The conditions of the primordial soup of a supposed big bang must have had a very low entropy because of the second law. Yet Entropy has the units of joules/kelvin and we know kelvin must have been fantastically high at t=Slightly >0. So how is it that joules can be so low in such a hot soup?

Gravitational waves have energy. They are stretching and condensing matter. If they have energy they have some mass from E= mc^2. Are there black holes so massive that they keep gravitational waves from forming from acceleration of black holes? How would these black holes be detected?

Is there dark matter black holes?
Are there black holes with dark energy expanding their diameters?

One of my favorite WF Buckley quotes:
_______________________________

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.

–William F. Buckley
_______________________________

Today’s liberals are leftists, who know there are other views and that they lack effective counter-arguments, so they have moved right along to censoring, canceling, prosecuting, and otherwise ruining lives.

They haven’t quite reached gulags and stake-burning yet, but “Scientific American” called Dr. Judith Curry a “climate heretic” in 2010, then blamed her for the lack of civil conversation, so I would guess, when fanatics are in charge, it’s only a matter of time and opportunity before more extreme punishments emerge:
_______________________________

Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues
Why can’t we have a civil conversation about climate?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-heretic/

Interestingly, the model with (by far) the best performance was that of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

This may be some creative data manipulation, or it may (more likely, imho) be that the Russians know better than to use the bs they fabricate for everyone else to use!

I remember when I switched to a new junior high school, and found their trove of Scientific American magazines in the library! I thought I had died and gone to heaven!

Years later, in October of 2008, they delivered to this proud subscriber an issue that contained a paper claiming to prove that Presidential Candidate McCain got better media coverage than Candidate Obama! This seemed unbelievable, until you read the fine print that told you that the data was gathered during the prior year primary season, not during that summer’s election season!

Of course, during the primary season the year before, “Maverick” McCain was the Media’s darling stalking horse set up for Hillary, and Obama was the upstart who was challenging “Her Inevitableness”! So this had nothing to do with their treatment by the media during the actual election season, an issue which it was clearly touted to address!

I cancelled my subscription, and have never looked at the rag since!

Well, that was it for me.

Then, of course, there was the entirely separate issue of whether such a push, an effort that was intended to involve the entire world–based on a largely illusory problem which, in any case, actions by humans could not effect in any major way–was, in fact, a disguised attempt by the Left–those, often self nominated “climate activists/advocates/experts/officials”–to advance further toward the goals of the Left, to reorder society, and to see to it that those on the Left acquired ever more control, power, and money as they supposedly fought the supposed “existential threat” of global warming.

My main response is: This paper and others like it are exactly why we citizens and taxpayers need to demand a working and fully-costed demonstration project before we allow ourselves all to be used as guinea pigs in the implementation of these preposterous wind/solar fantasies. As I wrote in a post just a few days ago, if this is so easy and will save so much money, then California and New York should show the rest of us how it’s done before everyone else is forced to go along.” -Manhattan Contrarian

JJ suggested we need demonstration projects to prove the viability of relying on renewables. So has Manhattan Contrarian. The elephant, of course, is storage. Until there is a breakthrough technology invented, storage costs make the entire exercise in renewables futile.

The Contrarian does some calculations of what we can expect the costs of Lithium batteries in the foreseeable future and future technologies based on hydrogen.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2022-9-16-cost-of-the-green-energy-transition-who-you-gonna-believe-me-or-your-lyin-eyes

I am not a physicist (and I don’t even play one on TV). But in my defense I am a science geek and a longtime fan of Richard Feynman and similar super-clear thinkers. So, subject to comments from the real physicists on this thread, I would answer your question as follows:

The question may not be well formulated. It assumes there IS a ‘control knob,’ that is, a single variable in this complex, chaotic, dynamic system called the global climate. And it assumes further that the single variable not only (a) exists but also (b) can be ‘controlled’ (i.e. by us humans: in a reasonable time span with reasonable feedback/calibration at reasonable cost in energy/resource/political and other agreement). I’m not sure there is such a thing, but my guess is, the driver of the system is inbound solar energy and a (the) main ‘control knob’ is the negative feedback loop from the hydrological cycle. All that sunshine gets converted into mechanical work (evaporating and transporting water) and then the heat is carried to the poles and stratosphere and leaves the system. Water is the big dog in this story. CO2 and other GHGs count for a few percentage points.

The claim that CO2 is the ‘control knob’ is IMHO a piece of bootstrapping. Until the system’s various other elements have been considered one by one and eliminated as the putative ‘control knob’ (and how would you ever do that?) you can’t claim that CO2 is the culprit.