Global Warming from Increased Sunspots

The sun does not put out a steady amount of energy. Sure we know the sun is cooling very gradually as the star ages (well, not really...stars actually gradually brighten over much of their lifetime)*. But, the activity on the sun's surface does vary some as well. Scientists have long known that sunspot activity runs on approximately 11-year cycles, with the most recent peak being in 2001. Though sunspots themselves are cooler than the surrounding sun surface, their presence corresponds with increased sun activity overall, which produces a slightly brighter sun. The brighter the sun is, the more it warms the earth.

Scientists know that the sun has been abnormally active the last 60 years when compared to previous observations. But it's only been since the invention of the telescope that people have been able to regularly examine and document the sun's activity. Until fairly recently, it wasn't possible to determine what the sun's activity was before the year 1610.

So how have scientists learned to measure previous sunspot activity? Well, first a refresher on carbon-dating. Cosmic rays from the sun react with air molecules in the earth's upper atmosphere, creating Carbon-14, a radioactive version of the standard carbon molecule. It combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide, disperses pretty evenly throughout the atmosphere, and ends up being absorbed into the living tissue of plants and animals in tiny concentrations.

C-14 production is fairly constant (sans nuclear testing), thus the concentrations absorbed into living tissue are also fairly constant. C-14 decays with a half-life of 5,730 years, thus scientists can use its declining concentrations in organic matter (wood, old clothing and skins, ancient peat layers under glaciers, ancient tree trunks preserved in acidic conditions, etc.) to determine an approximate age...back tens of thousands of years. Scientists have helped calibrate their age determinations with things like readings from the tree rings of 6,000 year-old bristlecone pines, the oldest trees in the world.

Those slight inconsistencies in C-14 production are very important. The more active the sun is, the less cosmic rays it produces. That means during periods of more sunspots, flares, eruptions, etc., less C-14 is produced in our upper atmosphere...meaning less is available for living tissue to aborb. The difference isn't huge, but it is statistically significant. Scientists can measure the amount of C-14 in things like old and ancient trees, note the variations, and determine the sun's activity in the past...up to 11,400 years ago thus far. That's to the end of the most recent ice age. And, they can varify this data with the decay of another radioisotope (Beryllium-10) deposited in layers in polar ice fields.

We now know that the recent 60 years of increased sun activity are the greatest period of such activity in the last 8,000 years.

__________

Researchers had already determined some of the earth's recent cooler periods coincided with periods of low sun activity. The most recent period was from 1645-1715, when a drastic reduction in the number of sunspots (known as the Maunder Minimum) corresponded with a mini-ice age. The same correlation with cooler weather has been shown from 1420-1530 (the Spoerer Minimum), 1280-1340 (the Wolf Minimum), and 1010-1050 (the Oort Minimum). From 1100-1250, there were was more sunspot activity than normal, and that's when the Vikings settled parts of Greenland.

So in this period of much more sun activity than normal, one must figure that natural heating is contributing to global warming to some degree. So, the $64,000 question is how much of the current global warming is natural versus man-made? Well...

- During the last two 11-year sunspot cycles, sun activity has been about the same, but the earth has warmed slightly. That seems to be at least indirect evidence that man's activities are indeed causing some global warming.

- It's only been since the late 1970s--in the middle of this busy 60-year sunspot period--that experts were worried about us going into at least a mini-ice age. Some of them are the same experts who are most vocal about global warming now.

- We're often told that greenhouse gasses, most notably carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, have risen steadily with man's development and are much higher than they used to be. This is true. So why has global warming underperformed compared to the percentage increase of carbon dioxide and the accompanying predictions? Well, that's because carbon dioxide is over-hyped...the most common and important greenhouse gas is water vapor. Factor it into the equations, and the percentage change in greenhouse gasses is much less pronounced than is claimed. And, we're still a long ways from understanding how water's dynamic movement through the atmosphere, muchless evaporation & condensation, freezing & thawing, weather systems, irrigation, dams, etc. impacts global warming, and/or vice versa.

- We know that the earth's distance from the sun varies in more than just annual cycles. The Milankovitch Theory shows that the earth's orbit around the sun varies for a couple other reasons: the earth has a bit of a wobble in the rotation about its axis, and the direction of the earth's axis slowly changes. These vary over a 19,000-23,000 year cycle. Currently, the earth is tilted in a way that puts the northern hemisphere closer to the sun than the southern hemisphere overall, which makes the winters a bit less severe than average in the northern hemisphere. Milankovitch tried to use his theory to explain the expansions and contractions of the polar ice caps, but at best it's only a partial explanation.

- Man's activities, from various means of polluting to farming, increase the amount of dust and other particulates in the air. We know that when there's a volcanic eruption that puts a massive amount of dust into the upper atmosphere, global weather is cooler for years. As man puts more dust and other particulates into the atmosphere, we're likely contributing a bit to global cooling.

I could go on, but suffice to say that there's plenty we still don't understand about our planet, the natural weather cycles (whether they cycle over millenia or just a few years), man's impact on those cycles, etc. Some of the changes occuring in nature that are viewed as disastrous consequences of global warming are natural change. That doesn't change the fact that we're increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gasses in the air. Water vapor's role as the key greenhouse gas...we just don't have a good handle on it yet.

In general, whether it reduces global warming or not, reducing the amount we pollute is a good thing. But bottom line...if the answer to global warming looks simple, it's too simple.

*  NOTE:  As per the Feb 14, 2008 comments, I added the parenthesis regarding stars gradually brightening to the first paragraph.

Comments

[Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst]

Global Warming - Man Made or Natures Cycle R1

The debate: Is the observed global warming natural or man made?
Global Warming or natural climatic rhythm?
Global Warming Man made or natural cycle?

There are numerous pros and cons as to the cause of Global Warming.
After some study and research I share with you the various opinions.

This consensus in this on-line article represents the views of some researchers and forecasters, but does not necessarily represent the views of all scientists. It was not the intention of this article to discount the presence of a human-induced global warming element or to attempt to claim that such an element is not present. There is a robust, on-going discussion on climate change within the scientific community.

One degree. On a thermometer, it doesn't seem like much at all. But that degree has sparked intense debate among experts who monitor the temperature on Earth.
In a new report issued by a leading group of scientists and meteorologists, research shows the planet has warmed one degree during the last 100 years. That report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asserts that Earth will continue to warm between 2 and 10 degrees during the next century.
Those researchers believe that global warming could be boosting the planet's temperature. Global warming is a phenomenon of temperatures rising on Earth. Scientists have said that some human activities cause gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide to build up in the atmosphere. Those gases trap heat closer to Earth's surface giving the planet a worldwide fever.
Many experts say two chemicals -- carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide -- are most responsible for global warming. Cars, trucks and factories around the world emit those chemicals everyday. Once in the atmosphere, those chemicals act as big reflectors, bouncing back sun rays to the Earth and warming the planet.
But there are scientists, climatologists and weather watchers who believe that the warming trend is not an aberrant threat, but part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling on Earth. "We just haven't been around long enough to know if it's a fact," said CNN weather anchor Orelon Sidney. "The Earth is more than 4 billion years old and humans haven't been around that long. So this could just be a part of cycle."
The scientists who believe the Earth is warming say years of research are needed to determine why.
Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center located at Ohio State University, is among those attempting to discover the causes of global warming. He spends many months away from his home in search of answers.
Thompson's latest trek to the Andes Mountains showed substantial changes in a glacier.
"The glacier we have been studying has been melting at an unbelievable rate," Thompson said. "Where there was once ice, there is now a lake." Thompson photographed the new lake and glacier to show "obvious changes in our world because of temperature increase," he said. Thompson said a warmer earth could lead to more erratic weather. "If energy in the system -- the heat on the Earth's climate system --increases, then you're going to have more water vapor. More water vapor feeds more storms -- larger hurricanes, maybe larger snowstorms too."
As a meteorology student at the University of Maryland, Antony Chen is among those who would watch for those weather changes. He is part of the next generation of researchers who will have to figure out what's behind the cause of the temperature bump.
Chen says we have to look at the big picture then determine what changes people should make on the local level. "We need to know what's going on in the atmosphere, the magnitude of changes we are making to our climate system," Chen said. "Then we can start coming up with solutions."
Professor Bruce Doddridge is one of Chen's professors and is encouraged by the caliber of young people he's seen entering the earth sciences. "I'm impressed with the variety of smart and intelligent people coming through that can do this work," he said.
Doddridge concedes that there are many potential causes of global warming, but said he believes the new technology could help assess and solve the problem. "The issues are becoming more complicated," Doddridge said, "but I think the tools we have to work with are becoming more sophisticated."
Many experts say two chemicals -- carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide -- are most responsible for global warming. Cars, trucks and factories around the world emit those chemicals everyday. Once in the atmosphere, those chemicals act as big reflectors, bouncing back sun rays to the Earth and warming the planet.
But there are scientists, climatologists and weather watchers who believe that the warming trend is not an aberrant threat, but part of a natural cycle of warming and cooling on Earth. "We just haven't been around long enough to know if it's a fact," said CNN weather anchor Orelon Sidney. "The Earth is more than 4 billion years old and humans haven't been around that long. So this could just be a part of cycle."
The scientists who believe the Earth is warming say years of research are needed to determine why.
Dr. Lonnie Thompson, a researcher at the Byrd Polar Research Center located at Ohio State University, is among those attempting to discover the causes of global warming. He spends many months away from his home in search of answers.

1. The authors of Unstoppable Global Warming - Every 1,500 Years, say that history, ice core studies and stalagmites all agree on a natural cycle at roughly that interval that is superimposed on the longer, stronger ice ages and interglacial phases.
They point as evidence of this natural cycle to the "Climate Optimum" - a period of warmer and wetter weather than the present Earth's climate, which took place 9,000 years ago to 5,000 years ago, and a cooling event 2,600 years ago.
During the Roman warming period from 200 BC to around AD 600 North Africa and the Sahara were wetter and supported crops. In more recent times they point to the medieval warming of 900 to 1300, when Eric the Red's descendant's colonized Greenland and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1850 which saw the Norse dairy farmers on Greenland grow short from malnutrition and eventually die out.
Mr. Avery, a former US agriculture official whose celebrated earlier book was Saving the Planet with Pesticides and Plastic: The Environmental Triumph of High Yield Farming suggests that the natural cycle of warming and cooling may come from variations in cosmic rays which have been linked to cloud formation.
This theory was validated in a recent paper in a Royal Society journal by scientists from the Danish National Space Centre who showed that sub-atomic particles - cosmic rays from exploding stars - play a major role in making clouds. During the past century cosmic rays became scarcer as vigorous activity by the sun forced them away. So there was less cloud cover to reflect away sunlight and a warmer world, according to the Danish scientists.
2. Policymakers have been arguing for nearly a decade over what to do about global warming. Noticeably missing from this debate has been any mention of the fact that natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, not Man, are the likely explanation for any recent warming.
Proponents of the global warming theory repeatedly cite a 1.5° F temperature increase over the last 150 years as evidence that man-made CO2 is dangerously heating up the planet and will cause huge flooding, severe storms, disease and a mass exodus of environmental refugees. Based on this, the Clinton Administration and its environmental allies want Congress to ratify a treaty that will hike consumer prices 40 percent and cost the American economy $3.3 trillion over 20 years. But the apocalyptic predictions on which they justify these drastic steps are totally unsubstantiated and ignore some fundamental truths about the Earth's climatic behavior.
The fact is, the planet's temperature is constantly rising and falling. To put the current warming trend in perspective, it's important to understand the Earth's geological behavior.
Over the last 700,000 years, the climate has operated on a relatively predictable schedule of 100,000-year glaciations cycles. Each glaciations cycle is typically characterized by 90,000 years of cooling, an ice age, followed by an abrupt warming period, called an interglacial, which lasts 10,000-12,000 years. The last ice age reached its coolest point 18,000 to 20,000 years ago when the average temperature was 9-12.6° F cooler than present. Earth is currently in a warm interglacial called the Holocene that began 10,700 years ago.
Although precise temperature readings over the entire period of geologic history are not available, enough is known to establish climatic trends. During the Holocene, there have been about seven major warming and cooling trends, some lasting as long as 3000 years, others as short as 650. Most interesting of all, however, is that the temperature variation in many of these periods averaged as much as 1.8° F, .3° F more than the temperature increase of the last 150 years. Furthermore, of the six major temperature variations occurring prior to the current era, three produced temperatures warmer than the present average temperature of 59° F while three produced cooler temperatures.
For example, when the Holocene began as the Earth was coming out of the last Ice Age around 8700 B.C., the average global temperature was about 6° F cooler than it is today. By 7500 B.C., the climate had warmed to 60° F, 1° F warmer than the current average temperature. However, the temperature fell again by nearly 2° F over the next 1,000 years, settling at an average of 1° F cooler than the current climate.
Between 6500 and 3500 B.C., the temperature increased from 58° F to 62° F. This is the warmest the Earth has been during the Holocene, which is why scientists refer to the period as the Holocene Maximum. Since the temperature of the Holocene Maximum is close to what global warming models project for the Earth by 2100, how Mankind faired during the era is instructive. The most striking fact is that it was during this period that the Agricultural Revolution began in the Middle East, laying the foundation for civilization. Yet, Greenhouse theory proponents claim the planet will experience severe environmental distress if the climate is that warm again.
Since the Holocene Maximum, the planet has continued to experience temperature fluctuations. In 900 A.D. the planet's temperature roughly approximated today's temperature. Then, between 900 and 1100 the climate dramatically warmed. Known as the Medieval Warm Period, the temperature rose by more than 1° F to an average of 60° or 61° F, as much as 2° F warmer than today. Again, the temperature during this period is similar to Greenhouse predictions for 2100, a prospect global warming theory proponents insist should be viewed with alarm. But judging by how Europe prospered during this era, there is little to be alarmed about. The warming that occurred between 1000 and 1350 caused the ice in the North Atlantic to retreat and permitted Norsemen to colonize Iceland and Greenland. Back then, Greenland was actually green. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages in a period that was characterized by bountiful harvests and great economic prosperity. So mild was the climate that wine grapes were grown in England and Nova Scotia.
The major climate change that followed the Medieval Warm Period is especially critical as it bears directly on how to assess our current warming period. Between 1200 and 1450, the temperature plunged to 58° F. After briefly warming, the climate continued to dramatically get colder after 1500. By 1650, the temperature hit a low of 57° F. This is regarded as the coldest point in the 10,000-year Holocene geological epoch. That is why the era between 1650 and 1850 is known as the Little Ice Age. It was during this time that mountain glaciers advanced in Switzerland and Scandinavia, forcing the abandonment of farms and villages. Rivers in London, St. Petersburg and Moscow froze over so thoroughly that people held winter fairs on the ice. There were serious crop failures, famines and disease due to the cooler climate. In America, New England had no summer in 1816. It wasn't until 1860 that the temperature sufficiently warmed to cause the glaciers to retreat.
The significance of the Little Ice Age cannot be overestimated. The 1.5° F temperature increase over the last 150 years, so often cited as evidence of man-made warming, most likely represents a return to normal temperatures following a 400-year period of unusually cold weather. Even the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chief proponent of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty signed in December 1997, concludes that: "The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus, some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities."
Leading climate scientist Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says we may be in for an additional 1.8° F of warming over the next few centuries, regardless of Man's activities. The result would be warmer nighttime and winter temperatures, fewer frosts and longer growing seasons. Since CO2 stimulates plant growth and lessens the need for water, we could also expect more bountiful harvests over the next couple of centuries. This is certainly not bad news to the developing nations of the world struggling to feed their populations.
Thus, far from being a self-induced disaster, global warming is the result of natural changes in the Earth's climate that promises to yield humanity positive benefits. In the geological scheme of things, the warming is not even that dramatic compared to the more pronounced warming trends that occurred during the Agricultural Revolution and the early Middle Ages. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this long-needed warming is moderating. All things considered, global warming should be viewed for what it is: A gift from the often fickle force of Nature. Enjoy it while you can.
3. Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.
The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.
Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.
Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.
"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."
How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.
For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.
He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.
Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.
"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."
4. Is human activity warming the Earth or do recent signs of climate change signal natural variations? In this feature article, scientists discuss the vexing ambiguities of our planet's complex and unwieldy climate
Newspaper headlines trumpet record-breaking temperatures, dwindling sea ice, and retreating glaciers around the world. Concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide, one of the greenhouse gases responsible for scalding temperatures on Venus and at least 33 degrees C of normal warming here on Earth, are on the rise. Our planet seems destined for a hot future!
But is it really? Or are we simply experiencing a natural variation in Earth's climate cycles that will return to "normal" in time?
Correlations between rising CO2 levels and global surface temperatures suggest that our planet is on a one-way warming trend triggered by human activity. Indeed, studies by paleoclimatologists reveal that natural variability caused by changes in the Sun and volcanic eruptions can largely explain deviations in global temperature from 1000 AD until 1850 AD, near the beginning of the Industrial Era. After that, the best models require a human-induced greenhouse effect.
In spite of what may seem persuasive evidence, many scientists are nonetheless skeptical. They argue that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. The Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence, they note. And not all of the evidence supports global warming. Air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably, according to satellite data, and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the last 20 years.
It may surprise many people that science -- the de facto source of dependable knowledge about the natural world -- cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as important as climate change.
Why is the question so thorny? The reason, say experts, is that Earth's climate is complex and chaotic. It's so unwieldy that researchers simply can't conduct experiments to check their ideas in the usual way of science. They often rely, instead, on computer models. But such models are only as good as their inputs and programming, and today's computer models are known to be imperfect.
Most scientists agree that no single piece of data will likely resolve the global warming debate. In the end, the best we can expect is a scientific consensus based on a preponderance of evidence.
5. 30 Natural Global Warming Episodes Have Occurred During the Past 5,000 Years.

David Dilley of GWO has discovered a powerful natural forcing mechanism that controls global warming cycle, hurricane track landfalls, El Nino cycles and many other climate weather cycles.

David Dilley of Global Weather Oscillations Inc., Ocala Florida, has completed groundbreaking research on Global Warming. This research found that the current global warming episode is a "Natural Recurring Cycle", and that this current cycle will begin to diminish as early as 2015, and no later than 2040.

Mr. Dilley's 15-years of ongoing climate research has uncovered a very powerful external forcing mechanism that causes shifts in regional weather cycles, and the world's climate. This forcing mechanism is called "the Primary Forcing Trigger Mechanism", or PFM. The PFM is a cyclical forcing mechanism that can be forecast years in advance, or even traced back through the earth's climate history. The major influence of the PFM on the earth's climate is that it causes the world's dominating regional high-pressure systems to shift position, or become displaced from their normal seasonal position.

Because the PFM is cyclical, the earth's weather and climate is likewise cyclical. As an example of an induced PFM climate cycle, the subtropical high-pressure system in the central South Pacific normally causes the ocean's water temperature to stay relatively cool in this region. Dilley's El Niño research (see link) explains that the PFM cycle induces a shift in the position of the high-pressure system where El Niños form. The resulting wind shift then triggers the formation of an El Niño by inducing a rapid warming of sea surface temperatures. Dilley says that research going back to 1915 showed 24 such PFM cycles and 24 El Niño occurrences. This research is currently under peer review and will go to a leading climate journal this summer.

Further research by Dilley and Global Weather Oscillations, indicates that this same PFM forcing mechanism displaces high-pressure centers in such a way to control the tracks of hurricanes from one year to the next. (See hurricane link) Knowing how and why this forcing mechanism controls weather cycles opened the door to the ground breaking global warming research.

Mr. Dilley states that the current global warming cycle is without a doubt the result of a known external "natural" forcing cycle. According to Dilley, most government officials, climatologists and meteorologists are looking only at the increase in temperatures and carbon dioxide (CO2) levels over the past 50 to 100 years. These correlations and findings are only representative during global warming episodes. When you take into account nearly 30 other global warming episodes over the past 5 thousand years, it becomes very apparent that CO2 levels cannot be the forcing mechanism that has caused global warming, but rather Long-term PFM climate forcing cycles. These cycles likely displace high-pressure systems and the polar jet stream northward during an approximate 200-year recurring PFM forcing cycle.
the years 1050 to 1205 AD. The peak warming of this cycle lasted 90 years from 1090 to 1180 AD, as delineated by the red box. The second global warming cycle was from 1285 to 1415 AD, with a 65-year peak from 1315 to 1380. The third global warming episode was from 1440 to 1590 with a 50-year peak from 1520 to 1570. The fourth was from 1700 to 1845 with a 45-year peak from 1740 to 1785. Finally, the current global warming episode began about 1910 and the peak about 1950, or about 57 years ago.

The graph and research indicates that each global warming cycle has duration of 130 to 160 years, and the peak of each cycle has duration of 50 to 90 years. Analyses of the 5 warming cycles and the history of PFM cycles, indicates that the current cycle is about the same duration as the one that occurred about 900-years ago. Therefore, the current global warming cycle will run from 1910 to 2060, with the duration of the peak warming occurring between 1950 and 2015. The peak warming will level off around 2015 and then begin diminishing rapidly by no later than the year 2030 to 2040. Once cooling begins it will only take 20 to 30 years to cool to the lowest part of the cooling cycle, temperatures much like what was recorded in the 1800s.

In addition to the 5 global warming cycles found during the past 1000-years, it should be noted here that a total of approximately 30 global warming cycles have occurred during the past 5000 years, with the warmest cycle occurring approximately every 1000-years, and the peak of the warmest cycle having a duration of 60 to 90 years. Referring to the 5000-year graph, the present long-term warming cycle can be seen on the right hand side of the graph, and 4 other long-term warm cycles date back 5000-years on the left side of the graph.

Analyses of the 5000-year graph indicates that long-term warming cycles have durations as short as 500-years as seen in the 2 cycles labeled A, to as long as 1000-years as seen in cycle C nearly 4500-years ago. Further analyses of cycle durations indicates that if the current long-term warming cycle which began in the year 1500 AD was of the same duration as cycle A, the peak of the current warming would of ended back in the year 1750, and it did not. In addition, if the current cycle was the same duration as cycle B, the peak warming of our current global warming cycle would have ended in the year 1900, and it did not. Now let's take a look at cycle C. in the next paragraph..
Further research by Research by Global Weather Oscillations indicates that the PFM climate forcing cycle normally occurs in cycles of 5. Therefore looking back 5 warming cycles and 5 PFM cycles, we find cycle C that occurred 4,500 years ago and had a 1000 - year duration of the entire warm cycle. Using the mid-point of this cycle (500-years), the current long-term warming that began around the year 1500 AD will peak around the year 2000 AD, and end by 2500 AD.


Reconstructed Carbon Dioxide CO2 and Temperature Proxies Past 400,000 Years.

The graph below shows reconstructed Ice Core temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations over the Antartica from near present time back 400,000 years. Of particular importance is that this graph shows 5 Natural Cycles during the past 400,000 years and as temperatures rise the carbon dioxide concentrations also naturally rise, thus mirroring the cyclical temperatures. It is well known throughout the scientific community that warmer temperatures can hold more water vapor, and water vapor absorbs and holds carbon dioxide. Thus these 5 Natural Cycles during the past 400,000 years mirror the 200-year global warming cycles shown early. Therefore, it is likely that the peak of all 30 global warming cycles during the past 4,000 years likewise had carbon dioxide concentrations very similar to the values found today.

Thus, carbon dioxide levels are not the cause of global warming....all global warming cycles are "Natural".
Natural Global Warming Cycles .. Putting it all together

The current long-term 1000-year warming cycle began about the year 1500 AD and will continue to near 2500 AD. This current long-term cycle will consist of 5 cyclical short-term global warming and cooling episodes. The world is now in the third of the 5 short-term cycles, and the warmest of the 5. The first short-term global warming episode peaked between 1520 and 1570 AD, followed by a cooling period until the next global warming episode peaked between 1740 and 1785. Temperatures remained cool throughout the 1800s to early 1900s, and then the third short-term global warming episode began. The peak of this current global warming episode began in earnest around 1950 and will level off as early as 2015, and no later than 2030-40. Then within 20 years temperatures will cool rapidly to the same levels as seen in the 1800s. The global warming cycles are approximate 200-year cycles, so the next global warming cycle will peak about 150-years after the end of the current cycle, or about the year 2200. This will be the 4th of 5 cycles within the current 1000-year primary warm cycle, and it will not be as warm as the current episode.

Global warming research has found 5 natural global warming cycles during the past 1000-years, and approximately 30 global warming cycles during the past 5 thousand years.

In conclusion - let the reader make up his own conclusions.

Data compiled by Yehuda Draiman, Energy Analyst

[Mike]

Told you so. But more importantly, Warmer Is Better -- Fight the Ice.

[Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst]

AMERICANS INSATIABLE THIRST FOR ENERGY MUST BE MODERATED R2
By Jay Draiman, Energy Development Specialist

As you know, many serious problems are associated with our insatiable thirst for energy. The reason is simple: To gain the energy we must burn the fuels. The combustion, by the way quite inefficient, causes huge gaseous emissions polluting the air and forming an invisible screen responsible for the famous “ green house effect ”, i.e., blocking the dissipation of heat and thus causing the feared warming up of our planet, with deadly consequences for nature and man.
There is only a finite amount of oil in the world. Everybody knows this.
Someday, we'll run out. It will be gone.
Meanwhile, our insatiable thirst for oil -- which we burn -- has put enormous sums of money into the hands of fanatics who hate us and everything we stand for, and who use that oil money to fund the terrorists who murder Jews and Americans wherever they can.
We can't burn oil forever.
And it's bad strategy to base our economy on cheap oil when we have to buy at least some of it from our enemies.
Optimists tell us that the free market will eventually deal with the problem. Their theory is that as oil gets harder to extract cheaply, the price will go up; then other forms of energy will become economically attractive and we'll switch over to them.
Here's why their optimism is nothing short of suicidal.
First, there's no guarantee that without intense government-funded research and financial incentives now, the new energy sources will be available in quantities large enough to replace oil when it does run out.
In other words, if we wait until it's an emergency, our economy could easily crash and burn for lack of energy sources sufficient to drive it.
It's easy to supply energy for an economy that's only a tenth the size of the world's economy today. The question is how many people will die in the resulting chaos and famine, before new free-market equilibrium is established?
Second, how stupid do we have to be to wait until we run out of oil before acting to prevent its waste as a fuel? Petroleum is a vital source of plastics. We could use it for that purpose for hundreds of generations -- if we didn't burn any more of it. But if we wait till we've burned all the cheap petroleum, it won't be just fuel that we have to replace.
Third, market forces don't do anything for our national defense, our national security. We had a clear warning back in the 1970s with the first oil embargo. What if terrorism in the Middle East specifically targets all oil exports, from many countries?
And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil?
You notice that I haven't said anything about polluting the environment. Because this is not an environmental issue.
In the long run, it's an issue of whether we wish to provide for our children the same kind of prosperity that we've luxuriated in as a nation since World War II.
It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves.
Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it.
Congress ought to be giving greater incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years.
Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don't burn oil at all.
Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all.
Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless.
What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don't know when, but we do know it will happen.
And on that day, our children will curse their forebears who burned this precious resource, and therefore their future, just because they didn't want the government to interfere with the free market, or some other such nonsense.
The government interferes with the free market constantly. By its very existence, government distorts the market. So let's turn that distortion to our benefit. Let's enforce a savings program. But instead of putting money in the bank, let's put oil there.
Oil in the bank ... so our children and grandchildren for a hundred generations can slowly draw it out to build with it instead of burn it.
Oil in the bank ... so we'll be free of the threat of fanatics who seek to murder their enemies -- including us -- with weapons paid for at our gas pumps.
Do you want to know who funded Osama bin Laden? We did. And we continue to do it every time we fill up.
You don't have to be an environmental fanatic to demand that we control our greed for oil.
In fact, you have to be dumb and a fool not to insist on it.
But ... foresight just isn't the American way. We always seem to wait until our own house is burning before we notice there's a wildfire.
Oh, it won't reach us here, we tell ourselves. We'll be safe.
Talk about foolish optimism.
Fair Threat to World Economy But Oil Boycott Improbable
Energy Efficiency Must Be North America’s Priority but Canada and
U.S. Fail on Energy Efficiency Policies
“The despots of the moderate Middle East are non-players save for
their oil in the ground… My concern is that my grand kids might see parts of the
Middle East turned into a nuclear waste land, and Ali Baba and The Forty
Thieves. The world community needs to see a checkmate within the next 60 -
90 days. Failing that, Iran and Syria will be emboldened.” Reiterating an almost
universal view on the panel, this CEO emphasized that the world’s seemingly
The Chinese contribution to the energy crisis
The quest for resources. The dynamic Chinese economy, which has averaged 9 percent growth per annum over the last two decades, nearly tripled the country's GDP, has also resulted in the country having an almost insatiable thirst for oil as well as a need for other natural resources to sustain it. The PRC has been a net importer of petroleum since 1993, and has increasingly relied on African countries as suppliers. As of last year, China was importing approximately 2.6 million barrels per day (bbl/d), which accounts for about half of its consumption; more than 765,000 bbl/d – roughly a third of its imports – came from African sources, especially Sudan, Angola, and Congo (Brazzaville).
To get some perspective on these numbers, consider that one respected energy analyst has calculated that while China's share of the world oil market is about 8 percent, its share of total growth in demand for oil since 2000 has been 30 percent. The much publicized purchase, in January of this year, of a 45 percent stake in an offshore Nigerian oilfield for $2.27 billion by the state-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) was just the latest in a series of acquisitions dating back to 1993 whereby the three largest Chinese national oil companies – China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation (Sinopec), and CNOOC, respectively – have acquired stakes in established African operations.
Our insatiable thirst for Middle East energy is “the oil [that] feeds the fire.”
This idea that we can live in a homogenous cul-de-sac suburban development in our plastic homes driving 50 to 100 miles to work in a 4700lb SUV to our middle management job at Bed Bath and Beyond and expect this way of life to just continue on indefinitely with no consequences represents mind boggling ignorance and negligence towards our future. The "American Dream" is a relic of the Baby Boomer generation and will die with our parents and grandparents. To quote author James Kunstler: "Suburban development in this country represents the single largest misallocation of wealth and resources in the history of the planet."

So could a 900 acre photo voltaic array power a major metropolitan grid. No, probably not. But the question isn't how do we squeeze enough energy out of the technology to accommodate our seemingly insatiable thirst for electricity and fuel but rather how do we cut the fat and waste out of our civilization and our lives and actually live WITHIN our environment with some sort of sustainability. There is no one technology that will provide all our solutions. It will have to be a combination of wind turbines, solar and hydroelectric excluding the remote possibility that some new form of energy production (i.e. cold fusion or something equally fantastical) is unleashed on the world by CERN or ET. These power plants will operate primarily at a local level servicing on a much smaller scale than what we here in North America have been so used to in the last 70 or so years.
If the American public's insatiable appetite for automobiles continues, uncurbed by any sense of responsibility, someone must, like a parent with a selfish child, at least start slapping wrists.
Perhaps we should ration gasoline, and insist that all cars meet a miles-per-gallon minimum -- one higher than many sport utility vehicles, for example, achieve now. The rationing would not be a wartime figure, of course, but a reasonable amount allowed for business and pleasure.
Americans consume the largest portion of gas in the world and cry the loudest about the price.
The government should repeatedly increase the price of gasoline in an effort to slow our country's insatiable thirst for oil. Utilize the excess profits and taxes to fund research and rebates for renewable efficiency and renewable energy.
Jay Draiman, Energy Analyst – 6/18/2007

[YJ Draiman, Energy Consultant]

Homeowners can cut energy bills by making their houses more energy-efficient R2
_________________________________________
By YJ Draiman
HOMEOWNERS can practically hear the meters ticking as their air conditioners fight this summer's sweltering heat.
But that doesn't mean there aren't some things they can do to ward off high energy bills now--and once winter sweeps in.
Just ask THE ENERGY EXPERT, who conducts residential energy audits as National Energy Efficiency Auditor.
"The most common problem is air infiltration," he said, "where unconditioned air meets conditioned air."
THE ENERGY EXPERT, who uses smoke pencils to detect leaks and infrared scans to check insulation, windows, attics and roofs, said poorly insulated "room additions" over garages top the list of energy wasters.
"Builders don't always sheathe the back side of the drywall in insulation, so hot attic air infiltrates the room," he said. "There's only one piece of drywall keeping the hot air out."
THE ENERGY Experts’ solution is to install energy-efficient foam board with an aluminum-foil backing behind the drywall. A recent job cost about $300 and or insulation and attic fans in the attic – there is also a rebate and tax credits (check with your local utility). (Insulation in the attic and attic fans reduce energy consumption substantially).
"It pays for itself in one season," THE ENERGY EXPERT said.
Homeowners typically spend about $1,600 a year to heat and cool the house, turn lights on and off, and operate appliances, said spokeswoman for the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy.
But they can cut those expenses by as much as $600 by switching to more energy-efficient products and taking a variety of other energy-saving steps.
Those can be as simple as replacing a 15- to 20-year-old refrigerator with a new Energy Star model, which uses about a fourth as much electricity as an older appliance, and/or putting compact florescent bulbs or LED bulbs in at least the five most commonly used light fixtures in the house. You should also replace burned out motors/compressors with energy efficient multi-stage motors.
"Compact fluorescents cost more up front, but you really make it up because they use somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the energy required for an incandescent and they last 10 times longer," the Energy Expert said. "Plus, they don't burn as hot, so they don't heat up the place during the summer and your air conditioner has to work less hard."
A good place for homeowners to start in determining how their energy usage stacks up is to log on to the Home Energy Saver at homeenergysaver.lbl.gov.
Developed by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, this site calculates energy use and savings tips based on information that users provide. Type in a ZIP code and up pop the energy costs of an average home and an energy-efficient home for that area.
The program also includes a questionnaire that asks for more detailed information so it can provide a customized answer. It also has links to sites that provide a wealth of information about its energy-saving recommendations.
On various utility companies Web sites, shoppers can order a similarly helpful gizmo called Watts Up? Plug in any standard 120-volt appliance or electronic device, and it will analyze such things as current draw, incoming voltage and cost of operation. The Watts Up? Basic model costs $89.95 and the pro version costs $123.95.
Rather leave audits to professionals?
Some auditors offer a standard audit for $100 that includes a visual inspection of the house and its heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. An expanded audit, which costs $200, includes tests to check for leaks in air ducts and the house's air-tightness.
Your local utility company may do audits, also has a list of providers on its Web site.
Low-income homeowners can get help for free through the Aging weatherization assistance program.
"We go into the house and do various tests to find problem areas," said the Energy Consultant. "What we do in most cases is make minor repairs and blow in insulation."
Last fiscal year, many families got help through the federally funded program.
Sometimes, however, the most effective ways to trim energy usage are the easiest, the Energy Expert said.
Putting up weather-stripping, for example, is something anyone can do yet many people overlook, he said. The same goes for changing a heating system's air filters on a regular basis or a set-back thermostat.
The Energy Expert also recommended installing ceiling fans and programmable electronic thermostats. A fan can make a room feel cooler so the air conditioning can be turned up, and a programmable thermostat automatically lowers the heat setting while homeowners are at work and raises it just before they return.
The Energy Expert has also learned that putting the screens/shades on the south-facing windows of the house in the summer will help block out some of the sun's fierce heat. In some states especially the western parts of the United States temperature at night falls to 50-60 degrees – open the windows and shut the air-condition and or utilize a fan to bring in the fresh cooler air – it is also healthier and reduces indoor pollution. In areas of the country that have a high humidity – you can install a dehumidifier in the summer to reduce energy cost and a humidifier in the winter.
"I take the screens and or shades off in the winter," The Energy Expert said.
Increasing a house's energy efficiency not only lowers the owner's bills, it also raises the value of the property. According to an EPA-funded study done in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, a house's value jumps $10 to $25 for every $1 the owner is able to save on annual fuel/energy bills. You can also utilize rainwater and grey water to reduce your water and sewer bill. Some utility companies will allow you to install a sub-meter for the water used for landscaping, swimming pools and ponds – which eliminates the sewer charge from that portion of your water bill.
"You'll get a better price because you can show them your heating and cooling bills, which are reasonable and not outrageous," said The Energy Expert, national energy-management coordinator.
The Energy Expert oversees many Energy Saver Home programs, which inspects houses as they're being built to insure they're properly insulated and sealed. The inspections cost $250 and come with a year-long warranty. For an added service The Energy Expert will perform a site inspection for the installation of Solar/Photovoltaic system for the home and/or business and its benefits, costs, rebates, tax credits, financing and ROI.
Prospective buyers of energy-efficient houses can get a break, too.
"Some mortgage companies will allow you a better debt-to-income ratio," The Energy Expert said. "They know your electric/gas utility bills will be less so you'll have more income to put toward your mortgage."
YJ Draiman - Energy Savers 7/16/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com
PS. The politician’s intentions were captured perfectly. The eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they received the task of energy savings are to be the laughing stock of society.

[YJ Draiman]

To accelerate “IMPLEMENTATION of ENERGY EFFICIENCY, CONSERVATION, RENEWABLES and Reduction in the use of fossil fuels”.
The U.S. government can initiate an aggressive program to encourage and expedite these concepts, reduce demand by spurring a revolution in energy productivity initiating:
One promising idea is to make energy efficiency trade-able, much in the same way as we trade oil and natural gas, or, indeed, carbon emissions. A system making energy efficiency trade-able in the U.S. -- companies would be able to sell credits when they exceeded new standards -- would quickly reduce total energy consumption while limiting carbon emissions. Adding a market mechanism to trade efficiency gains would make energy efficiency standards more palatable to industries that have resisted them in the past and expedite implementation of energy efficiency and fuel efficiency. – “Money makes the world go round”.
YJ Draiman, Energy analyst
8/31/2007

[Amy Blickensderfer]

my email is punkrokker_chik@hotmail.com. im doing a project on global warming. can you help me? i want to prove humans dont cause it.
thanks

[Jay Draiman, Energy consultant]

Homeowners can cut energy bills by making their houses more energy-efficient R5
_________________________________________
By YJ Draiman
HOMEOWNERS can practically hear the meters ticking as their air conditioners fight this summer's sweltering heat.
But that doesn't mean there aren't some things they can do to ward off high energy bills now--and once winter sweeps in.
Just ask THE ENERGY EXPERT, who conducts residential energy audits as National Energy Efficiency Auditor.
"The most common problem is air infiltration," he said, "where unconditioned air meets conditioned air."
THE ENERGY EXPERT, who uses smoke pencils to detect leaks and infrared scans to check insulation, windows, attics and roofs, said poorly insulated "room additions" over garages top the list of energy wasters.
"Builders don't always sheathe the back side of the drywall in insulation, so hot attic air infiltrates the room," he said. "There's only one piece of drywall keeping the hot air out."
THE ENERGY Experts’ solution is to install energy-efficient foam board with an aluminum-foil backing behind the drywall or wool insulation which also absorbs sound. A recent job cost about $400 and or insulation and attic fans in the attic – there is also a rebate and tax credits (check with your local utility). (Insulation in the attic and attic fans reduce energy consumption substantially). Utilizing night-time outside air to cool down the house.
"It pays for itself in one season," THE ENERGY EXPERT said.
Homeowners typically spend about $1,600 a year to heat and cool the house, turn lights on and off, and operate appliances, said spokeswoman for the nonprofit Alliance to Save Energy.
But they can cut those expenses by as much as $600 by switching to more energy-efficient products and taking a variety of other energy-saving steps.
Those can be as simple as replacing a 15- to 20-year-old refrigerator with a new Energy Star model, which uses about a fourth as much electricity as an older appliance, and/or putting compact florescent bulbs or LED bulbs in at least the five most commonly used light fixtures in the house. You should also replace burned out motors/compressors with energy efficient multi-stage motors. Install photocell for outside lighting.
"Compact fluorescents cost more up front, but you really make it up because they use somewhere between 20 and 25 percent of the energy required for an incandescent and they last 10 times longer," the Energy Expert said. "Plus, they don't burn as hot, so they don't heat up the place during the summer and your air conditioner has to work less hard."
A good place for homeowners to start in determining how their energy usage stacks up is to log on to the Home Energy Saver at homeenergysaver.lbl.gov.
Developed by the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, this site calculates energy use and savings tips based on information that users provide. Type in a ZIP code and up pop the energy costs of an average home and an energy-efficient home for that area.
The program also includes a questionnaire that asks for more detailed information so it can provide a customized answer. It also has links to sites that provide a wealth of information about its energy-saving recommendations.
On various utility companies Web sites, shoppers can order a similarly helpful gizmo called Watts Up? Plug in any standard 120-volt appliance or electronic device, and it will analyze such things as current draw, incoming voltage and cost of operation. The Watts Up? Basic model costs $89.95 and the pro version costs $123.95.
Rather leave audits to professionals?
Some auditors offer a standard audit for $100 that includes a visual inspection of the house and its heating, ventilation and air-conditioning systems. An expanded audit, which costs $200, includes tests to check for leaks in air ducts and the house's air-tightness.
Your local utility company may do audits, also has a list of providers on its Web site.
Low-income homeowners can get help for free through the Aging weatherization assistance program.
"We go into the house and do various tests to find problem areas," said the Energy Consultant. "What we do in most cases is make minor repairs and blow in insulation."
Last fiscal year, many families got help through the federally funded program.
Sometimes, however, the most effective ways to trim energy usage are the easiest, the Energy Expert said.
Putting up weather-stripping, for example, is something anyone can do yet many people overlook, he said. The same goes for changing a heating system's air filters on a regular basis or a set-back thermostat.
The Energy Expert also recommended installing ceiling fans and programmable electronic thermostats. A fan can make a room feel cooler so the air conditioning can be turned up, and a programmable thermostat automatically lowers the heat setting while homeowners are at work and raises it just before they return.
The Energy Expert has also learned that putting the screens/shades/awning on the south-facing windows of the house in the summer will help block out some of the sun's fierce heat. In some states especially the western parts of the United States temperature at night falls to 50-60 degrees – open the windows and shut the air-condition and or utilize a fan to bring in the fresh cooler air – it is also healthier and reduces indoor pollution. In areas of the country that have a high humidity – you can install a dehumidifier in the summer to reduce energy cost and a humidifier in the winter.
A homeowner can also replace the windows with energy efficient windows. This will insulate the house further, produce better indoor temperature control and increase the value of the home. Many States and some Utility companies offer rebates and or credits for replacement windows.
"I take the screens and or shades off in the winter," The Energy Expert said.
Increasing a house's energy efficiency not only lowers the owner's bills, it also raises the value of the property. According to an EPA-funded study done in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available, a house's value jumps $10 to $25 for every $1 the owner is able to save on annual fuel/energy bills. You can also utilize rainwater and grey water to reduce your water and sewer bill. Some utility companies will allow you to install a sub-meter for the water used for landscaping, swimming pools and ponds – which eliminates the sewer charge from that portion of your water bill.
"You'll get a better price because you can show them your heating and cooling bills, which are reasonable and not outrageous," said The Energy Expert, national energy-management coordinator.
The Energy Expert oversees many Energy Saver Home programs, which inspects houses as they're being built to insure they're properly insulated and sealed. The inspections cost $250 and come with a year-long warranty. For an added service The Energy Expert will perform a site inspection for the installation of Solar/Photovoltaic system for the home and/or business and its benefits, costs, rebates, tax credits, financing and ROI.
Prospective buyers of energy-efficient houses can get a break, too.
"Some mortgage companies will allow you a better debt-to-income ratio," The Energy Expert said. "They know your electric/gas utility bills will be less so you'll have more income to put toward your mortgage."
Some utilities offer free energy efficient light bulbs replacement for multi-family housing
YJ Draiman - Energy Savers 9/26/2007 – renewableenergy2@msn.com
PS. The politician’s intentions were captured perfectly. The eco-pretensions of the rich and the stupefying gullibility with which they received the task of energy savings are to be the laughing stock of society.

[Yehuda Draiman]

PAY AS YOU SAVE Energy conservation financing program

The program will allow participants to purchase and install energy efficient products
And equipment (or “measures”), with no up-front cost. These measures can include modifications to lighting, heating, cooling, other energy efficient electric, gas and non-electric equipment and systems. Major measures promoted: lighting, weatherization, water saving devices and clock thermostats in both electric and non-electrically heated homes and businesses. We should also accept a variety of measures (provided they pass the Program qualification. This can apply to any conservation method, renewable energy systems, electric, gas and water.
Primary goals should be lighting retrofits, motor retrofit, HVAC efficiency, insulation and attic fans, windows, energy efficient appliances, water conservation equipment and techniques, utilization of gray water, landscaping for energy conservation.
HOW DO WE PROPOSE TO FINANCE THE COSTS: There is no up-front cost to the participants? Instead, the utility pays all initial costs associated with the purchase and installation of approved measures. (We must keep the costs competitive and reasonable)
Then, an Energy Finance Charge (EFC) is calculated and added to the ember’s/customers monthly utility bill until all costs are repaid.
A fund will be set up and the payments will reimburse the fund monthly.
Calculating the Term: Financing charge amounts itemized on the monthly utility bill should be based on two thirds of the estimated savings that will come from the measures installed.
This way, the monthly charge should be designed to be less than the savings realized on each bill once the new measures are installed and implemented.
If customers wish to pay off their Financing charges balances quicker (which in some cases they do), up to one hundred percent (100%) of the savings can be used to form the basis of their monthly Finance charge amount.
Payments Linked to Meter (not customer): The payments are always linked to the service location, not to the customer. So if an Energy Financing Charge (EFC) participant moves or sells, the new owner continues making the payments for the duration of the payment term, unless the previous owner/tenant chooses to pay off the obligation before selling or moving.
Also, the payments include a small percentage risk mitigation adder (5%) to protect the utility from bad debt risks associated with some portion of participants’ failure to pay.
To protect the utilities and their broader membership/customer base against other potential risks, three key requirements are included in the EFC program for those that choose to participate:
• Maintenance: All measures must be maintained in place and in good working order during the entire repayment period – the utility will help arrange for repairs, but any associated costs will be added to the EFC on the utility bill, or will extend the payment term to ensure recovery of these additional charges.
• Disconnection: All payments must be made on time – EFC charges are treated like other charges on the utility bill that are subject to service disconnection for non-payment.
• Disclosure: If the home or business is sold or rented, disclosure of the remaining monthly EFC payment amounts must be made to the potential purchaser or tenant (since they will be taking over the remaining payment obligation), unless the current owner chooses to pay the balance off before the sale or rental.
This proposed program – managed efficiently, will advance and expedite our reduction in the use of energy and resources in an expedited manner and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
It will also promote an economic boom in the geographical areas where such program is implemented.
Compiled by: Yehuda Draiman, Energy analyst – 1/1/2008

[Ken Dixon]

When one reads something at the beginning of a scientific article that one knows is dead wrong, one losses interest in reading any further. After reading the second sentence of your article, " Sure we know the sun is cooling very gradually as the star ages", I bypassed the rest of the article and came directly to your comment facility.

Any astronomer will tell you that the sun is heating up as it ages, not cooling down. In fact, its luminosity has increased by roughly 30% since it began its life as a star almost 5 billion years ago. This is because the thermonuclear reaction that fuses hydrogen into helium in the sun's core causes the core to shrink a little, which in turn increases its temperature and pressure, which in turn increases the rate of the reaction, which in turn increases the sun's luminosity.

Cheers, Ken

[RoguePundit]

Ken, I was trying to make a light and casual introduction to an already complicated topic without diving into what is sometimes called the faint young sun paradox. You're the first person in 3+ years to have complained...and your point is obviously valid. I certainly wasn't trying to misinform (or in your case alienate). So, I've added a reference in that sentence to the Wikipedia article in case anyone is curious enough to pursue the subject a bit further.

[Anissa Mamood]

I have some questions...How do sunspots effect global warming? From what you know about global warming...Is global warming caused by humans or is it natural? Why and How?

[Mike]

1. Sunspots are solar storms. They increase the amount of radiation striking the Earth. They also charge the Ionosphere which limits cosmic rays which alleged cause low atmosphere cloud formations that allegedly cool the Earth.

2. Natural.

[Crazy]

"we just don't have a good handle on it yet"

Yeah, that about sums it up. YOU don't have a good handle on it yet, while over a hundred Nobel Laureates in the Sciences and all of the World leaders in Environmental Sciences do.

[Crazy]

Anissa, I am not a "solar scientist" and I will acquiesce to the true scientists I mentioned before, but in my simple understanding, when the sun has sunspots, it often results in sun flares, or Coronal Mass Ejections (CME's). This results in solar projections of protons and electrons. These only hit the earth if they occur on the right quadrant of the sun as we are looking at it. Only through that trajectory are we susceptible to the flares or CME's. If everything goes right we are hit by a solar radiation storm. If it's strong enough, this means you do not want to be walking on the moon at the time, you definitely don't want to be working on the Space Station (although they do have lead encased shields just for that purpose), you don't want to be flying above 10,000 ft, for it could equal radiation levels of 100 chest x-rays or more, and you most certainly don’t want to be living on Bush’s Mars condominiums! This exact scenario did recently happen. Now when the protons of the CME’s hit the stratosphere it excites the upper stratosphere, which in turn causes the Aurelia Borealis to occur far below the average latitude. We can also monitor this through several live proton monitors on the planet and measure their relative KB. Strong CME's also cause radio outages, satellite failures, and power outages, but they are usually gone and pass around our Earth within 12-24 hours.

Now here is the rub. I can understand how some could come to the conclusion that sun flares caused by sunspots could cause global warming. And indeed, logically, when one watches proton monitors reading off the scale, one assumes heat is occurring. That's not hard to imagine, that's basic Physics, but when twelve hour later, all monitors are reading normal, and we know the electromagnetic storm has passed beyond our planet, how is it still heating? We read no excitation of molecules anywhere. The solar flare is over.

There maybe an argument here I haven’t heard yet, but in any case, now we are at a solar minimum, with global temperatures off the high end of the chart, and not one sunspot on our sun. And we have so much science that documents greenhouse gases as the culprit.

When the Sun is at a solar maximum there are hundreds of sunspots. This theory of the global warming deniers reminds me of some homeopathic medicines, when one must dilute a molecule so much that the molecule no longer exists in a dose. “That way it’s stronger”, they say, and loosely base their science upon Pasteur and Jenner. But it just doesn’t make sense. It’s not a vaccination, or even a mild vaccination. It’s a NOTHING-vaccination. Somehow they say a 'vibration' remains in the water, immeasurable to be sure. Complete gobbledygook. No basis in Science whatsoever. So to sum it up, yes, solar flares occur. Do they warm the planet? Maybe. Not that I know of. (I don't believe in Sasquatch either).

[RoguePundit]

Crazy, when did the impact of sunspots on climate suddenly become a theory only expounded by global warming deniers? If you weren't so closed-minded, you might understand the subject better. And a minor point...isn't it just a wee disingenuous to note the current lull in sunspots while ignoring the current--though quite-possibly entirely coincidental--dip in the average global temperature?

[Crazy]

RoguePundit, in a word, no. See for yourself.

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/

provided by NOAA

[RoguePundit]

A chart of this decade's sunspot activity and "no?" You're not worth wasting any more time on.

[Mike]

There is a surfeit of info on this subject at Wikipedia - Solar variation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

The debate on solar forcing is by no means over. Singer etal present a graph showing strong correlations between levels of C14 and O18 in the early Holocene and state:

"Figure 14: Values of carbon-14 (produced by cosmic rays – hence a proxy for solar activity) correlate extremely well with oxygen-18 (climate proxy); data are from a stalagmite in Oman [Neff 2001]. The time interval covers more than 3,000 years, from about 9,600 to 6,200 years before present (BP). The lower graph shows a particularly well-resolved time interval from 8,350 to 7,900 years BP. It would be difficult to explain this detailed correlation except through the modulation of galactic cosmic rays by changes in the solar wind and solar magnetic activity [Singer 1958]. The mechanism whereby cosmic rays influence terrestrial climate is most likely a change in cloudiness, as suggested by Svensmark [2007a, 2007b]." [From S. Fred Singer, ed., Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, Chicago, IL: The Heartland Institute, 2008.]

Marsh points out that the sunspot cycle varies from 9 to 14 years and he graphs cycle length against Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies 1860 to present, and (using proxies for the first two centuries) cycle length from 1550 to present vs. temps. The correlations are very strong. We have experienced very short cycles recently, long cycles during the Maunder and Dalton minimums.

Marsh also graphs the sunspot number as reconstructed from 10Be concentrations in ice cores from 850 to present vs C14, and shows a distinct lag in C14. Evidently 10Be is produced sooner in response to sunspots than C14 (for reasons I do not understand). The 10Be concentrations correspond very closely to temperature anomalies, perhaps better than C14.

Marsh concludes:

"Some of the arguments and data behind the contention that the earth’s climate could be affected by changes in cloud cover caused by variations in the galactic cosmic ray flux have been briefly summarized. These data strongly imply that a relation between cosmic rays intensity and cloud cover may explain how relatively small changes in solar activity can produce much larger changes in the earth’s climate. While the correlation is robust, there is still no generally accepted mechanism, although a number have been proposed. This is not surprising since the microphysical processes in clouds are quite complex and this is an ongoing area of research. Nevertheless, a lack of an accepted microphysical process for increasing cloud condensation nuclei does not justify minimizing the impact of solar variations on climate." [From Marsh, Gerald E. Climate Change: The Sun's Role. 2008]

The scientific debate is NOT over. The political debate isn't over either, despite the protestations of Crazy and others.