Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2023 | sundance
I get a lot of flak for saying Texas is the next Georgia when it comes to professional politics and the ideological shift from Red to Blue. However, the grief matters not, because the reality of Texas turning left is very real even if Texans don’t want to admit it; here’s yet another datapoint. The only two GOP congressmen who did not support the reformed rules package were both from Texas. Representative Tony Gonzales voted against it, and Rep. Dan Crenshaw, did not vote.
Overall, the House of Representatives passed the rules package Monday night 220-213 with relatively little drama. It was the first order of business for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s new majority on the first day of the 118th legislative session. The 55-page package includes most of the concessions McCarthy made to the conservative caucus.
The new rules include the motion to vacate provision, allowing just one member to make a motion to remove the House speaker – one of the top conservative demands that will keep McCarthy in check.
WASHINGTON DC – The House rules plan that amounted to Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s first legislative victory on Monday night brings much bigger consequences than 55 pages suggest — it will shape the chamber’s operations and what bills can win approval over the next two years.
Adoption of the rules package is a routine step in setting up any new Congress, but what is traditionally seen as a “housekeeping” issue will effectively determine how Republicans can govern the chamber. That’s why the rules measure was the centerpiece of high-stakes negotiations between McCarthy and the crop of rebellious conservatives who kept from the gavel for much of last week, talks that started just after the House was called for Republicans in November.
[…] At the heart of the rules push by rank-and-file conservatives, including many in the Freedom Caucus, is a desire to shape a more inclusive legislative process that concentrates less power with leadership. To that end, they have secured promises from leaders that aren’t formally written down in the rules, such as allowing more amendments to be considered on the floor and more widely distributing committee positions. (more)
We have a few more election cycles to stop the arc of history from repeating itself. However, it is best to be prepared just in case…. Because if the slow descent into controlled chaos and big government dependency continues, the more self-sufficient you are – the longer you will be able to retain a freedom lifestyle of familiar reference.
Stay gray and remember, the potato alliance grows underground and gains multiple eyes in sunlight.
Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2023 | sundance
The House of Representatives is in current session to debate and confirm the new House rules package. The rules were a point of contention for some conservative House members, who initially refused to vote for Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker until the California Republican made concessions in order to win the gavel. [Livestream Video Below]
Dr. Aaron Kheriaty: Self-Spreading Vaccines, Transhumanist Ideology, and Government Gag Orders—The New Technocracy Threatening Hippocratic Medicine and the Nuremberg Code
This speech by Congressman Matt Gaetz is actually very important. Listen carefully to what he is saying – he and others will not vote for this “uni-party” candidate Kevin McCarthy from California. I cannot emphasize more that what he is talking about is what I have been writing about for a long time.
John McCain would have voted for Hillary before Trump because they are all the same – they protect the SWAMP. The battle is not as fierce between the Republicans and Democrats as it often appears. Both sides like things the way they are. Kevin McCarthy would simply be another Pelosi. There really would be no difference. This is why we must simply Crash & Burn. Politics is hopeless. The corruption has eaten away everything from the inside out. Gaetz is correct for they call it on the Hill the “uni-party” where it is not for the people, but for maintaining power.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 28, 2022 | Sundance
China has loosened travel restrictions internally. As a result, there has been an uptick in COVID-19 infections throughout China. Along with the loosened domestic travel restrictions, many Chinese are booking flights out of the country.
Despite previously accusing the Trump administration of promoting ‘Asian hate‘ and xenophobia, the Biden CDC is now requiring travelers from China to provide evidence of a negative COVID test prior to travel to the U.S, and entry into the United States.
(Via Axios) – The United States will require travelers from China to show a negative COVID-19 test result before flying to the country amid China’s recent uptick in cases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said Wednesday.
The big picture: The CDC’s decision comes amid a surge in COVID-19 cases in China, which recently loosened its travel restrictions and opened its borders for overseas travel.
