Global Cooling?

[otterinbham 0]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

The Sun Also Sets

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Related Topics: Global Warming

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."

But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

[LegalEagle 22]

I've often wondered if we were cooling globally, what would the scientists say to do to heat the Earth? I have a feeling they would say we can't put enough CO2 in the atmosphere to slow the cooling. The Earth is just too big. Have any of you considered that as well?

[lca408 366]

This is a real phenomenon that has occured many many times throughout Earth's history. There was even a show about it on the History channel. Its interesting that it might be happening again.

Earth temperatures are much hotter than they are now during the time of the Romans, up until just after the AD changeover. In the wake of the end of the "Hot Age," the Earth slowly cooled off, as civilization moved into the so-called "Dark Ages." The global cooling effect helped to add to the misery of the people of Europe after the collapse of the Roman empire. The real Little Ice Age started around 1600 and lasted into the very early 19th century. Some of the casualties of this Little Ice Age? - Napoleon's army in Russia, and the American army during the winters of Valley Forge in 77/78 and especially Morristown in 78/79.

I always tend to chuckle when I hear people getting worried about our impact on the Earth. Granted, we have affected the planet more significantly than any other species in the planet's history, yet it also depends on what one would call significant. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by all our factories and cars over the course of a year would be dwarfed by the immense amount blasted into the air by a large scale volcanic eruption.

The volcano Thera, located in the Mediterranean, exploded in 1628 BC, with a force of over 24,000 megatons, while the largest nuclear weapon ever created, the "monster bomb" made by the Soviets, registered an explosion of only 50 megatons. The monster bomb was detonated in the late 50s, and registered on seismographs in Britain, yet had little effect on the overall climate or ecosystem. Thera meanwhile, obliterated the Minoan civilization, pushing human technological and intellectual advancement back several hundred years. Thera dropped world temperatures by several degrees, killing or at least stunting many of the world's existing cultures.

More recently, Krakatoa in Indonesia exploded with a force of about 240 megatons in 1883, also dropping world temperatures by 1 or 2 degrees for over a year. Mount Saint Helens meanwhile, was significantly smaller, erupting with a force of about 10 megatons, yet still darkened skies over much of the Continental US for a time.

I believe humans HAVE had an impact on the world's ecosystem and climate. We should, by all means, try to correct our mistakes, and keep from further disturbing the "balance." But that balance can be easily upset by mother nature herself, whether we do anything or not. A Thera sized eruption today would not only destroy cities in its immediate wake, but have a great impact on the weather, economies, etc. Much more so than any fossil fuel emissions have in the last 40 or 50 years.

Not to mention a "supervolcano" like Yellowstone. Yellowstone erupted about 10 or 20,000 years ago, nearly wiping out humans all together. We are overdue for an eruption. A supervolcanic explosion would dwarf even Thera in size and scope, and would quickly plunge the world into the so-called "nuclear winter."

So yes, no matter what we do, the Earth can end us quite quickly whenever she feels like it. Quite frankly, she barely feels what we're doing on a day to day basis. Kinda makes you feel all nice and warm inside doesn't it?

Ryan

[otterinbham 0]

Well, here's my take on the entire thing.

I know that there's a considerable body of respected, mainstream scientists who are expressing serious doubts about the Global Warming Theory. They are not stooges on the payroll of Exxon or BP. They are just looking backwards over the centuries using measurable data such as ice core samples and tree rings to determine that global temperature is not a constant, but actually a fairly predictable variation. In addition to what you have cited, there is the following evidence:

For example, the period from 900-1200 was a warm period. The Vikings actually had sustainable agriculture in Greenland, and there were forests in Iceland. Both are impossible today.

We know that, up to a few hundred thousand years ago, at least the southern third of Greenland was forested. Again, that speaks to global temperatures far warmer than what they are today.

Sure, I think that CO2 emissions are a source of legitimate concern for lots of reasons beyond climatic. I also believe that we should really seek out alternatives to the internal combustion engine. It's not a sustainable resource, it causes pollution, it forces economic dependence on a bunch of Arab states that are barely emerging from the Medieval period, and it leads to really wasteful civic planning.

At the same time, I wonder about this rush to judgment on the question of global warming. Have environmental scientists siezed on this a bit too enthusiastically? Is this a convenient way to backdoor their own agenda? I am not trying to imply that they're indulging in deception. What I think is that they've clung to this theory without the proper amount of vetting because it adds additional impetus to their strongly-held beliefs--fuel to the fire, so to speak.

[Tigermike 3,054]

My opinion is that things are changing and have been changing forever. The cynic in me says the Algores of the world are in it for power and money.

They say warming, the Earth says Brrrrrr.

http://www.indianexpress.com/story/269951.html

Are they just a bunch of idiots? (My guess is yes.)

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2...0206170159.aspx

Or despots?

Should Political Leaders be Jailed for Questioning Global Warming?

link

Actually, it's all the sun's fault!

link