backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 228 comment(s) - last by nofumble62.. on Mar 1 at 12:34 PM


A typical sunspot compared to the size of the earth. Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.

Henrik Svensmark explains the SKY experiment  (Source: Dr. Nir Shaviv)
Global Cooling comes back in a big way

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum,"  along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures.  Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.

Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.

Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.

However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.

Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS,
says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Scientific Literacy
By General Disturbance on 2/9/2008 3:45:36 PM , Rating: 3
What is really disappointing about stories like this are the comment that follow. It is not too bold to say that scientific illiteracy is (one of) the first world's greatest threat.
This is simply one piece of information among many, and none of us here are qualified to make sweeping statements about the truth/fallacy of entire fields of scientific study. Even individuals within the field aren't qualified to do that.

I like John McCain's approach: whether or not global warming is real, the tenets of following a global warming sensitive lifestyle and society - i.e., clean up and reduce pollution, conserving wilderness, planting trees, etc - is still a good thing for us to start really taking seriously and putting effort into, if only to leave our descendants a healthy, clean, and rich planet. Why would anyone reasonably want to do less than that?




RE: Scientific Literacy
By AlexWade on 2/9/2008 4:28:30 PM , Rating: 5
The main problem is that hardline global warming eco-nazis aren't taking the sensible approach. They want to go green at any and all costs. The less radical ones just want to destroy our economy (i.e. the UN IPCC); the more radical ones want to kill millions of humans. The less hardline environmentalists want more money or more votes or more ratings. All of them are a money pit. It would be far better to feed the homeless.

The sensible thing to do promote conservation for our health and for our economy, not because of this sham called climate change. But most environmentalists aren't sensible. In fact, most, but not all, religions aren't sensible at all. Environmentalism is indeed a religion where God is nature.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 5:34:54 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The sensible thing to do promote conservation for our health and for our economy, not because of this sham called climate change.


There are all sorts of causes they could be championing; instead of giving to GreenPeace, they could be donating to kiva.org. Instead of protesting global warming, they could protesting for the Doha round of international trade talks. Instead of having hot dreams about CO2 emission taxes, they could be writing their congressmen about energy independence and writing their local city, county and state elected officials about stronger urban growth planning.

Unfortunately, microfinance seems to be all the buzz only within the business community (I've never heard anyone from a different background mention it), liberal whackos show up to every G8 meeting with massive protests**, and energy independence and city planning takes a back-seat to campaigning for increased reliance on the welfare state.

**: And then after they leave the protest, they go buy "Fair Trade" tea thinking it helps some third-world farmer, when all it really does is benefit one farmer while making all his neighbors that much more poor. Ignorance is bliss, though.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Tsuwamono on 2/9/2008 6:28:57 PM , Rating: 3
sorry just wanted to comment on the last paragraph about fair trade tea. I am the kind of person where i pretty much sit and shut up until i respond to something i know what im talking about. Maybe you should do the same. Fair Trade tea/coffee is done through conglomerates of farmers. So his neighbor is 99% of the time part of the same group as him which means he is 99% of the time making the same amount of money providing he has the same amount of land.

Before you start calling people ignorant maybe you should do alittle research on fair trade items.

For example coffee. I believe farmers make about 1$ a kib which is a large bag probably about 30-40 pounds i would say. then Nestle turns around and sells you that coffee in a 500gram container for 7$. Now the reason for this is because of all the middle men between the farmer and the local grocery store. What fair trade does is it only puts one middle man who takes care of all the steps in between and manages to actually make the fair trade coffee CHEAPER for the end consumer and about 500% more profitable for the farmer.

www.wikipedia.com ftw. use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.

NOTE: i did not comment on the rest of your post as i am not qualified to form a proper opinion on the subject. Take a hint.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By masher2 (blog) on 2/9/2008 7:03:15 PM , Rating: 3
> "[it] manages to actually make the fair trade coffee CHEAPER for the end consumer..."

If "fair trade" products are cheaper and of better quality, why would you even need to separately label them as such? Consumers generally go for the best deal.

The only fair trade agricultural products I've ever seen were more than twice as expensive as competing brands.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Tsuwamono on 2/9/2008 11:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
well in montreal 90% of the time its cheaper. i have found anyway.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By theflux on 2/10/2008 1:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
You berated him for talking about something he shouldn't have, and then you try to back your own claims up with anecdotal evidence.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By spluurfg on 2/18/2008 3:39:35 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting. I would have figured large companies with lower costs for raw materials with well developed distribution networks could probably find a way to sell me coffee cheaper. Must be good to be the middleman, huh?

Are you sure you aren't comparing instant coffee to ground coffee meant for making coffee? That might explain the premium -- though I don't wish to insult your intelligence, if there really is a price difference I believe you.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/9/2008 7:04:38 PM , Rating: 2
My sister-in-law is very heavily into fair trade co-op llama wool from Ecuador. It's exactly what it sounds like. From what I hear though, its a God-send to the people in the co-op though.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By Ringold on 2/9/2008 10:25:23 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.


Wikipedia is, of course, the tome of all human knowledge, right? Anyway, if you bothered to read the wiki entry, it does in fact include a "criticism" section. You should read it.

The primary complaint is exactly what I stated; price distortion that benefits, as you said and those that posted after you, those blessed enough to be in the system. However, the price support for them drives up production, lowering the market price for everyone else. A related effect, not noted in the wiki, is that "FairTrade" products are differentiated at the consumer level, thus not just lowering the market price but reducing demand for non-FairTrade coffee. Supply and demand, price floors.. thats Econ 101 stuff, not calculus.

The best counter-argument the wiki offers is related to that; it should exist because people want "socially responsible" products. If the people want it, the market provides it. However, as Milton Friedman would point out, a free market is the closest to fair as one can get.

When liberal, libertarian, and conservative think tanks all show up in the criticisms, along with The Economist, that should tip you off. Bipartisan realization that you don't get something for nothing beyond what the free market could offer itself.

The Economist article it links to also beats up on the organic and domestic-farmer crowds, both of which don't stand up at all to even simple economic analysis. It also notes, as Masher did, that there is a price premium on the products and that only 10% of that premium goes to the farmers, which is radically different then what you said.

The wiki notes a Michigan study that states the following:
"However, fair trade is not a panacea, and it does not bring the majority of participants out of poverty. (...) Demand for fair trade products must increase dramatically in order to augment the economic benefits for such small farmer families and allow the system to include many more producers of coffee and other commodities around the world." It also notes the benefits. I also like how it points out their costs are higher because they get dual certification with the "organic" sham.

If you want to take a wide view of it, it's not all bad. Obviously, when you give money away to people, it'll help those directly involved. The problems, however, can't be ignored nor can they be disproven. With the astounding agflation going on in the world (thanks to the ethanol sham) one also has to ponder its relevance compared to various forms of FDI when its the urban poor in the developing world now suffering.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By boobot on 2/10/2008 1:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
Did someone just reference a wikipedia for the "all knowing" truth? :(


RE: Scientific Literacy
By encryptkeeper on 2/11/2008 4:51:36 PM , Rating: 1
www.wikipedia.com ftw. use it before you start calling people ignorant when in fact you are ignorant.

Actually, it's .ORG.

Moron.

And anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows you have to take any info on Wikipedia with a grain of salt.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By TaddPeake on 2/13/2008 3:26:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... all the middle men between the farmer and the local grocery store. What fair trade does is it only puts one middle man who takes care of all the steps in between ...


That's some middleman! More like a superman.

For most of the victuals on our shelves, between the grower and the checkout, large numbers of people are employed to scout, purchase raw materials, store, ship, transport, process, test, taste, package, market, deliver, stock, finance, organize, manage, and assume risk for damaged-stolen-lost-unsold product.

Then there are the middlemen who design, finance, build, run and staff stores, markets, bodegas, gourmet boutiques and quick shops, maintain stock, advertise availability, heat-cool, light, protect, maintain, pay wages, train, insure and provide retirement-health-unemployment benefits for all that activity. I'm sure I've left a few middlemen out.

It's time to include remedial business courses in high schools and colleges along with general math, science, language and history. That could help to dispel the Myth of The Expendable Middleman, Without Whom Nearly Everything Would Be Fair and Free.



RE: Scientific Literacy
By vhx on 2/9/2008 6:39:59 PM , Rating: 5
CO2 emission tax would just make the economy worse. I doubt they would spend any of it to really reduce pollution, most likely put it towards other things. Not only that, but expect gas to raise whatever % increase they put on CO2. All that will do is line pockets of the government, basically everyone but the consumer. I swear I think people are stupid to believe CO2 emission tax will really benefit anyone or anything. Just a scam to prey off the scare of Global Warming IMO.
(This wasn't directed at anyone here, just speaking my mind)


RE: Scientific Literacy
By rsmech on 2/9/2008 8:58:03 PM , Rating: 4
You contradict yourself in the next paragraph. John McCain has plenty of views & how to spend my money. So I'm not spouting scientific illiteracy, I'm protecting my wallet with my views.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By DOSGuy on 2/9/2008 9:07:47 PM , Rating: 5
I absolutely agree, on points.

Regarding the global warming point, mathematician Blaise Pascal created a religious argument called Pascal's Wager. It states that believing in God costs you nothing if there isn't a God, but not believing costs you everything if there is a God. I've tended to think the same way about man-made climate change. Reducing our "environmental footprint", for the mostpart, costs us nothing if it turns out that we're not causing global warming, but saves the world if it turns out that we are. Even if we're not causing global climate change, it makes sense to burn less fossil fuels so that the supply will last longer. Basically, we might as well assume that we're responsible, just in case we are. If we lose the wager, all of the naysayers can have a cookie, and the world gets to have oil for a few extra years.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By masher2 (blog) on 2/9/2008 9:24:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Reducing our "environmental footprint", for the mostpart, costs us nothing "

A recent EPA analysis of the recent Lieberman-Warner "Cap-and-Trade" bill concluded the cost of enacting it would be $1.3 trillion dollars...and that's just for the US alone. Worse, even the bill's proponents agree such measures are "just a start", with much more action being required.


RE: Scientific Literacy
By DOSGuy on 2/10/2008 9:26:13 AM , Rating: 5
You're talking about a specific bill. I'm talking about being more conscientious about our use of resources. It cost me nothing to switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs. In fact, it saved me money! My low-E windows and higher efficiency furnace have paid for themselves in lower natural gas bills. Driving less has saved me more money than I've bothered to keep track of.

Whenever someone says that it costs nothing to reduce their environmental footprint, people think of sweeping regulations like the Kyoto Protocol. Even then, many European nations discovered that complying with it required them to become more efficient, which saved them a lot of money. But even then, I never mentioned Kyoto. I'm talking about practical, common sense things that we can all do that cost us almost nothing. I choose to live as though I'm having an affect on the environment, just in case I am. If it turns out that I wasn't, at least I saved some money by as