The CDC said it is mainly concerned about slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. The agency also wants to prevent any variants of concern from leaking into the country.
Details: Starting Jan. 5 at 12:01 a.m. ET, all passengers from China who are 2 years old and older will need to receive a negative PCR or antigen self-test no more than 2 days before their departure from China, Hong Kong or Macau, per the CDC.
This applies regardless of nationality or vaccination status, the CDC said. It also applies to travelers traveling from China via a third country, or those who are connecting through the United States to another country. Airlines will need to confirm the negative test result for all passengers before they board. Otherwise, they can deny boarding for the traveler, per the CDC.
Context: People in China — who were under heavy COVID travel restrictions until earlier this month — have been flocking out of the country. Air travel ticket sales have soared since China eliminated quarantines and testing requirements for travelers into the country. (more)
In response to reviewers’ comments on a paper John Christy and I submitted regarding the impact of El Nino and La Nina on climate sensitivity estimates, I decided to change the focus enough to require a total re-write of the paper.
The paper now addresses the question: If we take all of the various surface and sub-surface temperature datasets and their differing estimates of warming over the last 50 years, what does it imply for climate sensitivity?
The trouble with estimating climate sensitivity from observational data is that, even if the temperature observations were globally complete and error-free, you still have to know pretty accurately what the “forcing” was that caused the temperature change.
(Yes, I know some of you don’t like the forcing-feedback paradigm of climate change. Feel free to ignore this post if it bothers you.)
As a reminder, all temperature change in an object or system is due to an imbalance between rates of energy gained and energy lost, and the global warming hypothesis begins with the assumption that the climate system is naturally in a state of energy balance. Yes, I know (and agree) that this assumption cannot be demonstrated to be strictly true, as events like the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age can attest.
But for the purpose of demonstration, let’s assume it’s true in today’s climate system, and that the only thing causing recent warming is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission (mainly CO2). Does the current rate of warming suggest (as we are told) that a global warming disaster is upon us? I think this is an important question to address, separate from the question of whether some of the recent warming is natural (which would make AGW even less of a problem).
Lewis and Curry (most recently in 2018) addressed the ECS question in a similar manner by comparing temperatures and radiative forcing estimates between the late 1800s and early 2000s, and got answers somewhere in the range of 1.5 to 1.8 deg. C of eventual warming from a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration (2XCO2). These estimates are considerably lower than what the IPCC claims from (mostly) climate model projections.
Our approach is somewhat different from Lewis & Curry. First, we use only data from the most recent 50 years (1970-2021), which is the period of most rapid growth in CO2-caused forcing, the period of most rapid temperature rise, and about as far back as one can go and talk with any confidence about ocean heat content (a very important variable in climate sensitivity estimates).
Secondly, our model is time-dependent, with monthly time resolution, allowing us to examine (for instance) the recent acceleration in deep ocean temperature (ocean heat content) rise.
In contrast to Lewis & Curry and differencing two time periods’ averages separated by 100+ years, our approach is to use a time-dependent model of vertical energy flows, which I have blogged on before. It is run at monthly time resolution, so allows examination of such issues as the recent acceleration of the increase in oceanic heat content (OHC).
In response to reviewers comments, I extended the domain from non-ice covered (60N-60S) oceans to global coverage (including land), as well as borehole-based estimates of deep-land warming trends (I believe a first for this kind of work). The model remains a 1D model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium, within three layers, shown schematically in Fig. 1.
One thing I learned along the way is that, even though borehole temperatures suggest warming extending to almost 200 m depth (the cause of which seems to extent back several centuries), modern Earth System Models (ESMs) have embedded land models that extend to only 10 m depth or so.
Another thing I learned (in the course of responding to reviewers comments) is that the assumed history of radiative forcing has a pretty large effect on diagnosed climate sensitivity. I have been using the RCP6 radiative forcing scenario from the previous (AR5) IPCC report, but in response to reviewers’ suggestions I am now emphasizing the SSP245 scenario from the most recent (AR6) report.
I run all of the model simulations with either one or the other radiative forcing dataset, initialized in 1765 (a common starting point for ESMs). All results below are from the most recent (SSP245) effective radiative forcing scenario preferred by the IPCC (which, it turns out, actually produces lower ECS estimates).
The Model Experiments
In addition to the assumption that the radiative forcing scenarios are a relatively accurate representation of what has been causing climate change since 1765, there is also the assumption that our temperature datasets are sufficiently accurate to compute ECS values.
So, taking those on faith, let’s forge ahead…
I ran the model with thousands of combinations of heat transfer coefficients between model layers and the net feedback parameter (which determines ECS) to get 1970-2021 temperature trends within certain ranges.
For land surface temperature trends I used 5 “different” land datasets: CRUTem5 (+0.277 C/decade), GISS 250 km (+0.306 C/decade), NCDC v3.2.1 (+0.298 C/decade), GHCN/CAMS (+0.348 C/decade), and Berkeley 1 deg. (+0.280 C/decade).
For global average sea surface temperature I used HadCRUT5 (+0.153 C/decade), Cowtan & Way (HadCRUT4, +0.148 C/decade), and Berkeley 1 deg. (+0.162 C/decade).
For the deep ocean, I used Cheng et al. 0-2000m global average ocean temperature (+0.0269 C/decade), and Cheng’s estimate of the 2000-3688m deep-deep-ocean warming, which amounts to a (very uncertain) +0.01 total warming over the last 40 years. The model must produce the surface trends within the range represented by those datasets, and produce 0-2000 m trends within +/-20% of the Cheng deep-ocean dataset trends.
Since deep-ocean heat storage is such an important constraint on ECS, in Fig. 3 I show the 1D model run that best fits the 0-2000m temperature trend of +0.0269 C/decade over the period 1970-2021.
Finally, the storage of heat in the land surface is usually ignored in such efforts. As mentioned above, climate models have embedded land surface models that extend to only 10 m depth. Yet, borehole temperature profiles have been analyzed that suggest warming up to 200 m in depth (Fig. 4).
This great depth, in turn, suggests that there has been a multi-century warming trend occurring, even in the early 20th Century, which the IPCC ignores and which suggests a natural source for long-term climate change. Any natural source of warming, if ignored, leads to inflated estimates of ECS and of the importance of increasing CO2 in climate change projections.
I used the black curve (bottom panel of Fig. 4) to estimate that the near-surface layer is warming 2.5 times faster than the 0-100 m layer, and 25 times faster than the 100-200 m layer. In my 1D model simulations, I required this amount of deep-land heat storage (analogous to the deep-ocean heat storage computations, but requiring weaker heat transfer coefficients for land and different volumetric heat capacities).
The distributions of diagnosed ECS values I get over land and ocean are shown in Fig. 5.
The final, global average ECS from the central estimates in Fig. 5 is 2.09 deg. C. Again, this is somewhat higher than the 1.5 to 1.8 deg. C obtained by Lewis & Curry, but part of this is due to larger estimates of ocean and land heat storage used here, and I would suspect that our use of only the most recent 50 years of data has some impact as well.
Conclusions
I’ve used a 1D time-dependent model of temperature departures from assumed energy equilibrium to address the question: Given the various estimates of surface and sub-surface warming over the last 50 years, what do they suggest for the sensitivity of the climate system to a doubling of atmospheric CO2?
Using the most recent estimates of effective radiative forcing from Annex III in the latest IPCC report (AR6), the observational data suggest lower climate sensitivities (ECS) than promoted by the IPCC with a central estimate of +2.09 deg C. for the global average. This is at the bottom end of the latest IPCC (AR6) likely range of 2.0 to 4.5 deg. C.
I believe this is still likely an upper bound for ECS, for the following reasons.
Borehole temperatures suggest there has been a long-term warming trend, at least up into the early 20th Century. Ignoring this (whatever its cause) will lead to inflated estimates of ECS.
I still believe that some portion of the land temperature datasets has been contaminated by long-term increases in Urban Heat Island effects, which are indistinguishable from climatic warming in homogenization schemes.
Posted originally on the CTH on December 18, 2022 | sundance
Matt Taibbi files a supplemental thread to his review of DHS/FBI instructions, through the still undisclosed portal. [Twitter File Supplemental Here]
Just a reminder… how the ‘asks’ actually took place is still a mystery, Taibbi & Weiss et al are only privy to the internal actions and discussions after the inbound requests arrive. Put another way, we are blind to the method of the DHS/FBI portal into the network. I do not believe that secrecy is accidental.
The essence of Taibbi’s supplemental report is based on a few internal emails amid the group following DHS/FBI and ODNI officials telling the Twitter rulers they were not cracking down hard enough on the platform content.
As Taibbi notes, “The questionnaire authors seem displeased with Twitter for implying, in a July 20th “DHS/ODNI/FBI/Industry briefing,” that “you indicated you had not observed much recent activity from official propaganda actors on your platform.”
Twitter official Yoel Roth then responded to the U.S intelligence community in a series of back-and-forth conversations, and internally to the Twitter censorship group.
As noted by Taibbi, “[Roth] was not “comfortable with the Bureau (and by extension the IC) demanding written answers.” Taibbi then seems to pull out the pretending not to know things card and ponders, “the idea of the FBI acting as conduit for the Intelligence Community is interesting, given that many agencies are barred from domestic operations.”
Gee, ya think? Go figure.
Within the short thread the Intelligence Community is responding to Twitter with citations from mainstream media publications like the Wall Street Journal. However, the citations from the journal are sourced from the same Intelligence Community citing them as evidence.
It’s the proverbial and circular use of the wrap up smear.
Intel community seeds media with false or manipulated narrative. Media prints false or manipulated narrative. Intel Community then uses media printed story as citation to tell Twitter to act on it.
WARNING – there is a massive fraud going on where they are emailing and texting people claiming the address on a package is wrong and that the USPS cannot deliver it. They get you to put in your address with your zip code, then claim there is a $3 charge and ask for your credit card. They will instantly run it up, to the limit.
This is a SCAM and to provide, just go to the USPS tracking site, put in the number and, there is no status.
Schwab’s Fream coming true – eliminating families and growing genetic clones just as in Star Wars– the Clone Wars. Just think of the possibilities. No families. Cloned to carry out orders. The perfect total control of society – a dream come true. This scientific advancement can change society, although perhaps not for the good. Now the world’s first ‘Artificial Womb Facility’ is claiming that it can grow 30,000 babies in a year in an artificial womb or a ‘growth pod’. Of course, this facility does not actually exist just yet. Gates and Schwab might still object because they exhale CO2. Perhaps EctoLife can come up with a workaround for that. They are claiming it can help with the declining population in countries such as Japan, Bulgaria, and South Korea.
The Biden Administration is now targeting fishing. They have argued all along that boats expel more CO2 than cars, Cows, or Airplanes. So it is no surprise to now target boating imposing a 10-knot speed limit. This will end the deep sea fishing period – both for sport and food supply. This is up and down the entire East Coast. Of course, Right whales, migrate and can be seen every winter off the Atlantic coast between Jacksonville and Cap Canaveral between December and March each year. They are tourist attractions with hundreds of siting every season.
This is how government works. They just impose blank bans on the entire ocean out for 150 miles. When they did Obamacare, I lost my insurance from Blue Cross because it did not include maternity leave despite the fact I was not married and at that time men could still not get pregnant unless they were in California apparently.
Such bans with a broad brush of this nature will impact the entire industry ending much of the shipping industry as well as the ports. Why ship anything now to New York, Philadelphia, or Virginia? There go the unions!
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 