Originally I was doing my own research on a long standing health problem unresolved by more than a dozen doctors and I met a University of Washington Physics professor who had problems of his own, not entirely disassociated from mine. We exchanged phone numbers and as he didn't have much time for personal research we were soon having long conversations based on the information I was finding. After a year or so he decided we should write a book, I would do the research, he would read it, put the information in order in his head, dictate it, and then a mutual friend would write the book from his dictation.
The problem was that I was developing a list of references that I could not find in the libraries in the Seattle area. Then, by way of an experiment (at the suggestion of a friend) I spent a summer in Eastern Washington where the humidity was low, not high as in Seattle. I did feel somewhat better there but there were just two small hospital libraries. Needing a more comprehensive medical library and other considerations I moved to Denver where I added to my list of unfound references. From there I tried a camping trip to Arizona and as I liked the very low humidity better bought a travel trailer so I could move with the change of season and visit more libraries.
While wintering in the Phoenix area I found one of the references I'd been looking for at the Arizona State University Science Library. What I discovered was the information I had been looking for had been ignored for decades and was not wanted in the present, thus I needed to start over and find just how much had been ignored, and it was clear by then that high humidity climate was at least aggravating my symptoms and must be an additional subject of my research.
The cost of long distance phone calls left me out of regular communication with my PhD friend but when I called him again his health was very clearly past repair so I started writing as best as I could (as certainly no one else was going to do it) and by this time I had so much information on climate it needed a volume of its own. This is not it.
The Evil Empire's wheat crop failed in 1972 and immediately the speculation was the world was headed for it's next ice age. Should the US sell wheat to them? That was the big political question and it was finally decided the US farmers could sell to them, but only so much. Actually the US Government lied to its people and sold three times the amount agreed on, causing some to wonder who the Evil Empire really was. So: after there had been so much noise about an approaching ice age I was quite astonished when crazy people started talking about Global Warming only a decade later.
When I was in the forth grade I had to walk two miles down a dirt road to catch the school bus. During that winter, more often than not, the puddles of water in that road were frozen. Watching the weather report on TV, the station 60 miles away in Seattle, they usually indicated the temperature was going to be above freezing so I asked my step-mother why the temperature was so much higher in Seattle. She explained it was because the cement and asphalt helped retain the day's heat into the night and especially that the houses leaked out their heat through the windows and pretty much everywhere. This was a concept I was able to easily grasp as I almost daily had to cut wood for our heating and cooking stoves, which did not keep the house warm until morning. So decades later when I heard the media saying the AVERAGE temperature was rising I knew someone was including city temperatures and thus boosting the "average", that's not science that's fraud, city temperatures do not effect temperatures across the Great Plains or in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. I naively thought the National Science Foundation was supposed to prevent such fraud. But not, apparently, when they themselves helped initiate it and give out grants to sustain it. Who got elected by selling this insanity? Who has made the most money off of it? Perhaps some congressman who was on the Energy & Commerce and Science & Technology committees back when this fraud started? I wonder who that could have been?
Introduction {Originally Composed in 2002}
AS mentioned, while researching the history of the atmosphere for the third volume of a book in progress, its ultimate objective a proper explanation of the importance of respiration, it became quite clear that there was not the remotest possibility that the warmer climates of past geological ages were consequent to the greater amounts of carbon dioxide then in the atmosphere.[1-4] Then, after more than four years of listening to and reading how industrial carbon dioxide emissions were warming the earth, and realizing how distant in time would be the printing of my third volume, I decided, given I’d already covered the subject in my book and had most of the references on hand, to write a paper exposing the fraud of “greenhouse” induced “global warming” and submit it to the Journal Science. But after a first draft I returned to the task of adding the references to the first volume of my book. Six months later after returning to the project I realized how many of Science’s papers failed to represent reliable science. I then considered the Journal Nature but found I’d already, in spite of my attempt to be as brief as possible, exceeded the editor’s size limitations.
I’m supposed, then, to refute more then one hundred years of incompetence and another thirty of intentional misrepresentation within a confined space? Of course I could easily fit the required information into much less space. Actually I should simply be able to recommend the reading of Arrhenius’ original 1896 paper and anyone reading it competent to have an opinion should quickly conclude how ludicrous is the notion of carbon dioxide induced global warming; but in doing so I would lose the opportunity of describing the collection of mistakes necessary to suppose such a minute amount of carbon dioxide could actually cause Global Warming.
But space in Nature I realized, while I was reading their requirements, was not the real problem; it was, rather, the alterations of content necessary to get the approval of various referees supposed by the editors of it, or Science, to be competent to evaluate the particular subject. This group (the "referees"), it became obvious, were/are basically committed to a thought process calculated to sustain the threat of global warming so they might continue to obtain grants (primarily from the government) to study the subject. The journals’ process of peer review, then, given the reviewers are biased, inhibits the distribution of ideas that might change the direction of current investigation (i.e., shift funding away from current and hopeful recipients).
Also: in the effort to present as clear as possible an explanation convincing enough to refute the massive media misinformation, there was the problem of finding acceptable references for the two journals mentioned, they having such a fine opinion of themselves and poor opinion of non-peer reviewed sources (they intend maintaining control). Worst of all the current editors of these journals seem to have no idea whatsoever that their journals have published findings in the past that make the basic premise of carbon dioxide induced global warming impossible!
Specifically, then, these journals (editors actually), depending on peer review, are the problem not the solution. The only alternative this leaves me is to circumvent this censorship process, expand my paper, and publish my findings on the Internet; which is not such a bad thing as it removes the strict citation restraints I was originally under and allows the inclusion of a few articles (very few) relative to the subject written by genuinely interested and unbiased (although generally misled) writers.
The two greatest frauds promoted and sustained by the media during the 1980s and 1990s have been that a large asteroid crashed into the earth and killed the dinosaurs, and that increased industrial emissions of carbon dioxide are causing global warming. Officer and Page in their The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy [5] fairly convincingly refute the unsupportable asteroid extinction hallucination (which the media, predictably, still enthusiastically sustains), but then with the actual cause of a mass extinction implied in their book they wander off to suppose large continental volcanic events killed the dinosaurs with poisonous emissions. Although they end their book with a well-deserved critique of bad science, and are appropriately critical of the journals Science and Nature for their contributions, they have themselves been taken in by bad science: the supposed carbon dioxide induced greenhouse warming promoted by those very journals. How they managed to miss the actual cause of the dinosaur’s demise is beyond comprehending; the only clue one can find is that the overwhelming majority of their book is devoted to refuting the asteroid extinction, their counter explanation of extinction, then, with little thought, ends up being equally as ridiculous and as poorly conceived as the asteroid impact supposition. Actually the best way to refute the supposed asteroid catastrophe would have been to simply ignore it and present a proper explanation of what actually caused the dinosaur’s demise, as I intend to present here.
Understand, because of the above mentioned processes of peer review, many of the papers I cite represent, overall, very poor science, but at the same time most contain a thought or fact that is correct and contributes something to the ultimate mosaic that must be assembled to agree with the physical requirements of earth’s past, present, and future. I use here only a few references that actually indicate the real cause of extinction, but even they tend to be polluted by the supposed effect of carbon dioxide. One last comment about the danger of peer review for anyone who thinks science works best as a democracy, an example from the second volume of my book: in 1616 when William Harvey (1578-1657) first explained the full circulation of the blood in his book De Motu Cordis he was thought by all his “peers” to have lost his mind and his reputation and medical practice suffered greatly for his view, regardless of the fact he was physician to the King of England.[6] If peer review controlled science completely we’d still be living in the Dark Ages.
Carbon Dioxide?
We are told that a very small increase in carbon dioxide, supposed to be about .01%,[7,8] put into our atmosphere this past century by our growing world industrialization is contributing to global warming,[9,10] that slightly more, a doubling of our present amount (from about .04 to .08%), will warm the world from 1.5º to 4.5º C. [11] But is the world really growing warmer? and is such a small amount of carbon dioxide really as effective as claimed? [3, 11-13] After all the greater part of the warming occurred before 1940, [8] before the “greenhouse” gas emissions were so greatly increased, [7] and then between 1940 and 1973 the temperature actually dropped about 2.7° F. [14] So for one third of those one hundred years the temperature was clearly not being driven up by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide, as, supposedly, it should have been. [15]
So, first: Where are they getting their temperatures? We, all of us, have seen for decades each winter on the evening weather report, that the nighttime city temperatures are warmer than the outlying areas. This is now called the urban heat island effect, the heat absorbed from the sun during the day by asphalt, brick, and cement, the heat produced by automobiles, and the heat escaping from houses and industry, is released day and night warming the city’s atmosphere [7,9,16,17] as much as 4.0º F during the summer and 2.0º F during winter. [18] City temperatures, then, which obviously must rise as the cities grow, should not be used as input in establishing an average global temperature. But they have been used regardless of their warming bias (actually because of it) [9,16] so the objective thinker must doubt the honesty of those claiming increased temperatures, especially when Arctic temperatures, where there are no big cities, actually decreased during autumn and winter between 1953 and 1993. [18]
And then what is the earth warming from? Who established the baseline temperature and when? Apparently, as the complaint seems to be a warming occurring over the last 100 years, [9,16,20] the baseline year must have been about 1890. But in fact the “Little Ice Age” has been noticed as lasting from the 15th century through about 1850 [18] or 1900, [21,22] so if there is a warming trend over the last century shouldn’t it more reasonably represent the natural rebound from that period of cooler temperatures? [16] The temperature of our atmosphere, after all, was never established for the convenience of mankind, [23] or anything else as witness the myriad of extinct species. [24-29] If the criteria are to be taken from shorter intervals of time, and during the early 1970’s we were said to be on the brink of the next Ice Age, [7,14,18,21,30,31,32] (and actually still are [27,33]) should not that 33 years between 1940 and 1973 be considered a period of natural variation? [8] In a rational world, given the evidence of past temperatures, [1,24, 27,31,34-37] it would. If the period is to be longer, then any real temperature fluctuation must be of natural occurrence and not a result of human activities. [36] In fact more than 75% of the claimed increase in temperature over the last century can be attributed to the length of the sunspot cycles [7,38] and the Maunder minimum, a 70 year period with almost no sunspots, is a good example as it corresponds with the coldest portion of the Little Ice Age. [39,40]
***
They like to show on television aerial views of the receding Greenland glaciers as proof that Carbon dioxide is causing global warming. In fact the amount of sea ice around Iceland has been noticed to increase and decrease since the year 1750 in accordance with the solar cycle.[41] But actually there is second and probably more important reason why these glaciers should be melting, if a Musk Ox could talk they could explain it.
***
First: who is it that predicts a carbon dioxide induced global warming? What is their authority for so bizarre a notion? Who do we challenge to show us a credible proof? The answer of course is no one. The predictions come from simulations, computer models. Not models with all related data added but rather models using the simplest data so they will produce quick inexpensive results, [9, 16,17,42] or more lately slightly more complex models, still parameterized [17,20,42,43] of course, but using “data” simulated from other computer models [20] (compounding, of course, their errors). The models, then, are known to be deficient so when one does not provide the results wanted they tinker with it [13] or tune it [43] until it does. There is a major clue to the problem in that it is complained that such models are overly sensitive. [7,9]
And second: How did carbon dioxide acquire so impressive a reputation for retaining heat? That’s the more important question as its answer avoids completely the faulty and unreliable temperature data that they have been using to try to prove or disprove a rise in temperature during the twentieth century.
In 1850 Hunt noticed that both higher temperatures and a greater amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide existed during earth’s warmer geological periods. [1] In 1861 Tyndall found by experiment that carbon dioxide (a compound gas) was about one hundred fifty times more effective than oxygen or nitrogen (elementary gases) at retaining radiant heat. [2] But it is now the 1896 mathematical exercise [44] of Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) regarding global cooling, and by reversal warming, that seems to represent the final authority. [9,10,15,45] Based on the findings of Tyndall and others Arrhenius began by awarding to carbon dioxide the principle regulation of earth’s geological climate (his most fundamental error).
He then calculated, using as an example of warm climate the Tertiary, an age when it was thought the arctic temperatures were 8° or 9° C warmer than present, and that that temperature could be produced by an increase of from 2.5 to 3 times the amount of carbon dioxide in our present atmosphere. His objective figure, then, was that a loss of about half the atmospheric carbon dioxide in our atmosphere would cause another Ice Age. (I’m not sure what time frame Arrhenius thought he alluded to in 1896 as these geological periods have had something of a tendency to change, but in 1994 the Tertiary period covered five Epochs ranging from 65 to 5 million years ago, and the temperatures fluctuated radically during the last 32 million years of that period. So by today’s divisions the tertiary is an absurd example. However for simplicity I’m going to take Arrhenius to mean the first two Epochs of the Tertiary, the Paleocene and Eocene, which do appear to represent approximately 28 million years of remarkably consistent warm temperatures. [35])
But the hot subject now is warming and as they measure it the carbon dioxide level has risen by 50% (or 40% [7]) over the last century, however the temperature has not risen so much as they had projected. [8,11,15] But that should not be a surprise, in 1895 Phipson noted the level, “by the most careful determinations” over the preceding fifty years to have decreased from 0.05 to 0.03 percent, [46] which earlier figure we are currently much less than [7,8,10] and there was certainly no great heat wave around 1845, in fact we were then still in the final decades of the Little Ice Age!
But of course a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling of the carbon dioxide level really does not retain so much heat as they contend. Schaefer’s experiments in 1905 found Arrhenius’ conclusions impossible, he found that a layer of pure carbon dioxide 40 cm. thick produced very nearly maximum absorption and that “...even multiplying by several fold the present amount of carbon dioxide ... would leave the absorption of solar radiation practically unchanged...” [47] In Humphreys 1940 Physics of the Air he cites the experiments of Schaefer (1905), Angstrom (1908) and Bahr (1909) and states “According to these experiments, if a given column or quantity of carbon dioxide at a pressure of 50 mm. absorbs 20 per cent of the incident selective radiation, then, at 100 mm. it will absorb 25 per cent, at 200 mm. 30 per cent, at 400 mm. 35 per cent and at 800 mm. about 38.5 per cent.” So: as is obvious, absorption is not uniformly additive on increase but progressively declines in ratio of effect with increase! He also notes that the current amount in the atmosphere (at room temperature and pressure) would be the equivalent of a pure column of CO2 250cm, or 2500mm/98.5 inches high. Thus a “...doubling or halving the amount of carbon dioxide now in the atmosphere ... would not appreciably affect the total amount of radiation actually absorbed by it...”, and he is specific that this adsorption is from heat radiating from the earth “its absorption of solar radiation is very nearly negligible” [48] This fact known for more than four decades by NASA scientists!
It is not surprising then, starting with an impossible premise, and being so distracted with mathematical minutiae, explaining this and that, that Arrhenius sustained his supposition through a succession of catastrophic mistakes.
First: Now although water vapor was considered to be as effective as carbon dioxide in trapping heat, [3,49,50] and this fact is reasonably well known, [9,51] it was, because there was little water vapor at high altitude, considered by Arrhenius to be incons- equential; so he deliberately disregarded its effect. But why was there no water vapor at high altitude? The answer should have been obvious, cold air holds less water vapor than warm air. [8] So the reason there is no water vapor at high altitude is because carbon dioxide is no more competent than nonexistent water vapor at warming the air at high altitude. In fact “The sun’s heat is effective in heating the air mainly from below, where it is in contact with the earth…” [52] That is: carbon dioxide functions only through the absorption of the heat radiated back from the warmed surface of the earth [2,3] and this effect decreases with increasing altitude. But at ground level (where we measure the temperature!) Arrhenius’ omission of water vapor’s effect is catastrophic to a correct result because water vapor is actually overwhelmingly superior to carbon dioxide in its absorptive power [8,12,43] and when high leaves little radiation left for carbon dioxide to absorb. [48] Sequential to this error is the reverse, that warmer air holds more water vapor than cooler air [8] so he’s not just neglected the effect of water vapor in our current cool Interglacial climate [24,27,31,33,53,54] but also the much greater degree of effect during the humid Tertiary period [55] that he’s chosen to represent the warm age example (and there is a further and hopefully obvious point in this that will be discussed later).
Second: As Tyndall had found carbon dioxide to be 150 times more effective than oxygen or nitrogen at retaining radiant heat, [2] Arrhenius, apparently deciding them insignificant in comparison, entirely neglected their contributions in his calculations. But ineffective as they may be in a one on one comparison they more than make it up by their 99+% share of the atmosphere; [2,15] carbon dioxide contributes only 150 times .04% (=6%), nitrogen, oxygen and water vapor comprise the remaining 94% (and its the water vapor that's big dog on the block).
The problem with Arrhenius’ calculations are that even modest contributions to atmospheric warming (and I do not mean to imply he’s ignored just modest contributions) cannot be ignored because the amount of heat required to effect his example Tertiary climate was/is specific, a specific amount of heat was required (at least under his assumed conditions), therefore ignoring any source, or sources, by default, adds their heat to carbon dioxide’s supposed effect, which is the main reason why the computer models are overly sensitive.
Third: (a condition) Perhaps Arrhenius imagined the amounts of oxygen and nitrogen constant through time and therefore inconsequential to his result, but Paul Bert, a leading physiologist during the later 1800’s, and he was not the first [1,56-58] nor last to express this opinion, [55,59-61] thought that the greater heat of past ages was simply consequent to the greater density of the atmosphere during those times. [62] For example: the equatorial climate ranges from snow topped mountains with glaciers, such as Kenya and Kilimanjaro, to the very uncomfortable heat of the low-lands, the primary difference simply being the variation in altitude, that is: the density of the atmosphere. [24] This is nicely exemplified by comparing the harsh steppe climate of the massive Tibetan Plateau where the average altitude exceeds 4.5 kilometers [54] to the warm Mediterranean (or Arizona desert) located directly west within the same 10 degrees of latitude. The prevailing scientific thought at the time, however, was that a planet’s atmospheric density was determined by its gravity (which is undoubtedly true for small planets but not those near the size of the earth) and therefore it could never have been of significantly greater density than it now is. [55] And it is interesting to notice that the logic behind this grossly faulty notion is reinforced by Arrhenius’ fault riddled paper. [55]
The proof of the error of gravity limited density, which, irrationally, still seems to prevail, is that Venus, a planet with less gravity than Earth’s, has an atmospheric pressure roughly 100 times greater than Earth’s. [63] Venus, in fact, its atmosphere being almost pure carbon dioxide and having a temperature of about 500º.C, is presented to us as an example of greenhouse warming; [9,64] never minding its high temperature is also assisted by twice as much solar radiation as the earth receives. [65] Venus’ deadly temperature, however, is not about carbon dioxide, it is about pressure. [48] Were Earth’s atmosphere composed only of oxygen and nitrogen, containing no carbon dioxide at all, increased in density 100 times, it also would be too hot for the survival of human life and so be equally as deadly as Venus’. This is demonstrated in a very small way each summer in the U.S. by the highest daily temperature which is most often in Death Valley at 282 feet below sea level. However, the media, wanting to provide some variety in their weather reports usually omit this location.
