The U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that the Arctic ice pack has increased by 920,000 square miles since 2012. 2012 was a record low year, but the Arctic has made a major rebound, increasing in size by 60%. Have we really cut our greenhouse gas emissions by that much in only one year?
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center quoted one of their glaciologists, Walt Meier, as saying “even if this year ends up being the sixth- or seventh-lowest extent, what matters is that the 10 lowest extents recorded have happened during the last 10 years.” Goddard is intent on downplaying the massive recovery the ice pack has made in just 1 short year. Of course, if glaciers don't turn out to be a problem, what will a glaciologist do for a living?
In 2007, the BBC News made a prediction that the "Arctic summers [would be] ice-free 'by 2013.'" A while ago, Al Gore predicted that the sea level would rise by 10 feet, swamping New York City and Washington.
Last October 14th, Simon Kent in the Toronto Sun wrote that "Antarctic sea ice has expanded to cover the largest area recorded since satellite mapping began a generation ago." That doesn't stop Goddard from continuing their fear-mongering. They say that the extra ice is caused by winds that were caused by climate change.
What is wrong with all of these predictions? In my opinion, they are disingenuous. They are self-serving for those that make their living off of the bad news. Everything they predict is based on their infamous climate change models. These models try to mathematically represent all sorts of things going on simultaneously on Earth. These include emissions of a multitude of greenhouse gases, ocean temperatures, ice pack level, solar activity, etc. etc. These extremely complex models are considered by many to be above reproach. They are created by PhD's, so they must be accurate. We just don't know enough to question these folks.
One of the numerous things that makes a drastic difference on the results predicted by these models is cloud cover. You know, water vapor is considered a greenhouse gas by these scientists. However, clouds, which are made of water vapor, have opposing effects on global warming. According to some scientists, low, thick clouds block the sun from reaching the ground and creating warming. They also say that high clouds let enough sun through to heat up the Earth, and they trap this heat below the clouds, producing the greenhouse effect. So, to get an accurate read on how much heating will occur due to water vapor, one must make an accurate prediction of cloud cover. Recently, there has been some cooling, and scientists are saying that the deviation from many models is due in large part to poor predictions of cloud coverage.
Has anyone ever thought about what creates water vapor and clouds? Remember the water cycle that we used to learn in grade school? I have no idea if this is still taught in school, because they may spend the time on global warming indoctrination instead. In any case, the water gets heated by the sun and evaporates. This causes clouds to form. The clouds produce rain, and the water falls back to earth, filling our lakes and streams.
Could it be as simple as understanding that global warming is a self-limiting effect? Might a slight increase in temperature produce higher evaporation rates? Wouldn't that increase in evaporation produce more cloud cover, thus shading the Earth and dropping the temperature? Additionally, the higher temperatures, coupled with increase rain, would produce a longer growing season with faster growth rates of plants and vegetation. The increase in vegetation would convert more CO2 to Oxygen, reducing that one greenhouse gas that seems to be of utmost importance to tree-huggers.
I wish the MessAPolitico would use a little logic. I also wish they would quit rewarding people with grants only when they produce the one outcome in their research. If you pay grants for proving that global warming exists, but not for debunking it, the scientific evidence is guaranteed to prove that we are all going to die from global warming. The same folks that complain when anyone makes a business profit are pretty silent about hypocrites like Al Gore profiting from fear-mongering. The best way to screw up anything is to get the government interested in fixing it, especially when there is room for crooked politicians to make a profit.
No comments:
Post a Comment