Read the sunspots - The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial post
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.
The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.
Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.
My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.
Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.
My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.
Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.
Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.
In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.
Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.
However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.
Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.
The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.
In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.
Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."
R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
#3
Excellent reference, twobyfour. I'm a huge fan of Niven and Pournelle's joint efforts (with Michael Flynn joining up for Fallen Angels)
One of my favorite scenes in all of SF is the "Massacre of the Comet Wardens" in Lucifer's Hammer.
------------------------------------------------- Lucifer's Hammer, 1977
time: late 70s
place: mostly Southern California
An amateur astronomer named Tim Hamner discovers a new comet on a course that will take it very close to the Earth. The comet nucleus will rain mountain size chunks all over the Earth if it happens to hit, causing tsunamis, drastic weather change, and effects akin to nuclear winter.
In the weeks and months after Hamner's discovery, the chances of a collision grow from one in a million to one in a hundred to one in ten. A new religious cult, the Comet Wardens, forms in Southern California. Playing on the discoverer's name, their leader declares that the comet is the "hammer of God" sent to punish humanity for its wickedness. The Wardens dress in white robes and oppose all efforts to prepare for a possible collision, insisting that only prayer and repentance will save humanity.
By the morning the comet is due, millions have already fled the LA basin for the hills and deserts. With a collision deemed ever more likely, the last hold-outs run for the hills, jamming the freeways.
In a final spectacular demonstration, the white robed Comet Wardens chain themselves across a major traffic artery, snarling traffic for miles and trapping the panic stricken hordes in the city.
The comet actually hits, dropping a huge asteroid into the ocean just off LA. It is clearly visible from the city, God's own tsunami is headed their way and thousands cannot escape.
The Comet Wardens have thrown away the keys to their chains, there is no time or equipment to cut the chains and open the highway, and the police have fled.
Thousands of would-be refugees realize that they are doomed and that they could have gotten away if not for the Comet Wardens, now helpless in their long chains as the vengeful mob pounces. They have about half an hour before the tsunami hits.
-----------------------------------------------
One of the intriguing things about Lucifer's Hammer is that it was written before the "Dinosaur Killer" asteroid hypothesis had been published, but correctly postulated many of the effects.
#4
While the 11 year sunspot cycle is talked about as if it were a fixed cycle, it's not. People are waiting for the minimum, with estimates varying between, we are there already to as much as 18 months away.
It seems the longer we wait for the minimum, the fewer the sunspots we get in the next cycle, and the fewer the sunspots, the colder the climate.
Combined with other factors pointing to a cooler climate, I expect a marked cooling over the next few years.
Just go buy a new SUV, turn up your electric heat, and build a new coal-fired power plant or two, and we can drive away global cooling just as fast as we can head off global warming.
Waitaminute...Am I on to something here?
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/21/2007 6:27 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Combined with other factors pointing to a cooler climate, I expect a marked cooling over the next few years.
All of which proves that Al Gore saved us just in time!
/sarc
Posted by: Natural Law ||
06/21/2007 7:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I think his most relevant claim is that climate study is fantastically complex and still in it's infancy. That's not near as fun as doomsaying though.
#12
One of the intriguing things about Lucifer's Hammer is that it was written before the "Dinosaur Killer" asteroid hypothesis had been published, but correctly postulated many of the effects. At the meeting IIRC where they introduced their paper on the dinosaur extinction Alverez the elder Said "the dinosaurs where killed by Lucifer's Hammer"
#14
My belief is that the earth goes from Ice Age to Ice Age, with human activity having little or nothing to do with it. Hence at some point we will reach some threshold at which global cooling will start. However, immanent-peril propaganda could win elections in the current climate of cynicism with government and academia. People don't want scientific explanations; they want blame-pointing dogma.
#16
This is why the big push NOW for global warming controls on people (especially the US). That way when the inevitable cooling comes these Marxist thugs will say "See, we NEED people like us running things" and cement their power.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
06/21/2007 21:13 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I remember thinking as a youngster that if the dinosaurs lived in a tropical type of climate for millions of yrs and then were wiped out by an asteroid and the subsequent ice age that followed; would it not suffice that warmer temps were actually the norm until recent times?
#18
The dinosaurs were already declining when that asteroid hit, Broadhead6. (How are you? It's been a while since you last dropped by -- we've noticed!) The climate had cooled down somewhat, and the plant life had evolved in interesting new ways -- I think flowers for reproduction and grasses rapidly colonizing the sunny spaces -- so there was considerably less of what the dinosaurs liked to eat, and a lot harder to get going in the morning. ;-) Grasses are really difficult to digest and are rather nutrient-poor, as I understand it, which is why ruminents chew their cud.
Loved this entry at Tim Blairs site, but of course I love them all. Hes discussing a play called Osama, My Hero, which is a brave piece of dissent that forces us to confront our preconceptions. Or would, if anyone in the audience didnt already share the authors preconceptions about other peoples preconceptions.
The play is described as provocative. Naturally. There's no finer word in the modern artists lexicon. Thats the role of art: to resist the affirmation of societal confidence, because it leads to things like war and big cars and bigger houses in cul-del-sac burbs where pot-bellied yobs have an entire room for their NASCAR cap collection. This cannot stand; the center must not hold. That rough beast isnt going to birth itself, you know; we have to rip it out, saddle it up and ride all the way to Bethelem so we can get on with whatever comes next. And whatever it might be it has to be better than this, because THIS is television-as-anesthesia, food packed in tinfoil, guns in all the wrong hands (citizens and soliders, neither of whom can be trusted) and a general willful refusal of everyone else to understand that this is possibly the nadir of human civilization right here, and if theyd stop enjoying their life for one single second for a change, theyd realize it. Over here, look at us! We are provoking you! Come and give us a grant, or we shall be forced to provoke you again with a play in which the Pope wears a suit made out of wet fresh placentas and goose-steps around the stage singing Lili Marlene!
As Blair notes, a play that makes fun of the other side would be provocative, but it would never enter their minds to do a play about a kid whos head gets lopped off because he declares Salman Rushdie his hero. On some level they realize that the backlash would be dangerous, but theyve laid a nice thick moist layer of rationalization over the worries: the nutters may be nuttery, but the people who oppose them are doing so for the wrong reasons, and thats the real threat. Its a long way from Our Town and Ah, Wilderness. And well it should be, because Our Town was built on a toxic waste dump and the wilderness was cut down to print TV Guides and Wall Street Journals, man.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/21/2007 07:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Since when is Provocative a synonym for Dhimmitude?
#2
My favorite part of the whole play is the scene where ramshackle boats full of desperate, starving people set out from San Diego harbor. In a last ditch effort to make it out to the shipping lanes in hope of being picked up by a North Korean warship, their tale of hope and desperation gives solace to my weary soul.
#4
"Provocative" serves in the art world for what "new interpretation" does in the culinary sphere. A vast majority of the time it consists of being different for difference's sake. No innovative genius or dedication to creativity need apply. Just a casual uprooting of traditional normatives in the name of shock jock quality sensationalism.
Examine the populatrity of gangsta rap if you have any doubts. Notice how "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp" won an Academy Award? Obscenity and offensiveness have been elevated in place of excellence and craftsmanship. Repetition substitutes for depth and monotone for expression.
How much of a leap is it to then begin extolling vicious murderers and criminal thugs as role models? Our politicians have abandoned all pretense at leadership whilst corporate icons publicly praise greed and lavish upon themselves in orgies of conspicuous consumption.
This is a direct byproduct of moral relativism and represents the continuing triumph of style over substance. Only when this crop of millionaire dilettantes finds their veneer of sophistry has cracked and peeled in the sunlight of reality will their followers begin to realize that substancelike quality and reliabilityhas no substitute.
#5
As soon as al-Jazeera became sufficiently brave to cheer on Taliban/al-Qaeda during the Afghanistan intervention, Muslim co-workers told me in unison: "we are with Osama; he is the only one who is doing anything for Muslims." Nobody should be denying mass support for Islamic terror. Muslims who are not in al-Qaeda's frontlines, form the rear guard. And the rear guard is still polluting the free world. Denial is our public addiction.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Read the sunspots - The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
