667 per centimeter

If the AI and GPT result reported in Nature is other than superstition,there must be a statistical model justifying it.

I’d like to know what it is and how it compares to existing well known prediction schemes and algorithms. Right now, can’t tell.

There’s a review of McKibben’s new book in The New Atlantis at https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/how-bill-mckibben-lost-the-plot

I think people should read in full the Wikipedia article about Nordhaus before buying into this, even much at all I’d say. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Nordhaus

Welcome comments here.

… By You Know Who …

NOAA report

On 7 August 2025, the United States National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine initiated a new study to “review the latest scientific evidence on whether greenhouse gas emissions are reasonably anticipated to endanger public health and welfare in the U.S.” (press release). Summarizing its purpose:

“The committee conducting the study will focus on evidence gathered by the scientific community since 2009 — when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency first declared greenhouse gas emissions a danger to public health. Any conclusions in the committee’s report will describe supporting evidence, the level of confidence in a conclusion, and areas of disagreement or unknowns.

The EPA recently announced that it intends to rescind its “endangerment finding,” a statement issued by the agency in 2009 that found that greenhouse gas emissions do pose risks to public health and welfare. The National Academies study will be completed and publicly released in September, in time to inform EPA’s decision process.

“It is critical that federal policymaking is informed by the best available scientific evidence,” said Marcia McNutt, president of the National Academy of Sciences. “Decades of climate research and data have yielded expanded understanding of how greenhouse gases affect the climate. We are undertaking this fresh examination of the latest climate science in order to provide the most up-to-date assessment to policymakers and the public.”

The committee will be led by Shirley Tilghman, professor of molecular biology and public affairs, emeritus, and former president, Princeton University. The committee will also include experts in public health, extreme weather, climate modeling, agriculture, infrastructure, and other areas.

The committee has issued a request for information to the public and scientific community. The study is being self-funded by the National Academy of Sciences.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are private, nonprofit institutions that provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions related to science, engineering, and medicine. They operate under an 1863 congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences, signed by President Lincoln.”

Some recent NAS papers related to this subject:

• “The intensification of the strongest nor’easters.”
• “Human and climate impacts on the alpine Critical Zone over the past 10,000 y.”
• “Barystatic sea level change observed by satellite gravimetry: 1993–2022.”
• “Abrupt shift of El Niño periodicity under CO₂ mitigation.”
• “Human influence on climate detectable in the late 19th century.”
• “Fossil fuel methane emissions likely underestimated in a model based on atmospheric δ¹³C trends.”
• “Observation-based estimate of Earth’s effective radiative forcing.”
• “Increasing boreal fires reduce future global warming and sea ice loss.”

There are of course many more.

RFI.

P.S. 8 August 2025: Another report related to this “Outrage over Trump team’s climate report spurs researchers to fight back”. See article in Nature.

“RIGGED”

Nothing new …

Censorship of Science by the administration of President Donald Trump

“Azimuth Backup Project (Part 5)”, upcoming presentation by Prof John Carlos Baez

As of today I support Beaker Street

(from Nature)

https://flic.kr/ps/267Eah

Versatile yet simple, the black M.Zuiko Digital 25mm f/1.8 II Lens from OM System is an IPX1-rated 50mm equivalent prime for Micro Four Thirds mirrorless cameras. Its normal field of view is complemented by a fast f/1.8 maximum aperture for controlling depth of field and producing selective focus effects, and it also benefits working in difficult lighting conditions. Two aspherical elements with ZERO coating are used in the optical design to help reduce spherical aberrations in order to achieve a high degree of sharpness, and these elements also help to reduce the overall size and weight of the lens. Additionally, a Movie & Still Compatible (MSC) autofocus system is employed to deliver quick, quiet, and precise focusing performance to suit both video and photo applications.

Sample photos:

Polytrichum sporophytes.

I also have a collection of photos, mostly of bryophytes, on Flickr.

OM Systems OM5 camera with OM System M.Zuiko 90mm macro and non-macro 1:3.5 digital lens. Also used M.Zuiko 40mm-150mm 1:4 zoom macro, and Mitakon Zhongyi 20mm f/2 4.5x Super Macro Lens for Micro Four Thirds.

Most of these are also stored in the author’s Flickr photostream.

A new lens for macrophotography, an OM Systems M.Zuiko ED40-150mm F4.0 PRO.

(Inspired by a post and report of the same title by Bill McKibben.)

Yes they can.

Time lapse proof of extreme ice loss. TED Talk by James Balog.