Global Warming, Data to Prediction

Science and engineering are mostly about collecting data. The data is combined and new data derived. From this data it is possible to determine a trend which may be used to make a prediction. Yet there is the danger of jumping to an invalid conclusion due to determining an improper trend. This becomes much more possible if your data is prone to error and if you have financial considerations pushing for rapid or flamboyant results. There is also missing data which can affect any conclusions. In the case of the climate, we are discussing an extremely complex system. Many seem to be happy with the prediction of using a "Hockey Stick" to curve-fit the temperature data in order to make predictions.

In the case of global warming we have many temperature measuring stations which are being questioned as to their accuracy (SurfaceStations.org) The loudest camp, those who want to blame mans pollution for the temperature increase, do not consider any other data which may conflict with their data. Many have suggested solar changes which don't seem to interest the "church of man-made climate doom" members. then there is this interesting article in
NewScientist.com. This discusses the increase in solar radiation reaching the ground in Europe due to the cleaner air there. That cleaner air is due to the work of environmentalists to eliminate the pollution of the skies. Seems they dis an admirable job since the air is 60% clearer and there is an increase of one watt per square meter of solar radiation.

Not only has the air in Europe gotten cleaner, I remember having days in the 1950's and 1960's where it hurt to inhale deeply the air in the Los Angeles area. Days where due to the smog the mountains only three miles away could not be seen. By the time I left that area there was a noticeable improvement in those conditions. No measurements, simply data from an casual observation. This does not mean to infer that when California is burning, as it is while I write this, that the air is cleaner.

The hockey stick is the oft-repeated phrase used to describe the temperature graphs and the prediction of dire consequences. That because a hockey stick visually represents an exponential growth and increases the feat of what is coming. If it keeps going like this. (Oops that is how a Sci-Fi author builds his ideas) The problem with this hockey stick or exponential curve fit is that nature much more loves the sine curve. As seen in the eleven year solar cycle the day night cycle, even biorhythms are sinusoidal.

Why would Scientists describe it as exponential increase rather than anything else? We come back to money as mentioned in my previous article, they need money from grants. If their study field happens to be popular in the media then it is easy to get those grants. There is also the pier pressure, "Its not nice to buck the current thinking in academia." You can be fired or black-balled for going against what your boss believes or quite possibly is making his living off of. That is why a large portion of the dissenting opinion is coming from outside of the established academic community. It does not cost us our jobs.

Speaking of predictions, I have a friend who is a "Church of MMGW" member, he sent me a link to an article on the prediction of the Arctic Ice cap melting, by the end of the year. Which has in fact been all over the news and the web. I was sent this prediction as proof that global warming is real and man made. Sorry, a prediction is not data. It also says nothing to the source. It will be interesting once the year is past to reflect upon this. Will it join the list of predictions like "famine and food riots by 1990", "End of the world in 2000"? Or will we actually see a northwest passage to Asia open? After a quick search of Arctic Ice I see articles about record melt and refreeze (sinusoidal) and volcanoes under the ice. Now there is another possible input to the climate engine. We have sub surface factors, we have extra-planetary (solar) inputs to the climate system both in the arena of nature which spawns things of much greater effect than those meager accomplishments of man.

In order to accurately predict a systems action it is necessary to have data on all of the major inputs to the system. If any data are ignored or unknown then the prediction will be in error. Any errors in the measurements of those inputs will also add to errors in the prediction. In the case of the Man Made Global Warming Frenzy we are also seeing data modified and ignored because it would not further the desired goals. Those goals include predictions of drastic temperature increases in the near future thus generating fear by the people of the world. Fear, so that we do not complain as we give them money to continue their existence in at least the same if not more comfortable manner.

As complex as the climate system is I do not believe that it can be simplified to the point of saying that we have doomed ourselves by exhaling. The greatest damage from making this claim and riding it to a cleaner environment, is in loosing creditability when it proves to be wrong. Then the cleanup effort will suffer. We will go back to our ways of fouling our nest. Robert A. Heinlein once said "The Earth is too fragile a basket for mankind to keep all of her eggs in." Weather basket or nest mankind seems to have forgotten that is is not a good idea to defaecate where you live. I would hate to see the cleanup effort die due to poor choice of a bandwagon to attach to.

We the sheepul will pay any amount to insure our safety from all foes, be they real or invented by those with ulterior motives. An early American said "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." It seems that today most of the world disagrees with Mr. Franklin. Perhaps he was able to see how the masses could be led by their fear.

Fear, fear the increasing temperature, give us your money so that we may save your miserable lives.