Global Climate Status Report

[babe]

Out of nowhere you call me a hack for an agenda I’ve never advocated here or anywhere else and I’m the one that’s insulting? Maybe we could limit our future interaction to when there’s something substantive that can be directly referenced? That should make it really easy to avoid each other and any repetition of this nonsense.

hmmm.... too damn much work to look up references from years ago. You have a brother who was something like a European version of a John Bircher, but you were too good for that. You called Wilkow a screaming maniac or whatever,. If you don't like someone you are really very very damn condescending. Just what it seems to me, but what do I know.

Anyone who is a socialist who ignores common everyman economic realities like market choices made individually being fair use of individual income is imo a hack. Lots of good economists with lots of slightly variant socialist/governmental top down power/decision making theories that could be discussed. But Wilkow is pretty good at common sense, and questions who gives elites the right to decide for others, but you were so dismissive of his content, I concede it's useless to discuss the ideas.

people who are blind to the views of others can be pretty clever about their own ideas, but blind belief is the core of hackiness. I wonder where you will go to find abject victims for your condescension.


I bet you have a cool car, though. And how about the wines of Spain?

My wife is quite the ardent capitalist, Ayn Rand and all that..... but Mormons began as a kind of socialist without government support, people who had to help one another to get along. Brigham Young was the inspiration for Fed Chairman Eccles in Roosevelt days, and I sorta believe Karl Marx and maybe some Fabians listened to Mormon preachers extolling the call to Zion circa 1838-1855, when they really were preaching Utopian socialism

So I dunno. I like someone who can articulate ideas even if he talks loudly or passionately, even if he isn't exactly what I think already.

 

[babe]

hmmm.... too damn much work to look up references from years ago. You have a brother who was something like a European version of a John Bircher, but you were too good for that. You called Wilkow a screaming maniac or whatever,. If you don't like someone you are really very very damn condescending. Just what it seems to me, but what do I know.

Anyone who is a socialist who ignores common everyman economic realities like market choices made individually being fair use of individual income is imo a hack. Lots of good economists with lots of slightly variant socialist/governmental top down power/decision making theories that could be discussed. But Wilkow is pretty good at common sense, and questions who gives elites the right to decide for others, but you were so dismissive of his content, I concede it's useless to discuss the ideas.

people who are blind to the views of others can be pretty clever about their own ideas, but blind belief is the core of hackiness. I wonder where you will go to find abject victims for your condescension.


I bet you have a cool car, though. And how about the wines of Spain?

My wife is quite the ardent capitalist, Ayn Rand and all that..... but Mormons began as a kind of socialist without government support, people who had to help one another to get along. Brigham Young was the inspiration for Fed Chairman Eccles in Roosevelt days, and I sorta believe Karl Marx and maybe some Fabians listened to Mormon preachers extolling the call to Zion circa 1838-1855, when they really were preaching Utopian socialism

So I dunno. I like someone who can articulate ideas even if he talks loudly or passionately, even if he isn't exactly what I think already.

So I did a litle research on @Jonah.

I used to consider him perhaps the most intelligent poster in here. And the best Chess master.
However, the outrage about being referred to as "another progressive hack" has justification enough. I believe he has status like that of SirKickyAss whose family I know, and like Rev8, and even like Sir Jason Leaderguy, above even Colton.

He's not exactly the guy in the trenches in the grand Cause, and while I didn't dig into his posts much, he is correct about his more standard conservative bearings, although I fail to understand the outrage. I agree with his assessment of @Red as being one of the more thoughtful and sincere posters in this site, although @One Brow is the most intelligent and consistent, all with a dry sense of humor.

But really......srs..... no one who comes in this site for political discourse need take offense at being termed "a progressive hack". Perhaps most would wear that charge like a badge of honor, particularly coming from me, so maybe it just hasn't dawned on Jonah yet.

I consider most "mainstream" republican proponents in the US to be "progressive hacks" just as well. Mitt Romney deserves the charge as did John McCain. Trump is a political ignoramus who just doesn't care about political causes, but he's not far from being a "progressive hack" either.

A progressive hack is a believer in human intelligence and our capacity to organize a better future through management of our affairs, not only in business but in governance. The movement arose as a reaction to the unguided and unmanaged human liberty originally claimed by Americans after defeating the British. The British never gave up on America. They have always had grand discussions in their native English parlors after dinners about what to do to preserve their way of life.

The answer has always been to educate the rubes of America on better ways of managing affairs.

I believe John D. Rockefeller enjoyed favorable relations, and learned much from the more experienced of the Brit society, but was essentially an "American Independent", much like Trump is today.

Jonah, is, I believe something well above the middle class of Spanish or European standards. As such he has had the very best education, drawn of course from folks informed by the best Britain has to offer. My first wife was a Rhodes Scholar. Very interesting how they teach. My second wife was an employee of the Council on Foreign Relations. I got the gossip first hand, so to speak.

Progressive organizations dominate in America in every walk of life, in every Profession. In Europe, progressive institutions have of course been the standard for over a hundred years. The only way the Brit royal family has maintained the older tradition is by being the most effective instrument for progressive policies the world over. Being useful to the interests, so to speak, which certainly are not monolithic unless somehow you can imagine either God or the Devil is in charge of us all.

But the reason I differ from the progressive ideas is simply this. I don't have that level of confidence in our experts, and I see where we mess up more than we can really afford.

I think the basic idea of the American Revolution is a better idea.

Government, and the power of office that goes with it, is perhaps the addiction we humans should most fear. We need to limit it as much as we know how. We need to educate the ordinary people to be self-reliant, and keep our natural resources available for new applications

This is, and perhaps will always be, anathema to the upper classes.

But don't mistake my meaning. Marxism, and other ideals of governance, have always been lies, except for the American ideal, which we have never applied very well. Perhaps it is a lie as well. Perhaps there is no ideal that can save us humans from ourselves.

No matter what our ideals may be, as we present them in polite society, we are and always have been liars, just using rhetoric for our own purposes.

IN this site, I have chosen to appear as a sort of Devil's Advocate, hoping to glean a little edge of understanding from my discussions with whoever. I annoy some I know.

Anyway, I am astonished at Jonah's reaction, but please be assured, I have no intention of being a bore. Well, for some of you, who are in no frame of mind to be disturbed, perhaps that will just have to be "the way things are".

 

[babe]

So, anyway.....

yah gotta just accept that I'm the skeptic. But here's the kind of source that I have to consider....

https://skepticalscience.com/underground-temperatures-control-climate.htm

It's a big site, a big read..... yah gotta know there's motive and money behind it.

At any rate, I will have to take a few pokes at it.....

 

[babe]

Possibly, @Red and @One Brow will indulge in the time it takes to deal with this......

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep37740

Here is a new report from Nature which I will have to read several times to get the whole idea. I have reported in this thread another article on LENR reactions, which one research group suggested must supply about half of the earth's total nuclear heat generation on the basis of direct quantification of the known nuclear isotope reactions from U, Th, and K.

This article has reasoned arguments for a specific LENR reaction based on iron and Deuterium which seems to meet rigorous questions. I note that according to their reasoning, this LENR reaction did not get going until 2.8 to 2.1 Billion years ago, and that they are discussing core processes like what I have been describing, of movements of materials within the molten core.

The SkS article I linked directly above, is emphatically falsified by this new report. The SkS article asserts, without any discussion and without any kind of data, a "steady state" theory about heat flux towards the surface, states that it was greater in early Earth Geological History, and is insignificant in the global climate change discussion, being a mere .09W/cm2 compared to the Sun's 350 W/cm2. The SkS folks essentially deny solar cycles as well, in their drive to assert 'it's all on us".

anyways, give the Nature article a whirl. I think this is the first report ever published in Nature treating LENR seriously...... you know.... "cold fusion". In the Earth's core, very high temps and pressures overcome the energy input required for reactions of this kind, wheras in the first reported cold fusion reaction, it was thought electromotive forces somehow might do the job.

 

[babe]

At any rate, as far as we know, this sort of core reaction could be actually on the rise, and perhaps will continue to rise on a long time scale.

Just sayin'.....


It might be the wrong idea to try to maintain "The Way Things Are", when it could very well be way beyond our power to do anything, but cope, with "The Way Things Are Going".

 

[Red]

So I did a litle research on @Jonah.

I used to consider him perhaps the most intelligent poster in here. And the best Chess master.
However, the outrage about being referred to as "another progressive hack" has justification enough. I believe he has status like that of SirKickyAss whose family I know, and like Rev8, and even like Sir Jason Leaderguy, above even Colton.

He's not exactly the guy in the trenches in the grand Cause, and while I didn't dig into his posts much, he is correct about his more standard conservative bearings, although I fail to understand the outrage. I agree with his assessment of @Red as being one of the more thoughtful and sincere posters in this site, although @One Brow is the most intelligent and consistent, all with a dry sense of humor.

But really......srs..... no one who comes in this site for political discourse need take offense at being termed "a progressive hack". Perhaps most would wear that charge like a badge of honor, particularly coming from me, so maybe it just hasn't dawned on Jonah yet.

I consider most "mainstream" republican proponents in the US to be "progressive hacks" just as well. Mitt Romney deserves the charge as did John McCain. Trump is a political ignoramus who just doesn't care about political causes, but he's not far from being a "progressive hack" either.

A progressive hack is a believer in human intelligence and our capacity to organize a better future through management of our affairs, not only in business but in governance. The movement arose as a reaction to the unguided and unmanaged human liberty originally claimed by Americans after defeating the British. The British never gave up on America. They have always had grand discussions in their native English parlors after dinners about what to do to preserve their way of life.

The answer has always been to educate the rubes of America on better ways of managing affairs.

I believe John D. Rockefeller enjoyed favorable relations, and learned much from the more experienced of the Brit society, but was essentially an "American Independent", much like Trump is today.

Jonah, is, I believe something well above the middle class of Spanish or European standards. As such he has had the very best education, drawn of course from folks informed by the best Britain has to offer. My first wife was a Rhodes Scholar. Very interesting how they teach. My second wife was an employee of the Council on Foreign Relations. I got the gossip first hand, so to speak.

Progressive organizations dominate in America in every walk of life, in every Profession. In Europe, progressive institutions have of course been the standard for over a hundred years. The only way the Brit royal family has maintained the older tradition is by being the most effective instrument for progressive policies the world over. Being useful to the interests, so to speak, which certainly are not monolithic unless somehow you can imagine either God or the Devil is in charge of us all.

But the reason I differ from the progressive ideas is simply this. I don't have that level of confidence in our experts, and I see where we mess up more than we can really afford.

I think the basic idea of the American Revolution is a better idea.

Government, and the power of office that goes with it, is perhaps the addiction we humans should most fear. We need to limit it as much as we know how. We need to educate the ordinary people to be self-reliant, and keep our natural resources available for new applications

This is, and perhaps will always be, anathema to the upper classes.

But don't mistake my meaning. Marxism, and other ideals of governance, have always been lies, except for the American ideal, which we have never applied very well. Perhaps it is a lie as well. Perhaps there is no ideal that can save us humans from ourselves.

No matter what our ideals may be, as we present them in polite society, we are and always have been liars, just using rhetoric for our own purposes.

IN this site, I have chosen to appear as a sort of Devil's Advocate, hoping to glean a little edge of understanding from my discussions with whoever. I annoy some I know.

Anyway, I am astonished at Jonah's reaction, but please be assured, I have no intention of being a bore. Well, for some of you, who are in no frame of mind to be disturbed, perhaps that will just have to be "the way things are".

I felt that the fact I took the time to thank @Jonah for his kind words to me led, indirectly, to you saying things to him that he obviously did not appreciate. And so I actually felt like, if I had not thanked him, your characterization of him would not have happened at all. See, I will put things like that right on me, on myself. I'm really sorry you did that. There was no real good reason for it. Just seemed like a cheap shot to me. He does not post here all that much, not daily like a lot of us, and when I said I thought he was a very thoughtful poster, I meant I can recognize when someone is posting intelligent, and honest and heartfelt opinions, opinions that reflect a heart that cares about others. I recognize that in him. I recognize that in several posters here. I don't care what your opinion of him is, nor did I ask your opinion.

 

[babe]

I felt that the fact I took the time to thank @Jonah for his kind words to me led, indirectly, to you saying things to him that he obviously did not appreciate. And so I actually felt like, if I had not thanked him, your characterization of him would not have happened at all. See, I will put things like that right on me, on myself. I'm really sorry you did that. There was no real good reason for it. Just seemed like a cheap shot to me. He does not post here all that much, not daily like a lot of us, and when I said I thought he was a very thoughtful poster, I meant I can recognize when someone is posting intelligent, and honest and heartfelt opinions, opinions that reflect a heart that cares about others. I recognize that in him. I recognize that in several posters here. I don't care what your opinion of him is, nor did I ask your opinion.

I went back at looked at the sequence of postings earlier today. I didn't see where he was ever saying anything about me, but at the time I popped off with that comment, there were a sequence of babe slurs above, none of which were Jonah's work.

At the time I did the stupid comment, it was my impression that he was joining in the fray.

Every now and then you do the little psychobabble bit trying to find some way to fit me in with your universe, and sometimes I am pretty hard on you, too.

 

[babe]

Well, I will add this. There is surely a lot to be said for me not posting to this forum. For my sake. Other's sake. The sake of bandwidth, lol. And it would be very arrogant of me to think I can add anything worthwhile, so I won't make that assumption. I have tried, but largely failed, I'm sure. I could try something different, like get a life. Haha...

So, my view of this forum is that there is an "in-crowd". I've never been in the private forums to see what goes on behind the front page, but the site works like a front outfit for a progressive agenda.....There are some elites who are above the fray, who refuse to soil their reputations by discussing things with the uninitiated ignoramuses who wanna talk about, say the US Constitution, or US exceptionalism. But somehow, there is a line of connection between the "elites" and the frequent posters. A sort of stamp of approval, at least.

Now, in my understanding of "The Way Things Are" politically in this whole world, I would imagine that an American like HIllary Clinton or Bill Clinton are roughly the equivalent of a Putin or a Xi Jinpeng. I would not really believe they are not all "friends" who with a wink and nod can mobilize their nationals to do a war, but their wars will never change the top personnel, really. This is the New World Order. People who accept it can with some care become UN offciials, or government bigshots and with generous slush funds and expense allowances can enjoy the best dining, the best wining, and the youngest sex slaves all they want..... while the great unwashed masses scurry around blowing one another up believing they have some reliable self-interest to die for. Well, maybe we can't afford the bombs and have to do our bit online..... throwing conversational bombs at least.

Anyone who is down with the UN, who really believes it is a good way to run the world, has to be willing to disregard the scum at the top.

So anyway I think Red is a real human like most of the "progressive" idealists, just believes what's served up in standard media.....but I really don't know...... anyone in here.

 

[Jonah]

So I did a litle research on @Jonah.

I used to consider him perhaps the most intelligent poster in here. And the best Chess master.
However, the outrage about being referred to as "another progressive hack" has justification enough. I believe he has status like that of SirKickyAss whose family I know, and like Rev8, and even like Sir Jason Leaderguy, above even Colton.

He's not exactly the guy in the trenches in the grand Cause, and while I didn't dig into his posts much, he is correct about his more standard conservative bearings, although I fail to understand the outrage. I agree with his assessment of @Red as being one of the more thoughtful and sincere posters in this site, although @One Brow is the most intelligent and consistent, all with a dry sense of humor.

But really......srs..... no one who comes in this site for political discourse need take offense at being termed "a progressive hack". Perhaps most would wear that charge like a badge of honor, particularly coming from me, so maybe it just hasn't dawned on Jonah yet.

I consider most "mainstream" republican proponents in the US to be "progressive hacks" just as well. Mitt Romney deserves the charge as did John McCain. Trump is a political ignoramus who just doesn't care about political causes, but he's not far from being a "progressive hack" either.

A progressive hack is a believer in human intelligence and our capacity to organize a better future through management of our affairs, not only in business but in governance. The movement arose as a reaction to the unguided and unmanaged human liberty originally claimed by Americans after defeating the British. The British never gave up on America. They have always had grand discussions in their native English parlors after dinners about what to do to preserve their way of life.

The answer has always been to educate the rubes of America on better ways of managing affairs.

I believe John D. Rockefeller enjoyed favorable relations, and learned much from the more experienced of the Brit society, but was essentially an "American Independent", much like Trump is today.

Jonah, is, I believe something well above the middle class of Spanish or European standards. As such he has had the very best education, drawn of course from folks informed by the best Britain has to offer. My first wife was a Rhodes Scholar. Very interesting how they teach. My second wife was an employee of the Council on Foreign Relations. I got the gossip first hand, so to speak.

Progressive organizations dominate in America in every walk of life, in every Profession. In Europe, progressive institutions have of course been the standard for over a hundred years. The only way the Brit royal family has maintained the older tradition is by being the most effective instrument for progressive policies the world over. Being useful to the interests, so to speak, which certainly are not monolithic unless somehow you can imagine either God or the Devil is in charge of us all.

But the reason I differ from the progressive ideas is simply this. I don't have that level of confidence in our experts, and I see where we mess up more than we can really afford.

I think the basic idea of the American Revolution is a better idea.

Government, and the power of office that goes with it, is perhaps the addiction we humans should most fear. We need to limit it as much as we know how. We need to educate the ordinary people to be self-reliant, and keep our natural resources available for new applications

This is, and perhaps will always be, anathema to the upper classes.

But don't mistake my meaning. Marxism, and other ideals of governance, have always been lies, except for the American ideal, which we have never applied very well. Perhaps it is a lie as well. Perhaps there is no ideal that can save us humans from ourselves.

No matter what our ideals may be, as we present them in polite society, we are and always have been liars, just using rhetoric for our own purposes.

IN this site, I have chosen to appear as a sort of Devil's Advocate, hoping to glean a little edge of understanding from my discussions with whoever. I annoy some I know.

Anyway, I am astonished at Jonah's reaction, but please be assured, I have no intention of being a bore. Well, for some of you, who are in no frame of mind to be disturbed, perhaps that will just have to be "the way things are".

I appreciate the words and the effort, babe. I think I have a healthy mix of conservative, libertarian and liberal values and opinions so I’m not real comfortable with any one label over the others. However, progressive can especially irritate in a way that liberal would not. Free speech and individual rights are core values, for example, and they are two areas progressives really flounder on. Anyway, that’s the simple reason for my reaction. I’m fine with moving on and settling back to the occasional bickering and jabbering I’ve enjoyed with you in the past.

 

[babe]

Hey. This must be a good day. Jonah came back.

Thank you, Jonah.

This solidifies your reputation as one of our smartest and most reasonable members.

 

[NAOS]

If you haven’t looked into what’s happening on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, then sober up and do some research. Startling. We’re barreling toward 4 degrees of warming.

 

[One Brow]

A progressive hack is a believer in human intelligence and our capacity to organize a better future through management of our affairs, not only in business but in governance.

By that definition, I'm far too cynical to be a progressive hack. I don't believe in a better future (outside of technological advancements). We don't know enough about the future to plan for anything. All we can do is address the evils of today.

But the reason I differ from the progressive ideas is simply this. I don't have that level of confidence in our experts, and I see where we mess up more than we can really afford.

This is true. However, the only way to have to make things better it to try things, see what works today, and abandon the rest.

But don't mistake my meaning. Marxism, and other ideals of governance, have always been lies, except for the American ideal, which we have never applied very well. Perhaps it is a lie as well. Perhaps there is no ideal that can save us humans from ourselves.

That's my opinion, as well. No wonder we disagree so amiably, most of the time.

 

[babe]

If you haven’t looked into what’s happening on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, then sober up and do some research. Startling. We’re barreling toward 4 degrees of warming.

I haven't. I believe the Russians are using the Arctic sea for commercial shipping already, but I'll check it out. The Arctic sea ice has never been all that thick, nothing like the Antarctic where besides the latitude there is substantial elevation. We are near the usual, so far as estimates of interglacial warm maximum temps seem to be for past cycles. I think the interglacial warm periods are part of a cycle that is self-limiting. We no longer have anything near the CO2 levels that in past geologic ages kept the poles warm enough to be cold rain forests. At .04 % yp 0.10 % CO2 we will still be locked in the Ice Age cycles. Look at the oceanic thermoclines. When the icepack is gone and the supply of fresh 4C water "dries up", the warm period comes to a quick end because of the rapid onset of polar precipitation, which with warm oceans to supply the precipitation will rapidly restore the ice shelves and close the polar sea once again.

It is believed by many that the fresh water from Arctic icemelt and the many rivers that flow into the Arctic sea, with the relatively restdricted mixing channels of the Bering and North Sea, drives our El Nino/La Nina weather patterns. The vertical saline mixing currents determine surface sea temps. But with deep sea warming we will have profound climate change. You know, a new ice age. It's counter-intuitive, but the fact is Ice Age onset needs warm oceans to supply the polar snowfall. Cold Oceans mean Arctic and Antarctic "desert" climates which just don't get enough winter snowfall to keep up with summer melting.

 

[babe]

By that definition, I'm far too cynical to be a progressive hack. I don't believe in a better future (outside of technological advancements). We don't know enough about the future to plan for anything. All we can do is address the evils of today.



This is true. However, the only way to have to make things better it to try things, see what works today, and abandon the rest.



That's my opinion, as well. No wonder we disagree so amiably, most of the time.

If you haven’t looked into what’s happening on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, then sober up and do some research. Startling. We’re barreling toward 4 degrees of warming.

What I see in the Google-Approved fare is some stuff about methane in the Arctic ice. I've seen articles about that in the past. At cold temperatures, methane will actually form a distinct crystalline structure with associated water molecules..... hydrogen bonding to the oxygen atom in the water molecule. Scientists are measuring and calculating how much methane there is in that area which is being or will be released into the atmosphere.

The Arctic Sea is a former rain forest area in the geologic epochs of carboniferous ages before we had polar ice. Continent have in geologic time experience changes in elevation that practically mean some sea areas we have now were once above sea level. Here in Utah we have two great geologic areas, east and west of the deep fault feature that runs from the Sea of Cortex between Baja California all the way up into Canada somewhere, which have alternately risen and fallen in manner that has left vast salt deposits from sea water repeatedly trapped inland and left to evaporate in desert climate.

Under the vast Siberian and North American permafrost zones, a lot of organic matter is decomposing, releasing methane, which is entrapped under ice and even stored in large quantities of clathrate type crystals. Good if we could utilize it instead of just let it go into the atmosphere.... but pretty impossible in terms of quantity and extent.

CH4 decomposes in sunlight and oxygen atmospheres, with a believed chemical mechanism that puts OH- ions in the seat as rate limiting. OH- is generated from water in the air by uv light reactions. The net result is we have methane being our second in importance greenhouse gas, and part of various cycles which affect our atmospheric temp and composition.

The issue is a lot bigger than just surface ice melting.....

 

[babe]

So I've been looking for information about the deep blue sea and how it plays a major role in our climate, including climate cycles and such.

I think the "Science" community is missing the point. The sea is the gorilla in the room everyone is ignoring.

As a "heat sink" or a modulator of atmospheric conditions.

 

[babe]

My angle of attack on the subject of the sea is the question of oceanic thermocline cycles or changes. The surface sea temp is generally, for a few feet..... pretty close to air temp, relatively speaking..... but the temp drops rapidly to around 4C, with most of the ocean volume near that temp. The source of 4C water is polar ice melt. The 4C water is the maximum density water, so it tends to sink or flow along the sea floor and build up or pool there..... but it is now most of the ocean water.

I question how this can be. The Ocean is 71% of planet Earth's surface. It absorbs and holds heat radiated from the Sun. Well, most of the heat goes towards evaporation and generation of storms, and precipitation. It is the source of most continental rainfall. So the Sun's radiation drives all that physical transport of water.

If the surface temp in the tropics gets to 28C to 30C, it is considered "favorable" for hurricane/typhoon development. Those tropical storms are heat transfer engines that convert tropical ocean heat to wind and preceipitation that eventually moves towards subtropical lattitudes. So considering.... there is a temperature "tipping point" in our climate where, if the ocean temps go higher, we get exponential returns on precipitation or storm events. The SST is actually in effect a system of moderating changes in the energy balance that affects our climate.

But it is affected not only by our Sun but by the huge deep sea it is in contact with.

To be clear, this is a system that is large in relation to atmospheric temperature and composition, large in comparison with our fossil fuel budget or atmospheric heat balance. I think it is what we really need to understand first.

 

[babe]

Looking at deep well borehole temps, some scientists report warmer temps generally observed with changing depth. The situation is variable with some geologic areas that are underlain with near-surface features of hot rock or plumes. The area of the Western US and Canada has experienced a geologic uplift in geologic time scare in the past. The Great Basin domain is now subsiding as the liquid hot rock is generally retreating back towards the subduction zone of the Pacific Coast. What that means is that we are "rich" in geothermal terms, with vast economic potiential for geothermal electric generation plants, based on pumping water into the hot rock a few thousand feet down, or less, and generating steam to drive electric turbines. So there is some effort to drill holes and look for convenient geothermal plant locations.....

But our area is not a good place to look if we want to get data on thermal flux from the core. We are a "hot spot". The Antarctic is a "hot spot". The Pacific Northwest and virtually the entire Pacific offshore is "hot" relative to the average.

The average thermal flux from our core, worldwide, is thought to be about 1 degree F per 100 ft. in depth towards our core. The Earth's surface temp on average, with a disproportional amount of low-lattitude surface, about 12 C. The core reaches about 6000C. The heat coming to the surface is going mostly into the 4C deep ocean water. If there were no ice melt, the temp would rise....

It is my theory that when the polar ice melts, the deep blue sea will warm up. When the deep blue sea starts to warm up, the SST will rise much faster than any amount of atmospheric CO2 will cause due to "global warming" caused by human fossil fuel use.

So the loss of polar ice or glacial ice at polar lattitudes will be a "tipping point". Imo, that "tipping point" will mean the onset of a new Ice Age due to increased polar precipitation.

So, the whole thing amounts to a most significant cycle that is orders of magnitude more important than human fossil fuel use....

 

[babe]

At the average oceanic depth of say 6000 ft, the heat-flux earth temp would be say 60 degrees F warmer than sea level surfaces which average say 60F already. 60 plus 60 is 120 F. Like Death Valley on a hot day. Of course there is a zone of equilibrium with the 4C water, but the logic here insists that there is a much higher flow of heat into the ocean bottoms than comes to us at sea level surfaces. This heat flow must be more than balanced by supplies of melting ice year after year.

Pretty sure the scientists of today, aggravating about the immediate doom and gloom, have not understood this. We have a dominant climate cycle. The cycle gives us a relatively brief "warm" interglacial epoch one every hundred thousand years or so. If we burn everything we have, we might extend our "warm" cycle a few years, with the result of having a more powerful cold epoch following.

We don't really have much fuel to burn. The real answer is to develop an economy that does not depend on fossil fuel. More local manufacture rather than world trade. People making local decisions rather than globalists jetting around bossing the rubes. Economies of scale in production are a sort of addiction we have to get off from.

The real reason we should not subject ourselves to global governance is that we are just stupid, really. But at least we could be stupid on a smaller scale, and we'd be a lot happier, and much better off.

 

[babe]

So, in view of our important fossil fuel reserves being actually irreplaceable, we should not just burn them up. It would be better if we went to geothermal electric generation where ever we can do so economically. I'd say that is the premier investment opportunity.

Solar generation requires too much disturbance of critical environmental areas. yah.... OK on rooftops where the surface is ruined anyways.... but even there, If we build our houses with rooftop gardens it would be better. cooler in summer, warmer in winter.... all that. Still, the raw resources will mean costs will continue to decline for 20 years or more, and the real issue is whether we want land surface glassed over frying our migratory birds and starving our desert turtles and lizards. For me, that's a HELL NO.

nuclear.... fission like U or Th.... can be done safely but with initial design and construction costs that are not competitive on a short term economic decision. You have to accept a 40 year investment to do it, but you will get a hundred year return.

LENR, which is a real thing, has potential over a thousand times greater than anything else we know about. The deep blue sea is thought to have elevated content of Deuterium in the water there. Heavy water sinks.....D2O is going to collect there.

But even surface values for Deuterium in water is comparatively off the charts in potential energy we could use for electric generation, and we can build plants anywhere there is water, with practically no transportation issues. Generate deuterium onsite with every plant we build for electric generation.

At the present time, we have not come near any practical way to exploit LENRs. In a sense, this has the same scale of difficulty as building a hot fusion reactor. At the present time, the science is looking at plasma contained by say magnetic forces and such since it's just too hot it'll melt any container, and drawing out the excess heat generated to run steam turbines all the same. So in practical terms, it looks to me like LENR will have to move towards the hot fusion technology to become :"practical".

Looking at the Nature report I linked above, described core reactor involved iron/deuterium under pressure and heat of core conditions. The fact in nature of many metals being capable of incorporating large volumes of hydrogen gas.... deuterium gas if you do the work to concentrate that isotope of hydrogen.... means there is an immense field of possibility here. The "crystals" of metal which can be formed under enough pressure, even at high temps, provides a matrix for the fusion. A sort of catalyst structure....

Well, folks, go on with your fear-mongering. I have a new business.

 

[babe]

It's not just Greenland melting this year. Look at the news from Alaska....

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Baked-Alaska-State-Endures-Warmest-Month-Record?cm_ven=cat6-widget