Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Turns out I was right...
Batting average is simple - you take the total number of hits and divide it by the total number of at bats. You compare this years average with other years calculated in the same manner.
Global Climate average is not quite that simple to determine, in fact, it's impossible to find out, and its easy to fudge.
To have an accurate average global temperature, you would need to have the temperatures for every locality at exactly the same time using exactly the same measuring equipment in exactly the same way.
And to compare average temperatures, you would need to have studies for previous periods - preferrably over a long period of time.
Any other figure is imagined, or worse, more than likely taken from a selective sample of climate temperature record to "prove" a point.
I walk outside this summer, it is raining on 80% of the days, it is colder than I have ever seen it in my part of the world on this day. That's an observation. But that's about all we really got to go on.
And, one more time, the Climate Alarmists only have to be wrong once on the effect of CO2 in increasing temperatures. And they've been wrong for almost a decade - I encourage people to look back on my posts as far as their predictions and actuals. If the Alarmist predictors were paid according to their accuracy in predicting, they'd be a part of the starvation problem the world has, not a part of a Global Warming crisis that we don't.
Researchers are pulling out all the stops to find whatever microscopic evidence they can to prove the world has a fever blister. Of course, they haven't discovered anything yet, and no they don't really have anything to compare their findings to, but that doesn't stop them from making the announcement:
They're very creative, they've invented a net that traps the small beasties but lets the big ones go free. But the problem is, that we have had the same gradual change in climate that we have had for thousands of years. We haven't had any more global warming than normal. The Alarmists are talking about things maybe occuring over the NEXT 100 years.
So far, scientists haven't seen any plankton species go extinct, Nelson said from Barrow, Alaska, after a separate, two-week research voyage. But they are closely watching Pacific Ocean plankton found in the Arctic to see if they begin reproducing as sea temperatures rise.
"If a Pacific species was established in the Arctic, this would really be news," he says. "But we have not detected this yet. What could happen in this scenario is that, if the invader out-competes the native species, this could lead to fundamental changes in ecosystem function."
If there isn't any warming, than what can they measure. Can they invent something else that can describe how these little monsters were affected with open waters in the arctic in the 50s?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
I don't have a science education, nor the aptitude to really understand the science behind AGW, much less professional experience in the field.
I just have a BS detector the size of a funnel cloud, relatively good powers of observation and a more than middling level of curiosity.
So looking at the debate on "the biggest crisis in history" I mainly rely on whatever common sense my Mom gave me.
I believe in the power of anecdotes and observations, providing that they are put in context and considered for bias.
One observation that I have is that there are no valid temperature measurement data. Nothing is reliable over a longer term. Consistent technology to measure ice extension / contraction in the arctic is only 30 years old (although I know from pictures that the North Pole was liquid in the 50s and that Greenland was warm enough to raise sheep 1000 years ago and that the Thames was frozen a couple of centuries ago). I know that as many as 90% of surface temperature data are invalid thanks to Anthony Watts' research. And current sea temps are all based on new technology. And I think that surrogate data can be manipulated to prove any point. Furthermore, everyone insists on using "global average temperatures" which, of course, isn't a valid measurement (the entire earth cannot have an average temperature unless all temperatures in all places are taken all the time). Which is impossible and these data would still be skewed by time zones. And generally, the total amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere is also a global figure, not a local one.
So all data having anything to do with Climate Change are compromised and useless as far as making policy.
Basically, my Spidey Senses reveal the following:
1. Big cities and urban areas are suffering the coldest summers in my lifetime as well as the worst winters
2. Remote areas (Northern Canada and Equatorial areas) are enjoying very hot summers
Consistently, both sides of this debate concentrate on "climate" rather than "weather". The Alarmist side (at least) do this, I think, to rebut observations that it is colder. They do not want to have "exceptions" (local coolness) direct public opinion rather than their "rule" - that the world is burning to a crisp.
I have read, that climate effects are based on "feedbacks" involving calculations that I am unable to understand. But the basic concept from the Realist side, I think from what I've read, is that increased CO2 leads to increased water vapour which results in cooler temperatures.
So, my question to experts, based upon my layman observation is this:
Might "the Weather" actually be more important to study than "the Climate"?
Is it possible that human caused CO2 has a greater effect on local areas (urban centres) where it is created and is most concentrated, than in areas where industrial activity and the release of CO2 emissions are nominal?
If my observations as a dummy are accurate (and I have no idea if they are valid), then the whole debate would change. CO2 would indeed become a pollution like NO2 that caused acid rain. And by putting the equivalent to catalytic converters in cars and scrubbers in chimneys this pollution can be eliminated in a few years.
What sayeth the Climate Experts out there.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
US courts found a way of throwing him in jail on criminal charges for what may still be determined by the US Supreme Court to be a mere tort, but he didn't get shut up.
Today in the National Post - which above all other national papers has taken on the challenge of rebutting the climate nonsense, Lord Black let everyone know that he may be jailed, but he has not been stifled:
It was at this point that I began to suffer glottal stops. Gaia is billed by its author as "a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system, which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet." This isn't a scientific formulation at all; it's just a cargo cult-level platitude counseling against excessive spoliation of resources.http://www.nationalpost.com/story-printer.html?id=1758464