Open Thread

This is a page for your use, to try out html tags and see what they look like, to post new ideas, to pass along interesting information, to suggest future topics for discussion, to reach out and contact me directly, the floor is yours.




211 thoughts on “Open Thread

    • Thanks, worldwide. Your site was interesting. However, to put any credence in your post about Atlantis I’d have to know the provenance of the image showing the “canals”. Is there a NOAA site where it can be downloaded?

      Next, the spot you’re discussing is 700 miles from the nearest land, a thousand miles from the Mediterranean, and 18,000 feet (three miles) below the surface of the ocean … Atlantis?

      Best to you,



  1. Willis
    We are within a cherry moment. (at least that is what it will be when the future looks at it).

    A coronal hole has just made a “pass in review” for everyone to see. Starting on 1/25/18 it first became geo effective. The barometric pressure began to respond by the pressure dropping and continued to drop until yesterday afternoon 1/27/18 around 1600 cst when it began to slowly rise again.

    During this period of time the relationship between temperature and humidity indicates an enthalpy shift to a warmer and drier condition. (Yesterday was cloudy to party sunny to clear sky last night and clear today).

    This is not the only cherry I have seen but it is a change from the previous hole passages. Last night instead of the temperature dropping to near freezing, it remained fairly constant during night time.

    In theory (mine at least) any action that happens on the sun (holes and flares) will appear at the earth and all the weather stations should react to the change at the same time. In order to make comparisons the information must be collected (ongoing) for at least 6 days.

    But I cannot do that. My monitoring system is just too simple. I use the 3 day data that isn’t a long enough period of time. But after posting your last on WUWT I realized that there are ways to obtain ALL the past records of the weather stations. But as I said my abilities are just too minimum.

    In order to “see” the coronal holes come and go, I have resorted to using the Synoptic views

    I have also found some thermometers that can be buried under ground. Normally they are used by gardeners to measure the temperatue of the soil. They have a long cord to the spike probe. And they read in .1 degree increments. They need to be read locally as much as possible to determine when the digits actually change. So my data from them are not as clear as wished.

    The UG (underground) thermometers being used:

    1) a digital weather station transmitter placed just below the surface in a small cave area to measure temp/humidity. Humidity remains 99% 24/7 but the thermometer provides a reading in my window that also requires manual reading.
    2) a garden thermometer probe stuck in the bottom of and into the side of the cave at approximately 10″ below the surface.
    3) another garden thermometer probe sticking in the bottom rear of the cave that is approximately 4″ lower than #2.

    All three readings show the temperature following the “average barometric pressure” without any change that I can see due to the di-urnal cycle.

    So all the instruments I am recording all show this enthalpy shift when the holes pass. And looking back in time, it happens every time.

    Sooo, I must ask, am I in permenent moderation or it this the man to man rubber room you promised…..

    Lee Osburn – mountain man from Concan, Texas.


    • Lee, you’ve never been under any kind of “moderation” that I know of, and I’m the only one running this site.

      As to your theory, anything is possible, but very few things are probable … what you need now is evidence.

      Seems like what you need is daily data for both the sun and the weather stations. Daily station data is available from Wolfram Alpha. Not sure where you can get “coronal hole” data, but then I’m not sure what a coronal hole is … hang on …

      OK, I find the following:

      As the CH HSS [coronal hole high speed stream] begins to arrive at Earth, solar wind speed and temperature increase, while particle density begins to decrease. After passage of the CIR [co-rotating interaction region] and upon transition into the CH HSS flow, the overall IMF strength will normally begin to slowly weaken.

      Seams like what gets measured at the earth are solar wind speed, temperature and density. We do have measurements for that … hang on … OK, what I used when I looked at the solar wind was from here.

      Good luck with looking for the correlations, don’t forget to account for autocorrelations, I’d be glad to see any results.



  2. Hi Willis ,
    A year or so ago, you posted a story on why you voted Trump. Since Trump has gotten himself a pretty terrible image here in Europe, but I like to hear both sides, I was wondering what your thoughts are these days regarding The Donald.
    Best regards,


    • Thanks for the question, Frank.

      Far too many Europeans, like far too many Americans, seem unable to distinguish between the man and his actions.

      Me, I don’t like Trump the man. He’s far too brash for me, kinda crude, shoots from the hip too often.

      But I approved of his stated goals, promises, and policies during the campaign, so I took a chance and voted for him. And to my great surprise and joy, unlike every other politician in my lifetime, he’s actually making good on his campaign promises.

      Do I like everything he’s done? No. For example, his stance on drugs is medieval, apparently driven by his brother’s addiction to alcohol.

      But by and large, he’s doing the things as President that he promised to do as a candidate … what’s not to like?

      So my question in return would be, which ACTIONS of President Trump do Europeans dislike? Not his style, not his tone, not his tweets, but the actual policies that end up affecting people?



      • I see your point about distinguishing between the man and his actions. However, one can’t totally separate the two, either. I know several people who are genuinely concerned that Trump, in one of his “brash, kinda crude, shooting-from-the-hip” temper tantrums, will start a global crisis (be it military, political or economical).

        As to delivering on his promises, it seems that indeed he has delivered on a few of them, although he’s also had to drop or postpone a few (Source: But he’s only 1/4 along the way, so okay, I’ll grant you this point.

        With regard to “actual policies that end up affecting people”, I think very few in Europe understand the drive to eviscerate Obamacare. Changing it, to lower costs, to prevent abuse, or to allow more freedom of choice: sure. But the basis should be that *everyone* can afford *basic* medical care. Almost all if not all EU countries have this. Most people here see it as basic decency.

        Coming back to the “man vs actions” issue, also what the man has said, and not just actual implemented policies, can end up affecting people. When he threatened to effectively disband NATO, quite a few people got a bit of a scare: it’s not great news if you are a small country depending on the joint strength of NATO.

        Also, I believe that our leaders are (or should be) a role model. If the POTUS makes derogatory remarks about women, Mexicans, certain African countries, etc., etc., we (and our children!) are taught that it’s okay to treat others (or at least, those groups of people) as dirt. That’s not cool in my book.

        If you want to talk about statistics about certain groups of people, to identify problems or threats in certain groups, sure, I’m all for the discussion. You can’t solve a problem if you pretend it doesn’t exist. But if you make broad (and/or unfounded) generalizations that unjustly vilify or denigrate entire groups of people, that’s another thing. Don’t judge a book by its cover.


        • Thanks for your interesting reply, Frank. Some points.

          Frank de Jong February 28, 2018 at 8:06 am

          I see your point about distinguishing between the man and his actions. However, one can’t totally separate the two, either. I know several people who are genuinely concerned that Trump, in one of his “brash, kinda crude, shooting-from-the-hip” temper tantrums, will start a global crisis (be it military, political or economical).

          While anything is possible, wars in history seem to be only very rarely started by some crude statement. Instead, they are started by actions—the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the like.

          With regard to “actual policies that end up affecting people”, I think very few in Europe understand the drive to eviscerate Obamacare. Changing it, to lower costs, to prevent abuse, or to allow more freedom of choice: sure. But the basis should be that *everyone* can afford *basic* medical care. Almost all if not all EU countries have this. Most people here see it as basic decency.

          Americans are funny that way. We have a very, very different view of government. You view it as a kind paternal force that is expected to provide all kinds of amenities for the citizens.

          In the US we don’t trust our government one bit. We view it as a rapacious monster best kept in check by every kind of laws and strictures.

          Coming back to the “man vs actions” issue, also what the man has said, and not just actual implemented policies, can end up affecting people. When he threatened to effectively disband NATO, quite a few people got a bit of a scare: it’s not great news if you are a small country depending on the joint strength of NATO.

          “A bit of a scare”? And no, he NEVER “threatened to effectively disband NATO”. If that is what was reported in Europe, fire your reporters. Near as I can tell, the part that really got Europeans up in arms was him asking them to stand by their promises and put 2% of their budget into the military. You took a long free ride on the US strength while not doing what you agreed to do.

          Also, I believe that our leaders are (or should be) a role model. If the POTUS makes derogatory remarks about women, Mexicans, certain African countries, etc., etc., we (and our children!) are taught that it’s okay to treat others (or at least, those groups of people) as dirt. That’s not cool in my book.

          Should our rulers be “role models”? Obama was a wonderful “role model”, suave, hip, cool … but he did more damage to this country in eight years than I can count. Justin Trudeau is kind, always says the right things, and is leading Canada into the garbage dump. So no, I’m not much fussed by a President who isn’t a role model. I didn’t elect him to be mister nice guy and blow in people’s ears and rub their tummies. I voted for him to fix the desperate problems facing this country. If he does that his crudeness is meaningless, and if he can’t do it, it won’t matter if he’s Mr. Perfect.

          If you want to talk about statistics about certain groups of people, to identify problems or threats in certain groups, sure, I’m all for the discussion. You can’t solve a problem if you pretend it doesn’t exist. But if you make broad (and/or unfounded) generalizations that unjustly vilify or denigrate entire groups of people, that’s another thing. Don’t judge a book by its cover.

          Part of the problem is that he gets misquoted constantly. For example it’s claimed over and over that he said that Mexicans are rapists and murderers … boo! But in fact, what he said was that Mexico is not sending its best people illegally across the border, and that a number of illegal aliens are rapists and murderers. And while that is not politically correct, it’s damn sure true …

          My best to you, Frank, thanks for the discussions, gotta run,



  3. Henrik Svensmark is speaking at the Global Warming Policy Foundation at the British House of Lords next Tuesday 13 March 2018. Might be interesting if you could find time to “pop” over. Direct flights on United, Virgin, and BA. Happy to recommend a hotel and would be pleased to meet you for dinner afterwards.


  4. Hi Willis, I would like to understand why climate change science doesn’t want to create understanding from this starting point .
    “Because of its large electrical conductivity, the earth’s surface can rapidly adjust to changes in
    electric potential (relaxation time 10-5 second, see Table 1). Variations of electric potential at
    different locations on the earth’s surface result in currents called “telluric currents”. Telluric
    currents consist of both the natural electric currents flowing within the earth (called earth
    currents), including the oceans, and the electric currents originating from man-made systems. ”

    Especially when people like Walter Lewin state in one of his lectures ” If it wasn’t for electricity we wouldn’t be here”
    Why is the Global electric circuit band from discussion on some sites like WUWT ?



    • Good question, j. I was unaware that the subject was banned from WUWT. If Anthony does that, it’s because some topic almost invariably brings more heat than light, and the bunfights quickly get out of hand …

      The electromagnetic aspects of climate are of interest to me. However, there’s precious little actual information on the subject. Even your second link goes to a 503 error … and the other article says we’re causing ourselves problems by wearing shoes that insulate us from the earth. It’s from someone at a school where they teach “Psychology, Integral Health, Life Physics and Comparative Religion and Philosophy” … “Life Physics”?? Sorry, I’ll pass on that … his article correctly points out that the amount of current flowing in the “telluric” circuit is 10E-12 amps/metre^2. Color me unimpressed.

      The real electrical interaction with climate takes place in thunderstorms, as is evidenced by the lightning flashes. Unfortunately, this is not well understood. In the past I calculated total heat released by lightning. From memory averaged over the earth’s surface it’s on the order of tenths of a W/m2, if that … however, locally it is obviously much larger.

      There’s a lot to learn regarding the electromagnetic aspects of climate.




  5. Willis , thank you for replying . “Even your second link goes to a 503 error …”
    You mite be able to access from google??

    [PDF]relationship between the global electric circuit and electrified cloud …
    by T Lavigne – ‎2017 – ‎Related articles
    downloaded from The Vostok electric field ….. combined together to create a single longer-running time series of the electric field over Vostok. The mean value of the … been introduced in order to better represent the physical properties behind the charge separation. Occurrence of 30 dBZ …


  6. Willis, On June 6, 2016 at After having already identified compelling evidence showing that ghg which did not condense in the atmosphere had no significant effect on climate, I stated “If average global temperature does not significantly decline before 20[20] an as yet unidentified factor is preventing it.”

    Your article at where you stated “This leads us to a curious position where we have had a larger change in forcing from water vapor since 1988 than from all the other IPCC-listed forcings since 1750 … so where is the corresponding warming?” suggested that the ‘as yet unidentified factor’ might be water vapor.

    A graph of the NASA/RSS TPW data (Fig 3 in shows a trend increase of 1.5%/decade. Plugging an extrapolation of this into Eqn 1 there produced a match with measured of 98.3% (2017 update). (Admittedly the simple approximation of ocean cycles in Eqn 1 is ‘curve matching’ but the rest, not so much and IMO a valid format and the three important factors are identified and, at least roughly, quantified).

    IMO you discovered an important factor wrt climate change, water vapor, and the rising WV is now the only thing countering global cooling. That would be fine except it must also be increasing the risk of tragedy of precipitation related flooding.

    I hope to have stimulated your curiosity on this enough to research the subject further and possibly produce an article. There is an analysis re WV and lots of links in my blog/analysis that you might find useful.

    You also might find interesting the analysis showing why CO2 has no significant effect on climate at


  7. Willis

    I follow you here and at WUWT. Thanks for both.

    I haven’t seen you devote a lot of time to political discussions but it seems you do occasionally put your toes into that water. Below is a link to an article that tries to link: Bannon, Russia, Trump, Improperly acquired profiles of millions of Facebook users, Psychological warfare, 2014 & 2016 elections, Brexit, A right wing billionaire, a 28 year old whiz-kid and many other players. It is quite a story, it is well written and it appears to be somewhat of an, as yet, un-exploded political bomb.

    If I recall correctly, you read ‘wicked fast’ so I expect you could get thru this in 5 to10 min. If you take the time to read it and find it interesting I would appreciate your thoughts,

    Jack Wurts


  8. Confirmed your thunderstorm temperature readings yesterday in Fiji. 34 degrees prior to storm, 26 degrees after by the ever reliable rental car thermometer!


  9. I was most impressed by how large the area of cool air was. I was travelling from Lami to Pacific harbour and the low temp area was 10 minutes at 80km/hr


  10. Hello Willis.. On WUWT on March 19, 2018 you answered Dr Strangelove and added a quote about “fields” . I would appreciate your reference for that please. I have been intrigued by Rupert Sheldrake’s invocation of Fields and would like to follow up on the passage you used.

    Thank you very much. (could not figure out how to use italics below)

    Dr. Strangelove March 19, 2018 at 9:09 pm Edit

    Not the same caliber as Newton, Babbage, Stokes, Dirac

    I do enjoy the irony of being lectured on the relative merits of scientific giants by someone hiding behind the alias “Dr. Strangelove” …

    In addition, you sneer that “Shanon” (whose name you are not fit to spell … by which I mean that you repeatedly spelled it incorrectly) among his other failings “was not physicist [sic]”.

    So what? Fundamental discoveries like those of Shannon often find application in field far removed from their initial use, viz:

    The field [information theory] is at the intersection of mathematics, statistics, computer science, physics, neurobiology, and electrical engineering. The theory has also found applications in other areas, including statistical inference, natural language processing, cryptography, neurobiology, human vision, the evolution and function of molecular codes (bioinformatics), model selection in statistics, thermal physics, quantum computing, linguistics, plagiarism detection, pattern recognition, and anomaly detection. Important sub-fields of information theory include source coding, channel coding, algorithmic complexity theory, algorithmic information theory, information-theoretic security, and measures of information.

    What’s next, You going to point out disparagingly that “Shanon” was not a neurobiologist either? Funny … despite that, his information theory has found applications in neurobiology …

    Was Hawking right about information? Is the “information paradox” real? I don’t know … but I do know that you anonymously rubbishing the entire field as being worthless is quite humorous …



  11. Willis

    If I had read this last week when you wrote about ‘Trade War’, I would have submitted it then.

    “How to Meet the Strategic Challenge Posed by China”

    An interesting analysis. The author presents a much more complex picture than that of a trade imbalance. He makes the case that it is the cultural differences that are paramount and absolutely must be taken into account. I have not heard anyone present this perspective before.



    • Thanks, Jack, that’s a most fascinating look at the differences in culture between the US and China.

      My only comment would be that it does not obviate the need for trade barriers to prevent US manufacturing moving to China. To the contrary, it makes such barriers even more necessary.




  12. Willis, this relates to your climate data work… sorry, probably misplaced here but I wasn’t sure how to contact you otherwise.

    I was wondering what you thought of JRA-55, and if you had undertaken either an assessment of it, or a comparator study with other datasets, especially BEST but also GISS, HadCRUT etc.

    Alas I lack the skills to do this but from what little I know JRA-55 does seem to be well put together.

    With gratitude for your time in reading this. J


    • Julian, I looked at the JRA-55 reanalysis. I don’t see that it is free of any of the problems of all such analyses, which is that they are the output of the same computer models that have fared so poorly in forecasting the future … except these models are continually “nudged” to keep them from going off of the rails.

      These computer models have several huge failings. First, they are NOT founded on “basic physics” as is often claimed. We know this because models with wildly differing inputs (forcings) are none-the-less able to do a reasonable job “hindcasting” the global average temperature. If they were truly physics-based, this would not be possible.

      Second, the global temperature outputs of such models are basically lagged and scaled versions of their inputs. This is far, far more linear than the real world.

      Third, in general, they are nowhere near as damped as reality is. As a result, you can see echoes of whatever you put in coming out in the output … but the world doesn’t work like that. This is crucial in e.g. analyses of the putative effect of the sunspot cycle on climate. Many times you can see echoes of the sunspot cycle in reanalysis model output … but the same is not true when we look at the real world observations for the same variable.

      For another view on reanalysis climate models, here’s Pat Frank on the subject:

      I think all reanalysis is indeed unreliable. The reason is that no climate model deploys a valid theory of climate.

      Even where reanalysis is of the known climate, for which the model has been parameterized to reproduce certain observables, the uncertainty remains in the reanalysis because the parameters merely are tuned to have offsetting errors. Other sets of parameters, reflecting different physical relationships, will reproduce the same set of observables.

      That is, the underlying physical theory is incomplete or wrong or both, no matter whether the tuned parameters reproduce known observables, or not. Therefore large uncertainties remain in the calculational product. The uncertainties are merely hidden because of the parameter tuning.

      No one in the modeling community seems to pay attention to these absolutely critical details of scientific rigor. By excluding proper physical error analysis, climate modelers are claiming to know what they manifestly do not.

      Couldn’t say it better myself.

      One final point. Computers don’t do edges very well. If you have a chunk of the ocean L1 at a temperature T1 and a location L2 some ways away at a temperature T2, in the absence of other information, the computer will assume a steady change in temperature from L1 to L2.

      However, nature doesn’t do gradual. Instead, it usually does edges. Either you are in a cloud or out of it, there is no miles and miles of gradual decrease in cloud.

      And I can’t tell you how many times at sea the temperature doesn’t vary for dozens of miles, and then it suddenly changes by a couple of degrees. As the poet had it, nature is “dappled”, while computers … well, they’re not.

      Pied Beauty
      Glory be to God for dappled things —
        For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
          For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
      Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches' wings;
        Landscape plotted and pieced — fold, fallow, and plough;
          And áll trádes, their gear and tackle and trim.
      All things counter, original, spare, strange;
        Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
          With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
      He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
                      Praise him.

      Thanks for the question, best regards,


      Liked by 1 person

      • Willis, thank you greatly for your answer and thoughts on JRA-55. I had completely misunderstood it, wrongly thinking it was more grounded in data. Sort of like BEST but more accurate.

        Much obliged for the correction.



    • Thanks, Kevin. Kench is looking at accurate measurements of the islands, which show that the islands in general are not losing area and many are gaining area.

      Nature magazine, on the other hand, is looking to hype the “danger” in order to sell magazines.

      Easy choice.

      If you haven’t read my other posts on this question you might enjoy:

      Floating Islands 2010-01-27

      Much has been written of late regarding the impending projected demise of the world’s coral atoll islands due to CO2-caused sea level rise. Micronesia is suing the Czech Government over CO2 emissions that they claim are damaging their coral atolls via sea level rise. Tuvalu and the Maldives are also repeating…

      The Irony, It Burns … 2010-06-03

      Anthony commented yesterday on the question of atolls and sea level rise here, and I had previously written on the subject in my post “Floating Islands“. However, Anthony referenced a paper which was incorrectly linked by New Scientist. So I thought I’d provide some more information on the actual study, entitled “The dynamic response of reef…

      Why The Parrotfish Should Be The National Bird 2013-06-13

      Ecological alarmist scares have a lot in common with zombies. They seem to eat up people’s brains, they are mindless themselves, and most important, they are really, really hard to kill. Take for example the long-discredited idea, first overthrown by Charles Darwin, that coral atolls are under threat from sea…

      Best regards,



  13. Hi Willis
    Just thought you mite be interested in this paper .
    “Solar wind-atmospheric electricity-cloud
    microphysics connections to weather and climate
    Mai Mai Lam1*
    , Brian A. Tinsley2
    1. British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
    2. University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
    ABSTRACT: We review recent research articles that present observations of the large-scale day-to-day
    dynamic tropospheric response to changes in the downward current density Jz
    of the global atmospheric
    electric circuit (GEC). The evidence for the global circuit downward current density, Jz
    , causing
    changes in atmospheric dynamics is now even stronger than as reviewed by Tinsley (Reports on Progress in
    Physics volume 71, 2008). We consider proposed mechanisms for these responses, and suggest future
    directions for research.”

    And what do you think would happen if you pointed this parabolic antenna sky-woods??

    Isn’t this the same process used in radar?


  14. Hi Willis, A favor please: WUWT went down 1/2 hour ago, both on Firefox & IE My site (, also on wordpress still is working, so it doesn’t seem like wordpress is the problem.

    I tried emailing Anthony to let him know, but my email came back. Do you have a way to let him know?



    • Thanks, Bob. The site is migrating to the cloud. I’ve emailed Anthony already regarding the issue, seems to be mostly with Firefox. I just got done uploading a new post with no problems, so it might be fixed.

      Regards, always good to hear from you,



  15. hi Willis,
    At work today, in the afternoon, I was no longer able to get to WattsUpWithThat. Error message:

    The owner of has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website. Kept trying, no luck. Again at home this evening, same thing. Tried with Chrome, and same message, but was able to get thru with https disabled. You might know how to fix this, or at least let Anthony know.

    I am already having withdrawal symptoms 😦



    • Thanks, Rich. Anthony is migrating the site to the could. Only Firefox seems to be having this problem, my Chrome on a Mac hasn’t had problems. I’ve notified Anthony already, I’m sure his hands are full. Go figure …



  16. Willis, I’m a long time reader at WUWT and have probably read nearly every post you’ve made there. I’m a biological scientist at the NIH but have a keen interest in climate science. Your posts on buoys and clouds are particularly insightful and I’ve enjoyed your volcano posts.

    One comment to pass along. With regard to clearer skies discussion from your recent post on volcanoes (When Eruptions Dont). You post a graph that looks ‘maxed out’ at a constant level of high solar radiation (fig 1). Bear with me a moment of digression…

    There is a cystic fibrosis clinic in Minnesota that has the best survival curves in the world. Long story but it’s based on the premise that every ‘bad’ event (crisis) is a hit on your health, and CF people only get so many hits. Most people think 99.9% and 99.8% are basically the same, but in CF, if your odds of non-crisis days are 99.9% you go about 3 years without crisis (1 crisis/1000 days), if odds are 99.8% you get a crisis every 500. If you only get 10 crises, 99.8 is twice as bad as 99.9%. This is an important notion and making patients and doctors understand this lengthens lives.

    Back to clear skies, your high flat line may be misleading. My eye can’t tell 99% ‘clear’ from 98% on your graph, but the difference in absorption of solar radiation could be huge. You may still be right but I would want a better graph (say, the inverse of the graph you showed). When I hear some other scientist says skies are clearer I wonder if he’s looking at it that way.

    Thanks always for your posts here and there.


    • Matt, welcome to the blog, and thanks for the kind words.

      Regarding the idea that “your high flat line may be misleading. My eye can’t tell 99% ‘clear’ from 98% on your graph, but the difference in absorption of solar radiation could be huge”, actually we’re not anywhere near 98%. Hang on, let me look at the numbers … OK, the average top of atmosphere radiation at Mauna Loa is 790 W/m2. At the Observatory it’s about 530 W/m2. The rest represents the atmospheric losses, even in clear-sky conditions.

