Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor David Karoly goes down the rabbit hole of Bob Carter’s climate theories. In his book Climate: The Counter-consensus, Bob Carter describes three different realities…

Bob Carter sees the world a little differently to the rest of the scientific community. AAP

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor David Karoly goes down the rabbit hole of Bob Carter’s climate theories.

In his book Climate: The Counter-consensus, Bob Carter describes three different realities on climate change; a science reality, a virtual reality and a public reality.

After finishing the book, I realised that there is another reality on climate change, the Carter reality, which seems to be from a different world.

As described in earlier posts in this series, the “science reality” of climate change has involved developing and testing our understanding against all available observations and modelling.

For the science of climate change, as for all other sciences, questioning and scepticism are fundamental aspects. New science is not based on a single scientific publication, but on the accumulation of evidence from many published studies.

This is summarised in a recent report from the Australian Academy of Science, The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers. This report was thoroughly reviewed by an independent Oversight Committee, comprised of a number of Fellows of the Academy and a well-known climate change sceptic.

They all approved the whole report, including its key conclusions:

  • “Global average temperature has increased over the last 100 years.”

  • “Human activities are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.”

  • “It is very likely that most of the recent global warming is due to this increase in greenhouse gases.”

  • “It is very likely there will be significant warming through the 21st century and beyond.”

  • “Climate change will have significant impacts on our society and environment, both directly and by altering the impacts of other stresses.”

Lets fall through a rabbit hole and enter a different world: the “Carter reality”. In that world, it is OK to select any evidence that supports your ideas and ignore all other evidence.

In that world, geologists like Carter “hold the key to delineating climate history” and “many (though not all) geological scientists see no cause for alarm when modern climate change is compared with the climate history."

In the real world, this is not true. The Geological Society of Australia, the Geological Society of America, the Geological Society of London and the American Geophysical Union have all recognised the reality of human-caused climate change and called for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

In the Carter reality, “there has been no net warming between 1958 and 2005.“ Of course, in the real world, there is no basis for this statement from scientific analysis of observational data. The decade of the 2000s was warmer than the 1990s, which was warmer than the 1980s, which was warmer than the 1970s, which was warmer than the 1960s.

So where does Carter’s statement come from? In the Carter reality, he finds a hot year early in the period and a cold year much later, and says there’s been no warming. This would be like saying that winter is not colder than summer because a very hot day in winter might happen to have much the same temperature as a very cold day in summer, ignoring all the other days.

In the Carter reality, “human-caused emissions will have an insignificant impact on the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the ocean” and the observed increases in carbon dioxide are due to emissions from volcanoes or from the oceans.

Of course, this Carter reality has ignored the contrary evidence, such as decreases in oxygen in the atmosphere, and downplayed evidence from changes in carbon isotopes, both associated with fossil fuel burning.

It has also ignored the evidence that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are higher than the concentrations in the upper layers of the ocean, so there is a net flow of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean.

In the Carter reality, year-to-year climate variations due to El Niño explain the variations in global temperature, including global warming, much better than increases in greenhouse gases. Of course, you have to ignore the fact that you have to remove the long-term warming trend in global temperatures to get this result..

In the Carter reality, the increase in global temperatures due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is low, only about one degree. This is a strange thing to mention as, in that world, there is supposed to be no warming and the increases in greenhouse gases are not due to human activity.

In the real world, the feedbacks in the climate system that were important in amplifying the global warming from the last ice age to the current geological period, the Holocene, are also important in amplifying the warming response for a doubling of carbon dioxide.

This geological evidence, together with evidence from the observed warming over the last century, show that the climate response to a doubling of carbon dioxide will be about three degrees.

But in the Carter reality, there has been “noble cause corruption” to promote alarm about global warming and hide the contrary evidence, by individual scientists, by the CSIRO, by the scientific academies, and by the IPCC.

Of course, this Carter reality ignores the multiple independent inquiries of climate scientists and of the IPCC that have found no evidence of corruption, and only evidence of normal scientific practices.

In the Carter reality, there are many other strange conclusions based on selecting some evidence and ignoring most. The rules of science have been replaced by non-science. In that world, there are large benefits from more carbon dioxide and no adverse impacts, no sea level rise nor increasing acidification of the ocean.

In the Carter reality, it is better to adapt to climate change as it occurs, rather than to act on the best scientific understanding. In the Carter reality, consensus is not needed around scientific understanding, yet he tries to establish that there is a counter-consensus.

If you search the web, you can find several reviews of his book by non-scientists, who also inhabit the strange world of the Carter reality and accept everything he writes. Or you can read a review by a New Zealand scientist who says the book “is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions.”

If you live in the Carter reality, it is fine to accept non-science.

I hope that most people live in the real world and accept the science reality, not the Carter reality.

This is the twelfth part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:

Join the conversation

51 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

  1. Mel Nicholls

    logged in via Facebook

    While this may not be the correct place to ask this question, I was wondering if this series is going to be expanded to include the latter part of the climate debate, of what we should do about it. iIt seems most on this site accept the science, we don't need endless articles to describe how wrong deniers are. Rather we'd prefer the debate move on to what to do, which is closer to the debate currently between political parties, and the debaye taking place in the Australian public.

    report
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to Mel Nicholls

      Unfortunately the debate between the political parties has been heavily conditioned by the deniers. The coalition claim to agree with the government on carbon abatement targets but the statements from Abbott in unguarded moments makes it clear that he still believes that "climate change is crap".

      We cannot have a sensible debate about the response to climate change until the major players in that debate all agree that we have a problem.

      This means taking on the junk science being dished out by the deniers and transmitted through the shock jocks and the Murdoch press.

      report
    2. Mel Nicholls

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mike Hansen

      Unfortunately though, those people that need to won't be reading the conversation, and won't be taking in the points raised (fantastic examples on nearly every post on climate change).

      By moving on with the debate, rather than continuing to address the poor arguments of those who refuse to accept fact, we may be able to do something to combat the threats posed by anthropogenic climate change.

      There are always going to be people who disagree with the mainstream, but that doesn't mean that the mainstream needs to stop for them.

      report
    3. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Mel Nicholls

      Now why do you think that "most on this site accept the science". Did you consider (a) that some might have a vested interest (i.e. potential research funding and/or reputations to protect)? Have you also noticed how the emphasis is on defence, although some are poor at that, and usually without credible evidence (the "I am right. You are wrong" attitude). Do you think that ad hominem attacks, such as calling people "deniers", is a sign of expertise and knowledge?

      I know for a fact that the CSIRO…

      Read more
    4. Michael Hubble-Marriott

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Mel Nicholls

      David, a very powerful refutation of Carter's book and "thesis" that there is no consensus. I applaud the efforts of Australia's scientific community in challenging this nonsense.

      This is what I hoped to aspire to do back in my "Watching the Deniers" days, but you guys have mounted a powerful ad effective counter offensive against those that would attack the credibility of science.

      It's a pity that Carter has turned his back on science, instead preferring the plaudits of tabloid journalists and the apparatchiks of right wing think tanks.

      I hope some major Australian dailies reproduce these essays in their papers to reach a broader audiene.

      report
    5. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Michael Hubble-Marriott

      Show me where I used the word "conspiracy" in this or any other posting or document? Go on.

      You virtually accuse me of it, so where's your evidence to back it up?

      Your's is a very cheap shot that is sadly typical of those who back away when questions are aksed about matters like evidence.

      report
    6. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Michael Hubble-Marriott

      Please enlighten us Michael on exactly what value a consensus, whether real or imagined, has to do with science?

      The consensus about phlogiston was wrong, the consensus that it was okay to disect a cadaver and then without washing one's hands thoroughly move to assisting women in childbirth was wrong (Ignaz Semmelweis!). The consensus about stomach ulcers was wrong.

      Please tell us all why you think consensus determines scientific truth.

      report
    7. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to John McLean

      John McLean's is using a classic tactic of non-science here (which I discussed earlier in this series), which is to compare the current discussion of climate change with great paradigm shifts in science. The comparison is misleading. When these paradigm shifts occurred there was weak evidence for the prevailing paradigm (as in the case of ulcers) and/or a series awkward observations confronting the prevailing paradigm (phlogiston). This is not the case with anthropogenic climate change which is able to explain a wealth of observations.

      report
    8. James Szabadics

      BSc

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Except the observations of global temperature since the late 90s of course show a global temperature plateau which is inconsistent with CO2 as the "PRIMARY" driver of climate change. Yes there is some natural variation but which natural variation is it and why and could the opposite part of this cycle have a significant role in times of observed warming like the 1990s? CO2 warming is fine but it seems through observation that it just does not paint the whole picture. What is the missing forcing that explains the recent decade and is it properly accounted for in the models - that is interesting and discoveries here will not falsify CO2 acting as a GHG but may change our ideas of the drivers of climate change substantially.

      report
    9. Brian Angliss

      climate/energy writer

      In reply to John McLean

      Funny, I posted a bunch of empirical evidence in another response to you and you seem to have ignored it.

      report
    10. Brian Angliss

      climate/energy writer

      In reply to John McLean

      You wrote "Did you consider (a) that some might have a vested interest (i.e. potential research funding and/or reputations to protect)?" Are you claiming that you don't feel that climate scientists in general are more interested in grant money and personal prestige than the facts? A simple yes or no, please.

      The best thing that a climate scientist could do for his or her professional reputation would be to find demonstrable proof that human-caused climate disruption was wrong. Thus far that hasn't…

      Read more
    11. Brian Angliss

      climate/energy writer

      In reply to John McLean

      "Denier" is accurate, as in "one who denies something." It applies to vaccine deniers (the people who both deny the science on the safety of vaccines and deny their children vaccines) just as much as it does to climate disruption deniers. If you prefer, we can use the term "climate disruption rejectionists" or "climate disruption disowners" - they're all synonyms.

      "Skeptic" and "climate realist" are both misnomers, however - a skeptic is a person who remains undecided until the evidence is sufficiently…

      Read more
    12. Mel Nicholls

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Jane Rawson

      Thanks Jane, I have had a browse through that page. I was wondering more if a discussion of various types of mitigation would be discussed. Comparing a carbon tax to an ETS to 'direct action', and what directions technology might shift to make these changes, ie renewable energies, geoengineering and the like. A discussion of a combination of actions would also be interesting... combining an ETS with investment in green technologies for example from the money raised. All I think are interesting ideas.

      report
    13. Mel Nicholls

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to John McLean

      John, I wrote that most on the site accept the science from my observations of comments following any thread on climate change. This is a perfect example, where the majority seem to accept the facts. This observation has nothing to do with vested interests or funding, it is a simple observation that anyone could make.

      I have noticed an emphasis on defense, however the defense I notice is based heavily on empirical research, rather than the moral higher ground (which can also be claimed). I find…

      Read more
    14. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      I should have noted that for observations to confront the prevailing paradigm, the difference between the observations and the theory/model must be significantly greater than the relevant margins of error (uncertainties).

      report
    15. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Brian Angliss

      Wasn't it your posting that I rejected and explained why?

      report
    16. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Mel Nicholls

      Mel said, "I don't know how you "know" that CSIRO and "believers" as you term them (though belief is independent of facts rather than dependent on them) don't post evidence supporting their claims."

      I've seen emails or the senders have informed me of them, mostly in incredulity that none of these people could support their claims or produce anything of substance that could be examine closely with a view to detailed discussion.

      report
    17. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      I am not using a tactic of non-science at all. I am simply pointing out that scientific truth is not determined by a consensus, real or imagined.

      report
    18. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      ROTFLMAO. Please get over this dream that if the models approximately replicate historical observations then it is confirmation of the accuracy of models.

      Accuracy of climate models can only be shown by clear evidence that they completely and accurately encompass every possible force. Not so says table 2.11 of the 2007 IPCC report.

      report
    19. Douglas Cotton

      B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

      In reply to John McLean

      Looking at it the other way, you have absolutely no statistically valid proof (looking at the last 130 years or so up to May or June 2011) that temperatures were correlated with carbon dioxide levels, let alone a proof that they were caused by CO2 levels. See http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg

      Potential energy from variations in gravity can be converted to KE and then to magnetic energy in the liquid core. This then immediately affects the magnetic field above the surface, and the energy in…

      Read more
    20. Douglas Cotton

      B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

      In reply to John McLean

      Sure. But didn't the IPCC show that their supposed linear trend in temperature correlated with a similar linear trend in total CO2? What convincing evidence !!!

      There is a huge difference statistically between correlation of two linear trends and two cyclical trends in which there is also further correlation with some intermediate nodes as well.

      Now isn't there.

      And when there is also highly significant correlation with certain planetary orbits it becomes all the more convincing.

      Just like…

      Read more
  2. John McLean

    logged in via email @connexus.net.au

    Well karoly didn't take long to play fast and loose. Here's an extract from the and I've added the number sot each point for reference.

    "This is summarised in a recent report from the Australian Academy of Science, The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers. This report was thoroughly reviewed by an independent Oversight Committee, comprised of a number of Fellows of the Academy and a well-known climate change sceptic.

    They all approved the whole report, including its key conclusions…

    Read more
    1. Mike Hansen

      Mr.

      In reply to John McLean

      Given that you are clearly not a person who has "blind faith in models" John, I would be interested in how you came up with the claim

      "It is likely that 2011 will be the coolest year since 1956, or even earlier..."
      http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=7349

      Only half way through 2011 and it is not looking good for you John.

      From National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center
      "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2011 was the 12th warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.48°C (0.86°F) warmer than the 20th century average."
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php

      Now normally a crank claim like this could be ignored but from at least 2007 you have been feeding Andrew Bolt misinformation on climate science. Bolt then echoes this misinformation in his newspaper articles, TV show and blog.
      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/05/bolt_pranked.php

      report
  3. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    Detailed discussions of climate science and climate change between Carter and me are located at:
    http://www.viewpointmagazine.com.au/download/viewpoint_issue1.pdf
    and http://www.world-economics-journal.com/Contents/ArticleOverview.aspx?ID=276

    In an article published titled "Kill the IPCC" Carter wrote among other:

    "I grimace at the thought, because the study of climate change, under the aegis of "dangerous global warming caused by human carbon dioxide emissions," has long since been captured by…

    Read more
  4. Anthony David

    logged in via Twitter

    Thank you Dr Karoly for addressing Adjunct Professor Bob Carter's claims to higher truths that are not bound by any logical train of thought. My interest in his book was piqued when he was referred to as a palaeoclimatologist in a radio interview earlier this year. While I was familiar with his excellent work on coral reefs, the term palaeoclimatologist is not one I would use to describe his extensive geological work. I bought his book "Climate: The Counter Consensus" in order to resolve this puzzle…

    Read more
    1. Michael Hubble-Marriott

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Anthony David

      Anthony,

      Carter is a "stable" author of the IPA, his essays and work gracing many of their publications. Need one say more?

      report
    2. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Michael Hubble-Marriott

      You again?

      This time please tell us why a link to some organisation should be a determinant of one's scientific credibility, and by implication dictate one's scientific conclusions.

      And if you imply that funding dictates findings then you'd better beware because funding for supporters of the IPCC's hypothesis seem to receive in the order of 3500 times the amount of funding to sceptics. (Ref Joanne or Jo Nova's web page for details.)

      report
    3. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to John McLean

      Are you suggesting that the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) does not have an ideological bias? Are there a significant number of IPA reports that are inconsistent with a right wing agenda? If so, please point readers to them so this misconception can be addressed.

      The role of think tanks in the climate debate is generally consistent with their ideological leanings (both left and right). At best they present science that is consistent with their policies. At worst they can commission biased non-science (the reports of the Heartland Institute being obvious examples).

      report
    4. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Michael J. I. Brown

      Are you, like Michael, telling us that ideological bias of an organisation determined Bob Carter's findings? If you then you'd better have prrof to support that claim or you could be sued for libel.

      report
    5. Michael J. I. Brown

      ARC Future Fellow and Senior Lecturer at Monash University

      In reply to John McLean

      That is not the correct interpretation of my words and intentions. It is merely common for think tanks to build links with academics whose views on a particular issue are broadly consistent with the think tank's policies on that issue.

      report
  5. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    THE CURRENT RATE OF CO2 RISE AT ~2 PPM/YEAR IS UNPRECEDENTED IN THE MEASURED GEOLOGICAL RECORD, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE EFFECTS OF GLOBAL VOLCANIC ACTIVITY AND LARGE ASTEROID IMPACTS.

    In a recent article in The Australian Geologist, June, 2011 titled "The geological dimension of climate change", I state:

    "The release to the atmosphere and oceans of hundreds of billions of tons of carbon from fossil biospheres, reaching a rate of ~2 ppm CO2 per year at the outset of the 21st century, is unprecedented…

    Read more
    1. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      The predicted warming that you quote comes from climate models. According to IPCC 4AR chapter 2, 16 forces related to radiative heat transfer are poorly understood, so can you please explain how thay can be accurately modelled. Greenhouse gases (claimed to be long-lived) are regarded as the only one of the 16 that's well understood.

      According to chapter 8 other flaws exist in climate mdoels, including the poor emulation of the El Nino-SouthernOscillation, which chapter 3 tells us several times has a profound impact on global climate.

      Dodgy climate models make for poor attribution and poor prediction. If the models can't emulate all forces properly, and natural forces in particular, then it's no wonder that they can't reproduce the pattern of temperatures over the last 60 years without including exaggerated forces from greenhouse gases to fill in the gaps.

      report
    2. Timothy Curtin

      Economic adviser

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      David Karoly's front-up references to the Australian Academy of Science Report (2010) supporting the IPCC's AR4 (2007) was disingenuous by failing to note that the majority of the AAS authors were leading contributors to AA4 and included Karoly himself. The "independent" oversight committee also had contributors to IPPC TAR etc.So Karoly cites a report he contributed to as "independent" support of his views in AR4.

      But neither the AAS any more than Karoly's efforts in AR4 did or reported ANY econometric…

      Read more
    3. John McLean

      logged in via email @connexus.net.au

      In reply to Chris McGrath

      Yours, Chris, seems a virtual reality.

      And why do you, a senior lecturer, seem so fast with ad hominem attacks? I would expect that maybe of students, but not of a senior lecturer.

      report
  6. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    Inherent in the peer review literature and in serious scientific debates is the ethic of courtesy, using language confined to technical and scientific points and avoiding personal comments, even while dealing with adversity, allowing the identification of those who follow the scientific method.

    report
  7. Brian Angliss

    climate/energy writer

    This paragraph shows just how illogical Carter and his fellow climate disruption deniers actually are:
    "In the Carter reality, the increase in global temperatures due to a doubling of carbon dioxide is low, only about one degree. This is a strange thing to mention as, in that world, there is supposed to be no warming and the increases in greenhouse gases are not due to human activity."

    Paraphrased, Carter essentially claims that the global warming that isn't happening will be no more than 1 degree C from the CO2 that doesn't have any warming effect on the earth's atmosphere.

    I count 2 obvious self-contradictory statements there and at least one more that requires some knowledge of climate science to notice.

    report
    1. Marc Hendrickx

      Geologist

      In reply to Brian Angliss

      It is better to get the story straight from the Horse's mouth rather than listen to what the Ass left behind.

      Suggest you contact the original source to see if he has been correctly quoted.

      report
  8. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    Regarding a statement made above:
    "Karoly seems to think that high temperatures directly cause drought and is seemingly unaware, despite being told several times by a professor of hydroology, that an absence of surface moisture will cause higher temperatures because no heat is used for evaporation."

    This was elaborated by Cai et al. 2010 in the Geophysical Research Letters (10.1029/2009GL042254)

    "Comment on “On the recent warming in the Murray-Darling Basin: Land surface interactions misunderstood…

    Read more
  9. Ken Sekiya

    logged in via Twitter

    What is actually interesting to observe.

    Push aside Australian Politicians and their "Child-play" and look at the business context.

    BP have been investing in Solar energy and other alternatives in silence for decades. Now it's the largest provider of Solar Energy (with BPSolar) around the world.

    Those Business leaders who actually took the initiative on this issue have seen annual growth of almost exponential rates.

    The conclusion? Those Business leaders who ignored the warnings 40 years ago are just playing sore-losers.

    Politicians and the few Denialist Business Leaders just need to accept. Market needs are changing. Adapt.

    report
    1. Timothy Curtin

      Economic adviser

      In reply to Ken Sekiya

      Ken Sekiya: I write as a shareholder in BP (all of 4 shares in total), and it's been a dog for the last decade and more because of its fatuous investments in solar etc that yield nix in terms of profits.

      .
      re Chris McGrath
      Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland

      For 150 years science has involved testing hypotheses. The climate change hypotheses are (1) there has been change, despite no statistically significant evidence, and (2) that the change if any is "mostly" due to increase in the…

      Read more
    2. Chris McGrath

      Senior Lecturer at University of Queensland

      In reply to Timothy Curtin

      Tim, you're right! I see the error of my ways. All those climate scientists pouring over temperature records and writing up their results for journals and the like - they're all wrong and you alone are right. Pew - glad to know there is nothing to worry about. Now you just need to work on your sense of humour.

      report
  10. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    The evidience speaks for itself.

    THE CSIRO-BOM STATE OF THE CLIMATE STATEMENT, 2010
    http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

    This snapshot provides observations and analysis of Australia’s climate and the factors that influence it. Two organisations, CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology have combined to present this current picture of Australia’s climate.
    The Bureau of Meteorology has been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years, and CSIRO has been conducting…

    Read more
  11. Andrew Glikson

    Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

    One of the thread comments reads:

    "We know from volcanoes that the core is very hot and is heated partly by nuclear reactions".

    Since "volcanoes" are mentioned I assume this comment relates to the Earth, not the sun?

    Not even the giant gaseous planets are thought to have an N-reaction in their cores.

    Can we have a reference to this novel idea?

    report
    1. Tristan Croll

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Andrew Glikson

      While the line of reasoning that starts there is really quite crazy, that particular bit is true enough. A great deal of the heat in the Earth's core comes from energy released in the decay of radioactive elements.

      report
    1. Douglas Cotton

      B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

      In reply to Marc Hendrickx

      Please note that I have removed reference to the core altogether following helpful information on here. The changes in potential energy must act at the molecular level near the surface. So I've changed my footnotes to read ...

      1. THE 60 YEAR CYLE: Nicola Scafetta and John Dodds are not the only ones to have observed the 60 year cycle. Mathematical statistical analysis of the data confirms its existence. John Dodds explained why it is due to variations in the gravitational energy from planets…

      Read more