Flaws in the Global Warming world

It’s time to return to some of the major problems in the global warming arguments—that humans are “polluting the planet” with “carbon” emissions.

First, it’s not carbon, it’s carbon DIOXIDE. To call it carbon is very, very indicative of someone who does not know science. Only a non-scientist would refer to CO2 as C (which is actually several isotopes of Carbon, C12, C13 and C14). That is the first clue that the person speaking is merely parroting what they have been told and do not really understand the science at all. One suspects they could be convinced O2 is a pollutant if enough scientifically sounding pronouncement were made on it. There would be a call to not add any O2 to the air. People with O2 machines would have them confiscated. In reality, CO2 is only called a pollutant if it can be used to limit some kind of activity the greens don’t like—say burning fossil fuels, raising cattle, making concrete. It’s fine if you’re flying to a conference on global warming—it’s only bad CO2 if it’s not used to save the planet from CO2.

Second, anyone who claims to believe in Darwin and natural selection and evolution should be laughing at the insanity of the claim of global warming. In order for global warming to be true, humans have to be mightier than nature. We must be Godlike in our current status. Or, more probably, we must be aliens to this planet. Otherwise, all that we do would be part of evolution and nature. How can a creature that evolved on the planet be destroying “nature”. The creature IS nature. Can we blame elephants for knocking over trees and trying to cause global warming with deforestation? Why not? The elephant doesn’t know what it’s doing? Maybe it does. Maybe it’s trying to remove the parasite called “humans” from the planet. If humans are a parasite, they’re a naturally evolved one, so trying to remove them means claiming evolution was “wrong” in making them. This all leads to simply ludicrous proclamation about how nature evolves and somehow one of the things it caused to evolve is not part of that nature now and must be eradicated via suicide.

Third—it’s getting warmer. No, the calculated global average temperature is going up. What does that mean? It means that the weighted, gridded, adjusted and estimated numbers taken from various methods of temperature measurement are increasing as shown by the trend line. What does this mean in the real world? No one has a clue. There’s nothing that can possibly tell anyone anywhere what a weighted, gridded , adjusted and estimated average of temperature measures over the globe mean. It is a wild guess that it means things will get ugly. It’s already been shown repeatedly that it does not mean warming everywhere, that children will know what snow is, that the ocean is not swallowing up New York (thought it certainly could swallow up places where people foolishly built right on the shore of the ocean. Living right up against the ocean has resulted in lost societies and it will again. Let’s not forget the ocean has risen and receded before in history. People can move. The idea that people cannot move is just silly. They don’t want to, but nature does care what people want. Get over it.), there are actually fewer tornadoes and hurricanes, etc. There’s more news coverage and more wailing and gnashing of teeth, but things are basically as they have always been.

Fourth, correlation is not causality. The earth getting warmer at the same time we are burning oil and gas does not indicate oil and gas are the cause. There is a phenomena called the greenhouse effect involving CO2 and re-radiating of energy. It’s very easy demonstrated in a lab setting. Now, take the CO2 out of the lab, put it in a box with unknown factors and get back to me on how accurate your predictions are. Better yet, let me create the boxes with currents, varying landscapes, varying winds, varying clouds, varying albedo, etc and you let me know how that “simple” physics works out. CO2 raises temperature in a lab box and in the atmosphere, but in the atmosphere, there is no way possible to know how much. This is seen in the inability of modelers to calculate cloud cover, etc, with any realistic resolution, the continual recalculating of how much warming there is, how much ice there is, etc. We simply do NOT know what is causing the warming. There is a good chance there are multiple factors and it will be decades, if not centuries, if ever, that we understand enough of the system to predict outcomes. Then, we’re faced with the “just because we can measure it doesn’t mean we can control it” reality.

Fifth, global warming is said to be causing everything, even logically contradictory things, like rain in one place, drought in another. Global warming believers say that’s because those things are local. Yes, they are. However, if you cannot accurately predict changes locally, global, to be blunt, is irrelevant. It in no way gives us any idea of how to prepare for changes which at one time was the goal, before stopping the warming meant income redistribution and a return to pre-industrial lifestyles. Of course, warmists will say nobody in their camp says that but every single idea outside of the money redistribution, involves 19th century technology like wind and solar stretched beyond breaking with the claim it can power today’s society. No. Never. No way. It cannot. It’s physics. Wind and solar lack a continual fuels supply and their energy density is comparable to using a match to light a football stadium. That leaves living 1800’s style. There are no other options.

Nuclear is the only “low-carbon” energy source that could effectively reduce CO2 and the environmentalists have made it a giant boogeyman to be feared more than starvation, freezing or death by some very ugly diseases. We’re right back to pre-industrial, no matter how loudly the warmist doth protest. The smoke and mirrors have cleared and the truth shines through.

80946-R1-18-19A_019

Say that again, really fast, and maybe it will make sense…..Nah.

Advertisements

Odds’n’Ends

A comment made on a blog got me thinking—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it looks precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperatures and current weather and climate. The weather remains the same—hot sometimes, cold sometimes.  Nothing really changes.  If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?

 

Adélie penguins have roamed across Antarctica for millions of years. However, climate change has finally reached a ‘tipping point’ that could decimate their numbers, researchers have warned.   Daily Mail

If they have roamed the Antarctic for millions of years, how could humans, in less than 200 years, change the climate enough to destroy them?  In those millions of years, the ice NEVER increased or decreased?  No way.  Since we have no actual records of the events, the scientists can make up whatever they want, but logic says there is no way things stayed static the entire “millions” of years the penquins were there.  Nothing says the penquins now are the same as in the past, unless Darwin was wrong and evolution does not really occur.  There’s a habit of scientists calling things they want “stable” and anything inconvenient “unstable” with no rationale whatsoever.  This entire idea defies logic and reason.

 

Hansen acknowledged there may be flaws in the weather station data. “But that doesn’t mean you give up on the science, and that you can’t draw valid conclusions about the nature of Earth’s temperature change,” he asserted.
NOAA

So it’s okay to have bad data and still draw a conclusion?  In what alternate reality is that true?

 

Hikers aren’t permitted around there because towers are DANGEROUS TO PEOPLE, especially if you don’t know what you’re doing. High altitude icing on blades can crush a car once it’s ejected off a blade, let alone a human. High voltage switch gears will fry an individual. And then there’s always the worry of copper strippers, not a few of which have cut locks and torn apart towers, and not a few of which have fried themselves trying to cut energized equipment.

(from what appeared to be a pro-wind commenter on a blog)

This does not sound environmentally friendly to me.  Seems wind turbines are dangerous.  Multiple use around the turbines is a fantasy, if this comment is correct.  One wonders why this is not widely broadcast by the wind industry……Also, the dangers listed to people would also apply to wildlife in the area.  Not benign, by any stretch.

Snow jobs

Two snow jobs for the week:

The “Gore effect” strikes again. Last week, Gore had to drive into Harvard due to a heavy spring snow storm on the East Coast cancelling flights. He could make a lot more money and actually perform a valuable service as “Al the Snowmaker”. Need more snow? Invite Al and you’re sure to get some! Anyway, it’s as scientific as global warming and at least serves a truly useful purpose.

RICO and global warming questioners:

The use of the RICO act against global warming questioners is an admission that the global warming is not a persuasive argument and that it can only be sold by force. This is also an admission that it is not science. Science is sold by reason and facts, not lawsuits. Admittedly, this probably started with teaching evolution and lawsuits about that. People run to court when their case is very, very weak and they hope to con a judge or jury into feeling sorry for them and ruling against the stronger argument. Sadly, that can be a “winning” strategy, in the same way dropping a nuclear weapon can end a neighborhood dispute. It’s completely inappropriate, underhanded and an admission of lying or deception on the part of the one bringing the RICO act. It’s winning at any cost.  IF we had a scientifically literate society and not a bunch of sheep bleating their allegience to whomever is the scariest and meanest and nastiest person around, this would not happen. But humans tend to be sheep and are lead to the slaughter over and over, with merely a word or a gesture. No force needed. Just don’t tell me you “care” about the planet and your kid’s future. If you did, you wouldn’t be obediently walking into the slaughter pen. (Note: People are not pigs—pigs fight back. Calling men and policemen pigs is actually a very high complement.)

