• Register
  • Help
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Topic: Global Cooling

  1. #1

    Global Cooling

    sponsored links

    I've given up on trying to convince any "global warming" chicken littles on what I belive is the true cause of any global temperature changes (the sun), so this is merely presented for your consideration.

    If you want to believe that humans are the problem, fine. If you think that Western countries paying "fines" for emitting C02 will somehow make the planet a better place, fine.

    I'll also say up front I want a cleaner environment, more fuel efficient vehicles, and more reusable consumer products.

    Areas in bold below are my added emphasis

    Story link

    The Sun Also Sets

    Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

    Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

    To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

    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.

    Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

    Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

    In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

    As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

    For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

    R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

    Rather, he 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."

    Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

    "Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

    In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

    A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

    "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

    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.
    I remain solely responsible for the content of my messages, and agree to indemnify and hold harmless northern sound source, and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of my message(s). Rock on.

  2. #2

    Re: Global Cooling

    Wes, you make a great point. We should be working on more efficient cars that are environmentally friendly. We should also develop alternate fuels that avoid dependence on imports. These goals are independent of global warming.

    The fact is, 99.9... percent of us are not environmental scientists. We read stuff and believe some of it, and not others. In essence, it becomes an issue of faith. You either believe it or not. And therefore, it becomes divisive.

    But nobody argues for inefficiency, more imports and pollution. And if we can build new domestic industries that create more jobs, so much the better.

    I'm doing my part. I'm the project leader of IEC 62087. We are creating a standard for measuring TV power consumption that is fair to all technologies (CRT, LCD, Plasma, Rear Pro...) We have full industry support, and our standard is now part of US energy policy as stated by the Energy Bill that was signed into law in recent months.

    Our standard is the basis of the new Energy Star Specification for Televisions, Version 3.0. The final version of the v3.0 TV Energy Star spec was released last week. It goes into effect on November 1st.

    Currently, the Energy Star logo on TVs only indicates that the product is efficient in standby mode. TVs with Energy Star labels after November 1st must be efficient in both standby and active modes.

    The new program is expected to save tens of terawatt-hours of electrical energy over the next few years.

    So, look for the Energy Star logo when shopping - especially on TVs after November 1st, 2008.

    Oh yeah. These products will have lower operating costs, saving you money. Belief in global warming not required.

  3. #3

    Re: Global Cooling


    That's a great initiative. Irrespective of what side of the aisle you're on, the fact is that the world's population is growing and our current sources of mass energy is dwindling. If every home in the developed world could become even 305 more fuel efficient, that would be a great step in reducing consumption.

    I remain solely responsible for the content of my messages, and agree to indemnify and hold harmless northern sound source, and their agents with respect to any claim based upon transmission of my message(s). Rock on.

  4. #4

    Re: Global Cooling

    Here is the chart. To qualify the TV needs to be below the line.

    Note that for the largest sizes, rear projection TVs are the most efficient. They're not very bright though. Most rear pro TVs use a 150W lamp assembly, regardless of size, so the light gets spread out thinner and thinner as the size grows. Projectors in general are best in darker rooms.

    For flat panel TVs, LCDs tend to be the most efficient. And they're bright enough to watch in bright environments.

    Energy Star's policy is to reward the best 25% of models. That motivates manufacturers to make the products more efficient to qualify for the program. Every two of three years, Energy Star re-evaluates the market and toughens the spec. It's a bit like a limbo contest!

    For the details about the new Energy Star TV spec, see this page:

Go Back to forum


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts