Opinion Forum

Global Climate Change

May 14th, 2009

It seems I may have been a bit premature in agreeing with a respondent to my previous assertions regarding global warming.

The one and only purpose of developing scientific theories, and then subsequently vetting them, is to use them as predictive tools. As I said about a month ago, the models we are using fail miserably in this respect. In other words, these models are useless.

A more likely scenario of global cooling looms for the next 20 or so years, followed by another 30 year period of warming, followed by another 30 year period of cooling. The theory offered by Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University appears to be a much more useful tool at predicting climate change, and it demonstrates that we are much more likely to need extra jackets for the next 20 or so years than we are to need extra sunscreen. Pay careful attention to what Dr. Easterbrook says at the top of the article. He asserts that his research indicates “Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades.” “Evidence” is a word used by scientists, whereas politicians make categorical assertions. Much of the “global scientific consensus” on global warming appears to fall under the latter category, and not the former.

Global climate change appears to be very closely linked to temperature oscillations in the Pacific Ocean. From the linked article above:

After several decades of studying alpine glacier fluctuations in the North Cascade Range, my research showed a distinct pattern of glacial advances and retreats (the Glacial Decadal Oscillation, GDO) that correlated well with climate records. In 1992, Mantua published the Pacific Decadal Oscillation curve showing warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean that correlated remarkably well with glacial fluctuations. Both the GDA and the PDO matched global temperature records and were obviously related (Fig. 4). All but the latest 30 years of changes occurred prior to significant CO₂ emissions so they were clearly unrelated to atmospheric CO_2.

For starters, there has been no warming for about the last 10 years. What’s more is that 2007/08 saw some record-setting cold temperatures. It snowed where I live (just outside Houston, Texas) not once, but twice this past winter. In fact, one of the snow events we had occurred late last Fall. Now, we didn’t get very much, but any snow around here is news. On Christmas Eve of 2004, Galveston, Texas received 4″ inches of the white stuff. Galveston is known for catastrophic hurricanes from time to time (1900 and more recently Hurricane Ike on 13 Sept 08), pretty good fishing, and some interesting historical landmarks.

This past winter saw some record-setting snowfall in the Midwest. International Falls, MN broke their previous record by 9 inches. Spokane, WA broke a snowfall record that was 95 years old. The 3 snowiest years in the history of Youngstown, OH have all occurred in the last 3 years. “Some areas along the Oregon Coast Range and the Cascade Range of Washington received more than 200 percent of 1971-2000 snowfall normal.” The Southern Rockies did not fare so well, receiving about 25% of their normal snowfall. February 4th saw at least 60 daily snowfall records rewritten.

I have read, with incredulity, that Global Warming Theory “predicts” weather of this nature. I actually took classes in formal logic while working towards a degree in philosophy, and the guiding principle of logic is known as reductio ad absurdum, or “reduction to the point of absurdity.” Absurdity in formal logic means holding out a pair of opposite propositions as being simultaneously true. For example, when a police detective is investigating a crime, he must ascertain the location at the time of the criminal act of his list of suspects. If suspect #1 was in the 10200 block of Westheimer (as evidenced by a speeding ticket he received) when the crime occurred in the 11000 block of the Northwest Freeway (about 12 or 13 miles away from each other), it would be absurd to assert that he could have committed the crime unless one holds to the notion that a person can be simultaneously in two places at once.

How Global Warming Theory can predict record-setting cold and snowfall is, by any objective measure, a similar absurdity.

Just do a quick Google with the words “global cooling.” I received 6,750,000 hits in response to that query. Avail yourself of this information and make an informed decision. Never take proclamations at face value, even mine, nor most especially from politicians.

If we are indeed in a period of global cooling, as much research suggests, it portends catastrophe. The global population is expected to increase by about 50% (to about 9 billion people) over the next 15 or 20 years. If we experience cooling of the magnitude we experienced from the late 1800s to the first part of the 20th century, a great many of those 9 billion people are going to starve to death because of shortened growing seasons. And for those that won’t starve, I imagine they’ll be sitting around wishing that Al Gore had been right.

Articles written by Brian Bagent
Tags: global cooling, global warming, Science
Categories: Life, News, Politics | Comments (4) | Home

4 Responses to “Global Climate Change”

Harvey | May 14th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

Speaking of Al Gore, where was he today?

He was in Nashville today for the launch of a campaign for tough laws to reduce emissions that contribute to climate change.

Note that they’re calling it “climate change” now — maybe someone told him about Global Warming being canceled!

Tom | May 14th, 2009 at 11:17 pm

As I’ve always said, I don’t really know what’s happening with climate change, and I don’t understand the science very well. In other words, I’m just like Al Gore. Everything I see indicates that in a few more years, Gore is going to be thoroughly discredited. But it’s been a good ride for him — lots of money, fame, an Oscar from the Hollywood airheads, a Nobel Prize from the European airheads, and the adoration of many American airheads. As for the rest of us, I have to wonder how much damage our economy and our society is going to suffer before it becomes clear that this whole thing was mostly political.

Brian Bagent | May 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm

Tom, there isn’t very much to understand. The computer models, as I’ve indicated, are junk. Since water vapor comprises about 96% of atmospheric greenhouse gases, whatever we “inflict” via CO2 can have only negligible effects.

Pdon | May 19th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

As earlier indicated. Human produced CO2 & other “greenhouse gasses” constitute only a marginal proportion of overall output we would see incredible diminishing returns on any effort to stop climate change – lets just wait for fossil fuels to run out, then the problem is solved. There are more pressing issues in the world at present than mild fluctuation in temperature.