Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.

Posted on September 8, 2020 by curryja | 

by Judith Curry

A thought-provoking article  from my new favorite blog, The Ethical Skeptic.

The Ethical Skeptic

My new favorite blog is The Ethical Skeptic.  From the About page:

“It is the intent of this author and purpose of this blog to propose afresh from its beginning, a genuine problem in philosophy. A problem of method-induced creeping ignorance, wrought in the name of science. Until one understands how a philosophical definition or principle can be manipulated for ill intent, one has not really learned it. Such is the nature of ethical skepticism; an applied ability to spot the condition wherein skepticism is employed with the specific goal of cultivating ignorance inside society. In order for us to hone our skills at spotting scientific deception through means of this false skepticism however, it becomes necessary that one approach afresh, many core ideas of philosophy.”

There is TONS of excellent, provocative material on this site, and the lengthy articles are very well written; I encourage you to explore. I was particularly struck by this article on the Omega Hypothesis and its relevance to climate change.

Part of the heat may be coming from beneath our feet

The article that motivates this post is one entitled The Climate Change Alternative We Ignore (to Our Peril).  Subtitle: “When the Earth’s core enters an exothermic cycle, the Earth’s air-conditioning heat pump gets less efficient.”  The preamble:

“Now before reviewing this article I must ask two things of its prospective reader. First, if one finds them self tempted to shift their more-sciencey-than-thou underoos all askew and further then perceives sufficient knee-jerk dissonance coming on to assign me an ‘anti-‘ label – understand that I am a proponent of addressing anthropogenic global warming as a first priority for mankind.

Second, what I am summarizing in very short form herein stems from hundreds of hours of research and literally multiple hundreds of references which I cannot possibly compile into this blog article by coherent sequence – without sacrificing the ability to deliver its core message. This idea is a construct, an idea which aspires to be developed into real hypothesis.

Despite its need for further development and maturation, this argument should not be ignored through our polarization over this issue politically. We need fewer children with scowling faces, and more unbiased thinking adults addressing this challenge.

I am not a climate scientist – however, nor am I carrying anyone’s water on this issue. I do not possess an implicit threat to my career if I say something forbidden or research an embargoed idea. In the midst of my work inside climate change solution development, a number of peripheral observations I have made have begun to bother me greatly. They have caused me to perceive the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.”

The paper includes nine observations that are ‘inconvenient’ to the 100% AGW hypothesis:

Observation 1 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Fall to Winter CO2 Rise Exhibits a Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice Pause Which Should Not Exist if All PPM is Generated by Man Alone – Coronavirus Industrial Shutdown only Served to Produce Record CO2 PPM Increases

Observation 2 (Inductive-Introduces Plurality) – Atmospheric CO2 Levels Follow Temperature Rises and Are Accelerating – Man’s Carbon Producing Activity is Linear and of Insufficient Slope to Drive This

Observation 3 (Deductive-Introduces Plurality) – Ceres EBAF measures of Earth’s Reemergent Albedo are Higher Than They Should Be – Indicating Earth is Not CO2-Capturing as Much Heat as Climate Models Require

Observation 4 (Inductive-Introduces Critical Path) – Mean Sea Level is Rising Yes – But MSL Variance Range is Also Increasing (and Should Not Be) – Global Ocean Current Speed has Increased by 15% Over that Same Timeframe

Observation 5 (Deductive-Consilient) – The Schumann Resonance Banding-Amplitude Has Ranged High – While Geomagnetic Moment/Polarity has Weakened/Wandered – All Highly Commensurate with Historical and Recent Global Temperature Increases

Observation 6 (Deductive-Consilient) – Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term But Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle

Observation 7 (Inductive-Consilient) – Recent-Term Rise in Activity of Earth’s Upper Mantle in Terms of Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity Commensurate with Temperature Increases

Observation 8 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Heat Anomalies are Not Entropic – Rather Bear Recurring Mantle-Like Cohesiveness – Heat is Arising Principally from Ocean Conveyance Belts at Mid-Atlantic Rise and El Niño Thermohaline Currents

Observation 9 (Deductive-Critical Path) – Abyssal Oceans are Absorbing More Novel Heat Content per Cubic Meter of Ocean (ΔT-gigajoules/m3) than are Surface Oceans by an Enormous Margin – This is Neglected and Highly Critical Path Climate Science

From the conclusions:

“Now with all of this observation set under our belt, let’s examine the alternative that I believe we must address – out of both ethics and precaution. This alternative is not vulnerable to the easy wave-of-the-hand single-analysis/apothegm dismissals to which so many other climate change alternatives fall prey. This does not serve to invalidate anthropogenic contribution to carbon and global temperatures by any means. But such a reality also never necessitates that mankind adopt complete ignorance either. This construct alternative can be summarized in four points.

1.  The Earth’s core is undergoing extreme exothermic change – shedding high-latent-energy hexagonal closepack (HCP) iron into the mantle where it converts to face centered cubic (FCC) iron.

2.  The exothermic heat content from this eventually reaches the asthenosphere.

3.  Ancient abyssal ocean conveyance belts pull novel heat content from small footprint yet now much hotter contribution points exposed to the asthenosphere – and convey this novel heat content to the surface of the ocean.

4.  Ocean heats atmosphere (or fails to cool it as well as it once did) much more readily than atmosphere heats ocean.”

JC reflections

This post really struck a chord with me.  I have become increasingly interested in the impact of underwater and under ice sheet volcanoes, and their impact on sea level rise, and also the ocean role in the carbon budget.  The Ethical Skeptic has pulled a number of concerns that I have had, along with some issues that I was unaware of, into a coherent hypothesis.

To my mind, this is science at its best, where “new ideas are explored and neither readily embraced nor rejected, but just explored.”  The quote is from an email exchange with Marcia Wyatt about this paper.  In the gatekeeping, speaking consensus to power mode of doing ‘climate science,’ there is a dearth of new ideas, and increasingly these are coming from outside the climate community.

I look forward to reactions.

Postscript

Well, in my so-called ‘retirement’ I have almost no time for blogging.  My company Climate Forecast Applications Network has been keeping me very busy; the last few months have been especially crazy with an active Atlantic hurricane season.

Before hurricane season started, I signed a contract to write a book (no details yet).  The salient point is that I was going through old blog posts having relevant material, and I was reminded of how good Climate Etc. was in the earlier years when I was exploring new ideas (to me), questioning and challenging the conventional ‘wisdoms.’

I haven’t stopped doing this, but I haven’t been blogging about it since my investigations have been for paying clients (and confidential).  And increasingly for my book.  But I do miss the informality and curiosity-driven nature of doing this on the blog.

The Ethical Skeptic has motivated me to at least try to post more regularly about new and controversial ideas about climate change, not to mention the ‘etc.’

174 thoughts on “Part of the heat is coming from beneath our feet

        • I wasted 15 minutes of my life that I will never get back reading that blog. It is Piled High and Deep.

          An expert on any subject should be able to communicate his or her knowledge with simple easy to undrstand languge. The recommended blog is a word salad trying to baffle with big words (BS). My own climate science blog is light years better
          http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com

          • Richard, I’m glad you said that. I struggled and suspected it was just because I’m old and stupid. Thank heavens I’m not alone !

          • Typical philosophical rhetoric, taking a hundred words to say what ten will do. So:
            In the midst of my work inside climate change solution development, a number of peripheral observations I have made have begun to bother me greatly. They have caused me to perceive the necessity to formulate and propose another idea. An idea that in my opinion fits the observation base much more elegantly, without forcing and in more compelling fashion than simply the Omega Hypothesis of ‘man is causing it all – no need to look any further’. My point is, that this is an idea which requires a multi-disciplinary understanding of the physical phenomena involved.
            Can be distilled as: “I don’t know, but I have an idea.”

        • If you give any credence to deep ocean OHC “data” the lower oceans have been accumulating heat much quicker than the top few hundred meters. This is problematic to say the least.

          No one publishing the OHC data seems too worried about this because they need the ocean to account for all the “missing heat” (c) 1999 K. Trenberth .

          A massive internal heat source could explain this, though personally I think it’s much more likely someone has been selective with what data they count, or otherwise has their thumb on the scales. In any case most of the deep ocean OHC data is pure fiction because there was only token sampling , not credible coverage to claim to calculate OHC.

      • Right, because it’s not like heat rises. Or something. And, while I’ve got you, how does the water at the top of the pot get hot when the fire is lit underneath the pot?

    • 30 years ago they thought there were just a few undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents. 10 years later it was hundreds. 10 years later thousands. Now it’s in the MILLIONS. In Nov 2018 there was a massive seismic hum heard around the world. After they investigated, they found it was a massive undersea volcano near Africa :
      https://www.livescience.com/65545-largest-underwater-volcano-seismic-hum.html
      In less than 6 months it grew to 1km in height and 5km high. If this was on land, it would have been called a supervolcano. And it appears they go off regularly under the ocean. We have massively underestimted the impact of undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents.

      • Yes, “Science” has underestimated the amount of volcanic CO2 by at least one order of magnitude. We have a system that has been measured to some degree, the infamous Lake Nyos volcanic seep, which produced a kill-zone roughly 30 miles in diameter. It was mostly CO2.

      • This paragraph in the LiveScience article you linked to drew my attention:
        This magma chamber may also be shrinking, as Mayotte has sunk about 5 inches (13 centimeters) and moved 2.5 inches (10 cm) to the east over the past year, Science magazine reported.
        Stay tuned for a ‘rising sea levels’ scare story.

      • When considering geothermal it is advisable to consider the residence time of said heat source in the global oceans. The greater the residence time of the input, the more energy a flux change can impart. So, if energy entering the ocean depths takes, on average, 5 years to reach the surface, then every bit of an increase in geothermal accumulated every day for 5 years.

        That being said, I am not convinced we accurately know either the current geothermal input, it’s decadal flux, or accurately know ocean T flux.

        Yet there were interesting assertions in the nine observations that warrant links to those assertions.

        BTW, larger mantel – inner core flux would certainly make Grace readings highly problematic.

    • All of the surface emission(390W/m^2) comes from below, according to Planck. All emission depends only on the internal state of the emitting body. This has been known since over 100 years. Prevost was the first to conclude that “the emission from a body depends on the internal state alone”. Planck confirmed this in his “theory of heat radiation”, that the emission depends solely on what takes place INSIDE the body. The greenhouse hypothesis was falsified before it was created. The problem is that nobody cares to read what´s already proven and unquestioned physics.

  1. I have been studying the topic of climate change for years as a science educator and weather user Air Force Navigator. I have come to believe that our knowledge of the topic is so complex that we need to consider all ideas and investigate them.

    • I have been reading climate science articles and studies since the late 1990s … and am amazed at how little is known about the physics of climate change … yet many people claim complex climate models (actually just computer games) can predict/project/estimate/simulate (aka wild guess) the global average temperature in 100 years!

      And never mind how inaccurate the computer models have been since the 1970s.

      The climate is a little warmer than it had been and that is wonderful news.
      The thought that warmer winter nights in Alaska is an existential threat is amazing nonsense.
      We have had intermittent global warming since the late 1600s and no one was hurt from it — in fact the climate is better than it was in the Little Ice Age centuries. But leftists are never happy unless they see a crisis coming. Even a fake crisis like the coming climate change crisis, predicted for the past 50 year … and will be predicted for the next 50 years too, in my opinion. Leftists never let a crisis go to waste — it is there opportunity to expand government power and micromanage your life. Something they have always wanted to do because they are smarter than you. Just ask any leftist you know!

      Climate change is real. It’s greening our planet. The coming climate change crisis is a fake crisis based on very little real science. Nothing learned about CO2 in a lab suggests anything more than mild harmless global warming in the atmosphere, and that is exactly what we are getting. Please send more of it to Michigan where I live !

      • Richard,
        The coming climate crisis is REAL! It’s just not what the alarmists want you to believe!
        When the next period of glacial increase begins humanity will be fortunate if we have modern energy supplies like nuclear and orbital solar collectors to go with a mature space exploration program that has us putting colonies on the Moon, Mars and possibly the moons of Jupiter or Saturn! If we are still wallowing around in the swamp of pseudo-science that climatology is a part of I don’t think our descendants will survive; at least not well!
        Extra CO2 is probably inadequate for preventing the Earth from cooling significantly; but lack of it, if the current decreasing trend continues, could wipe out most life as we know it! I hope there is enough human intelligence left after the Progressive march through the universities for humanity to deal with the REAL problems of climate change: low temperatures and CO2 levels!

        • “but lack of it, if the current decreasing trend continues, could wipe out most life as we know it”

          So long as humans have plenty of nuclear and other reliable energy sources, CO2 can be released from limestone rock at will, to be used in real greenhouses for food production.

          We have the technology to survive a dip in atmospheric CO2 to below 200ppm.

          • plenty of time to build them. 🙂

            Thanks to China, India et al….

            ..atmospheric CO2 won’t be dropping to that level for a long time

      • When Greta said we had stolen her childhood she was sixteen. I started work at 15. Greta grew up in a golden age of plenty. Don Easterbrook said “it doesnt matter how much evidence you provide or how much data you give it makes no difference”. The reason for that is that you cannot argue with a belief psychological fact. But beyond that if you have been ranting BS for decades then you get confronted by logic reason facts and physics you either have to admit stupidity and negligence or continue lying and procrastinating until such time as you get your pension and can retire in comfort without having to face humility 24/7. That is the human condition and Jane Fonda is a classic example but where Greta could excuse her idiocy because she was a child at the time Fonda is pushing 80 and should have been able to reflect that weather is not climate.

        But when you have contorted your spine to the extent Fonda has with her “health” videos to get the burn -and cash- resulting in her clanking when she walks because of the titanium rods screwed into both sides of her spine to me it is no surprise she continues to be exasperated that know one listens to her jeopardy laden idiotic nonsense. You cannot argue with belief, end of. Of course human caused Co2 induced climate change is nonsense but I don’t befuddled gullible populist politicians willing to admit their gullibility any time soon.

        • I think it was St. Greta’s parents who stole her childhood to use her as a highly visible, though ill-informed, political Wiffle® Ball.

  2. It would be nice to see some references on #6.
    Observation 6 (Deductive-Consilient) – Earth’s Rotation is Slowing Faster than Historical – Indicating a Recent-Term But Constant Ferrous Mass Contribution in Phase Change from l-HCP Outer Core to l-FCC Lower Mantle

    The increase in LOD, (slowing of the rotation of the earth) is often mentioned as a proof of sea level rise.
    A “slowing faster than historical” will be interpreted as sea level rise acceleration.

    • Since the total mass of the oceans is ~0.02% of the mass of the planet, claiming that sea level rise is slowing the rotation seems akin to claiming that an elite Olympic runner lost due to an extra bead of sweat on his body! I think there may be other factors involved! Just saying!

      • The measured slowdown is on the order of a few micro-seconds. It would be easy for an expanding ocean to account for that.

      • Yes. There are many other factors involved. For a start the Moon is slowing down Earth’s rotation through tides. Then solar activity. When the Sun is more active the atmosphere expands and the change in atmospheric momentum is compensated by a slowdown of the Earth rotation, the same an ice-skater slows its spin when extending the arms. Finally climate change. It has been demonstrated that changes in length of day (Earth’s rotation speed measurement) anticipate climate trends by a few years. See for example:
        Lambeck, K., & Cazenave, A. (1976). Long term variations in the length of day and climatic change. Geophysical Journal International, 46(3), 555-573.
        http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.865.4459&rep=rep1&type=pdf

        • Presumably the rate at which the moon is slowing down the Earth’s rotation hasn’t changed. Unless SLR has made larger tides cause an increase in energy being transferred to the moon.

        • How would height of the atmosphere slow Earth’s rotation? The atmosphere is only connected via the Earth by friction, thus it’s only an increase of the mass of the atmosphere that would slow rotation, and that is actually happening as you would expect from warming of the oceans.

          • How would height of the atmosphere slow Earth’s rotation?

            I explained. Through the conservation of momentum. Angular momentum is defined as mass times velocity times distance from the center of rotation. When the atmosphere expands the distance of the mass to the center of rotation increases and the angular velocity must decrease to conserve momentum.

          • But it’s more complicated than that. The atmosphere is not rigidly attached to the Earth, it is only connected by drag.

          • “it is only connected by drag.”

            Do you believe that drag can’t change the velocity of the earth’s spin?

          • I’ll use small words so that you can understand it.
            The atmosphere expands, which causes it to slow down.
            Then via the drag with the planet, enough momentum is transferred to the atmosphere to speed it back up.

    • There is another side to that coin. If the Earth’s spin is slowing, that means that the centripetal force that flattens the poles and causes a bulge at the equator, will cause less of a bulge in equatorial water. That water will flow poleward, causing ‘sea level rise.’

        • ”So the water is the same water but just in a different place. No extra water required .”

          Yeah but its back saturation, from wetter water….

          Never argue with a luke-warmer they will drive you as insane as them..

    • I agree. I read that and was intrigued because I’ve never heard of that before. Usually novel ideas like that come with some sort of evidence to back them up.

  3. The time-scale for any heat release due phase changes in the core to reach the surface is of the same order of the age of the earth itself. This is part of the problem with Kelvin’s age of the earth miscalculations — the surface has reached steady state temperature with respect to deep heat flow; while the core is perhaps not at primordial conditions, but at a very different set of conditions.

    Current average heat flow is around 60-100 milliwatts per square meter worldwide. This is tiny. There are regions of greatly elevated heat flow (mid-ocean ridges, Yellowstone, Ring of fire, etc) but these are small contributors world-wide.

    • She says:

      The salient point is that I was going through old blog posts having relevant material, and I was reminded of how good Climate Etc. was in the earlier years when I was exploring new ideas (to me), questioning and challenging the conventional ‘wisdoms.’

      ‘Rubbish’ is probably wrong but even she notices the difference between then and now. On the other hand, she brings us the above article. Definitely heavy duty.

    • I agree the site is rubbish. Just the name “the ethical skeptic” is a giveaway. Ethics has absolutely nothing to do with skepticism. He just writes very extensively with lots of complex words to hide very little substance.

      There is an article in that site about UFOs that classifies skeptics about it:
      – If you think UFOs might include extraterrestrial visitors or you don’t know, you are a real skeptic.
      – If you think UFOs do not include extraterrestrial visitors or you think there is no other intelligent life in the Universe, you are a fake skeptic.
      https://theethicalskeptic.com/2019/09/09/latest-trends-in-acceptance-of-ufos-not-good-news-for-fake-skeptics/
      So you are a real skeptic if you believe in things for which there is zero evidence.
      Enough said. What a crackpot!

      • Real skeptic
        UFOs might include extraterrestrial visitors
        or
        you don’t know
        Either you admit the possibility of extraterrestrial visitors or you don’t know. That’s not the same as saying there are extraterrestrial visitors. It just indicates you have an open mind on the subject.

        Fake skeptic
        you think UFOs do not include extraterrestrial visitors
        or
        you think there is no other intelligent life in the Universe
        You have made up your mind.

        So, on that evidence, a real skeptic has an open mind and a fake skeptic doesn’t.

        Given the case as you present it Javier, I don’t see any requirement that a real skeptic believes in things for which there is zero evidence. ie. admitting the possibility of something is far from believing that thing exists. The fake skeptic, apparently, does believe in something that can’t be proven. ie. you can’t prove a negative.

        • Just goes to show you don’t understand what a skeptic is either.
          Skeptic
          a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief

          https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skeptic

          A skeptic is always somebody that doesn’t believe in something. If you believe you are no longer a skeptic.
          ETs, unicorns, fairies, etc… if you believe they can exist you are not a skeptic. If you have an open mind about the subject you are not a skeptic. A skeptic doesn’t believe they exist and will not believe until shown proof.

          It is hilarious somebody will call himself an ethical skeptic and have no clue what a skeptic is.

          • doubt:

            1: to call into question the truth of : to be uncertain or in doubt about
            2a: to lack confidence in : DISTRUST
            b: to consider unlikely

            A skeptic doubts something. Doubt is an expression of uncertainty. Ergo, a skeptic is uncertain and does not have her mind made up.

            Since you are willing to call someone a crackpot, I guess it’s fair for me to doubt whether English is your mother tongue.

          • From (according to the Cambridge dictionary):

            a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief

            To:

            A skeptic is always somebody that doesn’t believe in something.

            So you would argue that not believing something is the same thing as doubting that something?

            Odd:

            doubt
            noun [ C or U ]
            us
            /daʊt/ uk
            /daʊt/
            B1
            (a feeling of) not being certain about something, especially about how good or true it is:

            https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/doubt

            You seem to have assigned a false equivalence between “doubt” and “unbelief.”

          • So you would argue that not believing something is the same thing as doubting that something?

            Yes. If you say something and I say I doubt it, it means I don’t believe it. If there is doubt there is no belief. Belief excludes doubt and doubt excludes belief.

            I guess it’s fair for me to doubt whether English is your mother tongue.

            So you don’t believe English is my mother tongue. 😉

          • Yes. If you say something and I say I doubt it, it means I don’t believe it. If there is doubt there is no belief.

            Then you don’t understand the concept of doubt. The presence of doubt doesn’t presuppose belief either way, e.g., believing a proposition is true or false. The presence of doubt, by definition, means the truth value of the proposition is null.

            Belief excludes doubt and doubt excludes belief.

            Then by your own admission you contradict yourself. If “belief” and “doubt” are mutually exclusive as you say, then you cannot equate “doubt” and “unbelief” which you’ve done.

          • The presence of doubt doesn’t presuppose belief either way

            Doubt is incompatible with belief.
            If you say “I am a little girl”
            I might say:
            – I doubt that.
            – I very much doubt that.
            – I don’t believe that.
            In all cases I am expressing disbelief at what you say. Doubt is not incompatible with disbelief.

          • In all cases I am expressing disbelief at what you say. Doubt is not incompatible with disbelief.

            You’re not expressing disbelief in all cases. In two cases you’re expressing uncertainty, which isn’t at all the same thing as disbelief:

            “– I doubt that.
            – I very much doubt that.”

            Your third proposition, “I don’t believe that,” expresses certainty of unbelief and thus is mutually exclusive to the first two.

            If I’m doubtful concerning any proposition, then I’m uncertain of the proposition’s truth value and can’t know it. Doubt equates to uncertainty. On the other hand, if I disbelieve a proposition, then I’m certain the proposition is false and thus have assigned a truth value of “false” to the proposition.

            Disbelief is expressing certainty of unbelief, thus contrary you disbelief is indeed incompatible with uncertainty and therefore mutatis mutandis, doubt. Doubt is uncertainty, but uncertainty is not “disbelief,” rather it’s merely uncertainty, which always results in a truth value of “null.”

            Belief and unbelief belong to the same epistemological domain; for the sake of argument call it, “Belief Knowledge.” Both belief and unbelief have static truth values of true or false. Doubt has no truth value, i.e., by definition the truth value is uncertain.

            Using your own logic:

            Premise 1 (emphasis added):

            Skeptic
            a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief
            https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skeptic

            Premise 2 (emphasis added):

            doubt
            (a feeling of) not being certain about something, especially about how good or true it is:
            https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/doubt

          • So you don’t believe English is my mother tongue.

            I don’t know. It’s one explanation for your misunderstanding of common English words. There are also other possible explanations.

          • What you and the author of the blog don’t get is that scientific skepticism is not a language issue or a logic (philosophical) issue, it is a science issue:
            Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry, is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists. Scientific skepticism differs from philosophical skepticism, which questions humans’ ability to claim any knowledge about the nature of the world and how they perceive it, and the similar but distinct Methodological skepticism, which is a systematic process of being skeptical about (or doubting) the truth of one’s beliefs.”
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_movement#Scientific_skepticism

            Scientific skepticism is NOT BELIEVING in anything not supported by evidence. It is not about doubting, it is about questioning what is not supported.

            What you all are talking about is not scientific skepticism.

            Since extraterrestrial visitors are unsupported, a skeptical should refuse to believe in them in scientific terms, not have doubts about their existence. No data, not part of science. Personally he can believe in God, ETs or whatever, but not as part of the science realm. Not as a scientist.

            The author of the blog is a fake skeptic, at least in science terms.

          • What you and the author of the blog don’t get is that scientific skepticism is not a language issue or a logic (philosophical) issue, it is a science issue:

            I’m just going by what you originally said. It was your argument after all wasn’t it:

            “Just goes to show you don’t understand what a skeptic is either.
            Skeptic
            a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief
            https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skeptic

            Looks like now you’ve decided to employ a case of Special Pleading to move to your latest position, but then maybe you didn’t quite understand how to express the “actual” conceptual definition you were after in the beginning . . .

            You sure took it to Bob like he was a moron though! Kinda funny when we look at it now don’t you agree?

            https://tinyurl.com/cjrfary

          • I think it is common usage that a skeptic is one who withholds the certainty demanded by faith. So I stand with commieBob on this great controversy (sarc).

            Skeptic has also been a common euphemism for an atheist in societies where atheism was disreputable. Is that the case also for escéptico? To my thinking this is a corruption of the language and likely the cause of Javier’s misapprehension. An atheist holds a faith-based position that there can be no gods. Therefore an atheist, having no doubt, is not a skeptic at all, but an ideologue.

            An agnostic, one who has no faith in hidden or revealed doctrine, who provisionally concludes that there probably are no gods, but admits of uncertainty is an example of a skeptic. He may be functionally an atheist, but not formally. An agnostic may also be functionally a believer, but with profound doubts.

            The religious context is a meaningful one when discussing the faith-based climate change pseudo-religion. Just as many religious people reason to the conclusion that they are prepared to jump to certainty, so do the Climate Change(tm) True Believers like griff and Loydo.

            We also have Climate Change “atheists” who have faith-based certainty that there is necessarily zero validity to any “mainstream” climate theory. Like the True Believers, they too have usually reasoned their way to certainty, to a point where any uncertainty is to their way of thinking meaningless.

            The Anti-True Believer will be quick to denigrate any skeptic who provisionally accepts that some AGW (not CAGW) hypotheses may be plausible, even when they clearly state that any effects are unlikely to be significant or harmful. The epithet used is “Lukewarmer”. (which is to be spit out of one’s mouth). Interestingly, (to me at least), there is also a parallel to the Stalinists bitterly attacking the Fascists as being “right wing” when they were really very far to the Left of the classical liberals.

            There is a third group, I think, as well. These are the opportunist hypocrites. They often feign the fiercest faith in the Klimate Katastrophe, but their actions reveal their true beliefs and motivations. For them, the religion of the day is a convenient weapon to assist them in attaining power. Al Gore is their archetype.

          • Javier, if you’d bothered to read down the wiki page you link, you would have found the section on pseudoskepticism. It’s pretty much what the guy you called a crackpot was trying to describe.

            In the article you link there is also this tidbit:

            Scientific skeptics do not assert that unusual claims should be automatically rejected out of hand on a priori grounds—rather they argue that claims of paranormal or anomalous phenomena should be critically examined and that extraordinary claims would require extraordinary evidence in their favor before they could be accepted as having validity.

            So you automatically rejected something out of hand and called a guy a crackpot. And then you tried to cover up your error by arguing a logically indefensible position.

          • The plain meaning of Unidentified Flying Object (UFO) is just that.

            It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s Superman. I have no clue what it is.

            If it seems to be flying and it can’t be identified, it’s a UFO. No little green men are required. It could be just some guy with a lawn chair and a bunch of balloons.

      • Regarding aliens, there is no evidence either way.
        Believing that they exist is no different from believing they don’t. Neither position can be supported scientifically. The best we can say is that we don’t know.

        • Of course, but the skeptic is the one that doesn’t believe. Those that say they believe and those that say they don’t know are NOT skeptics.

          A skeptic is someone that refuses to believe in something that cannot be demonstrated.

          • Those that say they believe and those that say they don’t know are NOT skeptics.</blockquote.

            According to your own logic:

            Skeptic
            a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief
            https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skeptic

            The above is the definition of one who doubts, i.e., one who does not "know." Not knowing isn't the same thing as disbelieving. Disbelieving, by definition, means one "knows" a given proposition is false.

            You seem to contradict yourself.

          • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in science when there is absence of proof the only rational position is a refusal to believe.
            To believe requires proof. To refuse to believe does not.
            To believe in extraterrestrial visitors in the absence of proof is not skepticism.
            To believe in extraterrestrial visitors in the presence of proof is not skepticism.
            To refuse to believe in extraterrestrial visitors in the absence of proof is skepticism.

            Same if we are talking about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change instead of ETs.

          • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in science when there is absence of proof the only rational position is a refusal to believe.</blockquote.

            Actually the more rational position in the face of uncertainty would be to remain uncertain unless and until further evidence is presented to (dis)prove one's hypothesis. Otherwise, if new evidence did emerge then you'd just show yourself a moron via contradiction. A refusal to believe presupposes never doing any further research and thus just mere denial of the unknown proposition.

            There's rational skepticism and then there's moronic skepticism. The former is uncertain, therefore open to new evidence. The latter is certain with the result being no matter the evidence they refuse to believe.

            In politics, the latter would be the modern Leftist progressive. In science, those who refuse to believe in the falsity of their conclusions regardless of evidence are, e.g., Michael Mann et al.

          • A refusal to believe presupposes never doing any further research and thus just mere denial of the unknown proposition.

            You talk about science but you appear to ignore its more basic tenet. Belief has no place in science. All knowledge is provisional and subject to refutation. All knowledge must be derived from empirical evidence. No empirical evidence, no knowledge, no belief, no doubt. God, extraterrestrial visitors and unicorns are not to be doubted or believed. A skeptic will reject that they are the subject of science. That is the only rational position and to say that it is a fake skepticism is to not understand what scientific skepticism is.

          • You talk about science but you appear to ignore its more basic tenet. Belief has no place in science.

            I haven’t talked about science once. I’ve been talking about YOUR argument the entire time:

            “Just goes to show you don’t understand what a skeptic is either.
            Skeptic
            a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief
            https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/skeptic

            Seems like to me it’s you who’s changed the subject . . .

            https://tinyurl.com/cjrfary

          • “A skeptic is someone that refuses to believe in something that cannot be demonstrated.”

            Yes, this is the key sentence. +42

            In religion, there is three words to describe faith; Gnostic -> full believe, Agnostic -> not sure, and Ignostic -> without evidence question is irrelevant.

            Sceptic and Ignostic – words have same meaning in spiritual and physical world, both.

            Proven things doesn´t need believe, they are.

    • I said over on Dr. Judith’s blog that the blog post is rubbish … my arguments are there.

      w.

  4. Here’s my contribution to the issue of heat escaping the core all the way to the atmosphere: In December of 1980 several of us geologists went on a guided trip underground in the Galena Mine, located in the Coeur d’Alene silver district of northern Idaho. The district is in rocks of the Precambrian Belt Supergroup and are not associated with magmatism nor volcanism. At the surface it was snowing, say temperature around 30 deg F. At a depth of 3,300 feet it was over 90 deg F. One of our group got heat exhaustion. The miners were shirtless and we were dressed for snow. This is an extraordinary amount of heat flow from an inert (?) terrain. Active hot springs? Go figure.

    • Are you sure this thermal gradient is not due simply to adiabatic compression of the air in the mine? The lapse rate works both ways, remember.

    • Sorry that was not all Geothermic.
      The temperature rises 9.8C for every 1km of air above your head.
      But it is still a significant amount.

    • During a brief flirting with oil hole logging, I was made familiar with the requirements of the electronics to take measurements of oil holes due to the rather hostile environment of said holes.
      The bottom line was that the electronics had to be able to handle 180 deg C. This is beyond the worst military specs of 120 deg C. Most passive components, especially capacitors, just don’t work at these temps. The only logic family that worked fairly well was high-speed CMOS. It is impossible to expel the heat from the probe because it is hotter outside, so they used “Fermi ice cubes” to absorb the extra heat in the probe.

      • G, AOC, and Neo, there is a heat source in deep mines from compressive heating of air, however it is nowhere enough to explain the high heat flow heating the wall rocks. The deep South Africa gold mines are around 55 deg C at 3 km depth, and this is stable precambrian sedimentary rocks. The walls deep in the Galena mine (which mine I referenced above, as well as Macassa Gold mine, Sudbury nickel mines, and deep Bingham Canyon shafts, all felt noticeably hotter than the air or other metallic items in the mine, ie, the wallrocks were the transporter of heat. In a related comment I processed airmagnetic data for Nevada utilizing “quick” (limited ot two or three block layers) gaussian processing, and was startled by the low values in a lot of northern Nevada. These low values show shallow Curie Point, which explains the abundant hot springs and geothermal energy generation in the area. What is the true geothermal gradient of the shallow crust? My experience says it is higher than generally reported.

        • Thank you, this answers my question about adiabatic compression of the air. The extra heat is therefore definitely of geothermal origin.

  5. Geothermal Flux (GF) through continental crust is ~65 mW/m^2 and is dismissed as insignificant relative to other fluxes. Yet no one (I hope) thinks that the crust is heated by the atmosphere, since the increasing temperature vs depth can’t be explained that way.
    The temperature of our deep oceans is ~275K, already ~20K above the 255K the sun is supposedly capable of.
    The claim that the atmosphere increases the surface temperature ~20K also implies that the atmosphere must have heated our ~4km deep oceans.
    Just as for the crust can the temperature (heat content) of the oceans be fully explained by geothermal energy in the distant past (oceans (close to) boiling) and all forms of geothermal energy that enters via (through) the ocean floor.
    Sun is very well capable of increasing the temperature of the shallow surface layer to the observed values and in doing so creates a (near) impenetrable layer for geothermal energy entering a the ocean floor.

    Role of the atmosphere:
    – reflecting solar energy to space (albedo)
    – slowing energy loss to space
    – create our fascinating weather

    • The question then becomes has the GF fluctuated in the last few centuries? I’ll guess: it hasn’t. Which means its causative, forcing role on modern warming must be zero.

      I would place the ”sub-sea volcanoes as CO2 ‘splainer’ meme in the same category. Putting aside the fact that CO2 from volcanic sources is 1/100th of human sources, up-thread someone claimed there are “millions of them”, if that is the case then their total, annual average CO2 output is almost certainly unchanged.

      • “I’ll guess: it hasn’t.”

        Guess…. LOL…. Which is all your mindless conjecture is based on.

        Seismic activity under the oceans has certainly been variable and took a step up 2 years before the 1998 El Nino.

        “the fact that CO2 from volcanic sources is 1/100th of human sources”

        No , not fact…. conjecture, from before the discovery of vastly more sub-ocean volcanoes that previously known.

        Evidence, Loy…?

        You still have produced any empiricalevidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

        Your credibility is far less than zero.

        • It there are millions of undersea volcanos, how many recent new ones would there have to be to make a measurable change in the long term energy output?

      • Loydo September 9, 2020 at 9:07 pm

        The question then becomes has the GF fluctuated in the last few centuries?

        Point is that the deep oceans provide the “base” temperature on which the sun does its warming. This way the surface temperatures for 70% of Earth can be easily explained and no need for a Greenhouse effect that supposedly increases the surface temperatures.
        In the Creataceous enormous amounts of magma erupted into the oceans that explain the much higher deep ocean temperature then and thus also the much higher surface temperatures.
        The Ontong Java platau alone was good for up to 100 million km^3 magma.

          • Loydo September 10, 2020 at 4:40 am

            Has there been warming in the oceans? Yes, predominantly at the surface.

            No surprise there. Since 1980 we have seen a large increase in sunshine hours over at least Western Europe. Reason a decrease in average cloudcover.

            In the long term Earth has been cooling down 10 maybe even 20K over the last ~80 million years.
            Reason obviously the cooling of the deep oceans.

          • Not surprised? I’d be astonished if a slight decrease in cloud cover over western europe caused this to global ocean heat content.

          • Loydo, from your chart there has been about a 350 zettajoule increase in oceanic heat content in the top 2000 metres. How many degrees is this?

            Here are my calculations, please check my numbers:

            Heat increase in top 2000 m.	3.50E+23	joules
            Volume, top 2000 m	6.48E+08	cubic km
            Heat increase per m^3	0.54	MJ/m3
            Heat increase per tonne	0.53	MJ/tonne
            Energy to raise one tonne by 1°C 	3.85	MJ/tonne/deg
            Temperature Change	0.14	°C

            So … top 2000 metres of the ocean have warmed by one tenth of a degree in 60 years, or about 0.002°C per year.

            A couple of comments. First, I do NOT believe their claimed accuracy. It goes from about ±120ZJ in 1960 to about ±10ZJ at present. This is a temperature accuracy of ± 0.004°C for the top 2,000 metres of the ocean in recent times. I don’t think that accuracy is remotely possible.

            Second, could cloud changes over 60 years change the heat content of the top 2,000 metres by 350ZJ? Sure. Over sixty years, the sun adds about 115,000 zettajoules to the ocean surface. A change of 350 ZJ over that time is a change of about 0.3% in the cloud cover …

            w.

          • Loydo September 11, 2020 at 5:41 am

            I’d be astonished if a slight decrease in cloud cover over western europe caused this to global ocean heat content.

            A good day of sunshine in the (sub)tropics delivers some 25-30 MJ/m^2 to the surface. Solar warms the upper ~5-10 m directly, so daily solar energy is capable of increasing this layer ~1K. On days without wind the surface temperatures rises up to 5K.
            Seasonal warming penetrates maximum ~500 m deep, before this energy returns to the surface and then the atmosphere / space in the cooling season.
            So an increase in sunshine hours of 10-20 % is very well capable of increasing the temperature of the surface layer significantly.
            https://klimaatgek.nl/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/zonuren-Europa-2019.jpg

    • Free convecting air doesn´t slow energy loss, it enhances heat transfer. This is how you cool engines, by heat absorption in cold air. The surface is like the flanges on an aircooled cylinder or radiator, which is cooled by air. Only confined air which is not allowed to convect acts as insulation and prevents heat loss.

      • lifeisthermal September 9, 2020 at 11:02 pm

        With surface temperature ~288K without atmosphere Earth would radiate ~395 W/m^2 directly to space, and require ~395 W/m^2 input to maintain that temperature.
        With atmosphere Earth only loses ~240 W/m^2 to space and thus requires only ~240 W/m^2 to maintain that 288K.
        What is your explanation if not the atmosphere?

    • Oh thank goodness I read your post. I was floundering through all these mindless (or nearly mindless) comments when yours broke through like the shining Sun.

      Literally like the Sun. Because yes, humans are arrogant and anthropocentric and believe that the Earth really cares, deep inside, what’s happening in this layer that goes 7 (or so) miles up and 7 miles down — the so-called biosphere. And which is a very thin layer that is sensitive to incoming sunlight. In truth nobody cares but the humans doing all this silly quibbling.

      After you go seven miles down, you begin to get the strange feeling that you’ve landed on the Sun…

      Which makes sense. As you keep going down, 4,000 miles further, it gets hotter and hotter, the pressure greater and greater. Another 4,000 miles and you pop up in China (even if you started in China). What folly to think an 8,000 mile diameter white hot pseudo-sun cares what humans are doing in a 14-mile-thick wispy layer tenuously held close by gravity.

      So yeah, thanks for the voice of reason.

      • Fred Ermlich September 10, 2020 at 5:39 am

        Sorry, missed your comment initially.
        It is indeed incredible that, while living on a planet that for > 99% consists of molten stone and molten metal, all those people feel that the only reason to explain the > 90K higher temperatures on Earth compared to our moon must be our cold, low density atmosphere.

  6. Observation 1: Attacking an argument that nobody has made, not a good start.
    Observation 2: Conflicts with the data.
    Observation 3: There is no explanation given for why there should be a correlation between albedo and CO2 greenhouse properties.
    Observation 4: Claims without evidence. Studies regarding the speed of currents are all over the map, many find them to be slowing.
    Observation 5: Claims that the Earth’s magnetic field is sensitive to the temperature of the atmosphere is not supported by science.
    Observation 6: Even if true, there are many possible explanations, not just the one assumed by the author.
    Observation 7: The “recent rise” is well within the range of average.
    Observation 9: Anyone who claims to know what the temperature of the deep oceans is, is either a fool or lying.

    • I agree with your list; however, we have a decent idea what the deep ocean temperature is, and outside of vents near volcanoes, or at the mid-ocean ridge it is cold — possibly below zero celsius on average. Oceanic deep water worldwide is formed near the poles (North Atlantic Deep Water for instance). It is cold water that has sunk at high latitudes because it is very dense. It then spreads throughout the deep ocean and gains enough buoyancy through mixing that it can reach the surface again at low latitudes. In effect it is pushed to the surface by denser water sinking at high latitudes.

      • Water begins to expand when it gets down to 2 or 3C. Any water colder than this won’t stay on the bottom.

        • North Atlantic deep water is 2C and sigma of 35 (salinity of 35 parts per thousand), Antarctic bottom water is as cold as -0.8C. So not quite as cold as I suggested but pretty cold. Salinity plays a big role.

        • Mark, that’s not quite true. It is pressure dependent. At the surface it contracts until it freezes.

          w.

  7. There are examples of ocean driven climate change in the paleo record. Here are three examples:

    1. The PETM paleocene eocene thermal maximum
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/20/an-atmosphere-bias-part-2/

    2. Another PETM link
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/10/28/petm/

    3. Then there is the Miocene climate optimum
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/01/17/miocene/

    4. The end-Triassic massive submarine volcanism and the end of the world.
    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/12/07/ete/

    I have more

    • I like a guy who says, “here are three examples”… then lists four… then says “I have more”.
      He literally proved he had more within the same comment in which he claimed to have more! Nothing wrong with that.

      • Three examples: PETM (2 variants), Miocene climate optimum, and end-Triassic massive submarine volcanism. Perhaps point 2 can be labeled as point 1a (or b), and the others reordered accordingly.

      • In the Mesozoic and Cenozoic Eras, the effects of submarine volcanism on climate are evident at the Triassic-Jurassic boundary, as Pangaea started splitting up, during the mid-Cretaceous Hothouse, the PETM and Early Eocene and the Miocene Thermal Maximum.

      • I’ve done that a few times. When you start writing, you have three examples in your mind. Then while you are writing you come up with some more, but you forget to go back and edit your initial statement.

        • Also, with too many links, the post goes into moderation. and can disappear into the abyss.

          Why take the risk 😉

    • And in turn there is correlation between Icehouse/Hothouse cycles and marine chemistry. There is abundant evidence that marine chemistry is driven by hydrothermal cycles as well as abundant evidence that marine chemistry cycles are NOT driven by temperature or pCO2 in the atmosphere, thus the connection between geothermal heat cycles and climate cannot be ignored.

      In my opinion there are indeed large cycles of hydrothermal input into the oceans, cycles of seafloor production, and cycles of volcanic activity and tectonism – all causing the major Icehouse/Hothouse climate cycles. It does this not only with decreases/increases of geothermal heat into the oceans, but also in a feedback of shrinking/expanding the surface area of oceans covering the planet which decrease/increase solar heating of the oceans.

      https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/99/25/15852.full.pdf
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783036/

  8. Interesting hypothesis.

    What is missing is the proposal for an experiment which would indicate whether this is happening.

    “Reasoning draws a conclusion, but does not make the conclusion certain, unless the mind discovers it by the path of experience…..Argument is conclusive… but… it does not remove doubt , so that the mind may never rest in the sure knowledge of the truth , unless it finds it by the method of experiment.”
    ― Roger Bacon
    ― Roger Bacon

    • All this way down Dodgy is the first commenter to say what any scientist ought to say. Interesting hypothesis, how would we disprove it, what experiment or observation should we pursue.

      (I’d love it to be correct but it just doesn’t sound right, show me.)

      • Actually, it was Roger who said it first. Around 1260, when it was rather dangerous to say that you might not believe a statement until you made your own observations. In those days the Bible contained all the knowledge you needed, and was correct by definition. Even suggesting that some of the assertions needed testing was effectively doubting the Word of God, for which punishments, up to and including death, might be proscribed. You would certainly lose your University position, and be shunned from polite society.

        Come to think of it. it would be much the same as nowadays, if you were foolish enough to say that there are obvious differences between a man and a woman, Western civilisation has made a major contribution to our current technological society, and Trump is not a bad fellow as presidents go….

        Plus ca change, c’est la meme chose…

  9. An interesting site. The author reads like Lord Monckton on steroids! I’m afraid that, despite his claims to the contrary, the language used is neither simple nor clear; if this complexity conceals important subtleties, then fine, but I need to spend a lot more time on it as well to understand better not only what he is getting at, but also – to deal with THE most important problem in dealing with ‘junk science’, how to communicate a refutation in a way that both people with different narratives and decision makers can comprehend and hopefully take on board.

  10. My hat is regularly tipped to those who’s heads, unlike that of a rooster, have room for a new thought; this is one of them. I have been crapped on by people on this site for suggesting some time ago that we don’t yet fully understand the contribution and variability of geothermal heat flow to surface despite the publication of numbers that become accepted.

    It’s just never a good idea to conclude that we at any time know all there is to know about any given subject–including crustal heat flow, especially submarine. It will be interesting to follow where this speculation leads.

    • When the largest external energy input is discarded as a possible variable;

      And the largest internal energy input is discounted as insignificant or perpetually constant;

      And there is money to be made examining (and manipulating for profit) other possibilities (from land use, to energy production, and all the way down to cow farts);

      And you are dealing with people (who have had years to establish & refine their opinions);

      Any contrary speculation will be shit on. roosters’ gonna shit.

    • Venus is hot because it turns so slowly, 243 times more so than Earth. And in the opposite direction, not that that matters. And lacks our axial tilt, so that sunshine on the poles is practically the same as on the equator. Moreover, the night side doesn’t cool off, as on Mercury, due to the thick atmosphere and its high winds.

      Venus receives at top of atmosphere twice as much insolation as Earth, but only 2.5% of that radiation makes it through the dense air to the surface, with perhaps anothe seven percent scattered but finally arriving there. Albedo of about 77% versus Earth’s present ~31%.

      https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/venusfact.html

      Do the math.

  11. There are a number of things to keep in mind here.

    First of all, the ocean is loaded with undersea volcanic activity, and volcanic activity emits CO2, into the mostly cold, deep ocean where it is under greater pressure than that can of soda in your refrigerator. Undersea currents then spread this CO2 rich water globally.

    CO2 is one of the most soluble of all gasses, over 50 times that of oxygen and 100 times that of nitrogen. Obvious conclusion – the oceans are loaded with CO2, which is only a very small component of our atmosphere.

    Due to the relatively high thermal inertia of the oceans, temperature there lags that of the land masses. As the temperature of the oceans change, the amount of CO2 they contain will be affected.

    Earth is very unbalanced, there is far more land and less ocean in our northern hemisphere.

    With the above in mind, what would be an obvious conclusion about the effects of global warming and cooling on the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. Take a look at the data on atmospheric CO2 from Mauna Loa, and note the seasonal variation. It can be explained by logic cerived from the above facts.

    I have seen temperature vs. CO2 charts derived from the ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica. During the 100,000 year ice age cycles, as temperature decreases the decrease is followed by a decrease in atmospheric CO2. At the same time, land available for raising crops is decreased by the ice sheets and shortened growing seasons away from the poles, and that decrease is not sufficiently compensated for by additional land exposed. Is it any wonder that ice ages have been so hard on humans?

    My final observation is that we are heading for the next ice age as a result of the Milankovitch cycles, and additional atmospheric CO2 will be blessed by future generations as it helps increase plant growth.

  12. The big kahuna volcanoes go off primarily during solar minimums https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1342937X10001966
    https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano_news.html

    We have come through decades of strong solar cycles (reduced Cosmic Rays) and SC 23 was the start of a less active Sun. SC24 has been fairly quiet as SC’s go and SC25 is forecast the same. We also haven’t had any volcanic eruptions of VEI-6+ since Pinatubo in 1991, almost 30 years ago. Cosmic Rays (proxy via the Oulu neutron count) are near a space age high, and the Earth is getting bombarded 24×7 by these. It’s no wonder the magma underneath is heating up.

    Above the ocean volcanic activity is currently robust and the possibility of one really going off big time is there. I certainly wouldn’t want to be living near one that is a short term candidate. As cosmic rays continue to hit the Earth over time at a high rate I can see heating both above and below the ocean is becoming more noticeable.

    • A great example of p-hacking. Eliminate the volcanoes that don’t show the desired effect because they are nor sufficiently silica-rich. Ignore that you are working with very small numbers (only 11 eruptions) from Japan only when there’s probably hundreds from all over the world. Then claim significance. Finally invent a really improbable explanation based on cosmic rays affecting magma.

  13. Ok, the flow of heat from Earth’s interior to the surface is estimated at 43-49 TW, equivalent to an average heat flux of 91.6 mW/m2, and is based on more than 38,000 measurements. This is actually only 0.03% of Earth’s total energy budget at the surface, which is dominated by 173,000 TW of incoming solar radiation.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_internal_heat_budget

    It is negligible. If anybody has a budget that changes the picture significantly, should be able to give a reference.

  14. BBC was plugging this on TV News today.

    Thwaites: ‘Doomsday Glacier’ vulnerability seen in new maps.

    Scientists may just have identified Thwaites Glacier’s Achilles heel.

    This Antarctic colossus is melting at a rapid rate, dumping billions of tonnes of ice in the ocean every year and pushing up global sea-levels.

    Now, a UK-US team has surveyed the deep seafloor channels in front of the glacier that almost certainly provide the access for warm water to infiltrate and attack Thwaites’ underside.

    It’s information that will be used to try to predict the ice stream’s future.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54079587

  15. “Recent-Term Rise in Activity of Earth’s Upper Mantle in Terms of Earthquakes and Volcanic Activity Commensurate with Temperature Increases”

    As a matter of fact volcanic activity has been remarkably weak recently. Not a single large eruption for 30 years.

  16. Deepest hole ever dug by humans was in Russia. The Kola Superdeep Borehole. They drilled down 12,000 meters and found the temperature down there was 180C, or 356F, much more than the scientists were expecting. Jeepers. Learned scientificos getting predictions completely wrong? Where have I heard that before…

  17. Jules Verne mentions this in the Mysterious Island. “…the fires in the interior of our globe, which have a greater influence on it than is generally supposed. I hold to this last hypothesis, grounding it on the fact that the moon is really a cold star, which is no longer habitable, although the sun continues to throw on its surface the same amount of heat. If, then, the moon has become cold, it is because the interior fires to which, as do all the stars of the stellar world, it owes its origin, are completely extinct.” See chapter 21.

  18. In 2008, during the depths of the minima of the 23rd SC, this article was popular in the blog
    https://www.livescience.com/4992-volcanoes-erupt-beneath-arctic-ice.html.

    There were significant anomalously hot Sea surface temps North of the Bering and Hudson Bay until about 2010 during an El Nino. I noticed that these sea surface hot anomalies have returned this summer.

    Has anyone been looking at the heat signature and gravitational variance of the Atlantic Seamounts of the coast for North East US and the Canadian Maritime Provinces? As a lay person it is difficult for me to know what I am looking at… (i.e. gulf stream heat bubbles etc) but there appears to be some sort of a cycle there. I am also aware that has been significant submarine volcanism under the North Pole

Comments are closed.