Why I Don’t Believe in Global Warming
Kaffinator rightly pointed out that my blog called Headline News was not accurate regarding the actual content of the article (although I was addressing the headline specifically). In any case, it gives me a chance to post more on why I don’t believe the Glomal Warming scare :-)
In order to frame this, we have to look at a couple of scientific concepts.   First, there is the idea of precision. Precision is (in layman’s terms) the degree to which we can be confident of a measurement. Thus, if someone measures a block of wood and says “This block of wood is 6 centimeters long” we have a precision down to the centimeter. The block of wood could be 6.1 centimeters, or it could be 5.9. But the block could not be 7 cm or 5 cm.
If, however, someone was able to measure the block of wood and say “This block of wood is 6.0 centimeters long” we have increased our precision. The block of wood could be 6.01 cm or 6.009 cm, but it cannot be 6.2 cm or 5.9 cm.
The precision of a measurement, therefore, gives us the number of numbers beyond the decimal point. So a measurement of 6.0 cm is more precise than a measurement of 6 cm (even though mathematically they are identical numbers). Furthermore, a measurement of 6.00 cm is more precise than a measurement of 6.0 cm (etc.).
This is fairly straightforward. Where it becomes more complicated is when we begin to do mathematical calculations with more than one measurement. In such an instance, the result can only be as precise as the measurement with the lowest precision. To keep it simple, suppose we try to find the area of the face of a block of wood. If we measure one side at 6.0 cm and the other side at 5 cm, the area is 30 cm (not 30.0 cm). That is because the 5 cm measurement could be 5.1 cm if it were measured more precisely (and if that were the case, the area would really be 30.6 cm NOT 30.0 cm!).
Therefore, when we look at the precision of calculations, they can only be as precise as the lowest precision measurement. This means that if someone measures something with an imprecise measurement in the past (e.g. “The temperature is 50 degrees F”) and we measure something with a more precise measurement today (e.g. “The temperature is 50.3 degrees F”), our calculations involving both numbers can only be as precise as the lowest precision number (thus, in comparing 50 degrees to 50.3 degrees we would have to treat the numbers as identical due to the limitations of the level of precision involved).
Secondly (and related) is the concept of instrumental and human error. Instruments are not perfect machines–nor are the operators of those instruments perfectly able to read the results! This means the accuracy of scientific results depends on the level of error in the instruments that make a measurement and in the people who read those instruments.
Now, with those two concepts in mind, let us look at the issue of Global Warming after applying some common sense. Global Warming advocates claim that the average global temperature has risen by 1 degree F in the 20th Century. The first question that we must ask is simple: “How does one determine the average global tempeerature?”
This is an interesting question and one that, as much as I’ve tried to research it, I’ve never been able to find an answer to. Do people take the average temperatures of every city on Earth? Do they take an average surface temperature of the entire Earth using a satellite?
What method is used can drastically affect the results. After all, before satellite technology existed there was no way for us to use satellites to get a temperature reading. Thus, there is no way for us to compare what those satellites get to what would have been the case 100 years ago.
On the other hand, if we are going to simply take the average temperatures at various cities around the world we need to be able to determine what level of accuracy each of those thermometers have as well as determining what the precision of those measurments are. It is obvious that temperatures can be measured more precisely with modern equipment than they could be taken 100 years ago.
Finally there is the fact that a temperature in a city is not identical in every single part of the city! I have actually personally experienced this. One summer day, I rode my bike from where I work (downtown) to the house I lived at then (about 3 miles to the south). The downtown air temperature was 93 degrees when I left work. Two miles away, as I passed under the Interstate, it was 108 degrees. Finally, after climbing the last hill to my house, the temperature had dropped back down to 99 degrees. Thus, in the space of three miles there were temperatures that ranged from 93 to 108 degrees F. (Naturally, since I was using various bank thermometers instead of scientific instruments, the accuracy of these readings is not the best…but that actually helps demonstrate my point regarding accuracy anyway.)
What was the official temperature of the city for that day? The answer is: 91 degrees.
Why? Because that was the temperature at the airport.
What, then, is the actual average temperature of a specific city, let alone for the entire globe? I’ve noticed that the weathermen in my area now give various temperatures for the different parts of the city. These temperatures often range by as much as 5-10 degrees difference.
If the city temperature fluctuates by that much, how significant is a 1 degree “rise” in “global” temperature? How do we know that the entire globe is heating up instead of just a specific place that the temperature is measured at? How do we know how accurate the measurments are to give us the information that it’s heated up an entire degree?
And this does not even get into the historical data. Temperature was not recorded in the past before thermometers were created. Even then, the first thermometers were primative and hardly accurate compared to today’s devices. How then do we determine what the temperatures were 1,000 years ago?
Scientists use several indirect methods, such as examining ice cores and tree rings. But these methods are not an actual measurement of the temperature itself. It is an induction of what the temperature may have been.
Why is that important? Because the claim is that we’re 1 degree warmer. What is the margin of error in these inductions? When someone looks at a tree-ring to calculate the temperature in the past, how precise is his measurements? If he says, “This tree ring shows it was about 10 degrees warmer than this tree ring” then we see that such measurments are not precise enough for us to conclude that there has been a 1 degree temperature rise.
In order for that concusion to be solidified, we need to have tree rings and ice core samples that are precise enough to distinguish one degree in temperature change (and preferably it would be more precise than that). Yet again, I have been unable to find research on what the margin of error is in these examinations or in how precise such experiments might be.
And that is naturally hindered by the fact that we need experimentation sufficient to demonstrate the correlation between temperature and ice cores and tree rings. Unfortunately, we have not had precise machinery to measure temperature for more than a couple of decades. Thus, we do not have a sufficient number of experiments to really show the correlation with any degree of precision.
Global Warming alarmists are scared over one degree in temperature–something that cannot even be felt by most people. The “science” that they use to establish this, however, is hardly as precise as science needs to be in order for the conclusion to be valid. That is why I am, and will remain, a Global Warming Unbeliever. Only when these experiments are precise enough can we have certainty that there is a problem and that is is caused by man.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:38 am
As a layperson untrained in meteorology I’ve had many of the same frustrations when reading about this issue. People can and do debate endlessly on whether the climate is really warming and if so if humans are really causing it. Your post demonstrates the difficulty of mounting such arguments; we are dealing with an impossibly complex system that we have not even begun to understand with any real depth.
Wild-eyed ex-presidential-candidate harbringers of doom aside, it is not irresponsible to ask, as Christians, whether as stewards of the majesties of God whether we shouldn’t conserve our footprint on this earth, just in case. If the global warming advocates were recommending we slaughter 1/3 of the human population, we’d be right to react with incredulity. But as it is, what are the solutions being advanced? Look for alternative fuel sources that reduce our dependence on oil. Conserve energy use. Buy more efficient cars. Walk, or bike if you can. Are these things so bad, even if global warming is a complete fraud?
June 28th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Nope, those things are not bad in and of themselves. And by no means do I want to imply that we ought to destroy the environment!
Global Warming is a political ploy though, not a scientific enterprise. The politics of Global Warming are simple: Make Americans pay for everything. Blame the U.S. for all the problems in the world and then punish them for their “crimes” based on tenous science.
That said, I am all for alternative fuels. I don’t like breathing exhaust–it’s not the most exciting part of my day, ya know. :-) But I think the best alternative fuel is being shunned by the environmentalists. Nuclear fuel is the best solution we have so far. It’s easy to get, it runs forever, and it’s relatively safe (even during the Three Mile Island incident, the fail-safes worked perfectly so no one got contaminated by a radiation leak).
But environmentalists always want to focus on the nuclear waste and how horrible that is–but I think it would be rather easy to just load a rocket and launch it out into space so it’s away from human (and animal and plant) contact. And of course for those who fear the “aliens” that might get “contaminated” by it, we could launch it toward a star or something… :-)