Single father, scientist, & engineer. Managed medical studies & NASA GISS project. I only respond to intelligent life. 💉I don't take experimental Medicine!
Joined August 2021
- Tweets38K
- Following5K
- Followers5.5K
- Likes69.1K
While, I appreciate Jim's engagement on the subject of Climate Change and the associated graph, he provided, I and the rest of the paleoclimate community can fined no evidence for his bull-shit-ola (the Russian word I have invented for bull S*).
In non-activist science, this is referred to a great big nothingburger.
While Antarctica is not uniformly “getting cooler,” and the main process driving its contribution to sea level rise is not surface air-temperature melting.
I don't know the Russian word for Bull Shit but let's say it's bullshitolia.
While I agree that the evidence is fairly uniform that Antarctica has been a net contributor to sea-level rise for thousands of years, it has been dominated by West Antarctica (especially the Amundsen Sea sector: Thwaites, Pine Island, and nearby glaciers).
As far as I know the dominant mechanism in the Amundsen sector is ocean-driven basal melting of floating ice shelves by relatively warm Circumpolar Deep Water. This thins the shelves, reduces buttressing, and lets grounded ice flow faster into the ocean. It does not require warm surface air temperatures over the ice sheet. Surface mass balance (snowfall minus melt/runoff) can even be positive while dynamic discharge dominates the net loss.
But as far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with your imaginary anthropogenic warming.
Well, what do you know.
Problem solved!
Now they just rape people. At least the sheep and goats are safe.
Science Blog retweeted
Just going to teas you a little bit here.
But did the Zionists help us remove the ugly twin towers in NY back in 2001 or was it Islamic Terrorists.
Maybe it's time to get those "Zionists" to pay rent if they are going to spend so much time in your mind?
real-political-violence-stat…
Maybe, and please bare with me here, this has more to do with the fact that James Comey was compromised and the deep state has images and perhaps video of him molesting little boys in a cowboy outfits.
I don't know. I could be wrong here.
Come on Germany, we all know the truth!
It's really 100% of the 1,087 suspects in 751 recorded gang rapes last year were foreign nationals, despite non-German citizens making up less than 17% of Germany's population.
How do we know? It went from zero to 1,087 after migration.
New figures released by the German federal government show that 53% of the 1,087 suspects in 751 recorded gang rapes last year were foreign nationals, despite non-German citizens making up less than 17% of Germany's population.
The cases involved 772 victims, of whom 619 (80%) were German citizens, including 565 women and 54 men.
The largest groups of suspects by nationality were Syrians (110), Afghans (64), Iraqis (46), and Turks (44).
The government data also shows that 72% of solved cases involved suspects who were already known to police.
Ghost Busters: A Parallel to Climate Research Grant Money
Janine Melnitz: "Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis?"
Winston Zeddemore: "Ah, if there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."
You're hired!
If it's not independent research, it's usually government grant money with political ties to the results. You're not going to get a grant the next time if you don't produce the results they want.
"No scientist in the field would cite Scafetta 🤡"
Really? Isn't that interesting.
Probably one of the dumbest quotes I've seen today, honestly, and I talk to activists all day.
He doesn't seem to believe in accredited scientists with Ph.D's literally working in the field.
Scafetta received a Laurea in physics from the University of Pisa in 1997 and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of North Texas in 2001.
He is a research scientist and at the University of Napoli Federico II.
He was formerly at the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Satellite (ACRIM) Lab group and an adjunct assistant professor in the physics department at Duke University.
His research interests are in theoretical and applied statistics and nonlinear models of complex processes.
His doctoral thesis was titled An entropic approach to the analysis of time series.
Pretty much a leading expert in this field. The very subject this guy doesn't seem to know anything about. 👇
Science Blog retweeted
"Fauci was wrong about almost every single pandemic policy he advanced," the former FDA insider tells Reason.
reason.com/2026/10/25/public…
Stargate SG1: Notable Quote from the Book of Origin
"Blessed are the Ori" / "Hallowed are the Ori"
🤣
The book of Origin and it's believers spread Climate Model "truth". 👇
"WV feedback is considered in all models since >60 years. Maybe you should update your knowledge ?"
That's an interesting theory you have there.
Climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 with feedbacks may only be ~1°C, with humans contributing just 30% to the warming since 1850. Climate models are fundamentally flawed.
They cannot reproduce natural climate variability nor simulate positive water vapor and cloud feedback assumptions essential to strongly amplifying the warming thought incur from doubling CO2. Key points:
• Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) estimates for doubled CO2 (280 to 560 ppm) plus feedbacks may be 1°C (0.7°C to 1.3°C) due to the lack of positive feedback from water vapor and clouds.
• The climate may be 5 times more sensitive to solar forcing factors (not just TSI alone) than presumed by models of radiative forcing.
• Human activity may only explain about 30% of the global warming since 1850, with warm biases in the land surface record explaining 20% and natural solar-induced variability factors explaining 50%.
• Variations in cloud albedo from 1983 to 2010 may explain 0.4°C of the global warming during this period.
sciencedirect.com/science/ar…
🌈More importantly, the average IQ in Somalia is 68.
Not a surprise Omar sucks at math.
That means that 98% of Americans are smarter than 98% of the Somalia immigrants.
You've essentially rescued 2 in 100 from a place where they actually have a chance to be competitive in their own country. Stop importing idiots, terrorists and democrats, but then I repeat myself.
Congresswoman Ilhan Omar writes in her memoir, “I was eight years old when civil war broke out in Somalia. One day everything was okay, and the next, there were bullets piercing not only buildings but also people.” While Somalia has suffered several civil wars, the chapter is entitled, “War: 1989-1991, Mogadishu, Somalia.” Mogadishu experienced severe riots in July 1989, including a mass execution that became known as the “Jazeera beach massacre.”
If, in her own words in her own autobiography, Omar was eight when this occurred in 1989, then she was born in 1981, and was 19 years old in the year 2000, when her father purportedly obtained his citizenship, not 1982 as she currently claims.
Muslim terrorists are literally the reason we can't board a plane without ID, shoes off, an invasive scan and can't have toothpaste, shampoo and conditioner.
🤔
Yet this one is saying NY elections don't need an ID.
🙄👇
Interesting, isn't that just what a terrorist would say.
Interesting how pointing out facts results in blocking me after learning that the graphic was created with a clear sky model, and does not represent a real measurement. It's just some theoretical nonsense, not a real verified fact.
This is merely a qualitative conceptual model calculation, not a direct measurement.
These spectra are generated with a line-by-line radiative transfer model (GENLN3) using the HITRAN2004 spectroscopic database and a cloud-free global-mean atmospheric temperature and gas profile.
In other words, this isn't real, nor is it real world.
🤔Is the Ocean an overall Sink or an overall Source of CO2?
We don't and can't yet measure outgassing across the entire ocean.
Large regions, especially parts of the Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean, have few or no recent CO2 observations, so the maps rely on the interpolation method (with biases) and the transfer-velocity equation.
Are oceans really a sink or a source of CO2?
Truth: We just don't really know, and biases could go in either direction.
Although only briefly covered below, we know perhaps even less about land sources of CO2.
2⃣Ocean interior inventory (GLODAP / GO-SHIP) uncertainties and Biases
These measurements are of bottle DIC, not continuous surface flux, so they are less exposed to the intake-line problem above.
After secondary QC and crossover adjustments, the adjusted product is stated to be consistent to better than ~4 µmol kg⁻¹ in DIC (and similar for alkalinity).
Recent analysis (GLODAPv3) notes that inter-basin connections are sparse (e.g., Pacific–Atlantic linkage can rest on very few Southern Ocean cruises), so residual systematic offsets of several µmol kg⁻¹ between basins are possible and the choice of how to distribute adjustments has a subjective component.
The anthropogenic carbon inventory change (ΔC_ant) still carries uncertainties of order ±10–20% on multi-decade totals (e.g., Gruber et al. reported ±4 PgC on a 34 PgC increase for 1994–2007).
The inventory increase itself is measured; the separation into “anthropogenic” versus “natural” components involves additional assumptions.
3⃣Global Carbon Budget imbalance and method divergence is in itself prone to biases
The residual budget imbalance (emissions − atmospheric growth − estimated land and ocean sinks) is non-zero and has varied. In truth we don't actually know and can't track this in a meaningful accurate way.
Recent Global Carbon Budget reports show imbalances on the order of ±0.5 to ±1.5 PgC yr⁻¹ in individual years, with multi-year RMS values around 0.5–0.8 PgC yr⁻¹ even after improvements.
Surface fCO₂ products and ocean biogeochemical models systematically differ: products often estimate a larger ocean sink than models by ~0.5 PgC yr⁻¹ in recent decades. Part of this gap has been attributed to missing physics in models (circulation, buffer capacity, start date) and part to neglected high-frequency variability or skin-temperature effects in the data products. Or in other words, temperature effects outgassing and we don't publish this as a part of the uncertainty.
One recent study found that neglecting submonthly atmospheric pressure variability alone biases data-based sink estimates high by ~0.12 PgC yr⁻¹. And probably more. I've mentioned this for years.