Friday, 22 August 2014

Analysing the story, climate style

Today not only did the climate community (whoever they are) admit the temperature had not risen for 17 years, but it was on the BBC. That is like Hamas saying maybe Israel isn't so bad after all. But that was almost old news, as they'd been admitting this for a while now, but the official line is now not only has it not risen despite the chicken running around for some time minus its head claiming it really had, but it probably won't till 2025. Of course a low prediction is equally worthless as a high one, but they've reacted, and boy did they react. That cuts out maybe 10% of mankind from knowing as they (and maybe including myself) won't be here to witness it, but also means CO2 is rising as before, not driving the climate (as natural forces keeping the temperature down are stronger, as many dissenters have pointed out), and the trend will be so flattened the 2C point for 2100 will be physically impossible without a meteor strike putting the planet off its orbit.

This article has highlighted a number of specific points:

1) Previous models were clearly wrong

2) Previous models did not (and could not) provide nearly enough data to run more than months ahead, let alone centuries (the IPCC have gone hundreds of years ahead in their imaginations, or as they call them 'reports').

3) The IPCC claimed temperatures would rise fairly steadily at 0.2C per decade. This happened from 1970-2000 roughly, not before and not since. The glitch now appears to be that short rise rather than the pauses or falls before and since then.

4) The article had to end (as they all do) 'but we expect warming to take over at the end'. Not one empty prediction but two. After the last ones all got it wrong.

5) How it will remain possible to hold belief in something which not only stopped happening some time ago, but is now officially expected not to happen for some time more is only up to the general public to observe and respond. One by one (assuming it's still reported) people will start wondering what all the fuss is about, the temperature and sea level are barely rising, while the ice has not melted and had no one mentioned it in authority not a single person outside the weather stations would have had a clue anything was ever different from normal, as of course it isn't. The actual rise since 1850 is only significant using heavily modified UN graphs which ironed out all warmer previous periods, going against every textbook on the planet. Interestingly the latest report merged the old and new graph to produce a mixture in the middle.

Now if you were an outside observer of any discipline which had adjusted and rewritten past technical history every few years or so then I hope like every rational person you would assume they didn't really yet understand exactly what was happening. Because they don't. How could they? In any other profession using such data- medicine, engineering, accounting, if your investment manager revised the company profits from the past over and over again you'd smell a rat and either take your money out or not put it in. If your architect revised the tolerances of a bridge that many times you'd get a new one, as how would you know which one was right, and if the one they do end up using will be strong enough? And if your doctor changed the diagnosis three times or more you'd wonder if you were ever going to be cured or treated as they weren't even sure what was wrong with you. Why is global warming an exception? Why should they keep changing the game, each time insisting their latest version of technology got it right this time (except they still can't model clouds, aerosol or water vapour, or know when CO2 becomes unable to hold any more heat). This is nothing like the science I learnt at school, and when I switched to social sciences as my maths stopped me going any further in the natural ones, they were different in that each competing theory claimed to have most of the answers as no one was really certain, and in fact I discovered most had a piece to add and when you put them all together you got a better picture of the whole, and as a result my marks almost doubled.

But in natural science it is divided between levels of knowledge, hypotheses, theories, theorems etc, each a different level of certainty and treated as such. You simply cannot have a theory which hasn't yet (and isn't able to be) been proven and will take 50-100 years before you are really certain. Till that point man made global warming is a hypothesis. A suggestion, one possibility of many, and as such never had the status to make policies (which are the most devastating the world has seen) and such policies can never be tested as we don't have a control, a planet like Earth which has different levels of CO2, and then a century to compare the temperature on both after we'd tested our measures on this one to see if they really could keep the temperature below 2C.

Instead CO2 is rising whatever they have pretended to do to stop it, and not only that, as it rises regardless of taxes and closure of coal power stations etc, the temperature is no longer rising in response. Pardon me, but isn't the reasonable response now including the latest statement the pause is real and expected to last, that CO2 can't be as powerful as they claim at the UN and they really never knew what they were doing but was just a means to (as Ottmar Edenhoffer openly admitted) redistribute wealth around the world? If your equations add up, work in a lab but do not reflect the real world there is only one conclusion, you're missing something. In the most complicated chaotic system apart from the human mind then pretending you can analyse and model it, and then predict it for centuries ahead is one of the greatest acts of dangerous hubris ever committed.

No global warming

No comments:

Post a Comment