Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye these past 10 (!) weeks

Politics-free thread, please!

Climate science

Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 [link]

How changing content of clouds could influence climate change [link]

Rebuttal of recent Mann paper: Multidecadal and Interdecadal climate oscillations: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence [link]

Antarctic ice dynamics amplified by Northern Hemisphere sea-level forcing [link]

Status and outlook for the climate change scenario framework [link]

Forcing of western tropical Sought Atlantic sea surface temperate across three glacial-interglacial cycles [link]

Earth greening mitigates surface warming by enhancing the efficiency in heat and water transfer (i.e., aerodynamic resistance). advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/47/e

A very strong stratospheric polar vortex and other record-breaking phenomena made the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2019–2020 one of extremes. [link]

Oreskes:Severe weather event attribution: Why values won’t go away [link]

Unraveling glacial hydroclimate in the Indo-Pacific warm pool [link]

Interannual variability in the North America carbon cycle [link]

Anthropogenic stresses on the worlds big rivers [link]

Geothermal heat persistently warms the ocean’s bottom ~2000 m by 0.3-0.5°C via seafloor vents. With horizontal circulation heat accumulates over time. The abyssal ocean was 6-10°C warmer 9k yrs ago and still much warmer 1k yrs ago. [link]

Combining modern and paleoceanographic perspectives on ocean heat uptake [link]

Coherent stream flow variability in Monsoon Asia over the past eight centuries links to oceanic drivers [link]

Moist heat stress extremes in India enhanced by irrigation [link]

How large does a large ensemble need to be? [link]

Enhanced warming constrained by past trends in equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature gradient [link]

Inherent uncertainty disguises attribution of reduced atmospheric CO2 growth to CO2 emission reduction [link]

Decadal and multi-decadal natural variability in European temperatures [link]

No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years [link]

East Antartica has cooled substantially since 1986 [link]

Koutsoyiannis:  Atmospheric temperature and CO2: hen-or-egg causality? [link]

Oligocene much warmer than previously thought; this is difficult to explain & has implications for ice sheet stability. [link]

Water on Mars: discovery of three buried lakes [link]

“This is why hurricanes are bigger and longer-lasting and more intense than before.” New study shows that ocean stratification is increasing. [link]

New synthesis article on ocean acidification & changing seawater chemistry from rising CO2 and the impacts on biological organisms, marine ecosystems, people, fisheries & aquaculture annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.114
.
New study finds the modulation of cloud cover that drives decadal- and century-scale climate changes is thought to be either driven by internal variability or (more likely) by interplanetary factors operating within a 60-year cycle. agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.102
.
Technology, impacts and policy

Michael Kelly: Warming is not the only threat [link]

Michael Kelly:  Until we get a proper roadmap, Net Zero is a goal without a plan [link]

MIsconceptions of global catastrophe [link]

Approximate calculations of the net economic impact of global warming mitigation targets under heightened damage estimates.  The cure is worse than the disease? [link]

Compact nuclear fusion reactor is very likely to work [link]

BTI:  How to stop the wildfires [link]

Extreme weather and marriage among girls and women in Bangladesh [link]

America needs a modern electric grid [link]

Do we focus too much on IAMs & scenarios? Do alternative methods need a more prominent role? [link]

“The UN Secretary General António Guterres’s call for India to give up coal immediately and reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 is a call to de-industrialise the country and abandon the population to a permanent low-development trap” [link]

The invisible elephant in the room with a Green New Deal is the staggering quantity of stuff that needs to be mined in order to build all the green machines, and where that mining and processing happens. dailycaller.com/2020/10/27/gre

Michael Pollan: The sickness in our food supply [link]

Room-temperature superconductivity [link]

Pielke Jr:  Global CO2 emissions are on the brink of a long plateau [link]

Re-imagining the Colorado River by exploring extreme events [link]

Plan for climate solutions takes Georgia-specific approach [link]

G20 countries projected to miss 1.5C targets by wide margin [link]

Maybe the narrative that dense cities are better for the environment may be off. Here’s new research from Australia. newgeography.com/content/006840

About science and scientists

Perceptions of stereotypes applied to women who publicly communicate their STEM work [link]

Academic air travel has limited influence on professional success [link]

Science and politics really don’t mix [link]

Kerry Emanuel:  The perils of computing too much and thinking too little [link]

Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto [link]

If you average your own best guess with your best guess from the perspective of someone you often disagree with, you’ll tend to be more accurate. Disagreement is good! researchgate.net/publication/33

Are climate scientists being too cautious when linking extreme weather to climate change? phys.org/news/2020-10-c

Cancel culture has captured campus [link]

Beyond Kuhn and Feyerabend [link]

Pielke Jr:  A ‘sedative’ for science policy [link]

Myside bias [link]

 

 

677 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Woo-hoo. That will keep us reading for a while. Hope you had a good Thanksgiving Day, Judith.

  2. That’s more like it!!! Thank you Judith.

  3. The Aeolus LiDAR satellite has a new website where you can explore the atmosphere in 3D.
    Free to every one:
    Level 1B: Preliminary HLOS (Horizontal Line of Sight) wind observations for Rayleigh and Mie receivers. Standard atmospheric correction (Rayleigh channel), receiver response and bias correction applied.
    Level 2B: Scientific wind product for users. Geo-located consolidated HLOS wind observation with actual atmospheric correction applied to Rayleigh channel.
    Level 2C: Aeolus assisted wind fields resulting from NWP (Numerical Weather Prediction) assimilation processing. Data co-located time and space with Aeolus wind observations. Product generated by ECMWF.

    Additional data for expert groups:
    Level 2A: Scientific aerosol/cloud profile product for users. Geo-located consolidated backscatter and extinction profiles, backscatter-to-extinction ratio per observation, scene classification. Furthermore, attenuated backscatter on measurement level. Product generated by PDGS. Note: this product will be available to all users at the beginning of 2021.
    AUX MRC, AUX RRC products (Mie/Rayleigh response calibration).
    AUX ISR products (Instrument Spectral Registration).
    AUX ZWC (Zero-Wind Calibration).
    AUX_MET products (meteorological information).
    https://aeolus.services/

  4. Hurrah, another review :)

    “The UN Secretary General António Guterres’s call for India to give up coal immediately and reduce emissions by 45% by 2030 is a call to de-industrialise the country and abandon the population to a permanent low-development trap”

    Yep, whatever the perceived longer-term need, that’s into eco-imperialism territory.

  5. Gosh. Severe flooding in Sao Paulo, Brasil, showing radar maps:

    • Hail storm hits Sao Paulo, Brazil. Is no-one going to talk about the idea of warm air being pushed much higher into the atmosphere than normal, where much colder conditions condense the water droplets into hail?

      • A hail storm of the Medieval Warm Period is held responsible for multiple human deaths:

        “According to Jerry Shaw in his July. 8, 2016 article for Newsmax, 1,000 English army soldiers were killed when a hail storm of near biblical proportions struck April 13, 1360, during an invasion of France. The invasion took place during the Hundred Years War and according to History.com, the day was recorded as “Black Monday,” with an eyewitness writing about the event as “a foul day, full of mist and hail, so that men died on horseback.”

        https://goblusky.com/historic-hail-near-biblical-proportions/

        The biblical hail, “about the weight of a talent” is approximated to be roughly 20 inches in diameter (!)

  6. Hail storm hits the Saudi desert:

  7. Climate science

    Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 [link]

    I don’t see how that paper is in any way, shape, or form science. It has nothing to do with the scientific method.

  8. The Muller-Plath takedown of M20, the latest Mann paper, is quite devastating. The section headings like Inadequate Data, Improper Literature Reference, Inappropriate Interpretation nail her colours to the mast. She picked that Mann was favouring models over data and wanted another hide the decline by data torture. And the conclusion says it all ” Altogether, I conclude that the paper M20 is not advancing our understanding of the nature of multi- and interdecadal oscillations such as the AMO and PDO.”
    Another person off the Hockey Team’s Xmas card list.

  9. The Grid article is written by a self interested party, not true comment. Amazing how spending massive amounts of money will make electricity cheaper. New age economics as reality never matches the theory.
    The unreliables need support as they generate a long way from market and they want others to pay for transmission upgrades. Gone are the days when power was generated locally it seems. The NIMBYs are just too powerful.

    • Britain is now a very good example of what happens when the grid tries to run on the unreliables. They have had to fire up all their coal stations to provide about 3GW of electricity. Of course the price went up to about 8 times normal cost. Those stations are earmarked for closing so in a few years time, there will be power cuts.
      All the grid expansion proposed won’t help when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun isn’t shining.

    • Russ Schussler

      Grid article has a lot of unsupported and unwarranted assertions.
      Planning Engineer

  10. My latest article on the astounding Happer et al research results may be relevant to this discussion. The breakthrough in line spectral analysis rewrites our understanding of the greenhouse effect.

    https://townhall.com/columnists/davidwojick/2020/11/27/slight-beneficial-warming-from-more-carbon-dioxide-n2580718

    Even at 1000 ppm of CO2 there would be very little additional warming. And as has been pointed out, a small warming is a good thing.

    • Forcing from doubling CO2 is consistent with previous estimates as they say. And the extreme swings in climate you mention are tipping points. You have gone completely off the scientific reservation for the purpose of political rhetoric as usual.

      • Happer says he thinks that once they add clouds the warming from doubling of CO2 from 400 ppm will be less than one degree, which is certainly not consistent with previous estimates. You may be misreading Table 5. That is not thier ECS estimate.

        My view is that since the per molecule forcing of both CO2 and H20 is now just a few tenthousandth what it is at very low concentrations, and that it will continue to diminish, we are so far out on the asymptote of the saturation diagram that the warming will be negligible.

        As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about with tipping points and climate swings. I know of no tipping points in climate and doubt they exist because climate is chaotically and chaos is a powerful form of stability. Oscillations are not tipping points, unless you think the end of the swing of a pendulum is a tipping point. Climate is an aperiodic oscillator, probably at all scales of interest, from days to millennia.

      • I was thinking more of Table 7 from which Figure 7 is obtained. But table 5 will do.

        It certainly says that it is climate sensitivity – that as they said earlier in the paper is consistent with earlier estimates. It is for a cloud free atmosphere of course and nowhere do clouds figure in the computations.

        Science suggests that cloud is a positive feedback in a warming world. Indeed with catastrophic reduction in marine stratocumulus possible at levels of CO2 feasible this century or a little beyond. With a surface warming of 8K.


        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1

        And while Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics involve chaotic transition and persistent states – with extremes often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point – defining it as stable doesn’t quite capture the essence of abrupt climate change.

    • “As for the rest, I have no idea what you are talking about with tipping points and climate swings.” – David

      Robert et al. suffer from ice age theory hang over. The change in distance to the sun is only 1% to 5% during the 100,000-year eccentricity cycle attributed to glacial cycles. Therefore “feedback” mechanisms had to be invoked in order to increase the amount of energy required for the hypothesis to work.

      CO2 and greenhouse gases were one such ‘control knob’ thought to induce *de*-glaciation.. although there’s evidence the timing is wrong.. CO2 infamously lags temperature rise in the data.

      Even so, this full-of-holes-hypothesis became the standard theory because nothing else made sense. It’s the reason why Robert et al. is so religious in his assertion of tipping points, especially Arctic methane release, which is thought to accelerate a catastrophic feedback hothouse hellhouse scenario of human induced global warming.

      • This blithering popinjay has so little familiarity with geophysical science that nothing makes sense. His contributions are weather events and puff pieces from popular science ‘confirming’ his gravity driven global warming – that involves debunking general relativity. Yes – seriously. His comments are loaded with toxic cancel culture claims relentlessly pursued. An all too familiar pattern.

        “Levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are exceeding levels recorded in the past millions of years, and thus climate is being forced beyond the range of the recent geological era. Lacking concerted action by the world’s nations, it is clear that the future climate will be warmer, sea levels will rise, global rainfall patterns will change, and ecosystems will be altered.

        However, there is still uncertainty about how we will arrive at that future climate state. Although many projections of future climatic conditions have predicted steadily changing conditions giving the impression that communities have time to gradually adapt, for example, by adopting new agricultural practices to maintain productivity in hotter and drier conditions, or by organizing the relocation of coastal communities as sea level rises, the scientific community has been paying increasing attention to the possibility that at least some changes will be abrupt, perhaps crossing a threshold or “tipping point” to change so quickly that there will be little time to react. This concern is reasonable because such abrupt changes—which can occur over periods as short as decades, or even years—have been a natural part of the climate system throughout Earth’s history. ” NAS – 2013 – Abrupt Impacts of Climate Change: Anticipating Surprises – https://www.nap.edu/read/18373/chapter/2

      • Robert: Name calling and insults are a sign of weak arguments.

      • Cancel culture claims of ‘religiosity’ repeated ad nauseum do not have a point to argue.

      • I’ve found out more about the history of ‘greenhouse gas’ ideology:

        ” Yet the global temperature rise that had resumed in the 1970s was accelerating at a record-breaking pace, chalking up a total of 0.8°C of warming since the late 19th century. It seemed impossible to explain that using the Sun alone, without invoking greenhouse gases. “Over the past 20 years,” a group reviewing the data reported in 2007, “all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” It was a stroke of good luck that the rise of solar activity since the 19th century halted in the 1960s. For if solar activity had continued to rise, global temperatures might have climbed slightly faster — but scientists would have had a much harder job identifying greenhouse gases as the main cause of the global warming.

         

         

         

        <=Modern temp's

         

        =Milestone

        The most advanced computer modeling groups did manage to reproduce the faint influence of the sunspot cycle on climate. Their calculations showed that since the 1970s that influence had been overtaken by the rising effects of greenhouse gases. The modelers got a good match to maps of the climate changes observed over the past century, but only if they included the effects of the gases, and not if they tried to attribute it all to the Sun. For example, if they put in only an increase of solar activity, the results showed a warmer stratosphere. Adding in the greenhouse effect made for stratospheric cooling (since the gases trapped heat closer to the surface). And cooling was what the observations showed."

        https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

      • “The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.”

        Apart from inventing a new theory of gravity – he is a dollar short and some 25 years too late. To mix metaphors – ‘roos loose in the top paddock as we say.

      • “The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.” – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

        Apart from inventing a new theory of gravity – he is a dollar short and some 25 years too late. To mix metaphors – ‘roos loose in the top paddock as we say.

    • Great article David and I sympathise with your point of view. One sentence did catch my eye:

      “Moreover, the atmospheric “hot spot” above the tropics predicted by climate models is nowhere to be found.”

      What does this imply??

    • David – do you believe that climate is changing significantly, compared to the time when we were growing up?

      I don’t remember hail storms simultaneously hitting regions on the line of the tropics, south of the equator at 23.5°S latitude as well as on the line of the tropics, north of the equator at 23.5°N. Do you think this is anomalous or in the realms of ‘natural variation’?

      • Climate is stably chaotic, so it constantly changes (oscillates) within limits. Most of the data, at all scales, exhibits the footprint of chaos.

      • That chaos is a powerful form of stability is often overlooked. For example, the temperature where I live can vary 50 degrees F in two days but it will not vary 150 degrees in hundreds of years. That is incredible stability, at the price of ongoing unpredictable oscillation.

      • Chaotic change occurs ‘when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause’. In a nonlinear world forced into new territory – surprises are inevitable.

        In the words of Michael Ghil (2013) the ‘global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems – atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere – each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.’

        Dynamical systems theory suggests that the climate system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems. Some of these changes have a regularity within broad limits and the planet responds with a broad regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.

      • Curious George

        RIE: “Dynamical systems theory suggests that the climate system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital eccentricities – past a threshold at which stage the components start to interact chaotically in multiple and changing negative and positive feedbacks – as tremendous energies cascade through powerful subsystems.”

        Do these tremendous energies cascade today? What does the dynamical systems theory tell us about the threshold? How does this differ from an educated fearmongering?

      • “We are living in a world driven out of equilibrium. Energy is constantly delivered from the sun to the earth. Some of the energy is converted chemically, while most of it is radiated back into space, or drives complex dissipative structures, with our weather being the best known example.” https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos

        Yes it does. It tells us that surprises are inevitable no matter what. The world is moving down a different path – and that needs no fear mongering – leaving ill educated but doctrinaire dinosaurs like you behind.

      • Robert, does it mean the shift may occur any time soon, maybe any moment now?

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • It happens on decadal scales. More likely that we will only know about it after the event.

  11. “https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/90/12/1819/59597/A-Unified-Modeling-Approach-to-Climate-System”

    Uncertainty from ‘internal unforced variability’ assumes that models capture spatio-temporal chaotic climate variability. That is likely an unsafe – possibly even risible – assumption.

    e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6

    Uncertainty evolves in perturbed physics ensembles – such as is discussed in this paper – to produce an envelope of solutions that provide conceptually at least a probability density function (PDF) encompassing likely outcomes. Solutions diverge exponentially until saturating at a level intrinsic to the model and the parameterizations. There is no unique deterministic solution. The range of the PDF can be reduced with more precise parameters and finer scale modelling. The world evolves according to its own dynamic and the elaborate hypothesis of climate models is validated by consistency with real world outcomes. There is a ways to go.


    “Generic behaviors for chaotic dynamical systems with dependent variables ξ(t) and η(t). (Left) Sensitive dependence. Small changes in initial or boundary conditions imply limited predictability with (Lyapunov) exponential growth in phase differences. (Right) Structural instability. Small changes in model formulation alter the long-time probability distribution function (PDF) (i.e., the attractor).” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709

    Uncertainties discussed in this paper – see the introduction – are based on questionable assumptions and they then try to attribute uncertainty evolution to these categories. It may be simply a late, forlorn attempt to squeeze useful information from a class of models unsuited to the task (Palmer and Steven s, 2019). Ultimately – progress will require building new Earth system models from the ground up.

    e.g. https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/90/12/1819/59597/A-Unified-Modeling-Approach-to-Climate-System

    • Curious George

      “Small changes in model formulation alter .. the attractor.” Not surprising, unfortunately to my knowledge not researched at all. Do we have a mathematical method to estimate the sensitivity of the shape of the attractor to model parameters? Or, even worse, to
      adding more processes to the model?

  12. GMST was much higher than now for most of the past 542 Ma

    For those alarmed about potential global warming, it might be worth taking some time to get some perspective. First, understand the range of temperatures and how the current temperatures compare with temperatures in the past – start by looking at the charts on pages 10 and 12 here:
    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

    The Quaternary (last 2.6 Ma) is the second coldest multi-million year period in the past 542 Ma. The coldest was 280–260 Ma ago; GMST dropped to about 4 °C colder than present.

    The warmest period was about 250 Ma ago following the late Permian mass extinction event. GMST peaked at about 21 °C higher than present GMST (~15 °C). Other hot periods were:
    • 540–460 Ma, GMST 11–13.6 °C higher than present
    • 440 Ma, GMST 12.5 °C higher than present
    • 420 Ma, GMST 13.1 °C higher than present
    • 385–360 Ma, GMST 10.3–17.8 °C higher than present
    • 250–35 Ma, GMST 2–21.3 °C higher than present
    For 50% of the period 250–0 Ma GMST was more than 7 °C higher than present and for 82% of that time GMST was more than 3 °C higher. These provide some perspective for considering the impacts of 2–3 °C of global warming.

    Next look at the charts on page 20. Notice how the tropics to poles temperature gradients flatten as the planet warms. They show that most of the warming is extra-tropical, not in the tropics. The chart on page 12 shows tropical minus global temperatures through time. The differences ranges from about 6 °C during hottest times to around 12 °C during the coldest times.

    • Global impacts at +3°C GMST by impact sector

      Many Integrated Assessment Models have been developed to estimate the economic impact of global warming. The three most cited are DICE, FUND and PAGE. Of these only FUND disaggregates the economic impacts by impact sector.

      The economic impact of the main impact sectors at 3°C global average temperature increase (relative to 2000), as projected by FUND, in % of world GDP are:

      Impact sector Impact
      Agriculture & Forestry: +0.61%
      Storms: -0.01%
      Sea level rise: -0.02%
      Health: -0.03%
      Ecosystems: -0.16%
      Water supply: -0.17%
      Energy: -0.89%
      Total: -0.68%
      Total excluding Energy: +0.21%

      This indicates that FUND projects the overall impact is positive if the energy impact sector is excluded. Lang and Gregory, 2019 [1] finds the energy sector impact projections may be incorrect and should be slightly positive. In this case the impact of 3°C global warming on the world economy (i.e. total of all impact sectors) would be more positive.

      Empirical data for each impact sector suggests the impacts for most or all sectors may be more positive than estimated by FUND.

      1. Agriculture – may be more positive due to higher productivity, including as a result of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration [2]

      2. Storms – frequency and intensity decreases as global warming increases

      3. Sea Level rise – the amount of sea level rise may be overestimated in FUND

      4. Health – various studies indicate warming is beneficial for health – e.g. 5 to 20 times more deaths from cold events than from hot events

      5. Ecosystems – paleo evidence, net primary productivity and amount of carbon tied up in the biosphere versus temperature (latitude) show that ecosystems are more productive at warmer temperatures.

      6. Water supply – I don’t know how this will respond to global warming

      7. Energy – With non-temperature drivers excluded FUND projects that +3°C global warming would negatively impact the US economy by 0.8% GDP. However, Lang and Gregory (2019) [1], using empirical data for the USA, finds that 3 °C global warming would positively impact the US economy by 0.07% GDP (see Table 2). The paper infers that global warming would also positively impact the global economy.

      Conclusion:

      If these findings are correct, there is no valid justification for policies and actions to reduce global warming. Such policies are reducing global economic growth and slowing the rate of improvement in human wellbeing.

      References:

      [1] Lang, P.A.; Gregory, K.B. Economic impact of energy consumption change caused by global warming. Energies 2019, 12, 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575

      [2] Dayaratna, K.D.; McKitrick, R.; Michaels, P.J. Climate sensitivity, agricultural productivity and the social cost of carbon in FUND. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 2020, 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. Apart from the PETM 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), Greening of the Earth and it drivers [7]). 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]

      Contrary to the recent claims, we found strong support for a negative relationship between latitude and annual NPP of forests with all datasets, and NPP was significantly greater in tropical forests than in temperate forests. Vascular plant richness was positively correlated with NPP.

      8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].

      A rough calculation of biosphere and soil organic carbon density from Figure 2 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 empirical evidence indicates may be around 7–13°C above present GMST.

      References:

      Mass extinction events:

      [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

      [4] https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43630

  13. “Arrhenius [4] also stated that “if the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression”. This Arrhenius’s “rule” (which is still in use today) is mathematically expressed as:

    where T and [CO2] denote temperature and CO2 concentration, respectively, T0 and [CO2]0 represent reference states, and α is a constant.” https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/3/81/htm

    I quote this because the ‘almost arithmetic’ temperature increase ‘rule’ applies regardless of the source of CO2. Dimitris Koutsoyiannis is mostly quite sensible but here imagines that there is a chicken and egg problem with CO2 and temperature. Rather than cause and effect there is a canonical feedback loop. More CO2 means higher temperatures and more soil respiration resulting in higher temperatures. That soil emission of CO2 increases with temperature is fairly certain. I tried to find a reference I have used before – that didn’t involve either a paywall or a pdf that WordPress in its new incarnation will then insert in its entirety. The reference is at the top of this post.

    https://judithcurry.com/2013/06/07/soil-carbon-permanent-pasture-as-an-approach-to-co2-sequestration/

    I was reminded of the top video – that is a salutary tale of tragedy and redemption in the great plains of America. I complement this with a 21st century take on grazing and soil carbon. Globally 5 billion hectares of grazing is a resource for sequestering carbon, increasing farm productivity and providing protein in a world hungry for it.


  14. How do climate scientists expect to be taken seriously when they still take Michael Mann seriously?

  15. Greening likely also reduces sea level rise by enhancing the ability of plants and soil to retain water. Warming itself will also enhance the movement of water from the ocean to land.

  16. Corridors of Clarity: Four Principles to Overcome Uncertainty Paralysis in the Anthropocene – https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaa115/5936130

    “More complicated models do not necessarily predict future outcomes better than simpler models.” Anne-Sophie Crépin,
    https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2020-11-18-why-getting-the-big-picture-roughly-right-is-more-important-than-focusing-on-details.html

    * Scientists and policy makers facing complex global change issues are often tempted to focus on smaller problems and study them in great detail
    *This can lead to “uncertainty paralysis” that threatens timely and appropriate decisions surrounding these complex issues
    * Four principles for identifying “corridors of clarity” are suggested to help understand these issues sufficiently well to take policy action

    Getting the big picture right?

    We are beyond the planetary limits of nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways and on coasts – blue green algae continues to bloom and ocean anoxic zones expand exponentially, oceans are full of plastics, the air with photochemical smog, carbon particulates, sulphate and mercury, the populations of 10,000 charismatic species have crashed by 60% since the 1970’s – these are the species we know of – we are on the brink of an extinction crisis – we continue to change the composition of the atmosphere transforming ecologies from the Arctic to the Australian desert – with little idea of how the nonlinear Earth system will respond over the course of the century.

  17. Happy Thanksgiving belatedly, Dr Curry.
    Thank you very much for creating these very useful discussions.

  18. “Geothermal heat persistently warms the ocean’s bottom ~2000 m by 0.3-0.5°C via seafloor vents. With horizontal circulation heat accumulates over time. The abyssal ocean was 6-10°C warmer 9k yrs ago and still *much warmer 1k yrs ago*.”

    A thousand years ago was the era of the Medieval Warm Period. It was when the Vikings colonised Greenland and continued westward:

    “Son of Erik the Red, Leif Erikson, (c. 970 – c. 1020) was a Norse explorer from Iceland. He is thought to have been the first known European to have set foot on continental North America (excluding Greenland), approximately half a millennium before Christopher Columbus.”

    A much warmer abyssal ocean corresponds with slight warming of the deepest parts of the Brazil Basin in modern times.

  19. I admit – the Brazil reference threw me. I was in the wrong ocean for a moment. Then I wondered what geothermal vents had to do with the Holocene maximum. I was all at sea – but my uncanny navigation skills soon kicked in. Are we sure the link to a 2015 paper on bivalves in Svalgaard is the right one?

    Robby the Red

  20. There’s a misconception in this paper which ignores greater tidal range as the primary driver of Antarctic Ice Sheet loss, the cause of which is interpreted as sea-level rise:

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2916-2

    “Sea-level rise due to ice loss in the Northern Hemisphere in response to insolation and greenhouse gas forcing is thought to have caused grounding-line retreat of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS). Such interhemispheric sea-level forcing may explain the synchronous evolution of global ice sheets over ice-age cycles. Recent studies that indicate that the AIS experienced substantial millennial-scale variability during and after the last deglaciation (roughly 20,000 to 9,000 years ago) provide further evidence of this sea-level forcing.”

    It also hints at a millennial cycle rise in tidal forcing as well one hemisphere having greater tidal forcing than the other, which reverses on the next cycle.

  21. Geoff Sherrington

    After several hours of reading a number of these Judith references, an overall impression is one of desperation. Many researchers, having no data of adequate quality to support their various hypotheses, are reduced to making elaborate arguments about why they are still correct, once you add in the various excuses and explanations for the absence of proper data.
    What has caused so many climate science authors, some sampled here, to write such poor quality material? It is not just youngsters lacking experience, for some of these authors are of godlike status in the eyes of their juniors. I wonder if these elder statesmen realise how much crap they invoke. It cannot end well. Geoff S

    • I suspect this is true of most science, although it is extreme in the climate case, because of the policy debate. Kuhn pointed out that once a paradigm is excepted it is considered certain, so that the normal science of using it to explain things can proceed. In fact we often see one area of science using certain ideas as certain, even when another branch is debating them.

      I liken it to rebuilding a ship at sea. A lot has to be accepted as true at any given time, lest you drown in uncertainty. But what is accepted changes over time.

      • To my knowledge Kuhn never considered the case where a scientific paradigm is politically and culturally motivated via a social movement, as with AGW.

    • I thought exactly the same Geoff, it’s a joke. The language also becomes so much more convoluted, as if it’s an attempt to maintain superiority that they actually are on top of some kind of understanding.

      It’s directly analogous to physics and dark matter/dark energy… it’s not often mentioned that only 5% of the universe is known about, let alone understood.

    • Geoff Sherrington: After several hours of reading a number of these Judith references, an overall impression is one of desperation.

      That is not my impression. Can you provide examples? To me it is just a continuation of the arduous slog through complex data, ideas, mathematics, and computations necessary to solve a complex problem: What is the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on climate? Perhaps you or some authors are impatient?

      • Geoff Sherrington

        matther,
        The critique of the Mann et al paper is one example. I read the critique after I posted the comment about desperation. The first paper, “Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6 ” by Flavio Lehner et al is another, where fundamental ideas in science are somewhat bypassed. like taking model output to have the same status as measured data. There are more like these. Geoff S

  22. Chaos is defined according with the very fast movement of all the parts consisted the system. Like the turbulence in the fluids flow. It is chaotic for us, for us observing the turbulent flow.

    We call chaotic every system its components moving fast enough we are not able to follow and “see” in every detail.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Gases molecules are in chaotic movement. There are some empirical laws about gases properties.

      PV = constant, when T = constant etc.

      There is an empirical science which describes some of the gases behavior features – the Thermodynamics.

      Everything is based on observations though. The temperature itself is an empirical term.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • By chaos I am referring to nonlinear dynamics. This is a mathematical property that some systems exhibit, including turbulence. But it is not confined to fast moving particles. For example the occurrence of El Ninos is thought to be chaotic. Also the weather, including highs and lows, wind, temperature and precipitation.

      Climate is thought to be chaotic on scales up to yearly. My conjecture is that climate is chaotic on the scale of decades to centuries. Chaotic systems exhibit what is called strange statistics, such as averages that also oscillate over time.

    • Yes, and our conclusions are based on observations, our approach is empirical.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  23. Thank you Judy for your ( as usual) very helpful climate related collcection of articles. The MM rebuttal is a very worth read indeed!
    “Altogether, I conclude that the paper M20 is not advancing our understanding of the nature of multi- and interdecadal oscillations such as the AMO and PDO.” :-)
    Proud to read that the author is from my hometown. Not all Germans are crazy!! :-D
    A peaceful Thanksgiving to you and yours!

  24. https://iai.tv/articles/beyond-feyerabend-and-kuhn-auid-1644 Is interesting. (My Ph.D. thesis was related to Kuhn’s work.) The philosophy of science question is what makes science special? The proposed answer is that it is more systematic than other knowledge seeking and generating pursuits.

    Unfortunately that central term is not explained so there is no way to tell what the claim actually is. It does reference some work which may provide the needed explanation.

    The article is mostly about the evolution of the answer, which seems generally correct.

  25. Hi Judith, I emailed the author of the paper querying the claim “No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years”. I hope you don’t mind. I read about the tree-rings but it wasn’t easy to follow and your summation wasn’t clear from what was written to say the least. I wasn’t surprised with her answer:


    Dear Alan,  

    The statement made by Dr Curry is completely incorrect. The data she is referring to have been high-pass filtered, therefore no conclusions about medium-to-long term changes can be made.  

    Best regards,  
    Kristina    

    Was there another article referring to the data perhaps??

  26. I printed this out because it’s so good:

    The Perils of Computing Too Much and Thinking Too Little

    “Big steps forward are synonymous with new ideas – a thought that merits mindfulness if we aspire to train students to do more than merely train machines.

    Emanuel, one of the most recognized and accomplished scientists in the field, reflects on the importance of theory for atmospheric, oceanic and climate science. In so doing he sounds an alarm as to the perils the neglect of theory poses for the advancement of our science. As high-performance computing dominates an increasingly broad spectrum of activities – also in the educational sphere — there is the danger that an inattention to theory will produce researchers who use these vast resources ineffectively, and that the opportunity for true breakthroughs, which come from new ideas, will be diminished.

    https://eos.org/editor-highlights/the-perils-of-computing-too-much-and-thinking-too-little

  27. “Dealing with large data sets and complex computational codes demands increasing time and effort by researchers in atmospheres, oceans, and climate. The author argues for a more balanced approach to using models, observations, and theory to advance basic understanding.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019AV000129

    “Modern hydrology places nearly all its emphasis on science‐as‐knowledge, the hypotheses of which are increasingly expressed as physical models, whose predictions are tested by correspondence to quantitative data sets. Though arguably appropriate for applications of theory to engineering and applied science, the associated emphases on truth and degrees of certainty are not optimal for the productive and creative processes that facilitate the fundamental advancement of science as a process of discovery. The latter requires an investigative approach, where the goal is uberty, a kind of fruitfulness of inquiry, in which the abductive mode of inference adds to the much more commonly acknowledged modes of deduction and induction. The resulting world‐directed approach to hydrology provides a valuable complement to the prevailing hypothesis‐ (theory‐) directed paradigm.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078

    Imagine a model that can incorporate big data at many scales and from many sources in real time and tease out patterns to be interrogated by a human mind. One that can 3D simulate in real time and has a historic context and built in initialised forecasting capabilities. It is then a tool – engineered by 1000’s of scientists – to visualise geophysical processes.

    “”What I am really trying to do is bring birth to clarity, which is really a half-assedly thought-out-pictorial semi-vision thing. I would see the jiggle-jiggle-jiggle or the wiggle of the path. Even now when I talk about the influence functional, I see the coupling and I take this turn – like as if there was a big bag of stuff – and try to collect it in away and to push it. It’s all visual. It’s hard to explain.” Richard Feynman


    “Machine learning approaches are increasingly used to extract patterns and insights from the ever-increasing stream of geospatial data, but current approaches may not be optimal when system behaviour is dominated by spatial or temporal context…” https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Deep-learning-and-process-understanding-for-Earth-Reichstein-Camps-Valls/b2114228411d367cfa6ca091008291f250a2c490

  28. If global warming is beneficial, as empirical evidence suggests, then policies and actions to reduce global warming are not justified – refer to these comments above and the references:

    https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934108

    https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934109

    https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934110

    • If the objective is conservation and restoration of agricultural land and ecologies, reducing pollution, building more resilient infrastructure, increasing energy efficiency and economic productivity and innovating on energy – then whether warming is good or not is humongously irrelevant.

      Besides – in such a wildly unstable system capable of rapid transitions – warming is not guaranteed despite the models.

      • Robert I Ellison: If the objective is conservation and restoration of agricultural land and ecologies, reducing pollution, building more resilient infrastructure, increasing energy efficiency and economic productivity and innovating on energy – then whether warming is good or not is humongously irrelevant.

        Whether global warming is good or not is *not* irrelevant. If warming up to say 3C can be shown to be good overall, then there is more money and labor available to invest in achieving those goals. It is extremely important, therefore, that decision-makers such as legislators be made aware of the great volume of evidence, and for some at least to try to master it.

      • There are unsound assumptions and a limited methodology used to reach an incorrect conclusion. CO2-e mitigation and climate adaptation is warranted. Doing it pragmatically makes political sense.

      • “CO2-e mitigation and climate adaptation is warranted”

        I think the majority would agree if it were being done pragmatically or even vaguely rationally. Because so many measures make very little sense there is a strong suspicion there is a hidden agenda (which, indeed, is clearly often the case). As the last few months have amply demonstrated, restrictions and hardships will be accepted by the general population during a crisis that would not be tolerated in any other circumstances. There is therefore a strong motivation for those seeking power that can’t be gainsaid to sell a crisis. The question then arises: what hazards does this form of politics pose to humanity versus the hazards of climate change? Personally, I’d rather take my chances with the climate than an unfettered cabal of globalist politicians, bureaucrats, international finance and multinational corporations.

      • I’d suggest a change of tack. A new and classically liberal agenda. There are ways to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places – but these need to be consciously designed in a broad context of economics and democracy, population, development, technical innovation, land use and the environment. There is a stark choice in which narratives of catastrophe and economic, environmental and social collapse have no place. Which future is for you and your children? Economic collapse, civil strife, war – or prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes?

        …we must be able to offer a new liberal programme which appeals to the imagination. We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage. What we lack is a liberal Utopia…a truly liberal radicalism…the main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be Utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals…. (F.A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism,” 1949)

    • Global warming policies and actions must be justified on the basis of the economic impacts of global warming, not on projected temperature changes.

    • Oddly enough – your ‘economic impacts’ are based on an uncertain temperature projection. No regrets actions are based on net positive geopolitical and economic outcomes in the here and now disregarding global warming.

      • Wrong!. You don’t understand.

      • No – I understand all too well. Your thesis is based on 3 degrees C warming. Why lie about it?

      • You still, don’t understand. Read the paper.

      • “The economic impact of the main impact sectors at 3°C global average temperature increase (relative to 2000), as projected by FUND, in % of world GDP are:”

        Why obfuscate?

      • You clearly have not understood the paper.

        “This study tests the validity of the FUND energy impact functions by comparing the projections against empirical space heating and space cooling energy data and temperature data for the USA. … The impact functions are tested at 0° to 3 °C of global warming from 2000.”

        Stop trolling.

      • Right – so social costs are positive up to 3K warming – if you exclude energy costs. Which I assume you do in that other paper. There is zilch wrong with what I said originally. And you can take your cancel culture trolling accusation, sit on it and rotate.

        If the objective is conservation and restoration of agricultural land and ecologies, reducing pollution, building more resilient infrastructure, increasing energy efficiency and economic productivity and innovating on energy – then whether warming is good or not is humongously irrelevant.

        Besides – in such a wildly unstable system capable of rapid transitions – warming is not guaranteed despite the models.

      • You clearly don’t understand. And as usual, cannot admit when wrong.

    • Peter,
      I suggest you dedicate 110% of your efforts to making the current SMR beta/prototype project a slam dunk success.
      From here on out only post about nuclear power that specifically relates to the NuScale’s $6.1B SMR project.
      1) On time
      2) Under budget
      3) Lifecycle costs
      4) Environmental impacts
      I am not against nuclear power and SMR looks like the direction technology wants to go since the older designs are no longer competitive.

      Focus on the prize.

      • There are dozens of proposed SMR in the US alone. I’d suggests the thermally efficient, fast neutron. high temperature, helium cooled EM@ from General Atomics is a better design than NuScale.

        “The efficient use of fuel by EM2 means that it generates a fraction of the high-level waste produced by current reactors. In addition, rather than sending spent fuel out for geologic storage, EM2 is capable of recycling its used fuel once some of the fission products are removed. No liquid reprocessing is necessary, and no heavy metals are separated. Even better, these fission products require only about 500 years of storage before decaying to background levels, compared to 10,000 years or longer required for current designs.

        In addition, EM2 has the potential to reduce our waste stockpile because it can be powered with this spent fuel. Deployed in sufficient numbers, EM2 is capable of substantially reducing pressures for long-term storage and turning our waste stockpile into an important energy resource.”

    • I am of the opinion that there are many rational pathways to CO2-e mitigation that have a positive benefit to cost ratios. I can point to many of them off the top of Nobel Prize winning economists heads.

      https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/

      All while making economies more productive and efficient and the world richer – and managing the risk of climate surprises. You give no hint that you can consider these politically popular alternative. Or indeed – accept that insisting that major nuclear accidents are a harmless bugaboo may not be the public image the industry needs. Just repeat your same dismal argument again and again thinking that a few economic or nuclear papers – or a graph from a seminar posted on the interweb – all without comparing and contrasting different interpretations – means diddly squat.

      To you disagreement is ignorance, trolling, narcissistic personality disorder and probably a neo-quasi-religious frenzy. Thanks to Andy West.
      Any minute now Alan Lowey is going to pop up calling me Gandalf the Grey and posting a Dolly Parton video. No I don’t know why either. Or Jimmy will call me boy and tell me how it’s all ending in an ice age and I won’t know what hits me. That I am a CO2 fanatic, that I am a weak kneed environmental neo-socialist, that my hero is Greta or that I am an ‘alarmist’, a fear monger. There’s a special this week – 10 fears for a $1.00.

      Is all that sounding like a skeptic curmudgeon wimpy cancel culture? Whatever – I am righter than you every day and twice on Sundays.

  29. “Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback” is written by inexperienced people who are outside of the climate modelling community looking in.

    There is one way to model clouds and that is with state equations at large eddy resolving scales. Doing that at a global scale would require millions of times more computing power. The models discussed here have grids many times larger than the scale required to resolve cloud processes. These use parameterization schemes that are not explicit. The cloud changes do not emerge from models but are built into them. And models handle convection poorly.

    Fine scale modelling, observations and theory are however consistent. Rayleigh-Bénard convection results in the closed and open convection cell configuration of marine stratocumulus over tropical and subtropical oceans. Closed cells rain out faster over warm oceans leaving open cells with a reduced albedo. It is a positive feedback both to global warming and to Pacific Ocean shifts in sea surface temperature (SST) on decadal to millennial scales. Fine scale modelling shows that this can result in 8 degrees C of warming globally.


    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific

  30. The World Economic Forum is promoting forest cover in the Global South to help with the climate crisis of the Global North.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/28/the-incredible-beauty-of-forest-cover/

    • It is a matter of scale – it requires security of tenure at the plot scale and informed stakeholder management of common resources – land, water, forests, wildlife etc. Everyone has a stake and everyone can prosper. We don’t inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. As Feynman said – the most important thing is not science it’s love.

      • Yes sir. Thank you. I have seen that generational reference before – inherit from ancestors and borrow from children – but are they consistent with the relative insignificance of humans on a planetary scale? Or are they just a Biblical reference?

        https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/23/apocalyptic-environmentalism-and-climate-change/

      • “We can learn about it from exceptional people of our own culture, and from other cultures less destructive than ours. I am speaking of the life of a man who knows that the world is not given by his fathers, but borrowed from his children; who has undertaken to cherish it and do it no damage, not because he is duty-bound, but because he loves the world and loves his children…” Wendell Berry

        So have you revised your inflammatory post?

  31. Status and outlook for the climate change scenario framework – I find shared socio-economic pathways (SSP) to be a complete waste of time. They are meant to inform models. Although there we should focus on seamless, initialised weather and climate simulations over a decade or so. For that. simple extrapolation of current emissions would be sufficient.


    https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/article/90/12/1819/59597/A-Unified-Modeling-Approach-to-Climate-System

    SSP5 – however – I can endorse. It has the highest emissions by far in 2100 – and I suspect it was intended to be a cautionary tale.

    “This world places increasing faith in competitive markets, innovation and participatory societies to produce rapid technological progress and development of human capital as the path to sustainable development. Global markets are increasingly integrated. There are also strong investments in health, education, and institutions to enhance human and social capital. At the same time, the push for economic and social development is coupled with the exploitation of abundant fossil fuel resources and the adoption of resource and energy intensive lifestyles around the world. All these factors lead to rapid growth of the global economy, while global population peaks and declines in the 21st century. Local environmental problems like air pollution are successfully managed. There is faith in the ability to effectively manage social and ecological systems, including by geo-engineering if necessary.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681

    It is the highest energy and greatest economic growth aspirational target. The only thing that needs to be added is focusing on energy innovation and building resilient infrastructure. Carbon is being sequestered in wetlands, forests, rangelands and farming land – and momentum is growing planet wide. 21st century materials and designs will deliver cheap, abundant and safe nuclear energy this decade. In the interim the developing world and most of the developed world are sticking to coal, gas and oil. I could fly my private jet into every environmental conference on the planet and still not stop that.

  32. Matthew R Marler

    Judith Curry, thank you for this compilation.

    Rebuttal of recent Mann paper: Multidecadal and Interdecadal climate oscillations: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

    Author is in a department of Psychology and Ergonomics. Another case of review/critique by a technical expert in another field. Note the importance of bandwidth of the filter in trying to detect non-stationary signals.

  33. With reference to the papers that concern the decadal and multidecadal climate oscillations:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunspot-cycle-is-more-intricate-than-previously-thought/

    I believe there’s a case of new physics tidal forcing attributable to the ~11-year solar cycle and the less well known Gleissberg ~88-year solar cycle.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

    So called “chaos” by David Wojick et al. will one day be more refined to prediction due to a new paradigm of understanding.

    • “Climate is thought to be chaotic on scales up to yearly. My conjecture is that climate is chaotic on the scale of decades to centuries. Chaotic systems exhibit what is called strange statistics, such as averages that also oscillate over time.” – David Wojick

      This doesn’t make much sense to me. A mechanism creating these oscillations is a more likely explanation imo. It’s the same mystery mechanism which drives the glacial/interglacial cycle – that unknown is gravity.

      The mystery of gravity is missing from all the papers given above. It’s missing from the overall philosophy of climate science. Understanding how our mother Earth changes over time is inexplicably linked to the force that allows her yearly path through the cosmos.

      • Alan: To put it in this way, you are barking up the ‘Right’ tree but maybe for the wrong reason.
        See this paper from R R Newton. (here easier: http://www.pereplet.ru/gorm/atext/Newton1.htm ) Title : ‘ASTRONOMICAL EVIDENCE CONCERNING NON-GRAVITATIONAL FORCES IN THE EARTH-MOON SYSTEM’
        See the abrupt changes as shown in fig 5. I ask, why does the 700CE jump coincide precisely with an Eddy cycle root (remember E roots in Holocene were destructive). The next uptake follows near a peak with a delay (just as the 3550bce – When the Sahara abruptly dried).

        Note Newton’s comments at the end of section 7. Quote “The reader may ask why I am willing to accept sudden changes in the accelerations when I was not willing to accept them in the obliquity. –)” See (1) that follows.

        It is not gravity. maybe just plain dynamics.

      • mm – there’s no such thing as an “Eddy cycle”.

      • mm – the black boxes showing duration is the empirical data shown in fig 122.

        You’ve taken a sinusoidal curve and overlaid it on other data as if it’s empirical reality. This is contrary to the opening sentences of that section of the article:

        “Forecasting solar activity has proven difficult. There is currently no known mechanism that can explain long term solar-variability, and accurate prediction beyond the next cycle has not been demonstrated so far.”

        If anything, it supports the new physics tidal forcing suggestion due to the orbital inclination cycles of the planets and strong gravitational interaction with the Sun’s core.

      • There’s evidence of a connection between sunspot cycles and strong gravitational interaction to the Earth’s core:

        ☆Sunspot cycle influence on the geomagnetic field☆

        “Examination of the residuals indicates the presence of local variations, on a timescale comparable with the solar cycle, that are uncorrelated with solar activity. *These variations probably result from dynamo action within the core*.”

        https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/50/3/605/588964

      • The article in the thread ‘Nature Unbound IX’ is by someone else. The correlation of the Eddy cycle curve with known climate changes in the last 2k yrs is there in fig122. Ignore the black boxes; it is the correlations that are important. The article is after its objectives. What I used the curve for is my and a different objective.
        This link here shows the correlation of the Eddy curve when superimposed on earlier findings: Here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/03/15/searching-evidence-update-2/ The five consecutive correlations with the roots of the curve indicate something. They don’t come like that by chance.
        Now we have something extra. The correlation of the Eddy root at 700CE with indicated Earth/Moon dynamic change adds another important clue. That ‘obliquity’ again figures in it is to be noted. The crux of the matter is finding the What/Why/When/How, — solid proof.

      • mm – the mainstream literature doesn’t acknowledge the Eddy cycle. I did a quick google and found this:

        “These attempts got a well-deserved bad reputation. Jack Eddy overcame this with a 1976 study that demonstrated that irregular variations in solar surface activity, a few centuries long, were connected with major climate shifts. The mechanism was uncertain, but plausible candidates emerged..”

        https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

        What mechanism linking solar surface activity to climate shifts do you propose??

        I’m giving you a plausible explanation but your reply is “it’s not gravity”. Well what the f#@k is it then??

      • Careful there. Remember the four horsemen: https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-recognizing-criticism-contempt-defensiveness-and-stonewalling/

        But thank you for the link to J Eddy. Like JF Dodwell, and RR Newton, it seems that Eddy also had the Academic guns turned on him. See this re Newton at page 30 http://www.dioi.org/vols/w11.pdf (I did warn you earlier; do not agree with me).

        Take care and good luck.

      • Wow. Yet another correlation with orbital inclination:

        “People continued to report weather features that varied with the sunspot cycle of 11 years, or with the full solar magnetic cycle of 22 years (the magnetic polarity of sunspots reverses from one 11-year cycle to the next).”

      • mm – here’s somebody who would have appreciated the link between planetary cores and the core of the Sun with regard to their orbital inclinations:

        “Many of these people declined to speculate about the causes of the cycles they reported, but others pointed to the Sun. An example was a late 19th-century British school of “cosmical meteorology,” whose leader Balfour Stewart grandly exclaimed of the Sun and planets, “They feel, they throb together.”

      • mm – I think you’re right. Ancient philosophers had a better understanding of climate/astronomy than we do today:

        “The very word climate (from Greek klimat, inclination or latitude) originally stood for a simple band of latitude.”

      • The link to Eddy is a wonderful source of lost information, much better than I first thought:

        “Another tentatively credible study came from a team led by the Danish glaciologist Willi Dansgaard. Inspecting layers of ancient ice in cores drilled from deep in the Greenland ice cap, they found cyclical variations. They supposed the Sun was responsible. For the cycle that they detected, about 80 years long, had already been reported by scientists who had analyzed small variations in the sunspot cycle. Another cycle with a length of about 180 years was also, the group suspected, caused by “changing conditions on the Sun.”

        This correlates with the sunspot cycles of today’s literature. Of course, it’s only the mechanism which is lacking..

      • More hints tied to the Sun’s varying gravity affecting the Earth’s core:

        “The early 1970s also brought claims that far slower variations in the Earth’s magnetic field correlated with climate. In cores of clay drawn from the seabed reaching back a million years, colder temperatures had prevailed during eras of high magnetism. The magnetic variations were presumably caused by processes in the Earth’s interior rather than on the Sun..”

      • mm – something you should ponder on:

        “Little more could be said without further decades of observations — and a theory to explain why there should be any connection at all between the sunspot cycle and weather.”

      • From above, with the reply
        ““Little more could be said without further decades of observations” There are millennia of observations, and measurement results, starting with the Chinese at 1100bce.
        ” — and a theory to explain why there should be any connection at all between the sunspot cycle and weather.” There likely is not. The sun’s output, according to your link, has been very stable relatively.

        John Eddy was concerned with the Earth’s obliquity, and refers several times to the old measurements; therefore he would have known about the work of G F Dodwell http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1964QJRAS…5…55. Yet at no time is Dodwell mentioned by Eddy. A Wittmann “obliquity of the ecliptic” http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979A%26A….73..129W was also bothered.
        The megalithic calendars record the earth’s obliquity when they were build and functional.
        Pandora’s box is overflowing.

      • “The sun’s output, according to your link, has been very stable relatively.” – mm

        That’s the point. Sunshine isn’t going to tilt the Earth by 5° every 1,500-years or so.

        Sunshine isn’t going to cause climate shifts.

        So what’s left which the Sun emits??

    • Please don’t consider new physics tidal forcing despite direct evidence:

      “But La Niña doesn’t only increase the amount of water falling from the sky. People living on the coast may notice tides are higher than predicted too.

      “In some places, water level anomalies can be up to 40 cm,” Dr Power said.

      But while 40 cm may not sound terribly deep, these super-elevated water levels can be problematic, she added, “especially if a higher-than-expected tide … coincides with a storm”.

      https://amp.abc.net.au/article/12926816

      Take a look at the empirical evidence of tidal level increase against prediction for Sydney Harbour. Not worth considering new physics, despite 40 years of crisis in the subject?

  34. Pingback: Kein Feuerholz: Große Bäume nehmen das meiste CO2 auf | | Climate- Science.press

  35. Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6

    snippet: If there are such large potential biases in estimating model
    uncertainty and internal variability, why are the results for SMILEs and CMIP5 overall still so similar (see Figs. 1 and 2)? Despite the imperfect separation of internal variability and forced response in HS09, the central estimate of variance across models is affected less if a large enough number of models is used (here, 28 from CMIP5). A sufficient number of models can partly compensate for the biased estimate of the forced response in any given model and – consistent with the central limit theorem – overall still results in a robust estimate of model uncertainty.

    fwiw, CLT assumes models are randomly sampled from the same population, that they have at least the same mean and variance and are independent. Uncertainty in the projections is large, but the uncertainty in the mean of projections is smaller. But if the models are biased, then the mean projection is almost certainly biased, along with its lower uncertainty.

  36. Compact nuclear fusion reactor is very likely to work, studies suggest.

    I like the suggestion, but won’t hold my breath.

    • Fission reactors are controllable because of delayed neutron precursers that increase the neutron generation lifetime to a manageable time. There is no similar naturally available control mechanism for fusion that I know of. I am skeptical that commercially useful fusion generation will happen in my life time…unfortunately.

    • Anyone interested in nuclear energy ought to check out this interview with the very knowledgeable Rod Adams on energy podcasting’s best kept secret, The Power Hungry Podcast:

  37. Dear Judith,
    the paper “Decadal and multidecadal natural variability in European temperature” unfortunately hides behind a paywall and the highlight:
    – Direct solar correlations are regionally-seasonally restricted; greatest solar impact through interaction with NAO and AMO.

    does not give the solar activity full credit..
    I cannot access it right now, but when I looked at the paper, I believe figure 6 showed a good correlation (above 0.4!?) for one month (September!?) in one European country (Portugal!?) between temperature and the solar activity over a 100year period and about 1.5°C changes (absolutely dominating any other influence on the temperature in this small part of the world for that month).

    If this could be confirmed, it is a truly amazing result and Herschel was on the right track 300years ago!

    • The key idea is:

      “Previous studies have suggested a significant solar influence on the AMO and NAO. It is likely that the greatest impact of solar activity on European temperatures is of a non-linear, indirect nature by way of interaction with Atlantic cycles.”

      • I do not think you looked at the figure 6 I mentioned which is about something else..
        You seem to quote a snippet from the abstract, please read the whole paper before commenting on it.
        Otherwise you are just wasting everybody’s time.

      • So you do NOT agree with my statement of figure 6!?
        “the correlation shown in that figure disappears if one looks at the solar flux or just globally?”
        If so, can you elaborate why? It seems obvious to me, even the author seems to say it.

        This is quite important, because if my statement is true, all your posts seem quite a bit off.

        The paper discusses different things, but this figure shows a clear long term correlation between a local temperature and the solar activity.
        It is a good start, because it is straightforward and simple.

        Once we can agree that there is a direct temperature/solar activity correlation over 100 years we might move on to your mixture of different effects as your posts ranges from Quantum states to solar fluxes, you literally mix up all length scales affecting our lives in your posts completely unrelated to that figure 6.
        To me it seems way better to focus on this easy and clear correlation between the solar activity and the 100 year September temperature in the UK first, once we discussed all we can here, I am happy to move on.

    • Well – I tried to steer you into a more fruitful direction in seeking a connection between the sun and climate. Nevermind.

    • Emphasis mine. This was apparent in the ‘snippet’ from the abstract I originally quoted. But I see you are looking for a more direct solar effect by tunneling in on Fig 6 and won’t settle for anything else. This is called confirmation bias.

      “European monthly temperatures undergo strong fluctuations from one yearby to the other. The variability is controlled by natural processes such as Atlantic cycles, changes in solar activity, volcanic eruptions as well as anthropogenic factors. This contribution investigated the role of key natural drivers for European temperature variability, namely the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and solar activity changes. We calculated Pearson correlation coefficients r for AMO, NAO and sunspots compared to monthly temperature data of 39 European countries for the period 1901–2015 in order to search for ‘fingerprints’ of the natural drivers. A cross correlation window of 11 months was chosen for AMO, NAO and of 120 months for SILSO to account for possible time lags or phase shifts. The r coefficients were mapped out across Europe on a monthly basis to document regional and seasonal changes of the correlation strength. The NAO dominates European temperature variability during the winter months, with strongest correlation in February. The AMO modulates temperatures in March to November, with best correlations occurring in summer, but also in April. Regions of strongest AMO and NAO impacts shift across the continent from month to month, forming systematic patterns. Direct correlation of the solar 11-year Schwabe cycle with temperature was identified only in some countries in certain multidecadal intervals during February, March, June and September. As previous studies suggest a significant solar influence on AMO and NAO, it is likely that the greatest impact of solar activity changes on European temperatures is of non-linear, indirect nature by way of interaction with Atlantic climate cycles. Many temperature time series compared to AMO, NAO and sunspots show developments that may represent nonlinear interference patterns, phase shifts and frequency changes which warrant further study.”

  38. It is not an observation – it an equation tuned with a ‘new physical law’ to give the required number. You really have to wonder about ideas that require a new physics.

    • It is a mistake to average the incoming solar flux over the entire planet surface.

      http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The global mean is not determined by averaging incoming solar, so where’s the mistake?

      • It is also incorrect to confuse solar flux with solar activity, which the figure 6 I mentioned is about.

      • Bob, I was referring to the above “Global Energy Flows” diagram posted by Robert.

        There is said “Incoming Solar Radiation 341,3 W/m²”
        It is the Solar flux (Solar Constant So) on the top of the atmosphere TOA averaged over the entire planet surface.

        1,365 W/m2 /4 = 341,25 W/m² = So

        And it is a mistake to average the incoming solar flux over the entire planet surface.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • It is based on observed values aggregated to illustrate the global
        energy budget at TOA..

        d(heat&work)/dt = energy in – energy out

        Atmospheric dynamics are based on spectroscopic observations since the 1940’s and US radar experiments.

      • Christos –
        “And it is a mistake to average the incoming solar flux over the entire planet surface.”

        And my question was,
        “The global mean is not determined by averaging incoming solar, so where’s the mistake?”

      • Bob:
        And my question was,
        “The global mean is not determined by averaging incoming solar, so where’s the mistake?”

        It is based on observed values aggregated to illustrate the global
        energy budget at TOA..

        d(heat&work)/dt = energy in – energy out

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Please be precise, what is not an observation, the measured temperature of Portugal in September or the number of sun spots representing the solar activity? I think you are mistaken for either, since these seem vey much observations.. Or are you talking about something else?

      • That was a reply to Christos’ comment now disappeared. It was repeated many times too often obviously.

        You are on thin ice with me too – regardless of the observed temperature in Portugal in September.

      • More Bohr’s model of the atom and quantum mechanics than blackbodies.

        “The electron travels in circular orbits around the nucleus. The orbits have quantized sizes and energies. Energy is emitted from the atom when the electron jumps from one orbit to another closer to the nucleus. Shown here is the first Balmer transition, in which an electron jumps from orbit n = 3 to orbit n = 2, producing a photon of red light with an energy of 1.89 eV and a wavelength of 656 nanometres.”

        It gets spooky when you have two photons emitted that travel to the opposite ends of the universe. They are quantum entangled. Change the spin of one and the spin of the other changes instantly no matter how far apart. This is the basis for subspace communication. Information is conserved and it is how the universe knows when to push and when to suck.

      • The forcing concept is a lot artificial. What matters is the energy imbalance at top of atmosphere (TOA) where all energy is electromagnetic.

        d(work&heat)/dt = energy in – energy out

        The energy imbalance (negative or positive) accumulates mostly in oceans and the world warms or cools. This is the most fundamental fact of climate science.

    • Incoming solar is the simplest of all. At any time the Earth is receiving about a 341 W/m2 power flux.

      • Curious George

        It varies by 6.6% between January 3 (maximum) and July 4 (minimum).

      • Robert:
        “Incoming solar is the simplest of all. At any time the Earth is receiving about a 341 W/m²
        power flux.”

        Robert, you posted a very good illustration. It shows what exactly happens when solar rays hitting Earth’s spherical surface.

        Flux = 1,367 W/m²
        Cross-section area = π*R²
        Surface area = 4*π*R²

        The solar flux cannot be averaged over the entire planet surface.

        A simple example everyone has experienced. When sitting in the sun only the solar lit side of the body gets sunburned, not the other side.

        When you rotate, you do not get burned because you are exposed less time to the solar flux of 1,367 W/m², not because you get a lesser solar flux of 341 W/m².

        No matter what the solar lit side gets 1,367 W/m²
        and the dark side gets 0 W/m²
        And it is a mistake to average the incoming solar flux over the entire planet surface.

        Earth’s sunlit side interacts with the 1,367 W/m² and responses to that amount of solar energy of the 1,367 W/m²with an adequate reflection and emission on the every sunlit spot.
        None of this happen on the Earth’s dark side
        The Earth’s dark side doesn’t interact with the incoming solar rays.

        It is a mistake to average the incoming solar flux over the entire planet surface. And it is a major mistake with great misleading scientific consequences.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • You will find that the average insolation on the sunlit side is some 682 W/m2. Although that changes over a year. This is shown averaged over the entire planet – just to make things simple for the rest of us.

        Fascinating aye? Then it gets dark and cools. Happens on a daily basis.

      • Robert:
        “This is shown averaged over the entire planet – just to make things simple for the rest of us.”

        Exactly.
        It is a mistake “just to make things simple” to average the incoming solar flux over the entire planet surface. And it is a major mistake with great misleading scientific consequences.
        The first misleading consequence is the planet surface effective temperature concept.

        Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]¹∕ ⁴
        It has the S / 4 term
        which leads to all the wrong average planet surface temperature calculations Te.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Maybe I should have said simple and consistent? A convention that ignores the fact that we have day and night on a rotating planet. How could they get it so wrong?

      • I guess they consider a planet as a blackbody.
        Blackbody absorbs uniformly and emits uniformly…

        But the real planet doesn’t. The real planet on every infinitesimal spot reflects, emits and accumulates energy according to the angle of incidence, the rotational speed and the spot’s specific heat.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • OMG. How could they confuse Planck’s theoretical blackbody with a real planet whose changin energy content only depends on energy in and energy out. Maybe it means that the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong. Energy is created and destroyed. Wow.

      • Robert,
        “Maybe it means that the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong. Energy is created and destroyed.”

        I don’t understand what do you mean.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos Vournas

        Robert,
        I’ll be back in about 10 hours.
        Christos

      • “Atomic clocks show that a modern-day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago.” Wikipedia

        Energy = power flux x time – that doesn’t change – day follows night on a rotating planet – whether the day is 1.7 milliseconds longer or not. The modern planet has less kinetic energy than it had 100 years ago. Where did that energy come from and where did it go? It came from the big bang. and will disappear in a big crunch – maybe. In the meantime – E = mc^^2 if you can believe Einstein. So the planet has less mass than it did 100 years ago. Where did that mass go? The ubiquitous cosmic background radiation that when contracted back to mass pushes the universe apart at an increasing rate. QED

      • To continue with the Global Energy Flow diagram.

        Also they consider the greenhouse gasses as a blackbody.

        Global Energy Flow W/m²
        Surface radiation 396
        Absorbed by atmosphere 374
        Emitted by atmosphere 187
        Atmospheric window 22
        Downwelling radiation (Absorbed by surface) 333

        What I don’t see in the above Global Energy Flow diagram is some of the surface’s IR radiation fraction reflected by the greenhouse gasses in downward direction.

        Blackbody doesn’t reflect any of the incident on its surface radiation. The same do the greenhouse gasses in the Global Energy Flow diagram.
        They consider greenhouse gasses acting as a blackbody.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • In the right place… More Bohr’s model of the atom and quantum mechanics than blackbodies.

        “The electron travels in circular orbits around the nucleus. The orbits have quantized sizes and energies. Energy is emitted from the atom when the electron jumps from one orbit to another closer to the nucleus. Shown here is the first Balmer transition, in which an electron jumps from orbit n = 3 to orbit n = 2, producing a photon of red light with an energy of 1.89 eV and a wavelength of 656 nanometres.”

        It gets spooky when you have two photons emitted that travel to the opposite ends of the universe. They are quantum entangled. Change the spin of one and the spin of the other changes instantly no matter how far apart. This is the basis for subspace communication. Information is conserved and it is how the universe knows when to push and when to suck.

      • Robert,
        “It is not an observation – it an equation tuned with a ‘new physical law’ to give the required number.”

        Why, Robert, I didn’t tuned the mean planet mean surface temperature equation.

        Why, isn’t it wonderful to become able to theoretically calculate with its almost precisely matching results to the actual planets mean surface temperatures measured by satellites?

        Well, there should have been a solution-equation to that task.

        The planet blackbody effective temperature was the prodrome idea of that – to being able to have the planet mean surface temperature calculated.

        Now that we have this equation why not use it for planets mean surface temperatures estimation, instead of trying to debunk it.

        Notice: There should be one equation capable to theoretically calculate planets mean surface temperatures.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Quantum mechanics is the mechanism for the greenhouse effect. But there is also a variable albedo. And we are not interested in ‘mean temperature’ – but in temperature change. Mostly in the oceans as the great climate stabiliser – – but the atmosphere follows. We have both measurement and equations.

      • Robert,
        “…we are not interested in ‘mean temperature’ – but in temperature change. Mostly in the oceans as the great climate stabiliser – – but the atmosphere follows. We have both measurement and equations.”

        Robert, since you have “both measurement and equations” can you please estimate the Earth’s Atmosphere Greenhouse forcing on the Earth’s surface?

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ok, you said the Earth’s atmosphere Greenhouse forcing is

        330 W/m²

        Now, could you please tell me what is the estimated forcing from the doubling carbon dioxide content to 800 ppm in Earth’s atmosphere would be?

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Robert, please tell me what is the estimated forcing from the doubling carbon dioxide content to 800 ppm in Earth’s atmosphere would be? It is very important.

        http://www-cristos-vournas.com

      • This thread is getting far too long. Hope this reply is in the right place now.

        The forcing concept is a lot artificial. What matters is the energy imbalance at top of atmosphere (TOA) where all energy is electromagnetic.

        d(work&heat)/dt = energy in – energy out

        The energy imbalance (negative or positive) accumulates mostly in oceans and the world warms or cools. This is the most fundamental fact of climate science.

    • Wow.. so many posts with models and simplifications .. not one of them actually taking into account what the paper is showing with measured data!

      I found it and and looked it up it was the UK not Portugal, where the September temperature values change by more than 1.5K over the years and correlate very well with the sun spot numbers over a 100 year period.

      None of these posts addresses this in the slightest (other than solar flux is not activity and this correlation clearly demonstrates that it is incorrect to average globally and over times longer than a month when it come to solar effects)

      Can we agree that the correlation shown in that figure disappears if one looks at the solar flux or just globally?
      (which dismisses about all posts in this thread so far as irrelevant)

      • From memory – that paper suggested that solar effects modulate the NAO/AO and NH climate. That it is better to look there than at than at direct correlation of the sun with climate in various seasons and places across the NH. This is known as indirect solar influences on climate. Possibly as UV and ozone, solar winds and polar surface pressure or magnetic field interactions with the global electrical circuit. And globally rather than just the NAO/AO and the NH.

        But there are no models as such discussed. A little leg pulling that’s all.

      • I think I found a way to link to that figure directly:

        And th question remains: What is meaning for the rest of the world at other months considering this one country shows a 2°C temperature change over 100yers with a very good correlation with the solar activity. I dont think the answer can be “it´s not there, because it is masked by other effects”

  39. Beyond Kuhn and Feyerabend

    An enjoyable read.

    snippet:However, as the principal fallibility of science was established already in the third phase, in the fourth phase we are left empty-handed: all we can say about scientific knowledge is that it is fallible. This is, of course, extremely dissatisfying because science appears to be special in comparison to all knowledge-gathering enterprises, and this special status should be spelled out by philosophy of science.

    I think the author ignores the aspect of science that is most prominent in applications: scientific methods produce the most reliable claims of knowledge. The conclusions of Lise Meitner’s calculations based on empirical results of Hahn were tested in Fermi’s reactor and shown to be reliable. By contrast, claims of net power production in low-temperature fusion have not been shown to be reliable — there are only what might be called tantalizing tidbits, but nothing operating on power from such a device.

  40. New study finds the modulation of cloud cover that drives decadal- and century-scale climate changes is thought to be either driven by internal variability or (more likely) by interplanetary factors operating within a 60-year cycle.

    snippet: Since meteorite falls are the most macroscopic aspect of infalling space dust, we conclude that the interplanetary dust should modulate the formation of the clouds and, thus, drive climate changes.

  41. from Koutsoyannis: While both causality directions exist, the results of our study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2. Changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale.

    That’s a surprise.

  42. Earth climate is a coupled ocean and atmosphere fluid flow problem. Energy comes the sun, is dissipated through turbulent winds and currents and is radiated back to space.

    This is a near real time simulation of winds at the 250 hPa level over Antarctica – superimposed on surface pressure. The Antarctic polar annular mode involves shifts of air mass north and south. It is a major source of southern hemisphere climate variability – and there is a northern hemisphere version. The winds in the polar annular mode are currently intense and close to the pole. There are feedbacks in ocean currents, upwelling, cloud, ice, water vapor and biology that are fast and dynamic and modulate planetary energetics through albedo and emissivity changes. .

    https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-217.32,-84.45,254

    It is a fluid flow problem that Newton would would recognise – but one that will require quantum computing to solve.

    Chaos emerges spontaneously from turbulent flow. Perturb the flow a little and the flow patterns shift changing fundamental climate drivers – the Gulf Stream, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, the Humboldt Current, etc. That goes back to energy. Perturbations are changes in atmospheric composition, orbital factors and solar intensity. It could be as subtle as solar winds, the global electrical circuit or ultraviolet. Slow changes in these trigger fast changes in flow patterns.

    ‘Hints that the climate system could change abruptly came unexpectedly from fields far from traditional climatology. In the late 1950s, a group in Chicago carried out tabletop “dishpan” experiments using a rotating fluid to simulate the circulation of the atmosphere. They found that a circulation pattern could flip between distinct modes.’ https://history.aip.org/climate/rapid.htm

    It is chaos because the observed behaviour of the Earth system is similar to that of a broad class of complex dynamical systems. It is the behaviour of the systems that sets them apart.

  43. “The year 2021 will see the kick-off of the United Nations Decade on Ecosystem Restoration — a culmination of growing global attention, agreements, and ambitions for restoration and improved land management…

    Total restoration commitments cover close to 1 billion hectares, almost half of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa…” https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/goals-and-commitments-for-the-restoration-decade

    “If implemented, the commitments made under various international agreements could go a long way to addressing climate change, land degradation and biodiversity loss as well as achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, including those on dignified work, and food and water security.” https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/countries-commit-restore-global-land-area-size-china?_ga=2.183778022.157776324.1606717592-1307060789.1606717592

    “Carnivorous plants are a unique and fascinating group that have captivated scientists and the public, as well as inspired writers and film makers, for well over a hundred years. During his seminal 1875 work Insectivorous Plants, while studying one of the sticky-leaved Sundews (Drosera), British naturalist Charles Darwin once famously and not at all exaggeratedly wrote “I care more about Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world”. ” https://mbgecologicalrestoration.wordpress.com/category/australia/

    “Ecological restoration is practiced worldwide as a direct response to the degradation and destruction of ecosystems. In addition to its ecological impact it has enormous potential to improve population health, socioeconomic well-being, and the integrity of diverse national and ethnic cultures. In recognition of the critical role of restoration in ecosystem health, the United Nations (UN) declared 2021–2030 as the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. We propose six practical strategies to strengthen the effectiveness and amplify the work of ecological restoration to meet the aspirations of the Decade: (1) incorporate holistic actions, including working at effective scale; (2) include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK); (3) collaborate with allied movements and organizations; 4) advance and apply soil microbiome science and technology; (5) provide training and capacity-building opportunities for communities and practitioners; and (6) study and show the relationships between ecosystem health and human health. We offer these in the hope of identifying possible leverage points and pathways for collaborative action among interdisciplinary groups already committed
    to act and support the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Collectively, these six strategies work synergistically to improve human health and also the health of the ecosystems on which we all depend, and can be the basis for a global restorative culture.” https://ecohealthglobal.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/JAal-2020-World-of-Possibilities-RE.pdf

    “Blue carbon describes organic carbon stored in marine ecosystems. Mangroves, saltmarshes and seagrasses are important ecosystems containing blue carbon, as they capture carbon in their soils and vegetation. They also contribute to a wide range of other ecosystem services, such as habitat for fisheries and biodiversity, protection from floods and extreme storm events, and improvement of water quality.” https://science.uq.edu.au/event/session/5175

    • Curious George

      “Total restoration commitments cover close to 1 billion hectares, almost half of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa.”
      800 ppm of CO2 might do the trick ;-)

    • Sherrington of course has lapsed into his habitual cancel culture complaints. He has done this in the same terms on many occasions over the years. He is a self appointed hall monitor and I suggest that he is not needed and really needs to step down. Judith is quite capable of deleting comments. A quite innocuous one today that may have struck her as too much repetition and too little relevant analysis. I rewrote it.

      In all humility I have to say that many people like my comments. Geoff might surely argue any of them – and has tried lamely on the very odd occasion. There are some responses to individual papers linked above – it is obvious in context that I have read them. There are a number of new studies and documents that I bring to the table in the spirit of week in review – that I copy interesting tidbits from them is not selective quoting. I liked the Darwin Drosera quote for instance. Elsewhere – I discuss in detail the origins of chaos in the Earth system, food security, numerical modelling, ecological restoration in the decade of restoration that starts in the new year, the CO2 molecule and quantum mechanics and momentum in the South Pacific gyre.

      I would be be happy to discuss any comment in depth – although that is not something that Geoff aspires to. More hand waving dismissal of science in general, an undemonstrated assumption of moral and intellectual superiority and disdain for the other that he condemns to stereotypes. Thus we come full circle to groupthink, cognitive dissonance.
      and cancel culture.

    • Geoff,

      “You seem to have lapsed into your previous unwanted mode of bombarding Dr Curry’s blog with comment after comment. ”

      Only 30% of the comments on this thread so far

      And most contain pejoratives, ad hominems, insults, snarks, abuse, misrepresent, and diversions.

    • And most contain pejoratives, ad hominems, insults, snarks, abuse, misrepresent, and diversions.

      There is nothing of the sort. This is gaslighting.

  44. Michael Shellenberger post on Forbes

    How To Leave Our Children A Better World

    “It is conventional wisdom that we are leaving our children a natural environment that is in far worse shape than the one we inherited from our parents. A new study even finds that many young people may not have children for fear of climate change.

    But on most environmental metrics things are getting better not worse.

    Below is my latest for Forbes — please share!

    Michael ”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2020/11/30/how-to-leave-our-children-a-better-world-than-the-one-we-inherited/

    “The greatest threat to these trends come from organizations that most raise the alarm about climate change and other environmental problems. NGOs like Greenpeace and Sierra Club have persuaded the World Bank and others to stop financing efficient farming and cheap and reliable electricity in poor and developing nations and instead fund unreliable, land-intensive, and expensive renewables.”

    “How can we leave our children a better world than the one we inherited? A good start would be to help them understand how we all came to believe the environment was getting worse when in reality it’s gotten so much better.”

    • It doesn’t seem a useful or fruitful discussion. Our cities are no longer getting submerged in horse dung? And the real problem is greenies?

      There are a different set of problems. Including food and water security with a still growing population and degrading environments. The reduction of populations of 1000’s of charismatic wildlife species – the ones someone likes and we therefore know of – have declined by 60% since the 1970’s. It is mostly habitat loss and over exploitation. We ae holding the line in the west – but that’s because many of our losses happened prior to 1970.

      In many parts of the world it may be more accurate to speak about gardens rather than farming. These gardens can be far more productive per hectare than industrial farming with its expensive inputs and are essential for survival for billions. As well – there are common pool natural resources that are shared and exploited – sometimes over exploited. That goes for the west too of course. It is best managed locally and cooperatively and that’s a different discussion entirely.

      Increasing agricultural productivity is more about managing water and carbon in living soils. Plants supply carbohydrates to soil organisms and soil organisms create an environment in which nutrients are released from parent rock material – all they need is water, carbon dioxide and sunlight. As much in Australia:

      As Africa:

  45. In order to dispel the myth of manmade global warming the current sunspot cycles need to be predicted with accuracy. Historically, connections were made with climate change and disturbances on the surface of the Sun. The mechanism of such a correlation was never achieved. The solar energy output didn’t appear to vary by nearly enough to create climate shifts on Earth.

    The geomagnetic field was even found to vary in accordance with sunspot cycles. These magnetic fields are generated from the Earth’s core. This is a clue to a new mechanism that was missed during the mid 20th century.

    A new physics solution may sound science fiction but it really isn’t. Einstein’s gravity theory is out of date because it doesn’t dovetail with quantum mechanics. A strong gravitational interaction between the core of the Sun and the cores of the planets when they are on the same orbital plane is a good solution.

    Past climate change can be explained by increased solid body Earth tides. The oceans are pushed from beneath. Warm equatorial waters are pushed to higher latitudes, increasing precipitation which falls as snow in the polar regions. This is the basis of the glacial/interglacial cycle on the 100kyr orbital inclination cycle.

    Here is a history of the greenhouse gas ideology of global warming. Read it with the perspective of a new gravity hypothesis and everything changes:

    https://history.aip.org/climate/solar.htm

    • The orbit of Jupiter is 12 years. The orbital inclination is 1.31° relative to Earth’s orbit.

      The ~11-year sunspot cycle can be attributed to the inclination cycle of the mighty Jupiter. (The orbital inclination relative to the plane of angular momentum of the solar system needs to be deduced).

      The orbit of Saturn is 29 years. The orbital inclination is 2.48° relative to Earth’s orbit. Unlike Jupiter, Saturn has a rotational axis tilt of 26.7°, which is relevant to the strong gravitational interaction on the plane of rotation.

      The next sunspot cycle is a quasi 88-years. Saturn appears to be a contender..

      • Let’s remind ourselves that Earth’s inclination orbit is a better fit to the glacial data than eccentricity:

        https://muller.lbl.gov/papers/nature.html

        All that is missing is the stronger gravitational interaction when on the same orbital plane.

      • The Sun’s mystery axial tilt of 6° would be due to it’s strong gravitational interaction with nearby stars in the galactic arm of the Milky Way, which undulates as it rotates around the galactic centre.

        “KB: The Sun’s rotation was measured for the first time in 1850 and something that was recognized right away as that its spin axis, its north pole, is tilted with respect to the rest of the planets by 6 degrees. So even though 6 degrees isn’t much, it is a big number compared to the mutual planet-planet misalignments. So the Sun is basically an outlier within the solar system. This is a long-standing issue and one that is recognized but people don’t really talk much about it. Everything in the solar system rotates roughly on the same plane except for the most massive object, the Sun which is kind of a big deal.”

        https://astronomy.com/news/2016/10/planet-nine-tilting-the-sun

        This is very relevant..

      • Venus is a good contender with an axial tilt of just 3° and an orbit of 225 years.

        Let’s remind ourselves that both Jupiter and Venus are implicated in the 405,000-year climate cycle, the greatest glacial cycle of Earth:

        https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/07/milankovitch-cycles-deep-time/

      • Mercury has an axial tilt of just 2° and an orbit of just 88 days. It has a relatively high orbital inclination of 7°.

        Is Mercury too small to influence sunspots or is it’s strong gravitational interaction hidden in the data?

      • Let’s remind ourselves of sunspot variation with latitude:

        “Along with the number of sunspots, the location of sunspots varies throughout the sunspot cycle. At solar min, sunspots tend to form around latitudes of 30° to 45° North and South of the Sun’s equator. As the solar cycle progresses through solar max, sunspots tend to appear closer to the equator, around a latitude of 15°. Towards the end of a cycle, with solar min once again approaching, sunspots form quite close to the solar equator, around 7° North and South latitude.”

        https://scied.ucar.edu/sunspot-cycle

      • So axial tilt as a primary factor is working well as a rule of thumb.

        ~7° latitude at solar min 》Mercury
        ~11-year cycle 》Jupiter
        ~88-year Gleissberg cycle 》??
        ~200-year cycle 》Venus

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunspot-cycle-is-more-intricate-than-previously-thought/

        The Gleissberg cycle would be attributable to Planet 9, as yet undetected large body with very slight axial tilt.

        Wow.

      • Wow. Planet Nine is a *good* fit:

        “But it is hard to account for why the sun’s spin is aligned the way it is relative to the planets. Two teams of astronomers have just announced a new explanation: a hypothetical massive planet in the outer solar system could be interfering with all the other planets’ orbits.”

        https://www.newscientist.com/article/2098029-planet-nine-may-have-tilted-entire-solar-system-except-the-sun/

      • They’re looking for planet nine in the wrong place. It needn’t have a high orbital inclination – it’s hidden in the Kuiper Belt!

        “Because we think Planet Nine has a significant inclination, if it exists, then that means it would tilt things,” Bailey says, and by the just right amount. “It’s one puzzle piece that seems to fit together, and it really seems to be in support of the Planet Nine hypothesis.”

        The planet would have between 5 and 20 times Earth’s mass and be in a wildly eccentric orbit, reaching 250 times the sun-Earth distance at its farthest point. That elongated trajectory has led some to suggest that it was once an exoplanet and was kidnapped by the sun.”

      • I’ve just emailed Malena Rice currently searching for Planet Nine using a new technique:

        Hello Malena and thank you for your excellent work. I’ve just read about you in this article – 

        https://www.inverse.com/science/planet-9-lurking-in-space.. and was delighted that you have a new search technique.

        I’m convinced Planet Nine is hidden in the Kuiper Belt with a low orbital inclination & eccentricity and ~88-year orbit. I’ve just deduced this from applying low planetary tilt angle to sunspot cycles. It’s a good fit with Mercury, Jupiter & Venus. There’s a gap of the Gleissberg cycle which I attribute to the mystery Planet Nine!

        I’ve assumed a strong gravitational interaction between planetary cores and the Sun’s core when on the same orbital plane with low axial tilt. Planet Nine needn’t be responsible for the Sun’s 6° tilt because this would be due to other neighbouring stars in the arm of the Milky Way.

        My workings can be seen in the comments of the latest article in Dr. Judith Curry’s online site Climate Etc. 

      • There’s even a chance that Planet Nine could be in a 4:1 orbital resonance with Earth, giving it a period of 91.314 years.

      • Oops, the previous statement didn’t make sense. More likely in resonance with Neptune at 1:2 making 82.5 years..

      • Planet Nine likely to be found in 10 years. That’s very exciting because it allows me to make a good prediction linking it to the Gleissberg ~88 year sunspot cycle:

        https://www.space.com/planet-nine-easier-find-than-thought.html

      • I’m so confident that a fifth large planet will be found with an orbital period of 82.5 years and very low axial tilt & inclination/eccentricity that if the prediction comes true I propose the name in tradition of Roman gods as

        planet ☆Genius☆

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genius_(mythology)

        It relates to the idea of an individual person having a kind of guardian angel..

        “The Christian theologian Augustine equated the Christian “soul” with the Roman Genius, citing Varroas attributing the rational powers and abilities of every human being to their genius.”

      • Mercury’s 2° tilt would imply that it too affects the Sun’s inner core, which implies a tidal effect upon the Earth’s core:

        Is there an 88 *day* cycle hidden in Earth’s climate data??

        Is it hidden in the tidal data??

      • A second type of fusion has been detected taking place at the Sun’s core, hinting of an extra energy source as if it were a bigger star:

        “According to theory, the dominant form of fusion in the Sun should be the fusion of protons that produces helium from hydrogen. Known as the pp-chain, it is the easiest reaction for stars to create. For larger stars with hotter and more dense cores, a more powerful reaction..”

        https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/amp34826097/sun-second-fusion-neutrinos/

    • Space-time curvature – perfectly well behaved otherwise – is infinite at the singularity of a black hole. Naughty general relativity.

  46. The big media story in climate change these days appears to be ozone

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/11/30/the-unep-healed-the-ozone-hole/

  47. No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years??? Reminds me of…

    TarmacGate — There has been no global warming in France over the last 70 years except during the winter, at French airports, where official thermometers are located and also where and when the snow is continually cleared so jets can take off. The same corruption has been discovered in Alaska and Russia where official thermometers were located. The motives underlying this method of positively skewing the data also explains why the temperature record of the White Mountains (where there has been no global warming for 100 years) and the temperatures at the coldest places on Earth are all just simply ignored. New Zealand has no temperature record because the official temperature was arrived at through a purposeful manipulation of the raw data without documenting the slightest justification for any of the adjustments made and then simply destroying the raw data altogether. The raw data for the temperatures at an official station in the Antarctic was corrupted by simply removing minus signs from negative numbers, introducing a warming bias where no warming exists.

    Moreover, we know there has been no net global warming on Earth over the last 10,000 years (see e.g., Easterbrook Graph… a 10,000 year cooling trend).

    • We may find that error bars in earlier hydrographic data are too broad – and the array data too short – to be conclusive. This study provides an interesting analysis of ocean circulation in relation to Atlantic indices. A Sverdrup (Sv) is of course transport of a million cubic metres per second of water.


      “Figure 3 The total AMOC at 10-day resolution (a) can be decomposed into a seasonal cycle (b), interannual variability (c) and a residual (d). The interannual component is obtained by filtering the data with a 540-day low-pass filter after removal of the mean seasonal cycle. In panel (b), the dotted lines show the annual cycle ± 1 standard error, and the dotted lines in panel (d) are ±1.5 Sv the estimated error of 10-day binned data.”
      https://os.copernicus.org/articles/16/863/2020/#&gid=1&pid=1

  48. There is a psychological aberration indistinguishable from groupthink and cognitive dissonance that results in extreme misinformation from both sides of an obsessional and circular climate debate. The noise and confusion of the same points repeated endlessly derails rational policy development. Cutting through to simplicity and clarity requires getting the big picture about right and moving forward – e.g. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biaa115/5936130.

    We are beyond the planetary limits of nitrogen and phosphorus in waterways and on coasts – blue green algae continues to bloom and ocean anoxic zones expand exponentially, oceans are full of plastics, the air with photochemical smog, carbon particulates, sulfate and mercury, the populations of 10,000 charismatic species have crashed by 60% since the 1970’s – these are the species we know of – we are on the brink of an extinction crisis – we continue to change the composition of the atmosphere transforming ecologies from the Arctic to the Australian desert – with little idea of how the nonlinear Earth system will respond over the course of the century. Ever more people at the margins increase the impacts of massive natural disasters. Mitigation of greenhouse gases and climate adaptation reduces the risk from future inevitable surprises.

    I may tweak it but not sweat the details – this is now my go to big picture. It is about right. There are solutions – precision farming and water sensitive cities are just two. The latter – as an award winning designer of integrated urban water cycle systems = I have been working on for decades.


    These things and much more are affordable in developed economies with access to innovative and safe 21st century nuclear energy technology. The keys are massive investment in water management and land restoration and conservation over the upcoming ‘decade of restoration’. And in rapid small modular reactor deployment.

    • I found your posted links to GA’s EM2 reactor to be very informative and interesting. Thank you. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one of the main features of the design is the utilization of spent fuel inventories. You site plastic waste in the oceans. I’m curious as to how you would eliminate/reduce this? Much like the EMA reactor, would you be in favor of ‘burning’ plastic and other fuel from trash to produce electricity and reduce waste?

      • Light water reactors use 1/2% of the energy in nuclear fuel. The EM2 concept is to recycle used fuel multiple times through burn cycles. At each cycle some lighter fission products are removed with a ‘modified AIROX process and replaced with fertile material. Fission products decay to background radiation levels in a couple of hundred years.



        Waste to electricity or better waste to fuel seem practical solutions.

        https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/should-we-burn-plastic-waste/

      • Thanks for your response. The NatGeo article wanted my email address to read it, which I sometimes bristle at giving. Yes, I am getting old. But, no worries. Dr. Curry has posted a link about Covanta’s use of waste to energy. As a young man I worked on a project to take methane from sewage plant digesters to burn in generators for the plant and the grid. I’m somewhat familiar with different projects/attempts. The waste to energy projects seem like they would have a major role in any system that strives for efficient use of resources and reduced impact to the environment, while at the same time allowing for less drastic social changes, particularly in short periods. And the kicker is it’s quite cost effective. While there are emissions, they could be mitigated as the method generates (pun intended) funds, and the net ecological affect is extremely positive. I’m just amazed there isn’t more effort towards this. Again, thanks for your time.

      • Snap. I have sometimes described myself as an old sewer engineer. Always in the sh!t only the depth varies as we say. But that is too easy a target for gaslighters (pun intended). I’m an environmental scientist with a civil engineering undergraduate degree. But I have certainly hung about around, in and on digesters. They are a great solution to methane emissions from landfill, piggeries, paper mills, etc. – and are cheap power.

      • LOL!!! Well, we have some things in common. I was an electrician who spent years eating my lunch around places like digesters, final settling tanks, aeration tanks … places other people wouldn’t even want to breath. You’re no doubt familiar, and would have enjoyed, a project I was on in 1980 where we introduced centrifuges for additional dewatering. One of the results, of course, was increased methane production.
        There are so many interesting ways to take small (sometimes not so small) bites out of the energy and pollution issues. Ways that are well within our grasp.

  49. “A periodicity of ~22.4 years, virtually identical to that of the Hale cycle, arises naturally from combinations of the orbital periods characterizing the system of the four giant planets (Bureau & Craine, 1970; Mörth & Schlamminger, 1978). On the basis of the correlations displayed in Figs. 1 and 5, and the many other relationships and correspondences found linking the dynamical forcing function dL/dt with solar phenomena, we conclude that the 22-year Hale cycle of the solar dynamo is most likely driven by the same solar system dynamical processes that determine the trajectory of the Sun’s orbital motion about the barycenter of the solar system.” https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Time-dependent-theory-of-solar-meridional-flows-Shirley/c18b4e0f52fcaef0755f8b35dd8a78793d9c2165

    The theory is that the evolution of the solar magneto depends on the sun’s orbit of the center of mass of the solar system. That is of course – given Poincare – chaotic and there is no strict periodicity in meridional plasma flow and sunspots. We may talk of harmonics of the 22 year ‘cycle’ in discussing longer ‘cycles’ – but that’s just a way of not knowing. The 20 to 30 hear periodicity of diverse planetary subsystems brings us down to Earth.

    Comparing cumulative NAO with the AMO might seem odd at first. It makes sense in terms of biasing the chaotic internal system to one state or another. Yes it’s is turtles all the way down.

  50. Steve Fitzpatrick

    The Koutsoyiannis paper is pure rubbish. He has not a clue about the physical processes involved, and comes up with (yet another) temperature-causes-rising CO2 nonsense paper a la Roy Spencer. I should think that since this idea has been shown to be crazy many times, Koutsoyiannis would at least be aware of earlier work. Nope. It is laughable.

    • Well, you are late. Laughable theories are now mainstream here and rubbish papers are taken very seriously by the denizens. We now live in a world where it does not matter how any times a statement has been shown to be crazy, you can still cheer it if has a nice ring in it.

    • Welcome. We have here an example of pissant progressive noise in the climate science domain. Agnotology gleaned from internet echo chambers rather than a calm and reasoned discussion of subtle, complex and uncertain science. To contrast with the other side with its mad theories of gravity forced global warming – involving the debunking of general relativity – or a new physical theory of mean surface temperature and the rate of rotation of celestial bodies. The latter replete with a new physical constant. Are these cheered on by skeptic curmudgeons or simply ignored like you would some inexplicable social faux par by a friend? Six of one half a dozen of the other I would venture.

      Dimitris Koutsoyiannis is a very fine and clever hydrologist with decades of experience and countless publications to his credit. I find with this that the problem is less hen and egg than a canonical feedback loop. There is little doubt that there is a biokinetically mediated feedback between temperature and atmospheric CO2. And it’s a little over the top if confusing an egg with a loop gets you condemned with harsh vitriol to an eternity of cancel culture.

      https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934116

      • “To contrast with the other side with its mad theories of gravity forced global warming – involving the debunking of general relativity – ” Robert

        I’ve also predicted a large planet that will soon be discovered which has a 42.5-year orbit in the outer solar system. Imagine how fantastic that would be. The Mercury, Venus & Jupiter cycles will also be detected in the solid body Earth tides allowing a new era of accurate weather forecasting. Humanity is on the shore of a new horizon of awareness.

        The Unstoppable Momentum of Outdated Science –

        “The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified.”

        https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-unstoppable-momentum-of-outdated?r=2n1fv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=twitter

      • Oops, 82.5-year orbit being in a 2:1 resonance with Neptune that has a period of 165-years.

      • Here is an absolutely superb video of the history behind the search for Planet Nine which astronomers predict will be found in the next few years:

      • ““The lesson from this experience is that science has momentum, and that momentum can be hard to change, even when obvious and significant flaws are identified.”

        This refers to greenhouse gas scenarios being too high because of restrained economic growth. I said elsewhere here that we should try a little harder for economic growth.

        As for another planet – note the resonance patterns of orbits of Pluto and outer planetoids and the resemblance to chaotic n-body simulations – or indeed to the Lorenzian state space of solutions of his set of simple nonlinear equations.

        Both economic growth and chaos are known fundamental factors in the evolution of Earth’s climate.

  51. ☆No net warming in Sweden over the last 210 years☆

    I was surprised to find that the ~210-year solar cycle is so prevalent in ancient observations and also modern paleoclimate data:

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020OAst…29…28M/abstract

    https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015CliPD..11..279L/abstract

    We are also apparently just at the beginning of another cycle:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunspot-cycle-is-more-intricate-than-previously-thought/

    Is it just a coincidence with the Swedish tree-ring data?

  52. Renewable energy subsidies have poisoned Australia’s electricity supply system
    by Alan Moran

    “I have an article in this morning’s Australian which addresses the destruction of the once low-cost reliable electricity supply industry, a destruction that has been caused by subsidies to wind and solar.

    The article draws from the “Climate and Energy Summit” last week, at which there was a cacophony from industry leaders, senior bureaucrats and ministers all declaring for ‘net zero emissions’ and that renewables are, in any case, the lowest cost sources of supply. All sought to prove this is the case by calling for the continuation and expansion of the subsidies to renewables – not one speaker pointed out the inconsistency of this.

    Subsidies through schemes that force electricity consumers and taxpayers to unwittingly pay half the cost of wind and solar remain in place. These are being supplemented by new subsidies whereby state governments contract with renewable firms for future supplies and engage in measures that subsidise the delivery of those supplies from remote locations to the customers.”

    Read the rest here: https://catallaxyfiles.com/2020/12/02/renewable-energy-subsidies-have-poisoned-australias-electricity-supply-system/

    • Peter,
      How is the SMR project doing? I was hoping you would keep up updated with weekly status reports.
      Anyway, you might find this these renewable energy forecasts useful.
      We are accelerating into a energy transition from a centralized thermal/electric to model to a distributed RE/storage model. The video included a deep analysis of the current California grid problems along with global solar/storage trends and benchmarks out to 2050.

      Check out PV Magazine for additional details.
      pv-magazine . com

  53. “Our paper goes into the technical details, but in short, an important reason for the lower-than-projected carbon dioxide emissions is that economic growth has been slower than expected across the scenarios, and rather than seeing coal use expand dramatically around the world, it has actually declined in many regions.” Roger Pielke Jr

    Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions.

    Counterintuitively – perhaps we should try a little harder?

  54. Robert,
    “…To contrast with the other side with its mad theories of gravity forced global warming – involving the debunking of general relativity – or a new physical theory of mean surface temperature and the rate of rotation of celestial bodies. The latter replete with a new physical constant… ”

    “…mean surface temperature and the rate of rotation of celestial bodies. ”

    Thank you, Robert. It is exactly what I am insisting on.
    And it is obvious now that Earth is a warmer celestial body than the neighboring Moon – Earth rotates much faster than Moon.

    “Planet Rotational Warming” is an objective truth. On a faster rotating planet surface the incident solar energy is being much better managed.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • It’s a similar idea to the heat redistribution of equatorial waters to polar regions due to increasing tidal energy.

    • Absolutely. One is based on overturning general relativity – the other invents a new physical law. Neither has any taint of the scientific method attached. Existing science is not sacred but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is none. Replaced by wild and simplistic speculation from ill trained obsessives. I just shake my head in dismay at these neo-
      Galileos.

      • Robert,
        “Existing science is not sacred but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is none. Replaced by wild and simplistic speculation from ill trained obsessives. I just shake my head in dismay at these neo-
        Galileos.”

        “Existing science is not sacred but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

        It is obvious now that Earth is a warmer celestial body than the neighboring Moon – Earth rotates much faster than Moon.
        Robert, you said that “… extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

        But it is very obvious and it is very simple. How it comes you do not see that Earth is warmer than Moon because Earth rotates faster?
        It is not any extraordinary evidence you asking for. It is a very well known fact, that Earth is warmer than Moon.
        And it is a very well known fact that Earth rotates much faster than Moon.

        “Planet Rotational Warming” is an objective truth. On a faster rotating planet surface the incident solar energy is being much better managed.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Occam suggests that the Earth is warmer than the moon because it has oceans and atmosphere.

      • “Existing science is not sacred but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is none.” – Robert

        That’s not true. Australian telescopes have detected mystery objects which defy explanation with known science:

        “It’s a tricky job, because ‘odd radio circles’ (ORCS) are very faint and difficult to find. Our team is brainstorming all these ideas and more, hoping for the eureka moment when one of us, or perhaps someone else, suddenly has the flash of inspiration that solves the puzzle.

        It’s an exciting time for us. Most astronomical research is aimed at refining our knowledge of the Universe, or testing theories. Very rarely do we get the challenge of stumbling across a new type of object which nobody has seen before, and trying to figure out what it is.”

        https://theconversation.com/amp/wtf-newly-discovered-ghostly-circles-in-the-sky-cant-be-explained-by-current-theories-and-astronomers-are-excited-142812

      • It is of course a paraphrase of Carl Sagan. Its ordinary meaning it that the wilder the claim the more definitive the evidence should be. It’s a rule of thumb. These people you refer to have discovered odd manifestation in the galaxy that they cal ‘odd radio circles’. The search is on to uncover causality. You do it the other way around. You imagine something grandiloquently wild and promise the evidence later. This is not – of course – science at all.

      • Robert,
        “Occam suggests that the Earth is warmer than the moon because it has oceans and atmosphere.”

        Robert, I checked it carefully, Occam does not suggest “that the Earth is warmer than the moon because it has oceans and atmosphere.”

        “William of Occam (1285-1347) was an English Franciscan monk and philosopher to whom is attributed the saying ‘Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate’, which translates as ‘Plurality should not be posited without necessity.’ This is a succinct statement of the principle of simplicity, or parsimony, that was first developed by Aristotle and which has today come to underlie all scientific endeavour.”

        https://www.thegwpf.com/occams-razor-null-hypothesis-global-warming/

        So it is final now that Earth is a warmer celestial body than the neighboring Moon, because Earth rotates much faster than Moon.

        “Planet Rotational Warming” is an objective truth. On a faster rotating planet surface the incident solar energy is being much better managed.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos – another angle is that Earth has a much more active core than the Moon. This generates the protective gemagnetic field which prevents the solar wind from stripping away the Earth’s atmosphere.

        The Moon previously had a much more active core and so would presumably have had a faster spin rate and atmosphere.

        It’s interesting because planet Genius aka planet nine, is predicted to have a very active core which implies a magnetic field and atmosphere. It will be an unbelievable announcement to the global community. It’s very exciting.

      • Alan, also without atmosphere it would be impossible for Earth’s surface having liquid water.
        Without atmosphere Earth’s surface wouldn’t have had oceans, without atmosphere Earth wouldn’t have had rivers or lakes.

        Without the atmospheric pressure the H₂O (water) will be able to exist only in the solid phase (water ice) and in the gaseous phase (water vapor).

        It is based on the fact that H₂O (water) without the atmospheric pressure upon its surface happens to be a very volatile substance.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Okay, thank you for that Christos.

        Note that the Moon is thought to have a solid inner core and a liquid outer core:

        “A moonquake is the lunar equivalent of an earthquake (i.e., a quake on the Moon). They were first discovered by the Apollo astronauts. The largest moonquakes are much weaker than the largest earthquakes, though their shaking can last for up to an hour, due to fewer attenuating factors to dampen seismic vibrations.”

      • Alan, thank you too.
        Christos

      • The ‘odd radio signals’ are the remnants of a dissipated ‘black hole’ imo and evidence that Einstein’s gravity theory is wrong. I emailed the Australian Professor straight away with the suggestion:


        Professor Norris, thank you for your excellent work. I’ve just read your interesting article in The Conversation about the discovery of ‘odd radio circles’.

        I’d like to make the suggestion of new physics beyond Einstein. My first guess was looking edge-on to the radio bursts of a ‘black hole’ that had since dissipated out of existence.

        Very exciting times indeed.

      • Too many of them to be black holes. My top candidate is wormholes. But a physics beyond Einstein actually requires some physics to start with. It like when Donald Trump dipped his balls in glitter. It’s pretty nuts.

      • There’s even a clue given about latitude above the strong gravitational plane of the Milky Way:

        “What we do know is that all four ORCs are found at high galactic latitudes, well away from the plane of the galaxy, the flat part containing our sun and most other Milky Way stars. And, as observed, the ORCs are about one arcminute in size (a 60th of a degree or about 3% of the size of the moon).”

        https://earthsky.org/space/astronomers-ponder-odd-radio-circles-in-space

      • Thinking about it, the high latitudes to the galactic plane suggest the ‘odd radio signals’ are a distant part of the Milky Way itself. The distance to the ORCs is a complete mystery for the mainstream. I’ll email the Professor..

      • Christos – you might be interested in the paradox of ancient Mars that is thought to have been hot enough to melt the bottom of ice sheets to create water channels yet when the Sun was a lot fainter:

        https://www.space.com/amp/mars-heat-underground-habitable-hotspots-groundwater

      • My best guess is that the ‘odd radio circles’ are the remnants of galactic centre ‘black holes’ of distant satellite galaxies that once orbited the Milky Way:

        “Just like we orbit the sun and the moon orbits us, the Milky Way has satellite galaxies with their own satellites. Drawing from data on those galactic neighbors, a new model suggests the Milky Way should have an additional 100 or so very faint satellite galaxies awaiting discovery.”

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200406140110.htm

      • “Like a bit of froth on the crest of an ocean wave, our observable universe may be nothing more than a sliver sitting within the edge of a bubble that’s constantly expanding into a higher dimension.

        While this mind-boggling idea might sound like something out of a physicist’s fever dream, it is in fact a new endeavor to reconcile the mathematics of string theory with the reality of dark energy, a mysterious, all-pervading cosmic force that acts in opposition to gravity.

        String theory is an attempt to unite the two pillars of 20th century physics — quantum mechanics and gravity — by positing that all particles are one-dimensional strings whose vibrations determine properties such as mass and charge. The theory has been described as mathematically beautiful, and for a long time has been one of the leading contenders for what scientists call a Theory of Everything, meaning a framework to explain all physics…” https://www.livescience.com/64417-universe-sits-on-extradimensional-bubble.html

        “The well-motivated introduction of the anthropic principle and the multiverse, was a big relief. The mathematical standards were lowered, and unconstrained model building could set in exploring a wild and free landscape of infinite possibilities. But beyond this suggestive connection
        between a possible multiverse and the rich mathematical structures of string theory not much solid results have been achieved. We reviewed some fraction of the mounting evidence that most, if not all of this landscape, is a swampland and we refer to [16,18,157] for similar lines of thought.” https://ulfdanielsson.com/is-string-theory-in-crisis/

        This bubbling multiverse in which cosmological constants are not constant but depend on local interactions of particles in n-dimensions – meaning that we can bury dark matter in the swamp – has elegance and charm. And the answer is of course 42.

      • Here’s some snippets of Professor Norris replying to questions:

        “Absolutely spot on! It’s weird that these are all about 1 arcmin in diameter. Why don’t we see smaller ones. It’s not for lack of trying, I assure you (just ask my PhD students who have spent hours staring at these images). We wondered if it might be a selection effect but it (tentatively) seems not, as we do see smaller objects, just not smaller ORCs. A related question is why do they (nearly) all seem circular. If they were rings, we would expect to see them side-on too, so we should see many more ellipses than circles/but we don’t. This suggest they are spherical rather than circular. But the size thing still bugs me. There’s a lot that we don’t yet understand about the ORCs.”

        “..thus placing them outside the solar system. But I can’t completely rule out within the Milky Way yet, although circumstantial evidence (e.g. 3 of the 5 known ones have distant galaxies at the centre) suggests they are.. (far away)”

        “..and the total amount of energy is at the level that you might expect from a humungous explosion in a galaxy (involving significant conversion of matter to energy), or from a relativistic electron jet from a super-massive black hole. So nothing out of the ordinary!”

        None of the evidence rules out new physics and galactic centre ‘black holes’ from satellite galaxies of the Milky Way dissipating out of existence.

      • Alan,
        “Christos – you might be interested in the paradox of ancient Mars that is thought to have been hot enough to melt the bottom of ice sheets to create water channels yet when the Sun was a lot fainter:”

        Thank you, Alan.

        I think this paradox is solved now by the Planet Rotational Warming phenomenon. Ancient Mars rotated much faster than now, so the incident on its surface solar energy was accumulated more effectively.
        Also ancient Mars had a substantial atmosphere – so on Mars’ surface yes, there were created the conditions for the existence of liquid water.

        On Mars, due to its longer orbit around the sun, the seasons are almost twice as long as on Earth. Summer lasts on Mars eight months – plenty of time for water ice to melt and to create water channels.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Christos – I’m sure that explanation wouldn’t go far in the mainstream science community unfortunately.

      • Alan, Mars’s water channels are an objective evidence. There were water flows on the Mars’ surface in the ancient times.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The ice sheets are long gone. But OMG those disreputable mainstream scientists.

        “He and his colleagues investigated whether the required internal heat — generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as thorium, potassium and uranium — did indeed flow during Mars’ Noachian era, which lasted from about 4.1 billion to 3.7 billion years ago. The researchers focused their attention on the Martian southern highlands, a region that likely supported large ice sheets at the time.

        The team modeled the thickness, behavior and evolution of those ice sheets using a variety of datasets, including observations by NASA’s Mars Odyssey orbiter, which has been studying the Red Planet since 2001. Odyssey carries a gamma-ray spectrometer, which has allowed scientists to map the abundance of thorium and potassium in the Martian crust.

        The researchers determined that heat flowing from the Martian mantle and crust likely would have been sufficient to melt the bottom layers of thick ice sheets long ago, creating potentially habitable environments underground no matter what conditions may have been like on the planet’s surface. “

      • Chief

        Glitter. Lol.

        Good way to get the day started.

      • Robert:

        “The ice sheets are long gone. But OMG those disreputable mainstream scientists.”
        And Robert continues:

        “He and his colleagues investigated whether the required internal heat — generated by the radioactive decay of elements such as thorium, potassium and uranium — did indeed flow during Mars’ Noachian era, which lasted from about 4.1 billion to 3.7 billion years ago. The researchers focused their attention on the Martian southern highlands, a region that likely supported large ice sheets at the time.”

        “…did indeed flow during Mars’ Noachian era, which lasted from about 4.1 billion to 3.7 billion years ago. ”

        About 4.1 billion to 3.7 billion years ago…
        Does anyone expect to find 3,7 billion years old water channels on Mars’ surface?

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Melted by internal heat and flowing under thick ice sheets. Learn to read as well.

      • My latest suggestion of the origin of ‘odd radio circles’:

        Professor Norris, why hasn’t the suggestion of two black holes spinning in opposite directions colliding and annihilating one another been suggested??

        If the next ORCs found are similarly at high latitude relative to the galactic plane it would suggest satellite galaxies of the Milky Way perhaps?

      • Someone else puts two and two together:

        Yes its very possible. As you know, a gamma-ray burst (GRB) is a very short impulsive event. The ORCs on the other hand are very long-lived slow events, but its quite possible that the ORCS are a shock wave (or sphere of radiation) travelling out from the galaxy, resulting from the explosion that caused the GRB.

      • And the relevance to climate is about as little and far off.

      • “And the relevance to climate is about as little and far off.” – Ellison

        Not at all. The unknown phenomena occurring at high latitudes to the galactic plane dovetails with the inclination hypothesis of tidally forced climate cycles here on Earth.

      • So you say. It is a very long bow for which you have absolutely no evidence.

  55. Robert – you’re an Australian, right? If so, do you agree with the target of ‘net-zero’ by 2050 called for by “China loving” voices of authoritarian control on emissions?

  56. At first I didn’t think I had seen this paper on significance testing before, but perhaps it’s been posted here. Regardless, it’s a good look at the worth of using p value, of any level.

    https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00699/full

  57. When will this obsession with global temperature come to an end?

    2020 set to be one of three hottest years on record despite La Niña’s cooling effect, report says.
    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/02/world/climate-change-effects-wmo-2020-intl/index.html

    Cold and blizzards are predicted for areas of the Northern hemisphere next week. La Nina bringing extra tidal forcing makes so much more sense.

  58. Crazies at extremes are the problem.

    “A more sweeping Democratic victory could never have proven decisive in the fight against climate change. But the election result has shown us the only way forward. A sustainable path toward significant long-term emissions reductions will require disentangling the issue from the polarizing loop of apocalyptic environmental politics and right-wing climate-change denial that has paralyzed federal efforts to address the issue for decades. ”

  59. “Are we on the road to climate change civil war?”

    • “It comes down yo whether you want to engage with the world as it is – in which cade look at the huge body of evidence that is out there to make sense of it – or whether you want to create a myth for your own recreation.” Mallen Baker

  60. Climate denialism has been shown to go hand in hand with Coviddenialsim and Trumpdenialism.

    Some time ago, Nick Lewis was portrayed as the one who understands Covid – 19.

    https://judithcurry.com/2020/10/14/t-cell-cross-reactivity-and-the-herd-immunity-threshold/

    Judith even presented another post in which Anders Tegnell was;

    “At first, Dr. Tegnell’s experiment looked foolish as Sweden’s case load increased. Now, with cases low and the Swedish economy in much better health than other countries, he looks wise.”

    https://judithcurry.com/2020/10/10/what-the-pandemic-has-taught-us-about-science/

    Have these posts withstood the test of time?

    “Anders Tegnell with mistake: – Not my intention to say wrong

    In the same week, an average of 41.7 people died per day, according to the Swedish newspaper.

    Tegnell told Expressen that it was not his intention to report the wrong number of deaths.

    – To call it wrong I think is a pretty rough expression. It was not my intention to say wrong or some kind of attempt to mislead someone, he says.

    On Thursday, Sweden passed 7,000 corona deaths. In the last 24 hours, 35 corona-related deaths have been registered in the country. So far, 7,007 people have died during the pandemic in Sweden.

    A total of 272,643 people have been diagnosed with coronary heart disease, 6,485 of them in the last 24 hours, according to figures from the Swedish Public Health Agency.

    The Swedish government decided on Thursday that the country’s upper secondary schools will be closed for a month. From Monday 7 December, there will be web learning for the students.”

    https://www.abcnyheter.no/nyheter/verden/2020/12/03/195724293/anders-tegnell-med-tabbe-ikke-min-intensjon-a-si-feil

    To all Climate.etc readers, Norway and Sweden have about the same population composition, we have about the same health care system, we have about the same traditions for who makes decisions. Sweden now has far stricter and rigid closure measures than Norway has never had, and Sweden still has approx. five times as many new infected per. day and 20 times as many deaths per. day as Norway, and all this pr. capita.

    Even the Swedes no longer think that Anders Tegnell is so wise.

  61. The general secretary of the United Nations talks of a global authoritarian control on carbon emissions. It’s scary stuff when you know it’s all balderdash because the climate has always changed in cycles who’s mechanism is yet to be determined :

  62. >>>> It’s scary stuff when you know it’s all balderdash because the climate has always changed in cycles whose mechanism is yet to be determined.

    Not even at WUWT is it accepted that the climate is exempt from the physical laws.

    • Your use of the expression “physical laws” is a bit of a joke. That’s the whole point of my argument, the science of physics has been in CRISIS for over 40 years – everything should make sense now.. but it simply doesn’t. Something’s wrong.

      The same can be said of the history of climate science. Solar cycles were a good fit to climate shifts on Earth, yet a credible mechanism couldn’t be deduced.

      If you look at both problems together, something miraculous happens. They are each side of the same coin.

      • It’s only a matter of a few years now before the *truth* will be found:

        It’s the focal plane of the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) Camera, and is the biggest and most sophisticated piece of photography equipment on – or off – the planet. It’s being developed at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory in California for one of the most ambitious astronomy surveys ever undertaken.
        ..
        We expect to see millions of objects. If Planet Nine exists, we have a good shot at seeing it.
        ..
        By enabling us to monitor the way in which objects change, the LSST Camera should give us a new window on the fundamental nature of the Universe. In particular, the 95 per cent of it we can’t see that’s made up of the mysterious entities known as dark matter and dark energy.

        https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/lsst-7-photos-of-the-camera-that-could-change-our-view-of-the-universe/amp/

    • The fundamental Earth system mechanism is chaos. ‘Cycles’ are somewhat illusory. If as suspected solar activity evolves in response to an incalculable and chaotic – given Poincare – solar system N-body orbital problem – and this is further modulated through internal fluid dynamics of the Sun – cyclic behavior as such is impossible. Behaviour evolves over time as Sol orbits around a slightly wonky center of mass of the solar system. I discussed this briefly above.

      https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934593

      The strictly aperiodic solar activity variability driven by chaotic orbits and solar turbulence are insufficient to cause the climate changes that have been seen. What it may do is trigger non-linear planetary responses anticipated from the fundamental physics of complexity. “From the smallest scales to the largest, there exists an apparent conundrum: nature is both simple and complex. From apparent disorder, order emerges. This elegance in nature lies at the heart of my research interests.” Marcia WyattI I briefly discussed the origin of chaos in the Earth system above.

      https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934419

      Cosmic ray intensity is inversely related to solar intensity. What we can see in the cosmogenic isotope record over 9,400 years is variability at all scales – with an interesting transition to higher solar intensity a little over 5,000 years ago – that has been linked to the mid-Holocene ENSO transition. The last thousand years has seen a centennial decline in solar activity – and La Nina conditions – and a 20th century peak coincident with a 20th century El Nino peak in intensity and frequency. There was a notable change in the beat frequency of the ENSO nonlinear oscillation at the beginning of the 20th century.

      How far variability departs from the cyclical expectations of classical mechanics is unknowable – but depart it does. Solar variability as well triggers nonlinear responses in the planetary system. In geophysical data the reality is Hurst-Kolmogorov effects – regimes and abrupt shifts. Wavelet analysis will give you broad spectral peaks – but this is just math and not proof of anything. Geophysics is required to understand the climate system and how it may change in future. Nor do cycles say anything about how greenhouse gases may perturb flow and change turbulent patterns in Earth’s spatio-temporal chaotic flow field. It may change them a little or a lot – it depends.

      • “‘Cycles’ are somewhat illusory” – Ellison

        What’s very plain to see is your deliberate obsfucation at every opportunity:

        noun – the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.

      • Most of physics is travelling fairly well – including general relativity. Put together a crisis in physics and solar influences on climate and you get a miracle? That means absolutely nothing as usual. I add solar variability – and link to climate variability. The physical link is UV, solar winds or solar magnetic modulation of the global electrical circuit. For all of which there is a science community churning out hypothesis and analysis. Compare that to Alan’s neutron star matter at the core of Earth, moon and sun and increasing solid Earth tides for which he is a lone and eccentric voice motivated in his reasoning by an extreme reactive ideology. Seems it requires debunking general relativity. That’s right – he is a general relativity denier.

        Seems like too much of a coincidence to ignore. I am inclined to think that what he calls obfuscation emerges from his bewilderment at and ignorance of fundamentals of geophysics. Most likely a degree of cultural ignorance that preclude questioning assumptions. One of these results in failure to distinguish between periodic cycles and strictly aperiodic variability. Lowey has no depth or expertise in the topic – and his objective is all too clear. Simply to bitch about climate science for political purposes.

        I was of two minds on whether to add this. It is the Moy et al (2002) record of sedimentation from a South American lake core – that is strongly influenced by El Niño intensity. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 11,500 years. It shows periods of high and low El Niño intensity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. It can be seen in the wavelet decomposition. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high El Niño intensity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). It shows ENSO variability considerably in excess of that seen in the modern period. During the Minoan decline red intensity exceeded 200 at times. In the 1997/98 ‘monster’ El Niño it was 99.


        The time “series and wavelet power spectrum documenting changes in ENSO
        variability during the Holocene. a, Event time series created using the event model (see Methods), illustrating the number of events in 100-yr overlapping windows. The solid line denotes the minimum number of events in a 100-yr window needed to produce ENSO and variance. b, Most recent 11,500 yr of the time series of red colour intensity. The absolute red colour intensity and the width of the individual laminae do not correspond to the intensity of the ENSO event. c, Wavelet power spectrum calculated using the Morlet wavelet on the time series of red colour intensity (b). Variance in the wavelet power spectrum (colour scale) is plotted as a function of both time and period. Yellow and red regions indicate higher degrees of variance, and the black line surrounds regions of variance that exceed the 99.98% confidence level for a red noise process (at 4–8-yr period, the regions of significant variance are shown black rather than outlined). Variance below the dashed line has been reduced owing to the wavelet approaching the end of the finite time series. Horizontal lines indicate average timescale for the ENSO and millennial bands.” Christopher Moy et al, 2002, Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch

  63. December 5th is world soil day.

    “Building healthy soils on a global scale is one of the most effective ways to draw down enough carbon to prevent a catastrophic climate crisis. And carbon storage isn’t soil’s only superpower; the ways that soil stands to positively impact the lives of billions worldwide are tangible and immediate: replenished water cycles, restored fertility, and regenerated ecosystems. What’s not to love?” Kiss the Ground

    https://kisstheground.com/worldsoilday2018/

    “It isn’t enough to repair the damage our progress has brought. It is also not enough to manage our risks and be more shock-resistant. Now is not only the time to course correct and be more resilient. It is a time to imagine what we can generate for the world. Not only can we work to minimize our footprint but we can also create positive handprints. It is time to strive for a world that thrives.” Jean Russell

    Spread the joy.


  64. Abnormal ice and snow in the deserts of the Middle East. These scenes don’t get reported in the mainstream media obsessed with global warming:

  65. So we consider it is final:

    Earth is warmer than Moon because it rotates faster (The Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon) and because it has a vast ocean.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • What’s your science background Christos?

      • Alan, thank you for asking.
        I am a M.Sc. mechanical engineer.
        Also I was all my life teaching mechanical engineering in a Technical Lyceum.

        http://www.cristo-vournas.com

      • Isn’t the atmosphere the key feature which keeps the coldness of space away from the Earth’s surface?

      • Alan, thank you for asking this very important question.

        No, the Earth’s atmosphere isn’t the key feature which keeps the coldness of space away from the Earth’s surface.
        Earth’s atmosphere gets warmed from the Earth’s surface. Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t warm Earth’s surface.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • You’re talking in circles Christos. The Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere which is why when stood on the surface the temperature is little different to the coldness of space.

        Are you an octogenarian by any chance?

      • Last month I celebrated my 70th birthday.

        Alan, I didn’t meant we do not need Earth’s atmosphere. Quite the opposite. Without atmospheric pressure it would be impossible for the ocean to be in a liquid phase.

        You said, “The Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere which is why when stood on the surface the temperature is little different to the coldness of space.”
        Well, if Moon had the Earth’s atmosphere the air temperature would be very hot during the lunar day, and the air temperature would be very cold during the lunar night.
        Also, because of the huge day-night temperature gradient, there would be tremendously strong winds…

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  66. From today’s WNN Digest:
    https://mailchi.mp/world-nuclear-news/weekly-digest-27-november-4-december-2020

    Victorian report avoids nuclear endorsement
    Following a national inquiry and one in New South Wales both of which reported positively on nuclear power prospects for Australia, the report of a Victorian inquiry affirms the priority of reducing carbon dioxide emissions while achieving energy security and stability but dodges the implication of this. Victoria has based its development on cheap electricity from brown coal, but this era is ending due to climate change concerns. A political decision in 1983 prohibited nuclear power, and that was the focus of the state inquiry. Clear evidence was presented on the importance of reliable nuclear power rescuing the state from the consequences of relying on ever-increasing wind capacity, but deep-seated antipathy prevailed, despite dramatically increased electricity prices.

    “In this report, the Committee makes no recommendations and does not take a strong position on nuclear power as an alternative energy source in Australia, and particularly in Victoria,” the Chairman said. However, (according to a demonstrably baseless report) “traditional nuclear energy generation is currently expensive and unlikely to be taken up in Australia”. He went on to say that small modular reactors might “change the costing of nuclear energy over time.” A substantial minority report recommended repealing the 1983 Act, monitoring nuclear developments, and ensuring that modelling of energy futures included nuclear power.
    WNN 26/11/20. Australia

    The Victorian government is far left and kowtows to the CPP.

  67. Yet another new short video about water and grazing management practices used to sequester carbon, restore land, water tables and environments, increase productivity, lower input costs and develop a more flood and drought tolerant agriculture.

    “Sergio Alierta and Manel Badía tell the story of how, despite a low budget, they were able to use planning and strategic design to turn an eroded estate – with no soil cover and considerable carcasses – into a grazing prairie. The result is a system that captures the potential of Keyline design to recuperate hydrological balance in drought-affected plains, which increases biodiversity and healthy soil.” https://kisstheground.com/monegros-como-regenerar-un-desierto/

  68. Letter in yesterday’s ‘The Australian’

    “Hot and cold

    Temperatures across Australia have been increasing inexorably since the Bureau of Meteorology moved many weather stations to airports and accelerated the replacement of once-standard 230-litre Stevenson screens (instrument shelters) with 60-litre ones in the 1990s. They then replaced observers with rapid-sampling automatic weather stations, which became primary instruments from 1986; then reduced maintenance schedules to just one or two site visits a year.

    Sensitive electronic thermometers housed in small, neglected Stevenson screens beside dusty tracks such as at Marble Bar in Western Australia and Rabbit Flat in the Northern Territory; beside the Warakurna Road at Giles in WA; the truck park at Nullarbor and the fuel farm at Marree in South Australia; and in the dust between the runway and materials dump at Moomba in Victoria will always be biased-high on warm days.

    Joining separate datasets end to end for, say, Longreach, Townsville and Sydney Observatory ignores the very real effect of site and instrument changes on daily extremes. For instance, the warmest place in Queensland on Wednesday was recorded by the AWS at Windorah Airport and it has only been operating for two years.

    Changing the colour of summer from red to purple doesn’t change the climate and a serious investigation into the Bureau’s claims has never taken place. Temperature measured by rapid-sampling probes housed in small, neglected Stevenson screens at airports and beside dusty tracks is bound to be biased-high relative to the true climate

    Dr Bill Johnston, Port Macquarie, NSW”

    • Temperature have been systematically and rigorously normalised for equipment and siting changes in the Australian Climate Observations reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT). Is this insinuation that warming was a conspiracy? Complete nonsense.

      see – http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

      Warming is real and It’s well past the time to move on to more sophisticated analysis.

      • Temperatures should drop a little with La Nina, only to bounce straight back up to the high plateau once its over.

        The sun worshippers and denialati in general would be miffed, but my intuitive intellect has reached the conclusion that when the AMO and PDO both go negative, temperatures should fall below the Spencer line for at least a decade.

      • God damn it – I said sophisticated. 😀

        The cool Pacific state is at half strength – although there are signs of a cool PDO emerging.

      • La Nina’s extra tidal forcing is destined to bring scenes from Norilsk, Russia to other parts of the Northern hemisphere imo:

      • Your opinion matters not at all. There is no extra tidal forcing. The South Pacific Gyre spins up and the physics is rotational inertia. The effect on water levels is limited to the South Pacific basin. This is a result of sheer force from wind acting on the water surface. God you are hopeless.

      • Robert, all good scientists should keep an open mind that perhaps something they have assumed is in reality incorrect.

        Obviously, you don’t fall into this bracket.

      • Thought bubbles without geophysical context and physical evidence are not remotely science. That you assume they are correct is way beyond Dunning-Kruger.

        And just so you know.

        “In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with low ability at a task overestimate their ability. It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from the inability of people to recognize their lack of ability.”

      • The odd periodicity of ENSO isn’t easily explained by mainstream science and eastily trade winds don’t blow directly on the line of the equator where the upwelling occurs:

        https://www.climate.gov/enso

        “El Nino and La Nina episodes typically last approximately 9-12 months. They often begin to form during June-August, reach peak strength during December-April, and then decay during May-July of the next year. However, some prolonged episodes have lasted 2 years and even as long as 3-4 years. While their periodicity can be quite irregular, El Nino and La Nina occurs every 3-5 years on average.”

        The inclination tidal forcing hypothesis is a good fit with low axial tilt planets and solar cycles with consequent climate shifts on Earth:

        88 day 》 Mercury
        12 year 》 Jupiter
        82.5 year 》 planet nine
        225 year 》 Venus

        This still doesn’t account for the ENSO, due to it being roughly yearly in nature.

        I propose the yearly inclination orbit of the Earth itself around the core of the Sun. The outer solar body rotates at an anomalous 6° angle to the planetary plane. I imagine that this outer body is on a lag to the much less inclined solar exotic matter core. It’s this slight tilt relative to the Earth’s core which gives rise to a variable yearly tidal forcing.

        In combination with Mercury’s 88-day influence this would account for the odd periodicity of the abyssal plane tidal effect.

      • ENSO longevity would be when the Earth’s inclination cycle coincides with the Jupiter cycle of extra tidal forcing.

        “”However, some prolonged episodes have lasted 2 years and even as long as 3-4 years. While their periodicity can be quite irregular, El Nino and La Nina occurs every 3-5 years on average.”

        Where is the data for the past El Nino and La Nina events??

        I tentatively predict such a combination and believe La Nina will continue past the normal 9-12 month duration.

      • Wrong assumptions and astrology. The tropical convergence zone moves north and south with the seasons. Walker circulation happens in the equatorial region and Coriolis force explains equatorial upwelling.

      • The spin of the Sun’s solid core is also very relevant because it’s tilted by 6° to the planetary plane. Earth’s yearly inclination cycle coinciding with this inner spin could be a determining factor in the ENSO phenomenon:

        “The gasses and plasma near the sun’s equator rotate around the sun’s axis every 25 days. As  you move towards the sun’s poles, the rotation speed slows. Near the north and south poles, the sun rotates once every 36 days.”

        “The innermost parts of the sun also spin differently than the outer layers. Scientists claim that the innermost layers of the sun do spin like a solid object. Moreover, the inner layer also spins faster than the outer, gaseous layers.”

        Perhaps the mainstream assumption of a faster spinning core is incorrect??

        A slower than 25 day spin of an exotic matter core might synchronise with Earth’s yearly inclination for certain periods.

        A circa ~6 month spin of the solar core would be more relevant to the strong gravitational orbital inclination hypothesis.

      • More arm waving irrelevancies. Regardless of the density of different layers of Sol it produced the number of sunspots observed. And ill defined ‘;exotic matter’ means less than nothing. Keep in mind that this person is a general relativity denier however that serves his oddball thought bubbles.

      • What’s your mainstream ENSO prediction Ellison??

      • At some stage the MJO will cause trade winds to falter and warm water piled up against Australia and Indonesia will surge eastward. The current state will persist through to about April and the ‘predictability barrier’ when the forced nonlinear oscillator will be triggered to shift state or not.

        Predictions have historically been no better than a random walk at three months. Yours I would attach no value to at all.

      • Didn’t mean to repeat that graphic.

        Sea level:

        Model probabilistic forecast:

      • Alan,
        “88 day 》 Mercury
        12 year 》 Jupiter
        82.5 year 》 planet nine
        225 year 》 Venus”
        What do you mean by Venus 225 year?

      • Christos, it refers to ~200 year Suess-DeVries solar cycle which I attribute to the orbital inclination cycle of Venus which is 225 years:

        “A large number of investigations of paleoclimate have noted the influence of a ~ 200 year oscillation which has been related to the De Vries/Suess cycle of solar activity.”

        https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276370581_Paleoclimate_forcing_by_the_solar_De_VriesSuess_cycle

        The mechanism is a strong gravitational interaction between the core of Venus and the core of the Sun due to the planet having a low axial tilt.

        This ‘levelling’ of the Sun’s core then strengthens the strong gravitational influence on the core of the Earth, which increases tidal forcing climate shifts.

      • Pure gobbledygook without a scintilla of evidence. A more obvious mechanism is modulation of the solar magneto as the sun rotates around the center of mass of the solar system. This varies over long periods – with some approximate periodicity. But to then isolate the Fourier decomposition at a specific frequency and make predictions based on that is nonsense. The most salient feature of cosmogenic isotope and geophysical series is variability at all scales and not regularity.

        This is linked to total solar irradiation – minimal in terms of Earth’s climate – as well as changes in ultraviolet frequencies and in solar winds that may indeed influence climate. Perhaps especially through interactions with the more zonal or meridional wind and storms of the polar annular modes. While the sun may be involved it is far from the only influence on these modes of major climate variability. Internal feedback through global system is likely to dominate variance.



        “The daily geopotential height anomalies at 17 pressure levels are shown for the previous 120 days as indicated, and they are normalized by standard deviation using 1979-2000 base period. The anomalies are calculated by subtracting 1979-2000 daily climatology, and then averaged over the polar cap poleward of 65°N.

        The blue (red) colors represent a strong (weak) polar vortex. The black solid lines show the zero anomalies.”

        Strong zonal polar westerlies spin up gyres in the Pacific Ocean pushing cold polar water into upwelling regions and shoaling the thermocline at the eastern margin. This with atmospheric and oceanic feedbacks is the origin of cold Pacific modes.

        Climate modes of 20 to 30 year duration have been linked to the approximate 22 year period of the Hale Cycle of solar magnetic reversal. The last climate shift was in 1999/2001. Is another shift immanent.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE,
        Bill Johnston has researched this matter of warming in Australia, genuine or an artefact, for a three decades or mnore. I have read many of his reports and helped him here and there when asked. The science he reports is thorough and credible.
        You, on the other hand, seem not to have researched the matter at all, so what are we to make of your boyish venture into denial of solid science?
        How did you find time between your work on nuclear power stations, soil chemistry, agriculture, orbital paths and other matters on this page? Geoff S

      • Yes of course he has Geoff. Just like you.

        What I forgot to links to the ACORN-SAT methodology? You would to read and understand that prior to critiquing the result. And after all just it is just one line of evidence. FFS – I posted UA freakin’ H. You need to get a clue.

        I am a hydrologist by training and much more through a deep fascination with water in all its power and beauty. I went on to study environmental science. I combined the two in biogeochemical cycling – the movement of nutrients and pollutants through biota, soils and water. I have spent decades reducing the impact of cities, farms and mines on waterways and the life it contains.

        As for the rest – it is an occupational hazard. Environmental science is a practical, team based, multidisciplinary field that solves complex problems that have ‘wicked’ dimensions of culture, history, economics and environment. It synergistically – the whole is greater than the parts – integrates physical and biological sciences within a real world context of society. It provides the most flexible and comprehensive approach to designing sustainable futures, assessing and managing environmental risk and environmental planning and management.

      • It just is not true Robert L. Ellison.
        I wrote that letter and it is based on my systematic analysis of more than 400 of Australia’s long and medium length temperature datasets, which I’m currently updating to 2019. I’ve discovered irrefutable evidence in the form of aerial photographs archived by the National Library and documents and plans in the National Archives of Australia that the Bureau uses actual site changes selectively to claim the climate has warmed and changes when it has not.
        It is not even feasible that temperatures measured using thermometers and probes held 1.2 m above the ground (chest height – 4 feet) in Stevenson screens would be useful for tracking trend and change. In the letter I highlighted the problem of site control – dusty screens that have lost their gloss are invariably biased high.I have published examples of site studies on our website (https://www.bomwatch.com.au/) and anyone is free to visit, leave constructive comments and contact me if they wish.
        The letter contains a typo by the way (my bad).. Automatic weather stations became primary instruments in Australia on 1 November 1996 (not 1986).
        Cheers,
        Bill Johnston

      • Temperature have been systematically and rigorously normalised for equipment and siting changes in the Australian Climate Observations reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT). Is this an insinuation that warming was a conspiracy? Complete nonsense.

        So which bit is untrue?

        “… the Bureau uses actual site changes selectively to claim the climate has warmed and changes when it has not.” So it is a conspiracy and the planet is not warming? Hmmmm….

        There is perhaps a more fundamental issue with surface temperature with changes in latent and sensible heat as soils moisture changes. Thus in drought this century we see higher temperature readings. Nonetheless and as far as it goes it gives an idea of temperature change from data that is not without problems. But all in all we should accept the fundamentals of greenhouse gas physics and move on to more fruitful discussions.

        ACORN-SAT is a network of 112 stations.


        “The Australian Climate Observations Reference Network – Surface Air Temperature (ACORN-SAT) is the dataset used by the Bureau of Meteorology to monitor long-term temperature trends in Australia. ACORN-SAT uses observations from 112 weather stations in all corners of Australia, selected for the quality and length of their available temperature data.”

        The station history is described here:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/stations/#/23090

        The version 2 technical report can be accessed here:

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/acorn-sat/

        All records are preserved. A quick study is provided here.

        https://jennifermarohasy.com/acorn-sat-for-dummies/

  69. Earth, Moon and Mars – two very important observations – conclusions
    We are ready now to make two very important observations.

    1. Moon and Mars
    Moon’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
    Mars’ satellite measured Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
    These two observed temperatures on the different planets (Mars and Moon) are very close.
    The solar flux on Moon is So = 1.361 W/m².
    The solar flux on Mars is S.mars = 586,4 W/m².

    Thus we observe here that there can be planets with different solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) the same mean surface temperatures.
    So we may have:
    Many planets with different solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) the same mean surface temperatures.
    Conclusion:
    Many different solar fluxes (for equal albedo) can create the same mean surface temperatures.

    2. Moon and Earth
    Moon’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K
    Earth’s satellite measured Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K
    These two observed temperatures on the different planets (Moon and Earth) are very different.
    The solar flux on Moon is So = 1.361 W/m².
    The solar flux on Earth is So = 1.361 W/m².

    Thus we observe here that there can be planets with the same solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) very different mean surface temperatures.
    So we may have:
    Many planets with the same solar irradiation fluxes, and yet the planets may have (for equal albedo) different mean surface temperatures.
    Conclusion:
    Many different global temperature distributions (for equal albedo) can balance the same solar flux.

    These two very important observations – conclusions lead us to the formulation of the Planet Mean Surface Temperature Equation.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Christos, what is your opinion on the source of the mystery Mars hum?

      “Mars is humming, and scientists aren’t sure why

      In November 2018, a spacecraft arrived on Mars’s frigid, dusty surface to take the planet’s pulse. Known as the InSight lander, the robotic geologist recently beamed some of its early findings back to Earth, exciting and perplexing scientists around the world. Among these curiosities is a Martian hum—a quiet, constant drone that seems to pulse to the beat of “marsquakes” that rattle the planet.

      The hum’s origin remains unknown. Earth has many such background vibrations, from the roar of winds to the crashing of waves against the shore. But the music of Mars reverberates at a higher pitch than most natural hums on Earth. Perhaps the geology underneath the lander amplifies one particular tone, or the lander itself might even be generating the noise. “It’s extremely puzzling,” Bruce Banerdt, the principal investigator of the InSight mission, told National Geographic in February.”

    • There’s something unusual happens during a solar eclipse when on Mars:

      “A seismic anomaly and magnetic effect occur for just 30 seconds as the inner moon of Mars, Phobos, eclipses the solar disc. Note that the space probe and instruments are located on a flat equatorial plane.”


      There’s extensive research on gravity anomalies occurring on Earth during solar eclipses.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

  70. …………………………………………..Earth……………Mars………….Luna (Moon)
    Mean surface temperature…286 K (13 ºC)..216 K (-57 ºC)..243 K (-30 ºC)

    The mean surface temperature of the Moon is 220 K

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  71. The mean surface temperature of the moon is some 243 K. Calculating it is a bit hard as well. Back to the drawing board.

    e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516304869

  72. ‘Back to the drawing board.’

    Do you think Ian Wilson’s lunar hypothesis for ENSO behaviour has any merit?

  73. ‘I tentatively predict such a combination and believe La Nina will continue past the normal 9-12 month duration.’

    The PDO will follow la Nina and slip into negative phase, which should support your prediction.

  74. I can’t see past an obvious link between sea surface temperature in the eastern Pacific and global surface temps. I use the cumulative MEI because there is cloud feedback that modulates downward shortwave radiation and warming and cooling of oceans. Surface temp follows ocean temp.

    This is observed cloud feedback over the north-east Pacific showing the familiar periodicity of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Changes in low level marine stratocumulus over upwelling regions of the Pacific are a major source of global cloud variability.


    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460.abstract

    The physics involve cloud cells in Rayleigh–Bénard convection raining out faster over warm water to leave open cells with a reduced albedo.

    See this for more detailed ‘post hiatus’ energy quantification.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

  75. Nuclear power costs could be down to 10% of current costs this century

    Once the regulatory impediments are removed the rate of reduction of nuclear power costs could return to around the learning rates that existed before the 1960s disruption – i.e. about 25% per doubling of cumulative global capacity of construction starts.

    As prices decrease, deployment will accelerate and the rate of development will increase. Much smaller fission and eventually fusion reactors will replace the current monsters. They will be developed faster, constructed much faster and old plants will be replaced faster. Electricity consumption will increase rapidly as electricity prices decrease. Electricity will supply an increasing proportion of our total energy requirements, including producing transport fuels.

    A simple calculation suggests perhaps six to eight doublings of cumulative global capacity of construction starts by 2100. Eight doublings at 25% learning rate would see the cost of nuclear drop to ~13% of current cost. Nine doublings would see the cost reduce to 10% of current cost.

    The learning rate could become much faster if electricity generators are taxed for the health impacts their technologies cause per TWh of electricity generated (see this comment: https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/#comment-933017 ). In this case, costs would reduce faster and the deployment rate would accelerate faster so there would be more capacity doublings by the end of the century. So 10% of current cost would be achieved earlier.

    Assumptions:

    Learning rate (i.e. rate of cost reduction) = 25% per doubling of cumulative global capacity from 2020

    Projected total global energy consumption in 2100 calculated by projecting the rate of consumption increase from 1980 to 2018 using IEA data = 2,800,000 PJ – https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-total-energy-supply-by-source-1971-2018

    Half of this is electricity generated by nuclear power = 1,400,000 PJ

    8 capacity doublings = 50,000 GW = 1,261,440 PJ at 80% capacity factor

    At 25 % learning rate, nuclear cost would be 13.3% of current costs

    Learning rate could be significantly higher than 25% if regulatory impediments are removed and electricity and other fuels are taxed in proportion to their health impacts.

    As nuclear power costs decrease electricity will replace other fuels at an accelerating rate

    9 capacity doublings = 100,000 GW = 2,552,880 PJ at 80% capacity factor

    At 25 % learning rate, nuclear cost would be 10% of current cost


    • Figure 1. Overnight construction cost (in 2010 US $/kW) plotted against cumulative global capacity (GW), based on construction start dates, of nuclear power reactors for seven countries, including regression lines for US before and after 32 GW cumulative global capacity.


      Figure 5. Annual global capacity of construction starts and commercial operation starts, 1954–2015.



      Figure 6. (Top) Cumulative global capacity of construction starts and of commercial operation starts (sorted by construction start date); (Bottom) Cumulative global capacity of construction starts (red and green data points); accelerating projection of 1960–1976 data points (dotted green line); Linear and Accelerating projections of capacity in commercial operation (dashed pink and green lines).


      Figure 7. Electricity generated by fuel type by the Actual (top); and by the projected capacity in Linear (middle) and Accelerating (bottom) deployment scenarios (TWh).

    • Below is my first comment with some corrections shown in italics. The two paragraphs on 9 capacity doublings are deleted.

      Nuclear power costs could be down to 10% of current costs this century

      Once the regulatory impediments are removed the rate of reduction of nuclear power costs could return to around the learning rates that existed before the 1960s disruption – i.e. about 25% per doubling of cumulative global capacity of construction starts.

      As prices decrease, deployment will accelerate and the rate of development will increase. Much smaller fission and eventually fusion reactors will replace the current monsters. They will be developed faster, constructed much faster and old plants will be replaced faster. Electricity consumption will increase rapidly as electricity prices decrease. Electricity will supply an increasing proportion of our total energy requirements, including producing transport fuels.

      A simple calculation suggests perhaps six to eight doublings of cumulative global capacity of construction starts from 2020 to 2100. Eight doublings at 25% learning rate would see the cost of nuclear drop to 10% of current cost.

      The learning rate could become much faster if electricity generators are taxed for the health impacts their technologies cause per TWh of electricity generated (see this comment: https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/19/cultural-motivations-for-wind-and-solar-renewables-deployment/#comment-933017 ). In this case, costs would reduce faster and the deployment rate would accelerate faster so there would be more capacity doublings by the end of the century. So 10% of current cost would be achieved earlier.

      Assumptions:

      Learning rate (i.e. rate of cost reduction) = 25% per doubling of cumulative global capacity from 2020

      Projected total global energy consumption in 2100 calculated by projecting the rate of consumption increase from 1980 to 2018 using IEA data = 2,800,000 PJ – https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-total-energy-supply-by-source-1971-2018

      Approximately 43% of this is electricity generated by nuclear power = ~1,200,000 PJ

      8 capacity doublings = 50,000 GW = 1,261,440 PJ at 80% capacity factor. Deduct assumed decommissioned reactors – i.e. existing 2020 capacity plus capacity of first 2 doublings – i.e. deduct say 41,000 PJ = ~1,220,000 PJ

      At 25% learning rate and 8 capacity doublings, nuclear cost would be 10% of current costs

      Learning rate could be significantly higher than 25% if regulatory impediments are removed and electricity technologies (and all fuels) are taxed in proportion to their health impacts

      As nuclear power costs decrease electricity will replace other fuels at an accelerating rate.

      • If not for the disruption to nuclear power learning rates and deployment rates that began about 1967 as a result of the anti-nuclear scare campaigns and the (false) linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, nuclear power costs in 2015 could have been around 5% to 10% of what they were then and are now (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm Table 3 and Figure 5).

      • If not for the disruption to nuclear power learning rates and deployment rates that began in about 1967 as a result of the anti-nuclear scare campaigns and the (false) linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis, nuclear power costs in 2015 could have been around 5% to 10% of what they were then and are now (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm Table 3 and Figure 5).

        The disruption has cost the world about 60 to 80 years of much faster economic growth, faster improvement in living standards and better health, especially in the developing countries.

      • There are a variety of ways nuclear technology could advance rapidly if the regulatory impediments are removed. These include transitions to: SMRs, fast breeder reactors, fusion, etc. Below I describe what might be another possibility.

        Voyager 1 and 2 were launched in 1977; i.e. 43 years ago. They are now 18 bn km from the Sun. Voyager 1 is beyond the edge of the Solar System. They are still operating and still in contact with NASA. Each is powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) nuclear reactors using Pu238 fuel. Power at launch was 470 W and has decreased to 270 W over the 43 years.

        The development and production cost of the RTGs for the Cassini probe (launched 1997) and Mars Science Laboratory (launched 2011) were $118M and $109M (2015 US$) https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/7267852.pdf . Mass production of RTG-like micro power plants to produce sufficient units to power the world and then keep replacing them every say 30 to 40 years, could reduce the cost per unit to economic even for single houses. Units for average size single houses may need to be about 2–5 kW plus energy storage with say 15–20 kW power and 100 kWh capacity (to power reverse cycle air-conditioning and heating, hot water, appliances and lights).

        This suggests it might become practical and economic for appropriate sized small nuclear power plants to power every house, apartment block, commercial area, industrial area, etc. (together with storage to manage periods when total demand is above 2–5 kW). The RTG units could operate for 40 years or more. Or less, and be replaced more frequently as improved designs are developed. O&M costs would be negligible because the RTGs operate remotely and need no maintenance for life; the storage might need replacement about every 20 years. Eventually there would be no need for large power stations and major transmission lines.

        The first such commercially viable power plants could, potentially, be being produced and installed within 20 years, and all the large electricity generation stations and transmission lines decommissioned within perhaps another 40–60 years. This is an indication of how nuclear power could develop rapidly and, consequently, the costs decrease rapidly.

  76. Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity

    Nuclear power is and always has been the safest way to generate electricity. In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more (see Table 1 below).

    Nuclear could become the cheapest way to generate electricity. Were it not for the unwarranted fear of this technology that was generated by the anti-nuclear power protest movement starting in the 1960’s [1] (Section 3.6), nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost [1] (Table 3 bottom panel).

    The cost of nuclear power can be reduced by removing regulatory impediments. Internalising the externality costs of all energy technologies would further increase nuclear’s competitiveness and, therefore, its deployment rate and rate of cost reduction.

    The negative externalities of energy technologies can be largely internalised by taxing or subsidising them in proportion to their health impacts. The health impacts of electricity generation technologies can be internalised by either taxing technologies in proportion to their health impacts or subsidising those with lower impacts in proportion to the impacts of the technologies with the highest health impacts.

    A rough calculation suggests that, to internalise the cost of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US, generators should be required to pay compensation for the deaths caused by each technology. Table 1 presents estimates of the number of deaths per TWh attributable to electricity generation technologies, the cost per MWh and the total cost to the economy. The calculations use US$9.6 million Value of Statistical Life (VSL) [2], deaths per TWh for each technology [3,4] and US electricity generation per technology in 2019 [5].

    Table 1: Health impact of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US: deaths per TWh, cost of deaths in US$/MWh at Value of a Statistical Life, electricity generation per technology (GWh/a) and total cost of deaths per technology (US$bn).

    Technology Deaths/TWh US$/MWh GWh/a Total, US$bn
    Coal 15 144 966,148 139.13
    Oil 36 346 18,567 6.42
    Natural Gas 4 38 1,581,815 60.74
    Biofuel/biomass 12 115 58,412 6.73
    Solar (rooftop) 0.44 4.2 72,234 0.31
    Wind 0.15 1.4 300,071 0.43
    Hydro 0.005 0.048 273,707 0.013
    Nuclear 0.0001 0.001 809,409 0.001

    If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each would have to pay per MWh are:

    Technology US$/MWh
    Coal 144
    Oil 346
    Natural Gas 38
    Biofuel/biomass 115
    Solar (rooftop) 4.2
    Wind 1.4
    Hydro 0.048
    Nuclear 0.001

    References:

    1. Lang, P. Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
    2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. 2016. https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
    3. Wang, B. Deaths by Energy Source in Forbes. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
    4. Conca, J. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid
    5. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total Energy, Data, Electricity, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors). https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.02A#/

  77. Freezing temperatures and early SUMMER snowfall in parts of Australia:

    • Timestamp 1:40 :The Ailinglaplap atoll, a group of 56 islands is *increasing in area* and is located in the Pacific Ocean at just 7°N of the line of the equator.

      This lends itself to the increasing Earth tides hypothesis which are concentrated on the line of the equator just like the La Nina upwellings. The effect is more powerful than rising sea levels.

      When will NASA confirm this obvious phenomenon?

      • Alan, science is very outdated, it always is. It is the inertia.
        When something new emerges first it has to be understood by few people, so it will not be lost and forgotten.
        Second it has to be systemized, the method has to be developed, all the observations should be collected in one place, and all the relations between the factors should be systematically analyzed .
        Some more people will start being aware that there is something new worth taking attention…

        But, as I said, the knowledge baggage students acquire in school is very much outdated. Also the method used in schools is the same for the centuries.
        First teachers have to be updated.
        Example:
        They teach in the primary school the “sun rises on the East”.

        It is known for some 350 years that sun is always there. It is known that it is the Earth which rotates Eastward towards the sun.
        Then students are taught that Earth rotates on its axis.
        It is ail right, everyone knows now the Earth rotates on its axis.
        But this information hasn’t gone in the sub conscience.
        So people do not “see” Earth rotating, What they “see” is the rise of the sun.
        This kind of “traditional” approach is what lays in the basis of the “cultural religiosity”.

        Christos

      • Christos, I know exactly what you mean. Why teach kids that the Moon pulls on the water to create the tides?? La Place 350 years ago explained that the gravity acting across the entire globe creates a solid body Earth bulge which pushes the water from beneath in combination with it’s rotation.

        Everything is taught incorrectly nowadays without the art of critical thinking. It’s a crisis not only in physics but in education of knowledge in general.

      • Confusing scientific skepticism with inertia is a sign that it is not science.

        ‘Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise. The statistical standards of evidence needed to reject the null hypothesis are substantial. Ideally, in a controlled experiment, we would like to be 95 to 99 percent confident that the results were not caused by chance before we offer our provisional assent that the effect may be real. Failure to reject the null hypothesis does not make the claim false, and, conversely, rejecting the null hypothesis is not a warranty on truth. Nevertheless, the scientific method is the best tool ever devised to discriminate between true and false patterns, to distinguish between reality and fantasy, and to detect baloney.’ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-skepticism-reveals/

      • Another example:
        They teach in the primary school the Earth is evolved in atmosphere.
        Also that there is the heavens and the earth.
        Atmosphere appears to have some protective for the Earth’s habitats properties. Atmosphere is a protective shelter like. Especially at day-time, when the sun’s dispersed light colorizes the dome above.
        At night we see, it is obvious that atmosphere is very much transparent. We see stars.
        But mostly we sleep at night, and again the next day emerges with its glorious heavens above.

        Robert:
        “‘Science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise…”

        Let’s see what is the claim under investigation.

        The claim is the greenhouse gasses warming effect causes Earth being warmer than Moon – science begins with the null hypothesis, which assumes that the claim under investigation is not true until demonstrated otherwise…
        In our case the claim that atmosphere warms Earth is not true UNTIL DEMONSTRATED OTHERWISE.

        Then students are taught that Earth is warmer than Moon, because Earth’s atmosphere acts as a protective blanket that keeps Earth’s surface warm.

        So people do not “see” ATMOSPHERE BEING TRANSPARENT. What they “see” is the protective blanket.
        This kind of “traditional” approach is what lays in the basis of the “cultural religiosity”.

        http://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The atmosphere is not transparent at infrared frequencies. That has been demonstrated.

      • Increasing abyssal plane tidal energy would force nutrients towards the surface would help living coral to thrive and leave deposits. This is a good explanation for expanding coral atolls around equatorial regions:

        “They also radiocarbon-dated sediment deposited on the island to find out when the coral remnants were alive, and discovered that sediment on parts of the island had been deposited after 1950, suggesting the island’s growth is relatively new.
        ..
        But over the past decade, a number of studies have found that some atolls are actually getting bigger. A 2010 study showed that some Pacific islands hadn’t eroded, and a 2018 study of 30 Pacific and Indian Ocean atolls, including 709 islands, found that no atoll had lost land area. More than 88% of islands were either stable or increased in area, according to the study.”

        https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/12/06/asia/pacific-islands-growing-intl-dst-hnk/index.html

      • Atolls are built with sand and coral debris transported by winds, waves and currents. Does this mean the oceans are not rising? Science would suggest otherwise. But we have these two guys – with incompatible thought bubbles on climate change – denying everything from general relativity to the laws of thermodynamics. With a complete absence of knowledge of geophysical processes while pontificating on the sorry state of education. There is a bit of an unintended irony there.

        Consider a 2 body problem of celestial bodies – a larger and a smaller one – rotating around a common center of mass. At the closest approach there is a reduction of Newton’s force of gravity – on the opposite side there is a centrifugal force acting in the other direction. And there are bulges in both water and land if one of the bodies has oceans. Near the center of these masses the forces cancel out. Elsewhere there is a vector residual that is the cause of tides.

        Earth and water tides are measured with great precision. It is very basic geophysics. The land tide is some 40 cm. Being skeptical – the chances of this increasing substantially and affecting climate seem remote and we would definitely require some proof.

      • This article about the equatorial Marshall Islands compliments the above by showing that increased tidal forcing is a better fit to the data than manmade global warming:

        “Along U.S. coastlines, from California to Florida, residents are getting increasingly accustomed to “king tides.” These extra-high tides cause flooding and wreak havoc on affected communities. As climate change raises sea levels, they are becoming more extreme.

        King tides are nothing new for the Marshall Islands, a nation made up of 29 low-lying coral atolls that stretch across more than a million square miles of Pacific Ocean northeast of Australia. By 2035, the U.S. Geological Survey projects that some of the Marshall Islands will be submerged. Others will no longer have drinking water because their aquifers will be contaminated with saltwater. As a result, Marshallese would be forced to migrate away from their homelands.”

        https://theconversation.com/amp/the-marshall-islands-could-be-wiped-out-by-climate-change-and-their-colonial-history-limits-their-ability-to-save-themselves-145994

  78. Boris Johnson jumps on the woke climate change bandwagon:

  79. There is an equation THEORETICALLY calculating planet mean surface temperature.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  80. Here’s a nice “climate change in a rubber ball” experiment:

    https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075

    This exercise ball experiment appears to show that there is indeed a CO2 slowing-of-cooling effect in a simulated atmosphere less than half a meter thick.

    It is done very competently and it’s agreement of measurements with theory is impressive.

    However it’s interpretation is not straightforward. For instance as Clive Best pointed out CO2 IR absorption saturates in effect after only 25m:

    The absorption length for the existing concentration of CO2 is around 25 meters i.e. the distance to reduce the intensity by 1/e.

    https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/clive-best-its-a-circular-argument-if-we-assume-co2-warms-the-earth-we-find-that-co2-warms-the-earth/

    Now this Royal Society experiment by Levendis et al. operates over gas distances of just a few cm, so it is different from the atmosphere in that it is at a scale where the CO2 IR absorption effects are well below saturation. This will influence interpretation of the study and its significance to the earth’s surface and atmosphere.

    However even at the small scale of the rubber exercise ball, it looks like there might be a signature of incipient saturation. Take the results of the difference between cooling curves at different ball diameters. Ball diameters of 65, 75 and 85 cm were used. Here are the associated temperature differences that they found:

    For example, in the smallest balloon tested (65 cm), the two cooling curves were separated by a small temperature difference of 0.5 K at 6.5 min, which is at the thermocouple special limit of error. However, in the 75 cm balloon, the temperature difference at 6.5 min increased to a more significant 1.5 K, whereas in the 85 cm balloon, the corresponding temperature difference increased further to 2 K;

    Now here we have a nonlinear result. Increasing diameter from 65 to 75cm increased the temperature difference by one degree. But a further similar increase of diameter by 10 more cm to 85 cm resulted in a further increase in temperature difference only half as much; only half a degree.

    So one could extrapolate that further increases of the ball diameter would result in smaller and smaller increases in the temperature difference. Until at a certain diameter there would be no more significant growth in the temperature difference. In other words, saturation.

    In this train of thought the expectation of a linear relationship between gas thickness and temperature difference is no doubt naive. However it does seem to point to an inevitable saturation of the demonstrated slowing-of-cooling effect, after just a few meters of distance.

  81. Increasing tidal energy of La Nina is pushing warm air to higher latitudes and up into the jet stream. This increases the ‘loopiness’ of the high altitude jet “pushing cold air as far south as North Africa”:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/weather/1368932/BBC-Weather-UK-snow-forecast-Met-Office-temperatures-next-week-latest-news-vn/amp

  82. Whoah! There’s also the dwarf planet Ceres that fits the orbital inclination hypothesis due to it’s low axial tilt. It could be responsible for ENSO:

    “Ceres takes 1,682 Earth days, or 4.6 Earth years, to make one trip around the sun. As Ceres orbits the sun, it completes one rotation every 9 hours, making its day length one of the shortest in the solar system. Ceres’ axis of rotation is tilted just 4 degrees with respect to the plane of its orbit around the sun.

    Ceres is the largest object in the main asteroid belt that lies between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. With a diameter of 940 km, Ceres is both the largest of the asteroids and the only dwarf planet inside Neptune’s orbit. It is the 25th-largest body in the Solar System within the orbit of Neptune.”

    Even though it is relatively small, it could well have a large exotic matter core.

    The list is now:

    88 day 》 Mercury
    4.6 year 》 Ceres
    12 year 》 Jupiter
    82.5 year 》 Planet Nine
    225 year 》 Venus

    Ceres is a *good* fit and supersedes my previous idea of a slow spinning solar core.

    So why isn’t ENSO a predictable cycle of 4.6 years? Maybe the orbit of Ceres is more variable in it’s inclination cycle due to it’s much smaller size relative to a planet?

    • Ceres is a *good* fit to the ENSO data:

      “El Nino and La Nina episodes typically last approximately 9-12 months. They often begin to form during June-August, reach peak strength during December-April, and then decay during May-July of the next year. However, some prolonged episodes have lasted 2 years and even as long as 3-4 years. While their periodicity can be quite irregular, El Nino and La Nina occurs every 3-5 years on average.”

    • NASA’S Dawn spacecraft has revealed that Ceres has an active core and has an underground water reservoir. (Note that Vesta has a tilt of 29° and Pallus 84°)

    • We should be appropriately scientifically skeptical.

      • Of course you should be sceptical Robert, especially someone like you. But I can tell from your unusually short reply that it’s such a coincidence even your subconscious makes a tacit acknowledgement.

      • We should all be appropriately skeptical of Lowey’s hippy dippy astrology thought bubbles.

        “Spectral analysis shows the below-average epochs are associated with enhanced ENSO-like variability around 2–5 yr, while the above-average epoch is associated more with variability around 6–7 yr. ” https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display

        So can we expect Ceres to speed up again?

      • Another back to back La Nina coming up.

        ‘However, a build-up in tropical moisture is under way and the bureau is holding to its forecast that most of the country’s north and east will be in for a wetter and milder summer than usual. The gauge tracking the La Nina has also strengthened in the latest readings.

        ‘Andrew Dyer, principal flood analyst with Insurance Australia Group (IAG), said the outlook was now revealing “some of the strongest wet signals we’ve seen in about 10 years” despite the hot, dry November.’ (SMH)

      • It will be a back to back La Nina if the cold tongue asserts itself in the second half of next year.

  83. Live from the Great Barrier Reef. I think this might work for foreigners. It is moon related.

    “The mass spawning occurs after a full moon and only after rising water temperatures have stimulated the maturation of the gametes within the adult coral. The day length, tide height and salinity levels also appear to be factors in deciding when the event will happen.

    The spawning lasts between a few days and a week. This is because different species release their eggs and sperm on different days to prevent hybrids from being produced.”

    https://iview.abc.net.au/video/DO2003H001S00

    https://iview.abc.net.au/video/DO2003H002S00

    • The southern part of the Great Barrier Reef is doing well compared to the infamous bleaching episodes of the north:

      “Ms Davis had expected the declining health of the reef to continue due to ocean acidification inhibiting coral recovery.

      Instead the coral is doing better now than it was when it was first studied in the 1970s.

      “Not only is calcification of the reef recovering, there was a visible increase in the amount of coral as well; with coral cover increasing by 30 to 40 per cent.”

      https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-02/new-hope-for-great-barrier-reef-with-remarkable-coral-growth/11268014

      It makes me suspicious as to the true cause of bleaching which has been attributed to acidification of the oceans but why are the equatorial atolls increasing as well as the south Great Barrier Reef?

      Blue-green algae blooms perhaps? It wouldn’t surprise me. There’s an Australian scientist who famously spoke out against the media hype and he got cancelled.

    • Bleaching occurs when corals are heat stressed and eject symbiotic zooxanthellae in a last ditch survival strategy. They may be recolonised and recover. They may indeed be recolonised with more heat tolerant algae. But oceans are warming – to some extent the result of anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The conditions are exacerbated by La Nina as warm surface water piles up against the Australian coastline. There is twice the seasonal cyclone risk in La Nina years – likely to increase in intensity with warmer water, Both bleaching and cyclones are major factors in reef damage.

      You really do need to consult some science sometimes – and not just the media – if you are wanting any credibility. Oceans are supersaturated with calcite and aragonite. In these shallow coastal, coral environments that would not change for a very long time. Certainly long enough for some better land management and nuclear power.

      Atolls are built with sand and coral debris transported by winds, waves and currents. Does this mean the oceans are not rising? Science would suggest otherwise. Tis the season for Trichodesmium on the Tropic of Capricorn. These are toxic nitrogen fixing algae that form surface slicks that can be seen from space. This and green algae growing on seagrass and corals are more a problem for the inner reef than in low nutrient outer reef water. The problem there comes with the recruitment and survival of crown-of-thorns juvenile starfish on the coast that then disperse on currents and as adults chomp away at reefs. They are being found at the southern tip of the GBR. They are a major source of coral loss caused by sediment and nutrients in runoff from land. Outbreaks are culled by divers by hand. But I just heard – in the second video – of an AI robot being developed. Takes terminator to a new level.

      Biochemical flows were mentioned – by reference to a cane farmer. Land management is key and farmers are acting on this new knowledge with new methods. There is a problem with phosphorus, metals and other pollutants in sediment that will leach out in soluble form over many years. Novel chemicals were mentioned – 1000’s of them – found in sea turtle blood. AGW may already be a problem in this most precious World Heritage responsibility.

      Peter Ridd may behave like a surly, old curmudgeon all he likes. But the message is clear and simple – caring for country. And don’t you just love Shark Girl.

      • ‘Bleaching occurs when corals are heat stressed and eject symbiotic zooxanthellae in a last ditch survival strategy.’

        So bleaching doesn’t happen because of a momentary drop is sea level?

        Surely bleaching is more common during El Nino?

      • We do things differently. The 2015/16 El Nino. Although other regions were bleached – the Coral Sea was a little cooler.


        “Bleaching frequency (B) (number of years per decadal bin in which bleaching occurred) and prevalence (C) (% of corals bleached per decade) observed in at least 20% of coral for the GBR denoted by blue bars. ”
        https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2018.00283/full

        It’s known that La Nina were more frequent before the start of the 20th century. The apparent lack of a long term trend in bleaching is consistent – and this is not Lowey’s consistent – with an inability to distinguish these things from background variability. Nonetheless…

      • Geoff Sherrington

        RIE writes about the Great barrier Reef – “There is a problem with phosphorus, metals and other pollutants in sediment”.
        Since when has Phosphorus been named a pollutant? Last time I did plant nutrition science, it was a nutrient essential for plant life. Same with your generic “metals”, some of which like Fe, Mo, Zn, Cu are also essential nutrients.
        Then we have the old sedimentation theory. Peter Ridd, who studied this for decades, says that there is very little sediment from the mainland, especially by the time deposition reaches the Outer Reef. It simply is not transported there in any significant quantity. I have yet to see a photo of coral under usual conditions covered with identifiable sediment that plausibly came from the mainland. Likewise, in my own diving on many coral reefs.
        You might consider whether your passion for voluminous second-hand quasi-science gossip is getting to a harmful stage. Geoff S

      • ‘The 2015/16 El Nino. Although other regions were bleached – the Coral Sea was a little cooler.’

        Its officially classified as a weak La Nina, hope that helps.

      • “The 2015/16 El Niño turned out to be in the same class as the biggest such events recorded in the 20th century.” https://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/151/meteorology/2015-2016-el-nino-and-beyond

      • It’s a bit pointless trying to follow Geoff’s tortured thinking on just about anything.

        1. Excess nutrients cause blue-green algae blooms in waterways, lake eutrophication and expanding anoxic zones on coasts. Metals include cadmium, lead, chromium, nickel, mercury… While generally found in insoluble crystalline form – sediments are anoxic below about a centimeter where they are reduced to soluble form by facultative organisms. They can enter the water column by such means as seagrass pumping or if the top centimeter of sediment becomes anoxic. Once in the water column bioactive substances are cycled very efficiently in the photic zone across oceans sometimes. When I was young and silly – I traced chlorophyll C measurements from Sydney’s sewage outfall for hundreds of kilometres.

        2. In fresh water clay particles have positive charges that keep them from clumping and settling. When flood flows hit the sea charges are neutralised, particles clump and sink to the seafloor. Flood plumes from larger rivers can extend for 10’s of kilometres out to sea. I did – however – speak in terms of excess nutrients enhancing larval survival of crown of thorns starfish.

        “The crown-of-thorns starfish larvae feed on phytoplankton in the water column (Okaji 1997) and so additional nutrients from rivers runoff are thought to contribute to an increase in the survival rate of larvae (Brodie et al. 2005; Fabricius et al. 2010) and the frequency of outbreaks (Fabricius et al. 2010).” https://eatlas.org.au/ne-aus-seascape-connectivity/cots-larval-flow

        I live on the Tropic of Capricorn. I have sailed, I have dived, I have snorkeled across many reef flats. I have worked in the field of biogeochemical cycling for 40 years.

        Sharrington might consider pulling his ill informed head out of his nether regions.

      • Chief

        To change the subject a bit from nutrients to temperature.

        “…from Sydney’s sewage outfall for hundreds of kilometres.“

        I got a budget briefing about 40 years ago about river water temperatures increasing downstream from point source effluent discharge but I can’t remember the level of temperature increase. Have you seen any studies or come across data that would indicate the temperature impact from such discharge? There was a recent paper discussing the Arctic Sea Ice being affected by river outflow but no real data as to how much warming was flowing into the basin. I wonder whether there could be any appreciable change in temperature from man’s activity within those watersheds.

      • The only reason I can imagine is that the sewage effluent is warmer than the stream temperature. Long ago I read an article that said that there were enough cocaine metabolites downstream of Milan for 200,000 lines. Not relevant – just a factoid.

        Igor Polyakov is a fun guy on the Arctic. I use a Chrome extension called unpaywall that will give a legal preprint version. Scihub se will give a cleaner version. Copy and paste the URL.

        https://doi.org/10.1890/11-0902.1

      • ” … same class as the biggest such events recorded in the 20th century.”

        My bad, I meant to say weak El Nino but it appears I was wrong on that score as well. Thanks for clarifying.

      • “You might consider whether your passion for voluminous second-hand quasi-science gossip is getting to a harmful stage.” – Geoff S

        Totally agreed Geoff and great post btw.

      • This from a hippy dippy general relativity denier. Having an obsequious Lowey on team Sherrington is not at all surprising. He really is a stand up guy with a deep knowledge of natural sciences.

      • Geoff Sherrington: RIE writes about the Great barrier Reef – “There is a problem with phosphorus, metals and other pollutants in sediment”.
        Since when has Phosphorus been named a pollutant? Last time I did plant nutrition science, it was a nutrient essential for plant life. Same with your generic “metals”, some of which like Fe, Mo, Zn, Cu are also essential nutrients.

        RIE subsequently wrote that those nutrients are “pollutants” when they are in “excess.”

        Gentlemen, has it been shown in the research literature whether they are indeed in “excess” in the Great Barrier Reef.

        Similarly for GBR sediments, about which you seem to disagree: what’s the published evidence?

      • You are mistaken again Matthew. There is no doubt that sediment export from the mainland has increased since European colonization – and most settles close to the coast due to particle chemistry I briefly described. Nowhere did I say anything different. Eroded soil particles carry both nutrients and pollutants.

        In the complex anoxic chemistry of benthic sediment oxygen is stripped from orthophosphate by organisms leaving soluble phosphorus. This is then released into the water by such things as seagrass pumping – where it is utilized by blooms of nitrogen fixing cyanotoxic algae. These latter are food for juvenile crown-of-thorns starfish that then settle in large numbers on reefs leaving a denuded seascape in their wake.

        “The crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) is a major predator of hard corals. Repeated COTS outbreaks in the Cairns and Central sections of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) have been responsible for greater declines in coral cover than any other type of disturbance, including cyclones, disease, and coral bleaching.”

        QED

      • Robert I Ellison: You are mistaken again Matthew.

        Excess nutrients cause blue-green algae blooms in waterways, lake eutrophication and expanding anoxic zones on coasts.

        What exactly did I write that was in error? About sediments I asked a question.

      • This time it was on disagreement on sediment reaching the outer reefs. I never said it did. Other times it is other pettifogging things.

      • Robert I Ellison: There is a problem with phosphorus, metals and other pollutants in sediment that will leach out in soluble form over many years.

        Robert I Ellison: This time it was on disagreement on sediment reaching the outer reefs. I never said it did.

        This is your first introduction of the qualifier “reaching the outer reefs”. Your posts have jumped around without focus on any particular reefs.

      • I discussed flood plumes and sediment chemistry. Sediment in flood plumes settles very quickly due to deionization in salt water. In sediment phosphorus is converted from an insoluble – non bioavailable form – crystalline form to a soluble form. Soluble phosphorus emerges into the water column over a long time where it is utilized by nitrogen fixing algae. It results in increases in nutrients over background in the GBR lagoon. This is in my area of professional expertise. I discussed it all. You need to understand some biogeochemical cycling basics to understand what was said. You have obviously missed the entire point yet again.

  84. In the inclination hypothesis of orbitally forced climate shifts, the effect occurs relatively briefly in the cycle, when the strong gravitational interaction occurs when on the same plane (if there’s low axial tilt). This affects the magnetic field which is an indication of the altering of the exotic core:

    “Sunspots are typically confined to an equatorial belt between -35 degrees south and +35 degrees north latitude. At the beginning of a new solar cycle, sunspots tend to form at high latitudes, but as the cycle reaches a maximum (large numbers of sunspots) the spots form at lower latitudes. Near the minimum of the cycle, sunspots appear even closer to the equator, and as a new cycle starts again, sunspots again appear at high latitudes. This recurrent behavior of sunspots gives rise to the “butterfly” pattern shown, and was first discovered by Edward Maunder in 1904. The reason for this sunspot migration pattern is unknown. Understanding this pattern could tell us something about how the Sun’s internal magnetic field is generated.”

    The tidal forcing of the ~88 year cycle attributable to Planet Nine is occurring during the present era according to this chart:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-sunspot-cycle-is-more-intricate-than-previously-thought/

    There’s also the gradual increase due to Earth’s ~100,000 year inclination cycle itself to consider.

    The 225 year cycle due to Venus doesn’t come into effect until circa 2080 apparently.

    The 4.6 year ENSO cycle attributable to Ceres and the 12 year cycle of Jupiter appear to dominate with an underlying overall increase over the last 200 years. I’m convinced that the Earth is in the shallow ascent of the glacial cycle, who’s tidal forcing is being misinterpreted as manmade global warming.

    The definitive proof will be the discovery of Planet Nine in the next 5 years or so, which will confound mainstream scientists who’s models predict a period of around 10,000 years or more, as opposed to ~88 years. Low axial tilt will be the icing on the cake.

    • OMG. He never stops. One of these people following odd ideas down rabbit holes. The solar system orbits around a common center of mass – in accordance with Newton’s theory of gravity or Einstein’s general relativity curved space-time. Either one will do. It takes a brave man to deny either. – or one so far up his exotic matter he no longer knows up from down.

      And that’s what makes the solar dynamo hum.

    • I’ve spotted another dwarf planet with an incredibly low axial tilt of just 0.513°, called Orcus, although orbiting beyond Neptune and very small. It’s similar in size to Ceres, but so much farther away it’s difficult to imagine a significant affect on solar cycles or Earth’s climate. It does have a large moon, which suggests a relatively high exotic matter core.

      It will be important in the future with regard to planetary formation. It has an orbit of 247 years, extremely close to Pluto of 248 years. The strong gravitational force is clearly lacking in modern orbital analysis:

      https://phys.org/news/2015-08-dwarf-planet-orcus.html

      • If someone were reading these posts which highlight low axial tilt & strong gravitational interaction on the plane, then Planet Nine would be located a lost quicker. Pluto and Orcus are interlinked yet one is as far apart from the other at the nodal points in their orbits:

        “Much like Pluto, Orcus has a very long orbital period, taking 245.18 years (89552 days) to complete a single rotation around the sun. It also is in a 2:3 orbital resonance with Neptune and is above the ecliptic during perihelion. In addition, it’s orbit has a similar inclination and eccentricity as Pluto’s – 20.573° to the ecliptic, and 0.227, respectively.

        In short, Orcus orbits the sun at a distance of 30.27 AU (4.53 billion km) at perihelion and 48.07 AU (7.19 billion km) at aphelion. However, Pluto and Orcus are oriented differently. For one, Orcus is at aphelion when Pluto is at perihelion (and vice versa), and the aphelion of Orcus’s orbit points in nearly the opposite direction from Pluto’s. Hence why Orcus is often referred to as the “anti-Pluto”.

      • There’s another trans-Neptunian object which will be a key to new orbital understanding, Salacia has an axial tilt of just -0.4375 ° which is complementary to Orcus’s tilt of just 0.513°, and also it’s own moon.

      • Latest update on Planet Nine suggests 10,000yr orbit doesn’t exist because hundreds more objects have been found so that ‘shepherding’ is no longer required.

        It still opens up the Gleissberg cycle definition of Planet Nine with a ~88yr orbit that is difficult to see because it’s close to the galactic plane and so obscured by starlight.

        See timestamp 4:55

      • No one but Alan is suggesting that general relativity in the solar system doesn’t work.

        https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aa7aed

      • “No one but Alan is suggesting that general relativity in the solar system doesn’t work.” – Robert

        That’s not true. Professor of Theoretical Physics Claudia de Rahm chalks out a particle solution to gravity on a wooden bench at timestamp 2:15:

      • “No one but Alan is suggesting that general relativity in the solar system doesn’t work.” – Robert

        That’s not true. Professor of Theoretical Physics Claudia de Rahm chalks out a particle solution to gravity on a wooden bench at timestamp 2:15:

      • Not true at all. No one is saying general relativity isn’t a powerful theory with many predictions confirmed experimentally. Gravitons and brane cosmology – elements of a string theory meant to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity – are speculation not raised to the level of hypothesis even. With little progress in 40 years other than more speculation and no predictions worth a damn. Just like Lowey. It is not useful in geophysics – that still must obey Newton’s inverse square rule when it comes to gravity. Because that’s what’s observed,

      • “It is not useful in geophysics – that still must obey Newton’s inverse square rule when it comes to gravity. Because that’s what’s observed,” – Ellison

        Again you cannot see through the doors of perception. The clouds are not observed to be affected by the passing of the Moon. That’s why ancient Arab philosophers described the ocean tides as “waves upon waves upon waves”.

        They were visionaries.

      • Aldous Huxley – the doors of perception of heaven and hell? You’ve taken too many drugs Alan.

        Natural sciences have an Earthly origin. Clouds form as evaporation rises in the atmosphere and condenses. Waves are fractal – there is a turbulent continuum as the planet spins from microeddies to planetary waves. “We may believe, for example, that the motion of the unsaturated portion of the atmosphere is governed by the Navier–Stokes equations, but to use these equations properly we should have to describe each turbulent eddy—a task far beyond the capacity of the largest computer.” Edward Lorenz

        Now there was a visionary. We know that the set of Navier-Stokes equations in 3 dimension are nonlinear. Just as we know that Poincare’s Hamiltonians for orbitals evolve in unexpected directions. Both these equations would be recognized by Newton but are explicable only as chaos – the 3rd great idea – with quantum mechanics and relativity – of 20th century physics.

      • “You’ve taken too many drugs Alan.” – Ellison

        You obviously didn’t take enough. Jacinda Ardern admitted to smoking pot when she was younger – would you condemn her as well?

      • Surprised I got the allusion? I’m a reader with a penchant for visionary poetry. But I like my science dry and its language sparse and elegant. Like a martini.

  85. And Earth is warmer than Moon because EARTH ROTATES FASTER.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  86. Just thought I’d share this amazing footage of an underground aquifer filling up again in the Saudi Arabia desert:

    • Tunnel erosion – to correct some misinformation. .

      • Interesting. The main point that the Saudi Arabian desert used to get a lot of rainfall still stands. There’s constant footage of floods also in the Middle East of Iran & Iraq, a ‘cradle of civilisation’.

      • There is a lot more runoff from degraded land. Holding it in the landscape is a solution to many things. But if you have a point – it’s typically incoherent nonsense.

      • Lol.. you made me scoff..

      • Apropos of your hippy dippy waffling? Try putting a coherent paragraph together that has some information content and keeps your timeline in order.

        “The main point that the Saudi Arabian desert used to get a lot of rainfall still stands. There’s constant footage of floods also in the Middle East of Iran & Iraq, a ‘cradle of civilisation’.”

        It doesn’t get a lot of rainfall – it just all runs off at once into the Arabian Sea. Just for a start.

  87. The AMO is colder when the solar wind temperature/pressure is higher, as in the early to mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, and is warmer when the solar wind temperature/pressure is lower, as from 1995.
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons/

    The warmer ocean phase is amplified by an increase in lower troposphere water vapour and by a reduction in low cloud cover which it drives.
    Annual sunshine hours in the UK are higher during a warm AMO phase, with the increase occurring mostly in Winter and Spring.

  88. “One of the most famous climate oscillations has a period of about 60 years. Although this oscillation might emerge from internal variability, increasing evidence points toward a solar or astronomical origin, as also argued herein. We highlight that the orbital eccentricity of Jupiter presents prominent oscillations with a period of quasi 60 years due to its gravitational coupling with Saturn.”

    The AMO is always warmer during centennial solar minima, which considerably vary in their intervals. There were 130 years between the Gleissberg Minimum and the current centennial solar minimum, which led to one 60 year and then one 70 year AMO envelope. Between the Dalton and Gleissberg solar minima there were only 80 years, how long were the AMO envelopes then?
    This patently cannot be reduced to every third synodic period of Jupiter and Saturn, and the changes in cloud cover are ocean phase driven rather than driving the ocean phases.

    • Ulric, what mechanism are you proposing between sunspot numbers and climate shifts?? Change in amount of sunshine has been categorically ruled out by mainstream science.

      • The first link in my previous comment, the solar wind not sunspot numbers.
        Observed increases in sunshine hours cannot be ruled out by anyone.

    • This is an eye-opener for just how active the sun is:

      “On December 2, 2020, ESA released this cool video montage of 25 years of the sun’s activity, as observed by a space observatory called SOHO (the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory). Since its launch on December 5, 1995, SOHO’s cameras have captured thousands of sunspots, flares, and coronal mass ejections that continuously break out from the sun.”

      https://earthsky.org/space/sun-25-years-video-solar-flare-cme-sunspot

  89. “Possible new physics”.. I still maintain Odd Radio Circles are the remnants from counter spinning ‘black holes’ that have collided at the centre of dwarf galaxies orbiting the Milky Way:

  90. I think 2021 is going to be the year that physics broke. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) makes prediction contrary to NASA and NOAA that next solar cycle will be huge, based on new magnetic field research:

  91. Dimitris Poulos

    other than the usual research that fits the media verbosity, me too have made original research that stands out. this is the best explanation yet of the solar wind phenomenon and how it drives climate. when paul cooijmans, one of the highest iq in the world and richard wilson of acrim endorse it, it means that it is of some importance. uneducated guys, are free to believe whatever they like to.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342573527_What_Is_Solar_Wind

    • Very interesting opening paragraphs Dimitris, thank you:

      “Orbiting planets exert tidal forcing to the solar surface. The four planets with the greater tidal intensity to the solar surface are Mercury, Venus, Earth and Jupiter. The other planets force is much weaker. Various researchers have attempted in the past to connect solar activity to the tidal forces of orbiting planets. Takahashi (1968) is a pioneer of the concept though he did not have much success to showing the requested. Recently Stefani et al (2019) pondered on the idea. But he oddly left Mercury
      out of the equation. Moreover he claimed some solar dynamo to justify his claims. But this is quite odd since tidal forces are very weak to have any effect to the solar interior. Anyway the phenomena take place to the solar surface, not core.”

      I’m convinced new physics *does* affect the Sun’s core which similarly affects the Earth’s core, which is the true driver of climate shifts.

      It’s interesting that the planets chosen, Mercury, Venus and Jupiter all have low axial tilt or do you think that this is just a coincidence??

    • The inclination hypothesis is very similar to Stefani’s approach:

      “The study expands upon the commonly accepted model for the solar dynamo and supports a long-held theory that planetary configurations are responsible for the sunspot cycle and magnetic solar cycle.”

      https://earthsky.org/space/planetary-low-tide-force-regular-sunspot-sync-ups

    • The orbital inclination hypothesis includes Mercury due to it’s low axial tilt and I was delighted to see that the 88-day period is in the sunspot data:

      “.. however, has shown that the period of Mercury’s orbit appears in the sunspot data.. The effects attributed to Mercury have been neglected because of their very short period of about 3 months compared with the period of the Sunspot cycle, which averages about 11.1 yr.”

      https://www.nature.com/articles/240091a0

      Axial tilts
      Mercury 》 2°
      Venus 》 3°
      Jupiter 》 3°

      • I’m convinced that this 88-day signal is in Earth’s tidal data.

      • The reason why Jupiter’s orbital period of 11.86-years isn’t a direct match to the sunspot cycle would be due to the influence of Ceres, the dwarf planet which orbits between Mars and Jupiter.

        It has an orbital period of 4.6-years, who’s tidal influence I attribute to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

        Ceres axial tilt is 4°

        So, just like Mercury, this 4.6-year signal should be hidden in the sunspot cycle.

        Mercury 》 2° 》 88-day solar cycle
        Ceres 》 4° 》 4.6-year solar cycle
        Jupiter 》 3° 》 11.86-year solar cycle
        Planet Nine 》 ? 》 ~88-year Gleissberg cycle
        Venus 》 3° 》 ~200-year solar cycle

      • The heart of the solar cycle is Venus-Earth-Jupiter synodic cycles. The actual timing of each cycle maximum is when the Earth-Venus heliocentric inferior conjunctions are lining up with Uranus, or with Neptune during the weaker sunspot cycles of each centennial minimum. This accounts for all solar cycle length variability.
        The average cycle length is 1261271 / 312 days.

        https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/schwabe-cycle-variability-ulric-lyons

  92. The paradox goes back to ancient Arab philosophers who noticed that the clouds weren’t affected by the passing of the Moon. In the Qu’ran they say that the tides are “waves upon waves upon waves”. They were visionaries.

    • “For those of us who are really interested what’s going on in the world and how it works and aren’t trying to impose presuppositions and agenda on whatever data comes their way – as some people seem to do – these things are worth watching out for as we fill in more of the gaps in coming years.” Mallen Baken

      For this marine data series –

      “We utilize the reported air temperature (T) and reported dew point temperature (Td) as the source for our humidity products. Sea surface temperature (SST) and wind speed (u) are used for estimating height adjustments.

      We calculate the specific humidity (q), relative humidity (RH), vapour pressure (e), wet-bulb temperature (Tw; not the thermodynamic wet bulb but a close approximation to it), and dew point depression (DPD) for each point observation.”

      The ‘paradox’ has to do with declining relative humidity. I wouldn’t spend sleepless nights over it – but then I ain’t a hippy dippy visionary.

  93. The description of the Atlantic Niño is in contrast to the data. The wind vectors in the first figure converge on the line of the equator and don’t show a strong easterly as stated underneath. There’s no evidence of “weaker-than-normal” in the west:

    “The near-surface trade winds blow steadily from east to west along the equator. When weaker-than-normal trade winds develop in the western Atlantic basin, downwelling equatorial Kelvin waves propagate to the eastern basin, deepening the thermocline and making it harder for the colder, deeper water to affect the surface.”

    https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/do-you-know-el-niño-has-little-brother

    It’s baloney that changing equatorial winds dictate upwellings. Where’s the evidence? There is none because it’s a default assumption. No other mechanism can be deduced.

    • He is a climate denier, a general relativity denier and now an ENSO denier.

      • What’s your official position with respect to China? I suspect your a China lover.

      • Free trade. Ultimately China needs our resources more than we need them. Let’s see – it was shrimp creole last night and beef in black bean sauce tonight. What can I say – I’m cosmopolitan.

        I suspect that you are a hippy dippy oddball – but then I’ve had all the clues.

      • I also note that you can’t produce any evidence to counter my claim that wind driven upwellings is contrary to the data.

      • There really is 110 years of data and theory on ENSO. Since Sir Gilbert Walker employed many Indian clerks to do the math and produced the first forecast of the Indian monsoon in 1909. Although it wasn’t until the mid 20th century that the mechanism was discovered by Vilhelm Bjerknes. Giants on whose shoulders generations have stood since.

        I am not dignifying your thought bubble with a response.

      • “I am not dignifying your thought bubble with a response.” – Ellison

        You criticise chaamjamal for not being able to be concise yet you can’t provide evidence for wind driven upwellings and use diversion tactics instead (as usual).

      • Walker and Bjerknes are not diversions from ENSO. And there are enough clues in that comment for decades of study.

      • “China needs our resources more than we need them.” – Ellison

        You’re delusional. Are you happy with the way communist China is punishing Australia for asking for an enquiry into the source of Covid-19?

        Do you kowtow to the CCP that the source of the outbreak shouldn’t be investigated? Do you ignore the fact that China let the virus spread around the world by not stopping international flights?

      • I’d rather be a gravity/climate contrarian than a CCP sympathiser.

      • Australia has successfully pursued a free trade ethos for 40 years. And what matters with COVID is whether we are in a better position technologically to respond to the next interspecies viral spillover.

        Why should any of that that change because Alan Lowry is in a lock step frenzy with a group of vociferous outsiders who bristle when they are not taken as seriously as they take themselves? He is a hippy dippy shyster.

      • Ellison – you need to listen to this report of how the CCP is tactically targeting Australian exports:

      • I know what’s happening. I’m planning some lobster dinners. The solution is not Sky News inspired jingoistic prattling from Lowey and cohorts.

      • “I know what’s happening.” – Ellison

        Oh, so what’s your take?

      • The US Ambassador to Australia tells it straight. For 5 crucial weeks the CCP kept the rest of the world in the dark about the virus. Beware the debt-trap diplomacy of the Belt & Roads Initiative which Pakistan has fallen for. I bet you’re a Dan Andrews supporter Ellison, aren’t you?

      • For some reason you want to divert attention from your eastern margin upwelling silliness to an equally facile China rant in which I am condemned in an absurd and invidious blame game – quite out of the blue – as a fellow traveller.


        “A global false-colour compilation of satellite data on ocean chlorophyll from the MODIS Aquasensor for the year 2011 showing the California, Peru, Canary and Benguela ecosystems (white ovals). Satellite imagery courtesy of NASA. From Capone and Hutchins, 2013”
        https://www.clivar.org/research-foci/upwelling

    • The NOAA article confirms the above analysis: “La Niñas tend to rev up the existing Walker Circulation. The trade winds, which blow east to west across the Pacific Ocean, blow a little harder, while winds higher up in the atmosphere blow to the east a little bit harder. During November, that is exactly what happened.” which indicates the winds are not strong enough to induce upwellings but are a consequence of an unknown driver. I propose this to be increased abyssal solid body Earth tides due to new physics.

      https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/december-2020-la-niña-update-walking-la-niña-winter-wonderland#comment-3780

  94. High tide floods Venice as dam system fails to activate..The latest tide was predicted to reach 1.25 meters. Instead, it kept rising to a height of 1.38 meters in the late afternoon.

    https://www.dailysabah.com/gallery/in-photos-high-tide-floods-venice-as-dam-system-fails-to-activate/images?gallery_image=29275

    • How does modern forecasting get the tides wrong by as much as 1.2 meters? It’s shameful.

      • Alan asks about an interesting subject. Tides, and maybe more – we will see.
        But look at the planets; the present orientation. New moon on 14th. So we have moon, sun, Jupiter and Saturn in conjunction, near in-line, all on one side of the earth. The 30th might be interesting also, full moon, but now opposite others. Plus an earth in solstitial orientation.

      • It is 0.13 metres as a result of stronger winds than anticipated.

        Weather models have an Achilles’ heel – chaos can cause them to go awry. Or chaos can cause the weather to go awry and what’s a poor model to do. At which stage we can expect the Loweys of this world to go awry. Which is why the emphasis is on probabilistic and not deterministic forecasting.

      • mm – the official explanation is “strong winds”.. even so, the discrepancy is amazing. What’s the point of a sophisticated tide barrier which needs 24 hours notice if the operators get it so wrong?

      • Oops.. I’ve got my figures wrong:

        “Venice has been flooded with water once again as officials warn of a ‘terrible situation’ a year after the city suffered a billion pounds of damage during high tides.

        Bad weather including heavy rain and high winds caused the tide in Venice to rise and flood waters reached a height of 122cm this morning, catching the authorities off guard before they could activate the huge flood barriers that were rolled out just two months ago.

        Those tides then reached a 145 cm peak as strong sirocco winds blew in from Croatia and two rivers flooded near the sea around the historic Italian city.

        The system of 78 flood gates, known as Mose, guard the entrance to the Venetian lagoon and are designed to protect the city from tides of up to 3 metres (10 ft). However, they require 48-hours notice to be activated.

        Weather bulletins in past days had forecast rainfall pushing sea levels up to 120 centimetres, below the 130 cm threshold at which the flood barriers are operated.”

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9031281/Venice-floods-St-Marks-Square-swamped-water.html

        So they underestimated by 25cm, not 1.2m as previously stated.

      • mm – “..all on one side of the earth.” You could be right that the prediction algorithms used by the MOSE operators don’t properly represent the correct orbital tidal influence.

        It’d be interesting to see whether the mistake happens again. I tend to agree with you that it will.

        Thanks for the post.

      • “Alan asks about an interesting subject. Tides, and maybe more – we will see.” – mm

        The orbital inclination hypothesis would contend that the Grand Solar Minimum is the cause of the unexpected tidal surge.

        Extra tidal forcing due to Planet Nine ~88-year cycle in combination with Jupiter ~11.1-year cycle.

        I’d bet it will happen again in the not-too-distant future. It’s only been operational for four months! This could be the reason that anomalous high tides are eventually taken seriously.

        It’s going to happen. I can tell.

      • mm – in the video footage it’s not even windy or raining hard. Look how deep the water is. This is a HUGE mistake and shows the inadequacy of tidal models. What a fiasco:

      • “Extra tidal forcing due to Planet Nine ~88-year cycle in combination with Jupiter ~11.1-year cycle.”

        I forgot to include the 4.6-year cycle of tidal forcing due to La Niña attributable to Ceres, the dwarf planet orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.

      • melitamegalithic – I have another insight into new physics tidal forcing. The Earth’s exotic matter core has an axial tilt of 5°, corresponding to the Moon’s inclination orbit relative to the Earth-Sun plane. It’s Earth’s large-sized innermost core which is the driver of the ~11.1-year sunspot cycle.

        Mercury, Venus, Ceres, Jupiter and Planet Nine are affecting Earth’s exotic core tilt. I’ve just realised the Moon’s axial tilt of 1.5° could be the driver of the millennial cycle of abrupt climate change (and tilt Earth’s outer body by 5°?):

        Axial tilt
        Mercury 》 2° 》 88-day cycle
        Venus 》 3° 》 ~200-year cycle
        Earth’s core 》 5° 》 1-year cycle
        Moon 》 1.5° 》 ~1,470-year cycle
        Ceres 》 4° 》 4.6-year cycle
        Jupiter 》 3° 》 11.86-year cycle
        Planet Nine 》 ~1° 》 ~88-year cycle

        The Sun’s exotic core I imagine to be similar in size to Earth’s exotic core. I also imagine the Sun’s core to tend to 0° tilt, relative to the plane of angular momentum..

        There’s another plane of angular momentum of exotic matter in the solar system.

        It’s the strong gravitational interaction between the Sun’s core and the Earth’s core which is the primary driver of the sunspot cycle. Are they in orbital core resonance?

      • Earth has become the renewed centre of the solar system wrt exotic matter cores.

      • Is water generated by active exotic matter cores? Is Earth losing water vapour to the emptiness of space only to be replaced from within? Is this why Ceres has both an active exotic core as well as water percolating to it’s surface?

      • This is fascinating:

      • The size of the exotic matter cores is relatively extremely small. I’m basing a guesstimate related to neutron stars. This is completely uncharted territory and so is a complete guess:

        “In a neutron star, all its large mass – up to about twice as much as our sun’s – is squeezed into a star that’s only about 10 miles (15 km) across, or about the size of an earthly city.”

        https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/definition-what-is-a-neutron-star

        So potentially we’re talking about the Sun having an exotic core of just ~1km diameter?

        I’m assuming the unique planet mother Earth has an exotic core which is larger than the Sun’s, so say ~1.2km diameter?

        Another way of guessing could be the width of the rings of Saturn:

        “The rings of Saturn, for example, are about 280,000km wide (stretching away from the planet) but only 200 metres thick.”

        Scaling upto the diameter of the Sun is a factor of 12.8 gives 2,560m or ~2.5km.

        This is a better figure to use and surprising close to the complete guesstimate of ~1km.

        Sun’s exotic core diameter 》 ~2.5km
        Earth’s exotic core diameter 》 ~3km (?)

  95. This is an excellent analysis of the bipolar nature of sunspots. Sometimes there is more activity in the Northern hemisphere and at other times more in the Southern. In the 1960’s it was predominantly southern which is apparently going to be a match for this cycle with solar Maximum in 2025.

    This lends itself to the inclination hypothesis imo because a planetary orbit will be above the solar equator (or plane of angular momentum of the solar system) in one phase and then below in the next .

    The difference between the 1960’s and now is around 60 years. I’m thinking that it’s to do with the orbit of Ceres coming close to Jupiter which will affect the tilt of it’s inner most core.

    Jupiter’s inclination orbit is very close to the plane of angular momentum being just 0.32°.

  96. More signs of increased tidal forcing:

    “Australia’s hottest spring on record, which saw temperatures more than 2C above average…A spring as hot as the one Australians just experienced would come along only once every half a million years..”

    https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/10/australias-record-spring-heat-one-in-500000-without-climate-change-analysis

  97. Here’s a recent paper which makes a case for CO2 lagging climate change during the glacial cycles. I naturally dismiss “wind driven” and “temperature gradient” with tidal forcing due to axial tilt:

    “The third mode—which arises from the meridional temperature gradient as affected by Earth’s obliquity (axial tilt)—can explain the lag of atmospheric carbon dioxide behind climate during glacial inception and deglaciation. This obliquity-induced lag, in turn, makes carbon dioxide a delayed climate amplifier in the late Pleistocene glacial cycles.”

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6522/1348

  98. So we have under consideration four Moon mean surface temperatures:
    193 K
    220 K ( the 220 K is what I support )
    243 K,
    250 K
    Also we know the Moon’s effective temperature Te.moon = 270.4 K
    Notice: All the above four Moon mean surface temperatures are below the
    Te.moon = 270.4 K.
    So Moon’s without atmosphere mean surface temperature (no matter which one) is below the Te.moon = 270.4 K.

    On the other hand, Earth’s mean surface temperature is
    Tmean.earth = 288 K
    And Earth’s effective temperature
    Te.earth = 255 K.

    We have a very interesting paradox here. Earth with atmosphere has a higher mean surface temperature, than Earth’s effective temperature
    Tmean.earth > Te.earth (288 K > 255 K)

    Moon without atmosphere has a lower mean surface temperature, than Moon’s effective temperature
    Tmean.moon < Te.moon (193 or 220 or 243 or 250 K Te.earth
    being HIGHER than Earth’s effective temperature,

    and Moon’s mean surface temperature
    Tmean.moon < Te.moon
    being LOWER than Moon's effective temperature

    is the Earth's and Moon's VERY DIFFERENT AXIAL SPIN.
    Earth performs N.earth =1 rotation /day
    Moon performs N.moon = 1 /29,531 rotation /day
    or N.moon = 0.033863 rotation /day

    Consequently, Earth's surface gets warmer than Moon's, because of the PLANET SURFACE
    ROTATIONAL WARMING PHENOMENON.

    http://www.cristos-vournas.com

  99. It looks like the New Geography piece applies specifically to Australia. It claims high urban density uses more resources and produces more GHGs and such. In other countries it’s probably a worthwhile tradeoff with sprawl. The concluding paragraph:

    Let’s Get Beyond the Mythology

    The rationale behind the imposition of high density in Australia is perplexing. Australia is not short of land, only some 0.2% is urbanised. In addition to negative environmental aspects other studies show the densification policy causes housing unaffordability, traffic congestion, overcrowding, reduced housing choice, decreased community amenity and negative health aspects. Policies should be based on reality, not on mere intuitive supposition or ideological fantasy.

  100. I see signs of increased tidal forcing everywhere:

    “Scientists have reconstructed a 700-year history of how westerly winds have blown around the Southern Hemisphere.

    And the implication is that the winds will likely intensify and move poleward as the climate warms.

    “It shows us that climate warming drives moisture bearing winds southwards away from Australia, South America and South Africa. The immediate human consequences of this are increased droughts and wildfires.”

    https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/science-environment-55260908

    Increasing precipitation falling as snow on Antarctica.

  101. Australia Not Invited to a Big International Climate Summit – WUWT

    Now that Trump has been kicked has been kicked out of office, the focus will shift to Australia. They haven’t wastefully burned enough money there yet. They want Australia to feel guilty. Coal. The thing that could help so many people is sinful.

    • We will continue to sell coal and gas into world markets. It is consistent with Paris targets. The UN chief now backtracking on India and China doesn’t get to move the goalposts.



      Australia has some 10% of global agricultural land – and much else beside. Carbon sequestration in the land use sector is a productive way forward both for Australia and the world and is the reason for our success to date – although you wouldn’t know it by the critics. Who seem overly concerned with not using credits from overachieving on Kyoto. In the energy sector technological innovation is key. A target without a plan is pointless – but hell I’d endorse carbon neutrality by 2050. Cross my heart…

  102. Misconceptions of global catastrophe in Nature is interesting. It hints that pleasant weather, while great for Americans, is bad for those around the world. I’m sorry if I don’t use their metric in defining global catastrophe. The easiest thing to do is look at lives lost over time. Start around 1900 up to today and what you notice is that global deaths by natural disaster has plummeted over the last 120 years. I’m sorry, this metric alone tells us that we’re living in the greatest time to be alive in the history of mankind.

  103. We have the Soviet, Bengal and Bihar droughts and famines and the Yangtze and Yellow River floods. In future – we will need to double food production from the same amount of land. Just emit more CO2 I hear you say. Sure – then incorporate it in soils and manage the water flows through landscapes.

    Remove these and deaths bounce around at an average of about 60,000/year.

  104. Double Peak of sunspot activity is an indication of orbital inclination:

    https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle/historical-solar-cycles.html

    It is similarly found in glacial data which led to the analysis which showed Earth’s 100kyr inclination cycle is a better fit than Milankovitch eccentricity:

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/42857?seq=1

  105. “Why should any of that that change because Alan Lowry is in a lock step frenzy with a group of vociferous outsiders who bristle when they are not taken as seriously as they take themselves? He is a hippy dippy shyster.” – Robert

    The puritanical attitude of Ellisonism is thawing with regard to the benefits of psychedelic research:

    “They’ve been credited in part for the musical and artistic revolutions of the late 1960s. According to some scientific opinions, they have potentially inspired early creativity in humans and our ancient ancestors. Researchers have seen them pop up in the art of Maya, Mixtec and other cultures throughout ancient America and even in parts of the Old World, where they may have been used both spiritually and medicinally.”

    https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/magic-mushrooms-are-expanding-minds-and-advancing-an-emerging-field-of

    • To take something I said out of the context of what was already a diversion from the topic of ENSO to accusations of my love of the Chinese Communist Party is typically disingenuous. Is this down to his psychedelic creative inspiration? Or is it a native disorganization of cognitive skills?

      Australia has successfully pursued a free trade ethos for 40 years. And what matters with COVID is whether we are in a better position technologically to respond to the next interspecies viral spillover.

      Why should any of that that change because Alan Lowry is in a lock step frenzy with a group of vociferous outsiders who bristle when they are not taken as seriously as they take themselves? He is a hippy dippy shyster.

  106. melitamegalithic – this article should interest you. If the last millennial cycle started at around 950CE, the ~1,470-year cycle is good match for the previous date signalled by intense geomagnetic activity:

    “These efforts build on the team’s recently published study that examines the direction and intensity of the geomagnetic field in 586 BCE, when Babylonian forces burned the city of Jerusalem. The new research is broader in scope than the paper is, providing detailed geomagnetic data from throughout the region during much of the Levantine Iron Age geomagnetic anomaly, a period of about 500–600 years when the intensity of the geomagnetic field was unusually high.”

    https://eos.org/articles/earths-magnetic-field-holds-clues-to-human-history

    • Alan L: Thank you for the tip.
      This kind of material takes a lot of digging, but there may something of value to find. However beware; it is a difficult subject.

      The interesting bit in that paper is in the ‘Discussion’ pg 14/22. Quote “-unlike the period between the 10th and the 8th centuries that was characterized by large angular deviations from the GAD field [21, 32], the direction of the field in 586 BCE deviated only a few degrees from the GAD direction.” Note ‘large angular deviations’ between 800bce and 586bce destruction.
      About 800bce was peak Eddy cycle, period of ascendance of Greek/Phoenician. Thereafter heading for collapse.
      The paper blames Babylonian destruction, but also note paleomagnetic change in orientation.

      But look at this paper https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2015JB012264 “Intraplate rotational deformation induced by faults”
      Abstract: Vertical axis rotations provide important constraints on the tectonic history of plate boundaries.Geodetic measurements can be used to calculate interseismic rotations, whereas paleomagnetic remanence directions provide constraints on the long-term rotations accumulated over geological timescales. Here we present a new mechanical modeling approach that links between intraplate deformational patterns of these timescales. We construct mechanical models of active faults at their locked state to simulate the presumed to be elastic interseismic deformation rate observed by GPS measurements. We then apply a slip to the faults above the locking depth to simulate the long-term deformation of the crust from which we derive the accumulated rotations. We test this approach in northern Israel along the Dead Sea Fault and Carmel-Gilboa fault system.”

      What is the likelyhood that Nebukadnezzar was blamed for what were mainly seismic destructions?

      • A secondary aspect here as in the above, is that the rotations are now dated reliably. Whereas geology insists on considering such tectonic changes over long time-periods, in 100’s of kyrs, the evidence points otherwise.
        Which agrees with what I find here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/02/03/searching-evidence-5-tectonic-rotations/

      • mm – I didn’t read the paper beforehand but now realise it’s not a good fit for the millennial cycle at all – 500 years too early and too geographically local.

        Btw it’s a similar argument to the solar temples of Malta. You’ve deduced a reconstruction of a new temple with a 5° difference in tilt but isn’t it much more likely this was a local change of the land due to a fault line etc? If it was a tilt of the planet then it would have been detected in other ancient observatories around the world, surely?

        I’m not ruling out a tilt of the Earth every 1,500-years or so but would limit it to 1.5°, corresponding to the current tilt of the Moon. I can imagine the Moon becoming more upright, giving a stronger gravitational interaction between the cores and the lunar body begin to move towards the Earth, instead of away.

      • The last built records an earth tilt change, but is still near precisely orientated to equinox horizon sunrise. (tilt change was from near 14 to 24 = ~10, but at latitude 35.8deg that translates to a change form 18 to 29, or solstice to solstice 36 to 58).
        Explained here https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/mnajdra-south-calendar-design/

      • How recent was violent seismic activity on Malta though?

        “The geological history of the Maltese islands wasn’t as peaceful and stable as currently. In fact, the Maltese islands shows evident signs of violent seismic activity. If you visit the northern part of Malta, you’ll notice differences in the height between places. These are called faults.  

        The Maltese islands (and Sicily) lie on the northern part of the African tectonic plate, which is travelling North. Colliding with the African plate is the Euroasian plate which is travelling to the north east on a slower pace than the African plate. This tectonic movement gives rise to earthshattering earthquakes and volcanoes. A cataclismic event took place in the middle of the Mediterranean sea which gave rise to significant shifts in the geology of the Maltese islands.”

        https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5W6FB_the-great-fault?guid=9fcbe3e3-bb66-4276-9973-7b52c264268e

      • Professor Charles Hapgood was a proponent of the Earth’s shifting crust which was endorsed by Albert Einstein.

        https://eduardopiperet.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/the-earth-crust-displacement-theory-by-charles-h-hapgood/

        The coastline of Antarctica in the Piri Reis map is much better explained by a huge increase in tidal range, exposing the rock free from the ice at low tide. This corresponds with the ‘tidal gauge’ of Oak Island imo.

      • mm – I think you’re onto something. There’s a .pdf paper titled ‘Slope instability along the north-west coast in Malta’ by Odette Magri, which talks about “rotational slides and transitional slides occur in the Upper Coralline Limestone”.

      • mm – it could be the huge increase in tidal range that caused rotational slides in Malta associated with the lunar millennial cycle.

        The weight of the tidal water itself would have caused the land to shift.

        Fascinating. I noticed you date a stone temple to circa 5200BCE which isn’t in the mainstream literature. How do you manage to date it that far back?

      • melitamegalithic – which direction was the rotational shift? Was it towards the incoming high tide ie. in the direction of the Straits of Gibraltar? I noticed the site is on the south west coastline, which lends itself to this hypothesis.

      • Alan:
        Rotation is CW. But tectonic micro-plate rotations in the Med have been found in both directions. See link on rotations.

        Dating is from calendar design evolution, plus the evidence of abrupt changes in several proxies that occur at same date. Last rotation at 3200bce, which is towards the end of the temple era. After that date several calendars were started on the new orientation but all were aborted early or part way, except Mnajdra south.

        Note: rotational slides are also known as ‘Listric’ collapse, a different thing from tectonic rotations. See Malta Escarpment for example. The Magri paper you linked refer specifically to this site ‘B’ in this link https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/09/25/beyond-the-heretic-reality/
        The most telling thing is not mentioned in the paper, and that is the ancient cart rut running straight to the edge of the high cliff edge.

      • mm – I liked the photo of the cart ruts. These presumably were used to transport the huge stones used in the temple construction?

        Wouldn’t a cart to a cliff edge be a useful way of disposing of unwanted debris ie. an ancient miden?

        On the whole, I think there’s evidence of land shifts in the era of the temples attributable to the abrupt millennial cycle. Your workings and explanations aren’t easy to follow though.

        I imagine in the future further scientific research will show that your investigation and conclusion was essentially correct.

      • Alan says “Your workings and explanations aren’t easy to follow though.”
        No, they are not; not to everyone. The links are all additional material; additional corroborating material post publication. Arriving at those early conclusions was a long process, (plus, I attribute to, an engineering training and early agrarian/peasant experience. In fact the fundamental clue was due to Hesiod in his “Works and Days” of ancient agrarian culture/practice of 700bce. In fact the main research was Agrarian science expresses mythically; the calendar was a spin-off).
        Importantly in the earlier research, and in any research, checking basics is essential, because that is where one gets a glimpse of where certain lakunae originated. Such as Stockwell/Newcomb assertion on obliquity, or Milankovitch theory that is based partly on the former.

        In fact Hesiod is an eye-opener in respect of why Covid, in spite of all the modern technical achievements, was such a disaster. A modern social structure that is ‘highly leveraged’ depending on Food cycle that is taken for granted and was first to collapse ( and one does not need toilet paper if one has nothing to eat).

      • mm – you have a lot of knowledge to share and so some supporting links would be appreciated.

        You’re also a bit selective in which questions you like to answer. Your date of 5,200BCE isn’t in the mainstream literature but I’m supposed to just take your word for it?

      • Alan: Quote “– I’m supposed to just take your word for it?” Never, from NO One. “Dig, and you will find”. See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/searching-evidence-3/ (material is posted here as I come across it, so I’m afraid its sprinkled throughout).

      • mm – “No answers are available. It is also an open question of what was the driver; whether the Eddy cycle is a characteristic of the driver mechanism of natural tectonic events, or simply a signature from those events.”

        But you’re sure new physics gravity change isn’t the answer?

  107. This is surreal. The virtual Climate Ambition 2020 which the CCP made sure Australia and New Zealand were excluded. 2021 will reveal unprecedented climate change and eventually the shock revelation of increasing solid body tides:

    • Six hours of talking heads? About as likely as a ‘new physics’ of gravity causing climate change through earth tide increases driven by changes in planetary inclination. I wish I didn’t know that. A ratbag theory sans evidence if ever there was one.

      • I’m impressed you know what the hypothesis is.. probably not many more though.

        The evidence is there if one looks. It takes a lot of scientific and politic will for that to happen. Maybe Venice anomalous high tides continually baffling the MOSE barrier operators will start an investigation?

      • I think of it as a magical thought bubble supported by anecdote.

        “Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation.”

      • Robert I Ellison: “Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation.”

        Right! plausible, conceiving nothing new.

      • The difference between science and wild speculation. New ideas are very rare. With some people more than others Matthew. I always check the literature if I have one.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: New ideas are very rare.

        No debate there, but the word “plausible” in the text definition of “magical thinking” makes the definition vacuous Rather famously, Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis lacked a plausible causal link, in the minds of most physicists, but it was not magical thinking.

      • There is no comparison between tectonic plate theory – that had observational evidence – and 5 invisible bits of neutron stars orbiting the Earth and changing climate. It is the essential distinction between science and thought bubbles. That you don’t get it is not at all surprising.

      • Robert – Newton’s gravity is “magical thinking” because it doesn’t have a mechanism. He used the phrase “the hand of God”. Einstein merely confounded the issue.

      • In his waning years, Albert Einstein spent his time tilting at windmills, trying to unify all the forces of nature. He died disappointed, and his attempt would go down in history as his biggest failure.

        Einstein’s theory has passed every observational test thrown at it.. and yet, we know that it’s broken. While general relativity says that black holes should exist, it completely breaks down when it tries to describe their singular hearts. We have no description of gravity at such a subatomic scale where quantum mechanics holds sway. At this scale, when gravity gets both strong and short-range, general relativity can’t even make predictions – the math just falls apart.

        Those are places where we know that general relativity breaks down. But beyond that, astronomers have noticed two phenomena that also aren’t completely explained by general relativity: Most of the matter in the universe (so-called dark matter) doesn’t interact with light; and the expansion of the universe is accelerating every single day (which is thought to be caused by as-yet-unknown dark energy). In order to explain dark matter and dark energy, we have two choices. Either general relativity is perfectly correct, but our cosmos is filled with strange new substances, or general relativity is flat-out wrong.”

        https://www.livescience.com/amp/einstein-biggest-failure-teleparallel-gravity.html

        I have a viable alternative that indeed shows “general relativity is flat-out wrong”.

      • It’s just math. Rules that work in the ordinary universe. Verbosity – on the other hand – is cheap.

      • “Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.” James McWilliams

        There are a number of unsolved math puzzles.

        https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems

        The Navier-Stokes equation is a a core climate puzzle. Even numerical finite element solutions are not possible given the immense size of the calculation required.

        https://www.claymath.org/millennium-problems/navier%E2%80%93stokes-equation

        With general relativity at the black hole singularity the finite element on which the equation is defined would need to be infinitely small. So the rule breaks down at the singularity. So what? And there is of course a term for accelerated expansion of the universe in the general relativity field equations.

        What you have is neither math or science. It is a hippy dippy thought bubble.

      • What I have is a perfect fit with anomalies. The Odd Radio Signals (ORCs): the remnants of opposite spinning black hole collisions along the strong gravitational interaction of galactic planes.

        A resolution of dark matter and dark energy. A framework to unite all the known forces. A new tidal forcing solution for ice ages and climate change.

        A Theory of Everything.

      • It takes a lot more than imagining a thought bubble of everything.

      • “It takes a lot more than imagining a thought bubble of everything.” – Ellison

        It’s a good start. The math comes at the end.

      • Science is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Albert Einstein

        This is more like a clown convention.

      • Robert I Ellison: “Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation.”

        Robert I Ellison: It is the essential distinction between science and thought bubbles.

        You follow up a universalist definition without distinctions with a distinction.

        The definition does indeed turn Newton’s gravitational theory into magical thinking, because as to mechanisms for gravity, he wrote “hypotheses non fingo”.

      • Newton hypothesized that momentum and force determine the motion of the planets. He devised mathematical methods to predict orbits enabling testing by comparison with existing observations.

        He wrote ‘hypothesis non fingo’ in response to the René Descartes’ and Christiaan Huygens’ vortex thought bubble of gravity.

      • Robert I Ellison: Newton hypothesized that momentum and force determine the motion of the planets. He devised mathematical methods to predict orbits enabling testing by comparison with existing observations.

        So he did. “Determine”, but the causal mechanisms in gravity he did not explore.

        You like to quote those textual definitions without paying attention to what the words mean or how many of the examples under discussion evade the definition.

        He wrote ‘hypothesis non fingo’ in response to the René Descartes’ and Christiaan Huygens’ vortex thought bubble of gravity.

        Just so: he wrote it abut gravity.

      • It was clearly defined as a force: F = ma – in a mathematical system that opened up new vistas with important and testable properties.

        You like to play games with pettifogging quibbles. It was a throwaway line with little relevance to the body of Newton’s work. Yet that is the trivial point on which you want to justify your pointless and typically endless equivocations.

      • Robert I Ellison: It was clearly defined as a force: F = ma – in a mathematical system that opened up new vistas with important and testable properties.

        Quite so.

        “Magical thinking is defined as believing that one event happens as a result of another without a plausible link of causation.”

        Newton established a quantitative relation without a plausible link of causation. Your quoted definition of magical thinking is vacuous. Unless “It just works that way” or “I formulate no hypotheses” counts as a plausible link of causation.

        For more examples: are there plausible links of causation involved in the conservation of momentum or the conservation of angular momentum?

        Your disputation of Alan Lowey’s claims was straightforward. Calling it magical thinking muddied the waters.

      • Don’t you have anything more interesting and original to comment about?

      • Robert I Ellison: Don’t you have anything more interesting and original to comment about?

        Your comment about “magical thinking” was a simple mistake.

      • It describes perfectly his wildly unlikely sky dragon slayer fantasies. There is no possible equivalence between Lowey and Newton and your insistence on it is ludicrous.

      • Matthew R Marler

        Robert I Ellison: There is no possible equivalence between Lowey and Newton and your insistence on it is ludicrous.

        I did not insist on an equivalence. I wrote that the definition you quoted did not make a distinction.

      • You do persist in obvious nonsense.

      • Robert I Ellison: You do persist in obvious nonsense.

        You don’t seem to care much for technical accuracy in any of your word usage. Here you supply a “definition” for magical thinking that includes a lot of science, and you don’t care. It’s enough to “fool the Rubes”, insult an interlocutor — or something.

      • I copied a definition of magical thinking and you insist that Newton’s gravity math comes under the rubric of magic. It doesn’t because it works. In this you have easily outdone your usual quota of trivial semantic BS. And insist that I am wrong. Which seems to be the tedious point.

  108. The Asian streamflow reconstruction is the sort of patient and meticulous science I admire so much. It tells of megadroughts and megafloods linked to ocean sea surface temperature. No surprises there – but it does provide quantitative support for practical water management. Ocean heat varies with the difference between incoming and outgoing energy. It is distributed on fractal, turbulent and shifting patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation on a rotating planet. It is not magic. The graphics here provide the geographical and historical context.


    Adaptation to such extremes involves massive geo-engineering in holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting and restoring forests, woodlands, wetlands and rangelands, changing grazing management to regenerative systems, encouraging perennial vegetation cover and no till cropping that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture infiltration and retention. Plan B is many portable nuclear reactors for water desalinization or purification.

  109. It’s official. Typhoons are more intense and dropping more water:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/science-environment-55274117

  110. This is no coincidence. It’s been detected on Mars when Phobos eclipses the Sun. It’s been detected in a deep mine on Earth before. It’s been documented countless times and is called the Allais effect on a pendulum swing.

    Strong gravitational interaction between the exotic core of the Sun and the Earth is temporarily reduced, decreasing the solid Earth tidal bulge, causing a shift in the land:

  111. The millennial cycle of The Medieval Warm Period was a global upheaval for humanity and central Asia was no exception:

    “River sediment history suggests it was climate change, not Mongol invasion that doomed Transoxania:

    Transoxiana is the ancient name of a civilization that once lived in what is now part of Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan—it was situated around the Otrar oasis in Central Asia. Prior research has suggested that the civilization was never able to recover from Mongol invasions in the early part of the 13th century. In this new effort, the researchers suggest the fall of the Transoxania civilization was much more complicated than that, and that there were likely a variety of factors involved.”

    https://phys.org/news/2020-12-river-sediment-history-climate-mongol.amp

    “Genghis Khan, founder of the Mongol Empire, invaded Transoxiana in 1219 during his conquest of Khwarezm. Before his death in 1227, he assigned the lands of Western Central Asia to his second son Chagatai, and this region became known as the Chagatai Khanate. In 1369, Timur, of the Barlas tribe, became the effective ruler and made Samarkand the capital of his future empire. Transoxiana was known to be flourishing in the mid-14th century.”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transoxiana

    • Around 1300BCE, an Eddy cycle root, the point of civilisation collapse proper.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1177_B.C.:_The_Year_Civilization_Collapsed
      Quote “– Cline’s hypothesis for the Late Bronze Age collapse of civilization, a transition period that affected the Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, Cypriots, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Assyrians and Babylonians; varied heterogeneous cultures populating eight powerful and flourishing states intermingling via trade, commerce, exchange and “cultural piggybacking,” despite “all the difficulties of travel and time.”[1] He presents evidence to support a “perfect storm” of “multiple interconnected failures,” meaning that more than one natural and man-made cataclysm caused the disintegration and demise of an ancient civilization that incorporated “empires and globalized peoples.”[1][2] This ended the Bronze Age, and ended the Mycenaean, Minoan, Trojan, Hittite, and Babylonian cultures.–“

      • Interesting mm. The millennial climate cycle again:
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1177_B.C.:_The_Year_Civilization_Collapsed
        So by rough calculations, there was also one starting around circa ~200BCE-300CE, leading to the collapse of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Dark Ages in Old England.

      • If the millennial cycle is currently closer to 1000 years and not 1500 years, then it doesn’t bode well for our present problems with climate change.

        I have a feeling global humanity is in for a very stormy ride in 2021 and beyond.

      • Circa 300bce, an Eddy root. Starting a bit earlier is the Phoenician ‘expansion’, eventually leading to the Punic wars -264bce-. But if I’m not mistaken a legend has it that Phoenicia(?) could not feed it people and some had to leave and look for new home/land. The Med was shared between Phoenician and Greek until the ascendance of Rome 400yrs later (Eddy peak- Roman WP).
        See https://culturemalta.org/phoenician-settlement-in-malta-claudia-sagona/
        Qoute “C — Migration of people from the Levant probably on a large scale and driven by a number of factors, can also be added to the mix. These population displacements took place in the eighth to sixth century BC. Economic motives such as poor prospects for social development at home [17] and optimism that the new lands held promise became a lure. Political refugees may have swelled the numbers leaving the homeland states, among them people of status, the aristocracy and clergy. The fall of Sidon (c. 750–675 BC) at the hands of the Assyrian king may have stimulated an increase in flight to the west, just as the foundation saga of Carthage points to internal political trouble in Tyre and the flight of a significant section of the local aristocracy. The process of migration in all likelihood gained momentum as success stories of those who went before them filtered back to the homeland.”
        That follows from the Eddy peak at ~800bce, peaks of phoenician /greek. The cycle is giben as 975+/- 50 years; which indicate a time varying triggering force.

      • “The (Eddy) cycle is given as 975+/- 50 years; which indicate a time varying triggering force.” – mm

        Okay, we’re in agreement about a ~975+-50yr millennial climate cycle. It corresponds to data in the Bond cycle, which gives it credibility.

        What about the ~2500 Bray cycle? I need some more convincing. (It would mean another moonlet or is a combination of the others in quasi-resonance)

        “Periods of low solar activity, specially those belonging to the long periodicities, with a span of several decades, coincide with known periods of significant climate worsening ..The model infers that the ~ 2500-year Bray cycle and the ~ 1000-year Eddy cycle have different modes of action.”

        https://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/

      • I’ve just made a tentative connection between an Earth co-orbiting asteroid and a ~700-year climate cycle given in Figure 7:

        https://euanmearns.com/periodicities-in-solar-variability-and-climate-change-a-simple-model/

        “The 350, 510, and 708-year periodicities will not be discussed as they are seldom present in the literature.Cruithne orbits the Sun in about 1 year but it takes 770 years for the series to complete a horseshoe-shaped movement around the Earth.”

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne

      • The 350-year could be a half cycle of the asteroid:

        “After 380 to 390 years or so, the kidney-bean-shaped orbit approaches Earth again from the other side, and the Earth, once more, alters the orbit of Cruithne so that its period of revolution around the Sun is again slightly less than a year..”

  112. Excerpt from GWPF newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/0e98a2e23cc7/eu-countries-agree-to-use-natural-gas-and-nuclear-power-for-green-deal-179682

    6) Robert Bryce: For nuclear energy to flourish, we need a ‘mindset reversal’ about radiation
    Forbes, 24 November 2020

    The future of nuclear power projects in the UK and elsewhere hinges on disabusing the public of its excessive fear of radiation.

    Nuclear energy must grow – and grow rapidly – if the countries of the world are to have any hope of limiting the growth of carbon dioxide emissions.

    But the growth of nuclear is being hobbled by several factors including cost and the long licensing and construction schedules for new reactors. Those high costs and long schedules can largely be traced back to a single issue: the public’s excessive fear of radiation. That excessive fear of radiation is preventing nuclear energy from being deployed at scale here in the U.S. and around the world and in doing so, it is hindering low-income and wealthy countries alike from benefiting from the single best source of low-cost, zero-carbon, high-power-density electricity known to science.

    Despite this fear — and the mistaken belief that any radiation is dangerous — the truth is that we are constantly being hit with radiation from our surroundings. In fact, the radiation we get from flying in jetliners or having a CT scan is as great, or greater, than the radiation that is absorbed by the people who live close to Chernobyl or Fukushima.

    Don’t take my word for it. Those are points that Dr. Geraldine Thomas, the director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, has been making for years. Gerry, as she prefers to be called, has a PhD. in pathology and is a faculty member at Imperial College London. Since the early 1990s, she has been overseeing the collection and banking of tissue samples from people who’ve had surgery after being exposed to radiation in the fallout area near the Chernobyl nuclear plant in northern Ukraine. Her work at Chernobyl and Fukushima makes her uniquely qualified to assess the risks from radiation.

    In 2011, She wrote a piece in The Guardian about the wrong-headed fear of radiation in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident. “The recent frenzy following the events in Japan suggests that the media are keen to feed our nuclear fears, by focusing on exposure to radiation that is extremely unlikely to result in a single death, compared with a natural catastrophe that has killed at least 20,000 people and displaced more than 100,000.” She continued, “Radiation risk must be put into context. The consequences for the most-exposed group of atomic bomb survivors was an average loss of life expectancy significantly lower than that caused by severe obesity or smoking.”

    During a recent episode of the Power Hungry Podcast, Thomas told me that most people have difficulty making sense of radiation dosing and what constitutes a dangerous dose. The amount of radiation a person gets from a whole-body CT scan is about 10 millisieverts, which, she explained, is about the same dose incurred by people living near Chernobyl get “spread out over 20-odd years.”

    Full post: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2020/11/24/for-nuclear-energy-to-flourish-we-need-a-mindset-reversal-about-radiation/

    see also GWPF report ‘Dangers Of nuclear energy ‘much less than previously thought’: https://www.thegwpf.org/dangers-of-nuclear-energy-much-less-than-previously-thought/

  113. Peter Ridd’s general point of view makes the most sense in the Great Barrier Reef bleaching debate imo:

    • There is no bleaching debate. It is happening with increased frequency and severity. As the talking head on the video says – there is uncertainty as to the future of corals in a world that is rapidly changing – and I add with multiple environmental pressures on the GBR. I don’t think we should leave the future of such a treasure in the hands of the likes of Alan Lowry.

      • I agree that there is no debate. Prof Jim Steele set the record straight by pointing out that bleaching events are associated with sea level fall, not rise, and with cooling, not warming. And they are temporary, not permanent.

        https://judithcurry.com/2016/05/24/coral-bleaching-debate/

        If you take everything that journalists and pop-scientists say about coral reefs and climate, and invert it to its exact opposite, you would be pretty close to the truth about the GBR. The Vyshinskiy show trial of Peter Ridd will only make this fact clearer to everyone including Australia’s government.

        Incidentally there is coral in the world outside of the GBR. Also in good health. The science-media establishment appear ignorant of this fact.

        Oceans were 3-6 degrees warmer than now during the Holocene optimum. How did corals survive that?

      • “There are 4 widespread misconceptions about bleaching propagated by tabloid media hyping climate doom and researchers like Hoegh-Guldberg. To clarify:

        – Bleaching is not always driven by warming temperatures
        – Bleaching is not responsible for most coral mortality.
        – Coral can rapidly respond to disturbances and replace lost cover within a decade or less.
        – Bleaching, whether or not it results in coral mortality, is part of a natural selection process from which better-adapted populations emerge.”

        It seems that Jim Steele is not a professor or a coral scientist of any kind.

        https://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/episodes/muddying-the-waters-on-the-great-barrier-reef/9972936

        I don’t rely on media reports or blog posts. Happy to discuss it though.

        Bleaching is very much about excessive periods of high water temperature. And if water levels are rising – albeit slowly – UV hardly comes into it.

        COTS and cyclones may have some underlying human causation.

        Corals can recover obviously – and colonization with more heat tolerant zooxanthellae might help. A confounding problem is the rapidity of change and the frequency of bleaching.

        How could it not be an adaptation to changing conditions. The point is to take realistic action to reduce pressures on the system. This is a work in progress with or without your understanding or approval.

      • “there is uncertainty as to the future of corals in a world that is rapidly changing” – Ellison

        No, that’s the kind of statement that goes against the evidence. We’ve already had scientific research which showed that all equatorial coral atolls were increasing on size.

      • Atolls are build from reef detritus. All atolls growing? Not relevant and not likely true.

      • And as I actually said – referring to the video posted by Alan Lowey:

        As the talking head on the video says – there is uncertainty as to the future of corals in a world that is rapidly changing – and I add with multiple environmental pressures on the GBR.

      • Here’s a good news article on coral reefs of the world:

        ‘Happy corals’: climate crisis sanctuary teeming with life found off east Africa

        “Scientists have discovered a climate crisis refuge for coral reefs off the coast of Kenya and Tanzania, where species are thriving despite warming events that have killed their neighbours.”

        https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/15/happy-corals-climate-crisis-sanctuary-teeming-with-life-found-off-east-africa

      • A small area of coral isolated by topography from effects of warmer water is not good news. Just slightly less bad.

  114. Attenborough claimed in his Blue Planet 2 that the GBR is 60% dead already, relatively easy to prove to be grossly incorrect. But the public seem to accept the GBR dying permanently at regular intervals, then dying again, and again, and again – how it comes back to life in between its periodic permanent die-offs is just something that right-thinking citizens don’t think about.

    Thus coral death by climate change joins a long tradition of myths of death and resurrection that have inspired the faithful of many cultures for centuries and millenia.

    For example, Osiris of ancient Egypt was one of the first to be associated with the mummy wrap. When his brother, Set, cut him up into pieces after killing him, Isis, his wife, found all the pieces and wrapped his body up, enabling him to return to life.

    The Sumerian deity Dumuzid has a sister Inanna who dies. Dumuzid fails to adequately mourn Inanna’s death and, when she returns from the Underworld, she allows the galla demons to drag him down to the Underworld as her replacement. Inanna later regrets this decision and decrees that Dumuzid will spend half the year in the Underworld, but the other half of the year with her, while his sister Geshtinanna stays in the Underworld in his place, thus resulting in the cycle of the seasons.

    In corresponding Greek mythology the goddess Aphrodite found the infant Adonis and gave him to be raised by Persephone, the queen of the Underworld. Adonis grew into an astonishingly handsome young man, causing Aphrodite and Persephone to feud over him, with Zeus eventually decreeing that Adonis would spend one third of the year in the Underworld with Persephone, one third of the year with Aphrodite, and the final third of the year with whomever he chose. Adonis chose to spend his final third of the year with Aphrodite.

    Likewise Dionysus was believed to have been born from the union of Zeus and Persephone, and to have himself represented an underworld aspect of Zeus. Many believed that he had been born twice, having been killed and reborn as the son of Zeus and the mortal Semele.

    In ancient Turkey the daemon god Agdistis initially bore both male and female attributes – a non-binary god! But the trans-phobic Olympian gods, fearing Agdistis, cut off the male organ and cast it away. There grew up from it an almond-tree, and when its fruit was ripe, Nana, who was a daughter of the river-god Sangarius, picked an almond and laid it in her bosom. The almond disappeared, and she became pregnant. Nana abandoned the baby (Attis). The infant was tended by a he-goat. As Attis grew, his long-haired beauty was godlike, and his mother, Cybele, then fell in love with him. And so on …

    Now to add to this we have the myth of coral trolls that lie underwater staring at the moon each night. When the world of men pollute the air with their foul engines, the trolls can no longer see the moon at night. So in grief they banish the algal cells from their mineral matrix and turn as pale as the moon, in this way entreating the skies to clear and the moon to return. The moon on due course returns but the coral trolls die. However the moon urinates into the sea fertilising new growth of the coral trolls which return to life. And so the cycle of death and rebirth of the corals continues endlessly.

    • There are two cities – as Augustine said a thousand years ago – the Earthly city of humanity and the city of God. The one is transformed in the image of the other by beings of light. There is light within a being of light, and they light the whole world. If they do not shine, there is darkness. Now the apocalypse is upon us – the end of times – the great disaster. Even that passes. Then – as all the old stories tell us – there is a revelation given to those with eyes to see. In the nexus between night and day – in the dawn of a new era for the world – a new song cycle is ignited in the moment expanding to embrace eternity and infinity. A shining city takes shape in the our imaginations.

      • The City of God – Augustine?
        Light experiences no time and has no mass, so also can’t really have spatial scale (see Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology).
        So beings of light would be necessarily transcendent of the world we generally experience.

      • “Light exists inside a person of light, and he shines on the whole world. If he does not shine, there is darkness.” Gospel of Thomas

        You will have to ask the Gnostics.

    • Phil Salmon says “The Sumerian deity Dumuzid has a sister Inanna who dies. Dumuzid fails to adequately mourn Inanna’s death and, when she returns from the Underworld, she allows the galla demons to drag him down to the Underworld as her replacement. Inanna later regrets this decision and decrees that Dumuzid will spend half the year in the Underworld, but the other half of the year with her, while his sister Geshtinanna stays in the Underworld in his place, thus resulting in the cycle of the seasons.”

      Dumuzid, or Damu in the Divine Triad are one and the same as Osiris, Dionysos Adonis, Triptolemos; all variants legends from same source and meaning. Its all agrarian science. Actually the annual grain/corn cycle.

      Then this may interest you – the two queens from the divine triad: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/04/03/the-world-of-the-two-queens/
      or https://mythandmegalithica.blogspot.com/ (the full cycle was on google but was shut down; not yet installed here).

  115. Newton-Einstein theory is close to being officially disproved. It’s only a matter of time before the exotic core orbital inclination hypothesis becomes mainstream:

    “This is significant, the astrophysicists say, because it further establishes the hypothesis–called modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), or “modified gravity”–as a viable explanation for a cosmological dilemma: that galaxies appear to buck the long-accepted rules of gravity traced to Sir Isaac Newton in the late 1600’s.

    “The external field effect is a unique signature of MOND that does not occur in Newton-Einstein gravity,” McGaugh said. “This has no analogy in conventional theory with dark matter. Detection of this effect is a real head-scratcher.”

    “I have been working under the hypothesis that dark matter exists, so this result really surprised me,” Chae said. “Initially, I was reluctant to interpret our own results in favor of MOND. But now I cannot deny the fact that the results as they stand clearly support MOND rather than the dark matter hypothesis.”

    “https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-12/cwru-upo121620.php

    • The Λ factor accounts for the expansion of universe – leading to the dark matter assumption. But all may not be as in Alan Lowey febrile imaginings. And the relevance of a changing gravitational constant in weak gravity fields to Earth’s climate is nothing more than grotesquely absurd speculation.

      “The hypothesis that general relativity (GR) and its Newtonian limit hold exactly in the weak gravity regime requires that the universe is permeated by invisible dark matter (DM). The existence of DM is a key assumption of the standard cosmological model Λ cold dark matter (ΛCDM), which has been successful in explaining many cosmological observations on the largest scales of the cosmos (Frenk & White 2012; Peebles 2012). The ΛCDM paradigm, however, is facing several challenges on small scales (Kroupa 2015; Bullock & Boylan-Kolchin 2017), such as the unexpected phase-space correlation of satellite galaxies (“the satellite plane problem”; see, e.g., Kroupa et al. 2010; Müller et al. 2018) and the unexpected coupling in galaxies between the visible matter (baryons) and the observed dynamics, usually dominated by the DM halo at large radii (McGaugh et al. 2016; Lelli et al. 2017).

      A drastically different idea is represented by the Milgromian dynamics (MOND) paradigm (Milgrom 1983) that modifies the standard laws of dynamics at low accelerations (weak gravitational fields) rather than assuming nonbaryonic DM. Several a priori predictions of MOND have been confirmed by later observations as reviewed by Sanders & McGaugh (2002), Famaey & McGaugh (2012), and McGaugh (2020). The construction of a MOND cosmology remains a tall order (McGaugh 2015), but the recent relativistic MOND theory of Skordis & Zlośnik (2020) appears promising, being able to reproduce the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background as good as ΛCDM.” “Testing the Strong Equivalence Principle: Detection of the External Field Effect in Rotationally Supported Galaxies” – https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96

      I have been rereading special and general relativity. Consider for a moment Einstein tied by ‘strings’ to the floor of a box being pulled along by aliens. The strong equivalence principle in this gedankenexperiment says that inertia and gravity are the same and act equally on all bodies.

      “We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass.”

      Has general relativity failed a test of the strong equivalence principle in conditions of weak gravitational acceleration? If so – neglecting Lowey hand waving as irrelevant – what to replace it with?

      • You attack Alan Lowey’s “absurd speculation” about MOND.
        Then you basically repeat it, with references added.
        That look like self-contradiction.

      • I went to the source Phil – not a popular science article. What is absurd is the positing of this as confirmation of neutron star matter at the core of bodies in the solar system overturning precisely measured models of gravity and changing climate. It is so far down a rabbit hole he will never see the light of day again. I have my doubts about you.

  116. It’s difficult *not* to make the connection with the anomalous Odd Radio Signals (ORCs):

    “The map reveals two gigantic bubbles, filled with a hot but thin gas that glows in X-rays, on opposite sides of the galactic disk.”

    https://www.universetoday.com/149256/a-second-set-of-even-larger-bubbles-has-been-found-blasting-out-of-the-milky-ways-center/amp/

    I propose these are the precursor for the radio signals.

  117. See seven articles in todays GWPF Newsletter:

    China to expand coal power by 10% by 2025
    https://mailchi.mp/1f8ea9283c53/china-to-expand-coal-power-by-10-by-179710

    • 1) China to expand coal power fleet by 10% by 2025

      2) China’s primary energy use to peak in 2035 … promise

      3) Patricia Adams: Western greens are China’s useful idiots

      4) Reds and Greens: China’s useful idiots

      5) Francis Menton: Where is the criticism of China from environmentalists?

      6) Frank Furedi: Narratives of Existential Threats in the Climate and Covid Era

      7) And finally: Climate activists lose legal battle to stop Heathrow’s third runway

    • Yes indeed, the CCP can’t be trusted. They have global domination in their sights. They are planning to build a military base just 200km from the Australian mainland in a newly acquired piece of land of Papua New Guinea.

    • Fake outrage over a fake photo of an Australian soldier killing a child is a bit much so soon after confirmation of the most shameful episode in Australian military history.

  118. From WNA Weekly Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/world-nuclear-news/weekly-digest-11-18-december-2020

    Update on world generation costs

    Every five years the OECD’s International Energy Agency (IEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) publish Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, reporting on electricity generating costs by the major power generation technologies in 24 countries. As previously, the 2020 edition uses the levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) as its main metric, indicating costs at the actual generating plant, but it also presents a complementary metric, the “value-adjusted” LCOE (VALCOE) to account for the impacts of increasing shares of intermittent renewables, notably wind and solar in a system. It acknowledges that LCOE becomes of limited use when comparing dispatchable sources with unreliable ones.

    The report notes that low-carbon electricity systems with renewables are characterised by increasingly complex interactions of different technologies with different functions in order to ensure reliable supply at all times. The system costs become increasingly significant. VALCOE is similar to System LCOE. VALCOE integrates energy value, flexibility value and capacity value by technology. It “necessarily depends on the system in which a technology is deployed. Currently, estimates exist (only) for China, Europe, India and North America.” A refinement of the system analysis approach is to be published in 2021.

    On LCOE basis new nuclear power is competitive with other low-carbon options, and its value adjustments are less than for intermittent renewables. On VALCOE basis nuclear power will increasingly be the lowest cost option in systems with a high proportion of wind and solar PV. New nuclear power is expected to have the lowest costs of any dispatchable low-carbon technology in 2025. The report notes that extending the operation of existing nuclear power plants, ie long-term operation (LTO), is the most cost-effective source of low-carbon electricity. A chapter on carbon pricing includes a section on US zero-emission credits for nuclear.

    One of five “boundary chapters” included in the report notes that the rate of adding nuclear capacity needs to at least double for countries to meet Paris obligations under IEA or IPCC scenarios. Without significant LTO, some 20 GWe per year needs to be added from 2021. But a disincentive is that “in several countries the existing nuclear fleet is impacted by current electricity market designs that that do not appropriately value the attributes of capital-intensive low-carbon technologies [that are] dispatchable such as nuclear and hydro power plants.” This is clearly a policy matter that needs resolving urgently in many countries.:
    WNN 9/12/20. World energy needs

    Full article:
    World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power
    https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/world-energy-needs-and-nuclear-power.aspx

  119. The evidence for new physics is coming in by the day. It won’t be long now. This is time it’s about exotic matter which is fundamental to the Core Hypothesis of gravity/climate change:

    “Collisions between high-energy protons at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN have given physicists a first glimpse at interactions involving exotic particles called hyperons. Researchers working on the ALICEexperiment on the LHC looked at how hyperons – which are baryons containing at least one strange quark – interact with protons via the strong force. Their results are an important step forward in our understanding of the strong force and could also provide insights into the incredibly dense matter within neutron stars.”

    https://physicsworld.com/a/exotic-hyperons-interact-with-protons-at-cern/

    • The theoretical / particle physics community are slowly but surely moving toward acceptance of string/M theory. So any “new physics” will have to make sense in a stringy context. Quantum gravity only works with strings and something like the Veneziano amplitude. That might be a better direction to look rather than revisiting Newton.

      https://motls.blogspot.com/2020/08/a-proof-of-string-theory.html?m=1

      • That’s not the attitude of the leading scientists who participated in the latest series of webinars of Theory of Everything. It’s been around a long time and is felt to be unsatisfactory, especially by Sabine Hossenfelder:

      • This is a question where Sabine Hossenfelder, while a physicist and good communicator, is not the best authority regarding stringy matters. The real new science is moving the consensus gradually stringward.

      • “The real new science is moving the consensus gradually stringward.” – Phil

        There’s been nothing I’ve noticed in my science newsfeed in the last 6 months. Can you provide a link to an article or paper supporting your claim? It’s more of a mathematical default position imo, because a succinct answer can’t be found. Similar to climate science, manmade CO2 global warming is a default position because the true cause of D-O events hasn’t been deduced.

      • “This is a question where Sabine Hossenfelder, while a physicist and good communicator..” – Phil

        She also has very good natural intuition and a dry sense of humour. I learnt how to pronounce “Einstein” with a German accent today:

      • Yes I like SH’s site and visit it from time to time. But I think more cutting edge cosmology is to be found on PBS Spacetime with Matt ODowd and on Lubos Motl’s Reference Frame.

  120. Matthew R Marler

    more on risk of death in hospitalized COVID-19 patients:

    https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1787/6041643

  121. “By now you’ve probably heard the original quarantine-genius story: Isaac Newton, having fled the plague, revolutionized mathematics and reinvented physics. In a pandemic-afflicted year like 2020, it’s natural to hope for some parallel silver lining. Maybe another prodigy’s ideas are being given the time and space to gestate, and who knows what wonders await.”
    ..
    “Just as Newton eventually showed that the gravity that pulls at the apples on a tree is the same as the force that holds the moon in orbit.”

    I disagree and can show that it’s a different force that keeps the moon in orbit. A strong gravitational interaction exists between their small but oh-so-very-important hyperon cores.

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantas-year-in-physics-2020-20201223/

  122. Australian coal imports currently banned by CCP yet China is experiencing power shortages. The southern part of the country is using much more power than normal due to lower air temperatures and inefficient heating supplies.

    “In explaining the power cuts, authorities have pointed to increased industrial production post-pandemic, and lower than normal temperatures, noting that the south of the country doesn’t have the energy efficiency of central heating.”

    https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/24/more-than-50-australian-coal-ships-remain-stranded-off-china-coast-despite-power-blackouts

    I propose the lower temps (if true) might be due to increased snowfall in the Himalayas.

  123. Earth greening mitigates surface warming by enhancing the efficiency in heat and water transfer (i.e., aerodynamic resistance).

    There’s something interesting going on here, something like guilt psychology.

    The warmists at least experience some vague inkling that the dramatic greening of earth’s flora from increasing CO2 is problematic for the catastrophist story.

    But they’re so far away from being able to jump through the mental hoop of recognising that a human activity could benefit, rather than harm, the biosphere, that they embark on a strange and abnormal series of tortuous narratives and mental states. All the time missing the point that is blindingly clear to everyone else.

    You or I might respond by thinking – “greening? Enhanced plant growth? That’s good for the earth.” But not these people. They experience a continual anxiety and defensiveness regarding their warming story, no doubt linked to the fact that the know full well it is false. In this regard their defense of the warming story calls to mind Basil Fawlty dashing frantically around Fawlty Towers trying to prevent his wife seeing that he’s lied to her again.

    So their reaction to “CO2 is greening the earth” is not “is greening good in its own right?” – but instead their thoughts jump anxiously to the threat that greening poses to the gospel story of warming disaster. Instead they think “we mustn’t let this greening pose a threat to the core narrative – the story of disaster by warming”.

    This is how you would expect members of an extreme religious cult to behave. Frantically defensive of a core narrative, unable to see anything in the world in any light other than either being good or bad for the story.

    • So that explains why atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping. I would have thought more plants means more oxygen.
      https://www.oxygenlevels.org/

      • Interesting. I propose that toxic oceanic blue-green algae is the reason for oxygen decreases despite Northern hemisphere greening. I expect the atmospheric oxygen levels to increase and surpass previous levels.

        The megafauna of the glacial cycle indicates that there was much more available atmospheric oxygen imo.

      • The annual cycle is NH photosynthesis and respiration.

      • jack
        An interesting apparent contradiction. It’s complex I guess. Forest areas that are waterlogged can be a net source of CO2 rather than oxygen. According to the CO2 monitoring satellites such forests such as Amazon and Congo are bigger sources of CO2 than cities.

      • Phil,
        I have been pointing this out for years. I think the misunderstanding comes from using the vague term “greening the planet”. It implies the only stuff greening are forests and grass lands but ignores the huge biomass of microscopic lifeforms like algae, fungus and bacteria which may be anorexic and can be very toxic to most of the higher lifeforms. I have lost interest in sensational headlines like ‘Record atmospheric CO2″ or “Warmest year since records began”. It is best to ignore all these first-order effect and focus on the 2nd and 3rd order effects like ocean dead zones, insect and bird population declines and vanishing rivers and aquifers.
        A few years ago I found a graph of the exponential growth of the thousands of newly invented man made molecules being produced by the billions of tons per year. It refocused my attention to the parts of the environment that act as the foundation for all of the biosphere. We are terraforming the planet without a blueprint.

      • jack
        It could be indeed that our exotic toxins in the environment are a worse problem than the headline CO2. I remember at Uni learning about TBT – tributyl tin with unprecedented part-per-billion toxicity, changing the gender of shellfish and “defouling” entire coastal bays.

        About ocean anoxic dead zones, it turns out according to this paper that rising CO2 actually increases, rather than decreases, oxygenation of the deep ocean. More photosynthesis means more oxygen in seawater and some of that gets transported to the ocean bottom.

        https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/14/atmospheric-co2-is-good-for-the-deep-ocean/

    • Long term this is a bad trend don’t you think?

    • iOn the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said. https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2

      Should Phil’s rant be under ‘blame game”? Nonetheless – we should look below the surface. Soil scientist Rattan Lal estimates that we could sequester the carbon content of 150 ppm of carbon dioxide by 2100. Much better to return some of the carbon lost from terrestrial systems for many reasons far beyond the contrarian talking point of how good anthropogenic emissions are for the planet.

    • Its December 25th, whatever one’s beliefs.
      An odd thought:
      Get out a good bottle of wine, and look closely into the liquid. There lived a yeast that converted what the Sun’s energy had put into the grape, back into CO2. Maybe we are also like that yeast, and are now converting all that locked carbon back where it belongs, in the atmosphere, to return the natural cycle back on course. Note that the wine yeast ultimately perished – by natural design-.
      Till then, enjoy the wine, and what else one can manage. In Peace, and good luck.

  124. A very strong stratospheric polar vortex and other record-breaking phenomena made the Northern Hemisphere winter of 2019–2020 one of extremes.

    A polar vortex disruption with a SSW (sudden stratospheric warming) and consequent cold weather outbreaks in the NH could be on the way again for 2020-2021 according to Judah Cohen at AER. The deep cold in Central Asia – Siberia is setting the stage for this

    https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/

  125. Top ten climate records for year 2020:

  126. Korean artificial sun sets the new world record of 20-sec-long operation at 100 million degrees

    “The Korea Superconducting Tokamak Advanced Research (KSTAR), a superconducting fusion device also known as the Korean artificial sun, set the new world record as it succeeded in maintaining the high temperature plasma for 20 seconds with an ion temperature over 100 million degrees (Celsius).”
    https://phys.org/news/2020-12-korean-artificial-sun-world-sec-long.html

    Korean Artificial Sun – KSTAR Fusion Reactor – Sets New World Record
    https://scitechdaily.com/korean-artificial-sun-kstar-fusion-reactor-sets-new-world-record/

    • It’s still a very slow and expensive progression. 20 seconds doesn’t sound very long considering the goal is continuous power generation.

      I can’t help but think a new physics revolution that unites the known forces and reconciles gravity with quantum mechanics is the key to future success. I think it will happen, perhaps in less than 5 years away.

      If the global weather continues to be even more extreme into 2021 and 2022, the science community will be forced to think-out-of-the-box.

  127. 2020 isn’t over with surprises just yet. Can anyone identify this apparent space debris and where it landed?

  128. What is the best estimate of Pre-Industrial GMST?

    Please cite references