"The Drake Equation and the Fraud of Climate
Modeling"
from "In Defense of Rural America"
By Ron Ewart, President of
the
National Association of Rural
Landowners
and nationally recognized author and speaker
on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright Sunday,
August 24, 2014 - All Rights Reserved
As published on
Newswithviews, August 20, 2014
This article is also
available on our website at:
Oh no, not another global warming article? Yep! It's
true, but this one takes a little different tack to make a point about the folly
of climate modeling. Hopefully, the reader will forgive this author's
brief foray into the world of simple mathematics and logic.
Back in the early 60's when scientists started "dreaming" of
how they could determine if there was life elsewhere in the universe, a radio
astronomer by the name of Frank Drake came up with an equation (the infamous Drake Equation)
to estimate the possibility of
intelligent life on other extra solar planets in the Milky Way galaxy. He
came up with the equation to help stimulate scientific dialogue at the up
coming, first ever, Search For Extra Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) conference
in Green Bank, West Virginia.
To develop the equation he had to make some estimates on some
variables that were part of the elements of the equation in order to solve for
"N", the number of possible intelligent life planets in the galaxy. First,
he had to estimate the rate of star formation in the galaxy. Then he had to
estimate the fraction of those stars that might have planets. Then he had
to determine an average of the number of those planets per star that would
potentially support life. In the end the elements of the equation were
described as follows:
R = the average rate of star formation in our
galaxy.
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets.
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support
life per star that has planets.
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that
actually develop life at some point.
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to
develop intelligent life (civilizations).
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology
that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release
detectable signals into space.
There were several other variables Frank could
have included in the equation but he was trying to keep it as simple as possible
so that the scientific dialogue wouldn't get bogged down in the elements, or the
variables to those elements. Since there was no clear science on these
elements, Frank had to make guesses at each value based on the best available
information he had at the time. Unfortunately, with no clear evidence,
those guesses could vary widely and as they varied, so did the solution to the
equation. A solution that varies widely is no solution at all. It
is, at best, a wild-as…..d-guess.
The moral of this exercise is to point out that
the greater the number of variables in an equation and a wide difference within
those variables, the less likely any answer or solution will be
accurate.
So let's look at the number of variables to
predict any long-range change in climate that climate Scientists plug into their
super computers. There are a whole host of variables to predict long-range
future climate conditions and those variables can vary widely, as they do in the
Drake equation, because of a lack of accurate data. Bear in mind that a
weather report, using computer weather modeling, is only good for about two
hours. The reason for this is, the weather is a non-linear dynamic system
and small changes in initial conditions can produce large changes in localized
weather. True scientists, if there are any left, call this
phenomenon the butterfly effect.
Wikipedia describes the climate modeling process
called the "General Circulation Model" (GCM)
as follows: "… GCM is a type of climate model and is a mathematical model of the general
circulation of a planetary atmosphere or ocean and based on the Navier–Stokes
equations on a rotating sphere with thermodynamic terms for various energy
sources (radiation, latent heat). (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Wow! What a mouthful. But in order to
pull this off, they have to enter a wide range of variables into their super
computers, along with a laundry list of equations for other variables.
Those variables include the temperature and pressure at any height in the
atmosphere. They also include, ocean currents, cloud cover, precipitation,
water vapor, ice sheet cover, vegetation, soil types, variations in Solar
radiation, trace atmospheric elements like CO2, ozone, methane, carbon monoxide
and more. The climate Scientists might even put in a prognostication for
major volcanic eruptions, but like the Drake equation, these would be guesses at
best. Just imagine what a major volcanic eruption would do to any climate
model, like Krakatoa in the late 1800's, or another major volcanic eruption that
occurred in 1815 that created a year without a summer in 1816. You can kiss off
any climate model in this scenario.
As this debate between the climate Scientists
(and government) and well credentialed climate change deniers heats up,
more and more evidence appears that the climate Scientists are dummying up
variables to obtain a desired result because they just flat don't know how wide
the variable is or can be. So they guess. In science circles this is
called made-as-instructed science.
In an attempt to explain away the last 17 years of
flat temperature rise that wasn't predicted by the supercomputer-driven climate
models, the climate Scientists are now saying, "we believe that we didn't
get the long-range variables of historical ocean currents
right." What? Ocean currents play a huge
role in the variations of climate and the scientists have the audacity to say
that, "we believe we got ocean currents wrong." "We believe" is hardly a scientific
term. Where is the evidence? Where are the observations and
experiments to back up a statement based on "we
believe?"
And before this "ocean current" fiasco, the
climate Scientists had another explanation for the 17-year hiatus of temperature
rise. In another article they said that, "we believe" that the rise in temperature was blunted by the absorption of heat by
the oceans during this period. Really! Where is the evidence?
Where are the observations and experiments that support yet another statement of
"we believe?" And these people call
themselves scientists? They give science a bad name.
Then another argument has surfaced about methane
emanating from the bowels of domestic animals grown for protein. Their argument
is that there are way too many domestic animals on the planet that are
"flatulating" huge volumes of methane gas into the atmosphere, driving
global warming. Since domestic animals are grown for protein to feed
humans, then it follows that humans are responsible for the large amount of
methane being emitted in the atmosphere. But it gets better. It
turns out that methane is a greater driver of global warming than carbon dioxide
(CO2), by almost twenty times. Wait a minute!
Didn't climate Scientists tell us that CO2 was the main driver of global warming
and humans are responsible? Now we are to believe that there is another
culprit and once again, humans are responsible and they had better feel guilty
….. and pay up!
For a second time we must point out that the
greater the number of variables in an equation and a wide difference in those
variables, the less likely any answer, solution, or prediction will be
accurate. That is why their computer models didn't predict the 17-year
flat rise in planet temperature. That is why their computer models didn't
predict a massive rise in Antarctica sea ice. Those same computer models are
also in direct conflict with actual collected data over the last 17 years.
How is that possible?
As credible evidence mounts against man-caused
global warming, why do the environmentalists, government and climate Scientists
still cling to the folly of their computer models containing too many variables
with wide discrepancies in values, just like the Drake equation?
The answer is quite simple really. There is
collusion going on between radical environmentalists, western governments,
climate scientists and maybe even world central bankers. The collusion is
driven by an agenda. The agenda is the unproven argument that human beings
are a stain on the earth and must be drastically limited in their behavior
(controlled) ….. by government. Further, government must spend billions
upon billions of taxpayer dollars to curtail man's emissions of CO2 and domestic
animal flatulent into the atmosphere that in the end will have zero affect on
planet temperature rise. Instead, what happens is, government borrows the
billions to pay for the controls and the central bankers laugh gleefully while
sitting in their cushy bank chairs counting their profits.
To control human behavior, the governments and the
environmentalists had to come up with a straw man to rationalize their
man-is-guilty agenda and that straw man is "man-caused global
warming." They have been promoting this straw
man by propaganda, hype, distortion and lies for years. They exploit the
masses by making the masses feel guilty because the masses are responsible for
the degradation of the planet and they have to pay for their
transgressions. Even though this made-as-instructed science has been
exposed as a fraud, they continue to feed the public lie after lie, attempting
to cover up their criminal duplicity. They even changed the name to
"Climate Change" from man-caused global warming because Climate Change is much
less controversial, nor is it definitive of their bogus accusations.
As we stated in a previous article, yes humans are
affecting the planet. But we went on to say that, "We (humans) are
an integral part of the environmental processes of earth but we will have little
or no effect on any final outcome. We will but only tickle the grander elements
such as the Sun, the Moon and the Earth itself, none of which is predictable,
much less measurable to the degree necessary for accurate long-range
predictions."
Government and powerful special interest groups
are forever trying to hoodwink and deceive the masses for hidden agendas and
they have been doing so since man came out of the jungles or deserts and set up
shop in cities. The deception didn't stop when some wise men wrote a blue
print for freedom in 1791. The masses are so stupid that they fall for it
every time, to their detriment and eventual enslavement. Man-caused global
warming is just one more tool in the elite's toolbox to manipulate the masses
for hidden and not-so-hidden agendas. One of those agendas is absolute
power over the masses. The second is money to be used against the
masses. One might ask, which of these groups is the smarter of the
two? It will probably take the blood of patriots to set it right …..
again!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An Off-Subject Observation
: It is disgusting from this author's perspective to watch an unruly,
undisciplined segment of the black population turn into wild, savage animals
every time a black man is shot or beat up by a white policeman, or shot by a
white or half-white man. The police shoot white men and women every day
but you don't see white mobs rioting, looting stores and burning
buildings. It is even more disgusting to watch the President, Barack Obama
and chief law enforcement officer, Eric Holder, fain great outrage at the event
and demand justice, fueling the fires of more American racism and driving more
blacks and minorities to the Democrat party, as if that were possible. But
these race baiters are suspiciously silent on black-on-black rape and murder in
dysfunctional black communities, or black-on-white rape and murder
anywhere. They are the true racists because racism (white against
black) suits their political agenda to gain more votes from the stupid and
uninformed. Hypocrisy doesn't even begin to describe their
duplicity. But the final straw is to watch the news media and the general
public, play right into the hands of these true racists and whip a single event
into a mob-driven, white-hating, feeding frenzy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: The foregoing article represents the opinion of the
author and is not necessarily shared by the owners, employees, representatives,
or agents of the publisher.
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and
property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural
America", is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners
(NARLO) (http://www.narlo.org)
, a
non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, an advocate and
consultant for urban and rural landowners. He can be reached for comment at info@narlo.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment