Yesterday, at the American Thinker Vic Hughes gave us The Blunt Truth About Global Warming Models. I urge gentle readers to go and read the whole article, but the (spoiler alert) blunt truth is that these models can't predict the temperature of any global climate.
I may be one of the first scientists in the country to know that predicting long-term temperatures is not possible.
Almost 50 years ago, while in grad school, I had a contract from an Army research lab to use a state-of-the-art models to predict long-term temperatures. I quickly realized that the goal of the project, to forecast accurately the temperature long-term, was impossible because small errors in data inputs could result in huge forecasts errors. Equally important was that errors compounded so quickly that it caused the error ranges to explode. The results were junk. As an example, what good is a temperature forecast with an error range of plus or minus one hundred degrees?
I give university speeches to scientists and tell them: if you ever see some data or forecasts, your first question has to be "what's the error range?" If you don't know the error range, the data are almost useless. It's not coincidental that the Climate Mafia don't highlight this problem
So what about modern technology solving these problems? These error problems are still true today. It's not that the long-term temperature forecasts are wrong; it's that they can't be right. All global warming modelers know this, or they are incredibly stupid, or they just lie about it for money or power.
Got that? It's not that the long-term temperature forecasts are wrong (which they are) but that they can't be right. Think about it. Our local weather forecaster seems very competent at using the various near-term models to predict the short-term weather between a few hours and 7 days out. But if you notice, all her predictions are stochastic in nature. We have tomorrow, for example, a 20% chance of rain "later" in the day. What then will the range be 100 years from now? Truth be told, the range of predicted temperatures exceeds the diurnal range.
Now, I realize the difference between "weather" and "climate." But climate is made up of temperature, humidity, rainfall patterns, vegetation, and so forth. In fact, climate is as regional and as specific as is weather. And the sum of the "weather" makes up "climate." Which brings us back to the fact that long-term forecasting of temperature cannot be right.
Since your input data are critical to forecasting the Chaotic Future, fully understanding past temperatures is also critical. The Climate Mafia create the entirely bogus concept of an "average Earth temperature" to create a bogus base data set for their bogus models. The Warming Scammers like to use a garbage temperature history that starts about 1850. The Scammers say that their increased temperatures since 1850, just coincidentally at the end of a three-hundred-year cooling cycle, represent the rise of the industrial pollution age. In 1850, and even in 1950, only a small percentage of world's population could even be considered close to industrialized. Look at India, Africa, and China then: almost medieval energy use patterns until really recently. Humans have been around in their current form for many tens of thousands of years. To say the weather since the 1850s is representative of anything from a statistical perspective is a joke.
So what kind of temperature data do we have since 1850?
With oceans and ice caps covering over 80+% of the world's surface, we have virtually no reliable long-term data on any of that, other than the last few decades. Even then, you are talking about a relatively small number of measuring devises in all those places. (Do you check the weather a few hundred miles away to know if you need an umbrella?) How about the temperature trends in deserts, on mountains, in the middle of Africa, South America, Siberia — at sea level, a hundred feet elevation, a thousand feet elevation? The data are so bad in all of the Southern Hemisphere — half the globe — that there are only a few datasets even close to reliable since the 1850s. There are almost no real, reliable, and complete long-term data globally, and particularly none reliable enough to create model of a chaotic system entirely dependent on very accurate input data.
So, why pick 1850? What makes that the goldilocks year when everything was just right? Man has been around for 1.2 million years, of which Homo Sapiens has been around 200,000 years. We know the climate has been much warmer in those 200,000 years. Did anyone study what effect those warmer temperatures had? No, they did not because the entire climate mafia is a stove pipe operation, which doesn't bring in other relevant disciplines such as archeology, paleontology, and so forth. The fact is that the conclusions were already made, and then the facts were force fit to draw the pre-determined conclusions.
Once again, I need to point out that most of the environmentalist mafia's beliefs are based on an assumption that the earth is a fragile environment. Further, they believe that man's technological prowess can damage the world forever and make the earth uninhabitable. Again, if archeology were studied as part of the climate prediction process, they would see that past civilizations have cut down vast swaths of rain forests in the Amazon for farming. But when those civilizations disappeared, the jungle relentlessly took over and left no trace. Plants and animals seem able to survive a wide variety of climatic conditions.
More importantly, say you had perfect data and a perfect model. How could we possibly know what impact that will have? Another thought experiment: How much will temperatures vary where you live today? Ten degrees? Twenty degrees? Thirty? How much does it vary in a year? For most of the U.S., that number might be 50 degrees, a 100 degrees. So plants and animals have adapted to 20-degree temperatures changes in a day or 100-degree temperature changes in a year. Somehow a 1- or 2-degree temperature change in a hundred years is going to take them out? That's ridiculous.
I alluded above to a pre-determined conclusion, to which the climate mafia had cherry picked and fitted facts to match. That pre-determined conclusion was the neo-malthusian belief that there are too many of us on "space ship earth." The world is estimated to be carrying 8 billion of us today. For neo-malthusians, however, they are sure that we are running out of various strategic metals and other resources. Remember when "peak oil" was a thing? Then we discovered fracking and suddenly we have over 200 years of proven reserves. Having not studied physics, they don't realize that all the resources that the earth had in the past are still here and can be recycled. Man is not like other animals, after all.
So what does all this have to do with climate? The climate scam was created to force the population down. How much seems to be under debate. Fossil fuels were seen as the great engine of human growth. But fossil fuels also put CO2 into the atmosphere. And CO2 had been shown to be a greenhouse gas. Indeed, when pumped into greenhouses, it caused plants to grow more abundantly. Voi'la. Thus the drum beat started with books like Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb and scare stories in the media. Eventually it became government policy with the signing of the Kyoto Protocol by Al Gore in 1997. Note that the Senate has never ratified the Kyoto protocol. Nevertheless, the U.S. government has continued to act on it as if it had.
Thus we come to the topic of today's highlighted piece by Jerome R. Corsi at the American Thinker entitled Will New EPA Regulations Starve Millions of People? Corsi points to a 45 page comment on regulations proposed by the EPA by Richard Lindzen and William Happer, both prominent climate scientists. Happer and Lindzen believe that the EPA regulations will kill millions of starvation if implemented.
Two distinguished climate scientists have filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a 45-page comment on the proposed regulation the EPA announced on May 11, 2023, setting emission standards that would require nearly all of coal- and gas-powered plants in the U.S.to capture almost all—90 percent—of their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2038 or shut down.
In their comment, William Happer, professor of physics, emeritus, Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor of Earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences, emeritus, make both a legal and a scientific case that the EPA’s proposed new rule is based on ideologically driven polices with no basis in legitimate climate science. In a document that appears to be the prelude to filing a lawsuit to block the EPA from implementing the proposed regulation, Happer and Lindzen lay out a science-based case arguing that the new EPA rules designed to limit the use of hydrocarbon fuels in the nation’s power plants could end up reducing the world’s food supply so dramatically that billions of people worldwide would be at risk of death by starvation.
As the Left gets closer and closer to achieving its goals, the sotto voce part becomes quite loud. They intend to starve a great part of the world population to death as the most practical way to reduce the population numbers. These people, who have arrogated to themselves the role of God, in their pride, believe that in the future too many of us will be useless eaters, so need to be disposed of. The arrogance is breathtaking. Let us pray we can stop them yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment