I Usually Don’t Take a Public Stance… But it is Time
In response to a friend’s honest question regarding who and what to believe in the discussion of climate change, I wrote to him these two original excerpts, taken from my Facebook.com wall. I hope it helps spur thought in you as well. And before I present my recent thoughts, please recall that one of the most celebrated examples of a political ’settled science’ was by the Vatican, who would not hear the arguments by a growing number, but definitely a minority-number, of scientists who could not convince the Theocracy that the world was round, and not flat. Later the Church had to apologize to Galileo… in 1992, after a 1633 condemnation of him based upon “settled science”. If that Catholic Theocracy were to still be governing the world, we would only have known that the world was round for going on 17 years now. And this is in NO way an insult to Catholicism nor any religion in general nor specific.
“Research those scientists who are doing actual climate research and measurements and compare them to the ones trying to use climate models to prove a point in the future. Since climate modeling is based upon sets of existing and historical data then extrapolated into the future through hypothesis to try to predict a system with more variables than we really understand, it is remarkably unreliable. Almost all the so-called conservative scientists are those who are continually disproving the climate modeling of those who have been attempting to predict the future by using real-time data showing the earth as a system has been cooling, showing that where the Northern Hemisphere may have experienced surface warming while the Southern Hemisphere has experienced surface cooling. While the Northern Ice Caps have lost ice mass, the southern has gained. So, a hypothesis should never be acted upon politically nor scientifically until it has been proven, and each and every one of the climate models predicting short-term warming have been being dismantled while those same scientists are pushing for political action on long-term models which are historically MUCH less accurate than short-term models.
Virtually any source that is from the IPCC is biased toward warming. The reason? It is the InterGOVERNMENTAL Climate Commission, not a panel made of strictly scientists, but governmental agencies choosing handpicked data from certain scientists. It was never meant to be a commission based upon science, but on governing. Most of the ‘facts’ are from IPCC sources, which have discounted much actual data. Now, are parts of the earth changing? That remains inarguable. For example, the ice melt in the Poles is not necessarily an atmospheric temperature increase as opposed to an oceanographic temperature increase. With the amount of low density air that covers the globe, versus the amount of high density water that covers the globe, would you expect the low density mass to affect the temperature of the high density mass, or vice versa? The warming OCEAN does not necessarily have a direct tie to the air, but would more likely be the other way around. And an increase in man-made atmospheric gases would have little effect on the oceans. There is only one major heat source that could heat an ocean. That is STRICTLY the solar component of warming. If we have influenced the climate by adding carbon dioxide, then the atmosphere would have to have increased its albedo, the amount of solar radiation reflected to space, and the ocean would have to cool, which has not been happening. So that would help to explain any warming is directly tied to solar radiation, and not a man-made source of air so-called pollution, since I am not buying that increasing carbon dioxide is necessarily a pollutant. The majority of the earths oxygen supply comes from the ocean, not land based organic matter. An increase in carbon dioxide would be greatly absorbed by the ocean’s organic plant sources regardless of the increase. So, a warming ocean would explain a change in coral, ice packs, and even atmospheric temperature change, not the other way around. I think I have just written a blog post for my station’s weather blog.”
I went on in another response to the links to two articles drawing CONCLUSIONS from IPCC-type data sets.
“The source material for each is the same database, each based upon extrapolated data based upon long-range atmospheric modeling. How often do you look at a 7-Day forecast and think, well, past day X, I know this will probably change fairly dramatically. What makes anyone of scientific intelligence to extrapolate an atmospheric model to day X PLUS 100 years, and actually believe a +2-degree Celsius conclusion. It could as easily have been -2 degrees Celsius. They could have been +2000 C/-2000C. The final governmental conclusions are being based upon an entire set of flawed processes. I will not even argue the accuracy of long-range atmospheric/system computer modeling because we are centuries away from scratching its surface based upon our inability to predict short-term atmospheric modeling.”
Please feel free to pass this along and enter it into the discussion. There will be disagreement, but there will also be agreement. Much tweaking is required. I am not a researcher, but one of many research analyzers with no political gain expected, nor financial gain expected.
Brad Huffines, Chief Meteorologist / Storm Force 31, WAAY-TV, Huntsville, AL
