Good read, , , , ,


Climate Change Theorists Consistently Deceive with Glaring Omission

By Charles Clough | February 4, 2016 | 4:23 PM EST

An iceberg melts in Kulusuk Bay, eastern Greenland. (AP Photo/John McConnico)
In the steady stream of published articles on climate change there seems to be a consistent omission of a critical element. This was once again brought to my attention when, as an MIT alum, I read the January/February issue of the MIT Technology Review [TR] dedicated to climate change.

Unlike many of the environmental pop pieces, the TR editors, thankfully, were careful to present realistic views of dealing with climate change technologically and economically. Wind and solar power were treated with uncommon candor in admitting that in spite of declining costs these intermittent energy sources are not sufficient at affordable prices for a modern industrial society.

With a mature appreciation of the uncertainty in climate forecasts, one article described a policy alternative to the so-called "precautionary principle" - the politically popular idea that policy makers should focus on avoiding an imagined worst-case scenario at all costs. Instead, it described a pragmatic trial-and-error approach at far lower cost that deals with specific consequences of climate change as they actually occur, not as imagined by computer models.

However, omitted in these articles are discussions of climate change in the pre-industrial past, particularly in the last two millennia, for which there is significant source material. The reason this neglect is so critical is that it is commonly assumed that atmospheric CO2 is the only meaningful variable behind climate change. Since pre-industrial levels of CO2 appear to have consistently been below 300ppm with little variation, and levels since the mid-twentieth century have steadily risen to about 400ppm today, atmospheric CO2 is an obvious anthropogenic variable. And, the reasoning goes, since both CO2 levels and global temperature averages have increased together, man's fossil fuel usage must be causing global warming. The science is settled. We can move on.

Well, let's continue this line of reasoning and see where it goes. If atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature are truly correlated, then they ought to be as correlated before the industrial revolution as they are afterward. Pre-industrial CO2 levels remained relatively constant. Did pre-industrial global temperature levels also remain relatively constant? No, they did not. Over the last thousand years, for example, there was the well-attested Medieval Warm Period from about 900 - 1300 followed by the equally well-attested Little Ice Age from about 1350 - 1800.



Why does the "settled science" of the CO2-temperature relationship fail to work prior to the age of heavy industry? Obviously, global temperature must be affected by at least one other variable. What is it, or what are they? Until this missing element is known, no climate change mitigation policy based solely on the single variable CO2-temperature correlation can be assured of success. And until this element is openly discussed and debated, published articles on climate change, no matter how well intentioned, deceptively leave readers with a tunnel vision on a very important topic.

Charles A. Clough, M.S. (Atmospheric Science), Th.M. (Old Testament and Semitics), Retired Chief, U.S. Army Atmospheric Effects Team, Aberdeen Proving Ground, and Adjunct Professor, Chafer Theological Seminary, Bel Air, MD, is a Contributing Writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

They don't want to read anything that doesn't fit their agenda.

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Every thing in nature is cyclical. Energy itself is cyclical (as in, it travels in waves). Does it realy surprise anyone that the earths temperature fluctuation is also cyclical?

Weak straw man.
Learn the science.

-------------------------
"The truth is incontrovertible.
malice may attack it,
ignorance may deride it,
but in the end,
there it is." -Sir Winston Churchill

Edited: 02/05/2016 at 07:36 AM by WG

In aggregate CO2 levels are a concern. But what concerns me the most is methane. The amount of methane that full of shit repugs pump into the atmosphere is rising at alarming rates.

-------------------------
So if you are a surfer I wish you the prosperity that allows you more time to pursue the salt water dream, and the true happiness that comes from warm water, clean waves and the companionship of your fellow surfers. If you are an internet troll just spewing bs then f off.

Actually that article kind of sucked. Granted it is 9 years old, but still.

 

Unless you are completely ignorant,  knowing that global climate is influenced by numerous things is common knowledge. Solar cycles, particle pollution (man made or natural, like volcanoes), CO2/Methane/Other levels, etc.) all affect it. It is even more complicated than that, Particle pollution for example actually lowers temperature and can counteract a period of high solar influence.

 

Umm, yeah.

It is influenced by many things.

One of them is increasing exponentially and is under our control.

Rise.

-------------------------

Wiki wiki

One thing that people ALWAYS seem to forget is that temperature is not the only factor in the melting of ice, and additionally, the prevention of the reformation of as much ice. Dissolved CO2 is another very important factor. Not only does it cause the oceans PH to lower, but it also lowers the required temperature for ice to form.

Waves and energy are both properties of certain things and certain states of things.

Energy is not itself a "thing" and therefore cannot be correctly described as travelling in waves.

 

-------------------------
...

Not really.

Plenty of things are but we humans like to assign patterns to things and often falsy observe cyclical patterns where stochastic process operate.

 

-------------------------
...

CO2 levels remained constant at 300 ppm and temperatures fluctuated. These fluctuations could have been from increased solar intensity, periods of higher than average volcanic activity or some other outside influence unknown to modern science.

Today CO2 levels are above 400 ppm (the highest ever recorded) and global temperature is increasing, yet none of the above are currently influencing our climate.

Can one of you doubters please explain?

-------------------------
I was right.

A freely propagating wave has constant RMS power.

The 2nd Law predicts that everything will move toward more disorganization; that's not a cycle.

Some things do diverge.  Warming could run away; water vapor is a greenhouse gas.  That is one of the predicted scenarios.

-------------------------

Wiki wiki