4/27/07
In science, there is a
scientific method that requires a survey of what has been learned before and
the need for data and a supporting theory or hypothesis to advance. If there
are no data or an insufficient set of observations or measurements to support a
strong theory then the guess [elegantly known as a hypothesis for lack of
something more formal] remains what might be accepted by some or all. The
hypothesis is open to criticism, comment and other views in science until a law
is found—that settles the matter. Those who question laws are not scientists
unless they can show exceptions to laws then they really have a breakthrough to
present and scrutinize. There were many ‘accepted’ theories on most aspects of
science that were found to be worthless in the last few centuries. We still
have a flat earth society. Check out this interesting link: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Two-time Nobel Prize
winner (Chemistry and Peace) Linus Pauling advocated consuming mega doses of
ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to solve some medical problems and avoid disease,
which was widely accepted and then shown to be ineffective.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling.
Who knows what data he was looking at. He had tremendous influence stemming
from his work in chemistry and had a strong consensus following his views.
There were numerous
‘studies’ on silicone breast implants that were ‘accepted’ by the ‘scientific
community’ despite experiments to the contrary. These devices caused several
systemic diseases it was
shown: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breast_implant#Systemic_illness_and_disease.
If we squabble over data and studies with ‘experts’ divided in opposing camps
with conflicting opinions then what can we say?? We can state that the
‘opinions of experts’ and the ‘scientific conclusions” are faulty. Perhaps both
views are incorrect. Several studies have shown that the augmentations are not
associated with disease although the lawyers might take exception to this.
Then, there was the battles of asbestos.
Any particular segment
of science becomes satisfied to all scientists, except heretics, certain
politicians, witches, hired lawyers and the mentally ill, when firm laws are
found, discovered, guessed or derived and shown to predict and describe
observations. The transmutation of lead into gold was once “accepted” by kings
and paupers alike. They were shown the process and did believe. Once the
scientist can calculate the outcome then there is no ‘consensus’ about what is
going on in that particular area. Newton’s laws of motion were originally
guesses [no proof exists even today for f =ma] and he happened to guess
correctly except for the singular case of the atomic scale, which was beyond
his reach. We can now calculate the outcome of any kinetics or kinematics
experiment at any time and get a precise answer. We can circumnavigate the moon
thanks to Newton, who guessed correctly but gave no mathematical proof. No
proof has been found.
The issue of global
warming is political in nature and has little scientific basis. In global
warming measurements, we have to look at the data set and the time scale, some
history and some short term measurements to decide if we can predict the change
in global temperatures. Since a reasonable time span to look for relevant data
to predict future weather spans is 10,000 years or more (which is not much out
of 4-5 billion years and perhaps this ought to be extended to 500,000 years) we
need some data points throughout that span along with the uncertainty of the
measurement. What was the mean surface and upper atmosphere temperatures every
century for 10,000 years? That requires some precise measurements and some
agreement on how this might be done on a whirling earth with cyclic weather
seasons. What we actually have is a limited set of data of temp measurements in
limited places on the globe We have a scant 30 years of precise satellite data
to go on that shows essentially no change within the noise level. That does not
cover a significant range. With poor certainty, how can we influence public
policy when the key numbers of global temperature measurements might be found
to be 1 degree +/- 5 or ten degrees.
One has to have a confidence limit to
numbers and it takes many numbers from several sources on the planet to come to
some ‘average’ or mean surface temp.
A potential danger in
any scientific prediction usually lies in a faulty extrapolation from an
existing data set. Given the short length of time of precise measurements in
our weather history we can fall into several traps. How do you extrapolate? It
matters not if your data set is ultra precise if indeed the data period is
small compared to the outer boundaries of the system. Is there a trend or a cyclic
phenomenon present? Is this a second or third order system? We could, for
example, take precise daily measurements in, say August, of any year and use
those data to predict what might happen in December or June of the same or any
other year. This process is folly because the extrapolationist’s ignorance of
the cyclic nature of the process defeats the validity of the process. The
precision of the August data, even say down to 0.00000001 % error) has nothing
to do with the temperatures in February of any future or past year. That ought
to be obvious all but single-issue political activists, lawyers and the
ignorant. The use of tree rings to ‘correct’ data in the global warming debate
when there is a need to get temperature averages to within 0.1 deg C is folly. http://unisci.com/stories/20011/0208013.htm.
Read this for a good laugh. The same goes for reported ocean temperatures taken
in the 19th and 20th centuries with a thermometer and wood bucket on sailing
ships. How accurate can they be given the currents and changes in weather. What
happens when a storm comes up? Skip the measurement? What about cloudy days?
We don’t have enough
data to show that mean surface temperatures, that, according to history, have
varied significantly in the last 10,000 years, are cyclic or not or controlled
by sun energy, which could be cyclic or not. We think sun spots are cyclic but
have little data on that one. It is very difficult to come up with a mean
surface temperature given the several thousand sections of the planet as
defined by one area proscribed by a single degree of latitude and a single
degree longitude.
Thus, the current
scientific product of this political adventure rests in the crude guessing
stage and can (and has) produce several either meaningful or fanciful
predictions. We were warned of some 14 major hurricanes last year and got zero
as a result. A 0/14 is a very poor result from ‘experts’ using highly sensitive
measuring devices and super computers to make predictions. They just look like
fools. Their work on predicting earthquake is just as dismal. Nevertheless,
many people believed this prediction and formed a ‘consensus’ as to the
validity of this guess. Politicians need for people to believe in their causes
and the truth is not necessary. In ancient Arabia there was the custom of the
clergy publishing the weather forecast. It seems some scientist made the
measurements and published the correlation between what they predicted and what
actually happened. That did not change either the weather or the predictions.
So much for the truth.
Politics need not be
based on truth to be successful and, as such, needs only persuade people to
believe in some outcome whether it may be verified or not. Fear or demagoguery
are political factors that surpass the truth in power. That is what we see in
Global Warming. There is no way to tell if the process is cyclic or undulating
or not and the data set is too small to define and shape of any global
temperature curve. The presumption that the temperature rises with carbon
dioxide concentrations is not established. A few decades ago the scientists
warmed us of Global Cooling. Oh?? Which way are we going and how do we know? We
do know the glaciers melted in Kansas about 8000 years ago and that the
settlements on Greenland iced over about 1000 years ago. We know the Vandals
got their only chance to cross the Rhine about the 5th century A.D. when it
froze over, a rare occurrence that defeated the Roman military control of that
part of Gaul. We also know that the Thames River was the site of numerous
consecutive decades of winter parties on the solid ice and such until 1814 when
it ceased to freeze. No such parties have been held since Napoleon. Did his
cannons heat up England? Did Josephine hex the Thames?
There are insufficient
scientific data sets and prediction algorithms to predict just which way the
global surface temperatures will go. To say that there is a consensus is to
assert that Aristotle was correct about his description of science given the
huge, nearly 100%, consensus in his day and for several centuries after he made
his errant guesses based on no data. The effect of the sun’s radiation might
well be ten times the effect of any change in atmospheric carbon dioxide gas
concentrations. How can we know?
Global warming is a
simple political exercise devoid of any science and it fits in well with the
concepts of the Tooth Fairy, the Tarot and reading tea leaves. The politicians
and activists want us to make severe changes in our use of energy, directed
mostly at the United States giving India and China a pass.
That is just politics,
as usual. Kids can believe in the Tooth Fairy because there is proof the next
morning. Money!! Or, we can just believe in Rosie O’Donnell.
No comments:
Post a Comment