Turning Climate Change Upside Down
image source: filmblerg.com
Take everything you think of climate change and turn it upside down. The variations in heating, cooling, and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere come from below.
Of emphasis here is the very real, minuscule uptick in CO2 which does not come from radiation sources. Of course, CO2 has nothing to do with global warming. It only feeds the plants.
I argue such points about geothermal heat and my obsession about Herndon’s Georeactor as well as the uniform observation from ice cores and past epochs that the uptick in CO2 lags the uptick in heat. See: http://nuclearplanet.com/
The latest work on Antarctic ice cores were taken by French glaciologists and, allowing for degassing from glacial compression, yields a lag period of 200 years — say, the duration from the end of the Little Ice Age to the current time.
The French glaciologists took their ice core observations in the deep interior of Antarctica in what is the largest, most arid region (desert) of the world. With minimal snow, the ice sheets of Antarctica’s interior form from below due to the steam emitted from multiple subglacial volcanoes, trenches, canyons, and subglacial lakes. Researchers from Washington University (St. Louis) describe the bottom of the Bentley Subglacial Trench as a “magma blow torch”.
See: https://www.scientificamerican
Recall that the Warmists dismiss observations of the Medieval Warming Period, claiming that the warming was largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was also an event peculiar to North America.
In a way, the Warmists are correct about the variations in warming confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Even the litigious Mickey Mann, like a blind squirrel, can find a nut every now and then.
See: https://www.meteo.psu.edu/holo
Logically, the internal heat of the Earth transmits pretty uniformly thru the crust and continental land masses, notably in the land masses of the Northern Hemisphere. The boreholes measurements of Davies & Davies (2010, 2013) indicate a fairly uniform temperature profile — on land.
The work of Davies & Davies took no observations in the Arctic Ocean, Antarctica, Greenland, nor deep ocean waters. Very few boreholes were taken in northern Canada, Siberia, and continental shelves. Any heat dissipated into the ocean waters is less observable, yet the temperature differential ( driving force) is greatest for the heat transmitted from the crust into the oceans.
See: https://www.solid-earth.net/1/
See: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.
Moreover, the Earth is a globe. The lithosphere (crust) is thickest around the Equator and thinnest around the landless North Pole — closest to the Earth’s heat engine. Antarctica’s atmosphere and surrounding ocean water is largely isolated due to the powerful, relentless circumpolar winds, which also drive the Antarctic current.
So, indeed, prior heating and cooling eras were driven by the Arctic regions and the mostly dramatic effects were observed in the Northern Hemisphere.
The Arctic has the Gakkel Ridge ( varying 3 to 5 km below sea level), multiple CO2-emitting submarine volcanoes, as well as the Laptev Rift in the Laptev Sea.
The result, during reduced activity in the GeoReactor (a Soliton Breeder Reactor), were the great ice sheets which descended across North America, Europe, and Siberia during the Ice Ages.
Any heating attributed to solar, Milankovitch cycles, and imaginary “CO2 forcing” are relatively uniform at any given point in time and should not be considered dominant. Again, we have experienced a measurable uptick in CO2 concentration. The inbound radiation heat sources are controlled by phase change in low level clouds. Condensation of water vapor to rain and rain freezing to snow.
See: https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.001
Emphasis:
“This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further, they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”
The heating/cooling variations emanating from the Arctic are the dominant, relevant phenomena.
See: https://principia-scientific.o
rg/climate-change-earths-inter nal-heat-flux-and-localized- hot-spots/ See: https://principia-scientific.o
rg/naturally-occurring-fission -plate-climatology-and-the- georeactor/
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Richard,
Great example of Real Scholarship. My question is: Will those PSI ‘commenters’, whose passion is to find fault, argue, and ignore there are nuclear reactions about which classical physicists had no knowledge, etc., have comments about what you wrote for them to consider? Clearly, there is quantum physics which should not (cannot) be ignored.
You draw our attention to a model of the earth interior in which there is an inner core. Which inner core has a sub-shell and sub-core. Which you had previously illustrated with a colorful ‘image’ with greater detail which, I ‘assume’, was to illustrate the Herndon’s Georeactor with which you are obsessed. Which I again ‘assume’ are where the nuclear fission reactions, which create the ‘new’ energy, are occurring. Hence, I assume this inner-core is where the fissionable isotopes are concentrated and where natural fission reactions are occurring.
Here is one of my wild ideas which I have never discussed with anyone. There is no ‘force’ of gravity which acts upon the matter at the center of mass of the earth if we ‘assume’ the homogeneous layered model of the earth which you picture (imagine) as a first approximation (which we know is not real but one had to start reasoning with a simple model and ignore the real tiny perturbations can only create confusion).
Example: Newton, in the second to last paragraph of his book, wrote (as translated by Motte): “As to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and act according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.”
“And of our sea.” Obviously, Newton is referring to the tides of the seas which are observed to occur, or not occur , in many different ways because of perturbations. For the earth is not homogeneous which was the model which Newton used to explain the motions of the sea.
Richard, I ask: Can you explain why I might consider there is no force of gravity which influences the motions of the matter at the homogeneous earth’s center of mass?
I ask this question instead of trying to explain this because if you cannot simply see the reason I probably cannot explain it to you or anyone else who cannot simply see this reason.
Again, your essay is a Great example of Real Scholarship. And anyone, who pays attention, knows you have been trying over and over to bring the Herndon’s Georeactor to our attentions. A scholar with a new idea must be persistent.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Lloyd
| #
Something I learned in the late 1960s. There is no such thing as Gravity, The Earth Sucks.
Reply
Richard Cronin
| #
Jerry K. – You offer detailed inquiries that I will need to study further. Thanks for your insights.
Reply
geran
| #
“Any heating attributed to solar…should not be considered dominant.”
For some reason, that mistake is quite common. Likely it’s due to a lack of understanding of the relevant physics. The sun provides all of the energy necessary to explain Earth temperatures.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geran,
Not sure what your point is but thank you for alerting me to Richard’s reference to his quote’ I had missed this reference.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
geran
| #
Glad to help, Jerry.
Have a great day.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Richard,
The Earth is four billion years old. For those out there claiming the interior is a fission powered nuclear furnace I would like to know what radioactive isotope has a half life that would power this furnace for that many years?
A far more obvious explanation is that the Earth has only been able to lose a little of its internal energy (hence its very thin crust) because the stronger energy it receives from the sun, penetrates below the surface of the Earth, heating the top layer of the Earth. This is why there is permafrost in polar areas despite the thin crust.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
What if the earth is not 4 billion years old. And have you heard of ‘breeder nuclear reactions’ which convert non-fissionable isotopes into fissionable isotopes.
You wrote: “A far more obvious explanation is that the Earth has only been able to lose a little of its internal energy (hence its very thin crust).” If you exchange thick for thin, I consider you might have a statement I could accept.
But you have one big problem, it is how can you explain the volcanic activity, still occurring, that we observe to have occurred at the earth surface without a significant internal energy source.
Solar radiation???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
Re “ The Earth is four billion years old. For those out there claiming the interior is a fission powered nuclear furnace I would like to know what radioactive isotope has a half life that would power this furnace for that many years?”
Wiki tells us:
“ Bismuth-209 was long thought to have the heaviest stable nucleus of any element, but in 2003, a research team at the Institut d’Astrophysique Spatiale in Orsay, France, discovered that 209Bi undergoes alpha decay with a half-life of approximately 19 exayears (1.9×1019, approximately 19 quintillion years), over a billion times longer than the current estimated age of the universe.”
This is only a half life. There can be little doubt that Earth still gets substantial internal heat from all know nuclear decay products, but at a much lower rate than originally experienced. This factor shows Earth was hotter in geological times gone by.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Robert,
You wrote: “There can be little doubt that Earth still gets substantial internal heat from all know nuclear decay products, but at a much lower rate than originally experienced.”
But we should not overlook the possibility that much of the heavy lifting seems to have been done some time before so less of the new energy is being utilized to do work so the new energy might primarily heat, or to replace some of the energy which is continually being emitted toward space.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Jerry, there can be little doubt ‘that much of the heavy lifting seems to have been done some time before so less of the new energy is being utilized to do work so the new energy might primarily heat, or to replace some of the energy which is continually being emitted toward space.’
Ref. https://bosmin.com//PSL/PlanetsSatellitesLandforms.pdf
The PSL reference at page 9, notes: With the passage of time, the rate of heating should subside as radioactivity decreases. The work by Dickinson and Luth helps to describe these phenomena on Earth (Graph 3.1). A small planet contains low quantities of nuclear fuel. The proximity of the surface effectively dissipates heat through conduction processes. A larger planet has vast quantities of nuclear fuel, giving off much heat. This only dissipates slowly through conduction.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
It is thought that the Earth’ started out as a molten rock and cooled. If the Earth and moon formed in the same way and at the same time you would expect that they would experience the same radioactive decay and would radiate that heat similarly. The moon’s crust is 60 km to 100 km thick while the Earth’s crust is 5 km to 70 km thick which indicates to me that the moon has lost more heat, forming a thicker crust than the Earth. So, even though both the moon and the Earth have internal heat produced by radioactive decay, the Earth has retained far more of that heat (because of the atmosphere) and its primary energy source is solar which only allows for geothermal heat loss when there is volcanic activity and the geothermal energy exceeds the equilibrium between the Earth and sun.
If the moon was created after the Earth was formed it would mean that it is cooling at a far faster rate than the Earth and fission is even less of a source of heat.
Since the Earth’s core is thought to be mostly iron wouldn’t the radioactive isotope heating the core also need to be one of iron?
Herb
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb,
Ask yourself what force generates the heavy elements and ion variations in the first place. You may find you have causality reversed, and Earth may not be 4.5 bln y.o.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Iron is the heaviest element that can be produced by fusion in the sun. All the heavier elements are a result of exploding stars in distant galaxies throwing iron and heavier elements into space where some of them entered the cloud that formed our sun. The then become the foundation for the sun creating elements heavier than iron. For the heaviest elements this recycling must occur five times. Considering the amount of elements heavier than iron in the solar system and the dilution matter from exploring stars hundreds of light years away this currently accepted theory of the origin of the heavier elements is absolute nonsense.
Herb
Zoe Phin
| #
LOL
Did those heavy elements form during the explosion or before? What caused the explosion? And where did the energy for the explosion come? Why then and not before?
Don’t you see what you’re doing? You’re moving the energetic cause out of sight with rhetoric.
Herb Rose
| #
I see your classes in astronomy, where you got A s, where just as useless as the physic classes which you aced. Look up what happens to a star when it exhausts all the fuel for fusion. It’s called a nova and just because you once saw a television showed called Nova doesn’t make you an expert on them.
Zoe Phin
| #
Herb, you seem to think that repeating what you were taught verbatim is the height of scholarship. It’s not. You didn’t answer my questions.
Richard Cronin
| #
Herb, thanks for your question.
Herndon is only one of many who are conducting work on the GeoReactor concepts, especially as a Soliton Breeder Reactor — I.e. Vitaliy D. Rusov .
Kao Ping Lin and colleagues, looking all the pathways to Breeder fission deduced that’s there could be as much as 2 billion years more to go on the Breeder cycle.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Excellent article, Mr Cronin!
Geothermal denial is the #1 biggest scandal in climate science.
http://phzoe.com/2020/03/04/dumbest-math-theory-ever/
http://phzoe.com/2020/02/13/measuring-geothermal-a-revolutionary-hypothesis/
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Also, I refute the relevance of Davies and Davies’ work (except for geothermal prospectors) here:
http://phzoe.com/2019/12/04/the-case-of-two-different-fluxes/
Reply
Anonymous-Scientist
| #
Trump is right about the carbon dioxide claims that constitute the biggest scientific deception and hoax in history, well serving the political objectives of the Club of Rome. (Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksMYjzWSlI4&t=5s…) There’s no refutation anywhere on the internet of even one of the seven ways to prove AGW wrong in my recent article “Cogent and irrefutable reasons why carbon dioxide cannot warm Earth” and nor is there published anywhere a refutation of my 2013 paper. All my six papers are now on Researchgate* and any attempted refutation will only be considered (and proven wrong) if published on Researchgate. I will not be wasting time arguing with individuals all over the internet. Instead I will ONLY respond to an attempted refutation of Loschmidt’s gravito-thermal effect and my 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” that is published on Researchgate. Draw my attention to such an attempted refutation if you write one or find any such attempt by others. Science is determined by evidence that proves a false hypothesis to be wrong (as Einstein pointed out) not by authority, or by editors or by peer-review.
* https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas_Cotton/research
Reply
Anonymous-Scientist
| #
Core temperatures and the necessary heat input were explained in 2013 in the paper at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2876905 (2,560 abstract views)
and at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318008633_Planetary_Core_and_Surface_Temperatures (750 reads)
and on LinkedIn at
https://www.linkedin.com/in/douglas-cotton-b794a871/detail/recent-activity/documents/
and originally on PSI for about 6 months in 2013 until Journalist John (with no qualifications in physics) decided to opt instead for the (mutually exclusive) false explanation by his “teacher’s pet” Joseph Postma who is proved wrong on my “PSI Slayer Errors” page (3,500 views) and so our dear John killed the goose that laid the golden egg and he has stuck to his arrogant, narcissistic guns ever since, despite there being not a single published refutation of the heat transfer process that I was first in the world to discover and explain from the laws of physics. That’s just a factual statement. Soon there will be a video on youtube rubbishing Postma and PSI’s first paper.
Reply
James Edward Kamis
| #
You may want to refer to the Plate Climatology Theory website (plateclimatology.com) which has contended since 2014 that geological forces and geological heat flow from oceans and land have had an underestimated and underappreciated influence on climate and climate related events. The website has a topic guideline to help readers refer to the more than 80 article written by the author.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
James:
In 2014 I believe you posted your results on WUWT and it became patently obvious that the Atmospheric-Bias theory was dead. Recently I re-discovered your brilliant work via Principia and was able to read the 66 page paper. For those still married to the failed CAGW theory you need to take the time to read this comprehensive paper, especially you textbook/test tube/pilot plant experimentalists that can’t comprehend the massive forces of our planet that are so clearly laid out in this plateclimatology paper.
James in the Conclusions you misspoke as Atmospheric-Basis rather than Atmospheric-Bias which is what you intended. I’m sure you have corrected it by now.
Many thanks for the intellectual and scientific work that will gain the acceptance it disserves when imposters get their heads out of the clouds.
Reply
Anonymous-Scientist
| #
James, with respect, your hypothesis should not be called a theory just for starters.
It does not address the issue as to whether or not so-called “greenhouse” gases raise the global mean surface temperature from what direct solar radiation could achieve, that being less than 233K. Nor does it recognise the fact now proven that the temperature gradient in the outer crust (as measured in boreholes) does not necessarily imply that there is a continuous outward flow of thermal energy towards the surface above. You will understand why I say this when you understand the brilliant, ground-breaking hypothesis in that 2013 paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” noting the word “core” in the title.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
H i Richard,
Are you familiar with this 2017 article?
‘Enhanced ice sheet melting driven by volcanic eruptions during the last deglaciation.’
Francesco Muschitiello, Francesco S. R. Pausata, James M. Lea, Douglas W. F. Mair & Barbara Wohlfarth)
Nature Communications volume 8, Article number: 1020 (201
(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01273-1)
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply