Earthwatch Issue 4 Climate Change, and more

Earthwatch Issue 4 Climate Change, and more


Global Rockhound Community Environmental News

Issue 04: April 2007: Editor Sally Taylor:

In this issue: Global warming:- The Aral sea:- The melting of Greenland (Image article):-

RHS1 Global Rockhound Community Environmental News,Monitoring, earthquakes, global warming, climate change, hurricanes and tornados, bio-diversity, keeping an eye on our fast changing planet. Climate change,global warming,earthquake, earthwatch,Chandler wobble, Chandler’s wobble,rockhound world center,


RHS1’s quest for the true cause of climate change


Image:SOHO:Graph:Hathaway and Wilson’s prediction for the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. More

Our Climate; Our Future; Our Options; Synthesis;

Scary Monsters: The eye of Ra…Part 3

Global average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose
0.74 +/- 0.18 deg.Celsius (1.3 +/- 0.32 deg.Fahrenheit) in the last century.

The number of people affected by floods worldwide has already risen from seven million in the 1960s to 150 million today.

As of January 2007, the earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration is about 0.0383% by volume (383 ppmv) or 0.0582% by weight. This represents about 2.996 x 1012 tonnes, and is estimated to be 105 ppm (37.77%) above the pre-industrial average.

Because of the greater land area, and therefore greater plant life, in the northern hemisphere as compared to the southern hemisphere, there is an annual fluctuation of up to 6 ppmv (+/-3 ppmv), peaking in May and reaching a minimum in October at the end of the northern hemisphere growing season, when the quantity of biomass on the planet is greatest.

Hello…How are you doing? Welcome back to RHS1’s quest for the true cause and its affects of climate change.
Told you this was not a “small” article-O).

Now after hacking my way through the jungle of information that constitutes the massed accumulated knowledge about climate change and hours of ratting about in obscure climatic scientific papers, I have reached this conclusion, that the more I research the matter of global warming the more it is apparent that CO2 is is being “framed“, “fitted up“, “the patsy who is taking the rap“.

Now having said that…Let me make it perfectly clear, that CO2 remains a “suspect” because the bedrock proof that CO2 is responsible for the current global warming scenario, has NOT been demonstrated conclusively to be prime cause of the effect “current global warming”, like the theory of evolution, its still a theory..

So its therefore a combination of theories or a single theory that is responsible for global warming/climate change, because the zillions of dollars and the massed intellectual might of science have produced nothing at all except to confirm what is evident to any Eskimo.

Not only are 50% of scientists stupid…100% of them know no more about the true cause of “current global warming” than Mickey Mouse knows.

Now of course this is only my opinion and I don’t count because I am not a scientist…However we are closer to “the true cause of current global warming” simply by refusing to “mob up” with the popular consensus that CO2 is the definite cause of global warming.
Here are a couple more “opinions”…

“I don’t have any alternative ‘facts.’ I don’t know whether or not the Earth is warming or cooling. I’m skeptical of the ‘facts’ on both sides of the argument. The climate is far too complex and contains far too many unknowns for anyone to know anything for certain about what the climate will be in 10 years. But, as far as I can tell, there’s very little chance that the climate is going to change fast enough to cause any calamity. It’s never happened before in recorded history, which is enough of a reason to be very skeptical about it happening in our lifetimes. And, even if it does happen, I won’t let it bother me because there’s nothing I can do about it.

“On the other hand, I’m very concerned about efforts to ‘limit’ global warming. All of these plans call for a reduction in my liberties, a rise in my taxes, and an increase in governmental power. I know these things will cause infinitely more harm than the planet heating up a few degrees. And, unlike climate change, I know these things can happen because I’ve seen them happen. During my lifetime, liberties have been constantly curtailed, taxes have constantly gone up, and the government has consistently grown more powerful, year after year.”
S & A Digest Editor Porter Stansberry :

“With the aid of Google, I was able to find a number of additional factual scientific articles concerning the real and mythical aspects of global warming. One of the first facts I found was that average ground-based temperature readings in the United States have changed very little (perhaps 1/2 degree centigrade) over the last 100 years. In fact, more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for recent decades (not generally cited in the press) have shown little or no warming. However, global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. OK, I’m already feeling a little better about myself and/or my grandchildren having to personally witness the predicted impending disasters. But maybe I still have to do something about my involvement in future climate changes.

After a little more reading, I found that scientists have reached no consensus or agreement on any human contribution to global climate change. In fact, key portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) submitted in June of 1995, which were reviewed and accepted by the contributing scientists, were later removed or altered without their knowledge. These changes, which were apparently politically motivated, functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting any human influence on future climate change. Reputable scientists, including those working on the IPCC, created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject beliefs that human-caused global warming is or will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes.

Further readings revealed the fact that scientific consensus is that climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in the earth’s rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun’s energy output. The much-touted “greenhouse gases” in Earth’s atmosphere also influence Earth’s temperature, but in a much smaller way. Not to worry, however, because carbon dioxide is not a major contributor to greenhouse gas, which mainly consists of water vapor. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing only about 0.2 to 0.3 percent to the greenhouse effect. Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter Earth’s atmosphere each year from all sources, only six billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biological activity in Earth’s oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.”
JACK GRAY published Saturday, March 31, 2007 in the Napa Valley Register

Indeed the 19th century slag heap mentality, adored and practiced by industrial “big business” needs sorting out and a stop putting to its gallop. If instead of this, you and I find ourselves paying mileage carbon tax , just to go work in the car that we cannot NOT use because we live in an area that’s “unprofitable” in terms of public transport; Or we are constantly hassled by the “carbon squad” because the RFID chip implanted in our trash cans has reported us for putting to much plastic in it… “But all the food I buy is packaged in plastic” “That’s no excuse, just pay the $25 fine “.

Some of the proposals for the USA are…

“A carbon tax of $15 per metric ton of emissions would collect about $80 billion a year
and increase the price of gasoline by about 13 cents per gallon. It would also
increase the price of electricity from gas by about 0.6 cents per kilowatt hour and
increase the price of electricity from coal by 1.4 cents per kilowatt hour.
The increased revenue would account for 28 percent of corporate tax revenue.
By reducing corporate taxes, the United States could lure more businesses to the country”
Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at AEI

Pheeew!…No comment.
The following list of anomaly’s (below) needs to be addressed, needs some answers, because if its not CO2 that is the “main man” in this story, then homo sapia is about to embark upon the biggest and most expensive “connerie” since life on earth crawled out of the precambrian slime.
“connerie” french… “bloody stupid thing to do” (UK)… “damn-fool thing to do” (USA)… Collins dictonary.


  • Name: Carbon dioxide

  • Other names: Carbonic acid gas, Carbonic anhydride, dry ice (solid)
  • Molecular formula CO2
  • Molar mass 44.0095(14) g/mol
  • Solid state Dry ice, carbonia
  • Appearance colorless gas
  • CAS number [124-38-9]
  • Properties
  • Density and phase 1600 kg/M3, solid approx. 1.98 kg/M3, gas at STP
  • Solubility in water 1.45 kg/M3 Latent heat of sublimation 25.13 kJ/mol
  • Melting point -57 deg.C (216 K), pressurized
  • Boiling point -78 deg.C (195 K), sublimes
  • Acidity (pKa) 6.35 and 10.33
  • Viscosity 0.07 cP at -78 deg.C
  • Structure

  • Molecular shape linear Crystal structure quartz-like
  • Dipole moment zero
  • Hazards

  • MSDS External MSDS
  • Main hazards asphyxiant, irritant
  • NFPA 704 0 0 0 (liquid)
  • R-phrases R: As, Fb
  • S-phrases S9, S23, S36(liquid)
  • RTECS number FF6400000
Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 deg.C, 100 kPa)

“The greenhouse effect is not the cause of climate change.”
French Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux

CO2 Enigmas

  • According to scientific data: The Arctic is becoming warmer, the antarctic is growing colder?Why is Antarctica becoming colder?

  • According to scientific data: The sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic by 20% since 1978, were as it has increased by 8% in Antarctica;
    “The year 2005 set a new record low for Arctic sea ice, dropping the estimated decline in end-of-summer Arctic sea ice to approximately eight percent per decade.”
    Dr. Marika Holland; Oceanography Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
    How is it doing that then?

  • According to scientific data: During Ordovician period in our planets geological evolution, the atmospheric CO2 reached 355 ppmv (approx; 25 ppmv lower than at present) however, the mean temperature decreased considerably and produced an ice age.How did it manage to do that?

  • According to scientific data: During the Triassic Period in our planets geological evolution, occurred a period warmer than the current period, but the CO2 concentration was lower than at present.Again, how did that happen?

  • According to scientific data: The temperature of the troposphere during the last 25 years shows no definite trend, which is in stark contrast to the warming observed at the surface in the same period.Why is the surface warming and not the troposphere ? Strange eh!

    : 1.The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere starting at the surface going up to between 7 km (4.4 mi) at the poles and 17 km (10.6 mi) at the equator with some variation due to weather factors. The troposphere has a great deal of vertical mixing due to solar heating at the surface.

    This heating warms air masses, which then rise to release latent heat as sensible heat that further uplifts the air mass. This process continues until all water vapor is removed. In the troposphere, on average, temperature decreases with height due to expansive cooling.

    Atmosphere diagram showing the mesosphere and other layers. The layers are not to scale: from Earth’s surface to the top of the stratosphere (50km) is just under 1% of Earth’s radius.

    “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate,
    ” I cannot view what has happened as a net negative; some might easily argue that
    it is a net benefit. Under neither interpretation does this qualify carbon dioxide as a climatic “pollutant.”

    Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia,
    and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

    “Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

    Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.”

    Timothy Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project
    and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg

    “Scientists who support the manmade greenhouse gas theory disregard information from centuries ago when exploring the issue of global warming. Satellite images of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean have only been available in the satellite era since the 1960s and 1970s.”

    “Young researchers are interested in satellite data, which became available after 1975. All the papers since (the advent of satellites) show warming. That’s what I call ‘instant climatology.’ I’m trying to tell young scientists, ‘You can’t study climatology unless you look at a much longer time period.”

    “Melting glaciers, permafrost, and other signs of warming might be Earth’s natural recovery from a period known as the Little Ice Age. The Little Ice Age featured several centuries of very cold temperatures. The Thames River and New York Harbor often froze, and Vikings might have abandoned settlements at the time.”

    “There is no data that “most” of the present warming is due to the manmade greenhouse effect, as the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote in February. the atmosphere cooled from 1940 to 1975 despite a rapid increase in carbon dioxide emissions during the same period.”

    “Nature changes all the time,the natural component is there. Until you remove it, you don’t know the man made effect.”

    Syun-Ichi Akasofu. Now in retirement, the 76-year-old former director of both UAF’s Geophysical Institute and International Arctic Research Center

    A mysterious phenomenon is causing four major glaciers in the Antarctic to shrink in unison, causing a significant increase in sea levels, scientists have found.

    The rise in atmospheric temperatures caused by global warming cannot account for the relatively rapid movement of the glaciers into the sea, but scientists suspect that warmer oceans may be playing a role.

    The Sun becomes hotter.


    The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. The Earth and other matter (including other planets, asteroids, meteoroids, comets and dust) orbit the Sun, which by itself accounts for about 99.8% of the solar system’s mass. Energy from the Sun in the form of sunlight supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth’s climate and weather.

    The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way galaxy at a distance of approximately 26,000 light-years from the galactic center, completing one revolution in about 225,250 million years. The orbital speed is 217 km/s, (781,200 km an hour) equivalent to one light-year every 1,400 years.

    Sunlight is the main source of energy to the surface of Earth. The solar constant is the amount of power that the Sun deposits per unit area that is directly exposed to sunlight. The solar constant is equal to approximately 1,370 watts per square meter of area at a distance of one AU from the Sun. Sunlight on the surface of Earth is attenuated by the Earth’s atmosphere so that less power arrives at the surface closer to 1,000 watts per directly exposed square meter in clear conditions when the Sun is near the zenith.

    There are only 4 possible ways to warm up the planet Earth according to the laws of physics, particularly thermodynamics.
    • (1) The background radiation of the universe(Cosmic rays) becomes hotter.
    • (2) The Sun becomes hotter.
    • (3) The internal core of planet Earth becomes hotter,
    • (4) Earth’s atmosphere is producing a “greenhouse effect” reflecting heat back to the planets surface…

    OK…Number 2 on the list…”The heating system”, the sun is becoming hotter.
    Well is it?
    Hotter is perhaps a misleading term more energetic or active is better.
    The answer to this query is yes it has.

    “Beyond its 11-year cycle, the Sun displays unexplained behaviour on longer time scales. In particular, the strength of the solar wind and the magnetic flux it carries has more than doubled during the last century.”…Danish Space Centre.

    Interesting, however according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) “The solar increases do not have the ability to cause the rise of global temperature as observed…

    NASA Study Finds Increasing Solar Trend That Can Change Climate

    Increase of solar irradiance in last 24 years, about 0.1 percent: G.I.S.S.

    March 20, 2003

    Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.

    “This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change,” said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University’s Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.

    “Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,” he said.

    NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.

    The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the “solar maximum,” followed by a quiet period called the “solar minimum.”

    Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.

    Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun’s total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.

    NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

    “Increase of solar irradiance in last 24 years, about 0.1 percent”: G.I.S.S.

    Theodor Landscheidt at Nova Scotia’s Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity, has shown quite conclusively that the sun waxes and wanes on quite predictable 11-year cycles, which can be moderated or intensified by longer-range, but more irregular cycles. Landscheidt, as a result, is unpopular with the UN scientists in charge of pushing the manmade global warming theory. In 1995, they wrote that the sun’s effect on climate in the 20th century “has been considerably smaller than the anthropogenic (manmade effect).” But Landscheidt has demonstrated that “a change of 0.1 per cent (in solar energy) effective during a very long interval can release a real ice age.”

    “Here comes the sun”


    mage above: Sun-blocking aerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates. The decline appears to have brought an end to the “global dimming” earlier in the century. Credit: Michael Mishchenko, NASA…16th March 07

    “Increase of solar irradiance in last 24 years, about 0.1 percent”: G.I.S.S.

    Variations in Solar Output

    “Until recently, many scientists thought that the sun’s output of radiation only varied by a fraction of a percent over many years. However, measurements made by satellites equipped with radiometers in the 1980s and 1990s suggested that the sun’s energy output may be more variable than was once thought. Measurements made during the early 1980s showed a decrease of 0.1 percent in the total amount of solar energy reaching the Earth over just an 18 month time period. If this trend were to extend over several decades, it could influence global climate. Numerical climatic models predict that a change in solar output of only 1 percent per century would alter the Earth’s average temperature by between 0.5 to 1.0 deg: Celsius.”

    Dr. Michael Pidwirny, University of British Columbia Okanagan

    The mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average.

    Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

    Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD.

    To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average.

    The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest.

    However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time.

    Astronomers have regularly observed sunspots since the invention of the telescope in the early 17th century. These are areas on the surface of the Sun where energy flow from the interior is reduced due to the strong magnetic fields that they exhibit. As a result, these regions cool by about 1500? and thus appear relatively darker than their surroundings at 5800?. The number of sunspots varies over an 11-year activity period, which in turn is subject to longer term variations. For example, in the second half of the 17th century, there were hardly any sunspots at all.

    The German-Finnish research team has now applied a new method to obtain insight into the development of the sunspot number from before the beginning of direct records. In addition, these experts have analyzed measured abundances of beryllium-10 in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. This radioactive isotope is created when energetic particles in cosmic rays enter the Earth’s atmosphere and split atomic nuclei of nitrogen and oxygen. Beryllium-10 (half-life 1.6 million years) is a product of this decay process, which is then washed out of the atmosphere by precipitation and then deposited in layers in the polar ice fields. Since the cosmic rays are partially deflected by the solar magnetic field filling interplanetary space, the production rate of Beryllium-10 in the atmosphere varies with the strength of this magnetic field, which in turn is associated with the number of sunspots.

    Extended group of sunspots visible in the southern hemisphere of the Sun in September 1998. These sunspots are fascinating not only due to their large size, but also due to their detailed structure that reveals a dynamic complexity. The smallest visible features are about 350 km across, the entire area covers about 200,000 km in the horizontal direction. The sub-pictures in this mosaic were obtained with the German Vacuum Tower Telescope at the Observatorio del Teide (Teneriffe).

    Image: Kiepenheuer Institute for Solar Physics, Freiburg im Breisgau

    A comparison of the Beryllium-10 data with the historical records of sunspot numbers reveals a high degree of correlation. Thus it was possible for the researchers to test and calibrate this new reconstruction method.

    The solar research team has managed, for the first time, to substantiate with consistent physical models every link in the complex chain, from the isotope abundance in the ice back to the sunspot number. This includes the creation of Beryllium-10 by cosmic rays, the modulation of the cosmic rays by the interplanetary magnetic field, and finally the relationship between the solar magnetic field and the number of sunspots. In this way it was possible for the scientists to obtain, for the first time, a reliable, quantitative determination of the sunspot numbers even for times before direct measurements were made.

    These data show clearly that the Sun is in a state of unusually high activity, for about the last 60 years. The time interval for which this statement can be made has been tripled by these new investigations, for now the reconstructed sunspot numbers extend back to 850 AD. Another period of enhanced solar activity, but with substantially fewer sunspots than now, occurred in the Middle Ages from 1100 to 1250. At that time, a warm period reigned over the Earth, as the Vikings established flourishing settlements in Greenland.

    The Sun affects the climate through several physical processes: For one thing, the total radiation, particularly that in the ultraviolet range, varies with solar activity. When many sunspots are visible, the Sun is somewhat brighter than in “quiet” times and radiates considerably more in the ultraviolet. On the other hand, the cosmic ray intensity entering the Earth’s atmosphere varies opposite to the solar activity, since the cosmic ray particles are deflected by the Sun’s magnetic field to a greater or lesser degree. According to a much discussed model proposed by Danish researchers, the ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperatures on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures.

    Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

    These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. “Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide,” says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

    Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research…August 2nd, 2004

    Now permit me to sum up here as to the status of the Sun…In none scientific Terms…

    The sun has “Lost the plot”…”Gone bananas”…”Freaked out”…”Blew it”…Is “Bouncing of the wall”.
    This is possibly, could be, might be, probably, maybe, part of a solar cycle that we scientists know nothing about what so ever and yes, it’s not really effecting the earth at all.

    So the sun is at its most active for a 1000 years and has been in a state of unusually high activity, for about the last 60 years. and it not bothering the earth? Forgive me for being Hyper-skeptical. Surely the correct response is “it’s not really effecting the earth at all and if it is, we are clueless as to to how it can”.


    Hot of the press….”Experts: Solar storm put heat on GPS”

    We now have 2 excellent directions…To check out.

    No1… We are on solid ground here as the sun is approx: 99.8 % of the mass of the solar system. “Have you seem the size of that thing!” It wont just be Earth thats effected, it must neccescerally effect all the planets if the sun has started to adjust the “heating system” we can look for evidence .

    No2…Cosmic rays and their effect on planets. The sun and the solar system are travelling at approx: 500,000 mph through galactic space. If you imagine this as a ship travelling across an ocean, the sun’s magnetic field is the bow of this ship cutting through the water pushing the water out of the way. The cosmic rays are the water. The suns magnetic field is the bow of the ship by doubleing the strength of the magnetic field of the sun, the bow, of the ship has become an ice breaker.

    Or to put it in terms of “Star Treck”…

    “Ships status Mr Spock?”

    “Speed Warp 1, deflector screens set at 1, captain.”

    “Maintain speed, set deflector screens to 2, Mr Sulu.”

    “Aye aye Captain”.

    The Sun has doubled the force of its deflector screens…

    The heliospheric current sheet extends to the outer reaches of the Solar System, and results from the influence of the Sun’s rotating magnetic field on the plasma in the interplanetary medium
    So far by dead reckoning we “Know for fact/truth” thats near enough;
    • 1…On a global scale…The temperature has risen/ is rising…
    • 2…On a global scale…Climate patterns are changing…
    • 3…We cannot be 100% certain of the validity of information, received, regarding 1&2 in this list…
    • 4…CO2 as the prime cause of global warming has not yet been validated its still a theory. (Disputdanta)
    • 5…The Sun has changed its behaviour become more active.

    NASA turns to Ancient Egypt for answers
    about the Sun and climate change



    By The

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change .

    Now before you start freaking out at the “Doom , Boom, Gloom…Scenario herewith presented. You would do well to remember these are figures based on computer models “video games”..Are they correct? I don’t know…Yet the old IT computer maxin “Rubbish in, rubbish out…Is still applicable to the declarations of the IPCC…Because until someone proves conclusively why temperatures are going up, no one knows for sure that the computer models are correct or simply wrong.

    The Global projections/scenarios based on a rise in temperature degree by degree…Must necessarily be “near enough” as they are deductive logic defining cause and effect and consequence from known facts.

    (U.S. delegates rejected suggested wording that parts of North America may suffer “severe economic damage” from warming.)

    Source Reuters.

    (Several delegations, including the US, Saudi Arabia, China and India, had asked for the final version to reflect less certainty than the draft.)

    Source BBC.


    “It looks like very blatant vested interests are trying to stop particular messages getting out.”
    Neil Adger from Britain’s Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

    “The authors lost,” one scientist told journalists. “A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC [the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] process any more. I have had it with them.” Scientists walked out of the talks at one stage and several lodged protests.

    Panel co-chairman Martin Parry of the United Kingdom acknowledged that some parts of the document were eliminated “because there was not enough time to work it through as well.”

    Before the 23-page Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientific assessment of climate change impacts was approved for publication on April 6, a “Final Draft” by the lead-author scientists had to be revised and approved line-by-line in negotiations with government representatives from around the world. During a lengthy and contentious session, with interventions by government representatives from the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, numerous edits were made to the scientists’ draft prior to final joint approval by scientists and diplomats.

    Numerous changes appear clearly to have the effect of “toning down” the scientists’ own draft language on likely damaging impacts of climate change. Climate Science Watch has obtained a copy of the scientists’ embargoed “Confidential Draft in preparation for Final Government Review,” i.e., the unedited draft, and posts it here as a public service.

    Source Climate Science Watch

    In part 4 of this enquiry we will be taking a look at the planets of the solar system for evidence of change in their status quo.

    Checking out the influence of a decrease in cosmic rays arriving on the planets of the solar system. Find out the answers by staying tuned to RHS1’s quest for the true cause of climate change…

    Scary Monsters: The eye of Ra…

    All the best….

    Part 4 of this article: See next months…RHS1 Earthwatch Page



    Wow! I thought I was alarmist…Now TIME has noticed something that anyone studying the current warming trends cannot help but observe sooner or later I quote…
    “Things are happening a lot faster than anyone predicted,” says Bill Chameides, chief scientist for the advocacy group Environmental Defense and a former professor of atmospheric chemistry. “The last 12 months have been alarming.” Adds Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts: “The ripple through the scientific community is palpable.”
    Yes its all speeding up faster than the experts predicted…Now the TIME Special report “Global warming” covers most of the issues and is well worth a read for a broad spectrum of ongoing situations planet wide. However one tiny criticism…

    The article states, assumes, That CO2 is the cause of global warming with a fait acompli statement, I quote…
    “we have pushed the level to 381 p.p.m., and we’re feeling the effects.” (Page 3).
    Are we TIME? are we indeed?
    With the greatest respect, I point out that no ones knows because the bedrock proof that CO2 is responsible for the current global warming scenario, has NOT been demonstrated conclusively to be prime cause of the effect “current global warming”

    Until such proof is forth coming it remains “theoretical” that CO2 is the cause of the effect. I do not know and neither do you TIME..That’s the bottom line.

    The article is well written and accessible, albeit in a slightly maternal tone.

    Now this edition of TIME is a year old. (Pre Al Gore Movie) So imagine things have moved on since them. How far? Check out the “The Melting of Greenland on page 2 of this edition.




    During its heyday the Aral Sea fishing town of Muynak had fishing boats deliver their catch straight to canneries that employed 2,000 people. Now the town is 150 km away from water. As local poverty grows and clean water sources dwindle, Medecins San Frontieres reports that the rate of tuberculosis infection on the dying shores of the Aral Sea is among the highest in the world.
    Credits: Petter Hveem – Medecins San Frontieres Norway

    The Aral Sea, in 2003, had shrunk to well under half of the area it had covered fifty years before.
    The Aral Sea (Kazakh: Aral Tengizi, Uzbek: Orol dengizi,) is a landlocked endorheic sea in Central Asia; it lies between Kazakhstan in the north and Karakalpakstan, an autonomous region of Uzbekistan, in the south. Since the 1960s the Aral Sea has been shrinking, as the rivers that feed it (the Amu Darya and the Syr Darya) were diverted by the Soviet Union for irrigation. The Aral Sea is heavily polluted, largely as the result of weapons testing, industrial projects, and fertilizer runoff before and after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

    Aral sea.


    Russia decided in 1918 that the two rivers that fed the Aral Sea, the Amu Darya in the south and the Syr Darya in the northeast, would be diverted to try to irrigate the desert, in order to grow rice, melons, cereal, and also, cotton; this was part of the Soviet plan for cotton, or “white gold”, to become a major export. (This did eventually end up becoming the case, and today Uzbekistan is one of the world’s largest exporters of cotton.)

    The irrigation canals began to be built on a large scale in the 1930s. Many of the irrigation canals were poorly built, letting water leak out or evaporate; from the Qaraqum Canal, the largest in Central Asia, perhaps 30 to70% of the water went to waste. Today only 12% of Uzbekistan’s irrigation canal length is waterproofed.

    By 1960, somewhere between 20 and 50 cubic kilometers of water were going each year to the land instead of the sea. Thus, most of the sea’s water supply had been diverted, and in the 1960s the Aral Sea began to shrink. From 1961 to 1970, the Aral’s sea level fell at an average of 20 cm a year; in the 1970s, the average rate nearly tripled to 50 to 60 cm per year, and by the 1980s it continued to drop, now with a mean of 80 to 90 cm each year. After seeing this, the rate of water usage for irrigation continued to increase: the amount of water taken from the rivers doubled between 1960 and 1980; cotton production nearly doubled in the same period.

    The disappearance of the lake was no surprise to the Soviets; they expected it to happen long before. The Soviet Union apparently considered the Aral to be “nature’s error”, and a Soviet engineer said in 1968 that “it is obvious to everyone that the evaporation of the Aral Sea is inevitable”

    The former USSR bring a new meaning to “ships of the desert”.

    Aral sea as it was in Aug1964
    The sea’s surface area has shrunk by approximately 60%, and its volume by 80%. In 1960, the Aral Sea was the world’s fourth-largest lake, with an area of approximately 68,000 km square and a volume of 1100 KM3; by 1998, it had dropped to 28,687 km square , and eighth-largest. Over the same time period its salinity has increased from about 10 g/l to about 45 g/l. As of 2004, the Aral Sea’s surface area was only 17,160 km square , 25% of its original size, and still contracting.

    Even the recently discovered inflow of submarine groundwater discharge into the Aral Sea will not in itself be able to stop the desiccation. This inflow of about 4 billion cubic metres per year is larger than previously estimated. This groundwater would originate in the Pamirs and Tian Shan mountains and seek its way through geological layers to a fracture zone at the bottom of the Aral Sea.

    Aral sea as it was in 1985
    In 1987, the continuing shrinkage split the lake into two separate bodies of water, the North Aral Sea and the South Aral Sea; an artificial channel was dug to connect them, but that connection was gone by 1999 as the two seas continued to shrink. In 2003, the South Aral further divided into eastern and western basins; the evaporation of the North Aral has since been partially reversed.

    Work is being done to restore in part the North Aral Sea. Irrigation works on the Syr Darya have been repaired and improved to increase its water flow, and in October 2003, the Kazakh government announced a plan to build a concrete dam (Dike Kokaral) separating the two halves of the Aral Sea. Work on this dam was completed in August 2005; since then the water level of the North Aral has risen, and its salinity has decreased. As of 2006, some recovery of sea level has been recorded, sooner than expected.[2] “The dam has caused the small Aral’s sea level to rise swiftly to 125 feet, from a low of less than 98 feet, with 138 considered the level of viability.” [3] Economically significant stocks of fish have returned, and observers who had written off the North Aral Sea as an environmental catastrophe were surprised by unexpected reports that in 2006 its returning waters were already partly reviving the fishing industry and producing catches for export as far as Ukraine. The restoration reportedly gave rise to long absent rain clouds and possible microclimate changes, bringing tentative hope to an agricultural sector swallowed by a regional dustbowl, and some expansion of the shrunken sea. [4] “The sea, which had receded almost 100 km south of the port-city of Aralsk, is now a mere 25 km away.”

    The South Aral Sea, which lies largely in poorer Uzbekistan, was largely abandoned to its fate, but the project in the North Aral has brought at least faint glimmers of hope: “In addition to restoring water levels in the Northern Sea, a sluice in the dike is periodically opened, allowing excess water to flow into the largely dried-up Southern Aral Sea.”[5] Discussions are underway to possibly recreate a channel between the somewhat improved North and the desiccated South,[2] along with ambitious but uncertain wetland restoration plans throughout the region. As it has dried, the South Aral has left behind vast salt plains,[6][7] producing dust storms,[8] and making regional winters colder and summers hotter.[9] Attempts to mitigate these effects include planting vegetation in the newly exposed seabed.

    As of summer 2003, the South Aral Sea was vanishing faster than predicted. In the deepest parts of the sea, the bottom waters are saltier than the top, and not mixing. Thus, only the top of the sea is heated in the summer, and it evaporates faster than would otherwise be expected. Based on the recent data, the western part of the South Aral Sea is expected to be gone within 15 years; the eastern part could last indefinitely.

    Aral sea comparison 2005 (top) – 2006
    The ecosystem of the Aral Sea and the river deltas feeding into it has been nearly destroyed, not least because of the much higher salinity. The receding sea has left huge plains covered with salt and toxic chemicals, which are picked up and carried away by the wind as toxic dust and spread to the surrounding area. The land around the Aral Sea is heavily polluted and the people living in the area are suffering from a lack of fresh water and other health problems, including high rates of certain forms of cancer and lung diseases. Crops in the region are destroyed by salt being deposited onto the land. The town of Moynaq in Uzbekistan had a thriving harbor and fishing industry that employed approximately 60,000 people; now the town lies miles from the shore. Fishing boats lie scattered on the dry land that was once covered by water, many have been there for 20 years. The only significant fishing company left in the area has its fish shipped from the Baltic Sea, thousands of kilometres away.

    The Island of Vozrozhdeniya

    “CHARMING !”

    In 1948, a top-secret Soviet bioweapons laboratory was established on the island of Vozrozhdeniya in the Aral Sea (now disputed territory between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan). The exact history, functions and current status of this facility have not yet been disclosed. The base was abandoned in 1992 following the disintegration of the Soviet Army. Scientific expeditions (including American) proved that this had been a site for production, testing and later dumping of pathogenic weapons. In 2002, through a project organized by the United States and with Uzbekistan assistance, 10 anthrax burial sites were decontaminated. According to the Kazakh Scientific Center for Quarantine and Zoonotic Infections, all burial sites of anthrax were decontaminated.

    The colder the Air the Faster it warms

    During the past two decades, temperatures have risen faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on the planet. Josefino Comiso, research scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, found that temperatures over Arctic summer sea ice increased 1.22 degC per decade beginning in 1980. The Arctic as a whole warmed eight times faster over the past two decades than over the past 100 years.

    Air temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula region have risen by over 2.5deg: C in the last 50 years, about 5 times faster than the global mean rate.

    In recent decades both Polar Regions have shown very contrasting patterns of change at the surface, with the Arctic warming markedly, while there has been little change in the Antarctic outside of the Antarctic Peninsula region. Changes above the surface have not been investigated previously.

    British Antarctic Survey.

    Alaska, Northern Canada, Greenland, Siberia,…

    (Quote below from a letter to the Subcommittee on National
    Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives,)

    “Recently published research (Michaels et al., 1999; Michaels et al., accepted) shows that over three quarters of the winter warming is confined to this very cold air. When we compare the average postwar warming in the statistical grid cells that comprise these air masses to those that don’t, the result is truly stunning. The coldest air is warming up a rate 10 times larger than the remainder of the hemisphere; That research also proves that the warming is largely confined to the cold air masses, and that the more severely cold they are, the more they warm.”

    Patrick J. Michaels Professor of Environmental Sciences
    University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in
    Environmental Studies at Cato Institute
    October 6, 1999

    Greenland’s flag

    “The ice sheet covering Earth’s largest island of Greenland has an area of 1 833 900 square kilometres and an average thickness of 2.3 kilometres. It is the second largest concentration of frozen freshwater on Earth and if it were to melt completely global sea level would increase by up to seven metres / 22 feet”…E.S.A.

    Longyearbyen, Greenland in 2002 (bottom). A similar image taken in 1928 (top).

    The ridge of Kongsbreen, Greenland in 2002 (bottom). A similar image taken in 1928 (top).


    The receding glacier “Blomstrandbreen” Greenland in 2002 (bottom). A similar image taken in 1928 (top).

    A panoramic view of Longyearbyen, Greenland taken in 2002 (bottom). A similar image taken in 1928 (top).

    c1608052 – 16th Aug 2005 – Disko Bay, WEST GREENLAND
    Greenpeace crewmembers help scientists to take depth soundings from the bottom of ‘melt-lakes’ 4.5 Miles South of Swiss Camp, inland from Disko Bay in West Greenland. Two lakes were sounded, 2.5miles apart, the coordinates for these were. Lake 1 69¼32m N 49¼07m W
    Lake 2 69¼29m N 49¼12m W
    Greenpeace and an independent NASA-funded scientist completed measurements of melt lakes
    on the Greenland Ice Sheet that show its vulnerability to warming temperatures.The measurements are the last scheduled activity as the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise wraps up its two-month expedition to document the impacts of climate change on Greenland’s ice sheet and
    ©Greenpeace/ Nick Cobbing.

    Lakes are begining to form on the iceshield: Greenland.

    Ice melt 2005: Greenland.

    How fast is the ice Melting?

    “The Helheim Glacier now appears to be moving
    about half a football field every day.”

    The alarming retreat of the Kangerdlugssuaq Glacier suggests that the entire Greenland ice sheet may be melting far more rapidly than previously believed. All current scientific forecasts for global warming had assumed slower rates of melting. This new evidence suggests that the threat of global warming is much greater and more urgent than previously believed.

    The Greenland ice sheet is three [km] thick and broad enough to blanket an area the size of Mexico. The ice is so massive that its weight presses the bedrock of Greenland below sea level, so all-concealing that not until recently did scientists discover that Greenland actually might be three islands.

    It is thought that before the Ice Age Greenland had mountainous edges, and a lowland (and probably very dry) center which drained to the sea by one big river flowing out westwards past where Disko is now.

    There is concern about sea level rise caused by ice loss (melt and glaciers falling into the sea) on Greenland. Between 1997 and 2003 ice loss was 80+/-12 km cubed/yr, compared to about 60 km cubed/yr for 1993/4-1998/9. Half of the increase was from higher summer melting, with the rest caused by velocities of some glaciers exceeding those needed to balance upstream snow accumulation (Krabill et al., L24402, GRL 2004). A complete loss of ice on Greenland would cause a sea level rise of as much as 6.40 meters.

    Researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the University of Kansas reported in February 2006 that the glaciers are melting twice as fast as they were five years ago. By 2005, Greenland was beginning to lose more ice volume than anyone expected an annual loss of up to 52 cubic miles per year (216 km cubed/yr), according to more recent satellite gravity measurements released by JPL.

    Between 1991 and 2006, monitoring of the weather at one location (Swiss Camp) found that the average winter temperature had risen almost 10 degrees fahrenheit.

    Since 2002, Greenland’s three largest outlet glaciers have started moving faster, satellite data show. On the eastern edge of Greenland, the Kangerlussuaq Glacier, like the Jakobshavn Isbrae, has surged, doubling its pace. To the west, the Helheim Glacier now appears to be moving about half a football field every day. The accelerating ice flow has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in seismic activity. In March 2006, researchers at Harvard University and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University reported that the glaciers now generate swarms of earthquakes up to magnitude 5.0.

    The retreat of Greenland’s ice is revealing islands that were thought to be part of the mainland. In September 2005 Dennis Schmitt discovered an island 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle in eastern Greenland which he named Uunartoq Qeqertoq, Inuit for “warming island”.

    What’s happening?

    After Antarctica, Greenland’s ice cap contains the second largest mass of frozen freshwater in the world. This new research indicates enough ice loss to cause a measurable rise in sea levels. Quantified conservatively, the study indicates a net loss of roughly 51 cubic kilometers of ice per year from the entirety of the Greenland ice sheet. That’s enough to raise the average sea level worldwide about .13 millimeters per year. While that might not sound like much, consider that in the space of only a single lifetime, it’s nearly 1 centimeter of rise, and that’s only if we assume the rate of increase remains the same.

    Experts know there have been significant changes to the planet’s ice caps and oceans in geologically recent history. Since the last interglacial period (The Eemian) roughly 110,000 to 130,000 years ago, the sea level has risen approximately four meters. What’s important is a better understanding of how human and natural processes are conjoined to affect changes in the important ice caps of the world we know today.

    Based on new research using NASA’s airborne laser altimeter, scientists have identified pronounced thinning of Greenland’s ice cap. Notice how the thinning is most severe along the coasts, while the center of the landmass appears to thicken slightly., blues indicate areas where the loss of ice is greatest, and yellows indicate regions that are apparently thickening. Gray areas indicate no significant change in ice thickness.
    credit for this images to: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio Television Production NASA-TV/GSFC
    The study of Greenland’s ice is another example of how a somewhat localized phenomenon is providing insight to climate systems that relate to the entire planet. Only with continued observations will more comprehensive understanding of the trends there be determined.

    The study of ice in Greenland has significance for the rest of our planet. It’s one-seventh the size of Antarctica, but because it protrudes into more temperate latitudes, it may be a better indicator of climate change than the larger landmass found in the south.

    Global ice cover acts as the planet’s thermostat, regulating temperature by reflecting sunlight back into space. It also holds most of the Earth’s fresh water (water that would otherwise swamp what are now coastal lowlands around the world).

    Climate change presents challenges to researchers because it often concerns combinations of many interrelated processes. But Greenland may be for climatologists what canaries used to be for miners: an early warning monitor.

    Greenland’s coat of arms
    Images: Courtesy of Greenpeace: Nasa: