Climate Change

A new story struck my fancy, polar bears hold Russian town hostage. It appears that 20 polar bears are staying put around a coastal Russian town, looking for Walrus meat after a major Walrus migration.  What makes this story peculiar is that the Polar Bear was the poster pet of man-made caused climate change but over the past decade, the Polar bear population has increased and recent pictures showed a very well fed Polar Bear which makes this story fascinating. As this story showed, the Polar Bear has adapted quite nicely to the changing climate and climate change isn’t as devastating as originally predicted. This is just another example of missed predictions among climate alarmists. The Polar Bears’ plight no longer serves as the icon for evil of climate change since those pesky Bears are now Walrus hunting and holding Russian towns hostage.

This past year, there have been 400 reference studies that challenge the conventional wisdom that the rise of CO2  as a result of human activity is the major reason for the present climate change and the studies cover wide range of subjects that discussed natural variability, past climate history showing that recent warming is not significantly different within the past ten thousands and the benefit of CO2 on increasing vegetation. Combined this with the 500 reference studies in 2016, we have 900 studies in just the past two years showing that the Science is not settled and that there is much to learn about what caused climate changes in the past and present.3 What we don’t know about climate change exceeds what we do know and what we thought we knew is proving to be false.

For the past several years, we have seen problems with computer modeling overestimating warming and a recent study in Nature Geoscience noted, “Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”  About this study, PowerlineBlog Steven Hayward added, “An article out today in Nature Geoscience ponders the problem of why observed temperatures in the troposphere are not matching up with what the climate models have predicted. The lead author, Ben Santer, is one of the leading climatistas, so this article can’t be written off as “denier” distortions. (One of the co-authors is Michael Mann.) The complete article is behind a paywall, and while it is evident that the authors have done all the necessary contortions that essentially say “our models are just a little off” so as to convey a “nothing to see here” conclusion, the abstract can hardly be reassuring because it has to concede the problem”

This particular study was produced by many with the climate alarmist camp and all they did was to confirm what many Climate Skeptics has stated for the past decade, the computer modeling overestimate warming and joins other studies have supported this thesis that the computer models overestimated the warming.  It could be argued that only way for alarmists to get results they wanted is to manipulate the data as Kenneth Richards observed recently, “So as to eliminate the inconvenience of a non-anthropogenic warming trend in modern times, NASA and NOAA have removed all or nearly all the 0.5°C of warming between 1880 and 1950.  If past raw temperature data do not fit the narrative that human CO2 emissions drive climate change, the raw data must be changed.” Richards point is that alarmist data may be based on manipulated data and a whistleblower inside the NOAA accused the authors of a NOAA study published in 2015 that claims that hiatus didn’t exist, broke procedures to ensure accuracy.

The weakness of the climate alarmist is that the theories don’t match the reality of the world.  Over the past hundred twenty years, we have seen thirty years of warming following by thirty years of cooling, followed by yet another thirty years of warming and now we are in the midst of two decades of a hiatus with virtually no statistical difference in warming while Carbon Dioxide levels have gone up. We should have seen the warming trend not interrupted by either cooling or hiatus.  Nor can alarmist truly explain the Medieval Warming period when Carbon Dioxide was both lower and stable than today. The real world does not support the theory and we have seen a “greening of the planet” but then for plant life, Carbon Dioxide is what they feed on.  The planet today is supporting 7 billion plus people better than we did half that number few decades ago and this too doesn’t fit the theory since the alarmist worldview doesn’t have a space for the greening of the planet when their theories states that planet should be browning.  

So we have a theory that doesn’t fit what is happening in the real world and one would have to ask when do Alarmists decide that their theories are either wrong or need to be revised.   Over the past five decades, Alarmists have gone from us freezing to death to us frying to death and finally just simply used the phrase “Climate Change” since it covers any future events from extreme cold to extreme hot.  The theory no longer holds and a look at the real world featuring a greening planet successfully feeding 7 plus billion people debunks the theory.


© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy