Solar Power is so Inefficient that Scientists had to create a Perpetual Heat Machine to make it more Efficient

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 15th, 2014

Week in Review

There’s a problem with solar power.  Night.  Clouds.  Rain.  Hail.  Snow.  Dust.  Bird poop.  Etc.  Actually that’s a little more than one problem.  There’s at least nine.  But the biggest problem is night.  Because it’s hard for solar panels to produce electricity from sunshine when the sun isn’t shining.  That is, until now (see Scientists Discover How to Generate Solar Power in the Dark by Todd Woody posted 4/15/2014 on The Atlantic).

The next big thing in solar energy could be microscopic.

Scientists at MIT and Harvard University have devised a way to store solar energy in molecules that can then be tapped to heat homes, water or used for cooking.

The best part: The molecules can store the heat forever and be endlessly re-used while emitting absolutely no greenhouse gases.  Scientists remain a way’s off in building this perpetual heat machine but they have succeeded in the laboratory at demonstrating the viability of the phenomenon called photoswitching…

So how would molecular solar storage work if the technology can be commercialized? Timothy Kucharski, the paper’s lead author and a postdoc at MIT and Harvard, told The Atlantic that most likely the storage would take a liquid form, which would be easy to transport.

“It would also enable charging by flowing the material from a storage tank through a window or clear tube exposed to the sun and then to another storage tank, where the material would remain until it’s needed,” Kucharski said in an email.  “That way one could stockpile the charged material for use when the sun’s not shining.”

Of course the takeaway from this is that solar power is so inefficient that Scientists at MIT and Harvard University had to make the impossible possible to make it more efficient.  And create a perpetual heat machine.  A self-sustaining machine.  Requiring no energy input to create energy.  If it works, great.  It would be paradigm changing.  But while we wait we should stop wasting money on solar panels.  Which can only produce energy when the sun shines.  About half of the day.  Unlike a coal-fired power plant.  Which produces power 24/7.  Regardless of night.  Clouds.  Rain.  Hail.  Snow.  Dust.  Or bird poop.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

You just can’t Replace a Coal-Fired Power Plant with a Solar Farm

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

What’s unique about Windsor, Ontario?  The city across the river from Detroit?  It’s the only place you can drive south from the United States to get to Canada.  So it’s about as far south you can get in Canada.  But it’s no Florida.  No.  They have cold winters in Windsor.  They also have snow.  And clouds.  So it’s probably not the best place to build a solar farm.  Any rational person would see this.  So guess what the government in southern Ontario is doing?  Building a solar farm (see Airport land leased for Samsung solar farm by Chris Vander Doelen posted 3/19/2014 on The Windsor Star).

A “major” developer of solar power will lease hundreds of acres at Windsor Airport for a green energy farm, city council has agreed after years of negotiations with the company…

He said the company picked Windsor as the site for its investment because “we have more sun days than any other jurisdiction in Ontario.” That clearly suggests a solar farm, but Francis wouldn’t confirm that…

The agreement approved Wednesday – the meeting was closed to the public for legal reasons, Francis said – is believed to be the final, long-delayed piece of a massive deal the Province of Ontario and Samsung announced in January 2010.

That’s when former premier Dalton McGuinty announced that the province had signed a $7-billion agreement to produce renewable power with the Korean industrial giant – a contract that became so controversial parts of it were later renegotiated…

But the deal also became controversial as the costs starting driving up residential and industrial power bills, all of which will be affected by the renewable energy plan.

The controversy eventually led to reductions in some of the feed-in tariffs paid to producers of solar and wind power, which likely added to the delays of the solar farm not announced until this week. It also led to the renegotiation of additional incentives for Samsung, which were reduced to $110 million over 20 years…

Installation of the panels would generate many years of employment for an undetermined number of labourers and IBEW electricians. But once built there wouldn’t be much employment generated by the static field of passive solar collectors.

The solar farms were to be part of something called the Ontario Alternative Energy Cluster, claimed by Samsung to be “the largest of its kind in the world” at 1,369 megawatts of output.

They may have more sun days in Windsor than any place else in Canada.  But Canada is a northern country.  Even Windsor is in a northern clime.  And they just don’t get as much sun as they do in more southern climes (see The Climate and Weather of Windsor, Ontario).  In the sunniest month they have 9.5 average hours of sun per day.  Which means they have 14.5 (24-9.5) average hours of no sun per day.  And during these hours of ‘no sun’ a solar farm will not produce electric power.  Which means on average this solar farm will produce no electric power for half of the day.

And it gets worse.  The average hours of sun per day declines going into winter.  October (5.5 hours of sun and 18.5 hours of no sun).  November (4.1 hours of sun and 19.9 hours of no sun).  December (2.6 hours of sun and 21.4 hours of no sun).  January (3.4 hours of sun and 20.6 hours of no sun).  February (4.4 hours of sun and 19.6 hours of no sun).  March (5.4 hours of sun and 18.6 hours of no sun).  So, on average, there are 5 hours of no sun for every hour of sun for half of the year.  So you can install solar panels that could produce 1,369 megawatts of output.  But they seldom will.  So you will need another power source to provide electric power when the solar panels don’t.  Which means a solar farm can’t replace something like a coal-fired power plant.  For that coal-fired power plant will have to on average provide power 82% of the time.  Which is why building a solar farm is a real bad idea.

And it gets even worse.  December has 10 days of snowfall on average.  January has 12.  And February has 9.  Just under half the days in the winter months will have snow which will have to melt off when the sun comes out from behind the clouds.  If it comes out.  Or someone will have to clear the snow from the solar panels by hand.

Windsor also has some other climate statistics (see National Climate Data and Information Archive).  They have the most thunderstorm days.  So they have more high winds, hail and tornados to damage delicate solar panels pointed skyward than any other part of Canada.  And more black overcast days to block out the sun.  They have the most smoke and haze days to filter out some of the sun from hitting the solar panels.  They have the most humid summer which will coat the solar panels with early morning dew that will run down and drain off in blackened streaks.  Reducing the efficiency of the solar panels.

This is why no one is building solar farms without taxpayer subsidies.  Which raises the cost of electric utility bills to pay for the subsidies.  Eating into household budgets forcing families to get by on less.  And for what?  You can’t shut down a coal-fired power plant during the day and turn it back on at night.  It takes time to make high pressure steam.  That’s why they use these plants for baseload power.  They’re on all the time.  And when demand picks up they add a natural gas-fired turbine ‘peaker plant’ to provide that peak demand.  Or some other source that they can bring on line quickly.  Like another turbine at a hydroelectric dam.  So the good people of Ontario will pay more for their electric power without getting anything in return.  Not even a cleaner environment.  Because you just can’t replace a coal-fired power plant with a solar farm.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There would be no Green Energy Industry if there were no Green Energy Subsidies

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 15th, 2014

Week in Review

Green energy investments are a horrible investment.  The only reason why anyone is building green energy projects is because of taxpayer subsidies.  If you take away the subsidies the green energy industry is just going to stop building these bad energy projects.  Which is what’s happening now (see Here Are The 10 Best States For Clean Energy Jobs In 2013 by Aaron Tilley posted 3/12/2014 on Forbes).

Clean energy investments had it rough in 2013, and US job growth in that sector is having a bit of trouble too.

That’s at least according to evidence in a new report out today from Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2),an environmental advocacy organization for businesses. While the clean energy industry made plans to add an additional 78,000 new jobs at 260 projects in 2013, that’s a 30% dip from the 110,000 job announcements in the previous year. (E2 has only been tracking clean energy job growth for the past two years…)

The biggest reason for the 30% drop in job growth over last year is due to ongoing regulatory uncertainty around federal tax credits and state renewable energy mandates, says E2 communications director Bob Keefe. Congress let the generous tax credits the wind energy industry had enjoyed for more than two decades expire in December–and it looks unlikely they’ll be reinstated in 2014. And four major energy efficiency tax credits and initiatives expired at the end of last year too. On top of that, several states, including North Carolina and Kansas, have attempted to roll back mandates on renewable energy requirements for their utility grids.

If anyone bemoans a cut in government spending in some government program don’t blame the Republicans.  Blame the Democrats.  And their green energy cronies.  The Democrats are taking money away from other programs to pay for these white elephants just so they and their crony friends can get rich.

These projects cost a fortune to build.  And the return on investment just isn’t there.  Which is why it takes hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsidies to build them.  That’s a lot of money to spend when these projects accomplish nothing. They don’t allow us to shut down one coal-fired power plant.  Because we’ll need those coal-fired power plants to provide electric power when the sun doesn’t shine and when the wind doesn’t blow.  And they take up so much real estate that they’re displacing wildlife from their natural habitat.  While wind farms are hacking American Bald Eagles and other birds to death.  So they’re not helping the environment.

And they’re not improving the reliability of our electric power.  Or lowering the cost.  Every time they shut down a coal-fired power plant they increase our electric bills.  And increase the brownouts and blackouts we have to endure when we have to rely on less reliable power that costs more (we have to pay more for our electric power to pay for those subsidies) than the more reliable power.  This is our government when Democrats are in power.  And just imagine how they will run our health care.  Who do you think they’ll make rich?  And how much will they increase our health care costs?  While giving us an inferior health care system?  It’s going to happen.  Because that’s what happens when Democrats are in power.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

People in the Norwegian town of Rjukan use Mirrors to Combat the Lack of Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

Global warming alarmists must hate the Norwegian town of Rjukan (see Giant mirrors reflect winter sun into Norwegian town of Rjukan by Associated Press posted 10/30/2013 on The Guardian).

Residents of the small Norwegian town of Rjukan have finally seen the light.

Tucked in-between steep mountains, the town is normally shrouded in shadow for almost six months a year, with residents having to catch a cable car to the top of a nearby precipice to get a fix of midday vitamin D.

But on Wednesday faint rays from the winter sun for the first time reached the town’s market square, thanks to three giant mirrors placed on a mountain…

“Before when it was a fine day, you would see that the sky was blue and you knew that the sun was shining. But you couldn’t quite see it. It was very frustrating,” said Karin Roe, from the local tourist office. “This feels warm. When there is no time to get to the top of the mountains on weekdays, it will be lovely to come out for an hour and feel this warmth on my face.”

Like much of Scandinavia, Rjukan often is freezing throughout the winter, but on Wednesday it was 7 C.

If we convert 7 C to Fahrenheit we get 44.6 degrees.  How’s that for a balmy October day?

It would appear that the good people of Rjukan like the warmth.  And tire of the cold.  Well, that will not please the global warming alarmists.  Who will probably sue the town of Rjukan to remove those mirrors.  Because in their world all warming is bad.  And wrong.  While being cold is natural.  So the people of Rjukan should stay cold.  For the planet.  While people like Al Gore lounge in their beach villas.  Soaking up all the warmth and sun as they please.  For it may be bad in their world.  But even they love the warmth of the sun.  Proving that warm is good.  And cold is bad.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

NASA’s Voyager 1 is approaching the Edge of our Universe

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 17th, 2012

Week in Review

NASA launched Voyager 1 in 1977 when Jimmy Carter was president.  It’s been flying in space for some 35 years.  It’s still flying.  And it’s still communicating to us.  Even though it’s a long way from home (see Voyager 1 Spaceship to Break Out of Solar System, Into Outer Space by NILS KONGSHAUG posted 6/15/2012 on ABC News).

Fifty-five years after humans first escaped the bounds of Earth and launched a satellite into orbit, we are about to cross another frontier…

That frontier is the farthest reach of the solar winds, the particles that shoot from the sun at a million miles an hour, giving us the northern lights as they bend around Earth’s magnetic field.

At some distance from our sun the solar winds will be overwhelmed by the interstellar winds that blow among the stars.

That boundary, the very edge of the solar system, is called the “heliopause.” No spacecraft has ever reached it, and scientists don’t know exactly how far away it is. But last month the number of cosmic rays hitting Voyager 1 started to shoot up…

And in a mere 40,000 years, Voyager 1 will approach another star. Another sun.

It’s hard to imagine what 40,000 years is.  For us to look forward to that time would be like a Neanderthal looking forward to our time.  If another intelligent life on a planet orbiting that sun examines that spacecraft 40,000 years from now it may be like us looking at a curious Neanderthal relic we unearthed today.  Or perhaps something will enter our galaxy that has traveled 40,000 years to get here by a civilization long gone from this universe.

The universe is a big place.  We may not be alone in it.  But for all practical purposes we are.  For it would take incredible propulsion systems to accelerate us fast enough to get anywhere and back before we died on the trip.  Or we need advances in medical science that can extend the life expectancy of man to about 80,000 years.

Just food for thought the next time there’s talk about UFOs in our skies.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

The Swiss install a Solar-Powered Ski Lift in Tenna to use During the Short Gray Days of Winter

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 5th, 2012

Week in Review

A tiny little town in Switzerland, Tenna, has a small ski resort with one T-bar ski lift.  The kind where they pull you uphill while you stand on your skis.  With the lift between your legs and the ‘T’ behind your upper thighs where they join the buttocks.  It’s not the most comfortable way to the top.  But it sure beats cross-country skiing uphill to alpine-ski downhill.  Or the dreaded tow rope.  Where you pull your weight uphill by holding on to the rope as it pulls you uphill.

This ski lift was wearing out.  And it was the only one in the valley.  But what is winter in a Swiss valley without skiing?  Long, cold and gray.  So the people of Terra saved that T-bar lift.  To make those short gray days more bearable (see Tiny Swiss town builds the world’s first solar-powered ski lift by Adventure Journal posted 2/2/2012 on GrindTV).

The Tenna lift generates 90,000 kilowatt hours a year, or three times the juice needed to run the lift, and the extra power goes back into the grid, which makes money for the town, which can pay residents back…

At $1.5 million, the project wasn’t cheap, but considering the cost of a new or updated lift anyway, plus the open skies above most ski lift pathways, it’s a no-brainer to use that area to offset the energy use. Other resorts might not gain 300 percent efficiency as in Tenna…

If you follow the link you’ll see a sunny picture of the lift.  With a lot of clouds in the sky.  On a sunny day.  So it’s just not night time that’s a problem with solar power.  It’s the clouds, too.  That’s why solar power has such a low capacity factor.  The labeled output for those solar panels may be 90,000 kilowatt hours a year.  But after you apply a 25% capacity factor to account for when the sun doesn’t shine, that’s only 22,500 kilowatt hours a year.  Which means there’s a good chance that there will be times when skiers won’t reach the top of the mountain.  Luckily for them, though, it’s a T-bar lift.  Where their feet will always be touching the ground on the ride up.  So they can always ski back to their car when the lift stops working.  And start up their good old reliable internal combustion engine to drive back home.

Seems like a lot of money to spend for a part-time ski lift.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Environmentalists are Demanding Obama Damage the Economy by Killing the Keystone XL Pipeline

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 5th, 2011

Week in Review

If you’ve ever wondered if liberals (that 20% of the electorate hell-bent on running all of our lives) are bad for the country just follow this pipeline saga (see Green groups warn Obama he’ll pay price for approving pipeline by Ben Geman posted 11/4/2011 on The Hill).

Environmentalists warned bluntly Friday that President Obama’s reelection campaign will pay a heavy price if he approves a controversial oil sands pipeline…

[Tiernan Sittenfeld’s, a top official with the League of Conservation Voters (LCV),] comments come days after Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said that approval would hurt the group’s ability to mobilize members on Obama’s behalf.

The Sierra Club and LCV have the environmental movement’s largest political campaign operations.

Once again it’s not about jobs and the economy after all.  It’s about the money.  It’s always about the money.  And if Obama can get political contributions during record unemployment then he doesn’t need to create jobs.  He hasn’t yet.  So why start now?  (All that stimulus didn’t stimulate anything other than Obama’s political cronies’ appetite for more stimulus).  So the country can continue to wallow in recession.  As long as the money keeps rolling in.

Environmentalists also argue that rejection of the project would help Obama politically.

Help Obama politically.  While damaging the economy.

Building the thing will create real jobs.  And when they build it gasoline prices will go down.  Via the laws of supply and demand.  Which means consumer prices will go down.  Because the cost of everything has an energy cost component.  And people will pay less to gas up their cars.  Leaving them with more money for their households.

So the environmentalists are urging Obama to sacrifice all of that.  To improve politically.  I must have missed that part in the presidential oath of office.  Where it was all about the president.  And not the people.

The project puts Obama in a tough spot politically at a time when the economy and jobs are shaping up as the dominant issues in next year’s election…

Several unions are backing the project, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the Laborers’ International Union, and the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO.

But labor is not united on the project. The Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union both oppose Keystone XL.

Tough spot indeed.  That’s a lot of union support for the pipeline.  Because these union people will be building that pipeline.  And they desperately want jobs in this rotten Obama economy.  The only unions against it are the ones who will lose jobs because of a pipeline.  The trucking industry.  And the railroad industry.  Who would prefer to restrict the supply of oil.  To raise the price at the pump for the masses.  So the few who transport it can keep their jobs.

“Burning the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, more than anything else, is what has raised the temperature of the planet a degree already. We didn’t know about climate change when … people found oil in Saudi Arabia, so it was natural to go burn it,” McKibben said.

“Now that we do, if we find a second Saudi Arabia and just do the same thing, then we are idiots,” he said.

Well, he’s right about one thing.  They are idiots.  For we don’t know what raised the temperature of the planet.  If the temperature is raising you just can’t point at one thing and say it’s responsible.  What about the sun?  And the solar minimum?  The sun is more likely changing global temperatures than man.  Just like it did during the ice ages.  When the planet really warmed and cool.  Before anyone ever burned a fossil fuel.

Obama is tied into the lunatic left because that’s all he has.  His economic policies have been an abject failure.  Both for the economy.  And for his rewarding of campaign donors with federal tax dollars, a.k.a. stimulus.  Because his crony capitalism will be all for naught if he loses reelection.

So, no, liberalism is not good for the country.  And right now it’s not all that good for a liberal president.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Solar Activity causing Problems for Global Warming ‘Scientists’

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 15th, 2011

Sunspot Activity is an Important Variable in Climate Forecasting

There’s a consensus in the global warming community.  And it says that global warming exists.  But there’s a problem now.  The sun, the source of our planet’s warmth, is throwing the global warming people a curve ball.  The sun may be getting cooler.  And, being the source of our warmth, our planet may now be getting cooler.  Amidst all this rampant global warming (see Scientists predict rare ‘hibernation’ of sunspots by Kerry Sheridan, AFP, posted 6/14/2011 on Yahoo! News).

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century…and may contribute to climate change…”

Sunspot activity may contribute to climate change?  Interesting.  Because I never heard Al Gore say that.  He said man was causing climate change.  Warning that man’s carbon footprint on the planet would melt the polar ice caps and flood coastal areas.  By the way, after he said this he bought a beach house.  A mansion, really.  In a coastal area.  How brave of him.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715, a period known as the “Little Ice Age.”

Now this is even more interesting.  Because the global warming people told us that unless we took action right now the planet was doomed.  Now we may save the planet by doing just that.  Nothing.  Scientists are saying we may have a cooling period of solar activity.  Just like that during the Little Ice Age.  Climate change caused by the sun.  Now that’s something you can’t blame man for.  Not even the Republicans.

The temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and may not be enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists who have published recent papers on the topic.

Even though the last time there was solar activity like this was one of the coldest periods known to man it probably means nothing now.  At least according to their computer models.  Those remarkable predicting machines.  That somehow failed to predict this solar activity.  Well, as long as solar activity isn’t a big climate variable.

If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.

This “cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat — and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn’t (been) warming in the past decade,” Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, said in an email to AFP.

Wait a minute.  If it cancelled out a decade of global warming it must be a pretty darn big climate variable.  It’s so powerful it held global warming at bay for about a decade.  Single-handedly preventing all sorts of disasters.  And there were a lot of them predicted since the Nineties (and earlier).  Very specific disasters.  And they were all wrong.  Because they didn’t include what appears to be a pretty important variable.  A variable so important that it trumped every other variable in their computer models.  Which doesn’t say much for their predicting models.  Or the predictability of climate.

“A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions,” wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have found a range of 3.7 Celsius to 4.5 Celsius rise by this century’s end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

“Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most.”

Funny.  When sunspot activity correlates to similar activity during the Little Ice Age they use the word ‘may’.  Here they use the word ‘cannot’.  There is no way that a reduction in sunspot activity can stop manmade global warming.  Even though they got it wrong in the 2000-2008 period.  Because their models didn’t predict the cooling effect of a reduction in sunspot activity.  Nor did they predict a reduction in sunspot activity.  But despite these misses, their other predictions hold.  The planet is warming.  Because of man.  Even if we may have to wait another 100 years for those temperatures to get where the models said they’d be already.

The Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice Age

So did the Maunder Minimum cause the Little Ice Age?  According to some of the best climate ‘scientists’, it didn’t.  Because although a Maunder-type solar activity minimum held off devastating global warming from 2000-2008, there isn’t really a connection between an even bigger Maunder-type solar activity minimum (the Maunder Minimum itself) and the Little Ice Age (see Scientists see sunspot “hibernation” but no Ice Age by Deborah Zabarenko posted 6/15/2011 on Reuters).

They also wondered whether this possible slowdown, or even a long cessation of sunspot activity, indicates an upcoming return of the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year sunspot drought seen from 1645-1715…

They had no answer as to whether this might be true, and said nothing about whether the Maunder Minimum — named for astronomer E.H. Maunder — was related to a long cold period in Europe and other parts of the Northern Hemisphere known as the Little Ice Age.

How strong a connection is there between a Little Ice Age and a Maunder Minimum? “Not as strong a connection as people would like to believe,” Hill said by phone.

So the Maunder Minimum did not cause the Little Ice Age.  And we know this why?

“In my opinion, it is a huge leap … to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood,” he said in an e-mail.

Because we don’t understand the connections between solar activity and climate?  That’s your reason for saying there’s no connection between the two?  Because you don’t know?  Of course, if you don’t know, there could very well be a connection between the two.  Look, we know there’s a connection.  If the sun burned out the earth would freeze and all life would die.  Even with manmade global warming.  The sun is that important to the earth.  If you don’t have that factored into your computer models there’s something wrong with your models.

A Cooling Sun will Cool the Planet

Wait a tic.  Apparently there isn’t a consensus on this global warming thing after all.  While some poo poo solar activity’s affect on climate, others see a connection.  They see the correlation between the coldest period of the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum (see Lack of sunspots may have aided ‘little ice age’ by Charles Q. Choi posted 6/6/2011 on MSNBC).

From the 1500s to the 1800s, much of Europe and North America were plunged into what came to be called the little ice age. The coolest part of this cold spell coincided with a 75-year period beginning in 1645 when astronomers detected almost no sunspots on the sun, a time now referred to as the Maunder Minimum.

There’s no connection between the Little Ice Age and the Maunder Minimum per the global warming ‘scientists’.  Yes, the coldest part of that ice age was during the Maunder Minimum.  But isn’t that just a coincidence?

Now scientists suggest there might have been fewer intensely bright spots known as faculae on the sun as well during that time, potentially reducing its brightness enough to cool the Earth.

The dip in the number of faculae in the 17th century might have dimmed the sun by just 0.2 percent, which may have been enough to help trigger a brief, radical climate shift on Earth, researcher Peter Foukal, a solar physicist at research company Heliophysics in Nahant, Mass., told LiveScience.

“The sun may have dimmed more than we thought,” Foukal said.

Guess not. 

A dimming of the sun may have caused a brief, radical climate shift during the Little Ice Age?  Really?  Wow.  That’s sort of the exact opposite of what the global warming ‘scientists’ said.  Being that the sun is the source of our warmth, it makes sense.  And the dimming may have been even dimmer than we once thought.  So it’s looking more and more like the Maunder Minimum may have caused the Little Ice Age.

Foukal emphasized this dimming might not have been the only or even main cause of the cooling seen during the little ice age. “There were also strong volcanic effects involved — something like 17 huge volcanic eruptions then,” he said.

Foukal also cautioned these findings regarding the sun did not apply to modern-day global warming. “Increased solar activity would not have anything to do with the global warming seen in the last 100 years,” he explained.

Now I’m confused.  Volcanic eruptions send ash, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere.  So do coal-fired power plants.  Yet volcanoes cool the planet.  While burning coal warms the planet.  How can that be?  I guess anything is possible in the world of global warming and climate change.  Such as how the warming mechanism for the last 100 years can also been the cooling mechanism during the Little Ice Age.

There is no such thing as ‘Consensus’ in Science

We hear over and over again that only man is causing global warming.  But there’s been global warming before man and his Industrial Revolution polluted the planet.  The earth warmed after each ice age.  And the earth warmed after the Little Ice Age. 

And it’s looking like the Little Ice Age was caused by a decrease in sunspot activity.  Which may be happening again.  Which means the planet may start a cooling period.  During the height of global warming.  Which, if true, further lends credence to the claim that global warming is a hoax.  Created by man.  For political purposes.  Money.  Carbon permitsCarbon trading.  It’s all about the money.  As it always is.

This is the problem with scientific consensus.  There is no such thing.  A consensus is political.  Not scientific.  Because science is not about the money.  But politics is. 

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,