Global Warming and the Science
by Tom Donelson on April 30, 2015 at 2:07 PM
Advice to my Republican friends: Follow the lead of Ted Cruz and simply tell any reporter or any Democrat in a debate, “Follow the Science.” Duke University recently published a study that shows that climate realist views are being proven correct.
The press release states that:
“A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). ..Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment.”
“The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.”
What this does is verify what climate realists have been saying; the present hiatus in climate change is real and that it could be caused by natural variability and not just by the efforts of humans. The more extreme warming scenarios are less likely to occur but anyone who has been following the science would not be surprise by this. Before the yahoo brigade start yelling, “Koch Brothers, Fossil fuel companies sponsor,” this study was funded by National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health.
This study supports the work of Willie Soon, who has produced studies making a similar case. Professor Soon noted that “the results of the research indicate that both the East Asia Summer Monsoon and the Northern Australia Summer Monsoon retreated synchronously during the recent cold Little Ice Age in response to external forces such as solar irradiance variation and possibly large volcanic eruptions.”
Since 2010, there have been 200 studies demonstrating solar control of climate, again showing that there are natural events that cause our climate change. What this shows is that science is not just unsettled but the case that human activity being the sole cause of our present climate can no longer be accepted as the theory of everything when it comes to climate change.
The Hockey Schtick stated that,
“According to the 1990 IPCC Report, an additional 0.5C global warming would need to be observed before natural variability could be distinguished with high confidence from an "enhanced greenhouse effect" due to man-made emissions. However, as an article today at Reason.com points out,”...enhanced greenhouse warming above the noise of natural climate variability would not yet have crossed over the benchmark (+0.5°C) set by the IPCC back in 1990…Satellite data indicates only ~0.2C warming since 1990, considerably short of the 0.5C threshold the IPCC set for itself in 1990 to determine whether additional global warming was within natural variability.”
The bottom line is that our planet warming over the past quarter of century has been within natural variability and we are not “overheating.” Translation for the yahoo brigade: The computer models have not replicated real world experience and the science, at best, is unsettled. Most likely, our climate is affected by natural events beyond the control of human activity.
This is not say that human activity doesn't play a role and certainly climate realists don’t dismiss human activity, but climate alarmists have underestimated natural events independent of human activity. Climate change exists because it has occurred from the beginning of our planets formation and we have seen warmer climates and colder climates on our planet even in the last 1000 years, so this should be consider a dog bites man story. As for Republicans, simply say, “It is simple, follow the science and you will find that climate realists are more right than the climate alarmist and do you want deny the Middle Class high paying jobs and the poor cheaper energy based on science that is imploding?