I just finished reading an article on Slate explaining that "weather" is not "climate" and that the so called "polar vortex" which put most of the USA in the deep freeze over the last week does not disprove global warming theory. The funny thing is, however, that when I went back on Google and searched for "Superstorm Sandy" and the author's name, I came up with three different articles where he connected that bit of "weather" with "global warming".
The truth is that weather and climate are not the same thing. The second truth, however, is that the global warming fanatics have been equating bad weather with climate change for the last decade. Lately, however, as the weather has been extremely cold, they have flipped their arguments and now try to use them against global warming skeptics. When Europe had the coldest winter in many decades last year, it was just weather, or so we were told. Now that North America has been in the deep freeze with extraordinarily low temperatures, they tell us that it is hot in Australia.
I think that everyone ought to agree that one cannot use weather events to prove or disprove climate models. There are just too many natural variants for that to be accurate. Of course, that leaves one with actual global temperatures over a long period of time which could tell us the general temperature of the Earth. We have such a record from thousands of monitoring sites around the globe. What they tell us is that for the last 15 years, the temperatures have stayed flat, not going up or down. Now these are general results. Some years are warmer and some are colder, but the statistical trend is level. At least for the last 15 years, there has been no warming.
This sort of steady global temperature presents a major problem to global warming theory. We are already at a point where the observations have disproven nearly all of the proposed climate models and are about to actually disprove the remainder if average global temperatures do not suddenly rise in the next year. So how can this be? The answer, at least in part, lies in the history of the global warming research. Much of the early temperature data was "adjusted" by the researchers to take into account supposed conditions that would affect temperature readings of earlier centuries. For the most part, these adjustments added more and more extra degrees of temperature to readings around the globe as those readings moved towards and into modern times. Indeed, it may well be that the bulk of the global temperature rise observed in the early research was nothing more than a manifestation of the "adjustments" rather than actual warming.
We do know now that the climate models that the "experts" have been using are wrong. They may even be based on flawed data. It is time for a step back to consider where this science is. We have to ignore those who believe in the result with religious fervor and rely instead on those who actually are using the Scientific Method.
The truth is that weather and climate are not the same thing. The second truth, however, is that the global warming fanatics have been equating bad weather with climate change for the last decade. Lately, however, as the weather has been extremely cold, they have flipped their arguments and now try to use them against global warming skeptics. When Europe had the coldest winter in many decades last year, it was just weather, or so we were told. Now that North America has been in the deep freeze with extraordinarily low temperatures, they tell us that it is hot in Australia.
I think that everyone ought to agree that one cannot use weather events to prove or disprove climate models. There are just too many natural variants for that to be accurate. Of course, that leaves one with actual global temperatures over a long period of time which could tell us the general temperature of the Earth. We have such a record from thousands of monitoring sites around the globe. What they tell us is that for the last 15 years, the temperatures have stayed flat, not going up or down. Now these are general results. Some years are warmer and some are colder, but the statistical trend is level. At least for the last 15 years, there has been no warming.
This sort of steady global temperature presents a major problem to global warming theory. We are already at a point where the observations have disproven nearly all of the proposed climate models and are about to actually disprove the remainder if average global temperatures do not suddenly rise in the next year. So how can this be? The answer, at least in part, lies in the history of the global warming research. Much of the early temperature data was "adjusted" by the researchers to take into account supposed conditions that would affect temperature readings of earlier centuries. For the most part, these adjustments added more and more extra degrees of temperature to readings around the globe as those readings moved towards and into modern times. Indeed, it may well be that the bulk of the global temperature rise observed in the early research was nothing more than a manifestation of the "adjustments" rather than actual warming.
We do know now that the climate models that the "experts" have been using are wrong. They may even be based on flawed data. It is time for a step back to consider where this science is. We have to ignore those who believe in the result with religious fervor and rely instead on those who actually are using the Scientific Method.
No comments:
Post a Comment