R to @orwell2022: Remarkable progress since.
http://www.klymot.com
So I have managed to recover most of the stations that have TOB adjustments and separate the TOB adjustments from the PHA adjustments. There’s about 20 stations where I have a bug still to fix and the recovery is not perfect. /cc @orwell2022 @ChrisMartzWX
The new tool by @connolly_s looks sharp
Look how nice and flat the T curves go if you measure WITHOUT human interference. Just as required by NOAA climate principles.
🇺🇸 NOAA GHCN + 🇪🇺 EU GHSL = perfect team.
Very humble post. He obliterated my little amateur tool.
https://www.klymot.com/
Great to see a professional at work. Especially being an amateur.
Try out the climate data explorer built on the data from NOAA's GHCMn and the EU's GHSL. Link in bio
Let us SP500 total cap as reference.
Artemis: 0.16%
Apollo was 5%
To have the same "market weight" as Apollo in 1969, the Artemis program would need a budget of $2-3 Trillion in today's dollars. Instead, it is executed for less than 1/25th of that relative economic intensity
False. Correct way:
1.Take your 1968 budget → buy gold at 1968 price
2.Take your 2025 budget → buy gold at 2025 price
Compare total weight.
👉 “Inflation adjustments” are nonsense. Same trick was used in climate attribution “science” as explained by @RogerPielkeJr
False. The correct way:
1) take the fiat value budget you had 1968. Buy gold coins in 1968 at the 1968 price.
2) take the fiat value budget you had 2025. Buy gold coins in 2025 at the 2025 gold price.
Compare.
Gemini passed. xAI failed as expected. Surprised that GPT / Claude failed. Not surprised that Gemini passed. It also passed the blind test below. The others did not. They will confidently tell that a curve goes up even if it goes down. Not Gemini though…
https://x.com/orwell2022/status/1994017047676686539?s=46&t=NBd-LuUT5-E3q_WpYPsAnQ
R to @orwell2022: Apollo vs Artemis.
GDP (peak annual share)
Apollo: ~0.5%
Artemis: ~0.02%
Total US debt (relative size)
Apollo: ~7%
Artemis: ~0.3%
≈20× difference either way.
if you trust inflation numbers: a fiat money savings account is the best investment for you.
Inflation numbers are a scam.
Apollo (1960s gold price) → ~726 million coins
Artemis (today’s gold price) → ~50 million coins
👉 So in gold terms:
Apollo ≈ 14–15× larger than Artemis
R to @orwell2022: Probably the fastest way to result is to ask the AI to plot the list here. You should be able to do so in less than 10 minutes with instruction to pull data from GHCNv4 QCU and plot the T anomaly of the stations in column 1 by the bins in column 2.
https://github.com/orwell2024/GHCN-tools/blob/main/data/for-D666-US_64_stations.csv
This was a good tweet and revealing on results. Today anyone should be able to replicate this instantly with 2026 Codex.
Well written.
TLDR: Measurements are local.
More explicit: Any “science” that isn’t consistently and accurately forecasting measurements (local) is not science.
R to @orwell2022: 9/ correct.
By F A R 🇪🇺
So why is the US climate “science” not using it? The aqua terra satellites are broken. No fuel. Fully outdated MODIS. It’s a joke product compared to GHSL. Just like your iPhone 1 pictures compared to your 17 Pro Max.
R to @orwell2022: 8/ https://x.com/i/grok/share/930ebad14fd3439186127019fdd15075
R to @orwell2022: You may notice the one on the bottom, right. This is how it looks like visually. Those kind of garbage locations are exactly how NOT to measure “climate change”. Every single NOAA requirement is broken.
https://x.com/orwell2022/status/2036172706089984288?s=46&t=NBd-LuUT5-E3q_WpYPsAnQ
R to @orwell2022: Another example. Clean location. No hockey stick. So now we know how to fight climate crisis. Just don’t place thermometers anywhere near human activities. Easy fix.
https://x.com/orwell2022/status/1905670686749733032?s=46&t=NBd-LuUT5-E3q_WpYPsAnQ
This is how it’s done. ‼️
Some @noaa historical stations got upgraded to USCRN quality—right next to historical. Then the historic is retired.
The new USCRN station is easy to recognize: the GIGANTIC circular wind shield for the rain gauge. The 3T sensor is at the 👇
Let’s play the game properly.
http://Orwell2024.GitHub.io/builtmap/q1_mosaic.svg
R to @orwell2022: No hockey sticks in the historic USCRN sites. Is it the reason why they don’t show it nor talk about it? They probably looked. Because they designed it in order to have places with history. With controlled station upgrade. But the data didn’t show what they hoped to see?
R to @orwell2022: Background. Those are the sites added. To the https://orwell2024.github.io/builtmap/ tool.
Feature update: Added the historical USCRN sites to the map. Those locations have the highest integrity and quality data.
R to @orwell2022: Global warming seems to be very localized and straightforward to avoid. Good news.
R to @orwell2022: Another example. Could it be that the most obvious explanation for towns having a T hockey sticks while a 1h drive makes it disappear is the human settlement hockey stick (making a town) and not CO2?
R to @orwell2022: 🤷 “science”. Good news: you can escape “global warming” by moving out of town. A 1h drive out will solve the problem usually. If you can afford the fuel…
https://orwell2024.github.io/builtmap/
<100 km separated. Red one is town. Blue is rural. We should see same “climate change”. Let’s check
The UHI trend is +5C / 100 years. Now subtract that from the “records”. Which is the correct way to compare with the past.
If you are an “official” climate scientist, you should be able to take them apart live. But they can’t. A real pseudoscience cult would not allow them to come. Like creationists and the trans “science”. Because they know that evolutionary biologists will accept and roll over them
This is also interesting. If we would actually subtract the well-known UHI from the downtown station: then the trend would even turn downwards. The airport station is not suited for climate accuracy. It goes up for whatever reason of the airport. Growth of AP/infrastructure etc.
R to @orwell2022: While they are professionals (or were in the past) there was obviously a person who had a very strong mind. The person designing the double GIGANTIC rain gauge fence. 😳
That is over-engineering. It drained the budget. So no pressure sensor??!! 🫣
He’s probably in politics now.
In order to answer his question, we HAVE to exclude ALL human interference. Which is the process followed here. It has been laid out by the most professional people. NOAA USCRN team. Selecting locations, which do not have ANY human interference. That _is_ the ONLY way to do it.
It looks that way. But it is not sufficient for quality. Because we can see that humans are/have fully shaped the environment. And that is a problem for accuracy.
It is not enough to look rural. NOAA USCRN team pros knows that. Because they are (were?) professionals.
Very good. He’s playing. So now he figured out that the picture shows hundred percent human shaped environment. And that is a problem. Because we want to measure climate change and not the human induced change of the environment. Keep playing. Keep thinking.
R to @orwell2022: 7/ If interested, you should now be able to understand the 2024 thread.
Codex 5.4 doesn’t only understand it: it replicates it all alone in 10 min. Absolutely impressive. Constant time effort task for 2026 LLMs.
http://orwell2024.github.io/builtmap/agg
Including report. 👆👇
R to @orwell2022: UHI is around 3C. So if we would linearly subtract this being reaching this level in 100 years and the temperature curve would actually even decline.
R to @orwell2022: San Diego. Looking chilly lately. Even UHI can’t help against the cold pacific freezer. Didn’t they hoax with “warming is making arson worse in LA”
Fascinating. We have “global” warming. But if you exclude locations where you can visibly see human activities (buildings etc) you find places without. Surrounded by places with warming (and houses around the thermometers). 😀
R to @orwell2022: 6/ Update:
README, search, clearer titles.
High latitudes added for completeness — not because they’re clean.
These sites are typically excluded: snow cover, albedo shifts, seasonal instability, siting issues.
Use with caution.