Saturday, February 25, 2017

The significance of ignoring the best data

Global Warming is a simple, scientifically formatted hypothesis: that 1) CO2 in the atmosphere causes heat retention; 2) that adding CO2 on a global basis will likely increase atmospheric CO2 levels; and 3) that this increase will cause large increases in overall global temperature, which will cause rising sea levels, destruction of reefs, and much dislocation of human population living near the ocean.

It does not, to be clear, even in the most extremist scenarios, envision anything other than a massive inconvenience, and the loss of a considerable amount of biological diversity.  And what it never mentions is the longer and more productive agricultural seasons we would see particularly in Russia and Canada if this hypothesis were true.

Be that as it may, point number 1 was of course proven long ago.  I sometimes see my arguments rebutted--so they seem to think--with reference to discoveries made in the 19th century.  OF COURSE CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, so called.  No one disputes it.

The points relevant to the discussion, though, are 1) it is only relevant at higher altitudes; and 2) its relative influence is cut in half with each doubling.  It makes a huge difference initially, then makes less and less of a difference of the more of it there is.  It is strongly implied in Warmist language that there is a linear relationship between CO2 accumulation and temperature, but nothing in the literature supports this.  The fact is the more there is, the less it matters.

To my point, though: the key, absolutely unavoidable, absolutely clear postulate of this hypothesis is that massive warming will happen in the Upper Troposphere.  This is where the warming MUST begin, for the hypothesis to be true.  There is no Option B.  There is no possibility of switching from Warming to Change.  This is the SINGLE data point upon which the entire edifice hinges.  It is the core data point from which the entire usefulness and importance of the many billion business of Global Warming "research" emanates.

We have real time, highly accurate, and long term (4 decades or so) data.  And what does it show?  Nothing.  It shows some warming, but nothing faster than the overall atmosphere itself, when basic physics would require 3 or more times the warming we see for the hypothesis to be true.

I have made this point before.  The data is clear that this whole thing is "fake news", although the consequences of this fake news are much bigger than is normally the case.

The point I wanted to make here is that very intelligent, highly funded, very capable people continue to attempt to use very difficult, highly suspect, and ultimately unreliable measurements, as sculpted through statistical models created through both guesswork (and in my view subterfuge) to estimate overall land temperature, and even computer models to guess OCEAN temperature, at the bottoms of the oceans.

Why do they do this?  Why do they want to use as arguments bad--or at least suspect and highly unreliable--data to continue to argue for public policy oriented around reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions, and specifically CO2 emissions?


Speculate, then, from there.  But speculate KNOWING that science is not at the core of this thing.  It is not the core aim, and this is CLEARLY the case. If the more generous want to ascribe idealistic motives to these massive lies, so be it.  But lies they are.  Demonstrably, and irrefutably.

People trying to provide real solutions to real problems look for the best, most relevant data.  They do not fight for the inclusion of and reliance on the worst data.

No comments: