Newsflash: Sun Affects Earth’s Climate
Regardless how many lemmings are willing to jump off the same cliff, there is much about this amazing planet that scientists and politicians don’t understand. Science should be allowed to freely explore those mysteries. But, as it has for centuries, politics walls off huge swaths of scientific research.
I have fought divine designers from forcing a political agenda on science (and will continue to do so as long as there is a god in heaven). With equal gusto, I fight zealots of anthropogenic global warming (“AGW”) from forcing their political agenda on science.
To deny AGW today is to have denied God a few centuries ago. Though an AGW denier might not be burned at the stake, there are those who seemingly wish it were otherwise. Such zealotry likely will change, as scientist reluctantly admit that – brace yourself – the Sun affects the Earth’s climate.
Sunspots strongly appear to affect the Earth’s climate. Less sun spots, the Earth cools. And, this is where it gets controversial: more sunspots, the Earth heats up.
Ice ages and mini ice ages correlate with less active sunspot cycles. Less sunspots; the Earth cooled. That’s an undisputed fact. Not believing in forcing science, I’m not going to say “cause/effect” – just direct correlation.
It’s also a fact that the period between 1940 and 2000 marked the most active sunspot cycles in over 1,000 years. So, maybe – just maybe – those active sunspot cycles had something to do with the run up in temperatures the Earth experienced during that period. But, it has been heresy, to even suggest that hypothesis. Why? Because it cuts against the theory of AGW. And AGW is a fact. Rather, a FACT! (Scientific facts are lowercase, since they are always subject to question and critique; political FACTS are all caps, since they are not subject to question and critique.).
It seems that more people are willing to admit that AGW is not a fact. It’s a theory. Yes, yes, I am aware that lemmings continue to unquestioningly leap off the AGW cliff. People’s devotion to their gods should never be doubted. But, for those interested in science, let’s give the AGW theory a quick test.
A good experiment would be to (1) turn off sunspots, (2) leave atmospheric CO2 alone, and (3) monitor the effect on global temperature. If temperatures continue to rise, sunspots can be ruled out as a cause of global warming. But, if temperatures drop . . ..
Around 2000, sunspot activity began to subside. Now, the sun is dormant. After the record level of sunspot activity ended, global temperatures began dropping. Now, they are plummeting. (Remember: carbon dioxide levels remain a constant). This year, we’ve seen the greatest drop in global temperatures ever recorded. –O.7 Celsius.
So much for AGW being the end-all, be-all of the story. Because AGW does have theoretical validity, it should be studied – as we require of all other scientific theories. And competing theories should be studied also. These things are complex. Nature is rarely as simple as simpletons would have it be.
To tell you how simplistic our current knowledge is, we don’t even know the mechanism by which sunspots affect global temperatures. Yet, some people want to say that their favored theory is FACT and that we should reorder society to accommodate it?! We are an interesting breed.
UPDATE: Exactly my point. In the comments, Cliff Lyon breaks from his war against BUSHITLER to demand that I retract my call for depoliticized science. Apparently, scientific inquiry into doctrine is irresponsible. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I have fought divine designers from forcing a political agenda on science (and will continue to do so as long as there is a god in heaven). With equal gusto, I fight zealots of anthropogenic global warming (“AGW”) from forcing their political agenda on science.
To deny AGW today is to have denied God a few centuries ago. Though an AGW denier might not be burned at the stake, there are those who seemingly wish it were otherwise. Such zealotry likely will change, as scientist reluctantly admit that – brace yourself – the Sun affects the Earth’s climate.
Sunspots strongly appear to affect the Earth’s climate. Less sun spots, the Earth cools. And, this is where it gets controversial: more sunspots, the Earth heats up.
Ice ages and mini ice ages correlate with less active sunspot cycles. Less sunspots; the Earth cooled. That’s an undisputed fact. Not believing in forcing science, I’m not going to say “cause/effect” – just direct correlation.
It’s also a fact that the period between 1940 and 2000 marked the most active sunspot cycles in over 1,000 years. So, maybe – just maybe – those active sunspot cycles had something to do with the run up in temperatures the Earth experienced during that period. But, it has been heresy, to even suggest that hypothesis. Why? Because it cuts against the theory of AGW. And AGW is a fact. Rather, a FACT! (Scientific facts are lowercase, since they are always subject to question and critique; political FACTS are all caps, since they are not subject to question and critique.).
It seems that more people are willing to admit that AGW is not a fact. It’s a theory. Yes, yes, I am aware that lemmings continue to unquestioningly leap off the AGW cliff. People’s devotion to their gods should never be doubted. But, for those interested in science, let’s give the AGW theory a quick test.
A good experiment would be to (1) turn off sunspots, (2) leave atmospheric CO2 alone, and (3) monitor the effect on global temperature. If temperatures continue to rise, sunspots can be ruled out as a cause of global warming. But, if temperatures drop . . ..
Around 2000, sunspot activity began to subside. Now, the sun is dormant. After the record level of sunspot activity ended, global temperatures began dropping. Now, they are plummeting. (Remember: carbon dioxide levels remain a constant). This year, we’ve seen the greatest drop in global temperatures ever recorded. –O.7 Celsius.
So much for AGW being the end-all, be-all of the story. Because AGW does have theoretical validity, it should be studied – as we require of all other scientific theories. And competing theories should be studied also. These things are complex. Nature is rarely as simple as simpletons would have it be.
To tell you how simplistic our current knowledge is, we don’t even know the mechanism by which sunspots affect global temperatures. Yet, some people want to say that their favored theory is FACT and that we should reorder society to accommodate it?! We are an interesting breed.
UPDATE: Exactly my point. In the comments, Cliff Lyon breaks from his war against BUSHITLER to demand that I retract my call for depoliticized science. Apparently, scientific inquiry into doctrine is irresponsible. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
posted by steve u. at 9/01/2008
Subscribe
18 Comments:
Steve,
It doesn't really matter if global warming (or cooling, take your pick) is not man-made. What really matters is we start taking better care of the earth and we prevent greedy Big Oil from making obscene profits.
If global warming is somehow "proved" to be natural and not man-made, that's OK. As long as we consume less and let the people have the profits instead of Big Oil, that's what really matters.
Jobu,
I agree that we need to act responsibly. We need to conserve more and do a better job with alternatives. As T. Boone is masterfully pointing out, we need to stop transferring our wealth to our enemies.
Policy, however, should be driven by facts, not hyperbole. The current hyperbole over carbon dioxide (which is not a pollutant) is driving policies to handicap America and advantage other nations.
Thanks for the science lesson Steve. What exactly are your scientific credentials again?
And as a lawyer and a politician, you obviously know how do deliver a bad syllogism. As a responsible community leader however...
This is irresponsible coming from a person in your position.
Perhaps you are not up on the national conversation. Maybe the sun IS getting to you down there.
That Sun BS is a long discredited canard.
Stop embarrassing Utah and get a grip. This neocon Republican ruse is tired and old. You are not a scientist and would be hard pressed to find a respectable one to make the interpretive remarks you have. The only one guilty of hyperbole is YOU.
I would be happy to convene a conference call for you with the some of the world's leading scientist, if you really care about objective science. (see Scholars at earthportal.org)
I'm challenging you Steve. Retract this shameful post or we will be forced to take a special interest in your re-election.
Cliff Lyon OneUtah.org
Cliff,
Science has always advanced by previous assumptions being challenged. That has always been a difficult proposition for conformists and luddites. I'm glad it's 2008, so that you can just take an interest in my campaign (don't care, by the way) and not burn me at the stake.
I majored in biology, and I'm quite comfortable with science.
How DO you explain the drop of -0.7, Cliff? Is it a Woodstock "no more rain" thing? Did we will away the warming, despite the build up of CO2? A man of science such as yourself surely is curious about that.
"prevent greedy Big Oil from making obscene profits."
Right on! Let's give the profits to Russia instead.
"Retract this shameful post or we will be forced to take a special interest in your re-election."
He's a witch! Burn him!
Yes, thanks Steve,
But science has NOT been advanced by Republican politicians touting undergraduate degrees in biology as much as serious credentialed professional scientists.
Does you education in biology lead you to question evolution too?
PS: I majored in politics, and am quite comfortable with rhetoric, propaganda and manipulation.
"am quite comfortable with rhetoric, propaganda and manipulation"
Clearly.
Cliff,
The cooling since 2000 and the record cooling of this past year don't fit the unproven theory of AGW. In fact, they contradict the unproven theory. In science, when facts start getting in the way of a hypothesis, that should raise a few questions. It really is a healthy thing.
In politics, of course, as you aptly illustrate, problematic facts call for vitriol, threats, and demands for retractions. It's humorous to me how perfectly you and other AGW zealots match the most ardent divine designers in your fear of scientific inquiry.
I understand that an unbiased quest for knowledge can be scary to many (of all political persuasions) who like the shelter of their unexamined beliefs, but it works out best in the long run to apply a little science to science.
Steve,
You better do what Cliff says. You don't want OneUtah.org getting involved in your election. These are very effective at defeating conservative Republicans.
Last chance Steve.
You of all people should appreciate the power of blogs.
I suggest you just delete the whole post. Certainly such a tactic lacks integrity, but not as much as parading around as an expert in Climate Science while deceiving Utahns in order to pander to the oil and gas industry (hmmm, Iol & gas, St George, hmmm)
When I have questions about things I know nothing about, I refer to experts. And Mr. Urquhart, unless I'm missing something, you are no expert on climate science.
If however, you have any questions about the real power of blogs, please feel free to call. I'm listed in Holladay.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is this guy for real?
"Censor yourself, or we will come after you!"
But I've yet to see an atempt at refutation from Cliff, just "Shut up!"
You're proving Rep. Urquhart's point with every post.
More real than some anonymous troll too lazy to look it up himself.
If I have to prove Steve is wrong it will be loud and very unpleasant. I may be just may be a nobody, but OneUtah is a hammer with a huge Utah audience (in case you weren't paying attention.
And I will love every minute of it.
I'm really trying to be nice here. I WANT to respect all elected officials.
But when they start to disrespect us, they must suffer the consequences.
I wrote an essay about almost this exact thing but also tied Solar Mass Ejections to the failing magnetosphere as a potential cause for Global Warming. While the true intent of my essay was to illustrate how politics was meddling with science, the theory has yet to be disproven. Even today, science has failed to offer a reason why sun spot activity and solar ejections might raise the planets temperature, yet they know with certainty that it does. Still, they cling to the "solar constant" as the word of God when studying earth's climate. You can read my essay titled, “Could Earth's Magnetic Field be causing Global Warming?” written in February, 2007 at the following URL:
http://www.lincolnsblog.com/Articles/World/GlobalWarming/GlobalWarming.htm
Steve, you should really make a few phone calls to let the scientific community know you, in your supremacy, have sorted this one out, and we can all go home.
Honestly, this post does very little to forward an intelligent debate, but is rather more of the same tired, old, and irritatingly obtuse dogma we hear too much of already (admittedly, from both sides). You're doing no one any favors with this tripe, nor does it speak well of your credibility, which is already shaky in my book from your previous musings and certainty without fact.
On the other hand, it did lead to Rich linking to his essay, which was the opposite of this post, and interesting read. So I guess I owe you that.
Cliff-
Holy smokes, you have got to be the biggest a-hole on the internet.
"Remove your blog post or we will come and get you"? Are you serious?
The point of blogs and the internet is to hear a multiplicity of different ideas and viewpoints and discuss them. Personally, I disagree with everything Steve says in this post, the sunspot theory has been disproven
But your attempts to chill discussion is at best childish and at worst immoral.
Steve has left his comments wide open, and as far as I can tell never deletes dissenters. If you disagree with him, be a man and prove him wrong and everyone will be learn. To come in here and try and bully everyone is a joke.
Josh,
It is true "The point of blogs and the internet is to hear a multiplicity of different ideas and viewpoints."
However blogs can also be used to promote dangerous propaganda and distortion.
Blogs are no different in this respect than any other mass communications vehicle. Thus we can hold the "publisher" to certain standards.
You (Save the Internet) of all people should know this.
Steve is a political office holder (politician). With that role comes a higher level of accountability.
I may well be an asshole. And I can live with that. But I cannot abide by a State Senator using his or her leadership role to spread erroneous and dangerous distortions of science. THAT is shameful. I'd rather be an asshole.
I use blogs to challenge this kind of propaganda, and it DOES work.
GO ahead and Google Steve Urguhart now. Then Google him after we challenge him on OneUtah with the peer-review and scientific consensus on the sun spot canard.
The permanent record will show that he is wrong and should have known it, but chose personal and party-serving propaganda over the the path of integrity.
Then the people can have more information to choose our leaders.
Question, Cliff:
I goggled Steve Urguhart, and came up empty.
Then I looked up Steve Urguhart, State Senator, and came up empty again.
Are you sure you're not talkiing about another guy?
Perhaps Steve Urquhart, member of the Utah House of Representatives, candidate for State Senate?
Remember, "Blogs are no different in this respect than any other mass communications vehicle. Thus we can hold the "publisher" to certain standards."
Cliff-
I think you misunderstand how the free market of ideas works. Many ideas are thrown out there, crazy ideas. Ideas about unicorns and government planned 9/11 and sun spots. These ideas are vetted and promoted by dismissed by public review and discussion.
While its true that Steve has a powerful pulpit as an elected official, he obviously has some talent or ability that would merit that advantage because he got a lot of people to vote for him.
Fortunately there is a process that can even out his ideas in check and maybe even (if he gets too crazy) force him out of his job. This process won't come by forcing him to be silent (if that was even possible), in fact if you really are against his ideology and believe its dangerous, you should be encouraging him to publish more rather than less. By Publishing more, more people will be able to review and judge his thoughts.
You are then free to of course rebut or argue his ideas on your blog or other public forums. Thats how the process works.
The process you seem to be promoting is that Cliff gets to be the great judge and arbiter of the public forum. He is the only one sensible and wise enough to decide whether Steve's ideas are worthy. Everyone else might not have read the books that Cliff has, or taken that class at UVSC that really helped Cliff understand the world, they might get confused.
Post a Comment
<< Home