Posted on 09/25/2020 10:38:56 AM PDT by kathsua
The global warming priests have presented no evidence that the process they claim causes "global warming" exists. They just illogically claim that any increase in what they call the "global average temperature" can only result from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Paul Homewood has reported on questionable manipulation of temperature data used to calculate this global average temperature. Anthony Watts has documented problems with temperature data for several years on his blog.
The controversy over the accuracy of the data can be viewed as much ado about nothing because the so-called global average temperature "is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility, says Bjarne Andresen, a professor at The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, who has analyzed this topic in collaboration with professors Christopher Essex from University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick from University of Guelph, Canada."
"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".
"While it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average."
Even if the concept of a global average temperature was meaningful, the method of determining it is too primitive to produce a valid average. Instead of using hourly temperatures, they just use the high and low temperature which may not be representative of temperatures during the day. For example, the arrival of a strong cold front late in the day can make the low temperature significantly lower than temperatures during the rest of the day.
Even social scientists have moved away from using broad averages because such averages cover up too much information. For example, social scientists look at the number of people in various age groups instead of the average age. The number of homes with children or with one adult or two adults is used rather than the average household size which always ends up with a fraction of a person. In the last presidential election people talked about the 3% in one income group and the percentage that didn't pay any income tax instead of the per capita income.
A third problem with the climate shaman's obsession with temperatures is that although a temperature decrease would disprove the claim of global warming, a temperature increase would not prove that CO2 was responsible. The global warming preachers routinely commit the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo proper hoc". I learned that basic logic concept in high school English class. The global warming fanatics either didn't learn about the fallacy or don't understand that the fact that A follows B doesn't necessarily mean A causes B.
With their simple minded view of the situation they blithely assume that any temperature increase could only be a result of an increase in CO2. They seemingly cannot understand that they must provide evidence that an increase in CO2 would cause any temperature increase. They ignore the fact that other factors are known to be able to increase air temperature.
The teracalories of heat human activity generates each day would be the most likely cause of any temperature increase that wasn't caused by an increase in the sun's output. Each teracalorie is capable of raising the temperature of a trillion grams of water by 1 Celsius. A teracalorie would raise the temperature of about 4-5 trillion grams of dry air 1 C.
Except in desert and tropical areas, most of the time the human body has a higher temperature than the air. Automobile engines and other human technology generate sufficient heat to boil water. Many types of air conditioning systems remove heat from the interior of buildings and transfer it outside where it heats the outside air. Some of the heat used to warm the interiors of buildings in cold weather leaks out and heats the outside air.
Over the next ten years as the Sun decreases its output, the entire debate will evaporate.
[[Paul Homewood has reported on questionable manipulation of temperature data used to calculate this global average temperature]]
here’s a verifiable fact-
They accused A satellite that didn’t report ‘high enough’ temperatures, as being ‘out of position’- so they threw the actual numbers it recorded out, and ‘recalculated what they thought the numbers should be’ and voilà- we had global warming again for the 20 or so years that previously showed no warming-
So- when the numbers don’t verify the agenda, throw them out and invent new ones-
Question Zero of the many questions that I need answered before I buy into the arguments of Global Warming advocates is “how do you define global average temperature?” Question 0.1 is “how is it directly measured?”. Question 0.2 is “for how long has it been measured?” I’ve never received satisfactory answers that even get me to Question 1.0: “is the world warming in an atypical way?” Let alone Question 2.0: “is the American middle class responsible for the warming?”
Later questions revolve around whether the warming is a good or bad thing, what if anything can be done about it without making things worse, etc. Give me satisfactory answers to those questions, and I’ll join your Global Warming club.
Far too many airports have turned from a mowed grass field with some lines on it in 1920 to a couple square mile of concrete and asphalt in 2020 to rely on the temperature data from the airport over that hundred years.
To paraphrase Stalin, "It's not the temperature readings that counts, it's who reads the temperature"
They will continue to adjust the numbers that even if the glaciers are just 10 miles outside of Manhattan they will still be claiming it's the warmest month/year/decade ever!
“0.3 Have there been any local environmental changes in the region where the temperature is measured.”
Except that 0.3 would come to play only if they failed to answer Question 0.2 “how is global average temperature *directly* measured”. If it’s not directly measured, it is no longer a “fact”, but an inference and an extrapolation, with lots of unknowns and uncertainties and inaccuracies and potentials for error. They need to account for all of them.
That level of uncertainty is certainly not the sort of thing that you want to stake your civilization on. Global warming cultists insist that they’re presenting “facts” when in fact all they are presenting are unproven conclusions or simple dogmas.
It is hideous to think that there isn't a minimum of +/- 3-5 C of error in their measurements. They are forced to manipulate data and hide their methods to make their findings seem believable. Here is the major rub, science is not about belief. It is about constant skepticism, trying prove/disprove current hypothesis and theories through experiments. Climatologists' tool box do not consist of experiments, but rather computer models that receive the input of data with gross errors.
Climatologist are not scientists. The rigor to their field of study is lacking. To be completely blunt, it is less rigorous than meteorology and meteorologists as we all know are wrong in their predictions a significant amount of time. One must recognize there is an academic order of failure that naturally occurs at all universities. Those that do not have the intelligence, aptitude and ability to achieve in hard sciences are forced to change majors to lesser fields of study.
Climatologists rarely start out as climatologists. They failed out a hard science or were never able to gain entry into a hard science program. These same people must rely on politics for success because they have nothing else to rely. Their science is not real. Their education is lacking. Their knowledge is weak. Their intelligence is wanting. Additionally, they must receive taxpayer funding for their very existence. Their drivel has no market or practical use in the private sector. Hence the need for politics.
None of these “scientist” have been able to answer these simply questions yet.
What is the “correct” sea level?
What is the “correct” amount of ice?
What is the “correct” global temperature?
The climate of the past 20 million years or so has been due to continental drift; namely Antarctica moving over the South Pole and South America connecting to North America and closing up the Pacific-Atlantic warm water flow.
Some day, Antarctica will drift out of it’s bottom of the Earth position and the 20 million year ice sheet will melt. Australia and Africa will move north to create new Himalayas-like mountain ranges, and South America will no longer be joined to North America.
And that will be normal, too.
Bookmark.
No, they'll continue to lie about it as long as they think they can fool some of the people some of the time.
Sadly, I have a Facebook account to keep up with old high school friends. About a week ago, this stupid “thing” showed up called Climate Science Information Center. I have tried but have been unable to delete it. No telling how many more dimwitted Karen’s will get their climate info from FB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.