16 January 2007

Solar Power: Driving the Climate

The science behind climate change is anything but settled. Just ask Cambridge astrophysicist Nigel Weiss, or astrophysicist and mathematician Habibullo Abdusamatov, head of the space research laboratory at the St. Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory.
Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.

These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."

In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.
Source.

The upper layers of the world's oceans are - much to climatologists' surprise - becoming cooler, which is a clear indication that the Earth has hit its temperature ceiling already, and that solar radiation levels are falling and will eventually lead to a worldwide cold spell, Abdusamatov said.

"Instead of professed global warming, the Earth will be facing a slow decrease in temperatures in 2012-2015. The gradually falling amounts of solar energy, expected to reach their bottom level by 2040, will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-2060," he said, adding that this period of global freeze will last some 50 years, after which the temperatures will go up again.

"There is no need for the Kyoto Protocol now, and it does not have to come into force until at least a hundred years from now - a global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions," Abdusamatov said.
Source.

The rush to reduce CO2 levels is not only massively expensive, but totally unnecessary, according to these learned solar experts. Certainly everyone with any knowledge should understand that global cooling is far more threatening to human life than the mild global warming currently being experienced.

Politicians such as Al Gore have vested monetary interests in exaggerating the climate effects of CO2. Likewise, climatologists such as Michael Mann have achieved fame, prestige, and easy grant money through the use of shoddy research methods. The route to grant money in climate science currently lies through the gate of CAGW--catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. Those are the magic words.

Reality is much larger than that. It is foolish to fixate upon one seemingly obvious explanation for cyclic climate behaviour of epochal duration. Many junkies of "global warning" enjoy the thrill of the apocalypse. Others have more mundane motivations, such as going along with the perceived flow.

Regardless, it pays for people who actually want to know what is going on, to keep their eyes and minds open.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

This makes too much sense...

I have always thought that until the Global Warming Alarmists could explian that large burning ball of gas in the sky and the easily provable periods of warming prior to the industrial age (and SUV's) then I will listen. Instead they concoct ways to bury the history of the Medieval Warming Period, shame decent people into dangerously small cars and actively prevent backward societies from attaining a lifestyle they desire (particularly in Africa). I believe the whole thing has nothing to do with saving Gaia and everything to do with destroying global capitalism... But that's just my take.

Tuesday, 16 January, 2007  
Blogger al fin said...

You may be right. At least the climate alarmists, if they were honest, would admit that solar variability may participate in climatic changes far more than they have been willing to admit.

Wednesday, 17 January, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would you like to bet over this? My bet offers are here:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#111700433898143899

I've generally found global warming denialists to be very unwilling to put their money where their mouths are, but an exception would be welcome.

Friday, 19 January, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nobody is "denying" the theory of global warming. Merely attributing it to a more complex set of causes than man alone.

I find it interesting that you apply the word "deny" in association with a theory. Is that appropriate? Intentional? The prhase "denier" comes from "Holocaust Denier" in European circles. Something which carries substantial emotional weight. Is that appropriate here? Is global warming (a theory) to be equated with the Holocaust (a historical fact)?

The application of the term "denier" is an intentional effort on the part of media experts hired to advocate for interested parties. Why would they do that? Why would they need to do that given the scientific concensus?

It makes a sane, rational person wonder...

Friday, 19 January, 2007  
Blogger al fin said...

Like I say, "global warming" advocacy has achieved a level of hysteria not usually seen in connection with scientific issues.

It is so important for some people to stamp out all dissent, that they will go to significant lengths sometimes.

Al Gore does resemble Pol Pot at times, in his single-minded attachment to a scientific theory that he is totally incapable of comprehending. Some people appear so angry at anyone who disagrees with them, that they would probably be willing to pull a "Pol Pot" or Mao, Stalin, Kim, or Adolf, just to "purify" the field of argument.

Destroy all heretics!
;-)

Friday, 19 January, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a report recently that solar luminosity has not increased over the last 100 years. Yet we know that solar magnetic activity (as defined by sunspot numbers) has increased, and that crashes in sunspot numbers are associated with cooling periods on earth. Therefore, it may be that the sun is heating the earth's atmosphere magnetically, as well as through direct radiation. There may be involvement of earth's own magnetic field as well. This adds a new set of variables climate modelers may not have considered. This would be an interesting area to research, if it isn't already being done.

Friday, 19 January, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, no big surprise. The denialists won't put up, nor will they shut up. Instead, they change the subject to what they prefer to call themselves.

I see that you're going to pass on putting your money where your mouths are. Guess I'll pass on participating in your name debate.

Friday, 19 January, 2007  
Blogger al fin said...

The heretics choose not to shut up. You will simply have to burn them at the stake. Just don't burn all the firewood. It's going to be getting colder.
;-)

Friday, 19 January, 2007  
Blogger lcmslutheran said...

Brian, Brian, Brian. Get a grip. People that are smart enough not to buy into globull smarming are too smart to gamble.

Sunday, 21 January, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Screw New York City. Screw Boston. Screw Florida. Rising sea levels do not concern me here in the Midwest.

I want warmer weather.

Bring it on.

hb

Tuesday, 23 January, 2007  
Blogger al fin said...

The problem with the headless reasoning that is so dominant around climate issues, is all the alarmist predictions are caricatures of what a good model actually predicts. The models have to be tweaked pretty badly to reach the "oh my god the sea levels are rising above the coastal cities, yadda, yadda, yadda."

Alarmism is what sells newspapers and TV shows, and it gets grant money these days. The more gullible always seem to fall for it.

Wednesday, 24 January, 2007  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts
``