Featured Post

For Those Who Disregard Prophecy

People who snub prophecy bewilder me. They say, "I'm not obligated to pay any attention to private revelation. The strict teachin...

Friday, January 2, 2015

Man's Dominion over the Material, Solar Activity Influences Temperature

Man's Dominion Over the Material World

Fr. Chad Ripperger: exorcist, priest of the FSSP, and author of the book, Magesterial Authority

These things are not there for themselves. They're there for us. God created the material things for our use and our benefit. Not the other way around. Today we tend to see that people panic at the slightest bad report about the environment, and it's a sign of rejection of Divine Providence. God created the material universe for our use. Which means that He designed it for the type of use that we're making of it. 

 
The idea that the Earth was made for man, and not man for Earth is so elementary. So basic. The idea that it goes over heads is befuddling, sometimes.

God in Genesis 1

28 ...Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth.
29 ...Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat:
30   And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon.

Again, here in Genesis, we see that the world was made, fashioned, and handed over to men.

Consider this brief story of a world without God's Providence:

Once upon a time, the Supreme Intelligence of the Cosmos created a world. Then the Almighty put upon this world vast amounts of resources, and finally men. To these men, the Creator said: "It's all yours. You have dominion over it."

And so, many many generations of men were born and died. Until finally one day, all of the men destroyed the world with global warming. The God of the Universe allowed all of the men of the world to destroy their world, and He did nothing to stop it. The men who should have known better all killed themselves, and so the Creator of Everything moved on without them. For the suicide of Man was not in His plans.

The end.


I just don't buy that.

At the very least, if Man was truly capable of destroying his world, God would have warned him about the specific dangers. To consider the idea that Man can destroy his world before God is finished with His plan is a blasphemous concept.


It's all good and fine to appreciate nature. It's preferable to keep a locale clean. But we can continue to be good stewards of the environment, loving God's creation and whatnot, all the while as we burn gasoline in our engines, burn coal for electricity and heat, and drill for oil in oil-rich deposits throughout the world. And we can do these things with confidence that we are not globally destroying the world's climate, because global warming is a lie.

Fr. Ripperger's latest book, published in October 2014.
Further considerations of Pope Francis' liberal social agenda in light of Fr. Ripperger's theological considerations can be found in Ryan Grant's book review of Fr. Ripperger's Magisterial Authority.

In the first section, Papal Infallibility, Fr. Ripperger begins by taking Vatican I's decree on papal infallibility and analyzing it for its implications for us. In the first place he notes: “The First Vatican Council essentially states that under certain conditions and only under those conditions are we assured that the statements being made by a pope are infallible. Outside of these conditions for infallibility, we do NOT have the same degree of certitude about the truth of the judgment of a pope. There are members of the Church who treat ALL papal statements with the same degree of certitude: infallible. Aside from real questions of prudence, treating all papal statements as if they are infallible is NOT the mind of the Church.”1 (Emphasis in the original) This is one of the great problems with certain individuals in the Church today, they treat everything as infallible. Vatican I intended to give the criterion of only in certain very limited areas is the Pope infallible.Thus a statement which does not pertain to the faith, such as speaking on global warming and the like, is not infallible. The issue comes in when certain statements are made that seem to pertain to the faith, of which we could name quite a few from the current pontificate.
Grant relates Ripperger's review of Pope Honorius I who was "condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople and its Pope for having taught the Monothelite heresy." In the review, we are also reminded of Pope Nicholas I, who taught that one could simply baptize in the name of Christ only. Also, we are reminded of Pope John XXII, who said that souls of the deceased only would only possess the Beatific Vision after the Last Judgment. (This error was actually in Pope John XXII's book before he was a pope, but he also taught it publicly after his papal election, clearly making it an actual magisterial act.)

So! What are we learning today, gang?

Just because a pontiff is speaking does not mean that the Church is officially acting in infallible prudence for your benefit.

I've been saying all week that the Holy Father appears to be utilizing encyclicals the same way Obama churns out executive orders.

"If my pope said it, it must be right!" Hogwash. Too many Catholics tend to get wrapped up in the Magesterium of the Now.


Global Temperatures Coincide With Solar Activity

Someone requested that I provide more of a source for my favorite boring chart of the week.  




I'm happy to be of service.

The source is 2009 International Conference on Climate Change. The chart in question is another one of Dr. Easterbrook's charts. Dr. Easterbrook is a is Professor Emeritus of Glacial Geology and Environmental and Engineering Geology at Western Washington University. The American Thinker summarizes his paper The Looming Threat of Global Cooling, which notes:
the undeniable link between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) shifting to its warm mode in 1915 and 1977 and global warming resulting both times. Conversely, in 1945 and 1999 the PDO moved to its cool mode and the globe cooled right along, despite a rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 during the period. What’s more, climate changes in the geologic record show a regular pattern of alternate warming and cooling with a 25-30 year period for the past 500 years. Easterbrook thereby concludes that we should “expect global cooling for the next 2-3 decades that will be far more damaging than global warming would have been.
But we were not talking about PDO. We were talking about Dr. Easterbrook's chart, which demonstrates solar activity's correlation with temperature changes. So, here is another chart from a separate group studying the same phenomenon in another part of the world--a totally separate group that gets similar results as Dr. Easterbrook's chart:



Now, the print at the bottom of this chart is difficult to read at this scale. It says:

"Fig. 1. Smoothed Group Sunspot Numbers for the period 1620-1970. The regression line shows the gradual increase over the centuries. For the smoothing technique reference is made to De Jager and Usoskin (2005)."

On the left side of the graph, it says GSN, which stands for Group Sunspot Numbers. The bottom of this graph is the years, as is probably legible for you.

This chart is discussed in a study in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, and the study was conducted in 2009 by two researchers, C. de Jager and S. Duhau.

A PDF of the paper itself can be found here, and in layman's terms it states:

Viewed in this light, it is easy to see, as de Jager and Duhau state, that "the amplitude of the present period of global warming does not significantly differ from the other episodes of relative warming that occurred in earlier centuries." Why? Because the late 20th-century episode of relative warming, as they describe it, is merely "superimposed on a relatively higher level of solar activity than the others," which gives it the appearance of being unique, when it really isn't.
The study's abstract:
Solar activity is regulated by the solar dynamo. The dynamo is a non-linear interplay between the equatorial and polar magnetic field components. So far, in Sun-climate studies, only the equatorial component has been considered as a possible driver of tropospheric temperature variations. We show that, next to this, there is a significant contribution of the polar component. Based on direct observations of proxy data for the two main solar magnetic fields components since 1844, we derive an empirical relation between tropospheric temperature variation and those of the solar equatorial and polar activities. When applying that relation to the period 1610-1995, we find some quasi-regular episodes of residual temperature increases and decreases, with semi-amplitudes up to ~0.3 °C. The present period of global warming is one of them.

More questions have arisen on that particular forum, which I will be happy to respond to, point by point, as time allows.

No comments:

Post a Comment