Line Between Global Warming “Gassers” and Cyclic Naturalists
Local to Global News
 
 Connect 
Sign up now!

Line Between Global Warming “Gassers” and Cyclic Naturalists

Asheville : NC : USA | Apr 29, 2011 at 4:07 PM PDT
10 2
Views: 4,342
 
After global warming

The huge difference is, one group believes in AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) as a religion—that man can, and is, controlling the warming of earth with excess CO2. Another group believes in Natural Cycles—that man is totally dependent on the myriads of astrophysical cycles that are engineered to occur naturally.

One group does not consider themselves omnipotent enough to control a planet’s climate, are cognizant of the hundreds of cyclical changes the earth goes through.

Back in 950 AD, Eric Thorvalssen (better known as Eric the Red) was born a Viking, in Norway. After exile, he convinced many to visit his personal island—accurately called Greenland. For the next 300 years, Greenland became a whaling, fishing, and farming community coinciding with the MWP (Medieval Warming Period). But now, numerous sites in Greenland have been uncovered, suggesting temperatures were as much as 7oF warmer than today (F. Donald Logan/ The Vikings In History). Today most of Greenland is not green, and has permanently frozen soil and ice.

A major factor effecting earth’s climate is earth-sun geometry. Milutin Milankovitch gets most of the credit for relating the Milankovitch cycles to ice ages and to climate. Its three cycles: 1) Precession (earth rotates on its polar axis, and wobbles [26,000 years]); 2) Eccentricity (when earth's orbit around the sun [100,000 years] is at its maximum distance(9%), the difference in solar energy received by earth is (-20%)); and 3) Axial Tilt/Obliquity [41,000 years], all provide variations in solar radiation received.

Milankovitch cycles exert their greatest influence when the troughs and peaks of all three cycles coincide with each other. But with sunspot activity, everything gets expanded.

With a cycle time of 2241 yrs, the Landsheidt cycle resulted in earth's cooling in 1400 AD; with a cycle time of 208 yrs, the Suess cycle cooled in 1898 AD; with cycle time of 232 yrs, a conglomeration of several cycles cooled the earth in 1922 AD; and with a cycle time of 88 years, the Gleissburg cycle cooled in 1986 AD.

Solar output is a major factor affecting earth’s climate. Other climate changers are interstellar dust, atmospheric chemistry, surface/cloud reflectivity, and atmosphere/ocean heat exchange. To a smaller extent El Nino, La Nina, continental drift, volcanic eruptions, and mountain-building also affect climate.

Known cycles always exist: TSI (Total Solar Irradiance), PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation), and AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). More importantly, we see sunspot variation ranging from the Schwabe Cycle[11 yrs], Hale[~22 years], Gleissburg[70-100 yrs], Suess[~210 yrs], Halstatt and Landsheidt[~2300 years], and Xapsos[~6000 yrs].

Some of the more famous climate changes were: the Damon Minima (1880-1930 AD), temperature 0.5 oC lower [Jones, 1988]; the Dalton Minima (1795-1825 AD), "Year Without Summer (1813 AD)”; the Maunder Minima (1650-1710 AD), resulted in the “Little Ice Age”, global temperature 1-2 oC lower; the Sporer Minima (1420-1540 AD), resulted in “Second Little Ice Age”; and the Wolf Minima (1280-1340 AD), resulted in “The Great Drought”.

The Maunder Minimum is a prime example of solar cycles seriously affecting earth’s climate. Almost no sunspots were seen from 1645 to 1715. During this time, regional climates had episodes of unnaturally cold weather.

Based on evidence from sunspot counts, there have been 18 periods of sunspot minima in the last 8,000 years. Studies indicate the sun currently spends up to a quarter of its time in these minima. The lack of sunspots means elevated cosmic rays, which means additional cloud formation, resulting in possible reflection of 20% of the sun's rays, therefore earth cooling.

However, the Solar Variation in emissions of high energy X-rays and UV radiation is far more dramatic over the course of a sunspot cycle. UV emissions increase by factors of 2-10, while some X-ray emissions increase over a hundred-fold with differences in sunspot activity.

“Gassers” continually point out CO2 is THE culprit for AGW. But it’s known CO2 was much higher in the past. There was an explosion of life forms in the Cambrian Period when CO2 levels were 18x higher than today, and in the Jurassic period (when dinosaurs roamed) CO2 levels were as much as 9x higher.

So many AGW believers point to Michael Mann’s debunked ‘Hockey Stick’ temperature graph (IPCC Technical Summary 2001, p 29). Mann included temperatures from major cities that had huge artificially-induced upward swings due to heat-trapping influences of concrete, asphalt, and steel (Urban Heat Island effect). Somehow, Mann excluded highly accurate temperatures taken by satellites.

When accurate data was collected, only a miniscule warming was present since 1979. McIntire & McKitrick (“Corrections to the Mann…” [The M&M Critique – update]) noticed a variety of errors disintegrating Mann’s ‘blade’ on the hockey stick. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared ‘Climategate’ colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process...They are not credible anymore."

More and more scientists are speaking out about AGW [For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.] Back in 8/09, over 700 scientists dissented with the UN on AGW. Now, over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) brings all the correct data together in a monthly report (For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.) As in “The Perfect Storm”, there were times in history (cited) when several of the above cycles perfectly aligned, and caused highly noticeable climate changes.

Estimating ‘greenhouse gases’ affecting climate pushes a probabilities estimator close to zero. Of course, one can bring in another unseen variable that will raise the likelihood of estimation to almost one. In other words, the estimator would call that surety.

We call that variable------GOD.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin Roeten can be reached at roetenks@charter.net.

Back
1 of 6
Next
GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX
GLOBAL WARMING / CLIMATE CHANGE IS A HOAX
From: genetew
KevinRoeten is based in Asheville, North Carolina, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
Advertisement
 
Posted By birdpond Cathy Taibbi | 12 months ago
This seems to be a very thoroughly researched report - however the failure to include the massive deforestation and increasing desertification of the planet (results that are undeniably caused directly by human activity) is disturbing.

For one thing, trees are what mitigated past higher carbon levels, by absorbing and converting the poison to harmless substances. We are loosing our forests at a catastrophic rate, especially rain forests and old-growth areas (ancient forests are an entirely different organism than young forests and even more different than artificial, cultivated 'tree farms'.)

In fact, agriculture itself might be damaging for our biosphere. It certainly is in South America.

Anyone standing in a tree-less parking lot on a hot summer day can attest to the local hotter microclimate there - and anywhere the trees have been removed. It is no stretch to see that cities are considered 'heat-islands' due to the abundance of concrete and absence of foliage canopy.

Logically extrapolating this will make it clear that enough of these 'heat islands' (which, by the way, are also more extreme in cold, wet and dry conditions as well) begin the affect more and more of their regions. This changes weather and local climate.

While there may be some evidence which urges us to look at the issue more closely, we must be very careful that the pendulum never swings the other way -- environmental damage done by coal, coal extraction, oil drilling and fossil fuel use is undeniably severe (as are human and non-human health consequences).

Whatever happens, our search for truly environmentally/wildlife friendly, sustainable 'green' energy sources needs to remain our first priority.
Posted By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 12 months ago
Cathy,
Deforestation has not been the problem. What exactly do you mean by 'desertification'??

Carbon dioxide is NOT a poison. Plants need it for growth and the process of photosynthesis.

It is a fact that new growth trees produce much more O2 than old growth trees.

That's the way most AGWs believed in man-made global warming--taking the temperature out in a tree-less parking lots or heat islands, rather than the larger wilderness.

But these heat islands certainly don't change the climate.

Your impression of 'environmental damage' is way off the mark. Certainly oil drilling and fossil fuel use are not severe to the environment.

"Green" energy sources are not only more expensive than current fossil fuels, but they're much more expensive to use.
Reply By Kokuaguy Kokuaguy | 4 months ago
You are poorly informed and yet very sure of your views. Start educating yourself by learning about desertification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification
Is it your religious faith that tells you not to trust the consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists, but rather to cling to the opinions you WANT to believe are true? For the sake of the generations yet unborn I beg you to educate yourself before spreading your dangerous opinions. Start here. skepticalscience.com God made us stewards of the earth -- what gives our generation the right to waste and destroy the resources that we inherited from the generations who came before us?
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 4 months ago
I am well informed and very sure of my views. Desertification IS occurring, only from land mismanagement, and NOT from AGW.

The vast majority of climate scientists now realize that AGW is NOT occurring. Update yourself on recent events.

How did you come to the assumption that our generation is wasting and destroying all the resources we've inhherited? Who have you been listening to?
Reply By robertweller Robert Weller | 10 months ago
Desertification is when the combination of declining precipitation and other factors turns an area like the Sahel into part of the Sahara. There are metrics that determine when the process reaches its ultimate.
Reply By birdpond Cathy Taibbi | 12 months ago
Kevin, sorry for the late response I didn't realize you'd replied.

Old forests are very different from new forests and have an entirely different biology so they truly are very very important in the overall scheme. Even the soil, microbes etc are different in ancient forests.

I'm afraid your argument is simply the one special interests (ie the logging industry) use to falsely justify their taking of more acres of ancient old-growth timber/forests. True foresters will tell you the old forests are crucial for our planet, as are the dead trees (snags) - in fact standing dead timber is JUST AS IMPORTANT to the sustained health of a forest as live trees and needs to be left standing.

Desertification is the creation and expansion of deserts - our agricultural and other practices contribute strongly to this problem.

I'm sorry we just have different points of view but the recent BP disaster and the wave of stillborn dolphins and sea turtle deaths etc a year later prove that drilling and oil are VERY hazardous to the environment (and to us!) Try taking a sip of oil or gas or inhaling the fumes deeply at the gas pump before you advise others that oil and gas are not toxic.

The heat island areas are increasing astronomically as we pave and deforest more and more, and ARE affecting greater and greater areas around the globe. Taken together they change the climate (most deserts are MAN MADE).

That's just logic and you can see it in practice; please don't discourage people from caring for the planet, we only have one and we are about to create environmental problems and species loss so severe the consequences are not even imaginable.

Besides we need to plan for when oil reserves run out anyway, and shale oil, tar sands, mountaintop removal coal mining, fracturing etc are NOT good solutions!

Renewable and environmentally/wildlife friendly energy is the way to go and I, for one, trust that humans are clever and resourceful enough to find new answers!
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 12 months ago
Cathy,

Thank you for your continued interest. Remember, I didn't say that old growth wasn't important to the forest. I said that new growth provides much more oxygen (by photosynthesis)than old growth. In fact, if old growth is no longer growing, it is providing NO oxygen--only CO2.

So, no. Old forests are not JUST as important as new forests.

Desertification of forests may be happening, but not at the rate of production of new growth.

The recent BP disaster was mitigated far faster than was envisioned. Stillborn dolphin and sea turtles have not increased because of the spill. In fact, if it had, the mostly democrat mainstream media would have been all over that. However, never heard a peep from them.

The heat islands are getting more attention because of high temperatures. When have you ever heard the mainstream media talk about high temperatures in places that are remote? (far more common) Look at average high temps over the WHOLE region. You'll see no change.

Taken together, they alter the reported temperature of a specific region. They do NOT change climate.

We should always take care of this planet. But there's some things we just cannot do.

Oil reserves will never run out. There may be a time when oil is just too deep or expensive to get. Ever hear of abiotic oil?

Humans are clever enough to get existing oil. They are also clever enough to know whether new answers (and many are out there) are more or less expensive to get, than existing oil.

You may not believe in God. A possible reason for you saying the thinks you have.

Have a nice day!
Posted By abdelfattah Abdel Fattah Hussein | 12 months ago
It is informative , thank you for sharing Rated up
Reply By robertweller Robert Weller | 10 months ago
desertification of forests may be happening, but not at the rate of production of new growth. what balderdash. shouldn't you at least specify which areas you are talking about. are you going to compare texas with niger? and you have no business suggesting cathy does not believe in God.
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 10 months ago
Robert,

Sorry for the late response, but your message did not show up until just lately.

If decertification is so readily occuring, you need to provide info as to where that is happening. Nobody compared Texas to Niger yet, I don't think.

If Cathy does not belelive in God, then my fears were correct. If she does, than she should say so. If one reads the thread closely, the question begs the recipient to let us know, because her thread indicates otherwise.
Reply By Kokuaguy Kokuaguy | 4 months ago
What does believing in God have to do with science? Ask Katherine Hayhoe and her husband that question and they will tell you that religion and science are unrelated and independent parts of life -- wholly compatible and wholly separate.
Posted By RaulDeSouza RaulDeSouza | 12 months ago
Very well written and nicely ended. Real good stuff here.
Posted By jajjian733 jajjian733 | 12 months ago
nice report thanks for sharing rated up
Posted By FCEtier FCEtier | 10 months ago
Michael Crichton said something to the effect that atheists use global warming as their religion. Are you familiar with his novel, "State of Fear"?
Although it is a work of fiction, much of the science is well documented fact. It's also the only book he published that included a bibliography (and a very thorough one at that!).
Rated up, tweeted, etc.
Posted By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 10 months ago
FCEtier,

I am very familiar with Michael Crichton's State of Fear. I've read the book from cover to cover. Your assessment was right on!
Posted By robertweller Robert Weller | 10 months ago
I find this piece overly pedantic. I don't need to read things I read years before. Freud and James may have realized, for example, that the brain was not static. But only today with the tools we have now do we really understand.
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 10 months ago
Robert,

Pedantic is not a good description. A groundwork of data was being laid to reinforce the no-tion that some higher power was involved in making the universe, and the chances are way, way too small that everything just came together by chance. Something that obliterates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Posted By robertweller Robert Weller | 10 months ago
You must be one of those instrumentalists who believe technology does not control us, we control it. others, determininists, believe technology will get rid of us as soon as they can fecundate.
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 10 months ago
Robert,

No instrumentalism. Technology controls us, but only to a small degree. Technology will never be able to fertilize an embryo with a soul. That's up to God.
Posted By Orakul Orakul | 10 months ago
I found this interesting and well written. rated up
Posted By FCEtier FCEtier | 9 months ago
Congrats on getting over a thousand views!
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 9 months ago
Thanks for your comment. You know someone gave me a lot of help with getting through Allvoices!
Posted By Kokuaguy Kokuaguy | 4 months ago
97% of the world's climate scientists and 90% of the world's science organization do not believe in a "religion" of AGW -- it's peer reviewed science. We haven't had CO2 levels like this in 800,000 years. By the end of the century at the rates were going we'll be at levels not seen for 50 million years. Of course the sun is the major influence on our climate -- and CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep much of that warmth we get from the sun from being radiated back into space. Nobody says CO2 is a poison. Life could not exist on this planet without the greenhouse effect. But anyone who thinks we can dig up all the fossil fuels laid down in the earth's crust over the eons and burn them up in the space of a couple of centuries without affecting the environment is a simpleton.
Posted By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | 4 months ago
Kokuaguy,

God MADE science. They are completely compatible, and intricately entwined.

AGW is now in the 'dustbin' of science. There are just too many climate changing factors introduced by the Sun. CO2 was much higher in the past than it is now. Did you see any of my grphs of CO2 concentration over the past several geologic epochs?

If not, give me your e-mail and I'll send it to you.

I guess you also failed to read my column on the earth being a 'closed system'.

It seems someone has provided a load of false AGW info that you swallowed hook, line, and sinker...
Posted By itobin53 itobin53 | about 1 month ago
there is an enormous amount of scientific evidence to support human influence on climate change. thanks for sharing this report
Reply By KevinRoeten KevinRoeten | about 1 month ago
MaryAnn,
The evidence to support human influence on climate change is miniscule compared to the evidence to support climate change by the 50+ natural cycles that exist.

Give me an e-mail other than [itobin53], and I'll send you some of the enormous information that exists supporting natural climate change.
Advertisement
 

Related Allvoices Contributions

 
Advertisement
 

Blogs

 >
  • Science insights for workshop attendees: History, and reality, of ...

    beniciaherald.wordpress.com
    Cycles of planetary temperature. The science behind climate change, global warming, and the greenhouse effect is now beyond reasonable doubt. It is happening. Global temperatures have risen steadily over the past 10000 years, and are still rising. ...
  • Why Isn't Obama Celebrating High Oil Prices? - Reason Magazine

    reason.com
    Most "global warming" is already caused by the sun's natural cycles. Solar wind redirects cosmic particles, which usually seed clouds away from the planet. The net effect is less clouds, just when solar output is peaking. This solar forcing effect
  • Global Warming » Modular Home Mess Liberty Homes Inc. Quality ...

    www.mandyjo.net
    Solar Cycle 23 is still in progress, thus Solar Cycle 24 wil start early 2010 and reach its solar maximum at exactly 12-21-12 from then on the solar activity will drop… The reason for the sun reaching its solar maximum with such haste … ...
  • Cosmic ray contribution to global warming negligible « AGW Observer

    agwobserver.wordpress.com
    Solar activity changes during the sunspot cycle and that affects Earth's temperature. According to Erlykin et al. the change in temperature then affects the height of low clouds. The change of height makes some of the low clouds migrate ...
  • What organisations / groups are saying that climate change is ...

    www.climatestrategieswatch.com
    Few climatologists buy into the hype about global warming. The start climate has been changing since the earth was formed. It gets warmer and it gets cold. A lot of the temperature change is due to varying sunspot activity. ... suggesting in part
  • Stars Or Planets Influence On Human Life – How Do They Affect You?

    sunspotcycle.com
    sunspot cycle · Home. April 25, 2011. Stars Or Planets Influence On Human Life – How Do They Affect You? This seems an easy question however the response is not too simple. Lately a researcher friend explained that planets might have ...

Images

 >
 

Related People

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

 
Tap_logo_330_103

Sitemap


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2012. All rights reserved.