Have you ever taken the time to develop your own view on a subject, or do you just take the media’s word for it?
Send me a tweet if you appreciate. I'll send you an address if you feel like making a monatary contribution.
August 24th, 2015
... I underestimate my abilities and do not give myself enough credit....
Just wait until I start talking about evolution and quantum mechanics. I bet I could get Richard Dawkins to start praying to save his soul.
August 12th, 2015
@Oakden_Wolf was not content that I left out the C-13/C-12 CO2 isotope Suess effect discussion. The claim is that fossil fuels are responsible for the rise in CO2 concentrations and has therefore diluted the amount of [C13]CO2 in the atmosphere with [C12]CO2. This claim is made because it is believed that plants are more likely to consume the slightly smaller and lighter [C12]CO2 over the slightly heavier and bigger [C13]CO2. This is also under the assumption that all fossil fuels are derived from ancient plants. He uses a graph derived from ice core data that include a couple of hockey sticks, one showing increase of atmospheric CO2 over the past millennia while the other shows a proposed “significant” decrease of [C13]CO2. See the graph here:
Let’s make it abundantly clear what the argument is about: The -8.5 δ 13C that is at the tip of the golden hockey stick in the graph represents a C-12/C-13 ratio difference of 0.000955162 between the Pee Dee Belemnite standard and measured sample that gave the tip of the stick’s data point (this number was obtained from entering the crustacean reference standard into the equation stated below with the output value at -8.5). I did not plug in the exact number they used from their study into this equation because it was not directly provided. Nevertheless, the reality is, they are speaking about teeeeeny tiiiiiny fluctuations in the 1.1% of C-13 that is abundant and stable on our earth.
How teeny? It is so teeny that instead of using the simple difference in ratios of a measured sample and a standard, this equation is used:
the δ 13C = [(measured ratio/standard ratio)-1] x1000
Using equations like this makes mountains out of mole hills really easy – especially when the samples you are trying to measure are encased in ice, are corrected with multiple factors, and apparently can vary in their output measurements depending on how long you wait to analyze them after extraction.
To put this into a real perspective, let’s look at a graph of the ratio differences (subtract the measured ratio from the standard ratio and plot it over proposed time of sample) instead of the fancy equation.
You would have a graph that makes a hockey stick plotting a raito change from -0.0000730418 to -0.0000955162
The change is likely smaller than that; and basing a conclusion upon a change of value that small, especially without having the data from the source in which you are claiming is the cause, is quite crazy.
This very small change is blamed on burning of fossil fuels because they are claimed to be ancient plants. I still claim much of it is dinosaur poop – but then the argument would be…most dinosaurs were vegetarians and ate plants. Nevertheless, to make this claim, the least that should have been done was assess the δ 13C of the primary fossil fuel sources of the world (and not just some random lump of coal or quart of oil).
Considering dinosaur poop…this brings me to my next point: Human population explosion. IF the C-13 ratio is decreasing in the CO2, and it is blamed on plants being converted to CO2 THEN the massive human population explosion is most likely to blame. We are 7 billion strong now, but that does not include those already dead that lived an average life span over the past 100 years. The average American eats near a ton a year and we all expel CO2 and plenty of poop. Many of us eat animals that eat several tons of plants a years. Furthermore, it is claimed the C4 carbon fixation is more recently evolved than C3 carbon fixation and C4 carbon fixation uses even less C-13 than C3 fixation. Therefore, the ancient plants that were using more C3 carbon fixation likely had, on average, more C-13 than today’s plants!
We can go on about how different locations on earth promote enrichment of C-13 in some plants and algae and some locations the opposite…. Or maybe it was a sensitivity issue on a mass spectrometer that was measuring 0.0003% higher or lower C-13/C-12 ratios on a given day. Libraries could be filled with arguments about why something changes a teeny tiny infinitesimal amount. However –concluding the source is coming from fossil fuels without having a table of δ 13C data on the very abundant various sources of fossil fuels is a little disappointing. If you looked at the data, you may very well find that a larger portion of C3 fixation pathway of ancient plants contradicts these results. You may find that industrial farming of corn dwarfs the coal industry in this regard. We are talking about 717 MILLION metric tons of C4 fixated corn produced a year globally. Do you think that includes the weight of the cob, the stalk, the roots… etc? Perahps this massive scale corn production has sped up the terrrestrial absorption of C-13. Who is to say that the C-13 CO2 that is consumed by the corn is not mostly concentrated in its roots? It is heavier right ;-) ?
Let’s assume that the δ 13C data is 100% accurate – which it may be. It still does not prove that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was due primarily to fossil fuel burning. Why does it not? Because, as I said before, an increase in ocean temperatures decreases the amount of CO2 absorbed into the oceans. Even the authors of the graph above show that carbon in the oceans has decreased in a hockey stick manner recently. If the oceans were cooler, more CO2 would be absorbed in them and more phytoplankton blooms would gobble them up and more fish would gobble up the phytoplankton and so on and so forth. In other words, they may have simply proven that the CO2 produced today is not entering the ocean as fast as it once did say 50 years ago – and that I agree with
It is what it is and the global industrial machine continues to grind out production. Complaining about it, writing manuscripts that suggest it needs to stop, and protesting it is NOT going to stop it. Time will though. Not everyone is protesting, compaining, and trying to break down our energy sector...... some people are innovating, creating....producing the "next big thing". Get ready for it.... Tomorrow is almost here. Meanwhile, don't let your government tax you for a natural gas that keeps the world thriving industrially and naturally.
In response to the fellow with the twitter handle @Oakden_wolf that is the author of this rebuttal to my website: http://tugpullpushstop.blogspot.com/2015/08/chumpville-response-1-on-co2.html :
I claim that the Arctic Ocean released carbon dioxide like an ocean sized volcano when its ice capped melted in 2007 and 2012. I claim this because 1) CO2 is most soluble in cold water 2) the water under the ice in the Arctic is probably some of the coldest water on earth. 3) the water under the Arctic ice becomes saturated with CO2 as ice builds and the gas crashes out of the freezing water.
Very cold water is clearly loaded with CO2 based upon what data the CO2 flux mag shows:
This very cold water with lots of CO2 comes northward under the Arctic ice… and freezes. This unloads its CO2 concentration into the water just below the ice. You can see the same thing happen visually with the salt in the water as it freezes. It crashes out and makes the water below the ice saturated with CO2. The water below the ice becomes so saturated with salt that the salt cannot be held in the water and it falls to the ocean floor. Now imagine the ice melts off the top rapidly one summer. The saturated waters are exposed to the warmer temperatures and the small bit of warming forces massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere – we are talking continental size exposure of open ocean.
The CO2 flux map is incomplete. It missed the most important part of the entire cycle because it was not even looking in the right location for it. The Arctic Ocean is not even on its map. The assumption that it would remain under ice and not play a role is incorrect. If that map included the Arctic Ocean in 2007 and 2012, it would have displayed a massive red blob of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. The 400 ppm CO2 reading on site in 2012 is evident enough considering the location.
I did not say the oceans were the root cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. They clearly have elaborated the amounts because as you and I both agree, when water warms, CO2 is released from it and water cools, CO2 is absorbed in it. And we both agree that the oceans are warmer than they have been in at least the past 200 years. Then you have the industrial revolution and the grand solar maximum coinciding with this. The argument thus proceeds that man and his awful industrial breath has contaminated the atmosphere….. instead of…. The sun has warmed the oceans and reduced the amount of CO2 that can be absorbed into them.
There is only one point of entry for CO2 back to the ocean – that is the ocean’s surface. Meanwhile – it floats out in a volume that dwarfs the surface area of the ocean. The warmer the oceans become, the longer and longer it will take for the oceans to return to a net negative CO2 sink.
Moving on…. The combination of the Law Dome and Mauna Lao CO2 data is not valid. The data was acquired from different techniques, from different locations, and different elevations – although approximate. I have already outlined the main points of concern regarding extracting atmospheric CO2 estimates from ice cores on my first post on this site. Carbon dioxide is not inert and the ice in which it was contained was not formed from pure water. Previous authors in Nature have believed and proposed that CO2 can be absorbed by its ice matrix. I doubt anyone suggesting that now could be published in the same journal.
Regarding the Suess effect: Another grand solar maximum coincidence of CO2 rising and and C-14 levels diminishing. Carbon-14 is formed in the upper troposphere and stratosphere when a nitrogen atom (N-14) is struck by a neutron 1n + 14N → 14C + 1p
Well…. So what does the gran solar maximum have to do with that? It has everything to do with it. The neutrons which are necessary for the nuclear reaction in C-14 production are derived from high energy cosmic rays. It has been proven that cosmic rays decrease significantly during high solar output due to an additional shielding effect provided from the solar wind. The neutron monitor says it all. There has been an extreme dip in neutron formation from when measurement began to the last solar cycle when solar activity dipped its lowest in 100 years. Have a look for yourself:
Notice that highest peak ever in 2010? That is when the sun hit its lowest minimum in over 100 years and the earth became more susceptible to cosmic rays which induced neutron formation. Look at the latest C-14/C-12 ratio before you start touting man is drowning the skies with C-14 dead CO2…..even though there is a C-14 signal for a lot of coal when it is supposed to be free of C-14 (because it was supposed to have been formed sooooooo long ago that all the C-14 has decayed away).
I hope you have a great day Oak. I am not backing down.
From 1925 - 2010 Solar activity was at a higher level than all our previous records. Water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas on earth, measured at near surface (specific humidity) followed this solar trend higher by about 500 ppm- THEN CO2 began to rise more rapidly. Its all about the natural order......so natural and so true.... Nature and Science are ashamed to publish it - as they should be.
July 29th, 2015
I have argued directly with some of the best of the climate alarmists and they still have no answer to my question regarding water vapor. Atmospheric water vapor in the lower troposphere increased significantly (about 500 ppm) from 1974-1979 and has never retreated. The American chemical society as well as other "scientific" entities claim CO2 controls the amount of water vapor in the lower troposphere and thus, the temperature as water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas. However... during that 500 ppm rise in water vapor, CO2 had only increased, at most, 4 ppm in the same region. So their claim cannot be true. Furthermore, while the lower troposphere water vapor content has remained in the range of 10,500 ppm for the last 45 years, CO2 has risen. This is because the water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas on earth and its prolonged high level and sustained high solar activity has further warmed the oceans, the largest sink for CO2. The solubility of carbon dioxide in water decreases with temperature. So, as the oceans warmed, CO2 is released or failed to re-enter the ocean - especially in the arctic (CO2 is very soluble in cold water and the slope of the solubility is very steep at lower temperatures - so small temperature rises induce very large, ocean size, releases of CO2). 400ppm CO2 was first measured in the arctic circle in 2012 when the ice melted the most - not much industry up there, but there is a lot of cold water that had its ice cap removed. I will not back down from my stance that the sun - water vapor system is the key governor of climate on earth. Over 70% of the earth is covered in water and there is a very large abundance of it in our atmosphere. The claim that a 0.005% increase in CO2 is the climate driver is insane.
Further evidence is found in the cooling of the lower stratosphere. Water vapor concentration at 9km correlates dierctly with the temperature in the lower stratosphere. This is not a coincidence.
July 19th, 2015
Call it a coincindence:
From 1974 to 1979, the water vapor concentration in the lower troposphere rose almost 500 ppm and has remained at that level or higher ever since. From 1948 to 1974, the levels fluctuated right around 500ppm lower (at the level prior to the 1979 rise). The question is: did the rise and maintained level of water vapor from 1979 to present enhance the increase of CO2 due to the effects of water vapor, the more potent greenhouse gas? Is it coincidence that the majority of the rise of CO2 occurred after this increase of water vapor?
July 18th, 2015
More regarding "ocean dilution"... the folks claiming ocean dilution now insist that the fresh water from melted land ice actually floated on top of the ocean due to freshwater being less dense than sea water - and they say that is why Antarctica has record sea ice.. That's all fine and dandy for estuaries where rivers meet the ocean, but for ice cube melting at temperatures just above freezing - or even at 60 F - not likely, Here is why:
July 17th, 2015
Apparently folks are trying to tell me that melting land ice is causing the record breaking Antarctic sea ice extent because it is "diluting the water". This is insane talk. The Southern Ocean has an average depth of 4000 to 5000 meters (around 14,000 feet) with very few shallow areas. The sea ice extend reaches well over 1000 km from shore. Want to do a little math to see how much volume that is that has to be diluted? Don't waste your time.... the oceans do not stop there... they actually connect to each other around the entire earth. Imagine that... dilution!
So, climate change / global warming advocates lie, and then tell another lie to cover up the other lie... and the trend continues.... until the "science" is a snowball, turned into a giant runaway snow boulder of lies rolling rapidly downhill.
First - temperature increase has caused an increase in atmosphereic CO2, not so much the opposite. I mentioned below that water vapor increased 500 ppm mostly before the 70 ppm rise in atmosphereic CO2 occurred. Water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas. This water vapor warmed the ocean which induced a rise in CO2 since warmer water decreases solubility of CO2 in water.
HERE'S THE BIGGEST WHOPPER OF THEM ALL: The climate scientists now claim that the oceans are acidifying from an increase in CO2!!!! So, they claim both warmer ocean water AND increased CO2 concentraion in the water - LIES LIES LIES. Clearly the chart above shows you that warmer water means LESS CO2. Ocean acidification? Perhaps it is climate scientists ON ACID that be trippin'. The chart above is a law of nature - A FACT THAT CANNNOT BE REFUTED. Yet.... somehow... these facts and laws of science mean squat to these folks.
So... We have warmer ocean surface water which holds less CO2...we have record Antarctic sea ice and we had a rapid recovery of Arctic sea ice from 2012 after it released massive amounts of CO2. The Arctic and the Southern Ocean are the largest CO2 sinks in the world because their cold waters will suck it right out of the air - UNLESS they are covered in ice. So ice covered oceans.... warmer sea surfaces.... where is the CO2 to go? Well, for now it is to remain in the atmosphere until surface water vapor concentration decreases. That process has now began. Be patient.... like 10 years or so patient. It takes time, it always has. MEANWHILE - don't let the government tread on you over JUNK SCIENCE.
July 9th, 2015
The American Chemical Society Claims that non-condensable gases are responsible for increasing the water vapor content in the atmosphere by increasing the temperature in the atmosphere. However, they also claim the temperature rise was caused by the increase in water vapor. http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
First off, water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas. Secondly, there is significantly more water on earth than carbon based molecules. Thirdly, water vapor could not have increased 500 ppm since 1958 from a 50 ppm increase in CO2, most of which has accumulated after the water vapor increase.
In other words, the American Chemical Society has placed the cart before the horse. The HORSE IS WATER VAPOR. You don’t have 72-74% of the earth covered in water without it being THE dominating factor in climate. Yes, non-condensable gases may induce more water vapor in the atmosphere, BUT they also fall out of the sky with rain and they also continue rising to upper layers of the atmosphere, like the thermosphere. It has been proven that non-condensable gases like CO2 in the thermosphere radiates heat from earth back to outer space.
Again, I point to the most obvious fact that proves CO2 is rising NOT because of man burning fossil fuels, but because a solar induced warming ocean. 400 ppm CO2 was first measured in the Arctic Ocean region in 2012 – this was when the ice had its largest melt. The Arctic ocean acted like an ocean sized volcano releasing CO2 into the atmosphere as its temperature rose a fraction of a degree C. The solubility of CO2 in cold water decreases rapidly with temperature and any incident like the 2012 melting of the Arctic would release massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere – more than the entire industrial age. This event has “coincidently” occurred just after a modern grand solar maximum. The sun has put out more energy from 1950- 2008 than any time in our solar monitoring history.
CONSIDER THE VOLUME OF THE ATMOSPHERE – it dwarfs the volume of earth. The atmosphere extends 6200 MILES from the earth’s surface. This IS the range for non-condensable gases like CO2 because they will continue to absorb IR radiation at higher altitudes and continue to rise. So, considering this volume….over 6200 miles from the surface of earth….. and you are claiming that man, with its 33 million kilotons of annual CO2 production is causing a “significant” rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Meanwhile, decaying matter contributes at least 16 times more CO2 than man. Maybe if CO2 was not inert we would have an efffect. The more concentrated CO2 is at our surface, the faster the plants will grow….the more leaves will be produced… the faster the dirt will rise.
Now, the sun is putting out less energy than it has in the past 100 years. The rapid shift from high to low solar output will induce massive changes in our weather patterns. The most obvious is the negative arctic oscillation (a very wavy jet stream). This negative oscillation is induced from extreme temperature variations in the upper atmosphere as it cools. The oceans undergo similar patterns, but due to the increased density, the rate is slower than air. This slower rate is the reason why temperature changes follow solar activity changes by about 10 years. The oceans are the primary driver of weather and climate on earth. Water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas and is responsible for life on earth due to its absorption of infrared radiation. The flow of water vapor into and out of the ocean is why the oceans are the primary driver of weather and climate on earth. Anything that causes water to remain in the liquid phase in the ocean or the solid phase as ice – not in the gas phase in air will induce cooling. Anything that causes water to be expelled from the oceans will induce warming. There is only ONE THING man can do to alter the climate – detonate nuclear bombs in the ocean….. or extreme nuclear fallout. Until that happens please put a lid on your man-made climate change.
PLEASE PUT A LID ON IT – because you are EMBARRRASSING YOURSELF. This is an image of the Antarctic Peninsula which was claimed to have land ice melting off of it at a “rapid rate” – keep in mind – it is the northernmost land on Antarctica. Well, sea ice has a lower freezing point than land ice that formed on the peninsula because of the salt in the water. And now… sea ice is raging towards South America a rate never seen before. SHAME to those using science as a tool for government intervention of liberty and freedom….SHAME.
Oh, and By the way, the Arctic Ocean sea ice has been on an ice building tear as well. I guess.... it must be the warmest year on record!!!
July 1st, 2015
The slap you in the face obvious proof that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING:
Please visit DMI Ocean and Ice services website regarding the measured temperatures in the arctic regions. the link is here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Once you are there, please cycle through the years from 1958 to 2015 and look at days 150 - 250 for each year. Those days are peak melting season for the Arctic. What do you notice? For those 100 days of the year in each year from 1958 to 2015, the TEMPERTURE HAS NOT INNCREASED. Not only has the temperature not increased, the temperature has actually decresed the past few years during those 100 days of the year. If the global warming alarmists had a case, the temperature durig those 100 days would follow there fabricated temperature graphs. they are not even close.
June 10th, 2015
How Temperature Governs Carbon Dioxide, and Not Vice Versa.
Please look at the sea level specific humidity chart (bottom graph):
THAT IS HOW EASY IT IS TO CORRELATE TEMPERATURE TO AN ATMOSPHERIC GAS KNOWN AS WATER VAPOR.
Notice the spikes in specific humidity in 2010, 1998, 1988...etc. The year 1998 was the warmest year on satellite record and it had the highest level of specific humidity. 2010 was the second warmest, and had the second highest humidity.
Water vapor is currently 10,600 ppm in our atmosphere at sea level with a rise of approximately 500 ppm since 1974. Carbon dioxide is currently about 400 ppm at sea level with a rise of approximately 70 ppm since 1974. Water is a more potent greenhouse gas. It is safe to say that any warming on earth since 1974 is due to an increase in water vapor. The CO2 chart has ZERO correlation with temperature while water vapor is completely correlated with temperature. Now consider the fact that carbon dioxide is LESS SOLUBLE in warmer water. Therefore, additional humidity has induced a warming effect on the oceans which in turn has caused the oceans to degas carbon dioxide. This is especially true in the arctic as I mentioned before that a one degree C temperature rise in an arctic ocean with less ice than normal will result in a massive ocean size CO2 volcano (see original post below). Therefore, increased water vapor plays a direct role in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere because it increases the temperature. Where did this excess humidity come from? The specific humidity graphs for the mid and upper troposphere provide an answer (they have lowered). I know, you are saying, “the amounts are much less” than at the surface. The specific humidty amounts are less, BUT....the volume of air in the mid to upper troposphere is much higher than the lower troposphere. You can calculate it yourself to determine how much volume, it’s a simple subtraction problem between the volumes of two spheres. There has been enough drop in humidity in the upper and mid troposphere to increase sea level – imagine that –rain makes the sea level rise. The next question is why did the water fall out of the sky? Well, there has already been a very clear solar explanation for that. I will allow you to do your own research on it - research Svenmark.
This is the end of the debate. If you cannot see the truth that is plainly placed right here before your eyes, I am sorry. I pray for you to open your eyes and mind to the truth.
Carbon dioxide has relatively zero impact on climate because water vapor dominates. Even NASA admitted "Carbon dioxide is the most frequently mentioned greenhouse gas, but water vapor absorbs infrared (heat) radiation much more strongly." http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/ "the warming effect of carbon dioxide is minuscule compared to that of water vapor".
FACT 1: Water is the most dominant greenhouse gas on earth.
FACT 2: There can be up to 4.24 % of water vapor in the atmosphere compared to 0.04% that of carbon dioxide – that is over 100 times of a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and 848 times more than the 0.005% increase measured over the past 50 years at Hawaii next to a volcano.
FACT 3: There is over 1.3 Billion cubic kilometers of water in our oceans with 362 million square kilometers of it on the surface.
FACT 4: There is only 148 square kilometers of carbon based land on earth’s surface – less than 30%.
FACT 5: Water vapor is easily trapped in the atmosphere due to its physical properties.
FACT 6: Clearly, the atmosphere is full of water. Look in the sky; you can see the clouds of condensed liquid and ice which are reflecting the sun.
FACT 7: Carbon dioxide remains a gas in the atmosphere, but since it is in the gas form, it can more easily rise to higher elevations in the atmosphere (see my March 5th post).
FACT 8: In the upper atmosphere, carbon dioxide has been proven to have a cooling effect on the earth as it prevents IR radiation to reach the earth and reflects it to space. This has been scientifically proven: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
THE CLAIM: More CO2 results in more warming of earth. THE REALITY and conclusion: water vapor dominates earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide remains a minute fraction of a gas in our atmosphere. There is more than 100 times more water vapor (a potent greenhouse gas) than that of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere and a massive storage of water in our oceans. Water dominates. As water is dominating near the surface, carbon dioxide will continue to have a more increased role in cooling the earth as its concentration increases in the thermosphere.
Just a little "heat" lesson for you. "Heat rises" because the molecules containg the thermal energy move much more rapidly than cold molecules. This rapid movement requires more space. Since the heated molecules occupy more space, they are less dense (there are fewer molecules in a given amount of volume). Since these heated molecules are less dense - they rise until they are cooled or reach an area in their atmosphere that is of equal density. So saying "heat rises" is actually incorrect. It is molecules containing thermal energy that rise.
Its been a little over a year since I began this site. Nothing has changed. The media continues their BS spiel that the globe is warming. Let me break it down for you plain and simple so the truth is a bit easier to understand:
So... Yes, perhaps the sea surface temperature is at its highest giving these global warming alarmists the gall to call 2014 the warmest year ever....BUT that is because the ocean is releasing heat. It is releasing heat into a cooler atmosphere. This WILL continue until a thermal equillibrium is reached between the sun, the ocean, and the atmosphere. The real concearn here is HOW LONG until the equillibrium is reached? Will the Laurentide ice sheets rebuild during this time? It certainly looks like they may. As long as the atmosphere is significantly cooler than our oceans, we will continue to see unusual amounts of precipitation. Keep in mind the highest solar irradiance ever experienced for a prolonged period of time was....SUDDENLY SWITCHED OFF.
In the meantime... PLEASE.... feel free to keep the wool over your eyes and believe that 0.005% of Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere is going to burn us all in hell fire. Buy up those solar panels.... and bust your ass keeping the snow off them. And those of you out west in the USA..... enjoy your fortunate location along the Pacific seashore.... but don't expect it to last forever. Once the new thermal equillibrium is reached, and a new positive arctic oscilation is achieved, you will find your temperatures probably about 3 degrees celcius colder than normal.... maybe more.
January 10th, 2014 -edited
In case you’ve not noticed, the media is extremely biased toward a particular political agenda. What I report here is all the facts and truths as I know them to be (as a PhD scientist and historian). Hopefully you will leave Chumpville with a sense of urgency regarding the future of not only the United States, but the world. There are several issues that will be addressed here in the future, but the following is of most importance.
Solar Activity – For the past century, our sun has remained in cycles of high solar activity – until now. No one alive has experienced anything different from sustained high solar activity cycles from our sun. Please, have a look at the reconstructed chart from the SOURCE satellite data measuring total solar irradiance in Figure 1. Notice the dip in solar activity from 1645 to shortly after 1700. This era was known as the Maunder Minimum or the “Little Ice Age” due to its very cold temperatures. Notice the extremely high activity from 1906 until 2012. This is known as the “modern warm era”. This makes it quite obvious that the sun plays a very significant role in our climate. The climate has been warming from consistently high solar activity for the past century. No one alive in the last 300 plus years has ever experienced sustained solar activity like the levels of the past century. This data is generated from the sun, not interactions on earth. The oscillation in the graph is determined by the solar cycles (approximate 11 year period from peak to peak or trough to trough in which the sun reverses its poles). Unfortunately, according to NASA, the SOURCE satellite has no longer been functioning since July 2012. It is very unfortunate because the data it would be generating now (2014) would be extremely revealing.
Figure 1: Past 400 years of Total Solar Irradiance Reconstruction from http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/data/tsi-data/ (NOTE: This graph was recently “adjusted” – see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/historical-and-present-total-solar-irradiance-has-been-tinkered-with-again/ )
It would be revealing because the latest solar cycle, solar cycle 24 (2010 – present), is the lowest it has been in over 100 years at half the size of its previous cycle. Also, the minimum leading up to cycle 24 (2007-2010) was the deepest minimum in over 100 years. The coldest temperature on earth was recorded by satellite in Antarctica in 2010 – and also marked by a noticeably colder winter in the entire Northern Hemisphere. I placed the images of the covers of Time magazine above because the 1970’s actually had a slightly weaker solar cycle as well (solar cycle 20), but nowhere near the current solar cycle or what is expected to come.
Figure 2: Cycle 24 is the weakest solar cycle in over 100 years
To provide an example of what extremely high solar activity can do, consider this excerpt from a NASA news article in 2008 regarding a breach in the magnetosphere, the magnetic “shield” that is supposed to protect us from the solar winds:
"The opening was huge—four times wider than Earth itself," says Wenhui Li, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire who has been analyzing the data. Li's colleague Jimmy Raeder, also of New Hampshire, says "1027 particles per second were flowing into the magnetosphere—that's a 1 followed by 27 zeros. This kind of influx is an order of magnitude greater than what we thought was possible."
The event began with little warning when a gentle gust of solar wind delivered a bundle of magnetic fields from the Sun to Earth. Like an octopus wrapping its tentacles around a big clam, solar magnetic fields draped themselves around the magnetosphere and cracked it open. The cracking was accomplished by means of a process called "magnetic reconnection." High above Earth's poles, solar and terrestrial magnetic fields linked up (reconnected) to form conduits for solar wind. Conduits over the Arctic and Antarctic quickly expanded; within minutes they overlapped over Earth's equator to create the biggest magnetic breach ever recorded by Earth-orbiting spacecraft.
During high solar activity, the magnetosphere can be breached by the solar winds by a process called magnetic reconnection. The energetic magnitude of such an event is still being debated in calculation. Considering the larger than global size of the laboratory, you can imagine the challenges in deriving a number with high confidence. What has been proven, is that these geomagnetic storms do play a role in the weather patterns. Thus, it can be inferred that they play a major role in global temperatures.
The solar activity has dipped significantly (the lowest in a century) for the first time during the satellite era. This has provided us with new knowledge: the heliosphere has decreased in pressure proportionally to the number of sunspots. This has caused the energy of solar flares’ dissipating significantly before they reach earth. Geomagnetic storms are not formed despite the same magnitude and amount of flares coming from the sun because of the lower pressure in the heliosphere. A recent example of this was the January 7th 2014 flare. It was an extremely intense burst from the sun pointed directly at earth. It had no geomagnetic effect. The earth’s magnetosphere had a background reading – like it didn’t even happen. In previous cycles, this was not the case. The lower amount of sunspots on the sun in comparison to previous cycles correlates to a lack of pressure in the heliosphere. In this case, about a 40% drop in sunspots and a 40% drop in pressure. Graphs of these phenomena are provided in the heliosphere section below.
The recent decrease in solar activity is significant. The last time earth experienced a solar cycle of the current magnitude was about 100 years ago during cycle 14. The earth had experienced a less active sun prior to cycle 14. As climate records indicate, it was a cooler era. As we are exiting a sustained era of high solar activity, it is anticipated by many that the climate will enter a sustained cooling period. As a matter of fact, the modern warm era appears to be coming to an end faster than most expected. Solar cycle 25, the next solar cycle, is predicted to have solar activity that is a fraction (~1/10) of our current weakened solar cycle. This is solar activity levels not seen since the 1600’s, during the Little Ice Age. Penn and Livingston, the scientists that accurately predicted cycle 24’s drop and are predicting the very small cycle 25, suggest that the sun could become “spotless” for decades – devoid of significant solar activity.
If you believe the majority of the media, then the planet is in the modern warm era because of carbon dioxide, not solar activity. If you believe history and that the sun’s lack of solar activity did in fact cause the colder temperatures and glacial builds during the Maunder, Dalton, and Spörer Minimums, then get your snow shoes and mittens ready folks, because it is going to get colder in the coming 11 years and it could stay that way for….who knows how long? A century? A millennia? Be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. If we listen to the media and succumb to the “climate change” agenda, we will be taxed to oblivion just to stay warm. If the current United States government and the EPA have their way and continue to shut down power plants, America may not be able to affordably meet the energy demands of the future. When the extended cold arrives (it is when, and not if), Americans could be paying outlandish energy bills or possibly even be left in the cold. This is just the beginning of the change, the change of the sun.
I am not the only person who is aware of the effects of the sun. In fact, it is published literature. Yes, there are massive amounts of literature that support the carbon dioxide climate models while there are few publications backing this information. Why? Government funding. The majority of government funding has gone to folks looking to prove that, somehow or someway, the air coming out of our mouths or from a fire is going to heat up the earth to a tipping point from which we will never recover. They warn of sea level rise, droughts, forest fires, and now they are trying to incorporate extreme freezing! They aren’t paying folks to disprove the theory of carbon dioxide. Even NASA scientists are depending on “global warming” or “climate change” to float their boat. Well, they are in luck. In the coming 11 years, the climate is going to continue to change. The climate is always changing; it is and always has been dynamic. However, this change will most likely be a cold one, and its length is unknown. F. Steinhilber and J. Beer, German scientists, predict a decline in solar activity for at least the next 100 years and do not see it reaching levels of the past century at anytime in the next 500 years. Germany recently abandoned the “climate change” agenda and has announced increased use of coal to help meet energy demands.
Carbon Dioxide Does carbon dioxide warm the part of the Earth’s atmosphere we live in, the troposphere? Perhaps it does in its 0.04% composition of the atmosphere, but not likely in a manner that will affect 99% of the rest of the atmosphere. I do not deny the potential absorption effects of carbon dioxide, but I also do not deny the massive size of our earth and atmosphere in contrast to the amount of CO2. I also do not deny the sun or historical facts pertaining to it. The hyper-focus of the media has been to promote the “greenhouse effect” and how infrared radiation becomes “trapped” by CO2 in our atmosphere from the sun. The “unprecedented” levels of CO2 currently in our atmosphere and “unprecedented” temperature rise are regularly emphasized. The temperature is 1 degree Fahrenheit above average according to NASA. That is unprecedented after a century of the highest ever recorded solar activity? The media is trying to break down common sense with 1 degree Fahrenheit as their impetus. Carbon dioxide levels that are at reasonable levels considering the solar activity we have observed this past century. The solar system is in a dynamic universe and our sun is dynamic as well; it is in its own orbit in the galaxy and our galaxy is moving as well. Who is to say what changes will come as we progress in a new space, interacting with other star systems, and other galaxies? It is believed that humankind did not exist the last time our sun was in this position in the galaxy. What troubles me most is that it is common knowledge that carbon dioxide is not inert; it reacts readily in a variety of ways in nature and is stored liberally in natural cycles. The more that is produced, the more some natural phenomena will thrive. Phytoplankton and algae in the ocean, for example, are avid consumers of CO2 and are thriving (see following figures).
Figure: Massive Algal Plume in the Gulf of Oman near Dubai.
Figure 4: In 2011, A 500 Mile Stretch of Phytoplankton Was North of the Scandinavian Peninsula (from NASA)
Figure : Massive Phytoplankton Bloom off South England in 2009 (from NASA)
This is massive swaths of fish food (Figure 3-5). Fish have been thriving on massive phytoplankton swaths from north of the Scandinavian Peninsula to the southern tip of South America. The carbon dioxide has been and is still currently being used by life, naturally. We are very likely feeding ourselves today with yesterday’s tank of gas. You worry about sea level rise? I recommend you eat some more fish.
Humans are also avid consumers of CO2 – Yes…. We are. As one of the most abundant species on the planet, we consume vast amounts of carbon based food that was derived from CO2 from the air. We produce about 7 billion pounds of carbon matter a day in the form of feces. Sewage treatment plants help induce its rapid decomposition – although it could serve as a fuel.
Climate Change –Obviously not everyone believes in CO2 as the primary component of climate’s change since the media is repeatedly continuing the push the brainwashing agenda – and I am writing this. Even former NASA alum and employees (including former astronauts) are “skeptics” (http://www.livescience.com/19640-nasa-astronauts-global-warming-letter.html) and ask current NASA employees to abandon their climate models. History has proven that the climate is dynamic and is always changing. Let’s examine NASA’s “evidence” on their “climate change” website:
The current NASA website lists carbon dioxide as the climate driver on their evidence page and then list global temperature rise, sea level rise, warming oceans, declining Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme events (weather related), and ocean acidification as evidence that carbon dioxide is the cause. Does that seem shallow to you, especially considering it is the sun’s energy that is required to back this carbon dioxide based “climate change”?
NASA’s Question: What is the role of the sun and solar cycles in climate change and global warming?
Answer: Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the sun either remained constant or increased slightly. Estimates of the amount of energy the sun has sent to Earth are based on sunspot records dating back more than two centuries, and other proxy indicators, such as the amount of carbon in tree rings.
More recently, satellite observation of solar activity from space suggest a slight increase in solar activity, but the change can't account for more than 10 percent of the warming trend seen during the past century.
Remained constant or increased slightly? So which is it? The sun is the largest mass in our solar system – can slight increases be ignored? What about the 2008 breach in the magnetosphere during “slightly higher” solar activity? What about before 1750? What about the Little Ice Age that correlated with the Maunder Minimum sunspot records? What about the lower than average temperatures from the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830? And the Spörer Minimum that lasted almost a century? What about the lower solar flux of the 1970’s and the fear of the next ice age? What about the recent significant decreases in levels of solar activity?
Why is our government stating that the sun has little effect on climate?
The truth behind “global warming” is going to be very evident in the next 11 years if Penn and Livingston’s predictions are correct. The first very weak solar cycle of the satellite age is going to give us a crystal clear picture of how the sun drives climate on earth. This will be a very hard lesson for some – but so is life.
The Heliosphere – The temperature did rise throughout the industrial revolution, but so did solar activity. Solar activity has remained relatively high from about 1910 through 2010 with a moderately lower cycle in the 1970’s. Many believe that high solar activity has contributed significantly to the recent climate on the Earth. It has contributed to providing our civilization and habitats with an excellent climate to thrive. However, something just happened the past 3 years. The solar activity dipped into its deepest minimum in a century and did not recover from it in the current solar cycle (cycle 24). What we know now, from the first significant drop in solar activity since the satellite era began, is the pressure of the heliosphere (the extent of the sun’s reach of solar winds in the galaxy) has dropped about 40%. This has broadened the coronal mass ejections and solar winds from the sun to the point that their intensity has become significantly less on earth. In other words, the pressure of the “space” that surrounds our planet has dropped by 40% and the sun’s rays are not quite the sunbeams they used to be. Please look at Figure 6 containing the geomagnetic storm index as presented at the AGU press conference.
Figure 6: Geomagnetic Storm Index as reported by NASA’s Nat Gopalswamy at the AGU fall meeting press conference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIhBEF94YlM.
The arrow clearly indicates the lack of significant geomagnetic storms in cycle 24 despite solar flares still occurring regularly. For example, On January 7th 2014 according to the media, a “humongous” solar flare was reported and folks were to anticipate a significant geomagnetic storm and the first aurora borealis of 2014. Did the storm materialize? No. In fact, the real time Dst data in Figure 7 shows essentially background levels.
Figure 7: Dst data recorded in real time at http://wdc.kugi.kyoto-u.ac.jp/dst_realtime/index.html
Clearly a change has occurred in the sun that has never happened in the life span of any person alive. What will the effect be on earth? Be prepared for the worst and hope for the best.
I suggest every one of us hypothesize and watch for the signs that prove them or disprove them. Multiple data confirms a strong correlation to solar activity and global temperatures. I have my own hypotheses:
The first hypothesis: If the sun exhibits sustained low solar activity in a low pressure heliosphere, then the magnetic North and South Poles of earth will exhibit temperatures which gradually decrease proportional to the extent of the decrease in solar activity due to the lessened amount of energy accumulating at the magnetic poles from partial reconnection of particles at the magnetic lines of the magnetosphere.
The second hypothesis: If there is an expansion of the magnetosphere from a sustained decrease of solar wind pressure, then a magnetic expansion of the earth’s core will increase volcanic and seismic activity.
I am basing my hypotheses toward a cooling trend based on historical facts of our recent and ancient history. I’ve read that some believe the effects of CO2 concentration will negate any effect of the sun. In my opinion, this seems very naïve, especially considering the data which shows past high levels of CO2 concentrations followed by temperature drops and the CO2 model is dependent on the sun.
The first hypothesis is based on the energy collectively accumulated at the Polar Regions from coronal mass ejections (which are now significantly less intense) interacting with the magnetosphere to produce the aurora borealis. NASA’s description of Aurora:
Auroras are caused by particles (mostly electrons) being guided by Earth's magnetic field into the atmosphere, where they bounce off and collide with air molecules. These collisions excite give energy to the air molecules. To release that excess energy, the air molecules (mostly oxygen and nitrogen) emit the light that we call the aurora. But the electrons that cause auroras do not come directly from the Sun. At the beginning of the Space Age, scientists discovered that the space around Earth is filled with plasmas hydrogen electrons and protons trapped by our planet's magnetic field. These particles are collected over long periods of time from the solar wind, or they have leaked out of our own atmosphere. When a solar storm erupts, the impact of the event can distort and energize Earth's magnetic field. Some of this energy energizes the particles already trapped around Earth, causing them to slide down those field lines into Earth's upper atmosphere, to smash into the gas of the atmosphere, and to release photons of light.
The energy contribution to earth from aurora is debated due to the complex dynamics and turbulent nature of the system and the belief that it is a result of deflected particles. However, the solar wind can breach the magnetosphere. Studies vary, but some believe the contributions can be much more significant than previously thought depending on the methods of measurement. This hypothesis could be tested by monitoring the temperature and surface pressure in the Polar Regions and comparing it to historical data. Theoretically, no matter what the surface pressure, the temperature should trend lower than average in various locations over the time of sustained low solar activity/ low heliosphere pressure.
Considering the South Pole is on land and the North Pole is in an ocean, the temperatures over land in Antarctica will remain more steady while the Artic will be varied as the surface temperatures of any portions of an ice free ocean will increase measured surface temperatures. In regards to sea ice, the solid land’s effect of Antarctica will decrease the observable sea ice changes in high solar activity, but enhance the observable changes of low solar activity. Look for a more rapid increase of sea ice around Antarctica, in particular in areas where currents flow away from the continent as the water near the continent is more rapidly cooled. The dynamic liquid/solid effect of the Arctic will enhance the observable sea ice changes in high solar activity and low solar activity, unless the low solar activity is sustained. The Arctic Ocean buffers ocean temperatures due to the cooling effect it has on water that passes through it. The seas around Antarctica have a similar role, but the land mass prevents temperature fluctuations due to its constant solid phase and ice mass. The Arctic Ocean likely plays the most significant role on the climate in the northern hemisphere since land masses that extend to Europe, Canada, and Asia encompass its borders. The physical state of the Arctic Ocean’s water (solid or liquid) can play a significant role in the way the air moves around the Arctic Circle, especially if it is changing more rapidly. The Arctic sea ice volume has grown around 50% since its 2012 lows, and is now near normal levels. If the first hypothesis is true, the sea ice will gradually increase in the coming 5 years and it will eventually set new records in thickness and extent in the next 11 years regardless of sea traffic unless a massive fleet is unleashed. Additionally, polar oscillations around each pole will deliver increasingly colder temperatures southward when the oscillation is negative (in a high pressure) and build more cold air when the oscillations are positive (low pressure). Furthermore, at each change of the oscillation from positive to negative in the winters of the coming decade, the air temperature delivered southward will be very noticeably colder as long as solar activity remains low. Although some believe there not to be a pattern for the oscillations, I believe the trend in polar oscillations will be increasingly negative phase during low solar activity due to the continued increase of cold air in the poles – the reason being an increase of air flow due to increased temperature deviation from areas closer to the equator. This would also explain the intense positive phase exhibited in the 1990’s as the largest geomagnetic storm on record was measured on earth and positive Arctic Oscillation dominated for over a decade. This powerful storm may have “charged” our earth for years and marked the peak of a greater cycle of the sun.
Figure 8: General Depiction of Positive
and Negative Phases of Arctic Oscillation
Figure9: History of Arctic Oscillation as Compiled at the University Corporation for Academic Research (https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/)
Climate models have also predicted a significant increase in extreme weather events due to CO2 warming, in particular, hurricanes and cyclones. Has this happened? The world has always had extreme weather, and has seen some extreme weather events - up until 2011. The media will emphasize “Super Storm Sandy” of 2012 or “Typhoon Haiyan” of 2013. However, those storms were practically the only significant storms in the last 2 years. In fact, according to the global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE), 2012 and 2013 were essentially dead calm when it came to storms in the global scheme and were at levels not seen since measurements began in the 1970’s. I include this here because I wonder if it’s the sign of a lower global pressure induced by the heliosphere. The weather underground tracks the global accumulated cyclone energy, and so does Dr. Ryan N. Maue. Their graphs are shown below:
Figure 10: Weather Underground’s Accumulated Cyclone Energy (Global) (www.wunderground.com)
Figure 11: Ryan Maue's Accumulated Cyclone Energy http://models.weatherbell.com/
The second hypothesis is tested by measuring global volcanic activity as much as possible. This is somewhat difficult due to all the ocean coverage of our planet, but in theory, the land volcanoes should become more active as well. The Smithsonian Institute has an ongoing database that includes weekly reports of volcanic activity.
If you are a climate changing believer and you strongly believe that something has to change in order for the climate to “normalize”, then I think you are in luck. The sun has just changed. The Aztec calendar ended in December of 2012 for a reason – it marked the end of a greater cycle. The solar minimum leading to solar cycle 24 was one of the deepest and extended minimums observed in a century. In the last winter coming out of the minimum in 2010, the coldest temperature ever recorded on earth was taken by satellite in Antarctica. The Arctic sea ice extent is back to normal range and its thickness will increase. The Antarctica sea ice is above normal. The solar maximum is very weak this cycle and if history proves true, temperatures are going to cool in the future as we proceed to the next minimum of this weakened solar cycle in the coming 5 years. We could possibly remain there. This is more than a “polar vortex” as the media outlets would have you believe. This is a sunny reality.
Purpose - I am an American who is extremely concerned for the future of his country and fellow countrymen – as well as others that might be affected by the media of bias. I’ve listened to this climate debate since it was first presented to me in the second grade of grade school. It seems it depends on the ever changing weather as to who is right on any given day. There has to be a reason for this madness. I believe it is a natural behavior displayed in response to fear and anxiety of our future generation running out of fossil fuels and motivation by the root of all evil - money. Big oil could likely be muscling in on the electric sector as much as they can before the big freeze – despite the potential implications on Americans – just to get a few dollars more. I’m most concerned about rash actions being implemented on electric power plants during a time when we should be building and preparing for the “unexpected” changes. I’ve just witnessed a United States president spend billions of mine and my fellow countrymen’s taxpayer dollars on companies that went bankrupt and were purchased by foreign investors. You can watch the story on 60 minutes on CBS if you like at http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cleantech-crash-60-minutes/ This has happened. If this happens to our energy industry, in particular, the coal industry – the implications will be hard to fathom, especially in a global cool down. Right now, multiple coal-fired power plants are being shut down because of government regulations during a time when we should be building more. I understand the U.S. has a significant amount of natural gas, but the U.S. has about 10,000 times more energy in coal reserves. I also understand that hydraulic fracturing is extremely difficult in the bitter cold due to the hydraulic fluid being >99% water and sand. I also understand that a natural gas wellhead can freeze over and cease to produce in the bitter cold (Figure 12). Mostly, I understand that natural gas is piped into the homes of millions of people as opposed to the coal shoots of the past. It just makes logical sense to refrain from using the less abundant household fuel for power generation where coal can be used. If the history of solar cycles repeats itself and nothing is done to stop the attack on the coal industry, it may become more affordable to heat your home by installing a coal furnace and buying a ton of coal from a foreign investor. Many folks in New England will be looking at their gas bill next month and realize this is a real possibility (the “polar vortex” sent New England gas prices to the stratosphere). Nobody wants Barrack Obama to go down in history as the president who denied the sun and left America broke and in the cold without its most abundant energy source. This can happen. As a matter of fact, businesses in Wisconsin just recently had their gas shut off to ensure supply for residential users. They got a break in the weather – this time.
Figure12: Production Disruption of Natural Gas Due to Well Freezing in 2011
The media has made America’s most abundant natural resource a culprit instead of an asset. The “science” backing the media’s CO2 agenda has been put in check by multiple individuals including former employees of NASA, IPCC, and the EPA, by professors, meteoriolgists, and a multitude of dedicated scientists (I have my input regarding the CO2 science below) - but the agenda is still in place and the media continues its tirades. Coal has been the primary source of electricity in the United States for its history, but now it is the “easy target” of the current political regime (despite them acknowledging it as the “backbone” of US electricity generation). It is been portrayed as a dirty fuel that costs lives to attain and use – and it is touted as the primarily cause of every weather pattern despite it generating a fraction of the total carbon dioxide produced in society. Politicians and the media claim “cheap natural gas” is the demise of coal as they continue to coerce the shutdown of multiple power plants in the name of “dirty” coal. Is this preparation? Is this responsible? We have several nuclear facilities that have retired and are scheduled to go retire as well. Denying the sun and eliminating power plants may be the demise of America.
Since no one alive has ever experienced a consistent global cool down, it can’t happen can it? It can and it will. The Little Ice Age did happen. The climate on earth has been extremely cold in the past. Glaciers are on earth now and they formed because of consistently cold temperature on earth. The Pacific Ocean is larger than the entire land mass of all continents combined. Do not deny its role in processing the natural products we use on a daily basis.
Figure 13: A modest plume of volcanic ash from Mount Redoubt in Alaska
We have a limited supply of easily accessible fossil fuels and it is in our best interest to utilize them, as a country and as a world society, in a manner that will enable mankind to prosper beyond the exhausting of them. Natural gas is piped into millions of our homes; we don’t use coal shoots much anymore. Why risk making a coal shoot into your home a more affordable alternative? The US has about 10,000 times more energy in coal reserves than natural gas and railroads that run right to the power plant, not our home. In other words, does it not make sense to use more abundant coal for electricity generation and reserve gas for our homes and businesses as gas will completely exhaust first if we use it for both? I’ve said it multiple times before discovering Theodore Roosevelt has said it in the past: “You don’t know where you’re going unless you know where you’ve been”. The historical sunspot records and our current solar cycle data suggest a serious change in climate is coming. Don’t deny historical facts. I am saying be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. We do have to be responsible, but we also need to be reasonable, rational, and ready to embrace change – no matter if it is the change you are expecting or not.
May God Bless America
The Governor of Chumpville
Dropping the hammer on the CO2 agenda:
The Arctic Ocean and Antarctica- NASA shows you the hockey stick graph of carbon dioxide (without the temperature correlating to it – because it does not correlate to current CO2 levels). The main thing you need to know about this graph is that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide was first measured in the atmosphere at the Arctic Circle in June of 2012. How much heavy industry is in the Arctic Circle? None other than some diesel ships cruising where they can as well as some nuclear powered submarines and ice breakers that can travel the entire Arctic Circle. The Arctic Ocean is, on average, more concentrated in carbon dioxide than any other ocean due to its temperature. Look at this solubility chart of carbon dioxide in water:
Figure 14: Solubility of Carbon Dioxide in Water
Notice how the chart stops at 0 C? The temperature of the Arctic is lower than 0 C due to its salinity. The most important aspect of the graph is that the increasing amounts of CO2 can be retained as water temperature decreases. What happens when the Arctic Ocean surface water warms a fraction of a degree C? It’s like a cold volcano of CO2 the size of an ocean. It was reported in a Science article recently that the Arctic Ocean’s surface is practically saturated with CO2, meaning this is a real possibility. This makes sense because none of the earth’s oceans are stationary. Currents flow around the globe. The Arctic Ocean acts like a car radiator and cools water as it passes under the ice. As the cold water surrounding the ice cap absorbs CO2 and flows under the ice, the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean prevents carbon dioxide from exiting as water degasses while freezing underneath. As more and more CO2 is absorbed in the water surrounding the ice cap before it flows under the ice, more and more CO2 gets trapped in water under the ice – especially in an ice build. This ice build effect is likely a large contributor of global CO2 atmospheric concentration fluctuations. In June of 2012, when the Arctic Ocean’s ice cap melted significantly, the “milestone” of 400 ppm carbon dioxide was measured in its atmosphere for the first time. The 400 ppm “milestone” was later achieved in Hawaii at Mauna Loa almost a year later (rounding up). In other words, there is no evidence disproving the possibility that the large increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was not significantly enhanced from the cold waters of the Arctic Ocean being exposed to warmer water temperatures from currents of southern origin that were slightly warmed from sustained highs olar activity over the past century. Sea traffic in the Arctic is a factor as well despite what NASA or anyone else may tell you. In 1977, the former Soviet Union first reached the North Pole in a nuclear ice breaker. There are now regular trips to the North Pole offered by nuclear ice breakers. The ice near the center of the Arctic Circle averages around 8 feet in thickness. Not only can a nuclear-powered icebreaker break this ice, it can do it at about 12 mph. If so driven, massive ice sheets could be carved out from the main ice pack in attempts to keep shipping lanes open longer. When there are multiple years of uranium-235 fuel in your engine room, this can continue for quite some time. At no point in history prior to 1977 has this ever been possible. And it was around 1980, the height of the Cold War, that many climate scientists believe was the beginning of the deviation of normal temperatures. It should also be noted that during the height of the Cold War era, the US and Soviet Union developed and produced hundreds of nuclear submarines which produce a thermal wake that rises to the sea surface and can be detected by thermal imaging. By the way, the complete fusion of 1 kg of uranium-235 is energy equivalent to burning about 2.7 million kg of coal (about 3000 short tons). The Soviet Union alone had around 245 nuclear submarines at the height of the cold war and I still don’t know exactly how many the U.S. possessed, but you can do your estimates. I’m not saying that the US and Russia’s nuclear ice breakers and submarines caused the Arctic’s drastic ice cap melt of 2012 – I do truly admire the technology. I am saying that a combination of sustained high solar activity, warmer water currents generated from the sustained solar activity, and unprecedented Arctic Ocean sea traffic (above and below ice from multiple countries) that had never been present in earth’s prior history enabled it. I am also suggesting the Arctic ice cap thaw of 2012 likely released an ocean of CO2, further exaggerating significantly the current CO2 measurements.
The historical data of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was derived from drilled ice in various locations including the highly referenced Vostok Station in Antarctica. The obvious concern with the Vostok data measurements is the altitude of 3488 m where the partial pressure of CO2 (the concentration of CO2) is much lower than at sea level where the current readings are taken at Mauna Loa. I have another issue with the data. Ice core samples were sliced at the center, crushed, and the released gas was measured via gas chromatography to estimate the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the approximated time the air bubbles became trapped. The assumption is that the ice core was formed by packed snow that slowly pressurized and compressed over time to form the ice and the air bubbles that were trapped in the ice are composed of the atmosphere at the time of ice formation. The problem with the assumption: The physical changes that can occur to the accumulated snow as it is under pressure could allow for absorption of CO2 into the “ice” via physical and chemical changes. Have a look at water’s phase diagram:
Figure 15: Phase diagram of water with arrow pointing to Earth's atmospheric conditions.
The black circle represents earth’s average physical phase in the atmosphere. The ice core measurements were made under the assumption that none of the atmosphere was absorbed into the air bubble “container”, or matrix, because the temperature was so cold that it was impossible for air to enter the matrix. This seems reasonable considering the average temperature in Antarctica and the water phase diagram – it should remain solid. The problem with this assumption is that the ice core samples are not pure water. Impurities in the water can lead to freezing point depression; when a liquid becomes more contaminated, the lower its freezing point becomes. This applies to water and the effect is dependent upon its contaminants and their amounts. It will cause deviations in the phase diagram under the intense pressure generated deep in the ice. Furthermore, the Vostok ice core was drilled over a lake which supports life that thrives in hot water. In the thousands of years of ice build, there likely was significant heat released as would be suggested by the type of life found in the lake. There is believed to be a volcano under Antarctica. There are multiple factors that could have induced a phase change over time. Snow is white and fluffy powder when it comes to Antarctica, and the ice core samples are clear ice. Any phase change or chemical interaction of the ice at any time in the past hundreds of thousands of years would result in a decrease of measured CO2 concentration in the air bubbles. Therefore, the “atmosphere” within trapped air bubbles of the solid water could be removed of CO2 that absorbed into its surrounding matrix. So where is the measurement of the CO2 content of all the ice samples after they melted? I strongly urge an investigation of the “frozen” core sample CO2 concentration to determine if any correction to the current data need be made. A phase diagram of some samples would also be helpful in determining the extent of the possible CO2 absorption into the matrix. There have been studies performed in the past in which the melted ice from Greenland was analyzed for carbonate content and it was found to be significantly prevalent in samples, up to about 25 – 30 micrograms per kilogram of ice (Neftel et al for an example). The big question is: Where in the ice were those carbonates most concentrated? Around the “air bubbles” or evenly dispersed? I also found it interesting that some of the actual data points in previously reported measurements surpassed 400 ppm (they did include an enormous standard deviation for some of these data points and a smoothed out curve to give a much
lower “estimated range”. Check out the graphs from the Neftel et al publication:
Figure 16: CO2 data measured to be over the "milestone" mark of 400 ppm and showing the carbonate content in the 20-30 µg/kg range.
Figure 17: The “much lower average" range of atmospheric CO2 derived from the data in the previous figure.
I also found the following excerpt from the above mentioned article to be interesting. When comparing data from two different locations in Greenland at the same period of time, they found Camp Century had a lower CO2 concentration than Byrd. This excerpt shows that the thought of matrix absorption has been present. It also brings up the topic of the “carbonates” found in the ice.
Figure 18: An excerpt from Neftel et al, Nature, 1982.
This is controversial due to the fact that it could mean current carbon dioxide levels may not be as “skewed” out of a normal historic range as they are currently portrayed. There likely have been spikes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations that are at or above our current levels. Furthermore, there is a correlation of CO2 and temperature - an inconvenient truth. Rising temperatures would eventually increase ocean temperatures which would then increase CO2 in the atmosphere due to lower solubility and surface pressure equilibrium. Conversely, decreasing temperature would decrease the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere as it reabsorbs into the oceans. The argument is which comes first, temperature rise or carbon dioxide rise. The sun says temperature while the media says CO2…..and the debate continues despite most agreeing the CO2 lags temperature by about 600 or so years.
Could prolonged solar activity during a warm period lead to significant sea ice melt and an atmospheric CO2 concentration above 400ppm or higher? This data suggests it is possible. Is it possible that our current atmospheric CO2 levels are an example of this? It is.
Figure 19: Vostok Ice Core’s Carbon Dioxide Data
Everyone looking at Vostok’s ice core data now should be concerned about one very important aspect: Every time the CO2 levels have reached levels of the current magnitude, they have fallen precipitously afterwards. This likely occurs from rapid decreases in global temperatures. Temperature and CO2 levels are strongly correlated. IF the climate change model were true, then, theoretically, the temperature should have continued to ramp up at these peaks because there is no other explanation for the decrease in global CO2 concentrations over time. The global temperatures should have continued to ramp up with the latest increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere over solar cycles 22 and 23 as the energy was “relatively constant” according to NASA. We can imagine all day long why temperatures have not continued to rise as we look harder and harder at the earth and away from the sun. Pacific Ocean surface cooling was offered as a reason. Perhaps that was from a rapid influx of cold water from the increased sea ice in Antarctica. If I’m going to speculate, I’m going to do so by looking at the most abundant source of energy we know - the same source of energy that is required to fuel global warming……THE SUN.
If you read all of this – may you live long and prosper.