Written by climate realists
June 5, 2009
By Ron Voisin
COMMON SENSE GLOBAL WARMING
Have you read about the grass-roots polls to ban dihydrogen monoxide (youtube search it for video - it's hilarious). It's a substance used in Enhanced Interrogation Techniques. People are just afraid of anything they do not understand. It's just that simple. And people simply don't understand CO2. It's a vital component to the entire biosphere of the planet without which Earth's entire life-cycle would collapse. But we are coached to think it's a kind of poison.
I've got a good idea. For those of us who have a grip on common-sense, let's think of CO2 as really being C(O2). Then let's always refer to it as Vitamin C(O2); pronounced Vitamin C..(O2), with a little delay. That should help fix the perception. And the irony is that this would be an entirely fair characterization of what the molecule really is.
After all, in commercial greenhouses (the real ones, not the fabled one that surrounds the entire Earth) the owner/operators regularly spike the local internal greenhouse atmosphere with Vitamin C(O2) in order to stimulate growth (to ~1000ppm or so). Not because of lore-or-myth but rather because it really does stimulate growth and they directly profit from it. The agricultural research community has done a great deal of study that supports the assertion that a fair portion of the rising global agricultural yield (maybe 15% or more) is directly attributable to the currently, and almost entirely naturally (99.5%), elevated level of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2). But by simple extension, it is so that the Earth's entire biosphere is benefiting from this naturally elevated level of Vitamin C(O2); all of biosphere: in the air, on land and throughout the seas. There is so much twisted comedy-of-thought in this regard that one is forced to just "shake-ones-head".
Researchers write alarming articles about observing more numerous and larger oceanic plumes of algae and protoplankton. This, of course, is the food for enormously increased levels of krill; which then becomes the food for vast increases in all other oceanic life. But this is not how the observations are being reported. Instead, as perpetual sinners, humanity (with our <0.5% contribution) may have corrupted the delicate and finely tuned Earthly balance of nature. Interestingly, these larger-than-normal plumes are observed to exist over sub-oceanic volcanoes which, of course, accounts for the enriched nutrient level explaining the whole of this very desirable process. However these rocket-scientists instead comically suppose that our [less than] <0.5% contribution to elevated atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) might be the real cause; and a big problem - but right over the top of these sub-surface volcanoes. Then they go on to really become absurd. They explain that the thermal upwelling from these volcanoes becomes contaminated when this water reaches the air-water interface; contaminated by the 380ppm of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) that is there rather than the 280ppm that they believe Mother-Nature would prefer (even though Mother Nature herself provided for [more than] >99.5% of the difference). Volcanic upwelling is typically saturated with pretty-much the whole of the Periodic Table and a myriad of other natural compounds - saturated...and with particularly large concentration of Vitamin C(O2) from the volcanic processes. But they assert that the water becomes contaminated when it interfaces with the atmosphere.
How absurdly ridiculous! Is there no end to the machinations of AGW theologians? Can we have just a little common-sense? Of course, we can all understand that their future funding for this type of work is enhanced by hyping a man-made disaster. But are we really going to passively watch them invent man-made disasters for this purpose. Can science really be that corrupt? It appears to be so for much of the Vitamin C(O2) work that's going on.
The Vitamin C(O2) contribution from microbial decay is estimated to be 5-10X anthropogenic. The Vitamin C(O2) contribution from insect activity is estimated to, also and additionally, be 5-10X anthropogenic.
This current, long-duration, interglacial has afforded all organisms an extended opportunity to flourish, ourselves included. But we choose to limit ourselves, especially when we become rich and comfortable. Microbes and insects do not limit themselves. And very often, human activity is at odds with microbes and insects. We do our best to exclude insects and many types of microbes from the 38% of the land mass we cultivate. And we do an equally good job of excluding them from the 10% of the land mass we develop with cities and roads. We have systematically reduced their contribution to atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) only to replace it with a smaller contribution of Vitamin C(O2) from ourselves. One could rationally speculate that if there were no human beings at all during this current interglacial, all else being equal, the current level of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) would be expected to be higher than we now observe owing to the additional, unabated contribution of far larger communities of microbes and insects. If there is a lick of sense to this argument (and there profoundly is) , we should go find important things to do - like preparing for the next fall to glaciation and providing basic necessities to Africa.
Many of the natural sources, like microbes, insects and forest fire, may build slowly but also may have tripping points that we do not fully understand. However, oceanic release is by far the biggest contributor and it would take a long duration interglacial to get it kicked in. Presumably, early in any interglacial the Vitamin C(O2) from microbes, insects and forest-fire is initially absorbed by the oceans thereby moderating the slope of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) change. But given enough time the eventual ocean warming would reverse this trend as the emission from microbes, insects and forest fire continues to build. That just might be where we find ourselves today. Microbes, insects and forest fire are at all-time highs (within this current long-duration interglacial) and possibly the oceans have just recently reversed to create an amplified rate-of-change.
My point is that our evidence of history is littered with hugely abrupt changes. It is not at all obvious that our <0.5% contribution of Vitamin C(O2) is particularly meaningful. But meanwhile, we scare the public at large to death with stories of Biblical-Scale planetary destruction, and force the contemplation of massive social restructuring, basic necessity denial to Africa and a total rework of our energy needs. Would it not be prudent to slow down and take a deep breath and study the situation further. And maybe we should be looking for important climate drivers as in the theory proposed below.
China is estimated to have brought on-line over 400 coal fired power plants in the last 10 years, along with 10's of millions of cars and trucks. Similar anthropogenic Vitamin C(O2) releasing progress has taken place in India while steady increases have been recorded in Europe (in particular) and the Americas. Global anthropogenic Vitamin C(O2) release has steadily climbed at an accelerating pace over the last 10 years. Yet all indications (land based; oceanic and satellite) are that the climate has been cooling over the last 10 years (since 1998) with the biggest single 12 month drop ever recorded taking place just recently (-0.64 degree, approximately equal to the sum of all increases over the prior 100 years). Now, tell me how to rationally hold on to all the following beliefs:
1. Anthropogenic Vitamin C(O2) release is the fundamental driver to Global Warming. It needs to be regulated as a poison and its emission must be curtailed, even if at enormous expense to the livelihoods of the most vulnerable global societies (Africa) who will be hit very, very hard, without question, without modeling, without ambiguity but with certainty by our actions to "save-the-planet".
2. As powerful a climate driver that Vitamin C(O2) obviously is (not), something else has overwritten its effect such that in spite of ever increasing Vitamin C(O2) for ten years we have a ten year cooling trend. But Vitamin C(O2) is surely the cause even if we simply do not know what has overwritten it (however, what ever "it" is, that is where or research should be going; as "it" is obviously what is important and Vitamin C(O2) obviously is not. But we aren't even looking for "it" as that would entail a serious compromise to the strength of the "Vitamin C(O2)-is-the-prime-driver" argument).
3. We definitely know enough now and have to take serious action just now. And we cannot wait for further insight as the planet is now in peril.
These beliefs, especially put together, simply defy common-sense. Of course the ice-cores from two hemispheres tell us that in every interglacial, Vitamin C(O2) is naturally, and subsequently, driven up by: oceanic release, enhanced microbial decay, enhanced insect activity, enhanced forest fire and enhanced emissions from an exploding bio-diversity of mammilla emissions. Just like what is now happening. And our anthropogenic contribution to this favorable natural trend is estimated at <0.5%. The ice-cores also make it clear that in spite of the (quaternarily insignificant) climate effect of enhanced atmospheric Vitamin C(O2), that these interglacials are always followed by glaciations and subsequent precipitous drops in atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) as all these enormous natural sources of emission are subsequently curtailed and the then-cooling oceans absorb atmospheric Vitamin C(O2). This bit of AGW common-sense never seems to see the light-of-day.
You have to spend a moment and think about this. Undisputed data, gathered by the Russians, the Europeans and the Americans, well correlated from both Antarctica and Greenland, says that every interglacial is accompanied by a subsequent spike in atmospheric Vitamin C(O2). One difference between this interglacial and all previous ones is that this one has a small, <0.5% anthropogenic contribution. We are told that as small as it is, it may be disrupting a delicate, finely tuned, and very fragile balance. But the ice core data show great variability in
the timing and amplitude of the prior spikes - far greater than the relative size of the human contribution to this one. What is more, another difference is that this current interglacial is of the longest duration of any represented by the ice-core data (though other proxies of much longer time-lines show many more transitions, including ones that are as long and even longer than current - but without detailed accompanying Vitamin C(O2) data). So all natural emission sources have been at it longer and harder such that one would reasonably expect an enhanced Vitamin C(O2) spike to be associated this current, long duration, interglacial. And that is just what we observe. However the most significant issue here is the establishment of basic cause-and-effect. Rising Vitamin C(O2) doesn't cause rising temperature. And falling Vitamin C(O2) doesn't cause falling temperature. Rather, rising temperature causes rising Vitamin C(O2) and falling temperature causes falling Vitamin C(O2); and for good, easily identifiable common-sense reasons.
Here are two simple questions that need to be asked with diligence:
1. If Vitamin C(O2) is the prime driver, what massive Vitamin C(O2) release event accounts for transitions from glaciation to interglacial? Comically, we are told cause-and-effect reversals; about how it gets warm, that might result in massive methane release from previously frozen tundra or frozen ocean beds, which then might be the cause of the warming in the first place. If it "gets warm", the relevant question becomes: "What caused it to get warm?"
2. What massive atmospheric Vitamin C(O2) (or greenhouse gas) vacuuming event accounts for transitions from interglacial to glaciation? None is even postulated but sure to be comical when it comes. Here...I've got it: it gets cold, that causes the oceans to absorb enormous amounts of atmospheric Vitamin C(O2), and then this newly diminished level of Vitamin C(O2) might be the reason it got cold in the first place - this fits in perfectly with so much other AGW theology.
Where in the world is our common sense? You may wonder why I should be so energetic on this issue? I can only say: this is about power. It is about ideology. It's about theology. It's about massive sociological restructuring. It's about the curtailment of wealth generation. It's about massive pain and suffering for people with little voice. It's about centralized control. It's about ignorance. It's about jealousy. It's about stupidity. It's about fear, uncertainty and doubt. It's about the most important thing to not get wrong in my lifetime or, for that matter, centuries. Meanwhile we ignore a coming ice-age. It's about insanity. It's about stopping dead that anthropogenic contribution to exploding bio-diversity and instead, falling on our sword. Have we gone mad?
Some assert that there is a consensus regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). However, many scientists disagree; a far larger number of them than what we are lead to believe. But I think we are talking about common sense. And in many, many cases, outright deceit. Here is a story that has unfolded over the last 3-4 years that the media doesn't tell. The AGW proponents were pressured to deliver a testable prediction that would support their "Vitamin C(O2) is the critical driver" theory. They have had two spectacular, though swept under the rug, failures and two less spectacular ones, also swept under the rug; and no successes. When pressed for a testable prediction they thought about it and said,
"Sure, our climate-driven-by-manmade-Vitamin C(O2) theology says that the stratosphere will show the most profound warming". Oops, and under the rug it goes when the satellite data showed otherwise. Then they said, "You want a smoking gun, I'll give you a smoking gun, we predict that a re-analysis of the ice-cores at high temporal resolution is going prove that increasing Vitamin C(O2) leads increasing temperature and decreasing Vitamin C(O2) will lead decreasing temperature". This was going to be really big. They already had the media carping that the science was finished and the debate was over. Even high school kids were indignant that the question would even be asked. And sure enough, had they been right, this would have been a tidy piece of data to support a theory that was otherwise littered with holes. When the Russians said "oops not so", they said "what do the Russians know, we superior Europeans will get the right answer with the Americans in Greenland". Then oops, and under the rug it went. Interspersed in these activities came questions about sinking Maldives and glaciers melting top down or bottom up. Being just a little more cautious they didn't pronounce any formal outcomes but did offer that the analysis was a waste of time and that of course they knew what the obvious results would be. Since Vitamin C(O2) is the prime driver and it heats the atmosphere, glacial melting of course occurs from the top down. Oops - not so. And since Vitamin C(O2) is the prime driver and humanity has polluted the Earth with Vitamin C(O2) for the last 70 years then of course the Maldives are sinking faster now than a hundred years ago. Oops - not so. In fact it's not clear that they are currently sinking at all but were hundreds of years ago. They have yet to prevail with any testable prediction. Meanwhile, all the new info says clearly that Vitamin C(O2) is not a driver, let alone the prime driver. If this came to light, many researchers would find their continued funding summarily terminated. Many meaning thousands the world over. This all doesn't strike you as a big deal? I cannot think of a bigger deal. So this is as dispassionate as I can be. We are being systematically duped. And we will force millions into continued squalor and disease with our bankrupt "save the planet" actions while we hugely damage our own economy. The Europeans are baiting us into doing it. It is like a chapter out of Sun Tzu and we are falling for it (literally). The UN are finding it very difficult to maintain their self espoused notions of superiority while they're getting their butts economically kicked. If we can just be coached into falling on our own sword, voila, superiority restored.
The failed predictions I've outlined above have all occurred over the last 3-4 years. This isn't so much an issue of trust in science as it is one of common sense. And if you don't believe we're being baited into falling on our sword, then you're not looking. The AGW proponents use such twisted logic that it defies imagination. They admit (no choice) that we cannot predict the weather next week. We cannot predict the climate next season. But on the basis of modeling, we predict doom in 100 years. So here's the plan, our flimsy prediction says that poor people will be the least able to cope with the deleterious climate changes that we predict are coming. So that creates the moral imperative to act with diligence now. But their proposed action will, amongst many other obviously deleterious consequences, doom these same poor people to 100 more years of disease and squalor. So in the end, in order to save poor people from the predicted possibility of a terrible far-out future, we're going to create one for them now for which there is no doubt of its terrible impact on them. Defies common sense!!
Just recently we have cancelled several water purification and sanitation projects in Africa. And many more are on hold. The money continues to be readily available. But the deep thinking is that these projects all require energy that will emit Vitamin C(O2) and pollute the globe. What is far more serious, if you provide basic necessities to 100's of millions of people, the next thing you know, they'll want paved roads and transportation. And then they'll want hospitals and schools. And then some day, oh my god, they'll be major contributors to humanity (and its Vitamin C(O2) release) and...shutter the thought...competitors to our Western Society. It all must be stopped. China and India are following America's lead and the only way to stop them all is to con America into falling on their sword. That's well underway. Africa, on the other hand, hasn't got a foothold as yet - and not a chance. We can use the UN, under the twisted up-side-down auspices of our benevolence (you know, what is best for the planet), to stop them dead in their tracks. Thank god for that. I mean... thank our Western existence for that! We don't thank god for that because we (uniquely) know the true nature of existence - it's sustainability and harmonious cooperation with a benevolent and nurturing Mother Nature (unfortunately, as any anthropologist, historian or geologist knows, there is nothing harmonious, benevolent or nurturing about Mother Nature and sustainability is broken at its foundation; "How can we live on this planet without there being evidence that that is so?" Ridiculous! ...Why?).
Say what you may about human rights in China, and I agree that it has been a rough road, but over the last 25 years or so, they have lifted more people from poverty than have ever been lifted so quickly in the history of humanity. And, PS, it wasn't done with socialism. They haven't been following superior socialist Europe. They've been following inferior capitalist America. It all must be stopped! India has a smaller foothold so we'll work their demise from both ends.
I've been asked by some what I meant by "India has a smaller foothold so we'll work their demise from both ends." Well, the UN has limited opportunity to punish China (for the most part China is able to just "flip the UN off"). And since the Chinese are very familiar with the philosophy of Sun Tzu, they're not likely to agree to fall on their own sword (Sun Tzu was an ancient Chinese war-lord who documented his success in getting his enemies to implode from within such that little loss was incurred when he came in to mop-up the spoils of war). As a result, our UN coordinated effort to curtail Chinese wealth generation is largely limited to damaging America first. And that, by itself, is hopefully going to be enough to allow China's subsequent management (one thing at a time; we'll cross other bridges when we get to them). India is different. Once America implodes, India will of course be damaged too and will be much more controllable. But India just might be convinced to fall on their own sword following America's lead. In the mean time the UN can punish India with some effect, though, not at all like they can punish Africa. Does this sound conspiratorial? You bet. Is there an element of truth to it? You bet - a significant one; all in the erroneous name of "saving the planet". This is not about rocket-science. This is about common sense.
AGW theology is very insidious. They're pushing for immediate and enormously consequential action; big power grabs (as big as any in all of history - and none of
which ended well ever in history) and great levels of consequential suffering. The dirt and mud-slinging here is just human nature. But the political drive to squelch any rational debate is appalling. And if we're not careful, the immediate "change" they have in mind won't be easily undone. If you can so largely eliminate constructive debate at this point, wait till the proposed restructuring is at play. Then see how much room is left for constructive debate, or any kind of dissention. This one needs stopping; and fast. It's about to go hog-wild and seemingly already has. I'm at a loss as to what to do. Ten years ago I would have said that this day will never come; common-sense will always prevail; you cannot dupe everyone. Yet pretty much everyone I know seems to be duped. They most often think I'm a lunatic fringe sort; a denier. Haven't I heard about the consensus? Don't I understand the obviousness of our poisonous behavior? It's surreal. There are times when I've truly contemplated my own sanity. It was one thing to watch all this happening with consequences that were elsewhere. But it's all over us now. And it's completely full-of-shit everywhere you look. I mean everywhere I look. Somehow no one else thinks there is a problem. We're just going to clean up the evil conspiracy perpetrated by our corrupt energy suppliers and "go green". Won't that be nice? For everyone! What's my problem! BLINK...what green energy; there is no such thing; and by corrupt suppliers, do you mean the ones supplying the cheapest energy on the planet; ever falling in price in the face of ever growing demand; is that what is evilly supplied? Yeah, and while we're at it, we're going to clean up all that corrupt wealth-generating capitalism. BLINK... with what; what system has humanity ever tried that worked so well? Yeah, let's jump off this wealth generating ship and go to the paradise I can so easily liberally imagine. BLINK...what paradise; where is that; when ever was that? Why, where everything is equal and fair. BLINK...what makes you think life is, should be, or ever was fair; and what is this equal shit; is that in a story book somewhere? Sure, it's what the European's have. BLINK...no they don't; I've lived there; that's not fair or equal; it's very expensive and no paradise. Oh yes it is. The media says so and so do the Europeans themselves. They have great health care that's affordable. BLINK...no they don't; they have shitty healthcare that costs a fortune; the operative word being shitty. Yeah, we're just going to clean up the corrupt healthcare system and corrupt pharmaceuticals and get cheap, affordable, high quality healthcare. BLINK...you mean you want to stop this steady stream of miracle drugs and miracle procedures. No, of course not. BLINK...so you think it will just fall from the sky once all the incentives are removed. Incentives, what incentives? Do I mean the corrupt profiteering that that these bastards impose on us. BLINK...no, I mean the miracles that you seem convinced should be cheap and affordable; guess what...they're not.
And this goes on. And it's all tied together by common-sense defying Vitamin C(O2).
And then there is the "Fairness Doctrine" which is structured to be totally unfair to create complete, one-sided control of the media. And the "Union Voter Freedom ACT" which specifically denies employees the ability to vote freely. And the BUSH-caused housing meltdown that was really caused, in order of culpability, by: Barney, Dodd, Harry and Nancy. PS Barack himself, as chief council to ACORN, was one of the first to bring lawsuit to banks to force them to lend to unqualified buyers (the media perpetration of this lie hugely affected the election outcome). And the "Living Constitution" where fundamental checks-and-balances are forgone in favor of "law by non-elected fiat" (the essence of dictatorship). And major governmental interference with no-longer-free enterprise. And wealth confiscation so as the breed reliably voting dependants; and to fund truly corrupt organizations that stack the ACORN deck. And fiat by the EPA which now defines life-required Vitamin C(O2) as a human health hazard. And the indignant moral high-ground of water-boarding elimination - likely the most humane and effective interrogation technique ever devised and surely to continue even if we "fun" ourselves into thinking otherwise. And ever-growing and sweeping governmental control of thought and opinion.
And this goes on. And believe it or not, it too is largely all tied to Vitamin C(O2); in so far as the basic thinking is all the same and it all compliments it's broken self so well.
With all that said, I would like to offer a common-sense climate driver theory that you have hopefully heard at least parts of before. But then I would like to offer an investigative method that I suspect you haven't heard before; and one that you may become interested in promoting - the investigation, that is. Call it a testable prediction. I'm a career Engineer/Manager and would like to share some simple perspectives on the issue of Global Warming. I believe that it is obvious that the prime climate driver is not Vitamin C(O2) and that it is also not the Sun. My issues with Vitamin C(O2) as not being a driver were largely contained above, though, I could easily go on with many more examples of how it is that Vitamin C(O2) is disconnected from being the driver. The issue with the Sun as not being the prime driver is, I believe, perfectly understandable at the highest and most salient levels (i.e. not buried in some immense depth-of-detail confusion). The variability of the Sun apparently does have its significant signature on climate (by solar variability, I mean all of its many variants: mean brightness, mean solar distance, sun-spot cycles, coronal discharge events, etc.). However, the Sun operates on the Earth with huge positive feedbacks. And this simple fact all but eliminates it as the prime-driver (when I say prime, I'm talking about the prime-driver-force that accounts for the repeated major transitions from glaciation to interglacial and visa versa). When the Earth is glaciated, it becomes hugely reflective of solar radiation and, as such, should latch hard to this frozen state; if not for some other powerful driver that repeatedly overwrites this situation. Similarly, when the Earth is interglacial, it becomes hugely absorbing (and also causing the release of huge natural sources of greenhouse gas for the benefit of exploding bio-diversity and little else on the down-side) and so should latch hard to this warm state; if not for some other powerful driver that repeatedly overwrites this situation. If you go through what is required in order to explain these transitions, with positive-feedback solar-variation, you get a ridiculously choreographed set of conditions; a set that requires huge variability and critical timing and repeated performance; such that the Sun is easily dismissed as the prime-driver even as it imprints its signature in some significant ways. The question then is: "just what is that immensely powerful driver that overwrites (hammers) stable-latching-states and causes hugely abrupt major climatic transitions?" I theorize that the answer is very likely the second most profound source of Earthly energy...the central-core nuclear reactor.
We have known for a long time that the Earth is exothermic and to an extent that would easily cause the interior to go cool long before its 4.5B year's age. We also know that Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are exothermic; and most likely for the very same reason. It really doesn't take much leap-of-faith to recognize that there is a huge nuclear reactor at the center of the Earth. And this is becoming widely recognized. The earth originated in a molten ball, entirely molten, through and through. We strongly believe that heavy elements like iron and nickel gravitationally precipitated to the center. But what about even heavier elements like thorium and uranium. They would have precipitated to the center of the center. And we also we know that sufficient quantity of these radioactive elements, with sufficient proximity-density, will spontaneously chain react. So it seems likely that such a reactor exists. But here is the real leap-of-faith (I think not really): we now know that the Sun has complicated internal weather patterns; that account for many phenomena we observe; we also know that the Earth has complicated internal weather patterns that account for magnetic-flipping; so how hard can it be to imagine that the center of the core of the Earth has internal weather patterns? One can easily theorize a highly viscous, swirling pool of fissioning materials, at the core of the core of the Earth (estimated at ~10 kilometers diameter) - accounting for a significant primary-heat to sustain an interglacial period. When peaking in rate of reaction kinetics, chaotic pushes and shoves, from outside this center occasionally disrupt it; so as to scatter the materials into a relatively larger volume with lower proximity-density. And then the rate of reaction kinetics drops significantly. One can also easily theorize that these chaotic pushes and shoves are the rule, rather than exception; and that the reactor spends most of its life at a reduced output with its fissioning materials relatively scattered - just as the Earth spends most of its time in glaciation. One can also theorize that from time-to-time, relative stability slowly materializes from chaos. Gravitational precipitation slowly re-emerges and the reaction kinetics take off for an enduring yet relatively short period of time - just as the Earth experiences sustained, yet relatively short-lived warming periods. I submit to you, as others have and will likely continue, that this weather variability to the reactor's rate of reaction kinetics is the prime-driver to Earth climate changes.
The Dutch, so far as I know, are still trying to finance the building of an anti-neutrino detection facility off the coast of Venezuela for the purposes of beginning to monitor this central-core-reactor and, of course, to simply establish its true presence. However, let's assume that there is a central core-reactor and that its output variability truly accounts for major climate transitions. There should then be some correlation of the timing of major climatic transitions to volcanic activity though this has not been established despite several attempts. But that might be because we've looked for the wrong correlation. And as you know, most volcanic activity takes place under the oceans and this may also be shielding most of the correlation. But what is more, the AGW Vitamin C(O2)-biased attempts at establishing a correlation have looked for major volcanic events (with their attendant large Vitamin C(O2) release) to precede transitions from glaciation-to-interglacial. And this has not been borne out in the attempted correlations. However, if the central-reactor variability is the real cause, then increased volcanic activity might more likely follow transitions from glaciation-to-interglacial. And then reductions in volcanic activity might more likely follow the reverse transitions from
interglacial-to-glaciation. Maybe this correlation can be established if it is objectively looked for? But here is what I think is the more interesting part - a "smoking gun" if you will. If this is true, the rate of continental drift (and the rate of sub-oceanic crust formation) should correlate well to major climate transitions; though likely phase-shifted in time. We have become quite expert at measuring continental drift and its rates. If these rates can be plotted backward in time far enough to cover several major climate transitions, a high level of correlation may be observed. The reason I'm excited about the possibility of a continental-drift-rate correlation to major climate-transitions is that continental-drift (or the creation of sub-oceanic crust) is a slow and continuous process that leaves "continuous" temporal evidence in the ocean floors (like the ice-cores left "continuous" Vitamin C(O2) concentration and temperature evidence). Volcanic eruptions, on the other hand, are spurious events that do not leave a continuous trail and so any correlation would be necessarily much more difficult to establish. To my knowledge, no attempt has been made to establish this type of correlation (continental drift rate, or crust creation rate, to major climate changes) but it might be possible; and it would provide compelling evidence to the theory of central-core-reactor variability as the primary cause of major climate-transitions. Additionally, the size and shape of the temporal shift would provide great insight into all manner of thermal dynamics from the center to the crust.
We studied ice-cores at low temporal resolution and came to support erroneous conclusions from our initial analysis. Then we went back and did a high-temporal-resolution analysis which showed a very much more informed result. Your guess is as good as mine to explain why this obvious fact hasn't already changed our direction. But what I'm suggesting is that we do the same thing with sub-oceanic crust samples to see if the rate of crust growth (or continental drift) does directly correlate to the time-line of major climate swings. This might be a big project. But it could be very worthwhile - the most worthwhile I can think of. And it fits well into the "smoking gun" category. For all I know, a reassessment of the currently taken samples would reveal the correlation; in which case the project scope might be fairly small. However, a higher temporal analysis may be required and that might significantly complicate the size and scope of the project.
Somehow we have managed to convince ourselves to be looking for a subtle, nuanced needle-in-a-haystack. What we should be looking for is a hammer in an otherwise empty drawer. There is nothing subtle or nuanced about these major climate-transitions. They're very abrupt and severe. It is manifest that whatever causes them, it overwrites all other considerations. Yet we remain convinced we are sinners who must punish ourselves for nuanced emissions. This is inconsistent with common sense. We are not sinners. We are good custodians of the Earth. And inevitably this Earth will fall to glaciation. And that is what we must begin to prepare for.
Ronald D. Voisin
Our thanks to Ronald Voisin and the excellent site,
"ClimateRealists.Com promote articles that voice the stupidity of "Man Made Climate Change".