Letter to the Editor

More research needed before climate change panic

Tuesday, June 18, 2019

More research needed before climate change panic

To the Editor:

With the 2020 elections looming, it appears that the Democratic party is treating climate change as the greatest crisis this country faces in the coming years. Some politicians talk of 12 years and the crisis is unmanageable.

What is absent in the USA and around the world is a scientific-based dialogue on this subject. You don't hear scientists presenting papers on what is known and provable on this subject and what is still not known. It just may be that the thought of this country becoming energy independent drove us to much research on renewable energy sources. Out of this narrative came the idea that the burning of fossil fuels and the generation of greenhouse gases was the number one cause of global warming. I doubt very seriously that you could get very many of the scientists that had training in this area and are capable of doing research in this area to stand up and say that they are confident that this is the number one source of global warming (climate change). scientists are generally much more cautious about things that they don't know for sure.

I am a retired research engineer (NASA, Langley Research Center). No, I don't have training in climate sciences. I do have experience in measuring temperatures. As a wind tunnel research engineer, we needed to know the temperature of the nitrogen gas used in the tunnel to a high degree of accuracy. If we tried very hard and calibrated our instruments very often, we might achieve an accuracy of 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit. This is in the order of the annual change of global temperature per year. Maybe temperature measurements are much more accurate these days.

Another thing that I don't know about is whether the data from a network of temperature measurements, taken daily at the Earth's surface, is sufficient to make a heating balance model between the Earth and the Sun. It just may be that a large grid of temperature measurements above the Earth's surface and a grid below the surface of the sea would be necessary to make an accurate heat balance model, one that could predict the change of temperature from year to year.

The current database of temperatures covers the years from about 1950 to the present, a span of 80 years. Some of the sources of temperature change may involve cycles that are much longer than 80 years. Some of the early predictions of annual temperature change were much higher than we have noticed in the past two decades. Those predictions were made assuming very large effects of carbon gases in the atmosphere. With the leveling off of the temperature change in the past two decades, most scientists have begun to talk in terms of "if the temperature change is X amount, then these are the observable effects we might see."

Don't get me wrong. I believe fundamental research should continue in the area of climate change. The researchers should present, in reviewed papers, what they have learned about the three main sources of temperature change and their relative magniturdes. That would give us a useful understanding of this subject.

Jerry Adcock

Wartrace


Guidelines for letters to the editor

The Times-Gazette publishes letters to the editor as space allows, and reserves the right to refuse any letter and to edit for content and length.

All letters become the property of the Times-Gazette upon submission. Letters must be typed or clearly handwrit­ten, and must include the phone number and address of the writer for verification purposes.

Please submit letters to tgnews@t-g.com, or mail them to: Times-Gazette, Attn: Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 380, Shelbyville, TN, 37162.

Comments
View 1 comment
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • From the tobacco industry denial of cancer cigarette link, "Doubt is our product". Whether its true or not, spread the doubt. This is about the bottom line of profit in spite of people's health.

    30 years later the same company went into the Fossil Fuel industry, "Doubt is out product."

    Fossil fuels are worse than cigarettes for us. This is centuries of we have changed the course of life on earth. So we get a guy who has expertise, "I doubt that the science is accurate enough."

    That is what this person is selling.

    Science is very thorough when they gather data to show how certain something can be. No matter how you measure it, the evidence shows that the temperature on earth has increased in all the different ways you can observe it.

    Jerry Adcock has played the doubt card well. Too well.

    https://skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

    independent studies using different software, different methods, and different data sets yield very similar results. The increase in temperatures since 1975 is a consistent feature of all reconstructions. This increase cannot be explained as an artifact of the adjustment process, the decrease in station numbers, or other non-climatological factors. Natural temperature measurements also confirm the general accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

    -- Posted by renewableguy on Tue, Jun 18, 2019, at 9:25 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: