August 7, 2014

Climate change: The First Denier

Sir William Herschel|Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons
Sir William Herschel|Photo Credit Wikimedia Commons

The first in a three-part series on an alternative explanation for “climate change”

One common sense fact in the global warming debate has to do with the unyielding and undeniable timeline of history. On that timeline there is a rather definite beginning and progression of what is known as the Industrial Revolution and the beginning and increase of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.
In fact the entire foundation of the global warming theory depends on this beginning of man’s emissions of CO2. But this historical fact works both ways because if you argue that mankind’s emissions are the primary driver of the warming world then you also are admitting that any climate changes prior to those increased emissions cannot be the result of man’s influence.
For years the climate cult has attempted to portray the Earth’s climate as being rather benign until mankind’s influence destroyed the tranquility. This narrative flies in the face and denies the historical record and even their own research.
There is a very simple reason why it is necessary for the cult to reinforce this narrative because to admit that climate changed prior to man’s emissions is to bring another “actor” into the global warming debate thus depriving CO2 and humanity sole responsibility for the “emergency.” If you are blaming man-made greenhouse gasses for the “crisis,” it does not serve your purposes to point out that there have always been periods of changing temperatures on Earth. After all who is to say that what caused previous changes is not occurring now?
Sherlock Holmes famous advice that “..when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth,” only works if you first eliminate the impossible. The climate science community not only did not eliminate the impossible they reached a conclusion by ruling out the obvious.
One of history’s greatest if lesser known scientists was the German/ English astronomer Sir William Herschel,  Sir William among many great scientific achievements in a very long and distinguished life discovered the first planet not known to ancient man, Uranus. He also determined that the sun emitted light from beyond the visible spectrum and discovered that coral were animals and not plants. However, what he first noticed in 1801 is what sets the cult’s teeth on edge. He wrote,
it seems probable that some temporary scarcity or defect of vegetation has taken place, when the sun has been without those appearances which we surmise to be the symptoms of a copious emission of light and heat…
He was speaking of sunspots and he was the first to observe that for some reason sunspots affected crop yield. Herschel initially thought sunspots deprived the sun of energy and heat and thus would cool the Earth causing lower crop yield.
The Nature of the Sun, I am now much inclined to believe that openings [sunspots] …. may lead us to expect a copious emission of heat, and therefore mild seasons . . . A constant observation of the sun with this view, and a proper information respecting the general mildness or severity of the seasons, in all parts of the world, may bring this theory to perfection or refute it if it be not well founded.
Interesting isn’t it that until the global warming scare, humanity has always equated warmer weather as being good and colder weather as being bad.
Intrigued by the possibility of a way to predict weather or even crop yields, Herschel continued his investigation by studying Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” which included a section on yearly wheat prices.
From his investigation he deduced that in periods when prices were high it was because the crops yields were low due to poor growing seasons, i.e., bad weather. Herschel then compared these findings to the record of sunspots during the corresponding time periods. To his surprise he found that low sunspot activity yielded low crop yield, which was the exact opposite from what he had expected. But William Herschel had made a direct if not yet understood link between the Sun’s activity and the Earth’s climate.
Now common sense, not to mention volumes of historical records, testify to the fact that prior to the Industrial Revolution there were periods of abundance and periods of scarcity brought on by changing climate. Even well into the Industrial Revolution, before anyone claims that man had influenced the climate through greenhouse gas emissions, there was America’s  great Dust Bowl era of the thirties.
Although the 1930s drought is often referred to as if it were one episode, there were at least 4 distinct drought events: 1930–31, 1934, 1936, and 1939–40 (Riebsame et al., 1991). These events occurred in such rapid succession that affected regions were not able to recover adequately before another drought began.
No one that I am aware of is claiming that the droughts of the 1930′s had anything to do with the Model T. History is filled with examples of changing climate patterns all over the globe which obviously could not in any way be connected to man-made emissions.
To put it plainly, something caused the climate to change before we started driving cars now didn’t it?....
Read my entire article at BBN
After Herschel’s discovery and actually going back to the dawn of the human race, man has had a pretty good idea what causes climate to change and it has little to do with carbon dioxide. The problem is that in spite of the fact that everyone realizes that the sun is the primary driver of the Earth’s climate, nobody had been able to explain how it could control global temperatures.


No comments:

Post a Comment