The real cause of global warming: Solar Cycle 24.
I can't remember ever saying that global warming wasn't real. Global warming is a fact. It just isn't man-made. I suspect that the ecoalarmists of Al Gore's ilk are as much aware of that fact as I am. But more important, so are the world's astrophysicists who study the universeand, with it, our neighboring planets. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia noted in 2005 that the current warming cycle on Earth is also affecting our neighborsVenus and Mars.
And while the New York Times, which we all know prints all the news that is fit to print, has chosen to ignore this fact, Abdussamatov pointed to data published by NASA in 2005 that was harvested from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey. NASA recorded that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mar's South Pole have been "melting" for three consecutive summers. Surface temperatures on Venus have risen from an average of 470° to 513°. I don't think that happened because Americans are generating too much carbon dioxidewhich actually increases crop yields and produces more oxygen. And, it didn't happen because there are too many sweating people on planet Earth whose body temperatures are making the polar caps melt on Earth.
And, regardless how Academy Award-winning Nobel Prize-winning sci fi producer Al Gore, Jr. tries to spin it, he's going to have a tough time convincing reasonably intelligent people that the body heat of too many humans on Earthor our use of "fossil" (i.e., carbon) fueltriggered a wave of global warming on Mars and Venus. Oh, my God...global warming is worse than we thought! The sky is falling! What is an inconvenient truth is that science has proven that global warming is completely cyclic and, as MIT physicist Dr. Richard Lindzen noted, the people who are hawking man-made climate fears are "...playing the children's game to scare each other by making artificial biased assumptions." Harvard physicist Lubos Motl agreed, adding that the projected doubling for Co2 levels expected in most of the ecoalarmist models around 2100 (i.e., 560 ppm) would bring an increased surface temperature on Earth of only 0.4°Cnot the 2° to 3°C by the sky-is-falling harbingers. Motl also noted that most of the manmade temperature increase caused by the industrial age occurred within the past 50 years. If the world completely complied with every edict found in the Kyoto Protocol, the cost would bankrupt the industrialized worldand reduce the global temperature by less than 1°C over the next centurybut it would not affect global warming in the slightest since global warming is not a man-made event.
In point of fact, the evidence amassed by NASA has convinced many of scientists who were halfway listening to doomsday ecoalarmists like Goremany of whom it appears were prepared to accept his factless hypothesis "for the sake of scientific harmony." Gore should be forced to give up his treasured Nobel Prize because of this sham. But he continues to insist that the astrophysicists are wrong and his computer models are still correct. And, surprisingly, otherwise intelligent people believe him in face of overwhelming evidence of the sham perpetuated by the far left societal planners who work for the world's wealthiest industrialists and merchant princes who recognize it is in their best interest to create consumers out of the unemployed masses in the emerging world who have nothing and need everything rather than continue to serve as a replacement industry for people who have everything and need nothing.
In light of what the world's leading astrophysicists have learned from the NASA's statistics, the majority of the world's scientists (who are not paid by the environmental lobby or the oil companies that funded Al Gore's science fiction) now completely dismiss as erroneous all of the theories that suggest global warming is a man-made dilemma. In 2006before Gore earned an Oscar for "An Inconvenient Truth"Nir Shaviv, an Israeli astrophysicist, denounced Gore's theories that global warming is man-made, saying, "Solar activity can explain a large part of 20th century global warming." Shaviv argued before the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that while "...the melting of the arctic ice sheets is indicative of global warming, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that proves Co2 and other greenhouse gases are the culprits that caused it...Using computer models to find [ecological] fingerprints is hard..." because computer models are not based on facts but on suppositions of what previously happened, and what the author of the model thinks will happen in the future. Everyone's models are different. But with the ecoalarmists, the conclusions are always the same. In other words, the ecoalarmists starts with doomsday and then constructs a history that leads only to that conclusion. The trouble with starting at the conclusion is that all of the evidence that points to some other catalyst is ignored. The evidence? Solar Cycle 24.
The official National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], NASA and the International Solar Energy Society [ISES] Solar Prediction Panel on Solar Cycle 24 was released on April 25, 2007. Solar activity is normally an 11-year cycle. Solar Cycle 23 began in 1994. About 80 years ago, astro-scientists discovered that the solar eruptions have an east-west orientation that reverse its magnetic polarity with each new cycle, creating what is in reality a 22 year cycle. When a new cycle beginsas it will within a matter of weekssolar activity initially impacts temperatures at high latitudesat either the North or South Pole. At midpoint in the 11 year cycleusually 5 1/2 years (although Solar Cycle 23 lasted 11.75 years)it will impact temperatures at the equator which means the waters in the Atlanticand in the Gulf of Mexicowill be at their warmest temperatures. The risk of category 4 or 5 hurricanes are also at their greatest. The Hurricane season last year was minimal because at the point when the heat from Solar Cycle 23 would have been strongest the sun was at its zenith below the equator. What that suggests is that 2012 will be a bad year for hurricanesand it has nothing to do with Al Gore's inconvenient lie.
The variations in the solar activity drive warming and cooling conditions throughout our entire solar system and particularly, since we are here, in the space near Earth. Solar eruptions are responsible for the geomagnetic storms that cripple communication on Earth and damage the power grids that provide electricity to this nation. Its very likely that at least some of the wildfires that devastated so much land, so many homes last year was at least, in part, caused by solar geomagnetic storms sparking power grids.
The earliestand weakestsigns that Cycle 24 was about to start were witnessed in February, 2007even before Cycle 23 was complete. Cycle 24 was projected to begin in March, 2008 (plus-or-minus 6 months). It's first solar eruptions took place in June, 2007. Cycle 24 began with warmer temperatures at the North Pole. In about 5.5 to 6 years it will be causing havoc in Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Africa, bringing that season's hurricanes across the warm waters of the Atlantic to the even warmer water in the the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. Scientists believe Cycle 24 will peak in October, 2011 (with 140 sunspots [solar eruptions]). They estimate that Cycle 24 will end in August 2012 will about 90 sunspots that yearor an average of 114 geomagnetic storms per year over that 5.5 to 6 year year period, at which time it will reverse. Cycle 24 will end with greatly diminished sunspot activity in 2020.
NASA is convinced that Solar Cycle 24, which they believe will peak in 2010 or 2011 will experience the most extreme solar storms since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago. The prediction was made by solar physicist David Hathaway and his colleague Robert Wilson of the Marshall Space Flight Center at the Geophysical Union Meeting in San Francisco in Dec., 2006. Hathaway and Wilson studied the patterns of geomagnetic activity for the past 150 years and realized that the geomagnetic storms seemed to have a "memory." "The amount of geomagnetic activity now tell us what the solar cycle is going to be 6 to 8 years in the future," Hathaway said. The indices are derived from magnetometer data recorded at two points on opposite sides of Earth: one in England and another in Australia. IHV data has been taken every day since 1868. The system, Hathaway noted, predictswith 94% accuracy, the amplitude of the solar cycle 6-plus years in advance. "We don't know why it works," Hathaway admitted, "but it does work."
According to their calculations, Solar Cycle 24 will peak around 2010 with about 160 sunspots, give-or-take 25 (which will be about 20 more than Cycle 23). Keep in mind that Hurricane Katrina was part of Cycle 23. If Cycle 24 hits the extremes that are predicted, we are looking at the potential of seeing 2, 3 or more Category 5 Hurricanes that year.
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research [UCAR] predicted that Cycle 24 will be 30% to 50% stronger than Cycle 23but they argued that it could be as much as a few months to a year late in starting. And, where Hathaway and Wilson believe Cycle 24 will peak in 2011, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research [NCAR] believe it will peak in 2012. But NCAR also thinks Solar Cycle 25 will begin in 2020.
Hathaway noted that solar storms are caused by two distinctly different elements. First are storms caused by the gentle buffeting of solar windstreams. Second are storms caused by the far more forceful impact of solar flares and coronal mass ejections like the one pictured above. Note in that photograph (directly above) of an actual coronal ejection, the size of the flare compared to the size of Earth, This should put some perspective on the immense size of these solar storms and why they are impacting surface temperatures not only on Earth, but also on our neighbors, Venus and Mars. (Clearly coronal ejections are also impacting the temperatures of Mercury and Jupiter, and perhaps Saturn, but we lack the ability to monitor temperatures on those planets.)
What all this global warming mumble-jumble comes down to is this: real astrophysicists and other real scientists (not politicians who have been designated as climate authorities) have not concealed from the ecoalarmistswho are attempting to justify stealing the jobs millions of American citizens under the ruse of saving the planet by reducing greenhouse gases caused by manthat global warming (and cooling) are cyclic events caused by solar storms.
The sudden questioning of the Gorites was the result of several new peer-reviewed studies and data-error discoveries throughout the past yearwhich resulted in England's highest court slapping a warning label on "An Inconvenient Truth," ruling that the film cannot be shown in any school in England without an explicit disclaimer that the film is partisan, political advocacy, and that it is not a factual representation of what is actually happening with the climate of the world.
The United Kingdom's Department of Education and Skills [DES]like Gore himselfargued that the debate on man-made global warming is settled. They are demanding that people accept it as fact not because its true, but because the powerful industrialists, environmentalists, bankers and oil industry lobbyists which funded global warming as a tool to create world government have declared the debate is over simply because they will no longer discuss it.
They are not willing to discuss it because if its not true, how do the environmentalists and their allies in the US Congress justify closing every independent oil refinery in the United Statesand every independent oil rigto control the skyrocketing price of oil (which just hit $100 barrel for the first time in history)? And, how do the industrialists justify moving their industrial plants to the third world where the world's largest supply of human capital existswhile demanding that they be allowed to use that slave labor to create cheap goods and return what is branded as "American' back to the United Stateswithout any tariffs to bring those goods in line with products made in the USA? They suggest that factories in the United States are to blame for global warming, adding that moving those factories is the only thing that will save us. And, in their view, that's why the debate is settled. The transfer of the wealth of the United States is now well underway, and it cannot be stopped.
GOP presidential candidate Fred Thompson is the only presidential hopeful on either side who will openly argueand vehemently sothat the latest studies confirm the correlation between solar activity and the warming cycles. Thompson has referred to the data showing the temperature increases on Venus and the melting polar caps on Mars to show that the culprit for global warming is the sunnot man. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who agrees with Thompson, and feels the former Tennessee Senator is the only candidate with the guts to take on this issue, said: "Far-left environmentalistsHollywood elitistsand the mainstream media continue to peddle anthropocentric (man-made) global warming theories, but there is no scientific consensus on these matters." In fact, a substantial number of scientists who previously embraced the theories that global warming was caused by man because it would benefit their careers, have now reversed their positions.
Sixty scientists in Canada recently wrote the Canadian prime minister to express their misgivings about signing on to the global warming rhetoric, saying: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, the Kyoto Protocol to combat climate change would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."
Ian Wilson, the former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore has concluded that under the Kyoto Protocol, the world economy will be forced to spend trillions of dollars that will result in only a negligible environmental impact. In his written summary to the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, Wilson said the latest research proves that even a substantial increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide would not impact temperatures in anything suggested by the environmentalists as a "catastrophic manner."
Tragically for mankind, powerful environmentalists have succeeded in getting a carbon dioxide case before the US Supreme Court, where nine completely unqualified justices ruled that carbon dioxidethat is necessary for life to survive on this planetis a pollutant. In point of fact, the one of the worst pollutants on our planet is oxygen. It causes rust and will eat steel. When, do you imagine, the high court, will outlaw that terrible pollutant?
If the American people do not wake up and take the country back, every environmental holocaust imagined by the world's worst extremists will happenand eco-extremists like Al Gore who will be responsible for the calamity, will puff up their chests and with a smirk, say: "See, I told you so."