Climate Change 2022: AGAIN! Why Sea Levels are Not Rising and Never Will (A FACS Teacher Explains)

*April 12 Update: The Guardian posted an interesting op/Ed about the practice of publishing scientific research (click here for article).  Perhpas we are increaseing awareness about inaccuracies in scientific research.  Good Article that speaks well to the problem with developing a climate change plan for the future.

Can a FACS teacher from rural Virginia show climatologists where they have gone wrong in their study of global warming? The challenge is on. 

Lately, The Guardian (theguardian.com), an internationally based media group that seems to like to stir the pot more than inform, has gone out of its way to promote climate change panic particularly in the US and United Kingdom. This week they used a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (February 2022) to explain how coastal communities will see as much as a 12 in increase in sea levels in the next 30 years. The article argues for federal money and large scale infrastructure for which there is little support in Congress. With emphatic words but little proof, the Guardian makes the case for a now-or-never response to computer generated predictions and little physical evidence. To see the article itself click here. To see this blog's response to the NOAA report click here. To read all about how real life undercuts climate change theory, purchase a copy of this author's book Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.

As a FACS teacher, you show students how to deal with science without getting hung up in the complicated details. Understanding how an stove or cook top works delves into the different types of heat. Passive solar home design is the greenhouse effect. Food preparation deals with sanitation, bacteria growth and how all of that spreads disease if you are not careful. Then there are the components of a healthy diet that satisfies but wards off illness at the same time, Financial literacy shows you how numbers can mean different things at different times but rarely tell the whole story (I have money in my bank account but do I have money to spend???).  And the list goes on.  

All that is to say that FACS teaches the reality of life, not its theory.  Here is the REAL way to look at global warming and its data.  Once you read it, you will understand how scientists which never leave teir computers could so easily become overwhelmed into believe the World was coming to an end.

1. Measurements are Time Sensitive

The problem with the digital age is that we believe that all things can be converted into numbers.  In reality, each measurement is only good for the millisecond it took to take it. It has no permanence or value except in that one moment of time. Trying to convince people who live in the physical world that data alone proves the future is hard to do. 

Nature constantly changes, Wind speeds vary up and down in the same manner as animals breathe in and out.  Five pounds of flour and five pounds of sugar take up different amounts of space and are used in different dishes. A t-bone steak is never the same thickness, weight, calorie content or size as the last, even though it looks identical. To expand that, there is also the concept of walking a mile as figured in steps but how far does one actually travel when exercising on a treadmill. Measurement is always relative and as such cannot be fairly compared.  Any study that uses data alone should be be questioned for bias. 

In regard to climate change, sea levels are constantly changing because of gravitational activity that has nothing to do with climate.  Comparing sea levels as a proof of global warming is like following a lifelong dieter whose weight swings 10 pounds as the seasons change. Which number out of hundreds of possible answers do you choose for documentation this person's weight. Those who believe in global warming choose to record the high numbers and ignore the low numbers giving a false impression of what is a regular and predictable shift.

2. Erosion  Is the Silent Culprit

Consider this situation. On your drive to work one morning, you pass a long deep ditch at the side of the road. The damage is clear. Which conclusion would your draw? That something caused the road to raise a foot or more overnight, or that the rain from last night's thunderstorm eroded the shoulder. Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

Geologists have been studying erosion and its impact on shore lines for centuries. It is an ongoing struggle for businesses which own beach front property to battle this gradual and sneaky enemy.  Like the road that appears to be higher, it is erosion that lowered the shore, not a rising water level.

The problem is common to owners of beach front property. Truck loads of sand and rock are frequently brought in to repair that which is carried away by the waves. Funding from federal sources however, is limited to repairs from disasters not general wear and tear.  Climate change is the disaster these communities need to get millions of dollars in funding for projects that would otherwise be ineligible.

3. Nothing Occurs by Isolation

Scientists like to test their theories in isolation. Similar to a race horse that clocks at a fast enough pace to beat the course record when on home turf but can't finish in the top three in an actual race, climate change data from animation, simulation or even physical data collection cannot duplicate the unpredictable elements of a natural environment.  In the same way that humidity can ruin a batch of candy or kids running through the kitchen at just the right moment can cause souffle to fall, most climate studies do not hold up under the strong light of reality.  Without the emotional panic that is a part of their predictions, there would be nothing to hold the attention of donors and government funding sources.

4. No Such Thing as Kinda Frozen

Recently, scientists reported a 70degree F swing in temperature for Antarctica and a 50 degree F increase for the Arctic Circle. Starting a panic as The Guardian and other media outlets called the difference a "Heat Wave", those reporting the change as well as those reading the report failed to comprehend that the 10 degree F HIGH temperature was still 22 degrees below freezing.  How can all the ice in the World melt if there is a three degree increase in temperature when it is still 22 degrees colder than freezing.  

A lesson in communication from every FACS class is no what you are talking about before you speak.  

5.  No Two Regions are Alike

A FACS curriculum promotes acceptance of people and situations regardless of their differences.  Why is it then that climate change theory seems to focus almost solely on the struggles of urban and well-developed areas. Advocates recommend a single solution for all regions regardless of financial resources, physical need or philosophy.  Presenting an argument that looks and feels more like peer pressure than proof, articles like those that come from The Guardian shame those who do not support their way of thinking.

Does Climate Change Exist?

After all that, you would expect the conclusion to be that climate change is not real. Unfortunately, it is real but not in the way climate studies predict.  

Thousands of years ago, nature came up with the perfect recipe for environmental health. It was easy to make, had enough flexibility in it that it worked out even when things didn't go quite right and could be successful with a variety of ingredients. But there were still rules that needed to be followed. 

  Unfortunately, mankind didn't want to follow the recipe.  Beginning in the late 1800s, man chose to make substitutions, one after another. Like the Recipe Poem,  the changes have been so many and so far from the original that the environment is no longer what it once was.  

Current climate change theory is just another set of recipe changes that will not make things better.  Only when we go back to the original recipe which is based on fossil fuels will the climate again be edible for everyone.

Climate Change 2022: Where Science Went Horribly Wrong on Climate Change

Photo from TheHill.com

We apologize for any disrespect Climate scientists may be feeling at this time but the author stands by the explanation here. At any time, NOAA staff wishes to show hard data about this issues instead of speculation, we will be appay to amend our findings accordingly.  

* Last Updated: April 9, 2022

OK Folks! Time for everyone to take a breath and step back from the climate change rhetoric. With the United Nations Secretary General apparently calling global leadership "liars" and apocalyptic news reports coming from advocacy media groups such as The Guardian and National Public Radio (NPR), it might be time to widen the lens through which we view the concept of climate change. Who knows? Tweaking a viewpoint may be all that is needed to build consensus and motivate the World. 

Consider, just for a moment, what personal bias does to the human thought process.  Is it possible that the science is accurate but the interpretation is wrong? Is it possible that personal values come into play when moving forward? A little history, a bit of redefinition and finally a more respectful and open-minded tone could be the answer to solving climate change without deadlines, regulations and personal sacrifice. 

Looking Back to Understand the Problem

Most historians will admit that the last 100 years have not been kind to Planet Earth. Two World Wars, pandemics, widespread drought and food shortages, along with a decade of financial collapse turned this country that was founded on hopes and dreams into one that gauges every decision on fear of real or imagined dangers..  With the exception of a few years between WWII and the Vietnam Offensive(a time of high prosperity, low health care costs, strong community support and a mostly positive attitude), the United States has responded protectively even in cases of low risk. If we can identify what the difference was in the 1950s, it might be possible to understand the panic that surrounds today's climate change studies.

Contradictions in Theory

What is rarely mentioned is that while America polluted the environment at record levels in the 50s and early 60s,  citizens experienced generally good health and used health care only as a last resort. Pandemics came and went with little impact and weather patterns were so stable crops rarely failed. Moreover, regular food testing showed high nutrient levels in foods and little food waste.  So, if a polluted environment is an unhealthy one, why were the 1950s such a positive time in American life? Could it be that our desire for a pretty environment overshadowed the science that keeps the planet operating efficiently?

Competition vs. Critical Thinking

Looking further, this was a time of growing political competition and tensions between World leaders. First the Marshall Plan failed to unify and reorganize Germany as a democratic state, a historic sore spot that continues to cause difficulties with Russia.  Then, the US unexpectedly lost the space race to the Soviet Union, adding even more pressure to shine on the global stage.  When leaders realized that American students lagged behind other cultures in academic performance, what had been a program for employment quickly shifted to one of science and math. Did we seek to solve problems that were only in our mind or was pollution really the human and environmental danger we made it out to be?

To be fair, everything was changing so rapidly, oversight and regulations mattered little. No one considered the ramifications of replacing scientific investigation with supposition. Partially right was good enough as long as it worked. Even now, we see how the goal to have a COVID-19 vaccine was more about being first and winning the battle quickly, and not dealing with the underlying flaws of the healthcare system that put too many people at risk.  As we go into the third year of COVID infections, those who had studied the virus understood the limitations of vaccines and new treatments.  Like climate change, their voices were drowned out by ambition and status.

A Single Vocabulary

Before we can understand each other, we need a common vocabulary. While climate change words are toss out as if we were born understanding them, there is a great deal of difference in how they are viewed.   Green house Gas does not mean any gas you want to regulate. The Greenhouse Effect is a term synonymous with passive solar architecture and does not depend on CO2 gas. Global Warming is a highly emotional topic that sends fear through the hearts of all coastal dwellers but can be easily disproved by substituting a little math for random data collection. Consensus requires stable definitions and identifiable problems.

From a science viewpoint, GreenEnergy starts with growing plants and animals which are used by the living to sustain life. That which cannot be used for food is then burned and used for heat and light.  What remains after all that breaks down and restores the soil so that the cycle can start over again.  Operating effortlessly since time began, with the exception of the last 150 years, there is no system more efficient or sustainable.

Whether it sits well with our present view of climate change or not, burning organic waste and fuel is the simplest way to keep the planet functioning so that all life is healthy.

Personal Viewpoints

Of all the issues, personal viewpoints, loyalties and mindsets are the biggest road blocks to developing consensus.  Without concern for what impacts its citizens, the US supports NATO, the United Nations and the European Union in their belief of climate change trends and data rather than practical knowledge. Even in the face of mounting evidence that its own regulation played a significant role in environmental damage, supporting a science fiction version of climate change is more important. 

Only a willingness to look at the past in a new light will make it possible to break the bonds that tie political allies tightly together. Who will be the first to break the chains and admit human errors from over fifty years ago laid the foundation for today's erratic weather and poor public health.  

 

Climate Change 2022: Don't Panic, 70 Degree Antarctic Temperature Swing No Big Deal

With the United States' climate initiatives hanging by a thread, the agencies that fall under the authority of the Cabinet and Environmental Protection Agency seem intent on shoring up the United Nations Climate Change goals, even if those goals are based on natural events that have exsisted for hundreds of years.  Using a tiny bit of accurate information that is stated as fact rather than explained in context, these scientific efforts mislead not only the general public but the leadership who relies on honest interpretation of the science.

Photo from The HIll Publication Website

The latest is news coming from the 70 or so internationally supported Antarctic weather stations which dot the continent.  In what appears to be a joint statement on which the United States Antarctic Program (www.usap.gov) likely had input, these groups used a twice-annual event to send panic through the climate change community at the same time as the UN was holding meetings on the topic of climate change. Claiming a 70 degree warmer temperature in Antarctica, the news was, of course, picked up by The Guardian, the Washington Post (see their article here ), and countless other radio, television and print editions.  Obviously, taking the information at face value, reporters sacrifice the credibility of their publication when the information is simple to check and found to be misleading.

Here's what these scientists neglected to explain about "extreme" weather changes that are now occuring at each of the poles. 

Temperature Extremes are Short Lived

Every year, twice a year, the Earth moves to a position so that half of the planet directly faces the sun at one time.  We call this the first day of Spring and the first day of Fall (aka. Equinox).  This means that every point on the Earth, from the poles to the Equator gets about 12 hours of sunshine and the sun's rays are hitting the Earth directly, not at an angle as they typically do.  For the poles, this means that the sun's rays are the strongest and warmest of the year. Just like the USA expects a week of warmer temperatures for Spring Break or Indian Summer in the Fall, the poles can see a high temperature spike that is predictable, normal and very, very temporary.     What no one wants to admit though, is that those high extremes are at least 20 degrees BELOW freezing and is a needed part of the cycle to keep the ice shelf viable and healthy. 

Ice Shelf Collapses

A followup story, has one ice shelves collapsing in satellite images (see photo above).  Again, this is good news, not a sign of impending doom.  All ice, even in a pond or lake during the winter, collects air pockets underneath.  This destabilizes the ice and causes it to crack.  When it cracks, especially during warm weather, the ice breaks  and briefly sinks below the surface just long enough air to escape and a new coating of water to fill in imperfections in the ice.  Within a few hours, if left alone, the ice refreezes and the ice shelf becomes stronger and thicker. This process happens at both poles as well as in any large glacier, lake or sea which experiences colder temperatures for a long periods of time.

USAP Website Used for Documentation

Information about the annual temperature difference (approximately 72 degrees annually) is posted on the USAP website.   clearly states the difference is between the summer and winter temperatures and that it occurs annually.

Trust Issues with Climate Experts

Another scenario pushed by a BBC reporter this week was the idea that these normal temperature flutuation were caused by soot from wildfires reaching the poles and causing the ice to melt (black absorbs heat, right?).  What the author nor apparently the unnamed scientists who promote such a concept realize is that 1) the air temperature is still below zero and as soon as the sun went down any melted ice would refreeze and 2) once the carbon soot caused melting it would sink into the ice and not absorb heat because of the ice's reflective qualities. These are the dangers or scientists who make predictions based on book knowledge and computer printouts rather than life experience.

This type of marketing for support rather than honest information is the greatest factor in solving the climate change issue.  Using annual events and geological cycles to describe apocalyptic futures serves no purpose but to waste money and divert attention from the human element in climate change. Fantasy science is more likely to be a cause of climate change than carbon-based gases and fossil fuels ever were. 

For more information about the climate change mythology that is promoted by the media, consider purchasing Air Pollution's the Answer! How Clean Air Policy Compromised the Planet and Public Health.