Global Warming Scientists Try To Minimize The Sun

I am getting rather angry now, as the media joins up with a number of scientists to back the concept of ‘climate change’ which they really mean, ‘global warming’: the latest insane claim to come down the road is ‘sun spots don’t cause climate change’!!!!  If anything, this is the final nail in the global warming business.  That is, it has gone entirely insane.


My father was one of the founders of the biggest solar observatory, the McMath Solar Observatory on Kitt Peak National Observatory, built right by ‘Turtle Rock’ (named by us children back in the 1950’s).  I grew up, hanging around astronomers who studied the sun.  My father is one of the top experts on what he calls, ‘The nearest star.’


Something really, really grotesque is going on here, that is, I believe that science has gone very much astray.  This is due to money.  That is, if you want funding, the system has been reset so that funds from the banking community, seeking to get us to do carbon trading, has overwhelmed the oil and coal people who like to fund studies that show there is no connection between energy burning and the environment.


Of course, BOTH PARTIES are wrong.  That is, this tug of war has driven both sides to do insane things.  And the most maddening thing of all is the recent attempt in the last five years to pretend that the sun has little to do with weather changes.  I am just utterly aghast about this!  This is like comic book colors for a very subtle painting of what complex natural forces do when they interact!


That is, the ultimate controller of all things in our planetary weather systems is the closest star: our Sun.  It is the utterly most important element in our climate!  Period.  There is nothing that comes close to it in effect and power.  That is, the temperature of this planet hinges very greatly on the sun’s energy production levels!


That is, if the sun cuts back even slightly, the energy level drops to a small degree, we can plunge into an ice age here!  Ditto, the reverse.  I have lived many years on this planet and keep a very close eye on this interesting and quite variable star.  And it is no shock to me that the hottest days I ever experienced often coincided with the sun spitting out lots of energy with a considerable level of sun spot activity along with other actions that we can detect here on earth.


But here it is, the latest blast from the CO2 ‘climate change’ crew:  Environment | The Independent UK – Sunspots do not cause climate change, say scientists

The researchers, all experts in climate or solar science, have told The Independent that the scientific evidence continually cited by sceptics to promote the idea of sunspots being the cause of global warming is deeply flawed.


Studies published in 1991 and 1998 claimed to establish a link between global temperatures and solar activity, sunspots and continue to be cited by climate sceptics, including those who attended an “alternative” climate conference in Copenhagen last week.


However, problems with the data used to establish the correlation have been identified by other experts and the flaws are now widely accepted by the scientific community, even though the studies continue to be used to support the idea that global warming is “natural”.


The issue has gained new importance in the light of opinion polls showing that nearly one in two people now believe global warming is a natural phenomenon unconnected with CO2 emissions. Public distrust of the accepted explanation of global warming has been exacerbated by emails leaked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which appeared to suggest that scientists were engaged in a conspiracy to suppress contrarian views.


Many sceptics who accept that global temperatures have risen in recent decades suggest it is part of the climate’s natural variability and could be accounted for by normal variations in the activity of the Sun. Powerful support for this idea came in 1991 when Eigil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Centre, published a study showing a remarkable correlation between global warming and the length of sunspot cycles.


A further study published in 1998 by Mr Friis-Christensen and his colleague Henrik Svensmark suggested a possible explanation for the warming trend with a link between solar activity, cosmic rays and the formation of clouds.


Well, well, well…the ‘climate change (formerly called ‘global warming’ until it got too cold for that to pass muster) people who want us to believe that ONLY CO2 is causing warmer weather (ahem….I AM FREEZING…!!!) are complaining about ‘flaws’ in research about solar activity causing warming or cooling.


Of course, the other side of this debate has accused the global warming guys that they, too, have flawed data.  This is what I call ‘nit picking’ by both sides of this debate.  The ‘global warming’ people have extended their business by now declaring that the Medieval Warming period didn’t really happen, too.  This is, there evidently was little ‘climate change’ until the last 35 years or so.


And this is INSANE.  This is beyond stupid.  It irritates me immensely since it is childish.  Ignoring the facts that our planet’s climate has been extremely unstable for the last 2 million years is….obvious!  Indeed, it should never be forgotten.  This natural instability has a number of contributing causes.  But the #1reason is pretty obvious: the sun changes and this causes great cold spells.  All of which end very suddenly.  When there were only 70,000 humans or when there are 7 billion humans, the one major fact is, the climate has had extreme swings.


Below are some graphs that show the sun has not performed uniformly at all:  Maunder Minimum – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This graph reads from right to left.  Note that the period of 1550-1950, the solar activity levels were consistently well below the Medieval Maximum.  Back then, grape growing moved northwards in Europe and the Nordic countries enjoyed bumper harvests.  Glaciers melted and villages moved up the slopes of the Alps.  But these villages were abandoned and ground down to their foundations when the glaciers surged back down the valleys.


Here is an article about the study that purports to pretend, there was really no Medieval Maximum and that it was ‘local’, mainly only over Greenland (HAHAHAHA).


Was there a Medieval Warm Period?

The Medieval Warm Period spanned 950 to 1250 AD and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. So just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was it warmer than now? A new paper Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly (Mann et al 2009) (see here for press release) addresses this question, focusing on regional temperature change during the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.


Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemisphere averages). In this study, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct regional temperature change over the past 1500 years. The paper discusses many interesting topics, including some interesting consequences of prolonged La Nina conditions during the Medieval Warm Period. I’m still digesting this info and will return to it in a future post. But the central result of the paper is the regional temperature pattern during the Medieval Warm Period.


Yo, why on earth was there a ‘prolonged La Nina’?  Eh?  Eh?  What causes these ocean systems?  Why didn’t the el Nino take over with super-warm waters?  I know this may be hopeless, but normally, when you try to heat up water, you apply heat.  Now, what heats the oceans?


The sun, of course!  Many things can cut down on sunlight: an asteroid hits and blankets the earth with dust and other junk.  Less sun=cold oceans.  Or, volcanoes erupt and do the same thing, too.  Or maybe there is a major rifting event that causes massive amounts of lava to flow out along a continental spreading point and this heats up the ocean!  But the #1 item that causes warming or cooling remains the variable star that rises in the east every morning.


I am beginning to think that this entire debate is more along the lines of the Emperor’s New Clothes.  Everyone is very, very anxious to prove their points and are taking sides.  Not looking logically at things.  Recently, Nature magazine which is now backing ONLY the ‘climate change is caused by humans’ ideology and when my father, who is an expert in these matters, big time expert, submitted a paper titled, ‘The Sun Is A Variable Star’, he was told, ‘No one is very interested in this.’


I was just utterly amazed.  There is this bizarre presumption that our sun is a steady state system that never really changes?  Madness!  The sun is capricious.  But this brings me back to another point I like to make frequently: humans like status quo systems to never change.  This desire for infinity in systems that are very finite, is a natural feature of our own brains.  This is part of our ‘wishful thinking’ parts of the brain.


The global warming debate has many dangerous and foolish features which I point out periodically.  Namely, the idea that it is all bad is one that angers me greatly.  Acidification of the oceans and overfishing is very bad!  Water pollution is bad.  Containing CO2 production and encouraging more rain forests is good.  But this also means we have to warm up the planet so we can increase food production.  For locked under ice and permafrost are vast acres of good growing acres of land.


That is, humans can MOVE.  We all move around.  Hell, my ancestors flowed out of the frigid ice covered lands of Norway and Sweden and ran all over Europe, ran off to the Middle East, then ran off to the New World, to Asia, to Australia, all over the planet, both hemispheres.  Humans are NOTORIOUS for moving around.  We are very restless.  So claiming that we must stay locked in place and therefore, must keep the planet’s climate exactly where it was at some fabled date, is pure insanity!  Not to mention, flies in the face of history.


This debate between scientists has to include historians as well as astronomers.  And of course, there has to be some uncertainty.  Everyone is way too certain about things and giving us information that flies in the face of what we see in reality: that is, the sun has had very little activity lately and the proverbial super-hot days have turned to cold, cold days.  And this is why people are very skeptical of the scientists pushing the ‘climate change (aka, global warming) ideology.


The next step for scientists is to try to understand why all galaxies are falling towards each other, not flying away from each other.  I look forwards to that business being figured out (hint: the universe is not madly expanding, it is doing something very loopy here and quite unpleasant).  But don’t worry, we won’t be crushed by a huge black hole in an immense cluster galaxy just yet.  That is another several billion years down the road.  I hope.  Heh.

sunset borger

side picture begging boneEmail:



P.O. BOX 483

BERLIN, NY 12022

Make checks out to ‘Elaine Supkis’

Click on the Pegasus icon on the right sidebar to donate via Paypal.

sunset borger


Filed under nature, Politics, weather news

21 responses to “Global Warming Scientists Try To Minimize The Sun

  1. Very interesting, i’ve posted links to this subject before, the point the climate scientists make is yes there is solar flux related to sunspots but the variation is only very small, so whom to believe you or James Hansen?
    I would like to see some of the facts your father gathered on this subject.

  2. Onion

    Even the evil of acidification ’caused’ by CO2 is not necessarily as bad as we fear

    The guys who wrote this were conducting real science. Systematic observations and a hypothesis (CO2 causes reduction in calcification), that was partly falsified by the observations they made

    Compare and contrast with the AGW fruitnuts. Can anyone write down what the falsifiable hypothesis/ set of hypotheses behind the ‘science’ of catastrophic man-made CO2 global warming actually is, and following on from that, what set of experiments can be undertaken to confirm or falsify that hypothesis?

  3. Duski

    At the moment, scientists claims that sun activity changes little of the _measured_ radiation coming on earth:

    Also, we are at sunspot minimum and it is still warming up (isn’t it?):

    Satellites hav been measuring how much we get radiation from sun for last 30 years; “These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle.” So the claim is, it is not nearly as important as greenhouse gases.

    “To what extent does the Sun’s variability affect and/or cause global climate change?

    the most recent studies have confirmed that changing levels of energy from the Sun are not significant enough to be a major cause of global warming: “…the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases…greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role…” The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues.””

    “Were changes on the Sun, the Maunder Minimum, related to the Little Ice Age in Europe?

    A NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a “Little Ice Age” in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the Sun’s energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution.”

    So, now we have that much greenouse gases on atmosphere that sun activity does not matter that much anymore (or so they say). I’ll stick with mainstream scientists in this one, there is not a real reason to doubt what they are telling, as long as heating continues.

  4. emsnews

    OK: word of warning….the idea that a ‘small’ change in solar output is meaningless is stupid. As I pointed out and as I was told by my father who is an expert who is no longer consulted (he retired and no longer supervises students)…. SLIGHT changes in solar output has BIG effects on earth.

    Think about that for a minute. The up and coming young graduate students who are now full professors have collectively decided my dad was ‘wrong’ due to them deciding humans are controlling the environment.

    THERE IS NO PROOF MY DAD IS WRONG. This goes under ‘supposition’.

    Now, for the fact that humans produce CO2: my father has written in the past that if there was no human CO2 production, we would be in an ice age already. So yes, CO2 is one reason why our planet doesn’t instantly cool off rapidly if solar output drops. Now, the question is, which is worse: reducing CO2 so it doesn’t warm up the planet or having a very vicious ice age?

    AHA! We can’t get a stable status quo very easily since Nature is all about shifting and changing so we have to make choices. And this is the real debate: what do we do about all of this? When the carbon burning ends due to the Hubbert Energy Peak (something my father championed since he knew Hubbert himself back in the sixties) do we have an ice age?

    My father always said ‘Yes’ to that. A lot of graduate students followed him briefly but during the three high-energy solar cycle we had since 1980, the number of scientists thinking about the horrors of a return to another Ice Age cycle dropped whereas it was very high from 1963-1980 (cold period in time).

    When my dad published the very first book detailing how volcanoes change the environment, he was criticized for this but after 40 years of people figuring this out, only very belatedly, do scientists agree with his pioneering work. Now, they casually mention this factor but not very loudly.

    As I keep saying, we are one caldera event away from an Ice Age! Yellowstone or any of the Indonesia volcanoes goes caldera, we are put in a freezer, big time. Weather prediction still ignores volcanoes!

    I predicted last spring we would have a cold summer due to volcanic ash scattering solar input in the high stratosphere and I was right. It has been devilishly cold this last 6 months due to the sun also being at a very low sun spot activity level, too. Just like in the very cold early 1970’s when everyone was worried about ice ages!

  5. scarletfire

    the powers that be…that wish to control our lives, are using global warming to institute massive control over the earths resources and it’s people..they could careless wether gw is happening or not…for them it’s a vehicle to control the masses…let’s remove industry from the first world to the third world..why? these people live in the first world and don’t want a coal plant down the street…instead let’s move it to the third world..let them breathe and bath in chemicals that are produced while they still get all the products they want and desire…they don’t care if some low or middle class people lose jobs in the process…in fact that increases the rich’s control of the political system..poor people can’t contribute to the political system at the same level as rich and thus get no representation…it’s why there is hardly any opposition to the super rich agenda…will the us get healthcare for all? i doubt it..the rich can easily afford their insurance premiums and make money off of the rest of us

  6. emsnews

    My next news story is all about how our services and social systems are already being reduced even as war spending climbs higher and higher. Yes, they really don’t care about ‘global warming’ EXCEPT all the banking gnomes own ocean front properties in balmy climates and don’t want the ocean to rise. Ergo: they need to freeze me half of the year. See? heh.

  7. JT

    Some facts:
    -antarctic sea ice is expanding
    -sea levels have risen 2-3mm per year since 1850
    -arctic sea ice has been decreasing since 1850
    -the earth has warmed 0,6 degrees in the last 100 years
    – the amount of arctic sea ice has increased the last 2 years (it´s new ice but still)
    -there is no measured accelerated warming, melting etc. Things are pretty much normal.
    – the number of polar bears are increasing
    – hurricanes are at an all time low
    – cooling is predicted until 2014-2020

    Have you seen any of this in the news?
    Climate change happens all the time but where´s the disaster?

    IPCC is in a hurry to explain this problem away.
    CO2 causes maybe 1 degree of warming in the next 100 years.
    It is the runaway catastrophy part of the remaining 6 degrees of estimated warming that doesn´t hold water.
    Too much loaded on just Co2 and now nature will prove IPCC wrong.
    Maunder minimum now and we can forget about the whole warming issue and start preparing for serious colding.

    And not even touching the subject on how anything is fixed by paying taxes, running a carbon roulette and paying China and India money to steal our jobs and increase pollution.

    Every country can decide to tax oil and electricity if we need higher prices. And then decide themselves on how to spend the tax revenues.
    “Copenhagen is stealing from the poor in the rich countries and giving it to the rich in the poor countries.”

  8. emsnews

    I like that last line. Heh. Robbin Hood in reverse gear.

    As for pollution: POLLUTION IS BAD. So is overgrazing and chopping down forests. All the forests in the NE USA were chopped down by 1890. They all grew back after heavy logging shifted to the West which is still being denuded!

    But here in the NE, we now have a carbon collection point: forests like mine. And the plan is to strip me of my own personal carbon rights and control how I use my own forests. That is, the bankers trading carbon credits will have inventive to force me to service this market while not paying ME a penny.

  9. JT

    “And the plan is to strip me of my own personal carbon rights and control how I use my own forests. ”

    That´s the point, I agree 100%. And this is not crazy infowars stuff, it is exactly what is proposed.
    I have to buy a carbon credit to burn some firewood from my own forest.

    How did we come to this? Just add greed of politicians, UN budget problems and multinationals lobbying like crazy and you get results like this.
    The real problem is how to make energy artificially expensive.
    And Copenhagen is the only solution we can come up with?

    How hard is this? “I Barack “warlord” Obama will put in place a 20% tax increase on petrol and diesel starting 1.1.2010. I Barack Obama will put in place a 20% tax increase on electricity starting 1.1.2010.
    The revenues will be used to occupy foreign lands in order the ensure our supply of oil. Some leftovers will be used to provide healthcare for the poor.”
    Easy 😉 .

    IPCC is politics not science. They are a*rsef*cking the numbers, leaving stuff out and lying as any other political organization during elections.

    Pardon my french, I´m tired of this climate propaganda.

  10. Duski

    I agree that politics around global warming are really, really stupid all around. But I still disagree in your claim Elaine that your father was right and others wrong; this is because I don’t have all the information at hand and I believe that measurements and climate models have been developed further since then.

    They might be faulty, after all, but I don’t have skills to analyze them thoroughly anyway. But I’d still want to point out that 30 years now suns radiation output has been measured, and it has varied very little. Well, in any case, how much this impacts can be argued I guess. In the end it comes down to the accuracy of current models once again.

    On the other hand, 30 years of measurement is just way too little time to say anything definite. Maybe sun has been way more active 100 years ago or so? And we would be in ice age without our Co2 now. Time will tell…

  11. emsnews

    30 years is a diamond dust drop in astronomical terms. And no, the sun isn’t steady state at all during this time. Didn’t you notice all the X ray events during the peaks of the last two solar cycles? Does the sun act like this every day?

    OF COURSE NOT. The number of ‘big solar events’ rises and falls dramatically over a 20 year cycle. And this 20 year cycle is the Ice Age sun cycle, we don’t know if there was this 20 year cycle 300 million years ago, just for one glaring example.

  12. zip

    Here i found some references

    [12] As a result of the theory, it can be predicted that the next solar minimum may start within the next 3-14 years, and last 2-3 solar cycles or approximately 22-33 years. Beginning with cycle 24 but no later than cycle 25, sunspot numbers may approach a Wolf number of 50 for each of two consecutive solar cycles. It is estimated that there will be a global temperature drop on average between 1.0 and 1.5 degrees C, if not lower, at least on the scale of the Dalton Minimum. Should the minimum begin with solar cycle 24 as forecast, the bottom of the temperature curve for this predicted is forecast for the year 2031 with widespread record cold for years on either side of 2031. A start at solar cycle 25 would extend the range of the next bottom of the solar minimum to the 2031- 2044 period or more….

  13. emsnews

    Yes, that is what my father predicted, too. He said, it would be cold for at least 2-3 decades.

  14. nah

    The next step for scientists is to try to understand why all galaxies are falling towards each other, not flying away from each other.
    what i thot everything was red shift meaning energy wavelengths of increasing distance between us and infinity…. is there other science out there?
    and sun research should always be measured and inferred FIRST in any serious scientific climate scenario…. we have an ecosystem on earth that needs protection before carbon profits, the energy of life is organic and very efficient…. carbon is the least poisons gunk we make
    larry summers is a genious

  15. notgonnatellya

    Cap and trade worked with ozone.

    The biggest problem the planet faces is human overpopulation. We can’t move around because there’s too many of us, and too may of us needing to move around (and be fed) causes war.

    And we don’t need more of the earth’s surface devoted to farming, human methods of farming is harmful to the planet and destroys other life.

    We’re not the most important thing here, and if we destroy too much of the other important things here trying to save ourselves, we’ll actually be killing ourselves.

    Such is the short-sightedness of a being that lives less than one hundred years, and seems incapable of learning from its ancestors’ past mistakes…

  16. emsnews

    What? Cap and trade worked with what?

    HAHAHA. Actually, switching refrigerants did the trick and to do that, governments simply passed laws against using freon in manufacturing these cooling units.

    If we are even slightly serious about ‘global warming’ (which is now not mentioned at all by the GM people) then all we have to do is pass laws outlawing cars, jets and air conditioners.

    This would be very amusing to watch (I used to drive a horse and buggy, by the way, as well as using oxen).

  17. scarletfire

    So who wants to be culled to save ourselves? The eugenics movement is far from dead, perhaps to distance themselves from their ugly past (think hitler) they are now going green.
    Cap and trade is a bad joke..the ozone experience is inciteful however as goverments can simply mandate lower emissions for industry…might cut into their profits abit so it looks like the captains of industry would prefer to relocate to areas where the natives don’t protest so much and can be paid pennies on the dollar…oh and cap and trade will actually help them pay for the move…win win..for them…not us or the environment

  18. notgonnatellya

    And why did governments ban ozone-depleting refrigerants?

    not on that, but related:

  19. scarletfire

    skin cancer gets them too…perhaps more than the average serfs who have less time to spend on the beach…
    I’m all for capping..pollution should be lowered if not stopped all together, but can be done so by relatively simple regulations enforced by government. (as was done with ozone).. I’m trying to get how trading pollution helps…the companies that spend money buying the right to pollute could spend that money reducing pollution directly..and be mandated to do so by government without an additional layer of bankers and their fees…
    I’m all for helping or keeping the environment intact when it makes sense…long ago I studied two cases of environmentalism that didn’t make sense to me… 1)stopping the seal hunt in northern canada…in effect stripping the inuit of their food source…and 2)an african nature reserve that preserved the land for the animals while barring indigenous tribes from using the lands (which had used the lands for centuries) for food or farming..
    I’d rather spent the money developing sustainable farming technology for the benefit of all..and cleaning up the pollutants that enter our food source by simple mandates…perhaps there are flaws in that that would be exposed but i still don’t see how paying bankers to trade carbon helps.

  20. emsnews

    Correct, Scarletfire. Heh. Maybe we can have a hunting preserve for us to go after GS banking gnomes…in their natural habitat.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s