THE GREAT CATFISH COMMENTS ON CLIMATE CHANGE THEOLOGY
CLIMATE CHANGE, SETTLED SCIENCE OR GLOBAL SOCIALIST THEOLOGY
THE GREAT NAMAZU AAB'S STAR POLITICAL ANALYST
DEMOCRATIC THEOLOGY ON CLIMATE CHANGE:
The Democrats continue in their assertions that climate change is a matter of "Settled science". According to Democratic and liberal media theology climate change is real, urgent, and the United States is primarily responsible for it. The Democrats are so fixated on Climate change that some in Congress want to provide criminal sanctions against "climate change deniers". Ummm.... not much respect there for freedom of speech and that is usually a sign of the big lie practiced by the socialists. Say it enough, it becomes accepted as truth by most people and you just suppress the freedom of expression of the remainder. We maintain that climate change at least in the terms of man caused and of immediate catastrophic nature is far from "Settled science. In this post we'd like to revisit some of our previous posts on the subject and then look at two elements that we haven't discussed yet namely the art and science of climate modeling and facts and figures on decarbonization policies and their measurable effects.
WE ARE NOT ALONE IN OUR SKEPTICISM:
Climate change skeptics are rare as hens teeth in the present academic and government grant awarding worlds but we are in good company, consider this one example:
Here at the Namazu School of Climatology no one could call us "Climate Change Deniers". We have often asserted that "climates change, that's what they do" and we have further asserted that "sometimes climates change suddenly and very drastically without any help from man, nor is man capable of controlling such changes as yet. " What has gotten us in trouble with the government and the politically correct crowd is that we keep asking for verifiable evidence that the climate is actually changing any faster or in any direction that is different from what is observable from the historical record and fossil evidence. While we see the usual changes in the 5 and 10 year weather cycles over the last 200 years , we simply don't see any real evidence of long term change from the direction or rate of measurable climate in the last two centuries. Something other than scientific fact seems to be driving the belief by government and others in a rapid, accelerating, on going, man caused "climate change". Think about these three facts:.
1. No Recent Warming Despite Higher CO2 Levels
Weather comes in cycles , the change of cycles does not signal climate change"During “modern times” (the last 220+ years or so) the global climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last “little ice age” (not a true ice age) ended about 200 years ago. Yet apart from entirely natural 1998 and 2015 ocean El Nino events, satellite and weather balloon measurements show no statistically-significant global warming for nearly two decades.
Image by NASA : graphic prepared by NASA purportedly indicating global warming from 1950 to 2013. Again this is a computer graphic and the term is "statistically significant". The colors indicating warming are much darker than need be and convey the impression that the earth severely and suddenly warmed. As described above the facts don't support as dramatic a visualization as this represents . One has to wonder what NASA thinks of this graphic now that they have broken ranks on climate change. Again see: NASA BREAKS RANKS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
2. Extreme Claims Have Been Proven Wrong The climate alarmists have made some extreme claims that have not withstood competent scientific scrutiny. Despite the democratic party fear-mongering, sea levels have been rising at a constant rate of slight;y under 7 inches per century without any measured acceleration. Even the latest 2013 IPCC report states; “It is likely that GMSL [Global Mean Sea Level] rose between 1920 and 1950 at a rate comparable to that observed between 1993 and 2010.”
3. Inconvenient Confessions From IPCC Authorities Ottmar Edenhofer, was the lead author of the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
HOW THE CLIMATE PROPAGANDIST OF THE LEFT RESPOND TO THE INCONVENIENT FACTS
So given that top climate change advocates admit that what they are really about is redistribution of wealth , mostly from the United States to other powers and third world nations ; How would they counter our three facts that disprove accelerated by human activity climate change ? How will the socialists respond to a demand for verifiable facts? Well, one response has been the proposals in the media and the lower house of Congress to criminalize "Climate Deniers". So far that hasn't worked so they move on to the layman's faith in computers, and point to computer modeling. According to the socialist dogma on climate "computer climate modeling" "proves" their assertion of alarmingly accelerating man caused "climate change".
You may note that the operative term in the climate / economic rhetoric has changed pretty much from "global warming" to "climate change". This change in rhetoric was instituted by the more astute climate change propagandist in response to certain undeniable facts that we described above. By shifting from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change", the proponents of redistribution of the wealth of the US and West generally open the door to alarmists pronouncements after every detection of normal shifts and cycles in the weather pattern. Weather comes in cycles of 2, 5, 10. 50, 100, 200, and 500 years. There are measurable variances in ice cover, rain fall, temperature, snow cover etc. during these weather cycles. By focusing on "Climate Change" vice global warming every shift in the normal cycle of weather gives the climate propagandist a new opportunity to argue that "climate change" is "settled science". The measurements of the weather changes are of course real, but trend does not indicate future and there are inherent errors in today's computer weather /climate modeling.
Computer modeling is a complicated process in any field complicated by a number of standard statistical errors, One of these is "small sampling error." Taking data from too small a sample leads to errors in projection. Trend isn't automatically future. The smaller the sample taken in computer modeling the more likely the results are unreliable for macro forecasting.
A computer model’s coding has to represent all the variables from the laws of thermodynamics to the intricacies of air molecules. When the program runs on super computers it must perform quadrillions of mathematical operations a second. Making projections means repeating this process thousands of times. There is no one right answer in such modeling other than to get a sense of which outcomes are likely, which unlikely but possible, and which implausible in the extreme. There is an art as well as a science to prognosticating from inadequate data. The first thing that the researcher has to consider is "Small Sampling Error". If a researcher inquiries into too small of a of a sampling of data it is more likely than not that any extrapolation from a small sampling group is prone to serious error. Now our socialists climate change propagandist would argue that such a concern over data that is gathered globally covering all the oceans and continents could never be subject to "small sampling error". Typical of the left cover the big lie ( climate change as a priority for the global redistribution of wealth) with another lie. It is not obvious to the layman and the socialists count on this . but in fact those global observations are in fact small sampling error laden. Here is why.
The computer models interrogate individual grid cell areas of about 10.000 square kilometers from a space or aerial view. An air or ocean "cell" may contain 100,000 km3. Making models based even on sampling within millions of grid cells prone to small sampling error. The climate propagandist treat these vast areas (Cells) as points when they have in fact sampled only a tiny fraction of the area referred to as a "cell"with their grid cell observations. In so doing they miss much detail. Over the much wider area of the cell unobserved. The cloud cover and types and movement of clouds varies considerably over the typical 100,000 km3 area of an ocean "cell" vice the tiny area of the "grid cell" observed. Many ocean area Cells also contain topographic features such as islands,some with mountains, banks .and reefs. All of these topographic features and more affect weather within the larger "cell" and may not be discernible by observation of the "Grid Cell". Clouds are strongly predictive and indicative of weatherTreating these enormous areas and volumes as points misses much detail. For example look at clouds. Clouds are very predictive and indicative of weather and weather patterns over large areas, but any individual cloud is much smaller that a "grid cell". If the "grid cell" sampled is clear , hot, cloudy, rainy all too often the climate computer model builder assumes this represents the weather over the "cell". The modern computer climate model builder is also hampered by our universal lack of sufficient knowledge of the the ways that carbon moves through the atmosphere. Carbon is the central atom in molecules of carbon dioxide and methane, critical elements in green house effect of Earth's climate. We don't know any more about carbon atmospheric transit than the left but we do know where methane comes from , and it not from ourselves, our horses, cattle etc. The methane levels in the atmosphere are still about where they were before man appeared. See:
Water vapor also moves through the environment and holds and distributes heat. To truly understand the planetary carbon cycles is crucial to understanding weather cycles and climate change. But much of that water vapor's movement is facilitated by life such as forests. The interaction of living elements are even more difficult to understand than physical processes. This vital knowledge is lacking in the socialist's predictions of imminent man caused climate change. We have explored only a few features of the vast catalog of errors and lack of knowledge associated with climate change predictions at our present level of knowledge of the arts and sciences that make up meteorology . While the state of the arts and sciences has improved greatly since the advent of the observation satellite and computer , we still don't know a lot. In immortal words of comedian Red Skelton spoken at the middle of the twentieth century :
"We know what happens to little boys who lie.....they grow up to work for the Weather Bureau"
The earth seen from space, image by NASA .How many individual grid cells constitute an adequate sample for predicting climate change? There is no limit of individual readings that the climate alarmist may refer to in order to convince the public of fast moving man caused climate change. A recent example is the updated information on the Greenland ice pack and glaciers .Greenland is losing .007 percent of its ice per year per the latest measurements. Beyond 1979 we have no idea what the loss rate was and how it varied over time and weather cycles. Should a recent ice loss rate of .007 annually be reason to panic? New York and Washington DC we are told by the Left will be under water soon. but the fact is at this rate it will take 7,000 years for Greenland to lose half its ice mass. It is very unlikely that the rate of loss will remain constant with the varying weather cycles to come over the next 7,00 years. That the leaders of the global socialists movement such as Obama are buying multi million dollar properties in beach and coastal resorts indicates that they know the truth but continue to sell a lie. Even if the rate of ice loss doubled over night it would still take 3,000 years for Greenland to lose enough ice to cause severe coastal flooding.
IMAGE BY NASA: IS GREENLAND MELTING FAST? Of real concern is the highly manageable normal rise in sea level that amounts to 7 inches a century, steady now for several centuries, At that rate some low lying coastal areas in the United States could be in danger of periodic flooding in low areas. There is time to do beach extensions, marsh planting and some levee building to protect these areas. Exceptionally low lying metropolitan areas like New Orleans ( highest point 7 feet above mean sea level, lowest about three feet below sea level) are already raising levels and improving drainage pump capacities. Rest assured New Orleans fully expects to be dry in 2100 or 2200. This real concern for very low lying coastal areas is not a result of climate change but rather normal weather cycle driven fluctuation of sea levels, combined with our ancestors being relatively methodologically ignorant in their day when many coastal towns were laid out. Then there is the consideration that trend is not prediction. The so far steady rate of sea level rise could slacken or increase with weather cycle changes. This would probably not be on the five or ten year cycles but on the 200 to 500 year cycles. So we caution existing coastal communities and coastal resort builders of today to take this into consideration in resort location and construction and in planning sea flood protection in older communities. But know that this is not a sign of "climate change" The ignorance of the Left on the real operative forces that could generate climate change , especially their woeful lack of knowledge of the operation of the global carbon budget has not stopped them from legislating and lobbying for immediate carbon reduction. Where has that gotten the United States of America and the world generally? It was one cause of many for the massive migration of heavy industry from America where our environmental laws since the 1970s have encouraged constant progress in industrial emission control. Where did those industries go? To China, Brazil, India and other nations with virtually no environmental laws claiming the global socialists inspired carbon allotment. Basically this plan enshrined in a number of international treaties allows certain nations to pollute virtually without limits while the "developed nations" must achieve zero emissions by 2050. This requirement is imposed on "developed nations" despite the fact that the legislative bodies don't have a clue on how the carbon budget works or its real effect on the atmosphere. Do you still wonder why the US didn't sign off on the Tokyo Accords"? And how are the nations that agreed to the accords doing towards making their goals. Well in 2017 squeaky clean Canada, so often critical of their neighbors to the south ,actually increased emissions by 4%. This was not unusual among most of the accord states where only a few very small but prosperous European nations with increased tourist trade met their goals. According to a Forbes Magazine article ( TheYawning Gap Between Climate Rhetoric and Climate Action) by Roger Pielke Jr. '"Global decarbonization – the rate of reduction in the ratio of carbon dioxide emissions to GDP – was 1.6% in 2018. That is identical to the average rate of decarbonization from 2000 to 2018." Notice first that the rate of emissions reduction is tied to gross national product. Why not tie it to the actual emissions of the nations? We come back to the real purpose of the climate change story line , the redistribution of wealth. So there has been no real reduction in carbon admissions any where but in the United States and a very few small European nations by the Accords signatories. Consider that to achieve the Accord's mandated emissions reductions consistent with a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature target would require an annual decarbonization rate of 11.3% per year for the remainder of this century. The world is not only no where near this goal but there is no evidence that the carbon budget is causing climate change except skewed and nuanced scattered facts spun by spin doctors for those who would have you believe that climate change is "settled science". Yet the United States is constantly criticized by the Accords signatories for not being aboard their plan . Yet we have been making more strides towards emissions reduction than any of the Accord signatories, Wake up and smell the coffee my American biped friends. Climate Change is a scare tactic and an appeal to the uniquely American sense of guilt over our won prosperity. It is a tool for one thing , the plunder of the United States. Climate Change? My rear fins!