March 27, 2008
Burlington, Wa****ngton
Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Wa****ngton
University, author of 8 books, 150 journal publications with focus on
geomorphology; glacial geology; Pleistocene geochronology; environmental
and engineering geology.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DonEasterbrookInterviewTranscript.pdf
QUOTE: "During the global cool period from 1945 to 1977, the warm period
of the last thirty years, and the 1890 cold period, sunspot activity
mirrors global temperatures almost exactly. The curves dance together. I
can't imagine anything tighter."
In 1609, Galileo perfected the telescope and could see sunspots for the
first time so scientists began recording sunspot numbers. The number was
very small. There is a direct correlation between sunspots and solar
irradiance, the energy we get from the sun.
The current sunspots are in Cycle 23. Astronomers predict the start of
Solar Cycle 24 soon but they keep ****fting the curve because it's not
happening. Normally you have more than a hundred sunspots per year and
we're near zero right now. Cycle 24 was supposed to begin in March, then
they pushed it back to May and some people are saying they'll push it
back until September or even 2010.
KLC: What do you think, Don?
DJE: I don't know and there is no way to predict it. Look what's
happening to sunspots and to temperature. There is good correlation
between sunspots and global temperatures.
How do you explain increasing atmospheric CO2 when we had global cooling
from 1950 to 1977? Prior to that, you go from cooling to warming without
any change in CO2 at all.
Here's the answer to the hockey stick: temperatures from the Greenland
ice cores take us back about 15,000 years and show our current period,
the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. We have had increases
of up to 23 degrees in a century and the same amount of cooling, and
another increase of 20 degrees of warming in a century. The idea we've
never seen changes in global temperature like recent changes is totally
fraudulent. But Gore still says it. There was a big dip 8,200 years ago,
showing about 2 per mil Oxygen 18 change, which is equivalent to a few
degrees cooling, but nothing like the Ice Ages. There was a cold period
that peaked in 1890. The isotopes follow the recorded temperature, which
is a check on how accurate the isotope readings are.
Generally, the sun will have 50 to 100 sunspots, but during the Maunder
Minimum, virtually no sunspots were recorded. During the global cool
period from 1945 to 1977, the warm period of the last thirty years, and
the 1890 cold period, sunspot activity mirrors global temperatures
almost exactly. The curves dance together. I can't imagine anything
tighter.
KLC: What about the claim by Hansen and others that TSI [Total Solar
Irradiance] has been unchanged for 80 years, thus it cannot explain
recent global warming?
DJE: Not true. If you look at the data coming out, you see a strong
correlation between global temperature and irradiance. If you plot
irradiance versus sunspots, you again get the same kind of curve, and
the inference is you can connect these curves to recognize a link
between global temperatures and the sunspot cycle. We only have
satellite measurements back to about 1970, thirty-some years of data,
and the change is about a tenth of one-percent. That's more than the
eight one-thousandths of a percent of CO2 change, so they say the TSI
change is not enough?
The argument I make is that the correlation between sunspot activity and
temperature is not fortuitous-it can't be. There must be a cause and
effect relation****p. We don't know what the connection is, but it is
obvious that a small change in solar irradiance produces a big climate
change. It's leveraged by something, maybe by water va****. We're not
sure. The argument that it's not big enough?
A friend of mine has a saying which I love. "If it happened, then it
must be possible." Well, it happened, so it must be possible.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over
by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against
capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats. Protecting the
environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities."
Joe Bast, President, Heartland Institute, One-time Ardent
Environmentalist, Has seen it from both sides.
|
