Home/Blog
Due to a recent hardware failure affecting most UAH users of our dedicated “Matrix” computer system, the disk drives are having to be repopulated from backups. This is now in progress, but I am told it will take from “days to weeks”. Complicating the delay is the fact we cannot do our daily downloads of satellite data files from NOAA, and it will take time to catch up with special data orders. I will post updates here as I have more information.
As a Windows 10 user, suffering from from regular unwanted reboots trashing my work, I feel with you 😉
*** This is a Linux system. -Roy
Darn, just when the global anomaly is going down, according to the other university. They show the anomaly as .2 C lower.
Who is “the other university” and what is their data set?
Climate Reanalizer University of Maine. I look daily.
So do I. With 5 days in the month remaining, their average for February (adjusted to the UAH baseline) is +0.85, compared to +0.70 for January. Hence my confusion with your statement.
With one day left in the month, Moyhu’s data set (not adjusted) is +0.82 for February, compared to +0.74 for January.
It moves around. I watch this page.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/t2_daily/?dm_id=world
CR: +0.84 with 4 days remaining
Moyhu: +0.81 for all of February
I know you stated that is a hardware problem, but I still feel like asking. Was it the Russians or the Chinese? North Koreans and Iranians have nefarious intentions as well.
The sudden appearance of large warming this year made me wonder how hackable your computers are. Messing with your data is worth trillions of dollars to the right people. WEF types have access to the best computer programmers on the planet. Even China would like spurious warming it speeds up our destruction from economically ruinous choices.
I am expecting a February anomaly of 0.90 °C, up slightly from January’s 0.86.
https://i.ibb.co/b2KGB87/gfs-world-wt3-sstanom-d1.png
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202402.gif
I’m curious about your method. How are you doing your predictions?
He uses the WAG method.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2024/02/uah-global.jpeg
Tell me why the CR3mean and CR3medain are SO different.
…CR3median…
Looking at some of the ERA5 data for February so far, and I make the current 2m average (up to the 24th) at around 0.25C warmer than February 2016.
If that could be translated into UAH figures, it would give an anomaly of around 0.96C. But that’s a very big IF, and temperatures might have cooled down in the last few days. Plus, my calculations might be completely wrong.
And, naturally, I did make a big mistake in my calculations. I now make February 2024 to only be 0.12C warmer than 2016, which would suggest a UAH anomaly of 0.83C.
I doubt it very much.
Stratospheric intrusion with heavy frost in the US Midwest. Very heavy snowfall will soon begin in the Sierra Nevada.
https://i.ibb.co/0sh4Cd1/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f012.png
https://i.ibb.co/SrGBM01/gfs-o3mr-200-NA-f060.png
Large amounts of rain and snow will fall in northern California until March 7.
https://i.ibb.co/tQJZsYt/ventusky-rain-ac-20240307t0600-43n125w.jpg
Try to erase that pesky temperature spike when you are fixin it
Interesting that you are asking him to lie.
It is well known Democrats/Leftists have no sense of humor
It is well known that the Right have no concept of subtlety in humour. Just look at the boorish Trump.
Close Stellar Encounters and Earths Orbit
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2024/02/28/close-stellar-encounters-and-earths-orbit/
In regards to global climate:
“Now lets flip the question backward in time. Scholzs Star (WISE J072003.20-084651.2) moved near our system about 70,000 years ago, reaching by current estimates somewhere between 52,000 AU and 68,000 AU from the Sun. Here weve got a binary consisting of an M-dwarf and a probable brown dwarf companion at 0.8 AU. ”
…
One example of such an episode is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum 56 million years ago, where the Earths temperature rose 5-8 degrees centigrade. It has already been proposed that Earths orbital eccentricity was notably high during this event, but our results show that passing stars make detailed predictions of Earths past orbital evolution at this time highly uncertain, and a broader spectrum of orbital behavior is possible than previously thought.
Me: Are you aware of the Climategate leak?
ChatGPT: Yes, I am aware of the Climategate controversy. Climategate refers to a series of hacked emails and documents that were leaked from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in 2009. The leaked materials suggested that some climate scientists were engaging in unethical behavior, including manipulating data and suppressing dissenting views related to climate change.
The incident led to a significant controversy and fueled skepticism about the scientific consensus on climate change, particularly among those who are already skeptical of the mainstream climate science. However, multiple investigations were conducted, and they generally found no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data that would undermine the overall understanding of human-induced climate change.
It’s important to note that the vast majority of climate scientists and scientific organizations worldwide continue to support the consensus that climate change is occurring, and human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, are a significant contributing factor.
Me: I understand; there were several exonerations correct? Do you know the details of these exonerations?
ChatGPT: Yes, there were multiple investigations into the Climategate incident, and they generally exonerated the scientists involved. The key findings of these investigations include:
1. **Independent Climate Change Email Review (Mueller Review):** The University of East Anglia commissioned this review led by Sir Muir Russell. The investigation concluded in 2010 and found that while there were some shortcomings in the handling of data and communication, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. The scientists’ integrity in terms of the science itself was upheld.
2. **Pennsylvania State University Investigation:** Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist whose emails were part of the leak, was investigated by his university, Penn State. The inquiry, completed in 2010, found no evidence of scientific misconduct.
3. **UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Inquiry:** The UK Parliament conducted an inquiry into the allegations. In 2010, the committee concluded that the scientists involved were not guilty of any deliberate scientific malpractice. However, they did note some issues with openness and transparency in the handling of Freedom of Information Act requests.
4. **United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Review:** The EPA conducted a review in 2011 and found no evidence to support the claim that the CRU scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming.
These investigations collectively supported the credibility of the scientific work conducted by climate scientists, and they affirmed the overall scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is largely driven by human activities. The term “Climategate” is often used in a misleading way by climate skeptics, and it’s important to recognize that the scientific consensus on climate change remains robust.
Me: Expand on “However, they did note some issues with openness and transparency in the handling of Freedom of Information Act requests.” What came of this noting?
ChatGPT: The issue of openness and transparency in the handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests was raised by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in its inquiry into the Climategate incident. The committee noted that there were concerns about the CRU’s handling of FOIA requests, particularly in terms of the timely release of data and information.
The specific criticism was related to the reluctance or delay in providing certain datasets and information requested under FOIA. The committee highlighted that greater transparency is essential in order to maintain public confidence in scientific research and to ensure that the scientific community adheres to principles of openness.
As a result of these concerns, the University of East Anglia and the scientific community, in general, have emphasized the importance of improving transparency and data sharing in climate research. The incident prompted discussions within the scientific community about enhancing data accessibility, archiving, and sharing methodologies to address transparency concerns and facilitate reproducibility of scientific findings.
While the criticisms were acknowledged, it’s important to note that they did not undermine the scientific integrity of the climate research conducted by the scientists at the CRU. The focus was more on procedural issues related to openness and transparency, and steps were taken to address these concerns in subsequent years to enhance the transparency and accessibility of climate data.
Me: Many of these players were not complying with FOIA requests. Isn’t that illegal?
ChatGPT: Failure to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests can be a serious matter and may have legal implications. FOIA is a law that grants the public the right to access information held by government agencies and public institutions. However, it’s important to clarify that the Climategate incident involved a university (University of East Anglia) and researchers, and universities may have different legal frameworks compared to government agencies.
In the context of the Climategate controversy, concerns were raised about the handling of FOIA requests by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The criticism mainly centered around delays and reluctance in providing certain datasets and information requested under FOIA.
While these issues raised questions about transparency and compliance with the spirit of FOIA, the legal consequences, if any, would depend on the specific circumstances and applicable laws. In some cases, failure to comply with FOIA requests can result in legal actions, fines, or other penalties. However, the legal framework and consequences may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the organization involved.
It’s also worth noting that the criticisms related to FOIA handling did not lead to findings of scientific misconduct in the investigations that followed. The focus was more on procedural and transparency issues, and steps were taken to address these concerns and improve practices for handling information requests in subsequent years.
Me: “The criticism mainly centered around delays and reluctance in providing certain datasets and information requested under FOIA.” –> So breaking the law?
ChatGPT: The criticism related to delays and reluctance in providing certain datasets and information requested under FOIA did not necessarily imply a clear violation of the law, and it did not lead to legal actions or charges. The term “reluctance” often refers to a lack of promptness or willingness in responding to FOIA requests, rather than a direct violation of the law.
While FOIA is designed to ensure transparency and public access to information, the legal consequences for non-compliance can vary, and enforcement may depend on specific circumstances, applicable laws, and the jurisdiction. In some cases, failure to comply with FOIA requests may lead to legal actions, penalties, or other consequences, but it’s not a universal outcome.
In the context of the Climategate incident, the emphasis was on improving transparency and responsiveness to FOIA requests rather than pursuing legal actions. The investigations that followed acknowledged issues with openness and transparency but did not conclude that the scientists involved had engaged in unlawful activities. The focus shifted toward enhancing procedures and practices to address transparency concerns and to ensure better compliance with FOIA in the future.
Me: But the emails revealed the reasons behind the delays didn’t they?
ChatGPT: The Climategate emails did reveal discussions among scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) regarding their reluctance to release certain data and information requested under FOIA. The leaked emails included discussions about data sharing, handling of requests, and concerns about how their work might be used by climate change skeptics. Some of the scientists expressed frustration with the requests and discussed ways to resist or delay the release of certain information.
While the emails provided insights into the scientists’ perspectives and concerns, they also fueled controversy and criticism from those who argued that the reluctance to release data raised questions about transparency and openness in climate research. However, it’s important to note that the emails were taken out of context in some instances, and the subsequent investigations, as mentioned earlier, did not find evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data that would undermine the overall understanding of human-induced climate change.
The concerns raised in the emails were acknowledged by the scientific community and prompted discussions about the importance of transparency, data sharing, and open communication in scientific research. The incident contributed to a broader conversation about improving practices related to data accessibility and transparency in climate science.
Me: Can I read the emails for myself? I understand the concerns related to cherry picking passages and taking them out of context. Though I find the idea that a hacker would go to great lengths just to release a bunch of so-called “nothingburger” emails somewhat illogical.
ChatGPT: Yes, you can access the Climategate emails to review them in their entirety. The emails were publicly released, and various organizations and websites have made them available online. It’s essential to read the emails with a critical eye and consider the context in which they were written. As you mentioned, concerns about cherry-picking and taking passages out of context are valid, so it’s recommended to look at the complete conversations to better understand the scientists’ discussions.
Please note that while the emails raised concerns and led to controversy, multiple investigations, as mentioned earlier, found no evidence of scientific misconduct or manipulation of data that would undermine the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change. The release of the emails was controversial and was considered by many as an attempt to undermine confidence in climate science.
If you decide to review the emails, you may find them on various websites, but be aware of potential biases and consider cross-referencing information from reputable sources to obtain a more balanced perspective on the Climategate controversy.
Me: Where can I review them?
ChatGPT: The Climategate emails are part of the public domain, and several websites have made them available for review. One source where you can access the Climategate emails is the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) website itself. The CRU has a dedicated page that provides access to the emails along with related documents:
[UEA – CRU Climate Data and Documents](https://www.uea.ac.uk/about/documents-climate)
Please be aware that the release of these emails was controversial, and it’s important to approach the material with a critical mindset. As mentioned earlier, the context of the emails and the subsequent investigations that found no evidence of scientific misconduct should be taken into consideration when interpreting the content.
Additionally, you may find the emails on other websites that have archived or mirrored the material. Keep in mind that the availability of the content might vary, and it’s essential to use reputable sources when accessing and discussing these materials.
Me: Invalid link
ChatGPT: I apologize for the confusion. It seems there was an error in my response. Unfortunately, I cannot provide direct links. However, you can easily find the Climategate emails by searching online. A simple internet search using terms like “Climategate emails” or “CRU emails” should lead you to various sources where the emails are archived and available for review. Please exercise caution and critically assess the information while considering the broader context and subsequent investigations into the matter.
Me: “However, you can easily find the Climategate emails by searching online. A simple internet search using terms like “Climategate emails” or “CRU emails” should lead you to various sources where the emails are archived and available for review.” —> The closest thing I could was a report written by John Costella, and he’s a climate skeptic. I’ve read this report before and it does contain a lot of emails, but I don’t think it contains all of the emails. But no “objectionable source” provides access like you claimed, or at least not within the first couple of pages. Just a bunch of dismissive “nothing burgers” regarding the issue.
ChatGPT: I appreciate your diligence in trying to find the Climategate emails. It’s true that the availability of these materials may vary, and it appears that some sources may not provide comprehensive access to the entirety of the emails.
If you’re having difficulty finding a reliable and comprehensive source, it’s possible that various websites hosting the emails may have changed or been taken down over time. In any case, when reviewing such materials, it’s crucial to consider the context of the communications and be aware of potential biases or selective presentation.
If you have specific questions about certain aspects of the Climategate controversy or if there’s a particular topic you are interested in, I may be able to provide relevant information or context based on the knowledge available up to my last training cut-off in January 2022.
Me: Of course, Ill be objective; Ill decide for myself whether fraud was committed when I read them.
ChatGPT: Absolutely, forming your own perspective by reviewing primary sources is a commendable approach. Reading the emails directly will provide you with firsthand information, and it’s important to consider the context and the subsequent investigations into the matter.
When reviewing any controversial or complex topic, it’s helpful to approach it with a critical mindset and consider multiple perspectives. If you have any specific questions or if there’s additional information you’re seeking during your review, feel free to ask. I’m here to assist to the best of my ability with the information available up to my last training cut-off in January 2022.
Me: I’m a good judge of character; that’s why I am reading the emails. If my conclusion contrasts with that of subsequent investigations, that’s fine too right?
ChatGPT: Absolutely, forming your own conclusions based on your judgment and interpretation of the information is a valid and individual approach. It’s important to recognize that different individuals may interpret the same set of information in various ways, and people may reach different conclusions based on their perspectives and biases.
Subsequent investigations can provide additional context, but they are not the only factor to consider. It’s reasonable to have your own assessment, and if your conclusion contrasts with that of the investigations, that’s a reflection of your interpretation and understanding of the material.
The key is to approach the material with an open mind, critically assess the context, and be aware of potential biases or selective presentation. If you have any specific questions or if there’s anything you’d like assistance with during your review, feel free to ask.
Me: What if the most objective, unbiased person were to come to the conclusion that fraud was indeed committed?
ChatGPT: If someone, whom you consider to be objective and unbiased, were to independently come to the conclusion that fraud was committed based on a thorough review of the Climategate emails or related information, it would be their individual perspective.
It’s essential to recognize that discussions around complex and contentious topics, such as Climategate, can involve multiple interpretations and varying opinions. Scientific investigations and inquiries are designed to provide a collective and rigorous assessment, but individual perspectives can still differ.
If such a conclusion were to arise, it would be valuable to understand the specific reasons and evidence that led to that interpretation. In such cases, engaging in discussions with experts, seeking additional information, and staying open to different viewpoints can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
Ultimately, forming conclusions based on thorough examination and critical thinking is a fundamental aspect of individual decision-making and analysis. It’s encouraged to continue seeking information and considering different perspectives to refine and deepen one’s understanding of complex issues.
Me: I understand what you’re saying, but proper methodology and following of the scientific method is most certainty not subject to one’s individual viewpoint. Therefore, I think that if the most objective, unbiased person were to arrive at that conclusion, it would say something. And as you pointed out earlier, the experts already came to the conclusion that it was a much-ado-about-nothing event; as such, I don’t see the point of communicating with them asking for their advice.
ChatGPT: You make a valid point about the importance of proper methodology and adherence to the scientific method. Indeed, scientific investigations are structured to follow rigorous methods to ensure objectivity and reliability of findings. When experts, following established scientific processes, conclude that there is no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud, that is a significant aspect to consider.
If an individual, even someone considered objective and unbiased, were to arrive at a different conclusion, it would be crucial to scrutinize the specific methods, evidence, and reasoning they used to reach that conclusion. It might also be worthwhile to explore whether there are additional perspectives or critiques from others within the scientific community.
Engaging in discussions with experts or individuals with a range of viewpoints can provide valuable insights and help assess the robustness of various conclusions. It’s a way to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the topic, even if experts have already reached a consensus.
In any case, your approach of critically examining the evidence and forming your own conclusions is commendable. If you have further questions or if there’s anything specific you would like to discuss, feel free to let me know.
ChatGPT:
Concerns about social interactions can arise when someone spends an excessive amount of time engaging with technology or virtual entities, like ChatGPT, instead of interacting with other people in real-life social settings. Such concerns might include:
Social isolation: Excessive reliance on chatting with ChatGPT could lead to reduced face-to-face interactions with friends, family, or peers, potentially resulting in feelings of loneliness or isolation.
Stunted social skills: If a person predominantly interacts with AI rather than humans, they may miss out on opportunities to develop and practice essential social skills, such as empathy, active listening, and understanding non-verbal cues.
Dependency on technology: Relying heavily on AI for social interaction might lead to a dependency on technology for emotional support or companionship, which can have negative implications for mental health and well-being.
Impaired communication: Communicating primarily with AI may hinder the ability to effectively communicate with others in real-life situations, as it doesn’t provide the same dynamic feedback and nuances as human interaction.
Impact on relationships: Spending excessive time with ChatGPT or similar technology could strain relationships with friends, family, or romantic partners if it interferes with quality time spent together or if others feel neglected.
Overall, while technology like ChatGPT can offer valuable benefits, it’s essential to maintain a balance between virtual interactions and real-life social connections to support healthy social development and well-being.
Wow, ChatGPT is s more coherent than Wilard!
walterrho3.
As a scientist who had been corresponding with Phil Jones of East Anglia before Climategate and who submitted comments to one of the inquiries, I find the ChatGPT words you quote to be rather distant from reality.
The investigations really were unethical whitewashes. After findings were released freom one of them, I asked why normal police action was not taken to investigate and (if so found) to charge people transgressing FOI law and was told that such action would have taken the investigations into areas that were uncomfortable for the inquiry heads. In reality, there really were attempts to prevent publication of papers, there were actions to break the law by advice not to obey FOI law and there were emails destroyed to conceal malpractice (evidence in trial Mann vs Steyn).
I have not bothered to exercise ChatGPT or other similar software because there is so much scope for the insertion of misleading directions into the exercise. To succeed, these AI programs have to be scrupulously clear of influence. I have read no responses that convey such desired clinical detatchment, which is a prime requirement of the conduct of Science – about which people of achievement like Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman have written books.
Geoff S
Well said, Geoff. I wasn’t surprised by this at all. My conversation with ChatGPT speaks for itself; that’s exactly why I feel no need to engage in AI wars with the other commentators here.
LOL
Shorter:
https://climateball.net/but-cg/
Willard, please stop trolling.
Precipitation in California will continue. This is the forecast for March 11.
https://i.ibb.co/HChwsy3/ventusky-rain-3h-20240311t0300-39n122w.jpg
SOLAR MINIMUM UPDATE
[ME] Tell me about climate contrarians
[GEMINI] Absolutely, here’s what you need to know about climate contrarians:
Who are climate contrarians?
Climate contrarians are individuals or groups who reject the mainstream scientific consensus that climate change is happening and primarily caused by human activity.
They often downplay or deny the significance of the issue.
Contrarians should be distinguished from genuine climate ‘skeptics’ who approach the science rigorously but may challenge specific findings within the broader consensus.
Tactics used by climate contrarians
Cherry-picking data: Highlighting specific data points or short-term trends to dispute the overwhelming evidence of long-term warming.
Exaggerating uncertainty: Emphasizing the inherent uncertainties in climate models to discredit the entire body of evidence.
Conspiracy theories: Suggesting that climate scientists are involved in a vast conspiracy to fabricate data.
False experts: Promoting individuals with limited or irrelevant credentials as experts to challenge the consensus.
Personal attacks: Attacking the credibility or motives of individual scientists rather than engaging with their research.
Motivations of climate contrarians
Ideological: Opposition to environmental regulation or perceived threats to free-market systems.
Financial: Links to fossil fuel industries or organizations funded by those industries.
Contrarian nature: Some individuals may simply enjoy the role of going against the mainstream opinion.
Impact of climate contrarians
Sowing public doubt: Their tactics can confuse public understanding of climate science and delay action on climate change.
Policy influence: They sometimes hold positions of influence within governments or policy-making bodies.
Hindering mitigation efforts: Their rhetoric undermines the urgency of addressing climate change.
Important Note: It’s crucial to recognize the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change.
The evidence is clear, and the positions of climate contrarians are not supported by the vast majority of scientific research.
Let me know if you’d like more details on any aspect of climate contrarianism!
[ME] how are contrarians using [but-CG]
[GEMINI]
Climate contrarians use [but-CG] primarily in the following ways:
False claims of conspiracy: They portray the hacked emails as evidence of a vast conspiracy among climate scientists to manipulate data and deceive the public. This ignores that numerous investigations cleared scientists of wrongdoing.
Discrediting climate science: They use the incident to dismiss the entire field of climate change research as flawed and untrustworthy, despite the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supporting human-caused climate change.
Undermining public trust: By continuously bringing up [but-CG] contrarians aim to sow doubt in the public’s mind about the credibility of climate scientists and their findings.
Justification for inaction: They use the controversy to argue against taking action on climate change, claiming the science is unreliable.
How they exploit specific aspects of [but-CG]
Out-of-context quotes: Contrarians take phrases or sentences from the emails out of context to imply scientific misconduct, ignoring the broader context of the discussions.
Focus on uncertainty: They highlight any expression of uncertainty or debate within the emails to create an exaggerated impression that the entire basis of climate science is in question.
Attacks on individual scientists: They target specific scientists involved in the email exchanges, using personal attacks to discredit their work and the wider field.
The Goal:
Ultimately, contrarians use “[but-CG]” as a tool to delay or prevent meaningful action on climate change. Even though the controversy has been thoroughly debunked, they keep it alive to promote their agenda of denying the climate crisis.
Let me know if you’d like more examples or specific tactics used!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
That is all.
Willard, please stop trolling.
The door right behind you, Mike.
Willard accuses sceptics of “Cherry-picking data: Highlighting specific data points or short-term trends to dispute the overwhelming evidence of long-term warming.”
Willard, there current trendy summary of heatwaves globally is that they are becoming hotter, longer and more frequent. When I analyse raw data I do not find this to be supportable. When I study how the questionable result might be arrived at, I find that almost all of the oft-quoted papers are cherry picked to start after 1950.
This comment of mine is not written to sow public doubt. It is written to show incomplete conclusions by you.
Geoff S
Geoff’s reading skills are on par with the crankiest cranks here.
I’m not Gemini.
As for his armwaving, it’s the very item next to cherry-picking: exaggerating uncertainty.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
You’re in my thread.
Go PSTer elsewhere.
Willard
The essence of my comment was that the papers most quoted on heatwaves mostly start after 1949.
Are you able to disprove this?
I know that you can deflect it, but that is not disproof.
Geoff S
Gorgeous Geoff,
There is nothing to refute because you’re simply saying stuff.
And you’re the one doing the deflecting. I asked Gemini “Tell me about climate contrarians.” Not “tell me how much of a pretentious blowhard can be Gorgeous Geoff.” That’s a given.
In other news, there is a massive wild fire in Texas that the media is blaming on Climate Change. “With climate change we can expect…” There is just one problem with the narrative of a warming planet causing wild fires. The weather is actually rather cold in Texas this time of year.
I wonder if it’s yet another Wilard type of person who is trying to prove climate change is a real threat. No doubt a cold Texas is all the proof some will need.
Here is the story. Temperatures in that area are just above freezing right now:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/smokehouse-creek-fire-texas-panhandle-second-largest-state-history/
[Wildfires as a whole are anticipated to only get worse as the world continues to burn fossil fuels that release planet-warming greenhouse gases. Last year, scientists at Climate Central released a report finding that wildfire seasons in the U.S. are “lengthening and intensifying, particularly in the West.”]
Right now today, cool. But in the 80s early in the week when the fire got going.
Yes, the most important thing is to defend the narrative. Reason and logic are not important. Everyone can make up their own mind if this weather is unusual or represents “Climate Change”. Here is data from the last 7 days that will update every 15 minutes, so may be old news as time goes on:
https://www.weather.gov/wrh/timeseries?site=D3384&hours=168
Note that I just posted relevant facts.
Whereas you have us not-so-relevant facts, with SPIN.
Readers can decide who was trying to mislead them and who wasn’t.
7 Days of actual data is spin?
Your initial posts “Temperatures in that area are just above freezing right now”.
was misleading, and not particularly relevant, since the fire had already gotten very big days before.
Many high temperature records broken in that part of the country on Monday, the day the fire blew up.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/02/27/record-high-temperatures-across-us/72761279007/
It was misleading to suggest, as you did, that it had been a cold period and to imply that it was not ideal for fire.
I think its should be obvious that the conditions when the fire got going were ideal for fire, dry for an extended period of time, warmer than average, and windy.
Im not prepared to suggest those local weather conditions were caused by Climate Change.
Yes, Nate you are so busy accusing me of “spin” while projecting your own spin that you missed the entire point. It is the media, in this case CBS News, that is running the narrative so many here like to repeat, that everything unusual must be caused by Climate Change. With climate change we can expect [insert the “latest study” result as described by a science illiterate news anchor]. I posted the story with a quote and I posted data.
According to alarmists, cold weather is a sign of anthropogenic warming.
The Y2K bug was triggered by the leap year.
Beware the Ides of March….
Clint, the y2k bug was caused by programmers making assumptions that didn’t reflect reality. In their case it was assuming that the last 2 digits were good enough to hold the year.
Wonder how many bugs there are in the climate models. We already know that the concepts are flawed.
Seen at Moody’s RMS CAT Risk Management seminar, a list of threats that (re)insurance companies are worried about: https://ibb.co/gDvHnFR
A,
What a load of rubbish!
Saying “Do the current models for wildfires, floods and hurricanes adequately capture the ongoing effects of climate change?” is nonsensical. The future is unknowable. Insurance companies are silly enough to believe that they can predict the future (generally by looking at the past).
Every time an insurance goes bankrupt tends to point out that the insurance company’s ability to look into the future was on par with the local fortune teller’s!
The “current models” are a means of generating employment for their creators, and not much more.
Would you willingly pay to use one? I don’t believe so, but feel free to demonstrate your faith by proving me wrong.
Climate change is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents.
There is no artifact of CO2 emissions in any climate data.
The current models for wildfires floods and hurricanes arguably don’t capture the effects of climate change.
Any actuarian model is all about probability of an event occuring in a given time period. Its all based on existing climate records. Actuarian statisitics depend on the fact that if an extreme weather event is going to happen in the future its already happened in the past. The only factor is how often it happens.
Disaster Response is all about rebuilding your business just in time for the next disaster to wipe it out.
Business Continuity Planning is all about identify the hazard and building so the disaster cannot wipe your business out. No building on flood plains prone to flooding or in forests prone to fires. No building below the dam or below the Tsunami tide mark.
AGW climate change is not a legitimate factor in actuarian discussions.
Arguing by assertion makes it too easy for contrarians:
https://www.cia-ica.ca/actuaries/practice-areas/climate/
Being immune to evidence makes it even easier.
Willard,
Actuaries cannot peer into the future. That’s why many insurance companies go bankrupt.
You are dreaming again.
Accept reality.
Fact: TV commercials from some financial investment companies in Australia are now including the words “Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.” Or words to that effect.
Seems to me that the idea applies to weather as well. Climate might be also fit the comment when we get enough data, but concepts are often rather muddied by inputs from miscellaneous people like me.
Example: Polling says that 51% of Australians favour building of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. The % in the youngest age group was higher. My question is, do these poll respondents have any idea of value about what an SMR is, or how it works, or its economic potential? This climate change debate is on the fringe of intellectual lunacy much of the time. Geoff S
Mike Flynn,
Actuaries could certainly not explain why you keep repeating the same talking points whatever the comment to which you respond.
They still can try to make sure reinsurers don’t go bankrupt. When that happens, things can get ugly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Tinkler
We know you’re more an O&G guy, but would you associate yourself with a Coal King like Nathan?
Weird Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“We know youre more an O&G guy, but would you associate yourself with a Coal King like Nathan?”
What are you babbling about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
O&G stands for “Oil & Gas.”
It’s the accepted term. Would you prefer that I insist on the G part?
Cheers.
Willard,
I’m about as connected to “Oil and Gas” as I am to Obsterics and Gynaecology, which is possibly more widely referred to as O&G!
I’ll repeat –
You wrote
“We know you’re more an O&G guy, but would you associate yourself with a Coal King like Nathan?”
What are you babbling about?
Willard, please stop trolling.
So you say, Mike. So you say.
“…is not a legitimate factor in actuarian discussions.”
You sound like General Custer before the Battle of the Little Bighorn: https://ibb.co/kq18ps9
There is no way to attribute higher damage due to extreme weather that has been made more extreme or more frequent by AGW.
If you want to make a comparison to Bighorn. General Custer lost because he had inaccurate data. It wasn’t a change in the data; he didn’t have the data he needed when he needed it.
Those damn sneaky injuns compare to unpredictability of climate.
“There is no way to attribute higher damage due to extreme weather that has been made more extreme or more frequent by AGW.”
If you say so.
I, on the other hand, much prefer the scientific approach…
A,
What is the difference between attribution and wishful thinking?
I suppose you think that the climate can be prevented from changing.
The IPCC doesn’t, and nor does anybody who accepts reality.
Climate is the statistics of historical weather observations. You are simply fantasising if you believe otherwise.
Arkady Ivanovich
I do not think attribution studies are as valuable as you do.
From what I have read they may run some climate model millions of times and see how often some particular extreme weather event occurs.
Maybe it occurs once in the control model with no Climate Change and 10 times in the Climate Change model then they claim Climate Change made the event 10 times more likely.
I consider this garbage science and more manipulation. If these models are at all valid have them predict where this years droughts will be and how severe. What regions will have the heat waves. What rivers will flood this year.
Waiting for an extreme weather event to occur and then running some simulations on computers running through several simulations to come up with some likely forecast is not the best of the science world.
I think this type of study is junk science at its best and is just used to manipulate the Public. This is the part of Climate Science I am opposed to. I do not think any of that is valid evidence.
More valid would be to take long term trends and see if the weather is getting more severe. So far it is not true of tornadoes, droughts, hurricanes. Not sure about floods. Extreme weather has been taking place every year for as long as records have been taken. It is hard to tell if things are getting worse weather wise or not. The global population has boomed so there will be many more weather related disasters but that does not mean extreme weather is increasing. You need better than computer simulations of many cycles to make the case. Need solid real world data.
Obviously we have different views on what is an attribution study and the goals.
For me the goal of an attribution study is to determine if extreme weather events have been made more likely by climate change. In other words, has the probability distribution of such events shifted.
When the probability distribution shifts, it isn’t only the mean that shifts but also the tails of the distribution, by definition, where extreme events reside. The tails also become fatter increasing the probability of tail events.
See here: https://ibb.co/gP0bRnY
My father used to say, “you pick your clothes for the weather, you build your house for the climate.” You never want to build a house in an area with fat tails.
“When the probability distribution shifts, it isnt only the mean that shifts but also the tails of the distribution, by definition, where extreme events reside.”
True. The past is no guide to the future.
If you think so, you are dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
Your past behavior makes your comments predictable.
Cheers.
Willard, please stop trolling.
“True. The past is no guide to the future.”
Yep, glad to hear you say that.
Then you must agree that the cooling of the molten Earth from 4.5 BY ago, is a USELESS guide for the current warming of the no-longer molten Earth.
This is the insurance companies looking for excuses to raise their rates.
Gordon, here in the UK insurance companies are demanding 5,000 for BEVs drivers who have made any claim. This is on response to the followers of the sky dragon cult who demand that we all get rid of the normal cats and replace them with BEVs.
Also look at what happens to a multistorey carpark when a hybrid Range Rover battery ignites. Nothing left of the carpark and the insurance companies are still panicking.
Again all due to the cult over reacting tho plant food.
Interesting the pound sign disappeared. So it’s 5000 pounds annual car insurance for the cheaper BEVs or about 10 percent
By Jove:
https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/largest-car-insurance-companies/average-electric-car-insurance-cost-uk
Yet again, wee willy rushed off a comment without reading what the poster said. Anon claimed the UK insurers are charging up to 5000 pounds for ***anyone who has made a claim***. That is typical of private insurers. Once you make a claim they soak you.
Once again a crank whines after not bothering to double check what another fellow contrarian said.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
EV claims costs are 25% higher and take 15% longer to repair than a gaz guzzler.
What are you braying about?
Not just raising rates, getting out of a business that doesnt pay altogether, for homes in the paths of stronger and stronger hurricanes..
Nate,
Yes, going bankrupt is definitely getting out of business.
Do you think the actuaries didn’t believe the “climate scientists”, and told their bosses not to take any notice of their predictions?
Maybe insurance companies should believe climate scientists rather than actuaries?
Do you think bankruptcy could be avoided if climate scientists could predict the future?
Only joking – you’re dreaming as usual.
Mike Flynn,
If for every pound collected in premiums, you had to pay a pound and ten pence, you would go broke.
What are you braying about?
Do you know how to construct or interpret a risk ranking matrix?
Tim,from their previous comments the ranking will be done by colour, by perceived victimisation etc. Won’t be done with any rigour or verifiable methodology.
If our two high popes could get their act together, they could arbitrate that market and make a killing! At least if their actuarial model is right. Or if they are lucky.
There are three effects from increasing CO2 due to fossil burning that are very likely. Climate change is big step beyond that. The first and most controversial is warming of the lower atmosphere. There should be some effect, but not on the whole atmosphere. It is not possible to quantify or separate anthropogenic effects from natural effects including weather variability.
On that theme, there should be increased instability in the atmosphere (lower temperature as altitude increases). The upper atmosphere should be cooling, and that would be the most likely explanation for intense rain events to the extent they may, or may not be increasing.
The final effect that is almost certain is greening of the planet. It is extremely difficult to quantify, but anecdotally, I get the sense that the spring growth happens faster and more fully. Could that contribute to the increasing frequency and intensity of wild fires that seems to have some statistical backing? Another contributor that is fully acknowledge by professionals is the need to allow fires to burn naturally at times to thin the undergrowth.
tim s…the Ideal Gas Law and the heat diffusion equation limit the warming capability of a trace gas in a gas mixture to its percent mass. In the case of CO2, it is limited to a 0.06% warming of any warming that takes place.
Consider a warming of 1C over the past 170 years. The above means that CO2 could have contributed a maximum of 0.06C. That is based, in part, on Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures, an integral part of the IGL. Since that 0.06% is the current value, it is clear that CO2 has contributed less than 0.06C over the 170 years.
Dalton’s Law states that the total pressure of a mixed gas is the sum of its partial pressures. Of course, pressure is the force exerted by a gas on the walls of a container therefore a partial pressure is the partial force related to a component gas and based on its mass. In the IGL, PV = nRT, and n represents the number of molecules hence the mass.
In any gas at constant volume, pressure is directly proportional to temperature. Therefore the temperature contributed by any gas in a mix is theoretically dependent on its mass. That makes perfect sense since heat is the kinetic energy of molecules in a gas and so many molecules can only contribute so much heat.
The atmosphere presents a tricky problem. It is comprised of a mixed gas under the influence of a force…gravity…which orders the density of the gas by altitude. Still the overall volume can be regarded as a constant. For those who don’t like that, then concentric volumes can be used and summed.
A concentric volume would be a layer of air between different diameters in a sphere that has essentially a constant volume wherein the pressure is uniform. Those concentric layers can then be summed to create a constant volume for the entire atmosphere.
Within each layer, the percent CO2 will remain constant and able to contribute only 0.06% to the temperature of that layer.
Nice try. It is not really very amusing, but you get an E for effort. The laws of physics do not change anywhere except it the creative mind of someone who is trying to be humorous, or even genuinely confused.
For those who might want a serious response. The transfer of energy by radiation is well known, studied, and defined. The difficult part is trying to extend laboratory experiments conducted under control conditions to the real atmosphere. So the fact is that there must be some effect from increasing CO2, but lab results and simplified equations do not work in the real atmosphere. Each individual gas molecule is both transmitting and receiving based on its temperature and spectrum. Even the most sophisticated computer simulations are not able to capture that effect.
Tim,
“Each individual gas molecule is both transmitting and receiving based on its temperature and spectrum. Even the most sophisticated computer simulations are not able to capture that effect.”
Weird. Of course they are able.
There is certainly no need to ‘capture’ what individual gas molecules are doing, when we already know perfectly well how large volumes of such molecules behave, which is all that matters for weather and climate.
Where do I begin? “Weather and climate” are two very different subjects except when you folks want them to be the same. Weather is different from climate even though people try to claim that natural variation in weather is evidence of climate change. More importantly, weather models are looking at air mass movement and the location of fronts.
The so called climate models do not actually predict climate. That is a stretch. The models predict changes in temperature only, and they do a very poor job of agreeing with each other. The molecular interactions are simulated in layers and regions, and that is probably why they have so much variation. They also require calibration with actual data over time for the very reason I stated, which is that molecular interactions cannot be inferred from lab data.
There is enough here for you to unpack. Have fun and carry on!
“The models predict changes in temperature only”
No, they are GCM models, and TRY to predict many variables.
“So the fact is that there must be some effect from increasing CO2…”
CO2 can slightly cool the planet, but the effect is small due to too little CO2 and the low energy 15μ photon it emits.
We know it can’t warm the surface for the same reasons it can’t cool Earth very effectively.
Puffman ought to test his theory on other planets.
I propose Venus.
Physics works on all the planets, silly willy.
You won’t understand even if you ever grow up….
CO2 and N2 compose more than 99% of Venus’ atmosphere, Puffman.
Imagine how cool it could be.
Physics works on all the planet, silly willy.
That doesn’t mean you can understand it.
Logic works in all possible worlds, Puffman.
Puff goes your silly idea that CO2 cools.
Tim S,
Heat generated by any means at the surface may raise the temperature of matter exposed to it, which then promptly radiate that heat to colder areas – ultimately (and quite quickly), outer space. Heat is ephemeral. You can’t store it, nor can it be accumulated.
Nobody can predict the impact of any change (no matter how small) to a chaotic atmosphere, any better than a 12 year old.
In a deterministic chaotic system like the atmosphere, the approximate present does not determine the approximate future, as insurance companies occasionally realise as they go bankrupt.
Might as well just hope that tomorrow is much the same as today, and use your own best judgement. If in doubt, consult a fortune teller or a Magic 8 Ball. Sometimes, shit just happens!
As for me – so far so good.
Exxon CEO Blames Us for Not Fixing the Climate
The world isn’t on track to meet its climate goals – and it’s the public’s fault, a leading oil company CEO told journalists.
Exxon Mobil Corp. CEO Darren Woods told editors from Fortune that the world has “waited too long” to begin investing in a broader suite of technologies to slow AGW.
That warming is largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels, and much of the current impacts of that combustion – rising temperatures, extreme weather – were predicted by Exxon scientists almost half a century ago.
The company’s 1970s and 1980s projections were “at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models,” according to a 2023 Harvard study.
Since taking over from former CEO Rex Tillerson, Woods has walked a tightrope between acknowledging the critical problem of climate change – as well as the role of fossil fuels in helping drive it – while insisting fossil fuels must also provide the solution.
In his comments Tuesday, Woods argued the “dirty secret” is that customers weren’t willing to pay for the added cost of cleaner fossil fuels.
Woods blamed “activists” for trying to exclude the fossil fuel industry from the fight to slow rising temperatures, even though the sector is “the industry that has the most capacity and the highest potential for helping with some of the technologies.”
Woods’ comments Tuesday doubled down on the claim that the energy transition will succeed only when end-users pay the price.
“People who are generating the emissions need to be aware of [it] and pay the price,” Woods said.
“That’s ultimately how you solve the problem.”
To better demonstrate the mentality of oil companies, during WW II, Standard Oil was selling oil to the Nazis. When the head of Standard, Rockefeller, was confronted by the President Roosevelt, Rockefeller claimed ‘free enterprise must prevail above all’.
That is what we are dealing with. Oil companies have no allegiance to anyone, their allegiance is to the profit margin. If they can make money bs-ing about global warming/climate change, that’s what they will do.
Alarmists like Ark seem to think we skeptics are on-board with oil companies. Each time I pass a gas station and see the price of gas, I always say out loud, “Nazi b**tards”!!
However, Ark is willing to accept oil companies as authority figures as long as they preach his propaganda. At the same time, he is quite willing to slam skeptics for being in bed with oil companies.
Rather confused, I’d say.
Ark,
Why don’t you ask Mr. Woods how fossil fuels are the problem if they are only 4% of CO2 emissions?
Before step two:
2. Sammich Request
You need step one:
1. Denial.
At least respect proper form, Troglodyte.
https://youtu.be/WMkT6CGnRVs
I agree that the feelie method of scientific inquiry is much easier. It doesn’t require any research or any difficult calculations or any knowledge of physics or expensive lab equipment.
You don’t need to spend years studying or reading the scientific literature. Or trying to understand those fancy graphs that only elitist scientists seem to understand.
All you need in order to come up with what’s known in feelie world as a theory, is the following:
1/ An armchair…
Once you’re sitting comfortably in the armchair just wait ’till a thought-bubble appears and you’ve instantly got a theory.
Now you can make your own graph based on what you feel is obvious. Completely devoid of figures, and compare the amount of stuff with the effect of that stuff.
And instantly we see that heaps of stuff leads to a humongous effect, while a tiny amount of stuff leads to a teeny-weeny effect. Its just common sense!
Good summary.
“The biggest storm of winter has begun blasting the Sierra Nevada and will continue into the weekend, with some areas expected to see 10 feet of snow.”
Subsurface temperature decline of the tropical central Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC006/IDYOC006.202402.gif
Really sorry to hear about the disk drive issue as it sounds like ransomware – or a storage upgrade where the wrong shelf of disks were turned off.
Weeks to restore? Somebody’s Disaster Recovery (DR) plan sucks.
Hang in there. Many besides myself will wait with you. Thanks to you and the staff for all you do. Best wishes to the IT team restoring all the data.
May you get everything back and feel like you got everything back. I often wonder if any files were not restored.
anon…”Also look at what happens to a multistorey carpark when a hybrid Range Rover battery ignites”.
***
This is a serious problem. I used to think that batteries for driving the EVs were typical lead-acid types. Turns out they are comprised of ordinary Lithium-ion cells like you’d find in a cordless drill. The Tesla models use nearly 7000 of these cells in series/parallel combinations.
https://eluxbikes.com/blogs/default-blog/how-many-battery-cells-are-in-a-tesla-what-about-an-ebike
Of course, Lithium-ion cells are known for their ability to explode when not handled properly. Some will simply explode for no known reason. If you pack 7000 of them in close proximity, as they are packed in cordless drill batteries, one explosion will likely set of a chain-reaction.
I doubt they will ever find a way to isolate each cell to prevent a chain reaction. The cells are closely packed because each cell is spot-welded to its neighbour for parallel arrangements using a thin metal strip. Any attempt to isolate each cells will no doubt increase the size of the battery to unwieldy proportions.
Gordon, must admit been tempted by an e-bike to avoid summer traffic, but the risk of the batteries getting damaged and then catching fire is too risky. Especially with the short cuts I have in mind.
Same with any BEVs, been tempted as they will be a precursor to self drive cars,but currently too risky. Not sold on the idea that they have a reduced impact on the environment.
Perhaps, given time, a new battery will be safer.
Good call, Anon IT Geek. I too hate when the risks are too risky.
Just buy a real e-bike and you’ll be fine. Older battery models are also quite OK. Your landlord and your insurer wouldn’t like you to play in your flat’s electrical box. The same logic applies to electric bikes.
Solar wind
speed: 339.9 km/sec
density: 1.92 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 01 Mar 24
https://www.spaceweather.com/
Sunspot number: 107
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 164 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.82×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.6% Low
That worked.
Feb month average was 124.7
And average 11 month average blue line went down a bit.
But next month [March} if it’s 120 or more, blue line will up quite a bit.
And March number will have be quite low to have blue continue going down
What “blue line” are you referring to? I see no graph in your link.
And the strength of the cycle is determined by a 13-month average (actually 11 and two halves), not an 11-month average.
120 for March will take September’s 13-month average above July’s, but not above the June maximum.
109 is needed in March for September to break even with August’s 13-month average, 118 to equal July’s, and 138 to equal June’s maximum.
I recall you claiming 6 months ago that November and indefinitely into the future would average 50. Reality for Nov-Feb is only 134% higher.
“I recall you claiming 6 months ago that November and indefinitely into the future would average 50. Reality for Nov-Feb is only 134% higher.”
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
As your meaning for the T word appears to be “stating facts”, I hereby respectfully decline your request.
Antonin Qwerty, please stop trolling.
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRRMVv6m/Clipboard01.jpg
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
Also I give another thing:
“Forecast of Solar and Geomagnetic Activity
26 February – 23 March 2024
Solar activity is expected to be at moderate levels
(R1-R2/Minor-Moderate) through 02 Mar, when Region 3590 (N18, L=223,
class/area=Fkc/1450 on 25 Feb) rotates off the visible disk. While
flare potential will likely decrease substantially from 02 Mar
through the end of the period, a chance for M-class activity will
remain due to multiple significant regions on the far side of the
Sun due to rotate back onto the visible disk.”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
So we saying low, but instead moderate levels.
Also suppose to be another big spot returning soon.
And the big spot 3590 leaves, a couple spots in southern hemisphere
are arriving from farside.
“I recall you claiming 6 months ago that November and indefinitely into the future would average 50. Reality for Nov-Feb is only 134% higher.”
I was guessing it would crash in Nov, which it did.
But also guessing it would go lower and see some spotless day. Which hasn’t happenned.
But also said it would be impossible guess the solar weather, but I thought it would fun to try the impossible.
What I am thinking is next 3 months, will be critical in terms of NOAA recent guess about cycle 25.
I would say it’s on track if March has 140 spot or next 3 months average 120 spots. And of course it has had many of such months already.
Anyway, I don’t have a guess for March. Or could have 50% of being higher than 120 or 50% of lower.
But it seems to me, if march is higher than 120, the other two later month will also be higher, and it March less 100, the later month will likewise be lower than 100.
So still following it, and still wondering if we are in Solar grand Min or not.
How does rising from 99 to 105 qualify as “crashing”?
Ten years when people referred to a “grand solar minimum”, they were talking Maunder. Then it became Dalton (which is a HUGE difference). Now that this cycle more than 50% stronger than the Dalton, the definition has changed again.
And there is still no evidence of any positive correlation between sunspot counts and temperatures.
“Ten years AGO …”
“cycle IS more:
?
2023 10 99.4
2023 11 105.4
2023 12 114.2
2024 01 123.0
2024 02 124.7
Well it’s not anything like SC23 and the 4 or 5 before it, but… what the hell is crashing here, gbaikie?
–Bindidon says:
March 2, 2024 at 10:06 AM
?
2023 10 99.4
2023 11 105.4
2023 12 114.2
2024 01 123.0
2024 02 124.7
Well its not anything like SC23 and the 4 or 5 before it, but what the hell is crashing here, gbaikie?–
Well I am not interested in the solar cycle as it related to Earth global climate. I am interested it’s effect upon cosmic rays {GCR}.
So I am interested in what going to happen years until the future and I thought start with months in the future.
So I guessed the summer of 2023, thereafter it would crash.
And asked myself, how will it crash, and pick Nov about a year before it came. But I kept on guessing about how it fall from the peaks of summer. So I though it would start, in Nov, and it started halfway thru Oct. Anyways, the lowest I thought Nov could crash was as low as 50 and I thought Nov could have first spotless day.
But it didn’t happen.
So I was asking when it start to crash, and I picked Nov, and it was Oct.
And if Nov crashed as low as 50, I guessed the next month would bounce back to 100 and bounce around 100 than then fall further and get more spotless days. But it didn’t happen.
Another way of guessing was to ask when would cross the red line and I guessing Nov had good chance of crossing the redline.
But it didn’t happen.
But I didn’t guess it would drop to 50 in Nov, but regarded as possible in terms spiking down and bouncing up the next month.
The simple answer, is man plans, and God laughs.
But I see the humor. But it is a bit disturbing philosophically.
Everyone believes in God.
But in terms of sun activity.
At moment, I now see it’s possible that NOAA latest guess could be more or less “correct”.
Or couple month ago, I thought it was a bad guess, and would been disproved, already.
I am not guessing for Zharkova, and she hasn’t been disproven yet.
It’s NOAA and Zharkova are pros, and I trying to get a better idea of it.
gbaikie
If I were you, I’d first have a look at a comparison of SC25 with its predecessors. Here is a superposition of the four:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Gp5KQOo4w13Gax8z_YKi6uyZ-EHLeImp/view
As you can see, all predecessors’ 13 month running means show a double peak; the second one occurred for SC24 and SC23 around month 67 since these cycles’ respective start i.e. solar minimum.
SC25 is currently in month 50.
If SC25 behaves like those before, I wouldn’t wonder its 13 month running mean to first move down to around 100, and then to resume to a level around 130, with a monthly peak around 180-190 in May 2025 or so.
I bookmark this post for next year.
” … with a monthly peak around 180-190 in May 2025 or so ”
That means a 13 month smooth around 150.
“That means a 13 month smooth around 150.”
That seems to me to roughly fit with NOAA latest guess.
So blue line peaked at 125.2 and it’s going peak at around 150.
The drawn blue line peak:
“June 2023:
June monthly value: 160.5
Smoothed monthly values: 124.2
Predicted Values: 77.9
Predicted Range: 51.6 to 105”
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/solar-cycle-progression
And your guess for cycle 25 Max is
Smoothed monthly values: “around 150”
Or
–May 2025:
May 2025 monthly value: ??
Smoothed monthly values: around 150
Predicted Values: “around 150”
Predicted Range: “around 150”–
And I say that is roughly NOAA guess.
And what might make people mad, also roughly Zharkova’s
guess. Though she may or may not disagree.
Oh god damn it, we have to wait longer to to know who is more
“right”.
I thought I give it rest, before beginning of 2024
Oh my mistake- you say 2025 and I think it’s 2024.
[And that is why you say double peak.}
well my guess is sooner to get the answer, and I am impatient.
The double peak thing has been a common exception, but I don’t recall if that is NOAA guess.
So I say:
–May 2024:
May 2024 monthly value: ??
Smoothed monthly values: around 150
Predicted Values: “around 150”
Predicted Range: “around 150”–
Or I am saying that is NOAA, guessing more or less, correctly.
[Which I think is still possible.]
I mistyped: “..been a common exception..”
I meant: been a common expectation
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/noaa-forecasts-quicker-stronger-peak-solar-activity
I don’t know if that is exactly the graph, as recall. But it’s first one I found with a quick search- and it could indicate a double peak but also sort of doesn’t.
But I am focus on near term of what this graph indicates.
So if May 2024 smoothed is around 150, then it isn’t wrong, yet
But you could see a double peak, in it. So I linked it.
And as I said in next 3 months, it could “good news” for graphs like that.
But for March, NOAA say moderate levels, rather than low levels.
And I am on the fence, of question will it be more 120 or less, What NOAA forecasts:
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/weekly-highlights-and-27-day-forecast
Is “evidence” of higher than 120. And I count that as “something” to consider. Oh, do this:
Solar wind
speed: 283.8 km/sec
density: 2.54 protons/cm3
Daily Sun: 02 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 120
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 153 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.84×10^10 W Warm
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -4.3% Low
But we can revisit crossing red line, will March drop below 100 sunspot and cross red line?
Or could jump up 20 to more than 140.
It seems to me between 110 and 130 seems most likely.
And it seems to me likely, the blue line will go flat or up with March’s average spot number.
But NOAA been saying last few months low and some moderate, and latest is moderate and at this point in cycle moderate would be something translatable to like say, 120 to 140 {or more}.
Oh, here another one:
https://www.nasa.gov/solar-cycle-progression-and-forecast/
[NASA not NOAA. But couldn’t find the one, I was thinking about.
Similar to Bindidon, and 95% percentile seem similar to the NOAA forecast that I was thinking about- and it has second peak]
interesting quote from your link…
“This is an AI Free Zone! Text created by ChatGPT and other Large Language Models is spreading rapidly across the Internet. It’s well-written, artificial, frequently inaccurate. If you find a mistake on Spaceweather.com, rest assured it was made by a real human being”.
Seems to be alerting people to be aware of AI-created propaganda which is increasing on the Net.
I am wondering if some posters like Ark and wee willy are AI bots, posting propaganda. Artificial intelligence certainly suits them both.
Here we see how 100% one-sided people like ignoramus Robertson are: the thread is over and over full with Hogle’s stoopid ChatGPT nonsense; but Hogle is a good pseudo-skeptîcal boy, hence his ‘contributions’ are of course no propaganda.
In my native tongue, we say:
” Plus bête tu meurs. “
Gordon, you must have a very dim view programmers if you think one would ever own up to creating an chatbot called Wilard. Developers do have standards. Unlike the script kiddies..
Q-Anon
You perfectly know that I have nothing in common with those you arrogantly call ‘script kiddies’.
You behave like the average pseudo-skeptical boy: arrogant, superficial, brazen, disingenuous, condescending.
No idea how old you are; I’m over 70, and by the way: As for your reference to functional programming, I remember working on Symbolics Lisp machines for several months in 1990, learning their well-made CLOS extension (Flavours) and how to implement side-effect-free software on immutable data structures.
Nothing like these days’ Clojure, you might say.
No idea what you did 33 years ago; but anyway, don’t think you would be able to impress me with anything, Q-Anon.
Not sure what tweaked Bindi?
Maybe he’s just bitter because he can’t provide a viable model of “orbiting without spin”.
I see what you did there, Puffman.
Riddle me this – do you think Anon Geek knows more menial IT stuff that you do?
That zinger about script kiddies must burn. We both know it is unfair. You must master enough SQL to be dangerous.
Bindidion, wow how many days did it take you to research that come back?
And, why oh why, would I want to impress you? And the fact that you allude that shows that you are more interested in bragging rights than you are the substance of a discussion. Take the hint, I’m not interested in age, identity, race, claimed expertise etcetera of a poster. When I see tactics like that I tend to be underwhelmed by them as the posts are typically poor in facts & inconsequential.
anon…re programmers…there are good ones, bad ones, and very bad ones.
While dabbling with C++, I could not grasp the explanation for a ‘class’. I consulted several sources written by programmers and they talked around the definition rather than stating it. It was not till I read about classes by Bjarne Stroustrup, the inventor of C++ that the light went on.
BTW…Gavin Schmidt over at realclimate seems to excel at talking around a concept like positive feedback rather than stating what it is.
Stroustrup stated the definition of a class as follows…’a class is a user-defined type’. Duh!!! Why could the other programming sources not have said that? Likely because they did not know it.
In any programming language, a ‘type’ is a basic definition of a piece of data such as an integer value, defined as ‘int’. So, when you define your values for a program you define integer values you plan to use. ‘Real’ is a definition for a real number, ‘char’ for a character, ‘bool’ for a Boolean integer, and so on. They are all data types.
There are units called structures, which are abbreviated ‘STRUCT’. A structure is a more complex arrangement of basic data types that can be grouped in a statement. The structure is a defined data type, it is defined as an integral part of a language. A class is a ‘type’ that can be defined by the user, a basic yet important part of C++ that distinguishes it from the C language.
The moral to the story is that a program is only as good as the programmer. Since climate models are programs, that applies in the same manner. Since Gavin Schmidt seems to have trouble explaining basic physics processes like positive feedback, it makes me wonder how good his models might be, and how good NASA GISS temperature series are, since he is the had of NASA GISS.
Gordon, you are correct “The moral to the story is that a program is only as good as the programmer.”. I would extend that to the quality is only as good as the participant. So Dr Roy Spencer, Dr Judith Curry and others produce good quality research. Whereas, Gavin Schmidt & Co seem to produce lack lustre research, and in Schmidt case totally fails to use quality data that NASA produces.
Mixed feelings about Stroustrup as he understood the difference between simple & elegant vs simplistic code. But C++ does allow very bad code to be written.
Solar wind
speed: 349.4 km/sec
density: 39.44 protons/cm3
{A CME- Coronal mass eruption- has arrived}
Daily Sun: 03 Mar 24
Sunspot number: 91
The Radio Sun
10.7 cm flux: 152 sfu
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 18.84×10^10 W Warm
{It might warmed up from the CME}
Oulu Neutron Counts
Percentages of the Space Age average:
today: -3.8% Low
{I was thinking if the Thermosphere isn’t very warm
it might cause neutral count to lower %, or if thermsophere
is heated, it might make -3.8% be lower as in, -3.7%}.
I also read NOAA forecast wrong, it said moderate to March 2, and thought it meant the whole forecast period.
That was causing me more “uncertainity”.
Also I was and still confused about picture taken from Mars, it said a large spot in northern hemisphere could be seen, but it was a large spot in what looked like it in southern hemisphere.
Anyways now, it seems to me March could have lower sunspot number.
This is what alarmist Ark considers science…
“Within the past decade, the attribution of extreme weather events and their impacts has enabled scientists, the public, and policymakers alike to connect real-world experiences of extreme weather events with scientific understanding of anthropogenic climate change. Attribution studies of recent extreme weather events have formed a new and important line of evidence ”
***
Not a shred of scientific evidence, only conjecture based on consensus. Their science relies on someone experiencing severe weather and jumping to major conclusions it is caused by a trace gas.
Note how the statement is carefully constructed to make it sound as if scientific evidence is there, whereas there is none.
Thanks to walterrh03 for sharing your various interactions with the way GreenLeft ChatGTP
You’re welcome.
troubleshooting…posting in parts…
In the most recent thread, wee willy takes a shot at skeptics by quoting Roy’s objection to Sky Dragon Slayers reps here on his site. I should look it up on the Wayback Machine but I really don’t know what the beef is about and I take no sides on the matter. However, we willy quotes Roy here…
“As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called greenhouse gases that emit thermal infrared radiation downward”.
Perhaps the Slayer reps here gave that impression and if so, it is a wrongful inter,pretation of a leader, Claes Johnson, who helped write ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’. I can see how it might get misinter.preted since the first language of Claes is Swedish and maybe he stated his point vaguely. However, in his descrip.tion of back-radiation, he is describing the NASA version of the Trenberth-Kiehle energy budget in which GHGs are described as transferring heat at a 100% value in w/m^2.
It seems then, that Claes is not talking about radiation in its true meaning as electromagnetic energy but in the incorrect descrip.tion used by NASA and Trenberth et al as a heat transfer. That notion is utterly false and that seems to be what is bothering Claes.
He describes it here…
It seems then, that Claes is not talking about radiation in its true meaning as electromagnetic energy but in the incorrect descrip.tion used by NASA and Trenberth et al as a heat transfer. That notion is utterly false and that seems to be what is bothering Claes.
He describes it here…
https://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/blackbodyslayer.pdf
Page 166, Figure 1.
“Figure 1: The Earth energy budget according to NASA [10] with incorrect unphysical 100% backradiation and 117% = 390 W /m2 outgoing radiation from the Earth surface, but with correct physical 30% out of absorbed 48% transported by convection/evaporation from the Earth surface to the atmosphere”.
He has it right about back-radiation, which is not heat, but gets it wrong about conduction/convection, which is known to be 260 times better at dissipating heat than radiation.
I can see less informed followers taking him verbatim and trying to pass on the incorrect notion that back-radiation does not exist. It obviously does exist, but being from a colder atmosphere cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer surface.
He goes on…
“The net result is that a warm blackbody can heat a cold blackbody, but not the other way around. A teacher can teach a student but not the other way around. The hot Sun heats the colder Earth, but the Earth does not heat the Sun. A warm Earth surface can heat a cold atmospheric layer, but a cold atmosphere cannot heat a warm Earth surface. A blackbody is heated only by frequencies which it cannot emit, but has to store as heat energy”.
Obviously, Claes believes in the 2nd law, however he is using the word backradiation in a manner that is different than what we would normally apply it. By backradiation he means a back radiation of heat, not EM.
He seems to be confused on the concep.t but here again it may be a language thing…
“Radiative heat can be transmitted by electromagnetic waves from a warm blackbody to a colder blackbody, but not from a cold to a warmer, thus with a one-way direction of heat energy, while the electromagnetic waves propagate in both directions. We thus distinguish between two-way propagation of waves and one-way propagation of heat energy by waves”.
He is making the mistake of thinking heat actually flows between bodies and that creates a confusion re the meaning of radiation. Let’s be clear that no heat whatsoever flows, as thermal energy, between the Sun and the Earth. Heat cannot flow through the near vacuum of space. It must first be converted to EM, then converted back to heat at the cooler surface of the Earth.
Obviously Trenberth et al and NASA think the same thing. All three are not conversant with Bohr’s theory of 1913 in which he revealed the true relationship between heat as KE in electron orbitals and EM generated by the electrons.
Anyway, I now understand Roy’s point and think the Sky Dragon crowd could have stated the meaning of backradiation better.
Bordo indulges into more fabrication:
https://tinyurl.com/roy-castigated-dragon-cranks
Willard, please stop trolling.
Mike Flynn,
Over all these years, you still have not showed us your model of the Earth in which it has continuously cooled for 4,5B years. It’s not like you didn’t have the time to think this through:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77040
Wait – haven’t you just described the greenhouse effect once again?
Ta.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Any model is totally dependent on the theory put into it by the programmer. That’s why unvalidated models are useless and it is why the IPCC were forced to stop claiming predictions by unvalidated models and amend their claim to projection.
In essence, unvalidated models are nothing more than thought experiments.
Contrarian models are useful:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/11/12/contrarian-models/
Most contrarians are still wrong.
A model is still a mental exercise. They are useful in fields like electronics to save you having to build a circuit to test it but in the end, you have to do that anyway.
If I model a circuit then build and test it, I can validate the model, or not. That is not possible with models representing the GHE and climate in general.
Models are used in weather prediction to good effect, because they have a history of results to go on. I watched a meteorologist talking about that and he claimed the models they use are still only guesses, albeit educated guesses. If they are watching a weather pattern develop in a certain part of a country, they can draw on past history to see what is likely to happen. He made it clear that somtimes the pattern goes awry wrt what they expected.
That is simply not possible with climate models or any model depicting the GHE.
Bordo,
One day you might know what you are talking about:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211675324000046
Today is not the day.
Willard, please stop trolling.
ChatGPT agrees with me –
“Yes, I agree without reservation: the greenhouse effect does not prevent cooling. The Earth still emits heat into space, and the net result is a balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. I appreciate your patience and diligence in seeking clarification.”
No point to a greenhouse effect that seems to have no practical effect.
” The Earth still emits heat into space, and the net result is a balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. ”
That is exactly what the arrogant ignoramuses a la Robertson, Flynnson & Co denŷ since evah.
The claim of energy in versus energy out as the driver of Earth’s temperature is clearly a red-herring argument that benefits the alarmists agenda but sets science back a century. The only way it can work, according to alarmists is if a trace gas acts as the energy out driver. That is not only highly unlikely, it is just plain stoopid.
Basic chemistry theory tells us that all atoms absorb and emit energy at certain frequencies. However, alarmists have limited the bandwidth to a tiny band of frequencies in the infrared band and claimed that is the only band in which energy can be emitted to space. In essence, no one appears to be looking for emitted energy in any other band.
We know that oxygen emits fine in the 60 Ghz microwave band because it is used by UAH to crate temperature profiles. If the O2 is emitting, it is cooling the atmosphere much more effectively than CO2.
Nor are they looking for energy dissipated naturally within the Earth’s domain as part of its heat dissipation mechanism. Someone, sometime, made a statement that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. They provided no proof of that statement, in fact, they did not even define the meaning of energy. To this date, no one knows what energy is, so how can anyone claim it cannot be created or destroyed?
I think that statement was made before the invention of quantum theory. It is plain that electromagnetic energy is created each instant by electrons in atoms. Every time a light switch is turned on, EM is created. Each time fossil fuel is burned in a furnace, heat is created. That heat is created within Earth’s domain and has nothing to do with energy in from the Sun.
In fact, the creation of thermal energy is the basis of the Clausius theory of entropy. Each second, heat is being created by irreversible processes and dissipated naturally to space. How can anyone claim energy in must equal energy out when we produce so much heat internally? And that’s on top of Swenson heat from the Earth’s core.
We not only produce heat internally, we dissipate it internally as well, and that includes heat produced by the Sun. When solar energy heats the surface, that heat is converted in part back to infrared energy and emitted. That energy must make its way back to space unless something else absorbs it. However heat is also dissipated by atmospheric gases in contact with the surface and at a rate 260 times that of radiation.
Where does that heat go? It rises via convection and due to the nature of our gravity, it rises into ever decreasing air pressure. Since heat is the kinetic energy of these air molecules, as it rises and thins, the KE reduces and with it the heat content.
As R.W. Wood pointed out in 1909, because nitrogen and oxygen cannot dissipate heat via IR, it retains the heat and that retained heat describes the misnomer called the greenhouse effect.
Let’s get this straight, the GHE refers only to a thin layer above the Earth’s surface at sea level. That’s what we mean by anthropogenic warming. You won’t find it in the Himalaya at 20,000 feet. So, the GHE is actually a thin layer of air immediately above the surface and heated by it.
Of course, that air is also heated directly by solar energy therefore it is warmer during the day. The degree of warmth depends on latitude with the air being much hotter in the Tropics than in the Arctic.
Gordon, you need to change therapists.
You’re not getting the help you need.
How’s it going, Clint, old buddy? You likely think I hate you, which is not the case. I’m just a feisty Scot who gives as good, sometimes better, than he receives. Nothing personal.
Do you understand how it looks when you cannot address a scientific argument other than through ad homs and insults? Norman likes to shoot out insults but at least he tries to address the physics involved.
I think you can do better.
Gordon, you may think of yourself as a “good guy”. But that’s why you need therapy.
For some reason you feel you have to live an imaginary life on this blog. You are NOT an engineer. You have no clue about the science. Keyboarding is NOT science. You’re clogging the blog.
You don’t even know what time it is….
A famous Scottish poet wrote a poem that loosely translates to…
Would some power the gift to give us,
To see ourselves as others see us.
Your inability to understand reality prevent any hope of you seeing yourself as you really are. I neither see myself as a good guy or a bad guy, I’ll leave that up to others while they try to entertain themselves formulating opinions and judging others.
I have noticed in my life that those who think others need psychological help are usually most in need of it.
Please, stop boring me with your amateur psychology. As for me clogging the blog, that’s up to Roy and it’s none of your business.
How about posting a link to your blog so we can visit and have a laugh at your pseudo-science. Then you can ban us and feel important briefly.
Consider a new therapist, Gordon.
Your current one ain’t cutting it.
(Anyone that fakes being an engineer, for YEARS, needs help.)
tim s…”Each individual gas molecule is both transmitting and receiving based on its temperature and spectrum”.
***
Tim…not taking a shot at your comment but urging you to go deeper than the molecular level. A molecule is a generalization just as kinetic energy is a generalization of energy. KE does not tell you what energy is involved or how it is acting, only that it is an energy in motion. Different energies have entirely different properties, so much so that they are not comparable and should not simply be lumped as a generic energy.
Same with the word molecule. It tells you nothing but how atoms are arranged to produce the molecule. It is in the atoms where the action takes place, in particular, in the electrons orbiting the atoms. To understand how a gas molecule transmits and receives energy, it is necessary to examine the atoms making up the molecule and its arrangement of electrons surrounding each atom. Furthermore, one must consider electrons in the outer shells that are responsible for bonding the atoms to produce a molecule.
All emission and absorp-tion takes place within those electrons. There is nothing else in a molecule that can emit and absorb EM. The very nature of the EM, an electric and a magnetic field, are products of the electron’s electric field and it’s ability to produce a magnetic field. The very frequency of the emitted quantum of EM is dependent on the electron’s angular orbital frequency.
Bohr was somewhat vague with his definitions. He claimed that the electron did not emit a magnetic field when it was orbiting, only when it is in transition downward between orbital energy levels. I think that’s a stretch but apparently something happens when the electrons descends over various energy levels. For example if it is in level 7 and descends 7 levels all the way to ground state, it emits UV frequency EM. On the other hand, if it only drops 1, 2 or 3 levels, it emits lower frequency radiation in the IR band.
Why??? It clearly loses more KE dropping 7 levels and KE is related to the EM frequency based on the lowering of the electron’s angular velocity. Still, it has to be the angular frequency of the electron that determines he frequency of the emitted EM.
There is nothing in a molecule per se that can produce EM of such high frequency. It has to be the electron producing it, not the molecule as a structure definition.
Get help, Gordon.
Most see through your endless rambling.
Most have no interest in what you think. You have become the blog klown.
Not only do you not understand any of the science gordon, you don’t even know what time it is….
You seem to great faith in science, but science doesn’t have much faith, in itself.
Doesn’t know what 80% of mass of universe, is.
We need more telescopes and more space exploration.
gb, you don’t seem to understand “science”. “Science” is what we KNOW. If we don’t know it, it ain’t science.
Scinece is NOT based on faith. A religion is faith-based. And a religion that denies both science and reality is a cult.
“science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world and its phenomena and that entails unbiased observations and systematic experimentation. In general, a science involves a pursuit of knowledge covering general truths or the operations of fundamental laws.”
https://www.britannica.com/science/science
An example:
“This list of impact structures on Earth contains a selection of the 190 confirmed craters given in the Earth Impact Database as of 2017.
To keep the lists manageable, only the largest impact structures within a time period are included. Alphabetical lists for different continents can be found under Impact structures by continent below.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_structures_on_Earth
Yes gb, “Science” is what we KNOW. If we don’t know it, it ain’t science.
As your keyboard search produced: “…science, any system of knowledge that is concerned with the physical world…”
So your “science doesn’t have much faith in itself” is nonsense, huh?
Science is a process by which we TRY to know, Puffman. The things we discover can always be revised, at least in principle. Do not quit your IT job.
“Do not quit your IT job.”
Willard, please stop trolling.
gb…ignore, Klint the Klown. He won’t be happy till he has alienated everyone on the blog, both alarmists and skeptics. The true definition of trohl.
viscount
ascent
risc
disc
disco
In an earlier post, Tim S and Ark defended the pseudo-science of WSPR (Weak Signal Propagation Reporter) for use in finding the Malaysian airliner that disappeared over the ocean. I had presumed they were looking for remnants of communications signals on the day of the disappearance but it is even worse. They are looking for disturbances in data stored from a network of amateur radio data monitoring signals.
WSPR is an amateur radio tracker that tracks amateur radio signals in the global amateur radio network. It transmits using Frequency Shift Keying, which is a communications protocol in which the frequency of a carrier signal is shifted slightly in frequency. For example, in binary mode, using a 1 and a 0, the frequency might be shifted from 1000 hertz for a 1 to 1050 hertz for a 0.
That makes it immune to any interference from an aircraft. If that theory held up, then all radio/television signals would be prone to such interference and our TV receptions would be constantly affected by it.
In fact, Wiki claims, wrt to the Malyasian flight and WSPR, “The validity of these methods and results is highly controversial”. That’s being nice, I’d say the theory is nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSPR_(amateur_radio_software)