MW&A

Hydroclimatology and Solar Explorations

Climate & Weather Representations, Current Events, Science and Ethics

Rising Seas From Cooling Temperatures?

Many if not all earth scientists appear to take it for granted that so-called Ice Ages are associated with a colder Earth and Sun.  By the same token, they believe that sea levels would drop when the planet cools.  That’s something they attribute to the epic accumulation of ice within massive glaciations.

They might be right.  But as I follow my own standard scientific practice of judging no one but challenging every thing, I find reasons to speculate that glaciers would grow from a warming sun, and accordingly, that sea levels would rise when the planet cools.  For example, it takes tremendous amounts of energy to relocate water from the oceans to those remote ice – sinks such as high mountain catchments.*  Or for example, tropical plants and animals somehow are still here even after 800,000 years of recurring massive Ice Ages.  Or for example, stable isotope interpretations of temperature from ice cores, appear to be based on assumptions that ice ages were colder even in those tropics.

They might still be right, but as I continue to follow my own research directions, I find even more reasons to question this doctrine.  For example, our modern glaciers and ice sheets appear to be more tightly related to atmospheric moisture circulation than to temperature.  Consider that no glacier can persist or grow without a massive renewable supply of moisture.  Moreover, no moisture can reach such glaciers without Solar forced evaporation of that water from our oceans.

Who would argue with a claim that the more intensely that the Sun beams upon our planet, the greater the masses of moisture that are evaporated from the oceans, said moisture now available to circulate to high mountain catchments?   Well, almost every climate scientist other than I would dispute that.  All of those scientists are vested in the greenhouse theory, and there is no allowance there for solar driving of hydroclimate.  In fact they persistently refer to a fictional “Solar Constant”.  For what it is worth, in support of Solar cycle influenced evaporation, and in opposition to the greenhouse theory I wrote a paper [1].  The paper is supported further by several continuous years of accurate forecasts.

I’ve worked from that paper to develop this glacier concept.  This is not a paper though but only a blog.  It is speculation, with a few supporting facts.  On the other hand I can’t seem to find any papers that describe how higher temperatures eliminated any ice ages, or how lower temperatures would have started any.  Rather, virtually all papers I’m aware of about sea levels, glaciers, and the like, start from an unwritten assumption that a cooling Sun led to the Ice Ages.  In more innocent days when I didn’t question that assumption either, I still found many other things to challenge about their ice age notion.  For example, I ran a spectral calculation which appears to demonstrate that the Milankovitch cycles could not have caused the Ice Ages.  I’m sure I wasn’t the only one, and yet it remains hard for me to fathom how cycles which are so out of phase can be accepted as some kind of causality. But regardless of that, I still took it for granted that a warming Earth would lead to less glaciation.

This brief post introduces a few simple reasons to question that glacial meme.   It’s strange to explore this notion even to me and so I don’t expect many to have much appetite to dig into this new concern.  Fortunately I don’t have very much baggage.  In comparison, think for example what a train wreck this would be for conventional climate change skeptics.   They have never stopped believing that rising Temperatures would raise the sea level.  They only argue with others over the degree.  Again if the new notion is right, this would also be a disaster for greenhouse gas proponents .  They also have never stopped believing that rising Temperatures (regardless of the cause) would elevate the oceans.  They also only quibble over the degree.  I’ve also yet to see any orthodox climate change promoter or any celebrity climate change skeptic express any doubts about their positions on temperature.

One cannot tell the skeptics or the warmists apart on this particular item.   As I noted, I have doubts about this new notion.  But if I am right about sea levels, what would become of everyday greenhouse gas assertions?  There might only be a few options left for those who now dominate the disputes, such as:

  • The skeptics and the climate change establishment might change their tunes to suggest that greenhouse gases are not a thing anymore.  The debates would evaporate, the money would disappear, and the rest of us could return to everyday concerns.  Or
  • The skeptics and the climate change establishment might change their tunes to suggest that greenhouse gases are still a thing, only now we have to worry about a new Ice Age from fossil fuel emissions.  Naturally the celebrity skeptics would adopt a milder tune and only worry about a Little Ice Age as compared to a Big one.

I like the first bullet myself but I wouldn’t get my hopes up.  Those who dominate the trajectory of climate analyses and communication appear to believe in a greenhouse gas notion which has never been demonstrated in any laboratory.  It takes a special type of will to believe in something as a scientific truth even when it cannot be demonstrated in any laboratory.  But as many know, when one can willfully dominate a discussion and resulting policy, there is no opportunity to apply a correction.

In this new possibility for glacier genesis, as covered in recent posts, I recognize that much more energy is required to remove moisture from the oceans than to not remove it.  I’ve added the recognition that high altitude and high latitude “seed zones” allow for that removed moisture to re-precipitate as snow.  This process may seem slight over a short term, but there appears to be little to limit its long term potential.  Accordingly a persistently hotter Sun means more evaporation and more sequestration into remote icy places.  If that is true, then a colder Sun and by extension a colder Earth, would lead to less evaporation and less sequestration into remote icy places.  It appears to follow that cooling temperatures would lead to rising sea levels.

 

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02626667.2019.1567925?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=thsj20

*try it to confirm if you must.  😀

1823total visits,4visits today

Leave a Reply