A Lot of People, Even Skeptics

IN WHAT I ASSUME is a foolish attempt to appear ecumenical and open-minded, will try to assert that, “Of course global warming is real, and of course mankind has an effect — no matter how slight — on the trend. Of these there can be no doubt or argument.”

And I call “BULLCRAP” in big and stinking piles of it on that whole notion.

When I first began my personal journey of discovery on this subject, before I even googled my first data site, I looked up into the sky — that great vault of the heavens — at miles of piles of clouds and the few cubic miles, the tiny portion of the entire atmosphere I can see from my insignificant perspective on the ground, as immense as it is, and wondered: how would I go about determining the temperature of this incredibly huge volume at any one moment, let alone a meaningful annual or “normal” average.

I have since come to realize that all of the data collection stations, measuring for all the time they have been in operation, all over the entire globe could not do the job even for my tiny slice of heaven. I have not determined precisely how much of the atmosphere one can see from the ground, but it’s not hard to arrive at a rough notion. Realize that the horizon for a perspective 6 feet off the surface of a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference — with no intervening terrain features, such as hills and valleys — is 3 miles away. Think about that. As far away as you can see in the atmosphere (assuming unlimited visibility) is 255 miles to the edge of space. That’s a tangent from six feet above the earth, through a point of the horizon, and on to the edge of space (assuming the atmosphere to be 8 miles deep, which is close enough). A circle 510 miles in diameter, which takes off a tomato slice of a sphere in volume. Map onto that what you know or may have observed about air currents in a volume as small as your living room (say 15 x 15 x 8 feet, or 1,800 cubic feet, and then ask yourself how many thermometers it might take to determine with a half-degree accuracy the realtime temperature — or the annual average — of that space.

Now understand that what the climate sciences are attempting to measure — or claim to us that they have or can measure — is the temperature of a volume of a shell 8 miles thick above a sphere 7,800 or so miles in diameter and they are only measuring the bottom surface of that volume for the overwhelming number of datapoints. And they are saying that they can accurately state the temperature of around 7,300 points on that surface, and that they have done it with a currently-active network of 2,300 stations. (Click through to see distribution map.)

In a volume of air that is roughly one point six billion cubic miles.

So, when I see and comprehend that there are gaps in the coverage to amount to what’s shown here, you might well imagine the Spock-like raised eyebrow of skepticism.

And why I assert that there’s NO FUCKING WAY those guys know the temperature of the earth to within a margin of error the size of, let alone smaller than, the delta they claim represents potential catastrophe for mankind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *