By ROBERT SEITZ
As an engineer, when I start a project, I confirm that the information I have to work with is correct, and that my objective is understandable and clear.
If in the course of my evaluation of that new project anything appears to not line up with my understanding of the project. I do deeper evaluation to determine what is right and make adjustments to the basis of the design to ensure a proper outcome.
I have been involved with projects that are based on combating climate change that results from greenhouse gas emissions. I have been evaluating the claims of heating, especially here in Alaska. When I became aware of the claims that Alaska is warming two to four times the rate of the rest of the planet, I began checking to see if this claim is true.
In my investigation of temperatures of the air, water, and soil around Alaska, I use actual data that is Alaska data; I do not consider computer models, upper atmosphere physics, or other esoteric sources.
After I looked at the claims that Alaska was warming two to four times faster than the rest of the planet, I kept looking at other data, such as sea surface temperatures, sea ice extent, soil temperature profiles, and the growing seasons around Alaska.
So far, I am sticking with my finding that Alaska is not warming at a rate much faster than the rest of the planet, and the claim that it is warming faster is based on data analysis that skews the outcome because of the lack of extreme low temperatures for a few years in Alaska.
It is true that Alaska has warmed a bit from the cooling of the Little Ice Age, and that warming does not seem to be continuously advancing at any significant rate. The sea surface temperatures at coastal communities of Alaska are at or below normal values. Some locations have had above normal temperature over the past few years. A friend reported to me last week that the temperature is Bristol Bay is back down to normal, 54.3o. Southeast Alaska has slightly above normal surface temperatures at this time.
There are reports in Alaska newspapers of ancient trees revealed from beneath the glaciers as they recede. A range of ages are revealed by carbon dating that is 1,000 to 2,500 years or more. From this I know that it has been warmer in Alaska than it is now, and that warm could not have been the result of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. I encourage everyone to observe your surroundings, pay close attention to the weather, with intent to make up your own mind about global warming and climate change.
The hot weather occurs in the summer time when high pressure areas occur over a location. Likewise, cold weather occurs when high pressure occurs in the winter time, at high latitudes (like Alaska). So whatever has happened seems to have altered the path and pattern of the jet stream so that the high and low pressure areas are not as predictable as they used to be. Have you noticed that it was warm this spring and summer when the sky was clear, and have you noticed that when the clouds moved in it has been cooler and rainy?
If CO2 is not the evil that the world’s population has be convinced it is, we need to quickly and urgently spread the word and educate the people that science has been abused and misrepresented and we need to not blame fossil (hydrocarbon) fuels for the changes we have experienced. We need to quickly and urgently affect a change in energy policy in Alaska and in the U.S. and get back to market-driven energy markets, get back to cheap energy, get back to reliable energy, and get back to sensible energy and practices in Alaska.
For communities without fossil fuels or hydroelectric power plants, the wind and solar, or other renewable energy sources should still be pursued to provide power to those communities. Meanwhile, we in Alaska, can spent the years or decades in front of us to come up with whatever energy source that will best replace the natural gas or coal that has served us well for so long.
I will continue to study the temperature data for Alaska as well as precipitation, sea level, sea ice, and other factors that might be affected by climate variations. But now is the time to start our action to change direction on energy and resource development policies. Our citizens are better off with the fossil fuel-driven economy. They are better off from a health perspective and they are better off with opportunities with the fossil fuel-driven economy. Without the fossil fuel economy, Alaska would have no economy at all, or at best a small economy. If Alaska is to make a change, we need time to develop whatever we will change to.
If you understand science at all, you will know that the rightness or wrongness of understanding of a process is not provided by consensus of involved scientists. Truth is arrived at by scientific studies which are in direct opposition to many of the other studies to demonstrate best what seems to be, as opposed what doesn’t work.
Keep reading. Keep studying. Keep thinking. Keep discussing. You’ll reach a point of enlightenment.
Robert Seitz is a professional electrical engineer and lifelong Alaskan.
Great article thanks for a correct view without draconian rules to steal money it the name of global warming.
Look at the records. Most of the hottest days on record in the Interior of Alaska occur prior to 1960. And many of them before 1920. Facts don’t lie.
……but Democrats and lefty scientists do.
A slight warming in an arctic environment will produce a greater notice to environmental studies than will a slight warming in areas of the planet that are in lower latitudes. This is a common sense observation that doesn’t need critical data interpretation. For example, a slight warming in Wiseman, AK, say 2°C would be noticeable on ground, water and chair surfaces, where in Sacramento, CA it would not be noticeable. 15°C at Death Valley, CA would not be noticeable.
Take all of the man-made climate proclamations and hyperbole with a sack of salt.
I like your second to last paragraph. But there’s this: when analyzing data for a statistical conclusion, sometimes we have to ignore an outlier. You’re it.
And, quite often ignoring the outlier traps you into confirming incorrect conclusions. Plenty of discoveries happened because the researcher did not ignore the outlier, but instead asked “why is it there?”
The real “outlier” is the climate change hoax, manufactured by scientists in the name of grant money efficacy. The Democrats use the hoax to scare people into a mindset against petroleum products and other carbon fuel sources………..
for control of the masses.
Of course, Mr. Seitz is correct and anyone with a brain larger than a salamander knows he’s correct. All the global warming nonsense is based on models, and every model is biased by what initial conditions are used. And, there lies at least one of the many the problems with them.
A very well written article, no hand wringing , gnashing teeth or giving the sense that the sky is falling on us.
Sensible perspective, true science isn’t thinking that “ we know all now” it’s the discovery of how much we don’t know.
This climate change has to be the BIGGEST GRIFT to ever take place!!! An Al Gore GRIFT!!! And the media has taken it hook, line and sinker. Practically every article you read has to be related to climate change. I don’t know about anybody else, but I am sick and tired of hearing climate change. It’s the damn weather people!!!
1st question: How is the average natural global ambient temperature determined when there are documented climatic cycles ranging from ice ages to extreme warming, long before humans existed or were able to influence meaningful changes?
2nd Question: What is the ideal global average temperature for human beings? Does increased vegetation in the Sahel region, increased willows in the Arctic and the ability to rely on increased consistent agricultural harvests in expanding northern and southern latitudes benefit or harm human conditions?
3rd Question: Why is credibility assigned to, and massive federal government subsidies paid to special interest corporations manufacturing unsustainable, environmentally destructive and unreliable alternative energy generation systems, based on “studies” generated by compromised individuals who call themselves “scientists” ? Who themselves rely on government grants for their salaries as there is no actual legitimate scientific basis to their “studies”?
I did not catch any mention in your article of the bombardment of heavy spraying in our skies that is creating all sorts of issues – unnatural cooling and unnatural heating for starters. Do you ever write about that? Just curious.
This ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change’ hysteria that is being asserted by democrats and leftists (sorry to be redundant), demands that America make ruinous changes to the American economy. Of course, the biggest carbon footprint economies, China and India, are exempt from the international climate change agreements until years later. The basic question in all this: is this alleged ‘climate change’ phenomenon anthropogenic? Nobody seems to provide conclusive evidence about that. Meanwhile, our democrat regime is trying to distort our economy to be ‘green’ with horrific results. The change we should look forward to is November 5th when hopefully sanity will begin to be restored.
Judge Gleason ruled that a Cook Inlet Gas lease poses risk to the whales. Conversely rare marine life are washing ashore since wind farms have taken root in the ocean. Likewise, birds are killed. Hypocrisy..
Lands are plundered for the so-called earth-friendly wind and solar power, but mining for batteries, panels, and other components are fine — as long as it only occurs in other countries. Hypocrisy…
Billions of taxpayer funds are spent to subsidize the wind and solar projects. Yet, many of the recipients have filed bankruptcy. Orsted alone had impairments of over $4 billion.
Natural gas, hydropower, nuclear power, and other power methods of producing power make better sense.
You presented some good arguments, by the way.
John Hancock…
Absolutely spot on!
Thank you for the logical well written piece. As you put well, it’s time for people to start thinking for themselves and coming to their own conclusions.
This war on CO2 is silly. Back in the 70’s they used to tell us to talk to our plants. Why? Because you were giving them a nice blast of CO2 as you were talking to them, they do their photosynthesis and wow, low and behold the healthier they got from the extra CO2 the more oxygen they filled our rooms up with. Nice relationship we used to have with the environment around us when we appreciated it, instead of demonizing it.
Hi Bob, good to see you writing here. Unfortunately it is much easier for people to believe what they read than to do actual research. It really is amazing to me that people do not understand that the there is a warm/cold cycle that happens cyclically on this planet, and has so for millions of years. Its widely known and the research is well documented. Ahh, so we get 2 degrees warmer over a generation. It happens regularly folks. To be naive enough to think there is anything we humans have done or can do to change this huge cycle is well, just naive. I don’t think the dinosaurs got together and said they had to quit driving cars or else there would be a global catastrophe. Oddly enough it wasn’t climate change that did them in. We should be more worried about that big celestial fly swatter. 😉
You have done research on Alaska Temperature trends, it would appear. Would you care to share them in a chart? I am assuming you would be using readings from certain fixed locations over time, perhaps average temperatures at those locations? Based on this article, I would love to see a summary of your findings.
Worry more about the cloud seeding observed over the Wrangell mountains and the present cloud patterns. Check the days with very high film in the atmosphere. Watch the sky’s daily and on clear days see the seeding patterns in the upper atmosphere. Notice the more cloudy days that happen after those events. The lack of sun light days in our State is affecting the germination of all seed varieties. Who is responsible? No one will comment, buck keeps getting past from one organization to the next. # one cloud seeding country in the World is China, most likely using micro-plastics. This is where the excess plastic is coming from in our soils and water. Look up people, take pictures when you see the aircraft doing lines and circles in the sky emitting long lines of something in the upper atomosphere.
People like Robert seem to choose to ignore the geoengineering going on that is affecting our planet faster right now then cows farting or people driving gas/diesel-powered vehicles.
China is behind all the radial climate groups hollering about CO2 emissions for the last 30 years. I’ve no doubt their money trail is so obscured with funding of foundations that donate to other foundations that give grants to other foundations, and so on, that it would be impossible to trace it out.
Meanwhile they sit fat and happy in Beijing, laughing at us.
As a fellow engineer, I applaud your views on climate. Those of us old enough to be trained on a slide rule understand that the amount of man-caused CO2 isn’t significant enough (too far out of the significant figures) to affect the climate.
Something else to help explain the ‘heat domes’ and ‘atmospheric rivers’ of precipitation called out in the news. There was an undersea volcanic eruption which put gigatons of water vapor in the upper atmosphere. NASA at the time said it would cause earth warming but haven’t seen it mentioned in the media since:
‘https://www.nasa.gov/earth/tonga-eruption-blasted-unprecedented-amount-of-water-into-stratosphere/
“…I do not consider computer models, upper atmosphere physics, or other esoteric sources.”
So, you are definitely not a scientist, nor do you have an advanced degree in this subject. You are just a guy with an opinion.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And you offer no extraordinary proof. In fact, you don’t even utilize the extraordinary tools that are available to credible scientists.
What makes you think computer models are reliable? Such models are used in astronomy and they are often wrong. Why? Because we need to know what all the variables are and how they interact with each other.
On the other side of that, I would agree that upper atmospheric physics, and even outer space — including magnetic reconnections w/our sun and other objects around our planet — might have an impact on our weather or climate. I wonder if such variables, however, are included in computer models.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”
The same could be said about Global Warming.
Excellent article. Global warming has proved itself to be the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on humans. People need to wake up and realize that YOU are the carbon the globalists want to reduce.
Your comment I feel is excellent…you hit the nail on the head perfectly when you said “YOU” are the carbon the globalists want to reduce….people have got to get back to some common sense and do some old fashioned research of their own before they destroy us. All that rhetoric is just brain washing…!!!!
You are an Electrical engineer, how do you feel qualified to comment on Geological events? Plus you are old school probably 80 years old and not current in your data.
Mark;
Being old school does not have to be an impairment. The physics is still the same, the data still means what it used to and the arithmetic still works. And I studied instrumentation for oceanography, meteorology, geotechnical and lots of other things. Temperature is still temperature.
Comments are closed.