by Judith Curry
How the ‘blame game’ gets in the way of solving complex societal problems.
An essay on how attempting to identify blame for complex societal problems can get in the way of finding solutions to these problems. What the climate ‘blame game’ can learn from the Covid-19 ‘blame game.’
The blame for climate change
Manmade climate change is an emergent problem caused mainly by the abundance and usefulness of fossil fuels in providing cheap, reliable energy. In his book The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, energy theorist Alex Epstein outlines the benefits that the development of coal, oil, and natural gas have had on mankind, including improved health, increased lifespan, and expansion of material welfare. Economist Richard Tol evaluated the private benefit of carbon, which is the value of energy services produced by fossil fuels. He finds that the private benefit of carbon is much greater than the social cost of carbon that causes damage via climate change; these benefits are related to the benefits of abundant and reliable energy.
So, who is to blame for fossil fuel emissions and manmade climate change?
- consumers and industries who demand electric power, transportation, and steel, which are produced using fossil fuels; or
- electric utilities providers and manufacturers of the internal combustion and jet engines that use fossil fuels; or
- oil/gas and coal companies that produce fossil fuels; or
- governments who have the authority to regulate fossil fuel emissions.
The blame for manmade climate change is occasionally placed on national governments. The Urgenda ruling ordered the Dutch government to step up its climate actions in reducing emissions. In the Juliana civil lawsuit, the U.S. federal government was blamed for declining to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, pass a carbon tax and trade bill and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. However, most often in civil litigation, the blame is placed on oil/gas and coal companies that produce the fuels.
The role of climate science in the carbon blame game is an interesting one. As a basis of responsibility, a key element is the causal link between the actor and the harm. Responsibility is also based on the ability to foresee the harm, in terms of scientific understanding. And finally, responsibility relates to the ability to prevent the harm. Recent developments in attribution science are seeking to identify the culpability of individual or groups of oil/gas and coal companies as related to local sea level rise, ocean acidification and extreme weather events.
Carbon Majors
A new wave of private climate litigation has been motivated by publication of the Carbon Majors study by Richard Heede. Heede’s research shows that nearly two-thirds of anthropogenic carbon emissions originated from just 90 companies and government-run industries. Among them, the top eight companies account for 20 percent of world carbon emissions from fossil fuels and cement production since the Industrial Revolution. Four of the eight companies are owned by national governments, whereas the other four are multinational corporations.
Heede’s research was a turning point in the debate about apportioning responsibility for climate change. While Heede’s work helped identify individual defendants or groups of defendants related to climate change, it did not resolve the question of whether these emitters are responsible for specific climate change-related impacts and events.
Arriving at a dangerous climate outcome includes a causal chain based on increasing atmospheric CO2 and global mean surface temperature. By tracing company emissions over time, Ekwurzel et al. (2017) attribute fractions of the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere, increases in atmospheric temperature and elevation of the sea level to the Carbon Major companies. Ekwurzeil et al. mentioned in the conclusions the idea of extending this attribution logic to extreme weather events. A recent paper by Lickey et al. (2019) attempts to attribute ocean acidification to Carbon Majors.
The science of attribution, or causality, is not at all straightforward. There are two specific issues here: whether climate models are valid sources of legal evidence for climate change attribution/cause; and also the importance of determining partial causation in the context of natural climate variability.
Blame sharing
Attribution of harm associated with the weather, climate change or sea level rise is complicated by the existence of multiple causes. Assuming that some percentage of the harm can be justifiably attributed to fossil fuel emissions, does it make sense to attribute this harm in a legal sense to the producers of fossil fuels, e.g. coal and oil/gas companies?
David Victor is a global thought leader on climate change policy and the energy-systems transformation that is required for a low-carbon future. Victor dismissed Heede’s work on the Carbon Majors as part of a “larger narrative of trying to create villains,” seeking to distinguish between producers as being responsible for the problem and everyone else as victims. Victor stated: “Frankly we’re all the users and therefore we’re all guilty.” [link]
In the same article, Richard Heede (author of the Carbon Majors report) concedes that the responsibility is shared. He stated: “I as a consumer bear some responsibility for my own car, et cetera. But we’re living an illusion if we think we’re making choices, because the infrastructure pretty much makes those choices for us.”
Heede makes a key point by saying that the infrastructure pretty much makes the choices for us. The demand for fossil fuels is driven by electric utility and transportation infrastructures. Individual consumers and companies are faced with a limited number of other options, unless they forego grid electricity and do not avail themselves of transportation systems that run on fossil fuels. Individual consumers and companies are responsible for the demand for electric utilities and transportation, but are arguably indifferent to the source of electric power or transportation, provided that it is abundant, reliable, safe and economical.
If there were no demand for fossil fuels, then there would be nothing to blame on the Carbon Majors. The fact that there is continued and growing demand for fossil fuels indicates that the issue of blame is not straightforward. A change from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels is not simple or cheap, owing to infrastructure. For electric power, this includes generation and transmission infrastructure. For transportation, this includes vehicle engines and their manufacture plus refueling infrastructure.
David Victor states: “To create a narrative that involves corporate guilt as opposed to problem-solving is not going solve anything.” A problem-solving focus on infrastructure is needed for progress, but exactly what the infrastructure should look like depends on available and planned technologies, economics and public policy.
Covid-19 analogy
Covid-19 provides an interesting case study regarding ‘blame.’ The origin of the virus is generally regarded to have occurred in Wuhan, China. However, it is difficult to blame the worldwide spread of the virus on Wuhan. While Covid-19 statistics coming from China are incomplete and have been judged to be not trustworthy, China appears to have done a better job at containing the internal spread of the virus than many other countries. Currently, the ‘blame’ is focused on transmitters who are not adhering to lockdown and mask wearing requirements plus the politicians who aren’t requiring them to do so.
With the advent of Covid-19 vaccines, the Covid-19 discussion is now dominated by the vaccine, with the origin of the disease receiving little attention. The cure to the pandemic is technological, in the form of vaccines; not worldwide behavioral change (although behavioral change has worked in some smaller regions/countries). In many countries, behavioral modifications to limit transmission that were associated with mandatory lockdowns simply didn’t work, for reasons of economic infeasibility, concerns about psychological well being associated with isolation, and general political non-viability.
Conclusion
In context of the climate debate, the lesson from Covid-19 is this. A technological solution (analogous to development of the vaccine) in terms of better electricity generation and transmission would quickly silence the climate ‘blame game’ by solving the problems to the environment caused by burning fossil fuels. Suffering from insufficient electric power or electric power that is too expensive or unreliable (analogous to the Covid lockdowns) is economically damaging and politically unviable.
Again, the solution is problem solving and new technologies, not blame. While isolation and austerity can be invoked for short time periods, they are not solutions.
The Covid-19 blame game didn’t get in the way of finding a solution (i.e. vaccine). However, the rush to blame the fossil fuel companies and punish them is getting in the way of a sensible transition away from the worst impacts of fossil fuels on the environment.
A sensible transition involves continued use of relatively clean and dispatchable natural gas, avoids massive infrastructure investments in wind energy that have dubious net benefits over the life cycle of the wind turbines, and developing an improved energy infrastructure for the 21st century. Abundant, secure, reliable, economical, and clean. How do we prioritize among these, and to what extent should ‘clean’ trump the others? Do we define ‘clean’ only in terms of emissions, or do we also include mining/exploration, land use, life cycle issues, etc.?
I am still waiting for a moral argument that justifies, in the name of the ‘climate crisis’, preventing the development of grid electricity in the poorest regions of Africa that can support development of an advanced economy. I suspect that I will be waiting a long time for such a justification, because there isn’t one.
Playing the carbon ‘blame game’ is an excuse for punishing certain companies without actually solving societal problems. The net effect is continued suffering in developing countries, failure to make much headway on reducing emissions and certainly a failure to ‘improve’ the climate in any way.
good one!
As Dr. Curry has given ample space to those seeking to blame climate change on galactic cosmic rays, I am deeply shocked that Science, Etc. should overlook the skeptic stampede to embrace the idea that Covid 19 also came from outer space:
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/12/so-in-addition-to-climate-change-cosmic.html
Mr. Seitz
Everything on earth came from outer space. And climate change is caused by variations of extraterrestrial dust in the atmosphere, in addition to cosmic rays. You can protect yourself from cosmic rays at all times by wearing a bicycle helmet lined with titanium foil, as I do. Extraterrestrial dust and cosmic rays are real problems.
A slight warming in the past 170 years is not a problem at all.
The author seems to believe climate change is a “complex societal problem”. The author is wrong.
Global warming is not complex. Global warming is not a problem. In fact, it is a blessing. The greenhouse effect moderates mainly the coldest climates on our planet, mainly during the coldest months of the year, and mainly at night. More CO2 in the atmosphere accelerates plant growth, and that faster growth requires less water too.
We’ve had global warming for 20,000 years — I challenge anyone to list the names of any people who were harmed by it. The list will contain zero names.
I remember reading somewhere that to have a religion, you don’t need a god, but you do need a devil.
Very interesting quote. The sky news Australia team show how covid has been linked to climate change:
https://youtu.be/luOXRUaGfOA
Quote Mike D: “you don’t need a god, but you do need a devil”. Quite so, and there are variants. Like the ‘carrot and stick’ method; many would pass the carrot – there are always better options – but the stick is more effective – and focused-.
The Ancient Egyptians scribe teachers had a saying to the same effect “boys have ears in their backs and when you beat them they listen”.
or an orthodoxy that explains why you are superior to other people. The Climate Glitteratti have both.
> behavioral modifications to limit transmission that were associated with mandatory lockdowns simply didn’t work,
What does “simply didn’t work” even mean?
(1) It’s a meaningless statement. Did they reduce transmission compared to what would have happened absent their implementation? Did they stop all transmission? Your statement – which ignores ALL uncertainty btw – is unfalsifiable.
(2) You haven’t even bothered to try to describe how you’ve reached your conclusion.
Bad science. There’s nothing “simple” about any of this.
Joshua, we all know what the phrase, “simply didn’t work,” means. It’s meaning isn’t in question; whether it is an accurate conclusion is in question. Judith may see that in the US, many areas with the highest mask usage and the most severe limitations on mobility are experiencing the greatest rates of daily case increases while areas with the least restrictive mandates are seeing decreases – though from generally higher levels. You don’t need to be an epidemiologist to see that while Wisconsin’s daily new case rate has been decreasing since mid-November, California’s comparable rate is soaring.
Jim –
> Joshua, we all know what the phrase, “simply didn’t work,” means
Calculating the effect of interventions is extremely complicated. Many variables such as compliance, local population dissimilarities, demographic variables, timing of introduction, state of the pandemic when the interventions are introduced, etc., all affect the efficacy. There nothing simple about it. You want to look at gross curves, without taking ANY of that into account, and think you know the answers. I’ll agree that you think it’s simple.
Bad science.
Concurring with Jimeichstedt
Europe, the northern US , MT, ID, ND, SD Co, NE WY, WI are all having very similar infection rates for the months of Sept, Oct & Nov, inspite of widely divergent levels of compliance with masking and shut downs.
Almost every european country has higher compliance than ND, SD, MT
Should masking and social distancing, lockdowns have a negative impact on transmission – yes compliance should have an impact, but compliance is not translating in the broader measure.
Colorado has a much higher level of compliance with masking than Texas, In colorado, hikers are even wearing masks on the hiking trails, and almost everyone is wearing masks walking across parking lots. In texas you are considered a fool if you are wearing a mask walking across a parking lot. Yet during the months of Sept, Oct & Nov, Colorado’s infection rate was 2.5x to 3.0x the infection rate in texas.
University of Kansas did a study comparing mask mandated counties and non mask mandated counties. The mask mandated counties only had 13% lower infection rate for the period August 1 through Oct 23 and 11% lower infection rate for the period July 1, through Oct 23. Unsurprisingly, the promoters of the KU study misrepresented the results , only mentioning the delta for the last 4 weeks of the study period in order to claim a 50+% delta.
In Kansas, the overall infection rates in non-masked counties was still lower than in masked counties also. In addition, when the authors did a sensitivity study to address the fact that some cities in unmasked counties required masks, the small claimed benefit of masking disappeared. You must read any study the press references because the press is misleading the people it is supposed to be informing.
Someone I know criticized us “anti-maskers” by stating that we have apparently learned nothing in the last 100 years from the mask protests during the 1918 pandemic. Again the press misleads in this area, ridiculing people who argue against the effectiveness of masks by pointing out the use in the 1918 pandemic. No one bothers to look at the effectiveness of masks during that pandemic:
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011933637
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001583712
The first study is from 1919 and the second from 1921. They both come to the same conclusion, masks applied to the general population don’t work. We learned a great deal in the last century, and then we ignored it all in spring of 2020.
I love that Doug thinks he’s in a position to lecture others about misleading people you’re supposedly informing.
-snip-
dougbadgero | November 26, 2020 at 12:03 pm | Reply
>… Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.
-snip-
Deaths on the 25th are now listed at 47. Deaths in the 24th are not listed at 60. Doing says two-day average is 40. The numbers say the two days days leading up to his comment had 107.
I guess that being off by 227% is no impediment for Doug.
Both will likely go up with reporting tomorrow. Let’s see if being off by more than 227% becomes an impediment.
As I stated before, the numbers were correct on the day I reported them. You have crossed over from the misleading to the unethical. I am sure it will be amusing to watch you use this example every time I post something you don’t like but can’t refute with a logical argument lol.
Doug I agree with your comment regarding reading press releases,
I look for agenda is most every article/study I read and discount the validity of the conclusions based on the agenda. I find the majority of studies, both from the right and left, to be slanted by the author’s agenda. It helps to keep a healthy objectivity.
One the home page of the KU policy center website that highlighted the study, The next article discussed the 3rd wave in the united states. What the US has experienced is 3 separate 1st waves in the various regions. No region of the US has experienced a 3rd wave and only a few areas are having second waves. Many areas of the US effectively only had their first wave starting in Sept such MT, NE, WI, CO,. ND SD ID NE. CO
Doug –
> As I stated before, the numbers were correct on the day I reported them. You have crossed over from the misleading to the unethical. I am sure it will be amusing to watch you use this example every time I post something you don’t like but can’t refute with a logical argument lol.
Lol. I love that. “I was wrong but I was correct.” Perfect.
No, the numbers were not correct on the day you reported them – because you were ignorant of the reporting process. The numbers you stated were wrong. Just because you didn’t know what the reporting process doesn’t make the numbers correct. Your ignorance doesn’t make you correct. I explained it to you but you didn’t want to listen. You called it “nonsense.”
But I love that you insist that you weren’t wrong even though you were clearly wrong, under the explanation that you didn’t know that you were wrong at the time, even though I told you at the time you were wrong.
I had the exact same convo with jim2.
He said a couple of weeks ago that the number of hospitalizatons were going down. He thought that was the case because of a very short-term downward trend on a CDC graph after a much longer-term steady rise.
I explained to him that there was no reason to think the trend would turn around. I explained that the recent fats were only preliminary. I pointed out to him that the CDC cautioned thst rhe most recent data were oeonjaey and didn’t include the most recent hospitalizatons. I showed him where the CDC predicted a continued rise and his response was that the CDC didn’t know what they were talking about. I showed him Covid Tracking Project data showing a continuous increase in hospitalizatons and said they were part of a conspiracy to fudge the numbers.
When later the CDC updated their graphs to show.conrinjois rise, jim2 insisted he hadn’t been wrong because the graph at the time showed a short term drop.
I love you boyz.
You can see how Minnesota, a North Central state that had fewer covid cases than its neighbors presumably because of its stricter mandates. But all that changed in early November when case rates blossomed to equal the Dakotas and Wyoming.
I suggest the following (yes, it’s speculation, not science – yet):
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AqbKVEOTk_RojawTliOebx2jaDOxkQ?e=um7TxE
Doug –
They’re now at 65 on the 24th and 57 on the 25th. Does 122 over two days. look like a two-day average of 40 to you? Just checking. I wouldn’t want to misunderstand.
In fact. The 7-day running average on the 26th, the day in which you wrote your comment that the average two-day death total was 40, is now at 52. 52 deaths per day versus 40 deaths per two days.
You were only off by 260% (and counting).
But you were right even though you were off by 260%, eh?
You are demonstrably misleading and unethical. You claimed something two weeks ago that only became true weeks after you claimed it and now harp about how I was wrong based on information that was true when I stated it. As I said before get a grip.
Doug –
I told you that you were wrong in your misleading statement about the rate of deaths in Sweden. I told you that the actual number of deaths was higher than you said.
I explained that you were wrong because you were obviously ignorant of the ways that deaths are reported there.. There was no doubt, absolutely no doubt, thst the actual rate of deaths was higher than you said.
You were wrong in your statement about the number of deaths. You claim that you were right based in the numbers at the time. No, that’s wrong because the numbers at the time include the established pattern where over time the numbers would increase. The only way you could have been right at the time is if suddenly the established pattern would change. I shied you a graph of how the actual deaths ALWAYS increased over time. It would only be right if all of a sudden they had changed their system of reporting.
“Nonsense,” you responded.
Lol. You were only off by 260%. In your book thst means you were right.
So typical of a “skeptic.”. Make a statement of fact when you’re ignorant of the relevant jnformation. When you’re told you are wrong because you’re ignorant of the information, state “Nonsense.” Then when your error is unequivocal, just insist thst you were right. Oh, and attack the person who punted out your error. Get indignant. Get self-righteous. Make it personal.
Perfect.thanks for the illustration.
And this is beautiful.
> . You claimed something two weeks ago that only became true weeks after.
People who died two weeks ago only died when they died after two weeks.
One of the best examples of “skeptic” logic I’ve ever seen. One for the record books.
OK. Done with this now. I’ve got it on record.
Joshua’s comment critisizing Doug – “In fact. The 7-day running average on the 26th, the day in which you wrote your comment that the average two-day death total was 40, is now at 52. 52 deaths per day versus 40 deaths per two days.
You were only off by 260% (and counting).
But you were right even though you were off by 260%, eh?”
Math is hard – 52.5-40=12.5 , 12.5/40 = 31% not 260%
Josh – while you are criticizing Doug – you might have noticed sweden’s 7 day average for deaths as of Dec 7th is 15
Joe –
52 per day versus 40 for two days.
> Josh – while you are criticizing Doug – you might have noticed sweden’s 7 day average for deaths as of Dec 7th is 15
Part of my point is that the significant rise blows up the “herd immunity” in Stockholm 6 months ago theories.
And BTW, the significant 2nd wave rise in Stockholm also brings to mind your “they are only having spikes in areas where there wasn’t a first spike earlier” failed armchair epidemiology experiment.
That’s OK, it’s always OK to experiment as long as you learn from your mistakes. Have you learned from your mistakes?
I already excerpted this but no reason not to do it again. It’s fun to watch Doug claim he wasn’t wrong even though he was wrong no matter how many times he does it.
-snip-
dougbadgero | November 26, 2020 at 12:03 pm | Reply
>… Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.
But let’s leave this here, eh? Nothing further to be gained. I already have the quotes I wanted.
Doug’s statement on Nov 26th ” Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.”
Josh – The second wave in sweden started approx Oct 1. As of Nov 26th , the daily death for the entire 7/8 weeks was approx 20 or approx 40 for 2 days during the Second Wave. As such, doug’s statement was true.
Josh – try to avoid lying about what someone said.
Joe –
He spoke of the two day death total as a response to my comment on the reports of deaths over the two previous days?
So your explanation is that his response was accurate because it was a total non-sequitur?
Ok. Got it. I’m sure he’ll be proud of your defense – which, BTW, is even better than the one you gave for David Young when he was completely wrong also.
Josh – I am going to repeat Doug’s statement on Nov 26th ” Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.”
Doug did not say the last two days –
Doug said “…. DURING THIS SECOND WAVE.”
Try to read his actual statement
> dougbadgero | November 26, 2020 at 12:03 pm | Reply
Sweden’s daily death toll has been about 15 to 30 for some time now. There is no 2 day period that totals 120. Two day totals are about 40 during this second wave.
He wrote that on the 26th. T in response to my comment on the reporting of deaths ON THE 26TH.
The two-day total for the 24th and 25th was OVER 120. And it will likely rise from here.
I explained to him that his post was misleading. I explained that he didn’t know what the two-day total for the 24th and 25th was, because of the lag in reporting – but that surely it was higher than between 15 and 30, or 20. To which he responded “nonsense.”
I love you boyz.
OK. I think I understand now, Joe. Sorry for my confusion. Thanks for the explanation. Now I see just how wrong I was. I’m so embarrassed.
When I posted a comment that the reported deaths on the Nov. 26th was some 120 deaths higher than two days prior, Doug posted to talk about the average death totals going back to about two months prior. And when I told him that the two day death total for those two recent days was likely close to the deaths listed in the update, or 120, he said “Nonsense.” But he wasn’t wrong. Nope. Nozireeebub.
I think I got it now. I truly love you boyz. I really will drop this now because I’m so embarrassed I need to run and hide.
“Josh – while you are criticizing Doug – you might have noticed sweden’s 7 day average for deaths as of Dec 7th is 15”
Joe,
Be careful about using very recent data for Sweden. Josh is correct about that issue, though some of his comments make me wonder if he actually understands the issue. Sweden reports deaths based on the day they occurred. so recent data will almost certainly be changed. You have to look at the bar chart understanding that past data will change based on future reports. The advantage of this reporting is that it more accurately reflects when the peak actually occurred, but it is non-standard compared to other countries.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) famously declared that lockdowns were only to be used to buy time at the beginning of a pandemic and shouldn’t be used as a form of control in later stages because ‘they simply don’t work’.
It’s odd the things people call science and the uses they put it to. It is inevitably so black and white. If we could ‘cancel’ them with extreme prejudice the space would get a lot calmer and saner.
“Yes, it is not an easy time for leaders. More and more of them know that they cannot “wish the virus away” with bluster and ridicule. We are close to the start of the long haul, and finding ways to do the right thing is deadly serious.” https://www.4sd.info/covid-19-narratives/reflections-about-the-middle-path/
Doug –
> Now what about the fact that Sweden has moved from 10th to 24th in population specific death rate, or that masks aren’t working now and didn’t work in 1918?
See, that’s part of the problem. Yoi don’t learn from your mistakes. You’re making the same problem again. Your using a snapshot of cross-sectional data to try to discern longitudinal trends. That’s a mistake. You have to consider the lags. You have to consider the lags. You have to consider the lags.
Yes, during the lull in the summer Sweden moved down considerably among many other countries in per capita deaths. Their rate of infection was very low. No doubt. But the trend now is not friendly to Sweden. They are experiencing infections at a per capita rate as high as just about anywhere, and soon their death rates will pretty much follow. That’s why they’re starting to close down and perry much abandon their “light touch” approach. They are adapting. That’s good.
I don’t read too much into all of that. Sweden’s approach had a logic to it. There is a lot of uncertainty. But Sweden is in many ways an outlier country that would be ideally suited for a “light touch” approach. The same approach in other countries would be even more disastrous.
And as it is, Sweden has had and will continue to have much, much worse results than the most comparable countries. With a vaccine on the horizon, it’s clear that they have effectively sacrificed thousands of their citizens for the sake of a failed gamble. But still there was a logic to it.
The main problem at this point is that people are resisting learning lessons from Sweden, and holding on to the seeming falsified belief in an early “herd immunity.” Nic is in a witness protection program.
The real danger is that people who are so wedded to their ideological biases are blocked from accessing their better reasoning skills. Ir may well likely lead to yet more unnecessary deaths, illness, and economic harms from an unwillingness to adapt as new information becomes available.
Joshua, you still don’t get it. Sweden is not the only example. There are multiple states that did not lockdown or wear masks and multiple states and countries that did. Results are all over the place. If there is any impact of lockdowns or masks it is minor and cannot be justified against the destruction of lives those lockdowns have caused. Whether Sweden moves up or down the list is immaterial to that issue. And Sweden’s fall and winter is going much better than many other states and countries.
> Joshua, you still don’t get it. Sweden is not the only example. There are multiple states that did not lockdown or wear masks and multiple states and countries that did. Results are all over the place. If there is any impact of lockdowns or masks it is minor and cannot be justified against the destruction of lives those lockdowns have caused. Whether Sweden moves up or down the list is immaterial to that issue. And Sweden’s fall and winter is going much better than many other states and countries
You have made zero attempt to even consider the many confounding variables that help explain the variance in outcomes. Yet you think that you know what the answers are. You don’t know. I’m not going to bother trying to argue the details with you because it would be pointless. It would be pointless because you think you know but you don’t. You have zero room for uncertainty.
> Whether Sweden moves up or down the list is immaterial to that issue.
Classic. You bring up Sweden’s movement relative to other countries, and then say (the causes why it might move up or down) is immaterial.
> And Sweden’s fall and winter is going much better than many other states and countries.
And then again reference Sweden’s likely progress relative to other countries.
And if course, in so doing, as you continuously do, you completely ignore how much worse they’ve done and will to do in the future relative to the most similar countries.
Josh comment to Doug – “You have made zero attempt to even consider the many confounding variables that help explain the variance in outcomes.”
Pot calling the kettle black
Joe,
The issue of confounding variables is, as a practical matter, irreducible IMO. You have to look at a totality of the data and draw a conclusion. The arguments in this area are not fruitful. For example, few in Scandinavia are wearing masks, and there is more than geography that makes countries similar and different.
What this long and largely contentless exchange shows is that the evidence for public health measures is weak, ditto for mask wearing. The second wave seems to be striking virtually everywhere in the West irrespective of the severity of government measures. Of course we knew this would happen just as it happens every winter with other viral infections.
You said the pandemic was over months ago.
That the spikes in the summer didn’t mesn anything.
Amazing that you still have the stones to weigh in.
Fine I was wrong and you were right. I bow in your general direction.
Now what about the fact that Sweden has moved from 10th to 24th in population specific death rate, or that masks aren’t working now and didn’t work in 1918?
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935447
I blame Joshua for being a pusillanimous, pissant progressive.
Understanding the motivation for blame and who is singled out for blame goes a long way in analyzing the blame game. The blame game or even understanding it will not help solve the underlying problem(s) unless the blame can be associated with some legal responsibility that goes further than deep pockets or ease of attributing villainous behavior. I doubt that the current legal concepts practiced around the world are capable of finding the responsible parties (if any exist) or determining who should be compensated.
I think consumers are ultimately to blame for fossil fuel use. If there was no demand, there would be no supply. And I think consumers have made a rational and good choice of fuels, and that remains true today.
“Abundant, secure, reliable, economical, and clean.” Nuclear.
I blame the “No Nukes!” faction.
Not only is the “No Nukes!” gang responsible for most of the coal emissions of the last 40 years, they’re still actively getting EU nations to switch from nuclear to fossil fuels (natural gas).
But yeah, Exxon and pickup trucks.
When I look at a chart showing what electricity sources contributed to supply at a given time, I love seeing the flat line of the nuclear contribution. Beautiful.
I am surprised that Nuclear power was not mentioned in the potential solutions. Why not?
For moral shirking on the climate and energy issues, I’d put the activists avoidance of debate at the top of the list.
Agreed. The science is far from settled, to say the least.
I’d like to include woke celebs in the blame game:
https://youtu.be/3uub3CJc2UE
If you want to assign blame, Greenpeace and the Union of Concerned Scientists bears more blame than any corporation.
The world was turning to safe, abundant, inexpensive zero-carbon electricity generation – capable of powering electrified transportation – until those groups decided to use dishonesty and political activism to stop it.
How many billions of tons of CO2 were released into the atmosphere over the past four decades because our “environmentalist” elite decided that anyone who wanted to have lights and heat must use coal?
On another note, refusal to adopt Luddism is not a “failure” that is actionable.
Blame is always about punishment and never about solutions. That’s all that needs to be said. You finally did in the very last paragraph. All the rest adds nothing to this basic truth.
The Blame Game is just another name for admiring a problem, and thus avoiding the tough choices needed to solve it. The poor and the homeless – Black and White – deserve better than the mindless tearing down of statues and rewriting of history that we’re seeing. The silencing of conservative dissent and alternative solutions to the entangled problems of race and poverty was presaged in the climate “wars,” and has been echoed in the almost religious appeals to “follow the science” re Covid. The latter is most ironic because what we’re really being exhorted to do is follow bureaucratic dicta; the science is far from settled.
I don’t see how anyone is “to blame” for fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels have been incredibly beneficial to human health and well-being. And still are.
Proposed “solutions” to climate change are proposals designed to deprive people of the benefits of certain technologies and of their freedom to choose what technologies they choose to employ. In other words, proposals to deal with climate change are simply fraudulent justifications for further empowering the rulers and for controlling the rest of us. No one has that right.
Paul, agreed.
Strip away the current rules of engagement in the climate wars, because there are synthetic concepts invented by parties that favour and advertise them. Going right back to basics, a person feeling the cold has a choice of burning a lump of coal, or burning a log of wood. Each satisfies the demand for warmth. It is only in recent decades that some parties have decreed rules that CO2 from coal is bad and punishable, while CO2 from wood is pardoned and so forests can get harvested and shipped over oceans for combustion in plants sitting next to coal seams.
If there has to be blame than a prior requirement is to get stupidity out of consideration. This is resisted, because too many people now know of the stupidity of trying to control climate or weather with a CO2 control knob. If you want to blame people, blame those doing poor science and promoting it as mainstream and valid. Geoff S
Judith, seems to me, more accurately, “Claims of man made climate change is an emerging problem caused by …” Point of fact, we have no way to firmly establish whether or not we have a problem. Indeed, more CO2 might even be a net benefit. Yet, we are suppose to spend trillions of dollars while making the lives of the poor and middle class worse; they have less money because of higher energy costs.
We need to stop kowtowing to the left and concentrate on providing reasonably priced, reasonably clean, and reasonably available energy.
“We must make the building of a free society once more an intellectual adventure, a deed of courage…. Unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds, the prospects of freedom are indeed dark. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.” Friedrich August von Hayek
Free markets and private property are the underpinnings of societal well being and environmental stewardship. 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 innovative ways of producing electricity cheaper, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/ft_2020.04.21_earthday_01.png
“What we lack is a liberal Utopia, a program which seems neither a mere defense of things as they are nor a diluted kind of socialism, but a truly liberal radicalism which does not spare the susceptibilities of the mighty (including the trade unions), which is not too severely practical, and which does not confine itself to what appears today as politically possible.” Friedrich August von Hayek
What we have instead is a pusillanimous denial of the common sense of the crowd. What is needed is a pragmatic but creative and innovative raft of solutions in a coherent and inspiring political platform. It is about having answers and not just knee jerk reactions.
Robert Eilson – You should be able recognize a bogus survey.
Almost as bad as the survey with the question
“Should the government ban the pollution that causes global warming?”
It got about 80+% positive response
Concerns in these areas are genuine and responses are consistent both with other US surveys and internationally. And your only response is reactive pusillanimous hand waving rather than thoughtful contributions. Not quite the full intellectual quid are you not the statistician guy.
As I stated, loaded questions in surveys give very biased survey results
Surprising that you didnt recognize the loaded question
You can find the questions – and the methodology – along with a more detailed breakdown of response to a broad survey asking closed questions on government action over a very wide range of issues. I had reviewed it prior to posting the graphic. You are not being either thorough or impartial.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/21/how-americans-see-climate-change-and-the-environment-in-7-charts/
“You can find the questions – and the methodology – along with a more detailed breakdown of response to a broad survey asking closed questions on government action over a very wide range of issues. I had reviewed it prior to posting the graphic. You are not being either thorough or impartial.”
Robert – Questions designed to achieve a positive response, common in survey questions. yet after pointing it out twice, you still cant recognize a loaded question.
Q10a. Is cooperation with other countries very important, somewhat important, not too important or not at all important when dealing with…? a. Global climate change
It’s a closed question with a multiple choice response. Not even a question that featured in the summary. These are uncontroversial results that you insist on trying to hand wave away. A pointless exercise in the context of the comment. There is a broad concern with environments – and economic growth is central to practical solutions.
RIE,
Now and then you write some words that make sense, here “Free markets and private property are the underpinnings of societal well being and environmental stewardship.” Then you proceed with some of your thoughts, backed up with quotes from Friedrich August von Hayek, Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics (1967).
Have you ever read this von Hayek book? I have read parts, but it is hard going. In the late 1970s when I got more earnest about global economics, the nature of “environmentalism” as we know it today was scarcely a topic for economists. Much of what is discussed today evolved slowly until about year 2000 and then took off to uncharted territory when carpetbaggers devised way to make a buck from it.
This paper from Noel Castree of Wollongong Uni covers my preferences for von Hayek’s modern treatment fairly well, including “The original architects of neoliberal thinking, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, said little about environmental issues or natural resource management.”
https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1804&context=sspapers
Your choice of modern matters to be addressed with benefit includes “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 innovative ways of producing electricity cheaper, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions.”
von Hayek did not have anything like this list to work with and indeed some matters like “reducing black carbon emissions” and “updating the diesel fleet” enetered popular discussion only in the last 10-15 years.
Can I suggest that you be careful not to link the name von Hayek with a variety of consequences that favour your current way of thinking?
If you are going to comment on the blame game, you must be careful not to blame celebrated authors for words they did not say.
But then, selected misquotation has long been part of the everyday modus operandi of those pushing unverified science like “CO2 controls the global temperature”. Direct your blame to them. Geoff S
You waffle on with inconsequential and ill informed thoughts as if handing down wisdom from on high with derision prominent. You do understand how annoying all that is? And then you demonstrate again such a profound lack of knowledge of natural sciences. There are greenhouse gases and their effect is superimposed on natural variability in our nonlinear world. There are solutions – cows and nukes among the others I have mentioned.
There are 2 aspects to Hayek. The business cycle and the Austrian School – that I won’t go into now. And the social theorist who saw no reason why a basic income should not be guaranteed – or that natural disasters for which few have the resources to guard against should not be relieved by government.
“When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them.” Hayek – Why I am Not a Conservative
Central to his social theory in the real world – that you don’t seem to inhabit – is a classic liberal commitment to democracy. Much is possible in the cut and thrust of politics from which these things emerge. You can’t use Hayek as holy writ and say these were not specifically addressed. You are either for or against – and if you can’t take the heat…
The Castree has some instances of environmental policy far too briefly covered – but without at the end distilling a theoretical framework for managing common pool resources. He misses entirely the most important resource management theorist of the past 50 years.
This is the 2012 Hayek Lecture by Nobel Prize winner in economics Elinor Ostrom.
“Today, as the nuclear industry faces unprecedented challenges to its future, GA-EMS is helping develop the next generation of advanced reactors. GA-EMS’ Energy Multiplier Module (EM2) is an advanced small modular reactor (SMR) that addresses four of the most challenging problems facing nuclear energy: economics, safety, waste, and nonproliferation.” https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-reactor-e1433376609199.jpg
I suggest that it is a technological solution of the 5th problem of nuclear power. That of public perceptions. In a way that hand waving away concerns cannot.
Not so sure the EM2 is quite the panacea you envision. Fast reactors are notoriously finicky beasts. The vertical helium turbine/compressor/generator is very much an unproven configuration. So is the fuel, for that matter. Looks like a bridge-too-far to me.
You are right in one respect – getting the core design correct is the key.
e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00295450.2019.1698936?journalCode=unct20
And is vertical mounting of a gas turbine really a problem?
https://www.vericor.com/success-stories/vertical-gas-turbine-pump-gas-turbine-provides-quick-start-for-flood-control/
This is General Atomics and they have such a long track record in the nuclear industry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kOeFHNpqV0&ab_channel=OurEnergyFuture.
Cultural narratives associated with climate change, and most distilled in proselytisers such as Greta and XR, put the blame fairly and squarely on consumers, aka ‘everyone’. However this is an emotive reaction, which thus not only bypasses reason (seeking to essentially shut all FF usage down on a crash timescale to ‘save the planet’), but could well eclipse any rational addressing of emissions analysis and consequent action, and already has for millions of followers who are also against nuclear, for example. The hair-shirt no meat and no power approach could only be tremendously harmful, and is more akin to the pursuance of sin than solutions.
Albeit not from entrenched culture, emotions run high in the covid situation too. Understandable fear of the virus that may sometimes produce a certain zealousness, which in turn can amplify in some a fear of solutions. But this is a ‘short’ timescale issue, hopefully! There hasn’t been 30+ years for highly entrenched cultural positions to build up. It is the huge inertia of the latter that is really what impedes the application of rational policy.
P.S. doesn’t stop XR pursuing corporations, say, but the clear end intent is to stop ‘everyone’ from having a significant carbon footprint in the first place, and ASAP.
Alan, rather than clutter up Judith’s post with musical discussion, I left a paragraph about musical influence and involvement on your blogsite, plus a link to some YouTube vids.
Cool.
Total madness since global warming is beneficial, not harmful.
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
The short timescale of COVID is only true if these fears are not translated to increased risk aversion in the rest of our lives. For example, many epidemiologists want masks and social distancing to continue after COVID. This risk aversion does not appear to be unique to COVID, it seems more a cultural shift in our acceptance of risk and increased deference to so called experts. Including deference for value based decisions about what risks we are willing to take, and what actions the government should mandate others take to manage my risk.
https://reason.com/2020/12/04/epidemiologists-masks-social-distancing-vaccine-forever-new-york-times/
Good point. Speaking as a musician who played and listened muchly on the local scene, these measures have wiped out the scene completely. And nothing like the atmosphere exists online with Zoom or whatever; so hoping they won’t continue permanently!
“Speaking as a musician who played and listened muchly on the local scene..” – Andy West
Just as an aside, what are your musical influences Andy? Do you have a link to anything you’ve done? I have a keen love of music and watch a dvd documentary every night with a few beers to take mind away from the stresses of life. I be interested to hear you play. Do you write songs yourself? My speciality is poetry which is then interpreted by someone who’s a lot more musical than myself.
Bother, posted in the wrong place. Here it is in the right place hopefully.
Alan, rather than clutter up Judith’s post with musical discussion, I left a paragraph about musical influence and involvement on your blogsite, plus a link to some YouTube vids.
“The short timescale of COVID is only true if these fears are not translated to increased risk aversion in the rest of our lives. For example, many epidemiologists want masks and social distancing to continue after COVID.”
Retarding the development of the human immune system is one of the stupidest approaches ever conceived. Those proponents of that strategy are proposing that humans develop / evolve so that we can only survive in sterile environments.
Great post Andy. “The hair-shirt no meat and no power approach could only be tremendously harmful..”
This ideology appears to be taking sway in the young elites. Oxford University students voted meat off the menu etc
Andy … You might be interested in “The Unheavenly City”, Edward C. Banfield, 1968/1970, out of print. Particularly, pages 248-255, where he briefly discusses the altruism of the middle/upper classes in America and where it comes from. I include page 255 as it has a beautiful, applicable quote of Lionel Trilling. I have it on pdf, but I have neither the skill to post it on Word Press (unless you can help me out), nor the ability to render it as a doc file.
We are forgetting the most basic question:
What is the real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.
Keep in mind that evidence of climate change is NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
If there is no evidence, there is no need to change what we are doing.
More correctly the question should be stated: “What is the real evidence that global warming is harmful or dangerous?”
Global warming policies and actions must be justified on the basis of the economic impacts of global warming, not on projected temperature changes.
The cause of global warming is irrelevant if it is beneficial, as empirical evidence suggest it is – see these comments on previous thread:
GMST was much higher than now for most of the past 542 Ma
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934108
Global impacts at +3°C GMST by impact sector
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934109
Optimum GMST for ecosystems
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-934110
And this paper:
Economic Impact of Energy Consumption Change Caused by Global Warming
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
“We are forgetting the most basic question:
What is the real evidence that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming.” – JimK
The answer is: “It must be because we can’t think of anything else.”
It seems utterly irrational if what society is doing – reducing inter alia black carbon, nitrous oxide, methane, sulfur and CFC emission, land and soil conservation and restoration, building more resilient communities and infrastructure for whatever disaster strikes and innovating on energy, transport and industry – incidentally solves the problem of climate risk in the absence of anywhere near settled science.
Judith’s conclusions say:
“A sensible transition involves continued use of relatively clean and dispatchable natural gas, avoids massive infrastructure investments in wind energy that have dubious net benefits over the life cycle of the wind turbines, and developing an improved energy infrastructure for the 21st century. Abundant, secure, reliable, economical, and clean.”
I say the transition should be to nuclear power, not renewables. The reason is to massively reduce energy costs and health impacts, not to reduce CO2 emissions. I provide a number of comments on this subject on the last Week in Review thread. Here are some:
Nuclear power costs could be down to 10% of current costs this century
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-935305
“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.” …
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-935331
“There are a variety of ways nuclear technology could advance rapidly if the regulatory impediments are removed.” …
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-935446
Nuclear is the safest way to generate electricity
https://judithcurry.com/2020/11/27/week-in-review-science-edition-122/#comment-935210
Honestly you are so far down your rabbit hole you can’t see straight. In the US gas is more economic than nuclear – even with a $30/ton CO2 tax. In much of the rest of the world coal is competitive, 10% more thermally efficient and – with modern scrubbers removing 99.9% of particulates, sulphur, NOx and mercury – perfectly safe. There will be a supply and demand crunch as supplies tighten and demand surges.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/63b1bb09-dbb6-4ed8-905a-447a5056d2e6/Comparative-LCOEs-in-4-Countries-NEW.jpg
“LCOE plant costs have been taken from Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2015 Edition. System costs have been taken from Nuclear Energy and Renewables (NEA, 2012). A 30% generation penetration level for onshore wind, offshore wind and solar PV has been assumed in the NEA estimates of system costs, which include back-up costs, balancing costs, grid connection, extension and reinforcement costs. A discount rate of 7% is used throughout, which is therefore consistent with the plant level LCOE estimates given in the 2015 edition of Projected Costs of Generating Electricity. The 2015 study applies a $30/t CO2 price on fossil fuel use and uses 2013 US$ values and exchange rates.” https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx#ECSArticleLink0
In Korea nuclear energy is controlled by government entities. “MOTIE is responsible for energy policy, for the construction and operation of nuclear power plants, nuclear fuel supply and radioactive waste management. KEPCO, KHNP, KNFC, NETEC and heavy engineering operations come under MOTIE, and KEPCO seems to have a controlling role with respect to the others.” It has led to standardized designs and low costs that likely are not possible in the US. The US will need to be a lot more innovative.
Generic design approvals and reduction of safety zones to site boundaries for passively safe reactors help a bit but not nearly enough. Factory fabrication with assembly line production is the only way to go.
Missing graphic:
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/comparative-lcoes-in-4-countries-new.jpg
LNG fired combined-cycle plants would be preferable to coal, provided a country has port facilities and LNG continues to be relatively inexpensive. Coal plants are a major-league pain in the butt to run, but if a country has access to cheap coal, does provide a measure of energy security.
The US natural gas price is $2.40/MMBtu – the Japan Import price is $6.20/MMBtu. As I said – coal is competitive in much of the world. Africa, India, China etc. I’m not sur if pain in the butt has a dollar value.
The Japanese reference price has – btw – declined 38% since this time last year.
Those graphs look suspiciously skewed. I strongly suspect there is some “thumbs-on-the-scale” involving some of the assumptions used to create the graphs. Also, difficult to equate plants that are reliable versus those that are not – end up with apples and oranges comparisons. Being awash in solar energy in the middle of the day is not particularly helpful when power is needed in the evening and solar is asleep for the night.
30% penetration of renewables is assumed as per the assumptions from the World Nuclear Association that I copied and pasted to avoid these sorts of irrelevancies.
If not for the disruption to nuclear power learning 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 10% or less of what they are (https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm Table 3 and Figures 1, 5, 6 and 7).
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-02169/article_deploy/html/images/energies-10-02169-g001-550.jpg
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.
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-02169/article_deploy/html/images/energies-10-02169-g005-550.jpg
Figure 5. Annual global capacity of construction starts and commercial operation starts, 1954–2015.
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-02169/article_deploy/html/images/energies-10-02169-g006a-550.jpg
https://www.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-02169/article_deploy/html/images/energies-10-02169-g006b-550.jpg
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).
The disruption has cost the world an enormous amount, which is lost forever – it can never be recovered. I estimate it will take around 80 years for nuclear prices to get down to 10% of what they are now. The cost is the loss of much faster economic growth, faster improvement in living standards and better health, especially in the developing countries.
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.
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.
Another string to his bow – one that we will are sure to see again and again. But as long as Greenpeace is to blame it’s OK.
There are all sorts of options. It all comes down to the right product at the right price.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-nuclear-microreactor
Nuclear power will remain very costly and rollout will remain slow until the regulatory impediments are removed. These regulatory impediments have:
1. massively increased the time and cost to gain design approval for new designs and design changes
2. massively increased the design costs and capital costs of the plants
3. massively increased the construction time of the plants
4. massively increased the operation and maintenance costs
5. massively increased the cost of security required to protect the plants from sabotage
6. Imposed massive decommissioning and waste management costs on nuclear power
Some advantages of micro nuclear power plants
Some advantages of micro nuclear plants of 2–10kW for individual houses and appropriately sized for apartment, commercial and industrial complexes – as mentioned here https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935514 – would have many advantages, including:
1. They require negligible operation and maintenance for life. Micro plants could be fuelled for life, like the Venus 1 and 2 space probes
2. They would be small and widely distributed so much safer than large plants
3. The enormously costly electricity grid would not be needed
4. The power system cannot be taken down by foreign cyber-attacks or by missiles targeted at a few large power stations
5. SMRs could be built and installed quickly – e.g. 2-3 years
6. Micro units could be installed in individual houses (below ground level under the house or in the back yard) in a few days.
Regardless of long winded and speculative rationalizations – it boils down to product and pricing. He doesn’t seem to understand that. Not uncommon but puzzling just the same.
Future pricing of unclear power depends on the learning rate, deployment rate and development rate achieved. The learning rate is constrained by regulatory impediments. When these constraints are removed the learning rate can return to around 25% per doubling of cumulative global capacity of construction starts from 2020. It could become significantly faster than 25% if the health impacts of all technologies are internalised in the cost of the power produced by each technology – e.g. by taxing on the basis of deaths and working days lost per TWh. It’s impossible to predict what nuclear designs and products will become the most competitive in the future.
Through the lens of Trumpism, Leftist politics looks as threadbare as new jeans with holes in the knees. The old blame game, double standards, demonizing, delay, all without a care to distinguish truth from a pack of lies – according to a dog-eared anti-business, anti-Judeo/Christian, anti-white playbook – has not just lost our interest: we’re disgusted. We now see the Left even used weather as a political tool to hammer capitalism and undermine Americanism.
It strikes me that a similar argument can be applied to are the drug and crime problems. If there were no demand, there would be no drug or crime problems. By your reasoning the problems are the drug users and the criminals. I for one would agree but many would say it’s not their fault. They are the products of dysfunctional upbringing. They would then extend that to government policies. The government is elected by us so it’s our collective problem.
Great analogy. It’s the size of modern living groups; one can’t see the suffering global wealth ensues. Pandemics show that intensive livestock farming is bad just like intensive human being living is bad.
The largest living groups in the World are in cities in China and they are thriving.
With more and more people on earth, a larger and larger percent are living with more. A much smaller percent is living without food and affordable electricity. Look at facts, not the alarmist junk intended to scare us all so that they can control every thing everyone does.
Sorry I don’t agree these things are intrinsically bad. Bad by what standard? Bad for the (existing) environment I’m assuming you mean. The premise is that us changing the environment or climate by our human activities is bad. Nothing stays the same. We can’t help but change these things by just existing. We are an intrinsic part of nature and we will change our environment to suit us just like all other creatures do. We will also change by evolution in response to our environment, but only imperceptibly I’m thinking , as we are much more intelligent than other animals. We need to accept they we are not aliens who have arrived here and are destroying the place. Yes we are changing it but the environment is flexible. We will always stop when our influence starts to impact negatively enough on our lifestyle as we have done many times in the past. The pendulum always swings back when it’s gone too far. There will be casualties along the way just as there has been in the past as different species became dominant. Extinction is natural.
Surely we have done some positive things as well.
I would say China’s growth is unsustainable. The city of Chongqing, upstream of the The Gorges Dam, is often flooded with some buildings to rooftop height.
The communist CCP which you espouse to didn’t consider vastly increased precipitation due to natural climate cycles into their ideological design.
It’s with some regret but I predict the dam will burst in as little as 5 years time. Rainfall has increased dramatically at mid-latitudes in the Northern hemisphere especially. It will also increase glacial meltwater run off from the draining Himalayas.
retiredgeo – I was being poetical. I’m not saying everything is bad about modern evolution but I don’t see rampant globalization as a panacea for humanity. I truly believe in all companies of the world having a maximum of 2000 employees and an overall world religion where people live in groups of 2000.
Is it too insane to imagine one day the human population being maintained at a single number? One person has to volunteer to pass away so that a young couple can have a child. The number in this community is then always 2000.
Too insane?
Yes!
Yes it’s too insane. We are where we are – but the future is our to choose collectively. 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.
The Covid-19 pandemic is the biological equivalent of climate’s natural variability. When the global human population grows from 1.7 billion in 1920 to nearly 8 billion in 100 years chances are high that basic germ theory kicks in and thins the herd. But this time is different.
Now that the apex predator posses the technology of genetic engineering. Maybe now we control the destiny of not just our species but the entire biosphere too?
Did you notice Google’s DeepMind – AlphaFold AI program achieved a nearly 90% accurate score in predicting complex protein folding?
https://youtu.be/gg7WjuFs8F4
Did you notice Google’s DeepMind – AlphaFold AI program achieved a nearly 90% accurate score in predicting complex protein folding?
Duh, they run millions of scenarios and when anything is published, one of their millions of scenarios will match.
They could have picked one that was the Magical, 97% matching, but that would have made more people suspicious.
Coincidence is not causation.
You do realize we are using CRISPR technology in the 2 most effective vaccines developed so far?
This little noticed news item was the breakthrough (13 Mar 2020):
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/367/6483/1260
By using cryo-electron microscopy they imaged the SARS-CoV2 structure revealing an approximate 3D model of the physical virus. AlphaFold will be able to calculate even a more accurate representation of complex proteins than our best laboratory observations.
“Proteins are chains of amino acids, and they take on specific shapes that are deterministic. When one amino acid connects with another, they form a specific shape that helps them carry out their intended actions.
Interestingly, these shapes are deterministic – if we know which amino acid is present and what it is connected to, we can accurately know the shape the protein will take. These shapes are not random – they appear to be guided by pure physics and the specific components available…
Andrei Lupas, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Tübingen, Germany, believes that, “It’s a game changer. This will change medicine. It will change research. It will change bioengineering. It will change everything.” AlphaFold was able to help him determine a protein structure that his lab had struggled with for ten years.
https://theamericangenius.com/tech-news/alphafold-ai-could-change-the-world-of-biological-science-as-we-know-it/
My kind of republican:
https://twitter.com/EricLevitz/status/1336130743785938953?s=19
Good to know that pubz are around to save us from totalitarian demz:
> Agents raid home of fired Florida data scientist who built COVID-19 dashboard
https://amp.tallahassee.com/amp/6482817002?__twitter_impression=true
Um….from your link….
“ unauthorized access to a Department of Health messaging system which is part of an emergency alert system,”
The woman illegally breached the data base, which could have dangerous consequences. She could be taking revenge for her firing. She belongs in jail.
bigterguy, you have to remember that Josh is of the tribe that believes rules don’t apply to team blue.
These are the people who film “stay at home!” videos for Austin residents while on vacation in Mexico.
These are the people who close restaurants and order people not to gather with family in California, then go to a restaurant, indoors and without masks, with large groups of friends.
These are people who expect you to be comfortable with burning cities.
Of course he doesn’t care if someone was breaking into the emergency alert system.
And when they fly private to the next climate meeting, Exxon is to blame.
Yeah. And her kids could be terrorists.
Wow. Interesting.
Great post. Good read.
Thank you.
The coral reef blame game
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/08/history-of-coral-reefs/
The blame game is in full swing at CE. It is all the fault of Joshua and his mung bean munching cohort of pusillanimous pissant progressives. I’m actually on board with that. I’m aware of the ironty in this context – thanks Joshua – and cultivate it. I’m not sure others have my self awareness and objectivity. The question de jour – and every day it seems for the past 40 years – is what to do? And that goes around in the familiar circles. I’m tired, I’m dizzy and I want to get of the merry-go-round. Something needs to be done.
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, sulfur and mercury, plastic glogs the oceans, 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.
There are solutions – grazing management and SMR among them. We need in this century to build prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes. In the meantime Shark Girl is my new hero.
“The question de jour – and every day it seems for the past 40 years – is what to do?”
The blame game and arguments over climate sensitivity are intentional distractions from the “what to do?” question because, frankly, the so-called Climate Concerned do not like the science-driven answer to the question.
They don’t want a scientific review of alternatives to fossil fuels because any thoughtful person would laugh at the climate concerned’s demand- power New York City and Boston with solar panels or windmills in February.
If they won’t let you do anything – and they won’t – they have to give you some outlet to virtue signal. In the case of climate it is to divest from Exxon (using your phone while your spouse fills up the gas tank of the SUV for the trip to the airport for the cross-country vacay), and vote for Democrats, who want you to know how terribly sorry they are that they doubled US oil production under Obama and that sometime in the distant future some other president will absolutely stop doing that.
People are working on solutions.
My parents now live in a rural area. On the way there, I’ve seen three large farms that have changed their land-use process. They covered their fields with solar panels, which for the next four months will produce maybe a little electricity between noon and 3 p.m. but not much. What they really grow there are subsidies and photo ops for politicians.
As for your film, it appears to ignore the reality of farming. Those chemicals actually increase the number of acres where the soil is “healing.” Environmental activists love to portray this myth that the US is one giant agribusiness despoiling an ever-increasing amount of land. None of that is true, of course.
The US has millions of acres in protected national forests – there are over a million acres of national forest in my state of Virginia alone- not counting the state and local owned forests.
And technology improvements in agriculture have been reducing the amount of farmed land steadily. In the last 20 years alone the US has seen a reduction of 46 million acres in actively farmed land.
If Woody Harrelson is right, the US is healing planet earth now. That must be why the entire climate glitteratti gives this country an F in climate change action.
Focus on the problem- the western world moved manufacturing to China where they gave financial and climate framework incentives for the Chinese to use coal to power it. Now the western world (Germany, Italy, the US in particular) are attempting to retain what’s left and power it with cheap natural gas. All while babbling something about how evil Exxon is.
Both sets of my parents are in their 80’s, with one of the pair high risk, so they are eagerly awaiting the vaccine. It’s an historic day for the UK (whether you have reservations about lockdown strategy or not):
https://youtu.be/U9IZfFHQ7oY
“I am still waiting for a moral argument that justifies, in the name of the ‘climate crisis’, preventing the development of grid electricity in the poorest regions of Africa that can support development of an advanced economy.”
Correct, there is none. If morality was the guiding principle in our public policies we would be doing more for the 1.87 Billion people in the world living in extreme poverty on less than $1,168 per year. The marginal benefit to humanity is greater spending resources on those in extreme poverty than they are at home. The US spends $3.4 Trillion per year on Social Programs. Redirecting $2 Trillion to the poorest 1.87 Billion would double their standard of living, while the same amount in America has a fraction of the marginal benefit to those receiving the money.
Progressives of America rise up. Rise up and demonstrate your moral superiority by confronting the most egregious racial and economic injustices around the globe. Demand that $2 Trillion in funding go to the poorest of the world’s poor. Instead of tearing down statues, build up those who are in greatest need. Give a kid a chance. All the kids. Show you care.
With both climate change mitigation policy and SARS-CoV-2 defence we seem to have been guilty of trying to shut the stable door when any animals residing there had long gone. We don’t even know if our stable doors were ever fit for purpose!
If potential solutions existed for both our fossil fuel ‘abuses’ and the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’ from the outset then should the blame game focus on our approach to framing and dealing with what we choose to call ‘crises’ rather than anything else? When in history has consensus opinion successfully changed stuff for the better for everybody? Hasn’t science always been loaded with figures delivering a kick where it hurts which eventually leads to a maverick somewhere delivering a proverbial shot in the arm?
Nuclear power has successfully and relatively safely (compared to any other form of energy delivery) existed for decades and the concept of herd immunity and good public health management for all seasonal infectious diseases (including almost all previous coronaviruses with the help of vaccines where possible) has been our remedy for decades too.
Is the avoidance of nuclear energy as a solution based on fact or phobia or lack of planning? Is the avoidance of Covid-19 herd immunity as a solution (which is what a vaccine has to effectively deliver each and every year to vulnerable people) based on fact or phobia or lack of planning?
These issues have not suddenly appeared in the twenty-first century and yet we seem to have been caught sadly lacking in having intelligent insight and being prepared for anything nature can throw at us at a time when coverage of our social misdemeanours and ignorance in order to correct them has never been greater.
Was it always really this way? Has social media simply exposed us to our ever present follies and foibles in real time for the first time or are we seeing the problems of having way too many mediocre people occupying high places in academia (including science) and, crucially so far as delivery is concerned, in politics and public service?
Pingback: The blame game | Watts Up With That?
One problem with government coerced lockdowns/restrictions is the uneven way that they are done. Here is one restaurant owners view:
** Written by a restaurant owner. Spot on. **
“Is it any wonder why we don’t #trust our overlords?
As I walk into the #grocery store with 30 other people at the same time, I think about my restaurant which allows parties of 6 total, and meticulously spaces out reservations by 10 minutes ensuring guests that aren’t from the same party do not arrive at the same time.
As I take a cart, that has had just the handle sanitized, I think about my restaurant which invested thousands of dollars (so far) on ink and paper to print disposable menus to ensure no two guests touch the same menu.
As I walk over to the produce aisle with 15-20 other people around me, I’m reminded of the strict “no mingling / no walking around the restaurant other than to use the washroom or enter/exit” policy we have in place and the 6ft distance between tables which has cut our capacity in half.
As I watch the woman next to me pick up apples with her hand, check them over closely and then put them back on the open pile and repeats this until she finds the perfect apples — the same thing that all other people that day who want an apple will then do and then put those apples into their mouths, I think about the two step sanitation process in place at my restaurant for all cutlery and dishes and glassware in between every single guest, and the sanitation of every surface guests touch (tables, chairs, salt and pepper shakers, etc).
As I watch the man in the next aisle over ignore or not notice the directional arrows on the ground, I think about my restaurant and the constant redirecting our staff does of guests – by locking certain doors, blocking areas off and the work my team does to simply not allow guests to walk where they are not supposed to.
As I walk down the cereal aisle, I see a person with their #mask off so they can talk on the phone, and I’m reminded of my restaurant where our masking policy has lost us so much business as we will not allow guests who do not cover their nose mouth and chin while not sitting at their designated seat as per the by-law in place for our region.
As I check out at the cashier, I use my debit card to pay and see the plastic film covering the terminal. It was not sanitized after the person before me used it. I am reminded of the sanitizer used on the debit terminals in between each guest every time at my restaurant.
As I stand at a crowded exit trying to leave, I’m reminded of the detailed contact tracing in place at my restaurant that records the name, phone number, table number, arrival and exit time, as well as the server and section the guest sat in that is in place at my restaurant— not one of those pieces of information was taken from any customer here.
As I get into my car and watch all these people leave the store, I wonder which person will visit my establishment after contracting covid at this grocery store, and I wonder why on earth my restaurant will be blamed as the source.
Restaurants are being targeted as the “source” of #COVID infections because we are one of the ONLY industries required to provide contact tracing. Someone with Covid could have gone to Costco, Home Depot, Walmart, the Mall food court, Any grocery store etc yet it’s the restaurant that took their detailed information that will be forced to close and deemed responsible for the infection.
You want to blame restaurants for the spread after thousands of dollars investing in equipment, training and stricter policies than ANYWHERE ELSE ?!”
One more example. How egregious does this have to get before the proletariat revolts? https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/12/05/la-restaurant-owner-rips-garcetti-hypocrisy-shut-host-hollywood-canteen-parking-lot/
Pingback: The blame game |
“The role of climate science in the carbon blame game is an interesting one. As a basis of responsibility, a key element is the causal link between the actor and the harm. Responsibility is also based on the ability to foresee the harm, in terms of scientific understanding. And finally, responsibility relates to the ability to prevent the harm. Recent developments in attribution science are seeking to identify the culpability of individual or groups of oil/gas and coal companies as related to local sea level rise, ocean acidification and extreme weather events.”
A lack of scientific understanding of how weaker indirect solar forcing leads to warmer ocean phases results in misattribution of warming, especially in the Arctic. And then lack of scientific understanding of how short term variations in the solar wind discretely drives weather extremes results in their misattribution to the said warming. A whole host of regional droughts and wildfires being blamed on big oil, but which are the result of weaker solar driving a warmer AMO and increased El Nino conditions.
Europe and California had heatwaves in early August and early September 2020 because of the fastest solar coronal hole streams in a year. That’s a cause and not a product of climate change. I had predicted it a year earlier too.
https://solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
(1) From north-eastern Australian rainfall and salt content in a Law Dome ice core – low solar activity is associated with more La Nina like conditions.
(2) A more negative AO/NAO drives water circulation and a cooler North Atlantic. It is not a one to one correlated cause and effect – hence the use of the cumulative NAO in the second chart.
It is to do with more zonal or meridional winds in the polar vortices modulating sub-polar oceanic gyre circulation.
Ulric gets it backwards. Nor is solar activity the sole cause of variability in polar atmospheric indices. Most variability is the result of internal feedbacks that include those from anthropogenic climate drivers.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/vance2012-antartica-law-dome-ice-core-salt-content-e1540939103404.jpg
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/3/jcli-d-12-00003.1.xml?tab_body=fulltext-display
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-71-e1523915527771.png
https://os.copernicus.org/articles/10/29/2014/
Not that garbage again. El Nino conditions normally increase during centennial solar minima, and negative NAO/AO drives a warmer AMO.
The evidence says the opposite.
Right then, show me, a) with something other than your salt proxy, that La Nina conditions increase during centennial solar minima, and b) the positive NAO/AO conditions which drove the colder AMO anomalies in the early to mid 1970’s, the mid 1980’s, and the early 1990’s, please.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:7
error, the *negative* NAO/AO conditions…
There are dozens of ENSO proxies all showing La Nina dominant states in the middle of the last millennium.
“The role of tropical Pacific SSTs in driving global medieval hydroclimate is assessed. Using fossil coral records from Palmyra Atoll, tropical Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) boundary conditions are derived for the period 1320–1462 A.D. These boundary conditions consist of La Niña‐like mean state conditions in the tropical Pacific with inter‐annual and decadal variability about that altered state.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL042239
I am not going to waste my time and effort redoing the cumulative NAO and AMO analysis of Smeed et al 2014. You do it.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/nao/
The lack of SH warming during the MWP is indicative of the bipolar seesaw.
https://www.antarctica.gov.au/magazine/issue-26-june-2014/science/historical-temperature-reconstructions-show-hemispheric-differences/
There may be something in that.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277379113004198?via%3Dihub
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/pages-2k-temps-e1515439748309.jpg
‘ … which adjust their natural rhythms until they synchronize at a common frequency and constant phase shift.’
I’ll pay that.
The AD 1300 Event in the Pacific (sea level fall) was a shocker and may have induced the SH into a cool phase shift.
The PDO transitioned about the same time.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PDO-variations-during-the-last-millennium-derived-from-a-reconstruction-and-b-model_fig1_225468551
The parts of the MWP that were warmer in Europe should be associated with La Nina conditions, because of positive NAO conditions.
Robert:
“A more negative AO/NAO drives water circulation and a cooler North Atlantic.”
Total nonsense. It was clearly positive NAO/AO regimes which cooled the AMO in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, and a sharp increase in negative NAO/AO from 1995 which warmed the AMO.
Robert:
“Nor is solar activity the sole cause of variability in polar atmospheric indices. Most variability is the result of internal feedbacks that include those from anthropogenic climate drivers.”
Nonsense, most of the daily-weekly noise is discretely solar driven with coronal streams, CME’s or quieter periods of solar wind, and the extremes are exclusively solar driven. ENSO and volcanic feedbacks are easily overwhelmed. Anthropogenic forcing has nothing to do with the variability, it cannot vary so as to force any variability, it’s a slow creep towards positive NAO/AO.
ENSO is a southern hemisphere and Pacific Ocean physical process and not notably associated with the NAO except in your magical thinking.
NAO and AMO – indeed AMOC? Your eyeballing is less than persuasive.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-71-e1523915527771.png
The interaction with a dynamic atmosphere – including warming – drives irregular variation in the NAO.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/nao.png
So unless you have some published science and not just climate astrology?
Assuming that the NAO accumulates is the magical thinking, it cannot, but the AMO does. And yes, negative NAO/AO is directly associated with slower trade winds.
Repeat:
It was clearly positive NAO/AO regimes which cooled the AMO in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, and a sharp increase in negative NAO/AO from 1995 which warmed the AMO.
The rational approach is to understand why the Smeed et al graph works so well.
The Smeed et al graph works well at confusing people like you into getting the whole plot backwards. There was in fact a notable increase in negative NAO conditions from the mid 1990’s. It’s also a mistake to only consider DJF or JFM NAO, the other seasons matter too.
There no notable increase in negative NAO from the 1990’s – or it would appear in the cumulative index. Your eyeballing deceives you. And it is not the significant driver of Pacific Ocean dynamics.
There has been a negative NAO regime since 1995, apart from at and just after sunspot maximum 2000-2003 and 2014-2016, and during another type of event around 2018.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/month_nao_index.shtml
No there hasn’t been. And I showed you the science.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/teleconnections/nao/
That chart corroborates what I have said. And during the exceptions where there were positive NAO conditions since 1995, there was temporary AMO cooling, i.e. the cold blob of 2014-2016. and AMO cooling again in 2018.
No it doesn’t. It shows irregular variability. But if you take a running sum:
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/smeed-fig-72-e1518284539722.png
The more negative the cumulative NAO – the more negative is AMOC and the AMO. Since 1950 the chart says. Since 1995 it has remained on average positive. The numbers are there – all you have to do is a running total to see what the bias is.
Yet you insist on eyeballing your confirmation bias. It’s ridiculous.
Cumulative NAO is mumbo jumbo, the NAO cannot physically accumulate. You are in denial of the actual NAO index values since 1995 which I have noted above.
The resulting atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns have momentum. The NAO is a trigger – the bias in the signal in the hugely variable index can be determined by a simple running sum that clearly shows the tendency at any time. Your eyeballing is rubbish.
Thank you Ulric for this excellent summary. Here’s a little example of the boy who cried wolf crying drought.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-48
Pingback: The blame game | | Climate- Science.press
I’m gonna wish the UK could produce a 100 tonnes/year of lettuce type produce after the upcoming Brexit fiasco. Is high tech soil-free vertical farming the future?
https://youtu.be/q-V3sUTwwZk
Pingback: The blame game - Breaking News, US News, breaking news, vital journalism, quizzes, videos, celeb news, Tasty food videos, recipes, DIY hacks, and all the trending buzz you'll want to share - J6TV
Regreening the Arabian Peninsula. A story of hope rather than blame.
“Our capacity for destruction is mirrored by our capacity for regeneration.”
Gully repair solutions similar to this are recommended in many arid regions including Africa. When it is a funded project with control and income to locals it proceeds well and is beneficial. When not a project it tends not to happen even though beneficial.
Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive soil carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. It needs a hero.
Another one. There are many millions.
Whoops….
‘The origin of the virus is generally regarded to have occurred in Wuhan, China. However, it is difficult to blame the worldwide spread of the virus on Wuhan.’
True, I blame Beijing.
Lab grown meat on the agenda of climate change catastrophists. Is this the future with respect to animal welfare and global pandemics?
https://youtu.be/teW9MKy3WSI
Even though I’m a climate contrarian who is convinced of new physics tidal forcing as opposed to manmade global warming, I’m in favour of this high tech direction. As long as traditional farming never completely dies out, this appears to make sense in the emerging overcrowded new world order.
It would need a lot of nutrient and protein inputs. But a ‘soylent green’ solution should be possible.
Meat is not something we can afford to turn our backs on. Nor does it appear all that pragmatic to try. ‘Does it have any meat in it’ Daisy will suspiciously ask. She complains if I feed her too much ‘rabbit food’. Tonight – I have just decided – it is thin flash seared strips of beef in a black bean sauce. Lorraine – AKA NQN – is a welcome and authentic respite from celebrity chefs who add finicky touches to home cooking as their personal contribution to a traditional recipe.
https://www.notquitenigella.com/2015/06/11/beef-black-bean-recipe-authentic/
The 40 million square kilometers of grazing land is far too important to food security to neglect. Grazing turns otherwise unusable resources into protein by the simple expedient of turning out a few cows, sheep and goats. Rabbits and ‘roos are free range. Productivity and nutrient content can be increased by giving perennials time to put down roots, put down roots and flower before further grazing. This in turn enhances soil carbon stores, infiltration and water holding capacity.
‘The cattle raised on Richards Grassfed Beef’s ranches have provided for our family for five generations. We feel it is our job to share our passion for preserving a healthy environment for our cattle to live and grow. In doing so, we can continue to serve our customers with a healthier and more sustainable source of beef.’ https://richardsgrassfedbeef.com/
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/2495/7906/files/Header12_2019_9_1600x.jpg
https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-graphic-1536×971.png
Every time I eat meat/fish/poultry from a industrial food source including food stores, fast foods and restaurants I assume at least half of it was never inspected and has no country of origin information. But it still taste okay :)
“Nicaragua to crack down on conflict beef”
https://revealnews.org/article/nicaragua-to-crack-down-on-conflict-beef/
“The vast majority of Nicaragua’s total beef production is destined for export, with the United States as the biggest customer, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is the third largest supplier of frozen beef to the United States, ahead of all other Latin American countries, including Brazil and Uruguay, according to import records through September of this year.”
Traceability from farm to plate is central for quality and health reasons. Buy Australian with the USDA tick. We know the name of the cow on the plate and its tenderness rating.
e.g. https://www.animalhealthaustralia.com.au/what-we-do/biosecurity-services/national-livestock-identification-scheme/
Pingback: Big Essay #64–The Blame Game game | peckford42
climate science denialism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/10/science-denial/
I can’t read your pages. Why don’t you give us the dot points.
Sorry about thar Robert. I don’t know what dot points are but I will look that up and do what I need to do to make sure you can read my pages.
I can’t read your pages either. You seem to have some good points to make but unable to condense them down into a few short explanation sentences.
Ragnaar and other Denizens might appreciate teh Dilbert’s blame game:
https://twitter.com/GurusPod/status/1336916625786765312
Go team!
I just hope they do a Seth Rich episode so I can hear what Scott Adams would have to say about it.
Scott is so persuasive.
Dilbert is a gift that keeps on giving as long as you recycle it
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2020/11/blog-post.html
The thought bubble that climate depends on gravity that relies on an ill defined ‘new physics’ in which gravity is something other than the product of mass and the inverse of the distance squared resulting in an astrology of climate cycles…
https://image.slidesharecdn.com/universalgravitationarun-140926040555-phpapp02/95/universal-gravitation-arun-5-638.jpg
This is a burning question of mine ever since I started reading about climate change and I am yet to find a satisfactory answer. Perhaps, some esteemed physicists in this forum may be able to answer.
What is the optimal global mean temperature?
> What is the optimal global mean temperature?
Why would you need to know?
I would like to have an idea of an optimal T in order to make sense of “controls” being suggested. From my understanding of the literature (I have read so far) it seems that any T > current temperature is sub-optimal. Is current the most optimal?
> From my understanding of the literature (I have read so far)
And what did you read, may I ask?
Considering that so far you’re Just Asking Questions, Chebyshev, it might be tough to believe that you read anything.
a burning question of mine… Perhaps, some esteemed physicists in this forum may be able to answer.
As a physics is my humble superstition, I presume that an optimal global temperature is one that mitigates the tendency of things to catch on fire more frequently than in previous generations.
That would be humidity and rain, Russell.
It looks like the optimal temperature scenario for mitigating fire hazards would be snowball Earth.
> It looks like the optimal temperature scenario for mitigating fire hazards would be snowball Earth.
How does snowball Earth compare to Mars as an optimal temperature scenario for mitigating fire hazards, Canman?
Chebyshev,
I explain the optimal global means surface temperature (GMST) in several comments on the previous Week in review thread. The first comment says I provide links to other below):
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
> The PETM occurred when GMST was above optimum for life on Earth.
That does not tell us what’s the optimum for life on Earth, Peter.
As for your “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,” I’m not sure if you see the same graph as I for here it is:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/1337432988204724224
The other points in the comment indicate that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is around 7-13 C above present. The reason for including the Coxon and McClarron figure 5:21 was because some people claim “it’s not the amount of warming but the rate of warming that is the cause for concern”.
> The other points in the comment indicate that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is around 7-13 C above present.
What an irresponsible comment. Even for you, Peter.
Why do you say that? The references I provided support the points I made. Have you read them?
> Why do you say that?
Because 5C is what separates us from an ice age, Peter.
So your “7-13 C above present” can only be ridiculous.
Clearly, you didn’t look at the charts in Scotese (2018), and the other links I provided on ecosystem productivity and temperature/latitude in this comment: https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935908.
Willard, here is one piece of evidence (there’s many others linked in my comments).
The benefits of a warmer planet for life are shown by the period from Early Eocene Climate Optimum (52 Ma ago) to Present. Life thrived during warm and warming periods but struggled during cold and cooling periods. Mass extinctions were during cooling periods, not warming.
Biomass productivity was highest during the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (~52 Ma) when GMST was around 26.5°C (Scotese, 2018) or 28.5°C (Hansen et al. 2013 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294 ).
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/f7e0a7b0-13a7-42db-9ce4-fdc318234efc/rsta20120294f04.jpg
“Figure 4 (a) Surface temperature estimate for the past 65.5 Myr. …”
Regarding the Eocene flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene :
“At the beginning of the Eocene, the high temperatures (GMST 26.5 C, tropics 32 C) and warm oceans created a moist, balmy environment, with forests spreading throughout the Earth from pole to pole. Apart from the driest deserts, Earth must have been entirely covered in forests.
Polar forests were quite extensive. Fossils and even preserved remains of trees such as swamp cypress and dawn redwood from the Eocene have been found on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic. Even at that time, Ellesmere Island was only a few degrees in latitude further south than it is today. Fossils of subtropical and even tropical trees and plants from the Eocene also have been found in Greenland and Alaska. Tropical rainforests grew as far north as northern North America and Europe.
Palm trees were growing as far north as Alaska and northern Europe during the early Eocene, although they became less abundant as the climate cooled. Dawn redwoods were far more extensive as well.”
The end of the Eocene was marked by the Eocene–Oligocene extinction event,”
The Eocene–Oligocene extinction event was a cooling event.
> here is one piece of evidence
Not for your contention that 7-12 C is optimal, Peter:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2012.0294
That you are using Jim’s & Makiko’s work in such a reckless manner tells me you don’t realize why 350.org uses the “350” number.
Check back and report.
Willard,
I am sorry, but I don’t understand what you are talking about. I suspect you have not read the links I provided and haven’t carefully considered them and all I said.
From your quote of Hansen and Makiko:
“The Earth was 10–12°C warmer than today in the Early Eocene and at the peak of the PETM (figure 4).”
That is not what Figure 4 (a) shows. It shows GMST was about 28.5 C during the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO). Currently, GMST is about 15 C. So, according to Hansen and Makiko’s chart 4 (a) GMST was 13.3 C higher during the EECO than now. Scotese (2018) puts GMST during the EECO at 26.5 C; i.e. about 11.5 C warmer then now.
I have quoted nothing for 360.Org which is an extreme climate alarmist organisation.
As for your bold, it is irrelevant. Warming is beneficial, not harmful. Rapid warming from current (low) GMST is also beneficial – see the references I provided.
We may approach PETM levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. The PETM was not good for marine life. I have an idea that we may struggle with 10K warming in the subtropics.
“Stratocumulus clouds cover 20% of the low-latitude oceans and are especially prevalent in the subtropics. They cool the Earth by shading large portions of its surface from sunlight. However, as their dynamical scales are too small to be resolvable in global climate models, predictions of their response to greenhouse warming have remained uncertain. Here we report how stratocumulus decks respond to greenhouse warming in large-eddy simulations that explicitly resolve cloud dynamics in a representative subtropical region. In the simulations, stratocumulus decks become unstable and break up into scattered clouds when CO2 levels rise above 1,200 ppm. In addition to the warming from rising CO2 levels, this instability triggers a surface warming of about 8 K globally and 10 K in the subtropics.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0310-1
I expect arm waving from contrarian curmudgeons so wave away.
We may approach PETM levels of CO2 in the atmosphere…. by the end of the century. Nukes and better land and environment make this very unlikely. Meaning that Peter’s entire thesis is moot.
> That is not what Figure 4 (a) shows. It shows GMST was about 28.5 C during the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO). Currently, GMST is about 15 C.
And how does that contradict Jim’s and Makiko’s claim that the Earth was 10–12C warmer than today in the Early Eocene and at the peak of the PETM exactly?
Here is Figure 4:
https://twitter.com/nevaudit/status/1338639160610058244
The PETM itself is characterized by a 5-8C increase in 200,000 years or so. We’re looking at similar warming by 2200, so in less than 200 years. The actual speed of warming is insanely faster than during geological times.
As for 350, it’s Jim’s number:
https://350.org/jim-hansen-if-you-knew-what-i-knew/
Willard,
Look back at your comments and my replies and understand your comments make no sense. Here are some relevant excerpts from them:
W – “That does not tell us what’s the optimum for life on Earth, Peter.”
PL – “The other points in the comments indicate that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is around 7-13 C above present.”
W – “What an irresponsible comment. Even for you, Peter.”
PL – “Why do you say that? The references I provided support the points I made. Have you read them?”
W – “Because 5C is what separates us from an ice age, Peter. So your “7-13 C above present” can only be ridiculous.”
PL – “Clearly, you didn’t look at the charts in Scotese (2018), and the other links I provided on ecosystem productivity and temperature/latitude”
W – “Not for your contention that 7-12 C is optimal, Peter:
The Earth was 10–12°C warmer than today in the Early Eocene and at the peak of the PETM (figure 4).”
PL – “That is not what Figure 4 (a) shows. It shows GMST was about 28.5 C during the Early Eocene Climate Optimum (EECO). Currently, GMST is about 15 C. So, according to Hansen et al., chart 4 (a), GMST was 13.5 C higher during the EECO than now. Scotese (2018) puts GMST during the EECO at 26.5 C; i.e. about 11.5 C warmer then now.”
W – “And how does that contradict Jim’s and Makiko’s claim that the Earth was 10–12C warmer than today in the Early Eocene and at the peak of the PETM exactly?”
PL – my mistake on that. Hansen et al. is near correct that GMST “was 10–12C warmer than today in the Early Eocene” and that is close to the 7- 13 C that I said, to which you responded:
• “What an irresponsible comment. Even for you, Peter.”
• “So your “7-13 C above present” can only be ridiculous.”
The evidence I presented clearly supports the points I made. You have not refuted them.
It is the biological tinfoil hat equivalent of Lowey’s neutron stars orbiting Earth as 5 invisible moons. Conditions and biological assemblages are vastly different now than in the deep past. But there were always winner and losers in great environmental upheavals of the past.
Are we prepared for or do we want 8K of mid latitude warming and accompanying biological and hydrological transitions in today’s world? Of course not. This is merely another contrarian distraction from rational, pragmatic responses.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/142275067/1_2.jpg
“Marked global climatic warming occurred at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary, about 56-55 million years ago (Ma) (Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM; Figure 1). At the PETM, it has been posited that massive amounts of greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere, the source of which is unclear (Zachos et al., 2008). Major extinctions of benthic foraminifera in the oceans (Zachos et al., 2001) and terrestrial mammals coincided with these changes, and new orders of mammals emerged (Gingerich, 2006). As a result of warm climates during the Eocene, increases in plant diversity created new environmental niches favorable for primates. With the possible exception of Altiatlasius, a species from the Paleocene of Morocco, the oldest euprimates are found at the base of the Eocene. These early primates are known from China, western Europe, and North America and may have dispersed across a warm, wet, northern forest (Smith et al., 2006). Primates flourished throughout parts of North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa in the warm and humid Early and Middle Eocene, and during this time we find the first record of several major primate groups: anthropoids, adapiforms, tarsiers, and omomyiforms (Covert, 1986, 2002; Smith et al. 2006; Williams et al., 2010). They share features with living primates that are not found in plesiadapiforms, including large, convergent orbits with a bony bar on the lateral rims. These and other cranial features indicate an increasing reliance on vision rather than smell or tactile senses, and may have evolved in association with insect predation in low light environments such as the canopies and understories of tropical forests (Cartmill, 1992; Ravosa & Savakova, 2004). Many of these early primates were extremely small, some of them smaller than any primates living today (Gebo, 2004). All known taxa display postcranial adaptations suggesting arboreality and many appear to have used leaping to bridge gaps in the forest (Covert, 1986).
In the Middle to Late Eocene, North America experienced mountain building and drying trends which turned the humid subtropical forests into seasonally drier forests. These climatic changes were apparently catastrophic for primates, which were virtually extinct in North America by the Late Eocene (Williams & Kirk, 2008).” https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-climate-change-on-primate-evolution-141807385/
Peter,
You got caught saying stuff about a figure in Caron & McCarron’s chapter.
You got caught saying stuff about a figure in Hansen & Sato’s most famous paper.
You don’t have an argument, only a listicle a badly digested talking points.
Please give it a rest.
“It is the biological tinfoil hat equivalent of Lowey’s neutron stars orbiting Earth as 5 invisible moons.” – Ellison
Hey, you’ll be holding on to your hat when someone checks the oxygen isotope data prior to 1mya to see whether the 88yr and 210yr cycles are present.
“We have run spectral analyses of sediments from the late Cretaceous, which show significant 88 and 210 year periodicities. The debate is what is the nature of these periodicities – particularly as this is in the Cretaceous (98Mya) and not recent past!”
I’m surprised no-one has thought of this simple idea. It could change the entire future of humanity overnight.
Sorry, Willard, but you haven’t a clue what you are talking about. You clearly haven’t read the comment with all the evidence and the links to the sources. Further, I said nothing wrong about the Coxon and McCarron paper. You got the authors names wrong on this and on the Hansen et al paper. You didn’t include the Coxon and McCarron figure caption which says exactly what I said. The caption says:
“Figure 15.21 The stable isotope record (∂18O) from the GRIP ice core (histogram) compared to the record of N.pachyderma a planktonic foraminiferan whose presence indicates cold sea temperatures) from ocean sediments (dotted line). High concentrations of IRD from the Troll 8903 core are marked with arrows. After Haflidason et al. (1995). The transition times for critical lengths of the core were calculated from the sediment accumulation rates by the authors and these gave the following results: Transition A: 9 years; Transition B: 25 years; and Transition C: 7 years. Such rapid transitions have been corroborated from the recent NGRIP ice core data.”
However, the main points are in this comment:
“Optimum GMST for ecosystems” https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935908
I again urge you to read that comment and the references I linked then come back with a comment only if you can refute the main point, which is that the empirical evidence suggests that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is probably around 7 C to 13 C.
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]
8. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].
https://www.tandfonline.com/na101/home/literatum/publisher/tandf/journals/content/tcmt20/2014/tcmt20.v005.i01/cmt.13.77/20140410/images/large/tcmt_a_10816421_f0002.jpeg
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
Rapid warming:
[5] http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/1983/
[6] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/grl.50563
[7] https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004
Biosphere productivity is higher in warmer climates:
[8] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/geb.12245
[9] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.13.77 (p84)
[10] https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-15-849-2019
[11] https://wg1.ipcc.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf
Peter,
Using ML to identify biological mass extinction events (over 1 million entries in a massive, curated public database including almost 200,000 species).
https://phys.org/news/2020-12-artificial-intelligence-patterns-earth-biological.html
Even more interesting were the many ‘radiation’ events when species experienced rapid evolution.
“The team further found that radiations may, in fact, cause major changes to existing ecosystems, an idea the authors call “destructive creation.” They found that, during the Phanerozoic Eon, on average, the species that made up an ecosystem at any one time are almost all gone by 19 million years later. But when mass extinctions or radiations occur, this rate of turnover is much higher.
…
“Each extinction that happens on our watch erases a species that may have existed for millions of years up to now, making it harder for the normal process of new species origination to replace what is being lost.”
Unless a mass extinction event was caused by some type of extra terrestrial impact event, it probably took thousands of years or so to play out.
> Unless a mass extinction event was caused by some type of extra terrestrial impact event, it probably took thousands of years or so to play out.
So let’s push forward the same changes but over a few decades, that ought to prevent all the bad things from happening.
Chebyshev,
https://searx.info/?q=What%20is%20the%20optimal%20global%20mean%20temperature%3F&categories=general&language=en-US
You might try this AI powered search engine:
https://books.google.com/talktobooks/query?q=What%20is%20the%20optimal%20global%20mean%20temperature%3F&
Thank you jacksmith4tx.
I went through some of those items in your search list. It appears they all talk about “optimal path of increase”. I could not find a reference to what the optimal (global mean surface) temperature is.
Thank you Peter. I will go through them carefully.
Thanks Chebyshev
I might also mention global warming policies and actions must be justified on the basis of the economic impacts of global warming, not on projected temperature changes.
If global warming is beneficial, as empirical evidence suggests, then policies and actions to reduce global warming are not justified.
> If global warming is beneficial, as empirical evidence suggests
It’s you who’s doing that suggesting, Peter. And if we restrict empirical evidence to what happened in the past, assessing economic impacts becomes impossible.
Willard,
Thank you for your comment. However, I suspect you may not have carefully read all my comments. It is the evidence I provided that indicates that global warming is beneficial. There are multiple lines of evidence – some is paleaontological and geological over the past 540 Ma and some is recent; e.g. last decade, last few decades, and since the last glacial maximum.
Peter,
Thank you for your response.
I suspect that you’re trying to hide your idiosyncratic interpretation behind an appeal to the evidence.
Please beware your wishes.
So you prefer your unsupported beliefs to evidence?
Peter’s simplified notions are supported by a confirmed bias with disagreement being evidence of not reading or understanding the narrowly selective assembled confirmed bias. The notions themselves are not open to uncertainty or further development.
The optimum temperature question implies that if we don’t know the ‘optimum’ global temperature then how de we know that altering Earth systems is dangerous. We don’t understand and can’t predict. If we understood the consequences there wouldn’t be a risk.
It is all supposition based on speculation. Thankfully it is all moot. Rational Earth system policy doesn’t depend on temperature projections more likely than not to be just wrong. Surely that’s what people have been saying for a long time – until it is no longer inconvenient?
1. Reduce pollution in a multi-gas and aerosol pragmatic, risk averse greenhouse gas strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity that have been happening for decades – since the 1970’s oil shock. Build infrastructure and social systems resilient to whatever natural disaster strikes from whatever cause. Innovate across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. Conserve and restore forest, woodland, wetland and rangeland – and reclaim deserts. Nukes and cows are part of the solution not part of the problem
2. Nature is not doing well in our warmer world. 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 – biology hydrology and climate – will respond over the course of the century.
3. Energy use – all things going well – will increase by 350% this century. This may be nearly enough to deliver Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum conditions by the centuries’ end or a little later. The emission math is contained in Shared Socioeconomic Pathway No. 5. The PETM was not good for biology.
e.g. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0082
The math is a little trickier – but the bottom line is that surprises are inevitable.
“Climate is changing, forced out of the range of the past million years by levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases not seen in the Earth’s atmosphere for a very, very long time. Lacking action by the world’s nations, it is clear that the planet will be warmer, sea level will rise, and patterns of rainfall will change. But the future is also partly uncertain — there is considerable uncertainty about how we will arrive at that different climate. Will the changes be gradual, allowing natural systems and societal infrastructure to adjust in a timely fashion? Or will some of the changes be more abrupt, crossing some threshold or “tipping point” to change so fast that the time between when a problem is recognized and when action is required shrinks to the point where orderly adaptation is not possible?” https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/understanding-and-monitoring-abrupt-climate-change-and-its-impacts
4. Pragmatic, risk averse…
Conjecture and a poor reason to doom millions to poverty while the elite line their own pockets.
Wisely use the right energy in the right place to achieve reasonably clean, reasonably abundant, and reasonably affordable energy for all. Use technology, not ideology driven hysteria. The planet will do just fine.
Stuff and nonsense. Innovation is and always has been the way to cheap and abundant power. As for the rest – the focus is far too exclusively on electricity sector emissions – that is only some 25% of the total. There are other cost effective ways to skin a cat for multiple ends. The goal is prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes.
I did mention SSP5. Although high energy demand – 350% increase by the end of the century – suggests the potential for a crunch point between demand and diminishing supply of fossil fuels. Developing cost competitive nukes may be economically prudent.
“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.”
Do you honestly believe it is possible to realistic forecast more than a couple of years into the future? Making long-range forecasts and acting on them in the near term strikes me as the height of arrogance and typical of overly bureaucratic big-governments incapable of quickly adapting. Such a mindset invariably fails while inflicting misery on the population.
Rational Earth system policy doesn’t depend on temperature projections more likely than not to be just wrong. Surely that’s what people have been saying for a long time – until it is no longer inconvenient?
First paragraph. I am not the one projecting future temps – Peter is. You have so ridiculously got the wrong end of the stick and indulge in your stock stereotype.
You are the one posting quotes of the climate being forced out of ranges and dire consequences if we do not do something. I do not believe hysteria is in order. Follow a middle-of-road path that is reasonable and economically advantageous to all. Prosperity will become more widespread and the planet will do just fine.
RIE “The goal is prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes.”
Do you not understand the area of land proposed to be covered by windmills and solar panels to meet future energy needs without fossil and nuclear fuels?
Do you understand that this is NOT a vibrant landscape?
Further, “sea level will rise, and patterns of rainfall will change.”.
Why do you quote others so often about things that are projected? Why are they not happening now? Rainfall patterns are forever changing.
There are stations like Fort Denison, Sydney, where sea levels have not risen significantly, steadily below 2 mm per year, while there are allegations that temperature has? Land subsidence/uplift has been ruled out at Fort Denison. How does one part of the bathtub stay at constant level while other parts rise, or even accelerate in the rise, as some claim? Sure, there can be transient effects as from atmospheric pressure variation, but the century of observation at Fort Denison has to be explained as it is fundamental to the credibility of what you as a hydrologist are advocating, let alone linking it to the Hand of Man.
And there are stations like macquarie Island where the observed temperture has barely changed in the last 50 years. These simple observations need to be incorporated into the larger scheme and explained before the larger scheme is validated. Geoff S
Powering an industrial economy with wind and solar is impossible. I don’t know why you imagine that’s relevant. Nukes are the way to go.
Change is perpetual – I’m not quite sure why that’s a problem for you. The quote was from the US Academy of Science – and it was a very down to Earth statement of mainstream science. Note the Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics in the Koutsoyiannis paper.
e.g. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626
Do you imagine that we should get synchronized and uniform change everywhere? It simply doesn’t work that way.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
A larger context is inferred from data. As it should be. Not accounting for every detail – and there are many – doesn’t invalidate fundamental geophysics. One of these is observed climate shifts and persistent regimes with implications for Australian temperature and rainfall.
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/pdo_tsplot_jan2017.png
I presume you are talking about the US Academy of Science. This points to changes we have made to the system, discusses the nonlinear nature of the system and suggests that there are potential risks. It is not a forecast – just a risk assessment. The solution is a pragmatic strategy centered on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures. This plus cows and ecological conservation and restoration are justified regardless of global warming.
And the good news is that it is all happening without you.
The global carbon budget.
Some details.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/11/climate-action-101-the-carbon-budget/
That’s an emissions budget – not a global carbon sycle budget.
Yes
An ad hominem argument in favor of climate science is that they are “respected scientists”
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/11/an-ad-hominem-argument-for-climate-science/
And that seems more like an appeal to authority. Not a correct use – as a respected scientist has real authority on their science.
Agree to disagree I guess. Thank you for you input
So this is an ad hom? I guess up is down and black is white then.
Ad hom – “Attacking a person’s character or motivations rather than a position or argument: The candidates agreed to focus on the issues rather than making ad hominem attacks against each other.”
“THIS POST IS A PRESENTATION OF A RESEARCH PAPER ON THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE DESTRUCTIVENESS OF TROPICAL CYCLONES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ASSUMPTION THAT CLIMATE SCIENCE IS CREDIBLE BECAUSE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS ARE SCIENTISTS, THAT THEY ARE RESPECTED SCIENTISTS, AND THAT THESE RESPECTED SCIENTISTS AGREE WITH EACH OTHER”
I was looking up a 14 dimension obsoverse by Eric Weinstein which isn’t as complicated as it sounds. I came across this:
https://medium.com/@rljunco/eric-weinsteins-four-quadrant-model-the-knife-media-6e642ff3f54b
Troglodyte. It’s a simple thing. You know where the rent seekers are. They advertise it.
They blame the wrong thing. They can’t even find the right target. Most people are good and want the correct things for the situation. The dupes help the parasitic rent seekers who make the sitatuon worse. They run cover for them.
Hover over the bold white letters. I am referring to climate change blame above. The rent seekers are the renewables grifters.
Did it ever cross your mind that the technology of renewable energy does not require a ideology to takeover the electric grid? I think Mr. Stock Market is driven in part ideology (short term) but it’s always the owners of the technology patents who sit at the top.
By the way Tesla PE=insane short term, but so were negative oil prices last spring.
jack:
“Did it ever cross your mind that the technology of renewable energy does not require a ideology to takeover the electric grid?”
I hadn’t thought of that question. In MN we have wind turbines. Because the nuke had to renew with the state. So the anti-nuke people which is an ideology, traded wind turbines for more years of nuke power. We have solar panels for the same reason. More years of nuke power, equals renewable mandates.
Renewables can’t take over the grid. It’s not what they are. They can only wound it. Cut it up into pieces such as people with Telsas and solar panels and yes, diesel back up. They aren’t stupid.
Renewables are like putting the rich on the lifeboats. What a virtue signal.
You can call things whatever you want. Can you see what things are?
Ragnaar,
The anti-nuke folks started out being anti-nuclear war because the of radiation fallout and not the blast itself. Nuclear plants = radiation hazard = dangerous. By it’s self that’s not a completely logical reason BUT when you have to add in the capacity for human error or malfeasance then anyone can make the case against nukes. Every nuke facility has a small battalion of armed security for that reason.
But you reject the technology & economics of RE despite me documenting from my own 9yrs of personal experience that it works and is actually cheaper than grid prices (Texas has one of the lowest KWh retail prices and I still haven’t had a electricity bill since 2012).
It’s your ideology that needs updating.
Want to make a side bet? (no money, just win or loose)
In 2030 I think mass adoption of V2G will result in 20% of the grid being classified as microgrids, solar will be #2 source of power on the grid behind nat gas but ahead of wind and nukes. The cost of storage will drop to $20/KWh while the efficiency of solar panels will jump from current 20% to 37%.
As the famous philosopher Dirty Harry said, “You’ve got to ask yourself a question: ‘do I feel lucky…?’
You might want to check the latest eia.gov data. Your statement on Texas is not accurate. Looks to me you are leeching off everybody else as the subsidies you receive are paid by somebody. However, if you are completely off the grid all the time and nobody subsidized your installation, then that is different.
Hi Mike,
Of course I use net metering so my utility can buy my excess electricity and sell it to my neighbors without the huge transmission losses. When you subtract transmission losses I’m selling my juice at a discount.
Furthermore I am already Grid Independent! I can use my Chevy Volt’s battery to run my house anytime I want (although at reduced levels).
https://www.thedailyfodder.com/2020/12/we-calculated-emissions-due-to.html
“In 2016, aggregate transmission and distribution losses reached 19% in India and 16% in Brazil. But they were over 50% in Haiti, Iraq, and the Republic of Congo. This means that only half of the electricity generated reached or was billed to the consumers as usable power – the other half was lost en route.
In more developed countries, losses were lower: While the United States experienced 6% losses in 2016, 5% was reported for Germany and Singapore reached 2%. These numbers demonstrate it’s more efficient to transmit power over short distances to large population centers compared to moving power long distances to many dispersed rural customers.”
PS: I have had a gas lease for longer than I have had solar panels and my credit on my electric bill is more than I have received in royalties. I can thank all my neighbors for putting up with the 24/7/365 noise and smell of having a active drilling pad sitting in the middle of a 40 year old residential neighborhood driving down property values.
Your erratic “net metering” inflicts added costs on everyone else due to the higher costs incurred by more reliable generators as they must reduce their output.
You should get the market wholesale price for unreliable power (which can be negative) instead of a politically created subsidy. You are not actually living off the grid, but rather off of the taxpayer and other consumers.
Please note, I do not have any problem with green energy competing in the marketplace. However, that is not the case when mandates and subsidies are used to artificially prop up the resources.
Mike,
Don’t lecture me on political motivated subsidies. The FF industry sucks billions of government in tax breaks, environmental wavers, funding employee pensions from bankrupt FF companies every year. There are hundreds of reports to back up my claims.
Why not join the future?
Here’s the deal: photon->electron->wire->consumer. No middle man.
You control your future and that’s freedom in my book.
Let me give you a real example.
ERCOT experienced grid conditions over the summer of 2019 that set two all-time records for system demand peak (of 74,666 on Aug. 12, 2019) and weekend system demand peak (of 71,915 MW on Aug. 11, 2019), and forced the entity to issue two Level-1 Energy Emergency alerts. While overall, market outcomes supported reliability needs, the tight conditions sent real-time prices soaring, reaching $9,000 on Aug. 13 and 15.
Please note that if I had a 60-80 KWh battery all charged up I could have paid off my entire PV array in one or two discharge cycles.
I am lecturing you about the facts. Green energy needs to stand on it’s own two feet instead of being propped up by the hapless consumer and taxpayer. Ditto for nuclear energy. A rational mix of energy resources is the key to a better future for all, as opposed to mindless reliance on non-competitive energy resource that must rely on creating hysteria (i.e. manufacturing a catastrophic global warming crisis) to justify filling the pockets of politicians, big corporations and the financial elite.
Mr Ellison, about five years ago David Evans made this projection based on his solar hypothesis.
‘Global temperatures will come off the current plateau into a sustained and significant cooling, beginning 2017 or maybe as late as 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3 °C in the 2020s, taking the planet back to the global temperature that prevailed in the 1980s.
‘This was signaled (though not caused) by a fall in underlying solar radiation starting in 2004, one of the three largest falls since 1610 when records started. There is a delay of one sunspot cycle, currently 13 years (2004+13 = 2017).’
We know temperatures will fall 0.3 C in 2021 because of La Nina, do you think temps will return to the plateau after La Nina?
A large part of global climate variability emerges from the eastern Pacific Ocean. It is very obviously a positive cloud feedback to sea surface temperature. Is this predictable? What other feedbacks will kick in? Can we lose much of the tropical and subtropical marine strato-cumulous with 8 C warming at the equator? Could a freshening Arctic disrupt deep water formation and trigger ice sheet feedback with 10 C cooling? Both outcomes can be found in the published literature.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
“Global mean (a) shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) and (b) net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux anomalies for March 2000–September 2017 from CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Ed4.0. Thin lines denote monthly anomalies, thick lines are 12-month running means. Vertical black bars show the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI). Anomalies are calculated relative to climatology over the entire period. SW and LW TOA flux anomalies are defined as positive upwards and net TOA flux anomalies are positive downwards.”
These are abrupt ocean circulation patterns driven by multiple feedbacks in a complex dynamical system. Leaving aside magical astrological thinking – the sun may be a control variable pushing the system past thresholds. I’m leaning towards slow solar winds associated with a cool Pacific via SAM and NAM.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/bifurcations.png
The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947). I am inclined to think that zonally strong winds in positive phases of the SAM and NAM spin up north and south Pacific gyres enhancing abyssal water upwelling in the right physical conditions.
But whether any of this is predictable is another and unanswerable question. Leaving aside magical thinking.
So we are looking at some kind of internal dynamic, unhindered by cosmological effects.
‘ … leaning towards slow solar winds associated with a cool Pacific via SAM and NAM.’
I’ll take a closer look, thanks.
“Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.” P.R. Goodea
, E. Palle´(2007), Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: Modern and historical
variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance
I think I’ve never heard so loud
The quiet message in a cloud.
Hear it now, what were the odds?
The raucous laughter of the Gods.
Kim
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/87000/87456/pacificocean_tmo_2016032.jpg
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87456/open-and-closed-cells-over-the-pacific
“..would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output.” – Ellison quote
BS.
It is energy in and energy out driving complex dissipative patterns in flow fields on a spinning planet. Not the magical psychedelic thinking you are used to. But truly the wonder and beauty of math and science in the real, physical world.
“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. We also find regular structures on much smaller scales, like the ripples in the windblown sand, the intricate structure of animal coats, the beautiful pattern of mollusks or even in the propagation of electrical signals in the heart muscle. It is the goal of pattern formation to understand nonequilibrium systems in which the nonlinearities conspire to generate spatio-temporal structures or pattern. Many of these systems can be described by coupled nonlinear partial differential equations, and one could argue that it the field of pattern formation is trying to find unifying concepts underlying these equations.” https://www.ds.mpg.de/LFPB/chaos
“This definition views a hypothesis to be a kind of proposition, that is, a potentially truth‐bearing statement that needs to be evaluated as true or false. These concerns, in turn, lead to further, seemingly obvious implications as to what it is to be scientific and what constitutes a scientific explanation.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR020078
It is the further concerns that turn out to be more fruitful – to coin a phrase. But let’s stick to the traditional definition of empirical science. Unlike Lowey – we have investigated and found the smoking gun. It is implicit in the CERES/MEI graph above. But as I didn’t include the link – and I think I should bury his hand waving BS in the BS it deserves.
This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
And we have already investigated solar winds and polar surface pressure – the schematic is just above. It is Figure 1 in this reference.
“We use National Centers for Environmental Prediction/National Center for Atmospheric Research reanalysis data to estimate the altitude and time lag dependence of the correlation between the interplanetary magnetic field component, By, and the geopotential height anomaly above Antarctica. The correlation is most statistically significant within the troposphere. The peak in the correlation occurs at greater time lags at the tropopause (∼6–8 days) and in the midtroposphere (∼4 days) than in the lower troposphere (∼1 day). This supports a mechanism involving the action of the global atmospheric electric circuit, modified by variations in the solar wind, on lower tropospheric clouds. The increase in time lag with increasing altitude is consistent with the upward propagation by conventional atmospheric processes of the solar wind‐induced variability in the lower troposphere. This is in contrast to the downward propagation of atmospheric effects to the lower troposphere from the stratosphere due to solar variability‐driven mechanisms involving ultraviolet radiation or energetic particle precipitation.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014GL061421%4010.1002/%28ISSN%291944-8007.GRLeditorhghlts2014
The physical links between the polar vortex, the South Pacific Gyre and ENSO have been explored above.
QED.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/south_pacific_gyre-1-1.png
.
Solar forcing modulates SAM.
‘Spectral analysis identifies a robust ∼ 250-year periodicity, with evidence of stronger westerly airflow between 2000 and 1000 cal. years BP. In comparison with other Southern Hemisphere records, the 250-year periodicity suggests that solar forcing plays a role in modulating the strength of the Southern Hemisphere westerlies, something hitherto not recognised.’
C S M Turney et al 2016
Wow. I woke up to the many comments below that I am not counting let alone responding to. He now seems to be up to 11 planets and a dwarf planetoid. On top of his ‘new physics’ debunking general relativity.
Thanks for that reference. Turney et al is of course based on radio dating of carbon deposits from fires and the production rate of a beryllium isotope by cosmic rays as a proxy for solar activity. Magnetic shielding of the Earth is enhanced in periods of higher solar activity and the production rate of cosmogenic isotopes declines. An inverse relationship.
This is then subjected to Fourier analysis that decomposes the signal into superimposed simple trigonometric functions. This gives rise to the idea of cycles. Fair enough as far as it goes – but the original data needs to understood as the basis. That is more variable than periodic.
If we look at Panel C – the last 1000 years – peaks and valleys are certainly there – but the period between peaks varies considerably. This is the case for solar activity at scales from decades to millennia. Try matching individual planetary orbits to that reality.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png
“Solar forcing modulates SAM.
‘Spectral analysis identifies a robust ∼ 250-year periodicity..” – ironicman
So how do you get a regular 250-year westerly wind periodicity from solar forcing?
I find the study interesting but would equate the 250-year cycle to the ~200-year solar cycle corresponding to the inclination orbit of Venus which directly increases solid body tidal forcing on Earth.
ironicman – if solar forcing is this powerful on a ~250-year cycle a thousand years ago, why doesn’t mainstream science recognise it as ongoing for the last thousand years and even today??
This research actually supports the hypothesis of new physics with Venus being the biggest influencer of climate change in 2020/21 and beyond.
Even NASA are predicting a Dalton Minimum like solar activity which directly fits Venus’s 225-year periodicity & ~200-year solar cycle:
https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
Mainstream science is closing in on the mysterious workings of the sun’s core:
“One challenge for researchers working to predict the Sun’s activities is that scientists don’t yet completely understand the inner workings of our star. Plus, some factors that play out deep inside the Sun cannot be measured directly. They have to be estimated from measurements of related phenomena on the solar surface, like sunspots.
Kitiashvili’s method differs from other prediction tools in terms of the raw material for its forecast. Previously, researchers used the number of sunspots to represent indirectly the activity of the solar magnetic field. The new approach takes advantage of direct observations of magnetic fields emerging on the surface of the Sun – data which has only existed for the last four solar cycles.”
https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
“The quasi-200-year climatic variations have also been detected in climate-linked processes in Asia, Europe, North and South America, Australia, and the Arctic and Antarctica.
The climate response to the de Vries cycle has been found to occur not only during the last millennia but also in earlier epochs, up to hundreds of millions years ago.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018207005214
The inclination hypothesis has a mechanism for altering the orbital periodicity of Venus to give the quasi ~200-year signal in the paleoclimate data.
I propose the Moon varies in it’s axial tilt, from 1.5° to 0° to -1.5°. This strong gravitational interaction with the Earth’s core would change it from 5° to 3.5° to 5°, which would alter it’s strong gravitational interaction with Venus’s exotic core and so change it’s periodicity on a millennial timeframe.
The ~200-year signal is robust in paleoclimate data:
“The Pacific North American (PNA) teleconnection has a strong influence on North American climate… Superimposed on the secular change between states is a robust, quasi-200-year oscillation, which we associate with the de Vries solar cycle.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms4701
Both 88-year & ~200-year cycle:
“Nicolas & François, thanks for the information and publications. Very much appreciated and definately points me in the right direction! We have run spectral analyses of sediments from the late Cretaceous, which show significant 88 and 210 year periodicities. The debate is what is the nature of these periodicities – particularly as this is in the Cretaceous (98Mya) and not recent past!”
And both again:
http://iie.fing.edu.uy/simsee/biblioteca/CICLO_SOLAR_PeristykhDamon03-Gleissbergin14C.pdf
This is the first evidence I’ve seen of a shorter cycle which I attribute to dwarf planet Ceres, having a current orbital period of 4.6-years:
“To investigate the possible Sun-climate connection the regional tree-ring chronology covering the period from 1445 to 2005 was analyzed.
The analysis revealed significant cooling events, coinciding with the Spoerer (1400–1540), Maunder (1645–1715), Dalton (1790–1830), and Gleissberg (1880–1910) Grand Solar Minima.
..analysis identified the existence of the main cycles of solar activity (5.4, 11.7 and 22 years) in tree-ring width variations.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334477396_Solar_activity_imprints_in_tree_ring-data_from_northwestern_Russia
Wow. There’s a strong connection between tidal forcing and dendrochronology which has been made by numerous tree-ring studies in the past. The mechanism which links solar cycles to tidal cycles eluded them though:
qt91t5r0jv.pdf
Oops – Venus orbit is 225 DAYS not years!!
This actually helps because it means a ~210-year Planet X must be the cause.
Mercury 》 88-day 》 solar cycle (?)
Ceres 》 ~4.6-year 》 Douglass cycle
Jupiter 》 ~11.1 》 solar cycle (?)
Planet Nine 》 ~88-year 》 Gleissberg cycle
Planet X 》 ~210-year 》 Suess-DeVries cycle
I had the crazy idea that another beyond Neptune planet was responsible for the ~11.1-year solar cycle.
Planet XI 》 ~11.1 》 Sunspot cycle
Could there be three planets waiting to be discovered that orbit low to the galactic plane and therefore difficult to detect due to the background stars?
Planet XI would be large, having a very similar orbit to Jupiter, yet much further away. Cause of the Great Red Spot?
I’m starting to get a whole new mental imagery. I was right that exotic core tidal forcing from the planets… but not from the planets we are familiar with.
I’ve also changed my mind about the Moon being responsible for the 1500+-500-year millennial cycle.
This vastly changing period orbital giant would be way beyond Neptune. I even had the idea that it could be traversing the galactic plane during it’s elongated orbit around the Sun.
Ceres 》 4.6-year 》 Douglass
Planet IX 》 88-year 》 Gleissberg
Planet X 》 ~210-year 》 Suess-DeVries
Planet XI 》 ~11.1-year 》 sunspot
Planet XII 》 ~1500+-500-yr 》 millennial
Planet surface reflects incoming solar flux by both – the diffuse and the specular reflection.
Planet’s surface has a spherical shape, and the specular reflection cannot be seen and measured from satellites, but yet the spherical surface has specular reflection – as the surfaces of all kinds have.
A planet reflects incoming short wave solar radiation,
and the planet’s surface has reflecting properties.
1. The planet’s albedo “a”. It is a surface quality’s dependent value.
2. The planet’s spherical shape. For a smooth planet the solar irradiation reflection is (0,53 + Φ*a)*Jincoming.
Φ is the planet’s spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
Φ = 0,47 for a smooth sphere
Thus 1 – Φ = 0,53
0,53 is for smooth sphere’s specular reflection and “a” – the albedo is for diffuse reflection.
Conclusion:
A planet’s absorbed fraction of the SW incoming radiation in total is:
Jsw.absorbed = 0,47*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jsw.absorbed = Φ*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
For smooth surface planets (smooth spheres) Φ = 0,47
Jsw.absorbed = 0,47*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
For heavy cratered (the light capturing in multiple cracks and wells) surface planets Φ = 1
Jsw.absorbed = 1*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
And for gaseous planets (the light is absorbed in the gaseous abyss) Φ = 1
Jsw.absorbed = 1*(1-a)*Jsw.incoming
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Now, let’s write the planet’s energy balance equation, the
Planet Energy Budget:
Jabs = Jemit
Jabs = Φ*S*(1-a) /4 (W/m²)
Jemit = σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
Φ*S*(1-a) /4 = σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W/m²)
Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Alan Lowey I accept your general argument over Mr Ellison, but do you think the Thames will freeze over in the next five years?
So you accept 12 planets and a ‘new physics’ debunking general relativity? God to know.
Ah… that’s good to know not God to know. .
It’s not that amazing a proposition. In 2015 Konstantin Batygin, an assistant professor of planetary science at Caltech, was included in Forbes’s “30 Under 30” list in the science category, describing Batygin as “the next physics rock star.” In addition to having then published 21 papers as first author, the 28-year-old planetary scientist is a lead singer in a band called The Seventh Season.
He said recently that he’s 99.9% sure Planet Nine exists. If one giant planet is hypothesized with such certainty, why couldn’t another three be waiting to be discovered?
We could call them Larry, Curly and Mo.
There’s another clue to where they are in the solar system:
“The Solar System has a second plane where objects orbit the Sun..That analysis found that long-period comets tend to also prefer a second plane of the solar system… The ecliptic itself sits at 60 degrees relative to the plane of our Milky Way galaxy (in other words, our solar system is tilted by 60 degrees relative to the galaxy), while the empty ecliptic sits at 60 degrees in the opposite direction.”
https://www.universetoday.com/148178/the-solar-system-has-a-second-plane-where-objects-orbit-the-sun/
Another big clue:
“There are perhaps as many Trojan asteroids orbiting 60 degrees ahead of and behind Jupiter as in the asteroid belt between Jupiter and Mars. Now NASA has given a go-ahead for the 1st mission to Jupiter’s Trojans… It’s a reconnaissance mission, called Lucy, now approved by NASA for a 2021 launch.”
https://earthsky.org/space/nasa-gives-green-light-lucy-mission-jupiters-trojans
Speculative planets in support a neutron star matter at the heart of celestial bodies – requiring new physics and the overthrow of general relativity – driving Earth climate through increasing Earth tides. Without of course any evidence but promises on the never never. We are used to the mad thought bubbles of contrarian curmudgeons but this takes it to a whole new level.
I’ve just had a revelation. It’s exotic cores that are missing, not necessarily planets. I’ve estimated the exotic core of Saturn to be just 200m diameter, based on the thickness of it’s rings.
Exotic core I 》 5.7-year 》 Douglass/ENSO
Exotic core II 》 88-year 》 Gleissberg
Exotic core III 》 ~210-year 》 Suess-DeVries
Exotic core IV 》 ~11.1-year 》 solar/decadel
Exotic core V 》 ~1500+-500 》 millennial
Ex-c I 》 5.7-year 》 Douglass/ENSO
Ex-c II 》 88-year 》 Gleissberg
Ex-c III 》 ~210-year 》 Suess-DeVries
Ex-c IV 》 ~11.1-year 》 solar/decadel
Ex-c V 》 ~1500+-500 》 millennial
It makes sense to assume Earth has five unseen exotic moonlets orbiting close to it’s equatorial plane at around 23.5° to the solar plane, unlike the Moon which is anomalously 5°.
Ex-I 》 5.7yr
Ex-II》 ~11.1yr
Ex-III》 88yr
Ex-IV》 ~210yr
Ex-V》 ~1500+-500yr
Ex-II could be quasi due it’s proximity to Jupiter’s period of 11.86yr.
Ex-IV could be quasi due it’s relative proximity to Pluto’s period of 248yr.
Ex-V could be highly quasi due to it’s proximity to trans-Neptunian dwarf planets which have inclinations circa 23.5°?
This new picture then ties in with the ice ages and Earth’s change in axial tilt:
“The average length of glacial periods has changed over time, from cycles of roughly 40,000 years that were more closely aligned to changes in obliquity—the tilt of Earth’s axis—to cycles of roughly 100,000 years, coinciding with changes in the eccentricity, or shape, of our planet’s orbit [ie. inclination]. The transition between 40,000- and 100,000-year cycles last occurred in the mid-Pleistocene. However, scientists have struggled to identify exactly how ice ages start, why they line up with these cycles, and why the lengths of and gaps between glacial periods vary through time.”
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/how-variations-in-earths-orbit-triggered-the-ice-ages
The latest research is in my favour:
Earth’s tilt angle trigger for ending ice ages
“International research covering the past million years of global glaciations shows that small changes in the tilt of the Earth’s axis – obliquity – is important for triggering the end of ice ages, or glacial terminations.
The study, published in the journal Science, challenges previous contentions that precession – rotational changes that govern when the Earth is closest to the Sun – is most important.”
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/earth-s-tilt-angle-key-trigger-for-ending-ice-ages/
I have the idea that the Moon’s capture around a million years ago was the cause of the mid-Pleistocene Transition, the change in beat of the glacial cycles:
“Today, instead of rotating upright, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5 degrees. The angle varies a little over time, but the gravitational pull of the moon prevents it from shifting by more than a degree or so.”
The Earth could have tilted more previously, increasing the tidal effects of it’s exotic moonlets, especially Ex-V responsible for the abrupt millennial climate cycle.
There are many problems with the impact hypothesis for the creation of the Moon. Also, the 88yr and 210yr climate cycles are in paleoclimate data going back 98 million years, so the exotic moonlets have always been there. There isn’t any similar evidence for the Moon that I’m aware of.
I propose the Earth and Moon formed similarly but independently with similar orbits. Only 1 million years ago was the Moon captured into it’s present orbit, changing the glacial/interglacial cycle of planet Earth:
“The problem with the giant-impact hypothesis is it’s increasingly difficult to square with data. A new paper posits the conventional great impact hypothesis isn’t quite right, and argues for an entirely new theory of Earth-moon formation.
..
And unlike every other planet or satellite in the solar system, it appears to be made of exactly the same isotopes in the same ratios we observe on Earth.
..
A synestia isn’t the only way to theoretically create an Earth-moon system. Boyle steps through some other hypotheses, including the idea that Theia was a body with near-identical isotope ratios to Earth to start with..”
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/253830-giant-impact-hypothesis-moon-formation-synestia
The latest data fits with the Moon capture around 1 million years ago which reduced Earth’s change in tilt, so taking longer for glacial termination. There is no 100kyr climate cycle:
“Their analysis also refuted claims, once and for all, that the two terminations bracket the ‘100,000-year cycle’.
Instead, he says we’ve gone from predominantly single 40,000-year cycles prior to around one million years ago to a cluster of two 40,000-year cycles.
But the rates at which the two terminations were completed were vastly different; the older one, 960,000 years ago, took a few thousand years while the more recent one, about 875,000 years ago, took around 10,000 years.
Comparing their data with previous studies for nine younger terminations they showed that obliquity played a key role in them and their duration.”
https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/earth-s-tilt-angle-key-trigger-for-ending-ice-ages/
You didn’t answer the question I put to you earlier:
“So how do you get a regular 250-year westerly wind periodicity from solar forcing?”
Short answer – you don’t.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-936259
“Solar activity during the current sunspot minimum has fallen to levels unknown since the start of the 20th century. The Maunder minimum (about 1650–1700) was a prolonged episode of low solar activity which coincided with more severe winters in the United Kingdom and continental Europe. Motivated by recent relatively cold winters in the UK, we investigate the possible connection with solar activity. We identify regionally anomalous cold winters by detrending the Central England temperature (CET) record using reconstructions of the northern hemisphere mean temperature. We show that cold winter excursions from the hemispheric trend occur more commonly in the UK during low solar activity, consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events in the eastern Atlantic.” https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCET_graph_ylybars_uptodate_3.gif
This is a solar feedback via the northern polar vortex. But we are not nearly at the solar activity level that prevailed at the times of Thames frost fairs – and this has since been superimposed on AGW.
If these pages were any indication – the post modern threat to scientific enlightenment comes from a relatively few eccentric contrarians.
‘ … consistent with the solar influence on the occurrence of persistent blocking events …’
Blocking is happening in both hemispheres as we speak, the horrendous bushfire seasons in the US and Australia are a direct result of it. Hot dry south easterly winds in the US and north westerlies in Australia were exacerbated by a quiet sun, meandering jet stream and blocking.
The only reason the Thames didn’t freeze in the 1960s is because of the coal fired power stations along its bank, so with them gone we should be able to test a few theories.
‘ … the post modern threat to scientific enlightenment comes from a relatively few eccentric contrarians.’
That would be me sir, but I’m convinced that by the end of the decade you will be out in the cold with egg on your face.
For discussing solar influences on polar vortices amplifying natural variability – or AGW superimposed on natural variability?
Blocking high pressure and meandering jetstream is a global cooling signal.
https://www.weatherzone.com.au/synoptic.jsp?d=0
It’s a mass atmospheric seesaw that drives Arctic winds and storms more or less into lower latitudes. But are there TOA energy implications rather than just regional warming and cooling? That is – a warmer pole and cooler mid latitudes? Unless there is a mechanism for changing TOA energy imbalances – your magical thought bubbles mean zilch.
On the other hand – I have been investigating a Pacific energy dynamic for decades – and there is a smoking gun.
Alternately – your and Lowey’s test’s of magical thought bubbles are in the never never.
‘ … the never never.’
The AGW precautionary principle is in place just in case CO2 causes global warming.
In the year ahead do you think world temperature (UAH) will rise or fall?
Well no – strictly speaking the precautionary principle refers to the potential for serious and irreversible harm – even if scientific uncertainty exists. These are both evident in AGW.
But the solutions include nukes and better land management – not wind and solar. How often does that need to be said to get it past the cognitive dissonance of contrarian curmudgeons?
And here I was alluding to the scientific method – something that requires proof in other than the never never.
‘But the solutions include nukes and better land management – ‘
Better land management is a good thing, but in Australia nuclear power is unviable for political and economic reasons.
Anyway its built on a weak premise, CO2 doesn’t actually cause global warming so PM Morrison won’t be chasing XI, Boris and Joe down a rat hole just to be popular on the international stage.
You are so far down your rabbit hole you will never see the light of day again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLagDjnMBg0&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=Dept.ofIndustry%2CScience%2CEnergyandResources
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/PublishingImages/Auction-results-september-2020/eleventh%20Auction%20September%202020%20Contract%20portfolio.png
And nuclear power is on the agenda.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Environment_and_Energy/Nuclearenergy/Report
It needs the right technology.
“Today, as the nuclear industry faces unprecedented challenges to its future, GA-EMS is helping develop the next generation of advanced reactors. GA-EMS’ Energy Multiplier Module (EM2) is an advanced small modular reactor (SMR) that addresses four of the most challenging problems facing nuclear energy: economics, safety, waste, and nonproliferation.” https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-reactor-e1433376609199.jpg
I suggest that it is a technological solution of the 5th problem of nuclear power. That of public perceptions. In a way that hand waving away concerns cannot.
Politically the nuclear option is out of the question because the green/left are setting the real agenda and they only want renewables.
You may have heard how NSW is going ahead in leaps and bounds with their renewable zones, but of course its unworkable without a Narrabri gas power plant as back up.
Morrison has asked the private sector to put up the money, but if they think there is no value in that then the government will build it. Socialism with Australian characteristics.
This huge expense is all based on a harmless trace gas.
I seriously doubt the EM2 (fast reactor) will solve the public’s concerns, as it does not appear to be walk-away fail-safe. The reactor power density needs to be low and vessel surface area relatively high to pull off vessel peripheral natural circulation heat removal, thereby keeping the core from being severely damaged by overheating following severe accidents. A fast reactor core is very compact and that mean the power density is high and vessel surface area relatively low. Very difficult to cool by natural circulation heat removal.
Thermal helium gas reactors that use a graphite moderator have low power densities and relatively high large vessel surface areas. This type of reactor can be walk-away fail safe, see hybridpwr.com
I am not married to EM2. But General Atomics are such an industry stalwart – and the design ticks all the boxes. The power density needs to be high to maximize thermal efficiency.
“EM2 uses an array of passive safety measures to achieve substantially safer operation than current designs. The fuel, fuel rod cladding, and reactor core and core structures are manufactured from GA-EMS’ proprietary SiGA™ silicon-carbide composite, a high-tech ceramic matrix composite that can withstand more than twice the temperatures of the metal components used in current reactors. SiGA™ makes the core virtually meltdown-proof and Fukushima-type accidents almost impossible. Next, a pair of redundant Direct Reactor Auxiliary Cooling Systems (DRACS) are capable of 100% core heat removal via natural circulation, without any actuation or operator intervention, even under “station blackout” conditions. Finally, the reactor containment structure is situated entirely below grade, providing added protection from external events.” https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/advanced-reactors
“The ATF program was initiated by an act of Congress in 2012 and is funded and overseen by the Department of Energy. GA-EMS is an industry partner on the ATF initiative, providing the ceramic matrix composite fuel rod cladding that replaces the metal cladding used in current fuel rods…
GA-EMS’ SiGA™ cladding allows fuel rods to withstand temperatures of over 3000°F (1700C), more than twice that sustained by the metal cladding used in current reactor cores. In addition, the new cladding is much more chemically stable, virtually eliminating the risk of generating potentially explosive hydrogen during loss-of-cooling accidents. Once deployed at wide scale in the mid-to-late 2020s, these new fuel rods have the potential to greatly improve the safety and economics of current and advanced nuclear reactors.” https://www.ga.com/nuclear-fission/accident-tolerant-fuel
Efficiency is linked to temperature, not power density. Thermal gas reactors can run hot because they use materials like graphite that tolerate higher temperatures better than metals.
The silicone fuel has potential, but unclear how the EM2 actually gets rid of the decay heat because of the core’s inherent high power density. Appears there is some type of active circulation (besides turbo-compressor) but details are hard to come by.
While many tout the virtues of small reactors, history points in the opposite direction. Namely, bigger and more efficient is the path to profitability. Wind and solar demonstrate that historical trend.
I assumed that power density was required to maintain the operating temperature of 850 C.
There is a September 2019 ‘status report’.
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/EM2(GeneralAtomics)_2020.pdf
Thanks for the report!
As I suspected, reactor is more complicated than the thermal gas reactor cousins. There are a number of fairly significant technical hurdles to solve with the design. Likely too complicated relative to perceived ultimate benefit of reducing spent fuel quantities. Much easier and more cost effective to just employ simpler advanced reactor designs and Deep Isolation’s approach of using horizontal drilling technology to ultimately put spent fuel miles into the ground.
They propose removing fission products using Atomics International reduction oxidation (AIROX) reprocessing and adding fertile and fissile materials for a further burn cycle. Waste is suvstantially reduced and fission products decay to background in hundreds of years. It’s ambitious – but closing the nuclear fuel cycle always was. There are some 400 years of US energy supply left in US nuclear ‘waste’.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/06/em2-waste-reduction.png
The right product at the right price is the key for any economic rationalist. Something that appears to have escaped your confused thoughts. Nuclear energy is far too costly to contemplate at this time. Back in the real world the push is on to get more gas into the Australian market. It may be prudent however to count on two decades of high production.
https://www.pipeliner.com.au/category/gas/
Gas power plants can easily be combined with what are now low cost if intermittent wind and solar. How high a penetration is practically feasible? A lot more than we have now. How much is greenhouse gas political pragmatism worth to a politician? We are likely to find out.
The Morrison governments first technology investment roadmap includes hydrogen and batteries. Useful if you want cheaper backup to give a little time for gas power ramp up – and an alternative use for excess power when available. Mix it into the gas supply at not too high a concentration.
Ain’t technology grand?
Excess, ill-timed green energy can be used to create hydrogen that is stored for use by a a combined-cycle gas plant, but not quite as conventional wisdom believes. Rather than being used by the gas turbine, much easier to fire duct burners located in the boiler downstream of the gas turbine. These burners are routinely used by combined-cycle plants to meet grid peaks. Hydrogen fired duct burners emit no CO2.
The hydrogen would be created using high-temperature steam electrolysis, with the steam supplied the combined-cycle plant. Technically and operationally, this is easily accomplished.
Economically, this approach only works if the price of the green energy is low, which should be the case during periods of excess green energy caused by over supply. Should note that under ordinary circumstances, electrolysis is not competitive with steam/methane reforming to produce hydrogen from natural gas.
Could you pleas show us the Mean Central England Temperature, not Anomalies? I distrust Anomalies. An average of Anomalies should be zero, and your graph does not look that way.
The mean of random variability should be zero over a long enough period. Anomalies are just departures from the mean of a reference period.
The blame game is actually an intrinsic part of money making at the levels where power and influence are directly linked to money making. So to expect it to miraculously disappear means you are demanding a revolution in how power elites acquire, maintain and hand over power.
The paradigm which needs to be thrown out is that which states that the way to maintain power is to delude and deceive the masses with a never-ending series of hobgoblins, none of which actually have any truth.
You in the US have just reinvented the ‘Reds in the Bed’ hobgoblin, by restating that nonsense in terms of China now being the country no US citizen dare have ever had friendly relations with. J.. Robert Oppenheimer’s successors in US scientific academia and technological military programmes must be quaking in their boots.
The Covid19 scaremongering is another hobgoblin designed to decimate small and medium business and install uberbillionaires as absolute autocrats for the 21st century and beyond. No-one should be under any illusions about that. Just read every piece of lying by William Gates III to be sure of that one.
You have also had ‘the war on drugs’ (when the CIA was in the top 5 top global distributors of Class A drugs on the planet for at least two decades); ‘the war on terror’ (when the CIA created Al Qa’ida and had recruited Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan 15 years before 9/11) as cover for the never ending series of wars of aggression which are regarded as the most heinous crime commitable on this planet.
‘Climate Chaos’ is another hobgoblin of the global elitists, many of whom are Americans, but most of whom are imperialists of nations wishing to see the US power wane. What you see there is enormous Government subsidies for rich people installing pre-commercial inefficient, non-scalable technologies without due thought, patience to carry out research properly, nor timely ditching of technological approaches proven to be unfit for purpose. The aim is to reinstall global poverty, to reduce global population by 90%, so that the unaccountable billionaires can live free of ‘useless eaters’ and the like.
In each and every one of these hobgoblins, the blame game was and is ramped up to hysterical levels. Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin) was the worst perpetrator of it in the 1950s, but Richard Nixon was little better. The media was shamefully complicit in it all, indeed without media complicity, blame games are far less likely to succeed.
Blaming Osama Bin Laden for 9/11 was a pre-planned centrally devised propaganda exercise, when anyone capable of analysing basic video evidence presented to imply bin Laden was still acting decisively could see that bin Laden reversed the aging process despite having serious kidney damage long before 9/11. The ‘disposal of bin Laden’s body’ after a media-scripted ‘John Wayne in Pakistan’ film set proved to sane citizens that collecting evidence was the last thing on the minds of Obama et al: where was the DNA sample snipped from the dead bin Laden’s hair? Where was the blood sample to test his blood type? Nowhere.
The Iraq war blame game was devised to cover for the US obedience to Israel’s demand for more war in the Middle East. One wonders whether the Israelis will ever be cured of their blood lust until someone actually bombed THEIR nation in an ‘Operation Shock N Awe’, eh? The blame was put on Saddam Hussein (a very nasty piece of work the CIA brought to power in the 1960s and supported during the Iraq-Iran war when he used chemical weapons in contravention of the Geneva Convention) and no end of lies were brought out when all the evidence of hocus pocus was being presented by the few honest members of the media. My politicians in the UK were hopelessly compliant, when any sane UK politician would have got the EU to agree to leave NATO en masse if the US did not desist. I think we all know the state of mental health of UK politicians…..
The climate blame game was a way to divert attention away from logging companies and chemical polluters, whose ravaging of the world’s environment was causing untold damage across the globe. The simple expedient of making forestry a globally regulated industry (i.e. if you are going to cut down trees, you have to replenish forests; if you are going to build new towns and cities, you make sure you plant plenty of trees to prevent the creation of heat islands etc etc) was never considered. I mean: it would stop global corporations making profits and that is something they kill to prevent. The blame for what corporations have been doing has to be channelled onto the people, because the first rule of corporate life is that the polluter profits and the polluted pay.
You cannot change any of this as long as the primary motive of capitalism is the profit motive.
The discussions about profit motive never include context: when a business starts up, becoming solvent and growing requires the making of profits. The profits are big to the owner but tiny to the global economy. They are background noise to be honest. But when a company has a turnover greater than the GDP of many nations, selfish pursuit of profit no matter what is the behaviour of an egotistical teenager, causing mayhem because they refuse to grow up and behave in a socially responsible manner. The only problem is that that ‘teenager’ has the access to weapons of mass murder, often obtained illicitly and illegally to fund mercenary activity aimed at destabilising the rule of law.
So the first place to start discussions has to be around the over-arching motives of businesses/organisations of different sizes, complexity and nature.
I don’t think the USA is ready for that discussion. It should be way down the pecking order in such discussions. Other regions of the world are far more ready to lead it, but even those nations have their own greediness quotients.
The ordinary people who sacrifice their own selfishness for social harmony are most ready to lead that, but they have been electing psychopaths, conmen and snake oil salesmen for so long that they wouldn’t realise that any longer. Stockholm syndrome is endemic amongst the western electorates.
So maybe discussing Stockholm Syndrome is another area where you have to gain enlightenment before rational discussions about ‘blame games’ comes to pass.
One thing is for sure: if you think any US administration will be chosen by those who wish to break the cycle of blame, you are sadly deluded.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #435 | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #435 | | Climate- Science.press
Funnily enough, I just cracked it today, based on this article: https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/earth-s-tilt-angle-key-trigger-for-ending-ice-ages/ . I emailed the Professor straight away: Professor Drysdale, thank you for your excellent work on glacial terminations. I have a leftfield hypothesis that the Moon was captured around 1 million years ago which prevented the Earth from tilting as much as it used to, therefore increasing the time of termination your research determined.
It’s a surprisingly good fit. I also believe new physics tidal forcing is the true driver of the glacial cycle.
..
I deduced that the Earth has five unseen exotic moonlets which orbit roughly on the 23.5° equatorial plane, unlike the Moon. It’s the tilt which increases tidal forcing of the 1500+-500yr moonlet. This pushes warm equatorial waters to higher latitudes, increasing precipitation which falls as snow in the polar regions. It’s an alternative to manmade global warming.
I think the only person able to grasp this revolutionary new concept is Clive Best. I left a comment on his website:
…
Hi Clive, I’m convinced the Moon was captured around 1mya and altered the tilting of the planet. New physics tidal forcing due to 5 exotic moonlets which orbit around Earth’s equatorial plane can account for climate cycles of 5.7yr Douglass/ENSO, 11.1yr sunspot, 88yr Gleissberg, ~210yr Suess-DeVries & ~1500+-500yr millennial cycle imo. It’s the strong gravitational interaction between the moonlet cores when on the equatorial plane which can increase solid body Earth tides. This pushes warm equatorial waters to higher latitudes, increasing precipitation which falls as snow in polar regions. This article on small changes to tilt causing termination was an inspiration https://cosmosmagazine.com/climate/earth-s-tilt-angle-key-trigger-for-ending-ice-ages/
…
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8679
When the Moon was captured around the time of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution, it not only would have affected the change in tilt of the Earth but also the orbits of the 5 moonlets, especially due to the exotic core interaction when they crossed the Earth-Sun plane.
It’s the equatorial orbit of Ex-V responsible for the current tidal millennial cycle of 1500+-500yrs that would have had the intensity and frequency of it’s influence increased from a 41,000yr cycle to a double 41,000yr glacial cycle.
“Before the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution (MPR), the glacial cycles were dominated by a 41,000 year periodicity with low-amplitude, thin ice sheets and a linear relationship to the ******** forcing from axial tilt. After the MPR there have been strongly asymmetric cycles with long-duration cooling of the climate and build-up of thick ice sheets, followed by a fast change from extreme glacial conditions to a warm interglacial.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Pleistocene_Transition
It’s a perfect fit. Perhaps The Quito Astronomical Observatory of Ecuador could search for the distant bodies using their equatorially mounted telescope, located at 2,823m?
If the 405,000-year climate cycle evident in rocks going back hundreds of millions of years is confirmed, then it suggests tidal forcing due to the Earth’s 100,000yr inclination cycle, due to exotic core interaction with the Sun.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/05/07/milankovitch-cycles-deep-time/
It’s this combination of tidal forcing, the 100kyr and separate 41kyr cycles, which gives the controversial glacial data imo.
Update: the captured Moon would have come with it’s own moonlets because only the 88yr and ~210yr cycles are robust in the data 98mya. It suggests Ex-V (millenial) and Ex-II (~11.1) came with the Moon and were captured by the Earth’s exotic equatorial plane. Ex-1 (5.7yr) could be missed in the data or came with the Moon and settled more quickly into the exotic equatorial plane capture.
There’s also two main strengths to the strong gravitational interaction between exotic cores. The Earth’s inclination 100kyr cycle would be just a strong forcing due to it’s ~23.5° tilt whilst the moonlet forcing could be ultra strong due to the alignment of their core axes.
I would guess the 88yr and ~210yr moonlet tidal forcings, assuming very low axial tilt relative to the equatorial plane, have a coefficient at least twice that of the Earth’s inclination effect.
So prior to the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution the Earth’s inclination orbital forcing would have been moderate, giving a regular glacial cycle with thin ice sheets, and then after the capture, the Ex-V millennial cycle would have been very impactful, causing increased and irregular glaciation effects.
Prior to the MPR, the 88yr and ~210yr moonlets would have had very low axial tilt and therefore ultra strong gravitational forcing, giving rise to the dominant 41,000yr tilt cycle. After MPR and Moon capture these two xotic moonlets would have been disrupted, reducing their forcing, giving rise to the dominant 100kyr inclination and new millennial forcing.
A simple test of the hypothesis is to see whether the 88yr and ~220yr tidal forcing cycles exist in the oxygen isotope data prior to 1 million years ago:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
Alan,
“The latest data fits with the Moon capture around 1 million years ago…”
Alan, it is impossible for Moon, when captured by Earth’s gravity, to acquire its synchronous rotation by slowing down to the present orbital period of 27.321661 days in a very short time (1 million years) compared to the billions of years of Earth’s and Moon’s history.
If Moon 1 million years ago was an autonomous dwarf planet orbiting sun, it should have had the rotational period of about 1 day, like Earth and Mars have.
Moon, is more likely, has been orbiting Earth for some billions of years.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos – that’s baloney. Neptune’s biggest moon Triton is thought to be captured, which similarly doesn’t have an equatorial orbit and has a period of just 6 days.
A million years is plenty of time for a captured Moon to achieve a 27 day orbit. It makes intuitive sense and is a standard alternative theory to the impact hypothesis. Your assertation is therefore unfounded imo.
Alan, all the satellites (moons) in solar system are tidally locked to their planets. Their orbital periods are equal to their axial rotation periods.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
So? This doesn’t detract from the Moon’s capture 1Mya hypothesis.
Also, it’s not true of the distant dwarf planet Pluto:
“Charon is a relatively large moon in comparison to its primary and also has a very close orbit. This results in Pluto and Charon being mutually tidally locked. Pluto’s other moons are not tidally locked; Styx, Nix, Kerberos, and Hydra all rotate chaotically due to the influence of Charon.”
“The rocks also showed that the Moon formed about 29 million years later than other similar-sized objects in the solar system.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150617-where-did-the-moon-come-from
Even with the 1Mya ago capture hypothesis, there is still the mystery of where it came from. The “isotope crisis”, late formation, capture hypothesis and new physics will resolve the issue.
I just had a thought. The exotic moonlet Ex-V would have orbited the early proto-Moon and delayed it’s formation (?)
I’ve had a better idea. The Moon and Earth formed at the same time but slightly separately apart, with the Moon at a Lagrangian point (60°) & qui-distant to the Sun.
This is similar to the Trojan group of asteroids that orbit on the plane of Jupiter:
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/lucy-mission-animations-of-jupiters-trojans
The dwarf-planet-Moon later captured Ex-V, the large exotic moonlet, say around 1.5Mya. This had the effect of increasing the dwarf-planet-Moon’s precession, which speeded up it’s orbit relative to Earth. When it caught up with the Earth around 1Mya, it got captured in it’s solar plane orbit but it’s exotic moonlet got captured by the Earth’s equatorial strong gravitational plane. It lost it’s orbiting moonlet to Earth.
This is the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution, where the glacial cycles changed.
Earth has only one trojan asteroid detected so far, which orbits ahead of the planet.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_TK7
I predict that the Lagrange point behind the orbit of the Earth is vacant, being the spot where the Moon formed before capturing the exotic moonlet Ex-V, which increased it’s precession, thereby catching up the Earth.
The swarming and chaotic orbits of the trojans are due to Jupiter’s low axial tilt & strong gravitational plane being close to it’s orbital plane.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/lucy-mission-animations-of-jupiters-trojans
Wow. Someone has had a very similar idea:
“Belbruno and Gott propose that the giant impactor could have formed in a stable orbit from debris at the Earth’s Lagrange point L(5) (or L(4)). It would grow quietly by accretion at L(5) (or L(4)), but eventually gravitational perturbations by other growing planetesimals would kick it out into a horseshoe orbit and finally into a chaotic creeping orbit, which Belbruno and Gott show would, with high probability, hit the Earth on a near zero-energy parabolic trajectory.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16510418/
Dust clouds at Lagrange points between the Earth and Moon have been detected in the Earth-Sun plane:
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/space/2018/11/earth-has-two-extra-hidden-moons
“Earth has two extra, hidden ‘moons’. First spied in the 1960s, the huge dust clouds have now been confirmed—and may affect plans for future space exploration.”
The hypothesized exotic moonlets on the equatorial plane may be detected by dust rings, analogous to Saturn’s rings.
Another interpretation to finding a Moon-like asteroid at a Lagrange point of Mars is that it formed there, just like the Moon did at Earth’s Lagrange point:
Scientists find Moon-like asteroid hiding behind Mars
“To their surprise, the team found that 101429’s best spectral match was not with other small bodies but with our nearest neighbour, the Moon.”
https://www.ukri.org/news/scientists-find-moon-like-asteroid-hiding-behind-mars/
Okay, there does happen to be a single asteroid behind Earth at the Lagrange point:
“Asteroid (419624) 2010 SO16, in a horseshoe companion orbit with Earth, is currently proximal to L5 but at a high inclination.”
I’m calling B.S on the L4 and L5 Lagrange points other than Jupiter. It makes absolutely no sense to think that the 60° rule applies to Earth or Mars. This is more scientific idiocy:
“Hiten was the first spacecraft to demonstrate a low energy trajectory, passing by L4 and L5 to achieve lunar orbit at a very low fuel expense, compared to usual orbital techniques. Hiten did not find any conclusive increase in dust density at Lagrange points.”
The low fuel trajectory is about speeding the spacecraft up so that it enters the Moon’s orbit in tandem with the lunar body. It has nothing to do with L4 and L5.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-energy_transfer
The old Hansen/ NASA Venus analogy is alive and well.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/15/a-co2-holocaust/
Pingback: Das falsche Spiel mit Schuldgefühlen – EIKE – Europäisches Institut für Klima & Energie
Pingback: Das falsche Spiel mit Schuldgefühlen – finger’s blog
The consensus contention is that initially CO2 increase warms the planet and then increased water vapor from the warmed water adds to the warming as a feedback.
The amount of WV increase as a result of temperature increase is readily calculated from the known vapor pressure vs temperature for water given that the percent increase in WV is about the same as the percent increase in vapor pressure.
Water vapor has been measured worldwide by satellite by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. They report the total precipitable water (TPW) anomalies at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202011.time_series.txt
(the last 6 digits are year and month of the available report)
Measured WV has increased faster than possible from warming. This demonstrates that the WV increase was not caused by the CO2 increase and that CO2 increase did not cause planet warming. CO2 does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate
https://tinyurl.com/yxehr2pj
“The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
There are obvious complications. The fundamentals apply – the increase in water vapor over tropical and subtropical oceans is in line with expectations of a 7% increase per 1 degree C warming whatever the cause.
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/vapor_global60.png
RIE,
I wonder how that (1.14%) was determined. The NASA/RSS measurements show the average global vapor trend to be increasing 0.0435/29*10*100 = 1.5% per decade.
It is from the RSS site.
For comparison, I backed my graph back to 2013 and got 1.18% per decade. Is there a reason that you did not provide a link? I would like to know what the base of their anomaly is. I used 28.73.
No reason other than that I assume most people don’t bother with original sources. There are geophysical fundamentals – these include greenhouse gas warming and water vapor feedback.
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
http://images.remss.com/graphics/cdr/vapor/v07/r01/medium/global/month/vapor_trend_map/rss.mw.cdr_1988-2017_month_vapor_trend_map_v7_r1.png
Thanks for the link. If you know the click path, you can get to the data from the link you provided. The data Jan 1988 thru Nov 2020 is at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202011.time_series.txt I didn’t find anything that showed how they produced that graph. The only thing that I can conclude is that they used the same data that I did.
Unfortunately, I don’t think most people do much thinking on their own either. Instead, they just blindly accept what others assert like the mistaken perception that CO2 increases ahead of temperature change.
That map you posted would be more meaningful if it showed % increase. As it is, it is overwhelmed by the average TPW in an area.
As a trained professional with am aware of the need to use reputable sources. I gave you the same data in graphical format as yours in text. I assumed you would understand that. It is consistent with expectations of increasing atmospheric water content with temperature. Fundamental physics. Trust me I’m a hydrologist.
The map – btw – shows moisture content – don’t be fooled by the term TPW – changes as mm/decade over different regions. It puts it in a perspective of the complications I mentioned. Human forced change superimposed on natural variability.
And human emissions of CO2 – a significant net addition – do come before temperature change and biokinetic CO2 and water vapor feedbacks.
I hope that you aren’t assuming that being a “trained professional”, it is not possible that you overlooked something.
I am also a trained professional and have (had, I’m retired) the license to prove it. I am constantly on guard for things I might have overlooked but still appreciate the rational comments of others.
I have seen assertions by climate science types that WV content increases with air temperature. That would be true if the air was all continuously at saturation. Of course it is not. The driving factor from temperature is the temperature of the liquid water source. The assumption is made that the % increase in WV from temperature increase is about the same as the % increase in vapor pressure with temperature of the liquid water. I have found nothing that refutes that. It is rational based on understanding of the influence of the boundary layer on evaporation rate.
But WV does not increase with just temperature; it increases more than that as a result of the WV added by humanity. It’s the increased IR absorption from the total WV increase that is contributing to the temperature increase of the planet. The CO2 level just tags along.
The temperature/CO2 relation during the last glaciation is revealing. A precise look at the data shows that CO2 change lags temperature change by hundreds of years. Some have argued that the temperature lag in the CO2 was not true and CO2 actually led. OK, but what then caused the CO2 level to change? If we accept that CO2 change actually lags temperature change then its level is easily explained by change of CO2 solubility with water temperature.
climate science versus honest environmentalism
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/16/ipcc-1-5c-carbon-budget/
chaamjamal,
I visited the blog you recommend – it is very interesting, I will visit it every day.
chaamjamal, have you ever seen my calculations?
Here is an example on how the Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation works:
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m²(150*1*1)¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )¹∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Thank you very much for this very interesting information. I will visit your website.
Since the Swedish data has reporting lags of 10 days more or less, I’ve been waiting to point out a flattening of the daily deaths curve. The second part of the definition says, and sometimes more than 10 days.
https://chaosaccounting.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/sweden-24-percent.png
What is 24%? Many countries would trade places with Sweden. They paid the greatest part of their cost at the beginning. Despite what any of their politicians say, having paid that cost early impacts the costs they are paying now. Because it’s a virus. And they are just politicians. One can throw away the costs they paid early. But why? That’s a denial of reality.
The UNEP says that pyrolysis of agricultural waste is a climate action innovation.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-5Kc
Robert I. Ellison – I have a challenge for you. I’m calling the Lagrange points L4 and L5 at 60° (where gravitational force is equalised) as B.S. when applied to Earth and Mars. I’m saying it only applies to Jupiter due to it’s low axial tilt, thereby having it’s strong gravitational force coinciding with the orbital plane.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/lucy-mission-animations-of-jupiters-trojans
Can you prove me wrong and the scientific community right? I sincerely doubt it.
“Hiten was the first spacecraft to demonstrate a low energy trajectory, passing by L4 and L5 to achieve lunar orbit at a very low fuel expense, compared to usual orbital techniques. Hiten did not find any conclusive increase in dust density at Lagrange points.”
Here’s your chance to show everyone how stupid I am Ellison.
Here’s the link showing 60° Lagrange points for Mars:
https://www.ukri.org/news/scientists-find-moon-like-asteroid-hiding-behind-mars/
“No new physics is necessarily introduced in applying Lagrangian mechanics compared to Newtonian mechanics.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
This is B.S. when applied to the L4 and L5:
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/754/what-is-a-lagrange-point/
The distance is only equal for the Sun and Jupiter. For Earth and Mars, the angle will be a lot less than 60°.
Common sense and intuition has been substituted by complex mathematics.
I doubt that anything could be proved to Alan’s satisfaction. He believes that gravitation is strongest on the orbital plane. This means that the apparent mass of the Earth in particular on the orbital plane changes with precession and obliquity. It is not so.
What matters with reference to Newtonian physics is the center of mass of objects. Not thought bubbles about neutron star matter – that decompress explosively outside the gravity well of a neutron star – collecting at the core of celestial bodies. Neutron star matter might be ejected following the collision of neutron stars in a binary system – that together then may pass the critical mass for formation of black holes. The system being subjected to magnetic braking until the magneto switches off halfway through the main sequence. As Sol is about halfway through it’s main sequence we can expect the solar magneto to switch off any time now. 😄
As for Lagrange points they arise from a solution to the 3 body problem involving two large and 1 small mass. The centroid of the stable ‘hilltop’ L4 and L5 points always are at the apex of an equilateral triangle where the centripetal force is equal to the attraction of gravity. It is always at a 60° angle to both large bodies. The tendency of a mass to move away from the LaGrange points L4 and L5 – roll down the hill figuratively – is constrained to an elliptic path around the centroid by the Coriolis force.
What causes quasi regular behavior in solar activity is partially the solar magneto. That may indeed be modulated by changing magnetic fields generated by orbiting bodies. Partially it is the plasma vortices formed in the convection layer of the sun by rotation. Simply fractal patterns of spatio-temporal chaos seen as migrating sunspots or solar magnetic reversals. Just like ripples in sand or the propagation of electrical signals in heart muscles.
“Magnetohydrodynamics is one of the major disciplines in solar physics. Vigorous magnetohydrodynamic process is taking place in the solar convection zone and atmosphere. It controls the generating and structuring of the solar magnetic fields, causes the accumulation of magnetic non-potential energy in the solar atmosphere and triggers the explosive magnetic energy release, manifested as violent solar flares and coronal mass ejections.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095034915303457
The orbital dynamics are defined by Newtonian physics – that is consistent with general relativity at these low orbital velocities. But both feed into a multiply coupled – biology, hydrology, ocean and atmospheric circulation – nonlinear Earth system.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/ne0000/96198319/1_2.jpg
“It is always at a 60° angle to both large bodies.” – Ellison.
Show me the math Robert and stop being so long winded about it.
You can’t handle the math/
https://plus.maths.org/content/mathematical-mysteries-three-body-problem
That’s a fail Ellison. The dispute I have is with the 60° fantasy of L4 and L5. The SOHO story you linked to didn’t mention the issue nor has anything to do with my conjecture.
So I can only ask again: show me the math?
SOHO was a practical use of a 250 year old solution to a restricted three body orbital problem. A class of problems still of considerable utility and interest today. But I am sure you know that. The article l linked contains everything you need to know to begin your own investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem#Restricted_three-body_problem
This is something I have added to my list for a more studious read. Spoiler alert – mathematicians like to claim that they invented chaos via Poincare and his Hamiltonian 3 body numerical integrations. It was of course Harold Hurst and Andrey Kolmogorov in separate studies of Nile River flow and turbulence respectively that gave rise to Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics.
“The classical three-body problem arose in an attempt to understand the effect of the Sun on the Moon’s Keplerian orbit around the Earth. It has attracted the attention of some of the best physicists and mathematicians and led to the discovery
of ‘chaos’. We survey the three-body problem in its historical context and use it to introduce several ideas and techniques
that have been developed to understand classical mechanical systems.” https://www.ias.ac.in/article/fulltext/reso/024/01/0087-0114
There are fundamental of climate and it is more than past time when you should pay attention to some of them. As opposed to grandstanding with wildly unlikely sky dragon slayer scenarios.
hummphh..
The figure above, at A, B, C, is a problematic piece. Eccentricity C I do not question. Precession A is dependent on B. Obliquity B is an unproven mathematical extrapolation that has already been questioned. It was known early on that the proposed equations do not hold beyond some 100k’s years (then apparently they -the graphs- take off in chaotic ways). What evidence there is, on the contrary, says it is wrong.
That has been questioned by several now. A leading light was an Aussie astronomer (GF Dodwell; works at Mortlock library; that he was first resisted and then attempted ridicule is the standard treatment). Therein lie dragon kings.
“George F. Dodwell (1879-1963) was a leading Australian astronomer, who made an extensive study of ancient gnomons and discovered that they deviated from the expected. A gnomon is the part of a sundial that casts the shadow. He concluded that there was consistent evidence that the tilt of the earth’s rotational axis was altered around 2345 BC. This view supported those that have claimed that the poles shifted within the memory of man, possibly as a result of a close encounter or impact with an extra-terrestrial body such as a comet.” https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/24/dodwells-surprising-study-of-the-obliquity-of-the-ecliptic/
Like a spinning top that wobbles when hit in decreasing amplitude harmonics until it regains its equilibrium. I can’t say it isn’t so.
But while n-body solar system orbits are chaotic the mass of the sun keeps departures modest. There is no reason to question Pleistocene estimations of insolation needed to understand glacial/interglacial transitions.
The latter likely beginning with plate tectonics and the shoaling of the Isthmus of Panama changing Pacific and Atlantic circulation. With the mid Pleistocene transition between periodicities hypothesized to be due to changing resonance of the Earth system.
The ignorance of Lowey is matched only by his arrogance.
Gibberish by mm and pompousness by Ellison.
The latest link given states that the anomalous Trojan asteroids of Jupiter were a key part of the so-called Three Body Problem.
There is a clear logical error. Simple trigonometry can show that there is no 60° equalization of gravity. It’s not even close.
The Hyperon Core Hypothesis is a good solution to:
(i) Anomalous Trojan swarms of Jupiter
(ii) Anomalous galaxy expansion rates
(iii) Anomalous galaxy rotation curves
(iv) Anomalous glacial cycle data
(v) Unification of all forces
(vi) Evolution of the solar system
(vii) Climate change by tidal forcing
(viii) Earhquakes during solar eclipses
(ix) Gravity via particle at speed of light
(x) Beginning of the universe
..
The list is endless. All the anomalies of modern science are solved by a single new insight.
The Hyperon Core Hypothesis also solves the missing supermassive ‘black hole’ at the centre of a galaxy cluster.
“Despite searching with NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers have no evidence that a distant black hole estimated to weigh between 3 billion and 100 billion times the mass of the Sun is anywhere to be found.
This missing black hole should be in the enormous galaxy in the center of the galaxy cluster Abell 2261, which is located about 2.7 billion light years from Earth.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/images/on-the-hunt-for-a-missing-giant-black-hole.html
(xi) missing mass problem
So he has learnt a new word. Hyperons are a class of elemental particles said to exist at the core of neutron stars that have a mass twice that of Sol. They cannot exist for long outside that very deep Einsteinian gravity well. This is a very esoteric branch of physics with its own language and math.
e.g. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2018.0145
It takes 10,000 hours they say to become an expert in anything. My core skills are in engineering hydrology and biogeochemical cycling. I am trained in environmental science. 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. So I know a little about a lot. I have neither the time nor inclination – or frankly the capacity – to become an expert in hyperons. Nonetheless – I am confident that they are not to be found at the cores of solar system celestial bodies in ways that bring Newtonian or Einsteinian physics into serious disrepute. Nor does it change the known fundamentals of Earth system geophysics.
The link in RIE post is well known. I did study Dodwell’s work – for my reasons. In that link my part starts here as oldmanK oldmanK says:
March 31, 2015 at 1:40 pm
On the contrary the ancient techniques were quite precise and would not make the big mistakes in readings of the ancient earth tilt. (I have used more ancient technique to predict the 2016 summer solstice day – and hour- with extremely simple means. Actually a model of the calendar that proves Dodwell’s theory – that of axis tilt change). The old dogma and the evidence are at odds.
A second point, a spinning top disturbed adjusts to another different tilt and precession rate. Tried it many times with old clock balance wheels. Rarely one gets the same tilt twice, or zero tilt so that initially it does not precess.
Lowey has his ideas; so have many. But only proof counts for anything. Dodwell has the most solid support yet.
I read Dodwell and found it an amusing conjecture that I communicated without expressing an opinion.
A spinning top has an axis of spin – unless perturbed – perpendicular to gravity. Forgetting the analogy – the Earth’s angular momentum is conserved. Dodwell’s contention was that ‘wobbles’ continued with decreasing amplitude until 1850.
Watch from 16:40 onwards where this video shows that Saturn receives 1/100th the amount of solar radiation than the Earth and so it’s great storms witnessed by the Cassini spacecraft must be powered from within. It’s yet another anomaly which is easily resolved by the Hyperon Core Hypothesis:
https://youtu.be/iHylx5d-Wag
(xii) Saturn’s internal storm powering
At 21:40 there’s yet another anomaly easily resolved by the HCH, so called ‘ring rain’, where 10,000kg of material per second is falling out of the rings and back into Saturn’s atmosphere.
(xiii) Saturn’s ring rain.
At 28:16 the video goes on to show an unexpected occurance of huge updrafts from the depths of the atmosphere to the surface. Water-ice was seen which indicated vast energy generated from within.
(xiv) Water-ice updrafts on Saturn
34:00 onwards the video discusses the unusual brightness of the rings themselves that show imo that they are constantly replenished by the 200m deep strong gravitational force which radiates out from the interior:
(xv) Unusual brightness of rings.
New study on neutron star sizes is relevant to the size of the proposed hyperon core at the centre of the Sun. Our star is typically smaller than average and so I put the guesstimate at between 1 and 10 km. This is equivalent to the rings of Saturn, which are a signature of the strong gravitational force eminating from it’s rotational plane:
“Study finds neutron stars are typically about 11.75 kilometers in radius, and provides a novel calculation of the Hubble constant.”
https://scitechdaily.com/new-calculation-of-the-hubble-constant-rate-of-expansion-of-the-universe-via-multi-messenger-astronomy/
RIE, quote ” Dodwell’s contention was that ‘wobbles’ continued with decreasing amplitude until 1850.” Quite so, but reread carefully and look beyond the Dodwell wobbles. Some important markers:
a) Comparing the several Obliquity formulae, it is well known that they start to depart from the old measurements. As Dodwell pointed out the departures are always on the high side. That itself is meaningful.
b) Dodwell claimed a ‘step change’ in obliquity. A step change involves a period of settling (depending on the system damping) What we see in the measurements is an overshoot followed by an exponential decay (the formulae are all about curve fitting, and the best fit is exponential, not the proposed polynomials.) (I did it, with a simple first order; Dodwell went for a second order; hence the ‘wobbles’ in the decay.)
c) What puts Dodwell at the front in his ‘conjecture’ is that a megalithic calendar (proven to be so) built around 2900bce started its life at a low obliquity, and obvious in design, an alteration to a higher one. See https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/03/26/mnajdra-south-calendar-design/
d) An important point here. In the spinning top gravity force is along the axis of precession, -an unstable situation-. For the earth the force of solar gravity is perpendicular to the axis of precession (not the instantaneous axis of spin). Zero obliquity is stable.
Apologies for my repeat returning to the same point – calendars-, but the evidence they hold is both solid and disturbing. A couple of remnants of them that resurfaced recently tell clearly a story of a people who suddenly abandoned all in early stages of rebuilding after 3200bce and disappeared.
I’m starting to see a relationship between size of hypothesized hyperon core, axial tilt and migration towards the inner solar system during it’s early formation.
“There was a time when the surfaces of Mars and Earth were very similar. Both were warm, wet, and shrouded in thick atmospheres. But 3 or 4 billion years ago, these two worlds took different paths.
..
The lack of quakes larger than magnitude 4 poses something of a mystery, considering how frequently the Red Planet shakes due to smaller quakes.”
https://scitechdaily.com/nasas-mars-insight-3-major-martian-mysteries-resolved/
There’s a connection between the Moon having low axial tilt and Mars being similar to Earth.
Mercury – 2° tilt & large core
Venus – 3° tilt & medium core
Earth – 23° tilt & large core
Mars – 25° tilt & medium core
(Ceres – 2° in asteroid belt)
Oops – Ceres 4°axial tilt. Even more interesting.
Jupiter – 3° tilt & medium core
Saturn – 26° tilt & large core
Uranus – 98° tilt & medium core
Neptune – 28° tilt & medium/small core
Disregarding Uranus’s anomalous tilt, there’s two distinct patterns in increasing tilt with distance from the Sun.
I see the connection between Planet Nine hypothesized to be orbiting at a circa ~25° inclination orbit.
It makes sense to assume Ceres is the remnant core of an early planet which an outer hyperon moon of Jupiter collided with due to it’s rapid migration from the outer solar system.
This created the asteroid belt. This collided hyperon moon of Jupiter could be the hypothesized captured hyperon moon causing the millennial climate cycle on Earth.
The anomalous tilt of Uranus could be accounted for if Planet Nine had an orbital inclination of 30° & axial tilt of 98°, at a similar distance some of the time but composed almost entirely of hyperon matter.
It’s a tentative prediction.
There’s more to learn about the core interiors of the planets. Saturn appears special, yet again:
“Magnetic Fields of the Outer Planets:
The rapidly rotating giant planets of the outer solar system all possess strong dynamo-driven magnetic fields that carve a large cavity in the flowing magnetized solar wind. Each planet brings a unique facet to the study of planetary magnetism.
Jupiter possesses the largest planetary magnetic moment, 20,000 times larger than the terrestrial magnetic moment whose axis of symmetry is offset about 10° from the rotation axis, a tilt angle very similar to that of the Earth.
Saturn has a dipole magnetic moment 600 times that of the Earth, but unlike the Earth and Jupiter, the tilt of this magnetic moment is less than 1° to the rotation.
The other two gas giants, Uranus and Neptune, have unusual magnetic fields as well, not only because of their tilts but also because of the harmonic content of their internal fields.
Uranus has two anomalous tilts, of its rotation axis and of its dipole axis. Unlike the other planets, the rotation axis of Uranus is tilted 97.5° to the normal to its orbital plane. Its magnetic dipole moment is about 50 times the terrestrial moment with a tilt angle of close to 60° to the rotation axis of the planet.
In contrast, Neptune with a more normal obliquity has a magnetic moment slightly over 25 times the terrestrial moment. The tilt angle of this moment is 47°, smaller than that of Uranus but much larger than those of the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11214-009-9621-7
This latest research on a one-sided anomaly of the Earth’s core boundary is fascinating and linked to surface earthquake activity. The visual simulations are an eye-opener for what’s happening beneath our feet:
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-scientists-unexpected-widespread-earth-core.html
(xvi) Irregularities at core-mantle boundary.
The core-mantle anomaly is directly under the Pacific Ocean where deep ocean upwellings are taking place.
It’s as if an equatorially orbiting hyperon moon has become tidally locked with the Earth’s daily rotation.
Saturn’s innermost moon Pan orbits only slightly faster at 13.8 hours than Saturn’s rotation of 10.7 hours.
It’s surprising to think that Earth could have a hyperon moonlet orbiting around the equator once every 24 hours at a distance less than a third that of the Moon. I’m guessing the diameter would be less than 22m, the estimated size of Earth’s hyperon core, which is why it hasn’t been detected.
Perhaps Saturn too has a hyperon moonlet orbiting inside of Pan? Is this the driver of internal energy sources of planets?
Saturn appears to be more star-like than the larger Jupiter due to it’s thin ring system and I made the crazy correlation that stars may need their planets in order to shine.
Are there stars without planets or hyperon bodies?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2020/09/30/stars-without-planets-are-more-numerous-than-you-might-think/?sh=4ec47f5657a4
Following this logic there’s a case for a large hyperon body to be orbiting the Sun at 6° inclination to the solar plane at an incredible period of just 7 days.
“The imprint of these g-waves suggests that the solar core is rotating once every week, nearly four times faster than the Sun’s surface and intermediate layers, which have rotation periods anywhere from 25 days at the equator to 35 days at the poles.”
Is the near unimaginable speed the reason it hasn’t been detected yet?
Hyperons are elemental particles supposed to exist in neutron stars or in proton collisions at relativistic speeds in linear accelerators. Not every which way to Sunday.
Time at a fundamental level is a product of the heat death of the universe. In general relativity we think of gravity dilating time. Time passes more slowly at the bottom of a gravity well. But it is possible to think of time – thus entropy – as the cause of gravity according to Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) enthusiast and Nobel laureate Kip Thorne.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvdlN4H4T54&ab_channel=CloserToTruth
The Earth’s core is acting strangely with the South Atlantic Anomaly of the geomagnetic field increasing in size. I noticed it appears to be positioned directly opposite to the ‘hotspot’ shown in a previous simulation of the core-mantle boundary.
Geomagnetic jerks appear increasing in frequency and the cause of these remain a mystery. New physics hyperon moons is completely off the radar for scientists struggling to understand the ever changing Earth’s core:
https://eos.org/features/the-herky-jerky-weirdness-of-earths-magnetic-field
Almost certainly not.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2019/02/05/earths-magnetic-north-pole-has-officially-moved/?sh=4f9996696862
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/are-we-about-have-a-magnetic-reversal?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products
I’m not suggesting a magnetic reversal Robert, merely that the mathematical model of the Earth’s core is probably as reliable as the calculations which state that gravity equalizes at 60° from a planet (which simple trigonometry can show it doesn’t):
“The mathematics of the geodynamo are so messy that Albert Einstein did not believe the theory when one of its founders, Walter M. Elsasser, proposed it to him.”
The magnetic field changes all the time. And I gave you the math you asked for on LaGrange points way above. This nonsense keeps appearing on my WordPress notification – so if there is nothing else I’d appreciate it if you took it to another thread.
The silence is deafening.. there is clearly a logical error in the 18th century mathematician’s calculations. He studied the two trojan swarms of Jupiter but didn’t consider that Newton & Laplace’s gravity theory could be fundamentally wrong. This is where the problem lies.
The same issue occurs with Einstein and the anomalous precession of Mercury. Both can be solved by the assumption of a strong gravitational force along the equatorial plane of rotation. The axial tilt of Jupiter is 3° and Mercury 2°. The extra gravitational effect occurs because the equatorial plane of rotation coincides with the solar plane in both cases.
Newton-Einstein gravity theory has been superseded by the exotic core tilt & inclination hypothesis.
After your sixtieth post it gets boring. Even earlier.
The Newtonian calculation for a spacecraft or asteroid to experience equal gravitational force from both planet Earth and the Sun is a distance of approximately 255,137km along the orbital path.
The angle is 0.1° from the Sun.
For Mars the distance is 127,470km with angle 0.03°.
So why does the mainstream show 60°??
https://www.ukri.org/news/scientists-find-moon-like-asteroid-hiding-behind-mars/
TCRE carbon budgets
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/18/a-montreal-climate-coalition/
This is a very interesting thread.
Going back to the “blame” game theme – COVID is providing us with an unprecedented opportunity to test the basic assumptions of the climate change “industry” – and science.
We are experiencing a once in a lifetime event with respect to the assumed influences of climate change
For the first time in the history of the automobile – “Vehicle Miles Traveled” (VMT) has experienced a rapid, and dramatic reduction.
See USPIRG for one metric.
Americans travel 3 Trillion miles per year – and that number has been increasing every year for decades.
BUT – the Covid pandemic has induced Americans, – and everyone else in the world – to almost instantly CUT DRIVING BY ABOUT 60-80% depending on various sources.
THIS REDUCTION IS FAR LARGER THAN ANY ESTIMATE OF AUTOMOTIVE CO2 REDUCTION IN ANY OF THE CLIMATE MODELS (that largely assume marginal reductions via the introduction of electric vehicles)
That means we have just had a globally-measurable change in one of the “near-constants” of ALL the climate models….
…for the first time in the history of climate modeling.
SO – we can now better assess the “Blame” accorded to automotive transportation in the larger climate modeling and policy debate.
IF it is true that one of the primary sources of climate change is automotive transportation….
…and IF it is true that the scientific models of the climate are anywhere near accurate…
…and if it is true that the automobile is to blame for a significant portion of climate change….a blame so large that the world should convert to electric vehicles…
…then ALL of these assumptions should be testable owing to the 60-80% reduction in global VMT – which is actual data – not debatable speculation.
In addition a second blamed source of climate change – airplanes injecting pollution directly into the atmosphere – has all but disappeared.
See flight data
This means that for the first time since the climate Blame Game began – two of the key drivers of “climate change” are providing us with new testable sensitivity data….
….that are not ambiguous….
….and….according to experts and policy makers….
…these two climate villains are among the worst offenders….
Think about this
When did you last see such an amazing global climate experiment?
Reality trumps…(can one say that?)….theory all the time.
Let’s see how the various players in the climate game use this massive experiment…
…and whether that might open more opportunities….to avoid unproductive blame games.
“Going back to the “blame” game theme – COVID is providing us with an unprecedented opportunity to test the basic assumptions of the climate change “industry” – and science.” – FTA
Very true. I would never have found the time to show that an 18th century mathematician was completely wrong in his attempt to understand the swarm of asteroids 60° ahead and behind the orbit of Jupiter.
Simple trigonometry can calculate that L4 and L5 don’t exist and are figments of his imagination. It’s Newton’s gravity theory which is fundamentally incorrect. Psychology and the mists of math has covered this glaring anomaly until today.
Unbelievable but true.
Alan, do you consider Earth’s atmosphere as a key factor that keeps surface on average warmer than Moons?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Alan, do you consider Earth’s atmosphere as a key factor that keeps surface on average warmer than Moons?” – Christos
That’s stating the obvious. I believe that the equatorial oceans are cooling and higher latitudes warming. That’s contentious.
Alan, is it obvious that Earth’s atmosphere acts as a blanket that keeps Earth’s surface warmer than Moon’s?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s obvious that the night time is much warmer when there’s cloud cover compared to a clear starry sky.
Alan:
“It’s obvious that the night time is much warmer when there’s cloud cover compared to a clear starry sky.”
That is right. Also Earth has a higher global average albedo because of the clouds existence.
Let’s put the question this way:
If Moon had the same with Earth atmospheric pressure, the same atmospheric gases content, and if there was an ocean on the Moon, like on Earth, would the Moon be on average at the same surface temperature as Earth?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m not filling up Dr. Curry’s site with this kind of conversation Christos.
The expansion of galaxies anomaly is yet another latest finding which throws doubt on Newton-Einstein gravity theory:
“The data comes from the European Space Agency’s Gaia spacecraft, which has spent the past six years stargazing from a perch 1 million miles high. The telescope has measured the “parallaxes” of 1.3 billion stars — tiny shifts in the stars’ apparent positions in the sky that reveal their distances.
“It would be incredibly exciting if there was new physics,” Freedman said. “I have a secret in my heart that I hope there is, that there’s a discovery to be made there. But we want to make sure we’re right. There’s work to do before we can say so unequivocally.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/
“… Riess’s team has used the new data to peg the expansion rate at 73.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec, in line with their previous value, but now with a margin of error of just 1.8%. That seemingly cements the discrepancy with the far lower predicted rate of 67.”
Along wit his inevitable link to popular science and not the original work – it has no link to Earth climate.
Going back to how the Moon could have formed and then captured only very recently. The Earth-Moon system is very unique and so it’s not unreasonable to suggest a coincidental beginning.
I propose the early Earth got it’s high angular tilt before the formation of the Moon, which occurred on the opposite side of the Sun. Because the Moon didn’t tilt, it’s exotic core was aligned with the solar core. This combination of strong gravitational forcing with regular gravitational forcing made it equivalent to the Earth, so that they both orbited with exactly the same periodicity.
Sounds too implausible? Only when the true nature of gravity is known can simulations of the early solar system be made. Who knows? Just maybe this is the reason we are here pondering this possibility?
Wow. I’ve just recently read that there’s a disproportionate amount of asteroids with low inclination orbits in the trojan group behind Jupiter which lends itself to this amazing migration of early asteroid Jupiter into the inner solar system:
“According to new research from Lund University in Sweden, the planet Jupiter formed four times farther from the sun than its current orbit.Its migration inward through the solar system to its current orbit took only 700,000 years.
Astronomers know that gas giants planets around other stars are often very close to their star. According to current theory, these gas planets formed far away and later migrated inward toward their stars. Could that have happened in our own solar system?
There are about 50 percent more Trojans in front of Jupiter than behind, and this asymmetry turned out to be key for scientists in understanding Jupiter’s migration.
During the journey to the sun, Jupiter’s own gravity captured more Trojans in front of it than behind it.”
https://earthsky.org/space/jupiter-journey-toward-sun-orbit
2033 will hopefully be a confirmation of the Core Hypothesis due to a Trojan being visited whilst crossing the solar plane. Note that the Pioneer spacecraft had a ‘gravity anomaly’ and also crossed the solar plane.
“Lucy’s orbit will bring it back to Earth for another gravity-assist flyby in December 2030. Then it will again coast out to Jupiter’s realm and pass through the L5 swarm for a final Trojan encounter in March 2033. Patroclus, the second Trojan to be discovered, is a binary asteroid with a mean diameter of 70 miles (113 km), and its companion, Menoetius, is roughly 65 miles (104 km) wide. They orbit one another at a distance of 422.5 miles (680 km).
The visit to Patroclus is a great example of the good fortune Levison’s team has had. “This object has an orbital inclination of more than 20°, and it just so happens that it will be crossing the plane of the solar system just as Lucy goes by,” he says. “It was pure luck. I’ve been studying celestial mechanics for 30 years, and the celestial mechanics gods are paying me back!”
https://astronomy.com/magazine/news/2018/09/exploring-jupiters-trojan-asteroids
The notion of “blame” derives from arbitrary assumptions of harm. In the case of climate change (or global warming, climate disruption, etc.), there are a number of false or unproven assumptions illustrated by the following questions.
1) Is climate change a net benefit or detriment to human flourishing?
2) Do humans contribute to climate change to a net positive or harmful extent?
3) What are the most significant natural and anthropogenic causes of climate change?
4) Do humans possess the technological capacity or political will to impact climate change measurably?
5) What global state of climate would humans agree is ideal or even acceptable?
6) What is the underlying motivation for attempting to control climate?
7) Do factors other than energy use contribute more or less to anthropogenic climate change?
Climate change represents an “eternal problem” in that we can never know when the problem is solved. Therefore, we would need to pursue it in perpetuity. It is an excuse to cover more sinister motivations.
Focusing on alternative energy production as some magical “solution” to climate change just adds greater problems. There is no such thing as a “renewable energy” source. Solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries all consume finite resources and land. There is nothing renewable about this. And carbon dioxide is an essential component of our atmosphere, ocean, and land. How would we know when there is too much or too little of it, for the present or the future. Shouldn’t we determine the answer to that question before we attempt to limit it?
Instead of blaming hydrocarbon industries and consumers for climate change, perhaps we should praise them for contributing to human flourishing in a warmer world.
If humans could somehow solve climate change, would that mean the climate would stop changing?
DocStephens,
Excellent comment. Long overdue.
To your first two questions I would answer:
1) Is climate change a net benefit or detriment to human flourishing?
Global warming is beneficial for ecosystems and the global economy and, therefore, for human wellbeing/’flourishing’
2) Do humans contribute to climate change to a net positive or harmful extent?
Positive. CO2 emissions have a positive impact on the climate. See these three comments for a short summary of some relevant empirical data
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935906
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935907
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-935908
Global warming policies and actions must be justified on the basis of the impacts of global warming, not on projected temperature changes.
Climate change is perpetual in a coupled – biology, hydrology, wind, currents, ice and snow – world of extremes. We are changing fundamental properties in a system that sifts rapidly and dramatically in ways that threatened humanities survival as little as 70,000 years ago. To paraphrase Richard Feynman: if think you understand climate dynamics – the chaotic Earth system mode of operation – you don’t. Yet the solution is the same regardless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJdT6QcSbQ0&ab_channel=ScienceInsider
Reduce pollution in a multi-gas and aerosol pragmatic, risk averse greenhouse gas strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity that have been happening for decades – since the 1970’s oil shock. Build infrastructure and social systems resilient to whatever natural disaster strikes from whatever cause. Innovate across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. Conserve and restore forest, woodland, wetland and rangeland – and reclaim deserts. Then we migrate to the stars.
Peter,
I certainly agree with your answers. I’m afraid we are in for a rough four years of global warming hysterics and expensive faux-solutions.
I agree. It’s a pity more honest scientists, economists and policy analysists don’t come out of their closets and start explaining the relevant fact to the public, media and politicians.
Implementation of the Green New Deal would be a disaster for the economy and have no effect on climate.
The irony is that all this fuss about CO2 is a humungous mistake.
The only greenhouse gas that has a significant effect on climate is water vapor. Global WV trend has been increasing 1.5% per decade which is faster than is possible from temperature increase (feedback). https://tinyurl.com/yxehr2pj is a comparison of measured WV increase and a calculation of what it would be if from temperature increase alone. This demonstrates that WV increase is not caused by planet warming from CO2 increase. CO2 does not now, never has and never will have a significant effect on climate.
During the last 30 years, more than 7 WV molecules have been added to the atmosphere for each CO2 molecule and, in the atmosphere, each WV molecule is about 1.37 times more effective at absorbing IR than a CO2 molecule. The WV increase is nearly all (about 96%) from increasing irrigation. WV increase accounts for all of the temperature increase attributable to humanity (about 0.6 K 1909-2019). Carbon dioxide, in spite of being a ghg, has no significant net effect on climate. https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Although WV is a greenhouse gas (ghg) and more of it results in increased surface temperature the increase from WV increase is self-limiting. More WV indicates an increase of the rate of transport of energy from the surface to an elevation where the energy can be radiated to space and also will result in increased cloud cover which reflects more solar radiation energy away and provides more area for broad-spectrum radiation to space. Lower altitude and thus warmer cloud temperature also increases radiation to space.
WV at the poles is very low because of the low temperature so the Greenhouse effect (GHE) there is dominated by CO2. The CO2 increase is significant there and explains the small temperature increase there.
Pingback: The gentle art of blaming – DON AITKIN
So how does it feel Judith? Instead of an e-salon you have a convention of surly old contrarian curmudgeons who are resolutely on the wrong side of every question. Each amusingly with very different narratives superficially in the objective idiom of science but with little in the way of standing on the shoulders of giants. They have lost every battle in the public arena but doggedly insist that if enough ‘scientists, economists and policy analysists … come out of their closets’ – not that there’s anything wrong with that – they can win the war. With their 3rd or 4th rate science, economics and policy it is an uphill battle. Even on the emblematic field of wind and solar.
The recent OECD’s International Energy Agency (IEA) and Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) report suggests the the value of wind and solar energy drops off with penetration. The question is at what level of penetration is there a significant drop in value for these very cost competitive – with prices still falling – technologies.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/value-electricity.png
https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020
Lets get rid of taxes. Contrarians wanting to now tax coal and gas in favor of nuclear reeks of desperation. Besides – if CO2 is so good for us we should be paying them. In Australia – you can explore the EIA cost calculator – the low cost way to go is to maximize wind and solar and complement that with existing hydro and more gas plants. Coincidentally that is what is happening. We are belatedly opening up more gas basins. We have lots.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/aus-energy-costs.png
https://www.iea.org/articles/levelised-cost-of-electricity-calculator
We have no nuclear – and gas is no more than a mid term stopgap. Ultimately we will need to go nuclear – but costs in the US – as the report says – are not likely to be competitive for another 20 years.
Until then there is so much to do – as I keep saying. Reduce pollution in a multi-gas and aerosol pragmatic, risk averse greenhouse gas strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Along with ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity that have been happening for decades – since the 1970’s oil shock. Build infrastructure and social systems resilient to whatever natural disaster strikes from whatever cause. Innovate across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry. Conserve and restore forest, woodland, wetland and rangeland – and reclaim deserts. This century we must build prosperous and resilient communities in vibrant landscapes. Then we are ready for the stars.
The young have visions – the old dream dreams. 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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCOHRCZOM6Y&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=WaterSensitiveCities
I have been working on it for 40 years. I am confident that I am on the right side of history in this.
Thank you Peter and others for references. It appears “optimal temperature” is not a popular topic. I shall keep it aside for the moment and continue to study the problem.
The next question is the mapping from an average of 1000’s variables (GMST) to some measure of utility. This utility has to capture benefits for all kinds of flora and fauna in addition to human population. As i understand from literature, we are not merely concerned about an ecosystem that is good enough for humans.
This utility function must also include the benefits for all future generations of flora and fauna. Summing across times is critical question in economic theory and hence i assume that this is not an easy task.
Any references on this would be useful.
Then a proper decision problem can be formulated (a stochastic dynamic programming problem) and i can think deeply about solutions.
Chebyshev, you prompt me to put my 2cent worth, hoping that it will be of some value.
Look at history, long term. There is no optimal temp. What is fine for one latitude may be freezing hell for another; or a burning land. Archaeology is coming round to the thought the many a civilisation collapse was due to a change in climate rather than the usually preferred blame – wars between men. The latter was most times the collateral event.
‘Each amusingly with very different narratives superficially in the objective idiom of science but with little in the way of standing on the shoulders of giants.’
That is because the scientists still standing are on a gravy train full of lukewarmers and they are not breaking ranks, enlightened self interest rules.
Only half of the CO2 in the atmosphere is human induced, should we be concerned? After all, nothing unusual is happening with the weather or climate.
Most scientists in this field would be lukewarmers, so I blame them for everything.
The dominant paradigm is in fact ‘catastrophists’ in the sense of Rene Thom.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
“What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate 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. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14
Didn’t mean to post that link. Let’s try a dose of scientific reality instead
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ghil-e1519934086457.png
https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789814579933_0002
” … climate science, which focuses solely on the effect of anthropogenic CO2, remains a pseudo-science.”
Dr Andreas Karl 2020
“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.” op. cit.
“The interactions between the subsystems thus give rise to climate variability on all time scales.”
I accept that natural variability is dominant and outweighs the perceived effect of CO2.
The hiatus in world temperature was clearly caused by a negative PDO, so it stands to reason that in the coming decade we’ll have a new hiatus.
Is this wrongheaded?
“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
GSW is the global stadium wave – a signal transmitted around the planet and seen in climate indices. Confirmation that climate is a coupled, nonlinear system. But that was known a 100 years ago. Try to catch up. The sting in that tail is the dominant scientific paradigm of tipping points.
Regardless of decadal variability – CO2 drives relentless radiative realities on fundamental physics.
‘CO2 drives relentless radiative realities on fundamental physics.’
That hypothesis is falsifiable.
“In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.” Newton’s 4th rule of Natural Philosophy.
If you don’t accept science as a guide there is little to be said.
The CLINTEL study gave me the glass half fall.
https://www.cfact.org/2020/12/19/clintel-study-finds-most-of-the-co2-increase-is-natural/
… but elsewhere there is discussion that human induced CO2 is only 5% of the atmosphere. What do you think?
The ‘study’ doesn’t appear in a Google search or on the CLINTEL site.
‘The ‘study’ doesn’t appear in a Google search or on the CLINTEL site.’
Yeah that is a worry, thanks. What about the human fingerprint being closer to five percent?
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.1958.0021
‘If you don’t accept science as a guide there is little to be said.’
A scientific paradigm shift is on the cards because CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
‘ … till such time as other phenomena occur … ‘
A recognition that the major ocean oscillations determine world temperature would bring AGW to a sticky end.
You are travelling in circles. Natural variability does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics or radiative physics.
‘Natural variability does not invalidate the laws of thermodynamics or radiative physics.’
Surely its a sensitivity issue.
‘Present human emissions add an equilibrium level of 18 ppm, which is the product of human carbon dioxide inflow of 4.5 ppm per year multiplied by the carbon dioxide residence time of 4 years. Present natural emissions add an equilibrium level of 392 ppm, to get today’s 410 ppm.
‘If human emissions continue as at present, these emissions will add no additional carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. If all human emissions were stopped, and nature stayed constant, it would remove only 18 ppm. The natural level of 392 ppm would remain.’
edberry.com
It is very obvious that sources exceed sinks – as there is some 4.5 GtC increase in the atmosphere per year. Humans emit some 10 GtC these days.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/CarbonCycle/images/carbon_cycle.jpg
“This diagram of the fast carbon cycle shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, and red are human contributions in gigatons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon. (Diagram adapted from U.S. DOE, Biological and Environmental Research Information System.)”
Gaia works in mysterious ways.
‘A study, led by CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ashley Ballantyne, looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning.
‘The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon “sinks” that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth’s climate.’
Well, I am convinced there is not any greenhouse gases warming effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. Greenhouse gases are trace gases in Earth’s atmosphere. Also, because the atmosphere is actually very thin, the total density of greenhouse gases content in the atmosphere is very small.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin, and it is very transparent both ways – in and out.
I would say there is not any anthropogenic influence in the Earth’s surface natural warming process.
The CO2 emissions do not accumulate in atmosphere. Only a small part is left to be measured as a CO2 content rise.
Actually there are two major CO2 absorbing natural sinks on the Earth’s system.
1. The very strong ability water has to dissolve carbon dioxide results to the ever continuous CO2 sinking in the Earth’s oceans.
Notice: Whatever quantities of carbon dioxide are captured in the oceans there is almost no way of returning back to atmosphere. So the once CO2 sunk in the oceanic abyss should be considered lost for the atmosphere for ever. Oceans are depleting carbon dioxide from atmosphere.
2. The Earth’s vegetation (biosphere) capturing carbon dioxide and sequestering carbon in the Earth’s sediments (coal, oil and natural gas underground deposits). Vegetation is depleting carbon dioxide from atmosphere.
Before industrial revolution the coal, oil and natural gas underground carbon deposits were “lost” for atmosphere for ever too.
3. The carbonites in the rocks also capture carbon “forever” depleting it from atmosphere.
The Earth’s previous History, which is confirmed by paleo findings, is a History of the gradual depletion of the atmospheric carbon dioxide content.
Hundreds millions years ago Earth’s vegetation was very developed because of the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There are three major components to boost the vegetations growth (the photosynthesis requirements).
a) The abundance of solar energy.
b) The abundance of water.
c) The abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere gases content.
The gigantic dinosaurs once were possible to exist because of the abundance of vegetation – there was plenty of food at the time.
Gradually the carbon dioxide content in Earth’s Atmosphere depleted.
Vegetation grew smaller, animals became smaller.
If our present time forests to be compared with the forests of the past, they will look like some dwarf forests, because compared to the past, our forests are “gasping” for carbon dioxide which is continually removed from the atmosphere.
Our atmosphere CO2 content is like an overused plantation soil which urgently needs fertilizing.
There always was some addition to the atmospheric CO2 content from the volcanic activity – but the volcanic activity is much smaller now compared to what it was hundreds millions years ago.
So, what I realize is that by burning fossil fuels we actually transport carbon from one carbon sink (coal, oil and natural gas underground deposits) which is very much accessible, to the other sink – the oceanic abyss and the implementation in the rocks.
So what is the real danger for future generations?
(notice that carbon is not an abundant element in Earth’s crust)
The real danger for humanity is when the atmospheric CO2 content will be at dangerously very low for the vegetation’s growth, and there wouldn’t carbon (coal, oil and natural gas underground deposits) left to artificially CO2 corps fertilizing.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
RIE writes “Reduce pollution in a multi-gas and aerosol pragmatic, risk averse greenhouse gas strategy – CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate.”
Others have often asked the pertinent question of what the optimum global temperature shoud be. Crickets.
Here I ask you similar questions about your global, hand-waving soutions.
Robert, what is the Goldilocks level of sulphate for which we should aim? Sulphate in what? Air, sea, soil? Why do you see sulphate as axiomatically bad, therefore in need of reduction?
What is the optimum level of black carbon? How do we know what historic levels have been, how do we know if, overall, present levels are good or bad?
Methane. Do you you know enough of the atmospheric chemistry of methane to be calling shots?
CFCs. I suppose that you think the Montreal Protocol was needed, that it did some good? Count me as one of the unconverted who fears a continuation of the loss of liberty demonstrated by this protocol. Are you not in some fear of those anti-libertarians who make such treaties? Do you not imagine that some people are in it to make a lazy quid?
Is there substance behind your private, original thinking, or do you just form a view based on the studies of others, that makes you feel good to blame and recite? Geoff S
The operative word is pollution which implies human emissions of health health damaging substances. Albeit – methane is not hazardous to health but anthropogenic releases are something that can be and is profitably managed. And these are all substances that change the radiative dynamics of the atmosphere. They are pollutants that are managed with available technologies in the west but less so globally.
Substitutes for CFC’s were quickly and cheaply found. A final phase out is a small part of Australian climate goals. Did they destroy ozone in the stratosphere? The chemistry is immensely complex and some things are taken on faith. Your histrionics on this – however – are quite obviously absurd.
There is a bigger question here. How do you manage to grab the wrong end of the stick every time?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/emissionsreduction01.jpg
melitamegalithic,
Thank you for your comments. Thought provoking.
I am also a little circumspect about casting a problem in terms of average measure like GMST. I believe it is an average of more than 8000 measuring devices spread across the earth? There ought to be enough variations among them – second, third and fourth moments and comoments of these random variates – and their influence on what we are trying to optimize. Quite complex.
The archeological evidence you cite is fascinating i.e. climate has changed previously enough to wipe out civilisations without GHG emissions from industrial activities. I will look up literature on this.
Anyways, my first step is always to define the problem precisely and write it down in mathematical language as much as possible. At the moment I am struggling with this. There are parts of this step discussed in mostly climate economics literature. However, none is physics lietrature i have seen so far, which is mainly focussed on GMST and GMSL predictions.
https://i.pinimg.com/564x/fe/9f/bf/fe9fbfbef69375b42ae3203718e411f5.jpg
:”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 (see ref. 26).” https://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709
“Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic. The fractionally dimensioned space occupied by the trajectories of the solutions of these nonlinear equations became known as the Lorenz attractor (figure 1), which suggests that nonlinear systems, such as the atmosphere, may exhibit regime-like structures that are, although fully deterministic, subject to abrupt and seemingly random change.”
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/cms/asset/94141948-e1c2-4dc4-ac3e-82ca271c2911/rsta20110161f08.jpg
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2011.0161
The risk is of abrupt and extreme change in temperature, hydrology and biology that cannot be predicted at this time. The point is to manage risk in ways that are politically pragmatic and economically rational. Energy system will transition to a nuclear base within decades and elevated CO2 in the atmosphere will decline after that by slow geological sequestration in the Earth system carbon cycle. Until then CO2 is a resource to be used in conserving and restoring terrestrial systems after 10,000 years of slash and burn agriculture. A technical potential for sequestration of 157 ppm CO2 by 2100. Something with a positive benefit to cost ratio.
Robert,
Thank you for the quite. Is that attributed to Einstein? Seems so general a witty word play, Einstein would protest about the attribution!
Was it Voltaire who said, “ a witty statement proves nothing”? Irony :)
It is dangerous to inject such statements in scientific inquiry as pretty much anything can be defended by citing this Einstein quote (sorry, i can’t measure it, but my theory is correct and you should spend a trillion dollars on it as Einstein said measurement is not important!).
I would prefer to stick to a strictly scientific formulations in mathematical language as much as possible. My expectation is that if the solutions for the problem are being posited in precise quantitative terms, surely the problem admits a precise quantitative formulation.
I provided two references on the impossibility of deterministic solutions. Both climate and models are multiply coupled nonlinear systems. I can only presume you don’t understand the math.
https://www.goalcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Voltaire-Quote-2-800×420.jpg
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water
a – is the planet’s average albedo
Φ – is the dimensionless Solar Irradiation accepting factor
Φ = 0,47 for a smooth spherical surface
Φ(1 – a)S – is the absorbed fraction of the incident on the planet solar flux
S – is the Solar Flux at the top of the atmosphere (W/m²)
Tmean – is the Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature (K)
(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ – dimensionless, is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Warming Ability
the mean surface temperature equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
β = 150 days*gr*oC /rotation*cal – is the Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N rotations /day, is the planet’s sidereal rotation spin
cp – is the planet’s surface specific heat
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the entire Earth’s surface is wet.
We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
cp = 0,19 cal/gr*oC, for dry soil rocky planets, like Moon and Mercury. Mars has an iron oxide F2O3 surface, cp.mars = 0,18 cal/gr*oC
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
The year-round averaged energy flux at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere is Sο = 1.361 W/m². With an albedo a = 0,306 and a factor Φ = 0,47 we have:
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K or 15°C.
This temperature is confirmed by the satellites measured
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K.
We had to answer these two questions:
1. Why Earth’s atmosphere doesn’t affect the Global Warming?
It is proven now by the Planet’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation calculations. There aren’t any atmospheric factors in the Equation. Nevertheless the Equation produces very reasonable results:
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
calculated by the Equation, which is the same as the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K,
measured by satellites.
Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, calculated by the Equation, which is almost identical with the
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
2. What causes the Global Warming then?
The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing.
And… what keeps Earth warm at Tmean.earth = 288 K, when Moon is at Tmean.moon = 220 K? Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day…
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth’s surface is covered with water.
Does the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?
No, it does not.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
There are fundamentals of atmospheric physics validated by observations since US Air Force radar experiments in the 1940’s.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/slowed-photon.gif
Robert:
“There are fundamentals of atmospheric physics validated by observations since US Air Force radar experiments in the 1940’s.”
Exactly. Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any measurable greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/harries-2001.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553
Unlike your ‘new physics’ Christos – it has been measured. It is of course superimposed on large variations caused by changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
What do you mean by that, Robert?
Does or doesn’t the Earth’s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth’s surface?
Yes or no?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
I am very impatient with impertinent demands. But no – the atmosphere does not behave like a blanket.
Good.
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any measurable greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface.
Yes or no?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Oh for God’s sake. This is based on line by line radiative transfer calculations based on decades of observation from the ground, aircraft and satellites. There are people who do know what they are talking about. You are not one of them.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/users/lisagard/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2008_big.jpg
And you are one of them.
So, according to the grapheme (it is a global average energy flows w/m2), the absorbed by surface Solar Radiation is 161 W/m2 and the absorbed by surface back radiation (from the greenhouse effect) is 333 W/m2.
Are you still one of them?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Let me quote Norman Loeb et al again.
“The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1
Complications do not negate fundamental physics. Or do you subscribe to the idea that downward flux from the atmosphere to the surface violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Yes or no? Do you even know what the second law is?
So, according to the grapheme (it is a global average energy flows w/m2), the absorbed by surface Solar Radiation is 161 W/m2 and the absorbed by surface back radiation (from the greenhouse effect) is 333 W/m2.
Don’t you see that the thin air cannot radiate 333 W/m2 (it is a global average energy flows) ?
Don’t you see that the thin air cannot radiate 666 W/m2 (it is a day-time side average energy flows) ?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Don’t you see that the thin air cannot radiate 666 W/m2 (it is a day-time side average energy flows) ?”
Don’t you how you are so egregiously wrong? Don’t you see is a terrible proof – but I’ll let you figure out how you are wrong.
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
That the wrong answer.
Complications do not negate fundamental physics. Or do you subscribe to the idea that downward flux from the atmosphere to the surface violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Yes or no? Do you even know what the second law is?
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to have any measurable greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s all a bit mad Christos.
Robert,
I am not sure if you are familiar with Stochastic Dynamic Programming. The solution concept is not as “deterministic” as in the case of non-linear ODEs that characterize the “chaotic” systems you talk about. I urge you to read about it. A good place to start is Bertsekas’s two volume work on Dynamic Programming. I assume you probably have the math prerequisites since you have been talking about non linear dynamics.
“ I provided two references on the impossibility of deterministic solutions. Both climate and models are multiply coupled nonlinear systems.”
I think we may be on the same page. I am skeptical about simplistic and deterministic solutions (such as reduce emission by x%).
I resent that discourse is dragged out of it’s native thread. Therefore I won’t be discussing stochastic or empirical dynamic programming. Except to say that whatever you have in mind is best seen in applications in the literature and not waving in the general direction of a text book.
Robert,
The book was for you. I assumed you did not have a formal background in mathematics. My bad.
I think the discussion is relevant to the topic blog post. Absent precise understanding of the problem, people are talking past each other, convinced they are right in their own definition of the problem.
In engineering we learn math and physics – and are warned of faux precision and the Procrustean temptation to fit the problem to the available math. You are like the drunk looking for keys under a lamp post – to mix metaphors.
Is the tide turning on ‘The Big Green Agenda’?
“The West needs to stop gaslighting the world with its fake moralism on climate change. Europe’s virtue-signalling environmental hypocrisy has given rise to a new ‘green’ colonialism.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/18/west-needs-stop-gaslighting-world-fake-moralism-climate-change/amp/
It is rapidly building an unstoppable global momentum on the way to a bright future for the planet, its peoples and its wild places. Truly a peoples’ movement. There is yet another young woman who is a force of nature in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xfniy81W8k&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=GlobalLandscapesForum-GLF
https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/african-restoration-100
It is founded in science. Rattan Lal is a National Treasure. If the video linked in this comment doesn’t inspire you are an utterly lost cause.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-936780
“Everything likes to live where it will age mostly slowly – and gravity pulls it there.” A slowing of time is gravity?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_p2ELD7npw&ab_channel=Spark
Robert,
“In engineering we learn math and physics – and are warned of faux precision and the Procrustean temptation to fit the problem to the available math.”
In engineering (and math), we also learn that we don’t a) forecast a complex system over 50 years without a thorough understanding of the dynamics b) don’t throw billions of dollars on a project based on simplistic and deterministic solutions like “reduce emissions by x% by banning y” and most of all c) don’t produce attractive one liners to defend sloppy reasoning (those are for the management types!).
On the other hand we would interested in solutions that solve a specific, well defined problem e.g. building dykes.
You specialize in tendentious no sequiturs then.
Too many typos slipping in – I’ll do better.
What does this have to do with a blame game?
I thought people should have an alternative perspective to the Lowey endless Lowey nonsense.
“Time is a fundamental quantity in physical sciences and in our everyday life [1], [2], [3], [4]. But, in this paper, we will focus our analysis only on the physical time of our Universe, based on some analytical results [5] obtained in relation to atomic irreversibility, by considering the continuous interaction between the environmental electromagnetic waves and the matter, due to the continuous non-equilibrium state of reality.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211379719338203
So we are looking at temperature dependent irreversible processes at the quantum level as the origin of time in the universe. Entropy uniting quantum mechanics and general relativity – both of which have passed every test thrown at them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-86tNCSJsg&ab_channel=DoS-DomainofScience
Interesting as it is to speculate on time and space – it has nothing to do with emissions of CO2-e on earth and fundamental thermodynamic principles and quantum effects.
I’m fascinated by the way this thread has gone completely off topic, dominated by two individuals, one of whom is a condescending and rude know-all and self-proclaimed “expert”. The other is trying to be constructive I and obviously knows the limits of current knowledge and is remaining surprisingly cordial in the face of the petulant put downs by the former. My experience has shown me to beware the expert. Anyone who thinks they are an expert in any field is delusional. This is amply demonstrated by the fact that as soon as you scratch below the fund of knowledge in any field you realise how little you really know. I’m surprised I haven’t heard one person here acknowledge how little they really know in this unrelated field. As far as I can see planetary theory has little to do with the climate or COVID blame game.
It takes 10,000 hours they say to become an expert in anything. My core skills are in engineering hydrology and biogeochemical cycling. I am trained in environmental science. 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. So I know a little about a lot.
I have neither the time nor inclination – or frankly the capacity – to become an expert in hyperons. As I said above. Nonetheless – I am confident that they are not to be found at the cores of solar system celestial bodies in ways that bring precisely confirmed Newtonian or Einsteinian physics into serious disrepute. Nor does it change the known fundamentals of Earth system geophysics.
What is yet more annoying is burying discussion deliberately in the positing of many and varied space observations 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,
But it does shed a light on the propensity for devising narratives with little basis in physical sciences among contrarians who pour their disdain on the groupthink other.
“A technological solution (analogous to development of the vaccine) in terms of better electricity generation and transmission would quickly silence the climate ‘blame game’ by solving the problems to the environment caused by burning fossil fuels.” Judith Curry from the post above
The technological solutions are many and varied. But contrarians are part of the problem in insisting that there isn’t a problem and thus no need for solutions. It’s a losing gambit.
Robert,
“But contrarians are part of the problem in insisting that there isn’t a problem and thus no need for solutions. It’s a losing gambit.”
That is a sweeping, unfair and unhelpful characterization.
People like me are actually looking for an unambiguous statement of the problem. Whether the problem is “ill-posed” or non-existent is still too early to judge for me. I am a big fan of Descartes method, so I do my own work.
I have been reading about this problem and what you say is incorrect. I have not come across anyone saying “no need for solutions”. On the contrary, throwing good money after some solution in the name of doing something, anything is stupid. As an engineer, you would know that.
On the other hand, you would acknowledge that a lot have been accomplished over the past 1000 years of doing “nothing”. Life now is infinitely better than what it was 1000 years ago. Just to imagine that there are people called Scientists who are well paid for just “researching” is amazing! Just to imagine that there is an army of people well paid to just contemplate about carbon content in atmosphere is magical!
As an engineer, I am tempted to believe (guided by history as you say) that the same doing “nothing” can get us a lot further, if we do not impose indiscriminate taxes/constraints.
I dispute that it is sweeping, unfair or unhelpful. And I am not inclined to continue a discussion taken out of the context of the native thread.
The faint young sun paradox
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/21/the-faint-young-sun-paradox-geological-co2/
“As an engineer, I am tempted to believe (guided by history as you say) that the same doing “nothing” can get us a lot further, if we do not impose indiscriminate taxes/constraints.” Chebyshev
It seems more like he is playing games with believers, alarmists, greenies, neo-socialists – whatever the pejorative term of the day is. Regardless – he has little grasp of economics – nor of math, natural sciences, environment or policy for that matter. Standing still is never an option in commercial environments as competitors become more efficient and productive. Large scale geoengineering is gaining momentum as the decade of restoration starts in January. And as many more farmers take up productive regenerative agriculture practices – producing twice as much food on the same amount of land. Energy will transition this decade as advanced nuclear reactors begin to roll of assembly lines – and as a demand and supply crunch drives natural gas prices higher. Free markets drive innovation, economic growth and environmental conservation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmMUIwoXFSs&feature=emb_logo&ab_channel=TheHeritageFoundation
My 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 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.’
Perhaps we can agree that we want to preserve the harmonious beauty of Earth as much as we can:
https://youtu.be/xxibm1ODEpI
Yeah – we can sing kumbaya with the harmonies hungry people. .
A million of these by 2040 transforms lives and a continent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkq540gsq2M&ab_channel=thisisexcellent
https://www.excellentdevelopment.com/our-strategy
Robert, here we see a 10 day snow forecast and New Zealand’s South Island is going to cop it.
https://i.ibb.co/qBnqkdG/E-Global-10-day-snow-forecast-ECMWF-2020-12-21-135406.png
Summer snow is unusual and looks more like a global cooling signal.
Fascinating. It really looks like a map forecasting the slow onset of the glaciation cycle imo.
This investigator agrees that everything has the hallmarks of a D-O event:
https://youtu.be/UyKzF9tLEls
Note that an orbital inclination forcing by a hyperon moon hypothesis would result in a hemispherical seesaw effect. The tidal forcing would predominate in one hemisphere and then on the next cycle it would change to the other hemisphere.
The results of the paper of four D-O events between 32kya and 41kya therefore still correlates with a millenial cycle or Eddy cycle of 975+-25yrs.
The paper gives a timeframe of Arctic sea ice loss which appears to be a direct match with current climate change:
“They document substantial and rapid sea ice reductions that may have happened within 250 years or less.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/47/29478
An exact orbital period for the hypothesized hyperon millennial moon can be determined from the Eddy cycle and glacial cycles:
980 + (980 ÷ 2) = 1470 yrs
Hyperon millennial moon period = 980 years
Ozone layer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Ozone-oxygen cycle in the ozone layer.
The ozone layer or ozone shield is a region of Earth’s stratosphere that absorbs most of the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation. It contains a high concentration of ozone (O3) in relation to other parts of the atmosphere, although still small in relation to other gases in the stratosphere. The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million. The ozone layer is mainly found in the lower portion of the stratosphere, from approximately 15 to 35 kilometers (9.3 to 21.7 mi) above Earth, although its thickness varies seasonally and geographically.[1]
The ozone layer was discovered in 1913 by the French physicists Charles Fabry and Henri Buisson. Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,227 to 5,727 °C), except that there was no radiation below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. It was deduced that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere. Eventually the spectrum of the missing radiation was matched to only one known chemical, ozone.[2] Its properties were explored in detail by the British meteorologist G. M. B. Dobson, who developed a simple spectrophotometer (the Dobsonmeter) that could be used to measure stratospheric ozone from the ground. Between 1928 and 1958, Dobson established a worldwide network of ozone monitoring stations, which continue to operate to this day. The “Dobson unit”, a convenient measure of the amount of ozone overhead, is named in his honor.
The ozone layer absorbs 97 to 99 percent of the Sun’s medium-frequency ultraviolet light (from about 200 nm to 315 nm wavelength), which otherwise would potentially damage exposed life forms near the surface.[3]”
The comment:
(THE EMPHASIS IS MINE)
“The ozone layer contains less than 10 PARTS PER MILLION of ozone, while the average ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere as a whole is about 0.3 parts per million.”
“Measurements of the sun showed that the radiation sent out from its surface and reaching the ground on Earth is usually consistent with the spectrum of a black body with a temperature in the range of 5,500–6,000 K (5,227 to 5,727 °C), except that THERE WAS NO RADIATION below a wavelength of about 310 nm at the ultraviolet end of the spectrum. IT WAS DEDUCED that the missing radiation was being absorbed by something in the atmosphere.”
So THERE WAS NO RADIATION BELOW THE WAVELENGHT about 310 nm AT THE ULTRAVIOLET END OF THE SPECTRUM.
So it was DEDUCED… that THE MISSING RADIATION was being ABSORBED by SOMETHING in the atmosphere.
“About 90 percent of the ozone in the atmosphere is contained in the stratosphere. Ozone concentrations are greatest between about 20 and 40 kilometers (66,000 and 131,000 ft), where they range from about 2 to 8 parts per million. If all of the ozone were compressed to the pressure of the air at sea level, it would be only 3 millimeters (1⁄8 inch) thick. [6]” ”
“Although the concentration of the ozone in the ozone layer is very small, it is vitally important to life because it absorbs biologically harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation coming from the sun. Extremely short or vacuum UV (10–100 nm) is screened out by nitrogen. UV radiation capable of penetrating nitrogen is divided into three categories, based on its wavelength; these are referred to as UV-A (400–315 nm), UV-B (315–280 nm), and UV-C (280–100 nm).
UV-C, which is very harmful to all living things, is entirely screened out by a combination of dioxygen ( about 200 nm) by around 35 kilometres (115,000 ft) altitude. UV-B radiation can be harmful to the skin and is the main cause of sunburn; excessive exposure can also cause cataracts, immune system suppression, and genetic damage, resulting in problems such as skin cancer. The ozone layer (which absorbs from about 200 nm to 310 nm with a maximal absorption at about 250 nm)[7] is very effective at screening out UV-B; for radiation with a wavelength of 290 nm, the intensity at the top of the atmosphere is 350 MILLION TIMES STRONGER than at the Earth’s surface. Nevertheless, some UV-B, particularly at its longest wavelengths, reaches the surface, and is important for the skin’s production of vitamin D.
Ozone is transparent to most UV-A, so most of this longer-wavelength UV radiation reaches the surface, and it constitutes most of the UV reaching the Earth. This type of UV radiation is significantly less harmful to DNA, although it may still potentially cause physical damage, premature aging of the skin, indirect genetic damage, and skin cancer.[8]”
“the intensity at the top of the atmosphere is 350 MILLION TIMES STRONGER than at the Earth’s surface.”
The ozone layer contains less than 10 parts per million of ozone.
So 10 ppm of ozone in ozone layer, in the stratosphere, where the atmosphere is very much thinner than at the Earth’s surface…
This 10 ppm of ozone in ozone layer SCREEN OUT UV-B
350 MILLION TIMES STRONGER than at the Earth’s surface.
When science accepted that, it was very easy then to make the NEXT STEP and ACCEPT that the 400 ppm CO2 may cause a major greenhouse warming effect on Earth’s surface.
So THERE WAS NO RADIATION BELOW THE WAVELENGHT about 310 nm AT THE ULTRAVIOLET END OF THE SPECTRUM.
So it was DEDUCED… that THE MISSING RADIATION was being ABSORBED by SOMETHING in the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer
The below LINK is the grapheme with the deduced sun’s UV radiation.
it illustrates the sun’s UV emission compared to the blackbody curve of the same energy intensity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/EffectiveTemperature_300dpi_e.png
THERE WAS NO RADIATION BELOW THE WAVELENGHT about 310 nm AT THE ULTRAVIOLET END OF THE SPECTRUM.
So it was DEDUCED… that THE MISSING RADIATION was being ABSORBED by SOMETHING in the atmosphere.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
Climate has always changed; CO2 change has never caused it and never will.
Prior to Galileo, circa 1600, the scientific consensus was a geocentric universe.
Prior to Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier circa 1770 the scientific consensus was that combustion involved phlogiston.
Prior to Einstein, 1905, the scientific consensus was that mass and energy were unrelated.
Prior to Dr. Marshall and Dr. Warren in 1982 the scientific consensus was that peptic ulcers were caused by psychological stress and life style.
The current mistake of the scientific consensus is that CO2 increase causes global warming. Most peer reviewers are complicit with the scientific consensus.
The evidence is that humanity has contributed about 65% of the warming 1909-2019 as a result of water vapor increase; mostly from increasing irrigation.
“The Holocene epoch, commonly considered as the recent interglacial, has
sustained the growth and development of modern society. Nevertheless, the
knowledge about global climate variability during this period is surprisingly
sparse (Mayewski et al. 2004, Wanner et al. 2008). The Holocene climate can be considered in three main phases or time periods (Nesje and Dahl 1993, Marchal et al. 2002). The first includes the Preboreal and Boreal chronozones and lasted from about 11.6 to 9 kyr BP. The second phase, the Hypsithermal, which includes the relatively warm Atlantic chronozone, covers the period between about 9 and circa 5.7 kyr BP. In earlier papers it is also called Altithermal or Holocene climate optimum. The third phase, including the Subboreal and Subatlantic chronozones, lasted from 5.7 to 0 kyr BP, and is called Neoglacial because it is characterized by several cold relapses with
remarkable glacier advances in different areas of the globe.” https://geografie.cz/113/4/0338/
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/bond-events.png
Bond events were identified in changes in ice rafting detritus. The irregularity of occurrence suggest hat they are caused by internal climate system feedbacks. Recent changes in the water column suggest that a state change in the Eurasian Basin has occurred.
e.g. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/285
” The irregularity of occurrence suggest that they are caused by internal climate system feedbacks.” – Ellison B.S.
That’s clearly untrue Robert. You are stating a falsehood:
“Bond events were previously believed to exhibit a roughly c. 1,500-year cycle, but the primary period of variability is now put at c. 1,000 years.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
Wikipedia is a LOT more reliable than high religiosity Ellison.
As I’ve previously stated, an orbital inclination mechanism can resolve the 1500+-500yr cycle into a 1000-year cycle due to the forcing alternating between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
“In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, and is typically experienced as psychological stress when they participate in an action that goes against one or more of them.”
Robert I. Ellison’s cognitive dissonance can be seen at the end of his last post. His brain distorts reality just like a young child suffering from anorexia.
Past climate occurs in cycles. Robert’s brain tries to distort this scientific realism to justify his belief in manmade CO2 global warming.
A logical alternative is given to him but because it goes against what he and everyone else has been taught, he becomes outraged and petulant in his replies.
You have the imagination, insight and intelligence Robert to overcome this and bring a new light into the world. It’s the vision of truth.
Solar grand minima are themselves irregular. Look at the last 1000 years of cosmogenic isotopes. This minimal variance in solar activity may then trigger secular changes in the Earth system in ice, cloud, dust… Planetary warming and cooling happen as a result of energy imbalances at TOA not primarily due to solar variability.
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/109/16/5967/F3.medium.gif
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/16/5967
“Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.” Shortwave forcing of the Earth’s climate: modern and historical variations in the Sun’s irradiance and the Earth’s reflectance, P.R. Goode, E. Palle, J. Atm. and Sol.-Terr. Phys., 69,1556, 2007.
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.’
It is quite evident that primary period of variability is irregular. The complex dynamical internal mechanisms include thermohaline circulation, ice sheet growth and decay, biokinetic CO2 feedbacks, dust, cloud, biology, etc. Dynamical systems theory suggests that the system is pushed by greenhouse gas changes and warming – as well as solar intensity and Earth orbital variability – 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 irregularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Glacial-cycles-1.png
“Figure 2. The last 800,000 years of glacial cycles. Ice Volume (LR04) in grey, Eccentricity in black, EPICA (Antarctic) temp (red), dust(purple), CO2(yellow). The current interglacial is most similar to that 400,000 years ago which also coincided with low eccentricity.”
Climate is far from strictly periodic. To see that requires merely looking with open eyes at the evidence – and I don’t mean Wikipedia – of any geophysical series – such as the ice rafting data given above. Data there is for Bond events – that should be distinguished from their glacial cousins the Dansgaard–Oeschger events. Or at the glacial/interglacial changes of the past 800,000 years from Clive Best. But the fact remains that there are internal Earth dynamics that are the drivers of climate and that cannot be sensibly ignored.
https://watertechbyrie.com/2017/12/10/the-illusion-of-climate-cycles/
The idea of cycles derives from Fourier spectral decomposition. It’s a mathematical result not to be taken too seriously. Look closely at any power wavelet analysis in the link above. Interesting – but not what Lowey imagines it to be to be. It is shoehorned into his 5 unseen moons made of neutron star matter fantasy. The latter seems purely hippy dippy delusion tediously repeated with cancel culture overtones. .
Quote RIE ” The irregularity of occurrence suggest hat they are caused by internal climate system feedbacks.”
That’s what I had though too, until something else came up. Looks like there is a planetary forcing that is quite regular.
See link here: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/searching-evidence-3/
Data was obtained from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307704719_Glacier_response_to_North_Atlantic_climate_variability_during_the_Holocene In fig 4 the NA Ice rafting is inverted (not sure which is inverted, the original or the copy). The two abrupt changes at 7.2ka BP and 5k2ka correlate with the roots of the near millennial Eddy cycle. Also other roots correlate to other events, correlating to the spikes in C/N Iceland ice-cap.
Coincidence?? There are other correlations to that sequence of dates.
I see the link between 7.2kya and 5.2kya but why are the two time scales out of sync in your data graphs? It appears more confusing than it needs to be imo.
They are in sync. Zero BP=1950AD or CE
Oh okay, I see it now. How about fine tuning the Eddy cycle to 980 years?
This then correlates with the 1,470 year overall cycle in the glacial data:
980 + (980 ÷ 2) = 1,470
Wrong place – https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-937240
1.5C warming since pre industrial as soon as 2027? 7 years from now?
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/12/23/1-5c-by-2027-2/
The planets blackbody equilibrium temperatures (Te planets effective temperatures) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED as the planets without atmosphere average (Tmean) surface temperatures.
It is a very mistaken concept. NO PLANET HAS A UNIFORM SURFACE TEMPERATURE.
And it is proven by observations.
For Mars Te.mars = 210 K
and Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K
these two temperatures – the THEORETICAL mathematical abstraction’s value of Te.mars to be equal to the satellite MEASURED Tsat.mean.mars is a COINCIDENCE.
These planets Te and Tsat temperatures equality is never observed again in the entire (measured) solar system.
Also it should be underlined that Tsat.mean.mars = 210 K is not planet’s Mars uniform surface temperature.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mars
Surface.. temp.. min……mean…..max
Kelvin………….130 K….210 K… 308 K
Instead of accepting this FUNDAMENTAL OBSERVATION as an undeniable fact, we are comforting ourselves trying to explain the observed differences between the every planet calculated Te and the satellite measured Tsat.mean.planet.
Thus for Earth we have the greenhouse warming effect theories.
For some planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune) we have the huge inner sources of heat theories.
For some other cases we have the tidal warming theories (Jupiter’s and Saturn’s satellites).
For every planet-case we are looking for an excuse-explanation to keep the MISTAKEN CONCEPT about the Te = Tmean equality for planets without atmosphere.
But the truth is, there is not any measurable greenhouse warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin and it is very transparent both ways – in and out.
And as for carbon dioxide – there are only traces of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Only traces…
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The planets blackbody equilibrium temperatures (Te planets effective temperatures) CANNOT BE CONSIDERED as the planets without atmosphere average (Tmean) surface temperatures.”
No one does. The measurable difference is between the surface and effective emission altitude. It’s about 33C of greenhouse effect.
Robert:
“No one does. The measurable difference is between the surface and effective emission altitude. It’s about 33C of greenhouse effect.”
Robert, how do you measure the difference between the surface and the effective emission altitude?
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“From a global, annual-average point of view, the thermal profile of the stratosphere is the consequence of a balance between radiative heating and cooling rates due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide (CO2), ozone (O3) and water vapor (H2O) (Andrews et al., 1987).”
-https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/vr0603.pdf=
“The idea that the science of climate change is largely “settled,” common among policy makers and environmentalists but not among the climate science community, has congealed into the view that the outlines and dimension of anthropogenic climate change are understood and that incremental improvement to and application of the tools used to establish this outline are sufficient to provide society with the scientific basis for dealing with climate change. For certain, some things are settled. We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activity and that they are largely responsible for warming of surface temperatures globally. We also are confident in our understanding as to why this warming is expected to be amplified over land masses and the Arctic. Likewise, we are confident in our understanding of how the hydrological cycle amplifies the effects of this warming and how warming amplifies the hydrological cycle. For these and other broad brush strokes of the climate change picture, we are also increasingly confident in our ability to usefully bound the magnitude of the effects. From this certainty stems the conviction that additional warming is best avoided by reducing or reversing emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases.” https://www.pnas.org/content/116/49/24390
Confident are we? So we are suppose to spend trillions of dollars on “solutions” that conveniently have no impact on today’s climate while “confidently” relying on conjecture as to whether or not a meaningful problem actually exists. How convenient, at least for those stuffing their pockets with loot.
I don’t to embed the pdf – let’s try:
@https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/vr0603.pdf
‘We know that greenhouse gases are accumulating in the atmosphere as a result of human activity and that they are largely responsible for warming of surface temperatures globally.’
Nah, that ain’t right sir. As we discussed previously, there has been a huge uptake in carbon sinks to cope with the extra five percent created by humanity.
Over decadal time spans its possible to observe the oceanic oscillations at play, a slow dance which determines temperatures on earth. The hiatus was caused by a negative PDO and not CO2.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Carl Sagan
And there are extraordinarily mad claims made by contrarian curmudgeons with little to no evidence at all. And I am supposed to need to defend the overwhelmingly dominant scientific paradigm – that is supported by vast amounts of evidence assembled over 200 years. Instead I’ll just repeat the paradigm.
Climate is a coupled nonlinear system being driven to change by human emissions of greenhouse gases. Every day is a day closer to the next tipping point in ice, cloud, vegetation, dust, atmospheric and oceanic circulation and hydrology. These are internal patterns in a spatio-temporal chaotic system that might be triggered to shift by small changes in orbits or solar activity. Or by small changes in a trace greenhouse gas. If you haven’t caught up by now you may never. Some people are so far down the rabbit hole they will never see the light of science again. If they ever did.
And if it is the ‘trillions’ that is the sticking point – it really isn’t.
Jupiter, Mars, Pluto and Triton also show signs of global warming and I’m pretty sure the yellow orb is behind it.
Have you got links for that? Other planetary climate change isn’t well reported.
Saturn has the strongest storms in the solar system yet receives only 1/100th of the Sun’s rays relative to Earth. How do you account for that?
As for the Earth – it is not the sun by itself without internal feedbacks. Nor – even if true – does it invalidate Earth geophysics.
Neptune’s moon is so far away from the Sun that solar forcing for such a large temperature increase is only a default assumption:
“The 5 percent increase on the absolute temperature scale from about minus-392 degrees Fahrenheit to about minus-389 degrees Fahrenheit would be like the Earth experiencing a jump of about 22 degrees Fahrenheit.”
https://news.mit.edu/1998/triton
New physics hyperon core hypothesis would account for the temperature increase due to orbital inclination. An increase in internal tidal forcing would cause an increase in mantle convection, increasing geothermal heating. This is also what’s happening on Earth but to a lesser extent.
It would also transport equatorial heat to higher latitudes which is more apparent on Earth due to the deep ocean currents.
Pluto is even more dramatic than Neptune. If it didn’t have it’s close orbiting moon of Charon, the warming wouldn’t be occuring according to the Hyperon Core Hypothesis:
“Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet’s atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years..
On Triton, “Voyager saw dark material rising up as much as 12 km above the surface, indicating some kind of eruptive activity,” Elliot said. “There could be more massive activity on Pluto, since the changes observed in Pluto’s atmosphere are much more severe. The change observed on Triton was subtle. Pluto’s changes are not subtle.”
https://news.mit.edu/2002/pluto
On Mars, when Phobos passes across the centre of the Sun, the seismometer tilts to one side and then rights itself again after the eclipse.
It’s directly analogous to the recent Chilean earthquake that occurred when the Moon’s disc crossed the centre of the Sun.
Both corroborate the Hyperon Core Hypothesis. It’s again geothermal heating which reaches the surface.
Jupiter’s moons are mysteriously warming each other up much more than anticipated:
“Researchers previously believed that the gas giant Jupiter was responsible for most of the tidal heating associated with the liquid interiors of the moons, but a new study published in Geophysical Research Letters found that moon-moon interactions may be more responsible for the heating than Jupiter alone.
“It’s surprising because the moons are so much smaller than Jupiter. You wouldn’t expect them to be able to create such a large tidal response,”
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200910150236.htm
8. Calisto’s (Jupiter’s satellite) Mean Surface Temperature Calculation
Tmean.calisto
So = 1.362 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Calisto’s albedo: acalisto = 0,22
Calisto is an ice-crust planet (rocky) without atmosphere, but Calisto has a heavy cratered surface, so Calisto’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φcalisto = 1
Calisto’s surface consists of water ice crust (by estimation), so
Cp.calisto = 1cal/gr*oC
1/R² = 1/5,2044² = 0,0369 times lesser is the solar irradiation on Jupiter than that on Earth, the same on its satellite Calisto
Calisto’s orbital period is 16,689.0184 days
Calisto’s sidereal rotation period is synchronous
N = 1/16,689 rotation /day
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Calisto’s mean surface temperature equation Tmean.calisto is:
Tmean.calisto = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R²) (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Τmean.calisto = { 1*(1-0,22)1.362W/m² *0.0369*[150*(1/16,689)*1]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ = 131,52 K
Tmean.calisto = 131,52 K
Tsat.mean.calisto = 134 K ± 11
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
It’s not just Triton but Neptune as well:
“Voyager’s measurements show Neptune emits more than twice as much heat as it absorbs from the sun, while Uranus does not,” Anthony Del Genio of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) told All About Space. And this is where things become rather intriguing.”
https://www.space.com/something-strange-inside-neptune.html
I can see the connection between Earth, Neptune and Pluto in that they have large (captured) moons.
Alan:
“Voyager’s measurements show Neptune emits more than twice as much heat as it absorbs from the sun, while Uranus does not,”
An outdated conclusion, Neptune doesn’t emit more than twice as much heat as it absorbs from the sun. The measured Neptune’s mean surface temperature is higher than Neptune’s equilibrium temperature Te, that’s all.
Again we have here the measured planet mean surface temperature comparison with the planet equilibrium temperature.
Again, as for the Earth’s case, they didn’t took in consideration the Planet Rotational Warming.
Neptune performs one rotation in 16 h 6 min 36 s, it is faster than Earth’s.
Earth’s measured mean surface temperature 288 K is higher than
Te.earth = 255K by about 33 oC.
Neptune’s measured mean surface temperature 72 K is higher than
Te.neptune = 46,4 K by about 23,6 K.
It is the same Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
It is clear that Earth geothermal heat flux is orders of magnitude less than solar power flux.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/67e7bb6b-acb6-4553-88ee-422d881f1e73/ggge20271-fig-0005-m.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ggge.20271
Climate change – warming or cooling – is caused by energy imbalances at the top of atmosphere. This is due overwhelmingly to changes in Earth albedo. Despite any and all hare-brained alternatives presented with little to no evidence.
Satellites reveal the smoking gun.
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
“It is clear that Earth geothermal heat flux is orders of magnitude less than solar power flux.” – Robert
You miss the point Ellison. It’s whether the small geothermal heat flux is increasing or not which is relevant to new physics. There’s concrete evidence that the deep ocean abyssal plane is warming, albeit by a small degree.
There is no data on geothermal heat flux changes. You proceed by wild assumptions and not science.
“You proceed by wild assumptions and not science.” – Ellison
That’s not true:
“Antarctic Bottom Water Warming in the Brazil Basin: 1990s Through 2020, From WOCE to Deep Argo”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020GL089191
This has to do with Antarctic bottom water formation. Yet you leap to hyperon cores and the disavowal of general relativity. It doesn’t get any wilder.
“Climate change – warming or cooling – is caused by energy imbalances at the top of atmosphere. This is due overwhelmingly to changes in Earth albedo.” – Ellison
The following quote epitomizes the mainstream ignorance of empirical data and alternatives, just as Galileo was imprisoned for the “heresy” of suggesting the Earth revolved around the Sun:
“But in a democracy, power is the ability to talk BS and get away with it.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/23/stop-believing-in-fairy-tales-australias-coal-industry-doesnt-employ-many-people-or-pay-its-fair-share-of-tax
ERBE – https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237651603_Re-examination_of_the_Observed_Decadal_Variability_of_Earth_Radiation_Budget_using_Altitude-corrected_ERBEERBS_Nonscanner_WFOV_Data
CERES – https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62
You can lead an ass to water…
In a complex system there are multiple factors involved.
Earth’s system is very complex…
But in a complex system there are some major factors which play the dominant role, and there are many minor factors.
Also in a complex system there are multiple micro factors.
It is said that in complex system there are millions nano factors.
Science admits that in complex system there is an infinite number of infinitesimal significance factors.
When we model the Earth’s system mean surface temperature, we should take in consideration the major factors ruling the surface temperature.
These factors are
1. The Solar flux So = 1.362 W/m2
2. The Earth’s average albedo a = 0,306
3. The Φ = 0,47 (smooth spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor)
4. The Earth’s rotational spin N = 1 rotation /day
5. The Earth’s average surface specific heat cp = 1 cal /gr.oC
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to play a significant role in Earth’s mean surface temperature.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to play a significant role in Earth’s mean surface temperature.” – Christos
So what do you propose IS causing climate change?
The orbital forcing.
http://www.cristos-vournas.com
“The orbital forcing.” – Christos
By what mechanism?
I am proposing the MILANKOVITCH CYCLE, but it should be read REVERSED
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
This grapheme illustrates the ORIGINAL MILANKOVITCH CYCLE
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589391283825._szw1280h1280_.jpg
The following grapheme illustrates the REVERCED MILANKOVITCH CYCLE
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589391283937._szw1280h1280_.jpg
zoom
This grapheme illustrates the ORIGINAL MILANKOVITCH CYCLE
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589391284032._szw1280h1280_.jpg
The following grapheme illustrates the REVERCED MILANKOVITCH CYCLE
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589391284133._szw1280h1280_.jpg
According to the REVERSED MILANKOVITCH CYCLE, Earth is in the end of the
WARMING TREND PERIOD.
What we witness is the CULMINATION MILLENNIA of the current warming trend (the current INTERGLACIAL)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
What does “reversed Milankovitch cycle” mean Christos? You appear to be talking double Dutch. Does anyone else understand your point of view or agree that you are on to something?
I don’t get it at all.
Where the atmosphere meets space – all energy is electromagnetic. Incoming from the Sun and outgoing from reflected light and emitted heat. At most times incoming and outgoing energy at the top of atmosphere (TOA) are not equal and Earth warms or cools – mostly in the oceans that are by far the largest planetary heat store. Conservation of energy gives the first differential global energy equation.
The equation can be written as the change in heat in oceans is approximately equal to energy in less energy out at TOA.
Δ(ocean heat) ≈ Ein – Eout
We can approach a solution to this equation by measuring ocean and incoming and outgoing power flux over time. Energy out varies most –
largely due to cloud changes in the satellite era.
Oceanic Geothermal Heat at the LGM.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280930612_Impact_of_the_oceanic_geothermal_heat_flux_on_a_glacial_ocean_state
Super interesting.
The oceanic geothermal heating (OGH) has a significant impact on the present-day ocean state, but its role during glacial periods, when the ocean circulation and stratification were different from those of today, remains poorly known.
..
The geothermally heated deep waters were then advected toward the Southern Ocean where they upwelled to the surface due to the Ekman transport. The extra heat transport towards Antarctica acted to reduce the amount of sea ice contributing to the freshening of the whole AABW overturning cell.
..
The ocean geothermal heating might facilitate the transition from a glacial to an inter-glacial state but its effect on the deep stratification seems insufficient to drive alone an abrupt climate change.”
New physics increasing tidal energy *would* be sufficient to drive abrupt climate change in combination with ocean geothermal heating.
It’s an alternative to Milankovitch insolation and manmade CO2 global warming. It should be taken seriously by the mainstream science community and not simply ignored.
You may have missed this earlier post.
https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/21/geothermal-ocean-warming-discussion-thread/
Thanks, yes, I’ve only been aware of Dr. Curry’s site for the last 6 months or so.
It’s the first I’ve heard of the mid-Miocene climate anomaly, which I’ll look into.
I might have mentioned the warming *increase* at the bottom of Lake Tanganiyka, at ~1000m depth and below much colder water, indicating an accelerating rise in geothermal heat flux of the Earth.
The apparent increase in earthquake and volcanic activity I found interesting, which certainly fits the current reporting of worldwide events:
http://www.michaelmandeville.com/earthchanges/gallery/Quakes/
“It’s the first I’ve heard of the mid-Miocene climate anomaly, which I’ll look into.”
Okay, I have an explanation:
Slowdown in plate tectonics may have led to Earth’s ice sheets.
“Beginning about 15 million years ago, in the late Miocene epoch, ocean crust production declined by one-third over 10 million years to a slow pace that pretty much continues to today.
..
It appears the deceleration came in two waves, DeMets says: first between 12 million and 13 million years ago in the Pacific and then 7 million years ago in the Atlantic and Indian oceans.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/12/slowdown-plate-tectonics-may-have-led-earth-s-ice-sheets
The Hyperon Core Hypothesis is based on tidal forcing at the core which flexes the lithosphere, giving solid body Earth tides.
The slow down of plate tectonics is an indication of cooling of the crust which would make it stiffer and more resistant to tidal flexing.
I thought about it some more. I would put the ‘mid-miocene warming’ down to an increase in orbital tidal forcing which increased precipitation at the polar regions which falls as snow. This increase in glaciation then led to the middle miocene disruption which followed. Just off the top of my head of course.
“The apparent increase in earthquake and volcanic activity I found interesting, which certainly fits the current reporting of global events”
Mount Etna in Italy erupts with some magnificent footage. The cloud plumes extending upwards into tge atmosphere filmed from an aircraft is fascinating:
https://youtu.be/e3uyF7IWfwk
The closure of the Central American Seaway at the Isthmus was most likely the cause of this present ice age. So, as we have reached the end of this Interglacial I propose more Panama canals be constructed to allow Pacific water to once again flow freely into the Atlantic.
Risky venture, but I’m confident the Royal Society will come up with a workable strategy. Otherwise, if nothing is done, we look forward to another 200 year aridity pulse and glaciation.
Yes, that was part of it and would have greatly influenced the glaciation of the Arctic region.
There’s evidence that it occurred earlier than first thought:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6231/226
The determination of causation in the deep past is fraught with difficulties. Although I would heavily discount discount theoretical neutron star particles turning up everywhere unannounced. At the risk of being branded an Inquisitor of the Holy Roman Church. Information is too limited and too uncertain. In a mathematically chaotic system – causation may be small and swamped by emergent planetary dynamics. Energy in the Earth system is 90% stored as heat in oceans – with some 4% each on land and in latent heat in liquid water and vapor. And for practical purposes – very small contributions from geothermal sources and the heat of combustion usually are neglected – all the heat comes from the sun. Climate change is the change in energy content of the planet. Insolation changes very little. This brings it back to energy reflected and emitted.
The transition to Quaternary Period conditions some 2.6 million years ago is sometimes attributed to the shoaling of the Isthmus of Panama. This changed water circulation patterns in the Atlantic Ocean triggering ice sheet growth in times of low summer insolation. The limiting factors in persistence of glacials have been attributed to biokinetic CO2 feedback and plant CO2 starvation, more open ground and dust deposition on ice sheets reducing albedo.
The mid-Pleistocene transition to fewer but deeper glacials is trickier. Perhaps the Himalayan Range increasing in height – or ocean basins expanding. A subtle change in resonance of the system with large emergent system changes. Recognize that the ‘cycles’ are approximate and not strictly periodic. The development of glacials depends on conditions being ripe in periods of low NH summer insolation for shifts in thermohaline circulation and ice sheet albedo feedback.
https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/Five_Myr_Climate_Change_Rev.jpg
Chaotic climate shifts – at decadal to much longer intervals – are strictly deterministic but seemingly random. This implies limits to present scientific understanding. Something that is obvious in reality but not apparent in the ravings of those unhappy for some reason with what is known by science.
Of course consumption of fossil fuels contributes CO2 to the atmosphere. The carbon in fossil fuels came from the atmosphere. As did the carbon in chalk, limestone, etc. Most of the past has had more CO2 than now; even several times as much and life has thrived.
Some people have asserted that WV content increases with air temperature. That would be true if the air was all continuously at saturation. Of course it is not. The driving factor from temperature change is the temperature of the liquid water source.
Human activity also contributes water vapor to the atmosphere, mostly from irrigation. The math is like grade school level. At ground level, for every CO2 molecule that is added, more than 7 WV molecules are added. Each WV molecule is about 1.37 times more effective at absorbing IR than a CO2 molecule but you might need to use Hitran to determine that. The end result is that WV increase is about 10 times more effective at ground level warming than CO2 increase. The added cooling from increased radiation from more CO2 in the stratosphere apparently compensates for the 10% of the ground level warming attributed to CO2. Further explanation is https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
A possible connection between other planets and earth’s climate cycles (e.g. the net ocean cycle with period of about 64 years) is described at https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL089954
There have been an endless procession of dire climate predictions, all of which have failed. Some of these are documented here: https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/ .
A combination of WV increase, solar influence and ocean cycles results in a 96+% match with measured temperatures 1895 to 2019 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TYPxR19k1aheZvstnpAmK2qlXX8zjgkg/view?usp=sharing . The assumption that GW is caused by CO2 increase doesn’t even come close in spite of years of ‘training’ of the GCMs.
Climate science has sort of the right idea but they guessed the wrong greenhouse gas. It’s not CO2 increase that is contributing to Global Warming it’s water vapor increase.
It’s really not very complicated. Whatever the WV increase is from feedback, humanity adds more to it.
Jupiter is a major player and the space dust hypothesis helps explain the mechanism involved in the 60 year cycle, found in ice cores and shallow sea cores.
I like your WV argument and will follow it up.
“Yes, water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth’s overall greenhouse effect. And, in fact, a companion study led by Schmidt showed that water vapor and clouds together account for 75 percent, with CO2 coming in at 20 percent, and other non-condensing greenhouse gases making up the rest.
So given that CO2 accounts for just a fifth of Earth’s overall greenhouse effect, what supports the claim that it nevertheless is the most important greenhouse gas?
The answer involves different characteristics of greenhouse gases. When the atmosphere cools enough, water vapor condenses and rains out. By contrast, carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases do not — they are non-condensing.
The researchers found that without these non-condensing greenhouse gases — CO2 foremost among them — there would be nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out. And since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, if water vapor were to rain out, the result would be very dramatic cooling. In this way, CO2 may not be as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor, but it is actually more important.
Without the radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state,” the authors of the first study concluded.” https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/heres-what-real-science-says-about-the-role-of-co2-as-earths-preeminent
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig9-43.jpg
“Figure 9.43 | (a) Strengths of individual feedbacks for CMIP3 and CMIP5 models (left and right columns of symbols) for Planck (P), water vapour (WV), clouds (C), albedo (A), lapse rate (LR), combination of water vapour and lapse rate (WV+LR) and sum of all feedbacks except Planck (ALL), from Soden and Held (2006) and Vial et al. (2013), following Soden et al. (2008). CMIP5 feedbacks are derived from CMIP5 simulations for abrupt fourfold increases in CO2 concentrations (4 × CO2). (b) ECS obtained using regression techniques by Andrews et al. (2012) against ECS estimated from the ratio of CO2 ERF to the sum of all feedbacks. The CO2 ERF is one-half the 4 × CO2 forcings from Andrews et al. (2012), and the total feedback (ALL + Planck) is from Vial et al. (2013).”
Carbon dioxide is a non-condensing gas with feedbacks that include water vapor.
A positive feedback.
The stabilizing response is the Planck feedback.
All the models incorporate the Planck Feedback, big mistake.
Sure – whatever. It relates to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
The law only applies only to blackbodies, which earth is not.
Not according to the hyperphysics link. S-B can be modified by varying emissivity. The negative feedback to CO2 warming.
depends on T^^4. Models don’t use the S-B law explicitly in that form but the law applies nonetheless.
RIE,
The Schmidt study is wrong, at least about the changes that have occurred since both CO2 and WV have been accurately measured worldwide. The molecule count increases show only 10% of warming is contributed by CO2 at ground level and this is reduced by the increased stratosphere radiation from the increased CO2. The influence of CO2 change is not significantly different from zero and might even be negative.
The claim that CO2 “is the most important greenhouse gas” is false.
The statement “nothing to prevent the atmosphere from cooling enough to cause water vapor to rain out” is misleading. All WV could never rain out. Even ice has vapor pressure. At average 255 K it would be much warmer at the equator so much higher VP. Also, without WV there would be no clouds so there would be much more solar heating. The solar greenhouse could never “collapse”. Precipitation is happening someplace all the time but the WV is being replaced just as fast so average WV stays about the same. (Actual measurements, at least as far back as Jan 1988, show that WV has been increasing about 1.5% per decade).
The GCMs are faulty; at least partly because they use non-existent warming from CO2. Didn’t anyone think to account for the relative increase in molecules? More than 7 WV molecules were added for each CO2 molecule added. Any conclusions drawn from faulty GCMs are…faulty.
Regardless of the WV increase that might result from any and all feedbacks, human activity has added more. Failure to account for actual measured WV is a mistake. Thermalization and the huge gradient in WV of about 1200 to 1 on average ground level to tropopause are what allow much of the energy absorbed by CO2 in the troposphere to be redirected to WV molecules and radiated directly to space.
I showed you the actual measured data – that is consistent with predictions of an increase of 7%/degree C in water vapor content with atmospheric warming. Fundamental physics – it could not be otherwise. All the rest is motivated, narrative hypotheticals. That I don’t generally traffic in. Just that there is more than clouds – albeit with their more complex IR warming and SW cooling cloud effect – there is ice. Even in cold, low humidity conditions – non-condensing greenhouse gases keep things warmer than would otherwise be the case on a planet that is just 15 C warmer than the freezing point of water on average.
You hang your hat on irrigation. But there is no shortage of water vapor – 90% comes from oceans. And the atmospheric is not going to hold more water vapor than the physical conditions dictate. The atmospheric content is the result of fundamental physical properties. Temperature primarily. The observed fundamentals of CO2 lead to ocean and atmospheric warming and feedbacks. It is a simple matter of putting the cart after the horse.
You are the one who is incorrect with a too narrow focus on a simplistic ABCD – anything but carbon dioxide – contrarian narrative. It is moreover a lost cause – repeating it endlessly satisfies Einstein’s madness postulate. Contrarians would be far more gainfully employed in devising pragmatic solutions even if it isn’t a problem. Although real science is suggesting that it might be.
So we are suppose to spend trillions of dollars on a “might be” problem? Who are the recipients of all this cash? Not the hapless taxpayer or consumer.
Why not leave the money with the taxpayers and consumers to spend as they see fit, as opposed to politicians fixated on power and money.
“So we are suppose to spend trillions of dollars on a “might be” problem?” – Mike Keller
That’s my point as well. Robert doesn’t think it necessary to test for all possibilities first, he just goes with the flow.
Mainstreamer.
“Remember, then, that scientific thought is the guide to action; that the truth at which it arrives is not that which we can ideally contemplate without error, but that which we can act upon without fear; and you cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an accompaniment or condition of human progress, but human progress itself.” William Kingdon Clifford, The Common Sense of the Exact Sciences (1885)
Science is distinct from policy. Science provides insights into what but not how to advance. Contrarian unscience on the other hand undermines scientific enlightenment itself and builds a Lowey tower of Babel. .
RIE,
Calling computer output ‘measured data’ is science malpractice.
The increase of 7%/degree C (average for the planet is probably less than that) results from the increase of vapor pressure with temperature. I show that quite clearly in Figure 4 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.co . It’s a measured property of water. If the unsaturated atmosphere warms up, it helps a bit but isn’t necessary. Failure to grasp this helps explain why Climate Science has done such a poor job of predicting…climate change.
You are just not getting it. Whatever the WV increase is resulting from temperature increase, human activity adds more. It is fairly simple to calculate the WV increase resulting from the surface temperature increase. The algorithm is given in Section 7 at the link. The calculated trend using HadCRUT4 temperatures is shown in Figure 7 along with the actual measured WV reported by NASA/RSS. The actual measured WV trend is increasing faster than possible from just the temperature increase. The difference is the WV added by human activity.
The increase in WV is enough to account for all of human activity’s contribution to GW, the rest is natural from the 64 yr period net of ocean cycles and cloud augmented tiny solar change. Optimum combination of these produces a 96+% match with measured for more than 124 years. These are facts; based on actual measurements. Anything else is “contrarian” nonsense; a candidate for “Einstein’s madness postulate”.
Why do you ignore that more than 7 WV molecules are added for each CO2 molecule?
As WV continues to increase, and it will as world population increases, cloud cover will increase and average cloud altitude will decrease until equilibrium is again reached at some slightly higher average temperature than it was in 1950. Water is the climate regulator on earth. The fixation on CO2 and attempts to control it will have no effect on climate but will decimate world economy.
“The increase of 7%/degree C (average for the planet is probably less than that) results from the increase of vapor pressure with temperature. ”
I showed you a graph of measured data from RSS and said that it was consistent with a quite obvious prediction. That the atmosphere holds more water vapor with increased temperature. The exact same source as your text data. And water vapor will continue to increase with temperature. That is what ultimately drives the water vapor feedback.
“Why do you ignore that more than 7 WV molecules are added for each CO2 molecule?”
The Gavin Schmidt study I linked put it at 1:5 – but I won’t quibble.
“As WV continues to increase, and it will as world population increases, cloud cover will increase and average cloud altitude will decrease until equilibrium is again reached at some slightly higher average temperature than it was in 1950. Water is the climate regulator on earth.”
WV will increase with temperature – there can be no excess beyond that dictated by the limiting conditions of the atmosphere – diurnal temperature variability and saturation especially. Water vapor is not notably limited by supply. 90% of moisture over land comes from oceans.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/dietmardommenget_zps939fe12e-e1540922749884.png
Marine strato-cumulus feedbacks are a positive feedback to warmer oceans given nonlinear rain and cloud effects.
e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593
“The fixation on CO2 and attempts to control it will have no effect on climate but will decimate world economy.”
You construct a narrative with little to no science – and I suspect this is the reason why. But the facts of science do not dictate policy. The mistake is to vacate the policy field to those who insist that it does.
“…the atmosphere holds more water vapor with increased temperature.” As I explained and even show how to calculate how much WV is increased by increased temperature. It’s not that hard. Whatever it is, human activity adds more. The graph which shows the WV measured by NASA/RSS has a slope trend steeper than the slope trend calculated using the HadCRUT4 data demonstrates this. Why do you cling to your refuted perception? This demonstrates that WV increase is not just a feedback.
“WV will increase with temperature – there can be no excess beyond that…” Why do you insist on ignoring the WV added by human activity?
“…90% of moisture over land comes from oceans.” OK, and that made the planet warm enough for life as we know it to evolve. It’s the WV added by human activity that explains essentially all of the temperature increase attributed to human activity.
“You construct a narrative with little to no science” If you weren’t too stubborn to look, you would know better. You are selectively ignoring some facts. That’s science malpractice.
The prediction increase in water vapor is in line with observed results. Yours is a quite odd confirmation bias.
Any prediction of increase in WV based only on temperature must be too low by the amount added by humanity. Ignoring the WV added by humanity might result from “a quite odd confirmation bias”
Water vapor in the atmosphere is constrained by temperature – not irrigation. There is a global picture – including oceans – that you miss in your narrow focus.
I wonder how far-reaching your misconception is. The hydrologic cycle consists of flow. The forcing in the flow is primarily the temperature of the liquid surface water. Average relative humidity is about 70% so there is plenty of room for more WV. The temperature of the atmosphere does not control except in local areas of saturation.
To say “There is a global picture – including oceans – that you miss in your narrow focus.” is wrong. The WV added by humanity is in addition to the WV increase from temperature increase of all water, including the oceans. I am puzzled by what kind of mindset you must have to not have grasped that.
Apparently you think that the WV added to the atmosphere by human activity does not add to the WV from increased temperature of the surface water.
There are some 2 million square kilometers of irrigated crops – and 361 square kilometers of ocean. It is a drop in the bucket. But it is your only idea so you are sticking to it.
361 million square kilometers of ocean of course. And there is something even more fundamental. At many places and at many times water vapor content is determined by the dewpoint at night and at altitude. And the radiating level of carbon dioxide is above even high cloud.
There is an idea that convection takes latent heat higher into the atmosphere where it can be radiated to space. But at the surface less vapor means more sensible heat that is radiated to space at light speed.
But this really is just going in circles with a climate contrarian obsessive who has invested too much in a single notion that disproves greenhouse gas geophysical fundamentals.
This is a matter that was settled long ago.
e.g. http://www.dgf.uchile.cl/~ronda/GF3004/helandsod00.pdf
The mistake was made a long time ago by Climate Science and they erroneously claimed that the matter was settled. For Climate Science, it has been confirmation bias ever sense. It has kept the government grants coming, however.
It does not matter to the assessment how big the ocean area is or even how much more WV comes off it because it gets warmer. Realize also that much of the ocean area is quite cold and contributes little if any WV. WV from the oceans is what drives the baseline 33 K GHE. Human activity adds more WV to the atmosphere. The end result is that the WV cannot be calculated from just temperature increase as is done in the GCMs. That (among other things) makes the GCMs wrong. The WV added by human activity is what drives the human contribution of about 0.6 K to average global temperature since 1900.
The 20-year-old paper you provided a link to is an example of some mistakes. For starters, it uses a faulty climate model. A word search revealed no mention of MODTRAN, Hitran, thermalization, WV gradient, or relaxation time. They can be excused because much of this was not widely known at the time the paper was written. They apparently were not aware of high resolution data during the last glaciation which shows CO2 trend change following temperature trend change.
Earth’s theoretically calculated equilibrium temperature is 255 K. Earth’s measured mean surface temperature is 288 K.
If the difference of 33 oC to be attributed to the atmosphere’s greenhouse effect, then, of course, CO2 emissions could be responsible for some of the observed temperature rise.
But we already know, that there is the Rotational Warming phenomenon, which actually attributes for this 33 oC difference, and not the Earth’s atmosphere greenhouse effect.
In fact Earth’s atmosphere adds to mean surface temperature no more than 0.4 oC.
It is 2 orders of magnitude less than the 33 oC difference.
The CO2 emissions do not cause rise of the temperature.
Nevertheless we should make efforts to limit the use of fossil fuels, because they are not replaceable.
Once burned there would not be available coal, there would not be available oil and natural gas for the future generations, for the future of mankind.
The solution for preserving the earth’s fossil fuels sediments for the future generation is the broader implementation of nuclear energy plus the assistance from wind and solar.
http://www.cristos-vournas
The solution is to foster economic growth with the most cost effective energy technologies. While reducing pollution, building resilient infrastructure, pursuing innovative energy sources and conserving and restoring soils and ecosystems. His policy is as confused as his rotational planetary warming.
Bob, do not disagree with your approach. Problem is never ending government subsidies that invariably lead to ever more corruption and wastes of taxpayer and consumer money. This is not the sole province of wind and solar energy. Includes nuclear energy (Ohio legislature corruption to garnish nuclear subsidies), biofuels (ethanol from corn) and the list goes on. Best approach is not to go down the subsidy or mandate path in the first place, but then the political class would not be able to buy re-election. The bureaucrats and politicians need to be removed from picking marketplace winners and losers.
There is obviously a role for government in research, support for first of a kind advanced nuclear reactors…
‘… support for first of a kind advanced nuclear reactors…’
Not on my watch sunshine, coal is still king.
You want us to believe that a theoretical construct supporting another theoretical construct is the only thing holding AGW up.
We don’t need models to forecast that the next five years in Australia will be cool and wet. Based on your hypothesis this is unlikely?
We are moving to gas plus wind and solar. Not your call or mine. Buy into advanced nuclear 10 or 15 years down the old wallaby track cobber.
https://www.pm.gov.au/media/gas-fired-recovery
There is science and then there are your wild guesses. There is not a chance that La Nina will persist for the next 5 years. And the longer it lasts the bigger the next El Nino.
I support Morrison’s gas fired recovery, to help support the renewable zones when the wind doesn’t blow and sun doesn’t shine. Nuclear reactors are not viable in Australia for political and economic reasons.
‘There is not a chance that La Nina will persist for the next 5 years.’
True, but I have a cool PDO up my sleeve and make the assumption that El Nino will go missing for five years. The MDB should be well watered.
I’d guess a positive PDO phase since 2015. Since the last solar magnetic reversal and the end of the hiatus. But that guesses that it’s the Hale Cycle that sets the 20 to 30 years aperiodicity.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/pdo.png
“A special online Roy Morgan survey conducted in mid-September finds:
A narrow majority of 51% (up 16% since July 2011) of respondents say Australia should develop nuclear power to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions. Just over a third 34% (down 24%) say no, Australia shouldn’t, while 15% (up 8%) can’t say.”
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/8144-nuclear-power-in-australia-september-2019-201910070349
Gas supplies are a less than permanent alternative. Especially when carbon dioxide emissions are factored in.
Mr Ellison
The PDO was cool from 1890 to 1915, warm from 1915 to 1945, cool from 1945 to 1977, warm from 1977 to 2000, and cool from 2001 to 2014, but it then behaved badly and returned to a warm phase.
This upset the Denialati, it seemed inexplicable, nevertheless it brought an end to the hiatus and gave the AGW mob a momentary reprieve.
There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the PDO will go negative for 20 years and overwhelm AGW. Game over.
There is in fact considerable uncertainty.
It’s not our imagination apparently, thirteen ways the world showed it’s wrath in 2020:
https://www.livescience.com/amp/worst-natural-disasters-2020.html
A moonlight shadow has such power it can subtlety change our world:
https://youtu.be/V8uo5nlo55A
Solar cycle linked to large earthquakes but a viable mechanism is lacking. Note that the Hyperon Core Hypothesis is a better fit to the data than direct surface interaction:
“We found clear correlation between proton density and the occurrence of large earthquakes (M > 5.6), with a time shift of one day. The significance of such correlation is very high, with probability to be wrong lower than 1 in 100,000. The correlation increases with the magnitude threshold of the seismic catalogue.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67860-3
Solar cycle linked to volcanic eruptions. Only a viable mechanism is missing:
“In fact, in times of low solar activity such as during the current solar minimum, volcanic activity tends to rise. Indeed, there has been a significant amount of volcanic activity in recent weeks including the latest eruption in the Philippines.”
https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/2020/1/16/715-am-the-solar-minimum-and-an-increase-in-volcanic-activity
The new picture of reality will be the logical discovery of hyperon matter existing at the cores of the Earth and Moon, which eluded the philosophical conclusion that a strong gravitational interaction occurs which pushes the oceans from beneath, creating the lunar tides.
https://youtu.be/taeeEiDV1Jo
Scientists hope to drill Antarctic ice core going back 1.5 million years which will help resolve major mystery in glacial cycles:
“About a million years ago, there was a dramatic shift in the planet’s cycle of ice ages. Those had been coming every 40,000 years or so, but for some reason that pattern ended—and it changed to every 100,000 years instead.
“To us working on climate, that’s a really big deal,” says Wolff. “It’s a really big question as to why that change, because it’s fundamental to how our climate system works. In a way, you can say we don’t really understand today’s climate if we don’t understand why we live in a 100,000-year world rather than a 40,000-year world.”
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/26/949159524/scientists-have-found-some-truly-ancient-ice-but-now-they-want-ice-thats-even-ol?t=1608996194905
Part quote from above ” Those had been coming every 40,000 years or so, but for some reason that pattern ended—and it changed to every 100,000 years instead.”
The cycles are not of a fixed time period but are changing, – enough to put Milankovitch out of the picture.
See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/04/paleoclimate-cycles-are-key-analogs-for-present-day-holocene-warm-period/ quote “There are five intervals of Glacial Cycles I-V over the past 450 kyrs that increased in duration from past to present (89 kyr long to 119 kyr long). They are not precisely 100 kyr events. Closer evaluation of the eccentricity cycles demonstrates that each cycle also varies in duration and are not precisely 100 kyr events.”
The graphs themselves are gone from site but find them here in original https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/predictability-past-warm-periods-renee-hannon/
I agree that it’s not a clear cut 100kyr glacial cycle in the data. That’s why I think there’s two orbital forcings:
(i) the 41kyr obliquity
(ii) the 100kyr orbital inclination
It’s related to the tidal forcing hypothesis which relates to both axial tilt and orbital inclination wrt nucleic density matter cores.
Milankovitch insolation theory is riddled with inconsistencies but scientists voicing these concerns have now been effectively silenced. Consensus rules the day.
Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled.
I forgot to mention the 980+-20kyr millennial cycle, which are the extreme climate peaks throughout the glacial data in the last 800,000 years +.
It’s not clear that these occurred before the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution. I’m assuming not. It’s really the millennial cycle which holds the key to a true understanding of climate change.
The new physics idea also means that orbital cycles are more quasi than currently assumed. Everything becomes slightly different due to the strong gravitational interaction when two bodies pass on their inclined orbits (assuming low axial tilt).
I know I’m not going to convince you melitamegalithic but if you don’t agree with Milankovitch insolation theory then new physics tidal forcing is the only other option.
I hope I live to see the outcome. Something has to give in the deadlock between gravity theory and quantum mechanics. A whole paradigm shift of humanity is on the horizon of a new global awareness.
Alan L
It is not a question of ‘options’ but of finding the real/actual causation. There are other issues involved – several in fact- that one has to consider. Climate; planetary influence; and the ‘chaotic antics’ inherent to planet Earth.
A recent paper on Alpine glaciers, involving ‘Otzi the Iceman’ has added extra food-for-thought. I find it agrees with my findings. It is not a simple issue; this puzzle has many seemingly unconnected pieces, but when bits fall in place there is a point when its no longer ‘by chance’.
Look here, just updated: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2019/06/14/ask-otzi/
“It’s not clear that these occurred before the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution. I’m assuming not. It’s really the millennial cycle which holds the key to a true understanding of climate change.”
I have a new idea. I’ve just deduced the Sun having a hyperon planet orbiting close to the solar equatorial plane which is 6° to the plane of the planets.
It makes sense to consider that it’s the Sun’s tilt which reduces increasing tidal forcing on Earth’s 100,000-year inclination cycle.
From Wikipedia
“According to Milankovitch Ice Ages are generally triggered by minima in high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, enabling winter snowfall to persist through the year and therefore accumulate to build Northern Hemisphere glacial ice sheets. Similarly, times with especially intense high-latitude Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, determined by orbital changes, are thought to trigger rapid deglaciations, associated climate change and sea level rise.”
Milankovitch’s main idea was that the glacial periods are ruled by planet’s movements forcing.
“Milankovitch insolation theory is riddled with inconsistencies” – Alan.
Of course, because Milankovitch Cycle should be read REVERSED.
The REVERSED Milankovitch cycle describes an orbital forced Global Warming trend. This orbital forced Global Warming trend is a very long and a very slow process. The Warming is happening naturally. It is a coincidence in our era for us to witness the culmination moments. Earth will continue to be at those relatively warm times for about a couple of thousand years ahead. Then, gradually, the Global Temperatures will become cooler…
https://cdn.simplesite.com/i/2d/39/285978583434475821/i285978589388745116._szw1280h1280_.jpg
According to the reversed Milankovitch cycle there are long and very deep glacial periods and small and very short interglacial. The reversed cycle complies with the paleo geological findings. As we can see in the reversed Milankovitch cycle, we are getting now to the end of a long and a slow warming period. What we are witnessing as a Global Climate Change are the culmination moments at the end of that warming period.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/443826320
‘But that guesses that it’s the Hale Cycle that sets the 20 to 30 years aperiodicity.’
If there are no other candidates, we should consider it an option.
‘A narrow majority of 51% (up 16% since July 2011) of respondents say Australia should develop nuclear power to reduce Australia’s carbon dioxide emissions.’
That would be correct, the propaganda has been intense, but in a few years the situation should be rectified when the people realise that CO2 doesn’t cause warming.
I object to taking comments out of the context of the native thread – and so won’t respond. Except that CO2 obviously causes warming. The risk is that we are transforming fundaments of Earth systems with little idea of consequence. Blind and stupid. When there are so many benefits from taking another path.
‘CO2 obviously causes warming.’
That is what the argument is all about and I have my doubts. Another hiatus in world temperature would put a big dent in your hypothesis, do you have a plan B?
I wasn’t arguing. And I am inclined to think that the decadal variability I have been studying for 40 years won’t conclusively disprove observed greenhouse gas fundamentals.
When natural variability overwhelms the AGW signal the average person will lose faith in the theory. Observation is more powerful than theoretical concepts.
As the First Fleet was passing Tasmania in 1788 they noticed summer snow on the high peaks and thought it odd.
https://i.ibb.co/9qwG6YJ/c-10-day-snow-Pacific-Screenshot-2020-12-27-Windy-as-forecasted-1.png
“When natural variability overwhelms the AGW signal the average person will lose faith in the theory. Observation is more powerful than theoretical concepts.”
I agree wholeheartedly. But when will this happen do you think? I’m hoping for a timeframe within the next 5 years but maybe it’s just wishful thinking?
AGW has been verified many times. And the hiatus did nothing for you.
“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
“AGW has been verified many times.” – Robert
That’s not true. The paper in Nature that you link to actually supports the idea that current climate models are fundamentally flawed:
“These results highlight a substantial degree of uncertainty in our interpretation of the observed climate change using current generation of climate models.”
‘But when will this happen do you think?’
It has already begun with this La Nina and early in 2021 the PDO will slip into its cool phase. This means that there will be more La Nina over the coming decade and an absence of El Nino.
Sea level should stop rising and world temperature fall.
“..the average person will lose faith in the theory.” – ironicman
This hasn’t started to happen yet though. When do you think the average person will lose faith in manmade global warming?
The article by Kravtsov et al states the obvious. That there is natural variability superimposed on anthropogenic warming.
‘When do you think the average person will lose faith in manmade global warming?’
Over the next five years when temperature falls below the Spencer line and stays there.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_November_2020_v6.jpg
That then really should be an if.
“In direct contradiction to the official forecast [from NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center, the U.S. government’s official source for space weather forecasts, watches, warnings, and alerts], a team of scientists led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) is predicting that the sunspot cycle that started this fall could be one of the strongest since record-keeping began [in 1755].
..
If the new NCAR-led forecast is borne out, it would lend support to the research team’s unorthodox theory – detailed in a series of papers published over the last decade – that the sun has overlapping 22-year magnetic cycles that interact to produce the well-known, approximately 11-year sunspot cycle as a byproduct. The 22-year cycles repeat like clockwork and could be a key to finally making accurate predictions of the timing and nature of sunspot cycles, as well as many of the effects they produce, according to the study’s authors.”
https://earthsky.org/space/sunspot-cycle-25-among-strongest-on-record-says-ncar
The clockwork nature of the 22-year solar magnetic cycle lends itself to an orbital source which affects the Sun’s core.
This is a last paragraph extract from the recent published paper which suggests the evidence is in their favour:
“Over the coming months, as SC25 matures, it will become evident which of these (very different) paradigms is most relevant—such is the contrast in the forecasts discussed herein. Very early indications of the spot pattern are appearing at higher than average latitudes (≈40∘; Nandy, Bhatnagar, and Pal, 2020). Historically, high-latitude spot emergence has been associated with the development of large amplitude sunspot cycles (e.g. Waldmeier, 1935, 1939; Hathaway, 2015)—only time will tell how accurate all these predictions are for SC25.”
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-020-01723-y#Fig2
The coming year of 2021 is going to be a real game changer imo.
“The clockwork nature of the 22-year solar magnetic cycle lends itself to an orbital source which affects the Sun’s core.”
I had the idea that Jupiter’s innermost core is precessing due to the strong gravitational interaction and therefore maintains a clockwork 11-year inclination period with the Sun’s core, despite Jupiter’s outer body having a 11.86-year period.
It’s worth mentioning that Jupiter’s ring system gets thicker with distance, unlike Saturn which is a constant razor sharp 200m thickness.
Main ring: rad ~6000km ~100km
Next ring: rad ~62000km 2600km
Outer ring: rad ~100,000km 8,800km
This has implications for it’s low 3° axial tilt and low orbital inclination.
I mentioned above the ~ 22 year Hale Cycle of solar magnetic reversal as a trigger for the 20-30 year periodicity of Pacific states. A cool (warm) PDO associated with more frequent and intense La Nina (El Nino) and vice versa. As a result of one ~11 year phase being magnetically weaker than that preceding. The mechanism – if such exists – is the Mansurov effect in which solar winds are correlated with polar surface pressure. With lower surface pressure at the poles the surface winds in the polar vortices contract to higher latitudes and are more intense. This drives winds and currents along the Californian and Peruvian coasts into the upwelling regions of the Pacific Ocean. The origins of a cool Pacific state. This hypothesis of the origin of the Pacific nonlinear oscillation triggered by solar activity is the gyre hypothesis.
Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999). The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).
A more traditional theory of solar variability is the solar magneto in which currents and magnetic fields are generated as the sun spins around the center of mass of the solar system. The location of the barycenter evolves from the interaction of planetary orbits that are complex – indeed chaotic given Poincare – and thus provide a simpler and more satisfactory explanation of varying and strictly aperiodic solar phenomenon.
https://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/blog_solar_system_barycenter.jpg
The connection between the PDO and Hale Cycle is revelatory and I also like the gyre hypothesis.
Making tings up is not something I do.
“As a result of one ~11 year phase being magnetically weaker than that preceding.” – Robert
I haven’t read that anywhere. Did you just make that up? There’s a magnetic reversal every ~11-years which gives rise to the 22-year Hale cycle, yes, but no mention of a weakening of one phase compared to the other.
For others who may be actually interested.
“The 22-year cycle of geomagnetic activity is characterized by an 11-year period in which geomagnetic activity is greater than average followed by an 11-year period when the activity is less [Chernosky, 1966]. The phase of this cycle is offset with respect to the usual 22-year sunspot magnetic cycle. It begins about 2 years after solar maximum when the polar magnetic field reverses. Russell [1974] attributed this effect to control by the solar polar magnetic field of the heliographic latitude dependence of the dominant polarity of the interplanetary magnetic field (IMF) and its subsequent effect on the semi-annual variation of geomagnetic activity [Russell and McPherron, 1973].” https://faculty.epss.ucla.edu/~ctrussell/russell_bib.html/papers/731/731index.htm
https://faculty.epss.ucla.edu/~ctrussell/russell_bib.html/papers/731/fig1.gif
“Long term variation of geomagnetic activity as deduced from the aa index. (Lower panel) Heavy line shows the 11-year solar cycle average aa index beginning two years after solar maximum. Fine line in 22-year average centered on the 11-year averages. Error bars are probable errors in the mean. (Upper panel). The amplitude of the double solar cycle.”
“Did you just make that up?”
Yes he did. Misrepresentation of what others have said, yet again. The error bars are huge for one thing and the general data shows that the field strength can vary. It doesn’t show a consistent weakening of one phase relative to another.
It’s also an old study. It’d be interesting to read a modern paper on the subtleties of the varying solar magnetic field in a similar vein.
Typical. Making things up from scratch is something Lowey does.
It is spelt out exactly as I said. Dismissing it as an old study in such a venerable field is nonsense. The aa geomagnetic index commenced in 1868 with observations in Melbourne and Greenwich. G.H. Hale’s ‘Polarity Law’ was deduced from observations in the first decade of the 20th century.
It is moreover a minor point in a mooted connection between the Hale Cycle of solar magnetic reversal and the forced nonlinear Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation. As the centers of action of the PDO and ENSO are separate and distinct – originating in different hemispheres as upwelling off California and Peru respectively. But with behaviors with the ubiquitous 20 to 30 year periodicity. The graphic is purloined from WUWT – it illustrates the connection on which there is a wealth of literature. Thus a common trigger is sought for long and hard and the Mansurov effect comes to hand. What then modulates the solar winds?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/pdo-enso.png
The allegations by Alan have no justification – the aspersion that misrepresentation is habitual is scurrilous – it is reprehensible – his comments are clearly intended only to disparage and discredit me as a diversion from the merit of the comment.
I agree in the connection between the Hale cycle and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It’s the mechanism you propose which is lacking in substance.
New physics tidally forced upwelling is a good fit to the data. Just because it requires a revisit to the basics of Newton/Laplace tidal theory doesn’t mean it should be ignored by AGW supporters like yourself.
There is a Northern hemisphere bias which is represented in the graphic you posted. It’s an effect of the orbital inclination hypothesis imo, where one hemisphere is predominantly affected in one cycle and then the other in the next cycle.
This perhaps is the same effect hinted at in the solar magnetic field data.
I am not sure I believe the Hale/ENSO connection. Your new physics are bogus. Drawing conclusions from a WUWT grapheme speaks volumes. And you have behaved deplorably.
‘I am not sure I believe the Hale/ENSO connection.’
I tend to agree, but surely there is a connection between the Hale Cycle and PDO?
As for the ENSO enigma I’m betting on a lunar hypothesis.
You might like to think in terms of the IPO.
Why are all these graphs starting at 1979 rather than earlier? The 70s were cool.
Its snowing in New Zealand, but the media seems reticent to highlight the fact. Its all very odd.
New Data Supports the Modified Gravity Explanation for Dark Matter, Much to the Surprise of the Researchers
..
Overall this is a fascinating study. It doesn’t disprove dark matter, since numerous studies support the effects of dark matter, but it does support an aspect of modified gravity. It’s an unexpected result, and it needs to be studied further.”
https://www.universetoday.com/149416/new-data-supports-the-modified-gravity-explanation-for-dark-matter-much-to-the-surprise-of-the-researchers/amp/
It therefore supports the Hyperon Core Hypothesis and strong gravitational interaction on the rotational plane of an astronomical body.
“The strong equivalence principle (SEP) distinguishes general relativity (GR) from other viable theories of gravity. The SEP demands that the internal dynamics of a self-gravitating system under freefall in an external gravitational field should not depend on the external field strength…
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.” https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/abbb96
Again? Supersymmetry, dark matter and MOND are all unsatisfactory. Kip Thorne has said that everything wants to live where time passes slowest and gravity draws us there. Time itself is the universal unifying factor. Not the Newton’s clockwork notion of time – but a property of entropy.
But it has nothing to do with particles – hyperons – theorized to exist at the core of super massive neutron stars. Hyperons at Earth’s core would have been noticed. The planet would explode. The SEP works in our solar system.
“The planet would explode.” – Robert
Lol. That’s rubbish Ellison and far far out of your knowledge area.
J. Pace VanDevender, the lead author of this paper on dark matter nuggets, evidenced by anomalous crater events leaving no meteorite, replied to an email which clearly shows he believes nucleic density matter accumulates at Earth’s core:
“Thank you for your email, Alan. Once the mass density is nuclear density, the gravitational force per unit area of the quark nugget making the crater is much greater than the yield strength of materials. So it sinks to the center of the Earth.”
https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.04826
Btw you don’t know what you’re talking about. The link you gave concludes:
“Our results point to a breakdown of the Strong Equivalence Principle, supporting modified gravity theories beyond GR.”
This again justifies the need for further research of the Hyperon Core Hypothesis: strong gravitational interaction on the plane of rotation.
These particles are formed under immense pressure at the bottom of super massive neutron star gravity wells. Suppose that we somehow produced or obtained a small amount of neutron star matter and released it into free space. It is well known that it would ‘decompress’ with nuclear force at relativistic speeds. And that is a possible explanation for odd radio circles following ejection of matter on the collision of two neutron stars in a binary system.
And you counter that with a half arsed excavation in a peat bog in Ireland that found precisely nothing. Here’s a later version for you to wave about as ‘proof’ of your strange ideas. It hints that it is the magnetic field that gives stability to the macroscopic quark nugget. We note that this candidate for dark matter – like all others – has not been observed. And that you are no high energy particle physicist at all.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-09087-3
The slight modification of the gravitational constant in low gravity – unlikely as that seems – still has no relevance to tidal forces on Earth and your odd fantasies of climate change. I’d mention that I prefer Kip Thorne’s idea that entropy is the measure of both space and time through gravitational time dilation. But you take all the fun out of mystery.
“But you take all the fun out of mystery.” – Robert
Even when there’s a final workable structure for a Theory of Everything wrt physics, there’ll still be lots of mystery to unravel.
The foremost concern will be the ancient Greek philosophical question of “how should we live?”
More relevant than ever in this rapidly evolving era of global humanity.
The link I provided was the study on which your popular science link was based. And it is too early to say that general relativity requires modification for weak gravitational fields of intergalactic space. It has negligible relevance to the solar system.
As for the other – I see it as a Manichean struggle between light and dark across all space/time in a perfectible cosmos. May the force be with you. :)
The Trojan asteroid swarms at 60° ahead and behind Jupiter’s orbital path, I attribute to a distant hyperon moon.
Similarly the detection of phosphine & glycine on Venus at mid-latitudes, I attribute to an as yet unknown hyperon moon.
https://youtu.be/8LhkyyCvUHk
” It’s an unexpected result, and it needs to be studied further.”
Too true. It’s also extremely logical when an individual takes into consideration that current gravity theory is incompatible with quantum mechanics. Something drastic has to change to further our understanding of the world around us:
https://youtu.be/11afPoEkJL8
Using the distance of the Trojans from Jupiter and scaling it up to the size of the Sun based on diameter, gives an approximate distance for Planet Nine:
7.6 billion km
Pluto orbits at an average 5.9 billion km. This seems a good ballpark figure in the nearer half of the Kuiper Belt.
I also can predict it orbits on the equatorial plane of the Sun at 6° to the solar plane of the planets.
I make a tentative prediction that it is in a 1:1 orbital resonance with the Sun’s core and therefore has a period of just 7 days.
The hyperon planet’s velocity is 790,000 km/s
No wonder current detection methods aren’t working. When I visited the site for home amateurs to join the search, single objects were discounted. A second object showing a directional path had to be found in three timeframes. This is where the problem lies.
That’s more than twice the speed of light. It’s still a possibility because Einstein’s gravity theory is superseded and galaxies have been observed to be moving at speeds faster than the speed of light.
It’s certainly new physics (!)
The other alternative is that the rotation rate of the Sun’s core is an over-estimate and the hyperon planet is moving at or just under the speed of light.
Or it simply isn’t in a 1:1 orbital resonance.
A change in the tilt of the Sun could account for the Mid-Pleistocene Revoution. Perhaps it was the hyperon planet that had an interaction which lowered it’s orbital inclination angle to 6°?
This would then be enough for the Sun’s strong gravitational force to significantly increase tidal forcing on Earth’s 100,000-year inclination cycle.
Jupiter’s obliquity is another important factor in determining the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution. It’s perhaps more likely that Jupiter’s tilt reduced, which then increased tidal forcing on Earth’s 100,000-year inclination orbit relative to the plane of Jupiter.
This is my best guess yet. Jupiter’s orbital inclination is very low and therefore close to the plane of angular momentum of the solar system.
Mainstream science clinging to the notion that Newton/Laplace’s simplistic equation is reality becomes a hindrance to the true picture:
“Suppose you’re a researcher seeking to understand the universe more deeply. You may get stuck using a dead-end description—clinging to a principle that seems correct but is merely one of nature’s disguises.”
https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/a-different-kind-of-theory-of-everything
Indulge me – it’s my birthday.
“The velocity of a galaxy could be expressed mathematically as
v = H x d
where v is the galaxy’s radial outward velocity, d is the galaxy’s distance from Earth, and H is the constant of proportionality called the Hubble constant.”
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html
General relativity predicts departures from a linear relationship. And the special relativity departure point of the observed constancy of the speed of light for different inertial reference frames is universal. What changes is the Doppler shift and not the speed of light. The math of the Lorenzt contraction suggest that nothing can move faster than the speed of light. The alternative is the raison bread model of the universe. This suggests that it is space itself – and presumably time – that is expanding faster than the speed of light rather than the galaxies. But surely raisons – in this model – move with space?
https://blogs-images.forbes.com/startswithabang/files/2017/09/Raisinbread.gif
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/11/07/this-is-how-distant-galaxies-recede-away-from-us-at-faster-than-light-speeds/?sh=4805652b72a2
“The ‘raisin bread’ model of the expanding Universe, where relative distances increase as the space (dough) expands. The farther away any two raisin are from one another, the greater the observed redshift will be by time the light is received. The redshift-distance relation predicted by the expanding Universe is borne out in observations, and has been consistent with what’s been known all the way back since the 1920s. NASA / WMAP SCIENCE TEAM”
“The answer has to do with the difference between special relativity and general relativity. Special relativity requires what is called an “inertial reference frame” – more simply, a backdrop. According to this theory, the speed of light is the same when compared in all inertial reference frames. Whether an observer is sitting still on a park bench on planet Earth or zooming past Neptune in a futuristic high-velocity rocketship, the speed of light is always the same. A photon always travels away from the observer at 300,000,000 meters per second, and he or she will never catch up.
General relativity, however, describes the fabric of spacetime itself. In this theory, there is no inertial reference frame. Spacetime is not expanding with respect to anything outside of itself, so the the speed of light as a limit on its velocity doesn’t apply. Yes, galaxies outside of our Hubble sphere are receding from us faster than the speed of light. But the galaxies themselves aren’t breaking any cosmic speed limits. To an observer within one of those galaxies, nothing violates special relativity at all. It is the space in between us and those galaxies that is rapidly proliferating and stretching exponentially.”
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-space-faster.html#:~:text=Redshifted%20light%20allows%20us%20to,our%20Universe%20during%20its%20history.&text=Correspondingly%2C%20all%20objects%20outside%20of,than%20the%20speed%20of%20light.
There are things called the Hubble volume and the observable cosmos. The Hubble bubble is the volume of space where the apparent speed of galaxies is less than the speed of light. We can see distant galaxies – with distances calculated from redshift – because they emitted light while within the Hubble bubble. Relatively soon after the big bang as the most distant galaxies formed.
I’m am quite sure we are not at the bottom of it yet. And that the relevance to Climate etc. is questionable at best and bogus at worst.
Happy birthday Robert 🎉
The ‘raisin bread’ model is probably too simplistic. I tend to use the imagery of a half inflated balloon with the galaxies drawn on the surface.
Our brains evolved to understand our surroundings in three dimensions. There’s always going to be some mental dexterity required to comprehend why there’s ‘no edge to the universe’ etc.
Going back to the balloon analogy, it allows for a model of dark energy derived from a radiated corkscrew graviton. If the graviton travels around a 4D hypersphere, it then appears to act as a force of repulsion relative to it’s place of origin.
The simplest ideas are often the best.
I admit to copying Forbes raisin bread cosmology as a joke. And the balloon is hardly any better. But the theoretical graviton particle thought bubble is a masterpiece.
The evidence supporting the Hyperon Core Hypothesis is never ending:
“However, research indicates that the moon’s suspected small core may not have been able to generate enough energy to sustain the ancient magnetic field that planetary scientists have inferred from in its rocks.”
https://scitechdaily.com/the-ancient-moons-missing-magnetism/
The diagram is going to become a lot more prevalent in the not-too-distant future.
More evidence of increased internal tides much greater than Newtonian physics:
“Mimas shows no geological activity, even though it is the innermost of these five moons and thus subject to the strongest tides from Saturn. In contrast, Enceladus is farther from Saturn and experiences 30 times weaker tides than Mimas. However, somehow tidal forces melt ice within this moon’s interior, leading to a giant underground ocean and “cryovolcanoes” that spew water.”
https://www.space.com/saturn-moons-different-traits-chances-life.html
The limit of general relativity is Newton’s gravity. The latter is precise for most purposes in the solar system. Including modelling tides on Enceladus.
Robert, you are blind to philosophical problems of physics & cosmology:
“The crux of today’s cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.
..
It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals.”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/cosmology-has-some-big-problems/
It is simply not true. General relativity accommodates the expanding universe. Finding a suitable answer for expansion is the problem. But all these neutron star nuggets whizzing around the solar system at superluminal velocities – and changing climate – is a bit mad.
There’s a link between phosphine found on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn with the idea of each having an orbiting hyperon moon:
https://www.space.com/amp/biggest-space-discoveries-stories-2020?jwsource=cl
Could it be Saturn has only one very close to it’s equatorial plane which is why it’s rings are a razor sharp 200m thickness?
Jupiter has one identified as responsible for the Trojans but it has four varying thickness rings. It would make sense to assume it has four or five hyperon moons.
This would fit the solar cycles:
5.7-year
11.1-year
88-year
~210-year
~980~year
I can make the prediction that the millennial climate cycle on Earth is due to Jupiter’s hyperon moon orbiting between the two swarms of Trojans.
Perhaps it was captured around 1Mya, the cause of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution? Maybe the Trojans are less than this age and future samples will confirm the hypothesis?
https://youtu.be/7Xf-Lesrkuc
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.” “I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
“But all these neutron star nuggets whizzing around the solar system.. it’s a bit mad.” – Robert
It’s definitely a new concept, yes. Recent research into a meteorite analysis has concluded that another dwarf-planet the size of Ceres exists in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter.
My first thoughts were that the special characteristics of the meteorite shard were from the early collision of a small planet which created Ceres, perhaps being the core due it’s 2° axial tilt:
“The shard of the meteorite known as Almahata Sitta, or AhS, was already notable. It arrived on Earth in 2008, when a a 9-ton asteroid came into Earth’s atmosphere, and exploded into some 600 meteorites somewhere over Sudan.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/space/dwarf-planet-asteroid-solar-system-earth-b1780975.html?amp
The orbit of Jupiter’s millennial hyperon moon takes it right through the middle of the asteroid belt!
This is not only the hyperon moon which affects civilisation via climate change but also the one that deflects asteroids into near-Earth orbits.
It must be orbiting clockwise so that it pulls asteroids to the swarm ahead of the Jovian planet. This is why there are twice as many and at higher inclinations relative to the Greek Trojans which are behind.
The Greeks would have been pulled further along to the far side and been orbiting closer to the equatorial plane.
It’s a perfect fit.
Neptune, another gas giant, is the only other planet with known appreciable numbers of Trojans, although only 17, which would have been captured from the Kuiper Belt.
It’s another good fit.
I can make a prediction that there will be around twice as many Neptunian Trojans *behind* the planet relative to ahead.
This is assuming the hyperon moon is orbiting prograde, clockwise, and so will pull asteroids from the outer Kuiper Belt behind the planet initially.
There are currently 19 known ahead and just 3 behind. It’s much more difficult to observe the ones behind but I predict that there’s many more that are waiting for discovery:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune_trojan
You can make dozens and dozens of predictions Alan. Let us know if any pan out.
“This is assuming the hyperon moon is orbiting prograde, clockwise,..”
Oops, clockwise would be retrograde. It’s more likely Neptune’s hyperon moon is prograde, meaning more trojans ahead than behind.
Jupiter’s hyperon moon would be retrograde, more indicative of a *captured* moon, which correlates with the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution hypothesis.
I react strongly to claims such as ‘the x larget companies produce y %’, for three reasons:
– it ignores amount per customer
– it ignores that companies are owned by individuals
– it evades benefits of those company’s activities
Of course it suits activists to attack companies, because:
– most climate catastrophy activists are Marxists at root (look at their economic beliefs, their shortage mentality), Marxism is by definition against business
– big seems an easy target
– many people who would not attack companies normally are sucked in by the anti-big tactic
Has anyone ever considered that the universe is infinite and that it was never “created” and that time never had a beginning?
This is my conclusion. It solves all needs for gods and associated chicken and egg theories.
It’s extremely hard for humans to accept such an idea because we are programmed from birth that everything has a beginning and an end. We see all life born and die. We see stars born and die. We think the universe was born some billions of years ago and has an edge but we can’t find it. We keep looking and proposing endless theories because we never can consider the infinite nature of anything. I believe it is infinite and in a constant state of re-invention. Our puny minds just can’t comprehend this, particularly our scientific minds because it is illogical for the position of our cause and effect mindset grown from birth and never challenged.
There’s good evidence for the Big Bang so they’ll still be a ‘chicken and egg’ aspect to the universe even it’s always existed.
That could only be a part of the whole story. Forget beginning and end. It leads only to dead ends.
There’s the Cyclic Universe theory which is the one I had in mind. There are others. Solve the gravity anomaly first and then speculate about it’s origins is my way of thinking:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model
retiredgeo:
“…the universe is infinite and that it was never “created” and that time never had a beginning…”
“I believe it is infinite and in a constant state of re-invention. Our puny minds just can’t comprehend this, particularly our scientific minds because it is illogical for the position of our cause and effect mindset grown from birth and never challenged.”
Agreed !!!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Jean-Paul Sartre demonstrated that being and nothingness cannot coincide – therefore the universe is infinite. Douglas Adams showed that in an infinite universe the probability of even the most improbable event approaches unity. Therefore God exists in an infinite and eternal cosmos of numberless big bangs.
]https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/duzjPucJGGnRXSnWJjEi4W-1024-80.jpg
A solution to Einstein’s field equations that would allow the warp-speed travel needed to find out is called the “Alcubierre metric”. Space-time is contracted in front of our ship and expanded behind.
https://inteng-storage.s3.amazonaws.com/img/iea/qrwBXjmXG5/sizes/warpdrivenasa1_resize_md.jpg
Source: NASA
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/duzjPucJGGnRXSnWJjEi4W-1024-80.jpg
The future is about the young people:
https://youtu.be/iArXv64tCJA
The future is cyberpunk. The singularity occurs on January 26th 2065 when an automated IKEA factory becomes self-aware and commences converting all global resources to flat pack furniture. Until then – endless innovation on information technology and cybernetics will accelerate and continue to push the limits of what it is to be human and to challenge the adaptability of social structures. New movements, fads, music, designer drugs, cat videos and dance moves will sweep the planet like Mexican waves in the zeitgeist. Materials will be stronger and lighter. Life will be cluttered with holographic TV’s, waterless washing machines, ultrasonic blenders, quantum computers, hover cars and artificially intelligent phones. Annoying phones that cry when you don’t charge them – taking on that role from cars that beep when you don’t put a seat belt on. Space capable flying cars will have seat belts that lock and tension without any intervention of your part. All this will use vastly more energy and materials this century as populations grow and wealth increases.
This annoys me. People who own wood-burning stoves advised not to use them due to health reasons. The advice should be to use 100% kiln dried logs in a rocket stove, where no smoke is produced at all and much much more efficient burning is achieved:
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/01/avoid-using-wood-burning-stoves-if-possible-warn-health-experts
JUPITER’S MAGNETOSPHERE
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Jupiter_magnetosphere_schematic.jpg
Schematic of Jupiter’s magnetosphere and the components influenced by Io (near the center of the image): the plasma torus (in red), the neutral cloud (in yellow), the flux tube (in green), and magnetic field lines (in blue).[68]
China has another big potential problem in addition to the Three Gorges Dam. It’s largest volcano, on the border with North Korea last erupted in 946CE, which is precisely on the the millennial climate cycle.
1 billion people will be potentially affected. It’s had strong earthquake activity over a decade ago but has since subdued.
It’s one to watch out for in the coming decades:
https://youtu.be/3C2HVOB-g5s
Yet more evidence and more evidence to come that gravity theory needs a deep rethink on the very fundamentals:
“But the Chandra data didn’t reveal any significant X-ray sources, either in the galactic core or in big clumps of stars farther afield. So the mystery of the missing supermassive black hole persists.
That mystery could be solved by Hubble’s successor — NASA’s big, powerful James Webb Space Telescope, which is scheduled to launch in October 2021.
If James Webb doesn’t spot a black hole in the galaxy’s heart or in one of its bigger stellar clumps, “then the best explanation is that the black hole has recoiled well out of the center of the galaxy,” NASA officials wrote.”
https://www.space.com/amp/abell-2261-supermassive-black-hole-missing
The last time Earth’s geomagnetic field did a total reversal was around the era of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution, which lends itself to an orbital explanation imo:
“The last magnetic field reversal happened around 780,000 years ago..”
https://www.livescience.com/earths-magnetic-field-reversed-frequently-cambrian-period.html
Sabine Hossenfelder explains how Einstein’s general relativity treats ‘time’ as a dimension, like ‘space’ but this concept makes it incompatable with quantum theory. Using ‘time’ in quantum mechanics doesn’t make intuitive sense. Although his theory is accepted and continually passes tests, it must be fundamentally incorrect says Sabine:
https://youtu.be/PdL8CudJTcs
IMO, the women is a publicity seeking “popular science” quack.
No, she’s the real deal but does the YouTube videos because she gets paid and has to pay the bills like anyone else.
She has good intuitive insight and can see the inconsistencies and problems that most physicists can’t.
She’s also at the cutting edge of research and can convey both the history as well as recent findings to the layperson ‘without the gobblygook’.
The problem arises from the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics. It is because Schrödinger’s wave equation evolving in time and space is probabilistic and not a fundamental physical description.
Rather than modifying general relativity people – including Sabine Hossenfelder – are seeking more fundamental ‘superdeterministic’ theories of quantum mechanics.
“There is no compelling reason to believe that quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory of physics.” Tim Palmer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YglT09Korr0&ab_channel=Newton1665physicsseminars
Here’s a prediction.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/laws-of-physics.png
The 2021 launch of the Lucy mission, I predict will lead to a future shock revelation. The Trojan asteroids will be found to have come from the asteroid belt, less than 1Mya:
“The other seven are so-called Trojan asteroids that share an orbit with Jupiter, trapped in points of stability 60 degrees ahead of or behind the planet as it goes around the Sun. These objects have been trapped in their locations for billions of years, probably since the time of the formation of the solar system. They contain preserved samples of water-rich and carbon-rich material in the outer solar system; some of that material formed Jupiter, while other bits moved inward to contribute to Earth’s life-sustaining composition.”
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/space-2021
A Jupiter Trojan has recently been found which is comet-like with a tail:
“What makes 2019 LD2 so interesting is that we think most Jupiter Trojans were captured billions of years ago. Any surface ice that could vaporize to spew out gas and dust should have done so long ago, leaving the objects quietly orbiting as asteroids – not behaving like comets.
What could have made 2019 LD2 suddenly show cometary behavior? Maybe Jupiter captured it only recently from a more distant orbit where surface ice could still survive.”
https://earthsky.org/space/jupiter-trojan-asteroid-2019-ld2-comet-like-tail
This article has some interesting insights about the last millennial climate cycle, the Medieval Warm Period and subsequent series of cold snaps of the Little Ice Age. A study relates abrupt climate change of the past to those of the present era:
“The group is investigating the rapid climate change in the early 14th century and its effects on late medieval Europe.
The published study presents preliminary findings of the Freigeist Junior Research Group on the Dantean Anomaly (1309-1321) at the Leibniz Institute for the History and Culture of Eastern Europe (GWZO). Funded by the Volkswagen Stiftung, the group is investigating the rapid climate change in the early 14th century and its effects on late medieval Europe.”
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-drought-century-middle-ageswith-parallels.amp
Hints of new physics in the core of Mars imo:
“In the new study, researchers were able to confirm the movement on Mars by calculating gravitational effects on the orbits of two NASA spacecraft circling the Red Planet: Mars Odyssey and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. The large quantity of data, collected over 18 years and not available during earlier analyses, ensured that the identified wobble was intrinsic to the planet’s shape and interior, rather than outside factors like seasonal melting of polar ice caps.”
https://eos.org/research-spotlights/first-detection-of-a-built-in-wobble-on-another-planet
Hints of new physics affecting the Earth’s core too:
“The 28 fastest days on record (since 1960) all occurred in 2020, with Earth completing its revolutions around its axis milliseconds quicker than average. That’s not particularly alarming — the planet’s rotation varies slightly all the time, driven by variations in atmospheric pressure, winds, ocean currents and the movement of the core.”
https://www.livescience.com/amp/earth-spinning-faster-negative-leap-second.html
Interaction of the Reasons for the Mass Biota Extinctions in the Phanerozoic
https://www.academia.edu/10046821/Interaction_of_the_Reasons_for_the_Mass_Biota_Extinctions_in_the_Phanerozoic
“Abstract
—The consideration of the conditions during the mass extinctions has shown that a series of factors,including mutually independent tectonic movements, variations in the sea level and climate, volcanism,asteroid impacts, changes in the composition of the atmosphere and hydrosphere, the dimming of the atmosphere by aerosols at volcanism and impact events, etc., had a harmful affect during some periods of time (ahundred thousand years to millions of years). Some of the listed events occurred for a long period of time andcould not have caused the abrupt catastrophic death of organisms on a global scale. The examination of thehierarchy of the major events allows us to distinguish the primary terrestrial (volcanism) and cosmic (impactevents) reasons for the mass extinctions. The coeval mutually independent events testify to the commonexternal reasons for the higher order beyond the solar system. These events are suggested to be related withthe orbital movement of the solar system around the galaxy’s center, the intersection of the galactic branches,and the oscillations of the solar system’s position relative to the galactic plane. These reasons influence theprocesses on the Earth, including the internal and external geospheres, and activate the impacts of asteroidsand comets. Under their effect, two main subsequences of events are developed: terrestrial, leading to intense volcanism, and cosmic impact events. In both cases, harmful chemical elements and aerosols are vented tothe atmosphere, thus resulting in the greenhouse effect, warming, the dimming of the atmosphere, the pre vention of photosynthesis, the ocean’s stagnation, and anoxia with the following reduction of the bioproductivity, the destruction of the food chains, and the extinction of a significant part of the biota.
DOI:
10.1134/S0001437013050020
“
You can download the PDF (free) and read the paper or just the Conclusions here:
https://www.academia.edu/10046821/Interaction_of_the_Reasons_for_the_Mass_Biota_Extinctions_in_the_Phanerozoic
Missing supremassive blackhole is a sure sign that adds conviction to the validity of Modified Newtonian gravity theories:
“The massive galaxy cluster Abell 2261 should have a supermassive black hole in its center. But it doesn’t. Astronomers have looked everywhere – even between the couch cushions. What’s going on?”
https://www.universetoday.com/149490/missing-supermassive-black-hole-with-up-to-100-billion-times-the-mass-of-the-sun/amp/
I couldn’t help but make the connection between an equatorial anomaly on Pluto and the fact that it’s large moon Charon orbits equatorially in a 1:1 tidal resonance:
Equatorial mountains on Pluto are covered by methane frosts resulting from a unique atmospheric process
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18845-3
New sunquake research hints at new physics within the solar core imo:
“Instead of the waves traveling into the Sun from above, the scientists saw the surface ripples of a sunquake emerging from deep beneath the solar surface right after a flare occurred.
The results found the acoustic source was around 1,127 km (700 miles) below the surface of the Sun — not above the surface as previously was thought.”
http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/source-sunquakes-submerged-solar-surface-09220.html
…
“This result is indeed consistent with recent findings. In fact, although the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to CO2 doubling of the GCMs vary widely around a 3.0°C mean [3,4], recent studies have pointed out that those values are too high. Since 2000 there has been a systematic tendency to find lower climate sensitivity values (Figure 7). The most recent studies suggest a transient climate response (TCR) of about 1.0 °C, an ECS less than 2.0 °C [20] and an effective climate sensitivity (EfCS) in the neighborhood of 1.0 °C [29]. Thus, all evidences suggest that the IPCC GCMs at least increase twofold or even triple the real anthropogenic warming. The GHG theory might even require a deep re-examination [30].
http://www.iieta.org/sites/default/files/styles/inline_image/public/medias/2019-07/7_94.png
Figure 7. Compilation of published transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values to atmospheric CO2 doubling. (Adapted from Figure 1 in Refs. [20,27] where all references listed in the figure are reported: from link)
Scafetta, N.; Mirandola, A.; Bianchini, A. Natural climate variability, part 2: Interpretation of the post 2000 temperature standstill. International Journal of Heat and Technology 2017, 35, S18-S26.
http://www.iieta.org/journals/ijht/paper/10.18280/ijht.35Sp0103
Peter, what’s your position on Dr. Curry’s opinion that climate change is at least 50% due to natural variability?
Quite likely correct. However, what is relevant for justifying policy actions is the economic and ecosystem impacts of global warming and cooling. Empirical evidence indicates that global warming is beneficial and global cooling is harmful. Therefore, polices to reduce global warming are doing a great deal of harm, not good. This is the message that needs to be explained clearly and succinctly to the climate alarmists.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/50-cartoon.png
https://judithcurry.com/2014/08/24/the-50-50-argument/
Peter, is it possible that the phrase “global warming” and “global cooling” are misleading terms to represent climate change? Some areas of the planet are a lot colder than average, whilst others are a lot higher than average.
The are spatio-temporal chaotic shifts in patterns of ocean and atmospheric circulation coincident with changes in the trajectory of global surface temperatures. It has been decades of warming followed by decades of not much warming over more than 100 years. Coincident with anthropogenic emissions of fossil fuel CO2.
Where it goes next is anyone’s guess.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/51a17b52-58d5-4424-b569-2bfcdc8dafef/grl25658-fig-0001.png
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL037022
Spatio-temporal chaos involving feedbacks on feedbacks is something to consider. No one has a magic 8 ball for that.
Peter, an example of what I mean is given in this climate prediction of a 20°C Arctic warm wave for Jan 2021:
“Simplified, this means that large masses of air can be quickly replaced or transported without much immediate change in their temperature or other properties. This is why we can see positive temperatures in the North Pole or Arctic cold air down in the mid-latitudes.”
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/arctic-circle-unusual-temperature-wave-january-2021-fa/
https://www.severe-weather.eu/wp-content/gallery/andrej-news/cache/north-hemisphere-temperature-and-wind-forecast-united-states-europe.png-nggid0521549-ngg0dyn-700x700x100-00f0w010c010r110f110r010t010.png
“Looking at the temperature anomalies for January so far, we can see a large area of warmer than normal temperatures over the Arctic region. Temperatures over the Kara Sea region are more than 20°C above the long-term normals.”
So what
Supernovae events are anomalous to current models, hinting at new physics imo:
“The astronomers’ model predicts that most of the naked-eye supernova should occur near the direction of the galactic center. But most of the recorded supernovae don’t happen near there at all.”
https://www.universetoday.com/149491/there-should-be-a-few-supernovae-in-the-milky-way-every-century-but-weve-only-seen-5-in-the-last-1000-years-why/amp/
New research is bringing the Hyperon Core Hypothesis ever closer to mainstream awareness imo:
“At the heart of every white dwarf star—the dense stellar object that remains after a star has burned away its fuel reserve of gases as it nears the end of its life cycle—lies a quantum conundrum: as white dwarfs add mass, they shrink in size, until they become so small and tightly compacted that they cannot sustain themselves, collapsing into a neutron star.”
https://scitechdaily.com/quantum-mechanics-and-general-relativity-come-together-astrophysicists-observe-long-theorized-quantum-phenomena/
Other unknown gravity theories recognised as being able to account for galaxy study anomaly:
“The new research reports that signs of a faint gravitational tide, known as the “external field effect” or EFE, can be observed statistically in the orbital speeds of stars in more than 150 galaxies.The new research reports that signs of a faint gravitational tide, known as the “external field effect” or EFE, can be observed statistically in the orbital speeds of stars in more than 150 galaxies.
..
“Can dark matter be explained by a different law of gravity? It would be most important for cosmology as well as particle physics if it could,” he said in an email.
He has doubts, however, that the “external field effect” reported in the new research is truly a unique prediction of MOND, and that it cannot be explained by some competing theories.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1252995
Another galaxy study which hints at new physics imo:
“A new search led by Montana State University has revealed more than a dozen massive black holes in dwarf galaxies that were previously considered too small to host them, and surprised scientists with their location within the galaxies.”
https://scitechdaily.com/astrophysicist-finds-massive-black-holes-wandering-around-dwarf-galaxies-i-was-blown-away/
Although an interpretation of popsci articles to mean that there are dozens of neutron star moons whizzing around the solar system at superluminal velocity driving Earth climate is a bit mad.
Assuming gravity is only a weak force is providing headaches for particle physicists who use complex mathematics coupled with experimentation at the Large Hadron Collider:
https://www.space.com/amp/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider
“The subatomic universe is composed of two fundamental kinds of particles, called the fermions (in honor of Enrico Fermi) and bosons (named for Satyendra Nath Bose). In essence, fermions are the building blocks of the natural world: the quarks, the electrons, the neutrinos. If you zoomed into your own cells and molecules and atoms, you would find a bunch of fermions buzzing around, doing their thing.
In contrast, the bosons are the carriers of the fundamental forces of nature. The electromagnetic force is carried by the photon, a type of boson. The weak nuclear force has a trio of bosons to carry it around, and eight different bosons conspire to make the strong nuclear force happen. Gravity has a hypothetical boson associated with it, called the graviton, but we don’t have an understanding of that particle yet…
There just might be a connection between fermions and bosons, and the name for the theoretical connection is supersymmetry…
In supersymmetry, there’s a new kind of mathematical relationship that connects the fermions and the bosons. In fact, it’s more than a mere connection: supersymmetry states that fermions and bosons are really two sides of the same (supersymmetric) coin. Every single fermion has a mirror-like particle in the boson family, and every boson has a twin over the fermion world.”
What they have failed is to find any of these mirror particles required by string theory. Or for that matter the graviton. According to this popsci article.
Very little evidence that ‘black holes’ are actually what is being observed in reality wrt Einstein’s gravity theory:
“But no one could be sure those black holes actually are what theorists had pictured, notes Feryal Özel, an astrophysicist at the University of Arizona (UA). For example, “Very little that we have done so far establishes the presence of an event horizon,” she says. “That is an open question.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/01/after-decades-effort-scientists-are-finally-seeing-black-holes-or-are-they
They are trying to see the event horizon. Work for which Penrose, Ghez and Ghenzel received the 2020 Nobel prize for physics.
“Penrose is the theoretical physicist who made the crucial discovery that began the resurrection of GR theory from this apparent impasse to its dynamic state today, where its predictions – particularly about black holes – are constantly tested and verified.
Genzel and Ghez are the two astronomers whose observing teams independently verified the most extravagant prediction of GR by showing that our own galaxy, the Milky Way, has at its heart an enormously massive black hole described in intricate detail by the theory.” https://theconversation.com/nobel-prize-how-penrose-genzel-and-ghez-helped-put-black-holes-at-the-centre-of-modern-astrophysics-147613
That’s technically incorrect. It’s only an assumption that Sgt A* is a ‘black hole’ defined by GR.
The Nobel Prize in physics for 2020:
“for the discovery of a supermassive compact object at the centre of our galaxy”
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2020/press-release/
The precession of orbits of stars around Sgt A* – independently observed – was predicted by GR.
“Roger Penrose showed that the general theory of relativity leads to the formation of black holes. Reinhard Genzel and Andrea Ghez discovered that an invisible and extremely heavy object governs the orbits of stars at the centre of our galaxy. A supermassive black hole is the only currently known explanation.”
Like I said.
New physics and strong gravitational tidal forcing on equatorial plane accounts for huge canyon across the centre of Mars:
https://youtu.be/n8amW0rUXQ8
A more parsimonious explanation than general relativity is wrong and neutron stars are whizzing about the solar system unnoticed is needed.
“..was predicted by GR.” – Ellison
So what? Logically GR is incorrect – it’s not the whole picture. Fact. Modified Newtonian theories of gravity have strong evidence from recent studies of galaxies. It’s only robust confirmation needed before Einstein’s GR is dead and buried.
Bring on the new.
Predictions confirm correct science. It seems more likely that there “is no compelling reason to believe that quantum mechanics is a fundamental theory of physics.” Tim Palmer
I discussed the search for a ‘superdeterministic’ quantum mechanics here –
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-938103
A recent study of galaxies freefalling with accelerations of <10^-10 m/s^2 inferred at the limits of observation. Even they don't know what to make of it.
GR passes every test and the rest is your slightly mad thought bubbles. Logic has nothing to do with it. Fact. Likewise math and empirical science.
And it is all in the service of an idea that neutron stars whizzing around the solar system control Earth climate and not the sun, albedo or greenhouse gases. It's the craziest contrarian construct I have ever seen. Fact. You win the Galileo Galilei 2020 award for the wildest contrarian sky dragon slayer fantasy hands down. Fact.
The day Einstein’s theory is denounced in the mainstream media is closing fast:
“But most experts expect Einstein’s theory to fall short someday, because the universe ultimately appears bumpy, not smooth. Planets and stars are really collections of atoms, which, in turn, are made up of electrons and bundles of quarks. Those particles hang together or break apart by swapping other types of particles, giving rise to forces of attraction and repulsion.”
https://www.space.com/quantum-gravity.html
It is the difference between the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics and the smooth evolution of general relativity. But I don’t see why we would necessarily believe a popsci article.
https://judithcurry.com/2020/12/07/the-blame-game-2/#comment-938103
The Hyperon Core Hypothesis with strong gravitational field on plane of rotation fulfils the ‘fractal or holographic’ nature of reality too:
“If you take a look at the structures that form in the Universe, many of the things we see on large scales appears at smaller scales, too.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/01/06/is-the-universe-actually-a-fractal/?sh=1144cf915415
The shape of Saturn with it’s thin equatorial rings, the shape of the solar system, the shape of our galaxy..
The neutron star core thought bubble is just that. It’s impossible to imagine that hypersensitive gravity wave detectors have missed it. Have you given up on undetected neutron star moons?
” It’s impossible to imagine that hypersensitive gravity wave detectors have missed it.” – Ellison
Your knowledge in this area is very limited. The strong gravitational interaction with normal matter is only very weak but strong with other nucleic density matter.
It’s analogous to a dark matter candidate. It’s impossible to imagine a galactic dark matter halo hasn’t been detected.
Your knowledge in any area seems way limited. Routinely based on wild speculation from popsci articles. Of the fundamental forces between particles gravity is 10^40 times weaker. It doesn’t miraculously become a strong force in supermassive objects. Although in the terms of general relativity it is not a force at all.
Not only the shape but the production of different elements from within may be similar in stars as well as planets and moons.
More hints of new physics and a strong gravitational field on the galactic plane:
“In 2020, astronomers added a new member to an exclusive family of exotic objects with the discovery of a magnetar. New observations from NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory help support the idea that it is also a pulsar, meaning it emits regular pulses of light.
..was special for other reasons. First, it may be the youngest known magnetar, with an age estimated to be about 500 years old. This is based on how quickly the rotation rate is slowing and the assumption that it was born spinning much faster. Secondly, it also spins faster than any previously discovered magnetar, rotating once around every 1.4 seconds.
The magnetar is located close to the plane of the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of about 21,000 light-years from Earth.”
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/images/chandra-studies-extraordinary-magnetar.html
See how close Saturn’s warming moon Titan orbits to the equatorial plane in this amazing mosaic image:
“Titan is the only solar system world besides Earth known to have standing bodies of liquid on its surface and an earthlike cycle of liquid rain and evaporation.”
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap210109.html
New physics at Earth’s core would support the controversial hypothesis that water is created from within and *not* delivered via meteorites:
https://astronomy.com/magazine/2019/04/where-did-earths-water-come-from
There’s an illuminating insight given in the comments:
“Decades of measurements of hydroxyl concentrations in olivine, the pre-eminent upper mantle mineral, have produced surprisingly low values. This has been interpreted to mean that, when planet Earth formed some 4.15 billion years ago, it did not acquire enough water. Hence, the idea spread that water must have been delivered later from the outside, through comets and other celestial bodies. However, the idea of not enough water is the based on a deep misunderstanding of what happens when water becomes incorporated into minerals in the form of hydroxyls. There is a reaction that converts hydroxyls into something that is more difficult to detect: peroxy plus hydrogen molecules. It causes hydroxyls, the telltale sign of dissolved water, to seemingly disappear. This universal reaction has been largely ignored by the astronomy and geochemistry communities. As a result, work continues to be dedicated to chasing a non-question. [Open Access paper: American Journal of Analytical Chemistry, 2015, 6, 342-349]”
The production of hydrogen is also relevant to recent discovery of life underneath glaciers:
“We kept finding organisms in these systems that were supported by hydrogen gas,” said Boyd of the inspiration for the project. “It initially didn’t make sense, because we couldn’t figure out where that hydrogen gas was coming from under these glaciers.”
https://scitechdaily.com/microbes-that-feed-on-hydrogen-living-beneath-glaciers-but-where-is-the-hydrogen-coming-from/
It all relates very well to the Expanding Earth hypothesis:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
Wandering polar vortex may cause a wild, snowy winter
https://www.livescience.com/amp/polar-vortex-disruption-snowy-weather.html
“Think of the polar vortex like a quiet, fast spinning top that spins in place,” Cohen said. “Then, you have this energy [from the troposphere] that starts banging” on the spinning polar vortex, making it wobble and wander.
This is going to be an ongoing trend imo. The increasing equatorial tidal bulge is pushing warmer air into the Arctic. This energy goes upwards, adding to the polar vortex which then bends and loops to lower latitudes, bringing cold moist air with it.
Confirmation:
“The stratosphere got in the news this week when it went into convulsions. In the bitterly cold, dark Arctic winter a vortex of winds races around the stratosphere, keeping the cold polar air penned into the Arctic. But now these winds 30km high have weakened, gone into reverse, the temperature of the stratosphere has soared over the North Pole and the polar vortex may split in two. This phenomenon is called a sudden stratospheric warming and the upheaval may eventually sink into our weather in the lower atmosphere in the coming weeks.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/storm-bomb-may-result-in-pushing-the-polar-vortex-into-a-big-upheaval-pq2v23rk8
Uranus with anomalous axial tilt of 98° is the only gas giant which *doesn’t* emit more heat than it receives from the Sun (including Pluto and equatorial moon Charon):
https://www.space.com/something-strange-inside-neptune.html
More evidence of new physics imo:
But, he says, “our best determination of the mass indicates that it is in the range that hasn’t been seen before.”
Meanwhile, he adds, nobody is really sure how you form a three-solar-mass black hole.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/astronomers-find-a-small-black-hole-or-a-giant-neutron-star/
Professor Ian Plimer talks some Australian sense about how “climate is cyclical” (and how new study says we’re heading into an ice age):
https://youtu.be/fyiDwhbwxSs
The Mid-Pleistocene Revolution, which I attribute to orbital forcing linked to the acquired millennial cycle of a hypothetical Jovian hyperon moon, correlates with the glacial cycle of Mars:
“Significant debate exists whether the global population of Martian debris-covered glacier deposits formed continuously over the past 300 to 800 Ma, or whether they formed during punctuated episodes of ice accumulation during obliquity maxima (lasting ∼10–100 ka). We show that, like ancient debris-covered glaciers on Earth, boulder banding on Martian glacial deposits indicates multiple episodes of ice accumulation and advance.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2015971118
Here’s another article with fantastic images of the glaciers with differentiated bands overlaid:
“Based on that data, Levy has concluded that Mars has undergone somewhere between six and 20 separate ice ages during the past 300-800 million years.”
https://phys.org/news/2021-01-mystery-martian-glaciers-revealed.amp
I wonder what year in the future the millennial cycle will be found in the Martian glacial deposits? It would confirm an orbital source for both Earth and Mars.
A further hints of new physics:
“A pair of Japanese scientists looked at the polarization or orientation of light from the cosmic microwave background radiation, some of the earliest light emitted after the universe’s birth. They found the polarization of photons, or light particles, might be slightly rotated from their original orientation when the light was first produced. And dark energy or dark matter may have been responsible for that rotation. (Dark energy is a hypothetical force that is flinging the universe apart, while proposed dark matter is a substance that exerts gravitational pull yet does not interact with light.)”
https://www.livescience.com/amp/big-bang-light-twisted-new-physics.html
Note that a corkscrew graviton travelling around a hypersphere so it’s spin creates an apparent force of repulsion lends itself to dark energy as the cause of the anomalous light rotation.
Hints of new physics imo:
Puzzling six-exoplanet system with rhythmic movement challenges theories of how planets form:
https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso2102/
Get ready. Modified Newtonian gravity is becoming mainstream and set to replace Einstein’s GR:
https://youtu.be/mvmwqx5vjps
Seismometer on Mars has detected unexpected activity. It lends itself to the Jovian hyperon moon hypothesis for Earth’s climate change:
“And NASA’s InSight lander, which has been peeking inside Mars for two years now, has picked up on some curious seismic signals emanating from one such site of youthful volcanism.
…
We have almost no certain knowledge about the inside of worlds, including our own. That’s a problem.
…
The recent studies of Mars have only highlighted the fact that we have a poor picture of what the insides of worlds are like.”
https://www.quantamagazine.org/mars-rumbles-raise-hopes-of-underground-magma-flows-20210201/
I predict the level of intensity to slowly increase yet exponentially. It’s an indicator of the beginning of the millennial climate cycle on Earth imo.