A Very Quiet Sun

Sunspots, nothing of great interest to most people on this small rock spinning around it’s nearest stellar object.  But perhaps we should take more notice, especially as there seems to be proven evidence of multiple cycles happening within the sun.

As a radio amateur (Ham radio), I was looking forward to the start of the coming cycle, Cycle 24 as it gives people like me a chance to speak to people in distant lands without using kilowatts of power.  Cycle 24 is, or will be when it gets going, part of the cycle that occurs event 11 years, well, 11years is an average, cycle 23, now on it’s last legs has lasted almost 13 years.  Cycle 24, first predicted to be bigger than Cycle 23, has struggled just to get going.  There have benn a few “proper” sunspots, many microspots that last just a couple of hours or days, but the sun has had more days when it has presented us with a face devoid of spots than 1933.

When will Cycle 24 take off?  Well, don’t bet on it starting tomorrow.  And in the past, a spot free sun has been linked to colder weather, are we about to see that Global warming was a scam?

Watch this space

Advertisements

NASA, Climate And the MSM

Two different types of media show the difference between old and new journalism and the way that the Main Stream Media (MSM). MSM picks an idea and runs with it, casually ignoring facts while telling us what we should think by feeding us soundbites.

Look at the Guardian today with NASA’s James Hansen saying that “The Democratic Process isn’t working”. What Democratic Process? Where is my right to display what the Science really says rather than the sounbites that the MS cherry pick and feed us. Do they, the MSM, believe we cannot absorb the information? I know I can, as can most people at places like wattsupwiththat.

The Internet is seen as a place for anarchists, paedophiles and the like.  Well, I’m none of those, but I can find Science presented in as much detail as I can take.  Technical details, mathematical formulae, everything I need to get a better understanding of some of the complex problems around us.  There are, no doubt people that are much cleverer and those that have a much better grasp of the intellectual problems, but without the internet, I’d be condemned to looking in old books and have immense difficulties in getting information.

Do they actually BELIEVE all this

The Copenhagen Climate Conference is providing the BBC with some suitable apocalyptic reports.

Sea Level to Rise 1 Metre in 100 years
Temperature rise 6f 3C will destroy 85% of the Amazon Rain Forest.

I just wonder whether they actually believe, without checking, the information they are fed. Is the Orthodoxy now so great that reporters do just that, they report, but without questioning whether what they are reporting is true. Or perhaps, if there is a any doubt on whether other options may exist, or other scenarios come to pass, a proviso should be added to the report.

When was the last time that there were any scintilla of doubt that “We’re all going to die”? Nover, but if the Beeb has it’s way it will be in some horrible way that involves Global waring or increased sea levels

Quantative Easing

The Bank of England is going to buy £75 Billion of Gilts to increase the money supply and, hopefully, ease credit problems by getting the Banks to lend. Now having read Roger Bootle in the Telegraph this morning, I see a couple of problems, one of them an absolute humdinger.

Lets do the little one first. getting the banks to lend. This will not happen until the amount of “Toxic Debt” is identified, quantified and accounted. Until then we have the Lloyds Group situation where bank that was always seen as being run conservative way has been brought down by having a merger forced on it by an over eager Government, due mainly to the fact that the amount of Due Diligence done was inadequate. Just on the news today, there was a comment, that I believe could be actionable in the courts, that for the last six months of it’s existence, the corporate lending book of HBOS was not “just” risky, it was extremely risky. Could it be that by this time the Directors of HBOS were aware that things were going down the pan and therefore took bigger and bigger risks like a loser at the roulette wheel? Gambling is an addiction, they were addicted, but they were doing this gambling with money that was either ours, or borrowed. My memory isn’t as good as it used to be, but I can remember from years ago, hearing a Government Minister saying that you should only invest in shares if you could afford to lose the money. They lost, big time, in the process, they made sure we all lost, as their Balance Sheets now hold huge amounts of assets that are have absurdly high valuations. The upshot is that, until ALL these assets are identified, you can assume that the Banks will not lend, to each other, let alone to us.

Now that was the little problem, the big one is much bigger. This is primarily about the £75 Billion the Government, sorry, the independent Bank of England, is injecting into the system by buying up Gilts. Again, my understanding is that Gilts are just a piece of paper that pays a fixed Interest rate for it’s life, followed by the return of the Capital initially invested. So far so good, the BoE will go and buy some of the Gilts it issued and as a result inject money into the money supply. From comments I have read, and things I have heard on news bulletins, it seems the BoE is going to buy mainly at the long dated paper, due for redemption between 15 and 30 years. Most of the holders of these Gilts are Insurance Companies, Aviva and the like. With the thought that Aviva’s share price last week dropped by 25%due to fears of their Capital Reserves not being big enough, what on earth makes people think that any Gilts bought by the BoE will be channelled back into asset purchases? The first thing that Aviva and other Insurance Companies will do is increase their Capital reserves to exceed, by a margin those required by law, once they’ve done that they will consider buying assets, but if asset prices are still falling at the time, they risk, again, eroding their Capital Base. I believe this will make insurance companies do exactly what the banks have done until they see a recovery in asset values, and that means a vicious circle, I expect the BoE to, eventually, inject over £200 Billion to get things moving, by which time there will be too much money in the system and the debasement of the currency will mean that we will no longer be able to say that Zimbabwe is a bad example.

2009 — The year the Glaciers Started Growing?

So here we are at the start of 2009, OK already almost 25% through the year, but, Temperatures are down, worldwide. Forget the idea that ice is melting, this year, look at facts, not hearsay. So why do I think the “Global Warmers” have got it wrong?

Some facts

1) we are at the end of a solar cycle, the “Little Ice Age” happened at the Maunder Minimum where there were very few sunspots for a period of over 60 years.
2) The other known time of temperature decreases was the Dalton Minimum, which although nowhere near as long or as strong as the Maunder minimum did produce an overall decrease in world temperature.
3) The sun appears too have “switched off”, see this graph from the excellent wattsupwiththat notice the drop in activity in 2005, given it seems that a 3 year gap translates to a cooling, we are well on our way.
4) An unprecedented, at least in the last 35 years, Stratospheric warming is indicative of further cooling to come for the Northern hemisphere during this winter
5) The PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) looks as though it will be negative for 2009, again leading to an overall decrease in temperature.
6) El Nino is the past, La Nina seems to be the dominant process for 2009 as it was for 2008.
7) Despite all the Global Warmers comments, the Antarctic, as a continent is gettingt colder, NOT warmer and ice is accumulating in greater quantities rather than not forming during the Antarctic winter.  Western Antarctic needs to be looked at with a wider view, as the volcanoes under the ice COULD have a significant effect on surface temperature.

Add these facts together and what do you have? Global cooling to a point that will arrest, overall, the retreat of glaciers worldwide. Ther may still be some areas on the planet that get warmer, but overall, cooler is the trend and a miniscule change in global temepreature will be enough to stop the retreat

Climate Change vs Global Warming

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE

Can we have an informed debate on Global Warming? The terms Global Warming and Climate change are bandied around in the press all the time, the problem is that most journalists don’t understand that they are two totally different things.

Climate Change refers to cyclic changes in long term weather conditions in a region. Basically, what that means is that if area A warms, it means that area B may cool. A great example in long term climate change is the Sahara Desert. About 8-10,000 years ago there was a North African Monsoon. That meant that the Sahara wasn’t a desert, the whole of North Africa ranged from.Jungle to Savannah,with very few areas that were very dry. Then the monsoon failed as the weather patterns moved North. Why did the patterns move North? Because the ice of the last ice age melted.

Global Warming on the other hand is what it says it says it is, an increase in temperature across the WHOLE planet. Global Warming could be caused by several things, increases in Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, an increase in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), or a decrease in albedo of the planet. If you look at the average world temperature since 2000, there has been no Global Warming, however, in the same period, Australia and California in the US have both suffered exceptional droughts, Southern Spain is in a similar position as hot dry air encroaches from Africa.

While These areas have warmed and dried, other areas have cooled.

Credit Agencies? WHAT????

OK, so we’ve seen some of our banks bailed out to the tune of Billions, and then, guess what, their Share price drops. Why, because a Credit Rating Agency says they are not ‘AS’ Credit Worthy as they were.

Just answer me a simple question, just WHY should we listen to the people who are primarily responsible for the credit crunch and Deflation that we are currently undergoing. Of all the people that should be blamed for the position we are in today, the Credit Rating Agencies must top the list. They were the people that put AAA ratings on the CDO’s and other debt that now is deemed Toxic and is the reason why so many of the are in such a dire state.

But, on the ‘Financial’ TV Channels, we get the news that Rating Agencies are cutting someones rating and the shares plummet,

Just answer me, WHY should we be listening to ANYONE who works for these supposed guardians of wealth