Posted on 03/15/2017 7:37:49 PM PDT by MtnClimber
‘DO YOU believe,” CNBC’s Joe Kernen asked Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency’s new director, in an interview last Thursday, “that it’s been proven that CO2 is the primary control knob for climate?”
Replied Pruitt: “No. I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do, and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact. So no — I would not agree that it’s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see. But we don’t know that yet. We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis.”
It was an accurate and judicious answer, so naturally it sent climate alarmists into paroxysms of condemnation. The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.” Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii called Pruitt’s views “extreme” and “irresponsible” — proof of his unfitness to head the EPA. Gina McCarthy, who ran the agency under President Obama, bewailed the danger global warming poses “to all of us who call Earth home,” and said she couldn’t “imagine what additional information [Pruitt] might want from scientists” in order to understand that.
Yet for all the hyperventilating, Pruitt’s answer to the question he was asked — whether carbon dioxide is the climate’s “primary control knob” — was entirely sound. “We don’t know that yet,” he said. We don’t. CO2 is certainly a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, but hardly the primary one: Water vapor accounts for about 95 percent of greenhouse gases. By contrast, carbon dioxide is only a trace component in the atmosphere: about 400 ppm (parts per million), or 0.04 percent. Moreover, its warming impact decreases sharply after the first 20 or 30 ppm.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
When the models do not match the measured data there are corrections made to te measured data. The measured data for just over 100 years has been adjusted where the global warming is equal to the adjustments.
Good one.
#24. The West was “settled”. Climate science, not yet.
Pruitt needs to follow the KISS principle.
Keep It Simple Stupid.
Fraud.
That is the answer.
Now what is the question?
Every single thing about Earth’s climate is driven by the Sun. Has been for billions of years, and will continue to be, faith based counter-theories notwithstanding.
Most every major thing, but non-solar events have caused changes as well. Volcanic eruptions with their sun blocking ash (okay - there is the sun again!) can cause cooling. Krakatoa (late 1800’s???) and the “year without summer”. Plus the various comet/meteor dinosaur ending events may have been due to climate changes due to the increased dust they would have kicked up (again - the sun).
Of course if we didn't have water in the oceans and in the atmosphere we would just have one climate (like Mars or the moon).
The Earth is a VERY special place with everything being “just right”. And also being able to handle changes and be able to recover (volcanoes, etc.). Man-made output of global warming gases probably does have some minuscule effect on the climate. But, manmade stuff only accounts for something like 0.25% of the total warming effect - so any changes we make won't be noticeable with regard to temperature.
Heh - I know we put out particulates into the atmosphere - there may be a balancing act of those acting to cool (like volcanoes do) with our 0.25% warming effect.
Make sure you specify which ice sheet. Last year the Arctic ice sheet was just below the average range. BUT, the Antarctic ice sheet was near the top of the average range! (As I mentioned in my previous post, the Earth is a wonderful place. Full of feedback loops to keep things on an even-keel to support life.)
Spent years developing simulations of very complex interactions between systems. There are three reasons why climate change models are suspect.
1. You can make a simulation that shows any result you want.
2. There is a lot of money bet on climate change.
3. Money talks.
They also blew it on where the snow storms would wreak havoc.
If that's the best we can do over a span of less than a week, how can we believe they can project out decades?
Exactly. There was a reason Al Gore didn’t have the two charts of temperature and CO2 levels superimposed over each other, but instead had them separated.
If they had been superimposed, even a doofus kid could have said “But...why is the CO2 level rising after the temperature rises?”
That thought has been rattling around in my head for months now. Where are the dependent and independent variables? Where is the repeatability? Where are the peer reviews? A high school level of science knowledge puts major holes in the climate change theory.
Compare the amount of information we have on Climate to the amount of information we have in other decisions.
In IT Quality Assurance we do testing. Ideally we test every possible logic path and every possible point of failure. Ideally we test every possible combination of loads of traffic.
In reality, most major transaction banking, insurance and retail systems only receive about 10% of the testing that could be done. It is not unusual for all testing results to end up with several billion data points in several thousand different test scenarios.
An amazing amount of bias is involved in both the methodologies used, and in the analysis of the test results. We see what we want to see.
Managers almost always see a much rosier result than do the technicians.
In the end, an application is put into production that has both known and unknown bugs and vulnerabilities.
Now compare IT QA to climate measurement. In reality in climate measurement contains less than 1% of the data points that a big corporate application test has.
The bias in inclusion or exclusion of data as relevant or irrelevant is far greater than in corporate QA. The bias in analysis of the data is far greater than in corporate QA.
In corporate QA we ultimately conclude each known bug has an A% chance of occurring and a B$ cost if it does occur.
Based on the tests that were not done (or were done incorrectly) we estimate there is a C% chance of unknown bugs occurring and a D$ cost of those unknown bugs.
Based on the skimpy amount of climate data we can make almost no estimates in the KNOWN odds of a future climate event. Estimates of the cost of a future climate event are a more feasible. But inherent bias exists in any estimate of future climate events.
* * * * * * * *
Or compare data on future climate to data on a future election. The day before the Nov 2016 election let’s say Nate Silver’s 538 had a couple hundred polls with an average of a thousand data points per poll. Obviously, 538 and most other pollsters had insufficient data on which to predict the election. They had bias in which data to collect or not collect. They had bias in choosing which collected data was relevant and which data was irrelevant in their analysis. They had bias in weighting the significance of the data that they thought was relevant and included.
Now compare the careful methodology of 538 with the methodology of climate scientists.
The obvious conclusion is that none of us have a clue what the future holds. As the Missionary Baptist Democrat on the elevator said about the below freezing temperatures in Atlanta in mid-March:
We are not the ones in control.
No kidding, where is the control side of this experiment?
The Washington Post slammed Pruitt as a “denier” driven by “unreason.”The Washington Post is the boy who cried, “Wolf!"
They ignore the water that causes 95% of greenhouse gases because they would be laughed at if they said it was a pollutant. You know it is a fraud from the get go because of this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.