The use of the RICO act is also proof that the goal here is not to stop the companies and groups from existing, but rather to tax them just as was done with cigarettes. In spite of cigarettes being “a horribly dangerous product”, it was never outlawed. The government continues to allow the sale of a killer product to the public. Hollywood continues to portray smoking as acceptable. It was never about harm, but rather about money. No one wants to shut down global warming questioners, they want to tax the daylights out them. If these groups turn over their donor lists, the government can punitively tax the donors (except the ones that give to the Democratic Party, of course) and increase revenue. The organization itself is not the target—the donors and corporations are. As for silencing global warming critics, the vast majority work for free or donations from readers, so there’s nothing to tax there. The government is just hoping the saber rattling will scare critics into hiding or make them irrelevent.

This may be a poor time to try this—oil and gas are laying off and shutting down along with coal. The government has effectively strangled the golden goose for now. Trying to squeeze a few more eggs out is a futile effort. However, since there is NO alternative to oil and gas (try building a turbine from scratch with NO oil or gas or coal), there’s a chance some income can be had. Enough to keep the government going until the next target can be acquired.

“Nearly 150 academics have signed on to the cause, including George Woodwell, founder and director emeritus of Woods Hole Research Center; James Powell, former president of the science museums of Los Angeles and of the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia; and some prominent climate researchers, like James Hansen of NASA, Michael Mann of Penn State University, and Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (From cityjournal.org   April 6, 2016)

If ever there was list of RICO type behaviours, there it is. So-called “independent” scientists who receive millions, if not billions, from the government to continue the global warming mantra at all costs, including possible data manipulation (interesting that the past cools, the present warms and that just happens to be the way these folks want the data to go). Talk about incentive to keep up the tale and do everything possible to silence those who see your gravy train for what it is. Oil and gas should be so lucky as to have an endless government blank check.
______________________

DSCN5528

The Gore Effect

Pretty Colors

Remember when people basically laughed at the primitive notions of gods controlling the weather and other such pseudoscience? Well, the primitive nature gods are back, except this time they have scientifically sounding names like CO2. CO2 is a god that can wipe out Tibetan plateaus (which in the primitive past would have been caused by a god of another name), cause more extreme weather sometime in the future (the CO2 god is not very cooperative about giving dates—too many problems with false information carelessly put out there by followers that made the god look foolish), cause hot weather, cold weather, drought, blizzards and all manor of weather of chaos. Some question the god CO2, asking how can warming of the planet, brought about by the great god CO2, can cause blizzards? Blasphemy!!! You uneducated heathens. HOW DARE YOU? The god of CO2 will dump FEET of snow on you. Should you also have the audacity to question any of the teachings of the god, you will be called Deniers and Heretics and jailed if the followers have their ways. In the old days, people sacrificed virgins, but those are very tough to come by now, so jailing is the proper action.

If you have any doubt, check out:
Michael Mann was convinced of global warming by COLOR maps. NOT DATA—pretty colored maps. It works well with all toddlers, you know. Color something red and it’s hot, blue and it’s cold. Works even for stoves, if you color them blue, the toddler will touch the stove even if he is told it’s hot.  Blue means cold.  Here we have a supposed scientist witha PhD (those are certainly worthless nowadays) who suddenly saw a pretty map and freaked out. As we have long suspected, THERE WAS NO SCIENCE.
This brings up a good point—all maps in science should be done in GRAYSCALE. No published maps in anything but grayscale and the media should be forbidden from using color maps. All color maps should be referred to as “propaganda tools” and children should be taught to mock and laugh at the maps and graphs. Colors are for toddlers, not grownups. Even if an entire branch of so-called science is based on a toddler looking at a colored map.  Perhaps if we had grown-ups in climate science activists and peddlers…..Sorry, activists and peddlers are rarely grown-up and ALWAYS rely on deception to sell their point.  What was I thinking…..

From The Sydney Morning Herald: Age, gender, race? Climate scepticism is predominantly party political

This shows fairly definitively that climate change is not about science, but rather politics. Why? Try to think of another scientific idea where politics matters. There is, of course, nutritional science, which involves the government telling people what to eat—politics, not science. How about the existence of the Higgs boson? Is that a Democrat versus Republican thing? The speed of light? How gravity works? None of these are influenced by politics. Why? Because no political gain can be obtained by altering or controlling the information. On the other hand, climate and nutrition can both be used to control the population, to outlaw things politicians don’t want and to legalize things politicians do want. Science is not politics, but politics can take certain sciences and create a dialogue that leads to the desired outcome, often removing any resemblance to science in the product being peddled.  Democrats want more government, as do some Republicans, it seems, so Democrats believe the “science” that serves their purpose—global warming will kill us all. Same for Republicans. Many just want the government out of their lives so they follow the “science” that serves their purpose—global warming scam. Yet neither actually follow the “science” in many cases. They are following the politics, thus the correlation. If climate science wasn’t based on politics instead of science, people might be more willing to believe it outside of party lines, especially if the scientists actually followed scientific method and stopped prescribing solutions and becoming activists. As I have said in other posts, an activist is NOT a scientist. The two are mutually exclusive. (If anyone needs a venn diagram to see this as “science”, I can oblige. I’m kind of being sarcastic. It would be grayscale, of course.)

(http://www.smh.com.au/environment/age-gender-race-climate-scepticism-is-predominantly-party-political-20160222-gn05y0.html#ixzz410JuGhA4 )

Climate science has already dragged in religion in an attemp to sell the political actions.  How long can it be before psychics and other similar individuals are added?  Then there’s the conspiracy theories they push (yes, global warming believers are very strong believers in conspiracies especially when it involves the Koch brothers.  They are some sort of evil entity that threaten the planet for profit.  Interesting conspiracy ideation.)  It’s a very sad day each time science is protituted by politics in the hope of gaining control over populations, while destroying science and any hope of finding the truth.  It’s about winning, not about truth.

 

Thumb1_e3888fb8-f213-4787-bb14-a62a9aa38565_1024x1024

Selling trinkets for “science”—the old gypsy wagon returns!

(Inspired by a posting on Greenie Watch)

Broken theories, encyclicals

I would like to reiterate again that the failure of the models does not prove that the idea of putting more CO2 put in the atmosphere causes warming is wrong. It reduces the theory to a hypothesis, an unproven one. The models created to “prove” the theory are seriously wrong and must be discarded. To prove CO2 put here by humans is a problem, one must have a NEW model and a NEW theory about how CO2 interacts in the atmosphere. Otherwise, it remains an unproven hypothesis. It is not possible at this point to “save” the models. All have failed miserably–all 102 models. There is no coming back from such complete and utter failure.

The planet at this point is not experiencing temperature rises, more extreme weather, or any other predicted values. Sure, a prediction here and there may come true, but to quote the global warming advocates, those successful predictions aren’t “global” (as in science-wide success). To believe that the warming “will come” is simple faith in broken models and very, very unscientific. Redrawing trend lines to ignore the plateauing of the temperatures, or simply using the same trend line one always sees and claiming it shows warming when clearly the data does not, is very, very unscientific.

The leaked encyclical from the Vatican contains virtually all this broken science and presents it as fact. This is somehow presumed to exonerate scientists, though how a faith-based organization’s agreement helps science is vague. Seems this would only help the questioners who already see believing in broken models as faith-based belief, not science. It also seems the believers of warming are not as far from faith-based as they would have us believe.

The media and politics probably have far more to do with the excitement of the upcoming encyclical’s release. Scientists are busy trying to create data to prove the warming didn’t plateau (you gotta love interpolation and extrapolation–you can get any answer you want and since science standards are completely ignored when it comes to climate, you don’t even get fire or flunked for creative data manufacturing) to worry about what the Vatican does or not endorse.

This YouTube video from ABC news in 2008 is quite enlightening:

It’s interesting to note that last time anyone checked, NYC was not underwater…..Talk about failed predictions. The media was never very accurate, but there was no outcry from scientists against any of this. Silence is construed as agreeing with the usage, even if they knew it was a lie. There are scientists who speak out and are vilified, so speaking out was and is an option. Scientists who remained silent are giving tacit agreement to the media message.

Thinkprogress has this headline: “2015 May Bring Long-Awaited Step-Jump In Global Temperatures”
Talk about celebrating doom and gloom. It’s like a cancer doctor doing a happy dance because his patient developed new cancer. Glee over impending doom.

Latest developments

News on the global warming front:

Environmentalists reportedly tried unsuccessfully to revoke Doug Ericksen’s degree in political science and environmental policy because the senator opposed mandatory cap-and-trade and low-carbon fuel standards. (http://watchdog.org/220270/environmentalists/)

Seems you either tow the line with the radical environmentalist philosophies or else. Trying to take away a degree that was earned as punishment for disagreement may be a new low. (Actually, see below for the newest low.)

Seems it’s very chilly the world over (except for India) and yet it’s almost the hottest April on record. One has to wonder how there can be snow on Memorial Day in Maine, snow in New Zealand, below average temperatures over much of the US and yet it’s hotter than ever. Of course, the global warming advocates are going to say “That’s not global” (neither is India. yet that has not stopped the headlines about global warming and dying citizens of India) but it seems to be very, very widespread. This is a good example of where using “average” can lead to very different ideas than just looking at the temperatures themselves. No one has yet to explain clearly and concisely why averaging widely disparate values after homogenizing them is better than just looking at the data.

Speaking of homogenized values, I am still searching for an explanation of why people are putting their faith in data that is constantly adjusted and often estimated. If the data is that poor, we have a serious problem. Every uncertainty, from the estimated values to the corrections for time of day, missing stations, and many others, the uncertainty accumulated would huge. Consider that temperatures vary radically as little as 5 miles away. A day can start out hot and then get much colder and vice versa. Yes, there are mathematical formulas used for the adjustments. Some are automated. I don’t know that I see this as sinister, but more as a huge introduction of uncertainty. Using data that has to be massaged at every turn is not very good science. The impatience with waiting for accurate data is part of the problem.

Consider: You go to your physician and he weighs you. He then subtracts the 2 lbs he guesses your shoes weigh. Your blood pressure reading seems a bit off. There were problems with the cuff in the past, so he subtracts 10 points top and bottom to cover the cuff not being accurate. Then he takes your temperature. This is adjusted by 2 degrees because he has not been able to get the thermometer properly calibrated. When writing your prescription, he gives you 80 tablets for 90 days at one per day because most people skip a few days so why include those days? He then bills you for a 15 minute visit and adjusts the cost based on his computer software not calculating accurately. At some point in all of this, one should begin to wonder about how accurate your doctor’s diagnosis and examinations are. The cumulative error starts to grow and grow.

Yet, temperatures used in global warming calculations are adjusted over and over. The fact that we do not have a good record of temperatures should have been a clue that it’s highly unlikely we can reach 95% certainty on the predictions. Rather than admit this, the adjustments continue, as the public starts to wonder about the reality of global warming. Add that to the obvious mismatch between what people see and what is being told to us, and one can see why global warming’s credibility is waning.

Update on a new low for so-called climate science: http://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-compares-climate-denial-to-civil-racketeering-perpetrated-by-tobacco-industry

If you can’t win on evidence, sue the dissenters and silence them. What the actual admission here is that the government is weak and powerless, with a very poor argument that they cannot sell to the American people. The fossil fuel companies, taxes and regulated by the government, are sooo much more believable than Obama or Kerry or Senator Whitehouse that the only way the government can foist its draconian rules upon the people of the United States is to sue them to silence them. These individuals might as well be holding up signs that say “We are losers and not believable.”

Not that this is not in line with most pseudoscience. Personal injury lawyers make millions off of bad science by convincing jurors big companies are evil and lie. One must ask how much the personal injury lawyer makes and why doesn’t that corrupt him? Same question for those receiving government funding. How can they not be corrupted? Except by the magic that makes those on the global warming side pure and unaffected while everyone else is tainted. Sure–and I have beachfront property in Kansas, if any of you are interested.

The New Year

It’s a new year and I thought I’d try to be a bit more organized and look at climate and global warming from several different angles. This may or may not continue depending on my success in creating ideas for posts.

Most scientifically and mathematically illiterate headline I have found to date:

“We may never have another coldest year in history”
(From Salon, Nov 29, 2014)

It is impossible not to have a coldest year. Coldest is a superlative–it is the lowest temperature recorded. It matters not if it’s -20F or 75F. If it’s the coldest (IE lowest) number, it is by definition the coldest. Mathematically, again, the lowest temperature is coldest and the highest is hottest. You see hottest used all the time to describe the temperature in Antarctica. It is the hottest or warmest year ever there. It seems the media understands hottest just fine. Why they can’t grasp coldest is beyond me, but headlines like this one should immediately alert people to the fact that this writer is completely clueless. You’re not going to find anything resembling science written by him/her, except by accident.

I ran into the argument from a skeptic that if you don’t use your “real” name, it’s okay to ignore you. The logic seems to be that if you don’t care enough to sign your name, why should a reader care what you wrote? Interesting. I thought skepticism was science, not authorities, who is and isn’t using their real name, etc. I fail to see why it’s okay for a skeptic to dismiss information because it was written by an anonymous person but it’s wrong for a global warming advocate to dismiss evidence not written by a professional climate scientist in a peer-reviewed journal. The rule of science says the evidence count. Shutting out evidence for whatever reason is extremely unscientific on either side.

Claims of the “hottest year ever” are out once again. We return to the land versus satellite dilemma. In most sciences, more data points from a more uniform distribution are considered better than fewer. That does not seem to be the case with global warming. Global warming reports that form the basis of news headlines are based on land temperatures, which reportedly show warming. So why not use satellite? The only reason I can find is that land gives the answer some individuals and institutions seem to want.

While I was working on this, Gavin Schmidt admitted to the Daily Mail that 2014 may NOT have been the hottest. It was impossible to decide between three years that were statistically the same. The headline read: “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right” So there is higher than 50-50 chance 2014 was not the warmest year, yet NASA told the media it was the hottest year. Lying does little to make people more believing of the global warming scientists.

(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PHwACZiL)

Another dilemma in the global warming saga–is there a pause or not? At first, a pause was denied. Then all kinds of reasons for the pause were advanced. Currently, it’s a toss up on whether the global warming advocates will agree there is a pause or loudly proclaim there is not. Which means “follow the experts” is useless in this case. I am now referring to this as a “leveling” or a “flattening” of temperatures, which gives no clue as to whether the temperatures will stay the same, go up or go down. That reflects the truth of what we know now.

There are cries from many of the global warming camps that “something must be done” before it’s too late. If reports of “Hottest Year Ever” contradict each other and there’s no agreement on whether or not the temperature increase has flattened or stopped, there is no way, scientifically speaking, for us to know what to do. The answers we are hearing now are pure politics.

Scientific badger

Scientific badger