Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2025 was +0.36 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the June, 2025 anomaly of +0.48 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through July 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The 0.12 deg. C drop in global average temperature anomaly since last month was dominated by the extra-tropical Southern Hemisphere, which fell from +0.55 deg. C in June to +0.10 deg. C in July.
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 19 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.58 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.95 | +0.81 | +1.17 | +1.31 | +0.86 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.26 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.78 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.05 | +0.20 | +0.53 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.37 | +0.64 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.74 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.97 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.76 | +0.82 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 |
| 2024 | Sep | +0.81 | +1.04 | +0.58 | +0.82 | +1.31 | +1.48 | +0.98 |
| 2024 | Oct | +0.75 | +0.89 | +0.60 | +0.63 | +1.90 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.41 | +0.53 | +1.12 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.62 | +0.76 | +0.48 | +0.52 | +1.42 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.06 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.04 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.74 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.77 | +0.46 | +0.37 | +0.82 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.99 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.81 | +0.05 | +0.39 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for July, 2025, and a more detailed analysis by John Christy, should be available within the next several days here.
The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days at the following locations:
This month’s post is of great importance. It shows strong empirical evidence that the earth’s energy transport process, aka the climate system, is dynamically stable. This is saying that, after the 2023 – 2024 strong water vapour and temperature perturbation, the July point shows regression towards the expected trajectory. A similar regression was evident in response to the 1998 perturbation.
This means that the warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC fable of “amplification through positive feedback by the radiative effect of increased water vapour” does not occur in nature. The “amplifier” is shown to be fake. The true dynamics of the process has no amplification.
This shows that the feedback, properly defined (not as the warmistas bizarrely or perversely define it), is negative. The whole warmista doctrine is blown away by this empirical observation.
Congratulations, Dr Spencer, on your magnificent and decisive assembly of empirical data.
A single month’s anomaly says very little in terms of trends or amplification. Like any other month,this anomaly falls well within the normal variability, and is well within the envelope of the long term positive trend.
Thank you, barry, for your comment. Yes, a single month’s anomaly, considered by itself, says little. But we are looking at a time series. The trend on the relevant time scale for water vapour feedback, shows, as you observe, a return to the “normal”, and is well within the envelope of the longer term positive trend. That is the point. If there were positive feedback, it would have shown itself as a persisting growth of the perturbation. We don’t know the cause of the longer term positive trend, but we don’t need to for this analysis. What matters here is that it wasn’t disrupted by an explosive extension of the perturbation that started in 2022 or 2023. The proposed “amplification” is said to arise from “positive feedback”, which the new data rule out when the sign is defined according to the natural definition.
That response indicates that there has to be damping and significant negative feedback in play in response to a perturbation which IMO was most likely an increase in the upper tropospheric humidity.
Good point, Christopher.
It’s a correction after the perturbation. Earth can handle it.
I was curious if the fall would be as rapid as the rise.
If the La Niña returns we could even see the global anomaly get back to 0.0!
Good point, Clint. La Nina is now the highest probability ENSO condition for next winter.
The current downturn is sure looking like the dissipation of the Hunga-Tonga eruption effects which should continue through 2025. That would likely get us back to a pre-2022 climate state.
CFSR data is showing a similar downward trend in 2025.
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-08-01.gif
This also means all the climate change hype over the past 3+ years was based on a false premise. There really is no other good explanation for the current cooling.
Finally, we are still hanging on to the AMO warm phase which has now reached 30 years. It is due for a phase change. This could lead to as much as 0.6 C of cooling in the not too distant future.
Reply to Richard Mustain: The GIF of your CFSR data is missing (404 — File not found). Do you have another link for it?
G N, try this:
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
I hope my humble effort based on 17 years of study of first future energy options and then, realising that what was proposed was a fraudulent moneymaking scheme, concentrating on the climate change that is all attributed to one small effc and dimishing effect of increasing CO2, so all blamed on AGW/enrgy use justification – for the fraud that monetises a non-problem in fact. That nuclear could fix much better.
After detailed consideration of the sensitivity/response of each of the main and obvious natural feedbacks kindly quantified by NASA, that ensure the wafer thin skins of water and atmosphere held onto the huge rock that is Earth by gravity, absorb and then release an equal amount of energy, and how each of these feedbacks will change with temperature, I produced a simple, empirical, dynamic energy balance – such as you suggest.
THe energy balance is maintained by the variability of the 240W/m^2 of LWIR enrgy losses with temperature. This powerful negative feedback to changing temperatures overcomes the tiny radiative perturbations from AGW effects, even if the full Hansen nonsense of 2W per metre per degree Kelvin positive feedback by WV is included.
The net feedback to any radiative perturbation to the whole System is about 9W per m² per degree NEGATIVE feedback. Most of this is convected latent heat that is later lost as radiation from the troposphere, 84W/m^2 that varies by 7% per degree SST so 6W/m^2, the next largest is S-B effect of 1.4% per degree on 240W/m^2 from mostly Tropospheric atmosphere but also direct radiative losses from the surface/ocean. So another 3.4W/m^2 deg K.
For example, the IPCC’s 1.6 W per m² AGW effect since 1850 will have been rebalanced by a temperature rise of about 0.2°C – hence the remaining 1.3° is natural change.
In models the natural change component is simply denied to attribute all change to modeller’s chosen variable, of course. Which is why the models so over-predict the actual change we measure.
Yet the natural cyclical change range, rate and periodicity have been measured and reported many times by people who study natural change. Who knew?
So climate models are complete fraud on the measured facts of nature we know. And the strong natural feedbacks that are a very real, obvious and inherent part of the natural enrgy balance control system can easily hold the balance against the natural radiative perturbations of the Earth’s orbital variability, nearly up to 100W/m^2 over a year at max eccentricity and the Laskar cycles in general. The much smaller AGW is barely noticeabale to this dominant negative feedback control.
In haste….. I hope you find merit in this approach. It’s real, simple to explain, easy to follow. NO models required.
Catt, Brian, An Empirical Quantification of the Negative Feedbacks of Earth’s Energy Balance (January 01, 2025).
Available at SSRN:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5220078
Hello, Brian Catt. I note with comfort that your excellent work corroborates the conclusion, from Dr Spencer’s most valuable empirical data, that the earth’s energy transport process, aka the climate system, is dynamically stable. This blows away the “official” warmista doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effects of increased water vapour”.
The warmista doctrine is propped up by two tricks. One: a dodgy and perverse definition of “positive feedback”. Two: considering the virtual or potential radiative effects of extra water vapour without regard to the evaporative and convective feedback components that are their necessary physical precursors.
Brian,
“The change in cooling feedback in response to a given change in Earth’s radiative energy balance, from whatever cause, is estimated to be 8.7W per metre squared per degree Kelvin.”
I’m wondering how you account for the warming from our last glacial period, which was ~ 5 C globally?
This would produce a negative feedback of around 43 W/m2.
But the solar forcing, even at its maximum @65 deg N latitude, is only about 25 W/m2 from Earth’s orbital variation.
With so much negative feedback, how then does this warming take place?
I agree that the warming isn’t due to the multiple static shell theory expressed by the Greenplate effect promoted by Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC. But there is a single shell effect.
And there may be an element of a multiple shell effect probably detected by Roy’s work on climate sensitivity that showed negative feedback.
Folks in here have widely recognized that if the atmosphere gets warmer the surface will get warmer. But the Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC calls for atmosphere cooling via their multiple static shell theory. However, cooling of the upper troposphere would cause a destabilization of the atmosphere.
Also when looks at radiation physics a 241w/m2 mean input from the sun results in a mean stabilized temperature of 279K for .3 albedo making the GHE somewhere around 9K.
So what causes the 9K? Latent heat from evaporation of water into water vapor can easily account for that. A physical process that warms the atmosphere.
Total mean incoming solar radiation over appropriate periods of time will change both evaporation and albedo via Milankovic theories of orbital and axial perturbations.
The main short term perturbation is the one that led to the discovery of Neptune where the speed of Uranus in the sky confounded astronomers in that it wasn’t showing up where it was expected to show up on schedule.
In 2023 the earth has been arriving closer to the sun up to 5 days later than 1980 than was expected before this effect was detected in Uranus around 1821. It then took 28 years before they found the cause.
It would be nice to develop a model of earth’s orbital perturbations as that can easily be then used to see how much it effects total mean sunlight variations and predict their effects into the future. I have been grinding away on this with a lot less discipline and zeal that Milankovic had and my access to technology is severely limited. . .but not nearly as much as Milankovic was. I can say there is a strong correlation of the variations we know of in timing of planet positions and the bumps and valleys we see in our temperature and proxy data.
Why can we be sure that the customary Hansen−Schlesinger−IPCC “amplifier” is fake?
The “amplifier” of the customary Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC circuit diagram has a unilateral “gain” circuit element, and it has a unilateral summing junction. Such are artificial engineered devices, and do not occur in the atmosphere. Natural processes are dissipative or reciprocal, practically the opposite of unilateral. Dissipative processes include friction, thermal conduction, and diffusion, involving self-feedback, with negative elements on the leading diagonal of the matrix of rate coefficients. In contrast, the customary “amplifier” circuit diagram excludes self-feedback by setting zero values for the elements on the leading diagonal of the matrix of rate coefficients. This makes the eigenvalues of the matrix either purely real, one negative, the other positive (necessarily dynamically unstable), or both purely imaginary and of opposite signs (necessitating undamped finite oscillatory responses to perturbations). Such dynamics are unnatural and unphysical. That shows that the “amplifier” is fake.
The hard logic to get past on is 1) The persistent argument around here that the surface warms because of a warm atmosphere that has some radiant capabilities; and 2) that these radiant capabilities actually cause a loss of heat such that the atmosphere doesn’t allegedly get hot enough to cool properly.
So to explain this a model is constructed with multiple static layers from a GPE model making it the only such model that works without trapping convection and preventing the mixing of gases in the atmosphere.
Seems to me that because of convection of gases unable to emit low frequency radiation the problem is that the atmosphere would be hotter than the surface without greenhouse gases to cool it. And it would be hotter because the variable input of solar light bringing the potential of a higher atmospheric temperature based upon the heat of the daytime getting trapped in the atmosphere by gases that either emit no IR or only parts of the IR spectrum (i.e. poor full IR spectrum emitters) preventing the atmosphere from cooling.
So there is a requirement for a single layer of radiating gases to bring the surface temperature up to the temperature of the atmosphere where the heat has been trapped by non-IR emitting gases and poorly emitting gases and you have lapse reversals in the stratosphere and thermosphere where you have UV absorbing oxygen species and CO2 can’t counteract that and do there what is claimed for it to do in the multiple static layer model. the problem is the multistatic layer model is in fact individual free floating molecules like a barbarian army or militia without a general staff that runs like the dickens at the first shot.
So what to do? Well you preach that there isn’t another factor that could be causing the warming while doing your best to ignore all other explanations explored by science up to that point.
So the answer on how to convince me otherwise is do your homework.
Christopher, “That shows that the “amplifier” is fake.”
This is a bunch of sciency words that are used to obfuscate rather than make a convincing argument.
Try again. Why is the positive feedback of eg melting Arctic sea ice, exposing lower albedo ocean, not a valid positive feedback?
The proper way to define dynamical stability in the present context is through dynamical systems theory (e.g. ‘Dynamical Systems’ by G.D. Birkhoff (1927), American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI). All the eigenvalues of the matrix of rate coefficients must be negative (or, exceptionally, if complex, must have negative real parts). A single positive eigenvalue will make the process dynamically unstable.
That is a rather theoretical definition, which we can’t directly verify, because we don’t well enough understand the details of the dynamics.
The appropriate empirical definition, according to dynamical systems theory, is that, for dynamical stability, a substantial perturbation should always be followed by a rapid return to the currently expected trajectory of the process. Such a return signifies negative feedback.
On the other hand, positive feedback as defined above would have resulted in a rapid extension of the perturbation. Instead, this month’s new data rule out positive feedback.
Christopher,
Climate science has always understood that the summed feedbacks are negative, largely because the IR emission (which reduces warming) increases proportional to T^4.
However the positive feedbacks, such as ice-albedo, and water vapor, reduce the total negative feedback, thus amplifying the temperature response to an external forcing.
Looks like I was correct in saying that https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d1-gfs-gta-daily-2025-08-01.gif would well predict the outcome of UAH global temperatures.
You were correct. I suspect if we had more data we would be seeing and increase in cloudiness as the main driver of the cooling. This follows Christopher’s point that we are seeing negative feedback.
The Earth’s climate is slowly returning to its pre Hunga-Tonga eruption state. The only response by the alarmist crew will be to push longer term trends which are still influenced by this temporary warming. They will have no explanation for the cooling.
What are you talking about? Variability is not contested by anyone. Why would anyone have difficulty explaining recent months being cooler than the latest peak in UAH temps?
Are you imagining that someone said the recent high temps are here to stay? What dream are you dreaming about this mythical ‘alarmist crew’?
Thank you, barry, for your comment. Indeed, as you suggest, no clear thinking person will say that “the recent high temps are here to stay”. But there are others who support the “official” warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC theoretical doctrine of “amplification by positive feedback through the radiative effects of increased water vapour”. Their theory predicts the persistence of the recent high temps. Dr Spencer’s data blow that theory away.
WV amplification is about tropospheric WV.
Hunga Tonga injected WV into the stratosphere, and I don’t know of anyone who suggested that this injection would not eventually fall out, nor of anyone who suggested that this had any relation to the WV amplification effect, which is a feedback to tropospheric background temperature.
IOW, I’m not sure what prompts you to conflate two separate issues.
IF the HT WV injection had a significant warming effect (consensus is that it didn’t), NASA and other bodies expected that effect to dissipate in several years, along with the elevated stratospheric WV concentration:
“The excess water vapor injected by the Tonga volcano, on the other hand, could remain in the stratosphere for several years…
The effect would dissipate when the extra water vapor cycles out of the stratosphere and would not be enough to noticeably exacerbate climate change effects.”
https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
Thank you, barry, for your comment. To get from the sea to the stratosphere, the water had to pass through the troposphere, and to cycle back to the sea, the stratospheric water has to pass through the troposphere. You are right to observe that people haven’t been talking about tropospheric water vapour in this scenario. I think they know that water vapour in the troposphere is such an example of negative feedback that it is hardly in dispute. If there were genuine positive feedback, even the unreported amounts of water vapour that were put and are still being put into the troposphere would have interacted with the increased tropospheric temperature, and triggered the instability.
“If there were genuine positive feedback, even the unreported amounts of water vapour that were put and are still being put into the troposphere would have interacted with the increased tropospheric temperature, and triggered the instability.”
No. Tropospheric water vapour content is determined by temperature and pressure. Once it falls from the stratosphere it rains out in less than a week. That’s why WV is seen as a feedback, not a forcing, to changes in tropospheric temperature. And that’s why there are no measurements of changes in tropospheric WV concentration.
Also, the amount of WV in the stratosphere is far smaller than in the troposphere. While stratospheric WV increased by 10%, the same amount of WV (146 Tg) in the troposphere amounts to an increase of 0.002% (of a total 13,000,000 Tg). The HT WV injection had virtually no impact on total WV content in the troposphere, and would have contributed next to zero warming in that layer of the atmosphere, differently to the stratosphere.
I’m afraid you are alone in trying to conflate these two ideas of tropospheric WV feedback and HT water vapour injection into the stratosphere.
“I think they know that water vapour in the troposphere is such an example of negative feedback that it is hardly in dispute.”
My understanding is that water vapor added to the troposphere increases the GHE, which would be positive feedback.
barry, the HTE can be seen in the UAH graph above. Note the spike in anomalies.
It’s funny that your “consensus” can’t see it. The HTE was able to do what the bogus GHE can’t.
Obviously your “consensus” is jealous….
Poor Clint has no idea what’s being talked about.
barry, if you weren’t such a child I wouldn’t have to explain your own words to you:
“IF the HT WV injection had a significant warming effect (consensus is that it didn’t)…”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1709991
When you grow up, you’ll learn to NOT make false accusations.
You still don’t get it Clint. And there was only one word in italics in the original. If you read for comprehension instead of being triggered…
In 1937, Soviet census officials were disappeared for reporting numbers Stalin didn’t like.
In 2025, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because the jobs numbers made him look bad.
Different century, same instinct: if the facts don’t flatter the regime, shoot the messenger and burn the ledger.
An alternative view on this is that successive US governments had removed the voices that didn’t fit the narrative and Trump reinstated them.
That alternative view collapses under even modest scrutiny.
The BLS operates with a long-standing reputation for methodological rigor and independence across administrations of both parties. Its unemployment figures are routinely corroborated by multiple independent sources, including ADP, Moody’s, and private-sector payroll and economic analytics firms.
If a president fires a statistical agency head not for malfeasance or inaccuracy, but for publishing data that conflicts with his preferred narrative, that is not restoring balance; that is undermining institutional integrity. Dismissing verified facts in favor of political convenience is not reform. It is propaganda.
He should keep Biden’s appointment because you think so?
“He should keep Biden’s appointment because you think so?”
Yes, historically these are apolitical appointments that serve 4 y terms. Biden kept his Trump appointee.
There is no good reason to turn the BLS into a political operation.
Indeed this reminds us of the tradition in the Soviet Union, which was to avoid reporting bad news to the leaders, else you could lose your job or be sent to Siberia.
This led ultimately to failures like Chernobyl, and finally the collapse of the Soviet Union.
She was fired for incompetence. Sorry to ruin your TDS fantasies.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/bls-has-lengthy-history-of-inaccuracies-incompetence/
You are missing the bigger picture. It wasn’t the latest numbers that led to the firing. It was the updates to the May numbers. Those numbers weren’t even close according to the revision. Trump fired the head of the department because they were reporting junk numbers.
Richard M.
The BLS estimates the employment rate for over 100 million people by sampling “just” ~200,000 people, of necessity, an inaccurate exercise.
The 90% confidence interval for the monthly change in total non-farm employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 136,000.
So, the predicted rise of 73,000 jobs in July could turn out to be either a minus 70,000 or plus 200,000, in round numbers.
Let’s take Trump’s words at face value. He stated:
“In my opinion, today’s Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad — Just like when they had three great days around the 2024 Presidential Election, and then, those numbers were ‘taken away’ on November 15, 2024, right after the Election, when the Jobs Numbers were massively revised DOWNWARD, making a correction of over 818,000 Jobs — A TOTAL SCAM.”
So he fired her for this scam.
But the private ADP numbers showed that May and June were indeed very low in new jobs, in fact June was negative for private sector jobs.
https://mediacenter.adp.com/2025-07-30-ADP-National-Employment-Report-Private-Sector-Employment-Increased-by-104,000-Jobs-in-July-Annual-Pay-was-Up-4-4
The discrediting whitehouse.gov propaganda can’t change facts:
” Its unemployment figures are routinely corroborated by multiple independent sources, including ADP, Moody’s, and private-sector payroll and economic analytics firms. “
That really was not the issue for Trump. It was the revision of 1/4 million jobs in previous months, that possibly could have given him more ammo in his fight with the Fed on interest rates for this latest round.
BillyBob
” … the revision of 1/4 million jobs in previous months… ”
Where the heck do you have that from?
Why don’t you present a trustworthy source for your allegation?
Thats ironic Bindidon, the source is the BLS. The revisions for May and June lowered net employment over 250,000. The talk on CNBC today is that the probability of an interest rate cut in September has increased due the soft job market. But I guess we will see next month. My point is that if the numbers were more accurate in May/June, we may have had a different Fed statement this month.
Apos BilliyBob, you were of course right, no idea why I myself rejected what I had seen already :–(
But nevertheless, you shoud put this 250,000 into the correct context.
I tried to explain this to the MAGAmaniacs Clint R and his so dirty insulting acolyte Anderson:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1710208
I suppose one could also relate the Biden/clinton/obama persecutions of all things Trump, as well, to Stalin. But what any of this has to do eith the June anomoly is beyond me.
I think that makes this the 4th warmest July in the UAH record. Well down on the last two years, and slightly below 1998.
How do you see the rest of 2025 turning out?
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/d4-gfs-gta-daily-2014-2025-08-01.gif
Top 10 warmest July’s
Year Anomaly
1 2024 0.74
2 2023 0.56
3 1998 0.38
4 2025 0.36
5 2022 0.32
6 2020 0.30
7 2016 0.26
8 2019 0.24
9 2010 0.20
10 2021 0.19
8 of the 10 warmest have happened in the last 10 years.
https://i.imgur.com/ICJwTTd.png
My estimate for 2025, based on a simple linear projection, drops slightly to 0.49 +/- 0.10C.
https://i.imgur.com/iJPsby8.png
But I think it’s more likely the projection will drop over the rest of the year.
This month’s anomaly is now just slightly above the long term trend.
https://i.imgur.com/PSW1auq.png
These non-systematic step changes have set up sinusoidal patterns after the step change. The crests of the sinusoids tend to be below the peaks. Curious to see where the trough sets.
Yes, stephen p anderson, indeed, as you observe, the subsequent crests are below the peak. The “official” warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC “amplifier” model says that such oscillations will be undamped; Dr Spencer’s empirical data refute that: they show that such possible oscillations are damped.
What is your prediction for this month?
“The ‘official’ warmista Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC ‘amplifier’ model says that such oscillations will be undamped”
No. WV amplification has nothing to do with interannual variability.
Also “Hansen–Schlesinger–IPCC” sounds like the latest pejorative catchphrase empty of meaning but full of bilious rhetoric.
Right now 2 of August 2025, according to Copernicus, from the peak of 18 of November 2023, in terms of surface temperatures, it has decreased 0,66dC globally. From average troposphere, from the peak of April 2024 (+0.94dC), it has decreased 0,58dC. It looks like after Hunga Tonga, temps are returning to the mean, and earth cooling a little bit. Hope it continues in the future.
The surface temperature of the ocean is exactly as it should be at this time of year. In the western Pacific, it reaches 30 C (more can’t because of the pressure near the surface and the increase in convection in these areas).
https://i.ibb.co/1tXPRBz7/cdas-sflux-sst-global-1.png
It’s only one month, but it is a relief to see those gobsmacking temperatures reverting to the long term trend.
Here’s why BLS revises numbers:
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-2/revisions-to-jobs-numbers.htm
The size of the revisions are almost always less than a percent of the total workforce.
https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cestn.htm#Benchmarks
Trump and the Repubs are creating a false scandal, presumably based on Trump’s political ego. BLS initial figures are based on 70% of the data, and their revisions climb to over 90% of the nationwide data.
An initial total jobs estimate from 70% of the data that is less than a percent off the final estimate with 90+% of the data is a very good error window.
But because revisions to monthly changes in the labour force are a much larger percentage, they can become a political football. But Trump has gone way beyond the usual politicking and actually attacked the bureau for what happens normally.
The President can have the person of his choosing.
And the rest of us can draw the conclusion of our choosing about his lack of character and competence.
It appears you’ve already drawn your conclusion.
There was no need to fire her. This was an overtly political act of retribution.
And no, the pres cannot simply install whoever they want. It is a senate-confirmed position, and because it is a non-partisan role the senate always confirms with significant majority.
Trump has thrown a tantrum and shown everyone who works in government that he might nix you if you tell a truth that he doesn’t like. Petty tyrant.
She works for Trump. He decides what is necessary.
His ego decided it was necessary to fire her just because he didn’t like the revised numbers. He said it plainly himself – the revisions were done to “make me look bad.” BLS revised as usual and he got upset about the optics.
Since 1884 when it was created, the BLS has made revisions, sometimes large, to the initial report after further data came in. This is the first time in 140 years that a president has fired the head of the BLS.
You keep justifying this unprecedented action by referring to the president’s authority, not by the quality of the decision. This is the very definition of an authoritarian mindset.
In the very same vein:
https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/08/03/jeanine-pirro-ex-star-de-fox-news-confirmee-procureure-de-washington-par-le-senat-americain-sur-demande-de-donald-trump_6626393_3210.html
” Former Fox News star Jeanine Pirro, confirmed as Washington’s U.S. Attorney by the U.S. Senate at Donald Trump’s request
This 74-year-old judge, who is taking on one of the most important positions in the country, has written several books in support of the U.S. president and shared conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, which Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden. “
christopher…”This month’s post is of great importance. It shows strong empirical evidence that the earth’s energy transport process….”
***
I agree with your post, I just wish you’d refrain from calling it energy and refer to it as heat. The word energy is proper but it is far too general. What type of energy is being transferred? Also, there is a move afoot to discredit heat as a form of energy and heat is the problem we are facing, not so much a generic energy.
Gravitational energy holds our atmosphere in place as the planet rotates, otherwise Earth could not support life since the atmosphere would drift off into space. There would be no climate without gravitational energy, which creates a force on mass, attracting mass,including atmospheric gases to the surface.
If we say a mass has gravitational energy, it means ‘something’ is attracting the smaller mass to the greater mass of the planet. We have no idea what that something is, which is true of any kind of energy. Thermal energy, aka heat, is a reference to energy associated with atoms, in fact, heat has been defined as the kinetic energy of atoms by Clausius. That can apply to the internal energy within an atom or the kinetic energy of an atom in motion, even to the vibration of atoms in a solid.
Clausius, who is credited with the definition of internal energy in the 1st law, originally defined internal energy as internal heat plus internal work. However, he made it clear that it was the internal heat that is responsible for the internal atomic vibrations that constitute internal work. He was talked into dropping the dual energy designation by Thompson, an egregious error IMHO. Today, we have people talking about internal energy as some mystical entity that is lumped under the generic description of plain energy.
I have argued here with those who insist that heat is a philosophical entity that indicates a transfer of generic energy. They refuse to specify which type of energy is being transferred due to a temperature difference and by definition it can only be heat that is being transferred. Ergo, the modern definition of heat is reduced to a transfer of heat, not thermal energy itself.
We live in confused scientific times.
Temperature is a human definition, based initially on the relative level of heat. The heat in water at the freezing point of water and the heat in water at the boiling point of water were adopted as set points. 0C was designated by Celsius as the freezing point of water and 100C was designated as the boiling point. Linear gradations in between designated temperatures between.
Maxwell, along with Boltzmann, muddied the waters by defining temperature as the average kinetic energy of molecules in a theoretical gas. However, Celsius (1742) and Fahrenheit (1724) had already defined temperature using the freezing and boiling points of water as set points. Clearly, temperature was a human definition and not a natural phenomenon like heat energy. Heat infers atomic motion whereas temperature has a vagueness about it.
Where has all the warming gone?
Long time cooling.
Where has all the warming gone?
Long time no see.
Where has all the warming gone?
To the ocean I hear them say,
When will they ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
My apologies to Pete Seeger.
The oceans remain at near record temperatures.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2
And well above the pre 2023 levels.
Click the Anomaly map to see the massive heatwave in the Northern Pacific that we have had for 4 years.
Ho~g~le
In the previous monthly report thread, you copied and pasted the WUWT stuff about Marcott and Mann concerning past reconstructions.
Typical pseudoskepticism mostly based on singular points grossly amplified to a global of course negative appreciation.
*
Feel free to continue this discrediting sequence with the next element in the chain:
Ranking of tree-ring based temperature reconstructions of the past
millennium
J. Esper & al. (2016)
https://www.climatology.uni-mainz.de/files/2016/03/Esper_2016_QSR.pdf
*
” Tree-ring chronologies are widely used to reconstruct high-to low-frequency variations in growing season temperatures over centuries to millennia.
The relevance of these timeseries in large-scale climate reconstructions is often determined by the strength of their correlation against instrumental temperature data.
However, this single criterion ignores several important quantitative and qualitative characteristics of tree-ring chronologies. Those characteristics are (i) data homogeneity, (ii) sample replication, (iii) growth coherence, (iv) chronology development, and (v) climate signal including the correlation with instrumental data.
Based on these 5 characteristics, a reconstruction-scoring scheme is proposed and applied to 39 published, millennial-length temperature reconstructions from Asia, Europe, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere. Results reveal no reconstruction scores highest in every category and each has their own strengths and weaknesses. ”
*
Addendum
Großräumige Temperaturrekonstruktionen
mit Baumringen
Jan Esper (2022)
https://www.climatology.uni-mainz.de/files/2022/11/Esper_2022_AWLM.pdf
Just so we’re clear, Binny, I know the Auditor’s stuff inside out. But if you are to bait Walter as you baited for years our bunch of cranks on two of their three main talking points, you are on your own.
Not my pig, not my farm.
As so often from you, Willard: a completely useless, counterproductive, egomaniacal post.
Will you ever be able to stop yourself from rambling when it makes absolutely no sense?
Lass mich verdammt nochmal in Ruhe!
Warnings can be useful, dearest Binny:
https://climateaudit.org/tag/esper/
But one needs not be tone deaf.
Besides, I was mostly making sure he got the memo about something he was querying earlier.
Carry on.
Willard boy
Who would care what your good old stupid friend Mc Intyre says?
Few really cares about tree rings, Binny, including you. So why handwave to something you do not want to discuss, from another thread that had died? It’s not only ignorant, it’s self-defeating.
You’re on your own, pseudo-luckwarmer. Best of luck.
Ho~g~le
Let me add this comment confirming what I mean with
” Typical pseudoskepticism mostly based on singular points grossly amplified to a global of course negative appreciation. ”
**
Look at your post wrt my evaluation of the German Weather Service’s data:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-february-2025-0-50-deg-c/#comment-1699827
*
You wrote – without having the slightest idea what the people you quote mean:
” A quality control level of 5 is classified as ‘historic, subjective procedures’. ”
*
Did you ever ask the DWD team what they mean with ‘subjective‘, and what it means in exact terms of uncertainty?
Of course you didn’t, Ho~g~le.
*
But the very best comes a bit later, when you dare to write:
” Given this, aligning pre-1980 data with post-1980 data would not be ideal. The document supports this:
“When using the ‘historical/’ and ‘recent/’ directories together, the temporal overlap must be taken into account and that the type of quality control differs.” ”
*
If you were an experienced engineer, you would have compared the two directories, as I did years ago before my first evaluation.
And you would have seen that ‘historical’ vs. ‘current’ has nothing to do with your supposed ‘pre-1980 data vs. post-1980 data’, but rather means ‘fixed, validated’ as opposed to ‘processed, but not yet validated’ data.
For example, on January 8, 2025, the ‘historical’ data for
00044 20070401 20250802 52.9336 8.2370 Großenkneten
ended on December 31, 2023, while the ‘recent’ data began on October 13, 2022.
*
The reason for your ignorance is obvious: you very probably would never bother to open compressed files.
*
For people like you, it would be best not to publish posts that ultimately only reflect your own lack of technical skills.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Nashville is headed into its 27th straight day in the 90s on Monday, which puts this heat wave in rare territory. The National Weather Service says it is the longest streak since 2022 and among the ten longest 90-degree streaks on record for the city.
https://wpln.org/post/peak-heat-expected-in-nashville-continuing-streak-of-90-degree-days/
I wonder why contrarians don’t worry that climate models could have underunderestimNashville’s last two years.
where are you going with this one Willard? all you have said is it is neither unusual or unprecedented, when did the instrumental records begin in Nashville? If they are less than 200.years old, all you are talking about is the odd warm spell in a warmer climate regime.we have little wind forecast for the UK tomorrow,if it blows some ones hat off it will be all over the media.
The last three days it has been in the low 80’s. Not sure where Willard is getting his info. Maybe it is the same people who produced MODTRAN.
Which part of my last sentence you do not get, Ian, and do you realize scientists know Antarctica was a verdant paradise more often than not?
One very big disadvantage of being a selfish asshat is that your beliefs carry no currency.
Yep starting from July 2, all of the rest of July had highs in the 90s.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/nashville/37243/july-weather/351090
This Summer has not been bad at all. Several years ago, we had maybe a half dozen days above 100. This year I’ve not seen any days above 90.
binny…”In the previous monthly report thread, you copied and pasted the WUWT stuff about Marcott and Mann concerning past reconstructions”
***
In their critique of Mann’s data in the hockey stick, NAS disqualified their claims on two points…
1)Mann et al used only one tree ring sample for the 13th or 14th century. Subsequently, NAS raised their base claim to 1600 from 1000 AD, The IPCC were so embarrassed, they raised it to 1850.
2)NAS disqualified their usage of pine bristlecone upon which they proxied the entire 20th century. Ergo, the blade and lower portions of the stick handle were null and void as was most of the 20th century.
When the pine bristlecone began showing cooling in the 1960’s, MBH solved the problem with chicanery. They simply snipped off the cooling proxy data and replaced it with real surface data.
Don’t know how you can defend an egregious alarmist like Mann.
https://climateaudit.org/2006/06/22/nas-panel-report/
Robertson
You are not even able to properly read comments you ‘reply’ to.
Only people as dumb as you or even dumber (if that is possible) can appreciate your clueless posts.
nate…you posted a link to ESTIMATED ocean temperatures. Here are the real, measured temperatures…
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
Doesn’t look so hot to me without the climate analyzers bright reds and oranges to fool people into thinking the oceans are boiling hot.
Robertson
” Here are the real, measured temperatures… ”
*
Here too you behave, as always, as the ignoramus de service, as always unable to accurately understand the meaning of ‘estimate’, let alone to inform yourself about what is ‘real’ and ‘measured’.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/?dm_id=world2#info
Atmospheric temperature measurements through evaluation of O2 emissions in the 60 GHz range are based on swaths mostly much broader than the 0.25 x 0.25 degree, and are subject to uncertainty much greater than that for ground-based measurements:
” Satellite-based oxygen (O2) sensing in the lower troposphere is subject to significant uncertainties, primarily due to factors like cloud cover, aerosol scattering, and the inherent challenges of measuring a relatively uniform and abundant atmospheric component. While satellites excel at measuring total column O2, retrieving O2 concentrations specifically within the lower troposphere (the atmospheric layer closest to the Earth’s surface) is more difficult. ”
*
For you and the people follwing your nonsensical posts, anything coming from UAH is by definition ‘correct’.
Gordo! I think Alberta wants to be 51st state.
BACK AT THE RANCH
CMN: An auto parts maker in Detroit just had to layoff 100 workers and shut down a warehouse. The owner specifically blamed tariffs.
STEPHEN MIRAN: It’s always convenient to blame political changes when your business fails
Winning!!!
Friday, Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because he didn’t like the numbers.
Sunday, he said “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1200, 1300, 1400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%. I mean 1400, 1,500%.”
Wait ’till he finds out that any “cut” over 100% would be a refund!
The thing about the economy that every dictator learns sooner rather than later is that you just can’t hide bad news forever.
But the wildest part about Trump’s innumeracy is he’s covering up the fact that his name is all over the Epstein files, and he’s about to pardon a convicted child sex trafficker to keep his coverup going.
No, he fired her because he believes she’s incompetent. Those are certainly grounds for dismissal.
Kamala was your choice….LOL.
” No, he fired her because he believes she’s incompetent. ”
Typical, utterly stupid lie of a stubborn MAGAmaniac.
*
The Trump~ing boy:
” In a message on his social network, Truth Social, on Monday, August 4, the President of the United States wrote: “I will choose an exceptional replacement,” after repeating that the data had been, in his opinion, “FAKED” for political purposes to “minimize the success” of his early term. ”
*
The whole world knows that the Trump-ing boy fired Erika McEntarfer just because she dared to release data he didn’t like, but Anderson (you know, the guy who calls me a “Nazi” or “fascist”) will endlessly protect his religiously beloved golden calf.
*
The Trump~ing boy again:
” The president accused Erika McEntarfer of rigging employment figures, without providing any evidence of any data manipulation. Since early 2024, she has headed the Department of Labor’s Statistics Service, which publishes the benchmark figures on employment, productivity, and price indices (CPI) in the United States. ”
*
BBC:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg3xrrzdr0o
Trump fires lead official on economic data as tariffs cause market drop
US President Donald Trump has fired the boss of one of America’s most important economic institutions hours after weaker-than-expected jobs data stoked further alarm about his tariff policy.
On social media Trump claimed that Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), had “RIGGED” jobs figures “to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad”.
*
The US currently experience with the Trump~ing boy the worst president ever, even far worse than Double U or Nixon.
New jobs, as reported by BLS:
Month—–Estimate—–Revision
May—–144,000—–19,000
June—–147,000—–14,000
Incompetence or malfeasance, or both?
The point is — if they can’t do any better than that, we don’t need them.
Drain the swamp!
Of course, the cult kids LOVE incompetence and malfeasance, just look at their fervent support for the CO2 nonsense.
Blinny,
Nazi boy who doesn’t like being called a Nazi but continuously sounds like a Nazi. He can fire her because of the way she looks. That’s his prerogative. But he does believe she’s incompetent and that’s also his prerogative. Typical of a Nazi socialist wanting to keep his Deep State buddies in positions of influence. Why would a German Nazi even care? Because leftists are all one big happy dumb family.
The cult kids hate free-market capitalism. They are the masterminds. They should control the economy, and the atmosphere, and anything else that advances their utopian agenda. Blinny, where is your leftist utopia? Where has it ever been? The Third Reich? Marxist Russia? Cuba? Venezuela? Where?
If Clint R wasn’t a poor ball-on-a-string ignoramus and Anderson a dirty, malfeasant asshole permanently insulting me as a NAZI, they would have a different look at what a liar his idol, the Trump~ing boy, in reality is.
To understand what REALLY happens, they should stop KISS-ing, and consider sources showing a different view on non-farm payrolls, e.g.
https://think.ing.com/uploads/charts/_w800/Julypayrolls.png
Here we clearly can see it: the private sector losses in October and even July 2024 were higher than in both May and June 2025.
*
In the ING report, we read:
” September cut looks increasingly likely even with rising inflation
The mediocre headline figure for July is one thing, but the huge revisions suggest that the jobs market has lost momentum earlier than thought and the pressure from the President for Fed action is only going to intensify after this.
The statements from the two Fed Governors who voted for rate cuts this week – Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman – commented that they felt the Fed was being “overly cautious” with the risk that policy is “falling behind the curve”.
This sentiment is likely going to be felt more broadly within the Fed after today’s numbers, especially with tariffs set to eat into household spending power and corporate profits, thus creating a major headwind for growth. ”
https://think.ing.com/articles/weak-jobs-report-reignites-prospect-of-imminent-us-rate-cuts/
*
It’s astonishing how uneducated the Trump~ing boy, his staff, and his MAGA-obsessed populace are when it comes to economics. They all fail to grasp that the main consequence of rising US tariffs isn’t that America is getting bigger again.
It’s that costs for businesses and consumers in the US are rising, resulting in ever more job losses.
*
But wait: It won’t be long before the cowardly Trump~ing boy once again blames Biden for everything he himself is to blame for.
No Blinny, Trump understands our best hope for continued US prosperity is to bring jobs back to the US. After WWII we were the world leader in manufacturing. And yes, Japanese auto manufacturing forced US manufacturers to do better. They were trained by an American. But US policy after that was to allow foreign countries to export their cheap labor into the US and not allow US goods into their countries. Walmart switched from buy American to kill American jobs. That was crony capitalism, not free-market capitalism. Trump knows we need a fair playing field. Japanese won’t import US rice or beef cattle. The Brits won’t import US cars. Canada has restrictions on US imports. Europe extorts and fines large American companies like Apple and Google. China steals our intellectual property and sends students to spy. Enough is enough.
” The cult kids hate free-market capitalism. ”
*
No. The so-called ‘cult kids’ (1) do not ‘hate’ anything, and (2) understand very well the concept.
Rather do the MAGA-obsessed idiots not understand at all that the Trump~ing boy’s tariff idiocy is the exact opposite of free market capitalism, especially when tariffs on Brazilian products, for example, have nothing to do with economics, but only with the political will to help Jair Bolsonaro, the man who, like him, tried to overturn the democratic elections in his country and stage a coup.
*
What the Trump~ing boy is doing is slowly establishing a dictatorship, which he himself hinted at so unequivocally at a rally during his 2024 campaign:
“If I win this election, you won’t have to vote anymore.”
*
Due to his increasingly dictatorial behavior – something the overwhelming majority of US citizens absolutely abhor – the Republicans will never be able to win the midterm elections.
And for this exact reason, these will very probably not take place – unless he and all these Republicans hopelessly loyal to him are all stopped decisively.
*
The cult clearly is on the other side.
” No Blinny, Trump understands our best hope for continued US prosperity is to bring jobs back to the US. ”
*
This has now become the blatant hallmark of absolute ignorance.
You’re not only evil and filthy enough to constantly insult others in the worst possible way; you’re also stupid and ignorant enough to believe your MAGA idol’s megalomaniac and egomaniacal ‘politics’ could ever lead to jobs returning to the US.
Due to the current tariff hurdles, some somewhat spooked megacorporations will have a short-term economic interest in temporarily relocating some locations to the US.
However, the result will, at best, be the relocation of robots, not human jobs – except for the bloated bureaucracy of these branches.
*
How can you be so childishly stupid, Anderson?
I’m ending this conversation now: Your insulting behavior and the stupidity of your 6.9-liter pickup driver mentality are simply too much.
MAGA made Trump, not the other way around. He’s doing what we want.
Bindi, your TDS is showing, again.
TDS is a manifestation of their mental disturbance.
Trump didn’t bother to investigate what led to the large revision. He just said ‘Ur fired’ to the messenger.
That seems to be what his supporters like in a TV personality.
What they fail to realize is that he is a showman. He boasts that everything is the greatest ever.
So it can’t possibly be true that employment is down under his leadership!
Thus he needs to put the blame on someone. Or as so often, just claim that it is fraud.
This is just the way he behaves. And if anyone here hasn’t learned that about him yet, then they are very slow learners.
Employers added 104,000 jobs in July.
Ask our Ivy Leaguer about NFP.
“Trump understands our best hope for continued US prosperity is to bring jobs back to the US”
Highest tariffs since Great Depression.
He wants to make Depressions Great Again!
Nate says:
”Trump understands our best hope for continued US prosperity is to bring jobs back to the US”
Highest tariffs since Great Depression.
He wants to make Depressions Great Again!
————–
Trump did his homework. (A benefit of graduating from Wharton)
The Smoot Hartley tariff act in 1930 was enacted to protect government revenues after the stock market crash. The US had a trade surplus at that time. The guy with the surplus is the guy that loses the trade war.
So Trump latched on to a slightly modified version of the The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 which authorized the U.S. President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with other countries, allowing for tariff reductions of up to 50% in exchange for reciprocal tariff reductions from those countries. This Act aimed to lower trade barriers and stimulate international trade during the Great Depression.
Here the only difference is Trump started with a huge negative trade balance brought on my economic dogma regarding tariffs being bad to an extent that the US had ceased retaliating against trade abuses by other nations vs the US.
One way trade restrictions against the US products resulted in a huge negative trade imbalance for the US due to a “lack” of retaliatory tariffs.
Trump did his homework on this and completed the theory of tariffs and established retaliatory tariffs while simultaneously inviting nations with trade surpluses with the US to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with the US and agree on a tariff structure that would balance trade.
So you can criticize FDR if you wish but 1934 is when the great depression turned around and trade relations became healthy again.
What both parties are really guilty of is decades of feeding huge profits into international corporations who used favorable foreign tax shelters to shelter income taxes and near zero US import tariffs to become very rich at the expense of the American worker.
And who in the US doesn’t like it? Mostly it’s those who now have to choose between favorable offshore income tax shelters while paying tariffs or building factories in the US.
And no doubt you can add a few who want to thrive by thinking inside the box.
So Nate you are certainly welcome to predict a great depression arising from policies that helped bring us out of the depression if you wish, but I wouldn’t advise it.
“This Act aimed to lower trade barriers and stimulate international trade during the Great Depression.”
yep, the opposite of what Trump has done, which is to raise trade barriers.
To lower trade barriers he cannot also raise gov revenue, which is a principle goal.
Of course Nate missed the part about why nation’s retaliate and what the determinant for success is with that retaliation. So he has married a half baked theory.
Its not that our nation’s leaders were dumb in dogmatically following a policy of free trade even in the presence of trade barriers put up by other nations. There are a multitude of reasons to curry favor overseas. Perhaps Nate can tell us what his reason is.
Willard says,one very big disadvantage being a selfish aashat is that your beliefs carry no currency,the truth will set you free,just as i said the BBC rolled out their climate editor on the 6pm news,no mention of past summer storms,Fastnet and others must have alluded him. Its a clown show.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Donald has asked NASA employees to draw up plans to end at least two major satellite missions, according to current and former NASA staffers. If the plans are carried out, one of the missions would be permanently terminated, because the satellite would burn up in the atmosphere.
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellite-mission-threatened
Win! Win! Win!
Republican Karen Notices Climate Change and Demands to Speak With The Manager.
https://youtu.be/HCIhkXh7HBw
Found this quite interesting
https://tinyurl.com/mrx9su3c
D. M. McLean’s historically important study was published 47 years ago, on August 4, 1978. It offered a concise, qualitative narrative of terminal Mesozoic greenhouse conditions and highlighted the potential analogies to AGW.
The paper proposed that the late Cretaceous “terminal Mesozoic” climate was characterized by high atmospheric CO2, global warmth, and extensive greenhouse conditions; ideas that were forward-looking at the time.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.201.4354.401
Overall, McLean’s work is recognized as a pioneering but now superseded conceptual model that helped stimulate decades of high-resolution paleoclimate research.
Did you find something you believe in, Ark? I bet that find doesn’t explain how CO2 can “heat the planet”, huh? Yea,
“CO2 heating” is all beliefs, not science.
If you understood the science, you could easily find something wrong with this:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
But, you’d have to know something about radiative physics and thermodynamics….
BACK AT THE RANCH
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy will announce expedited plans this week to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, the first major action by the former Fox News host as the interim NASA administrator.
WINNNNN
Test:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2025-0-48-deg-c/#comment-1709174
Oh, I can finally post links again:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/03/hey-epa-why-not-regulate-water-vapor-emissions-while-you-are-at-it/#comment-1700051
And another one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/05/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-april-2025-0-61-deg-c/#comment-1703830
Sorry Chartmaster,
You must always set your reference frame first.
And use the same reference frame for the Moon on the right and the Moon on the left.
The reference frame choice is out of our hands, unfortunately. It is decided by whether “orbit without spin” is as per the MOTL, or the MOTR. Since it’s as per the MOTL, a rotating reference frame must be used to quantify the “spin” rate of orbiting bodies.
Water vapor has been on increasing trend of about 1.5 % per decade since before 1988. This is more than twice as fast as possible from just planet warming.
Basic physics suggests you are mistaken.
Relative humidity tends to stay the same, while absolute humidity, the maximum water content, increases by 7% per degree C.
Temperatures have been increasing by 0.2C/decade. You would therefore expect water content to increase by 0.2*7=1.4% per decade.
This pretty close to the 1.5% you quote. Good agreement between theory and observation and no need for you to go looking for extra mechanisms.
The 1.5 % is from NASA/RSS measurements.
The ‘more than twice’ results from basic physics and UAH temperature measurements.
Your math method for determining WV increase is incorrect. The ‘7 %’ is a rate which should be applied for each months temperature change from the previous month. Numerical integration using monthly increments is required. The correct method is shown in Sect 7 at the link.
Dan, your method produces strange results that are history dependent.
The vapor pressure is purely a function of temperature, not T history.
Therefore, we should simply multiply the T trend by the 0.067 * Pave to find the P trend .
When we do so with HadCrut, we get a good match to the observed P trend, ~ 0.41 Kg/m^2/decade
testing
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Warmest July on record for the People’s Republic Of China. In fact, their warmest month on record overall.
Basic physics suggests you are mistaken.
Relative humidity tends to stay the same, while absolute humidity, the maximum water content, increases by 7% per degree C.
Temperatures have been increasing by 0.2C/decade. You would therefore expect water content to increase by 0.2*7=1.4% per decade.
This pretty close to the 1.5% you quote. Good agreement between theory and observation and no need for you to go looking for extra mechanisms.
News from the Turd Reich.
On Tuesday, August 5, 2025, the President of the United States unexpectedly appeared on the White House roof. He wandered aimlessly, engaged in a disjointed exchange with reporters, made cryptic remarks regarding nuclear weapons, gestured erratically, and then departed without offering any explanation.
https://youtu.be/_YIEfAm9JA0
These aren’t ordinary times!
Ark has now regressed to anal fixation. That’s where cultism and TDS takes a person.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Reducing our dependence on whales as an energy source will send us sliding down the slippery, spermaceti-lubricated slope to socialism. If we give up whaling, what will those lackwits come for next? Will I have to surrender my peg leg for a titanium prosthetic?
https://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/im-captain-ahab-and-i-say-we-must-never-transition-away-from-a-whale-based-energy-industry
Now that the positive feedback/tipping point hypothesis can be rejected, one wonders what they will come up with next be to keep the AGW agenda running.
The left will never stop. They are the legion of the miserable.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The high temperature at one of Finland’s northernmost weather stations, in the municipality of Sodankylä (Lapland region) within the Arctic Circle at latitude 67.3°N, reached at least 25°C for 26 days in a row.
Records date back to 1908.
https://bsky.app/profile/wxnb.bsky.social
Nothing unusual in subarctic Lapland. Temperature over 30°C would be unusual. Long lasting heat waves in the summer and cold waves in the winter come from nearby Russia.
Beating record over record has indeed become the new normal.
People like the poster ‘Max C’ I like to name ‘pseudoskeptic’.
Under that category I understand those who tend to downplay anything that doesn’t match their narrative.
*
I don’t have access to daily Finnish data, and my preferred GHCN daily dataset has no data for Sodankylä Tähtelä.
However, it is easy to find a Finnish web site publishing data for July/August 2025:
https://www.foreca.fi/meteorologilta/e5zt4hj1
*
” The record-breaking streak of temperatures above 30 degrees Celsius that began on July 12th is coming to an end. 30 degrees Celsius has been exceeded for 22 consecutive days, which is the longest period of sweltering heat in our digitized measurement history. ”
*
The site luckily says that this extreme period now comes to an end. However, it says also:
” And that's not all. The current heat wave has broken several records, especially in the northern part of the country. At the Meltosjärvi observation station in Ylitornio, a heat wave (over 25 degrees Celsius) has lasted continuously since July 11.
In addition, the first day of August was in some places the hottest August day in Lapland's measurement history, as some local August temperature records were broken. ”
*
Maybe Max C tries to inform himself before posting such boastful blah blah.
Here is a list of temperatures for the GHCN daily Finland station
FI000007501 67.3678 26.6328 179.0 SODANKYLA AWS
*
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 11 26.0 (C)
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 12 27.8
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 13 30.6
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 14 27.8
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 15 26.5
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 16 25.4
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 17 25.2
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 18 30.5
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 19 25.1
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 20 29.4
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 21 29.6
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 22 31.7
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 23 26.5
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 24 27.2
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 25 29.1
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 26 27.5
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 27 25.4
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 29 27.2
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 30 28.0
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 7 31 30.8
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 8 1 30.0
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 8 2 28.5
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 8 3 26.9
FI000007501 SODANKYLA_AWS 2025 8 4 26.0
*
Nowhere in this station’s daily record since 1908 do you see such a list.
*
Of course: 6,000 years ago or so it was a little bit warmer :–)
MaxC will be happy you proved him right, Bindi. As he stated: “Temperature over 30°C would be unusual.”
Now, you can address some REAL science:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/notice-of-availability-a-critical-review-of-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/#comment-1710285
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Federal prosecutors on Wednesday moved to dismiss criminal charges against a woman accused of fraud in Florida who was being represented in court by Brad Bondi, the brother of Attorney General Pam Bondi.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/woman-accused-fraud-hired-ags-brother-lawyer-months/story?id=124429973
Coincidence?
‘Specialist’ Max C wrote above:
” Nothing unusual in subarctic Lapland. ”
But apparently, Clint R’s vicious penchant for denial is increasing exponentially.
I thus repeat the info coming from the Finnish web site:
” The record-breaking streak of temperatures above 30 degrees Celsius that began on July 12th is coming to an end. 30 degrees Celsius has been exceeded for 22 consecutive days, which is the longest period of sweltering heat in our digitized measurement history. ”
Even the one station SODANKYLA AWS’ data, reported by the Finnish Met Office to NOAA for GHCN daily input purposes, contains 5 days over 30 C.
Clint R lies, lies and… lies.
Binbi, you Leftists hate reality, so when someone brings truth, in your head they are lying. So keep proving me right.
And speaking of avoiding reality, you again avoided addressing this:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/notice-of-availability-a-critical-review-of-impacts-of-greenhouse-gas-emissions-on-the-u-s-climate/#comment-1710285
Keep proving me right. I can take it.
https://www.foreca.fi/meteorologilta/e5zt4hj1
These temperatures are for the whole Finland. If one day temperature is over 30°C in New York and next day over 30°C in Los Angeles, in Finland they would call it “heat pipe”.
I thought we were talking about 26 days in a row above 25C, Max.
How many series like these have you found since 1908?
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/08/08/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-jul-2025/
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/08/08/uah-mean-and-median-topics-for-jul-2025/
Like every month, Blindsley H00d aka RLH publishes a chart
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/08/08/uah-mean-and-median-global-for-jul-2025/
– showing a wrong UAH Global 12 month Median low pass when compared to
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=1551212378#gid=1551212378
and
– lacking a UAH Global 5 year Median low pass when compared to
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=447018934#gid=447018934
but he will certainly continue to falsely claim that it is not his medians but mine that are wrong, even though the latter are calculated using Excel, software that has been validated for at least 40 years and is used by millions of people worldwide.
The same holds for his Tropics chart of course :–)
So critique the C# source code (which I have published and have failed to do – continuously).
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/08/08/uah-mean-and-median-topics-for-jul-2025/ hides the source code. Why?
No, Blindsley H00d: for the umpteenth time I repeat that I won’t waste my time with a critique of your source code which – as I wrote recently – belongs to the worst program sources I’ve ever seen.
*
If you were a REAL software engineer, you would have asked yourself for years why your results differ by so much from an Excel-based solution.
And you would have yourself decided to start what in software engineering is named ‘cross validation’, i.e. implementing an alternative solution based on a way different to your current one.
Instead, you stubbornly stay on your stance.
*
Moreover, the fact that you still are unable to finally provide the blog with a chart showing zhe UAH Global 5 year Median low pass is utterly suspect, to say the least.
As I wrote earlier, it becomes more and more clear that you are not the author of this dumb piece of code, and are able to no more than adding each month new UAH values.
*
For the last time: Prove me wrong by adding this 5 year Median low pass to your C# code and showing us the result, Blindsey H00d.
“your results differ by so much from an Excel-based solution.”
Which you wont reveal.
“you are not the author of this dumb piece of code”
I am. And it is not dumb. I just replaced the call to mean with a call to routine that does median.
“you are not the author of this dumb piece of code”
I just replaced a call to mean with a call to a routine that does median.
” … Which you wont reveal. ”
Now that’s too much.
Are you that dumb that you don’t see THIS is the Excel solution?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=1551212378#gid=1551212378
“If you were a REAL software engineer”
So my employment by Motorola was a fraud? You should tell them.
Fraud? Why? Since when is it fraud to employ incompetent people?
At best, it was a serious mistake my employer would never have made.
No one at our company would have passed the three-month probationary period when coding software as bad as what you published on this blog: s/he would have been fired after just two weeks.
I remember a colleague who had to code firmware in assembly because no cross-compiler was available: he did it with far more care than you did with your dirty C# garbage.
*
But… why are you trying to distract and evade again, Blindsley H00d?
For the last time: when will you finally show us your UAH Global 5 year Median low pass, allowing us all to compare it with my Excel-based result which I uploaded into a Google Docs spreadsheet file?
Source sheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=1700426125#gid=1700426125
Graph sheet
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=447018934#gid=447018934
*
Stop dodging, Blindsley H00d, and start working!
“At best, it was a serious mistake my employer would never have made.”
Motorola checked and verified my credentials (which in included my software credentials) just as yours would have done.
“Which you wont reveal.”
I have sent you a request to alter/view the file. Let’s see if you acknowledge that?
No idea what access problem you have, unless you use TOR.
The file is accessible by anybody on Firefox.
I have already explained to you in the past that sending requests to Google Drive must be avoided.
These people don’t care about privacy.
I obtain your address upon the request (I’ll keep it secret of course) and you would obtain mine with my confirmation – what I absolutely don’t want.
” Motorola checked and verified my credentials… ”
I highly doubt they would have done that if you had presented them your dirty, unreliable piece of C# you posted here, along with your other ‘credentials’.
And moreover, Blindsley H00d: why do you suddenly claim not to have access to data your had no problem to access last month
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2025-0-48-deg-c/#comment-1708994
and dared to write on July 22, 2025 at 8:52 AM
” Why does your 60 month cascade have high frequency components in it? ”
though you YOURSELF never showed us your own version of a 60 month median cascade for UAH LT’s Globe?
“I remember a colleague who had to code firmware in assembly because no cross-compiler was available”
I remember being asked by CQHQ whether my assemblers were authenticated!
“The file is accessible by anybody on Firefox.”
I don’t use Firefox (and you didn’t say that was a requirement).
“unreliable piece of C#”
Tell that to Microsoft!
Hre is what you brazenly criticized a month ago – without having ever madde the very same job, but now suddenly claim not to access:
https://i.postimg.cc/CxmwkT0L/Screenshot-20250809-211115.png
” Tell that to Microsoft! ”
Since when is a company like Microsoft responsible for the unreliable crap people like you code when using one of the good programming languages it offers?
Again and again and again I ask Blindsley H00k aka RLH for a chart showing us his UAH Global 5 year Median low pass.
Still no chart…
The Mean in that one is larger than the Median though the data says otherwise (see the center).
See https://i.postimg.cc/CxmwkT0L/Screenshot-20250809-211115.png and 1998.
Again and again and again I ask Blindsley H00k aka RLH for a chart showing us his UAH Global 5 year Median low pass.
Still no chart…
” The Mean in that one is larger than the Median though the data says otherwise (see the center). ”
*
Does that mean that trough being yourself absolutely unable to present your own cascaded 60 month median chart, you dare to doubt the correctness of Google Docs’ graphic presentation of their spreadsheets?
You, the poor Perch Ltd failure, do really doubt that?
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1710553
“you dare to doubt the correctness of Google Docs’ graphic presentation”
Your presentation, not Googles.
” Your presentation, not Googles. ”
Oh that’s now a bit too much, isnt’ it?
Not only are you, since your first graph containing a UAH Global 5 year Mean low pass, still unable to enhance it with a UAH Global 5 year Median low pass as I request since then: you also start brazenly lying.
*
No, Blindsley H00d liar: this is not my presentation but very well that automatically generated by Google Docs, just like this below was generated by the Libre Office Calc spreadsheet calculator installed on my Linux system:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NuDlpNz2ujFwbQ7Jf-7wRBVSklyb3Mgm/view
*
You are not only a technically and professionally incompetent person: you are not even capable of behaving decently and therefore resort to the stupidest lies, like little children caught by their mother licking jam.
“You are not only a technically and professionally incompetent person”
Tell that to Motorola and GCHQ.
Again and again and again I ask Blindsley H00d aka RLH for a chart showing us his UAH Global 5 year Median low pass.
*
He is unable to incorporate it into ‘his’ software and therefore resorts endlessly to diversionary and evasive maneuvers.
You are the person that claimed that Motorola and GCHQ were defective.
” You are the person that claimed that Motorola and GCHQ were defective. ”
You are a liar, Blindsley H00d. I never claimed that.
On the contrary, I claimed that if you were really tha author of this dirty C# garbage you posted here a while ago, then you are INDEED a technically and professionally incompetent person.
What Motorola and GCHQ thought about you in the past is of no interest here.
*
And as expected: false claims instead of this UAH Global 5 year Median low pass you still are unable to show.
“What Motorola and GCHQ thought about you in the past is of no interest here.”
Wrong.
“I claimed that if you were really th{e} author of this dirty C# garbage you posted here a while ago, then you are INDEED a technically and professionally incompetent person.”
I am indeed the author.
Do it for yourself
using System.Drawing;
using System.Drawing.Drawing2D;
using System.Drawing.Imaging;
using System.Globalization;
using System.Net;
using MathNet.Numerics.LinearAlgebra;
using MathNet.Numerics.Statistics;
using Microsoft.VisualBasic.FileIO;
namespace UAH_5_year_to_climate
{
public class UAHdata
{
//Year Mo Globe Land Ocean NH Land Ocean SH Land Ocean Trpcs Land Ocean NoExt Land Ocean SoExt Land Ocean NoPol Land Ocean SoPol Land Ocean USA48 USA49 AUST
public int Year { get; set; }
public int Month { get; set; }
public float Globe { get; set; }
public float GLand { get; set; }
public float GOcean { get; set; }
public float NH { get; set; }
public float NHLand { get; set; }
public float NHOcean { get; set; }
public float SH { get; set; }
public float SHLand { get; set; }
public float SHOcean { get; set; }
public float Trpcs { get; set; }
public float TrpcsLand { get; set; }
public float TrpcsOcean { get; set; }
public float NoExt { get; set; }
public float NoExtLand { get; set; }
public float NoExtOcean { get; set; }
public float SoExt { get; set; }
public float SoExtLand { get; set; }
public float SoExtOcean { get; set; }
public float NoPol { get; set; }
public float NoPolLand { get; set; }
public float NoPolOcean { get; set; }
public float SoPol { get; set; }
public float SoPolLand { get; set; }
public float SoPolOcean { get; set; }
public float USA48 { get; set; }
public float USA49 { get; set; }
public float AUST { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static string uriString = "http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt";
static string dataDirectory = @"C:\Users\richa\source\repos\UAH 5 year to climate\csv\";
static string dataFile = dataDirectory + "uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt";
static string imageDirectory = @"C:\Users\richa\source\repos\UAH 5 year to climate\Images\";
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Getting UAH data from " + uriString);
List months = new List();
WebClient webClient = new WebClient();
webClient.DownloadFile(uriString, dataFile);
using (TextFieldParser parser = FileSystem.OpenTextFieldParser(dataFile))
{
// Set the field widths.
parser.TextFieldType = FieldType.FixedWidth;
parser.FieldWidths = new int[] { 5, 3, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6 };
//one line header
parser.ReadLine();
while (!parser.EndOfData)
{
string[] fields = parser.ReadFields();
if (fields[0].ToString() == "Year")
break;
UAHdata uah = new UAHdata();
uah.Year = Int32.Parse(fields[0]);
uah.Month = Int32.Parse(fields[1]);
uah.Globe = float.Parse(fields[2]);
uah.GLand = float.Parse(fields[3]);
uah.GOcean = float.Parse(fields[4]);
uah.NH = float.Parse(fields[5]);
uah.NHLand = float.Parse(fields[6]);
uah.NHOcean = float.Parse(fields[7]);
uah.SH = float.Parse(fields[8]);
uah.SHLand = float.Parse(fields[9]);
uah.SHOcean = float.Parse(fields[10]);
uah.Trpcs = float.Parse(fields[11]);
uah.TrpcsLand = float.Parse(fields[12]);
uah.TrpcsOcean = float.Parse(fields[13]);
uah.NoExt = float.Parse(fields[14]);
uah.NoExtLand = float.Parse(fields[15]);
uah.NoExtOcean = float.Parse(fields[16]);
uah.SoExt = float.Parse(fields[17]);
uah.SoExtLand = float.Parse(fields[18]);
uah.SoExtOcean = float.Parse(fields[19]);
uah.NoPol = float.Parse(fields[20]);
uah.NoPolLand = float.Parse(fields[21]);
uah.NoPolOcean = float.Parse(fields[22]);
uah.SoPol = float.Parse(fields[23]);
uah.SoPolLand = float.Parse(fields[24]);
uah.SoPolOcean = float.Parse(fields[25]);
uah.USA48 = float.Parse(fields[26]);
uah.USA49 = float.Parse(fields[27]);
uah.AUST = float.Parse(fields[28]);
months.Add(uah);
}
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH Global.jpeg", "Global", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH NH.jpeg", "NH", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH SH.jpeg", "SH", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH Tropics.jpeg", "Trpcs", months);
//DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH Tropics.jpeg", "Trpcs (20N-20S)", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH NoExt.jpeg", "NoExt", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH SoExt.jpeg", "SoExt", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH NoPol.jpeg", "NoPol", months);
DrawJpegImageFromUAH("UAH SoPol.jpeg", "SoPol", months);
}
}
const int imageWidth = 1200;
const int imageHeight = 600;
private static void DrawJpegImageFromUAH(string imageFile, string selection, List l)
{
float[] temperatures = new float[l.Count];
switch (selection)
{
case "Global":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].Globe;
break;
case "NH":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].NH;
break;
case "SH":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].SH;
break;
case "Trpcs":
//case "Trpcs (20N-20S)":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].Trpcs;
break;
case "NoExt":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].NoExt;
break;
case "SoExt":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].SoExt;
break;
case "NoPol":
for (int x = 0; x < l.Count; x++)
temperatures[x] = l[x].NoPol;
break;
case "SoPol":
for (int x = 0; x 5.0f)
vscaleStep = 0.5f;
if (max - min > 3.0f)
vscaleStep = 0.2f;
float gmin = 0.0f;
float gmax = 0.0f;
while (gmax min)
gmin -= vscaleStep;
gmin -= vscaleStep;
float vscaleMax = gmax - vscaleStep;
float vscaleMin = gmin + vscaleStep;
int hscaleStep = 1;
int hscaleMin = first + hscaleStep;
int hscaleMax = last - hscaleStep;
Console.WriteLine("Graph horz {0} to {1}", first, last);
Console.WriteLine("Graph vert {0} to {1}\n", gmin, gmax);
Console.WriteLine("Graph vert scale {0} to {1}", vscaleMin, vscaleMax);
Console.WriteLine("Graph vert scale step {0}", vscaleStep);
Console.WriteLine("Graph horz scale {0} to {1}", hscaleMin, hscaleMax);
Console.WriteLine("Graph horz scale step {0}", hscaleStep);
// Create bitmap
using (Bitmap newImage = new Bitmap(imageWidth, imageHeight))
{
using (Graphics graphic = Graphics.FromImage(newImage))
{
graphic.Clear(Color.White);
int vgraphTop = 20;
int vgraphBottom = imageHeight - 60;
int hgraphLeft = 70;
int hgraphRight = imageWidth - 20;
// Create pens.
Pen wideDarkGrayPen = new Pen(Color.DarkGray, 3);
Pen narrowDarkGrayPen = new Pen(Color.DarkGray, 1);
Pen lightbluePen = new Pen(Color.FromArgb(95, 125, 175), 1);
Pen brightGreenPen = new Pen(Color.FromArgb(0, 255, 0), 3);
Pen bluePen = new Pen(Color.Blue, 3);
Pen dashedBluePen = new Pen(Color.Red, 3);
Pen thinGreenPen = new Pen(Color.FromArgb(0, 255, 0), 1);
Pen thinBluePen = new Pen(Color.Blue, 1);
Pen blackPen = new Pen(Color.Black, 3);
Pen redPen = new Pen(Color.Red, 3);
Pen thinRedPen = new Pen(Color.Red, 1);
SolidBrush whiteBrush = new SolidBrush(Color.White);
wideDarkGrayPen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
brightGreenPen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
bluePen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
dashedBluePen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
thinGreenPen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
blackPen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
redPen.Alignment = PenAlignment.Center;
dashedBluePen.DashStyle = DashStyle.Dash;
Font textFont = new Font("Arial", 12, FontStyle.Bold);
Font smallTextFont = new Font("Arial", 10, FontStyle.Bold);
int vgraphRange = vgraphBottom - vgraphTop;
float vscaleRange = gmax - gmin;
float vscaleRatio = vscaleRange / vgraphRange;
for (float t = vscaleMin; t < vscaleMax + 0.1f; t += vscaleStep)
{
int v = (int)(vgraphBottom - (t - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
if (t -0.05f)
{
graphic.DrawLine(wideDarkGrayPen, new Point(hgraphLeft - 5, v), new Point(hgraphRight, v));
graphic.DrawString(string.Format("{0,2:0}", 0),
textFont,
Brushes.Black,
new Point(45, v - 8));
}
else
{
graphic.DrawLine(narrowDarkGrayPen, new Point(hgraphLeft - 5, (int)(vgraphBottom - (t - gmin) / vscaleRatio)), new Point(hgraphRight, (int)(vgraphBottom - (t - gmin) / vscaleRatio)));
graphic.DrawString(string.Format("{0: #0.0;-#0.0}", t),
textFont,
Brushes.Black,
new Point(30, v - 8));
}
}
graphic.DrawLine(narrowDarkGrayPen, new Point(hgraphLeft, vgraphTop), new Point(hgraphRight, vgraphTop));
graphic.DrawLine(narrowDarkGrayPen, new Point(hgraphLeft, vgraphBottom), new Point(hgraphRight, vgraphBottom));
graphic.DrawLine(narrowDarkGrayPen, new Point(hgraphLeft, vgraphTop), new Point(hgraphLeft, vgraphBottom));
graphic.DrawLine(narrowDarkGrayPen, new Point(hgraphRight, vgraphTop), new Point(hgraphRight, vgraphBottom));
int hgraphRange = hgraphRight - hgraphLeft;
int hscaleRange = last - first;
float hscaleRatio = (float)hscaleRange / (float)hgraphRange;
StringFormat format = new StringFormat();
format.Alignment = StringAlignment.Center;
SizeF txt = new SizeF();
SizeF sz = graphic.VisibleClipBounds.Size;
string text = "";
for (int y = hscaleMin; y <= hscaleMax; y += hscaleStep)
{
text = string.Format("{0:0000}", y);
txt = graphic.MeasureString(text, smallTextFont);
int h = hgraphLeft + (int)((y - first) / hscaleRatio);
graphic.TranslateTransform(0, sz.Height);
graphic.RotateTransform(270);
graphic.DrawString(text, smallTextFont, Brushes.Black, new RectangleF(-(vgraphBottom / 2 - 6), h - 6, sz.Height, sz.Width), format);
graphic.ResetTransform();
graphic.DrawLine(narrowDarkGrayPen, new Point(h, vgraphTop), new Point(h, vgraphBottom + 5));
}
GregorianCalendar gc = new GregorianCalendar();
for (int i = 0; i < l.Count; i++)
{
var item = l[i];
int v = (int)(vgraphBottom - (temperatures[i] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
DateTime date = new DateTime(item.Year, item.Month, 1);
date = date.AddMonths(1);
date = date.AddDays(-1);
int h = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(date.Year - first) + (float)(date.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(date.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
if (i == l.Count - 1)
graphic.DrawEllipse(redPen, h - 1, v - 1, 3, 3);
else
graphic.DrawRectangle(lightbluePen, h - 1, v - 1, 3, 3);
}
// reference period
int vv = (int)(vgraphBottom - (0 - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int firstref = hgraphLeft + (int)((float)(1990 - first) / hscaleRatio);
int lastref = hgraphLeft + (int)((float)(2020 - first) / hscaleRatio);
graphic.DrawLine(blackPen, new Point(firstref, vv), new Point(lastref, vv));
graphic.DrawLine(blackPen, new Point(firstref, vv - 5), new Point(firstref, vv + 5));
graphic.DrawLine(blackPen, new Point(lastref, vv - 5), new Point(lastref, vv + 5));
format = new StringFormat();
format.Alignment = StringAlignment.Center;
text = "Anomaly Degrees C";
txt = graphic.MeasureString(text, textFont);
sz = graphic.VisibleClipBounds.Size;
graphic.TranslateTransform(0, sz.Height);
graphic.RotateTransform(270);
graphic.DrawString(text, textFont, Brushes.Black, new RectangleF(10, 5, sz.Height, sz.Width), format);
graphic.ResetTransform();
DateTime dt = new DateTime(l[^1].Year, l[^1].Month, 1);
dt = dt.AddMonths(1);
dt = dt.AddDays(-1);
graphic.DrawString("Latest data: " + dt.Date.ToString("MMM") + " " + dt.Date.Year,
smallTextFont,
Brushes.Black,
new Point(hgraphLeft, vgraphTop - 18));
graphic.DrawString("Data Source: " + uriString,
smallTextFont,
Brushes.Black,
new Point(hgraphLeft, imageHeight - 20));
graphic.DrawString("RLH",
smallTextFont,
Brushes.Black,
new Point(imageWidth - 40, imageHeight - 20));
float[] firstPass60 = RunningMean(temperatures, 60);
float[] secondPass60 = RunningMean(firstPass60, 50);
float[] thirdPass60 = RunningMean(secondPass60, 39);
for (int i = 0; i < thirdPass60.Length - 1; i++)
{
UAHdata item1 = l[i + ((60 + 50 + 39) / 2)];
UAHdata item2 = l[i + 1 + ((60 + 50 + 39) / 2)];
DateTime dt1 = new DateTime(item1.Year, item1.Month, 1);
DateTime dt2 = new DateTime(item2.Year, item2.Month, 1);
dt1 = dt1.AddMonths(1);
dt2 = dt2.AddMonths(1);
dt1 = dt1.AddDays(-1);
dt2 = dt2.AddDays(-1);
int v1 = (int)(vgraphBottom - (thirdPass60[i] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int v2 = (int)(vgraphBottom - (thirdPass60[i + 1] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int h1 = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(item1.Year - first) + (float)(dt1.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(dt1.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
int h2 = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(item2.Year - first) + (float)(dt2.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(dt2.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
graphic.DrawLine(bluePen, h1, v1, h2, v2);
}
using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(dataDirectory + $"UAH 5 year {selection} CTRM.csv"))
{
for (int i = 0; i < thirdPass60.Length; i++)
{
DateTime date = new DateTime(l[i + ((60 + 50 + 32) / 2)].Year, l[i + ((60 + 50 + 32) / 2)].Month, 1);
date = date.AddMonths(1);
date = date.AddDays(-1);
sw.Write(date.ToShortDateString());
sw.Write(",");
sw.WriteLine(thirdPass60[i]);
}
}
float[] firstPassMedian60 = RunningMedian(temperatures, 12);
float[] secondPassMedian60 = RunningMedian(firstPassMedian60, 10);
float[] thirdPassMedian60 = RunningMedian(secondPassMedian60, 8);
for (int i = 0; i < thirdPassMedian60.Length - 1; i++)
{
UAHdata item1 = l[i + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)];
UAHdata item2 = l[i + 1 + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)];
DateTime dt1 = new DateTime(item1.Year, item1.Month, 1);
DateTime dt2 = new DateTime(item2.Year, item2.Month, 1);
dt1 = dt1.AddMonths(1);
dt2 = dt2.AddMonths(1);
dt1 = dt1.AddDays(-1);
dt2 = dt2.AddDays(-1);
int v1 = (int)(vgraphBottom - (thirdPassMedian60[i] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int v2 = (int)(vgraphBottom - (thirdPassMedian60[i + 1] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int h1 = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(item1.Year - first) + (float)(dt1.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(dt1.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
int h2 = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(item2.Year - first) + (float)(dt2.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(dt2.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
graphic.DrawLine(redPen, h1, v1, h2, v2);
}
using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(dataDirectory + $"UAH 12 month {selection} Median CTRM.csv"))
{
for (int i = 0; i < thirdPassMedian60.Length; i++)
{
DateTime date = new DateTime(l[i + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)].Year, l[i + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)].Month, 1);
date = date.AddMonths(1);
date = date.AddDays(-1);
sw.Write(date.ToShortDateString());
sw.Write(",");
sw.WriteLine(thirdPassMedian60[i]);
}
}
float[] firstPass12 = RunningMean(temperatures, 12);
float[] secondPass12 = RunningMean(firstPass12, 10);
float[] thirdPass12 = RunningMean(secondPass12, 8);
for (int i = 0; i < thirdPass12.Length - 1; i++)
{
var item1 = l[i + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)];
var item2 = l[i + 1 + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)];
DateTime dt1 = new DateTime(item1.Year, item1.Month, 1);
DateTime dt2 = new DateTime(item2.Year, item2.Month, 1);
dt1 = dt1.AddMonths(1);
dt2 = dt2.AddMonths(1);
dt1 = dt1.AddDays(-1);
dt2 = dt2.AddDays(-1);
int v1 = (int)(vgraphBottom - (thirdPass12[i] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int v2 = (int)(vgraphBottom - (thirdPass12[i + 1] - gmin) / vscaleRatio);
int h1 = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(item1.Year - first) + (float)(dt1.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(dt1.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
int h2 = hgraphLeft + (int)(((float)(item2.Year - first) + (float)(dt2.DayOfYear) / (float)(gc.GetDaysInYear(dt2.Year))) / hscaleRatio);
graphic.DrawLine(brightGreenPen, h1, v1, h2, v2);
}
using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(dataDirectory + $"UAH 12 month {selection} CTRM.csv"))
{
for (int i = 0; i < thirdPass12.Length; i++)
{
DateTime date = new DateTime(l[i + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)].Year, l[i + ((12 + 10 + 8) / 2)].Month, 1);
date = date.AddMonths(1);
date = date.AddDays(-1);
sw.Write(date.ToShortDateString());
sw.Write(",");
sw.WriteLine(thirdPass12[i]);
}
}
double[] noisyLongTermSignal = new double[l.Count];
for (int q = 0; q < l.Count; q++)
{
noisyLongTermSignal[q] = (double)(temperatures[q]);
}
double[] filteredLongTermSignal = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(5 * 12, 2).Process(noisyLongTermSignal);
filteredLongTermSignal = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(5 * 12, 2).Process(filteredLongTermSignal);
filteredLongTermSignal = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(5 * 12, 2).Process(filteredLongTermSignal);
filteredLongTermSignal = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(5 * 12, 2).Process(filteredLongTermSignal);
filteredLongTermSignal = new Filtering.SavitzkyGolayFilter(5 * 12, 2).Process(filteredLongTermSignal);
for (int r = 0; r l.Count - 80)
graphic.DrawLine(thinBluePen, h1, v1, h2, v2);
}
string GrapicText = "UAH " + selection + " 12 month Mean low pass";
string GrapicText2 = "UAH " + selection + " 5 year Mean low pass";
string GrapicText3 = "UAH " + selection + " 5 year S-G Mean projection";
string GrapicText4 = "UAH " + selection + " 12 month Median low pass";
Font GraphicFont = new Font("Arial", 12, FontStyle.Bold);
SolidBrush CaptionBrush = new SolidBrush(Color.Black);
int CaptionWidth = (int)graphic.MeasureString(GrapicText, GraphicFont).Width + 30;
int TextHeight = (int)graphic.MeasureString(GrapicText, GraphicFont).Height;
//int CaptionHeight = TextHeight * 3;
int CaptionHeight = TextHeight * 4;
int CaptionLeft = hgraphLeft + 2;
int CaptionTop = vgraphTop + 2;
graphic.FillRectangle(whiteBrush, CaptionLeft, CaptionTop, CaptionWidth, CaptionHeight + 6);
graphic.DrawLine(brightGreenPen, new Point(CaptionLeft + 10, CaptionTop + 12), new Point(CaptionLeft + 25, CaptionTop + 12));
graphic.DrawString(GrapicText, GraphicFont, CaptionBrush, new Point(CaptionLeft + 30, CaptionTop + 2));
graphic.DrawLine(bluePen, new Point(CaptionLeft + 10, CaptionTop + 12 + TextHeight), new Point(CaptionLeft + 25, CaptionTop + 12 + TextHeight));
graphic.DrawString(GrapicText2, GraphicFont, CaptionBrush, new Point(CaptionLeft + 30, CaptionTop + 2 + TextHeight));
graphic.DrawLine(thinBluePen, new Point(CaptionLeft + 10, CaptionTop + 12 + TextHeight * 2), new Point(CaptionLeft + 25, CaptionTop + 12 + TextHeight * 2));
graphic.DrawString(GrapicText3, GraphicFont, CaptionBrush, new Point(CaptionLeft + 30, CaptionTop + 2 + TextHeight * 2));
graphic.DrawLine(redPen, new Point(CaptionLeft + 10, CaptionTop + 12 + TextHeight * 3), new Point(CaptionLeft + 25, CaptionTop + 12 + TextHeight * 3));
graphic.DrawString(GrapicText4, GraphicFont, CaptionBrush, new Point(CaptionLeft + 30, CaptionTop + 2 + TextHeight * 3));
}
newImage.Save(imageDirectory + imageFile, ImageFormat.Jpeg);
}
}
static float[] RunningMean(float[] f, int count)
{
float[] result = new float[f.Length - count];
for (int i = 0; i < f.Length - count; i++)
{
result[i] = Mean(f, i, count);
}
return result;
}
static float[] RunningMedian(float[] f, int count)
{
float[] result = new float[f.Length - count];
for (int i = 0; i < f.Length - count; i++)
{
result[i] = Median(f, i, count);
}
return result;
}
static float Mean(float[] f, int pos, int count)
{
float result = 0.0f;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
result += f[pos + i];
result /= count;
return result;
}
static float Median(float[] f, int pos, int count)
{
List temp = new List();
float result = 0.0f;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
temp.Add(f[pos + i]);
temp.Sort();
// Calculate the median for an even List of numbers
if (count % 2 == 0)
{
result = (temp[count / 2] + temp[count / 2 + 1]) / 2;
}
else // Calculate the median for an odd List of numbers
{
result = temp[count / 2];
}
return result;
}
}
}
namespace Filtering
{
///
/// Implements a Savitzky-Golay smoothing filter, as found in [1].
/// [1] Sophocles J.Orfanidis. 1995. Introduction to Signal Processing. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
///
public sealed class SavitzkyGolayFilter
{
private readonly int sidePoints = 0;
private Matrix coefficients;
public SavitzkyGolayFilter(int sidePoints, int polynomialOrder)
{
this.sidePoints = sidePoints;
Design(polynomialOrder);
}
///
/// Smoothes the input samples.
///
///
///
public double[] Process(double[] samples)
{
int length = samples.Length;
double[] output = new double[length];
int frameSize = (sidePoints << 1) + 1;
double[] frame = new double[frameSize];
Array.Copy(samples, frame, frameSize);
for (int i = 0; i < sidePoints; ++i)
{
output[i] = coefficients.Column(i).DotProduct(Vector.Build.DenseOfArray(frame));
}
for (int n = sidePoints; n < length - sidePoints; ++n)
{
Array.ConstrainedCopy(samples, n - sidePoints, frame, 0, frameSize);
output[n] = coefficients.Column(sidePoints).DotProduct(Vector.Build.DenseOfArray(frame));
}
Array.ConstrainedCopy(samples, length - frameSize, frame, 0, frameSize);
for (int i = 0; i < sidePoints; ++i)
{
output[length - sidePoints + i] = coefficients.Column(sidePoints + 1 + i).DotProduct(Vector.Build.Dense(frame));
}
return output;
}
private void Design(int polynomialOrder)
{
double[,] a = new double[(sidePoints << 1) + 1, polynomialOrder + 1];
for (int m = -sidePoints; m <= sidePoints; ++m)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= polynomialOrder; ++i)
{
a[m + sidePoints, i] = Math.Pow(m, i);
}
}
Matrix s = Matrix.Build.DenseOfArray(a);
coefficients = s.Multiply(s.TransposeThisAndMultiply(s).Inverse()).Multiply(s.Transpose());
}
}
}
” Do it for yourself ”
Me, looking in the deep at such a dirty code, let alone changing even one line of it?
Gracias no!
You are really opinionated, aren’t you?
*
My last comment.
If you are really the author, you certainly will
– have tried to copy & paste your Mean 5 year low pass and edit it to a Median 5 year low pass
– have seen that it is even worse than the Median 12 month low pass
– and hence decided not to publish the chart containing it.
My Excel based implementation is for sure correct, as the 12/10/8 and the 60/50/39 cascades are all identical because the cascade window sizes are factorized at spreadsheet begin.
The only difference is the function called (average or median).
@RLH have you heard of python? It does a pretty good job visualizing data without having to rebuild statistacal functions and drawing lines from scatch.
Yes I have heard of python. https://www.online-python.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_van_Rossum
Blinny doesn’t read C#.
David
Your Python hint is of no value here: simply because Blindsley H00d (RLH 4u) never used this language, and would never succeed in using it.
Quite probably, he also never used C# until obtaining some (very well written) source from somewhere, and added incredibly bad increments to it to obtain a software showing cascaded running means for UAH 6.x LT.
To see the differences between the good obtained kernel and the bad increments you just need to look for example at the number of explicit occurrences of “12, 10, 8” or “60 50, 39” (sometimes strangely “60,50, 32”).
The very best is that when extending his code crap with a 12 month median cascade, he copied and pasted the mean cascade software’s 60 month stuff.
You then understand why he never will be able/willing to provide us with a chart containing a UAH Global 5 year Median low pass, as I have shown a while ago in this Excel chart uploaded into Google Docs:
– source
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=1700426125#gid=1700426125
– chart
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=447018934#gid=447018934
*
RLH has been avoiding publishing his chart for months, instead constantly evading the issue, most recently with irrelevant blabber like:
“Blinny doesn’t know C#.”
Of course, I understand C#; so well that I understand how he messes up good C# sources when trying to extend them.
Conversely, he’s clearly unable (or worse, unwilling) to understand why my Excel-based templates have to be 100% accurate.
“he also never used C# until obtaining some (very well written) source from somewhere”
I authored every line above in C#.
If you were really the author
– you’d have written the entire stuff in the same dirty manner as is the corner containing all these stupidly repeated 12,10,8 and 60,50,39 number sequences
and
– you’d have posted since months a chart containing the UAH Global 5 year Median low pass that you are until today still unable to present.
Instead, you constantly keep evading the issue.
*
No one who has decades of software engineering experience will ever believe you, Blindsley H00d.
“No one who has decades of software engineering experience will ever believe you”
Show us your “decades of software engineering experience”. Not just say it.
Stop talking and dodging, Blindsley H00d, and show us finally this UAH Global 5 year Median low pass that you are until today still unable to present and constantly keep evading the issue.
I did:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=1551212378#gid=1551212378
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174CxYCkDKfQMUhAR4TnWXeKj58yhIiCYvCOF4koSfec/edit?gid=447018934#gid=447018934
*
And you were a while ago cowardly enough to claim the links would not show anything visible to you!!!
But I just obtained confirmation that they are perfectly visble on another computer running under Windows 11, with the same result as on my Linux system.
@RLH, I don’t doubt that you have written that piece of code. I didn’t read all of it, but I read enough to see that you are complicating very simple statistical calculations. It signals that you have very little experience from working with data in a professional manner. I recommend that you look into other tools like python or R if you want to analyze data at scale.
Stop talking and dodging, Blindsley H00d, and show us finally this UAH Global 5 year Median low pass that you are until today still unable to present and constantly keep evading the issue.
@RLH
This is lovely hardcoded stuff:
int firstref = hgraphLeft + (int)((float)(1990 – first) / hscaleRatio);
int lastref = hgraphLeft + (int)((float)(2020 – first) / hscaleRatio);
And then drawing charts from scratch with lines and circles..
This reminds me of the first programs I wrote in Pascal when I was 10 years old to calculate and draw the average slope of a hill using knowledge of height and length.
“Do it yourself”
I’m not heavily invested in this, but the posted code has errors and fails to compile. This might be a quirk of the message board suppressing certain character sequences in the pasted, but lines 163, 172, 325, and 472 are flagged by the compiler and are clearly not right.
e.g. 163 “for (int x = 0; x 5.0f)” is missing a comparison operator and the increment or some such.
I’m not a c# guy, but as David notes, this is a frightening amount of code to do something that would a whole lot more compact and comprehensible in some other environments.
“It signals that you have very little experience from working with data in a professional manner.”
Tell that to Motorola (who differ).
“R if you want to analyze data at scale.”
You want it in R?
Binny: I given you the source code in C#. Do it for yourself.
” Do it for yourself ”
I have already answered:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1710797
*
It is now 100% clear to us all that Blindsley H00d aka ‘RLH’ is unable to add the expected increment to the dirty piece of software he posted.
Thus next month he will post his chart unchanged
– Global Median 12 month low pass still wrong;
– Global Median 5 year low pass still missing.
End of story.
any warm spell in Finland has to balanced by cool spells, as last winter my Friend who lives there, recorded snow from late September through to early May, she recorded it as one of the longest snowiest winters for many years.its weather,nothing more.
Ian Brown
Firstly, though Willard was plain correct in showing a long lasting warm period, it’s indeed a very local record, just as is that of snow reported by your friend.
Long record over bigger areas always show the better picture.
*
Secondly, snow is not primariyly a sign of cold but of wet. The more dry, the less snow.
*
I don’t have any snow record for an area as small as Finland.
Thus let’s look at the average temperatures for Tmin resp. Tmax in Arctic Finland.
1. Absolute temps
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IscYekVl5xEH-PYjq3cg67PY_eHgR4x_/view
2. Anomalies (departures with annual cycle removal)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-PrIV11NLzYQ1chagk0_Mks7Du-iwKMX/view
*
Regardless whether absolute or relative, the linear estimates in C / decade are similar.
– since 1908:
Tmin: 0.25
Tmax: 0.12
– since 1979:
Tmin: 0.52
Tmax: 0.51
– since 2010:
Tmin: 0.39
Tmax: 0.72 (!)
*
Finally, let’s go back to your Finnish friend, with a plot over the yearly absolute temperature averages for the period October till April, beginning in 1976. 50 years…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xF5Zt0Gx3QfSLoiiWtqAPKQTFgpIKuKc/view
As you can see, the 2024/25 average from Oct till Apr was nearly 3 C higher than the previous one.
And above all: how long does she live at the place she is now?
*
” its weather,nothing more. ”
*
Really, Mr Brown?
*
Source
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
I note the estimates you posted, yet Arctic sea ice extent shows no decline since 2007, i find it strange you think that you can have snow without cold,as for my friend she has lived there since birth. if the estimated 3c anomaly is not repeated for 2025/26 will that be just weather or an inconvenience?
Ian Brown
” I note the estimates you posted, yet Arctic sea ice extent shows no decline since 2007… ”
*
No idea from where you got that misinformation from – probably WUWT.
Linear trend for Arctic sea ice, Mkm^2/decade
Absolute values
– Jan 1979 – Jul 2025
— extent: -0.51 +- 0.10
— area: -0.24 +- 0.10
– Jan 2007 – Jul 2025
— extent: -0.28 +- 0.43
— area: -0.23 +- 0.44
The shorter the period including the annual cycle, the higher the resulting standard deviation, which is here higher than the value itself.
That’s the reason why everybody (beginning with this blog’s owner) uses anomalies with annual cycle removal.
Anomaly values
– Jan 1979 – Jul 2025
— extent: -0.51 +- 0.01
— area: -0.24 +- 0.12
– Jan 2007 – Jul 2025
— extent: -0.26 +- 0.07
— area: -0.26 +- 0.07
*
No declne since 2007? Are you joking?
*
” … i find it strange you think that you can have snow without cold,as for my friend she has lived there since birth. ”
What about reading what I wrote instead of misrepresenting it?
” Wet snow is associated with warmer temperatures near or slightly above freezing, while dry snow is associated with colder temperatures well below freezing. Wet snow is characterized by its stickiness, making it ideal for activities like building snowmen and snowball fights. Dry snow, on the other hand, is powdery and less likely to clump together, making it suitable for activities like skiing and snowboarding. ”
Why, do you think, is there so often more snow in Austria than in Eastern Siberia?
Ian Brown
FYI, the Arctic sea ice charts including July 2025
– Absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xgKii1CJvDD22fA1RXJry0eMjBKhgwt5/view
– Anomalies
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
*
Oooooh! Arctic sea ice rebounds, say the polynomials. So what…
BACK AT THE RANCH
Junior Donald posted a meme of Donald on the White House roof throwing a green dildo at WNBA players.
Women are finally earning the respect they deserve.
SO MUCH WINNING!!!!!!!!!
” Donald Trump accuses the Bureau of Labor Statistics of “intentionally” skewing figures and presenting different statistics
According to Stephen Moore, Donald Trump’s loyal economist, “during the last two years of the Joe Biden administration, the Bureau overestimated job creation by 1.5 million units.” A downward revision to employment data in early August infuriated Mr. Trump, who immediately fired the Bureau’s head.
Before reporters, hastily summoned to the Oval Office for an announcement described as “major” by a senior official, the Republican president displayed several charts alongside Stephen Moore. This economist, who works with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank, stated that
” … during the last two years of the Joe Biden administration, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) overestimated job creation by 1.5 million units.” ”
*
Yeah. 100% expectable MAGAnism.
Bindi, we already know you’re confused about politics. But, here’s your chance to prove you actually know something about science.
Find at least ONE thing wrong with this graphic:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
It should be easy, as there are several things wrong.
“Find at least ONE thing wrong with this graphic:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
It should be easy, as there are several things wrong.”
–
–
The simplest one is the assertion that the
Average emitted by Earth’s surface EM energy is:
398,2 W/m2
It cannot be so, because it assumes Earth’s surface emits at its average surface temperature 288K.
The average surface temperature is not a temperature per ce! It is a number for comparison.
Example: our Moon and planet Mars for equal Albedo (the Marsian
a= 0,250) would have the same average surface temperature 210K.
Moon and Mars do not emit the same amount of EM energy, because Mars is at 1,53 AU from sun, when Moon is at 1 AU from sun!
The solar flux on Moon is So = 1362 W/m2
The solar flux on Mars is S = 586,4 W/m2
yet the average surface temperature for the same
Albedo (a = 0,250) is 210K !!!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Very good, CV. You found ONE. Please don’t give away any more answers. There are several.
My point is none of the cult kids can do the same. (Bindi, Nate, barry, gordon, Willard, Ark, Ent, studentb, RLH, and Folkerts, just to name the most ignorant.) Not one of them could find any errors in the graphic. It comes from NASA, so to the cult kids, it’s “Holy”.
But to REAL scientists, it’s just full of holes….
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
The third-hottest July worldwide ended a string of record-breaking temperatures, but many regions were devastated by extreme weather amplified by global warming, the European climate monitoring service said Thursday.
https://phys.org/news/2025-08-hottest-july-wreaks-climate-havoc.html
Nova Scotia has made it illegal to walk in the forest due to dry weather conditions. No actual science was consulted; walking in the woods does not increase the risk of wildfire.
This order is a crime against humanity. We have a common law Right to Roam. The people who made this order are tyrannical idiots that must be removed from our government immediately.
That an idiotic order can be made anywhere in Canada shows that Canada is fiscally, morally, and intellectually bankrupt.
The order smacks of a balloon to see if they can get away with calling climate change emergencies as an excuse to lock us down again.
National Academies Will Review Endangerment Finding Science
With the Trump administration raising doubts on climate science, the country’s premier science advisory group will fast-track a consensus document.
The nation’s premier group of scientific advisers announced Thursday that it will conduct an independent, fast-track review of the latest climate science. It will do so with an eye to weighing in on the Trump administration’s planned repeal of the government’s 2009 determination that greenhouse gas emissions harm human health and the environment.
The move by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to self-fund the study is a departure from their typical practice of responding to requests by government agencies or Congress for advice. The Academies intend to publicly release it in September, in time to inform the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision on the so-called “endangerment finding,” they said in a prepared statement.
“It is critical that federal policymaking is informed by the best available scientific evidence,” said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “Decades of climate research and data have yielded expanded understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate. We are undertaking this fresh examination of the latest climate science in order to provide the most up-to-date assessment to policymakers and the public.”
The Academies are private, nonprofit institutions that operate under an 1863 congressional charter, signed by President Abraham Lincoln, directing them to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to inform public policy decisions.
…
Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University, said…
“The National Academies [were] established exactly to do things like this- -to answer questions of scientific importance for the government,” …. “This is what the DOE should have done all along, rather than hire five people who represent a tiny minority of the scientific community and have views that virtually nobody else agrees with.”
A “consensus document”? What a joke!
Trump really has them scared.
Guess what the “consensus” will conclude — Earth is 33K hotter than it should be because CO2 “traps heat”!
Just the same old nonsense. And the cults kids will slurp it up without questioning.
” … Earth is 33K hotter than it should be because CO2 “traps heat” ”
*
Only ignorant people who falsely and insidiously want to discredit science, will claim such completely unscientific nonsense.
No one in the world has ever claimed that – except ignorant morons like Clint R.
*
The 33 K difference between today’s Earth and a snowball Earth formed by all water vapor snowing down from the troposphere never had to do with CO2.
And water vapor doesn’t ‘trap heat’; it merely prevents a part of the infrared radiation it absorbs from escaping into space.
CO2 does this too, albeit to a very small – but slowly increasing – extent.
**
Clint R however will continue to misrepresent such facts, exactly as he endlessly misrepresents century-old lunar spin theory
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
by insulting all scientists in this domain as ‘astrologers’.
*
But like his friends-in-denial posting similar nonsense on this blog, Clint R never and never would be able to scientifically contradict what he polemically discredits and denigrates.
Bindi, you don’t even know your own cult’s nonsense, which is the point I’m making with the bogus energy graphic. The “33K” nonsense comes from the imaginary sphere. You haven’t been paying attention.
And you’ve again linked to those sources that have NO proof Moon spins.
So, keep proving me right.
” And you’ve again linked to those sources that have NO proof Moon spins. ”
Of course they have, Clint R!
YOU are the one who is NOT able to scientifically disprove them.
*
But like your good old brother-in-denial ge~r~an, you will, like everywhere else on this blog, repeat the same nonsense over and over again.
Why don’t you finally see a psychiatrist?
Bindi, identify which one proves Moon spin.
Consensus has no meaning in science. Science can only be falsified. Academies are political entities. They are mostly a political arm of the left or the political elite. Status quo has no place in science.
Poor effort:
climateball.net/but-science#consensus
climateball.net/but-science#falsification
climateball.net/but-politics#academia
climateball.net/but-politics#leftists
That last one needs some work: what the hell does “but status quo” mean?
Stephen,
How do we, the public, know that the laws of physics are valid, other than by the scientific consensus?
How do doctors know whether medical treatments work, other than by the scientific consensus?
Nate, science must be based on reality. Consensus is too often based on beliefs.
For example, the CO2 nonsense is all beliefs. There isn’t even a “consensus” as to how CO2 warms the planet. One group claims CO2’s infrared is the cause, while another group claims CO2 is insulation. Both groups are wrong, as we know from physics.
Yet, the hoax continues because people want to believe in it. It’s the same with the Moon spin hoax.
Even after the skeptics report for Trump agrees that there is a GHE and it does cause warming, you still don’t get it. And you have nothing to offer in the way of actual physics sources to support your claims.
So you are irrelevant.
Child Nate, no one expected you to understand my comment.
” Bindi, identify which one proves Moon spin. ”
That is now the very best again. All of them do.
*
For years I have been presenting work proving the rotation of the Moon, but Clint R. (and with him his friends-in-denial Robertson, DREMT, Hunter, and some others) are all equally incapable of refuting these theories technically or even scientifically and therefore always resort to polemical discrediting and denigration.
*
What then please is the sense of choosing any of the list I present since years?
*
Even if I refer to the very first source – Newton’s Principia Scientifica (Book III, Prop. XVII, Th. XV), Clint R brazenly claims I would misrepresent Newton’s words – though I do nothing else than showing the original Latin text and one out of a dozen of its translations, e.g. Ian Bruce’s (2012, page 23, text within [square brackets] is explanation):
http://www.17centurymaths.com/contents/newton/book3s1.pdf
*
” PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
The daily motions of the planets is uniform, and the libration of the moon arises from its daily motion.
It is apparent by the first law of motion and Corol. 22. Prop. LXVI. Book I that Jupiter certainly is revolving with respect to the fixed stars in 9 hours and 56 minutes, Mars in 24 hours and 39 minutes, Venus in around 23 hours, the earth in 23 hours 56 minutes, the sun in 25 1/2 and the moon in 27 days 7 hours 43 minutes.
It is evident that these are found from the phenomena [i.e. experimental data in modern jargon].
Spots in 27 1/2 days, with respect to the earth; and thus with respect to the fixed stars the sun is rotating in around 25 1/2.
Truly because there is the monthly revolution of the moon about its axis : the same face of this will always look at the more distant focus of its orbit, as nearly as possible, and therefore according to the situation of that focus will hence deviate thence from the earth.
This is the libration of the moon in longitude: For the libration in latitude has arisen from the latitude of the moon and the inclination of its axis to the plane of the ecliptic.
N. Mercator has explained this theory of the libration of the moon more fully in letters from me, published in his Astronomy at the start of the year 1676. ”
*
Clint R always discredits this translation, though others (e.g. 1749 in French, and 1872 in German) show the same.
*
Until now, for example, none of the lunar spin deniers has understood that Newton used the expression ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ only for the motion period of celestial bodies, and not for their motion as such.
*
I tried for years already to explain how the German physicist, mathematician and astronomer Tobias Mayer calculated in 1750, out of own observations, both the lunar spin period and the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790
While I read the 130 pages long treatise and translated relevant parts of it, this work was polemically rejected all the time by people all unable to scientifically disprove it.
*
All the time, these deniers come back to the same trivial, childish idea that if the Moon shows us the same face all the time, it can’t rotate about an internal axis.
*
So what!
Bindi, you’re avoiding another chance to learn. I wanted you to identify which one of your sources proved Moon spins. You can’t do that. You can’t even understand what you find on the Internet. Endless blah-blah ain’t science.
And you can’t find anything wrong with the bogus energy-balance graphic.
Why are you so opposed to learning.
News from the Turd Reich.
On Thursday, August 7, sH!tler called for Intel’s CEO to ‘resign immediately.’
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-calls-for-intel-ceo-to-resign-immediately-122344189.html
What do they call it when the government runs all the business and manages the markets? China calls it State Capitalism.
Republicans used to be about free enterprise. Until they went full fascist.
Ark, you really need to do something about your anal fixation. Norman had the same problem a year of so ago, but got it fixed. You might ask him where he got his therapy.
You need to do something about it. Combined with your TDS, you look like an incompetent 6-year-old.
Glad to be of help….
BACK AT THE RANCH
A neo-Nazi group buoyed by Donald’s rhetoric is expanding its reach and changing the face of white extremism in America.
https://www.reuters.com/investigations/american-nazis-aryan-freedom-network-is-riding-high-trump-era-2025-08-08/
WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNN
The Alarmist assumption that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase is FALSIFIED by measured (by NASA/RSS using satellite instrumentation) average global water vapor (from TPW anomalies) being more than twice the maximum possible from just planet warming. The method and example are in Sect. 7 of the engineering/science analysis made available at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com and shown in Fig 7.2 there.
Why use the ad hominem label “alarmist” and undermine your scientific credibility? This kind of rhetoric signals a non-neutral framing.
Invoking a self-referential blog post as the authoritative source, rather than peer-reviewed literature, further diminishes your credibility.
The claim that “alarmists” assume only temperature matters is a strawman.
The 2021 “Global Water Cycle Budget” review will clue you in to the fact that climate and hydrology researchers do not attribute water vapor increases exclusively to temperature.
The scientific approach incorporates multiple components of the hydrological cycle. Large-scale circulation changes, regional moistening and drying patterns, and anthropogenic moisture sources such as irrigation and reservoirs are all acknowledged in the literature.
Further, there is no fixed “maximum possible” water vapor increase derived from global mean surface warming alone. Clausius-Clapeyron gives an approximate 7% per degree C increase in saturation vapor pressure but, as you know, actual global TPW changes due to vertical and horizontal temperature gradients, tropospheric temperature changes (not just surface), as well as atmospheric circulation and moisture transport.
I normally don’t engage with ad hominem comments on this blog, but your statement mischaracterizes the mainstream scientific and methodological understanding of an important technical issue.
Dan, I tried your numerical integration method on a simulated constant T with random white noise added.
It always produces a WV negative trend proportional to the magnitude of noise. Try it yourself.
I think there is flaw in the method.
Thanks to your comments I made an improvement in the algorithm. The bias was using just the (n-1) temperature. Down steps were all based on a higher temperature and up steps on a lower resulting in the negative trend that you discovered. An improvement is to use the average of (n-1) and (n-2). The excess measured WV decreases from the previously asserted ‘more than twice’ to ‘about 1.85 times’. I would appreciate it if you would check the improved algorithm. The algorithm is still not perfect but should be useful and still falsifies the assumption that water vapor increase is just feedback from temperature increase.
Ok. I’ll try it.
But the vapor pressure should be purely a function of temperature, not T history.
Therefore, we should simply multiply the T trend by the 0.067 * Pave to find the P trend .
When we do so with HadCrut, we get a good match to the observed P trend, ~ 0.41 Kg/m^2/decade.
Dan, your new method is trying to remove noise by averaging. The more averaging of noise you do, the greater the slope.
We can remove all the noise by replacing the temp data with its LS fit.
Then use your method with the T fit line for Hadcrut. It produces a WV trend of 0.041.
This is quite a good match to the observed trend.
OLS regression underestimates the regression slope in the presence of noisy data ONLY for noise in the dependent variable, so for trend lines of time series (x is time, y is temperature) since time is known perfectly, data averaging does not produce a more accurate trend, and OLS regression produces an unbiased slope (although noisy data will produce larger error bars on that trend estimate). It just doesn’t bias the trend estimate.
The average, (WV(n-1) +WV(n-2))/2, is used to minimize bias in calculating the effect of temperature change as described above. It’s influence on reducing ‘noise’ and/or the reported T fluctuations is negligible. The algorithm calculates, using the 0.067 1/1/C° rate, the WV change resulting from T change each month and sums the monthly WV changes to get the total WV change over the total time period (37 years, 36 for HadCRUT). This result is substantially less then just using the end-point temperatures.
The WV-change/year slopes (kg/m^2/yr or mm/yr) using UAH temperatures thru 2024 are: measured = 0.0447, end-to-end = 0.6099 * 0.067 = 0.04086, path = 0.0241. I suspect that the acceptance of the end-to-end value was influenced by confirmation bias.
Dan,
“It’s influence on reducing ‘noise’ and/or the reported T fluctuations is negligible”
Yes, but as I showed with a completely flat T trend, when noise is added to it, your method of obtaining the WV trend produces a negative trend. Which is non-existent.
So the noise is the problem.
Why can’t we use the surface T trend and scale by 0.067*mean(WV)?
The fact that this matches well to the WV trend is not an accident.
Nate,
The latest (8/12/25) algorithm should give negligible slope, try it.
Dan, it still gives a WV trend of 0.0345, whereas I calculate 0.041. So your algorithm is still adding a negative trend to the data.
The lapse rate falsifies the GHE theory. GHE theory is as big a fraud as Darwinism. Two of the biggest scientific frauds ever perpetrated.
*** the tropospheric lapse rate exists only as the result of convective overturning, and that convective destabilization would not exist without the GHE. Look at the stratosphere: almost no temperature change over a factor of 100x change in air pressure. Pressure does not determine temperature… temperature stabilizes when the rates of energy gain and loss are equal. The adiabatic lapse rate involves, by definition, no gain or loss of energy (the “a” in adiabatic). Again, pressure does not determine temperature. -Roy
Roy, for those of us that don’t have your background in meteorology, could you explain what “convection overturning” means? I tried to look it up, but wikipedia only had this, which I don’t think applies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convective_overturn
Are you referring to the fact that a packet of warm air rises while a packet of cold air falls? If so, how does the GHE cause that?
“those of us that don’t have your background in meteorology,”
Nice to see you acknowledge that you are not an expert, and can learn from those who are.
He has explained this several times. Without the GHE, and its removal of convected heat to space by radiation in the upper troposphere, the convection cannot continue. There would be no weather.
Responding 2 days late is better than 5 days late, Nate. You’re improving.
But, I see you’re also confused. Now you believe the GHE cools Earth! I don’t think your cult would agree with that, unless they’ve learned some physics….
That’s why I was hoping Roy would clarify his comment.
Now try hard to understand this time. The GHE cools the upper troposphere. Yet it insulates and warms the Earths surface.
If you still don’t get it consider a layer of foam insulation laying on a heated surface. The top surface of the insulation is emitting heat to the surroundings.
Thus the top layer of the insulation is cooling the insulation!
And yet the insulation still insulates the heated surface, making it warmer.
Is this beyond your ability to comprehend?
Child Nate offers yet another definition/description of the illusive GHE — Now it heats, insulates, and cools!
Kids these days….
So no specific rebuttal, as usual, just insults.
Do you feel insulted by reality, Nate?
Maybe if you would stop spouting nonsense and try to learn. You’ll never know til you try….
After a brief wet couple of years, Lake Meade is continuing to dry. Water levels are down again near to the record lows of 2022, continuing the post 2000 drought.
The levels are again more than 150 feet below full pool.
http://graphs.water-data.com/lakemead/
Click All Time Lake Levels to see the full history.
20,000,000 people can use a lot of water. Hoover Dam, which forms Lake Meade, was built about a century ago.
When this CO2 nonsense goes away, much funding will be available for more dams, like this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfOS-ibaYnc
Nate needs to read The Grapes of Wrath or watch some of the old news reels about the Dust Bowl.
The Dust Bowl was largely human-caused and in the Great Plains, not the West.
Relevant facts
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/regional/time-series/107/tavg/36/7/1895-2025
https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
It was partially human caused, an extended drought and high temperatures dried out the grasses, not an unusual occurrence,but the clearing of the dead material opened up the bare earth to the mercy of the wind, if the grass had been left untill the rains returned then earth would have remained stable, the climate conditions were not unusual, early wagoners traveling west found a virtual desert instead of the fertile land they expected,a change of climate in the Sahel region of Africa from a moist regime to a drier regime resulted in a famine and thousands of deaths in Ethiopia, made worse by good intentions,money flowed into the area as farming increased during the moist years,bore holes tapped into the ground water for irrigation of crops,then the climate changed and the ground water was exhausted, the rest is history,climate changes always has.
More relevant facts:
La Niña’s Role:
La Niña events, characterized by cooler-than-average sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, are often associated with reduced precipitation in the Southwest.
Yes, La Nina at the equator is associated with cool water off California. Its believed the LIA brought about a mega-drought in the Southwest US that completely changed the indigenous cultures in the area. That began sometime in the 14th century.
there are many signs that this climate anomaly is primarily natural as there is no mechanism for gradually increasing CO2 to create the variations of temperature and rainfall that exists in the modern climate record. That would apply equally variations in temperature and rainfall seen in the climate record over the past 1000 years when CO2 was allegedly not changing.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adn9389
“Historically, meteorological drought in the western United States (WUS) has been driven primarily by precipitation deficits. However, our observational analysis shows that, since around 2000, rising surface temperature and the resulting high evaporative demand have contributed more to drought severity (62%) and coverage (66%) over the WUS than precipitation deficit. This increase in evaporative demand during droughts, mostly attributable to anthropogenic warming according to analyses of both observations and climate model simulations, is the main cause of the increased drought severity and coverage. The unprecedented 2020-2022 WUS drought exemplifies this shift in drought drivers, with high evaporative demand accounting for 61% of its severity, compared to 39% from precipitation deficit. Climate model simulations corroborate this shift and project that, under the fossil-fueled development scenario (SSP5-8.5), droughts like the 2020-2022 event will transition from a one-in-more-than-a-thousand-year event in the pre-2022 period to a 1-in-60-year event by the mid-21st century and to a 1-in-6-year event by the late-21st century.”
Nate we have been over that approach before.
Its not very informative of the history of droughts.
And the 2020-2022 drought being an unprecedented since the year 2000 isn’t exactly a remarkable finding.
And of course using that to predict what is going to happen over the rest of the 21st century implies they have a reliable way of predicting anything like that. If you find one please provide me a link to it.
No doubt the only thing that fixated your attention was the word ”unprecedented”.
What I noted was most significant about this paper was it was written by an obedient Chinese government scientist that was hired by my alma mater. Nothing remarkable about that, I studied there during the era of Angela Davis when being a communist professor was just getting real popular.
So you doubt that the warming that has occurred should have produced additional drying during a drought period.
Got it.
“The unprecedented 2020-2022 WUS drought”
Where does it qualify ‘unprecedented’ with ‘since 2000’?
Nate says:
”So you doubt that the warming that has occurred should have produced additional drying during a drought period.
Got it.”
————————
That depends upon how much water vapor is in the air column Nate.
Nate says:
” ”The unprecedented 2020-2022 WUS drought”
Where does it qualify ‘unprecedented’ with ‘since 2000’?”
—————————–
Again it depends upon if you believe station data or you believe climate models. I believe station data more so than climate models. But your author doesn’t preferring the climate models as opposed to actual measured humidity at the weather stations.
They state that ”this dataset (CRU) has an unrealistic wetting trend in the southwestern US (32) (Supplementary Text and figs. S2 and S3) that contradicts more recent research findings (33).”
OK so where does ’33’ take us. That takes us to a paper whose title is: ”Observed humidity trends in dry regions contradict climate models”
And the conclusion of that reference says: ”This discrepancy is most clear in locations that are arid/semi-arid year round, but it is also apparent in more humid regions during the most arid months of the year. It indicates a major gap in our understanding and modeling capabilities which could have severe implications for hydroclimate projections, including fire hazard, moving forward.”
In other words it suggests we need to fix the climate models. LMAO!!!
Like I said Communist misinformation. . .they even had the guts to suggest it was research that allegedly supported the climate models. . .and as such the leadings author’s position at UCLA is dependent upon the pleasure of the Governor of California and so he is obediently echoing Kenneth Trenberth’s declaration when finding out observations were not supporting climate model warming that the observations must be wrong.
and nobody looked at the reference and Nate got conned again.
“Like I said Communist misinformation.”
Your now standard dismissal of valid scientific evidence that doesnt support your claims.
Whatever, you had no credibility anyway.
How much is that due to population growth, add on irrigation, agriculture and industry, in the UK we have the problem of reservoirs build decades or in some cases over a century ago,the population has grown, but the reservoirs are the same,our problem is more water is wasted than is necessary,the average annual rainfall in South East England is approx 23 inches , but only 6 inches is required, the South East is in drought again but 2024 was wet with many floods ,and all that water ran back into the sea.the last reservoir of any size to be opened in the UK was Kielder Water in 1982.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Europe is the fastest-warming continent, and the impacts of climate change here are clear. 2024 was the warmest year on record for Europe, with record temperatures in central, eastern and southeastern regions.
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/european-state-of-climate-extreme-events-warmest-year-record
The crisis is over; Europe is cooler this year than last.
How long till Europe is covered with ice once again?
Willard says:
”Europe is the fastest-warming continent”
Should have been predicted 20 years ago. But we ignore the actual natural warming operators for an ignorant exclusive look at CO2.
1) We remain well within the solar maximum effect with feedbacks likely still growing from what appears might be the October 2024 solar maximum.
2) We remain well within the warming effect of the unprecedented slow transit through perihelion due to the combined pulls of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune and event that only occurs once about every 172-175 years and requires about 3,600 to transit the celestial compass as it varies over those millennia from a cooling influence to a warming influence. We are well within the warming influence of that but likely have not yet hit its peak.
3) The very slow tidal effects this planetary movement makes for ocean current tidal flows that produce the AMO and likely also the PDO. Europe is the closest down wind continent to the AMO and thus the regional warming seen in Europe would be the expected enhancement of the AMO by the tidal effects Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Well mixed CO2 has no known mechanism to account anything to that.
So buckle up we are almost without a question at or very near the 900 year cycle peak for the warming influence Jupiter and Saturn in their unique 60 year cycle of transiting the heavens. Nate even produced a chart of this cyclic effect as the cause of the ice ages in combination with axial tilt and precession factors to explain eccentricity pulse variations in the recent past.
NASA even continues to recognize this effect. The IPCC avoids the topic like a plague. Milankovic’s book while having a library card in the Library of Congress is unavailable. What we are entering into since the 2023/4 planet transits is a lowering of temperature trends over the next 40 years. Will cooling result? Well it did the last time from ~1940 to ~1980 and the transition this time will have stronger planetary cooling influence than then.
STEP 3 – Saying Stuff
Meanwhile:
An initial ‘back of the envelope’ calculation suggests that the recent heatwaves across Southern and Central Europe, the US and China could carry significant economic costs. Estimated GDP losses range from -0.1pp for Germany to as much as -1.4pp for Spain, with
total losses of -0.5pp for Europe, -0.6pp for the US and -1.0pp for China. To put this into perspective, one day of extreme heat (above 32°C) is equivalent to half a day of strikes.
https://www.allianz.com/content/dam/onemarketing/azcom/Allianz_com/economic-research/publications/specials/en/2025/july/20250701_Heatwaves_EconImplications.pdf
Willard says:
”STEP 3 – Saying Stuff”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Sir-2024-Prag-60yr-Jupiter-Earth.pdf
“NASA even continues to recognize this effect.”
A 60-year planetary gravitational influence on Earth’s global climate?
I doubt it. NASA endorses the Milankovitch theory, not sub-millennial orbital mechanics influence on global climate.
https://cafeastrology.com/interpretingsolarreturns.html
barry says:
”A 60-year planetary gravitational influence on Earth’s global climate?
I doubt it. NASA endorses the Milankovitch theory, not sub-millennial orbital mechanics influence on global climate.”
NASA attributes the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn for the changes in earth’s ellipticity. Changes in eccentricity is estimated by science as being more than half the influence of the Milankovic cycles and the mean amount of solar received from the sun
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/
Last link from that page:
Further Reading: Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming
https://science.nasa.gov/science-research/earth-science/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/
LOL
bill,
Your link to NASA corroborates exactly what I said. They endorse Milankovitch cycles with periodicities of tens of thousands to a hundred thousand years.
I do not remember NASA ever touting the notion of orbital dynamics influencing global climate on sub-millennial (ie, 60-year) scales.
I said I doubt you could find a NASA reference to support your view, and you just provided one that supports my contention.
“NASA even continues to recognize this effect.”
That remains undemonstrated. I think it is just the ‘skeptic’ conference that gave that thesis its imprimatur.
Guys I am perfectly aware of how corrupt institutions don’t out and out lie but instead they selectively perceive what they want to see and ignore what they don’t want to see.
It is acknowledged that it is the pull of gravity that produces 60% of the effects of natural climate change whether they be a result tidal effects or changes in net solar radiation received by earth and they can’t even bring themselves to say that but instead you have to calculate it in order to preserve the ”unnatural nature of CO2” which is an unstated lie.
Once bought into that its nearly criminal to not recognize that the laws of gravity say that the primary determinants are mass and distance. The mass doesn’t vary except as you selectively add or subtract planets. So what do our corrupt institutions do, they just recognize 2 of 8 planets.
And of course distance varies as planets move from the same side of the sun to the opposite side from earth. They orbit via their known orbit perturbations that produce the eccentricity of their orbits.
When you have 8 variables (planets) that all effect each other at different magnitudes you are going to see maximal extremes occur very rarely with literally an unlimited number of lesser effects depending upon where in the orbit these planets are.
And of course there is the so-called seminal Hays etal paper whose conclusion support that changes in distance of these planets from earth represents about 60% of the total Milankovic effect.
Hays, et al also states of the 3 Milankovic variables the eccentricity variable is the only one that isn’t likely linear, which conforms with the laws of gravity mentioned above.
they go on to mention that this would be relatively easy to model in this day and age compared to the challenges of modeling atmospheric effects of CO2. And what do our so-call faithful institutions do with this information? They effectively ignore it and deny it.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6049421_Variations_in_the_Earth's_Orbit_Pacemaker_of_the_Ice_Ages
Bill, you have to make your case with hard data and analysis, or reference to real scientific papers that have done it.
In that realm your case has not been made.
You cannot explain away the lack of evidence with conspiracy theories else you are just joining the Flat Earther mindset.
To be clear, bill, everyone accepts the Milankovitch theory is on solid ground, explaining climate change on the scale of tens of thousands of years.
This theory does not bolster claims of orbital influence on climate on far shorter time-scales.
You said NASA endorsed the notion of 60-year climate phases due to orbital variation. Asked to provide evidence NASA supports this view you linked to NASA’s support for Milankovitch.
Now you seem to be arguing – tacitly admitting NASA DOESN’T support the 60-year theory – that because of Milankovitch then these shorter time periods must also hold.
There are no dots connected here. It would be like trying to argue there are several summers instead of just one, because of the ups and downs in temperature through the year. The Earth’s rotation changes speed along with its angle to and distance from the sun throughout the year, and therefore because it is known Earth’s orbital dynamics cause seasons, this fact coupled with the observed temp variability throughout the 12 months corroborates the conclusion that there are 16 rather than 4 seasons.
What is lacking, of course, is a well verified mechanism tying these orbital variations to the variability. Curve-fitting is not sufficient evidence – or we could find a 60-year phase pulsar and connect global climate to that.
bill,
I went looking for a peer-reviewed paper connecting orbital dynamics to a 60-year climate cycle. This is the best I could find.
“The possible relationship between the 60-year variation in global temperature with an amplitude of 0.35°C and the corresponding cycle at the location of Jupiter and Saturn is considered. It was shown that the gravitational perturbation of the Earth’s orbit by Jupiter and Saturn can only account for a global temperature variation of only 0.012°C. It is shown that the modulation of the flux of cosmic dust entering the Earth’s atmosphere by the gravitational field of Jupiter and Saturn is a more promising mechanism for the transmission of the influence of giant planets on the Earth’s climate. In order for the global temperature to experience variation with an amplitude of 0.3°C, Jupiter and Saturn must provide a variation in the flux of extraterrestrial matter in the Earth’s atmosphere with an amplitude of 16%. The question of whether these two planets are capable of providing such a variation is of considerable interest for climatology.”
https://www.academia.edu/download/113344664/S001679322003013520240415-1-z1ma8y.pdf
Only problem with the latter contention is that there is no observed 60-year cycle in cosmic dust, and even if there were a linking mechanism to terrestrial climate cycles is not established.
First off thanks for the reasoned replies, so refreshing to not have to deal with those who choose insults over discussion.
barry says:
”To be clear, bill, everyone accepts the Milankovitch theory is on solid ground, explaining climate change on the scale of tens of thousands of years.”
————-
And that it is due to variation of gravitational influences on earth. That’s important as we have one basic mechanism widely recognized, 8 planets without which Harvard teaches us: ”If the Earth were the only planet orbiting our Sun, the eccentricity of its orbit would not vary over time.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
”This theory does not bolster claims of orbital influence on climate on far shorter time-scales.”
—————-
Yes it does as the longer time scale effects are a build up of feedbacks (ice and perhaps ocean temperature) from regular shorter term effects. (both recognized by the IPCC)
Nate even confirmed that with his model of pulses of incoming solar that adds up to an ice age.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry says:
What is lacking, of course, is a well verified mechanism tying these orbital variations to the variability.
—————
Huh? I am not aware of any mechanism other than gravity being employed by the other planets Barry. I am discounting this comment.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
”I went looking for a peer-reviewed paper connecting orbital dynamics to a 60-year climate cycle. This is the best I could find.”
Actually Barry this paper is attempting to discredit the idea without a model or even all the mechanisms brought about by gravity.
And of course the .35C variation the author recognizes can’t be accounted for by any of the work done by the author or the IPCC.
So at your most generous interpretation this paper leaves a huge gap of ignorance about natural climate change.
Your side argues that to override the CO2 theory skeptics need to explain the warming, and when they do it becomes a game a cat and mouse denying that gravity affects climate change in any meaningful way pulling the legs off the Milankovic chair. If that doesn’t pique your scientific curiosity nothing will.
It also gives no underlying explanation for the ice ages and no explanation for the cause of that observed 60 year cyclic climate change pattern as to do that you must account for the warming pulses that add up to the eccentricity variation that is being recognized here.
Keep in mind that Hays has eccentricity variation apparently as 60% of the Milankovic effects.
the argument for a 100,000 year linear eccentricity variation is wholly unsupported. And the Hays paper says its likely non-linear which it has to be to be in compliance with what Harvard is teaching.
As a final note the 60 year cycle noted in the modern temperature record is not only in time with the Saturn/Jupiter 60 year cycle, the positions of the planets align correctly on the correct side of the planet to slow travel through perihelion to warm the climate.
The 60 year JS cycle over the past 60 years is made up of three JS conjunctions. One in 1980 on the cold side, 2000 hot side, 2020 hot side, then JS mingled with Neptune and Uranus on the warm side during the next 3 years. In July Jupiter passed earth’s perihelion to the cold side and the next JS conjunction in 2040 will be near maximum cold tangency. It takes 450 years for this march of J&S to switch from 2 on the warm side and 1 on the cold side to 2 on the cold side and one on the warm side making for the 900 year cycle that NASA recognizes and is seen in the Gisp 2 icecore and others.
It seems likely what is important about the 60 year cycle it allows for feedbacks to fully come into play and that the 20 year standard for climate is way too short. But to see that one needs to know how Milankovic came up with the short term orbital variations.
The 2020 js conjunction had all 4 of the gas giants on the warm side and the 1940 effect was missing Neptune which was in opposition subtracting its influence rather than adding to it.
barry said: “What is lacking, of course, is a well verified mechanism tying these orbital variations to the variability.”
—————
bill said: “Huh? I am not aware of any mechanism other than gravity being employed by the other planets Barry.”
No, I’m saying ‘climate variability’. The 60-year orbital variation brings about minute changes in the LOD – on the order of a 4 millisecond difference from trough to peak over the cycle. This is entirely negligible. And this LOD change is symmetrical WRT solar incidence and darkness: if day is longer, so is night.
So the insolation change isn’t a cause.
What is there beyond the correlation of periodicity? What’s the physical mechanism linking this tiny change in orbital patterns with changes in global climate? It can’t be solar incidence, so what is proposed? From the paper you linked all I saw was curve-fitting, but no linking mechanism.
US corporate bonds boom and bust over 60-year cycles, but I’d need to show a plausible mechanism for this pattern causing global climate to change.
Certain fishery stocks wax and wane over 60 year cycles, so I might have a better chance of finding a physical link to the alleged 60-year cycle in global temperature.
Even better for a link to climate is a 60-year cycle in monsoon patterns. You can curve fit that pretty well, if you select the right records, but again, I’d need to establish a connecting mechanism.
barry says:
”No, I’m saying ‘climate variability’. The 60-year orbital variation brings about minute changes in the LOD”
—————
Barry I am not talking about length of day.
I am talking about changes in earth’s speed through space. Earth’s orbital velocity is given as an average of earth’s linear speed through the entire orbit. But that speed changes due to the gravitational attraction of other planets and the speed change is the greatest at points of tangency to the orbit and this changes due to the planets moving through space themselves.
So this effect is reflected in the Naval observatory data with changes in that speed resulting in an approximate 5 day change from 1980 to 2023 from one half of the orbit compared to the other half.
We know this effect exists and in the mid 19th century solving why Uranus suddenly wasn’t where it was supposed to be wrt to the celestial data based upon the calculations at the time led to the discovery of Neptune.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry says:
”From the paper you linked all I saw was curve-fitting, but no linking mechanism.”
—————-
Using gravity and position affecting earth’s speed through space
isn’t curve fitting Barry.
A model is needed to correctly determine the climate effect.
that fact was noted in Hays etal 1976 in his Milankovic paper
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry said:
”Even better for a link to climate is a 60-year cycle in monsoon patterns.”
————-
Well you have to admit it fits the 60 year natural climate change variation very well also.
The 60 year warming cycle peaks correlate by date to locations of major perturbing planets that would encourage warming by decreasing earth’s speed through perihelion and their minimums correlate with to locations that would increase speed through perihelion this 60 year pattern shift over a 900 year cycle to one that stacks warm events to one that stacks cold events.
So its not curve fitting its two curves that match by date. Curve fitting is when you have 2 curves and you manipulate their fit with zero correlation.
“But that speed changes due to the gravitational attraction of other planets and the speed change is the greatest at points of tangency to the orbit and this changes due to the planets moving through space themselves.
So this effect is reflected in the Naval observatory data with changes in that speed resulting in an approximate 5 day change from 1980 to 2023 from one half of the orbit compared to the other half.”
Bill, maybe you forgot. We discussed this at length. And the Naval Obs web site explained it also. This effect was explained as an artifact of the Moon’s orbit, not Jupiter’s pull.
You still miss the point bill.
You can point to all manner of orbital perturbations, but correlation is not causation.
The Milankovitch cycles have orbital variation that is not just correlated, but brings significant enough changes to Earth’s relationship to the sun that climatic effects can be meaningfully assigned. One example is the change in insolation poleward, melting the polar ice.
The smaller-scale cycles, such as the 60-year cycle, are such tiny perturbations that they have next to no effect on Earth’s climate.
The paper you linked described no linking mechanism between the orbital variation and the climatic changes, it only points out some correlation.
You keep replying that the orbital variation is well-evidenced. That’s not what I’m disputing. I am disputing that there is a well-evidenced link between these minor perturbations and sub-millennial scale global climate change.
You said NASA supports that the 60-year climate signal is linked to 60-year orbital variation (which is about length of day in the paper you linked).
NASA does not support this notion. NASA does endorse Milankovitch theory, which has well-defined mechanisms linking orbital variation with Earth’s climate. The paper you linked has no such defined linking mechanisms. It connects volcanic eruptions with orbital variation. But how? How does orbital variation initiate volcanic eruptions? There is nothing about that in the paper. For just one example.
Regarding the 60-year cycle and changes in Earth’s distance to the sun from orbital perturbation:
“Thus, the combined gravitational effect of two giant planets can change the Earth–Sun distance only by 3300 km. This variation, in turn, causes a change in the flow of electromagnetic energy reaching the Earth by an amount expressed in W m–2…
The corresponding radiation forcing (perturbation introduced by this factor into the radiation balance of the atmosphere) is 0.01 W m–2. If we take the maximum climate sensitivity λc = 1.20°C W–1 m2 adopted by IPCC (2013) (increase in temperature by 4.5°C with a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere), we find that the variation of the Earth’s orbit caused by Jupiter and Saturn is capable of causing a global temperature variation of up to 0.012°C. As for Venus, the perturbation it produces is even smaller.”
https://www.academia.edu/download/113344664/S001679322003013520240415-1-z1ma8y.pdf
So even looking myself for a causal mechanism linking these small perturbations and global climate, there is little to support an orbital mechanics/climate change link on shorter time scales than Milankovitch theory.
Nate says:
”Bill, maybe you forgot. We discussed this at length. And the Naval Obs web site explained it also. This effect was explained as an artifact of the Moon’s orbit, not Jupiter’s pull.”
Nate yes we discussed it and you never produced any paper or model that supported that idea. Some unattributed page on a website with no scientific references nor even a claim of some lunar orbit mechanism that would be in time with that variation.
Until then the issue begs for a model of all the significant perturbations on earth’s orbit. So effectively all the discussion resulted in is agreement with me for what we need to do and if its already been done then we need to get access to the model.
barry says:
”You can point to all manner of orbital perturbations, but correlation is not causation.”
So are you advocating that we discard all science built on correlations Barry?
the situation here with orbital perturbations is better known than CO2 being implicated by correlation as the cause of climate change. The primary approach of the IPCC was to build models of all the known science on potential causes of climate change and eliminate them. They did so for every theory except this Milankovic effect and they chose instead to claim that the eccentricity variable was linear over a 100,000 year cycle when we are pretty certain its not. . .not if you believe what Universities are teaching about the causes of earth’s eccentricity.
“So are you advocating that we discard all science built on correlations Barry?”
Not at all. Correlation is one step, not the final arbiter. If the perturbation is too weak to cause significant change in global temperature then the correlation is coincidental.
We can curve fit any number of correlations. But unless physics supports the statistics then there’s no thesis. I’ve just looked for physical mechanisms that could verify 60 year orbital variations having a significant impact on global climate. Any science I’ve looked at rejects the proposition on physical grounds, whether it’s the real perturbation in LOD (several milliseconds only), or the distance of Earth to the sun (extremely minor perturbation with minimal effect on global temperature). I could find no physics, either, linking the 60 year orbital variation/s to volcanism, as posited in that paper you linked.
It is ALL curve-fitting, but no connecting physical mechanism. Differently to Milankovitch cycles, which see much larger orbital perturbations on long time scales, which bring about measurable physical changes that can account for global climate change.
Barry says:
”I could find no physics, either, linking the 60 year orbital variation/s to volcanism, as posited in that paper you linked.”
Sure Barry I don’t disagree. I am not making a connection to volcanism so that’s not a claim I am supporting nor denying.
Barry says:
”It is ALL curve-fitting, but no connecting physical mechanism.”
I already told you that’s incorrect, the physical mechanism is regular directional pull of gravity in time with the rotation and location on the celestial compass primarily from the 4 gas giant planets that has been increasing in its combined strength since the LIA that slows earth’s speed in its orbit through perihelion, stacking feedbacks over that period of time.
If you want to claim otherwise that’s fine. . .but you will be wrong.
what I am pointing out here is there is a need for a model of this as noted by Hays etal 1976. The science community who allegedly is so dedicated to us all haven’t taken Hays advice.
Barry says:
”Differently to Milankovitch cycles, which see much larger orbital perturbations on long time scales, which bring about measurable physical changes that can account for global climate change.”
You make a claim here of difference but you provide no support for its difference and Harvard is not teaching it as different but of the same physical mechanism, namely the orbital rotation of the other planets which are short term events that correlate with the instrument temperature record.
The stacking of these shortterm events with their sinusoidal patterns gets the longer time scale that is consistent with ice core data and is consistent with Nate’s view, Harvard’s view, NASA’s view on how orbit eccentricity perturbations build into the major events.
Further you have Berger sporting a figure where Milankovic discovered shorter term orbital variations and classified them as the same. One needs to find a reason to claim otherwise.
But its obvious if they do the work then there will be no differentiation between this forcing and CO2 and we will be left to try to figure out the effects of cosmic dust, tides, albedo feedbacks.
So for obvious and corrupt reasons they don’t want to do it.
That of course will bring us full circle to the wisdom of Dr. Syun Akasofu who stated that to understand anthropogenic climate change one must first understand natural climate change.
Don’t you think it’s odd that you have so many people like Nate claiming that this issue has been resolved but can’t show how it was resolved yet supports a legolike construction of an ice age on planet perturbations? He even alleges its the moon but can’t name any moon sinusoidal pattern to stack and would it even matter if it were the moon instead of the other planets? NO!!! For a trained auditor you may as well be flying the largest red flag ever.
How do you believe the ice ages get stacked up? Have you thought about it even or just bit into the idea without a thought such that you think you can declare it ”different”?
So while you want to deny these other patterns. They are recognized to exist. All you need is a model of them showing a correlation to temperature records and temperature proxies.
As to the sinusoidal patterns, there are plenty of sources for the 60 year, 900 year, and its really easy with the near 2:1 resonance of Uranus and Neptune to build their 175 year and 3600 year sinusoidal patterns that correspond to the more complicated triangle of conjunctions that Jupiter and Saturn produce.
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-system/the-great-conjunction-of-jupiter-and-saturn/
https://tinyurl.com/3s6v6bud (this one mentions the 60 year cycle discovered by Kepler where Jupiter and Saturn return to nearly the same spot after 60 years “forming a near perfect triangle” in the sky.)
there are also numerous references to the 900 year cycle of Jupiter and Saturn variously stated by 877 and 924 years by La Place and others. The 900 year and 3,600 year sinusoidal patterns mentioned above can be matched to temperature peaks in the icecore data and their 4:1 resonance.
That stuff is right out there naked in the wild which goes to show how deep the denial goes.
“Nate yes we discussed it and you never produced any paper or model that supported that idea.”
Wrong. The Naval Obs official website explained why it happens. I did a straightforward calculation to confirm what they were saying is correct. You cannot rebut.
If you don’t understand the explanation or calculation that is your issue.
“Some unattributed page on a website with no scientific references nor even a claim of some lunar orbit mechanism that would be in time with that variation.”
This exactly my issue with your claims. You offer no scientific references or show calculations or any relevant evidence
bill,
“I already told you that’s incorrect, the physical mechanism is regular directional pull of gravity in time with the rotation and location on the celestial compass primarily from the 4 gas giant planets that has been increasing in its combined strength since the LIA that slows earth’s speed in its orbit through perihelion, stacking feedbacks over that period of time.”
I don’t know how to make it any clearer that I am not disputing the orbital variation that you keep defending. That is already accepted. Please stop replying as if I am disputing orbital variation. This entirely misses my point.
What I dispute is that these very minor perturbations on sub-millennial scale have a noticeable impact on global climate. I am saying there is no connecting physical mechanism.
In Milankovitch cycles, by contrast, there is a significant physical mechanism associated with the multi-millennial orbital variation. This is the relocation of solar insolation intensity further towards the poles, which melts the ice. Here is the linking mechanism that connects orbital variation to global climate changes.
“You make a claim here of difference but you provide no support for its difference”
I’ve provided a paper measuring the changes in distance from the sun and calculating the resulting change in solar radiation. Looking for physical mechanism that links the 60-year orbital variation to global climate change I found a paper that calculates this perturbation and finds an insignificant effect.
Similarly, I read some of the source papers to the one you linked and discovered that the LOD change is mere milliseconds, and that this is a symmetrical effect, so LOD changes associated with the 80-year orbital variation has no noticeable effect on global climate. I covered this with you.
ou said earlier:
“Barry I am not talking about length of day.”
So why did you link to a paper about LOD being the 60-year orbital (rotational) variation and climate? This is the same paper that connects volcanism with orbital variation. I thought you linked to this because you agreed with it?
“I am talking about changes in earth’s speed through space.”
So I’ve covered off LOD and distance. I know of no science that suggests there is 60-year cycle in Earth’s velocity. You may be conflating ideas.
To round off – I am not disputing that there is a ~60-year orbital variation for Earth caused by gravity interaction with major planets, only that it is so small it can’t account for global climate change at this scale. I’ve provided a study and information about the two possible modes of orbital variation (distance and rotation speed) over 60 year periods, to demonstrate that the orbital changes are too small to have a noticeable impact.
If you know of well-founded science that there is a 60-year cycle in Earth’s velocity, please refer to it, and then we can look at whether this difference (if any) could possibly affect global climate to any significant degree.
Finally – yes, I’ve been using the term ‘curve fitting’ less strictly than it is generally – it is sometimes used to talk about matching wiggles in two different data sets. So I’ll just say that correlating time series is not enough. The physical mechanism linking them has to be solid, too. I don’t see it.
And I feel that I need to say for a 3rd time in one post – because I keep saying it and you keep not understanding – I agree that these orbital variations are well-founded. What I disagree with is that the 60-year orbital variations have any measurable impact on terrestrial climate. And I’ve provided research to corroborate my opinion.
Nate says:
”This exactly my issue with your claims. You offer no scientific references or show calculations or any relevant evidence”
well at least I am honest and I am calling for the science community to model this. You? I don’t see any reference or calculations attached to your post so what is this? A game of the pot calling the kettle black?
1538 1541 it was so hot in Europe forests began to die, many major rivers were almost dry, three years of crop failures and famine, the Black Forest suffered badly with leaf loss by July. Rumania was still warm in November with people swimming in lakes to keep cool, everywhere is warming faster than anywhere else has been the call for decades,nonsense of course, but it keeps the mirage going,
Three successive fine / warm summers from 1538-1540: the weather in 1540 was so fine that picking of cherries commenced before the end of May and grapes were ripe in July.
“1538 1541 it was so hot”
What I read about was drought, ie from little rain.
That is distinct from and longer lasting than a typical heatwave we experience now.
BACK AT THE RANCH
In my view, the only intellectually honest conclusion was that Donald didn’t hijack the Party, he revealed it. People don’t abandon deeply held beliefs in a matter of months. When you go from the “Character Counts” party to fervent support for a guy who talks in public about dating his daughter, it doesn’t mean that you have changed a deeply held principle. It proves that you never had deeply held beliefs. What the party called “bedrock principles” turned out to be nothing more than marketing slogans.
Something happened in the Republican Party. We evolved a system that rewarded lack of character and elevated weak men and women. I’m not sure how this happened, but it probably has something to do with the homogeneity of the Republican Party. In a country that is 57% white, Donald’s coalition in 2020 was 85% white. In 2024, he improved among non-white voters so that his winning coalition was … 84% white.
https://www.lincolnsquare.media/p/an-inside-look-how-the-law-and-order
There is a lot of talk recently on local TV, especially from the weather people, that we are experiencing a heat wave. It’s called summer folks, one long heat wave from about June 21st till September 22. Naturally, heat waves increase in late July and early August. It has been that way since I was a kid, sometime last century.
I am used to grass burning in summer due to a lack of rain and now that water restrictions are in place, a whole lot of lawns are turning brown. Not to worry, come Autumn it will become green again.
They are also talking about droughts in the Vancouver, Canada area and further into the province. There is talk of water shortages. No one seems to be aware that our population has nearly tripled in the past few decades. Many more people are using water for showers, baths, washing cars and even power washing entire houses. Burnaby, a suburb of Vancouver where I grew up, has gone from a population of 90,000 to 250,000 in the past few decades.
Still, we have plenty of water available, just not in our reservoirs. We leave it up to a panel to predict how much water we will need each year, and without fail, they under-predict the amount of water we will need. Therefore, our reservoirs are allowed to fill only to a human-predicted level. The size of reservoirs has not increase while the population has tripled.
The Interior of BC, a region about 250 miles inland from Vancouver has always had drought conditions. How dry? It’s so dry that cactus plants grow in the area and sage brush is the major shrub, just like in the deserts of the Old West films. In fact, Hollywood used to come North and shoot westerns there.
By the way, the Interior is dry because it’s on the wrong side of the coastal mountains. When clouds approach from the Pacific Ocean, they drop all their water on the wet side, leaving hardly any for the dry side. Ergo, the cause of the drought conditions is well known and it’s about weather.
That does not stop the alarmist weenies from claiming that drought is due to global warming/climate change.
Nobody knows what Trump is talking about anymore.
During his nationally televised announcement that he’s deploying the National Guard to Washington, DC, to battle a crime wave that doesn’t exist, Trump once again demonstrated that his brain has turned to oatmeal.
Twice, he told reporters he’d soon be meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin “in Russia.” The meeting, however, will take place in Alaska, which, unless Trump has recently gifted a U.S. state to Moscow, remains firmly outside Russian territory.
It’s the kind of thing you hear right before the family sits down to have “that” conversation about Grandpa. But coming from a sitting president launching a domestic military campaign against an imaginary crime emergency? That’s not just troubling, it’s downright surreal.
Ark, are you scared because you believe Trump made a gaff? Do you realize all people make gaffs? I listened to his speech, and couldn’t believe how capable and positive he was. He’s solving problems that have existed for years and no other president has been able to solve. You can’t expect him to be perfect. You just have to accept he is helping, a lot.
You’re having issues, but psychology has improved so much in the last 50 years that your problems are easily fixable. You don’t have to live in fear. Talk to a therapist. Your health insurance may even pay for it. You have nothing to lose.
You don’t have to live under your bed.
Trump and stats.
https://youtu.be/wRAjbgvj9Pc
Trump doesn’t do facts.
A propos
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Sir-2024-Prag-60yr-Jupiter-Earth.pdf
” The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL for short) is a Dutch foundation that engages in climate science denial. The organization, which fights against climate protection, is considered the continental European counterpart to the British Global Warming Policy Foundation. According to its own statements, it was founded by science journalist Marcel Crok and geoscientist Guus Berkhout, who began his career at the oil company Royal Dutch Shell.
Clintel maintains close ties to other climate denial organizations such as the US-based Heartland Institute, the oil-industry-funded Friends of Science, the European Climate Realist Network, and many well-known climate skeptics.
The Climate Intelligence Foundation became known for its spearheaded declaration “There is no Climate Emergency,” in which, according to Clintel, several hundred scientists and experts deny the existence of the climate crisis.
The signatories include academics, politicians, lobbyists, and high-ranking figures from the oil and gas industry known as climate change deniers, as well as others associated with various climate change denial organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
According to a bibliographical analysis, the signatories have virtually no scientific activity in the field of climate change. Furthermore, the authors of this analysis classify the declaration as a disinformation campaign intended to confuse the public about the scientific consensus on climate change.
At the same time, they place the declaration in the tradition of earlier, similar climate change denial initiatives such as the Leipzig Declaration and the Oregon Petition, some of whose statements were also adopted. ”
*
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/czech-republic-8/
*
Yeah. Long live the naive believers!
Bindi, have you found any errors in the bogus energy-balance graphic:
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
I asked all cultists to respond. The time is running out. I plan to start exposing the fraud in the graphic this weekend. If your cult can’t find any errors before, then they will be exposed, again.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
NASA is planning to decommission premier satellite missions that gather information on planet-warming pollution and other climate vital signs beginning as soon as October, sources inside and outside of the agency told CNN.
The destruction of the satellites – which will be abandoned and allowed to eventually burn up in a fiery descent into Earth’s atmosphere – marks the latest step by Donald to scale back federal climate science.
…
The greenhouse gas monitoring missions, known collectively as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, are some of the many Earth science casualties in the proposal.
Other satellites and instruments on the chopping block include the long-lived Aqua satellite, which carries a high-resolution Earth imaging instrument called MODIS, that among other uses, helps detect wildfires worldwide. Also at risk are the Terra and Aura missions, each of which have climate science applications, and planned satellites that would precisely measure solar radiation, heavy precipitation and clouds.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/13/climate/nasa-satellites-trump-budget-cuts-weather
WINNIWINNING
What does an orbiting carbon observatory do that is not already being accomplished (probably at much lower cost) by the Mauna Loa observatory?
Step 2 – Sammich Request
Meanwhile:
India achieves 50% clean power capacity five years ahead of target
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/07/16/india-achieves-50-clean-power-capacity-five-years-ahead-of-target/
No, its not a sammich request. We all know you have no valid answers.
Ken V
” What does an orbiting carbon observatory do… ”
*
Newcomer here, huh?
Why do you ask instead of first learning?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory_2
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/04/nx-s1-5453731/nasa-carbon-dioxide-satellite-mission-threatened
Indeed.
When it comes to weather and climate, our current govt is continuing its ‘We don’t want to know’ policy.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/30/pentagon-satellite-weather-data-hurricane-season/84415765007/
https://green.org/2025/08/10/trumps-decision-to-decommission-climate-satellites-implications-and-reactions/
In the second case, the plan is to destroy perfectly functioning, already paid for satellites. I can’t imagine Roy is pleased with these policies.
As time allows, I like to find humor in the nonsense child Nate presents. Here, the winner is:
“In defense of his decision, Trump argued that decommissioning these satellites would save taxpayers millions of dollars (ignoring the billions and indeed trillions in damages we can expect from climate change).
Only responsible adults will catch the humor….
Trillions wasted world wide trying to fix something that was never broken in the first place, with no result. Burning witches may have better results.
Having a Dear Leader who tells you what to believe seems to crush independent thought!
Bindidon says:
August 8, 2025 at 3:14 PM
“Secondly, snow is not primarily a sign of cold but of wet. The more dry, the less snow.”
–
Comments like these are pure gold and well worth storing and repeating over time with full acknowledgment of the author.
–
To the normal person snow is primarily associated with cold.
It occurs in the colder half of the year, winter.
It can cause frostbite (cold damage) to hands if handled for a long period without gloves.
Water exists in 3 standard states.
Solid as cold, ice or snow.
Liquid as water which is wet and warmer than snow but colder than steam.
Gas as steam, very hot.
Water is only wet in its liquid state.
Snow is never wet, it is a solid.
–
Amazing how many knots one can tie one’s brain in when trying to justify a point of view that plain clashes with reality.
–
” Wet snow is associated with warmer temperatures near or slightly above freezing, while dry snow is associated with colder temperatures well below freezing.
Wet snow is characterized by its stickiness, making it ideal for activities like building snowmen and snowball fights. Dry snow, on the other hand, is powdery and less likely to clump together, making it suitable for activities like skiing and snowboarding. ”
*
In Eastern Siberia, it is way colder than e.g. in Germany or Austria; but there is often less snow in Verkhoyansk than in Garmisch-Partenkirchen or Innsbruck.
Thanks angech for posting incompetent nonsense.
News from the Turd Reich.
Goldman Sachs is being targeted by Trump for publishing unbiased economic forecasts, the kind their clients pay for. If clients suspected the analysis was just pro-Trump propaganda, Goldman wouldn’t keep them for long.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/13/goldman-stands-by-call-that-consumers-will-bear-the-brunt-of-tariffs-after-trump-blasts-banks-economist.html
[Goldman Sachs] …analysis finds that through June foreign exporters absorbed just 14% of the cost of U.S. tariffs while American companies paid 64% and American consumers paid 22%. Goldman predicts that consumer share will rise to 67%.
[Trump] …David Solomon and Goldman Sachs refuse to give credit where credit is due…. I think that David should go out and get himself a new Economist or, maybe, he ought to just focus on being a DJ, and not bother running a major Financial Institution.
Ark, you’re not making much progress curing your anal fixation. That’s likely linked to your immaturity….
When you searched for ways to attack Trump at CNBC, you overlooked this:
Dow rallies 400 points for a second day, S&P 500 closes at another record high.
https://www.cnbc.com
BACK AT THE RANCH
Donald sent 3 U.S. citizen children, including boy with cancer, to Honduras with their deported moms
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-deport-us-citizen-kids-stage-4-cancer-honduras-rcna224501
W
I
N
N
I
N
G
So many people try to come here to be terribly abused.
Why would anyone want to illegally enter such a country?
Maybe they just like all the authoritarianism, racism, poverty, and pollution, huh?
(Only responsible adults will understand the sarcasm.)
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-may-give-big-balls-edward-coristine-presidential-medal-of-freedom-the-same-medal-as-rosa-parks/
Does Big Balls deserve a tug or the same medal as Rosa Parks?
Not only are people trying to get into this country, but no one is prevented from leaving. With a REAL authoritarian dictatorship, no one is allowed to leave.
This is stuff cult kids can’t understand.
There’s something about “American citizen” that seems to escape you, Puffman. Another quick question. Donald said that –
“Since 1978 the Kennedy Center honors have been amongst the most prestigious awards. I wanted one, never able to get one. I would have taken it. I waited and waited and waited and I said to hell with it, I’ll become chairman. I will give myself an honor. Next year we’ll honor Donald, okay?”
Doesn’t that start to look like a banana republic dictator who gets himself fake medals?
The UK has the same problem, unlike immigrants of the past the modern day immigrant expects to be looked after hand and foot,free accommodation, free health care,a living allowance,and food vouchers, some complain the hotel rooms are not large enough, nothing wrong with immigration,Britain was built by it, we appear to have lost our way over the years,today it seems the more you give,the more they expect.
binny…”The Climate Intelligence Foundation became known for its spearheaded declaration “There is no Climate Emergency,” in which, according to Clintel, several hundred scientists and experts deny the existence of the climate crisis”.
***
The only people who think there is a climate crisis are climate alarmists. They offer no scientific proof, just consensus based largely on unvalidated climate models.
Scientifically-speaking, how can a 1C rise in the global average since 1850 (175 years) possibly cause climates to change anywhere? And how can a trace gas possibly cause significant warming, never mind a catastrophic climate change? These are valid scientific questions that alarmists cannot answer and spend a lot of time dodging.
Those speaking of climate catastrophe are hysterical. They are in the same category as religious zealots like scientologists. They also dodge the questions of how much of the warming since 1850 is due to a re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
The alarmists’ authority figure, the IPCC, have conveniently dismissed the LIA as a local cooling influencing Europe only. Anyone that stoopid should be an authority figure to no one other than charlatans.
1538 1541 it was so hot in Europe forests began to die, many major rivers were almost dry, three years of crop failures and famine, the Black Forest suffered badly with leaf loss by July. Rumania was still warm in November with people swimming in lakes to keep cool, everywhere is warming faster than anywhere else has been the call for decades,nonsense of course, but it keeps the mirage going,
Yes droughts have occured throughout history.
Point?
Point is,nothing unusual is happening, we have never been more capable of adapting to changes than we are today,and we will only get better, thanks to discoveries, inventions and technology , we live in a world of 8 billion people ,before the industrial revolution it was approx 1 billion,the warming must have played some part in the advancement, as the increase of C02 has increased greening and crop production, i have seen very little negative impacts compared to the advantages of a warmer regime, even if the warming is all caused be human activities it is not finite, because fossil fuel use will decline as sources are exhausted,
According to Ian, unusual means it never happened.
“We’ll adapt” is another point, about another issue.
“Point is,nothing unusual is happening”
Well, that is just denial of the available facts.
“we have never been more capable of adapting to changes than we are today,and we will only get better, thanks to discoveries, inventions and technology”
Yes and No. Paleolithic people simply moved around as ice sheets and sea level rose and fell rather gradually.
Today have built massive infrastructure that cannot easily be moved.
We can mitigate the problems with technology, like surrounding coastal cities with sea barriers, but at geeat cost.
Or we can adapt by adopting renewable enery at modest cost.
News from the Turd Reich.
U.S. national debt just hit an unprecedented $37 trillion.
Powell, despite Trump’s barrage of threats and insults, was absolutely right to hold the line on rates.
So where is Trump’s actual plan to bring down inflation and rein in price hikes?
It’s not often that Marge and I agree on something… https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-marjorie-taylor-greene-explains-why-shes-extremely-frustrated-dc-lawmakers
Trump and Putin are meeting again. This is likely the beginning of the end.
Look for the TDS kids to get even crazier….
Bin Wigly has a good take on TDS in today’s cast
https://youtu.be/RU8bBYGNivo?t=1554
Ark,
Calling people Alarmists who believe that burning fossil fuels is catastrophic to humanity is not ‘ad hominem’, it’s not even pejorative. I suggest that you look up the meaning of ad hominem.
The analysis, with all relevant references, is made available for anyone with enough engineering/science skill to understand it. I welcome competent comments. I am aware that papers that disagree with the common dogma are rejected before they even get to peer review (ask Dr. Spencer). Only about 10 % get published. Biased peer review is de facto censorship. My work is ‘peer reviewed’ by Mother Nature.
What hydrologists acknowledge and what Climate Scientists use are not the same. I have seen no evidence that measured water vapor increase is incorporated into the GCMs. Instead, they imply, if not outright claim, that the WV increase results from temperature increase which has resulted nearly all from CO2 increase. Examples:
NASA at https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/causes/ “Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, but because the warming ocean increases the amount of it in our atmosphere, it is not a direct cause of climate change.”
EPA at https://www.epa.gov/climatechange-science/causes-climate-change “Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earth’s climate.”
That ‘about 7 %” number is a rough approximation. As you should know, the correct value depends on temperature and is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure curve (curve is explained by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation) at a temperature divided by the pressure at that temperature. It’s graphed at Fig 4 of the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . Most of the average global WV is evaporated from warm tropical waters where WV change %/degree is closer to 6 %/degree. I use 6.7 %/degree which is conservative. Average global vertical temperature gradients haven’t changed significantly and, because average global TPA is used, lateral variation is not relevant.
The “…mainstream scientific and methodological understanding of an important technical issue” has been falsified.
“Calling people Alarmists who believe that burning fossil fuels is catastrophic to humanity is not ‘ad hominem’”
Sure, but who here is using ‘catastrophic’ to describe the effects of GW.
Strawman.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Data and analytics firm Wood Mackenzie published a report in recent weeks that suggested 20 proposed or effective specialized rates for data centers in 16 states it studied aren’t nearly enough to cover the cost of a new natural gas power plant.
In other words, unless utilities negotiate higher specialized rates, other ratepayer classes — residential, commercial and industrial — are likely paying for data center power needs.
Meanwhile, Monitoring Analytics, the independent market watchdog for the mid-Atlantic grid, produced research in June showing that 70% — or $9.3 billion — of last year’s increased electricity cost was the result of data center demand.
https://apnews.com/article/electricity-prices-data-centers-artificial-intelligence-fbf213a915fb574a4f3e5baaa7041c3a
Shallow State?
Bindidon,
“The 33 K difference between today’s Earth and a snowball Earth formed by all water vapor snowing down from the troposphere never had to do with CO2.”
–
What is this now? What snowball Earth? How it is possible – it is unimaginable!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
” What snowball Earth? How it is possible – it is unimaginable! ”
Unimaginable? Of course only for people like you, who originally fully supported the theory of the moon’s rotation but started denying it a few years ago just because you deny the greenhouse effect, and many people denying the greenhouse effect also deny the moon’s rotation.
This the ‘Flat Earth syndrome’.
*
The Snowball Earth is nothing other than an Earth whose troposphere – e.g., through a combination of Milankovitch cycles – became so cold that all the water vapor in it precipitated down to the surface into snow.
*
Τόσο δύσκολο σου είναι να το καταλάβεις;
Bindidon, what it is you are at again saying?
Of course our Moon rotates, why do you question it, why do you need Newton’s principia to understand Moon rotates. Don’t you see it yourself that Moon rotates?
Moon rotates before your eyes, and you searching for what Newton says about it!
You don’t understand, Bindidon, what you are seeing. If Moon were not rotating ones per its orbit, then an observer on Earth would have seen all sides of the Moon.
But we see only one side of the Moon!
Isn’t it a prove enough for Bindidon, that our Moon rotates?
Why Bindidon needs to bring it over and over again as an important discussion topic?
*************
Now, Bindidon:
“The Snowball Earth is nothing other than an Earth whose troposphere – e.g., through a combination of Milankovitch cycles – became so cold that all the water vapor in it precipitated down to the surface into snow.”
Interesting, Milankovitch cycles, so cold there is no water vapor left in the troposphere of the water planet Earth!
And, Bindidon, I never denied the greenhouse effect. I said it is very weak from trace gases in thin earth’s atmosphere.
On the other hand you have denied the farmers greenhouses’ greenhouse effect – you claim farmers greenhouses get warmed not from the outgoing radiation captured, but by the air being enclosed.
Because you, Bindidon, still support the utterly mistaken assertion, which claims air is capable emitting downwellng radiation of 340 W/m² – which is a pure fantasy!!!
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
1. ” Bindidon, what it is you are at again saying?
1.1 Of course our Moon rotates, why do you question it, why do you need Newton’s principia to understand Moon rotates. Don’t you see it yourself that Moon rotates? ”
Look back for your posts in this blog’s past (2020-2022 or so) and you will find a lot of your posts claiming that Moon does not rotate about its axis.
You first admitted this lunar spin evidence again in July 2024.
*
1.2 You don’t need to tell ME taht but rather to Clint R, Robertson, the fake moderator DREMT, the Hunter bgoy and a few other ignoramuses.
**
2. ” On the other hand you have denied the farmers greenhouses’ greenhouse effect – you claim farmers greenhouses get warmed not from the outgoing radiation captured, but by the air being enclosed. ”
I never wrote such claims.
**
3. ” Because you, Bindidon, still support the utterly mistaken assertion, which claims air is capable emitting downwellng radiation of 340 W/m² – which is a pure fantasy!!! ”
I don’t ‘support’ it nor do I discredit it like you do.
Simply because I lack both scientific knowledge and technical skill to prove or disprove it.
If you think it’s ‘pure fantasy’ then give us a scientific proof for what you think, instead of simply claiming it.
Bindi, the easiest way to understand the Moon issue is with the simple ball-on-a-string. If you swing the ball in an orbit, the same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit.
Pretty much like Moon….
From Vournas to the eternally incompetent and cowardly Clint R, who lacks the guts to tell him his nonsense:
” Of course our Moon rotates, why do you question it, why do you need Newton’s principia to understand Moon rotates. Don’t you see it yourself that Moon rotates?
Moon rotates before your eyes, and you searching for what Newton says about it!
You don’t understand, Bindidon, what you are seeing. If Moon were not rotating ones per its orbit, then an observer on Earth would have seen all sides of the Moon.
But we see only one side of the Moon!
Isn’t it a prove enough for Bindidon, that our Moon rotates? ”
*
What about getting some balls, Clint R?
My comment was also available for Vournas, Bindi.
But since you mentioned him, did you notice he found something wrong with the bogus “energy budget” nonsense? Yet you have been unable to do the same. Does Vournas know more about science than you? Or are you just afraid to learn?
” My comment was also available for Vournas, Bindi. ”
No it was not; otherwise you wuld have included his name in your previous reply. You didn’t. You are not even able to admit that.
*
” Does Vournas know more about science than you? ”
Vournas knows about the terrestrial energy budget exactly as much as we all do on this blog (me included of course): zero point zero.
*
” Or are you just afraid to learn? ”
The one who is afraid to learn, that’s you with your ball-on-a-string syndrome, which is all what you are able to ‘contribute’ on this blog: misrepresenting, discrediting, denigrating.
Which by the way perfectly correlates with your (and the dachshund’s) Trump addiction syndrome.
Thank you, Bindidon, but you should say it openly that Moon rotates.
Because we have not your own, Bindidon’s official assertion yet, that our Moon rotates.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
OMG Christos…
Why the heck do you think I have created for years this list of proofs of the lunar spin
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13DRDH1OFOUHYM_6HKH19sbj28yckJMF7/view
and updated it regularly?
*
Why the heck do you think that lunar spin deniers a la Clint R always deny that all links in the list point to a document proving the lunar spin about its polar axis?
*
For example, he he:
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1970Moon….1..347M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=347&epage=347&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
or
https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1972Moon….5..302M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=302&epage=302&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf
*
Of course: none of the pseudoskeptic gullibles denying the linar spin were ever able to understand the difference between the optical and physical libration phenomena.
Do YOU understand this difference?
Poor Bindi. He keeps throwing the same slop against the wall, hoping something will stick.
Most of his links don’t even work, and the ones that do don’t have any relation to “proof of lunar spin”. Bindi appears to be confused about libration, also.
Poor Bindi.
Bindidon, those are big mistakes, because the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law doesn’t apply at celestrial temperatures (the lower temperatures).
Because neither the surface emits ~398 W/m², and nor the atmosphere returns ~340 W/m².
Those both are terrible mistakes!
Please have the surface covered with standard 400 W radiative heaters per square meter (m²).
And please cover the skies with 340 W radiative heaters per square meter (m²).
They would produce a high temperatures furnice!
Unbelievable! Who started that nonsence in the first place?
*********
And, also, a planet doesn’t emit at its average surface temperature, because the average surface temperature is not a temperature per ce.
***********
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Art of The Deal.
Donald Trump passed on buying the Dallas Cowboys in 1984 for $50M> saying “I feel sorry for the poor guy who is going to buy the Dallas Cowboys. It’s a no-win situation for him, because if he wins, well, so what, they’ve won through the years, and if he loses, which seems likely because they’re having troubles, he’ll be known to the world as a loser.’
Today, the Cowboys are worth $12.8 BILLION, meaning if Trump bought the team then, it would have returned 14% a year for 41 1/2 years!
Barry says:
”What I disagree with is that the 60-year orbital variations have any measurable impact on terrestrial climate. And I’ve provided research to corroborate my opinion.”
Barry thats fine but the research you provided did not address the physical gravity mechanism I described. In orbital systems there are two factors that determine distance from the sun. mass/distance of the perturbation applied to the speed of earth in the orbit. As you should know an external gravity forcing speeds up the earth for 6 months then slows it for 6 months.
And you did not address the alternative calculation of the solar input effect of spending 5 more days on the perihelion half of the orbit vs the aphelion half of the orbit.
Even Nate recognizes this. He believes it is caused by the moon. Not a big deal. If the moon’s rotation around the earth causes the earth to spend the independently measured 5 more days closer to the sun than further away. . .LOL! . . .you still get the same amount of additional sunlight as if it were Jupiter and Saturn doing it. It makes for zero difference being the moon doing the job.
But that may not even do the trick Barry. You may need a tidal model to model the effect of gravity on long term ocean tides.
The AMO and PDO are two phenomena in climate science lacking a physical mechanism. But you bet your bottom dollar that ultimately its a tidal effect.
Any tidal effect from Jupiter and Saturn or the moon is going to create the observed temperature variations that co2 climate models can’t reproduce.
Does that mean CO2 amounts to zero? No. What it means is you can’t use the increase in temperature since 1980 to confirm a CO2 model. Dr. Akasofu plotted these cycles in his paper and noted an underlying linear warming of about a 1/2 degree per century. . .but he said that could be the gradual melting of ice sheets and glaciers and any other climate effects that come from feedbacks from that. So no help here on the linear trend either.
The starting point is to actually do an orbit perturbation model for the planets in the solar system and run it as recommended by Hays etal 1976. Ground truth it using observatory data to ensure the planets end up where they were observed to be over time. Then you would have the basis for building an insolation model on top of the output. Science estimates you can plot up to 2,000,000 years of planet position data this way before chaotic effects render it inaccurate.
Then you will be well ahead of CO2 models in having an actual verified model of the primary radiant effects.
Obviously the powers that be are aware of this and have chosen instead to suppress the information. If they had done this in 1976 as recommended science could have been nearly 50 years further down the road today than it is. But we continue to twiddle our thumbs.
“Barry thats fine but the research you provided did not address the physical gravity mechanism I described. In orbital systems there are two factors that determine distance from the sun. mass/distance of the perturbation applied to the speed of earth in the orbit. As you should know an external gravity forcing speeds up the earth for 6 months then slows it for 6 months.
And you did not address the alternative calculation of the solar input effect of spending 5 more days on the perihelion half of the orbit vs the aphelion half of the orbit.”
You are positing a 60-year climate cycle determined by orbital variation, presumably matching that cycle.
Which orbital variation do you think that has a 60-year cycle explains the potential 60-year climate cycles?
At the moment i’m unclear which orbital variation/s you think accounts for the supposed 60-year climate cycle.
References would be appreciated.
Sure Barry. The link I originally gave you shows the 60year cycle of Jupiter Saturn conjunctions as a pattern of Jupiter orbit eccentricity (with a smaller assist from Neptune and Uranus) matching to the temperature record.
Kepler discovered the Jupiter/Saturn 60 years cycle and described it as 3 consecutive conjunctions forming a near perfect equilateral triangle in the sky. Except that it triangle itself rotates slowly forming an 900 year cycle as seen in the GISP2 records.
In fact the explanation for the longer Milankovic cycles was a solar input chart offered by Nate that shows a slow progression with a lot of bumps over about 25,000 years that contributes to the ice ages with each bump either leading to cooling and then warming over longer scale times in combination with axial motions. I am sure Nate will share that with you.
So you have 4 sources now itemized (provided Nate is willing to share his) one of which you added to my inventory by finding it yourself and the 2 I have given you which you only commented on one of them. You didn’t comment on the last one I have you here.
https://tinyurl.com/3s6v6bud in this post: https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1710991
I have myself estimated the ”5day” solar effect and its significant. I think its about 1/2 of what we need with a ”central” estimate of feedback. But that doesn’t consider any of the other possible effects such as irregular ENSO cycles, AMO cycles, solar cycles, ozone takedowns, solar grand maximums and what they all leave behind as albedo feedbacks. Obviously all those are problems we have with the CO2 theory as well as well evidenced by the irregular shape of instrument temperature records and temperature proxies.
“The link I originally gave you shows the 60year cycle of Jupiter Saturn conjunctions as a pattern of Jupiter orbit eccentricity (with a smaller assist from Neptune and Uranus) matching to the temperature record.”
The link you provided that I referred to earlier was about Jupiter’s 60-year orbital influence on Earth’s LOD, which you ruled out above.
Please provide the link to the paper specifically on the thesis of the Jupiter/saturn orbital effect on Earth’s 60-year cycle of its distance to the sun. I can’t see it. The links you’ve just now provided do not refer to 60-year cycles.
You’ve rejected the 60-year orbital variations I know of regarding Earth’s LOD and speed (?), so I want to get the specific 60-year orbital variation you are speaking about that affects Earth.You are saying it is about Earth’s distance to the sun, right? A 60-year cycle that correlates with the potential 60-year climate cycle, yes?
Reference to a research paper would be greatly appreciated.
barry says:
”The link you provided that I referred to earlier was about Jupiter’s 60-year orbital influence on Earth’s LOD, which you ruled out above.”
I didn’t rule out the correlation Barry. the Author offered more possibilities than LOD. As I said this needs investigation. What I said is the paper you are referring to is showing a correlation between Jupiter orbit eccentricity variations and earth’s temperature variations. . .suggesting that Jupiter’s orbit perturbations are the same perturbing factor that earth experiences that climate models are failing to describe.
You said: ”In Milankovitch cycles, by contrast, there is a significant physical mechanism associated with the multi-millennial orbital variation. This is the relocation of solar insolation intensity further towards the poles, which melts the ice.”
In saying that you left out half the effect per Hays et al 1976 which is orbit perturbations not axial perturbations including his statement that these perturbations are not likely linear.
So yes orbit perturbations alone don’t create the major interglacials in our current iceage. But the eccentricity orbit perturbations of Jupiter correlate with earth’s temperature records and this correlation has corruptly been suppressed.
Barry says:
”You’ve rejected the 60-year orbital variations I know of regarding Earth’s LOD and speed (?), so I want to get the specific 60-year orbital variation you are speaking about that affects Earth.You are saying it is about Earth’s distance to the sun, right? A 60-year cycle that correlates with the potential 60-year climate cycle, yes?”
So now you are arguing that the suppression of Milankovics actual work is proof that part of his work is has no support yet Hays gives it support. And how does your idea of how it works while you ignore half of Milankovic’s work that you say is well founded?
Reference to a research paper would be greatly appreciated.
bill,
I have been consistently asking you about a 60-year celestial mechanics variation, which you have alluded to multiple times, that accounts for the supposed 60-year climate cycle in the instrumental record.
When I mentioned that the 60-year LOD cycle only changes by several milliseconds, and that this is symmetrical to day and night, and so couldn’t possibly have a noticeable influence on global climate, you replied:
“Barry I am not talking about length of day.”
In the next sentence you said:
“I am talking about changes in earth’s speed through space.”
So I checked that out, and there is no research suggesting a 60-year cycle in the Earth’s velocity.
In the post that started this thread you appeared to be saying that it is about Earth’s distance to the sun.
‘In orbital systems there are two factors that determine distance from the sun. mass/distance of the perturbation applied to the speed of earth in the orbit… If the moon’s rotation around the earth causes the earth to spend the independently measured 5 more days closer to the sun than further away. . .LOL! . . .you still get the same amount of additional sunlight as if it were Jupiter and Saturn doing it.”
But it seems that this variation is not part of a 60-year cycle that can be matched to the 60-year global temperature oscillation. Or at least, you’ve provided no reference saying so.
So the only reference you’ve provided for a 60-year perturbation of Earth’s celestial mechanics is about LOD.
LOD cannot possibly cause such large temperature swings, when the amplitude of the 60-year LOD cycle is measured in milliseconds, and applies equally to daytime and nighttime.
I know you are saying “more work needs to be done,” but I’m not seeing a careful consideration and sorting of different cycles and the actual physical effects that could have, but rather a series of hopeful correlations that seem to avoid discovery of any physics linking the celestial variation to global climate. Meanwhile, papers I find that actually do this work conclude no significant effect from short-term variation.
To be super clear, I am focussing on this 60-year celestial/climate cycle connection, and I’m not seeing anything yet that looks solid.
“In saying that you left out half the effect per Hays et al 1976”
I’m just mentioning the most well-known, dominant effect, not discounting the others, which I alluded to way above. The various Milankovitch cycles are all multi-millennial, and the linking mechanisms between those cycles and global climate are well-supported (Hays 1976 begins by querying the linking mechanisms between orbital variation and global climate). Once again, it is the shorter cycles you are speaking about – and particularly the 60-year cycle – that does not seem to have a significant mechanism linking the celestial variation with global climate. LOD is simply too insignificant a change to contribute to 60-year global climate variation.
Barry says:
”Once again, it is the shorter cycles you are speaking about – and particularly the 60-year cycle – that does not seem to have a significant mechanism linking the celestial variation with global climate. LOD is simply too insignificant a change to contribute to 60-year global climate variation.”
—————————
Thats simply because you don’t understand what the LOD is indicative of.
So far you haven’t yet explained the changes in speed of earth through perihelion and you reject NASA that clearly states the climate variation is due to Saturn and Jupiter.
Hays et al 1976 asserts that eccentricity variation is 50% of the total effect (actually 60% of the Milankovic effects as Hays et al took the liberty of allocating 15% of the total effect to CO2 feedbacks.
Your claim that the ice ages are merely axial variations is falsified by numerous sources.
And finally you have provided no explanation of how climate variation over the millennia can add up ”primarily” from the motions of Jupiter and Saturn when their orbit periods are about 12 and and 30 years respectively as NASA claims.
The only thing I have added in are the other two gas giants with orbit periods of 84 and 165 years with less than the ”primary” effects such that the actual mean progress of longterm climate change is coming in chunks of time a bit different than precisely 60 years.
But you the barebones fact is simply you do not have major peaks and valleys in the earth’s climate time history without Jupiter and Saturn contributing to it.
the claim that CO2 is modifying that rhythm has yet to be established.
And the best way of establishing that would be as Hays et al 1976 recommends by creating an orbit perturbation model. So since Hays et al 1976 is considered by mainstream science to be a seminal work of science the big question is why hasn’t that been done.
I can state via my professional experience the correlations are strong, what I posted above and the papers I have quoted being wrong is very remote and that won’t be refuted by some guy on a blog with zero science papers rebutting it and only self prepared estimates borne out of a basic misunderstanding of the science that ignores the key elements.
Calculate for yourself what 5 more days at earth’s unperturbed ”kepler” orbit distances through perihelion as opposed to aphelion means in terms of additional watts of sunlight received by earth. It’s not hard to do that using approximations. Then realize that without feedbacks that amounts to about half of the primary 1 degree per doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.
Then realize that is only a fraction of the orbital effect as slowing the earth’s speed through perihelion will cause earth’s actual orbit to move closer to the sun increasing the additional wattage received by tarrying longer in the perihelion half of the orbit.
When the march of these planetary orbit rotation ratio effects move in the opposite direction of the axial effects; they override the axial effects per Hays et al 1976 by being 150% more powerful on average than the combined axial effects.
So try to put in an honest reply here. You have shown the ability to be reasonable without skipping around looking for gotchas.
News from the Turd Reich.
After six months of failure to end the war in Ukraine (a task he once said was “so easy” that it would be done before he even returned to office in January) Trump has now staged an embarrassing self-own in Anchorage.
In the end, what appeared to be a high-stakes diplomatic opportunity instead turned into a fundraising ploy targeting his most gullible supporters. As Trump was greeting Putin on the tarmac (clapping as he did) his fundraising team circulated the following e-mail:
TRUMP LITERALLY HAD US SOLDIERS GET ON THEIR KNEES TO ROLL OUT A RED CARPET FOR PUTIN (August 15, 2025)
Ark is still suffering from TDS, making his anal fixation even worse.
Ark had ample opportunity to learn how Trump works, from the Iranian event. Trump first played “good cop”, trying his hardest to negotiate. When that failed, Trump went to “bad cop”, destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities.
It’s going to be the same with Putin. Trump will get tired of playing “good cop”.
Government papers found in an Alaskan hotel reveal new details of Trump-Putin summit
There’s nothing like the feeling that your life is in the hands of a competent administration. And this is nothing like feeling like your life is in the hands of a competent administration.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Papers with U.S. State Department markings, found Friday morning in the business center of an Alaskan hotel, revealed previously undisclosed and potentially sensitive details about the Aug. 15 meetings between Donald and Russian President Vladimir V. Putin in Anchorage.
Eight pages, that appear to have been produced by U.S. staff and left behind accidentally, shared precise locations and meeting times of the summit and phone numbers of U.S. government employees.
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/16/nx-s1-5504196/trump-putin-summit-documents-left-behind
Masterful.
Dan Pangburn.
Regarding your comment of 8/14/25 at 6:51 PM.
1/ Ad hominem refers to attacking the person rather than addressing the substance of their argument. Labeling someone an alarmist is a framing tactic that attempts to shift focus from the evidence to a characterization of their supposed mindset or motives. Your use of the term here is a textbook example.
2/ Saying that you “have seen no evidence that measured water vapor increase is incorporated into the GCMs” means nothing since you admittedly shun the peer-reviewed literature.
All modern GCMs explicitly simulate the hydrological cycle (evaporation, condensation, precipitation, and atmospheric water vapor transport) by solving thermodynamic and fluid dynamic equations. The NASA and EPA public statements you quoted are simplifications of causality for a lay audience, not model documentation as you seem to think. I suggest that you look up the extensive peer-reviewed literature and open-source model code documentation demonstrating that water vapor physics is central to GCMs.
Atmospheric water vapor content is not prescribed; it is an emergent property of the coupled climate system simulated in GCMs. The Earth system water cycle itself is a dynamic outcome of these simulations, not a user-inserted dataset.
Why the “Earth’s Energy Budget” graphic is nonsense.
https://postimg.cc/yJFTRZzW
#1 Flux does NOT balance.
Radiative flux is not a conserved quantity. That means it does not need to “balance”. It’s very possible to have more flux coming in than going out. For example, a hypothetical sphere receiving 960 W/m² would be emitting 240 W/m². “960” does not equal “240”. The cult tries to treat flux as energy. Energy is a conserved quantity, flux is not conserved.
#2 Flux does NOT average.
Because of the non-linear nature of radiative flux, it can not be averaged.
#3 The incoming solar is NOT 340.4 W/m²
The cult has divided the solar constant, about 1370 W/m², by 4. Radiative flux can not be simply divided!
#4 The absorbed solar is NOT 163.3 W/m²
After dividing solar constant by 4, they then adjust for albedo. Then, they adjust again for more albedo. Reducing solar to a measly 163 W/m² which would correspond to a temperature of about 232K (-43°F, -42°C). Solar panels would not work. That flux couldn’t even melt ice!
#5 The cult can’t even get the arithmetic right.
Solar does not add correctly 340.4 – 77 – 22.9 – 77.1 = 163.4, NOT 163.3. (I know it’s a petty point, but it’s in the graphic. The cult kids couldn’t even catch an arithmetic error!)
#6 The 239.9 W/m² is bogus.
No one knows what Earth’s emitted “average” flux is. A hypothetical sphere at 288K would be emitting 390 W/m². At some point in space, that same flux would be reduced to 239.9 W/m², but it would also be reduced to 139.9 W/m², or 39.9 W/m², or any value between 390 and 0 W/m², at distance, due to the Inverse Square Law. Claiming Earth emits 239.9 W/m² is just more fraud.
#7 Back-radiation of 340.3 W/m² cannot warm a 288K surface.
An expensive IR thermometer measures overhead clear sky at about -50 °F. But 340.3 W/m² corresponds to 41 °F! Compare the bogus 340.3 back radiation with the bogus “absorbed solar” of 163.3 W/m². In cult “science”, the sky is warming Earth more than Sun!!! That ain’t science, it’s fraud.
#8 Back-radiation is not all CO2
There are several radiative gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is one of the least effective, as it has a very limited line spectrum from Earth’s surface emission, specifically the 15μ photon, which carries less energy than the WDL photon from an ice cube.
#9 Assigning some values of flux to thermals and latent heat is another prime example of the fraud.
How did they conjure up values of W/m² for thermals and latent heat? That ain’t science!
#10 Earth’s outgoing energy seldom matches the incoming energy.
In fact, the outgoing energy is typically LESS than the incoming due to “losses” like molecular collisions, weather, and photosynthesis. The solar energy gets converted to other forms of energy than thermal, so never leaves the system.
#11 The clouds only emit!
In the cult’s bogus energy “budget”, clouds are only emitting. It’s as if the clouds have some internal energy source.
Well if anyone is interested in reality, that should be enough to completely debunk the “Earth Energy Budget”. But, there’s one more important point. They end up with a “net absorbed” of 0.6 W/m². The implication is that Earth is accumulating energy. But notice they NEVER provide any error margins. All their values are meant to be taken as absolute. That is, they get to make up whatever they want.
Photosynthesis by itself is estimated to be about 2% of solar. After albedo, that amounts to about 19.2 W/m². If you use their “divide-by-4” fallacy, it still means 4.8 W/m² is devoted to photosynthesis. That’s 8 times the bogus 0.6 W/m²! And I suspect their other errors are even larger.
It’s all bogus, and would make great comedy if so much money, and negative impacts on society, weren’t involved.
But, there was one thing they got correct. Notice in the distribution of solar (yellow arrows to left) — the 77 W/m² And the 22.9 W/m². Notice the descriptions, “reflected by clouds and atmosphere” and “reflected by surface”. They are admitting flux can be reflected. Maybe the cult kids will now accept that flux can be reflected….
Hey Mr Omelette head,
Learn about the WDL and the SBL before attempting to do science.
I recommend “Radiative Flux Transfer for Dummies” as a good first read.
No one found anything wrong with the science, and I didn’t even make any typos! I reread it before submitting, so was glad I eliminated my usual supply.
“…divided the solar constant, about 1370 W/m², by 4. Radiative flux can not be simply divided!”
Of course flux can be divided. By definition it’s watts per square metre – power divided by area. That’s exactly why we can average it over different areas.
The approx 1370 W/m2 solar constant is determined with respect to a perpendicular flat surface.
The Earth is not flat.
Because irradiation diminishes with increasing angle from the perpendicular, the average flux across the sunlit hemisphere is about 685 W/m2.
If you do not (effectively) divide the solar constant by two, you overstate the insolation striking a spherical Earth in any calculation.
Mathematically, what function would you use to compute the flux on a sphere from a plane-parallel beam?
The solar flux is averaged over the entire surface for ease of computation, so that incoming and outgoing radiation can be compared on a matching, per-square-metre basis.
“non-linear nature of radiative flux, it can not be averaged”
Of course it can. Flux is energy per area per time. Just like rainfall in mm/day, it can be averaged over space and/or time with no problem.
Flux itself is not conserved, but in equilibrium the total incoming and outgoing energy fluxes must balance.
Quite nicely put barry.
Our problem with CR is that we are “casting pearls before swine”.
Clint R belongs to these ignoramuses who think scientists would manipulate the ‘Ein = Eout’ equation, by unduly replacing the 2 π R^2 sunlit hemisphere with a simple π R^2 disk.
Such people who endlessly urge in a pathlogical 360 degree discrediting of science will never grasp that there is more incoming solar flux at the equator than at the poles: the size of cells of equal arc length decreases both latitudinally and longitudinally.
Integrating ∫cos^2(a)da from a = 0 till a = pi/2 gives… exactly 0.5.
What else could we expect from people discrediting astronomers as astrologers and reducing the complex motion of the Moon to that of a… ball-on-a-string.
Frogs say in such hopeless cases: ” Plus bête tu meurs. “
I also recommend that CR reads:
“Mathematics for Dummies”.
Sorry barry, but you’re confusing “climate science” physics with REAL physics. Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.
The rest of your blah-blah is just as bad.
But you managed to get one thing correct — “The Earth is not flat.” Very good.
Keep learning. Some, like studentb and Bindi, can’t….
Bindi, no matter how many times it is explained to you, you still don’t get it.
The simple ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbiting without spin”. It is NOT trying to model Moon’s actual orbit.
And you STILL don’t have a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
You just can’t learn.
Clint, flux is defined as energy per area per time. The units already have division built into them. Same with averaging. At any given picosecond the total amount of energy passing through a plane is slightly different.
The amount of energy per second averages the energy over a unit of time.
The amount of energy per square metre divides the total flux by area.
On a sphere, sunlight hits at an angle, so you have to weight by cosine. The same beam spreads over more area, so the flux is divided. The solar constant must be divided on a sphere, otherwise you’re shining flat-Earth sunlight on a round planet.
Really, Clint, some of your ideas are as wacky as flat-Earthers.
barry, not only are you ignorant of the science but now you’re clearly trying to pervert the issue. You avoid reality:
Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.
The rest of your blah-blah is just as bad.
A man went for a walk on the coastline
To enjoy the bountiful sunshine
He took off his shirt
Got immediately sunburnt
Then lamented: “It was all because of the cosine”
But now I’m curious, Clint, to see if you can answer the question I posed above.
A sphere is 4 times the area of a disc of the same circumference.
The sunlit hemisphere of the Earth is twice the area of a disc with the same radius.
So how would you, Clint, calculate the solar flux irradiating a sphere, when it’s flux is 1370 W/m2 on a flat plane at the same distance?
Or more simply, how do you convert the solar constant as it strikes a flat plane, to the actual flux as it falls across a hemisphere?
You’re STILL trying to pervert the issue, barry.
You can’t face the reality: >b>Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.
The rest of your blah-blah is just as bad.rr
Now, what will you try next?
Chanting mantras is not answering questions, Clint.
How do you calculate the actual flux across the sunlit hemisphere of a sphere at 1 AU from the sun? We’ll take the solar constant you already mentioned, 1370 W/m2: how do you work out the flux received by the sunlit hemisphere?
If you can do this without any operation that equates to dividing or averaging, I will be mightily impressed, and I will happily concede that I am wrong.
The reason you have retreated to a mantra is that if you answered the question you’d be forced to show you are dividing and averaging flux to get a solution.
We can all see you ducking the question each time you repeat the chant, signalling yet again that this is way above your head.
Prove me wrong. Answer the question.
Clint R
Other than offering your opinion: “Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.”
Do you have any supporting evidence of this such as an experiment?
Have you taken two 500 W heat lamps situated above an absorbing surface, measured the temperature at steady state and then tried it with a 1000 W heat lamp to see if your statement is correct?
barry — Bindi already did the calculation for you. After albedo, that would result in 479.5 W/m², much more realistic than your cult’s 163.3 W/m². But still invalid for any “energy balance” for Earth.
What will you try next?
Norman — Surely you haven’t forgotten what I taught you last time? An arriving flux can NOT warm a surface emitting the same, or greater, flux. So, Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.
“Bindi already did the calculation for you”
Nope, he did not calculate flux over a hemisphere from the solar constant. This is a lame deflection, and another indication you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Clearly you are in way over your head. Obviously you are not able to calculate flux on a hemisphere based on the solar constant. If you were, you would know that averaging and dividing the fluxes is necessary.
Clint R
I did not request your opinion on the matter. I am asking if you have any experimental evidence to support your claim. Textbook physics clearly states that the cold surface will send IR to the hotter one reducing the rate it loses energy. You need to support your claims if you want them to believed. At this point they are your opinions on how you think radiative heat transfer should work. They are not established with any experiment on your part. It does not matter how many times you repeat it. It needs experimental validation to be science.
barry, Bindi showed the result of integration over a hemisphere: “…exactly 0.5”
So applying to solar constant, 1370 W/m², we get 685 W/m². Then, reducing for albedo, we get 479.5 W/m², much more realistic than your cult’s 163.3 W/m². But still invalid for any “energy balance” for Earth. That’s because flux is NOT energy, and you can’t average flux.
What will you try next?
Norman, you are confusing yourself, again. Stick with only one issue, until you fully understand it. You’re behaving like barry, just throwing crap at the wall hoping something will stick.
The first issue you mentioned was my statement “Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.”
Consider a high emissivity thin surface perfectly insulated on the back and edges. If that surface receives 500 W/m², it will reach a temperature of 306K. Then if you add a second flux of 500 W/m², the temperature will not increase because the surface is already emitting 500 W/m². As I taught you earlier, a surface will not absorb a lesser flux than it is emitting. So the surface will NOT increase in temperature with two 500 W/m² fluxes, but will increase in temperature with one 1000 W/m² flux.
Now, before proceeding, do you fully understand this basic concept?
Clint R
Yes that is your belief that adding an additional 500 watt source will have no effect. I am not confused in the least. I am asking you to support your belief with experimental evidence. Do your experiment. Heat one side with a heat lamp. Let it reach a steady state temperature. Remove the insulation and turn on a similar heat lamp on the opposite side and share your data. What you peddle are your opinions, what I request is valid science with experimental validation.
You’re changing the scenario, Norman. Taking off the insulation changes the physics. That’s just another example of you throwing crap against the wall.
Why don’t you want to face reality?
“Two 500 W/m² fluxes don’t have the same effect on a surface as one 1000 W/m² flux. Fluxes can’t be divided.”
Lets put Clint at the focus point of all the mirrors of a solar thermal power plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
According to his bizarre thinking the sunlight fluxes he recieves from each of the thousands of mirrors will not add.
So he should not heat up any more than if he stood out in the sun.
He could be a contender for a Darwin Award!
Child Nate likes to reveal his ignorance of the issues.
Like many in his cult, he finds something on the Internet that he believes supports his false science, and can’t control himself.
Here, he’s apparently discovered how a magnifying glass works. It can focus solar to a much higher flux. But that has NOTHING to do with my point, which children can’t understand.
He’s just throwing crap at the wall, as usual….
Nope. Its a whole bunch of separate sources whose fluxes should not sum or heat according to you.
So you should be fine standing at the focus.
Wrong child, it’s only one source. The mirrors are simply restoring the solar flux that was lessened by distance. If all of the flux could be captured the emitting temperature of Sun could be reached.
Again, you don’t understand any of this. As I said, you just throw crap at the wall, hoping something will stick.
Keep proving me right.
Clint,
“Bindi showed the result of integration over a hemisphere: …exactly 0.5
So applying to solar constant, 1370 W/m2, we get 685 W/m2.”
Yep, Bindi integrated for area and YOU, Clint, have just divided the flux by two (same as multiplying by 0.5) to account for the spread over the hemisphere.
So you’ve proved you can divide flux.
Furthermore, the flux is greatest at the equator and least at the poles – so the result you’ve just given us is an average.
You have averaged and divided flux.
And you thought you couldn’t. Congratulations on this achievement!
barry must have missed:
“…much more realistic than your cult’s 163.3 W/m². But still invalid for any “energy balance” for Earth.”
Not only did barry miss my clarification, but he apparently believes that arithmetic is science. He must believe if you can do a division, then it is okay.
So, let’s saw barry in half (divide-by-2). It can’t hurt because one divided by 2 is one-half. The arithmetic is correct, so barry should be fine.
It’s really quite astonishing how far they are prepared to go to misunderstand. So here, barry has been attacking the quite ludicrous strawman that Clint is saying you literally can’t divide one number by another number and call it an average, for flux!
Mathematically, you can produce an “average flux”, of course. But, is it actually, physically meaningful? Does it in any way accord with real values that are actually, physically experienced? Clint is saying, “no”.
It’s not that difficult to understand.
“it’s only one source. The mirrors are simply restoring the solar flux that was lessened by distance.”
Yep, ‘restoring’ by summing.
You have a thousand separate streams of photons being summed. And producing the expected result 1000 x the flux of one stream, and thus very high temperatures.
Can you point out the physical difference between those thousand streams from one sun, and a thousand streams coming from a thousand different but identical suns?
Of course not. Photons are photons.
Your theory fails to agree with experiment.
Child Nate, we both know that when I answer your latest effort to pervert reality, you will just find more crap to throw against the wall.
So, how about this: You stop commenting here for 30 days, then I will answer your question. Deal?
DREMT,
“The cult has divided the solar constant, about 1370 W/m2, by 4. Radiative flux can not be simply divided!”
Is what Clint said.
Clint divided the solar flux by 2 to give us the result for the lit hemisphere.
I call this progress. Sadly, Clint seems to be denying his achievement.
Every solar flux value for a curved surface is an average, and has been since he began yapping about these matters years ago.
He apparently didn’t know it.
If you want to sign up to denying the arithmetic for flux on a curved surface, that’s entirely up to you, but it is one of the more decrepit lines of science denialism I’ve seen, and that’s saying something.
barry, you’re such an incompetent clown. You only have value as an entertainer.
You actually believe arithmetic can be used to pervert reality.
A healthy human can easily walk at a speed of 4 mph. So in your perverted world a human can walk at 4000 mph, since 4 X 1000 = 4000.
Keep entertaining us.
Predictably, barry doubles down on his ridiculous misrepresentation. Of course Clint is not suggesting you literally can’t divide one number by another number. Of course Clint was aware that “every solar flux value for a curved surface is an average“. He’s saying if you divide flux, and average it, don’t expect the result to be physically meaningful.
DREMT,
You are contradicting Clint while trying, for some unknown reason, to defend his pap.
Here is his post with his comments as he wrote them:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711069
The nuance you are trying to attribute is not there. Nice try bailing Clint out of his nonsense. But your interpretation is just as vacuous, not to mention self-contradictory.
Flux is already divided and averaged as soon as you give a result for the solar constant on a curved surface.
That’s a fact. Calling it ‘physically meaningless’ is the same as saying that any average is meaningless. Pure anti-science.
But please, keep talking. It is instructive for anyone bothering to read.
barry, I have followed this discussion from the beginning. You are not capable of honest debate. You always misrepresent. I let it happen for a little while but eventually it became too irritating for me and I felt the need to intervene.
You’re right, DREMT. barry is just another cult kid. He’s like Nate, Bindi, Norman, Ark, Willard, studentb, and the rest. He has no science background, so resorts to various debate tricks.
He’s fruitlessly trying to defend his cult science, debunked here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711069
The points in the debunk are numbered. If barry were legitimate, he would identify which point and clearly state his concern with it. Otherwise, he’s just throwing crap at the wall hoping something will stick.
“Can you point out the physical difference between those thousand streams from one sun, and a thousand streams coming from a thousand different but identical suns?”
As expected, we get crickets from Clint. And that is correct, there is NO difference.
Now go and stand in front of 1000 500 W/m^2 spotlights shining on you, and you should be no warmer than with one spotlight.
Or, win the Darwin Award in a blaze of glory!
We will remember your brilliance (of your glow).
Your answer, Nate:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711393
As noted “crickets”.
No attempt to answer the question.
You have none, that is obvoius.
Because your ‘theory’ is thoroughly stoopid.
If you stop commenting here for 30 days Nate, then I will answer your question. Deal?
That’s a small price to pay to learn more than all the other cult kids.
barry, when you come up with any single value for the insolation on Earth’s curved surface you are indeed averaging flux and I saw absolutely no indication that Clint R was unaware of that. His point is valid, because averaging flux can lead to significant errors especially when converting your average flux back to a temperature value. See, for example:
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723
Clint, If you wont defend your ideas against challenges, then they can be safely ignored.
Now go away.
DREMT,
The nonsense is as tiresome as it is spurious. I’ll quote Clint.
“#2 Flux does NOT average.
Because of the non-linear nature of radiative flux, it can not be averaged.”
This is absolutely false. Flux is Clint may be mistaking the nonlinear relationship of flux to temperature. If so, how can you be defending this completely wrong comment?
Likely it is from this fundamental misunderstanding that Clint screws up the rest of his analysis.
Yes, you know very well that flux can be averaged and divided. This is NORMAL SCIENCE – not just climate science, but ALL radiative physics. But then you jump off the cliff with Cint in trying to rationalize HIS hopelessly ill-conceived issues with normal science.
If you want to defend Clint, explain to everyone here why flux is a non-linear quantity.
Nate, you haven’t presented any “challenge”. All you’ve done is throw incompetent nonsense at the wall.
Take 30 days off, and I’ll teach you some physics.
Clint R’s statement:
“Because of the non-linear nature of radiative flux, it can not be averaged.”
From my link:
“Inequality (4b) implies that the area-weighted average temperature of a spherical surface (on the left) is always lower than the temperature calculated from the area-weighted average long-wave radiation emitted by the surface in proportion to T(μ)4 (on the right). Due to a non-linear relationship between temperature and the emitted radiative bolometric flux, and a strong latitudinal variation of the absorbed shortwave radiation across the surface of a sphere, the actual mean global temperature of a directionally illuminated planet is not estimable in principle from a planetary averaged radiative flux (Eq. 2) using the SB law (Eq. 1). This is because a spherical geometry violates the fundamental assumption in the SB relationship for spatial homogeneity of radiation absorption and emission.”
Let me know what you need help in understanding, barry. As far as I’m concerned, Clint is correct.
I’m not sure barry was sober when making his last comment. He appeared very incoherent.
But, since he did mention one of the specific points, “#2 Flux does NOT average”, I will respond.
A surface at 205K is emitting 100 W/m². An identical surface is at 355K is emitting 900 W/m². The average flux is 500 W/m², but that calculated average has no meaning because fluxes can not be averaged.
The average temperature of the two surfaces is 280K, resulting in an emission of 265 W/m².
Watch how barry tries to pervert this simple example of why flux cannot be averaged.
That is exactly what I thought you meant by your #2, Clint. Thanks for clarifying. Time to watch barry wriggle.
9:50 am: “The average temperature…”
Clint R: as has been pointed out many times here, temperature is an intensive property thus cannot be properly simply averaged. Demonstrating Clint R chooses not to learn from proper relevant texts.
In Clint’s example, properly accounting for area in m^2 is not evident. Properly, the 900 + 100 are incident on 2m^2 constant area surface thus 500 (or 1000/2) is ok as a meaningful answer for the correct incident area. Clint R is well known for improperly accounting for surface area.
Clint misses that energy flow rate is an extensive property thus can be properly averaged over a constant area when that area is properly accounted.
Btw, Clint’s points #1-11 11:13 am have all been disproven by proper experiment. Clint is well known in preferring incorrect assertions over proper experimental evidence.
Oh look, Ball4 has showed up. This is how the cult kids work. When one runs out of ways to pervert reality, another one shows up to take a turn.
And, as usual, Ball4 knows nothing about the issues. The surfaces mentioned were identical. That means, since temperature is an intensive property, it can be averaged.
The rest of his comment is just as incompetent/irrelevant.
Kids these days….
Clint 11:19 am, your averaging temperature remains humorously wrong. Pouring an 8oz. glass of 355K water into a frozen ocean at 205K does not make the average temperature 280K. Remembering that energy flow rate is an extensive property thus can be properly averaged will hold down the laughter at Clint’s antics.
Ball4 humorously doesn’t understand the word “identical”.
Maybe when/if he grows up?
“Energy flow rate” is power (W) and of course that can be averaged. What we’re actually talking about is whether flux (W/m^2) can be averaged. Ball4 is not even in the right ball-park, as usual. And, it’s deliberate.
Ball4 is one of the most dishonest “human beings” I have ever encountered online. Let’s just say if there was a dying baby and for some reason the only thing that could save it was Ball4 telling the truth…the kid would be done for. He’s simply a savage monster of hateful sophistry that would literally say anything to defend his pathetic religion, no matter what the cost. An abomination of human filth that is one of the only people on here that I would ever say actually deserves to be banned…and I hate the entire concept of censorship. It’s hard for me to think lower of another person than I do Ball4. A worthless, repellent c*nt.
Wriggle? You guys caught up to me.
Clint said: “Because of the non-linear nature of radiative flux, it can not be averaged.”
I said: “This is absolutely false. Flux is [linear] Clint may be mistaking the nonlinear relationship of flux to temperature.”
So what did you guys immediately respond with? The non-linear relationship of flux to temperature. Well, duh!
You quote the paper, DREMT:
“Due to a non-linear relationship between temperature and the emitted radiative bolometric flux…”
Yup. Agreed. I already said it.
The anonymous authors appear to have committed the mistake they say they are correcting for. The conventional method to get the ET of a sphere is to integrate the (yes, it’s linear) flux BEFORE introducing any non-linearity by converting to temperature. But in this paper the integrating steps each converts flux to temperature and averages temperature. Perhaps this indicates why the method hasn’t been taken up.
I note that the paper argues the GHE may provide more surface warming than 33K. I wonder how you took this, DREMT.
DREMT 4:47 pm: “What we’re actually talking about is whether flux (W/m^2) can be averaged.”
Clint 9:50 am: “The average temperature…”
So, no DREMT, Clint was discussing avg. temperature. Please do try to keep up. I’ve already pointed out when Clint R can’t ever use the correct area in m^2, then Clint’s averaging of flux is also wrong. However, many writers do use the correct area in m^2 with results agreeing with experiment unlike Clint R.
barry wriggles by pretending #2 hasn’t always involved the non-linear relationship between flux and temperature. What on Earth did you think Clint meant by “because of the non-linear nature of radiative flux, it can not be averaged”?
The paper I linked to is confusing you, barry. It actually just makes exactly the same point Clint made in his 9:50 AM comment. It’s just Clint made the point a lot more straightforwardly and concisely.
The 500 W/m^2 average of the two fluxes Clint mentions is mathematically correct, but physically meaningless. It’s physically meaningless because it no longer relates correctly to temperature via the SB Law, a law of physics. The temperature you would calculate from that average is too high, as he showed.
It is that simple principle which the authors of the paper I linked to are explaining means, “the actual mean global temperature of a directionally illuminated planet is not estimable in principle from a planetary averaged radiative flux (Eq. 2) using the SB law (Eq. 1).“
The authors conclude the “atmospheric thermal enhancement” is three times higher than previously thought. Most rational people would realise that this is a challenge to the GHE. But some, I guess, just assume “oh well, the GHE must be three times greater than we previously thought” rather than “there’s no way the GHE can account for such a large difference”. It takes all sorts, I suppose.
barry, try not to use technical words such as “cosine” “trigonometry” or “integration” when dealing with CR. These concepts are well beyond him.
studentb, please stop trolling.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Tom Alexandrovich, top Israeli cyber warfare official under Netanyahu, arrested in FBI child predator sting operation for luring minor on internet for sex acts, allowed to board plane & flee U.S. despite no diplomatic immunity.
https://www.kold.com/2025/08/15/8-arrested-las-vegas-area-child-sex-sting/
The Epstein Party wins again!
Israel announces mass relocation of Palestinians to Southern Gaza ahead of new offensive
https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-announces-mass-relocation-palestinians-southern-gaza-ahead-new-offensive
Sham the Arab states all refused to take them decades ago,they refused then and refuse today, even though some of them were part of the area known as Palestine, why does Jordan refuse, after all it took a large part of Palestine.
It is hard to blame neighboring Arab countries for refusing to absorb another influx due to their potential to destabilize their countries.
That is the elephant in the room with Netanyahu’s plan: he says Israel will seize temporarily to dismantle Hamas and then hand Gaza to some Arab authority.
But what if no Arab state steps up? A power vacuum risks something worse than Hamas taking over, while Israel either stays trapped in permanent occupation or tries to force Gazans out as in 1948 (Nakba).
I would like to congratulate Donald Trump for relenting on his ambition for an unconditional ceasefire in Ukraine, instead deferring to Putin’s conditions after obviously fruitful talks in Anchorage.
His critics paint Trump as an egotistical tyrant. They should see now that he listens and yields when it is necessary.
I agree. Words cannot convey my admiration.
He deserves not one, but 2 Nobel Peace Prizes for ending the wars in Gaza and Ukraine (possibly, at some point in the future).
And one for Economics for his amazingly clever tariff policies.
And one for Literature – since although he does not read books his posts on social media read like poetry.
Maybe one for Physics – he knows so much about climate change, whales and wind farms, and for pointing out how bleach cures Covid.
one of the great lessons of life, is that even a fool is right sometimes, Winston Churchill .
Frogs usually refer to comments like Barry’s above as ‘au deuxième degré’.
Apparently, studentb perfectly understood the situation :–)
People who ignore history…
President Macron paid Putin a visit at the Kremlin in the very beginning. Putin just laughed. Then Biden and NATO sat back waiting for Kiev to fall in a few days. That was followed by a series of soft moves where people debated and delayed whether we could send tanks, missiles, or airplanes because they were afraid Putin might get angry. Progress has been slow and largely ineffective.
Trump decided to do the only intelligent thing possible. He decided to talk directly to Putin. Trump knows the guy is pure evil, dishonest to the core, and intent on taking Ukraine no matter how long it takes. He does get a daily intelligence briefing.
Now the media is hysterical trying to find something — anything — to criticize the only advancement toward peace that anyone has achieved. There is talk of a meeting between Zelenskyy (sic) and Putin one-on-one with a followup three-way with Trump.
More important, the Europeans have finally figured out that throwing insults at Putin wasn’t getting anywhere. Eventually the liberal media, their partners in the Democrat Party, and the rest of you fools will get the picture. No, the EU countries are not “shielding Zelenskyy from Trump”. They are supporting Trump, and they have coached Zelenskyy how to behave himself in front of the only person who has any chance of ending the war any time soon. There is a unified coalition behind the leadership of Donald Trump that is finally being effective. There is talk of “Article 5 type” security guarantees As much as this pains me to state and many of you to accept, that is the reality.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/trump-zelenskyy-meeting-white-house-ukraine/
Putin flatters Trump and Trump gets nothing from Russia. Trump has been played ever since he took on the mission. He has been the Kremlin’s patsy since before he castigated Zelenski in the White House. He has won zero concessions from Russia, and wound up rolling out the red carpet and failing to get what he wanted. Putin got the photos and the credibility he desired.
The fantasies the right has about Trump are pure invention, fashioned in an empty space where no actual substance lies. Trump’s ‘genius’ is something hidden from view, a brilliantly clandestine game of chess that will be revealed in due course.
And as for not bad-mouthing Putin – Trump did that the last time he interacted with the dictator of Russia, early July, when he realized Putin was full of it. How quickly people forget.
From the Internet Time Machine:
Why not this one?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-16/fda-deletes-viral-ivermectin-not-a-horse-tweet-opens-door-for-misinformation
It’s a new week.
How will Trump embarrass America today?
Newsmax reaches $67M settlement with Dominion Voting Systems in defamation case.
Conservative-leaning cable news channel Newsmax agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $67 million to settle a defamation lawsuit over false election claims that the 2020 election was rigged.
Earlier this year, Fox News reached a $787 million settlement with Dominion over similar claims. Newsmax previously settled with Smartmatic, another voting machine company, over defamation claims in 2024.
Barry says:
” ”I am talking about changes in earth’s speed through space.”
So I checked that out, and there is no research suggesting a 60-year cycle in the Earth’s velocity.”
——————–
So how do you explain significant perturbations that result in eccentricity changes Barry? The study you are discussing above has that illustrated. Are you in denial of this basic concept expressed by Milankovic, Berger, Hays, NASA etc?
Please explain how ellipticity varies and what the mechanism of it. I provided you with references that show the gravitational pull of the planets, primarily Jupiter and Saturn change the earth’s eccentricity.
https://www.academia.edu/117506080/Possible_Contribution_of_the_Gravitational_Influence_of_Jupiter_and_Saturn_to_the_60_Year_Variation_in_Global_Temperature
Do you recall that study? You are the one who found it. What does an object do when exposed to gravity? You really show read 1) the story of how Neptune was discovered. It was noticed that Uranus was not showing up in the correct location in accordance to schedules initially computed. They calculated the gravitational forces necessary to make for the perturbation and used those calculations to plot likely sources in the sky that would cause a change in speed of Uranus. This was in the middle of the 19th century and even then it was well understood and now you are playing dumb?
Barry wrongly claims:
”But it seems that this variation is not part of a 60-year cycle that can be matched to the 60-year global temperature oscillation. Or at least, you’ve provided no reference saying so.”
Well you did! see above.
And I did too: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/the-400-year-rhythm-of-great-conjunctions/#google_vignette
and here: https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Sir-2024-Prag-60yr-Jupiter-Earth.pdf
Barry wrongly claims:
”So the only reference you’ve provided for a 60-year perturbation of Earth’s celestial mechanics is about LOD.”
thats a lie. LOD is the second thing mentioned in the study
The first was eccentricity variation by gravity of the other planets.
LOD doesn’t even make it to the conclusion but is used as evidence of the change in orbital speed via transfer of angular momentum. So all you are demonstrating here is an inability to understand these papers.
Thus there is no sense in going through the rest of your post as you keep improperly harping on the relationship of LOD changes to changes in orbital angular momentum.
“I provided you with references that show the gravitational pull of the planets, primarily Jupiter and Saturn change the earth’s eccentricity.”
Yep, over 10’s to 100’s of thousands of years.
To suggest that therefore it happens over 60 years, is not supported by any facts.
Fact is Nate we can see the effects in the modern temperature record and in the proxy records.
You are just in denial of those effects and you have no explanation for them.
Hays et al tells us you are wrong about the linear nature of this. It runs in good size bumps of many sizes depending upon infinite alignments of the planets on a regular schedule probably spanning a half million years or more.
The linear axial cycles that span 10’s of thousands of years only makes up about 40% of the effect per Hays et al.
What source do you have that provides a mechanism for this that is linear in nature for a single 100,000 year cycle that is caused by the gravity of the 8 planets? We know that co2 models can’t explain the climate variations between 1900 and 1980 and I predict that within the next 35 years there will also be a lack of explanation for the subsequent 80 years. How much longer do you want to be responsible for slowing down the progress of science Nate?
Bill,
barry: “So I checked that out, and there is no research suggesting a 60-year cycle in the Earth’s velocity.”
bill: “So how do you explain significant perturbations that result in eccentricity changes Barry? The study you are discussing above has that illustrated. Are you in denial of this basic concept expressed by Milankovic, Berger, Hays, NASA etc?”
None of those are of a 60-year cycle.
I have been querying the 60-year orbital/rotational cycle in terms of climate. I already said many times that the multi-millennial orbital dynamics and climate are well founded.
barry: “So the only reference you’ve provided for a 60-year perturbation of Earth’s celestial mechanics is about LOD.”
bill: “thats a lie. LOD is the second thing mentioned in the study”
LOD is the only 60-year cycle mentioned in the study. The study mentions other perturbations, but not on the 60-year cycle.
It is also the one and only perturbation that this study connects to the 60-year climate oscillation.
I am talking about the celestial mechanics supposedly linked to the 60-year climate cycle. I am talking about the connection to the 60-year climate cycle. I have always been speaking about the celestial mechanics connection to the 60-year climate cycle.
Is this yet clear to you?
You complained that this connection is buried by mainstream climate science., So I checked it out. I found research on it.
I found research on this supposed connection to the 60-year climate cycle, and concluded that it was not ‘buried’, but that the connection isn’t there. LOD doesn’t work.
If you can point specifically to another 60-year cycle in Earth’s celestial mechanics that I can investigate in relation to climate, or some other 60-year cycle generated by other planets that could explain 60-year climate cycles, please do so. LOD is the only 60-year cycle from the links you gave.
I am well aware you have provided information on different cycle lengths, but the 60-year correlation is the one I have focussed on.
60-year cycle. Shall we investigate this just now, sort it out, and then look at other cycles?
Let’s unbury this particular correlation, shall we?
barry says:
”barry: “So I checked that out, and there is no research suggesting a 60-year cycle in the Earth’s velocity.”
bill: “expressed by Milankovic, Berger, Hays, NASA etc?”
None of those are of a 60-year cycle.”
——————
they are all about orbit perturbations by the other planets, Jupiter and Saturn is by far the most powerful combination and Kepler long ago described the slowly rotating 60 year cycle of these two planets that takes 900 years to full rotate through the sky.
What more do you need? For today’s corrupt institutions to take off their horse blinders?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
barry says:
I have been querying the 60-year orbital/rotational cycle in terms of climate. I already said many times that the multi-millennial orbital dynamics and climate are well founded.
————–
Yes likely well founded but practically entirely undescribed. So what you left out of your ”well founded” claim is exactly what is it built on top of? You should know that via Berger and Hayes. But you choose to ignore it and you haven’t given a reason why nor acknowledged exactly what the building blocks are that created you belief in the foundation. Like who cares if their is any rebar in the foundation huh? We will be just fine as long as we don’t get hit by a comet, asteroid, or god forbid another moon or planet.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Barry says:
”LOD is the only 60-year cycle mentioned in the study. The study mentions other perturbations, but not on the 60-year cycle.”
BS the graphic that creates the correlation isn’t LOD its Jupiter’s orbit perturbations estimated
———————
No its not. You are completely ignoring the conclusion of the paper.
”5. Conclusions
We present a causal chain that links a 60-year period of Jupiter’s orbital eccentricity to a 60-year period of climate change:
1) 60-year cyclic changes in the eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit are the main cause of changes in the Earth’s orbital rate.
2) Changes in the Earth’s orbital rate cause climate changes with a period of about 60 years.”
Its says zero about LOD itself creating more sunlight for earth.
Barry claims:
”I found research on this supposed connection to the 60-year climate cycle, and concluded that it was not ‘buried’, but that the connection isn’t there. LOD doesn’t work.”
Sure the methodology you used isn’t anything proposed or calculated by the paper either. So why are you trying to do that?
Barry says:
”If you can point specifically to another 60-year cycle in Earth’s celestial mechanics.”
There is only one and you can’t just calculate sunlight input change straight up from LOD like you are trying to do. All the author has done is show a correlation to Jupiter’s orbital perturbations and earth’s LOD that has a pattern over a short period of time to ocean oscillations which also correlate to climate change. Doing that you can tease out that the major cycle is 60 years even with influences from cycles of other lengths forced on the earth by primarily the other gas giants.
barry: “If you can point specifically to another 60-year cycle in Earth’s celestial mechanics.”
“There is only one…”
Well, I’m glad we are agreed on that.
“… and you can’t just calculate sunlight input change straight up from LOD like you are trying to do.”
I didn’t calculate it. I simply reported from the references in this paper that the amplitude of change is several milliseconds. I also learned that the change is diurnally symmetrical -nights and days both equally are lengthened/shortened by several milliseconds over the cycle.
“All the author has done is show a correlation to Jupiter’s orbital perturbations and earth’s LOD that has a pattern over a short period of time to ocean oscillations which also correlate to climate change. Doing that you can tease out that the major cycle is 60 years even with influences from cycles of other lengths forced on the earth by primarily the other gas giants.”
Yes, all the author has done is show a correlation.
You have said that the climate possibilities of such perturbations have been buried.
So I dug into the ground to unearth some facts on this, based on the paper you linked, with the graph of the 60-year climate cycle oscillation. My question going in was – “what is the physical mechanism linking this planetary perturbation with global climate. The answer was LOD.
So I checked out what the 60-year LOD changes actually are, and whether this could have a noticeable effect.
They don’t.
So, we agree that the only 60-year cycle celestial change to Earth’s mechanics is the rotation speed changes. I think it’s pretty clear that LOD changes of a few milliseconds can’t account for the global temperature changes they correlate with.
Far as I’m concerned this concludes the investigation into the 60-year orbital perturbations on Earth’s climate, with a negative result.
If you want to posit other sub-millennial celestial cycles cycles (ie, aside from Milankovitch) that have an influence on Earth’s climate, go right ahead. We can check correlation and causation.
You think this stuff is buried? Well, spades out, let’s exhume these matters.
barry says:
”Yes, all the author has done is show a correlation.”
We agree! Correlations as important as this, being a better correlation than CO2 should definitely be modeled and investigated.
Barry says:
I think it’s pretty clear that LOD changes of a few milliseconds can’t account for the global temperature changes they correlate with.
They don’t.
———————
You need to read with better comprehension Barry. The author does not make the claim you claim he does.
LOD is just another result of the pull of gravity by the major outer planets. Climate change is just another result of orbit perturbations forced by gravity.
The LOD effect is interesting because it demonstrates a significant effect on tides. Namely enough of an effect to measurably change the rotation rate of earth.
global temperature changes just happen to occur simultaneously in time with the LOD changes. the Author here merely points out that the AMO has long been thought to have an effect on the multi-decadal climate cycles seen in time with the AMO and PDO.
So regardless of how much warming might be caused by ocean oscillations or by a longer time lingering in the southern summer; the fact is the current warming from 1980 is in time with planetary motions and as the author says also is in time with ocean oscillations and the instrument temperature record.
LOD changes are also occurring because of the tidal effects of the outer planets, lifting oceans and continents slightly to affect the earth’s rotational angular momentum.
barry says:
So, we agree that the only 60-year cycle celestial change to Earth’s mechanics is the rotation speed changes. I think it’s pretty clear that LOD changes of a few milliseconds can’t account for the global temperature changes they correlate with.
———————
No we only agree that the outer planets via lifting the oceans and the continents will change the earth’s rotational angular momentum.
However it may have effects on the distribution of heat in the earth system which itself could provide an explanation for the warming cycle fully in the 20th century and be part of the next cycle.
What we apparently disagree on is that gravity can also at the same time cause the earth to accelerate or decelerate in discreet zones of its orbit (i.e. not perpendicular to the pull of gravity of the large planets.) Why you are in such adamant disagreement with Newton’s Laws of Gravity is beyond me.
“You need to read with better comprehension Barry. The author does not make the claim you claim he does.”
From the abstract:
“The 60-year cycle of eccentricity of Jupiter’s orbit is shown to be closely related to the 60-year cycle of Earth’s climate. Changes in Jupiter’s orbit affect the Earth’s rotation rate. The following phenomena have been shown to be related to these changes: the 1992 El Chicon eruption, the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, the occurrence of strong earthquakes in the period 1900–2022, the AMO index, low flows in the period 1920–2020 on the Punkva River in the Moravian Karst, precipitation extremes in the Czech Republic after 1995, the catastrophic floods of 2002 in Central Europe, and the unusually long drought of 2014–2019 in Central Europe.”
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Sir-2024-Prag-60yr-Jupiter-Earth.pdf
Wherever a 60-year period is mentioned with respect to Earth’s celestial mechanics in that paper, it is only WRT its spin rate.
Which I thought you understood when you replied to me:
barry: “If you can point specifically to another 60-year cycle in Earth’s celestial mechanics.”
bill: “There is only one…”
You wrote: “What we apparently disagree on is that gravity can also at the same time cause the earth to accelerate or decelerate in discreet zones of its orbit”
No, we don’t.
You mistake my sharp focus on the 60-year cycle as a rejection for perturbations on different scales. If we are to examine claims, I prefer to address them one by one. It appears you prefer to address things severally, without lasering in on each claim.
I am willing to methodically go through each thing you think is “buried” by mainstream climate science on celestial mechanics influencing Earth’s climate. To do that properly I need to see a celestial cycle linked to Earth’s climate, and then to understand the linking mechanism to move the study from pure correlation to a physical basis. I’ve done that with the 60-year cycle from that paper. What next?
Barry you keep trying to argue that changes to LOD doesn’t explain the 60 year patterns seen in the temperature record.
We agree on that yet you keep trying to argue it and claim that one of the studies I provided for you makes that argument.
You then provided a quote from the article and that quote doesn’t support what you are claiming that the study claims.
So that being done we can talk about the fact that the earth does warm and cool naturally and that that natural climate change is connected/correlated to the location of planets in the sky at given times and their orbit rotation rates.
And whether you agree that these motions should be modeled to estimate how much or less solar exposure is affected and what kinds of tidal flows they create on the surface of that planet (which which apparently is adequately sufficient to change LOD meaning that you indeed have tidal flows that creates some degree of climate change just from the flow change. Enough apparently to be an explanation for changes to the AMO, you know the one that you guys told us is a sufficient flow that could cause New York to freeze solid into a block of ice should it change via warming from CO2)
“And whether you agree that these motions should be modeled to estimate how much or less solar exposure is affected and what kinds of tidal flows they create on the surface of that planet (which which apparently is adequately sufficient to change LOD meaning that you indeed have tidal flows that creates some degree of climate change just from the flow change. Enough apparently to be an explanation for changes to the AMO”
“Tidal” activity in that paper refers to the tides of gravity.
You are again suggesting that the correlation is enough to explain changes to the AMO. Correlation is not causation is not just a saying, it is a caution against the peril of pattern matching without establishing a causal chain.
Between these two comment in your post:
“Barry you keep trying to argue that changes to LOD doesn’t explain the 60 year patterns seen in the temperature record.
We agree on that”
And:
“which apparently is adequately sufficient to change LOD meaning that you indeed have tidal flows that creates some degree of climate change just from the flow change
You seem to have contradictory opinions on whether the 60-year LOD cycle is sufficient to cause climate change of the same periodicity.
I am satisfied that a change of a few milliseconds of sunlight/not sunlight, equally for day and night is insufficient to cause a noticeable climate change.
So if you have some other linking mechanism from gravitational effects that correlates with global climate change, I’d be happy to investigate it. But so far nothing as concrete as the LOD correlation has come up. Looks to me like that won’t happen. I can’t investigate generalisations. I need a specific thesis – like the LOD thesis from that paper. Which has not been buried but has indeed been investigated, cf the research paper I provided above.
barry says:
” ”Tidal” activity in that paper refers to the tides of gravity.
————-
Is there any other? boxes of laundry detergent maybe?
barry says:
”You are again suggesting that the correlation is enough to explain changes to the AMO. Correlation is not causation is not just a saying, it is a caution against the peril of pattern matching without establishing a causal chain.”
Huh? Tides move huge amounts of water!! The only person who would question that has to be a landlubber.
barry says:
Between these two comment in your post:
”Barry you keep trying to argue that changes to LOD doesn’t explain the 60 year patterns seen in the temperature record.
We agree on that”
And:
”which apparently is adequately sufficient to change LOD meaning that you indeed have tidal flows that creates some degree of climate change just from the flow change.”
You seem to have contradictory opinions on whether the 60-year LOD cycle is sufficient to cause climate change of the same periodicity.”
Nothing contradictory at all because I didn’t say LOD caused climate change. I said in other parts of my post that gravity causes tides and the tides causes measurable change to LOD. The tides are also implicated in multi-decadal climate change. Do I have to go find references for you on that too? The key chart compares the perturbations of Jupiter’s orbit (which indicates that the other 3 gas giants alter it enough such that it correlates to the AMO.
You are very noticeably trying to play horseblinder science by ignoring your own references you have provided and by ignoring Hays et al and are obfuscating about one paper that shows a correlation of planet motions to climate change. That same thing, the 4 gas giants, also causes changes to LOD.
I am not claiming the reverse of that and none of the papers you have claims that LOD causes climate change either. So its beyond bizarre why you are stuck on this non-point and making ridiculous claims about it.
Barry says:
”So if you have some other linking mechanism from gravitational effects that correlates with global climate change, I’d be happy to investigate it.”
Good your beyond believing one of the papers I gave you claims LOD changes is the cause of the natural climate change we see in the instrument record and ice core proxies.
Investigate the fact that the motion of the 4 gas giants changes the speed of earth within portions of the orbit and the US Naval Observatory data that indicates the earth spent 5 more days in the half of the orbit that would be warmer than the other half. Or heck I could care less if you determine that its the moon’s gravity doing that. . .either way its natural climate change.
[Trump from the Oval Office] “When you go to a voting booth, and you do it the right way, and you go to a state that runs it properly, you go in — they even asked me, they asked me for my license plate. I said, ‘I don’t know if I have it.’ They said, ‘Sir, you have to have it.’ I was very impressed actually.”
Fact Check:
1/ They don’t ask for a license plate.
2/ Convicted felons can’t vote.
3/ Days without Trump nationally and internationally embarrassing our country: Zero.
This claim was made in multiple social media posts identical to the one here from August 18, 2025: https://archive.ph/vVpVm
Fact check:
No, that’s not true: Earth’s distance from the Sun changes daily and at aphelion, the Earth’s distance from the Sun is only about 3% more than the average distance. Other factors have a greater impact on temperature, including the atmosphere’s ability to slow fluctuations in heat and the 24-degree tilt in Earth’s axis, which determines the duration and intensity of sunlight striking the planet.
You think that thermal inertia is irrelevant to ice sheet melt.
From the document Ark cited:
https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/0kdlw6oq5v8hsvj152eqx01b0qn74uuq.pdf
“Dr. Christy is well known for his questioning of established, peer-reviewed climate science and raising doubts about the extent to which human activity has caused global warming.11 He has been linked in the past to the Heartland Institute, an advocacy group that frequently questions the scientific consensus on climate change.”
The word ‘linked to’ is vague. Its meaning can cover everything from a single speaking appearance to long term organizational work. In any case, it only functions rhetorically as a credibility attack rather than a substantive critique of Christy’s contributions in the DOE report.
Any Climateball player worth their salt knows that JC wrote very little of the report. Just as they know that his tie with Heartland is as strong as Roy’s if not stronger:
https://heartland.org/?s=john+christy
The steps of the contrarian tango (Pure Denial, Sammich Request, Saying Stuff, and Special Pleading) form a compact system for not carrying one’s weight on the Climateball field.
I repeat what I wrote a week ago.
A propos
https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/Sir-2024-Prag-60yr-Jupiter-Earth.pdf
” The Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL for short) is a Dutch foundation that engages in climate science denial. The organization, which fights against climate protection, is considered the continental European counterpart to the British Global Warming Policy Foundation. According to its own statements, it was founded by science journalist Marcel Crok and geoscientist Guus Berkhout, who began his career at the oil company Royal Dutch Shell.
Clintel maintains close ties to other climate denial organizations such as the US-based Heartland Institute, the oil-industry-funded Friends of Science, the European Climate Realist Network, and many well-known climate skeptics.
The Climate Intelligence Foundation became known for its spearheaded declaration “There is no Climate Emergency,” in which, according to Clintel, several hundred scientists and experts deny the existence of the climate crisis.
The signatories include academics, politicians, lobbyists, and high-ranking figures from the oil and gas industry known as climate change deniers, as well as others associated with various climate change denial organizations such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
According to a bibliographical analysis, the signatories have virtually no scientific activity in the field of climate change. Furthermore, the authors of this analysis classify the declaration as a disinformation campaign intended to confuse the public about the scientific consensus on climate change.
At the same time, they place the declaration in the tradition of earlier, similar climate change denial initiatives such as the Leipzig Declaration and the Oregon Petition, some of whose statements were also adopted. ”
*
https://euracoal.eu/info/country-profiles/czech-republic-8/
*
Yeah. Long live the naive believers!
Bindi is one of the blog-cloggers here who understands none of the science. Like several of the other cult kids, he’s just lonely….
So let’s make use of his interruption.
One of the ongoing errors in the CO2 nonsense involves “flux”. Solar Insolation arriving Earth is called “flux”, and has units of W/m². But that’s where the problem starts. “Flux” is NOT “energy”. And “flux” is NOT “heat”.
Flux has units of Power/Area, or in the MKS system of units, Watts/meter$#xB2;. Since Power is Energy/Time, Flux is also Energy/Time/Area. Flux has base units of M/T^3 (mass/time^3).
Because “energy” is involved, people unfamiliar with physics assume flux is energy. We see that constantly in the CO2 nonsense, especially in the “Earth’s Energy Budget” debunked here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711069
Flux is not Energy, just as Power is not Energy, just as Speed is not Distance. But children cannot understand physics. Flux contains units of Energy but that does not mean they are equal. Just as Speed contains units of Length, 60 miles/hour is not the same as 60 miles!
Just to make it clear, let’s again compare units:
Category —– MKS Units —– Base Units
Energy —– Joules —– Mass X Length²/Time²
Power —– Watts —– Mass X Length²/Time^3
Flux —– W/m² —– Mass/Time^3
Responsible adults will recognize that Flux cannot be haphazardly treated as Energy.
So whenever you see flux confused with energy, you will know that ain’t science.
Clint R is an incredibly incompetent person, like all those who doubt the centuries-old science of the lunar spin.
He has been corrected so many times about flux vs. energy…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flux
This is the ‘ball-on-a-string’ syndrome, also named KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
Bindi, you can’t correct me. I haven’t stated anything wrong.
I think you’re just obsessed with the simple ball-on-a-string. You probably have nightmares about it. That simple analogy destroys all of your false beliefs.
Sorry.
Clint R
YOU: “If that surface receives 500 W/m², it will reach a temperature of 306K. Then if you add a second flux of 500 W/m², the temperature will not increase because the surface is already emitting 500 W/m². As I taught you earlier, a surface will not absorb a lesser flux than it is emitting. So the surface will NOT increase in temperature with two 500 W/m² fluxes, but will increase in temperature with one 1000 W/m² flux.”
Once again I will ask you for your experimental evidence to support this opinion of yours. Do take two heat sources that can reach one surface. Turn one on first. Let it reach steady state then turn on the other one which produces the same flux as the first and demonstrate the temperture of the surface does not increase when you turn on the second energy source. Other than that you are just blabbing clogging the blog as you claim Gordon Robertson does. Support is what is requested. I think all regulars on this blog know your endless beliefs and opinions. Now it it time to science up and provide experimental evidence and prove the textbooks wrong!!
Norman, you have no background in the relevant science. You would have to have a course in radiative physics and a course in thermodynamics. I try to make things simple, but you still can’t understand.
I’ve explained this before, and you were forced to concede because you realized ice could not warm things warmer than ice. But you’re STILL having trouble with that concept.
There is nothing as simple as the ball-on-a-string, but like Bindi, you have not been able to understand it.
I can only do so much….
Clint R
I will try again, then probably have to give it up. Post results of a test you do. Two heat lamps rated at same wattage. A plate that absorbs IR well. A thermometer. Not a hard science experiment to perform. According to your opinion (which is not science) a 2nd light will have no impact on the temperature of the plate. Do the test and post the results.
Norman don’t make me repeat myself. You have no interest in reality, or science, or learning. You won’t accept anything I offer.
So how about YOU provide a credible source that shows two 300 W/m² fluxes arriving a surface will result in that surface being able to emit 600 W/m².
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R
So now it is the reversal tactic along with numerous insults about my intelligence
I am not making claims one way or another, therefore there is no burben of proving anything. You however have make bold statements that I have requested you provide evidence for. I described a simple experiment for you to do and yet you will not support your opinions
Why is that? Both Roy Spencer and E Swanson have provided experimental evidence that a cold object will raise the temperature of a heated object. You have provided zero evidence their experiments were flawed.
Norman, it’s not my fault you’re insulted by reality. I would recommend trying to learn.
And appealing to others is an act of desperation. Do you actually believe putting on a coat in cold weather invalidates 2LoT? Do you believe that means “cold” can warm “hot”?
You have no interest in reality, or science, or learning. You won’t accept anything I offer. So again, how about YOU provide a credible source that shows how two 300 W/m² fluxes arriving a surface will result in that surface being able to emit 600 W/m².
I won’t hold my breath….
Clint R
Your ability to divert is endless. You still have not done an experiment to validate your claim about two 500 watt sources reaching some surface. So the one who makes the claims expects the one asking for your evidence and science is now requested to perform the test you will not? Strange diversion. Also a slew of mindless insults that really are just diversions. So basically you are saying you will not do science but claim your opinions are science and anyone who does not accept your beliefs is and ignorant idiot? Hmm.. Diversion tactics is very strong in this one. Must be a Trump supporter, learns well from the Master. Epstein files? Oh no crime in DC! Look, look over here nothing to see in Epstein files (except maybe the mention of my name in numerous places in those files).
See here, Norman, after you finish with your TDS:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711299
BACK AT THE RANCH
A speechwriter at the Department of Homeland Security has been linked to hateful posts on social media, reportedly claiming that American conservatives are ostracized like the Jews were in Nazi Germany.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/dhs-speechwriter-social-media-conservatives-nazi-germany-b2809794.html
GEWINN!
Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Mandamus Relief filed on August 12, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:25-cv-12249) by Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) against the U.S. DOE Secretary Christopher Wright, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin (in their official capacities), DOE, EPA, and a secretive “Climate Working Group” (CWG) formed by DOE.
Alleged are violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which include failure to: consult GSA before forming the group, publish formation notices or maintain a charter, balance membership or avoid undue influence, open meetings to the public, and preserve or disclose records and minutes.
The existence of the CWG was undisclosed until July 29, 2025, coinciding with EPA’s announcement to rescind the Endangerment Finding. No meetings, records, or deliberations were made public, violating FACA’s transparency mandates.
The report, titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” contains no evidence of peer review, and DOE publicly presented its findings with a foreword by Secretary Wright acknowledging the report was intended to counter the mainstream narrative.
From the complaint: https://library.edf.org/AssetLink/0kdlw6oq5v8hsvj152eqx01b0qn74uuq.pdf
Thank you.
I’m impatiently awaiting the MAGAmaniacal responses in ball-on-a-string style from the usual suspects.
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
The melting of sea ice in the Arctic has slowed dramatically in the past 20 years, scientists have reported, with no statistically significant decline in its extent since 2005.
First impression of the paper: The framing seems protective. Instead of simply defining a “pause” as “an extended period with little or no decline in sea ice cover” and leaving it at that, the authors embed it directly within AGW framework:
“We would like to underscore that pause or slowdown are used interchangeably to refer to an extended period with little or no decline in sea ice cover, due to the observed realization of multi-decadal climate variability on top of the response to anthropogenic forcing, temporarily interrupting the ongoing long-term reduction in Arctic sea ice.”
By doing so, they assume from the outset that a pause cannot exist on its own – it MUST BE explained as an interruption caused by variability overlaying anthropogenic forcing. If the results were truly robust, wouldn’t the data and analysis stand strongly on their own, without the need for hedging or interpretive guardrails?
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL116175
The long period with no “statistically significant” loss of ice is examined in the context of a world warming from greenhouse gases.
Why do you think that context should be immaterial?
“they assume from the outset that a pause cannot exist on its own”
If the world were not changing temperature, there would be nothing interesting about a lack of change in Arctic sea ice.
I argue the framing is all that makes this ‘pause’ interesting.
Let’s frame it differently. “The global temperature hasn’t changed for 100 years. We want to draw attention to the fact that Arctic sea ice cover hasn’t changed in a hundred years, also.”
No, I’m not seeing why this thesis is more interesting than the one you’ve linked. Could you clarify your criticism?
Well, the authors report that the multi model mean shows about a 20% chance of simulating a pause like the observed one.
But that statistic can be interpreted in two very different ways.
The paper chooses to treat it as a frequency statistic (i.e., there is a roughly one in five climatological chance of a melting pause under AGW, similar to how we might say there is a certain probability of an El Ni-no occurring in any given year.)
If instead you treat the same number as a measure of model skill, the conclusion is very different: there is an 80% failure rate, which suggests the models may be sending too strong of a warming signal and underestimating natural variability.
Under that framing, the observed pause looks much less consistent with AGW.
That is why the framing matters. The choice of framing determines whether we call that a success or a failure.
Choosing the frequency interpretation makes the pause look expected and unproblematic.
Choosing the skill interpretation highlights model weakness. It would be like trying to convince the FDA to approve a drug with only a 20% efficacy rate.
Barry,
Another issue is in the robustness of the metric being tested.
In this study, a pause is defined only as a 2005–2024 trend that is equal to or slower than the observed.
This definition strips away critical context. In reality, the pause was preceded by a sharp melting period from 1996–2005.
The sequence of events (rapid decline → pause) is itself meaningful, because from a Lorenzian, chaos-theory perspective, the dynamics of the earlier decline may have conditioned the later slowdown.
By focusing solely on the pause window, the study sidesteps the deeper question of whether models can capture the transition in timing and dynamics: features tied to real world physics with direct implications for predictability.
The authors themselves acknowledged that the duration of a pause affects the risk of a sharper subsequent decline in the models, which implicitly concedes that timing structure matters.
“If instead you treat the same number as a measure of model skill, the conclusion is very different: there is an 80% failure rate, which suggests the models may be sending too strong of a warming signal and underestimating natural variability.”
There is a 100% failure rate at predicting interannual variability. There is a lesser failure rate with predicting long-term ‘pauses’ arising from statistical variability.
The Arctic has warmed by at least 0.5C in the period (most conservative estimate), up to 1C in some data. I couldn’t tell from the paper whether the models had overestimated this warming, or what other factors bearing on sea ice had been accounted in the modeling (like other emissions, natural and anthropogenic).
There is nothing in the text to suggest that the models overestimated the warming signal. How should we treat this speculation?
“There is a 100% failure rate at predicting interannual variability. There is a lesser failure rate with predicting long-term ‘pauses’ arising from statistical variability.”
Interannual noise is one thing, but a 20 year pause is a multidecadal trend – exactly the kind of signal models claim to capture. By your logic, any deviation with a failure rate below 100% can be dismissed as variability, and then there would be no falsification test.
“There is nothing in the text to suggest that the models overestimated the warming signal. How should we treat this speculation?”
The absence of that conclusion in the text does not make it speculation. Instead, it reflects the authors’ choice to frame the 20% probability figure as a frequency statistic rather than a skill metric. That framing sidesteps the question of whether the models are systematically misrepresenting reality.
“Interannual noise is one thing, but a 20 year pause is a multidecadal trend – exactly the kind of signal models claim to capture.”
A 20-year pause is not a trend. In fact, the trend was negative. The authors pointed out that the trend was not statistically significant.
If you understand statistics, this result doesn’t mean that there is not an underlying trend, nor that there is a definite pause.
We know the Arctic has warmed in the period, and a simple expectation is that sea ice would accordingly recede. This is what models show. (This is also intuitive)
So the authors wondered is a 20-year ‘pause’ – or a trend that fails statistical significance – a feature within the various model runs that ultimately show reduced ice cover in the longer term, as you would expect happens with a warming Arctic – and which is actually observed for this period.
The paper assesses, but not too deeply, I think, the possibility that a reduction in ice cover is somehow linked to anthropogenic forcing, coming up with a negative. Then, compared to an array of model runs, 20% of the time they find 20+ year ‘pauses’ that are a result of ordinary random chance, an artefact of the variability. We’ve seen this behaviour a few times in the temperature record.
Asking whether there is a problem with the models is a fair question, but I’m not sure how they fit that into the scope of this paper. That’s a separate study with very different metrics. And there is already plenty of other research critiquing models.
“A 20-year pause is not a trend. In fact, the trend was negative. The authors pointed out that the trend was not statistically significant.
If you understand statistics, this result doesn’t mean that there is not an underlying trend, nor that there is a definite pause.”
You are right that a non significant trend ALONE does not prove a pause.
But if you look at Figures 1c and 1d, after 2012 (the peak 20 year sea ice loss trend), the subsequent trends steadily slow. The most recent 20-year period ending in 2024 is actually the 2nd slowest in the record. That is not trivial.
“Then, compared to an array of model runs, 20% of the time they find 20+ year ‘pauses’ that are a result of ordinary random chance, an artefact of the variability. We’ve seen this behaviour a few times in the temperature record.”
Variability is not always random, high frequency noise.
It can be dynamically structured and regime like, as we see in many modes of low frequency variability (AMO, PDO, etc.).
The Arctic sea ice pause seems to reflect such dynamics, so it has physics behind it that matter for predictability, and models need to capture that.
“Asking whether there is a problem with the models is a fair question, but I’m not sure how they fit that into the scope of this paper. That’s a separate study with very different metrics. And there is already plenty of other research critiquing models.”
The reason it is not in scope is because the authors chose to frame it that way.
By treating the 20% as a climatological occurrence statistic rather than a skill test, they kept the result consistent with AGW.
That choice ties directly back to the strong hedging in the introduction, where they defined the pause in advance as only a temporary interruption on top of AGW.
For the last 20, 40, 50 years the Arctic has been the fastest warming region on the planet. Isn’t this a firm physical foundation on which to predicate the notion of a “pause” in sea ice decline, particularly when the period has seen the fastest rate of warming for the region?
I’m not clear if you think models might be faulty WRT warming in the region, or if they fail to model the potential response of sea ice to increased temps over the last 20 years.
Yes, it is a good foundation. But that is why the pause is so strange: it suggests there are important dynamics being missed by the models.
The fact that this pause occurred ruing the period of fast Arctic warming makes it peculiar and significant.
It has further implications for the future trajectories of both Arctic temperatures and sea ice.
“I’m not clear if you think models might be faulty WRT warming in the region, or if they fail to model the potential response of sea ice to increased temps over the last 20 years.”
The most likely explanation is the latter: models impose an overly rigid coupling between warming and sea ice loss, which prevents them from reproducing the real world divergence you note.
A sea ice – temperature relationship does exist, but it is less rigid and more complex than the models allow.
This suggests that if models fail 80% of the time to reproduce observed sea ice trends, they are also misrepresenting the behavior of Arctic temperatures.
Someone might argue that the models “get Arctic temperatures right” based on statistical extrapolations, but that is not the same as accurate simulation.
EDIT (for better flow and clarity):
The most likely explanation is that models impose an overly rigid coupling between warming and sea ice loss, which prevents them from reproducing the observed divergence.
In reality, the sea ice – temperature relationship is still there, but it is more flexible and complex than the models allow. They can’t accommodate the real world dynamics that temporarily stabilized sea ice despite continued warming.
And this has consequences for temperatures too. A model might match Arctic temperature statistics through extrapolation, but that is not the same as accurately simulating the physical development of Arctic climate.
The Turd Reich’s seven-month scorecard:
Of the 46,113 individuals currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 71% have no criminal record.
This directly contradicts Reich Chancellor’s claim that “murderers, human traffickers, gang members, and other criminals” are the primary targets of his mass-deportation policies.
The gap between the regime’s rhetoric and the reality of enforcement underscores yet another failure to deliver on a central campaign promise.
Apparently, murderers, human traffickers, and gang members are not lining up at Home Depot for day-labor jobs or picking vegetables in the fields.
Cost of electricity is way up
Cost of utilities is up
Cost of groceries way WAY up -especially meat, dairy, fruit, fresh veggies, eggs, coffee, chocolate
Cost of dining out way up
Cost of medications significantly up
Cost of construction and homes up
Cost of a new car up
Cost of heating is up
Cost of travel is up
Cost of furniture is up
Cost of home renovation is up
Cost of travel is significantly up
Cost of raw materials is way up
MAGA hats are still cheap though.
On the Ukraine war which Trump promised to end “in 24 hours” upon taking office: yesterday, in a massive air attack, one of the Russian cruise missiles hit a major American electronics factory in Western Ukraine. No military logic or necessity, just terror against people, businesses, and normal life in the country.
Hoping there will be a response to this attack on us. If Iran bombed an American facility in the Middle East, there would be a response from Trump.
This could be the chance for Trump to transition from his “good cop” role. But, he has to be careful as the TDS Leftists can’t wait to call him a “war monger”.
” On the Ukraine war which Trump promised to end ‘in 24 hours’ upon taking office… ”
*
From the German stock exchange website ‘boerse.de’, not exactly one that could not be accused of spreading unverified pro-Ukrainian information:
https://www.boerse.de/nachrichten/UN-Zahl-ziviler-Opfer-in-der-Ukraine-im-Juli-gestiegen/37766492
*
” UN: Number of civilian casualties in Ukraine rose in July
Wednesday, August 13, 2025, 4:21 p.m.
KYIV (dpa-AFX) – The United Nations recorded a record number of civilians killed and injured in Russia-attacked Ukraine in July.
According to the report published by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 286 people were killed and 1,388 injured.
This is the highest figure since May 2022.
Compared to the same month last year, the number of casualties increased by 22.5 percent.
According to the report, almost 40 percent of the casualties were attributable to Russian airstrikes using drones and missiles on targets in the Ukrainian hinterland, including major cities such as Kyiv, Dnipro, and Kharkiv.
Compared to June, this was a decrease of 20 percent. 24 percent of the casualties were caused by drone strikes near the front lines. According to UN observers, heavy Russian bombing along the front line resulted in 67 civilian deaths and 209 injuries.
Ukraine has been resisting a Russian invasion for more than three years. According to the UN, more than 13,800 civilians have been killed and more than 35,500 injured since the war began. ”
*
The reason why the Trump~ing boy never does anything higher than blathering against Putin you find here:
https://www.ukrinform.fr/rubric-society/3974743-regis-gente-journaliste-francais-auteur-du-livre-sur-les-liens-de-trump-avec-la-russie.html
” This directly contradicts Reich Chancellor’s claim that
” … murderers, human traffickers, gang members, and other criminals… ”
are the primary targets of his mass-deportation policies. ”
*
This discourse is in complete agreement with what Hitler’s propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, had been repeating in Germany ever since 1933.
The Germans experienced the climax of this constant perversion on September 1, 1939, when Poland was invaded by the Wehrmacht and the SS, but citizens heard on the radio:
” We’ve been firing back since 5:45 a.m.! “
” Dramatic slowdown in melting of Arctic sea ice surprises scientists ”
Here we see again that newspapers like the Guardian, usually discredited as ‘alarmists’, are suddenly welcome when they report on something that fits the narrative of the pseudo-skeptics.
*
At best, I’m myself surprised that the authors were surprised this year (!) by something that has been known for years and years.
One only needs to look at the most recent monthly ASIE time series
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17RBeTrCw6bTcvnUOI3Sxvr_-jXx81VvS/view
to see from the polynomial that the downward trend is weakening.
*
Looking at the linear trend only provides an illusion.
{ The same applies by the way even more to Antarctica, but… in a 100% opposite direction:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16WB0LUn6XujkDG9FgKYU1IhPZMyfznUH/view
This is the reason why since 2016, this time series has no longer been interesting to the pseudo-skeptics, as it no longer fits their earlier discourse about the ‘Antarctic rock-solid growing sea ice’, he he.
*
Back to the Arctic: Anyone who splits the monthly time series into individual month series will wonder what the real meaning of this fixation on September values is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cL57UakZj8Hqw7QAv2c6XSqto6iHH5Sv/view
When you compare the twelve, you realize that
– it makes no sense at all
and that
– October is about to ‘become the new September’.
This becomes all even more visible when comparing the monthly linear trends for 1979-2024 to those 2005-2024:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1412Nfr7MZuybZ84YkIiN69zcMzRawReI/view
– the yearly average sea ice loss trend for 2005-2024 isn’t even half that for the entrire period;
– October surprisingly keeps also in the 2005-2024 period the month with the least sea ice loss trend of all twelve. This is especially visible when comparing daily data for several years.
**
The pseudo-skeptics’ hopes for a long-term slowdown of arctic sea ice loss might be dampened if one moves from surface-based observation to one based more on ice thickness:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023JC020848
But… my many years of experience with them shows that they will surely soon find a little something that will help them discredit this article!
Tell me you haven’t read the paper without telling me you haven’t read the paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL116175
https://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-sea-ice-decline-erratic-as-expected/#:~:text=Gravity%20will%20ensure%20that%20the,behaviour%20of%20Arctic%20sea%2Dice
As usual: Ho~g~le’s egomaniacal nonsense instead of a technical reply.
I of course have read that paper.
What if…Earth is really supposed to be at 290K, rather than 288K?
Suppose the rebound from LIA has been delayed by the particulates from burning coal. Now, with the clean up of the atmosphere, we are continuing the rebound.
But, can we get back to 290K?
It may take a while….
https://postimg.cc/75FGzgRZ
BACK AT THE RANCH
Crystal Clanton, the attorney whose texts declaring “I HATE BLACK PEOPLE” sparked an investigation into two judges’ hiring practices, will begin working next term as a law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who is Black.
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/clarence-thomas-hires-i-hate-black-people-lawyer-who-was-investigated-over-racist-texts/
This is grossly illegal, unethical, and immoral. That said, I will not shed a tear for anyone who willingly and enthusiastically paved the way for fascism when they get their comeuppance at its cold, brutal hands.
John Bolton deserves this. He could have testified at Trump’s impeachment trial, but instead he chose a book tour. F*ck him.
FBI raids ex-national security adviser John Bolton’s home in classified documents probe: ‘NO ONE is above the law’
https://nypost.com/2025/08/22/us-news/patels-fbi-raids-john-boltons-home-in-high-profile-national-security-probe/
Arkady, would it be possible for you to stop endlessly smearing your political faeces all over the blog? Thank you.
Imagine you were for example a giraffe and asked which of the following two pictures makes you think more of a human:
https://i.postimg.cc/vHVrs6DN/Untitled-design-2025-08-18-T104833-012.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/htndRykX/Bjutiful-pig.png
*
Which of the two pictures would you rather choose?
Oh apologies!
I chose the wrong picture, even though it actually fit well.
This one is definitely better:
https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1715746861/de/foto/br%C3%BCllaffe.jpg?s=1024×1024&w=is&k=20&c=UzIFrM50BGC68oJfUaxAE7-JS2DkMnFI8i1PjFNlhAY=
Kilmar Abrego García set free after illegal deportation, smuggling charges
The man whose case has become a flashpoint in the Trump administration’s deportation campaign has been released while awaiting trial. ICE could try to quickly deport him.
*
Justice Department sends House committee first batch of Epstein files
The panel’s Oversight Committee issued a subpoena this month for information from the investigation into the sex offender.
*
Sometimes things move millimeter by millimeter.
Ce n’est qu’une question de patience.
Et comme nous écrivit si bien ce génial Jean de La Fontaine dans sa fable ‘Le lion et le rat’:
” Patience et longueur de temps font plus que force ni que rage. “