Home/BlogThe Version 6.1 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for September, 2026 was +0.61 deg. C departure from the 1991-2020 mean, down from the August, 2026 value of +0.68 deg. C.
The Version 6.1 global area-averaged linear temperature trend (January 1979 through September 2026) remains at +0.16 deg/ C/decade (+0.22 C/decade over land, +0.13 C/decade over oceans).
The following table lists various regional Version 6.1 LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 33 months (record highs are in red).
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
| 2024 | Jan | +0.80 | +1.02 | +0.57 | +1.20 | -0.19 | +0.40 | +1.12 | +0.97 |
| 2024 | Feb | +0.88 | +0.94 | +0.81 | +1.16 | +1.31 | +0.85 | +1.16 | +2.45 |
| 2024 | Mar | +0.88 | +0.96 | +0.80 | +1.25 | +0.22 | +1.05 | +1.34 | +1.12 |
| 2024 | Apr | +0.94 | +1.12 | +0.76 | +1.15 | +0.86 | +0.88 | +0.54 | +1.39 |
| 2024 | May | +0.77 | +0.77 | +0.78 | +1.20 | +0.04 | +0.20 | +0.52 | +0.67 |
| 2024 | June | +0.69 | +0.78 | +0.60 | +0.85 | +1.36 | +0.63 | +0.91 | +0.19 |
| 2024 | July | +0.73 | +0.86 | +0.61 | +0.96 | +0.44 | +0.56 | -0.07 | +1.15 |
| 2024 | Aug | +0.75 | +0.81 | +0.69 | +0.74 | +0.40 | +0.88 | +1.75 | +1.36 |
| 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 | +0.89 |
| 2024 | Nov | +0.64 | +0.87 | +0.40 | +0.53 | +1.11 | +0.79 | +1.00 | +1.61 |
| 2024 | Dec | +0.61 | +0.75 | +0.47 | +0.52 | +1.41 | +1.12 | +1.54 | +1.65 |
| 2025 | Jan | +0.45 | +0.70 | +0.21 | +0.24 | -1.07 | +0.74 | +0.48 | +1.04 |
| 2025 | Feb | +0.50 | +0.55 | +0.45 | +0.26 | +1.03 | +2.10 | +0.87 | -0.35 |
| 2025 | Mar | +0.57 | +0.73 | +0.41 | +0.40 | +1.24 | +1.23 | +1.20 | +0.80 |
| 2025 | Apr | +0.61 | +0.76 | +0.46 | +0.36 | +0.81 | +0.85 | +1.21 | +0.45 |
| 2025 | May | +0.50 | +0.45 | +0.55 | +0.30 | +0.15 | +0.75 | +0.98 | +0.81 |
| 2025 | June | +0.48 | +0.48 | +0.47 | +0.30 | +0.80 | +0.05 | +0.39 | -0.22 |
| 2025 | July | +0.36 | +0.49 | +0.23 | +0.45 | +0.32 | +0.40 | +0.53 | -0.23 |
| 2025 | Aug | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.39 | +0.16 | -0.06 | +0.82 | +0.11 | +0.62 |
| 2025 | Sep | +0.53 | +0.56 | +0.49 | +0.35 | +0.38 | +0.77 | +0.30 | +2.44 |
| 2025 | Oct | +0.53 | +0.52 | +0.55 | +0.24 | +1.12 | +1.42 | +1.67 | +2.59 |
| 2025 | Nov | +0.43 | +0.59 | +0.27 | +0.24 | +1.32 | +0.78 | +0.36 | +1.47 |
| 2025 | Dec | +0.30 | +0.45 | +0.15 | +0.19 | +2.10 | +0.32 | +0.37 | -1.86 |
| 2026 | Jan | +0.35 | +0.51 | +0.19 | +0.09 | +0.30 | +1.40 | +0.95 | +1.17 |
| 2026 | Feb | +0.39 | +0.54 | +0.23 | +0.03 | +1.91 | -0.48 | +0.73 | +0.32 |
| 2026 | Mar | +0.38 | +0.33 | +0.42 | +0.07 | +3.74 | -0.48 | +1.14 | -3.17 |
| 2026 | Apr | +0.39 | +0.43 | +0.34 | +0.23 | +1.20 | +0.30 | +0.70 | -0.89 |
| 2026 | May | +0.53 | +0.46 | +0.60 | +0.58 | +0.21 | +0.34 | +0.10 | +0.21 |
| 2026 | June | +0.46 | +0.54 | +0.38 | +0.57 | +0.64 | +1.01 | +0.38 | +0.99 |
| 2026 | July | +0.48 | +0.68 | +0.27 | +0.85 | +1.14 | +0.53 | -0.22 | +0.78 |
| 2026 | Aug | +0.68 | +0.76 | +0.59 | +0.90 | +0.60 | +0.80 | +0.39 | +0.71 |
| 2026 | Sep | +0.61 | +0.78 | +0.44 | +0.89 | +1.32 | +0.80 | +1.13 | +0.99 |
| Year | Mon | Globe | NHem | SHem | Tropic | US48 | Arctic | Aust. | Can. |
Time Series Plots for Tropics, USA48, Canada, and Australia
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly map for September, 2026 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:
A second-order polynomial fits the observation than a a linear model; the slope of the polynomial is currently 0.29 C per decade.
Why do you prefer a polynomial over a linear fit? Polynomials rarely have any predictive value – especially at edges.
The 2nd order polynomial fits better than a linear model, so it’s a better description of the observations over the 1979-2026 period. It shows that there has been an acceleration of warming.
I didn’t say anything about prediction, and agree that extrapolation is risky. But the linear model likely also has poor predictive value, given the observed acceleration of warming.
I didn’t expect civility on a site like this, but I’m genuinely surprised by how factional some people are.
I was interested to know why Arthur Groot wanted to make mention of a 2nd order poly. I suspected it was to show acceleration, but thought I’d make it an open question.
If you want to say this data supports an accelerating trend, you are free to do so thanks to Dr Roys benevolence in providing this space. In my view, it does not.
The linear trend is self-evidently upwards but the real question is how likely is the current positive trend to be chance, given the clear excursions from any simple fit?
You [AG] didn’t say anything about prediction, but that is why we fit curves to data, and it seems you are predicting acceleration based on a polynomial fit, which I’ll leave to those more qualified in statistics than I to comment on (as some have).
Arthur Groot is absolutely right, no idea why this poster ‘Dixon’ tries to discredit 2nd order polynomials compared to linear trends.
Here is a comparison of linear vs. 2nd vs. 6th order trends for UAH 6.1 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Llq69HBQsRdI0CWzCqFmRB–Xv9VJtLv/view
Anyone can see that
– the linear trend drastically underestimates the warming shown by the 2nd order poly, despite the fact that the latter has a much higher intersection with the y-axis;
– nothing in the 2nd order looks like causing problems ‘especially at edges’, as even the 6th order looks quite OK.
*
And as Arthur Groot explained, he just wanted to show a trend over an existing time series.
Poster Dixon’s prose reminds me… WUWT.
Why would you make a really rude and dumb comment to criticize someone making a very intelligent comment? I think I know.
Tim S,
“…a very intelligent comment”
Come again? Arthur G correctly stated that a second-order polynomial fits the observation better and Dixon replied “Why do you prefer a polynomial over a linear fit!”
BECAUSE IT FITS THE OBSERVATION BETTER. Duh.
Gadden,
A parabola is a second order polynomial. Does it look like a parabola?
stephen p anderson wrote “Does it look like a parabola?”
I’m not sure if he’s joking or if he’s just mathematically illiterate. Either way, the answer is that the (smoothed) temperature curve looks similar to a SEGMENT of a parabola. A parabola is a symmetrical bowl-shaped graph which obviously has a different shape.
Oh really? Which segment?
The question about acceleration really rests on an explanation of the sudden rise in 2023. That observation is not in dispute. The important question is why? If it was something fundamental that will persist, then there may have been an acceleration. If it was a transient effect, then we have to wait and see what that effect was, and how long it lasts. The 2 leading candidates are Hunga-Tonga and low sulfur ship fuel. There could be many other effects or combination of effects. ENSO is always a consideration.
Even it was a short term acceleration, the long term trend could change up or down to either support or refute the claim. We all have to be patient and follow the science instead of watching shiny objects such as incompetent statistical analysis.
If a quadratic fits the full record better than a linear model, then evidence for acceleration obviously does not rest solely on explaining the single year 2023.
[“ENSO is always a consideration.”]
Funny how you previously dismissed ENSO as an explanation for global temperature behavior over the past three years:
“ENSO effects seem highly unlikely”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/03/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-february-2026-0-39-deg-c/#comment-1736433
Funny how some people will find anything to argue about even if it makes no sense at all.
The acceleration is the result of the higher Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI). A reduction is aerosols is almost certainly a contributing factor to the higher EEI.
Arthur,
A polynomial may fit better but does it actually help explain what the underlying issues are?
We know Hunga Tonga eruption had an effect but has probably dissipated now.
We know the removal of particle pollution in the atmosphere had an effect and still does.
We know the change in the albedo due to the greening of the planet has an ongoing effect.
We know wind speed has an effect on the oceans albedo and that change has long cycles
Etcetera etcetera etcetera
So all these effects form part of the overall change. So how does the polynomial best fit actually help? Or does it hinder by making it appear to be simplistic
“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” ~ some attribute to Mark Twain (but disputed by others).
Polynomial (or linear) curve fits are indeed descriptive rather than explanatory. They do indicate that warming is accelerating, however.
The list of contributing causes should be headed by these two:
The net emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere have accelerated (from 1.6 ppm annually in the 1980s to 2.6 ppm annually in the 2020s).
Earth’s albedo has declined over the same period, mainly due to decreased ice and snow cover (a climate change feedback) and to changes in cloud cover. Increased vegetation cover has also contributed to planetary darkening.
“So all these effects form part of the overall change. So how does the polynomial best fit actually help?”
A trend line estimates long-term change, not short-term fluctuations. That’s the point of them.
” Why would you make a really rude and dumb comment to criticize someone making a very intelligent comment? I think I know. ”
*
I was quite sure that the ‘Big Reveal’ boy Tim S would as usual come along with his regularly incompetent reactions on what I write.
*
Maybe I should download all still available Tim S posts from the blog, so he might look at how he himself behaves, especially against me? Less rude indeed, but insulting in a decent, subliminal way, and often enough incompetent, if not even… way dumber than I could ever do.
*
Except ignoramuses and self-overestimating persons, most people watching this blog might very well understand that linear estimates never could explain the behavior of time series with the accuracy and flexibility provided by polynomials.
Who fits an nth order polynomial trend line (quadratic, cubic, or even higher-degree) to a time series, is – like in the linear case – also minimizing the total squared distance (residuals) between the actual data points and the trend line; but this is done in a way much nearer to the time series.
*
No one needs to use polynomials (let alone in first order aka linear trends) to ‘predict‘ anything: anyway, trends are in my opinion much more projections than predictions, the latter being based on real, context dependent experience rather than on abstract mathematical evaluation as are the former.
*
Another example is Thomas Frederikse’s highly complex sea level data evaluation – here restricted to the sat era:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vFybaLshhv7v1V5xJ1rChZErppQPpj6d/view
Looking solely at linear trends over a whole period lets you overlook that while the linear trend for Frederikse’s PMSML series is 1.5 mm/year for 1900-2018, this trend moves from 2.5 mm/year since 1979 to 3.4 mm/year since 1993: exactly what the polynomial shows.
To show acceleration is not the intention of second order polynomials, but is their result instead.
*
The Big Reveal boy is unable to technically contradict me, and thus can only resort to cheap polemic.
In the past, you, and the rest of the clown show with people using pet names and rude insults, used to wait a few days, after a new post, before bringing the trash talk and rude arguments to the blog. That gave people who wanted to have a fully polite and technical conversation the opportunity to exchange ideas for a few days. Now, some of you people show up on day one. That is disappointing to me.
The other option is to just behave yourself.
Yes — a higher order polynomial almost always fits better than a lower order polynomial. The question is whether that better fit is useful/statistically significant. And here I don’t think it is. The data is noisy and the acceleration can shift dramatically.
Here are some accelerations from the start until various points (somewhere within the listed year)(C/decade^2)
1998 0.188
2001 0.113
2008 -0.007
2016 0.001
2023 0.004
2026 0.027
So, we had a huge positive number once. Then a negative number. Then close to no acceleration. In the past ~ 3 years, the value has gone way up again. Any “true, statistically significant” acceleration is lost in the noise.
It is true that acceleration in warming from the start of the series has varied with the length of the series. But it is also true that the series currently exhibits “true, statistically significant” acceleration.
A linear fit provides an adjusted R2 of 0.559 and an AIC of -243.8. The quadratic fit is better with an adjusted R2 of 0.583 and an AIC of-274.6. The curvilinear fit is statistically significant.
The endless discussion over which polynomial degree that best describes the T departure over time is quite amusing, as if any of them would be able to hold any predictive value.
Are we looking at the same plot of data? The UAH curve shows no apparent cyclical behaviour that can be described with a simple curve fit method.
I think Javier Vinos describes this quite well “the climate experienced over decades is the result of climate regimes established following an abrupt climate shift”.
This description fits quite well with the time series plot of T. The climate is set into a mode that lasts a few years. The characteristics of the mode have different impact on global T. Given that the time series at hand only spans over 50 years, on could assume that the same pattern also can be observed over a larger time scale. If so, the abrupt regime changes needs to be understood and what triggers them, aswell as how different climate modes affect global T. No curve fit polynomial will be able to take that into account.
Javier has a tough time with the concept of acceleration:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/02/17/only-connect/
“But prediction” often comes after “but modulz”, often without any consideration for the kind of models involved.
Arthur, but is that truly a significant gain? Yes, the parabola has a better R^2 than a straight line, but even random data will have a better R^2 with a parabola than a straight line. A more sophisticated analysis is needed to determine whether the small improvement is indeed significant, or if it is just curve-fitting random fluctuations. (And I don’t have the software or time to pursue that question in more detail atm).
David, I find your explanation even less satisfying than any of the polynomial fits. “The climate is set into a mode that lasts a few years. ”
A linear fit shows a statistically significant linear trend for temperature. This can be scientifically related to various long-term trends in climate drivers (eg more CO2).
A parabola can be tied to rates of changes. At this point an acceleration may or may not bet statistically significant (my eyeball analysis).
But proposing sudden, unexplained shifts with unexplained magnitudes occurring at unexplained times has neither scientific basis nor statistical basis.
“If so, the abrupt regime changes needs to be understood … “. That is part of your job when championing a new hypothesis. Until you can 1) show such shifts occur and/or 2) show some physical basis for the shifts, you really don’t have much.
Folkerts actually gets this one right:
“Yes– a higher order polynomial almost always fits better than a lower order polynomial. The question is whether that better fit is useful/statistically significant. And here I don’t think it is. The data is noisy and the acceleration can shift dramatically.”
Dr. Spencer once used the phrase “torturing the data”. That means ‘twisting data to fit your beliefs’. A “higher order polynomial” typically responds quicker than a simple linear average. So if you want to imply a trend is “accelerating”, you want to use some mathematical trick that catches that. But, all you’re doing is capturing the short term trend.
Always remember:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics
Anyone who believes there is no acceleration in the UAH tropospheric temperature data should take a good look at https://datagraver.com/climate-data-set-uah/
The last graph there, showing the 30-year running average, is obviously the least noisiest. It is clearly a convex graph (i.e. its second time derivative is mostly positive). So on the whole, it shows an acceleration, so far. Can we put this question to rest now?
Gadden, do you know that you can get an even higher “acceleration” using a weighted moving average?
But torturing the data ain’t science.
In the surface data, there is less variability of the monthly global average.
After removal of ENSO, volcanic and solar contributions, acceleration is statistically evident.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2025GL118804
“Recent record-hot years have caused discussion over whether global warming has accelerated. Previous analysis found acceleration (i.e., increase in warming rate) has not yet reached a 95% confidence level, given natural temperature variability. We remove the estimated influence of three main natural variability factors: El Niño, volcanism, and solar variation. The resulting adjusted and thus less “noisy” data show that there has been acceleration with over 98% confidence, with faster warming over the last 10+ years than during any previous decade.”
Clint R wrote “But torturing the data ain’t science.”
Taking multidecadal running averages of a noisy signal to filter out the noise ain’t data torturing.
Three questions for you:
1. Why do signal processing electronics virtually always include low pass filtering?
2. Why is 30-year averaging “torturing the data” while monthly averaging is not?
3. What’s your university-level background in math amd physics? (I ask because I want to know how much I need to dumb down explanations for you.)
@Tim Folkerts
“But proposing sudden, unexplained shifts with unexplained magnitudes occurring at unexplained times has neither scientific basis nor statistical basis.”
The sudden shifts are observable, and on larger time scales there are plenty of evidence of sudden shifts in the climate of large magnitudes, obvious examples are the glacial periods. Their transitioning events have distinct beginning and ending patterns and are scientifically well established.
The glacial event type behavior cannot be well predicted with a polynomial curve and their historical existence supports the hypothesis of sudden events affecting climate.
So, there is reason to believe that the underlying behavior on shorter timescales also can be nonlinear and event-driven.
Gadden, happy to help you:
1) Signal processing electronics do NOT “virtually always include low-pass filtering”. Any design depends on the application. There is also high-pass, band-pass, and notch-filtering.
2) “Torturing the data” refers to using techniques to pervert actual data to support false beliefs.
3) I don’t like to brag about my broad background in both education and experience. But, you don’t have to get any dumber. Instead, you should be trying to learn.
DAVID SAYS: “The sudden shifts are observable”
But are they really? When I hear “sudden shifts” every few years, I think “Monckton Pauses”. Ie ‘there were sudden shift in 1998, 2016, and 2024, followed by steady eras’. But that doesn’t explain the data any better than a continued climb with random variations.
Perhaps you can describe the distinct “climate regimes” you see every few years over the past decades, and when each started and stopped. Ideally with a statistical analysis backing up your claims.
Clint R,
“Signal processing electronics do NOT virtually always include low-pass filtering”.
Yes, they do. The keywords here are “virtually” and “include”.
“Any design depends on the application. There is also high-pass, band-pass, and notch-filtering.”
Yes of course. You sure like stating the obvious. Too bad you’re also wrong about many things.
“Torturing the data refers to using techniques to pervert actual data to support false beliefs.”
Yes, of course. But you’re the one falsely suggesting that averaging over time is data torturing. How come you people never understand averaging and act like it’s some kind of witchcraft? I think I was around ten years old, probably younger than that, when I understood averaging.
“I don’t like to brag about my broad background in both education and experience”.
I take it the answer to my question about your education is that you don’t have any college level education in math and physics then.
Gadden, resorting to making false accusations is tantamount to admitting you’re a cult child, like several others here.
Is that how you want to be?
Regardless of whether warming is accelerating, even a conservative linear fit applied to Dr. Spencer’s 5-yr-smoothed series yields an R^2 of 0.88.
I think the new Monckton Pause just grew a bit longer.
44 months.
Very interesting!
The September Global anomaly is slightly lower than August. And that’s even with ENSO ablaze:
https://postimg.cc/rzHxww3w
I call that a slight win for the Polar Vortex, which has been also raging hitting max wind speeds close to 300mph. But as the PV moves to the North, ENSO will win, resulting in much higher anomaly for October.
As others have noted, El Niño results in ocean cooling. As seen from the chart above, the other oceans are already cool. After this El Niño is finished we’re likely heading for global cooling. Is this lomg natural warming trend finally over?
No.
El Niño is active in the north-central Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/r2vG8jqP/himawari9-ir-26-W-202610021630.gif
Yes, it is very likely the warming across the latest 60-70 year cycle is over. As we move into the next cool phase, global temperatures will start to fall. We are also likely heading into a La Nina after the El Nino ends. The PDO is also likely to remain negative which increases the 60-70 year cycle’s cooling effect.
It will take awhile for the warm oceans to cool. However, with Hunga-Tonga further in the rearview mirror, the cooling will be hard for alarmists to explain.
“We are also likely heading into a La Nina after the El Nino ends.”
The fact that Richard has to bolster his long term cyclical cooling forecast with short term variations like La Niña speaks to how desperate he is.
Elrosion provides us an interesting look at bad logic. A La Nina is short term. It actually provides an excuse NOT to consider the long term cooling which the 60-70 year cycle will bring with it. I fully expect alarmists to use it to ignore the cyclic cool phase when it first takes control.
OTOH, Hunga-Tonga continuing to have its warming effect disappear could be considered a boost to long term cooling as does a negative PDO.
In reality, they are all just things to consider going forward after the current El Nino ends. Only Hunga-Tonga effects might be considered controversial.
Richard,
The planet isn’t going to experience long term cooling until the energy imbalance on the planet drops below zero.
HT put 150 MtH2O in the stratosphere a lot of which has already decayed. Since the HT eruption about 10,000 MtCO2 has accumulated in the stratosphere and it continues to rise.
Bdgwx, EEI increases have been mainly driven by increases in solar energy. This in turn was mainly due to cloud reductions (and ice). The 60-70 year cycle is what led to the reduction in both areas. As the cool phase gets going you will see increases in both clouds and sea ice. That will drop your energy imbalance below zero.
Most of the Hunga-Tonga warming also was closely tied to cloud reductions. That influence should also be waning.
CO2 is a well mixed gas. The increases are proportional throughout the atmosphere (the stratosphere is not special). This keeps the flow of energy to space by CO2 constant as Kirchhoff’s Law demands.
Richard M,
Changes in clouds and ice are feedbacks, not forcing. Obviously clouds and ice don’t start behaving differentiy by themselves. Can you think of any huge climate forcing today, stronger than any known climate forcing, per century, in Earth’s history?
And Hunga Tonga’s net effect was cooling.
Gadden says: “Changes in clouds and ice are feedbacks, not forcing”
Turns out they are both.
The changes in clouds/ice are feedbacks to the 60-70 cycle. The Hunga-Tonga eruption also forced changes in clouds.
Global temperature is a feedback to the changes in absorbed solar energy which is driven by the changes in clouds/ice.
As you can see, clouds/ice are both feedbacks and forcings. You just need to look at the details.
Considering the EEI, Dr. Spencer makes a compelling argument in one of his blog posts, where he points out that satellites cannot measure natural energy flows with sufficient absolute accuracy to resolve an imbalance as small as the current EEI:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2022/03/why-recent-warming-blamed-on-humans-is-largely-a-matter-of-faith/
Richard M,
Fixed it for you:
“The changes in clouds/ice are feedbacks to the 60-70 cycle.”
No. The changes in clouds/ice are feedbacks of the warming of the planet.
“Global temperature is a feedback to the changes in absorbed solar energy which is driven by the changes in clouds/ice.”
No. Global temperature increase is a RESULT of forcings (primarily the increase of greenhouse gases) and positive feedbacks (including increased absorbed solar energy due to changes in clouds and ice which in turn are caused by the warming.)
“As you can see, clouds/ice are both feedbacks and forcings.”
No. Changes of clouds (low -> high, tropics -> polewards) and ice (less ice) are of course not forcings. How could they be? Do you even know what a forcing is?
Gadden claims: “The changes in clouds/ice are feedbacks of the warming of the planet.”
Pseudoscience at its worst. The good news is you will find this out very soon with the 60-70 year cycle phase change happening now.
“Changes of clouds (low -> high, tropics -> polewards) and ice (less ice) are of course not forcings. How could they be? Do you even know what a forcing is?”
I guess this one truly believes clouds and ice have no effect on the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth. Hilarious.
Richard M,
“I guess this one truly believes clouds and ice have no effect on the amount of solar energy absorbed by Earth.”
My goodness. That’s a strawman argument in its ‘finest’. Climate feedbacks BY DEFINITION have effects on Earth temperature, in this case by affecting the amount of solar energy absorbed. The point is that a feedback isn’t a forcing. How can you not understand this?
Gadden says: “The point is that a feedback isn’t a forcing. How can you not understand this?”
If (A) is causing a change to something else (B), (A) is clearly a forcing on that item and (B) is a feedback. If that something else (B) then causes yet another change (C). Then (B) is both a feedback to (A) and a forcing on (C).
A -> B -> C
B is a feedback to A
C is a feedback to B
A is a forcing on B
B is a forcing on C
Notice that B is both a forcing and a feedback.
Richard M,
As I thought. You don’t understand what ‘forcing’ and ‘feedback’ mean in climate science. Here’s how it works:
If A is a root cause of a global average temperature change (B), A is a climate forcing and the temperature change (B) is a direct RESULT of that forcing. Now, If that warming (B) then causes ANOTHER change to the climate system, for example ice melting, cloud changes, vegetation change, changed atmospheric water vapour content, etc. (C) that ALSO has a temperature-changing effect, then C is a climate feedback. A feedback either amplifies (positive feedback) or reduces (negative feedback) the temperature effect set in motion by the initial forcing.
See for example https://energyeducation.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Climate_feedback&mobileaction=toggle_view_desktop
Or just do a Google search using the three terms climate, forcing and feedback.
Gadden says: “You don’t understand what ‘forcing’ and ‘feedback’ mean …” Yes, I do know what those words mean and that was how I used them.
“… in climate science”.
I’m not “in” climate science. I’m using the normal usage. If climate science has decided to misuse these words that is their problem.
Of course I realized you were using the words differently. Maybe you should do a better job of understanding context. Most of the people commenting here are not climate pseudoscientists.
Keep in mind, your initial comment to me was “Changes in clouds and ice are feedbacks, not forcing.” You didn’t use “climate feedback” or “climate forcing”. Maybe you should attempt to communicate better.
“Yes, it is very likely the warming across the latest 60-70 year cycle is over. As we move into the next cool phase, global temperatures will start to fall.”
These cooling predictions are just funny now. ‘Skeptics’ having been pumping them out regularly for the past 20 years, oblivious to the appalling track record. If skeptics took bets I’d be a rich man.
There is considerable month to month variation due to weather noise.
September, for example had a 2 week cold snap in Antarctica, which caused a big reduction of the S. hemisphere T, while the N. hemisphere continued to be at near record levels.
It makes little sense to assign significance to the small monthly ups and downs of this short-term weather noise.
Very faint sunspots on the solar disk.
https://i.ibb.co/TDFLT317/latest.jpg
…and the Moon is in the 7th house, and Jupiter has aligned with Mars.
Very weak solar wind.
https://i.ibb.co/vCRxvdSf/tlv-graphic-2026-09-30-T02-48-Z-2026-10-02-T13-55-Z.png
It’s a song, Ren:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjxSCAalsBE
Both are Good Things, but the seventh house of what exactly?
… and our good old Sun’s solar cycle SC 25 is on the road to its 8th year:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c5UEqEHMt7Qegj0r8A1gf0NBtZzw8wJ4/view
It’s Marvelous! Looking for the SH-warming to kick in, once the late-great-NH-Monsoon finally fades.
The ozone hole over Antarctica.
https://i.ibb.co/BVWC78gS/gfs-toz-sh-f00.png
Third warmest September in the UAH history
2024 0.81
2023 0.79
2026 0.61
2025 0.52
2019 0.43
2020 0.40
2017 0.39
2016 0.30
1998 0.28
2021 0.26
https://i.postimg.cc/wjz4nhmT/202609UAH61month.png
Bellman, why is this only the “Third warmest September in the UAH history”?
Why was September anomaly “cooler” than August?
Do you understand any of the science, or do you just cherry pick the data?
Why are you obsessed with month to month noise?
Clint,
Twenty years from now Bellman will be posting, “This is the 17th warmest September in UAH history,” just to annoy you.
” As seen from the chart above… ”
https://i.postimg.cc/J4rqKyQZ/Screenshot-2026-10-02-at-9-46-48-AM.png
… the other oceans are already cool. ”
*
Typical post written by one of the creators of the genial ‘orbital motion without spin’.
*
Apart from the Southern Pacific which cools always during El Niño phases, anyone can see on ‘the chart above’ that
– the entire Arctic Ocean is warming
– the Northern Pacific is warming
– the Northern Atlantic is warming – including especially Mediterranean and Baltic seas, and even the Hudson Bay
– the Indian and Southern Atlantic Oceans are more warming than cooling.
Some can see green where we all see yellow…
https://i.ibb.co/bRJ6nxX9/r00-Northern-Hemisphere-ts-4km.png
News from the Greenland ice sheet’s surface mass balance
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K0aP5_KfNYRWigeXALvX3sPKKBwyRv3j/view
On Sep 22, the level in Gt not only is way higher than in years like 2012, 2019, 2016 but also higher than the long term mean for 1991-2020.
No country for old alarmists.
Snowfall in Greenland on September 8, 2026.
https://polarportal.dk/api/v1/serve-image/surface?image_name=1788914886592_SMB_combine_SM_day_EN_20260908.png
But this is not all the mass change. The overall mass balance has a downward trend.
https://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/resources/30/greenland-ice-loss-2002-2021/
Nate,
So typical of your ilk, you base your pygmy assumptions on a short period that isn’t even recent. 20 year range that ended 5 years ago.
Anon.
Simply pointing out that his graph is not the whole story. All of the curves he shows indicate a gain in mass. But that data does not count mass loss by iceberg calving.
For most of those years, there was a NET loss of mass.
Sorry this data makes you unconfortable.
Nate says:
“But this is not all the mass change. The overall mass balance has a downward trend.”
Indeed if one considers the 900 year pattern in Greenland ice sheet changes. https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/
We can expect ice loss particular in areas adjacent to the ocean. A totally natural pattern of climate change that has been going on for 9,000 years.
I think we have passed the 900 year peak a couple of years ago. Of course ENSO variation is going to get some folks excited even off the 900 year peak maybe for a few decades or so. Neptune the influence with the greatest endurance is currently parked right on top of the highest raw effect (not considering feedbacks). Saturn has just passed it. Strictly an estimate but it seems the actual temperature peaks are about 45degrees past the peak influence. Perhaps that may be a combination of positive feedbacks like ice loss where primary influence hasn’t waned a lot.
For Neptune it takes over 20 years to get to that estimated temperature peak, and Saturn has about 3 to 4 years. Uranus passed that point about 4 to 5 years ago. And Jupiter passed it in March 2024. Of course these are just estimates as it would require a fairly major modeling effort to pin it down and the public universities have other objectives. Jupiter is going to rotate around and pass through it again in July 2035 and Neptune will still be approaching it. Saturn and Uranus will be past it though. In a 900 year process stuff doesn’t happen fast. Much data for short term effects like less than a 100 years gets lost in the firn densification process and the technology doesn’t exist yet to find the variability between individual microscopic trapped air bubbles.
According to cliffnotes, air inside a bubble is usually younger than the surrounding ice matrix and the age gap can range from decades to thousands of years. Technology only recently developed is able to age this stuff down to a few hundred years. . .
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/386173696_Greenhouse_Gas_Measurements_in_Ice_Cores_A_Novel_Instrument_Shifts_Borders_in_Analytical_Precision_and_Resolution_Highlights_of_Analytical_Sciences_in_Switzerland
The most recent ice cores have reveal two Holocene climate optimums. One about 7000 years ago in time with the major long term planetary cycle of Neptune and Uranus and one about a 1,000 years ago in time with the major Jupiter and Saturn cycle. The timing of these peaks have been pretty consistent as shown my the CO2 coalition link I posted above which fingers the recent warming pattern of the post LIA to be consistent with ice core findings and quite likely our recent warming.
The last event of just Jupiter and Saturn which should be less than the recent 4 planet alignment occurred during the Viking settlement of Greenland. The recent ice retreat actually uncovered an old Viking homestead. But getting into the prediction market is frought with risk with such long term uncertainties about the natural climate change.
For 2017 your result shows a large mass loss in 2017, while GRACE shows no mass loss.
For 2019 your results show a mass gain for 2019, while GRACE shows a large mass loss.
Nate
Yes I know.
1. The Greenland Ice Sheet
https://promice.org/greenland-ice-sheet/
2. Greenland ice sheet mass balance from 1840 through next week
https://essd.copernicus.org/preprints/essd-2021-131/essd-2021-131.pdf
*
Until now, I only showed the SMB without subtracting the discharge nor the basal mass loss – just like did DMI.
I’ll change that when I have time enough to do.
Nate (cntnd)
I have updated the Greenland balance by including base melt and calving.
1. Superposed years
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-JwR5m_Hly-58S9DYsrz2z89xY6u0Xmp/view
This is a considerable change which is above all not evident at all. The years with negative balance differ from the pure SMB graph.
I had to stop the data by end of June cuz 2026 suddenly started plunging like a dead plane.
A graph comparing surface and bottom data from 2021 made the reason visible: the bottom data is incorrect.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YDCeAOZ_XAB8b-72u_ALUpldpEkBg-j3/view
*
2. Daily time series since 2010
I’m open for any result even if it shows less total loss than some imagine.
The daily graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19821KRyqwgncqgFSBCon0pg9-qQRftFl/view
Maybe this does not match your expectations…
*
I’ll now concentrate on this boring lunar spin stuff.
A yearly chart with yearly total mass data since 1840 then will follow.
“I’ll now concentrate on this boring lunar spin stuff.”
Does that mean you will finally have a viable model for “orbiting without spin”?
Where do you get the mass loss data?
Does this match the GRACE satellite measured mass gain/loss?
Nate
” Where do you get the mass loss data? ”
All data are from Promice, of course.
” Does this match the GRACE satellite measured mass gain/loss? ”
No idea, and sorry: it’s not my job to check.
Google AI’s opinion
Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus exert very minor gravitational and orbital influence on Earth’s temperature, primarily by subtly shifting Earth’s orbit, tilt, and cosmic dust patterns over long cycles, but their impact is minuscule compared to solar energy and human-driven greenhouse gases.
How the Outer Planets Influence Earth
• Gravitational Tugging and Orbital Cycles: Jupiter and Saturn slightly perturb Earth’s orbit and barycenter (the center of mass of the solar system). This changes how Earth receives sunlight over long astronomical cycles (part of Milankovitch cycles), but direct global temperature variations from this gravitational pull are extremely tiny—estimated around 0.012°C to minor cyclic modulations.
• The Mars Resonance Effect: Recent studies show that Mars interacts with Earth and other giant planets in long-term climate cycles (such as 10,000-year and 2.3-million-year patterns governing deep climate shifts), though Mars itself has very little direct mass-driven pull.
• Cosmic Dust Modulation: Giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn may modulate the flow of extraterrestrial cosmic dust and matter entering Earth’s atmosphere via their massive gravitational fields, which can theoretically influence cloud formation and slight climate variability.
• Uranus’s Role: Uranus is too distant and has a negligible gravitational footprint on Earth’s immediate orbital mechanics and climate cycles compared to Jupiter and Saturn.
*
Combined planetary orbital variations account for less than 0.3% of intra-annual and short-term temperature variation factors on Earth.
*
This info I definitely trust way, way more that that of a scienceless guy who discredits and denigrates the incredible work of hundreds of scientists who proved that the Moon spins about its polar axis in the same time as it orbits Earth.
Sorry Bindi, but you’re just clogging the blog again.
You don’t have anything close to a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Bindy Goebells,
Are you still confused about what LLMs are?
Let’s hope Q-Anon won’t say “random word generators” once again. Its “Google AI” relies on Gemini and others, but also on web scrapers and its usual ranking systems. Which means it often ends up summarizing official resources:
https://abovethelaw.com/2024/10/sam-alito-got-knighted-just-like-the-founding-fathers-explicitly-made-unconstitutional/
Let him ask his favorite buddy (he has one) if that’s correct.
The typhoon remains over the Mariana Islands, which will cause extensive damage to the islands.
Hurricane NOLO is raging in the Pacific.
https://i.ibb.co/Sj64myV/goes18-wv-rgb-15-E-202610030605.gif
SOLAR MININUM UPDATE
MDPI journals have become a clearing house for the kind of nonsense you can’t peddle through a reputable journal. Received on 23 June and published on the 3 August, the latest accretion of babble was brought to my attention by Toby Young. “Retired professor Stuart Harris is the latest scientist to dissent from the climate consensus” Young tweeted, linking to an article in the Daily Sceptic (tag line – question everything, stay sane, live free). The article at least links to the paper “Comparison of Recently Proposed Causes of Climate Change” by Dr Stuart Harris a retired professor of geography at the University of Calgary. The words “retired professor” are enough to give even the most sternly constituted climate scientist a case of the twitches.
https://diagrammonkey.wordpress.com/2023/08/17/yet-another-eminent-scientist/
So, look at France. This is the result of leftist ideology, uncontrolled immigration. When Biden was President, he said our immigration laws were broken. What’s changed? We still have the same immigration laws. Is it any coincidence we have another caravan moving up to the border prior to the election? Leftists promote chaos so they can offer their solution. Their plan. They always have a better plan. And people fall for that stupidity.
If you look closely at who is protesting it is a similar make-up to the protestors in the US. It is a collaboration between the Marxists and the Islamists. If you think about it there is no way this collaboration can survive. It is similar to Allies collaboration in WWII to defeat the Nazis. War makes strange bedfellows. Make no mistake, we are at war. No longer just political differences.
Stephen
So 2 authoritarian groups are generating the grievances, not a surprise.
When Trump gave his first state of the union speech, he wanted the poor communities to have help. That included the poor black communities. It was zero surprise to me that the black Democratics in the House didn’t even show any acknowledgement. They only get voted in by keeping the poor and the black in poverty-stricken conditions.
The Democrat run inner city has the same five characteristics of the antebellum plantation Kenneth Stampp described in his book “The Peculiar Institution:” (1) Broken families, (2) Dilapidated Housing, (3) Subsistence living but never getting ahead, (4) High degree of violence to maintain order, (5) Despair.
BACK AT THE RANCH
FedEx believes $300M electric truck spend will save them $800M in diesel
https://electrek.co/2026/10/03/fedex-believes-300m-electric-truck-spend-will-save-them-800m-in-diesel
No high order polynomial has been harmed in the making of this headline.
A blockage of the stratospheric polar vortex over the Bering Sea is visible as a result of ozone accumulation in that region.
https://i.ibb.co/4Z5wXY2m/gfs-z10-nh-f00.png
Planetary Health Check 2026
“The culprit who goes by the name of El Niño
This year’s exhibition comes at a time when the Earth is experiencing an unprecedented El Niño effect, which is injecting additional heat into our already warming planet. This fact threatens to cause widespread upheavals in both humans and nature.
We’ll have to wait for next year’s report to see how the projected rise in global temperatures will affect the already tested planetary limits.”
(Emphasis added)
“which is injecting additional heat into our already warming planet.”
What additional heat?
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Arctic sea ice (ASI) data concerning potential 60-70 year cycles:
https://ibb.co/VYhkm9pg
If a roughly 60-70 yr. natural cycle were the major explanation for the modern warming and sea ice decline, we would expect the previous warm phase to exhibit a more comparable sea ice response. Instead, the early 20th century decline was substantially smaller.
Another complication is the spatial pattern. Early 20th century sea ice decline appears to have been concentrated in the Atlantic Arctic, while there is little evidence for a comparable decline in the Pacific Arctic during that period.
The modern decline, OTOH, is widespread across the Arctic.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/15/jcli-d-19-0008.1.xml
No
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
[“No.”]
How do your links contradict what I wrote?
You are also showing sea-ice extent, and extent doesn’t tell the whole story.
Sea-ice extent tells you the horizontal size of the ice cover, but the ice within that area can be relatively thick or thin.
Volume therefore gives a more complete picture of how much ice is actually present because it accounts for both horizontal coverage and thickness.
When you average sea-ice volume across all months of the year, rather than looking only at September extent, you get this:
https://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BannualVolumeTsCurrent.png
2025 had the lowest annual-average sea-ice volume in the record.
No
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r02_Chukchi_Sea_ts_4km.png
Yes
https://arctic.noaa.gov/report-card/report-card-2025/
Willard
October 3, 2026 (Ireneusz’s graph):
https://noaadata.apps.nsidc.org/NOAA/G02186/latest/4km/masie_all_zoom_4km.png
versus
October 3, 1988: https://ibb.co/Xxyhcpvd
In 1988, the ice edge in the Chukchi Sea extended much farther south, closer to the Alaskan and Siberian coasts.
In 2026, the ice edge is much farther north, with much more open water in the Chukchi Sea.
So, I am neither a mathematician or a scientist, but I am a serious student of climate change and am trying to keep an open mind on the question of CO2 and warming. I am definitely in the skeptic camp, but earlier this year I sought out recent analyses on the issue intended for generalists and/or an educated public audience. Like politics these days, it seems like there is no middle ground.
The discussions above about the proper way to graph the temperature trend seem to fit into that scene. I would love to choose 5 mathematicians from the subdiscipline that deals with this (statistics?), give them the data, without even telling them what it is, and ask them to construct a graph that best fits the data. Maybe, it is both linear and polynomial, based upon sort of a philosophical viewpoint (NOT presupposition about existential vs trivial warming, but the neutral purpose for determining the trend).
This reminds me a bit about the hockey stick controversy.
I do trust Dr. Spencer as an “honest broker” in presenting this data the way he has.
Thomas Hagedorn
You trust Roy Spencer. Fine.
When looking at this graph I present, in which CONUS temperature data are shown from
– NOAA Climate at a Glance (their evaluation)
– NOAA GHCN daily (my evaluation)
– UAH 6.1 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ummcGCdKbVJguLvDCEgqXQH9SoRHx6Mi/view
shouldn’t you also trust data and evaluations so similar to that of the UAH team?
Thomas, you may be more of a scientist than you know. Real science is based on reality. What you are seeking is reality, not “beliefs”. Good for you.
The problem the cult has with the CO2 nonsense is that it is easily debunked with basic physics. CO2’s 15µ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K temperature. That’s very simple to understand if you take the time to understand it. It’s the same reason you cannot boil water with ice cubes, although ice emits infrared.
I see you are still clinging to the
“CO2’s 15µ photons”
nonsense.
Sorry to confuse you, PP. I thought it was clear.
“CO2’s 15µ photons” refers to the electromagnetic energy that the cult believes is “warming the planet”.
It’s that belief that is nonsense.
P,
I don’t use Prof or Dr unless it’s actually relevant.
Photons are associated with a certain frequency and that same frequency is associated with heat retention then why don’t you explain to Clint why you believe he is wrong?
Hey, Q-Anon is just asking questions. Ignorant questions, bigoted questions, questions that have been repeatedly answered for many years. He’s not listening to answers right now; he’s far too busy asking questions. It’s called being intellectually curious.
Clint R – the most vehement denier of genuine science on this blog – claims once again that people who, unlike him, understand the long-term problems caused by an excessive rise in CO2, allegedly would say:
” CO2’s 15µ photons can NOT raise Earth’s 288K temperature. ”
This is an abolute lie.
The one and only person having posted for years such utter nonsense on this blog, is Clint R himself.
No one else would claim such nonsense, as anyone having a working brain immediately understands that the energy provided by the downwelling infrared radiation is 100% negligible compared to the downwelling solar longwave radiation.
*
Clint R – and along with him, all those who support him – apparently believes that the incredibly stupid statement published on official climate websites:
“Back-radiation warms the planet”
can be taken seriously!
Of course, this pointlessly trivial presentation should not be taken seriously – any more than the well known, equally stupid
” CO2 traps heat”.
*
No, back-radiation does not warm the planet at all. Its proven existence is merely a hint that less infrared emitted by Earth reaches outer space directly.
*
The cult, by the way: That is not the group of people who disagree with Clint R’s perverse views on science (especially astronomy).
The cult: That is Clint R and all those who openly or secretly support his pathologically deranged views.
Oops…
” No one else would claim such nonsense, as anyone having a working brain immediately understands that the energy provided by the downwelling infrared radiation is 100% negligible compared to the downwelling solar longwave radiation. ”
should read
No one else would claim such nonsense, as anyone having a working brain immediately understands that the energy provided by the downwelling longwave radiation is 100% negligible compared to the downwelling solar shortwave radiation.
I always point out that Bindi has NOTHING, except insults and false accusations.
And he proves me right again!
What does “100% negligible” mean? Is that the same as zero?
Bindidon,
You write “the energy provided by the downwelling longwave radiation is 100% negligible compared to the downwelling solar shortwave radiation”.
That seems to be incorrect. The average solar shortwave flux reaching Earth’s surface (and not being reflected) is around 160 W/m^2. The downwelling longwave flux is around 340 W/m^2.
Maybe you were thinking of the NET downwelling longwave flux (?) but that is negative, around -60 W/m^2.
Gadden,
Why are you so ass backwards all the time?
Gadden
I understand what you mean.
I myself spent this year lots of time in collecting data from
– stations measuring radiation at the surface (SURFRAD, BSRN)
– satellite observation (OLR, MERRA-2’s solar absorbed data).
What I personally mean as layman is that downwelling longwave radiation does not warm the surface: it keeps the planet warm.
That is not the same.
Gadden
I can’t post without problems anymore, posts are either rejected when using firefox or communication mostly fails when using TOR.
Its boring.
Here is a collection of graphs showing downwelling solar vs. up/downwelling longwave
https://drive.google.com/file/d/103bWbIPX7MwZwC42hfr15mcsO5Bu6c6h/view
Bindidon,
You’re of course right that longwave downwelling radiation doesn’t by itself ‘warm’ Earth in the sense that it causes Earth’s average temperature to increase with time. The sun doesn’t warm Earth either in that sense, as it just keeps Earth warm. But this is only true when the climate system is inbalance. Currently, we are increasing the atmosphere’s greenhouse gas concentrations year by year. This causes increased downwelling longwave radiation (both directly due to the greenhouse gas increases and indirectly since Earth is getting warmer, radiating more LW to the atmosphere which consequently ALSO radiates more LW to Earth’s surface).
And I’m not sure what you want to show in the upwelling and downwelling radiation graphs you linked to. It is well-known that the globally averaged downwelling longwave energy flux is much higher than the globally averaged downwelling shortwave flux from the sun, at Earth’s surface. Just see any Trenberth diagram for Earth’s climate system.
Gadden
Again this stupid blog reaction in Firefox: ‘403 Forbidden / nginx’
*
” You’re of course right that longwave downwelling radiation doesn’t by itself ‘warm’ Earth… ”
Sorry, you still misinterpret my original statement: I was not speaking about ‘Earth’ but about its surface, e.g. when comparing SW and LW in Death Valley versus the Arctic.
That is what I mean! with ‘negligible’: solar photons are of immensely higher energy than those reemitted downwards by IR sensitive atmospheric gases!
What you talk about is something completely different.
*
” And I’m not sure what you want to show in the upwelling and downwelling radiation graphs you linked to. ”
Maybe you should have a closer look at them.
All three graphs presenting a full year at a BSRN station show that averaged over the year, downwelling solar SW is about half downwelling atmo LW, be it in the Arctic (Alert), at the Equator (Nauru) or at the Antarctic (Neumayer).
The six other graphs (Jan 1-7, Jul 11-17) were added to show why downwelling solar is so weak compared to TSI at TOA, due to day/night and seasons, whereas upwelling terrestrial is always present.
Bindidon,
“averaged over the year, downwelling solar SW is about half downwelling atmo LW”
Yes, that’s correct, assuming that ‘about half’ refers to the average flux (which can easily be translated into annual energy flow by multiplying with the number of seconds in a year and the surface area of the Earth in meters).
But if the downwelling solar SW energy is about half of the downwelling LW energy (which it is), why on Earth did you previously say “the energy provided by the downwelling longwave radiation is 100% negligible compared to the downwelling solar shortwave radiation”. Can you explain that?
Does it help for me to claim downwelling solar IR is greater than downwelling solar visible and UV.
So sorry to whomever gets these things wrong.
Thomas,
“I would love to choose 5 mathematicians from the subdiscipline that deals with this (statistics?), give them the data, without even telling them what it is, and ask them to construct a graph that best fits the data.”
You may be interested to know that these exact blind tests (stats experts given unlabeled, or mislabeled data) were done in 2009 and 2016.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna33482750
https://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskygec16.html
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
One possible answer to “has global warming accelerated?” is “considerably”:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2025GL118804
Perhaps.
But does the graph Roy posed above show ‘considerable acceleration’? I think any fair minded person would say ‘no’.
But it seems a lot of people don’t think like me 😉
Dixon,
Bear in mind that Roy’s graph is already normalized. His graph measures temperature anomalies, not temperatures. He changed his baseline a few times over the years.
I would rather ask an opiniated guy with some Climateball experience than the proverbial man of the street. While contrarians tend to repeat themselves, there’s some method in their madness. XKCD made the 793 cartoon for physicists; Many, many academics fall for it at least once, and most men who are “too online” fall for it more than once.
Whatever word you use to characterize people (e.g. “factional” and “fair minded”), you still characterize them. That goes against lots of etiquette manuals. We already have a pompous asshat, and he presumably went to the Ivy league. I could not care less how you prefer to address me, and will respond in kind.
Welcome to Climateball!
Dixon
“But it seems a lot of people don’t think like me”
To the contrary, most people think like you or me.
The UAH data is made up of three main comonents.
Random variation due to weather.
.
Peaks and troughs due to episodic events such as El Nino.
Any long term trend.
It is very difficult to see trends or accelerations in such data just by looking at it. Like a Roschach blog you tend to see what you expect. I expect a trend and see one ; you expect no trend and see none.
That is what linear regressions and polynomials are for. They detect patterns into the data independently of human expectations of bias.
For most people “fairminded” is a synonym for ” thinks like me”. This may work for opinions but makes for poor science.
Here is a link to a very interesting website:
https://www.gloh2o.org/koppen/
I have no been asking myself for sometime “if warming is a serious problem, it should already be showing up in the climate classification maps. I could care less about the future projections guesstimated here, but the historical maps tell a story, or perhaps they don’t. I printed the 1901-1930 map and then laid it beside the 1991-2020 map. The scale of the printed maps is quite large, making precise comparisons a bit hard. But my conclusion is that warming is somewhat apparent in higher latitudes (look at Northwest Canada), but it is hard to see any difference between maps separated by 90 years for the areas where almost all of humanity lives – temperate and tropical climates. Warming will likely make life more sustainable in the higher northern latitudes and due to continental shapes and extent, nobody lives in the higher southern latitudes. Falklanders might need to prepare for an influx of migrants.
I have a project on the drawing boards related to this that I never seem to get to. My question is, in a warming world, how many miles/kilomoters/degrees of latitude north have the margins between major climate regions moved. Perhaps, looking at specific locations. I am sure the data exists, but I don’t know where to access it, and once I get it how to process it in a fair, defensible way. My fallback project will simply take specific locations in the U.S. (later for cities in Europe) and compare changes in normals…max, min, mean. That should be pretty easy once I find the time.
A few trials that I ran for several cities near where I live showed that average temps moved a fairly small distance over 10 years. That is compatible with my visual inspection of the above Koeppen-Geiger maps. I can’t see these types of changes even affecting migration patterns of humans or animals. If they do, both are more than capable of moving. Given the various “strategies” that plants have for procreation, they should be quite capable of adaptation. And, more warmth, longer growing seasons and more CO2 for photosynthesis can’t be a bad thing.
“Warming will likely make life more sustainable in the higher northern latitudes”
Quite the opposite, actually.
For over 20 years now, Indigenous communities in the Canadian Archipelago have reportedly been dealing with food insecurity:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227338088_Travelling_and_hunting_in_a_changing_Arctic_Assessing_Inuit_vulnerability_to_sea_ice_change_in_Igloolik_Nunavut
To hunt walrus, you need a sufficiently thick and stable ice floe to stand on.
Yet Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over the past ~50 years, with roughly 40% of its total extent lost since the 1970s. That is extraordinary, to say the least.
The later onset of autumn freeze up is also affecting polar bear populations.
How is that a problem? We can move food any where today with very little fuss,
Eldrosion,
Your usual gaslighting.
Polare bear numbers have increased where the walruses are having Ng issues. And btw walruses can do without the ice as the feed off the bottom of shallow seas. Or did you think their tusks were just to go above your fireplace
Ian,
You are correct. If anything larger areas for farmland will allow better crop rotation and better pasture usage.
The slight reduction of ice around Greenland has allowed whale numbers to increase substantially. That can’t happen if the food chain has been destroyed as the eco cult keeps promising.
Do Q-Anon know where Nunavut is?
Do they know how the walrus reproduce?
Do they really think the polar bear is sustainable food?
Since he’s a cranky Brit:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20211011-the-inuit-knowledge-vanishing-with-the-ice
The mobility issue should speak to Grammar Ian, whom would be despondent without his car.
Yes climate change presents challenges. The far north cultures have been dealing with it for at least 5,000 years probably a lot longer.
The good news that today even Inuit knowledge is being preserved. Thus when climate changes back like it will the transition will be easier.
New opportunities for pastoral ranching opened up in Greenland a 1000 years ago, then went away, and is now coming back as Greenland ice sheet retreat recently uncovered a Viking ranch.
“Thus when climate changes back like it will the transition will be easier.”
That is not going to happen for a very long time.
Ice-core proxies from the High Arctic indicate that modern warming is anything but natural.
This region is now experiencing its warmest temperatures in roughly 7,700 years, overwhelming most of the natural Milankovitch driven cooling that has characterized this interglacial.
Here is the proxy reconstruction:
https://i.postimg.cc/RhgfrtzH/pnas-1616287114fig01-2.jpg
The reconstruction extends through 2009.
Pretty compelling support for the hockey stick.
Forgot the source:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1616287114
Eldrosion the pnas paper doesn’t seem totally out of sorts with natural variation. It shows we have had about 6c warming since the LIA.
We have been told that as of 2009 warming from CO2 during the industrial age was almost 1.2C of that 6C. The rest would be natural.
As you can see from this: https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/ which shows natural warming occurring commonly up to 4C+ which is consistent with the pnas paper prior to the industrial age.
What seems lacking to improve the estimates is an industrial age surface weather station measurement for the ice core sites for an estimate of polar acceleration if any exists.
6C – 4C = 2C
Who would have thunk that Gill was an alarmist?
ROFL!
Bill,
The approximately 6C refers to a local High Arctic temperature reconstruction at 80.7N, whereas the 1.2 estimate refers to global mean surface temperature.
A global temperature increase of 1C does not mean every location on Earth warms by exactly 1C.
The High Arctic can experience substantially greater warming than the global average thanks to polar feedbacks involving sea ice and snow cover.
Eldrosion says:
“The approximately 6C refers to a local High Arctic temperature reconstruction at 80.7N, whereas the 1.2 estimate refers to global mean surface temperature.
A global temperature increase of 1C does not mean every location on Earth warms by exactly 1C.
The High Arctic can experience substantially greater warming than the global average thanks to polar feedbacks involving sea ice and snow cover.”
I agree when nearby sea ice pulls back from the shore the nearby shore where virtually all the permanent weather stations exist are most heavily affected and are not going to be representative of areas where ice has not retreated.
As you say there is no reason to believe the feedbacks will be the same at every location. Thus the feedback structure at Agassiz is more like the Antarctic region average with a very small ice retreat signature. If I had used the antarctic there would be less than 1.2 of warming so I used the polar average instead.
Bottom line is experience is teaching us there is figuratively little difference between corporate/government institutions
and corporate enterprises. Both have special interests different than the public. . .so reconstructions without site specific data as you pointed out simply isn’t reliable.
> I agree when nearby sea ice
It’s mostly a question of colder stuff getting warmer faster.
thats a particular concern for water vapor because we know its not even close to being saturated.
Testing
Speaking purely of Canada, as you go northwards, the land itself is a limiting factor (ignoring the reduced sunlight at higher latitudes, or the risk of other climate uncertainties like droughts and flooding.)
How? Because of the Canadian shield, and the paucity of quality topsoil as you move northwards. It takes far longer for topsoil to generate organically than the current temperature models predict growth bands to migrate northwards.
This will have two effects: less efficient agriculture in the northern farming extents as they migrate to higher latitudes, and a reduction in the boreal forest extent as the northern tree line runs into inefficient soil.
Not sure whether this is a duplicate…
Enhanced growth is not so simple. The effects of drought, fire and flood risks may end up being far more important than the increase in CO2 will have on agricultural production.
As for this: “Warming will likely make life more sustainable in the higher northern latitudes” that is definitely not a certainty.
Assuming you are talking about North America, above the current agricultural band, the quality of topsoil is poor, its thickness is too shallow, and the landscape is far too rocky for large scale farming.
Any agricultural push northward would also cut into the extent of the boreal forest, which is also constrained to the north by poor growing conditions on the ground – meaning attempts at agriculture would be accompanied by the loss of vast carbon sinks.
Not helped by the ice sheets. For 90,000 years out of every 100,000 years Canada is covered by ice sheets which scrape off any loose material from the surface.
Regarding the biome boundary between the prairie grassland and the boreal forest. The temperature and rainfall contours may move measurably North, but the actual boundary will jump irregularly as local areas of forest burn and the trees then fail to regrow in the warmer and drier conditions.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Australians bought more new vehicles with a battery-electric powertrain than any other fuel type – pure petrol, diesel or electric-assisted hybrids – last month, as electrified new-car sales continue to rise.
Data from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries (FCAI) and Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) reports 27,078 electric vehicles as sold in August 2026, representing 24.9 per cent of the 108,760 total.
It marks the first time battery-electric vehicles have outsold petrol-only (25,824) and diesel-only (23,608), as these fuel types continue to decline amid the fuel crisis and a growing number of electrified vehicles on sale.
https://www.drive.com.au/news/australian-new-car-sales-in-august-2026-electric-outsells-petrol-for-the-first-time-as-tesla-model-y-tops-charts/
This does not seem to have “ended the weekend”, as some alarmist prime ministers claimed.
Shame about the environmental disaster unfolding in the Philippines caused by the mining for nickel, a key component of batteries for the not so clean or green EVs , but who cares? just like the child labour in Africa , where there is muck there is money. Sad thing is the effect on the climate has been nill.
Shame on you, Brown, for this disgusting misuse of a piece of sad information that shames us all:
“… just like child labor in Africa …”
*
After all, people like you – who constantly post comments in the wrong places on this blog and surely elsewhere, too – are 90 percent likely to use a smartphone.
*
And it is precisely these smartphones, Brown, that have been for years and years the actual root cause of cobalt and tantalum mining by children – especially in the oh-so-democratic Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I do not own a smartphone, Brown, and I never will.
Someone got out of the wrong side of bed this morning,the truth hurts ,you don’t own a smart phone, yippee , but you do own a device of some sort, or how else do you post your rubbish on line?
Ian,
More like he was birthed out of the wrong side to be this grumpy.
Brown and his UK insulting mate don’t understand that I use a humble, 12 years old notebook, while billions of other humans think they need every year a new smartphone
BACK AT THE RANCH
The U.S. Army announced last year that it had enough of a specific model of armored vehicle and that any more deliveries would be “excess.” But even so, Congress found a way to keep funding alive for the vehicle — and executives at the company that produces the vehicle found a way to flood key members of Congress with campaign donations.
In the weeks after this year’s appropriations bill passed, employees of AM General or its parent company donated tens of thousands to key appropriations committee members in both chambers, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Ken Calvert, R-Calif.
https://theintercept.com/2026/10/05/susan-collins-am-general-donations-government-contracts
Troglodytes have a simple trick to tank the economy (they always do): cut constructive spending, transfer public wealth to producers of destruction machines, borrow more than you can pay back, and blame your favorite bogeyman so that your recession gets people angrier and and angrier.
It never fails.
This is a political hit piece with elections on the horizon.
Susan Collins had very little to do with this. The compromise was arrived at after a democrat senator castigated the Army for failing to coordinate their cuts with the other branches of the service. Also since these purchases the army wanted to cancel were contracted in 2023 the result of the Army’s cancellation was going to increase the costs of purchases of the JLTV for the Marines and Airforce.
AM General who won the contract in 2023 had made large investments in building up the manufacturing capability based upon larger contracted deliveries. You would need to ask a lawyer if there was a lawsuit in there someplace also.
Then in June 2025 the House passed a bill that raised the FY2026 budget request of the Pentagon by $300mm from $347mm to $647mm.
In July 2025 the Senate appropriations committee passed the fy2026 dod budget which did not include the extra money the house had in the budget.
On Jan 5 2026 the following met behind closed doors to align the house and senate versions.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) – Chairman
Senator Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) – Chairman
Representative Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Susan Collins became the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee on Jan 7, 2026.
So the final budget with the house increases was passed by the Senate on Jan 30, 2026 with the compromise of the 4 persons I listed above and without it going back to the Senate Appropriations Committee.
so its complete conjecture if Susan Collins had anything to do with it. AM General made their contribution to Susan Collins as chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee after the Senate passed the compromise budget by a vote of 71-29 with 23 democrats voting yea and 5 republicans voting nay.
The Senate Appropriations committee passing the smaller budget never had an opposition advanced by an Senator during the time it was in the committee’s possession.
Gill lip-synchs Collins team’s response instead of confronting the facts of the matter:
Sleazy Susan received 50K from AM General after her committee helped them liquidate 345M of useless pieces of junk.
The FBI was circling Sleazy Susan for her pay-to-play scheme until 2025, when the Dirty Donald administration killed the unit looking into her scheme.
We can add more facts:
Sleazy Susan voted five times to extend Dirty Donald’s war in Iran.
She and her hubbie own more than 115K in O&G stocks.
On command Willard goes all out in support of his favorite lying Iranian-owned democrat supporting spewport.
OTOH, I am lipsyncing the official Congressional Record.
If Collin’s team is also doing that then kudo’s to them.
Obviously Willard is so dedicated to lying he thinks there is a problem with that. Apparently over half the Maine democrat party is in the clutches of the DSA and Collin’s opponent has refused to state whether he is a member or not.
You have made it clear where you stand.
Gill goes all in, trying to salt the Earth. Which is a good thing, for that’s Sleazy Susan could only make road salt a little cheaper!
Here she is again, with one of the biggest investments in data centers:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylemullins/2026/10/06/5-senators-with-millions-riding-on-the-ai-data-center-boom/
Gill can have Sheldon. Nobody cares about Sheldon. Shoot him on the fourth rock from the Sun.
Hey we all have flaws Willard.
But you might want to tone back your ambition to be the top salesman for a gypsy driveway resealing crew.
Dr. Spencer wrote in early 2015:
[“The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 C (about 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 C per decade � which is also statistically insignificant.”]
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2014-0-32-deg-c/
13-year trends are definitely more useful than the 3-, 5-, or 7-year trends we sometimes see from others here. So what do 13-year trends show when we slide that same window across the entire UAH record?:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18zkmjaAUDuDayUBj8-1v2F6BgURPm40d/view
The windows with the highest rates of warming are:
1) 2012-2024: +0.41C/decade
2) 2008-2020: +0.38C/decade
3) 2013-2025: +0.37C/decade
4) 2009-2021: +0.33C/decade
5) 2011-2023: +0.32C/decade
6) 2007-2019: +0.31C/decade
I can’t say that these results alone prove acceleration.
Successive 13-year windows overlap heavily – the next window retains 12 of the previous window’s 13 years – so the individual points aren’t independent.
Nonetheless, the results of Dr. Spencer’s methodology are certainly interesting to consider.
Above, Gadden reveals his ignorance of radiative physics and thermodynamics, typical cult performance:
“The sun doesn’t warm Earth either in that sense, as it just keeps Earth warm.”
But, it gets worse:
Gadden has swallowed all of the Trenberth “energy” diagram, which has been totally debunked:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2025/08/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-july-2025-0-36-deg-c/#comment-1711069
As usual, Clint R posts lies over lies.
Nothing he claims to have been ‘debunked’ actually was.
Especially is the OLR value of ~240 W/m² absolutely correct, as I recently have shown:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jc3OPQ661mOfpowioiIwrxp7xUlvO-gW/view
Sorry Bindi, but you STILL don’t get it.
The satellites measure “spherical radiance”, not “W/m²”. The units aren’t even the same. This has been explained to you before, but it’s way over your head.
You can’t even come up with a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
Clint R
You are and keep an ignorant and liar.
I have explained to you that regardless the kind of radiation you measure – be it solar irradiance, longwave radiation, or even O2’s 60 GHz emission from atmospheric layers, you do everywhere your job based on the same theoretical considerations: the radiative transfer equation.
You try to deny OLR processing but accept UAH’s O2 radiation processing, what is sheer nonsense.
Here is the step-by-step breakdown to prove the text is physically and logically flawed:
1. The Fallacy of the Rotating Frame (Circular Logic)
The core of the text relies on a clever mathematical trick: if you change the definition of “zero rotation,” you can make rotation disappear.
• What the text does: It defines a coordinate system (the “Tether-Locked Baseline”) that rotates along with the Moon’s orbit. It then uses quaternion math to show that relative to this rotating system, the Moon’s spin is zero.
• The scientific flaw: This is a classic circular argument (petitio principii). You cannot prove a physical property does not exist simply by choosing a coordinate frame where its value is mathematically mapped to zero. If an ice skater spins in a circle, and we attach a camera to their head, the video will show the world spinning while the skater appears stationary. This doesn’t mean the skater isn’t physically experiencing rotation.
2. Violation of Conservation of Angular Momentum
The text’s “Perfect Tetherball” thought experiment claims that an object moving in a circle without an external axial torque will naturally maintain a “tether-locked” face. This directly violates Newton’s First Law of Motion and the conservation of angular momentum.
• The Reality of a Torque-Free Orbit: In a truly torque-free system in deep space (e.g., a perfect ball on a frictionless string), the object’s orientation remains fixed relative to the deep cosmos (inertial space).
• The Tetherball Paradox: If you swung a frictionless tetherball in space, it would not keep the same side facing the central pole. Instead, it would point toward the exact same distant star during its entire orbit. To an observer at the central pole, the ball would appear to rotate, showing all of its sides during one lap.
• The Moon’s Hidden Energy: The text claims no kinetic energy is transferred into an axial rotation reservoir. This is false. The Moon possesses genuine rotational kinetic energy. If you were to instantly delete the Earth and its gravity, the Moon would fly off into a straight line while continuing to spin on its axis once every 27.3 days.
3. Misrepresenting Tidal Locking as a “Torque-Free” Default
The text frames the “Tetherball Universe” as the natural, torque-free baseline of cosmic mechanics. In astrophysics, the exact opposite is true.
• The Origin of Synchronous Rotation: The Moon does not keep one face toward Earth because of a “torque-free cosmic geometry”. It does so because of massive gravitational tidal torques exerted by the Earth in the past.
• The Braking Mechanism: Billions of years ago, the Moon spun much faster. Earth’s gravity created physical tidal bulges on the Moon. Because the Moon was spinning fast, these bulges were constantly pulled out of alignment with Earth, creating a massive external gravitational torque that acted as a physical brake.
• The Equilibrium: The torque only stopped actively changing the Moon’s spin once the rotation period slowed down to exactly match the orbital period. The current state is the result of a historical, violent application of physical torque—not a torque-free geometric baseline.
*
Conclusion: The document is a pseudoscientific text.
It beautifully executes the math of a non-inertial, rotating reference frame, but makes the catastrophic philosophical error of claiming that this convenient mathematical perspective changes the fundamental laws of physics and inertia.
Bindi, as I’ve said before, endless blah-blah ain’t science. All you need is one sentence describing a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
But you can’t do that….
I posted the wrong content to this place; we see however that the same stupid replay comes again.
What I wanted to write was:
Clint R does not have the least idea of how incredibly complex it is to derive temperatures out of O2’s emissions, but has no problem to deny the much simpler possiblility to derive W/m² out of Earth’s terrestrial longwave infrared radiation.
What Clint R also never could understand is:
Scientists transform “spherical radiance” (commonly measured in Watts per square meter per steradian, or W/(m²⋅sr)) into irradiance (measured in W/m²) by integrating the radiance over a hemisphere of solid angles, while weighting it by a geometric cosine factor.
*
What I did was to continue the work, by transforming the rectangular data found in
https://archive.data.noaa.gov/climatedatarecords#UMD_ESSIC/OLR_CDR/Daily/OLR-D-CDR_01B-21/
into spherical data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Jc3OPQ661mOfpowioiIwrxp7xUlvO-gW/view
*
When you write 100 times per year about ‘a model for orbiting without spin’: how could you ever understand such things.
*
And what I learned on this blog is that all the people who do not understand excel in discrediting.
I explain again to Bindi that “spectral” flux is NOT the same as radiative flux. And, he agreed with me. But then he goes on to provide another of his pathetic plots that is “into spectral data”, yet it has units of radiative flux.
He just can’t learn….
Again Clint still cant explain why science using different units is a problem.
Of course its not an actual problem, because unlike him, scientists, such as Roy Spencer who are observing the Earth from space, know how to convert between units.
Now we can expect an insult, but no sensible explanation.
Earth’s average temperature 288K is a comparison number. A planet with average temperature 288K we cannot know what it emits.
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
BACK AT THE RANCH
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said that the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized marriage equality in all 50 states, was “perhaps the decisive point in our nation’s turn against religious liberty.”
Obergefell allowed same-sex couples all over the US to get married, but it didn’t force anyone who opposed same-sex relationships for religious reasons to marry someone of the same sex. Nevertheless, Alito, who dissented in that decision, has been telling private audiences for years that LGBTQ+ people merely having the right to marry the person they love is an attack on conservative Christians’ ability to express themselves in public because they might face criticism from others.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2026/10/supreme-court-justice-samuel-alito-says-marriage-equality-turned-us-against-religious-liberty
Troglodytes always wanted a theocracy.
“Christians’ ability to express themselves in public because they might face criticism from others.”
It’s called free speech.
You have the right to express your opinions in public.
I have an equal right to tell you you’re talking bullshit.
I eat Marmite. You may announce that eating Marmite is illegal, immoral and fattening, but that does not affect my right to eat Marmite.
Come to think of it Christianity should be banned. There is something deeply repellent about a group of people who eat their God.
It is still early, but all signs point to another gain-of-function experiment escaping the lab. This time it is Russia where ambulance drivers are wearing full PPE. Stay tuned!
The nouveau skeptics eschew outdated modalities like doubt, nuance, and skepticism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_SARS-CoV-2
I must have missed the news that the intermediate animal was found. Exactly how many people world wide are on that case do you think? How many candidates do you think there are?
The lack of evidence for the lab leak is precisely the best evidence there is. The Chinese Communist Party has defiantly refused to cooperate with any organization including the WHO. Many Chinese scientist who tried to cooperate “disappeared”.
The gain-of-function lab leak fulfills every bit of evidence. It is a complete explanation. Normally, that would carry weight in science — except where Trump is involved. The zoonotic route suffers a complete failure with no crossover animal or genetic suggestion of a crossover. Until that animal is found, the zoonotic route does not exist.
“The lack of evidence for the lab leak is precisely the best evidence there is.”
Yes, the new skeptics take a lack of evidence for proof positive.
Whereas a preponderance of scientific opinion supporting a different theory is – what – another conspiracy?
Me, I don’t know. Neither theory is demonstrated beyond doubt. But I’m an old fashioned skeptic.
“The lack of evidence for the lab leak is precisely the best evidence there is.”
Chapter 1 of Conspiratorial Thinking for Dummies
“The gain-of-function lab leak fulfills every bit of evidence. It is a complete explanation.”
C’mon Tim, you know better.
-All the DNA fingerprints at the wet market.
-All the earliest cases employed at the wet market or living nearby the wet market.
-The DNA mismatch to lab virus constructs.
From the latest paper:
“In 2026, virologist Joel Wertheim and colleagues at UCSD published a study in Cell that compared evolutionary patterns of outbreaks of Ebola, influenza and other viruses.[18] They found that the mutation pattern of SARS-CoV-2 matched five naturally occurring outbreaks, but did not resemble the 1977 Russian flu outbreak which was likely from a lab leak.”
Once again Nate makes a really dumb comment while attempting to be clever. You people who like to argue do a lot of that.
The wet market is an IQ test, or maybe a final exam question. They found intact virus on surfaces, and that is the only place they found virus. That has as much significance as finding it on a subway train. It means that infected people visited the wet market.
It is very interesting that once again, the lab leak of a gain-of-function experiment answers all of the questions including why the Chinese Communist Party is so sensitive about that. That is the “absence of evidence”, and it is entirely because they will not cooperate despite repeated formal pleas from the WHO to let them investigate the lab.
Every single piece of support for the zoonotic route involves some form of claiming that it is possible, not that it is certain. The SARS-CoV-2 virus has a long list of infection traits and bio-markers that make it very unusual for a zoonotic virus, but are completely and unambiguously answered by a lab leak of a gain-of-function experiment.
There is no crossover animal. All other SARS type viruses have an identified animal. Once again, despite strong science that says it should have been found by now, we are told by so-called experts “it is possible” that one does not exist. More important is the fact that none of the other SARs became effective at infecting people. By contrast COVID spread by aerosols and produced asymptomatic infection — people were spreading virus for days with no symptom of infection.
All of the later variants have taken billions of replications to develop. As new variants emerge, they are more infectious, but less harmful. It has become a respiratory virus. All of this is extremely strong evidence of gain-of-function doing the work in the petri dish, and then emerging fully developed.
The final nuance is the “low confidence” assigned to the FBI and other assessments of a “most likely” lab leak. The number one factor in all intelligence assessments is to protect sources and methods. Even though they may have conclusive evidence, they do not in any way want to reveal a source whose life may be in danger. There are many people who have “disappeared” because they cooperated.
The Kremlin says there is no problem. All of the people tested came back negative for any infection. The WHO still has questions.
Yes, if China refuses to provide access to investigate the source, then we know the source.
Trump has just denied European election observers access to the midterms for the first time in twenty years.
By Stephen’s logic he must be planning to fix the midterms.
Do US elections kill US citizens? That’s a novel analogy.
Or European citizens?
Stephen
When Trump declares a state of emergency in the run-up to the midterms and the army starts killing protesters we shall return to this subject.
Entropic,
We know you detest Trump. Did you detest him when he sponsoring the Democrats? Or did you hate him when he argued for the same rights to be applied to all races in the USA?
On Oct 5 at about 6am I posted a fairly long post about the margins of climate classification maps and how much they have been changing (presumably moving north with warming). I posted a very interesting article, I believe published in Nature in 2023, that addresses that question. To me, at scale, this is where the political (and scientific) discussions need to focus, not on weather events and whether they fit into a pattern of climate change or refute that. It’s all about CLIMATE, isn’t it.
So, I hope this link takes you to Figure 7, which encapsulates the past data and future model projections at a glance on one page. If the link doesn’t work, please try to find it (Beck is lead author). PLEASE NOTE: the chart skips the 2020s, so the first projected 30yr period has to be adjusted downward by .25 (multiplied by .75) if you want to observe the rate of increase into warmer climate types (and the rate of decrease out of colder/cooler ones. Not surprisingly, the largest changes are decreases in polar climate.
Check this out:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6/figures/7
Some self-overestimating people dont’t understand a basic law:
” Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. “
*
The origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains officially unresolved, though the scientific and intelligence communities are divided between two main hypotheses.
The Two Hypotheses
• Natural / Zoonotic Spillover
The virus jumped from animals (likely bats, potentially through an intermediate host like pangolins, raccoon dogs or civets) to humans, similar to how SARS-CoV-1 and MERS emerged.
Early cases were heavily clustered around the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, China, where live wild animals were sold.
• Laboratory Leak / Research-Related Incident
The virus escaped or leaked accidentally from a research facility in Wuhan, such as the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which studied SARS-like coronaviruses.
*
Current Standings
• The majority of peer-reviewed genetic and epidemiological studies favor a natural zoonotic origin, noting that genomic analyses show no clear signs of deliberate genetic engineering.
• While most US agencies (including the National Intelligence Council) assess the origin as natural animal exposure, other agencies (such as the FBI, CIA and the Department of Energy have favored a lab incident hypothesis.
• The WHO’s Scientific Advisory Group for the Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) notes that while the weight of circumstantial and genomic data points toward zoonotic spillover, all hypotheses remain on the table due to missing early data, genetic sequences, and audit logs that have not been fully shared by Chinese authorities.
**
A natural zoonotic spillover (jumping from animals to humans) is the most likely pathway. While horseshoe bats are highly supported as the original natural reservoir, the exact path the virus took to reach humans continues to be evaluated.
The status of the specific animals mentioned
• Raccoon Dogs are currently a primary suspect. Environmental and genetic data collected from the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan found high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 genetic material closely mixed with DNA from raccoon dogs, indicating they were present and highly susceptible to the virus.
• Early in the pandemic, researchers discovered coronaviruses in smuggled Malayan pangolins that shared high genetic similarity to SARS-CoV-2, particularly in the spike protein region used to bind to human cells. While later genomic sequencing showed they were likely not the direct ancestor, they remain an important piece of the evolutionary puzzle regarding how bat coronaviruses mutate.
• Masked palm civets were definitively identified as the intermediate host for the original SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2002–2003.
Because of this historical precedent, they were thoroughly investigated for SARS-CoV-2. While they have not been proven to be the intermediate host this time, they remain part of the broader category of wildlife species capable of harboring such viruses.
*
Ultimately, because no definitive “patient zero” animal has been caught in the wild with the exact progenitor virus, scientists cannot completely rule out or definitively confirm any specific intermediate animal host yet.
*
A zoonotic spillover does not strictly require a definitively identified intermediate “crossover” animal to have occurred, as direct jumps or unrecorded reservoirs are biologically possible.
Extensive genomic and epidemiological data indicate that SARS-CoV-2 has a natural evolutionary origin, and claims that it does not exist in nature contradict the overwhelming consensus of virologists and public health bodies.
While intermediate hosts help trace precise pathways (as seen with civets for SARS-CoV), a lack of a discovered intermediate host does not make a natural zoonotic route impossible.
Many zoonotic pathogens circulate or cross over from wildlife reservoirs before an exact animal host chain is fully reconstructed by science.
Genomic analyses show standard, natural evolutionary patterns rather than artificial genetic manipulation.
Coronaviruses naturally evolve in wild populations, primarily bats, and SARS-CoV-2 shares deep phylogenetic roots with natural bat coronaviruses.
*
Finally, a single voice.
Who works in an area adjacent to this (i.e. tracking the source of foodborne bacterial diseases that primarily come from animals), thinks that it’s important for people to just chill out and not reflexively dismiss any one theory on the origins of this virus.
One cannot stress enough that there is few definite evidence that this virus was engineered in a lab.
Molecular features that some folks proposed had never been observed in nature (true at the time) have indeed been observed in nature.
I forgot to add a few words about the DEFUSE project.
*
Project DEFUSE (Defusing the Threat of Bat-Borne Coronaviruses) was a EcoHealth Alliance in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, UNC Chapel Hill, and Duke-NUS.
• Funding Request: EcoHealth Alliance requested $14.2 million total ($8.4 million for Phase I and $5.8 million for Phase II) from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
• Outcome: DARPA rejected the proposal, citing potential concerns regarding gain-of-function (GoF) / dual-use research of concern (DURC), a lack of proper risk assessments, and missing safety/ethical mitigations.
• Proposed Research:
• Collecting and sampling thousands of bats across cave sites in Yunnan, China.
• Engineering chimeric coronaviruses by inserting human-specific furin cleavage sites and modifying receptor-binding domains (RBD) on bat-derived SARS-like backbones (such as WIV1 and SHC014).
• Testing these viruses in humanized mice and deploying aerosolized vaccines to immunize wild bats.
Controversy and Context
• Leak and Origin Debates: The proposal became public following document leaks (analyzed by groups like DRASTIC), leading to heightened discussions regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2, given that SARS-CoV-2 uniquely features a furin cleavage site.
I want to explain some physiology. As blood circulates through the body, oxygen is extracted to produce energy and CO2 is released into the blood. The entire flow of blood returning to the heart goes to the lungs and then back to the heart where it is distributed to the entire body. At the lungs, gases such as CO2 are released into the lungs by Henry’s Law and oxygen is absorbed.
If that process is disturbed, for example by someone holding their breath, the effects are very sudden. If the incoming gas contains no oxygen, such as pure nitrogen, the process reverses. CO2 is still released, but so is most of the remaining oxygen, once again by Henry’s Law. The result is that oxygen deprived blood is circulated causing the heart to stop (it needs oxygen), and the person to lose consciousness. A quick and painless death then follows.
I am not taking a position on capital punishment, but if it is to be done, this is the very most reliable and painless way to do it. The procedure is simple and the pure nitrogen is easily available. Industrial grade will do, since there is no concern about long term health effects.
She killed someone.
Killing people is wrong.
Therefore we should kill her.
I don’t like this chain of reasoning at all.
No, she murdered someone and was convicted by a jury of her peers and sentenced to be executed. A guillotine would work nicely. By the way she saved a piece of her victim’s skull as a trophy.
Weasel words, Stephen.
Judicial killing is still murder.
Explain why killing her serves any useful purpose.
Are you familiar with Colleen Slemmer? I know from my own personal experience that the death of a child is very traumatic to the family — especially the mother of a daughter. The pain is intense and does not ever go away. When there is a person who caused the death, the pain becomes focused on that person. Those of us who have not experienced it, can only imagine the impact of that death involving torture and mutilation. The rest of us have a minor opinion in my view.
Family’s Stance on Capital Punishment
General Sentiment
The family of Colleen Slemmer has not explicitly stated a clear approval or disapproval of capital punishment as a whole. Their focus appears to be more on seeking justice for Colleen rather than engaging in the broader debate about the death penalty.
Specific Reactions
Frustration with Execution Process: May Martinez, Colleen’s mother, expressed significant disappointment after the failed execution of Christa Pike, indicating that she felt justice was not served for her daughter.
Desire for Justice: The family’s comments reflect a desire for accountability in Colleen’s specific case rather than a definitive stance on capital punishment itself. They seem to prioritize the outcome of Pike’s execution over the philosophical implications of the death penalty.
Conclusion
While the family is deeply affected by the circumstances surrounding Colleen’s murder and the subsequent legal proceedings, their statements do not provide a clear endorsement or rejection of capital punishment as a concept. Their primary concern is achieving justice for Colleen.
” I am not taking a position on capital punishment, but if it is to be done, this is the very most reliable and painless way to do it. ”
I didn#t think that the Big Reveal blowhard Tim S – an output of a prestigious university – would be primitive enough to post such disgusting material.
Naturally, I am opposed to the death penalty—including with regard to those who have absolutely no qualms about promoting execution methods as “painless” that are known to be cruel and inhumane.
But… this blog is driven by the so-called ‘free speech’, often enough misused.
Consequently, I should find it OK to wish upon people like the blowhard Tim S – if not death of course, then at least the very same torments they would so shamelessly let inflict upon those who killed others.
*
Here is what I read about the blowhard’s wonderful proposal.
*
Inhaling a gas without oxygen (such as pure nitrogen) causes a condition called nitrogen hypoxia, which medical experts, human rights organizations, and eyewitness accounts show can be highly distressing, violent, and prolonged rather than “painless.”
While proponents of this method historically argued that it would cause rapid, peaceful unconsciousness due to the lack of carbon dioxide buildup (which triggers the “suffocation panic”), real-world implementations on death row have heavily contradicted this claim.
Pain and Distress
• Air Hunger and Suffocation Panic: If the person holds their breath or attempts to resist inhaling the gas, they experience severe “air hunger,” intense anxiety, and the physical sensation of suffocating.
• Violent Physical Reactions: During the execution of Kenneth Eugene Smith (the first person executed via nitrogen hypoxia in Alabama), eyewitnesses reported that he did not lose consciousness immediately. Instead, he shook, writhed violently against the gurney restraints, gasped for air, and experienced heavy trembling for several minutes.
• Suffocation by Vomit: Medical professionals have raised significant concerns that the gas causes severe nausea, leading to a high risk of the individual asphyxiating on their own vomit while restrained.
*
Duration Until Death
The entire process takes significantly longer than what early proponents claimed.
• Time to Unconsciousness: While theoretical models suggested loss of consciousness within a few breaths, actual executions have shown that individuals can remain conscious and actively struggle for 2 to 5 minutes after the gas begins to flow.
• Time to Death: The total time from the start of the gas administration until the formal declaration of death lasts between 20 to 30 minutes. In the case of Kenneth Eugene Smith, the nitrogen flowed for roughly 15 minutes, and the total execution took about 22 minutes.
*
The difference between the blowhard and all those he arrogantly, condescendingly discredits on this blog, decreases from posts to post.
How many people do you know who’ve been guillotined who claim it is cruel and painful?
Personal attacks and incompetent content are very common from this person, so let’s fix this. The most significant hazard from industrial accidents involving oxygen deprivation is precisely the fact that the victim shows no outward signs of distress or injury. They just slump over.
A person who knows it is coming, and wants to make a demonstration could easily hold their breath and put on display of distress, but that is not the true nature of the issue.
I have attending a formal training session on the issue. It was a long time ago, but I did have the opportunity to talk to someone who witnessed such an event. The victim got too close to a poorly marked vent location and suddenly slumped over. There was no gasping, struggling or other drama. He just slumped over. I cannot remember the other details reliably, but they had a hard time reviving him.
Here is some objective information from a reliable source:
https://www.csb.gov/hazards-of-nitrogen-asphyxiation/
In the video, we have this from a medical doctor:
“workers who have survived these episodes describe a funny feeling where they can take a deep breath, but they still feel like they are suffocating” No pain or panic is described and unconsciousness is very rapid.
He continues later: “From the moment a person first enters an oxygen deprived atmosphere, they are effectively impaired … they fall down … and they die.”
Bindy Goebells,
It shouldn’t have come as a surprise that Bindion has kept his father’s notes on capital punishment. Not just the methods but the details. You are sick!
Capital punishment is morally questionable. But if a state decides it as a fair punishment then it is up to that’s states citizens to change it. But bindion concept of democracy is warped as he always seems to want to replace others views with his twisted views.
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
Monopoly investor-owned utilities provide electric and gas service to millions of Americans — nearly 70% of electric customers and 94% of gas customers. These large corporations spend millions of dollars to influence elections, back candidates and lobby every level of government.
This tracker maps the documented ties between utility companies and the groups that advocate on their behalf in Washington D.C.
https://energyandpolicy.org/utility-trade-association-tracker/
I recently uploaded DREMT’s Tetherball blah blah to Googla AI, asked for its meaning about it.
Here it is…
Here is the step-by-step breakdown to prove the text is physically and logically flawed:
1. The Fallacy of the Rotating Frame (Circular Logic)
The core of the text relies on a clever mathematical trick: if you change the definition of “zero rotation,” you can make rotation disappear.
• What the text does: It defines a coordinate system (the “Tether-Locked Baseline”) that rotates along with the Moon’s orbit. It then uses quaternion math to show that relative to this rotating system, the Moon’s spin is zero.
• The scientific flaw: This is a classic circular argument (petitio principii). You cannot prove a physical property does not exist simply by choosing a coordinate frame where its value is mathematically mapped to zero. If an ice skater spins in a circle, and we attach a camera to their head, the video will show the world spinning while the skater appears stationary. This doesn’t mean the skater isn’t physically experiencing rotation.
2. Violation of Conservation of Angular Momentum
The text’s “Perfect Tetherball” thought experiment claims that an object moving in a circle without an external axial torque will naturally maintain a “tether-locked” face. This directly violates Newton’s First Law of Motion and the conservation of angular momentum.
• The Reality of a Torque-Free Orbit: In a truly torque-free system in deep space (e.g., a perfect ball on a frictionless string), the object’s orientation remains fixed relative to the deep cosmos (inertial space).
• The Tetherball Paradox: If you swung a frictionless tetherball in space, it would not keep the same side facing the central pole. Instead, it would point toward the exact same distant star during its entire orbit. To an observer at the central pole, the ball would appear to rotate, showing all of its sides during one lap.
• The Moon’s Hidden Energy: The text claims no kinetic energy is transferred into an axial rotation reservoir. This is false. The Moon possesses genuine rotational kinetic energy. If you were to instantly delete the Earth and its gravity, the Moon would fly off into a straight line while continuing to spin on its axis once every 27.3 days.
3. Misrepresenting Tidal Locking as a “Torque-Free” Default
The text frames the “Tetherball Universe” as the natural, torque-free baseline of cosmic mechanics. In astrophysics, the exact opposite is true.
• The Origin of Synchronous Rotation: The Moon does not keep one face toward Earth because of a “torque-free cosmic geometry”. It does so because of massive gravitational tidal torques exerted by the Earth in the past.
• The Braking Mechanism: Billions of years ago, the Moon spun much faster. Earth’s gravity created physical tidal bulges on the Moon. Because the Moon was spinning fast, these bulges were constantly pulled out of alignment with Earth, creating a massive external gravitational torque that acted as a physical brake.
• The Equilibrium: The torque only stopped actively changing the Moon’s spin once the rotation period slowed down to exactly match the orbital period. The current state is the result of a historical, violent application of physical torque—not a torque-free geometric baseline.
*
Conclusion: The document is a pseudoscientific text.
It beautifully executes the math of a non-inertial, rotating reference frame, but makes the catastrophic philosophical error of claiming that this convenient mathematical perspective changes the fundamental laws of physics and inertia.
So, you do know Google AI is just Google programmers? You are deferring to Google programmers?
We’ve been telling the above physics to the rotation deniers for years.
They denied it when we showed that it was wrong and they will deny it when an AI tells them the same thing.
Cognitive dissonance.
You sure toss around the word “physics” loosely, Ent. Especially for someone that doesn’t understand the subject. You may remember your model of “orbiting without spin” wasn’t very viable. It would have a passenger jet flying backward!
“The Tetherball Paradox: If you swung a frictionless tetherball in space, it would not keep the same side facing the central pole. Instead, it would point toward the exact same distant star during its entire orbit”
That’s a neat trick for a ball on a string! How would it do that?
In all seriousness though, here is a link to the actual document:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zAOk_j9BZpsHDeSfSsaQUUdbwwat_HxQ/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=100747259084919773750&rtpof=true&sd=true
and a link to the proof that angular momentum is conserved:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h8mrNwdD5oIv_BD0vG98MMT5kxpp-cxi/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=100747259084919773750&rtpof=true&sd=true
People can decide for themselves what to believe.
Entropic man
The very best thing is that ignoramus Anderson doesn’t have the least idea that Google AI’s answer is very, very preobably an answer to a document automatically generated by another AI corner in answer to DREMT’s input:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zAOk_j9BZpsHDeSfSsaQUUdbwwat_HxQ/edit
Entropic man (corrected)
The very best thing is that ignoramus Anderson doesn’t have the least idea that Google AI’s answer is an answer to a document very, very probably automatically generated by another AI corner
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zAOk_j9BZpsHDeSfSsaQUUdbwwat_HxQ/edit
in answer to an input from DREMT (what he silently ‘forgot’ to mention).
And it is also absolutely evident to me that DREMT’s further documents are all also the result of an answer automatically generated by an AI!
DREMT never has shown any scientific education on this blog which suddenly would have led to such results.
More about the “perfect tetherball” theorem:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1755803
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1755831
That’s really the key. Once you understand that “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit, you should understand why matters of “spin” must be handled wrt a non-inertial reference frame.
Oh, and I don’t dispute the tidal locking mechanism.
I think that’s everything corrected now from Bindidon’s original post.
Bindy Goebells,
Still relying on LLMS to support your weak arguments. But then again that’s what the script kiddies do: bluster and gaslight.
Your pessimistic claims that CO2 is evil and the world is about to end is hilarious. Your predictions are constant stream of failure. Btw how is your prediction of the firewall going on German politics? Has the authoritarian left got any more undemocratic tricks in their playbook? Or are they planning another Night of the Long Knives?
> weak arguments
Q-Anon might need to work a little more than that.
Hopefully he’s not referring to the first point (“if you change the definition of “zero rotation,” you can make rotation disappear”) for quite recently he himself condescendingly thought nobody knew that. Yet two other points are more physics-related, and he’s just a math guy. And that’s just a sinecure: very few theorems under his belt.
“Still relying on LLMS to support your weak arguments.”
I think DREMT is the one that is critically in need of this warning.
The “Non-Spinners” are completely vindicated.
DREMT is completely delusional.
I assume it’s understood why the AI’s accusation of “circular logic” is wrong.
The logic is linear. It starts with the “perfect tetherball” theorem, and understanding that “orbit without” spin is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit.
Then you should understand why matters of “spin” must be handled wrt a non-inertial reference frame.
By contrast, the “Spinner” logic is circular:
They start with the assumption that matters of “spin” should be handled wrt an inertial reference frame.
This then means that “orbit without spin” has to be motion in which one side of the body always faces some distant star whilst orbiting. But, that is not what “orbit without spin” is! In fact, an external torque about the internal axis is required to make an object orbit that way.
Graham’s assumption is wrong, and his “No U” is silly. He is free to dispute that “one cannot prove a physical property does not exist simply by choosing a coordinate frame where its value is mathematically mapped to zero.” He’d look like a Fool if he did, a bit like when he was wondering about scientific curiosity:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1754792
At least he would be relevant.
Opposite of “circular” could be “creative” or “valid”, not “linear”. Validity was the thematic lesson of this summer, e.g.:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/07/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-june-2026-0-46-deg-c/#comment-1754064
Linear logic is another thing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_logic
Being resource-sensitive, linear logic would not allow that we make invariants disappear.
Who asked for Attackard’s opinion?
Who will now pretend that We Make Him Do It?
Why do Attackard and Nate just follow me around from thread to thread?
Has Graham D. Warner lost his best buddy’s code?
No, seriously – why do they keep following me around?
Has Graham tried to run his buddy’s code?
“He is free to dispute that “one cannot prove a physical property does not exist simply by choosing a coordinate frame where its value is mathematically mapped to zero”
It’s not a choice. That’s what I literally just explained. The “perfect tetherball” theorem demonstrates that “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Thus matters of “spin” must be handled wrt a non-inertial reference frame.
Attackard either doesn’t pay attention, or doesn’t understand. He wants to follow me about everywhere I post, but he doesn’t want to actually listen to what I have to say.
> That’s what I literally just explained.
Every time Gaslighting Graham uses the word “explain” it becomes a tell.
The “thus” does not follow from the theorem itself.
It is stronger than the theorem.
So in effect, what Graham’s trying to do is more than trying to derive a theorem from its statement: as BG said in the other thread Binny has not read and should not have necromanced, he’s trying to reify a mathematical artifice.
And that artifice, he has not bothered to check.
For he lost the code, now, has he?
Whatever role he’s serving us, Graham D. Warner will remain an absolute unit of an asshat.
Indeed, Attackard. The “thus” does not follow from the theorem itself, as I just said! The “thus” follows from the fact that “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. Try to actually read and understand what I’m saying.
The “perfect tetherball” theorem demonstrates that “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit.
Thus, matters of “spin” must be handled wrt a non-inertial reference frame.
Here is what is called a “theorem” in Graham’s best buddy’s three-pager:
(Graham’s pet theorem) your tether-locked baseline is the only dynamically valid definition of a spinless orbit.
Let’s stand aside that (a) this “theorem” is actually a “thought experiment”, that (b) baselines can’t really “define” orbits in any reasonable sense, and that (c) what is characterized as a definition of a “spinless” orbit is actually a theory according to which the Moon wobbles as “one motion” that contains two opposite spins, thus at best would be spinless under some kind of net accounting, and that (d) Graham asserts that these two spins are realer than real.
Here is Graham’s creative inference:
(Graham’s creative inference) The “thus” does not follow from the theorem itself [but also] from the fact that “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit… Then you should understand why matters of “spin” must be handled wrt a non-inertial reference frame.
So…we should understand why matters of spin must be handled “wrt” (whatever that might mean here) a non-inertial reference frame because Graham’s tether-locked baseline is the only dynamically valid definition of a spinless orbit. Whatever Graham and his buddy might mean by “dynamically valid definition” or “spinless orbit”, it’d be really hard to find more circular argument than that. The “fact” Graham just pulled out of thin air is already in the theorem…as a definition.
In these soon-to-be 10 years (9 days left) Graham has demonstrated one thing for sure: he just can’t keep track of anything remotely formal for long.
> the Moon’s spin is zero
Correction: the Moon’s net.
It would still spin:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1755457
So there would be two spins, on two opposite sides, that would cancel out every two weeks or so.
Attackard dishonestly conflates a discussion about tidal locking with talk about the libration in longitude.
Perhaps Graham D. Warner ought to spell out his double negative and states what he means by “I don’t dispute the tidal locking mechanism”. For it could be read as “I don’t dispute spin-orbit synchronization” if we replace “tidal locking” with one of its synonyms. Here is something he can’t deny having said:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1755901
Considering (C1) he believes wobbling is real, (C2) that wobbling involves two opposite spins (!!), and (C3) he has yet to recruit other Moon Dragon cranks to support his theory, it’d be hard for him to try to sell his Wobbling theory as the “non-spinner” alternative to…a theory he almost intimates not wanting to dispute.
The tidal locking mechanism works, and eventually results in motion like our moon – in other words, a body that has zero net spin.
The libration in longitude is most certainly a real motion with regard to the “tether-line” of gravity connecting the moon to Earth. Which is the correct reference frame to use, since “orbit without spin” is motion where the same side of the body always faces the inside of the orbit. See the “perfect tetherball” theorem as explained in the links supplied above.
By “zero net spin”, Graham must mean that the Moon actually spins at a constant rate, otherwise he’ll have to dispute spin-orbit synchronization, at least a little.
How the various parts of the Wobbling Theory are now compartmentalized should be compared with how the gallop has been kicked off on its original thread (note to Binny: where it should have stayed):
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1753634
We now know that this “one motion” involves two real opposite spins…
You’re full of crap, Attackard, but I agree with you on one thing – I was perfectly happy to leave this subject completely in last month’s comments. Bindidon shouldn’t keep bringing it up. Of course, I’ll end up being blamed for it continuing.
> I’ll end up being blamed for it continuing.
Graham the Bleeding Heart (GE2) – Weaponized pity and martyrdom.
For more on Graham’s Enneagram:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2026/09/uah-v6-1-global-temperature-update-for-august-2026-0-68-deg-c/#comment-1756277
Ten days until Graham’s 10th anniversary at Roy’s.
Now that Binny has decided to do like Bordo, we’ll celebrate it here.
OK, Attackard.
BACK AT THE RANCH
Latest WSJ poll:
“63% want to pause AI development
61% want a billionaire wealth tax
59% want Medicare for All
57% want a $20 minimum wage
58% want to end U.S. military aid to Israel”
This is the center of the country politically. it is time all adjust to this political spectrum, esp. media.
https://bsky.app/profile/matthewjdowd.bsky.social/post/3mwso7cjomk2q
Why would they want to end military aid to Israel, Israel is the only decent country in the middle east.
” Israel is the only decent country in the middle east. ”
Oh sure!
Of course I anticipate that people like Brown will discredit and reject such a source – just because it doesn’t match their narrative:
Violent and non-violent death tolls for the Gaza conflict: new primary evidence from a population-representative field survey
Michael Spagat & alii (2026)
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(25)00522-4/fulltext
Background
” High-quality mortality estimates are crucial for understanding the human cost of conflict.
The Gaza Ministry of Health (MoH) has provided regular updates to their violent death toll for the Gaza Strip following Oct 7, 2023, but these reports have attracted both criticism and support.
Independent estimates of both violent and non-violent deaths were needed. ”
*
Findings
” We estimated 75 200 violent deaths (95% CI 63 600–86 800) between Oct 7, 2023, and Jan 5, 2025, representing approximately 3·4% of the Gaza Strip’s pre-conflict population.
Women, children (ie, younger than 18 years), and older people (ie, older than 64 years) comprised 56·2% (95% CI 50·4–61·9) of violent deaths, totalling 42 200 deaths (95% CI 33 100–51 300).
We also estimated 16 300 non-violent deaths (12 300–20 200), of which 8540 (4540–12 500) represent excess deaths above pre-conflict projections.
The MoH figure for this period (49 090 violent deaths) was 34·7% below our central estimate. ”
*
This is not my view of a ‘decent country’, Brown.
we need a list of decent countries.
I suppose Canada is on it.
Then learn some history,
Gbaikie
The United States is no longer on the list of decent countries.
A good way to rate countries for “decent” is to compare the number of people that want to get in versus the number that want to get out.
Hey Puffman, riddle me this:
https://forumtogether.org/article/the-consequences-of-net-negative-migration-in-2025-implications-for-the-u-s-economy-workforce-and-global-competitiveness/
How many Dirty Donald card have you seen lately?
The United States is mankind’s last best hope. And, we have all the Marxist agitators telling us why it isn’t. Comical and sad.
Poor child Willard doesn’t understand the difference between “forced to leave” and “wanted to leave”.
And he’ll just come back with more nonsense. Easy to ignore.
Kids these days….
Hey Puffman, riddle me this –
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-quality-of-life
Why is Murica not in the list, while Finland, Denmark and Iceland are?
re: “Entropic man says:”
How quickly do countries such as USA, fall off the decent countries list [and/or how quickly do they get on the list?].
Is it related to the results elections?
And how is that related to countries like Russia and Iran where there aren’t any real elections?
More than a third of the the Saudi Arabia population are immigrants. Even UAE or Russia have lots of them. For many of those people, there are other priorities than trying to win an online argument.
USA’s soft power is now gone. Germany’s not there yet. Paradoxically, this will increase the need to migrate, as exploiting countries has the side effect of destroying them.
Dullard,
WSJ poll is only a very very very small subset of the American population. Was the poll of the leftwing readers or if the general public?
A larger poll paid for by CNN found the majority wanted voters to use id for elections.
Q-Anon roleplays as a math guy IRL and acts as if the basics of statistical inference was beyond him. Worse is that this failed academic can’t provide any link. That means he deserves a treat:
https://bsky.app/profile/headquartersnews.bsky.social/post/3mxekedzx4k2y
By Q-Anon’s logic, shouldn’t Ken proudly proclaim these beliefs?
Bindy Goebells,
I suppose it’s in your nature to blame the Jews for any issues .
Do you remember what happened on 7th October at the music festival. I haven’t seen the footage but I know people who have and seen how shaken they were about the hamas attacks on women and children! Only a person with your background would condone that sort of barbaric attacks.
And Israel has been very careful in trying not to hit genuine civilians. In fact they have one of the lowest civilian casualty rates from any conflict. Whereas Hamas uses child combatants and keeps munitions under hospitals, stolen from charities and aid foundations. Calls any of their combatants “civilians” and uses propaganda that even Goebells didn’t stoop to.
Do not use the term Gaza military for what is clearly Hamas . I suppose you don’t even believe that Hamas is sponsored by Iran.
“And Israel has been very careful in trying not to hit genuine civilians. In fact they have one of the lowest civilian casualty rates from any conflict.”
BS.
Wikipedia lists more than 80,000 deaths in the Gaza strip as a result of this war.
That’s roughly 3.4% of the entire population killed in a relatively short period of time. And many experts believe the actual death toll is an underestimate, not an inflated figure.
On top of that, approximately 82% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed.
How anyone can look at that scale of death and destruction and call this a careful, precise military operation is beyond me.
This is genocide. Full stop.
I’d rather see the US do business and become closer to Saudi Arabia than with Israel.
Eldrosion,
Expected by that little tantrum from you.
Wikipedia is renowned for it’s biased due to leftwing agitprop. Must be the leftwing has a lot of zealot students.
Genocide is what Iran & Hamas wants to commit against all Jews.
Here is a simple question that even you might understand: why is there a border wall between Gaza and Egypt. A wall that has prevented all possible escape from Gaza to Egypt. A wall that is so effective that Trump would love to build one in America
“Wikipedia is renowned for it’s biased due to leftwing agitprop. Must be the leftwing has a lot of zealot students.”
And even if true, how does that invalidate the figures it cites
Isn’t that like Hitler using Mein Kampf as his reference proof?
Eldrosion,
Scale of destruction is proportional to the Hamas / Iran used of turning Gaza into a military base used solely to o wipe out Israel.
If you remember back to the beginning a widely published report of a hospital being attacked and people were killed by the Israel. That’s what the left media pushed. It took very little effort and was disproved. What actually happened was Hamas / Iran misfired and killed innocent people.
Funny how you choose to forget that.
Why does Egypt have a border wall with Gaza. The army patrol that border. Something else you choose to forget. You Bindy and dullard are just as evil as Hamas & Iran
Speaking of Adolph:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pr-hitler
Curtis, like Troglodyte, is not a fan of democracy.
Anon moans about his opponent’s source, while offering NO source to back up his absurd claim.
The truth speaks for itself. Why do American Jews hate themselves?
Nate,
Do you genuinely believe that Wikipedia is without bias?
Does Q-Anon really believe he looks tough with his lazy barrister tricks?
Gee, still no source. Just madw it up, then?
This “tidal-locking” nonsense is so easily debunked it’s hard to understand why people still fall for it.
Consider Moon, with mass of “M”, divided into two spheres, one with mass 0.9M and the other with mass 0.1M. The spheres are attached to each other. Will they rotate?
Spinners MUST answer yes, to support the “tidal-locking” nonsense. But, Galileo proved there would be no torque on the two spheres, centuries ago.
Wird.
Galileo died before Newton’s Laws of gravity and mechanics came out.
Yes, Newton benefited from Galileo’s discoveries. Cassini lived about the same time as Newton, so he had the works of both Newton and Galileo. But Cassini was only able to pervert things.
That’s the difference between astrology and science.
BACK AT THE RANCH
What if OpenAI solves the Jewish problem
https://x.com/curtis_yarvin/status/2107964216972075434
I’m sure Q-Anon will appreciate JD’s guru’s remark, especially the expression “Jewish problem”.
Speaking of JD, don’t put his answer to “what is socialism” in your PoliSci 101 exam:
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3mxeqcszdqn2c
Q-Anon will like you, but you’ll fail.
This blog’s two dumbest posters Anderson and QAnon apparently did not understand that DREMT’s two documents are nothing of his own but WERE THEMSELVES generated by AI!
You clearly can see Anderson’s and QAnon’s reactions in
1. Anderson’s stupid post on October 8, 2026 at 9:49 AM
” So, you do know Google AI is just Google programmers? You are deferring to Google programmers? ”
2. QAnon’s even a lot more stupid and as always insulting post on October 9, 2026 at 2:27 AM
” Bindy Goebells,
Still relying on LLMS to support your weak arguments. But then again that’s what the script kiddies do: bluster and gaslight.
Your pessimistic claims that CO2 is evil and the world is about to end is hilarious. Your predictions are constant stream of failure. Btw how is your prediction of the firewall going on German politics? Has the authoritarian left got any more undemocratic tricks in their playbook? Or are they planning another Night of the Long Knives? ”
Dumber than QAnon you simply die.
**
Here are DREMT’s documents
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zAOk_j9BZpsHDeSfSsaQUUdbwwat_HxQ/edit
slightly modified since first appearance (which I of course precautiously saved on September 24 in a PDF file):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TaCxN0B6EatazaIrPcH57u2JbKSQgKI6/view
and
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1h8mrNwdD5oIv_BD0vG98MMT5kxpp-cxi/edit
*
Only the blinds fail to see what is glaringly obvious for documents generated by AI-bots:
– a typical text structure featuring lists of sub-points
and
– the repeated use of the word “your”, clearly indicating that the text is an answer to a question (visible, however, only in the original docx document; DREMT dropped them later away).
*
Furthermore, the highly sophisticated mathematical constructs clearly indicate that DREMT cannot be the author of the text; otherwise, he would have employed them in his arguments a while ago, before the AI corners came into play.
*
But… DREMT is one of their friends-in-denial; hence, Anderson and QAnon keep silent about DREMT’s AI use and prefer to rant at me…
C’est la vie. Quoi d’autre pourrait-on donc attendre de ces deux idiots?
*
In addition to Google AI’s correct reaction, I’ll upload a comment of more technical nature, which I of course anticipate to be rejected without any technical contradiction.
Ben oui, continue à nous faire perdre notre temps sur ces conneries.
Billard
Occupe-toi de tes affaires et ne te mêle pas des miennes.
T’es justement en train de te mêler des miennes, Ducon.
Sour grapes from Bindidon.
Dullard & Bindy
Instead of squabbling you need to work together to gang up against me. Dullard your ADHD is no match for Bindy focus. And Bindy you need to be more adaptable to the form of your weak attacks. Give me a proper challenge!
But both of you need to learn to care for humanity and consider the long term impact of your poor scaremongering about CO2.
Q-Anon,
You’re replying to Graham.
Is it supposed to make you look tough?
Sour grapes, DREMT? What sour grapes?
I did no more than contradict two idiots ranting at me just because I use Google AI but silently ignoring that you yourself use some AI bot.
Just post your “comment of more technical nature”. Your first comment was a bust, but maybe you’ll have more luck with the next one.
It seems that Willard has become this blog’s Big One who decides what can be published and what can’t.
It should be obvious by now that our Dark Triad (Q-Anon replacing Mike) is exploiting Binny’s utter lack of self-awareness.
Hurricane Isaias will pass over Alabama.
A public execution?
How low can the US sink?
Iran, and Afghanistan under the Taliban practise this degrading, abhorrent act. Western nations are now scrambling to find a way to ban the broadcast in their own countries.
Kids in the US could watch this live if not well-supervised. Teenagers thinking it will be a thrill. What monsters will tune in to get some pleasure from, it? It’s just fucking disgusting. Unbelievable, and yet of a piece with the current administration. Next up, a colosseum with fights to the death.
Dear God.
Barry,
Can you send me the links to your protests about Iran executing 1000s of protesters. Or your other numerous links to china execution of 1000s of protestors or political criminals.
Yet you seem to protest about a murderer in the USA being executed. Only to you would a murderer execution be worth more protest than 1000s of lives of protesters against authoritarian regimes.
Yes, that’s the point, America is now stepping in the same benighted direction as Iran and Afghanistan (Even China baulks at making executions public).
Glad to see you’re not trying to defend this appalling development.
Barry,
Executions in Iran are very publicly and they are murdering people who protest about their lost liberties and against an authoritarian regime that sponsors terrorists across the world.
How fick are you to conflate what Iran does with a capital punishment of a person who was found guilty of murder.
The fact that a state has capital punishment is down to them. It should only be changed via the ballot box, not by half-witted keyboard warriors happy away. In general I don’t approve of capital punishment unless it’s for the absolute worst crimes.
I’m sick of this Marxist’s fake holier than thou.
State-authored execution is bad enough – but that’s not the point, it’s that the Trump administration is exhibiting it to the public.
It’s barbaric. The last time the US held public executions it was a tool of racial terror. I’m sure everyone is aware what happened to women in Salem. Public executions were dropped in the US because they became carnivals, a rowdy, drunken crowd having a day off from work to ogle the convicted person kicking at the end of a rope.
Iran and Afghanistan’s vile practise does not excuse the US doing it, but if you’re suggesting I need to lower the bar for the US, don’t worry, I don’t need any prompting.
I just hope no kids watch it. Especially not in my country, where execution is completely banned. To me it’s unconscionable that any child could be able to view a state-sanctioned killing.
Barry,
You complain about the state government using capital punishment. You yap that capital punishment is murder. There is a moral difference, that you fail to see.
If a driver kills a women and her unborn baby then the driver faces 2 counts of murder. If a woman gets a late term abortion why doesn’t she face a murder charge? Why is it that there is a certain part of the left, that you seem to belong to, is happy to have 100,000s of babies murdered yet ***only*** protest about the capital punishment of a guilty murderer?
I read
” Russia will immediately supply more than 300,000 tons of diesel, followed by 500,000 tons in November, and 1 million tons immediately thereafter, Trump said in a post on Truth Social. Moscow will then deliver another 3 million tons of diesel based on the condition of Russia’s refineries, Trump said.
The US uses ~540,000 tons of diesel a day, which means the entirety of Russia’s proposed contribution won’t even supply the US for a week. It’s nothing. But big numbers sound good, dah? ”
*
A few lines further
” Didn’t the us just pass a bill to tariff countries buying Russian oil?? LMAO what a clown country ”
*
Indeed, that’s right:
Congress passes sanctions, tariff bill targeting buyers of Russian energy (Sep 19, 2026!)
https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news/crude-oil/091726-congress-passes-sanctions-tariff-bill-targeting-buyers-of-russian-energy
*
Yeah… Quite normal for those who suffer of TAS.
Heavy snowfall in southeastern Greenland.