I believe that it could rise to the level of “theory” in that it seems to be generally accepted by physicists that sunspot activity correlates directly to weather patterns, e.g. increased sunspot activity results in decreased rainfall, at least on the western seaboard of the US. You are right that maybe it should only be considered a hypothesis at this time.

I wrote poorly. I was thinking more along the lines of “has not been reduced in direct proportion because of increasing…”

It would be difficult to phrase, anyway. I was trying to head off the frequent, “then why is there still pollution?”

However as to the pollutants emitted by the Town Car vs the Fit, our pollution test (a short-lived thing of the ’90’s) measured pollutants in PPM. If the standard is in PPM, and a larger vehicle used more air, gas, etc, total pollultants per, say, mile driven, could be higher. Unless PPM was just a convenient way of screening at the facility. I confess, I hadn’t given it a great deal of thought or actually looked up the law.

Is the sunspot activity/earth’s weather corollary a full-blown theory or is it still a hypothesis?

I think you’re using the term “theory” to mean “hypothesis” in this case (a common error). A theory is a way to explain a set of known facts and how they relate to each other, or how said facts explain phenomena. People tend to use the word theory to mean guess, hunch, or hypothesis. This is particularly (and erringly) employed against the Theory of Evolution, as in, “It’s just a theory.”

Just sayin…

Personally, I’m torn. On one hand I think it is prudent to recognize that we can’t put massive amounts of anything into the environment without potential consequences. On the other, the science around athropogenic global warming has too much of a “drinking the KoolAid” feel to it. I just get the feeling that scientists are, for political reasons, under pressure to support AGW and are suppressing contrary evidence or opinion.

When science claims to be “settled” and stops challenging the prevailing theory it ceases to be science and becomes dogma. The fact that scientists that challenge AGW are derisively labeled as “deniers” and accused (rightly or wrongly) of being on the payroll of big oil, adds little but FUD to the debate.

Levels of pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act have been decreasing for decades, despite increases in economic activity, number of vehicles and how far they are driven.

Pollution emitted by a vehicle has nothing to do with its size or weight. All vehicles within a Clean Air Act regulatory class are limited to the same emissions level. A Lincoln Town Car cannot, by law, emit more pollutants than a Honda Fit. The act does not give it a “pass” because it is a larger, heavier vehicle than a Fit.

Honda may tune or engineeer the Fit’s engine to emit fewer pollutants, but that is because it decided to go above and beyond what the law requires.

SUVs and other light trucks have been regulated by a different set of standards than passenger cars under the Clean Air Act. This is why the emit more pollutants than passenger cars (although it is worth noting that a brand-new Ford Explorer emits fewer pollutants with the engine running than a brand-new 1969 Ford Galaxie emitted with the engine turned off). That has nothing to do with their size or weight.

Increased gasoline consumption does result in more carbon dioxide emissions, but these are not currently regulated by the Clean Air Act. There is a court fight over whether carbon dioxide emissions do fall under the act’s jurisdiction. Realistically, $4 a gallon for unleaded will do more to cut gasoline use, and thus carbon dioxide emissions, than all of the jawboning over global warming.

Physicists have been correlating sun spot activity to the weather at least since the late 80’s when I was in college. That was when I first heard of the theory from my Physics professor. By the way, physicists refer to it as a theory. Maybe that’s because they understand the difference between a theory and a fact.

Mel23:

How about the corrolary to your supposition: the relationship between ones politics and an adament belief in global warming. I wonder how many conservative hating liberals accept global warming as gospel without even bothering to examine why?

Air pollutin? Congress passed a lot of laws that various industries fought, tooth and nail, all based on the premise that party A shouldn’t be able to dirty up Party B’s air simply for Party A’s profit.

Did you think those cat converters, O2 sensors, etc, just appeared on your car because GM thought they were a grand idea?

Thus, much pollution was stopped at the source. Of course, the increase in economic activity, miles driven, size and heft of vehicles in use, number and size of housing, etc, still tends to drive pollution levels upwards because we burn almost nothing entirely cleanly. Power plants still emit some pollutants, cars ditto, etc.

I really miss the good old days of global cooling and a new ice age (by the year 2000).

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping at the Canadian National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850.
Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread.
Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It’s way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it’s way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

We either progress or continue to make things worse.