Global warming and climate change. Eavesdropping on the deniosphere, its weird pseudo-science and crazy conspiracy whoppers.
Denier weirdness: "OMG it's insects" is back at WUWT - this time it's earth's central core nuclear reactor!
Sou | 6:13 AM Go to the first of 23 comments. Add a comment
I'm slipping. I nearly missed a WUWT article by our old friend Ronald D Voisin, of OMG it's insects fame and who has advocated killing off insects and mammals to mitigate global warming. I only noticed it because of a tweet by Chris Colose retweeted by Michael Mann.
#PoesLaw strikes again! MT @CColose belated Apr 1 joke, @wattsupwiththat posts "Earth's core..responsible 4 ice ages" http://t.co/IC3SVRZVRK
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) April 24, 2014
Earth's central-core nuclear reactor
This time Ronald has a new theory about what causes global warming and cooling (archived here). It's changes in the core of the earth.
Ronald doesn't use one word where a dozen would suffice. I'll try to distil his theory down to its essence.
There is a "central core nuclear reactor" (in the centre of earth) powered by thorium and uranium.
The centre core of earth has "weather patterns". These patterns cause the material in the centre core to expand and contract, thereby causing ice ages AND continental drift.
When it expands it cools and the "rate of reaction kinetics drops significantly (as would the rate of continental drift and the frequency of earthquake/volcanic activity)".
Most of the time the reactor is in a cooler state, hence glaciations.
For short periods (interglacials), "reaction kinetics" take off because of "gravitational precipitation"
The icing on the cake is that "the rate of sub-oceanic crust formation (and the rate of continental drift) should correlate well to major climate transitions"!!
Ronald is quite excited about the possibilities this opens up for new research. He writes:
To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to establish this type of correlation (continental drift rate, or crust creation rate, to major climate changes) but it might likely be possible; and it would provide compelling evidence to the hypothesis of central-core reactor-variability as the primary cause of major climate transitions. Additionally, the size and shape of the temporal shift would provide great insight into all manner of thermal dynamics from the center to the crust.
He also says we're overdue for a major glaciation, which might start very soon, because:
This Earth has spent >11,000 years in this current major thermal upswing (more likely 18-20ky depending how you look at it). On average the Earth spends ~90,000 years glaciated, then 6,000-15,000 years interglacial, before dropping back to ~90,000 more years of glaciation. This cycle has repeated itself for about a million years for sure, and quite possibly very much longer. So it is a stark fact that we are overdue for the next fall to major glaciation.
We have no idea as to exactly when this will occur, as we don't yet know what even causes these major swings. It could be 500 or 1,000 years in front of us – somewhat unlikely. It could be that the next fall to glaciation is about to start – we just do not yet know.
Actually we do yet know. I've written about this a few times already. The next ice age isn't due for another 50,000 years or so.
Anthony Watts isn't sure about this - maybe so, maybe not...
Anthony Watts thinks he gave himself an "out" writing:
[Note: This essay discusses a theory that some people might consider as impossible, and it may very well be, even though there is some support for the idea that continental position plays a role in major ice ages. As seen below, Milankovitch cycles resulting in insolation variance is a leading theory that seems much more plausible as a driver than the one proposed by Voisin below. However, exposing such ideas to open discussion is the surest way to sort out the possible from the impossible, and Mr. Voisin expects such challenges. So, beat it up, and let's see what is left. - Anthony]
So he's not sure whether this article is worthy of his blog. The answer is, of course, yes it is. It epitomises the crank science churned out at WUWT. What's strange this time around is that so many readers are willing to entertain the notion, or to dismiss it but not on the grounds of the most obvious reasons. I'd have expected an outcry along the lines of "you're making us a laughing stock"! But no, except for one or two rare comments.
From the WUWT comments - in favour or at least willing to entertain the notion
Could be that this affects the amount of heat the deep ocean takes away from the surface with arrangment of continents also affecting ocean mixing.
If you further assume the various layers of the core are non-spherical geometric shapes and play that against the fact that the rotational speed of the core and the rotational speed of the Earth's surface are quite different you then have a stirring mechanism. The viscosity of the deep mantle cannot possibly be uniform, so you have widely varying velocities of radioactive hot mud down there. This could be the energy transport mechanism and a cyclic driver fed by a nuclear furnace. I think I've included enough weasel words to protect my reputation.
Steve Keohane says anything goes, as long as it's not CO2:
Thank you sir, very interesting, need to go over it again. It has always seemed obvious something kicked the earth out of its glacial state, and it wasn't CO2.
I too am a photo-lithography refugee, worked for a couple of start-ups in the 70s and settled at HP, retiring in 1992. Some exciting times on the frontiers of materials and lenses' imaging capabilities leading to SEMATECH in the late 80s.
Gordon Ford says:
Might there also be a chemical signature, an isotope signature or a radioactive element signature? Analysis of Iceland basalts may provide the key parameter.
Col Mosby says:
The theory does explain a lot that current CO2 driven climate theory has problems with (probably unresolvable ones at that). The mechanics of a core nuclear reaction seem plausible enough, so
I'd say the ball is now in the other court. Now let's see if anyone can shred that seeming plausibility.
It would be ironic if we could irrefutably show that not only is CO2 the basis for life (easily done)
but that nuclear power is the basis for our pleasant climate. Cherish carbon and nuclear power : heads should be exploding all over the place.
timspence10 says:
I liked this a lot, lots of clear thinking and Ronald is 'warm' on this. I always believed that electromagnetic fields influence the high and low pressure zones that give us consistent or inconsistent long term weather patterns, that's all climate is.
gloccamorra says:
I can't think of a more interesting theory, or one harder to measure/prove. I don't worry about volcanoes cooling the earth instead of warming it. Undersea volcanoes and vents can warm the oceans enough to end an ice age. The 100k-110k year timing is close to the sun's 11 year cycle times 1000, with interglacials equivalent to sunspot peaks, so could there be a synchronicity, putting the sun back into the equation?
From the WUWT comments - against
Ted Vaughn says:
One of the most ridiculous explanations for why and how the climate changes that I have ever come across. Not worthy for this web-site.
Curious George says:
Two numbers: The heat flow from the Earth's interior is currently estimated at 90 mW / m2. The insolation (the energy flow from the Sun) is measured at 1320-1410 W / m2 – it varies along the Earth's elliptical orbit. The ration is of order 1:10,000.
Keith Willshaw says:
I don't buy this. The other elements in the earths core simply absorb too many neutrons to make such a reaction feasible. Maintaining a self sustaining reaction with natural uranium requires some very clever engineering. In the past when a greater percentage was fissile there were some natural reactors on the earths surface in the Oklo region of Africa but that was 1.7 billion years ago.
From the WUWT comments - probably against, but I can't tell for sure
Roy Spencer says (yeah, I don't really believe he entertains the idea, either):
This is the craziest idea I have seen advanced since continental drift. ;-) Well-written, too, BTW.
Willis Eschenbach says:
There's a discussion of this idea from 2002 here … the theory doesn't seem to have gained much traction in the interim. The theory originated with a man named Herndon, who first published a piece about it in 1993.
Although it is certainly possible that Herndon is right, the theory has been out there for about twenty years at this point. Usually (but assuredly not always) if a scientific idea hasn't gained supporters after a couple of decades, it's because there's something wrong with it.
Finally, I didn't see any numbers regarding the amount of geothermal heat that reaches the surface, regardless of its source. Whether the core is nuclear or just plain old hot, the heat needs to make it to the surface to affect the weather. I've run the numbers on how much heat that is, and I always get answers in the tenths or hundredths of a watt per square metre. Which makes sense, if there was a lot of heat coming out from the ground, we wouldn't need to heat our houses, and the snow would melt from the bottom up …
So while it's an interesting exercise, I fear I don't see any data to back it up.
From the WUWT comments - irrelevant
Arno Arrak is hopeless at history, among other things, and says:
You are beating a dead horse when it comes to the role of carbon dioxide. That is because carbon dioxide demonstrably has no role in present day global warming. That entire doctrine started when Hansen claimed in 1988 that greenhouse effect (actually enhanced greenhouse effect but they don't like to spell that out) has been detected. He was wrong of course because he included the early century warming (1910 to 1940) as part of his proof of the existence of global warming. Carbon dioxide as a cause of this early warming is excluded by the fact that there was no simultaneous increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 1910 and because carbon dioxide was not removed from the atmosphere in 1940. Since clearly Hansen did not detect greenhouse warming in 1988, and neither did anyone else since then, the entire global warming establishment has been venerating the emperor's new clothes since then. It will take a little child to point that out to them. Or someone not blinded by the one billion dollars a day this scam is producing world-wide for THE CAUSE.
There is a heap of other comments at WUWT. I didn't necessarily pick out the biggest beauties because I couldn't be bothered reading them all. WUWT is sinking into utter nuttery again.
By Sou at 6:13 AM
Labels: denier weirdness, Ronald D. Voisin
John Mashey April 26, 2014 at 6:34 AM
Ahh, Arno Arrak, I own a copy of his book, whose reviews show the usual bimodal distribution of 5-stars and 1-star. I keep it on the separate shelves where I don't let science books go.
Rattus Norvegicus April 26, 2014 at 10:30 AM
Wouldn't want the science books to die laughing now, would we?
Magma April 26, 2014 at 6:59 AM
The WUWT wingnuttery seems to be growing. The other trend seems to be for a lead post based around the misinterpretation of a single out-of-context sentence from the abstract of a legitimate paper. Naturally, few if any of the commenters who rush in bother to read the abstracts carefully, let alone read the papers themselves.
Catmando April 26, 2014 at 5:38 PM
I have reason to believe the increase in wingnuttery is deliberate. It's about discrediting the deniers - what better way than to do it from the inside?
Didn't other deniers claimed that it might be a heretofore-unknow, and somehow undetected magnetic field effect, that was bringing megajoules of heat energy into the climate system ?
That's an explanation that's just as good as blaming climate change on some invisible gas that would exist in tiny concentrations in the air, something called CO2.
I like the comment from Roy Spencer that you pointed out. It really is a crazy theory, but can it be completely refuted with what we currently know? While you poke fun at his theory and the commenters on WUT's blog post, do you have a definitive science based argument that would totally refute this crazy theory? There are some odd people that commented at WUT's, maybe he should moderate more of the comments.
Sou April 26, 2014 at 4:00 PM
The main objection to his "earth is warmed from inside out - not the sun and atmosphere" is simple. These lecture notes might help in part. This page shows that ocean temperature decreases with depth. The oceans warm from the top down not the bottom up.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases are what keep earth warm. This brochure gives some information about that.
There is more "wrong" with it but that should get you started in thinking about it. If you want more hints or some tips on how to DYOR, let us know. One of the research scientists or informed science lovers who read HW will probably be happy to help.
In regard to the interior of earth, it is very hot (~4000 K in the centre). Here is some recent research on the mantle.
Earth's interior is still being explored (eg here and here). The people who study it are few and there isn't nearly as much information about it on the internet as there is for climate. Seems to me that the information is scattered throughout and not all that accessible to the general public. Might be a good project for someone.
The basics are well accepted - structure, general composition etc. However new discoveries are being made all the time - such as water in the mantle; and how the inner core speeds up and slows down out of sync with the crust. And new techniques for mapping the interior of earth seem to pop up from time to time.
Millicent April 26, 2014 at 4:44 PM
Can you refute the theory that there is a giant pixie at the earth's core? The key here is that it is not enough to simply make shit up. Plate tectonics fitted a myriad of observations and filled in a gap in geologist's understanding of the Earth's history. Whereas this is just any old crap that is convenient to the fossil fuel industry.
Millicent I doubt the fossil fuel industry would adopt Ronald's notion. These companies want to maintain some decorum :)
Ronald D. Voisin is a one-man band AFAIK. It looks as if he has a vivid imagination but isn't capable of merging his imagination with facts in any sensible way. He is also a "very serious person".
Industrious pixies might be his next idea :)
dhogaza April 27, 2014 at 12:54 AM
"Plate tectonics fitted a myriad of observations and filled in a gap in geologist's understanding of the Earth's history."
And showed the Wegener's proposed mechanism of Continental Drift was wrong (the observed fit of the continents: correct, the mechanism he proposed: physically impossible).
Anthony David April 26, 2014 at 2:26 PM
@Anonymous I suggest reading Curious George's harvested comment.
Dikran Marsupial April 27, 2014 at 2:28 AM
I wonder what observations would be needed to falsify this theory in Voisin's opinion? It may be a theory, but is it science?
Anthony, I did read Curious' comment Sou posted above. However, isn't the average insolation at the earth's surface 250 W/m^2?
Sou April 27, 2014 at 5:24 AM
Net solar is around 240 W/m^2. But if you compare it to 0.09 W/m^2 from geothermal heat flow, that's rather a big difference.
Reference for geothermal:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/93RG01249/abstract
Reference for solar:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/doc/publications/Wild_etal_GlobalEnergyBalance_ClimDyn2012.pdf
Also, I'm surprised Voisin didn't throw in the abiogenic petroleum creationism hypothesis into his postulation. Didn't read Voisin's rant at WUT's, but would assume Sou would point it out in her post if he did.
No, his article was mainly about what goes on beneath the crust. I've come across people like Ronald in real life who like to explore ideas (in astronomy and theoretical physics for example). But the people I know check back with reality, most of the time, eventually :D
Sou, isn't abiogenic petroleum theory based on being below the crust?
Oh, is it? I'd never really looked into it. And yes, I've just checked and you're right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
I've learnt something new today. Nice :)
(Note: changed the link)
Bernard J. April 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM
I'm slipping too - I missed this thread the first time 'round, and was only alerted when I heard about it in the staff tea room earlier today.
As for the wingnuttery that is the subject of this thread, one can only despair for the future of the human gene pool if it has these numpties with such notions swimming in it...
"I love eating meat, but I love our planet even more. So I will join this campaign and stop eating meat at least one day each week." —Richard Branson, Support Meat-Free Monday web site
Cracked or what? The guy runs an airline for chrisake!
Seems there are no end of lunatics out there
Marco April 28, 2014 at 10:55 PM
http://www.virgin-atlantic.com/en/gb/allaboutus/pressoffice/faq/climatechange.jsp
At least they don't deny what causes climate change and are willing to make a real effort to reduce their impact.
Note in particular:
"Travel Profits - Sir Richard Branson has committed all of his profits from the Virgin Group's transport interests, including Virgin Atlantic and Virgin Trains, over the next 10 years. The funds will be invested in schemes to develop new renewable technologies, through an investment group called Virgin Fuels."
Steve Bloom May 1, 2014 at 4:27 PM
This is like a bad parody of the well-understood process whereby global climate on long time scales really is controlled by the plate tectonic cycle of joinings and splittings of the continents, which determines natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. At maximum continental dispersal, basically where we're at now, CO2 is at a minimum. Interestingly the expected first sign of the reversal, the formation of a new subduction zone in the Atlantic, was recently confirmed off Portugal, although overall Atlantic spreading will continue for several million years. After that, as the continents creep toward a new joining, CO2 levels will rise again and eventually put an end to the Neogene ice epoch.
Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL. Details here.
Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.
Welcome & Messages
Moderation is OFF
G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.
When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.
You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.
When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.
Click tabs to open, click again to close.
"If you don't have Sou's Hot Whopper in your reader, you really should." Dan Satterfield, Meteorologist, Wild Wild Science at AGU
"For clear-eyed deconstruction of the lies and evasions, Sou is hard to beat. Her site is beautifully organized and provides a range of material" Susan Anderson (in a comment at Dot Earth, NY Times)
"you are an emotionally based lifeform" "a clueless female eco-nut" "Assigned to the permanent troll bin" Anthony Watts, blog owner of WUWT.
(Nevertheless, she's persisting. Is that too much? :D)
All you need to know about WUWT
WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:
Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.
Short explanation of denialism from RationalWiki (as is practiced by fake skeptics of climate science).
Denialism blog
Lewandowsky et al: "Recursive Fury" on denialism and conspiracy ideation
Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians (for insight into behavioural traits common to climate science deniers as well as bigots (in regard to sexism, homophobia, racism etc))
In defence of climate science denier! (HotWhopper)
The 5 telltale techniques of climate change denial - John Cook on CNN
Deniers are not innocent - HotWhopper article
Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence. 'a prominent denier of global warming' 'a climate change denier'
Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)
Beefed up or toned down? Judith Curry, David Rose,...
Anthony Watts sez to wait till it's too late. Are ...
Denier weirdness: "OMG it's insects" is back at WU...
There's a 63.57% consensus at WUWT!
