Climate Change Revealed:

Prologue

Back in 1923, Robert Frost aptly summed up the confusion promulgated by today’s climate change debate in his simple but eloquent poem just above. Sometime later, but before 1970 the news flash was “A new ice age is coming - prepare for disaster!” This gradually changed to “Prepare for disaster – global warming is upon us!” These two extremes not only reflect, at least in the United States, the bipolar nature of our political condition, but also reflect the reality of climate change. In 1970 the temperature trend did change from cooling to warming with an event called. The “Great Pacific Climate Change” (Mclean and Quirk, 1970’s). This is back when the Pacific Ocean suddenly warmed basin wide an average of 1 degree in ~1 year… read an average increase of 1°C per water molecule for the whole Pacific Ocean in ~1 year. How could this really happen? We will get to that in Climate Change Revealed, but... Foremost,

Chapter 1 – It’s Technical: Thinking backward helps?

Introduction: The “Great Pacific Climate Change” (Mclean and Quirk, 1970’s) relates back to when the Pacific Ocean suddenly warmed an average increase of 1°C for each and every water molecule in the whole Pacific Ocean within ~1 year. To understand this you would have to dig very deep… literally to the center of the earth, including the core-mantle-boundary, to understand how. Fig. 1.1 and Fig. 1.2 give an initial clue. Eventually how the internal modulation of the planets warming and cooling cycles works will be revealed, but it will require getting technical... very technical, using jargon you’ve likely never heard or might not care to hear. So now we’ve touched on a real problem of understanding climate change. Because of the scientific technical complexity and jargon, many people simply can’t understand or follow the explanations. Sounds elitist doesn’t it? Science can be like that, so what is one to do? Blame mankind, that’s convenient or was it inconvenient? Anthropogenic Green House Gases - AGHG!!! Anthropogenic what? A man-made gas, mostly CO₂… that’s what it means, anthropogenic… so technical. But everyone can understand a greenhouse, why the one just out in the backyard has clouds, jet streams, lightning, vast oceans, earthquakes, volcanoes, and… well ok maybe I’m exaggerating, but they are solar powered! Aren’t analogies a great way of making connections to understanding? Except that they don’t hold true in many cases as it appears in our Climate-Case[1]. A greenhouse is man-made or anthropogenic, the earth is not. Enough, it’s time to get technical in layman terms. Sounds contradictory? It is.

[1]Climate- Case- akin to Climate-Gate, controversies involving International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), “Inconvenient Truth” and leaked emails of some prominent and outspoken Climate Scientist revealing the uncertainty about climate change that they are hiding among themselves, but will not reveal to the public. Which begs the question: Why would scientist hide anything when the world is making such a huge investment? The truth about the overwhelming force of natural climate change will not be revealed by Green House-Gassers. They’re out on the proverbial limb and funding depends on remaining there.

Let’s just hit you with some of the hard core science which goes something like... Let’s use an electrical earth model (Thornhill and Talbott, 2007) tied to variable nuclear decay (Fischback et. al. 2011) in a plasma universe (Peratt, 1991), driving earthquakes (Walker, 1988, 1995, 1999), linked to the solar winds (John Casey, 2011) as a leaky capacitor or battery charging and discharging a “sea-urchin” construct (Gregori, 2002), with inner core jerks (Dziewonski, 1984) linked to orbital physics, and magnetic decay (Quinn, 2010), controlling upper mantle dynamics as demonstrated via tectonic vortex structures using Surge Tectonics (Meyerhoff et. al., 1992, 1996), with tectonic links to atmospheric pressure modulation through gravitational teleconnection (Leybourne, 1996).

Thinking Backward: Is this really necessary? Let me explain… discovery is a lot of fun and an interesting process, but explaining it as a logical progression is sometimes not. It never seems to get to the point (till the end) and without understanding why something is important to pay attention too; well it’s simply difficult to pay attention. Although I’ve introduced the topic with some initial discovery… from here on out I’ll be working the discovery backwards as it’s more interesting, since you already have some idea of the final larger concept. If you continue reading you are likely interested in the… how it works aspect. It also gives you the chance to ignore the parts you consider uninteresting without jeopardizing understanding the main points. In any event I’ll start with the end, which is only the beginningJ.