Categories
AGW catastrophism Climate Change CO2 Emissions Data GHG Global Warming greenhouse effect IPCC Omniclimate Policy Science Skepticism

Why Climate Change is Unbearably Naked

What do I find so impossibly sloppy to bear, about Climate Change in its contemporary definition, as the result of human activities (also known as “Anthopogenic Global Warming” or AGW, and usually associated to CO2 emissions caused by humans)?

Yesterday’s incredible (counter-)discovery by Anthony Watts on CO2 measurements getting corrected upwards after having gone downwards “for the first time in history” provides an opportunity for a non-exhaustive list (I may add links to each point next week) of all that depaupers Climate Change of actual meaning:

  • Climate models are all based on forcings, something that cannot be measured. The tool has become the cause.
  • Those same models are demonstrably “right” whatever happens, either warming or cooling (once again, as all they show is that forcings are supposed to do)
  • Proponents are fixated on negativities (not just the newsmedia and the Stern Report…I have some interesting findings about a recent book on Climate Change, and I will publish them this week or next)
  • Climate change is improbably comprehensive in its effects, and yet “Attribution”, the ability to pinpoint a particular change as having something to do with Climate Change, is still up in the air
  • The IPCC itself cannot see much evidence for change in 2/3 (two-thirds!) of the planet
  • The “truth” is that temperatures are going up but if one looks at actual measurements, they are continuously adapted and adjusted. Measurement stations are not increasing in the number, and locations are far from perfect.
  • And now of course, on-the-fly upward adjustments of CO2 data appear just as values begin to go “the wrong way”.

I personally agree with Watts when he writes: “While nefarious motives may not be there, its just damn sloppy IMHO, and given this is the crown jewel for CO2 data I expect far better“.

And please don’t get me wrong…I am perfectly aware that such generalized sloppiness is part-and-parcel of modern Science, with genetists looking for Mendelian transmission of what is not Mendelian and a whole generation of Cosmologists trained on calling 96% of the Universe as “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy”, two names for the same thing (“Total Ignorance”).

“Institutionalized Science” is of course 80% rubbish, as per the famous 80/20 rule.

But the whole Climate debate is much more than Science. And for that, there is still so much it needs to be dressed with, before it can be shown as properly thought of, and ready for being a solid basis for a revolution in societal mores.

If I read about “scientists demonstrating that train travel is impossible” I may get a laugh, as people at the time surely did. But when I see all the massive propaganda machine put in place to convince people to turn carbon-free by way of guilt, there isn’t much to be amused of.

If the keys to absolute gullibility are ever found, we may as well all turn back to live up the trees.

Categories
AGW catastrophism CO2 Emissions Omniclimate

Atmospheric CO2 and Human Emissions

A look at some of the numbers behind human activities and CO2 reveals that World Primary Energy Production has a .98948 correlation with yearly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 content averages.

In the period 1980-2005 though, the former has increased 60% while the latter only 12%.

If we limit ourselves to Petroleum, Gas and Coal, the correlation goes down slightly (to .98201). PGC Energy Production has increased 53% between 1980 and 2005.

Assuming the Mauna Loa data truly reflect an increasing CO2 trend, there are strong indications that atmospheric CO2 go up indeed with human energy production, but the planet is more than capable to cushion any effect.

Probably, there is not enough oil in the ground to cause any doubling of CO2, and even if we burned all the coal we’d be hard pressed to increase our CO2-generation energy production to a value 320% higher than 1980’s, that would cause an expected net effect of seeing a 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to 1980, to around 500ppmv.

DATA SOURCES AND FIGURES

CO2 (1980-2005) (Jan-Dec average) :
338.6825, 339.9266667, 341.1266667, 342.775, 344.42, 345.8983333, 347.1483333, 348.9266667, 351.4816667, 352.9025, 354.1816667, 355.5875, 356.37, 357.0333333, 358.8791667, 360.8725, 362.6375, 363.7591667, 366.6225, 368.3058333, 369.4716667, 371.0116667, 373.0925, 375.6366667, 377.3808333, 379.66

Primary energy production:
287.594, 282.653, 281.182, 283.819, 299.787, 307.259, 316.977, 324.427, 337.041, 343.975, 349.833, 347.044, 347.575, 349.360, 355.578, 363.933, 373.240, 381.485, 385.035, 385.994, 396.263, 403.192, 406.941, 422.692, 444.452, 460.139

Petroleum/Gas/Coal Primary Energy Production:
259.179, 252.764, 249.670, 249.820, 262.870, 267.712, 276.010, 282.035, 292.315, 298.313, 303.140, 298.944, 299.229, 299.031, 304.451, 310.613, 318.467, 326.550, 329.688, 329.184, 338.182, 345.235, 348.298, 363.533, 382.939, 396.854