Heat sinking, temperatures rising in the US of A
Wondering Willis Eschenbach's hilarious hilarity -...
No need for fury: Ethics and internet research
El Niño by July?
Is Maurice Newman telling Tony Abbott he should fi...
Judith Curry, the hero of deniers at WUWT, complai...
Matt Ridley can't make up his mind about the futur...
The Heartland Institute can't get anyone to promot...
HotWhopper Competition: Best Name for a Denier Lob...
Anthony Watts got the Quadrella with an outdated c...
Denier weirdness: The biggest threat to humanity? ...
Judith Curry and George Brandis on Free Speech
The Pseudo-Science Coalition, Bible Science and Co...
Are US winters cooling or warming? It is all so ve...
It's a trifecta with "Al Gore is Fat"! And is Anth...
Greenland has been (partly) white for a very long ...
A blow to smear merchants and disinformers
Same old, same old from WUWT deniers
A Fishy Failure at WUWT - not so spectacular
Living Dangerously: Jim Steele denies Texas warming
Irony of the Day: WUWT Motto on Deceit?
Quote of the Day at WUWT: Beginner's Mind or Fools...
WGIII is out - Mitigation options and societal imp...
Anthony Watts is confused about ENSO.
More on Tropical Cyclone Ita
Battening down in Far North Queensland for Tropica...
What next from CEI and Chris Horner - thought reco...
WUWT boasts how it tries to delegitimise expert kn...
Awww! Poor little Anthony Watts Ego Trips to Nonen...
Denier Weirdness: Wildely Wrong (behaviour) at WUWT
Anthony Watts denies agricultural science at WUWT
Ira Glickstein's "Natural Cycles" that refuse to c...
"Much more moral authority comes from the imprimat...
Speaking of ethics and conspiracies ...
Ignoble cause: Anthony Watts tells a lie to stoke ...
Totally Bat-Shit Crazy: Anthony Watts and his "fai...
We can ignore everything Anthony Watts says becaus...
"Heeeelp! They are going to throw me in jail!" Or...
Keystone, on the Ropes, Suggests Pipeline to Run on Solar, Wind
Cassandra's Legacy
Eco-fascism and Overpopulation
Spooled thread on Biden and bipartisanship
…and Then There's Physics
What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.
4/4_Hoffman, Objects of Consciousness, (Conclusion)
Are Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHPs) a Silver Bullet?
Will Amy Coney Barrett, Whose Father Was a Shell Attorney for Decades, Recuse from Climate Suit?
Idiot Tracker
Wherein I am chastised
Met Office news team
Why the beast from the east is unlikely to roar.
BOM Blog
Explainer: what influences air temperature?
Sophie C. Lewis
Hot Upside-Ups At A Hadron Collision Analysis Study
The Australia Clause and Kyoto Carryover Credits demystified
Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
Fraud Detection and the Presidential Election
What does a 1°C warmer world look like?
Quantitative Palaeoecology
My view on climate change
Misinformation in Planet of the Humans
Bogology
Reblog: When real life imitates testates: a 2019 'Testate amoebae in the real world' calendar?! — From inside the shell
Graham Readfearn
The end of my Planet Oz blog on the Guardian – so what next?
izen
Postcards from La La Land #132: time warps and twaddle
Greg Laden's Blog
Choosing Alternative Medicine To Treat Cancer Is Deadly
Shaping Tomorrow's World
Familiarity-based processing in the continued influence of misinformation
Seeing the environmental forest
Christopher Booker doesn't understand trends
Significant Figures by Peter Gleick
On Science and Politics
DenialDepot
Never believe the Official Story
It's Burning
Can hydrogen fuel-cell autos compete with EVs? Nope.
Papers on global warming and Earth's rotation
A Perfect Storm Cometh
Sustainability and Social Justice: Do the Math
Category 6 | Weather Underground
-|-
© Copyright HotWhopper 2012 - 2020
Navigate HotWhopper
Climate flashbacks
Mobile version: Blog
Desktop version: Blog
Chat and Wiki
HotWhopper Chat
HotWhopper Wiki
Wiki Climate Data Sources
About Denialism
More at HotWhopper
HotWhopper Main Site: Home
Chart Collection
The HotWhoppery
About HW
About HotWhopper
Comment & HTML Guide
Menu button is top right