by Judith Curry
A thought-provoking article from my new favorite blog, The Ethical Skeptic.
The Ethical Skeptic
My new favorite blog is The Ethical Skeptic. From the About page:
“It is the intent of this author and purpose of this blog to propose afresh from its beginning, a genuine problem in philosophy. A problem of method-induced creeping ignorance, wrought in the name of science. Until one understands how a philosophical definition or principle can be manipulated for ill intent, one has not really learned it. Such is the nature of ethical skepticism; an applied ability to spot the condition wherein skepticism is employed with the specific goal of cultivating ignorance inside society. In order for us to hone our skills at spotting scientific deception through means of this false skepticism however, it becomes necessary that one approach afresh, many core ideas of philosophy.”
There is TONS of excellent, provocative material on this site, and the lengthy articles are very well written; I encourage you to explore. I was particularly struck by this article on the Omega Hypothesis and its relevance to climate change.
Part of the heat may be coming from beneath our feet
The article that motivates this post is one entitled The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril). Subtitle: “When the Earth’s core enters an exothermic cycle, the Earth’s air-conditioning heat pump gets less efficient.” The preamble:
“Now before reviewing this article I must ask two things of its prospective reader. First, if one finds them self tempted to shift their more-sciencey-than-thou underoos all askew and further then perceives sufficient knee-jerk dissonance coming on to assign me an ‘anti-‘ label – understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind.
Second, what I am summarizing in very short form herein stems from hundreds of hours of research and literally multiple hundreds of references which I cannot possibly compile into this blog article by coherent sequence – without sacrificing the ability to deliver its core message. This idea is a construct, an idea which aspires to be developed into real hypothesis.
Despite its need for further development and maturation, this argument should not be ignored through our polarization over this issue politically. We need fewer children with scowling faces, and more unbiased thinking adults addressing this challenge.
I am not a climate scientist – however, nor am I carrying anyone’s water on this issue. I do not possess an implicit threat to my career if I say something forbidden or research an embargoed idea. In the midst of my work inside climate change solution development, a number of peripheral observations I have made have begun to bother me greatly. They have caused me to perceive the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.”
The paper includes nine observations that are ‘inconvenient’ to the 100% AGW hypothesis:
Observation 1 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Fall to Winter CO2 Rise Exhibits a Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice Pause Which Should Not Exist if All PPM is Generated by Man Alone – Coronavirus Industrial Shutdown only Served to Produce Record CO2 PPM Increases
Observation 2 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Atmospheric CO2 Levels Follow Temperature Rises and Are Accelerating – Man’s Carbon Producing Activity is Linear and of Insufficient Slope to Drive This
Observation 3 (Deductive-Introduces Plurality) – Ceres EBAF measures of Earth’s Reemergent Albedo are Higher Than They Should Be – Indicating Earth is Not CO2-Capturing as Much Heat as Climate Models Require
Observation 4 (Inductive-Introduces Critical Path) – Mean Sea Level is Rising Yes – But MSL Variance Range is Also Increasing (and Should Not Be) – Global Ocean Current Speed has Increased by 15% Over that Same Timeframe
Observation 5 (Deductive-Consilient) – The Schumann Resonance Banding-Amplitude Has Ranged High – While Geomagnetic Moment/Polarity has Weakened/Wandered – All Highly Commensurate with Historical and Recent Global Temperature Increases
Observation 6 (Deductive-Consilient) – Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term But Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle
Observation 7 (Inductive-Consilient) – Recent-Term Rise in Activity of Earth’s Upper Mantle in Terms of Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity Commensurate with Temperature Increases
Observation 8 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Heat Anomalies are Not Entropic – Rather Bear Recurring Mantle-Like Cohesiveness – Heat is Arising Principally from Ocean Conveyance Belts at Mid-Atlantic Rise and El Niño Thermohaline Currents
Observation 9 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Abyssal Oceans are Absorbing More Novel Heat Content per Cubic Meter of Ocean (ΔT-gigajoules/m3) than are Surface Oceans by an Enormous Margin – This is Neglected and Highly Critical Path Climate Science
From the conclusions:
“Now with all of this observation set under our belt, let’s examine the alternative that I believe we must address – out of both ethics and precaution. This alternative is not vulnerable to the easy wave-of-the-hand single-analysis/apothegm dismissals to which so many other climate change alternatives fall prey. This does not serve to invalidate anthropogenic contribution to carbon and global temperatures by any means. But such a reality also never necessitates that mankind adopt complete ignorance either. This construct alternative can be summarized in four points.
1. The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change – shedding high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron.
2. The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches the asthenosphere.
3. Ancient abyssal ocean conveyance belts pull novel heat content from small footprint yet now much hotter contribution points exposed to the asthenosphere – and convey this novel heat content to the surface of the ocean.
4. Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean.”
JC reflections
This post really struck a chord with me. I have become increasingly interested in the impact of underwater and under ice sheet volcanoes, and their impact on sea level rise, and also the ocean role in the carbon budget. The Ethical Skeptic has pulled a number of concerns that I have had, along with some issues that I was unaware of, into a coherent hypothesis.
To my mind, this is science at its best, where “new ideas are explored and neither readily embraced nor rejected, but just explored.” The quote is from an email exchange with Marcia Wyatt about this paper. In the gatekeeping, speaking consensus to power mode of doing ‘climate science,’ there is a dearth of new ideas, and increasingly these are coming from outside the climate community.
I look forward to reactions.
Postscript
Well, in my so-called ‘retirement’ I have almost no time for blogging. My company Climate Forecast Applications Network has been keeping me very busy; the last few months have been especially crazy with an active Atlantic hurricane season.
Before hurricane season started, I signed a contract to write a book (no details yet). The salient point is that I was going through old blog posts having relevant material, and I was reminded of how good Climate Etc. was in the earlier years when I was exploring new ideas (to me), questioning and challenging the conventional ‘wisdoms.’
I haven’t stopped doing this, but I haven’t been blogging about it since my investigations have been for paying clients (and confidential). And increasingly for my book. But I do miss the informality and curiosity-driven nature of doing this on the blog.
The Ethical Skeptic has motivated me to at least try to post more regularly about new and controversial ideas about climate change, not to mention the ‘etc.’
“The Ethical Skeptic has motivated me to at least try to post more regularly about new and controversial ideas about climate change, not to mention the ‘etc.’”
This will be great :) And speaking as an occasional contributor to the ‘Etc’ (in my case the social psychology of the domain), I appreciate various other ‘Etc’ items too!
It is my understanding that the west antarctica ice sheet is melting due to geothermal activity instead of rising surface temps, Though many of the climate activists point to the melting W antarctica ice sheet as one of the poster children of AGW.
just an observation
I started to read the blog and left shaking my head at claims like this:
Huh? The poorly-named “greenhouse effect” doesn’t involve “trapping solar radiation at a greater rate than in the past”. Nor should it result in changes in the earth’s albedo, at least directly.
Also, the “radiation which reemerges from Earth’s atmosphere back into space” is not all solar, as it seems he thinks. It’s both solar and longwave, with a complex relationship between the two.
And just what evidence does he propose for this claim?
Well … the CERES dataset as analyzed by Den Volokin and Lark ReLlez, those zany madcaps who tried publishing science under fake names, but whose names are actually Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller.
At that point, I threw up my hands. I’m sorry, but anyone who seriously uses N&Z as a reference isn’t following the story. References below.
Oh, and for the record this is only one of his strange and untrue claims in the post … for example he says “Atmospheric CO2 Levels Follow Temperature Rises and Are Accelerating – Man’s Carbon Producing Activity is Linear”.
I’m sorry, but the production of CO2 is not linear, it is accelerating. It’s those kinds of errors, errors that are at the base of his nine principles, that caused me to walk away.
Sorry, Dr. Judith, not finding what you see in this.
Stay well, and thanks as always for your most excellent blog,
w.
A Matter Of Some Gravity
The Mystery Of Equation 8
Climate Skeptics Behaving Badly
Open mind please
Willis Eschenbach wrote:
“I’m sorry, but the production of CO2 is not linear, it is accelerating. It’s those kinds of errors, errors that are at the base of his nine principles, that caused me to walk away.”
Nobody says it’s linear. They say it’s exponential, so many X% per year.
David Appell | September 9, 2020 at 2:29 am
David, the paper under discussion says exactly that—that CO2 production is linear. Not in a footnote. Not in an obscure corner. It’s the cornerstone of “Observation 2”, viz:
You’re welcome to come back when you’ve actually read the paper … but whether you read it or not, surely you’ll admit now that “Observation 2” is simply not true.
w.
PS—What the heck is “inductive-introduces plurality” when it’s at home? How does one “introduce plurality”, and what is it introduced into?
Gotta say … far too much bafflegab in the paper for me.
From the Mauna Loa Observatory weekly CO2 data for 29 March 1958 to 08 August 2020, the linear trend was 1.58 ppm per annum. For the 3 year period 29 March 1958 to 1961 the linear trend was 0.55 ppm per annum. For the 3 year period June 2017 to 2020, the rate had steadily increased to 3.08 ppm pa. For the 3 year period July 2017 to 2020, the rate was 3.31 ppm pa and for the 3 year period August 2017 to 2020, the rate was 3.34 ppm pa, more than six times greater than 60 years earlier.
Willis – Look at the Keeling curve — the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere is exponential. That’s what counts, not production.
Bevan, over the long-term an exponential fit (viz. so many %/yr) is a better fit to atmospheric co2 than a linear fit. See the Keeling curve.
Willis: About Observation 2: it’s absurd, when humans are directly burning fossil fuels and their CO2 goes directly into the atmosphere. Do you only drive your car after the temperature has first risen?
This is really about of the stupidest argument in the denier community, which says a lot. Doesn’t speak highly for the rest of the sentence.
According to my calculations with the monthly Mauna Loa CO2 data, an exponential fit to the data is better than a linear fit (in terms of its Pearson coefficient, R) from, currently, 9.2 years back and further.
It’s better for a few months since, but not continuously.
data source:
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
I bet that Willis has seen the Keeling Curve, davey. You are not very bright.
Remember that Willis requires critics to quote what HE said. Can you find words where Willis said that the blah blah blah IS LINEAR?
Save yourself a scalding and apologize to Willis, before he comes back to slap you around. Read harder, davey. Use your little head. That’s all the help I am going to give you.
I’m not impressed with that blog. Won’t make my top 20 bookmarks, maybe not my top 100. I’d rather read David Appleman comments here, than that blog.
A puzzling recommendation. I happen to know global warming is mainly caused by decreasing extraterrestrial dust in the atmosphere and arbitrary “adjustments” to raw surface temperature data done at night when the climate model supercomputers are not being watched. . Appleman can confirm that. Maybe I’ll submit an article to that blog.
Agreed, Willis. I started reading for the vocabulary list initially, figuring I could at least expand my knowledge base there. Then I hit on ‘Original Sin’ (a term I know a good bit of history on) and found near-complete fabrication of the history of the abolition movement. Be very cautious with this site, Judith — he slips in opinion-as-fake-fact very smoothly and impressively.
Your posts are always welcome. Let’s stop trying to make points or win arguments but just listen (read) what others have to say.
Very interesting and well presented!! Thanks for the blog.
I have long thought not enough attention has been given to the impact of geothermal activity under the Ice Sheets, notwithstanding the many papers addressing same. I have seen too many other studies that completely ignored the possibility geological factors were at play, to believe the establishment really wants to know what might be going on under their noses. As few studies as there are covering heat under the Ice Sheets, there are even fewer exploring geological impacts elsewhere, especially under the oceans. This has to be the most under studied area in climate science. The reasons why should be obvious.
I’m looking forward to all the comments about why there is no there there.
I’ve never posted on your blog before, Judith, though I’ve followed it since its start. Just checked out the Ethical Skeptic’s website and came away moderately persuaded that it’s a fraud. The writing style is extremely odd and not what one would expect from a longtime strategy/data analyst as he claims himself to be. Moreover, I couldn’t find one genuinely sustained argument. One of my oldest friends is a professional logician and this guy sounds nothing like him.
Also checked out his twitter feed. Gave me the same impression.
I may be wrong on this. He might be what he says he is, but it all feels kind of hinky. Proceed with caution.
I had similar thoughts.
Well, Ethical Skeptic has introduced himself to me, he is who he says he is on the About page of his blog.
Yes, he sounds like a CCS (climate-change-Sokal). His confused, pseudo-philosophical, and never-to-the-point writing is extremely bad… Iʼm surprised with the positive reaction of Mrs. Curry.
I agree that the site is suspect.
Makes my head hurt trying to read it, no clear argument to hold on to.
Endless rhetoric and frequent ad-homs, immensely verbose.
If someone took the time to actually analyse it, it could well turn out to be nonsense. Textual inflation is a shield.
Maybe just there to contaminate and discredit the climate debate.
“Ethical Skeptic” is a pompous title – so we’re all unethical??
As for the core exothermic event, apart from the ET site I find nothing whatsoever on the web or sci literature about it. Also suspicious.
I think that temperature of the atmosphere can theoretically rise or decrease even without any added (or trapped) heat. We know that ENSO does influence the temperature. What if the temperature rise is due to some unknown change in the mixing of water? Cannot eg. a decrease of magnetic field change electromotive forces exerted on the ocean and change the mixing pattern? How many other things can enter the game?
Added “deep ocean heating” at the Level Zero page of the Contrarian Matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
As always, comments welcome.
Thanks!
Read less, comment more here please.
My new favorite blog is The Ethical Skeptic.
I read a bunch and I don’t see the appeal. The stuff reads to me like word salads.
About the heat beneath our feet:Observation 6 (Deductive-Consilient) – Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term But Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle
Any evidence for the phase change? Does this proposition acquire credibility by being labeled “Deductive-Consilient”? It seems more like an “abduction”, or guess.
Observation 8 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Heat Anomalies are Not Entropic – Rather Bear Recurring Mantle-Like Cohesiveness – Heat is Arising Principally from Ocean Conveyance Belts at Mid-Atlantic Rise and El Niño Thermohaline Currents
Observation 9 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Abyssal Oceans are Absorbing More Novel Heat Content per Cubic Meter of Ocean (ΔT-gigajoules/m3) than are Surface Oceans by an Enormous Margin – This is Neglected and Highly Critical Path Climate Science
From his or her many references, might we be introduced to a few?
Some things about a deep ocean source. It’s hard to measure and the lag time is great. And if the deep ocean temperature rise does reach the top 1000 meters where it is easier to measure, to has to pass through tons of mass, draining at it. Leaving the evidence scattered.
From the site
‘Do you ever get a sick feeling after reading a typical ‘skeptic’ article or blog? Like you have to go take a shower to wash off all the false intelligentsia, politics, god-hatred, arrogance and seething disdain for people who are not acceptable to them? I do all the time. Yet I trudge through their false science drivel for one reason – to help inform others as to the subtle nature of distinction between real skepticism and their form of snake oil agenda promotion.’
Hmmm. This blog has apparently been running since 2016 although I have never heard of it. It is very strangely written and if Judith had not taken such a shine to it I would have passed quockly on and say the writer is an insufferable poseur
I totally agree with the idea of exploring ideas without needing to pronounce judgements one way or the other. Not sure how this blog fulfils those aims.
Tonyb
“take a shower….etc.” Replace all that with “take a ritual bath”.
During abrupt warming land volcanic activity increases, and during abrupt cooling and glacial periods sea floor volcanic activity increases.
Prove it.
Tolstoy 2015 is tinged with associated ideas about the CO2 release from the seafloor volcanic activity which I would question, but the seafloor data is what matters.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/record-grooves-ocean-floor-document-earth-s-ice-ages
When water is removed from oceans and ice is placed on land, the land does tilt and then when the ice thaws and water goes back into the oceans the land does tilt back. This could influence volcanic activity.
“Heat Anomalies are Not Entropic”. What did the author mean?
A deeper problem: A current estimate of an average geothermal heat flow at the surface is 90 mW/m2. I don’t understand how this estimate is reached; I remember that 20 years ago it was 70, not 90. Could the additional proposed mechanisms increase it 11-fold to 1 W/m2? Even then, what would be the impact?
Skepticism is integral to the scientific approach. According to Dr. Spencer the null hypothesis of global warming theory — that all observed climate change is natural — has never been rejected. Like Spencer, Dr. Happer also believes in the scientific approach to knowledge and eschews the politics of fear in science, has he made clear not long ago.
“Mistakes are common in science and they can take a long time to correct, sometimes many generations. It is important that misguided political decisions do not block science’s capacity for self correction, especially in this instance when incorrect science is being used to threaten our liberties and wellbeing. Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth’s climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past. We are currently in a warming cycle that began in the early 1800′s, at the end of the little ice age. Much of the current warming occurred before the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were significantly increased by the burning of fossil fuels. No one knows how long the current warming will continue, and in fact, there has been no warming for the past ten years. Carbon dioxide is a natural constituent of the atmosphere, and calling it a ‘pollutant’ is inaccurate.” ~Dr. William Happer
Sadly, Happer has shown himself to be an idiot w.r.t. global warming. It’s a sad truncation to a good career. It’s his own fault. I hope the money was worth it to him.
Why am I suddenly put on moderation??
It is taxing to deal with the fanatics of the AGW alarmism religion– like the fictions of Michael Mann and Al Gore and fake news about there being a consensus of opinion– as it is with the fanatics of all religions:
‘Mann et al. [about 1999]… concluded that, “the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium.” This conclusion was greeted like the triumphal return of Jesus Christ. Decades of work was overturned by one journal article. The MWP [Medieval Warm Period] had been reinterpreted out of existence. Within a few days, the research by Mann and his colleagues passed from analysis to fact… Four years later, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (2003) reviewed more than 200 previous studies and concluded that the evidence for the existence and global extent of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age was well established. It was hardly a controversial result, yet the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper was greeted by a firestorm of controversy. Three editors of the academic journal in which the study had been published resigned in protest.”’ ~David Deming, ‘Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton’s State of Fear.’ JSE. 2005 Jun;19(2).
Sadly, Hap.per has shown himself to be an id.iot w.r.t. global warming. It’s a sad end to a good career. It’s his own fault. I hope the $$ was worth it to him.
David
So he’s brilliant on everything else but an idiot on Global warming? Can you explain what dollars you believe he received that has turned him on to the wrong path as far as y9ou are concerned?
tonyb
“I have never taken a dime for any of activities to educate the public that more CO2 will benefit the world.” ~Dr. Wm Happer (Mar. 25, 2020)
You’re the id.iot David Appell.
The ocean warmed via increased solar absorption 0-300m and more CO2 was produced via outgassing.
https://i.postimg.cc/c40M0fCr/light-penetration-ocean.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/BvF2rZCJ/SN-v-N1234-CO2.jpg
David you show no signs of self-correcting.
The oceans are huge carbonated drinks.
The warmer the water, the higher the vapor pressure of CO2.
I can’t think of a single observation, including the ‘nine observations,’ that is more “‘inconvenient’ to the 100% AGW hypothesis,” than the non-existence of anyone who believes all global warming is 100% owing to the hand of man…
What observation are you thinking of?
Any good scientist is whaaaaaat?
See,
https://www.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/04/climatologists_are_no_einstein.html
Dr. Curry,
I’ll buy your book and send one each to my family members and to my friends. It only takes a few clicks of the mouse on Amazon. Thanks for all the great work you’ve done throughout the years on the (wicked) problem of AGW. And again science is not settled.
Thank you!
I’ve always been one to ask obvious questions because I often fail to see the “obvious” about which others are talking.
It seems to me that there are two variables in play that tend to get minimized (and possibly with good reason), but bother me with regard to “record high temperatures”:
1. the lack of continuity in the data records for specific weather station locations under specific conditions; once rural sites have been encroached upon or even enveloped by urban areas and the sites no longer meet acceptable standards (Anthony Watts wrote extensively about that).
2. the expansion of urban areas create giant heat islands which contribute to an upward bias in recorded temperatures even if weather station sites are properly maintained; these heat islands tend to radiate heat to the surrounding area at night long after rural areas have cooled.
Yes, there are other factors such as stripping away vegetation that affect the weather as well as the recorded temperatures. Perhaps that is why CO2’s relationship with temperatures is not so definitive… and maybe overstated.
No more politics ranting madness posts please
Bob is an abstainer. Or maybe bitter about his voting rights being taken from him for…you know, the thing.
@EthicalSkeptic has been discecting and reanalyzing reported COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and death rates.
I recommend exploring his analyses as exposing numerous “nonscientific” features in the data and publicized alarms. e.g. September 6 CV-19 US Pace Daily Cases & Fatalities.
He challenges over false positives:
https://twitter.com/EthicalSkeptic/status/1302796729788641280/photo/1
He explores other possible causes in the CDC data. to distinguish “Died With” versus “Died From”. Thought provoking.
That graph is unreadable. Post something simpler and readable.
To make the graph readable:
1. Click on it. A Twitter window opens with the same graph.
2. Click on the Twitter graph. It becomes readable.
I can provide instructions how to click, should you need them.
The graph is readable, but just nuts. It proclaims there have been 54,424,000 cases to date in the US (as it says, 16.4% of US pop). The axis is marked in thousands, which I thought at first must be a misprint, because it goes up to 1000. So over a million cases a day at times in April, in the US! The more general estimate is about 6.5 million cases to date, and far more heavily weighted toward recent times.
iCases – Implied cases per day. We can gross up cases. For instance, we are sampling the population. The they are implying is a guess.
Using effective herd immunity as a starting point, I think one could imply cases.
“‘Real’ cases, despite false pos’s – are indicating that Covid is over….”
There are sampled cases or recorded cases. There are other cases. What I want is the real cases.
“iCases – Implied cases per day”
The graph simply says (bottom) “actual US cases per day”.
Nick
Thank you for your astute observational skills.
“The graph is readable but just nuts.“
This from the man who recently changed a temperature anomalies chart so that the anomalies base is now at minus 0.5 C?
And does not label or mention the change?
For the last 3 months?
Your NECP/NERP chart is now perpetuating a scientific misrepresentation.
Correct it please, and then nitpick on other people’s charts
Without evidence of such processes I’m left to wonder if it’s just his (her?) way of legitimizing mass fluidic movements in the core that is causing the increasingly rapid shifting of the magnetic north pole towards Russia. But it does stand to reason that the amount of latent heat beneath our feet is many orders of magnitude greater than that of both the oceans and atmosphere combined, when the planetary crust is proportionally as thin as the skin on an apple. Suboceanic thermal vents are pumping out >400°C water and we have very little hard data on the numbers of said vents, their rates of abyssal layer heating, or how that heat is being transported to the ocean surface.
Shark Jumped
Judith you really do have an ethical obligation not to promote garbage.
Imagine we are in a pandemic and as a doctor you promoted reading someone – not a doctor–who suggested that injecting bleach might be an interesting idea.
did you read his stuff? did you check ANY of it
“A 2017 study by scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller published in the Journal of Environment Pollution and Climate Change elicits that the albedo of Earth has not diminished at a level sufficient to explain nor corroborate 100% of the GISTEMP global increase in temperatures (the data I used for the escalation graph in Observation 2 above). One can observe this comparative in the graphic to the right – rights held by and extracted from publications by Dr. Nikolov and Zeller.13 While Nikolov and Zeller propose that atmospheric pressure is the actual mechanism which is primarily sensitive-causal to global temperatures – it is clear in the Ceres EBAF data that too much solar radiation is being reflected/reexpressed back into space, sufficient and necessary to explain 100% of global temperature increases via a carbon capture model.
She’s reading it now.
Stephen, are the K-pop girls still in quarantine? You seem to be particularly agitated. How many people do you think will die from reading that silly blog?
Of course, atmospheric pressure per se has no ability to block either sunlight coming in to the surface or infrared radiation going outward from the surface. It fails to describe observations.
“Judith you really do have an ethical obligation not to promote garbage.”
That ship sailed years ago.
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/quantifying-the-anthropogenic-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2/
Judith says “This post really struck a chord with me,” but the post doesn’t contain a single quantitative calculation or estimate of any of its proposed mechanisms.
It isn’t science, it’s literature.
The hyenas are in heat. It didn’t take long.
From the folks who think Extinction Rebellion is a group of geniuses and have nominated as their spokesperson someone who isn’t old enough to drive.
The Ethical Skeptic website does indeed seem like garbage, and I’m surprised to see anyone endorsing it, let alone Judith Curry. Keeping an open mind means giving new ideas a fair shake, it doesn’t mean all new ideas must be worth anything by virtue of being new.
Wheels inside of wheels. What is your opinion of Trump?
Yeah. I’m nearly certain the Ethical Skeptic is a hoax. As I reread, it increasingly sounds like very good automated AI.
Well, if the following is indeed the ethical skeptic:
https://omny.fm/shows/the-todd-herman-show/independent-data-analyst-ethical-skeptic-joins-the
I also listened to most of that interview. Hard to believe the same person wrote that blog. Something definitely not right.
The “voice” is certainly different between the two. I’d never guess the man being interviewed is the author. Also suspect is the sheer volume of writing and research he’s done on top of his alleged professional obligations. Although, his writing seems loose, just as one would write in flight of thought. Curious.
Hoax seems a little harsh. Perhaps a humorist:
There isn’t a single numerical estimate in this entire post.
“The Ethical Skeptic has motivated me to at least try to post more regularly about new and controversial ideas about climate change, not to mention the ‘etc.’”
I would like to urge JC and others to thoroughly investigate and consider the issue of whether the impacts of global warming are actually harmful. I suggest they are not. Overall, the evidence seems to suggest global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems and the world economy. I suggest the underlying premise that is supporting the global warming fear is a false premise.
Evidence and proof?
Quote from the blog:
“understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind”
This statement suggests an inherent bias. It suggests the author is not open minded and has not investigated the impacts of global warming with a properly sceptical, scientific approach.
The unbiased investigation of the science shows that anthropogenic causes are the only forcings behind global warming.
This study suggests global warming may be net beneficial, not harmful:
Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-12-03575/article_deploy/html/images/energies-12-03575-g015-550.jpg
“Figure 15. FUND3.9 projected global sectoral economic impact of climate change as a function of GMST change from 2000. Total* is of all impact sectors except energy.”
Other studies of empirical data suggest that the global warming is also more beneficial than projected by the FUND (and other) Integrated Assessment Models for these impact sectors:
Agriculture
Forestry
Ecosystems
Water
Health
Oh. You’re citing yourself, in a journal no one has ever heard of. I get it.
The thing is, I’ve noticed a lot of climate scientists lately, on Twitter, losing faith in Nordhaus, because he says there are no negative impacts of global warming below 4 C, because 90+% of the economy is produced indoors. Like those Twitter scientists, that doesn’t seem like sound logic to me, but it does seem like bad input to a bad model.
Climate Scientists Lose Faith
Oh yeah agriculture is going to go great with all the extra heatwaves, floods, and sea level rise! No glacier means less summertime flow in glacier fed rivers.
Sorry, B, but you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. Your examples are examples of selection bias.
“Abstract
We explore the implications of recent empirical findings about CO2 fertilization and climate sensitivity on the social cost of carbon (SCC) in the FUND model. New compilations of satellite and experimental evidence suggest larger agricultural productivity gains due to CO2 growth are being experienced than are reflected in FUND parameterization. We also discuss recent studies applying empirical constraints to the probability distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity and we argue that previous Monte Carlo analyses in IAMs have not adequately reflected the findings of this literature. Updating the distributions of these parameters under varying discount rates is influential on SCC estimates. The lower bound of the social cost of carbon is likely negative and the upper bound is much lower than previously claimed, at least through the mid-twenty-first century. Also the choice of discount rate becomes much less important under the updated parameter distributions.”
Dayaratna, et al. 2020. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies https://doi.org/10.1007/s10018-020-00263-w
Optimum GMST for ecosystems
Geological and palaeontological evidence suggests the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Early Eocene Climate Optimum [1] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28°C (i.e. ~10–13°C warmer than present).
Mass extinction events:
1. Most major extinction events [2] have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not global warming
2. The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions. “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum, which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.” [3]. The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.
3. The Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported to have been caused by extensive volcanism that caused acidification and an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017) [4]
4. There appear to have been no major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (approximately ~7–13°C above present)
Rapid warming:
5. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) [5] Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 year BP. Life thrived during these events.
6. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013) [6], Zhu et al. (2016) [7], Greening of the Earth and it drivers). GMST increased by about 0.4°C during the period analysed (1982–2010).
Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:
7. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]
8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].
https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tcmt20/2014/tcmt20.v005.i01/cmt.13.77/20140410/images/large/tcmt_a_10816421_f0002.jpeg
Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77
A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from charts A and B shows that carbon density decreases from tropics to high latitudes, as follows (tC/ha versus latitude):
Soil Organic Carbon: y = -0.125x + 105
Biomass: y = 110.31e-0.026x
Total: y = -1.975x + 241
9. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [10], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [11]. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.
These points suggest that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13°C above present GMST).
References:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
references continued …
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630
[5] http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/
[6] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/grl.50563
[7] https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004
[8] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geb.12245
References continued …
[9] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77 (p84)
[10] https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019
[11] https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Agriculture is fine. Here’s an example. NoDak used to be mostly wheat. Higher profit soybeans are now grown significantly more there than in the past. Canada’s wheat farmers are licking their chops waiting for increased temperatures and rain.
In support of Dr Curry’s comments, the articles below should be of interest. They are available at https://www.imperial.ac.uk/engineering/alumni/imperial-engineer/.
2013 Climatic impact of the El Hierro eruption from October 2011 to March 2012. Imperial Engineer 18: 12-13.
2017 Geothermal heat: an episodic heat source in oceans. Imperial Engineer 25: 14-15.
2018 Geothermal heat and Arctic sea ice variability. Imperial Engineer 27: p26.
2018 Geothermal heat and climate variability. Imperial Engineer 28: 24-26.
2019 Climatic impacts of the SW Indian Ocean Blob. Imperial Engineer 30: 25-26.
Do any of these articles have any numbers for heat transferred into the Earth’s ocean/land/atmo system?
Excellent catch. I read one of the articles and it is indeed “of interest”.
I suggest you alert the editorial board to their doubtless unintentional promotion of unreferenced nonsense asserting opinion as fact.
The author has perhaps taken advantage of the paucity of articles submitted to the alumni rag.
[notices posters handle…] Ah. You are the author, aren’t you? Funny you didn’t mention that.
I proposed a mechanism by which the earth’s surface was heated and cooled via ice-age cycles and that in turn led to expansion and contraction of the upper crust which then modulated volcanism both at tectonic plate formation (contraction) as well as subduction (expansion).
However, the biggest problem is that surface temperature changes travel extremely slowly through rock so that the perhaps only the top 2km would be affected. (Also I have to take account of oceans – which I have – but no one was interested so never published).
However, if there is a change in heat, then it would take millions of years to reach the surface.
I love your blog and I have learned much from it; particularly, the value of a calm and curious approach, a useful humility toward what is very complex science. Or maybe “sciences,” because as illustrated by this post of Ethical Skeptic’s very interesting construct, insight doesn’t come prepackaged. Generating new hypotheses, defending them and then trying to knock them down, transparently and without ego investment, is IMHO essential. It may not be sufficient —it’s a process, not an endpoint— but it is essential.
And I think you demonstrate that approach always. Thanks. I hope you write your book, it will find an eager reader in me.
This reminded me of the very interesting books by Colonel James Churchward and his “scientific” findings dealing with the lost Pacific continent of Mu. The books were written in late 1950’ies and early sixties and I began reading them when I had just begun my geology etc. studies in earnest at the Helsinki University.
The books were fascinating with a lot of archeological research. After reading a few of his very logically written books, my sceptisism was aroused. However, everytime he moved from archeological facts and slipped into geology I heard the bell ring, and sure enough his so-called facts lost their buoancy, in fact plain fantasy.
If you can’t provide references for those “observations” in a coherent way there is no credibility. Where is the data, where are the equations, how can anyone check what you’ve written makes sense?
Here is a new study from the MPI at Hamburg, Germany, saying that during the next 15 to 30 years there will be no more global warming, although the CO2 level in the athmosphere is rising:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d02
@Wolfgang What the paper really says is that internal variability is important and that surface temperatures COULD decline or pause in the near and intermediate term, but that warming is more likely.
From the Conclusions: “In the short-term all points on the globe could individually experience cooling or no warming, although in a probabilistic sense they are much more likely to warm.”
“I have become increasingly interested in the impact of underwater and under ice sheet volcanoes, and their impact on sea level rise, and also the ocean role in the carbon budget.”
I share your interests in these topics Dr. Curry, and look forward to seeing more about them on the blog. I’ve always believed these subjects to be keystones to the climate debate, so little is known.
Pingback: Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet |
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Observation 6 is just plain wrong. Less leap seconds are added now than when the atomic clock first went into service as the time standard.
Observation – if earth spin slows down, more and more leap seconds would be added. Length of Day is less than in 1972
Observation 4 is wrong
If sea level were rising, Length of Day would increase, Length of day has decreased since 1972, Sea Level has fallen since 1972
Time is measured very accurately, sea level measurements are much more difficult and easier to be wrong.
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2020/09/sea-level-fall-accurately-reported-in-local-noosa-news/
Check the crackpot index:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
With all due respect I really don’t like the Ethical Skeptic blog.
One is bombarded with a tortuously long-winded narrative which is confusing and redundant.
Is the purpose to prove the universe is infinite by an infinite narrative?
It’s hard to find concisely stated arguments and even harder to find facts and evidence.
For example the verbose torrent about heating from the earth contains interesting scientific ideas and processes, but where is the summary about what are core exothermic cycles and how were they discovered? Where is the evidence for them? How long do they last? Is this known from computer modelling or observation? How do we know any of these millions of words are true?
Of course, we have millions of words roiling turbulently around the meme of what is true and what is fallacy. The authors forgot to include the fallacy of boring and exhausting the reader to death with extreme and confusing narrative redundancy.
Greenhouse effect is just geothermal flipped upside down.
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/25/why-is-venus-so-hot/
You have to be specially trained to not see the obvious.
Climate is self correcting. We have abundant water, our climate is the result of abundant water changing state. When our climate gets warmer, the polar oceans thaw and more ice is produced and sequestered on land until enough ice is dumped into the oceans to chill them below the temperature sea ice forms and stops the great ice machines.
Climate stays cold until the ice in the great ice chests is depleted and the amount of ice being dumped into the oceans is not enough. The oceans then warm and thaw the polar sea ice and the great ice machines are turned on again.
It really is this simple. Trap more energy and you change the cycle times but you do not change the thermostat setting, it is the temperature the sea ice thaws. Temperatures from ice core data and temperatures from an air conditioned house look the same, warming until the thermostat turns on cooling and then colder until the thermostat turns off cooling.. Look at the data.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8sb2yq2sk3ih7t9/Alex%20Pope%20-%20Ice%20on%20Land%20-%202017.ppsx?dl=0#
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8sb2yq2sk3ih7t9/Alex%20Pope%20-%20Ice%20on%20Land%20-%202017.ppsx?dl=0#
Start at chart 31 and look at about 4 charts
The climate system self corrects for huge changes as the sun alternates sending more solar energy into the hemispheres with alternating amounts. Doubling CO2 results in a small fraction of the change the system already does handle.
pope-ct
Climate is a set of dissipative structures exporting heat and entropy.
A hurricane or big storm is a nice example of a dissipative structure.
Dissipative structures are the vehicles of climate heat.
As are clouds and continents.
It’s thermodynamic law that heat flows along negative temperature gradients. The abyssal zone is colder than upper layers, so I don’t understand how this would be a natural forcing to surface temperatures. Did I miss something in the blog post? The coupling is kind of critical to the argument.
You’d have to assume that hot water from geothermal vents immediately convects upward, gradually mixing as it goes but leaving the deep water cold.
Looking a bit more into this, looks like it’s common knowledge in the geophysics community that the geothermal heat flux is 1000x smaller than that at the air-sea boundary. This idea sounds kinda implausible now.
The guy is a bit wordy for my taste, but I did find an interesting post on Carl Sagan’s quote that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I’m not as interested in climate dynamics as I am in climate politics and energy, but I’d think that geothermal heat would be an important part of the climate system.
I’m glad to see that you’re working on a book Dr Curry. The climate blogosphere is an interesting story that needs more chronicling. IMO the best books so far are The Hockey Stick Illusion, Climategate: The CRUtape Letters and The Climate Wars: How the Consensus is Enforced (a short Kindle book by Brandon Shollenberger).
Oh, and don’t forget the movie rights.
” I’d think that geothermal heat would be an important part of the climate system”
An excellent exemplification how unwise it is to rely on personal thinking rather than expert quantification.
heat energy coming from Earth’s interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget
Or, to put it less kindly He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
I have a rebuttal for this common fallacy:
http://phzoe.com/2020/05/22/equating-perpendicular-planes-is-plain-nonsense/
And see my latest:
http://phzoe.com/2020/09/10/fouriers-accidental-confession/
After a good bit of searching, I couldn’t find anything on core exothermic cycles either. I’m a bit disappointed, but it is what it is until someone finds it.
Science begins with observation. Climate observations reveal a complex dynamical system – most obviously in hydrological data. Complex systems theory says that slow changes in a control variable – solar, greenhouse gases, volcanic emissions, etc – push the system past thresholds into a new pattern of ocean circulation. Ocean circulation changes modulate cloud, atmospheric water vapor, winds, global rainfall, surface temperature – even length of day.
“By ‘Noah Effect’ we designate the observation that extreme precipitation can be very extreme indeed, and by ‘Joseph Effect’ the finding that a long period of unusual (high or low) precipitation can be extremely long. Current models of statistical hydrology cannot account for either effect and must be superseded. As a replacement, ‘self‐similar’ models appear very promising. They account particularly well for the remarkable empirical observations of Harold Edwin Hurst. The present paper introduces and summarizes a series of investigations on self‐similar operational hydrology.” Mandelbrot and Harris, 1968, Noah, Joseph, and Operational Hydrology
I’d link solar modulation of the the southern and northern annular modes (SAM and NAM). Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999). The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006) Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in SAM and NAM as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
The most obvious recent example of a climate shift and ‘self similar’ regime is the step change in ocean circulation (and thus rainfall) in the mid 1970’s.
http://www.bom.gov.au/tmp/cc/raindecile10.aus.0112.41656.png
Regardless of where the heat comes from – there are responses that build economic efficiency, industrial productivity and social resilience. Electricity is 25% of the intractable problem – how much impact and how soon – of greenhouse gas emissions. But a multi-gas and aerosol strategy has ancillary benefits – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate are all climatically active and are damaging pollutants. Ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity build wealth. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry – has a multitude of pluses – including building and maintaining competitiveness.
Some of the answer is under our feet. Rattan Lal – himself a scientific treasure – estimates that some 500 Gigatonne (GtC) carbon has been lost from terrestrial systems since the advent of agriculture nearly 10,000 years ago. ‘Soil is like a bank account – we must replace what we have removed.”
This is something much closer to Biden’s climate policy than anything contemplated by Trump.
“This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures — three efforts that each have their own diverse justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. As such, Climate Pragmatism offers a framework for renewed American leadership on climate change that’s effectiveness, paradoxically, does not depend on any agreement about climate science or the risks posed by uncontrolled greenhouse gases.” https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/climate-pragmatism-innovation
I do not see the point of considering something as esoteric as geothermal heating, for which I am not aware of data being available, when the World at large does not even bother to take account of the host of climate data freely available on the Internet.
For the 62 year period from March 1958 to May 2020, the monthly CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory relative to the satellite lower troposphere Tropics temperature, on application of a First Order Autoregressive Model gave a correlation coefficient of 0.063 with a 16% probability that the correlation coefficient could be zero from the Spearman Rank test. Calculation of the cross correlation between the detrended pair showed that the CO2 changes lagged the temperature changes by five months. That is, the earlier temperature cannot have been caused by the later CO2 change.
Further, applying a First Order Autoregressive Model to the annual rate of change of CO2 concentration relative to temperature resulted in a correlation coefficient of 0.22 with a probability of the order of 10^-6 that the coefficient could be zero from the Spearman Rank test. That is, the rate of generation of CO2 may be directly or indirectly related to the atmospheric temperature level.
Also, the Fourier Transform amplitude spectrum for the annual rate of change of CO2 had a prominent maximum at a period of 42.7 months which corresponds to the well known El Niño Southern Oscillation reinforcing the proposition that it is climate change that caused CO2 change, not the reverse.
Greater detail is seen in the analysis of the weekly CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory. The autocorrelation function for the annual rate of change of CO2 gave a series of cycles with a primary wavelength of 1313 days, again the El Niño Southern Oscillation. The Fourier Transform amplitude spectrum produced a prominent maximum at a period of 1308 days, confirming the El Niño Southern Oscillation as the cause.
Remarkably the spectrum produced maxima at 27.2 days, the draconic period of the Moon, and at 29.4 days, the sydonic period of the Moon, showing that the rate of generation of atmospheric CO2 is sensitive to the small changes in the Earth’s surface temperature as the Moon passes between the Sun and the Earth.
Until the World recognises the basic fact that CO2 has not caused global warming but that climate change causes CO2 change nothing is going to be achieved in proposing possible minor effects that may cause climate change.
Thermodynamics requires that all available processes act to maximize the entropy of the universe. That means the earth wants to run as cool as possible, to use any means available to shed heat, and since we humans want to spend energy, we are a favored process, as are the thousands of other species that share our space. But radiating heat is not a peaceful process. It is best to have violent weather and periods of warm and periods of cold, and we are designed to survive all of it.
Yes. Least energy path. So when there’s more CO2, the heat more than before, favors other paths. So the question is, do small changes cause larger changes or do large changes cause smaller changes? It depends on if the climate is stable or unstable.
Earth’s atmosphere has only traces of carbon dioxide CO2 gas content
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is measured to be some 400 ppm.
400 parts per million is one part per 1.000.000 /400 = 2.500
So we have one molecule of CO2 for every 2.500 molecules of air.
Or to make it even more clear: 1 /2.500 = 0,0004 or 0,04 %
Now let’s compare the 0,04% CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere with the water vapor content of about 1% on average.
0,04% CO2 /1% H2O = 0,04
or one molecule of CO2 for every 25 molecules of H2O in Earth’s atmosphere.
One may say there are still too many CO2 molecules.
But Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, it is an almost transparent atmosphere in both ways – in and out.
It is not only the CO2% content in the Earth’s atmosphere general content that matters, but we have also to consider how many CO2 molecules are in Earth’s atmosphere in total.
If Earth’s atmosphere were consisted from the actually existing CO2 molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Science is ever evolving and not fixed however the narrative of ACC driven by CO2 has been wedged in wet cement and refusing to free itself whilst it becomes ever growingly stuck-fast. It is a welcome relief to read something that actually considers salient points worthy of discussion by joining up several science disciplines to tackle the incoherent ramblings spewed out by the media, youngsters from Sweden, celebs, actors and fashion designers etc and soaked up like sponges to unquestioning masses.
If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that many non-scientific folks do not actually have a clue about science and data and will believe the likes of XR, 5G and illnesses, films called An Inconventient Truth & the presenter and heaven forbid the likes of Mike Hughs of flat earth fame because its presented in such a way that limits genuine curiosity.
But then again I can hardly blame them when even within the science community there is such variation on which camp one prescribes too and should you be on the curious, questioning side that doest follow the default narrative that all and sundry is due to ACC, god help you.
Reading the about Ethical Skeptic page, yes he is being a bit pompous in his language but truthfully I am not at all surprised. Serious rigorous considerations have to be made to ultimately question the current narrative and quantify it against other potential, in my opinion geological influences.
Take Thwaits glacier for instance, back in 2014 and since then, several papers have been published acknowledging the impact of geothermal heat fluxes below surface upon the melting of the glacier.
In the past few days mass media has picked up on some preliminary findings of the recent research being conducted, reporting (via the BAS no less) that it is due to the warm ocean currents from anthropogenic climate change without pointing out the obvious terrestrial under floor heating’s significant impacts.
Again, the movement of geomagnetic North Pole over the past few decades has been blamed on climate change (NASA a culprit of defaulting to the ACC narrative) yet an article published in Nature in Jan 2019 states that the geophysicists & geomagnetists believe that its a tug of war between two both the Siberian and Canadian magnetic fields with absolutely no mention of anthropogenic climate change. Even isostatic rebound (great subject if anyone is interested especially the reactivation of ancient fault systems) is a potential avenue for study that has not been properly considered.
Clearly there is disconnect between disciplines and certainly with proponents of ACC having the loudest voice in the room, shouting and cancelling out anyone who disagrees, maybe it is time to scale back to pragmatism & philosophy rather than dogmatism and religiosity.
https://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-glacier-melting-antarctica-thwaites-doomsday-warm-water-b421022.html%3famp
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00007-1
A humble t-total economic geologist employed by dirty oil thats really good with coloured pencils.
Nicely done.
Too many commenters above focused on the messenger rather than the message. He could be a charlatan or he could eat deep fried Twinkies and Ding Dongs. But who cares. Do we know all that we should know about geological systems? Even if the impact on the atmosphere is minimal, there are known or suspected impacts on not only Thwaites, as you cited, but other land and marine terminating glaciers associated with both Ice Sheets.
And each decade scientists discover more hydro vents and sea mounts than were known previously.
The blog in question, regardless of the author’s pedigree, has raised an issue everyone should be interested in, the knowledge gap involving what is beneath us. But, as discussed at other times, there are too many with a vested interest in keeping the knowledge gap just that, a great big gap.
There are folk with unconscious implicit pattern learning syndrome that see links everywhere. Can be very useful & I suffer from the same ‘blessing’.
In a nut shell as well as a fair amount of blather we have: days are getting longer (certainly feels like this unde under lockdown), no reduction in CO2 despite Greta’s Dream Come True of a major halt. Sea enters the cracks at MOR and gets warmer. Odd stuff is happening with the mantle/core.
Certainly having a N pole wander at 200 m per day is odd. Losing geomag stregth is worrying. I live over the S Atlantic Anomoly and the compass needle now takes a long time to drift roughly N.
Ocean floor spreading is speeding up and this also releases N2 into the cold deep water, which eventually makes its way to the surface. Stolper et al (2012?) found that pO2 has dropped over the past 800 ka. This means that pN2 has increased (although they dont mention this) and higher Patm is associated with high rates of seafloor spreading (Late Dev, Late Triassic, Late Jurassic, K, Eocene & Miocene).
So the MOR certainly transfers heat to the sea and the more it spreads the more heat you get. As well as more outgassing and adiabatic heating.
Needs thinking about.
Mars’ and Earth’s carbon dioxide CO2 gas planet atmosphere partial pressure comparison
The partial carbon dioxide pressure in Earth’s atmosphere is 0,0004 bar.
The atmosphere pressure on Mars is 0,636 kPa or 0,00636 bar.
The partial carbon dioxide pressure in Mars’ atmosphere is
0,00636 bar * 95,97% CO2/100% = 0,00610 bar
Let’s compare:
Mars CO2 /Earth CO2 = 0,00610 bar /0,0004 bar = 15,26
Conclusion:
Mars has 15,26 times higher CO2 partial pressure content.
From Wikipedia for planet Mars:
Atmosphere[10][15]
Surface pressure 0.636 (0.4–0.87) kPa 0.00628 atm
Composition by volume
95.97% carbon dioxide
1.93% argon
1.89% nitrogen
0.146% oxygen…
What it means? It means that per planet surface square meter Mars has
15,26 times more than Earth carbon dioxide molecules.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Pingback: Climate change denier Ethical Skeptic comes up with yet another jargony (easily disproved) lie | Red, Green, and Blue
Cristos, SO WHAT. Why compare Mars with Earth. It should suffice that Earth is a water planet with life, which is a completely different story compared to Mars.
Thank you, Boris.
Earth / Mars satellite measured mean surface temperatures 288 K and 210 K comparison
These ( Tmean, R, N, cp and albedo ) planets’ parameters are all satellites measured.
These planets’ parameters are all observations.
Planet…….Earth.….Moon….Mars
Tsat.mean.288 K….220 K…210 K
R………………1… AU..1 AU..1,525 AU
1/R²………….1………..1….…0,430
N……………..1….1 /29,531..0,9747
cp…………….1………0,19…….0,18
a…………..0,30……0,136……0,250
1-a………..0,70.…0,864…….0,75
coeff………..1……………….0,72748
As we can see Earth and Mars have very close (1-a); for Earth 0,70 and for Mars 0,75.
Also Earth and Mars have very close N; for Earth N = 1 rotation /day, and for Mars N = 0,9747 rotation /day.
Earth and Mars both have the same Φ = 0,47 solar irradiation accepting factor.
Thus the comparison coefficient can be limited as follows:
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1/R²) (cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Earth:
Tsat.mean = 288 K
[ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 1*(1)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = 1
Mars:
Tsat.mean = 210 K
[ (1/R²)*(cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,430*(0,18)¹∕ ⁴ ] ¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,430*0,65136 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,2801 )¹∕ ⁴ = 0,72748
Let’s compare
Earth coeff. / Mars coeff. =
= 1 /0,72748 = 1,3746
And
Tmean.earth /Tmean.mars =
= 288 K /210 K = 1,3714
Conclusion:
Everything is all right. Everything is based on observations in the comparison coefficient
[ (1/R²) (cp)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
And
It is the confirmation that the planet’s specific heat “cp” should be considered in the Tmean planet mean surface temperature equation in the fourth root:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Come’on Cristos, all your math and Earth/Mars comparison has nothing to do with climate variability on our planet Earth. So let GO!
Boris,
If Earth’s atmosphere were consisted from the actually existing CO2 molecules only, the atmospheric pressure on the Earth’s surface would have been 0,0004 bar.
What I am trying to say is that CO2 presence in Earth’s atmosphere can be detected by the methods of analytical chemistry only.
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is so small it cannot be considered as a climate variability factor.
Why compare Mars with Earth?
They are both planets. The Earth /Mars comparison shows that Earth’s surface gets warm the same way as the surface of Mars.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any considerable Greenhouse Warming Effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas commented
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is so small it cannot be considered as a climate variability factor.
This is a useless argument until you make it a proper physics, quantitative one. You have to do the calculations. (Without introducing one of your fudge factors.)
Cristos is from Mars. Went to top university there. Came here on a magic carpet.
David,
“Christos Vournas commented
CO2 content in Earth’s atmosphere is so small it cannot be considered as a climate variability factor.
This is a useless argument until you make it a proper physics, quantitative one. You have to do the calculations. (Without introducing one of your fudge factors.)”
I did the calculations.
Φ – is the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos points out that if you travel to or from another planet on a magic carpet, you don’t need a space suit, food, toilet facilities etc.
One one of your pages you write
Φ = 0,47 – for smooth surface planets without atmosphere
(https://www.cristos-vournas.com/446246556)
but then you assign that value to Earth.
But worse is your justification for phi in the first place. It apparently comes from
“Planet does not reflect and absorb as a disk. Planet reflects and absorbs as a sphere.”
(https://www.cristos-vournas.com/444383819)
The planet certainly absorbs as a disk, since all radiation is coming in in parallel rays. By “absorb as a sphere” I presume you mean it would absorb radially, which does not describe a planet.
Same with reflection. Reflection from the Earth is not radially outward. Light can scatter in the atmosphere before it leaves the Earth, and leaves in all directions. If it didn’t, someone in the Space Station could only see a small section of Earth directly beneath them, but instead they see a wide cross section of the Earth.
Your phi is not physically justified.
Thank you, David
“The planet certainly absorbs as a disk, since all radiation is coming in in parallel rays. By “absorb as a sphere” I presume you mean it would absorb radially, which does not describe a planet.”
No, by “absorb as a sphere” I do not mean it would absorb radially. What I mean by “absorb as a sphere” is that planet absorbs as a spherical object, as a planet is.
“Same with reflection. Reflection from the Earth is not radially outward. Light can scatter in the atmosphere before it leaves the Earth, and leaves in all directions. If it didn’t, someone in the Space Station could only see a small section of Earth directly beneath them, but instead they see a wide cross section of the Earth.”
The reflection you mention is measured by planet’s average albedo.
There is another reflection – the actual reflection which cannot be seen from the Space Station.
This reflection for smooth without atmosphere planets (spheres) is what describes the
Φ – the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
And Φ = 0,47 for smooth sphere in a parallel rays.
It is all about the parallel energy flow acceptance.
Like a sphere in a parallel flow at Re < 5.000 laminar flow.
There is a different resistance (in other words energy acceptance) for a sphere compared to the disk.
Spherical shape is an aerodynamic shape, the energy slides-reflects from it easier.
Even a planet with a very small albedo, like Mercury is (a = 0,068) reflects light.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote:
This reflection for smooth without atmosphere planets (spheres) is what describes the
Φ – the dimensionless planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
But Earth isn’t smooth, its albedo varies from place to place, and it has an atmosphere.
Christos wrote:
No, by “absorb as a sphere” I do not mean it would absorb radially. What I mean by “absorb as a sphere” is that planet absorbs as a spherical object, as a planet is.
This just isn’t a big deal, energy wise, for considerations of climate (which isn’t daily weather — it’s the long-term average of weather) — energy received in the atmosphere or ocean is quickly [enough, for climate considerations] distributed around the globe.
Your factor needed and, as I just wrote, isn’t physically right anyway. If something this simple made a difference, scientists would have thought of it 50 or 100 years ago.
We are proud of you, davey. Your little left jab is somewhat effective, when you come up against a strange alien in your weight class.
David,
“This just isn’t a big deal, energy wise, for considerations of climate (which isn’t daily weather — it’s the long-term average of weather) — energy received in the atmosphere or ocean is quickly [enough, for climate considerations] distributed around the globe.”
It is a big deal, energy wise, because for Earth’s surface Φ = 0,47.
It means only the Φ(1 – a) = 0,47(1 – 0,306) = 0,47*0,694 = 0,326 or 32,6% of solar flux’s energy at the Top of the Atmosphere So = 1.361 W/m2 is actually absorbed by the surface. The rest 67,4% is reflected.
And what is still thought is the absorbed is 69,4%!
Just compare the actually absorbed quantity of energy of 32,6% of incoming with the wrongly estimated by the planet’s cross section disk absorption of 69,4%.
It is a big deal, energy wise. This mistake follows all the Earth’s energy balance calculations, and, consequently “for considerations of climate (which isn’t daily weather — it’s the long-term average of weather) — energy received in the atmosphere or ocean…”
“If something this simple made a difference, scientists would have thought of it 50 or 100 years ago.”
Yes, it is very simple. Yes, it makes the difference.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote:
It is a big deal, energy wise, because for Earth’s surface Φ = 0,47.
It means only the Φ(1 – a) = 0,47(1 – 0,306) = 0,47*0,694 = 0,326 or 32,6% of solar flux’s energy at the Top of the Atmosphere So = 1.361 W/m2 is actually absorbed by the surface. The rest 67,4% is reflected.
Where are the empirical measurements that support that claim?
PS: 1.4 W/m2 are absorbed by the surface??!! That’s crazy. Are you exchanging commas and periods [which is always confusing, like here]? So you mean 1,361 W/m2 is absorbed by the surface? That’s crazy too, since it’s the Sun’s entire solar output at the surface of Earth.
Christos wrote:
It is a big deal, energy wise, because for Earth’s surface Φ = 0,47.
It’s not a big deal, because your calculation of phi is invalid, not appropriate for climate considerations. For climate considerations it’s doesn’t matter that the Earth rotates. For climate phi = 1.
Christos wrote:
Yes, it is very simple.
It’s too simple. If it were so simple and necessary scientists far smarter than anyone here would have thought of it several decades ago.
Yes, it makes the difference.
You have offered any observed quantities that prove it.
Eh, that should be, you *HAVEN’T* offered any observed numbers to prove it. Sorry.
David, thank you.
“You have offered any observed quantities that prove it.”
“Eh, that should be, you *HAVEN’T* offered any observed numbers to prove it. Sorry.”
Thank you again, David.
Now I know what is missing in my syllogisms. The need of observed quantities.
I have to offer observed numbers to prove that a planet (a sphere) follows the basic low of the parallel solar rays energy reflection /absorption ratio.
Thank you, David.
I am starting working on it.
Any time soon I will continue with the observed quantities.
You are right. The observed numbers will convince everybody.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Φ – factor is proven by the observed quantities
I know what was missing in my syllogisms. There was a need of observed quantities.
I have to offer observed numbers to prove that a planet (a sphere) follows the basic low of the parallel solar rays energy reflection /absorption ratio.
The observed numbers should be very convincing.
We have chosen Mercury for its very low albedo a=0,068 and for its very slow rotational spin N = 1/175,938 rotations/day.
Mercury is most suitable for the blackbody effective temperature equation definition – a not rotating planet, or very slow rotating. Also it is a planet where albedo (a=0,068) plays little role in planet’s energy budget.
These (Tmean, R, N, and albedo) parameters of the planets are all satellite measured. These parameters of the planets are all observations.
Planet….Mercury….Moon….Mars
Tsat.mean.340 K….220 K…210 K
R………0,387 AU….1 AU…1,525 AU
1/R²…..6.6769……..1….…0,430
N…1 /175,938..1 /29,531..0,9747
a………0,068………0,11……0,250
1-a……0,932……..0,89……0,75
Let’s calculate the Mercury’s effective temperature with the old blackbody equation:
Te.mercury = [ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
We have
(1-a) = 0,932
1/R² = 6,6769
So = 1.361 W/m² – it is the Solar constant ( the solar flux on the top of Earth’s atmosphere )
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Te.mercury = [ 0,932* 1.361 W/m² * 6,6769 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.mercury = ( 37.369.999.608,40 )¹∕ ⁴ = 439,67 K
Te.mercury = 439,67 K = 440 K
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K – the satellite measured Mercury’s mean surface temperature
Let’s analyze what we have here.
Because of Mercury having a very low albedo (a = 0,68) the what is left to absorb for Mercury’s surface is (1-a) = 0,932 or 93,2 % of the incident solar flux on the Mercury (according to the theory of planets absorbing the incoming parallel solar rays as a cross section disk).
So it was thought that the 93,2 % is absorbed.
Te.mercury = 440 K
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
Let’s calculate the Mercury’s corrected effective temperature by inserting in the above equation the Φ = 0,47
Te.mercury.correct = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Te.mercury.correct = [ 0,47*0,932* 1.361 W/m² * 6,6769 /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Te.mercury.correct = ( 17.536.114.624,63 )¹∕ ⁴ = 363,9 K
Te.mercury.correct = 363,9 K = 364 K
Let’s put these temperatures together:
Te.mercury = 440 K
Te.mercury.correct = 364 K
Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K
The difference is 440 K – 364 K = 76°C
This difference is due to the Φ = 0,47
And Te.mercury.correct = 364 K is very much closer to Tsat.mean.mercury = 340 K measured by satellite, and it is due to the Φ = 0,47
The answer is simple – it happens because the old equation (Te.mercury = 440 K) assumes planet absorbing solar energy as a disk and not as a sphere.
We know now that even a planet with a zero albedo reflects 100 % – 47 % = 53 % of the incident on it’s surface solar irradiation.
Imagine a completely black planet; imagine a completely invisible planet, a planet with a zero albedo.
This planet still reflects 53 % of the incident on its surface solar irradiation.
The satellite measurements have confirmed it.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos: I can’t make heads or tails of this. I can’t follow your argument and have no idea what you’re trying to say.
Christos wrote:
We know now that even a planet with a zero albedo reflects 100 % – 47 % = 53 % of the incident on it’s surface solar irradiation
For example, this is absurd. A planet with zero albedo reflects nothing, of course, by definition.
David,
I mean IF planet had a zero albedo. Planet should have some albedo.
Mercury has the smallest albedo we know a = 0,068
The satellite measurements of Mercury’s Tsat.mean = 340 K, which is 100 oC less than Te = 440 K is a prove that Φ = 0,47 takes place for the smooth surface planets.
Mercury has a basalt surface. Mercury has a very smooth surface due to high daytime temperatures which in billions of years have smooth-melted the surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos wrote:
I mean IF planet had a zero albedo
So you mean if a planet has a zero albedo, it would reflect “100 % – 47 % = 53 % of the incident on it’s surface solar irradiation”
How can that be?? Zero albedo means zero reflectance, by definition!
David,
There is the specular reflection of light which corresponds to Φ = 0,47 for smooth surface spheres and there is the diffuse reflection of light which corresponds to the albedo.
Diffuse reflection comes from the rough surfaces.
What we see or photograph from planet is the surface diffuse reflection. The planet’s specular reflection can be seen when the observer is on the Earth, when someone looks on the shiny asphalt for example, or at the sun mirroring in the see on the sunset.
When the sun is behind our back we see the diffuse reflection on the land and on the see. We cannot see the specular reflection then.
The same when looking at planet from the space.
We observe moon as a homogenous lighted segment or disk.
We see the moons edges with the same intensity as elsewhere on moons surface. We cannot see from Earth (from space) the spherical object’s (Moon) the specular reflection, because of the angle of incidence because of spherical shape.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
David,
here are some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2bwtv4/revision/1
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/Specular-vs-Diffuse-Reflection
Christos
I simply don’t get it. Zero albedo means nothing is reflected, by any means. That’s how albedo is defined!
David,
There is the specular and the diffuse reflection of the light of the sun.
When someone takes a photo of the landscape or a selfie it is made on diffused reflection of the light of the sun.
When we see the world we see it in the diffused reflection of the light of the sun.
When we look in the mirror we see our reflection in the diffuse reflection of the light of the sun..
When we try to photograph the specular reflection of the sun we may burn the film.
When we look at specular reflection it is blinding.
When we look, here on Earth, on a shiny polished metallic sphere we see there the diffused light from the environment. We do not see on a sphere the specular reflection from the sun.
To see the specular reflection from the sun one has to use a flat mirror. The specular reflection from sun is blinding. It is almost like looking directly on the sun.
http;//www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, yes, I know about specular and the diffuse reflection and all that.
But zero albedo means no reflection. It’s an energy statement, not a statement about types of reflection. It’s about all types of reflection.
You’re never going to convince a physicist or astronomer or astrophysicist that a planet with zero albedo is reflecting 53% of the incoming light!! Get real.
David,
Here is an abstract from Albedo Wikipedia:
“Earth’s surface albedo is regularly estimated via Earth observation satellite sensors such as NASA’s MODIS instruments on board the Terra and Aqua satellites, and the CERES instrument on the Suomi NPP and JPSS. As the amount of reflected radiation is only measured for a single direction by satellite, not all directions, a mathematical model is used to translate a sample set of satellite reflectance measurements into estimates of directional-hemispherical reflectance and bi-hemispherical reflectance (e.g.,[13]). These calculations are based on the bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF), which describes how the reflectance of a given surface depends on the view angle of the observer and the solar angle. BDRF can facilitate translations of observations of reflectance into albedo”.
We have shown that Te.mercury = 440 K
The measured by satellite Tmean.mercury = 340 K
The solar flux on mercury is 9082,7 W/m2
Thea albedo is 0.068
So what is absorbed according to the blackbody theory is
Jabs.mercury = 9,082.7 W/m2 *(1 – 0.068) =
Jabs.mercury = 9,082,7 W/m2 *0.932 = 8,465.1 W/m2
Jabs.mercury = 8,465.1 W/m2 is what gives Te.mercury = 440 K
The satellite measured Tmean.mercury = 340 K
We believe in satellite measurements.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Sorry Christos. No planet with albedo=0 is going to reflect 53% of incident light. That’s simply a contradiction. You’re whole presentation is wrong.
David,
“But zero albedo means no reflection. It’s an energy statement, not a statement about types of reflection. It’s about all types of reflection.”
Yes, it is an energy statement. There is for smooth spherical surfaces two types of reflection. The diffuse reflection which is described by albedo and the specular reflection which is described by the 1 – Φ = 1 – 0.47 = 0.53
“You’re never going to convince a physicist or astronomer or astrophysicist that a planet with zero albedo is reflecting 53% of the incoming light!! Get real.”
I should try more
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
What is the Earth’s averaged on the entire surface absorbed solar SW radiation?
A planet reflects incoming short wave solar radiation.
A planet’s surface has reflecting properties.
1. The planet’s albedo “a”. It is a surface quality’s dependent value.
2. The planet’s spherical shape. For a smooth planet the solar irradiation reflection is (0,53 + Φ*a)*Jincoming.
What we had till now:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Here
Jsw.absorbed = (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
And
Jsw.reflected = a* Jsw.incoming
What we have now is the following:
Jsw.incoming – Jsw.reflected = Jsw.absorbed
Φ = (1 – 0,53) = 0,47
Φ = 0,47
Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Jsw.reflected = (0,53 + Φ*a) * Jsw.incoming
And
Jsw.absorbed = Φ* (1-a) * Jsw.incoming
Where
(0,53 + Φ*a) + Φ* (1-a) = 0,53 + Φ*a + Φ – Φ*a =
= 0,53 + Φ = 0,53 + 0,47 = 1
Conclusion:
A smooth planet’s absorbed fraction of the SW incoming radiation in total is:
Jsw.absorbed = 0,47*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
For Planet Earth
Jsw.absorbed = 0,47*(1-a)*1.361 W/m² =
= 0,47*0,7*1.361W/m² = 448,098 W/m²
Averaged on the entire Earth’s surface we obtain:
Jsw.absorbed.average = [ 0,47*(1-a)*1.361 W/m² ] /4 =
= [ 0,47*0,7*1.362W/m² ] /4 = 448,098 W/m² /4 =
= 112,029 W/m²
Jsw.absorbed.average = 112 W/m²
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, Christos, you don’t have to try more. I’m sorry, I’m just not going to accept that a zero albedo planet reflects 53% of its incident light. I think your analysis is all wrong, which is also why no previous scientist has ever proposed it. It just doesn’t make sense. I’m sorry.
David,
Jabs.mercury = 8,465.1 W/m2 is what gives Te.mercury = 440 K
The satellite measured Tmean.mercury = 340 K
We believe in satellite measurements.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
The satellite measured Tmean.mercury = 340 K
What satellite, and when?
David,
Here is the link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, that’s a very long Wikipedia entry that I’m not going to search through to try to guess what you have in mind.
What satellite do you mean, and when did it do its observations? Where were they published?
Thanks.
David,
It is all there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(planet)
Vasavada, Ashwin R.; Paige, David A.; Wood, Stephen E. (February 19, 1999). “Near-Surface Temperatures on Mercury and the Moon and the Stability of Polar Ice Deposits” (PDF). Icarus. 141 (2): 179–193. Bibcode:1999Icar..141..179V. doi:10.1006/icar.1999.6175. Figure 3 with the “TWO model”; Figure 5 for pole.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Earth has abundant water and ice, that makes “ALL THE DIFFERENCE”
Water changes state, warm oceans thaw polar sea ice and promote evaporation of tropical ocean currents that power the ocean effect snowfall that rebuilds polar ice until the ice spreads and causes cooling. Warm times are absolutely necessary to rebuild polar sequestered ice. Data and history supports this. Water vapor is produced from thawed warm oceans as needed. An increase of CO2 by one molecule per ten thousand is like spitting into the wind, even less.
Herman A (Alex) Pope commented:
An increase of CO2 by one molecule per ten thousand is like spitting into the wind, even less.
This is a question of physics that requires a physics-based, quantitative answer, and not just your guess.
Imagine you are asked to throw a ball and hit one of multiple targets on the side of a barn.
On the barn are N targets, each of area A.
Does the probability of your hitting a target depend only on N, the number of targets?
No, of course not. It also depends on how large the targets are. It depends on the product N*A.
It’s the same with CO2. You are only considering N, and not considering the product N*A.
And CO2 has a very large A for the infrared light emitted by the Earth and atmosphere.
“Part of the heat may be coming from beneath our feet”
–
An interesting take which confirms the fact that we do not understand all the forces at play in natural variation.
The idea is a novel variation on an already well worn theme, volcanoes et al.
–
Before deconstructing some of the more contentious components, or investigating them a small sideways comment is necessary.
Angech’s razor.
When an idea lacks a provable cause the number of causes rises in proportion to the ignorance of the causations.
–
The corollary of this is that the sum of the effects of each cause added together will greatly outweigh the observed effect that is trying to be explained.
.
I like Angech’s razor. It doesn’t have the bite of Hanlon’s razor, but it’s worthy just the same.
To make sure I get the jist of it, could it be “the number of (possible) causes rises in proportion…..”?
When I was a draftee and trying to get through my 2 years as quickly as possible, I came up with a razor of sorts. “Time is a function of consciousness”. Sleeping made time fly.
cerescokid
Talking makes time fly on a pushbike ride, why group rides pre covid were so much fun.
Thank you.
Added.
“When an idea lacks a provable cause the number of possible causes rises in proportion to the ignorance of the causations.”
David Appell
I made a comment about CO2 being seen by some as the only cause for a change in earth’s temperature, a view espoused by AGW believers.
–
You said
“There is strong *evidence* that CO2 and other GHGs are the cause; they’re not just chosen willy nilly.
There would have to be strong evidence for any of your other purported causes – it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.“
–
This sounds like you are saying CO2 causes Climate change and everything else is hokey.
–
Is that a correct summation of what you said or not?
Or do we simply have a misunderstanding?
angech:
Here’s the IPCC’s 5AR chart on radiative anthropogenic and natural forcings:
https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/radiative-forcing-estimates-in-2011
There’s a very tiny solar forcing (about 2% of the total), some not insignificant negative changes (cooling) from aerosols and land use changes, but the rest is anthropogenic gases, the largest component of those being GHGs, the largest of those being CO2 (at about 73% of total forcing).
So 3/4th of the forcing is CO2, a tiny bit is the Sun. It’s almost all due to man.
The idea of a cause or causes for the rise in the earths temperature independent of CO2 rise or parallel with CO2 rise is a golden grail for skeptics.
That it might exist is a combination of variance between CO2 levels and Global Temperature anomalies.To the true believer in CO2 only any variation is written off as natural variability.
The issue is that it is impossible with our current state of knowledge, our current inadequate measurements and our politically correct climate models to define measure and predict the energy content of the atmospheric and oceanic components of the earth. Let alone its response to the addition of extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
–
CO2 at a higher level in the mandates an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.
Clouds, ice and vegetation [colour] changes are important variables in altering the albedo and hence the energy the system absorbs over time.
El Nino, La Nina and other long term variations in oceanic surface heat content are not the causes of global temperature changes but the consequence of global temperature changes.
The rate of heat getting through from the core to the crust is reasonably steady, just like the energy input from the sun is reasonably steady.
Objects that have been around for billions of years do not tend to have sudden large changes in minuscule time periods.
The natural variability evident is poorly understood and capable of short term fluctuation [30-100 year] much greater than what is assumed currently.
The steadiness of the atmosphere overall is dependent on the fact that the energy in is going out at the same rate. The major adjustments for heating and distributing heat in all the oceans, earth and atmosphere , in that order have all already happened.
angech wrote:
To the true believer in CO2 only any variation is written off as natural variability.
There is strong *evidence* that CO2 and other GHGs are the cause; they’re not just chosen willy nilly.
There would have to be strong evidence for any of your other purported causes – it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.
David Appell
angech wrote:To the true believer in CO2 only any variation is written off as natural variability.
You wrote
“There is strong *evidence* that CO2 and other GHGs are the cause; they’re not just chosen willy nilly.“
So you are a true believer, denying any and all other causes?
–
See above
I agreed CO2 was a cause above (but missed a word)
“CO2 at a higher level in the atmosphere mandates an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere.“
–
“There would have to be strong evidence for any of your other purported causes – it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.“
–
Not purported causes
Not hypothetical cause,
Strong evidence exists
Real causes
“Clouds, ice and vegetation [colour] changes are important variables in altering the albedo and hence the energy the system absorbs over time.“
Not my purported causes.
–
“it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.“
–
Well that is where the Ethical Skeptic would dispute you. When you have a belief system like a religion or climate science as you have you have to be 100% right.
No contradictions allowed.
A benevolent all knowing all loving deity sentences someone to burn in flames for all eternity for using the free will they were given?
Everything that happens in Climate that is caused solely by the CO2 that man produces?
That is your argument it would of necessity fail if you allow any doubt, any guess or hypothesis in.
I love your take on science
“it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.“
You have earned your monk’s robes.
Congratulations.
angech wrote:
Everything that happens in Climate that is caused solely by the CO2 that man produces?
How many years have you been reading about, and commenting on, climate change?
And this is what you think you have learned in all that time???
If so, you’re hopeless. If not, you’re lying.
“If not, you’re lying.”
DA, good thing you’re not in Dodge City, them’s fightin’ words.
David Appell
“How many years have you been reading about, and commenting on, climate change? And this is what you think you have learned in all that time???”
–
I have learnt that I can be wrong at times.
That it is very hard to admit when one is wrong.
That it is good to apologize when you upset someone.
I have learned that people with pet theories are usually impossible to argue with.
They usually get upset and rude.
I have learnt that it is wrong to be rude to people on the Internet.
This statement
“CO2 at a higher level in the atmosphere mandates an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere all other things being equal [which they never are] is pretty correct.
This statement
“human CO2 production is the provable cause of provable climate change [AKA AGW]”
is pretty false.
Since it is what you sincerely believe in, it is wrong for me to tell you that your beliefs are most likely invalid.
–
I do love the irony in this comment, though, coming from a scientist.
“There would have to be strong evidence for any of your other purported causes – it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.”
angech commented: wrong to be rude to people on the Internet.
This statement
“human CO2 production is the provable cause of provable climate change [AKA AGW]”
is pretty false.
Why?
I do love the irony in this comment, though, coming from a scientist.
“There would have to be strong evidence for any of your other purported causes – it’s not enough just to hypothesize them.”
a) I’m not a scientist
b) Where’s the irony (in the Alanis Morissette sense, I guess you mean).
No, I guess in the original sense. My bad.
David Appell
“a) I’m not a scientist” No Nick Stokes logic here please. Do you have a science degree/s? Yes. Care to say what it is in? Yes? Then why muddy the waters with a comment like this?
–
“This statement “human CO2 production is the provable cause of provable climate change [AKA AGW]” is pretty false.”
Why?
–
I guess we could try lobbing some facts at each other within this blog.
I should comment that we both start from “CO2 at a higher level in the atmosphere mandates an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere all other things being equal [which they never are].
–
[1.] I should also point out that you are the one choosing to comment at a blog devoted to the concept outlined above-. I’m sure you have read what changed our host from an believer to a non committed observer. Precisely the lack of evidence. fact 1.
–
Human CO2 production as a provable cause of climate change [warming] is only a hypothesis, a theory. The evidence to back it up is lacking , not strong.
Hypothesis poled on hypothesis.
Is it a possible cause? Yes.
Is the degree of possibility high or low. Pretty low.
You should avoid arguments that rely on fairy floss possibility and consensus without facts and concentrate on probability.
David Appell, sorry I missed this reply. Will include it as your first point.
1.Here’s the IPCC’s 5AR chart on radiative anthropogenic and natural forcings: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/radiative-forcing-estimates-in-2011
There’s a very tiny solar forcing (about 2% of the total), some not insignificant negative changes (cooling) from aerosols and land use changes, but the rest is anthropogenic gases, the largest component of those being GHGs, the largest of those being CO2 (at about 73% of total forcing). So 3/4th of the forcing is CO2, a tiny bit is the Sun. It’s almost all due to man.
–
Rebuttal This is entitled Radiative forcing estimates in 2011 relative to 1750.
The key word is estimates [ I said not to use possibilities if possible]. Estimates of radiative forcing going back to 1750 are guesses. Guesses can be subject to bias. Worse they include guesses for unknown both then and now subjects, aerosols. .
Worse they ignore the major GHG, water vapour, entirely. Small changes in a big player completely obliterate big changes in a small player.
Strike 1.
Estimates over time periods when no valid measurement techniques existed is not strong proof, nor weak proof, just hypothesized proof.
Ignoring the major role of water vapor as a GHG is a standard obfuscation when lacking real proof.
2. Using a statement from the IPCC AR5 . for proof that there is no proof.
“It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.” [Section 10.3.1]”
David how do you explain the contradiction between this comment and the IPCC’s 5AR chart on radiative anthropogenic and natural forcings:
-Did they just make it up?
angech wrote:
2. Using a statement from the IPCC AR5 . for proof that there is no proof.
“It remains difficult to quantify the contribution to this warming from internal variability, natural forcing and anthropogenic forcing, due to forcing and response uncertainties and incomplete observational coverage.” [Section 10.3.1]”
David how do you explain the contradiction between this comment and the IPCC’s 5AR chart on radiative anthropogenic and natural forcings:
-Did they just make it up?
By “this warming,” they mean early 20th century warming, not today’s. That’s not surprising, considering there was nothing like today’s data collection then.
(See the IPCC 5AR WG1 p887)
Estimates aren’t guesses.
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing.
David Appell | September 15, 2020 at 12:01 pm |
Estimates aren’t guesses.
Sorry David,
Assertions are not proof without facts.
Eg
guess
estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct.
“she guessed the climate sensitivity”
an estimate or conclusion formed by guessing.
“my guess is that David will dispute these paraphrases of Google’s Oford Language“
The first hit when you put in guess meaning.
angech wrote:
Assertions are not proof without facts.
Eg
guess
estimate or conclude (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct
Measurements are facts.
But no measurement is 100% certain. It’s inherently impossible.
You will never see a measurement that returns X +/- 0.
If you want to call X+/- Y an “estimate” or “guess,” go ahead. It just shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Measurements are facts.
But no measurement is 100% certain. It’s inherently impossible.”
–
Hint. SM used this logic 5 years ago, much better. Lose the argument , argue the minutiae
–
By your logic. No fact is 100% certain.
That is progress, your admission that uncertainty can exist.
–
Now you have to quantify that uncertainty.
When you use poor data
“there was nothing like today’s data collection in early 20th century warming”
You get wider error bars.
When you use proxies [also known as making up data] you get wider error bars.
When people claim to measure radiative forcing in 1750 and compare it to 2020 they are using estimates with extremely wide error bars, also known as guessing. Once again I would advise you to avoid guesses as a substitute for strong evidence.
–
Do you have a current bit of evidence that provides strong proof?
With modern instruments and verifiable data?
How do you see it being fair to arbitrarily put water vapor as purely a forcing and CO2 as purely a feedback when they clearly have base levels in the atmosphere and fluctuate around those levels with changes in surface temperature?
Who is “SM?”
I have never denied that uncertainty cannot or does not exist. That’d be dumb.
Now you have to quantify that uncertainty.
It’s done in all scientific measurements. Just look.
When you use poor data
“Poor” in what way?
“there was nothing like today’s data collection in early 20th century warming”
You get wider error bars.
Not only that. Far less things were measured.
When you use proxies [also known as making up data] you get wider error bars.
Proxies are not making up data. It seems you do not understand what proxies are. Do you?
When people claim to measure radiative forcing in 1750 and compare it to 2020 they are using estimates with extremely wide error bars, also known as guessing. Once again I would advise you to avoid guesses as a substitute for strong evidence.
RF(1750)=0
Do you have a current bit of evidence that provides strong proof?
Define “strong proof.”
With modern instruments and verifiable data?
Define “modern instruments.”
Define “verifiable data.”
How do you see it being fair to arbitrarily put water vapor as purely a forcing and CO2 as purely a feedback when they clearly have base levels in the atmosphere and fluctuate around those levels with changes in surface temperature?
Water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing. Go learn what that means before you come back and write more nonsense about it.
I said to David
“By your (own) logic. No fact is 100% certain.
That is progress, your admission that uncertainty can exist.”
–
You contradicted that.
By saying that uncertainty cannot exist
–
“David Appell | September 16, 2020 at 3:28 am |
“I have never denied that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.“
Very clever? Or just poor English?
Back to square 1
–
The nub of the matter.
–
A true believer has to claim that uncertainty cannot exist.
Any hint of Uncertainty existing means your claims might be wrong.
Are you outing yourself as a true believer or do you accept
That you can never not deny that uncertainty cannot or does not exist?
–
The issue is that it is impossible with our current state of knowledge, our current inadequate measurements and our politically correct climate models to define measure and predict the energy content of the atmospheric and oceanic components of the earth. Let alone its response to the addition of extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
In other words, promotion of CO2 alarmism is based on not really knowing anything. It is really reasonable to me that CO2 alarmism is based on less than anything.
Herman A (Alex) Pope commented:
The issue is that it is impossible with our current state of knowledge, our current inadequate measurements and our politically correct climate models to define measure and predict the energy content of the atmospheric and oceanic components of the earth.
“Heat stored in the Earth system: where does the energy go?,” Karina von Schuckmann et al, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2013–2041, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2013-2020
Let alone its response to the addition of extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
I never said that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.
Quote me.
David Appell | September 20, 2020 at 3:12 pm
I never said that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.
Quote me.
Verbatim?
Easy
–
“David Appell | September 20, 2020 at 3:12 pm
I never said that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.”
–
However you did say that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.
In these words.
–
“I have never denied that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.“
which cleaned up says
“I said that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.“
Or simply “I said that certainty exists.“
A truly unshakeable belief system.
Right — I never said that uncertainty cannot or does not exist.
Now get lost and stop playing stupid word games as some even stupider form of gotcha. If you can’t discuss science stay out of the discuss completely.
Turning to the Ethical Skeptics article and a brief perusal of his blog.
Lists Taleb, author of the black swan, as contributing to his views.
Lists a lot of ideas but perhaps in a bit too much detail .
Raises, as Judith said a lot of interesting ideas and concepts so worth a read.
–
The construct alternative summarized in four points.
1. The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change, [not new]
2. The exothermic heat content from this reaches the asthenosphere.
3. Ancient abyssal ocean conveyance belts pull novel heat content and convey this novel heat content to the surface of the ocean.
4. Ocean heats atmosphere
The problem is in claiming novel heat in step 3. The Earth has been producing this heat for 4 billion years. The amount is basically steady. One would have to question why now 2020 has the earth suddenly decided to produce novel heat.
–
Observation 5 Geomagnetic Moment/Polarity has /Wandered
– no relevance
Observation 9 – Abyssal Oceans are Absorbing More Novel Heat Content per Cubic Meter of Ocean ) than are Surface Oceans by an Enormous Margin.
–
Observation not helpful.
The Abyssal oceans have a smaller surface are to absorb heat from the core than the Surface Oceans have to dissipate it to space. Both the normal heat and the tiny extra amount of presumed novel heat therefor will put more heat into a cubic meter of ocean adjacent to them than what eventually gets to the Surface Ocean cubic meters. The top of the sea is a bit like the top of the atmosphere really. Lots more cubic meters to share the same amount of energy. Not that there is much.
“The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 47±2 terawatts is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface”,
The Abyssal oceans are really cold because there is not much heat down there from 10 terawatts or less available. All that 10 terawatts plus another 22 from the non abyssal oceans goes through the surface oceans on its way out to space.
-Finally Ocean currents being 15% faster The sun provides a lot more energy for the ocean than the earth. 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation. Simple albedo changes from less clouds would pump more TW in than the minor novel heat fluctuations postulated and cloud albedo fluctuations over many years are documented and a simpler explanation-
–
Still, we do not know the multiple causes for Natural Variability, variabilty in heat from the earths core is another factor, no doubt.
Picking on angech’s point 4 Quote : “4. Ocean heats atmosphere
The problem is in claiming novel heat in step 3. The Earth has been producing this heat for 4 billion years. The amount is basically steady. One would have to question why now 2020 has the earth suddenly decided to produce novel heat.”
From Wiki: “Earth’s internal heat powers most geological processes[3] and drives plate tectonics.[2] Despite its geological significance, this heat energy coming from Earth’s interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface,”
It would seem that earth’s warming started some 4k3 years ago. It would seem that initially heat has been absorbed to thaw ice (latent heat of freezing). When the ice is gone then the temp starts to rise. A good even thaw requires good overall exposure to the heat source (read high obliquity). The heretic version says that occurred about 2345bce. The 4k2 event was likely the first long-term collateral.
angech – do you have any links for this assertion?
The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change, [not new]
jim2 angech – do you have any links for this assertion?
“The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change, [not new]”
The major part of the assertion was from the Ethical Skeptic article we are commenting on. vis.
“1. The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change – shedding high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron.
2. The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches the asthenosphere”
–
He ascribed it to
“Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term But Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle”
–
I contributed “not new”
The earths core has been present 4 billion years and has undergone changes in that time. Obviously some scientists have speculated ways that the core material, mostly iron might react and have generated theories about possible causes of changes in heat generation including relating to rotational velocity.
I am stating the obvious, That there is no reason to conflate changes in temperature or rotation which have occurred naturally over countless millennia with a sudden, in geological terms, change in the way the iron in the earth’s core is acting or reacting. There is nothing new going on of relevance.
Concepts involving time scales beyond our comprehension and measurement are easy to make but unprovable. They provide the magic bubble that people who want to believe in high ECS make, that it will take thousands of years to see the final product but it is going to impact on us right now.
The facts are simply that the daily energy from the sun far outweighs the contribution from the core, 0.3%. Any novel change in heat production from the core, surely only a hundredth of that so 0.003% could theoretically have an impact over a very long time frame. Too long for us to be concerned about. If it was quicker or bigger one would have to wonder why it took 4 billion years and happened just now. If it had happened earlier the rate of warming postulated would over 10000 years be such as to wipe out life through true global warming and yet, here we are.
Judith wrote: “The salient point is that I was going through old blog posts having relevant material, and I was reminded of how good Climate Etc. was in the earlier years when I was exploring new ideas (to me), questioning and challenging the conventional ‘wisdoms’… But I do miss the informality and curiosity-driven nature of doing this on the blog.”
I do too.
As for heat from below, doesn’t the increasing temperature with depth (the gradient) define how much how much heat is flowing through the solid crust? How much more heat can be convected upward by molten magma? And why should that rate of convection have increased at essentially the same time as forcing began rising more rapidly around 1970? The consensus suggests that an increase in volcanism was one cause of the LIA?
The main message of this blog was that the heat is coming from beneath our feet. It is not possible. The temperature always decreases when we go deeper from the land surface. The deep-sea temperature is about 4 C degrees. There is no mechanism that the heat flow from beneath our feet could explain modern global warming. There may be some regional exceptions like the North Pacific Blop and the volcanic activity melting the ice shelves of Antarctica. I am disappointed that these kinds of odd theories can be found on the web page.
Antero.
The theory is possible.
Heat is generated in the earths core.
That is why volcanoes occur.
The heat from the earth decreases as it gets closer to the surface.
If the sun was not there the earth would still have a temperature due to its innate heat. Of 35 K only – 237 C. Produced by “The flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 47±2 terawatts (TW) “. This heat energy coming from Earth’s interior is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface,
–
which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation that you ignore that heats the cold outer surface of the earth.
–
The innate or natural temperature of the earth is around 35K.
This raises an interesting question.
Re effective radiation level
The equations we are given from the GHG effect
Treat the earth as a 510,000,000 sq K surface black body, that is it emits all the radiation it receives.
But this treats the earth as a black body having no temperature of its own .
The rationale for this is that the earths contribution is only 0.3%.
But this is a very important criteria missing from the Willis Eisenbach and Trembath diagrams of Earths energy balance.
Now maybe the Stefan Boltzmann energy temp means it is not important.
On the other hand the 35 C starting temperature given by the earth matches the GHG effect.
Shame it is at the other end of the scale.
Antero Ollila
You are mistaken on both these assertions:
1. The temperature always decreases when we go deeper from the land surface.
2.The deep-sea temperature is about 4 C degrees.
The facts are:
1. Temperature increases as we go deeper below the Earth’s surface – go down a mine or look at borehole temperature records.
2. Deep sea temperature is below 0 C. Deep sea temperature decreased by about 15 C over the past 50 million years [1] as global mean surface temperature decreased by about 10 C [2].
[1] Grossman (2012) – see chart chart 3 in pdf linked below
[2] Scotese (2018) see chart 1 in pdf linked below:
Donload pdf at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324017003_Phanerozoic_Temperatures_Tropical_Mean_Annual_Temperature_TMAT_Polar_Mean_Annual_Temperature_PMAT_and_Global_Mean_Annual_Temperature_GMAT_for_the_last_540_million_years/related#fullTextFileContent
The beneath our feet idea may be particularly relevant in polar ice melt events. Pls see
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-4q5
This is what I have been working on for the last 8 years. The standard model attributes these forcing mechanisms and their subsequent responding agents almost entirely to the Sun’s solar thermal energy that is interacting with the planet’s solids, liquids and gasses as they exchange between atmosphere, ocean and crust. And that the abundant solar thermal energy is driving these precariously balanced cycles, controlling the climate system as the planet wobbles and orbits its way to and from climes of glaciation to others that can even have tropical temperatures at the poles.
My personal research of the climate focuses on the fact that the proxy records show that the past climate was in sync with the solar magnetic record and that a very exact coupling between these two phenomena extends to even this current warming. I suspected that this energy source could be a very important initiator and even a controlling mechanism for climate but would involve a new paradigm shift to apply it to our existing Earth models. The fact that the various planets with atmospheres have magnetic field generators sent me off in that direction. I then realized that a very simple model could explain a vast amount of unexplained phenomena for not only climate but an even larger system like that of the Earth’s plate tectonic movement mechanism. This understanding thus brought the two phenomena together into a radically new way of interconnection.
If one would consider for a moment that the ocean is a mere 0.022 percent of the total mass of Earth while the atmosphere weighs a little over a millionth (0.000 001) or 1/1,200,000 of one Earth mass. And that even the entire crust; continental and oceanic, is but a mere 1 percent of one Earth mass, while on the other end of the scale the mantle is 67% of the Earth’s total.
Imagine then that a slow and varying solar magnetic forcing of the planet’s field generating components would involve a responsive thermal expansion and then contraction of the core materials and a subsequent strain energy forcing of the Earth’s mantle, this in turn would produce a varying thermal content at the crust-mantle boundary. When the mantle is displaced its thickness of 2,900 kilometers (1,802 miles) is subjected to immense strain energy forces that result not in outward movement at the crust/mantle boundary like you might expect but as a much more modest forced lateral expansion of the mantle’s surface area, think inverse square law, causing tearing and decompression melting of the surrounding mantle surface are materials. This reflex energy release will be shown to occur during periods of climate warming while the periodic cooling periods will be shown to occur when the mantle is subsiding and the strain energy is in a decline. These periods will be supported by multiple sources that range from solar magnetic 14C proxies to the most recent research papers that show this model predicted the observations in advance of their discovery.
The variability component of climate can now be considered largely a product of solar magnetic forcing. And if you consider that the standard model for tectonic plate movement has been shown to be sadly inadequate; for example;
“Although the driving forces for the Indian plate have been attributed solely to the mid-oceanic ridges that surround the entire southern boundary of the plate, previous estimates of vertically integrated stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m in Tibet far exceed those of 3 1012 N/m associated with GPE at mid-oceanic ridges, calling for an additional force to satisfy the stress magnitudes in Tibet.”
There is a massive energy deficit for the plate movement mechanism that moves the crust. With this model we now have a complete and dynamic model of both plate movement and climate that are initiated and controlled by solar magnetic forcing.
This reflex energy release will be shown to have occurred during periods of climate warming that correspond with crustal extension episodes like the Basin and Range Province and other similar and concurrent extension events from around the world, while the periodic cooling will be shown to have occurred when the mantle was subsiding and the divergent boundary infill was compressing the crust as the strain energy at the crust/mantle boundary was in decline. The observed historic periods when CO2 increased post deep ocean warming is rigorously supported by this model. Even the cause of the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum PETM can be solved!
And, remarkably, this model will show that, undoubtedly, the Earth’s surface is subjected to the geologic forcing in multi-million year periodicities that are themselves just part of a predicted broader cycle of solar magnetic forcing that occurs approximately once every 20 million years to produce what is a surplus compression in the crust to overwhelm the convergent boundaries normal subduction processes to produce distinct and documented period of mountain building activity.
The model predicts the simultaneous mountain building that occurred during Plio-Pleistocene, where the vertical rise of the Himalayas, Andes and many other ranges were largely completed in the last several million years when the planet cooled and the mantle incrementally subsided. And remarkably, the irregular size of the Mid-Atlantic ridge will be shown to coincide with these others and all of them together mechanistically linked to our most recent Ice Age period. All of this is supported by the most recent evidence described by this model. These predictions will be supported by multiple sources that range from solar magnetic 14C proxies, Japanese earthquake records, ice core samples, to the most recent research papers that, again, show this model predicted these observations in advance of their discovery.
The variable climate, both now and in the past is simply due to the Earth’s mantle responding to a strain energy displacement regime. https://www.electroplatetectonics.com/
Marc Linquist,
Thank you. Very interesting. I was not aware of most of this. However, a few points don’t seem correct to me.
1. The tectonic plates have been moving for billions of years – pretty much in a continuous motion, not a 20 Ma cycle – click to see animation of last 150 Ma: https://www.odsn.de/odsn/services/paleomap/animation.html
750 Ma of continental drift (animation):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tObhGzHH2aw
2. I don’t agree with your last paragraph: “The variable climate, both now and in the past is simply due to the Earth’s mantle responding to a strain energy displacement regime.” Sun cycles, long period volcanism cycles (such as the Siberian Trapps), and gamma ray flux are all important drivers of climate change.
http://www.sciencebits.com/sites/default/files/pictures/ice-ages/fig4.jpg
“The Milky Way Galaxy’s Spiral Arms and Ice-Age Epochs and the Cosmic Ray Connection”
http://www.sciencebits.com/ice-ages
correction: cosmic ray flux, not gamma ray flux
Hello Peter,
If you read through my hypothesis you will have your answers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223745786_Evidence_and_implications_for_a_widespread_magmatic_shutdown_for_250_My_on_Earth
Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters 282, (2009): 294-298 Condie, K. C., O’Neill, C. and Aster, R.
Abstract
“Analysis of the global distribution of U/Pb ages of both subduction-related granitoids and of detrital zircons suggests that a widespread reduction in magmatic activity on Earth beginning about 2.45 Ga and lasting for 200–250 My. . . . . . .There is little Nd or Hf isotopic evidence to support significant additions to the continental crust at convergent plate margins between 2.45 and 2.2 Ga. . . . . . . Oxygenation of the atmosphere at 2.4 Ga followed by widespread glaciation at 2.4–2.3 Ga also may be related to the initiation of the global magmatic lull. We suggest that an episodic mantle thermal regime, during which a large part of the plate circuit effectively stagnates, may explain the 250-My magmatic age gap on Earth and a remarkable feature of the Paleoproterozoic record.”
Conclusions
“The distribution of U/Pb zircon ages from both subduction-related granitoids and detrital sediments shows a pronounced and robust minimum between 2.45 and 2.2Ga .Furthermore, there is a sparsity of greenstones and subduction-related granitoids, as well as evidence for juvenile continental crust in this 250-My time window. We hypothesize that this reflects a globally significant period of cessation or slowdown global magmatism and perhaps in plate tectonics”.
So, Condie et al. above suggests that the Earth’s plate movement was not continuous for maybe 250 My. Now if we can divorce ourselves from the plates having a continuous movement regime, and instead to one that is a periodic regime based on a simple mantle oscillation cycle we can solve almost every one of the currently unsolved geologic and climate questions that are currently out of reach.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/10736864_Bonatti_E._et_al._Mantle_thermal_pulses_below_the_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_and_temporal_variations_in_the_formation_of_oceanic_lithosphere._Nature_423_499-505
Mantle thermal pulses below the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and temporal variations in the formation of oceanic lithosphere
Enrico Bonatti
“A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time.”
This paper by Bonatti et al. gives us a wonderful insight; “show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time”
With this revelation above we can now imagine a very simple process whereby the multi-million year increase in Solar magnetic field strength would produce a gradual thermal expansion of the Earth’s field generator’s liquid iron and inner core. The mantle is then displaced in turn and the crust is then slowly displaced outward by the displacing mantle, thus causing the world’s divergent boundaries to be opened to receive fresh magma in a manner that is identical to what is currently happening at this moment at all divergent boundaries around the world.
And further, we can imagine that these oscillations of “3-4 million years” are putting in place periodic amounts of new seafloor at divergent boundaries that, as the paper above explains are; “superimposed on a longer-term steady increased with time” that reveals a variability within the phenomena that would eventually allow it to reverse direction and thus allow for multi-million year periods when the crust would develop massive amounts of gravitational derived lateral compression as the crust follows the mantle downward when the planet’s magnetic field generator’s output incrementally decreases.
This newest divergent boundary infill of the last several million years is now the source of this compression. The infill has now become a point of leverage and began its new role as a shoring wedge resisting the building compression in the planet’s crust and forcing the tectonic plate to shift in the opposite direction, the compression bleeding away into convergent trenches and crustal folds as the world’s crustal plates shift to process the slowly developing gravitational potential energy. This compression would easily produce in the crust the folding and uplift that is seen in the geologic record. And too, we can imagine the compression produced being so large that it would even provide an energy source large enough to drive numerous crustal plates deep under the edge of many others in a manner so widely observed yet is not very well explained by the current standard model.
So now we have a way to put a variable quantity of compression into the crust that will provide an extended source of energy to move the plates while the mantle is moving down during that portion of the “oscillation’s” cycle mentioned above by Bonatti et al. There would be no divergent boundary material being created for the next several million years. This would coincide with a lower period of solar magnetic energy.
We can imagine that a large inventory of compression could result, and may even exceed the convergent trenches rates of resistance and cause the energy to be redirected instead to build mountains, and when the compression in the crust dissipates enough, the crust could then be subjected to abnormally high levels of shear forces when the “mantle oscillation” cycle is once again moving outward. We can imagine that during rare instances when low crustal compression are concurrent to a time of unusually long outward mantle oscillation, the crust in continental interiors would be subjected to energies and forces resembling the “Siberian Trapps” eruptions.
Throughout all of this the solar magnetic energy of the Sun’s magnetic field generator is slowly oscillating the Earth’s field generator through inductance, and by that, a thermal expansion strain energy displacement of the mantle’s outer surface.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html
Referring to the NOAA article;
“Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened.”
The solar magnetic generator and field in this model is the driving mechanism of plate movement and climate variability and its proxies show up in all the right places.
Thank you Peter
These Animations do not work right. We have fossil fuel in polar regions, that is not possible unless that land was in the tropics when the fossil fuels were formed. There was not enough solar energy into the polar regions to promote growth that became fossil fuel. The impact, 65 million years ago must have shifted the crust from oriented around the equator, where it would have naturally formed and oriented the land pole to pole in one violent motion. Before then, land drifted toward the equator because of the spin of the earth. After then the land drift spread the land apart and is again causing drift toward the equator. This theory was presented to me by Tom Wysmuller, several years ago, and it has become my theory.
Hello Peter,
If you read through my hypothesis you will have your answers.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223745786_Evidence_and_implications_for_a_widespread_magmatic_shutdown_for_250_My_on_Earth
Earth & Planetary Sci. Letters 282, (2009): 294-298 Condie, K. C., O’Neill, C. and Aster, R.
Abstract
“Analysis of the global distribution of U/Pb ages of both subduction-related granitoids and of detrital zircons suggests that a widespread reduction in magmatic activity on Earth beginning about 2.45 Ga and lasting for 200–250 My. . . . . . .There is little Nd or Hf isotopic evidence to support significant additions to the continental crust at convergent plate margins between 2.45 and 2.2 Ga. . . . . . . Oxygenation of the atmosphere at 2.4 Ga followed by widespread glaciation at 2.4–2.3 Ga also may be related to the initiation of the global magmatic lull. We suggest that an episodic mantle thermal regime, during which a large part of the plate circuit effectively stagnates, may explain the 250-My magmatic age gap on Earth and a remarkable feature of the Paleoproterozoic record.”
Conclusions
“The distribution of U/Pb zircon ages from both subduction-related granitoids and detrital sediments shows a pronounced and robust minimum between 2.45 and 2.2Ga .Furthermore, there is a sparsity of greenstones and subduction-related granitoids, as well as evidence for juvenile continental crust in this 250-My time window. We hypothesize that this reflects a globally significant period of cessation or slowdown global magmatism and perhaps in plate tectonics”.
So, Condie et al. above suggests that the Earth’s plate movement was not continuous for maybe 250 My. Now if we can divorce ourselves from the plates having a continuous movement regime, and instead to one that is a periodic regime based on a simple mantle oscillation cycle we can solve almost every one of the currently unsolved geologic and climate questions that are currently out of reach.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/10736864_Bonatti_E._et_al._Mantle_thermal_pulses_below_the_Mid-Atlantic_Ridge_and_temporal_variations_in_the_formation_of_oceanic_lithosphere._Nature_423_499-505
Mantle thermal pulses below the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and temporal variations in the formation of oceanic lithosphere
Enrico Bonatti
“A 20-Myr record of creation of oceanic lithosphere at a segment of the central Mid-Atlantic-Ridge is exposed along an uplifted sliver of lithosphere. The degree of melting of the mantle that is upwelling below the ridge, estimated from the chemistry of the exposed mantle rocks, as well as crustal thickness inferred from gravity measurements, show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time. The time lag between oscillations of mantle melting and crustal thickness indicates that the solid mantle is upwelling at an average rate of ,25mmyr, but this appears to vary through time.”
This paper by Bonatti et al. gives us a wonderful insight; “show oscillations of ,3–4 Myr superimposed on a longer-term steady increase with time”
With this revelation above we can now imagine a very simple process whereby the multi-million year increase in Solar magnetic field strength would produce a gradual thermal expansion of the Earth’s field generator’s liquid iron and inner core. The mantle is then displaced in turn and the crust is then slowly displaced outward by the displacing mantle, thus causing the world’s divergent boundaries to be opened to receive fresh magma in a manner that is identical to what is currently happening at this moment at all divergent boundaries around the world.
And further, we can imagine that these oscillations of “3-4 million years” are putting in place periodic amounts of new seafloor at divergent boundaries that, as the paper above explains are; “superimposed on a longer-term steady increased with time” that reveals a variability within the phenomena that would eventually allow it to reverse direction and thus allow for multi-million year periods when the crust would develop massive amounts of gravitational derived lateral compression as the crust follows the mantle downward when the planet’s magnetic field generator’s output incrementally decreases.
This newest divergent boundary infill of the last several million years is now the source of this compression. The infill has now become a point of leverage and began its new role as a shoring wedge resisting the building compression in the planet’s crust and forcing the tectonic plate to shift in the opposite direction, the compression bleeding away into convergent trenches and crustal folds as the world’s crustal plates shift to process the slowly developing gravitational potential energy. This compression would easily produce in the crust the folding and uplift that is seen in the geologic record. And too, we can imagine the compression produced being so large that it would even provide an energy source large enough to drive numerous crustal plates deep under the edge of many others in a manner so widely observed yet is not very well explained by the current standard model.
So now we have a way to put a variable quantity of compression into the crust that will provide an extended source of energy to move the plates while the mantle is moving down during that portion of the “oscillation’s” cycle mentioned above by Bonatti et al. There would be no divergent boundary material being created for the next several million years. This would coincide with a lower period of solar magnetic energy.
We can imagine that a large inventory of compression could result, and may even exceed the convergent trenches rates of resistance and cause the energy to be redirected instead to build mountains, and when the compression in the crust dissipates enough, the crust could then be subjected to abnormally high levels of shear forces when the “mantle oscillation” cycle is once again moving outward. We can imagine that during rare instances when low crustal compression are concurrent to a time of unusually long outward mantle oscillation, the crust in continental interiors would be subjected to energies and forces resembling the “Siberian Trapps” eruptions.
Throughout all of this the solar magnetic energy of the Sun’s magnetic field generator is slowly oscillating the Earth’s field generator through inductance, and by that, a thermal expansion strain energy displacement of the mantle’s outer surface.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci10kb.html
Referring to the NOAA article;
“Gerard C. Bond, a researcher at the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory has suggested that the ~1,500 year cycle of ice-buildup in the North Atlantic is related to solar cycles; when the sun is at its most energetic, the Earth’s magnetic field is strengthened.”
The solar magnetic generator and field in this model is the driving mechanism of plate movement and climate variability and its proxies show up in all the right places.
Thank you Peter
Plate tectonics and the earth’s core behavior have not been taken into account on underlying long term trend and/or catastrophic events. Surface unconformities need to be incorporated into continuous marine records. The polar records show temperature end members. The Arctic is the most sensitive.
The largest influence in the Arctic is the same as the influence in the Antarctic, much more in the Arctic. Plate tectonics has forced warm tropical currents into polar oceans and that has promoted more evaporation and snowfall and ice sequestering. The really good news is that as long as the warm tropical currents can get into the Arctic ocean, the temperatures and sea levels will be kept within natural bounds. When the Arctic is open, it will snow more on Greenland until the Arctic closes. When the Arctic is closed, it will snow less on Greenland until the Arctic opens. Ice core data and history show that this has happened in alternating cycles with relatively smaller cycles for ten thousand years. The cycles bounds, lower to upper had increased over several million years, until, suddenly, ten thousand years ago, the data pattern changed.
The mass of water that had become ice and reentered the oceans as water had been reduced by the sequestering of ice on land on Antarctic, Greenland, and other cold places. We cannot have another major warm period if the oceans cannot get deep enough and we will not have another major cold period without another major warm period. Sea level has been higher and lower than now over the most recent ten thousand years.
Until the Plate tectonics change the flow into the Arctic, this is the new normal.
Well, I’ve been reading the Ethical Skeptic and I have to agree with Judith, it has caught my interest. Although, my initial impression was much like some of the others here in that there was a certain unease with the style of writing and a sense of the author’s self aggrandizement. But I dug deeper into the material and there is definitely substance to what is written there. Beware though, you will see your own weakness as a skeptic as much as that of those you view as the opposition. Thanks Judith
Judith, the elite are also not as talented in the physics community as they like to think they are. There is a case which shows Earth’s core is dark matter & that the Moon’s strong pull creates an earth bulge to push the oceans from beneath to create the increasing tides.
The idea, AFAIK, isn’t that the Earth’s core is made of dark matter, it’s that dark matter, if it exists, is streaming through the Earth and has been for billions of years, so Earth rock will have collected some evidence of that, like a large particle detector.
Dark matter, if it exists, is very weakly interacting — hence the trouble finding it — so signs of it in Earth would be small.
In any case, what matter sin the context of climate is the heat flux at the surface, isn’t it, and there’s no reason to think that would have changed in the last 150 years even if the core were made of dark matter, certainly not on the scale of global warming over the last 150 years of order 0.1 W/m2/decade, when the internal heat flux at present is only about 0.1 W/m2 with no evidence of it changing.
There’s not a single piece of evidence for dark matter as a particle. Macro dark matter has been overlooked by the mainstream. There’s anomalous craters & events which don’t leave meteorites.
Exotic matter could theoretically exist at the Earth’s core and create equatorial cooling/mid-latitude warming.
If the ethical skeptic is really your latest favourite, you might want to post this link the next time you print another Nick Lewis “epistemological trespass” :
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2018/06/15/no-you-are-not-a-scientist/
In skimming the comments I have not seen reference to James Kamis’ theory of Plate Climatology. In a nutshell…
The overall theory contends that Increased tectonic activity, either locally or globally, equates to more heat and chemically charged heated fluid release from active geological features into oceans, sub-glacial polar areas, and atmosphere. This altered heat and fluid input has in past, and still to this day acts to significantly effect Earth’s climate and climate related events.
Read all about it or listen and watch at
http://www.plateclimatology.com/
Regards
Venus at mid-latitudes has both phosphine & glycine detection. This supports the equatorial cooling/mid-latitude warming hypothesis I’m so passionate about. I’ve put some links & ideas in the comments section of The Ethical Skeptic piece.
Pingback: Amazon Climate Book Rankings | Climate Scepticism
Hi this is my first post on Climate etc. I am interested in the experimental foundations of physics but I think the following paper will also be of interest to climate scientists.
Recently Goethe’s so called “dark spectrum” has been studied using the technics of modern spectral analysis. Goethe’s spectrum of yellow-magenta-cyan is shown to be the spectral inversion of Newton’s light spectrum of blue-green-red. Significantly, the data show that the invisible parts of Newton’s spectrum, i.e. the ultra-violet (UV) and infra-red (IR) have complementary inversions as well which they call the ultra-yellow (UY) and infra-cyan(IC). The authors associate _negative temperatures_ with the inverse spectra. I guess you could say that while the infra-red warms the infra-cyan cools.
Power Area Density in Inverse Spectra
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10838-017-9394-8
link to paper
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1706/1706.09063.pdf
Conclusions from the paper:
1. The existence of the investigated inverse spectral regions ultra-yellow (UY) and infra-cyan (IC) demonstrates empirically that the inverse spectrum is not merely a visual phenomenon but should be seen as the consequence of radiation energy conservation in spectral experiments.
2. If the data of inverse spectra are evaluated in the same way, then a spectrum with only positive spectral components (ordinary spectrum) as well as an inverse spectrum with equal absolute but negative spectral components are obtained, irrespective of the measured radiometric quantities, the spectral range and the illumination used.
3. In the past, the IR range has been explored through temperature measurements. This has recently led to the question of whether “negative temperatures” can be measured in the inverted IR range (Müller
2015). Since the temperature measurement, like the measurement presented here, is based on power densities, this assumption can be confirmed. If temperature is measured in mutually inverse spectra
and the measured values are converted into differences to the temperature of the respective backgrounds, a spectrum with only positive values (ordinary spectrum) and a spectrum with only negative
values (inverse spectrum) always results.
4. In the field of classical spectroscopic methods, a spectrum cannot be empirically prioritized in favour of its inverse counterpart: they are spectroscopically equivalent and this equivalence is guaranteed by the energy conservation of the radiation in the spectra pair.