by Dan Hughes
This post challenges the conventional framework for simulating meltwater flows on glaciers and ice sheets.
Increased melting rates due to potential increases in temperature would add liquid water directly into the oceans. An additional aspect is that the meltwater, on reaching the base of glaciers, might lead to increased sliding of the glaciers and the consequent calving at the terminus.
The World Resources Institute (WRI) has summarized the IPCC AR6 results regarding melting of Greenland and Antarctica ice:
Should warming reach between 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) and 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F), for example, the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets could melt almost completely and irreversibly over many thousands of years, causing sea levels to rise by several meters.
| Temperature Increase | 1.5 C (2.7 F) | 2.0 C (3.6 F) | 3.0 C (5.4 F) |
| Global mean sea level rise by 2100 | 0.28 – 0.55 m
(0.92 – 1.80 ft) |
0.33 – 0.61 m
(1.08 – 2.00 ft) |
0.44 – 0.76 m
(1.44 – 2.40 ft) |
Meltwater flows on the surface of and with glaciers and other ice sheets are important relative to the addition of liquid water into Earth’s oceans, and to bulk motions of the glaciers and ice sheets. Glacial meltwater might flow along the surface like a stream or river, accumulate in surface lakes, flow downward into open crevasses or moulins, accumulate as lakes interior to the ice mass, flow as a sheet of liquid between the ice bottom and bedrock, or flow enclosed in channels partially or completely embedded within the ice mass.
Flows that reach the boundary of the ice sheet deplete the ice mass balance and can contribute to sea level rise if the flow reaches the sea. Meltwater remaining on the surface of the glacier or ice sheet can refreeze and have no impact on the glacier mass balance. Flows reaching the base of the glaciers by way of crevasse and moulins are considered to provide potential lubrication and flotation that enhances bulk ice motions.
How solid is the foundation for simulating glacial meltwater flows that are included in projections of ice sheet melting?
Glacial meltwater flows have been modeled for more than four decades using thermal-hydraulic modeling. The widely used Springer-Hutton formulation is based on principles of continuum mechanics, and detailed mathematical reduction to the standard 1-dimensional channel- average form for engineering applications. A steady-state energy balance equation is applied to flow of liquid water in ice channels embedded in large ice masses. The Spring-Hutter system considers the case of evolution in time and space of the flow area of the channel. Changes in flow area are caused by ice melting and dynamics of the ice in which channels are located. There have been numerous studies providing clarifications, modifications and applications of Spring-Sutter framework.
New paper
I have conducted a detailed analysis of the Spring-Sutter equations and their solutions in this paper [EDHmelt]
The paper clarifies and improves calculations of the role of viscous dissipation of kinetic energy into thermal energy as this physical process appears in models of meltwater flows embedded in and at the boundaries of glaciers and ice sheets.
Meltwater flows on the surface of and within glaciers and other ice sheets are important relative to the addition of liquid water into Earth’s oceans, and to bulk motions of the glaciers and ice sheets. Glacial meltwater might flow along the surface like a stream or river, accumulate in surface lakes, flow downward into open crevasses or moulins, accumulate as lakes interior to the ice mass, flow as a sheet of liquid between the ice bottom and bedrock, or flow enclosed in channels partially or completely embedded within the ice mass.
Flows that reach the boundary of the ice sheet deplete the ice mass balance and can contribute to sea level rise if the flow reaches the sea. Meltwater remaining on the surface of the glacier or ice sheet can refreeze and have no impact on the glacier mass balance. Flows reaching the base of the glaciers by way of crevasse and moulins are considered to provide potential lubrication and flotation that enhances bulk ice motions.
A dimensionless form for steady-state energy balance for the liquid, accounting for effects of meltwater on the bulk liquid, is developed and solved. Analytical solutions of the temperature distribution along the channel are developed. The solutions explicitly illustrate effects of viscous dissipation of kinetic energy into heat, and the consequence effects on melting ice at the liquid-ice interface.
The paper shows that:
- Letting viscous dissipation of kinetic energy go directly into melting is not correct
- The energy equations are not complete because they do not account for meltwater entering the bulk liquid
- The Spring-Hutter accounting for meltwater entering the bulk liquid is not correct.
What is the delta you are suggesting? If the equation is wrong, does it give results that are off by 10% or an order of magnitude?
When I understand you correctly you compared the standard (numerical or approximate) approach with an analytical solution for a very simplified case that can be tackled that way. And lo and behold the approximate standard way of calculating these things don‘t do what they are supposed to do. So the approximate solution may give a nice toy model for students but nothing to base real world simulations on.
Another thing that comes to mind is the fact that this an initial value problem and you have error propagation problems. And it may have to solve for thousands of years into the future. Already small differences in parameters may yield completely different results even if the method were otherwise perfect. Plus error propagation. Plus the differences you found.
WTF are those people thinking?
Most of the past ten thousand years was warmer than now and the ice sheets did fine, in fact ice core records show that the ice accumulations were more in warmer times when more ocean evaporation and snowfall and sequestering of ice did occur.
With lower earth axial tilt evaporation is higher in hotter tropical zones and snowfall in colder polar regions is higher too.
Earth axial tilt is measurable from megalithic calendars, and was lower between 5200bce up to 2346bce, and at that new tilt up to today.
Myth of arctic meltdown is a wet dream…
Thanks, Dan.
Germany is one of the “green energy” crash test dummies in Europe. Shutting down coal and nuclear plants, sending the price of electricity to levels that shut down entire manufacturing plants. Great way to run a country … into the ground.
A decline in output in 2024 — following a drop of 0.3% last year — would mark only the second instance of consecutive years of shrinking GDP since West and East Germany were reunified in 1990. Economy Minister Robert Habeck had predicted expansion of 0.3% for this year in the government’s biannual forecasts published at the end of April.
A slow recovery is likely to take root into next year, with annual growth of 1.1% in 2025, before expansion accelerates to 1.6% in 2026, Habeck said Wednesday in an emailed statement.
He highlighted the urgent need to forge ahead with tackling Germany’s lingering “structural problems.” These include a lack of energy security, excessive bureaucracy and a shortage of skilled workers, which he said together with geopolitical uncertainty are weighing on activity.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-10-09/germany-sees-economy-contracting-for-second-consecutive-year
Pingback: Heat transfer and meltwater flows in ice sheets - Climate- Science.press
The following should not be seen as a bad thing that humanity could have and still can avoid by abstaining from modernity.
Scientists using, ‘satellite imagery and data to analyze vegetation levels on the Antarctic Peninsula… found plant life — mostly mosses — had increased in this harsh environment more than 10-fold over the past four decades, according to the study by scientists at the universities of Exeter and Hertfordshire in England, and the British Antarctic Survey, published Friday in the journal Nature Geoscience.’
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/04/climate/antarctica-greening-vegetation-satellite-images/index.html
The melt water equation discussion is but one subset of the arctic and antarctic ice changes. One must take a step back and assess those as a combination of closed and open loop influences. Right away, we can judge the cited AR6 predictions are pure nonsense. Why? We have had a 1.3 degree C warming since around 1900. If we plug in their ice melt-down prediction into the past 120 years, Greenland would nearly lay bare today from the 1.3 degree increase. Ice accumulation varies significantly from North to South, depending on precipitation and temperature. Here are the overall influencers: ocean evaporation creating snow, snow and ice sublimation, hurricane strength winds distributing snow, salt water licking at the glacier tongues, geothermal plumes under the ice base, ocean temperatures influencing those over land, albedo effects, sun intensity and also those variations as discussed in subject paper. We do have two hard core reference points in ice accumulation. One, the WWII airplanes buried under 380 feet ice in South Greenland. Two, the remnants of the US created under-ice city near Thule after WWII, dormant at about the same depth. That gives us a time frame of eighty years to make relevant assessment. Plus, we probably have anecdotal references of 1900s’ extent of glaciers to use. How does the ice accumulation factor against the melting influences? Antarctic ice depth change is similarly hard to fathom, since the sub-ice volcanic heat emissions are not measured scientifically. So, happy modeling with all the unknowns!
Sorry about your uncertainty. Satellite measurements make the facts clear, even if exact explanations are a bit fuzzy.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/31156
that’s a far-out set of graphs by NOAA. Roughly 3 meter equivalent water loss in 12 years or 25 cm/yr. Surface area of Greenland is 1 in 153 compared to ocean surface area. Hence global oceans would rise 1.6 mm/yr or 5.5 ft/century. From Greenland alone? What about from the Antarctica? Does it pile up the lost ice from Greenland? Or is my calculator rusty?
Your calculator is rusty
1.6 mm/yr = 160 mm/century = 6.3 inches/century
Sorry
Milton is heading for Tampa. Winds are reaching around 150 km/h in gusts close to the eye.
That should be mph, and gusts are currently 175 mph and was above 200 while cat 5.
Jim2,
That’s right, not new. Just getting demonstrably worse.
This certainly isn’t the worst hurricane to hit Florida.
Jim2,
It could have been, but wasn’t. Statistics are difficult for some – climate change “skeptics” seem to prefer anecdotes to trend analysis.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/a-force-of-nature-hurricanes-in-a-changing-climate/
Keep trying. I’m sure you can scare some people.
Nasa statement – “Due to global warming, global climate models predict hurricanes will likely cause more intense rainfall and have an increased coastal flood risk due to higher storm surge caused by rising seas. Additionally, the global frequency of storms may decrease or remain unchanged, but hurricanes that form are more likely to become intense.”
however, there are considerable studies showing that after adjusting for observational deficiencies there has been little or no change in hurricane frequency or intensity over the last 150+ years while SST has been increasing during that same period.
Short term history supports Nasa ‘s statement, long term history does not.
Jim2, Certainly not you (what scares you is pretty obvious). Probably a direct correlation with the ability to understand science. NASA and NOAA try to make it understandable, but you have to read it.
Joe K, I must have missed the references for the “considerable studies” in your second paragraph. No need to list a bunch, maybe just the one(s) most worthy of consideration.
Here is NOAA’s assessment; if the 2-pages of details are too much to read, I refer you to the bullet list at the end – it seems (to me) a fair evaluation.
https://sciencecouncil.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/1.1_SOS_Atlantic_Hurricanes_Climate.pdf
I suppose hurricane strength in Florida today was similar to that between 250 BC to AD 400. There were just too many damn campfires in those days.
BAB, not sure what you mean. I believe more CO2 will contribute to a warming world, and part of that warming will manifest itself in the ocean. It will make hurricanes somewhat more powerful. I want to see mostly adaptation, less in the way of mitigation. For example, make insurance rate commensurate with the local risk and get the government out of the flood insurance business. That sends the right economic signals.
x100
ganon
Under the categories of “you can find anything you want in climate studies” and “in every dark corner, natural variability lurks” and “The AMO is everywhere, messing up my obsession with AGW” we have these gems
“ we show that contemporary activity has not exceeded the range of natural climate variability exhibited during the last millennium.”
“ Our results are also consistent with the external forcing of the AMO, which has been linked to tropical cyclone activity5,46,47 during the modern historical period.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4525293/
“ A 10-member ensemble of AM2.5-C360 model tropical cyclone tracks from 1970 to 2021 (with consistent forced and internal climate variability between ensemble members) was analyzed to assess the role of weather and climate variability in producing multidecadal changes in hurricane activity.
“We find that the historically observed increase in tropical cyclone frequency over this time period is likely to have been modulated by changes in climate, in accordance with past studies that have attributed this factor to positive phases of the AMO and the AMM and radiative forcing, particularly from aerosols”
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/37/5/JCLI-D-23-0088.1.xml
“ The Footprint of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation on the Intensity of Tropical Cyclones Over the Western North Pacific”
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2020.604807/full
Kid,
Yes, from my most recent reference (NOAA):
“Since 1950, tropical Atlantic vertical wind shear, sea surface temperatures, and inferred Atlantic Ocean Meridional Overturning Circulation all show pronounced multi-decadal variations that are well correlated to Atlantic major hurricane counts.”
Bab Fig 1 for atlantic basin hurricanes (Middle row) seems quite dubious and the trend conflicts with the trend for land fall and the 15 year mean (rows 1 and row 3).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-24268-5
the nature article which is using the same or similar data as your nasa link provides a more comprehensive analysis
Joe K, thanks for the reference.
Fig. 1 doesn’t have a middle row.
A Bushaw (ganon1950) | October 11, 2024 at 1:28 pm |
Joe K, thanks for the reference.
Fig. 1 doesn’t have a middle row
The middle row was from your nasa link
Joe K, My NASA reference has neither figure numbers nor figures with rows.
Looks like it’s now a 3.
SST must have dropped big time or maybe SST has far less influence on hurricane strength than the climate science consensus.
I await actual hurricane experts analysis instead of climate science experts
The storm surge was less than predicted.
Jim2: Well, isn’t Florida lucky.
BAB – this isn’t anything new to Floridians. Anyone who moves there knows what will happen. I heard a commentator on Bloomberg this morning stating that anytime people cash out after a hurricane trashes their house, usually older people, there is a land rush of people wanting to buy that land and rebuild. The panic you wish for just isn’t there. IMO, what should happen is insurance companies should just price insurance according to the local risk and the government should end the flood insurance program. That would slow down a lot of people.
The warm climate in Florida is very much appealing!
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For some good discussion about hurricanes and even hurricane modification watch this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTCefj7j9-E
Listen to Stan Goldenberg, Hurricane Research Meteorologist
https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Goldenberg/index.html~
“Successful” socialism fails? Again? Well, that’s to be expected!
How a Series of Blunders Ruined a Latin American Socialist Success Story
One-time natural gas powerhouse Bolivia is facing an economic crisis after years of miscalculations and unsustainable policies.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2024-10-09/bolivia-natural-gas-shortage-sends-economy-teetering
https://i.ibb.co/D7RdCxm/Screenshot-2024-10-10-03-12-58.png
The storm hit hardest in Tampa, with huge amounts of rain.
https://i.ibb.co/Qvfsvg9/goes16-ir-14-L-202410092252.gif
Ireneusz,
For context, we used to visit Tully, North Queensland, now and then. Re rainfall,
“With an average annual rainfall exceeding 4,000 millimetres (160 in), and the highest-ever annual rainfall in a populated area of Australia (7,900 millimetres (310 in) in 1950), Tully is arguably the wettest town in Australia.”
People cope. Geoff S
The hurricane that passed over Florida was strong as the cloud tops remained in the tropopause. The temperature of the top of the hurricane radiated at -80 C.
https://i.ibb.co/MZcK01M/99c30759-b495-4f99-96ed-30a5165bf027.jpg
This was a hurricane. The IR out from CO2 is a trace. A hurricane is all about water in its changing states. The IR out from water in its changing states is the only part of cooling from IR out due to a hurricane that makes any kind of difference.
There are companies capturing their respective CO2 emissions in order to produce a “green” and carbon-footprint-free products.
In a few years from now companies will questioning themselves on why they are doing this, why they are spending billions on capturing their respective CO2 emissions – because in a few years from now the market will be indifferent whether the products are “green” and carbon-footprint-free products or not.
–
–
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
I’m guessing these previous EV owners will be looking soon for a nice, dependable, reliable, non-flaming ICEV. The EVs wouldn’t get them out of harms way, even if they weren’t on fire.
There is one other growing concern that is unique to coastal areas in Florida and other hurricane zones — the spontaneous combustion of electrical vehicles flooded by the salty storm surge.
Not every EV flooded by storm surge goes up in flames but it’s become frequent enough that insurers, car makers, fire chiefs and politicians have all issued warnings to EV owners in advance of the expected devastation of Hurricane Milton. And it’s not just cars that are a concern.
Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s chief financial officer and state fire marshal, issued a statement on Monday detailing a string of fires in the wake of Hurricane Helene, which flooded much of the Gulf Coast just two week ago. The state found 50,000 EV and hybrid registrations in the path of Hurricane Milton’s storm surge and counted at least 64 lithium battery fires after Hurricane Helene. EVs accounted for 17 of those but the rest were devices like scooters, hoverboards and golf carts. One fire was even sparked by an electric wheelchair.
Geico, a major insurer of cars in Florida, sent an email on Wednesday citing Patronis’ statement to its policyholders warning them about the threat for EVs and suggesting looking for protected parking areas. Tesla also sent a push notification to cars warning owners to move to higher ground.
The threat of lithium battery fires, which are difficult to extinguish, could worsen damage to homes and buildings after floods, he said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/after-hurricane-milton-a-growing-risk-flooded-electric-cars-going-up-in-flames/ar-AA1s1bLC
what about volcano eruptions under ice sheets?
https://earthsky.org/earth/volcano-under-pine-island-glacier-worlds-fastest-melting/
There is a wealth of literature on the possible influence of geothermal activity on mass balance in WAIS, and in particular the Amundsen Sea, Thwaites and Pine Island Glacier region. This study identifies the area having the highest levels geothermal activity in Antarctica.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GC009428
This study identifies the large extent of melting and mass balance loss, which also exists in the same region.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz5845
Inexplicably, or maybe not, IPCC6 makes no reference to the possibility that elevated heat under the ice sheet in that inherently unstable region has some association with the loss of ice.
“ The stability of Pine Island Ice Shelf and the Pine Island Glacier are of paramount importance to sea level rise and the mass balance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS)1. Geothermal heat sources and the production of subglacial water can influence the bottom boundary condition that partly determines the glacial mass balance2,3,4. Variability in the subglacial water supply5, including that caused by intermittent heat flux6, can lead to ice sheet instability. Thus, the existence of subglacial volcanism impacts both the stable and unstable dynamics of an ice sheet such as the WAIS.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
“ We show that the rapidly retreating Thwaites and Pope glaciers in particular are underlain by areas of largely elevated geothermal heat flow, which relates to the tectonic and magmatic history of the West Antarctic Rift System in this region. Our results imply that the behavior of this vulnerable sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is strongly coupled to the dynamics of the underlying lithosphere.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-021-00242-3
There are many studies about geothermal activity in Greenland as well, but the case for a causal inference is not as compelling as there is for WAIS.
I am looking forward to IPCC7 as to whether they will at a minimum make a reference to these dynamics.
Extremely strong geomagnetic storm. Huge jump in solar wind speed of up to 850 km/s in an extremely short period of time.
https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/planetary-k-index
A strong geomagnetic storm is underway, the strongest in years. Will the zonal circulation strengthen? In my opinion, yes.
The First Conclusions
Conclusions:
1). The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results. The theoretically calculated planets temperatures (Tmean) are almost identical with the measured by satellites (Tsat.mean).
Planet….Te…..Te.correct…..Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury..440 K….364 K…….325,83 K…340 K
Earth….255 K….210 K…….287,74 K…288 K
Moon…270,4 K….224 K…….223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars….210 K…..174 K…….213,11 K…210 K
2). The 288 K – 255 K = 33°C 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
Dan,
Please explain how your new paper changes something of significance. You postulate that the glacier is at the ice melting temperature. You show that the water temperature in the flow becomes stable after a relatively short distance. If that is so, then conservation of energy requires that meltwater flowing downhill melt ice in proportion to the elevation change (except for the effect of the initial transient). Time- and space-dependence of flow-channel size and shape don’t affect the final quantity of meltwater significantly.
More momentum for nuclear plants.
NextEra Energy
is seeing strong interest from data center customers in restarting the Duane Arnold nuclear power plant in Iowa, CEO John Ketchum said Wednesday.
“We are very busy looking at Duane Arnold,” Ketchum told investors during the company’s third-quarter earnings call. “We’re very interested in recommissioning the plant.”
NextEra is conducting engineering assessments on the plant and is working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local stakeholders on evaluating a possible restart, the CEO said.
“Obviously, it goes without saying, there’s very strong interest from customers, really data center customers in particular around that site,” Ketchum said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/23/nextera-sees-strong-data-center-interest-in-restarting-iowa-nuclear-plant-ceo-says.html
Global warming has nothing to do with carbon emissions!
