Recently the Wall Street Journal published an article noting that while there is climate change, the science around it is not settled. However, there are a few problems with the models, or rather, there is no agreement or accounting as to why certain things are happening. For example:
Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.
• The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.
• The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that “hot spot” has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.
• Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.
• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today’s best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.
Just why is the Antarctic growing while in the North things are melting? That question certainly needs to be answered. None of these questions suggests that there is no climate change, it just means there is a lot we don’t know. And there is still the problem with a lot of the data has been altered unscientifically to match the warming narrative. Furthermore, the consensus is not as big as has been purported.
My skepticism in relation to change, is can mankind really overcome nature in total? Can man really subdue and tame Nature to the extent we destroy it? I find that a difficult proposition to accept, after all the Earth has always changed even before humans had the capability to influence it. Humans can certainly influence things in this world, but to destroy Nature’s authority over the universe is quite a claim to make, not to mention full of hubris. If the globe is changing, can man really do anything to stop it? On that point, I am very skeptical.