by Judith Curry
A few things that caught my eye these past few weeks.
A new study finds a large, previously unknown contribution to climate change through human conversion of peatlands for agriculture [link]
Accelerating deployment of offshore wind energy alters wind climate and reduces future power generation [link]
Reducing uncertainty in contrail radiative forcing resulting from uncertainty in ice crystal properties [link]
A million years of paleo data indicates Asian Monsoon variability could become more extreme [link]
Reducing uncertainty in contrail radiative forcing resulting from uncertainty in ice crystal properties [link]
New satellite data analysis shows that evapotranspiration has increased 10% 2003-2019 [link]
The burden of heat related mortality attributable to climate change [link]
Towards real time verification of CO2 emissions [link]
Will desertification overtake Las Vegas’ half million year history of wetlands? [link]
How Anthropogenic drought plays out [link]
It’s been more than 10 years since the last US EF5 tornado, what does that mean? [link]
As more CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere, more of it remains in the atmosphere, and this effect is opposite and approximately equal to the radiative saturation, resulting in little background sensitivity to integrated radiative forcing from an emission. [link]
Koutsoyiannis: Rethinking climate, climate change and their relationship with water [link]
Pathways and pitfalls in extreme event attribution [link]
Megadroughts and pluvials in southwest australia: 1350-2017 CE [link]
Contrails: tweaking flight altitude could significantly reduce impacts [link]
The anatomy of abrupt warmings recorded in greenland ice [link]
Uncovering patterns in California’s blazing wildfires [link]
Data driven reconstruction reveals large-scale ocean circulation control on coastal sea level [link]
A well balanced ecosystem uses water most efficiently [link]
Observational constraints on low cloud feedback reduce climate sensitivity uncertainty [link]
Landmark study casts doubt on theory linking extreme winter weather to melting arctic ice [link]
Emergent constraints on regional cloud feedback [link]
How unprecedented was the February 2021 Texas cold snap? https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac0278…
Technology and policy
Schellenberger: Why Biden’s climate agenda is falling apart [link]
The dangerous campaign behind climate emergency declarations [link]
Why shaking up big oil could by a pyrrhic victory [link]
Democracy and the nuclear stalemate [link]
Nature based solutions can help cool the planet [link]
The ‘Green Energy’ That Might Be Ruining the Planet https://politi.co/3riJQ5y
Getting the message right on nature-based solutions to climate change [link]
Optimal real estate capital durability and localized climate change disaster risk [link]
Limits to climate action: narratives of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage [link]
As electric vehicles take off, we’ll need to recycle their batteries [link]
Why we must scrutinize the magical thinking behind geoengineering [link]
Rerouting the MIssissippi River could build new land and save a retreating coast [link]
The IEA’s roadmap to net-zero is full of dead ends [link]
The impact of climate change skepticism on adaptation in a market economy [link]
Hoover Dam faces a new test with an epic water shortage [link]
Is this concrete’s breakthrough moment? Turning concrete from part of the problem to part of the solution [link]
Texas winter storm and power outages killed hundreds more people that the official tally [link]
China dominates 2020 coal plant development [link]
NERC sees potential summer energy shortfalls, says energy transition ‘pace’ may threaten reliability [link]
Strategies to keep more nitrogen in the soil as ammonium [link]
The new climate math: energy addition, subtraction and transition [link]
China’s CO2 has grown at its fastest pace in more than a decade [link]
Are small modular nuclear reactors the solution to climate change? [link]
About science and scientists
Performative pandemic panic [link]
The media’s lab lea debacle shows why banning ‘misinformation’ is a terrible idea [link]
Morally motivated networked harassment as normative reinforcement [link]
Why Americans don’t feel free to speak their minds [link]
Think Again: The power of knowing what you don’t know [link]
The free speech crisis runs deeper than you think [link]
On Covid-19 origins, elites followed politics not science [link]
Roger Pielke Jr: Please shut up. Your expert views are inconvenient for my politics, can you please be quiet? [link]
Fact checking takes another beating [link]
What to do when your mind always dwells on the worst case scenario [link]
Mike Hulme: 3 do’s and dont’s for communicating climate change [link]
Science has become a cartel [link]
Misinformation in and about science [link]
A culture of free speech protects everyone [link]
Chien-Shung Wu, the first lady of physics [link]
Trust in science is not the reason science-based policy recommendations are ignored [link]
How science has been corrupted [link]
It looks as though you missed this one Judith? You will note the title was inspired by your similarly named series.
A new paper from the UK’s CPOM which recalculates CryoSat-2 sea-ice-thickness trends in the Arctic marginal seas using the output of a new snow model rather than with the traditional climatology:
https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2021/05/month-in-review-arctic-science-edition/#Mallett
From the summary conclusions:
We found that interannual variability in average sea ice thickness of the marginal seas was increased by more than 50 % by accounting for variability in the snow cover. On a seasonal timescale we find that variability in the snow cover makes an increasing contribution to the total variability of inferred sea ice thickness, increasing from around 20 % in October to more than 70 % in April.
We also observed that the trends in SnowModel-LG data propagated through to the sea ice thickness time series, amplifying the decline in regions where it was already significant and introducing significant decline where it did not previously exist. This occurred in spite of the compensating effect of enhanced interannual variability.
Aww.. and I thought she put up two too many..
The mortality one neglects important parameters like the increasing average age over time.
The other one (As more CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere…) states
“higher concentrations of dissolved carbon in the surface ocean will reduce the ocean’s ability to absorb excess CO2 from the atmosphere”
in the abstract, which seems very wrong!
The surface ocean CO2 concentration is very close to equilibrium with the atmosphere and will be so in the near future.
More importantly, the higher concentration there seems to stimulate marine life and the transport of dissolved CO2 into the deep ocean two concentration dependent mechanism which in the end remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
On a lighter note:
International Energy Agency’s Green energy fantasy is a hoot
By David Wojick
https://www.cfact.org/2021/06/05/international-energy-agencys-green-energy-fantasy-is-a-hoot/
Looking for laughs? The International Energy Agency has produced a laugh filled report, grandly titled: “Net Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the global energy system“.
Redesigning the global energy system. My, oh my. Below are a few highlights, out of many.
To begin with it is not a roadmap, as it does not tell us how to get there. In fact you cannot get there from here, which makes their there very amusing. This is perhaps the most elaborate net zero fantasy concocted so far.
IEA Executive Director Faith Birol explains where the fantasy comes from: “…combining for the first time the complex models of our two flagship series, the World Energy Outlook and Energy Technology Perspectives.” So two, not just one, complex computer models, that have never before been combined. I feel better already. Instead of the world energy outlook, it is IEA’s outlook for the world energy. I hope they are not predicting this, because there is zero chance of it happening.
Since it is loaded with fantastical technologies, you might think this is at least a technology assessment, but it is not, for two reasons. First of all, there is heavy emphasis on what they call “behavioral changes.” When the technocrats start talking about behavioral changes it is time to step back and shut the door, because it is something they know nothing about. So there is nothing about how these deep behavioral changes will be brought about, most likely including by force.
Second, a technology assessment looks at feasibility and cost. That is what “assessment” means. This non-roadmap never considers either. Instead they gleefully point out that 50% of the needed technology does not yet exist in working form. How it can possibly be fielded globally, in unbelievably massive amounts, in 9 to 29 years is not explained. It is simply assumed, which is hilarious. I say 9 years because they also claim that all of the technology we need between now and 2030 already exist. Another laugh.
The biggest laugh of all is probably their most fundamental assumption. They assume that total global energy use in 2050 will be 8% LESS than today. Yes, less. Mind you they assume 2 billion more people, with more developing countries emerging from poverty, more people getting more electricity, and so forth. But still some-magical-how they need considerably less energy than we do now. Apparently it is all due to that great green magic wand called energy efficiency. I do not see how people getting cars, home heat and cooling, endless appliances, etc., that they never had before can be overcome with efficiency, but then I am not a complex computer model.
One thing I do like is that they do not buy the 100% renewables fantasy. They only get 70%, mostly from solar. How that is possible given that the sun does not shine 70% of the time is fun. Apparently they make a lot of hydrogen which is pumped all over the place or something. That is a separate fantasy. Apparently the other 30% of energy comes mostly from nuclear. I guess they did not get the memo that nuclear is forbidden in green fantasyland. Surely they could just make more hydrogen.
Of course everything is electrified. That is where the pesky behavioral changes come in. Apparently no one wants to drive a gasoline powered car, or cook or heat with natural gas, etc., even in developing countries. Or maybe these unhappy choices are forced upon them. The complex computer models are silent on this potentially unpleasant forced-march scenario.
Also funny is the great long list of peer reviewers of this so-called study. Almost all are promoters of renewables. Almost none are from developing countries. Even fewer are from electric power utilities, who are supposed to power this low energy wonderland.
So in its way this study is very useful. IEA shows us in glorious detail just how laughable the green energy dream really is.
Just imagine if this phrase…
… was written with slightly different words!
Oh the horror, and the dozens of not eco friendly online petitions we could see!
But, luckily for us, it’s only US trees/forests. Carry on!
Actually, environmentalists are also trying to shut down the US production of wood pellets for EU electricity. They blame it on “industry”, of course, conveniently omitting the part where the demanded that “industry” make wood pellets because they declared wood-burning to be “renewable.”
If you’re keeping score:
Europe (mostly the UK) invested billions into burning North Carolina trees because warmists demanded it and falsely claimed it was renewable.
Now the warmists say they don’t want trees burned anymore, and falsely claim they never did want them burned (or that they want power plants to burn “wood” from non-trees).
The warmists falsely claim now that if you simply throw more money at it, the wood burning plants can be replaced with wind and solar (in reality this is yet another move to force EU nations to buy more Russian natural gas.)
You will note that the only consistent line through all this history- as is the case with most of the AGW history – is “warmists falsely claim…”
Activists want to shut down wood in US
https://apnews.com/article/nc-state-wire-environment-government-and-politics-business-b87fba722b4fdfe59bfba06f63973973
The uman animal believes that MONEY will save the Planet!
‘Interacting tipping elements increase risk of climate domino effects under global warming’
https://esd.copernicus.org/articles/12/601/2021/
Even funnier than the IEA green energy fantasy I review above. A cascade of tipping points! What will they think of next?
How do you imagine tipping points work other than through multiple subsystems.
In the climate case I do not imagine they work at all.
Alarmists use speculative tipping points to avoid the empirical record. We are almost half way to doubling CO2 with little to show for it. Some CMIP models are projecting over 5 degrees for doubling. Tipping points are all that is saving them. Lindzen says it is time to point out the absurdity of alarmism. I agree, starting with tipping points.
The scientific definition of “tipping point”: “The moment in time, after a person has had too much to drink, when he begins falling off his bar stool.”
Climate tipping points are imaginary, always wrong, computer game predictions of climate doom — fantasies from the climate alarmists.
Predictions of global warming doom began with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.
We are now in year 64 of the imaginary coming climate crisis — it’s always coming, but never arrives.
Meanwhile, the actual climate is getting better.
We now have the best climate since the cold, late 1600s, for humans, animals, and plants.
We should be celebrating the current climate.
We are lucky to be living during a mild warming trend, in an interglacial.
We’ve all lived with rising CO2 levels for all of our lives, and global warming for up to 45 years.
That means we have seven billion “witnesses” who have experienced actual, beneficial global warming.
Beneficial warming in the winter for people living in higher, colder latitudes, and beneficial CO2 enrichment for plants.
The scary predictions about the future climate never change, as if predicting the future climate is easy.
It seems much more difficult to “predict” the past climate.
Because the past climate keeps changing, with “adjustments”, and “revisions”, that somehow always seem to increase the rate of global warming.
Obviously not correcting random errors.
The inconvenient -0.5 to -0.6 degrees C. global cooling from 1940 to 1970, as CO2 levels rose, that was reported in the mid-1970s, has been nearly completely “adjusted away”, decades after the measurements were made.
The coming climate crisis is a secular religious belief that can’t be falsified, just like all religious beliefs.
That coming climate crisis belief was not created with science, facts, data and logic, so it can not be refuted with science, facts, data and logic.
The 64 year old imaginary coming climate crisis belief can only be refuted by years of unusually cold weather … just like the first four months of 2021.
And for true believers, even that might not work.
Richard Greene
Bingham Farms, Michigan
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
RIE – please show me multiple subsystems in your favorite “tipping point” graph.
You can just imagine our virtuous woke and cancel culture supremacists working their asses off to find who tipped the first domino over. Some genius will identify the human individual who dared to rub two sticks together to produce fire and be dismayed that they didn’t have particularly pink skin.
Mother Nature topples dominoes over at will and just look at her amazing results doing so.
Richard “Predictions of global warming doom began with oceanographer Roger Revelle in 1957.”
Hermann Flohn published the first German-language article on global warming in 1941, “MAN’S ACTIVITY AS A FACTOR IN CLIMATIC CHANGE”; written from the perspective that it was harmful. Flohn was eventually promoted to chief meteorologist for the Luftwaffe. The modern green movement, also ecofascism, originated in Na-zi Germany where it reached cult status up to the highest ranks, including the big man himself.
“We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole. This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.”
Except for the last three words, the quote be a preamble for the green new deal.
jungletrunks,
A lot of those Germans were considered quite valuable for what they knew about science.
Wiki: Operation Paperclip was a secret US intelligence program in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from former Nazi Germany to the United States for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945 and 1959.
Your’e correct Jack. Wernher von Braun was among the more notable of these scientists that you allude to, he speareheaded the Apollo program. “Confiscated” science, and the individuals responsible for Na-zi technology were shared between the allies. The spoils from war if you will. It’s difficult to sort out the politics of each individual within the lower echelon ranks of the National Socialist regime, a country that was a Republic before Hitler outlawed all other parties except Naz-ism.
‘An important new area of research, abrupt climate change, has developed since the 1980s. This research has been inspired by the discovery, in the ice core records of Greenland and Antarctica, of evidence for abrupt shifts in regional and global climates of the past. These events, which have also been documented in ocean and continental records, involve sudden shifts of Earth’s climate system from one equilibrium state to another. Such shifts are of considerable scientific concern because they can reveal something about the controls and sensitivity of the climate system. In particular, they point out nonlinearities, the so-called “tipping points,” where small, gradual changes in one component of the system can lead to a large change in the entire system. Such nonlinearities arise from the complex feedbacks between components of the Earth system. For example, during the Younger Dryas event (see below) a gradual increase in the release of fresh water to the North Atlantic Ocean led to an abrupt shutdown of the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic basin. Abrupt climate shifts are of great societal concern, for any such shifts in the future might be so rapid and radical as to outstrip the capacity of agricultural, ecological, industrial, and economic systems to respond and adapt.’ https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change/Abrupt-climate-changes-in-Earth-history
Unless you have evidence that shows some other mechanism operating in the Earth system – we are well beyond the stage where hand waving it away is at all persuasive.
The anatomy of abrupt warmings recorded in Greenland ice [link]
I will make some comments on this one, It is my favorite subject, or close to it.
In the Introduction, they wrote:
However, no consensus exists yet to explain what triggers the abrupt warmings, characterized by Greenland surface temperature increases of 5–16 °C within a few decades to centuries8.
That is easy to explain, “So Called” Climate Science achieved consensus before all the actual data was available to figure it out. The right answers are ruled out by the consensus. It is not permissible to even discuss anything that disagrees.
Consensus says that the great glaciers did not start thawing until Twenty Thousand Years Ago. I do not know how many deliberately lie and how many just do not suspect, and how many keep quite to protect their jobs and investments.
Ice thaws every time the sun shines on it. The ice that was pushed South on the Northern Continents Thawed faster, the ice that was pushed into the Arctic Thawed slower. The Arctic filled with freshwater from glacial thawing and filled with ice that was pushed in by the weight ice was brought in with the great meltwater surges into the Arctic. Each of the abrupt warming events in Greenland Data is from Great Glacial Meltwater Surges. Atlantic Events were the result and not the causes of the Greenland warming, Greenland Ice is from Open Arctic, not the Atlantic. If the source of the increased ice accumulations was the Atlantic, the Temperature records would have been much warmer.
The 97% enforced peer reviewed consensus prevents any new knowledge.
Example, they wrote:
Recent studies suggest that abrupt climate variability can result entirely from unforced12 or noise-induced oscillations of the coupled atmosphere-ice-ocean system that alter poleward energy transport (ref. 13 and 14 for reviews).
This has no meaning to anyone, so no one can question it, it passes their Peer Review with flying Colors. When you say something complicated and it has no meaning, this is the stuff “Peer Reviewed Consensus is Made OF”.
Then they look to find correlations with huge rapid changes to a change of less than one molecule in ten thousand. Of course there would be as a result of the temperature change, but that change was lagging. Junk like this gets high praise reviews by Peers.
Two other simulations were also run to produce a set of three runs with different fixed background atmospheric CO2 forcing (185, 200, and 210 ppmv) to investigate the effect of background atmospheric CO2 on D-O variability.
They wrote:
the model shows minor changes in the south eastern Norwegian Seas and is somewhat inconsistent with some recent observational studies80. This may be related to the coarse resolution of the model and the penetration of Atlantic waters into the Norwegian Seas during the stadial in this model.
The Meltwater Surged into the Arctic, any surges south would be independent surges, and either one would likely reduce the meltwater height and delay any surge in the other direction. There are good records of meltwater surges south into the Northwestern US. These are independent of meltwater surges north into the Arctic.
The total lack of understanding of how ice sheets come to be and how they thaw is appalling.
This is much about great meltwater surges south, through or even under the great ice dams in the north during the last major ice age and coming out of it and some sediment layers older than that.
Nick Zentner Geology professor at Central Washington University
At 1 hr 26 Minutes this is a long presentation but still worth watching.
https://youtu.be/93mypZPEU4s
Uncovering patterns in California’s blazing wildfires.
“Past research shows, for example, that population density and distance to the wildland-urban interface help explain fire frequency.” The article does not contain the word “eucalyptus”, a non-native tree blamed on many fires. To be fair, the authors focus on the Sierra Nevada mountains, not an eucalyptus area. But their model does not consider vegetation changes at all.
Move into the forest, prevent natural fires that clean up the dead wood and prevent people from cleaning up the dead wood and wait for the fire that always will clean up the dead wood, if someone does not take care if it.
O2 feeds the fires, not CO2, and we do not want to reduce O2, we breathe it. We also do not want to reduce the CO2 because everything we eat depends on CO2.
Follow the money. There is not much profit in preventing disasters. There is huge profit in cleaning up and rebuilding after disasters.
China dominates 2020 coal plant development [link]
China’s CO2 has grown at its fastest pace in more than a decade [link]
China builds multiple coal power plants to provide power to improve China’s ability to replace each coal power plant that is closed in the Western Countries and Partly to raise the standard of living of Chinese People to as good and better than ours and partly because it takes a lot of fossil fuel energy to mine and manufacture our “so called green grid” that cannot still keep the power on and water running during a freeze that should not have been as bad as past freezes that I recall.
This happens while we lower our standard of living to SAVE THE WORLD from manmade CO2
The little we have reduced and the little we can reduce is replaced by an order of magnitude added by China so they can help us destroy our way of life.
China still emits far less per capita than does the US. And has emitted only about 1/2 historically that the US has.
Their official policy is to catch up as quickly as possible.
“China still emits far less per capita than does the US.”
In a world where you (claim to) want global per capita emissions to be zero by 2050….what’s your point?
This, by the way, is the “hoax.” The claim that the climate concerned want, much less are planning for, a decrease in anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not true and never has been true. The world figured out a while ago that advocates just want to move emissions (and therefore money) around the globe and, as a result, have done little more than pay lip service to the issue. When not using the issue to abuse the trust of the poorly informed to push other causes.
And I suppose the fact that China has four times the US population and much faster economic growth than other developed nations (or so they claim) does not matter?
And I suppose Real Chinese air pollution does not matter?
And the forced labor building solar panels does not matter?
And the rapid building of coal power plants in China, and financing them in many other nations, does not matter?
And lying about the origin of COVID -19 does not matter?
And incredible lying about the COVID death rate per 100,000 (claimed to be less than 0.5% in China, versus the 195 per 100,000 claimed by the US) doesn’t matter?
Source of data below: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
COVID Deaths per 100,000 Population
Taiwan 1
Japan 11
Norway 15
Finland 19
Denmark 46
Sweden 151
France 166
US 195
UK 199
Italy 218
One thing I know for sure:
Your comment doesn’t matter!
The study “New satellite data analysis shows that evapotranspiration has increased 10% 2003-2019” purports to find that evapotranspiration has increased by 2.3mm yr-1, ie. they have found l the increase in the hydrological cycle that can reasonably be expected from global warming. But in line with all other papers in major journals such as Nature, it has to deliver the finding that this is a Bad Thing. It does this by purporting to find that precipitation has increased by only 1mm yr-1, and that there is therefore less run-off, ie. less water in rivers.
The study uses measurements of gravity : “To measure evapotranspiration, the authors assume that all rainfall is divided into evapotranspiration, [precipitation,] river discharge and land-based water storage. By measuring the three other components of the water cycle individually, the authors can, therefore, calculate evapotranspiration.”. The study is a land-only study, ie. only over land not over ocean. The calculation of evapotranspiration as the difference between the others is extremely dodgy because it depends totally on their original assumptions being correct and on their measurements being accurate enough that the differences are meaningful. I would think that their assumptions have absolutely no chance of being correct because the vast majority of the hydrological cycle is driven by the oceans, not by the land, so the vast majority of all precipitation comes from ocean moisture carried over land not from evaporation from the land. It is also not explained (or I missed it) how they were measuring precipitation or river discharge. I seriously doubt whether they are actually measuring what they think they are measuring. An additional issue, possibly(?) minor in the overall picture, is that the amount of water stored on land, which they deduce from their gravity measurements, would surely be heavily affected by artificial water storages and farming practices
Am I alone in thinking that this study is so heavily flawed that it is completely useless? Their graphs have nice colours, though.
The study is an example for a not complete peer review. They measure the precipitation, river discharge and land based water storage and estimate that the difference is the evaporation. This approach postulates that there is no other issue involved. BUT: There is “global greening” with a trend over the time. The water mass in crops is increasing! It looks like increasing evaporation if one neglect this as they did with the used methods. A good article about this study is well on target in the end: “(Dr. Alexis) Berg adds that the authors do not mention the “global greening” trend that has taken place in recent decades, which “could lead to increased evapotranspiration, independent of warming”. Source: https://www.carbonbrief.org/satellite-data-reveals-impact-of-warming-on-global-water-cycle .
The study should be improved… ;-)
The overall affect of CO2 is a reduction in the evaporation from plants, with some small exception.
With each plant contributing less to evapotranspiration, that implies a substantial increase implant mass.
Pathways and pitfalls in extreme event attribution:
“The last few years have seen an explosion of interest in extreme event attribution, the science of estimating the influence of human activities or other factors on the probability and other characteristics of an observed extreme weather or climate event. This is driven by public interest, but also has practical applications in decision-making after the event and for raising awareness of current and future climate change impacts.”
It is not science, it is driven by financial interests, and serves no practical purpose.
“the effects of changes in solar activity on the weather are negligible for most of the world in recent history”
Baloney, daily-weekly changes in the solar wind cause the NAO/AO anomalies driving the weather extremes and most of the variability. Like the heat of early August and early September 2020, with the fastest solar coronal hole streams in a year.
https://solen.info/solar/coronal_holes.html
The only real connection between major heatwaves like 2003 and 2018 and climate change, is that they cause climate change, they could not occur without their discrete solar forcing. The same goes for major cold-waves.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/major-heat-cold-waves-driven-key-heliocentric-alignments-ulric-lyons/
Bill Gates’ next generation nuclear reactor to be built in Wyoming – https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/utility-small-nuclear-reactor-firm-select-wyoming-next-us-site-2021-06-02/
If Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were using their own money for this folly, then I’d say great, knock-yourself-out. However, the hapless US taxpayer will be on the hook for at least hundreds of millions of dollars for yet another dumb debacle unleashed by the US Department of Energy.
Sodium cooled fast reactors only alleged function is to make more fuel than than they use, but the initial fuel needs are excessively large. The commercial and operational record of the machines is absolutely horrendous. Safety is highly suspect. Then we have the non-trivial fact the fuel has to be reprocessed (major proliferation risk) and the cost for such facilities is in the tens-and-tens-of-billions of dollars. Next, we have the cost to try and license the fast reactor. There have never been any fast reactors licensed by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. All things considered, much more cost effective to stick with more conventional and proven reactor designs.
There may be advanced reactors that can be passively fail-safe and competitive. The sodium cooled fast reactor is not one of them.
It is reasonable and it always has been to support sunrise industry. I have been to your site. You are just dirty because you are not getting any. As a result of not having the dollars to put up a reasonable share I might add.
Why don’t you try dealing with facts instead of insults? Apparently you lack intellectual integrity and must resort to ad hominem attacks.
Billion’s of dollars have been spent on sodium cooled fast reactors over the last 50 years or so and they have all been utter financial failures. Not exactly a “sunrise industry” in need of money from the taxpayer. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates can easily afford to bankroll the entire misadventure.
The sodium fast reactor is technically and financially unsound and of doubtful safety. The historical record unequivocally proves my point.
That you complain about not getting government funding for your hybrid fancy is a fact. As for FNR:
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
“small nuclear reactor firm”. One billion a pop.
If you are referring to our hybrid technology, we think the installed cost is roughly around $1.5 billion for a 1000 Megawatts plant. Not too bad, if accurate. However, we freely admit that a much more accurate cost estimate is required using a preliminary plant design.
“Texas winter storm and power outages killed hundreds more people that the official tally [link] 700 deaths”
As I previously noted
A) In Texas – electric generation from natural gas and nuclear lost approx 40% capacity over 36-48 hours on Feb 15th & 16th and 17th
B) In Texas – electric generation from Wind and solar lost approx 70%-90% for a 9 day period from Feb 12th to Feb 19th – That is a 9 day period
C) the entire continental US and most of Canada lost 70-90% of electric generation from wind and solar during that same 9 day period.
That is the entire north american hemisphere!
Losing electric power generation from wind and solar for 3-4 days a couple of times each month during the winter is very common.
Any guesses on how much backup fossil fuel electric generation capacity needs to be built after homes in michigan, minnesota , etc are converted to electric heat ?
Any guesses on how much electricity is generated by a solar farm in the winter where the panels are covered in snow?
You whine that they need 100% and then whine when the backup fails?
The 40% lost of electricity generation for fossil fuels for 48 hours was a once in 20 or so year event.
The 70%-90% loss of power from wind & solar for 3-4 days is a bi-monthly event globally during the winter.
They plan on 7% wind capacity in winter.
It’s not that complicated. When designing a reliable system ignore solar and wind. That doesn’t mean that you don’t need to properly engineer the system you’re relying on for reliable electric supply. That is what Texas failed to do. It also doesn’t mean that you can’t have some solar and wind generation…just don’t expect it to contribute much to reliability.
The ‘reliabiles’ fail because wind and solar ruin the marginal economics of existing and new gas and coal capacity. This is the indirect effect versus the direct effect of lost renewable generation at the peak. My interpretation of the Texas debacle is here. https://www.econlib.org/author/rbradley/
No – gas and nuclear failed in Texas because because pre-heaters at gas plants stopped working and intakes at nuclear reactors froze.
The one nuclear plant that tripped tripped because a sensing line froze. Most gas plants “failed” because they could not get fuel. One generator, I believe it was NRG, stated that they had 1000Mws of gas offline due to an issue at the plant and 16000Mws offline for lack of gas supply.
Texas has a “critical loop” problem they turned off electricity to shed load and consequently off compressor stations that were supplying gas to power plants. Really dumb design and communication.
Important to point out also that it wasn’t just ERCOT that had rotating blackouts during the cold weather. SPP and MISO did also…they just flew under the radar because of the more severe issues in ERCOT.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/toba-pearlman/benefits-more-connected-grid-miso-and-spp
As doug pointed out SPP and Miso suffered during the Feb 2021 freeze – though not as bad as ERCOT. The article proposes greater usage of transmission lines between the two transmission systems.
However, the better interconnectivity does not solve the underlying problem of the 70%-90% loss of electric generation from wind and solar.
MISO and SPP are not as heavily reliant on wind and solar 10% ish vs 25% in Texas.
“The ‘reliabiles’ fail because wind and solar ruin the marginal economics of existing and new gas and coal capacity.”
I agree, it is currently being done stupidly. As I said, if you want a reliable system you have to ignore solar and wind when designing for reliability. If you want to add wind and solar then you have to accept the added cost of adding wind and solar…that is what no one wants to accept. The resultant system will necessarily cost more than the reliable system capital cost alone.
Australia’s energy mix as of 2017. It is not a problem. We will retire aging coal plants and build some gas power plants. As well as some more wind and solar. Balance it with landfill gas and hydro – as well as some more gas peaking capacity.
https://www.worldenergydata.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Screen-Shot-2019-10-24-at-10.13.02-pm-768×609.png
And continue to export gas and coking coal to the world and thermal coal to India and China.
Both nuclear and coal have their fuels supplies at the plant. From a reliability standpoint, that is really helpful. Hydroelectric also usually has a supply of “fuel” behind the dam. Gas plants do not store fuel and that can be a problem, as Texas recently learned.
A reasonable mix of resources is the key to reliability. I seriously doubt that can be achieved with zealots and corrupt politicians attempting to control the energy mix. Rotating “brownouts” and “blackouts” are inevitable and likely to become more frequent. “Climate Change” has nothing to do with the problem, but incompetence most certainly does.
Contrarians wave their arms about madly pontificating on some extreme straw man argument. Sufficient to be dispassionate. Wind and solar get their fuel for free – but the insoluble problem is the energy density. Still – useful in moderation or for the right application.
Once again, you prove my point on the utter shallowness of your arguments. Hence, you resort to ad hominin attacks. Really pitiful on your part.
You prove my point Michael.
JoeL
You talk about capacity.
More important is actual power generated, by source.
Texas has a 29 million population.
The maximum number of people who lost power In February 2021 was about 5 million. That means 24 million people (83%) did not lose power. So where did they get electricity from?
Very little electric power came from from wind. Expectations were low for wind energy at that time of year, but thanks to frozen windmills, actual wind power output was about one third lower than the already low expectations. You can’t count on the wind when you most need it !
For wind energy, actual output per hour is more important than average output per day. There were some very low wind output hours just before the blackout.
Percent of capacity can be misleading for wind and solar power.
Their average output per day far from 100% of capacity, so saying they lost 70% to 90% doesn’t mean that much.
For example: You might say Texas wind energy was expected to be 18% of maximum capacity in February 2021, but actually fell to 12% of capacity for a day, or for a number of hours. I believe Texas wind power output was well under 10% of capacity for at least an hour before the blackout, but can’t remember the exact numbers I used in this paragraph..
A rolling blackout affected 3.2 million Texns in February 2011. The August 2011 report said the entire Texas energy infrastructure was not “winterized (beyond just the power plants).
But financial incentives were created to promote building windmills, with good guaranteed returns on the investment. New fossil fuel plants, and winterization of existing infrastructiue, could have a zero percent return. Those incentives looked smart for the next 10 years. Until February 2021, when even colder (and longer lasting) weather than in February 2011 hit Texas. It was all predicted in the August 2011 official report. But who reads thickofficial reports?
Richard Greene – As usual, I could use better wording to convey a more complete information.
We are in agreement.
You are correct on a number of points
1) When I wrote Wind & solar lost 70%-90% of capacity, I was referring to the average wind & solar electric generation prior to Feb 12th. prior to Feb 12, wind & solar were producing 50-60% of name plate capacity., So actual lost capacity was closer to 85%-95%.
2) Likewise you are correct that electric generation by hour is more important than generation by day. Electricity is one of the most perishable products in the world. The very high fluctuations is one of the things the create frequency issues in the grid.
As noted, electric generation from wind and solar during the winter is approx 40% of the summer generation. Yet the advocates want to convert all heating to electricity. The fools at skeptical science lack the basics in science and engineering,
What is striking is the belief that renewables are a solution
‘“To provide [electricity] in today’s world, an ‘advanced reactor’ must improve over existing reactors in the following 4-core objectives. It must produce significantly less costly, cost-competitive clean electricity, be safer, produce significantly less waste and reduce proliferation risk. It is not sufficient to excel at one without regard to the others.” Dr. Christina Back, Vice President, Nuclear Technologies and Materials for General Atomics, May 2016 testimony before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the status of advanced nuclear technologies.’
New UCS report implies acceptance of advanced nuclear if they can meet the four objectives outlined by Christina Back.
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better#read-online-content
Needs to be able to compete with other forms of generation, not just conventional nuclear. Therein lies a very significant, and perhaps insurmountable, challenge.
Factory build modular reactors shpould go a ;long way.
Maybe. The bulk of the costs historically are in the buildings, structures and support systems. Back in the 70’s, standardized reactors built on assembly lines were deployed by Combustion Engineering, but the nuclear steam supply system represented less than 10% of the total cost of the plant.
The cost of regulations is the joker-in-the-deck and the fundamental reason why nuclear plants are extremely expensive in the US and Europe.
You’re a stick in the mud. The NRC are working on generic approvals. And the main reason nukes are half the price in Korea than in the US is standardized designs and an experienced workforce.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/em2-reactor1-e1433377796375.jpg
Your statement is complete nonsense. Approval of standardized license applications has been around for over 50 years. As usual, you throw out half-baked information and get upset when anyone dares point out you are wrong.
As I am heavily involved with the NRC advanced reactor rule making, I can state with a high level of confidence that making the licensing process simpler and less expensive is not particularly a NRC priority. My views are in the public record and I am not alone in objecting to what is going on. The advanced reactor developers as a group and nuclear industry are unhappy with what the NRC is proposing.
Once again, you resort to ad hominin attacks because your arguments are shallow and ill-informed.
‘The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is conducting an
exploratory process to gather information on potential environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC is planning to conduct two public meetings and a workshop to explore the interaction of various advanced nuclear reactor designs with the environment. NRC intends to gather information that will inform its decision on whether to proceed with the development of a generic environmental impact statement for the construction and operation of advanced nuclear reactors (ANR GEIS). The intent of an ANR GEIS is to improve the efficiency of the environmental review process.’ Agency Action Regarding the Exploratory Process for the Development of an
Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement
Your involvement seems to be making unhelpful public comment to the NRC enquiry.
Koutsoyiannis a good read as usual and useful reminder about the nature of ‘climate’.
“Are small modular nuclear reactors the solution to climate change?”
We don’t need to, and shouldn’t try to, reduce global warning. It is beneficial.
But there are other reasons to move to SMRs. They can become much cheaper than the monster NP plants we’ve been building for the past 60 years. And much safer than all other electricity generation technologies. They can replace nearly all the existing technologies, including renewables.
Here’s new publication from Australia:
“The Case for SMRs in Australia”
A copy can be downloaded here: http://www.smrnuclear.com.au/references-and-publications/smr-s-publications/
The world needs to move to SMR’s as fast as possible. However, there is no way they can be economic in Australia with our enormous, union-controlled construction costs (at least 2x USA and 3x-4x South Korea). And, as long as the majority of Australian’s remain scared stiff of nuclear it’s not going to happen, IMO. Aussies need to get over their unjustifiable fear of nuclear and all legislation that prevents it, or makes it more costly than it should be, needs to be repealed.
To speed up the transition to nuclear the whole world should tax each technology on the cost of the deaths per TWh each technology causes.
If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each technology would have to pay per MWh are:
Technology US$/MWh
Coal 174
Oil 418
Natural Gas 46
Biofuel/biomass 139
Solar (rooftop) 5.1
Wind 1.7
Hydro 0.058
Nuclear 0.001
I think what is needed are cost effective and fail-safe reactors. I would not rush headlong to embrace SMR’s until the cost competitiveness issue is reasonably demonstrated. Making the machines smaller and less efficient (the trajectory of SMR’s) does not inspire economic confidence as it flies in the face of the historical record for power plants, including renewable energy.
Mike Keller, Nuclear is and always has been by far the safest way to generate electricity. The new SMRS are even safer – much safer. And the y are more flexible, and can be built much faster. Did you read the article I linked?
Safety is not the issue. Rather the problem is cost. Let’s not overlook the cost of an accident either. Fukushima was a financial catastrophe (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars) for Japan but public radiation exposure was not much of an issue. However, the event was traumatic with long running economic damage to the surrounding population.
Michael Keller,
I get the impression you know very little about the issue.
The costs of nuclear are high because of the fear of the technology. Read the paper I linked. If not for the fear created by the anti-nuclear power movement starting in the 1960s, the cost of nuclear could be around 10% of current costs. We need to remove the regulatory impediments that are making nuclear so costly.
Secondly, you cannot just point to the costs of nuclear accidents. You need to compare the life cycle analysis of deaths/TWh of all electricity generation technologies. See my previous comment where I provided estimates of what taxes would need to be paid by each technology to compensate for the deaths they cause per TWh.
Regarding Chernobyl and Fukushima, it seems you do not understand the facts on them. The actions taken and extreme costs were no justified by the health impacts.
Here’s some references to read:
1. Lang, P. Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. 2021. https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
3. Wang, B. Deaths by Energy Source in Forbes. 2012. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
4. Conca, J. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources. 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid
5. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total Energy, Data, Electricity, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors). https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.02A#/
References on the impacts of, and how best to respond to, major nuclear accidents:
Thomas, P.; May, J. Coping after a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.09.013
Thomas, P.J. Quantitative guidance on how best to respond to a big nuclear accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.026
Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of relocation measures following the nuclear power plant accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.03.012
Waddington, I.; Thomas, P.; Taylor, R.; Vaughan, G. J-value assessment of remediation measures following the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accidents. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 16-49.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.07.003
Yumashev, D.; Johnson, P.; Thomas, P. Economically optimal strategies for medium-term recovery after a major nuclear reactor accident. Process Safety and Environmental Protection 2017, 112, 63-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2017.08.022
Chernobyl Accident 1986
(Updated April 2020)
• The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
• The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment, with the deposition of radioactive materials in many parts of Europe.
• Two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome.
• The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that, apart from some 6500 thyroid cancers (resulting in 15 fatalities), “there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident.”
• Some 350,000 people were evacuated as a result of the accident, but resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing.
The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 report which said that “apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.” There is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. Radiation-induced leukemia has a latency period of 5-7 years, so any potential leukemia cases due to the accident would already have developed. A low number of the clean-up workers, who received the highest doses, may have a slightly increased risk of developing solid cancers in the long term. To date, however, there is no evidence of any such cancers having developed. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said: “The great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
Video: ‘Experts talk about the health effects of Chernobyl’ https://youtu.be/PZUvoeIArDM
Deaths
2 during the explosion
28 in the 30 days following the accident
15 due to thyroid cancers since the accident
19 more emergency workers died 1987–2004
64 total
References
WHO – ‘Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes – Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9241594179
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/who_chernobyl_report_2006.pdf
WHO – 1986-2016: CHERNOBYL at 30 https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/1986-2016-chernobyl-at-30
2 Regarding the Linear No-Threshold hypothesis
Calabrese, E.J.P., Mikko. A-Bombs, Bears and Corrupted Science; Reassessing radiation safety. Global Warming Policy Foundation: UK, 2020; p 28. https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2020/06/Calabrese-Paunio-2020.pdf.
Calabrese, E.J. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate. Environmental Research 2017, 154, 435-451. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309331
Calabrese, E.J. The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 2. How a mistake led BEIR I to adopt LNT. Environmental research 2017, 154, 452-458. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116309343
Doss, M. Are We Approaching the End of the Linear No-Threshold Era? Journal of Nuclear Medicine 2018, 59, 1786-1793. http://jnm.snmjournals.org/content/59/12/1786.long
Higson, D.J., “A controversy that needs to be resolved”; The Boyce Worthley Oration 2019. Radiation Protection in Australasia; The Journal of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society, May 2020, Vol.37, No.1, pp. 29-36. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1raQz-s_wUOrPvNgCYY91iwg6tbEQQd4U/view?usp=sharing
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 nuclear power 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
Future pricing of nuclear 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 could 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 work-days-lost per TWh (refer to Section 1).
It’s impossible to predict what nuclear designs and products will become the most competitive in the future.
It’s all an immensely lop sided narrative and hugely irrelevant to advanced designs and 21st century materials.
Mr. Lang, I am a supporter of increased use of nuclear power. However, this discussion highlights a dilemma we should all be interested in solving. Participants bemoan the additional costs to nuclear imposed by regulations, etc. And yet, the obvious solution to the problems that caused the Chernobyl accident are regulations, etc.
At the very least we should admit we haven’t found the right balance as of yet.
Thomas Fuller,
The right balance is to remove the excessive regulations on nuclear and to regulate and tax technologies in proportion to the deaths/TWh each technology causes. See my figures in one of my first comments above.
The problem here in Chernobyl was the third rail of “woke” insanity and that is that some cultures and ideologies are vastly better than others. Modern liberalism and science grew out of Enlightenment European culture. We are now seeing a vast big ideological lie being spread that this is not the case.
But the problem is that Russian culture has never placed integrity and anti-corruption in a high position. Generally corruption is present in most business dealings in Russia. Chernobyl wouldn’t happen in most Western countries.
It also points out the profound danger we are in from a big corrupt lie becoming the basis for a new Guilded Age of corruption at every level. We need a Teddy Roosevelt to institute massive reforms. Establishment types will never want that to happen. By definition many of our institutions must either be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up or there need to be some mass firings.
> Chernobyl wouldn’t happen in most Western countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
I believe I know more about the subject of nuclear energy than you, having been heavily involved in nuclear power and the power industry for over 50 years. Your impression is absolutely false.
Nuclear power is too expensive to effectively compete in a number of countries, that is a fact. Trotting out all types of statistics concerning safety is irrelevant if your product is viewed as financially too risky as an investment. Dumping that risk on consumers and taxpayers is also not particularly helpful if you are trying to win the public over. Come up with a competitive product and then you will not have to resort to imaginative marketing to hoodwink the population.
As far as reducing regulatory costs are concerned, that should occur if the advanced nuclear plant is walk-away fail-safe. Key word, however, is “should”. Remains to be seen if the bureaucrats will back off overregulation of nuclear plants as that entails giving up some of their power.
Michael Keller,
Clearly you don’t understand that
1. nuclear power is by far the safest way to generate electricity and always has been since the first NPP began powering the grid in 1953,
2. if not the fear of nuclear power that was caused by the anti nuclear power movement starting in the 1960’s nuclear could now be around 10% of current costs,
3. The enormous costs and health impacts of of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents was almost entirely caused by the inappropriate responses to these accidents.
Please take your time to carefully read and understand the references I posted in my comments above.
Three Mile Island is not Chernobyl. It was a vastly less serious accident. Post accident studies showed no increase in cancer rates as I recall. This is essentially a huge rabid squirrel.
> Three Mile Island is not Chernobyl.
Special pleading much, David?
Next you’re gonna tell us that Japan isn’t Western.
Chernobyl and TMI are not comparable from a public health impact standpoint. Both plants suffered catastrophic core damage but chernobyl had no containment and the release occurred at the time of core damage. TMI had very limited release.
> Chernobyl and TMI are not comparable
Of course they are. Contrarians recently compared the consensus over AGW with two letters. From then on anything goes.
And as Michael notices, that’s just a big distraction. Nukes’ biggest problem is cost:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/11/29/going-nuclear/
Another problem is time. These problem are so big that the Lomborg Collective punches hippies instead of acknowledging them.
In Jim’s time, nukes might have made sense. Right now it’s just another Freedom Fighter talking point.
What Willard is doing here is obfuscation and pointing to his squirrel, i.e., some obscurantist meme from an invented game, climate ball.
My point is true, Cultural factors played a significant role in the terrible record of Russia and the USSR in environmental protection. It’s not just nuclear power, but toxic chemicals, oil drilling waste, etc. A large area around Chernobyl is still uninhabitable. Western cultures did a much better job.
test
> My point is true
Counterfactuals are not true things, David. Nobody knows if what has never happened (which is either false or biased by sharpshooting) could never happen.
Think about it.
From the original link: “SMRs are portable reactors capable of generating up to 300 megawatts of electricity. They can be deployed in a variety of ways.”
Vaporware has always a lot of nice properties.
General Atomics are referring to FMR – fast modular reactors. Nuclear fission is far from ‘vaporware’.
Where can I buy one?
US, UK, France, Norway, Russia, China… I could hook you up for a fee.
Definitely vaporware.
There are 200 mini-nukes floating about in the ocean alone.
Not forgetting the occasional one that (hopefully!) always remains above the water:
https://V2G.co.uk/2021/05/electric-vehicles-as-energy-smart-appliances/#comment-78590
https://v2g.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AkademicLomonosov.jpg
Jim, thanks. Is that what “small” and “modular” means? Was that modern technology actually available in 2009?
Afternoon George,
Here’s some brief info about the 2 reactors on the Akademic Lomonosov:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40_reactor
Similar reactors were around long before 2009. They conform to Robert’s definition of aquatic “mini-nukes”. Whilst they may be “small” and “modular” they don’t really conform to the current concept of a “small modular reactor”.
That is the Russian floating plant. It supplies 75MW electricity and 300 MW heat. At 144m by 30m – it’s compact for a power plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
Quite so Robert,
Similar reactors have of course been in use for decades in Russian nuclear powered ice breakers on the Northern Sea Route:
https://youtu.be/VVtDX46cTJQ
And if the country
Calls us on a campaign
For our native land
We all shall march to sacred war!
Mornin’ Robert (UTC),
Judith’s blog seems to have an inbuilt “Soviet propaganda” filter, so let me try again sans video:
50 Years of Victory:
And if the country
Calls us on a campaign
For our native land
We all shall march to sacred war!
Peter Lang
You claim climate change is beneficial?
Are you basing your claim on the seven billion “witnesses” living with some, or all, of the global warming since the mid-1970s?
And on anecdotes of people who lived in the cold 1600s, wanting a warming climate, just like we have today?
They are just ordinary people.
Do may have advanced science degrees?
Do they have peer reviewed science studies published in prestigious science journals?
Do they have computer climate model projections?
The answer is “no”.
So it is seven billion people who liked global warming, versus big shot climate scientists who say they are confused — they are actually all living during a climate emergency. Smarrty pants government bureaucrat scientists, with supercomputers. How could they possibly be wrong?
Richard Greene, I am not quite sure what point you are making.
My claim is based on empirical evidence that clearly shows the integrated assessment models over estimate the negative impacts and underestimate the positive impacts of GW.
Empirical evidence demonstrates that global warming is beneficial, not harmful, for the global economy and ecosystems.
Read this for an analysis of one impact sector Energy: https://doi.org/10.3390/en12183575
Empirical evidence suggests that the impacts for all other impact sectors are less negative, more positive than projected by FUND and the other IAMs.
The risks of anthropogenic changes to the Earth system are largely a known unknown.
Nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity
Nuclear power is and always has been the safest way to generate electricity. In the USA and Europe electricity generation with coal causes 150,000 more deaths per TWh than nuclear, natural gas 40,000 more and wind 1,500 more (see Table 1 below).
Nuclear could become the cheapest way to generate electricity. Were it not for the unwarranted fear of this technology that was generated by the anti-nuclear power protest movement starting in the 1960’s [1] (Section 3.6), nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost [1] (Table 3 bottom panel).
The cost of nuclear power can be reduced by removing regulatory impediments. Internalising the externality costs of all energy technologies would further increase nuclear’s competitiveness and, therefore, its deployment rate and rate of cost reduction.
The negative externalities of energy technologies can be largely internalised by taxing or subsidising them in proportion to their health impacts. The health impacts of electricity generation technologies can be internalised by either taxing technologies in proportion to their health impacts or subsidising those with lower impacts in proportion to the impacts of the technologies with the highest health impacts.
A rough calculation suggests that, to internalise the cost of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US, generators should be required to pay compensation for the deaths caused by each technology. Table 1 presents estimates of the number of deaths per TWh attributable to electricity generation technologies, the cost per MWh and the total cost to the economy. The calculations use US$11.6 million Value of Statistical Life (VSL) [2], deaths per TWh for each technology [3,4] and US electricity generation per technology in 2019 [5].
Table 1: Health impact of deaths attributable to electricity generation technologies in the US: deaths per TWh, cost of deaths in US$/MWh at Value of a Statistical Life, electricity generation per technology (GWh/a) and total cost of deaths per technology (US$bn).
Technology Deaths/TWh US$/MWh GWh/a Total, US$bn
Coal 15 174 966,148 168.11
Oil 36 418 18,567 7.75
Natural Gas 4 46 1,581,815 73.40
Biofuel/biomass 12 139 58,412 8.13
Solar (rooftop) 0.44 5.1 72,234 0.37
Wind 0.15 1.7 300,071 0.52
Hydro 0.005 0.058 273,707 0.016
Nuclear 0.0001 0.001 809,409 0.001
If each technology was required to pay compensation for the annual cost of the deaths it causes in the US, the estimated amounts each would have to pay per MWh are:
Technology US$/MWh
Coal 174
Oil 418
Natural Gas 46
Biofuel/biomass 139
Solar (rooftop) 5.1
Wind 1.7
Hydro 0.058
Nuclear 0.001
References:
1. Lang, P. Nuclear Power Learning and Deployment Rates; Disruption and Global Benefits Forgone. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10122169
2. U.S. Department of Transportation. Revised Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis. 2021. https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
3. Wang, B. Deaths by Energy Source in Forbes. 2012. http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/06/deaths-by-energy-source-in-forbes.html
4. Conca, J. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources. 2012. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid
5. U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Total Energy, Data, Electricity, Table 7.2a Electricity Net Generation: Total (All Sectors). https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/browser/index.php?tbl=T07.02A#/
“The burden of heat related mortality attributable to climate change [link]”
— Polar bears, zero
— British seniors burning books in the winter to stay warm, zero
— Western civilization’s global warming alarmist academics, zero
— >2B of the world’s impoverished, burning dung to cook food and heat hovels, zero…
We really need to reimagine geoengineering.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wkq540gsq2M
https://www.excellentdevelopment.com/
There may be ecosystems downstream of the sand dam that may really need that sand!
For example, if this were near a coast, it could deprive nearby beaches of their sand replenishment – resulting in increased coastal erosion.
A lot of good stuff here on the climate of fear in science and culture generally.
“A new study finds a large, previously unknown contribution to climate change through human conversion of peatlands for agriculture.”
The study has a noticeable impact on estimates about the TCRE! It lowers the sensitivity on emissions, in other words: the TCRE was previously overrated. Good news for the remaining carbon budget for 2K warming.
There are several papers with Climate Sensitivity concepts that are hard to understand when nobody will address this problem:
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (IPCC 1990, 1996) is defined as the change in global mean temperature, T2x, that results when the climate system, or a climate model, attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change F2x resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Approximately, there are 10^40 molecules of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere. If we start with 1 molecule, then double it to get 2 molecules, we have done 1 doubling. If we double that again, 2 doublings give 4 molecules, 3 doublings give 8 molecules and so on.
133 doublings give 1.09*10^40 molecules, mathematically. (This is simply 2^N, where N is number of doublings), so in concept, our atmosphere has had 133 doublings.
Roughly, the present range of ECS as offered by various authors is between some negative value and about 9 degrees C. For the sake of demonstration, let us take a ‘popular’ value of approximately 1 ⁰C. Each doubling then raises the temperature by 1 ⁰C.
Because there have been 133 doublings, we should have seen a temperature change of 133 ⁰C. We appear to have NOT seen this change. How can this be explained? Several options exist.
1. The ECS is much smaller than 1 ⁰C. To match observations, ECS would need to be 1/100 of 1 ⁰C, or 0.01 ⁰C.
2. Maybe, it is incorrect in theory to start the doubling calculations as I have done, from 1 molecule. If so, what is the ‘correct’ point to start the doubling calculations, and WHY that point?
3. The effect of doubling does not follow a simple relation that each doubling produces the same temperature change. That is, the IPCC definition is incorrect, or lacks some caveat(s). What are they?
4. Possibly, the Earth system copes with any temperature changes from variations in CO2 concentration by compensating mechanisms that produce an effective ECS that is close to zero and not as high as 1 ⁰C.
5. More explanations – welcomed.
Geoff S
Mr Sherrington:
The climate on our planet is always changing.
So the concept of equiibrium makes no sense.
Our plant is not in thermodynamic equilibrium,
Geoff,
The relationship between CO2 forcing and atmospheric concentration is strictly empirical. It derives from aggregating a series of LBL calculations sampled over the globe to yield an areal-weighted forcing estimate for a given concentration of CO2. The result is a relationship which is APPROXIMATELY logarithmic for concentrations above 100ppm. Because it is approximately logarithmic, then each doubling of concentration results in about the same forcing increment. For small perturbations around existing temperature, it is also postulated that the incremental temperature change at theoretical steady state should vary linearly with forcing. You cannot apply the first relationship at the molecular level, and you cannot apply the second linear approximation for large changes of forcing or temperature.
However, the exact source of the IPCC relationship remains something of a mystery. I recall that Steve McIntyre spent some time hunting for it back in 2008.
Regarding James Screen’s “Landmark Arctic study”:
Even after the massive sea ice loss expected by midcentury, the polar jet stream will only weaken by tiny amounts—at most only 10% of its natural swings. And in today’s world, the influence of ice loss on winter weather is negligible, says James Screen, a climate scientist at the University of Exeter and co-leader of the investigation, which presented its results last month at the annual meeting of the European Geosciences Union. “To say the loss of sea ice has an effect over a particular extreme event, or even over the last 20 years, is a stretch.”
However:
Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, isn’t convinced, noting that the models also forecast unrealistically warm winter weather in the midlatitudes, making other predictions suspect.
Good evening (UT), some interesting calculations about the arctic amplification vs. height:
https://i.imgur.com/8Ziyloc.png
How do you think the jetstream ( 300 mb height) could weaken with AA?
This is an interesting question.
‘The jetstream(s)’ move dynamically far far from the Arctic.
They are, of course, associated with strong real time temperature gradients, but those fluctuating gradients are both the cause of and caused by the jetstreams!
So even with a ‘normal’ atmosphere versus an AGW atmosphere, the natural range of variability is quite large.
FWIW, the 20th Century reanalysis indicates this high variability of DJF jetstreams:
https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/daf92bca5804983e7cb082610486b8081c7372d2/5-Figure2-1.png
(paper).
At least by this measure, climate change is irrelevant in the context of natural variability.
Yes, the AA is more a phenomenon of the winter and a pheomenon of the ground (stratification!). Everybody should rememeber this when attributing the weather of the midlatitudes to a “weakening jetstream”.
Event attribution science
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7nd
Regarding the death of science, Miranda Divine rightly blasts the 27 conspirators who signed the Feb 2020 Lancet letter.
https://nypost.com/2021/06/06/scientists-were-pushing-real-covid-19-conspiracy-devine/
These 27 scientists all knew they were being corralled by Daszak into a conspiratorial lie, not to save the planet, not to make us safer, but to protect their research grants. How do we process this?
Why did they do it? Maybe because they saw a lab leak as a threat to them. Did they know the facts would come out? Stand up and take your medicine. Jesus.
“You, whoever, smear me with lies; you are worthless physicians, all of you! ” -Job 13:4
“The Devil made me do it.” -Geraldine (Flip Wilson)
Dr. Curry ==> I have always counted on you to read more widely than I can and thus find more, and more interesting articles and papers out there hiding in the vast streamflow of news.
Thank you.
“…because the strongest absorption bands will already be saturated.”
“The net result is that the global warming potential of CO2 relative to other radiatively active trace gases is nearly independent of the CO2emission scenario…”
Ken Caldeira & James F. Kasting
This confusing. It seems to say CO2 emissions don’t matter.
Is the CO2 effect saturated?
https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm
You can do a good deed. Interpret.
If the denizens here taught me correctly, the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect (EGHE) is as follows:
1) The radiation from the surface has a significant share around the 15 micron wavelength.
2) CO2 has an absorption band around 15 um wavelength.
3) Water vapor also absorbs in this wavelength but vapor falls to zero at 0C at high altitudes and latitudes while CO2 is well mixed throughout.
4) Radiation only leaves the atmosphere from a height at which it can escape to space. The height varies for each wavelength and weather condition but in average is dubbed the “top of the atmosphere” of TOA.
5) CO2 impedes the escape of 15 um by absorbing it and re-emitting in all direction, including downward, slowing ability to get to the TOA.
6) As CO2 increases, and the height at which it escapes becomes higher, the less energy is able to escape due to the lower temperature stratosphere, sapping the ability to emit in 15 um.
7) However, the EGHE succumbs to the law of diminishing returns as saturation at 15 um is reached and it becomes an ever lower participant in TOA emission, diminishing any further loss effect.
I welcome correction. TE, are you out there? Did I remember it right?
Ron,
Too shorthand? “4) Radiation only leaves the atmosphere from a height at which it can escape to space.”
How come we clearly see features on Earth when viewed from space? That radiation starts at Earth surface height and goes straight through.
Maybe you mean “IR radiation only leaves …”
I suspect I see a lot of confusion over the years from this type of shorthand. We need to differentiate UV from visible from near IR and far IR radiation in many descriptions of mechanisms. Geoff S
Geoff
“How come we clearly see features on Earth when viewed from space? That radiation starts at Earth surface height and goes straight through.”
We see clearly features on Earth when viewed from space because Earth’s atmosphere is very thin.
Earth’s atmosphere is transparent both ways – in and out.
It is so much transparent as it is not there…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Geoff,
Thanks for your critique. I guess I needed to be clearer on the physics that the height of escape depended on the wavelength. We all know that visible wavelengths can travel through the atmosphere unimpeded except by clouds, contrails and smog. Another thing I needed to mention is that most of the energy escaping by reflection is in the short wavelengths of sunlight, the Sun’s emission spectrum and the energy escaping from the Earth by emission is in the Earth’s emission spectrum, which is a much longer wavelength profile due to its much lower temperature.
To add 8) Emission occurs steadily 24/7 while reflection is only in daylight. This is why the EGHE keeps winter nights warmer but has much less effect during the summer days.
Thank you. I am still confused but here’s a tangent:
“3) Water vapor also absorbs in this wavelength but vapor falls to zero at 0C at high altitudes and latitudes while CO2 is well mixed throughout.”
It’s dry up high. But any ice up there does absorb LW. Water vapor has always done what it’s doen before. The ‘I am here or not here’ profile hasn’t changed that much because it’s water. And water is all about negative feedback. That’s why it’s used in cooling and heating systems. If you’re saying CO2 up high doesn’t have the problem of turning into ice or being dry and high, I agree.
When you say the 15 um band cannot absorb more, I’ll just use more CO2 packed closer together. So each molecule sees less photons because its neighbors intercept the photons that would have hit it. If I had one CO2 molecule in 1 cubic meter of air, this interception would not happen often. If you want to warm something, use more of the warming medium. 12 inches of insulation is good. 24 is better. There are diminshing returns, but no saturation. Can you explain the saturation effect referred to using ceiling insulation? If I keep adding 1/100th of an inch of insulation, when does this stop working?
Rags … Peter S made a comment not too long ago about CO2 reaching a saturation point, which I think is the discussion you are looking for. I believe he mentioned something about a spectrographic analysis. I found it interesting as well, but it didn’t get too much of a follow up. Does saturation occur at all? How/under what circumstances does it occur? If so, what is the percent reduction in IR emission? How would that reduction effect model calculations?
Peter S where are you?
Well, the Earth surface is visible from Space in the “regular light spectrum”, which corresponds well with the temperature maximum of the sun.
Thus Solar Radiation reaches the Surface quite well.
(BTW the sky is blue because water does scatter some of the visible spectrum as well)
NASA has an IR video of the Earth seen from space, that spectrum represents the Earth temperature well and the surface cannot be seen from the Outer Space at that wavelength.. the Atmosphere and CO2 are absorbing and re-emitting radiation in that part of the spectrum.
About 7% of IR emissions are directly from the surface. Above that photons are absorbed and re-emitted by greenhouse gas molecules until they are emitted to space. Something that gets easier with altitude. But photons also cause molecules to vibrate, rotate and translate. Adding to kinetic energy and thus heat in the atmosphere – that is kinetically communicated to oxygen and nitrogen molecules. These emit – as all warm substances do – but at characteristic frequencies. These can be detected from space and the atmospheric temperature inferred. It explains why incoming energy and outgoing energy are not equal in the graphic below.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png/450px-Atmospheric_Transmission.png
Ellison’s plot above:
CO2 can from here only wipe out the blue small right peak and take a little off of the big blue massive peak. Is that the point?
I thought every argument about CO2 saturation was a waste of time.
The bigger point is Calderia is saying CO2 emissions don’t matter. That’s an easier question. Prove to me he’s not saying that. Anyone.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242876857_Insensitivity_of_global_warming_potentials_to_carbon_dioxide_emission_scenarios
The CO2 saturation fallacy (sidebar)
Pierrehumbert, penultimate page of his 2011 Physics Today article
Pierrehumbert, Physics Today 2011
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
Appell:
I can’t get your link to open.
https://users.physics.ox.ac.uk/~pierrehumbert/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Pierrehumbert-2011.pdf
David
Doesn’t your link agree that additional CO2 would have lessening impact in the lower atmosphere (where humans reside) where on earth?
Rob Starkey: Doesn’t your link agree that additional CO2 would have lessening impact in the lower atmosphere (where humans reside) where on earth?
Yeah — CO2’s radiative forcing does vary as the ln(concentration of CO2/base concentration CO2), for moderate values of the concentration. For very values, like ~50,000 ppm or so, it goes like ln(ln(CO2)). But as Pierrehumbert writes, CO2 isn’t even saturated on Venus.
You all have tried to help, but I am getting frustrated.
“The net result is that the global warming potential of CO2 relative to other radiatively active trace gases is nearly independent of the CO2emission scenario…”
We have various CO2 emission scenarios. The global warming potential (GWP) could be future warming, more like the ECS than the TCR. High GWP is bad.
Over at WUWT, hacks are saying CO2 and saturation and I am ignoring them. Then Caldeira seems to say the same thing as the hacks and that GWP is not highly dependent on CO emissions.
Then you’re giving me stuff to read. You could explain what Caldeira meant and God will not strike you down. You are safe here.
If we were to win with the big issue, it will because of our ability to communicate. Give it a shot. Do you know what a big part of my job is? Explaining what the IRS tax code says, what it used to say and with caution, what the IRS tax code may say in the future. I know you can do it.
You can give an opinion of what Caldeira said like Moses bringing the tablets down from the mountain. Aim high.
Thank you, Dr. Curry, once again.
From the last article,
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-science-has-been-corrupted/
>Increasingly, science is pressed into duty as authority. It is invoked to legitimise the transfer of sovereignty from democratic to technocratic bodies, and as a device for insulating such moves from the realm of political contest.
Richard Muller, Berkeley physicist well known in these parts, just went on Laura Ingram with biologist Steven Quay to explain how the RNA of SARS2 is itself the whistleblower. The key codons used to make the furin cleavage site, CGG CGG are only seen in lab bio-engineering. Because there are 35 other options nature more commonly uses for double arginine, and none more rare, it is used as a marker flag for lab analysis and selection.
If the Kristian Anderson midnight email to Fauci ever get fully redacted we certainly will see this discovery of CGG CGG is undoubtedly at the top of the list of his concerns. And, suspiciously, Zhengli Shi supplied the SARS2 sequence omitted the segment containing the furin cleavage site, according to Muller and Quay.
Quay said he is now putting the odds on non lab origin at “one in a billion.”
Here is their WSJ article today. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-lab-leak-11622995184?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Here is some science that shouldn’t be missed.
Magnitude Of Recent Surface Solar Radiation Forcing Over US Is Tens Of Times Greater Than From CO2
https://notrickszone.com/2021/06/07/magnitude-of-recent-surface-solar-radiation-forcing-over-us-is-tens-of-times-greater-than-from-co2/
I’ve said countless times that the 1) warming of the oceans 2) irregularity of the temperature trend and the 3) regional differentials can’t be explained by CO2. Water Vapor, The Urban Heat Island Effect and the Sun were the likely causes of the warming the alarmists blame on CO2. That is exactly what research shows, and what I have demonstrated in hundreds of charts and posts. Here they are. You have to have a very vivid imagination to see a CO2 cause in these temperature charts.
https://imgur.com/4vOOcBe
https://imgur.com/a/IrE63Xo
https://imgur.com/a/mHIjixS
The abstract of Koutsoyiannis’ “rethinking”: We revisit the notion of climate, along with its historical evolution, tracing the origin of the modern concerns about climate. The notion (and the scientific term) of climate was established during the Greek antiquity in a geographical context and it acquired its statistical content (average weather) in modern times after meteorological measurements had become common. Yet the modern definitions of climate are seriously affected by the wrong perception of the previous two centuries that climate should regularly be constant, unless an external agent acts upon it. Therefore, we attempt to give a more rigorous definition of climate, consistent with the modern body of stochastics. We illustrate the definition by real-world data, which also exemplify the large climatic variability. Given this variability, the term “climate change” turns out to be scientifically unjustified. Specifically, it is a pleonasm as climate, like weather, has been ever-changing. Indeed, a historical investigation reveals that the aim in using that term is not scientific but political. Within the political aims, water issues have been greatly promoted by projecting future catastrophes while reversing true roles and causality directions. For this reason, we provide arguments that water is the main element that drives climate, and not the opposite.
An excerpt: However, in our definition climate is represented as a time average, is dependent on the time scale of averaging and keeps depending on time per se, as also happens with weather. A time average of a stochastic process (originally defined in continuous or discrete time) is not a number but a stochastic process per se. Thus, both instantaneous processes (or discrete time processes at time-scales pertinent to weather) and climatic processes are stochastic processes distinguished only by the time scale of discretization. If the time-scale is small (e.g., hourly or daily) or tends to zero (instantaneous process) then we speak about weather, and this harmonizes with the definition by the WMO [21], which is kept unchanged here. If the time-scale is large, greater than the annual, then we have climate. In this respect climate is a macroscopization of weather by removing the details through time averaging.
Other summaries of distributions, such as percentiles, quartiles, variances, and medians are also stochastic processes, from this perspective.
Another detail: These external drivers have changed substantially through the lifetime of Earth. According to Kuhn et al. [47], four billion years ago the solar irradiance was about 80% of the current value (or, according to other estimates, 75%), the Earth’s rotation rate was 170% of the current, the land area was very small, less than 4% of the current value, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration was about three orders of magnitude higher or more (up to 250,000%; see this information in a combined graph in [48]). Note that even in the Cenozoic (the last 65 million years) the atmospheric CO2 concentration varied by more than two orders of magnitude (see graph in [49]). Amazingly however, despite these cosmogonic changes, the temperature remained fairly constant (varying by only 10%, which is equivalent to 29 K) during all these four billion years. For example, evidence shows the existence of liquid water on Earth even in the earliest period, when the solar activity was smaller by 20–25%, a puzzle known as the faint young Sun problem [50]. One may attribute the temperature stability to the regulating properties and processes of the climatic system, and may conjecture that the hydrosphere in particular must have played some important role
in it.
oops!
belongs here: two more details For the same reason, water has been called the climatic thermostat of the Earth [64].
…
I thank Willis Eschenbach who helped me to locate the CERES data.
another detail: In particular, heat exchange by evaporation (and hence the latent heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere) is the Earth’s natural locomotive, with the total energy involved in the hydrological cycle being 1290 ZJ/year, corresponding to an energy flux density of 80 W/m2 [59]. Compared to human energy production (0.612 ZJ/year for 2014), the total energy of the natural locomotive is 2100 times higher than that of the human
locomotive [59].
If the effect of a 1C increase in global mean surface temperature is a 6% increase in the rate of the water cycle (proportional to the 6% increase in water vapor pressure at most current temperatures of the water surface), then the result is an increase of 4.8 W/m2, approximately balancing the effect of doubling the CO2 concentration (3.6 W/m2.)
here is a surprise: Based on such considerations, and using
reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study [49] found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T [right arrow] CO2, rather than the other way round, despite the latter being the common perception.
two more details: For the same reason, water has been called
the climatic thermostat of the Earth [64].
Thanks again to Judith for bringing these to our attention.
Peter Zeihan has some interesting ideas which bear on climate change.
1. 2022 marks a very important demographic shift of baby boomers into retirement which would seem to presage: a) the ‘end of globalism’, b) global economic slow down and conflict, and c) a capital crunch – except for the US which will receive capital flight, fostering even more inflation. Decreasing population in the developed world has never happened. This necessarily reduces emissions, but though adverse causes.
2. The reality of renewable energy means most of the world cannot use wind & solar for economic or even carbon dioxide payback. Western US, Chile, Australia, and South Africa are exceptions, but elsewhere, no green panacea.
https://youtu.be/YV3jPKHcHSE?t=2934
I’m coming around to the idea that civilization will find the task of decarbonizing the global economy is impossible. But since the human caused degradation of the environment continues at a pace much faster than nature can regenerate a solution will still be needed.
But we now have the outline of a plausible Plan B for future generations.
B.1 Genetically modify homo sapiens to adapt to a more challenging climate and biosphere. This would assume we also might modify our genome to enhance intelligence, fertility and lifespan not to mention human-machine augmentation like Neuralink.
B.2 In parallel with plan B.1 we will restructure the biosphere by re-engineering segments of food web. Mosquitoes are just the tip of the iceberg. The real power will come from modifying the largest biomass on the planet ie. using algae and bacteria to alter the chemical composition of the soil, atmosphere and water.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210528/WHO-releases-new-guidance-for-deployment-of-genetically-modified-mosquitoes.aspx
“But since the human caused degradation of the environment continues at a pace much faster than nature can regenerate a solution will still be needed.”
We started as technical toddlers and are now making good progress. The western schools introduced ecology starting with the boomers and sustainability soon after that. All natural resources and raw materials will become more expensive a demand increases and supply shrinks. This will spur recycling technology, which in turn will make recycling even more viable. When we reach the point of closed loop recycling within communities we will have in essence duplicated a biodome. Once we have that we no longer need this planet or any planet except as attractions to visit.
If we go the recycle route to a 100% closed loop system I guess Soylent Green will be on the menu.
I know recycling is critical in tackling environmental problems but to ignore the unstoppable march of bioengineering is a mistake. To borrow a phrase from another popular film “Life finds a way”.
PS: We are already assembling new life forms:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/scientists-coax-cells-world-s-smallest-genomes-reproduce-normally
Only in Jacks world would you have to eat people to recycle them.
I kinda like it. Seems like a Modest Proposal to me …
Jack and Robert,
Soylent Green was great sci fi exactly because it was a very plausible projection if we decide to allow a certain path. If there is one thing we need to teach the upcoming generations is that truth and transparency are worth the risk. I would like to see all 27 Lancet letter signers come out with an apology letter and warning to other scientists of what not to allow.
Despite the conviction that has overtaken some – there is no evidence of a lab leak. That idea started as a diversion from the failures of Trump – and it continues as a post hoc vindication. By all means investigate – but I would put my money on ‘the 27’ being right.
“By all means investigate – but I would put my money on ‘the 27’ being right.”
I’ll take that bet. Especially since we already know that the 27 don’t even believe the 27 were right anymore.
“There’s no evidence of a lab leak”
You need to read more. There is quite a bit of evidence of a lab leak at this point and, despite an exhaustive effort, no evidence of a natural origin. The Wall Street Journal in particular has been steadily laying out the science-based case for lab origin.
I have read enough to know that there is no way to distinguish between in vivo evolution of the the virus and in vitro mutation using serial passage techniques. The rest remains conjecture and science fiction. Informed opinion – as opposed to shock jocks and political fanatics – favors the in vivo route.
Robert,
I’d take your bet but I wouldn’t want you staked further into an embarrassing position. As Jeff pointed out you are following the authorities when they are admitting one-by-one (or being exposed) that they basically lied. Lab origin was NEVER a conspiracy theory. I would not put it past a western lab to cover up a leak if they could get away with it. Yet we know that in China everyone is under duress not to cross the CCP. The sad thing is that the western countries are becoming more like China with corrupted agencies, oligarchs, politicians and media.
Kristian Anderson emailed Fauci on Jan 31, 2020 at midnight to tell him the bad news. “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered.”
https://nypost.com/2021/06/02/fauci-was-warned-that-covid-may-have-been-engineered-emails/
The CGG coding for arginine is the least used out of six choices nature uses. Seeing CGG CGG double arginine in the center of the furin cleavage site is as likely natural as lighting hitting your home and Monday and then again on Tuesday.
Robert,
You wrote:- “I have read enough to know that there is no way to distinguish between in vivo evolution of the(sic) the virus and in vitro mutation using serial passage techniques.”
Bully for you. What are you trying to do here? Your statement is simultaneously pompous, oracular and irrelevant. It is true that it can never be entirely ruled out that your god might have thrown a pangolin or a camel into a biological soup. Hence, it follows that no virologist can look at a genome sequence and, in the absence of any other data, say definitively that a virion is natural or engineered. Good for you. You got the right answer to the multiple choice question, but you have added nothing to the conversation. It is analogous to a physicist, during a serious conversation between engineers, pointing out that no scientific theory can be proved. True, very true, but next?
In the real world, geologists, detectives, jurists, clinicians and engineers – even hydrologists – need to apply inductive logic or probabilistic assessments to determine whether a proposition or diagnosis is likely to be true or not. All of us do this all the time (sometimes well, more often badly) when taking decisions – either qualitatively or quantitatively. Any intelligent virologist must therefore look not just at a single snapshot of information, like the genome sequence data, but also the context; and that includes an assessment of the space of possibilities, using especially the data from phylogeny, the likelihood of zoonosis vs gene manipulation – given the curiosity of the sequence, and the circumstantial evidence.
You claim to follow the science. I would invite you to consider the facts laid out here:- https://zenodo.org/record/4477081#.YMEuhsR8Jdh, a paper which strongly promotes the theory of not just a lab release but the (accidental) release of an engineered virus. You are welcome to challenge either the facts or the epistemological base in the paper, and explain why the conclusions are not tenable, but please, please stop throwing deus ex machina comments out which contribute little to an intelligent dialogue.
What is needed is dispassionate analysis and not fanatical narratives of coincidence and protein spikes. You have speculation and conspiracies at best. A zoonotic origin is still much more likely.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01529-3
Perhaps Matthew’s selectiv quote on temperature/CO2 causation doesn’t mean what he thinks it means. Anthropogenic emissions cause a temperature increase and there is a positive CO2 feedback. There are always biokinetic feedbacks – seen on scales from seasonal to stadials and interstadials.
‘It is common knowledge that increasing CO2 concentration plays a major role in enhancement of the greenhouse effect and contributes to global warming. The purpose of this study is to complement the conventional and established theory, that increased CO2 concentration due to human emissions causes an increase in temperature, by considering the reverse causality. Since increased temperature causes an increase in CO2 concentration, the relationship of atmospheric CO2 and temperature may qualify as belonging to the category of “hen-or-egg” problems, where it is not always clear which of two interrelated events is the cause and which the effect. We examine the relationship of global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in monthly time steps, covering the time interval 1980–2019 during which reliable instrumental measurements are available. While both causality directions exist, the results of our study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T → CO2. Changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale. We attempt to interpret this mechanism by involving biochemical reactions as at higher temperatures, soil respiration and, hence, CO2 emissions, are increasing.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83
https://www.mdpi.com/sci/sci-02-00083/article_deploy/html/images/sci-02-00083-ag-550.jpg
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/2/4/83
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gif
Other than that there is Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics – as Demetris dubbed them. I argue that these should be seen in the light of dynamical complexity. Dimitris argues that tipping points are ill defined as scientific descriptions. But there is a hell of a lot of observational evidence for tipping points. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a node on the global spatiotemporal chaos of the Earth system. The grye hypothesis is that polar annular modes modulate flow in the north and south Pacific Ocean gyres. At multi-decadal intervals upwelling is initiated and the system shifts with internal feedbacks. It is tentatively linked to solar magnetic variability – and the Mansurov effect on polar surface pressure – in the Hale solar magnetic cycle.
http://research.jisao.washington.edu/pdo/pdo_tsplot_jan2017.png
Robert I Ellison: Perhaps Matthew’s selectiv quote on temperature/CO2 causation doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
Perhaps. I recommend reading the entire article by Koutsoyiannis.
I think I have quoted it enough to interest anyone who might be interested.
Demetris Koutsoyiannis sent me his ‘new paper’ – the one Judith links to – some time ago. Along with the hen and egg paper – that I quoted and l
inked to. The latter is in part what Matthew referred to without any context. The former is urbane, erudite and true in all the ways that matter.
Interesting paper (the early part), which has led to other material.
Q: “the Italian meteorologist De Marchi (1895, [9]), whom he cited, he rejected
what we call today Milankovi´c cycles as possible causes of the glacial periods.” Good boy De Marchi, but see later. (Milanchovitch based his theory on an assumption. Other factors dictate.)
Q: “concluded that a
change in temperature precedes that of CO2 by one time step (1000 years),” Here the 1kyr steps smoothens out important variations that occur in cycles of 980yrs. Those cycles heralded revisits of big dragon kings. It is why DeMarchi is right.
Something I questioned in this video a while back but which has revealing material: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpUkPPtkPVc , see at 22:00. Two charts, self explanatory. The one on the left shows temperatures in two different periods in earth’s history. The latitudinal changes indicate a much different orientation for heat gain and loss, and the overall temp level at which max/min temp stay (operating region/band).
The one on the right shows thermal contrast between polar and equatorial, also indicating that those come close at interglacials. Again, the effect of change of orientation (earth axial tilt). All indicators that point to such shift, indicate abrupt change.
Robert I Ellison: Perhaps Matthew’s selectiv quote on temperature/CO2 causation doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
Perhaps, but note Koutsoyiannis’ wording: Based on such considerations, and using reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study [49] found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T [right arrow] CO2, rather than the other way round, despite the latter being the common perception.
“[D]ominant causality direction…rather than the other way round” and “despite the latter being the common perception” are important evaluations.
Of course, you can’t go wrong reading his reference 49, which is the published version of the paper RIE links to and quotes from.
The direction of causality is an artifact of the short time frame. Yes of course there ae biokinetic feedbacks. In the modern era human emissions are driving atmospheric concentrations. Unless you have another explanation for the current concentration in the context of the past 800,000 years.
Robert I Ellison: The direction of causality is an artifact of the short time frame.
Do you have a reference for that assertion?
That is a possibility, but it is not what Koutsoyiannis and Kundewicz concluded.
Try again. The reason for the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not biokinetic temperature feedback.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gif
Oh for God’s sake – you would need to explain why CO2 concentrations in this interstadial are radically higher. What could possibly be different this time around?
Robert I Ellison: Perhaps Matthew’s selectiv quote on temperature/CO2 causation doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
All I wrote was that it was a surprise. What meaning do you attribute to me? Do you have a hypothesis about the true meaning?
Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics defines the behaviour of natural systems. Different time windows were used to illustrate this behaviour. You really don’t get it and pretend that you do.
You really are too much. That comment totally ignores the fact that K&K supplemented the H-K model of variance by adding periodic components that the H-K model was incapable of representing. If you are going to attribute misunderstanding to me, you need to be correct.
From the abstract of Koutsoyiannis’ and Kundewicz’ “hen or egg” paper:
While both causality directions exist, the results of our study support the hypothesis that the dominant direction is T [right arrow] CO2. Changes in CO2 follow changes in T by about six months on a monthly scale, or about one year on an annual scale. We attempt to interpret this mechanism by
involving biochemical reactions as at higher temperatures, soil respiration and, hence, CO2 emissions, are increasing.
Using “Granger causality” statistical test. Algorithmic details of the test are given in [64], among others.
where: 64. Gujarati, D.N.; Porter, D.C. Basic Econometrics, 5th ed.; McGraw Hill: Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
But note also:
1. To make our assertions and, in particular, to use the “hen-or-egg” metaphor, we do not rely on merely statistical arguments. If we did that, based on our results presented in the next section, we would conclude that only the causality direction T [right arrow] [CO2] exists. However, one may perform a thought experiment of instantly adding a big quantity of CO2 to the atmosphere. Would the temperature not increase? We believe it would, as CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas. The causation in the opposite direction is also valid, as will be discussed in Section 6, “Physical Interpretation”. Therefore, we assert that both causality directions exist, and we are looking for the dominant one under the current climate conditions (those manifest in the datasets we use) instead of trying to make assertions of an exclusive causality direction.
2. While we occasionally use statistical tests (namely, the Granger test, Equations (14) and (15)), we opt to use, as the central point of our analyses, Equation (13) (and the conditions below it) because it is more intuitive and robust, fully reflects the basic causality axiom of time precedence, and is
more straightforward, transparent (free of algorithmic manipulations), and easily reproducible (without the need for specialized software).
3. For simplicity, we do not use any statistic other than correlation here.
In context, I think Koutsoyannis meant what he wrote.
Nor do I disagree. Which bit of biokinetic feedback don’t you understand? But your original comment neglected two way causation – as contrarians often do.
Adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere causes warming and there is a biokinetic feedback. In the short term seasonal variability dominates. In the longer term it is human activities driving CO2 to levels not seen for a very long time.
Robert I Ellison: But your original comment neglected two way causation – as contrarians often do.
I also neglected details of data acquisition, modeling, and computer algorithms. For example, I neglected that they added periodic components to the Hurst-Kolmogorov model of the variance time series. Indeed, I omitted almost everything. I still advise interested readers: read the whole thing. I hoped, and hope, that my snippets are enticing.
And I was correcting your omission on this point.
Robert I Ellison: And I was correcting your omission on this point.
In the end, do you agree with Koutsoyiannis’ conclusion? : Based on such considerations, and using reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study [49] found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T [right arrow] CO2, rather than the other way round, despite the latter being the common perception.
Beginning in the late 1800s, CO2 and Temp began to increase mostly concomitantly. Temp had never displayed an equilibrium (according to Koutsoyiannis). Whether something triggered the T increase and CO2 followed, or something triggered the CO2 increase and T followed is hard to determine. Over this time span, “the dominant causality direction is T [right arrow] CO2” is his (doubtless tentative) conclusion.
Let’s try it here.
Oh for God’s sake – you would need to explain why CO2 concentrations in this interstadial are radically higher. What could possibly be different this time around?
Robert I Ellison: Oh for God’s sake – you would need to explain why CO2 concentrations in this interstadial are radically higher.
That does not tell us how you evaluate Koutsoyiannis’ and Kundewicz’ claim about the relative importance of T’s and CO2′ influences on each other.
Perhaps an autobiographical note won’t go amiss. Some years ago Salby reported his analyses showing that the time derivative of T was independent of CO2, but the time derivative of CO2 was dependent on T. I wrote, as did many others, that the time derivative of T on CO2 was due to the slower rate of solution of CO2 in water at higher T, given that humans were spewing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere continuously; and that, with T proportional to log[CO2], the time derivative of T ought to be proportional to 1/[CO2], which has been declining. With that as background, I was surprised that Koutsoyiannis ranked the influence of T on CO2 as greater than the influence of CO2 on T.
Koutsoyiannis does not assert, nor do I, that most of CO2 increase is due to non-anthropogenic sources, a claim that you have been arguing against, for some reason. His assertion is that, in current climate conditions, and with humans consistently spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, the effect of T on CO2 has been greater than the effect of CO2 on T. Unless K and K have made some important error, which neither you nor I assert, that is a surprising and important result.
CO2 in the atmosphere is currently some 420 ppm. The difference in this interstadial is human emissions. This causes warming and a positive biokinetic feedback. How is this difficult to understand?
There are large variations in CO2 concentrations with temperature at seasonal to interannual scales. How difficult is that to understand?
It’s a two way street as they say. And if you note they talk about respiration rather than solubility.
http://environmentportal.in/files/Temperature%20associated%20increases%20in%20the%20global%20soil.pdf
Robert I Ellison: CO2 in the atmosphere is currently some 420 ppm. The difference in this interstadial is human emissions. This causes warming and a positive biokinetic feedback. How is this difficult to understand?
I have no quarrel with that. I was struck by K’s (& K’s) assertion that the effect of T on CO2 is greater than the effect of CO2 on T, an assertion that you have not addressed.
Maybe this: The direction of causality is an artifact of the short time frame.
But as you noted K & K model bidirectional causality, and assert that one direction is stronger than the other.
You’ll have noticed that they added periodic components to the Hurst-Kolmogorov model of variance, another detail that I thought was interesting..
I have no quarrel with that. I was struck by K’s (& K’s) assertion that the effect of T on CO2 is greater than the effect of CO2 on T, an assertion that you have not addressed.
I have addressed it several times now. In the short term seasonal and interannual variability – the focus of the hen and egg paper – dominates driven by natural changes in temperature – seasons and ENSO especially. In the modern era it is the large increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere driving temperature changes. The latter is not the result of a natural temperature increase given concentrations in past interstadials.
‘Apparently, as seen in Figure 4, the variability decreases as the time-scale increases, but it never becomes zero…
In a random process, H = 1/2, while in most natural processes 1/2 ≤ H ≤ 1, as first observed by Hurst in 1951 [37]. This natural behaviour is known as (long-term) persistence or Hurst-Kolmogorov (HK) dynamics. A high value of H (approaching 1) indicates enhanced presence of patterns, enhanced change and enhanced uncertainty (e.g., in future predictions). A low value of H (approaching 0) indicates enhanced fluctuation or antipersistence.’ https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/htm
I find it fascinating – and have for many years. Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics is a key to understanding hydrological series.
Robert I Ellison: Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics is a key to understanding hydrological series.
I am glad that you wrote “a” key. What did you think of K&K adding periodic components to the H-K model of the variance? I thought that you would find that interesting.
Robert I Ellison: I have addressed it several times now. In the short term seasonal and interannual variability – the focus of the hen and egg paper – dominates driven by natural changes in temperature – seasons and ENSO especially. In the modern era it is the large increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere driving temperature changes. The latter is not the result of a natural temperature increase given concentrations in past interstadials.
If true, I think that presents a Kuhnian “puzzle”: how does it happen that in the era of increasing CO2 and T, the effect of T on CO2 is stronger than the effect of CO2 on T. That would seem to require something other than the increase of CO2 causing the increase in T.
Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics defines the behaviour of natural systems. Different time windows were used to illustrate this behaviour. You really don’t get it and pretend that you do.
Robert I Ellison: I have addressed it several times now. In the short term seasonal and interannual variability – the focus of the hen and egg paper – dominates driven by natural changes in temperature – seasons and ENSO especially.
I don’t think you have addressed the finding of K&K that the effect of T on CO2 is much greater than the effect of CO2 on T. Even it that is true only on the part of the record where both are reliably measured at short sampling times, it seems a mystery if the CO2 increase is due to its anthropogenic origin, and if the CO2 is the main driver of the temp increase.
Which bit of biokinetic feedback don’t you understand?
I think it was a mistake to have attributed omission as due to a misunderstanding. It’s more a matter of focus for this thread. As I wrote, I was surprised by the rank ordering of the two influences. What I quoted did not imply that bidirectionality was omitted: Based on such considerations, and using reliable instrumental measurements of global T and CO2 concentration covering the time interval 1980–2019, a recent study [49] found that in the relationship of CO2 and temperature, the dominant causality direction is T [right arrow] CO2, rather than the other way round,
matthewrmarler wrote:
His assertion is that, in current climate conditions, and with humans consistently spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, the effect of T on CO2 has been greater than the effect of CO2 on T.
Temperature (GMST) has increased by 1 C. How much has that increased atmo CO2?
matthewrmarler wrote:
Whether something triggered the T increase and CO2 followed, or something triggered the CO2 increase and T followed is hard to determine.
Temperature doesn’t increase without a reason. What was it?
“Temperature doesn’t increase without a reason. What was it?” – Appell
New physics gravitational forcing along the equator. Unimaginable tidal forces that stretch the entire planetary lithosphere pushes heat towards the polar regions. An increase in CO2 emissions occurs afterwards.
In recent decades it is human emissions causing a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.
https://www.mdpi.com/sci/sci-02-00083/article_deploy/html/images/sci-02-00083-ag-550.jpg
David Appell: Temperature doesn’t increase without a reason. What was it?
I do not know. I think there is evidence for multiple mechanisms, probably acting concurrently, but not sufficient evidence to quantify accurately their relative contributions. It isn’t a focus of K’s paper that I was responding to.
I think K’s paper introduce by Judith, and the K&K paper he cited, provide important new (to me anyway) that will take a while to understand.
Matt, so you don’t know why the temperature increased, the entire scientific community has a great deal of evidence of why it did (and is), and we’re supposed to give you any credence? Nope.
Alan Lowey wrote:
New physics gravitational forcing along the equator. Unimaginable tidal forces that stretch the entire planetary lithosphere pushes heat towards the polar regions.
Besides your bad physics, why did these cause a temperature increase around 1850 and not before? Haven’t they been there for eons?
What’s your evidence? Viz, data.
David Appell: Matt, so you don’t know why the temperature increased, the entire scientific community has a great deal of evidence of why it did (and is), and we’re supposed to give you any credence?
Not me, but some of my comments, especially when I quote good sources.
In my reading there is evidence for 4 process that might have contributed to global warming over the last century +: anthropogenic CO2; urbanization and UHI; other land use changes such as draining peat bogs and deforestation; something obscure with a period of about 1000 years. If there is evidence decidedly ruling one of them out, I have not read it, though I have read claims.
The change has been about 1K – 1.25K in the spatiotemporal average, with much spatiotemporal variability. That is about 0.3% on the base temperature of about 288K, and very small compared to the spatiotemporal variability. Such a small effect will be hard to characterize fully.
‘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
The result of Rayleigh-Bénard convection over a warm ocean. It caused about half the warming of the past 40 years.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
The result of Rayleigh-Bénard convection over a warm ocean. It caused about half the warming of the past 40 years.
There was no hiatus in the gain in ocean heat content, which is the best measure of global warming:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/global-ocean-heat-content/
The 0-2000 m data (graph 2) makes this especially clear. The planet has an energy imbalance of now about 0.7 W/m2, and all the evidence points to anthropogenic GHGs as causing it.
Matthew Marler: something obscure with a period of about 1000 years.
That’s just a hope and a wish, not a scientific hypothesis. Nor, I expect, is the historical temperature data good enough to draw such a conclusion, given its uncertainties.
The change has been about 1K – 1.25K in the spatiotemporal average, with much spatiotemporal variability. That is about 0.3% on the base temperature of about 288K, and very small compared to the spatiotemporal variability. Such a small effect will be hard to characterize fully.
No – global average surface temperature doesn’t vary much decade to decade or century to century, and only a few K over the Holocene, so the comparison isn’t to 0-288 K but to a few K. So a 1-1.25 K increase is quite significant.
David
The term hiatus was used by NASA’s Norman Loeb et al – and the key point was the mechanism. And this is multidecadal natural internal variability – hence the Kravtsov et al citation. The only clear warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is about half the late 20th century warming. And that’s based solely on emissions.
https://www.mdpi.com/climate/climate-06-00062/article_deploy/html/images/climate-06-00062-g002-550.jpg
Warming and cooling of oceans in the Argo era is largely because of cloud feedback.
https://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoGlobalSummaryGraph.gif
As was earlier ocean warming in the ERBE and ISCCP records – for the same reason albeit with less precise instrumentation.
‘In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.’ https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-1.html
Repeating a simple minded meme of global warming orthodoxy in answer to published science is just a very silly mass debate.
David Appell | June 12, 2021 at 10:39 pm |
Alan Lowey wrote:
New physics gravitational forcing along the equator. Unimaginable tidal forces that stretch the entire planetary lithosphere pushes heat towards the polar regions.
David Appell comment – “Besides your bad physics, why did these cause a temperature increase around 1850 and not before? Haven’t they been there for eons?”
David – Since you mentioned 1850 – Can you explain why there was shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend (a fairly big shift) when CO2 went from 280ppm to 281ppm?
David Appell: That’s just a hope and a wish, not a scientific hypothesis. Nor, I expect, is the historical temperature data good enough to draw such a conclusion, given its uncertainties.
Something has produced data with a periodic component. One of the many things Occam’s Razor does not assert is that data should be ignored outright when there is no convincing evidence what is producing them. If you think that you “know” there is no generating process, then I think you are mistaken.
Robert I Ellison: Hurst-Kolmogorov dynamics defines the behaviour of natural systems.
Do you have a reason for ignoring the fact that K&K supplemented the H-K dynamics by adding 2 periodic components?
matthewrmarler: Something has produced data with a periodic component.
What data, specifically?
joe – the non climate scientist wrote: David – Since you mentioned 1850 – Can you explain why there was shift from a cooling trend to a warming trend (a fairly big shift) when CO2 went from 280ppm to 281ppm?
LOL
Robert Ellison wrote: Warming and cooling of oceans in the Argo era is largely because of cloud feedback.
There is no “warming and cooling” of the oceans in the Argo era, there is only warming.
See the graph of the 0-2000 m region I posted above.
That’s because the planet has an energy imbalance caused by anthropogenic GHGs. Clouds are a feedback on that, not an original forcing.
Robert Ellison wrote: The only clear warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is about half the late 20th century warming
That’s a superficial analysis. You’re assuming that if that warming isn’t dominant it isn’t there.
In fact, it is there, just often, early on, in competition with other factors.
Of course. CO2 warming just doesn’t disappear. Temperature warming above baseline is always present whenever the CO2 concentration is above baseline.
Remember the Post-It Note I told you to put on the side of your screen: CO2 ISN’T THE ONLY FACTOR THAT INFLUENCES CLIMATE.
I posted a graph of the Argo data from SCRIPPS Institute of oceanography.
And I am saying that early century warming was not anthropogenic. This does imply that there are other things happening. That the IPPC attribution of most warming in the 20th century is anthropogenic is just wrong.
The reason for the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not biokinetic temperature feedback.
https://climate.nasa.gov/system/charts/15_co2_left_061720.gif
Plants are not ‘starved’ of CO2 at 280 ppm – and not at 420 ppm. This has been discussed by us previously and remains irrelevant nonsense.
Robert I Ellison: The reason for the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is not biokinetic temperature feedback.
Has somebody said it is? I haven’t.
https://saltbushclub.com/2021/05/15/current-co2-starvation/
Robert I Ellison: Perhaps Matthew’s selectiv quote on temperature/CO2 causation doesn’t mean what he thinks it means.
It’s always a pleasure to read and respond to your comments. I am in suspense, always wondering “Whatever will he think of next?”
It’s a very long and characteristically pointless thread. The fundamental point is what causes warming and not the biokinetic feedback.
https://judithcurry.com/2021/06/06/week-in-review-science-edition-127/#comment-952017
4 million people die from burning Fossil Fuels is absurd. Remove all cars and replace them with horse and buggy, bikes and walking and the food production would collapse and the world would literally starve to death in 6 months if war didn’t end it sooner. The claims of these alarmists are a joke, and we had better hope they never get what they wish for.
People die from burning wood and dung to cook food. In the context of moving to a cheaper nuclear build CO2’s rant is more than a little silly.
RIE, wood and dung are not fossil fuels. Always a contrarian?
People die from pollution was the point. Now about that mini nuke you wanted to buy.
I still do.
As I said – I can hook you up. US$100m will get the ball rolling.
https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/nuclear/UK_CN.pdf
Unfortunately, none of your “key contacts” has an address or a phone number associated with it. Please stop pretending that you are not intelligent. You might even persuade me. To illustrate, you responded to “4 million people die from fossil fuels is absurd” by “People die from pollution was the point.”. It was not. You are slick.
Ante up and we can decide which one of the ‘vaporware’ best suits your needs. 4 million deaths from fossil fuel pollution is not absurd. Ranting about replacing fossil fuel energy with bicycles in the context of a discussion of nuclear power is. Surely you can’t be that obtuse.
Merriam-Webster on vaporware:
The practice of marketing products before they are available for sale is common to many industries, but especially the computer industry, where technological advancement is rapid and competition cutthroat. Unforeseen glitches occasionally result in the marketing of products that ultimately never see the light of day.
Yes we know what it means – but in SMR it’s more like early adopter.
“4 million deaths from fossil fuel pollution is not absurd.”
No longer do I value your opinion highly.
Not my opinion George – https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/pollution-deaths-from-fossil-fuels?tab=chart
Thanks for the link. I noticed that all their deaths are from “air pollution”, no link to fossil fuels established – you were correct referring to wood and dung. Another pearl from that site, “Why did renewables become so cheap so fast? And what can we do to use this global opportunity for green growth?”
The chart is labelled ‘Air pollution deaths from fossil fuels, 2015’.
From GWPF:
https://mailchi.mp/5303fdb15a05/major-new-climate-impact-paper-misleads-public-182114
“A major report on the economic impact of climate change published by the insurance giant Swiss Re and heavily promoted by Oxfam and the media is misleading the public, according to a rebuttal published today by the Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF).
Author Tim Worstall says that Swiss Re’s claim climate change would reduce world GDP by 8.5% per year is highly deceptive, because it fails to take account of economic growth.
The economy in 2050 is likely to be much bigger as a result of economic growth and smaller as a result of any damage due to climate change that may occur. In other words, the world our children will experience will be the nett result of these two effects.
But as Worstall explains, Swiss Re have simply left out one half of the equation:
“They have simply ignored the benefits of economic growth and only discuss the costs of climate change impacts. In fact, the whole paper has been written in a way that obscures the fact that they have used this trick.”
GWPF director, Dr Benny Peiser said:
“Once again, we see the public being misled by academic trickery and half truths. This is no longer surprising, but it is still shameful behaviour by Swiss Re and Oxfam.”
Tim Worstall: The holes in Swiss Re’s climate report (pdf)
https://thegwpf.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=a04ba5e604&e=d3ab024ae2
Quite apart from that the reference case was economic growth without temperature increases – the GWPF continue to flog a dead horse.
How does this justify the omission of the observed economic growth?
It wasn’t omitted.
Something that caught my eye recently was this meme shared by a friend on Facebook. Particularly the “says it’s all a hoax” part. Was wondering how you feel about this sort of thingbeing shared widely. I know you have many critques about uncertainty, etc but I wouldn’t have thought you would agree a blanket statement that anthropogenic warming is a hoax. https://i0.wp.com/politicallyincorrecthumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/what-media-manipulation-looks-like-climate-change-greta.jpg?resize=510%2C421&ssl=1
I’ve been reading this blog for over 10 years. Judith has never come close to calling it a hoax. It doesn’t take much research to confirm that.
You could also dispute the “does not get media coverage” bit too.
Yet you don’t.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/11/13/trumping-the-climate/
Note also the clear conspiracy ideation and the false alternative fallacy.
By the way, this post with its forecasts and guesses is quite amusing (or sad, if you care) to read today. Like “the promising avenues to work with Trump”, to contrast with his devastating legacy.
I don’t know what prompts more nervousness, the impending AMO or 2024.
What makes you think she ‘agreed’ to that posting? What makes you believe it?
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 Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, when Moon is at Tsat.mean.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.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
My latest on the policy side, this time judicial climate policy making in the Shell Oil case:
https://www.cfact.org/2021/06/09/dutch-court-gets-climate-science-wrong/
The Courts statement of the science is atrocious. They probably got it from Greenpeace, one of the plaintiffs in the Shell case.
Today was Sydney’s coldest day since 1892, i.e. coldest in 129 years.
That’s global warming for you!!!
“”Today was Sydney’s coldest day since 1892, i.e. coldest in 129 years.
That’s global warming for you!!!”
If you say so Peter!
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-forecasts/record-highs-fall-in-minneapolis-as-intense-heat-wave-bakes-twin-cities/960758
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png
I have written a 100 line Op-Ed piece with seven main links available at
Net Zero – What are the Costs & Benefits?
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s35i5v0j44qrqou/WCD-CO2-6June.pdf?dl=0
We have a small group in Montreal that is active in trying to get the message out to as many people and politicians as possible.
In the last month, there is a new paper by Doug Lightfoot – which clearly explains that the Sun, Sun angle, and humidity are the controlling factors of local temperature – while CO2 is at its asymptote and is not going to do much if any more warming. John Buchanan is leading a complaint to the CBC for unbalanced coverage of Climate Change.
While I have put together the Net Zero argument that rising CO2 will be beneficial, while the cost of reducing it is prohibitive.
Gerald Ratzer
Professor Emeritus
Gerald,
In your document you underline that CO2 is plant food and that “in all, the 52 GHGs are about 3% of the atmosphere.”
How do you reconcile the two contradictory ideas?
If CO2 is plant food and there are more plants and plants are the primary source of oxygen then why are oxygen levels dropping in the atmosphere, oceans and lakes? Is that the Sun? Will the gradual decrease in oxygen affect the stratospheric ozone levels and therefore increase dangerous solar radiation that damages the DNA of most lifeforms?
Jack, please tell me how fast the oxygen levels are dropping on a greening planet.
Not all greening is the same. If a explosion of microbial lifeforms is the definition of greening the planet it doesn’t necessarily follow that the rest of the food web is doing better.
https://ugc.futurelearn.com/uploads/assets/44/dc/44dcfee4-41c5-4504-b6a4-a3be32b2dec4.png
I’m looking for examples of if a decline of O2 in the troposphere is affecting the level of ozone in the stratosphere. Without the protection of stratospheric ozone we could kill off most of the lower lifeforms on the surface of both the oceans and land from UV radiation.
Jack, you are well aware of the fact that you are looking at a graph of exceedingly precise measurements. Just substituting an everyday rough composition of the atmosphere with 20% O2, your graph shows the decline from 20.000080% to 20.000000%. Kudos to people who can measure that, but I won’t lose any sleep on it.
To be perfectly clear, the drop in oxygen is in no way a direct threat to mammals or most terrestrial animals. But the decline in oxygen O2 & O3 is just one of hundreds of 2nd. and 3rd. order effect of humans changing the chemical composition of the biosphere. I won’t even drink the water from my local water department anymore since they stopped publishing their annual water quality surveys in 2017 (I’m sure it has nothing to do with the dozens of fracking wells that blanket my city). When I moved here 30yr ago there wasn’t any benzine in the water supply but there is now.
Plant leaves reflect IR – could this oppose the greenhouse effect?
Rising CO2 traps IR in the lower atmosphere causing warming.
However there is a parallel effect of CO2 in enhancing – for obvious reasons of the photosynthesis reaction – plant 🌱 growth worldwide.
Thus global leaf area has recently increased – not decreased – by an amount in the tens of percent. Specifically because of CO2 enhancement of photosynthesis.
Recent infrared spectroscopy research has found that plants’ leaves are surprisingly good at backscattering and re-emitting incident near infrared light.
Indeed – trees and plants look unexpectedly bright in IR camera images (see below).
This points to yet another feedback working against warming by CO2.
The increased leaf area caused by CO2 rejects an increasing percentage of ground incident IR back upwards – effectively increasing near IR albedo.
Could this be one of the factors causing CO2 warming to have been less than expected?
I always suspected and felt that the great efforts to conceal and down-play global CO2 greening are unhelpful to a full scientific understanding of the total effects of rising CO2.
https://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/0206321B-D81F-4882-8889B67637E90C88_354834/ETOP-2015-TPE09.pdf
Some links turn into blank spaces in blog posts.
So please edit this link by removing the few spaces near the start
h t t p s://www.osapublishing.org/DirectPDFAccess/0206321B-D81F-4882-8889B67637E90C88_354834/ETOP-2015-TPE09.pdf
Interesting twitter exchange from David Appell – “Again, the hockey stick is required by basic laws of physics:
1. temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to log(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.”
=> shaft + blade => hockey stick.
another twit comment from D Appell – “No, the hockey stick is a function, temperature as a function of time. Proxies are one way to estimate it. I’m talking about the physics of the function, not the methods of estimation.””
In sum – Appell is arguing the proxies used in the HS are irrevelant.
The deficiency in that line of argument is A) that the shaft is highly dependent of ex post screening of proxies to get an artificial flat shaft and B) the blade is partly a function of the much higher resolution of the instruments used to measure the change in temps.
What is astonishing is the climate science community failing to acknowledge the obvious.
I never argued the proxies are irrelevant, joe.
I said basic physics implies there should be a hockey stick. Proxies confirm that, but it’s not surprising — it’s just as expected.
David’s response to Joe “David Appell | June 11, 2021 at 4:15 pm |
I never argued the proxies are irrelevant, joe.
I said basic physics implies there should be a hockey stick. Proxies confirm that, but it’s not surprising — it’s just as expected.”
You nailed the climate science approach – there must be a HS so we will find proxies that support that conclusion
Except the ex post screened / low resolution proxies are too low resolution and cherrypicked to provide any meaningful insight to prior temps. Nor do those ex post screened proxies reconcile back to other lines of evidence such as higher tree lines in prior periods, or tree lines 275k further north of present day (yamal) or forests uncovered by receding glaciers in canada/ alaska, Chilean andes, Those deficiencies are well known to paleo reconstruction crew, yet continue to be done.
joe: my argument has *nothing* to do with proxies. It’s based purely on physics. It’s a very simple theoretical argument, and whatever the evidence, it will confirm the hockey stick. And not surprisingly, it does.
David you continue to make a backwards argument
The theory predicts a hockey stick, therefore ex post screening of proxies that show a hockey stick is valid –
You seem to ignore the ex post screening of the proxies
You ignore the discarding of the proxies that dont show a HS
you ignore the over reliance of proxies that dont reconcile to other lines of evidence.
joe, I don’t care about the problems with the proxies. Throw out the problematic proxies in the problematic places and use other proxies. Or not and add that into the uncertainty. Very simple theory says there will be a hockey stick. Can you refute it? So it’s no wonder all the many reconstructions find a hockey stick.
This is such a tiresome subject with you guys.
Appell comment – joe, I don’t care about the problems with the proxies. Throw out the problematic proxies in the problematic places and use other proxies. Or not and add that into the uncertainty. Very simple theory says there will be a hockey stick. Can you refute it? So it’s no wonder all the many reconstructions find a hockey stick.
This is such a tiresome subject with you guys.”
What is tiresome is the climate activists defense of the multiple reconstructions relying so extensively on the problematic proxies. At least you acknowledge that the problematic proxies exist – Throw those out and you no longer have the shaft.
So what if multiple reconstructions find a HS, continued use of bad proxies will continue to result in bad reconstructions.
You should be able to grasp that concept.
Throw those out and you no longer have the shaft.
Of all the proxies in the world, tree rings from yamal and canada/ alaska & Chilean andes are necessary to make the shaft?
David Appel- Please explain how basic physics implies that there should be a hockey stick relationship between CO2 and temperature in earth’s complex climate system. You are mistaken on this as you are that the lower atmosphere can’t become co2 saturated.
Rob Starkey: David Appel- Please explain how basic physics implies that there should be a hockey stick relationship between CO2 and temperature in earth’s complex climate system.
I’ve explained this many times but I’ll do it again, if next time you spell my name correctly.
The hockey stick is required by basic physics:
1. temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
2. CO2 forcing change is proportional to log(CO2).
3. CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
To elaborate a little:
– When CO2 isn’t changing, like during most of the thousands of years before the industrial era, its radiative forcing is zero so the temperature change is zero — the flat shaft of the hockey stick.
– When CO2 is increasing exponentially, like during the industrial era, its radiative forcing is increasing linearly, so so is temperature — the blade of the hockey stick.
It’s that simple.
For more see:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/more-about-generating-hockey-sticks.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html
The increased leaf area caused by CO2 rejects an increasing percentage of ground incident IR back upwards – effectively increasing near IR albedo.
Will again be absorbed by CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere.
Plant leaves are green, so more lower the albedo of the Earth for sunlight, so Earth absorbs more of it, a positive feedback on warming.
I love the Koutsoyiannis paper – it says what I have been saying for years that “climate change” is a meaningless tautological phrase indicating in its user, failure to understand the stochastic-chaotic nonlinear emergent nature of reality due to dishonesty or just not being that great at getting things; or both.
Climate is by its fundamental nature always changing. “Climate change” is equivalent to “windy wind” or “rainy rain”.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/13/6/849/htm
I love the word “pleonasm”:
the use of more words than are needed to express a meaning, done either unintentionally or for emphasis; an example of this:
An example of pleonasm might be “kick it with your feet”.
It’s an anagram of neoplasm – quite fitting.
Phil Salmon wrote:
Climate is by its fundamental nature always changing.
Yet climate changed little over the Holocene, until its rapid change in the industrial era and especially the last few decades. So your statement obscures a great deal — too much.
Do you deny the Little Ice Age?
Most of the early 20th century warming was natural, all of the mid century cooling and half of the late century warming.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/Miller_et_2014/Miller_et_al14_fig2_upd.png
Curious George wrote: Do you deny the Little Ice Age?
No. What of it?
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
You can’t show the current rate and magnitude of warming is unusual.
steve: Our current rate of warming is about 30 times faster than the average rate after the last ice age (glacial period) ended.
From Shakun et al Nature 2012 Figure 2a:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
global temperature anomaly in year -18,000 is -3.5 C
global temperature anomaly in year -11,000 is about 1.0 C
so the average temperature change is 4.5 C in 7000 years, or ~ +0.006 C/decade, compared to NOAA’s current 30-year trend of +0.18 C/decade
So that’s a factor of 28 now compared to then.
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/current-warming-30-times-faster-than.html
What’s the resolution on sediment proxies? 200 years or so?
What’s the resolution on sediment proxies? 200 years or so?
I don’t know but the denominator is so big it would make little difference. (Do the math.)
With a 200 year resolution the temperature could be going up and down a degree or two in alternating centuries and the proxy would wash out as no change. Like I said, you can’t show the current rate and magnitude of warming is unusual.
steve, look at the Shakun et al paper I cited, figure 4a. Error bars on the temperature proxy readings aren’t even visible. They certainly aren’t “a degree or two.” Get out of here.
I’m sure the error bars aren’t that large. They are error bars made for a poor resolution proxy. That in no way invalidates what I said.
steve: They are error bars made for a poor resolution proxy.
Those error bars are in time, not temperature.
Why would temperatures jump 1-2 C with no apparent cause?
You don’t know there wasn’t a cause or that an identifiable cause is needed. What you do know now is that you can’t show the current rate and magnitude of warming is unusual. If you want just pure speculation though a change in poleward ocean heat transport could easily cause temperature variations of that magnitude..
stevenreincarnated: What you do know now is that you can’t show the current rate and magnitude of warming is unusual.
We do know because there aren’t many examples of something similarly fast in the paleoclimate records.
The proxies would have to have the resolution to pick it up. Saying we know it isn’t true because we have no ability to prove it one way or the other I think falls under the argument from ignorance fallacy.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:
Most of the early 20th century warming was natural, all of the mid century cooling and half of the late century warming.
Graphs don’t prove that.
“climate changed little over the Holocene”. That’s a strange statement from someone who does not deny the Little Ice Age. Bipolar?
George, the LIA was regional, not global. It wasn’t a manifestation of a global climate forcing.
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
What the graph shows is too little anthropogenic forcing to cause early 20th century warming and too little sulphide forcing for the mid century cooling.
Robert I. Ellison: What the graph shows is too little anthropogenic forcing to cause early 20th century warming and too little sulphide forcing for the mid century cooling.
I don’t know of any scientists who say early 20th century warming was all anthropogenic — do you?
I’ve asked several climate scientists explicitly about early 20th century warming. They tell me they think it’s a combination of (1) increased solar irradiance, (2) anthropogenic CO2, and (3) clearing of volcanic dust that caused the LIA.
The mid-century also saw a negative PDO and a mixed AMO, which likely contributed to cooling.
The LIA in the NH was low solar activity modulating the northern annular mode.
e.g. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta
The state of the eastern Pacific drives climate on decadal to millennial scales.
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
Robert I. Ellison: The LIA in the NH was low solar activity modulating the northern annular mode.
The LIA, to the extent there was one at all, took place from about 1300-1850. The Maunder Minimum doesn’t nearly explain all of that. But volcanoes and an ice albedo feedback do:
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
Why limited to the Maunder minimum?
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/isotope-9400-e1531338833901.png
Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum – https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535
And climate modulated by the Pacific Ocean state is another mechanisms enturely.
Robert Ellison: And climate modulated by the Pacific Ocean state is another mechanisms enturely.
Yep.
RIE: Why limited to the Maunder minimum?
Because you cited Lockwood et al.
The MM didn’t cause the LIA
Another MM won’t cause another LIA
The NH mechanism involves modulation of the Northern Annular Mode that drives cold arctic air into lower latitudes. David cannot possibly know the a future grand minimum won’t deliver very much cooler conditions to Central England.
And yes I cited Lockwood et al 2010 ‘Are cold winters in Europe associated with low solar activity?’ Yes they are.
David Appell: I’ve asked several climate scientists explicitly about early 20th century warming. They tell me they think it’s a combination of (1) increased solar irradiance, (2) anthropogenic CO2, and (3) clearing of volcanic dust that caused the LIA.
Does anybody have good evidence of what caused those changes? Or whether any of them had an ending?
20th Century warming “fits into” the roughly 1000 year apparent periodicity of the global temperature oscillation, but a convincing case for a cause of that periodicity has not been published (in what I have read so far, imo).
A statistical analysis published in the Annals of Applied Statistics showed that there was no evidence for a short well-defined LIA between the relative highs of the Medieval Warm Period and Modern Warm Period, but irregular oscillations with multiple local minima. I posted the link a few years back, and I’ll look it up again later today. Do you have (approximate) begin and end dates for a LIA?
David Appell, and other interested readers.
1 September 2014
Change points and temporal dependence in reconstructions of annual temperature: Did Europe experience a Little Ice Age?
Morgan Kelly, Cormac Ó Gráda
The Annals of Applied Statistics Vol. 8, Issue 3 (Sep 2014), pg(s) 1372-1394
KEYWORDS: European Little Ice Age, Slutsky effect, temporal dependence
It’s open access.
More:https://projecteuclid.org/search?term=Little+Ice+Age
Abstract
We analyze the timing and extent of Northern European temperature falls during the Little Ice Age, using standard temperature reconstructions. However, we can find little evidence of temporal dependence or structural breaks in European weather before the twentieth century. Instead, European weather between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries resembles uncorrelated draws from a distribution with a constant mean (although there are occasional decades of markedly lower summer temperature) and variance, with the same behavior holding more tentatively back to the twelfth century. Our results suggest that observed conditions during the Little Ice Age in Northern Europe are consistent with random climate variability. The existing consensus about apparent cold conditions may stem in part from a Slutsky effect, where smoothing data gives the spurious appearance of irregular oscillations when the underlying time series is white noise.
And if temperatures did jump 1-2 C in some century, that would have been highly unusual, not “normal,” and just show how unusual the current rate of change is as well.
How many centuries have you been alive to determine what is usual and unusual over a time period of thousands of years? You are just stating your assumptions as facts here.
stevenreincarnated: How many centuries have you been alive to determine what is usual and unusual over a time period of thousands of years?
That’s just extremely unscientific and you know it.
By that standard you don’t even know that World War I happened. Is that what you believe?
David, you can’t show with proxies that it is unusual yet you state that it is with sincere, I believe sincere, conviction. So if you aren’t basing it off data that only leaves personal experience?
Steve, look at Shakun fig 4a. It does not show temperatures jumping up and down by 1-2 C.
But even that doesn’t matter. Look at the Holocene, the history of civilization. NOTHING shows anything like a hockey stick of increased temperatures.
That’s the problem, Steve.
Why would I look at a study made with a proxy that wouldn’t show what I was looking for whether it happened or not? As far as your argument that nothing in history shows a hockey stick what exactly are you referring to? Do you mean history as in for instance changing weather patterns where people might be burned as witches or virgins sacrificed to gods or do you mean proxies that have the resolution but don’t go back nearly far enough to prove or disprove our argument?
steve: As far as your argument that nothing in history shows a hockey stick what exactly are you referring to?
What??? I said that the hockey stick shows we’re in a period of extremely rapid temperature change, in the late Holocene, the period when civilization developed. We’ve experienced nothing like it before. It doesn’t matter what happened 20ka or 100Ma. We live now, not then. We have to adapt now, not then. Can we? Can all the other organisms on the planet? Can they? It’s a huge question — one you clearly don’t want to face.
OMG David, you can either prove the current warming is unusual in magnitude and rate or you can’t. You haven’t so far so I assume you can’t. Just admit you can’t and find a new talking point.
steve, the hockey stick shows that modern warming is very unusual over the last couple of millennia. There is little in the paleoclimate record that compares to this rate of warming except during extinction events.
That’s enough. That’s all we need to know to be very concerned about it.
Ocean acidification worst in 300 million years, study finds
Christian Science Monitor, 3/2/12
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0302/Ocean-acidification-worst-in-300-million-years-study-finds
‘The M-SSA analysis of each of 111 available observed–model-simulated secular SAT differences (representing, as stated above, 111 estimates of internal secular variability in observations) identifies a pronounced pair of M-SSA modes, which stands out of the rest of the spectrum and is altogether absent from the model-simulated internal secular variability (Fig. 3a, Supplementary Figs. 4, 5, Supplementary Table 2) (ref.34). The model-simulated spectra (Fig. 3a, blue curve) are characterised by a much smaller variance compared to the observed spectra (black curve), reflecting a weaker internal secular variability around the forced climate trends in models, and, most importantly, by completely different space–time patterns associated with the leading M-SSA eigenmodes. This is seen from the fact that the projections of the simulated secular signals onto the space–time patterns of the observed M-SSA modes have negligible variance (red curve in Fig. 3a). Most of the M-SSA spectra based on model simulations are also less peaked, in relative sense, than the observed spectrum and decay monotonically, without statistically significant separation between their leading mode(s) and trailing M-SSA modes. The pairs of M-SSA eigenmodes with similar magnitudes and timescales, as seen in the observed spectra, may indicate the presence of a quasi-oscillatory mode29 in the data; in the context of the secular signals, which have timescales comparable to the length of the data record, the periodicity of such a signal cannot be verified, but the propagation of the anomalies in space in the course of the oscillation can still be established with statistical significance.35 Indeed, the reconstruction of this pair of modes for regional climate indices (Fig. 3b, c) manifests as a multidecadal signal propagating across the climate index network (with certain time delays between different indices)—a so-called stadium wave (refs. 20,35,36,37)—which we will refer to as the global stadium wave (GSW) or, when referring to the global-mean temperature, Global Multidecadal Oscillation (GMO), although, once again, the oscillatory character of this phenomenon is impossible to establish due to shortness of the data record. The phasing of indices in the GSW is consistent with earlier work (ref. 20), which analysed a limited subset of the Northern Hemisphere climate indices (Supplementary Fig. 6). 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
This of course a much longer instrumental record from which Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamics were identified. This behaviour is not oscillatory deterministically chaotic.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/nilometer.png
Thus we get rapidly fluctuating temperature. Averaging this over 4,500 years and comparing it to modern surface temperature records is utter nonsense.
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fsdata.2017.88/MediaObjects/41597_2017_Article_BFsdata201788_Fig8_HTML.jpg
https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
What seems to be the case is 0.3 degrees C warming in the past 40 years that may be anthropogenic.
“There is little in the paleoclimate record that compares to this rate of warming except during extinction events.” – David
Complete BS.
RIE: While your cut-and-paste skills are top notch, why don’t you summarize that into two sentences appropriate for a comment on a blog like this.
Alan Lowey: Complete BS.
Another convincing argument from Alan.
‘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
But I did want to include the global stadium wave just for you David.
“There is little in the paleoclimate record that compares to this rate of warming except during extinction events.” – David
Complete BS and spreading of disinformation:
….
During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.
….
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589499921233
Robert Ellison: ‘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.
Robert, what are you talking about???
The warming over the last 40 years, by decade compared to the decade before, according to HadCRUT5 GMST is
1980s 0.21 C
1990s 0.14 C
2000s 0.24 C
2010s 0.20 C
So your claim of 0.3 C in 40 years is bullsh!t.
Dark orbs will be the big discovery in science. How long before they are connected to climate change is anyone’s guess:
“Because the huge star was in such a dense region of the galaxy, the researchers wondered whether an unknown dark object might have strayed in front of it by chance. Simulations suggested this was highly unlikely without an implausible number of dark objects floating around the Milky Way.”
https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/11/astronomers-find-blinking-giant-star-near-heart-of-milky-way
The evidence for a new theory of gravity is accelerating in pace. It will only be a year or two away now:
…
A NEW SPACE DISCOVERY MAY ‘OVERTURN COSMOLOGY AS WE KNOW IT’
….
https://nerdist.com/article/giant-arc-of-galaxies-overturn-cosmology/
Alan, this would have nothing to do with a “new theory of gravity.”
Note from the article: “the cosmological principle—which is not a physical law, but rather a guiding heuristic”
Other researchers have suggested rogue orbs may out number the stars of the Milky Way:
….
In 2011, the team found 10 rogue planets that were about the size of Jupiter and did not have parent stars within 10 astronomical units.
One astronomical unit is equivalent to the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
The researchers said the newly detected rogue planet is the smallest one ever found and has a mass somewhere between Earth and Mars.
While most known planets orbit a star (like the Earth orbits the Sun), the researchers believe the galaxy may be teeming with rogue planets, possibly outnumbering the number of stars in the Milky Way.
….
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/54738744
The Atlantis article on the nuclear stalemate in democracies is excellent:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/democracy-and-the-nuclear-stalemate
It should however make a distinction. “Democracies” where the stalemate is worst are those whose “protest” movements have ossified into utterly unmovable power structures, such as Germany and the USA.
Nations whose protest movements, while powerful and influential, nonetheless show flexibility and an ability for rational engagement, are not so handicapped and have nuclear sectors that are not moribund but are reviving and healthy, such as the U.K., France and South Korea. Japan is also possibly reviving its nuclear sector, suggesting that in that country also rationality is not extinguished by entrenched power structures.
If any country has a reason to rationally fear nuclear power, it’s Japan. Do they even have a *plan* yet to fully clean up Fukushima, let alone a count of the number of decades it will take to do so? Or is it now in the centuries?
Perhaps the Japanese themselves don’t believe the Chernobyl-like mythology of Fukushima?
Looks like it’s time to give those Japanese a demarche ordering them to toe the line of American brain-dead antinuclearism.
“Alan, there are kooks in all fields, all over the Internet. You found another one.”
It’s worth noting that Dr. Claudia Albers is currently very I’ll and anyone with sympathy to her bravery for supporting the dark orb hypothesis can donate from the link in the video.
…
Oxford astrophysicist Dr. Becky talks about the paper which suggests dark matter is at the heart of the Milky Way and *not* a black hole.
21:30 – note that the lack of gravitational effect on the passing gas cloud lends evidence to the idea of strong gravitational interaction between stellar/galactic cores but very weak interaction with known matter:
https://youtu.be/sijXHGGulIk
There was a glitch in the matrix just as I posted that last comment and it’s come out in the wrong place! It was meant for David Appell of course..
Alan: Interesting video, thanks for suggesting it. I watched from 21:30 on, but didn’t see anything that suggested standard gravity theory is wrong — note she talked about all uncertainties relating to the passing gas cloud, such as dust in the observation path, uncertainty in the distance, etc. But nothing suggesting the strength of the gravitational force is different, and any physicist or astronomer would be extremely skeptical if that’s true, going all the way back to Vera Rubin and the rotation curves of galaxies, and even Fritz Zwicky.
David: I appreciate you watching and take note that dark matter is considered as an alternative to Einstein’s supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.
Dr. Becky is open-minded yet still indoctrinated with Newton/Einstein gravity theory so the idea of a strong gravitational interaction with stellar cores but weak interaction with a gas cloud is beyond her.
She’ll be one of those that adapts the best to the idea of new physics when the Webb makes breakthrough shock discoveries.
Bari Weiss and The New York Times | The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast – S4E29
If you’re not a Bari Weiss fan after watching this video, I don’t know about you. She is a fellow traveler. Near the end she says, stand up and say something.
Not only will gravity considered as a strong force emanating from the exotic core of Earth & other heavenly bodies be found as a solution for abrupt climate change but also bring illumination & insight to the world of elementary particles:
….
Due to their small size, the gravitational interaction between elementary particles (electrons, protons, and neutrons) is weak compared to Coulomb forces — attraction and repulsion determined by charge. For example, negatively charged electrons move around the atomic nucleus that contains positively charged protons. Therefore, the ratio of Newtonian attraction to Coulomb repulsion (or γ,) is negligible.
….
https://scitechdaily.com/gravity-might-play-a-bigger-role-in-the-formation-of-elementary-particles-than-scientists-thought/amp/
The ‘spinning corkscrew graviton’ mental imagery for a radiated particle able to achieve a force of attraction can also account for the duel nature of known elementary particles. Two helical structures can intertwine and become self-interacting, creating the dynamics of their existence & longevity:
….
Researchers in the US may have found the first hard evidence that the electron is made up of two distinct particles. According to N Phuan Ong and colleagues at Princeton University, the observation of “spin-charge separation” in a material known as a quantum spin liquid suggests that the electron is not a structureless “point” particle as is commonly thought, but instead behaves like it contains two separate entities.
….
https://physicsworld.com/a/electrons-dual-nature-appears-in-a-quantum-spin-liquid/
It’s also a solution for the particle/wave duality observed in the infamous double slit experiment.
I’ve just had the first person in the world agree with me that the idea of compact exotic matter existing at the Earth’s core has been overlooked. Everyone else is still living in the past:
https://youtu.be/Js9RZPxhg1U
Alan Lowey: It’s also a solution for the particle/wave duality observed in the infamous double slit experiment.
No, it wouldn’t be. The double slit experiment reveals a fundamental property of quantum mechanics, whatever the particle.
“No, it wouldn’t be. The double slit experiment..” – Appell
You don’t have the imagination to be able to understand what I’m trying to convey.
“You don’t have the imagination to be able to understand what I’m trying to convey.”
His remarks about the double slit experiment are spot on, the “spin-charge separation” plays no role at all for that experiment, you are just wrong!
“His remarks about the double slit experiment are spot on, the “spin-charge separation” plays no role at all for that experiment, you are just wrong!” – morf
It’s the size of the slit relative to the size of the electron which is critical. If the slits are in the same order as the size of the electron, the duel helical wave/particle breaks apart scattering from each slit and creates an interference pattern.
Alan Lowey: It’s the size of the slit relative to the size of the electron which is critical. If the slits are in the same order as the size of the electron, the duel helical wave/particle breaks apart scattering from each slit and creates an interference pattern.
The electron is a point particle, according to current measurements — it has no size. Or at least, a very small upper limit.
The peculiarities of the double slit experiment are about the quantum properties of matter, exhibiting both wave-like and particle-like properties at the same time. Split an electron into smaller particles, if possible, and each of those smaller particles will exhibit the same strange features of the double slit experiment. Because any particle has no location until you measure it.
“The electron is a point particle, according to current measurements — it has no size. ”
There’s simply a scale smaller than can currently be detected by experiment. That’s why theoretical simulation modelling is a viable way forward.
Hints that some exoplanets, discovered due to the dimming as they transit across the face of a distant star, are in fact dark orbs composed of compact exotic matter:
….
Nasa scientists said the new planet is weird, but it’s one step closer to being somewhat like Earth.
“Compared to most transiting planets detected thus far, which often have scorching temperatures in the many hundreds or thousands of degrees, TOI-1231 b is positively frigid,” Burt added.
….
https://www.livemint.com/science/news/nasa-discovers-weird-earth-like-planet-with-unknown-atmosphere-know-more/amp-11623505968548.html
The late great Charles Keeling of Keeling Curve fame and a darling of climate science was a denier.
https://wp.me/pTN8Y-7pz
It’s a bit unfair to use that word against an individual when the mainstream science community also agrees that orbital resonance causing significant tidal effects (causing climate cycles) doesn’t fit standard gravitational theory. (Despite there being considerable evidence that there *is* indeed some kind of connection)
Mainstream science community??? Tidal effects causing climate cycles?
chaamjamal: The late great Charles Keeling of Keeling Curve fame and a darling of climate science was a denier.
He certainly was not.
“It has been over 30 years since I speculated before the American Philosophical Society that the world by the end of the 20th century might be in greater danger from rising CO2 than it was in 1969.”
Charles Keeling, Rewards and Penalties of Monitoring the Earth, Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 1998. 23:25–82
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.energy.23.1.25
Read the entire section in that paper.
David
In that article Keeling wryly observes;
“…convincing proof will be acknowledged to have arrived when a substantial number of US Congressman are discovered to have secretly purchased real estate in northern Canada.”
A good guide. How many have done so and how many congressmen and women and Ex presidents have bought homes very close to the ocean?
tonyb
climatereason: A good guide. How many have done so and how many congressmen and women and Ex presidents have bought homes very close to the ocean?
Why is that a good guide?
Keeling said the northern purchases would be done in secret. So how would we know about them?
The Obamas’ house on Martha’s Vineyard is at:
79 Turkeyland Cove Rd
Edgartown, MA 02539
The house itself is at 3.3 ft above sea level, according to https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm
It appears they got a bargain on the house — “The $14.85 million compound is owned by Boston Celtics owner Wyc Grousbeck, who has reportedly been trying to sell the estate for years. According to Robb Report, the property was first listed back in 2015 at an ultra-high asking price of $22.5 million”
I suspect the Obamas will be able to sell their house for a nice profit in a few years, simply because they’re the Obamas, regardless of sea level rise.
But you should ask the Obama’s why they bought their house on the Vineyard. Would you like his email address?
The house itself is at 3.3 ft above sea level, according to https://www.freemaptools.com/elevation-finder.htm
————————————–
Here’s the thing about a survivalist. They will build in the sticks, buy food, guns, generators, you name it. They walk the walk. President Obama must have told us sea level rise is some big threat. That’s a fraud. The more honest person is the survivalist.
Sea level rise is certainly a threat. But not to Obama’s house before he sells it at a profit. He’s smart like that.
David
Thanks for your answer. Most interesting. Is that the area I read about in the UK press that will have a large offshore wind farm?
tonyb
tonyb: Not sure what you mean, but I don’t think that Obama’s house and an offshore UK wind farm have a nonzero intersection.
An honest President Obama would say, I plan to lose money on this house over the next 50 years, which is fine. We buy phones that will not last forever.
We could also buy houses on the tops of eroding cliffs. We could buy houses in the woods that will burn to global warming caused fires. We could build on a flood plain. None of this is wrong.
Why does Obama have to say anything about his house? It’s nobody’s business but his own.
Besides, the government (taxpayers) will bail out everyone who loses their house to sea level rise. In fact, it’s already happening.
David Appells comment – “Sea level rise is certainly a threat. But not to Obama’s house before he sells it at a profit. He’s smart like that.”
At 3.3m above sea level, that about 800-1000 years before Obama has to worry about it.
(math is hard for those with the superior intellectual capacity to ascertain the validity of climate science).
Joe: 3.3 feet, not meters
Joe: And 3.3 meters of SLR will likely happen in the 2200s, not 800-1000 years.
Let’s worry about sea levels 180 years from now. We can’t even balance the budget or educate poor children in blue cities. If he bought an English Castle with a moat would he have to say anything about that? He decided he wanted to be President and he was. He talks about climate change. Why is his house off limits?
The UK press writes about wind farms off the U.S. coast.
“The US has approved a huge offshore wind farm off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard — the first of its kind…”
Good. In his old age he can watch that White Elephant be swallowed up by the ocean. Maybe some chopped seagulls will wash up on his shore.
Talking about Obama’s house isn’t off limits, and I never said it was. But he’s not obligated to discuss it — it’s his private business.
US taxpayers are already paying for the cost of sea level rise, so, yes, it’s an issue worth talking about now. And will increasingly be as time goes by. Keep your wallet out.
U.S. Taxpayers all also paying the cost of increased of electricity prices and less reliable service caused by the introduction of so much wind and solar. The costs associated with oil from the Middle East. Increased heating costs. Rich people like President Obama can buy their own seawalls. But the rich always use the government to make the poor pay.
Are wind and solar really more expensive? That’s not what I hear.
“Are wind and solar really more expensive?”
With a fair accounting, yes. Let’s take the claims of solar owners saving money on their bills as true. Where does that money come from? You could say the utility eats that. But they don’t. They do less infrastructure maintenance. Where do the Federal solar credits come from and the individual state’s incentive money come from?
We can ask what happened to you? And ask what happened to the big picture? The ads for solar focus on what you get. You’re suing everybody else who is not like you to get money. Therefore solar is a good idea. It’s Ayn Rand selfishness. Only that not a fair to her.
Not to mention all the parasites that glom onto this. And all the old solar panels that will be landfilled. And all the children in third world countries mining rare earth elements as their environment is destroyed.
How people can be blind to this could be a mind virus.
Appell. – wind & solar are cheaper, if you ignore all the costs associated with maintaining redundant back up when renewables don’t provide any electricity,
Might want to ask why Germany has the highest electric costs in the industrial world.
Gee Why is math is so hard for climate scientists
joe wrote: wind & solar are cheaper, if you ignore all the costs associated with maintaining redundant back up when renewables don’t provide any electricity,
What if you include the cost of providing backups for the fossil fuels plants that go down for repairs, maintenance, catastrophes (like last winter in Texas), etc? How do you value all the deaths last winter in Texas?
What if you include all the costs of the negative externalities of fossil fuel plants — health care costs from air pollution, deaths, climate change with its sea level rise forever, crop loses, all and all of that, etc?
Let’s do a full and honest accounting, shall we?
Ragnaar:“Are wind and solar really more expensive?”
With a fair accounting, yes.
A “fair accounting” includes the negative externalities of fossil fuels, from both their air and water pollution and their climate change.
Include those and get back to me.
A “fair accounting” includes the negative externalities of fossil fuels, from both their air and water pollution and their climate change.
——————————————-
And a fair accounting also includes all the good coal power plants have done in 3rd world countries. All the forests not destroyed for fuel wood. All the rare earth metals not mined in 3rd world countries by children.
We should minimize the virtue signals, and maximize the overall good.
David appell- don’t embarrass yourself with the cause of the loss power in Texas in February
You need the entire story to understand what happened
There was a 40% loss of power for approximately 18 hours starting on feb 15th, then 20% loss for 40 hours caused by problems with natural gas.
What you are ignoring is the 70% – 90% loss of power from renewables that lasted for 9 days across the entire North American continent
Ragnaar: And a fair accounting also includes all the good coal power plants have done in 3rd world countries. All the forests not destroyed for fuel wood. All the rare earth metals not mined in 3rd world countries by children.
Yeah, and the mountaintops razed, and mercury emissions, and water poisoned, and years of healthy life lost, on and on.
For example, coal-fired generation facilities created at least $62B/yr in (nonclimate) health costs in the U.S. (in 2005, in 2007 dollars), according the 2010 report “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use” by the National Academy of Sciences. That’s 3.2 cents/kWhr, or an average of over $800 a year for a family of four, with damages due to climate change adding another 3 cents/kWh (for CO2e priced at $30/tonne).
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
National Research Council, 2010
http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html
joe, it’s a dirty myth that renewables were behind the Texas power outage last winter. Abbott lied and got caught. His lie has been soundly and roundly debunked.
“Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use” by the National Academy of Sciences.
————————–
It’s just like us to impose that study on poor people living in Africa who want cheap reliable power. Because we know what’s best for them. And have done a good job of doing that over the past 50 years.
Ragnaar: It’s just like us to impose that study on poor people living in Africa who want cheap reliable power. Because we know what’s best for them. And have done a good job of doing that over the past 50 years.
WE’RE imposing that on Africans? Can you show me how and where?
Fossil fuel power requires a great deal of infrastructure — mining, ports, power plants, sturdy roads, electrical networks, distribution nodes. What I’ve read is that, especially in rural areas, like with cell phones, Africans are putting in community solar power and bypassing fossil fuels completely. It also means they don’t have to wait years and even decades for power to get wired the last kilometer or hundred meters.
Whereas in large cities fossil fuels are creating air pollution so bad I doubt you’d step foot in there — but it’s OK for poor, right?
High efficiency low emission (HELE) coal fired power plants are inevitable in developing economies. Cheaper than natural gas in most places in the world. And utterly in accord with their Paris country commitments.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/hele-e1550170804379.jpg
Robert I. Ellison: High efficiency low emission (HELE) coal fired power plants are inevitable in developing economies.
Not when it’s cheaper to generate electricity by other means, and not when coal creates so much pollution your people are getting sick, dying and leaving.
HELE technology reduces pollutants with health impacts by 99.9%.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/nile-e1527722953992.jpg
The ‘value’ of wind and solar rapidly declines with relatively low penetrations.
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2020/12/value-electricity.png
Whoops!!!
https://watertechbyrie.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/hele.png
There’s some latest research which links planetary alignment with solar cycles:
….
The sun’s clock: New calculations support and expand planetary hypothesis
….
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-sun-clock-planetary-hypothesis.amp
It doesn’t sound convincing to me. I’m still inclined to think a new physics ‘dark orb’ is responsible for the ~11 year sunspot cycle.
Alan Lowey: What exactly is a “dark orb?” A body of matter? What kind of matter? Dark in what sense? How large? What’s the evidence for its existence? If it’s dark how do we know it’s present? What’s the evidence it’s related to the 11 year sunspot cycle?
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.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I don’t understand how you handle the rotation. Could you please elaborate on your website?
George, I saw your note right now. It is very late in Athens Greece where I am. I will try to elaborate about how I handle the rotation tomorrow.
Please, what exactly you don’t understand so I could be more specific?
In the 1930s it would have been unthinkable to question Einstein’s gravity theory, only nearly a hundred years later is it starting to be challenged:
….
Climate change pioneer undaunted by sceptics
Climate change is high on the agenda at the G7 summit in Cornwall but progress to limit the rise in world temperatures remains painfully slow. Yet it was in 1938 that the first evidence came to light that the climate was warming because of rising levels of carbon dioxide pollution. This discovery was all the more remarkable because it was made by Guy Stewart Callendar, a steam engineer by profession who spent his spare time studying climate data.
By the 1930s Callendar was collecting temperature recordings from 147 weather stations around the world, a unique project. The pattern was stark: average global temperatures over the previous 50 years had risen by about 0.3C. And when he compared this to historical measurements of carbon dioxide he..
….
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-pioneer-undaunted-by-sceptics-2rf0x5tms
Why Earth rotation does not induce for Moon some retrograde rotating?
Jordan Peterson & Heather Heying: Identity, Religion, Death
Triggernometry
I know I keep posting these, Heying who is a blue chipper, said the faculty steering the direction of Universities are those with few skills beyond ideology. The really smart ones do things like research and other good things like caring about their students one on one. This is a gross simplification of what she said so blame me, not her.
New satellite data analysis shows that evapotranspiration has increased 10% 2003-2019
Koutosyiannis, quoted above, passes on the estimate that: In particular, heat exchange by evaporation (and hence the latent heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere) is the Earth’s natural locomotive, with the total energy involved in the hydrological cycle being 1290 ZJ/year, corresponding to an energy flux density of 80 W/m2 [59].
Would these numbers, if confirmed and accurate, imply that the energy involved in evapotranspiration has increased 8 W/m^2 from 2003-2019? If so, can that much power have been supplied by increased atmospheric CO2? I doubt that the estimates are sufficiently accurate to support confidence in any conclusion, but it looks like a worthy topic for more research.
The locomotive is a steam engine. Latent heat flux is some 80 W/m2. Some 505,000 cubic kilometres of water falls as precipitation each year – do the math. But energy is conserved – if latent heat flux increases sensible heat decreases.
https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/images/long-content-page/radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_2008_big.jpg
And never have I ever remotely claimed that surface heat is constant. Just that sensible heat plus latent heat equals total heat at the surface. More latent heat less sensible is the simple physics. In response to your neophyte musing about how a small increase in forcing could explain the increase in evapotranspiration. You then pretend that you knew that all the time and deflect with a ridiculous comment abut surface heat not being constant. Deplorable but at least you are consistent.
Robert I Ellison: Latent heat flux is some 80 W/m2. Some 505,000 cubic kilometres of water falls as precipitation each year – do the math.
Which math? If that heat flux increased 10%, where did the additional power come from?
You posted a well-known energy flow diagram, but avoided the question I asked (which is certainly your right.) Is the question of no interest to you?
The reason I showed it was the 80 W/m2 latent heat flux shown. The math is for the heat of condensation. And the heat flux doesn’t increase by 10% – latent heat might but that implies a decrease in sensible heat flux at the surface. Do you not know the difference?
I keep giving you answers. I answered your repeated query about Koutsoyiannis averaging Bologna rainfall at different intervals. It was in the passage quoted ‘as seen in Figure 4, the variability decreases as the time-scale increases, but it never becomes zero. This is the case even for time scales of millions of years [33].’ This was to illustrate the statistical nature of HK dynamics.
https://www.mdpi.com/water/water-13-00849/article_deploy/html/images/water-13-00849-g004-550.jpg
‘Figure 4. (upper) Evolution of average daily precipitation in Bologna, as a climatic element, seen at the annual and the climatic time scales of 10 and 30 years; (lower) as in upper panel but for a time window of the three summer months, JAS.’
How many times will you repeat this latest triviality?
Robert I Ellison: The math is for the heat of condensation. And the heat flux doesn’t increase by 10% – latent heat might but that implies a decrease in sensible heat flux at the surface.
There is no implication supported by the evidence so far that an increase of 10% in the latent heat flux would imply a decrease in the sensible heat flux. Both of the quotes I responded to in my last post but one refer to heat carried by evapotranspiration.
I keep giving you answers. I answered your repeated query about Koutsoyiannis averaging Bologna rainfall at different intervals. It was in the passage quoted ‘as seen in Figure 4, the variability decreases as the time-scale increases, but it never becomes zero. This is the case even for time scales of millions of years [33].’ This was to illustrate the statistical nature of HK dynamics.
K&K supplemented their H-K dynamics by adding two periodic components to the variance function. Therefore, theirs is one of many cases where H-K dynamics do not “define” the stochastic process.
You make neophyte mistakes because you have no founding in hydrology and cannot simply move on let alone acknowledge error but try to fool the unsuspecting into thinking you have a point to a point where I question your or my sanity. Can the total heat content at the surface truly be expressed as:
H = CpT + L q
where Cp is the specific heat of air at constant pressure, T is the air temperature, L is the latent heat of vaporization, and q is the specific humidity [Haltiner and Williams, 1980] .The quantity, H, is called moist static energy and can be expressed in units of Joules/kg.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1029/2004EO210004
Because that’s what I said. HK stochastic dynamics – btw – is a tern used by Koutsoyiannis for properties of geophysical series first observed by Edward Hurst in Nile River flows and by Andrey Kolmogorov in turbulence. The term applies to the analysed structure within the data. Not something you have ever been in danger of comprehending.
Robert I Ellison: You make neophyte mistakes because you have no founding in hydrology and cannot simply move on let alone acknowledge error
You have not pointed out an actual error.
H = CpT + L q
Well sure, but in a changing environment, H can’t be assumed to be constant.
Ill close with a nice quote from K&K. (top of p 16): Here, the results are stunning. For both lags eta = 1 and 2 and for the entire period (or almost), T [right arrow] [CO2] dominates, attaining p-values as low as in the order of 10^-33. However, we will avoid interpreting these results as unambiguous evidence that the consensus view (i.e., human activity is responsible for the observed warming) is wrong. Rather, what we want to stress is that it is
inappropriate to draw conclusions from a methodology which is demonstrated to be so sensitive to the used time windows and data processing assumptions.
Read the whole thing. K quotes “T [right arrow] [CO2] dominates”. I think the emphasis in his Rethinking Water paper is on “maybe”.
You were wondering where the energy came from. And now you go back to the hen and egg paper. But HK dynamics are far from a maybe. It is just more pretending that you have an actual point.
Here I think – https://judithcurry.com/2021/06/06/week-in-review-science-edition-127/#comment-952595
Robert I Ellison: You were wondering where the energy came from.
The question was, and is, where does the extra energy come from to power the change?
It comes from the sun of course and depends on how energy is partitioned between latent and sensible heat is partitioned at the surface. Of course anthropogenic forcing is slowly increasing and that was your question – whether it is sufficient to explain increased evapotranspiration. No. These are elementary concepts in atmospheric physics.
Robert I Ellison: Of course anthropogenic forcing is slowly increasing and that was your question – whether it is sufficient to explain increased evapotranspiration. No.
At this point, that is my opinion, based on my calculation.
Another trivial deflection. If you had understood heat at the surface – you wouldn’t have to ask where the energy came from.
Robert I Ellison: Of course anthropogenic forcing is slowly increasing and that was your question – whether it is sufficient to explain increased evapotranspiration. No.
For a while I thought that you had finally understood my question. Then you wrote:
Another trivial deflection. If you had understood heat at the surface – you wouldn’t have to ask where the energy came from.
I have not mentioned that the energy comes from fusion reactions in the sun. Maybe I don’t know that either, or am confused about the number of such fusion reactions.
Confusion is the starting point followed by obscurantism.
Robert I Ellison: Confusion is the starting point followed by obscurantism.
I become more and more convinced that you simply do not read carefully. Technical detail you have referred to as “pettifoggery”.
For example: HK stochastic dynamics – btw – is a tern used by Koutsoyiannis for properties of geophysical series first observed by Edward Hurst in Nile River flows and by Andrey Kolmogorov in turbulence. The term applies to the analysed structure within the data. Not something you have ever been in danger of comprehending.
You completely ignore the fact that K&K supplement the H-K dynamic model of variance by adding in 2 periodic elements.
I am certain you fail to grasp even the simplest ideas. The rethinking climate paper’s sole author is Koutsoyiannis. The time intervals on which variance is calculated distinguish Bologna rainfall from a white noise process – as I have discussed with a quote from the paper way above and have mentioned several times. It shows that there is nothing but HK dynamics in the series at any scale.
And yet. on p. 14 of Koutsoyiannis’ paper you can read:
The resulting climacogram of the harmonic oscillation, which should
be added to that of Equation (7), is [38]:
equation 10
Clearly, for increasing time-scale k the contribution of gT(k) vanishes.
Cearly, K does not confine himself to H-K dynamics. The process can not be defined. by ignoring the short-term fluctuations. H-K is an approximation useful for approximating the smoothed process.
And never have I ever remotely claimed that surface heat is constant. Just that sensible heat plus latent heat equals total heat at the surface. More latent heat less sensible is the simple physics.
“more latent heat” does not imply “less sensible heat”, unless the total is at least approximately constant — that is your “remote” claim. What you call “simple physics” is unsupported..
Latent heat plus sensible heat equal total heat at the surface. That total heat varies is irrelevant.
‘Because in Bologna there is no dry season, the effect of seasonality on precipitation is low and can be neglected in the stochastic characterisation of the precipitation process. The negligible effect is manifest in the climacogram of Figure 5, where a monotonic decrease is observed for the entire range of scales. However, in other climatic zones the seasonality is prominent. Even in Bologna, in the temperature process, which has been used for the climatic classification in Table 2, the effect of seasonality is substantial. The climacogram can no longer be fully described by Equation (7).’
The seasonal effect is neglected in Bologna and disappears at longer timescales elsewhere – leaving only HK dynamics. You may try to fool some of the people some of the time…
“According to the NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Earth’s observed mean surface temperature (Ts) has been stable over the past 16 years and equals 287.6 K (+14.47 C). Thus, the current method quantifies GE as Ts – Te = 287.6 – 255.1 = 32.5 K. Most studies assume a planetary albedo of 0.3 and arrive at GE ≈ 33 K.”
https://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20NOAA%20National%20Climatic%20Data%20Center%2C,albedo%20of%200.3%20and%20arrive%20at%20GE%E2%80%89%E2%89%88%E2%80%8933%20K.
It is a mistake, because it is wrongly assumed for planets without atmosphere the planet effective temperature Te equals Ts.
It is mistakenly assumed for Earth without-atmosphere the Ts should be equal to Te, or for Earth without atmosphere Ts =255 K.
Thus it is mistakenly assumed Earth without -atmosphere should have a uniform surface temperature Ts = 255 K.
We know that planet cannot have uniform surface temperature.
Also we know Earth Ts = 287,6 K.
And there is not any 33 K greenhouse effect.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Dr. Claudia Albers was a physics lecturer at a prestigious university of South Africa for 17 years before leaving due to her contrarian views which are similar to my own.
There’s a UK newspaper article on the story (which I’ve also had a simple article in) and I’ve highlighted some sentences which piqued my interest. It’s a shame she doesn’t consider exotic matter which would be orbiting ‘dark orbs’ due to not interacting with light:
….
She claims they are “much denser” than planets otherwise they would be vapourised by the Sun.
..
It seems that the object is here and it is not alone because there is evidence that there are many of these objects in the inner solar system and they have been coming in towards the Sun for many years.
(Dr Claudia Albers)
..
The Nibiru myth emerged in 1976, when writer Zecharia Sitchin claimed that two ancient Middle Eastern cultures – the Babylonians and Sumerians – told of a giant planet – Nibiru – that orbited the Sun.
..
“Firstly, if there was a planet headed into the inner solar system that was going to come close to the Earth, it would already be inside the orbit of Mars, it would be bright, it would be easily visible to the naked eye – if it was up there it would be easy to see it, all of us could see it.”
….
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/933960/Nibiru-Nuclear-physicist-Dr-Claudia-Albers-Planet-X-exists-NASA-prove-otherwise
“there is evidence that there are many of these objects in the inner solar system.” A mental evidence, apparently. No observational evidence. No detectable gravitational effects.
She was heavily influenced by this officially confirmed footage:
https://youtu.be/quGM_4nfT9o
4:40 : The ‘dark orb’ seems to have reappeared 9 years later, making it a new physics contender for the ~11 year sunspot cycle:
https://youtu.be/xI4zpPsiCZI
“A mental evidence, apparently. No observational evidence. No detectable gravitational effects.” – ignoramus
Not only is there direct observation of a dark orb seen close to the sun but it’s also inferred from the gravitational effects required to account for the orbits of distant dwarf planets.
The search for planet X is an interesting tale which started with Percival Lowell.
….
Some plausible replacements for planet nine include a small ball of ultra-concentrated dark matter, or a primordial black hole. As black holes are among the most dense objects in the Universe, Unwin explains that it’s entirely possible the latter could be warping the orbits of distant objects in the outer solar system.
….
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20210216-the-massive-planet-scientists-cant-find
If Planet Nine exists, why has no one seen it?
/ Lord, I’m not the one to tell this old world how to get along
I only know that peace will come when all our hate is gone
I’ve been a-searchin’ for the dolphins in the sea
Ah, but sometimes I wonder, do you ever think of me. /
https://youtu.be/LtU-9EMSYu0
/ Lord, I’m not the one to tell this old world how to get along
I only know that peace will come when all our hate is gone
I’ve been a-searchin’ for the dolphins in the sea
Ah, but sometimes I wonder, do you ever think of me. /
https://youtu.be/LtU-9EMSYu0
.
There’s a tentative connection between the officially confirmed black orb footage and recent results from the LHC. The orb appears to be fluidly interacting with the sun’s exotic core by a physical connection, which then breaks and the orb then accelerating away.
….
Quark–gluon plasma flows like water, calculations suggest.
..
Microseconds after the Big Bang, it is widely believed that all matter existed in this exotic state, until temperatures became cool enough for protons and neutrons to form.
….
https://physicsworld.com/a/quark-gluon-plasma-flows-like-water-calculations-suggest/
Here’s some stunning photos of the 2021 apparent sighting of the Jupiter-sized dark orb. I hope these are genuine, it’s just worrying that they only come from a single source. Why aren’t there more amateur avid watchers of the sun coming forward with similar stories?
https://youtu.be/Pdegds34PXU
Alan Lowey: Here’s some stunning photos of the 2021 apparent sighting of the Jupiter-sized dark orb.
But somehow this escaped the solar community’s attention. I’m sure.
Alan, there are kooks in all fields, all over the Internet. You found another one.
“Alan, there are kooks in all fields, all over the Internet. You found another one.”
It’s worth noting that Dr. Claudia Albers is currently very I’ll and anyone with sympathy to her bravery for supporting the dark orb hypothesis can donate from the link in the video.
…
Oxford astrophysicist Dr. Becky talks about the paper which suggests dark matter is at the heart of the Milky Way and *not* a black hole.
21:30 – note that the lack of gravitational effect on the passing gas cloud lends evidence to the idea of strong gravitational interaction between stellar/galactic cores but very weak interaction with known matter:
https://youtu.be/sijXHGGulIk
What does this have to do with climate change, the topic of this blog?
1. It’s an open thread about science stuff.
2. It’s contrarian.
3. You’re playing the ref.
“What does this have to do with climate change, the topic of this blog?” – Appell
At least Robert I. Ellison has the grace to spend time trying to understand the case I’m making.
As I’ve said to you before & a hundred times on this site: new physics gravitational forcing is a possible mechanism for abrupt climate change here on Earth. Extra tidal forcing along the equator pushes warmer waters towards the polar regions.
Alan Lowey: new physics gravitational forcing is a possible mechanism for abrupt climate change here on Earth. Extra tidal forcing along the equator pushes warmer waters towards the polar regions.
So you think something is changing the tidal forces acting on ocean waters so as to “push” warmer water towards the polar regions.
Push or pull?
What’s the evidence for this “extra tidal forcing?” What’s its magnitude?
Have tide charts been changing over the last several centuries in response to it?
Are satellites in orbit responding to whatever is causing this extra tidal forcing? The Moon? Other planets? Hasn’t anyone else noticed??
Did this extra tidal forcing, from Sedna or whatever, just start in 1850? Seems unlikely. Wouldn’t it have been there for eons and the Earth would be in equilibrium with it?
“Have tide charts been changing over the last several centuries in response to it?”
Yes, the tidal range is increasing. The mainstream reason for this phenomenon is ‘sea level rise’ rather than an increase in the tidal energy itself.
“Are satellites in orbit responding to whatever is causing this extra tidal forcing?”
The exotic matter cores emit a strong gravitational force which interacts with other exotic cores very strongly (causing tidal effects) but only very weakly with known matter. Therefore the effect on satellites would be very small and probably corrected for algorithmically because the gravitational change is not expected. An example conclusion would be a change in ocean currents, therefore affecting gravity slightly etc..
Alan Lowey: The exotic matter cores emit a strong gravitational force….
What again does “exotic” mean?
What is “exotic matter?”
How does it differ from ordinary matter?
What is the evidence for it?
What is a “strong” gravitational force? How does it differ from the usual gravitational force?
What is the evidence for it? Are there measurements?
How would matter at the *core* of the Earth affect tides, since the forces would be radially inward?
So far you’re just throwing words around with no physics behind them….
‘At least Robert I. Ellison has the grace to spend time trying to understand the case I’m making.
As I’ve said to you before & a hundred times on this site: new physics gravitational forcing is a possible mechanism for abrupt climate change here on Earth. Extra tidal forcing along the equator pushes warmer waters towards the polar regions.’
The story keeps changing and I have gone beyond caring. Abrupt climate change is an emergent property of a complex dynamical Earth system.
“So far you’re just throwing words around with no physics behind them….”
No, I’m giving a logical argument which is difficult for people who have been taught Newtonian physics as a starting point for more complex mathematics.
You have to imagine going back to the time of Newton with the knowledge we have now. His equation states there is only one type of matter. We now know that’s not necessarily the case. He states gravity is a weak force. We now know that that is incompatible with the other known forces.
A logical conclusion is that there is another type of matter at the core which interacts via a strong gravitational attraction with matter of the same type but only weakly with surface (known) matter.
It’s simply a logical, possible alternative which is not considered by mainstream science, although it has been in a crisis for over 40 years.
“The story keeps changing.” – Ellison
It keeps evolving, yes. It started with an alternative to Mikankovitch insolation for the 100kyr glacial cycle. This would due to Earth’s orbital inclination relative to the plane of the planets.
The other climate cycles & solar cycles were then speculated upon.
I only recently became aware of the Jupiter-size dark orb footage close to the sun, so adapted the mental imagery. That one would be responsible for the sunspot cycle and also a tidal cycle on Earth, perhaps affecting the southern hemisphere.
The elusive millennial cycle would presumably be due to another such dark orb, with a much larger orbit.
Either way, the James Webb Space Telescope is destined to resolve the possibility in around a year’s time.
So I’ll keep posting relevant scientific articles right up to the point that Einsrein falls and beyond.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49678-w
Alan Lowey: So I’ll keep posting relevant scientific articles right up to the point that Einsrein falls and beyond.
A “dark orb” or its effects would have absolutely no implications for Einstein or general relativity.
Alan Lowey: A logical conclusion is that there is another type of matter at the core which interacts via a strong gravitational attraction with matter of the same type but only weakly with surface (known) matter.
It’s not a “logical” conclusion in any way whatsoever, nor is there anything unexplained that needs explaining. But whatever.
Switch Between El Nino and La Nina is Caused by Subsurface Ocean Waves Likely Driven by Lunar Tidal Forcing – geoenergymath
Thanks for the link. I agree that it’s tidal forcing but the lunar connection isn’t convincing enough imo. I’m more inclined to think the unimaginable energy required for such a switch would come from a ‘dark orb’, orbiting the sun at an angle to the planetary plane, with a period of ~11 years.
/ Johnny’s always runnin’ around
Tryin’ to find certainty
He needs all the world to confirm
That he ain’t lonely
Mary counts the walls
Knows he tires easily
Johnny thinks the world would be right
If it could buy the truth from him /
https://youtu.be/DV4EI3NbUdY
“It’s an open thread about science stuff”
I guess we are using a very loose definition of “science stuff”.
Alan, however, is still missing the critical piece of tying it to the coronavirus.
“Many are now saying Nibiru is somehow tied to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and the clock is ticking for humanity”.
“God is the greatest not Maga. America ‘will pay a very heavy price, indeed!’ #coronavirus #iran #tehran”
Another person said: “I think this corona virus s*** is a cover for Nibiru incoming.
“Look at these empty hospitals, military going to Mt. Cheyenne. COVID keeps making less sense.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1265307/Nibiru-Planet-X-news-coronavirus-conspiracy-Wormwood-COVID-19-latest
James Cross – just to clarify that if & when a Jupiter-size ‘dark orb’ is discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope, I don’t make any connection with something to worry about.
Just the opposite, a common-sense theory of gravity eventually linked to climate change will save the modern world from the unnecessary goal of net-zero by 2050, where it’s always the least wealthy who suffer the most.
Alan Lowey: just to clarify that if & when a Jupiter-size ‘dark orb’ is discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope,
Alan, a “Jupiter-size dark orb” would have long ago shaken up the solar system like a bowling ball into ten pins. Where is that evidence?
Alan Lowey: Just the opposite, a common-sense theory of gravity eventually linked to climate change….
Alan, general relativity has never made a wrong prediction.
So what about it is wrong?
Alan,
I play it more on the safe side. When wormwood arrives, I expect to be in my bomb shelter and wearing my mask.
You should consider doing the same.
New constraints on dark matter which puts MOND under pressure by not compact exotic matter cores:
….
Co-author and Ph.D. student Rimpei Chiba, of the University of Oxford, said, “Our finding offers a fascinating perspective for constraining the nature of dark matter, as different models will change this inertial pull on the galactic bar.
“Our finding also poses a major problem for alternative gravity theories—as they lack dark matter in the halo, they predict no or significantly too little slowing of the bar.”
….
https://phys.org/news/2021-06-dark-milky-galactic-bar.amp
Alan, this is a blog about climate change. None of what you post has anything to do with climate change. Go post on Reddit or somewhere.
You’re an ignoramous.
Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled.
Hang in there, Alan. Some can’t get past 5th grade equations and are unable to grasp the concept of unknowns and are unwilling to accept uncertainties.
“Hang in there, Alan. Some can’t get past 5th grade equations and are unable to grasp the concept of unknowns and are unwilling to accept uncertainties.”
Thanks CKid. Too true. Too true.
Alan Lowey: Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled.
What exactly about “gravity theory” isn’t settled that would affect climate science? No hand waving please….
“What exactly about “gravity theory” isn’t settled that would affect climate science? No hand waving please….”
You’re not open minded enough or imaginative enough to understand. RIE understands enough that if Einstein’s gravity theory is shown to be wrong, then it’s possible past climate cycles could be due to gravitational/tidal forcing. If past climate cycles are due to tidal forcing then the present climate change could be the start of a new cycle which just happens to coincide with the modern era.
It is not possible that neutron star matter can exist in its compressed state outside of the gravity well of a neutron star. Nor is it possible that precise gravitational measurement from various sources are radically in error.
“It is not possible that neutron star matter can exist in its compressed state outside of the gravity well of a neutron star.” – Ellison
You’re talking out of your uninformed back end Ellison:
….
Instead of WIMPS or axions, dark matter may be made of macroscopic objects as small as a few ounces up to the size of a good asteroid, and probably as dense as a neutron star or the nucleus of an atom, researchers suggest.
….
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141104111629.htm
Alan Lowey: You’re not open minded enough or imaginative enough to understand. RIE understands enough that if Einstein’s gravity theory is shown to be wrong, then it’s possible past climate cycles could be due to gravitational/tidal forcing.
I don’t think you even know what Einstein’s gravity theory is.
Alan Lowey: If past climate cycles are due to tidal forcing then the present climate change could be the start of a new cycle which just happens to coincide with the modern era.
Even if this were true, why wouldn’t Einstein’s gravity theory describe it?
“Even if this were true, why wouldn’t Einstein’s gravity theory describe it?”
I’m predicting that these dark orbs will be found to have a *very* strong gravitational effect relative to their size.
Also, I’m predicted an anisotropic effect – an even stronger gravitational force on the galactic plane for example. This requires the mechanism of a graviton as a force-carrier. It’s all counter to Einstein’s imagery.
Alan Lowey: I’m predicting that these dark orbs will be found to have a *very* strong gravitational effect relative to their size.
Why would they have such?
And if so, why wouldn’t they have sucked up all the ordinary matter in the universe over the last 13.7 billion years?
‘You’re talking out of your uninformed back end Ellison:
….
Instead of WIMPS or axions, dark matter may be made of macroscopic objects as small as a few ounces up to the size of a good asteroid, and probably as dense as a neutron star or the nucleus of an atom, researchers suggest.
….
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141104111629.htm
Alan is incapable of consistent story telling. It changes every day. Just goes to show how open minded and creative he is. Neutron star neutrons can’t exist outside the gravity well of a neutron star. Hypothetical dark matter particles can do whatever you imagine they can. I am not anti-speculation – just that in Alan’s mind it translates into dogmatic certainty. And replaces general relativity with something that causes all climate change. No greenhouse gases required.
MOND is an acronym for modified Newtonian dynamics. I barely understand any of this and I doubt that Alan does either. But I do know that going a bit deeper than a press release is required.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/505/2/2412/6237521
‘Exotic matter cores’ – whatever that means – is barely a thought bubble.
Your reasoning is a joke Ellison. The people who translate the academic papers into accessible magazine articles are extremely well educated & knowledgeable in the specific area.
My brother has an astrophysics degree from Leeds & I have an Astronomy with Computing degree from Herfordshire as well as studying Simulation Modelling at Masters level.
The concept of exotic matter cores is not difficult for someone who has not been indoctrinated with Newtonian/Einstein gravity theory. It’s a psychological problem rather than conceptual one.
The James Webb Space Telescope is the only hope to dislodge the idol worship of these two former super-scientists. Only a year away now before the entire world will be shocked to discover that we share our solar system with hitherto unseen Jupiter-size dark orbs.
The press release dumbs down the science. Perfect for someone imagining some sort of unexplained non-baryonic matter – now the size of Jupiter apparently – whizzing unnoticed around the solar system undetectable as orbital perturbation or even eclipses. And influencing climate though precisely measured solid Earth tides. At odds of course with precise measurements of gravity and orbits. General relativity – btw – allowed calculations consistent with observations of Mercury’s orbit rather than predicting it.
Dark orbs on the other hand seem more Lord of the Rings than 21st century science. Despite his brother having a degree in astrophysics. It is consistent with championing hippy dippy drug induced enlightenment, socialist economic fantasies and insisting that ‘believing’ in general relativity is a religion.
“..that ‘believing’ in general relativity is a religion.” – RIE
It’s become that because it’s impossible to marry with quantum theory. It’s actually Newton’s gravity theory being too simple & logically incorrect which is the problem. In hindsight, gravity *has to be* a strong force so that it dovetails with the other known forces.
No amount of convincing of an alternative will shift those that have invested their livelihoods in Einstein. Only the JWST will provide true enlightenment.
/ And the colours of the sea
Bind your eyes with trembling mermaids
And you touch the distant beaches
With tales of brave Ulysses
How his naked ears were tortured
By the sirens sweetly singing
For the sparkling waves are calling you
To kiss their white laced lips /
https://youtu.be/J2CCfxiQ5QY
Alan Lowey: The concept of exotic matter cores is not difficult for someone who has not been indoctrinated with Newtonian/Einstein gravity theory
“Core” of what?
“Exotic” in what sense?
“Core” of what?
“Exotic” in what sense?” – ignoramous
It’s logically possible for nucleic density matter to exist at the core of the Earth as well as all other heavenly bodies.
Puerile lyrics, second rate 1960’s rock and physics that are barely a thought bubble. Let alone a theory that has been verified empirically.
That light is a wave has been known for centuries from the double slit experiment. Einstein in 1905 confirmed Planck’s fudge factor ‘quanta’ by consideration of the photelectric effect, Thus wave/particle duality became a thing. It led with Schrödinger’s wave equation to a universe in which the quanta was maybe here or maybe there and his cat was both dead and alive until it was observed. Quantum mechanics is less that a fundamental theory.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/515lbsjOd8L._SY498_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Although at a macroscopic level the equivalence principle of free fall is the first thing one discovers on falling off a cliff. Strong and weak forces are defined on the quantum level.
‘In the standard model above there is no mentioning of the gravitational force. It has been said that it is so tremendously weak that we do not need to take it into account in particle experiments.’ https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/themes/forces/
Newer thinking on gravity is that time creates gravity. Consistent with general relativity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxQTvqcpSg
We await a superdeterministic theory of quantum mechanics and the cosmic math of gravitational time dilation. Regardless – it remains an indisputable fact that Alan’s musings are barely thought bubbles and not something with any empirical validation at all. Unlike special and general relativity it should go without saying.
Robert Ellison: Regardless – it remains an indisputable fact that Alan’s musings are barely thought bubbles and not something with any empirical validation at all. Unlike special and general relativity it should go without saying.
Exactly. Thanks.
Alan Lowey: It’s logically possible for nucleic density matter to exist at the core of the Earth as well as all other heavenly bodies.
Do you know what the density of a nucleus is — the order of magnitude — compared to the average density of Earth?
“Do you know what the density of a nucleus is — the order of magnitude — compared to the average density of Earth?”
I don’t feel the need to give a calculation. There are other very accomplished scientists who believe in macro exotic matter meteorite impact events that travel through granite, the rock melts and reforms as the meteorite continues into the Earth’s interior.
The difference with my hypothesis is that the macro exotic matter was created at the time of the Big Bang and acted as a seed for gravitational attraction of known matter.
It’s a conceptual hypothesis which I’m proposing. No maths is required.
/ Why do stars fall down from the sky
Every time you walk by?
Just like me, they long to be
Close to you /
https://youtu.be/iNXtoTc6BYA
New Study on Zircons Finds Plate Tectonics Began 3.6 Billion Years Ago | Smithsonian Voices | National Museum of Natural History | Smithsonian Magazine
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/national-museum-of-natural-history/2021/05/14/new-study-zircons-finds-plate-tectonics-began-36-billion-years-ago/
It dates plate tectonics to 3.6 billion years ago
This photo has an amazing limestone formation.
To Combat Climate Change, Researchers Want to Pull Carbon Dioxide From the Ocean and Turn It Into Rock | Innovation | Smithsonian Magazine
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/combat-climate-change-researchers-want-to-pull-carbon-dioxide-from-ocean-and-turn-it-into-rock-180977903/
It’s now official that 🇨🇳China🇨🇳 is bribing students to become pro-Beijing social media influencers. So think about all the denizens here, who’s the one where the activity fits?
https://youtu.be/fITpLqJ7IoA
A Simple Theorem, but a very important Theorem.
We have the planet without-atmosphere mean surface equation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1 – a) S (β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
or it can be re-written as
Tmean = Te * [(β*N*cp.)¹∕ ⁴]¹∕ ⁴
The Theorem:
The planet mean surface temperature Tmean numerical value will be equal to the planet effective temperature Te numerical value Tmean = Te only when the term
(β*N*cp) = 1
and, since the
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal
the planet N*cp product should be then
N*cp = 1 /β
or the numerical value of the product
N*cp = 1 /150
……………………………………
The Theorem leads to the following very important conclusions:
1). In general, the planet effective temperature numerical value Te is not numerically equal to the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature Tmean.
2). For the planet without-atmosphere mean surface temperature numerical value Tmean to be equal to the planet effective temperature numerical value Te the condition from the above Theorem the (N*cp = 1 /150) should be necessarily met.
3). For the Planet Earth without-atmosphere the (N*cp) product is (N*cp = 1) and it is 150 times higher than the necessary condition of (N*cp = 1/150) .
Consequently, the Earth’s effective temperature numerical value Te cannot be equal to the Earth’s without-atmosphere mean surface temperature… not even close.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
This is very interesting. Well worth reading.
Inconvenient Energy Realities
https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy
The math behind “The New Energy Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking”
The full report is here: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible
Dark matter – if it exists as matter – is ‘exotic matter’. It is not like ordinary matter in that it interacts only with gravity. Gravitational collapse of massive stars pushes electrons and protons together to form neutrons in neutron stars – or in supermassive stars whatever it is in black holes. pure energy perhaps in accordance with Einstein’s famous formula. But it is not exotic matter – just ordinary stuff. Compressed matter in neutron stars cannot exist outside of the deep gravity well of a neutron star. Let alone whiz about unseen and undetected as Jupiter sized objects in the solar system.
Linking such ill-founded thought bubbles to climate is beyond absurd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbE8B7zggUg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvmwqx5vjps
Galaxies Missing Dark Matter Deepens
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2021/mystery-of-the-galaxys-missing-dark-matter-deepens
https://youtu.be/UhlCIxsksOg
Especially for Robert comes news of a new paper on Arctic sea ice thickness that includes Igor Polyakov amongst the long list of authors:
https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/1405897154040893440
Link to the freakin’ paper.
Were you to click the link helpfully provided above you would find links to both the paper itself, the accompanying press release and a couple more recent learned journal Arctic articles.
You’re freakin’ welcome.
I clicked a few links – but no freakin’ way am I wasting my time scanning your blog for anything.
There is simply no point in wading through ice minutiae with you while you neglect the bigger picture. You could just link to the paper – but that would be too easy.
The Arctic is just a puppet on the strings of the Atlantic.
Notice how the ‘dark orb’ fits the search for planet Vulcan, thought to be close to the sun and causing the wobble of Mercury’s orbit:
….
According to Newtonian theory, the planets move in elliptical orbits around the Sun, but observations showed that Mercury’s orbit wobbles more than could be accounted for by the gravity exerted by the other known planets. Like with Uranus, he believed that this was due to another planet that was altering the planet’s path. He eventually named the planet Vulcan.
….
https://www.iflscience.com/space/planet-vulcan-the-forgotten-ninth-planet-of-the-19th-century-killed-off-by-einstein/
..
https://youtu.be/quGM_4nfT9o
Dr. Judith Curry you are in the unique position to save the life of physicist Dr. Claudia Albers. Her condition is surely linked to the psychological trauma of having to leave her academic career in relation to her bravely speaking in favour of the dark orb footage.
We don’t want history to be a story of unnecessary short lives when a success story is oh so close.
The link to climate change is only one step away.
/ We were born before the wind
Also, younger than the sun
‘Ere the bonnie boat was won
As we sailed into the mystic /
https://youtu.be/cpPSBzGEklE
Mercury’s wobbles are caused by spacetime curvature in proximity to the sun. For most people the search for Spock ended long ago.
The search for unseen large gravitational bodies in the solar system is ongoing and many respected Professors are confident that at least one will be found by the Webb in the not-too-distant future.
There’s surprises to come which will make science-fiction look tame.
Planet X is science fiction until it becomes science fact. You don’t get that distinction. And it is not being searched for – if it is at all – inside the orbit of Mercury.
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/hypothetical-planet-x/in-depth/
Alan Lowey: The search for unseen large gravitational bodies in the solar system is ongoing
Wrong. Any such bodies would cause perturbations on known planetary orbits that would have been apparent centuries ago.
Alan Lowey: The search for unseen large gravitational bodies in the solar system is ongoing
Nope. Obviously wrong.
Alan Lowey: The search for unseen large gravitational bodies in the solar system is ongoing
Moderator won’t allow me to explain.
Alan Lowey: The search for unseen large gravitational bodies in the solar system is ongoing
Alan, astronomers would have noticed such bodies centuries ago. Obviously.
“…astronomers would have noticed such bodies centuries ago.”
The orbits of the planets in our solar system are at a certain place at a certain time. And with the current state of computing and quality of our telescopes, we can check to see if they are where they’re supposed to be.
There is the question of Planet X. There could be something pretty far out there. Where is the end of the Solar System? Then there’s the Sun’s axis of rotation being a little off. Which supports Planet X or something way out there. Planet X could have moved the planets off of the Sun’s axis of rotation.
Ragnaar: The orbits of the planets in our solar system are at a certain place at a certain time. And with the current state of computing and quality of our telescopes, we can check to see if they are where they’re supposed to be.
LOL. And if there were other unseen bodies in the solar system, the planets wouldn’t be in the places we thought they would be going to be. Except they are. LOL.
“Planet X is science fiction until it becomes science fact. You don’t get that distinction. And it is not being searched for – if it is at all – inside the orbit of Mercury.” – Ellison
You don’t get it RIE. The mainstream scientists say there’s good evidence that ‘planet nine’ exists due to the uneven distribution of dwarf planets. Because they assume it’s a standard planet, they reason it must be very, very distant, which is why it’s dim light hasn’t been detected. At some point in it’s orbit it would come in close to the sun in it’s highly elliptical path.
The idea of it being a dark matter object, which is dim because it doesn’t interact with light, isn’t favoured by these mainstream scientists, yet they concede it’s a possibility.
Putting two and two together, a layperson is able to speculate that it’s possible the object is close to the sun at the present time, yet still undetected due it being dark matter, which doesn’t interact with light.
The Webb will make it a science fact in around a year’s time.
You pile speculation on speculation building a tower of babel. What you don’t get is the fundamental fact that science requires evidence.
The James Webb telescope will detect light by the way – mostly in IR. Still won’t see dark matter – lol.
“Planet X could have moved the planets off of the Sun’s axis of rotation.” – Ragnaar
Yes, the sun has a current anomalous tilt of 7° to the plane of the planets. (Note that the Moon has a current anomalous tilt of 5° to the equator). There’s also large tilts of some of the planets which are unexplained.
It’s more a case of ‘planet nine’ tilting the sun off the plane of the planets than the other way round… but hey.. now I think about it more… it still can’t be ruled out.
Thanks for the contribution.
Alan Lowey: The mainstream scientists say there’s good evidence that ‘planet nine’ exists due to the uneven distribution of dwarf planets.
Which “mainstream scientists?”
Which “dwarf planets?” Please name them.
Because they assume it’s a standard planet, they reason it must be very, very distant, which is why it’s dim light hasn’t been detected. At some point in it’s orbit it would come in close to the sun in it’s highly elliptical path.
So it’s “very very distant,” but at some point it’s not.
How close to the sun does it come? Give this distance in AU.
Provide the evidence to support this claim.
Alan Lowey: Putting two and two together, a layperson is able to speculate that it’s possible the object is close to the sun at the present time, yet still undetected due it being dark matter, which doesn’t interact with light.
But why doesn’t it interact with gravity with the standard coupling constant G?
“Then there’s the Sun’s axis of rotation being a little off. Which supports Planet X or something way out there. Planet X could have moved the planets off of the Sun’s axis of rotation.” – Ragnaar
I’ve been thinking a bit more about what the idea of the sun being “tilted” actually means. It’s not the same as a ‘spinning top’ being tilted, because this is solid all the way through. A star isn’t a solid body, so the idea of surface tilt, doesn’t necessarily translate to the motion of it’s core.
I would guess that the core of the sun *is* on the plane of the planets and it’s just the rest of the gaseous outer sun which is ‘catching up’.
It’s mind boggling.
“Then there’s the Sun’s axis of rotation being a little off. Which supports Planet X or something way out there. Planet X could have moved the planets off of the Sun’s axis of rotation.” – Ragnaar
I’ve been thinking a bit more about what a “tilt” for a non-solid entity like the sun means. I’m guessing that the core of the sun *is* on the plane of the planets – it’s just the more gaseous outer layers which are “catching up”.
A new gravity theory with nucleic density matter cores interacting via a strong gravitational force would make the solar system a lot more dynamic, especially with respect to tilt.
“The James Webb telescope will detect light by the way – mostly in IR. Still won’t see dark matter – lol.” – Ellison
Dr. Becky has reassured me that the Webb is so sensitive to IR, that even the faintest object will be detected. Hopefully that includes dark matter orbs.
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/about/comparisonWebbVsHubble.html
“The James Webb telescope will detect light by the way – mostly in IR. Still won’t see dark matter – lol.” – Ellison
Think about it more, it’s very similar to observing the ‘dark orb’ at the centre of the Milky Way. Planet X will still have a gravitational effect on gas & dust clouds which will move towards the orbiting body. When hints of it’s location are found and it’s orbit inferred, microlensing of the starlight behind it being bent can be used to determine it’s gravitational effect.
It will be the start of whole new field of astronomy. Dark orb astronomy.
https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/DC2C8089-00FB-48EF-A0E237FF13BACA2C_source.jpg
‘The heart of our galaxy is oddly bright. Since 2009 astronomers have suggested that too much gamma-ray light is shining from the Milky Way’s core—more than all the known sources of light can account for. From the beginning scientists have suspected that they were seeing the long-sought signal of dark matter, the invisible form of mass thought to pervade the universe. But two recent studies offer more support for an alternate explanation: The gamma rays come from a group of spinning stars called pulsars that are just slightly too dim to see with current telescopes.’
If an unseen thing with mass is orbiting inside the orbit of Mercury, it should have orbital resonance with Mercury. What every fraction that is, would help with the detection of this unseen mass. When two orbiting bodies pass, vector arrows slow and speed them up. This should be deductible by observing Mercury. With enough data and time, you could probably figure out the mass and its distance from the Sun of the unseen thing.
Another thing about an unseen mass is, it might accumulate debris. Or it might have trojans or it might have moons. That is nature detects gravity.
“If an unseen thing with mass is orbiting inside the orbit of Mercury, it should have orbital resonance with Mercury.” – Ragnaar
Yes, that’s the whole point, it could account for Mercury’s mysterious wobble in it’s orbit. Urbain Le Verrier, who deduced the location of Neptune, searched for planet Vulcan but in vain. No-one had considered dark orbs composed of mystery dark matter that doesn’t interact with light though.
..
“Another thing about an unseen mass is, it might accumulate debris. Or it might have trojans or it might have moons. That is nature detects gravity.” – Ragnaar
Yes, even though it might be undetectable itself, it will be similar to observing the centre of the Milky Way. Gas & dust clouds will still be gravitationally influenced as the dark orb traverses the solar system. Hopefully JWST will be able to detect the movement of these ultra faint clouds, giving away the movement of the orb. Once located, microlensing of starlight being bent around it should further prove it’s existence and nucleic density composition.
However, the type of particle that makes up dark matter is still a mystery. “At present, there’s no direct evidence in the lab that dark matter particles exist,” Birrer said. “Particle physicists would not even talk about dark matter if the cosmologists didn’t say it’s there, based on observations of its effects. When we cosmologists talk about dark matter, we’re asking ‘how does it govern the appearance of the universe, and on what scales?'” https://www.space.com/dark-matter-forms-small-cold-clumps.html
https://www.space.com/20930-dark-matter.html
Assuming dark matter – and we don’t know what it is – behaves like ordinary matter. Let alone is an undetected gravitational factor on the scale of the solar system. Or has a discernible influence on Earth climate.
‘Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn’t there
He wasn’t there again today
I wish, I wish he’d go away…’
I’m more inclined to the idea that the apparent mass of galaxies is due to increasing entropy and gravitational time dilation. Someone will work it out.
“Assuming dark matter – and we don’t know what it is – behaves like ordinary matter.” – Ellison
It’s also possible the numbers are wrong if nucleic density matter exists at Earth’s core & the cores of other heavenly bodies.
The matter in the deep gravity well of neutron stars are neutrons. What makes up dark matter – if it exists as particles – is unknown. If the missing mass is the result of entropy and gravitational time dilation – it hardly matters at the scale of the solar system. At least get your definitions right.
Alan Lowey: It’s also possible the numbers are wrong if nucleic density matter exists at Earth’s core & the cores of other heavenly bodies.
What physics and chemistry would produce nuclear densities at planetary cores, at the temperatures and pressures of planetary cores? Why?
The Earth has an average density of 5.5e3 kg/m3. Nuclear matter has a density of about 2e17 kg/m3, over 13 orders of magnitude higher. It would take very little of it — very little — for the mass of a planet to be obviously different than expected from ordinary rock, even compressed rock.
The solid inner core of the Earth is believed to have a density of about 13e3 kg/m3, nowhere near nuclear densities.
Why wouldn’t such densities, if they existed, have already shown up in analysis of seismic wave data passing through the Earth?
Alan Lowey: It’s also possible the numbers are wrong if nucleic density matter exists at Earth’s core & the cores of other heavenly bodies.
What physics and chemistry would produce nuclear densities at planetary cores, at the temperatures and pressures of planetary cores? Why?
The Earth has an average density of 5.5e3 kg/m3. Nuclear matter has a density of about 2e17 kg/m3, over 13 orders of magnitude higher. It would take very little of it — very little — for the mass of a planet to be obviously different than expected from ordinary rock, even compressed rock.
Alan Lowey: It’s also possible the numbers are wrong if nucleic density matter exists at Earth’s core & the cores of other heavenly bodies.
Moderator won’t allow questions about this concept.
Not allowed to ask about nuclear density matter
“Not allowed to ask about nuclear density matter.” – David
I use the term loosely as an alternative to “exotic matter” or “macro quark nuggets” because you’re not familiar with the science and research behind such concepts. It’s an idea used in science articles as an alternative to an actual planet for ‘planet nine’ i.e. “ultra dense ball of dark matter”. It’s planet-size gravity in a very small volume but isn’t a ‘mini black hole’. How both concepts came to be, where these hypothetical bodies came from, is still hotly debated and a very open question.
So you’re as familiar with detection as I am and probably more. That’s how I am approaching this. Gravitation lensing is probably off the table. Our Sun has a focal point many AUs away. Well past Pluto. It would make a hell of a telescope if we could do that though.
Alan Lowey: Dr. Becky has reassured me that the Webb is so sensitive to IR, that even the faintest object will be detected. Hopefully that includes dark matter orbs.
Alan, dark matter is called “dark” precisely because it doesn’t emit any electromagnetic radiation.
Hotly debated issues such as climate change, biotechnology/genetic engineering (GMOs), carcinogens in our food and the environment, 5G wireless communications, vaccines, stem cell research, abortion, and nuclear power show that conformity with a powerful political or religious position can impede a nuanced discussion of complex, highly technical questions.
———————
https://quillette.com/2021/06/16/the-sperm-count-culture-war/
We have conformity for climate change, the COVID vaccines and nuclear power. And of course, Ivermectin.
Can you question a political narrative? If you have a political party behind you. Can you question a religious narrative? Whether they are the same, is not the point. That’s an argument with low value. Can you see both things are substantially the same? So the narrative needs to be tested. To see how it is defended. If you see zealots and authority, what does that mean? So you run a testing experiment and look at the results. Zealots will respond by trying to hang the witches. That’s deomonstrated by calling someone a climate denier. By shunning.
Once upon a time, a leftist told me about regulatory capture and big Pharma. They were right.
Youtube took down a Bret Weinstein podcast called: COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century: Darkhorse Podcast with Pierre Kory… Eric Weinstein has talked about this take down as has Jordan Peterson. Joe Rogan has retweeted this fact. Youtube was wrong and gave a weasel’s reason of “for allegedly violating their Community Guideline against “Spam, deceptive practices and scams”.” It was none of those things. And they are not the communities standards whatever they are. They are Google’s standards. YouTube is a subsidiary of Google. I no longer use Google search. Google should treat us like adults. And allow us to view content such as that in the video. What can you do? I donate to Bret Weinstein through Patreon. Perhaps there’s more one could do. And stop using Google search.
Here in the US Northwest, most of the coal-fired power generation capacity which services our region, including the coal-fired power now being imported from Montana and Wyoming, is scheduled to be retired before the end of this decade.
The risks of the transition to wind and solar in our region are discussed in this article by Dr. James Conca:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/06/15/washington-states-approaching-energy-crisis–good-intentions-gone-wrong/?sh=5d8a8b9f63ca
Here in Washington State, we have not yet forbidden the construction of new gas-fired power generation facilities. However, building new gas-fired capacity to replace the coal-fired capacity now scheduled to be retired is not in alignment with the Biden administration’s announced target of a 50% reduction in America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.
Let’s be realistic. It is impossible to build enough wind, solar, and nuclear to replace the coal and gas-fired capacity which must be retired nationwide by 2030 in order to reach Biden’s 50% goal. The only way to reach that goal is through aggressive efforts targeted at energy conservation, even to the extent of imposing a government-mandated energy rationing scheme on the American people.
Two big questions still remain to be answered:
(1) How serious is the Biden administration about making substantial reductions in America’s greenhouse gas emissions? In other words, is Biden willing to use the full legal authority of the Executive Branch to its maximum possible effectiveness in forcing a quick reduction in our GHG emissions?
(2) Will those who make the public policy decisions concerning how America’s future electricity needs are to be supplied be inclined to force the shutdown of our legacy coal and gas-fired power resources, even if the retired capacity isn’t being fully replaced?
Beta Blocker: Let’s be realistic. It is impossible to build enough wind, solar, and nuclear to replace the coal and gas-fired capacity which must be retired nationwide by 2030 in order to reach Biden’s 50% goal.
Why?
David, I’m writing up a detailed response I’ll post Sunday evening as a separate thread. In the meantime, I have to get my beehives opened up and checked for mite infestations before it gets too hot this weekend.
Monday update: I’m going to be a bit late with my detailed response to David’s question. Over the weekend, the beehives put out a combat air patrol larger than what I had expected, delaying completion of the mite treatment work.
Beta Blocker: (2) Will those who make the public policy decisions concerning how America’s future electricity needs are to be supplied be inclined to force the shutdown of our legacy coal and gas-fired power resource
No sane person wants coal-fired power anymore. It has declined from 45% of US generated electricity in 2010 to less than 25% in 2020. Let’s stop acting like the country will enter dystopia if it all goes away completely.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/images/2019.01.18/main.png
When natural gas prices go up, coal will become more attractive. With greater wind and solar penetration, coal will become more attractive. Solar and wind have skimmed the cream out of the market so the cream is gone. Reliable cannot be replaced. The demand for Winter and Summer torque isn’t going anywhere. Coal is bankable. You can put 2 months worth of it next the power plant.
Ragnaar: When natural gas prices go up, coal will become more attractive.
Why will NG prices go up?
Coal is dead, for market reasons and for environmental reasons. For health reasons even before considerations of climate change. It’s a 19th century fuel not fit for a 21st century world. Carbon emissions have to cease or the world will keep warming with all the attendant problems.
Why will NG prices go up?
—————–
Limits on tranportation pipelines and on fracking. Increase in demand because of less coal power plants. The need for NG to back up failed wind and solar. You can have NG or a fantasy of batteries. NG will be in demand to play the role of fantasy batteries.
My gas lease will be next to worthless in about 10 years so don’t count on my gas. If you have seen the climate hockey stick, it’s the same exponential curve just flip the X axis. (I’m in the Barnett gas play)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tristan-Euzen/publication/274711846/figure/fig47/AS:651946042068993@1532447457154/Average-production-curves-of-core-areas-of-5-US-shale-plays-Baihly-et-al-2010b-Dashed.png
‘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.’ Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self Organization
https://www.ds.mpg.de/3466786/original-1581337502.jpg
https://www.ds.mpg.de/en#
Weather and climate emerge from changes in the Earth system seen in a plethora of ocean and atmospheric indices. At some point you need to get back to land, oceans and atmosphere.
https://www.wyattonearth.net/images/392_stad_wave.png
‘The plot above shows the hypothesized stadium-wave propagation through ocean, sea ice, and atmospheric indices. Roman numerals indicate timing of each of four stages in evolution of a positive, or warming, regime and each of four stages (negative numbers) in a negative, or cooling, regime. Names of selected legend entries are shown in text box to right of figure. For more complete understanding of the plot and the stadium-wave mechanism, please refer to Wyatt and Curry (2013), section 4. Figure adapted from figure 3 of Wyatt and Curry (2013) paper.’
https://www.wyattonearth.net/thestadiumwave.html
You may speculate all you like – and the kooks are at large – but it is not climate science. Not science of any sort.
Robert Ellison: Figure adapted from figure 3 of Wyatt and Curry (2013) paper.’
I haven’t seen many experts who buy into the stadium wave mechanism.
Are there any?
What do you imagine a coupled, nonlinear, chaotic system means? Where do you think abrupt climate change comes from? Of course you have never thought about it at all have you? And then you hand wave about so-called experts.
I’ve been thinking about abrupt climate change since I bought and read the first NAS report on the subject (actually when I called them they decided to send me the book for free), and even more so since the second.
What does the stadium wave theory have to do with abrupt climate change?
The stadium wave was an example of coupled nonlinear oscillators – defined as indices – as nodes on a global network. These are the ‘quasi standing waves in the Earth system. Obvious in the context of Earth’s spatiotemporal chaotic flow field. This is necessarily a continuum from micro eddies to planetary waves. As you would know if you understood anything about fluid dynamics. Beyond that there are Earth system dynamics responding to shifts in ocean and atmospheric quasi standing waves.
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.’
The 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 regularity in changes of ice, cloud, Atlantic thermohaline circulation and ocean and atmospheric circulation.
What does the stadium wave theory have to do with abrupt climate change?
If you need to ask that question you haven’t been thinking anywhere near hard enough.
Robert I. Ellison: The stadium wave was an example of coupled nonlinear oscillators – defined as indices – as nodes on a global network. These are the ‘quasi standing waves in the Earth system. Obvious in the context of Earth’s spatiotemporal chaotic flow field. This is necessarily a continuum from micro eddies to planetary waves. As you would know if you understood anything about fluid dynamics. Beyond that there are Earth system dynamics responding to shifts in ocean and atmospheric quasi standing waves.
Sure. And which paper(s) has/have replicated the claims of the standing wave hypothesis?
LOL Robert. I asked for a confirmation/replication of Wyatt & Curry, not a citation of it itself.
What additional papers have confirmed its findings? Please give a clear citation, not to another paper by the same author (LOL).
I cited the original paper – with 3 out of 4 different authors – on top of the later study by Wyatt and Curry. But you must find some reason to quibble I suppose.
The finding is consistent with fluid flow dynamic described by the Navier-Stokes equation. It is very much in the mainstream simply demonstrating coupling in the non-linear system. There is nothing especially perplexing about it. Do you imagine the system is not globally coupled? There are many decades of science that says otherwise.
Big whorls have little whorls
Which feed on their velocity,
And little whorls have lesser whorls
And so on to viscosity
quoted from – https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3697.pdf?origin=ppub#:~:text=The%20connection%20between%20turbulence%20and,And%20so%20on%20to%20viscosity.
The latter being the bigger point I was making. But as I said – it is not something you are in danger of comprehending.
Robert I. Ellison: I cited the original paper – with 3 out of 4 different authors – on top of the later study by Wyatt and Curry. But you must find some reason to quibble I suppose.
An author citing themselves. Not convincing and you should certainly know that Robert.
The finding is consistent with fluid flow dynamic described by the Navier-Stokes equation.
So what?
Shouldn’t ANY SUCH FINDING be consistent with the N-S equation?
Answer: Yes.
Hence: No big deal at all.
In fact, it’s simply required as a minimum for a solution.
Nice try Robert, but your claim means absolutely nothing.
Oh boy.
Robert I. Ellison wrote:The latter being the bigger point I was making. But as I said – it is not something you are in danger of comprehending
Hey Robert, keep your little insults and insecurities to yourself and can the insults. This is about science and physics. If you can’t compete there don’t respond at all.
You have gone off on a mad tangent. It is certainly consistent inter alia with spatiotemporal chaos as described on the Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self Organization site, the underlying fractal nature of Navier-Stokes, the 5 experts authoring the 2 papers on the stadium wave and the IPCC on the coupled, nonlinear nature of the Earth system.
You are so far behind the curve it is hilarious – yet you continue to simply wave it all away. Describing that as a lack of domain knowledge is simply a fact and then you behave in your characteristically nasty little way.
RIE: And am still interested to know if any published work has replicated the stadium wave hypothesis.
And I would like to know what so-called experts. As far as I concerned you have a narrow view gleaned from internet echo chambers – that you relentlessly enforce with one line snark. It is an utter waste of time discussing climate dynamics with you as you have absolutely nothing to offer.
RIE: Just cite any published paper that has replicated the standing wave hypothesis.
Just cite any paper that has falsified it.
Robert I. Ellison: Just cite any paper that has falsified it.
That’s lame and you should be ashamed if that’s the best you can do.
No David – you are lame. I link a peer reviewed study and you ask for more. Where are the freakin’ experts you hand waved at?
Wyatt, Marcia Glaze , Sergey Kravtsov, and Anastasios A. Tsonis, 2011: Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Northern Hemisphere’s climate variability Climate Dynamics: DOI: 10.1007/s00382-011-1071-8.
COVID-19 medical misinformation policy
https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785
Remember, Google owns Youtube. This is about Weinstein. The Science is settled. Read their extensive list. The reliance on the WHO. You can’t go against the WHO or the local health authorities. We know what is true and what is not true. We can stop now and enforce what is true. Don’t be evil.
I am a little disappointed. I’ve heard you people go against the grain. Weinstein has picked up our banner. The one we dropped when we lost on climate change policies. He is taking on establishment science. He took on Evergreen State College. I am not seeing much here. Have a look at his Twitter feed, Okay? Please.
The idea of huge bodies of dark matter lurking within the Milky Way and also in the solar system is becoming ever more mainstream:
5:40 – a star 100x bigger than the sun is getting blocked by something elongated passing in front of it on a regular basis. (Note the elongation can be accounted for by anisotropic properties of dark matter i.e. it has an even stronger gravitational force on it’s plane of rotation. An example is a stronger gravitational force on the galactic plane) :
https://youtu.be/JsY2BbJNY3Y
Alan Lowey: The idea of huge bodies of dark matter lurking within the Milky Way and also in the solar system is becoming ever more mainstream:
Is there any evidence their mass couples to gravity in an anomalous way?
It’s part of my own personal hypothesis based on an idea as an alternative to Milankovitch insolation theory for the 100kyr glacial cycle. I’m proposing the Earth’s inclination orbit, which is also 100kyr relative to the plane of the planets, can link a new gravity theory with tidal forcing & climate change.
This level of intuitive thinking & imagination is beyond you David. You’re not open-minded enough to appreciate something so different to what you’ve been taught.
This article states the obscuring object “had a hard edge” which contradicts the first article I read about the phenomenon which suggested it must be an orbiting dust cloud:
….
It’s clear that whatever object eclipsed the distant star is huge—much bigger than the star itself. It also appeared to be completely opaque, blocking much of the starlight entirely, and it seemed to have a hard edge.
….
https://api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/science/article/mystery-object-blotted-out-a-giant-star-for-200-days
Alan, a little calculation would make your ideas more persuasive. Please.
You’re not the type of person I’m trying to convince.
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.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet………..Te…………Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…….325,83 K…..340 K
Earth………255 K………287,74 K…..288 K
Moon……..270,4 Κ……..223,35 Κ…..220 Κ
Mars……209,91 K……..213,21 K…..210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Modern physics is slowly turning into two camps. There’s those that support Einstein’s ‘black holes’ & those that are slowly switching to ‘dark matter orbs’.
The defence of ‘black holes’ is exposing a contradiction though:
….
– Famous Stephen Hawking theory about black holes confirmed –
..
According to the new study, the researchers’ confirmation of the area law seems to imply that the properties of black holes are significant clues to the hidden laws that govern the universe. Oddly, the area law seems to contradict another of the famous physicist’s proven theorems: that black holes should evaporate over extremely long time scale, so figuring out the source of the contradiction between the two theories could reveal new physics.
….
https://www.livescience.com/amp/hawking-theory-confirmed.html