Carbon dioxide levels
harmful to Earth
Mr. Revie should stick to things he knows; and it is not climate science or EPA. When a substance becomes harmful to the well-being of U.S. citizens, the EPA can regulate it. This has been determined by the Supreme Court. Mr. Revie doesn't understand that carbon dioxide, although necessary for life on Earth, has reached a concentration in the atmosphere that is harmful to U.S. citizens. Mr. Revie would have us believe that carbon dioxide is just wonderful no matter what its concentration. Scientists world-wide do not agree with Mr. Revie. Mr. Revie is confused about the relationship between carbon dioxide and our Sun. He thinks that carbon dioxide levels are derived from the Sun. He also claims that CO2 is caused by global warming, not the other way around. He even claims to know about Earth history and states that Earth's temperature peaks when solar activity peaks every "several thousand years." He must be getting his climate data from comic books. The Sun goes through 11-year cycles and has been in a solar minimum now for a number of years while Earth continues to warm. If CO2 lags temperature its because variations in Earth's orbit triggers 100,000-year pulses in glacial-interglacial cycles but in between, it's carbon dioxide that is Earth's thermostat.
Recent research indicates that CO2 may not lag the interglacial increase in temperature as ice-core resolution may not be all that accurate. Anyway, as ocean waters warm they begin to release CO2. Approximately 90 percent of energy received by Earth is absorbed by the oceans and heat is being transferred to colder waters below in line with the second law of thermodynamics. Argo floats take the temperature of ocean waters at depth and the oceans are warming even though atmospheric temperature has flattened.
G. Thomas Farmer, Ph.D.
Ah no. Not even close.
First the 11 year solar cycle has not been in a minimum for a number of years. The eleven year solar cycle 24 saw it's maximums at 11/2011 SDIC or 2/2012 SSN.
Solar cycle 24 is of very low activity as compared to the previous cycles shown 21,22, and 23 which began in 1976.
The last half of the 20th century saw solar activity at it's highest recorded levels in 400 years. And in the top 10% of activity levels for the last 10,000 years by proxy studies.
The sun does have cycles and it was predicted in the mid 1990s that cycle 24 would be very low and that cooling would become evident by 2012.
NASA didn't predict this, in fact NASA was still predicting a very high solar cycle 24 as late as 2008.
Yes the oceans do absorb energy from the sun. But if you understand thermal dynamics, the heat wouldn't drop to low levels of the ocean without warming all of the above.
Heat is absorbed by the surface where it is transported by a 'conveyor belt' throughout the system. This is a lengthy process and the lag time between when energy is absorbed and it's observed impact on climate is about 10 years.
Our sun went into low activity after cycle 23 in 2002.
It is expected to remain in low activity for cycles 25 and 26. Cycle 27 is expected to have higher activity but nothing like the recent cycles.
Our sun does have cycles/patterns of activity. the 11 year cycle is really half of the 22 year magnetic cycle. Then there are a variety of cycles with the largest now being researched to be about 1500 years.
A 1500 year climate pattern can be seen in the ice core data. First observed in Greenland and named the D-O cycles, it appears there may be a correlation to a long term solar cycle based on inertial motion.
It's getting cooler and will continue to do so for at least the next two cycles with not much of a warm up to follow.