One of the standard defences provided by global warming believers is 'You can't know better than scientists', which I have already dealt with as a bare statement, and will now demonstrate why global warming only uses science but is no longer real, top level, repeatable and verifiable science.
Looking at what is, we have satellites which circle the earth proving 100% it is roughly spherical, and also that it definitely rotates around the sun. You can't even use discrete and direct locations as science, as although science discovered their locations, it was astronomers, space geographers, who use the specific information directly. Science created the tools to go up there and look, and map the skies, quite accurately, with telescopes and satellites, but knowing the earth goes round the sun is no more clever than knowing you need to go north from London to get to Luton. No degrees are required for that, just using a compass, created by a scientist but not specifically for them only to use.
More complex phenomena are the sole field of scientists. If you expose a lung to asbestos, eventually most will form cysts around it to isolate it from the tissue, and many will become cancerous. If you inhale filthy smoke from cigarettes similar results will follow, including clogging up the bloodstream with embolisms and reducing the lung capacity. Unfortunately many required decades of direct experimentation on innocent animals to actually prove it, especially as legislation would follow if proven, but we pretty much know. They can even forecast the local weather on large land masses like America, as even many of their coastal regions are part of a single current and only subject to one dominant air stream. But in Britain we have a convergence of streams from all points of the compass, and as a result many forecasts are a percentage of likelihood and turn out to be wrong.
So we have a sliding scale of certainty in science, they can measure as much as they are able to, but only within limits. They cannot measure ice beyond a certain depth, and when they sent Pen Hadow off there to drill directly the equipment broke as it wasn't up to the job. They cannot measure anything directly before they could, and either use indirect proxies, such as air bubbles in ice cores and what plants grew which can't cope with certain temperatures. But that can be confused, such as the trees which grow wide rings both from warmth, CO2 levels and water supply, but still if they want to they can use them for temperature and overlook the other two causes of growth they are fully aware of, not because they are accurate but because only other scientists within a very small region of expertise would have known that. So yes, it can be cheated and if you visit Retraction Watch can see pages of examples to save me doing so. The certainty of knowledge as you go from the solar system to what causes gravity and the nature of black holes can go from as high as the full 100% to a very low number, something which all the scientists themselves are aware of, but not the public or politicians who they advise and communicate with. So to extend the level to global warming, we can safely compare long term weather forecast with climate forecasts. The mechanism they are measuring is the same atmosphere, the equipment is the same, the only difference is rather than focus on specific days they are looking for trends over decades, which has certain known mechanisms which all combine together in a complex mixture to create small and large ice ages and interglacial periods, with 30-60 year oceanic cycles and 11 year solar cycles.
When they discovered CO2 was almost 50% higher than normal (as it had been stable for a very long time) the existing knowledge attributed the atmosphere as it was to raising the surface temperature an average 33C above space or a planet without any in the same location. The moon has very little and can still reach 100F at the equator. But the 33C figure was directly attributed to the water vapour (95%), existing CO2, methane and a few trace gases which made up the remainder. So clearly the CO2 itself didn't do much, 1C in fact, 1/33 of the total. So doubling it would add 1C, and again by quadrupling it as it loses its power as it increases. But there was a wild card thrown in in the (100% theoretical) positive feedback amplification. That basically meant if it gets a little warmer more water will evaporate and add the real greenhouse gas which will warm a lot more than CO2.
Fair enough. I did science at school for long enough to know how to do an experiment. We had to write them up and present our data exactly as they do in the Climate Research Unit, certainly as they are supposed to, and when we are given the parameters at the start, and what needs to be measured, if we are able to follow its progress then using a line plotter we can usually see the trend after around 50% of its run and unless we are told that there are points that need to be crossed before a substance dissolves, melts or explodes then the runs tended to be fairly linear. If you distil alcohol, for example, once the drips begin they continue until the liquid medium is used up. It doesn't speed up at the end or work in waves. Evaporation itself is always linear, watch a puddle evaporate after a storm and the sunlight gradually shrinks it to nothing. We can observe it and repeat it ad infinitum.
The UN, the world's climate authority, politicians advised by scientists, say that a rise of less than 2C is fine, and actually (you can quote me on this) beneficial, so firstly the people who claim we are already worse off without such a rise are going against the UN, as only bad news is reported we don't hear about the 30% plus increase in plant growth worldwide as a result, which was also tucked away in their reports. Overall, according to the UN, if people are suffering more then other people are benefitting elsewhere even more as it does increase temperate regions, cause fewer deaths, increase food production and uses less energy for heating. Obvious but generally overlooked. Those are the experimental parameters at day one. World average temperature in 1850- 13.8C, CO2 260ppm. The feedback is not a measured observation, it is a theory, something which could happen (I haven't seen the probability, probably as no one's really made a point to share it) but not necessarily. There's no history of higher CO2 level effects before, unless you go back a very long time using proxy records, but the Minoans and Romans had similar higher temperatures which are in all climate history books till the UN magically rewrote history in the 90s. But they didn't manage to burn any books so they are still in them and a few screenshots which refuse to go away.
So, imagine a school science experiment, you are told to stick your thermometer in the air (not in a container as unlike a glass greenhouse ours isn't solid) and keep adding CO2 and measure the increase. There is a pool of water at the bottom to simulate the oceans, and the air is the same in the lab as everywhere else so standardised. Unlike the atmosphere you needn't even be told the possible results and mechanisms, as scientists you only need to observe, measure, and only then attribute causes. That is what scientists can do that we can't. We can all measure and observe, but we don't have the theories to then take that data and analyse it fully. In fact if you told one group of students the possible results in advance and not the others it may even distract them, and for example if you told them about the feedback theory some may actually start looking for it even though if it were present you couldn't miss it anyhow.
So after an hour or so (you only have a small room so it doesn't need more than a single canister to slowly leak out to double the atmospheric CO2) it has risen 50%, and you have your four probes in the room to average local differences (like heat islands from Fatty sitting in the corner) showing the temperature has risen 0.4C. If the teacher asked what you expect the result to be, bearing in mind the graph has risen in a fairly linear manner, and if you said it would probably reach 0.8C, especially as no one had considered starting a fire or opening a window, which would both wreck the experiment, as there were no other likely changes possible, few other sensible conclusions would be possible. Now take the experiment outdoors, but instead of having a couple of hours we need two hundred plus years. Now luckily for us the experiment has already been running in the background since 1850, so is around half done, so we are in the same position as the students. The thousands of probes say the temperature has risen 0.8C, but subtracting the rise based on the pre-1850 trend (as we are always going in or out of an ice age, which means a gradual rise or fall in large or small waves since the earth was created) we end up with around 0.5C. Exactly as measured in the lab with no fires or open windows.
As a student, where would you expect the line to finish up? Remember there were also the supposed existence of positive feedbacks from day one as possibilities, from evaporation and reduced ice cover reflecting less heat. And clouds. We mustn't forget clouds, they are formed by oceanic evaporation and block the sun during the day and keep in any warmth longer at night, overall cooling as the heat can't get in in the first place when blocked out. That water vapour can form humidity (positive) or clouds (negative) but science cannot predict the possible effect on clouds, so simply left it out of their pre-experiment parameters, even though they knew it was as possible as any other result. Again, no parameters or physical mechanisms besides the minor faster ice melting, a very small element, would speed up over time, but the rest is linear. If anyone can find any others let me know as it took me a very long time trying to find if they had a reason for a delay but if you simply return to Newton's laws it would also have to bypass them as well if there is one.
This is reflected in the predictions made in the 90s which used the same projections, run on computers attempting to factor in every significant element in the climate, for the entire planet, except of course cloud formation, and the other unknown, aerosol dust pollution, the other major coolant. Twenty plus years later 95% of the lines were well above the real temperature in 2013, and this (as far as a jury would be concerned at least), would prove they couldn't factor in enough elements to provide an accurate temperature forecast based on adding a single extra element of CO2 into the air. You only need forecasts before the event, and now CO2 has risen 50% and the temperature has risen 0.8C, even if this was all attributable to CO2, which no one claims it is, it could still get nowhere near the 2C when doubled, so using student logic, there clearly can be no problem. Prove me wrong.
There is a third element to the CO2 belief system, as despite the known evidence, the scientists, politicians and media, all say nothing has changed. 25 years later despite the results coming in clearly, only a handful of them have changed their position, so few as to make no difference anywhere as yet, despite the actual figures being so more clear and direct than when Al Gore first testified to congress. Because of this it is hard to see it as anything else as a belief system, as they all say whatever the current situation, it is almost certain to happen when it reaches a 100% rise. That is the second element, the alternative view which requires so much faith in science they can actually disregard the solid physical temperature and related data, and use the theories of the scientists, which being scientists and based on thousands of pages of complex calculations, simply must be right. We just have to wait long enough for the 100% rise to be reached and it will almost certainly happen, because most of them say so. Not because we can look at the graph and see it, but because they know more than everyone else and their knowledge is so great it is actually more important than the data itself. That is unfortunately no longer science, so has been relegated to the stupid division, more respectably known as faith or belief. Something in fact no advanced human being should have, as there are only two positions, I know or I don't know. I know has already been demonstrated to be on a sliding scale, and you can say I know this much or that much, meaning the remainder I don't yet, but if I did then it would be certain. That is the process of science and life in general.
So what is the third element? Now we have a world consensus (the majority is reducing, but it remains the majority) that the scientists know more than even the current figures tell us to the contrary, we will know for sure at a 100% rise, which is due around 2100. There's our second major problem, the first being the lack of a delay for the positive feedback to arrive, we'll never know either way. The experiment can never be completed. You don't start an A level practical with crystals which won't be formed for three days in a three hour exam, as it would be totally stupid. You don't get results for your cancer or blood tests thirty years later when you'd be 102, as even if you got the all clear you'd never be able to celebrate. You get the picture. So what does this sound like? Possibly if you lead a good life, or even a bad one, but repent your sins and accept Jesus as your saviour after you die you will go to heaven.
You can look all you like for life after death departments in universities, teaching it in degrees and sending students there on excursions to learn about it directly. There are no equations showing its existence or likelihood, and I have yet to find a single scientist who would suggest this will become possible in the future. It is entirely 100% based on faith, trust and belief, as you can never actually know it. At least not before the event. Many atheists who have never even considered belief in god, or followed any religious rules or rituals are displaying the identical faith in millions without claiming to accept the validity of religious faith at all. But what is the difference between faith in scientists and priests, if the scientists cannot and have not provided enough evidence for their claims about something which not only won't happen till the future, hasn't started to happen, and won't even be expected to happen within our lifetimes and I'd say you were either crazy, stupid or both. Pardon me for being insulting, but there isn't really another way of putting it politely without providing the identical conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment