An Engineer, a Mathematician and a “Climate scientist” are each asked “what is 2 + 2?
The Engineer says “somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1”, the Mathematician says “4” and the “Climate scientist” says “what would you like it to be?”
This is the problem we have today.
“Climate change” can be anything you want if you are a “follower”.
If science is supposed to be the pursuit of “truth” through the application of the “scientific method” then the behaviour of the pro-climate change brigade shows that they are not interested in participating.
When I look at the variety of temperature “measurements” that somehow determine the “global average temperature” and the statistical jiggery pokery that is used to “process” them I wonder why anyone swallows the result.
As example, ocean temperatures are supposedly taken by “Argo buoys”. There are 4,000 buoys and 360 million square kilometres of ocean. That’s one measurement for every 90,000 square kilometres.
By comparison, South Australia has an area of 984,000 square kilometres so it is equivalent to taking South Australia’s “average temperature” with 11 readings.
Satellites measure “near surface temperature” indirectly. Wikipedia – the great climate change proselytising organ – says the following. (The italics are mine).
“Satellites do not measure temperature. They measure radiances in various wavelength bands, which must then be mathematically inverted to obtain indirect inferences of temperature.
The resulting temperature profiles depend on details of the methods that are used to obtain temperatures from radiances.
As a result, different groups that have analysed the satellite data have produced differing temperature datasets.
The satellite time series is not homogeneous. It is constructed from a series of satellites with similar but not identical sensors. The sensors also deteriorate over time, and corrections are necessary for orbital drift and decay. Particularly large differences between reconstructed temperature series occur at the few times when there is little temporal overlap between successive satellites, making intercalibration difficult”.
Added to this are a number of terrestrial measurements from ordinary old weather stations, but I cannot find a definitive number.
All of this data gets “processed” with “algorithms” that fill in the blanks with “estimates” and the output is a number that is meaningless in the real world – the “average temperature” of the earth that has an area of 510 million square kilometres.
Is your BS alarm screaming yet?
Looking at 2 places in South Australia for 12 December, using BOM data, Oodnadatta had an average for the day of 34.15, ((46.7+21.6)/2). Kingscote had an average of 21.2, ((33.8+8.6)/2).
There is a 13 degree difference between the “averages” and both are well in excess of the supposed “global mean” of about 14 degrees.
Oodnadatta was 20 degrees “hotter” and Kingscote was 8 degrees “hotter” than the “global mean”.
So what? All this tells us is that there are places on earth with temperatures much higher and much lower than the average. Antarctica varies from -10 to -60 degrees C; Death Valley has a range from 17 degrees to 47 degrees C.
Oodnadatta has recorded maxima above 50 degrees C in the past and will do so again.
The purpose of all the convoluted “measurements” for the “global mean” is to try and identify some “trend” showing how our “carbon emissions” are leading the earth to fry.
There is no honesty about the accuracy of the measurements or any error margin, we are expected to believe and be horrified when someone pronounces 2016 was “hotter” than 2015 by 4 one hundredths of a degree C.
There is no doubt 2017 will be “hotter” than 2016. Records will be “smashed” again, by a few hundredths of a degree because if it were not so the “theory” would look a bit shaky.
The “climate change” juggernaut might be de-railed. “Scientists” will be looking in every nook and cranny to find some extra heat.
If all of this was treated as a curiosity rather than an all-out assault on mankind and guilt trip because we live in houses with glass in the windows it might be tolerable.
Unfortunately many people, some who should know better and some who are just plain thick, have accepted this “climate change” drama and we have suffered from ridiculous policies and acts of economic vandalism because we need “to save the planet” even though it might not need to be saved.
It is not so much that it has become boring and tedious, the issue is that it is taken so seriously and the steps undertaken to “reduce emissions” of a benign gas that is the source of all life on earth are stupid and impoverish us.
Here are two quotes from the Cosmologist Carl Sagan. I do not pretend that he was referring to “climate change” but they are worth considering:
“Arguments from authority carry little weight – authorities have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.”
“We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster”.
I still believe that 2+2 does equal 4.