National Geographic 1967 : Sunspots Control Glaciers

You should, in science, believe logic and arguments, carefully drawn, and not authorities.

– Richard Feynman

Fifty years ago, National Geographic understood that the sun controls glaciers. But that was before they realized they could make money lying about the climate.

National Geographic : 1967 Feb, Page 194

This was back in the days when NASA could still put people in space.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to National Geographic 1967 : Sunspots Control Glaciers

  1. oldbrew says:

    Good spot. Fifty years after that NG report, sunspots are tanking.

    ‘So far in 2017, the big story in space weather is sunspots–or rather, the lack thereof. The sun has been blank more than 90% of the time.’

    • RAH says:

      Yep, though today an actual spot is coming around the eastern limb:

      INFO FROM SIDC – RWC BELGIUM 2017 Jan 12 12:35UTC

      Solar activity has been very low, no C-class flares in past 24h, an active
      region rotating into view from the eastern limb may increase activity.

      No Earth directed Coronal Mass Ejections (CMEs) have been detected. Solar
      protons have remained at background levels over the past 24 hours.

      Geomagnetic conditions have ranged between K=2 and K=3. Solar wind speed is
      now at 390 km/s with interplanetary magnetic fields of 5 nT. There is a
      small equatorial coronal hole that could still affect the Earth today, but
      K is not expected to go above 4.

  2. richard verney says:

    There is an article doing the rounds at WUWT which discusses glacier retreat and CO2.

  3. Miner49er says:

    Climate change is a false premise for regulating or taxing carbon dioxide emissions. Nature converts CO2 to calcite (limestone). Climate change may or may not be occurring, but is is surely NOT caused by human fossil fuels use. Changes in temperature cause changes in ambient CO2, with an estimated 800 year time lag.

    Others have shown the likely causes of climate change, and they DO NOT include human use of fossil fuels. There is no empirical evidence that fossil fuels use affects climate. Likely and well-documented causes include sunspot cycles, earth/sun orbital changes, cosmic ray effects on clouds and tectonic plate activity. The further point here is that earth naturally recycles all carbon dioxide.

    Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

    99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.

    Full implementation of the Paris Treaty is now estimated to cost $50 trillion to $100 trillion by 2030–$6,667-$13,333 per human being. Nearly two-thirds of humanity’s cumulative savings over history. And will not affect climate at all.

    • Scott says:

      Miner, your facts are correct but your conclusions erroneous. Co2 is higher than it has been since the dinosaurs roamed the earth at 404 parts per million — and it is rising steadily because of the actions of humans.

      We don’t know how much this will alter the planet. But we know that the glaciers are melting and that trillions of dollars of coastal real estate will be destroyed.

      Who wins if we under-invest in wind and solar? The Koch brothers and Exxon, and then China. The US could take over the solar panel business, or we could just let China have it. Which do you think is a good idea?

      • tonyheller says:

        In six days, your religion is dead

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Scott,tries hard to say something but fails since it is all over the drooling table.

        Solar will never replace 24/7 power producers for an obvious reason,you will never figure out.

        Go back to your garden,spare the rest of us your eco drivel.

        • Scott says:

          Sunsettommy, generally the thinking is that you want to get as much out of wind and solar as you can, throw in some nuclear, and fill in the rest with fossil fuels.

          The eco drivel is coming, whether you like it or not. Battery prices are down to less thank $150/kwh, and when they get to $50 gasoline powered cars will go the way of the dodo.

          Wouldn’t you like to see the US be ahead in that game when the time comes?

          • RAH says:

            “Wouldn’t you like to see the US be ahead in that game when the time comes?”

            Sure with development money from the private sector and no government subsidies or rebates for electric cars involved. If such technology is viable and wanted by the citizens then lets see it stand on it’s own economic feet.
            And at the same time get the government out of the way of exploration and development of fossil fuel sources in places where such development is possible without demonstrable dire consequences for the environment.

          • sam says:

            Yeah what RAH said.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Both wind power and solar are OLD technology. They suffer from the same problem. Not enough energy density.

            If you want to save petrochemicals for manufacturing, then use nuclear where possible.

          • Gail Combs says:

            For the amount of money wasted chasing unicorn farts, the USA could have 100% state of the art nuclear for the cost of transmitting the power.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            But the Wind and Solar structure are based on TOXIC materials,they are intermittent power producer with inherent instability behind its operation.

            It is a terrible waste of money since the 24/7 power generation set up MUST still be running anyway,to keep the lights on,when the LOW MASS power producers go offline which they do a lot.

            Nuclear,Hydro and Fossil fuels which are HIGH MASS producers are much more economical and reliable as they can provide continuous 24/7 power at a high rate,which Solar and Wind can’t deliver.

          • Sunsettommy says:

            It doesn’t matter what price Batteries have since they can’t reserve the necessary power back up for the Solar when night or clouds comes,and wind when it is calm.

          • scott allen says:

            Scott you have posted at the “BIG BOYS/GIRLS” website, if you post here you have to reference real research, not just some reporters ideas.
            Wind farms actually lead to global warming, no research on solar farms yet but would hazard a guess they do too. I am all for letting the Chinese spend money on such nonsense research, IF they do make a huge discovery, then we can steal it from them just like they steal our research.
            Heres the link to real research on wind farms and the rise of .74 in temperature, after they are built. And as far as big oil and the Koch brothers check the World Bank and see who makes the most money in carbon credits.



            PS we will let you keep your lunch money this time.

      • Leo G says:

        According to Bartoli et al, Paleoceanography 16 November 2011, Atmospheric CO2 decline during the Pliocene intensification of Northern Hemisphere glaciations:-
        “The highest pCO2 values were reached during the early Pliocene prior to 3.6 Ma with a maximum of 425 μatm at 4.58 Ma and 410 μatm on average”

        • Gail Combs says:

          Now that is a real load of Bull feces.

          I ran across a recent reference where it was stated: ” ” .. Air bubbles trapped in polar ice sheets reveal the composition of the atmosphere of the past….” The idea of using the whole sample and not just the air bubble had vanished from science.

          CO2 LIKES water and will migrate out of the air bubble into the free water within the ice lattice. If you do not believe CO2 will migrate, try leaving a 2 liter bottle of pepsi in the closet unopened for a year and see just how fast the CO2 migrates through the plastic!

          ….Two important observations were made in these early studies. It was found that the CO2 content of the air trapped in pre-industrial and ancient ice is rather high, and has a very wide concentration range of about 100-7400 ppm (Table 1). Even more important was the finding that several physical and chemical processes (such as melting, the presence of liquid brines in the capillary-like interstitial voids, the presence of carbonates, over-pressure in the air bubbles, and solid deposition of super-cooled fog, combined with large differences in the solubility of different gases in cold water, and mobility of CO2 in ice) lead to differentiation of the original atmospheric ratios of N2, O2, Ar, and CO2, and to depletion or enrichment of CO2 in the ice (Coachman et al 1958; Hemmingsen 1959; Scholander et al 1961; Matsuo and Miyake 1966; Raynaud and Delmas 1977).

          In these early studies it was recognized that the liquid water in glaciers may be the most important factor in this differentiation, because the composition of atmospheric air (78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and approximately 350 ppm by volume, carbon dioxide) is different from the composition of air dissolved in cold water. It was known at that time that, in such air, at 0ºC and ambient pressure, the concentration of oxygen is 67% higher than in the atmosphere (Scholander et al 1961; Hodgman et al 1962). This is because the solubility of oxygen in cold water is 2.1 times higher than that of nitrogen. Argon has 2.4 times higher solubility than nitrogen, and CO2 73.5 times higher (Weast et al 1989). This explains why the air extracted from melt layers in polar firn has extremely high concentrations of about 12,000 ppm CO2 (Stauffer et al 1985). This is also why the air bubbles contain much lower concentrations of CO2 than the ice which encompasses them.

