How serious is climate change

Hello world!
Workshops open for Building Resilient Communities Convergence

How serious is climate change

How serious is the danger of climate change? The following attempts to give data that supports the theory that the danger is very high and immediate. It is possible the extreme weather conditions we experience are a prelude to the collapse of the current and relatively precarious state of the climate known as the interglacial phase. Greenhouse gas emissions have usually led to fast  increase in the reflectivity of the planet as noted below. This appears to have been the case for past onslaught of major ice ages despite apparent efforts taken over the last hundred years or so to obfuscate and dispel that compelling and growing evidence.

Audio report from Russia Times on May 8, 2012 said Afghanistan just had its worst snowfall in 15 years. Anchorage, Alaska just recorded it’s most winter snow fall on record. Europe was hammered with extreme cold and snow. The Danube was closed to boat traffic as the worst freezing in 20 years shut it down. In Romania tens of thousands were snowed in. Australia just witnessed its third cooler than normal summer in a row, the last the coldest in more than 50 years. There were also heat extremes.

The USA is stated as having its warmest ever March on record this year. The real picture is in the details of the clustered events. Expecting a tipping point to be continuous relatively gradual increasing average heat, what comprises what appears to be the accepted global warming theory, is a denial of the potential climate change that could very well occur according to the evidence, an honest to goodness tipping point where a complete reversal in the trend happens fast.

These two research reports, one in February of 2011 and one by another research team in February of 2012 suggest the mechanism by which we can expect warming of the Arctic will lead to greater snow fall and more cold in the temperate zones. Basically the loss of ice allows more warming of the Arctic and the Arctic vortex is forced into lower latitudes by a pressure area over the pole.

1988 Devil’s Hole analysis, designed to give most accurate timing of ice age cycles, found that glacial conditions begin with peak greenhouse gas  atmospheric concentrations. Graphing that data (this might be it) with the concentration of carbon dioxide from ice cores such as this data one can see that ice ages are brought on with increase of carbon dioxide in the  atmosphere.

Some of the specific names and dates as to how data was corrupted to support the accepted Milankovitch theory which totally absolves atmospheric content from any affect on climate change, can be found on this web site that also dwells on an interesting theory of orbital inclination  oscillation bringing the earth into more galactic dust every hundred thousand years.

More dust does get into our atmosphere as biomass depletes soils and waters of essential trace elements, dies and releases greenhouse gases causing melting of ice (something found to immediately precede onslaught of  widespread ice age conditions as suggested in this study of April 2009).

The changing distribution of water as ice on the planet appears to stress the tectonic plates causing more volcanoes and earthquakes. What appears more evident in the cycle graphs is that the carbon dioxide rises to a peak right at the beginning of major ice age conditions. You can see that in graphs available widely such as this one. Think about it. When growing regions are cold much of the plant life is no longer sequestering carbon dioxide. Peak carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere appears to cause warming short-term until a tipping point is reached and massive cooling long-term happens within a couple years or maybe just a few months.

The Hamaker hypothesis of why the climate appears to oscillate in tune with carbon dioxide concentration is perhaps the only one with real-time  experimental data to back it up.

Remineralize soils with finely ground glacial dust and biomass increases, sequestering carbon dioxide. The current cycle that apparently has been going on for more than 850,000 years is cold for 100,000 years grinding enough rock to provide essential trace elements to bring on an interglacial phase for 10,000 years. Ice age conditions are the strong attractor of the oscillation with the interglacial period being the transient and relatively precarious house of cards.

It disrupts the normal cold state of affairs for only 10 percent of the climate cycle. Evidence of this is presented in a very worthwhile movie called “Stopping the Coming Ice Age” which you can get on the web here. The host of the site featured it as a part of their show so please take the wrapping with more skepticism than the movie itself that, though a bit melodramatic, presents lots of hard core data.

Hamaker thought the ice ages would start by global warming putting more water into the atmosphere somehow increasing the reflectivity of Earth with more snow so that it got less effective heating from the sun. He did not appear to be aware of noctilucent clouds of which the first recorded instance is at the start of massive coal burning in 1885. Since then they have grown in  frequency and duration.

“Every year you number more and more and with time you’re brighter than before” is a line in a music video produced by NASA. The original had a graph of the incidence of noctilucents from their start towards the present when that line is sung. That has been taken from the web and replaced with a version that does not contain that graph. I captured an image and this might be the best available graph as to their past incidence available:

In the years since 1964 they have continued to grow to record extent perhaps in 2009 and more recently. Been suggested they may block one percent of incoming sunlight, up to ten times more than the sun has been found to vary in its output during humanity’s observations. Methane is thought to provide most of the hydrogen at those heights to make the water that forms the ice. Huge releases of methane from Arctic oceans have recently been noticed. More violent storms are thought to be lifting some moisture and dust to the mesophere and possibly, the mesopause.

The atmosphere is like an ocean of air. Its surface is known as the coldest part of Earth’s ecosystem, over negative 200 degrees Celsius, colder than the coldest places of the poles. That cold surface of air apparently reached a record low in 2008. At the mesopause, at the top of the part of the air where molecules are thought to mix and interact much more than above where it is too rarified, the noctilucent clouds form. They get coated with dust to form first surface mirrors, highly reflective of light and heat.

Every piece of data above has been countered by others, often spurious when you look at them in depth, such as this “paper” denouncing noctilucents of any concern regarding climate change. The paper argues that earlier records, maybe even their not ever having been recorded before 1885, are too prone to error for inclusion in the analysis.

Apparently NASA at first thought it was worthwhile to show the graph for their existence prior to 1960 in their original music video on the subject. For many it is obvious that governments and their agencies have become controlled by corporate interests. The International Panel on Climate Change has apparently continually underestimated the effect of greenhouse gases. Looks like Johh Hamaker originally overestimated with his theory as first proposed. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between slow gradual rise and a tipping point where the interglacial phase falls over.

There is speculation that the ozone hole has slowed the process. How much has it been slowed? Looks like global warming in its form as being relatively slow and gradual average temperature increase is a denial of the potential for catastrophic and quick climate change.

What can be done? A little study and you can see that ways and means to not burn fossil fuels to feed, clothe, transport and provide a decent life for all of humanity exists without need for nuclear power plants or destroying our biosphere. Appears that many sort of believe in their heart of hearts that existence is a matter of “might makes right.”

There’s money to be made by a few to keep the masses dependent rather than facilitate their wise use of resources. You can see numerous statements by degreed physicists saying we can’t use fusion energy now when that is what we have always used. 93 million miles of space and Earth’s magnetic field with the Van Allen belts contains it nicely. Now lets not destroy a hospitable earth climate by burning the fusion energy that has been stored here so that a few can amass a huge disproportionate amount of tokens, heh? Best we use what has been termed Earth’s real-time income energy.

You can look at the data yourself. Don’t just seek to trust someone who claims an elite authority or our so-called governments, the holders and users of the most powerful weapons. That route is terminal, IMHO.

Comments are closed.