      Best to you,



      • From your reply I’m not sure I made my point properly. I would repeat, i don’t think you’re wrong, just that i cant tell that you’re right from that graph.
        You said, “To start with, we can see that whether Dr. Keen is right on a global basis about the atmosphere being as clear as it has been in decades, it is certainly not true at MLO. Other than after the volcanic eruptions, the clarity of the atmosphere is unchanged since 1980.”
        So your graph suggest that solar radiation has been constant at 530 W/m2 over time. Apart from volcanoes, it appears to bobble, say 510-540 W/m2. From the graph I can’t really tell whether, say, it averaged 530 in the past (1980) vs 532 or more in the early 2000s, it’s the change that matters. Baseline change to +2 W/m2 radiation matters and is akin to my 99.8 vs 99.9%. I would want to see the delta from max (clearest day possible) or somesuch, not raw values. Minor quibble. That’s all. I do a lot of peer review so I guess I’m keyed to poke holes (and welcome rebuttal). I would argue this graph also doesn’t have a good enough baseline to refute Keen and as you point out it’s just one site. I wish I had the time and skills to assess the datasets you parse. Raw data reveals fascinating things at times. Thanks all the revelations you’ve produced.


  17. Thanks for being a great inspiration Willis.

    One thing led to another, and I ended up publishing a book on Kindle
    My book is now free until Tuesday, June 5, 2018, 12:00 California time

    One thing that I have found peculiar is the following:
    “The basic and particular principles that guide scientific research practices exist primarily in an unwritten code of ethics. Although some have proposed that these principles should be written down and formalised, the principles and traditions of science are, for the most part, conveyed to successive generations of scientists through example, discussion, and informal education.”
    Ref.: Responsible Science, Volume I: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process; Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research

    I remember having discussed this briefly with you in an earlier comment. You then referred to US law as a sufficient definition of the principles of science. I presume this is the correct reference to US law:

    “Daubert set forth a non-exclusive checklist for trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. The specific factors explicated by the Daubert Court are
    (1) whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested—that is, whether the expert’s theory can be challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot reasonably be assessed for reliability;
    (2) whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication;
    (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and
    (5) whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.
    The Court in Kumho held that these factors might also be applicable in assessing the reliability of nonscientific expert testimony, depending upon “the particular circumstances of the particular case at issue.” 119 S.Ct. at 1175.”

    I simply think that there is some more to it.

    Anyhow, my book is now out there. 🙂


    • Thanks, SOF, well done.

      What I was referring to was this:

      Legally speaking, the word “science” was defined in McLean v. Arkansas (1982), a famous court case that exiled creation science from public schools. Judge William Overton found that creation science was not science at all because it failed a five-prong test. According to his decision genuine science must:

      1) be guided by natural law;

      2) be explanatory by reference to natural law;

      3) be testable against the empirical world;

      4) have conclusions that are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and

      5) be falsifiable.



  18. Willis,

    Being the wordsmith that you are, I thought you would get a kick out of this letter.



    In 1934, a New York copywriter by the name of Robert Pirosh quit his well-paid job and headed for Hollywood, determined to begin the career of his dreams as a screenwriter. When he arrived, he gathered the names and addresses of as many directors, producers and studio executives as he could find, and sent them what is surely one of the greatest, most effective cover letters ever to be written; a letter which secured him three interviews, one of which led to his job as a junior writer at MGM.

    Fifteen years later, screenwriter Robert Pirosh won an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay for his work on the war film, Battleground. A few months after that, he also won a Golden Globe.

    Dear Sir:

    I like words. I like fat buttery words, such as ooze, turpitude, glutinous, toady. I like solemn, angular, creaky words, such as straitlaced, cantankerous, pecunious, valedictory. I like spurious, black-is-white words, such as mortician, liquidate, tonsorial, demi-monde. I like suave “V” words, such as Svengali, svelte, bravura, verve. I like crunchy, brittle, crackly words, such as splinter, grapple, jostle, crusty. I like sullen, crabbed, scowling words, such as skulk, glower, scabby, churl. I like Oh-Heavens, my-gracious, land’s-sake words, such as tricksy, tucker, genteel, horrid. I like elegant, flowery words, such as estivate, peregrinate, elysium, halcyon. I like wormy, squirmy, mealy words, such as crawl, blubber, squeal, drip. I like sniggly, chuckling words, such as cowlick, gurgle, bubble and burp.

    I like the word screenwriter better than copywriter, so I decided to quit my job in a New York advertising agency and try my luck in Hollywood, but before taking the plunge I went to Europe for a year of study, contemplation and horsing around.

    I have just returned and I still like words.

    May I have a few with you?

    Robert Pirosh





  19. Hello Willis,

    I’m new to your site, and I’m impressed to say the least. I’m just now entering into this climate fracas and would like to introduce myself. I’ve spent the last ten years working at finding a viable Plate Tectonics mechanism and have made an interesting connection to climate forcing. If you have the time to take a look I believe you may be surprised at what this new model brings to the table.


    • Marc, welcome to the site. If you haven’t looked at it, you should take a look at Watts Up With That. I publish my scientific work on climate there, and there are plenty of other interesting posts there as well. I’ll take a look at your website and see what you have done, thanks for the tip.

      All the best,



      • Thank you Willis,

        I am looking forward to your opinion on this new idea. I had considered WUWT a while ago, but I was unsure if it was ready for prime-time yet. The responses so far have ranged from a predictable anger from the pro-anthro-warmers to a rather cold indifference to open hostility from the geologically inclined. I am most bothered by the geological group, they should represent a more rational mindset. But geology is said to change its mindset “one death at a time”. Their fidelity to the standard model is rather “solid as a rock” for the time being I’m afraid. Though it seems it is a love/hate relationship when they are trying to promote their own “out of the box” ideas to their peers.



        • Marc, I’ve looked at your post and I cannot follow it. Likely my fault, but it would be very valuable to boil it down to an “elevator speech” of a few paragraphs. Once I understand the overall idea, the details seem to fall into place.



          • No Willis, not your fault at all, I have spread my explanation of it much to thin. My premise is to build a new geologic model to reflect the most recent observations rather then try to make them fit the older paradigm as is currently being done around the idea that the mantle has convective currents that are responsible for the various surface observations such as plate movements or the Himalayan type mountain chains, ect.

            What I found is that the solar magnetic record going back 11,400 years is synchronous to both the Japanese record of earthquakes and the global climate temperature record. From this I built a model that would explain this correlation. The Japanese kept a remarkably accurate record of their seismic history. But even more remarkable is it matches the climate transition from The Little Ice Age to the current warming that is now attributed to our industrialization.

            So, the old model is useless to understand this, I had to make a new geologic model to explain these observations. For example, the Edo period, 1603-1868 had very few killer earthquakes, then when the planet’s climate started to warm the quakes substantially increased in numbers and intensities. There were only five 8.0 earthquakes noted in Japanese records during the 265 years of the Edo period compared to the 11 quakes that occurred in the much shorter 164 years that followed to the present. This works out to one single 8.0 earthquake every 53 years on average for the Edo period vs one single 8.0 earthquake every 15 years on average for the period that followed it to the present. Additionally, this model can correlate the solar magnetic record to global temperature records going as far back as the Younger Dryas cold period, the 8.2 cold event and almost a dozen others.

            These are observations that validate the model, the premise is simple, the Sun’s magnetic field generator is mutually inductively coupled to the Earth’s field generator, so as one moves up or down in energy so should the other. This would cause the Earth’s core/outer core to thermally expand and contract in response, which in turn imposes strain energy displacement into the mantle. The mantle is 2,900 kilometers (1,802 miles) thick, and makes up a whopping 84% of Earth’s total volume. A very thick sphere displaced from within has enormous surface tensions that result in a thermal release through strain energy.

            So now I have a mechanism that will furnish a thermal signal into the ocean and atmosphere temporally with the Japanese earthquake plate movement. The mantle make up 67% of the Earth’s mass, Oceanic crust is 0.099% of Earth’s mass; depth of 0-10 kilometers (0 – 6 miles) The oceanic crust contains 0.147% of the mantle-crust mass. The oceanic ridge system, a 40,000-kilometer (25,000 mile) network of volcanoes, generates new oceanic crust at the rate of 17 km3 per year. The mantle is so massively larger than the Earth’s crustal surface that what are small strain energy mantle surface tension releases of thermal content would produce a continual variable content into the ocean and surface environs. Think PETM for example.

            In short this model can tie all these separate phenomena together, for example the Himalayan, Andes and many other mountain ranges were largely completed during the same time period that the climate was cooling and the planet went into the Quaternary glaciation/period from 2.58 Ma to present. The model predicts this happening due to the strain energy declining as the solar magnetic energy lowers. As the mantle moves incrementally down the recent mid-ocean ridge infill becomes a shoring wedge and pushes the crust towards the subduction trenches.

            This last period of mantle subsidence was much longer than typical, one that could produce enough compression to make mountain ranges and long enough that the lack of sizable strain energy warming from the mantle produced just a series of glacial periods interrupted by small strain energy driven inter-glacial warmings.

            I hope this helps, my main point in all of this is; as long as the current geologic standard model is used this climate controversy will probably continue at a stalemate. It is a ridiculously outdated and useless geologic model. It makes very little in the way of predictions. If you can get past my poor abilities to express this idea you will see some remarkable predictions of observations made by it.
            Thanks again, Marc


          • Thanks, Marc. As you may know, I’m a data guy who insists on running the numbers myself … do you have a link to “the solar magnetic record going back 11,400 years” and “the Japanese record of earthquakes”??

            Best regards,



  20. “Thanks, Marc. As you may know, I’m a data guy who insists on running the numbers myself … do you have a link to “the solar magnetic record going back 11,400 years” and “the Japanese record of earthquakes”??”

    Hello Willis;

    Data! Data is the Bane of science. Well, maybe just the porn of science. 🙂

    If you notice I have placed reference numbers next to most paragraphs, and kept them rather short so it would be easier to discuss their specifics in this manner.

    At reference # 2.0; is the link for the solar magnetic record you asked about. Here it is again;

    The Japanese earthquakes are at ref. # 1.5;

    Just to explain a little clearer about how I did this model; you mentioned data, which as I’ve seen you handle pretty expertly over at WUWT, is, as you well know, very subjective.

    I’m old school science. First premise was that the solar magnetic energy should through inductance cause the thermal expansion of the Earth’s core material and then by relay the mantle and crust.

    In short, if the solar magnetic energy level proxy went higher we should also see in time and intensity an increase in earthquakes within a specific study area.

    So, if [A] (solar magnetic energy increase) causes [B] (thermal expansion of the Earth’s core and the mantle’s displacement) we should observe [C] (increases in earthquakes from the mantle’s displacement).
    That is what is observed. The prediction of observations was confirmed.

    Second premise: If the mantle is displaced by strain energy, there should be an accompanying thermal signal seen in the climate record signifying that strain energy was present at the same time as the solar magnetic increase and the climate warming.

    So, if [A] (solar magnetic energy increase) causes [B] (strain energy release at the crust/mantle boundary) we should see [C] (an increase in climate warming timed to the solar magnetic increase).
    That is what is observed. The prediction of observation was confirmed.

    The solar magnetic/climate coupling to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were strengthened by the more recent post LIA warming/solar magnetic synchronicity seen and predicted above.
    If you refer to just below reference # 1.4, you will see image #1. It shows over 1,000 years of solar magnetic/climate coupling starting just before the MWP and ending at 1950 C.E.

    Back to that reference # 2.0; the link for the solar magnetic record that you had asked about above, it was compared to ice core proxy temperature records, and showed a 11,400 year coupling of solar magnetic and climate variability. You can see that starting at reference #3.6 and continuing down to just before 4.0

    Thanks again, Marc


  21. Willis: Hello! Hoping to reach you about a new volume in the Climate Change Reconsidered series. Send me an email so I know how to reach you?


  22. I’ve been watching developing clouds very closely the past month or so. Multi layers varying from several hundred feet and upwards. When there are three distinct layers, it’s getting my attention. I’m guessing the lower may be 900 – 1500 ft and the next layer about double that. It varies but that is somewhere in the range. The next layer may be 5000 ft at the bottom (wag) but as the system progresses into the distance over “new” unclouded terrain they are towering storm clouds.

    Anyway, I bought an IR meter w/ adjustable emissivity function (0 – 1) in the range of 8 – 14um.

    Question is: Can I use a PVC pipe or aluminum tube to aim for a more concentrated focal point at those clouds I’m observing? I want to record the temp of the lowest football stadium size clouds and also the next upper layer clouds.


    • Interesting question. I would doubt it greatly because either PVC or aluminum will radiate IR at the temperature of the surrounding air … which is much warmer than the clouds.

      On another subject, as you may already know, the emissivity of clouds is very close to 1. From a previous post of mine …

      My bible for many things climatish, including the emissivity (which is equal to the absorptivity at any given frequency) of common substances, is Geiger’sThe Climate Near The Ground, first published sometime around the fifties when people still measured things instead of modeling them. He gives the following figures for IR emissivity (absorptivity) at 9 to 12 microns:

      Water, 0.96
      Fresh snow, 0.99
      Dry sand, 0.95
      Wet sand, 0.96
      Forest, deciduous, 0.95
      Forest, conifer, 0.97
      Leaves Corn, Beans, 0.94

      and so on down the line to things like:

      Mouse fur, 0.94
      Glass, 0.94

      You can see why the reflection isn’t happening … the IR is getting absorbed, not reflected.

      I must admit, though, that I do greatly enjoy the idea of some boffin at midnight in his laboratory measuring the emissivity of common substances when he hears the snap of the mousetrap he set earlier, and he thinks, hmmm …

      But clouds? Clouds don’t reflect more than a trace of thermal infrared. Clouds are the “roach hotel” for IR photons … they can check in, but they can’t check out. Even the small amount that is reflected is almost all reflected at another cloud water droplet. There, another 95%+ of the small amount is absorbed, and the now really tiny amount reflected is almost all reflected at another … well, you get the idea.



      • Picture this thought that is on my mind: A hot, sunny, muggy day and a cloud ‘system’ begins to develop and the leading edge is developing over sun baked terrain (95F and sunny with dew point ~70F).

        Moist air is begins to condense at the dew point of lets say 1000 ft. At that point the lapse rate causes the condensation but at the point of condensation two things begin to happen. Latent heat is is released to convect upward but at the same time the bottom of that newly forming cloud is absorbing intensive LWIR from the ground and heating up. Must be pretty confusing for the young cloud to want to condense while being heated from the bottom. Now there are other clouds at let’s say 2000 feet being heated by escaping energy from the ones below it as well as the ground surface LWIR directed between the scattered/broken lowest forming clouds. The standard calculated lapse rate must be going to hell. I can clearly watch the lowest clouds and their formation as well as the next (2nd) layer cloud base and the eventual merging about 5-8 miles (wag) away. The top layer (3rd) clouds at let’s say 5000 feet (wag) that were somewhat thin/transparent when over my head are now towering storm heads about 15 – 20 miles (wag) away.

        I am hoping to measure the cloud base temps at different levels with the IR meter and need a concentrated focal point. I’m trying to look at the direct real time effects of LWIR as the cloud forms over hot ground. It’s not going to change the global numbers but I’ve got something else in mind after I get this down pat. Inquiring minds need to know but I don’t know now.


  23. I ran across this Cloward-Piven Strategy of Overwhelming Any System Targeted for Takeover With Hordes which was directed at the welfare system, but I think it’s applicable to the border. In fact it gave me chills that this is what the left is about. They’ve managed in part already. We have well more that the 11 million illegal aliens in this country and the general believe is that we can’t export all of them. I think there are way more than that (I’ve heard estimates up to 30 million which is almost 10% of the population). They haven’t been able to get the (mostly) white majority to bow to their socialist agenda so what better way than to import the socialists from countries that socialism has wrecked. Of course they don’t see that their problems stem from their dysfunctional political and cultural systems.


  24. Willis, I just posted a comment on your socialism article that combined my previous username along with my real name. Is there a way to delete the first part?

    I used to post anonymously, but it was your comments about that practice that convinced me to do otherwise.



  25. Willis, back in the day – 2 or 4 or 8 years ago, we argued about models, Then discovered we were talking about 2 different (out of the many ) types of models. Mine were digital simulations, you were talking about the idiotic climate extrapolations using supercomputers to compute noise. This model is new to me. If it is innocent idiocy – OK noise. If it is idiots trying to reproduce or introduce a way to impose ritual belief – not good. Especially if it is pumped into the media like “climate change” even worse. Particular religions have always been weaponized, but weaponizing religion in the abstract is a 2nd order weapon. seems to be a meta-model of how models can be misused. How can anyone (other than flat-earthers and their ilk) believe this?

    Very unpleasant – read some fantasy like Charles Stross to see plausible ends to these types of belief systems. If they have any basis in reality.


  26. Hi Willis, JFL here for a second bite at the JRA56 cherry. You very kindly followed up my suggestion and looked at this, reverting that you didn’t think it of much assistance as it was a model.

    Hmmm. I think I might inadvertently misdirected you, as try as I might I can’t see how what I’m looking at is a model!

    Here is a link to it’s climate data…

    This looks to me like data, albeit reanalysed data. 55 years of info and counting, including baloons and satellite radiosondes… useful, much?

    Very best wishes.


    • Sorry, Julian, but it is not data. It is computer model output, disguised under the name of “reanalysis data”. Useful? Perhaps for some things, but for all of the reasons that I listed above, useful for most things? … no.



  27. Willis…You may already know about this, but if not I think you will find it interesting. A bit of a ‘David & Goliath’ story.

    The Unlikely Activists Who Took On Silicon Valley — and Won


    Jack Wurts


  28. Willis,

    I made a comment today on a posting @ WUWT by Tim Ball. He had a good example of a pic (fig 2) of something I have been observing for a long time and recently have been trying to explain/grasp what may be happening with regards to clouds beginning at the bottom. I’ll spare you the pic but check it out. If you see merit in what I wrote please include the pic for reference.

    I agree with Bob and my focus is on the bottom of the cloud as being a boundary layer possibly 10 to maybe 100 ft thick (wag) depending on the cloud and containing an extremely dense layer of vapor condensate to even an almost liquid state or possibly both being in a supersaturated and superheated state. Black is more than just a shadow in many/some cases.

    I put it together in very short order with a sandwich in one hand and keyboard in the other so consider it a draft. You may be interested. Here it is:

    Quote by Bob:

    “Notice that the base of the clouds is all at the same altitude, which is the LLC. The dark bottom to the cloud indicates the density of the water droplets and their ability to block sunlight.”


    Quote by me:

    The dark bottom of the clouds in fig 2 may be a clear insight into a boundary condition whereas the condensing water vapor and the condensed water vapor is in a state of supersaturation and superheat driven by LWIR from the ground as well as the latent heat released at condensation. A sandwich condition so to speak with the lapse rate (pressure component) working one way with the latent heat released now sensible heat and upwelling LWIR working the other . I’ve been watching that lately and it happens frequently on hot sunny days when the clouds start to develop. I saw it (again) a couple of days ago (hot, sunny and humid) and the developing clouds, similar to fig 2, between those already established were really shallow and dark with no shading. There is a lot of LWIR coming up from the ground after a hot sunny morning and afternoon and the clouds can catch it from a large ground surface area. A given point on the ground emits more than just straight up. Just a thought, assume those cloud bottoms (LLC) are 5,000 ft. Now consider the emission area on the ground encompassing a radius of 5,000 ft. Consider the energy in watts per sq/m emitting at say 100 F and the cloud emitting at say 60 F. How much energy focused at the bottom is the cloud retaining ? Sure it gets some from the side but focus on the boiler plate, the dark zone.

    I haven’t been able to find info I need to further determine the true component and characteristics and emission values as would relate to what I have been trying to fully explain/grasp. All I can find are averages, averages, and more averages over the globe over the year. I want to know instantaneous values as of here and now on a sunny day. I’m not going to dig out the engineering books and research for hours just to make a comment on a blog post so I hope someone will set me straight on the LWIR emissions from a given point at a given time as related to this comment.

    The next time I hear average I’m gonna tell them to drive their car at night without headlights because on average the sun is brighter in the daytime than they need so they don’t need their headlights at night. Or maybe leave them shivering in the dark because it was 80 F earlier today and now it’s 40 F so 60 F is a pleasant median and they can’t be cold.


    • I erroneously referred to Dr.Tim Ball as “Bob” a couple of times above. My bad. Need to slow down on the keyboard/communication aspect but I’ve been focused on the possible processes that may be involved.

      Now I’ve gotta go tend to the everyday real life distractions that are the necessary evils in life. I think a good day of fishing is in order with the dog, beer and canoe. It wont matter if the fish bite.


    • I pulled this pic from Roger Pielke Sr Twitter account/pg. Storm at Jacksonville FL beach. I’ll give the link and then try post pic.

      Hypothesis of a boiler plate principle on bottom/horizontal boundary layer and with condensing vapor pulled in to the sides by venturi effect? I think there is too much energy in a storm cloud to be supplied by just the entering air. LWIR may be greater than realized. As soon as my head hits the pillow I start thinking about it! Ponder if you choose.


  29. Hi Willis,

    Have included information from a chart the Queensland Department of National Resources compiled of Australia’s variable rainfall, with annual maps of rainfall from March to April each year since 1891 to present. They have not animated it but is it possible to do it with these? I think it would be a graphic depiction.

    Hope you find the Longpaddock info interesting.


  30. Willis

    I found this interesting and thought you might like to ponder this:

    > about CO2 concentrations for dates earlier than 2017-01-24 04:30 UTC
    > While implementing the visualization of CO2 surface concentration, I noticed the NASA GEOS-5 model reports a global mean concentration that differs significantly from widely reported numbers. For example, from the run at 2015-11-23 00:00 UTC, the global mean is only 368 ppmv whereas CO2 observatories report concentrations closer to 400 ppmv. GEOS-5 was constructed in the 2000s, so perhaps the model does not account for accumulation of atmospheric CO2 over time? This is simply speculation. I am just not certain.
    > To bring the GEOS-5 results closer to contemporary numbers, I have added a uniform offset of +32 ppmv, increasing the global mean to 400 ppmv. This is not scientifically valid, but it does allow the visualization to become illustrative of the discussion occurring today around atmospheric CO2. Without question, I would welcome a more rigorous approach or an explanation why the GEOS-5 model produces the data that it does.
    > From 2017-01-24 04:30 UTC, this adjustment is no longer necessary because GEOS-5 appears to have been upgraded.


  31. Hi Willis
    Here’s some lite reading on the real cause of climate change . We will never be able to address the problem of global warming if the truth is withheld.

    “Man-made global warming is theorised to have begun impacting the climate around the year 1950.”

    Around the same time TV went mainstream .
    Getting started
    “Until the fall of 1948, regularly scheduled programming on the four networks—the American Broadcasting Company (ABC), the Columbia Broadcasting System (CBS; later CBS Corporation), the National Broadcasting Co. (NBC), and the DuMont Television Network, which folded in 1955—was scarce. On some evenings, a network might not offer any programs at all, and it was rare for any network to broadcast a full complement of shows during the entire period that became known as prime time (8–11 PM, Eastern Standard Time). Sales of television sets were low, so, even if programs had been available, their potential audience was limited. To encourage sales, daytime sports broadcasts were scheduled on weekends in an effort to lure heads of households to purchase sets they saw demonstrated in local appliance stores and taverns—the venues where most TV viewing in America took place before 1948.”

    “The first broadcast was on September 6, 1952 from its Montreal station CBFT. The premiere broadcast was bilingual, spoken in English and French. Two days later, on September 8, 1952, the Toronto station CBLT went on the air.”

    “Sometimes, weapons and other projects pushed by the urgency of war have been converted into civilian technology. Such is the case of nuclear power plants, the internet, but also radar tech, which inexpectedly and inadvertently led to the invention of the microwave oven — one of the most widely used home appliance in the world.”
    This youtube clip to me shows what happens to C02 when microwaved .


    • Thanks, Stewart. I’ve added a comment to the thread, we’ll see if it makes it through moderation. I’ll quote it here in case it disappears:

      The Nikolov/Zeller “theory” is just a childishly simple example of fitting an equation with a number of tunable parameters to a very small dataset. A complete analysis of their foolishness is here:

      They use half as many free tunable parameters as they have data points to fit. They actually think that fitting the data is some kind of “miracle” … but given that many free parameters, and free choice of any equation, it would only be surprising if they could NOT get a good fit.

      In fact, in that same post I provided two different equations that do a BETTER job of fitting their data points, and each equation is just as meaningless as theirs.

      And yes, I notified the editors of the journal that Nikolov/Zeller were attempting to publish under fake names. I am not, however, a “climate denier”, that’s a joke.

      Pierre, posting up this nonsense along with an accusation that I’m a “denier”?


      Not doing your reputation any good here with accusations of “denier”, my friend.


      My best to you,



  32. Hi Willis,
    Another nail in the coffin re wireless technology, Why is the electronic industry allowed to use the atmosphere as apart of their infrastructure. ?


You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s