The Same Old Minnesota Winter

My last utterance on this site regarding so-called climate change was quite a while ago.  Having perused that post, my opinions haven't changed.  I stand by everything I wrote at that time.  Interestingly, that post was inspired by an article written by local meteorologist Paul Douglas who made several of what I considered to be unfounded statements about drastic climate changes.  Well, another article has come to bear this week, entitled "The New Minnesota Winter?" citing Douglas as its main source, which has similarly raised questions in my mind, both stemming from what he said in the article, and also from new information I've learned in my layman's study of climate science.  By all accounts, Paul Douglas is a wonderful, conservative Christian man, and I have no desire to berate him or be uncharitable to his opinions.  Nevertheless, I have several thoughts and questions based on his most recent submission to the climate change conversation.

Before I get into my questions (and statements) about climate change, I want to state a couple things about where I'm coming from: 1) I am not a climate scientist, nor do I pretend to fully grasp the mechanics and workings of climate science.  The conclusions I draw here could very well be based on ignorance.  If you think so, please correct me or show me how I have erred.  I would welcome dialogue.  2) I completely and unequivocally reject the label of "climate-denier" or any other such title that asserts that I reject climate science out of pure ignorance, or because I have some sort of stock in the lack of a belief in climate change.  I hold no stock or interest in any energy companies that would be negatively impacted by new policy set forth in order to protect the planet.  Nor do I have any political reasons to doubt climate change theory.  My doubts about climate change theory are, as far as I can tell, based on the evidence (or lack thereof).  In fact, I would challenge those who say "the science is clear" when it comes to climate change theory to consider the potential need for a bit more self-awareness about how they evaluate and interpret scientific data.  Can we at least agree that the science is, in fact, not clear, and that we can have a dialogue about this?  I hope so.  If we can't agree on that, then there can be no dialogue.  There can be no tolerance (yes, I use that word intentionally).

One of the things I have learned about climate science - actually it's not so much new information to me, but rather that I have learned more about it - is that there are different types of climate data that inform climate change theory.  These different types of data, however, do not necessarily agree.  For instance, there is surface temperature data, satellite data, ice core data, polar ice cap data, and so on, with several more types of data of which I'm not even aware.  The point is that these different types of data each present unique pictures of climate change and how it is allegedly affecting our planet.  The difficulty is that these different types of data are difficult - if not impossible - to synthesize.  That is, they don't work together very well.  To make matters more confusing, many climate change theorists assert that only one type of data does not tell the entire climate change story.  For instance, climate change theory cannot stand on surface temperature data alone, as surface temperature data does not necessarily support climate change theory - it must be synthesized with another type of climate data.  One of my questions, then, is as follows: how do we know which climate data supports climate change theory and which does not?  How do we know which sets of data are appropriate to synthesize and which are not?  Is it possible for one set of data to "cancel out" another set of data?  Why, or why not? (For instance, does the fact that polar ice has been increasing work as evidence against supposed increases in global surface temperatures?)  These are genuine questions that I have, and they potentially expose my ignorance in how climate science "works."  If someone could help me figure out these apparent contradictions in my own analysis of the data, I would appreciate it.

One example of this difficulty in interpreting data that supposedly supports climate change theory was demonstrated recently in Leonard DiCaprio's Oscar-acceptance speech.  In it, DiCaprio cites surface temperature data as to why climate change is an imminent global threat.  But, a careful analysis of the data he cites seems to indicate that no such threat exists - at least based on that data, and when considered in light of other types of climate data (such as satellite data, in this instance).  For a moderately thorough analysis of DiCaprio's claims with links to data, read this article.  So the question is, who is right?  DiCaprio's interpretation of and conclusion from surface temperature data, or the author's interpretation of satellite data?  How are the two types of data synthesized?  I genuinely would like to know.

