Issues & Insights identifies the key flaw in the Alarmist narrative.
The United Nationâ€™s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is quite certain Earth will be in trouble if the global temperature exceeds pre-industrial levels by 1.5 degrees Celsius or more. But how can anyone know? According to university research, â€œglobal temperatureâ€ is a meaningless concept.
â€œDiscussions on global warming often refer to â€˜global temperature.â€™ Yet the concept is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility,â€ says Science Daily, paraphrasing Bjarne Andresen, a professor at the University of Copenhagenâ€™s Niels Bohr Institute, one of three authors of a paper questioning the â€œvalidity of a â€˜global temperature.’â€
Science Daily explains how the â€œglobal temperatureâ€ is determined.
â€œThe temperature obtained by collecting measurements of air temperatures at a large number of measuring stations around the globe, weighing them according to the area they represent, and then calculating the yearly average according to the usual method of adding all values and dividing by the number of points.â€
But a â€œtemperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system,â€ says Andresen. The climate is not regulated by a single temperature. Instead, â€œdifferences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climateâ€.
While itâ€™s â€œpossible to treat temperature statistically locally,â€ says Science Daily, â€œit is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless.â€
There are two ways to measure temperature: geometrically and mathematically. They can produce a large enough difference to show a four-degree gap, which is sufficient to drive â€œall the thermodynamic processes which create storms, thunder, sea currents, etc.,â€ according to Science Daily.
So if global temperature is unknowable, how can the IPCC and the entire industry of alarmists and activists be so sure there exists a threshold we cannot pass? Of course the IPCC says it knows the unknowable. In its latest report, released this month, it yet again maintained that the global temperature must â€œkept to well below 2ÂºC, if not 1.5oCâ€ above pre-industrial levels to avoid disaster.
A few years after the University of Copenhagen report was published, University of Guelph economist Ross McKitrick, one of the reportâ€™s authors, noted in another paper that â€œnumber of weather stations providing data . . . plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since 1919.â€
â€œThere are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policy-sensitive applications.â€
HT: Mark Tapscott.
Statistics! “There are three kinds of falsehoods, lies, damned lies, and statistics.” –Arthur Balfour.
“If I get to select both the data and the methodology of calculation, I can prove anything with statistics.” –David Zincavage.