Climate Change — Chapter 6

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) :

Over the past several decades, there have been many statements made about higher levels of CO2 and how this increases the planet’s temperatures. Many of these people have been influenced by positional arguments. Many independent scientists present the position on natural variability, as the most causal factor of climate change.  Scientist. In support of United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say climate change is the fault of humans and their rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels since the Industrial revolution. The latter group of scientist discounts the natural variability of Climate Change in favor of human causes, primarily through the increased use of fossil fuels and therefore they contend the decreased use of fossil fuels is the only way to curb increase in our planet’s temperature.

Lets have a quick look at what has been said on both sides of this debate.

Pro Con Org explains it this way:

Some scientist report temperatures on earth have increased approximately 1.8°F since the early 20th century. Over this time period, atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) have notably increased. Most scientists on both sides in the debate surrounding Global Climate change agree on these points.

The pro side argues rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are a direct result of human activities such as burning fossil fuels, and that these increases are causing significant and increasingly severe climate changes including global warming, loss of sea ice, sea level rise, stronger storms, and more droughts.  They contend that immediate international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is necessary to prevent dire climate change.

The other side argues human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are too small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing those increases. They contend that warming over the 20th century resulted primarily from natural processes such as fluctuations in the earth’s orbit, the sun’s heat, and ocean currents.

These scientists also say the theory of human-caused global climate change is based on questionable measurements, faulty climate models, and misleading science.

It should be added that the discussions on both sides of the debate gets a bit more animated than that in the above explanation.

The pro-side claim the wicked ingredient is CO2 and the culprit is ‘we the people’ thus; the anthropogenic or human induced climate change is the cause.

Before we go on, lets first understand the magnitude of CO2 in our atmosphere.

Atmosphere Composition consists of:  (total 100 percent of the atmosphere)

Nitrogen:                     78.080 %

Oxygen:                       20.950 %

Argon:                            0.930 %

Carbon Dioxide:           0.038 %

Trace Gases:                  0.040 %

One can readily see in the Earth Science Graph that Carbon Dioxide is a very small portion of the gases that make up our atmosphere.

Composite Gas Graph .png

Figure 19:  With such a small percentage of our atmosphere being made up of Carbon Dioxide, it is certainly in the Trace Gas category and not in the group with Nitrogen and Oxygen and not even Argon.

The bottom line; CO2 is only 0.038 percent of the atmosphere and about the same as the of total of other trace gases. If CO2 levels were doubled, it would still be less than 0.08 % of the total atmosphere.  As stated before, that is not very much.  With that understanding lets begin a review some other aspects of CO2 that might be informative and interesting.

Over the last 50 years our CO2 levels have been between 300 and 400 PPM. Before we go on, we need to make sure we all understand more about PPM.

This is an abbreviation for “parts per million” and it also can be expressed as milligrams per liter (mg/L). This measurement is the mass of a chemical or contaminate per unit volume of water. Seeing ppm or mg/L on a lab report means virtually the same thing.

One ppm is equivalent to the absolute fractional amount multiplied by one million. A better way to think of ppm is to visualize putting four drops of ink in a 55-gallon barrel of water and mixing it thoroughly. This procedure would produce an ink concentration of 1 ppm.  Some other analogies that may help visualize the scale involved with ppm.

One ppm is like:

  • One inch in 16 miles,
  • One second in 11.5 days,
  • One minute in two years

Now with that, let’s take a look at historical CO2 levels, and in doing so let’s start with the real early years on our planet.

During the Ordovician Period, which was about 450 million years ago, the planet had CO2 level of 2400 to 9000 PPM.  That’s 6 to 25 times as much as the CO2 level today.

During the dinosaur years, or about 65 million years ago, CO2 was about five times that of today, that’s about 1,500 to 2000 PPM

Carbon dioxide concentrations may have been up to sixteen times higher or (16 x 400 = 6,400 PPM) about 60 million years ago without producing runaway greenhouse effects.

Other periods experienced two to four times current levels of CO2 with some warming.  For virtually all of the period from around 125 million to about 75,000 years ago, CO2 levels were markedly higher than now.

New research suggests that the CO2 level of the atmosphere was a lot higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today.

Based on the best science available, CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD, or during the Medieval Warm or about 800 years ago.

Let’s review a graph from Chapter One in the context of CO2 and temperatures.  If CO2, created by fossil fuel burning, causes the planet’s temperatures to increase, why did the temperatures increase before the burning of fossil fuels?

Summer Tempertures .pngFigure 2 and 20 Institute of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz Germany

Well, the above graph certainly indicates our Planet Earth experienced both warming and cooling thousands of years before the burning of fossil fuels.

Professor Carl-Otto Wiess, advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy. A former President of the National Metrology Institute of Germany Braunschweig used spectral analysis of all long-term climate data to show that all climate change is due to natural cycles and there is no signal at all from our CO2 emissions.

Dr. Weiss makes the following conclusions is his presentations:

  • Climate change during the recent centuries is periodic
  • Warming since 1870 attributed to CO 2 is in reality caused by the -200 year De Vries Cycle
  • Present cooling and increased warming 1970 to 1997 is due to 65 year period Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations and Pacific Decadal Oscillations (AMO/PDO)
  • Measurements: No trace of warming by CO2.  All change is natural.

Do you remember AMO and PDO from our discussion on the oceans?

With all of this said about Global Warming, Climate Change, and CO2 levels; what are the reasons some people try so hard to convince everyone of their distorted human causal opinions

Two Reasons:  Power and Money

Yes, it’s all about power and money. Let’s start with the power issue.

Power:

Earlier, it was said that most Democrats jumped on the Global Warning and Climate Change bandwagon. While that’s probably true, it is perhaps more precise if we say most “Globalist” jumped on the Global Warming and Climate Change bandwagon.  So, you might ask why is that true. Globalist and United Nations needed a global purpose that is greater than any particular country to push their desire for Globalism and One World Government.  It has become a Religion to Globalist, from those in some governments, some academic institutions, and of course, virtually every department in the United Nations. The Globalist and the folks in the United Nations seek Power to further their cause and they believe that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, IPPC can provide that through Global Climate Change Initiative.

Money:

Virtually everyone involved in academics, scientific endeavors, and research activity has a chance to receive some money for their work, if it relates to Global Warming and Climate Change. MIT Technology Review says worldwide expenditures on Global Warming, Climate Change, and anthropogenic or human induced CO2 will be US$44 Trillion between now and 2050.  One goal of the Paris Agreement is to raise US$100 Billion a year by 2020 and Globalists want that money to keep flowing at the expense of United States and other large funding countries.  According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office the US Government funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaption has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to #11.6 billion in 2014 with another $26.i billion in the American Recovery and Restoration act of 2009.

Globalization, United Nations, and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The Global Warming and Climate Change story is the fundamental pillar of Globalization, the United Nations and their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The United Nations loves every degree the temperature goes up and down, as they blame both warming and cooling on Global Warming and Climate Change.   The more emphasis they can place on Global Warming, the more money they can extract from developed nations for their pet projects.   The United Nations love the Carbon Tax to fund their Global Government.

To aid in their quest for increases funding for their agenda, it has been reported by a number of sources that IPCC’s climate models are not accurate. They have simply overstated the temperature increase.   In fact, the overstatement has become known as Climategate.  Now that we have mentioned Climategate, It might be interesting to review an article titled “Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate,” written by James Taylor and was in Forbes on November 11, 2011.

“A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.”

Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories,and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in this area of science would be to delete all emails at the end of the process, “writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.

“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept. of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

The original Climategate emails contained similar evidence of destroying information and data that the public would naturally assume would be available according to freedom of information principles. “Mike, can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment]?”

Jones wrote to Penn State University scientist Michael Mann in an email released in Climategate 1.0. “Keith will do likewise. … We will be getting Caspar [Ammann] to do likewise. I see that CA [the Climate Audit Web site] claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!”

The new emails also reveal the scientists’ attempts to politicize the debate and advance predetermined outcomes.

“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out” of IPCC reports, writes Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s most recent climate assessment.

“I gave up on [Georgia Institute of Technology climate professor] Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but its not helping the cause,” wrote Mann in another newly released email.

Since the article mentions Judith Curry, it would be worthwhile to review a bit more about her, as she is very knowledge about the Climate world.

Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council’s Climate Research Committee. As of 2017, she has retired from academia.

Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers. Among her awards is the Henry G. Houghton Research Award from the American Meteorological Society in 1992.

Regarding climate change, she thinks that the IPCC reports typically neglect what she calls the “Uncertainty Monster”in projecting future climate trends, which she calls a “wicked problem.” Curry also hosts a popular science blog in which she writes on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface.

Judith Curry has argued that climatologists should be more accommodating of those skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change.

Curry has stated she is troubled by what she calls the “tribal nature” of parts of the climate-science community, and what she sees as stonewalling over the release of data and its analysis for independent review.[

In February 2010 Curry published an essay called “On the Credibility of Climate Change, Towards Rebuilding Trust” on Watts Up With That? and other blogs.Writing in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin calls the essay a message to young scientists who may have been disheartened by the November 2009 climate change controversy known as “Climategate.”

In September 2010, she created Climate Etc., a blog related to climate change and hosted by Curry. She wrote “Climate Etc. provides a forum for climate researchers, academics and technical experts from other fields, citizen scientists, and the interested public to engage in a discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface, She wrote: “I have a total of 12,000 citations of my publications (since my first publication in 1983). Climate Etc. gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments.” She gets “zero academic credit or incentives for my blogging and tweeting,” but hopes that “social media and the associated skill set [will become] better recognized within the academic system.”

Curry testified before the US House Subcommittee on Environment in 2013, remarking on the many large uncertainties in forecasting future climate.

In October 2014, Curry wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal where she argued that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario, which is far later than the IPCC prediction of a 2-degrees-Celsius warming before 2040.

In April 2015 Curry gave evidence to the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge. She summed up her evidence:

The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100… The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.

A September 2017 article published in the Nature Geosciences Journal, the largely UK-based climate scientists corroborated the claims in the media that IPCC climate models are “wrong” and have significantly overestimated the observed warming of the planet. Climategate has become a leading search among people wanting to learn more about IPCC.

The United Nations and their IPCC are becoming so emboldened that they now even openly admit their true agenda.   Mark Morano a climate writer says: Global warming’ is not about the science – UN Admits: ‘Climate change policy is about how we redistribute the world’s wealth.’

The following is what he is referring to:

“Ottmar Edenhofer, lead author of the IPCC’s fourth summary report released in 2007 candidly expressed the priority. Speaking in 2010, he advised, ‘One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.’

Or, as U.N. climate chief Christina Figueres pointedly remarked, the true aim of the U.N.’s 2014 Paris climate conference was “to change the [capitalist] economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

Some have asked, were the Obama Administration Official’s complicit in supporting the United Nations and IPCC.

“A whistleblower who formerly directed NOAA’s climate data section has recently charged that the agency hurriedly prepared and released unverified and flawed global temperature information in order to push policy agendas favored by the U.N. and Obama administration at the U.N.’s 2015 Paris climate conference. The goal was to influence advanced nations to commit to sweeping reductions in their uses of fossil fuel and huge expenditures for climate-related aid projects.

NOAA’s politically sensationalized 2015 Thomas R. Karl study retroactively altered historical climate change data to eliminate a well-known “climate change hiatus” . . . a temperature period between 1998 and 2013 during which global temperatures remained flat despite much ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

Instead, the report claimed that the “pause” or “slowdown” in global warming never existed, and that world temperature had been rising even faster than expected.

Although satellite measurements since 1979 show virtually none outside underreported margins of error, the altered record data now makes 2010 appear just enough warmer to suggest a media headline-prompting upward trend.

Moreover, balloon recordings of the Earth’s atmosphere show no overall warming since the late 1950s, while U.S. surface records obtained from the most reliable thermometer stations — those not corrupted by local “heat island” influences such as instrument relocations, urban developments or other man-made changes — show no significant warming over the past 80 years. In fact, there have been more all-time U.S. cold records than heat records since the 1940s.”

This is truly a massive ‘redistribution of wealth’ program.  The United States has been paying a disproportionate share.  In fact, we do not even know how much we are paying as the Obama Administration made many desperate commitments.

It is estimated that we are spending $77bn on climate change programs and the expenditures are spread across many government agencies, Bloomberg states: ‘That will make it difficult for the Trump administration to sweep all of it away in this budget.’

Thus far, we have pledged $3bn to United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF) and have paid $1 Billion. In one of his last acts as president, on January 17, 2017, with only three days remaining in office, Barack Obama sent $500 Million to the fund.

Through the Global Climate Change Initiative(GCCI), the State Department is a major funder of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC), providing roughly 20% of its operating budget.

The Paris Accord is voluntary and Our Congress never approved the agreement.   It was therefore, was certainly open for change and/or being dropped by any country.

The question is why stay in any Climate Change Accord developed by the United Nations and the IPCC, especially when it is not based on scientific fact and the United Nations’ officials even admit it is a scheme to redistribute wealth.

Let’s now look at the ice coverage on ourplanet, as that has also received a great deal of coverage in the press.

There is one other areas that we should at least comment on, as it has also been talked about a great deal in the Climate Change news.

Our Planet’s Ice Coverage:

 There has been so much said about our planet’s ice coverage.  Some say it is rapidly melting and will cause a drastic rise in the planet’s seas and oceans.  Because of this, we should review what has happened in with ice levels the past and what is currently happening.

Let’s first examine the past with some comments about he largest concentrations of ice and that means Antarctica as number one and Greenland as number two.

Antarctic Sea Ice:

 A NASA study uses satellite data from NASA’s ICEsat (Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite) and the European Remote-sensing Satellite to derive its results, which are based on precision measurements of the elevation of the ice sheet and how that is changing over time. The key finding is that snow-related mass gain atop the ice sheet is more than compensating for the flow of ice outward in glaciers that reach the sea.

“Our interpretation is that this has been going on since the beginning of the last ice age when the snowfall over the continent doubled, the accumulation over the continent doubled, as shown in ice cores,” says H. Jay Zwally, the lead author and a longtime NASA expert on the planet’s ice sheets and methods for studying them with satellites.

More specifically, the research asserts that a “dynamic thickening” of ice over time has occurred as a result of this snowfall. Or as a NASA explanation puts it, “This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice – enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global sea level rise.”

However, this contradicts many other results, including those derived using a different NASA tool — the Grace satellites, twin measurement devices that orbit the Earth and measure the changing mass of ice based on differential tugs of gravity on the spacecraft as they pass over it. Accordingly, numerous scientists have expressed skepticism, to varying degrees, about the new research.

Andrew Shepherd, a glaciologist at the University of Leeds in the UK who was an author of one of the recent studies cited above finding net Antarctic mass loss, puts it this way in an e-mail to the Post:

Zwally and his team have tried to account for snowfall, which masks changes in the thickness of the polar ice sheets. It’s right to attempt this, but in places where nothing much happens – like the interior of Antarctica, which is a vast desert – it’s really quite difficult to be sure that snowfall can be simulated with enough precision to detect ice imbalance. Fortunately we now have many different ways to examine Earth’s ice sheets – from space and on foot – and I’m confident that we can get to the bottom of this contradiction by taking everything into account.

Geoscientist Christopher Harig made the following comment about the measurement.

Harig defended the GRACE measurements and the finding that Antarctica is losing mass, and said that a key part of the difference between his research and the new study involves how researchers handle something called “glacial isostatic adjustment” or GIA, which refers to the rising of land as the weight of ice has been removed from it since the last ice age.

Greenland:

The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the island was much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forest that was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles.  Furthermore 10th  Century Vikings lived, farmed, and grazed livestock on the grasslands of Greenla

Greenland .png

Figure 21: Studies indicate the 10th-century Vikings were able to colonize Greenland because of unusually warm weather and fertile grazing lands. This photo is of the Hvalsey church. It is the location of the last written record of the Norse settlement in Greenland, a 1408 wedding.

From the genetic material of organisms, the researchers infer that Greenland’s temperature once varied from 50 degrees Fahrenheit in summer to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in winter—the temperature range that the tree species prefer.

“We have shown for the first time that southern Greenland … was once very different to the Greenland we see today,” said study leader Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen.

Less glacial cover in ancient Greenland means the global ocean was probably between three and six feet higher during that time compared to current levels, the scientists say.

“To get this site ice free you would’ve had to remove the ice cover from about the southern third of Greenland,” study team member Martin Sharp, a glaciologist at the University of Alberta, Canada, told LiveScience.

The findings, detailed in the July 6 2017 issue of the Journal Science, demonstrate how far the young field of ancient DNA research has come: scientists can now recreate an environment’s climate and ecology using only recovered DNA, without the need for fossils that might be absent or hard to reach.

“To go from dirty water to a forest full of insects is pretty amazing,” study team member Matthew Collins, a bimolecular archaeologist at the University of York, said in a related Science news article.

Greenland’s thick ice sheets served as a perfect, natural freezer for preserving the prehistoric DNA. Older genetic samples have been found, but none in such pristine condition as the new Greenland samples.

The team says their technique could be applied to DNA found in other icy parts of the globe, such as Antarctic.  “Given that 10 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial surface is covered by thick ice sheets, it could open up a world of new discoveries,” said study team member Enrico Cappellini of the University of York in the United Kingdom.

Plants still survive in Greenland today, although mostly along the island’s coast, since the interior is blanketed in ice. “There’s tundra vegetation,” Sharp said.

“There’s also dwarf birch probably, and willows almost are certain. But not pine or spruce, which we have in the DNA here.

There is plenty of ice in Arctic, Antarctic, and Greenland.  The ice experts in the above organizations say; “Alarmists Are In Way Over Their Heads On Rising Ocean Claims.”

Some added climate facts: We’re in the 17th year of NO increase in global temperature. 2. Sea level continues to rise at about 7 inches every 100 years. 3. Temperatures have also risen 0.6 degrees C each 100 years. Point 2 and 3 will continue more or less until next Ice age.

‪We should be thankful we are not living during a major ice age or even the little ice age.   Most of North America and Europe was covered in thousands of feet of ice during the last big ice age.  In the most recent little ice age, you could walk from Sweden to Germany. In addition, The River Thames was frozen over with all kind of winter activities,

Yes, we have had Climate Change, in the past, in the present and will have in the future as well.  Between 1900 and 2000 a number of dire predictions were made.  These ranged from the total melting of sea ice, the extinction of Polar Bears to Global Temperatures rapidly escalating.   It was even said, “Unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within 10 years, the world would reach a point of no return.” With that said, lets review some climate related facts.

Some Interesting Climate Facts:

We know we have very good proxy temperature records going back 5000 years

We know that Planet Earth both warms and cools

We know we are recovering from little ice age since Valley Forge

We know we were warming from 1978 to 1998

We know we have been cooling since 1998

We know there are a number of natural cycles of warning and cooling

We know that five times more people die from a cold climate than from a warm climate

We know that the Worldwide Glacier Mass is growing faster than it is shrinking

We know the Polar Bear count has gone from 5000 in 1960 to 25,000 in 2015

We know during the days of the Dinosaurs, the CO2 was 1800-PPM

We know the CO 2 in a meeting room with 20 to 25 people is around 2000-PPM

We know from physics that CO 2 as a part of greenhouse gas that keeps the planet warm

We know that temperatures go up first and higher CO 2 levels follows

We know CO 2 is a by product of warming and that warming is not a by product of CO2

We know CO 2 is food for plants and higher CO 2 levels increase crop yields

We know CO2 is a trace substance

We know when the atmosphere warms the CO 2 dissipates. Check your next soda drink

 Summary of Closing Thoughts

  1. Scientific Investigation supports historical and ongoing climate change and variability
  2. Science should be allowed to be scientific without being influenced by any political ideologies
  3. Science is never settled and the debate is never over
  4. Science is not a set of settled known facts and values
  5. Science is a process, not a conclusion
  6. Scientific Reality and Consensus are not always compatible
  7. Science shou   ld be sacred to the truth
  8. Science is not a religion or an ideology

 

References Sources:  (Chapter 1 – 6) 

Governmental Organizations:

United States Department of Agriculture

National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration  (NASA)

National Ice and Snow Data Center

National Center for Atmospheric Research

United Nations International Panel on Climate Change

CERN — European Organization for Nuclear Research

Universities:

North Carolina State University

Arizona State University

University of Cincinnati

University of Alabama

University of Winnipeg

University of Delaware

California Institute of Technology

University of Adelaide, Australia

Private organizations:

National Review

Cato Institute

Real Climate Change

Live Science

The Heartland Institute

Real Climate Science

Oppenheimer Ranch Project

Nature Geosciences Journal

Principia Scientific International

Individuals:

Jay H. Lehr, PhD, is the senior scientist at AR Environmental Services Inc. and Science Director at The Heartland Institute.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, is Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University. He has studied global climate change for five decades.

John Casey, Consultant and Writer, national space policy advisor for USA, a field engineer, as well as a NASA consultant and author. His first book, Cold Sun, was published in 2011.

Tim Ball, PhD taught in the Department of Geography at University of Winnipeg. He is Canadian public speaker, writer, and a historical climatologist.

Ivan Giaever, PhD is a Norwegian-American physicist who shared the Nobel Prize in 1973 in Physics. He is a Professor Emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

John Christy, PHD is a climate scientist at University of Alabama, with interest in satellite remote sensing of global climate. His MS and PhD is in Atmospheric Science

Judith Curry, PhD is a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology

Piers Corbyn, has BS in Physics from Imperial College of London and MS in Astrophysics from Queen Mary College.  Piers is the owner of Action Weather

Attila Kilinc, PhD, Geochemistry – Geology is a professor of experimental and computational geochemistry University of Cincinnati

Professor Carl-Otto Wiess, Center for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute   Advisor to the European Institute for Climate and Energy; former President of the German Meteorological Institute, Braunschweig.

Joel M. Kaufman, PhD Organic Chemistry from Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Emeritus, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Science in Philadelphia, PA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change — Chapter 5

Climate Change:  Over the past few decades, we have heard a lot about Global Warming and Climate Change  The graph below tells us just how Planet Earth has been warming ……  and cooling over the past million years.

IMG_0585.GIF

Figure 17.   The Temperature Fluctuations Over the Past Million Years clearly indicate the temperature fluctuations.  Note the last peak was in 2008 and the earth has been cooling since.  

While reviewing the above graph, we should remind ourselves of two very critical aspects of understanding graphs.  One: trend lines on graphs show past and current gradient.  Two: Trend lines do not project or forecast.   We should be cognizant of where we are on the graph line.    Let’s have a closer look at trend lines on a graph.

 

The Climate Puzzle .gif

Figure 18.  The above two graphs clearly illustrates the dilemma of interpreting a graph segment as a potential forecast of what is to come.

It seems that all too many times when people talk Global Warming and Climate Change they forget this fundamental aspect of reading graphs.  This is what happened in leading up to the later years of the 1990 decade.  Many alarmists thought the world’s temperatures would continue to increases (as in the last box segment pictured above) when in fact, the world’s temperatures began to cool. The temperature graph turned and started a downward decline (as in the center box in the above graph).

So, one could say, the planet is warming and another person could say, it is cooling.  It all depends on which warming or cooling cycle you are in and how you interpret the graph

Substitute of Repetition vs Scientific Reality. 

Unable to address Texas senator Ted Cruz’s questions about “the Pause” — the apparent global-warming standstill, now almost 19 years long — at a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Sierra Club president Aaron Mair, after an uncomfortable pause of his own, appealed to authority: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists concur and agree that there is global warming and anthropogenic impact,” he stated multiple times. Remember, “anthropogenic” just means, “people.”  Or as they say, man-made reasons for climate change.

The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive.

The consensus comments, so often made, are classic examples of “substitution of repetition for truth.”  Just think about the people who have repeated this “ninety seven percent of the scientist concur line.”  Here are two noted examples:

In May of 2016, the White House tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” A few days later, then Secretary of State John Kerry announced, “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.”

Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists” say no such thing.”

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

“A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed supported the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size didn’t improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.’

Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”) In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier:

Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!

When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.

IMG_0583.PNG

Figure 18. Scientific Reality vs. Substitute of Repetition 

Or Propaganda vs. Science

National Review and other serious publications have expressed the real scientific reality of Climate Variability.

Read more: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

Before we leave “substitution of repetition for truth” or “consensus vs. scientific thought,” let’s review what some others have said about this topic.

The late Michael Crichton, MD, author, film producer, put it this way: “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. “I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of”

(From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.)

And, another comment about the consensus topic:

Max Planck, one of the fathers, with Albert Einstein, of modern physics, put it this way: “New scientific ideas never spring from a communal body, however organized, but rather from the head of an individually inspired researcher who struggles with his problems in lonely thought and unites all his thought on one single point which is his whole world for the moment.”

Address on the 25thanniversary of the Kaiser-Wilhelm Gesellschaft, January 1936, as quoted in “Surviving the Swastika”: Scientific Research in Nazi Germany.  1993

What have some renowned scantiest said about consensus:  “In the question of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual” Galileo Galilel

It is not because of the sheer number of scientists. After all, science is not conducted by poll. As Albert Einstein said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

Freeman Dyson, one of the signatories of a letter to the United Nations criticizing the International Panel on Climate Change has also argued against ostracizing scientists whose views depart from the acknowledged mainstream of scientific opinion on climate change stating that “heretics” have historically been an important force in driving scientific progress. “Heretics who question the dogmas are needed … I am proud to be a heretic. The world always needs heretics to challenge the prevailing orthodoxies.”

 What did the late great scientist Carl Sagan say about Consensus vs. Scientific Reality?   “Contributions to scientific knowledge is best established and taught by evidence and experiment rather than through authority, as authority has no place in the scientific method.

Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: One of the great commandments of science is, “Mistrust arguments from authority.” … Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.

Most scientists would suggest and even agree that the offered authorities on Climate Change is or perhaps thought to be is United Nations International Panel on Climate Change. Many scientists are indeed beginning to doubt the wisdom of this organization.

As we close this section, perhaps we should review what a knowledgeable investigative journalist has to say on the subject of Consensus vs. Scientific Reality and that is Donna Laframboise.  Donna is an investigative journalist based in Port Dover, Canada. She is the author of two books about the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Described by Germany’s Der Spiegel as the IPCC’s “sharpest critic” and by a UK commentator as “blond, glamorous, and highly-educated.” Donna has testified before a committee of the British House of Commons, and addressed audiences in Berlin, Brisbane, Calgary, Edinburgh, Erice (Sicily), London, Mannheim, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Paris, Perth, Sydney, Toronto, and Warsaw.

In a speech she gave at a meeting of the World Federation of Scientist in Erice Italy, she explained some of the troubling attributes of UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. She identifies and explains the problem with IPCC.  Check out her blog at BigPicNews.com

  1. IPCC is a political entity
  2. Scientists are not in charge.
  3. The IPCC is a United Nations template

IPCC and the United Nations are political entities. Furthermore, United Nations see Climate Change a cause celebre.  It promotes their drive for Global Jurisdiction

Scientists are indeed not in charge.  There are no doubt a good many scientists involved who are dedicated to doing their work in a professional manner.  Scientists do not write the final IPCC reports.  They are written by a group of politicians from various countries that in “give and take” write what they want in the final IPCC Reports.

The IPCC is a template.  The United Nations uses IPCC as a template and a proving ground to advance their global agenda through other United Nations efforts such as International Assessment of Agriculture Science and Technology, an IPCC like body on soil degradation.

You might find Donna’s latest book, Into the Dustbin, very interesting.  It focuses on Rajendra Pachauri, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 13 years prior to his 2015 resignation.

Donna has an attribute that everyone should always retain. Donna explains it this way:  “In the words of Australian commentator Joanne Nova, ‘the opposite of skeptical is gullible.’ Journalists are supposed to be skeptical – of everyone and everything. Those who don’t approach the world in this manner end up being mouthpieces for other people’s agendas.”

One more comment about IPCC, apparently even they have doubts in their work. They have stated the science isn’t settled. It changes all the time.

Take the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unlike its previous report in 2001, which foresaw a possible rise in sea levels over the next century of around 3 feet, the new report cuts that figure in half, to about 17 inches. Why the revision? “Mainly because of improved information,” IPCC notes in the fine print.   It goes on to state that even its latest estimate involves some guesswork: “Understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood.” The science is getting better, but it’s far from settled.

Even NASA is not above corrections. They now agree that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year the continental United States since record keeping began in 1880. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies quietly changed its ranking after a Canadian statistician discovered an error in the official calculations.

Under the new data, five of the 10 hottest US years on record occurred before 1940; just three were in the past decade.  Many people already knew the dust bowl years were the hottest, however, NASA had to be reminded.

Now that we have covered Natural Variability and Scientific Reality vs. Substitute of Repetition, lets have a look at what IPCC and their supporters fear about another  perception of Climate Change.

So, we ask; what is it in the Climate Change equation that has some them claiming that we, the people of planet earth, have put our planet in dangerous times?

We will review another misunderstood issue,  Carbon Dioxide (CO2), in Chapter 6.

 

Climate Change — Chapter 4

More on Natural Variability:

 The Polar Vortex:

)t seems after this past winter and spring, it is a very good time to review the attributes of the Polar Vortex.

Just the words, Polar Vortex, brings thoughts of some sort of alien death-ray or perhaps an extremely powerful washing machine, but what does it have to do with cold weather?

A polar vortex is an area of low pressure—a wide expanse of swirling cold air—that is parked in Polar Regions. The one up north can cause some pretty wild weather and sub-zero temperatures in United States and other parts of the Northern Hemisphere. But it’s not a new thing—this low-pressure system is almost always up there.

The Polar Vortex – an area of low pressure—a wide expanse of swirling cold air—is parked in Polar Regions.  There are two polar vortices in the Earth’s atmosphere, overlying the North and South Poles.

The Science Behind Polar Vortex .png

Figure 12. A polar vortex is an upper level low-pressure area lying near theEarth’s poles. There are two polar vortices in the Earth’s atmosphere, overlying the North and South Poles.

The one up north can cause some pretty wild climate, weather, and sub-zero temperatures in the United States as well as other parts of the Northern Hemisphere.  But it actually occurs when the vortex is weaker, not stronger. That might sound weird—but it actually makes sense. Normally, when the vortex is strong and healthy, it helps keep a current of air known as the jet stream traveling around the globe in a pretty circular path. This current keeps the cold air up north and the warm air down south.

The Polar Vortex.png

Figure 13. The breaking off of part of the vortex is what defines a polar vortex.

Without that strong low-pressure system, the jet stream doesn’t have much to keep it in line. It becomes wavy and rambling. Put a couple of areas of high-pressure systems in its way, and all of a sudden you have a river of cold air being pushed down south along with the rest of the polar vortex system.  When the polar vortex is strong, there is a single vortex with a jet stream that is “well constrained” near the polar front.

Without that strong low-pressure system, the jet stream doesn’t have much to keep it in line. It becomes wavy and rambling. Put a couple of areas of high-pressure systems in its way, and all of a sudden you have a river of cold air being pushed down south along with the rest of the polar vortex system.  When the polar vortex is strong, there is a single vortex with a jet stream that is “well constrained” near the polar front.

We actually want a strong polar vortex to stay warm.

The breaking off of part of the vortex is what defines a polar vortex event. But it actually occurs when the vortex is weaker, not stronger. That might sound weird—but it actually makes sense. Normally, when the vortex is strong and healthy, it helps keep a current of air known as the jet stream traveling around the globe in a pretty circular path. This current keeps the cold air up north and the warm air down south.

But without that strong low-pressure system, the jet stream doesn’t have much to keep it in line. It becomes wavy and rambling. Put a couple of areas of high-pressure systems in its way, and all of a sudden you have a river of cold air being pushed down south along with the rest of the polar vortex system.

That’s what happened in early 2014. The polar vortex suddenly weakened, and a huge high-pressure system formed over Greenland. The high-pressure system blocked the escape of all that cold air in the jet stream, and allowed part of the polar vortex to break off and move southward. Places as far south as Tampa, Florida experienced the wrath of this wandering polar vortex. Most ofCanada and parts of the Midwestern United States had temperatures colder than Alaska at the height of this cold snap!

It’s important to remember that not all cold weather is the result of the polar vortex. While the polar vortex is always hanging out up north, it normally minds its own business. It takes pretty unusual conditions for it to weaken or for it to migrate far south, and other things can cause cold arctic air to travel our way, too.

Weak Vortex .png

 

Figure 14. When the northern vortex weakens, it separates into two or more vortices, the strongest of which are near Baffin Island, Canada, and over Northeast Siberia

TheAntarctic vortex of the Southern Hemisphere is a single low-pressure zone that is found near the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf Ross near 160-west longitude. When the polar vortex is strong, the mid-latitude Westerlies (winds at the surface level between 30° and 60° latitude from the west) increase in strength and are persistent. When the polar vortex is weak, high-pressure zones of the mid latitudes may push pole ward, moving the polar vortex jet and polar front toward the equator. The jet stream is seen to “buckle” and deviate south. This rapidly brings cold dry air into contact with the warm, moist air of the mid latitudes, resulting in a rapid and dramatic change of weather known as a “cold snap.”

SouthernPloar.png

Figure 15. Southern Hemisphere Polar Vortex – Geopotential Height and Vorticity – Approximately 5500 meters (18,000 feet)

The topography and circular shape of Antarctic is such that an extremely cold stratospheric air vortex stagnant (to -148°F (-100°C) in the Antarctic stratosphere, distinct from the rest of the atmosphere, which is formed above the region during the long polar nights. The polar vortex is established in the middle and lower stratosphere above 9,9 miles (16 km) altitude. The wind blowing around the polar vortex can attain a speed of 0,0622 miles (100 meters) per second. The air flows into the polar vortex all winter, becoming cold enough to allow the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. The vortex is generally very stable above Antarctica during the austral winter, because it is a fairly homogeneous continent, well centered at the South Pole.

Let’s review one more Natural Variability issue that does not get its share of review and discussion, and that is volcanoes.

The National Center for Atmospheric Research explains it this way: The gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions have influences on climate. Most of the particles spewed from volcanoes cool the planet by shading incoming solar radiation. The cooling effect can last for months to years depending on the characteristics and magnitude of the eruption.

Volcanoes have also caused climate change over millions of years during times in Earth’s history when extreme amounts of volcanismoccurred, releasing gases into the atmosphere.  Climate change does not cause increased volcano activity. Volcano activity causes Climate Change.   Attila Kilinc, head of the geology department at the University of Cincinnati, explains it this way: “As rock inside the earth melts, its mass remains the same while its volume increases–producing a melt that is less dense than the surrounding rock. This lighter magma then rises toward the surface by virtue of its buoyancy. If the density of the magma between the zone of its generation and the surface is less than that of the surrounding and overlying rocks, the magma reaches the surface and erupts.”

Volcano.png

Figure 16. The gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions have influences on climate. Most of the particles spewed from volcanoes cool the planet by shading incoming solar radiation. The cooling effect can last for months to years depending on the characteristics of the eruption.

It seems we could go on and on about Natural Variability.  Our scientists are indeed still learning about our planet, our solar system, and the never-ending cosmos and the impact they all have on our planet’s climate.

The point is; these Natural Variability attributes are complex, extremely significant, and not well understood by many people and not sufficiently considered in our Climate Change debates. Lets review a few comments that scientist have said about Climate Change complexity.

It seems Philip Stott, Emeritus Professorof Biogeographyat the School Oriental and AfricanStudies in London totally understands. He says; “climate change is too complicated to be caused by one factor whether CO 2 or clouds.”

Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer, NASA astronaut, staff physicist at MIT says:  “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.”

Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated;“the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity”

Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope.   Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.”

Dr. Lidzen brings up an extremely valuable point when he mentions scientific illiteracy and the substitution of repetition for truth.

In upcoming Chapter Five, we will review the concept of substitution of repetition for truth. A phenomenon that has plagued the Climate Change discussion for the last several years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change — Chapter 3

Our Moon’s Contribution to Natural Variability:

The Moon’s gravitational pull (along with the gravitational pull of the sun, of course) has shaped much of Earth’s past and present. The moon impacts the Earth’s Tidal Patters. Tides are one of the more observable results of the moon’s gravitational pull.

We have the moon’s gravity to thank for the Earth’s steady axis and it’s one factor among several that influence Earth’s consistent rotation in the same direction.   Earth’s unique and favorable axis of rotation determines the seasons and keeps our climate amenable to the development of life.  Our moon also stabilizes Earth on its axis, so it’s less wobbly than it would be otherwise. You might recall we reviewed the Earth’s Wobble in Chapter One.

Not only does the moon light our night skies, inspire wonderment, and dictate the schedules of werewolves, it also makes life, as we know it possible. From its influences on the tides, to the regulation of the seasons, and its influence on our atmosphere, we have many reasons to thank our celestial neighbor.

The Moon is Earth’s nearest astronomical partner and we all know that it is the principal cause of the ocean tides. It has a large effect on the oceans and it also affects the atmosphere.

IMG_0481.jpg

Figure 10. Shows the impact of the Sun and Moon’s gravitational pull on Planet Earth. It should be noted that although the Moon is mush smaller than the Sun, it is also much closer therefore that gravitational pull is greater that what might be expected.    

The Moon’s smaller gravitational exertion in comparison to the Sun’s is contravened by its proximity to Earth. For instance, the moon is 2.17 times more effective than the massive sun in raising tides on Earth.

The moon’s gravity pulls at the Earth causes predictable rises and falls in sea levels tides. Tides also occur in lakes, the atmosphere, and within Earth’s crust. Since the atmosphere is also a fluid, the Moon generates gravitational tides in the skies above us.

IMG_0485.JPG

Figure 11. Atmosphere Tides are also produced through the gravitational effects of the Moon.   Lunar gravitational tides are weaker than solar thermal tides and are generated by the effect of the Moon’s gravitational attraction on the atmosphere.

The Moon’s gravitational related weather and climate impact on the Earth is smaller than the Sun’s thermally generated daily “tides” which heat and expand the air diurnally mainly through absorption by water vapor.

The Sun’s heating then also drives huge convection cells thereby generating the earth’s main wind systems like the  “trade winds,” westerlies, etc. The Earth’s rotation turns these winds westerly in the northern hemisphere and easterly in the southern hemisphere.

So, the Moon’s gravitational pull impacts Planet Earth’s Ocean tides, as well as our Atmosphere.

Ocean Tides .jpg

Figure 12. As the water moves along the Earth, the combined forces of the Earth’s rotation and the gravitational pull from interstellar bodies such as the moon cause ocean levels to fluctuate continuously. A spring tide, which occurs when the moon is full or new, combines with the gravitational pull of the sun and causes a large difference between high and low tides. A neap tide occurs during quarter phases and works to cancel out the tidal effect from the sun, resulting in commensurate waves.

One could ask; why is it that the Moon’s gravity has a larger effect on the ocean’s tides than the Sun? As mentioned before, the Sun has a far larger direct gravitational force than the Moon, however the Moon orbits the earth much closer and in turn, the moon and earth orbit the Sun together.

The tides are a subtle effect caused by traction (lateral attraction) of the oceans by moon’s gravity and because the Earth – Moon system rotates about their center of gravity which is a point some 4000 km from the Earth’s center. The moon’s tidal force is proportionally greater and that explains why the lunar tidal force is stronger than the solar tidal force because it is over 500 times closer to the earth.

Our moon does have a gravitational pull on the atmosphere as well, but like the sun’s impact on our ocean tides, it’s a much weaker effect than the heating provided by the sun.  If the moon were the main cause behind this atmospheric stretching, it would work the same way as the ocean tides; high tide would mean that you also had the most atmosphere above you, instead of what we see; a 24 hour cycle of our atmosphere heating and cooling under the sun’s rays.

As in the Ocean, the atmosphere also has tides and the moon impacts the earth’s atmospheric tides, as well as the oceans tides.

IMG_0482.JPG

Figure 13. The moon contribute to fluctuations known as atmospheric tides, which are bulges and oscillations in the atmosphere similar to the way in which tides occur on water. Understanding atmospheric tides is important for understanding energy flow from the upper to lower atmosphere. However, the moon’s effect, which is the combined force of oceanic motion and the moon’s gravitational pull on the atmosphere, is much smaller than the sun’s effect, which is mostly a product of solar heating rather than gravitational pull.

We would ne missing some other important comments, if we neglected to mention Kim Long’s; “The Moon Book.” He states the ocean tides we experience on earth are caused by the sum of the moon’s gravitational gradient and the sun’s gravitational gradient. When the sun and the moon are aligned, or nearly aligned, their gravitational gradient fields add together constructively, leading to extra strong tides (high tide is extra high and low tide is extra low). This alignment happens when the moon is a new moon or a full moon, which occurs about every two weeks.

The moon takes about a month to orbit the earth; hence strong tides occur about twice a month.  In contrast, when the sun and the moon are unaligned, their gravitational gradients tend to cancel out, leading to weak tides (high tide is not very high and low tide is not very low).

We have an active moon and its gravitational pull combined with that of our sun make our Planet Earth livable for all inhabitants. Here we can see our Sun and Moon working together.

IMG_0424.JPG

Figure 11. The ocean tides on earth are caused by both the moon’s gravity and the sun’s gravity. In general, ocean tides are not generated by the overall strength of gravity, but instead by the differences in gravity from one spot to the next (the gravitational gradient). Because ocean tides are the effect of ocean water responding to a gravitational gradient, the moon plays a larger role in creating tides than does the sun. But the sun’s gravitational gradient across the earth is significant and it does contribute to tides as well.

Two tidal bulges cause the tides, one nearest to the Moon and the other on the opposite side to the Moon. The one on the opposite side is actually the result of the centrifugal effect of the Earth Moon rotation. In fact the ocean on the side opposite to the Moon is bulged outward due to this centrifugal force. Tides are greater at higher latitudes, which is why the strongest tides in the world are found in Canada and Northern Europe whereas relatively weak tides are found at the equator.

We often hear the remark that weather systems are chaotic and the flapping of butterflies’ wings can trigger a hurricane. Therefore it seems a reasonable hypothesis that the lunar tides may be one trigger for stormy weather, especially as tides are stronger nearer the poles. During the lunar month there are 2 so-called spring tides when the Moon and Sun align so their tidal effects sum up. The above hypothesis would imply more stormy rainy weather with the spring tides. Another effect is the precession of the lunar orbit with a timescale of about 18 years. This actually changes the inclination of the Moon in the sky, effectively moving the tidal bulge to a more or less northerly position. Folklore about the Moon’s effect abounds in many cultures, so one could ask; what other ways can the moon affect the weather?

There are other direct astronomical effects that the moon has on the Earth’s radiation balance and there seems to be one very important long-term benefit.

One, the center of mass of the Earth Moon system is actually about 4000 km from the center of the Earth. As the Moon orbits this point so too does the Earth “orbit” the center of mass point. In other words the Earth changes its position relative to the Sun by about 8000 km.  The mean Earth-Sun distance is about 150 Million km so the monthly change in solar radiation caused by this leads the to an approximate 0.03 degrees change on the earth.

Two, there is reflected sunlight from the Sun.  So-called moonshine is simply light reflected or re-emitted from the moon and this radiation serves to heat the earth slightly. This is an extra radiation of the direct solar energy and this also gives a roughly 0.01-0.02-degree effect on planet earth’s temperature.

Three, the moon stabilizes the Earth’s axis. It seems likely that without the Moon’s stabilizing gyroscopic effect; the earth’s axis would be more chaotic. The seasons rely on the axis being tilted to the orbital plane of the earth-sun by about 23 degrees. Computer simulations show that the moon’s tidal effect has probably stabilized this tilt over billions of years. Clearly maintaining summer, winter conditions for each hemisphere has had a massive impact on the earth’s climate and this could also be the key to life developing.

In conclusion, the Moon does affect the Earth’s climate. It is even fundamental to maintaining and stabilizing the seasons. There is also growing evidence that the Moon can influence generations of storms and rainfall. Eventually energy loss by tidal forces will slow the length of the day to say 25 hours and the Moon’s distance from the Earth is also slowly increasing. Luckily any noticeable effects will take 10s of millions of years and way before, then the next Ice Age will be far more of a problem for mankind. 

In chapter 4,  we will review the impact of Polar Conditions on Natural Variability

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Climate Change — Chapter 2

Century-scale Climate Cycles:

In addition to multi-millennial glacial and interglacial cycles, there are shorter cold-warm cycles that occur on approximately 200 to 1,500 year time scales. The mechanisms that cause these cycles are primarily driven by changes in the sun along with several corresponding changes such as océan circulation patterns. The intensity of the sun’s activity changes over time. The sun’s specific activity is most often referred to as solar flares or hot spots. The Medieval Warm Period (900 to 1300 AD) and the Little Ice Age (1450 to 1900 AD) are examples of warm and cold phases in these types of cycles. The intensity of the sun is directly related to what is defined as solar flares or hot spots.

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region and other Asia areas including China lasting from about c. 950 to c. 1250.

 The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870 during which Europe and North America were subjected to colder winters than during the 20th century.

Mwediecal

Figure 6. The Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age dates and duration is one aspect of the Century-scale Climate Cycles.

Solar Cycle Variations:

 The solar cycle or solar magnetic activity cycle is the nearly periodic 11-year change in the Sun’s activity (including changes in the levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material) and appearance (changes in the number and size of sunspots, flares, and other manifestations)

Solar Cycles.png

An earthly attribute should also be remembered and that is water takes a longer period of time to either cool or warm. Therefore, to the degree to which the ocean warms or cools from the sun’s radiation, it occurs over longer intervals than the periods for the earth’s landmass. This is confusing to many who talk about planet temperature averages. They fail to consider the lag in ocean warming or cooling as compared to the planet’s landmass. So, when Global Average Temperatures are computed the lag factor is often not considered. This being the case, the measured average is rarely correct. The real average is either hotter or cooler depending on where our planet is in its Natural Variability cycle. Complicated? Not really, in this cycle, the planet’s average temperatures just vary depending on the level of Solar Activity and that variable is skewed by the lag factor of the water’s temperature.

Landmass and Water Heat Capacity: Water has a higher heat capacity than land. So it takes more heat to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree than it does to raise the temperature of land. Furthermore, oceans retain heat longer and therefore they cool slower than the earth’s landmass.  

sun rays .png

Figure 8. The opaqueness of water is less than that of land. Therefore, radiation is able to penetrate deeper into water and distributes the energy more evenly. Solar radiation only reaches a few centimeters into land while, depending on the clarity, solar radiation can reach several meters into water. The result is that a greater volume of water is heated at a slower rate. The smaller volume of land however attains higher temperatures.

Interannual to Decadal Cycles:

 There is one more topic about the sun we should review and that is the sun’s solar cycle variations and their effect on earth’s climate. The sun transcends the unique time categories and therefore we will review some additional sun comments separately from the Millennial Climate Cycles, Century-scale Climate Cycles, and Interannual to Decadal Cycles.

For more than 100 years, scientists have wondered if cycles on the Sun and changes of the energy received at Earth affect global climate. It is now known the cycles do have effect on the global climate. The solar cycle is the rise and fall of the number of sunspots on the Sun.

Solar activity is correlated to the number of sunspots on the Sun. As the number of sunspots goes up, solar activity occurrences go up. Energy output from the Sun also changes as the sunspot count on the Sun changes. It is greatest when there are the most sunspots and lowest when there are the least sunspots. With satellite measurements, scientists have been able to confirm that the total solar energy varies 0.1% over one 11-year sunspot cycle. This variation of 0.1% means a global troposphere temperature difference of 0.5C to 1.0C. These facts definitely have to be taken into account when dealing with climate predictions. An example of when the solar cycle affected Earth’s climate is the Maunder Minimum. This was when almost no sunspots were seen from about 1645 to 1715. During this time, Europe and parts of North America were struck by spells of really cold weather. This was a change to the expected regional climate. The 11-year sunspot cycle is one-half of the 22-year solar magnetic cycle.

Every 11 years sunspots fade away. “This is called solar minimum,” says Dean Pesnell of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD. The sun is now heading toward solar minimum. Sunspot counts were high in 2014, and mow sliding toward a low point by 2019-2020. It’s cooling now.

Direct observations over the past four centuries show that the number of sunspots observed on the Sun’s surface varies periodically, going through successive maxima and minima. Following sunspot cycle 23, the Sun went into a prolonged minimum characterized by a very weak polar magnetic field and an unusually large number of days without sunspots4. Sunspots are strongly magnetized regions generated by a dynamo mechanism6 that recreates the solar polar field mediated through plasma flows.

Here we report results from kinematic dynamo simulations, which demonstrate that a fast meridional flow in the first half of a cycle, followed by a slower flow in the second half, reproduces both characteristics of the minimum of sunspot cycle 23. Our model predicts that, in general, very deep minima are associated with weak polar fields. Sunspots govern the solar radiative energy and radio flux, and, in conjunction with the polar field, modulate the solar wind, the heliospheric open flux and, consequently, the cosmic ray flux at Earth.

400 Years of Sunspot Observation: In 1645, the sun became nearly spotless. During the 70-year period that followed, known as the Maunder Minimum, sunspots appeared only rarely on the surface of the Sun. Now, after a peak in magnetic activity that drove the appearance of a multitude of sunspots during the 1950s and 60s, the Sun again appears to be headed toward such a minimum.

Yet it’s not always a bad thing when history repeats itself — it means that we can study the past to predict the future. 

400 yesrs .png

Figure 9: This graph clearly shows the long-term variations in sunspot activity from the Min Ice Age, Maunder Minimum, Dalton Minimum, Gleissberg Minimum, Modern Maximum, and the upcoming Eddy Minimum and Mini Ice Age or Modern Minimum

Ok, now that we understand this variability, Chapter Three will include a summary of Natural Variability.

 

Climate Change — Chapter 1

Opening Comments:

Before we begin our review on Climate Change, it might be worthwhile to explain why this subject even became a serious topic for review and evaluation. Over the last decade or two, there have been so many comments made about Climate Change by politicians, academia, and scientist and some did not seem to be within the realm of plausibility. That gave reason to question many of the assertions being made. Furthermore, the media seemed to lack the will to investigate many of the positions taken on Climate Change.

This, in turn, created an apprehension about the validity of the comments being made about Climate Change, as well as to even why the comments were being made. Was it a mere lack of understanding about our planet’s climate or were there other motivating reasons. In any case, it certainly seemed as if there was a bias toward the man-made cause and in turn what was happening to our planet’s Climate. I am not a scientist or an expert on our planet’s climate. However, my curiosity was peaked. Therefore, over this past year I have researched scientific studies and articles written about our planet and its never ending Climate Change in an effort to determine what to be believe.   My writing on the subject became much to long for a typical blog post; therefore the content was divided into Chapters.

So with that in mind, my research on Climate Change began.

Climate Change:

Yes, we have Climate Change. Our planet has always had Climate Change. It started with the formation of our planet, continued throughout its history, it continues today, and will continue into the future, as well. To help develop at least a fundamental understanding of Climate Change, it seems prudent to begin by examining some basic information on our planet’s historical climate and its Natural Climate Change, scientifically described as Natural Variability, which occurs over several different and overlapping time periods. We will close this section with some summary comments on Natural Variability. Following this, we will address the recent phenomenon concerning “consensus view vs. scientific method.”

During the course of our analysis, the issue of CO2 and human interaction (common words for anthropogenic) with our planet will also be commented on in various sections.

While these subjects can be very complex in scientific terms, some believe they can also be described in such a way for them to be more easily understood. My objective is to achieve the latter.  Before we start, lets look at two graphs to give us a time perspective as we read through the narrative

Climate Change in “Millions of Years”

450px-Phanerozoic_Climate_Change

 

Figure 1. Paleoclimatology — Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paleoclimatology is the study of changes in climate taken on the scale of the entire history of earth. Paleoclimatologists employ a wide variety of techniques to deduce ancient climates.

Summer Temperatures (0 To 2000 AD)

Summer Temperature Years AD  .jpg

Figure 2 Institute of Geography, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz – Mainz Germany

The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

Natural Variability:

Now that we have two graphs that provide an idea of our planet’s climate, past and present, we will proceed with our further review.  Planet earth has been going through natural cycles of cooling and warming since the beginning. It has endured Cold and Hot intervals many times over in its life. Climate Change through Natural Variability can be divided into several specific timed events. Cyclical variations in the Earth’s climate occur at multiple time scales, from years to decades, from decades to centuries, and from centuries to millennia. We will endeavor to explain each, starting with the one with the longest time intervals.

Millennial Climate Cycles:

Major glacial (cold) and interglacial (warm) periods are initiated by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, called Milankovitch cycles. These cycles have occurred at different intensities on multi-millennial time scales (10,000 – 100,000 year periods). The planet’s orbits around the sun change slowly over time, influencing where solar radiation is received on the Earth’s surface during different seasons and over the years. Some have explained this change in the planet’s orbit as gradually moving from a more or less “round orbit” as it circles the sun, to more of a pronounced “elliptical orbit” and then back to a more or less “round orbit.” This change in the earth’s orbit brings it closer to the sun than it does at other times. The different orbits affect parts of the planet differently. Naturally, in “elliptical orbit” the earth’s proximity to the sun is more pronounced either way, close or far, than when the planet is in more round orbit. This change from round to elliptical and back to round orbits is a very long-term event. A note about the origin of the name “Milankovitch Cycle.” The name is in recognition of Serbian Geophysicist astronomer Milutin Milankovitch and based on his studies of the earth’s orbits around the sun and how they vary over time.

Milankovitch Cycles — Earth’s “Orbit.” Milankovitch cycles describe the collective effects of changes in the Earth’s movements on its climate over thousands of years.

IMG_0378.JPG

Figure 3. The Milankovitch Theory states that as the Earth travels through space around the sun, cyclical variations in three elements of Earth-sun geometry combine to produce variations in the amount of solar energy that reaches Earth

Another long-term phenomenon that is associated with long term cyclical changes is the angle of the planet’s tilt. This angle changes with time and over 41 000 years it moves from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again. This, of course, changes the sun’s radiation impact, as to the latitude at which it strikes the planet.

Planet Earth Tilt: Earth’s axial Tilt or “Obliquity” and its relation to the rotation axis and plane of “Orbit.”   Wikipedia comment

IMG_0377.JPG

Figure 4. Planet Tilt. This is what is known axial tilt, where a planet’s vertical axis is tilted a certain degree towards the ecliptic of the object it orbits (in this case, the Sun). Such a tilt results in there being a difference in how much sunlight reaches a given point on the surface during the course of a year.

In other words, the sun’s radiation either strikes the earth at higher or lower latitude or said another way, either closer to the equator or closer to the North or South Pole, depending on time of the tilt cycle. Ok, maybe this is a bit too scientifically technical. Just think about a top and how the size of its circular spinning diameter changes and how it tilts about its axis. The top’s circle changes and the top tilts more or less.

There is one more factor, which happens about every 26,000 years and that is earth’s “Wobble” about its axis. Before we get into the “Wobble” attributes, it is interesting to point out that we really have two North Stars, for the 26,000-year “Wobble “ cycle.

Said another way, one North Star for each half of the “Wobble” cycle or one for each have 13,000 years. One is Polaris and the other is Vega, depending on where the earth is in its “Wobble.” Astronomers call the wobble of Earth’s axis precession. While most of us are familiar with our planet’s primary motions — rotation (spinning once a day) and revolution (orbiting the Sun once a year) — few are aware of precession. To see this characteristic vividly demonstrated, observe a spinning top or gyroscope. Its tilted axis of rotation gyrates in a circular motion, sweeping out a cone-shaped area in the process.

Planet Earth’s “Wobble” or Precession. Planetary Precession is due to the small angle between the gravitational forces of other planets on earth.

IMG_0375.JPG

 

Figure 5. Axial Tilt or “Precession” is a gravidity-induced, slow, and continuous change in the orientation of Planet Earth rotational axis, similar to a “Wobble” of a top.

You can cause a top or gyroscope to precess by gently tapping it while it’s spinning. The “tap” that causes Earth’s axis to precess is the gravitational pull from the Sun, the Moon, and, to a much lesser extent, the planets. Gravity alone, however, won’t do the trick.

But it just so happens that Earth has a slight equatorial bulge, and it’s this bulge that gets the gravitational tug. In other words, if our planet were a perfect sphere, there would be no precession.

While a top or gyroscope might precess several times each second, a single precession of Earth’s axis takes nearly 26,000 years (25,772 years, to be exact). The effects — changes in our “pole” stars, a shift in the celestial coordinates of right ascension and declination, and a westward drift of the solstices and equinoxes — are so gradual that most changes take decades to be noticed.

So, now we have an earth “Orbit,” an earth “Tilt,” and an earth “Wobble”

Let’s put it all together before we move on from this Millennial Section.   The sun’s radiation either strikes the earth at higher or lower latitudes or said another way, either closer to the equator or closer to the North or South Pole, depending on the “Orbit,” the “Tilt,” and the “Wobble”. This is the longest Natural Variability cycles of the planet. The scientific names are: “Eccentricity” or the changing orbit, “Obliquity” or the tilting about the axis, and “Precession” or the wobbling about the axis.

Ok, maybe this is a bit too scientifically technical. Just think about a top again and how the size of its circular spinning diameter changes over time (seconds and maybe minutes) and how it tilts about its axis and how the top tends to wobble when the tilt varies. The top’s circle changes, the top will tilt, and wobble about its axis.

Not at all to minimize the importance of our Earth’s Precession or “Wobble” with another comparison to a top, as there is a whole field of study into this aspect of long term climate cycles. The Precession or “Wobble” Cycle is of 25,920 years in duration. In 127 BC, The Greek astronomer and mathematician Hipparchus talked about the “Precession Cycle,” the related “Precession Equinox” and “The Great Year.” For some added clarification, the Equinox refers to one half of cycle. Some researchers contend it was known even before Hipparchus.

The implication of “Precession Equinox” is; that is when catastrophic climate events occur, such as really catastrophic, as in earth changing events. Hopefully this helps to clarify the earth’s “Orbit,” “Tilt,” and “Wobble.”

By the way, NASA defines “The Great Year” as; “The period of one complete cycle of the equinoxes around the ecliptic, about 25,800 years…

Many scientists and climatologists believe and that an understanding of the earth’s climate must start with a thorough knowledge of the Milankovitch Cycles. From this, the other aspects of climate change can add to the overall understanding. We concur with this and philosophy and hopefully the readers do as well.

 

Chapter 2  coming soon

We Have a President

Our President speaks and the media goes wild.  They say he is not being normal, he is not being presidential, he is not being an adult, and he is not like the previous presidents.  Some say Trump has a very big ego, while others say he doesn’t have a big ego. In fact, they say he operates at the id level and then they make wild comments that are not thought through, at all. The self-proclaimed intellectual elite folks do not seem to understand the super ego and how it operates with the id and ego.

Some say President Trump does not bond with human kind, however he garnered sufficient votes to become president.  He must bond with more than a few.  Others say he is a very suspicious loner who has convinced himself that he has little need for advisers. However, he built a vast empire that was in the business of constructing hotels and golf course, as well as operating those entities. The management structure of those business activities included many successful lieutenants providing advice and counsel, all while performing their own respective management duties. So, it seems President Trump has managed with advisors and he can delegate at the same time. He does not seem to be a micro manager. He seems to understand how to manage by observation, understanding, and communication.  Trump also seems to be a quick study.

Oh, the comments that media and political pundits make about our president go on and on every day and with every Tweet.  The media insists President Trump is different.  Just how different is President Trump from other presidents?

Every president has been different. Trump does have uniqueness unto himself. Don’t we all. We are all different. There are certain protocols that all presidents adhere to and it is said that President Trump does that well and in many cases, better than most past presidents. If fact, it has been said by many that he performs the vast variety of functions quite well with a special attention to the people of the land, the citizens of America, and even more attention to those affected with one serious issue on another. Our President seems to have a great deal of compassion. Just ask those he listens to and provides some form of assistance. Yes, he is compassionate

Perhaps we should take a look back at some other presidents. Lets start with Washington. Historians have said he was a man of strong character.

George Washington: It was said; there were no gangsters before Washington. Thomas Jefferson once stated that Washington was “was naturally irritable” and that if his temper “broke its bonds, he was most tremendous in his wrath.” These outbursts were so violent that Indians began calling him  “Caunotaucarius,” which translates to either “Town Destroyer” or “Devourer of Villages,” depending on how morbid you want to get. It has been said that Washington was compassionate. That’s probably correct, however very often he was demanding. Sometimes his personal interest overtook his professional duties. While trying to survive the terrible winter at Valley Forge, he spend hours writing letters home to Martha advising her how to decorate their home at Mount Vernon.

Our second president was different from out first. John Adams was a true intellectual and at the same time, he was a fiery individual with little capacity to deal with those who did not comprehend any given situation. Biographer John Ferling said, “Adams’s great failing seemed to be his volcanic temper, which could explode with such suddenness and so little provocation that some of his colleagues feared that passion occasionally eclipsed reason.” At the Continental Congress, fellow delegates liked to pick Adams’s brain, but they saw him as “Too Unstable” to be a leader.  Some, who did not know him well thought he was cold, conceited, and aloof, while in his personal life he was warm and generous. After all said, most agree he was a very good president.

Then there was President, John Tyler (1841 -1845) We should not forget there has been many past presidents who make not so nice comments about women. Just think about what President John Tyler said as congressman prior to being president. He said on “open mike” in front of open session when he was talking about popularity he compared it to “a coquette—the more you woo her, the more she is apt to elude your embrace.”  Later after his wife died he married a raven-haired beauty that was 30 years his junior. For the rest of his life, Tyler would brag about his sexual prowess noting for example, after the birth of their fifth child, that at least his name would not “become extinct.”

In total, President Tyler had fifteen children. Two grandsons, Lyon Gardner Tyler, Jr and Harrison Ruffin Tyler are still alive today. The president had his last child at age 75. It was said at the time he liked to mess around.

Andrew Jackson, who served for two terms, was the one fiery president who ranks high in polls taken by historians. Jackson’s nickname was “Old Hickory.” Why? It was because he used to carry a wooden stick around and just beat the hell out of people with it. Why did he do that? It was because he was a crazy person. The young Jackson liked to punch people out and raging attacks would remain a constant throughout his entire life. As one said, “He could hate with a Biblical fury and would resort to petty and vindictive acts to nurture his hatred and keep it bright and strong and ferocious.” Jackson’s strong-armed tactics led to major accomplishments as president.   Seems as if he knew the “Art of The Deal” and used it forcibly, as he forged a successful administration.

Lastly, let’s look at a modern era president, Lyndon Johnson. He stared his career as a teacher but quickly turned to politics. He won his first bid for congress then lost his first try at the senate. He won his second attempt but the race was rampant with fraud. Later, he was accused of being a ruthless majority leader. While his wife Lady Bird was a strong influence, she was not able to curtail his vulgar tirades. Many say Johnson is best known for his blinding arrogance, ego, and profanity. He lived to dominate and used his crass behavior to bend people to his will. He liked to lean over people, spitting, swearing, belching, or laughing in their face. Johnson grossly bragged to other politicians about his sexual capability and prowess. His Vietnam attempts failed, but his social programs were received positively.

Before we leave the discussion on comparisons, we should make a few comments about the election process, as so many have said the election of Donald Trump was the nastiest ever.  The race between President John Quincy Adams and Mr. Jackson in 1828 has been reported throughout the history of our country as the ‘ugliest’ ever held, with partisan newspaper headlines making accusations against the candidates. The two primary candidates could not have been more different. John Quincy Adams was the highly educated son of the nation’s second president and had traveled widely as a diplomat. Adams was the consummate insider.

Jackson clawed his way to success along the frontier before becoming a national hero in the Battle of New Orleans. While Adams was known for thoughtful introspection, Jackson had a reputation for violent encounters and duals. By the time the final votes were cast, both men would have wild stories circulated about their pasts, with lurid charges of murder, adultery, and procuring of women being plastered across the pages of partisan newspapers. They had faced each other before, in the election of 1824, in a nightmarish affair known as “The Corrupt Bargain” that settled the 1824 election. In the 1828 campaign Adams was attacked for being an elitist pimp who procured American girls for romantic and sexual activities for the Russian czar. Oh, that dangerous Russian connection. Jackson was accused in the “coffin handbill” of ordering the execution or murder of Army deserters.

The presidential election of 1828 was indeed a very bitter, nasty, and ugly campaign between two candidates that were very different. It even had one of those Russian connections that the media salivated over.

So, the next time you hear or read in the various news outlets that our president is different, you can respond and say; yes he is different, aren’t they all.

 

Source References

The New Republic

History.com

Andrew Jackson Hermitage

National Archives

History Extra

Encyclopedia.com

UVA Miller Center

Rolling Stone