A year or so ago I sent a “tongue in cheek” letter to the RAS Observatory Magazine. This is a less serious publication by the RAS that has Meeting reports and a very good section of book reviews.
They refused to print it. So my questions therefore remain unanswered. As this is an “Open Thread” I am posting it to see what thoughts others might have and if anyone out there with more knowledge than me could answer some of the questions.
————————————————————————————
Universes, Black Holes and an Engineer
One of the few benefits of the Covid Lockdowns was the chance to clear the piles of un-read books. One such book was “The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook” 1. In this the science behind the Big Bang is laid out in a form of challenges that deniers (skeptics) of the Big Bang must address to prove their case. On page 223 the authors, Luke A Barnes and Geraint F Lewis, state that in querying the Big Bang “… retired engineers are significantly over-represented among amateur cosmologists.” Having had an interest in Astronomy since I was knee high to a 2-inch refractor in the 1940’s, acquired a fascination with cosmology from my almost first astronomy book, “Frontiers to Astronomy” by Fred Hoyle in late 1950’s and then working for over 40 years, mainly in Civil Engineering with a dash of Astronautical Engineering, I feel well suited to turn the accepted theories of the Universe on their heads.
But I realise my astrophysical knowledge is severely lacking and so have refrained from doing this. Alternately I have set out some facts and questions for which I know not the answers in the hope that answers can be provided. Remember, as an Engineer, I will be wearing mainly a Newtonian Hat.
The starting of this stems from the well-known fact that the mass of a Black Hole is proportional to the radius of the Event Horizon. Taken to an extreme the approximate mass of the Universe combined with the perceived radius of the Universe is commensurate with the Universe being a Black Hole. This statement appears in many books on Black Holes but never seems to be taken much past a simple observation. For example, a black hole 30 billion light years across would contain about 5 x 1022 solar masses and have about 4 atomic mass units (amu) per cubic metre.
Questions 1. If the Universe is a Black Hole what are conditions like at the Event Horizon? Are they violent or calm? Is the Event Horizon a smooth sphere with a very large radius with a radius constant to a very small variation? What is this variation?
Like any Black Hole the escape velocity at the Event Horizon will be the speed of light.
Question 2. What happens when an object falls through the Event Horizon?
An object the size of the Earth will increase the Black Hole’s mass and hence it’s radius by a few centimetres. The mass of the Sun by a few kilometres and the mass of a galaxy by billions of kilometres. The gravity gradient outside such a large black hole will be small so for most objects spaghettification will not be a problem.
Questions 3. Are the changes in radius instantaneous over the complete Event Horizon? Or do they ripple around the surface (“Wrinkles in Time”, I feel a Nobel Prize coming on!!)? Is there a range of sizes to these ripples that depends on the size of the object entering? Are these damped out over time?
Moving up the mass scale the object colliding could be an equally large Universe. Two such Universes would form a single Black Hole with double the mass and twice the radius of each individual Universe.
Question 4. Does this merging take place instantaneously with the 2 event horizons forming one?
Thinking Newtonian, the merging would take place just as the 2 bodies touched. If 3 such bodies met, less likely but possible, they would not even need to touch but have gaps between them many billions of light years wide. For example, 3 black holes with a radius of 100 billion light years would form a black hole with a radius of 300 billion light years when the mutual gaps were still more than 140 billion light years. 4 such bodies at the nodes of a tetrahedron would have even bigger gaps at the time of merger. There are many examples of multi galaxy collisions so why not multi universe collisions.
Two particles, one in each of two of the colliding universes, could be 100’s of billions of light years apart but would both now be in the combined single black hole.
What happens next depends on the distribution of matter in the individual black holes (universes).
Question 5. How is matter distributed in a universe?
We only have (limited) knowledge of 1 universe, the one we reside in.
Questions 6. Could there be a classification scheme akin to that used with Galaxies where there are elliptical, spiral or irregular distributions? Are the universes spinning? Is there a central smaller, say 1012 or 1015 solar masses for example, central black hole? Could the Universe we live in be the Black Hole at the centre of an extremely large spiral Universe analogous with the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy?
Many simulations exist for colliding galaxies.
Question 7. Can results of these simulations be applied to colliding universes?
In these simulations as the two galaxies pass each other great arms and sheets of stars get ejected from the system. These passes will occur on a repeating pattern before the inner dense regions merge leaving a super dense region or very large black hole reminiscent to the Great Attractor. Each pass will send out consecutive groups of stars (galaxies) at different velocities. This could form redshift quantization and as the masses of the passing galaxies (universe) reduced would possibly eject stars (galaxies) at reducing velocities producing a pattern associated with an expanding universe. This is akin to the work of Halton Arp.
Another topic of Black Holes that concerns me as an engineer is the question of Singularities. In engineering singularities appear in many forms when analysing structures but do not occur in practise. For example, a sharp notch in a column would, mathematically, cause an infinite stress but, the material would change from elastic to plastic or might crack negating the singularity. This is akin to applying unknown New Physics to the Black Hole singularity concept.
Question 8. Why do we accept what is in essence a mathematical concept?
We have now reached a situation of a Universe of Universes.
Question 9. Can there be a next, and subsequent infinite number of stages.
For example, a universe with 1033 Solar Masses would have a radius of about 3 times 1020 light years and 1 amu every 1020 cubic metres. The latter equates to 1 amu in every cube nearly 5000 kilometres along each edge. It seems hard to imagine a volume of space with a radius of 3 times 1020 light years having the odd atom or so in a volume approximately the size of the Earth but is still a Black Hole.
But why stop there. The process can be progressed an infinite number of times until we reach an infinite “ultimate universe” with a zero density even though it has atoms/stars/galaxies/universes infinitely spaced. (No wonder I can’t sleep at night). This forms a Fractal Universe – Nature loves fractals.
Question 10. What are the consequences of this? We have an infinite universe with matter in it but a zero density.
Question 11. Or should I stick with engineering?
Lots of questions, not many answers. But when they all have been answered let’s turn to the much more difficult subject – the mathematical modelling of concrete. Where’s Einstein when you want him!!
Dr Alan K Welch FRAS FBIS
Ledbury
Herefordshire
References
(1) Luke A Barnes and Geraint F Lewis, The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook (Or: How to Beat the Big Bang), (Cambridge), 2020
Thanks for selecting question 11. Unfortunately I have been retired for nearly 30 years. As Henry David Thoreau said “The Devil finds work for idle hands”. Unfortunately in Cosmology as in Climate Change there is an accepted science and it shall not be queried. Many of my questions are legitimate questions but do indicate a querying of the excepted big bang theory. Just read about the shunning of Halton Arp who gave up the restricted regime in the USA and moved to Europe. My questioning of the big bang theory involves a degree of Interdisciplinary Science which I am a great fan of.
You have touched on a critical point – cosmology lost contact with he lab and engineering as Dr. Lerner shows, and even that open repository ArXiv now censors :
Einstein is as always very much smiling – and there are new predictions :
1) a maximum possible red-shift – double what JWST so far observes
2) full explanation for the non-linear red-shift , and more …
These papers use the Russian master relativist Zelmanov’s methods (toughest tensor calculus I have ever seen!).
Hawking and co. attended lectures there during the Cold War.
The Cosmological Priesthood (after all Lamaitre of the Bang was a priest) call these galaxies “universe breakers”, when in fact they are theory breakers. See Lerner’s link just above for the numbers.
Sure, but it’s still a good theory that answers a lot of questions- like the red shift as you look in all directions, implying the universe is expanding. If it’s expanding it must have been very small at some time. The now understood fact that some large galaxies formed very early- doesn’t disprove the big bang- though it goes against theories as to how they formed. Certainly we’re just beginning to understand the cosmos- baby steps. That’s why I want some ETs to land and tell us what they know. 🙂
May I add a comment. “the red shift as you look in all directions, implying the universe is expanding”. The Universe could move apart without it starting with a big bang. If you look at simulations of colliding galaxies they produce successive shells of stars being ejected each time the 2 galaxies approach each other. This can look like expansion but is a result of successive close approaches.
I read somewhere that “tired light” has been proposed as an alternative – i.e. that the photons lose energy when traveling making it appear like red shift. It would only be observable over cosmic scales.
I think any such theory would have to provide an explanation for the lost energy. I don’t know if that’s been done.
No opinion on this, just sharing something I read.
And if these aliens work like the CIA (can’t let the possible threat humans present go unchallenged), what we receive from them might only be misinformation. Where would that leave human science?
Someone was not joking to spend $11 billion on a really beautiful telescope to look precisely at that red-shift. JWST is so busy they will restart Spitzer (in warm mode) to take up the load. And we have ALMA, VLT to double check.
The key item, red-shift, is dealt with using oly General Relativity – papers available. No plasma effect produces cosmological non-linear red-shift.
Sure, Lerner’s book from 30 years ago, The Big Bang Never Happened, details and is proven now correct.
No Big Bang, no Dark Matter, no dark Energy, means the cosmos is of vast age. Which means it did not run down, but developed – it is not a machine.
A1: The “if” is entirely speculative, no one knows this to be true.
A2: No one knows what happens at or inside an event horizon. TMK the only structure that has been verified are the “jets” of X-rays that shoot out of the poles of a spinning BH.
That black holes are or form separate universes is speculation, in the realm of science fiction. It is akin to wondering about what happened or existed “prior” to the initial expansion of the universe. Because time is a part of space-time, the question actually make no sense, there was no time.
I feel your reply assumes the Big Bang Theory is the correct theory whereas I am trying to widen the debate. I could easily say the Big bang theory is “entirely speculative, no one knows this to be true”. You use terms like “initial expansion of the universe” which preempts any debate.
The term “big bang” isn’t used in modern cosmology, instead it has become a bit of a straw man description. It implies there was a “something” that at a certain point in time “exploded”, resulting in the universe that we exist in. But this is not what physics has been able to determine.
The expansion has been verified by microwave astronomy, i.e. the cosmic background 2.7K radiation, and has been sorted to be consistent with both general relativity and particle physics (a huge topic condensed into just a few words).
re- ‘there was no time’: Could there be more than one time? ie, was there a point when the time we know wasn’t but other times were, had been, or will be. Is one time necessarily associated with only one space.
It is possible, but there is no way know without any observable evidence. 100 years ago there was zero knowledge of the early universe.
Current knowledge of the early universe resulted from the astronomical observation that objects outside of our galaxy are all in receding motion, and that the speed is proportional to the distance from Earth. The proportionality is called the Hubble constant which was initially discovered by measuring the red shift of light.
Paradoxically, from cosmology, every point in the universe is in motion away from every other point, and that every point of observation is the center of the universe!
Energy is quantized, the photon of wavy light is a boson. Planck turned the world upside down in 1901 – his Planck Constant, h for Hilfe help, means we never go back. The photon has no rest-mass, always propagates at light speed where it is at. It has relativistic mass-energy, remember e=mc**2 ?
After Planck, followed the even more subversive Einstein and DeBroglie.
Here at WUWT Dr. Happer used Planck’s energy curve, and I firmly believe the entire climate so-called controversy is still stuck pre-Planck.
This energy function , critical to climate, can only exist due to quantization.
My hypothesis is that the universe is infinite in both size and age. Over time gravity concentrates matter into black holes which continually increase in mass and density but there is a limit. At some point the density/mass reach a critical limit similar to radioactive elements used in nuclear weapons. Once reached the gigantic black hole which at that point contains most all of the mass of the observable universe collapses into a singularity and explodes in a truly big bang converting everything to energy and starting new universe cycle. I also postulate that the universe critical mass is only a portion of the actual infinite universe so if we could see far enough we’d see galaxies that existed outside the portion that collapsed and exploded to create our locally observable universe.
Perhaps the well formed old galaxies seen by the JWST at ~13 Billion light years away are just galaxies that were outside the area that formed our universe.
PS: I’m an engineer also so I have a hard time with the idea of a singularity appearing from nowhere and time not starting until the Big Bang. Seems rather like just saying “in the beginning there was nothing then God made a singularity”.
Was it a new/recent youtube ‘discovery’ that set you off?
I came on one and it got me going
Its very simple why they cannot exist and the Event Horizon is it..
It comes from ‘terminal velocity’ and ‘escape velocity’ for objects in space’
They have the same value.
Terminal velocity being = the speed you hit the surface of an object had you started at infinite distance and allowed Gravity to pull you in.
For Black Hole and as Escape Velocity = Terminal velocity, when yo fall into a black hole you are by definition, travelling a light speed.
Seems simple enough.
