Thursday, May 29, 2014
Couple of numbers

A couple of interesting numbers.

1. Article in UK Telegraph tries to take a fresh look at North Korea. Probably fails, but one number grabbed my attention. "North Korea had just 25,554 kilometres of road in 2006, of which only 724km was paved." That's 450 miles in real measurements.

How does that compare with Spokane? This old newspaper article says we have 865 miles of paved streets. Just about twice NoKo's total.

= = = = =

2. The real pattern of temperature vs CO2 is the same now as it was all the other times. Temp is the leading variable this time, just as before. Temp went up for 200 years, and now it's flattening. CO2 is continuing to go up.

When Curve A changes and Curve B doesn't change, you have two choices. Either A and B are unrelated or B is following A with some delay. Can't tell for sure until you see a longer record. If B never makes the same inflection, the two are probably unrelated. If B consistently makes the same turns after A, you know A is the leader. In this century we haven't seen B turn yet, BUT we do have a record of many millenia before the current century. During the previous history, temperature was always the leading variable. Given the history, it's unlikely that the current flattening of A reflects a sudden decoupling of the curves; it's more likely a continuation of the previous pattern with temperature as leader.

Other facts seem to show that the change in temperature is coming from inside the earth. Some areas of the seafloor are warming up more than others, leading to alterations in ocean current patterns. When the ocean warms, it outgasses.

Taking it one more step, the especially warm seafloor areas seem to match up with areas of maximum change in the earth's magnetic field.

Hypothesis: The mantle and magnetosphere are going through one of their occasional reversals, which is leading to unusual upflows and downflows of magma, causing unusual temperature gradients in the ocean. Those temperature gradients are altering the Gulf Stream, El Nino patterns, etc.

This is most likely part of a long natural cycle, but there's one dramatic manmade change that could directly affect the magnetosphere, and it's happening at just the right time.

Since 1980, which is exactly when the field started to move faster, we've been increasing the density of our electromagnetic transmissions in a hugely exponential way.

To get an order-of-magnitude picture, think of Spokane again.

We have 200K people. From 1920 to 1980 the number of point sources of radio waves was constant. We've always had about 20 radio and TV broadcasters. For a while TV stations were supplanting radio, and more recently the trend is opposite; but the total remains around 20.

That's one big point source per 10K people.

What else did we have from 1920 to 1980? Trying to estimate transmitters operating at any one moment, we had one police/fire transmitter, one taxi dispatcher, one commercial dispatcher (plumber, delivery) and one ham radio operator per 10K people.

Total of broadcasters, dispatchers and hams, about 5 point sources per 10K. That was all. No other transmitters. Frequencies were all below 300 MC, in a range where energy largely passes through and around objects without stirring up their atoms.

What do we have now? We still have those 5 old-fashioned sources per 10K people, but we ALSO have one cell phone PER PERSON, and 1 "internet of things" transmitter PER PERSON. I'm probably underestimating the latter because I've stubbornly resisted digitalizing my household; thus I don't have a proper basis for judging that figure.

Now we have an EXTRA 20K transmitters per 10K people, which makes the original 5 meaningless.

In short, we've gone from 5 sources per 10K to 20K sources per 10K.

We've multiplied the sources by 4000 over the same 30 years when these other phenomena related to the magnetosphere have gone wild. The new sources are less powerful than the old ones, but they cover the surface completely, and they are all in a frequency band that penetrates and energizes atoms of materials much more effectively than the older sources. Higher frequency = higher transfer of energy to materials.

Labels: