The death of climatology

I can now explain why climate change can never become genuine. Measuring the present is science. Measuring the past is science. Measuring a linear track into the future is science. Measuring a complex set of linear interactions is science.

Trying to predict a future complex, non-linear system with countless influences, huge unknowns including massive gaps in temperature coverage, ice thickness, and most of all future feedback on top of the known CO2 effect is not scientific.

By pretending that they can guess the temperatures up to and beyond 100 years, plus the associated sea levels they have abandoned science for superstition. Our world, courtesy of the UN, is now being run by superstition. The sacrifices of current human beings for unborn ones in that imaginary future are the same as the Mayan sacrifices for a good year of crops ahead.

They may fool most people most of the time, but basing an ostensible scientific theory, claiming the status of gravity, heliocentrism and evolution the climatologists have dropped to the level of the Spanish Inquisition except the people see them as heroes saving them from the threat of frying under an identical sun to the one we have today and had yesterday. The time has come to take that trust and reliance away. There is no longer a discipline called climatology, they have deliberately chosen to leave the constraints of science and now no better than mock auctioneers.



The main criteria that need adding include: El Nino, La Nina, the oceanic oscillations over a decade to 30 years or so, plus their strength which of course is different every time and FOLLOWS NO KNOWN PATTERN. Solar rays and sunspot activity (different every cycle) and the distance from the sun which works on about a 100,000 year cycle plus the tilt which also varies over time. Then the geological continental drift and faultline activity which also affects the balance of the climate through shifting the previous figures around and affecting sea level when plates rise and fall. The land is also rising from the melting of the ice age glaciers and is subtracted from total sea level rise as a consequence. Undersea volcanic vents must be taken into account for the oceanic warming they add. You also need to factor in the existing trend, without which it would be impossible to know how much man may or may not have been able to alter it.


Then they have to know the saturation point of added CO2 (the as yet unknown concentration which fills its IR absorption spectrum), the reaction of water vapour to CO2 at all levels of the atmosphere (unexpectedly found to be replaced by it by the Aqua satellite, ie negative feedback effect) and potential cloud seeding effects, the possible reaction (or not) of the Gulf Stream, all delay mechanisms of ice melts to temperature rises, added CO2 dwell time (currently estimated between 3 and 500 years apparently...), oceanic and vegetative uptake (including the effects from added vegetation adding to the uptake), every single jet stream (ie the mechanisms which make it impossible to predict the season ahead by more than 50% certainty), and most of all the potential added water vapour predicted to be released by the oceans to the atmosphere as positive feedback. This is the climate sensitivity which in fact is the sole criterion the IPCC exist and fear additional CO2, but although the whole equation of multiplying CO2 can be done on a primary school level equation of 1C per 260ppm the rest is feedback which as yet has never been seen. By including positive feedback in the models all they have done is create the ending they required. And finally (but not least) they have to imagine the existing trend from the past and both extend that ahead and separate it, in the IPCC's case, from any alleged future man made element. Looking back in history the climate and temperature graphs are not exactly stable, in fact as I stated at the beginning, chaotic as that is their nature. Seeing how they alone project forward, add unknown effects from rising CO2, and then try and subtract one from the other to get an accurate separation between the two (based on at least the above criteria and many more) adds another even greater dimension to the task.


Expecting to take the variables, gaps in data and sheer unknowns (such as CO2/cloud sensitivity alone) and get anything meaningful is one beyond all reason and sense. The IPCC and associated scientists announce through the media and government spokespersons every day how policies must be made to stop these results happening solely based on this list of criteria it doesn't seem so sensible then.