I wasn’t sure where to post my comments, as there are so many interesting articles on this site. My husband, Gerald E. Aardsma, (Ph.D. University of Toronto; Physics,) has a new theory of climate change that readers might wish to read. I trust that, since this is a site that is open to listening to new ideas about climate change and thinking outside the box, that you will read his paper here: https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/archives/BC145.HTM
https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/products/archives/BC1416.HTM
I welcome your comments. Helen E. Aardsma
I am but an ignorant layman, Helen. You are interested in our response?
Well I find it persuasive.
I know of no studies of the core at all though I suppose there are some. I certainly don’t know of any that preclude this explanation.
The article refers to such studies. Find one that precludes: job done. Well I don’t know of any.
I foresee however, simply because of the mention of the bible, a tsunami of everything from ridicule to abuse. Sorry about that. I am.
Thank you for it. Very mind and eye opening.
I hope it leads to some serious study.
:)
Thank you Mr. Brogard for taking the time to read Gerald’s article and to think about it. I’m glad to see that you can think outside the box. My husband has been doing full time private research for over 30 years and has a quest for truth. He has one more article on climate change that he is currently working on and hopes to publish soon.
I should thank you for bringing your husband’s work to light, I think. :)
Concerning your questions:
l do almost remember when Origin of Species was ‘first published’ inasmuch as I remember my feelings when I first became aware of it’s proposals or stipulations, whatever.
Instinctive rejection I think is what they were, my feelings. A ‘self taught’ Christian I was steeped in this ‘image of God’ thing, I guess. I was steeped in more than I thought as I soon discovered when I explored the question.
The major ‘steep’ being ‘the bible is the word of god’, of course. That indoctrinated irrationality didn’t last long and from there I soon became convinced of the fact of evolution.
I remember nothing of my introduction to heliocentrism but your point of course is not what I remember but how extensive in the world is the resistance to new ideas.
And I agree. The resistance is very great. The resistance to any ideas, never mind those that conflict with current belief. As we see starkly today with Ukraine and a short while ago with Covid.
Here we have, as your husband says, a very simple thing for a starting place: either refute the contention of a moveable core or accept it and consider possible consequences.
On that basis I’d hope the future looks good for sensible consideration though that of itself will not, probably, appreciably diminish the flood accusatory and derogatory indignant attacks.
No matter. All discussion is good. I think. Don’t you ?
Thanks again Mr. Brogard for your thoughtful and kind reply. This is a whole new foray for me, so I have much to learn about how this venue works. My goal is simply to get Gerald’s research out there for folks to examine, critique, and think over. His climate change discovery only happened in March of 2024, and I have just started to share it in November of 2024. New truth is, by definition, heresy and those who promote it heretics. That is the nature of new discoveries. Truth can stand it on its own and will eventually come to be accepted and will stand the test of time. We are open to hearing all comments, both positive and negative, to see if this theory can stand on its own two feet. If the theory is wrong, we would like to be shown how it is wrong, and will discard it if the critics can convince us of its scientific errors. (Name calling or character assassination isn’t proof that a theory is wrong.) Waiting until a theory is given consensus by peers….well, does new truth ever have any peers starting out? After all, it is NEW! (I am enjoying reading Judith Curry’s work and agree with her that we need to be open to listening to other scientists’ ideas and give them a chance to be heard and proven or disproven. She too wants truth!) I believe that is why she started this site and what drew me to it. On another front….. I think you would enjoy some of my husband’s other writings. (Not sure how much we are allowed to venture away from the climate change topic on here…..) He has coined the term “virtual history” which explains the history of the world, dinosaurs, the age of the earth, evolution, etc. https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/search/index.php?q=virtual+history&btn=Search
Dear Mrs Aardsma:
I would like to have an off-line discussion with you or Dr. Aardsma,, but the “contact us” link on your “Biblicalchrondologist.org” web page does not admit of any way to do so. Any suggestions?
Thank you for your interest in contacting us. Happy to talk. Gerald is deep in his research, so I do most of the communicating, but he often will suggest to me how to reply. I am just a humble layperson. :)
https://www.biblicalchronologist.org/contact_us/contact.php
Just another quick note. The spelling is biblicalchronologist.org.
“Global warming has nothing to do with carbon emissions!”
From a well published PhD physicist to the wife of a not so well published one: That is incorrect.
I looked, I won’t read. I’ll pay more attention when/if it is reported in a peer-reviewed science journal. It looks like your husband has minor experience with that, although not much for a PhD physicist. My opinion is that it is not science at all – just another wannabe dragon slayer. Also, I would ask if Gerald will be responding to comments here?
Thank you for your comments. Gerald spends all of his time on research, and not on communications, so no, he won’t be commenting on here. But we talk about everything, and I will share questions with him and gets answers from him. I am just beginning to spread the word about his new climate change theory, and am starting here because of the open debate and forum. Question for you regarding waiting until other experts jump on board the theory. Would you have accepted “Origin of Species” when it was first published? How about “Sidereus Nuncius”? Let’s dialogue.
“Global warming has nothing to do with carbon emissions!”
If that can be interpreted to mean CO2’s 15µ photons can not raise Earth’s 288K surface temperature, then I agree.
CO2 can not cause global warming. We know that from First Principles.
Mrs. Aardsma, So Gerald doesn’t eat, sleep, communicate, or publish his pseudoscience in scientific journals? Frankly, if I had written what he has blogged, I wouldn’t communicate about it either. I’m not really interested in a dialog with a wife that engages in hyperbolic promotion. Thanks for the offer, anyway.
Did you read the paper so you could show me where the science is wrong? Happy to dialogue on the science.
Clint, I’ve asked what those first principles are. Apparently you don’t know. And yes 15 µm photons could warm the surface if they got there. Instead, they warm the atmosphere through re-absorption and collisional thermalization. I’ll continue to take your comments as farcical, and false, deflections. Your persistence in being wrong is entertaining.
Sorry BA, but you’ve tried this before. Your childish games don’t work with me.
You weren’t even able to understand what “temperature” is.
I’m disappointed in the responses, for the most part, as I don’t think they are in the spirit of Judith Curry, who started this site. Can we stick to the science and the search for truth?
Sticking to science and truth would be desirable, Helen. But what you will learn is that there are one or two here that reject science and truth. They are so addicted to their false beliefs that they cannot accept reality.
I usually try to ignore them.
Thanks for those kinds words, Clint R. As I’m new on here, how does one go about posting an article on this site?
Contact Dr. Curry at curry.judith (at) yahoo.com.
Thank you!
But before doing so check this: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2024/10/25/of-calendars-and-earth-dynamics/
It is highly recommended to ‘stick to the science and the search for truth’; but the correct science. There is much that needs to be updated.
If you want proof of the above link see Talmud – Rosh Ha-Shana 11b:6; Rabbi Joshua was very precise. Which means the correct numbers are there; well remebered and recorded, but the conceptual structure into which they were put centuries later is grossly mistaken.
The present fundamental idea of obliquity is wrong – only the slow secular change was considered. Milankovitch is based on that.
Enjoy.
Hello melitamegalithic, Thank for your response. I read your article and comments to my husband, Gerald. Gerald is a biblical chronologist, (Ph.D University of Toronto, 1980, Physics, and the article you mentioned is certainly about chronology. We aren’t sure how your article relates to Gerald’s new theory on climate change? We are here to learn, and dialogue, so fire away! :)
Helen A: It is not a simple matter.
Earth climate from an intrinsic perspective, and over short periods of a couple of centuries, is complex.
Over longer periods other factors impose changes, and dictate a different climate consideration.
To limit this to one instant, the Talmud quote refers to a change in earth’s orientation in space. I quoted it because it is simple and complete in detail, once it is realised what it means. Once the earth’s orientation in space is changed all else climate-wise changes. More: such changes, over the last 7000 years also changed the geology in certain places (twice; tectonic rotations) I am sure your husband will understand.
A specific point, to quote from one of your links “Noah’s Flood Happened 3520 B.C”. That is 2346bce, the 17th Iyyar 1414 (the authors of Genesis concealed the year, but science can find it.) The 3520bce event is an earlier one, likely nearer to 3559bce.
My interest is in the mechanism, but see data in link here
https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2020/05/31/searching-evidence-keplers-trigons-and-events-in-the-holocene-2/
ps. Book of Enoch is all about this event, but tease out the relevant out of the mass of ’embellishment’ (see Heavenly tablets 1to10).