Home/Blog2025 was the 2nd warmest year (a distant 2nd behind 2024) in the 47-year satellite record
The Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2025 was +0.30 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the November, 2025 value of +0.43 deg. C. (In the following plot note that the 13-month centered-average trace [red curve] has now been updated after several months of not being updated).
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through December 2025) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
2025 Ended the Year as a Distant 2nd Warmest Behind 2024
The following plot shows the ranking of the 47 years in the UAH satellite temperature record, from the warmest year (2024) to the coolest (1985). As can be seen, 2024 really was an anomalously warm year, more than can be attributed to El Nino alone.
The next plot shows how our UAH LT yearly anomalies compare to those posted on the WeatherBell website (subscription required) for the surface air temperatures from NOAA’s Climate Data Assimilation System (CDAS). There is pretty good correspondence between the two datasets, with LT having warm outliers during major El Ninos (especially 1987, 1998, 2010, and 2024). This behavior is due to extra heating of the troposphere (which LT measures) during El Nino by enhanced deep moist convection in the tropics when the tropical Pacific Ocean surface warms from reduced upwelling of cold water from below, an effect exaggerated by the several-month lag of tropospheric warming behind surface warming during El Nino:
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 24 months (record highs are in red).
| YEAR | MO | GLOBE | NHEM. | SHEM. | TROPIC | USA48 | ARCTIC | AUST |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +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 | +1.89 | +0.81 | +1.09 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +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 | +0.82 | +0.11 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.38 |
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for December, 2025 as well as a global map of the 2025 anomalies 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:
Only the 6th warmest December
1 2023 0.74
2 2024 0.61
3 2019 0.43
4 2015 0.35
5 2017 0.31
6 2025 0.30
7 2003 0.26
8 1987 0.25
9 2021 0.22
10 2016 0.16
Interesting that 1987 was so warm.
This is the first time since May 2023 that the anomaly has been below the current trend line.
The anomaly for the USA is very high. Second warmest anomaly for any month, and the warmest December.
Bellman
” The anomaly for the USA is very high. ”
Although the CFS V2 forecast for the US in January only includes land data, it can still be a meaningful hint to the previous December:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/usT2mMonInd1.gif
A comparison with the forecast for Europe is interesting:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/euT2mMonInd1.gif
Maybe it’s better to save them.
US
https://i.postimg.cc/SK0GX1fL/us-T2m-Mon-Ind1-050126.png
EUR
https://i.postimg.cc/qvKsdXHp/eu-T2m-Mon-Ind1-050126.png
Was 1998 warmer than 2020? I can’t tell what year is in 4th place behind 2016.
Greyhound81
I just had a look at a descending sort of the yearly averaging of UAH’s monthly LT data since Jan 1979:
2024 0.774 (C)
2025 0.472
2023 0.431
2016 0.389
2020 0.351
1998 0.348
2019 0.296
2017 0.265
2010 0.193
2022 0.148
*
You may mean the 5th place in between…
The 1877 spike continues to serve as a template. I wasn’t sure if the tail would be longer this time given the origin of the spike is different.
https://localartist.org/media/HTvAkjsaENSO2512.png
I’ve nearly finished a paper explaining why climate largely repeats after 3560 years. I hope to make it public in January.
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shift.png
Dr. Spencer, let me know if you’d like to see a draft copy.
I posted this comment last month, and now I see that the linked graphs have been viewed over 100 times.
I’ll re-up the graphs https://ibb.co/chfy3mmq and the accompanying follow up post for the benefit of any new lurkers.
Ark, why do you keep avoiding the issue?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2025-0-43-deg-c/#comment-1726504
Arkady, I am also curious about these graphs, can you accompany them with some sort of analysis and what conclusions that can be made?
Today’s entry notes that December, 2025 was +0.30 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean. However, the earliest mean, covering the first 20 years of observations (1978-1999) was about 0.22 lower than the current, meaning the departures you report appear smaller because of the use of a later baseline average–otherwise Dec. 2025’s anomaly would be something like .52 Deg C.
Why raise the baseline other than to reduce the apparent anomaly?
MFA
” Why raise the baseline other than to reduce the apparent anomaly? ”
This was not the reason, even if many of those I name the pseudo-skeptics would welcome it.
The reason to the change of the reference period, first from 1979-1998 to 1981-2010 and then from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020 is manifestly the will to be in agreement with WMO’s respectively newest recommendation.
Some follow it too, e.g. JMA, the Japanese Met Agency.
Others don’t, especially NASA GISS (1951-1980), RSS (still on 1979-1998) or partly NOAA which for global time series keeps on 1901-2000.
My guess (!): this might be due to how these climate data providers construct anomalies out of historical data; the probably tend to keep as reference the period with the most available absolute data, what reduces the standard deviations and gives thus better estimates.
But it downplays and therefore misrepresents the amount and rate of change.
To remain honest, Dr. Spencer should display the original baseline as well as the later one.
” But it downplays and therefore misrepresents the amount and rate of change. ”
Not so. The reference period shifts change the anomalies but don’t significantly change the trends in the time series, even if the shifts result in obtaining the data from sources slightly differing over time (satellites, surface stations).
However, what very significantly altered the rate of change in all UAH time series has been the transition from revision 5.6 to 6.0 in 2015, with a downward change from 0.14 to 0.11 °C per decade in LT.
MFA,
You are correct that the placement of the axis affects the interpretation of the data. Well know effect. It’s why pie charts are often used to disguise the numbers or why certain colours are used to highlight the message.
People like Bindy don’t really understand this.
In a few months we may start to see negative anomalies.
Sure, Jan. But if so, not for long.
Recent 30-year baselines are traditionally used by most weather and climate data reporting organizations, and the most recent baseline is 1991-2020. But the linear trend is the most important metric if you are interested in how much warming there has been over the entire period, which I also document every month. If I wanted to “hide the incline” I’d just compute anomalies relative to the most recent 10 years rather than the 30 year baseline.
Thank you for the reply. The incline is visually obvious from the graph; what isn’t as clear is how far the anomalies have already departed from the original baseline–which tells a different, less attenuated story than variations from a floating/rising baseline. On the same front, I hope you will consider updating this 2010 post…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/carbon-dioxide-growth-rate-at-mauna-loa/
…to reflect the additional 15 years of collected data that to my eye show a clear acceleration in the accumulation of CO2 at Mauna Loa.
I often cite your work/this site in discussions with Climate Torporists as it is the most conservative popular outlet with legit data. Thank you for continuing it.
MFA,
The CO2 Concentration measured at Mauna Loa (and elsewhere) is accelerating, but the effect on temperature anomalies is expected to be logarithmic and CO2 concentration has been approximately linear in recent decades when plotted on a log scale.
Here’s my graphical version of global land temperature using the Berkley Earth time series with atmospheric CO2 levels on a log scale overlaid.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/bestAndCO2.png
An alternate way of looking at this is to plot the regression of log(CO2) and temperature anomaly which is an simplistic estimate of climate sensitivity.
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/bestAndCO2.png
I say this is simplistic in that it presumes CO2 alone is responsible for observed warming, but in reality there are contributions from other greenhouse gases, aerosols attenuating warming, and variation in natural forcings and internal variation that are not considered.
Whoops, the correct link for the regression plot is here:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/best_land_vs_co2_doubling_long.png
Hi Mark B,
I am looking at the log CO2 charts.
What is the reason for only including land temperatures?
/David
David,
There’s two motivations behind that particular graph.
First, Berkeley Earth’s land-only is the longest running, nominally global temperature anomaly dataset available (1750-present), thus allowing a longer time period over which to illustrate the CO2-temperature correlation. Global land/ocean series including the BEST and HadCrut start in 1850.
Second, in the estimation of climate sensitivity, land temperatures respond more quickly to changes in forcing whereas ocean including ocean surface temperatures are subject to the considerable thermal inertia of the oceans. Thus the sensitivity estimate is plausibly a better estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity rather than a transient sensitivity subject to thermal inertia.
The broad shape of the land, ocean, and land/ocean time series is the same except the magnitude of ocean (thus land/ocean) anomaly is smaller which results in a smaller calculated sensitivity, albeit one with a different meaning.
For example, here’s the regression for GISS land/ocean with CO2 since 1959, that being when the Mauna Loa CO2 record starts:
https://southstcafe.neocities.org/climate/giss_vs_co2_doubling_1959.png
Thanks Mark,
The risk of using only land-only temperatures is that the stations are subject to heat the heat island effect. Especially for those stations that have long time series.
Dr Spencer have some extensive articles about it here on the blog.
Have you taken that into account when performing the regression analysis?
Mark, you can be easily tricked by charts and graphs. For example, there has been a huge increase in ice cream production in the last 100 years. Companies like Ben & Jerry’s, Haagen-Dazs, Baskin-Robbins, and Cold Stone Creamery, didn’t even exist before 1900. So you could prepare a chart showing a link between CO2 and the increase in ice cream. Does that mean CO2 is causing more ice cream?
You have to be careful. Don’t be tricked. There are many frauds and cultists out there….
David,
For the graphics linked above, I’ve simply taken the BEST series at face value. If one were inclined to be more rigorous, they could incorporate the BEST uncertainty estimates in the analysis but my educated guess is that the issues I mentioned earlier are more significant than potential residual UHI induced bias.
I say this because the BE project was undertaken specifically to address perceived potential issues with existing temperature anomaly series including UHI induced biases.
https://berkeleyearth.org/methodology/
https://berkeley-earth-wp-offload.storage.googleapis.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/03232406/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
My impression is that they’ve done so far more rigorously and transparently than have their remaining critics, so until and unless the counterargument becomes more robust and compelling, I’m not inclined to spend much time dwelling on it.
Well, it’s not really transparent to present the data series starting from 1750 in a line without confidence interval implying that the precision is the same over the entire timespan.
If their method is a “rigorous” as with the other temp datasets where old stations are interpolated over time and sensors mounted near heat absorbing objects it does not really hold much quality.
Also I don’t really understand why it always has to be a fixed reference period. In your regression you are indexing against 1750 which do not make sense. If the warming effect works as stated a delta value between two consecutive years would suffice.
Indexing two values with two completely different precision over 100 years apart does not make sense.
I can’t remember when the reference period was changed but it wasn’t that long ago and it was extensively explained and discussed. A bit of a slog butyou could go back through the blog entries and find that discussion. For what it’s worth I commented (recognizing that I am a complete amateur!) at the time that I thought it would make sense to keep the anomaly from the original reference period alive and accessible in some manner. But the reason for the change was explained and did seem fair and logical.
https://youtu.be/l2QjDA9QgNE
20 years ago 60 Minutes ran a segment titled Rewriting the Science, in which James Hansen spoke out about White House censorship of climate science.
The amount of CO2 in the air then was ~382ppm; it’s now ~428ppm.
So it will take 186 years to double CO2…which would give us perhaps less than 1°C. So need to worry, then.
I don’t know where I’ll be then, but I sure as hell won’t smell too good.
No, it won’t take that long, because the rate of CO2 increase is accelerating.
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
Try to keep up.
MFA: The amount of plants also accelerate at the same rate. It’s a well known fact that CO2 boosts plant growth. Plants tend to use all extra CO2 they can get. The average residence time of CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is found to be 3-4 years.
MFA:
185 years, then.
I get about 120 years to double from the current level (428 ppm to 856 ppm) and about 50 years to double from preindustrial (280 ppm to 560 ppm).
This is using compound growth with 0.6% increase per year.
Obviously this depends upon the actual trajectory of future emission.
Using the trend of the last 5 years, and having it staying constant, we reach 560, double the preindustrial value, in 56 years.
It will likely takes some time to slow down from our present rate of increase.
I remember this event regarding Jim Hansen, and I was a NASA employee at the time. Hansen wanted to say whatever he wanted to congress and the press, whenever he wanted. But there are NASA rules against unilateral interactions with congress and the press. You are supposed to go through the chain of command, including the Public Affairs office. Hansen didn’t want to do that. So, since NASA is an Executive Branch agency, all the WH did was tell NASA to rein Jim in and make him follow the rules. Then Hansen went to the press (of course) claiming the WH was muzzling him.
A member of congress asked me, “How does Hansen get away with this?” The only conceivable answer was that Hansen’s alarmism helped support NASA Earth science missions, the funding for which was directly proportional to the amount of alarm over the threats of anthropogenic climate change.
I personally decided I didn’t want that kind of control over me anymore, so I resigned from NASA and joined UAH, even though I continued on as the U.S. Science Team leader for the AMSR-E instrument on Aqua for many years afterward.
If Jim didn’t like NASA rules, he should have resigned, too.
First and foremost, happy new year, and welcome to the future.
Respectfully, focusing on intent (“alarmism,” “agenda,” “seeking patronage”) rather than engaging the substantive evidentiary claims makes Hansen look like a modern day Galileo, no?
There is no publicly verified evidence that Hansen’s communications were deliberately used by NASA administrators to secure funding.
I get your overarching point about internal coordination requirements, but the specific enforcement at that time was less formal than you imply. NASA’s written policy did not strictly prohibit direct scientific communication until it was formally codified in the 2006 policy update; from the IG Report dated June 2, 2008:
Ark, Roy is likely referring to the Hatch Act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act
…which is, of course, exemplary and a testament to your integrity and honesty.
Typo in the table? Dec (2025) has a 2026 year ?
yes, thanks, fixed -Roy
So…what caused the 2024 spike in the LT? If it was CO2, why wasn’t it sustained?
Can it be anything other than Hunga Tonga?
The evidence is very strong, but like everything in climate science, it is complex and there are competing theories. The best case is that there were different effects from the various gases, such that the initial effect was cooling and the long term effect was warming. This concept would explain the lag between the eruption and the sudden and strong effect in the atmosphere in early 2023.
You can find alternative ideas (post + comments) here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/12/20/scientific-report-or-legal-brief-the-hunga-tonga-assessment-and-the-anatomy-of-narrative-closure/
These spikes are frequent throughout the holocene and in the instrument record in the late 19th century, mid 20th century, and 1980-2024.
They are in time with the motions of Jupiter and Saturn operating on a 60 year pattern.
Insolation models used by NASA decades ago built the idea of longer term variations by retained heat from variations in the motions of Jupiter and Saturn leading to the idea of perhaps a linear 100,000 year cycle via the retention of heat in snow and ice and the resulting albedo effects of advances and retreats of glaciers. This brings us to longer termed cycles of the planets.
These effects are variously thought to also build up over time into a 100,000 year linear effect on earth’s eccentricity. But this is more science community myth than anything available in print as what is in print suggests strongly otherwise.
The pattern lines up with 20 and 60 year period motions of Jupiter and Saturn. This creates the major spikes and stepped warming noted in the instrument record. The physics is based on the gravitational influence on variations in earth’s speed in its annual orbit. Through half of earth’s orbit this influence changes the time earth spends in its orbit furthest and closest to the sun. Each ~450 years it moves from a warming influence to a cooling influence as it takes 900 years for jupiter and saturn close encounters to cover the entire celestial compass.
So for ~450 years earth’s travel closest to the sun move 1/2 an orbit more slowly and then the next ~450 years it moves faster. These are only approximate because the outer gas giants have an influence on the timing on longer term orbits and there may be yet to be identified space objects beyond Neptune that cause other perturbations that are too distant or too distributed to be observed regularly because they emit nor reflect significant light.
These forces create the major bumps in the temperature record that some have attributed to AMO and PDO variations in temperature that are seen in the instrument records.
In addition to the combined motions of jupiter and Saturn (20 year pattern of conjunctions each occurring about 240 degrees apart meaning over 60 year period they will line up once or twice in one half of the orbit with that pattern which half gets 2 varying once every ~450 years in a 900 year cycle. These variations created the larger bumps seen in the ice core records, like the MWP period, Roman Optimum, and the Minoan Warm Period. Likewise between the MWP and the present its responsible for the LIA.
The combined motions of Uranus and Neptune besides influencing the 60 year pattern and 900 year pattern of Jupiter and Saturn, moves slowly around the heavens over an approximate 170 year cycle via the close 2:1 orbit ratio between those two major gas giants. The effect is very small but it lasts a long time creating short term effects of ~80+years and 170+ years (also creating the conditions for the Voyager expeditions using planet gravity to cover vast distances in space for those space vehicles that NASA says occurs about once every 175 years)
It is also believed that axial motions of earth while not influencing the mean annual insolation received by earth, influences how much of that is reflected from variations in snow and ice cover.
CO2 may have some effect in that the recent peak is a good deal warmer than late 19th century effect. And in the 1940’s peak Uranus was in opposition to Neptune having a cancelling effect. But effects if CO2 still needs sorting out from these longer termed natural cycles.
Thanks for that. I feel that there are many planetary effects (on Earth) that we have yet to discover.
To what do you attribute the 45 year drop in global cloud cover (which coincides with the modern warming period)? Do you believe it is cosmic rays or, I read only yesterday, yet another effect from CO2? However, even many proponents of this theory say that the level of CO2 would have to be very high to affect cloud formation.
Since cloud cover is heavier later in the night and early in the morning while cloud burn off occurs later in the morning through the warmest parts of the day; a loss of cloud cover is consistent with an increase in annual mean global insolation due to the orbital speed effects of the shorter term Milankovic cycles.
Earlier this year I posted references to a review of Milankovic’s work that shows a orbital variation that occurs on a 20 year cycle which happens to correspond to conjunction cycle of Jupiter and Saturn. All these individual orbit cycles are influenced by other cycles not on exact short term ratios moving dates. That is why a significant modeling effort is needed to fully understand mathematically what is going on. In 1980 the 4 major planets were all left (on the cool side) of earth’s major orbital axis. From then until now Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all moved to the right side (warm side), while Jupiter moved from the cool side an entire rotation and then into the warm side with the 4 major planets becoming most closely aligned on the warm side between mid 2023 to mid 2024. . .very close to 45 years.
If CO2 does the same then I would expect you would see above the clouds a warming sky moving closer to the temperature of the cloud tops to fulfill the GHE requirement of something above getting warmer than before. I can’t speak to that because I haven’t seen any compilation of data over long enough periods to deign what might be happening there. At least there are available ephemeris to track the planets.
Bill,
The Jovian planets are the primary drivers of the 3560-year pattern I mentioned above. While they certainly affect Earth’s orbit, they also modulate solar activity.
The effect of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions on climate is not immediate; for 20- and 60-year conjunctions, there’s a ~15-year delay, likely a bit less a few hundred years ago. Some of this delay is likely in the Sun, but I suspect most of it comes from the delay of ocean heat integration.
Not all Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions are the same. Here’s a plot of conjunctions delayed by 15 years.
https://localartist.org/media/JupiterSaturnConnectionAMOLong.png
In the upper panel, the x-axis labels are the dates of the 60-year conjunctions (delayed by 15 years). The most recent 20-year conjunction (delayed) lines up with the 2016 El Niño event. I believe this is the start of what will be at least a 20-year cooling period which we should return to as the HT anomaly fades.
Because CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it. !
Agreed!
Why should such a short, sudden increase be attributed to any source identified as having rather long-term effects?
Buzz,
There’s a nice article by Zeke Hausfather looking at attribution of 2024 exceptionally high temperature anomaly here:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-are-the-causes-of-recent-record-high-global-temperatures/
The summary attribution is shown in this figure from that article:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/recent-warming-7.png
CO2 isn’t responsible for the annual departures, only the background average climate over which the interannual departures sit.
CO2 isn’t alone in this function. Orbital variation changes background temps over millennia, for example. But CO2 is the dominant driver of the increasing background temps.
What’s the quote? Climate loads the odds, weather rolls the dice.
barry just keeps parroting the cult nonsense: “But CO2 is the dominant driver of the increasing background temps.”
He’s got no science, only beliefs.
Nothing new.
Robert Cutler says:
”The Jovian planets are the primary drivers of the 3560-year pattern I mentioned above. While they certainly affect Earth’s orbit, they also modulate solar activity.”
I agree. I came up with a number roughly around 3,600+ years based upon ephemeris data on conjunctions of Uranus and Neptune, very near a 2:1 orbit ratio in about 17 degree steps, between 1607BC and 1993AD.
With Jupiter and Saturn having a conjunction every 20 years in its 2.5:1 orbit ratio one could say it roughly circumnavigates the compass once every 60 years in 3 steps and then fills in that circumnavigation to within about 5 degrees once very ~900 years.
Robert Cutler says:
”The effect of Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions on climate is not immediate; for 20- and 60-year conjunctions, there’s a ~15-year delay, likely a bit less a few hundred years ago. Some of this delay is likely in the Sun, but I suspect most of it comes from the delay of ocean heat integration.”
What I did was a mean half orbit gravitational influence calculation of the Jovian planets to get an idea of what the possibilities are. And to explain the warming we have experienced from that in the past 45 years I came up with a number that seems pretty reasonable with a water feedback at the popular number. but with that number in contention there could be room for significant CO2 warming (but I am not convinced)
Robert Cutler says:
”Not all Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions are the same. Here’s a plot of conjunctions delayed by 15 years.
https://localartist.org/media/JupiterSaturnConnectionAMOLong.png”
Very good!
The shifting of the conjunctions back and forth from the cold side of the orbit to the warm side over a 900 year cycle in 60year increments is due to the shifting of the conjunctions in any particular location by about 8 degrees every 60 years.
You can take your methodology out to the 900 year and 3600 year cycles and match it almost perfectly with this ice core sample with the roughly 4:1 ratio between the J&S conjunctions and the U&N conjunctions landing them into unique alignments.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
Bill, I wish it were as simple as warm and cold sides. The J-S conjunctions give us a basic 20-40-60-year patterns, but the Sun’s orbit is also involved and there are many more cycles — too many to model. For example, there are at least three 900-year cycles all having periods within a 60-year span.
> https://localartist.org/media/JupiterSaturnConnectionAMOLong.png
Let’s see.
The cycle keeps making lower highs since 1579.
The 20y conjunction is clearly non-cyclical.
Yet there’s a hockey stick after 1937.
As a famous contrarian astrologer would say: LOL!
there is no doubt that there are a huge number of influences.
but the major forces of just the 4 jovian planets give a good approximation quantitively to the relative anomalies seen the instrument temperature record. i plotted out the 4 largest warming peaks since 1860. every one had three or four jovian planets on the warm side. and both the most recent ones are the only ones that had all four.
venus is the planet with the 2nd greatest gravitation effect on earth. but its orbit period only affects earth’s orbit in one direction for less than 4 months. so it can enhance a few months but it doesn’t add up to a significant effect on mean annual global insolation.
i think other important work is related to longterm carefully calibrated solar brightness measurements and feedbacks from cloud variations. if you get those on track you should be able to show that while climate change requires adaptations as it always has there simply isn’t much of anything remaining to worry about.
there are challenges in dealing with newtons three body problem limiting long term predictions but that shouldn’t amount to much afa adaptation planning goes unless of course you put somebody like gavin newsom in charge of the planning. then you will need lead times to be 4 or 5 times longer.
i don’t understand you point about 3 900 year patterns. one 900 year jupiter and saturn alignment pattern covers 360 degrees of sky down to less than 5 degrees increments in one 900 year period. 5 degrees has a very small effect on a gravity vectors force.
Bill Hunter:
“i don’t understand you point about 3 900 year patterns. one 900 year jupiter and saturn alignment pattern covers 360 degrees of sky down to less than 5 degrees increments in one 900 year period. 5 degrees has a very small effect on a gravity vectors force.”
The Sun has it’s own orbit that interacts with the Jovian planets. The plot I showed only accounts for the interactions between Jupiter and Saturn. A faster 900-year cycle is found in the orbital motion of the Sun around the barycenter. Right now those two cycles are coming into phase with each other. ~4000 years ago they were out of phase.
The third cycle relates to Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, but beyond establishing its period, all I can say at this point is that it may relate to the 70k-year cycle associated with glacial cycles. The 70k-year cycle can be seen in my 3- and 12-term harmonic models.
https://localartist.org/media/EPICA3term.png
https://localartist.org/media/EPICA12term.png
Robert Cutler says:
”The third cycle relates to Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions, but beyond establishing its period, all I can say at this point is that it may relate to the 70k-year cycle associated with glacial cycles. The 70k-year cycle can be seen in my 3- and 12-term harmonic models.”
I mucked around with barycenters early on and got tangle footed. Computer models have to deal with the 3 body problem but its really only a major factor for longterm predictions beyond thousands of years. Predictions of a few hundred years have been easy to handle for some time and is central to planetary mission planning and the Voyager expeditions launched in 1977. Building a computer model to redo Milankovic’s work for the glacials might be difficult but probably manageable and produce much stronger evidence beyond yeah his theory makes the most sense.
I don’t pretend that this will end the search for all factors of climate change but the association of these easily calculated cycles corresponding to ALL our climate observation data provides an order of magnitude more evidence than the popular science CO2 theory.
Further to discount the fairly easy calculable results over a few hundred years, those calling it into question will have to attack the sensitivity estimate of a 3:1. . .and with that mission accomplished.
The end result will be yes we should have some good information to aid adaptation to whatever climate change that occurs, either anthropogenic or natural. But I am convince that the natural processes that are responsible for climate change in the past up to 3C during the Holocene take considerably longer than 100 years.
Bill Hunter:
“But I am convince that the natural processes that are responsible for climate change in the past up to 3C during the Holocene take considerably longer than 100 years.”
I’m convinced that rapid warming and cooling events are solar in origin. I have more evidence than this single data point in my paper, but if you look at the left panels of this data I showed earlier (repeated below), after shifting 3560 years the termination of the Younger Dryas lines up with the 8.2ka event (6200 BC). These transitions take less than 200 years.
https://localartist.org/media/NGRIPCores3500shift.png
BTW, I use data from the JPL Horizons system.
Robert The 8.2ka event may is believed to be a northern hemisphere anomaly, possibly the draining of Lake Agassiz.
The ice core of R.B. Alley shows both the 8.2ka event and a ~7ka event as peak 3.
https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
The dating for this is believed to be accurate to +-10%
I am going to take a wild guess that whatever effect raised the temperature so dramatically in early 2023 has now changed. Was it the Hunga-Tonga effect?
I thought that Dr Spencer attributed it to be Hunga Tonga a couple of years ago, but he now states that there was no such effect. Bill Hunter’s is plausible.
I think we will find that the super El Nino in 23-24, after several La Ninas, was the main cause of the warm spike, riding on top of the ongoing long term warming trend.
Some ocean warming cycles appeared to also play a role by warming parts of the N. hemisphere ocean significantly.
Given that 2025 was the second warmest year, it appears that are cooling from these events to a new higher plateau, similar to what happened after 1998, and 2016 El Ninos.
Nate, please stop trolling.
What tro.lling?
I’m shocked, shocked I say, to see that DREMT has nothing to add to these discussions, but feels the need to mark them with his piss anyway.
No, Nate, I said please stop trolling. Not “troll 100 times worse than you already were”.
Again What tro.lling?
How bout you setting the example first?
Stop tro.lling with your juvenile false accusations of tro.lling.
You’re trolling here seven days a week, Nate. Constantly. Who are you trying to kid?
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
It’s the most magical time of the year — when estimates of last year’s global average temperature anomaly come out. Time to dust off my “last year was hot” auto-response.
https://bsky.app/profile/andrewdessler.com/post/3l7yxx4mc4b2h
Willard, please stop trolling.
According to MEI (Multivariate ENSO Index)
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/data/meiv2.data
the UAH-LT anomalies could remain low for some time due to the time lag between ENSO signals (here: La Niña) and their appearance in the LT data.
However, La Niña will not last longer if the prediction nino3+4 is correct:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Do you think the record from 2024 will be broken before the end of the decade?
¡No sé!
Unlikely.
well finally some of you guys are starting to join the dots up.
For many years I have been reading these blogs, and rarely do I see any comments or theories put Forword, as to why earth rapidly warms up about 1°C over about 16 months AND THEN rapidly cools, about 1°C during the next 2 years, (as occurred 1997 to 2000 and 2023 to 2027 my prediction)
I have observations 14 of these rapid warming cycles and rapid cooling cycles embedded in the UAH RECORDS since 1979.
THESE warming cycles coincide with high gravity anomaly periods, and the cooling cycles coincide with the following weaker gravity force periods. the strongest Planetary alinements for 174 years = 50 years of Global Warming, “just finished”.
PLANETARY ALINEMENTS such as the Earth the Sun Veins Mars Jupiter Uranus are the most powerful warming periods.
Vee shaped aliments such as the planetary positions as of 15th MAY 2024, was the strongest Alinement possible for the current 174-year planetary cycle. I forecast Rapid global cooling will now dominate most of 2026.
A new global cooling trend will dominate the next 100 years.
The Key to the recent 50 years of global warming was the recent conjunction of URANIS and Neptune
well done Bill Hunter.
Correlation alone does prove causation.
To demonstrate causation you need a credible mechanism.
Entropic, that could easily be said about the rise in Co2 that is good for the plants and the rise in global temperature.
The arguments for it being a causation is problematic to say the least.
Of course EM. The physics is gravity and the fact that a distant planet will maximally affect the speed of an object through space by alignment of the pull of gravity tangent to a point on its orbit path.
This effect is monitored astronomically and is known as an orbit perturbation. It creates a significant perturbation of an orbit to have allowed for the discovery of Neptune by first observing Neptune’s influences on Uranus, plotting the forces and vectors and then looking closely in the sector of the sky where those vectors converged. Viola Neptune was found sitting right there. The perturbation isn’t in question its known to exist by physics.
The next question is whether the perturbation affects mean annual global insolation on earth. Well that also can be figured out by physics and given an invariable source of insolation. Now we know the orbit influence correlation has a physical connection to how much radiation impinges on the earth system. Well we know that the sun gives us 7% more sunlight at perihelion than at aphelion. So you spend more time at or near perihelion vs aphelion you will be gaining more sunlight.
The only thing you have to do is 1) account for changes in solar brightness over time and 2) account for how much additional orbit time you get languishing in the various points in the orbit.
This sounds easy peasy but it requires careful calculations as you have many perturbations going on simultaneously affecting not just earth but also the other bodies in the solar system.
To figure it out how important this is its a no brainer it accounts for significant amounts of climate variation as the correlation is very strong virtually all the climate records. . .despite Al Gore spending a lot of money to convince us that we can just ignore that without producing anything scientific.
These effects cover the multi-decadal stepping of warming, the major peaks and valleys of the entire instrument record and I have matched the periods to ice core data as well.
Finally the lack of perfect ratios in orbit periods tells us the variations may occur regularly but with a lot of variations in intensity.
Anon, it might be less easy to say that the evidence is very clear that, on net, the changes going on in the atmosphere, including all the climate changes, are a risk to a lot of major production systems and to a lot of food insecure areas. So there’s definitely a reason that we that we continue to work on how to adapt to these changes.
But it’s truer than what you said:
https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/is-co2-plant-food-why-are-we-still
Bill, the calculations for earth exact orbit is a three body problem, so you need very accurate observations and a super computer. I find it amazing that there are many who believe in a fluctuation of a trace gas will have a huge impact and yet ignore the simple inverse square law.
I think it was last Sunday that the earth was at its closest. A few million miles difference between closest & furthest points has a impact on the whole planet which is only a few thousand miles across.
Evidence.
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-testable-falsifiable-science-that.html
Bill Hunter
To show that planetary influence has caused the 1.4C warming you need to show
1) How the planetary influences have changed Earth’s orbit since 1880.
2) How this has changed solar insolation.
3) That the change in insolation accounts for the change in temperature.
Please supply references which will allow us to check your calculations.
Entropic, using anything from David Appell is not credible.
Sure!y a man of your expertise would understand the inverse square law. Do you really believe that the earth follows a simple ellipse?
If you understand that the orbital path is never duplicated then you may start to understand that your simple dismissal is pure Willard.
Entropic man is now a comedian. I hope you are not trying to fool educated people. David Appell is not a credible source for anything, but neither is Gavin Schmidt. Claiming that a particular theory is false does not in any way validate your own false claim.
This is the whole problem with climate hype. The base science about the effect of increasing CO2 does not in any way validate any of the extreme claims. In fact, they cancel each other.
There have been enough claims that are already debunked. In addition, with such a diversity of wild claims, they cannot all be true at the same time. Therefore, none of them can be taken as valid. The only result is that science cannot define the present case when highly complex known and unknown interactions are involved, and it certainly does predict the future.
Entropic man is now a comedian. I hope you are not trying to fool educated people. David Appell is not a credible source for anything, but neither is Gavin Schmidt. Claiming that a particular theory is false does not in any way validate your own false claim.
This is the whole problem with climate hype. The base science about the effect of increasing CO2 does not in any way validate any of the extreme claims. In fact, they cancel each other.
There have been enough claims that are already debunked. In addition, with such a diversity of wild claims, they cannot all be true at the same time. Therefore, none of them can be taken as valid. The only result is that science cannot define the present case when highly complex known and unknown interactions are involved, and it certainly does NOT predict the future.
My apologies. There is no edit feature here, so I need to proof read before, not after posting. Here is the correct final sentence:
The only result is that science cannot define the present case when highly complex known and unknown interactions are involved, and it certainly does NOT predict the future.
Tim S,
You say:
“Claiming that a particular theory is false does not in any way validate your own false claim.”
Then immediately after, you proceed to label Appell and Schmdit as ‘not credible’ and use that label to dismiss Entropic man’s references, without addressing the substance the references provide.
If simply asserting that a claim is false does not validate your own position, then simply asserting that sources are ‘not credible’ does not invalidate theirs either.
That should say:
But immediately before
My statement is fully logical and consistent. You cannot prove a negative, or prove that pure speculation is true. The criticism directed against my statement is not logically valid. Sorry.
Tim S
I see now that I misunderstood the statement I quoted, and I apologize for that.
That said, you may want to consider how your argument comes across when you make assertions such as:
“David Appell is not a credible source for anything, but neither is Gavin Schmidt.”
without providing any justification.
Entropic man says:
”Bill Hunter
To show that planetary influence has caused the 1.4C warming you need to show”
I agree EM!
The correlation is very strong, at least an order of magnitude stronger than CO2 theory.
But causation requires careful and deliberate calculations. All I have done I have already described making shortcut calculations used by auditors to assess risk. Should I spend more time in this area because the test says substantial risk exists that this effect is capable of explaining a major piece of climate change.
A climate model centered around widely accepted Milankovic principles will require a substantial effort.
This is the reason that David Appell has zero credibility. Actually, he is reliably unreliable.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2024/09/david-appell-awaiting-the-death-of-climate-skeptics/
[This blog received the following comment from our alarmist friend David Appell, freelance writer:
“Roy, nobody who is serious about climate change takes you seriously. You’re a denier who has made too many mistakes. No one who knows anything is going to bother commenting here–they upset you so much that all you can think to do is block them.
You long ago left the realm of science. As they say, science advances one funeral at a time. Nobody believes your time series anyway. You did that to yourself.”
As many here know, our UAH temperature dataset is used by researchers around the world, including those who believe the more alarmist narrative of anthropogenic climate change. It has been validated with global weather balloon data in multiple peer reviewed studies.]
I am shocked, shocked I say, that Tim is attacking messengers, without rebutting any of the scientific evidence they show.
And we can notice that all of the evidence comes from Gavin Schmidt.
Somehow David A has tarnished it by merely quoting Gavin discussing its significance.
Nate says:
”And we can notice that all of the evidence comes from Gavin Schmidt.
Somehow David A has tarnished it by merely quoting Gavin discussing its significance.”
You aren’t really discussing its significance Nate unless you are also quoting qualified people that hold different opinions. Tim is spot on here and you are just such a political tool you have no idea what the actual significance is.
Holy bothsidesism, Batman!
I count no more than 2 times in the UAH record where the temperature “rapidly warms up about 1C,” so your thesis is false from the start.
But I found a couple of data sets that do correlate well.
First up, the S&P 500 has plenty of high years that correlate with the peaks every few years in the UAH record.
https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns
The other one, that is possibly much less related to global temperature than the stock market, is the interannual temperature oscillations in the Pacific Ocean, otherwise known as el Nino and la Nina.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/dashboard/img/nino34.png
Now that LOOKS to be closely correlated with the UAH peaks in the temp record, but I don’t trust the statistics of a natural system based on temperatures across a swathe of ocean.
No, I think the stock market probably has a much stronger mechanism driving global temperature swings.
Correlation is not causation.
Nobody will accept this planetary alignment nonsense without a proper mechanism.
Yep.
Entropic man,
The mechanism is called the inverse square law that affects how much energy the planet receives.
Of course go and prove the inverse square law is false. Or prove that the earth’s orbit is identical each year.
I’m not surprised that Nate is riding on your coat tail, just need Bindy to form the trio.
Ent January 6, 2026 at 6:07 AM: “Correlation alone does prove causation.”
Ent January 7, 2026 at 8:23 AM: “Correlation is not causation.”
Ent has no knowledge of science, and now he’s even confused about his own beliefs.
Clint is too ignorant to detect obvious typos.
No surprise.
“The mechanism is called the inverse square law that affects how much energy the planet receives.”
Which we all know, but tells us nothing specific for this problem.
Since Bill provides no calculations using the inverse square law to back up his assertions, nor does he link to anyone doing the calculations and confirming his notions.
I spent time finding the NASA JPL calculated Earth-sun distance, and showed them to Bill a couple of times.
Eg:
https://astropixels.com/ephemeris/perap2001.html
They show negligible changes in the Earth-sun distance (and thus insolation) on the short time scales he discusses.
He simply ignores contradictory evidence and provides none himself.
Child Nate attempts to cover for the incompetent Ent. He claims Ent made a typo, but does not correct it.
But, as usual, he gets in his obligatory insult.
Kids these days….
“obligatory insults”
You mean like “Child Nate” and “incompetent Ent”?
Child Nate, “Child Nate” and “incompetent Ent” aren’t insults, they’re reality.
If you’re insulted by reality, that should tell you something….
So you think that, in reality, I am a child?
OMG.
Just adds to list of things you are really bad at.
Nate,
Like Bindy you find a couple of numbers and think you have proved your point.
People on your side claim that a couple of watts per square meter increase will be too much. Yet the slight change in the orbit will account for this.
So do you care to reconsider your view
?
It’s even worse than that, child Nate. Not only are you a child, but you’re a child-of-the-cult. You’ve been so indoctrinated that you can no longer think for yourself, or learn.
You can’t see that in yourself, but if you had any maturity you’d be able to see it in others like Willard, Bindi, Ark, and Ball4.
And I didn’t even mention your incessant stalking of me….
Anon,
Have you found the slight change in the orbit yet?
“Fun fact: Venezuela has six million women of childbearing age. Most of them are desperate for money. If we employ them as surrogates, we could easily make 60 million more Americans in one generation, and fight poverty in the global south.” — @wylfcen, a fan of Dozing Donald
“Not only are you a child”
Thanks for confirming your irrationaliyy.
Willard, so you don’t understand the inverse square law, not really a surprise. So if you can’t understand that what hope have you got to understand the complexities of the climate.
Do the maths, how many watts per square meter difference is there between summer & winter. And what change is there each year. You might want to ask Nate & Bindy for help.
Anon,
“Like Bindy you find a couple of numbers and think you have proved your point.”
Indeed thats what we need to prove a science point. Its all about the numbers.
And I checked a century of Earth-sun distance numbers. They do not support Bill’s claims.
Where are your numbers?
Nate, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please stop pissing on long dead discussions!
No, Nate, I said please stop trolling. Not “troll 100 times worse than you already were”.
Graham D. Warner is looking for love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm4kwyydmeM&t=2s
Willard, please stop trolling.
Bill. How bout if we find the distance to the sun at aphelion?
Here:
https://dqydj.com/solar-distance-calculator/
At aphelion, July 5, it says the distance is:
152,097,430 km.
How bout June 30, 5 days before?
152,089,132 km
That is 8,298 km closer to the sun.
How bout July 10, 5 days after?
152,087,850 km.
That is 9,580 km closer to the sun.
Whether 5 days before or after, the changes in distance to the sun are Just about the size of the wiggle of the Earth’s position caused by the orbit of the Moon, 9340 km.
Try it yourself.
“If anyone’s gonna piss on this long dead discussion, it’s gonna be me!”, roared Nate, like a petulant child.
Get a job.
You comment here more than maybe anyone else at the moment, Nate. You get involved in every discussion, even if it’s not climate or science-related. You talk politics as if every single word you said was fact rather than just your opinion. And, it’s really boring seeing the same old names trying to “last word” every thread.
If anyone should “get a job”, it’s you.
Typo in table last row, first column should read 2025 vs 2026 for December.
Typo in Table, first column, last row, should read 2025 vs 2026.
b.nice
“Because CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with it. !”
So, apparently, generations of scientists have wasted a century studying a gas that “has absolutely nothing to do with climate,” even as modern weather models depend on the very radiative transfer theory that links CO2 to temperature.
More alarmism…
Parkinson’s is the Canary in the Coal Mine Warning Us That Our Environment is Sick. https://www.ru.nl/en/donders-institute/news/bas-bloem-parkinsons-is-the-canary-in-the-coal-mine-warning-us-that-our-environment-is-sick
TL;DR
If only we had a dedicated public Agency tasked with evaluating Environmental risks on the basis of scientific evidence rather than political convenience, and Protecting us from said risks.
Arkady, please stop trolling.
Happy October 98th
https://www.tiktok.com/@weatherchris/video/7592312748533419319?_r=1&_t=ZP-92rFylTgZd1
BREAKING
ClimateWorkingGroup.com
Another Donald win!
Willard: Thank you for the link. I bookmarked it. I hope the site opens soon despite of legal battles. According to news articles the DOE Climate Working Group has been disbanded, but it is still working independently.
“True science is never settled”.
-Stephen Hawking
Then you might also bookmark this other resource, Max:
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org/doe-factcheck/index.html
Do you think the DOE will publish the thousands of comments they requested before they promote the assessment they ordered from the group they disbanded?
“Renee Nicole Good and pronouns in her bio and leaves behind a lesbian partner and a child from a previous marriage” – Jesse Waters
A propos Watters
” Fox News host Jesse Watters says the US should bomb the UN over Trump’s broken escalator ”
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-escalator-un-bomb-us-jesse-watters-video-b2832888.html
Willard: Your link contains arguments like this:
Dr David Lobell, associate professor, Stanford University:
…The direct benefits of CO2 are widely acknowledged and nothing new. But we know that elevated CO2 leads to climate changes…
Do we really now that? If so, then where is the proof? Or is it something that is “settled” by alarmists? Somebody should fact check that page you linked. It’s a flood of junk like that.
Yes, Max. We do:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/01/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-december-2025-0-30-deg-c/#comment-1727705
“Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that on one occasion he observed me in sexual activity with Epstein.” — Virginia Giuffre
Willard: So you don’t have any proof that support your CO2 theory.
Here are some studies that explain why decrease of clouds leads to global warming:
1. Jyrki Kauppinen, Pekka Malmi: Major feedback factors and effects of the cloud cover and the relative humidity on the climate
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.11547
2. Jyrki Kauppinen, Jorma Heinonen, Pekka Malmi: Influence of Relative Humidity and Clouds on the Global Mean Surface Temperature
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1260/0958-305X.25.2.389
3. J. Kauppinen, J. Heinonen, and P. Malmi: Major portions in climate change; physical approach
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245
4. Jyrki Kauppinen, Pekka Malmi: No reliable studies of climate change without Henry’s Law and a new thermometer for the global temperature
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.01245v2
5. Jyrki Kauppinen, Pekka Malmi: Major Portion of the Increased Atmospheric Concentration of Carbon Dioxide Emitted by the Oceans
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/393188182_Major_Portion_of_the_Increased_Atmospheric_Concentration_of_Carbon_Dioxide_Emitted_by_the_Oceans
6. J. Kauppinen, P. Malmi: No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic climate change
https://ar5iv.labs.arxiv.org/html/1907.00165
All from the same outlier group?
Nobody else?
So you have no idea about proof and theory, Max:
https://gasera.fi/blog/how-gasera-gas-analyzers-can-help-reduce-greenhouse-gas-ghg-ch4-n2oemissions/
“I don’t need international law…there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” — Dozing Donald
Nate: Emeritus professor Jyrki Kauppinen and his group has studied climate change for years with their own money. He is now retired from the Department of Physics and Astronomy in University of Turku, Finland. He originally had some patents and a company that was specialized in molecular spectroscopy.
Unfortunately research paper no. 2 is not freely available, but you can translate this page with Google:
https://ilmastorealismia.blogspot.com/2014/04/vedenkierron-vaihtelu-ilmaston.html
There is an interesting formula that can predict climate change in future, but also in the past! Something IPCC can’t do.
ΔT = RΔQ – RGΔØ(p-pe)/Ø
In fig.3 red line represents measured mean temperature and blue line is calculated with above mentioned formula.
Do we need expensive supercomputers when we can use this simple mathematical formula?
Max,
In every field of science they get outlier theories. Until their theory is confirmed by others and tested by others making measurements, they remain outliers.
Better to read review articles that review many papers on a topic.
“can predict climate change in future, but also in the past! Something IPCC can’t do.”
Not sure what you mean by that? The current models do succeed in replicating the last several decades of climate.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Max: you are adding an interesting data point to the phenomenon that, in scientific parlance, we call “going emeritus”.
You also added a data point to 793:
https://xkcd.com/793/
“They came up with a new word — ‘affordability.'” — Dozing Donald, reminding us that there was no grammar school on Epstein’s Island.
Debate not your thing,i take it?
On the contrary, Ian.
“But Debate Me” is one of my favorite Bingo squares:
https://climateball.net/but-debate-me/
Have you tried to click on the link ClimateWorkingGroup.com, and where can we found the comments submitted to Roy and his crew?
I get your point, not a fan of disrespecting people,even if you disagree with them. so no disrespect was meant,
All good, Ian.
“That’s fine, dude, I’m not mad at you” – Renee Good, right after the ICE agent says “[expletive] [expletive]” and murders her.
So you have bunch of different scenarios and afterwards you choose the best match.
I thought I had a non-working website you tried to excuse by blaming those you like to blame, Max.
If you’re looking for cherrypicked contrarian crap:
https://ilmastorealismia.blogspot.com/2014/04/vedenkierron-vaihtelu-ilmaston.html
Cf. fig 5-6
“I think we’re going to see those deportation numbers ramp up as we get more and more people online working for ICE, going door to door” — James Donald Bowman, proudly displaying a shirt that may have been silver.
Willard: Figures 3, 4 and 5 proof in 3 different ways that Kauppinen’s math formula really works!
Fig. 6 is done by the blogger, not Kauppinen, so I can’t comment on that.
That’s not a knife, Max. Here’s a knife:
https://judithcurry.com/2012/12/04/multidecadal-climate-to-within-a-millikelvin/
The only thing your guru proves is that he’s stuck on “But RCPs”.
Check Roy’s more recent post for something less problematic.
“If I have to create stories… That’s what I’m going to do.” — James David Hamel, defending his false claims against otters.
Willard: My advice to you and other believers:
1) Draw a hockey stick as high and steep as possible.
2) Adjust the scale of y-axis to match the hockey stick.
3) Say a prayer “I believe in IPCC…”
You need a bigger knife, Willard. Instead of Crocodile Dundee’s knife you should try Rambo’s survival knife with compass. You may need it when IPCC’s tipping point is reached, doomsday comes and the sky falls on your head.
Max: my pro-tip for you, and you alone –
Stop trying to poison my sub-threads with irrelevant crap. Every time you do it, it comes at a price you can’t afford.
Stop pretending you know anything about how science works. You don’t. So every time you do you just look like a fool.
Finally, beware of the rhetorical tricks you are trying to pull. It might turn against you. Witness your silly quote, about a platitude. Now it has turned into the monthly theme.
“In the shadows of Dirty Donald’s mass deportation blitz, a lethal pattern has emerged. Since July, immigration agents have shot at least six people behind the wheel of a vehicle (two of them fatal, including Wednesday’s shooting). In each instance, the playbook is the same: the agent claims self-defense, asserting they “feared for their life” as a vehicle was “weaponized” against them.” — Mike Fox
Willard, please stop trolling.
” Minnesota Law Enforcement Blocked From FBI’s Probe of Fatal ICE Shooting
State officials said the FBI reversed course on a joint investigation of Renee Nicole Good’s death. ”
Sounds suspiciously like the dictatorial behavior of Putin in Russia, Xi in China, or Khamenei in Iran.
Thanks to The Apprentice… dictator!
That headline is rather misleading. They are not “blocked” from investigating, they made a decision to withdraw. Here is the official statement in part:
“Later that afternoon, the FBI informed the BCA that the U.S. Attorney’s Office had reversed course: the investigation would now be led solely by the FBI, and the BCA would no longer have access to the case materials, scene evidence or investigative interviews necessary to complete a thorough and independent investigation”
This is a logical step given the fact that Minnesota is a declared “sanctuary sate” in defiance of Federal immigration law. As such, the state is openly hostile to ICE, and openly supportive of the protestors. They are free to conduct their own investigation based on evidence they gather on their own. They will not have access to investigative material obtained by the FBI.
A report will be issued at some point mostly likely by the Justice Department which oversees the FBI. The free press will have the opportunity to review, question, and conduct their own investigations.
ICE is a legally sanctioned agency that enforces Federal Law within the US legal system. Unlike many countries in Europe, the US justice system does not operate like the Inquisition. Defendants have full Constitutional Rights within the justice system. This includes undocumented residents.
Part of the tragedy is that these 2 women were laughing and having fun interfering with armed federal law enforcement agents. The agents who are employees, that do not make policy, were attempting to carry out their assignment. Obviously, they were not having fun.
The investigation will not matter to the local officials, or the local jury pool. This agent will be persecuted and prosecuted for a split second decision at a moment of high stress. Actually, I think all three gun shots occurred in less than a second.
How many can claim they have had the experienced of a car being driven directly at them at short range? How many with police training cam claim they would have responded differently? Many of you without police training will say that he should have just jumped out of the way. That is the way I see it as well, but I was not there.
Tim S
Can’t answer your questions but one I will ask you. Why would someone walk in front of a running vehicle when you do not know the person and you are confronting them. I have read this is totally against procedure and you cannot claim self defense if you put yourself in a dangerous position. If the ICE agent is not charged he should be removed from ICE as being incompetent to put himself in a dangerous position.
Good question, Norman, however it’s only hypothetical. All the forensic teams from investigative and news outlets published analysis that shows beyond doubt that Renee’s murderer wasn’t in the path of the vehicle.
Either our Ivy Leaguer is a tool or a fool, propagating a lie.
-It appeared that he had time to step back, well out of the path of the vehicle.
-He did not. Instead he used that time to unholster his gun and fire, THEN fired two more for good measure.
-Video from his POV showed her turning tbe steering wheel away from him.
-Policy forbids firing at vehicles just to stop a suspect fleeing a scene.
It never ceases to amaze me that the media and people in general want to engage in propaganda based on their internal biases. Very few are interested in being objective and viewing the whole story in context. Those of us who are exposed to different sources of media can clearly see that the media offer 2 very different versions of the event. One side shows “clear evidence” of a murder, while the other claims “inherent immunity”. Worse yet, are the responses to my comment here that are completely detached from what I wrote.
Let’s try that again:
“This agent will be persecuted and prosecuted for a split second decision at a moment of high stress. Actually, I think all three gun shots occurred in less than a second.”
“Many of you without police training will say that he should have just jumped out of the way. That is the way I see it as well, but I was not there [and I do not have police training].”
For those who honestly do not know, law enforcement are constantly at the firing range being trained and tested. My understanding is that they must demonstrate the ability to place 3 rounds on target in rapid succession. If they fail, they lose their job. They are not trained to wait to see what happened to the first round, take a break, and then think about it. They shoot fast and they shoot to kill, or not at all.
This the video that shows the events leading up to the shooting, and why an agent would walk in front of the car as she is backing up.
https://x.com/GrageDustin/status/2010037103665787019
Nobody in their right mind should click on an X link:
“We’ve analysed this video of the shooting of Renee Nicole Good yesterday in Minneapolis frame-by-frame to highlight the positioning of the gun and phone in the ICE agent’s hands.”
https://bsky.app/profile/bellingcat.com/post/3mbwmvgypqc2x
At least if “in their right mind” doesn’t designate reactionary cranks.
“Have you not learned from the past few days?” — ICE jackboot to an unarmed woman.
“It never ceases to amaze me that the media and people in general want to engage in propaganda based on their internal biases. Very few are interested in being objective and viewing the whole story in context.”
The problem is how the government is continuing to gaslight the public based on their deeply partisan biases.
DHS Head Kristi Noem just went on CNN interviewed by Jake Tapper, and doubled down on her initial pre-judgement that the woman was intentially trying to kill the agent. And thus he acted corrrectly and in self-defense.
Again and again, she asserted that videos supported her pre-judgement and denied that there was any ambiguity. Jake Tapper tried repeatedly to ask her why she doesnt wait for the investigation to be done, and eached time she failed to answer, and repeated here claims, and blamed the left and the media.
Asked why only the FBI would investigate, rather than jointly with State investigators, she falsely claimed this was normal.
The problem is that the Bondi Justice Dept and FBI under Patel have become intruments of partisan goals.
Thus there is every reason to expect that the investigation will be yet another partisan exercise with a predetermined outcome.
Here is that revealing interview.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/11/politics/video/kristi-noem-renee-good-killing-interview-digvid
Bindy, as you are the one who loves socialism tell us which colour shirt you would have worn during the 1930. I bet it would have been brown.
You might like:
Though neighbors told the Daily Mail that [Renee Good’s murderer] is a hardcore MAGA supporter, social media posts reveal he also has foreign-born in-laws.
His 38-year-old wife, whose doctor parents live in the Philippines, married him in August 2012 according to posts on her Instagram page.
Her first picture with Ross on the social media account was posted two months earlier.
In July 2013, when the couple lived around El Paso, Texas, Ross’s wife posted a picture posing next to a US Border Patrol helicopter.
She also shared photos of baking recipes from a Spanish-language cookbook.
One neighbor at Ross’s 10-house cul-de-sac told the Daily Mail that until recently Ross had been flying pro-Dozing-Donald flags and a ‘Don’t Tread On Me’ Gadsden Flag, an emblem of the Make America Great Again movement.
On Thursday afternoon there was no sign of Ross, his wife, or the flags.
‘I think he’s in the military. He has a military license plate,’ one neighbor said. ‘He had a don’t tread on me flag, and Dozing-Donald/Vance stickers up during the election.
‘The wife is polite, very nice, very outgoing, while he’s very reserved. They have a couple of kids.’
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15447739/ICE-shooter-Filipina-wife-father-Minneapolis.html
The govt, particularly Vance and ICE-Barbie, have been absurdly gaslighting the public over this.
Pre-juding the investigation. Slandering the victim:
Apparently this was ‘an act of domestic terrorism’.
Apparently she was “a deranged leftist’ and “part of a larger, sinister left-wing movement”
And apparently she most definitely “weaponized her vehicle” to “ram” an agent.
Apparently agent was previously dragged and injured by a vehicle, and thus his instantaneous shooting of the driver in this instance was deemed a reasonable action…
Oh, and the agent has “absolute immunity”.
It didn’t take long for the cult kids to take over this latest UAH results post. As usual, they grab any news story they believe will make Trump look bad. They suffer from extreme TDS.
They never understand this issues — see their nonsense about tariffs from months ago. They were sure Trump was going to ruin the US economy. But, he’s corrected most of the trade imbalances other US Presidents let happen. The kids likely had never heard the word “tariff”!
As to this latest issue, the kids obviously have no clue about the concept of “officer safety”. “Officer safety” is a legal group of policies and procedures that allow law enforcement officers more protection in dealing with the public. In simple terms, a citizen must obey any legal order from a LEO. If the citizen feels he is being treated unfairly, he can go to court. He can NOT fight a LEO on the street. Typically, battery on a LEO is a felony. And in this particular situation, a moving vehicle is considered a “deadly weapon”.
Don’t expect the cult kids to understand any of this….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
Suppose you’re terrified by a very dangerous queer poet.
Before you decide to murder her, do you:
(a) drop your phone and start to panic or
(b) film the whole thing to lulz with your MAGA buddies while they flount another constitutional right by trying to steal state money?
“Housing shortage – otters to blame” — Letter sticker, German Reich, 1938.
Willard: This is what happened:
1. The wife have parked the car in the middle of the street obstructing the flow of traffic.
2. The wife sits in her SUV, while her wife is outside the vehicle holding her cellphone up to agent’s face.
3. The wife says: “You wanna come at us? You wanna come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.”
4. The wife tries to get in the car but the passenger side door is locked.
5. The wife is asked to come out of the car.
6. The wife then weaponized her vehicle and put the pedal to the metal hitting the agent.
7. The wife is shot 3 times in the head by the agent in rapid
succession.
Reading: “Dead Poets Society” by N.H. Kleinbaum (ISBN 9781401308773)
There is ample video of this incident. The driver said she wasn’t angry at the agents. Seemed mild enough. She waved a car to go through in front of her. Agents jumped out of another car just after, told her to get the f**k out of the car, she backed up to make room to drive away, agents approached the car, she turned right while an agent was near her left front fender. He wasn’t run over, and she wasn’t trying to hit him, just get away. He was possibly grazed by the front corner of the car as it began to accelerate, remained on his feet and shot her three times. Now she is dead.
There are numerous angles from numerous phones taking footage. Looks like murder, not self defence. Agents also prevented a physician from attending the woman, claiming they had their own present. She was not attended by medicos for 6 minutes. The officer who shot her strolled away from the car in no hurry and after walking 20 feet or so, motioned for someone to call an ambulance. No one rushed to the car after she’d been shot. The agents didn’t seem much to care about what had happened.
When a LEO is pointing a rifle at you yet you still threaten, that’s called “suicide by cop”.
At least she wasn’t able to hurt anyone before she departed.
And now an ICE has removed the personal computer of Renee Good’s murderer from his home.
“I’ll dedicate my next arrest to you” — the same agent, after dangerously boxing in an ICE watch volunteer with his truck, on Dec 8.
Sure officers orders need to be followed. They dont get to dole out instant capital punishment for that.
Thankfully, they do not have ‘abssolute immunity’ as Vance claimed
Suicide is a leading cause of death in cults. Unfortunately, they often kill others in the process, as with suicide bombers and the 9/11 suicide murderers.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
WSJ investigation: In the past 6 months ICE agents have fired at vehicles 13 times, leading to:
* 8 people shot
* 5 of which were U.S. citizens
* 2 died
* no victims drew a weapon
The playbook: Agents box in a vehicle, block attempts to flee, then fire
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-show-how-ice-vehicle-stops-can-escalate-to-shootings-caf17601
Trump admin says: don’t believe your eyes and ears, believe only what we tell you.
And some here will oblige.
“When a LEO is pointing a rifle at you yet you still threaten”
Trying to leave is the opposite of threatening.
US conservatives – mainly, MAGA – drink weapons-grade Kool-Aid these days,
As I stated, “Don’t expect the cult kids to understand any of this….”
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Why are federal agents gunning down Americans in the streets?
https://www.noahpinion.blog/cp/184220785
If you can’t convince Great Replacement theoreticians, tough luck.
“In short, our federal government can usually kill, kidnap, abuse, and lie about us with impunity.” — Ken White
Willard, please stop trolling.
“David” wrote: “Arkady, I am also curious about these graphs, can you accompany them with some sort of analysis and what conclusions that can be made?”
The figure (https://ibb.co/chfy3mmq) is reproduced from Petty’s 2006 book titled A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation. Pages 225-226.
The graphs show Earth’s outgoing thermal radiation emission spectra measured by NASA’s Nimbus-4 satellite in 1970. The global-scale molecular spectroscopy measurements were taken with the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS).
These figures support a qualitative and semi-quantitative analysis of outgoing infrared spectral radiance. A fully quantitative energy-budget analysis requires the underlying numerical spectra, since the physically relevant quantity, outgoing flux, is obtained by integrating radiance over wavelength and solid angle. Values inferred directly from plotted curves can illustrate scale and structure but are not suitable for precise flux calculations.
The dips at specific wavelengths match known molecular a b s o r p t i o n bands (CO2, water vapor, ozone) and show that Earth’s heat escapes to space in a spectrally selective way governed by atmospheric composition. This observation directly underpins radiative-transfer physics and the greenhouse effect. The fact that despite different surface temperatures and climates, the same molecular a b s o r p t i o n features appear everywhere, demonstrates that the controlling physics is atmospheric composition rather than local surface conditions.
The scientific conclusion is straightforward: The measurements show that outgoing infrared radiance is strongly wavelength-dependent because of molecular a b s o r p t i o n, which determines how much thermal energy ultimately escapes to space.
Wrong again, Ark. Those are NOT “Earth’s outgoing thermal radiation emission spectra”. You keep avoiding reality:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2025-0-43-deg-c/#comment-1726504
And if you actually believe they “underpin” the bogus GHE, you need to show how that happens. Believes ain’t science….
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/12/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-november-2025-0-43-deg-c/#comment-1727695
You are incorrect.
Ark is usually incorrect, child Nate. But I suspect you don’t even understand the discussion, as usual.
That be you.
It is spectral radiance, which shows how the emitted flux varies with wavelength. This is exactly what we need to see that GHG like CO2 remove large amounts of outgoing flux in their respective abs,orption wavelength bands.
Arkady, thank you for that explantaion of those charts and their significance.
But I don’t agree with that the scientific conclusion is straightforward.
As you also point out, there needs to be done a proper integration and flux calculation in order to know “how much thermal energy ultimately escapes to space”. These charts do not show CO2s impact on the total energy flow and subsequently surface temperature.
David,
Arkady’s claim was “The measurements show that outgoing infrared radiance is strongly wavelength-dependent because of molecular absorption”. Clearly it is wavelength-dependent because the curves do not follow one of the fixed temperature lines that would be expected from a black body radiator. Also, we can see that, for example, the dip around 15 um is consistent with what we’d expect from the known spectral properties of greenhouse gases, mostly H20 and CO2 in that band. Thus the induction “because of molecular absorption” is supported.
You’ve changed the claim to “CO2’s impact on the total energy flow” which is obviously something we’re interested in, but wasn’t what was originally claimed.
That is, he’s provided qualitative support for the mechanism of climate change due to greenhouse gases, but not a quantification of that.
“David” at 3:56 AM.
First and foremost, these figures were originally posted to address the specific claim raised here.
Your subsequent questions broaden the scope to interpretation of the full spectra, which necessarily requires additional context and explanation. I welcome that opportunity since these data originate from the pioneering Nimbus-era measurements that underpin modern understanding of atmospheric radiative transfer.
That said, I’ll address your exceptions to my replies.
“But I don’t agree with that the scientific conclusion is straightforward. ”
Whether you agree that the scientific conclusion is straightforward or not, depends on your level of familiarity with the principles of molecular spectroscopy as applied to atmospheric infrared emission. There is voluminous accumulated knowledge of the laboratory measured molecular spectra of CO2 but, Nimbus was the first global-scale experiment.
The Nimbus program launched 7 meteorological satellites from 1964 to 1978. I re-posted the charts recorded by the 4th Nimbus mission.
“As you also point out, there needs to be done a proper integration and flux calculation in order to know “how much thermal energy ultimately escapes to space”.”
Here’s how you can get the specific Nimbus data from NASA:
Presently, we have the CERES data for the quantitative determination of how much thermal energy ultimately escapes to space. Also available to all interested researchers here: https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
“These charts do not show CO2s impact on the total energy flow and subsequently surface temperature.”
These charts provide direct observational evidence of the mechanism by which CO2 influences surface temperature, albeit qualitatively as I said. The explanation is as follows:
1/ CO2’s impact is conspicuous around the 15μm band where the outgoing radiance is substantially lower than surface-controlled emission in the ~8-12μm atmospheric window.
2/ Because the quantity governing Earth’s energy balance is the outgoing infrared flux, which is obtained by integrating radiance over wavelength and solid angle, the suppressed radiance in the CO2 band represents a reduction in the total infrared energy escaping to space relative to a hypothetical atmosphere without CO2.
3/ To restore radiative equilibrium, this reduced outgoing infrared flux must be compensated elsewhere, which in practice requires an increase in surface and lower-atmosphere temperature, raising radiance in more transparent spectral regions, particularly the atmospheric window.
In short, these observed spectra show that CO2 selectively restricts infrared energy loss to space, and basic radiative balance therefore requires a warmer surface to compensate.
This is all very basic really.
Arkady, yes it is obvious that CO2 does something to impact radiance in that wavelength band, but that it “requires a warmer surface to compensate” is not basic or clear at all. Could you show how it impacts surface temperature and by how much?
Mark B, we would expect completely different properties from H2O vs. CO2 where H20 is able to condensate and which gives reflective properties. Therefore the “molecular absorption” cannot account for 100% of the observed effect, and again it is an effect on radiance,
“David” at 3:42 AM.
Yes, see Petty’s 2006 book titled A First Course in Atmospheric Radiation, chapters 1-9.
I could point you to many other sources but Petty is the best I have found.
If you prefer to get your education from blogs, you can search Dr Spencer’s blog where he has addressed the gaps in your knowledge many times over the years.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Do svidaniya.
Arkady, thank you for the tip on the literature.
You are correct that I have knowledge gaps in this area. I am however familiar with statistical modeling and I am sure that the modelers of climate models are using the data which is the source to the chart you provided, and are also aware of the mechanisms of atmospheric radiation described in the book. But they still fail to produce surface temp predicting models that perform well over time, so there is reason to believe that theory and reality are not aligning well. At least those mechanisms that they try represent with their models.
And now you left the discussion, so the question remains. Nice chart though.
Do svidaniya.
“yes it is obvious that CO2 does something to impact radiance in that wavelength band, but that it “requires a warmer surface to compensate” is not basic or clear at all.”
The “something” it does is attenuate the energy flow out of the system in specific spectral bands.
If greenhouse gases attenuate the energy flowing out of a system relative to the system absent the greenhouse gas, the energy in the system must be higher to reach the equivalent level of energy leaving the system.
Qualitatively, understanding the greenhouse effect is pretty basic. Quantifying the effect is much more difficult.
Mark B,
There is obviously a lot of processes going on in the atmosphere that affect the energy flowing through it, but the critical question is by how much.
If I put my hand outside the window while I am driving my car, the friction against the bypassing air is going to increase and the car will slow down. And if I only put my hand out while going uphill, it is going to seem as I can slow down the car significantly by just putting my hand out. I can produce a graph that shows what the hand does with the airflow around the car in that spot, and it is going to be significant changes there.
“. . . but the critical question is by how much.”
Of course it is, but that’s not the question you asked.
The consensus estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity per the most recent IPCC report is 2.5-4 C with a most likely value around 3 C per doubling of CO2.
This is largely based on the Sherwood etal evaluation of estimates based on paleoclimate data, empirical estimates, and modeling:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678
And more recent progress discussed here:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/2679/2024/
Mark B,
Are you referring to transient climate response or the effective climate sensitivity?
Has it occurred to any of you Americans that it is a bad idea to have a police force which is allowed to kill civilians at will?
Did you watch the video where the same guy was involved in a similar Minnesota case last summer, where he was dragged by a weaponized car and hospitalized. He should have killed that driver also.
It¨s a dangerous job to be an ICE agent these days and serve your country. It is a bad idea to allow civilians protest violently and use their cars as weapons against law enforcement officers.
Sounds great, Max, until its YOUR sister, mother, or wife in the line of fire of such an individual who is locked and loaded and has a hair trigger, due to his PTSD from a previous incident.
Nate: Me and my family believe in democracy and not in rioting. In US it’s much more likely to be shot by gangsters and drug dealers.
I think the whole episode was planned by those two lesbians. They left their kid to daycare and came to harass ICE agents. The femme blocked the traffic with her car and sat there innocently, while the butch harassed the agent. But it didn’t go as planned, did it?
It’s not about race or skin color. Also white people are deported if they are illegally in the US. One white woman came to the US from Scandinavia for a short holiday 20 years ago, but she never left and her visa expired. She lived in a luxury home somewhere in California. When she harassed her neighbor, her papers were checked and she was deported immediately by ICE. MAWA people (Make America Weak Again) hate Donald Trump and democracy.
Max has very strong words against Jan 6 rioters:
“They have tried to erase what I did” with the pardons and other attempts to play down the violent attack, Gonell said. “I lost my career, my health, and I’ve been trying to get my life back.”
https://apnews.com/article/capitol-riot-police-trump-jan-6-congress-34fb3cfeeb21a746c53760bb0f1df37d
But but but but two lesbians!
“There was some bully pulpit intimidation going on” – Thomas Massie
Max.
You clearly have no empathy for ‘others’. Only when bad stuff happens to you and yours will you begin to get it…maybe.
Many people are outraged by the over-reach of the Feds into their communities, as well as their harsh tactics.
At worst she should have been arrested for civil disobedience. You know, like the kind when the black woman rode in the ‘white only’ section of the bus, etc.
In any case, she was finally complying by removing her car when she was shot.
This was so unnecessary.
If the guy can’t deal humanely with people in situations like this, and just goes instantly for his for gun, for whatever reason, he should not be doing that job.
The facts get clouded by spin from both sides, so let’s break it down. The 2 women where intentionally trying to interfere with law enforcement. That is clear. The car was backing up when the agent walked in front. At this point, he is effectively walking behind a moving car in reverse. She was obviously fleeing arrest with the guy reaching inside to open the door. She was probably distracted by the guy reaching inside, and did not know the other guy was in front. If she did, that is clearly an assault and his ability to jump to the side does not erase that. Otherwise, it was a dumb mistake. The whole thing lasted for about 2 to 3 seconds. The action to draw and fire three rounds in rapid succession seems like a reflex action. That is how they are trained to react to a threat. There was no time for a decision sequence. It was a reaction. In retrospect, he should not have moved in front, and should have been ready to step aside. They had her face on camera and the car license plate. She would have been arrested very soon. The shooting was a mistake in any case, but there is a big question about criminal intent with both the agent and the women.
Reasonable assessment, except omitting that from his POV, on his camera video, it is clear she is turning her wheel away from him as she begins to drive forward, and not at high speed.
“That is how they are trained to react to a threat.”
If so, then that policy obviously needs to be revised. It won’t be.
More facts:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/video/ice-agents-cellphone-footage-raises-new-questions-invs
“[ICE thugs] break-checked other motorists in an attempt to force accidents that agents could then use as justification for deploying force” — Judge Ellis, in the Chicago ICE thugs case
“Did you watch the video where the same guy was involved in a similar Minnesota case last summer, where he was dragged by a weaponized car and hospitalized.”
He fired shots into the passenger side window, after he was clear of the car, as well as his first sot into the windscreen.
Perhaps his experience earlier experience traumatised him and he reacted with lethal force as a result.
Whatever the case, there was absolutely no reason to keep shooting into the passenger window. There was no need to kill the woman driving a very slow moving car at the time she was shot.
The officers with the guy who shot her drove him and their vehicles away from the scene a minute or two afterwards, instead of keeping the cars stationed to maintain the crime scene for investigation, and keeping themselves present to give on scene accounts of what happened. They also prevented a physician from tending to the woman who was shot.
These actions were not those of professional law enforcement officers. The federal government murdered a US citizen on the street in full view of many people. It was filmed from many angles, so there’s no excuse not to see what is plain.
barry, please stop trolling.
Bill Hunter, Anon for a reason.
I did a quick back of the envelope calculation.
To raise the average temperature of the Eargh by 1.4 C by adjusting its orbit would require an extra 27W/m^2 of solar insolation.
That would require Eargh’s orbital radius to decrease by 1 million miles which would make the year 360 days instead of 365.
Surely we would have noticed.
EM, I don’t know whose theory you think you are disproving but its not mine.
Let me explain a couple of things.
1) As you should know we have an elliptical orbit. Perihelion is the point in the ellipse where earth is closest to the sun and aphelion is the point in the ellipse where earth is furthest from the sun.
The earth accelerates and goes faster when traveling from aphelion to perihelion and travels slower when traveling from perihelion to aphelion. The net difference for the entire orbit wrt to mean distance from the sun is nil.
Now Jupiter will always exert an influence on two sides of the orbit at points virtually opposite one another. Thus since the earth is traveling in opposite directions at these points there will be no change in the orbit time because on one side of the orbit Jupiter is speeding up earth and when earth travels to the other side Jupiter is slowing earth down. Again no overall annual effect, no shorter of a year but yes the ellipticity of the orbit changes and the time closest to the sun changes over the course of a year via the speed effects.
2) Work with something I have been able to work with. The entire industrial age surface temperature record has many problems with coverage. Only in the satellite era has coverage included the entire globe. So I have been working with the last 45 years since 1980 where it has warmed about .7C. Also there is feedback all the forcing does not need to come from the orbit. There are scientists out there, the most alarmist, saying feedbacks can be up to 12:1. Near as I can tell feedback started out as a plug figure. Today its estimated as a factor on assumed forcing from CO2 by many or extrapolated from assumptions about short term changes in a changing world.
“but yes the ellipticity of the orbit changes and the time closest to the sun changes over the course of a year via the speed effects.”
How much? It is not enough to say that the orbit changes.
You have yet to show us a calculation by you or anyone else calculating how MUCH it changes.
And the available data on ellipticity (E-S distance at aphelion and perihelion) show negligible changes in the last century.
Nate, I already went over that with you months ago. 5 more days in the warmest half of the orbit. And your reply was that was caused by the moon, which of course would not change the fact that there was 5 more days in the warmest half of the orbit.
This shifts over lengthy periods of time. I just looked at the change over 43 years.
“And your reply was that was caused by the moon, which of course would not change the fact that there was 5 more days in the warmest half of the orbit.”
You just don’t get it.
As I explained several times, and NASA, who provided the data, clearly explained, the Moon’s effect is an ARTIFACT, which causes an error in the measurement of the orbital parameters.
The Moon and Earth circle around their barycenter. This causes a 29 day, wiggle of 9400 km, around the barycenter as it smoothly orbits the sun.
There are not actually 5 days added to the orbit of the Moon-Earth barycenter around the sun.
1)The 9400 km wiggle is insignificant compared to the 150 million km (1.5e8 km) distance from the Sun.
2) the % change in insolation due to this would be 100%*(9400/1.5e8)^2 = 4×10^-7 %. Negligible.
3)It is averaged out every 29 days.
4)This has nothing to do with Jupiter.
Nate says:
As I explained several times, and NASA, who provided the data, clearly explained, the Moon’s effect is an ARTIFACT, which causes an error in the measurement of the orbital parameters.
The Moon and Earth circle around their barycenter. This causes a 29 day, wiggle of 9400 km, around the barycenter as it smoothly orbits the sun.
There are not actually 5 days added to the orbit of the Moon-Earth barycenter around the sun.
———
As I explained to EM there is not 5 days added to the orbit. Its a difference in speed the earth travels at through portions of the orbut up to 1/2 the orbit. Now you are rambling about something completely different that may in fact be caused by the moon. But you stuck your foot in the quicksand when you claimed no 5 day differences. You are wrong you can see the 5 day difference using US Naval Observatory data as a change in the differences between half orbits via the date crossing perihelion and aphelion and the speed difference from aphelion to perihelion being 5 days slower than from perihelion to aphelion.
The official observer data verifies this 5 day difference between 1980/81 and 2023/24.
The data from NASA that we discussed was about changes in time of aphelion and perihelion due to the Moons orbit. Do you not remember?
“you are wrong you can see the 5 day difference using US Naval Observatory data as a change in the differences between half orbits via the date crossing perihelion and aphelion and the speed difference from aphelion to perihelion being 5 days slower than from perihelion”
Indeed the data we discussed was from the Naval Observatory, not NASA, and THEY explained that changes were caused by the Moon.
https://aa.usno.navy.mil/faq/apsides
“Why do times of Earth at perihelion and aphelion vary in date more than other phenomena such as the start of the seasons?
It is actually due to the presence of the Moon.”
Not Jupiter.
Nate says:
”The data from NASA that we discussed was about changes in time of aphelion and perihelion due to the Moons orbit. Do you not remember?”
LOL! How does that comport the fact that the data says there was a ~5 day difference and you said: There are not actually 5 days added to the orbit . . . (because) 1)The 9400 km wiggle (by the moon) is insignificant.
The earth travels 12,870,000 million km in 5 days! [s]that’s just a little bit different than a 9,400 km wiggle.[/s]
Your argument here makes no sense at all.
The USNO, and all the available facts, tell us this effect
-is caused by the Moon.
-is not caused by Jupiter
-has negligible effect on insolation reaching Earth.
Undoubtedly you will keep doubling down on your unsupported claim anyway.
“The earth travels 12,870,000 million km in 5 days! [s]that’s just a little bit different than a 9,400 km wiggle.”
Sure but in what direction at the aphelion?
Hint: not toward or away from the sun. The movement toward or away from the sun, at aphelion, is much much smaller.
Thus the 9400 km wiggle is significant enough to change the date of Earth actually reaching its farthest distance from the sun.
This will likely again be beyond your comprehension.
Nate says:
”The earth travels 12,870,000 million km in 5 days! [s]that’s just a little bit different than a 9,400 km wiggle.”
Sure but in what direction at the aphelion?
Hint: not toward or away from the sun. The movement toward or away from the sun, at aphelion, is much much smaller.
Thus the 9400 km wiggle is significant enough to change the date of Earth actually reaching its farthest distance from the sun.
——————
gotcha! You believe the earth and moon traveling at 536,250km/hr does 436 loop d loops with a diameter of 9400km due to 13 orbits of the moon in order to change its arrival dates at the ends of the major axis.
You need to post your sources Nate. That makes no sense at all.
See next posts for facts related to the discovery of Neptune via observations of orbit displacement by Neptune on Uranus’ orbit.
The facts are this Nate.
Distance at Noted Configuration (1800/1850): In configurations where the Sun-Uranus-Neptune angle was 90° (a point where Neptune’s tug is directed tangentially to Uranus’s orbit and produces a high displacement visible from Earth), the two planets were separated by a distance of 25.4 AU.
(as I said the max displacement occurs when the planet pull is tangent to the earth’s orbit and where the solar gravity effect on the displacement is nil a line through the earth and sun is 90degrees to that tangent line.
This stuff has been known now for 190 years.
Jupiter has 18.5 times the mass of Neptune
Jupiter would be 5.77 times closer to earth at maximum displacement than Neptune was to Uranus
In 1835: A deviation of 30 arcseconds was recorded between the calculated and observed orbit of Uranus. This and other observations noted about these displacements over a period of years provided information leading to the discovery of Neptune.
30 arcseconds displacement indicated a deviation of about 400,000km
Now you are trying to tell me Neptune moved Uranus 400,000km and Jupiter which is almost 6 times closer to earth with 18.5 times the mass can’t move earth 9400km which only the moon can do.
You are some piece of work Nate.
“gotcha! You believe the earth and moon traveling at 536,250km/hr does 436 loop d loops with a diameter of 9400km due to 13 orbits of the moon in order to change its arrival dates at the ends of the major axis.”
Gobbledegook, with no rebuttal of what I explained above.
As expected, you could not comprehend the simple geometry of the Earth’s path at aphelion, nor the explanation given by me and the US Naval Observatory.
Sorry, it is implausible that you know better about the USNO data than the USNO.
This effect has nothing to do with Jupiter, Sorry.
To keep claiming it does, without showing evidence or calculation, and ignoring the available evidence and calculations, is pure Astrology.
“Now you are trying to tell me Neptune moved Uranus 400,000km and Jupiter which is almost 6 times closer to earth with 18.5 times the mass can’t move earth 9400km which only the moon can do.”
Still no calculation or data for Earth from you. Where are they?
The available data for Earth-sun distance do not agree your speculations.
Nate wrongly claims:
“Now you are trying to tell me Neptune moved Uranus 400,000km and Jupiter which is almost 6 times closer to earth with 18.5 times the mass can’t move earth 9400km which only the moon can do.”
Still no calculation or data for Earth from you. Where are they?
—————–
Its not my calculations or observations Nate. I wasn’t alive in 1835. And you still have not produced your calculations or supporting observations.
As I said I am not surprised that the moon in 14 days can move the earth 9400km out of its standard solar orbit path. But you are lacking calculations or any source of your claim that USNO has established that the jovian planets don’t do the same on a larger scale. . . .because it would be stupid for them to do that in light that science accepted that it happened 190 years ago.
Here are more details on that discovery in the first half of the 19th century:
”The deviation of Uranus’s orbit was a crucial observation that led to the discovery of the planet Neptune. The observed 30 arcsecond deviation in 1835 (which grew to about 70 arcseconds by 1840) was a key piece of evidence, as the actual position of Uranus was drifting from its predicted path based on Newtonian mechanics.
Hypothesis: Astronomers John Couch Adams and Urbain Le Verrier independently hypothesized that the gravitational pull of an unknown, more distant planet was causing these irregularities.
Prediction: They used mathematics to calculate the potential position and mass of this unseen body.
Discovery: Working from Le Verrier’s calculations, astronomer Johann Gottfried Galle and his assistant Heinrich Louis d’Arrest discovered Neptune in September 1846, very close to the predicted location.
The existence of Neptune was thus predicted using mathematics before it was visually observed through a telescope.”
You can keep trying to deny this but its notable what a hypocrite you are demanding evidence when I am giving it to you and you not producing a shred of evidence to make the claim the jovian planets have a negligible effect. Your anonymous claimed to be USNO source has no name, we don’t know if he was the director or the janitor, you have produced no calculations, no names, no papers, nor even a specific claim limiting the mean annual global insolation of jovian planet effects I have physically described consistent with Newtonian physics and scientific excerpts.
Put up or shut up.
This discussion was about your claim that the changes in the dates of aphelion or perihelion of up to 5 days in USNO data had something to with Jupiter.
I’ve made it clear, and the USNO made it clear that this is caused by the Moon.
Therefore there is no need to bring Jupiter or Neptune into it at all!
And you still have not provided data or calculation to show that Jupiter has caused these 5 day changes to Earth’s aphelion or perihelion.
All we get is handwaving.
Now we can expect more.
Where is it made clear Nate and by whom and what did they base their opinion on? You continue to refuse to disclose your sources.
There is no way mathematically lunar motions could slow earth’s speed such that there was a 5 day delay in the earth reaching perihelion by five days. If you disagree stop stomping your foot like a 3 year old and show the math of how that could happen.
Worse for your argument here Nate is that even if the moon could slow the speed of earth through perihelion that much and then in the second half of the orbit speed it through aphelion, then reducing the cooling period by 5 days in a wash, rinse, and repeat pattern for multiple earth orbits it would result in the exact same additional insolation I have been discussing and all you are arguing about is which object does it.
And that of course makes your entire argument irrelevant to whether orbit perturbations affect climate change.
So if you are intent on finding the culprit versus acknowledging the climate change effect. . .provide a mathematically based argument specifically identifying the culprit.
I really don’t know what the contributions of each object is. I just know the total result for one set of object motions in total in one specific period of time because the data has been recorded as occurring from multiple sources. I then looked at similar planet configurations and see they correspond to the number of planets involved, the sizes and proximity of those planets, and the climate response over the entire course of the instrument record and matching that to the 10 most significant climate events since 1850 and find a consistent match.
Entropic, where did you get 27w/m^2 raises the temperament 1.4C
To show these deluded MAGAmaniacs what unbelievable lies their Trump’ing boy idol is ready to tell:
” Asked about the F.B.I.’s refusal to share evidence with state officials in Minnesota after an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis, Trump veered into promoting his lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him to justify his hostility to the state.
“I won Minnesota three times, and I didn’t get credit for it,” Trump said.
That is false. Trump did not win Minnesota in 2016, 2020 or 2024. ”
2016
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/president
2020
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-president.html
2024
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/05/us/elections/results-president.html
*
No wonder that the Trump’ing boy’s administration is rewriting the brute force Jan 6 2021 riot as a ‘peaceful protest’.
The whole world is laughing loud at such an incredible lie.
Bindi, as usual, you don’t understand the issue.
Trump claims the 2020 election was invalid. There is now a lot of evidence to support that.
But, to call that a “lie”, you support it with the election results that are claimed to be fraud!
Maybe you will understand when you grow up….
“There is now a lot of evidence to support that.”
No, there is just slightly more of the conspiracy theory rubbish that dozens of courts presided over by Dem and repub appointed judges threw out several years ago.
Poor MAGA doesn’t see the mountains of trash that they used to believe was evidence and later shown to be trash. This might give them context to see the new trash for what it is.
No, 2020 stolen election is an article of faith endlessly waiting for proof.
Yep, he didn’t win from the counting of votes. The problem is Minnesota like several other states doesn’t require ID to vote. To register all you need is a utility bill. So you can vote but you may not be able to get on an airplane. That’s why they are so upset at Ice. . .they are losing a lot of votes.
5 months of a small La Nina and the temperature responds 5 months later???
In this case we could hope to see at least a little continuing drop in temps over the next 6 months?
Tropospheric global temps always respond several months after the ENSO changes in the equatorial Pacific.
tim s….”The facts get clouded by spin from both sides, so let’s break it down. The 2 women where intentionally trying to interfere with law enforcement. That is clear. The car was backing up when the agent walked in front. At this point, he is effectively walking behind a moving car in reverse. She was obviously fleeing arrest with the guy reaching inside to open the door. She was probably distracted by the guy reaching inside, and did not know the other guy was in front. If she did, that is clearly an assault and his ability to jump to the side does not erase that. Otherwise, it was a dumb mistake. The whole thing lasted for about 2 to 3 seconds. The action to draw and fire three rounds in rapid succession seems like a reflex action. That is how they are trained to react to a threat. There was no time for a decision sequence. It was a reaction”.
***
Tim your lack of logic is transferred to a far more serious situation.
Most murders are done in a moment of severe emotion. The ICE agent has no excuse for his inappropriate reaction.
The Minneapolis mayor put it appropriately…there have been only two murders by gun in the city last year and one of them was by an ICE agent.
1) ICE is not a law enforcement agency per se. Their job is essentially border patrol. Putting them in cities to harass US citizens puts them far outside the area for which they are trained.
They are trained only to intercept illegal aliens trying to enter the US. They have zero training in dealing with US citizens in US cities.
I watched them on TV throw an elderly white woman to the ground and beat her. They were masked, and how anyone in the US, or anywhere, can justify such brutality is unimaginable.
In other words, they had no business harassing this woman, even if he was impeding them, which is her right as a US citizen to protest their action and presence in her city. It may be regarded as civil disobedience but the context was not illegal aliens trying to sneak across the US border. This was a US citizen protesting ICE presence in her city and for that alone she was murdered.
The US was built on civil disobedience!!!
Border patrol is what ICE is trained for, not murdering an innocent woman in cold blood, shooting her in the back, nowhere near the border, as she tried to drive away.
2)re training. A former Homeland Security Agent was interviewed in Canada on CBC television. He was aghast at the actions of ICE, claiming vehemently that neither ICE nor any law enforcement are trained to handle that situation as they did. He emphasized that no law enforcement agent would allow himself/herself to be placed in the front or rear of manned vehicle.
He emphasized that ICE is being used inappropriately, if not illegally, to raid US cities. Such a usage puts them on unfamiliar grounds, both physically and legally.
Homeland Security leader Kristi Noem is now being considered for impeachment for her biased approach to this case.
3)Without waiting to hear the facts, the Trump admin tarred this innocent woman as a subversive, then claimed the agents were justified in murdering her. They have since taken steps to remove any other law enforcement agency from investigating, leaving it in the hands solely of the FBI.
I am waiting to see if the great US will step up and restore the constitution and law to their country. The cop who lead to the death of Floyd is now in jail and I think the same fate should face the ICE agent who murdered the girl.
Thank you for the compliment. I only read a few words, but it was enough. Everyone agrees that you have a perfect track record of being wrong about everything. Your only purpose here is to be wrong and get a reaction from people.
Please make a lengthy reply. It will fulfill your mission to waste time and nobody will read it.
I did not expect you to read my reply since your comprehension level is that of child raised on TV. I did expect you to understand that the lady in question was brutally murdered.
I have seen Republican after Republican fail to grasp that a woman with children is now dead for no apparent reason. Do you guys lack the ability to feel anything, to feel compassion, and to empathize with her and her family? You are regarding her as if she was a Ted Bundy or one of the hijackers who bombed the Trade Centres.
She was simply a defiant young woman who stood up to ICE in a non-violent manner and they murdered her for it. She represents the United States that Trump is trying to make great again but his vision does not include brave young people who exercise their duty to stand up to tyranny.
Gordon: At least HR companies that hire those professional protestors make good profit whenever there is a “No kings” day or crowd of people gather to harass ICE agents. Georg Soros and Reid Hoffman have deep pockets. During Trump’s first presidency Soros payed $15 per hour to protestors who damaged private property and looted shops.
On this issue Gordon Robertson is correct. There was no justificaton for her death. There is already a ruling out that you can’t stand in front of a car and use it as an ecuse for self-defense. There are other examples of ICE reckless behavior.
It’s interesting how the cult kids try to pervert reality, just as they do with science. Gordon claims she was a “lady”, some kind of ideal mother, with no intent to mess up anything.
Norman claims there was “no justification for her death”. So if someone points a gun at a cop, the cop can’t shoot because maybe the guy was just kidding!
For those fools like Norman who want to join with Gordon, here is the rest of the quote. Just like Nate and the rest of you propaganda merchants, I am sick of people taking things out of context and then claiming things I did not state, or in this case to directly contradict what did state. The only polite words I can use are that you people are the lowest form of humanity, if you even qualify.
Here is my direct statement that was edited by Gordon so he could make lies about me:
In retrospect, he should not have moved in front, and should have been ready to step aside. They had her face on camera and the car license plate. She would have been arrested very soon. The shooting was a mistake in any case, but there is a big question about criminal intent with both the agent and the women.
“there is a big question about criminal intent with both the agent and the women” is the slimiest thing you ever said, Ivy Leaguer.
And you specialize in it.
“Triggered much?” — Greg Bovino, in response to “you guys killed an American citizen.
Let’s review. My claim is that biased partisans are engaging in propaganda and drawing conclusions before the facts are known. Intelligent people ask questions because that is the most basic investigative technique. Dummies get drawn into false narratives the way sheep get herded by dogs.
The most important observation is that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and early conclusions. For those who do not understand the concept of an inverse (Willard probably), it is the most dimwitted people who form the most strongly held early conclusions, and the most intelligent who wait for the facts to unfold.
Tim, I applaud that you’ve tried to be objective about this issue, and not simply knee-jerk accept the government’s gaslighting, as others like Clint and Max do.
Now you need to work on your condescension. Your notion that your views are the only valid ones presented here.
For example, Gordon made some unusually good points here.
“She was simply a defiant young woman who stood up to ICE in a non-violent manner ”
As did Norman. As did I. As did others.
“Norman claims there was “no justification for her death”. So if someone points a gun at a cop…”
Our resident arbiter of who is deluded invents a gun in the hands of the killed woman.
Gordon,
She wasn’t much of a mum was she. Believing that she could stalk federal agents, impeded them in the duty etc
Perhaps in that state they are so used to lived experience over facts might have contributed to death.
In the USA 60 people per day are killed, only 2 or 3 by the law.
There are more pressing issues than some fool dying.
Masks off for one resident goons.
Here’s the document:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf
They better read it properly, for there might be an exam.
“No: 30%” — the number of hardcore troglodytes who don’t think Good’s murderer should face criminal charges.
Willard: This could be a great movie starring two suicidal lesbians, like Thelma and Louise, living in a platonic relationship, because we don’t want film to be R-rated. In this film women are Good and ICE agent is a bad “big boy”.
Max: you definitely should not beg so many questions before acting like a jerk.
“One homeland, one people, one heritage. Remember who you are, American.” — Dozing Donald’s administration, never failing to say the quiet bit out loud:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-administration-posts-echo-rhetoric-linked-to-extremist-groups
Willard, please stop trolling.
Fed Chair Jerome Powell, on him being investigated by Justice Dept.
“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Mr. Powell added. “This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions — or whether instead monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.”
Trump said “I don’t know anything about it, but he’s certainly not very good at the Fed, and he’s not very good at building buildings”
Must be just a ‘coincidence’ that he wants Powell to be gone!
Our in-house asset manager might appreciate the following graphic that recalls what happened with inflation in Turkey when their own dictator tried to cook the books:
https://bsky.app/profile/drunemeton.bsky.social/post/3mc76kkjnxs2n
Willard: Always the same whine. Inflation will get worse because FED gets a better chair and the cow will stop milking because of Trump’s tariffs!
Has anything actually gotten more expensive because tariffs?
Has tariffs collapsed economy, raised prices, slowed economic growth, increased unemployment and caused inflation as democ rats have threatened? No. Instead tariffs have reshaped global trade.
According to New York Times “The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services shrank to $29.4 billion in October, down from $48.1 billion the prior month”. “The figure was the lowest monthly trade deficit recorded since June 2009. U.S. imports have fallen while exports have remained strong, decreasing the trade deficit and seemingly accomplishing a major goal for President Donald Trump.”
Try to convince anyone else outside your small bubble, Max:
Nearly half (45%) of Americans said their financial security is getting worse compared to 20% who said it’s getting better.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/dec/29/americans-financial-security-economy-poll
Increasing health costs to fund your pet jackboots might not have been Dozing Donald’s most brilliant idea.
Don’t forget that firms can absorb one-time increases with their margins only once. And with a debt-to-GDP ratio already cranked up to 125%, Muricans won’t like it when vigilantes come after their bonds.
“In economics, things take longer to happen than you think they will, and they happen faster than you think they could.” — Rudiger Dornbush
2025: 0.5 million jobs added.
2024: 2 milliom jobs added ~ the typical rise in a healty economy.
No, the economy is no longer healthy.
-The government tells us the woman in Minnesota was a ‘domestic terrorist’ most definitely trying to kill an ICE agent.
But our eyes tell us otherwise.
-We’ve been told all these months that the military action against Venezuela was all about DRUGS.
Now we learn that it actually was all about their OIL.
-Trump is using the politicized Justice Dept to make a power grab of the Fed.
But he says he knows nothing about that.
Are you guys really OK with regularly being gaslighted by your govt??
BTW, Most of the senators, who must approve the next Fed chair, think that the Fed should remain independent of politics, and NOT run by the White House.
Lets see if they have balls.
Nate is clueless about almost everything. So when Trump has so many things going, in so many different directions, you can see why poor Nate is so confused.
Clint R
Thanks for confirming you are a brain-dead MAGA cult zombie. You have never shown any intelligent thought on this blog. Just made up physics and insults. Now we all know why. You have no reasoning ability but will believe lies from your Right-Wing liars. Thanks, I always knew this about you. Glad you are enlightening others with your limited thinking ability.
So you think a President that constantly lies, is rude, cruel, vindictive, arrogant is a good one. Wow! You have even less thinking ability than I had thought.
Norman, your hissy fit only indicates your frustration at being wrong on all the issues. You’ve aligned yourself with Nate, gordon, Bindi, Kamala, and Willard! Bad choices.
You’ve made your bed, now lie in it….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
The bloodlust we are seeing from Dozing Donald/MAGA over the murder of Renee Good by Dozing Donald’s ICE has been deeply alarming. If you ever wondered how Germans became Nazis, you are seeing it play out in real time.
https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/if-you-ever-wondered-how-germans
Do you know why immigration agents not only took Arnoldo’s phone, but the 10th grader had to use Find My Phone to locate it — in a vending machine for used electronics, close to an ICE detention center?
Clint R
I am not the one who is wrong. You support a lying grifter. You never support any of your so called “science”. You just make up unsupported nonsense or get it off some blog and pretend to know science. Nate, Ark, Willard will support their points. Not so much with you. I have asked you to support your fake science and to date you have not been able to.
Norman, you just use the same insults and false accusations. Have you no originality?
And, where’s your viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
As usual, you’ve got NOTHING.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Kansas Police Officer Resigns After Writing “Pig” on His Own Coffee Cup
https://www.gq.com/story/police-coffee-mcdonalds-pig
Do you think victim bullying works?
“Pedophile protector”, TJ Sabula, who received 120K after F honored its longtime tradition to bend the knee to dictators.
Clint R
You are an odd one. Asking you to support your false science claims is viewed as insults. How bad is your thinking ability? Are you human or bot? You can’t support anything you claim and divert by claiming asking for support is an insult. You do not make any sense but you certainly know how to divert when pressed just as your lord Trump does over Epstein files. You have learned well from the “Dark Side”. Make up things that are blatanly false. When your lies are exposed divert! You have learned the art of deception well. Trump is so proud of you. Maybe he will put you in charge of NASA and you can use this position to claim your nonsense about lunar rotation.
Norman, if you can’t support your nonsense, just admit it.
That’s what a responsible adult would do….
Oceans Are Struggling To Absorb Carbon As Microplastics Flood Their Waters. https://scitechdaily.com/oceans-are-struggling-to-absorb-carbon-as-microplastics-flood-their-waters/
Oh how amazing.
The MaxC boy who 100% certainly would denigrate the NYT as ‘worst democ rat [sic] newspaper’ suddenly refers to it just because it writes what fits his narrative.
What about trying to unveil what is behind?
1. https://www.investopedia.com/sharp-drop-in-the-u-s-trade-deficit-gold-11881523
” What Drove the Sharp Drop in the U.S. Trade Deficit? Gold ”
” The U.S. trade deficit dropped sharply in October, but the narrowing appears to be tied to a large spike in the export of gold and silver. ”
*
2. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money/economy/2026/01/08/us-trade-deficit-update/88081248007/
Though heading a post with “US trade deficit sinks as tariffs take a bite”, even USA TODAY writes at its end:
” The trade deficit in goods and services was $29.4 billion, down 39% from $48.1 billion in September, as tariffs restricted the flow of goods around the globe.
Imports were down 3.2% to $331.4 billion, the Commerce Department said, while exports rose 2.6% to $302 billion. The Trading Economics consensus had been for a wider deficit, of $58.9 billion.
Shrinking the trade gap – in particular by encouraging U.S. exports – is a key goal of the White House’s aggressive tariff policies, but some experts caution that the October data may not reflect that.
“Ultimately this sharp narrowing in the October trade deficit is almost entirely due to the movement of gold,” economists at Wells Fargo wrote in an analysis out after the release. That unusual move is likely to be reversed in coming months, they said.
“The government is still getting caught up with economic indicators delayed during the shutdown, and we’re still months away from our first look at 2026 trade flows,” they added. ”
*
You could find a dozen of hints like that – but… you need to search.
norman…we’ve had our differences on some topics but I appreciate your support on the poor woman who was brutally murdered by an ICE agent. His misogynist exclamation before shooting her reveals an underlying issue with women. And those who support that action here are backing up their hatred of women. I still have a vivid image of ICE agents knocking an elderly Caucasian woman to the ground and roughing her up.
I admire the woman for having the courage to stand up to them. She did nothing to provoke such a violent action toward her. Unlike what Tim S claimed, she deliberately turned her vehicle to avoid hitting the ICE agent who had stupidly positioned himself in front of her vehicle. There was no reason whatsoever to shoot her in the back.
A friend has pointed out conflicting orders to her, where one agent urged her to leave the scene while another urged her to get out of her car.
willard…”The bloodlust we are seeing from Dozing Donald/MAGA over the murder of Renee Good by Dozing Donald’s ICE has been deeply alarming. If you ever wondered how Germans became Nazis, you are seeing it play out in real time.
https://deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/if-you-ever-wondered-how-germans ”
***
Good post Willard. The content is alarmingly accurate.
In the early 1930s in Germany, Hitler and his party received a significant portion of the popular vote, even though they did not have a majority. He had his Brown Shirts, however, who were essentially goons, to intimidate those who disagreed with him. The Brown Shirts, or SA, which was essentially a paramilitary group of storm troupers, brazenly attacked anyone who they regarded as subversives.
The SA were disbanded and became the infamous SS. They were the ones who committed the atrocities in concentration camps, which were built at first to house dissident Germans, especially unionists, socialists, and communists. The original prison guards were the Waffen SS, who later became famous for their fighting prowess in the field. I always think of them as concentration camp guards.
Ironically, Hitler began to fear the SA around 1934 and they were disbanded. He feared them taking control. The fear I have is that the US does not seem to have measures to combat such goons. The only hope I see is that decent law enforcement agents in states will stand up to them. Or perhaps citizen militias.
That’s why I am not in favour of gun control and I think that’s why the Founding Fathers built that right into the Constitution.
Even more ironically, many good US military personnel lie in graves in Europe and on Pacific Island, because they fought such fascism bravely. When Trump toured a US military cemetery in Europe, he insulted those brave young men, calling them suckers and losers.
Signs of authoritarianism are all around us.
Take, for example, the administration’s extreme reaction to people… not mourning Charlie Kirk’s death enough:
“Multiple analysts have regarded these efforts by the political right as a significant crackdown on political speech and dissent in the United States, and an effort to silence criticism of Kirk and the political ideology he promoted. The response was criticized as a form of cancel culture, government censorship, and of bearing similarities to McCarthyism.[2][3]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprisals_against_commentators_on_the_Charlie_Kirk_assassination#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20list%20compiled,towards%20Kirk%20following%20his%20death.
anon…”She wasn’t much of a mum was she. Believing that she could stalk federal agents, impeded them in the duty etc”
***
Come on, man, she was just mouthing them off. Since when is murder a justification for a woman being sassy.
In a recent altercation, a guy was in the face of an ICE agent goon, who looked the part, and you could see the goon twitching, trying to decide whether or not to pull his gun. Fortunately, another ICE agent pulled him away. Why could they not have done that with the young woman?
Kristi Noem, the head of Homeland Security, who I regard as being far more dangerous to democracy, had her written off as a subversive without a single fact. They are currently investigating the murdered woman as such, which I regard as a politically-motivated cover up. Meantime, there is talk of impeaching Noem for her callous disregard for the office and its mandate.
The facts are clear, based on the video we all saw, including you hopefully. She did absolutely nothing, by the standard of US democracy, that justified her being brutally murdered.
If there is any justice, the ICE agent will be prosecuted for murder. You simply cannot kill someone in a democracy because you disagree with them or their actions, unless that action threatens the agent. That cannot be claimed here because the woman’s vehicle had already cleared and passed the agent when he foolishly decided to shoot her from behind.
I have stated in a previous post, that ICE was out of their jurisdiction and their mandate in accosting this young woman. They had no business confronting her, they should have called a local police officer to intervene. They had her license number, all they had to do was report it to local authorities.
The city is now suing the Feds for having ICE there and acting as they did.
“If there is any justice, the ICE agent will be prosecuted for murder.”
Nope. The No-Justice Dept decided there will be not even be any investigation of the agent’s action.
Trump has lost Joe Rogan, and his many young white male listeners.
Sympathising with the anti-ICE protests:
“You don’t want militarized people in the streets just roaming around, snatching up people — many of which turn out to be U.S. citizens that just don’t have their papers on them,”
“Are we really gonna be the Gestapo, ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2511.21840
HITRAN2024 is finally here!
The long-awaited methane update has been released. Marking a genuinely consequential advance for atmospheric spectroscopy, this release substantially elevates the fidelity of radiative transfer calculations and satellite retrievals.
For those working on methane monitoring, climate attribution, and planetary atmospheres, this update is a foundational upgrade that will quietly but decisively improve results across the field.
It’s interesting to watch the cult kids band together to support this woman that attempted to harm the LEO. His body cam video clearly shows her driving into him. She was shot from the front, not from behind as gordon claims. Truth and reality has little meaning to the cultists.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://icelist.is/
Do you think our Ivy Leaguer will “both side” DoJ’s memo according to which it deemed “unnecessary” to conclude whether seizing Maduro violated law?
“that attempted to harm the LEO. His body cam video clearly shows her driving into him”
You’ve been successfully gaslighted.
She was clearly not acting in a threatening way AT ALL.
HIS cellphone cam (he had no bodycam) clearly shows her turning the wheel of the car away from him, at 44 s in his video.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7yv4524gqo
She was driving at slow speed, he had plenty of time to get well out of the way.
Judging from this bullet hole, he was to the side of the vehicle when he fired.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AP26007639272103.jpg?w=525
Our resident arbiter of who is deluded now invents bodycam footage that has not been released, if there even is any.
What we do see from many images is that he was not knocked over, and was able to get off shots into the passenger side window as the car swung AWAY from him. We see him walking casually to and away from the vehicle he just murdered the driver of.
Which shows Trump’s flat out lie that she ran him over to be flat out false.
The agent’s phone footage is what we have, which is pointed upward at the time of the alleged grazing he got from the car.
Trump and MAGA are so addled with lies they wouldn’t see the truth if it shot them to death through a car window.
” His body cam video clearly shows her driving into him. ”
When you are dumb and perverse enough to exclusively look at official sources like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Killing_of_Renee_Good_DHS_agent_perspective.webm
there is no wonder that you then only can write things which have nothing to do with the reality, let alone with the truth.
Clint R should have a look at this source (which he probably might dismiss as ‘fake’- I wouldn’t wonder):
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html
*
It is absolutely clear from the little emphasis window drawn around her car’s front-left wheel that Renee Good never has had the intention to endanger the brute force killer who deliberately shot her dead without any reason other than his full lack of self-control.
Quite the opposite is true: she visibly turned right with her car to avoid him.
*
Moreover, just a few hours after Renee Good was shot dead by the ICE agent, the Trumping boy wrote on his ‘Truth’ channel about her that she was ‘very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self-defense’.
That alone was a bunch of disgusting lies, but it is not my point here.
My point is that a few days later, the very same Trumping boy suddenly ‘suggested’ that Renee Good’s ‘highly disrespectful’ attitude toward law enforcement played a role in her fatal shooting by an ICE agent!
Aside from the fact that even in harsh dictatorships like Russia, Belarus, or China, one is not shot dead simply for behaving disrespectfully towards even a secret police officer, the Trumping boy’s choice of words should make it clear that he himself no longer believed the false claim that Renee Good tried to attack the ICE agent with her car.
*
The fact that Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said the FBI had initially agreed to a joint investigation with state officials, but then reversed course and denied the state access to materials and evidence: that already stinks a lot.
But when we read that furthermore that Justice Dept. experts on police shootings have been left out of the Minneapolis shooting probe: that is definitely too much.
It reminds me so many discussions I had with people aged like me, who got told from their parents about what happened in Germany between 1928 and 1933.
*
But maybe people like Clint R and some other strange guys infesting this blog with their fascist thoughts don’t have any problem if under the Trumping boy and his hench(wo)men, the US slowly move into an authoritarian dictatorship.
Even that video clearly shows her driving toward him. She was shot from the front, not from behind as gordon claims. Truth, and reality, has little meaning to the cultists.
Even more interesting is none of these “concerned” kids supported the female killed by Capitol Police, years ago. She was an Air Force Veteran, with no lethal weapon. But the Leftists didn’t support her because she too decent.
Her family got about $5 million in a settlement.
Clint R
” Even that video clearly shows her driving toward him. ”
You are a disgusting liar. Nothing new to me, however.
Bindi, when you cult kids call me names, like “disgusting liar”, “lying dog”, “Nazi”, or some such, just proves how immature and empty you all are. Which proves me right.
And, I really like being right!
You ARE a liar, Clint R, and you are NOT right.
But… I never would call you a ‘Nazi’; it is in fact rather your good friend-in-denial Stephen Paul Anderson who calls ME so.
Keep proving me right, Bindi.
I can take it.
Hey, Puffman, riddle me this –
The city of Minneapolis said a 6-month-old infant and a juvenile were hospitalized Wednesday night after federal agents reportedly fired tear gas at a vehicle.
According to the city, the Minneapolis Fire Department was called to the 600 block of 23rd Avenue North at 9:20 p.m. for a medical emergency.
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/tear-gas-deployed-by-federal-agents-reportedly-hospitalized-a-6-month-old-infant-and-juvenile/
How will you be able to flip this?
“Love has never been a popular movement. And no one’s ever wanted, really, to be free. The world is held together, really it is held together, by the love and the passion of a very few people. Otherwise, of course, you can despair. Walk down the street of any city, any afternoon, and look around you. What you’ve got to remember is what you’re looking at is also you. Everyone you’re looking at is also you. You could be that person. You could be that monster, you could be that cop. And you have to decide, in yourself, not to be.” — James Baldwin
“Even more interesting is none of these “concerned” kids supported the female killed by Capitol Police, years ago. She was an Air Force Veteran, with no lethal weapon. But the Leftists didn’t support her because she too decent.”
Gee, a right winger denying the right to shoot someone who is violently breaking into your house?
Or the right of a bank guard to shoot someone violently breaking into his bank.
In this case, the ‘house’ is full of Congress people, who the cops are there to protect.
Interesting double standard you apply there.
I’m not exactly known for praising Robertson: His constant pseudoscientific arguments and lies get on my nerves (and not just mine).
But today I’ll make an exception: I applaud his upright stance on the brutal murder of Renee Good, which is reminiscent of fascist dictatorships, not of a nation we thought would uphold democratic principles.
Bindidon: Those brainwashed far-left protestors are like members of Stasi, the infamous secret police of East Germany. They collect information like agent’s name, address, family members, friends, etc. Then they start to persistently harass those agents especially with malicious intent. These paid violent protesters are criminals. You don’t step on the pedal when you have officers surrounding your vehicle and especially if you have one right in front of your car.
MaxC
You don’t have the least clue about was the STASI has been.
I live in Germany since 50 years, spent decades in Western Berlin and live since 2000 50 km south of Berlin.
My lady’s family is spread around Berlin, and we visited many of these people between 1980 and 1989 (the Wall’s breakdown); we were perfectly informed about the political terror installed by the Eastgerman regime as a smaller but perfect copy of the USSR’s KGB.
*
Here is the top of the English Wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi
which can inform you about STASI and how disgusting you are when comparing people in the US who get sad of being invaded, threatened by what is becoming a kínd of US secret police.
*
” The Ministry for State Security (German: Ministerium für Staatssicherheit, abbreviated MfS), commonly known as the Stasi (an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the intelligence service and secret police of East Germany (the German Democratic Republic) from 1950 to 1990. It was one of the most repressive police organisations in the world, infiltrating almost every aspect of life in East Germany, using torture, intimidation, and a vast network of informants to crush dissent.
The function of the Stasi in East Germany resembled that of the KGB in the Soviet Union, in that it served to maintain state authority and the position of the ruling party, in this case the Socialist Unity Party of Germany (SED). This was accomplished primarily through the use of tens of thousands of civilian informants called unofficial collaborators, who contributed to the arrest of approximately 250,000 people in the GDR alone. It also had a large elite paramilitary force, the Felix Dzerzhinsky Guards Regiment, that served as its armed wing. Known as “the shield and the sword of the party”, the Stasi locked up opponents of the regime. Officers tortured prisoners by isolating them, depriving them of sleep and using psychological tricks such as threatening to arrest relatives. ”
*
You are such a a ridiculous, useful idiot, behaving like ultra far right people at WUWT, who insulted me a decade ago as a GESTAPO guy just because I oppoosed my technical knowledge to their polemical ignorance.
*
What you apparently don#t want to see is that not the people protesting against ICE are the violent people: the ICE guys are the violent people who remind me the brutality of secret police all around the world.
*
I wouldn#t wonder if you too were a walthy, far right thinking person who has nothing against ICE brutally arresting anf threatening immigrants.
*
I also never will forget the Spanish Guardia Civil henchmen who terrified the population in Spain during Franco’s dictature till 1975. I have been there, MaxC; were YOU?
*
Finally, my personal impression is that you have no idea of
– what a dictatorship really is
let alone
– how it begins to exist and subsist.
You might like:
ICE unleashes ONSLAUGHT of flash bang grenades and chemical ammunition at unarmed Minneapolis protesters in WAR-LIKE attack. Several protesters struck. Our reporter
@zdroberts.bsky.social struck in the head.
“I got hit in the head really bad.” LIVE NOW
https://bsky.app/profile/statuscoupnews.bsky.social/post/3mcgmkpcbnk2a
You might also like:
Four Oglala Lakota men kidnapped by ICE in Minneapolis have finally been located. One of them was released but the other 3 are being held at Fort Snelling, a former concentration camp used to imprison Native people incl. the Dakota 38 during Dakota Wars.
https://ictnews.org/news/north-central-bureau/four-oglala-detainees-located-three-still-in-ice-custody/
ICE abducted and injured (bruised cheek) a 1-year old who is the daughter of a US citizen detained as part of a Kavanaugh Stop.
https://abc7.com/post/federal-agents-allegedly-drive-off-baby-car-father-detained-cypress-park-raid/18140560/
Dozing Donald:
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mcfuvabfbb2f
“Even Chavez was elected democratically, but he used democracy against democracy in order to remain in power. That’s not really the intent of democracy.” — Carlos Gimenez
Willard: Instead of bullets and pepper spray, ICE should use non-lethal sonic weapons like LRAD. American forces used LRAD successfully in Venezuela and wiped out hundreds of fighters without losing a single soldier. This technology is mainly used for crowd-control purposes.
Max,
Instead of pushing Puffman’s DARVO, you should have tried to support our Ivy Leaguer’s bothsidesism:
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/minneapolis-ice-shooting-renee-good/
This will remain your most memorable contribution to this blog. So perhaps you should try to come back under another sock puppet? It worked so well for Puffman.
All this not to release the Epstein file.
Meanwhile, have some special accomplishment tokens:
https://bsky.app/profile/zooples.bsky.social/post/3mcgwwbl7gk2f
“It was not Hitler or Himmler who abducted me, beat me, and shot my family. It was the shoemaker, the milkman, the neighbor, who received an uniform and believed they were the master race.” — Karl Stojka, Auschwitz survivor.
MaxC
You are maybe an avid viewer of NewsMax, where nothing has to be supported and everything they claim is true? What is your evidence of “paid violent protesters and criminals”?
That you can support the current tactics of ICE as acceptable shows you do not understand the USA system at all. From what I see the nasty tactics of ICE agents (I have watched many videos) is the only thing provoking protests. Decent US citizens that are watching our Nation turn into a Fascist Authoritarian Government with armed guards using terror tactics to keep any dissent quiet. Either you are a Russian Troll or a sad human! You should be protesting this horrid ICE tactic yourself if you care about the health of the USA!!
The trio of Willard, Norman, and Bindi gang up on MaxC. But I doubt MaxC is concerned as three times zero is still zero.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) warned in a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday that Dozing Donald’s talk of seizing Greenland by force threatens to “incinerate” the nation’s long-standing ties with NATO allies.
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5689375-mitch-mcconnell-trump-greenland-threat/
How many clowns can your bandwagon fit, two and a half?
“KEEP PROTESTING – TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!” – Dozing Donald
Willard: Greenland is a Danish overseas colony. Greenland belongs to inuits, so let them decide. If Trump pays 100.000 dollars per head as promised, it may help to make the right decision. Anyway, there should not be colonies in the 21st century.
Max,
I’ll raise you Puorto Rico and all the other Murican territories, so you’re once again overplaying your hand.
Here’s where this is going:
https://www.toptradersunplugged.com/podcast/when-capitalism-reboots-and-crashes-again-ft-mark-blyth/
Angrynomics has already been tried. It failed so hard millions of people died.
You’re just a sucker who defends the concentration of power.
” Anyway, there should not be colonies in the 21st century.”
Such as Puerto Rico? Guam? US Virgin Islands? You would add Greenland to those?
I assume you would also agree that there should not be military agression, or threats of it, to take other countries’ territory (Greenland), or natural resources (Venezuelan oil) in the 21st century.
It is shocking that in the 21st century, many European countries are just now sending some troops to Greenland to discourage the United States from threatening it.
Is this strange MaxC guy stupid, naive or brazen?
No idea.
Maybe he has a look at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4N3r16NWuY
and then reads the comments written by people having watched this video.
*
Here is what we read about Greenlanders’ meaning about the Trumping boy’s megalomaniacal idiocy:
” Between Greenland’s icebergs and the Northern Lights, the atmosphere is anything but idyllic: US President Donald Trump’s repeated demands that Greenland become part of the United States have thrust the island into the global spotlight. Trump’s recent announcement that they are “about to do something to the island, whether they like it or not” has put the inhabitants on high alert.
“Make America go away”
The message from the people is clear: a sale is out of the question. Many Greenlanders fear that a US takeover could jeopardize their rights as an indigenous people. Their cultural identity is at stake.
Despite the Greenlanders’ difficult relationship with Denmark—the island was formerly a Danish colony—a large portion of the now largely autonomous country also does not want to be part of the US. ”
*
The US and its current dictator will invade Greenland whether the US people (except the MAGA idiots of course) like it or not.
*
MaxC’s 100,000 dollar nonsense is of such a stupidity…
Bindidon:
> MaxC’s 100,000 dollar nonsense is of such a stupidity…
That would be less than 6000 millions of dollars. That is pocket money for the US. Nonsense or not, it may work.
FREE Kalâtdlit Nunât aka FREE Greenland!
Bindy, is this yet another area that you think you have all the Answers?
There are a number of people of Greenland who would prefer USA to the EU.
It also depends if the USA wants a decent military base to protect USA, Greenland, Iceland, and Europe from the Russians.
Oh the propaganda runs deep in this one.
“Max” is pre-defending a military takeover of Greenland by selling the soft-shoe per capita “purchase.”
Come on, Max, tell me I’ve got you all wrong. Say out loud that you think the US taking Greenland vby force would be a criminal act of international aggression.
Then we might take your notions of buying the country from the citizens (????) as being something more serious than one of various fig-leaf nothingburgers to justify US right to take Greenland by any means.
Because of the US just decided to take the country militarily, you’d go along with that, wouldn’t you?
Tell me if i’m right about that, please? Make a clear statement, I challenge you.
Bindi, Nate, Willard, barry, Norman, and all the other cult kids, are so far behind it’s not even funny. Their TDS has them running in circles. Trump is playing 12th Dimensional Chess and the cult kids can’t even learn to play checkers. Trump wins before they figure out the game has started.
Just like with Maduro….
Clint R
Most certainly you are as deluded by Trump’s constant lies as you are self-deluded in thinking your nonsense science is in any way valid. You can’t understand insulating effect and your limited thought process cannot understand how the Moon rotating on its axis once per lunar orbit keeps the same side of the Moon facing Earth. But the Sun knows it rotates once around 28 days. Hence 14 days of light and 14 days of night. No one can convince you of your ignorance. But you are quite the child brain. You have never grown up.
Norman, I can see you are suffering from cognitive decline. I hear they have some new medications now that are very effective. You should consult a specialist.
Get help.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
Tired: Committing fraud, getting a pardon by Dozing Donald
Wired: Committing fraud again, getting a pardon by Dozing Donald again
https://bsky.app/profile/jeisinger.bsky.social/post/3mckrk4mqxc2e
Did you know that in 1943 Knut Hamsun sent his Nobel medal to Joseph Goebbels as a token of his admiration?
Stock market at record highs today.
And there is also this:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FILdeZECZUU
Stock markets hit record highs under numerous presidents dozens and hundreds of times. 66 times in 2021 alone.
You might as well say summer happened during Trump’s presidency and give him a tick for it.
You really are a colossal eejit.
If you want to check the pulse of the economy you look at a raft of indicators, job growth and cost of living being front-runners.
“When you think of it, we shouldn’t even have an election.” — Dozing Donald