Saturday, September 03, 2011

Simplifying the climate

For a non-scientific observer such as myself, the macro areas of climate are incredibly easy to follow, just as most of the micro are complex. As the large is made up of the small then the minutiae are irrelevant, only the overall picture counts. That means signal/noise etc are totally irrelevant, as we have a few major indicators.
1) Temperature. If that does not rise then nothing can follow.
2) Sea level. Far easier to measure than temperature but still variable and highly open to interpretation
3) Ice coverage. Similar to sea level, the only queries are thickness estimations and gaps in measurement coverage
4) CO2 concentration
The one thing which rises consistently according to all accounts is CO2. That begs the question ‘What if it had been stable and the temperature had varied indentically?’. Would anyone even have remarked on it? The warmists began turning out predictions in the 90s. Bear in mind they had a problem. CO2 had never risen in historic memory, so it was a new area to investigate from scratch. All they had were two existing figures, the lab experiment and the paper experiment, both giving a 1/33 of the total greenhouse effect at 260ppm (1C), expected to double to 2C with no feedback. To further simplify, as sea and ice are micro in relation to temperature, at a 50% rise at 390ppm temperatures are now up by 0.8C on an existing rising trend from the ice age recovery, giving around the exact figure predicted. I am not aware of any study that envisaged a delay, waiting over half way along the route before it gradually or suddenly appeared (through cloud increase from sea evaporation). As the sea ought to evaporate (as it melts and freezes) seasonally with temperature fluctuations it is fair to assume it should do so on a linear fashion.
As for modelling, climate is not something able to be future projected. Until global warming was thought up, scientists stuck to 3-6 month projections max. More than that was never supposed to be possible (as it indeed is not), as these were created for shipping, oil drilling etc who needed the best possible predictions when they could go and get on with their work. It was never designed or expected to be used for anything else. Climate has more influences than virtually any other terrestrial phenomenon, and as such is an open system, non-linear and chaotic. Trying to tame such a system on a computer and run it forwards is no different from trying to predict the stock market a week, a year and a century ahead. Pure idiot arrogance. But our world has been taken over by the IPCC who make laws affecting us all in some degree purely based on the 2100 projection, with around a +/- 400% error margin (1.5-6C).
If a business were to offer such a budget to a bank, or accountant then they would be struck off or put away. Yet our world’s politics is now driven by nothing more and only the people here and on similar sites care, the rest are driven by fear for their unborn grandchildren (as I’m told regularly) and probably burn down pediatrician’s houses thinking they are pedophiles (this really happened in Portsmouth after a newspaper article). They are the masses, average IQs, average lives and average occupying the middle of the bell shaped curve, always the majority. That is why Julia Gillard is currently about to send Australia down the toilet to follow Britain and Spain with her similar policies. But the second pig in a poke is that nothing is even expected to happen by the IPCC so’s we’d REALLY notice before around 2100 but we can’t find out as we’ll all be dead. Every single one of us.
We are up against a combination of weak minds, huge criminal interests and worst of all irrational fear. How simple facts and logic can beat that goodness only knows, but in all religious texts truth always wins out as that is all there is. And one final crumb, in 1962 the official amount of atmospheric CO2 was 260….
It’s currently 390. As in 1962 it was accepted as varying then had it been measured there back then it may not have been considered unusual either.


rogerhootonofnuriootpasouthaustralia said...

Totally agree with you. The one good thing about the USA is that are NOT being sucked into the carbon tax fraud. Likewise China and India.Unlike here in Australia. Here in Australia the government threats about having the carbon tax and tell us about how WE are causing global warming has seen a BIG increase in reported, to the doctors, of DEPRESSION and even SUICIDES because people fear of the high cost of the tax and of that the world will be a very bad place to live in if WE do not stop global warming. I know of many people my age, 69 and above, where I live who are worrying about what sort of world their grandchildren are going to have if WE do not stop global warming.
Th Green Parties are killing the world with fear and high taxation.
Yet NASA is continuing to prove with their latest technology just how much the Sun changes our weather. Some people who believe in global warming and that WE are the cause of it and know my opposite views have accused me of being like Hitler and a weather racist and that I should be punished for not supporting the carbon tax.

David said...

The carbon tax is a ponzi scheme that just takes money by force of the law from the people and passes it on to the authorities and big business. Taxing essentials is a feature of a feudal or totalitarian state, and of course consumption can't be reduced by raising prices unless people run out altogether and die. That's presumably what they're hoping for, a holocaust for the poor.