But, experiments have shown that Mass is Energy (its how stars work) and the problem is that for any object (real object with mass) to be accelerated to light speed would require infinite energy and the object would have infinite mass when it crossed the Event Horizon on the way in
This absurd because:
If the universe came from Big Bang, it is finite and thus cannot contain the infinite energy required to accelerate the infalling particle(s)If however the particle did achieve light speed as it crossed the horizon, it would endow the Black Hole with infinite massSo when scientists tell us there are “hundreds of black holes in our galaxy alone” they are making a total mockery of the concept of Infinity(If each and every black hole gained infinite mass every time even just a single proton fell in – what meaning does “2, 10, 100 or 1 million black holes” have) – What is a million times infinity any more than 2 times infinity?The way out of it (my theory) comes from Time Dilation.
As the infalling particles accelerates, time as seen by it slows to a crawl – meaning time stops (for the particle) when it crosses the event horizon (at light speed)
But it then ‘fall foul’ of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
(The basis for Hawking’s Theory of how black holes evaporate)
We saw the Heisenberg Joke on here recently:
What it means is that at light speed and with a stopped clock, the product of the particle’s ‘time of existence’ multiplied by its mass gives a result smaller than Heisenberg’s Constant (2pi e minus 32)
This means that the infalling particle, as seen by us, simply vanishes in the vacuum of space at the instant it gets to the Event Horizon
So Hawking, with his Hawking Radiation was nearly correct – its just that the Hawking Radiation is created by the particles as they fall in- and not as they try to, do actually, escape.
They simultaneously fall in AND escape at the Event Horizon.
But we cannot see Hawking Radiation – not least as it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere – all the time and as defined by Heisenberg.
Hence, Black Holes are black. As we see them.
But if we could stop Time – they’d be dazzlingly white.
End result= There is perfectly nothing inside a Black Hole,
Even if you just say that nothing can ever ‘catch’ the event horizon (nothing can ever go fast enough)
It’s Time Dilation that does that – the Event Horizon, as seen by infalling particles, is receding as fast as they fall.
They never can catch up -even though its not moving (as we see it) and it is Heisenberg that delivers them from their, and our, conundrum.
It dawned, you were maybe right in that the Universe is Just One Humongous Black Hole – exactly because it is filled with Heisenberg/Hawking radiation.
(Particles popping in and out of existence that we cannot see)
i.e. The Universe is just one huuuuuuge Event Horizon but has 3 xyz dimensions because it has Time with finite speed –
As opposed to what we think as an Event Horizon with only 2 dimensions (a spherical shell) and time at zero speed.
So the inside of a Black Hole is actually = Normal Space
Now tell me you’re surprised, it’s not the first time us humans have got something/anything completely ass-backwards now is it?
Holy shit, that explains why light travels at the speed it does, (that vacuums have electrical & magnetic ‘properties’)
The Hawking radiation causes that.
Ohhhhh God, what speed does light travel at inside a black hole – if it really is a true perfect vacuum and property-less space?
All very fine and dandy, except Hawking, the Black Hole guy, wrote they do not exist in 2014 :
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
S. W. Hawking
It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black holes is that the holes are surrounded by firewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy any infalling observer. Such firewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem to be ruled out on other grounds. A different resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is lost. This proposal is supported by ADS-CFT and is the only resolution of the paradox compatible with CPT. The collapse to form a black hole will in general be chaotic and the dual CFT on the boundary of ADS will be turbulent. Thus, like weather forecasting on Earth, information will effectively be lost, although there would be no loss of unitarity.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761
“The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. “
If the universe is a black hole, then presumably it is a black hole in a universe just like all the black holes we talk about are in our universe. That then suggests that there are universes inside each black hole. ie, it’s universes all the way down. (That’s the same as saying it’s black holes all the way down, because the universe is a black hole).
Regarding question 2, what happens when an object falls through the event horizon: I’m no expert. Just an amateur with an interest in this stuff.
Seems to me that in the entire history of the universe nothing has ever made it past the event horizon. As you know, from the perspective of an outside observer time slows down for an object approaching the event horizon and freezes to zero at the event horizon. From the outside observer’s perspective every object that has ever fallen into a black hole is frozen unmoving trapped at the event horizon and won’t ever pass through the event horizon until an infinite amount of time has passed.
From the perspective of the object as soon as it falls through the event horizon it will be met by a enormous blast of radiation and will explode back out into normal space as a rain of sub-atomic particles. As you know if given enough time Hawkings radiation at the event horizon will eventually make a black hole disappear. While Hawking radiation might take billions of years from the perspective of the outside observer, from the perspective of the object falling into the black hole billions of years of radiation are blasting out in an instant of time.
I think these ideas are original with me but I’m not sure. Please be kind. I’m not a professional physicist.
I think these ideas are original with me but I’m not sure.
It’s not likely. Anyone who has studied black holes in conjunction with General Relativity would know about the time dilation with regards to the event horizon.
Has there only ever been one big bang, or is it a cyclical thing with multiple big bangs? If the latter, then it contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, unless there is something outside the universe that influences it (that’s a tricky concept given the definition of the universe). Or is this question from under a Newtonian hat.
If we were living in a blackhole…..1 minute reading to show we aren’t.
If you consider an observation of particles on the outside of a blackhole. All can escape and travel outwards, IF they have sufficient velocity. An example being the jets at the poles of some blackholes.
At the event horizon, only a particle traveling at OR BEYOND the speed of light can escape and hence be observed by anything outside of the EH. Theory dictates that nothing goes faster than light. Inside the event horizon, nothing can escape, so it can’t be observed on the outside. In fact it’s ability to be observed is only applicable to observers who are somehow static within the BH and are hit by the falling object as they descend. Inside a BH, you can’t be hit by anything falling out from the centre, since the escape velocity keeps rising and you would need to be going faster than the speed of light.
So, inside a BH, you would observe some particles falling onto you from the EH but you would NOT observe anything coming up at you from the centre. In other words, the sky would be dark on at least 50% of the observable sphere, increasing as you went deeper.
Since our observations are similar in all directions, we therefore CANNOT be inside a BH.
The discovery of Tom Shula that the most significant heat transfer in the lower part of the atmosphere (< 35 km) is done by convection actually make good sense to me. Calculating the Greenhouse effect as done in the presentation of Markus Ott ( https://youtu.be/JXKHfL55G2A ), using the experience from the Divine Lunar Project, actually gives a much lower Greenhouse effect close to zero. Previously Willis has shown by analyzing the data from the CERES satellites showing that from temperature above -2C water vapor has a cooling effect.
Isn’t it time for a revision of the Greenhouse model showing all the assumption and flaws of the “official” model. I would appreciate a discussion here arguing how the corrected Greenhouse model should look like.
I would appreciate a discussion here arguing how the corrected Greenhouse model should look like.
Convective instability limits ocean surface temperature to a sustainable 30C. It can overshoot before convective instability sets in and there are a few regions of the ocean near land where cyclic convection is disrupted whereby a Level of Free Convection cannot form. Persian Gulf in August is the best example of the 30C limit being substantially exceeded and no instability setting in.
The reason the limit is 30C is related to the altitude of the LFC approaching the altitude of freezing, which means reflective clouds become persistent. That limit is a function solely of the atmospheric mass and the buoyancy of water vapour in air. A 5% increase in atmospheric mass will increase the limiting temperature by 1C. So doubling CO2 from 285ppm will increase the limit by 0.006C. The lower limit for ocean water of -1.7C is less sensitive to atmospheric mass.
The reason is quite obvious. Then realise that cyclones are spun up through convective instability before they become self-sustaining. And they liberate a huge amount of latent heat from the ocean surface.
There is no location on Earth where the cumulative top of atmosphere radiation imbalance reflects the surface temperature. ToA radiation imbalance and surface temperature are completely uncorrelated at any location and there is no reason to believe they should be correlated across the globe. The climate system is fundamentally a system of heat transfer shifting energy absorbed in the tropics poleward. Convection/advection power flux is measured in hundreds of KILLOWATTS so immensely more powerful than any delicate radiative balance measured in hundreds of watts: https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/27/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=wind_power_density/orthographic=-158.37,-28.31,373/loc=-138.255,-36.605
The notion that radiative forcing of fractions of a watt can accumulate in the Earth system are nothing short of absurd nonsense.
Impossible to believe anything about Ukraine – there is a war there after all, and truth is as always the first victim.
Their grid is totally destroyed, and the largest nuclear plant in Europe, ZNPP, is being shelled by madmen,
On top of that Britain’s Depleted Uranium shells delivered were pulverized at the stockpile, sending a DU dust wind all accross Europe, picked up with the old Chernobyl monitoring net, even in London.
As they say, sow the wind, reap the DU whirlwind!
2 wind turbines, 12,500 solar panels and an ‘industrial sized’ storage battery all designed by EQUAN, built and run by Engie under a 25 year contract with Keele University. The nameplate capacity is widely reported to be about half of the campus’ electricity needs so it’ll be interesting to see what it actually produces and how long it’ll last.
I’m still following the crowd-(under)funded pole-to-pole jolly. They just made a massive diversion eastward and are now retracing their route. Along the way they are demonstrating the utility of EVs in the Arctic to my complete satisfaction. (Still no word on their “innovative solution” to charging when there is no handy dealer.)
I believe they are towing a wind turbine and have solar panels.
I don’t believe it’s adequate, so would question what their backup team is driving/towing
The Other Nick
May 28, 2023 5:10 am
I am totally confused about “Climate Change”.
I have always believed that the climate of earth changes due to many variables, such as the sun, magnetic poles, etc., and humans do not control these many things that cause climate fluctuations.
It seems, according to many, that it is controlled by suspect computerised climate models and a bunch of elite WEF oxygen sucking carbon life forms zapping around the globe in their private jets
Well, actually he wasn’t fired. He still is employed by Fox, but his show is off the air. It apparently has something to do with the Fox-Dominion lawsuit.
Jo Nova’s site is usually pretty good. However the comments on this one were a little far-fetched: Tommy Robinson was arrested and jailed not for his views on grooming gangs, but because his actions threatened a mistrial and possible release for the perpetrators. His miserable excuses in his self-aggrandising book notwithstanding, Tommy Robinson was the problem, no-one else.
mkelly
May 28, 2023 7:37 am
Thanks to all who helped continue to protect the freedom we hold dear.
Have a grand Memorial Day and remember at least one who helped. My dad was in WWII.
The CO2 Causes “Climate Change” Scam is a direct attack on our FREEDOM.
Sites like this one which defend data-driven science with mostly lukewarm, ineffective, writing do far more to aid and abet the enemies of freedom than to defeat their lies.
Tomorrow, remember what was givento defend freedom. Remember and HONOR those who gave “some” and those who gave “all.”
Honor them with powerful, effective, defense of data-driven, bona fide, science.
bobpjones
May 28, 2023 7:52 am
The obsession with renewables, by the government and the green lobbyists, is becoming excessive. They get all the air time, TV & radio, but those of us who appreciate or understand the issues, are kept quiet. Although there are some media platforms, where we do get some exposure. Even so, on such instances, we are bombarded with the fiscal myth of renewables, and of the nirvana we shall reap, if we hold true.
As we know, such knowledgeable people like Prof Michael Kelly, Christopher Monckton et al. have shown that the ‘dream’ is unachievable, both physically and economically. The significant limitations of renewables, will demand massive investment in infrastructure, and likewise raw materials, and ever-increasing layers of complexity, in the infrastructure in an attempt to manage the inherent unreliability of the system, resulting in ever more spiralling costs etc.
Isn’t it now time to hit these zealots with the good old acronym KISS? And stating that simpler things works, cost less, and will deliver on our needs.
Natural gas is the ultimate renewable. It burns clean, burning four hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom; producing two water molecules for each CO2 molecule. The technology for producing natural gas for power production has been around for years. Think about it’s production in waste treatment plants and landfills. How much could be produced for power at hog farms and feed lots. But why should we invest in producing it when nature has already provided us with so much of it?
The economic way is to increase fracking, and build more pipelines and LNG terminals.
This is a headline I saw this week.
It was in a parenting column.
Here is the advice given by child-adult psychotherapist Joanna Fortune:
The most important thing is to ensure the son does not feel alone in his anxiety.
“Climate change is frightening enough, but what you need to know is that you’re not alone,” Joanna said.
She also suggested finding climate activists the son can meet to learn about managing his anxieties.
“Someone like Friends of the Earth can really validate his concerns and root them in science, but also give proactive solutions.”
Just think about what this woman’s advice means:
If you are having problems with delusions find a friend in an asylum with a similar problem that can validate your concerns.
And after they read Asimov’s book, direct them over to WUWT where they can alleviate their fears about CO2, and then they can get angry at those who are spreading scary lies about CO2 and scaring the children with their talk of certain CO2 doom.
Don’t believe them, kids! They have no evidence proving any of the dire claims they make about CO2. The only thing that is really disrupting your lives is the Climate Alarmist Hysteria, not the Climate itself.
The climate is doing just fine, and so are you, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Of all the crimes committed by the Climate Alarmists, scaring the children over a non-existant CO2 crisis is one of the worst.
“Just think about what this woman’s advice means:
If you are having problems with delusions find a friend in an asylum with a similar problem that can validate your concerns.”
First you need a delusional psychologist to suggest all this.
This is called “the blind leading the blind”. Both will fall into the ditch.
Fran
May 28, 2023 9:30 am
Infrasound from wind farms is reputed to be biologically toxic. If this is true, then agricultural productivity in their vicinity should show decreased productivity. Is there any information on things like milk production, health status to pigs or sheep, or horses, egg production, and so on?
Wind farms are simply toxic – look at Holland. They will expropriate 3000+ farms to make way for them. Then those now silent farms will produce nothing.
QED.
Sounds even more toxic.
This Euro stuff goes on all the time – a mere few years ago a huge fanfare about a Research Triangle covering Maastricht, Aachen, Eindhoven, evaporated into thin air when instead they bailed out the banks in 2008. The Research city did then open in Shanghai. The oncoming blowout will dwarf that – look at Credit Suisse, evaporated already.
With a view on EU bailouts. Switzerland took on $260 billion debt at Uncle Sam’s, sorry Uncle FED’s request. Berlin will get a second NordStream request from Uncle Joe :
So London is likely quite happy to hand back Deutsche Bank.
Infrasound biological effects, researched at least since the origin of NASA,have been shown, and consistently replicated in controlled experiments, to produce changes in two types of connective tissues common in humans and other animals. Reports of extensive fetal abnormalities, stillbirths, and multiple boidly malfunctions have been swept under the rug,; not even attempted to disprove or debunk.
Beta Blocker
May 28, 2023 10:01 am
In this comment to Francis Menton’s latest article, I take a closer look at the EPA’s proposed rule limiting carbon emissions from fossil-fueled power plants:
NASA’s Hansen published a paper in 2012 that showed the irradiance from the sun varied cyclically by about 0.25 W/m2, with a period of about a decade. What a great way to determine the climate’s response to warming. Using the CERES satellite data on the earth’s energy imbalance, we should be able to see the total effect. The “consensus” seems to be that a 1 degree increase from CO2 doubling is amplified to 3 degrees. This means we should see a sinusoidal curve in the EEI graph of about 0.75 W/m2, roughly comparable to the total EEI. But we don’t see this level of amplification of heating due to an increase of incoming radiation. In fact, we don’t see any cyclical characteristics at all.
Personally, I suspect clouds are controlling things much more than we realize, but I would love to see what others think about this. Any ideas?
Clouds? You mean the things that can’t be handled with first principles and have to be parameterized with the best subjective guess as to how they behave?
Yeah, those ones!
it just seems like no one is doing a back-of-the-envelop calculation to see the magnitude of the issue. It seems a simple energy analysis shows it’s not a climate crisis, it’s a climate curiosity.
This should be the average annual irradiance, over the period of one orbit (year), the Earth-Sun distance varies by about ±10% = 135W/m2, much larger than 0.25W/m2.
The relative total uncertainty of irradiances measured with thermopile instruments is ±3-4% at best, which translates to absolute uncertainties of several W/m2. Quoting energy balance differences less than 1W/m2 cannot be justified.
Gunga Din
May 28, 2023 11:13 am
A few Open Threads ago, as a last resort, I asked if anyone had info on how to repair a Lionel 282R Gantry crane.
Several offered help but it didn’t apply to the one I had, 6-22998 made around 1999. A follow up: A couple of weeks ago I finally got the thing fixed! Thanks for your willingness to help. (Now I can have a few kids over to play with it and the trains (One is a Flying Yankee made in 1935) before I pack them all up again.)
Back in the days of DOS and early Windows, I was a T-Rex compared to my peers.
Now I’m just a dinosaur. I don’t know how to upload a picture. I don’t even have a cell phone.
I don’t have a layout. I inherited parts of my Dad’s amazing layout.
(Scale models of his childhood home and train stations that had a connection to his childhood. A working amusement park (but never got the rollercoaster to work right).
4 ZW transformers plus other power … Effects all synced to music. Block system for the trains so 8 could run on the same track without starting and stopping till it got to be annoying. He had a little spot where kids could crawl under the layout and operate a few things off a separate small transformer. (The crane was never on it. Maybe it never worked right?) All in my and my brothers old bedroom and expanded into the attic. When he died, we had to sell the house and split it up between the 8 of us.)
But here’s a clip of someone else’s crane in action. https://youtu.be/PvGDDXcsHfM
I’ll add, I hadn’t watched the clip I put up beyond to first minute or two.
You’ll hear cows in the background. Dad had 3 cars that made animal sounds. Cows, chickens and pigs. The greater the motion, the louder the animals. I don’t have any of them.
As much as I miss the layout, I miss my Dad more. He died 2001. 50 years in private practice as a Pediatrician. Never retired.
It’s real easy. I learned how to do this a couple of weeks ago.
Once you get a picture on your computer, you can then post that picture by using the little icon at the lower right of the comment box. Click on the icon and direct it to the location of the picture on your computer, highlight it, and the picture will be uploaded to the WP server and will appear in your comment.
At my age, “N” scale is really too small. I have bought lots of “HO” scale stuff and have committed to a table of that extent. My current biggest problem is laying cork under turnouts.
Thanks for the links GD. I’m a member of NMRA and some other model railroad organizations. I know how to do it, I just have the problem of wanting to do it.
😎
“Been there. (Too often, Not) Done that.” 😎
Just keep it fun.
CO2isLife
May 28, 2023 11:23 am
I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts. Link Not sure is the areas where the ice cores are drilled are at elevations, but there are plenty of sea level locations not showing warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Note, that is a satellite measure of the South Pole so the altitude argument doesn’t hold water. Link to many sites that show no clear warming trend This is the link, Clearly, there is no established uptrend. There is volatility, but it clearly isn’t associated with CO2. Link I’ve made this point 1,000x and this video should be featured on every Climate Change Website. Finally, someone applied the scientific method to scientific data. Malcolm Roberts of Queensland https://youtu.be/yuz4DFhLP2g 1) The whole purpose of choosing the S Pole is to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. It is a natural control for UHI and H2O allowing for an experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on Temperatures. 2) No all of the area covered by the Satellite data is at elevation. While your comments are relevant to some parts of the measured area, there are plenty of there areas that show no warming and are not at elevation. The last chart posted shows that all of America has experienced no warming since the late 1800s. 3) Almost all dry and cold deserts show no warming, elevated or not. Water vapor is associated with clouds. Jet stream changes have reduced the cloud cover over the oceans. More visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, and that is why the oceans and the globe has been warming. CO2 has nothing to do with it, and the data shows that. There is a much more obvious explanation as to why the oceans and the globe are warming. Blaming CO2 is pure sophistry. CO2 doesn’t oscillate, it trends. No way can CO2 explain the variability in temperatures. CO2 also varies +/- on an annual basis, yet no annual variation is noted in the temperatures. Here is another graphic of the US showing no warming trend. How could this large of an area show no warming? Note: 1900, 1915, 1935 and others are far above temperatures in 1977, 1979, 2000, etc etc etc. There is no uptrend in temperatures. Link 4) Look at the Hockey Stick Chart, it doglegs or has an inflection point in 1902. Nothing about the quantum mechanics of a CO2 molecule or trend in CO2 changed in 1902. CO2 would never cause an abrupt and rapid increase in temperatures without an abrupt and rapid change in trend. That didn’t happen in 1902. The only thing that happened in 1902 was instrumental data was added to the data set. 5) A 1 Degree C increase in temperatures would simply make Michigan have the average temperature of Ohio, and make parts of Siberia into a vast new farmland. The benefits of more CO2 (higher yields) and warmer temperatures, more arable farmland, far outweigh the imaginary costs of higher CO2 levels. 6) There isn’t a single socioeconomic metric that shows mankind getting worse over the past 100 years of warming temperatures except those related to a longer life expectancy and wealthy living like diabetes. 7) There is a direct correlation between the number of Climate Agreements and Climate spending and the trend in CO2. MOre spending has resulted in higher CO2 🙂 8) Bleached coral reefs are often replanted and return to healthy proving that it wasn’t CO2 or warming that changed but more incoming sun light beaching them, If it was due to CO2, they would not recover.
Much better to say, sure CO2 does have an effect, and doubling it from today’s levels makes an immeasurable difference. CO2 at zero means extinction of all life on the planet. Dr. Happer made this point very clear :
Interesting point. Does the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule change from N to S Pole? Nope. What changes from the N to S Pole? 1) More land in the N Pole 2) different humidity in the N vs S pole. Real science look for changes, nothing in CO2 or the quantum mechanics change from N to S Pole. CO2 can’t cause those changes.
All good points, but how do we get the world to listen? Even the demonized oil companies are ignoring the truth about the dreaded “emissions” (Oh, horror!). “Climatology” is pure quackery and is, perhaps, a mortal threat to humanity.
““Climatology” is pure quackery and is, perhaps, a mortal threat to humanity.”
I would say yes to both.
I’ve been following climate alarmist claims for decades and it is just amazing how wrong thes people have been over this time, and yet they still carry on like they know what they are doing.
It has gotten to the point of being a mass delusion, helped no doubt, by the ability of those who own the Big Megaphone of Society to talk to everyone in the world, and unfortnately, many people are easily influenced into believing things that are not true, or in the case of human-caused climate change, there is no evidence supporting such claims.
And there is a lot of evidence refuting those CO2 claims such as the written, unmodified temperature record of the past which shows it isn’t any warmer today than it was in the recent past even though CO2 concentrations are much larger today than in the past. That should tell a logical person that CO2 has had little effect on the temperatures over the years. Not enough to measure.
“Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures.”
Antarctica may be a great control for UHI and water vapour as you say (because it has no urban settlements on it and practically no atospheric water vapour above it) but I think it would be a very poor location for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures simply because it is so cold there. Its deep-frozen state has two consequences which render it useless for that purpose as follows:
1: The CO2 greenhouse effect is supposed to work by recycling some of the energy radiating from the surface back to it, thereby warming the surface above the degree of warmth that it would otherwise possess without the recycled element. But the average amount of energy radiating from the Antarctic surface in the first place is so small that the even smaller fraction of it that got recycled would not add any significant amount to the original surface radiance anyway.
2: In theory, besides the familiar ‘CO2 greenhouse effect’, which is supposed to cause warming, there is also a ‘CO2 negative greenhouse effect’ which is supposed to cause cooling by radiating the energy which the CO2 molecules receive from collisions with other atmospheric molecules away to space. NASA claims to have observed this negative greenhouse effect happening in Earth’s upper atmosphere and at the tops of clouds, where the molecules of CO2 tend to absorb more energy from intermolecular collisions than from surface radiation (which barely exists in the upper atmosphere and on the tops of clouds). Likewise, Antarctica is cold enough to lead theorists to expect that the negative greenhouse effect from CO2 would significantly offset any potential CO2 greenhouse warming (which would be minute to begin with), thereby making the net greenhouse effect occurring on that continent practically zero.
Ideally, I think you really need a hot, dry desert for your control-location, not a cold, dry one like Antarctica.
“I think it would be a very poor location for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures simply because it is so cold there. Its deep-frozen state has two consequences which render it useless for that purpose as follows:”
15 Microns is -80 C, so being cold shouldn’t matter. Dry ice will still sublimate at the South Pole.
I don’t think so. (Please see my reply to bdgwxhere for my calculation of the ‘effective temperature’ of a 15 micron wavelength photon according to the standard rules of orthodox physics.)
Please note, I am not arguing against your view that atmospheric CO2 has no discernible effect on the global mean surface temperature. (Indeed, that is what I think too, although for different reasons to the ones you’ve given.) All I’m saying is that the temperature record for Antarctica can not disprove the orthodox theory of CO2 warming because the orthodox theory itself predicts that no significant warming from atmospheric CO2 will occur in a place as cold as Antarctica anyway.
I went back to my post you linked to here. Sorry I didn’t see your response to it until now. I said a 15 um photon was 82.66 MeV. I meant to type meV with a lower case m. I probably just should have said 0.08 eV and left it at that though.
Thanks John, but help me understand that point. The conventional wisdom is that CO2 shouldn’t caused warming at the S Pole? WHy? DO the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole? Also, why does the same argument not hold for the N Pole? They clearly claim CO2 is warming the N Pole. Anyway, if the argument is that the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole, that isn’t a very convincing argument. That is more sophistry than science.
“The conventional wisdom is that CO2 shouldn’t caused warming at the S Pole? WHy?”
I think the issue is more practical than theoretical. It’s not that the conventional greenhouse theory says CO2 shouldn’t cause any warming at the S. Pole; it says that some CO2 warming should occur, but not enough to be detectable with current state-of-art instrumentation and analytical techniques.
“DO the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole?”
🙂 Not in the worldview of conventional physics, as far as I know.
“Also, why does the same argument not hold for the N Pole? They clearly claim CO2 is warming the N Pole.”
If you are referring to the argument from conventional physics that the amount of direct greenhouse warming from CO2 predicted to occur at the S.Pole would be too small to detect, I think the same argument would apply to the N. Pole as well – at least in principle. I am aware of the climate hysterics’ claim that the CO2-greenhouse effect is warming the Arctic drastically, of course (who could not be?), but I have never seen or heard any credible scientific argument from conventional physics which justifies that claim and it seems quite spurious to me.
“Anyway, if the argument is that the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole, that isn’t a very convincing argument. That is more sophistry than science.”
I totally agree. However, to the best of my knowledge, no-one is proposing that argument.
<b>1: The CO2 greenhouse effect is supposed to work by recycling some of the energy radiating from the surface back to it, <b>thereby warming the surface above the degree of warmth that it would otherwise possess without the recycled element.<b> But the average amount of energy radiating from the Antarctic surface in the first place is so small that the even smaller fraction of it that got recycled would not add any significant amount to the original surface radiance anyway.</b>
That is nonsense, you just defined a perpetual motion machine that creates energy out of nothing. Also, once again, -15 microns is a -80C, and that is colder than most of if not all of Antarctica. Ironically, the East Plateau on Antactica is a place that falls below -80C, so it is the ideal location to see if CO2 causes warming. If it was as potent as claimed, it wouldn’t fall below -80C.
“ ‘CO2 negative greenhouse effect’ “ That is caused by thinning of the atmosphere and isn’t applicable to sea level, or areas close to that altitude.
CO2isLife
May 28, 2023 11:42 am
Is the graphic for this blog post AI generated? If yes, what AI Engine did you use, and what were the prompts?
Ireneusz Palmowski
May 28, 2023 11:47 am
Strong spikes in galactic radiation since the beginning of 2023 show an unusually abrupt course of the 25th solar cycle. This brings anomalies in the circulation of the jet stream.
The polar front jet stream is closely linked to the frontogenesis process in midlatitudes, as the acceleration/deceleration of the air flow induces areas of low/high pressure respectively, which link to the formation of cyclones and anticyclones along the polar front in a relatively narrow region.
Gary Pearse
May 28, 2023 1:21 pm
Cosmology and astrophysics (and much of science for that matter) have done a left turn into fantasy along with the Great Dumbing Down that began in the 2nd half of the previous century. The detailed interpretation of events representing a pixel or two in the field of Hubblescope and family is mind-numbing, inspired perhaps by Tolkien, Star Wars and the like.
Lord Kelvin wasn’t far off when he opined at the end of the 19th century that, except for some clean up matters, science’s work was nearly done. Certainly, Einstein brought something unexpectedly big to the table a few years later, but that pretty much left the bits à la Kelvin to be tidied up.
Science followed the pattern set by musical development. Baroque then classical flourished until the end of the 19th century. Oh Stravinsky and a few others composed using notes left out by the great masters, but soon such music settled into a performance medium. Physics, starved of new things to do, too, became a performance activity.
With the drought of new vistas for physics, came an explosion of ‘imagination’. A hundred years ago, a smart person could read all that was published in science. According to Physics.org, today, millions, yes that’s millions of research papers are published each year!!
This means there are millions of scientists with little for them to do. A lot of this literature, according to surveys, cannot be replicated, much is the outcome of “novel statistics” p-hacking and dubious data, which is the edifice on which froddy climate science rests.
Meanwhile, The Golden Age of engineering blossomed (I switched from science to engineering with the advent of Sputnik I). The glory of engineering seemed too much to take for scientists and they immediately began purloining engineering territory. They started with the oxymoron “Rocket Science” (er…that would be rocket engineering!) System science, computer science … meanwhile the theoretical guys came up with “Strings”, too small to see (1 Planck length, the distance light travels in 5 x 10^-44 seconds!). Planck eh, this must be a form of corroboration! See Bertrand Russell’s tiny orbiting teapot on Wiki for his view of such a claim.
I think another problem is that only the very brightest used to get a PhD, if they could afford it. As education became a money-making industry after the Korean War and during the Vietnam War, the schools found ways to encourage everybody to attend college, and as many who could could pass the GRE to go on for post graduate degrees. Consequently, we now have a large number of PhDs who would have formerly been lab technicians or assistants, at best. They are lacking the broad view of science and don’t have the sort of curiosity that separates the likes of Feynman from the better known ‘climatologists.’
Yes, Clyde, what has been happening to science is a direct consequence of the Great Dumbing Down. Post Normal science gives a subjective stake in the philosophy of science to anyone. Now, a theory can be valid if it gives answers that you would like them to be, or that feel right to you. If the data points away from the desired outcome, it can be adjusted to harmonize with what you want to show.
In keeping with this viewpoint, John Cook, of Skeptical Science website, a bastion of consensus climate science, who who wrote the paper ‘showing’ that 97% of scientists accepted CAGW, remarked with wonder that he had, a short time ago been a political cartoonist and is now a scientist teaching at the U of Queensland! He wouldn’t even have aspired to lab technician or assistant
Has anyone ever done a study of how UHI’s interact with passing weather systems? I’m not sure how high the heated column of air over a UHI would persist before dissipating but I would have thought it might go high enough to interact with weather front’s passing over the UHI. Again, I’m not sure of the answer, but would it act as an artificial warm front in the way of a natural weather front?
Keith Ball
May 28, 2023 5:28 pm
We created a resolution we would like to put to congress:
A resolution by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, motorcycle and automotive groups to Congress to demand scientific transparency and truth for every motoring individual in the world.
Whereas Truth and Free Speech are the cornerstones of our society, motorcyclists all over the country want our rights and the truth to be respected
Whereas Critical Thinking is the backbone of science it needs to be held high for kids all over the world. America always endeavored to be the bastion of truth and free speech.
Whereas science is never settled and the public requires nothing but the truth as it affects their very existence.
Whereas children deserve to know the truth and scientific transparency. No matter who tries to hide the truth, it will surface and the real deniers will be exposed.
Whereas every law in this country that effects the lives, livelihoods, homes, businesses and transportation must be based on truth or they are meaningless.
Whereas criminal governments throughout history restricted free speech. We cannot allow any attack on free speech to infiltrate our government.
A rough draft by K. Ball
David Wojick
May 28, 2023 5:28 pm
This just in from SEPP:
“Sabotage: On May 27, the Conservative Princeton Association sponsored a hard-hitting panel discussion on “Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency.” Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Bruce Everett, climate economist, and Princeton physicist William Happer were scheduled to present data and analysis to show that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial, that the atmospheric temperature is relatively insensitive to addition of CO2 and decarbonization is unnecessary, undesirable, impossible and not happening.
The event was live streamed from Media Central Live, at Princeton University. There were difficulties with the broadcast of the presentation by Patrick Moore. Then, as William Happer began to talk, someone else took control of the media presentation. Several cartoons were drawn on the slides, then an obscene, juvenile one. Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
Certainly, this was a deliberate effort. One hopes it does not reflect the quality of education at Princeton and the juvenile cartoons are not examples of what is considered mature, critical thinking.” http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2023/TWTW%205-27-23.pdf
“Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
That says it all.
Fanatics don’t want to hear anything that threatens their orthodoxy and they don’t want anyone else to hear it, either.
This certainly reflects the attitude of radical leftist on campus today. The Left has hijacked the education system and has been turning out radical leftists for some time now, with no end in sight. They are not interested in facts.
Gunga Din
May 29, 2023 2:52 pm
Today, May 29, in the USA is Memorial Day.
I suppose it’s become a bit like Christmas.
Jesus wasn’t born Dec.25th but that is the day tradition has chosen to remember it.
Nothing wrong with families getting together on Christmas.
Memorial Day is a day to remember those who died in combat for the USA and what it once stood for.
I have a “Continental Flag” (The one where the stars are in a circle.).
I fly it on the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Veterans’ Day and Election Day.
This year I added a black band around it as a reminder of why we’re free free to have a day off and have hot dogs and hamburgers.
Nothing wrong with having hot dogs and hamburgers today with your family. But take a moment to pray for the families of those that paid the price so we can have a day worth celebrating.
Contrary to alarmist, prices are way down on peak values.
Phil Salmon
May 30, 2023 2:54 pm
Sunset and evening star,
And one clear call for me!
And may there be no moaning of the bar,
When I put out to sea,
But such a tide as moving seems asleep,
Too full for sound and foam,
When that which drew from out the boundless deep
Turns again home.
Twilight and evening bell,
And after that the dark!
And may there be no sadness of farewell,
When I embark;
For tho’ from out our bourne of Time and Place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face
When I have crost the bar.
— Alfred, Lord Tennyson, “Crossing the Bar” (1889)
ChrisG
June 3, 2023 7:27 am
Modtran versions on the Chicago and modtran.spectral sites appear to give different results for CO2 forcing.
Can anyone explain this?
Using the 1976 atmosphere and 300ppm versus 600ppm the temperature increase to get the same outgoing value is 0.7 for the Chicago version but 2.0 for the modtran.spectral.
A year or so ago I sent a “tongue in cheek” letter to the RAS Observatory Magazine. This is a less serious publication by the RAS that has Meeting reports and a very good section of book reviews.
They refused to print it. So my questions therefore remain unanswered. As this is an “Open Thread” I am posting it to see what thoughts others might have and if anyone out there with more knowledge than me could answer some of the questions.
————————————————————————————
Universes, Black Holes and an Engineer
One of the few benefits of the Covid Lockdowns was the chance to clear the piles of un-read books. One such book was “The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook” 1. In this the science behind the Big Bang is laid out in a form of challenges that deniers (skeptics) of the Big Bang must address to prove their case. On page 223 the authors, Luke A Barnes and Geraint F Lewis, state that in querying the Big Bang “… retired engineers are significantly over-represented among amateur cosmologists.” Having had an interest in Astronomy since I was knee high to a 2-inch refractor in the 1940’s, acquired a fascination with cosmology from my almost first astronomy book, “Frontiers to Astronomy” by Fred Hoyle in late 1950’s and then working for over 40 years, mainly in Civil Engineering with a dash of Astronautical Engineering, I feel well suited to turn the accepted theories of the Universe on their heads.
But I realise my astrophysical knowledge is severely lacking and so have refrained from doing this. Alternately I have set out some facts and questions for which I know not the answers in the hope that answers can be provided. Remember, as an Engineer, I will be wearing mainly a Newtonian Hat.
The starting of this stems from the well-known fact that the mass of a Black Hole is proportional to the radius of the Event Horizon. Taken to an extreme the approximate mass of the Universe combined with the perceived radius of the Universe is commensurate with the Universe being a Black Hole. This statement appears in many books on Black Holes but never seems to be taken much past a simple observation. For example, a black hole 30 billion light years across would contain about 5 x 1022 solar masses and have about 4 atomic mass units (amu) per cubic metre.
Questions 1. If the Universe is a Black Hole what are conditions like at the Event Horizon? Are they violent or calm? Is the Event Horizon a smooth sphere with a very large radius with a radius constant to a very small variation? What is this variation?
Like any Black Hole the escape velocity at the Event Horizon will be the speed of light.
Question 2. What happens when an object falls through the Event Horizon?
An object the size of the Earth will increase the Black Hole’s mass and hence it’s radius by a few centimetres. The mass of the Sun by a few kilometres and the mass of a galaxy by billions of kilometres. The gravity gradient outside such a large black hole will be small so for most objects spaghettification will not be a problem.
Questions 3. Are the changes in radius instantaneous over the complete Event Horizon? Or do they ripple around the surface (“Wrinkles in Time”, I feel a Nobel Prize coming on!!)? Is there a range of sizes to these ripples that depends on the size of the object entering? Are these damped out over time?
Moving up the mass scale the object colliding could be an equally large Universe. Two such Universes would form a single Black Hole with double the mass and twice the radius of each individual Universe.
Question 4. Does this merging take place instantaneously with the 2 event horizons forming one?
Thinking Newtonian, the merging would take place just as the 2 bodies touched. If 3 such bodies met, less likely but possible, they would not even need to touch but have gaps between them many billions of light years wide. For example, 3 black holes with a radius of 100 billion light years would form a black hole with a radius of 300 billion light years when the mutual gaps were still more than 140 billion light years. 4 such bodies at the nodes of a tetrahedron would have even bigger gaps at the time of merger. There are many examples of multi galaxy collisions so why not multi universe collisions.
Two particles, one in each of two of the colliding universes, could be 100’s of billions of light years apart but would both now be in the combined single black hole.
What happens next depends on the distribution of matter in the individual black holes (universes).
Question 5. How is matter distributed in a universe?
We only have (limited) knowledge of 1 universe, the one we reside in.
Questions 6. Could there be a classification scheme akin to that used with Galaxies where there are elliptical, spiral or irregular distributions? Are the universes spinning? Is there a central smaller, say 1012 or 1015 solar masses for example, central black hole? Could the Universe we live in be the Black Hole at the centre of an extremely large spiral Universe analogous with the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy?
Many simulations exist for colliding galaxies.
Question 7. Can results of these simulations be applied to colliding universes?
In these simulations as the two galaxies pass each other great arms and sheets of stars get ejected from the system. These passes will occur on a repeating pattern before the inner dense regions merge leaving a super dense region or very large black hole reminiscent to the Great Attractor. Each pass will send out consecutive groups of stars (galaxies) at different velocities. This could form redshift quantization and as the masses of the passing galaxies (universe) reduced would possibly eject stars (galaxies) at reducing velocities producing a pattern associated with an expanding universe. This is akin to the work of Halton Arp.
Another topic of Black Holes that concerns me as an engineer is the question of Singularities. In engineering singularities appear in many forms when analysing structures but do not occur in practise. For example, a sharp notch in a column would, mathematically, cause an infinite stress but, the material would change from elastic to plastic or might crack negating the singularity. This is akin to applying unknown New Physics to the Black Hole singularity concept.
Question 8. Why do we accept what is in essence a mathematical concept?
We have now reached a situation of a Universe of Universes.
Question 9. Can there be a next, and subsequent infinite number of stages.
For example, a universe with 1033 Solar Masses would have a radius of about 3 times 1020 light years and 1 amu every 1020 cubic metres. The latter equates to 1 amu in every cube nearly 5000 kilometres along each edge. It seems hard to imagine a volume of space with a radius of 3 times 1020 light years having the odd atom or so in a volume approximately the size of the Earth but is still a Black Hole.
But why stop there. The process can be progressed an infinite number of times until we reach an infinite “ultimate universe” with a zero density even though it has atoms/stars/galaxies/universes infinitely spaced. (No wonder I can’t sleep at night). This forms a Fractal Universe – Nature loves fractals.
Question 10. What are the consequences of this? We have an infinite universe with matter in it but a zero density.
Question 11. Or should I stick with engineering?
Lots of questions, not many answers. But when they all have been answered let’s turn to the much more difficult subject – the mathematical modelling of concrete. Where’s Einstein when you want him!!
Dr Alan K Welch FRAS FBIS
Ledbury
Herefordshire
References
(1) Luke A Barnes and Geraint F Lewis, The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook (Or: How to Beat the Big Bang), (Cambridge), 2020
I should go with Question 11!
Thanks for selecting question 11. Unfortunately I have been retired for nearly 30 years. As Henry David Thoreau said “The Devil finds work for idle hands”. Unfortunately in Cosmology as in Climate Change there is an accepted science and it shall not be queried. Many of my questions are legitimate questions but do indicate a querying of the excepted big bang theory. Just read about the shunning of Halton Arp who gave up the restricted regime in the USA and moved to Europe. My questioning of the big bang theory involves a degree of Interdisciplinary Science which I am a great fan of.
I am also retired and love to read SCIENCE. Real science
You have touched on a critical point – cosmology lost contact with he lab and engineering as Dr. Lerner shows, and even that open repository ArXiv now censors :
https://www.lppfusion.com/censored-papers-demolish-the-big-bang-hypothesis/
The way back to reality is with a huge challenge, fusion, which powers the cosmos after all :
The Big Bang Never Happened Debate 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_P9lFctj0&list=LL&index=51&t=567s
Einstein is as always very much smiling – and there are new predictions :
1) a maximum possible red-shift – double what JWST so far observes
2) full explanation for the non-linear red-shift , and more …
These papers use the Russian master relativist Zelmanov’s methods (toughest tensor calculus I have ever seen!).
Hawking and co. attended lectures there during the Cold War.
The recent discovery that there were very large galaxies at an early date is going to shake up cosmology.
The Cosmological Priesthood (after all Lamaitre of the Bang was a priest) call these galaxies “universe breakers”, when in fact they are theory breakers. See Lerner’s link just above for the numbers.
There was plenty of evidence prior to the findings of Webb that the big bang is a big joke.
Sure, but it’s still a good theory that answers a lot of questions- like the red shift as you look in all directions, implying the universe is expanding. If it’s expanding it must have been very small at some time. The now understood fact that some large galaxies formed very early- doesn’t disprove the big bang- though it goes against theories as to how they formed. Certainly we’re just beginning to understand the cosmos- baby steps. That’s why I want some ETs to land and tell us what they know. 🙂
May I add a comment. “the red shift as you look in all directions, implying the universe is expanding”. The Universe could move apart without it starting with a big bang. If you look at simulations of colliding galaxies they produce successive shells of stars being ejected each time the 2 galaxies approach each other. This can look like expansion but is a result of successive close approaches.
The Hubble non-linear red-shift is not Doppler. Even Hubble himself never believed that.
In Harlow Shapley’s Harvard cosmology course in the 1950’s I argued that the red shift might not be doppler. He gave me an A for my paper.
“Harlow Shapley”
There’s a name I haven’t seen in a while. 🙂
I read somewhere that “tired light” has been proposed as an alternative – i.e. that the photons lose energy when traveling making it appear like red shift. It would only be observable over cosmic scales.
I think any such theory would have to provide an explanation for the lost energy. I don’t know if that’s been done.
No opinion on this, just sharing something I read.
And if these aliens work like the CIA (can’t let the possible threat humans present go unchallenged), what we receive from them might only be misinformation. Where would that leave human science?
Someone was not joking to spend $11 billion on a really beautiful telescope to look precisely at that red-shift. JWST is so busy they will restart Spitzer (in warm mode) to take up the load. And we have ALMA, VLT to double check.
The key item, red-shift, is dealt with using oly General Relativity – papers available. No plasma effect produces cosmological non-linear red-shift.
Sure, Lerner’s book from 30 years ago, The Big Bang Never Happened, details and is proven now correct.
No Big Bang, no Dark Matter, no dark Energy, means the cosmos is of vast age. Which means it did not run down, but developed – it is not a machine.
Here are a few to think about:
A1: The “if” is entirely speculative, no one knows this to be true.
A2: No one knows what happens at or inside an event horizon. TMK the only structure that has been verified are the “jets” of X-rays that shoot out of the poles of a spinning BH.
That black holes are or form separate universes is speculation, in the realm of science fiction. It is akin to wondering about what happened or existed “prior” to the initial expansion of the universe. Because time is a part of space-time, the question actually make no sense, there was no time.
I feel your reply assumes the Big Bang Theory is the correct theory whereas I am trying to widen the debate. I could easily say the Big bang theory is “entirely speculative, no one knows this to be true”. You use terms like “initial expansion of the universe” which preempts any debate.
The term “big bang” isn’t used in modern cosmology, instead it has become a bit of a straw man description. It implies there was a “something” that at a certain point in time “exploded”, resulting in the universe that we exist in. But this is not what physics has been able to determine.
The expansion has been verified by microwave astronomy, i.e. the cosmic background 2.7K radiation, and has been sorted to be consistent with both general relativity and particle physics (a huge topic condensed into just a few words).
re- ‘there was no time’: Could there be more than one time? ie, was there a point when the time we know wasn’t but other times were, had been, or will be. Is one time necessarily associated with only one space.
It is possible, but there is no way know without any observable evidence. 100 years ago there was zero knowledge of the early universe.
Current knowledge of the early universe resulted from the astronomical observation that objects outside of our galaxy are all in receding motion, and that the speed is proportional to the distance from Earth. The proportionality is called the Hubble constant which was initially discovered by measuring the red shift of light.
https://www.sciencealert.com/hubble-constant
Paradoxically, from cosmology, every point in the universe is in motion away from every other point, and that every point of observation is the center of the universe!
To me our real problem lies with thinking that mass (m) can be created from energy (E).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Goes on all the time….
“Light–matter interaction
Low-energy phenomena:Photoelectric effectMid-energy phenomena:Thomson scatteringCompton scatteringHigh-energy phenomena:Pair productionPhotodisintegrationPhotofissionvte
Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particleand its antiparticle from a neutral boson”
The article says it is something (pair of subatomic particle and anti) from something (a boson).
Not something from energy only.
Energy is quantized, the photon of wavy light is a boson. Planck turned the world upside down in 1901 – his Planck Constant, h for Hilfe help, means we never go back. The photon has no rest-mass, always propagates at light speed where it is at. It has relativistic mass-energy, remember e=mc**2 ?
After Planck, followed the even more subversive Einstein and DeBroglie.
Here at WUWT Dr. Happer used Planck’s energy curve, and I firmly believe the entire climate so-called controversy is still stuck pre-Planck.
This energy function , critical to climate, can only exist due to quantization.
My hypothesis is that the universe is infinite in both size and age. Over time gravity concentrates matter into black holes which continually increase in mass and density but there is a limit. At some point the density/mass reach a critical limit similar to radioactive elements used in nuclear weapons. Once reached the gigantic black hole which at that point contains most all of the mass of the observable universe collapses into a singularity and explodes in a truly big bang converting everything to energy and starting new universe cycle. I also postulate that the universe critical mass is only a portion of the actual infinite universe so if we could see far enough we’d see galaxies that existed outside the portion that collapsed and exploded to create our locally observable universe.
Perhaps the well formed old galaxies seen by the JWST at ~13 Billion light years away are just galaxies that were outside the area that formed our universe.
PS: I’m an engineer also so I have a hard time with the idea of a singularity appearing from nowhere and time not starting until the Big Bang. Seems rather like just saying “in the beginning there was nothing then God made a singularity”.
Was it a new/recent youtube ‘discovery’ that set you off?
I came on one and it got me going
Its very simple why they cannot exist and the Event Horizon is it..
It comes from ‘terminal velocity’ and ‘escape velocity’ for objects in space’
They have the same value.
Terminal velocity being = the speed you hit the surface of an object had you started at infinite distance and allowed Gravity to pull you in.
For Black Hole and as Escape Velocity = Terminal velocity, when yo fall into a black hole you are by definition, travelling a light speed.
Seems simple enough.
But, experiments have shown that Mass is Energy (its how stars work) and the problem is that for any object (real object with mass) to be accelerated to light speed would require infinite energy and the object would have infinite mass when it crossed the Event Horizon on the way in
This absurd because:
If the universe came from Big Bang, it is finite and thus cannot contain the infinite energy required to accelerate the infalling particle(s)If however the particle did achieve light speed as it crossed the horizon, it would endow the Black Hole with infinite massSo when scientists tell us there are “hundreds of black holes in our galaxy alone” they are making a total mockery of the concept of Infinity(If each and every black hole gained infinite mass every time even just a single proton fell in – what meaning does “2, 10, 100 or 1 million black holes” have) – What is a million times infinity any more than 2 times infinity?The way out of it (my theory) comes from Time Dilation.
As the infalling particles accelerates, time as seen by it slows to a crawl – meaning time stops (for the particle) when it crosses the event horizon (at light speed)
But it then ‘fall foul’ of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
(The basis for Hawking’s Theory of how black holes evaporate)
We saw the Heisenberg Joke on here recently:
What it means is that at light speed and with a stopped clock, the product of the particle’s ‘time of existence’ multiplied by its mass gives a result smaller than Heisenberg’s Constant (2pi e minus 32)
This means that the infalling particle, as seen by us, simply vanishes in the vacuum of space at the instant it gets to the Event Horizon
So Hawking, with his Hawking Radiation was nearly correct – its just that the Hawking Radiation is created by the particles as they fall in- and not as they try to, do actually, escape.
They simultaneously fall in AND escape at the Event Horizon.
But we cannot see Hawking Radiation – not least as it is simultaneously everywhere and nowhere – all the time and as defined by Heisenberg.
Hence, Black Holes are black. As we see them.
But if we could stop Time – they’d be dazzlingly white.
End result= There is perfectly nothing inside a Black Hole,
Even if you just say that nothing can ever ‘catch’ the event horizon (nothing can ever go fast enough)
It’s Time Dilation that does that – the Event Horizon, as seen by infalling particles, is receding as fast as they fall.
They never can catch up -even though its not moving (as we see it) and it is Heisenberg that delivers them from their, and our, conundrum.
It dawned, you were maybe right in that the Universe is Just One Humongous Black Hole – exactly because it is filled with Heisenberg/Hawking radiation.
(Particles popping in and out of existence that we cannot see)
i.e. The Universe is just one huuuuuuge Event Horizon but has 3 xyz dimensions because it has Time with finite speed –
As opposed to what we think as an Event Horizon with only 2 dimensions (a spherical shell) and time at zero speed.
So the inside of a Black Hole is actually = Normal Space
Now tell me you’re surprised, it’s not the first time us humans have got something/anything completely ass-backwards now is it?
Holy shit, that explains why light travels at the speed it does, (that vacuums have electrical & magnetic ‘properties’)
The Hawking radiation causes that.
Ohhhhh God, what speed does light travel at inside a black hole – if it really is a true perfect vacuum and property-less space?
All very fine and dandy, except Hawking, the Black Hole guy, wrote they do not exist in 2014 :
Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes
S. W. Hawking
It has been suggested [1] that the resolution of the information paradox for evaporating black holes is that the holes are surrounded by firewalls, bolts of outgoing radiation that would destroy any infalling observer. Such firewalls would break the CPT invariance of quantum gravity and seem to be ruled out on other grounds. A different resolution of the paradox is proposed, namely that gravitational collapse produces apparent horizons but no event horizons behind which information is lost. This proposal is supported by ADS-CFT and is the only resolution of the paradox compatible with CPT. The collapse to form a black hole will in general be chaotic and the dual CFT on the boundary of ADS will be turbulent. Thus, like weather forecasting on Earth, information will effectively be lost, although there would be no loss of unitarity.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761
“The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity. There are however apparent horizons which persist for a period of time. “
If the universe is a black hole, then presumably it is a black hole in a universe just like all the black holes we talk about are in our universe. That then suggests that there are universes inside each black hole. ie, it’s universes all the way down. (That’s the same as saying it’s black holes all the way down, because the universe is a black hole).
What if the black hole that is the universe is somewhere in our universe? Recursive universes! 🙂
Regarding question 2, what happens when an object falls through the event horizon: I’m no expert. Just an amateur with an interest in this stuff.
Seems to me that in the entire history of the universe nothing has ever made it past the event horizon. As you know, from the perspective of an outside observer time slows down for an object approaching the event horizon and freezes to zero at the event horizon. From the outside observer’s perspective every object that has ever fallen into a black hole is frozen unmoving trapped at the event horizon and won’t ever pass through the event horizon until an infinite amount of time has passed.
From the perspective of the object as soon as it falls through the event horizon it will be met by a enormous blast of radiation and will explode back out into normal space as a rain of sub-atomic particles. As you know if given enough time Hawkings radiation at the event horizon will eventually make a black hole disappear. While Hawking radiation might take billions of years from the perspective of the outside observer, from the perspective of the object falling into the black hole billions of years of radiation are blasting out in an instant of time.
I think these ideas are original with me but I’m not sure. Please be kind. I’m not a professional physicist.
It’s not likely. Anyone who has studied black holes in conjunction with General Relativity would know about the time dilation with regards to the event horizon.
Has there only ever been one big bang, or is it a cyclical thing with multiple big bangs? If the latter, then it contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics, unless there is something outside the universe that influences it (that’s a tricky concept given the definition of the universe). Or is this question from under a Newtonian hat.
If we were living in a blackhole…..1 minute reading to show we aren’t.
If you consider an observation of particles on the outside of a blackhole. All can escape and travel outwards, IF they have sufficient velocity. An example being the jets at the poles of some blackholes.
At the event horizon, only a particle traveling at OR BEYOND the speed of light can escape and hence be observed by anything outside of the EH. Theory dictates that nothing goes faster than light. Inside the event horizon, nothing can escape, so it can’t be observed on the outside. In fact it’s ability to be observed is only applicable to observers who are somehow static within the BH and are hit by the falling object as they descend. Inside a BH, you can’t be hit by anything falling out from the centre, since the escape velocity keeps rising and you would need to be going faster than the speed of light.
So, inside a BH, you would observe some particles falling onto you from the EH but you would NOT observe anything coming up at you from the centre. In other words, the sky would be dark on at least 50% of the observable sphere, increasing as you went deeper.
Since our observations are similar in all directions, we therefore CANNOT be inside a BH.
Great questions. RAS should have published.
The discovery of Tom Shula that the most significant heat transfer in the lower part of the atmosphere (< 35 km) is done by convection actually make good sense to me. Calculating the Greenhouse effect as done in the presentation of Markus Ott ( https://youtu.be/JXKHfL55G2A ), using the experience from the Divine Lunar Project, actually gives a much lower Greenhouse effect close to zero. Previously Willis has shown by analyzing the data from the CERES satellites showing that from temperature above -2C water vapor has a cooling effect.
Isn’t it time for a revision of the Greenhouse model showing all the assumption and flaws of the “official” model. I would appreciate a discussion here arguing how the corrected Greenhouse model should look like.
Convective instability limits ocean surface temperature to a sustainable 30C. It can overshoot before convective instability sets in and there are a few regions of the ocean near land where cyclic convection is disrupted whereby a Level of Free Convection cannot form. Persian Gulf in August is the best example of the 30C limit being substantially exceeded and no instability setting in.
The reason the limit is 30C is related to the altitude of the LFC approaching the altitude of freezing, which means reflective clouds become persistent. That limit is a function solely of the atmospheric mass and the buoyancy of water vapour in air. A 5% increase in atmospheric mass will increase the limiting temperature by 1C. So doubling CO2 from 285ppm will increase the limit by 0.006C. The lower limit for ocean water of -1.7C is less sensitive to atmospheric mass.
A week ago, the ocean off the Phillipines was above 30C:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/22/0000Z/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-218.69,2.25,373/loc=134.451,15.327
This week is now under 30C:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/27/0000Z/ocean/surface/level/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-218.69,2.25,373/loc=134.451,15.327
The reason is quite obvious. Then realise that cyclones are spun up through convective instability before they become self-sustaining. And they liberate a huge amount of latent heat from the ocean surface.
You can go back to May 10 in the Bay of Bengal and watch the same process play out:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/10/0000Z/ocean/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-266.13,18.98,373/loc=89.116,13.918
Different oceans but same temperature limit.
There is no location on Earth where the cumulative top of atmosphere radiation imbalance reflects the surface temperature. ToA radiation imbalance and surface temperature are completely uncorrelated at any location and there is no reason to believe they should be correlated across the globe. The climate system is fundamentally a system of heat transfer shifting energy absorbed in the tropics poleward. Convection/advection power flux is measured in hundreds of KILLOWATTS so immensely more powerful than any delicate radiative balance measured in hundreds of watts:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2023/05/27/0000Z/wind/isobaric/250hPa/overlay=wind_power_density/orthographic=-158.37,-28.31,373/loc=-138.255,-36.605
The notion that radiative forcing of fractions of a watt can accumulate in the Earth system are nothing short of absurd nonsense.
This induced a chuckle…
Ukraine has completed more onshore wind turbines than England since it was occupied by Russian soldiers – despite the UK’s government’s promise to relax restrictions on onshore wind farms.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/28/ukraine-built-more-onshore-wind-turbines-last-year-than-england
Not hard to do when there is a ban on onshore wind farm development in the UK.
In the same vein: Ukranian refugee goes back for dentist appointment.
The health services – especially dental – are totally fnucked.
In the middle of the pandemic my dentist got in touch…. if I didn’t make an appointment – ie cough up £25 + I would be removed from the patient list.
I told them to sod off.
Impossible to believe anything about Ukraine – there is a war there after all, and truth is as always the first victim.
Their grid is totally destroyed, and the largest nuclear plant in Europe, ZNPP, is being shelled by madmen,
On top of that Britain’s Depleted Uranium shells delivered were pulverized at the stockpile, sending a DU dust wind all accross Europe, picked up with the old Chernobyl monitoring net, even in London.
As they say, sow the wind, reap the DU whirlwind!
What you can believe is a proxy war of attrition.
A raft of MSM is now acknowledging that :
From WSJ 25 May 2023
https://archive.is/zPFVT
Horrendous KIA numbers.
Don’t forget the two turbines erected last year by Keele University 🙂
2 wind turbines, 12,500 solar panels and an ‘industrial sized’ storage battery all designed by EQUAN, built and run by Engie under a 25 year contract with Keele University. The nameplate capacity is widely reported to be about half of the campus’ electricity needs so it’ll be interesting to see what it actually produces and how long it’ll last.
EV Illusions.
Illusions
I’m still following the crowd-(under)funded pole-to-pole jolly. They just made a massive diversion eastward and are now retracing their route. Along the way they are demonstrating the utility of EVs in the Arctic to my complete satisfaction. (Still no word on their “innovative solution” to charging when there is no handy dealer.)
I should have made it clear I am referring to these pioneers: https://poletopoleev.com/
I believe they are towing a wind turbine and have solar panels.
I don’t believe it’s adequate, so would question what their backup team is driving/towing
I am totally confused about “Climate Change”.
I have always believed that the climate of earth changes due to many variables, such as the sun, magnetic poles, etc., and humans do not control these many things that cause climate fluctuations.
It seems, according to many, that it is controlled by suspect computerised climate models and a bunch of elite WEF oxygen sucking carbon life forms zapping around the globe in their private jets
Finally I got the “WORD” from the burning bush!!
“Change my mind” as the memes say
LOL! Unfortunately the WOKE do not wake up!
https://joannenova.com.au/2023/05/this-is-what-mind-control-looks-like/
Mainstream media is now the backwater. We are the news.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eu-official-threatens-twitter-pulling-out-anti-disinfo-pact
EU DSA Disinformation czar Thierry Breton has threatened to personally hold Musk to account for failure to comply.-
the iron fist in the velvet glove!
“EU DSA Disinformation czar Thierry Breton”
Czar of Disinformation.
Every authoritarian government needs one.
In the case of the United States, there is a Disinformation Czar in every newsroom. Well, almost every newsroom. Some shoot straight, but not many.
Fox shot straight at the foot, when it fired Tucker.
I miss Tucker.
Well, actually he wasn’t fired. He still is employed by Fox, but his show is off the air. It apparently has something to do with the Fox-Dominion lawsuit.
Jo Nova’s site is usually pretty good. However the comments on this one were a little far-fetched: Tommy Robinson was arrested and jailed not for his views on grooming gangs, but because his actions threatened a mistrial and possible release for the perpetrators. His miserable excuses in his self-aggrandising book notwithstanding, Tommy Robinson was the problem, no-one else.
Thanks to all who helped continue to protect the freedom we hold dear.
Have a grand Memorial Day and remember at least one who helped. My dad was in WWII.
The CO2 Causes “Climate Change” Scam is a direct attack on our FREEDOM.
Sites like this one which defend data-driven science with mostly lukewarm, ineffective, writing do far more to aid and abet the enemies of freedom than to defeat their lies.
Tomorrow, remember what was given to defend freedom. Remember and HONOR those who gave “some” and those who gave “all.”
Honor them with powerful, effective, defense of data-driven, bona fide, science.
The obsession with renewables, by the government and the green lobbyists, is becoming excessive. They get all the air time, TV & radio, but those of us who appreciate or understand the issues, are kept quiet. Although there are some media platforms, where we do get some exposure. Even so, on such instances, we are bombarded with the fiscal myth of renewables, and of the nirvana we shall reap, if we hold true.
As we know, such knowledgeable people like Prof Michael Kelly, Christopher Monckton et al. have shown that the ‘dream’ is unachievable, both physically and economically. The significant limitations of renewables, will demand massive investment in infrastructure, and likewise raw materials, and ever-increasing layers of complexity, in the infrastructure in an attempt to manage the inherent unreliability of the system, resulting in ever more spiralling costs etc.
Isn’t it now time to hit these zealots with the good old acronym KISS? And stating that simpler things works, cost less, and will deliver on our needs.
Natural gas is the ultimate renewable. It burns clean, burning four hydrogen atoms for each carbon atom; producing two water molecules for each CO2 molecule. The technology for producing natural gas for power production has been around for years. Think about it’s production in waste treatment plants and landfills. How much could be produced for power at hog farms and feed lots. But why should we invest in producing it when nature has already provided us with so much of it?
The economic way is to increase fracking, and build more pipelines and LNG terminals.
I’m with you on all of that, Fred.
‘My son’s climate anxiety is escalating’
This is a headline I saw this week.
It was in a parenting column.
Here is the advice given by child-adult psychotherapist Joanna Fortune:
The most important thing is to ensure the son does not feel alone in his anxiety.
“Climate change is frightening enough, but what you need to know is that you’re not alone,” Joanna said.
She also suggested finding climate activists the son can meet to learn about managing his anxieties.
“Someone like Friends of the Earth can really validate his concerns and root them in science, but also give proactive solutions.”
Just think about what this woman’s advice means:
If you are having problems with delusions find a friend in an asylum with a similar problem that can validate your concerns.
I would sooner send him to a fortune teller. 😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_System_of_Doctor_Tarr_and_Professor_Fether
Edgar Poe’s story of the asylum using the System of Tarr and Fether tells me the therapist reads too!
“validate his concerns and root them in science”
Validate them in mumbo jumbo, would be more accurate.
Any young person who feels climate anxiety should be given a copy of Asimov’s “Nightfall” to show them what scientific ignorance can do to the masses.
And after they read Asimov’s book, direct them over to WUWT where they can alleviate their fears about CO2, and then they can get angry at those who are spreading scary lies about CO2 and scaring the children with their talk of certain CO2 doom.
Don’t believe them, kids! They have no evidence proving any of the dire claims they make about CO2. The only thing that is really disrupting your lives is the Climate Alarmist Hysteria, not the Climate itself.
The climate is doing just fine, and so are you, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Of all the crimes committed by the Climate Alarmists, scaring the children over a non-existant CO2 crisis is one of the worst.
“Just think about what this woman’s advice means:
If you are having problems with delusions find a friend in an asylum with a similar problem that can validate your concerns.”
First you need a delusional psychologist to suggest all this.
This is called “the blind leading the blind”. Both will fall into the ditch.
Infrasound from wind farms is reputed to be biologically toxic. If this is true, then agricultural productivity in their vicinity should show decreased productivity. Is there any information on things like milk production, health status to pigs or sheep, or horses, egg production, and so on?
Wind farms are simply toxic – look at Holland. They will expropriate 3000+ farms to make way for them. Then those now silent farms will produce nothing.
QED.
I’ve heard, that the farmland, is being expropriated, so that they can build a Euro city, that spans three borders.
Sounds even more toxic.
This Euro stuff goes on all the time – a mere few years ago a huge fanfare about a Research Triangle covering Maastricht, Aachen, Eindhoven, evaporated into thin air when instead they bailed out the banks in 2008. The Research city did then open in Shanghai. The oncoming blowout will dwarf that – look at Credit Suisse, evaporated already.
They’re also developing Frankfurt centre, as they plan to make it the biggest financial centre in Europe, with an eye on taking over ours
With a view on EU bailouts. Switzerland took on $260 billion debt at Uncle Sam’s, sorry Uncle FED’s request. Berlin will get a second NordStream request from Uncle Joe :
So London is likely quite happy to hand back Deutsche Bank.
Without evidence, I wouldn’t believe everything you hear
Infrasound biological effects, researched at least since the origin of NASA,have been shown, and consistently replicated in controlled experiments, to produce changes in two types of connective tissues common in humans and other animals. Reports of extensive fetal abnormalities, stillbirths, and multiple boidly malfunctions have been swept under the rug,; not even attempted to disprove or debunk.
In this comment to Francis Menton’s latest article, I take a closer look at the EPA’s proposed rule limiting carbon emissions from fossil-fueled power plants:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/05/27/at-checc-were-down-but-not-out/#comment-3727011
NASA’s Hansen published a paper in 2012 that showed the irradiance from the sun varied cyclically by about 0.25 W/m2, with a period of about a decade. What a great way to determine the climate’s response to warming. Using the CERES satellite data on the earth’s energy imbalance, we should be able to see the total effect. The “consensus” seems to be that a 1 degree increase from CO2 doubling is amplified to 3 degrees. This means we should see a sinusoidal curve in the EEI graph of about 0.75 W/m2, roughly comparable to the total EEI. But we don’t see this level of amplification of heating due to an increase of incoming radiation. In fact, we don’t see any cyclical characteristics at all.
Personally, I suspect clouds are controlling things much more than we realize, but I would love to see what others think about this. Any ideas?
Clouds? You mean the things that can’t be handled with first principles and have to be parameterized with the best subjective guess as to how they behave?
Yeah, those ones!
it just seems like no one is doing a back-of-the-envelop calculation to see the magnitude of the issue. It seems a simple energy analysis shows it’s not a climate crisis, it’s a climate curiosity.
This should be the average annual irradiance, over the period of one orbit (year), the Earth-Sun distance varies by about ±10% = 135W/m2, much larger than 0.25W/m2.
The relative total uncertainty of irradiances measured with thermopile instruments is ±3-4% at best, which translates to absolute uncertainties of several W/m2. Quoting energy balance differences less than 1W/m2 cannot be justified.
A few Open Threads ago, as a last resort, I asked if anyone had info on how to repair a Lionel 282R Gantry crane.
Several offered help but it didn’t apply to the one I had, 6-22998 made around 1999.
A follow up:
A couple of weeks ago I finally got the thing fixed!
Thanks for your willingness to help.
(Now I can have a few kids over to play with it and the trains (One is a Flying Yankee made in 1935) before I pack them all up again.)
How about a pic?
Back in the days of DOS and early Windows, I was a T-Rex compared to my peers.
Now I’m just a dinosaur. I don’t know how to upload a picture. I don’t even have a cell phone.
I don’t have a layout. I inherited parts of my Dad’s amazing layout.
(Scale models of his childhood home and train stations that had a connection to his childhood. A working amusement park (but never got the rollercoaster to work right).
4 ZW transformers plus other power … Effects all synced to music. Block system for the trains so 8 could run on the same track without starting and stopping till it got to be annoying. He had a little spot where kids could crawl under the layout and operate a few things off a separate small transformer. (The crane was never on it. Maybe it never worked right?) All in my and my brothers old bedroom and expanded into the attic. When he died, we had to sell the house and split it up between the 8 of us.)
But here’s a clip of someone else’s crane in action.
https://youtu.be/PvGDDXcsHfM
I’ll add, I hadn’t watched the clip I put up beyond to first minute or two.
You’ll hear cows in the background. Dad had 3 cars that made animal sounds. Cows, chickens and pigs. The greater the motion, the louder the animals. I don’t have any of them.
As much as I miss the layout, I miss my Dad more. He died 2001. 50 years in private practice as a Pediatrician. Never retired.
“I don’t know how to upload a picture.”
It’s real easy. I learned how to do this a couple of weeks ago.
Once you get a picture on your computer, you can then post that picture by using the little icon at the lower right of the comment box. Click on the icon and direct it to the location of the picture on your computer, highlight it, and the picture will be uploaded to the WP server and will appear in your comment.
Thanks!
It was right in front of me.
Here’s one from about 25 years ago.
(The hardware’s a bit dated.)
OMG – you are the spitting image of Mom and Dad!
Your’s or mine? 😎 😎
“It was right in front of me.”
Yeah, me, too! And I didn’t notice. 🙂 And then along came a nice person who explained it all.
Explained it all?
Was “it all” 42? 😎
(Thanks for the tip. Mods, fear not. Tom didn’t just create a monster.)
I love Lionel trains, but they are too big for my area. Alas, it’s HO for me, but that, too, is too big.
If you want to set up a layout, you might want to consider “N” scale.
https://www.trains.com/mrr/beginners/model-train-scales-explained/
At my age, “N” scale is really too small. I have bought lots of “HO” scale stuff and have committed to a table of that extent. My current biggest problem is laying cork under turnouts.
Maybe this will help.
I did a quick search for “cork under turnouts”.
Here’s a sampling of the hits from the first page.
https://youtu.be/rTs_snxcHgw
https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/181088.aspx
https://www.modeltrainforum.com/threads/laying-cork-roadbed-under-turnouts.53417/post-680465
There were a few YouTube things and a number of articles.
Thanks for the links GD. I’m a member of NMRA and some other model railroad organizations. I know how to do it, I just have the problem of wanting to do it.
😎
“Been there. (Too often, Not) Done that.” 😎
Just keep it fun.
I’ll post this on every Open Thread Until we get an acceptable answer. Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures. What do you get when you can actually tie the change is CO2 to the change in temperature? CO2 has no impact on temperature…none. Why? Because 15-micron LWIR is consistent with the energy of a -80 C BlackBody. Someone, please explain why temperatures aren’t increasing in Antarctica and the other hot dry, and cold deserts.
Link
Not sure is the areas where the ice cores are drilled are at elevations, but there are plenty of sea level locations not showing warming. Do the laws of physics cease to exist at these locations? Note, that is a satellite measure of the South Pole so the altitude argument doesn’t hold water.
Link to many sites that show no clear warming trend
This is the link, Clearly, there is no established uptrend. There is volatility, but it clearly isn’t associated with CO2. Link
I’ve made this point 1,000x and this video should be featured on every Climate Change Website. Finally, someone applied the scientific method to scientific data.
Malcolm Roberts of Queensland
https://youtu.be/yuz4DFhLP2g
1) The whole purpose of choosing the S Pole is to control for the Urban Heat Island Effect and H2O. It is a natural control for UHI and H2O allowing for an experiment that isolates the impact of CO2 on Temperatures.
2) No all of the area covered by the Satellite data is at elevation. While your comments are relevant to some parts of the measured area, there are plenty of there areas that show no warming and are not at elevation. The last chart posted shows that all of America has experienced no warming since the late 1800s.
3) Almost all dry and cold deserts show no warming, elevated or not.
Water vapor is associated with clouds. Jet stream changes have reduced the cloud cover over the oceans. More visible radiation has been reaching the oceans, and that is why the oceans and the globe has been warming. CO2 has nothing to do with it, and the data shows that. There is a much more obvious explanation as to why the oceans and the globe are warming. Blaming CO2 is pure sophistry.
CO2 doesn’t oscillate, it trends. No way can CO2 explain the variability in temperatures. CO2 also varies +/- on an annual basis, yet no annual variation is noted in the temperatures.
Here is another graphic of the US showing no warming trend. How could this large of an area show no warming? Note: 1900, 1915, 1935 and others are far above temperatures in 1977, 1979, 2000, etc etc etc. There is no uptrend in temperatures.
Link
4) Look at the Hockey Stick Chart, it doglegs or has an inflection point in 1902. Nothing about the quantum mechanics of a CO2 molecule or trend in CO2 changed in 1902. CO2 would never cause an abrupt and rapid increase in temperatures without an abrupt and rapid change in trend. That didn’t happen in 1902. The only thing that happened in 1902 was instrumental data was added to the data set.
5) A 1 Degree C increase in temperatures would simply make Michigan have the average temperature of Ohio, and make parts of Siberia into a vast new farmland. The benefits of more CO2 (higher yields) and warmer temperatures, more arable farmland, far outweigh the imaginary costs of higher CO2 levels.
6) There isn’t a single socioeconomic metric that shows mankind getting worse over the past 100 years of warming temperatures except those related to a longer life expectancy and wealthy living like diabetes.
7) There is a direct correlation between the number of Climate Agreements and Climate spending and the trend in CO2. MOre spending has resulted in higher CO2 🙂
8) Bleached coral reefs are often replanted and return to healthy proving that it wasn’t CO2 or warming that changed but more incoming sun light beaching them, If it was due to CO2, they would not recover.
Much better to say, sure CO2 does have an effect, and doubling it from today’s levels makes an immeasurable difference. CO2 at zero means extinction of all life on the planet. Dr. Happer made this point very clear :
However, the seasonal variations at the SP are the smallest of all. They get larger as one moves towards the NP.
Interesting point. Does the quantum mechanics of the CO2 molecule change from N to S Pole? Nope. What changes from the N to S Pole? 1) More land in the N Pole 2) different humidity in the N vs S pole. Real science look for changes, nothing in CO2 or the quantum mechanics change from N to S Pole. CO2 can’t cause those changes.
All good points, but how do we get the world to listen? Even the demonized oil companies are ignoring the truth about the dreaded “emissions” (Oh, horror!). “Climatology” is pure quackery and is, perhaps, a mortal threat to humanity.
““Climatology” is pure quackery and is, perhaps, a mortal threat to humanity.”
I would say yes to both.
I’ve been following climate alarmist claims for decades and it is just amazing how wrong thes people have been over this time, and yet they still carry on like they know what they are doing.
It has gotten to the point of being a mass delusion, helped no doubt, by the ability of those who own the Big Megaphone of Society to talk to everyone in the world, and unfortnately, many people are easily influenced into believing things that are not true, or in the case of human-caused climate change, there is no evidence supporting such claims.
And there is a lot of evidence refuting those CO2 claims such as the written, unmodified temperature record of the past which shows it isn’t any warmer today than it was in the recent past even though CO2 concentrations are much larger today than in the past. That should tell a logical person that CO2 has had little effect on the temperatures over the years. Not enough to measure.
“Antarctica is a great control for the urban heat island effect and water vapor. The location is ideal for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures.”
Antarctica may be a great control for UHI and water vapour as you say (because it has no urban settlements on it and practically no atospheric water vapour above it) but I think it would be a very poor location for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures simply because it is so cold there. Its deep-frozen state has two consequences which render it useless for that purpose as follows:
1: The CO2 greenhouse effect is supposed to work by recycling some of the energy radiating from the surface back to it, thereby warming the surface above the degree of warmth that it would otherwise possess without the recycled element. But the average amount of energy radiating from the Antarctic surface in the first place is so small that the even smaller fraction of it that got recycled would not add any significant amount to the original surface radiance anyway.
2: In theory, besides the familiar ‘CO2 greenhouse effect’, which is supposed to cause warming, there is also a ‘CO2 negative greenhouse effect’ which is supposed to cause cooling by radiating the energy which the CO2 molecules receive from collisions with other atmospheric molecules away to space. NASA claims to have observed this negative greenhouse effect happening in Earth’s upper atmosphere and at the tops of clouds, where the molecules of CO2 tend to absorb more energy from intermolecular collisions than from surface radiation (which barely exists in the upper atmosphere and on the tops of clouds). Likewise, Antarctica is cold enough to lead theorists to expect that the negative greenhouse effect from CO2 would significantly offset any potential CO2 greenhouse warming (which would be minute to begin with), thereby making the net greenhouse effect occurring on that continent practically zero.
Ideally, I think you really need a hot, dry desert for your control-location, not a cold, dry one like Antarctica.
“I think it would be a very poor location for isolating the impact of CO2 on temperatures simply because it is so cold there. Its deep-frozen state has two consequences which render it useless for that purpose as follows:”
15 Microns is -80 C, so being cold shouldn’t matter. Dry ice will still sublimate at the South Pole.
“15 Microns is -80 C…”
I don’t think so. (Please see my reply to bdgwx here for my calculation of the ‘effective temperature’ of a 15 micron wavelength photon according to the standard rules of orthodox physics.)
Please note, I am not arguing against your view that atmospheric CO2 has no discernible effect on the global mean surface temperature. (Indeed, that is what I think too, although for different reasons to the ones you’ve given.) All I’m saying is that the temperature record for Antarctica can not disprove the orthodox theory of CO2 warming because the orthodox theory itself predicts that no significant warming from atmospheric CO2 will occur in a place as cold as Antarctica anyway.
I went back to my post you linked to here. Sorry I didn’t see your response to it until now. I said a 15 um photon was 82.66 MeV. I meant to type meV with a lower case m. I probably just should have said 0.08 eV and left it at that though.
Thanks John, but help me understand that point. The conventional wisdom is that CO2 shouldn’t caused warming at the S Pole? WHy? DO the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole? Also, why does the same argument not hold for the N Pole? They clearly claim CO2 is warming the N Pole. Anyway, if the argument is that the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole, that isn’t a very convincing argument. That is more sophistry than science.
“The conventional wisdom is that CO2 shouldn’t caused warming at the S Pole? WHy?”
I think the issue is more practical than theoretical. It’s not that the conventional greenhouse theory says CO2 shouldn’t cause any warming at the S. Pole; it says that some CO2 warming should occur, but not enough to be detectable with current state-of-art instrumentation and analytical techniques.
“DO the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole?”
🙂 Not in the worldview of conventional physics, as far as I know.
“Also, why does the same argument not hold for the N Pole? They clearly claim CO2 is warming the N Pole.”
If you are referring to the argument from conventional physics that the amount of direct greenhouse warming from CO2 predicted to occur at the S.Pole would be too small to detect, I think the same argument would apply to the N. Pole as well – at least in principle. I am aware of the climate hysterics’ claim that the CO2-greenhouse effect is warming the Arctic drastically, of course (who could not be?), but I have never seen or heard any credible scientific argument from conventional physics which justifies that claim and it seems quite spurious to me.
“Anyway, if the argument is that the laws of physics cease to exist at the S Pole, that isn’t a very convincing argument. That is more sophistry than science.”
I totally agree. However, to the best of my knowledge, no-one is proposing that argument.
<b>1: The CO2 greenhouse effect is supposed to work by recycling some of the energy radiating from the surface back to it, <b>thereby warming the surface above the degree of warmth that it would otherwise possess without the recycled element.<b> But the average amount of energy radiating from the Antarctic surface in the first place is so small that the even smaller fraction of it that got recycled would not add any significant amount to the original surface radiance anyway.</b>
That is nonsense, you just defined a perpetual motion machine that creates energy out of nothing. Also, once again, -15 microns is a -80C, and that is colder than most of if not all of Antarctica. Ironically, the East Plateau on Antactica is a place that falls below -80C, so it is the ideal location to see if CO2 causes warming. If it was as potent as claimed, it wouldn’t fall below -80C.
“ ‘CO2 negative greenhouse effect’ “
That is caused by thinning of the atmosphere and isn’t applicable to sea level, or areas close to that altitude.
Is the graphic for this blog post AI generated? If yes, what AI Engine did you use, and what were the prompts?
Strong spikes in galactic radiation since the beginning of 2023 show an unusually abrupt course of the 25th solar cycle. This brings anomalies in the circulation of the jet stream.
How come “anomalies” if perfectly natural?
The polar front jet stream is closely linked to the frontogenesis process in midlatitudes, as the acceleration/deceleration of the air flow induces areas of low/high pressure respectively, which link to the formation of cyclones and anticyclones along the polar front in a relatively narrow region.
Cosmology and astrophysics (and much of science for that matter) have done a left turn into fantasy along with the Great Dumbing Down that began in the 2nd half of the previous century. The detailed interpretation of events representing a pixel or two in the field of Hubblescope and family is mind-numbing, inspired perhaps by Tolkien, Star Wars and the like.
Lord Kelvin wasn’t far off when he opined at the end of the 19th century that, except for some clean up matters, science’s work was nearly done. Certainly, Einstein brought something unexpectedly big to the table a few years later, but that pretty much left the bits à la Kelvin to be tidied up.
Science followed the pattern set by musical development. Baroque then classical flourished until the end of the 19th century. Oh Stravinsky and a few others composed using notes left out by the great masters, but soon such music settled into a performance medium. Physics, starved of new things to do, too, became a performance activity.
With the drought of new vistas for physics, came an explosion of ‘imagination’. A hundred years ago, a smart person could read all that was published in science. According to Physics.org, today, millions, yes that’s millions of research papers are published each year!!
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-millions-papers-published-year-scientists.html
This means there are millions of scientists with little for them to do. A lot of this literature, according to surveys, cannot be replicated, much is the outcome of “novel statistics” p-hacking and dubious data, which is the edifice on which froddy climate science rests.
Meanwhile, The Golden Age of engineering blossomed (I switched from science to engineering with the advent of Sputnik I). The glory of engineering seemed too much to take for scientists and they immediately began purloining engineering territory. They started with the oxymoron “Rocket Science” (er…that would be rocket engineering!) System science, computer science … meanwhile the theoretical guys came up with “Strings”, too small to see (1 Planck length, the distance light travels in 5 x 10^-44 seconds!). Planck eh, this must be a form of corroboration! See Bertrand Russell’s tiny orbiting teapot on Wiki for his view of such a claim.
I think another problem is that only the very brightest used to get a PhD, if they could afford it. As education became a money-making industry after the Korean War and during the Vietnam War, the schools found ways to encourage everybody to attend college, and as many who could could pass the GRE to go on for post graduate degrees. Consequently, we now have a large number of PhDs who would have formerly been lab technicians or assistants, at best. They are lacking the broad view of science and don’t have the sort of curiosity that separates the likes of Feynman from the better known ‘climatologists.’
Very insightful.
Yes, Clyde, what has been happening to science is a direct consequence of the Great Dumbing Down. Post Normal science gives a subjective stake in the philosophy of science to anyone. Now, a theory can be valid if it gives answers that you would like them to be, or that feel right to you. If the data points away from the desired outcome, it can be adjusted to harmonize with what you want to show.
In keeping with this viewpoint, John Cook, of Skeptical Science website, a bastion of consensus climate science, who who wrote the paper ‘showing’ that 97% of scientists accepted CAGW, remarked with wonder that he had, a short time ago been a political cartoonist and is now a scientist teaching at the U of Queensland! He wouldn’t even have aspired to lab technician or assistant
“I switched from science to engineering with the advent of Sputnik I”
I remember when Sputnik chewing gum came out. It was a blue sphere with little spikes covering it. I tried some of it.
The impact of a record fall in Fossil Fuels Emissions? Absolutely nothing. The Trend in CO2 literally remained unchanged.
Here are the two combined.
A cyclone in the Philippine Sea is already affecting the northern Philippines.
There were some nice solar halos visible from the UK yesterday. There are some good photos on this Twitter thread. Possible story tip?
https://twitter.com/QueenCKo2/status/1662852348723511297?s=20
Has anyone ever done a study of how UHI’s interact with passing weather systems? I’m not sure how high the heated column of air over a UHI would persist before dissipating but I would have thought it might go high enough to interact with weather front’s passing over the UHI. Again, I’m not sure of the answer, but would it act as an artificial warm front in the way of a natural weather front?
We created a resolution we would like to put to congress:
A resolution by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, motorcycle and automotive groups to Congress to demand scientific transparency and truth for every motoring individual in the world.
Whereas Truth and Free Speech are the cornerstones of our society, motorcyclists all over the country want our rights and the truth to be respected
Whereas Critical Thinking is the backbone of science it needs to be held high for kids all over the world. America always endeavored to be the bastion of truth and free speech.
Whereas science is never settled and the public requires nothing but the truth as it affects their very existence.
Whereas children deserve to know the truth and scientific transparency. No matter who tries to hide the truth, it will surface and the real deniers will be exposed.
Whereas every law in this country that effects the lives, livelihoods, homes, businesses and transportation must be based on truth or they are meaningless.
Whereas criminal governments throughout history restricted free speech. We cannot allow any attack on free speech to infiltrate our government.
A rough draft by K. Ball
This just in from SEPP:
“Sabotage: On May 27, the Conservative Princeton Association sponsored a hard-hitting panel discussion on “Why Climate Change is NOT an Emergency.” Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Bruce Everett, climate economist, and Princeton physicist William Happer were scheduled to present data and analysis to show that adding CO2 in the atmosphere will be beneficial, that the atmospheric temperature is relatively insensitive to addition of CO2 and decarbonization is unnecessary, undesirable, impossible and not happening.
The event was live streamed from Media Central Live, at Princeton University. There were difficulties with the broadcast of the presentation by Patrick Moore. Then, as William Happer began to talk, someone else took control of the media presentation. Several cartoons were drawn on the slides, then an obscene, juvenile one. Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
Certainly, this was a deliberate effort. One hopes it does not reflect the quality of education at Princeton and the juvenile cartoons are not examples of what is considered mature, critical thinking.”
http://www.sepp.org/twtwfiles/2023/TWTW%205-27-23.pdf
“Just before the video went dead, Happer politely said: “You can see what we are up against.”
That says it all.
Fanatics don’t want to hear anything that threatens their orthodoxy and they don’t want anyone else to hear it, either.
This certainly reflects the attitude of radical leftist on campus today. The Left has hijacked the education system and has been turning out radical leftists for some time now, with no end in sight. They are not interested in facts.
Today, May 29, in the USA is Memorial Day.
I suppose it’s become a bit like Christmas.
Jesus wasn’t born Dec.25th but that is the day tradition has chosen to remember it.
Nothing wrong with families getting together on Christmas.
Memorial Day is a day to remember those who died in combat for the USA and what it once stood for.
I have a “Continental Flag” (The one where the stars are in a circle.).
I fly it on the 4th of July, Memorial Day, Veterans’ Day and Election Day.
This year I added a black band around it as a reminder of why we’re free free to have a day off and have hot dogs and hamburgers.
Nothing wrong with having hot dogs and hamburgers today with your family. But take a moment to pray for the families of those that paid the price so we can have a day worth celebrating.
I’m sorry that Congress changed Memorial Day from an honoring of our war dead to a three day weekend.
There’s still an awful lot of coffee in Brazil.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2023/05/30/yet-another-coffee-scare/
Contrary to alarmist, prices are way down on peak values.
Sunset and evening star,
And one clear call for me!
And may there be no moaning of the bar,
When I put out to sea,
But such a tide as moving seems asleep,
Too full for sound and foam,
When that which drew from out the boundless deep
Turns again home.
Twilight and evening bell,
And after that the dark!
And may there be no sadness of farewell,
When I embark;
For tho’ from out our bourne of Time and Place
The flood may bear me far,
I hope to see my Pilot face to face
When I have crost the bar.
— Alfred, Lord Tennyson, “Crossing the Bar” (1889)
Modtran versions on the Chicago and modtran.spectral sites appear to give different results for CO2 forcing.
Can anyone explain this?
Using the 1976 atmosphere and 300ppm versus 600ppm the temperature increase to get the same outgoing value is 0.7 for the Chicago version but 2.0 for the modtran.spectral.