Why Dust changes Temperature and Temperature changes CO2

Sorry to say, but all scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming causes by the release of man-made CO2 can’t see beyond the ends of their noses, much less into the relatively thick phenomenon known as space weather. I cannot speak ill of those who hold onto the coattails of climate change scientists because they simply lack the tools, education, and knowledge to know better.

Consider the following tri-component graph, derived from deep ice core samples including those from Vostok Station, the West Antarctic Sheet project, the British Antarctic Survey and the International Trans-Antarctic Scientific Expedition. These cores have been analyzed visually, via isotopic analysis, palaeoatmospheric sampling, glaciochemistry, radionuclides, and physical properties such as crytalline size and orientation.

The wealth of data is immense, but three key pieces of information present themselves for study: Temperature, CO2, and Dust.

The upper line in blue represents temperature over the last 420,000 years. As you can see, the relatively high-temperature warming (inter-glacial) periods are much shorter than the far longer ice ages. Brrr! There’s a chilly thought for you!

The middle line in green represents CO2 levels throughout the same 420,000 year period.

Finally, the lower line in red represents dust.

The most astonishing findings:


I love this chart, as it clearly shows the temporal relationship between Dust, Temperature, and CO2.

When you draw isochronic (same time) lines coinciding with peaks in Dust accumulation (red), you find that it always precedes Temperature, and always by a few thousand years (5k to 10k).

When you draw isochronic lines coinciding with peaks in Temperature (blue), you find that it always precedes CO2, and always by less than a couple hundred years.

Yes, you heard that correctly:


While correlation does NOT imply causation, a successive series of high correlations combined with temporal precedence DOES imply causation.

Thus, the PROPER Hypotheses to test would be:

I: To what extent, both magnitude and lead time, does temperature appear to be having on CO2?

II: To what extent, both magnitude and lead time, does dust appear to be having on temperature?

III: What is the precise periodicity of the dust? Is it a single period equivalent to the spikes in dust? Or is it a whole product resulting from a smaller period?

IV: Can the periodicity of the dust be reasonably attributed to an interstellar object, perhaps one originating in the Kuiper Belt or the Oort Cloud? Could it be attributed to the at-least two known regions of cosmic dust, either the interplanetary (zodiacal) dust cloud or the 10 AU to 40 AU dust cloud likely created by collisions within the Kuiper belt?

V: Given the heliospheric current sheet (10^?10 A/m²) discovered by John M. Wilcox and Norman F. Ness, who published their finding in 1965, what would be the effect of the much more powerful galactic current sheet proposed by Hannes Alfvén and Per Carlqvist?

As a a counterpart of the heliospheric current sheet, with an estimated galactic current of 10^17 to 10^19 amperes — 100 billion to 10 trillion times more than the 3×10^9 amperes which supply our Aurora — the galactic current sheet which might flow in the plane of symmetry of the galaxy would have a very serious if not spectacular space weather effect on the Earth.

Consider the following well-known and documented scientific facts:

A. The heliospheric current sheet rotates along with the Sun with a period of about 25 dyas, during which time the peaks and troughs of the skirt pass through the Earth’s magnetosphere, interacting with it.

B. During solar maximum the entire magnetic field of the Sun flips, thus alternating the polarity of the field every 11-year solar cycle. Levels of solar radiation and ejection of solar material, the number and size of sunspots, solar flares, and coronal loops all exhibit a synchronized fluctuation, from active to quiet to active again, with a period of 11 years. This cycle has been observed for centuries by changes in the Sun’s appearance and by terrestrial phenomena such as auroras.

C. What might be the periodicity of a galactic current be? Or might this be the result of a galactic equivalent of our solar cycle, and if not that, then perhaps another phenomenon of which the SMBH and the surrounding stars at our galactic core are capable of performing?

If we find the periodicity to be on the order of a bit less than a quarter of a million years, twice that of the periodicity of our ice ages, which is roughly 120,000 years, I respectfully submit that the twice/period influx of a galactic current between 100 billion to 10 trillion times greater than the heliospheric current sheet’s current could very well be responsible for guiding charged dust particles to the earth, thereby ending our glacial periods and giving us a comparatively brief interglacial respite.

Be aware the center of our galaxy is extremely violent compared to our own rather benign Sun. Here’s a 1/10th degree visual photo of our galactic center, specifically directed at our galaxy’s supermassive black hole, which is approximately 4.1 million times the mass of our own Sun.

The raging white spiral taking up the center portion of the photo is many thousands of times larger than our own solar system. Clearly, one could not survive within many light years of its vicinity, and the forces it unleashes on our galaxy is certainly enough to hold it in position, despite the relatively weak force of gravity. Is it too much of a stretch to realize the electromagnetic radiation and movement of ionized particles spewing forth would create massive effects over great distances, the same as we experience from our comparatively tiny but much closer Sun?

Back to the graph, when you look at the dust itself, you see there are clearly two peaks prior to each spike in temperature, and these peaks seem to be spread out every 88,000 years. Thus, perhaps the galactic sheet periodicity we’re looking for might be closer to 170,000 years.

In the overall scheme of things, CO2 is greatly overshadowed by simple Water Vapor — evaporated H2O molecules in the atmosphere. Not only does H2O absorb several times what CO2 can absorb, but unlike CO2, which is fairly steady-state over time, H2O varies quite a bit on a daily, weekly, monthly, seasonal, annual, and periodic basis. In fact, both the form and the effect of H2O is substantially moderated by dust, including space dust.

One thing everyone complaining about fossil fuels fails to recognize is the following equation:

Oh, wait… That’s my lead-in, showing you all the H2O that’s produced when we burn carbon fuels.

Ok, here’s the equation:

The chemical composition of kerosene is fairly complex, and it is a complex mixture of paraffins (55.2%), naphthenes (40.9%), and aromatic hydrocarbons (3.9%). Kerosene tends to contain hydrocarbons that have anywhere from 11 to 13 carbons in the chains.

The point is that there are roughly double the hydrogen atoms than carbon atoms in jet fuel, meaning burning jet fuel produces roughly equal amounts of CO2 and H2O, the latter of which is at least three times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. This is easy to see, visually, by noting the area under the curve of H2O is at least triple that of CO2. In fact, water vapor alone is the single greatest component of atmospheric IR absorption, being methane, nitrous oxide, oxygen, ozone, and carbon dioxide — combined.

Regardless of the cause of the latest and very minute spike in world-wide temperatures, 420 thousand years of rock-solid history of temperatures, CO2, and dust in multiple ice core samples taken from many areas undeniably proves it’s not man-made. Furthermore, both the periodicity as well as the volumes of dust suggest it’s not even of this solar system. Even though “long-period comets have highly eccentric orbits and periods ranging from 200 years to thousands of years.” By “thousands” we’re talking single digits. In fact, the “List of long-period comets” only extends to 1,000 year orbits. The periodicity of near-parabolic comets, on the other hand, suggest it’s possible that a mass much larger than Ceres but smaller than a planet from the Oort cloud could be paying us a periodic visit with a periodicity ranging between 60,000 and 120,000 years. Believe it or not, even an Earth-sized planet is very unlikely to cause such an increase in dust as we observe in the ice cores samples.

So where’s the dust coming from? The Sun? The Galaxy? Intrasolar or intragalactic space, as carried about by current sheets?


Regardless, the ice core samples alone show three things:

  • temperature swings precede CO2 levels, not the other way around
  • dust plays a significant role in global temperature moderation
  • interglacial (warm) periods are far shorter than glacials, and always end with a slight upturn before the slow freeze begins

Food for thought, people!

Leave a Reply