They said the same thing back in the seventies, but it never materialized.
OffWorld --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Read the sunspots > > The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives > climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global > cooling > > R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post > > Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 > > Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression > that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with > little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki > to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is > settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel > even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting > carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the > rise in world temperatures to 2C. > > The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding > global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting > testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on > the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible > and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP > Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament > should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon > capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has > tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in > Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the > current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources > to this hopeless crusade. > > Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only > constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at > times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far > higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As > recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten > thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou- sand- > year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as > 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C > warming that has so upset environmentalists. > > > View Larger Image > (See hardcopy for Chart/Graph) > Andrew Barr, National Post > > Email to a friend > > Printer friendly > Font: ****Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new > findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more > research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are > completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first- class > scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent > correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of > the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the > stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet. > > My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in > 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering > Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were > regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide > swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other > commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were > having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. > One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would > be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No > one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this > crucially important resource. > > > Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine > productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have > accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of > the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over > thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in > populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes. > > My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the > bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose > to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of > Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet > complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for > this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they > contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from > the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant > and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these > basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after > year, undisturbed over millennia. > > Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more > than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest > layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor. > Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the > different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, > we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from > the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish > scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single- > celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from > nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated > climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms > and fish scales than we do in cooler years. Ours is one of the > highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we > see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. > For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about > 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of > seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly > cold and rainy for several decades. > > Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series > analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we > have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a > region larger than Europe. Specifically, we find a very strong and > consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments > and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11- > year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun > varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the > sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the > spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure > of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many > centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity > we are observing. > > > In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer > period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular > solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles > that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200- > 500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The > strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out > over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these > longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that > measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact > marine productivity even more significantly. > > Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the > brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators > (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using > proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of > the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive > climate change. > > However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated > correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, > on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have > observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter > now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct > solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past > century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of > some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change. > > Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of > groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, > Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively > demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our > star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays > from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the > Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, > overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy > output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to > direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during > these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering > our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more. > > The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are > able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the > planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct > solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle > of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar > energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of > sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice > Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun > caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations > show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and > even short time scales. > > > In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate > tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that > we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global > climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers > published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German > environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two- thirds > of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did > not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is > developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the > effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that > the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass > the issue over to policymakers at all. > > Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into > its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely > leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for > adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond > one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority > for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major > climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the > northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little > cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only > require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us. > > Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex > field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted > expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate > change." > > > R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa- Carleton > Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. >