The denser the atmosphere the greater the heat [66] as those summer visitors to the bottom of the Grand Canyon discover after descending from the comfortable canyon rim down 5,000 feet into the hot canyon. In fact it has been estimated that if we could construct a mine shaft 45 miles deep the air at the bottom would be as dense as mercury; [67] I believe, however, this disregards the fact that geothermal heat at that depth would be more than sufficient to melt iron [68] and would therefore cause the air to expand and considerably reduce its density.
***
Fourth and most important: Arrhenius irrationally conditioned “...that the heat that is conducted from the interior of the earth to its surface may be wholly neglected.” [3] which was obviously a faulty decision as it was long known that no matter how cold it gets one could still dig a hole in the ground to a modest depth and encounter water sustained in a liquid state by the central heat of the earth, [69] and the deeper one penetrates into the earth, such as in mines, the hotter it gets: [66,70-73] as Sir John Herschel (1792-1871) described it in a letter to Lyell: in “a frightfully rapid progression”. [71]
***
In 1851 MaCadam noted geologists had figured mathematically the temperature at the center of the earth, based on the rate of increase of heat descending in mines, should not be “less than 450,000˚ F”. [73] But it does not increase so progressively as the current techniques estimate it considerably less than that at 6,600˚ C (only 11,912˚ F). Now although that’s considerably less it is still hotter than the surface of the sun. [74] Actually MaCadam seems to have had a more conservative idea of the temperature progression as he’d observed the earth is a sphere who’s outer shell acts as an immense concave mirror reflecting heat back toward the interior, [73] it would, then, one should think, tend to produce a better uniformity of heat in the mantle; that is layer by layer as the earth is thought to be to be comprised of various shells. [75]
Arrhenius was just one of an en masse shift away from what had been a universally accepted [24] central heating of the earth [60,70,72,73] after the discovery that the earth had sustained a succession of Ice Ages; [27,50] ice ages supposed incompatible with a cooling earth, [24,60,61,70,72] never minding the existence of numerous volcanoes or subterranean heat. [70] In 1825 Scrope attempted to make the point that the internal heat (volcanic activities) that was involved in the formation of the Earth’s surface was “still in operation” but with diminished energy and we were simply in a quiescent interval between more active periods because that was the nature of volcanism, which is rather obvious if one considers the intermittent nature of volcanic activity. [70] But the opinions expressed in the older literature, as I try to point out here, have a tendency to be ignored, no matter how obviously irrefutable or how famous their author.
It is difficult to comprehend how central heat could have been abandoned after the publication of Sir John Herschel’s above mentioned letter to Lyell (Sir Charles, 1797-1875) concerning submarine volcanic activity [68,72,76] wherein he described what is now called the Pacific Ring of Fire; [77] noted that heat was transferred into the oceans from below; [71] and the fact that even in 1829 there were thought to be 200 active and considerably more extinct volcanoes, [70] both comprising the “Numerous volcanic islands scattered over the globe” [78] (most ocean islands being the remains of volcanoes [79]). And one must wonder how Arrhenius could miss so obvious a fact that the 71% of the earth’s surface hidden under the oceans must have volcanoes warming those oceans. The oceans could not, after all, have been so cold as now while Earth’s most northern and southern landmasses were enjoying his exemplary warm Tertiary temperatures!
In searching for some kind of logic for science’s irrational abandonment of the central heat of the earth I can find none other than the supposition that the earth should have cooled perfectly sequentially. That not having happened the brains of all those people who used so many illegal drugs in the 1960s (and their brain damaged offspring) naturally accept the mystic notion that a minute amount of carbon dioxide (an invisible gas/spirit) caused the warming of past geological ages and so must now threaten a planetary disaster of biblical proportions, their minds permanently anesthetized (damaged) to the existence of the inexhaustible internal heat of the earth necessary to produce so many volcanoes over so great a period of time. This invisible spirit is now used as the basis of a new religion but through the 1900's a threat easily disproved by a rather simple and inexpensive physical test, no formula necessary (which of course the National Science Foundation will not fund).
There is a severe flaw of thinking pervasive in science favoring the philosophy called “Occam’s razor”, “the principle that if there are several equally valid possible explanations, the simplest is the one to go for” [80] and it is used regularly because it is easier than deductive reasoning. But William of Occam, contrary to common usage, was not the village idiot; he was an intelligent man in his time and I’m certain did not exclude the possibility of multiple causes to an effect when specific contributors could not reasonably be excluded.
There is a severe flaw of thinking pervasive in science favoring the philosophy called “Occam’s razor”, “the principle that if there are several equally valid possible explanations, the simplest is the one to go for” [80] and it is used regularly because it is easier than deductive reasoning. But William of Occam, contrary to common usage, was not the village idiot; he was an intelligent man in his time and I’m certain did not exclude the possibility of multiple causes to an effect when specific contributors could not reasonably be excluded.
An analogy: if we go back several hundred years to his time: a horse pulling a wagon, the wagon gets stuck in the mud. Why? The simplest explanation so far evident is the mud caused the wagon to get stuck. But anyone looking at the horse, wagon, and situation, can see the horse is badly undernourished and is severely distressed after pulling an overloaded wagon up a long hill. The simplest explanation, then, is that the horse’s owner has abused it to the point where it could not continue to pull the wagon through the additional resistance of the mud. My point is that to reach a valid conclusion all the facts need to be considered; and our current global warming “investigators” purposefully ignore those long known facts that would show their results to be bogus.
Now if we gave William of Occam the choice between hundreds of massive volcanoes scattered about the continents along with the thousands beneath the oceans, some even extending thousands of feet above the ocean’s surfaces (obviously representing a long continued escape of the central heat of the earth), or an invisible and very rare spirit emitted from those volcanoes, as Earth’s geological climatic controlling factor, which would he choose? when this rare spirit fails even in retaining a comfortable amount of the day’s heat halfway through the night? It becomes obvious then, neither Arrhenius nor any of his fellow defectors followed any kind of reasoning before abandoning the central heat of the earth, even though it was and is, and always will, be the only reasonable choice.
Of course now we know heat from the mantle accumulates under insulating continents, [74,81,82] especially supercontinents, [81,83] uplifting them and eventually rifting them apart, [81,84-87] we know about sea-floor spreading, [84,88] subduction zones [54,84, 89,90] and continental drift; [83,84] seventy thousand miles [91] of potential and active hydrothermal vents on the sea-floor producing jets of water (even in a climate cool enough to sustain ice caps [92]) as hot as 350 and 400° C, [91,93-96] (hot enough to melt lead [95]), and all of it much more active during the Cretaceous period. [53,97-100] And how active was it? The surface of the earth is made up of more than a dozen plates. [83,84,86] The thicker continental plates, [84] act as bumpers, resistant objects, than the thinner oceanic plates, [81] their oldest [81] therefore coolest [80, 81,84] and heavier [81,84] outer edges slide under [54] (subduct, actually they can also subduct under one another; in such a case they tend to create a deep ocean trench as the subducting plate drags down the edge of the adjacent plate [84,90]), but during the Cretaceous the increased upwelling of heat from the interior [53,82,86-88,101-103] seemed to have helped facilitate the sliding of the plates. [104]
Actually Herschel had the system within his grasp if he’d had time to follow his thought when he concluded [105] the heat under the oceans, needing to rise, must lift up the seafloor and “crack” it, [76] this causing a reduction in pressure and decompression melting [71,74,87] which fills the fracture with molten basalt that in turn solidifies from the cooling effect of the ocean’s waters (well he almost had it, he was not satisfied with the extent of Scrope’s explanation of decompression melting [71]). And the process must repeat itself so long as the underlying pressure from the heat is great enough to cause fracture. Thus the adjacent plates, whose dense, heavy far ends have subducted down to a depth of several hundred kilometers [80,89,90] are at the same time being uplifted by the heat at the fracture zone (mid-ocean ridge [82,88]), and must tend, then, simply by the force of gravity, [84] to move apart (the fracture zone is now also called a spreading center [83]). This process of seafloor spreading and its pace increased radically during the Cretaceous period [53,74,82,97,102,106] causing the continents to “drift.” [81,83]
During the Cretaceous the rifted continents drifted thousands of kilometers. [80,84,88] Appropriately to that movement “The second Law of Thermo-dynamics decrees that no activity can take place without the expenditure of heat…” [18] but in this case it is the escaping heat of the earth’s interior that moved the continents. And where then must the heat go as the new seafloor cooled? obviously upward into the oceans. [106]
Actually the terminology suggesting “drifting” continents is inconsistent with the fact that the sub-continent of India was pushed so hard into southern Asia that its collision and resulting crumpling effect caused it to uplift the Himalayan Mountains and the massive Tibetan Plateau. [54,81,84]
But it would be a mistake to suppose seafloor spreading was the most effective contributor to the Cretaceous heat. [53] Submarine flood basalt events (what Herschel likely envisioned when he described the globe as swelling “into froth at its surface” [72,76]) as exemplified by the Louisville hotspot in the South Pacific when it formed the Ontong-Java Plateau at the beginning of the Cretaceous, [107] should have had a greater effect. [53] It, the largest still intact of several known from the period, is estimated to cover an area two-thirds the size of Australia; [103] measure 35 kilometers top to bottom, and have a volume of at least 51-55 million cubic kilometers, [100] a volume estimated to have raised the world sea level by about 10 meters. [103]
There have been a number of what are called volcanic hot-spots [86,88,103,108] Kilauea, the volcanic cone that formed the island of Hawaii, formed also, as the Pacific plate moved northwest across its location, the Hawaiian chain of islands and underwater seamounts. Previous to that, when the plate was moving in a northern direction (or so it now appears) it formed the chain of Emperor Seamounts now extending as far north as the Aleutian Islands. [86] Active for more than 65 million years [109] and still located over a hotter than normal mantle [110] it certainly deserves the designation of hot spot, but its ejected material certainly does not compare, heat wise, with the Louisville hot spot’s formation of the Ontong-Java Plateau in the far shorter period of less than three million years. [103]
Now if Ontong-Java sounds big one should consider that it is thought that some good portion of the plateau may have been sub-ducted [104,107] and four other close neighboring flood basalt plateaus, roughly together equaling the area of Ontong-Java, may be a result of the same event. [111] Be that as it may, given the current configuration of the southern oceans, the Kergualen and the Broken Ridge Plateaus in the Indian Ocean were originally a single plateau (from the Amsterdam plume) that covered an area larger than the existing Ontong-Java and were also formed during the Cretaceous [111,112] which included twenty million years [102] of the warmest climate in the last 500 million years. [35,104,113] The Kergualen and the Broken Ridge flood, however, took place after leaving a flood basalt deposit (Rajmahal Traps) on the sub-continent of India; [98,108] leaving a 5,000 kilometer long chain of submarine volcanoes; and then after building its massive plateau surfaced to form islands. This activity spanned more than 120 million years. [112]
Also: it should be a reasonable certainty that other large plateaus that formed during the Cretaceous have been subducted during the last 140 million years. [99]
However, seafloor spreading and massive plateaus were not the only avenues for the escape of the Earth’s central heat. In 1983 there were 12,000 known seamounts and volcanoes under the Pacific (about 10% of which are still currently active [114]) and it was estimated that there may be as many as three or four times as many yet undiscovered. [114,115] More recently, contributing toward that estimate, they’ve discovered southwest of Easter Island the Foundation Seamounts, a chain of undersea volcanoes 2,000 kilometers in length and standing as high as 4,000 meters above the seafloor. [116] Analysis of the above mentioned 12,000 indicate many small cones formed during the Eocene (37 to 53 million years ago) but that larger cones, fewer but very much larger cones, formed between the Eocene and Jurassic [114,115] (which includes the Cretaceous). There were, then, three very effective and active avenues for the escape of the internal heat of the earth into the oceans during the Cretaceous period. Given this correlation between submarine volcano size and the temperature of the oceans and atmosphere it seems most probable the seafloor of the long since subducted Permo-Carbineforous cold spell (320-250 million years ago, the most sever cold in the last 500 million years [27]) must have shown minimal signs of volcanic activity.
Curiously, however, never mind the floods of basaltic lava were very considerably hotter than any volcanic event seen in human history [117] (the last known was about 17 million years ago [118]) the overwhelming majority of recent literature credits only their output of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for the sustained warming of the Cretaceous [20,27,45,53,64,82,83,103,104,107, 119-122] when reason suggests the surface of an ocean above such plateau’s as Ontong-Java must at times have been boiling, yet supposedly none of these massive Cretaceous plateaus scattered about the oceans’ bottoms nor thousands of submarine volcanoes are evidence of heat being released. [102]
But it should be evident when the temperatures of arctic bottom waters were 14° and 12° C warmer than present during the Cretaceous and Eocene, respectively, [37,123] that none of the estimated percentages of atmospheric carbon dioxide for those times (even should carbon dioxide have had the fantastic heat retaining effect attributed to it) could even begin to effect so great a change of temperature to water so deep and of so massive a volume (on the average the oceans’ waters are four kilometers deep [16]); in fact how could carbon dioxide heat the oceans at all when warmed water expels carbon dioxide, results in evaporative cooling, and increases the water vapor above it which negates the effect of carbon dioxide? [48] Heat!: is what heats the water.
And bear in mind that superheated water (as from hot vents) has a density of less than seven-tenths that of normal seawater [94] so must rise toward the surface [42] (warm water rises according to Lyell’s Principles of Geology, 4th ed., 1835 [71]); there was clearly a heat source adequate for warming the oceans’ waters to the above determined temperatures. What is overwhelmingly ignored by the “experts” as they invoke the climatic influence of volcanism is the generally opposite and very much longer sustained effect of underwater volcanic activity in comparison to atmospheric events. [100,103]
Now, as already mentioned, the deeper one penetrates into the earth the hotter it gets. In 1911 Grew cited calculations that at a depth of 10 miles the temperature (in very poorly heat conductive rock [70,124]) would be 242º F. [66] It is now thought that mantle plumes originate at the core mantle boundary [75,99,103] which is about 2,900 kilometers (1,800 miles) below the surface where the temperature is in the neighborhood of 4,000º C. [98] And it is generally indicated that a plume of super-hot material rises through the mantle until it reaches the surface; [86,98] it is also supposed the mantle distributes heat through the process of convection. [83,103] But given the pressures deep inside the mantle (2 to 4 million pounds per square inch [80]) it seems much more likely that its material remains in place while the heat rises through it [125] (that is certainly the case with the outer core, the plume’s heat source, since it is heavy iron and cannot rise; otherwise our volcanoes should all be made of iron). However, after a large plume reaches and burns through the surface the pressure is released and some of the material contained in the plume is thought to rise up from a depth of more than 650 kilometers to flood the surface. [103] So whatever the surrounding temperature at that depth might be, the flood basalts exceed when they gush up to form submarine and continental plateaus.
Given (it was thought) that the largest continental flood basalt events formed the Siberian and Deccan Traps and that both these events occurred roughly about the time of mass extinctions, it is a favored notion their emissions caused the extinctions. [5,97,98, 103,117,126-132] But in fact the Deccan Traps, for instance, erupted only once every 1,000 to 5,000 years [129] and so were only very minor events when compared to the underwater plateau construction taking place during the Cretaceous (and there were no known extinctions associated with the formation of the 25 times larger Ontong-Java Plateau [103,107,131]), on the contrary, instead the increased availability of heat and nutrients from submarine volcanism facilitated biological expansion. [97,100,133,134]
The primary requirement of the Cretaceous is that the polar climate be warmed to approximately subtropical temperatures [123] without significantly raising equatorial temperatures much above their current values. [12,64,135] The computer models, based on Arrhenius wildly extravagant heat retaining ability of carbon dioxide, without first simulating much higher sea surface temperatures for temperate and arctic waters [64] or raising equatorial temperatures excessively (i.e., tinkering) [136] cannot meet the requirement. [64,135,136]
In the mid 1800’s Lyell, rejecting any possibility of central heat after the discovery of the Ice Ages, and unhappy that evidence forced him to accept it in the first place, attempted to explain the past warm polar climate by an improved heat transport of ocean currents and altered continental placement, [137] both of which were greatly altered at that time. However he made the same mistake already alluded to, it takes a specific amount of heat to produce the Cretaceous temperatures. If his ocean currents could have magically transported the required equatorial heat poleward, to affect subtropical polar temperatures, the Tropic’s temperatures would have dropped near freezing. Neither Lyell nor recent investigators with the same notion [138] had enough (solar) heat (within their implied conditions) to produce the temperatures of the Cretaceous. Were solar radiation doubled or tripled it would still not be adequate to heat the bottom waters of the oceans to anywhere even near what they are known to have been during the Cretaceous or Eocene! [37,123]
The only possible way that the required [12,42,64,123,135,136, 139,140] low equator-to-pole temperature gradient could have been accomplished was by volcanic heating, convective [91,93,94, 141,142] and conductive, [88,100,103] of the entire oceans to the temperatures already indicated; [42] but not without assistance. The outgassing associated with Volcanic activity is what sustains our atmosphere; [4,35,63,143-145] as Chamberlin expressed the fairly well accepted view in 1897, it “...has been fed as well as robbed during all the geological ages, its history being a struggle between enrichment and depletion.” and it was to those changes he assigned “…exceptional climatic episodes…” [4] That is: the natural tendency of our atmosphere, additional to loss by oxidation and its carbon dioxide being fixed in the forms of live vegetation, coal, shale and oil, “is to diffuse away into space” and the more rapid was “the rate of loss…when the Earth was hot.” [146]
As I mentioned in the introduction most of the papers I cite contain only bits and pieces of reality. Chamberlin’s admittedly speculative 1897 paper on the cause of climate (ice ages especially) had as its basis the same misconception as Arrhenius’ regarding the heat absorption capabilities of carbon dioxide, and he seemingly independently made most of the same mistakes as Arrhenius. Although his earth is very hot inside his oceans neither absorb nor transfer any heat to the atmosphere nor do they experience any submarine volcanic activity. He, as Arrhenius, has apparently missed reading Herschel’s letter to Lyell printed in Babbage’s book in 1837 [71] and again alluded to in Philosophical Magazine in 1837 [76] and 1838. [68]
***
The evidence of the hot-spot theory is difficult to refute given the existence of the Hawaiian Islands, the Galápogos Islands, Iceland, Tristan Da Cunha, the Ontong-Java-Plateau, etc, [88,103,108] The fact that so many hot-spots were initiated during the Mesozoic period [Triassic (245-208 millions of years ago), Jurassic (208- 144), and Cretaceous (144-65)] (especially the Cretaceous) in turn gives credibility to the idea of superplume episodes, [53,99] i.e., periodic release of heat from the core-mantle boundary, [75,103] which, when you understand the source of the heat makes perfect sense. If then, say, ten superplumes escape the core-mantle boundary at the same time (roughly speaking), each rising at roughly the same rate of speed (geologically speaking), the majority of them will melt through the Earth’s crust as submarine flood basalt events and their heat will be absorbed by the oceans. The minority, on the other hand, will surface on the continents and, the continental plates averaging about twice as thick as oceanic plates, [85,88] it will take those plumes longer to melt their way through. Thus the heat of the last flood basalt event of the episode, which would be continental, instead of being stored in the oceans where it can longer sustain the planet’s more productive climate, is quickly lost to the atmosphere and then space. [15,70,147,148] Gradually the deep ocean waters, deprived of their heat sources, cool, and then the atmosphere must cool as well. The result is an extinction due to a drop in water and air temperature [61,97] and this fits nicely with the decrease in oceanic oxygen found at the End-Permian period. [28]
The amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans is dependent on the partial pressure of atmospheric oxygen, [149] the oxygen itself is dependent on the deoxidization of atmospheric carbon dioxide by plant life [57,150-152] and the plant life is dependent on the atmospheric pressure and carbon dioxide provided by both submarine and surface volcanic activity. After volcanic activity decreases, so also, eventually, must the partial pressure of oxygen. This is demonstrated by the giant dragonflies of the Carboniferous period [153] (360-290 million years ago), their respiration being diffusion-dependent they could not have attained their size without a greater oxygen partial pressure than now exists, which, according to computer modeling, was, and it should be obvious given the greater vegetation of the time that it must have been greater: about 14% greater, than present. And, atypically, recognizing this increased oxygen percentage must produce an increased barometric pressure, Graham and co-authors have calculated it would be 21% greater than present [154] which seems to assume, and it is certainly an unrealistic assumption, that the increased volcanic activity had added no additional nitrogen to the atmosphere. [145,155]
We see a consequence of this decrease in volcanic activity at the hydrothermal vents sites. Although the surrounding water is now only 2° C the hot mineral rich vent waters sustain, for a few hundred meters around them, very unique and apparently very primitive types of life forms. So unique in fact that some representatives have only been found at a few sites, but on opposite sides of the planet. The question then asked, given the usual barren and inhospitable distance between vents, is how did they get from one side of the planet to the other? [134] But the answer, obvious even now from observation of one portion of the superfast-spreading East Pacific Rise where hydrothermal plumes are continuous, [156] is that they have not needed to move any great distance at all, they are simply the still in place survivors from a time when all the plates’ margins were covered with active vent fields; [97,100] when the spreading centers and subduction zones were the home of a unique, world spanning, submarine ecosystem.
Global warming, as implied by past warm geological ages, is not going to be caused by any “greenhouse” effect. The warmed air of greenhouses is due entirely to their preventing the circulation of air [24,146] (which we feel regularly demonstrated as we unlock and open the door of an automobile that’s been sitting in the sun for a few hours). True global warming will be the effect, as it has been before, of superplumes melting their way through oceanic plates to release their flood basalts into the oceans and their associated effects of volcano formation and increased rate of seafloor spreading, [88] and it won’t be so subtle and tame an effect as El Niño which requires the assistance of seasonal change.
Although El Niño’s ultimate source seems to elude investigators, [157-160] (most researchers imagine it to be some mystical interaction between the ocean and atmosphere [157,161]) it is obvious by its beginning location [158] and modest effect to be the activity of an old plume or active spreading center. Its first notice of warmed waters on the equator off the coast of Peru [158,162,163] suggest there must be a submarine hot spot or active spreading center somewhere in the region. [164] And in fact submarine topography shows the Galápagos Hot spot and spreading center to be on the equator directly to the west. [108,165] Nine of the Galápagos’ twenty-one surface volcanoes have been active his-torically. The Galápagos spreading center is now considered to be moving moderately fast [166] and connects further west to the superfast-spreading East Pacific Rise. [155,163] In fact El Niño has been noticed as being consequent to volcanic activity [164,167 ] (but this is being conveniently ignored, once acknowledged there will be no more government grants to investigate it), and as “El Niño is now believed to be the largest single weather influence on the planet.” [162] we can get an idea, in a very trivial way, what the climatic effects might be like during a real episode of global warming.
It is then, obviously, not continental flood basalt events such as the Siberian and Deccan Traps temporarily blocking out the sun’s rays and cooling the planet [29,131,168] causing, respectively, the End-Permian and End Cretaceous extinctions, [5,29,117,127,131, 133,169] but the beginning and end of multiple superplume events; the warming and cooling of the oceans, that caused those extinctions. [170] Just as volcanic activity adds heat to the biosphere and increases biodiversity its absence reduces it. [97,100,171,172] The Pele Hypothesis, the recognition that life depends on volcanic activity, [121,172] then, excepting that it misattributes all heating effects to “greenhouse” gasses rather than super-hot underwater basaltic lavas directly heating the oceans, is correct. The notion of the dinosaur’s extinction by an asteroid strike only works if an asteroid directly hit and killed the last diseased, shivering, starving, and wheezing dinosaur. [29] The dinosaurs died because their environment changed. [61,97,170,173] One of the most obvious examples of that is the demise of the African Spinosaurs, what must have been the Earth’s most perfectly evolved swamp predator; its remains are now found in the sands of the Ténéré Desert (Southern Sahara) [174-176] and by its look it lived on very large fish, or whatever else it wanted to eat.
Fifth, but obviously no less important than the fourth: Arrhenius misses the overwhelming importance of the oceans as the ultimate regulators of climate. [81,100,177] In 1837 Babbage (Charles, 1792-1871, he invented the computer), his account starting before the actual formation of surface waters, described the early process of earth’s cooling. A very hot earth sustains an atmosphere of rising steam, which, at a very high altitude, is precipitated to rain. It then falls back toward the radiant surface where it is again vaporized, but at an altitude above the surface ever decreasing through time as the cyclic process continuously transports heat away from the earth. After long ages puddles of water form on the surface and then lakes and eventually oceans, the radiating power of the surface is then slowed by the water’s absorption of heat. [72]
In 1879 Flammarion noticed the cooling power of water seeping to the depth in the earth where it must boil and so could go no deeper, [60] and although he’s describing a progressive cooling effect where the oceans leak away to nothing he is also anticipating the first half of the convective process of hydrothermal vents, [45,93-95,134,142] internal heat absorbed by the ocean’s waters and transported upward. Given 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with water [116] which, under varying pressures (each 1,000 meters of depth exerts 100 atmospheres of pressure [93]) must penetrate surface crevices and fissures; [178] the earth must continue to cool. [60,61,72,93,178,179]
What has not been well appreciated in the past, except by Scrope, [70] is that the earth cools erratically, the slower it cools the greater the difference between sea-surface temperatures and bottom waters, the faster it cools the more uniform are the ocean temperatures, so the key to understanding the warmer atmospheric temperatures of the past is recognizing the bottom water temperatures of those times. [35,37,42,100,123] As recently was noted but not noticed, “A warm deep ocean implies a warm earth; a cool deep ocean implies a cool earth.” [42] Obviously then when the deep waters are warmer so also are the surfaces [37,82,123] (within the limits of evaporative cooling: “the rapid rate at which evaporation from the ocean surface increases as sea-surface temperature increases [the cooling effect] prevents the surface waters from becoming much warmer than 30° C [85° F]” [148]) and that means a greater rate of evaporation, which is to say, and one condition must inevitably follow the other, a “A cool earth would have a thin vapor blanket, a warm earth a thick one.” [50] (which, if you’ll notice, takes us back to Arrhenius’ first major error). Warm ocean surfaces therefore (especially at high latitudes) produce greater evaporation and a heaver vapor blanket which contribute to an increase of rainfall [54,143] and cloudy skies. [143] This sequence of results is recently demonstrated in a very limited way by the warmed temperatures and very heavy rainfall downwind (to the East) during El Niño events. [148,158,162,163,180] Obviously, then, given the physics of heat, water and air, if Arrhenius was interested in the cause of the ice ages and the Tertiary warm spell the correct place to concentrate his attention was on ocean temperatures.
By the early 1800’s it was recognized that the winds blowing over the oceans cooled their surfaces and were in turn proportionally warmed, and that the cooled waters must then become heavier and sink toward the bottom; [34] the wind then (the atmosphere) is warmed by the oceans, [69] as oppositely it is cooled by high altitude and traversing areas covered by ice and snow. [34,54] A present and impressive example of oceanic heat transport is noticed in the heat carried northward in Atlantic currents [69] (equivalent to about 30% of solar radiation [181]) and released in the North Atlantic thereby allowing the relatively mild winters of Western Europe [16,34,177,181] as compared to the corresponding (at the same latitudes) harsh winters of mid and eastern Canada, [72] an inhospitable climate which has been compared in severity to that of Siberia. [69] And: as Forry noted of the climate in 1841 (“So striking is the difference between our coast and the western coast of Europe, that Fort Sullivan, Main, notwithstanding it is more than 11° south of Edinburg, Scot., exhibits a mean annual temperature 5½° lower, and Bordeaux, which is parallel with Fort Sullivan, has an annual temperature 15° higher.”), not only is the western side of Europe warmed considerably by its downwind position from the Atlantic the western portion of the North American continent is also somewhat warmed by the Pacific. [177] That is: close proximity to a western (up wind) ocean has a warming effect (northern hemisphere) which decreases as distance increases (an effect significantly off-set on the North American Continent because Alaska’s blockage and the Aleutian Islands’ shallow waters prevent and inhibit the northern flow of warm Pacific waters [182] and high mountain ranges and continental uplift cool the air as it moves east from western shores [54]).
Climatic change, as per Arrhenius’ interest, then, is about the surface temperatures of our oceans which obviously cannot be heated above their present temperatures by solar radiation [34,52] and certainly cannot be warmed by any increase in carbon dioxide [135] as the ocean’s waters are so effective at absorbing the sun’s heat. [52] (When we are on the ocean we are warmed only by wind above the waters, which may be much cooler than we prefer, and those rays of the sun that strike us directly. Spend a summer month on the ocean in a wooden boat at a temperate latitude and you’ll find you wear a coat most of the time.) The reason is both the ocean and evaporation rising from the ocean are so superior as conductors of heat as compared to carbon dioxide that carbon dioxide’s effect is negligible. [48] And remember more than 70% of the earth’s surface is covered with water, so even if Arrhenius’ faith in carbon dioxide’s effect were correct his calculations would be that percentage over-valued. Also: dense tropical vegetation as it shields the ground from the direct rays of the sun similarly prevents the air from being heated. [69] But we must remember the solar radiation prevented from reaching the ground (by vegetation) is not necessarily wasted, in fact when we burn coal to heat our homes “we are retransforming to heat the solar energy which arrived at the earth millions of years ago.” [147]
The most common observation the average person makes regarding the limitation of carbon dioxide’s heat retaining ability, as per Arrhenius’ notice, [3] but including the effect of water vapor which he does not notice, is the daily precipitous drop in temperature as the sun sets in temperate climates. And considering it is usually coldest in the early morning hours imagine how much colder it would be if the night lasted hours longer: but of course we do not have to imagine it as that very circumstance happens regularly, we call it winter; the shorter day’s reduced accumulation of heat is given more time to radiate away to space [15,70,148] during the longer night (which, contrary to Occam’s razor, is not the only reason the winter is colder!).
Was there any logic at all for Arrhenius to follow? Although it had been known for a considerable time that the temperatures of the deep waters of our tropical oceans were near freezing [24] (actually 2º C [94,95,134] or about 35.6º F) and we must allow the possibility this had some influence in Arrhenius’ neglect of central heat; it was irrelevant to his conclusion and in fact should not have been a factor given his knowledge of a much warmer Tertiary climate, past ice ages, and approaching ice age, i.e., there were no other deep water temperatures for comparison and all that low temperature could signify was, as he already suspected, another ice age must indeed be approaching.
Admittedly to the poorly educated person a near freezing temperature of deep waters might suggest no heat was being transferred through the ocean’s floor. But, first: 0º Centigrade (the freezing point of water) is not cold, Absolute zero, –273.16º Centigrade, –459.69º Fahrenheit, or 0º Kelvin represents true cold, the absence of heat. Now in 1879 this theoretical temperature was thought to be only –239º F, but it was noted then that that temperature was the appropriate starting point for the measurement of the terrestrial temperature. [24] Arrhenius should have known about absolute temperature and he should have been aware that the Oceans had a relativity unlimited capacity as heat sinks. [15,16, 95,103]
Also: the deep waters or bottom waters, at some random location or locations, do not represent well the earth’s transfer of heat during glacial and interglacial times as warm water, as has already been noticed, like warm air, must rise [94,103,134] and the water cooled by the wind must sink. [34] The key, then, to warm high latitude temperatures is the continuous rise to the surface of warm waters to replace sinking cooled water, i.e., warmer bottom waters. Additionally: misleading early investigations, thick sediments (the skeletal remains of up to 200 million years accumulation of dead sea creatures) deposited on top of the oldest seafloor (especially nearer the continents) are effective at preventing the transfer of heat from below. Only about one third, the newest portions of the seafloor, effectively conducts its heat directly into the oceans. [142] So their present 2º C (275º Kelvin) bottom waters are now sustained by only limited conduction and modest hydrothermal activity (convection), [76,103,141,156,183] the residual of heat left behind from warmer water rising to the surface. [183]
However, the warmed oceans of the past still fail to meet the requirements for polar life without the earth having a more perpendicular axis. According to the vegetation known to have existed in the Mesozoic and Tertiary polar regions the “winter” light levels must have been considerably more favorable than present. [49,119,184-188] Therefore, if computer models, which are not now held in good esteem [7,8,9,12,13,15,19,43,64,123, 135,148,181,189,190] are going to be used to predict our future climate by inference from past climates, they need to be properly assembled and reflect the ocean’s contribution to the atmosphere’s heat. [15] And obviously, concurrent with lighting, a perpendicular axis by itself provides an effect toward reducing the equator to pole temperature gradient as we see demonstrated in the mountains each summer, the winter’s cold is stored quite effectively for several weeks in ice [24] whereas the summer’s heat hardly lasts overnight in a rock.
The point has been made that species diversification requires two factors, raw materials and energy, and that, inversely, species extinctions are caused by their failure or limitations. We have two sources of energy, heat from the sun and heat from the earth’s interior. Most biological processes are temperature dependent and accelerate when the temperature rises (within limits) and decline when the temperature falls. [79] Increased submarine volcanism, hot spot flood basalt events, and an increase in the rate of seafloor spreading, [97,100] ended the Permian cold spell (the Permian-Triassic boundary [75,79]) which is distinguished by an exceptionally low sea-level [79,131] and began warming the oceans and atmosphere for the Mesozoic until at about 75 million years ago the dinosaur population, and by inference all their food sources, reached their greatest abundance. [133] And, temperature rising and falling with sea level, as per Hershal’s perusal of consequence, [105] sea-level during the Cretaceous was at its highest [191,192] (as it should have been, not only are the seafloors uplifted by heat but the most abundant output product of volcanic activity is water vapor. [144,155,193,194]).
But ten million years later the Cretaceous ended with another mass extinction; [27,29] this extinction is enthusiastically explained by the news media as having been caused by a large asteroid strike [75,195] or by geophysicists by large continental flood basalt events. [75,98,103,131,196] In either case it is supposed a large amount of dust should have been blasted into the air blotting out the rays of the sun long enough for the plants to die off and deprive the dinosaurs, and other animal life, of their food supply. [29,98] In neither case, however, is an explanation provided as to how such a momentary phenomenon could cause the Earth’s temperature to have dropped so low and failed to recover itself after the dust settled; after even tens of millions of years, [117] which is to ask how could either of these events steal the ocean’s heat? There is no answer because they cannot.
Computer modeling is said to be an art rather than a science [17] but the requirement of art is a result that can be appreciated; the only people who appreciate climatic computer modeling are those being paid to do so. Berner exemplifies its non-science by a major defect in process of his geochemical carbon cycle model, or a defect even beyond its various parameterizations [17,20] and estimates [15] of uncertain quantities. Using the combined estimates of the warm Cretaceous temperature and greater atmospheric carbon dioxide levels of that time as a comparison to our present cool and low time, what the model makers call “paleocalibration”, [190] an obvious point has been missed as atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide quantities have been combined to a single reserve, which they are not. Although various calculations over this past century or so of the quantity of carbon dioxide contained in the oceans have been increased from 18 times [4] the present atmospheric quantity to 65 times [197] and the estimates of Cretaceous atmospheric carbon dioxide run only as high as 12 times the present, [104] the change in temperature of ocean waters over the past 80 million years is not considered in Berner’s model.
Cold water holds more carbon dioxide than warm water, [4,51] a lot more. The Cretaceous oceans’ bottom waters were at least 10° C warmer than our present oceans, [37,42] so, obviously, the oceans must have contained considerably less carbon dioxide than our present cool oceans (there is, however, one modifying factor that would have forced the warm Cretaceous waters to hold a greater amount of carbon dioxide and that is Arrhenius’ error number three: the greater atmospheric pressure during the Cretaceous). Then again, to opposite effect, estimates of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Cretaceous atmosphere have only been based on the rate of sea-floor spreading [120] and limited by its supposed heating effect, they have ignored emissions from volcano and flood-basalt plateau formation. The atmosphere, then, must surely have contained much more carbon dioxide than twelve times our present amount as the oceans contained less and volcanic output was considerably greater than supposed. Phipson’s experiments in 1893 [198] exemplified the benefits of high levels of carbon dioxide to the starving [199] plant life that has man-aged to adapt to our present low level, his plants grew much faster.
The earth’s interior has long been thought to be very hot [70,72, 200] and now the core is thought to be even hotter than the surface of the sun, [74,201] and, obviously, as already observed, the earth has been cooling. [24,60,61,70,72,98,101,200] The supposition, as Humphreys stated it in 1925, [50] that the past warm climate could not have been caused by central heat was, clearly, as the proceeding indicates, an error. On the other hand in that same paper he’d competently refuted any warming by carbon dioxide concluding, “…that surface temperatures could never have been much increased above their present values through the action of this particular agent alone. …it could not, of itself, have produced the great changes of temperature that actually occurred.”[50]
Humphreys, then, must have had quite a mystery on his hands as in his 1940 Physics of the Air he reviewed the means of warming that had been proposed and found them all either impossible or inadequate; but he missed one (actually two). He failed to consider the degree of warming that could be produced by a simple increase of atmospheric density (although he did otherwise recognize atmospheric density to be a most important consideration). [48] Although solar radiation caught in such an atmosphere (which would also allow a higher humidity) can undoubtedly increase its warmth and reduce the loss of heat through the night, it would produce a heating inconsistent with the Cretaceous world; it could not warm the oceans to their required temperature.
Earth’s geological climate is estimated to run in about 500 million-year supercycles. [81,83,100] Parts of the cycle include vast swings in temperature and over the last 400,000 years we’ve had Ice Ages interspaced, such as now, with short warmer interglacial periods [33,36,53,92] lasting about 10,000 years, [18,31,33,36,202,203] the climatic optimum for our current warm interglacial period is now 6,000 to 7,000 years in the past. [33] But even then the High Plains of the American Southwest were turning to dust because of the Altithermal, a drought lasting 2,500 years [204] and 4,200 years ago the first city-states of Mesopotamia, Sumer and Akkad, at some previous point having been forced to develop an irrigation-based agriculture, collapsed suddenly [205,206] at the beginning of a 300 year drought. [207] Globally, because drought is ultimately consequent to reduced evaporation, the consequence at higher latitudes is also noticeable. Rees’s Cyclopaedia notices Herodotus’ (about 584-525 B.C.) observation that European Scythia lying north of the Euxine or Black Sea, between the 44th and 50th degree of North latitude, had eight month long winters of great severity and summers of exceeding cold; this was apparently a cold spell much more severe than the Little Ice Age and seems to have lasted five hundred years or so as Caesar, Seneca, Ovid, Virgil, etc. mentioned a continuous cold driving those northern inhabitants across frozen rivers and lakes to survive by plundering the southern countries. [34] Currently the World’s deserts, very obvious evidences of cooling and dryness, [27] rapidly continue to grow larger. [208-212]
In 1972 Emiliani found from cores taken from the Caribbean Sea bed that in the last 400,000 years Earth has had eight cold periods, seven warm periods and about thirty lesser fluctuations. [31] Climatologists, have arranged these climatic swings (again, they call it tuning [201,202]) into four major Ice Ages and warmer interglacial periods so they would coincide with periodic orbital changes and thus have an explainable cause; [24,27] however, the timing of the ice ages and interglacials do not correlate very well with orbital mechanics [122,202] nor do such minor orbital discrepancies reasonably correlate with such exceptional results. [36] Once again the presented cause of climatic change is a fraud. The only necessary observation needed to eliminate orbital variations as a cause of ice ages is to notice they were unable to produce any noticeable climatic change between the mid Permian and the near end of the Eocene, about two hundred and fifty million years! [35] Our geological history, and probability, suggest our planet will experience at least a few more severe ice ages and interglacials before the next superplume episode, [99] the result of very hot “blobs” now found (through seismic tomography) to be slowly rising from the earth’s core-mantle boundary toward the surface. [74,103,121]
When these heat plumes [53,86,87] approach the surface they uplift it; more often the sea-floor surface as there is more of it, [74,87] that is the true beginning of global warming. There are now, obviously helping to sustain our present interglacial warmth, still 40 recognized hot-spots estimated to be uplifting 10% of the Earth’s surface. [88] An excellent example of their individual magnitude is the island of Hawaii. More than 65 million years [86,109,111] after having melted its way through the Pacific plate the Kilauea Plume still uplifts by two kilometers [109] the surrounding seafloor out to a radius of several hundred kilometers. [86,109] That swell, as other hot spots of the world are to a lesser degree, is shown by tomography to be over one of the hotter areas of the upper mantle. [110]
Obviously the heat uplifting large portions of the oceans’ floors must displace equal volumes of water and cause a rise in sea level, [53,74,99,143] and practically speaking, given first the timing and rapidity of uplift [213] and the volume of water in the oceans to be warmed before the atmosphere warms, the first indication of genuine global warming must be a rising sea level: which is to say that even though periods of global warming are always associated with a rise in sea level [53,64,74,99,103] and ice ages a fall, [79,131] a good portion of that rise may well precede the melting of the polar ice caps rather than follow as is usually supposed. [27,35] In fact melting the ice caps is nowhere near adequate to raise the level of the oceans to their former levels. [106] Supposing former sea levels were the result of the ice caps melting without calculating the volume of ice to be melted is non-science (nonsense). Melting all the ice on the planet can’t raise the level of the seas more than twenty meters, whereas the estimates of former levels have been from 200 to 300 meters above the present [106,131] (or 350 meters, [190] or even 400 to 650 meters [214]).
Overwhelmingly it is the escaping central heat of the earth, [70,71] that is the cooling of the earth, [98,124] that warms the oceans and controls climate. [100] Now in Herschel’s letter to Lyell he asked, “whence came the heat? and why did it come?” [71] An answer is provided in part by the combination of Laplace’s theory of planet formation [215] and Sir William Herschel’s (1738-1822) own hypothesis of the manner of nebulous matter being transformed into stars, [200,216] what came to be known as the Nebular Hypothesis; that being the frictions incident to the process of condensation of a rotating disk of matter must be transformed into heat. [216] More recently it has become a popular idea that the heat in the earth [101] (and Venus [63]) is the result of nuclear decay, but the amount of heat in the mantle should then require a rather fantastic amount of decay and any fresh eruptions of lava should be noticeably radioactive, which they are not. Besides which, it was determined during or before 1906 that the “distribution of volcanoes invalidates the radium theory completely.” [217]
There are two authors who contend the original heat of condensation is adequate to account for the present heat [101,218] but it is difficult to give much credit to such a calculation when an additional source of heat has been so active. Halley’s brilliant explanation for the earth’s magnetic field was that the earth had an iron core that had a revolution of its own within the earth. [70] Recent papers derived from seismic data show the inner core in fact rotates faster than the earth’s surface. [219-221] So: given the enormous pressure exerted at the top of the inner core (supposed to be about 48 million pounds per square inch [201]) and the differential in rotation between the inner core and the core-mantle boundary; the slippage (friction!) taking place within the outer core (which seismic data indicate is predominantly liquid iron [110]) must produce a enormous amount of heat. That is, it must be remembered, that there is still a vast amount of kinetic energy stored in the rotation of the earth any retardation of which must be transformed into heat (the second Law of Thermodynamics).
Now the heat in the mantle has been described as moving through a process of convection, [103,112] which it is definitely not, convection requires circulation, [142] there is no evidence that mantle material circulates between the core and crust or even between the lower and upper mantle. [80] Rather this heat moves by conduction (that is without perceptible motion) moving about as slow as one’s fingernails grow [74] rising through the relatively unmoving rock [125] which it must do even if the rock does not move at all. In fact when the heat moves faster than the fluid it happens to be in, it is not by definition a convective process (the fluid must covey the heat). On the other hand in the outer core where the heat is generated [201] the heat must move by conduction, but be contained, reflected back as if radiated by the concave shell [73] of the less dense (by about half) and much less conductive [70,124] rock above it. {I should note here there is a general confusion in the literature in that the geo-physicists, for whatever reason, have corrupted the word convection to mean, also, slow movement without circulation (i.e., convection without convecting) such as takes place in the hot mantle; creep would much better describe any possible movement in the mantle.}
Now the outer core is described as transporting heat by “convecting circulation” [75] and “rotating convection”, [220] and alt-hough its liquid must obviously circulate because of the mechanical forces acting on it, it is the friction produced by that circulation that creates and sustains the core heat. Also: iron is a very good conductor and must conduct the heat faster than the outer core material flows, it therefore cannot be considered a convective process (It seems appropriate here to refer again to William Harvey as nearly four hundred years ago he warned against extraneous word usage. [222] Stuart gave the same warning a hundred years later, as it happens both warnings were consequent to confusion over the same word. [223])
As for why the mantle and inner core should rotate at different speeds Kant (Immanuel, 1724-1804) pointed out in 1754 that the frictional resistance of the oceans’ tidal currents on the earth’s surface must reduce the earth’s rotational speed. His observation was given no notice until mentioned in 1897 [224] and again in 1908 [225] but notice or not we discuss here a noticeable result of the reciprocal gravitation between the earth and moon; that result consequent to the heavy “solid” iron inner core that is not so easily slowed in its rotation. It is then, primarily, the moon, its tidal effect tugging at the earth, the mantle acting as a brake, [226] but failing over all the past ages to completely retard the heavy inner core’s rotation, that creates the friction (and heat) that eventually rises to warm our oceans.
Now a cooling earth has been indicated above. In 1876 Proctor, likening the cooling of planets (Earth and Jupiter) to the cooling of red hot iron globes, one and two inches in diameter, and noticing how much longer it takes the larger globe to cool enough to be held in one’s hand, concluded (correctly [60,147,178,179,227]) that planets do not age by time but by temperature, and that their rate of cooling is directly related to their size. [228] Now we’ve no clue as to how long it should have taken for the earth to cool from the heat gained by its original condensation; [101,216] but we do suppose we know the earth and moon are four and a half billion years old; [229] and we do know the moon was much closer [226,230-234] to a much faster spinning earth. [226,230-235] but not how close or how fast. What we know by deductive reasoning is that with the moon much closer and the earth spinning much faster the inner friction should have been considerably greater than present. So the moon, by despinning the earth and transforming the earth’s kinetic energy into heat, greatly prolongs the life on earth.
That is: it might be arguable whether the earth is cooling or generating heat, when it's doing both simultaneously. Eventually, however, the moon’s gravitation will completely stop the mantle and core's spin (and internal heat) and the earth’s “day” will match the lunar month as the earth and moon rotate about their common center of gravity (barycenter) during their journey around the sun. [234]
The earth, simply by its rotation, creates something of a magnetic field because of the friction of the atmosphere (which we generally call wind) and alternate day side heating and night side cooling; [236] the iron inner core, about three-quarters the size of the moon, [237] rotating faster and creating additional internal friction greatly increases the intensity of that field; [220,238] it is not caused by “Boiling iron within the outer core” [53] (at a normal pressure of about 15 pounds per square inch iron boils at a temperature of 2,750º C, when that pressure is increased more than a million times it is not going to boil) and both Newton (Isaac, 1642-1727) and then Barlow proved that iron heated “to a white heat, loses its magnetic virtue.” [70] therefore it is the rotation [236] or “flow” [239] allied with the friction of the molten and semi molten iron that produces the earth’s magnetic field. That is: the ionization caused by friction produces free electrons which flow as an electric current which, because of the rotation, produce a magnetic field.
As for the mysterious or confusing periodic release of heat from the core mantle boundary [75,103] it actually appears quite predictable. For instance: after the escape of heat that produced the Cretaceous superplumes the layer between the inner mantle and the inner core (the outer core, 2,900 to 5,200 kilometers below the surface [201]) must have been proportionally cooled. But the friction that caused the heat’s build-up in the first place is continuous so heat must again build-up: and again when it exceeds the boundary layer’s ability to contain it, another set of plumes will escape.
Think of it this way: you have an aluminum pot with a bottom of uneven thickness, as is the core mantle boundary; [75] it contains molten lead, lead melts at 662º F, aluminum melts at 1220º F, but if you attempt to increase the heat of the lead to its 3164º F boiling point the thinnest areas of the aluminum pot’s bottom will melt through and the hot lead (representing the excess heat) will escape. In the case of the outer core of course the iron itself cannot escape because iron is much heavier than the inner mantle basalt above it, but the heat must rise and does.
But it is impossible, given there is a sequential range of size (large to small) in step with the surface decline of temperature, for thousands of Pacific mid-plate volcanoes, [114,115] to suppose only superplumes of heat are released; clearly smaller size heat plumes are released as well and presumably rise at a correspondingly slower rate. And one should bear in mind: as large as the Pacific is now, Panthalassa, its ancestral ocean, was at the beginning of the Cretaceous very much larger. [84] There must have been, then, many thousands of submarine volcanoes subducted while the continental plates were moving to open the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.
Now inadvertently the subject of the earth’s magnetic field has presented itself and although it may not seem to be related to our climate it is; in fact without the earth’s magnetic field our planetary climate would be very different.
First: the earth having a magnetic field causes the various gases of the atmosphere to become ionized; they tend to collect in a region of the atmosphere between 50 and 500 kilometers in altitude that is appropriately called the ionosphere. Were there no external forces acting on this field it should assume a pattern around the earth similar to the iron filings on a paper with a bar magnet underneath (6th grade science). But there is an external force, the solar wind, hydrogen ions (protons) and electrons from the sun’s corona traveling at a million miles an hour impact the magnetic field surrounding the earth creating the magnetosphere. Populated by ions from the ionosphere the above-exemplified field (three dimensionally of course) is significantly distorted by the solar wind but the field is strong enough to sustain a shield on the sunward side while on the night or lee side it is blown away into a long comet like tail. [238] This sunside shield has protected life on earth from the blast of the solar wind. [240]
Second: a 1988 NASA publication by John Bird, The Upper Atmosphere Threshold of Space, indicates that the Dynamics Explorer I satellite found, above 800 kilometers, at the north polar region and moving away from earth “...a continual flow of hydrogen, helium, and oxygen ions, called the polar wind.” [239] which in effect is very large [241] and follows field lines (distorted into a comet-like tail) connected to interplanetary space. [65] Thus, as Jones thought in 1939 (and others before him [58,62]), there is a natural tendency for our atmosphere to be lost to space. [146]
Now in figuring the strength of a planet’s magnetic field a most important component is the rate of the planet’s rotation; but compared to the other planets of our system earth is way out of line by having a field 100 times stronger than would be expected, [240] and, no surprise here, Earth’s magnetic variations are greater at the moon’s perigee than apogee, i.e., when the moon is closer the field is stronger. [242]
Shaler provided us with a good start on the subject in 1874 when he wrote “Though the moon have no life of its own, it is not without potent influence on the life of our earth. There has never been a day since life began but the moon’s influence has been at work to make or mar the fate of living things.... There can be no doubt that its influence has been to hasten the journey up from the origin of life to its summit; we cannot reckon how much has been due to the influence of our moon in the advance of organic existence, but any naturalist who has adequately conceived how dependent we are for our state upon the life of an almost infinite chain of beings in the past, will be ready to acknowledge that he could not have been where or what he is, but for the silent workings of that lifeless world above us.” [243] And then in 1891 J.E. Gore considered the earth with its proportionally enormous moon to be a double planet. [233] In 1900 Jennings, although he could not see any of the above particulars, recognized the obvious necessity of the moon to our existence. [245] In 1986 Pearson noticed the association between our companion planet’s presence, how its gravitation has slowed the earth’s rotation; and that earth’s magnetic field protects life from the sun’s deadly radiation; that its presence was essential to the development of life. [240] The moon is in fact an essential companion to the earth, [179] the earth with its outsized moon, even though it has no life of its own is the companion in a double planet system. [229,232]
Applying what we know of our own solar-system, then, to the countless stars in our galaxy, it seems obvious that for the planets in orbit around them to have enough time to develop intelligent life they need the stability of a large moon, [246] and all the conditions (related above) that accompany it. But given there has been so little written on the importance of our moon during the twentieth century, after Shaler’s good start. He was clearly far too optimistic when he supposed any naturalist would understand the importance of the moon to our present evolution of life.
Calculating for comparison an average global temperature is an absurdity. If our summers were suddenly on the average 30 degrees warmer and our winters 30 degrees colder the average would be the same, but there would nevertheless be a considerable loss of animal and vegetable species. If they wanted to collect meaningful temperatures for comparison, year to year, and decade to decade, they would be assembled according to their latitude, for tropical sea surface temperatures at the last glacial maximum differed little from their present values [160] and were about the same during the very warm Cretaceous period. [42] The difference of course was that tropical climate during the Cretaceous extended much further north and south of the equator then than now and was much narrower during the past ice ages. Tropical temperatures not changing much over time tend to reduce, by their inclusion, the actual range of variation in the higher latitudes when reporting an average global temperature. For instance it is said “the earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about 7 degrees (F) lower than during its warmest eras” [21] But there is another climatic factor the global warming investigators pay no attention to, once again it’s the moon.
Not generally noticed during the average education is the fact that the entire orbital plane of the moon itself precesses or rotates while retaining its 5° tilt through the ecliptic (the plane which the earth and moon establish in their orbit around the sun) about an earth itself who’s axis is tilted approximate 23½°. So that “...to the inclination of the moon’s orbit is added the inclination of the earth’s axis to the ecliptic.” [247] “Thus the inclination of the moon’s orbit to the earth’s Equator varies between 18.5 and 28.5 degrees with a period of 18.6 years.” [231] The result is the moon rises no further North than (about) the latitude of Mexico City at its minimal ascension but 9.3 years later at its maximum rises to (about) the latitude of Houston. And don’t miss the fact that its declination south of the equator is equal, that is, its minimum swing of latitude is 37° and its maximum swing is 57°.
Now in 1799 Toaldo, knowing nothing of the 18.6 year lunar cycle (which he could have as it had been known of for thousands of years [248,249]), found by analyzing 50 years of meteorological data that a first nine year accumulation of rainfall is very nearly equal to a second nine year accumulation, [250] which means the lunar period can be detected roughly by meteorological data and exactly by astronomical observation. The relevance should be obvious to anyone who’s aware the moon controls the ocean’s tides and the fact that tidal highs and lows vary over the years. During the moon’s maximum ascension and declination, that is when it ranges between 28.5° North and South latitudes [251,252] its influence on the ocean, pulling warm tropical waters further north and south, allows increased evaporation at those higher latitudes, warms the atmosphere more over and down-wind of the oceans and causes an increase in rain. [251] The minimum ascension and declination contains the warm waters closer to the equator so there is less evaporation and less rainfall at the higher latitudes. This gives us an alternating weather pattern where the increased rain produces clouds and high crop yields and the lack of rain produces sunny skies, drought, and poor crop yields. [248,251] Don’t miss the seeming paradox: the clouds from the warm waters produce lower temperatures by shielding us from the sun and the sunny skies from the cooler water produce higher temperatures because there are no clouds (in those relevant latitudes). And the supporting statistics are not just meteorological, that part of the cycle with increased rainfall has coincided with economic booms [253] and those booms have in the past produced increased immigration into the United States. [249]
Combine the seasonal cycle, lunar cycle, varying equatorial Pacific submarine volcanic activity (El Niño) and climate becomes somewhat variable over a few decades; but then throw in the variability of the 11+ year sun spot cycle: [40] as it approaches coincidence with the 18.6 year lunar cycle they reinforce each other. [251] An example of a close encounter is the year 1934 [254] surrounded by the seven years of drought responsible for the great depression. [240] In perfect coincidence, as in the year 1302 their effects were more sustained and they stayed in phase by 0.4 ± 0.5 years for half a century. [248] Patterson presented examples of this period in his 1869 book Does the Earth Grow Sick? There were floods and severe droughts, both, but especially the droughts, leading to famine and disease. It is implied these atmospheric conditions also impaired the body’s resistance to disease and in fact this is consistent with the timing of the great European plague known as the Black Death. [255] More recently two papers find a correlation between sunspots and influenza, [256,257] complaints against the climate have been very numerous. [258] Litton seemed particularly displeased with mankind’s climatic afflictions in his 1747 Philosophical Conjectures on Aerial Influences, the Probable Origin of Diseases, [23] but then his perspective was from England during the Little Ice Age. However, lest anyone suppose he overstated the complaint, the influenza pandemic of 1918 (correlating with sunspot activity [257]) “…killed some 30 million people...” world wide in six months [259] (this number has been revised upward 50 million or more) with the highest rate of death taking place in areas where the weather had been warm and humid throughout the previous month. [209] But this combination of negative climatic factors was observed by both Hippocrates and Galen as an increasing risk factor during epidemical Diseases, [260] as Barrough put it in 1590: “Of all temperaments of the aire, the worst is that which is hot and moist.” [261] So considering the climatic afflictions produced just by a change so small as our current seasonal variation, that is the number that die each winter because of even minor influenza strains or in the summer because of prolonged heat, and the human race now has the advantage of heated houses and artificial coverings (clothes), it should be no surprise the dinosaurs could not survive the climatic change at the end of the Cretaceous.
The 100 years of “greenhouse warming” finally became headline news in the late 1980’s. [13] Supposedly, then, in ten or twenty more years the average global temperature was going to become noticeably greater. [262] But the last decade of the millennium did not produce the predicted rise in temperature. With that in mind and given that it has been determined that 43 million years ago when the climate was (as they average it) about 5º C warmer than present (but the carbon dioxide level not much greater than now) the heat retaining ability of carbon dioxide has been questioned, so, incredibly, to account for the previous warm climate Lyell’s notion of a more efficient ocean circulation is again being resorted to. [263]
However, to protect their carbon dioxide threat the climatologists have implemented a fallback strategy. [15] Now they’ve “dis- covered” ocean temperature data going back to 1948 which show a warming trend between 1955 and 1995 of an enormous 0.06º C [11] (makes me sweat to think about it!). Now that they’ve “found” the “missing” “heat” accumulating in the oceans they have set up 3,000 floating temperature-sensing devices linked to satellites, [11] so now they can work their Global Warming threat indefinitely: or can they? Eventually to defend their credibility the oceanographers, volcanologists and geologists will have to stop protecting their fellow “scientists”, band together, and publicly ask the climatologists to explain how they’ve separated the amount of heat “forced” into the oceans by the “greenhouse” effect from the amount of heat released from hydrothermal vents and volcanoes. [94] Tivey (1991/92) found the vents transporting “very large” amounts of heat from the Earth’s interior into the oceans and was curious as to their contribution to the global heat budget. [94] The answer is of course simple, bearing in mind Tivey’s findings represent the heat output required to sustain the present interglacial, their contribution is essential.
Of course to present an honest estimate the temperatures must take into consideration the 18.613 year cycle of the moon and the 11+ year sun-spot cycle (11.1 years, [264] 11.2 years, [39] 11.3 years, [265] “just over 11 years” [266] or “more than 11 1/10 years and less than 11 1/5 years”, [267] or “During the 13 cycles of reliable data collected since 1848, the cycle’s length has varied between about 10 and 12 years.” [40]). Say then the average of these figures is a bit less than 11.2 years, but Multiply 11.2 years times 5 and you get 56 years. Multiply the moon’s cycle of 18.613 years times 3 and you get 55.839 years. So to get a proper estimate requires 55.839 years of uncontaminated (i.e., no heat island effect) and un- manipulated temperature data; but to what effect? The information cannot help us control the climate!
Also: before we leave the subject of our oversize moon behind, and as I’ve already eluded to its nearer proximity to earth in past geological ages, Halley (Edmond, 1656-1742) noticed in 1695 the moon’s acceleration. [268] “…the rotating earth drives the tide waves somewhat forward [spinward by about 3° of arc [231]), in advance of the moon. As a consequence, the tide waves, by reciprocal gravitation, impart to the moon a constant forward impulse…” which “drives the moon away from the earth.” [225] That is to say: the moon has been constantly moving further away from the earth over the last four and a half billions years so its gravitational effects have been decreasing.
Another climatic effect of the moon that we benefit from today is that its outsize mass stabilizes the spin axis (obliquity) of the earth. [246,269-271] First, the centrifugal force of the earth’s rotation should cause it to bulge slightly outward at the equatorial zone, [269,271,272] but to what extent? the bulge is also assisted by the moon’s gravitational pull which increases the bulge such that together rather than the earth being a sphere it is a slightly oblate spheroid; [273] technically, giving it a slightly stabilizing effect. But, as already noticed, the earth’s center of gravity, with its moon, is not the center of the earth, “The Planet and the satellite orbit around their mutual center of mass.” a point on a line through their centers, between their centers, only about 1,000 miles below the earth’s rotating surface. [231] Our large moon, then, effectively becomes “...an extension of the Earth’s equatorial bulge.” [269]
The point is that without the stabilizing effect of the moon, the earth’s spin axis would not have been contained as it is at about 23½º. Uranus spin axis, for instance, has tilted to 98º; were the earth’s to tilt even to 60º the Arctic Circle would extend down to Cairo Egypt, the Tropic Zone would be radically compressed, and we should have much hotter summers and colder winters. [181] Even with all the other effects of the moon active: such severe oscillation of climatic conditions would have produced a very different evolution of life on earth. [246,269,271,274,275]
Now it was noticed in the preceding that the earth’s spin axis (tilt or obliquity), must have been more perpendicular during past geological ages. If we ignore the fossil evidence to that effect we have lunar evidence: the moon’s orbital plane is tilted at 5º to the ecliptic when it should be in close alignment with the earth’s equatorial plane at about 23½º to the ecliptic; so the moon’s stabilizing effect has clearly deteriorated as it has moved further away. The simplest explanation for the discrepant alignment is that the spin axis of the earth tilted 5º to the ecliptic and the moon gradually realigned with the equator, as is its tendency, [273] and then the earth tilted again to its present angle from which the moon has not yet had time to realign itself. Whatever: these various losses of stability may also have some relationship to the earth’s solid inner core rotational axis which tilts about 10º to the earth’s rotational axis. [221,237]
Now if the rotational axes of the earth and inner core were congruent the friction (heat) generated would be greatest around the faster moving equator and would decrease approaching the poles. But, obviously, with a 10º differential of angle the outer core iron must be subject to a greater churning effect and its flow must follow a twisted course such that more friction and heat are produced toward the Polar Regions. Also: when considering the generation of frictional heat one must remember the inner core is not located at the center of gravity of the earth moon system but is suspended in liquid iron thousands of kilometers off center where it is continuously subject on one side to the increased gravitational effect of the moon; which is to say the estimated pressure at the top of the inner core is, as is so often the case, calculated for an earth without a moon. The pressure, then, should be somewhat greater on the side toward the moon. There is, thus, with all this twisting and changing pressure differential as the earth’s mantle and inner core separately turn, good reason for the earth’s twisting magnetic field, [276] magnetic field reversals (on average about five reversals per million years over the last 83 million years), and a 200 million year history of wandering magnetic poles. [75]
Now to assume this divergent angle of rotation has remained the same throughout time is of course completely unrealistic, especially given two major periods of field reversal failure. That is, and no coincidence about it: during the hottest 36 million years of the Cretaceous the magnetic field was “normal” and during the earlier 70 million year long Permo-Carbineforous cold spell the magnetic field was reversed. [75] It seems, then, reasonable, given there is no other explanation, to assume the hot superchron was the result of a concentration of equatorial heat by way of polar alignment and the cold superchron was a result of a greater divergence of heat due to a greater churning effect.
Babbage only described a small part of an ongoing and interdependent system with his early cooling earth, [72] Proctor, later, had a much more extensive description. [228] I’ve described above the various components and results that contribute to climatic change and our present climate, but one should view the system more as the result of an active engine. The earth in past ages was spinning faster; the moon was closer to the earth with a double rotation turning around its own axis and circling the earth [231] (actually triple if you count its rotation around the sun). Both the earth and the moon had much stronger magnetic fields. [238,277]
The outgassing of the earth, much more vigorous in its early stages, had created a very dense [228] and more extensive atmosphere, [1,59,61,227,228] which, with the moon’s greater gravitational pull was extended even further from its surface. The combination of these various stronger gravitational and magnetic effects, then, blasted by the solar wind, has constituted a marvelously effective (although progressively less so) engine for reducing the density of earth’s atmosphere. Recent investigation, then, of the constitution of air bubbles in amber can do no more than confirm the obvious: that our ancient atmosphere was one of greater density. [278]
The outgassing of the earth, much more vigorous in its early stages, had created a very dense [228] and more extensive atmosphere, [1,59,61,227,228] which, with the moon’s greater gravitational pull was extended even further from its surface. The combination of these various stronger gravitational and magnetic effects, then, blasted by the solar wind, has constituted a marvelously effective (although progressively less so) engine for reducing the density of earth’s atmosphere. Recent investigation, then, of the constitution of air bubbles in amber can do no more than confirm the obvious: that our ancient atmosphere was one of greater density. [278]
The earth has been described as a generator “‘churning, molten metal in the outer core’”, the proof of which is its magnetic field and production of heat. [102] But the description fails to tell us how or why.
Certainly the earth moon system is an effective generator, but only functions as such because of the reasons I’ve described above. Generators are not supposed to generate heat; their bearings and lubrication are designed specifically to prevent heat. The heavy faster spinning iron inner core of the earth has no bearings or lubrication, thus the friction produced by its super rotation melts its surroundings (or perhaps more accurately sustains the melt of original formation).
Certainly at twice the atmospheric boiling point of iron the outer core is very hot, and although viscosity decreases as temperature increases it also increases as pressure increases so the bottom of the outer core freezes (because of the high pressure) to the top of the inner core and the inner core has gradually grown in size. [219] Now it is supposed that the outer core, being iron, should be magnetically coupled to the faster rotating inner core and cause “rotating convection” from the heat thus generated, [220] but as already noticed by Newton iron heated to white heat loses its magnetic properties. (The earth’s core is supposed to be composed of iron or an iron-nickel alloy. [219] Iron loses its magnetic properties at 790º C and nickel loses its at 350º C; so at a temperature of 4,000º C it is safe to assume the outer core is at best only paramagnetic. [219]) So the magnetically coupled theory [220] ignores a temperature in excess of 4,000º C and the friction created throughout the 2,270 kilometers thick shell of increasingly viscous iron between the core mantle boundary and the top of the inner core; the inner more viscous iron tending to follow the inner core’s faster rotation [220] and the outer less viscous held back by the mantle’s slower rotation.
In 1971 NASA concluded, about the same as Schaefer had in 1905, [47] that even increasing the atmospheric carbon dioxide level by a factor of 8 would increase the atmospheric temperature less than 2° C, [279] therefore the only pollution problem we have associated with man-made carbon dioxide emissions is the pollution of the “scientific” literature over this last century.
There must be, many of which I cite as references to this paper, at the least a hundred papers published asserting that the climatic changes over the last 500 million years have coincided with the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and that they are in turn the result of greater or lesser levels of volcanic activity, and that is true as far as it goes (like the wagon being stuck in the mud). But it is not at all credible to suppose even one of the authors of those papers are unaware that underwater volcanism, which has been overwhelmingly the majority of volcanism, [115,103] does not add life sustaining heat to our Oceans [97,100] and yet they make no mention of it! This leaves us with the obvious conclusion that the current fear of global warming is simply politics and money and has nothing to do with any real science.
Simply Put
Now it is a fact that as temperatures have increased in past geological ages so also has the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere; [3,45,53,82] and it is a fact that the reverse is true. [4,36,280] And it is a fact that as the temperatures have increased sea levels have risen; [53,64,74,82,98,103] and it is a fact that the reverse is true. [27,53,74,79,131] And it is a fact that when submarine volcanic activity (hot spot, mid plate, and seafloor spreading) increased during the Cretaceous the temperatures increased; [53,82,97] and it is a fact that the reverse is true. [53,54,61,97] And it is also a fact that volcanic activity discharges carbon dioxide [64,83,97,103,281] (the amount in the atmosphere during past geological ages being greatly under-estimated by fixing its rate of release only to new seafloor generation [20] but during the peak rate of seafloor generation, i.e., the Cretaceous, “plateau and seamount production increased by a factor of five.” [53]); but in fact the emissions of carbon dioxide from volcanic activity are only a fortuitous byproduct in the release of heat that allow (with the heat) the existence of life. [57,100,150,282-285] Volcanic activity primarily signifies the end of a very slow process whereby the central heat of the earth is released [53,74,81,86-88,101, 103,109] (in an overwhelming percentage) to the oceans; [71,72, 94,95,112,142] and from the warmed oceans allows a productive climate for an endless variety of life forms (marine and atmospheric) [147] adaptable to its various degrees, [97,103,147] and it is a fact that the process is reversible, that is when submarine volcanic activity increases those life forms needing a cooler environment die off [37] and when the activity declines those life forms needing a warmer environment die off. [27,97,100,131]
The only difference between an occasional species disappearance and mass extinction is whether the change in temperature that takes place is slow enough to allow species adaptation or happens so fast that it produces a mass extinction. In point of fact, however, humanity could now be living in the midst of a “mass” extinction and not even be aware of it because all the mass extinctions we know of have occurred over periods of geological time. There are few humans now even aware we’ve just experienced the Little Ice Age and fewer still aware of its historical predecessor and those two periods are less than 3,000 years in the past. Compare 3,000 years to the 550,000,000 years we have reasonable information on and one gets an idea of the difference between historical and geological time. Even the End-Permian extinction, the most extensive known, is thought to have taken place in stages over several million years. [29]
**********
The news media has been presenting a carbon dioxide driven global warming as an established fact, a consensus of the scientific community. It is then something of a surprise to find there is a petition signed by more than 31,000 U.S. scientists who not only feel there is no evidence that carbon dioxide is or ever can cause global warming but recognize that an increase is beneficial. [286-288] Plants thrive on it; [57] they grow considerably faster, [198,199,289,290] an obvious fact now gradually being rediscovered. [291-294] Were the media conscientious of their responsibility, to try to convey the truth to the people, they would mention this fact of disagreement along with their continuing reports on the subject, but the media are biased: bad news is big news, good news is no news, so they fail in their responsibility.
An example is one CNN reporter who makes no secret that he hates science, its not his fault, journalist brains are simply not wired for an interest in science.
Some politicians love the concept of human induced Global Warming as they can then pretend, should they get elected, they will save the world for us. [13]
Most detrimental of all, the scientists that “believe” in global warming are those being paid to study it. In fact one expert climatologist, [286] after earlier correctly discounting the significance of increased atmospheric Carbon Dioxide [279] and expressing concern instead that aerosols escaping into the atmosphere would lower temperatures and trigger another Ice Age, is now a strong pro-potent of carbon dioxide induced global warming. [262,286] And then there are the many scientists who apparently do believe it? (I still wonder why he didn't advocate a higher usage of aerosols to simply counteract the threat of carbon dioxide???) Remember, through the history of science, it has always first been the single seeker of truth and then the small minority who have had the correct view while the overwhelming majority were wrong: as for instance William Harvey describing the full circulation of the blood in 1616. [6]
And then there are the tens of thousands of scientists who have not signed the petition, because they make money off of this fraud, or might make money off of it, or are afraid the government sponsoring Global Warming will consider them Whistle Blowers. So the groups who should complain about junk science either cannot or will not.
For fourteen hundred years (at the least), to maintain control of the people and protect their own personal security, the religion industry suppressed, through fear of death and destruction (and they were not bluffing), any scientific thought to promote instead their own false version of the world. [295] Finally, mostly only over the last 200 years, science has had the opportunity to find and present to us the physics of the true world in which we live. But now, having gained the upper hand, the majority of scientists seem to want the same financial security those churchman had, so they promote fear through false science that they might continue to receive grants to study an imaginary threat, while the religion industry is using every trick possible to regain its control. The current scientific literature, while it may not quite be mis-colored to the extent that sixteenth century literature was by religion, is certainly going to appear, being permeated with its carbon dioxide bogey-man, fantastically foolish to the future generations who read about it.
Preliminary Update
The media now love to suppose they confirm a carbon dioxide induced global warming by showing the Arctic’s melting sea-ice. In fact the summer sun usually forms meltwater pools (melt ponds) on the sea-ice surface. But remember the Arctic Circle summer (on average) has only three months of daylight, albeit continuous, but the sun (in the land of the midnight sun) appears as a normal sunset (a low angle and thus much of its radiation is reflected away by the ice, if it's there!), and the temperature is only above freezing for about six weeks each year (unless it gets cloudy in which case the melt ponds are quickly covered by skim ice).
However it is not just the summer sun that melts the Arctic sea-ice. Now although it has been “known” for some time that the Gakkel mid-ocean ridge, stretching 1,800 km (1,100 miles) from north of Greenland to Siberia, was Earth’s slowest spreading ridge, and for that reason was presumed to be hydrothermally inactive, in 2001 the international Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition found the Gakkel’s hydrothermal activity to be so ubiquitous they thought their instruments were defective, they were not. [ ] There are, therefore, volcanic heat sources under the Arctic ice.
Therefore as the Atlantic current flows north between Greenland and Norway into the Arctic Ocean, it crosses the Gakkel Ridge. As the superheated waters from the 15,000 foot deep Ridge are much less dense than the Atlantic current they rise and add their heat to the current as it flows across into the Arctic Ocean. As the water is cooled in the Arctic Ocean it becomes heavier and sinks but cannot sufficiently escape South through the three small shallow straights in the Arctic Archipelago to enter the Southern flowing Labrador Current (it, very narrow on the north end) so are forced to exit the Arctic Ocean as a deep thermohaline off the East coast of Greenland (under the warmer north flowing Atlantic current). The shallow Bering Strait (between Alaska and Eastern Siberia), which appears should be an outlet, is predominantly an entry for the Pacific’s warmer waters to enter the Arctic Ocean.
Now as already stated the Arctic summer is very short and followed by 46 weeks of temperatures far below freezing (-30° C), never-the-less even during the long Arctic winter the sea-ice still seems to be melting. [ ] So how do the environmentalists explain the physics whereby an increase of about 0.01% in atmospheric carbon dioxide can melt the sea-ice during the Arctic winter? Obviously, they don’t. Why? One reason is that the ice is being somewhat compromised from underneath by the hydrothermal activity and is being prevented from forming at its normal rate due to the delicate nature of its formation. That is, the few millimeters of fresh water laying on top of the salt water must be adequately cold to freeze to the ice above it.
. The loss of so much Arctic sea-ice over the last three or four decades is not inconsistent with the nature of volcanic activity. Given the lack of historical information on the Gakkel Ridge we can only guess as to its roll in past ice ages and interglacial periods (as now) but its current activity and strategic location certainly suggests it could have an important roll. The current melting effect we see now from the Gakkel Ridge may well have started during the Little Ice Age and has only recently become obvious by comparing Arctic satellite photographs (but there is more to this than meets the eye!).
Several years ago, when I first looked up Arrhenius’ paper, it was only to determine how he managed to avoid the contribution of the central heat of the Earth to its atmospheric temperature. As his above quoted statement answered my question so decisively and as his paper was so fundamentally defective, I did not attempt a full critique of it. But now as I re-read it I find I’d highlighted some of his more obvious discrepancies. For instance at one point he wrote, as he was comparing the moon which has no atmosphere against earth which does, the “mean effective temperature” of the Moon was “about” 45° C [3] (a hot summer day in Phoenix). As this again seemed unreal I checked for a more recent temperature and found it to be –23° C (or -77° C or -110° C at the poles)., radically colder than the temperature Arrhenius used in his calculations. Now given that he is asserting that an increase of carbon dioxide, of about “2.5 to 3 times its present value” (in 1896) will raise the arctic temperature 8 to 9 degrees Centigrade, it is not believable that any of his calculations could be taken seriously by any real scientist.
But the problem with Arrhenius’ paper is much larger than it appears. In fact he stated he could not afford expensive instruments so instead relied on the experimental work of others, specifically Langley’s 1887 Allegheny observations, The Temperature of the Moon. However Langley and his co-author had extrapolated some of their infrared values, and Langley even warned against using them, [298] but Arrhenius, disregarded the warning and used those values anyway (one must conclude because they produced the results he wanted?).
Now in 1900 Langley and Abbot corrected some errors in their 1890 paper [299] but this was not noticed by Arrhenius, [3] and although the corrections completely invalidated Arrhenius’ premise, his paper was still available to be cited by both incompetent and unscrupulous people. Finally, in 2003, Hans Erren posted the corrected values on the internet with the obvious conclusion that “The Allegheny data are of little use to calculate the influence of CO2 on climate” [x], and keep in mind the corrected values are derived from a formula indicating a doubling (Erren's example) of atmospheric CO2 would raise the global temperature 0.222 degrees C (about 0.4 degrees F)(and that sounds high to me).
But here's the odd thing, we don't need a mathematical formula, we need a physical experiment, glass or plastic boxes of specific sizes filled with atmospheric gasses and certified mercury thermometers that can be observed by the human eye in side by side comparisons and then vary the bottom of the boxes by cover of water, asphalt, cement, rock, wood, those things most commonly collect radiation in our earthly environment.
Instead by 2002 Arrhenius’ defective paper had been used, along with 45 Billion dollars (newer figures on the internet indicate over 200 Billion more in costs) [a reference here would be pointless] in government funding to the “science” community, to create the impossible threat of a carbon dioxide induced “Global Warming”!
The question then arises as to why the U.S. government started to fund a fraudulent project and why it was sustained by both Democratic and Republican administrations? Which person, running for re-election, was in a position to threaten the jobs of so many scientists?
To exemplify just how illogical Arrhenius and his followers have been by omitting the Central Heat of the Earth from their calculations, the reader should check out the modern day illustration: In the 1970’s the British were using airborne radar to map Antarctica and obtained readings near Russia’s Vostok Station (about 600 miles from the coast, where they’ve recorded the coldest temperature on Earth, -129˚F) that suggested there was water under the ice. By the year 2000 it was determined that 12,170 feet under this great flat expanse of ice and 1,600 feet below sea level [x] there was a fresh water lake approximately the size of Lake Ontario but about twice as deep (I believe that makes it the second largest fresh water lake, by volume, on earth), appropriately they’ve named it Lake Vostok. As this lake predates the industrial revolution and the automobile by 500 thousand to a million years, no one seems to be trying to blame the melting ice on an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. With no alternative the scientists admit the obvious, Glaciers tend to melt from the bottom up not the top down: “The top of the ice remains very cold, but the bottom becomes slightly warmed by the heat radiating from the earth’s interior.”, [92] Why is this important? Remember the Musk Ox? They are not very smart but they do know enough to turn their back sides to the wind when it's been blowing across hundreds of miles of Arctic ice (to protect their eyes), an action they do not have to take when the wind is blowing across hundreds of miles of open water. It is this warmer wind blowing across the water that causes Greenland's glaciers to melt at the lower to middle altitudes, not carbon dioxide which has long (1861) been known only to collect radiating heat (as most people know ice does a poor job of radiating heat [2] ).
The Epiphany
It may be, that before one can have so spectacular an event as an epiphany, they have to look dozens of times at what should have been obvious at first glance, that is, in this case, the above graphic depicting the difference in the Arctic ice in 1979 and its currently diminished size.
Before 1976 the best Icebreakers in the US could only cruise through 22 inches of ice, but in 1976 and 1978 the U.S. Coast Guard commissioned the advanced design Icebreakers Polar Star and Polar Sea to cruise through 6 feet 6 inches of ice (that is: they could shatter most of the oldest sea ice: the oldest and hardest ice in the Arctic Ocean), and ram their way through 22 feet of ice where multiple ice layers have tended to slide up on top of one another (pack ice, the result of the 4 year retrograde rotation period of the entire ice cap). The sea-trials of these Icebreakers showed their design goals had been met. Their new design, being rather simple and obvious, was shared with other nations, most importantly the Soviet Union, so now there are more than 70 Icebreakers that have been shattering ice and helping melt the broken pieces with the hot water exchanged for cold during the cooling process of their heavily worked diesel and nuclear engines (obviously ship’s engines are water-cooled). Satellite photos now show a significant loss of Arctic Sea Ice since 1979, not coincidentally their anchor year. (see above Arctic map)
Check out the size of the Russian Icebreaker fleet. Find out how much energy, NUCLEAR and diesel, has been put into the fragile Arctic surface waters over the last 30 years and then ask why the “scientists” never mention that heat input. Look at the satellite photos of where the ice is missing, it’s missing where the icebreakers have been most active! How did I miss the obvious, I helped build both the Polar Star and Polar Sea! And I knew from before the first keel was fully assembled they were intended to cut a polar passage for commercial shipping, and now they've found oil under the ice. I'd like to include a link here to Aker Arctic's (March 5th 2009) Recent Experiences In Ice Management In Polar Ice but Aker's main page will no longer link to that document title. It has nice graphics showing how 3 Polar Class ice-breakers brake down very large multiyear ice floes into smaller and smaller pieces to protect the oil rigs.
Below are two other pdf's but they do not have such nice graphics.
Below are two other pdf's but they do not have such nice graphics.
But the Ice Cap is also thinning, 30 years of US, Russian and British nuclear submarine fleets constantly cooling their reactors 200 feet under the ice has inhibited the formation of new ice and even though the Cold War is over those submarines continue their same level of activity, why, if not to destroy the ice? One hundred percent of the heat removed by their heat exchangers to cool their Nuclear Reactors is released beneath the Ice.
Russia now has a new 522 foot Nuclear-Powered icebreaker (two reactors) to add to its nuclear fleet which is designed to cruse through ice up to 9.2 feet thick. They expect soon to double their own yearly Arctic shipping and as nuclear-power allows their icebreakers to operate year round in the ice, they intend to “guide convoys from Europe to America through the North Pole.” If the convoys average even 20 ships a day the heat from so many large diesel engines will melt the multi-year Ice rather quickly. As the refitting of Russia’s two oldest icebreakers started several years ago I’d guess the convoys will start any time now.
Why is it, do you suppose, the “scientists’ selling carbon dioxide induced “global warming” do not mention the detrimental effects of hydrothermal plumes, Icebreakers and Nuclear-Powered Sub marines? (is their heat included in the computer models?, I think not.) Isn’t it the job of the News Media to report the real news instead of a government sponsored fairy-tail? Man made Carbon Dioxide is not causing global warming!!!
I remember John Cabot from 8th grade history making his first landfall somewhere around Newfoundland in 1497. He was looking for a Northwest Passage, that is, an ice-free passage for shipping North and West over the top of the Continent. Henry Hudson looked again in 1607 but only discovered Hudson’s Bay and a river. Much later, in 1776, James Cook attempted several times from the Pacific side to force his way through the Bering Strait but it was not a possibility with a sailing ship. In 1534 it was first suggested that a canal be cut across Panama. It should be noticed that the Panama Canal (the one that the US gave away) now (2002) has a permanent waiting list of at least 60 ships and has had upwards of 300 ships in line! Neither the shipping industry nor their country governments have changed, they still don’t like the Arctic Ice in their way and would be glad to see it gone. But the U.S. government did not want to deal with the environmentalists so they cleverly used Arrhenius bad science paper to blame the American people and the auto industry for the inevitable Arctic Ice destruction.
An Example of Junk Science
I happened to have on hand, in the course of researching the density of the Cretaceous atmosphere, 14 different sourced published papers that indicated or implied the only output of volcanic activity was/is carbon dioxide and that was what sustained the 75 million years of warm Cretaceous climate (all funded by grants from the US Government). Those papers, combined, do not acknowledge enough escaping submarine volcanic HEAT to make a cup of tea! And the Ontong-Java Plateau alone has a volume estimated to be more than 50 million cubic kilometers! (point: How did the cave dwellers boil water? They dropped a hot rock into a container of water).
Oh yes! Least I forget, Greenpeace, who think the lost Arctic ice is consequent to the world-wide emissions of carbon dioxide, operates, one of the afore mentioned Icebreakers! If they were to look behind the Arctic Sunrise they would see why the ice is being destroyed.
(looks like Greenpeace is actually a secret government agency, but they probably don’t know it! I think that’s called super secret or is that Ultra Secret?).
So the “scientists” have been bought with Tens of Billions of Our Tax dollars to sustain the fraud of an impossible carbon dioxide threat, that leaves the intelligence or ethics of the media in question. Are they unaware of the existence of Icebreakers and Submarines? Are they unaware those engines and reactors must be cooled by the surrounding waters? Did they miss MR. Wizard’s science show for children where he showed that broken ice melts faster than unbroken ice? Are the people who control the Media also accepting bribes from the government?, or are they just not very bright?
It was about 2012 when I was sitting next to a man in his mid 70's in a dermatologist's waiting room and we'd talked about a few different subjects when he asked what I thought about global warming and by way of an explanation I started my answer in 1497 with the name of John Cabot, immediately (about 1 second) he answered with "Northwest Passage". I continued on to say I'd helped build the first two Polar Class icebreakers but he'd already assembled all the economic and political trickery involved.
How is it that the FBI, an organization with probably the highest IQ in the world, is so stupid it can't figure out "global warming" is a fraud?
Research for this paper was not funded by any political or special interest group. References and conclusion were excerpted from the third volume manuscript of Stress, Fatigue, Money and Medicine: The Atmosphere.
Congratulations:
you've read to the end, now you can read the actual references I've cited which are located in the stacks at various western University libraries to verify that they are real (as there is now mostly FRAUD surrounding this subject), then you will almost be qualified to comment on my conclusion. But remember: I helped build both the Polar Star and Polar Sea and they (and their subsequently built Russian counterparts) have nearly accomplished what I expected they would when I first started working on them in the 1970's. The one thing I did not anticipate at the time was the restorative effect to the ice of the 4 sunspot cycle's lows since the ships were built, not completely unexpected but at the time sunspots were being blamed for anything and everything, the joke of the decade.
One would not be out of bounds to say I'm kicking a dead horse or tilting with a windmill in trying to bring down the multi-Billion dollar industry of carbon dioxide induced global warming. But the truth will come out eventually and why should the tax payers keep subsidizing government fraud? President Obama says the science is convincing (or some such thing) but he seems unaware he is the guy running the government that's giving out the grants to produce the junk science he's relying on for his statement (naive or disconnected would be the word we want here), perhaps it's time the President had a Secretary of Science so there would be someone actually accountable for this kind of scam, or someone to give out an equal number of grants to the scientists who already know this is a scam.
My rule of thumb (a dozen and more years ago when collecting information on the atmosphere) was to check very carefully any papers published between 1975 and 1980. From 1981 on I presumed anything with warming or carbon dioxide in the text should be expected to be misleading, and that what was really the tip-off of fraud was information missing from the text that should have been there (sometimes it's the editors that do that). In fact I had an analogy: A new 800 page book about the moon that failed to mention that the US had actually landed on the moon and humans had walked on the moon. There may actually be a book like that in North Korea!
A last word on the Urban Heat Island Effect: When it was explained to me (about 1952) by far the tallest building in Seattle was the Smith Tower, which had 35 floors and an exterior surface of which about two thirds was glass, currently it is hard to find on the Seattle skyline as there are so many taller glass, air- conditioned heat accumulators that have been constructed in the city center.
Air-conditioners use electricity, cost money to run, and produce as well as expel accumulated heat. The Heat Island Effect is real and regularly measured both by thermometers and electrical costs, City Warming is not a cracked brain theory, it's a consequence of growing populations. City temperatures are anomalies and should not be included in any global average (I think I repeat myself).
The
subject of carbon dioxide induced "global warming" seems to be
primarily a United States phenomenon, most countries are not interested, a
great sales job by a science-ignorant news media, repeatedly interviewing
"scientists" who make a living selling such foolishness without
asking who pays them is sloppy journalism (I've never seen it happen!).
The bright spot in this is that the junk science that sustains this money
eating monster usually has either a few real facts in it or more likely ignores
the information that shows it to be simply more misleading rubbish. So to
simplify this monetarily unbalanced debate I suggest checking out the highest
temperature ever recorder in North America. Was it last week, last month, last
year, two years ago, five years ago, when exactly was the record set?
REFERENCES
1 Hunt EB: Remarks on Terrestrial Thermotics. Proc Am Asso Adv Sci, 1850; II: 135-40.
2 Tyndall J: On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction. Philo Mag, 1861; 22(s.4): 169-94; 273-85.
3 Arrhenius S: On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground. Phil Mag, 1896; 41(s.5): 237-76.
4 Chamberlin TC: A Group of Hypotheses Bearing on Climatic Changes. J Geol, 1897; V: 653-83.
5 Officer C, Page J: The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy. New York, 1996.
6 Frank RG: Harvey and the Oxford Physiologists. Berkeley, 1980.
7 Balling RC (Jr): The Global Temperature Data. Resear & Explor, 1993; 9: 201-7.
8 Lindzen R: Absence of Scientific Basis. Nat Geog Res Explor, 1993; 9: 191-200.
9 Jones MDH, Henderson-Sellers A: History of the Green-house Effect. Prog Physical Geog, 1990; 14: 1-18.
10 Ramanathan V: The Greenhouse Theory of Climatic Change: A Test by an Inadvertent Global Experiment. Science 1988; 240: 293-9.
11 Kerr RA: Globe’s ‘Missing Warming’ Found in the Ocean. Science, 2000; 287: 2126-7.
12 Lindzen R: Can Carbon Dioxide Cause Climatic Change? Proc Natl Acad Sci, 1997; 94: 8335-42.
13 Pearce F: Greenhouse Wars. New Sci, 1997; 155(July 19): 38-43.
14 Time: Another Ice Age? 1974; 103(June 24): 86.
15 Washington WM: Where’s the Heat? Natural History, 1990; 99(March): 66-72.
16 LaBrecque M: Detecting Climatic Change I, Taking the World’s Temperature. Mosaic 1989; 20: 2-9.
17 Kellogg WW, Schneider SH: Climate Stabilization: For Better or for Worse? Science, 1974; 186: 1163-72.
18 Douglas JH: Climatic Change: Chilling Possibilities. Sci News. 1975; 107: 138-40.
19 Kahl JD, et al: Absence of Evidence for Greenhouse Warming Over the Arctic Ocean in the Past 40 years. Nature, 1993; 361: 335-7.
20 Berner RA: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Levels Over Phanerozic Time. Science, 1990; 249: 1382-6.
21 Gwynn P: The Cooling World. Newsweek, 1975; 85 (Ap 28): 64.
22 Dunbar RB, Wellington GM, Colgan MW, Glynn PW: Eastern Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Since 1600 A.D.: The d18O Record of Climate Variability in Galápagos Corals. Paleoceanography, 1994; 9: 291-315.
23 Litton E: Philosophical Conjectures on Aereal Influences, the Probable Origin of Diseases. London, 1747.
24 Quarterly Review: Glacial Epochs and Warm Polar Climates. 1879; 48: 223-54.
25 Lawson DA: Pterosaur from Latest Cretaceous of West Texas: Discovery of the Largest Flying Creature. Science, 1975; 187: 147-8.
26 Campbell KE, Tonni EP: Size and Locomotion in Teratorns (Aves: Teratornithidae). Auk, 1983; 100: 390-403.
27 Hughes P: Children of the Cold. Weatherwise, 1992; 46: 10-17.
28 Wignall PB, Twitchett RJ: Oceanic Anoxia and the End Permian Mass Extinction. Science, 1996; 272: 1155-8.
29 Manning J: What Really Killed the Dinosaurs? Planetarian, 1997; 26: 7-16.
30 Wigley TML, Jones PD, Kelly PM: Global Warming? Nature, 1981; 291: 285.
31 Wolkomir R: Is a New Ice Age Coming? Sat Eve Post, 1976; 248: 50-51; 78.
32 Bray AJ: The Ice Age Cometh. Policy Rev, 1991; 58: 82-4.
33 Kukla GJ, Matthews RK: When Will the Present Inter-glacial End? Science, 1972; 178: 190-1.
34 (Rees’s Cyclopaedia) The Cyclopaedia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. London, 1819. Climate. Volume 8 (there are no page numbers).
35 Allègre CJ, Schneider SH: The Evolution of the Earth. Sci Am, 1994; 271 (Oct): 66-75.
36 Gribbin J: The End of the Ice Ages? New Sci, 1989; 122: 48-52.
37 Zachos JC: From the Greenhouse to the Icehouse: Oceanus, 1993/94 (winter); 36; 57-61.
38 Kerr RA: A New Dawn for Sun-Climate Links? Science, 1996; 271: 1360-1.
39 Eddy JA: The Case of the Missing Sunspots. Sci Am, 1977; 236 (May): 80-9.
40 Foukal PV: The Variable Sun. Sci Am, 1990; 262 (Feb): 34-41.
41 Friis-Christensen E, Lassen K: Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate. Science, 1991; 254: 698-700.
42 Oglesby RJ, Saltzman B: Extending the EBM: The Effect of Deep Ocean Temperature on Climate with Applications to the Cretaceous. Palaeogeogr, Palaeoclimatol, Palaeoecol, 1990; 82: 347-59.
43 Lindzen RS: Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming. Bull Am Metorol Soc, 1990; 288-99.
44 Uppenbrink J: Arrhenius and Global Warming. Science, 1996; 272: 1122.
45 Owen RN: Sea-Floor Hydrothermal Activity Links Climate to Tectonics: The Eocene Carbon Dioxide Green-house. Science, 1985; 227: 166-9.
46 Phipson TL: The Chemical History of the Atmosphere. Chem News, 1893; LXVII: 75.
47 Science Abstracts: Effect of Pressure on the Ultra-red Absorption Spectrum of Carbon Dioxide. Ann. D. Physik. 1905; 16: 93-105.
48 Humphres WJ: Physics of the Air. New York, 1940.
49 Warring CB: Geological Climate in High Latitudes. Pop Sci Mo, 1886; XXIX: 352-67.
50 Humphres WJ: Ancient Climates, Some Factors of Climatic Control. Sci Mo, 1925; 20: 449-59.
51 Lovelock JE, Whitfield M: Life Span of the Biosphere. Nature, 1982; 296: 561-3.
52 President and Council of the Royal Society: Instructions for the Scientific Expedition to the Antarctic Regions. Plil Mag. 1839; 15(s3): 177-241.
53 Larson RL: The Mid-Cretaceous Superplume Episode. Sci Am, 1995; 272 (Feb): 82-6.
54 Ruddiman WF, Kutzbach JE: Plateau Uplift and Climatic Change. Sci Am, 1991; 264 (March): 66-75.
55 McKee RH: The Primal Atmosphere. Science, 1906; XXIII: 271-4.
56 Von Humboldt A: Aspects of Nature, in Different Lands and Climates; with Scientific Elucidations. London, 1849.
57 Draper JC: The Breath of Life. Galaxy, 1876, VIII: 755-60.
58 Nature: The Influence of the Pressure of the Atmosphere on Human Life. 1875; XII: 472-4.
59 Hunt TS: On the Earth's Climate in Palaeozoic Times. Phil Mag, 1863; XXIV(4th series): 323-4.
60 Flammarion C: The Beginning and End of the Worlds. Sci Am Supp, 1879; VIII: 2953; 2998; 3177-8; 3206.
61 Dangerfield LH: The Evolution of Climate. Open Court, 1907; XXI: 641-63.
62 Bert P: Barometric Pressure: Researches In Experimental Physiology. Paris, 1878 (Translated from the French by Mary and Fred A Hitchcock in 1943).
63 Bulloock MA, Grinspoon DA: Global Climate Changes on Venus. Sci Am, 1999; 280 (March): 50-7.
64 Schneider SH: Climate Modeling. Sci Am, 1987; 256 (May): 72-80.
65 Hunten DM: Atmospheric Evolution of the Terrestrial Planets. Science 1993; 259: 915-20.
66 Grew ES: The Romance of Modern Geology. London, 1911.
67 Williams CT: The Compressed Air Bath and its Uses in the Treatment of Disease. Brit Med J, 1885; i: 769-72; 824-8; 936-9.
68 Philosophical Magazine: Mr. Brayley on the Theory of Volcanoes. 1838, 12: 533-6.
69 (Rees’s Cyclopaedia) The Cyclopaedia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. London, 1819. Temperature. Volume 37 (there are no page numbers)
70 North American Review: The New Theory of the Earth. 1829; XXVIII: 265-94.
71 Herschel W(Sir) Letter to Lyell in Babbage C: The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (A Fragment). (appendix), New York, 1838.
72 Babbage C. in: The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise: A Fragment, (appendix), New York, 1838. (Charles Babbage designed the first numbers machine, that is the first computer. However he did not have the money to build it and it was not built until 1991: it is said to work perfectly.)
73 Macadam S: A New Theory of the Central Heat of the Earth, and of the Cause of Volcanic Phenomena. Living Age, 1851; XXIX: 261-4.
74 Heppenheimer TA: Journey to the Center of the Earth. Discover, 1987; 8 (Nov): 86-93.
75 Courtillot VE, Besse J: Magnetic Field Reversals, Polar Wander, and Core-Mantle Coupling. Science, 1987; 237: 1140-7.
76 Philosophical Magazine: Extracts from a Letter from Sir John F. W. Herschel to C. Lyell EsQ.,.... 1837; 11 (3rd): 212-3.
77 Tilling RI: Volcanoes. U.S. Dept. of the Interior/U.S. Geological Survey, 1985.
78 (Rees’s Cyclopaedia) The Cyclopaedia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. London, 1819. Volcano. Volume 37 (there are no page numbers).
79 Wignall P: The Day the World Nearly Died. New Sci, 1992; 133 (Jan 25): 51-5.
80 Jeanloz R: Mixed Up Over the Mantle. New Sci, 1993; 140 (Oct): 34-8.
81 Murphy JB, Nance RD: Mountain Belts and the Super-continent Cycle. Sci Am, 1992; 266(April): 84-91.
82 Penvenne LJ: Turning up the Heat. New Sci, 1995;148(Dec 16): 26-30.
83 Nance RD, Worsley TR, Moody JB: The Supercontinent Cycle. Sci Am, 1988; 259(July): 72-9.
84 Dietz RS, Holden JC: The Breakup of Pangaea. Sci Am. 1970; 223 (Oct): 30-41.
85 Bonatti E: The Rifting of Continents. Sci Am, 1987; 256 (March): 96-103.
86 Cromie WJ: The Roots of Midplate Volcanism. Mosaic, 1989; 20: 18-25.
87 White RS, McKenzie DP: Volcanism at Rifts. Sci Am, 1989; 261 (July): 62-71.
88 Vink GE, Morgan WJ, Vogt PR: The Earth’s Hot Spots. Sci Am, 1985; 252 (April): 50-7.
89 Green HW: Solving the Paradox of Deep Earthquakes. Sci Am, 1994; 271 (Sept): 64-71.
90 Frohlich C: Deep Earthquakes. Sci Am. 1998; 260 (Jan): 48-55.
91 Baker ET: Megaplumes. Oceanus, 1991/92; 34: 84-91.
92 Robinson WR: Are the Glaciers Coming Back? Sci Dig, 1971; 70 (Dec): 53-7.
93 Edmond JM, Von Damm KL: Hydrothermal Activity in the Deep Sea. Oceanus, 1992; 35: 76-81.
94 Tivey MK: Hydrothermal Systems. Oceanus, 1991/92; 34: 68-74.
95 Ware G: Power from the Seafloor. Sea Tech, 1992; 33: 40-54.
96 Von Damm: Evolution of East Pacific Rise Hydrother-mal Vent Fluids following Volcanic Eruption. Nature, 1995; 375: 47-50.
97 Rich JE, Johnson GL, Jones JE, Campsie J: A Significant Correlation Between Fluctuations in Seafloor Spreading Rates and Evolutionary Pulsations. Paleoceanogrphy, 1986; 1: 85-95.
98 Courtillot VE: What Caused the Mass Extinction? A Volcanic Eruption. Sci Am, 1990; 263(Oct): 84-92.
99 Larson RL: Geological Consequences of Superplumes. Geology, 1991; 19: 963-6.
100 Vermeij GJ: Economics, Volcanoes, and Phanerzoic Revolutions. Paleobiology, 1995; 21: 125-52.
101 Pollack HN: The Cooling Earth. Nature, 1980; 286: 655-6.
102 Dobb E: Hot Times in the Cretaceous. Discover, 1992; 13: 11-3.
103 Coffin MF, Eldholm O: Large Igneous Provinces. Sci Am, 1993; 269 (Oct): 42-9.
104 Kerr RA: Did a Burst of Volcanism Overheat Ancient Earth? Science, 1991; 251: 746-7.
105 Herschel W(Sir) Letter to Murchison in Babbage C: The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (A Fragment). (appendix), New York, 1838.
106 Schopf TJM: Permo-Trassic Extinctions: Relation to Sea-Floor Spreading. J Geol, 1974; 82: 129-43.
107 Tarduno JA, et al: Rapid Formation of Ontong-Java-Plateau by Aptian Mantle Plume Volcanism. Science, 1991; 254: 399-403.
108 Richards MA, Duncan RA, Courtillot VE: Floods Basalts and Hot-Spot Tracks: Plume Heads and Trails. Science, 1989; 246: 103-7.
109 Dvorak JJ, Johnson C, Tilling RI: Dynamics of Kilauea. Sci Am, 1992; 267: 46-53.
110 Anderson DL, Dizewonski AM: Seismic Tomography. Sci Am, 1984; 251 (Oct): 60-8.
111 Coffin MF, Gahagan LM: Ontong Java and Keruelen Plateaux: Cretaceous Icelands? J Geolog Soc, 1995; 152: 1047-52.
112 Frey FA, ert.al.: Origin and Evolution of a Submarine Large Igneous Province: the Kerguelen Plateau and Broken Ridge, Southern Indian Ocean. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 2000; 176: 73-89.
113 Environment: Prehistoric Greenhouses. 1991; 33 (Apr): 21.
114 Batiza R: Abundances, Distribution and Sizes of Volcanoes in the Pacific Ocean and Implications for the Origin of Non-Hotspot Volcanoes. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 1982; 60: 195-206.
115 Smith PJ: How Many Ocean Volcanoes? Nature, 1983; 301: 195-6.
116 Science: Major Undersea Volcano Chain Sighted. 1995; 268: 809.
117 Kerr RA: A Volcanic Crisis for Ancient Life? Science, 1995; 270: 27-8.
118 Rampino MR, Stothers RB: Flood Basalt Volcanism During the Past 250 Million Years. Science, 1988; 241: 663-8.
119 Rich THV, Rich PV: Polar Dinosaurs and Biotas of the Early Cretaceous of Southern Australia. Nat Geogr Res, 1989; 5: 15-53.
120 Berner RA, Lasaga AC: Modeling the Geochemical Cycle. Sci Am, 1989; 260(March): 74-81.
121 Landis GP, et.al.: Pele Hypothesis: Ancient Atmospheres and Geologic–Geochemical Controls on Evolution, Survival, and Extinction. pp 519-56 In: Cretaceous-Tertiary Mass Extinction: Biotic and environmental changes. edited by Norman MacLeod and Greta Keller, New York, 1996.
122 Kerr RA: Why the Ice Ages Don’t Keep Time. Science, 1999; 285: 503-4.
123 Huber BT: Tropical Paradise at the Cretaceous Poles? Science, 1998; 282: 2199-2200.
124 Downis W: Our Cooling Sphere. Belgravia, 1881; 44: 413-23.
125 Anderson DL, Tanimoto T, Zhang Y: Plate Tectonics and Hotspots: The Third Dimension. Science, 1992; 256: 1645-51.
126 Weisburd S: Volcanoes and Extinctions: Round Two. Science, 1987; 131: 248-50.
127 Duncan RA, Pyle DG: Rapid Eruption of the Deccan Flood Basalts at the Cretaceous/ Tertiary Boundary. Nature, 1988; 333: 841-3.
128 Courtillot VE, et al: Deccan Flood Basalts and the Cretaceous/Tertiary Boundary. Nature, 1988; 333: 843-5.
129 Cox KG: Gradual Volcanic Catastrophes? Nature, 1988; 333: 802.
130 Monastersky R: Volcanic Suspect In Global Murder Mystery. Sci News, 1991; 140 (July 13): 20.
131 Campbell IH, et al: Synchronism of the Siberian Traps and the Permian-Triassic Boundary. Science, 1992; 258: 1760-3.
132 Erwin DH: The Permo-Triassic Extinction. Nature, 1994; 367: 231-36.
133 Paul GS: Giant Meteor Impacts and Great Eruptions: Dinosaur Killers? BioSci, 1989; 39: 162-72.
134 Tunnicliffe V: Hydrothermal-Vent Communities of the Deep Sea. Am Sci, 1992; 80: 336-49.
135 Crowley TJ: Past CO2 Changes and Tropical Sea Surface Temperatures. Paleoceanography, 1991, 6: 387-94.
136 Tarduno JA, et al: Evidence for Extreme Climatic Warmth from Late Cretaceous Arctic Vertebrates. Science, 1998; 282 (Dec 18): 2241-4.
137 Ospovat D: Lyell's Theory of Climate. J Hist Biol, 1977; 10: 317-39.
138 Crowley TJ, Short DA, Mengel JG, North GR: Role of Seasonality in the Evolution of Climate During the Last 100 Million Years. Science, 1986; 231: 579-84.
139 Barron EJ: Eocene Equator-To-Pole Surface Ocean Temperatures: A Significant Climate Problem? Paleoceanography, 1987; 6: 729-39.
140 Dowsett HJ, et al: Micropaleontological Evidence for Increased Meridional Heat Transport in the North Atlantic Ocean During the Pliocene. Science 1992; 258: 133-35.
141 Speer KG: A New Spin on Hydrothermal Plumes. Science, 1998; 280: 1034-5.
142 Anderson RN, Hobart MA, Langseth MG: Geothermal Convection Through Oceanic Crust and Sediments in the Indian Ocean. Science 1979; 204: 828-32.
143 Chamberlin C: The Future Habitability of the Earth. Ann Rept Smith Inst, 1910: 371-89.
144 Bailey K: Volcanic Activity: The Continual Degassing of the Earth. New Sci, 1979; 81(Feb 1): 313-5.
145 Prinn RG: The Volcanoes and Clouds of Venus. Sci Am, 1985, 252 (March): 46-53.
146 Jones HS: The Evolution of the Earth’s Atmosphere. Meteorolog Mag, 1939; 74: 7-11.
147 Ball RS (Sir): How Long Can the Earth Sustain Life. Fortn Rev, 1892; 51: 478-90.
148 Philander G: El Niño and La Ni Niña. Am Sci, 1989; 77: 451-9.
149 McAlester AL: Animal Extinctions, Oxygen Consumption, and Atmospheric History. J Paleont, 1970; 44: 405-9.
150 Phipson TL: Vegetation in an Atmosphere Devoid of Oxygen, and Considerations on the Dawn of Animal Life. Chem News, 1893: LXVIII: 259-60.
151 Daubeny C: On the Action of Light Upon Plants, and the Plants Upon the Atmosphere. Phil Trans, 1836; 26: 149-75.
152 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology: Atmosphere, Evolution of. 1987; 2: 161.
153 Scientific American: Atmospheric Pressure in Past Geological Ages. 1911; 105: 319.
154 Graham JB, Dudley R, Aguilar NM, Gans C: Implications of the Late Palaeozoic Oxygen Pulse for Physiology and Evolution. Nature, 1995: 375: 117-20.
155 Popular Science Monthly: Volcanic Products. 1881; XX: 347-59.
156 Urabe T, et al: The Effect of Magmatic Activity on Hydrothermal Venting Along the Superfast-Spreading East Pacific Rise. Science. 1995; 269: 1092-4.
157 O’Brien JJ: El Niño–An Example of Ocean/Atmosphere Interactions. Oceanus 1978; 21: 40-6.
158 Cave S: The El Niño Phenomenon and the Planet’s Climate. Our Planet, 1991; 3(6): 12-3.
159 Wuethrich B: El Niño Goes Critical. New Sci. 1995; 145 (Feb 4): 32-5.
160 Cane MA: A Role for the Tropical Pacific. Science, 1998; 282: 59-61.
161 Monastersky R: El Niño Episode Brews in the Pacific Ocean. New Sci, 1991; 140 (Aug 10): 87.
162 Gantenbein D: El Niño the Weathermaker. Pop Sci, 1995; 246: 76-82.
163 Nash JM: Is It El Niño of the Century? Time, 1997; 150 (Aug 18): 56-8.
164 New Scientist: Magma Flows Blamed for El Niño Events. 1988; 120 (Dec 10): 17.
165 Christie DM, et al: Drowned Islands Downstream form Galápagos Hotspot Imply Extended Speciation Times. Nature, 1992; 355: 246-8.
166 White WM, McBirney AR, Duncan RA: Petrology and Geochemistry of the Galápagos Islands: Portrait of a Pathological Mantle Plume. J Geophysical Res, 1993; 98: 19, 533-63.
167 Environment: Undersea Volcanoes and El Niño Events. 1989; 31 (Jan/Feb): 22.
168 Oliwenstein L: Hot Air. Discover, 1990; 11(May): 32.
169 Renne PR, Basu AR: Rapid Eruption of the Siberian Traps Flood Basalts at the Permo-Triassic Boundary. Science, 1991; 253: 176-9.
170 Anderson I: Dinosaurs May Have Died Quietly, After All. New Sci, 1984; 104 (Nov 8): 9.
171 Hecht J: Doubts About the Dinosaurs Doom. New Sci, 1986; 110 (June 26): 37.
172 Landis GP, Rigby JK Jr, Sloan RE, Hengst RA: Pele Hypothesis: A Unified Model for Ancient Atmosphere and Biotic Crisis. Geological Soc Am, 1993 (Annual Meeting); 25: 362.
173 Chandler DL: Scientists Claim Low Oxygen Level Killed Dinosaurs. Salt Lake Tribune, 1983; Oct 28: A11.
174 Sereno PC, et, al: A Long-Snouted Predatory Dinosaur from Africa and the Evolution of Spinosaurids. Science, 1998; 282: 1298-1303.
175 Holtz TR: Spinosaurs as Crocodile Mimics. Science 1998; 282 (Nov): 1276-7.
176 Sereno PC, Wilson JA, Larsson HCE, Dutheil DB, Sues H: Early Cretaceous Dinosaurs from the Sahara. Science, 1994; 266: 267-71.
177 Forry S: Statistical Researches Relative to the Etiology of Pulmonary and Rheumatic Diseases, Illustrating the Application of the Laws of Climate to the Science of Medicine; Based on the Records of the Medical Department and Adjutant General's Office. Am J Med Sci, 1841; 1(n.s.): 13-54.
178 Lowell P: Mars and the Future of the Earth. Cent Mag, 1908; 75: 911-22.
179 Kerr JM: The Ocean: Its Origin and Destiny. Penn Mo, 1877; 8: 748-61; 824-34.
180 Hecht J: Will Pacific Hot Spots Wreak Havoc with Weather? New Sci, 1992; 133 (Jan 11): 19.
181 Broecker WS, Denton GH: What Drives Glacial Cycles? Sci Am, 1990; 247 (Jan): 49-56.
182 Shaler NS: Some Considerations on the Possible Means Whereby a Warm Climate May Be Produced Within the Arctic Circle. Bost Soc Nat Hist Proceed, 1875; 17: 332-7.
183 Van Dover CL: Vents at Higher Frequency. Nature, 1998; 395: 437-8.
184 Buckland W(Rev): Account of an Assemblage of Fossil Teeth and Bones... etc. Quart Rev, 1822; XXVII: 459-76.
185 Cordeiro FJB: The Tilting of the Earth’s Axis and the Glacial Epochs. Pop Astron, 1910; 18: 201-13.
186 Wolfe JA: Tertiary Climates and Floristic Relationships at High Latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol, 1980; 30: 313-23.
187 Douglas JG, Williams GE: Southern Polar Forests: The Early Cretaceous Floras of Victoria and their Palaeoclimatic Significance. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol, 1982; 39: 171-85.
188 Williams GE, Douglas JG: Comments on Cretaceous Climatic Equability in Polar Regions. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol, 1985; 49: 355-9.
189 Broccoli AJ: Learning from Past Climates. Nature, 1994; 371: 282.
190 Kerr RA: Research Council Says U.S. Climate Models Can’t Keep Up. Science, 1999; 283: 766-7.
191 Tissot B: Effects on Prolific Petroleum Source Rocks and Major Coal Deposits Caused by Sea-level Changes. Nature, 1979; 277: 463-5.
192 Kerr RA: Beyond a Volcanic Spasm. Science, 1995; 270: 747.
193 Philosophical Magazine: Elastic Fluids Evolved From Volcanoes. 1833; 3 (3rd): 159.
194 Toon OB, Pollack JB: Volcanoes and the Climate. Natural Hist, 1977; 86 (Jan): 8-26.
195 Alvarez LW, Alvarez W, Asaro F, Michel HV: Extrater-restrial Cause for the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction. Science, 1980; 208: 1095-1108.
196 Officer CB, Drake CL: Terminal Cretaceous Environ-mental Events. Science, 1985; 227: 1161-7.
197 Siegenthaler U, Sarmiento JL: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and the Ocean. Nature, 1993; 365: 119-25.
198 Phipson TL: Origin of Oxygen in the Earth's Atmosphere. Chem News, 1893; LXVIII: 45.
199 Hendry G: Oxygen, the Great Destroyer. Nat Hist, 1992; 101 (Aug): 47-52.
200 Ball R (Sir): The Nebular Theory. Indep, 1902; 54: 1694-7.
201 Scientific American: Central Heating. 1987; 256 (June); 25-6.
202 Kerr RA: The Ice Age Bones of Contention. Science, 1990; 248: 32.
203 Frogley MR, Tzedakis PC, Heaton THE: Climate Variability in Northwest Greece During the Last Interglacial. Science, 1999; 285: 1886-8.
204 Meltzer DJ: The Parching of Prehistoric North America. New Sci, 1991; 131 (Sept): 39-42.
205 Weiss H, et al: The Genesis and Collapse of the Third Millennium North Mesopotamian Civilization. Science, 1993; 261: 995-1004.
206 Gibbons A: How the Akkadian Empire was Hung Out to Dry. Science, 1993; 261: 985.
207 Gorman C: Mystery of the 300-Year Drought. Time, 1993; 142 (Aug 30): 46.
208 Huntington E: The Climate of Ancient Palestine. Bull Am Geog Soc, 1908; XL: 513-22; 577-86; 641-52.
209 Huntington E: Civilization and Climate. New Haven, 1924.
210 Cloudsley-Thompson JL: The Expanding Sahara. Environ Conserv, 1974; 1: 5-13.
211 Wright B: Colder Winters for Northern Africa as Deserts Expand. New Sci, 1992; 133 (Jan 18): 20.
212 Thomas DSG: Sandstorm in a Teacup? Understanding Desertification. Geograph J, 1993; 159: 318-31.
213 Richards MA, Jones DL, Duncan RA, DePaolo DJ: A Mantle Plume Initiation Model for the Wrangellia Flood Basalt and Other Oceanic Plateaus. Science, 1991; 254: 263-7.
214 Menard HW: Elevation and Subsidence of Oceanic Crust. Earth Planet Sci Lett, 1969; 6: 275-84.
215 Brush SG: Theories of the Origin of the Solar System 1956-1985. Rev Mod Physics, 1990; 62: 43-112.
216 Le Conte J: The Nebular Hypothesis. Pop Sci Mo, 1873; II: 650-60.
217 See TJJ: The Nature and Origin of Volcanic Heat. Science 1906; XXIV: 301-3.
218 Sharpe HN, Peltier WR: A Thermal History Model for the Earth with Parameterized Convection. Geophys J R astr Soc 1979; 59: 171-203.
219 Karato S: Inner Core Anisotropy Due to the Magnetic Field-Induced Preferred Orientation of Iron. Science, 1993; 262: 1708-11.
220 Glatzmaier GA, Roberts PH: Rotation and Magnetism of Earth’s Core. Science, 1996; 274: 1887-91.
221 Su W, Dziewonski AM, Jeanloz R: Planet Within a Planet: Rotation of the Inner Core of Earth. Science, 1996; 274: 1883-7.
222 Bono JJ: Reform and the Languages of Renaissance Theoretical Medicine: Harvey Versus Fernel. J Hist Biol, 1990; 23 (Fall): 341-87.
223 Stuart A: Experiments to Prove the Existence of a Fluid in the Nerves. Phil Trans, 1732; 424: 327-31.
224 Kelvin (Lord): The Age of the Earth as an Adobe Fitted for Life. Smithson Rpt, 1897: 337-57.
225 Wiechert E: Our Present Knowledge of the Earth. Smithson Rept, 1908: 431-49.
226 Monastersky R: The Moon’s Tug Stretches Out the Day. Sci News, 1996; 150 (July 6): 4.
227 Nutting PG: Pressures in Planetary Atmospheres. J Wash Acad Sci, 1926; 16: 254-8.
228 Proctor RA: When the Sea Was Young. Cornhill Mag, 1876; XXXIV: 151-42.
229 Kerr RA: Ten Years Later: Whence the Moon. Science, 1979; 205: 292-3.
230 Ball RS (Sir): The Tides and the Lengthening Day. Sci Am Supp, 1882; 13: 5118-19.
231 Goldreich P: Tides and the Earth-Moon System. Sci Am, 1972; 226 (Apr): 42-52.
232 Kerr RA: Where Was the Moon Eons Ago? Science, 1983; 221: 1166.
233 New Scientist: Ancient Climates Linked to Lunar Cycles. 1987; 116 (Oct 22): 34.
234 Comins N: The Earth Without the Moon. Astron, 1991; 19: 49-53.
235 Folger T: The Fast Young Earth. Discovery, 1993; 14 (Nov): 32.
236 Chase PE: Dependence of Terrestrial Magnetism on Atmospheric Currents. Am J Sci, 1864; XXXVIII: 373-80.
237 Monastersky R: Putting a New Spin on Earth’s Core. Sci News, 1996; 150 (July 20): 36.
238 Dyal P, Parkin CW: The Magnetism of the Moon. Sci Am, 1971; 225 (Aug): 62-73.
239 Bird J: The Upper Atmosphere Threshold of Space. NASA Publication, 1988.
240 Pearson J: The Lonely Life of a Double Planet. New Sci, 1988; 119 (Aug 25): 38-40.
241 Chappell CR: The Terrestrial Plasma Source: A New Perspective in Solar-Terrestrial Processes from Dynamics Explorer. Rev Geophy, 1988; 26: 229-48.
242 Chapman S: The Moon's Influence on the Earth's Magnetism. Sci Am Supp, 1914; 77: 368.
243 Shaler NS: The Moon. Atlan Mo, 1874; 34: 270-8.
244 Gore JE: A Double Planet. Knowledge. 1891; XIV: 175-6.
245 Jennings AG: The Earth and the World How Formed? New York, 1900.
246 Peterson I: Tilted: Stable Earth, Chaotic Mars. Sci News, 1993; 143 (Feb27): 132-3.
247 Hardcastle J: Lunar Theories: A Heliocentric Suggestion that Calls for Some Attention. Sci Am Supp, 1919; 87: 190-91.
248 Currie R: Evidence for 18.6 Year Lunar Nodal Draught in Western North America During the Past Millennium. J Geophys Res, 1984; 89: 1295-1308.
249 Currie R: Lunar Tides and the Wealth of Nations. New Sci, 1988; 120 (Nov 5): 52-5.
250 Philosophical Magazine: An Account of Toaldo's System respecting the Probability of a Change of Weather at the different Changes of the Moon. 1799; 3: 120-27.
251 Thompson LM: Sunspots and Lunar Cycles: Their Possible Relation to Weather Cycles. Cycles, 1989; 40: 265-8. 252 Loder JW, Garrett C: The 18.6-Year Cycle of Sea Surface Temperature in Shallow Seas Due to Variation in Tidal Mixing. J Geophys Res, 1978; 83: 1967-70.
253 Thompson LM: The 18.6-year Cycle in the General Economy. Cycles, 1989; 40: 139-41.
254 Kerr RA: The Moon Influences Western U. S. Draught. Science, 1984; 224: 58.
255 Patterson RH: Does the Earth Grow Sick? Living Age, 1869; 103: 798-807.
256 Hoyle F, Wickramasinghe N C: Sunspots and Influenza. Nature, 1990; 343: 304.
257 Hope-Simpson RE: Sunspots and Flu: A Correlation. Nature, 1978; 275: 86.
258 Index-Catalogue of The Library of the Surgeon-General’s Office, United States Army. Washington, 1883; v3 (Climate and Climates): 222-28.
259 Patterson KD, Pyle GF: The Geography and Mortality of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic. Bull Hist Med, 1991; 65: 4-21.
260 Derham W: Physico-Theology: or, a Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God, from His Works of Creation. London, 1716.
261 Barrough P: The Method of Physic. London, 1590.
262 Schneider SH: The Changing Climate. Sci Am, 1989; 261: 70-9.
263 Kerr RA: Slide Into Ice Ages Not Carbon Dioxide’s Fault? Science, 1999; 284: 1743-46.
264 Rozelot JP: On the Stability of the 11-Year Solar Cycle Period (and a Few Others). Solar Physics, 1994; 149: 149-54.
265 The World Almanac. Mahwah, NJ, 1994.
266 Seymour PAH, Willmott M, Turner A: Sunspots, Planetary Alignments, and Solar Magnetism: A Progress Review. Cycles, 1992; 43: 315-23.
267 Cushing EW: Sun-Spot Cycles and Epidemics. Inter Rev, 1880; VIII: 417-27.
268 Cook A: Edmond Halley: Charting the Heavens and the Seas. Oxford, 1998.
269 Ward WR: Comments on the Long-Term Stability of the Earth's Obliquity. Icarus, 1982; 50: 444-8.
270 Laskar J, Joutel F, Robutel P: Stabilization of the Earth's Obliquity by the Moon. Nature, 1993; 361: 615-17.
271 Naeye R: Moon of Our Delight. Discover, 1994; 15 (Jan): 72-4.
272 Williams JG: Contributions to the Earth's Obliquity Rate, Precession, and Nutation. Astron J, 1994; 108: 711-24.
273 Stockwell JN: On a Secular Inequality in the Moon's Motion Produced by the Oblateness of the Earth. Am J Sci, 1879; 18 (3rd series): 387-9.
274 Sky & Telescope: Changes in Earth's Tilt. 1983; 65 (Jan): 12-13.
275 Wilford JN: Moon May Save Earth from Chaotic Tilting of Other Planets. N Y Times, 1993; Tue Mar 2: C1 & C9.
276 Kerr RA: Earth’s Solid Iron Core May Skew Its Mag-netic Field. Science, 1995; 267: 1910-11.
277 Runcorn SK: The Moon's Ancient Magnetism. Sci Am, 1987; 257 (Dec): 60-8.
278 Anderson I: Dinosaurs Breathed Air Rich in Oxygen. New Sci, 1987; 116 (Nov 5): 25.
279 Rasool SI, Schneider SH: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects on Large Increases on Global Climate. Science, 1971; 173: 138-41.
280 Tyson P: The Dinosaurs' Last Gasp. Teck Rev, 1994; 97: 12.
281 Baubron JC, Allard P, Toutain JP: Diffuse Volcanic Emissions of Carbon Dioxide from Volcano Island, Italy. Nature, 1990; 344: 51-53.
282 MacBride D: Experimental Essays on Medical and Philosophical Subjects. (2nd ed) London, 1767.
283 Richardson BW(Sir): The Vital Properties of Carbonic Acid. Asclepiad, 1889; VI: 77-86.
284 Current Literature: Volcanic Eruption as the source of Life on the Earth. 1909; 46: 679-80.
285 Gibbs EL, Gibbs FA, Lennox WG, Nims LF: Regulation of Cerebral Carbon Dioxide. Arch Neurol & Psychiat. 1942; 47: 879-89.
286 Singer FS: Scientists Add to Heat Over Global Warming. Washington Times, May 5, 1998.
287 Macllwain C: Petition Strengthens Hand of Global Warming Skeptics. Nature 1998; 392: 639.
288 Jacoby J: Even Scientists Can’t Agree on Global Warming Threat. The Arizona Daily Star, 1998; Nov 8: F3.
289 Idso SB: Carbon Dioxide Friend or Foe? Tempe, Arizona, 1982.
290 Idso SB, Kimball BA: Tree Growth in Carbon Dioxide Enriched Air and its Implications for Global Carbon Cycling and Maximum Levels of Atmospheric CO2. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 1993; 7: 550-5.
291 New Scientist: Carbon Dioxide: Now the Good News. 1980; 85 (Jan 31): 317.
292 Fan S, et al: A Large Terrestrial Carbon Sink in North America Implied by Atmospheric and Oceanic Carbon Dioxide Data and Models. Science, 1998; 282: 442-5.
293 Kaiser J: Possibly Vast Greenhouse Gas Sponge Ignites Controversy. Science, 1998; 282: 386-7.
294 Phillips OL, et al: Changes in the Carbon Balance of Tropical Forests: Evidence from Long-Term Plots. Science, 1998; 282: 439-41.
295 White AD: A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. New York, 1896.
296 Roach J: Hotbed of Volcanic Activity. National Geographic News. June 25,2003.
297 The National Snow and Ice Data Center.
298 Langley SP, Very FW: The Temperature of the Moon, Memoir of the National Academy of Sciences, vol IV 9th mem 193pp.
299 Langley SP, Abbot: Annals of the Astrophysical Observatory of the Smithsonian Institution. Volume I, 1900.
No comments:
Post a Comment