Update: I recently read a brief review of a major research project
involving the study of a period in earth history coinciding with a large rise
in temperature. Did these researches choose the large rise in temperature
from 10,000 years ago, (see graph below) or the one from 140,000 years
ago or any of the half dozen intra glacial periods over the last 1,000,000
years? Nope. They studied a period 300,000,000 years ago covering a
span of 40,000,000 years. Yep, the temperature went up and down, but
mostly up and the implied CO2 went up and down but of course it could
not be determined if the increases of one was due to the other. Apparently
no Paleozoic civilization was directly fingered as the source of CO2
pollution, but the hotter planet seemed to coincide with a hotter sun. Wow,
another academic triumph.
involving the study of a period in earth history coinciding with a large rise
in temperature. Did these researches choose the large rise in temperature
from 10,000 years ago, (see graph below) or the one from 140,000 years
ago or any of the half dozen intra glacial periods over the last 1,000,000
years? Nope. They studied a period 300,000,000 years ago covering a
span of 40,000,000 years. Yep, the temperature went up and down, but
mostly up and the implied CO2 went up and down but of course it could
not be determined if the increases of one was due to the other. Apparently
no Paleozoic civilization was directly fingered as the source of CO2
pollution, but the hotter planet seemed to coincide with a hotter sun. Wow,
another academic triumph.
Global Warming?
Geologists should become more involved in the debate over global warming. Climatologist and
environmental scientists, often politically motivated, currently dominate a debate that fails miserably to
put the controversy into a proper context. Climatologists think in terms of seasons, years and 100 year
floods or droughts. Environmental scientists, in fact most people, think in terms of their lives or the
last few generations. Geologist think in terms of the age of the earth. Geologists understand that the
climate has changed dramatically thousands of times over the history of the earth and none of these
changes has had anything to do with us. Geologists would more likely agree that we could only wish
that we could control the climate. The next major climatic shift will certainly come and we will be at it's
mercy regardless of it's cause.
environmental scientists, often politically motivated, currently dominate a debate that fails miserably to
put the controversy into a proper context. Climatologists think in terms of seasons, years and 100 year
floods or droughts. Environmental scientists, in fact most people, think in terms of their lives or the
last few generations. Geologist think in terms of the age of the earth. Geologists understand that the
climate has changed dramatically thousands of times over the history of the earth and none of these
changes has had anything to do with us. Geologists would more likely agree that we could only wish
that we could control the climate. The next major climatic shift will certainly come and we will be at it's
mercy regardless of it's cause.
Starting with the document, Climate Change 1995, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the
"Global Warming" movement began in earnest. The document is filled with data and "conclusions"
based on this data. Some of the interesting "conclusions" and often the only information the public has
been treated to, are those which extract a sound bite from a very biased reading of the data. In one
section the author states: "it seems unlikely that the mean temperatures have increased by 1o C or
more in a century at any time during the last 10,000 years." and "the 20th century appears to have
been warmer than any century for some thousands of years." The data the unidentified author or
authors of the "Summery" on pg 137-139 uses is from the graph below.
"Global Warming" movement began in earnest. The document is filled with data and "conclusions"
based on this data. Some of the interesting "conclusions" and often the only information the public has
been treated to, are those which extract a sound bite from a very biased reading of the data. In one
section the author states: "it seems unlikely that the mean temperatures have increased by 1o C or
more in a century at any time during the last 10,000 years." and "the 20th century appears to have
been warmer than any century for some thousands of years." The data the unidentified author or
authors of the "Summery" on pg 137-139 uses is from the graph below.
The summery is technically correct but a 1oC change per century is the result of the anomalous
stability of the last 10,000 years not an unprecedented event as the statement would like you to infer.
More importantly this 1oC rise hasn't even happened it is the projection of the computer program. As
you can see below the temperature has actually risen 0.2 oC since 1840 and even starting from the
low around 1910 to the high at 1940 its only been about 0.8 oC. To claim that the last century is the
"hottest of the last few thousand years" is wonderfully instructive of the bias of the author. The last
century is also "one of the coldest" of the last 10,000 years, but "one of the hottest" of the last
150,000 years.
stability of the last 10,000 years not an unprecedented event as the statement would like you to infer.
More importantly this 1oC rise hasn't even happened it is the projection of the computer program. As
you can see below the temperature has actually risen 0.2 oC since 1840 and even starting from the
low around 1910 to the high at 1940 its only been about 0.8 oC. To claim that the last century is the
"hottest of the last few thousand years" is wonderfully instructive of the bias of the author. The last
century is also "one of the coldest" of the last 10,000 years, but "one of the hottest" of the last
150,000 years.
To a geologist 150 thousand years is still an instant of time. If the earth were one year old this would
represent the last 20 minutes. The "mini ice age" 1400-1600 AD is barely visible in the data and in
fact the temperature has been slowly dropping for the past 10,000 years, rising slightly only over the
last 400 years. When I look at this data I would advocate we concentrate on avoiding the fate of the
planet 120,000 years ago when, after a brief 10,000 year warm spell, almost identical to the last
10,000 years, the planet fell victim to a 100,000 year long ice age.
represent the last 20 minutes. The "mini ice age" 1400-1600 AD is barely visible in the data and in
fact the temperature has been slowly dropping for the past 10,000 years, rising slightly only over the
last 400 years. When I look at this data I would advocate we concentrate on avoiding the fate of the
planet 120,000 years ago when, after a brief 10,000 year warm spell, almost identical to the last
10,000 years, the planet fell victim to a 100,000 year long ice age.
Most people understand the concept of regression to the mean, and few could argue that this set of
data could be interpreted as indicating anything other than a high probability for falling temperatures in
the future. Luckily it looks as though it might take a few thousand years before it gets real cold.
data could be interpreted as indicating anything other than a high probability for falling temperatures in
the future. Luckily it looks as though it might take a few thousand years before it gets real cold.
As far a the short term data used to feed the computer models that generate the warming disaster, it
spans only the last 150 years. This represents the last two seconds in the year old earth referenced
above. The graph below is the linchpin of the entire debate. The top line has almost no correlation to
the increasing "human caused pollution" dropping precipitously to a low in 1910 increasing steadily
until 1940 and then holding mostly steady. The increases in carbon dioxide and other gases over this
same span does not come close to this pattern. However, the lower line, which is data I have added to
this chart, represents the solar cycle. The peaks and troughs are the 11 year sunspot cycle numbers
for the same period. I have simply drawn a line between the 11 year peaks in the spot cycle. The
correspondence to the temperature data looks much better to me than anything the global warming
scientists have been able to produce. Additionally the "mini ice age" referenced above was coincident
with a greatly diminished or absent sun spot cycle. Recently a couple of Russian scientists bet a
"global warmer" $10,000 that the temperature of the earth was more a function of the spot cycle,
shown below, than a man made "Global Warming" disaster.
spans only the last 150 years. This represents the last two seconds in the year old earth referenced
above. The graph below is the linchpin of the entire debate. The top line has almost no correlation to
the increasing "human caused pollution" dropping precipitously to a low in 1910 increasing steadily
until 1940 and then holding mostly steady. The increases in carbon dioxide and other gases over this
same span does not come close to this pattern. However, the lower line, which is data I have added to
this chart, represents the solar cycle. The peaks and troughs are the 11 year sunspot cycle numbers
for the same period. I have simply drawn a line between the 11 year peaks in the spot cycle. The
correspondence to the temperature data looks much better to me than anything the global warming
scientists have been able to produce. Additionally the "mini ice age" referenced above was coincident
with a greatly diminished or absent sun spot cycle. Recently a couple of Russian scientists bet a
"global warmer" $10,000 that the temperature of the earth was more a function of the spot cycle,
shown below, than a man made "Global Warming" disaster.
Now admittedly this is not all the data on which the debate rests and we may in fact be observing a
warming trend that we are partly responsible for but it is far from settled.
warming trend that we are partly responsible for but it is far from settled.
GrayStone Exploration Labs, Inc.
| Research |