NASA Shocker: Climate change might be caused by the Sun

posted at 12:19 am on March 21, 2007 by Bryan

Interesting stuff:

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth’s climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun’s activity influence Earth’s long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

So, to shorten the story significantly, a couple of science teams cross-checked between two ancient data sources–one, Nile river records from ancient Egypt; and two, ancient European and Asian records of aurorae. The Nile records show patterns of flooding, which indicate climate change. The aurorae records show patterns of solar activity, since the lights are caused by the solar wind slamming into earth’s atmosphere. And the records reveal a thing or two about climate change:

The researchers found some clear links between the sun’s activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common – one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

“Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa,” said Ruzmaikin. “The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources – Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya – are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa’s climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis.”

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun’s ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation’s influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River’s sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

The one phrase that never made its way into this story: “carbon footprint.” Because Ramses II didn’t have much of one, and even if his carbon footprint was bigger than the Goracle’s it wouldn’t have done diddly to the Sun’s output.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

We should petition the UN to have the sun shut down immediately, before Bush and his Big Oil allies figure out a way to make money off this great evil.

A little late for that I’m afraid. All this “the sun’s getting hotter, which is causing climate change” is just a Trojan horse for Big Oil cornering the solar energy market. When Bushilterburton starts acknowledging that there is global warming, keep an eye on your solar collectors. Damn that Karl Rove!!

smellthecoffee on March 21, 2007 at 8:57 AM

We should petition the UN to have the sun shut down immediately, before Bush and his Big Oil allies figure out a way to make money off this great evil.

A little late for that I’m afraid. All this “the sun’s getting hotter, which is causing climate change” is just a Trojan horse for Big Oil cornering the solar energy market. When Bushilterburton starts acknowledging that there is global warming, keep an eye on your solar collectors. Damn that Karl Rove!!

smellthecoffee on March 21, 2007 at 8:57 AM

Sorry about the double post. I gotta charley-horse in my mouse-finger.

Advocates of creationism do have something in common with global warming believers. Both are based primarily on faith.

kmcguire: don’t start this.

smellthecoffee on March 21, 2007 at 8:59 AM

…What scientific theory came into being because someone thought up a concept and changed the evidence to fit how they believe? Do you have evidence to prove that when these theories came into place the evidence used to back them up was manipulated? How was it manipulated?

Scientists make a hypothesis. If they are wrong, they’re wrong. If they are right, let the evidence back them up.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

You are long gone, I am sure. The facts stated to you probably gave you a headache. Attacking your God is always a difficult task.

To answere your question, I will first present one to you. Since you are the one challenging and not backing up your challenges with facts, or at least links to the facts. Here is the question.
If I came up with a dozen “scientific theorys that came into being because someone thought up a concept and changed the evidence to fit how they believe or “evidence to prove that when these theories came into place the evidence used to back them up was manipulated” would that change your mind and you would then state that the global warming advocates are wrong? You would then began to earnestly began to believe that the “global warming” community is full of lies led by Gore and the IPCC?
If not what use is it for me to educate you? You have obviously ignored facts presented to you now.

You remind me of a certain relgion that comes around to convert, when the young men came into my house I presented facts that shook their faith. The next week, by appointment, they came in with an adult, who was well schooled, when presented with more facts, and they were first frantic, and then as we went over verse by verse, more quiet and reserved, and finally a little more shaken. They never came back, I always wondered and prayed, that their faith was shaken enough to continue their search. But probably not, once back in the fold, their beleifs were reinforced.
You will head back to your fold, and have your wrongful beliefs reinforced. It is scary to leave the fold and think for yourself.
Good luck.

right2bright on March 21, 2007 at 9:02 AM

The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

But only by American humans – not Chinese, Indians, etc. Only American. right???? What really gets me about this whole global warming crap is that Gore and all his buddies give China and India (the largest polluters) a pass while trying to put Americans on this guilt trip. It is typical from the “blame America first” crowd.

pullingmyhairout on March 21, 2007 at 9:15 AM

As a scientist, this debate makes me giggle ;p

ballz2wallz on March 21, 2007 at 9:49 AM

The IPCC report was written by scientists, editted by beauocrats. Many scientists dropped out after they saw what was being edited out. The recently released IPCC report is simply a summary document. the final report hasn’t been completed. How can you make conclusions in the summary, when the final document hasn’t been finished yet? It’s a miracle!

Second, someone doubted that scientists manipulate data to fit their end theory. Why did the UN try and “erase” the medieval warming period then? And why are they inflating the numbers to make humans more responsible?

Here’s some reading:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml

Read this, and come back to me and claim that politicians aren’t manipulating global warming data.

lorien1973 on March 21, 2007 at 9:53 AM

An addendum – the IPCC report actually reduces the “affect” of global warming. Before the IPCC report, worst case scenario was 88 cm of sea level rise over the next 100 years. Worst case scenario in the IPCC report is 53 cm. (numbers are from memory and may be slightly off).

Read the entire deniers series:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

It is very informative. If it doesn’t make you, at least, think. They are you are a robot. :)

lorien1973 on March 21, 2007 at 9:55 AM

I love this line and I’m stealing it!

Rove you magnificant bastard!

csdeven on March 21, 2007 at 10:10 AM

The sun is likely to become a Red Dwarf and take us all out anyway. Worrying about one degree is insane.

And really, human beings cannot survive when it gets too cold. We literally cannot even breathe frozen air and live. Historically, the warmest times of the earth have been Earth’s most agriculturally productive time periods.

On top of that, Earth just had an Ice Age. Shouldn’t that factor in some where?

And why are people like Gore so arrogant about human contribution to the Earth? We can’t even keep the rain from falling, and we know exactly how that works. How can anyone think we can cause the world to fry by using the world’s own resources.

We are, by the way, only using what the planet already produced. We have intoduced NOTHING into this planet that wasn’t already there.

Esthier on March 21, 2007 at 10:12 AM

And here is a nice little piece on how the IPCC covertly corrected errors in their report after it was published. Also points out errors in Gore’s statements that he has yet to correct.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070226_monckton.pdf

db on March 21, 2007 at 10:16 AM

This is obviously a Karl Rove plan to distract us away from Alberto Gonzalez.
HarryStar on March 21, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Yeah, but remember the Gonzalez debacle was a Rove plan designed to distract us from the beginning of the 5th year in the war on terror in Iraq and other issues!

Rove you magnificant bastard!

csdeven on March 21, 2007 at 10:17 AM

For anyone to think that our “climate” is something that is stable and not supposed to change is ignoring the evolution of our planet and the effects of being a ball of matter wobbling in space bombarded with light, heat and radiation from a massive solar body that exists due to nuclear fusion.

The tiniest change in the earths wobble, or deflection from a circular orbit around the sun to a slightly more oval one, or a slight change in the tilt of the earths axis can change which areas of the earth receive more of the suns energy. The UN keeps saying that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere from 300 to 378 PARTS PER MILLION. CO2 is a relatively trace gas in the atmosphere. To state point blank that they know with certainty that this tiny, almost imperceptible rise in CO2 is warming the earth, and that man is responsible, is an indication of deceit and corruption at the highest levels.

To see Al (the Goracle) Gore avoid discussion, debate and confrontation only proves that more openness will destroy the carefully crafted set of lies he’s presented.

darwin on March 21, 2007 at 10:40 AM

GRAPHIC OF SIZE OF THE SUN RELATIVE TO THE NINE PLANETS.

(with matching ice-core samples/solar activity correlation graph goodness, and links to stories about global warming on Jupiter, Titan, Mars… and Pluto.)

enjoy.

wordwarp on March 21, 2007 at 10:42 AM

This is news? Heck, many people have been saying this for a long time.

File this one under “Duh”.

thirteen28 on March 21, 2007 at 10:51 AM

This global warming crowd is also using this issue to stifle industrial advancement in developing countries.

csdeven on March 21, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Kmcguire,

Some thoughts on your posting…

Evolution is a fact

No, it’s not, it is still just a theory, check your definitions.

Everyone has heard of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, right? That’s natural selection.

Again, no it’s not. At least not in the true Darwinian meaning of evolutionary natural selection. Becoming resistant to antibiotics does not make it a different life form. Now that would be Darwinian evolution. Oh and there is absolutely no definitive evidence of one life form becoming another, check on it. There is a difference between Micro and Macro evolution…you should study them.

The earth had critters of various types. Now we have creatures of different types,

What??? Is there some scientific definition that shows a difference between critters and creatures? That’s like me saying I had two apples before, but due to changes, now I have two pieces of fruit.

Centurion68 on March 21, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Oh, sure! From the same people who faked the moon landings!

Blacklake on March 21, 2007 at 11:42 AM

What say we all chip in and fund a fact-finding tour to the Sun for the Gorecal and pals?
Maybe they could hold a rock concert to raise awareness of the effect of all that nasty solar radiation is having on the solar system? Or buy some radiation offsets?

G-man on March 21, 2007 at 11:44 AM

Heh… Walmart is doing it out of pure altruism. It has nothing to do with taking the initial losses and driving others out of business.

DaveS on March 21, 2007 at 11:47 AM

Oh, sure! From the same people who faked the moon landings!
Blacklake on March 21, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Heh, Buzz Aldrin is gonna kick your ass!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mQKxAqpjroo

Love that clip…

Bad Candy on March 21, 2007 at 11:54 AM

Hrmm…with the cooling that follows Gore around perhaps we should make plans to send him to the sun?

;)

Benaiah on March 21, 2007 at 12:19 PM

The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.

Nonfactor on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 AM

The questions that need to be asked are: why is the overall scientific consensus what you say it is? Why is it that the biggest culprit happens to be the U.S.? Why is it that these scientists and leaders that are the source of the “consensus” aren’t open to other causes?

Can you say “political agenda”?

Rick on March 21, 2007 at 12:43 PM

The overall scientific consensus is that humans are causing global warming.

Nonfactor

No, it’s not. It’s the concensus of those political scientists who stand to reap wealth from anyone buying into their garbage. There are equally prominent scientists who disagree but have been silenced or have been threatened with fund removal.

The earth has warmed and cooled throughout the ages. That’s why glaciers advance and retreat. That’s why the Vikings were able to farm Greenland. That’s why the Chinese were able to sail around the Arctic. The bottom line is … mankind simply is INCAPABLE of doing anything about it except adjust to it. This whole thing is a control and money making scheme from the getgo.

darwin on March 21, 2007 at 12:55 PM

So 30 years ago, global cooling was a consensus, but wasn’t based in fact… is that correct Nonfactor?

Damn I wish I could send you back 30 years to explain that to the scientists of the time. I’m sure you could clearly explain that the cooling they were witnessing wasn’t truely based in fact, and the problem was their theories of reflective debris was inaccurate.

It would be like… well like trying to explain flaws in global warming to you now… in other words, painful.

gekkobear on March 21, 2007 at 1:00 PM

“The Jet Propulsion Laboratory is funded by Biiig Ooooooil, and thus their ‘findings’ should be dismissed out of hand” coming in 3… 2… 1…

Dave Shay on March 21, 2007 at 1:17 PM

Sometimes I just sit out in the driveway and rev the engine in my mustang.

If you kinda listen to the twin pipes wake up everyone in the neighborhood, you can kinda hear it: “Alllll Goooooooooooore”

Dan866 on March 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM

These global warming dopes are trying to tell us what’s going to happen 100 years from now, when they can’t even tell us what’s going to happen tomorrow.

Dopes.

JackM on March 21, 2007 at 1:54 PM

the Sun? you mean the earth doesn’t revolve around global warmers

Opinionnation on March 21, 2007 at 2:04 PM

I don’t know about most of you, but I’m rather uncomfortable with the arguments in favor of creationism getting mixed up here in a global warming thread. Evolution is a fact, well proved over and over. There are various theories for how evolution takes place and regular findings adjusting and informing those theories, the predominant one being natural selection. Everyone has heard of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, right? That’s natural selection. The earth had critters of various types. Now we have creatures of different types, primarily the result of changes to the environment. If you want to argue that God is/was the cause, fine, but those arguments don’t belong in a scientific discussion of any kind, in my opinion and they detract from the substance of the excellent science that refutes anthropogenic global warming. Advocates of creationism do have something in common with global warming believers. Both are based primarily on faith.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 8:35 AM

You’re proving my point that the global warmists are “scientists” the same way evolutionists are. You repeat misleading talking points that have been fed to you, that have nothing to do with reality, and instead of ARGUING POINTS RAISED, you have to come out as the “defender of science” slaying the evil religious anti-science people bringing God in to the debate. I was talking science pal, where did I EVER mention God? Note that this is YOUR problem, not mine. You said mention of Gode didn’t belong in “scientific discussions” of any kind. Well, then why did you bring him in to it? All did was talk about science. Again YOUR problem here, not mine.

But this is what always happens. It’s the evolutionist side that refuses to debate or talk about the science. YOU’RE IDENTICAL TO THE GLOBAL WARMING SIDE – “It’s consensus” “it’s fact”. Get trapped in a corner? Shout “Don’t bring God in to a scientific discussion!” (Even though no one did!)

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM

All you have to do is read their own words
“Principles Governing IPCC Work” to see the agenda.

http://www.ipcc.ch/about/princ.pdf

And yes, evolution can be observed in the lab, it is fact.
The theory part only comes in when you try to make an
absolutely accurate family tree or perfect linear history.
Such as humans to single cell creatures, as there are gaps
in the record that we have not found as of yet.

Gooch on March 21, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Centurion68 on March 21, 2007 at 11:13 AM

No, it’s not, it is still just a theory, check your definitions.

I would post links bolstering my definition, but it won’t change your mind, any more than your denying its factualness will change my mind. You are actually making my point that creationism has no place in this discussion. Like global warming advocates, you cherry pick the science to bolster your “theory” (theocracy?) and ignore the plain facts in front of you. Life forms come and go as conditions change. Your agent of change requires faith in a supreme being. Mine is largely based on the observation that there has been a continuum of life with incremental changes adding up over time to create the diversity of life we see today.

Again, no it’s not. At least not in the true Darwinian meaning of evolutionary natural selection. Becoming resistant to antibiotics does not make it a different life form.

That’s an interestingly narrow view. Let’s look at this. You’ve got a batch of bacteria. You hit them with an antibiotic and not all die. The one’s that don’t die breed and pass their resistance onto their offspring. You’re saying that’s not natural selection? I didn’t claim it makes them a different life form. Hell, that would take some time. But can’t you see how small differences could, over time, yield bigger differences? Or do you accept that the earth is actually 4000 years old or whatever Biblical scholars calculate and that therefore, there hasn’t been enough time for natural processes to create all this diversity? That’s just not science. And that’s my objection.

That’s like me saying I had two apples before, but due to changes, now I have two pieces of fruit.

Not exactly. It’s like saying if you had a MacIntosh apple tree and a Red Delicious apple tree and they cross pollinated and you grew the resulting F1 hybrid, you would have different apples than either of the ones with which you started.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 2:36 PM

You mean that the giant fireball a million times the size of the earth has something to do with the temperature?

dougless on March 21, 2007 at 2:50 PM

As someone else said today someplace else:

“I have never seen so much stink raised over a 1/2 degree temperature rise”.

Doesn’t matter anyway. They will be singing a much different tune within 15 years time. I promise.

crosspatch on March 21, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Oh, and by the way I do believe in God.
But it is my view that God created evolution as a way to make the universe bloom with life.
I just don’t think he created the Earth 6000 years ago, and threw dinosaur bones under the ground just to screw with us.

Gooch on March 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I’ve been reading about the solar activity connection on global warming for the past two years and I can’t remember any main stream media picking up on it. Maybe this time…nah, probably not.

deedledee on March 21, 2007 at 2:59 PM

This article goes back to 1998 and says “The sun is currently at its most active for 300 years.

That, say scientists in Philadelphia, could be a more significant cause of global warming than the emissions of greenhouse gases that are most often blamed.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

deedledee on March 21, 2007 at 3:03 PM

Love that clip…

Bad Candy on March 21, 2007 at 11:54 AM

I never seen that before. hahaha Go Buzz!

csdeven on March 21, 2007 at 3:22 PM

What about the middle ages warm period? You know, when there was farming in Greenland for about 300 years and no internal combustion engines?

It’s simply hilarious when scientific consensus is paraded in front of us as a gold standard, as if much of it is anything but whoring to sponsors and tacking to take advantage of current political winds. Science, indeed. As if scientists were something else besides fallible men, innocent of the same groupthink common to all.

PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM

That’s an interestingly narrow view. Let’s look at this. You’ve got a batch of bacteria. You hit them with an antibiotic and not all die. The one’s that don’t die breed and pass their resistance onto their offspring.

More on that. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp

PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 3:28 PM

OMG! You don’t say. Earth’s most powerful source of energy may be at the root of climate change. Algore is a moron along with all the green weenies. Here are some interesting links

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Whoa! global warming on Mars? Ice caps melting?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

mcgilvra on March 21, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Could it be… that the thing that warms the earth is causing the earth to warm?

/sarcasm-off

Maxx on March 21, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Oh, and by the way I do believe in God.
But it is my view that God created evolution as a way to make the universe bloom with life.
I just don’t think he created the Earth 6000 years ago, and threw dinosaur bones under the ground just to screw with us.

Gooch on March 21, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I don’t know of anyone who claims that dinosaur bones were put under the ground just to screw with us. Not one person.

And kmcguire, I’m still waiting for a response… earlier you accused me (as evolutionists often do when they have no argument) of bringing God in to a science discussion, when I never mentioned God, just science. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you just missed it, and tell you to see – RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Life forms come and go as conditions change. Your agent of change requires faith in a supreme being. Mine is largely based on the observation that there has been a continuum of life with incremental changes adding up over time to create the diversity of life we see today.

Except that this isn’t what the data shows. The pre-cambrian fossils were largely simple multi-cellular sponges and worms. The cambrian explosion (taking place over 5-10 million years, if we’re going to be honest) produced all of the animal phyla we have today. We’ve been whittling down from there ever since.

PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM

And kmcguire, I’m still waiting for a response

RW, I apologize for my need to make a living while working on cogent arguments. But geez, dude, you’re coming across as awfully hostile.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 3:40 PM

The last statement is made with complete handwaving. “This breeding isolation is leading to the evolution of two distinct species.” I’m just expected to believe that.

PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM

It’s like Montgomery Burns said – “Ever since the dawn of time, man has dreamt of destroying the sun.”

Dean Barnett on March 21, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Granting that Nonfactor is a troll, he is right about one thing. There is no scientific distinction between “theory” and “fact,” and no point at which any theory achieves any sort of special, transcendental status. There is only a continuum of theories with varying degrees of evidential support, and hence human confidence in their explanatory power. Some theories, be they plate techtonics or general relativity, have so much evidence backing them up that confidence in them is extremely high. Others, like competing string theories or theories involving dark matter and gravitation, have very little (if any) evidence behind them, and evoke little confidence at all (often even amongst those advancing the theories). But it’s all still a matter of theory and evidence, and our feelings of confidence about the former based on the quality and quantity of the latter.

Blacklake on March 21, 2007 at 3:57 PM

when my furnace keeps kicking on, reminding me how cold it still is.

Man, I so feel your pain. It was chilly enough this morning when I got ready for work that I almost didn’t wear flip flops.

It’s brutal here in California, let me tell you.

Bob's Kid on March 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM

As if scientists the media were something else besides fallible men, innocent of the same groupthink common to all.

Thought I’d throw in a little changero there for ya!

jaleach on March 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM

How in the hell, even if a creature had the ability to slowly evolve a wing (which goes against evolutionary theory, unless they could find a function for each intermediate step) while the ability to use this wing evolved in the brain and physiology, etc. The whole thing is just plain stupid.

RW: Correct me if I’m wrong, but your arguments are encapsulated by the term Creationism, no? Creationism states (or implies) that a creator (supreme being, god, etc.) one way or another had a hand in making everything and everyone. So forgive me for inferring you meant God and not some generic agent of change. And yes, I know, you never mentioned “Creationism” either.

I’ve been studying your posts as best I can to find the scientific arguments to refute, but all I can find is that evolution is just plain stupid since nobody has, say, pointed out intermediate steps in wing formation. Okay.

I can envision a variety of ways and reasons for wings to develop slowly, over generations. There are creatures that can’t fly, but they come close. Ever heard of a flying squirrel? It can’t actually fly, but it can glide. That’s an intermediate step. What about mud skippers? Are those legs or fins? Gills or lungs? These arguments are not dispositive, I know. Nothing is dispositive of such a complex arena. I’m perfectly willing to admit that the various theories of evolution have huge holes in them, as you have endeavored to point out. The fact that you admit that microevolution is not in dispute makes me wonder how you so easily dismiss the notion that microevolution over geologic time scales might yield a variety of species.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM

People who make those sorts of comments about evolution patently do not understand it. It’s being chipped away at almost daily? Oh, surrrre.

Sigh.

Bob's Kid on March 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM

It’s simply hilarious when scientific consensus is paraded in front of us as a gold standard, as if much of it is anything but whoring to sponsors and tacking to take advantage of current political winds. Science, indeed. As if scientists were something else besides fallible men, innocent of the same groupthink common to all.
PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 3:23 PM

The scientific consensus is that scientists are absolutely immune to groupthink. And I know that Nonfactor will back me up on that.

ReubenJCogburn on March 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Sigh.

Bob’s Kid on March 21, 2007 at 5:07 PM

Ditto.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 5:26 PM

What a fascinating thread.

The sun’s hot? Who knew! Learn something new everyday.

And why do evolutionists and global warming zealots defend their theories (which – admit it or not – is all they really are) with almost exactly the same rhetoric and breathless emotionalism that the devoutly religious defend their various faiths?

The whole thing is funny. The only honest person … is the one that admits he doesn’t quite know everything.

Anybody – I mean anybody – who suggests that (insert any theory here) is beyond debate, supported by a “consensus” of scientists, and just plain obviously right (cuz, you know, they’ve swallowed the programming since 8th grade) … is just here for my personal amusement.

Scientific fact is demonstrated by replicated, verifiable experimentation. Evolution doesn’t meet that standard, certainly not as the originator of life, or the single mechanism that controls development. Anthropogenic global warming most definitely doesn’t meet that standard. For that matter, neither does creationism.

I don’t have the answers. Neither do you. Neither does science, at least not yet.

And if you disagree with that sentence I just wrote … than there is obviously a God, because He put you here to entertain me.

Think for yourselves. Don’t repeat what you heard in grade school, or what 4 out of 5 dentists recommend.

Professor Blather on March 21, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Scientific fact is demonstrated by replicated, verifiable experimentation. Evolution doesn’t meet that standard, certainly not as the originator of life, or the single mechanism that controls development. Anthropogenic global warming most definitely doesn’t meet that standard. For that matter, neither does creationism.

I actually agree with you, Professor. Creationism is an extrabiblical science that Scripture itself doesn’t demand. It’s more of a reaction to the demands made of us who don’t believe in evolution. If science were content to find it’s own funding, quit demanding public money for things, and quit trying to influence policy unless called upon to do so, these arguments would largely disappear. We need atmospheric researchers to develop useful hurricane models and weather predictions. So far, they’ve failed miserably. Until they succeed, THEN SHUT UP.

PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM

There is no scientific distinction between “theory” and “fact,”

Wrong.
If I stick a thermometer up my butt and record my temperature as 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit, that’s a fact.
If I stick the same thermometer in my mouth and record my temperature as 98.5…. Let’s write the protocol to have me do this one first…. Anyway, that’s a fact, too.

If I get a nice digital thermometer with disposable plastic sleeves, and use a fresh sleeve for each subject, and have him do the mouth first, then the rectum with the same sleeve, and then he throws the sleeve away, and I compile statistics that show that my subjects recorded a temperature that averaged .97 degrees Fahrenheit hotter for the rectal reading, the raw data of my observations are facts, and the statistics are facts. But (and it is your big but here)…

When I then state that human rectal temperatures are one degree Fahrenheit higher than oral temperatures, that’s a theory. Others can do their experiements, and collect facts that either support or oppose the theory.

The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Wrong.
If I stick a thermometer up my butt and record my temperature as 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit, that’s a fact.

You can call it a “fact,” if you’d like, but it’s not in principle different from any other proposition. “The temperature of my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” remains a theory, albeit a strong one supported by a specific bit of evidence in which one has a great deal of confidence. It’s hard to imagine refuting scenarios, and most seem absurd (for instance, that one might someday have reason to believe they hallucinated the act of reading the thermometer), but they aren’t inconceivable.

It is true that single observations don’t constitute what we’d consider scientific laws. But then, that isn’t what was at issue. What was at issue is that there is no point at which a scientific theory achieves a special level of veracity at which it ceases to any long be a theory, and instead becomes something different called a fact. Continental drift, evolution, geocentrism, heliocentrism, Newtonian gravity, general relativity, string theory; all are in principle just theories. There are only strong ones, weak ones, and refuted ones.

Blacklake on March 21, 2007 at 6:52 PM

If I stick a thermometer up my butt and record my temperature as 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit, that’s a fact.

If I stick the same thermometer in my mouth and record my temperature as 98.5…. Let’s write the protocol to have me do this one first…. Anyway, that’s a fact, too.

The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Reminds me of an old joke:

Q. What’s the difference between an oral thermometer and a rectal thermometer?

A. The taste.

(Lord, I apologize…)

ReubenJCogburn on March 21, 2007 at 6:59 PM

Scientific fact is demonstrated by replicated, verifiable experimentation.

By that standard, one would expect that Newtonian gravitic theory should have become irrefutable fact a long time ago. Untold thousands of observations supported his theories before a single one was made which suggested there might be even a hint of a problem, and even then a great deal of effort went into explaining away the irregularities. Indeed, not until Einstein was Newton definitively supplanted.

That was over two centuries of Newton, during most of which all the observations supported his theories. So one either has to insist that Einstein must be wrong by logical virtue of Newton having already been established as factually unassailable, or one has to admit that even centuries of supporting observation is insufficient to convert a theory into a fact (which amounts to claiming that there may be something mysterious called a “fact” out there, but humans are effectively incapable of determining whether they’re dealing with one or not).

It’s really all just theory, observation, and confidence. We tend to declare theories “facts” when our confidence in them is extremely high, but this has far more to do with the way our brains work than the way the world does. Even the theories in which have the utmost confidence could, in principle, fall apart entirely tomorrow.

Blacklake on March 21, 2007 at 7:07 PM

You can call it a “fact,” if you’d like, but it’s not in principle different from any other proposition. “The temperature of my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” remains a theory

Apparently, words don’t have meanings. A fact is a proposition is a theory.

Ridiculous. Like moral relativity.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 7:09 PM

If I stick a thermometer up my butt and record my temperature as 99.7 degrees Fahrenheit, that’s a fact.
If I stick the same thermometer in my mouth……
The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Dude! I hope you’d clean that baby first.

hahaha J?K
Sorry, couldn’t resist.

csdeven on March 21, 2007 at 7:29 PM

“The temperature of my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” remains a theory

“The temperature shown on the thermometer in my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” is a fact. Note that I never said anything about “the temperature of” my mouth, rectum, armpit, or testes; only the temperature reading on a specific thermometer at specific times in specific places.
The observations, the directly perceived data, are facts. The inferences I make from those observations are hypotheses, theories, etc.

The Monster on March 21, 2007 at 7:37 PM

when my furnace keeps kicking on, reminding me how cold it still is.

Man, I so feel your pain. It was chilly enough this morning when I got ready for work that I almost didn’t wear flip flops.

It’s brutal here in California, let me tell you.

Bob’s Kid on March 21, 2007 at 4:20 PM

What? No toasty wildfires?

Buck Turgidson on March 21, 2007 at 7:55 PM

I keep seeing references to the IPCC reports. I’m familiar with them. Of course, the IPCC refused to allow any scientists who disagreed with their assumptions of man-made global warming from participating, used models long debunked as faulty and missing many, many key variables (hint, to date none of them are able to take past data and even come close to predicting known climates).

There are good reasons to help take care of the environment. The problem is political activists have taken over the environmental movement and eventually will destroy any good environmental work because of their bogus hyperbole. And when the time comes that the planet faces a real problem no one will listen. Y2K hyperbole was first….the whole man-made global warming is second.

Faith1 on March 21, 2007 at 8:22 PM

I keep seeing references to the IPCC reports. I’m familiar with them. Of course, the IPCC refused to allow any scientists who disagreed with their assumptions of man-made global warming from participating, used models long debunked as faulty and missing many, many key variables (hint, to date none of them are able to take past data and even come close to predicting known climates).

Case closed.

PRCalDude on March 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM

RW, I apologize for my need to make a living while working on cogent arguments. But geez, dude, you’re coming across as awfully hostile.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 3:43 PM

Why would I be hostile when you can’t argue science so you start blabbing about me bringing God in to the argument, which I DIDN’T DO. YOU DID.

RW: Correct me if I’m wrong, but your arguments are encapsulated by the term Creationism, no? Creationism states (or implies) that a creator (supreme being, god, etc.) one way or another had a hand in making everything and everyone. So forgive me for inferring you meant God and not some generic agent of change. And yes, I know, you never mentioned “Creationism” either.

I’ve been studying your posts as best I can to find the scientific arguments to refute, but all I can find is that evolution is just plain stupid since nobody has, say, pointed out intermediate steps in wing formation. Okay.

I can envision a variety of ways and reasons for wings to develop slowly, over generations. There are creatures that can’t fly, but they come close. Ever heard of a flying squirrel? It can’t actually fly, but it can glide. That’s an intermediate step. What about mud skippers? Are those legs or fins? Gills or lungs? These arguments are not dispositive, I know. Nothing is dispositive of such a complex arena. I’m perfectly willing to admit that the various theories of evolution have huge holes in them, as you have endeavored to point out. The fact that you admit that microevolution is not in dispute makes me wonder how you so easily dismiss the notion that microevolution over geologic time scales might yield a variety of species.

kmcguire on March 21, 2007 at 4:47 PM

I will correct you, because you are wrong. My ideas aren’t encapsulated in anything! I spoke about science, which is what the evolution side is afraid to do. I spoke about observable, testable, science. Not a story of origins totally made up to go along with it, that has nothing to do with the evidence. Finding variation within a species, and then making up a story that billions of years ago, there was so much nothing, it exploded in to everything, then there was rain on Earth, and it landed on rocks… AND LIFE HAPPENED! Then somehow, that developed in to the complex forms of life we see today.

That isn’t science, it’s a fairytale. Just like global warming, just because scientists call it science, doesn’t make it so. (I direct you to my earlier post on LiveScience’s article on the gliding lizard. The study showed nothing about evolution at all. But because evolution is assumed, the language is brought in with an obligatory line of worship to Pastor Charlie. Well, when evolution is always assumed, you can’t ever disprove it because the evidence is always twisted in to what is assumed to be solid truth… get it? There is a never ending stream of evidence that goes against evolutionary assumptions, and almost never do the studies say anything about how something evolved, but because it’s assumed that it did, they throw language in about how it must have “evolved different” or “faster” or whatever, instead of just reporting what they actually found.)

Now, as for your sad attempt to explain the intermediate steps of a wing… Even an evolutionist wouldn’t attempt to use a flying squirrel as an intermediate to a winged bird or lizard. Are you kidding me?

Yes, some birds have wings and don’t fly. But they don’t have a little nub. And a species, without the information already being engineered in to them, isn’t going to just sprout a full wing. Nor is it going to sprout a half, or even 1% of a wing. It would, as evolutionists love to say, take “millions of years”, but as I said, that mutation which would start as a nub (and please, don’t focus to much on the wing, this is just a visual example.. consider eyes, tonails, taste buds, ability to distinguish voices and smells, unique fingerprints, butterflies and birds that travel thousands of miles, turtles that return to beaches where they were born, bees that wiggle their butts a certain way that gives directions for the others on where to find food). Anyway, that “nub” would need to provide a benefit, or it would be selected out. But not only does a physical feature need to mutate, the functionality of that physical feature needs to come in at the same time, as well as the brain’s understanding and capability to use it.

As for your confusion of how I can accept microevolution, but be dismissive of macroevolution… it’s because we’re talking about two entirely different things. Micro, is slight variations within a species. It doesn’t require new information, previously non-existant. Mutations can only work with what they have.. they can lose, or duplicate, or mix up available information… But totally new information doesn’t spring out of nowhere. Here’s another brief explanation. There are many species of dog. But they are all still dogs.. They aren’t dog/fish hybrid’s or dog/bird hybrids. They are dogs. Micro-evolution is observed. Macro is assumed to fit a story that was written, so evidence (which more often than not contradicts) is forced in to the Evolution box.

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 9:08 PM

Oh and to reitterate a point you ignored earlier… You apparently agree that global warming “consensus” talk is bologna and “consensus” isn’t science, yet your comments about evolution were basically saying the same thing. It’s really quite stunning when one can sit back and look at how people manipulate information to fit flawed ideas in both fields, refuse debates, dismiss disenters, accuse them of pseudo science without even listening to one thing they’ve said, and always returning to “consensus”. (and in the case of Evolution, the evolutionists like yourself accuse people who want to talk about science rather than assumptions, of bringing “God” in to the debate. In the case of global warming, they accuse “deniers” of being paid off by the oil industry).

RightWinged on March 21, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Lets see. Firey ball in sky = heat to surrounding planets. hmmmm sounds feasible. Someone needs to put a stop to it. Destroy the SUN. yeah thats it. gawd sakes.

johnnyU on March 21, 2007 at 10:41 PM

The problem with all of the “Death by Global Warming/CO2″ models thus far is that the underlying assumptions tend to vary from a bit sketchy to downright dodgy. Invariably, the math used in the models is to the laws of thermodynamics as Enron’s bookkeeping was to standard accounting practices…

elgeneralisimo on March 22, 2007 at 1:10 AM

Nonfactor remains strangely silent. What could it mean?

thedecider on March 22, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Is it me, or did NonFactor become really silent?

Maybe it’s because he/she went out today, and got a sunburn?

Who knows?

Who cares?

Heh… Science, Facts, Astronomy……… they always get in the way.

PinkyBigglesworth on March 22, 2007 at 1:36 AM

kmcguire,

I’m perfectly willing to admit that the various theories of evolution have huge holes in them

Guess that means its not fact after all?

Centurion68 on March 22, 2007 at 6:28 AM

Sorry, NASA, Al Gore settled the point once and for all in his testimony yesterday.

Global warming is not due to “some sort of magic…solar system phenomenon.”

The debate is over.

saint kansas on March 22, 2007 at 6:29 AM

Guess that means its not fact after all?

Centurion68 on March 22, 2007 at 6:28 AM

You need to read more carefully. I said evolution is a fact. There are a variety of theories that attempt to explain the mechanisms of its operation.

RW: You keep telling me you’re arguing science, but I can’t find it. What, in your opinion, is the mechanism that caused all these different species to come into being and what is the meaning of the fossil record? I don’t mind if you don’t answer. It’s way outside the scope of this thread, so I’m feeling like a hijacker and will happily shut up.

kmcguire on March 22, 2007 at 8:04 AM

So if there is no evolution, then some omnipotent being made all life perfectly suited for this planet.
Then what I don’t understand is why natural selection has killed off so many well suited lifeforms.
There used to be an Earth centered teaching also.
But the “fact” is the Earth goes around the Sun! (and isn’t flat)

Gooch on March 22, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Apparently, words don’t have meanings. A fact is a proposition is a theory.

You’ve got to be kidding. I’m the one who’s being meticulous with the meanings of the words.

Blacklake on March 22, 2007 at 1:20 PM

“The temperature shown on the thermometer in my rectum at time x was 99.7 degrees” is a fact.

You only call it a fact be virtue of your extreme confidence that there will be no refutation–i.e., that you aren’t hallucinating, or something similarly unlikely. I often do the same thing in every-day parlance, when I’m not discussing philosophy of science and am worried about subtle misunderstandings. But in principle there is nothing different between statements about a direct observation, no matter our level of confidence in it, and even the wildest of theories. If it’s a statement about the world (as opposed to, say, a verse of poetry), it’s a contingency.

And again, this wanders astray of the original subject, which is that there is no point at which general scientific laws transcend their status as theories and become something epistomologically special. No matter how many observations support a theory, it remains a theory, open to potential refutation by the next observation (which is precisely what happened with Newton). No matter how many observations, no matter how great our confidence in it, it never attains some magical, unassailable level (as was demonstrated clearly by Newton).

Blacklake on March 22, 2007 at 1:31 PM

No matter how many observations, no matter how great our confidence in it, it never attains some magical, unassailable level (as was demonstrated clearly by Newton).

I should’ve parenthetically noted “as was demonstrated clearly with Newton’s theories,” not “by Newton.” Newton didn’t demonstrate it personally.

Blacklake on March 22, 2007 at 1:36 PM

RW: You keep telling me you’re arguing science, but I can’t find it. What, in your opinion, is the mechanism that caused all these different species to come into being and what is the meaning of the fossil record? I don’t mind if you don’t answer. It’s way outside the scope of this thread, so I’m feeling like a hijacker and will happily shut up.

kmcguire on March 22, 2007 at 8:04 AM

This is your problem, I didn’t attempt to identify a mechanism. I just spoke on observable science that leads to the obvious conclusion that things have been designed. You’ll even see top scientists writing up their studies talking about how various aspects of life at all levels are “engineered” and “designed” (not even realizing what that language implies), and never daring to attempt to explain how some things evolve, all the while assuming they do.

But see, this is your little trap. I said nothing abour origins. I just spoke about science, and how ridiculous evolutionary theory looks when science is actually considered, instead of baseless assumptions and a ridiculous story written after observing microevolution, which isn’t in dispute (by the way, why do you keep raising things like asking me how I can accept micro but dismiss macro, and then when you get an answer you just brush it off completely?).

Anyway, YOU originally accused me of bringing God in to the science discussion, which I NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO DOING. But that’s a tactic that we’ve all come to expect from the evolutionist side. The evidence isn’t on their side, so they resort to not only attacking the messenger, but making up their own reason to attack them, so that you can dismiss them as religious kooks and then you can flee the scene.

You can hide from it all you want, but this is what YOU did, bud. You can keep saying “well then what did you mean”, and I can keep explaining that I was strictly talking about science, but in the evolutionist mind you feel the need for someone to tell you where everything came from, even if the story you’ve been told is baseless. So you expect me to say “God”, which happens to be true… But you just want me to say that, so you can dismiss me as a religious nut. But again, that’s only so you don’t have to answer to the science that doesn’t add up for evolution, which is what I was talking about, not religion. You can draw your own conclusions from actual science, but stop insisting that I explain origins to you, because that’s simply not testable and observable science. I could argue that design is very evident in (well, I already gave you a brief list to consider.. you totally ignored it, as you’ve done most of my lengthy posts. You laid down the gauntlet, and I’ve done you the courtesy of responding at length… Yet you just give one or two line responses, that are independent of anything I actually said).

But again, none of that has any point. I was talking science, and simply because the observable known facts don’t relate to anyone’s story of origins, you can’t get past that? Again, why can’t we just study what is actually known? (Again, I point to that gliding lizard article, which which is in a sea of THOUSANDS of similarly written articles, where nothing about evolution is observed, but because it’s assumed, there’s an obligatory line thrown is as a sacrifice to the lord Charlie…. You’ve yet to comment on that?)

But back to one other point (again), I agree that global warming is crap, and that the science doesn’t support it. But why are you so quick to agree with that, yet you can’t even spare an ounce of skepticism on evolution? Is it not possible that you haven’t been given the proper information, or it’s been spun… just like is done with global warming “science” now, to generations of people who buy in to it?

RightWinged on March 22, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Global warming is real, but it is also natural….

I just bought a trillion “climate change credits” from the “sun”….. just like Gore lives a “carbon nuetral life”.

In the spirit of “saving the planet” I give all my “climate change credits” to the people of the world………. so I zero out. Perfect.

There, problem solved, now just pick up your fricken trash and stop polluting our world, “China, India, and Mexico…..”

PinkyBigglesworth on March 23, 2007 at 1:55 AM

All the arguments that mankind is contributing greatly to global warming over look the most obvious question: Just where is that heat coming from? If CO2 is trapping heat, then that heat has to come from some place.

It’s obvious to everyone that the Sun is the fuel that drives the earth’s climate engine and that total atmospheric CO2 concentration is only a small gear in a very large machine. You can change the size of the small gear and have a correspondingly small effect on the engine’s output, but change the amount of fuel entering that engine and you suddenly have a huge effect. Why are we so concerned over the size of a small gear (CO2) when we should be looking at how much fuel (sunlight) that engine is receiving?

Oh, and don’t worry about Global Warming destroying life on earth, life seems to do fine in a wide variety of climatic conditions. Here in Minnesota we experience around a 100 degree difference between summer and winter, yet we seem to be doing fine. If a sudden temperature difference is suppose to be devastation to life, why do so many people, plants, and animals survive here each winter? The temps can rise or fall 40-50 degrees in a single day, yet I don’t see everything dying off. Global Warming will destroy the earth? Bull!

RedinBlueCounty on March 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM

Man Made Global Warming is the scare of the 21st Century which has those worried the most doing the least to combat this. I know this to be a fact as I’ve posted the message below all over the net and have yet to get a single positive response . . .

Man Made Global Warming can only be defeated one way but it will take billions of dollars to accomplish this momentus task. You can be a part of this effort for just dollars a year.

Scientists all agree on one thing. The Sun is the orime cause of making the Earth hot. It also has been reported that they Sun has been kicking out a lot more heat in recent years. We have the solution!

A bioengineered rheostat can be connected to the Sun which would allow us to reduce the emmisions that are currently baking Mother Earth. The framework for this is already in place but the delivery system is way underfunded. If you send just 1 dollar TODAY we can keep the effort going and we guarentee that the Sun will be cooler within 10 years. We need your help now.

Just send 1 dollar [100 pennies] to DannoJyD@ScamTheIdiots.Con and you will be able to sleep soundly as you have helped to save the planet.

They all whine but no one has offered to help. I am outraged! /major sarcasm

DannoJyd on March 23, 2007 at 3:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2