What do you think?

Climate versus weather:

A common statement is “weather is not climate”. However, climate IS weather, or the average thereof. The temperature change one hears about is the anomaly from a 30 year average of min/max temperature from multiple stations. This data is then homogenized (not like milk though!) the the anomaly shows the difference between the calculated average for the period and the 30 year base period it is compared to. Thus, weather IS climate in the sense that it supplies all the building blocks for the calculation of “climate”.

Think of it this way. You have a castle built of Legos. The Legos are not the castle, they are the building blocks. The castle is not the individual blocks, it’s the sum of them as constructed. They are different but 100% inseparable items, from the “climate” view. You can have the Legos and not castle but without the Legos, there is no castle. If you change the colors of the Legos, you change the castle. The castle does not change the color of the Legos. Small changes may not be noticeable, large ones will be. 

Individual large changes in the temperatures globally will change the climate average–both hot and cold temperatures. More “heat waves” and “cold waves”can affect the average anomalies or cancel each other out. However, it should have an effect. If it does not, then what is “climate change”? A calculated number with zero connection to reality?

This is why when we talk about climate change it is not possible to predict change in the weather as a result. The only thing that is said is “may” or “might”. Even still, virtually none of these things could happen or all could. We just do not know. Not knowing means that climate change cannot be solved nor can the risk be accessed. Weather is the ONLY thing we live in, NOT climate.


Advertisements

Again with the marketing

There is a new study by John Cook, et al., at IOP science “quantifying consensus” in scientific literature. He concludes there is the usual 97% consensus is found in the abstracts. How does he reach this conclusion?

First, he searched the ISI Web of Science for articles from 1997 to 2007 using the terms “global warming” or “global climate change”. Then the abstracts were divided into type of research and degree of endorsement for climate change.

The first question that arises is “If there was no endorsement of climate change” as in the cause of global warming was not addressed, why did the abstract show up in the search? It seems unlikely that researchers are padding their abstracts with the words “global warming” to move up in the search engines. The term “global climate change” could involve something other than human-caused warming, but why insert the term at all if the research shows, say, solar flares correlate to warming (just a made-up example)? Would this not also indicate disagreement with ACC, rather than no position? The whole selection process is highly questionable.

Add to that the term “citizen science”, which was used to describe this project, and one is left with a marketing survey. This says nothing about the truth of lack thereof in the research.

Let’s look at this in more detail:

The same type of survey could be done over the net looking at people’s perceptions of psychics. The public perception of psychics is important in maintaining the position of psychics in society. The survey can ask:

Do you believe psychics are real?

Do you believe psychic predictions are accurate?

Do you believe more attention should be paid to psychics?

Then suppose the results show:

30% of people say psychics are real, 60% have no opinion, 10 % say psychics are not real

of the 30% who believe the psychics are real, 95% believe the predictions are accurate

of the 30% who believe the psychics are real, 90% think more attention should be paid to psychics

Conclusion: 95% of people who believe psychic are real believe their predictions are accurate and nearly that many believe more attention should be paid to psychics

Does this mean that psychics are real and accurate? Of course not—it just shows that a certain percentage of the population has this belief and of that percentage, a very large percent believe psychics to be accurate and useful.

The same is true of the Cook “study”–it just shows there is a perception of climate change researchers who address that consensus exists. It says NOTHING about the science itself—nothing.

One last observation for now: There is an argument made that less study is done on ACC because it’s settled science—i.e., there’s no reason to study it much anymore. So what are all the research studies on? Natural climate change? The degree of climate change (which means there IS agreement with the consensus in those studies, they are not neutral)? How did 66% of the papers fail to take a position? If they are studying the degree of climate change without attributing it to anything, why the research?

This is another attempt to give validity to “voting for the right answer” in science. Using a “settled science” to prove science is settled. It’s just bad science all the way.