Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2025 was +0.53 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, unchanged from the September, 2025 value.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through October 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 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 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.69 | +0.11 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.32 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 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:
Looking at the departures table. If I look at changes month to month for Australia I’d guess that the standard deviation from the mean is greater than any other area on the table. If so, doesn’t that suggest concern about the reliability of the provided readings? I would guess that Roy has the ability to provide that statistic for each region and the globe. We should expect the entire globe to have the smallest standard deviation, correct?
Only if weather fits some kind of randomised statistical distribution and I don’t see why it should be.
This is stratosphere, so it’s not a great analogy, but if you have a large pressure difference leading to extreme weather in one location, the pressure gradients will lead to (the other) extreme weather at the other end of the gradient. The planet is all connected but Australia seems particularly so. When Perth swelters, chances are the Kimberly is well below average and vice versa. Seems to apply along latitudes too. But that’s all hunches, no actual analysis of data.
The big flaw in climate science was to settle on the conclusion that all the significant non-random cycles are known and quantified and having eliminated them, the only thing left was (anthropogenic) CO2.
Weather does fit a statistical distribution. Weather is not random. The average temperature (a statistical distribution) is higher in summer and lower in winter. The greater the deviation from the mean, the less we can rely on the the temperature being near average on any given day. This is a fact. It is science.
So, if the deviations for increases and decreases in average temperature over some stated period are greater than the same statistic for another area, it suggests something is either different about weather/climate in that area or the data should be considered as possibly faulty.
The standard deviation of T in Australia is less than that of USA48. You can look at the data here:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
I haven’t done the calculation for these areas, but Australia is the smallest region in the table, hence subject to less area averaging, so the expectation is that its standard deviation would be the largest.
All of this data is available, so virtually any sufficiently motivated person can pull it down and do the calculation.
“If I look at changes month to month for Australia I’d guess that the standard deviation from the mean is greater than any other area on the table.”
Looking at all months, the SD for Australia is 0.65C, for the USA48 region it’s 0.77C.
Very warm for October in the Antarctic according to the updated files. +2.85C for SoPol Land. The warmest October in the data set, beating the old record, from 2002, by 1.38C.
” If I look at changes month to month for Australia I’d guess that the standard deviation from the mean is greater than any other area on the table. ”
Maybe you mean ‘maximal’ instead of ‘standard’.
If you calculate, for all 27 zones and regions, the lowest resp. the highest anomaly since Dec 1978 and build their difference you obtain this:
SP_Land 5.99 (C)
USA48 5.47
NP_Ocean 4.94
NP_Land 4.62
NoPol 4.45
USA49 4.22
AUST 4.10
SoPol 3.87
SE_Land 3.71
SP_Ocean 3.02
SH_Land 2.99
NE_Land 2.91
NH_Land 2.66
Tr_Land 2.63
Trpcs 2.25
Gl_Land 2.25
Tr_Ocean 2.17
NoExt 2.14
NH 1.96
NE_Ocean 1.78
NH_Ocean 1.76
Globe 1.61
SH 1.52
SH_Ocean 1.45
Gl_Ocean 1.45
SoExt 1.44
SE_Ocean 1.39
*
Thus, the South Pole’s land part wins, and USA48 (the contiguous part of the US) is second; the lowest difference you see at the ocean part of the Southern Extratropics.
So, I have not explained very well what standard deviation I meant.
Suppose that I track the change from one month to the next in absolute value. i.e. the net change month to month whether + or – from the previous month. Then suppose that for all regions that net change averages .15 degrees Celsius and that for all net changes for all regions the standard from .15 degrees C is .1 degree C. Now, if one area has net changes that average .5 degree C (more than 2 sd from mean), do we question that? Do we wonder if there is something about the climate there that is very different from the others or do we wonder if data collection is consistent and correct?
Sounds like a stansard st. deviation, which is not larger in Australia, according to the data.
1. I just read your first post again and see that you only consider a tiny portion of the UAH time series. Thus, my very first proposal is to consider the entire series since Dec 1978:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.1.txt
Please download that stuff into a spreadsheet calc and repeat your calculation over the whole.
*
2. The next point is that when considering Australia since Jan 2024, you induce a bias caused by the fact that Australia probably was more affected by the Hunga Tonga eruption in Jan 2022 than other zones and regions monitored by the UAH team.
*
3. ” We should expect the entire globe to have the smallest standard deviation, correct? ”
Yes of course: Australia and the US represent with 6% of the land masses and 2% of the total surface a tiny portion of the Globe.
Thus it can be expected that such small portions experience heavier deviations than the Globe as a whole.
And since the public data consists of zonal/regional averages of a 2.5 degree grid, you can expect even much stronger deviations when considering only the monthly time series of single cells in the grid:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.1/tlt
The increase in global LT temperature is accelerating, based on a second-order polynomial fit to the data series. The instantaneous rate of warming is now 0.28 degrees C per decade.
Are you going to extrapolate that polynomial? 🙂
Doesn’t really look like 98.
Third warmest October since 1979, though someway down from the previous two years.
Year Anomaly
1 2023 0.78
2 2024 0.75
3 2025 0.53
4 2017 0.47
5 2020 0.36
6 2021 0.34
7 2015 0.28
8 2016 0.28
9 2019 0.27
10 1998 0.24
October 2022 is just below 1998 at 0.23, so the last 7 Octobers are in the top 11.
My projection for 2025 is now 0.48 +/- 0.05, virtually unchanged from last months, but with more certainty. Now very likely to finish 2nd warmest. Temperatures will have to drop to around 0.1C for the next two months for 2025 to finish below 2023.
Seems likely global mean temp will drop over the next couple of months. Thats because ENSO began a significant decline over 3 months ago and there is typically a multi-month delay.
That said I wouldn’t at all be surprised that 2025 ends up number 2 but its may be close as the ENSO decline is now about -.6C.
“The monthly anomalies for various regions for the four deep layers we monitor from satellites will be available in the next several days”
These values haven’t been updated for September yet. I’m not sure if this is just an oversight or a problem with the data collection.
2025 Sep +0.53
2025 Oct +0.53
Looks like I called it right, again.
Pretty warm, I’d say. As in close. smiley.
Compared to what?
Data is now updated for Oct (and Sep).
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/
I notice that your SG projection is predicting an accelerated rise in the coming period.
Do you actually expect that?
Oddly the 5 year projection appears to cover more than 6 years to the present. Possibly a spreadsheet error?
s-g projections should note the climate models or other statistics used to produce the projection.
Nate
The SG (Savitzky-Golay) ‘projection’ in the charts above isn’t a projection AT ALL.
Apart from the fact that RLH has posted for years every month wrong median data on his UAH cascaded running mean and median charts, and stubbornly denies his generating software being wrong (despite repeated proofs using a worldwide known spreadsheet calculator), RLH belies this blog since years with his alleged projection, which is nothing else than the end of a Savitzky-Golay time series.
Unlike a 5-year centred cascaded triple 60 month running mean which has dataless front and rear windows, a Savitzky-Golay time series starts immediately with the beginning of the processed source and ends with its end.
RLH is even insidious enough to suggest the SG’s end being a ‘projection’ by intentionally omitting the SG’s front-end!
One hardly could behave more dishonest.
*
Finally, anyone having made use of SG filters knows that a 5-year aka 60 month SG output never would produce for the UAH time series such a heavily smoothed line as shown in RLH’s graph ‘projection’s.
The best proof for this is that in ‘his?’ source code generating the graphs (which he posted months ago on the blog), we can see that this SG end actually is the result of many subsequent SG re-iterations (i.e. each SG pass using as source the output of the preceding pass).
*
The Hunter boy apparently thinks the lines in the chart would be the output of a spreadsheet calculator! Oh Noes.
Here is a spreadsheet I uploaded a while ago into Google Docs, thus making the graphs visible even for those who lack a spreadsheet tool like e.g. Excel or (in my case) Libre Office Calc:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-C3Rmean-vs-C3Rmedian
bindidon says:
”The Hunter boy apparently thinks the lines in the chart would be the output of a spreadsheet calculator! Oh Noes.”
Bindidon makes an arse out of himself once again.
The entire presentation is a spreadsheet without regard to how it was generated.
the word spreadsheet comes from the oversized pieces of paper gridded with columns and rows used for manual bookkeeping and accounting pre-computers. I have been using spreadsheets for well past 50 years predating spreadsheet computer programs. I never said it was generated by a ”spreadsheet calculator”. You just made that up.
This is also the warmest October for Australia in the UAH history, by some way. Beating the record set last year by 0.58C.
In fact it’s the second warmest anomaly for any month, just behind August 2024.
Weren’t there some folks on here not long ago spinning a Monckton-style “No warming in Australia since….” line?
Wonder how far back that goes these days?
“Beating the record set last year by 0.58C.”
Since when?
Above, Art Groot, tried fitting a polynomial to UAH data and derived an instantaneous warming trend. Nothing against Art personally, but IMHO, the mathematical approach confirms Mark Twains inference that….
“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
I was taught in a 3rd year engineering statistics class that context is everything in statistics. In other words, it’s ingenuous to blindly apply statistical methods to data without understanding the context in which the data was attained.
Here’s the context. From 1979 till 1998, the global anomalies were largely negative, meaning there was a global cooling period between those years. John Christy of UAH has pointed out the reason, volcanic aerosols from two significant volcanoes.
Whereas I will defer to John’s qualifications and experience here, I regard 19 years as a tad too long for aerosols to have such an effect, I think there are variations in global temperatures taking place that no one understands. Tsonis et al concluded such variations are due to phase differences between the major oceanic oscillations.
In a paper, John also pointed out that the first positive anomalies, indicating true warming, came with a major El Nino in 1998 which pushed the global average up by a full degree C. This is what we should be looking at as a source of a warming trend.
The thing to note is this: following each major EN, especially in 2016, in which there were substantial warming, the global average increased by at least 0.2C. The first observation of such an increase was noted in 1977 and some scientists wanted to erase it as a mistake. It was subsequently named the Great Pacific Climate Shift then renamed the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Around the same time, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation was named.
If we take into account each residual warming effect, we can pretty well account for all global warming since 1976. No AGW theory is required. Explanation follows.
We still know essentially nothing about these oscillations and how they interact with each other. Tsonis et al concluded the oscillations do interact by phase, producing warming and cooling OVER A CENTURY. We may be in the middle of such a warming cycle and mistaking it for anthropogenic warming.
Anyway. following the 1998 EN, after things settled down, albeit some 0.2C warmer on top of the 0.2 C from 1977, the globe experienced 15 years of a flat trend. The flatness is based on an averaging of positive and negative cycles and obviously does not show up in a full range mathematical analysis, which is only concerned with numbers, not context.
BTW, the IPCC has confirmed 12 years of the flat trend from 1998 till 2012, calling it a warming hiatus. UAH confirmed the other three years based on satellite data. Then in 2016, another major EN struck and drove global temps even higher than the 1998 EN. This time, however, temperatures were not so quick to fall back, taking 6 years to do so to the original 15 year flat trend average.
The global average had barely stabilized before a major oceanic volcanic eruption, Hunga Tonga, injected roughly 150 millions tons of water into the stratosphere. That represented about 10% of the stratosphere’s water content which is normally a very dry portion of space.
HT occurred in early 2022 and nearly 4 years later the global temps have dropped significantly. How far they will drop back is unknown.
That’s why it is ingenuous to apply statistical methods to the entire range of UAH data since the meaning is not clear given the explanation of context. The data is simply not acquired from a stable source rather a wildly varying source with considerable flat trends.
There is little doubt that a warming trend has occurred since 1979 but it is highly unlikely it has anything to do with the effect of a trace gas in the atmosphere. Tsonis et al concluded that we should de-emphasize the AGW cause and focus on real, physical effects like the interaction between oceanic oscillations.
Each month, Dr. Spencer fits a linear function to the data and reports the rate of warming. I’m curious if you think that your argument against statistical analyses also applies to linear trends (aka first-order polynomials).
art…yes…I have stated in the past that the linear trend has little meaning other than an indicator that it has warmed since 1979, a fact I do not deny. I am arguing over the cause of the warming. I think the linear trend is a simple fit to the data and does not account for 15 year flat trends.
I want to be clear that I am not taking a shot at your analysis per se I simply don’t think the warming in the atmosphere has anything to do with greenhouse gases. Therefore, analysis of the data via any kind of statistical analysis has no meaning other than as an exercise to the person doing the analysis.
Most people I have read are basing their analysis on the AGW theory. Maybe that’s not the basis for your post.
I’ll try to explain my POV as I go along, if it is of interest to you.
My argument is that anthropogenic warming is insignificant and I have based that on the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation. A gas making up a mass percent in the atmosphere of 0.06% simply lacks the ability to warm the majority gases, nitrogen and oxygen, significantly.
BTW…I am supportive of statistical analysis when applied to pertinent data. For example, if a factory is producing light bulbs and wants to know how many per lot are faulty, they can apply sampling techniques and analyze the results. That is far different than blindly applying statistical analyses out of context to temperature data with the presumption it has any meaning. When you have flat trends of 15 years and 6 years in the range, it tends to throw the data analysis for a loop.
May I suggest you break the overall range from 1979 – present into the following sub-ranges, and analyze each statistically, you might get a more meaningful result.
-1979 – 1997
-1998 – 2015
-2016 – 2021
-2022 – present
The AGW theory fails due to its contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Alarmists are interpreting the 2nd law as a ‘net’ summation of heat in both direction from hot to cold and vice-versa but Clausius wrote the law without any reference to a net flow of heat. He was absolutely clear that heat can only flow hot to cold, ‘by its own means’. In other words, to get heat to flow cold to hot, it requires external power to drive compressors to liquefy refrigerants that absorb heat in a colder environment and transfer it to a hotter environment through compression/expansion of the refrigerant gas.
Some confusion arose in Chapter 9 of one of his (Clausius) manuscripts in which he referred to a two-way transfer of heat via radiation, yet he stated clearly that heat transfer via radiation must respect the 2nd law. It is clear that a confusion by all scientists was in place in his era (circa 1850) due to a misunderstanding of how heat was transferred via radiation. The prevalent view was that heat was transferred via undefined ‘heat rays’, which lead to a general misunderstanding that heat could be transferred in both directions by radiation.
Neils Bohr put a stop to that in 1913 when he hypothesized the action in atoms whereby electrons absorb and generate electromagnetic energy (EM). We know now that heat does not flow through space via radiation but is first converted to EM, representing a loss of heat during that action. That defeats the second part of the AGW theory, that GHGs trap surface heat. Not possible. Any heat associated with radiated EM is lost during the conversion, therefore GHGs must create new heat. The new heat has nothing to do with surface heat, even though it can be related mathematically. That is, it is not trapped.
The very action of electron emission and absorption of EM prevents a transfer of heat from cold to hot. Both emission and absorption take place at discrete frequencies and electrons will only react to higher frequencies of EM generated by hotter masses. EM frequencies from colder masses simply cannot excite the electrons, which in hotter masses, is already orbiting at a frequency too high to be affected by the frequencies of EM generated by colder masses.
No heat flow is possible, by its own means from cold to hot and that was stated clearly in the original definition of the 2nd law by Clausius. In fact, he took time to explain what he meant by ‘by its own means’, a term he later renamed ‘compensation’. It is simply not possibly for heat to be transferred from cooler GHGs in the atmosphere to a warmer surface that produced the heat in the first place in order to raise surface temperature.
A third argument is that GHGs somehow slow down heat dissipation at the surface. However, there is no one to one, direct relationship between a GHG molecule and surface heat. By the time a molecule absorbs surface EM, the surface heat has already been dissipated during the conversion of electron KE, which represents surface heat, hence the rate of heat dissipation has already been determined by other factors. In fact, it is the majority molecules of oxygen and nitrogen, in direct contact with the surface, that largely governs surface heat dissipation via Newton’s Law of Cooling.
Of course, radiation does cool the surface as well but the AGW theory is wrong here in that it has minimized the effect of direct heating of the atmosphere by the surface (direct conduction} and used radiation as the only means of surface heat dissipation. Shula discovered that direct conduction is 260 times more effective at cooling a surface than radiation alone. Besides, only about 10% of surface radiation is absorbed by GHGs, leaving 90% to radiate directly to space.
AGW theory is not only a contravention of the 2nd law but also represents perpetual motion. One simply cannot recycle heat from a surface to a mass and back and cause the mass to warm and that is due to intervening losses in the system.
I have never seen Roy attach a meaning to the trend since I have been here. He has claimed the anthropogenic effect is contributing but he has never stated how much.
I’ll try to dig up some commentaries from John Christy on his view of the meaning of the positive linear trend.
Gordon Robertson, it seems that we agree that a linear fit to the data shows a warming trend. By extension, we must agree that a second order polynomial fit demonstrates an acceleration in the warming trend.
Your arguments that AGW is not involved are unconvincing. Note that Stefan Rahmstorf and Grant Foster, who have deep understanding of climate change and statistical analysis have examined global surface temperature trends through 2024, accounting for El Nino, volcanism and solar variation. Their conclusion is in the title of their paper “Global Warming has Accelerated Significantly”. Further, they note: “The unusually rapid rise of global temperature over the last decade cannot be accounted for by the usual suspects.” The Rahmstorf/Foster analysis demolishes your argument about not understanding the “context”.
Art Groot is of course plain correct, and Robertson’s urging to reply once more with his usual endless, though empty posts won’t change anything.
*
Let us demonstrate this with a comparison of linear, 2nd order resp. 3rd order polynomials over UAH’s LT Globe data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ptQ2aZhTJYhr0nqB4RBKXLnszCpskvQz/view
You see that the higher the polynomial order, the more does the result espouse the source; and the source clearly contains an acceleration tendency.
If there was no acceleration, the polynomials would all look like the linear trend, which after all is a simple, first order polynomial :–)
*
And when I read somewhat more below
” A polynomial model is probably not useful. However, if you know when the warming ends [sic], the linear trend is somewhat useful. ”
I simply get a big laugh.
“Here’s the context. From 1979 till 1998, the global anomalies were largely negative, meaning there was a global cooling period between those years.”
Not at all.
Anomalies are temperature minus baseline, which is set by the average of the whole series.
Anomalies were negative then because the whole series has had a net warming trend, and thus the early temperatures were below the average.
Thus negative anomalies has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘cooling’, which is a possible TREND in the data.
Nate
Robertson still can’t manage to understand what anomalies really are.
The reason is quite simple, he doesn’t want to grasp it, as he isn’t even able to download any data and to process it using the simplest spreadsheet calculator.
*
Despite ranting since years against NOAA’s allegedly ‘fudged’ data (he does because the authorities he appeals to also do), NOAA’s anomaly explanations for uneducated people are exactly what he needs, as he himself is one of them:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/dyk/anomalies-vs-temperature
Though the text contains indeed lots of relevant matter, Robertson is only able to keep the simplest part of it:
” A temperature anomaly is the difference between the observed temperature and a baseline average temperature. ”
…
” A positive anomaly means the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly means the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline. ”
This is at best simpleton level.
It’s not so long time ago that he had the chuzpah to discredit and deny my knowledge of how anomalies are actually constructed – namely by removing the annual cycle out of them, as do all people, beginning with Roy Spencer en personne.
*
Now back to his stupid claim:
” From 1979 till 1998, the global anomalies were largely negative, meaning there was a global cooling period between those years. ”
He couldn’t be more wrong. The trend in C / decade for Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 is 0.162 +- 0.02, i.e. the same as for the entire series till now.
Robertson will never understand the difference between cold / warm versus colder than / warmer than.
A polynomial model is probably not useful. However, if you know when the warming ends, the linear trend is somewhat useful.
TLDR: less than 3°C of additional warming before tipping into rapid cooling around 2150-2200AD (not an ice age).
Based on sunspot data, a 20-year cooling trend began in 2016. The sunspot-based model can predict up to 13-years into the future due to delay between sunspot data and surface temperatures. Of course sunspots don’t predict volcanoes.
https://localartist.org/media/TempPredictExpanded.png
With the HT eruption we’re in uncharted waters, pun intended. Stratospheric WV likely explains the surface temperature spike. I don’t expect that ocean heat content has changed significantly, so eventually, if my model is correct, we should return to the original prediction.
This is an animation of the prediction. The model is a 99-year moving average of sunspot data.
https://localartist.org/media/sunspot_temp_animation.gif
The predicted long-term trend is warming. In fact, we appear to be in a variation of the Minoan Warm Period. I base this on a 3500-year cycle I’ve discovered in the orbits of the Sun and Jovian planets. Here’s the 3500-year cycle in the GISP2 ice-core data.
WARNING: This next plot may be distressing to those who strongly believe in anthropogenic warming. Viewer discretion advised.
https://localartist.org/media/temperature_sliding.gif
Based only on Dr. Spencer’s +0.16 deg/°C/decade linear trend, if warming continues until 2150-2200, we might expect an additional 2-2.8°C of warming before tipping into cooling.
I expect less warming as the linear trend is estimated over a 40-year warming period, extended by the HT anomaly.
mark b…”…Australia is the smallest region in the table, hence subject to less area averaging, so the expectation is that its standard deviation would be the largest”.
***
Australian temps are a poor metric wrt global average. For one, the entire continent is located in the middle of the worlds largest ocean. For another, it has a tremendous climate variation from tropical in the north, through sub-tropical, mid-latitude, to a Mediterranean climate in southern Oz. The entire central region is mainly a desert-like, arid climate. This is the opposite of what we’d expect in the NH.
Australia’s average temperatures are expected to be higher than the global average. Not really fair to hold their temperatures up as representative of current warming since the place is warmer than the norm to begin with.
It’s not temperatures so much as temperature ‘anomalies’ – differences from the long term average for each region listed.
It doesn’t matter what climate or range of climates any given region has; that doesn’t change over a few decades. What matters is the change relative to the long term average.
Over UAH’s time of measurement, Australia has warmed at a rate of +0.22C per decade; considerably faster than the global equivalent of +0.16C per decade.
finalnail….the location of Oz, surrounded by large expanses of ocean is responsible for much of their temperatures anomalies. I think the southern hemisphere and the Pacific Ocean get a far greater share of solar energy than much the rest of the planet year round.
FinalNail
Once more we look at Robertson’s mix of ignorance and boastful speech.
” Australia’s average temperatures are expected to be higher than the global average. Not really fair to hold their temperatures up as representative of current warming since the place is warmer than the norm to begin with. ”
*
He apparently didn’t understand what Mark B wrote – it was just about the simple fact that the smaller an area, the higher the deviations in its temperature time series.
But instead of trying to understand what he read, he suspected behind Mark B’s words an attempt to speak about warming! Oh Noes.
One hardly could behave more dumb.
“Australian temps are a poor metric wrt global average.”
No country or even region is a good proxy for global temps. Almost everywhere has warmed over the last century, but the timing of rises and falls and the total amount of warming varies from region to region.
barry…fair dinkum….I was not taking a shot at Oz. My point is the extreme diversity of climates available in Australia coupled with the fact it is surrounded by a major ocean, the Pacific, and abutting the Antarctic Ocean.
As an island nation you in Oz are subjected to extremes that other nations simply don’t experience.
We in Canada have our share of extremes, even in this province of BC. However, we don’t have any major extremes like moving from a tropical climate in the north to a Mediterranean climate in the south, with the vegetation typical of such extremes.
“I was not taking a shot”
Me neither.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Why are troglodytes fighting renewables? This little bit of info explaining reduced consumption of natural gas contains the answer. Drops in gas use are:
“driven by renewable generation increases”
Renewables are destroying nat gas demand in the US (largest consumer of nat gas in the world).
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:6ml4nxrk45cy23jay5hc2npp/post/3m3wpvnmp4k2y
Good. That should help with both heating bills and electricity prices.
none of the above is consumer driven,rather a forced transition,
Forced transitions is the hallmark of the current US government. Tariffs, the shift back to manufacturing, threatening p. company outsourcing, none of these are consumer driven either.
