Now it’s Global Cooling

Better hope this is not the case.  It would make Global Warming look like a good deal. This has actually happened before. It wasn’t pleasant.

And they’re worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada’s National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

9 comments:

  1. glendean, 8. February 2008, 16:01

    So if carbon makes us warmer, which is the opposite of what it did when that volcano caused the year without a summer, then maybe we should be burning more carbon. Time to harness all of that coal we got, drill in ANWR. Drill in the gulf. Drill in the rockies.

    This part summed up the article.

    The study says that “try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures.”

    The study concludes that if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, “there would not be much effect on temperatures.”

    But if the sun shuts down, we’ve got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that’s hanging in the balance.

    How dare these people assert that the little old sun creates more heat than people.

     
  2. tgirsch, 8. February 2008, 16:09

    Is this what you’re cherry-picking this week, #9?

    When scientists speculate in ways that confirm what you want to hear, of course, you believe them and cite them. But as soon as they start claiming AGW is real, then it’s all “a conspiracy, maaaan!”

    (It’s interesting to note, too, that IBD never actually directly quotes Dr. Tapping. One wonders if this article is an accurate representation of his position…)

    Anyway, while it’s an interesting area of science, and worth studying, the Maunder minimum has nowhere near the consensus behind it that AGW has (and neither does the “Little Ice Age”):

    The idea of a Maunder minimum is controversial, however, because no one really knows how closely people were observing the sun in the mid-1600s, a mere 40 years after the invention of the telescope. No record of solar activity exists before the Maunder minimum, though a surge in activity signaled its end in 1714.

    Uncertainty also surrounds the cause of the Little Ice Age, which began around 1300 A.D. and lasted for several hundred years. Characterized by colder than normal winters and cool summers throughout the Northern Hemisphere, it may have been caused by greenhouse gases and particulates spewed into the atmosphere by volcanoes, or by fluctuations in the sun’s output.

    source.

     
  3. tgirsch, 8. February 2008, 16:34

    Once again, the spam filter eats me!

    Anyway, I hadn’t responded to Glen’s comment:

    So if carbon makes us warmer, which is the opposite of what it did when that volcano caused the year without a summer, then maybe we should be burning more carbon.

    Volcanic eruptions have a temporary cooling effect for the same reason that any particulate air pollution has a cooling effect: aerosolized particulates in the upper atmosphere actually block sunlight from getting in, and thus have a cooling effect. What’s interesting about all this is that air pollution has actually masked the full effect of the greenhouse effect for several decades. As we clean it up (and there are plenty of good reasons to clean it up, I suspect even you will agree), we actually make the greenhouse effect potentially more dramatic. (The numbers from the two days after September 11th in which there was no air traffic are nothing short of staggering.)

    There was a Nova special a year or so ago entitled “Dimming the Sun,” that addresses this. I highly recommend it.

    How dare these people assert that the little old sun creates more heat than people.

    *Sigh* It’s not about heat creation. It’s about heat retention. Can’t you even get the basic facts right? Or is it a matter of policy for you to only attack straw men?

     
  4. William, 8. February 2008, 21:49

    Thank you Glen for citing that statement from the Exxon and GM funded Hoover Institute.

     
  5. glendean, 8. February 2008, 22:05

    Your welcome William. I must confess, they sent me a 50 dollar gas card, just for pointing that out.

     
  6. nedwilliams, 8. February 2008, 22:15

    I’d be interested in being staggered by the data about heat deflection after 9/11–I pretty much don’t trust your flat assertion. But even if it’s true it only highlights how brilliant that war-mongering, environment-trashing Dick Cheney is.

    William, do you have any substantive criticism of the statement other than the fact than BigOil and BigAuto contributed to them?

     
  7. Lean Left (Pingback), 9. February 2008, 0:09
     

    […] course, I pointed out in comments that for one thing, the Maunder minimum is still quite controversial as a cause for the […]

     
  8. Tennesseefree.com » Global Cooling? Perhaps Not. (Pingback), 9. February 2008, 0:13
     

    […] 08.02.08, 16:34: Now it’s Global Cooling (von tgirsch) […]

     
  9. William, 9. February 2008, 10:11

    Ned, You might want to read this post. It reveals how political psuedo-science is ‘created’ by conservatives to mislead. Caught red handed

     

Write a comment: