« | »

Even Dimmer Sun Won’t Stop G Warming

From the (apparently crackpot) New Scientist:

The sun sets behind Faisal Mosque on New Year’s Eve in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad December 31, 2008.

Danger ahead as the Sun goes quiet

07 January 2009 by David Shiga

THE sun’s ability to shield the solar system from harmful cosmic rays could falter in the early 2020s, just in time to threaten the health of NASA astronauts as they return to the moon.

As well as the 11-year cycle of sunspots and solar flares, the sun’s activity experiences longer-term shifts lasting several decades. The sun is currently in a long-term high, having been relatively active for nearly a century, but it is not known when this will end.

To find out, a team led by Jose Abreu of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology in Duebendorf analysed 66 long-term highs from the past 10,000 years, as recorded in fluctuating levels of rare isotopes such as beryllium-10 in ice cores from Greenland. These are produced when cosmic rays break down the nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen atoms in the Earth’s atmosphere. Production of these isotopes peaks when the sun is inactive, as the weaker solar wind lets more cosmic rays enter the solar system, which hit the Earth.

Based on the duration of past highs, and the fact that the current one has already lasted 80 years, the team has calculated that its most likely total lifetime is between 95 and 116 years, and they suspect the high will probably end at the shorter end of this range (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2008GL035442).

Records of the sun’s brightness during the 20th century show that it gets slightly dimmer when it is less active, so could a long-term reduction in activity help to offset global warming? No such luck, says Nigel Weiss from the University of Cambridge, who is a member of Abreu’s team. While there is a rough correspondence between a period of very low activity from 1645 to 1715 and the middle of a period of lower average global temperatures lasting from the late 16th to mid 19th century, leading some to suggest a causal link, this correlation could be a coincidence, Weiss says.

Weiss also points out that the sun’s brightness changes only slightly with variations in activity. If the sun does dim slightly in the coming decades, he says, this would only reduce the warming expected due to human-induced climate change by 0.1 °C. "It might be discernible, but it would be a blip rather than a major change," he says. "It is nothing [compared] with the global warming that is now being produced through pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

Those most likely to be affected would be astronauts. Beyond the Earth’s protective magnetic field, their exposure to the increased cosmic rays let into the solar system due to a weaker solar wind could cause cancer and fertility loss. One benefit to astronauts would be a decline in the number of solar flares.

David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, says the evidence for past lulls is strong, but he is sceptical about the team’s attempt to predict the arrival of the next one. "This is a little like trying to predict when someone’s winning streak will end," he says. "We know that it will happen, but reliable predictions are virtually impossible."

It’s official.

Things really are hopeless if even a dimmer sun won’t stop Global Warming.

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “Even Dimmer Sun Won’t Stop G Warming”

  1. crosspatch says:

    December 2008 was cooler than December of 1987 globally. Significantly so in the Northern Hemisphere. The heat from all the “global warming” since 1987 is gone. It no longer exists. It isn’t hiding, it isn’t “masked”, it has simply radiated into space. The oceans are not warmer, the seas have been in a slight receding trend since 2006, global sea ice levels are at about average, glaciers in Alaska are advancing, snow levels in Europe are the highest in a generation.

    But the main point is that global temperature levels are now less than they were when “global warming” forecasts were issued. This one key fact, therefore, invalidates the entire lot of forecasts, models, predictions, etc. There simply is no global warming. It isn’t happening.

    Al, it’s over. Time to go.

    But before you go, Al, have a look at this PDF.

    • proreason says:

      “The heat from all the “global warming” since 1987 is gone”

      Not gone. The hot air was captured by AlToad for future pontification.

  2. bill says:

    Yes, but the snow, the ice, the bone chilling cold, yeah that might do the hoax in.

    Who made the famous prediction that the Arctic would be ice free summer 2008? Now the sea ice is right back to where it was, and more, when were first able to measure sea ice extent in 1979. Imagine tat — poof the hoax is dead.

  3. Liberals Demise says:

    Anyone care to stick a rectal thermometer in Washington, P.C. to see just where the “G” warming has gone?

  4. DGA says:

    The ‘New Scientist’ is like that ‘New math” then?

    “Darn it”, says Al gore, “why didn’t that warm spell last JUST long enough for me to finally cripple the sorry bastards that didn’t elect me in 2000? Oh well, if I can’t pull it off, obama will do the job for me and finish this country off once and for all!”

    • proreason says:

      Global Warming is the Aristocracy’s way of controlling the upstart capitalists. AlToad doesn’t want to destroy the country, he only wants to make sure that grimy businessmen and other people who actually have to work to make a living are never able to join the new Aristocracy.

      Al, the Kennedy’s, Kerry’s and Pelosi’s of the world like it better when the unwashed can’t accumulate enough money to challenge their authority. Carbon Credits, high taxes and periodic market crashes are the way to do it.

  5. sheehanjihad says:

    human beings cannot start, or stop a solar cycle. The “experts” want you to believe that your sacrifice…(your’s, not their’s)….to give up almost every creature comfort you have will save mankind from itself.

    It’s a manufactured paste over to obfuscate the obvious scam being played out for only one purpose: MONEY! To create a nefarious “problem” that cant be refuted in today’s PC liberal media, and offering the public a way to “cure” it by paying carbon credits and spending billions more on grossly inefficient alternate energy does what?

    It gives the new age liberals a chance to advertise in a gigantic infomercial from hell all of the technologies they can call “green”, which is the color of the money they are reaping from this charade….and prevent proven and cheaper technologies from being funded and capitalized.

    Save the planet is pure unadulterated bullcrap. Save your money and give it to us is more like it. For those of you old enough, first it was “global cooling”, then “global warming”, now the sun is getting dimmer, next, our galaxy is tilting to the left….anything, ANYTHING to keep the hoax alive.

    The bovine flatulence problem they screech about is nothing compared to what is flowing from their mouths…..”the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Pay us, we can stop it by making you give up everything and pay us!!! We’re all gonna die!” bull sh*t

    • GuppyNblue says:

      “It’s a manufactured paste over to obfuscate the obvious scam being played out for only one purpose: MONEY!”

      And I don’t know how it could be any more obvious. A second generation professional politician (who’s father was in the pocket of a communist) preaches snake oil science and makes millions doing it. And liberals laugh at southerner’s televangelists.

      I also remember impending world hunger and pandemics. The real threat to the world is liberalism.

    • proreason says:

      It’a more about power than money.

      The elite want to control business, because business is the biggest threat to their position of power.

      Ergo…..cap and trade…..the perfect method to keep any business under the aristocrats’ thumb.

      This is also what is behind the stimulus packages and high taxes. It’s not about helping the economy, it’s about controlling the unwashed. The stimuls packages are just tax generators, and the elite will always avoid paying taxes. When they talk about soaking “the rich”, they don’t mean themselves. They mean working people who make good salaries and are threatening to encroach on the elite. The real rich hardly pay any taxes at all.

      This is also what is behind the din about “regulations”. Regulations are another way to control business. Most regulations actually damage business. It’s deliberate.

      The elite don’t care that much about accumulating more money. They have plenty. They care about maintaining their position at the top of the pyramid (and flattening the pyramid so threats to the elites status and power are diminished).

      Their ideal is a two-class society. “Them”: wealthy, untouchable, in control; and “Us”: with no chance to threaten Them.

    • GuppyNblue says:

      I hear you but I believe these are the kind of people who equate money with power. Look at the Clinton’s incredible lust for money. It runs parallel to their lust for power. Also, I see a lot market watchers that make predictions based on smart economics but don’t pay as much attention to the ideological happenings that can effect an economy. Communism for instance.

      Personally, I believe that if money is all you want, then money is all you’ll ever be worth.

  6. Colonel1961 says:

    Well, at least a little common sense from our local NASA office (MSFC)… thank goodness.

    And in case anyone has missed my previous rants about AGW: it’s the Sun spots, stupid.

  7. proreason says:

    Guppy, I don’t dispute at all that money is a big motivation for many, but i am suggesting that once people like AlToad and the Clintonista’s get their’s then their motivation becomes power and control.

    I’ve just latched onto this concept recently and I think it is a bit like the Sorcerer’s Stone. It explains so much.

    Why are so many rich people liberals when it seems obvious that conservatism is a better way to protect their wealth? Because they have enough, and they are more interested in making sure others can’t become rich than they are in accumulating more.

    Why are so many rich people socialists when their money was accumulated through capitalism? Because Socialism provides the means maintain their money and power by suppressing the unwashed.

    Why are people in Communist countries in an unbreakable cycle of poverty when socialism is supposed to end poverty? Because the real intent of Socialism / Communism is to gain a stranglehold on power. Claiming to eliminate poverty is the hook for the marks.

    So taxing the “rich” and income redistribution is about holding people DOWN, not lifting people UP. It’s political ju-jitsu to create a new aristocrat class.

    And this sillly Global Warming hoax that any child can see through is the current scam. It disguises the whole scheme behind the laudable concept of “protecting the environment”. Well, ask Teddy about protecting the environment. Not when the windmills ruin HIS view, for sure.

  8. Confucius says:

    Do I still need to worry about my light bulb?

« Front Page | To Top
« | »