Monthly Archives: December 2010

Sun and Climate Change -PART 2: Sunspots


Following up from the previous posting, Sun and Climate Change Part 1-Solar Activity, we will continue to examine the connection between the Sun and the Earth’s climate.

Sun’s Magnetic Field

On average, the Sun’s magnetic field is thought to be only about twice as strong as Earth’s magnetic field. The magnetic field is generated by the rotation of the Sun acting like a giant electromagnet.  But it has local fields of enormous strength, something in the range of 8000 times greater that Earth’s field.  It is believed that the cause of these local fields is the differential rotation of the Sun’s latitudes.  The observed rotation at the equator is 25 days and near the poles about 35 days is due to the fact that the Sun is made up of plasma and hot gases.  This results in the magnetic field becoming twisted and erupting from the surface in these local fields.  Where this enormous magnetic force exists, you find Sunspots, flares, and coronal mass ejections (CME). The Sun has a cycle of about 11 years from minimum to maximum and back to minimum magnetic activity.  This cycle can be observed by the numbers of Sunspots formed on the surface of the Sun.   During a cycle, the Sunspot number increase until the Sun’s polarity “flips”.  The Sun’s magnetic polar north flips and points south.  This usually is the point at which the so-called solar maximum is reached. The activity on the Sun begins to decrease.  The cycle eventually reaching a point where very few Sunspots are observed.  This is the completion of a cycle.

Sunspots

Sunspots are the product of the enormous magnetic fields (thousands of times stronger than Earths magnetic field) created on the Sun. They appear as dark spots.   The Spots are cooler than the surrounding surface of the Sun.  NASA says that the Spots are about 3700K versus 5700K for the surrounding photosphere.

Sunspots are probably not the best indicators of the Sun’s activity but the better indicators have little history where as Sunspots have been recorded for hundreds of years. What make them especially interesting is that the Earth’s climate and Sunspots have a high degree of correlation.   Periods where the Earth’s climate has cooled off appear to coincide with periods of few Sunspots and periods of warmer climate seem to coincide with periods of high Sunspot counts.

Chart Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The telescopic recording of Sunspots began  with Galileo using the newly invented telescope to observe the sunspots in 1610.  He and later others began to count the sunspots.

When a solar cycle is forecast, the y-axis is usually Sunspot numbers and the x-axis is time.   The current solar cycle is 24.   On the chart below, the blue line is the monthly average of Sunspots. It shows  cycle 23 declining from its high and then cycle 24 as it begins to rise.  The orange line was the predicted shape of cycle 24 by NASA experts but the actual Sunspot numbers are lower than forecast. The experts have found it necessary to continue to reduce the numbers (height) of the forecast monthly Sunspot numbers.  In 2006 they forecast a height of cycle 24 at a sunspot number of 156 to 180. The following chart is from a posting by Anthony Watts on his blog,  WattsUpWithThat and can be seen here.

The following chart shows the latest  (Dec 2010) prediction of NASA and how they have found it necessary to continue to lower their expectations over time to new “high Sunspot number” of 64!!!  Although some people think they have a system that allows them to predict these numbers, its clear that no one knows enough to make any forecast that’s good enough to bet on it. The NASA forecast has been downgraded four times since the March 2006 prediction.

(The chart courtesy of Ira Glickstein on WUWT blog and can be seen here.)

There is one additional factor that the reader needs to be aware of, and that is comparing Sunspot counts of old and those of today could be problematic.   The pinpricks that are counted on the sun today with the high-powered equipment were probably not even noticed in years past.   So when it is reported that the sunspot count during period of the Maunder Minimum in lower than today, you cannot be sure we are comparing apples and apples.   Some discussion about this variable can be found here.

But no matter how you count them, the cycle 24 sunspots are out of the norm. Cycle 24 is being compared to Cycle 5 which occurred at the time of the Daulton Minimum.  The indications are Earth’s  climate is in for a period of cooling.

cbdakota

 

Advertisements

Sun and Climate Change -PART 1: SOLAR ACTIVITY


Two years ago, this December, I wrote an essay titled “Sun and Climate Change”.   The essay opened with this summary statement:

Climate change has always been underway on Earth.  Periods of cooling, then warming, then cooling, etc. are historical facts.  These changes, over millions of years, have had natural causes that do not include burning of fossil fuels.

