In this case, the Huffington Post’s Katherine Boeher doesn’t use the un-scientific phrase “climate change”, but the old and bust “global warming”
What Do Global Warming And Sweaters Have In Common? This Climate Scientist Explains.
Climate scientist Adam Levy got sick of hearing all the usual arguments against the existence of climate change, so he decided to fight back with a clever and easy to understand YouTube channel.
His latest video explains global warming using a sweater analogy. “We’ve known for over a hundred years that the carbon dioxide that exists naturally in the earth’s atmosphere helps trap heat to keep the world warm, just like a sweater in winter.” By adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, Levy explains, we’re adding more hot clothes.
“When a sweater’s making you hot, you can just take it off,” Levy says. “Unfortunately for us, carbon dioxide doesn’t work like that. Once it’s in the atmosphere, it sticks around for hundreds of years, so if you want to stop the world getting warmer, we need to stop too much carbon dioxide getting in to the atmosphere in the first place.”
Of course, a big difference is that wearing a sweater can increase your feeling of warmth by many degrees. The Earth’s global temperature has only gone up a miniscule 1.4F since 1850. And, despite the bleating by Warmists, there really has been no statistically significant warming over the last 18+ years, in complete contradiction to the majority of their computer models.
Interestingly, making the video and having people watch it uses quite a bit of energy which creates CO2, meaning that Levy, Google, and the Huffington Post are Part Of The Problem, according to their Warmist religious tenants.
Speaking of computer models, The Hockey Schtick points to a comment by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. at Dr. Judith Curry’s site
This is a remarkable statement
“the warming of the upper ocean predicted by these models did not agree with observations; particularly in the southern hemisphere.They inferred from this that upper ocean warming rates in the southern hemisphere have been underestimated – that it was the previous observations that were inaccurate and that the models were correct.â€Â
When observations and models disagree, to accept the model is an inversion of the scientific process! This is a systemic problem with these studies.
That’s right, Warmists actually think that computer models are more important that real world observational data.