Not to mention govt subsidy and support for return to coal, which based on recent auction results, nobody wants.
Then you have govt attempts to stop off-shore wind in the middle of construction.
Then you have govt trying to stop expansion of solar, just as the domestic solar panel industry is booming.
Numerous ways in which Trump is f*king with the free market. As if he is a King.
It is because when coal-fired plants were converted to natural gas the coal boilers and all their accessories were dismantled and scrapped. There would be an almost insurmountable hurdle to convert those plants back to coal. All the coal will go to China. Shame.
Step 3 – Saying stuff.
Troglodytes can’t beat free stuff:
For years, Australians have been been installing solar panels at a rapid clip. Now that investment is paying off.
The Australian government announced this week that electricity customers in three states will get free electricity for up to three hours per day starting in July 2026.
Solar power has boomed in Australia in recent years. Rooftop solar installations cost about $840 (U.S.) per kilowatt of capacity before rebates, about a third of what U.S. households pay. As a result, more than one in three Australian homes have solar panels on their roof.
https://techcrunch.com/2025/11/05/millions-to-receive-free-electricity-in-2026-thanks-to-australias-solar-boom/
Easier when one doesn’t have to dig and burn.
Nate says:
”Not to mention govt subsidy and support for return to coal, which based on recent auction results, nobody wants. Then you have govt attempts to stop off-shore wind in the middle of construction.
Then you have govt trying to stop expansion of solar, just as the domestic solar panel industry is booming. Numerous ways in which Trump is f*king with the free market. As if he is a King.”
Offshore wind was imposed on communities, tribes, and fishermen by King Biden via executive order.
These projects have many negative impacts on these groups of people but all that occurred was lip service as the rush to subsidizing offshore wind technology just checked off community concerns. Current offshore wind operators have generally not done well. Current operators were lobbying for higher subsidies on existing projects to protect their investments when I was involved in those processes.
As to solar projects ending subsidies and taking away permitting “priorities” for the sake of a better analysis of impacts. (thats especially true of section 232 investigations which is unquestionably more important and more directly related to the Constitutional authorities of the federal government than important NEPA analysis). Both are important undertakings that have been avoided by previous administrations in the name of heading off an environmental catastrophe that really nobody but nutcases still believe in.
And of course when the procession of past Kings sucked the life blood out of the coal industry some subsidies may be called for (which of course Obama himself declared sucking the blood out was his mission). “If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” Then Senator Obama in a speech in 2008 support of carbon cap and trade laws.
After all investors have to weigh the possibility of the foxes and nuts taking over the henhouse again. Whether subsidies should be provided depends upon how much cost effective energy can be obtained from it. Those cost benefit investigations are underway to determine that. Certainly the very last person I would ask that question of would be Nate.
“Offshore wind was imposed on communities, tribes, and fishermen by King Biden via executive order.”
Not at all. Its been under development by private investors for at least a decade, only now getting built.
Nate you are clueless. Offshore wind exploratory projects began over a decade ago, none are profitable even today even with the massive subsidies they have received to develop the projects. Yet in Biden’s first day in office he signed executive order 14008 to multiply the number of wind projects in operation in the US by a factor of 1,000.
His administration convened processes on all of the nation’s coastlines to designate areas to set aside and lease as wind farm areas. Those processes were ongoing designating millions of acres of open ocean so far for potential wind energy development.
Bottom line is these projects don’t even pencil out at current energy prices already inflated due to renewable energy requirements.
The Revolution Wind project which Trump canceled and a court ordered the government to continue to pay for projects to produce about $117 million annually in electricity while its development costs ($5 billion) at prime interest rates would require 3 times that to service the debt. And that doesn’t include operational/maintenance costs of an ongoing operation.
The only real wind project is the hot wind breath of government corruption.
“none are profitable even today”
Step 3 – Saying stuff
If too costly then let the market decide, not King Trump.
Thats what he is doing by shutting down subsidized expensive processes to research and designate wind areas and ending the subsidies.
A court ordered him to keep the subsidies rolling in on one project probably on the basis of some contract or other stupid agreement the government entered into.
So indeed he is letting the market decide. They have a number of operational properties and as they go through their depreciation periods they will determine for everybody whether more investment is justified.
Also there are currently 40 leased offshore wind areas out there now almost all undeveloped. Nobody is stopping anybody from going through the full government processes and gaining permits to develop them. However, in general local communities, tribes, commercial fishermen, and other persons involved in boating or other ocean businesses have concerns about offshore wind farms.
The ocean is a dangerous place for navigators of all sorts and putting in wind farms is like seeding large areas of the ocean with exposed reefs. A highly dangerous situation for these navigators especially in foul weather. In addition they are unsightly and have many other negatives like their impacts on seabirds. . .all things that require mitigation under current environmental laws that protect the environment, wildlife, communities, and current ocean users.
Since you guys are claiming all this is viable as an unsubsidized business model you have nothing to be concerned about other than being wrong.
Nothing to do with subsidies. It had to do with permits to use the ocean.
Keep in mind that 15 years of develppment, regularltory barrlers overcome, permits obtained, port facilities built, thousands employed, many $M invested, contracts signed to provide electricity to several states.
80% complete, then King Trump says stop.
Govt falsely claimed it needed to stop for national security
Nate you need to provide details. there was a lot of anger in communities of King Biden shoving projects through as if he thought it would be the end of the world if he didn’t.
there is a project where funds were withheld and a judge ordered them to be released.
there is another where trump ordered a permit process to be reconsidered and in this one the community of nantucket sued the doe for not adequately evaluating community impacts. a judge in the name of judicial expediency dismissed (without prejudice or whatever they do to enable another suit to answer the question) the wind company lawsuit against the administration for reconsidering their permit to allow the nantucket lawsuit process to determine whether trump is took the right action. but since you are being politically non-responsive to push your “king” narrative you haven’t provided anything to respond to. nothing unusual is going on here these sorts of things have been occurring under every administration. the only thing that doesn’t go on in business friendly administrations are king biden like programs for one man to decide that fossil fuels need to be replaced by windpower.
“Nate you need to provide details.”
Step 2 – Sammich Request
This project went through all the local and federal govt approvals. The states involved are on board.
The project will benefit those states and the citizens.
Therefor they went ahead with construction of the project. Now the govt is arbitrarily trying to stop it.
My point is simple, this is not how to operate a business friendly govt.
If businesses cannot rely on the govt to keep their word, no one will invest money in projects that rely on govt approval anymore.
Nate says:
”My point is simple, this is not how to operate a business friendly govt.”
”If businesses cannot rely on the govt to keep their word, no one will invest money in projects that rely on govt approval anymore.”
LOL! The Nantucket lawsuit is sponsored by many residents, workers, and businesses of the local community.
The SouthCoast wind project who is the developer is a Madrid-based joint venture owned by EDP Renewables, a subsidiary of the EDP Group, Portugal’s largest utility company, and ENGIE, a French multinational electric utility company.
Need I say more? You are on the side of a foreign company and opposing the businesses of Nantucket a historic fishing community.
Seems apropos.
finally it was the Trump administration that requested the court to reconsider the permit. (the developer did not sue as I may have stated previously). The developer objected. The Obama appointed judge ruled that Trump could reconsider the permits.
Gill red shirts for the Koch brother:
“Yesterday, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound — a group established by Koch and his cronies to wage war on Cape Wind, the first offshore wind farm proposed in U.S. waters — dredged up an old lawsuit against the project. The frivolous nature of this latest tilt at the project’s offshore windmills is enough to make even Don Quixote blush.”
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/trick-or-treat-a-koch-brother-dresses-up-as-an-environmentalist-in-his-fight-against-cape-wind-1f6d042f5ad8/
ROFL!
Willard says:
”Gill red shirts for the Koch brother:
ROFL!”
ROTFL for sure. Your article talking about Koch digging up an old lawsuit and reviving it is . . .uh. . .13 years old in 2012 during the Obama administration wrt to a different project.
However, it is true that small businesses in these historic seaside communities don’t have the wherewithall to fight these mega-trillion dollar corporate-state consortiums.
They need to find support wherever they can find it. I have no idea if Koch is involved in this or not but don’t really care as Koch is a small potato compared to the powers besieging Nantucket.
The major controlling interests in the Consortium trying to profit on this project is actually the Chinese Government and the French Government when you follow the money. They hold controlling interests in the two joint venture partners.
The Chinese government owned entity is China Three Gorges Corporation that holds the controlling interest in the ECG partner. And the French Government holds a controlling interest directly into the other partner ENGIE. Blackrock has some investments in this as well but not controlling interests.
I fully realize you are a big time supporter of these major entities taking on US communities while scooping up US tax dollars. I am not. I have always represented small communities in my private practice.
And while I don’t know who is helping the NGOs filing lawsuits, if anybody at this point, who might me doesn’t matter. they simply aren’t going to be as big as the controlling interests in this consortium. . . unless it’s Donald Trump.
The goal of the small communities almost always isn’t to actually stop the project. Its to get the projects to acceptably minimize the impacts on the communities if that is possible. It’s not like they hate wind power.
Unlike you its not about some weirdo political max money making or grifting operation. These communities don’t hate wind power but they want their, in this case, fishermen and boaters to be safe and unharmed both physically and economically. And they don’t want the natural beauty of their historic seaside community to become ugly, or environmentally polluted.
That is the objective of the Federal Laws both NHPA and NEPA which were originally introduced by Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, a democrat from the State of Washington and passed into law with strong bipartisan support. NHPA was signed into law in 1966 by President Lyndon Johnson and NEPA was signed into law in 1970 by President Richard Nixon.
I am sure your next thought is they got a fair shake under those laws and that you arrived at that conclusion without reading the documentation nor talking to a single Nantucket citizen.
Myself I hold back an opinion on the merits, I respect those laws and experience has taught me that they these are complex projects that require a lot of community engagement. Also, in general don’t want to see government money wasted on an unproven technology. the fact that an Obama appointed judge determined that a reconsideration was appropriate gives me more confidence, and I usually support the small guy when in a battle against a Goliath.
If you can get around those problems you can build your wind farm. . .provided of course you can find somebody stupid enough or corrupt enough to give you free money to do it.
P.S. Do you think maybe this is why the Chinese were paying Hunter Biden $4million per year? If an American did that to a Chinese official’s son to get a sales deal he would be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
“Need I say more? You are on the side of a foreign company and opposing the businesses of Nantucket a historic fishing community.”
Yes you do. There are many supporters and stakeholders in this, yet you mention only an single opposition group. Did they sue, with what result?
Also US utility Eversource is a 50% owner of the project. The ‘foreign’ company Orsted, is the one with the proven ability to succeed in such projects, having done several in Europe.
There are plenty of foreign companies, like Toyota, being ecouraged to invest in the US, so this can hardly be a national security issue.
Here is Google summary of the recent regulatory actions
“Legal and administrative challenges In August 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) issued a stop-work order, which was reportedly based on unspecified national security concerns from the Trump administration.The stop-work order caused significant delays and anxiety, with state officials warning it could cost New England ratepayers up to \(\$500\) million per year in higher energy costs if the project is canceled.In September 2025, a federal court overturned the stop-work order, allowing construction to resume.The project has navigated numerous permitting and regulatory steps, including approval from BOEM in November 2023, following an extensive multi-year review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Nate says:
”Yes you do. There are many supporters and stakeholders in this, yet you mention only an single opposition group. Did they sue, with what result?”
In the Trump action in question the judge is allowing a reconsideration of the permit. In other words, the Obama judge is allowing the suit to go forward for the Nantucket community. The eventual result will like be decided by the Trump administration as to what would be required to mitigate Nantucket’s damages. That may or may not be something that stops the project but I ”suspect” the project is already dead because of the withdrawal of subsidies and the foreign government consortium is probably poking around for some compensation. But what I read all their expenses predated or ran concurrent with the permit process so they may get nothing other than the right to continue the project on their own dime while mitigating whatever is damaging to Nantucket. That’s a typical outcome anyway.
Nate says:
”Also US utility Eversource is a 50% owner of the project. The ‘foreign’ company Orsted, is the one with the proven ability to succeed in such projects, having done several in Europe.”
No, the SouthCoast Wind project which is the project I have been discussing over the past several posts is not 50% owned by the Ørsted group. The project is wholly owned by Ocean Winds (OW), an international company that is itself a 50-50 joint venture between EDP Renewables and ENGIE.
The rest of your post also is attempting to change the topic. My area of experience is with NEPA and NHPA which are laws that protect the environment and historical places. I am not experienced in national security issues other than noting that the military has intervened in a number of projects I have been involved with from the community perspective to assert their claims on national security interests and in every case I have been involved in they got their way. On the periphery since the ocean is heavily used by essentially all the branches of the military for operations training in practically an uncountable number of ways. You simply are not going to be able to put an windmill in their way. The only issue might be is if they military ever conducted a training exercise there or has plans to. I can testify to the fact that the communities I have represented are always impressed by the reaction the military gets. We have been happy at times to ride their coattails.
Nate says:
”There are plenty of foreign companies, like Toyota, being ecouraged to invest in the US, so this can hardly be a national security issue.”
All you are doing here is assuming it has something to do with the company doing the work which is pretty darned ignorant to the scope of national security concerns. I am ignorant of them but I have never considered national security to be so limited.
Nate says:
”including approval from BOEM in November 2023, following an extensive multi-year review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).”
Here again indeed the civil servants of the government most often do a bang up job with NEPA workups and reports being multi-year processes. I have been involved with really small projects that took 4 years or more to complete and larger ones that took over a decade. But that’s no guarantee that there wasn’t an oversight. The Biden administration was hardly a national security tour de force with the exit from Afghanistan being the prime example and the subsequent demoralization of troops that ranover into recruiting. (though some of Biden’s other weaknesses no doubt contributed). The same occurred post Vietnam. Bad policy always affects national security as well as all the rest of us.
So you are conflating the opposition of Nantucket fisherman with Trumps claim of a national security issue.
We can see that tbe project recieved approvals from govt in 2023, thus it proceeded to construct and has completed 80 %.
Now at this late stage, the govt wants to rescind that approval.
As I noted, this is a terrible way to govern if we want business investment.
They better have a VERY good reason that is more than a vague reference to national security.
But the track record of this government has been that they just do things with no need for legal rationale.
Thus they are getting sued constantly. I think this is simply how Trump has conducted business for many years.
Nate says:
”So you are conflating the opposition of Nantucket fisherman with Trumps claim of a national security issue.”
Apparently you simply skip reading what I wrote before ignorantly replying.
BOAM did not cite national security in revoking the permit of the Southcoast Wind opposed by the town of Nantucket.
A stop work order was issued by BOAM on Revolution Wind owned by Orsted. That should be your first clue that the notices are not vague or untargeted and that BOAM did some homework before issuing notices where specific concerns have been identified.
Nate says:
”They better have a VERY good reason that is more than a vague reference to national security.”
Anything national security wise is going to be a good reason Nate. I have never seen the courts decide against the advice of the national security experts. It would take an act of Congress or a Presidential order.
The court merely gave the company the permission to continue working and to ignore the risk if they choose to. But they are continuing to invest, if that is what they choose to do, at their own risk.
Nate says:
”But the track record of this government has been that they just do things with no need for legal rationale.”
No doubt that’s your and your kinds subjective view of the situation. I am sure anything Trump says will be lack of rationale to you.
Nate says:
”Thus they are getting sued constantly. I think this is simply how Trump has conducted business for many years.”
Sued by political actors sure. Trump in his business has obviously been successful. All major companies have to deal with lawsuits so they all have lawyers on full retainers. No doubt Trump doesn’t win them all but so far he has won enough. Smart companies are well aware that the majority of lawsuits they face border on or are within the realm of nuisances. Thats not to say one should not sue them, just that they aren’t going to be bullied by frivolous lawsuits or rogue judges.
“BOAM did not cite national security in revoking the permit of the Southcoast Wind”
Step 1 – Pure Denial.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5464364-wind-turbine-imports-tariffs/
ROFLMAO!
This week, Trump said in a post on Truth Social that “We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar.”
The administration is spending money doing a security probe on technology they don’t want anyway. This is how Trump does business (terribly).
“A stop work order was issued by BOAM on Revolution Wind owned by Orsted. That should be your first clue that the notices are not vague or untargeted and that BOAM did some homework before issuing notices where specific concerns have been identified.”
Bill, its a mistake to accept that your government’s story is always the honest-to-god truth. Remember ‘trust but verify’.
If you assume that Trump’s actions have a legal or ethical rationale , then you you must have missed all of the instances this year where his rationale did not hold up in court, and the cases where the court explicitly stated that the government was trying to decieve the court.
It is simply a fact that Trump has targeted organizations he considers to be opposed to his policies (Universities, Law firms, political rivals, government employees) without legal rationale due process, in many cases trumped up reasons are given (eg antisemitism, national security, national emergency)
Thus, when these groups have fought back, he has often lost the law suits.
We saw in the recent Supreme Court review of his Tariff executive orders, that even the conservatives on the court did not buy his legal rationale that there was a National Emergency, which allows him as President to take the tariff power from Congress.
Step 4, saying stuff, stupid stuff:
Aussies are in the top 10 in the world of electricity costs. Aussies pay on average about 39 cents per KWH. Oh, fabulous, three free hours per day but pay 39 cents per KWH the other 21 hours. What a deal. Can I sign up for that deal? Nah, don’t think so. I’ll keep my 24 hours at 8.5 cents per KWH of fossil fuel electricity, and my stable grid.
No, Troglodyte.
Saying Stuff is Step 3.
Aussies are far away from Nantucket.
Such deflection isn’t covered by the Contrarian Tango, but if it were it’d be something like Step 4 – Cheap Bargaining.
No Willard, Aussies need to wake up before it is too late.
To be one of the largest coal producers in the world and then have such high electricity costs is the epitome of stupidity. We will gladly burn their coal.
Nate says:
”If you assume that Trump’s actions have a legal or ethical rationale , then you you must have missed all of the instances this year . . .t.”
In general I don’t react to opinion I like to see the results. And individual judge acts like a King in the same way the President does as its all enabled in our systems of laws. But none of this means we have a king. Appeals processes and Congress can act to at least demonstrate the idea has wide popularity.
The SCOTUS emergency docket win rate for Trump in early October was 83% and I hear that has gone up since. The war on “no kings” by the democrats is deep in the losing column demonstrating their own propensity to act like Kings.
Nate says:
”It is simply a fact that Trump has targeted organizations he considers to be opposed to his policies (Universities, Law firms, political rivals, government employees) without legal rationale due process, in many cases trumped up reasons are given (eg antisemitism, national security, national emergency)”
Its only because you disagree with Trump’s reasons Nate.
Are you also a Holocaust denier? Do you deny that the national debt is a national emergency? Do you deny the fact that national security is harmed in the wake of the demise of manufacturing capability? If you deny any of those things you are just an ignorant denier first rate. These are issues too long ignored by previous administrations. IMO, that doesn’t mean Trump will do any better but at least you have to give him a preliminary score of ‘A’ for effort. He isn’t going to be so dogmatically bound by precedence that it castrates his ability to do anything about these obvious emergencies.
Nate says:
”Thus, when these groups have fought back, he has often lost the law suits.”
Really do you have some evidence of that? What do you consider often? Full relief more than half the time after running the full judicial course? What if he only wins a few of them but they make a difference? We elect Presidents and Congressmen to make a difference not necessarily just be a nice guy talking about how great the ‘vibes’ are.
Nate says:
”We saw in the recent Supreme Court review of his Tariff executive orders, that even the conservatives on the court did not buy his legal rationale that there was a National Emergency, which allows him as President to take the tariff power from Congress.”
What ruling are you referring to? Or is this just the gossip running around in your community? As I said above about your denialism wrt US national debt and the exit of manufacturing capability from the US.
In my view its on you to argue that Trump is overreacting to these national emergencies.
A symptom of what is wrong are basic government assumptions that for example SNAP beneficiaries are in more need of a check than rank and file government workers. What you have is a higher percentage of government workers in need of making housing, transportation, and food payments that SNAP recipients plus they have actually earned a check. Rice and Beans along with a handful of greens or fruit makes for a healthy and sustaining meal. It simply doesn’t cost much to eat and SNAP benefits are mostly wasted on less nutritious processed foods or more expensive fad foods. I understand that because post military service I spent about 9-10 years working in food and shelter production living out of my car and going to college part time. The most basic obligation is to pay those who are working for a living. Entrepreneurs and contractors live a life of risk and may not get paid, as it depends upon them fulfilling obligations to the customer. But the contract for employment is the most sacred of obligations that you get paid for work completed whether adequate or not. Of course you can get fired for inadequate quality of work or due to a lack of need for your employment, but you have to be paid for the work you did.
As a nation we need to wake up to the real priorities in life and every year it seems the democrats become more clueless to that reality.
Eversource was a 50% owner of Revolution Wind until Feb last year.
“In the Trump action in question the judge is allowing a reconsideration of the permit. In other words, the Obama judge is allowing the suit to go forward for the Nantucket community. The eventual result will like be decided by the Trump administration as to what would be required to mitigate Nantucket’s damages.”
None of that is accurate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_Wind
”
Even though Revolution Wind had been fully permitted and construction was already underway, in August 2025, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management issued a stop-work order for the project, citing unspecified national security interests.[3]
In September 2025, a federal judge lifted the stop-work order in a preliminary injunction while the order was challenged in court, on the grounds that the government was likely to lose on the merits and that the company would suffer irreparable harm”
Willard,
Step 5:
Isn’t it true that Australia isn’t doing anything about climate change and all the solar panels are virtue signaling since they’re the 5th largest coal exporter in the world?
No, Troglodyte.
There’s no Step 5.
Leading questions under the guise of a Sammich Request is another framework.
1. Statistics isn’t science. It’s a tool of science.
2. If you do have large temperature variations *at a location*, it’s almost certainly because the location has low humidity not because the data is dodgy!
I’d argue Canada’s climate variations are just as extreme as Australia’s – look at the difference in summer and winter temps in the central states. The centers of large land masses always have the extremes. It might not get as steamy hot as Darwin, but that’s just latitude. Aus is much closer to the equator and a lot of it is in the tropics. But because of water vapour and convection, the equator, where energy is maximised, and days relatively short, isn’t usually the hottest place on the surface.
Averages of averages are just masking the true mechanisms of energy transfer and are unlikely to lead to any real insights (science). If we want to understand weather patterns we should be integrating temperature over a fast time constant, not averaging it over ever slower ones and generally assuming normal distributions are at play – because over long timescales, they are distorted by the long time-constant cycles we don’t understand, or perhaps more correctly, have not properly characterised. Hence Dr Spencer using a linear trend – it’s the simplest honest fit to the data series that has predictive value (is it hotter or colder now than at some other point in the series?).
Climate, as invented by geographers, is about heat and energy, not temperature and it was useful to tell whether crop A would grow in location X. Temperature (an energy distribution in matter) is just a consequence of processes that are poorly characterised (mostly ignored) in all models. It frustrates me no end that we have the meterological understanding and computational power to produce extremely accurate short term weather forecasts that could form the basis of saving lives and minimising property damage, but instead we’ve wasted billions of dollars trying to make long range forecasts more accurate and understand the climate boogie man – and all apparently, when we need accurate forecasts more than ever because of all the extra extreme weather events we are going to get in the future.
Modern climate science just isn’t useful! It arguably was when tipping points were plausible, but we are 50 years on now, time to admit warming from anthropogenic CO2 is nothing like as bad as was first feared and disband climate research at scale.
/rant over.
Bravo!
https://i.ibb.co/HfS4BWGF/574951435-1412040014256304-6812226391011095891-n.jpg
Freeman Dyson summed it up,when he said climate only takes up less than 1% of his time,other problems are more important.
You have a really good point about people making speculative claims based on “science”. I am reminded of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. As time goes on, and more and more speculative claims are debunked, it is the reputation of the science community that suffers. Use of the term “climate change denier” by left-wing media and politicians makes the problem worse. Skeptical analysis is the bedrock of science, but it is not allowed when it comes to climate.
What if there was a pandemic and science created a very effective vaccine in a short period of time, but people were afraid to take it because they did not trust science? Oh, wait, that happened! How many people died because they thought is was safer to be exposed to a deadly virus than receive a vaccination? This story continues on a smaller scale with measles.
Gordon, please do not pollute my serious comment with your crap about virus science being fake.
“because they did not trust science?”
There is an epidemic causing people to not trust any experts.
Idiocracy is here.
How many people died because they did take the vaccine?
The science indicates those who chose against the vaccine made the right choice.
Here is one organization that is diving deep into the numbers:
https://www.youtube.com/@Merogenomics
Case in point.
Nate, get lost. You are not wanted here. Nobody respects you at all. You are reliably wrong about everything you post.
“Nobody respects you at all. You are reliably wrong about everything you post”
Interestingly, only the worst tro.lls here have expressed similar feelings about me, Tim.
Ken
You have a video of a guy walking on some mountain trail but he is not doing any rigorous science like linking to actual research.
I hope you are not of the mind type as Gordon Robertson or Clint R that do not accept any evidence that goes against their established beliefs.
Here:
https://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2023/04/015.html
They have done research with large groups of people to see if there was significant clotting from Covid vaccines but the evidence does not support this conclusion.
“How many people died because they did take the vaccine?”
let’s put those numbers against those who didn’t and died of COVID.
You could take all the COVID mortality from 2020 for that to get a start.
And if you aren’t satisfied with that, simply take excess mortality as your metric (the number of deaths above the expected number) for 2020. And 2021, 2022.
that will give you a rough cost/benefit ratio.
TLDR: The benefits of taking the vaccine massively outweighed not doing it. Plus the bonus of reducing the number of disease vectors – taking a vaccine helps everybody else.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8160119/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X24001919
However, you may like to give more credence to newspaper articles, blog and your gut feelings. I’m sure there are excellent reasons for ignoring statistical analyses.
Been busy, so just now commenting. Noticed the same cult kids are still at it — gordon, Nate, bindi, and Willard being the main blog-cloggers.
And Norman demonstrates his obsession with me by making yet another false allegation.
Kids these days….
Clint R
My claims about you are quite correct!! I have linked you to textbook material that exposes your false claims. It does no good with you and your blind, childlike beliefs in your own limited intelligence. You have yet to validate your many false claims with valid data. You never have and never will
Wrong again, Norman.
You got caught making another false accusation, and as usual you’re trying to spin your way out of it. Where did I ever “not accept any evidence that goes against” my “established beliefs”?
You got caught so you’re now adding insults. Your insults and false accusations only indicate you’ve got NOTHING.
[I’ve learned not to waste much time with you, so you only get one chance here. Don’t blow it.]
Clint R
Sorry you have severe memory issues. I guess you do not remember your older posts. Something that happens with aging. Since you can’t remember I took the time to find some past posts.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2025-0-50-deg-c/#comment-1707368
In this exchange I offer both valid textbook material on heat transfer and an added video for you explaining how energy from a colder body is received by a hotter one.
You reject the science in favor of your beliefs. I have found nothing will alter your opinions. You will peddle them regardless of the actual evidence. You also will never provide any supporting evidence (experiment or valid textbook) to support any of your claims. You just repeat them over and over and insult all and everyone who might try to correct your false beliefs. Tim Folkerts has tried often with sound logic, good reason and established knowledge by you reject all his valid science. Carry on with more insults and opinions.
Norman, to support your false accusation, you had to 1) Identify what my “established beliefs” are, and 2) Show were I did “not accept any evidence that goes against” those beliefs.
You failed, as usual. But you proved me right, again.
PS: That link you threw against the wall was from an Iranian source. You have to be careful with crap you find on the Internet.
Clint R
First, are you an actual human or a bot? It is pointless to bring up any more past posts of what you have stated. You have no memory of things you claim.
Since it is a waste to go back to things you claim that you do no remember. You have claimed that flux of 400 W/m^2 reaching a surface heated by a 1000 W/m^2 source will have no effect on that surface. Your opinion goes againt both established physics and experiment Roy himself has run.
Maybe you should go in and check out your memory do you can know what you are posting. Another possibility is that numerous posters use “Clint R” so that you really don’t know what each individual posts using that name.
Norman, you’ve never studies thermodynamics or radiative physics. That’s why this is hard for you, and you keep getting so frustrated.
I think you are referring to my example that a surface emitting 500 W/m² can NOT be warmed by a 400 W/m² flux. That example is true. Now, since you BELIEVE the 400 W/m² can warm that surface, just provide your supporting reference from established physics.
Of course, you can’t. That’s why you have to resort to insults and false accusations. You’ve not NOTHING.
I don’t remember the original details of “I think you are referring to my example … “. So let’s specify some details.
Imagine a blackbody sphere with surface area 1 m^2 inside an evacuated box at ~ 10 K (radiating 0 W/m^2) . The sphere is at 306.5 K, radiating 500 W/m^2 from its surface. We could hold the sphere at this temperature with a 500 W electric heater inside the sphere.
Now …. raise the temperature of the walls around the the sphere to 290 K, radiating 400 W/m^2. The sphere will naturally warm up, since it is still getting 500 W of electrical power, but only losing 100 W/ of radiation. It will warm up to 355 K in fact, at which point the energy flows again balance.
Any reasonable person would agree that the additional 400 W/m^2 of radiation warmed the sphere from 306 K –> 355 K.
Folkerts, a poor memory is not an excuse for you to attempt to pervert the issue. Norman provided a link, and I provided clarification. Do your homework before commenting.
Clint, the discussion is about your claim that “a surface emitting 500 W/m² can NOT be warmed by a 400 W/m² flux.” I just gave a simple, clear example. It might be different from your example, but it still refutes your claim.
Sputtering and blustering doesn’t support your point. Either state specifically what you think is wrong with my example, or admit ‘you got NOTHING’.
Folkerts, whenever you want to pervert valid examples, be sure to use “electric heaters”. Most people, like Norman, will not understand that electric heaters can heat a system regardless of its temperature.
So your incompetent example would be considered fraud.
Clint ducks again
barry used to pretend, but now he’s just another cult child.
Reality has set in.
“…raise the temperature of the walls around the the sphere to 290 K”
There’s the trick. Tim’s hidden a second heat source in the walls! If it was only the sphere itself heating the walls (only one heat source, within the sphere), then the passive walls could not heat the sphere further. Have a second heat source, within the walls themselves, though, and then you are adding additional energy into the system. The sphere can warm further.
Tim pulls this trick all the time. Gets boring after a while.
I thought Clint held that radiation from a cooler body cannot warm a warmer one.
Wasn’t that the point with his plate example and a heat source either side? From memory, the plate could only heat up to the temperature provided by the hotter of the two heat sources. Something about photons from a cooler object not being able to be absorbed?
Happy to be corrected if I’ve misunderstood.
I don’t know if you’re responding to me, barry, but without several apologies from you and you admitting to multiple errors, I won’t be entering into any sort of discussion with you.
Wow barry, that’s pretty good! No need for a major correction. You seem to be getting it.
Although there are some minor issues, I would give you an A-. That puts you way above the average cult kid. Maybe some of the others will be encouraged to work harder. You’re setting a good example.
Keep learning.
Thanks, Clint.
In Tim’s example the walls are cooler than the sphere, so DREMT’s conclusion:
“Have a second heat source, within the walls themselves, though, and then you are adding additional energy into the system. The sphere can warm further.”
Is at odds with your view.
I’d guess DREMT would also disagree that the cooler heat source on the other side of the plate could not warm the plate any further than the warmer heat source on the other side, based on the quote above.
In this case, I agree with DREMT, that the addition of energy, even from a cooler source, is going to increase the energy of the target object.
Now you took a wrong turn, barry. You were doing so good.
DREMT’s views and mine coincide quite well. You just don’t understand the science. The “electrical heaters”, added by Folkerts, completely change the scenario. Once electrical energy is added, 2LoT considerations go away.
You just don’t have enough background to understand. Just learn to quote my exact words, and you’ll look smart. Don’t try to understand.
As Tim’s example takes place “inside an evacuated box”, the only way energy reaches the sphere is by radiation – photons.
DREMT’s view is that if the cooler heat source is active (not passive) then it is “adding additional energy,” which would cause the already warmer object to become even warmer.
This is at odds with your view, which you express here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/06/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-may-2025-0-50-deg-c/#comment-1707309
“The back side of the plate is emitting 500 W/m2 but a new source is supplying 400 W/m2! What will happen?
In terms of raising the temperature of the plate, NOTHING will happen. The colder source cannot raise the temperature of a hotter surface.”
I emphasised for clarity. Both you and DREMT are referring to active sources.
If you hold that photons from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer one, then it doesn’t matter if the walls are heated by an electrical device or a sun outside the box or any other source (leaving aside the sphere itself). In Tim’s example the wall starts very cold and is raised to a higher temperature, but still cooler than the sphere. DREMT thinks the temperature of the sphere will rise.
If you agree with DREMT that this would raise the temperature of the sphere, I’d be curious how you explain it. How does the sphere get warmer if the radiating walls increase in temperature, but still remain cooler than the sphere?
barry, your incompetence is blatant. Your very first sentence is completely WRONG. Go back to where Tim started the nonsense. See if you can find your mistake. Get a responsible adult to help you, if necessary. You were at the “A” level, now you’re at the “F” level.
Again, only quote me exactly. Trying to put things together by yourself just reveals your ignorance and immaturity.
“disband climate research at scale.”
Sounds like you are adopting the Pink Floyd philosophy,
‘Hey, teacher, we don’t need to know!’
“Modern climate science just isn’t useful!”
Well, IMO, it has been. Going back 45 years climate science made predictions:
-Global warming well beyond variability of previous century. Quite close to what occurred.
-Significant Arctic sea-ice retreat and opening of NW passage, after 2000. This has occurred.
-Warming and exacerbation of Western US droughts and wildfire. Yep.
Even a real-estate investor (Trump) gets it: he wants to purchase Greenland.
Nate,
Words, words, words. Always words. I like data, data, data. And argument, argument, argument (not the angry type, but the logical argument type). The language of true believers in the notion that global warming caused by man is an existential threat has been persistent (since the late 80s), imprecise, at times patently false, and almost always greatly exaggerated. It has also been very successful, combined with the iron-curtain-like censorship, cancellations, shaming, and financial inducements and penalties (carrot and stick).
The evidence and related argument for this coming “catastrophe” is underwhelming to say the least. Scale matters. I am 77. I have lived for roughly 1/2 the period that global warming advocates say has been brought by CO2 increases produced mostly by burning fossil fuels. The only thing I can say, speaking as one data point in Ohio, is it does seem a lot greener (duh, CO2 essential for photosynthesis). Mostly in the wild underbrush, which keeps crowding our roads and hiking paths. Other than that, we all seem to be surviving nicely in Ohio these days.
(Of course the farmers must be happy about better production)
But, go ahead and try to scare me…with data and argument please.
Thats what happens after ice ages,it warms with the odd interruption here and there,the Neo Glacial was the first followed by the lesser LIA , why would it not warm?it would be a most unusual event if the climate did not change or became constant.
I see lots of words, words and more words there Thomas. No data, data, data.
Quoting WORDS of Nate “well beyond” (how much?), “significant” (how much), “warming and exacerbation” (how much?). Nate leaves us to wonder. Scale matters. Typically, when warming advocates give us the actual numbers, rather than their direction, they are very underwhelming.
Step 2 – Sammich Request.
Why are contrarians so fixated on data about the future may always escape me.
And to distract from Step 3 – Saying Stuff. No less.
Thomas,
Here is one paper that made the specific predictions I mentioned.
Easy read to see the quanitative T predictions that are comparablw within error to observed.
Significant sea ice retreat, yes significant enough to open the NW passage to shipping as predicted.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/ha04600x.html
Clint R
I have actually studied far more heat transfer than you have ever done. I have read textbook material which is far more than what you have done. So you are corrected. Formally I have not taken a college course in thermodynamics but neither have you. I have advanced my understanding by consulting textbooks.
Here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711331
Past post where this was discussed.
You kind of repeat yourself when you have nothing scientific to say or add. In you latest post…
YOU: “Norman, you’ve never studies thermodynamics or radiative physics. That’s why this is hard for you, and you keep getting so frustrated.”
In an earlier post:
YOU: “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.”
Basically you just repeat yourself when you have no science to back up your claims.
Sorry Norman, but long-winded blah-blah doesn’t work. You need to face reality. You need to address the issues:
1) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/11/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-october-2025-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1722080
2) https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/11/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-october-2025-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1722126
Learn from your mistakes. That’s what adults do….
BACK AT THE RANCH
SUMNER, NE—The Richard B. Cheney Vice Presidential Library and Museum officially opened to the public on Wednesday, housing a variety of exhibits honoring the legacy of the former vice president on display in a vast, dark, sulfurous cave thousands of feet below the surface of the earth.
https://theonion.com/dick-cheney-vice-presidential-library-opens-in-pitch-da-1819574915/
Impressive!
Global
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/uah-global.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2025/11/05/uah-mean-and-median-tropics-for-oct-2025/
The same text written below
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/11/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-october-2025-0-53-deg-c/#comment-1722150
applies of course to this graph as well :–)
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
In recent years, extreme weather events supercharged by climate change have revealed how fragile the country’s property insurance landscape is — and how quickly insurance companies can go from profitable to nonexistent. In the five years between 2018 and 2023, more than 1.9 million home insurance policies were dropped in disaster-prone states like Florida, Louisiana, California, and Texas by insurance companies that either voluntarily withdrew from those states or went bankrupt. FedNat was one of seven Florida-based property insurers to go bankrupt during 2021 and 2022 due to insurmountable financial troubles. In Louisiana, 11 insurance companies were declared insolvent between 2021 and 2022.
https://grist.org/economics/insurance-company-bankrupt-hurricane-ida-louisiana/
Insurers might need to hire more honest borkers.
another misleading report Willard, you cant blame the climate for rising costs, in 1962 my house was valued at 600 English pounds,today it has a value of 150.000 English pounds,as for extreme weather,only a few days ago the BBC told us that storms such as Malissa were becoming more intense and frequent because of climate change,that was a lie, before sat monitoring there are no records of hurricanes that did not make land fall, and of the cat 5 that did, there has been only 20 since 1924. only 7 of those since 1992.data from NOAA.
Are you having a stroke, Ian?
LIGA itself says there are more than 500 FedNat claims still pending:
https://www.laiga.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2024-Annual-Report-1.pdf
Claims made in 2021.
Besides, perhaps you could answer Bye’s question:
“How do you do that to people? How do you insure people in the South, take all of these premiums, and then just belly-up?”
Ask a nephew to help you navigate your iPad.
tim s….”How many people died because they thought is was safer to be exposed to a deadly virus than receive a vaccination? This story continues on a smaller scale with measles.
Gordon, please do not pollute my serious comment with your crap about virus science being fake”.
***
Nice off-topic shot. But, as they say in Perry Mason, you opened the door to the inadmissible evidence, allowing me to respond. I might add that I post on matters like the covid scam since it parallels the AGW/climate change scam. Both rely on consensus and pseudo-science as a basis for their mock science. I am simply trying to reveal that all science is under attack, not just climate science.
Furthermore, professionals dare not intercede with realistic science for fear of being ostracized by ijits who think they control science. Roy and John of UAH and Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT, have been assailed for simply trying to do real science. Concerted efforts have successfully made at the IPCC level to block a paper co-authored by John Christy. I apologize to Roy for going off topic but I want people to see how far the scam artists have assaulted real science.
Why??? Why is it deemed so important to block papers at a preliminary review stage in the IPCC process? Yet, a Coordinating Lead Author, Phil Jones, heat of Hadcrut at the time, bragged in the Climategate email scandal that he and his partner, Kevin, would see to it that certain skeptic papers would not make it to the final review stage.
I have never claimed viral science as a whole being faked, I have only claimed that covid claims, based on an inferential method introduced for HIV by Luc Montagnier, is fake.
I have also cited the work of Stefan Lanka, an expert in virology, who has put his money where his mouth is. He has offered a 100,000 Euro (US$113,000) prize to anyone who can prove, using one paper, that the measles virus has been isolated. To date, no one has successfully challenged him. It’s clear that no scientist worth his salt can prove that measles has been isolated.
At no time has Lanka claimed that measles does not exist, only that the virus claimed to cause it has never been isolated. That begs the question as to what is in the vaccine, that has been associated in part with the cause of autism. A study claiming that was simply expunged from the record, how utterly convenient. If you don’t like a study, eliminate it, like the IPCC does with skeptic papers.
Furthermore, in a trial circa 2016, Lanka introduced a hitherto unknown fact about all viral research. No claimed virus has used a control study to prove the agents used to allegedly keep cells used to test a claimed virus healthy, are not being killed by those methods. That’s shocking. Lanka proved using an independent lab that the pre-treatment of healthy cells kill them by itself.
One of the reasons offered for pre-treatment it to pre-starve healthy cells to make them more vulnerable to infectious agents. Huh??? Are they serious? It has been revealed that Pasteur, held in high esteem, actually admitted in post-humous notes to having lied about his research. Circa 1935, another scientists admitted that viral research to that date failed to meet the requirements of the Koch Postulates.
Based on lengthy research into the history of viral research, Lanka has revealed a history rife with innuendo and consensus rather than good science. Where scientists were not clear on a fact re a virus, they simply offered faulty opinions that were passed on and maintained via consensus.
I have even pointed out how in my field of electrical engineering how this Draconian system works. In the 1700s, Benjamin Franklin claimed that electric current flows positive to negative and this lie has been maintained as a convention through consensus, pseudo-science, and sheer idiocy. When the electron was discovered in 1898, it put an end to the idiocy even though modern textbooks maintain it while explaining that current flow via electrons does flow negative to positive even though they maintain the lying version and teach it.
Universities are supposed to be a seat of learning but no one has advocated that the learning be about reality and truth. In many ways, universities are about maintaining paradigms that have long proved incorrect.
The Wuhan scientists who initially revealed covid made no claim to have isolated a virus. They simply used a method developed by Luc Montagnier for HIV to INFER a virus based the discovery of RNA in the lungs of those affected. The same RNA can be found in any human who is sick or afflicted.
The so-called covid vaccine, rushed out in a few months by Pfizer, an outfit that has been fined over 5 billion dollars for lying about their products, has done absolutely nothing to control covid. In the end, covid was downgraded from a pandemic to an endemic illness like the flu without further explanation. Rather than admit they had no idea what covid was about, health officials buried their heads in the sand and let it quietly die.
Mind you, the source of much of the propaganda about covid was the World health Organization, an outfit that parallels the IPCC for fiction. The WHO fabricated AIDS as the cause of death in Africa when the real cause of the disease (slim disease or wasting syndrome) has long been known: malnutrition, contaminated drinking water, and insect borne illnesses like malaria. The WHO was desperate to prove their idiotic claim that HIV would spread equally to the heterosexual community, so they lied about wasting syndrome being a product of sexual transmission.
Statistics here in the Vancouver area showed clearly that 70%+ of people who had been doubly-vaccinated were still getting sick, and dying, from pneumonia, the actual cause of death in the covid scam. Even during the worst of covid, stats in Canada revealed that less than a 10th of one percent of Canadians had been sick or died. That means the immune system handled covid for the other 99.9+ percent of Canadians.
For another, the test for covid, the RNA-PCR test, does not even test for a virus. The inventor of PCR, Kary Mullis, is on record as claiming PCR cannot be used diagnostically to test for a virus.
The RNA-PCR test was originally invented for HIV by Fauci since not enough HIV could be isolated from someone testing positive to examine it on an electron microscope. The scientist credited with discovering HIV, Luc Montagnier, even though he denied ever seeing the virus on an EM and used a method based on inference that the cause of the virus was RNA found in victims, admitted his method from the Louis Pasteur Institute, the gold standard at the time, had failed to find a virus. He had to use inference since he was unable to see a virus (HIV) on an electron microscope.
Therein lies the covid scam. A virus has been claimed based on a faulty method of inference by Montagnier, which failed to isolate a virus using an EM. Montagnier later admitted that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system, a claim that should be applied to covid as well.
Fauci thought the invisible virus could be revealed by using PCR to amplify the RNA falsely claimed by Montagnier as a marker for HIV. So, he devised a method to convert RNA to DNA, amplifying the DNA with PCR then claiming if so many iterations took place of DNA amplification, that proved a virus was present. All that despite the fact Montagnier never proved that RNA in any form was associated with covid.
It proved nothing and still proves nothing. The test proved so unreliable that homosexual males testing positive one day could return a few days later and test negative.
Incorrect usage of PCR, claimed Mullis. He pointed out correctly that PCR will amplify all components in a sample equally, rendering any virus still invisible. When Fauci insisted that his method was correct, and that RNA represented HIV, Mullis called him a liar several times in public. No response from Fauci, a vindictive little creep, who had ruined the career of Peter Duesberg by withholding funding when Duesberg insisted that HIV could not possibly cause AIDS.
Duesberg was no lightweight and anyone with any sense would have listened to him. He found the first cancer gene and became the youngest member of his time inducted into the National Academy of Science. He also won the California Scientist of the Year Award among other awards. Clearly, his peers valued his work even though lesser minions have tried to assassinate him via his work and his character.
In fact, Montagnier agreed with him essentially in the end by claiming that HIV cannot harm a healthy immune system and that AIDS is caused by oxidative stress due to lifestyle. That was a main point of Duesberg, that homosexual males and IV drug users, who have accounted for more than 90% of AIDS deaths, were ruining their own immune systems through drug abuse and engaging in orgies with multiple partners. He pointed out that homosexual males in monogamous relationships did not get AIDS.
So, where is your evidence to the contrary, other than red herring arguments against what I have revealed?
Just for fun, I asked AI (Google Gemini) about this post. Here is the conclusion …
“The argument is a powerful presentation of a conspiracy-style framework applied to seemingly disparate scientific fields. It skillfully uses true elements of scientific controversy (Climategate, Duesberg’s career, the current-flow convention) and selectively interpreted or fringe scientific critiques (Lanka’s isolation criteria, Mullis’s PCR comments) to construct a narrative of widespread scientific fraud and suppression.
While it is valuable to question scientific dogmas and processes, the argument relies on rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus in both climate science and virology. To accept the argument, one must believe that thousands of independent scientists, medical doctors, and global health organizations across the world are either complicit in a deliberate, multi-decade “scam” or are collectively too incompetent to isolate a virus or correctly measure a warming planet.”
tim s…”Nate, get lost. You are not wanted here. Nobody respects you at all. You are reliably wrong about everything you post”.
***
I have no problem with Nate. He disagrees with me all the time but that’s part and parcel of engaging in a forum. If we all agreed there would be little to discuss, like at realclimate where everyone butt-kisses the alarmist meme there and anyone who disagrees is ejected.
Part of the reason I respect Roy is that he allows diverse views as long as we don’t take advantage and flame him, which would prove to be an unfair advantage considering he is a professional and has most to lose. Gavin Schmidt at realclimate has such a thin skin that he cannot tolerate any poster who disagrees with him.
Roy has also requested that we refrain from trying to be hostile with each other.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
By winning, the D’s are actually losing.
https://bsky.app/profile/mollyknight.bsky.social/post/3m4wd3e5jck2w
Only Donald can win, and when he appears to be losing it counts for double!
What is the obsession with Trump? he is 100% correct when it comes to climate hysteria. The cost of climate mitigation far out ways the cost of climate disruption,climate change itself is not a con, but drive to combat it,is nothing more than fraud, the likes we have never seen before,the UK government excels at throwing money in bottomless pits, we are all paying the price because people in power make decisions with impunity,there is no penalty for being wrong, unlike in the work place.so far atmospheric C02 has killed no one, we are only here because past levels were over ten times higher than todays.
“The cost of climate mitigation far out ways the cost of climate disruption”
Evidence? Data?
“we are only here because past levels were over ten times higher than todays.”
Uhhh, when was that, Ian?
Why are WE here because of that?
If you do do not know the answer, your on the wrong blog, i am not here to teach you what you should have learned at junior school,
binny….”Now back to his stupid claim:
”[GR] From 1979 till 1998, the global anomalies were largely negative, meaning there was a global cooling period between those years. ”
[Binny Bundtcake]He couldn’t be more wrong. The trend in C / decade for Jan 1979 – Dec 1998 is 0.162 +- 0.02, i.e. the same as for the entire series till now”.
***
Binny is trying to explain anomalies to me, which I understand well, while he is still in the dark, and in denial.
The key is the baseline, which is a based on the average temperature over a range. From 1978 – 1997 for that range, the anomalies were largely below that baseline hence represented cooling wrt that baseline.
Although those in favour of anomalies try to justify them, I still think they are artificial data based more on math than reality.
From Binny’s own link…”A positive anomaly means the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly means the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline”.
Exactly what I claimed….the period from 1979 – 1997 was below the baseline, hence cooler. But how does one establish a baseline when the data collection starts in 1979?
As John Christy pointed out, the baseline was exceeded for the first time in the UAH record by the 1998 major El Nino, and stayed above the baseline pretty well from then on.
However, there is something amiss here. If the anomalies are all above the baseline over a range there is something wrong with the baseline. For a flat trend, like the trend from 1998 – 2015, there had to be a significant number of anomalies below the baseline as above. That is particularly true with the trend from 1850 till present being limited to 1.0C.
John Christy also mentioned how the trend line is skewed over time, using a model like a teeter totter.
You are still getting it wrong, Gordon. There are two interpretations for “there was a global cooling period between those years”. But either way you are wrong.
1) This could mean that between 1979 and 1998, there was a downward WITHIN these years (as Bindidon was arguing). As he correctly stated, here was no downward trend.
2) Alternatively, this could mean the general period 1979-1998 was cooler compared to warmer, earlier decades. But this is not the case either.
Tim Folkerts
Just one paragraph out of Robertson’s nonsense:
” However, there is something amiss here. If the anomalies are all above the baseline over a range there is something wrong with the baseline. For a flat trend, like the trend from 1998 – 2015, there had to be a significant number of anomalies below the baseline as above. ”
And Robertson’s mix of arrogance and ignorance continues! He is not even able to eye-ball the UAH time series, let alone to compute, for the period 1998-2015 (216 months) the number of positive versus negative anomalies… Oh Noes.
Having UAH’s time series in a spreadsheet, it’s easy to compute that within that period, 107 of the 216 anomalies are above zero; thus, 109 of them (50.46 %) are either zero or below zero.
*
I’m so fed up with Robertson’s stupidity… but if he isn’t contradicted, everyone who reads this blog and knows even less than he does will believe his constantly repeated nonsense and take it for absolute, insightful truth.
*
Robertson’s blah blah proves once more that he still did not manage to grasp what anomalies and baselines really are.
He never understood why I gave him for years to learn about:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
Everything we need about that is perfectly explained by… Roy Spencer en personne.
binny…”Art Groot is of course plain correct, and Robertson’s urging to reply once more with his usual endless, though empty posts won’t change anything”.
***
Binny demonstrates a comprehension problem. Analyzing with a polynomial or whatever does no good whatsoever if the context upon which the data is based in incorrect. You and other number crunchers seem to think you can take any series of data points, analyze them using fancy statistical techniques, and get meaning.
Roy has analyzed the UAH data well, including a red running average curve. Roy, a co-author of the UAH data tells us he does not know how much CO2 contributes. Yet, legends in your own minds, like you, claim it is due to anthropogenic warming.
The linear trend for UAH data tells us very little other than it has warmed, so why should a polynomial do any better? Art Groot was talking about instantaneous change but what does that tell us when the integral of all instantaneous changes wrt time reveal a flat trend over 15 years from 1998 – 2015?
You fail to grasp anything of what I am saying even though Google AI acknowledges that context is very important. Anyone who has studied statistical methods seriously knows that.
What caused the 15 year flat trend from 1998 – 2015 and the 6 year flat trend from 2016 – 2022? The IPCC tried to hide such a lengthy flat trend as something natural. Until you can explain that in an environment of ever-increasing CO2 emissions, you have nothing. You can analyze the data every such way and arrive at no conclusions of what it means.
Since I don’t have time right now, I’ll respond to Robertson’s incredibly stupid, ignorant, and for years endlessly repeated nonsense in a few days, once I’m at my vacation home.
But I can already emphasize what a stupid, uneducated, unscientific liar Robertson is when posting:
” Yet, legends in your own minds, like you, claim it is due to anthropogenic warming. ”
I never claimed that. It exists only in Robertson’s completely deranged brain.
*
But the very best comes now:
” Anyone who has studied statistical methods seriously knows that. ”
If there is anyone among the people posting here who knows absolutely nothing about mathematics, let alone statistics, it is… Robertson.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Governments gave out $2.5bn a day in direct subsidies to fossil fuel users and producers in 2023, the researchers found, while people lost about the same amount because of high temperatures preventing them from working on farms and building sites.
Reduced coal burning has saved about 400 lives a day in the last decade, the report says, and renewable energy production is rising fast. But the experts say a healthy future is impossible if fossil fuels continue to be financed at current rates.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/29/rising-heat-kills-one-person-a-minute-worldwide-lancet-countdown
More propaganda than fact Willard, something The Guardian excels at. Who writes this rubbish?
Dr Marina Romanello, of University College London led the team that produced the report, Ian.
Have you once again forgotten to click on the link, and do you dispute that gubmints gave out $2.5bn a day in direct subsidies to fossil fuel users and producers in 2023?
That does not mean it is not rubbish Willard,they said ULEZ would save thousands of lives a year, that we now know to be false, as for subsides, they are there for a reason, without them people would freeze in winter because they could not afford to heat their homes, , the renewable sector only exists because of subsidies, but the cost of energy is still increasing,three weeks ago we had 10 power cuts over a 24 hour period,as the grid struggled to meet demand because of a lack of wind, untill gas came back on line and stabilized supplies, but some gas turbines are coming to the end of their life and renewing them will be a problem, there are only two or three manufacturers and their books are full,
More shadowboxing, Ian? Very well –
“They said”
Who’s they and are they in the room with you right now?
“three weeks ago we had”
Who’s we, and how is it related to what I said?
“That does not mean it is not rubbish”
What’s that, and is it related to what you said?
Remember: I’m not supposed to chase down your imaginary shadows just because you like the way you freely move without really saying anything.
Its another guess Willard, but your easily fooled,
You keep using that word, Ian.
It might not mean what you make it mean:
Brown
Why do you constantly claim that those who contradict your superficial, fact-free assertions are ‘easily fooled’?
Why do you never consider that perhaps YOU yourself are the one who is even more easily fooled?
You are either naive or narrow-minded, or both.
Its called experience, decades of global travel , and a refusal to believe every thing i am told,unless there is a good reason for believing it, my journey began in 1951,my first head teacher had a passion for science and the natural world,he taught us how to build weather stations, we made charts,tracked low pressure systems, using the daily shipping forecasts,weather was a way of life,nothing much has changed,i can still sit on the same rocky outcrops i sat on as a boy,take my self of to the coast of the North Sea and stand on a low tide fishing mark,locals call the Black Middens, the winters are a little warmer but still we are plagued by days of no wind and almost zero visibility, summers have changed very little, as a whole life has improved in Northumberland,
It’s rather called being a crank, Ian.
But I agree with you:
https://www.investnorthumberland.co.uk/sectors/offshore-wind-renewable-energy
Northumberland is getting better.
November 11: Lake effect snow in Michigan and snowstorm in the northeastern US.
https://i.ibb.co/Y415r18H/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
The graphic shows that circulation in the stratosphere during the winter season determines the weather in mid-latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/Rk5gg48r/gfs-toz-nh-f72.png
ENSO 3.4 has been below -0.5°C since early August. And, it appears to be getting even colder.
Darn Nature, it often ignores hoaxes….
https://postimg.cc/Pp00yxsH
Data from https://cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/wksst9120.for , graphed at Fig9.2 in http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com shows a flat trend since 1988 for area 3.4.
Good point, Dan.
It’s called “El Niño Southern Oscillation” for a reason. It’s an OSCILLATION. After enough cycles an oscillation will become a flat trend.
La Niña is working.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
Snowstorm in Minnesota and Iowa.
For many of those who flood this blog with their endless, fact-free slander against newspapers like the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the Guardian, the following lines actually could not have been written in any of these newspapers:
Cold records dating back to the 1800s may be broken by a coming Arctic freeze
By Ben Noll and Matthew Cappucci
” The season’s first outbreak of freezing, Arctic air is headed for the United States this weekend into next week.
It will register as the most unusually cold blob of air on the planet for a time.
Chilly air will reach the Plains and the Midwest this weekend before spreading to the East Coast on Monday.
In total, 155 million people across the contiguous states are expected to experience freezing conditions through Wednesday. ”
*
But… they are wrong, as always, about most of the things they improperly post on this blog.
Experienced people don’t just consider current situations:
https://i.postimg.cc/8krj9s7R/elninometer-current.png
hence prefer a longer observation range and the forecast computed successfully for years out of the observations:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Are you the experienced one ? have you become experienced by missing three lanina forecasts in a row ???
“ENSO-neutral conditions persisted in September, but overall conditions in the atmosphere and ocean were similar to those of La Niña events.
The La Niña-like conditions are likely to continue toward the first half of boreal winter. However, it will rapidly weaken, therefore it is more likely (80%) that ENSO-neutral conditions will persist until the late boreal winter.”
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
“La Niña conditions emerged in September 2025, as indicated by the expansion of below-average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean [Fig. 1]. The latest weekly Niño-3.4 index value was -0.5°C, with other regions remaining at or between -0.1°C and -0.4°C [Fig. 2]. Negative subsurface temperature anomalies persisted (averaged from 180°-100°W; [Fig. 3]), with below-average temperatures prevailing from the surface to 200m depth in the eastern half of the equatorial Pacific…
The IRI multi-model predictions favor La Niña through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2025-26 [Fig. 6]. The North American Multi-Model Ensemble is also in agreement, and based on recently observed anomalies, the team favors La Niña to continue through winter. At this time, La Niña is expected to remain weak…”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html
“The El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral. While there are signs of possible La Niña development in the tropical Pacific Ocean and atmosphere, these signals have not yet been sustained at a sufficient strength or duration to meet Bureau criteria for an active event…
The Bureau's model currently predicts that tropical Pacific Ocean temperatures are likely to just meet La Niña levels during November and December, before returning to neutral. This timing aligns with most international models assessed, although they generally show slightly more cooling, compared to the Bureau's model.”
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/?ninoIndex=nino3.4&index=rnino34&period=weekly
https://cmdp.ncc-cma.net/eng/index.php?channel=92
The CO2 nonsense fails every time. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface. The bogus “Earth’s Energy Imbalance” is easily debunked. Yet we constantly hear how well the climate models predict. Here’s how they work that scam.
Numerous models are used. It’s the “shotgun” approach. There will be different results, but one or two will be close to actual. Those close ones will be used to promote the bogus “science”. I saved the model predictions from last May, for ENSO:
https://postimg.cc/Xrc8RHTk
There were over two dozen model predictions. But, only one or two were even close:
https://postimg.cc/Pp00yxsH
See how “accurate” the climate models are???
The statistical average and the dynamic average are the thick lines in the forecast. Considering the forecast was made at the time of the Spring predictability barrier, they didn’t do too badly – decreasing temperatures between August and November. Though the temperature is higher in the prediction, it’s still sub-baseline, which is what happened.
The Spring predictability barrier can result in very off multi-seasonal ENSO forecasts. Not so much in this case.
barry struggles to defend why his cult’s “models” were about 90% WRONG.
That’s why this is so much fun….
There is always a spread and the averages worked out very well – this time, despite the predictability barrier. Your lack of understanding is not my problem.
tim f…”Just for fun, I asked AI (Google Gemini) about this post. Here is the conclusion …
“The argument is a powerful presentation of a conspiracy-style framework applied to seemingly disparate scientific fields. It skillfully uses true elements of scientific controversy (Climategate, Duesberg’s career, the current-flow convention) and selectively interpreted or fringe scientific critiques (Lanka’s isolation criteria, Mullis’s PCR comments) to construct a narrative of widespread scientific fraud and suppression”.
****
Bit disappointed in your reply Tim in that you seem incapable of responding to the facts I presented.
This is a perfect example that Google AI, in particular, is simply parroting status quo sources. The answer is typical of the status quo, who generally fails to address scientific arguments while regurgitating consensus-based opinion.
Nowhere in the reply have they presented arguments to refute Duesberg, Lanka et al, they have simply lumped them all under the umbrella of conspiracy theorists. All they have done is supply ad hom and red-herring arguments.
————-
“While it is valuable to question scientific dogmas and processes, the argument relies on rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus in both climate science and virology. To accept the argument, one must believe that thousands of independent scientists, medical doctors, and global health organizations across the world are either complicit in a deliberate, multi-decade “scam” or are collectively too incompetent to isolate a virus or correctly measure a warming planet.”
***
There you have it in a nutshell, Google AI thinks science is done by consensus. They support their argument with the idea that not only is consensus valid as a scientific tool, they think the more people supporting the consensus the more valid it is.
Google itself has been an advocate for suppressing skeptical views under the guise that all skeptical input is misinformation. The real danger to science is not the Duesberg’s, the Lanka’s, and the Mullis’s, it is the fabrication based on consensus of the majority of scientists who are either too stupid to reason based on facts or too afraid to go against propagandists like Google.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Fox’s Larry Kudlow Recites Donald’s Abysmal Poll Numbers and Says, “I’m Not Sure Why This Is”
https://bsky.app/profile/newnarrative.bsky.social/post/3m4tp53t67k2y
The answer is simple, however – that’s because giving billions to Argentina and organizing a “let them eat cake” party while taking food out of people’s mouth is a winning plan!
Will his record for the longest government shutdown ever be broken, except by himself in 2029?
Maybe Kamala can beat him when he runs for a third term.
Maybe troglodytes care as much about their constitution than they care about reality.
ian brown…from Binny Bundtcake…”Brown
Why do you constantly claim that those who contradict your superficial, fact-free assertions are ‘easily fooled’?
Why do you never consider that perhaps YOU yourself are the one who is even more easily fooled?”
***
Ian…hopefully you have considered the source, a ninny who fancy himself as a mathematician, but is actually a number-cruncher who lacks any sense of what the numbers mean, or even the validity of the numbers. Actually, he is more of a constipated mathematician who works it out with a pencil.
Binny the Ninny cannot speak to anyone civilly, as you can see, he referred to you as ‘Brown’, which is a sure sign you have ruffled his feathers.
In the past, Binny became annoyed with us calling him out and stated that he was leaving. Good riddance, many of us thought, but our glee was short lived. Binny was back, this time using his girlfriend’s nym. It did not take us long to see the resemblance in the wording of the posts and to reveal this shallow actor.
Just want you to know who is calling you what, a guy lacking in so much class that he cannot speak to anyone civilly who disagrees with him. Then he fawns all over those who do agree with him.
thanks for that Gordon, at least he didnt block me as Micheal Mann did on twitter several years age when i told him he was wrong, we had quite conversation over the Roman wine production in Britain, i posted pictures of tablets and inscriptions taken from Housesteads near where i live, and the best he could come up with was to quote Forbes,all he had to do was prove me wrong. name calling doesnt bother me,
Ian,
Just to confirm Gordon view. Bindidion will make various claims about his own skill set but when confronted to supply any definition, his response only confirms his lack of knowledge.
When I challenged him on coding his response was that of a script kiddy. His graphs are again very elementary and present data, not information.
He does come across as having a high score on the Dark Triad test. Bindidonion, might have read many articles but doesn’t have the breadth or depth to turn that information into useful knowledge. Shame really.
clint…”The CO2 nonsense fails every time. CO2’s 15μ photons can NOT warm a 288K surface”.
***
Agree with Clint on this but the reason is not all that obvious, at least to climate alarmists. The reason in our atmosphere wrt CO2 is that the CO2 is always colder than the surface, or at best, in thermal equilibrium.
The 2nd law as stated by Clausius is that heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder region to a hotter region. That rules out any transfer of heat from CO2 in a cooler atmosphere. Alarmists have argued that the 2nd law is about a net heat transfer but there is nothing in the 2nd law about a net anything. Anyone actually reading the reasoning of Clausius understands that he is not talking about a net anything.
The idea of a net heat transfer comes from the mistaken idea that heat is transferred in both directions by radiation. That is an old idea dating back to the mid-1800s when it was universally believed that heat was transferred through air by unidentified heat rays. It was the best they could do at the time since the relationship between electrons in atoms and EM was unknown. Electrons were not discovered till the end of that century in 1898.
It needs to be understood that bodies of different temperature in space are not radiated at anything. They are simply radiating EM isotropically. If another body intercepts some of the radiation, they can or cannot absorb the energy depending on their temperature. No energy anywhere is transferred from a region of lower potential energy to a region of higher potential energy, by their own means, and heat is no different.
It is electrons in atoms that create and absorb electromagnetic energy. The criterion for absorption is that the frequency of the EM matches exactly the angular frequency of the electron. That frequency gets higher with temperature therefore EM from a cooler body lacks the frequency to excite electrons in hotter objects.
Ergo, there is no such thing as a net heat transfer.
Clint uses the wavelength in um, which is 15 um. That wavelength is equivalent to a frequency of 19.98616 Thz where one Thz = 10^6 megahertz = 10^12 hertz.
The point is, such a high frequency was created at the surface by electrons in the surface. It was subsequently absorbed by CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, which had to absorb the EM at that frequency and convert it to heat. Then it had to re-radiate a fraction of the EM intensity back to the surface, where climate alarmists claim it is re-absorbed by the surface, causing the surface temperature to rise to a temperature higher than it was before the original EM was radiated.
Anyone who cannot see the problem here simply does not understand the pertinent physics. It not only poses a contravention of the 2nd law, it represents perpetual motion, whereby a surface dissipates heat through IR radiation then re-absorbs a watered down version of that EM (through losses), causing the surface temperature to rise.
Here’s the rub. When the CO2 absorbs the surface radiated EM and converts it to heat, the CO2 is now doing it from a lower temperature dependent on the altitude of the CO2. That means the radiated EM in the atmosphere must be at progressively lower frequencies, none of which the original electrons in the surface can absorb since they are at a higher temperature, which requires, an equivalent higher frequency before it can be absorbed.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
According to data released by the U.S. Census Bureau in September, the United States exported 46.8 million short tons (MMst) of coal in the first half of 2025 (1H25), an 11% decline from 1H24.
Steam coal exports totaled 22.5 MMst, a 10% decline from 1H24.
Metallurgical coal exports totaled 24.2 MMst, a 13% decline from 1H24.
Reduced coal exports to China (4.4 MMst) accounted for 73% of the decline in total U.S. net coal exports. China accounted for 76% of the decline in metallurgical coal exports and 68% of the decline in steam coal exports.
U.S. exports to China decreased after China imposed a 15% additional tariff on imports of U.S. coal in February and a 34% reciprocal tariff on imports from the United States in April.
The reduction in total exports also reflects a global market characterized by declining coal prices caused by ample supply and soft demand. Meanwhile, coal consumption in the U.S. electric power sector has risen due to more demand and higher natural gas prices.
https://cleantechnica.com/2025/11/03/us-coal-exports-drop-11-tariffs-lower-demand-top-reasons/
Unintentional wins are the best of Donald’s wins!
La Niña has fully developed.
https://i.ibb.co/Cp9ypXMr/cdas-sflux-ssta-relative-global-1.png
Until when?
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Thank you, Ireneusz!
It rains in Greece now, the long awaited rain, and it looks like it will last!
What I would like to add is that satellite from above doesn’t measure (doesn’t indicate) the same temperature the thermometer in the Standartized Stevenson’s screen measures (displays) on the exact same point, and at the exact same instant on the Earth’s surface.
So, those two are different temperatures, because they measure different items.
Satellite measures the IR emission intensity the ground at the point emits, and translates it to temperature according to its calibration.
Thermometer displays the temperature of itself (the body of thermometer) . The thermometers temperature is depemdent on the surrounding environment’s temperature and it is not the instant temperature, but with a time-lag.
Also the thermometer’s temperature is dependent on the air temperature, which enters into the Stevenson’s screen by natural circulation – and, therefore the temperature measured is also dependent on the velocity of winds.
Those are different measurements on the same point, and they measure different things.
The yearly average surface temperature measured by satellites is not the same as the temperature measured in the Standartized Stevenson’s screens.
And here is one major difference which cannot be overlooked:
In day-time satellites measure the surface temperature which exhibits a strong immediate IR emission, which is the result of surface matter interaction with incident solar flux.
The induced on the surface skin layer temperature the satellite measures as what it is, and it is the actual at the point surface temperature – which the thermometer in the Standartized Stevenson’s screens do not.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cristos, a PhD student thesis was on calibrating satellite for temperature reading. One of his comments was that most previous calibration was in USA & Europe, which isn’t really representative of the majority of the land mass.
Thank you, Anon.
It is important: “most previous calibration was in USA & Europe, which isn’t really representative of the majority of the land mass.”
christos…”So, those two are different temperatures, because they measure different items.
Satellite measures the IR emission intensity the ground at the point emits, and translates it to temperature according to its calibration”.
***
Christos…the AMSU units on the sats don’t measure surface IR, they measure microwave radiation from oxygen molecules in the atmosphere. They can measure to the surface but, as Roy has pointed out, they cut off the microwave measurements above the surface due to spurious microwave radiation from the surface.
The AMSU units break the microwave spectrum into channels, where each channel receiver is centred at a certain altitude. Channel 5 is the main channel used for surface temperatures and it is centred at an altitude of 4 km, about halfway up Mount Everest. Since O2 molecules at each altitude are radiating at frequencies based on their temperatures, the channel data is ‘weighted’ wrt altitude.
I compare this, in a way, to frequency modulation (FM) receivers in electronics. The FM signal is modulated by frequency, rather than amplitude, and the demodulator in the receiver is set up to convert frequency to voltage wrt a centre frequency. As I see it, that’s what the AMSU receivers do per channel, they convert microwave frequencies from oxygen into voltage wrt altitude.
Many detractors here claim the AMSU units are measuring from 4 km altitude hence are unreliable. That’s nonsense. The AMSU units can measure accurately for several kms above and below 4 km, and could measure all the way to the surface if required.
Of course, the big advantage of the sats is their 90% coverage of the planet’s surface. Thermometers in Stevenson screen, which don’t measure surface temperatures either, are, on average, dispersed at 1 thermometer per 100,000 km^2.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Donald on Sunday posted a fictitious headline claiming former President Barack Obama was previously collecting “royalties linked to Obamacare”—a claim that originated from a February post on a satirical news site called the “Dunning-Kruger Times.”
The Truth Social post erroneously claims the former president has collected $40 million in taxpayer-funded “royalties” since 2010, when the Affordable Care Act was signed into law.
The post does not link to an article, but the claim originated on a website for a publication called the “Dunning-Kruger Times,” a subsidiary of the America’s Last Line of Defense network, which describes itself as a “network of parody, satire, and tomfoolery.”
“Everything on this website is fiction,” the website notes in its “About Us” section, later mocking readers, “if you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined.”