Correlation might mean causation.  But no correlation clearly means no causation.  The ice core and ocean bottom core data that provide a look back into time, show that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) lags global temperature change.  It says that CO2 begins to increase after the global temperature begins to increase and it decreases after the temperature decreases.  So CO2 does not cause temperature to change. Yes, I am aware that CO2 plays a small role as a greenhouse gas.  But it is water, in the form of vapor and clouds, which does 90% of the greenhouse work.

The Sun, however, has correlation with climate change.  After many years of low solar activity (known as the Sporer, Maunder and Dalton Minimums), a comparatively cool climatic period followed that lasted from 1450 to 1820.  This cool period is known as The Little Ice Age. Then came many years of increasingly greater solar activity that stretched into the 20th century.  Some solar scientists say that this period has been the most active in the last 11,000 years.  Global warming has been a consequence of these more active, recent solar cycles.

So where are we now?   At the moment, the global temperature is falling.  The global temperature is cooler now than it was at the end of the last century.  Figure 1, shows how the global temperature has been declining. The solar activity is down; in fact, August 2008 was the first calendar month in 100 years that no sunspots were recorded.  Sunspots appear to be a reliable proxy for solar activity.   Will this period of cooling last? I don’t know.  I hope that we do not descend into another Ice Age, Little or Big. I would rather have warming.  What I am reasonably confident of is that fossil fuel use restrictions (in order to reduce atmospheric CO2) will make little difference relative to global warming.  I am reasonably confident that the Sun is the critical player here and there is little we can do to change whatever the Sun decides to do.  Even though the exact mechanism linking the Sun and global climate change has not yet been definitively established, it is kind of like gravity–it is obvious even if we cannot fully define it.

Two years later some tweaking could be done to the preceding but for the most part it is accurate and further, the intervening time has provided even more compelling evidence.

Solar Activity,  Solar magnetism, Solar cycles, and Sunspots will be discussed in this and future postings.

SOLAR ACTIVITY

A new peer-reviewed paper was recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research:  (the source is the Blog IceCap.  To read more click here)

...that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600’s during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries. The TSI is estimated to have increased 1.25 W/m2 since the Maunder minimum ………..

It remarkable that the authors say that most of the warming since 1850 can be accounted for by the increase in solar activity:

Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase [the HADCRU global warming from 1850 to 2000 is .55C].

The paper is Reconstruction of solar spectral irradiance since the Maunder Minimum, by N.A. Krivova, L.E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki

Journal of Geophysical Research

For more on this topic see Sun and Climate Change Part 2 Sun Spots

cbdakota

CANCUN AND WORLD GOVERNMENT–PART 2


From my preceding posting Cancun and World Government—-the meeting in Cancun makes the assumption that emitted CO2 is causing harm to undeveloped or underdeveloped nations.  To make amends for this, the developed nations are to pay reparations to the other nations.  The “Chairman’s note” in the previous blog shows the UN would manage these payments which could be as large as 1.5% of GDP.

NOW WHAT COULD BE WRONG WITH ALL OF THAT, YOU ASK?   Let me count the ways:

1.  There is no scientific evidence that CO2 has or will cause any significant “harm”.  I suppose one could argue that anything that keeps the world from going into another Ice Age is a welcome addition.  And for those advocates of the Precautionary Principle, why not contribute of some activity or fund that might prevent a new Ice Age.  In either direction, hot or cold, I don’t believe your contributions will be able to reverse the direction.

2.  We do know that the underdeveloped and undeveloped nations have been blessed by the developed countries.  Great advances available to all peoples of the world in medicine, chemistry, mathematics, and literature are (for the period of time of the warmist concerns about CO2) products of the developed nations.   Using the Noble Prize as a parameter, the top winners are shown in the chart below as well as several examples of the contribution by some of the loudest wanting reparations:

Nation Total Prizes Won Less Peace and Lit
USA 326 296
UK 115 95
Germany 102 86
France 57 33
Venezuela 1

Bolivia 0 0

Excluding literature and Peace is a questionable exercise but when I see that in this decade, the Peace prize has been won by Obama, Gore and Carter, one has to wonder what value that prize is to anyone.

One also wonders why Venezuela, for example, being a big producer, user and exporter of oil is somehow not classified as one of the payers of reparations rather than a recipient as they see themselves.  Is this the “drug producer and supplier” proviso—you know it’s not their fault it is only the users fault.

Thinking about medicine and health, don’t they owe us a lot for saving the lives of millions?  Real lives, not these hypothetical lost lives the IPCC keeps coming up with.   Polio almost eliminated everywhere.  Small Pox a thing of the past.   Malaria deaths could be down significantly if environmentalists got out of the way.   HIV death rates in reverse everywhere.  Don’t they owe us for all the advances in their lives resulting from the inventions, all the advances in science as well? Click here to see Prize distribution.

3.   Giving the UN money is the surest way to see that it gets into the wrong hands.  Need I remind you of the Iraq Oil for Food program?  I believe that the UN may have the biggest collection of scammers ever to be in one organization.

4.   The UN is made up of countries that are not democratic or only partially democratic.  The Nobel Organization has a nice slide show illustrating the nations that are democratic and those that are not.   In large measure, democracy is the form of government of the successful nations in this world.   The advances in world knowledge come fundamentally from these countries.  The Nobel Prizes illustrate this.

There are only 4 nations in the world that state that they are not democracies.  They are Vatican City, Saudi Arabia, Burma and Brunei.  But in fact most of Asia, with the notable exception of India, and most of Africa with the notable exception of The Republic of South Africa are populated by countries that may have “democratic republic” in their nation’s title but they are not democratic in any sense.  The Slideshow I mentioned says that 3 billion people live in democracies and 3.6 million do not.  I do not want the majority of the world’s people running the UN now, and surely don’t want that organization to be running this country.

To see the slideshow, click here.

Apparently, President Obama’s representatives are in cahoots with these thieves at the Cancun meeting.  Write your Congressional Members and tell we want no part of this reparations plan.

cbdakota

CANCUN AND WORLD GOVERNMENT


The Cancun UN global warming meeting is nearly over.  This is a political get-to-gather where the focus is to extract monies from the developed nations to pay for the harm caused by them to the undeveloped or underdeveloped nations.  This “harm” is the result of the CO2 these developed nations have emitted.  While there is no proof that such harm has actually occurred, never you mind, they want the money in any event.

In Christopher Monckton’s posting on the Science & Public Policy Institute, he summarizes a “33-page Note (FCCC/AWGLCA/2010/CRP.2) by the Chairman of the “Ad-Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”, entitled Possible elements of the outcome, reveals all.”

Selected parts of Monckton’s summary is as follows:

Finance: Western countries will jointly provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to an unnamed new UN Fund. To keep this sum up with GDP growth, the West may commit itself to pay 1.5% of GDP to the UN each year. That is more than twice the 0.7% of GDP that the UN has recommended the West to pay in foreign aid for the past half century. Several hundred of the provisions in the Chairman’s note will impose huge financial costs on the nations of the West.

The world-government Secretariat: In all but name, the UN Convention’s Secretariat will become a world government directly controlling hundreds of global, supranational, regional, national and sub-national bureaucracies. It will receive the vast sum of taxpayers’ money ostensibly paid by the West to the Third World for adaptation to the supposed adverse consequences of imagined (and imaginary) “global warming”.

Bureaucracy: Hundreds of new interlocking bureaucracies answerable to the world-government Secretariat will vastly extend its power and reach.

Monckton relates what is missing from the Chairman’s note:

Omissions: There are several highly-significant omissions, which jointly and severally establish that the central intent of The Process no longer has anything to do with the climate, if it ever had. The objective is greatly to empower and still more greatly to enrich the international classe politique at the expense of the peoples of the West, using the climate as a pretext, so as to copy the European Union by installing in perpetuity what some delegates here are calling “transnational perma-Socialism” beyond the reach or recall of any electorate. Here are the key omissions:

· The science: The question whether any of this vast expansion of supranational power is scientifically necessary is not addressed. Instead, there is merely a pietistic affirmation of superstitious faith in the IPCC, where the conference will “recognize that deep cuts in global [greenhouse-gas] emissions are required according to science, and as documented in the [IPCC’s] Fourth Assessment Report.

The economics: There is no assessment of the extent to which any of the proposed actions to mitigate “global warming” by cutting emissions of carbon dioxide or to adapt the world to its consequences will be cost-effective. Nor, tellingly, is there any direct comparison between mitigation and adaptation in their cost-effectiveness: indeed, the IPCC was carefully structured so that mitigation and adaptation are considered by entirely separate bureaucracies producing separate reports, making any meaningful comparison difficult. Though every economic analysis of this central economic question, other than that of the now-discredited Lord Stern, shows that mitigation is a pointless fatuity and that focused adaptation to the consequences of any “global warming” that may occur would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective, the Cancun conference outcome will continue to treat mitigation as being of equal economic utility with adaptation.

· Termination: Contracts have termination clauses to say what happens when the agreement ends. Nothing better illustrates the intent to create a permanent world-government structure than the absence of any termination provisions whatsoever in the Cancun outcome. The Process, like diamonds, is forever.

Democracy: Forget government of the people, by the people, for the people. Forget the principle of “no taxation without representation” that led to the very foundation of the United States. The provisions for the democratic election of the new, all-powerful, legislating, tax-raising world-government Secretariat by the peoples of the world may be summarized in a single word: None.

Joanne Nova posts on her blog, using Monckton’s information, what it will cost the US, Aussie and Brits if the recommended 1.5% of GDP is agreed to:

The UN wants nothing less than 1.5% of our GDP.

That’s $212 billion from the USA every year ($2700 per family of 4).

That’s $32 billion from the UK every year ($2000 per family of 4).

That’s $13 billion from Australia every year ($2400 per family of 4).

Figures calculated from the CIA world Factbook

To read Monckton’s posting in detail click here

To read Joanne Nova’s posting in more detail, click here.

For more on this topic see Cancun and World Government part 2

cbdakota

AM I MADDER AT MYSELF OR OBAMA?–Wikileaks


Those State Department Wikileaks  that discuss anthropogenic global warming (AGW) show  the Obama Administration plotting to torpedo the UN global warming Pact as much as six months prior to the December 2009  Copenhagen Climate Change summit.  I am mad at myself, because I was unable to figure out the reasons for the failure.  I thought failure of the UN proposal at the Copenhagen summit was a result of the release of the Climategate Emails and the belief that the US Congress would not pass Cap and Trade nor ratify any climate treaty.  But all along it was Obama’s folks out there buying votes.  Well  I did not know,  but a lot of countries did.  They were lining up at the State Department’s door to get their share of our money.

It appears that the US and the EU concluded that the price to play the global warming scam was too high using the UN’s proposed Pact.  That Pact would have made Robin Hood look like a piker doing the “take from the rich and give to the poor” routine.

But I am mad at Obama and all those countries that clearly demonstrate  once again, that the faulty science of AGW does not concern them.  They are in it for the money and the control.

So, I have an answer to my opening question.  My actions did not hurt anyone.  Obama’s, at a high cost, continued to perpetuate the fraud that is AGW.

A posting by the UK Guardian (Guardian is supportive of AGW) ,  discusses their findings as they searched through the leaked State Dept. files.  It seems that the US and the EU wanted what was later called the Copenhagen Accord.   Both the original UN Pact and the Accord contained restrictions on CO2 emissions and offered reparations to those nations that were being or would be “devastated” by AGW.  The difference seemed to be how big the reparations would be and how large the CO2 reductions would be.   There are 193 voting bodies in the UN,  most  would be recipients of the reparations.   By February 2010,  according to the last set of Wikileaks,  140 now support the Copenhagen Accord.

The method used to achieve this “success”  is pretty chilling.  From the Guardian posting is this:

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial “Copenhagen accord”, the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.

Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries’ negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental “treaty circumvention” and deals between nations.

The full posting by the Guardian can be read by clicking here.

For those readers who still think that the AGW leaders really care about the science,  stay tuned for the following quotes posted on the American Thinker Blog:

Indeed, for nearly 50-years the U.N. has formulated its own unique brand of “social justice” under the guise of “saving the planet” by demonizing one byproduct of Western economic growth or another.  Carbon Dioxide is, of course, merely the devil’s derivative du jour.

Now, a high-ranking member of the U.N’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has admitted that climate policy has little to do with environmental protection.

On Sunday, Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and IPCC Co-chair of Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change, told the Neue Zürcher Zeitung (translated) that “climate policy is redistributing the world’s wealth” and that “it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization.”

Edenhofer went on to explain that in Cancun, the redistribution of not only wealth but also natural resources will be negotiated, adding that:

The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.

To read the full posting click here.

cbdakota