The Right Opinion
A Test to Aid in the Climate Change Debate
An objective test is needed in the climate change debate. By measuring the global temperature via satellite in the next 20-30 years, as we have done objectively since 1978, we will have a good idea of what is truly driving the climate.
Our nation has always been about confronting challenges for the common good, so this fits right in. We need the freedom to search for the correct answer, not an agenda driven pre-conceived notion that carbon dioxide emissions drive the climate.
Because of the makeup of the planet, the earths climate system is never in balance, but is always in search of balance. The majority of the Earth's landmass resides in the Northern Hemisphere. On the other hand, most of the Southern Hemisphere is covered by oceans . This creates an imbalance in the in the earths reaction to the incoming radiation from the sun, which is the source of energy to heat the planet. Combined with changing seasons, the reaction produces large and varied swings in the climate. It is intuitive to see how these can, and in fact should, become quite volatile at times.
The climate cycle idea is that variances have to occur. Large oscillations develop in the oceans. The Atlantic and Pacific oscillate on multi decadal scale. The correlation between global temperatures and these oscillations is much stronger than the correlation between global temperatures and carbon dioxide. With water having 1000 times the heat capacity of the air, the rise and fall of ocean temperatures influence the air above them. The tropical oceans contain the most energy, and small variations in their temperatures will have largest effects on the weather. One of the reasons the Earth warmed from 1978 until 2000, at which point temperatures leveled off, is because the Pacific was in a warm phase. The warm PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) is accompanied by more and longer El Nino's. The anomalously warm water in the tropical pacific that accompany El Nino's increase global temperatures. Now that we have entered a cold PDO, we can expect more La Nina's (colder water in the tropical Pacific). The point to be made is that there is natural variability in the climate. Keep in mind that only 15,000 years ago, the ice sheet covering North America extended to New York City.
But there is a very serious side of this debate that goes beyond science. Policy is being enacted that assumes mans burning of fossil fuels is altering the climate beyond what it should. In addition, the limiting of free speech, the demonization of those that do not agree, and the dismissal of their ideas without conclusive proof, runs counter to all our Republic was founded on. In fact, it is a soft tyranny that seeks the limitation of free thought and the destruction of foundational beliefs and their replacement with "new" ideas. In its own way, the current climate debate is akin to a high tech book burning.
The counter to this is a simple test. The earth's temperature has been measured objectively by satellite since 1978, which is when the last cold cycle of the Pacific ocean ended. This means temperatures would naturally be colder then (some may recall the ice age scare of the 1970s). The climate cycle idea, would say a rise had to happen, and it did. The Atlantic went into its warm cycle in the mid 1990s. The earth continued its warming then leveled off. Why? Because once the oceans added their heat, the temperatures rose, and the atmosphere adapted. The Pacific changed its cycle to cold in 2007; the Atlantic should do so in about 2020. We have the objective tools to measure temperatures, the test (and challenge to both ideas) is in front of us, one that can provide answers. After all if CO2 is driving the planetary temperature, then why are we observing what we see in this chart (the IPCC forecasts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and C02 rise versus the actual temperatures):
I am opened minded enough to consider, even though I don't believe, that both sides could be right. Yet we will not know until, or if, temperatures increase again, and we don't now what those time scales are. Nature has kept pace with carbon uptake, meaning the oceans and biological components of the climate system have absorbed and utilized anthropogenic or human-sources of carbon. But keep in mind carbon is essential for life, natural to the system. There is no evidence that there is some mysterious outside source in the universe that has been adding carbon to our planet.
My acknowledgement of the chance I could be wrong is a far cry from people who seek to isolate, demonize and destroy those that opine differently. My side, confident in our answer, seeks an objective test on a level playing field to find the correct answer while not paralyzing our nation with policy that is handcuffing the progression of society.
By the way, I am just covering the oceanic influence part of the climate cycle idea since the test I propose would demonstrate its influence as a major driver over CO2. The solar part of the equation is something I will touch upon in a later writing and can explain the rise in temperatures overall the last 2 centuries. It too may become very important in the coming years.
So here is the test:
I have forecasted temperatures by 2030 to return, via objective satellite measurements, to 1978 levels. With the cyclical idea at least casting doubt, and in my opinion, having more evidence of being correct at this time, why would we enact any policies that would discourage the advancement of our economic well being? The free market, not a government picking winners and losers, will take care of what we need, when we need it. Since temperatures are not going up, and I believe globally are starting to cool, there is no need to turn away from what has fueled the economic engine of our country, at the expense of our nations safety and well being. Instead, we must use resources still abundantly available to us while developing other sources that the free market will lead to.
In coming writings, I will offer many examples to back my up my points and show the linkage to what has become an assault on what this nation was founded on and is supposed to stand for. While it has been fashionable for the left to quote Eisenhower's dire warning on the military-industrial complex, they leave out his all too true warnings on what we see today:
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy should itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
My belief is that this not about global warming or science. Instead, it is about the attempt to control individual freedoms by shackling the very fiber of what made this nation great. It is the tip of a bigger iceberg that can sink this nation and extinguish the light, that as Ronald Reagan so wonderfully called, "a shining city on a hill."
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
© Copyright 2012 The Patriot Post
26 Comments
wjm in Colorado
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 9:36 AM
demonization of those that do not agree, and the dismissal of their ideas without conclusive proof, runs counter to all our Republic was founded on
This describes the marxist statist liberal liars, not just in climate chage, or whatever they want to call it, but to every ludicrous and inane arguement they have. They are bullies and cowards, and should be held in contempt. They are also traitors.
Don in New York
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 12:53 PM
“Objective tests” for examining the climate are not new. The global temperature record provides an objective and reasonable understanding. All of the major datasets: GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC are unambiguous and unanimous that the global climate has been warming. That warming signal is also supported by changes in nature. Decreasing duration of lake ice, a general decline in glacial volume, a northward shift in the winter nesting ranges of birds, lengthening growing seasons, and a northward shift in plant hardiness zones support the idea of warming that appears in the temperature record.
Is the warming natural, anthropogenic, or a combination of both elements? To date, the best scientific explanation is that anthropogenic forcing has mostly driven the warming. The recent solar minimum—the deepest and longest such event since at least the early 20th century—provided a laboratory test of sorts to demonstrate that the sun is not the “guilty party” when it comes to the warming. Synoptic patterns and natural oceanic cycles are playing out in the context of natural and anthropogenic forcings.
Those arguing against the general scientific understanding must find another natural variable or set of natural variables that allows them to explain the climate evolution at least as well as it is explained when anthropogenic forcings (CO2) are added to the mix. A paper by Gerald A. Meehl et al. that was published in the June 2012 Journal of Climate, found "little net warming" over the 1975-2005 period from "natural forcings only." In other words, the observed warming should not have occurred had only the natural forcings been responsible.
Finally, the policy question, as opposed to the scientific one, is an entirely different matter. Political leaders are elected to make policy that must consider interests far beyond scientific ones. They must consider a full range of trade-offs (costs/benefits, short-term vs. long-term), disparate interests of constituencies, and alternative responses in designing policy. Furthermore, to be sustainable, policy must enjoy sufficiently broad public support, otherwise in a representative democracy, the electoral process would result a change in political leadership. In turn, those new political leaders would adopt policy changes that better fit public desires.
Ed Watts in San Jacinto, California
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 1:16 PM
"Decreasing duration of lake ice, a general decline in glacial volume, a northward shift in the winter nesting ranges of birds, lengthening growing seasons, and a northward shift in plant hardiness zones support the idea of warming that appears in the temperature record."
Assuming that this is true and, further, assuming that it is caused by man, please explain how any of it is "bad".
Mike in Bremerton, WA
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM
Your: "All of the major datasets: GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC are unambiguous and unanimous that the global climate has been warming." is a lie. All the major datasets have been subjected to tricks to make the data show what they want it to show. The leaks of the hidden e-mails have revealed the chicanery that has been used to manipulate the data sets.
Also - a large number of the various temperature monitoring stations showing higher temperatures are improperly located near heat sources, parking lots, etc. - so the data sets from those stations are extremely suspect. Using only data from validly placed temperature monitoring stations show far less temperature rises.
And - there has been no efforts by AGW proponents to show a model that can explain the Roman Warm Period, the Medival Warm period, the mini-Ice Age of the 1600's, etc. The normal cyclic nature of the earth's temperature (minor cycles over 15K years, and major cycles cover 100,000 years - and ice age cycles) have yet to be properly modeled and explained. So before we spend trillions of dollars to "stop global warming" - lets get a better understanding of the real science.
Before we worry abou a few degrees of temperature rise - consider how an increase of earth's temperatures to match what was seen during the Medieval Warm Period might be beneficial, and easier to adapt to that trying to stop the un-stoppable.!
Blairblaster3 in Chicago
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 2:04 PM
Dear Don, your drivel has burned up more usable oxygen than should be allowed by natural law. Put a sock in your sophism.
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 12:54 PM
My thought is the last "Global Warming" cycle, the current, started happening at the beginning of the last Ice Age. Man was not in a position to have a "Snowballs chance of Hades" of causing any of that to happen. This warming and cooling cycle has been happening for more years than most of us have been around and will still happen well after we are gone. Further look at how insignificant the human race is to this Planet let alone this Galaxy. When you look at the big picture only arrogance can be the reason anyone would claim that the human race has that much influence over anything, nature has proven man cannot even control what is in the immediate vicinity compared to what natural forces can do. That is enough empirical proof for me that "Manmade Global Warming" is a HOAX. Let’s get away from the religion of Science for if we bow down to it we will become its slaves. It’s time for us to look at our surroundings not with a microscope but with all six of our senses, common sense being the sixth, and look at the world around us as it is before we look back into the microscope. It will give us a much better perspective on our place in the Universe.
John Work in CO
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 1:54 PM
"Manmade Global Warming" is indeed a hoax. And it is a religious issue, the religion of Leftism, Socialism, and the like. But not a religion of Science. The Left is corrupting science as it does everything it touches. Real science is never based on "consensus". And it is not based on slandering those "deniers" who attempt to voice a contrary opinion.
Blairblaster3 in Chicago
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Dear Bruce, what a refreshingly cogent and thoughtful argument. Thanks!
Don in New York
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Ed,
My point is that objective measures (the temperature record and nature’s response to climate) already exist to be confident that warming is underway. Judgments as to whether the warming is “bad” are a different matter. Questions to be addressed include: Will temperatures and precipitation patterns ideally suited for crops shift away from soil that is ideal for growing such crops resulting in losses of crop yield/higher food prices? What are the costs related to the health, energy, economic, and productivity impacts of added warmth, including extreme heat? What are the costs of mitigation/adaptation/insurance against risks related to the likely consequences e.g., rising sea level? How large are the opportunity costs involved? Are the overall costs outweighed by potential benefits? If the overall costs exceed the overall benefits, then the warming is “bad” from that perspective. Most of the literature suggests that there will be net costs from a continued warming, though those costs won’t be borne equally due to differing regional and national impacts.
Mike,
If the temperature record were unreliable, one could expect a stable response from nature. However, nature has been responding in a fashion that is consistent with a warming climate. The warming signal found in the temperature record is real.
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM
My point is if it's going to happen it is going to happen and there is not anything we as humans can do about it except to deal with what life hands to us.
Ernest Wilson in Maryland
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM
The earth may well be warming although there is reasonable questions as to rate and how accurate are the measurements. It also seems accurate that this is nothing new, long, warming and cooling periods are part of recorded history. Further, there are a number of respected scientists in the climate area who remain sceptical of the cause. I have not seen or heard of any hard evidence that man is contributing in any way. The Co2 hypothesis is just that, not hard scientific proof. The policies proposed and now taxpayer financed by the current administration and new taxes designed to significantly increase the cost of our current energy sources and therby make the so-called altrnative energy types more price competitive, seem premature to me. I like the idea of futher analysis and confirming our conclusions before taking action.
Brian Regan in Anytown
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 4:31 PM
"The big yellow one in the middle is the Sun!"
Scott in Cohoctah Township, MI
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Just curious, why the denial of scientific evidence? What's the big deal. Is it so unfathomable that we might be affecting our environment. Look I'm not some tree hugging socialist liberal - not by any sense (so please don't accuse me of being an Obummer lover) - but it would make perfect sense that our activity makes some sort of impact on the environment. Simple example - walk out onto an asphalt parking lot. It's warmer than the grass, right? I watch the news every now an then and that's not indicative of some scientific study but it seems that the inner-city temps are a bit higher (2-3 degrees) than their country counterparts. As a God-fearing American, Republican, and father - I better be sure I'm leaving the place as good or better than I got it. It's my responsibility - that's all I'm sayin.
Geoff in St. Charles, MO
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 8:14 PM
Scott, what is the square foot comparitive ratio between the asphalt you speak of and, say, the sahara desert? How about the same square foot ratio of urban inner cities to wilderness areas? If you're standing on the asphalt, yes it's hotter, same with cities, but only if you're close.
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM
And all along I thought asphalt was a rectal disorder.
Scotch62 in O-town FL
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 11:44 AM
The denial of the evidence is due to a) it is incomplete, which is Joe's point and b) many of these databases have been proven through emails etc to have been manipulated by government scientists to give the outcome their government paymasters desire. Did the world warm over the last 30 years? Yes. Do we know the factors why and in what proportions? No. Is it fathomable we "might" have some impact on climate? Maybe.
What is unfathomable is that with the current lack of complete information and outright misinformation (some would call them lies), that we would give power and TRILLIONS of dollars to the socialists in the U. N. to control our natural resources, all the while killing our economy.
p3orion in Columbus, Georgia
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Exactly. A call for extraordinary action (the expenditure of trillions of dollars, and the near-certain crippling of an already weak world economy) requires extraordinary evidence.
Steve Scroggins in Macon GA
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM
Lefties are bullies who will try to shout down and intimidate and SMEAR anyone who argues with their fear-mongering or irrational "thinking".... whether it's anthropomorphic climate change or dealing with hunger, weapons, resources, etc. Human CO2 and CFC emissions are insignificant relative to those of volcanoes over billions of years and methane from swamps/marshes... and yet life on Earth goes on.
Manmade-Climate-Change mythology is about getting control of tax dollars and more power for government elites here in the US. For IPCC acting for UN-looters, it's about performing redistribution from the Haves to the Have-Nots under the guise of "saving the planet." Fudging the Climategate temp numbers exposed their fraud to all.
Pamela Heckel in Cincinnati, OH
Thursday, August 9, 2012 at 8:56 PM
Current policies to discourage the development and use of fossil fuels have resulted in higher gas and diesel prices. The cost of transportation is threatening the economic viability of the recycling industry. The increase in the cost of food due to the increase in the cost of manufacturing and transporting food have disproportionately affected the poor. The unintended consequences of current energy policies undermine "social justice" efforts. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
allan in Ohio
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 2:03 AM
The real point is that the global warming chicken littles have created soft jobs for themselves at the expense of the private sector tax payers. They want to retain those gov't -allied jobs with good pay, ample benefits while consuming tax dollars. And as any left winger will do, they have to blame something to keep attention on their favored problem to justify their jobs. If carbon dioxide is increasing, is this bad? if you remember your elementary school science, plants take in carbon dioxide and respire oxygen, plants and crops would then grow better while adding oxygen to the atmosphere.
Tod-the tool guy in BROOKLYN, N.Y.
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 5:53 AM
Conservatives believe that fossil fuels are a gift from Providence, to be used wisely, of course. The Greenies hate fossil fuels. Tractor/trailers move the goods, and they are powered by Rudolph Diesel's invention. Therefore, let us explore, recover, and refine beautiful light sweet crude oil. Alleluia and Amen!!
Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM
That was a closed minded sarcastic statement, how about ALL things are a gift of Providence and Greenies HATE everything
CO2 Bambu in Granada, Nicaragua
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Climate Change is a reality. It’s time to move towards Climate Adaptation NOW! Help us building AFFORDABLE AMPHIBIOUS HOUSES for vulnerable communities living in flood prone areas: http://www.indiegogo.com/CO2Bambu?a=1007956 http://www.globalgiving.org/projects/amphibioushouse/
CO2 Bambu in Granada, Nicaragua
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 7:45 PM
Climate Change is a reality. It’s time to move towards Climate Adaptation NOW! Help us building AFFORDABLE AMPHIBIOUS HOUSES for vulnerable communities living in flood prone areas:
http://www.indiegogo.com/CO2Bambu?a=1007956
http://www.globalgiving.org/projects/amphibioushouse/
Abu Nudnik in Toronto
Friday, August 10, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Many good points in the article and beneath.
First, we already have an objective measurement. The effect of man on climate change is now proven to be less than the difference between a high sunspot and low sunspot 11 year cycle. I look forward to reading your subsequent post which no doubt will tie this in to the El Nino/La Nina cycle.
Secondly, and I can never repeat this enough, there is a symbolic and religious motive involved here too. Having given up on God, the Left has imported a perverted form of Christianity: Man, the center of the universe, has been bad, therefore bringing on doom: he will burn.
That the IPCC laments that its predictions are met with obdurate and contradictory facts only brings them to ride their hobbyhorse with more passion. I look forward to Dr. Mann's suit against Mr. Steyn! Signs and wonders... desperation for the folk who, literally, want to stop the world and get off. Tough. The railroad tracks lead one way, just like time, just like death follows life. This Chicken Little mass hysteria is more than just political control (though it is certainly that).
TruthInAction in TX
Monday, August 13, 2012 at 5:54 AM
LOL, I recall the ice age remarks of the 1950's! I suppose aging has advantages and disadvantages.