• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Jonah Goldberg on Global Warming

    I don’t know what it tells you, but it tells me that maybe we should study a bit more before we spend billions to “solve” a problem we don’t understand so well.”

    In case you missed it, that’s Jonah Goldberg’s concluding sentence of a thoughtful piece in the LA Times in which he discusses new studies on climate change and the sun’s effect on the climate:

    Assuming there are no sunspots today, a 96-year record will have been broken: 53 days without any solar blemishes, giant magnetic disruptions on the sun’s surface that cause solar flares. That would be the fourth-longest stretch of stellar solar complexion since 1849. Wait, it gets even more exciting.

    During what scientist call the Maunder Minimum — a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 — the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

    Of course, it could have been a coincidence. The Little Ice Age began before the onset of the Maunder Minimum. Many scientists think volcanic activity was a more likely, or at least a more significant, culprit. Or perhaps the big chill was, in the words of scientist Alan Cutler, writing in the Washington Post in 1997, a “one-two punch from a dimmer sun and a dustier atmosphere.”

    Well, we just might find out. A new study in the American Geophysical Union’s journal Eos suggests that we may be heading into another quiet phase similar to the Maunder Minimum.

    Meanwhile, the journal Science reports that a study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, has finally figured out why increased sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather, increasing temperatures more than the increase in solar energy should explain. Apparently, sunspots heat the stratosphere, which in turn amplifies the warming of the climate.

    Scientists have known for centuries that sunspots affected the climate; they just never understood how. Now, allegedly, the mystery has been solved. Last month, in another study, also released in Science, Oregon state researchers claimed to settle the debate over what caused and ended the last Ice Age. Increased solar radiation coming from slight changes in the Earth’s rotation, not greenhouse gas levels, were to blame.

    What is the significance of all this? To say I have no idea is quite an understatement, but it will have to do.

    Nonetheless, what I find interesting is the eagerness of the authors and the media to make it very clear that this doesn’t have any particular significance for the debate over climate change. “For those wondering how the [NCAR] study bears on global warming, Gerald Meehl, lead author on the study, says that it doesn’t — at least not directly,” writes Moises Velasquez-Manoff of the Christian Science Monitor. “Global warming is a long-term trend, Dr. Meehl says. … This study attempts to explain the processes behind a periodic occurrence.”

    This overlooks the fact that solar cycles are permanent “periodic occurrences,” a.k.a. a very long-term trend. Yet Meehl insists that the only significance for the debate is that his study proves that climate modeling is steadily improving.

    I applaud Meehl’s reluctance to go beyond where the science takes him. And for all I know he’s right. But such humility and skepticism seem to manifest themselves only when the data point to something other than the mainstream narrative about global warming. For instance, when we have terribly hot weather, or bad hurricanes, the media see portentous proof of climate change. When we don’t, it’s a moment to teach the masses how weather and climate are very different things.”

    As climate models improve, we will better understand what warms and cools are planet because the debate on global warming, despite what we hear, is not over. More importantly, whether you subscribe to the theory that global warming is destroying our planet or not, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill will do nothing to stop it. The billions of dollars spent, trillions of dollars lost in economic activity, and millions of jobs lost will all be for an infinitesimally small change in the temperature.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    7 Responses to Jonah Goldberg on Global Warming

    1. Bobbie Jay says:

      Arrest the corruption. Stop the hypocrisy. Lift the bans on oil, nuclear and coal. Stop the government from interfering in our right to survive and our right and ability to be energy independent. The natural resources this country contains, is ours to use. Stop sending our money to countries to drill for what is over regulated and/or ban here.

    2. T. Thomson, West New says:

      For you independent scientists, plot Total Solar Irradiance (NASA data) against 5-year time weighted average Surface Temperature Anomalies (also NASA data).

      Then plot Solar Cycle against surface temperature.

      For non-scientists, if you walk into your house and find it to be too hot, which do you check first, the furnace or the air quality?

      Q. E. D.

    3. Pingback: PA Pundits - International

    4. Jim Glidden, Rancho says:

      Global Warming is the biggest con job ever, perbatraded by one of the biggest chislers ever. In case you don't know who I am referring to, it is Al Gore, Mr. BSer. Many scientists debunk the global warming fiasco but the corrupt media in our society will only report what supports their and the liberal pukes biased agenda. The liberal pukes I am referring to are the politicians, who like snake oil salemen, covince the public that they know what they are selling, but unforunately when the public buys the crap they are selling it turns out to not be at all what they claimed. And that's what we get. when we aren't careful about what we ask for. G'Day to all and may God Bless.

    5. Jim Glidden, Rancho says:

      If Ya gotta moderate it, ferget it.

    6. Darold Cornell says:

      I am so sick and tired of government interferance. Why do they ignore the facts? We are the people..they work for us, not the other way around! If this cap and trade passes, I can see a revolution in this country! Power to the people!

    7. Bill Downey, Denver says:

      Mr. Goldberg, thank you for your explaination of the recent NCAR study and the ensuing commentary.

      Personally, I don't put much stock in man-made global warming.

      When asked about my thoughts on global warming, I feel compelled to ask, "the science of global warming, or the politics of global warming?"

      One of them is very real.

      We must act to prevent the travesty of Cap & Trade from becoming the law of the land.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.