Lot of energy and resources are being spent world wide on reducing carbon dioxide emissions in to the atmosphere with the belief that it is causing global temperatures to rise.
Brian Bloom, the author of
Beyond Neanderthal, which looks broadly at the causes and impact of climate change, says that it could be a mistaken premise. C02 emissions may be exacerbating the global rise in temperatures rather than causing it.
The chief culprit in raising the earth's temperature could be the electromagnetic activity of the sun, according to Brian Bloom.
Common sense dictates that our more active sun must have been raising the temperature of our oceans; and that the warmer sunshine, together with the warmer oceans, together with warmer winds which they spawn, together with the greenhouse effect, has been melting our ice caps, Bloom said in a release.
He blames the changes in the electromagnetic activity in the sun to be causing temperatures to rise although a direct cause-to-effect relationship cannot be worked out.
Analysing only the atmospheric temperature changes and neglecting the heat generated in the oceans is a flawed approach. Since around 1860, 'best estimate' temperatures have risen by about 1 degree Celcius, with half of this increase occurring in the last 25 odd years.
"But focusing only on atmospheric temperature is like listening only to the 'tick' of a grandfather clock. There is also a "tock". Our oceans also play a role in climate."
Whilst the heat content of our oceans -- to a depth of 3,000 meters -- certainly rose overall from 1955 to 1998, it fell between 2003 and 2005 Common sense dictates that the 1955 -1998 rise could not possibly have been caused by the rising temperature of our atmosphere.
The reason (apart from the 2003-2005 heat content reduction) relates to the significantly different amounts of heat energy required to raise the temperatures of the same quantities of water and air by one degree.
Heat Transfer Other factors remaining the same, it would take over 1,000 times as much heat energy to raise the temperature of our oceans by one degree as it would take to raise the temperature of our atmosphere by one degree.
Heat transfer is not instantaneous. Just think of how long it takes to bring a kettle of cold water to boil on a red hot stove.
Thus, for example, if the temperature of our atmosphere increases by 1 o C over a period of one year because of greenhouse gas driven global warming (of which Carbon Dioxide is but one such gas) -- and if the atmospheric temperature remains constant thereafter it would take more than 1,000 years for that incremental heat energy to be transferred to our oceans so as to raise
their overall temperature by one degree.
This time frame falls dramatically outside the roughly 250 year period of the Industrial Revolution during which there has been an increase in anthropogenic CO 2 emissions.
But there could be something else other than electromagnetic activity in the sun that is causing the problem.
It could be linked to the position of our sun within the galaxy and the impact of gravitational forces that are brought to bear on our sun as it travels along its elliptic path.
Beyond Neanderthal forecasts that our galaxy will reach a culmination point in its 26,000 year cycle on December 21st , 2012; when its elliptic will intersect the Dark Rift of the Milky Way Galaxy.
More Myanmars If this unfolding scenario is indeed impacting on the earth's electromagnetic field, then we might expect to experience more Myanmar cyclone type occurrences and also an increasing number and intensity of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.
It is being anticipated by some that, from 2013 onwards the flaring on our sun's surface will begin to wane (if this is not already happening), and that the earth's surface will begin to cool again -- perhaps culminating in mini Ice Age conditions by 2050.
Brian believes that climatic problems can be addressed provided it is properly understood because it only involves application of technical knowhow and powerful technologies already available.
If C02 is not the driver of climate change, the concept of carbon credit trading is of not much help.
For that matter, even if CO 2 was the driver, it seems likely that carbon credit trading will inhibit the economic development of under-developed countries.
Surely, encouraging them to sell their 'right' to produce carbon emissions will also serve to discourage them from becoming net contributors to global Gross Domestic Product. That appears seriously counterproductive when viewed from an economic perspective.
This is not to say we should not aspire to reduce CO2 emissions. Of course we need to reduce the level of all pollutants!
Brian says that two new patented electromagnetic technologies have been introduced but private enterprise will not show interest in it. He feels that if the claims of the companies who developed the technology can be validated, it could economically stimulative.
It could even have the capacity to drive the world economy for the next 100 century as oil and other technologies did. One of these may have the capacity to replace fossil fuels entirely. The other may have the capacity to increase agricultural yields in infertile regions which implies that world's poorer nations could become the breadbaskets of the world.