Global Warming

Sun Gripped by a Bear Market?

I was browsing Planet Gore a while ago, when I ran across this provocative Headline:

The Sunspot Recession by Greg Pollowitz.

Pollowitz suggested perhaps the Obama Administration could direct the Treasury Department to print up another trillion or so in currency and rocket it into the sun as a ‘stimulus’ to get the solar cycle moving again – funny.

Drilling down a little more int the article, I found a link to an article comparing the current solar minimum to a Bear Market:

NASA: Sun Gripped by a Bear Market

The sun works on a pretty well known 11-year cycle of activity, all measured by sunspots and solar flares.

There were no sunspots observed on 266 days during 2008, or 73 percent of the time. The last year things were quieter was 1913, which had 311 spotless days. Some observers figured the solar cycle had hit bottom in 2008.

But like the stock market, the sunspot cycle is unpredictable. And just when astronomers thought it had hit bottom, it went lower. It has been a bear market for sunspots for many months now. That also means there have been no major space storms, which can zap satellites and threaten power grids on Earth.

“This is the quietest sun we’ve seen in almost a century,” said sunspot expert David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center.

But the sunspot recession is not over. Sunspot counts for 2009 have dropped even lower, the space agency announced today. As of March 31, there were no sunspots on 78 of the years 90 days (87 percent).

Solar storms pack charged particles that slam into our atmosphere and, when they penetrate, can cause a cascade of failures in satellites and power systems.

It matters because scientists would like to be able to predict when things will pick up, and when the next “solar maximum” will occur. At peak activity, tentatively expected in three or four years, more and more powerful solar storms up the odds of a satellite failure or a power grid malfunction.

Deep calm was fairly common a hundred years ago. The solar minima of 1901 and 1913, for instance, were even longer than the one were experiencing now. To match those minima in terms of depth and longevity, the current minimum will have to last at least another year.

For more information about solar effects on climate, visit the following links:

Ultimate Global Warming – SPF 2 Million Won’t Be Enough
Correlating Sunspots to Global Climate
Cosmic Rays, Solar Flux and Global Warming

One recent instance of cool weather:

A Snow-Bound Buick

Telling Graphics from ICCC

When the International Conference on Climate Change met last month in New York, the purpose was not that of politicizing climate change, but rather to present the actual and relevant science on the topic. John Hinderaker at Power Line wrote about the ICCC event in his post today. “Dispelling the Global Warming Myth.”

I found these two graphics to be highly informative – both serve to show the normal oscillatory behavior of the climate cycle. The second chart demonstrates how divergent the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data is from reasonable scientific expectations.

The first chart shows the actual temperature oscillations since the last great ice age, which was just about over some 12,000 years ago:

12,000 year temperature record

The second chart shows the oscillations after recovering from the little ice age with observed data for the last 130 years and projections in both directions on the time axis. Note the little green arrow which is pointing to a red dot where we are today – significantly below the so-called trend predicted by IPCC’s alarmists.

Little ice age recovery

Boxer’s Greenbat Agenda and Inhofe’s Reaction

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Chair is Democratic California Senator Barbara Boxer; the ranking committee member is Republican Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe. Recently, Boxer put forth a list of “principles” to address “Global Warming.” Inhofe, as usual, answered Boxer’s crazy shopping list with some sensible remarks.

Typical of the contents of the Democratic Platform, Boxer and her committee Democrats put forth the following rambling, nebulous list of ‘principles:’

  • To reduce emissions “to levels guided by science to avoid dangerous global warming” and to set targets that are “certain and enforceable,” as well as adjustable.
  • To maintain state and local anti-warming efforts.
  • To utilize a market-based system — that means cap-and-trade, as opposed to a carbon tax, which some economists favor to reduce emissions.
  • To use proceeds from the sales of emissions permits for a variety of uses, including: support for consumers, governments, businesses and workers (presumably to help offset higher energy prices under the system); investments in alternative energy; preserving wildlife and ecosystems threatened by warming; and money for developing nations to help them respond to warming.
  • To ensure a “level global playing field … so that countries contribute their fair share to the international effort to combat global warming.

Senator Inhofe responded with frankness and reality, in stark contrast to the vague list above:

“At a time when Congress is debating a near-term multi-billion-dollar bailout for the American economy, once again the Democrats are proposing principles for climate legislation that will impose a long-term multi-trillion-dollar energy tax on families and workers,” he said.

“As demonstrated last year, when it comes to drafting comprehensive climate legislation, the devil is in the details. These principles offer nothing more than a punt on all of the difficult issues that Americans expect to be honestly debated. Congressional cap-and-trade bills, often touted as an ‘insurance policy’ against global warming, would instead be nothing more than all economic pain for no climate gain. We look forward to debating these tough issues in the Committee this year.”

The emphasis above is mine.

Sage Quotations

On the Global Warming Resources page, I have included some ‘sage quotations’ attributes to a few of the smartest people in history. The purpose of including these is to demonstrate to modern greenbats (environmental alarmists) that their ‘consensus’ may be flawed due to violation of one or more of the principles these men advocated.

Leonardo Da VinciLeonardo Da Vinci has often been described as the archetype of the renaissance man, a man whose unquenchable curiosity was equaled only by his powers of invention. He is widely considered to be one of the greatest painters of all time and perhaps the most diversely talented person ever to have lived.

“Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.”
— Leonardo Da Vinci

Galileo GalileiGalileo Galilei, was a Tuscan physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher who played a major role in the Scientific Revolution. His achievements include improvements to the telescope and consequent astronomical observations, and support for Copernicanism. Galileo has been called the “father of modern observational astronomy”, the “father of modern physics”, and “the Father of Modern Science.”

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
— Galileo Galilei

Philip HandlerPhilip Handler, was an American Nutritionist and President of the National Academy of Science for 2 terms. Handler was also a recipient of the National Medal of Science. He also believed that experimental observation, judiciously and honestly conducted, is the first obligation of the experimental scientist and that theory must be compatible with observation, not the reverse.

“Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference; science and the nation will suffer.”
— Philip Handler, National Academy of Sciences

Michael CrichtonJohn Michael Crichton, M.D., was an American author, producer, director, and physician, best known for his work in the science fiction, medical fiction, and thriller genres. His books have sold over 150 million copies worldwide. As the creator of the TV series ER, most famously as the author of Jurassic Park, and its sequel The Lost World, which were both adapted into high grossing films and leading to the very successful franchise. In 1994 he became the only creative artist ever to experience chart-topping success in America with a film, a television series, and a novel, all at number one simultaneously.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
— Michael Crichton

Al Gore? James Hansen? IPCC? Are you idiots not listening to the sage advice from some of the smartest men in history?

Fiction Science

Planet GoreNot Science fiction, but the other way around – science that is based on fictitious evidence. That’s what the “consensus’ on global warming is.

We make a daily habit of reading the articles at National Review’s Planet Gore blog. There are several recent articles on Planet Gore that take Al Gore and his hyped stance on AGW to the woodshed:

A Chorus of AGW Skeptics

Al Gore‘s “scientific consensus” is starting to disintegrate. Statements to the effect of “the matter is already settled” are getting more and more difficult for many in the scientific community to endorse. 2008 is in the record books as overall being much cooler than the “experts” predicted.

Many who once embraced the possibility of anthropogenic global warming have recanted their positions. I’m guessing that they were in the bag for the alarmists, but now need to save their credibility when it is becoming obvious that we’re not headed into a global meltdown.

Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), recently delivered a report and a speech to the Senate, where he profiled the growing dissent among the scientific community; the Senator presented a groundbreaking minority report of more than 650 scientists dissenting from climate Fears.

Below the fold is an excerpt from Inhofe’s “Consensus in Freefall” speech; go down the page to the quotations from scientists formerly “in the bag:”

Continue reading…