Will Elections Cure The Disease? - 9

Photo Op

The question asked in this series brings back memories of feelings that surface during troubled times just prior to a "critical" election.

I suppose it is akin to the question "will the operation work?" in the country featured in the following quote:

"On the federal level, [country] elects a president as head of state and a parliament, one of the two chambers of the [government]. The president is elected for, at most, at least in theory, two consecutive six-year terms by the people ... The [government] has two chambers. [One chamber] has 450 members, elected for five-year terms ... The [other chamber] not directly elected; each of the 89 federal subjects of [country] sends 2 delegates to the [other chamber], for a total of 208 (178 (delegates from regions) + 30 ... members."

(Wikipedia).  Would the answer to this question (Will Elections Cure The Disease?) be the same if asked in Minneapolis compared to asking it in Derbent (world's oldest city?).

The country featured in the question above is Russia, where elections are conducted.

And some of the elections there are trumped up like they are here:

"On October 26, a group of demonstrators rallied in Moscow to protest against the results of the mayoral election in the southern Dagestani city of Derbent on October 11. Over 300 people were reported to have taken part in the protest. Derbent’s acting mayor, Felix Kaziahmedov, claimed victory in the election, while his main opponent, Imam Yaraliev, declared the election fraudulent. Now the opposition is trying to overturn the results of the election, citing the fact that over one-third of the city’s polling stations failed to open for voting. Yaraliev, formerly Dagestan’s prosecutor-general and currently the head of a Dagestani district, stated that Dagestan’s President Mukhu Aliev, had opposed him and helped the city’s acting mayor. Felix Kaziahmedov, for his part, accused Yaraliev of bribing the voters and of issuing threats. Yaraliev and his supporters mutedly threatened the government authorities, saying that it was hard for them to stay within the realm of legality given that the authorities did not comply even with court decisions (www.kavkaz-uzel.ru, October 26).

The authoritative Dagestani newspaper Novoe Delo provided astonishing figures on the resources that were spent in the electoral campaign in Derbent, which has a population of a little more than 100,000. According to the weekly, the campaign cost the two principal candidates, Yaraliev and Kaziahmedov, over $30 million. The publication claimed that $1 million dollars was spent by one of the candidates’ teams to assure that a third candidate withdrew from the race. It also claimed that local elections previously cost $100,000 to $200,000 and that even the elections for a deputy to the Russian State’s Duma cost around $2 million (Novoe Delo, October 16).

The importance of the Derbent election for Dagestani President Mukhu Aliev, who allegedly threw his weight behind one of the candidates in the race, may be due to the fact that Aliev’s presidential term ends in early 2010. Aliev, who is 69 years old, is thought to have strong ambitions to stay in power after his first term expires, and thus, he is trying to demonstrate to Moscow that he can provide the desired outcomes in local elections while solidifying his grip on power. Despite his evident success, some observers in Dagestan regard his victory in Derbent as a feat that will weaken him over time because of his overuse of resources."

Despite the questionable techniques used during the October 11 elections in Dagestan, they also demonstrated how Dagestan stands out in the region for its political pluralism. Not only was the public served diverse opinions on the elections in the print media, but opposing views even made it to the republic’s TV screens, something not normally observed elsewhere in the North Caucasus or even Russian regions outside the North Caucasus (Dagestanskaya Pravda, October 22).

(Jamestown org). One wonders why we seem to think that "United" States elections are the cure?

The previous post in this series is here.

---

---

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 11

Who Cares Dot Com

The HTML table, in this post below, shows that gases have different values from time to time.

Notice the different tracks that Methane makes compared to CO2, N2O, and SF6.

Of course these are minor percentages compared to Nitrogen and Oxygen (~99%).

The theme for checking out these gasses is that size does not matter in atmospheric gasses.

For example, notice that CO2 was at it highest ever (3.36) in 2023 the year before the highest ever average temperature on Earth took place.

Does a year of CO2 increase need to be taken note of?

---

Recent History of minor
or trace gasses in the atmosphere

Year	Methane	Carbon Dioxide	Nitrous Oxide	Sulfur Hexafluoride
1959		0.94
1960		0.5
1961		0.96
1962		0.65
1963		0.71
1964		0.31
1965		1.06
1966		1.28
1967		0.69
1968		1.06
1969		1.35
1970		1
1971		0.8
1972		1.74
1973		1.18
1974		0.96
1975		1.09
1976		0.8
1977		2.15
1978		1.3
1979		1.83
1980		1.68
1981		1.43
1982		0.86
1983		2.36
1984	12.93	1.51
1985	12.18	1.21
1986	12.9	1.47
1987	11.44	2.06
1988	10.72	2.24
1989	11.17	1.24
1990	8.66	1.2
1991	14	1.05
1992	2.43	0.49
1993	3.85	1.36
1994	7.27	1.96
1995	3.85	2.01
1996	2.48	1.24
1997	6.33	1.91
1998	12.13	2.97		0.2
1999	2.27	0.92		0.17
2000	-1.34	1.62		0.21
2001	-0.66	1.62	0.71	0.19
2002	3.17	2.51	0.5	0.22
2003	4.83	2.26	0.8	0.25
2004	-4.71	1.59	0.53	0.21
2005	0.23	2.57	0.87	0.23
2006	1.84	1.69	0.68	0.25
2007	7.83	2.31	0.9	0.28
2008	6.56	1.54	0.92	0.29
2009	4.74	2	0.76	0.29
2010	5.04	2.3	1.08	0.27
2011	5.04	1.92	0.91	0.28
2012	5	2.65	0.81	0.31
2013	5.64	1.99	1.01	0.32
2014	12.74	2.17	1.24	0.34
2015	10	2.95	0.9	0.32
2016	7.12	3.03	0.66	0.34
2017	6.84	1.9	1.02	0.35
2018	8.7	2.85	1.16	0.35
2019	9.61	2.49	0.9	0.33
2020	14.84	2.3	1.32	0.34
2021	17.69	2.34	1.29	0.39
2022	12.89	1.83	1.23	0.37
2023	8.75	3.36	1.01	0.4
2024	6.96	3.33	1.02	0.41

---

The videos below show that both scientists and climate models on computers did not see it coming.

More needs to be done in terms of figuring out what configuration these "minor" gases are in when they are at their strongest in terms of atmospheric impact.

So, don't forget The Saturation Chronicles, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

The previous post in this series is here.

---

---

---

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 10

Recent Acceleration of
Global Temperatures (1850 - 1900 2025)

The brief interlude presented in the previous post focused on the just released Doomsday Clock.

Now let's get back to the discussion concerning atmospheric gasses.

But first let me point out that we have been perusing the Lundstad et al. datasets,which do not include the record setting high global temperatures of recent years because they made their report circa 2020, and soon after that the warmest year on record took place in 2024 (see graph above).

Take a look at the dynamics of the atmospheric gases to get a grasp of trends in globally-averaged CH4, N2O, and SF6 determined from NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory measurements. Version 2026-01.

That pattern fits with the global temperature pattern of recent origin (see graphs below).

So, let's continue with recent concepts.

What are aerosols? 

The trace gases such as water vapor can take up as much as 4% of the atmosphere, and that impacts aerosol content:

"Aerosols are small particles suspended in the atmosphere. They are often not or barely visible to the human eye, yet their impact on climate, weather, health, and ecology are significant. This page introduces the various major types of aerosols, and explains why researching them is important. Aerosols range in size from a few tens of nanometers—less than the width of the smallest viruses—to several tens of micrometers—about the diameter of human hair. The size and composition of aerosol particles affects how far they can travel around the world, their interactions with solar and thermal radiation, and their potential effects on health. Aerosols injected into the atmosphere directly are known as 'primary aerosols'. Sea spray, mineral dust, smoke, and volcanic ash are all primary aerosols. Secondary aerosols are aerosols which were emitted in another form (e.g. gases), then become aerosol particles after going through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as sulfate aerosols from volcanoes or industrial emissions. All aerosols can also undergo further chemical changes, referred to as ‘aging effects’. Some more information about these various aerosol types is given below."

(NASA; cf. Wikipedia Aerosol, here, and here).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series concerning atmospheric gasses is here.

---

Methane

Carbon Dioxide

Nitrous Oxide

Sulfur Hexafluoride

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 9

Bigga Badda Boom

"Founded in 1945 by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists created the Doomsday Clock two years later, using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero) to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The Doomsday Clock is set every year by the Bulletin’s Science and Security Board in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes eight Nobel laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to global catastrophe caused by man-made technologies.

It is now 85 seconds to midnight

A year ago, we warned that the world was perilously close to global disaster and that any delay in reversing course increased the probability of catastrophe. Rather than heed this warning, Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic. Hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war, climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers. Far too many leaders have grown complacent and indifferent, in many cases adopting rhetoric and policies that accelerate rather than mitigate these existential risks. Because of this failure of leadership, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board today sets the Doomsday Clock at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to catastrophe."

(Circa 2026).

---

---

"Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 8

Atmospheric gas

Earth's lower atmosphere (dry air) is primarily composed of Nitrogen (78.08%) and Oxygen (20.95%), which together make up about 99% of its volume. The remaining 1% consists of Argon (0.93%), Carbon Dioxide (approx. 0.04%), and trace amounts of neon, helium, methane, and other gases. Water vapor content is highly variable, ranging from near 0% to 4%.

These key components of Earth's Atmosphere (Dry Air) Nitrogen (N₂), Oxygen (O₂), Argon (Ar), and Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) are our next focus, including lesser quantities of trace gases Neon (Ne), Helium (He), Methane (CH₄), Krypton (Kr), and Hydrogen (H₂) to fill in to reach 100%.

While nitrogen and oxygen tend to be constant, water vapor (H₂O), carbon dioxide (CO₂), and methane (CH₄) concentrations fluctuate based on location and time.

What impact do these changes in gas percentages have on atmospheric dynamics?

In the previous post graphs were shown concerning changes in temperature and humid air pressure/density (Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous - 7).

The graphs below show the impact on layers and zones in terms of "chemical potential" when those changes in t_si/p_si (temperature and humid air pressure/density) take place.

But what happens when the percent amounts change, but still add up to 100%?

If Nitrogen (N₂) 78.08% drops to 75% and the remaining 3.08% is distributed into the other gases, what impact does that have on temperature, pressure, density and chemical potential?

I will begin to explore that in the next episode, but in the meantime let's ponder the event that scientists "got wrong", i.e., when the 2024 heat increase caught them by surprise ("Last" Doesn't Always Mean "Previous" - 4).

And let's ponder why Dr. James Hansen says it was caused by the removal of "aerosols" from the atmosphere (EPA regs changed concerning emissions by "container ships",  etc.).

And let's also consider the Dredd Blog hypothesis of "saturation" (The Saturation Chronicles, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12).

Stay tuned if you dare. 

The next post concerning gasses in air is here, the previous post in this series is here. 

---

---

---