I uploaded all the images I used to Imgur from the articles I linked. Because direct linking is not allowed by most websites or will stop working after a while if fetched often. So they are all from the links referenced in the posts.
This is an interesting post that is tangential to issues discussed here - but this guy presents a theory that human warming effects are not large enough to explain all of the warming, and he posits that some of the temperature rise may be related to changes in Earth's core - and core warming sea water more than can be explained by CO2 alone - but that also Earth core activity may be pumping methane and CO2 out and into the atmosphere as well - and methane having a bigger warming effect than CO2. Its highly technical text, very long, not easy to read, and I present this only as an interesting idea - my competence is not enough to say this way or that, and I did not read this fully yet. But it is interesting and maybe some of you find it so too. For what it is worth / reader beware!
And this is also a very new idea, poorly known and not supported by much anything yet, but it titillates my mind to consider this. Also, the writer does not in any way deny atmospheric warming and CO2 effects, he is merely positing an additional, as yet overlooked, possible mechanism.
I should point out that just now it has been reported in many places that it seems like Earth's core rotation has presently stopped.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/1 ... our-peril/ A study released in January 2020 by the Institute of Atmospheric Physics/Chinese Academy of Sciences, and Science Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, claims that the world’s oceans are warming at the same rate as if five atomic bombs were dropped into the sea every second.
When the Earth’s core enters an exothermic cycle, the Earth’s air-conditioning heat pump gets less efficient.
Synopsis – Exothermic (Cyclic) Core Theory of Climate Change
Exhibit A – IPGP/CNRS conjectured simulation of measured heat flows inside Earth’s mantle.
1. The Earth’s core undergoes extreme exothermic change – sloughing high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron from its H-layer and into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron plus kinetic energy (heat). Core magnetic permeability weakens and its geographic dipole wanders. Earth’s rotation slows from the mass exchange from core to mantle.
2. The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches Earth’s asthenosphere. Deep crude acyclic alkane pockets are heated and accelerate methane release into atmosphere. Methane ppms far outpace model predictions. Already warmer tundra releases carbon more quickly in the northern hemisphere each spring solar warming.
3. Abyssal ocean conveyance belts pull novel heat content from small-footprint yet now much hotter contribution points exposed to the asthenosphere – and convey (not conduct, convect, nor radiate) this novel heat content through oceanic advection and upwelling systems to the surface of the ocean. Abyssal ocean currents (and consequently surface ones as well) speed up from the discrete addition of kinetic energy. Arctic and Antarctic polar ice sheets melt from the bottom up.
4. Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean. This exothermic core-to-mantle equilibrium is cyclic, and can and will eventually reverse.
I read a very interesting study that a friend forwarded to me yesterday, one which piqued my interest in summarizing some of the research I have done over the last ten years regarding climate change. Yes, it is generally acknowledged by mainstream science and society at large that our planet’s oceans are heating very fast.1 2 3 4 The result of this warming is an increasingly unhealthy environment for our ocean’s flora, fishes, microbiota, mollusks, crustaceans, and fauna.5 To varying degrees, this emergent condition threatens everything which lives on planet Earth. The vast preponderance of scientists agree that we are well underway on the sixth mass, or what could be reasonably titled, Anthropocene Extinction. Much of this the result of extreme and recent climate change brought about through man’s activity.
Now before reviewing this article, I must ask two things of its prospective reader. First, before succumbing to the temptation to assign me an ‘anti-‘ label, understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind. I’ve worked more extensively than most inside efforts targeting mitigation of volatile organic compounds, alkanes, methane, and carbon monoxide/dioxide contribution on the part of mankind. I have conducted professional studies regarding the value chain of carbon inside the economy, and have developed businesses and worked to change markets, with a principal focus of mitigating carbon contribution by the various industries involved. My firm’s capital plans and designs for energy systems/plants never fail to include emissions carbon-scrubbing technologies. I share in the grave concern over human contribution to the stark rise in global temperatures now obviously underway.
Second, this is a summary of my analysis, observations, and thoughts, all of which I have developed on this issue over time. It is meant to provide a framework of sponsorship behind an idea which I have slowly formulated. This article is not a ‘claim’; rather it constitutes an appeal for deductive hypothesis sponsorship – a distinction taught in the philosophy of ethics and science – framed particularly for the instance where an existing enforced hypothesis is based solely upon inductive inference, and as well has recently failed several critical confirmations.6 7
This petition regards a construct, a critical path of observation-to-inference which now aspires to be developed into real hypothesis. As such, this work is not posed under a pretense of residing at the level of a broad-scope scientific research effort. To do full justice inside this argument would require a great deal more research on the part of mainstream science. However, one can anticipate herein a greater depth of schema and level of sourcing recitation as compared to the standard media article. My hope is that you find this article both challenging and refreshing. Please understand that its purpose is a single theory’s petition for Ockham’s Razor plurality, and not any insistence (claim) as to a conclusive final answer. This idea is not posed as a denial of anthropogenic induced climate change. Therefore, I am not a ‘climate change denier’. Do not trust anyone who mindlessly employs such weaponized pejoratives, as it is their malicious conduct which is serving to create a mistrust of climate science to begin with.
Please note as well, the idea that ‘climate heat must be coming from under the ground’ alone is not a theory per se, as the mere notion of proximity bears neither mechanism, definition, parsimony, explanatory predictive power, nor test-ability – all necessary components of hypothesis.8 This is the first actual qualified theory of this nature – much of its critical path being based upon two decades of original research on the part of its sponsor (me).
If climate scientists obtained the wrong answer or measures on some key real world model applications, for example carbon emissions concerning the ethanol value chain, marine terminating glacial current vectors and melt rates, and the net negative impact of electric vehicles – in some cases having to be corrected by ‘outsiders’ (actual value chain experts who craft systemic models as part of their profession) – then legitimate concern is raised regarding overall methodology and competence in the field.
If what I propose here as a supplementary contributor to climate change theory begins to explain more completely what we are observing globally – then the construct will have served its purpose. Further then, it is my opinion that its core kinetic-energy-derivation argument bears soundness, salience, elegance, logical calculus, and compelling explanatory power – key prerequisites of true hypothesis. Despite its need for further development and maturation, this argument should not be ignored through our polarization over this issue politically. We need fewer children with scowling faces, fewer leftist enforcement squads, and more unbiased thinking adults addressing this challenge.
The key issue entailed inside this argument is that of observed lithosphere and hydrosphere (oceans) heat increases, and these measures far-outpacing what atmospheric carbon capture models have predicted or could serve to induce.9 This is the critical path issue at hand.
Part of The Heat May Indeed Be Coming from Beneath Our Feet
During some of my agricultural and green energy work a number of peripheral observations my teams have made have begun to linger in my mind over time. They have given me pause and convinced me of the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing, and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. These notions stem as well from my time heading an exotic materials research company, and from working with several US oil exploration companies to reduce natural gas emissions. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.
In short, my alternative idea could be titled: ‘The Heat May in Part Be Coming from Beneath our Feet’. Its exegesis (at the end of this article), derived from a series of nine primary independent observations in order of critical path dependence and increasing inferential strength, follows:
...
In similar perspective, let’s examine the recent global industrial shutdown which was necessitated by our Coronavirus 2019 SARS-2 pandemic. Most of Europe, Asia and North America were shut down during the March – June 2020 time frame. Demand for fossil fuels was hardest hit during that time – especially oil, which plunged 8.6% and coal 4% (averaged across the entire period – see red line in Exhibit 1C).14
During that same time frame however, the Northern Hemisphere observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years of data.15 One can observe this by means of the red dotted-line slope in Exhibit 1C to the right (21 Mar – 30 May). The coronavirus incidence and shutdown periods are marked along the timeline as well, in the form of PCR-detection arrival curves for China and the US. Most of the industrialized northern hemisphere shut down commensurate with the United States detection curve, as depicted on Exhibit 1C (and two to three weeks prior as well). Notice as well if you will, the US Energy Information Administration data on liquid fuels consumed globally for this same time period (red line on lower portion of Exhibit 1C).16 Just as our global use of fossil fuels for power, transportation, and industry hit their lowest impact-use of the coronavirus lockdown – at this very same moment in time, carbon dioxide ppm were posting a record 45-year increase (~May 15).
How does such a record CO2 ppm increase occur during a global industrial shutdown, if it is indeed industry which is the primary source of this CO2? In fact, how does this record CO2 ppm increase occur during that time frame, if indeed 47% of global greenhouse gas producing economies are shut down that entire time?17 A resurgence in Chinese activity (standalone 27.5% of carbon contribution) alone cannot explain this ppm rebound. The implication is of course, that another factor is playing into the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. A factor which is highly sensitive to the sun heating our northerly landmass (67% of global landmass). Now while this heating occurs every year – one very plausible reason (among very few candidates) it is most recently ranging into higher and higher levels of unrecoverable CO2 release, is because this solar-heated source of CO2 (and methane?) is already hotter in its ‘winter’ than compared to previous years/decades/centuries.
Just as the entire world was burning fossil fuels at a record depressed rate
at the height of the Covid-19 Pandemic,
at that same exact time the planet ironically observed its most aggressive CO2 ppm growth in 45 years –
right amidst the annual ‘vernal jump’.
Experiment: 2020 CoV-SARS-2 Economic Lockdown Observation 1B
Now follow this experiment to its next inferential step. From June 2018 through to the end of 2020, humans emitted significantly lower CO2 than in the most recent years. One can observe this in Exhibit 1D to the right which indicates lower emissions during the June 2018 through end of 2020 timeframe.18 As we saw in the previous Exhibit 1C in Observation 1A, this was due unequivocally to China’s reaction to something which caused it to shut down industrial activity during that 2.5-year duration. Despite this sustained exceptional lower trend in CO2 emissions, curiously the Earth also happened to experience its hottest non-El Niño year on record in 2020.19
This was explained away with no study nor ability to forecast whatsoever, as stemming from the following: “global shutdowns related to the ongoing coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic reduced particulate air pollution in many areas, allowing more sunlight to reach the surface and producing a small but potentially significant warming effect.”20 The credibility of climate models was severely strained with this form of ad hoc rescue. If 2.5 years of lower CO2 emissions also causes global temperatures to rise, then what are we doing? And why did we not know that this would occur in advance? Our models should have indicated this through ergodicity, yet they did not. We are broaching pseudo-theory with such an apologetic method. A theory which quickly explains everything a posteriori without any relevant research, likely explains nothing.
At the very same time as carbon emissions were depressed (from June 2018) through the end of 2020,
the Earth experienced its hottest year on record.
Even more disconcerting, our models did not predict this
and we explained it only after the fact through ad hoc and apologetic, not deductive science.
Now combine the dynamics of these two natural experiments, 1A ad 1B in your mind for a moment.
The largest rise in atmospheric carbon ppm in 45 years came right on the heels of the hottest year on record, and during the vernal equinox timeframe (for the Northern Hemisphere) – in other words, the carbon increase followed the temperature rise, maintained its normal seasonal arrival distribution, and did not precede that heat increase. Moreover, all of this occurred during a climate change activist’s dream scenario, one in which global fossil fuel consumption was down 16% (~47% in western nations, the villains in this play) – and should have produced a sizeable and measurable effect in ppm and/or temperature, neither of which manifested (except carbon ppm in China alone).
Simply because a professional has memorized the abductive, static, and average metrics of a system, does not mean they therefore understand that system nor its dynamics. Medical professionals labored for most of a century believing falsely that obesity was simply a matter of personal caloric balance – and completely missed the entailed systemic injury. The injured stakeholders had to drag the professionals, kicking and screaming, into fully understanding their own discipline. Especially when victim-blaming and political ideologies are at play, never be intimidated by persons spouting ‘Watts per square meter’ figures, as if they know anything through recitation of static indices. This is nothing but chest-thumping and intimidation. Systems theory demands a completely different mindset and analytical approach.
Now that you have done that, let’s proceed onward through this chain of critical-path inference regarding system dynamics.
However, of key note even inside this clean and annually re-aligned graphic are several observations:
Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing by a power arrival function (acceleration). A power function suggests that either the underlying principle driving this CO2 increase also features a non-linear arrival or two impelling factors or more are underway, not just one: the primary carbon motive force itself and the mechanism of impetus behind its acceleration. This because,
Economic activity levels on the part of man are not increasing by a power law, but are linear – nor even this fast in slope. Moreover, there was no slowdown in carbon ppm trends attributable to the global economic depression from 2008 – 2012 – and there should have been one.
Global temperature increases are rising linearly, while carbon ppm mole fractions appear to be chasing (derivative of/dependent upon) this trend by means of a responsive acceleration (linear anthropocentric and unacknowledged natural acceleration serving a power law acceleration).
There is no acceleration-to-acceleration relationship anywhere inside this relational data. There is one discrete change in temperature trend at 1965, a trend which remains linear until 2016 – yet carbon ppm are in continuous acceleration the entire time.
Therefore, the viable mechanism for CO2 increase is as a direct dependency, not independence as a model variable.
In other words – global temperature increases appear to be leading carbon ppm increases – and are not solely generated by them (A reader kindly sent me a derivation of this relationship, which can be found by clicking here or accessing this chart). Otherwise, we would observe a mutual acceleration, which simply does not exist in the data. Atmospheric carbon certainly will also serve to increase global temperatures – however this effect appears to be drowned out by another primary temperature change impetus. In model terminology, the heat is behaving like a strong independent input variable and not a constrained-dependent output result. The point is that – another source of global heating may be evident here – and we have ignored this, possibly to our peril. This is a very critical difference in observation from most of the material I have reviewed in the media.
Plurality is Now Necessary Under Ockham’s Razor
The inference to be drawn from Observations 1, 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 above supports the construct (pre-hypothesis) that something else may be driving the production of CO2 and methane emissions into the atmosphere aside from simply man. That something else is
a. a strong independent input heat-variable which is already hotter than historical without external impetus,
b. functions independent of carbon and methane emissions, and
c. is at the same time causing the planet’s oceans to warm at a rate unachievable through man’s activity alone.
This heat is behaving like a strong independent input variable and not constrained-dependent output result. If climate heat is a constrained-dependent output, and we have sufficient grasp of its dynamics to begin to blame specific companies, peoples and countries for climate change, then our models necessarily should have predicted this 2020 temperature rise phenomenon as well. Yet our models were not successful in doing so. This is inductive (heteroductive) inference to be sure, but is also strong enough in terms of inferential merit to introduce Ockham’s Razor plurality. Something is wrong in the epistemic sauce, and the 2020 Covid-19 experiment demonstrated this in spades. We need science now, not tantrums.
The next question along such a critical path of inquiry would be, from whence does this ‘already hotter’ heat derive? We believe that the answer can be drawn as inference from the next six critical path and deductive observational elements, which follow.
Observation 4 (Deductive-Consilient-Introduces Critical Path) – Mean Sea Level is Rising Yes – But MSL Variance Range is Also Increasing (and Should Not Be) – Global Ocean Current Speed has Increased by 15% Over that Same Timeframe
To reiterate - I am of no opinion of this. I post this merely for your possible enjoyment - or not. I do find this very interesting - to be honest, this is some of the most interesting shit Ive read in a while. Read it at the link, it has lots of data graphs and links to supporting articles.
Cheers mates.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00167-1Has Earth’s inner core stopped its strange spin?
Earthquake data hint that the inner core stopped rotating faster than the rest of the planet in 2009, but not all researchers agree.
