Correspondence to the Gisborne Herald

The article in the June 17th paper about the sun going into hibernation
is interesting. It quickly states that, “some”(my word as not all
climate scientists agree), “climate scientists in the US say any drop in
solar output would be more than offset by increases in human greenhouse
gas emissions“. Meaning temperatures would continue to rise. Yet farmers
are warned of possible negative impacts.

The latest Investigate magazine
(July 2011) reports on this event also, but from a different
perspective. That of history. Both say an event like this occurred 300
years ago, it is called the Maunder Minimum and lasted roughly 100
years. Investigate magazine contains eyewitness accounts of the climatic
conditions during this period of intense cold. A must read for those
with an open mind on the current climate debate.

What really intrigues me is that the US solar scientists mentioned were
taken by surprise that the sun is going into hibernation. Both the Space
and Science Research Center in Orlando and the Pulkova Observatory in
Russia have been warning this was going to happen for years. I myself
have known about it for over a year and have mentioned it several times
in my columns. Don’t these people listen to each other, or is it simply
because those who have been giving the warnings are not AGW believers,
and are therefore to be disregarded?

The concept that increases in greenhouse gasses will offset the reduced
solar energy output this event will produce is naïve and misleading. A
reduction in solar energy means a reduction in earth’s heat absorption,
resulting in a reduction of infrared radiation, which in turn means less
infrared radiation in the wavelengths that greenhouse gasses absorb. The
end result is colder temperatures. Not warmer temperatures. Basic logic,
not rocket science.

Furthermore a web site I have recently found, studies the greenhouse
gas theory and found it to be incapable of producing the result the IPCC
and their so called climate experts would have us believe. Gary Novak an
independent scientist, researched the claims of the IPCC and concluded
that the whole concept is "scientifically perverse". His article “Back
Radiation does not Create a Greenhouse Effect” can be found at In this article he maintains that CO2 would have to be at
12,000 degrees Celsius to produce what is claimed as the 0.65 degree
warming caused by CO2 over the last century. It is obvious that
atmospheric CO2 is not at 12,000 degrees Celsius or each breath we took
would sear our lungs. That’s if we could survive with CO2 that hot.

The concept that CO2 is capable of heating the earth above what it
already does defies the laws of Physics, Thermodynamics and Atmospheric
dynamics. It is physically impossible.
Global cooling has already begun and indications are that this will now
intensify with the sun in hibernation. The longer the Sun hibernates the
colder it will get. Be warned, it is probably going to get very cold.

Alan Nicholl