EDITORIAL – Global warming: ‘Unsettling’ the ‘settled science’

Call it an “inconvenient oops.”

As it turns out, the sky is not falling, after all — at least not as quickly as global warming alarmists assured us it would.

As The Times of London recently reported, for the first 15 years of the 21st century, global temperatures did not rise as rapidly as climate scientists had predicted. The culprits: computer models, which overstated the impact of carbon emissions, on the “hot side,” compared to actual weather data.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, is a welcome (if rare) “course correction” in the speculative world of climate change, where activists and politicians weaponize evolving scientific observations in order to push a specific agenda. (“Carbon bad.”)

The process of scientific inquiry is not simple, especially when it comes to an incredibly complex subject such as the world’s future climate.

Zeal undaunted, environmentalists are already spinning the findings to conclude it still is possible for governments to reach the arbitrary goal, set out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, of limiting global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial averages.

Back then, Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London, said achieving that goal would require cutting carbon emissions so rapidly and drastically as to make the goal “incompatible with democracy.”

This week, he told The Times he was wrong, saying: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said.”

We don’t often find ourselves agreeing with preeminent demand-side economist Mr. Keynes, but his quotation serves to remind us that the difference between “facts” and “beliefs” is the difference between “science” and “religion.”

Although scientists generally agree that our climate is changing, historical data and myriad contributing factors make it difficult to determine exactly how much of that change is affected by human activity, or to predict how (or if) it will affect human populations.

Try telling the above to an ardent group of climate change theory adherents, and chances are you’ll face a rising sea of protest signs and torches. (Thankfully, unlit — we mustn’t forget about minimizing carbon emissions.)

As we regularly see with hurricane models, even the most sophisticated scientific predictions have their limits — with potential margins of error spiking into “Who knows?” territory over a matter of days … much less years or decades or centuries. Nevertheless, one of the most popular nonscientific pastimes on the internet right now is for social media users to state as fact that there is a direct link between climate change and the devastation or formation of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and now Maria. (“It’s global warming, stupid!”)

That of course does not mean that science is “junk” — but it does call for skepticism whenever an interested group tries to parlay a sympathetic theory into public policy. Unfortunately, environmentalists, some politicians and other climate alarmists have turned “skeptic” into a dirty word, comparing anyone who would consume (limited) climate predictions with a grain of salt to “flat-earthers” who deny the globularity of the globe.

Attempts to demonize dissenters and quash debate are not without consequence. The solutions proffered by the rectors of the climate change congregation oftentimes border on the extreme (“incompatible with democracy”) and have severe practical and economic consequences.

Here’s the deal: Almost everyone wants to protect the environment — it’s our home. However, considerations of conservation and climate change cannot be the cornerstone of public policy or personal behavior.

In the Cayman Islands (population 65,000), we would be far wiser to devote our energies to hurricane preparation than to theoretical hurricane mitigation.

Compared to the planet’s population centers such as the United States, China, India, etc., the contributions to the world’s carbon output by Cayman is for all practical purposes, zero. And that’s exactly how much thought our officials should give it when formulating plans for the country.

Our territory may play an outsize role in global finance, but we don’t play any role in global warming.

25
37

10 COMMENTS

  1. This report does not say climate change is not happening. Merely that due to actions taken already to reduce carbon emissions it is happening slower than previously predicted.

    All around the world there is visual evidence of the changes in the world’s climate.

    Anyone who has SCUBA dived in our waters for over 35 years, as I have, can testify to the loss of our corals and fish life.

    Fabulous living reefs turned into dead limestone.
    For a global perspective watch the documentary “Chasing Coral” on Netflix.

    The science is complex but warmer waters cause coral bleaching. If the coral is bleached for long enough it doesn’t recover.

    As we all know from basic science water expands a little when warmed. As the oceans warm they too expand causing sea levels to rise. With our low land mass that must be a cause for concern.

    I could continue but will instead urge research into the facts.

    18

    5
  2. “You might need to inform yourself of things you do not know.” (Dr.JackKruse)

    Here is from his february Facebook post (may be hard to digest, but read 3-4 times and most would get it):
    “When the sea dies first, the land follows, based upon what we know of the last 5 extinction events. No one knows what is causing sea death but I have a sense it is geoengineering and the interaction of nnEMF in the ionosphere ruining the water cycle and changing the quantum yield and spectral frequencies of sunlight in different places on the globe. I think the Digital disruption cause by man’s technology is the driver of a 6th extinction. Elizabeth Kolbert’s book was excellent in laying out the global case for an extinction. I’d suggest you all read it. As the quantum yield of the sun lowers it lowers the photosynthetic rate of algae in the sea that feed sardines. Sardines and algae are the base of the marine food chain. So any decline in UVB or UV A light has a massive effect on photic zone of the seas and this in turn would effect growth rates and mutation rates. UV radiation (UVR) is a significant ecological factor in the marine environment that can have important effects on planktonic organisms and dissolved organic matter (DOM). The penetration of UVR into the water column is likely to change in the near future due to interactions between atmospheric global warming and the changing salinity of the sea to change how Fermat’s law works in seawater with an altered optical density. This will be effected in mnay non linear ways because of ozone depletion and repletions in both poles. We see this differential effect laready where the South Pole ice sheets are growing, but the North Pole sheets are shrinking. In several studies I have read I have seen reports of underwater instruments employed for the measurement of UVR. These reports have revealed data dealing with the depth of UVR penetration in different oceanic areas including the open ocean, Antarctic waters and coastal waters. The polar seas are where most plankton are found for the marine chains so changes there will be the leading indicators of extinction level event. Science has provided us guesstimates that the 10% irradiance depth (Z10%) for UV-A and UV-B as well as for DNA damage effective dose (DNA) will cause massive swings in marine life. These very same scientists have calculated from these values of diffuse attenuation coefficients or vertical profiles reported in the literature to show something shocking is going on between the sun and Earth. The papers I have read show a clear distinction between open ocean (high Z10%, no variation in the ratio UV-B/UV-A), Antarctic waters (increase in the ratio UV-B/UV-A during ozone hole conditions) and coastal waters (low Z10%, no variation in the ratio UV-B/UV-A). These variations in the penetration of UVR could lead to differences in the relative importance of photobiological/photochemical processes of the marine food chains. They have also compared the penetration of UV-B (unweighted and weighted by the Setlow action spectrum) and DNA damage effective dose. When UV light is lowered it appear lies gets sick and mutates faster than when it is present in physiologic doses. This provides some more insight to what really is behind the effect. Governments are hiding a lot of this data from the public.

    Also, “Has the Extinction Cycle Also Turned Against Us?”
    https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/has-the-extinction-cycle-also-turned-against-us/

    2

    4
    • If you don’t like my comment, this could mean 1)You did not read it 2) You weren’t able to understand it. I f you have read it and understood, you would have laid out your argument.
      Here is a shorter, dumbed down version of it:
      When the sea dies first the land follows.
      UV radiation (UVR) is a significant ecological factor in the marine environment. Any DECLINE (chemtrails are blocking the Sun) in UVB or UV A light has a massive effect  on growth rates and mutation rates.
      The penetration of UVR into the water column is likely to change in the near future due to interactions between atmospheric global warming and the changing salinity of the sea to change how Fermat’s law works in seawater with an altered optical density.
      As the quantum yield of the Sun LOWERS, it lowers the photosynthesis rate of algae in the sea that feed sardines. Sardines and algae are the base of the marine food chain.
      Geoengineering and the interaction of nonnative EMF in the ionosphere might be ruining the water cycle and changing the quantum yield and spectral frequencies of sunlight in different places on the globe.

      2

      3
  3. The math is quite simple.

    NYC was under 1000 ft of ice, and in the Adirondacks about a mile thick, 12,000 years ago = the approx. end of the most recent (or 5th) ice age. Yet mankind has been polluting for near 200 years.

    200/12,000 = 1.7%. Mankind’s impact on the current 12,000 year warming trend has only been 1.7% of that time. Over the prior 11,800 years, the ice, which covered vast areas of North America, has been melting quite nicely on its own.

    Did you know that around 1200 AD the planet was near 1 degree more than it is right now? 1.5 degrees is the value most of the doomsday sayers indicate will cause the planet an irreversible trend (assuming you don’t believe in the other 4 ice ages the planet has undergone).

    Did you know in 2015 NASA released results from their ICESAT mission (ie satellites that track ice movements) indicating “… that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers … (and) according to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001”. Where are those videos showing … what … glaciers actually growing …?

    Did you know that Glacier Girl and the other 5 WWII fighter planes that were abandoned/parked on Greenland in 1942 were found in 1988. Under 268 ft of ice and snow or 26.8% of what NYC was under 12,000 years ago.

    But sure to have such views, and not be caught up by the scare mongering by those funded by global warming studies, I must clearly be a denier supported by big oil. Ah no- I will indeed do my part for humanity as one should, but will stick to the math and sleep soundly.

    8

    9
  4. This appears to be a call to inaction based on an outlier that opposes a large amount of scientific evidence calling for the opposite. A true skeptic would not jump to conclusions so quickly. This editorial seems to be grasping at straws to support a preconceived opinion that climate change is not a problem that warrants a response. In any case, what is in the best interest of Cayman? Inaction in the face of something that potentially jeopardizes our future or action that can only improve it? The article also implies that we are small, so our actions would be insignificant. What if all the people in communities with populations under 100,000 chose not to vote or take part in decisions that affect their lives?

    20

    4
  5. Please, calm down and digest the true facts that planet change is inevitable. Garbage, trash and pollution of our lands and oceans are the biggest hurtle. This is what you should be spouting about.
    Who are you to think for a moment, that you’re insignificant attempts to frighten and ridicule people about warming will change anything. You are alarmists who refuse to understand. Hurricanes are numerous one year and slower the next depending on climate winds.
    Facts and logic are pesky, aren’t they.

    4

    4
  6. The planet has been changing for more than 65 million years. We are no more than a mosquito on a cows’ rump. What we know from the past for certain is that many creatures plant,trees, etc. have gone extinct. Way before we learned about fire, long before the industrial age.
    “Scientists were startled in 1980 by the discovery of a tremendous diversity of insects in tropical forests. In one study of just 19 trees in Panama, 80% of the 1,200 beetle species discovered were previously unknown to science… Surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth.” – World Resources Institute (WRI).

    1

    0
  7. My mind remains open on the issue, and frankly, by the grand design, we would never understand how things work in the Universe. No point of arguing about it. Just remember that Light, Water and Magnetism sustain life on this planet. When one starts messing with either of these 3 element, consequences are inevitable.

    Physicists have spent 500 years trying to come up with fundamental laws of nature that explain every aspect of “our reality”, but nature’s laws governed by quantum principles and NOT anyone’s observations. There is also Einstein’s “theory of relativity”.

    But lets get back to this Editorial.
    “the contributions to the world’s carbon output by Cayman is for all practical purposes, zero.”
    There is no such a thing as zero carbon output and Compass’ editorial board cannot know that. Cruise ships tourism, for starters, has an enormous ecological impact and its carbon footprint few times larger, per passenger, than a commercial jet. What is the carbon footprint of the hotels?
    Everyone also knows that methane and carbon dioxide make up 90 to 98% of landfill gas. And every single resident and visitor contributes to its growth.

    This brings a question: why this editorial was even written? To insult reader’s intelligence?

    3

    2
  8. I wonder how come Mr Al Gore hasn’t weigh in on this global warming editorial . He is the biggest expert on global warming and made the most money off it .

    About global warming I haven’t read anywhere yet what was the condition of the world say just one thousand years ago, knowing that the world is 100’s of thousands of years old . How do anyone know if what is happening today is not a global cycle ? Just like we know that a solar eclipse happens every 100 year’s . Where is the 100’s of thousands of years historical data ?

    All I know about those questions that we of the world are not the good
    stewards /keepers we should be . And that man and money is destroying the world / environment today that didn’t happen back then thousands of years ago.

    2

    0
    • I know, it is hard to grasp, but I think we all were duped to believe in what you are writing. But it is never too late to inform ourselves of things we do not know.

      What has happened since 1990 (27 years vs. thousands years everyone throws into the discussion) is astounding for the planet and life. Read below (see the source at the bottom).

      For 4 billion years, the energies that surrounded life were simple….In 1893, all life changed when we began to see how we could use EMF’s for modern life. Nikola Tesla demonstrated the first AC power system at the World’s Fair. Edison began constructing the first commercial electric company in NY. Two years later, the modern era of electrical engineering began when we harnessed the power of Niagara Falls. In 1901, Marconi sent the first transatlantic radio message. In 1907, the vacuum tube was invented and enabled the first voice transmission by radio in 1915. In 1920, we had the first commercial radio station. Prior to this we used candles, campfires, and kerosene. This is not even 100 years ago.

      The greatest assault of the Earth’s surface came after WWII. We began to use shorter wavelengths and began to bounce them off the ionosphere for long distance communication. Use of ELF’s is incredibly damaging because these RF waves … last forever. Einstein’s work tells us that EMF waves last for infinity once the are generated. They usually dissipate into space in most places. On Earth, ELF’s can not go into space because we have an ionosphere. Ask any physicist if Einstein is wrong.

      WWII brought us microwave radar for warfare. In 1947, Bell Telephone set up the first microwave phone relay between towers in Boston and NYC. The same year, TV was born and they also used microwaves for transmission. The 1980’s brought cellular communications.

      What has happened since 1990 is astounding for the planet and life. The first mile above the Earth is now filled with 2 million times the amount of EMF that we faced in 1900.
      This timeline is important for you to sense, to hear, and to feel in your current comfort zone of life to understand why this series is the most important factor in neolithic disease generation in your lifetime. It has come on fast and furious, and the results to the biologic system is seen in the epidemiology of disease over the 20th century.
      We are awash in an ocean of electromagnetic energies that life has NEVER BEFORE had to deal with before, ever….
      Humans have altered their electromagnetic background more than any other aspect of their environment. It is estimated that in 2012, the radio waves that surround our planet today is one billion times the amount that naturally reaches us from our sun!
      https://www.jackkruse.com/emf-5-what-are-the-biologic-effects-of-emf/

      2

      4

Comments are closed.