Skip to content

There is no Denying Global Warming

December 6, 2013

As a teenager, I remember the Hudson River freezing from Manhattan to New Jersey, a width of about one mile, with blocks of ice jumbled among the less thick ice, or few open areas.

Cars raced on the frozen surface of Lake George, in the Adirondacks, during the mid 1900s.

The Lower New York Bay, between Manhattan and Staten Island, froze solid during the 1800s.

The Battle of the Bulge was fought during one of the worst winters of the twentieth century, in 1944.

There are numerous examples of how the world has become warmer over the past two hundred years.

There is no denying the world has gotten warmer.

There is also no denying that there was a little ice age during the 1500s, lasting up to around 1800.

There’s also no denying that the world was a warmer place a thousand years ago, when Greenland was settled by the Vikings.

History is clear, the earth has warmed and cooled, many times, over the past several thousand years.

Until the advent of the Industrial Revolution, these periods of warming and cooling could only be attributable to natural causes.

All this routine warming and cooling wasn’t enough for some people, so they had to blame humans: Thus, the term Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

AGW assigns the blame to people.

And this still didn’t elicit sufficient fear, so AGW evolved into climate change, again caused by humans.

Climate change is an interesting codification since it allows every unusual occurrence in nature to be attributed to humans. Every unusual wildfire, hurricane, tornado, typhoon, snowstorm or flood can be attributed to Climate Change.

But even this assertion breaks down when history is examined.

For example: There was a tornado in Albany, New York in the 1950s, and the Worcester, Massachusetts tornado in 1953 killed nearly 100 people.

The 1938 hurricane that struck Long Island and Newport Rhode Island was more devastating than Sandy.

The historical record shows there is no correlation between the frequency of violent occurrences and world temperatures, or so-called climate change.

Sudden death brought about by nature’s disasters makes good headlines, and fodder for those promoting AGW and climate change.

The real issue is what is the cause, or causes, of temperature change?

It’s here we have an event that allows the unwary to be drawn into the web of those blaming humans for current disasters, coupled with forecasts of ever worsening disasters.

The Industrial Revolution, reviled by Luddites, consumed fossil fuels, which emitted CO2 into the atmosphere.

This has allowed the unscrupulous, or uninformed, to link AGW and climate change to CO2 emissions.

Beginning in the mid 1800s, atmospheric CO2 has risen so that today, it’s at the highest level in recent history. Its rise has paralleled a corresponding rise in temperatures … they have risen together, ergo, cause and effect. It’s obvious, isn’t it?

For the unwary and unscrupulous the answer is obvious: The rise in CO2 emissions is the same as the rise in temperatures, therefore CO2 is causing the rise in temperatures.

There is some scientific support for atmospheric CO2 causing warming on Earth, but it’s miniscule in comparison with other possible causes of global warming.

Once again, this so-called AGW theory, allows the unscrupulous to wrap misinformation, within a modicum of truth; the modus operandi of nearly every charlatan and snake oil salesman throughout history.

AGW is actually only a hypothesis, since there is no way to test the hypothesis: There is no way to prove that rising atmospheric CO2 is the cause of temperature rise.

Enter the computer.

The AGW advocates decided to create computer programs to simulate what might happen as CO2 increased in the atmosphere.

Now, the computer is a wondrous device, but it can’t predict the future.

And this has become clear as temperatures have remained steady for the past 17 years.

None of the several computer forecasts have accurately predicted the current situation, where actual temperatures now lie below all of the computer forecasts.

Fig 1.4 from IPCC Draft WG 1 Report

Fig 1.4 from IPCC Draft WG 1 Report

 

This series of events depicting human folly would be comical if it weren’t that the advocates of AGW want to change society, from a prosperous society based on energy consumption, to a society devoid of sufficient energy to maintain any semblance of a modern standard of living.

These same advocates, who wrapped a modicum of truth around misinformation to sell their AGW hypothesis, are now also touting new and wondrous technologies, such as wind and solar, also wrapped in a modicum of truth around misinformation, to dispel the obvious truth that these miracles are no more believable than the computer programs that haven’t worked.

I’m waiting for someone to say, you can keep your standard of living.

 

*  *  *  *  *  *

 

These articles can be delivered directly to your mailbox. Subscribe by clicking below the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription, and entering your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know someone who would be interested in these articles you can send him/her a link to the article and suggest he/she subscribes by clicking on the email subscription link under the picture on the right side of the page, and entering their email address.

To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Advertisements
13 Comments leave one →
  1. December 6, 2013 8:57 am

    Great article. I completely agree with everything you say and those computer models have been diabolical! To think that the majority of climate science is based on them is scary.

    • December 6, 2013 3:06 pm

      Thanks for your comment. No question the computer programs demonstrate GIGO.

      • Brian H permalink
        December 9, 2013 5:19 pm

        More important than GIGO is the term “projections” which is how the modellers describe their outputs. The programs faithfully project the expectations and beliefs of their writers, regardless of input.

  2. December 6, 2013 2:50 pm

    Excellent article…
    The CO2 in the atmos by Homo sapiens will be there for centuries, slowly adsorbed
    by the oceans, which hold fifty times the atmos hold. Slow, it is.
    And that there will increase in the near and distance future…to 400, 500, 600ppm
    But, guess what? All plants across the whole World grow faster now than seventy
    years ago when at 300 ppm…a lot faster.
    So let us welcome that molecule’s increased presence.
    Because 400 is better than 300, so 500 will enhance our future.

    • December 6, 2013 3:07 pm

      Thanks for the comment.
      More CO2 is beneficial, no question about that.

  3. Neil Jones permalink
    December 6, 2013 7:03 pm

    Donn,

    Concise – eye opening – very well done

    Neil

  4. December 8, 2013 8:14 pm

    Well said. Re-posting your link on my blog. I hope you don’t mind.

  5. December 10, 2013 8:28 am

    Brian H.
    I didn’t post your other two comments as they were crude and not up to the standards of adult discussion. With respect to projections: Look at the graph and you can see that the”projections” aren’t anywhere close to being accurate. Temperatures have fallen below all the “projections”. Furthermore, none of the computer programs have been able to replicate actual temperatures.
    Thanks for your comment, and I hope you will continue to follow my articles.

Trackbacks

  1. “There is no Denying Global Warming” | budbromley
  2. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  3. Have We Lost Our Way? | EPA Abuse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s