Part 3 – A Gong of Ice and Fire
“I wanna see it painted, painted black
Black as night, black as coal
I wanna see the sun blotted out from the sky
I wanna see it painted, painted, painted, painted black” Paint it Black by the Rolling Stones
Winter Was Coming
In the 1970’s many scientists, as if to ram home the need for a climate warming campaign, warned of a coming mini-ice age based on the solar cycle and its correlation with global temperatures, perhaps exacerbated by the additional cooling effect of emitted sulphates. The sun was due for a prolonged winding down phase which would lead to a corresponding reduction in global temperatures. The last time this had occurred was known as the Maunder Minimum in the 17th and early 18th century which lasted for 70 years.
“Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters.”
Recently an article appeared in a popular newspaper suggesting that a mini ice age might be ahead.
Earlier this month, there were no sunspots on the massive star's surface for four days - something which hadn't happened since 2011. This has since happened again.
A lack of sun spots is totally normal, but it does hint that the sun is heading for its next "solar minimum phase".
The next solar minimum phase is expected to take place in 2019 or 2020, says meteorologist Paul Dorian of Vencore Weather , who expects to see an increasing number of spotless days over the next few years.
The last time the sun saw a such a long phase with no sunspots, it ushered in what scientists refer to as a the 'Maunder Minimum' back in 1645.
This caused temperatures to plunge dramatically, and even resulted in the Thames freezing over.
Some experts think that a similar mini ice age could be coming again soon.”
Jasper Kirkby, an atmospheric scientist at Cern predicted that the maunder minimum would occur around 2015.
The British Climate expert, Hubert Lamb, wrote an article in 1971 entitled “Climate-engineering schemes to meet a climatic emergency.”
Recall that this was also the year in which nearly all the leading scientists from the US and Western Europe, met with the Russian scientists in Leningrad. It was here that Mikhail Budyko expressed his conviction, in contradiction to everybody else, that the earth would be warming due to human activity. It was not well received. Budyko, however, thought this was good news and that nothing should be done to prevent it. Indeed, it was he that had suggested coating the Arctic with soot to melt the ice.
Later, in 1974, Budyko calculated:
“that if global warming ever became a serious threat, we could counter it with just a few airplane flights a day in the stratosphere, burning sulfur to make aerosols that would reflect sunlight away.”
In 1975, Newsweek published an article, in which the following was written:
“Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.” Emphasis mine
The Grim Reality
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
Were the majority of the scientists wrong? Certainly the correlation between solar cycle and global temperatures was well recognised and is today, although the exact mechanism has not yet been agreed upon.
Let us look at the degree of correlation that actually occurred during this period.
Solar cycle length (red) vs Northern Hemisphere temperature (blue) (Stauning 2011).
It can be seen that despite the winding down of the solar cycle, from 1975, global temperatures have been going up and the sunspot correlation has been broken.
This does not nullify the effect of the solar cycles on the climate as up to that singular point in history, there had been such a correlation, well recognised by scientists. Indeed, it is clear to see the correlation between temperatures and solar activity, declining in tandem from 1850 to 1900, rising from 1900 to 1940 and declining again from 1940 to 1970.
The decline in temperatures from the 1940s can easily be ascribed to the downturn in solar activity, not sulphate emissions nor geoengineering for cooling, as suggested by Dane Wigington. This also applies to the decline in temperatures from the 1850s. We can safely assume there was no geoengineering of any consequence going on then.
After 1975, the relationship between the sun and temperature breaks down. This is generally recognised as the period in which the anthropogenic fingerprint makes its mark.
There does seem to be a definite upturn in CO2 levels from around 1960 that correlates with this.
In this video depicting CO2 levels in the atmosphere over 1 year, 2006 we can readily observe that this gas is primarily emitted in the northern hemisphere, as one might expect.
NASA - A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2
However, the video only showed us CO2 over 1 year, 2006. Let us now look at how measurements of this gas vary over different latitudes covering the period from 1979 to 2006 as in this video below:
CO2 as a gas, although emitted mostly in the northern hemisphere, is dispersed evenly throughout the globe by the atmospheric circulation.
If CO2 were solely responsible for the warming we should see:
Warming of the Troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere, and a cooling of the Stratosphere as heat is prevented from reaching this level.
Equal warming during the night as during the day.
More warming in winter.
More warming at the poles than at the equator.
All the points except for the last one are what we have actually observed.
It can hardly be said that both poles are warming more than the equator.
This does not sit well with the heat signature of the planet covering the period from 1975 to 2016.
This even spread of CO2 does not correlate with the uneven distribution of global temperature changes.
From 1975 to 2016 temperatures increased by 0.75 °C on average. At around 90° latitude, the North Pole, they increased by 3.07°C. That is four times greater than average. At the equator, 0° latitude, temperatures rose close to the average, by 0.66°C.
However, at the South pole, -90° latitude, they only rose by 0.65°C, slightly less than at the equator.
Roger Revelle predicted that both poles would warm due to an increase in CO2 due to the even heat blanket effect, leading to an average 1-3°C increase over this century. His student, Al Gore and mainstream scientists also claim this is what should be happening. It is clearly not happening in this fashion.
By the methods of observation and exclusion we have established that this thermodynamic footprint points towards something other than CO2 alone.
Let us recap for a moment. Scientists in the early 1970’s were concerned about an oncoming mini-ice age and proposed such schemes as covering the Arctic ice with soot to warm the climate. In the twenty-year period before this, prominent scientists from the US, Canada, Western Europe and Russian were discussing such schemes and the possibility of collaboration on a grand scale.
Then the climate proceeds to warm, despite downturns in the solar cycle, in an uneven fashion, contrary to that expected from global increases of CO2 emissions.
And lo and behold, what do we find tarnishing the landscape of the Arctic circle since that very period?
It has been suggested that as much as 45% or more of the warming in the Arctic since 1976 has been due to black carbon, commonly known as soot. These particles absorb solar radiation and have a strong warming influence both in the atmosphere and on the surface where they counteract the albedo effect of the ice.
James Hansen himself attributes its effects as one quarter of that due to CO2 since 1880.
“The effect of soot on snow is unambiguous, it causes a strong warming effect.”
“There is no way to account for the rapid retreat of ice globally based only on global warming,”
Hansen claims that the Arctic is blanketed with black carbon haze, one-third from Asia, one-third from fire around the world, and the remaining third from the United States, Russia, and Europe.
However, we see that levels of black carbon in the atmosphere measured at key stations, north of 70° have actually recorded reduced carbon black levels of around 50% since 1990.
This NOAA study found that levels of black carbon in the atmosphere have declined since 1990 at measurement sites Alert in Canada (55%), and Barrow in Alaska (45%). Ny-Alesund in Svalbard only has measurements from the year 2002 but shows similar levels. This is despite increases in the source regions.
Map showing the location of high Arctic, long-term, black carbon measurement sites at Alert (82°N, 62.3°W), Barrow (71°N, 156.6°W) and Ny-Ålesund (79°N, 12°E), and the source regions for black carbon in the Arctic: Europe (EU), former Soviet Union (FSU), North America (NA) and east Asia (EA).
We also see that levels of black carbon deposited on the surface of Greenland north of 71° have remained the same for 60 years in contradiction to satellite information. The fault according to these scientists was that the MODIS satellite sensors were degraded.
However, as reported by Jason Box in 2014, south of 71°, an albedo decline from 2000 – 2014 indicates that deposited black carbon levels there have indeed increased.