Sunset on Mars

New Physics Book by a Friend: "The Great Atom Debate"

My friend Paul Halpern, a close buddy in graduate school, has a new book coming out, his 19th!

The Great Atom Debate
Ernst Mach, Ludwig Boltzmann, and the Battle for the Essence of Reality

"The little-known story of how two of history’s greatest physicists waged a war over the existence of the atom and the nature of reality itself."

"Nearly 2,500 years ago, the Greek philosopher Democritus argued presciently, but without evidence, that all matter is made of tiny indivisible entities called atoms. Other sages, similarly lacking proof, suggested that nature is continuous. By the later nineteenth century, though science progressed, the question of nature’s basic ingredients remained elusive."

"Two extraordinarily brilliant, incredibly stubborn Austrian physicists of that era—Ernst Mach and Ludwig Boltzmann—fought to determine whether flowing energy or discrete matter was the chief component of the universe. Mach treated atoms as useful fictions. Boltzmann, however, insisted atoms were a physical necessity. The titanic struggle rattled Boltzmann’s nerves, and he eventually descended into madness and suicide. Extraordinary experiments soon thereafter vindicated his lonely plea for atoms."

"Despite their differences, both thinkers influenced the young Albert Einstein, paving the way for relativity and quantum theory. Mach is best known today for his groundbreaking work on supersonic speed and shock waves."

"By connecting the clash of Boltzmann and Mach to today’s debates over what is fundamental, The Great Atom Debate does more than help us understand physics’ past. It helps us make sense of the unseen entities that loom over physics’ future."

(Amazon)

It’s being published on December 1st, so just in time for that peripatetic fat socialist to put in your budding little physicist’s stocking on the fireplace mantle. [Please solidly secure the stocking.]

Santa?

Is Santa Claus a socialist?

"He Vanished on a Run Before We Could Marry"

I found this to be an amazing and moving essay. I thought the writing is sublime. Reminds me of Pam Houston (Cowboys Are My Weakness), if you know her writing.

Free link:

"He Vanished on a Run Before We Could Marry: If I am not a widow, what am I?" Beth Henshaw, NY Times, today

Ever Upward

The ocean heat contents for both ocean regions are accelerating.

acceleration(0-700 m region) = 0.0089 ± 0.0003 (W/m²)/yr = 143 ± 5 exajoules/yr²

acceleration(0-2000 m region) = 0.0092 ± 0.0044 (W/m²)/yr = 149 ± 71 exajoules/yr²

uncertainties are 2-sigma.

Exa=10¹⁸.

Data are through the second quarter (2Q) of 2026. The uncertainties for the 0-2000 m region are much larger because there is less data. 0-2000 m data starts in 1Q2005 while the 0-700 m data starts in 1Q1955, so that's 86 data points vs 286 data points. Or maybe I made a mistake. Or both.

You can see the clear acceleration in the 0-700m graph and just about in the 0-2000m graph. Remember my acceleration calculations start at the beginning of each dataset, not at whatever happened around 2005.  

Binance Hack - 25% of NK's GDP

In last week's Binance cryptocurrency theft by North Korean hackers, $6.3 B was initially lost. According to the NY Times, over $2 B of that has been frozen by other crypto companies, halting the North Korean's attempt to money launder it.

North Korea's GDP is about $17 B/yr. The ~$4.3 B they retained is 25% of North Korea's GDP

Interesting Tidbit

Because the specific heat of ocean water is much larger than that of air, the top 2.5 m of the ocean holds as much heat as the entire atmosphere above it.

Source: Wikipedia, "Mixed Layers"

William Nordhaus Has Died

William Nordhaus, the climate economist who won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Economics for integrating economics and climate change, has died. 

His influential work ranged widely, from the economics of climate change to the measurement of technological change, the interaction of the business cycle and the election cycle, and the measurement of economic welfare — farsighted work done jointly with the late James Tobin, himself a Yale Nobel laureate and one of the most influential economists of his day.

Nordhaus is best known, however, for receiving the 2018 Nobel Prize for “integrating climate change into long-run macroeconomic analysis,” an achievement most prominently reflected in what was known as the DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy) model, an influential model that examines the interactions among carbon emissions, climate change, and economic growth.

The DICE model helps policymakers estimate the economic costs of climate change, including such impacts as crop losses and rising sea levels, and weigh them against the costs of reducing emissions. Nordhaus used the model to demonstrate that a carbon tax can reduce emissions efficiently and to estimate the optimal level of such a tax, providing an influential economic framework for carbon pricing.

The signal contribution of economics,” Nordhaus said in his Nobel speech, “is to recognize that climate change is a harmful unintended side effect of economic growth. The best remedy for such externalities is a pollution charge or what is now known as a carbon tax.”

In 2014 I read Nordhaus's book The Climate Casino which explains his model. It was semi-technical and I'm not sure I got anything special out of it, except a reminder that economics has the ugliest equations of any field*. I think I saw someone criticize Nordhaus's model (I think it was Nordhaus) because it counted agriculture as only 4% or so of the value of Gross World Product, whereas if agriculture completely fails GWP would tend towards zero. 

Paul Krugman writes more about Nordhaus, who was his mentor, on his Substack.

I recognize that climate economics is a complex subject given how complex the world is, but it's something that probably doesn't get enough attention. 

--

* far too many primes, tildes, carets etc. (Or, as my favorite professor called them, prime, wiggle and hat.) I don't have a specific example to present now, but I know them when I see them.

From Gavin Schmidt:

Bill Nordhaus has died. Notable for being one of two surviving people who successfully predicted the last 50 years of climate change in the 1970s (Manabe being the other). Both won (different) Nobel Prizes. news.yale.edu/2026/10/31/w...

[image or embed]

— Gavin Schmidt (@climateofgavin.bsky.social) October 31, 2026 at 12:50 PM

More of "The Last Humans Alive"

Because I'm procrastinating, I also asked ChatGPT to "create a picture of the last group of survivors on Earth after climate change kills everyone else." Here it is. Maybe slightly less horrific than Grok's, as there are a few green plants and trees still alive. A pretty sunset, too.

Patrick Stewart Has Died

Patrick Stewart, Captain Picard of Star Trek: The Next Generation, has died at the age of 86. He was so good in that role, and others he's played. Dammit. 

Another AI Engineer Sends a Warning

Another AI insider revolts, saying he's no longer saving for retirement because "I guess right now it looks like we probably don’t have a decade [left] on the clock." Well, but he used to work for Google so maybe his 401K retirement fund will do great even without future contributions.

He (Nate Soares) said he'd be OK with launching airstrikes on data centers.

“I do think that nation states should treat AI and superintelligent — like potential rogue superintelligent AI — at least on par with nuclear weapons. It’s frankly more dangerous than nuclear weapons.”

and

“The real question is not how does it kill us, it’s how does it become self-sufficient?”

Soares has been a Google and Microsoft engineer, so it's not possible to completely ignore him. He is also a co-author on the book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All.

Similarly, the trailer (below) to The AI Doc isn't very comforting. I want to watch it when it streams somewhere I subscribe--it's currently on Netflix. 

Honestly, I find it difficult not to feel some pessimism. For example, I worry AI, when asked to solve climate change, will decide the simplest solution is to kill all the carbon emitters. Viz all the humans.

Trump only concern is insisting he's the one who gets to name AI, and all other names are banned. And the name he picked, "superintelligence," already means something (else.) Such a moron. Honestly, Trump is a real moron, a low-IQ person (as he likes to call everyone else). And dangerous. I hope the midterm elections next Tuesday take a big bite out of him, though even if the Democrats dominate he might go more rogue than usual.

 

{Snuffle}

News I've Come Across Recently

Antarctic ice gained about 108 gigatons each year from 2021-2023, offsetting sea level rise by 0.33 mm/yr. But it lost 4,780 Gt of ice since 1979, until 2023. (Gt=billion metric tons)

Greenland lost 6,529 Gt ice from 1979 to 2023. 

That's 11,309 Gt together, a total contribution of 31.4 mm of sea level rise. 3.14 cm. 1.24 inches.

-=-=-

Berkeley Earth also found this past August as the warmest August in their records, since 1849. The August global temperature anomaly was 1.71 ± 0.11°C (3.07 ± 0.20 °F) above the 1850–1900 average. And it's the second warmest among all months in their record. They wrote:

Roughly 10.2% of Earth's surface saw its warmest August on record — 9.1% of land and 10.7% of ocean. 75 countries set national August records, and continent-wide August records were set for Africa and North America.

They also wrote:

With eight months of data in hand, a record annual average now looks probable. We calculate roughly a 93% chance that 2026 becomes the warmest year on record, up from about 69% in the July update and 12% in June. The most likely alternative is a 2nd-place finish.

Lots of graphs are on the same page. 

-=-=-

Robert F Kennedy Jr says the department of Health and Human Services, which he's in charge of, is investigating chemtrails. Which don't exist. Spending time on conspiracies while Americans are having an ever more difficult time accessing affordable healthcare. I'd be infuriating if I expected anything out of the US government, but not anymore.

-=-=-

The Trump administration has started calling bike (bicycle) lanes "DEI bike lanes." DEI stands for "diversity, equity, and inclusion"--being sure to care about minority groups of whatever sort. It "boasts of cutting $1.73bn already allocated for cycling improvements to city streets," says The Guardian. 

Why?? They don't burn gasoline! And Trump licks the bottoms of the fossil fuel industry because they gave him $219 million for his campaign in 2024. The Guardian:

The Trump administration’s plans to stymie and defund bike lane plans in the US, on the unusual basis that they are DEI tools, will hurt efforts to improve roadway safety, non-motorized transportation advocates say.

The transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, posted on X this month that he had redirected $1.73bn allocated for “Biden-era DEI pet projects” to “America’s actual backbone: ROADS, BRIDGES, AND SHIPPING PORTS”.

It's difficult impossible for me to imagine the ignorance and malevolence that went into this decision. It's very clear by now that Trump has no interest in running the government for the benefit of ordinary people. We see it in so many areas: health care, energy, climate change, tariffs, AI, the National Park system, foreign relations and many more. It's disgusting and I only hope there is enough left by the time he leaves office--I hope every morning when I first look at my phone--that these policies can be rebuilt for the good of the people and the country.

"These Tech Titans Are F--king Psychos"

Some evidence on why the AI tech leaders should be the last people deciding the future of human society, put rather directly:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Leigh McGowan (@iampoliticsgirl)