By Stan Gudmundson
The Catholic Church has a “devil’s advocate.” His job is to investigate accounts of miracles and rebut them. If he can.
There is no counterpart to a devil’s advocate in today’s “climate change” research. There is virtually no way any researcher could get any federal funding, or little other kind either, to investigate counter global cooling/warming change phenomenon. Consequently, there is absolutely no balance in “research” being done today. One would think that the climate change mob would be interested in examining all the facts and possibilities. That these folks are all singing from the same sheet of music results in a single note, tone-deaf monotone. The result? More politics than credible science.
A sign I pass almost every day reads “Support Farmers Tackling the Climate Crisis.” Not sure what that means since an increase in CO2 levels has helped in “greening” the earth. Moreover, that CO2 increase is helping farmers produce more. University and college Ag departments confirm that. And CO2 is not a pollutant.
If the earth were warming, there would be more land available for agriculture as warming would allow it to move further north. Then, there would be more crops produced. Not a bad thing.
Currently, there are upwards of 60 different climate models being used to ‘investigate’ climate change. With increasing sophistication, one would expect these models to provide similar conclusions. And that these conclusions would increasingly agree. But that ain’t happening. These results differ more and more. Confidence levels in their results should decrease also. Obviously.
The major problem with climate models? They are too crude. Over land, most use about “1 million 100km by 100 km squares (62 miles by 62 miles) layered on top of each other and around 100 million 10km by 10km squares (6.2 miles by 6.2 miles) over the ocean.” Current technology does not allow these squares to be smaller as it takes two months to run a computer simulation today. Apparently.
As Nature magazine recently put it, “The problem is that ‘many important [climate] phenomena occur on scales smaller than the 100 sq. km… grid size, (such as mountains, clouds, and thunderstorms).’” And “Users beware: a subset of the newest generation of models are ‘too hot’ and project climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that might be larger than that supported by other evidence.”
Moreover, none of these computer models can predict the past. Until they can do that, they cannot be used to forecast the future climate of the earth with any degree of confidence. Again, as the Nature article put it, “Numerous studies have found that these high-sensitivity models do a poor job of reproducing historical temperatures over time and in simulating the climates of the distant past.”
I’ll start to pay closer attention to these things when 1) their results start to agree with each other and 2) when they can accurately depict the past.
I’m also still troubled by research fraud and failure to report all the facts. For example, Michael Mann tried to erase the cooling effect of the Middle Ages “Little Ice Age” with a bogus “hockey stick” that eliminated it.
Also, when the ozone hole over the south pole became larger, there was also a corresponding thickening of the ozone layer over the south Atlantic. They didn’t tell us that did they?
I once knew every NASA pilot who flew those TR-1 (U-2) ozone monitoring missions over the south pole. That’s what they told me. These are just two of many examples.
If there were climate change “devil’s advocates” these kinds of things likely wouldn’t happen. Consequently, we would have much greater confidence in the research being done.
Until it is all above board and honest, when funding is made available for the whole range of climate research, and until we can trust it, then include me out in believing in that faith.
Another problem facing those considering being “devil’s advocates?” They would likely become campus outcasts. And tenure? Forget it.
Finally, in southeast Minnesota, July is usually the hottest, most humid, and the most miserable month of the year. But temperatures and humidity this past July were mostly wonderful. Happens rarely but it happens. Global cooling maybe?