Does Climate Change - Cause More Extremal Events.

There are always extreme weather events, (1920s dust bowl America for example), there is a claim (very much used by the media and which is unconnected from the claim of increasing global average temperature), that an increase in temperature leads to an increase in variation from the average temperature. This claim entered the popular green culture, via the BBC Chris Packem title, Global Wierdening, but doesn't have much behind it in the Scienfic Literature. For observation, deaths from extreme weather are down hugely over the last 100 years. https://worldindata.org/grapher/number-of-deaths-from-natural-disasters (mostly due to better shelter and weather managment though). The IPCC does indeed claim, that climate change lead to more extremely events. There are several claims, IPCC make there. 1. That the temperature is observed to be raising. 2. That CO2 is the cause of temperature raise. 3. That if the temperature rises there will be more extreme events of draught and flood. 4. That if the temperature rise there will be more extreme events of both high and low temperature. Each of which could be true of false, seperately, and any one of the statments does not imply any other. Each statement needs to be predicted with both a solid theory, and also match historical observations. The IPCC Summary makes these claims, and states there are high confidence, but instead of listing citation for each of the claim. The citations on the reference pages, with a reference number between the IPCC assertion, and the studies. I looke4d at a few of the papers in the references. For Assert 2, I found, Attribution of twentieth century temperature change to natural and anthropogenic causes. There it states Solar Variations are a significant contribution (to global temperatures), in one irradiance dataset but not another. It does state CO2 causes some increase. And also finds evidence that a reduction of Volcanic Activity led to temperature increases. No Numbers for the amounts of contribution of each factor, or the statistical or systematic uncertainance of either amount. Please scientists put your claims in the abstract with numbers include statistical and systematic errors. For 3, for Rainfall. Most of the claims of Rainfall increase are based on the CIMP5 and CIMP6 models of future rainfall for a given temperature range. In Agel and Barlow. State the CIMP6 wasn't an improvement on CIMP5, and the models produce more frequent precipation that the observations and

distribution of precipitation does not necessarily correspond to a realistic simulation of the circulation patterns

For 4. for temperature. For example Turkey since 1970. The weather station data finds an increasing (trend in) number of hot days, at 46% of weather stations, and a decrease at 15% of weather stations, (so presumably, no trend at 39%. The number of colder days, should a decrease. So these first checks of references don't show any strong proof, of any assertions, 2-4. But there are lots chapter references to read though and critic.

CONOS Results out.

Any new force between neutrinos and quarks, might be detected in scattering between neutrinos and nuclei - such as coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering (CEvNS) processes. Experiments have recently improved to be able to detected such scattering, and one such experiment CONUS has reported results last month with PDF Presentation. Results include, limits on neutrino magnetic moments, of less than 7.5*10^-11 Bohr Magnetrons at 90% CLL. Also neutrino millicharge less than 3.3*10^-12 of the electron charge at 90% CL. There are also some limits quote on non standard neutrino interactions (which i what am in interested in), but the limits are 90% C.L. limit is factor ~2 above SM prediction.

New Particle Claim, X at 17 MeV.

In my weekly, literature search, I found, the preprint by Denton and Gehrlein, which investiages evidence for a 17 MeV boson, in nuclear decays, which itself decays to an electron position pair. The Authors found, the new particle, could be a mediator for the often suggested (B-L) symmetry (Baryon number minus Lepton Number), which often crops up in grand unification theorys (for example, Patti Salem). However the charges on quarks, electrons, and neutrinos, need to be different to pure (B-L), which may be explained, by breaking the (B-L) symmetry with a new Higgs Boson, and then also introducing Kenetic mixing the EM photon, as explained in Feng et Al. The 17 MeV particles, has previously generated quite a bit of interest, and was reported in scientific journalism, (e.g. physics world).

High Energy Gamma Rays found from distance long Gamma Ray Bursters, are they axiphotons.

The Gamma Ray Burster, GRB 221009A Is mystery to modern physics. Observations found Gamma Rays up to 18TeV in Energy. But above 15GeV, the GZM mechanism, "R. C. Gilmore, R. S. Somerville, J. R. Primack, and A. Dominguez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422, 3189 (2012)." Shows that any higher energy photons would scatter of cosmic background radiation, producing pions. So what was travelling the 645 MegaParsecs from the Gamma Ray Burster if not a photon? Suggests a decaying heavy neutrino. While Looks at Axion Like Particles. Could it be a axi-photon, the vector particle associated with the a new axial force between neutrinos. I will have to see if the axi-photon scattering on cosmic background neutrinos, and any other axi-photons is suppressed at higher energies, and get back to you.

Are Volcanos Linked to the Solar Cycles.

In Arxiv:2203.03637, Valentina Zharkov Shows links between the 22-year Solar Cycle, and Volcanic Activity. During Solar Cycle 26, from 2031-2041, Volcanos would be a maximam, cooling the Earth, with possible effects on Food Production, if she is correct. This would mean that any Net Zero Plan, aiming targets at 2030, would leave the planet cold and hungry. Over the longer term, her mechanism would average out. I wonder if the effect of the Earths Iron Core, passing through the Suns magnetic field that reverses each 11 years. Could be the mechanism of her effect. The Earth has its own electric current in its magnetic dynamo, and when the Earths Natural Current is aligned with the current Induced by the Sun, an increased current will heat the Earths Core. If I have time, I will look into quantifying the numbers for this mechanism. Zharkov is a Plasma Physicist, so should also be more than capable of quantifying the numbers.

Ryzen Benchmarks

My Multithreaded integrator (Threaded Simpsons Rule), http://axitronics.blogspot.com/2022/02/need-multithreaded-numerical-integrator.html, is highly parallel. Lets see how it performs on recent processors Ryzen 9, 5900 versus my old processor Ryzen 5, 2600 @3400, 6 Core.

Processor	Cores	Clock Speed	CPU Threads	Java Threads set for calculation	JDK Version	Time to Run climate calculations - Seconds
AMD Ryzen 5	6	3400 MHz	12	16	Oracle JDK 11.0.17	10332
AMD Ryzen 9	8	4600 Mhz	16	32	Oracle JDK 17.0.5	5959

Nice so after 3 years, a new processor performs at double speed (well 75% faster) of the older one, (if a bit more expensive). Moore's Law is still alive in 2022.

Half Up, Half Down

Looking at the rainfall effect on climate sensitivity calculation, in the early post, we can see if half the energy of condension to rainfall goes up and half goes downwards, the energy emitted to spaces, is on 40.05 W/m^2, and so entering into our formule, the temperature increase due to doubling CO2 from 400ppvm to 800ppvm is 0.39 Degree (K or C).