Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When Physics Trumps Hysteria in Global Warming
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii ^ | July 18, 2007 | Michael R. Fox, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/19/2007 1:54:32 AM PDT by neverdem

Studiously hidden from public view are some extraordinary findings in physics which are providing new understanding of our planetary history, as well as providing a much more plausible scientific understanding of global warming. Regrettably, the current hysteria about global warming is based much more on fear, political agendas, and computer models that don’t agree with each other or the climate, rather than hard-nosed evidence and science.

The climate forces which have led to the estimated 0.6C degree temperature increase over the past 100 years or more (according to the International Panel on Climate Change) have been assumed to be man-made CO2 emissions from advanced nations including the U.S. We know this can’t be true for several reasons.

The first is that water vapor provides 95 percent of the total of the greenhouse gases, not CO2. The total of the CO2 represents less than 3 percent of the total. The second is that of the total atmospheric CO2 inventory, the manmade fraction is less than 3 percent of the CO2 total and therefore far less than 1 percent of the total greenhouse gas inventories. Third, studies of the recent climate variations are finding, for example, (See article by J. Oestermans, Science, p. 375, April 29, 2005) that glaciers have been receding since 1750 or so, well before any significant man-made CO2 emissions occurred.

The mid 1700s were at the very depths of the Little Ice Age, which we have learned was the coldest climate over the last 5000 years. Obviously, other warming forces were at work before humans had anything to do with it.

It seems more logical that natural forces are still at work with warming and cooling our climate. For example, Fred Singer and Dennis Avery pointed out in their book Unstoppable Global Warming that over the past 1,000,000 years in climate observations, there have been about 600 periods of warming, and we can surmise from these cycles that among them are about 599 periods of cooling.

Now we have learned much more based upon observations of cosmic radiation, their sources, and the Sun’s magnetic fields, combined and new discoveries in the laboratory. A new and more comprehensive understanding of our planetary environment has emerged. This gives us a scientifically defensible explanation of both global warming and cooling.

As the Oesterman study of the 250 years of receding glaciers shows, warming preceded the CO2 increases of the 20th century. That is, man-made CO2 was not significantly involved in this 200 year warming period on the earth. Nor does man-made CO2 explain those 600 periods of warming over the past 1,000,000 years.

We have known that cosmic radiation is a source of very powerful radiation, more powerful than any in those huge manmade accelerators. We also know that the more energetic cosmic rays can reach the surface of the Earth passing completely through the atmosphere. Those of lesser energy can collide with molecules in the air causing an avalanche of nuclear and particle fragments as they pass through the atmosphere. The energy is dispersed in showers of these particles while still in the atmosphere.

These collisions are truly nuclear in nature, highly energetic, and take place in our atmosphere every second. These are the nuclear processes by which the atmosphere acts as a protective shield to inhabitants on the earth. These are well known to airline safety experts, as well as to those astronauts who spend weeks and months outside of our protective atmosphere.

The streams of cosmic radiation originate from deep space sources both within our galaxy, the Milky Way, as well as from galaxies more distant.

Most of the cosmic rays are charged particles (mostly protons) but less prevalent heavier particles are often measured too, and can be of enormous energy. Being charged particles they can be deflected and modulated by the many magnetic fields found in space. In the proximity of our Sun and the solar system incoming particles “feel” the magnetic field of the Sun and are deflected.

The extent of the deflection depends upon the strength of the magnetic field of the Sun. The solar magnetic field has been known, studied, and measured for only a few decades. As with other stars, the Sun is able to deflect many, but not all, of these particles of cosmic radiation away from our solar system and our planet according to well-known rules of physics and magnetism.

Thanks to some recent excellent experimental work in physics by those such as Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, we now know that cosmic rays and some of the debris from nuclear collisions with atoms in the atmosphere are directly involved with the initiating mechanisms of cloud formation.

Basically, the more cosmic rays, the more clouds are formed and the cooler the temperature. Since many of the cosmic rays can be deflected by the Sun’s magnet field, the cosmic ray intensity varies inversely with the strength of that field. The stronger the solar magnetic field, the fewer cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, fewer clouds are formed, and the climate becomes warmer.

Today the Sun’s magnetic field is more than twice as strong as it was at the turn of the last century. During the mid 1700s during the Little Ice Age there was a 70 year period when there were no sunspots (called the Maunder Minimum), and the solar magnetic field was very weak.

The cosmic rays were not deflected as much by a weakened solar magnetic field, more clouds were formed, thus a cooler climate at that time. These findings provide a simple plausible explanation, defensible with sound physics, and don’t involve a major role for CO2 at all.

Some of the materials formed in the atmosphere by the cosmic ray collisions are radioactive as well, and are one of many natural sources of radioactivity. These are deposited in the Earth’s surface, and are used to construct a very accurate history of the geology and climate millions of years ago. It can be measured with surprising accuracy.

In this instance some important collision products formed in the upper atmosphere, are carbon-14 (C-14) and berrylium-10 (Be-10). Being radioactive they decay into non-radioactive products. These have accurately known periods of decay and scientists can measure these materials in both ice cores and geologic cores samples.

The amounts measured are directly related to many important natural features. Variations in both C-14 and Be-10 can be used to deduce the historical record of variations in the solar magnetic field. By similar techniques the scientists are able to determine variations in the cosmic radiation rates directly, going back hundreds of millions of years. Since the rate of influx of cosmic rays over time has not been constant, our climate has not been constant either.

What lies ahead are some exciting times in climate physics and our understanding of the environment. Unexplained findings in geological and climate histories are now being explained by these new lines of inquiry. It appears that the Sun’s magnetic field has had a stronger effect on our climate than just the variations in solar irradiance could explain.

Political leaders, environmental advocates, and even Oscar-winning documentarians who claim that “the debate of climate science is over”, have been shown once again to be very wrong.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agw; climatechange; globalwarming; physics; science

1 posted on 07/19/2007 1:54:35 AM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
The Sun makes this planet warm. It’s disturbing that the concept is considered heretical.
2 posted on 07/19/2007 2:00:00 AM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at LIVE EARTH

Kennedy calls "climate change" deniers to be "traitors" guilty of "treason," and that he'll "see all of you on the barricades." The video has been yanked from other websites. If you haven't heard it, click the link before it is yanked there too. It's still working and only 6 minutes long.

3 posted on 07/19/2007 2:00:09 AM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; OKSooner; honolulugal; Killing Time; Beowulf; Mr. Peabody; RW_Whacko; gruffwolf; ...

FReepmail me to get on or off


Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH

Ping me if you find one I've missed.



4 posted on 07/19/2007 2:52:45 AM PDT by xcamel ("It's Talk Thompson Time!" >> irc://irc.freenode.net/fredthompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
Saint Peter says in his 2nd letter: "10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? "

Al Gore should worry a bit less about his phony global warming and a bit more about the one God has planned.

5 posted on 07/19/2007 2:55:22 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

BLASPHEMY!!!

/sarc


6 posted on 07/19/2007 2:55:47 AM PDT by driftdiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi

While clouds make days cooler, don’t they also make nights warmer?


7 posted on 07/19/2007 3:15:44 AM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: chopperman

Does not the Yin create the Yang?


8 posted on 07/19/2007 3:17:48 AM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

“Kennedy calls “climate change” deniers to be “traitors” guilty of “treason”.

Nope! We’re guilty of “reason”.


9 posted on 07/19/2007 3:42:21 AM PDT by Diapason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: chopperman
While clouds make days cooler, don’t they also make nights warmer?

They don't make nights warmer, they just trap the heat of the day. So, if the days are cooler, the nights will be cooler, too.

10 posted on 07/19/2007 3:46:57 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault
Clouds "don't make nights warmer, they just trap the heat of the day. So, if the days are cooler, the nights will be cooler, too."

Clouds, not just the temperature, make the difference if you have frost or not.

11 posted on 07/19/2007 4:28:03 AM PDT by chopperman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare. 11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be?”

That description sounds like either nuclear war, or a comet or asteroid impact.

Be careful what you wish for.

(I’m not too worried, folks have been predicting an imminent Apocalypse since 100 years after Christ died.)


12 posted on 07/19/2007 4:29:21 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Money may be Al’s God.


13 posted on 07/19/2007 4:35:00 AM PDT by gathersnomoss (If General Patton was alive, he would slap many faces!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty

He’s not talking about an Apocalypse.

He’s talking about the time when this world actually ends.
Whether approached from religion or science, both say it will end. Interestingly, both say it will end with fire.


14 posted on 07/19/2007 4:37:19 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain And Proud of It! Those who support the troops will pray for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: xzins

“He’s talking about the time when this world actually ends.
Whether approached from religion or science, both say it will end. Interestingly, both say it will end with fire.”

Yes, but in practical terms there’s quite a difference between it ending next Tuesday or in a billion years or so.

That’s a good point though, perhaps the most literal interpretation of that passage might be what happens as the Sun enlarges to the point that it engulfs the Earth. Talk about global warming! rofl


15 posted on 07/19/2007 4:53:16 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Good article. Well-written explanations of complex scientific issues.


16 posted on 07/19/2007 5:03:18 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

wow.....


17 posted on 07/19/2007 5:17:14 AM PDT by rickdylan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Get this guy to a reeducation camp - he can’t be thinking these thoughts - the debate has been officially declared over.


18 posted on 07/19/2007 5:22:46 AM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Dr. Fox is abusing reason. He’s showing too much of it, and making Albert Gore look like a prettied-up chimp.


19 posted on 07/19/2007 5:27:44 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Harry Reid Will Now Levitate The Pentagon to End War In Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kinoxi
The Sun makes this planet warm. It’s disturbing that the concept is considered heretical.

Yes it does and yes it is disturbing isn't it ?

I still remember reading about global cooling as a youngster, going to the "scientific" exhibits at the nature museums talking about the coming ice age etc.

Ironically we were supposed to stop global cooling by doing the same things we are now supposed to do to stop global warming.
20 posted on 07/19/2007 5:31:50 AM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: festus

“Yes it does and yes it is disturbing isn’t it?”

The jury is still out on this issue. I did see an article recently (last two weeks) stating that the Sun had been ruled out as a forcing factor in global warming. I’m not sure that a) I believe that and b) that it addressed the exact mechanisms mentioned in this article.

“I still remember reading about global cooling as a youngster, going to the “scientific” exhibits at the nature museums talking about the coming ice age etc.

Ironically we were supposed to stop global cooling by doing the same things we are now supposed to do to stop global warming.”

Yes. There has been an absolute rush to judgement by many, sadly including some in the scientific community.

The other fallacy is that we must act now. We’ll have vastly more powerful technologies in twenty years.


21 posted on 07/19/2007 5:56:21 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty; xcamel
The jury is still out on this issue. I did see an article recently (last two weeks) stating that the Sun had been ruled out as a forcing factor in global warming. I’m not sure that a) I believe that and b) that it addressed the exact mechanisms mentioned in this article.

Not true: There WAS an article trying to prove that solar influences were false (that the sun did NOT control temperature here on earth) but that article did NOT offer any contradicting facts or theories - it just said that that the sun did not affect temperatures here and that there were no changes in the sun’s illumination: cleverly misstating both the cosmic ray influence on clouds AND falsely claiming that there were no changes in the sun’s magnetic fields AND the earth’s magnetic fields (also declining as we approach and magnetic pole reversal) AND baldly stating that illumination did not change over the past 25 years AND implying that illumination is the only factor in the sun’s radiation.

The athor DID NOT prove this solar influence/cosmic ray theory was wrong - he merely claimed it was wrong. A big difference.

22 posted on 07/19/2007 6:09:18 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Kennedy calls "climate change" deniers to be "traitors" guilty of "treason,"

Did you happen to hear this blithering idiot on Glenn Beck's TV show recently? Talk about un-hinged!

I actually think that RFK Jr. is far more dangerous than L. Ron Gore, insofar as we KNOW that Gore has a political and financial interest in his Glo-bull Warming "crusade".

RFK, on the other hand, is a true believer, no better than Osama Bin Laden or any of the other Islamo-fascists that the Beltway Bozos refuse to admit actually exist.

23 posted on 07/19/2007 6:19:37 AM PDT by ssaftler (Beware the Reverend L. Ron Gore and his Church of Climatology.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: .cnI redruM

“. . . making Albert Gore look like a prettied-up chimp”

If you check our Gore’s academic “achievements” you’ll discover the average “prettied up chimp” is probably better qualified to talk about scientific issues than Gore is now or ever has been. See:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1864761/posts


24 posted on 07/19/2007 6:22:27 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
...Variations in both C-14 ..

How can there be variations? I thought C-14 was the absolute constant used to establish evolution. Well, well, two bad theories killed with one article.

25 posted on 07/19/2007 6:57:37 AM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Great article.

It is more important than we might think to make sure articles like this get wide circulation. Our mainstream media, clearly on the side of the alarmists, will simply ignore them.

The environmental movement has been summarily hijacked by those who want capitalism eradicated. Your child can actually graduate high school nowadays and not know that carbon dioxide is life-giving.

Carbon dioxide, being conveniently odorless and invisible, is the by-product of the combustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of capitalism, thus CO2 is the perfect villain.

This battle has truly gotten serious now, because many states have adopted legislation that effectively makes CO2 a toxin, and capitalism itself may not survive much more lunacy.

26 posted on 07/19/2007 7:23:33 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Kennedy calls "climate change" deniers to be "traitors" guilty of "treason,"

This is a very calculated use of the word "treason." Global Warming shills know very well that they are seeking to use the carbon credit market to fund Global Governance, a TRUE act of treason they have every intention of realizing. Thus, it is important to devolve the meaning of the word to political rhetoric before conservatives wake up and direct it against them as they should have done long ago.

27 posted on 07/19/2007 8:08:28 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE
Not true: There WAS an article trying to prove that solar influences were false (that the sun did NOT control temperature here on earth) but that article did NOT offer any contradicting facts or theories - it just said that that the sun did not affect temperatures here and that there were no changes in the sun’s illumination: cleverly misstating both the cosmic ray influence on clouds AND falsely claiming that there were no changes in the sun’s magnetic fields AND the earth’s magnetic fields (also declining as we approach and magnetic pole reversal) AND baldly stating that illumination did not change over the past 25 years AND implying that illumination is the only factor in the sun’s radiation.

Good summation. I would add that the Lockwood paper also assumed that any impact from solar insolation is immediate. It then concluded that if variations in our climate cannot be explained by immediate (or very very recent) solar changes, that the sun could then be ruled out as affecting our current climate. This ignores the huge heat sinks that are our oceans, which comprise 75% of the earth's surface area. These heat sinks do not turn on a dime. The Lockwood paper ignores the fact that for the past century the sun has been applying it's shortwave insolation into the oceans at a level not seen in thousands of years. It then ignores how this long-term heating can be stored and released as part of the major ocean oscillations (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or PDO, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO). These oscillations are naturally occurring (not anthropogenic) and each have positive (warm) phases and negative (cool) phases. What we experienced in the latter part of the 20th century (the time period that the Lockwood paper claimed as disproving a solar influence) was a superposition of the warm phases of both the PDO and the AMO. The paper ignored how long term increased solar trends could magnify these ocean oscillation effects. It only looked at immediate affects from the sun. In that regard, the paper failed.
28 posted on 07/19/2007 8:14:08 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

IOW, the Left is again projecting its own crimes on its opponents.

Meanwhile the RINOs are ready to pounce on any conservative who tries to hold the Left accountable.

It is in the best interests of conservatives do some housekeeping — yesterday. Wake me when someone really lights a fire.


29 posted on 07/19/2007 3:29:44 PM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (We have always been at war with global warming. Fascism is our friend. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: PreciousLiberty
“He’s talking about the time when this world actually ends. Whether approached from religion or science, both say it will end. Interestingly, both say it will end with fire.”

Global Warming is to Revelations as Evolution is to Genesis.

30 posted on 07/19/2007 5:01:37 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: aimhigh

Heh, what you said. :)


31 posted on 07/19/2007 5:05:28 PM PDT by TenthAmendmentChampion (Pray for our President and for our heroes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and around the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
YOWZA! (And I don't say that lightly.)

Can you give me a reference to the paper so that I may have it available for evisceration?

Cheers!

32 posted on 07/21/2007 2:02:36 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Rush talks about the glow warmers every day on his program. This week he had gotten information...this is NOT new. It’s been going on since the early 20th century.


33 posted on 07/21/2007 2:05:22 PM PDT by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; sourcery

GW ping


34 posted on 07/21/2007 2:10:56 PM PDT by neverdem (Call talk radio. We need a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits. Let's Roll!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping.


35 posted on 07/21/2007 7:54:02 PM PDT by GOPJ (Bands taking big tax breaks isn't a "movement" Live Earth was a "rent a crowd" tactic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Can you give me a reference to the paper so that I may have it available for evisceration?

If it is the Lockwood and Frohlich paper that you are interested in, it is:

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
36 posted on 07/22/2007 9:22:22 AM PDT by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson