Thursday, 1 May 2008

Here we go again

And yet again the global warming cash cow rears it's ugly head, apparently the next decade may see no warming at all due to yet more data from a NEW computer model developed by German scientists.
Mind you what do you expect when German artists think head lice is art ? So now we are getting conflicting evidence from the NEW climate model in comparison to the OLD climate model(s), they are saying its a temporary slow down in global warming which will end in or around 2020.

allegedly its down to the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), apparently the cause of the oscillation is not well understood (you don't say....) but the cycle appears to come around every 60 or 70 years (give or take 10 years ?)

the team used data going back a whole 50 years !!! to produce this NEW model, they don't mess about do they ? that's a massive time-scale.....but they are first to admit that there are uncertainties in their model (what like most of it ?) and Dr Wood apparently cautions us that this kind of modelling is in it's infancy and once data can be brought from the depths of the ocean that may change the view on the way the AMO works and what it means to the global climate...

"Right Mr Brabrook, your car definitely has a fault it's overheating, I've never done car mechanics before, in fact I have no idea how an engine even works, and I have to admit I've never actually seen a real one..... but judging by the steam coming out from under the bonnet it would suggest to me that something is definitely overheating under there, but I'm going to push a thermometer in between your radiator fins and take a direct reading of the current temperature, then I might have a better idea of what is causing the problem....

in the mean time I'm going to input all of the temperature readings into this wonderful computer model which I programmed myself the other day, which will predict that yes indeed the temperature is rising, and if it doesn't we will make it ....and hopefully once we have graphed the temperature rise we will understand a little more as to why it got hotter in the first the way ..... what is that noise ? "

"it's the engine....I'll turn it off....... better ?"

I mean come on !! even the eco scientists can't bloody agree on what's happening now.... what hope do we have of believing any of them if they don't agree in the first place...

you only have to look at this one in August of 2007 (a whole 8 months ago) to see how it contradicts this latest climate model ......

they are no better or worse than Russell Grant (remember him and his jumpers on Good Morning TV ?) at predicting the climate, the climate is far too complex to nail it down to a few variables, it's all inter related and one single error in any model would wildly skew the results... it's a bit like orienteering, if you deviate off your bearing by as little as one degree you will miss the check point and the margin of error increases the further you go, anyway I digress this hiccup in the data has been brilliantly pointed out with this latest and greatest climate model..(still in it's infancy by the way).. in other words if the other climate computer models were so bloody "accurate" at their predictions then why didn't they see this 10 year slowing down in global warming ?? surely not a mistake ??? how can this be possible it's SCIENCE ..... (stifled laugh). Science is something provable, climate modelling is prediction you cannot prove it until you arrive at that point in time and look back, and science HAS to be provable and repeatable otherwise its simply NOT science..... this is guessing based on other guesses and assumptions.

call me cynical, but it does buy them another 10 years of gravy train research, maybe a few of the older scientists are just padding out their retirement package ??? ;¬)

I had to laugh out loud in work the other day, I planned a route from where we live to Liverpool, and it informed me that in the Pug I would have a carbon footprint for that single journey of 50.88kg ONE WAY !! (go check for yourselves if you don't believe me.... )

that's SEVEN STONES of carbon or basically a medium teenager sized lump of carbon littering the road behind me, now considering petrol weighs only 72% of what a litre of water would, thus one litre of petrol would weigh 0.72Kgs, and I know for a fact that it takes 1/4 of a tank of petrol to get to Liverpool in the Pug that's TEN litres or 7.2Kgs of petrol so that's 1.13 stone .....following me so far ? .... we don't even get to the fact that you cannot convert 7.2kgs of petrol into 7.2Kgs of carbon it would be a minute fraction of that 7.2Kgs probably less than 1/100th of a kilo .... if that..... ! ... you can test this theory by pouring a litre of petrol into your front room then throwing a match on it, and providing your house doesn't burn down (very likely) or that you get blown out of the nearest double glazed window..... you would then be able to scrape the carbon soot off the walls and ceiling ;¬)

anyway basically the company carbon clear is saying that nearly 7 stones of my carbon footprint (one way to Liverpool) is down to the extraction, cracking, delivery of the fuel before it even hits my petrol tank ??? where DO THEY pull these figures from ?

you can even go to their website

and wait for it ..... offset your carbon footprint (brilliant idea !!!.... I'm just waiting for the DOT.COM syndrome to kick in !!!)
mine happens to be 3.95 tonnes of carbon and that's just travelling to and from work every day for a year .....and I was even invited to completely clear sorry OFFSET my carbon footprint of 3.95 tonnes for only: £29.63 .... bloody bargain !!! ;¬) ......although thinking about it, that's VERY nearly a full tank of petrol for the Pug....hmmm decisions decisions

and I'll leave you with this thought

if computer modelling/prediction was/is so accurate why haven't they developed a computer program to predict the lottery numbers ? some of you will say "they have !!!" and I'll say "are you rich yet ?"

surely with only 50 balls (ish) and having to only predict 7 of those balls in a known environment using the variables of friction, inertia, initial starting position, speed of rotation, weight, gravity, oh and a bit of chaos theory thrown in for good measure, has it worked ? did it get it right ? are the millionaires lining up outside the software company who wrote it to personally thank them for their riches ? it is after all a tiny problem in comparison to global warming prediction to solve AND with known variables

I don't think so .....

now scale that software problem up to global proportions add a few thousand, possibly a million other variables, throw in sun light, gravitational pull, volcanoes, ozone depletion, forest fires, car exhausts, factories, cows farting... the list is endless

then produce a nice pretty graph showing what will happen in the next 100 the real world you would laughed out of the patent office saying you could accurately predict lottery numbers with a computer model.... so why aren't we laughing at global warming predictions ? should we question their validity ? or will it fade into obscurity as did the scientists of the 1970's, who's prediction of the impending ice age we were plunging into by the year 2010 turned out to be wrong ?

tell you one thing it's warm in here, somebody turn on the air conditioning .....

No comments: