Now What? Now Prepare For Dangerous Global Cooling?

Question

Read the sunspots
The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling
R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

View Larger Image
(See hardcopy for Chart/Graph)
Andrew Barr, National Post
Email to a friendPrinter friendly
Font:
*
*
*
*
Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.


Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.


In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.


In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change."

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

Answer 1

Expect to get hammered by Hybrid driving left wing nut jobs!

But I agree with this 100%.

Answer 2

I'm not sure what the question is, but I agree with the presentation as a scientific possibility as opposed to the "scientific fact" trumpeted by AGW alarmists.

Just to clarify for the present and future detractors - sunspots are not the only way to measure the effect of solar heating. I'm fairly certain that this question starts with the mention of sunspots to get people thinking in the right context - namely that sunspots are historically synonymous with measuring the sun's heat.

Of particular interest is the idea of solar winds affecting cloud formation. I don't know if it is an answer, but it demonstrates the need for research of all plausible variables before moving into the panic mode suggested by alarmists.

Answer 3

that's man made in case you think approximately Al Gore a guy. to those who have not got self assurance in worldwide warming and in simple terms relax and take this nonsense. end and think of. what's this hoax costing you? As a conservative estimate a pair of few thousand funds a 12 months. ok, so which you're wealthy you could arise with the funds for it!. nicely what concerning the youngsters in 0.33 worldwide countries who can no longer arise with the funds for it? Oh nicely if we can decrease earth's temperature .00000001 tiers (a huge if) that would not challenge you. Will it challenge you in the experience that your babies advance up residing in a worldwide similar to the nineteenth century?! Ask any economist and you will locate that if all the environmental wackos' proposals ever are observed that's the main possibly state of affairs!! So next time your community Congressman on Senator caves into this hoax enable them to appreciate your thoughts. enable's come again to worshipping God and not worshipping earth. Please observe that yet another argument for worldwide warming has bit the airborne dirt and mud. Scientists in simple terms stumbled on that the rationalization in the back of the lack of ice sheets on 2% of Antartica is by technique of a volcano deep below the ice. It erupted abount 2,000 years in the past and is maximum possibly erupting now. This makes the CBS record stated under look stupid via fact if the ice is melting that's brought about via a volcano and has no longer something by any ability to do with guy. except of course you opt for to purpose and instruct that burning fossil fuels reasons volcanoes.

Answer 4

Sun spots are a good explaination, especially when you know that their effects are feeled few years after the emission of chromatic waves. I remember in the 1990's that our province (Quebec) power grid has been disrupted by the occurence a huge explosion at its surface, at that time the sun was going trough a very active phase...
Aslo, new evidences point at the black snow that absorb much more sun radiation in the northern hemisphere than it normally use too. The snow become black after been toss aside in our street, mixing with dust and bitume. The finding was strong enough to ask our government to do something about it... And this I believe has much more influence than few particles of CO2 by the millions in our atmosphere...

As for the cause of the cooling, I am not sure I agree with it... We have trouble to know our own planet climate and we already make prediction for the sun activities.... Well I don't need that now..

Answer 5

Sunspots? OK so please explain why in the last few decades, when solar activity has been pretty constant, has the global average temperature been rising faster than at any other time in known history.

It would be wise to avoid biased websites that distort the truth and present opinion as fact. Sunspots occur in 11 year cycles, if they were the cause of global warming and cooling this too would occur in an eleven year cycle - it doesn't.

We can also measure precisely how much heat energy is received from the sun and we know that the difference between maxiumum and minimum outpur (insolation maxima and minima) is very small, a variation of less than one thousandth (1.3 Watts per square metre per year against a mean of 1366 W/m2/yr); not enough to cause any significant climatic shifts except over peiors of hundreds and thousands of years.

I read the first few words then looked at the source, this confirmed that the article would have no credibility. There are good sources of information for refuting global warming but unfortunately this isn't one of them.

Answer 6

This is why I hate the term "global warming." It's a misnomer. Yes, the climate changes. It has gone up and down since the dawn of time. There are many factors that influence them, only one of them being air pollution. Man-made air pollution is only one type of air pollution. Four volcanos once put out enough junk to give us a year with no summer.

There are other environmental problems to worry about, such as pollution of our water supply, depletion of fossil fuels, etc. Why waste our time worrying about climate change when one volcano could erupt and negate all our best efforts? Yes, we should keep the air clean but ranting about doing it to prevent the climate from changing is idiotic. We should do it because we want to breathe clean air. Furthermore, why did it take a political hypocrite with a propaganda film to get people to worry about the condition of our earth in the first place?

Answer 7

Ummm...... well, uh.......... OK..... ~I think. Yep. We should stop the ridiculous waste of money trying to change nature. Nature isn't broke, but there are those radical enviro~mental cases and 'global warming' doom sayers that continually squawk and cluck themselves into mass panic over nothing. Should we then save a whole bunch of money and just built a secure chicken little coop to keep them in? We could capture the head pecker al gore, put him in it, and they would flock to him like the dumb clucks they are, thus saving more money on rounding them up. What do you think? You sound like a pretty smart guy. Would that work?
The rest of us smart people can get umbrellas to keep the sun off of us and enough winter clothes and snow tires for winter time to get us by. We can use the extra corn the clucks were growing for alcohol to feed the coop critters, too.

Answer 8

I think you are on the right track. I do not think that there is only one factor in climate change. Neither sun spots nor green house gases explain everything that affects our climate. Would it be alright with you if we paid a little attention to the green house gases and at the same time prepared for a mini ice age?

Russia is going to be so disappointed when there is no global warming. I think they were looking forward to having some additional ports open up all year near the pole. That would have made oil shipments easier for them.

Thanks for the info.

Answer 9

1

Answer 10

I hafta agree with"=^_^=". Not only is she smart and Hot, she is also correct. So much is put into perpetuating the global warming farce, real pollution prevention and cleanup falls by the wayside.

To answer your question though ..................................

Dang It! you answered it your self. That's not how this works, now Trevor looks like an Idiot. Oh well I like the information though. Thanks