Sunspot Watch — Not Looking Good

NASA has released its solar cycle progression chart updated through December 2010.  Not good.  Even the latest predicted upswing of sunspot activity looks destined for the dustbin, right alongside all the other predictions for Solar Cycle 24.

Watt’s Up With That has more discussion, including the latest Solar Geomagnetic Ap Index numbers, which are worse. 

When I say worse, I mean worse because there has been an observed correlation between low sunspot activity and lower global temperatures, and global cooling seems to be much harder on people, plants, and animals than the prospect of global warming.  That doesn’t mean the planet is destined to cool; it means the planet may be destined to cool.  We just don’t know.

Those who say they know what the future will bring in such immensely complex systems are wrong.  And we would be are crazy to reallocate trillions of dollars in resources in accordance with their prognostications.

Published in: on January 5, 2011 at 1:28 pm  Comments (2)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Did you ever consider this side of the subject?

    I think that we are in the grip of the biggest and most insane hoax in history, and unless the public get wise to it soon, we will all be parted from what wealth we have.

    Lets take a simple economic view of what is likely to happen.

    In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.

    As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.

    No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%.
    First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
    All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
    I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.

    Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.

    The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.

    AGW is baloney anyway!



  2. I am hopeful that sanity will prevail before the most dire consequences occur, but we certainly are already seeing huge impacts that are disguised enough to largely escape notice.

    High cost of corn? Ethanol subsidies.
    High cost of meat? See high cost of corn.
    High cost of gasoline and heating oil? Drilling bans, slow permitting, and massive envoironmental restrictions.
    High unemployment in California (and possibly soon to head even higher in the U.S. overall)? Greenhouse gas emissions regulation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: