For the last time, I hope, I'm going to try and explain in words simple enough for anyone to understand why we puny humans have little or no effect on planetary climate, planetary warming or anything else planetary or global, other than being able to kill one another with slug throwing weapons, large high explosive bombs, artillery, mortars, and the occasional thermonuclear device.
Let me first state here that I'm not a scientist, or even play one on TV. I'm an Electrical Engineer, by degree, who specialized early on in Information Technology (microcomputer design, network infrastructure and applications development). I have taken many courses in physics and mathematics, as well s statistics (a requirement for EEs) and extra classes in meteorology (an additional interest of mine). In reality an engineer in a practical scientist. They come with the theories; we design practical applications to for the theories. So-called "climate science" has become a hobby in my retirement (something to keep me off the streets and running with gangs a marauding engineers).
First principle (a basic, foundational proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption*), the climate is changing; in fact it's in constant flux. That statement is a given and is borne out by scientific data. The balance of probabilities can be calculated that the expected range of temperature changes over a millennium would be on the order of +\- 1.7 * C. That would be enough to account for the random, outlier events (such as occasional long duration extremely cold winters and the opposite of extremely hot long lasting summers)
It can be shown that since the first photosynthesizing plants came into existence at least 3 billion years ago (best estimate because the fossil record is unclear on this) that the climate began changing radically with the introduction of large amounts of free oxygen in the atmosphere. This also caused water to precipitate out of the atmosphere, creating the first large oceans and lakes, clouds in the atmosphere creating a range of temperature extremes due to coverage or lack there of, of oceans and land.
For those of you who flunked high school freshman science, photosynthesis is when a plant takes in carbon dioxide, created in the respiration of animals, breaks down the carbon from the 2 oxygen atoms attached to it, gets rid of the oxygen and keeps the carbon to help in reproduction. The oxygen joins all the other gases in the atmosphere and the cycle goes on and on.
The climate has been changing ever since.
There have been a few episodes of what is called "snowball" Earth, where ice covered the entire planet (mostly due to the young Sun not producing as much heat as it does now and other factors). However, nature tends to be self correcting in the form of plate tectonics causing supervolcanos to erupt, putting large amounts of "greenhouse" gases into the atmosphere, melting the ice sheets.
Everything went back into balance eventually and life began to evolve and flourish.
Skip ahead to now, to about 200,000 years ago, when an offshoot of the species Pan (apes, chimpanzees, bonobos, etc.) called subspecies of Hominids called Homo Sapiens (a term I have a great deal of uncertainty in as to it accuracy), began evolving and spreading itself across the surface of the planet. We did manage to do in some of our competing cousins (H. Neantderthalus, H. Cro-Magnon, etc.) and basically put ourselves at the top of the food chain.
H. Sapiens had the great advantage of a suddenly larger brain and certain specialized areas of those big brains gave us the ability to communicate effectively (though I'm quite convinced that wasn't a really good thing in the long run) and the ability to bend nature to our collective wills, so to speak. Now some of our brothers and sisters have come up with the marvelous idea that intelligence has no survival value, a concept I do have a problem with, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.
We have increased in population to almost 7 Billion of us. We’ve built above ground caves we call houses, grouped some of them into what we call cities, and for all intents and purposes rule the planet. If other creatures on the planet were self-aware, they would have become alarmed.
However, we still are at the mercy of nature. For all we have done, we can't control weather, stop solar flares and coronal mass ejections, large rocks falling from the sky, gamma ray bursts which may be head our way, etc... In fact, compared to nature, we're as defenseless as any other lifeform on this puny mud speck of a planet. Earthquakes knockdown anything we build, hurricanes, floods, tornados, and typhoons wash away and/or blow down anything in their path, tsunamis destroy anything too close to an ocean, and in other words we're pretty much not able to prevent or predict any natural disaster. Usually, hundreds or thousands of our fellows humans die are badly injured and likely displaced as their houses are gone. We also create our own disasters, but that's just stupidity and only has a little to do with this discussion.
Oh, we can see hurricanes/typhoons coming, sort of. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are still a big mystery. So how can we claim to know what the climate (which develops on time scales of hundreds to thousands of years) is going to be 10 or 100 years from now? What utter arrogance we must have to believe we can.
We don't really understand why at the quantum level of reality everything is uncertain and is based on statistical probability. There are 2 forces, we think, rule the Universe, dark matter and dark energy, and we don't know what they are or how they work, and we profess to be able to predict climate change! Of the basic atomic forces, electro-magnetism, the weak and strong forces, and gravity (which we really don't understand), we are still scratching at the surface of understanding. We can see what gravity does, but not how or why it's doing it.
People who believe in "Human Caused Climate Change and/or Warming" are on a par with those pseudo-theological types who periodically predict the Second Coming of Our Lord and Armageddon. Even those doing the predicting the Second Coming use complex mathematical formulae (of their own devising) to make their predictions. How are they any different from those who call themselves "Climate Scientists" who use "Theoretical Mathematical Models based on certain Assumptions" to predict what the climate will be in the future? So far they're batting the same average as the Second Coming folk - Zero!
The worldwide average temperature has been either steady or dropping a bit over the past 15 years in opposition to their "Theoretical Mathematical Models". The Northern Ice Sheet (commonly and inaccurately call the Arctic Region or "North Pole") has actually increased in size and mass when the "Models" say it should have completely disappeared by now. Sure, we've had some outlandish weather events, but there are always outliers over time. We still don't have a firm idea what caused the "Little Ice Age" of the late 17th to early 18th Centuries. You know, during the time of Charles Dickens, when people could ice skate on the Thames and Tiny Tim rode on Ebenezer Scrooge's shoulder.
What "Human Caused Climate Change" has caused are some very ruthless people to become rich. Now I'm a Free Market Capitalist, but there's good business and then there's outright thieving capitalism. The "scientists" promoting it, are getting huge lecture fees and certain companies in the non-fossil fuel businesses are getting large government grants then going belly up. They are making fortunes at it. So is a former Vice-President of theUnited States
One of the pieces of "evidence" that's been at the center of this "debate" (as one sided as it's been) is the amount of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmoshere. On average CO2 makes up about 0.03% of the atmosphere. It's actual effect on global climate is about that much. Now, according the the "climate scientists" any change in that tiny percentage, will have a huge effect on climate. Run that by me again - a small change in a very small part of the atmosphere will cause catastrophic effects on the planet's climate. Uhh, nope. There would have to a change from 0.03% to 0.3%, or an increase of roughly 10 times the current amount of CO2, to cause any sort of problem. Thus far the fluctuations have been on the order of 0.0001% in change, which is effectively ZERO%.
What these "scientists" and Algore (and his rich buddies) have counted on is the ignorance, stupidity and sheep-like reactions of the general public to these "doom and gloom" predictions. They want everyone to panic and do what the scientists say. The problem is, these scientists are used car salesmen, who are trying to sell you a junker for $100 Trillion! They are lying to you and are counting on the fact that you would never question an expert.
And these same "Climate Scientists" have running around claiming that their "theories" are "settled science" and anyone who disagrees with them are "deniers" and are ridiculed! Wait a minute, isn't science about rigorous debate, having reproducible results, entertaining different theories based on the same data (if the original data can be trusted at all). Climate science itself has only been around for about 40 years, only has about that much data, whereas climate changes take hundreds to thousands of years and involve complex natural forces, geography, wind flow, evaporation rates worldwide, topology, ocean currents, all of which we still don't really understand.
There is no such thing as "settled science"!!!! Let me say it again, "there ain't no such animal as SETTLED SCIENCE!!!!" It doesn't exist in climate science and more than it does in Cosmology which we've been studying for a longer period of time.
A little story - back in the late 1940s, the great British Professor Fred Hoyle was one of the greatest astronomers in modern history. He had radio and later television shows where he explained science to laypeople, like Carl Sagan did with "Cosmos". One of his own pet theories was the "Steady State Universe". He proposed that the universe has always been here, unchanging through the eons. That the movement of galaxies was normal movement, not caused by anything other than gravity. He called the new theory of the evolutionary universe, proposed by a Belgian Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître, called the "Big Bang Theory", a term he used derisively.
As one of the greatest astronomers of his time, with many proven theories behind him, he attacked anyone who promoted this idea of the "Big Bang". As we all came to know, he was wrong, completely. When the "Cosmic Background Radiation" of the Universe was finally mapped, everyone (with a brain) could see that the "Big Bang" was the only answer. Hoyle's theory of the "Steady State a Universe" was thrown out. If scientists hadn't bothered to look for a different answer to Hoyle's theory, we'd still be living in utter ignorance of the true nature of the Universe.
So, don't drink the Kool-Aid of the "Human Caused Global Climate Change" until it's been rigorously challenged and tested. It is not "Settled Science" anymore than the "Steady State Universe" was.
So far the proponents of this theory have been "reluctant" to show their data, their "Theoretical Mathematical a Models based on certain Assumptions" or even debate their findings. They shout "Deniers" at the mere mention of rigorous testing and scuttle off to hide. The fact that the political Liberals of our country and others (read the Democratic Party in the US) has seized on to this as a new way to regulate everyone's lives, tax businesses even more than they are (causing lost jobs and income), should make everyone more than a little skeptical of this whole thing.
Think for yourselves. Don't allow yourself to force fed this pabulum of pseudo-science. Fight back and fight against those politicians who are making themselves rich on your backs.
A few last facts: Solar panels are only 17% efficient, Wind Turbines are killing off the great raptors (bald and golden eagles, hawks and kites) in alarming numbers, nobody wants a nuclear power plant their backyard (they are still the most efficient form of electrical generation, but the Earthquake in Japan put the kibosh on any others being built), and most of the other "green fuels" are more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels.
So, don't drink Algore's Kool-Aid anymore. Don't listen to "climate scientists" who refuse to have their "theories" challenged. It's a con, a hoax and you people are playing into it. Until solar panels can hit that magic mark of 80%+ efficiency, don't cover your roof with them. Yes, do more research and development, but don't buy anything on the market until it's as efficient as fossil fuel. That includes electric cars (a hundred miles per charge ain't that good for the cost).
Right here I'm going to say for all the world, Algore is a fraud, a huckster, flimflam artist, con man, used car salesman (I don't know that he actually sells used cars, but I wouldn't buy one from him) and one of the biggest liars on this planet. And that's his "Inconvenient Truth". He'll just say he's "he's reporting on what other people have said", but in the process he's made himself very, very wealthy. He's a hypocrite and the very model of the liberal-progressive-leftist Democratic Party operative. He's no more looking out for your interests than all the terrorist organizations on the planet. He's in this because he was back-stabbed by Bubba and Hillary, ignored by the Obama/Chicago political machine that runs the Whit House, and he wants revenge on the American who didn't elect him president.
You'll have noticed by now that I've not included lots of formulae, graphs, charts, or pretty pictures, because I'm trying to keep this short and to the point. If you want all those things, there are plenty of reputable "climate deniers" (actual scientists, with excellent university degrees, who have formulae, graphs, charts and pretty satellite pictures) to present the long boring explanations of my short one.
THINK, PEOPLE!
Use that big brain for something other than fantasy football and ogling Hollywood Stars.
*Copied from Wikipedia for lack of another source.
The following is from a Newsmax newsletter sent out September 28, 2014:
3. No Global Warming in 18 Years
On September 21, an estimated 300,000-plus demonstrators turned out for the People's Climate March in New York City to call for international action against climate change.
Two days later, President Obama addressed the United Nations General Assembly and called on all countries to cut carbon emissions "right now."
And eight days after that, October 1, will mark 18 consecutive years without global warming.
There has been "no significant warming trend in surface average temperature" in those 18 years, said Patrick Michaels, director of the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science.
Al Gore and other climate change alarmists will have to concede that their predictions of catastrophic global warming were off by a long shot, Michaels, who has a doctorate in ecological climatology, told CNS News.
"It has to be admitted eventually that too much warming was forecast too fast," he said. "This just has to happen. You can't go on and on and on.
"If the surface temperature resumed the warming rate that we observed from, say 1977 through 1998, we would still go close to a quarter of a century without significant net warming because there's such a long flat period built into the record now.".
Michaels pointed to findings by the University of Illinois' Polar Ice Research Center that Antarctic ice "is at its highest extent measured by the current microwave satellite sounding system" since 1978.
"And if you take a close look at the Arctic data, it appears the decline [in polar ice] stopped around 2005/2006, which means we've almost had 10 years without any net loss in Arctic ice."
Michaels spent three decades as a research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and was a contributing editor to the United Nations' second Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
He noted that in a survey earlier this year, global warming ranked No. 19 out of 20 issues that Americans consider top priorities — and contrasted that with Secretary of State John Kerry's recent proclamation that climate change is "the biggest challenge of all that we face right now."
Followed by this:
Newsmax
NASA Scientists Puzzled by Global Cooling on Land and Sea
Monday, October 6, 2014
The deep ocean may not be hiding heat after all, raising new questions about why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years, said the US space agency Monday.
Scientists have noticed that while greenhouse gases have continued to mount in the first part of the 21st century, global average surface air temperatures have stopped rising along with them, said NASA.
Some studies have suggested that heat is being absorbed temporarily by the deep seas, and that this so-called global warming hiatus is a temporary trend.
But latest data from satellite and direct ocean temperature measurements from 2005 to 2013 "found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably," NASA said in a statement.
The findings present a new puzzle to scientists, but co-author Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) said the reality of climate change is not being thrown into doubt.
"The sea level is still rising," said Willis."We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."
A separate study in August in the journal Science said the apparent slowdown in the Earth's surface warming in the last 15 years could be due to that heat being trapped in the deep Atlantic and Southern Ocean.
But the NASA researchers said their approach, described in the journal Nature Climate Change, is the first to test the idea using satellite observations, as well as direct temperature measurements of the upper ocean.
"The deep parts of the ocean are harder to measure," said researcher William Llovel of NASA JPL.
"The combination of satellite and direct temperature data gives us a glimpse of how much sea level rise is due to deep warming. The answer is -- not much."
And yet another follow-up story from The Register, a British IT newsletter. They are pretty much "climate change" deniers and never believed it even when the whole was started by some two-bit British scientist and professor:
Antarctic ice hits ALL TIME RECORD HIGH: We have more to learn, says boffin
Four-deviations-above-average figs bust climate models
Climate scientists have confessed they are baffled – yet again – by another all-time record area of sea covered by ice around the Antarctic coasts.
"What we're learning is, we have more to learn," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, announcing the latest annual sea ice maximum for the austral continent. According to the NSIDC:
Sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent reached its maximum extent on September 22 at 20.11 million square kilometers (7.76 million square miles). This is 1.54 million square kilometers (595,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average extent, which is nearly four standard deviations above average. Antarctic sea ice averaged 20.0 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the month of September. This new record extent follows consecutive record winter maximum extents in 2012 and 2013. The reasons for this recent rapid growth are not clear. Sea ice in Antarctica has remained at satellite-era record high daily levels for most of 2014.
Climate scientists have been puzzled by the behaviour of the southern ice for many years now. The most commonly used models say that its steady growth should not be happening in a warming world (though the warming of the world is also in doubt, as air temperatures have been steady for the last fifteen years or more - and it turns out that deep ocean temperatures are not increasing either, leaving the "mystery" of the apparent end of global warming "unsolved").
This failure of reality to match up with climate modelling has, as some eminent climate scientists have noted, had the effect of "limiting confidence in the predictions" of severe warming and associated disasters this century.
Meanwhile at the other end of the planet the Arctic sea ice has covered lesser areas in recent times. The lowest Arctic area seen in the era of satellite measurements was in 2012, but the three consecutive record-high Antarctic maxima of 2012, 2013 and now 2014 have resulted in global sea ice levels this year and last year coming out pretty much normal. ®
By Lewis Page, 9 Oct 2014
And still more!
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming Science 'Not Valid'
Meteorologist John Coleman, who co-founded The Weather Channel, says the claim that human activity is leading to global warming is no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, the "little evidence" there is for rising global temperatures points to a "natural phenomenon," Coleman asserts.
In an open letter to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), he wrote: "There is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar bears are increasing in number.
"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms.
"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environmental agenda item, but the science is not valid."
Coleman says he based his views on the findings of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (not to be confused with the U.N. panel), a body of scientists and scholars who assess the science of global warming.
"There is no significant man-made global warming at this time. There has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future," says Coleman, who was the original meteorologist on "Good Morning America."
"Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant greenhouse gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.
"There has been no warming over 18 years."
The U.N.’s IPCC argues that their research shows man-made global warming will lead to extreme weather events becoming more frequent and unpredictable, the Express in Britain reported.
Climate expert William Happer, a professor at Princeton University, expressed support for Coleman's claims.
"No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control [of] energy production," Happer said.
"The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Careful!