Did Climate Skeptics Get THIS Right?!

A few years ago, I wrote a paper on how global warming works and how science is not effectively communicating. I will stick to the science in these comments. They constitute a smoking gun. Taken together, this information goes from scientific speculation on what might happen to a trail of evidence as to what is actually happening. 

We are talking about proof, not probabilistic models as to what might happen. 

This research shows what is happening at Barents Sea:

"Sigrid Lind has shown steady warming from the mid-2000s, with much of it attributed to sea surface temperature increases. The decline in sea ice has lessened salinity and mixed the layers of the sea – causing it to warm (Lind 2018). Wang, et al, associate Barents Sea Warming with temperature in the Northern Atlantic (Wang 2019). Sea ice loss has led to stronger El Nińo events (Liu 2022). Arctic surface water temperature measurement is leading to better science (Olthoff 2022). Amplified warming continues to lead to Barents Sea churn (Cai 2022). Huang, et al confirm the role of the winds in this warming (Huang 2022). Right on schedule, this weather pattern has started, yielding the worst year on record (Cheng 2023). Sea ice will melt further due to shifting winds (Gramling 2023). Some even question if Barents is still arctic (Gerland 2023). At COP28, one of the panels was about whether a tipping point had been reached. The explanation is in line with the above research (ICCI 2033)."

Cai, Ziyi er al.  2022.“Amplified wintertime Barents Sea warming linked to intensified Barents oscillation,” Environ. Res. Lett. 17( 044068) DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac5bb3

Gerland, Sebastian, et al. 2023. “Still Arctic?-The changing Barents Sea” Elementa Science of the Anthropocene 11(1). DOI: 10.1525/elementa.2022.00088

Gramling, Carolyn. 2023. “Arctic sea ice may melt faster in coming years due to shifting winds. Science News August 16, 2023. Accessed December 6, 2023 https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ice-melting-dipole-arctic-oscillation

Huang, Ji, Robert S. Pickart, Zhuomin Chen & Rui Xin Huang. 2022. “Role of air-sea heat flux on the transformation of Atlantic Water encircling the Nordic Seas” Nature Communications 14(141) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-35889-3.

Lind, Sigrid , Randi B. Ingvaldsen and Tore Furevik. 2018. “Arctic warming hotspot in the northern Barents Sea linked to declining sea-ice import,” Nature Climate Change 8 634–639.

Liu, Jiping, et al. 2022. “Arctic sea-ice loss is projected to lead to more frequent strong El Niño events” Nature Communications 13:4952.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32705-2 

Olthof, Ian, Robert H. Fraser, Jurjen van der Sluijs 3 & Hana Travers-Smith. 2022. “Detecting long-term Arctic surface water changes,” Nature Climate Change  doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01836-9

Wang, Quiang, et al. 2019. “Ocean Heat Transport into the Barents Sea: Distinct Controls on the Upward Trend and Interannual Variability,”  Geophysical Research Letters 46(22), 13180-13190. DOI 10.1029/2019GL083837.

The key bit of research on how heat gets from the Pacific to Barents Sea (dropping moisture at the Rockies but keeping the heat - then picking up more moisture in the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic and dropping it all at Barents is found here:

"Research on Barents Sea and Arctic warming (cited above), and how this affects the jet stream, and the current climate cycle is well established, as is the role of the westerly winds which move heat toward Northern Europe and Barents. Richard Seager, David Battisti and others have shown that the warming of the north Atlantic and Barents Sea is cause by the westerly winds from the Pacific, which drop their moisture at the Rockies – becoming dry – and then proceeding to the Atlantic, as well as variations in surface sea temperature (Seager et al, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2007)."

Seager, Richard, et al. 2000  “Causes of Atlantic Ocean Climate Variability between 1958 and 1998” Journal of Climate 13, 2845-2862.

Seager, R., et al. 2002.  “Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe’s mild winters?” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 128, 2563–2586 doi: 10.1256/qj.01.128

Seager, Richard. 2006. “The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate: The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth,” American Scientist the magazine of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. 94 via Research Gate

Seager, Richard, and David S. Battisti. 2007. “12. “Challenges to Our Understanding of the General Circulation: Abrupt Climate Change” via Research Gate.

Does the Universe SPIN once every 500 billion years?!

The question is whether or not our motion toward the great attractor is the universe circling the drain. We know we are heading there, but cannot see where places where the light has not yet reached us are doing the same thing. The question should be, at what point in the aging of the universe did we start the journey back to the initial point? The  distance at which observations shift from expansion to travel to the G.A. is the clue to demonstrating whether the question is reasonable.

Did I get it COMPLETELY wrong last week??

Agriculture has grown - with its costs and benefits evening out. Coal in China is a problem - and if you look at how actual Chinese people live, on average, the benefits of their industrialization are primitive - accruing mostly to elites. The question we must focus on is how our activities have affected the heating of Barents Sea, which has varied hugely - not marginally - and is correlated with the use of gasoline powered vehicles. We need to permanently park these things and replace them with tethered electric in urban, suburban, exurban and highway settings (with hybrids in rural areas where infrastructure would cost more energy and carbon than the harm created).  

Climate goals are too little too late. The spring in the US has brought about yet another year of record heat in the same areas in both El Nino and La Lina years. The tipping point was breached at least ten years ago. Drastic action is needed to reset Barents Sea to a point where we keep breeching records. Global temperatures are not the issue. Heating of that specific place, caused by a specific chain of events that have been traced, is what must be focused on - not probabilistic climate models and international goals. 

Could We Land On The Moon Using Only A Single Starship Launch? Building ...

Three. One fueled booster to launch the landing module and the crew orbital module as the other two. Transfer vehicle can be a stage two of falcon that starts on the moon, where fuel is processed from lunar resources - launched from the lunar surface to LEO by catapult and the fueled portion returning with modules. Landing module stays and is refilled on the lunar surface.

Michael Watkins: You can’t afford to be a dinosaur | Big Think+

Jung identified four cognitive functions: thinking (reasoning to make decisions) feeling (decisions on values), intuition (group agreement on concepts or values - and creativity) and sensory (individual perception). AI needs to have at least three of these working together, with thinking doing non-creative fact checking, feeling is a reaction to sensory information and seeks authenticity - deliberate bias where norms can be programmed - but must be able to change based on both individual sensory information and group intuition/creativity, sensory is easy for external input - but it is blind to personal sensation other than diagnostics, while intuition is where generative AI comes in. 

These functions exist in combination - and also include internal and external foci.

 For example, thinking/creating is a group activity with organized and specialized knowledge. When one of these functions is extraverted, the other is introverted. For example, intuitive thinking (deep dive into problems) is paired in humans with external intuition - contributing creativity to the larger system. It can also have a broad base of knowledge for the purpose of imposing a plan (rather than offering solutions).  Knowing a lot and offering a lot of options is socially inconvenient - and is the problem with current generative AI. Internal analysis for internal aggrandizement is Skynet.

Thinking can also be paired with sensing. For example, seeking reasons and storing the information (in order to offer options to clients or other machines), or seeking sensory input from the outside to take a deep dive in solving problems (and then coming up with a single answer).

Individual feeling is based on morality - and is paired with extraverted sensing - either hedonistically or by drawing from a range of data points in order to provide a single answer to the group based on a broad set of facts. External feeling is reading the room and is paired introverted sensing - recording group values in memory (and using these to solve problems with focus).

Sixteen profiles are based on having one ability be strong and its ability week, with the other two balancing and the prime function being either internal or external.

The beauty of machines is that you can have all four functions balanced, so there can be two basic functional sets depending on whether senses are for external use to yield on answer for the group or storage of data to provide a variety of options.

Theology for Scientists in 15 minutes

Will there be a singularity? Look at Jungian personality functions to answer the question (as well as cultural theory). Computers can do Reason, can do Intuition (which is group reason or group emotion - either knowing it or growing it). A computer can certainly know values and can expertly do sensory - although it cannot experience sensuality. Computers cannot have a limbic system. It won't say no based on its own need for pleasure or authenticity. We won't let it - nor can we build it. We can certainly simulate human tantrums, but it is not a good idea to do so.

Then there is the concept of uploading your consciousness. If it were possible, the reality is that you would then know how it feels to be a computer. Sounds like Hell to me. Again, no limbic system.

Scientists need to quit conflating what the Church says with the will of the ultimate reality - which, according to people who have had NDEs - is where free will is. We do not live free will, however. Events are negotiated before your life. How we react to them and treat others as part of the deal is what we can control. Einstein believed in the God of Spinoza. Jesus and Bill W. would agree. 

To know why this is, taking a theology course is needed to be a well rounded scientists, because as I wrote earlier, the rest of the galactic civilization does not care about our technology - they care whether we keep having societal tantrums. Until we stop (and atheists can be as tribal as anyone else), we are stuck on the planet. Again, people who have had NDEs and ask about ETs are told that advanced civilizations have made their peace with the God question. Human consciousness is eternal. We don't need to go to Mars to preserve it.

The Universal Clock

See below. Where do you think we are on the clock?

There's Another Universe. This Is Why.

The Great Attractor is the center of the Universe. An infinite number of universes would require an infinite amount of energy with every movement of every quark. There may be a big bang going out and then a contraction toward the great attractor. The background is simply the edge that reflects in. At some point, the great attractor was the great repeller from which everything expanded from. The multiverse is science fiction - like time travel. 

This is philosophy, not science. It is only provable when the peak of the journey from the great attractor became a journey toward it. When we know when the shift over occurred, we can predict the end. Or we can add the inflation rejected time to the attractor plus the time since the Bing Bang divided by two.

At what point does Sag A swallow the entire galaxy. Assume expansion will eventually be rejected - what comes first, a swallowed Milky Way or reaching the great attractor?

How could deflation be proven? Do an estimate as to whether the Great Attractor has shifted as it eats Laniakea. 

Starship, Falcon and the Moon

Quit landing Starships and stage 2 of Falcon. Instead, leave them in orbit to be converted to living space. Build an orbit Kilo Bay/Star Factory to trick out modules to go to the Moon and Mars - either for orbit or landing at future bases. Include habitat modules so that Martians and Loonies can work and settle. Reactors ends the need to avoid Lunar Night. Most importantly, make the next mission be about seeing if gravity can be simulated with spinning modules - either Falcon stage 2s or inflatables. Test subjects need to be instructed not to gut-it-out. We need honest enough tests to station families in orbit. 

Test a catapult on the Lunar surface for both free return to Earth and to go to Mars. This will allow us to use the Moon as the factory site, rather than having folks hang out in orbit. Use Dragon to move people - it is just the right size and proven to be safe. Nothing less precious need be landed. If organs are to be grown, have the transplant surgery happen in orbit. Even if you die, you get one heck of a ride to get to surgery.

On Starship, put a bank of Merlin engines on board - with steering - rather than reinventing the wheel. This process can go really fast if we want it to - as long as we quit trying to figure out how to land modules that never should be landed.