Ponder the Maunder
The Original Essay by 15 year old Kristen Byrnes
Kristen Byrnes, Saturday 16 June 2007 - 00:00:00


Ponder the Maunder

Introduction


Global warming is an issue of great importance. Let there be no doubt, the evidence is overwhelming: Earth is warming.

The questions that remain are;
  1. What is the cause of the global warming? Is it man made atmospheric carbon dioxide? Or is the cause of global warming natural variability?
  2. How will politicians spend money while waiting for the answer to question #1?




I will demonstrate that the Earth’s warming climate is a result of natural variance and that man made changes in the warming climate in the last 40 years are negligible at best. I will insert pieces of the puzzle from new scientific studies that were not available or were ignored in previous global warming studies.

I add a possible piece of the puzzle, nuclear weapons testing in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, that may have made a small contribution to cooling at that time.

After reviewing numerous scientific studies and observing data, it is clear that the theory that “man made increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are causing global warming” is not likely.

I will demonstrate that a negative trend in the El Nino Southern Oscillation (more and stronger La Ninas) from 1945 to 1975 and a positive trend in the ENSO from 1975 to present (more and stronger El Ninos) correlates better with global temperature changes than greenhouse theory. Thus, ENSO is probably the largest contributor to global warming in the past 30 years.

The economic and political climate surrounding this issue has made it nearly impossible for scientists and researchers to objectively view the mountain of recent data.

While I will use much of the available and updated scientific data, I will also interject common sense, something that is seriously lacking in the debate on this issue. For instance, you might notice my use of the one ten-thousandth figure. Were you aware that the total man made CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the last 150 years is just that, one ten-thousandth of total atmosphere?

Next Page


© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.

{BLOGME}


Ponder the Maunder
Climate in Context

The Earth has been in an ice age for quite some time, which is interrupted by periods of "interglaciation" (warm climate) about every 100,000 years, when mean global temperatures rise 10 to 12 degrees Celcius.


The blue line in the graph above is a reconstruction of global temperatures for the past 450,000 years taken from ice cores from the Vostock glacier in Antarctica. The green line in the graph above shows how closely changes in carbon dioxide and temperature correlate. But as you can see, the man made increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (in red) nearly sky-rockets off this chart, but the temperature does not follow.

Also, some have tried to say that CO2 has caused temperature changes during this time; not true. "... new high-resolution studies show that at times of cold to warm transitions, temperature changes come first, leading CO2 changes by several centuries (Mudelsee, 2001; Clark, 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004). If so, the CO2 levels would be response to, and not a cause of, the change in temperature (climate). CO2 may then serve as a temperature amplifier, but not as the climate driver." (C6)

It is generally understood that periods of glaciation and interglaciation are caused by changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun, not by changes in atmospheric CO2 as some have recently tried to suggest.


The graphics above represent the changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun. There are also changes in the Earth's angle and wobble as it moves through space that contribute to major climate changes. Taken together they are known as the "Milankovitch Cycles." As the Earth goes farther away from the sun, or as the angle of the Earth changes, climate changes.

The Spectrum
Photons are the basic unit of light, they are particles that have no charge or mass. They are also called electromagnetic radiation. The photon is always the same thing, but oscillates at different speeds. The spectrum is how light is organized from the fastest oscillation to the slowest. There are six types of light in the spectrum; radio waves, infrared, visible light, UV light, X-ray, and gamma rays. Each part of the spectrum has its own frequency (number of oscillations in a second) and wavelength (the distance in which a photon travels at the speed of light in one oscillation). The photons with the highest frequency and the shortest wavelengths have very high energy (the gamma rays). The low frequency photon with the longest wavelength has low energy (radio waves).


© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.

Ponder the Maunder
Climate Reconstruction

It is important to reconstruct climate conditions so we can compare them to present climate conditions and judge if there are anomalies (anything out of the ordinary).

Methods of Reconstruction
There are many methods of reconstructing components of the Earth's climate. Each has its critics and supporters. I have reviewed arguments for each and have made common sense determinations on the effectiveness of each.

Instrumental Records
For obvious reasons, instrumental records are the most accurate of all methods of determining global temperature, CO2 levels, precipitation and etc. Instrumental records are the most severly limited because they can only analyze recent conditions. Temperature records have been measured instrumentally for about the past 150 years and CO2 has been measured instrumentally for about the past 40 years. Sunspots have been observed in Europe for about 400 years and in China for over 1,000 years. "Following the invention of the telescope in about 1610 A.D., systematic scientific observations start to become available from Europe. Identification of possible intense historical geomagnetic storms using combined sunspot and auroral observations from East Asia." (Wang 2002) To analyze conditions further back in history, scientists must analyze natural devices such as ice cores, tree rings and lake and ocean sediments.

Problems with instrumental temperature measurments can be related to their geographical location. For instance, records of temperatures taken from the ground can be biased by regional considerations such as geography or "urban heat islands."


“Surface temperature trends for the period of 1940 to 1996 from 107 measuring stations in California counties. After averaging the means of the trends in each county, counties of similar population were bound and plotted as closed circles along with the standard errors of their means. The six measuring stations in Los Angeles County were used to calculate the standard error of that county, which is plotted alone at the county population of 8.9 million. The "urban heat island effect" on surface measurements is evident. The straight line is a least-squares fit to the closed circles. The points marked "X" are the six unadjusted station records selected by NASA GISS for the use in their estimate of global temperatures.”

I feel the most accurate instrument for measuring mean global atmospheric temperature is satellites because they "sweep over almost the entire globe as they take their measurements, covering about 95 percent of the Earth's surface. Oceans and continents, forests and factories are all incorporated into the satellite figures." (C1) Satellite records are severely limited for observing history because they have only been in existence for the past four decades.

Bickering over Thermometers
There has been a lot of controversy about what thermometer system to use: satellite or surface thermometers. The fact is that each is measuring the temperature of different areas and both sets of data are valid and valuable to understanding global warming. The satellite thermometer measures atmosphere from the surface up to 5 miles. The surface temperature record is just that, the surface. The satellite record is a better measure of the atmosphere as it conducts heat from the surface. The surface record is a better measure of the heat that is entering the conduction system and better reflects the ocean temperatures that play a major role in that process. Below is a graph showing satellite temperature measurements for the past 27 years, "The data used were obtained by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration TIROS-N satellite, and interpreted by scientists Dr. Roy Spencer (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and Dr. John Christy (University of Alabama at Huntsville) at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center (GHCC)" (A1)

click on image to enlarge


This graph is a record of air temperatures only in the lower troposphere (this is the Earth's atmosphere to 8 km or 5 miles up where all of the temperature variations affect everything from glacial melting to the air we breathe. This is also the part of the atmosphere where CO2 levels are measured for the Keeling Curve.)

The graph below is taken from Wikipedia and represents data from the Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich UK and covers the same time period as the satellite temperature record in the graph above.

click on image to enlarge


These data are often used in the instrumental portions of the temperature reconstructions mentioned later in this paper. The trick to why these two temperature graphs look so different is found in the FAQ section on the East Anglia web page.

Question: "What are the basic raw data used?"
Answer: "Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world..."


This statement has led many critics to point to urban heat island effect and how it makes average global temperature readings seem higher than they really are. If a majority of your thermometers are measuring temperatures where concrete holds heat longer at night and storm drain systems quickly remove water that would otherwise evaporate and thus cool the area, then you would expect increasing temperatures over time in growing populated areas. East Anglia claims that they have dealt with the problem of heat island effects but I have not been able to find their explanation or methods of this correction. The explanation continues, "For marine regions sea surface temperatures (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used." This statement about using sea surface temperature leads to the next FAQ: Why are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans? Here one must understand that the temperature of the ocean surface is used as the basis of the air temperature above. This is an accurate method of determining the temperature of the air just a few meters above the ocean. Once again, if the ocean temperature is increasing, as this report suggests, then the air temperature within a few meters of the ocean will also increase. (A2)

Ice Cores
Ice cores are samples from layers of snow and ice, and in these ice core samples are layers of different materials that fell from the atmosphere when that layer of ice formed. This is how scientists can tell when something happened with the atmosphere by measuring isotopes in the ice or gases in the bubbles of the ice core.

Scientists have used ice cores drilled from glaciers all over the world to determine many climate factors. There are many arguments related to reconstructing climate factors using ice cores. The most effective argument against is related to learning the age of the ice being analyzed. It takes many years for snow to develop into ice. There are also suggestions that CO2 degrades in this time (CO2 levels are measured from tiny air bubbles in the ice). Scientists have admitted that they calibrate their ice core data using variances of as much as 93 years. Ice cores seem to be the most accurate preinstrumental measure of most climate factors because: 1) There has been substantial peer review of this measuring technique without substantial disagreement. 2) There are no major anomalies in the data. 3) There has been calibrating data from other sources.

What some people seem to have missed is that ice cores tell a story of temperature for their location. Isotopes that are indicators of solar activity are not limited by region restriction because unlike temperature and precipitation, solar variation is not regional.



Tree Rings
Let's face it, if there ever was a good, accurate way to tell when something happened, tree rings are a quality method to use. A new tree ring grows every growing season, or every year. There is little disagreement about tree rings being a good way to reconstruct particular levels of isotopes in the atmosphere during a particular time. Tree rings are also a good source for data if you want to know what a particular growing season was like. However, there is great disagreement when only tree ring width and density is used to measure climate factors related to a growing season such as sunlight, temperature or precipitation. "Tree rings are only laid during the growing season, not the whole year, and so they tell us little or nothing about annual climate."

Sediments
Here I break sediments into two areas; ocean and lake bottom. Ocean sediment records are useful in measuring many climate factors. For instance, when attempting to measure past temperature, scientists might study past water levels; when the Earth warms, polar ice melts and is added to the total amount of water in the ocean causing water levels to rise.

Lake sediments are also useful in examining some climate factors in some areas. For instance, as global temperatures cool, some regions experience increased precipitation. Therefore, there are thicker sediment layers in some lakes in years when the global climate is cooler.
In both lake and ocean sediments, scientists also observe minerals and isotopes in the sediment and related fossils.


Stalagmites/Stalactites
"These limestone structures, built from calcium carbonate deposited by running water, are layered like rings in a tree, with stalagmites usually having sharper, more easily studied rings."
"The dating techniques are based on the radioactive decay of uranium and allow scientists to determine the ages of material much older than can be determined using carbon dating."
(A3)

Each year, as water seeps down into the ground and into a cave, stalagmites and stalactites grow by a small amount.

Scientists have attempted to use only stalagmite ring width to help determine climate variables. In one such study, the rings of a stalagmite was compared to tree rings in the same region "and found no correspondence." (Polak and Amerson 2001)

Stalagmite studies can yield a wide range of calibrated and accurate information on isotopes.

The graph below is from a study (Neff et al 2001) of a stalagmite in Oman showing correlations between isotope levels of C14 (solar activity) and O18 (temperature) over a period of millions of years.



Historical Records
While historical records beyond 150 years do little to give accurate data on climate factors such as temperature, they are confirming evidence of long term trends in changing climate. Human behavior is human behavior. When the climate warms, humans will settle in higher latitudes and elevations where the land can be cultivated. When faced with approaching glaciers, humans will move out of their way. It is a simple matter of survival. One example of historical records confirming climate change is Viking settlements (1000 A.D.) in Greenland during what is known as the Medieval Warm period. When the climate was warmer about 1,000 years ago, the Vikings settled parts of Greenland. About 400 years later when the climate began to cool, they abandoned their settlements.

Some historical records, such as those from East China, were of direct observations of day to day weather. The graph below is a climate reconstruction using those records.



Calibration
Calibration is when you try to determine the year that a portion of ice core, tree ring, ocean sediment etc. was formed. For example, a scientist might have a portion of an ice core and not know what year the ice formed. Let's suppose that there is a recent layer of dust in the ice core that looks like layers of dust from Mt. Tambora from other ice core samples. Since every volcanic eruption has its own mineral "fingerprint" the scientist could determine that this particular layer of dust and the ice surrounding it was formed shortly after 1815 A.D.

Isotopes

Oxygen 18
"O-18 is used to retrieve the original temperatures of the precipitation during different years by analyzing the isotope ratio of the respective annual layers of ice." (A4)

The graph below is from Quelccaya ice cap, Peru and shows temperature reconstruction using O-18 isotopes from about 400 A.D. to 1990.


click on image to enlarge


Carbon 14
"Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons. The resulting neutrons participate in the following reaction: n + N14 -> C14 + H1

The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15km (30,000-50,000 ft), and at high geomagnetic latitudes, but the carbon-14 readily mixes and becomes evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere and reacts with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide."
(A6)

The graph below is a solar activity reconstruction using C14 and shows the events associated with solar activity over the last 1,100 years.

click on image to enlarge


Beryllium 10
"Sunspot activity can be deduced from beryllium-10 in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. The reasoning is as follows: more sunspots imply a more magnetically active sun which then more effectively repels the galactic cosmic rays, thus reducing their production of Be-10 in the Earth's atmosphere. Be-10 atoms precipitate on Earth and can be traced in polar ice even after centuries. Using this approach, scientists... have reconstructed the sunspot count back to the year 850..."

"Beryllium 10 produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays readily attaches to aerosols and gets snowed out onto ice caps, leaving a clear signal in the ice core of variations in the cosmic ray flux... The decrease in Beryllium 10 since 1900 reflects the decrease in the cosmic ray flux over this period. The reason is that the solar magnetic flux has increased by almost a factor of 2 since 1900, for reasons that are not fully understood."


Work done with Beryllium-10 shows that the sun goes through prolonged period of anomalous behavior in addition to its regular 11 year cycle. (A7)



Temperature and Sunspot Reconstructions
The graph below is a sunspot reconstruction for the last 12,000 years. This graph shows a relatively stable sun until about one hundred years ago (Solanki et. al 2005). The blue line is the sunspot number from Be10. The red line is the observed sunspot number for the last 400 years. This study indicates that the sun is burning brighter now than it has at any time in the last 11,000 years.


click on image to enlarge



The next graph is a sunspot reconstruction from the last 1,200 years and shows the climate and solar events (Kristen Minimum added). Notice the strong sunspot number on the right known as the modern max. This is comparable to the tip of the "hockey stick" that is shown in temperature reconstructions later in this paper. (Solanki 2004)



The graph above is a temperature reconstruction for the 1,800 years by Moberg et al 2005. Temperatures were taken from tree rings and lake sediments. "The red line on the graph are direct instrumental measurements from the past 150 years. The gray indistinct plots are the measurements taken from data. The black line is a 5 year average of the data." There are many temperature reconstructions available, and of all the temperature reconstructions, the 2005 Moberg reconstruction received the least criticism.



The graph above is a temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere by Michael Mann, Associate Professor, Departments of Meteorology and Geosciences, Penn State University. This graph became to be known as "the hockey stick."

The yellow area on the graph shows the margin of error, and the red area on the right is the temperature record of the past 150 years. The reduction in the margin of error at about 1600 A.D. is due to the addition of Oxygen 18 isotopes from ice cores added to data that is based on tree ring width and density. (A8)

This temperature reconstruction sent shock waves through the climatology community as it suggested that the global temperature over the past 1,000 years changed very little until the last 150 years. To this point, the overwhelming scientific consensus, based on numerous studies, was that solar variation was responsible for global temperature variations including 20th century warming. Amongst the fiercest criticism was that this reconstruction "turned the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period into non-events."

This temperature reconstruction was incorporated into the IPCC 2000 report on climate changed despite the fact that the title of the study was "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inference, Uncertainties and Limitations." The IPCC went on to say that there was a "discernible human influence on global climate." Following this statement, Michael Mann went on a "grand tour of major media outlets." Following the release of the IPCC report, Mann, an accomplished professor and researcher, came under fire from skeptics that at one point forced him to modify his graph. Mann was not without support, principally from other climatologists who have in general recreated his conclusions and environmental organizations that were politically benefited. The debate over climate change became an ugly political fight with charges and counter charges being flung back and fourth. Mann was criticized principally by McKitrick and McIntyre of Canada who criticized details of Michael Mann's data and methods. Web sites were in turn set up to criticize skeptics of Michael Mann. This political environment created difficulty in writing this paper as the political, financial, and organizational motives of each source of information needed to be assessed.

Perhaps the most damage to Michael Mann's credibility came from Michael Mann himself in his 2006 testimony before a congressional oversight committee where he stated, "Hundreds of scientists work in this field and we are a competitive bunch. We compete for scarce research dollars, academic recognition and professional standing." He further testified that the word "likely" only carried a "65% probability" and that his work in 1998 that was accepted by the IPCC was temperature reconstruction in its infancy. If anything in his 2006 testimony is valid, it is that most studies in the seven years since "...using different data and different statistical methods have re-affirmed...Northern Hemisphere warmth appears to be unprecedented over at least the past 1,000 years." (A9)

What Michael Mann and his supporters never mentioned is that solar activity is also unprecedented for the past 1,000 years and this was known to science at that time. What was not known to science at that time is that solar activity is actually unprecedented for the last 11,000 years. (Solanki et al. 2006) What every one else seemed to miss is that Michael Mann's temperature reconstruction, while it contained some flaws that caused changes in mean Northern Hemisphere temperatures to appear smaller, contained nothing new. Michael Mann's graph was a temperature reconstruction of the Northern Hemisphere. The scientific community already knew that the largest changes in temperature are observed at the poles. Temperature changes in the tropics are minimal and an average of all temperature changes of an entire hemisphere will be about one-eighth of the temperature changes at the poles.

"Dansgaard and Oeschger were correct when they told us that the climate shifts were moderate, rising and falling over a range of about 4 degrees C in Northern Greenland, with very little temperature
change at the equator and only half a degree when averaged over the Northern Hemisphere."
(A10)
The most reasonable criticisms of Michael Mann's study, and later studies used to back up his conclusions, was where data taken primarily from trees in one location was compared to data taken by surface records from other areas, especially the oceans. None of the temperature reconstructions used by the IPCC includes reconstructions that use data from the oceans, but they compare those reconstruction temperatures to present data sets that include ocean temperature. This would be like me taking temperatures from trees in Maine for the past thousand years and comparing them to instrumental temperature records of the past 100 years from Southern California. The other most reasonable criticism of Michael Mann's conclusions was where he tried to claim the Medieval Warm period and Little Ice Age did not exist globally. A 2003 study by Soon and Baliunas compiled over 100 studies, both before and after Mann's study, which clearly indicated the presence of these two climate events.

As for Michael Mann, his credibility in the eyes of the scientific community as a whole will likely never recover. While researching this paper I read emails and blog entries from college professors and graduate students who all seem to think that Michael Mann's behavior throughout the whole process hurt him. They felt that he should have placed more emphasis on the truth; that his tree ring study was a relatively new branch of science and that there would be more work needed to perfect his methods. That when presented with an error in his data or methods he should have said, "Thank you, here is the corrected version." Instead, he argued and escalated the problem. He will only have supporters on one side of the debate who are politically polarized. The real loss to science will be the data in Michael Mann's study that gives information on past regional weather patterns.

© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.

Ponder the Maunder
The Sun


I begin with the sun because, in fact, it is the sun that heats the Earth. Many people think of the sun as burning at the same temperature every day; the solar constant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
3suns11years.gif
Solar Faculae

Because of different levels of magnetic activity between the sun's core and surface, sunspots are created and are visible to man. While the spots themselves are slightly cooler, the areas surrounding them (solar faculae) are warmer and result in increased total irradiance. Those who champion the greenhouse gas warming theory such as the IPCC only consider this variation of solar output.



Prominences
Sunspots come in pairs, they are areas of the sun's surface where large magnetic fields exit then re-enter the suns surface. These magnetic fields carry with them large amounts of energy that is flung out into space. These are known as prominences.



Solar Flares
Sunspots occur in 11 year cycles and during maximum sunspot activity comes another varient of solar heat, solar flares (solar mass ejecta or coronal mass ejecta). Solar flares are where large lesions open up on the sun's surface resulting in huge explosions that range in temperature from 10 to 100 million degrees, a much higher temperature than the sun's normal surface temperature of 6,000 degrees. (A11)



Solar flares cause huge increases of irradiance in every wavelength in the spectrum. Some of the material ejected from solar flares is super heated gas from below the sun's surface. Much of this gas is deflected by the Earth's atmosphere. Satellites measuring energy fromt he sun do not detect this portion of heat from the sun because it is not radiative energy. While very large flares like the one in the picture above are rare, smaller solar flares are constantly emerging from the sun's surface during much of the sunspot cycle.

Gallactic Cosmic Rays and Clouds



Another effect on global temperature related to sunspots is the deflection of cosmic particles coming from Milky Way by the sun's increased magnetic field during increased sunspot activity. During periods of decreased sunspot activity, the sun's magnetic field is reduced and a higher percentage of cosmic rays enter the Earth's atmosphere. "The ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperature on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures." (A12)

This phenomenon is not new to science but greenhouse gas theorists have gone to great lengths to ignore the temperature changes caused by this effect. The graph below shows extremely good correlation between cosmic rays and low cloud cover. The effect was also recreated in the laboratory by Henrik Svensmark, who is Director of the Sun-Climate Center within the Danish National Space

Center in Copenhagen.



Another effect on Galactic Cosmic Rays was noted by Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv. A "muting effect" by particles being blasted from the sun during high sunspot activity collides with Galactic Cosmic Rays, thus deflecting them away from the solar system before they can reach Earth.

Sunspot activity and Temperature
Since the invention of the telescope over 400 years ago, man has recorded sunspot activity. Because of these historical records, we can compare variations in sunspot activity to long term trends in cooling and heating in other historical records. Sunspot activity strongly correlates with levels of Carbon 14 and Berrylium 10 isotopes found in tree rings and ice cores. Therefore, accurate, long term reconstructions of sunspot activity can be made with low margins of error. The reconstructions of sunspot activity correlate strongly with almost every reconstruction of global temperature until about 1980. The graphic below is from Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute. Solanki believes that half of the warming of the last 30 years is due to solar activity.


click on image to enlarge


Albedo
Albedo is “the fraction of incident electromagnetic radiation reflected by a surface, especially of a celestial body”. Simply stated, how much a surface reflects light. (A13)

Dark surfaces have low albedo and light surfaces have a high albedo, an example would be snow and oceans. Snow has high albedo, because it is very light, and oceans have a low albedo because of their dark color. This means that with snow, as much as 90% of visible light reflects back into space because of its high albedo. The amount of reflection of dark water depends on its properties (solid or liquid, still or wavy).

(Water reflection) (B8)


Earth’s average albedo is about 30%, and with the Northern Hemisphere having more land, but the Southern Hemisphere having more constant sunlight, the amount of reflection is about even.
Also, the Earth’s albedo varies due to the seasons, because the albedo correlates with the position of the sun. So when it is winter in North America, the albedo is high because of the amount of snow.
“Clouds are another source of albedo that play into the global warming equation. Different types of clouds have different albedo values, theoretically ranging from a minimum of near 0% to a maximum of 80%.”

Albedo and climate in some areas are already affected by artificial clouds, such as those created by the contrails of heavy commercial airliner traffic. A study following the September 11 attacks, after which all major airlines in the U.S. shut down for three days, showed a local 1 °C increase in the daily temperature range (the difference of day and night temperatures).” (A14)

(B9)



Oceans
After the sun produces heat, the oceans store the heat like a battery stores electricity. Unlike the land which reflects heat back into space very quickly, solar heat is absorbed into ocean water and trapped there. This is a very important point because when people look at global warming over time, they do not consider the cumulative heat effect of the warming ocean. As the sun’s total irradiance has increased over the last 150 years, the basis of global temperature, sea surface temperature increased. Thus, as the sun shines on the ocean year after year, the solar heat this year is basically added to the solar heat of the previous years.

Heat in the ocean is distributed around the Earth by various ocean currents then released back into the atmosphere. Several factors, such as geography, solar heating, wind and the Earth’s rotation, contribute to ocean currents.

World Ocean Currents and global warming
click on image to enlarge


“The world's oceans also have significant currents that flow beneath the surface (Figure above). Subsurface currents generally travel at a much slower speed when compared to surface flows. The subsurface currents are driven by differences in the density of seawater. The density of seawater deviates in the oceans because of variations in temperature and salinity. Near surface seawater begins its travel deep into the ocean in the North Atlantic. High levels of evaporation, which cools and increases the salinity of the seawater located here, cause the down welling of this water. The high levels of evaporation take place in between Northern Europe and Greenland and just north of Labrador, Canada. This seawater then moves south along the coast of North and South America until it reaches Antarctica. At Antarctica, the cold and dense sea water then travels eastward joining another deep current that is created by evaporation occurring between Antarctica and the southern tip of South America. Slightly into its eastward voyage the deep cold flow splits off into two currents, one of which moves northward. In the middle of the North Pacific and in the Indian Ocean (off the east coast of Africa), these two currents move from the ocean floor to its surface creating upwelling. The current then becomes near surface moving eventually back to the starting point in the North Atlantic or creating a shallow warm flow that circles around Antarctica. One complete circuit of this flow of seawater is estimated to take about 1,000 years.”

North Atlantic Drift Current
When watching tourist advertisements about England that show people swimming in the water at a warm sunny beach, one might wonder how England and much of Europe can have such a nice climate when the rest of the world at that latitude is covered in ice and snow.

Part of the ocean current discussed above is the North Atlantic Drift Current, often known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. This current is associated with numerous other currents in arctic waters. When the ocean conveyor reaches the southern North American coastline it turns north and is pushed by the winds known as the Gulf Stream. When this shallow warm mass of water reaches the North Atlantic the warm water begins to evaporate. The warm, moist air is carried west over Europe and some of Asia. Since salt cannot evaporate, the water that is left is saltier and denser and therefore sinks. It is then carried south as part of the ocean conveyor.

Some of this warm water continues north to the Arctic where it is divided into a series of smaller ocean currents, both warm shallow and deep cold.

The North Atlantic Oscillation is what determines the track of storms over Europe, whether they go over France or south to the Mediterranean Sea.

El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO)
El Nino and La Nina are weather patterns that occur between Peru and Indonesia. During normal years, trade winds blow from Peru to Indonesia where water levels increase. In this area of Indonesia there is a low-pressure system that normally takes heat from the ocean surface and into the atmosphere. During El Nino the trade winds relax and the warm surface water spreads from Indonesia back to Peru. This has the effect of increasing the size of the area of warm surface water that is in contact with the atmosphere. Thus more heat is released into the atmosphere. During La Nina years the opposite happens. The trade winds blowing from east to west increase in strength and blow the warm surface water to Indonesia. This causes a decrease in contact area between the atmosphere and warm water. Thus less heat is released back into the atmosphere.

(B10)


The graph above demonstrates how El Nino affects global temperature and the effects of two volcanoes on climate are included. Notice in 1998 how temperature skyrocketed after a strong El Nino. Notice in 1993 how temperature did not rise after a strong El Nino; this is because the El Chichon volcano belched enough aerosols into the atmosphere that reflected enough sunlight to cancel the heating effect of the El Nino.

The Atmosphere
On a grand scale, the sun is the producer of heat, the ocean is the storage container of the sun’s heat and the atmosphere is the conductor of heat going from the earth’s surface (both land and ocean) back into space.The atmosphere is divided into several vertical layers, each differing in temperature and in the chemical reactions occurring in each layer.

(B11)


Volcanoes
The way that volcanoes affect global temperatures depends upon the particular volcanic event. For instance, the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens did not have much affect on global temperatures for two reasons. First, the eruption of Mount St. Helens was not very large compared to other volcanoes that did affect global temperatures in the past. Second, the energy emitted by this eruption went sideways, rather than vertically, therefore particles did not enter high enough into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight.

On the other hand, the eruption of Mt. Tambora in 1815 cooled the Earth by several degrees centigrade. The following year was known as “the year without a summer.” This is because Mt. Tambora was a large eruption that sent small particles high into the atmosphere, as those particles spread around the globe they blocked out sunlight and cooled the Earth’s surface. Mt. Tambora also happened during the Dalton Minimum, increasing the cooling effects that were already occurring from low sunspot activity.

The effect of volcanoes on Earth’s climate is to cool the Earth for a few years after a major eruption. This is because particles and gases from the volcano reflects sunlight back into space, and the particles eventually fall back to the ground and gases are eventually removed from the atmosphere by natural chemical processes. In this way, volcanoes can produce a 3 to 5 year “snapshot” of what a cooler climate would be like.

Nuclear Weapons Testing



To date, no one seems to be able to explain the cooling period between 1945 and 1985.
There has been some investigation in the past to learn if the above ground testing of nuclear weapons in the 1940’s through the late 1970’s may have contributed to climate cooling of the same period. There was a paper on the late John Daily’s web site (A15) that suggested that there might have been correlation. While the paper offered information on the size, date, and number of some atomic bomb tests, the important information about climate effects was based on unfounded rumors. It estimated that the Earth should have cooled from:
  1. Ozone depletion from the heat created by the fireball. (Ozone depletion in the troposphere and stratosphere would lead to cooling).
  2. That the release of atomic particles would have increased condensation nuclei, thus clouds and rain would have increased, like galactic rays do (thus causes cooling).
  3. That it would have taken a weapon over 1 Megaton (equivalent to one million tons of TNT) to send dust high enough into the atmosphere to block some of the suns rays for a period of months or years.

As for #1, ozone depletion, a study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research stated in the abstract, “Local changes in atmospheric ozone relative to background regional changes over a period during which a small megaton nuclear weapon was detonated in tropical latitudes have been studied by using backscatter UV observations from Nimbus 4 satellite. Little change in total ozone was observed, less than might have been expected from current models of NOx catalytic depletion.”(A16)

As for #2, increased condensation nuclei, a study of rainfall over the U.S for the same time period indicated that rain actually decreased during the three years following the 1950’s testing and the early 1960’s testing. (figure below)



As for #3, increased particles that would have blocked out sunlight, there was no data to confirm this hypothesis.
Fortunately my step-dad was a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical warfare Specialist in the U.S Marines and was able to help me understand how nuclear weapons work.

Types of Nuclear Blasts



1. Ground burst
When the fireball of the nuclear weapon comes in contact with the ground or ocean. This causes the substances (dirt, water, trees, bugs, automobiles) on the ground to be “vaporized” and blown up into the air with the mushroom cloud. The way to tell if an atomic bomb was a ground burst is if the stem of the mushroom cloud is dirty and dark. Most of the material in the mushroom cloud will fall to the ground causing radioactive “fallout” down wind. The very fine particles that were vaporized by the fireball will mix in the atmosphere. These particles would be like the dust or soot from a volcano that block the sun’s rays, thus causing some cooling.

2.Underground burst
No atmospheric effect.

3.Air-burst
Because the fireball does not touch the ground, there are only tiny amounts of radioactive dust and dirt particles to fall back to the ground. There is some residual radiation, but not enough to create the kind of fallout that might affect military operations. The stem of the mushroom cloud will look white and steamy.

4.Ocean- burst
Exploded below the surface of the ocean. This creates an underwater shockwave that sinks most ships and submarines in the area, but the blast is so far underwater that the mushroom cloud usually is not very high. Highly radioactive water rains down in the immediate area.

The “yield” of nuclear blasts
The size (yield) of the nuclear explosion is expressed as an equivalent of tons of TNT exploding. People in the military are trained to estimate the size (yield) of nuclear explosions by measuring the top of the mushroom cloud ten minutes after the explosion (also cloud bottom, 2/3 stem or cloud radius). Then they apply those measurements to the FM 3-3-1 calculator (figure below).



In this part of the paper I compare the series of eruptions of Mount Pinatubo, Philippines, in 1991, which caused a decrease in mean global surface temperatures of .5 Co in the three following years to nuclear bomb testing.

There were many different comparisons of the Mount Pinatubo eruptions to nuclear yield on different web sites, none matched. Therefore, a method of comparing the eruption of Mount Pinatubo to nuclear yield is necessary.



(B15) June 13 Pinatubo



While the type and size of the exploding areas are different in volcanoes and nuclear explosions, the amount of energy that would cause a mushroom cloud of similar size to be pushed to a similar altitude would be the same.

For the following section, in order for a nuclear detonation to be included in the tabulation, the entire mushroom cloud must have entered the stratosphere.

To make this comparison, I use a satellite photo of the June 15th eruption that shows cloud width and Wikipedia information that indicate cloud top height, (112,000 ft.).

(B12)

I estimated the cloud radius by measuring distance from the center of the yellow X (volcano center) to the upwind (right) side of the plume and comparing it to the yellow “100 km” scale measurement in the upper part of the photo.

Therefore, we can estimate the Mount Pinatubo climactic eruption as being about 16 MT, because both 35 km cloud radius and 112,000 foot cloud top height are indicated on the FM 3-3-1 calculator as about a 16 MT blast.

The table below converts each of the Pinatubo eruptions in 1991 to nuclear yield.



This is compared to only a portion of the following ground bursts of nuclear tests in the 1950's and 60's; (A17)

Note: The only tests used in the table below were those that had yields big enough to send the entire mushroom cloud of a ground burst into the stratosphere. (Appendix



The reason why a volcano can cool the climate is because of the amount of gases it sends into the atmosphere after an eruption. The sulphur gases that are sent into the atmosphere reflect the rays of the sun, which causes the climate to cool. This is different than the dust from nuclear weapons that send fine particles high into the atmosphere that absorb sunlight thus causing the climate to cool. The cooling effects of volcanoes should be stronger, however there were many more nuclear tests between 1951 and 1962. The total yield of Mt Pinatubo’s 5 eruptions that reached the stratosphere was 19.4 MT. The total yield of 157 nuclear weapons tests that reached the stratosphere was 367 MT, more than 19 times the yield of Pinatubo’s 5 eruptions and spread out over 11 years.

Greenhouse Gases
Greenhouse gases are a natural part of the Earth’s temperature stabilization process, this is what keeps the earth from freezing at night. During the day, sunlight heats the Earth’s surface, some of the heat from the sun, and heat being re-radiated by the Earth’s surface, is absorbed by greenhouse gases. As day turns to night and the sun is no longer heating that part of the Earth, the greenhouse gases still have the absorbed heat from the sun, thus keeping the night air at higher temperatures.

Water Vapor
Water vapor is by far the most abundant of all greenhouse gases. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere can vary widely, for instance from dry desert air to humid tropical air, the average of water vapor content in the atmosphere is usually about 3%. Water vapor is not considered a component of the atmosphere.

Its effects on global temperature is complex and varies enormously. The main problem with the accuracy of computer climate models is the interaction of water vapor in the atmosphere.
As a greenhouse gas, water vapor absorbs the same infrared bandwidths as does CO2.
Clouds are also an important part of water vapor because they cool the Earth during the day because of high albedo. But they heat the Earth at night because of the energy stored in the clouds.

CO2
CO2 naturally occurs in the atmosphere and follows closely behind temperature.
During periods of glaciation, atmospheric CO2 levels are usually about 200 parts per million, according to ice core studies from Vostok Glacier, Antarctica. When the planet warms during periods of interglaciation the same ice core studies indicate atmospheric CO2 levels are normally about 280 parts per million.

In a study conducted by the late Dr. Charles Keeling we learned that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide is increasing. The graph below shows how CO2 levels in the atmosphere change with the seasons (the saw teeth on the graph are from decreases in CO2 during spring when plants grow then increase in the fall when they slow down the photosynthesis process and do not absorb as much CO2.



The data that Dr. Keeling collected shows a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 levels to the current level of about 380 parts per million.

Some scientists believe that CO2 increases are man made, other scientists have warned that past atmospheric CO2 levels calculated from studying ice cores are inaccurate and that present atmospheric CO2 level increases are a result of natural causes. To me, this argument was put to rest by NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory whose satellites and sensors have been able to track CO2 sources and have concluded that the current increases in atmospheric CO2 are coming from raw coal burning family home heaters in the third world, primarily in China.

Dr. C. Miller of JPL, Director of the Carbon Observatory Project, stated on his web site that ½ of industrial CO2 has been cleansed by the atmosphere.

If man is responsible for a 100 part per million increase of atmospheric CO2 levels we must still keep in mind that 100 parts per million is a very tiny number. Said another way, man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 is only one ten thousandth of total atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases and the spectrum
I will start this section with a very important point. CO2 in the atmosphere does not reflect radiation back to the earth as some have tried to state.

Some scientists have warned that when sun light strikes the surface of the Earth it is absorbed then re-emitted as infrared radiation. This infrared radiation is then absorbed by atmospheric CO2 and re-emitted back to the Earth’s surface thus causing the lower atmosphere to remain warmer. Other scientists say that CO2 can only absorb infrared at very limited wavelengths and that those wavelengths are already saturated. A simple example of this is that when you are watching television and someone is standing in your way, it does not matter if another person stands between you and the television. The light from the television cannot make it through the extra body when the first body is there. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation in very narrow bandwidths.

When confronted with this problem, the greenhouse theorists claimed that the CO2 re-emits the energy at a slightly different wavelength, but no measurements of this energy has ever been made and water vapor absorbs in the same wavelengths. Just how much of this re-radiated energy is absorbed by CO2 and how much is absorbed by water vapor is the key sticking point for many scientists who remain undecided about the greenhouse theory.

Feedbacks
Feedbacks are stabilizers of the Earths atmospheric temperature. For example, the sun could be shining bright on the ocean surrounding Hawaii on a given day, causing this area to become very hot. This in return would cause the ocean water to evaporate and eventually form clouds. The clouds would then block out the sun light and cause the ocean surrounding Hawaii to cool down. This is called a “negative feedback.”

On the other hand, snow in high latitudes and altitudes reflects sunlight. But when the ice melts, the water or land below then absorbs that light that would otherwise be reflected, causing the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is called a “positive feedback.”

(B13)

Aerosols
Aerosols, or smog, are usually sulphur based gases that combine with water vapor in the atmosphere to make droplets of sulphuric acid. When sunlight strikes the droplets, part of it is scattered. Sulphur oxide smog also can be cloud condensation nuclei, forming clouds. These clouds reflect sunlight and cause cooling during the day, but in reverse they trap and hold heat during the night resulting in heating. Greenhouse theorists think the cooling period between 1945 and 1975 was caused by smog.


© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.


Ponder the Maunder
[Climate events of the Last 1,000 Years

Medieval Warming Period- 800 A.D-1300 A.D.
The Medieval Warm Period has been a major source of disagreement in the Global Warming debate. The main question is “is the current pattern of warming unusual in history?” Based on Michael Mann’s tree ring study, the IPCC claimed that the Medieval Warm Period was restricted to the North Atlantic. The Medieval Warm Period was very well documented in European History. During the Medieval Warm Period, grapes were grown all the way up to Britain. This was also a time when the Vikings settled in Greenland taking advantage of the land that could be used for new settlers from Scandinavia. From Greenland, the Vikings continued as far west as Newfoundland, Canada, where 2,400 Viking objects have been excavated. (C4) (A18)

Soon and Baliunas (2003) listed dozens of temperature studies limited to the southern hemisphere or worldwide that clearly indicated the presence of the Medieval Warm Period. Amongst the studies that showed the Medieval Warm Period in the Southern Hemisphere were those that examined ice cores from Antarctica and glaciers in the Southern Andes and ocean sediments from South Africa.

Therefore, it is easy to conclude that current warming is not unusual, although in my opinion current temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.

Little Ice Age - The Little Ice Age lasted from about 1300 A.D until about 1900 A.D.
During that time, much of the Northern Hemisphere was affected in many negative ways. The unfortunate events that occurred was sickness and plague, crop failure, chaos, and many deaths.
Even in American History, many events occurred during this cold time period. George Washington was one of the familiar names that experienced the cold temperatures of the Little Ice Age. In 1776, George Washington crossed the Delaware River to fight the Hessian troops in New Jersey, the famous painting “Delaware Crossing” shows the intense chill that Washington’s troops faced going into battle. During the crossing two people died of hypothermia, but this was only the beginning of the deaths for Washington’s troops. By December of 1777, 2,500 troops (out of 10,000) died due to disease and exposure.



Local residents are hard pressed to remember any time that the Delaware River iced up like it did at the time of George Washington's crossing. (C4)

Solar Events of the Little Ice Age

Wolfe Minimum 1280 A.D. to 1350 A.D.
This period of low sunspot activity was the first following the Medieval Warming Period. This was also a time of disease, and the Bubonic plague which killed more than 25,000,000 people. The spread of the plague was worsened by people staying in their homes due to the cold. Rats, whose fleas carried the bacteria, were attracted to the warm homes. (C4)

This was a time also, when the Vikings in Greenland began declining, by 1350 A.D Western Settlements in Greenland were abandoned. (A18)


Sporer Minimum 1420 A.D- 1570 A.D.
The Sporer Minimum is probably the strongest and longest lasting event of the Little Ice Age because it shows up more clearly on temperature reconstructions than the other solar minimums.

Between 1480 and 1500 the Vikings’ population in Greenland disappeared. This followed the loss of the trading vessel, the Greenland-Knarr, their inability to grow crops in the colder climate and their refusal to adapt and learn from the local Inuit population and hunt marine mammals due to racial bias. (C4) (A18)


click on image to enlarge



Maunder Minimum- 1645 A.D, to 1715 A.D.
The Maunder minimum is the best known decrease in solar activity because direct observations of sunspots were being made by astronomers at that time.

During the Maunder Minimum, a small village in the French Alps was being threatened by an advancing glacier. This was such an unusual event for the people of the Neveache village who believed that the glacier was “possessed” by demonic forces, so their religious leaders performed an exorcism on it. (C4)

Dalton Minimum- 1790 A.D -1820 A.D.
Napoleon Bonaparte was another one of history’s well known generals who faced the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age. During Napoleon’s retreat from Russia, only 30,000 of the 600,000 troops survived on the way back to France in the Winter of 1812. (A19)

The extreme cold of the Dalton Minimum was worsened by the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815, which cooled the temperatures even further because its debris went into the atmosphere, blocking the suns rays. The following year is known as the year without a summer and caused a large migration of people from New England to the west. (C4)

Kristen Minimum- 1880-1910 A.D.
This was the last cooling period of the Little Ice Age, or the first cooling period period of the modern max. There really is not a name for this cooling period but I needed a reference (and hope it catches on).

Modern Max-1910 A.D-current
The modern maximum of solar activity for the past 100 years is well documented by solar proxies and direct observation.


© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.


Ponder the Maunder
Problems with Greenhouse Theory


The following section is an attempt to explain how molecules transfer heat from the surface of the Earth then up through the atmosphere and eventually into space. (The information from this section is compiled from dozens of science web sites and discussions with 2 scientists, I did my best!)


Atmospheric Football
We all understand the game of American football, but in the game of “atmospheric football”, the rules are different. In this game there is no “out-of-bounds”, no tackles, no scrimmage line, and no dead ball. In this game there is constant pressure by the coaching staff to move the ball up field (equilibrium) and by up field I mean straight up. Here, even the defense moves backwards, or up field. A play starts at the goal line where the quarterback takes the snap (a photon is emitted by the Earth’s surface or heat is transferred by collision). The quarterback either hands the ball to a runner (heat is transferred to another molecule via collision) or the quarterback passes the ball (molecule emits the photon). In our game, when the ball is passed, it must turn back and forth (oscillate) at precisely the right speed (wavelength) in order to be caught (molecule absorbs the photon). If the football is not caught, then it continues in the same direction until another player catches it. If the passed ball is oscillating at the right speed and is caught, the receiver becomes happy ( molecule becomes excited) and the receiver begins to run up field. As usual, when someone runs, they begin to heat up (the excited molecule heats up from kinetic energy). Sometimes the receiver is hit in the secondary and becomes less happy, of course the player that hit him becomes more happy (heat is transferred from molecule to molecule via collision). Sometimes the receiver will run all the way to the other end of the field for a touchdown where he will throw the ball into the ground or spike the ball (excited molecule relaxes and re-emits the photon) and the ball will bounce in any direction. But in atmospheric football, there are many more fields to continue on, field after field… and the ball is never down or dead. So another player catches the ball and continues to run until he collides with another player or makes it to the next goal line where he spikes the ball.

In reality, especially in the bottom of the atmosphere, the player with the ball never makes it to the goal line to spike the ball ( the molecule doesn’t reach its relaxed state and emit a photon) because of collisions. It takes a CO2 molecule time to go through the process of absorption, relaxation and re-emission. During this time the molecule suffers many collisions with other molecules. Now imagine myriads of footballs and players all moving up the field at once with trillions and trillions of happy players running onto the field and footballs being hiked every second, photons being absorbed creating excited molecules and excited molecules colliding with each other, transferring their energy as they move upward as heat rises (moves up field). Not only will the heated molecules move upward, but they will also move from side to side, moved by wind and the Coriolis effect. This is what you would see if you were the size of a molecule watching heat being transferred from the Earth’s surface up into the atmosphere as it rises to reach equilibrium. By now you should have figured out that the players represent molecules in the atmosphere. The description above would describe the atmosphere on a dry sunny day. Now let’s add some water vapor. Water vapor, being a greenhouse gas can also catch the football. But water can catch the ball at many different wavelengths compared to CO2, but CO2 can not catch the ball at as many wavelengths as water vapor. There are also thousands of water molecules for every CO2 molecule. This is the problem with greenhouse theory when it comes to CO2 discussed earlier. Just how many of the photons do the CO2 molecules catch, especially considering that there are many more water vapor molecules in the air around them?

This is a huge problem for the IPCC and greenhouse gas theorists. Not only do they have enormous numbers of calculations to make for each cubic meter of atmosphere, but those calculations change every few seconds depending on temperature, humidity, elevation, latitude, local geography, clouds, wind, time of day, season, and etc. They try to use super computers to make these calculations, but even the best computers are not powerful enough, which is why computer climate models are still only “an approximation of reality” (Veiser 2000).

In the atmosphere the molecules represent the following percentages:

N2= 78.08%
O2= 20.93%
ARGON= .93%
CO2= .038%

Other gases make up the remaining fraction.

Water vapor is not considered as a part of the atmosphere, its content can vary widely, but is usually present at the average level of 3%.

Another problem that has been suggested with the whole radiative-heat transfer theory proposed by the IPCC is because as altitude increases, density decreases, thus leading to fewer and fewer collisions. There are fewer molecules in a unit of space above than below. I would agree that CO2 molecules would suffer fewer collisions at higher altitudes and have a chance to relax and emit their photons in all directions, 50% in an upward direction and 50% in a downward direction. But the photons headed upward are going to travel farther than the photons traveling downward because of the lower density above. Further, as the photons travel downward and are absorbed by CO2 molecules, they are again subjected to collisions. This makes me wonder how a photon can make it back to the surace of the earth and reheat the surface.

Computer Climate Models
The only way to properly measure the warming effect of a given gas is to use complicated quantum mechanic calculations that are too complex and beyond the ability of today’s super computers. “One convenient approach is to remove the chosen constituent (for instance H2O or CO2), leaving all other absorbers and the temperatures, untouched, and monitoring that infrared radiation escaping to space.“ (w) This method gives the author the ability to offer numerical values that are expected in scientific studies. The problem with this universally used method of determining the effects of individual greenhouse gases is that it can not take into account the overlapping absorption of the same wavelength by different molecules. Nor does it take into account the different effects of the interactions of molecules and photons at different temperatures, barometric pressures, latitudes, altitudes, etc. especially when water vapor and clouds are considered.

This is likely the reason that computer models never seem to be able to predict the climate, not to mention the weather two weeks in advance. Maybe you, or someone you know, received a bill from the cable company that was too high. When you call the billing department you were told “it was a computer error.” At this time you may have wanted to say “no, it was not the computer that messed up, it was the person that hit the wrong keys when they entered the data into the computer.” The errors in computer climate models are because the values used as a foundation are in error.

There are some “methods” to prevent incorrect outcomes that would obviously result by using incorrect values as a basis for predicting climate. The common trick by people who predict climate is to give a few different possible predictions, i.e:

This always gives them the ability to say “ah-ha, see, I was right!” Of course, it also gives their detractors the ability to point to one of the two incorrect predictions and say, “ah-ha, see, you were wrong!” An example of this exact problem can be seen in Michael Mann’s 2006 testimony to Congress.

Glaciers
There has been a lot of discussion about how receding glaciers are indicators of global warming. Most of the Earth’s glaciers are receding while the others show no change or increase in volume. The reason that some glaciers are increasing in volume is because changes in precipitation patterns.

According to a study of Greenland’s glaciers by Glaciologists Jacob Yde and Neils Knudson, glaciers in Greenland started melting over 100 years ago before CO2 levels rose above interglacial norms.

Also, a study by NASA shows that while the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are melting near the seashore, the center of the ice sheets are increasing in mass.

Global average sea level in the last interglacial period (about 125,000 years ago) was likely 4-6 meters higher than during the 20th century, mainly due to the retreat of polar ice. Ice core data indicate that average polar temperatures at that time were 3 -5 °C higher than present because of differences in the Earth’s orbit. The Greenland ice sheet and other Arctic ice fields likely contributed no more than 4 m. of the observed sea level rise. There may have also been a contribution from Antarctica. (IPCC 2007)

Political Problems
Suppose my stepdad cooked a wonderful pot of stew, my mom made a great salad and I baked a tasty pie. Then suppose we all started to argue over whose was best. Suppose we bickered so much that we all just ended up eating only what we made. We would have lost the benefit of the meal.

The greatest disservice to understanding global warming has been the introduction of politics, rather than the analysis of quality science. When a scientist publishes a study, that study should be reviewed by another or group of scientists who then publish their review. The initial scientist then has an opportunity to refute anything in the review. A separate group of scientists should then publish an objective finding of what was learned. This process would ensure a much more effective advancement of science and learning. But unfortunately this is not the case. There are corporate and business interests that use their economic power to corrupt science to ensure profits. There are also people who are so polarized by their political beliefs that they are incapable of considering new data unless it supports their views. Both sides are guilty of each and there are scientists who are harassed by each side. Both sides are supported by financial interests, whether it is “big oil,” “green industries who want sequestering contracts” or “countries seeking payments, technology transfers and industrial competitive edges.” And both sides are severely biased by polarizing views. What both sides need to do is realize that there is good data being discovered in each new study that is published.

Many good scientists are being intimidated by accusations from political activists. One example of this comes from a public blog entry by Astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv, “Anyway, if you "smell oil", perhaps it is because we were told too many times that if someone is against anthropogenic GHG he is 'one of them, one of the bad guys'. The climate community turned many of us into paranoids. You smell oil everywhere even where there is no drop of it. The difference between us, though, is that my research led me to change my preconceptions, so I am not gullible to the propaganda I hear (and I admit I used to be before stumbling into the field).”

One example of this area of the debate is surrounding the need for the Kyoto Accords.

The IPCC
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988 within the United Nations framework to assess the risk of human induced climate change. The IPCC has since been discussed and their reports criticized in most debates on global warming. The reports and evidence produced by the IPCC have most often been used to promote the Kyoto Protocols. (w)

The Kyoto Protocols are a treaty whereby cooperating countries must reduce their per-capita CO2 emissions below 1990 levels. (w)

“The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects.” (w)

Industrial competitors of the US such as China and India are exempt from emission reduction requirements of the Kyoto Protocol as are all third world countries.

Former members of the Soviet Union will benefit from the Kyoto Protocols because their economies have shrunk and their current emissions are already well below 1990 levels. (w)

European countries quickly signed the Kyoto Protocols, because they are financially benefited by the treaty, and because environmental organizations are powerful in Europe. (w)

In reality, the United States is the country that would be required to pay the majority of money to other countries because of the likelihood that the U.S would not meet emission requirements. This would result in the American consumer paying higher energy costs. The U.S Senate has already passed an unanimous resolution rejecting the current Kyoto Protocols. (w)

In my view, the IPCC and their public relations people have created a trust issue. One reason is that the release of their 2007 summary was accompanied by a press release claiming that the report was the product of “The world's leading climate scientists.” Who made these people the worlds leading climate scientists? The press release.

Another example of this trust problem is demonstrated in the IPCC graph below. This graph was released with the IPCC’s 2007 summary that concluded that they are 90% certain that man made CO2 is responsible for much of 20th century warming. This graph is based on their radiative heat transer theory. It attempts to demonstrate how much each radiative forcing component has contributed to global warming. Now look at the column on the far right labeled “LOSU.” This is the level of scientific understanding for each component. Notice how most components have a medium or low level of understanding. Does this make you think that they are 90% certain of their conclusion?

Now look at the last component of the climate system, solar forcing. Notice that it comes with a “low” level of understanding. What bothers me is that the IPCC completely ignores the scientific understanding, studies and experiments related to the effect of galactic cosmic rays on cloud cover, such warming effect almost completely negates any warming that the IPCC theorizes is created by man made greenhouse gases. “The 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will vary the input of heat to the Earth’s surface by an average of about 1.2 Wm squared, which is not trivial. It can be compared, for example, with 1.4 Wm squared attributed by the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all of the additional carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution.” (C5)



Scientific Consensus
Contrary to statements by political organizations, most scientists feel that it is possible that anthropogenic greenhouse gases “may” be responsible for some of the warming of the last 30 years, but have not made conclusive decisions. This is because of the following reasons:

1) Current estimations of greenhouse warming are based on computer models that have not been perfected and the values of different climate components are not scientifically proven, or are poorly applied.

2) Science still does not know what role water vapor plays in the greenhouse gas scenerio.

3) There are still other possibilities that can account for late 20th century warming.

4) A growing body of “empirical” evidence suggests that solar activity, its amplifiers such as cosmic ray flux and the resulting feedbacks such as increased atmospheric water vapor and decreased albedo are responsible for as much as 95% of 20th century warming.

The Climate Driver
A recent paper by Dr. Jan Veizer of Ottawa, Canada, based on dozens of studies and his own research of 40 years, concluded that solar activity has been the “climate driver” for billions of years. While the climate can be affected by the many factors listed above, it is the sun and its effects that have caused changes in climate for 4 billion years. Dr Veizer first set out to prove that CO2 was historically what caused changes in climate, but noted, “Personally, this last decade has been a trying period because of the years of internal struggle between what I wanted to believe and where the empirical record and its logic were leading me.”

Dr. Veizer did not discount the possibility that man made greenhouse gases contributed to warming of the last 30 years.

The same holds true for most scientists.


Ponder the Maunder
Conclusion and Discussion

Before I begin, it is important to note that according to NOAA, El Ninos and La Ninas are not affected by increases in CO2 or any global warming that CO2 is claimed to caused.

It was while I was trying to find the cause of the unusual cooling period from 1945 to 1975 that I noticed a possible breakthrough. The cooling period from 1945 should not have occurred according to either of the competing solar or greenhouse theories, nor does it make sense from the standpoint that both theories may have contributed equally to the warming of the last 40 years (Solanki 2007).

The graph below is temperature observations since 1880 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Notice the cooling period between 1945 and 1975. According to the greenhouse theory, this cooling period should never have happened because the atmospheric CO2 was steadily increasing. The same is true for the solar theory, solar activity was on the rise since 1910, the end of the Kristen minimum, and continued until 1960, then leveled out and has slightly fluctuated since. Before that period there was striking correlation between solar activity and temperature.

Period of anamalous cooling graph
click on image to enlarge


The graph below is the El Nino Southern Oscillation for about the same time period. This graph shows the strength and duration of El Nino and La Nina events. Notice how in 1998 there is a large El Nino, and notice how the global mean temperature in the graph above suddenly begins to climb at the same time. In the graph above, notice how the temperature drops between 1992 and 1995. But notice how there is a strong El Nino at the same time, this is the effect of Mt Pinatubo causing cooling despite the strong El Nino.

Notice 1943, there were several consecutive La Ninas, right about the same time that the anomalous cooling period began. At this time, solar activity was increasing and CO2 was increasing.

El Nino Southern Oscillation graph
click on image to enlarge


It became quite apparent to me that the El Nino Southern Osscilation was simply running negative between 1943 to 1975 and the globe experienced cooler temperatures, after that, it began to run more positive, thus the globe began to warm. To better demonstrate this point, the two graphs below cover the two time periods.



The graph below is the same ENSO graph with those two periods highlighted using temperatures from NOAA (green line).

ENSO graph with  two periods highlighted
click on image to enlarge


I conclude this paper with the following comments. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the IPCC and other champions of greenhouse theory have miscalculated why the Earth is warming. On the other hand, it really does not matter because it will not be long before the fossil fuels that the greenhouse theorists say are the cause of global warming will run out. It would be absolutely irresponsible for the people of the world to ignore this reality and do nothing while the debate continues. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, there is common ground that both sides can find that will lead to solutions. I would be the first person that would point to overpopulation as a root cause and yell, “STOP HAVING BABIES!!!” I would also point out that when the oil and coal have run out there needs to be a system of energy production in place to satisfy the world's energy needs, and that such a system of energy production will be just as profitable as the system in place today. I would point out to the wealthy oil people and countries, that their children are going to be poor and broke unless they start to invest some of their profits in wind, geothermal, solar and etc. very soon.

Further research on the cooling effects of nuclear testing in the 1950’s and 1960’s needs to be done.

Solar activity is and has always been what drives the climate system.

Steps need to be taken to create distance between science and political parties, and science and financial motives.

The CO2 molecule has been given way too much power in Earth’s atmosphere. The CO2 molecule did not come from the same man who sold Jack his beanstalk beans.



© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.



Ponder the Maunder
Experiment

The question is, what is the climate driver? After reviewing the data, there are only two things that can be, either solar variation or increasing CO2 or a combination of both. The swings in the ENSO and volcanic activity were clouding the answer to that question.

Because cooling and warming around the globe caused by El Ninos and La Ninas are a product of heat exchange in a small area of the Earth’s surface then the effects of solar, greenhouse gases or a combination of both should be left over if the signal from the ENSO was eliminated.

If solar were the climate driver, then temperatures should have increased until about 1960 then begun to level out with a slight decrease in 1970, rise a little in 1980 through 1990, and again dip in 2000.

Global Man Temperature with Solar OverlayThe solar overlay in the graph above is based on Foukal 2006 with the latest climate sensitivity (.67) By J. Hansen, NASA GISS. Climate sensitivity is how you compare how many degrees of temperature change comes from change in energy, in this case Watts per meter squared. (Wm squared times Climate Sensitivity = Temperature change). The blue dashes are an estimation of temperature when Cosmic Ray effect (Svensmark Effect) is added in.

If there was warming due to greenhouse gases, then the temperature should have climbed at a slow constant rate with the rate increasing as time goes along.

Adjusting for ENSO and volcanoes if greenhouse gases were the climate driver.The light blue line is an estimation of what temperature would look like after adjusting for ENSO and volcanoes if greenhouse gases were the climate driver.

If the climate driver was a combination of solar and greenhouse gases, then temperatures should increase until 1960, then show a smaller but steady rate of increase after 1960 as is shown by the light blue line in the graph below.

temperature with solar and ghg estimateUsing the “ONI” values (the amount of temperature change created by ENSO) from the NOAA home page, (Appendix I was able to “wash out the ENSO and volcanic noise” from the global temperatures. I examined the period of 1945 until present because;
  1. that is about when the anomalous cooling began,
  2. temperature and ENSO measurements are not very accurate before that time.


The adjusted temperature is drawn onto the graph below in purple.
For good measure, an estimate of the cooling effects of the nuclear testing (in brown) is also included. The climate effects of the nuclear weapons are very small and for a short amount of time

graph of global warming temperature with volcanic adjustmentsThe results were quite surprising, and rather clear. There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left. For some reason, probably not known to greenhouse theorists and their scientists, greenhouse gases did not play a role in late 20th century warming. It was simply a matter of solar variation being clouded by El Ninos and La Nina




© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.



COMING SOON


© Kristen Byrnes and Ponder the Maunder - All Rights Reserved. Reprinted on GlobalWarmingHoax.com with Permission.


this content item is from Global Warming Hoax
( http://globalwarminghoax.com/globalwarming_plugins/content/content.php?content.6 )