Climate Change
Posted 10-07-2016 at 09:45 AM by James1202
I enjoy reading scientific content. I also enjoy statistics. I also understand science and statistics can be complex and, therefore, misused (intentionally or not). Science rarely, if ever, results in simple explanations for complex situations.
For that reason, I am skeptical about most arguments regarding whether or not, and to what extent, anthropogenic (human caused) climate change exists. My skepticism stems from a number of tell-tale signs that something is amiss:
1) Lack of Doubt.
Proponents of anthro' climate change have no doubt that it exists; despite the complexity of the topic vs. the simplicity of the methods and data used to come to that conclusion. Scientific inquiry usually leads to results that are described using "could" or "probably" or "tends to be" or "is indicative of". I find any other result to be suspect.
2) Lack of, or Selective Use of, Data and the Methods Used to Collect and Interpret that Data.
Any data or interpretation that uses the mid-1800's as its baseline reference must be flawed. The mid-1800's were particularly cold, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, compared to the centuries before it and since. Nearly all arguments for anthro' climate change, that I've seen, use the mid-1800's as its baseline reference, therefore, such arguments are flawed.
One of two reasonable baselines could be the warmest period prior to the last Ice Age. The other would be the coldest period prior to the last Ice Age. These would give us half a cycle or a whole cycle of cooling and warming, respectively, so there'd be some comparison to the warming being recorded now.
There is no doubt that the Earth has gone through cycles of having polar ice caps and not having polar ice caps prior to the existence of homo sapiens. Knowing what caused these cycles is important in order to put the current climate change in its proper perspective.
Technology has allowed us to measure the Earth's ecosystem to a degree that is unprecedented in history. But, in terms of the history of the Earth, this ability to collect this data is too brief to draw a conclusion about how this data relates to what happened in past eons; for which the data is very sparse.
If we took the body temperature of a person who was just pulled out of a frozen lake (and didn't know 98.6 F is normal), and wait a few hours, we could conclude they're going to die from a fever, in a few more hours, because they're temperature is now at 98.1 F.
I don't believe Earth has a "normal", stable temperature. I suspect it constantly fluctuates from hot to cold to hot; thereby explaining why there have been Ice Ages that ended and reoccurred. I suspect we're witnessing the warming from the last Ice Age and only after the polar ice caps are gone will the Earth start to cool down again.
Various polar ice core samples tend to indicate anthro' climate change is problematic. The apparent contradiction was explained away by concluding the trapped gas bubbles, within the ice cores, "migrated" to make it appear the samples contradicted anthro' climate change.
Even so, gas bubble migration leaves open the possibility, if not likelihood, that Earth's temperature increases may have preceded increased CO2 levels. To explain this away, it was presented that some types of CO2 ions, in certain layers of the atmosphere, can cause greater warming than other types of CO2 ions, in other layers of the atmosphere.
This strikes me as trying to make the data prove the theory.
3) Who Cares?
I'm indifferent to whether or not climate change is caused by or made worst by humans. I have no problem with pursuing courses of action that one might take if anthropogenic climate change exists.
Ultimately, I see these courses of action to be beneficial; for scientific, technological, environmental, health-related, and economic reasons. If anthropogenic climate change is a fallacy, it's a good fallacy; one who's long-term benefits, I suspect, will outweigh the costs to pursue them or the costs of not pursuing them.
If claiming humans are causing or contributing to climate change is what it takes to convince others to take action, to pursue ultimately beneficial policies, so be it. But excuse me if I tend to suspect I'm being lied to and resent it.
For that reason, I am skeptical about most arguments regarding whether or not, and to what extent, anthropogenic (human caused) climate change exists. My skepticism stems from a number of tell-tale signs that something is amiss:
1) Lack of Doubt.
Proponents of anthro' climate change have no doubt that it exists; despite the complexity of the topic vs. the simplicity of the methods and data used to come to that conclusion. Scientific inquiry usually leads to results that are described using "could" or "probably" or "tends to be" or "is indicative of". I find any other result to be suspect.
2) Lack of, or Selective Use of, Data and the Methods Used to Collect and Interpret that Data.
Any data or interpretation that uses the mid-1800's as its baseline reference must be flawed. The mid-1800's were particularly cold, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, compared to the centuries before it and since. Nearly all arguments for anthro' climate change, that I've seen, use the mid-1800's as its baseline reference, therefore, such arguments are flawed.
One of two reasonable baselines could be the warmest period prior to the last Ice Age. The other would be the coldest period prior to the last Ice Age. These would give us half a cycle or a whole cycle of cooling and warming, respectively, so there'd be some comparison to the warming being recorded now.
There is no doubt that the Earth has gone through cycles of having polar ice caps and not having polar ice caps prior to the existence of homo sapiens. Knowing what caused these cycles is important in order to put the current climate change in its proper perspective.
Technology has allowed us to measure the Earth's ecosystem to a degree that is unprecedented in history. But, in terms of the history of the Earth, this ability to collect this data is too brief to draw a conclusion about how this data relates to what happened in past eons; for which the data is very sparse.
If we took the body temperature of a person who was just pulled out of a frozen lake (and didn't know 98.6 F is normal), and wait a few hours, we could conclude they're going to die from a fever, in a few more hours, because they're temperature is now at 98.1 F.
I don't believe Earth has a "normal", stable temperature. I suspect it constantly fluctuates from hot to cold to hot; thereby explaining why there have been Ice Ages that ended and reoccurred. I suspect we're witnessing the warming from the last Ice Age and only after the polar ice caps are gone will the Earth start to cool down again.
Various polar ice core samples tend to indicate anthro' climate change is problematic. The apparent contradiction was explained away by concluding the trapped gas bubbles, within the ice cores, "migrated" to make it appear the samples contradicted anthro' climate change.
Even so, gas bubble migration leaves open the possibility, if not likelihood, that Earth's temperature increases may have preceded increased CO2 levels. To explain this away, it was presented that some types of CO2 ions, in certain layers of the atmosphere, can cause greater warming than other types of CO2 ions, in other layers of the atmosphere.
This strikes me as trying to make the data prove the theory.
3) Who Cares?
I'm indifferent to whether or not climate change is caused by or made worst by humans. I have no problem with pursuing courses of action that one might take if anthropogenic climate change exists.
Ultimately, I see these courses of action to be beneficial; for scientific, technological, environmental, health-related, and economic reasons. If anthropogenic climate change is a fallacy, it's a good fallacy; one who's long-term benefits, I suspect, will outweigh the costs to pursue them or the costs of not pursuing them.
If claiming humans are causing or contributing to climate change is what it takes to convince others to take action, to pursue ultimately beneficial policies, so be it. But excuse me if I tend to suspect I'm being lied to and resent it.
Total Comments 0