Paul Douglas makes similar claims, citing similar evidence, and I honestly just don't see how the evidence he uses can be interpreted in such a way as to make these claims.  In the article, Douglas comments that the winter season Minnesota has had in 2015-16 (which has been unseasonably warm and lacking in snow) is, perhaps, the new norm for Minnesota winters.  In other words, Douglas asserts that a warm winter like we've just experienced, will be the norm from now on.  In order to back this claim, Douglas cites surface temperature data, particularly that Minnesota averages 23 sub-zero nights per winter, but this winter has only seen 10 sub-zero nights.  Douglas further asserts that average Twin Cities snowfall is around 54 inches, whereas this winter's snowfall has only been around 30 inches.  On March 8, 2014, there was 16 inches of snow on the ground, whereas on March 8, 2016, people were wearing shorts and flip-flops.  These shorter, warmer winters will become the new norm, Douglas says.  We'll still have the cold snowy winters of old, but they will be much fewer and farther between.  Douglas says, "It's not a theory, you don't have to like it, but can we acknowledge it's not your grandfather's weather?"

No.  I can't.  And the reason I can't is that the evidence Douglas cites does not seem to (to me, at least) at all support his conclusion.  In fact, if anything, Twin Cities surface temperature data seems to overwhelmingly support the notion that this weather is exactly identical to my "grandfather's weather."

The Minnesota DNR's website has surface temperature data records that go back to 1872, and snowfall data that goes back to 1884.  Just skim the data from both pages and try to form an argument that the winter of 2016 is a statistical aberration.  As far as I can see, it can't be done.  Here are just a few examples that jumped out to me, but a more in depth analysis of the data shows that these examples are the norm, rather than the exception.  For example, the snowfall totals for the years 1887-1893 were: 62.3, 47.2, 14.7, 37.0, 11.1, 32.7, and 59.1 inches, respectively.   (Note that this is during an age when all of the alleged causes of climate change didn't even exist, such as automobiles).  Look at those totals over seven years - that's amazing!  Can you imagine a winter in Minnesnowta with only 11 inches of snow?!  Were the Minnesotans in 1890 predicting a "new norm" for Minnesota winters based on that data?  Certainly not.  Then, why are we?

Want some more-recent evidence?  Here are the snowfall totals from 2011-2015: 86.6, 22.3, 67.7, 69.8, and 32.4 inches, respectively.  And if all continues as it probably will in 2016, we'll probably end up with 30-34 inches.  From what I can tell, this warm, snowless Minnesota winter of 2016 is a lot like my grandfather's winter.

And if you're thinking that I picked the one aberration in the data to support my theory, think again, and analyze the data for yourself.  You'll find aberrations like this throughout the whole time that surface temperature data has been recorded.  And you'll find similar aberrations in temperature data - not just in snowfall totals.  Based on these patterns, why should we conclude that the supposed warming pattern we find ourselves in right now is any different than warming patterns of 100 years ago?  I would love to have a conversation about this with someone in the know.

Some will certainly argue in response to my claims that my view is too narrow - that I shouldn't be making assertions based on one type of evidence (surface temperature data), in such a small sample area (the state of Minnesota).  OK.  I'll agree with that.  But then somebody needs to tell Paul Douglas to play by those same rules.  If I can't make conclusions about climate change using one data source from a small sample area, then neither can he.  The problem is that those rules and limitations don't apply to those who would advocate for climate change theory - they only seem to apply to those of us who haven't drunk this particular batch of kool aid.  Why is that?  Again, this is a genuine question, and I would love to hear a response.

So there it is, at least in part: based on the way the evidence is interpreted and reported by the media, I just don't see how it proves climate change theory.  To be sure, what I've touched on here is only part of the story, but I think my observations here apply to other types of data that supposedly support climate change theory.

One of the points I made in a previous post on climate change is that it is impossible to interpret data and analyze evidence in a vacuum.  That is, none of us looks at data completely objectively - we are always being influenced by outside factors that color our interpretation of data.  To deny this reality is to be intellectually dishonest, and I think that's also a part of the friction that is caused by this debate. So then, has this been a warm and snowless winter?  Sure.  Is it due to climate change?  Well, based on the evidence that Paul Douglas likes to cite, no more so than it was in 1968 when we had similarly high temperatures and only half the snow (17.5 inches!) we had this year.

Finally, let me reiterate my desire for an open dialogue on this issue.  As I've noted earlier, I am hardly the last word on this topic, nor am I particularly qualified to be commenting on it, as there are many ways in which my analysis could be off, most of which I'm probably not even aware.  I am very open to correction and would welcome interaction, either in the comments or by email.

Why I Won't Drink the Climate Change Kool Aid

As I write this, my state sits in the clutches of its third unseasonal April snow storm.  At the same time, it is also Earth Day across the country.  These two factors seemed to be enough to motivate me to write a post about my thoughts about global warming, climate change, or whatever they're calling it these days.  I've written on the topic before, but this will probably be my most thorough explanation of why I just don't buy the hype.

As I reflect on it, I find that the reasons I don't believe that we're doomed to destroy the planet fall into two basic categories: theological reasons, and what I'll call "natural" reasons (more on that in a minute), or basically, some problems I have with the way the science behind the climate change debate is conducted.  But first, two basic theological reasons that I don't buy the climate change theory that I'll discuss very briefly:

1. The earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.  In other words, God owns this place, so he gets to say what happens and doesn't happen.

2. Mankind cannot destroy anything without God's permission to do so.  The idea that human beings could thwart God's plan for the earth is the height of arrogance.  If you wanted to say that God is allowing human beings to destroy the earth, then we can start to have a conversation, but I think that conversation ends pretty quickly (see below).  Some theologians, like Tim Challies, don't buy the climate change theory, but argue that human beings have nonetheless failed in their duty to responsibly take dominion of the earth.  I don't necessarily agree, but at least we have a place to start.

Now onto some of my "natural" reasons.  It should be noted that I am willing to be corrected on any of my conclusions listed below.  I am certainly no scientist, but I think I have at least a knowledge of how science works, and this is where most of my doubts about climate change come on the scene.  If I am wrong about my thinking on the points below, please feel free to contact me.  I'm sure there are many who might charge me with oversimplifying the situation or making unfair generalizations or misunderstanding the way climate science works.  That may be, and I'm open to correction.  So here they are:

1. All predictions of environmental doomsday scenarios have failed to come to pass.  So many people have been declaring the end of the earth due to man-made climate change for the past 40 years, and have been subsequently wrong, that I don't think it's unreasonable to place as much credence in their prognostications as I would in Harold Camping saying the world was going to come to an end in May of 2012.

2. The sample size is too small.  Human beings have only been studying weather patterns for about 130 years.  In other words, we've only been conducting scientific experiments on the earth and on weather patterns for a comparatively very short period of time.  If we go with the generally accepted supposed age of the earth as being 4.54 billion years old (which I don't, but I'll use that number for the sake of this argument), then that means we have been observing the earth and weather patterns for only 0.000000028% of earth's history.  Do we really think that that sample size is large enough to make solid conclusions?  How in the world do we know that the patterns we are observing today are extraordinary?  We don't.  We can't.  So then, to make up for this little glitch, climate scientists speculate on what they believe weather patterns, average temperatures, and ice core depths of the past were like.  But how can they do that with any certainty?  I understand how they can hypothesize on what trends of the past were like, but this is not hard science.  It is theoretical at best.  It's based on what I'll call "historical science" that just can't be proven.  In a sense, it seems as though the scientific method has gone by the wayside.  

When I was a kid, one of the major subjects of discussion in all of my elementary science classes was that there was a hole in the ozone layer that was going to allow the sun to seep in and fry us all.  Well, that never happened.  And come to think of it, when's the last time you heard anyone talk about a hole in the ozone layer?  I think it was some time around sixth grade.  Why don't we talk about it anymore?  Could it be the science that precipitated the hole-in-the-ozone doomsday scenarios was flawed?  We better make sure we know what we're talking about if we go around telling people the sky is falling (pun intended).  And before the hole-in-the-ozone hysteria, there were warnings about the coming ice age.  Did I miss it?  Why didn't that happen?  And who is going to apologize for working us up into a frenzy over what science had so clearly (cough) predicted?

In more recent years the acceptable term has been "global warming."  But now that term has been put on the shelf in favor of "climate change," because now science doesn't support a warming, but a "change" (note how the word "change" is vague enough to encompass any anomaly - more on that below).  We got all worked up about global warming, but apparently that's off the table now.

3. All evidence is analyzed with a bias.  No matter what a person is studying, he or she brings to the table a certain set of presuppositions and preunderstandings.  This is true of any kind of science.  We are all influenced in certain ways that color the way we see evidence and data.  In my experience, this is  especially true of climate science, if for no other reason than the incredible external pressures climate scientists have placed on them.  Therefore, I find their analyzation of evidence and subsequent conclusions to be at least somewhat suspect.

4. All evidence is analyzed with a political agenda.  I am wary of scientific conclusions produced by men and women whose means of making a living for themselves is dependent upon their findings supporting a certain conclusion.  Peoples' jobs and political careers depend on having climate studies turn out a certain way.  Can someone really be objective under such circumstances?  I have no evidence of how often this occurs, but I know that it does occur.  And just the reality that this happens on even an irregular basis should be cause for concern about the validity of the findings of climate change science.  To top it off, the media puts a spin on the findings that will bend them even more toward their own political agenda.  Who can we trust?  I don't know for sure, but I think it's wise to take climate change reports with a healthy dose of skepticism.

5. All evidence supports the climate change theory.  It's interesting to me that no matter what the whether is like, you can find someone who bangs the climate change drum saying that such weather is proof of man-made climate change.  That's what Paul Douglas does in this article, one of the goofiest ones I've read on the topic.  It was written during the heat wave of the spring of 2012.  In it, Douglas says this: "It's 85 in March.  What will July bring?  It's as if Mother Nature seized the weather remote, clicked America's seasons on fast-foward, turning the volume on extreme weather up to a deafening 10.  This isn't even close to being 'normal.'"  Well, Mr. Douglas, if memory serves, July of last year was decidedly within the limits of normalcy.  It was not the apocalypse you thought it would be.  And what about this year?  It's the evening of April 22 as I write this and we're expecting 5-9 inches of snow overnight.  How do you explain that, considering that one year ago it was the exact opposite?  Or how do you explain the winter of 2011 which was exceedingly average?

The way I see Douglas and other climate change theorists explaining it is quite simple: all evidence points to climate change.  Why is it so hot?  Climate change.  Why is it so cold?  Climate change.  Why is it snowing so much?  Climate change.  Why have there been so many tornadoes recently?  Climate change.  Why is there a drought?  Climate change.  Why are we having this seasonably average weather?  Climate change.  Why is it that when we have seasonably average weather, no one uses that as evidence against climate change?  Climate change is a position that is seemingly supported by all evidence, which again, makes me suspicious.  The use of all evidence - regardless of how it seems to support or disprove the hypothesis - seems incredibly dishonest to me.

6. Climate change is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  What I mean by that is this: if the doomsday scenarios do come to pass, climate change proponents can wave their finger in our faces and say, "Told ya so."  but, if those scenarios do not come to pass, "evidence" will either be put forth to support a different scenario, or climate change proponents will pat themselves on the back and congratulate themselves for saving the world with their dire warnings.  They can't lose.  Either way, they win.  If the world ends, they were right.  If the world keeps spinning, they were the heroes that inspired us all to change our ways (even though there is no evidence of such a thing).  Ironically enough, this seems to me like a very unscientific place to find oneself, especially when one is constantly trumpeting the virtues of science.

So there you have it.

Green Parking Spots

I haven't blogged in a long time. At first I was extremely busy with finishing up the spring semester for seminary. Then as soon as that ended, my work schedule picked up significantly. Add to the mix that my wife and I are expecting baby number 2 in about a month, and I'm a busy guy. Hence the shortage of posts. But even with all of that, I couldn't pass this up.

I was just over on Facebook and noticed that the seminary I attend had posted photos of the new campus construction. The seminary has been building a new building since selling their existing property to the local hospital. Every month or so they post pictures of how the construction of the new building is coming. As I was perusing through the newest batch of photos, I saw this:


The caption for the photo reads: "Since going green, the seminary will also offer great parking spots to those who drive hybrid vehicles." I don't know if I've ever seen anything so asinine. First of all, I find it completely ridiculous (and foolish and ignorant) that the seminary has "gone green," and even more preposterous that the seminary is offering premier parking spots for those who drive hybrids. I really don't know what else to say. I'm kind of ashamed. To think that those who drive hybrid vehicles somehow deserve a better parking spot because of their "green-consciousness" is absolutely ludicrous. I literally don't know what else to say.

That's it. Back to work.

I'm Going To Vote Against The Earth

I just heard about this new initiative called "Earth Hour" that's taking place on March 28 from 8:30 - 9:30 PM, local time. During this hour, everyone on the planet is encouraged to shut off all their lights. Apparently 84 countries, more than 2,000 cities and towns, and more than 20,000 business are taking part in Earth Hour, including the great pyramids, the Eifel Tower, Notre Dame, and several other well known cities and buildings around the globe.

When I first heard about Earth Hour, my initial response was that anyone who thinks that turning their lights off for an hour will actually help the earth is insane and lacks any sufficient brain power. It would be akin to saying that me taking my foot off the gas pedal and coasting for five seconds is helping the environment. It just isn't going to make a notable (any, actually) difference in the climate/global warming/environment.

It turns out, though, that the intention isn't to help the climate - it's more like an election - turning out your lights is a vote for the earth. According to the earth hour website, "Earth Hour has been transformed into the world’s first global election, between Earth and global warming. For the first time in history, people of all ages, nationalities, race and background have the opportunity to use their light switch as their vote – Switching off your lights is a vote for Earth, or leaving them on is a vote for global warming."

Considering how I feel about this issue, "Global Warming" can count on my vote.

The Green Bible

Much to my disgust, I stumbled upon the Green Bible over at CBD. Before I go any further, let me clarify that I don't have a problem with the word of God - my issue comes with the ideology that insists that global warming / climate change / environmentalism is of the utmost importance, and then to tack that ideology onto a BIble is, in my opinion, disgusting and maybe even blasphemous.

CBD's product description of the Green Bible is as follows:

The Green Bible equips and encourages you to see God's vision for creation and helps you engage in the work of healing and sustaining it. With over 1,000 references to the earth in the Bible, compared to 490 references to heaven and 530 references to love, the Bible carries a powerful message for the earth. This Green-Letter edition of the Bible highlights scriptures in green ink that teach about God's care for creation and how God interacts with creation, in an effort to bring greater awareness to how this message is woven throughout the Old and New Testaments. Essays from leading conservationists and theologians on how to read the Bible through a "green lens" as well as a green topical index and Green Bible Trail Guide for personal study will be paired with teachings throughout the ages to show people how caring for God's creation is not only a calling, but a lifestyle.

I find it amusing that the reasoning put forth for the publication of the Green Bible is that the Bible talks about the earth so often. The description states, "With over 1,000 references to the earth in the Bible, compared to 490 references to heaven and 530 references to love, the Bible carries a powerful message for the earth," as if to imply that because the earth is mentioned so frequently in scripture, it trumps those other issues like heaven and love. Did you know that Jesus talked more about money than he did about heaven and hell combined? Should we likewise then start printing the "Money Bible?"

I also find the fact that specific "earth verses" are printed in green lettering absolutely ludicrous and shameful. I've talked before about my issues with global warming / environmentalism so I won't rehash that, but from the beginning of this whole "Christian Environmentalism" movement that has become so trendy the past few years, my main objection has been twofold: 1) if God is sovereign over the earth, are we really so arrogant as to assume that he would let it be destroyed by man's doing? and 2) wouldn't it be wiser (and more productive - see number 1) to put our time and energy as Christians into saving souls, rather than the earth (a mandate which is NOT given in scripture, mind you)? It literally angers me that Christians would expend so much energy in earth care while countless millions are on their way into eternity. Perhaps it would be more productive to read through the Bible and highlight all of the verses that describe the fate of the lost, and also the verses that command us to preach the gospel to them. According to the description of the Green Bible, "...caring for God's creation is not only a calling, but a lifestyle." What then, is the rest of the Christian life? Are we to elevate earth care above evangelism? Above preaching? Above fellowship? Above doctrine and theology (which, in my opinion, the Green Bible does because the premise that created it rejects the notion of God's sovereignty over creation).

Also, the encouragement is made to read scripture through "green lenses." Let me assure you: if you read scripture through "green lenses," you are completely missing the point of scripture.

One good way to filter out all of the new, trendy Bibles that come out these days is to ask ourselves how these renditions of scripture would play out in persecuted nations. Think about this for a minute: would a persecuted Christian want to read this Bible and take note of the "green verses?" Or maybe an even more pointed question: does a persecuted Christian care about earth care, or is he or she only concerned about truth and the gospel, because that is what their very lives depend on? It's shameful to think that we have reduced God's word and the glorious truth of his gospel to helpful steps for taking care of the planet.

Polar Bear Update

During my research for this post, I came across this article from The Eco Inquirer and thought you might enjoy it.

POLAR BEARS "DROPPING LIKE FLIES" FROM HEAT EXHAUSTION

(Cold Bay, Alaska) Warming temperatures in polar regions are causing an increasing number of polar bears to collapse from heat exhaustion, local hunters report.

Jeremiah Johnson, a local hunter who tracks and kills polar bears "because they are there" has seen three of the behemoths collapse before him in just the last month. "It just isn't sporting to shoot one of these creatures when they are suffering like this", Johnson said as he recounted his attempts to revive a bear he was ready to shoot.

Local TV meteorologist Sky McCloud explained, "Average annual temperatures in the area have risen from 20 degrees below zero to 15 below zero in the last 30 years, and these giant creatures simply can not withstand the excess heat."

Bear researchers concur with McCloud. Dr. Phillip Slander, of the University of Alaska's Wildlife Health and Comfort Department, said "People don't realize how much heat stress these temperatures put on polar bears. The bears are increasingly being seen taking dips in the ocean in their attempts to cool off."

Researchers believe that it is only a matter of time before polar bears are pushed to the brink of extinction. "Ten degrees below zero seems to be the generally agreed tipping point", said McCloud. "Once average temperatures reach this level for several days in a row, the bears start dropping like flies."

Dr. Slander recounted a recent incident in which a polar bear attacked a local homeless man, and had devoured only a small part of the man's body before collapsing from exhaustion. "Because of global warming, the bears' normal way of life is changing rapidly..it's tragic."

More Reasons To Trust God With Our (His) Planet

Did you hear about this? It's a report that says that arctic ice levels have returned to the same point they were at in 1979. That's 30 years ago, folks. Looks like we're actually not as bad off as the global warming freaks want us to think we are.

The story goes on to say that the ice re-froze in about the past seven months. That's an incredibly quick rate of freeze - in fact, it's extremely improbable, if not impossible, according to what scientists "know" about these sort of things. Lesson learned: we don't "know" too much about how the earth works, let alone the kind of effects that mankind has on it.

I also appreciated the last line of the article: "In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing." Well, I think we can take the polar bears off the threatened species list now that their habitat is as large as it's been in the last 30 years (not to mention the fact that scientists say the polar bear population is INCREASING - seriously, where do people get off with doing this crap?).

For example, take a look at the L.A. Times' original story that declared the polar bear as a threatened species: "The animal, whose habitat has been shrinking with the melting of Arctic sea ice, is the first to be designated as threatened with extinction mainly because of global warming." There are at least three things about that sentence that are not true: 1) the polar bear's habitat is not shrinking; 2) polar bears are not threatened with extinction; and 3) global warming has nothing to do with shrinking sea ice or the polar bear population.

If nothing else, this article shows us that a lot of global warming / greenhouse effect / climate change people are just a bunch of knee-jerk reactionists (except the interesting thing is that it turns out there was nothing really to jerk their knees or react over).

If anything, this story just gives us even more reason to be good stewards of our resources, and trust God to take care of HIS creation.