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

Skip to comments.

Climate alarmists lose another piece of evidence
enterstageright ^ | 6/11/2007 | Dennis T. Avery

Posted on 06/11/2007 10:11:38 AM PDT by Neville72

Don't look now, but another big chunk of the "evidence" for man-made global warming suddenly disappeared. Poof! Researchers just reported that the world's most recent case of "abrupt climate change"—which occurred a mere 12,000 years ago—was probably due to a comet strike, not to "climate sensitivity."

The Younger Dryas occurred as an Ice Age was ending. As the climate began to warm, a huge and sudden rush of fresh meltwater broke out from the Great Lakes and swept out to sea. The water surge was monumental enough that the meltwater lowered the salinity of the ocean, shut down the Atlantic conveyor currents, which disperse the planet's heat, and threw the northern hemisphere back into another thousand years of Ice Age. It raised temperatures near Greenland by a startling 15 degrees C, even as it doubled annual rainfall.

Modern climatologists have savored the Younger Dryas event as massive evidence of what comes when we push the planet's climate too close to a "tipping point." Further human-driven warming, they say, will make such abrupt climate changes more likely, with searing droughts, torrential rainfall, and extreme heat.

The National Academy of Sciences issued a 2002 report titled Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, which said abrupt climate changes have been especially common when the climate system was being forced to change most rapidly. According to that theory, greenhouse warming today could be drastically increasing risks from climate change.

At least, that's what the experts said until the latest meeting of the American Geophysical Union in Acapulco on May 23rd when James Kennett of the University of California/Santa Barbara presented evidence of a dramatically different cause for the Younger Dryas event: a comet that struck somewhere near the Great Lakes.

"Highest concentrations of extraterrestrial impact materials occur in the Great Lakes area and spread out from there," Kennett says. "It would have had major effects on humans. Immediate effects would have been in the North and East, producing shockwaves, heat, flooding, wildfires, and a destruction and fragmentation of the human population."

Paleontologists had assumed a huge lake of meltwater accumulated near the Great Lakes due to the Ice Age ending, but had never located its possible site. Nor have they explained a thin layer of charred sediment found throughout North America that dates from 12,000 years ago. The sediment layer contains carbon spheres whose creation would have required temperatures of at least 4000 C. Electron microscopes reveal that the carbon beads contain tiny diamonds whose creation would have required enormous temperatures and pressures.

The U.S. sediment layer does not contain much iridium, which is the telltale signal of an asteroid strike. That argues for a comet, made up primarily of "dirty ice," rather than an asteroid like the one which hit Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula 65 million years ago and wiped out the dinosaurs.

Kennett says the ice sheet could have absorbed the impact of the comet's "dirty ice," even as the comet's heat produced the flood of meltwater. Kennett says the comet may have destroyed 15 mammal species and might have left only a few surviving humans from North America's early Clovis culture. America's bison survived, but much smaller in size and with a remarkable similarity in their DNA—indicating that they descended from a small group of comet survivors.

The comet theory comes as a crushing blow to the climate alarmists. It follows the publication of Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1,500 Years, which assembles the historic and scientific evidence of a long, natural climate cycle that swings temperatures about 2-4 degrees C over its lifetime—accounting for the Medieval Warming, the Roman Warming and the Holocene Warming 5,000 years ago. Then came Henrik Svensmark's demonstration at the Danish Space Research Institute, of how cosmic rays link changes in the sun's irradiance to the formation of the low, wet clouds that cover more than 20 percent of the earth. The clouds are nature's thermostats, deflecting more or less heat back out to space depending on the sun's strength.

Now the alarmists have lost the "abrupt climate change" of the Younger Dryas. More and more, recent science is pointing to our modern warming as being part of a 1500-year cycle that stretches back at least a million years.

If the Younger Dryas was caused by a comet, perhaps we should rethink being frightened by the neighbor's SUV.

Dennis T. Avery was a senior policy analyst for the U.S. State Department, where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement. He is the co-author, with atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, of the book, Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500 Years, available from Rowman & Littlefield. Readers may write him at the Center for Global Food Issues, Post Office Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: catastrophism; climatechange; clovis; clovisimpact; globalwarming; impact
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: BufordP
We welcome all abstracts exploring new perspectives on the chronology, stratigraphic succession and potential interconnections between a wide-range of processes that appear to have been associated with the Younger Dryas Episode. These include abrupt climatic change, ice-sheet deglaciation, flood-water rerouting, surficial geology, iceberg discharge, ocean reorganization including thermohaline circulation, and sea-level change. Also critical is the timing and nature of major extinction, Paleolithic cultural succession and impact-related phenomena.

Notice that he is actually INVITING criticism and debate on this thesis? Instead of warning that those who disagree should be fired as reactionary extremists.

21 posted on 06/11/2007 11:22:54 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 16 | View Replies]

To: lilylangtree

Bush lied, Mastadons died.


22 posted on 06/11/2007 11:25:55 AM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Did Dennis Kucinich always look like that or did he have to submit to a series of shots? [firehat])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Names Ash Housewares
Actually, today’s warming is not only a bit “slower” (flatter-topped) curve than the previous very sharp rise and fall from the highest temperatures.

Today’s “peak” (if it IS the maximum temperature) is also not as high as previous peak temperatures: Today’s temperatures are 1/2 of 1 degree “above 0 deg C”, and the past peak temperatures average +2.5 degrees above today’s temperatures.

So we’ve got some more heating up to do: even if the peak is close.

23 posted on 06/11/2007 11:28:07 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 8 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

But this is all obsoleted by the fact that Ben & Jerry have decided that GW is caused by cows belching as they chew their cud.

(I’m not making this up. You can’t make this stuff up.)


24 posted on 06/11/2007 11:33:00 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

If global warming turns out not to be caused by humans its gonna be worse, not better. If we didn’t start it then we likely cannot stop it by reasonable means.

Fortunately there are unreasonable means available if it comes to that. And fortunately its happening much slower than Al Gore would have us believe.


25 posted on 06/11/2007 11:33:22 AM PDT by gondramB (Do not do to others as you would not wish done to yourself. Thus no murmuring will rise against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SolitaryMan
I stand mildly corrected.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1992). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 1998) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2.]. [note: and that's a current levels, not for all of history] http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070603200314AAuwnT2&show=7

Remember folks, that's an average. And volcanoes have been around a lot longer than humans have. Therefore, volcanoes have put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have in the course of the life of the planet. The earth is approximately 4.7 billion years old (4,700,000,000) and humans have been here for 200,000 years according to best current science. I'll spare you the math of that calculation, and will admit to having no better data available than to straightline the estimate, but it does work out.

The details matter and that is my correction.
26 posted on 06/11/2007 12:16:55 PM PDT by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
If global warming turns out not to be caused by humans its gonna be worse, not better. If we didn’t start it then we likely cannot stop it by reasonable means. Fortunately there are unreasonable means available if it comes to that.

Or we just accept it as a natural occurance like rain, drought, snow, earthquakes and tsunami and make the individual adjustments required (like move a few miles inland, over the course of many generations, as the water levels rise.)

Weather happens, whether we like it or not.

27 posted on 06/11/2007 12:26:39 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; blam
I recently watched the Star Trek episode where aliens take out Spock’s brain and McCoy puts it back in, but I had forgotten why they were underground. The planet was going into an ice age. The men stayed on the surface but sent the women subterranean with a supercomputer. As advanced as we are technologically, I wonder how we’d fare through another ice age?
28 posted on 06/11/2007 12:31:20 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dead

>> Or we just accept it as a natural occurance like rain, drought, snow, earthquakes and tsunami and make the individual adjustments required (like move a few miles inland, over the course of many generations, as the water levels rise.)

Weather happens, whether we like it or not.<<

It depends on how hot it gets and how much the seas rise and what the effects are on the weather. At some point it may become preferable to invoke a mild nuclear winter.

The Greens will love that.


29 posted on 06/11/2007 12:47:26 PM PDT by gondramB (Do not do to others as you would not wish done to yourself. Thus no murmuring will rise against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

This is not to say that we should not be concerned about environment or pollution, but the global warming hysteria diverts attention from what might be vital issues in the future, like the planet’s ever growing population.

gfs


30 posted on 06/11/2007 1:12:20 PM PDT by George - the Other (Goodnight, Mrs. Calabash ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

bump!


31 posted on 06/11/2007 1:21:26 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
" As advanced as we are technologically, I wonder how we’d fare through another ice age?"

Some of the places you'd think would be safe/warm, wouldn't be. Ice Ages are very, very dry. Starvation would kill most.

32 posted on 06/11/2007 2:37:10 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: blam
I think you're right. The arable land would decrease so drastically the population couldn't be sustained. And things would likely get very nasty as Europeans and North Americans tried to move south.

Give me global warming over global cooling any day.

33 posted on 06/11/2007 2:40:20 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Wil H
The Carbon dioxide levels aren’t actually a natural regulatory mechanism that helps maintain the the planet’s equilibrium and if we continue to mess with it we will upset the balance in the the exact opposite to the original intended consequence?

My exact thoughts when I hear some of these crackpot alarmist action plans to deal with affecting a reverse in warming, such as filling the upper atmosphere with reflectors and mega-scale machines built to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and put it in the earth.

These people are nuts.

34 posted on 06/11/2007 2:47:30 PM PDT by SteamShovel (Global Warming, the New Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker; muawiyah
"And things would likely get very nasty as Europeans and North Americans tried to move south."

I'd take my guns and ammo and move into the ice (or, close to it)...maybe my Sa'ami genes would give me an advantage, lol.

35 posted on 06/11/2007 3:07:00 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: fanfan; GMMAC; xcamel; DaveLoneRanger; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Baynative; calcowgirl; sourcery; ...

ping


36 posted on 06/11/2007 5:46:39 PM PDT by Reform Canada (Kyoto=>More Unemployment=>More Poverty=>More Homeless=>More Crime=>More Rape & Murder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Depends on what actually brings them about... :’)


37 posted on 06/11/2007 9:15:44 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Time heals all wounds, particularly when they're not yours. Profile updated June 8, 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

bump for later comment


38 posted on 06/12/2007 9:38:05 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

Very, very interesting. Thanks for posting this.


39 posted on 06/13/2007 7:02:56 AM PDT by syriacus (Had the US troops remained in S. Korea in 1949, there would have been no Korean War)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neville72

This was a major discovery, and a huge chink in the alarmist’s modeling. Of course, they won’t care - they’ll explain this away just as adeptly as they attempt to explain away the other planets’ (especially Mars) warming, the extremely high correlation of the Sun, the global cooling alarmist of the 1970s, and their blythe ignorance of the effects of temperature change inertia, statistics, and measurement errors.


40 posted on 07/06/2007 9:37:50 AM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

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