PDA

View Full Version : Religion: 2008: The second least active solar year since 1900...



[LoD] EE
12-31-2008, 18:39
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712 (source)

As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

The Little Ice Age has been a problem for global warmers because it serves as a reminder of how the earth warms and cools naturally over time. It had to be ignored in the calculations that produced the infamous and since-discredited hockey stick graph that showed a sharp rise in warming alleged to be caused by man.

The answer to this dilemma has supposedly been found by two Stanford researchers, Richard Nevle and Dennis Bird, who announced their "findings" at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. According to them, man not only is causing contemporary warming. He also caused the cooling that preceded it.

According to Bird and Nevle, before Columbus ruined paradise, native Americans had deforested a significant portion of the continent and converted the land to agricultural purposes. Less CO2 was then absorbed from the atmosphere, and the earth was toasty.

Then a bunch of nasty old white guys arrived and depopulated the native populations through war and the diseases they brought with them. This led to the large-scale abandonment of agricultural lands. The subsequent reforestation of the continent caused temperatures to drop enough to bring on the Little Ice Age.

Implicit in this research is that the world would be fine if man wasn't in the way. We either make the world too cold or too hot, a view held by many in high places.

In a speech at Harvard last November, Harvard physicist John Holden, President-elect Obama's choice to be his science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, presented a "top 10" list of warming solutions.

Topping the list was "limiting population," as if man was a plague upon the earth. This is a major tenet of green dogma that bemoans the fact that the pestilence called mankind comes with cars, factories and overconsumption of fossil fuels and other resources.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Indeed, a look at a graph of solar irradiance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows little solar activity during the Little Ice Age and significant activity during recent times.

Don't blame Dick and Jane — blame sunspots.

Ziegler
12-31-2008, 18:44
no no no....there's no way that great big huge fucking ball of fire in the sky has anything to do with how hot or cold we are....it's all in the hands of mankind and more specifically americans and their SUV's and CFC's and incandescent light bulbs.........sheesh...what kind of non-sense is this...solar flares, sunspots...:lmao:

Viluin
12-31-2008, 18:46
Yesterday I heard on the radio that 2008 was one of the hottest years for The Netherlands this past century, with an average temperature of 11 degrees Celcius or something. Only 2003 and 2006 were hotter.

Forgin
12-31-2008, 18:47
Yesterday I heard on the radio that 2008 was one of the hottest years for The Netherlands this past century, with an average temperature of 11 degrees Celcius or something. Only 2003 and 2006 were hotter.

Yes, and it was the 11th hottest year since they started recording (back in 1800 or something?!).

Caalador
12-31-2008, 18:55
EE;2232960']http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=315533893763712 (source)

As we've noted, 2008 has been a year of records for cold and snowfall and may indeed be the coldest year of the 21st century thus far. In the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month of October.

Global thermometers stopped rising after 1998, and have plummeted in the last two years by more than 0.5 degrees Celsius. The 2007-2008 temperature drop was not predicted by global climate models. But it was predictable by a decline in sunspot activity since 2000.

When the sun is active, it's not uncommon to see sunspot numbers of 100 or more in a single month. Every 11 years, activity slows, and numbers briefly drop near zero. Normally sunspots return very quickly, as a new cycle begins. But this year, the start of a new cycle, the sun has been eerily quiet.

The first seven months averaged a sunspot count of only three and in August there were no sunspots at all — zero — something that has not occurred since 1913.

According to the publication Daily Tech, in the past 1,000 years, three previous such events — what are called the Dalton, Maunder and Sporer Minimums — have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called the Little Ice Age (1500-1750).

The Little Ice Age has been a problem for global warmers because it serves as a reminder of how the earth warms and cools naturally over time. It had to be ignored in the calculations that produced the infamous and since-discredited hockey stick graph that showed a sharp rise in warming alleged to be caused by man.

The answer to this dilemma has supposedly been found by two Stanford researchers, Richard Nevle and Dennis Bird, who announced their "findings" at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. According to them, man not only is causing contemporary warming. He also caused the cooling that preceded it.

According to Bird and Nevle, before Columbus ruined paradise, native Americans had deforested a significant portion of the continent and converted the land to agricultural purposes. Less CO2 was then absorbed from the atmosphere, and the earth was toasty.

Then a bunch of nasty old white guys arrived and depopulated the native populations through war and the diseases they brought with them. This led to the large-scale abandonment of agricultural lands. The subsequent reforestation of the continent caused temperatures to drop enough to bring on the Little Ice Age.

Implicit in this research is that the world would be fine if man wasn't in the way. We either make the world too cold or too hot, a view held by many in high places.

In a speech at Harvard last November, Harvard physicist John Holden, President-elect Obama's choice to be his science adviser as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology, presented a "top 10" list of warming solutions.

Topping the list was "limiting population," as if man was a plague upon the earth. This is a major tenet of green dogma that bemoans the fact that the pestilence called mankind comes with cars, factories and overconsumption of fossil fuels and other resources.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre of Canada's Carleton University, says: "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Indeed, a look at a graph of solar irradiance from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows little solar activity during the Little Ice Age and significant activity during recent times.

Don't blame Dick and Jane — blame sunspots.
Earth is in an orbit that moves further and further away from the Sun every year, around 60 thousand years ago we reached the furthers point from the sun and the ice caps moved as far south as SE England, the earth is not far off the point were the distance from the sun will lower the temps enough for this to happen again, i have def noticed it has got colder in the last few years

alfaroverall
12-31-2008, 19:02
Isn't the Little Ice Age well-documented as having been caused by a glacier in North America breaking, causing a significant temperature drop in the northern Atlantic and thus causing the gulf stream to cease to provide warm water to the coasts of Europe?

I'm not discrediting this, but this is still what I've always been told.

Carl Ragadamn
12-31-2008, 19:05
I blame the lack of solar activity on the usage of Coal burning plants to create electricity. I will source my claim by showing how many new coal plants came online in 2008.

Zokten
12-31-2008, 19:23
no no no....there's no way that great big huge fucking ball of fire in the sky has anything to do with how hot or cold we are....it's all in the hands of mankind and more specifically americans and their suv's and cfc's and incandescent light bulbs.........sheesh...what kind of non-sense is this...solar flares, sunspots...:lmao:

whoosh!

DocGonzo
12-31-2008, 19:27
and the AEI hands out another 10-25 thousand dollars for yet another article as a bounty

not saying any of the observations made are incorrect...just that we have apples and oranges here

one involves the sun, the other involves atmospheric conditions

but hey, keep your blinders on and choke to death...i'm old and will die soon enough anyway

BlitzKriegTF
12-31-2008, 19:28
EE you have the best sig

Haeso
12-31-2008, 19:34
I blame the lack of solar activity on the usage of Coal burning plants to create electricity. I will source my claim by showing how many new coal plants came online in 2008.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FSM_Pirates.png Correlation obviously equals causation.

stalwart
12-31-2008, 20:29
and the AEI hands out another 10-25 thousand dollars for yet another article as a bounty

not saying any of the observations made are incorrect...just that we have apples and oranges here

one involves the sun, the other involves atmospheric conditions

but hey, keep your blinders on and choke to death...i'm old and will die soon enough anyway
not soon enough for me.

[LoD] EE
12-31-2008, 20:43
EE you have the best sig

Thank you, I would also have the best Avatar but I cant use a custom one.

Sandrix
12-31-2008, 21:18
Entirely aside from the question of whether human activities are affecting the climate, the OP's article clearly isn't to be taken seriously. It would take too long to point out everything that was blatantly retarded about it, so I will choose just one thing. They only cited one source amidst all those claims, and that one source was The Daily Tech, an online magazine.

A magazine getting its info from another magazine? Thems some journalisms for you right there, wooo eeee.