John <Windswept@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in
> San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.
>
So, he has no experience in climatology.
Sorry, the hottest years on record are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and
2004.
> All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate
> Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies
> in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and
> Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) re****t that it cooled by
> about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the
> instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930.
Totally false.
> If the
> temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that
> global warming is over.
Temp. went up this March.
> There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally
> cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter
> in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in
> the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook
> discovered the place in 1770.
Snow means warmer, not colder. Cold air cannot hold the moisture
necessary for snow. It rarely snows in Antarctica.
> It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends
> from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold
> snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.
> This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of
> somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum
> was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start
> soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.
> It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and
> lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished
> within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that
> there will be many more, and soon.
> The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between
> variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time
> a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially
> cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
> Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of
> Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at
> least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
> That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure
> of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal
> connection but it is cause for concern.
> It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin
> contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another
> little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
> There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse
> than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may
> do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a
> few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada.
> Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling
> will decrease it.
> Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as
> planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will
> die from cold-related diseases.
> There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The
> Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the
> past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always
> afflicted our planet.
The Arctic ice was the lowest ever this year.
|
