The Deceptions- "getting back to normal"
________________________________________________________________
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
______________________________________________________________________
In the my previous essays I have focused on the the "theory" behind the global warming/ climate change delusion. The reason for this is that if the theory does not hold up, everything else falls apart and there is a great deal of "everything else" to fall apart.
If you have read the previous articles, if nothing else, I hope you understand that carbon dioxide in and of itself is not the primary cause of the apocalypse being predicted. As a reminder, carbon dioxide can only heat the atmosphere by an additional 1.3 degrees Celsius, the entire theory is based on "feedback" from that minor increase. According to the theory the main feedback which will cause dangerous warming is an increase in atmospheric water vapor. For the sake of accuracy, the global warming theory ought to be called the water vapor feedback theory.
Why is this critical? Because the theory depends not on more carbon dioxide per se but rather, that minor global temperature increase which will result in that increased atmospheric water vapor. Given this. for the theory to be plausible, Earth's temperatures if previously warmed for any other reason should have been warm enough to trigger that water vapor feedback whether caused by CO2 or not.
For the modern greenhouse gas warming scenario to be correct, it must first show that the warming which causes this water vapor feedback has not occurred previously for any meaningful period of time. We are not talking about prehistoric times, the question is, has there been periods of global warming, which could have caused this dangerous feedback in the past? If so, why did other periods of warming not cause this water vapor feedback and the resulting dire consequences and what was the cause of these warm periods which were prior to the industrial revolution?
Once I began to follow the global warming discussion, my first sudden dose of common sense came when I read a rather obscure article about the man who truly was the father of modern climatology, Reid Bryson. In the article he is explaining why he does not buy into the theory. He begins to discuss the recent retreat of Alpine glaciers and the various artifacts which were being revealed by the receding ice fields. Referring to one recent discovery, he makes this very meaningful observation.
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
That observation made so much sense to me, that I started to look at the issue in an entirely different way. I began to study not only the science, but the history of our climate. As it turns out, proof of periods of previous warmer climate are overwhelming. It was so overwhelming in fact that Michael Mann had to come up with the totally discredited "hockey stick" in order to cover for it.
Most people think of the hockey stick graph as something conjured up to scare people into believing in global warming and it and Al Gore did accomplish that agenda. But just as important, it covered the problem that previous warm periods would have in reconciling the actual theory of global warming. Why is it dangerous now, when it was not then?
Below is what was a popular representation of a thousand years of global temperatures published by paleo climatologist before the Hockey Stick. It was even used in an early IPCC report.
This is the Hockey Stick.
You will quickly notice that the entire period of time which had been identified as the Medieval Warm Period is simply flattened out and lost in the Hockey Stick. Interesting enough about the time of the Hockey Sticks release, scientist began drilling ice core samples in Alpine Glaciers to determine lead pollution from silver smelting in Europe going back not only to the Medieval period but to the Roman Warm period. How would pollution from hundreds even thousands of years ago fall on ice fields which are now hundreds of feet below the surface of modern glaciers unless it was warmer then than now?
Let's take this a bit further, a few years back I became interested in the melting glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana. It had become one of the more iconic examples of "proof" of global warming. For a related reason I wanted to know just how old the glaciers in Glacier National Park were.
In my pursuit of this question I came across an extensive study done by the U.S. Geological Survey on nearly all of the glaciers in North America with a special section devoted to those in Glacier National Park. Of interest in the study is the observation that most glaciers in North America, including those in GNP, have been receding (melting) for over 150 years, since the end of the Little Ice Age. The end of the LIA is the actual explanation for the current "modern" warming period, as Reid Bryson alluded to in his "getting back to normal" comment. The obvious inference though is that warming began long before the industrial revolution could have spewed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in order to create any global warming.
This paragraph from that USGS study, speaks volumes:
Because of the apparently long and relatively stable climatic interval preceding the Little Ice Age, it is believed that most of the glacier ice remaining in Glacier National Park was formed during the Little Ice Age and is not a relic from the Pleistocene Epoch...
Not only was the the Little Ice Age (LIA) the cause of the glaciers in the national park, the period preceding the LIA is referred to as a stable climate, even though it was obviously a much warmer climate. Further on they could not make this more clear:
The Little Ice Age comprised a several-hundred-year-long cool period (about 1400 to about 1850 in North America), during which Glacier National Park glaciers formed and expanded
The scientist ho wrote the report obviously considered the period prior to and then following the LIA, warm periods that had been interrupted by the Little Ice Age. They could also not be more definitive, as the full study bears out, that the glaciers in the park now receding are a relatively new development on the scene.
To put that in historical perspective, the glaciers in Glacier National Park either did not exist or were just beginning to form when Columbus landed in the "New World." So what was happening before that? The USGS study tells us, there was "a long and very stable climatic interval" meaning warm weather. For generations this period was known as the Medieval Warm Period which followed the even longer and warmer Roman Warm Period. It only stands to reason that, prior to the LIA, it was warmer then than now in Glacier National Park.
Recently the National Park Service has taken down the signs of the imminent doom within the park.
Signs added to Montana’s Glacier National Park over a decade ago forecasting that the park’s signature dense ice formations would be gone by 2020 have been removed.
In fact it appears that the famous glaciers may actually be making a comeback.
Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing – not shrinking-since about 2010.
If the USGS report is correct, those glaciers that were and still are present, began to form just six centuries ago and began to recede a century and a half ago. Given this, we know that from the start of their formation to the beginning of their not so immanent demise was no more than 450 years. How cold must the climate have become to create these massive ice fields? Even more important , how warm must the climate have been prior to the LIA to prevent the earlier formation of glaciers at such a high altitude and latitude?
As I have previously pointed out, the narrative keepers, dismiss climate periods that don't fit the global warming narrative by simply labeling them as being Northern Hemisphere, or North American events.
The truth is that there are hundreds of scientific papers that show that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global. For over two decades, The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has maintained an amazing website called CO2 Science. Among the many other important works that these researchers do is keep a sophisticated interactive map and catalogue of scientific studies done that prove that the MWP was a global event. It is well worth a visit to the site to learn about carbon dioxide and a visit to their Medieval Warm Period Project while the truth can still be found.
The truth is the only way that we have a hope of ever "getting back to normal."
Comments