623
I thought only Parisians were that pedant.
Parisiens are not French. Everybody knows that.
“Residents of the city are known in English as Parisians and in French as Parisiens”
Except the ussual pseudoskeptics, anyone will have understood that if fact, the better message would have been
” It’s up to 43C today in France. ”
*
And we all can be sure that if there was in France only one little location with a maximum lower than these 43 C, then the professional Coolista Blindsley H00d aka RLH would have mentioned it.
Yes, because there is a blocked upper low over the Atlantic and the high over France and Spain remains over those countries. Now a warm front is reaching England. In Central Europe, however, the air is cooling rapidly at night. Autumn is approaching.
Paris is in France. (Except for those in the USA).
I live in France. After a dull and wet month of july, there are at least a few good warm days. For example, in Lyon, maximum temperatures reached 39,0 °C in the afternoon of Aug. 12. Yet, it is 0.7 °C below the temperatures of 1947 :
1947 8 2 39.70
I suspect that the replacement of LIG thermometers with Pt100 probes whose higher bandwidth catch more easily temperature peaks added up to 2 °C on recent Tmax.
Stephen p Anderson
What’s your man doing?
Putting soldiers on the streets of your capital city is what dictators do.
Is a coup imminent?
Yes, Joe Biden deployed the National Guard during his presidency for several purposes. Here are the key instances based on available information:
Washington, D.C. (January 2021): Following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, over 25,000 National Guard members from the District of Columbia, 50 states, and three territories were deployed to secure Washington, D.C., for Biden’s inauguration on January 20, 2021. This was one of the largest domestic deployments of the National Guard in modern history, with about 2,000 troops remaining until late May 2021 to provide continued security support.
North Carolina (October 2024): Biden approved the deployment of up to 1,000 active-duty Army personnel to reinforce the North Carolina National Guard in response to recovery efforts following Hurricane Helene.
Horn of Africa (2024): Biden authorized the deployment of 1,000 National Guard troops from Virginia and Kentucky to the Horn of Africa, marking the largest single-unit mobilization of Virginia’s National Guard since World War II.
Ent,
Have you ever been to DC? Except for around the mall area, it is a pretty scary place. But, sometimes even in the mall area. A friend of mine and her daughter were visiting the Smithsonian and were in a crowded room. Her daughter felt something on her chest and looked down, and two black hands were fondling her chest. She froze for a minute, then screamed. By the time the security guards responded, the assailant was long gone. Those types of wonderful experiences in DC are why we need the National Guard. I’m 100% behind it. Let’s take our Capitol back.
Ent,
Trump’s move already yielding results. Pamela Smith, the Police Chief, was the DEI head before Police Chief.
The world can now feel safer:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-bureau-labor-statistics-nominee-ej-antoni-jan-6-bystander-rcna224645
Donald’s BLS pick is a January 6 Freedom Fighter.
Stephen
Using soldiers for policing is a BAD idea.
In Northern Ireland in 1972 the Parachute Regiment were sent to police a protest march. The march became a riot. The soldiers reverted to combat mode and killed 13 people.
stephen p anderson
The encounter in DC sounds like what Trump has already done to multiple woman. You are totally fine if “White hands” do the inappropriate touching but will point out the “black hands”. Also i don’t know how National Gurd would be better able to stop such encounters better than local police. You said they sought a Security Guard but the assailent was already gone.
Norman,
It wasn’t “white hands.” Most of the crime around DC is perpetrated by blacks because that’s who lives there. (Except for the politicians. But they live in Arlington or Alexandria.) DC celebrated its 100th homicide for the year. The “black hands” describe what is happening. The black youth thugs are terrorizing the city. Visit the mall area. You see these groups of black teenagers walking around, looking for tourists to terrorize. Well, no more. Trump has fixed that. The DC mayor and police chief are inept. Also, you can’t carry in DC and the criminals know that. The Supreme Court and or Congress need to correct that. If they passed Constitutional Carry in DC and all the tourist Federal Buildings the crime would go to almost zero. Guaranteed.
stephen p anderson
Reducing crime is generally a good thing but how it is done is also important as ends do not always justify means! Vlad the Impaler had about zero crime during his reign of terror. He impaled people for any excuse and the people were terrified. In theory you could reduce crime by horribly torturing criminals in public. They used to do this. The Founders of this system thought such means are not acceptable (thankfully). So reducing crime a good goal but how you achieve it is equally an important goal!
Norman,
As long as we have inner cities run by Democrats, there will be crime. We see the same things in these Democrat-run inner cities that existed on the antebellum plantation: Broken families, dilapidated housing, a high degree of violence, nihilism, and despair. In the South, the Democrats used blacks for their labor. Today, they use them for their vote. Nothing has changed.
Constitutional carry in DC sounds like an excellent idea. It would allow the poor blacks to defend themselves against the white police and army, not to mention ICE.
Once again stephen p anderson shows a complete ignorance of even the most basic American history.
The notion of “inner cities” existing on antebellum plantations is nonsense.
Ark,
Doesn’t it get tiresome lying all the time and spreading lies? How about your recent lie about DC crime statistics? Are you simply a myrmidon? What do you get from the left? Where is your leftist utopia? Where has it ever been? You know, the inner city plantation hasn’t worked for the Democrats, so now you’re moving to communism. How do you think that’s going to work for you?
stephen p anderson.
Plantations were rural agricultural estates, not urban environments. To conflate them with 20th-century urban geography simply shows a complete ignorance of even the most basic American history.
I know you’re from Tennessee but, Jesus Christ, raise your standards!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy7ypm6zxp2o
For your consideration:
“The sunniest US city, Las Vegas, could get 98% of its power from solar+storage at a price of $104/MWh, which is higher than gas but cheaper than new coal or nuclear. It could get to 60% solar+storage at $65/MWh – cheaper than gas.”
https://www.volts.wtf/p/solarstorage-is-so-much-farther-along
Cheaper than subsidized gas, that is.
The price of batteries is down 40% in the last year alone.
For those who are paying attention, and not completely clueless, using a transportation battery for ground-based storage is completely comical. With limited supply, the critical requirement for a transportation battery is light weight. No such requirement exists for a storage battery except that size (volume) is a consideration.
This is more proof that panic is not the proper attitude for effective project management of a long-term project. The politicians and clueless dreamers really should step aside, but they won’t. Anyone who needs additional explanation is certified as clueless.
In other news, Ford is now using a different type of lithium battery in their new pickup truck. I have to admit that I do not know enough about this to comment further. Some of us have work to do.
Let the free market decide. Government is always the last bad actor.
Solar storage is about power plants, such as this one:
“Australia’s Quinbrook plans to deploy an initial 3 GW/24 GWh of its new EnerQB lithium-ion BESS, developed with Chinese battery giant CATL, to support major new industrial hubs in the states of Queensland, New South Wales (NSW), and the Northern Territory.”
https://www.ess-news.com/2025/03/06/australias-quinbrook-readies-eight-hour-bess-rollout-for-24-7-renewable-power/
While our Ivy Leaguer mulligans, costs will change, the world will move on, and Donald will make Murica drag and drag again.
stephen…”The “m” stands for messenger”.
***
There is mRNA which you correctly point out means messenger RNA. However there is also modRNA which is modified RNA, the kind used in the covid vaccine. Unfortunately, the media does not know the difference and uses mRNA for both messenger RNA and modified RNA. When applied to the covid vaccine, the ‘m’ in mRNA means mod.
The confusion is that modRNA is mRNA with some modifications that allow proteins to be injected into cells. It’s still mRNA. I have actually seen mRNA used to reference the modRNA variety.
I think this is a horribly dangerous practice that was invoked by Pfizer to create a pseudo-vaccine in months whereas the process with proper testing should have taken 6 years. A Swedish medical outfit claimed that mRNA from the vaccine went straight to the liver and modified cells in it. Pfizer reported that the mRNA was targeted to only specific cells related to the virus, which is a big lie.
As I said previously, there is not a shred of proof to support the notion that RNA is related to the covid virus. RNA was presumed by Montagnier to be related to a virus he called HIV, and that theory came about simply because his team could find no such virus on an electron microscope. Montagnier admitted that as did his lab technician, who operated the EM.
The truth is that the HIV cause for AIDS and the covid cause for whatever was afflicting people are both scams. The covid scam was conveniently brushed aside by labeling it endemic, the same as as the common flu. Montagnier eventually validated Duesberg, who pointed out in the 1980s that HIV could not possible cause AIDS and that AIDS is a lifestyle issue due to drug abuse and homosexual (and bisexual) males having sex with multiple partners.
AIDS is a wrapper for over 30 different opportunistic infections, included pneumonia, cancer, TB, and certain effects of venereal disease. If a person has TB and no sign of HIV, that person is treated with drugs developed to treat TB. If the person tests positive for HIV, that person is put on potent antivirals for life. An early antiviral, AZT, was discontinued as a chemotherapy agent for cancer since its effects were far too toxic. It was deemed OK, however, to treat poor souls who tested positive for HIV. The newer HAART antivirals are not much better.
As David Rasnick, an expert on pharmaceuticals pointed out, had any doctor put a cancer patient on such a regimen for life, that doctor would have lost his/her license. Antivirals are marked as poison in a lab but the skull and crossbones is removed before the unfortunate victim receives them. There is also an MSDS directive for handling them as poisons.
The irony is that the RNA-PCR test used to test for HIV (or covid) does not test for a virus, but for RNA thought to be from a virus. Therefore, HIV positives were sentenced to a life on potent antivirals which are known to cause AIDS opportunistic infections.
stephen…”Let’s take our Capitol back”.
***
I agree with you and it’s part of the reasons the Dems got the boot. They are actually encouraging the thugs and muggers by letting them off lightly, even without bail. They also supported defunding the police. It was not that Trump won based on popularity, it was that the Dems screwed up fatally by trying to bring in ridiculous, politically-correct change.
At the same time, our citizens are totally discouraged from defending themselves using lethal force. A thug can kick in someone’s door yet the home owner cannot legally use lethal force to stop them. I am really sick of hearing the whines of the politically=correct.
The PCs (politically-correct) need to be moved out as well. We have similar issues in Canada. We have gangs shooting it out with each other and the politicians don’t care because they are not affected. I don’t care if the gangs want to kill each other off, the problem is with friendly fire, when innocents get in the way.
We are having people attacked on the streets by knife-wielding thugs, and the mentally ill, and now pepper spray is being used. The cops are hand-cuffed due to illegal search and seizure rules that prevent them frisking hoods and suspicious people for guns and other weapons.
The problem is, there is no intent shown by politicians to clean up the cities.
Section 7.1 page 76 provides: “Following the end of the Little Ice Age in the midnineteenth century, tide gauges show that the global mean sea level began rising during the period 1820–
1860, well before most anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”
1820 – 1860 is the start of the industrial revolution and the start of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere due to emissions. My understanding is the effect of CO2 is logarithmic. It follows that a smaller rate of emissions in a less saturated atmosphere would have a greater effect on absor.btion than increasing CO2 in the mostly saturated state that exists now. I would suggest the period of 1820 to 1860 isn’t immune to AGW.
Historical CO₂ measurements :
Jan. 1864 350.6 ppm Schultze Rostock (Germany)
Feb. 1848 320.3 ppm Rio Magdalena (Colombia)
Oct. 1839 348.0 ppm Boussingault Paris-Montsouris (France)
From 290 ppm to 325 ppm (1958) is 0.16 doubling, that is 0.33 °C with a climate sensitivity of 2 °C. Between 1915 and 1945 (30 years), temperatures increased by 0.6°C according to HADCRUT3.
The DOJ employee just arrested for assaulting a federal officer is probably pretty indicative of many Deep State employees in DC. So, the guy decides to run down to his nearest deli to grab a sub and on his way back becomes so delusional that he hurls insults and then his dinner at a federal officer. He was wearing a pink shirt. Did he think he was incognito in the pink shirt? This I believe is your standard Deep State leftist and a great majority of Democrats.
SOLAR MINIMUM
Out of the blue, Donald called the Norwegian finance minister to ask when he would get the Nobel prize suggesting he would impose tariffs if he did not
WILL HE WIN???
ken v…”Section 7.1 page 76 provides: “Following the end of the Little Ice Age in the midnineteenth century, tide gauges show that the global mean sea level began rising during the period 1820–
1860, well before most anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.”
***
Ken…if this is a quote from the IPCC, I suggest you refrain from reading fiction while doing science. ☺ ☺ ☺ The IPCC is a notoriously political and corrupt body.
It stands to reason that the CO2 levels prior to 1850 were abnormally low. CO2 gets absorbed by colder oceans, oceans so cold off the shores of England that the salty ocean froze up to 2 miles off shore during the LIA. There was little information available for the rest of the planet at the time, however, there is no scientific reason why Europe should have been that cold while the rest of the planet basked in normal temps.
Since all we know about CO2 level in those times come from ice core samples in Antarctica, I feel it’s safe to guess that Antarctica was even colder. We do have proof of how cold it was in Antarctica in the early 20th century based on direct experiences by Shackleton and his crew.
Also, the Ross expedition was even early, mid-19th century. This paper reasons that temps in Antarctica during the LIA were 2C cooler than today.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0012821X11002925
BTW, the Industrial era did not begin in the 19th century it began mid-18th century, circa 1760. The Dalton minimum, occurred circa 1790, and that was a significant peak in the LIA. Therefore warming in the era you quote is far more likely due to rewarming from the LIA and had nothing to do with a trace gas beginning to be emitted into the atmosphere.
“if this is a quote from the IPCC”
Gordo’s one of yours.
You keep him.
Hey Gordo,
Is Alberta going to go independent?
By the way, before 1958, we don’t know what the atmospheric CO2 level was.
RE: Historical Record Of The Concentration Of CO2 In The Atmosphere
Download: “Climate Change Reexamined” by Joel M. Kauffman. The essay is 26 pages and can be downloaded for free.
Shown in Fig. 10 is a plot of the concentration of CO2 in air from 1810 to 1965 in Northern Europe. In 1820 the concentration of CO2 was 450 ppmv but this had no effect on the Little Ice Age. By 1965 the concentration of CO2 had dropped down 330 ppmv. At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 currently in dry air is 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has mass of 1.29 kg and contains a mere
0.839 g of CO2. There is too little CO2 in the air to have any effect on weather and climate.
For more info on the concentration of CO2in the air, do a search on:
E-G Beck. He has published several papers on the concentration of CO2 in the air in “Energy and the Environment”.
Harold…I have been aware of Beck for a long time and there is good stuff in his compilation. That’s key…compilation. Beck is ad homed as being only a high school teacher but he is not presenting himself as an expert, just someone who took the time and did a great job of compiling the work of genuine scientists.
The expert in Beck’s work who stood out to me is Kreutz a qualified scientist who did work in Germany in the 1940s studying CO2 concentrations. He did more than 25,000 observations and found evidence that CO2 levels in Germany were in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1940s.
I have questioned the IPCC claim that CO2 levels pre Industrial were only 270 ppmv. That is based on trapped CO2 in Antarctic ice cores that are highly controversial. Within several hundred miles the levels varied from less that 270 ppmv to over 2000 ppmv. Of course, the IPCC papers zeroed in on a lower figure.
My critique of Kauffman’s paper is how much he focuses on irrelevant statistics and proxy data while ignoring the real issue, how much warming a trace gas can produce in a mix of gases like the atmosphere. Alarmists have become experts at dodging that question but they don’t mind speculating about it in an exaggerated manner.
Is no one familiar with the Ideal Gas Law, which equates temperature, pressure, volume and the number of atoms/molecules in a gas and the amount of heat it can produce in the mix. Part of the IGL is Dalton’s law of partial pressures which addresses the pressure of each gas in the mix. From each partial pressure we can surely estimate the amount of heat contributed by each gas.
It comes down to the mass percent of each gas in the mix, the temperature contributed being related to that mass percent. Figure it out, CO2 has a mass percent of 0.06% whereas O2 and N2 combined have a mass percent close to 99%.
Gordon:
New Topic: Greenhouse Effect
You should check out the late John Daly’s website:
“Still Waiting For Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com.
From the home page, page down to the end and click on:
“Station Temperature Data”. On the “World Map”, click on a region or country, to access temperature data from over 200 weather stations located around the world which showed no warming up to 2003.
Firstly, click on Australia. There is displayed list of 21 weather stations. Click on “Adelaide”. The chart shows a plot average annual temperature from 1857-1999 and that there was cooling. Use the back arrow to return the list of stations and click on Darwin. This chart also shows that there was a similar cooling. Use the back arrow twice to return to the “World Map”. Larmar, CO showed a cooling up to 1998.
Based these many charts, it can be concluded that CO2 caused no “global warming” up to 2003. The claims by the IPCC that CO2 causes “global warming” and is the “control knob” of “climate change” are fabrications lies. The purpose of these lies is to provide the UN the justifications to distribute, via the UNFCCC and UN COP, donor funds from the rich countries to the poor countries to help them cope with the alleged effects of global warming and climate change.
President Trump is putting an end to the great green scam. Soon the EPA will rescind the 2009 CO2 Endangerment Finding. When this occurs, no one here or elsewhere will be commenting on CO2, and all the radical environmental NGOs will go bust.
For your consideration:
Donald’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/doe-factcheck/index.html
Unfortunately it doesn’t matter how disingenuous and wrong the “critical assessment” is.
This is not a scientific document. It is political.
It gives Trump’s government an excuse for a bonfire of environment regulations and it’s persecution of renewables.
Follow the money. Freedom to pollute and encouragement of fossil fuels favours the companies who bought Trump.
This is why the Republicans are anti-environment and pro-fossil fuels.
It is also why the “critical assessment” was written.
The fossil fuel lobby paid the Republicans $105 million.
ENT, ENT, is anybody home? Plants love CO2. ENT, ENT, is anybody home?
Stephen
Still here, but remember I’m on a European schedule. You Americans set your clocks six hours too slow.
So Trump is penalizing renewables, subsidising fossil fuels and dumping environmental regulations BECAUSE HE LOVES PLANTS?
It’s a novel hypothesis. I’ve heard many odd explanations for Trump’s strange behavior, but that’s a new one.
ENT,
Repeat after me, CO2 is good. CO2 is good. CO2 is good.
Stephen
Depends on context.
In a greenhouse CO2 is good.
In a submarine too much CO2 can be bad for you.
Too much of it in the atmosphere tends to overheat the climate.
If you are convinced that CO2 is always good I recommend an experiment. Take a plastic bag of air, seal it over your mouth and nose and rebreath the air for as long as you can.
It rapidly becomes intolerable.
That’s not due to lack of oxygen. Given a filter to absorb the CO2 you can rebreath the same oxygen depleting air until you become unconscous.
You body is reacting to the increasing CO2.
I used to demonstrate this, carefully, to classes using a spirometer. Without the CO2 filter the subject breathed more and more deeply until they had to disconnect. With the CO2 filter they kept breathing normally for as long as it was safe to allow them.
ENT, CO2 is good! Keep repeating.
Lots of CO2 molecules were released in Mississippi the other day:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whatonearth/carbon-dioxide-pipeline-satartia-1.7482854
Very good.
Are able to do any critical thinking at all? Simply accepting someone else’s rather specious claim that there are ‘more than 100 false or misleading claims’ suggests you can’t think on even a most basic level.
Ken V
Anyone familiar with the research and willing to take the time will come to the same conclusion as Climate Brief. I read all 159 pages when it came out and came to similar conclusions.
Great chunks of the “critical assessment vary between disingenuous and downright lies. It is not intended to be read by scientists, though some of it is funny.
It is a gish gallop of dubious arguments designed to be skimmed by people like you to support your agenda.
I’ve read about a 100 pages so far.
I am quite familiar with the previous writings of the 5 authors and I have likely been quite influenced by their compelling discussions.
I find the ‘dubious arguments’ to be quite rational and supported by existing data.
Ken
Then we’ll agree to differ. Neither of us is likely to convince the other.
stephen…”Hey Gordo,
Is Alberta going to go independent?”
***
No…we won’t let them. Even if they voted for independence, we would stop it.
I am hearing that a good part of the US wants to join Canada, as a ‘territory’. We might let y’all in as a territory but not an 11th province. You’d have to go through an apprenticeship first to de-program y’all from your extreme right-wing brainwashing. Even Dems.
Not to worry Stephen, I’ll put in a good word for you.
stephen… speaking of Alberta, there is another country that separated circa 1776 that was named the United States by its founding fathers. Have you come to terms with the fact that the United States is not a country called America but is a group of states as laid out in your Declaration of Independence that is located in the continent of America?
The group of states, now numbering 50, is located in the continent of America, along with Canada, Mexico, Central American countries, and those of South America. Those who are geographically-challenged seem to think the US is America. They cannot explain how one state, Hawaii, is in the US but not in America, it is in Oceania.
You are a confused lot south of the border, but, hey, I don’t hold it against you. I am simply trying to edumacate you. I can only hope that one day you will all move on from your 1776 pioneering mentality and adopt universal medicare so every US citizen has a chance at good health without paying through the nose if they happen to get sick. Or worse still, get turned away from an ER because they can’t afford it.
A buddy was recently in Vegas when he came down with excrutiating pain (kidney stone). He went to an ER and got an MRI, the total bill coming to about $30,000 dollars. Luckily, he was insured and his insurers managed to negotiate the bill down to $13,000. Still, I find that gouging to be repulsive. Here in Canada the ER visit would not have cost him a red cent.
You likely have an insurance plan but let’s hope you don’t get sick. The private insurance crowd will have a heyday ramping up your coverage.
Heck, even Alberta has universal medicare. Why would they separate knowing they’d lose medical coverage, their pensions, and a whole slew of other benefits as part of Canada.
Gordo,
Isn’t it easy to have socialized medicine when you don’t have to defend yourselves? You have good ole America down here covering for you. How are you going to stop Alberta from seceding? Are you going to send in your merry band of mounted police? Oh, wait, you’ll ask us to help.
BACK AT THE RANCH
NASA’s acting chief calls for the end of Earth science at the space agency
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/08/nasas-acting-chief-calls-for-the-end-of-earth-science-at-the-space-agency/
Pity that reality TV stars and Fox News commentators don’t know about the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958.
NASA should be divided into two units, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and NESA (National Earth Science Administration). Later NESA could be sold to private investors.
The law from year 1958, the National Aeronautics and Space Act, is not carved in stone.
Contrarians should stop saying stuff.
Perhaps one day they’ll be penalized for doing so.
Maybe you should go start your own country, and then you can tell everybody what to do.
Maybe Troglodyte should start to wonder why he never whined about TVA being a monopoly.
Willard. Other option is to shut down NASA’s Earth Science Division completely. While NASA’s science programs are facing historic funding cuts, the European Space Agency (ESA) is taking the opposite approach. I think that under ESA’s leadership NASA’s Earth Science Division may have a better future.
Nice try. So, anyone who doesn’t agree with your leftist agenda should be allowed to speak or compete? That’s might Stalinist of you.
Either you pretend not to see other options, Max, or you lack imagination.
The only norms Troglodyte fancies come from cops or his pet junta.
Willard believes federal agencies that can be manipulated into supporting his agenda should be protected from the free market.
Troglodyte believes this is his best bet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0e-omnsukM
Testing.
Erin will intensify significantly and reach stratospheric levels. It will move along the 20th parallel and will not be cut off by the jet stream. It will be an extremely powerful hurricane, whose path is not yet determined.
https://i.ibb.co/RTwb0PF5/mimictpw-natl-latest.gif
Many thanks to you and Dr Christy:
1) Evidence of warming is not evidence that CO2 is causing the warming
2) The only mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is through the thermalization of outgoing LWIR of 13 to 17 Peak 15 microns. That is the one and only defined mechanism.
3) Every single, 100% of all observations of warming need to be explained by starting with 15 micron LWIR’s interaction with CO2 causes this.
4) CO2 blankets the globe, and provides a constant level of back radiation. The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule does not vari by location.
5) Various temperature composites show different slopes. CO2 can not cause a different slope dependent upon location, the backradiation is a constant. That means an exogenous factor is at play. That is basic modeling 101. N Hemi, S Hemi, Land, Ocean, Polar, Equ all show different slopes and all locations have identical CO2. Something other than CO2 is causing the temperature differential.
6) Both CO2 and H2O saturate the absorption of 15 micron LWIR in the lower 5km or the Troposohere. With or without CO2, 100% is absorbed. Adding more CO2 doesn’t create more LWIR to absorb. CO2 can’t cause warming in the lower troposphere if H2O is present. The only thing CO2 could possibly do is lower the level at which 100% of outgoing LWIR is absorbed.
7) The oceans are warming. Considering the atmosphere above the oceans have a high concentraiton of H2O in them, CO2 is 100% irrelevant. The oceans are warming. CO2 can’t be causing that warming. 15 micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate or warm water, and even if it did, that level of backradiation has always been present because of H2O. More incoming visible radiation reaching the oceans is what is warming the oceans. What warms the oceans is warming the atmosphere.
Dr. Christy, In would also encourage a congressional investigation into the construcion of the Hockeystick. There is absolutely nothing in 1902 that would cause a sharp upward shift in temperatures. The quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule are constant as is the rate of change in CO2. The dogleg is a smoking gun and can not be explained by science.
Test
Dr. Spencer, I would float these videos around DC. Use real science to expose the hoaxsters.
https://app.screencast.com/ZMpNTvkLD7DDJ
https://app.screencast.com/nXfZcUyGR4QlR
https://app.screencast.com/hQSOZQaptm6XY
https://app.screencast.com/YhtT15qlGLIsC
The National Sea Ice Data Centre publishes a daily Arctic Sea Ice extent map.
It is used by everyone operating in the Arctic, especially the US Navy as they try to counter Russian and Chinese expansion.
Ironically the Department of Defence no longer provide raw data so the maps are made using data from a Japanese satellite.
The hydrogen people are getting excited about this:
https://cen.acs.org/energy/hydrogen-power/Trillions-tons-hydrogen-waiting-under/103/i7
Personally I think it might be useful, but with the same limitations as natural gas. It becomes a more hazardous commodity when it is pressurized or liquefied. Nonetheless, mixing in hydrogen with natural gas for heating and cooking could be useful. It could also be very dangerous. Hydrogen makes the flame larger, and that could be a problem. It may require more premix of air to tighten the flame, and that could produce more NOx which is real pollution, not the fake kind. One other problem with hydrogen is that it creates static pressure if it leaks at high pressure (high velocity) and can easily set itself on fire without a spark.
That should read static electricity not static pressure. When hydrogen under pressure is vented it usually ignites itself.
stephen…”Isn’t it easy to have socialized medicine when you don’t have to defend yourselves? You have good ole America down here covering for you. How are you going to stop Alberta from seceding? Are you going to send in your merry band of mounted police? Oh, wait, you’ll ask us to help”.
***
Stephen old chap, you are geographically illiterate. You live in a country called the United States, a very unimaginative name for a country, and your country is located in the continent of America. Go on, look it up on an atlas, your country is called the United States of America, meaning the US is in America, the continent, and not America itself.
Carrying on with your delusion, what exactly is the US protecting us from? Is it the commie menace? We saw through that bogey man long ago and realized it is a lot like Santa Claus, or do you believe in him too. How about the tooth fairy?
The only thing we need to defend against is bombast and rhetoric from you Yanks. I know big words confuse you Yanks, so here’s the definition of bombast…”high-sounding language with little meaning, used to impress people”.
Sound familiar??? You defend him all the time.
It was Canada who volunteered to go fight the Nazis in WWII while you Yanks hid behind protectionism and isolation, just as you are doing now. It was not till the Japs shamed you at Pearl that you did the right thing.
Mind you, not all Yanks stayed home, Roosevelt helped out big time although he had to hide his activity from the isolationists. For shame, imagine a guy in a wheelchair having the guts to do the right thing while you whiny isolationists hid behind your womens’ skirts.
BTW, I have a lot of time for the brave Yanks, like the Marines, who showed their metal when required. Many Yanks also came up to Canada to enlist.
In essence, during two world wars you Yanks relied on little old Canada to do your fighting for you, so please don’t talk to me about walking the walk when all you guys do is talk the talk.
Man up, get universal medicare going for your folks and get over your inept reasons for not doing so. Stalin is long gone as is the commie menace.
Nice try Gordo. The US hadn’t pledged fealty to the British monarchy, so why would we have jumped into a European war? Second, Canada was more capitalistic back then and hadn’t been lured into the trappings of socialism. So, that analogy doesn’t apply. The reason so many Western nations today can indulge in socialized medicine is that they don’t have to spend money on defending themselves because they have good ole America defending them, Canada being a prime example. I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free.
It is uncertain when the jet stream will pull the hurricane Erin northeastward, as the jet stream is blocked over the eastern Pacific. It will be close to the east coast US.
BACK AT THE RANCH
DONALD: President Stubb of Finland. He’s uh, somebody that, where are we here? Huh?
STUBB: I’m right here
DONALD: Oh.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lwp4dst7522d
The winningest!
When will he read the report?
For your consideration:
A record-breaking melt season affected the Arctic glaciers of Svalbard in summer 2024 by a substantial margin. Across the entire archipelago, glacier melting corresponded to an anomaly of up to four SD and exceeded any previous observation. The pan-Svalbard mass loss in summer 2024 amounts to ~61.7 ± 11.1 Gt and corresponds to 1% of the total ice volume on Svalbard and is comparable to that of the Greenland ice sheet (55 ± 35 Gt), which occupies an area about 50 times larger. Altogether, Svalbard and other glacier regions surrounding the Barents Sea lost 102.1 ± 22.9 Gt of ice in a single year and contributed 0.27 ± 0.06 mm (of which 0.16 mm alone is due to Svalbard) to global sea-level, putting the circum-Barents region among the strongest contributors to global sea-level rise in 2024. Most of the 2024 glacier melt occurred during a 6-wk period of persistent atmospheric circulation pattern causing record-high air temperatures, an event with an extremely low recurrence interval under current climate conditions. However, future climate projections suggest that such temperature levels will become increasingly commonplace by the end of the 21st century, potentially even surpassing those of 2024. Svalbard’s summer of 2024 serves as a forecast for future glacier meltdown in the Arctic, offering a glimpse into conditions 70 y ahead.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2503806122
No wonder the report got nothing much to say on the Arctic.
You forgot, Trump wins.
Who can forget:
Donald’s administration intervenes to help block law requiring priests to report child abuse revealed in confessions
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/washington-state-child-abuse-catholic-priests-b2791985.html
When Donald wins, the Epstein party wins!
stephen…”The US hadn’t pledged fealty to the British monarchy, so why would we have jumped into a European war? Second, Canada was more capitalistic back then and hadn’t been lured into the trappings of socialism. So, that analogy doesn’t apply. The reason so many Western nations today can indulge in socialized medicine is that they don’t have to spend money on defending themselves because they have good ole America defending them, Canada being a prime example. I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free”.
***
Stephen…you’re an awfully humourless guy, a lot like Clint. Are all you Yanks so anal and lacking in humour? Are you not aware that you cannot talk about your country with humour and require a soapbox to stand on while you spout rhetoric?
A friend has been living in the States for some time and he advised me that Yanks are good people in general but there are certain things you simply cannot discuss with them since they become emotional.
Remember, the origins of the States is Britain. The Pilgrims were escaping British royalty and other humourless capitalists and fascists, and George Washington, at the time, was far more British than anything. Thomas Jefferson had a father who was English, as did the rest of your founding fathers.
Canada has no fealty to any British monarch. For some reason, many Canadians, and Trump, are infatuated with royalty. No Canadian went to fight Hitler at the bequest of royalty. No one was asked to fight for king and country, the guys simply went to sort out a Nazi dictator and that they did. Many of them regarded it as an opportunity to get in a good street fight and have a few beers.
Not me, nor many Canadians, give a hoot about royalty. Royalists can have all the royal-induced erections they like, I have nothing to do with English kings and queens, who are nothing more than symbolic figure-heads, who are conditioned to act in a silly manner.
The point is, you in the States stood by in two consecutive wars and watched dictators try to usurp democracy, until you were shamed into joining in. If you had continued to sit on your butts, with your fingers inserted into the same, and Germany and Japan had prevailed, you would now be speaking German with Japanese as a second language.
Roosevelt was smart enough to realize that. So, you can thank a Democrat for being a lot smarter than any of you right-wing isolationists, who preferred to stay home and let democracy rot.
Therefore, you can thank Canada and the Commonwealth for defending you, which is the opposite of what you claim.
Re spending for Medicare. One of our smarter politicians a few years ago claimed that were corporations taxed fairly, the taxes would supply all the money we need for programs like universal medicare. You Yanks are not smart enough to get that, falling for right-wing propaganda that any money spent to better the lives of all Yanks, is proof of communism.
I mean, how obtuse can you guys get? Trump is pulling the wool over your eyes by claiming tariffs and government spending cuts are aimed at making the States better. Come on, man, all he is doing is making the wealthy wealthier, while making the rest of the planet detest Yanks.
I am not stoopid enough to detest Yanks in general, heck I even like your and Clint. I know there are a lot of very decent Yanks, at least half the voting public. Trump’s assault on Canada is not appreciated by at least half the Yank population.
Why is it you have good insight on matters like climate change yet you are seriously obtuse when it comes to the excesses of your country? If Canada does something dumb, I am among the first to protest. Personally, I think Canada has been a wuss recently, under the influence of politically-correct. I am hoping our leaders will grow a pair or get out of the way and let us get back to the true Canadian way of doing things.
You are proud to be an American? America is a continent. And what’s with pride? Does it turn you on to stand up and salute a piece of cloth? Do you not get it that much of the violence in the world comes from pride? Muslim terrorists are very proud to be Muslims.
Can you seriously not see that pride is a mental disorder? It is essentially the worship of the self, an entity that is a definition of something no one can identify in the human body. It’s an image, ergo imaginary, but this imaginary entity can arouse people to utmost violence when assaulted, or even perceiving it is being assaulted.
Man, what a tirade. Don’t know where to begin. You Canadians have your noses so far up the British Monarchy’s butt that when they say jump, y’all say how high. Also, there is Fascistic Capitalism and then there is Free-Market Capitalism. Americans believe in Free-Market Capitalism. Most socialists believe in Fascistic Capitalism. You have us Americans confused with somebody else.
Well, in Poland there is the National Health Fund, which finances certain oncological procedures, for example.
So I have a question for you: how much does stem cell therapy for aggressive blood cancers cost on the free market in the US?
stephen p anderson
Take some time to study this chart so you can correctly use the words fascist, socialist, capitalist and communist. I am not sure you have any working knowledge of what any of those words actually mean.
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/dam/museums/hrnm/Education/EducationWebsiteRebuild/RussianPropagandaAboutGermany/Socialism,%20Fascism,%20Capitalism,%20Communism%20Background.pdf
You talk about being a free market capitalist but you love Trump. Read about fascism and it is clearly what Trump Administration is doing. You would have to be in deep denial or ignorant if you are not able to see this. If you need help in explaining what he is doing matches closely with fascism I will gladly help you on this. We do not need a bunch of mindless people, education is a value and thinking is very valuable.
Norman,
So what has Trump done specifically that would label him as a Fascist?
I must say that is the first time I have ever agreed with Gordon. He sounds much cleverer than his posts on science would indicate. Maybe he should stick to politics.
Mystified why someone would post political material on a blog discussing serious science. There are other, much more appropriate places to argue about politics than this one. (BTW, thank you for your service to our country and the world for your career in meteorology and climate. Your report is great and I plan to send in my comments to the DOE.
So, Gordon, here are some inescapable facts and my analyses of same.
1) Canada made a terrible choice with Carney. He is NOT Canadian. He is a committed globalist. The U.S. has many of them as well…Bloomberg, Kerry, etc. A simple look at his career reveals that. He played Canadians, using Trump’s 51st state taunts. He will keep your country mired in a very weak economy. Trump may have actually wanted a Carney win, because you will be less competitive economically. I actually feel sad for the average Canadian. I like the country. My best boss in the corporate world was Canadian. Canadian expats have added a lot to our country.
2) My only grandson was named after my son-in-laws best friend and fellow serviceman who was killed in Afghanistan in 2015. He was a very brave man, father of 4 (one adopted), and died too young (CIA). I hope and pray that we will not send any more people overseas to die in other nations wars. They need to DEFEND THEMSELVES first, and that includes Canada. Your military, as well as most of the rest of the industrialized nations are a joke. Not one of them can come close to our capabilities. Not one. We have spilled enough blood and treasure. It is time for others to step up. If you want to make bad economic choices that subsidize laziness, that is fine with me. If you want to have stupid energy policies that slow your country to a standstill, that’s your right. But DEFEND yourself, and that probably means becoming a bigger part of our northern defenses against Russia. The same thing goes for most of NATO.
3) The US should never have entered WWI. Wilson, a terrible president in many ways, bragged that he kept us out of the war and then promptly put us into it. Our entry sealed the Kaiser’s fate, which led to the terribly unfair Versailles treaty, which led to the rise of Hitler, which led to WWII. All the Allie’s were poorly prepared for WWII, but that was inexcusable for countries like France and Poland, right on Hitler’s (and Stalin’s) doorstep.
4) Look at a map and a globe, Gordon. The future of your country is forever linked to the U.S. Most of your population clings to our border. That dependency is inescapable. You need us. We don’t need you. Facts of geography, economics, demography.
Thomas Hagedorn.
Trump sent 3 Aegis destroyers and 4,000 marines to Venezuela. Maduro responded by arming 4.5 million militia. Are you okay with that?
https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-destroyers-submarine-amphibious-ships-being-sent-toward-venezuela
You’re a moron and a dupe if you believe Maduro has 4.5 million armed militia volunteers.
stephen…if you think Trump’s move has anything to do with narcotics, can I sell you a bridge cheap that we have crossing the local inlet?
He based his tariffs on Canada as due to us allowing fentanyl into the US which was an absurd lie. He used drugs as an excuse to bypass Congress which has the only right to deal with tariffs.
After Canada took major steps to patrol and shore up the border he continued to apply tariffs. Why are you so taken in my this wannabee dictator?
Your Founding Fathers were renegades who used civil disobedience to break away from dictators in the UK. What the heck is wrong with you? I’ll bet, circa 1776, you’d have defended the king and called them all traitors.
stephen p anderson
How do you suppose he’s stayed in office for 12 years?
You’re a garrulous blatherskite, a true flibbertigibbet.
You blithering idiot. Because all the guns were confiscated and only his militia has guns.
Gordo,
You live in a country where you don’t have free speech or a right to keep and bear arms. What are you going on about? The only ones who agree with Canada’s laws are the Democrats. Trump believes in freedom and liberty. Only a delusional libtard would call him a wannabe dictator.
stephen p anderson
You’re an uninformed hillbilly.
Maduro stays in power by supporting a militia whose function is countering the regular military in the event of a coup.
No, genius. Tren de Agua doesn’t keep Maduro in power. The military keeps Maduro in power. When the opposition leader declared himself President, the military supported Maduro. When Maduro prevents opposition leaders from running against him, it is the military that supports him. The 4.5 million militia is a joke.
The FASB is about 100,000, not 4.5 million. They are part of the military. TdA is a gang. I don’t know who you’re referring to this 4.5 million, and neither do you. Maduro is a leftist liar, like you. Our Navy would kick their asses. You’re just a blowhard.
stephen p anderson
Tren de Aragua is a prison gang you eejit.
Venezuela’s National Militia was created in 2009 by way of a law passed by then President Hugo Chavez. The law designated the militia as a special reserve force composed of civilian volunteers supplementing the traditional army, navy, air force and National Guard.
The last figure I have is from 2018 when the militia counted 1.6 million members in its ranks of self-described “defenders of the revolution.”
Maduro receives varying degrees of military and security support from Cuban, Russian, Chinese and Iranian advisors, trainers, and intelligence operatives.
This is how his regime maintains power.
Do you know the difference between a liar and a bullsh!tter? A liar aims to deceive. A bullsh!tter is not interested in whether what he says is true or false, only that it suits his purpose. I’ve got you pegged!
So, is MS13 a prison gang? FASB isn’t 4.5million. Nor are they 1.6 million. If Venezuela is attacked by the US, Maduro couldn’t muster a soccer team to come to his defense. No one is going to die for Maduro.
MS13?
Wrong geographical region you ignorant hillbilly.
Didn’t think you’d get the MS13 or the TdA analogy. So, is TdA a prison gang? Well, yeah, I guess they are now with Trump. And, so is MS13. Toad.
Again, Maduro hasn’t armed 4.5 million, nor 1.6 million, nor even a soccer team. Got it?
“now with Trump.”
They’re a prison gang because that’s where they originated.
It started in Tocoron prison in the northern Venezuela state of Aragua, hence the name you ignorant hillbilly.
You are uneducable. Every attempt at a real discussion with you is a massive waste of time.
Thomas Hagedorn
You wrote:
“I hope and pray that we will not send any more people overseas to die in other nations wars. They need to DEFEND THEMSELVES first, and that includes Canada.”
I’ll ask again:
Are you okay with Trump goading Maduro by sending 3 Aegis destroyers and 4,000 marines to Venezuela, causing Maduro to respond by arming 4.5 million militia?
https://www.twz.com/sea/u-s-navy-destroyers-submarine-amphibious-ships-being-sent-toward-venezuela
I’m old enough to remember an action called the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
This is from Wiki…..
The gang has expanded throughout Latin America and the United States with the mass migration of Venezuelans fleeing the regime of President Nicolás Maduro.[22][23] Combating the gang has become a priority for many nations where Tren de Aragua operates.
Hardly a prison gang, Toad.
stephen p anderson
Certainly not a National Militia, you ignorant hillbilly.
Never said it was, Toad. I was just trying to understand where you and your fellow propagandists were getting the 4.5 million number. It sure isn’t FASB or the National Soccer Team.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/aug/20/slowdown-in-melting-of-arctic-sea-ice-surprises-scientists
“Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists”
“all the simulations showed sea ice loss accelerating again after the slowdown.”
Models again.
See https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-08-20.gif
Models is how humans try to understand the world, including contrarians:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2023/02/02/the-escalator/
“The rate of the Arctic sea ice loss has slowed down” implies there’s still loss.
I know. I showed a model which shows the future is likely cold. All over the world.
And if you backtest it, how is your model doing?
It’s not MY model.
Whenever you’re ready.
Don’t forget that a lower positive anomaly is still positive.
“a lower positive anomaly is still positive.”
For HOW long?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-08-21.gif
Looks the same as 2016-2023!
The same *what*, Richard?
Like with any “but Paws” move, asking ourselves “the pause of what” ought to be enough.
The same temperature now as in 2016 to 2023.
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/cfsr-daily.png to cater for it going out of date.
thomas hagedorn…”Mystified why someone would post political material on a blog discussing serious science”.
***
Thomas…I was replying to a post by one of your countrymen, essentially taunting me in support of Trump. I would agree in general that political commentary is not appropriate on Roy’s blog but it has become inescapable that politics are part of climate science.
The IPCC, the authority figure of climate alarmists, has been a political body since its inception, and it is run based on politics, not science. It began based on an idea by UK PM Margaret Thatcher, an uber right-winger, aimed at building propaganda about CO2 emissions geared at shaming coal miners and giving her an excuse to defeat them. The UN jumped at her proposal since they had been looking for a vehicle since the 1960s to implement world taxation. Carbon taxes are that form of taxation.
I agree with Trump on his approach to this political dogma but not with his reasoning, which is clearly geared at making the wealthiest wealthy at the expense of the under-privileged and the average person.
In summary, you cannot escape politics in climate science, ask Roy Spencer. He has been the victim of climate alarmist propaganda, both with unwarranted attacks on his integrity and with peer review, where he has difficulty publishing.
_________
“Canada made a terrible choice with Carney. He is NOT Canadian. He is a committed globalist…. I actually feel sad for the average Canadian. I like the country. My best boss in the corporate world was Canadian. Canadian expats have added a lot to our country”.
***
I voted for Carney against my best instincts and I did so based on what he said in response to Trump’s tariffs. Also, he has vast experience in economic circles and perhaps good contacts. The right-wing candidate Polievre could not be trusted since he would have fawned all over Trump giving Canada away in the process.
I am awaiting the real Carney, to see what he is made of. Ironically, the provincial Premier (David Eby) making the most sense is a lawyer and a socialist, even though he calls himself a social democrat. The other leading voice (Doug Ford), a right-wing Conservative, has lambasted Trump, claiming rightly that he would not trust him as far as he could through him. My sentiments exactly.
I appreciate your support of Canadians but we are a hardy lot. Trump naively picked a fight with the wrong crowd.
____________
“My only grandson was named after my son-in-laws best friend and fellow serviceman who was killed in Afghanistan in 2015”.
***
I have never questioned the bravery and commitment of US forces. However, one can hardly call Afghanistan (and Vietnam) a war. US forces were seriously limited to platoon patrols and even then, the rules of engagement heavily favoured the terrorists. It made me sick reading accounts of good US soldiers who were incorrectly held accountable for offing obvious terrorists.
The Pacific War, to me, was an example of the valour of US soldiers, especially the Marines.
________
“We have spilled enough blood and treasure. It is time for others to step up”.
****
More realistically, the wars in which the US engaged on their own, since Teddy Roosevelt, have been largely in the interest of US imperialism and hardly honourable wars, not to say there is such a thing. The US has been famous for sticking their noses into other peoples countries and trying to influence them on behave of right-wing principles. The current Ukraine war is no exception, where US meddling led to political unrest in the Ukraine by helping oust a democratically sanctioned president.
No one has ever attacked the Americas and there has never been a reason for Canada to defend itself. Do you seriously think that if a country attacked us here in North America that Canada would not account for itself? And do you not think that Canada would be right there as an ally if the US was attacked?
When Canadians had to fight, in both world wars, they distinguished themselves. Canadians fought valiantly while US soldiers sat at home for significant parts of each war. I don’t blame the soldiers since the decision to use them was made by gutless, fat-assed politicians.
That’s part of the reason I have no time for Trump. He has never fought in battle, probably never in his life, yet he insults US soldiers who have given their lives. He recently called himself a hero for ordering an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump is typical of a bully, he lacks the guts to fight himself yet shows disdain for those who have and died doing it. Furthermore, he is a silver-spooner who has likely never done honest labouring in his life.
_______
“If you want to make bad economic choices that subsidize laziness, that is fine with me”.
****
The term ‘bad economic choices’, that allegedly subsidise laziness, is obviously based on your right wing dogma, which is seriously skewed. We are essentially a socialist nation, based on our centralized government and our social programs. However, what we mean by socialism and your skewed definition of socialism are worlds apart.
Speaking from experience, laziness has never been rewarded in Canada. If you don’t want to work you are in deep doo-doo financially. Today, your only option for laziness is to live on the street.
But, wait a minute, your view on laziness presumes that all the homeless and the disenfranchised plights are based on laziness. That is the capitalist mantra and dogma, that anyone who does not want to work for dirt wages in poor working conditions is lazy.
Many people who cannot work are either mentally ill or incapable. WE ARE NOT ALL BORN EQUAL, as capitalist propaganda seem to suggest. I don’t know about you but I believe in compassion and empathy. There are some poor souls who need our help and providing them a mere pittance of shelter and food is what I stand for. I am also for helping those who are out of work through no fault of their own.
If you want full employment then get red of the unemployment levels. However, unemployment levels are dictated by right-wing governments who don’t want full employment.
As I have explained before, socialism has always been a workers’ movement that has nothing to do with communism. Socialism began as a movement for worker’s rights and wages decades before Marx published his manifesto. His partner Engels wanted to name the movement socialism but Marx balked, refusing to associate the two movements.
When the Bolsheviks had their revolution in Russia, they began using the term socialism based on chicanery. They wanted to give their movement an aura of respectability so they named it after a workers’ movement, even though they never had the slightest intention of honouring the workers; credo of socialism. Ergo, associating socialism with Stalinist communism was a lie from the beginning. Stalin used Gulags as a source of free labour as he worked prisoners to death.
Of course, Yanks like McCarthy, a bombastic fool, did not bother to distinguish between the two hence the lie continued that Stalinist communism and socialism were one and the same. The principles of socialism in Canada have been totally different from the tenets of Bolshevik communism since the start. No one in Canada does anything to interfere with so-called ‘free’ enterprise, capitalists here are free to rip consumers off.
Socialism in Canada began as a bona fide workers’ movement ‘WITHIN A DEMOCRACY’. The workers formed unions and demanded fair treatment. BTW…the same movement happened in the US.
There were some shameful acts committed against early unions by capitalist owners, among them Henry Ford. Despite the murder and brutality committed against them early unions prevailed, and we have them to thanks for better working conditions and wages all around, whether union of non-union.
Civil disobedience was involved but any real change in a democratic system necessary involves civil disobedience. We saw it the other day with the Air Canada flight attendant’s strike when they were ordered back to work and refused the back to work order. They stood their ground and won out in the end. Now there is a government probe into the practices of Air Canada re not paying their workers for work done.
We saw it on a huge scale with the Truckers’ protest as they protested the Draconian mandate issued in Canada re covid vaccine passports. The world applauded yet our fascist leaders termed it an insurrection.
What’s wrong with you Yanks? Where are your spines re standing up to oppose Trump flaunting his disdain for your Constitution.? Where are the Democrats, a spineless crew who voted to support defunding police, allowing men to enter womens’ washrooms while passing themselves off as women, and allowing criminals a get-out-of-jail-free card. When it comes to real guts, they sit on their hands and whimper.
The States is not looking good right now, please don’t worry about us in Canada. You all need to grow yourselves a pair and show what the US is all about. And that is not bullying other countries into submission. Trump is making fools of you and you seem to think it’s OK.
_________
“If you want to have stupid energy policies that slow your country to a standstill, that’s your right. But DEFEND yourself, and that probably means becoming a bigger part of our northern defenses against Russia. The same thing goes for most of NATO”.
***
I am on Roy’s blog primarily because I oppose the energy policies in Canada, and any energy policy that would reduce CO2 emissions to zero, especially by 2035, as planned. Carney has claimed he wants to make Canada an energy superpower and you can’t do that with solar cells and windmills. Presumably he has gotten it that we cannot be such a power without selling oil.
Of course, his wife is a major climate policy analyst, sitting on different climate-related boards. She has stated an interest in world hunger, which is admirable, but that is what is driving the current climate hysteria. The UN has long been searching for a way to tax internationally and the climate hysteria has given them that means. It will be interesting to see whether she has an influence on Carney.
Alarmist climate science has nothing to do with hard science but is largely propaganda based on unvalidated climate model theory. And, of course, corrupt peer review.
To be continued…
You voted for Carney? My God.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and one of the leading voices in the troglodytes movement, has quieted down.
Nobody will ever be able to replace him.
“Our entry sealed the Kaiser’s fate, which led to the terribly unfair Versailles treaty, which led to the rise of Hitler, which led to WWII. All the Allie’s were poorly prepared for WWII, but that was inexcusable for countries like France and Poland, right on Hitler’s (and Stalin’s) doorstep”.
***
More truthfully, the war (WWI) was won before the US entered. The US made little difference, the major battles and horrible human attrition settled well before. Canadians distinguished themselves at Vimy Ridge, succeeding where the Brits and French had failed. They did it by adopting a new strategy wherein the soldiers were briefed before hand and offered rolling barrages, where shells were fired in front of them enough to protect them but not the enemy.
You are right that tactics used by the French against Hitler were woefully inadequate. Britain was lucky to be an island that was virtually unassailable. However, the Brits were also woefully unprepared due to peace-nicks refusing to upgrade the military. Canada has fallen into the same complacency.
The problem here is not as Stephen suggests an issue with us spending on social programs. it is a failure to make corporations and other capitalists pay their fair share of taxes. As one astute Canadian politicians portrayed them, as corporate welfare bums.
We are so stoopid that we not only don’t tax them, we actually give them millions to live here.
The main contribution of the US, thanks to FDR, was supplying Britain, through lend-lease, with required ships and supplies. The Brits (and Canada) had to repay those loans for years after the war, an act I call shameful for the US since British valour was saving their butts.
I recall well the attitude of US capitalists during WWII. Standard Oil was caught selling oil to the Nazis, a traitorous act they justified as ‘free enterprise must prevail above all’. Capitalists tend to be nobody’s friend where money is involved.
————–
“Look at a map and a globe, Gordon. The future of your country is forever linked to the U.S. Most of your population clings to our border. That dependency is inescapable. You need us. We don’t need you. Facts of geography, economics, demography”.
***
This statement re maps and demographics marks you as having abject ignorance on the subject.
Look at a map. Can you find anywhere on the map where the US is called America? No…it is called the United States ‘OF’ America, meaning it is part of America and not America itself. When you call yourselves America, or plead with God to bless you, you are being supremely ignorant and arrogant.
Our population is located near the border for geographic and climate reasons. Much of the rest of the country north of where we live is uninhabitable and arable land is found more in the south of the country than in the northern hinterlands. On the Prairies, as you move north of 500 miles north of the border, the land becomes a swampy muskeg, which is essentially a marsh.
Your views on our so-called dependency on the US is an illusion but I’ll bet most Yanks, in their ignorance, see the US as the great provider, which is nonsense. Mush of our inexpensive items are imports from Asia, as is the case in the US. If Trump has his way, so that all merchandise if manufactured in the US, the days of affordable cars and electronic equipment will go out the windows.
You depend on us in the US as much, or more, than we depend on you in the US. You need our oil, our rare earth metals, our uranium, and our potash, to name a few. Trump is whining about our water, which parts of the US need desperately.
Based on your initial comments I gave you credit for intelligence whereas your summary statement reveals you as a typical red-neck rube who cannot see past his mental conditioning to see and understand Canada.
No sir, we don’t need the States at all. Our problem is candy-assed politician who will bend over to appease the likes of Trump.
Well, I have a BS in Geography (Physical), but according to you I must have learned little about geography. My degree was awarded with the “cum laude” designation. The administration must have been crazy. Putting that aside, for over 50 years now, I have lived in the world of financial services, which calls for an understanding of economics. Capitalism, for all its faults (and there have been and are many), is vastly superior to socialism. Was it Maggie Thatcher who said that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples money. It could be middle class and upper class people currently living or people in the future. The apostle Paul said “if anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.” We have lots of people in the US who fit that description. We are currently rapidly correcting that situation. These are able-bodied individuals who have “gamed” the system in various to get lots of government (our) assistance. I am ignorant of the situation in Canada, but quite knowledgeable of this much worse problem in the social welfare system in most European countries. Plus, the European work ethic is quite weak compared to the U.S. I absolutely support a “safety net” for those who legitimately need temporary or lifetime help. I absolutely oppose a “hammock” for the capable. It is not good for anybody.
The results are in and can’t be denied. Look at GDP growth rates and stock market valuations. Europe (and Canada) have lagged the U.S. in both metrics for a very long time. With Trump, the disparities are going to grow even more. Part of it is crazy energy policies, but part of it is high social welfare costs and the accompanying taxes. Part of it is over regulation of their economies. It discourages capitalists from committing their capital. Companies and entrepreneurs are fleeing Europe. Even companies are leaving the European stock exchanges for the U.S.
“I have a BS in Geography”
For some reason you forgot to mention that on your page, Thomas.
Why is that?
” The phrase
"If anyone will not work, let him not eat"
actually originates from the Apostle Paul and appears in his Second Letter to the Corinthians, addressed to the church in Thessalonica (2.Thessalonians 3:10).
It was a call to personal responsibility and work in the early Christian community, not as a land of milk and honey, but as a place of work and solidarity.
The phrase has been misused over the centuries to polemicize against welfare recipients, even though Paul himself advocated supporting the poor. ”
*
Typical for wealthy if not even rich people to deliberately ignore the last paragraph.
So, Willard why is it that you only refer to Climateball and remain anonymous?
So how does Troglodyte appreciate Donald’s planned economy with a 10% stake in INTC?
Typical propagandist, answer a question with a question.
Fourth step of the Contrarian Tango – Special Pleading:
[W] For some reason you forgot to mention that on your page, Thomas. Why is that?
[T] So, Willard why is it that you only refer to Climateball and remain anonymous?
[W] So how does Troglodyte appreciate Donald’s planned economy with a 10% stake in INTC?
[T] Typical propagandist, answer a question with a question.
For your consideration:
The Mendenhall River hit a record level as of 6 a.m., according to the National Weather Service. The river is in major flood stage at 16.17 feet and rising, the agency said. That surpasses the record set last year of 15.99 feet.
https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/2025/08/12/evacuations-urged-in-juneau-as-glacial-outburst-flooding-appears-imminent/
Climatology 101 = Climate is NOT weather. ESPECIALLY weather in one location. ESPECIALLY flooding resulting from an unpredictable glacier (BTW, I was there on Saturday. No loss of life and property damage was minimized due to some precautions taken by Skagway officials after last year’s flood.) Read the DOE report on extreme weather and AR-6 please.
I am not a scientist and haven’t been one since 1971. I was indeed awarded a BS in Physical Geography (cum laude) in 1970. I conducted research on meteorological (weather) effects on particulate pollution – for 3 years in Cincinnati and 1 year in grad school. Just a grunt collecting data at the start, progressing to being the principle assistant named in a federal grant in grad school. 4 years total. Co-author on 2 papers. Co-authored a few papers for academic conferences. I still have copies of the journals. Met with Dr Reid Bryson (Wisconsin), probably the leading authority on climate change at the time. He was convinced (as we all were) that earth was on the verge of “the next ice age” because partical pollution was changing the earth’s reflectivity (albedo). My mentor and most academics interested in climate were in that camp. We were all dead wrong. So, while I am not qualified to make comments from a technical scientific standpoint today, I feel more qualified than most “civilians” to make general observations about climate change.
In the 90s I did a deep dive on ground level ozone, an ACTUAL criteria pollutant. What I found shocked me to the core. Abatement efforts were very costly to the average U.S. citizen, had little basis in science, made a lot of money for those scaring others about ground level ozone, and were rooted in POLITICAL science (the acquisition of votes and power). I see the same things, except worse with the climate change cabal.
Thomas,
You are very welcome here. Bravo. But you mistake Willard for a scientist or someone who pretends to be a scientist. He is a propagandist and delusional. He posts these esoteric tidbits incessantly to annoy normal, rational people and to gin up his fellow alarmists. Most of us just ignore him. But have fun if you want.
Thomas Hagedorn.
Climatology 101: Climate is the average state of the atmosphere observed as weather in terms of the mean and its statistical deviations that measure the variability over a period of time.
On ground level ozone: by the 1990s, there was already substantial scientific evidence linking ozone exposure to respiratory problems such as asthma exacerbation, reduced lung function, and increased hospitalizations. Subsequent research has only strengthened these findings.
On credibility: emotionally charged phrases like “shocked me to the core,” “scaring others,” and “cabal” only serve to weaken your credibility by shifting the focus from evidence to rhetoric.
If you’re not a scientist, what do you think qualifies you to judge the scientific evidence?
Dear Thomas,
You might wish to send your comment to the portal and object to the Corn Belt and the modelling chapters based on CLIMATOLOGY 101.
Sharing unverifiable anecdotes on a blog is like a fund manager bragging about investments without any audit trace. They only indicate that you like to hear the sound of your voice to comfort yourself into believing you’re worth overcharging suckers.
Speaking of which, here’s something a little more serious:
“From 1985 to 2020, glacier-covered area in Alaska decreased by 13%, indicating that the rate of glacier loss accelerated in recent decades.”
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/aknatureandscience/glaciers.htm
Would you buy or sell, and now much would you allocate to that bet?
Thomas,
You see, he’s already ginned up one of his fellow alarmists and he’s even nuttier than Willard.
thomas h…”I have a BS in Geography (Physical), but according to you I must have learned little about geography. My degree was awarded with the “cum laude” designation”.
***
if you think the name of the United States is America, may I suggest you return your geography degree? According to wiki, among others …”The naming of the Americas occurred shortly after Christopher Columbus’s death in 1506. The earliest known use of the name America dates to April 25, 1507, when it was applied to what is now known as South America by German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller”.
Ergo, the continent was named circa 1507 and the Declaration of Independence was not announced till 1776. Of course, the entire continent, not just South America, was referred to collectively as the Americas. Therefore, the name America was well entrenched for over 250 years before the Founding Fathers used it as the base of the 13 United States. They clearly meant that the country’s name was the United Sates and that it was located in the continent of America, as designated by ‘of America’.
In 1776, Canada was not even formed and was known collectively as Upper and Lower Canada. However, there were skirmishes along an ‘established’ border region pre the War of 1812 due to US citizens who wanted more arable land. Ironically, the US government of the time showed little interest in the shenanigans and the British army along with local inhabitants and Iroquois managed to stave off the skirmishes and establish a border between the fledgling countries.
Here is a comment from a more enlightened Yank.
”
Donald Farren says:
July 6, 2016 at 10:22 am
The name of our nation of course is “United States of America,” not “America,” the latter term applicable to the whole western hemisphere. From afar, the appropriation of “America” to mean “United States of America,” can seem at one extreme provincial, at the other extreme imperialistic. ….
In 1984 William Safire, concerned about the accuracy or propriety of using “American” as the name of a denizen of the United States of America, sought alternatives, finding none, such as “Unisian,” “United Statesian,” “Usian,” or Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Usonian,” satisfactory. Spanish speakers however are comfortable with “estadounidense” (also with informal “yanki”). Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1965) observes that “the use of ‘America’ for the ‘United States’ and ‘American’ for ‘citizen of the U.S.’ … will continue to be protested against by purists and patriots and will doubtless survive the protests.” Evans’s Dictionary of Contemporary American Usage comments “If it’s any comfort to those who resent it, the usage is founded on a lazy disinclination to pronounce the longer name rather than arrogance.”
https://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2016/07/how-did-america-get-its-name/
——–
I find the last comment interesting if not ironic. “If it’s any comfort to those who resent it, the usage is founded on a lazy disinclination to pronounce the longer name rather than arrogance.”
It’s interesting that no one has an interest in amending the egregious error, just brushing it under a rug.
This is not about laziness, it is about fundamental arrogance based on ignorance of the English language. America is a continent and is named the United States of America. Any0one who fails to grasp that is dealing with an arrogance that comes from ignorance. The ignorance comes from the observation that anyone living on the continent is correct to call themselves Americans, hence have been disenfranchised by US citizens stealing the name for themselves.
Even more ironically, Hawaiians, a legitimate part of the US, have no right to call themselves Americans since they are located in the continent of Oceania.
When people of the US call themselves Americans and their country America, they clearly do not mean they are from the continent called America. With anthems like God Bless America and America the Beautiful, it is clear that America and American to US citizens means their country is called America.
Such a usage suggests the Founding Fathers were ignorant men who were totally unaware that America is a continent. I don’t think they were ignorant, but courageous people who named the country appropriately as the United States, which is located in the continent of America.
Also, the US is not alone when it comes to arrogance. Many great nations through time have been supremely arrogant and I was born in one of them, Britain. If anyone wants to make the US great again, I might suggest beginning that noble enterprise by toning down the arrogance and bullying and applying intelligence, compassion, and empathy.
The US has been known for all of the above in the past, especially following WW II when they were forgiving of opponents who had treated them in battle in a most evil manner. If the US wants to be great again, they need to get back to basic values while moving away from the lack of intelligence, empathy and compassion synonymous with extreme capitalists like Trump.
In spoken and written language “America” is a shortened word for “United States of America”. And so are USA, US and States (Beloved child has many names). But I like the idea of calling it “Great America”!
Trump’s America.
max…”In spoken and written language “America” is a shortened word for “United States of America””.
***
Sorry, Max, that’s not only illogical, it perpetuates the ignorance upon which the name America is used to describe the US. America is certainly not a shortened form of the United States of America, and that would be obvious to anyone who understands English. Canada is also located in America, the continent, but we don’t run around calling ourselves America, even though we can legitimately call ourselves American.
BTW…US, USA and the States are logical. You should note however that USA should be written US of A, indicating the distinction between the name United States and the continent America. That’s what USA means. Plain US and the States is logical since it references the country name, United States.
If I claim to be Gordon of Vancouver, Canada, is it logical to represent myself as the shortened form, Vancouver? Or Vancouver, Canada? No. America is no more the shortened form of United States of America than Vancouver is the shortened form of Gordon of Vancouver.
If I meet someone and tell them my name is Vancouver, am I telling the truth? No. My legal name is Gordon and the fact that I am from Vancouver does not change that.
United States of America, in English, clearly means the United States is located in the continent of America. I don’t expect to see a correction, as the person insinuated in the post I just made, no one should hold his breath that it will be amended any time soon.
It’s the same with global warming/climate change theory. No one has ever proved either is caused by a trace gas but the paradigm has been established that it’s true. It was not assumed using science it was presumed based on consensus and unvalidated climate model theory. People are emotional about the paradigm, to the point of hysteria, and many have allowed that pollution to distort science. In fact, they claim their lies are science.
I have related the story here about how it is taught in electrical engineering classes that electric current flows positive to negative. Never mind that electrons cannot flow positive to negative, the theory is based on a claim by Ben Franklin in the 18th century. The truth has never been addressed and no one seems interested that universities are teaching outright lies about it.
If you examine them closely enough, universities are hotbeds of lies. No one cares and if anyone complains, they are ostracized and unfairly attacked.
In university exams today, students are required to provide ridiculous answers to questions. If a prof puts out an exam asking whether gravity is a force or a space-time action, which cannot ever be an action, and you argue that gravity is a force, you will surely fail.
Gravity isn’t a force. Weight is a force.
For your consideration:
Insurance companies are abandoning homeowners in the highest risk wildfire areas. They cannot charge prices high enough to take on the risk they see coming. Exiting the market has become their last resort. In California, 1 in 5 homes in the most extreme fire risk areas has lost coverage since 2019. There are now over 150,000 uninsured households in these areas in California alone.
https://www.deepskyclimate.com/blog/insurers-retreat-as-2025-wildfire-risk-reaches-dangerous-levels
Can’t wait to see Florida’s numbers!
The same goes to cities that flood easily, like New Orleans. You take a risk if the elevation of your house is lower than sea level and only pumps keep your house dry. It has nothing to do with so called climate change.
In Greece every summer 100-200 pyromaniacs are arrested for setting fires. In USA they blame AGW.
The only problem with your theory, Max, is that it’s only a conspiracy, and that isn’t reinsuring:
“NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites detect active wildfires twice each day. Scientists studied this data over a 21-year span and found that extreme wildfires have become more frequent, more intense, and larger.”
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/wildfires-and-climate-change/
I would say sorry about your loss, but for that you’d need to play.
Willard: So the amount of pyromaniacs have increased or they set more fires each. It is interesting that fires often start near the multi-million dollar mansions owned by famous celebrities. Nearly 1/3 of Los Angeles fire calls are linked to homeless people. Last January the Palisades, Eaton and Hurst fires in California started on the same date. This is the price for a green woke governance.
Your incredulity is duly noted, Max:
“Climate change during the 21st century is expected to result in more frequent fires in many boreal forests, with severe environmental and economic consequences.”
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/forest-forestry/insects-disturbances/climate-change-fire
As always, if you think you can outsmart reinsurers, you’re free to open yourself a gig and undercut their market. I’m sure your trivia will do wonders!
Willard: I have heard that argument before. Is it confession of faith in the Bible of climate believers: the IPCC report? I am not a climate believer myself, but I have nothing against religions in general.
I would like to outsmart insurance companies by building nonflammable houses made of concrete blocks. Why those multi-million dollar houses in Hollywood are made of WOOD?
For your consideration:
Human-caused climate change worsens with every increment of additional warming, although some impacts can develop abruptly. The potential for abrupt changes is far less understood in the Antarctic compared with the Arctic, but evidence is emerging for rapid, interacting and sometimes self-perpetuating changes in the Antarctic environment. A regime shift has reduced Antarctic sea-ice extent far below its natural variability of past centuries, and in some respects is more abrupt, non-linear and potentially irreversible than Arctic sea-ice loss. A marked slowdown in Antarctic Overturning Circulation is expected to intensify this century and may be faster than the anticipated Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowdown. The tipping point for unstoppable ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet could be exceeded even under best-case CO2 emission reduction pathways, potentially initiating global tipping cascades. Regime shifts are occurring in Antarctic and Southern Ocean biological systems through habitat transformation or exceedance of physiological thresholds, and compounding breeding failures are increasing extinction risk. Amplifying feedbacks are common between these abrupt changes in the Antarctic environment, and stabilizing Earth’s climate with minimal overshoot of 1.5 °C will be imperative alongside global adaptation measures to minimise and prepare for the far-reaching impacts of Antarctic and Southern Ocean abrupt changes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09349-5
The last few incremental changes have been cooling.
Troglodyte forgets to tell that he’s talking about an increment of warming.
It’s only warming until it’s not.
And now it is, notwithstanding our contrarians’ confusion between speed and acceleration.
You don’t know that. We won’t know that unless it goes back above the highest point. Data is retrospective.
Contrarians confuse speed an acceleration all the time:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/
Checking the direction of the anomalies suffices to know they’re full of it.
And alarmists refuse to acknowledge that it will peak at some point.
Historians who would have predicted that Clarence Manion denouncing the interstate highway system as creeping socialism is peek silliness would have failed to predict you, Troglodyte.
You’re so clever. Give yourself a pat on the back.
Considering the quality of the reply guys we got, there is little merit.
More CO2, more warming. Less CO2, more cooling. Simples.
This is more nonsense from the person with a history of posting things he does not understand while displaying a complete lack of critical thinking or analysis.
From the Link:
can develop
potential for
far less understood
evidence is emerging
potentially irreversible
is expected
may be
could be exceeded
potentially initiating
Pure Gobbledygook, but the dumb kids with no practical experience just eat it up.
Our Ivy Leaguer just discovered the future tense.
And he succeeded to “forget” to quote the main claim:
A regime shift has reduced Antarctic sea-ice extent far below its natural variability of past centuries, and in some respects is more abrupt, non-linear and potentially irreversible than Arctic sea-ice loss.
Well done!
For your consideration:
PIOMAS-20C, an Arctic sea ice reconstruction for 1901–2010, is produced by forcing the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) with ERA-20C atmospheric data. ERA-20C performance over Arctic sea ice is assessed by comparisons with measurements and data from other reanalyses. ERA-20C performs similarly with respect to the annual cycle of downwelling radiation, air temperature, and wind speed compared to reanalyses with more extensive data assimilation such as ERA-Interim and MERRA. PIOMAS-20C sea ice thickness and volume are then compared with in situ and aircraft remote sensing observations for the period of ~1950–2010. Error statistics are similar to those for PIOMAS. We compare the magnitude and patterns of sea ice variability between the first half of the twentieth century (1901–40) and the more recent period (1980–2010), both marked by sea ice decline in the Arctic. The first period contains the so-called early-twentieth-century warming (ETCW; ~1920–40) during which the Atlantic sector saw a significant decline in sea ice volume, but the Pacific sector did not. The sea ice decline over the 1979–2010 period is pan-Arctic and 6 times larger than the net decline during the 1901–40 period. Sea ice volume trends reconstructed solely from surface temperature anomalies are smaller than PIOMAS-20C, suggesting that mechanisms other than warming, such as changes in ice motion and deformation, played a significant role in determining sea ice volume trends during both periods.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/15/jcli-d-19-0008.1.xml
Something to consider if a real red team is ever formed.
stephen…”Gravity isn’t a force. Weight is a force”.
***
Careful, Stephen, or you’ll turn into Clint. ☺ ☺ I know, nobody likes a smart-arse. Can’t help it, I am a Scot who has a smarmy disposition. Tee hee. I am also uncommonly good-looking.
Weight is the measure of a force acting on a mass in a gravitational field. When you weigh yourself on a bathroom scale, the scale is measuring the force exerted by the mass of your body as it is attracted to Earth’s core by gravitational force. If you took the same scale to the Moon, where the gravitational force is 1/6th (16.6%) that on Earth, you’d weigh 1/6th of the weight you do on Earth. However, your mass would be exactly the same.
Newton II is f = ma. In a gravitational field, f = mg. The ‘f’ in f = mg is gravitational force. g = 9.8 m/s^2. Therefore gravitational force causes an acceleration of g on any mass. There is a good reason for that and it takes too much time here to explain. Look it up, it’s interesting.
What else could it be? If I push (or pull) on a mass, and the force I apply is easily capable of moving the mass, the mass will accelerate. f = ma.
If a mass is in a gravitational field, and free to move, the gravitational force will accelerate the mass toward the larger mass.
Newton said that force is f = G (m1m2)/r^2. From wiki…
“According to Newton’s law of universal gravitation, the magnitude of the attractive force (F) between two bodies each with a spherically symmetric density distribution is directly proportional to the product of their masses, m1 and m2, and inversely proportional to the square of the distance, r, directed along the line connecting their centres of mass: F = G m1m2/r^2
I would like to interject here that Newton and Einstein were not in the same class as scientists. Newton was a true scientist and much smarter than Einstein, who tended to take ideas from others and elaborate on them, sometimes incorrectly. His relativity theory came from Lorentz, who incorrectly presumed that time was a variable, whereas it is a human invention and a constant.
There is an attractive ***FORCE*** between two masses. Ironically, even though Einstein groupies claim Newtonian physics does not hold at the atomic level, there is an equivalent equation relating atomic charges…
F = k q1q2/r^2
Same relationship at the atomic level as masses at a macro level. In fact, quantum physics is based on this law where the attraction between the sole proton in the hydrogen nucleus and the orbiting electron are in part determined via Coulomb’s law.
from the Google AI…”In the Bohr model, the electrostatic attraction between the nucleus and electron is balanced by the centripetal force keeping the electron in orbit”.
This is much the same as the Earth orbiting the Sun or the Moon orbiting the Earth. Although they claim above that the electron stays in orbit due to the centripetal force between it and the proton, that is only partly true. Like the Earth and the Moon, the instantaneous linear momentum of each is what keeps them in orbit.
Of course, the centripetal force is important but it must be balanced by the momentum, otherwise the orbiting body will lose orbit and either fly off or spiral into the central body.
Just as we have no idea how either body got into orbit and the perfect distance required for an orbit, we don’t know how the electron got the perfect linear momentum to counter the attractive forces between electron and proton.
Personally, I think the orbiting electron theory is far-fetched and that we need to stop wasting everyone’s time studying a hoaky science like quantum theory. It is based in human thought experiments hence prone to error. We need to get busy developing instruments so we can see what is going on at the atomic level.
Gordo,
Looks like WEXIT is happening. Force is gravity acting on a mass. Force is an accelerating mass. Gravity and Acceleration are one in the same, Equivalence. Is acceleration a force?
Gordo,
I think they use Quantum Theory because it works, and it can be expressed mathematically. The fact that it isn’t a law means there is still some ambiguity to it. But the Periodic Table is constructed from Quantum Theory.
For your consideration:
A major driver of Antarctica’s cascading crises is the loss of floating sea ice, which forms during winter. In 2014, it hit a peak extent (at least since satellite observations began in 1978) around Antarctica of 20.11 million square kilometers, or 7.76 million square miles. But since then, the coverage of sea ice has fallen not just precipitously, but almost unbelievably, contracting by 75 miles closer to the coast. During winters, when sea ice reaches its maximum coverage, it has declined 4.4 times faster around Antarctica than it has in the Arctic in the last decade.
Put another way: The loss of winter sea ice in Antarctica over just the past decade is similar to what the Arctic has lost over the last 46 years. “People always thought the Antarctic was not changing compared to the Arctic, and I think now we’re seeing signs that that’s no longer the case,” said climatologist Ryan Fogt, who studies Antarctica at Ohio University but wasn’t involved in the new paper. “We’re seeing just as rapid — and in many cases, more rapid — change in the Antarctic than the Arctic lately.”
https://grist.org/climate/antarctica-is-in-extreme-peril/
With emphasis for those who struggle with reading comprehension.
Another glitch has developed. At the very top of the home page I was asked for a password, but obviously did not need it.
A little more science than smokescreen
*
What keeps electrons in an atom from flying away or falling into the nucleus?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30939/what-keeps-electrons-in-an-atom-from-flying-away-or-falling-into-the-nucleus
*
Atomic Structure and Processes, and the Nature of Light
http://ganymede.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast110/class13.html
binny, old chap, your links fail to address the problem I presented as to how electrons get the perfect momentum to remain in orbit. Momentum suggests a perfect instantaneous linear velocity per unit mass that is required to keep a mass or a particle in orbit.
If you can explain that for hydrogen, with one electron and one proton, how can you explain multiple electron shells in other atoms? None of it makes sense and if there is an answer it will surely be far different than what we have theorized. And how do you even begin to explain covalent and ionic bonding in which valence orbital electrons are claimed to be shared and even donated?
Whereas the 1913 theory of Bohr is credible, he failed to explain why his electrons must remain in discrete orbits, He also failed to explain how the electrons got into orbit in the first place. Bohr based his theory on the incredible theory of Planck wherein electromagnetic energy is explained as tiny oscillators representing each frequency of EM. From that he derived his Planck constant, h, which represents the energy of each wavelength based on its frequency.
At the time Planck offered this theory, electrons had not been discovered and he was unaware that EM was emitted by electrons, as deduced by Bohr. Hence we have a case where one scientist proposes a ridiculous theory that seems to work and another scientist uses it to claim an equally improbably behavior for electrons orbiting a nucleus..
This was no doubt very interesting in the beginning but it has worn out its welcome and we need to begin doing real science to understand atomic phenomenon better. The theories are currently there due to their entrenchment via paradigms, just like the nonsense in electrical engineering whereby electric current is taught to flow positive to negative is a paradigm reaching back to the 18th century.
EE textbooks have an uncomfortable time with this, acknowledging the theory is a paradigm based on convention while at the same time they must present the electron as the actual current carrier. Electrons must flow negative to positive based on basic theory.
Also, the notion of the hole has been introduced since the 1930s with the absurd claim that holes left behind by electrons in atomic valence bands carry a positive current in the opposite direction (conventional flow). For cripes sake, a hole is a hole and has no charge.
The links you provide are nothing more than more nattering based on Schrodinger accompanied by primitive electron theory. None of it helps explain what is going on at the atomic level.
stephen…”Force is gravity acting on a mass. Force is an accelerating mass. Gravity and Acceleration are one in the same, Equivalence. Is acceleration a force?”
…
Stephen…I agree that ‘gravitational force’ is gravity acting on a mass. That is, gravity is a force. How else could a mass be accelerated toward the surface in a vertical direction?
It can also be regarded as a field, however, a field is usually regarded as a force field in such a situation. In other words, it is represented by vector fields directed inwardly toward the mass centre.
But, hey, we have to be careful unless Clint comes along and insists it is a flux field that is not associated with energy.
Gravity is also energy, and like energy, it is undefined since no one knows what causes it.
However, I can’t agree that acceleration and gravity are one and the same. That’s like claiming voltage and current are one and the same. Voltage produces current, it is the driving force or electromotive force as it is called. By the same token, gravity, or gravitational force, is the driving force that produces vertical acceleration in a gravitational field.
Acceleration can be a queer duck since humans invented the quantitative term to describe a natural phenomenon. We can see acceleration if it is apparent, as a phenomenon, as force drives a mass. Example, a dragster accelerating, or an aircraft. We can see it as a change of a change of position. To quantify the observation, we needed to invent time so we could measure it in feet per second per second.
Einstein apparently got himself turned around by viewing only acceleration while ignoring the force and mass producing it. Without the force and mass, there can be no acceleration, hence acceleration is a product of two natural phenomenon, force and mass. By considering only acceleration and applying the incorrect observation of Lorentz, that time duration, hence length, can change with relative motion, he screwed up royally.
———–
re quantum theory.
I agree with you in principle re quantum theory. I am not arguing against basic quantum theory, I am arguing against the extended form which is sheer speculation that cannot be validated. Electrons do not communicate at a distance (entanglement theory) and quantum computers are nonsense.
The modern Periodic Table is based on quantum theory, however, the original table was invented in 1869 by Mendeleev, long before quantum theory was developed. My point is that the elements in the table were ordered by atomic mass that was worked out without quantum theory.
I also agree that quantum theory is a necessary evil that has developed into a sci-fi based hodge-podge of ridiculous theories. Ironically, Bohr, who started the basic theory re the interaction of electrons and EM, was the one responsible for the sci-fi version. If you take quantum theory in its most basic form, it does present a visual for the theorized version of electrons, protons and neutrons in atoms.
The problem is that this version of quantum theory is based on the Schrodinger wave equation which itself is based on a faulty assumption and works despite that assumption. Schrodinger glommed onto de Broglie’s idea that electrons exist as both waves and particles. To me, the problem is an obvious attempt by theorists to create an atomic model that is patently incorrect.
David Bohm recognized this problem years ago and admitted that quantum theory and Newtonian physics have come to the end of the road re atomic theory. He suggested we begin again and re=examine the problem from a more practical basis.
In his wave equation, Schrodinger is obviously referring to the angular frequency of the electron which changes with absorbed energy and orbital. However, de Broglie, in discussion with his brother, presumed that radiation has a dual nature. They associated that incorrectly with Einstein’s photoelectric effect, in which he presumed EM transferred momentum to electrons in the atoms of a surface.
I find the theories of scientists in the 1920s, like de Broblie to be engaged in bizarre theories aimed at accounting for Bohr’s 1913 theory upon which quantum theory is based. What I find even more bizarre is how readily modern scientists accept this nonsense without the slightest skepticism.
According to Google AI, the Periodic Table was invented in 1869, long before the atomic structure was known, hence quantum theory. We still don’t really know what it looks like.
Sorry, can’t post a link because Google AI only appears in a search listing. You could try entering ‘When was the periodic table invented’ in Google. I knew it was invented before the atomic structure was known.
“The first modern periodic table was invented by the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. Mendeleev arranged known elements by increasing atomic weight, noticing a recurring pattern of properties that led him to create the periodic law and leave gaps for undiscovered elements, successfully predicting their characteristics”.
I find it incredible that scientists like Mendeleev and Clausius were able to deduce atomic theory well before the fundamentals were known. Linus Pauling was able to figure out molecular structures before quantum theory, another astounding feat. He actually had to modify quantum theory to make it work for molecular structure. Pauling is credited with writing ‘the’ book on the covalent bond, which won him his first Nobel.
Of course, Mendeleev’s version would not have included the electron. Still, he was ale to deduce atomic masses and order them into the table.
Incredible to me.