Is Global Warming a Farce?

Electromagnetic Energy may hold the key
by Brian Bloom, Beyond Neanderthal June 2, 2008
Print
Introduction
One of the six topical themes of the storyline in Beyond Neanderthal is the likely impact of Climate Change on world-wide agricultural production and what we might do about that. Importantly, our response will need to be tailored to address causes, not symptoms. When I watched Al Gore’s body language in the documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, I formed the view that his stepping onto that scissor lift was an act of salesmanship. This bothered me. If the “science is settled” why was this obviously sincere man in hard-sell mode? Did he lack confidence that the facts spoke for themselves? It was then I decided that – for the purposes of ensuring integrity of Beyond Neanderthal’s storyline – it would be necessary for me to do my own detailed research as to the likely causes of Climate Change.
(Reader Note: The information contained in this article is far too complex to have been included in a novel in this format. Beyond Neanderthal is a factional novel which weaves a highly simplified version of the results of the research into an easy-to-read storyline which shows how a jigsaw puzzle of the novel’s six themes, listed at the end of this article, fit together.)
Forces impacting on Climate Change
In summary, my desk research led me to conclude that the “drivers” of climate change are certainly not as cut and dried as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change believes.
What most analysts and commentators appear to be focussing on is the change in global surface temperatures, which can be seen from the HadCRUT3 chart below (Source: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/HadCRUT3.html).
Since around 1860, ‘best estimate’ temperatures have risen by about 1oC, with half of this increase occurring in the last 25 odd years.

But focusing only on atmospheric temperature is like listening only to the “tick” of a grandfather clock. There is also a “tock”. Our oceans also play a role in climate. To quote from one particular article, “.. the oceans and the atmosphere constitute intertwined components of Earth’s climate system” (Source: http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282 ).
When one listens to the “tock” one discovers the mechanism by which the seasonal storage and release of heat by our oceans also has an influence on Climate Change (For a detailed explanation see: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf )
Whilst the heat content of our oceans – to a depth of 3,000 meters – certainly rose overall from 1955 to 1998, it fell between 2003 and 2005. (see http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/lyman/Pdf/heat_2006.pdf ). Common sense dictates that the 1955 -1998 rise could not possibly have been caused by the rising temperature of our atmosphere. The reason (apart from the 2003-2005 heat content reduction) relates to the significantly different amounts of heat energy required to raise the temperatures of the same quantities of water and air by one degree. This can be seen from the Table below.
Table 1: Indexed amount of heat energy required to effect an increase in temperature of one degree Celsius
(Note: Index Numbers have been rounded to the nearest meaningful number)
Comparative Quantities
Water
Air
1 Kilogram each
>4
1
1 Cubic Meter each
>3,500
1
Total volume of water in oceans vs total volume of air in atmosphere
>1,000
1
(Note: The “Specific Heat” of water is 4.181 and the Specific Heat of air is 1.0035. source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Heat_capacity )
The table shows that, everything else being equal, it would take over 1,000 times as much heat energy to raise the temperature of our oceans by one degree as it would take to raise the temperature of our atmosphere by one degree.
The relationships in Table 1 may be conceptualised in another way:
Heat transfer is not instantaneous. Just think of how long it takes to bring a kettle of cold water to boil on a red hot stove.
Thus, for example, if the temperature of our atmosphere increases by 1oC over a period of one year because of greenhouse gas driven global warming (of which Carbon Dioxide is but one such gas) – and if the atmospheric temperature remains constant thereafter – it would take more than 1,000 years for that incremental heat energy to be transferred to our oceans so as to raise their overall temperature by one degree. This time frame falls dramatically outside the roughly 250 year period of the Industrial Revolution during which there has been an increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
It is now appropriate to consider the fact that the rate of flow of the Gulf Stream slowed by around 30% over the 12 years to 2005. (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article598464.ece )
What caused the Gulf Stream to slow?
It seems that this was related partially to the rising temperature of our oceans and partially to the lower level of salinity in the waters around the Ice Caps because the ice has been melting. (The Specific Heat of Ice is 2.05).
But it has already been demonstrated that there is no way the temperature of our oceans could have risen within such a short period as a result of our warming atmosphere. It would have been physically impossible.
Interim Conclusion
The argument that there is a cause-end-effect linkage between CO2 levels in our atmosphere and global warming seems erroneous in context of the fact that the rate of flow of the Gulf Stream slowed by 30% in 12 years. Something else must have been causing both the temperature of our atmosphere and the heat content of our oceans to rise.
This interim conclusion casts considerable doubt on the statistical integrity of the IPCC model. Indeed, such doubt was already cast in November 2006 by Dr Edward Wegman, then Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and board member of the American Statistical Association. (Source: http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0 ).
The fact is that there are several examples which illustrate that the IPCC model has the capacity to be seriously misleading in its forecasts. One such example is Melville Island – where temperatures have shot up by 15 degrees C above normal. “On land at Mould Bay on the island’s northwest side, his research team measured record-shattering temperatures of between 15 to 22 degrees C in July. Until then, the normal July average temperature had been between 4 and 5 degrees C.” (Source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4348/ ). It is self evident that this could not possibly have been a consequence of greenhouse gases.
If CO2 has not been causing global warming, what has been causing it?
The general consensus of the “other side” argument is that global warming has been caused by a cyclical increase in the sunspot activity on our sun’s surface. It can be seen from the top chart below that, since around 1929 (the peak of cycle #16), the 11 year solar cycle has become more pronounced.
Source: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/sunspot.shtml
Some climatologists attempt to rebut this on the basis that the measured irradiation arriving from our sun has shown little change. But, all one needs to do is look at the “Y” axis on the lower chart. Simulated magnetic flux has demonstrably increased by almost 100% relative to the 1880 – 1929 average. So who do we believe?
Well, let’s apply some common sense: Arguably, if the surface of the earth is warmed by the sun’s rays (demonstrably true); and the sun flares (which it demonstrably does); and if the average number of flares rises (which has demonstrably been the case since the 1930s) – then it will have been getting warmer on the earth’s surface. One can play with statistics all one likes, but that logic seems unassailable. It is far more reasonable to conclude that greenhouse gases (including water vapour from the evaporating surfaces of the oceans) have served to trap the increased heat of our sun being reflected off the earth’s surface, and that CO2 emissions have been exacerbating global warming rather than causing it.
Conclusion
Common sense dictates that our more active sun must have been raising the temperature of our oceans; and that the warmer sunshine, together with the warmer oceans, together with warmer winds which they spawn, together with the greenhouse effect, has been melting our ice caps.
Looking Forward: What might we expect?
After writing Beyond Neanderthal, it struck me that the increased electromagnetic activity of our sun might have been having other consequences. For example, it might have been causing an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity in addition to changed climate patterns.
Question: Are there any other symptoms of possible changes in the electromagnetic energy field of the earth which might further validate the above conclusion?
Answer: Yes – but it must be stressed that, as yet, there appears to be no cause and effect linkage between the increased intensity of solar flaring and these symptomatic changes. We are merely hypothesising at present.
The linkage between pre-seismic electromagnetic anomalies and earthquakes has been scientifically validated. (For an example, see http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2001GL013124.shtml ). In the recent past it “feels” like there has been an increase in the number of earthquakes. Most occur at the joints of the Tectonic Plates which float on an ocean of magma. Heat escaping from these joints might have served to warm the oceans’ waters from below. I have done no research in this area, but was struck by the fact that the map below showed 341 earthquakes during the 7 days preceding May 7th 2008. (Note: The 7.9 magnitude earthquake in Szechuan Province of China occurred on May 12th 2008)
Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/
On May 2nd 2008, the Chaiten volcano in southern Chile erupted. It had lain dormant since 7,400 BC. http://www.sciam.com/gallery_directory.cfm?photo_id=DE437859-E097-9DEF-EA64B135AA52CB17 . (Intriguingly, this eruption may have been linked to the 7.7 magnitude quake in northern Chile in November 2007.)
The following shows a possible linkage between volcanic eruptions and electromagnetic anomalies:
Sat May 10, 8:02 PM ET
Lightning bolts appear above and around the Chaiten volcano as seen from Chana, some 30 kms (19 miles) north of the volcano, as it began its first eruption in thousands of years, in southern Chile May 2, 2008. Cases of electrical storms breaking out directly above erupting volcanos are well documented, although scientists differ on what causes them. Picture taken May 2, 2008. REUTERS/Carlos Gutierrez (CHILE) Photo Tools
The Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) of the bees may be a “canary in the coal mine” symptom that something is happening to the earth’s magnetic polarity. Whilst some scientists believe that the bees find their way back to the hive by following polarised lines of light in the sky, others argue that they have magnetic homing devices which allow them to return to their hives. (See: http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/Over57.htm ). The bees’ failure to return to their beehives may have less to do with “abandonment” or “disease” and more to do with “getting lost”. (“Curiously though no dead bees are found either inside or outside the hive” Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070407/ts_alt_afp/sciencenaturebeesus_070407020928 , 7th April 2007. Note: For those who are unfamiliar with CCD: “A survey of bee health released Tuesday revealed a grim picture, with 36.1 percent of the nation's commercially managed hives lost since last year. Last year's survey commissioned by the Apiary Inspectors of America found losses of about 32 percent.” Source: Associated Press News Article, May 7th 2008).
Assuming for the moment that there may well be a cause and effect linkage between solar activity and changes in the earth’s electromagnetic energy field, this, in turn, begs the question: What caused the increase in solar activity?
The answer to that question appears to be linked to the position of our sun within the galaxy and the impact of gravitational forces that are brought to bear on our sun as it travels along its elliptic path.
Not all the above issues are addressed in Beyond Neanderthal, but the underlying electromagnetic issues are addressed in some detail – specifically, the position of our sun in the galaxy. It is being forecast to reach a culmination point in its 26,000 year cycle on December 21st, 2012; when its elliptic will intersect the Dark Rift of the Milky Way Galaxy. If this unfolding scenario is indeed impacting on the earth’s electromagnetic field, then we might expect to experience more Myanmar cyclone type occurrences and also an increasing number and intensity of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
It is being anticipated by some that, from 2013 onwards the flaring on our sun’s surface will begin to wane (if this is not already happening), and that the earth’s surface will begin to cool again – perhaps culminating in mini Ice Age conditions by 2050. Such an outcome would be consistent with the cyclical nature of climate change as is reflected in the chart below (Source: Why Geography Matters, De Blij, Oxford University Press, 2005).
Peering into the future: A conceptual pathway forward
As a matter of philosophical principle, it seems to this author that all problems are either soluble or partially addressable – even those described above – provided we understand those problems. In pragmatic terms, there are specific actions that might be taken on a collaborative basis across the planet. In relation to the above cases in particular the problems may either be addressed or ameliorated by the appropriate application of available technical knowhow. We have access to some extraordinarily powerful technologies.
But before we act, it needs to be recognized that a basic principle of problem solving is: “First, define the problem”. The evidence suggests that the IPCC may have defined the problem incorrectly. A higher level perspective of the broader evidence suggests that CO2 is not the problem and therefore we have a “crap-shoot” chance of appropriately addressing the issues which will flow from climate change, one of which will be pressures on agricultural capacity to feed the world’s population.
For example, just like the “biofuels from corn and/or soybeans” concept – which gave rise to food shortage related rioting in thirteen countries in less than a year after the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) – the concept of carbon credit trading does not stand up to scrutiny. How, precisely, will such a course of action address the driver of climate change if CO2 is not the driver?
For that matter, even if CO2 was the driver, it seems likely that carbon credit trading will inhibit the economic development of under-developed countries. Surely, encouraging them to sell their “right” to produce carbon emissions will also serve to discourage them from becoming net contributors to global Gross Domestic Product. That appears seriously counterproductive when viewed from an economic perspective. This is not to say we should not aspire to reduce CO2 emissions. Of course we need to reduce the level of all pollutants!