Global Warming Is Not Intuitive
wpedon id=8560

About the Author

author photo

Gary L. Clark is an author. After a thirty year career he retired to write a novel. He then joined a counselor-in-training program at the local community mental health center and worked three years as a substance abuse counselor. He retired again and has written two more novels. He recently completed the annotation of a self-help book on faith-based self-help. Two published novels (available on address social justice. Mr. Clark is the Editor of He lives in St. Joseph, Missouri.

See All Posts by This Author

Global Warming Is Not Intuitive

greenland ice cocmparisonScience is not always intuitive.  Science is often counter-intuitive.  We humans like to keep things simple.  We also like to answer the question “Why?”  Thus we look at nature and when there is no immediate, obvious, answer we, over time, have been inclined to just give God credit.  The result has been a slow response to new science, new ways of thinking, and even counter movements to punish the scientist.  Think Galileo for a moment.

As a refresher, and I do not mean to talk down to anyone, but civilization believed for a couple of thousand years that the Sun revolved around the Earth.  The theory was sound – just look up in the sky and the evidence presents itself every succeeding moment.  One can watch the Sun pass over us, settle in the west, and come back around and up in the East almost every day.  Not only does the empirical evidence speak truth to the notion of an earth centered universe, but it also fits very nicely with theological believe that humans are created in the image of God and are the highest order of life in the universe. Intuition said the Sun revolved around the Earth.  Done deal.

Fast forward 500 years after Galileo and check the science debunkers.  Specifically the science around Global Warming, or should we say Climate Change.  Yes, we must say Climate Change because people seem unable to understand Global Warming.  That is because, intuitively, one or two degrees should not be much of a problem.  After all, doesn’t our seasonal weather in North America vary by as much as sixty or seventy degrees between winter and summer?  What could a degree or two hurt?  That is the problem of mistaking weather for climate – they are not the same

antarctic ice meltScientist point out the melting Ice Cap in Antarctica, the melting of glaziers in Greenland, the snow pack melting off the Himalayas, warmer oceans generating stronger storms, rising sea levels, and on and on…

New observation by none other than NASA suggest that there is presently more ice in Antarctic than in past years.  The intuitive thought might well be, “They you go.  More Ice, less Global Warming.”  That clearly makes sense. Not so fast bobaluiy, when assessing scientific data we have to play the tape through to the end.

Intuitively one might reasonable say, more ice, colder temperatures.  But if we play the tame through we find that there is more sea ice, but less volume of land ice.  What does this mean.  As the ice melts some evaporates.  Warmer oceans create more evaporation.  Thus there is more precipitation in the air, and thus more sea ice.

Intuition says warmer temperatures should produce drier climate.  But as noted in the previous paragraph, higher ocean temperatures cause more evaporation and more precipitation.  The rising of warm air is the cause of thunderstorms, always has been, always will be.  If the air is warmed by on one degree the thunderstorms will intensify.

We at thefiresidepost encourage vigorous debate.  We also encourage the use of logic.  We encourage following a thought through to the end.



Comments are closed.