David Bidstrup: “Climate change”: All pain and no gain.

The climate change controversy rolls on and we continue to do stupid things in the quest to stop the “destruction of the planet” in some sort of man-made climate disaster.

It is interesting to look at some of the things we are told and see if any of it makes sense.

There are five main sources of the “global mean temperature” and they all give different results. The satellite data, which has only been available since 1979, is analysed by two different organisations and one result is 60% greater than the other. One wonders how this happens when the data comes from the same source. There are three different “ground sources”, two of which are within 10% of each other and the third is about 40% higher. Historical data gets manipulated and changed over time and areas where there is no data get “estimated” readings to fill in the gaps so it is a moving feast. If anyone would like a source to see the extent of these changes go to http://www.climate4you.com where you can see what has been done to keep the narrative alive. This is an excellent resource full of all sorts of information covering the whole “climate” scene.

We are used to seeing graphs like the one below that show a rising temperature over time.

 

Again none of the 3 sets graphed agree. UAH shows 0.22 degrees for 30 years which is 0.07 degrees per decade or 0.7 degrees in 100 years. The other satellite data set (RSS) is 77% higher. Note the temperature scale on the Y axis.

The graph below shows what happens when the temperature scale is modified to show some realistic temperature range rather than fractions of a degree.

The next question is what exactly is the “global mean temperature”? No one really wants to put a definitive number on it but the quote from NASA below puts it into perspective, (my underlining):

To measure Surface Air Temperature we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted……For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 (13.3C) and 58°F (14.4C) and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.

“The average annual temperature for the globe between 1951 and 1980 was around 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius).  That calculation comes from NASA and NOAA. Other agencies may come up with a slightly different number because there are several techniques for calculating a global average, depending on how one accounts for temperatures above the data-sparse oceans and other poorly sampled regions”.

Note the use of the words “roughly”, “models” and “calculation”. It seems that no one actually knows what they are measuring/calculating and it is worth asking why anyone bothers to do it when the result is so nebulous and ultimately pointless.

Temperature is not a quantity it is a measurement. It is impossible to take 2 temperatures and add them together or subtract them from one another, multiply or divide or average them. It is meaningless. 1 cup of water at 100 degrees C and another the same do not add up to 2 cups at 200 degrees.

The “average temperature” measure becomes more bizarre when the list of average temperatures for countries for the period 1961-1990 is considered. In the list of 191 countries 129 or 68% have “30 year averages” above 14 degrees C. Burkina Fasso tops the list at 28.25 degrees C, twice the “average”. Canada takes bottom spot atminus 5.35 C, 19 degrees below “average” with Russia next at minus 5.1 C. The USA is 8.55 C, (this is the home of Death Valley), Australia comes in at 21.65 C. Argentina (14.8) and Monaco (13.55) are the only places within a bull’s roar of the “30 year average”.

An average is just a statistical construct that tells you some of the data is greater and some less than the “average”. For a mean there is the same number above as below. So what? It is like having your head in an oven and your feet in freezer and “on average” you are at a comfortable temperature.

If this bullshit was just a scientific curiosity it would be OK. The problem is we have all been taken hostage by some doomsday cult that rivals Marion Keech’s “Seekers” and no one is prepared to call it out. Billions of dollars are spent trying to prove the unprovable, people vilify each other, politicians milk it for all its worth, greenies foam at the mouth, renewable energy producers’ rape and pillage at will and the citizens pay – as they always do.

We destroy good power stations, pay subsidies for useless wind and solar generators, batteries, “pumped storage” solutions and the costs go through the roof while the reliability goes through the floor.

In SA wholesale “average” electricity prices have tripled over the last 4 years from $55/MWh to $147/MWh to date in 2018 and there is no sensible end in sight given the degree of political incompetence that we have in all governments and all parties.

The climate change cult needs “global warming”  to keep its CO2 driven “climate change” garbage going so they can continue to have a firm grip on our goolies. As Theodore Roosevelt said, “when you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow”.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Guest Post. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to David Bidstrup: “Climate change”: All pain and no gain.

  1. If the Globe has warmed by 0.8DegC since the industrial revolution, then some place somewhere must be at least 0.8DegC warmer now than it was during the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.
    No such place exists.

    CO2 would be an important greenhouse gas if we were constructing a new planet. Since the World was “constructed” some 4.5B years ago, CO2 is irrelevant as a greenhouse gas.
    Water in all it’s forms is the greenhouse matter that matters (boom boom).
    Water keeps the planet cooler during the day, and warmer during the night.

    ALL locations lacking the vital greenhouse gas water, have a large range between daytime and night time temperatures. Check any desert location or heck even check the moon, much the same distance from the sun as Earth.
    Then check locations heavy with the greenhouse gas water. These would be all the tropical locations and coastal areas. Cooler during the day, warmer during the night.

    This is not rocket science. A high school kid could disprove the AGW theory…….if there was honesty in science (one of the most dishonest and corrupt disciplines).

  2. closeapproximation

    This article picks up on the LEAST INTERESTING reasons why we should be skeptical of CAGW corpus.

    Ranting about the concept of a statistical average and changing the y-axis limit on a chart is a pretty poor effort.

    Also, climate IS much harder than rocket science, that’s why there’s so much FUD and polarisation.

    Try again.

  3. jupes

    Excellent article David.

    Great to see this bullshit put into perspective.

  4. v_maet

    Satellite data shows that Australia’s temperatures have increased by just under 0.1 degree over the past 23 years.
    That is literally an increase of 0.004 degrees per year.

    And even if we went to zero emissions tomorrow, it would make absolutely zero measurable difference to the temperature.

  5. Louis

    Actually within government I haven’t heard the term ‘global warming’ for years. It is always referred to now a ‘climate change’. This gives people multiple more hits for their confirmation bias/availability heuristic.

    Rather than just requiring a ‘hot’ day, which we get all the time in Queensland – It’s amazing how often temperature in the 30Cs is now described as scorching – they can also have, cold snaps, heaving rain/floods, droughts, strong winds, storms etc etc. Honestly I think the young kids these days think these weather events didn’t happen prior to the 1960s.

    The reason this sells so well is that it fits perfectly into naturally occurring human brain limitations. People like to see a rational actor (an intentional mind) as being behind things. Many people are perfectly comfortable with the idea that humans are responsible for the weather…just like human’s were for 1000s of years in either believing a god caused the weather or their actions caused the weather.

  6. egg_

    Water keeps the planet cooler during the day, and warmer during the night.

    Modulation.

  7. Dr Fred Lenin

    All youse people against the climate change religion are attacking the peoples decromatic Chinese government and placing them in mortal danger . The massive trade imbalances in China’s favour are keeping the punters there quiet ,that is why the Trump “Russian connection must be pursued in order to impeach him and restore the the elite aparat to power untill the Chinese owned u.n. takes over the world “,Trump must go to ensure the plan continues its March aided by the gullible leftoid collaborators of the west,we know of course what to do to these whinging o[idiots when victory is ours “ ,the head of the peoples security agency is reported to have said recently.

  8. It is my long held view (based on the numbers) that the temperature record since the 1850s has an error margin that is far greater than the disaster peddler’s claimed increases (David lists some of the reasons).
    Satellite data is accurate, but as David points out, compared to what?
    Geologically, the time span of recording satellite data is minuscule. It cannot meaningfully provide predictions for future.

    My car speedo says I was only traveling at 59.67398728614 km per hour. Not the 60.000001 that the officer claims.
    Yeah, right.

  9. Tom

    To cut to the chase, “climate change” (aka CAGW) is communism’s $US2 trillion p.a. slush fund*,
    co-ordinated by the UN, to bring down the capitalist world commerce system and provide artificial jobs for millions of otherwise unemployable activists coming out of the Marxist education system.

    No dissent from the Malthusian narrative of doom is tolerated for dissent would threaten the goose that lays the golden eggs – unlike in real science, where conflicting data is widely discussed and debated and, on an issue of such vital public interest, the community regularly updated on the search for answers.

    Instead we have a constant barrage of one-way propaganda not supported by research, the doctoring of climate data by the government science establishment and a neverending lecture about the evils of humanity.

    Like every other project of the left, climate change is just another argument about the future of humanity that blood-soaked communism’s 21st century disciples have lost – at a financial cost that could have abolished world poverty many times over.

    *Estimated by the US Insurance Council in 2015 at $US1.5 trillion p.a., appreciated at 10% p.a.

  10. Bruce of Newcastle

    The AMSU satellite data is at least an internally consistent dataset, albeit from several satellites as each is replaced. It is cross checked against an internal standard instrument on the satellite itself and it is also cross checked against several series of data measured by radiosonde balloon instruments.

    Thus it is pretty good data. It is also global, unlike the terrestrial datasets which are dogs breakfasts of interpolation, bad locations, UHIE, ridiculous adjustments and politically motivated distortion.

    The most recent UAH global value for March was +0.24 C against the 1981-2010 average. As it happens this is exactly the same as March 2002. Therefore there has been no warming at all for 16 years. CO2 in the atmosphere has risen in that time by 10%.

    In addition to the raw data RSS has a good global visualizer page. So here are the two Marches:

    March 2002
    March 2018

    If you flip between the two you can see they are very similar. By contrast if you look at March last year it is clearly a lot hotter, as you would expect due to the waning 2015-2017 el Nino.

    So again it’s apparent there’s been no global warming this century, apart from some el Nino spikes. No one has linked el Nino to CO2 with any credibility that I’ve seen, and you never hear that in the MSM either.

  11. Bruce of Newcastle

    Here is RSS global temperature visualisation page if anyone wants to check for themselves. The graphics I linked are the Anomaly option – ie variation from the average.

    Another interesting graph is the comparison between the AMSU data and the balloon data. At the following link you can see the two temperature datasets are very consistent and nothing like the output of the models. Which shows you the climate models have ‘way to strong a response to CO2 included in them.

    STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means

    (The data in the graph is for the tropical troposphere – ie where the famous “hot spot” is supposed to occur. Thus if CO2 has an effect it should show most strongly in that data – which it hasn’t much, if any.)

  12. JohnA

    Baa Humbug #2683919, posted on April 11, 2018, at 10:19 am


    This is not rocket science. A high school kid could disprove the AGW theory…….if there was honesty in science (one of the most dishonest and corrupt disciplines).

    closeapproximation #2683944, posted on April 11, 2018, at 10:39 am

    This article picks up on the LEAST INTERESTING reasons why we should be skeptical of CAGW corpus.

    Ranting about the concept of a statistical average and changing the y-axis limit on a chart is a pretty poor effort.

    Also, climate IS much harder than rocket science, that’s why there’s so much FUD and polarisation.

    Try again.

    No, it is not. Ask any school kid where it is easier for people and plants to live – Arctic/Antarctic regions or tropical/temperate regions of the earth. Reason: people die of cold (absence of thermal energy) more than of heat.

    THAT’S why there is so much FUD about this issue.

  13. egg_

    It is my long held view (based on the numbers) that the temperature record since the 1850s has an error margin that is far greater than the disaster peddler’s claimed increases (David lists some of the reasons).

    Wasn’t the AR1-4 MOE stated as +/- 100%?
    After that they stopped plotting it, revised the warming to a fraction of what it was and stated the MOE around 70% buried in the text.

  14. Lutz

    And still no one can tell us what the correct optimal ‘average temperature’ should be.

  15. Stanley

    If the processes used by the climatologist brigade, to infer temperature measurements to vast areas where no measurements exist, were applied to mineral resource estimates, then company shareholders and regulators would be aghast. Imagine billions of dollars spent on a mining project based on sparse sample data – it would likely go bust! Yet that is analogous to the waste of money that we are seeing spent on the religion of climate change.
    On a related topic, the amount of carbon dioxide measured in the atmosphere is totally misleading. It seems the method of measurement first involves the removal of water vapour, so 0.04% CO2 is not really the amount in the “actual” atmosphere. Although the amount of water vapour is highly variable over time, if we factor 30% H2O back into the measurement as a guide, you can see the correct CO2 value is a poofteenth of 0.04%.

  16. manalive

    ‘Over half the [claimed] net rise in the global average temperature since the mid-twentieth century (~0.35C+) is most likely due to the human greenhouse gas emissions mostly CO2’.
    That’s it, hardly a scientific axiom comparable with for instance Newton’s Laws of Motion.
    The entire CC™ industry is based on that unverifiable guess by a bunch of UN bureaucrats and hasn’t changed in essence since the first guesstimate almost thirty years ago, absence of progress is an indicator of pseudoscience.

  17. Biota

    Catastrophic climate change claims are so lacking in credibility in so many areas that for the ’cause’ to have gained so much traction is enough to have me almost believing in Illuminati-type underlying drivers.

  18. Senile Old Guy

    Temperature is not a quantity it is a measurement. It is impossible to take 2 temperatures and add them together or subtract them from one another, multiply or divide or average them. It is meaningless. 1 cup of water at 100 degrees C and another the same do not add up to 2 cups at 200 degrees.

    Oh really. It is not impossible to take two temperatures and do mathematical operations on them. The notion is absurd and this can be demonstrated using an example similar to the one given. If I have one cup of water at 80 degrees C (this temperature is picked for a reason) and another at 40 degrees, if I pour them both into a thermos-flask (to minimise heat loss), I will have two cups at about 60 degrees. It is not impossible at all. If I fill the bath with water that is too hot, I add some cold.

    Now it is certainly true that you cannot have a cup of water (or two cups) at 200 degrees C because water boils at 100 degrees C! That is an elementary error.

    As for “temperature being a measurement not a quantity”; it is, broadly speaking an estimate of the amount of heat energy in the body. From thoughtco:

    Heat refers to the total energy of the molecular motion or kinetic energy of a material. Temperature, on the other hand, is a measure of the average or apparent energy of molecular motion. In other words, heat is energy, while temperature is a measure of energy.

    Statistical calculations are routinely, and validly, done on quantities, rates and various other numerical estimates of properties of things.

    This is not to say that all such calculations are meaningful. The average temperature of the atmosphere of the planet can be estimated but it has very limited practical, or meaningful, applications or interpretations. Even the average temperature in any 24 hour period at any place is of limited utility, as 0 to 80, and 39 to 41 have the same average but would be very different conditions to cope with.

  19. Leo G

    To measure Surface Air Temperature we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted …

    The accuracy of air temperature observation using screened thermometers is a meteorological joke. The actual air temperature near the ground is affected by the lapse rate and the ground temperature, with ground temperature affected by evaporation (tending to the dew point). Add a thermometer and its ancillary equipment, including a screen, and radiation comes into play- both by insolation and infra-red radiative transfers.
    The closer to the ground the greater the influence of ground radiation. Thermometers are usually placed 1.5 metre from the ground where Stevenson screens are used and 1.2 metre from ground for automatic weather station. An AWS thermometer screen is much smaller, usually in ABS plastic and more susceptible to variations in ground radiation.
    No matter which type of instrument is used, there is an assumption that the environment conditions at the site is typical of the locality- which is an obvious fiction, since no locality consists of a regular pattern of thermometer enclosures and the presence of monitoring equipment is usually accompanied by alteration of drainage and radiative conditions.

  20. Leo G

    Temperature is not a quantity it is a measurement.

    Matter has physical properties even when the properties are not being measured. Temperature is a particular kind of average quantity of energy.

  21. RobK

    What Leo said, plus there is no standard for how long the temperatureis to hold at a value. Australia ‘s BoM is 1sec, US and UK are 10s (iirc). Then do you take the max or the average of max + min. The specific heat of air and land changes a lot over time. The whole concept is bollocks.

  22. RobK

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/french-society-of-mathematicians-global-warming-crusade-is-aburd-and-pointless/
    any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated.”

  23. RobK

    The phyicist John Reid at http://blackjay.net/?m=201612 has a published paper which concludes:
    The small increase in global average temperature observed over the last 166 years is the random variation of a centrally biased random walk. It is a red noise fluctuation. It is not significant, it is not a trend and it is not likely to continue.

    The full paper can be downloaded here.

    John Reid
    Editor

  24. RobK. That paper is great.
    Ooo look. My blood pressure went up by 1 point. Must be significant. Doomsday awaits.

Comments are closed.