I don't do GDPR. I don't have a mailing list, pop-ups, click bait or advertisements. I do not do "current events" as I like to wait until facts come out and I have to grok on it until fullness is achieved.

This is a one-man operation that I get to after my day job and family. I post every Monday, Thursdays when I can. All comments are approved to prevent spam.

Please, like and share my Facebook Page.

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive

I am a rational person who separates their facts from their principles and their ideologies. Facts can cause me to modify my position on subjects, however my principles do not alter how I treat these facts.

Let me say up front and clearly, I now believe that Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW for short, or man-caused global warming) is real. Don't get too excited, read on:

The title of this post "Garbage in, garbage out" is an old computer term, meaning if you run a computer simulation and the base data or the assumptions are garbage, the only possible results will be garbage data.

It seems to me I hear we're going through Global Warming on odd-numbered weeks, and Global Cooling on even-numbered weeks. Because the scientists can't agree, they agreed to say "Global Climate Change" because then it can mean what each scientist wants it to mean. I have never denied that the Earth's climate is changing. My main sticking point has been, "Is the root cause of this change the direct and unequivocal fault of man?" I cannot tell if anything untoward is happening because I see reports about climate data from stations before they were built, using ships to collect ocean temperature data, guessing the temperature because the station in question didn't provide the data and out-and-out altering the data to make it fit the hypothesis.

Then I stumbled across this article, The Skeptic's Case by Dr. David M. W. Evans. This article gave me a significant "A-HA!" moment. Let me explain.

Earth's ecosystem is complex almost beyond human comprehension. Every last part of our ecosystem (air temp, the color of the surface, ocean temp, ocean salinity, cloud cover and a thousand more variables) interacts with every other part to some degree. if something changes (like atmospheric CO2 levels rise), then it will affect multiple other variables ("1st level variables") in the biosphere. Those 1st level variables will affect more and different variables ("2nd level variables").  If some of those 2nd level variables affect the 1st level variables, making the 1st level variables increase even more, which then increase the 2nd level variables even more, this is called a "positive feedback loop" (the article refers to it as just "feedbacks"). Think of the squeal that come out of a loudspeaker when you get the microphone for that speaker too close to it.

This positive feedback loop is a major component in most, if not all of our Global Warming climate models. Here is an image from the article:

To put it simply, if the Carbon Dioxide levels double, this will increase the global temperature 1.1 degrees C. The computer models have an assumption that a positive feedback loop will occur and the end result would be an increase of +3.3 degrees C.

Here are several important things to consider:

  • The Earth has had this kind of climate for millions of years,
  • Our CO2 emissions throughout human history have been pretty steady, and they started to skyrocket only about 1946,
  • We have only been collecting accurate weather data for the last 150 years, and
  • We have only been collecting accurate deep ocean temperatures for 20 years.

It was explained to me years ago the difference between and "graceful failure" and "catastrophic failure." Think of a coffee mug. If it's a ceramic mug and you hit the lip with a hammer, it shatters into a hundred fragments in a "catastrophic failure." That mug has ceased to exist as a coherent unit and it can no longer hold liquid. If that mug was made out of metal and you hit the lip with a hammer, you would dent, but not destroy the mug. It would still be recognized as a mug, meant to hold liquid and depending on how hard you hit it would determine how large the loss of capacity would be.

The Earth in every aspect of its existence is a "graceful failure" due to it's robust systems, which like the human body, it heals its wounds. If you have ever been in the hospital for an extended stay with an IV line, you will know that the nurse has to relocate the IV every 3-4 days, because the body will start "healing over" the IV tube, blocking it. The Earth can take a drastic change (say, a dinosaur-killing meteorite) and stabilize the climate after a period of time. It does this by "dampening" any changes, which is essentially a "negative feedback loop."

The other image from the article:

To put it simply, if the Earths temperature jumps by 1.1 degrees, instead of the change being +3.3 degrees because of the alleged positive feedback loop, we find the change to be only about +0.5 or +0.6 degrees because the Earths ecosystem dampens changes like this.

The climate scientists are not disagreeing about the CO2 increases, nor the 1.1 degree jump in temperature which is the result. The argument is over the multiplier in the feedbacks. The Al Gore and AOC crowd are on the "X3" bandwagon, while the skeptics (including myself) are under the banner of "X0.5".

If you look at the other graphs in the article, with actual, properly gathered, complete (no guesstimation) and "non-fudged" data, the numbers clearly show the dampening scenario, not the multiplier.

Until this article, I have been unsure on this because I found too many instances where data was altered to fit the AGW narrative. Things like, data from a weather station with time stamps from years before it was built, or the area around the sensor changed drastically with trees and other growth near the sensor. This is why airports usually collect data, they are large and flat areas of land. Then you have ships collecting water temperature data, while generating heat that throws the sensors off. I have spoken before of weather bureaus guessing the data because the station did not provide the data, or just out and out altering the data to "prove" AGW.

I was unsure if we were like fleas on the back of an elephant or not, in that we really could affect the global climate. Now I know. We are affecting the climate, but Mother Nature and her robust systems are protecting us, but only to a point.

In part 2, I will discuss our options and the consequences of each of those choices, including doing nothing..

Comments powered by CComment