GASSING EARTH: Tipping Point Passed!


Warning: The essay below demonstrates, from published official data, that NON LINEAR EFFECTS are now ACCELERATING the CO2 greenhouse. This is no theory, but data that I observe. This is the major tipping point experts feared. It’s here, now. Weirdly I am the first to observe this catastrophic evidence. 

We are making war to the biosphere. We are trying to kill it (biocide?). Gassing Earth with CO2. Calling this atrocity “climate change” is more than a silly euphemism. It’s disinformation.

True information: the bath is heating up. Here is the global heat content of the ocean, incomparably greater than that of the atmosphere.

Global Warming Is Accelerating

Global Warming Is Accelerating

Self satisfied frogs croak happily in the simmering heat until they croak for good. Speaking of the stupid, loud and mosquito inclined, a deafening chorus from all over richly rewarded pseudo-science has recently claimed that global warming had stalled, or that the climate was less susceptible” to increasing CO2 than previously thought.

The graph above shows that those people are either paid too much, or as stupid as the frogs they mimic so well. Unable to deny the greenhouse, they focus suddenly on atmospheric heat content, as if that was the main problem (it’s not, by a very long shot!)

One can see, in the graph above, that the global heat content of the biosphere is clearly not just augmenting, but doing so faster than ever.

Another remark of mine of TREMENDOUS importance, and you read here first. Look at the graph above carefully. And then look at the CO2 graph below, just as carefully. Compare the graphs. What do you see? The horror! The HEAT CONTENT GRAPH accelerates FASTER after 1990 than the CO2 GRAPH!!!!

Thus there is now evidence that NON LINEAR EFFECTS ARE GETTING IN GEAR. Heat is increasing faster than CO2 now! Tipping points have been passed, the heat is growing by ITSELF, beyond human input.

Non Linear HORROR: CO2 Augmenting SLOWER Than Global Biospheric Heat Content!

Non Linear HORROR: CO2 Augmenting SLOWER Than Global Biospheric Heat Content!

[Technical math remark, consecutive to readers’ misunderstanding: I have a math background as one high as one can get; so, obviously I am not making the grotesque mistake of comparing the overall slopes, as the scale of the y-axes are arbitrary. What I am doing is more subtle, and that maybe why the NON LINEAR TIPPING POINT was not noticed before: I was trained as a research mathematician, not as a cloud watcher.

I am not comparing the overall slopes of one graph with the other, but the changes of slope after 1990, of one graph relative to the other. The global ocean heat content graph clearly accelerates so much after 1990 that it adopts a steeper trendline; one does not have such a feature on the CO2 graph. So one can say, supposing that the latter drives the former (that sounds intellectually fair), that it has been driving it much more since 1990. End of the high school level mathematical analysis. More details & answers to objections can be found in the comments!] 

So fossil burning is launching the avalanche, but the avalanche is also growing by itself, that’s what comparing the three graphs above shows.

OK, now for some elementary school math. The mass of the top 2000 meters of the ocean is 2 (total oceanic surface relative to continental surface) x 200 (mass of 2000 meters of water relative to atmosphere) = 400 times that of the atmosphere. The excess heat injected since 1990 in the upper 2000 meters of oceans is roughly equivalent to one billion times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb (personal computation). Yes, the inflection point when non linear amplification of CO2 started was in 1990 (look at the first graph ).

The core economic issue of our time is the alarming CO2 curve. That CO2 curve is threatening to become an exponential. CO2 is augmenting by (nearly) 1% a year. CO2 concentration has reached 400 parts per million. If one takes into account all industrially made greenhouse gases, it’s more like 450 ppm in CO2 equivalence, beyond the point where most of Antarctica’s ice shield is stable.

Thus the CO2 curve is also the core survival issue of our time. Every day, the deep oceans are getting warmer, more acidic (the CO2 gets in the sea, turning it to a soda), and lose oxygen. Every day, the deepest currents are absorbing the new energy, modifying themselves. Any day, Antarctica could start melting, big time:

Giant Regions Of Antarctica Are Below Sea Level

Giant Regions Of Antarctica Are Below Sea Level

The brownish and yellow parts are the WAIS, the West Antarctica Ice Shield’s bed, and are all below sea level, and are why the WAIS will disintegrate.

Areas more than 200 meters BELOW SEA LEVEL in East Antarctica are indicated by blue shading. Notice that a lot of east Antarctica, where the sub sea level basins are, have their margins well north of 70 degrees (and actually just north of the south polar circle).

(Extracted from:

Some idiots out there have pointed at the fact that atmospheric heat is not going up drastically, in the last decades. Of course. That means the energy is spilling in other dimensions. If those idiots had taken a physics class, they would know that this effect is similar to a well known phenomenon: as ice melts, the water in which it sits stays at zero degree (Celsius, only Americans use crazily obsolete units).

This general change of the biosphere, throughout dimensions so far unsuspected, is due to a generalization of the equipartition theorem:

At any point, any day, formidable non linear mechanisms independent of man, caused by the effects of the CO2 increase, could get in gear. That they did not happen yet is as reassuring as jumping from a gigantic cliff, without a parachute, and then gloating that everything is fine so far.

For example enormous, sudden releases of methane hydrates causing tsunamis (accelerating considerably the greenhouse, as methane is twenty to a hundred time more of a greenhouse gas).

A slow-down of the sun has bought up some time, in the last decade (see again the very long:

Most of the carbon found in coal has been buried for hundreds of millions of years. Extracting, and throwing  it up in the air, in ever greater quantities, is sheer insanity. This has got to stop. That is the main problem with fracking for gas; not that it makes water flammable, but that it pollutes with CO2. Although fracked gas (CH4) produces half the carbon for an equal amount of energy, that’s still an awful lot of carbon!

Advocating fracking-for-gas as a way to kill coal, short term, is tenable. But then fusion research ought to be massively financed, to make sure fracking-for-gas is really short term. Yet the $600,000 for fusion propulsion at NASA, while Elon Musk the well connected Neanderthal, gets billions, just for looking good, and dishonorable Sen. Feinstein’s whining about ITER, demonstrate that fracking forever, without fusion, is the real agenda!

Managing the planet correctly is real macro-economics. It is much more real economics than the shenanigans of some central bankers, or the dementia of unregulated shadow banking (which is just as big as official banking, 67 trillion dollars, nota bene).

The new Obama plan ought to be a war on coal. Right now, about ten billion tons of CO2 from coal are pumped in the atmosphere, each year. Better a war on coal now, rather the alternative. The alternative is world war, or worse. About CO2 pollution and energy.

This is not just a fancy vision of an apocalyptic future. It is also a sober assessment of an awful past. Around 1300 CE, sextuple trouble hit Europe: a population crisis, an energy crisis, a construction material crisis, a food crisis, an ecological crisis, and a climate crisis. All those aspects were entangled in one huge crisis .

Within a generation, France and Britain, until then part of the same polity, had exploded in a very complicated, but extremely lethal civil war, that was to last nearly five centuries. A terrible plague assaulted Europe (from Yersinia Pestis, a 2000 French study showed in all of 20 samples). The plague itself was related to the preceding, as bad climatic and military conditions in the two years preceding it, favored overcrowding of rats and humans alike. (Tremendous research on how the Black Death occured as early as 1348 CE, and great progress was made, leading to control of many diseases. Yet, the tricky causal triangle between fleas, rats, and plague was discovered only around 1900!)

In a few years, the population of the European continent had been cut by more than two-thirds. Greenlanders, assaulted by plague, climate cooling, and Inuits, died off.

Yet, countries such as France and Germany took effective ecological counter-measures of preservations of forests (thus saving commodities, construction, energy, soils, etc.).  Western Europe did not go the way of the Mayas because of vigorous. scientifically minded governmental counter-attack.

Instead, Europe chose then what we have to chose now. New technology was relentlessly pursued. By 1300 CE, pollution from burning geological coal was so acute in London that regulations were passed to reduce it. Edward III, grandson of French king Philippe IV Le Bel, and official launcher of the “100 Year war”(-that lasted in truth 478 years, as I said above) actually regulated coal trading, allowing the exportation of coal to the parts of France he controlled. Within two centuries, coal would be mined under the sea in Scotland.

No doubt all this would have worked better, the calamitous Fourteenth Century would not have been as calamitous, had superior technology, and careful management thereof, had arrived earlier. It could have arrived earlier.

In Roman Britannia, the usage of coal had been ubiquitous (even down the social scale). The tech was lost for nearly a millennium after the legions evacuated in 400 CE. Superior tech would have allowed to avoid the overcrowding that killed so many during the Black Death (relatively few nobles died, as they lived large).

The proximal reasons why Greco-Roman civilization collapsed are complicated, and are all entangled. Although the story started with plutocracy blossoming, it ended, four centuries later, with technology failing in so many dimensions that civilization could not be sustained anymore.

Basically, rising plutocracy (2C BCE)  led to political fascism (1C CE), that led to intellectual fascism (2C), which in turn led all sorts of technological stagnations or reversals (monetary, ecological, resources, military), and from there massive command economy and theocracy (300 CE) was called on, and then religious terror, anti-intellectualism and mental retardation (starting under emperor Jovian in 363 CE).

Many of these tipping points and causal chains are relevant today. However the situation is different in the sense that not only is history is going much faster, but, on the hopeful side, the world is still endowed with well armed, grimly determined republics (say France). Thus plutocracy may not win this time, as it did under the Gracchi brothers’ Roman republic. Indeed, we can now use meta arguments the Gracchi could not use, namely point at the fact that, ultimately, not only did plutocracy made society unfair, but the Republic collapsed, and so did civilization.

However, some causal chains, similar to those that undid Rome, are being activated presently.

One of them is the technological gradient between civilization and savages. Or, rather, the disappearance thereof. Bear with me a moment here.

Shortly after 300 CE, the Roman empire, in a reversal of hostilities, called onto the Salian Franks to become the shock troops of the empire. For years, the Franks had raided rivers of the empire, Viking style, and Constantine had fought them. Then suddenly, the Franks were at Constantine’s side, conquering the entire empire. And, astoundingly, by 400 CE, the Franks were put in charge of the defense of the entire North-West corner of Romanitas. Although, even more incredibly, the Franks had staged a long succession of coups and civil wars, against what they viewed as excessive Christianity, promoting a succession of secular Roman puppets to fight the central government.

What happened? Why did Christianized Romans put in charge their natural enemy, the Salian Frank Confederation? Simple: the Franks had better weapons, and better military capability. The Romans determined that, if you can’t beat them, you should join them. (Another, secondary reason, had to do with the Franks being more republican than the Byzantine court; Romans nostalgic with the republic, and secularism, and they were many, could only see the youth of Rome in those Frankish farmers).

What’s the connection with the CO2 rampage?

The only way for the most economically advanced countries to stay advanced is, first, by staying technologically advanced. Thus by researching, developing, and imposing worldwide, advanced technologies.  That can only work when those advanced technologies are necessary, and sustainable, that is, moral. As sustainability is the definition of  morality.

As I have long advocated, Obama is going to use his executive power by, hopefully, imposing new technology to stay on top. Not just on top of the problem, but on top of the world. Finally (Welcome to the executive branch, Mr. President!) With executive orders. Four years late. Execute, or be executed. After all, pollution to the extent we are exposed with CO2, is a form of execution. (Obama should have done the same with health care, as I also advocated more than 4 years ago).

The sorry collapse of the Greco-Romans, all entangled as they were with slavery (thus lower tech) caused some physical damage to the planet. Forests in Dauphiné are still showing subtle scars from Roman over-exploitation (mostly from mining). No big deal: South East France is heavily forested.

However what we are doing now with CO2, and other industrial greenhouse gases, is the big deal. The lifetime of CO2 in the combined air-ocean system is counted in many millennia. Projections show that we have already done enough to modify the climate enough to prevent a glaciation in the next 50,000 years . The mind reels.

So we are in life-and-death race to develop a long term, massive, survivable energy source. And there is just one; that of the sun, itself, thermonuclear fusion. Sun in a bottle. Feasible, but only if dozens of billions of economic activity are directed towards fundamental research labs (see note). Let’s not do like the Romans, and rest on yesteryear technology, until it’s so late, that nothing can be done anymore.

Einstein used to say that he knew the Fourth World War would be fought with sticks and stones. Error my dear Albert. The way things are going, the Fourth World War will be fought by scorpions and dragonflies.


Patrice Ayme


Note: let’s not be too passive, even if the outlook is sunny. Some are sure to whine that “solar energy” can do it all; what they mean is the passive reception, on Earth of part of Sol’s enormous thermonuclear output. Well, yes, they are talking about thermonuclear fusion, but may not know it (?) Passive solar has a great future. However its usage is bound to stay unimportant in space (!), high latitudes, and, more worryingly, in regions with high precipitations  (the greenhouse is going to get very wet in places!).

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

44 Responses to “GASSING EARTH: Tipping Point Passed!”

  1. Mike Borgman Says:

    I’ve asked this question multiple times without anything definitive being returned. What happens to the folks whose pseudoscience has been promoted, so that those most responsible for these lies, pay no financial penalty in the way of diminished profits.

    Since no one will answer this question, I will, we hang the bastards in a public square for destroying the earth. Too tough? Too Bad!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Mike: Those who are paid by the fossil fuel industry are many. Some payments are direct, some are indirect (paying the institutions that pay the pseudoscientists). Many in the fossil fuel industry are very smart. My father, an Algerian, was a geologist. He worked for major oil companies, and the United Nations (and even Iran!). He discovered Algerian oil (and gas). In the past, of course, no one suspected that CO2 could change the Earth’s climate to the extent it does (the number one greenhouse gas being… water!…under gaseous form).

      But now everybody ought to know, so what we are dealing with here is dishonesty. However, the fossil fuel industry is STILL, civilization;s NUMBER ONE INDUSTRY. By far. That means tremendous money, power. They make the laws. That includes no hanging for their precious hides.

      At this point, at least in the USA, clearly the COAL industry (a subset of the preceding) is being hurt in its pocket book. Operators are scared that they will be regulated out, or prosecuted out (be it only by civil lawsuits for pollution). So something is going on. I will not be surprised if, at some point in a not so distant future, fossil fuel installations will be actually destroyed by military action.

      Making fossil fuels unlawful would certainly happen quickly if ITER worked. And that is why China, Korea and India are in ITER.


    • Hazxan Says:

      Judging by what happened to the banksters who wrecked our economies and are still reaping in the millions, not a lot. The poor and immigrants will get the blame. As usual, the culprit is always “the other, not us”. They will lie to us that the system is perfect it is “the foreign” and “the lazy” who are to blame.

      And the saddest thing is that most of the population will believe them. Until that changes, nothing else will change


    • Hazxan Says:

      Might not be a good time to own a SUV if you live in a city. I could see a few of those gas guzzling monsters (the vehicles as well as the owners) getting blown up by the lynch mobs.


  2. Martin Lack Says:

    Nice synopsis, Patrice. Well done. With you 100% with regard to fracking – we may need it short-term but we cannot afford it long-term. I said as much on NakedCapitalism yesterday (and was completely ignored).

    However, I am very surprised by your attempt to draw any kind of conclusion from your first two graphs:

    Look at the graph above carefully. And then look at the CO2 graph below, just as carefully. Compare the graphs. What do you see? The horror! The HEAT CONTENT GRAPH IS GROWING FASTER THAN THE CO2 GRAPH!!!!

    I expect this kind of apparent intellectual dishonesty from people like Richard Lindzen and Lord Monckton but not from you. Two graphs with different y-axes can be stretched or compressed to appear to show anything; which can include suggesting that two correlating trends in two variables do not correlate:

    As for nuclear fusion research, this was one of the things mentioned on the recent BBC Horizon programme – ‘The Secret Life of the Sun’ (about half way through the video).


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Martin: Thanks for the appreciation. Thanks for the challenge about the intellectual dishonnesty too! ;-)! OK, the scales of the y-axes do not matter. I expressed myself in a confusing way.

      I am not comparing the overall slopes of one graph with the other, but the changes of slope after 1990, of one graph relative to the other. The global ocean heat content graph clearly accelerates around 1990. One does not have such a feature on the CO2 graph. So one can say, supposing that the latter drives the former (that sounds intellectually fair), that it has been driving it much more since 1990.

      Thus my conclusion that there was a tipping point as early as 20 years ago.

      Ocean heat content has drastically accelerated after 1990, not so the CO2. Something happened then. What? Currents getting in gear? Local methane production in some areas (those have been observed with concentrations up to 100 times greater than normal)? Something else?


      • Martin Lack Says:

        To be clear, I was not accusing you of being intellectually dishonest, I just thought you were in danger of appearing to be so. The clarification is therefore probably worthwhile. However, for the record, I see only two graphs showing exponentially-increasing growth in both atmospheric CO2 and ocean heat content (i.e. neither of them should be characterised as having a linear relationship in whole or in part). If the data were available to show them both over a 250 year period, I am confident this would be much more obvious (when you focus on a short period it is easy to mistake the ‘Keeling Curve’ for a straight line). Despite all this, I suspect we have indeed passed a tipping point.


  3. Mike Borgman Says:


    I’m speaking more towards the great “think tanks”. From the Guardian, Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.
    I’m not talking about industry workers who just wanted to feed their families. I talking about people like the Koch’s. When are there going to be consequences? Look at what they’re trying to pull off up at Bristol Bay and that’s with full knowledge of what happened in Butte Montana. Example after example of no consequence for devastating actions.
    Again, when will there be a cost? I’m no raging environmentalist but this is insane.


  4. old geezer pilot Says:

    We out here on the west coast are experiencing an extreme heat wave. I know, I know, it’s just a single data point.

    But it sure is HOT.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear OGP: All these one time data points piling up means something. Lourdes and its miracle grotto were invaded by waters twice in 6 months, in a double miracle. Warmer air carries more water… France experienced tornadoes. Several times summer succeeded winter, in a few months.
      I am a nature runner, and I have experienced difficulties this year, both in Europe and the USA running on well known trails, from crazy plants invading them. CO2 is acting as a fertilizer. expect great fires.
      Anyway we can see the planet change now… No need for the lab…

      As I showed with my Mickey-Mouse computation in the essay, the oceanic heat capacity of the first 2,000 meter deep layer is about 400 times that of the atmosphere. And that’s relentlessly heating up at an accelerating pace. That means currents getting in gear, oxygen content going down, and a question: what’s going to stop it? And as I showed the pace is greater than the CO2 pace. does that mean methane hydrates’ tsunami are soon?


  5. de Foucaud Paul Says:

    Call a cat a cat !
    The real reason of dioxyde augmentation is not new in the earth history.
    This evidence is for sure demonstrated by Henry de Lesley by the cycles of dioxyde when studying the tools of the humans on this planet.
    Today, human population on earth is already too much


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Interestingly, it’s Joseph Fourier, born in the same city as me (Grenoble) who discovered the CO2 greenhouse effect.
      Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun.

      As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the “greenhouse effect.” The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth’s distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

      Earth population is about ten times (I reckon) what could be sustained in the very long term using this biosphere and planet, with available tech. Hence two necessities: the necessity of going to space (to geoengineer the Moon and Mars, to start with), and the necessity to master the sun’s energy, thermonuclear fusion. The later is only thing that will allow the former, as I explained in another essay.

      With fusion, ten billions, or even 20, is long term sustainable on this planet.


  6. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, let me again cite from my book,

    If like me you believe in the fable of the short blanket, but do not believe in the other fable of the possibility of creating Eden here on Earth, you will have to agree that these trends of over exploiting world resources will have to be stopped one day, and better sooner than later.
    As I said above, the financial system was recently saved by the intervention of governments, which are external to it. If crisis overtakes the world environmental system, will governments be able to save it in the same way? Does the existing decision-making system based on democratic principles have the internal strength to prevent the collapse of the world into environmental imbalances?
    We could cite many examples of the dysfunction of the market economy, but the major prospective failure of the market economy is in coping with the long-term problem of environmental ecological functionality. Who can say which additional billion of people, or which increase in consumption, may tip the world environment right off balance and bring the world economy to a breaking point and a crisis on a scale never experienced before?
    I recently found a wonderful description of this reality in an article in “Nature, international weekly journal of science” published on 7.8.2012


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear Eugen: Before the short blanket, there was the short bear fur. The blanket could be made bigger than the fur. That’s tech. Actually the blanket can be made arbitrarily large, thanks to tech.

      Technology allows to avoid scarcity by augmenting the dimensions one can exploit.

      The financial system was saved, true. But one should have pondered whether it ought to have been saved, in its present state. I believe not. I believe all powers to some private dark suits is antinomic to democracy, let alone the economy.

      The questions of the market economy and the financial system, or how money is created are distinct.

      Economy and ecology are related concept. Without correct logic of the house, there cannot be correct management of the house; without correct ecology, no correct economy. Indeed.

      Thanks, I will look into the Nature article (although a subscriber, I seem to have missed it).


      • Hazxan Says:

        I agree in theory. In practice,I think you have it upside-down when you say “technology allows to avoid scarcity”! The more technology a society has, the more energy it uses. The quicker things run out.

        You often write of the glories of past civiliations, Patrice, and they managed all that while emitting a fraction of the CO2 per head than we do. Word processors do not turn us into Shakespeare. Computers do not turn us into Einstein. Facebook and Twitter does not turn is into Oscar Wilde! They managed what they did without any of the techno-distractions we have.

        The effect of a technology wears off like a drug, then we just need more to maintain state. e.g.A car gets you to work quicker initially.But then because of the car, work moves further away and the roads are packed. No gain ,but you need the tech (and extra energy use!) to achieve the same as you did without it. I think that’s a general principle.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Hazxan: First we are a technological species. Heidegger in “The Question Concerning Technology (Die Frage nach der Technik)” explored the subject in his usually plodding way.
          Heidegger asks: “how do we generally think about technology?” He comes up with two answers:
          technology is a means to an end
          technology is a human activity

          You seem to focus on the first. When the end is tech itself. And then i agree with you, and your examples.

          Well simple truth is, man is technological. Without tools, weapons, and fire, man cannot, and could not have survived, ever since there are men, and they think in a manly way.

          BTW, without clear and present tech, 95% of mankind would quickly die, even generously allowing for massive emergency cannibalism (as the Pilgrims did, Amen!)


          • Hazxan Says:

            I pretty much agree. Our current problems are not technological. They are social/political/economica even psycholigical.

            Food is a good example in that we produce enough to feed the 6 billion. But politics/society/economics means that 1 billion of us are malnourished while another 1 billion are overweight.

            We have plentty of space. Even in “crowded” UK, I can drive for many miles and just see vast, open, empty fields with nothing much in. A few scattered estated of the elite….Most of us are crammed into tiny boxes in the cities though. 0.65% of the people own 70% of the land and they use it for maximum profit, to keep land prices high.

            An even simpler truth is that man is organic 🙂 Although that may not be so true 50 or more years from now!


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Man organic? Organic food?? I doubt it; last I checked fishes were becoming of undefinable gender in British streams, just from all the “human” hormones, industrially proposed, and eagerly swallowed… In the USA alone people ingest regularly 100 so well known carcinogens, that they are forbidden in the EU… That surely helps make Americans hard to swallow.

            BTW, we are 7.2 billion, but that has to be said quickly as next year we will be 7.3…
            OK, now for Snowball Earth as philosophical inspiration…


  7. Martin Lack Says:

    Patrice: Feeble critique (but not contradiction) duly attempted.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Thanks for the critique, Martin. it was helpful. You were right that I should have been a bit more explicit. Thanks for that. I added a section in the essay to hammer it in.

      The oceanic heat content has a sharp (in my biased eyes) non linear jump in 1990. Namely one can draw a line through the first part, until 1990, and then one afterwards, and they make a clear angle; that’s the most basic definition of NON linear. Whereas the CO2 rise is a nearly flat, that is LINEAR line (I know it’s an exponential, but it’s nearly a flat one).

      OK, to be rigorous, before searching for possible causes, one would have to show this non linear event is not an artifact in the data… That sometimes happens when one changes measurement methods…

      That sometimes happens when one changes measurement methods, or software… I have seen that at NCAR, about satellite data on the Sun…


  8. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Ah Martin! Thanks for agreeing where you agree, and thanks for still disagreeing where you don’t! All right, then, let’s be even more explicit:

    There is a notion such as best fitting line (given a curve, and after choosing a notion of what it means to “fit”). I use the year 1990 as my dividing point. Then I find the best line LB(I) for the black curve of heat content, before 1990, and the best line LB(II) for the same curve after 1990. LB(I) and LB(II) make a clear angle, AB, an evidence of clear non linearity.

    Then I repeat the process for the RED curve of heat content, getting LR(I) and LR(II), and also for the CO2 graph, getting LC(I) and LC(II). I get the angles AR and AC. AR and AC barely exist. The argument that I use different graphs of different scales can certainly be shot down definitively by observing AR and AC are both smaller than AB.

    Evidence of non linear effect. OK, the effect is subtle, OTHERWISE it would have been noticed before.What say you?


  9. Paul Handover Says:

    I must stop reading your essays, Patrice. Talk about losing the will to live! (I would add a ‘wink’ but what you write is genuinely very scary.)


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: Oh no, please don’t leave! )-;!
      Once admiral Nelson’s flagship, fleeing the republic of Naples with the bloody tyrant queen Maria-Carolina, and her husband king Ferdinand, was caught in a terrible storm. Lady Hamilton and her mom helped the sick. However, one of the plutocrats on board, I think it was lord Hamilton, was lying on his bed, knife in hand, ready to stab himself if the ship went down. Speak about a robust preventive measure.

      So one should not despair about our predicament. Looked at it the right way, this is the most interesting game that ever was. Plus, and moreover, the story of the Middle Ages is, ultimately, one of hope: civilization got reconstructed, better than ever, and without the fundamental flaw of the Greco-Romans, slavery. Ultimately, theocracy and fascism also got crushed, and plutocracy, mitigated, at least for a while.


      • Paul Handover Says:

        No, you are right and, at heart, I am a person with a positive outlook on life. My earlier comment was motivated by a) my first (emotional) reaction to reading your essay a little before 6am using a tablet, and b) me finding it tiresome to compose a longer reply using tablet writing technology. Give me a traditional keyboard any time!

        So now that I am in front of my PC, I am much more at home!

        So let me take the opportunity to ask a political question.

        Given the accelerating rate of record-breaking climatic events, almost on a daily basis now, and the growing realisation in more and more peoples minds that something really is amiss with our planet’s climate, how long can world leaders, most notably President Obama, play games with us all?

        What do you sense is going to be the political fallout? And when? (Mike Borgman’s comments above are a fabulous example of the growing anger of the ‘people’.)


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Paul: I agree with the tablet/smart phone syndrome. I knew a number of people who switched to those from PC, their comments became shorter and shorter, and now they don’t comment at all anymore. I have a Samsung Galaxy III myself, and I am surprised I still have teeth after grinding them so much (it fails both as a phone, and as a computer… Still hard to let go, though…)

          Your question requires a more elaborate answer. It will start with: One of my readers and friend, Paul Handover… All I can say is that We The people are not angry enough.

          My spouse refused to move to Washington to get a job in the administration (there was a very serious personal reason for that). That may not have been the smartest move… Yet experience shows that two voices in the wolderness are not enough…


  10. Paul Handover Says:

    From an email just from the Center for Biological Diversity:

    The first coal-export hub in the state just got draft approval — and now we need your help to stop dirty coal from being exported through Oregon.

    The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is accepting comments on permits that would allow 8.8 million tons of coal per year to be shipped to Asia through the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. But before it gets to the terminal, the coal would be mined in Montana and Wyoming and travel on uncovered trains through Oregon. Then the coal would be barged down the Columbia River and transferred to oceangoing ships.



    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      The real side of Obamomics fracking, indeed. We frack, therefore, yes we can, export coal. A new for the USA to export pollution (the old one being to make the Chinese breathe the fumes of exported USA industry…)


  11. Gena Dix Says:

    I hope to see it in my lifetime… Nuclear Fusion that is. Will the energy barons that control the world let this happen? We will see, So. Korea is trying to accomplish it. It will be the game changer when it works


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Well fusion has been achieved through several ways, but not, so far, efficiently enough to produce energy in sustainable way. However, no specialist doubts tokamaks will be able to do so. It’s more a question of working out the details on a very large scale. New materials have to be developed for ITER.

      The South Koreans intent to leverage ITER into a commercial reactor (as everybody else), and be first to do so (crafty commercialists they are, but also worried by the energy problem). Meanwhile French industrialists and scientists are busy developing materials that can withstand thousands of Kelvins. ITER’s aim is to perfect or establish some techniques, and show a multiplicator of… ten. Not to produce power.


  12. Lovell Says:

    CERN was successful in identifying the quantum particle Higgs. I am feeling positive ITER will accomplish its mission too.

    A consortium of mankind set out to build a project. Mankind coming together in peace to discover the secrets of the universe.

    It’s be-a-u-ti-ful!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Lovell: More exactly, to be sophisticatedly subtle, CERN identified a Higgs field LIKE particle. That there is really a “Higgs” field out there is unclear, at least to me. ” Higgs” has a nice sound to it, but actually R. Brout, F. Englert, P. Higgs, G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble published more or less at the same time in 1964. And of course a famous solid state theoretician claims he got the idea before; Philip Anderson (1962).

      That ITER WILL work, there is no doubt. JET is used as a mini ITER, ahead of the real thing. The Europeans, after two years of considerable improvements, have restarted JET, the Join European Torus. Now with Beryllium and Tungsten walls. The results are dramatically better than with carbon walls.

      So now there is talk of NOT going through a carbon phase with ITER, but directly to Beryllium. Within two years, JET will loaded with TRITIUM, and it’s highly likely it will achieve results well above break-even. (The old JET had achieved 65%.)

      ITER (“the way” in Latin) is indeed showing the way of international cooperation. Differently from the ISS, but like CERN, it does real science. (“Plasma physics” is just as fundamental as high energy physics, as the former, sooner or later will come to play in the later…)


  13. Oakwood Says:

    If you scream in Space, no-one can hear!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Yes, except if you use electromagnetic waves to scream. earth can be heard more than 100 lightyears away.

      More cogently, if you scream in history, the future will hear.


      • Hazxan Says:

        No reply to SETI yet, though. Maybe they’re all just running on the opposite direction: “OMG an outbreak of humans in Sol Sector – quick, quarantine it and get away”!


  14. Hazxan Says:

    The problem is Plutocracy + Technology will not give global solutions to anything. We get the technology that profits the few, and little else. Any technology that would help the poor will not see the light of day until the rich figure out how to control it and profit from it.

    Take medicine, We have so many preventions and cures that are not used, simply because people can not afford the price. Worse than that, research is funded based on future profits. The history of Western doctors is not the history of a group of wise men working tirelessly to discover new cures. It is mostly people looking to profit from what they know, while resisting *any* new idea that would threaten their position of power. And that’s just one example. Everywhere you look it is the same. Nothing new is allowed id it threatens the status quo. What happened briefly n the mid 60’s frightened *them* and we’ve been in the vanguard of a huge counter-reaction ever since.

    Plutocracy, Power, Technology. They are linked inextricably in some way that I can’t quite articulate, but they are sure linked together!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Hazxan: The inventor of the tri-therapy for AIDS, Leibovitz, is French. He invented that in 1994. More recently he found ways to reduce the quantity of medication. He is now 80 years old.

      He relates in a book he just published, that he was convoked to the “admiral vessel in Bethesda, Maryland” (Washington DC, basically). There in a room, he found 30 people, most of them not scientists, people he had never seen before, may in MILITARY UNIFORM, who ordered him to cease and desist, as profits of drug companies came first.



  15. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Dear Hazxan: Sorry if I did not react earlier, I was travelling the mountains…

    I don’t like the Harry Porter’s mood, a typical mystification and aura building around Anglo-Saxon-Gothic plutocratic mythology. However, JK Rowling herself seems not to have fled to a fiscal paradise. (Although I don’t know much about her life, but for the search for her French roots…)

    The main problem of greed as deed, is that most important deeds do not arise from greed. let me tweet that…


  16. Paul Handover Says:

    Apologies if the answer to my question is elsewhere but does science have a clear understanding as to the direct effect of man’s activities in the runaway gassing earth you write about?

    Reason for the question is that I hear increasingly from people whom I trust that we may be entering one of the planet’s regular cooling and heating periods. Ergo, a planetary warming period from natural causes would be by far the more dominant aspect of climate change and far outweigh the relatively effect of mankind’s activities.

    Any solid science data would be very much appreciated and, presumably, of interest to other readers.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Paul: As it has become clear to the vast masses that something is going on with the climate, a warming and craziness, the fossil fuel lobbies (there are several) have changed tactic. Instead of denying, they are busy dissembling, misinforming, and rolling out brand new red herrings. Those people are immensely influential, thanks to their huge money (I was raised in the oil industry, so to speak; used to travel first class).

      The behavior of the Earth’s climate is easy to predict, but for volcanoes and sun activities. The sun has clearly cooled down, since 2000 CE, and volcanoes are rather quiet, overall.

      Man’s activity is, in first order, the driving of the CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm. If one adds the CO2 like gases, one gets to a more than 50% rise.

      To believe that is begnign is more than silly, it’s criminal.


      • Paul Handover Says:

        Dear Patrice, thank you. My question was as a result of a friend for over 40 years sending me an email which contained this link:

        and then adding in his email:

        “1. When you first see this headline you think, Wow! We are in big trouble! Don’t know from where, how or when but man, we are in deep shit!

        2. Nothing is mentioned about AGW as the primary causal factor but the Washington Post writers are implying as a given, I’m assuming.

        3. And assuming this is a true representation and I’m not arguing that it isn’t, the total increase is .79 degrees over 119 years.

        4. Is this a bad thing? Getting warming is certainly more desirable than getting colder for mankind. This cooling and warming is as old as the Earth. One volcano, one meteor…….”

        But as you will read in tomorrow’s post on LfD, I have decided to turn away from stuff I can’t change, perhaps to turn more inwards. Put it down to age and hormones! 😉

        Nevertheless, really appreciate the virtual relationship you offer me! Paul


  17. Stone Says:

    Dear PA

    I an just ordinary person with a clear head to think simply about the problems we face on this planet because everything we are going through now as a civilisation has happened before in history some 3600 yrs ago

    Climate change, global warming, earth quakes, hurricanes, melting of poles.
    What is the REAL reason for the above events:

    Is the release of CO2, methane, sun flares, haarp, geo-engineering, pollution from car/factories/cattle and 6 billion people in the world the reasons for the massive climate changes issues thats upon us?

    We all need an open mind.
    “My logical reasoning” which are well documented on the web is arrival of “Nibiru” aka Planet X.

    Nibiru aka Planet X entered our solar system some time ago and is effecting all the planets. It is having an effect on the earths magnetic poles, (pole shift) causing the earths to wobble (two sunrise on same morning and mega changes in weather patterns from hot to cold in a day in some places) and the most important, the magnetic wave energy transfer/manipulation of the molten core the earth increasing it’s temperature.
    That increase in temperature is being transferred to the upper crust of the planet warming the seas and oceans from the bottom upwards (energy for storms and hurricanes) which in tern is causing the rapid melting of ice caps at the poles. They say the ice is melting from below which ties in.

    The magnetic field of the planet x (twice the size of the earth in mass) although still some distance away and approaching is pulling and pushing on the earths magnetic fields trying to get it to line up with its own (just like when you put two magnets together) but the earth keeps flicking back producing energy and causing a change in air and sea weather patterns.

    The pull of planet x is also tugging at earths tectonic plates causing earthquakes (land deductions and upthrusts) and volcanic eruptions throughout the planet with plenty more activity to come.

    When the pole shift does occurs some land will sink under the sea (happening already in India/pakistan and islands in the pacific) and others will rise.

    The info on planet X (NASA has known for years) should have been released to the public some years ago but was sat on. President Obama was suppose to have give an public address on this subject a few months ago but it hasn’t happened yet.
    Most world governments have known for some time.

    The final outcome of the passing of planet X as I have read will cause chaos around the planet and the delayed release of info is not to cause panic as once the population panics governments are not in control.

    I have also read that STARWARS program had something to do with it also.
    This has been well documented Zetatalk for some years

    Any feedback on this subject would be good

    Regards gw


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      dear gw; I am in full travel mode right now, having to run in the mountains in minutes, so I just autorized your comments, and I am running off. I never heard of panet X. All I know is that several planets (they called them planetesimals or soemthing) were found beyond Pluto, and named. At least one of them is larger than Pluto.

      The CO2 panic is all about the CO2 having gone from 280 to 450 (by adding the CO2 like man-made gases). Plus 50% of the main greenhouse gas has got to impact.


  18. The Use of Passive Solar Energy Says:

    […] Gassing Earth ( […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: