The Sun Also Sets(Global Cooling)

[aft_lizard01]

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

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.

[Highwayman]

RSS Satellite data for Jan08: 2nd coldest January for the planet in 15 years « Watts Up With That?

[aft_lizard01]

Now this what you call an unconventional truth, hopefully the masses and governments can bel ead to understand this before trillions of dollars are thrown down a hole.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by aft_lizard01

Now this what you call an unconventional truth, hopefully the masses and governments can bel ead to understand this before trillions of dollars are thrown down a hole.

Yes indeed. Cleaning up the planet and improving our environment is a waste of time. Climate change or not.

This way they can keep throwing money down the Iraq hole.

[aft_lizard01]

Originally Posted by wordsmythe

Yes indeed. Cleaning up the planet and improving our environment is a waste of time. Climate change or not.

This way they can keep throwing money down the Iraq hole.

You are trying to combine seperate issues into one. Which is silly. It's is one thing to mandate catalytic converters and clean forests, its quite another to mandate an entire economic change based on bad science.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by aft_lizard01

You are trying to combine seperate issues into one. Which is silly. It's is one thing to mandate catalytic converters and clean forests, its quite another to mandate an entire economic change based on bad science.

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']I was looking at it from the money angle you brought up. Throwing trillions of dollars down the Iraq hole based on bad intel and outright lies is OK but Making changes and cleaning up the planet based on a majority of scientific research is bad.[/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']It seems similar enough to draw a parallel to me.[/font]

[thatonedude]

The Irrefutable Global Warming Argument — 9rules Education Notes

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by thatonedude

The Irrefutable Global Warming Argument — 9rules Education Notes

Dude!

The guy’s logic is flawed. He assumes that if climate change is really caused by humans that we can correct it and end up with a happy face. He fails to recognize that we could still create a global depression as he described in the scenario of taking action when it wasn’t needed.

If you look around there is much being done already because of public demand for lower energy costs. Economic and market forces work if you let them. But we have a cult with a cause preaching a form of religion. Many of those folks were preaching global ice age thirty years ago and fighting against nuclear power plants. They were wrong then and now they want us to spend trillions of dollars on their latest wild hair. Cooler heads need to prevail.

[jeezeweeze]

Originally Posted by thatonedude

The Irrefutable Global Warming Argument — 9rules Education Notes

Have you been welcomed yet....If I missed you better late then never

[Army_of_One]

Welcome Dude...