I wrote the following blog post a few weeks ago and then put it on the shelf because, oh I don't know, the timing didn't seem quite right. Then the other day I heard that John Coleman, the award winning meteorologist who started The Weather Channel came on CNN to declare that (A) There is nothing historically different about our current climate (B) Man made climate change has not been demonstrated (C) Being introduced for the interview and debate as a "climate change denier" shows a bias which promotes climate change but excludes facts (D) There is no overwhelming consensus among all scientists that man made climate change is happening, and (E) the guy he is going to debate who is the current CEO of The Weather Channel is not a scientist whereas he is.
That seemed to fit in pretty well with my post so here it is.
About 6 years ago a local TV head meteorologist wrote that in his mind the book was not closed on global warming. A couple of years ago the head meteorologist from a rival station made basically the same comment. In case you are thinking that these are just pretty boys pretending they understand science let me give you another take. Both were fascinated with weather even when kids and as weather geeks today they continue to spend amazing amounts of time studying and trying to understand weather patterns and what makes what work. They are surrounded by the same types of people. I mean, when severe weather breaks out in West Michigan and their channels interrupt regular programming to give you endless details of reverse curves in a front 10 miles away you would think that everyone was wetting their pants they are so excited.
Some years back 9000 PH D's and 31.000 scientist and meteorologists signed a petition questioning some of the base beliefs of global warming advocates calling global warming "a hoax". This was of course derided by the global warming click and when they discovered that a couple dozen names on the list were suspect they painted the entire list as loons and fakes. But as I've said before, whether truth or not, it's all about politics. Sadly the true believers don't realize that it's also all about money, power and government control and that their supposed leaders are men and women without scruples who have another agenda besides the health of mother earth.
So let's talk facts. Of course, even though these are facts everything is debatable. For example. Since it has not been proved that ocean temperatures are rising as fast as predicted a new claim by the pro global warming crowd is that the oceans are storing all that heat well below the 600 meter level. I've read on both sides opinions on the current and future effect of the oceans storing in their depths an immense amount of heat but who am I to judge. For every point on either side there is a counter point. At least there should be some debate. So here goes:
Today there are 19 colonies of polar bears world wide comprising between 25,000 to 30,000 individuals, most of them in good shape. Currently about 3 or 4 of the colonies are considered stressed. In 1975 there were between 5,000 to 10,000 polar bears. At that time international treaties to limit the hunting of polar bears came into effect, obviously contributing to their increase in numbers.
About 70% of the world's fresh water is contained in Antarctic ice. This year ice coverage in Antarctica is at an all time high as measured by modern methods. Most of the ice sheet in Antarctica is one top of land (the increase is sea ice) and because the average snowfall in the interior is extremely low and the maximum temperatures never gets as high as 10 degrees Fahrenheit there is scant chance ocean levels will rise due to melting Antarctic ice.
In contrast, a lot of the ice in the Arctic is sea ice. This ice sheet increases and decreases according to the seasons. When sea ice melts it does not raise sea levels just as a glass of water filled with ice does not overflow when the ice melts. The last decade has seen slightly longer Arctic melting seasons although things tended to moderate a bit this year. Global warming scientists predict an ice free Arctic by 2050 and the extinction of the polar bear caused by their change of diet from seals to ? Coke. The global warming scientists who get all the money and press tell us, despite pretty good evidence otherwise, that polar bears can only survive on a seal diet or else they will resort to cannibalism.
Ah, facts. Funny things those. Not to be confused with computer models where garbage in means garbage out. I've checked numerous on line sites, both pro and con global warming. The facts listed below come from FriendsofScience.org They have wonderful visual charts which really provide a clear sense of the statistics.
The description for human caused global warming is "anthropogenic global warming", or AGW.
In the comments below GHG stands for green house gas.
The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Global Warming.
AGW sceptics do not deny that humans have some effect on climate. The questions are, how much, is it scientifically verifiable and is it necessarily bad?
AGW sceptics do not disagree on the direct greenhouse effect of CO2. They disagree on the climate systems response to that radiation effect. The main problem that AGW sceptics have is shown by their claim that computer climate models greatly overestimate the effects of GHG emissions likely by a factor of 3.
AGW would warm the exo-tropics much more than the tropics, reducing the temperature difference that drive storms. So global warming actually reduces storminess. Studies show that colder climates had more severe storms and the actual number of strong tornadoes have been declining over the last 40 years.
Since the spiked temperatures of the El Nino in 1998 temperatures as measured by both surface and satellite have been flat despite the rise in CO2. IPCC climate models predicted +0.20 per decade. Actual has been -0.054 per decade. Although there have been increases in temps in parts of the world and decreases in others there has been no average increase in global warming for the last 16 years! (one reason that the press is no longer calling this crisis "global warming" but rather "climate change".
95% of GHG's are water vapor. Warming causes more water vapor in the lower atmosphere but declining water vapor in the upper atmosphere, where it has more effect on warming by a factor of 80.
Historical records seem to indicate that the Minoan, Roman and Medieval periods had warmer temperatures than today. Greenland was farmed for awhile by the Vikings just before the last mini ice age.
Solar activity measured since 1600 shows direct correlation between solar activity and temperature.
IPCC computer models include little if any natural factors such as solar activity.
There is no evidence that a warmer climate will increase extinction rates.
The Global Integrated Drought Monitoring and Prediction System shows a declining trend of world drought over the last 30 years.
Global sea ice in 2014 has risen 300,000 sq. km greater than the 1979-2008 average.
Atmospheric methane has risen 0.2% over the last 10 years. The IPCC forecasts methane to increase 6 times faster than recent obllservations.
And finally from other notes - Ocean levels are not like lake levels. Sea level varies in different parts of the world because of gravity, winds and other factors. The Indian Ocean is about 200 feet below average and the coast of Ireland is over 200 feet above average. Water expands as it warms and sea levels have been gradually increasing which should be totally expected if long term natural trends mean anything. Even though some low lying islands in the Pacific have lost dry land, because coral reefs are still being produced the last couple decades have seen an actual increase of island land by 11%. Antarctic ice is in no danger of melting and Arctic sea ice as discussed before will not raise sea levels. That leaves Greenland which is still chugging out those large chucks of ice, but not at a clip that is radically different than the past.
The idea that 97% of scientist believe AGW is a threat to our planet is a totally bogus number. But don't believe me. Do your research.
No comments:
Post a Comment