SOLAR-POWERED MILLENNIAL-SCALE CLIMATIC CHANGE

(From CO2 Science Magazine, 4 January 2006)

Many palaeoclimate records from earth's North Atlantic region depict a millennial-scale oscillation of climate, which during the last glacial period was highlighted by Dansgaard-Oeschger events that regularly recurred at approximately 1,470-year intervals (Rahmstorf, 2003). Because of the consistency of their occurrence, it was long believed that these well-tuned periodic events were orchestrated by similarly-paced solar activity; but a major problem with this idea was that no known solar process or orbital perturbation exhibited the periodicity of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Now, however, Braun et al. (2005) have performed an analysis that successfully explains this dichotomy.

Noting that the periods of the well-known DeVries-Suess and Gleissberg solar cycles (~210 and 87 years, respectively) are close to prime factors of 1,470 years, the team of eight German scientists opined that "the superposition of two such frequencies could result in variability that repeats with a 1,470-year period." In fact, they did more than opine about the matter; they proceeded to show, in their words, that "an intermediate-complexity climate model with glacial climate conditions simulates rapid climate shifts similar to the Dansgaard-Oeschger events with a spacing of 1,470 years when forced by periodic freshwater input into the North Atlantic ocean in cycles of ~86 and ~210 years." The researchers' goal in this exercise was "not aimed at suggesting a certain mechanism for solar influence on freshwater fluxes," as they describe it, but merely to demonstrate that "the glacial 1,470-year climate cycles could have been triggered by solar forcing despite the absence of a 1,470-year solar cycle," which objective they admirably achieved.

For the same reason, and also without specifying a particular mechanism, Braun et al.'s exercise suggests that the similarly-paced millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has reverberated throughout the Holocene (but with less perfect regularity) is also driven by the combinatorial effect of the DeVries-Suess and Gleissberg solar cycles. In fact, the German scientists say that the stimulus for their idea that "a multi-century climate cycle might be linked with century-scale solar variability comes from Holocene data," citing the work of Bond et al. (2001), who found that "over the last 12,000 years virtually every centennial time-scale increase in drift ice documented in our North Atlantic records was tied to a solar minimum," and who concluded that "a solar influence on climate of the magnitude and consistency implied by our evidence could not have been confined to the North Atlantic," suggesting that the cyclical climatic effects of the variable solar inferno are experienced throughout the entire world.

What are some of the better-known climatic manifestations of this cyclical solar-powered phenomenon? Bond et al. report that the climatic oscillation's most recent cold node and the warm node that preceded it were "broadly correlative with the so called 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period'." Likewise, Rahmstorf states that "the so-called 'little ice age' of the 16th-18th century may be the most recent cold phase of this cycle."

The final logical extension of these observations should be obvious to all: the global warming of the past century or so, which propelled the earth out of the Little Ice Age and into the Current Warm Period, was in all likelihood a result of the most recent upswing in this continuing cycle of solar-induced climate change. Hence, there is no longer any need to consider the historical rise in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration as being the primary driver of 20th-century warming. Like everything else climate alarmists lump along with it, the much-maligned greenhouse gas was merely "along for the ride" on earth's eternally-oscillating climatic roller coaster whose operator is the sun.





THE LATEST ICE AGE SCARE -- FROM INDIA

Cyclical Ice age gets hold of the earth - how severe will it be by 2012?

Ice ages come every 11,000 years. A mega ice age comes every 105,000 years. Both are due between now and 2012. The 11,000 year cycle happens because of increase and decrease of cyclical underwater volcanic eruption. The 105,000 mega ice age happens because of the changing shape of the orbit of the earth around the sun - circular to elliptical and then back to circular every 105,000 years.

Both the cycles are overdue. They have actually started. Europe right now is in deep freeze. Japan and South Korea are experiencing the worst snowfall ever. Even New Delhi is experiencing the worst ever fog and cold weather. Do not get surprised to see New Delhi experiencing the weather of Moscow, Miami experiencing the weather of Chicago.

Since the 105,000 cycle is overdue, the freeze can be real severe by 2012 and beyond. Some Geologists believe that global warming is causing the freeze because of manipulation of warm ocean currents and streams. The manipulation has occurred for many reasons. Global warming from human civilization is one reason. But much more serious is the cyclical increase in under ocean volcanoes and stretched geysers over miles. Such an eruption has recently been discovered in Indian Ocean stretching 45 miles releasing superheated steam to 750 degree F.

Because of this extra heat ocean is getting evaporated. The resulting precipitation is forming the snow and eventually ice. In the last ice age, Montreal in Canada was under two miles of ice. NY was less than 400 feet of ice. The southern US has no ice but had the weather of Canada with very often snow fall.

With our current technology, our civilization will survive the smaller cycle - the 11,000 year cycle that can produce a mini ice age. Food will be scarce and much of the northern hemisphere will be under deep ice with little life there. Serious migration of population will take place from north to south.

The terrestrial civilization cannot survive the mega ice age that comes every 105,000 years. In that case the ocean levels will fall by 500 feet on an average. The whole earth will be under deep ice. How do we know if the ice age that is engulfing the earth is smaller or the mega one?

Some geologists, astrophysicists and scientists believe if the mega ice age is starting then certain parts of the world will be very cold and under deep snow for a few years. At the same time many parts of the world will experience very mild winter. El Nino which is due in 2008-2009 can cause the mega ice age to come. A super volcano in Toba or Yellow Stone can also cause the mega ice age. Earth's current orbit around the Sun suggests that any of these will instantaneously ( two months for example) put the earth into deep freeze. A burst of cosmic dusts from the center of the galaxy can also cause the same. Severe weather patterns that is taking hold of the earth are not very good signs.

Source





New forum for a clean future -- and the nuke option

By Leslie Kemeny -- the Australian foundation member of the International Nuclear Energy Academy and a consulting nuclear engineer and physicist

It has taken eight years for the proponents and the supporters of a massively flawed and hugely expensive Kyoto Protocol to be challenged by a new international partnership set up to combat global climate change. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate comprises Australia, the US, China, India, Japan and South Korea. It represents over one half of the world's population and was established on July 28, 2005. The partnership will hold its first major conference and working party in Sydney this week. Prime Minister John Howard will be in attendance as well as senior ministers from all six countries. Industrial participation has been invited for tomorrow.

Australia's involvement in the Kyoto Protocol is now tenuous. As with the US, the country has ruled out any agreement that would set timetables and targets for greenhouse gas emission minimisation. Pragmatically and sensibly, Australia will not sign on to a treaty that is bad for sustainable development. Instead, the federal Government will seek to tackle global warming by using and developing low emission energy generation technologies. For these, a funding of $23 million will be provided. As well, a $500 million grant will be available for projects aimed at reducing emission from coal-fired power stations.

Astute observers of Kyoto consider that there is considerable merit in the Asia-Pacific Partnership model. Scientists and engineers believe that post 2012, the only way forward in the spirit of the Kyoto treaty will be the adoption of a "clean development" mechanism. This represents a mode of operation whereby members of the partnership assist each other in technology transfer appropriate to the needs, economies and development goals of the constituent countries.

They see an interesting partnership of two rapidly industrialising giants - China and India - and four developed countries. Of the six partners, five have extensive and growing nuclear power programs and the sixth, Australia, is the key supplier of clean, green nuclear fuel for such programs.

What impact would the implementation of the present form of the Kyoto Protocol have on climate change? The short answer to this is little, if any! Historically the protocol seems to be the product of coercive utopian green politics driven through the UN by segments of the European Union who have managed to outsource most of their heavy manufacturing projects and problems to other countries.

In contrast, the Asia-Pacific Partnership recognises the unique needs of both developing nations and resources supplying countries. It does not seek to mandate emission targets on disparate national jurisdictions and societies but seeks to promote clean energy technologies appropriate to them. And it proposes to allow a "clean development mechanism" and the workings of competitive clean energy source pricings to respond to national and international market forces. This ensures that climate change is minimised and sustainable development aspirations are maximised without heavy impacts on national economies.

Most energy experts now believe that the only effective solution to greenhouse gas minimisation and climate change is the global acceptance of nuclear power technology. In the UK in November 2005, British Prime Minister Tony Blair had backed plans to recommence building nuclear power stations in the UK, convinced that nuclear power is the only way to secure energy needs and to meet Britain's commitments to reduce carbon emissions. Studies prepared for Blair by David King, his chief scientific adviser and other advisers had shown that "renewable" energy forms such as wind had no hope of filling Britain's future energy needs nor of meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets.

Earlier, a declaration stating that nuclear energy should play an increasingly central role in the global fight against climate change had been signed by 25 members of the European Parliament. The declaration called for EU leaders to recognise nuclear energy's contribution in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and called on politicians and decision-makers to back investment in low-carbon energy technologies, including nuclear power. The declaration also argues that nuclear energy's role in combating climate change should not be neglected on purely ideological or political beliefs.

Consider the immense contribution to greenhouse gas emission minimisation made by nuclear energy in 2003. In that year the global electricity produced by the world's 435 nuclear power stations was 2398TWh or 16 per cent of total primary energy production. The amount of avoided carbon dioxide emission because of the use of nuclear energy in 2003 was 2.4 billion tonnes. This is 10 per cent of total emissions. Japan's 54 nuclear power stations alone save the equivalent of Australia's total greenhouse emissions. And the secret of this success is uranium fuel imported from Australia.

Delegates from the developed countries attending Kyoto understood that behind the alarming growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the mechanism of population growth and energy usage in the developing countries. The UN anticipates that the present world population of 5.5 billion will rise to 8.5billion by 2025. Of this three billion increase some 2.8 billion will be in developing countries, which already account for 75 per cent of the world's population.

About this time it is estimated that China's greenhouse emission will be about four times greater than that of all industrial countries together in 1990! It is likely that even with a modest growth in its economy, by 2010 China's annual demand on primary energy will be equivalent to 1.8 billion tonnes of standard coal and 1600 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. China's present carbon dioxide emission per unit gross national product is around 6000 tonnes per US dollar - one of the worst in the world.

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace and subsequently its president, recently berated those lobbying against clean nuclear energy. He says "activists abandoned science in favour of sensationalism", observing that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand".

The 1997 Kyoto deliberations were ill-conceived and impractical. Delegates neglected the legitimate aspirations of the developing nations and seemed to be in denial as to the pivotal role of nuclear energy in greenhouse gas minimisation. It is to be hoped that the senior ministers and their staff attending the Sydney conference will be able to rectify these mistakes and signal a simple and transparent path ahead for both sustainable development and environmental conservation.

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************