          Three different methods of gas extraction were used, and they produced different results. This is illustrated in Fig 2. It can be seen that in air from the same section of a pre-industrial ice core, after 7 hrs “wet” extraction of melted ice, the CO2 concentration was up to about 1000 ppm, and it was 1.5 – 4.5 times higher than after [just] 15 min “wet” extraction. The “dry” extraction, consisting in crushing or shaving the ice samples at about -20ºC, produced results similar to the 15 min “wet” extraction. The short “wet” and “dry” extractions recovered about a half or less of the total CO2 present in the ice.

          Later papers showing the recent increase in CO2 atmospheric level ignored or played down these early findings. It was tacitly assumed in these papers that no exchange exists between the ice matrix rich in CO2 and the gas occluded in the air bubbles….

          A study backing that up:
          It is dealing with landfast sea ice but does look at the diffusion and transport coefficients.

          We report bulk gas concentrations of O2, N2, and Ar, as well as their transport coefficients, in natural landfast subarctic sea ice in southwest Greenland. The observed bulk ice gas composition was 27.5% O2, 71.4% N2, and 1.09% Ar. Most previous studies suggest that convective transport is the main driver of gas displacement in sea ice and have neglected diffusion processes. According to our data, brines were stratified within the ice, so that no convective transport could occur within the brine system. Therefore, diffusive transport was the main driver of gas migration. By analyzing the temporal evolution of an internal gas peak within the ice, we deduced the bulk gas transport coefficients for oxygen (DO2), argon (DAr), and nitrogen (DN2). The values fit to the few existing estimates from experimental work, and are close to the diffusivity values in water (1025 cm2 s21)…

          The relative proportion of O2, Ar, and N2 in bulk sea ice in this study are intermediate between the relative gas composition in dissolved seawater and the atmospheric gas composition (Table 1 and Figure 6). These results are in agreement with the past studies of Matsuo and Miyake [1966] and Tison et al. [2002] and reflect the mixed contribution of the dissolved and gaseous fractions of each gas, with the dominance of the gase ous (bubble) fraction (as also shown by the regression line in Figure 6 being closer to the atmospheric ratio and the fB values in Table 3). Each gas species in the bottom ice layers was close to, or below, atmospheric saturation (Figure 5), confirming the results of Zhou et al. [2013] that the gas incorporation at the ice-water interface occurs close to the atmospheric solubility value.

          The ice was enriched in N2 (i.e., highest saturation factor) compared to O2 and Ar (Table 2). The gas composition is a function of a chemical separation of gases diffusing across the boundary layer at the ice-water interface during the ice growth [Carte, 1961; Killawee et al., 1998; Loose et al., 2009, 2011; Tison et al., 2002]. Because the N2 diffusion coefficient is lower than the O2 and Ar diffusion coefficients, the flux of N2 from sea ice to the water is slower and, hence, the incorporation rate of N2 is larger than O2 and Ar, leading to N2 enrichment within sea ice. Moreover, solubility of N2 is only half the solubility of O2 if nucleation process occurs at the ice-water interface. This results in relatively more N2 in the gas phase as compared with the other gases. The growing ice will therefore be enriched in nitrogen bubbles that would otherwise have diffused as a solute toward the water reservoir…

          There is page 54 of this book: Exploration of Antarctic Subglacial Aquatic Environments: Environmental and Scientific Stewardship ( 2007 )

          Also this paper:
          The hydrochemistry of Lake Vostok and the potential for life in Antarctic subglacial lakes

          …. Solutes are rejected from the ice lattice during refreezing (Killawee et al., 1998), and hence there should be an accumulation of nutrients, gases, and solutes in the lake water over time. The isotopic and major ion composition of Lake Vostok has been inferred from the composition of the accreted basal ice in the Vostok ice core. The accreted ice is enriched in 18 O and 2 H compared with the Vostok precipitation line (Jouzel et al., 1999; Priscu et al. 1999a). This is because there is isotopic fractionation during water freezing, but none during melting (Souchez et al., 1988, 2000). The accreted ice has values of υ18 O and υD that differ from the time-averaged melting ice by only 60% of the theoretical fractionation, and it has been suggested that 30–58% of unfractionated lake water is entrained in the accreted ice during freezing, so helping to maintain less extreme values of υD and υ18 O (Souchez et al., 2000). The total capture of significant quantities of lake water and solute confounds existing calculations of the chemical composition of the lake water based on accreted ice chemistry (Jouzel et al., 1999, Souchez et al., 2000), as we detail below.

          The first estimate of the chemical composition of Lake Vostok (Priscu et al., 1999a) was derived from the chemical composition of the accreted ice (Table I) from above 3608 m, using ice–water partition coefficients (the ratio of the concentration of a particular solute in ice relative to that in water) obtained from surface lake ice and the underlying waters of perennially ice-covered Lake Hoare, a surface water body located in the southern Victoria Land Dry Valleys of Antarctica. Unfortunately, the inferred water chemistry has a significant charge imbalance (Table I), which may relate to the differences in both accretion rate (30 cm year 1 in Lake Hoare and up to 4 cm year 1 in Lake Vostok) and in ice crystal structure. A second estimate (Souchez et al., 2000) has been derived from knowledge of typical partition coefficients between ice and water, which are assumed to be 0Ð0008 and 0Ð0028 (Gross et al., 1977; Eicken, 1998).

          • Leo G says:

            Gail, my reference to Bartoli et al was in response to Scott (January 14, 2017 at 12:41 am):
            “Miner, your facts are correct but your conclusions erroneous. Co2 is higher than it has been since the dinosaurs roamed the earth at 404 parts per million …”
            Dinosaurs first roamed the earth more than 230 million years ago, so Scott was implying that there was no evidence of general atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at above 404 ppm(v) from that time.

          • Gail Combs says:

            Sorry Leo G.

            I read it as support of Scott.

      • Ed Gruberman says:

        C02 is higher now, than when the arctic was a jungle? I bet.

      • Sunsettommy says:

        Read this again,Scott:

        “Here’s why. Fossil fuels emit only 3% of total CO2 emissions. 95% comes from rotting vegetation. All the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere is promptly converted in the oceans to calcite (limestone) and other carbonates, mostly through biological paths. CO2 + CaO => CaCO3 (exothermic). The conversion rate increases with increasing CO2 partial pressure. A dynamic equilibrium-seeking mechanism.

        99.84% of all carbon on earth is already sequestered as sediments in the lithosphere. The lithosphere is a massive hungry carbon sink that converts ambient CO2 to carbonate almost as soon as it is emitted. All living or dead organic matter (plants, animals, microbes etc. amount to only 0.00033% of the total carbon mass on earth. Ambient CO2 is only 0.00255%.”

        Notice the trivial impact by mankind?

        I have pointed out in various places on the Internet about the fact that Ocean waters already have 99% of the Free CO2 in the system,therefore a dribble more CO2 added can’t overturn the dominant paradigm nature is set at.

        Think Scott, at how silly a few dozen more PPM free CO2 being added to the atmosphere,which is currently at impoverished levels compared to past atmosphere history,where it was never a threat to life.

        It is brain dead stupid!

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Scott, if you want to have a chance to participate in the debate, you have to up your game. Throwing around Exxon and the Koch brothers is a valid argument at Democratic Underground or Puffington Host but not among people discussing data and facts.

        You don’t seem to know anything about China and solar panels manufacturing, otherwise you would never say naive things like “The US could take over the solar panel business”.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “that trillions of dollars of coastal real estate will be destroyed.”

        What utter BULL CRAP !!

        Which climate moron have you been listening to

        Sea levels rise has been below 2mm/year (probably around the 1.4mm/year) for well over a century, no acceleration.. do you know how big 2mm is ??? SCARY hey !!!

        NO CO2 signal, and NO DANGER to coastal property.

    • GUY MOOSBURGER says:

      Man-made climate change is a democratic idea to get Liberals elected through fraudulent means.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Are you a geologist? Few have that knowledge.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.