Sunday, February 24, 2008


Global Warming . . . or Maunder Minimum?


According to the just released data from NASA's Goddard Space Science Center, the world has just experienced the largest 12 month, January to January, drop in temperature since they began keeping records in 1880. If you look at the data, you will see a drop of .75 celsius. If you live in Greece, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, China, etc., you can simply step outside your front door for a peek.

This from Chris Booker:

. . . Temperatures were lower than their 20th century average for the first time since 1982. Snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at its greatest extent since 1966. At the other end of the world, Antarctic ice-cover was at its most extensive since satellite records began in 1979, 30 per cent above the January average (see such websites as the US National Climate Data Center, Cryosphere Today and Watt's Up With That).

It may be too early to draw conclusions as to what this says about changing climate patterns, but the fact remains that such drastic cooling hardly accords with classic global warming theory, that rising CO2 must mean rising temperatures. Certainly nothing on this scale was predicted by those scientific bodies on which the world's politicians have been relying for their belief that global warming was the most serious challenge facing the planet.

At New Year, one such body, the University of East Anglia's Hadley Centre, predicted that, although 2008 would be cooler than some recent years, it would still be one of the 10 hottest years in history, and that any cooling would only "mask the underlying warming trend".

Seven weeks later it is clear that the cooling has gone much further than that, according better with the predictions of that growing body of scientists who argue that climate change is caused less by CO2 emissions than by magnetic activity on the Sun. They point to the abnormally low present sunspot level, of a type associated with severe cooling in the past, such as in the Little Ice Age between the 17th and early 19th centuries.

The political significance of all this, of course, is that our leaders are committing us to a range of measures whose economic effects will be without precedent, from their astronomically costly "carbon trading" schemes to their determination to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on wind turbines.

The most respected economist in this field, Yale's Professor William Nordhaus, estimates that the cost of the measures proposed by Al Gore would be $34 trillion (£17 trillion) - all resting on the belief that, unless we spend such sums, world temperatures are doomed to rise. The events of the first two months of 2008 may lead us to wonder whether these people really know what they are doing.

Read the entire article.

No comments: