Proof – Global Warming Is A Hoax

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.