We just
do not have the time deal with flat-heads like “BO”, EPA, CARB,
and the Sierra Club. They ignore scientific facts so they can
boss-around other people (not to mention $billion oil companies who
are the new demons) because they really enjoy telling people what to
do. They gain a sense of power and importance.
I can
demonstrate, mathematically, that global warming is mere fantasy. The
problem is that we will quickly end up in the weeds, because it
involves differential calculus. Don't worry, I will explain in
ordinary language.
The
Mother Of All Air Temperature Equations
Known
as a “primitive equation”, here it is:
ΔT/t
= T/t
+ u(T/x)
+ v(T/y)
+ w(T/z)
The
stuff on the left side of the equal sign is the final result: it is the change in air
temperature over time. (For those who are interested, "T" is temperature, "t" is time).
The
first item on the right side calculates the heat absorbed by the
earth from the sun and the heat our planet re-radiates back into
space. This is where albedo, cloud cover, and atmospheric carbon
dioxide (among other things) are taken into account.
The
second, third, and fourth things on the right side is a 3D model of
the movement of air in the atmosphere. It estimates the movement of
heat and moisture.
Deep
breath. There, that wasn't so bad, was it?
Now The
Fun Begins
The
next step is to gather a zillion weather data points from satellites,
ground stations, and so forth, and try to come up with a model that
fits the observed data, then animate them in 3D. This is where
supercomputers come in: you can do it on your desktop or laptop
(indeed, there are some software packages that you can download and
run on your computer), but the more computing horsepower you use, the
more accurate your prediction becomes.
It
sounds kinda squirrely, because it is. This is the basis for the
forecasts of the TV weatherman. Now, tell me, how many times has he
gotten tomorrow's temperature correct, much less a 7-day forecast?
Have you ever heard him say something like: well, the computer models
are forecasting rain tomorrow morning, but I just don't buy it. This
is also the same equation used to predict global warming decades from
now. How reliable do you suppose the temperature model will be then?
Houston,
We Have a Problem...
There
are a few important factors not taken into account by the
primitive equation:
The
Jet Stream. It is a primary factor influencing atmospheric air
movement. It also changes randomly and erratically. Scientists have
no idea why, and they cannot predict its changes. So the 3D portion
of the equation is total worthless.
Cloud
Cover. During the winter, have you noticed that if there is cloud
cover at night, the temperature the next morning is moderate?
Likewise, if the sky is clear, the next morning will be freezing
cold with frost warnings (at least here in California). This is
because cloud cover determines if the earth will cool or warm, and
this nothing to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Cloud
cover is influenced mainly by the Jet Stream, so it cannot be
predicted either.
The
Sun. The amount of heat the earth absorbs is determined primarily by
how much heat we get from the sun. Sunspots, solar flares, and
random variations in the sun's output vary dramatically over time.
This is another area that scientists do not really understand, and
they certainly cannot predict it. This renders the first item on the
right side of the Primitive Equation equally worthless.
In
Conclusion
I hope
that I have demonstrated that atmospheric temperature, carbon
dioxide, and dynamic, unpredictable climate are not reliable, settled
science. It is mostly by guess and by golly. Climate and weather (do
you know the difference?) are more art than they are science with
plenty of room for disagreement. This is the same equation used in
the 70's “proving” that we were headed towards another ice age,
and that there would be icebergs surrounding the Statue of Liberty in
NY Harbor.
