Climate science has many fundamental problems. One of them is the sparsity and major gaps in valid global temperature data prior to about 1980 and particularly prior to 1880, when there were only 174 stations with unadjusted data in the entire world. This lack of data prior to he advent of satellite temperature data is a result of little data being collected until the late Twentieth Century.
Even worse, what data there is has been repeatedly “adjusted,” usually in a similar way by increasing recent data and decreasing earlier data. Many independent observers question whether these “adjustments” may be fraudulent. And since the resulting data has lost many of its cyclical characteristics, a recent report concludes that “since the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated” by the research findings in the report.
No Basis for Reaching Valid Conclusions as to Temperature Changes or to Trust Adjusted GAST Data
Briefly, there is no valid scientific basis for reaching any conclusions as to what temperatures were prior to satellite data and to trust the adjusted GAST data. Yet climate alarmists usually assume that changes in surface temperatures prior to 1980 can be used to determine meaningful trends in global temperatures. To spend many trillions of dollars on the basis of such data is preposterous. We simply do not have data that would allow anyone to reach valid conclusions as to what temperatures were, let alone predicting what they will be many decades in the future, as most climate alarmists are want to do.
I argue that the world and particularly the US should currently do nothing on the basis of current “consensus” climate science other than continuing research until many of the problems of climate science are much better understood. So I advocate continuing research, hopefully by both climate alarmists and skeptics until valid scientific conclusions can be reached after careful application of the scientific method. I advocate no expenditures and particularly no subsidies whatever for building any energy production or user facilities that do not meet strict market-based benefit-cost criteria and wildlife-protection safeguards until valid conclusions concerning trends in global temperatures can be demonstrated scientifically and valid conclusions reached concerning the causes of these trends have been independently determined and verified. Current wind and solar installations do not meet these criteria.
As detailed previously on this blog, the best current scientific evidence says that changes in carbon dioxide levels have had no significant effects on temperatures. This directly contradicts the conclusions of the UN and every climate alarmist I know of. And it utilizes only data collected since 1980. This is another of the fundamental problems of climate science that needs to be resolved before any more wind and solar energy facilities are built.
BWER is Iraq’s premier provider of industrial weighbridges, offering robust solutions to enhance efficiency, reduce downtime, and meet the evolving demands of modern industries.
Your writing has a way of touching hearts, sparking minds, and igniting passions, leaving a lasting impact that resonates deeply with your readers long after they’ve finished reading.
Your blog posts have become an essential part of my daily routine.
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/5094 […]
So why not use satellite data and base trends on this?
Kudos to the president’s re election campaign for selling plastic straws emblazoned with Trump.
This pokes fun at eco activists who champion straws made of paper. These soon become soggy and are ineffective. This illustrates how the the Greens are impractical. They don’t care if a straw has a fundamental design flaw. They want you to use an ineffective straw so they Can claim they are saving the earth. How a soggy straw actually saves the planet defies rational understanding.
In contrast a Trump straw is liquid resistant. It does not sag and fall apart. It is designed to serve its function.
This is a nice hint of what’s wrong about climate alarmism. No well informed person understands why combustion emissions of carbon dioxide alter the climate. Leftist solutions like solar and wind are intermittent, unreliable, and costly sources of electricity, that also use a lot of land and kill birds.
the Greens do not care that their technologies are inferior and more costly in most circumstances. They want to impose them anyway. This is bad for the US economy of course, but they habitually put America last.
Lack of availability of the raw data (data without any adjustments) makes the “value added data” useless for science use.
Preposterous is a nice word choice in this weeks essay. The hoax is so mad that we can lose track of how silly it is as well. How could any sensate person accept such a preposterous story? That low levels of carbon dioxide are making the earth too hot or hurricanes too strong or another fable.
When it’s hot, we usually have the Suns rays to blame. All CO2 serves to do is to enable photosynthesis and thereby life on earth. How could photosynthesis be a bad thing? It is to a con artist like Al Gore or dreamer like Barack Obama, but in mere humble reality, carbon dioxide is good.
The whole crazy story is just a political narrative spun by unscrupulous politicians. Highly highly preposterous Fake News.
Thanks for telling it like it is, Doctor Carlin.