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

Here we go again

realclimatescience.com/2016/05/scientists-recycling-the-identical-scam-century-after-century

Real Science has a post showing a newspaper from 1934 asking if the Arctic is melting and the Statue of Liberty will be partially submerged, followed by a headline from March 2016 with a similar story.

There’s an even more similar claim here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/unesco-world-heritage-climate-change-threats-1.3600924

It’s just a constant recycling of claims of impending doom.  The cartoons of people who stood on the sidewalk with signs saying “The End is Near” are being crowded out by the “scientists” of doom, global warming soothsayers.

For all our technology, we are just as gullible as those who sacrificed virgins to their gods in the hopes of getting rain, bought magic elixirs from traveling salesmen and bought plans for perpetual motion machines.  Human beings seem hopelessly mired in wishful thinking and what they wish for the most is their own demise, it seems.  And there’s always someone there to sell them the plans.

Call me when it’s safe out there.

Roundup of the latest news

Summer of 2030 heat wave could kill 11,000, White House says

“Because of the science we have in this report and the modeling that was done, we can say that the increase in heat-related deaths far exceeds the decrease in cold related deaths. And we know that because of science,” said U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.

All those years of mocking psychics and now the Surgeon General is saying predicting the future is science. Apologies to all of you psychics that were demeaned or insulted or bullied as not being scientists.

In a way, the report may be correct. If the USA keeps raising energy prices, killing jobs and destroying the economy, death could be a result, especially when air conditioning is killed off.  It’s impossible for wind turbines and solar panels to provide air conditioning at today’s level, so the government is just stating the fact that it intends to deprive people of cheap energy even if it kills them.

USA Today April 4, 2016

Well said:

Mark Steyn provided the answer at the Princeton Club Tuesday: “The great thing about professing to ‘Save the Planet’ is that it absolves you of the need to do anything.”

https://stream.org/climate-surprise-co2-good-earth/

CO2 is not a thermostat

If your home had a thermostat that when turned up two degrees warmed the house anywhere from a half a degree to 5 degrees, you would replace it. Yet CO2 has no direct relationship to the temperature of the earth but it is treated as if it were. It’s time to replace that thermostat with one that works or admit we have never actually found a single mechanism that increases the temperature of the earth and therefor humans have no ability to regulate or exert major influence over earth’s temperature.

Selective science

Ever notice how people selectively choose science? Global warming believers throw science out as a justification for “we have to do something” and then dump science when it says nuclear energy is the best solution to CO2 in the air or when it comes to things like fracking. As usual, it’s not about science at all, it’s about winning the game any way you can. Science does not pick and choose, yet its so-called believers do so constantly. So the next time someone says “It’s about the science”, point out that nuclear is the best choice for reducing CO2 in the air and fracking is a wonderful way to get more energy currently while we implement nuclear—science says so.

Can they be any less intelligent and convincing?

“Last Month Was The Hottest March In The Global Satellite Record, And The Arctic Is Still Sizzling”    (headline from Climate Progress April 4)

Please, please, tell me none of these people are EVER involved in the preparation of food. If the Arctic is “sizzling”, I can see the biggest epidemic of food poisoning seen by man. Why is it these individuals never see just how stupid they are?  (Stupid is the only word that applies here—if you are offended, I’m sorry you’re offended by reality.)  A five year old can tell you ice does NOT sizzle.

Humans beings should be extinct

“Climate change threatens hearts, lungs but also brains, says US study)

(from http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/78557847/Climate-change-threatens-hearts-lungs-but-also-brains-says-US-study)

Human beings are incredibly fragile creatures that, according to every single theory of evolution, should not exist anymore. Actually, the headline is more accurate than it would appear—climate change has indeed increased the level of ignorance and the belief in superstition among those who follow the cult of climate change.  I doubt that particular truth was the intent of the writer, however.

 

DSCN4166

Sparrows feeling the sizzle

What are the odds?

Graham Readfearn—Desmog Blog

“From hot to fractionally less hot, here are the planet’s ten warmest years on record – 2015, 2014, 2010, 2005, 2007, 2013, 2009, 1998, 2002 and 2006.

These are the numbers according to NASA and include measurements taken on land and at sea in a record that goes back to the year 1880.

Now that’s a pretty remarkable run of hot years for an era when, according to the rusted-on professional climate science denialists, global warming was supposed to have stopped.

But what are the chances of getting a run of “hottest on record” years like that – 14 of the 16 hottest years all happening since 2000 – without all the extra greenhouse gases that humans have been judiciously stockpiling in the atmosphere and oceans?

Well, the chances of this happening, climate scientist Professor Michael Mann tells me, are… wait for it…  one-in-13000.  Mann, of Penn State University, is the lead author of a new paper published in Nature’s Scientific Reports.

The study takes in data up to 2014, when the chance of that hot streak was one-in-10000.  Since the study was submitted, Mann has re-run the numbers to include the new “hottest year” of 2015, giving us the one-in-13000 number.”

Hillary won several primary delegates with a 15 in 1000 odds for coin tosses. Odds are just that—odds. They matter only in Las Vegas and other gambling institutions. “Odds” do not prove causality. Even p-values are of very limited use in establishing cause.  In the past, a low p-value was said to show causality, but over time, the goal was to produce a p-value of a desired size and one could manipulate the data to get that answer. Plus, some low p-values “proved” theories that could not be verified with additional research.  It happens over and over that what is a 1 in a million chance happens, sometimes three or four times in a short period. There is NOTHING in this study that proves humans are causing anything or that the globe will get hotter. Statistics are highly manipulative and can be used to prove anything you like if you care nothing about science or procedure. My college statistics books included “How to Lie with Statistics”. We also covered in marketing psychology how to influence people by presenting statistics in a certain way and getting them to buy our products. None of this is about actual “hard” science—it’s guesswork with a computer and carefully chosen wording to SELL the product. Science is about sales now, not truth.

The same technique is used with so-called extreme events.  A 100 year flood does not mean a flood of this size occurs once in a hundred years, but people believe it does because that’s what it sounds like.  It means a flood of this size has a 1% chance of occurring in any one year.  A flood of said size can occur two years in row, also.

Science has less than 200 years of temperature measurement, much of it adjusted or estimated, yet we are to believe that the current warm years are the harbinger of doom.  That’s no rational.  We do not know any such thing.

DSCN4733

What are the odds of seeing me?

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)

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

Not that Certain

A new paper (A probabilistic analysis of human influence on recent record global mean temperature changes–Kokic, Crimp, Howden) states a 99.999% certainty humans are causing the warming on the planet, IF the model contains all factors with significant (ie measurable and large enough to affect the outcome) influence on climate.

The model only has four factors: CO2 (GHG as measured by Kyoto Protocol), ENSO, TSI, and volcanoes. It’s highly unlikely that there are not more factors–for example oceans storing heat, albedo of arctic and antarctic ice, back radiation, convection currents, etc, just to name a few I have read about on various sites. If any of these have a large effect, the model does not match reality and any outcome or prediction may be useful by chance but most probably useless other than to grab headlines.

Also, if the measurements of any of the factors is not accurate, the conclusion is void. That does not mean the conclusion is not true–it means the models and statistics used to create the model and certainty are invalid. In other words, the model is back to an unproven hypothesis. It is possible for an incomplete model might be useful in some ways, but the 99.999% certainty is most certainly exaggerated and should be scrapped. A four factor model of climate that shows this kind of “certainty” is very unlikely to be accurate or even useful.

The modeler’s use a bootstrap calculation, something that seems to be used more and more in the studies I have been reading. In theory, the bootstrap yields multiple data sets to increase the likelihood that the model cover all data. (Correct me if my explanation of this is poorly stated. I am sometimes not very good at explaining statistics so it makes sense to readers.) They ran the bootstrap 100,000 times both leaving in and leaving out GHG. From this, they reached the incredible (or perhaps not-so-credible) 99.999% number.

There is no information on whether or not the model was run eliminating other factors one at a time in the same fashion as GHG. This is vital to gauge whether something else may have just as strong an effect.

The model B also indicated only an approximate 25% of 304 months of continuous record breaking temperatures, but that was one of the original questions in the model–how likely are 304 months of record breaking temperatures without human influence? That would seem to indicate the model missed the mark. Model E also showed only about a 53% chance of this temperature streak happening. Why can’t the model reproduce the 304 months of record setting temperatures? With 99.999 % certainty, one would expect nothing less.

An interesting thing that did show up in the study was the prediction of periods of flat or colling temperatures and the number of periods of cooling was closer to observed in the runs with GHG left in than those without. The number was still not matching actual recoded data but was closer with GHG.

What does this tell us about humans, GHG and certainty? IF the models are sufficiently accurate, there could be a strong case for humans causing warming. However, the small number of variable in the model call into question whether all significant factors have been included. Without a 99.999% certainty that these are the only factors needed the conclusion is not valid. If any measurements of input variables are even slightly off, the conclusion does not hold.

All in all, the study, while it addressed some interesting points fell far short of being definitive proof of humans causing climate change. The certainty is far over stated when one compares reality to the model and its conclusions.