Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Warming Hysteria: Sunspotless Days, Cooling and Bureaucracy

Since January 1, 2009 up to August 11, 174 out of 223 days or 78 percent of all days have zero sunspot. That’s very significant. Since 1849 or over the past 160 years, the top 5 years with highest sunspotless days were:

1. 1913, 311 days, 85%
2. 1901, 284 days, 78%
3. 1878, 278 days, 76%
4. 2008, 266 days, 73%
5. 1912, 253 days, 69%

Long number of zero sunspot days means (a) less solar magnetic field, less solar wind, (b) more cosmic rays enter the solar system including the Earth, weak solar wind to push them away, (c) more low-lying clouds are formed, lots of sunlight are blocked, and (d) global cooling results. Such cooling has nothing or very little to do with CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

There are a number of proof for the current global cooling. For instance, July 2009 was the coldest July or 2nd coldest July on record for at least 10 states in the US, see here, “July’s climate: chilly USA, torrid globe”, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-08-10-july-climate-report_N.htm.

Here in the Philippines, cloudy skies have been the norm since almost the start of the year. The summer months of March-April-May were sidestepped by the prolonged “cold front” that started in late 2008 to April this year. The rainy season came 1 ½ month earlier, in mid-April, instead of the usual July. A number of farms planted to “summer crops” like tomato, onions and water melon were destroyed because of such early onset of the rains.

Meanwhile, the UN IPCC is preparing to produce its 5th Assessment Report (AR5) and the UN FCCC is busy conducting various global meetings prior to the big meeting in Copenhagen this coming December for a “post-Kyoto Protocol” agreements to drastically cut global emission of the “evil” gas, carbon dioxide (CO2).

Until the IPCC and many governments later demonized CO2 as an evil gas, this gas is known in the biological sciences as a very useful gas. It’s the gas that we humans exhale, that our pets and farm animals exhale, and it’s the gas that our vegetables, fruits, flowers and trees need when they produce their own food via photosynthesis. It’s actually plant food.

Now the useful gas is pictured as evil that must be drastically reduced globally. Can environmental bureaucrats and politicians do it? Yes, they think they can. That’s why they invented the Kyoto Protocol, the UN FCCC, the various “anti-climate change” bureaucracies in so many governments, both national and local. And because their grand design is plain environmental regulations, they forget or they overlook the Sun, long-term planetary (changing) orbit around the sun, the cosmic rays, the ocean, and other natural causes. For them, only the evil CO2 matters. And they play the global hero by reducing and demonizing this gas and human economic activities that emit this “evil”.

Since more objective scientists (physicists, geologists, meteorologists, etc.) say that the IPCC was lying, and more scientific data – like more sunspotless days – come out to confirm their statement, who’s the real evil now?

Meanwhile, Is Bjorn Lomborg Switching Tack?

There was a news report that was posted by my friend here in Manila, saying that Bjorn Lomborg has "switched" tack on climate change. Mr. Lomborg was quoted as saying, "tackling sources of climate change other than carbon dioxide, such as methane and soot; investing in new tech nologies; adapting to the effects of climate change..."

Personally I have no problem with Bjorn's proposal. Deal with soot, methane, CFC, lead, carbon monoxide, particulates, mercury, etc. Good, we should do that.

Water vapor comprises about 95% of all greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere.
Methane, CFC, etc. comprise another 3-4 percent, and CO2 comprises just 1%.

We should have clean air, clean water, clean environment, mainly for their own sake.
Not to "save" the planet because the planet is never in danger.

My beef is when the UN through the IPCC and FCCC, many governments and the big environmentalist groups just focus on CO2, this is wrong. There is a carbon cap and trade system, it was worth $63 billion in 2007, $128 billion in 2008, and that was cap and trade among private corporations alone in the EU and Japan. Not included there are corporations in the US, canada, Australia, China, Brazil, India, Korea, etc. because some or all of them were either not signatory to the Kyoto Protocol yet, or were not covered by the deep carbon emission cut. Also not included are carbon taxes imposed by various governments. This is plain carbon rent-seeking. A non-commodity like the gas that we human exhale suddenly becomes a multi-billion dollar commodity?

As the Earth enters a little ice age period like what happened during the Dalton Minimum (2 centuries ago) or the even cooler and longer Maundeer Minimum (3 centuries ago), the rich world will soon be praying for more gases that can help warm the planet. When those rich countries will have snow from November to June and only 4 to 5 months of no-snow, I am sure they will be praying for more carbon emission, if CO2 indeed causes global warming.

Below is the news report.
------

Sceptic switches tack
By Fiona Harvey in London
Financial Times
Published: August 7 2009 00:00


Bjorn Lomborg, an influential figure among climate change sceptics, has thrown his weight behind a drive to forge a global deal to halt rising world temperatures at a summit in Copenhagen this year.


“It’s incredibly important. We need a global deal on the climate,” Mr Lomborg told the Financial Times.


The comments – from the author of the 2001 book The Sceptical Environmentalist and a 2007 follow-up saying climate change was less important than other world problems – are likely to be greeted with dismay by climate change sceptics who have seen him as an ally on the public stage...


Mr Lomborg argues, there are cheaper ways of halting temperature rises.


These include tackling sources of climate change other than carbon dioxide, such as methane and soot; investing in new tech nologies; adapting to the effects of climate change; planting more forests; and weighing up whether emissions cuts are cheaper to do now or later....

4 comments:

Brian from AU said...

thanks for that update
lets hope more people get the message - it's the sun stupid

Professor Mandia said...

One year, or a few years, does not climate make.

There has been no gobal cooling. The global warming is well underway.

See my Global Cooling page at my Global Warming: Man or Myth Website at:

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/

Nonoy Oplas said...

Thanks Prof., I have visited your blog. The statement you made "overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree" is not correct. At least two proof: (1) the "Petition Project" where 31,400+ US scientists declared early of this decade that anthropogenic global warming is wrong, that CO2 is not harmful. And (2) 800+ scientists signed the minority report in the US cap and trade bill, saying that AGW is wrong.

There is a big debate on-going, so there is no truth to statements that there is "consensus" or "majority of scientists agree."

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

One year does not climate make, but climate is an arbitrary definition of 30 years which bears no relation to the real world. It is just long enough to use to dismiss recent cooling, but not so long that it makes the recent warming look natural. What if climate was defined as 3 years? What if it was defined as 300 or 3000 or 30,000 ? What if the arbitrarily chosen 30 years causes people to miss longer and shorter cycles? I see they are now saying that we could have a temporary pause in warming for 10 or 20 years, but that warming will then return with a vengeance. This is not rational. It does not make sense. The only reason people still believe the theory is because the social dynamics of scientific institutions and hierarchy and professional respect. People who come at the problem purely in terms of the scientific method (not the sociological side) find the theory does not make sense. People wedded to the social aspects of the scientific hierarchies believe it just because they believe the social club.