Global Climate Manipulation

A Ridiculous Idea

I’ve been a weather and temperature observer in the Mojave Desert for over fifty years.  I watched the attempts to predict both by the various weather and climate organizations.  They are unable predict rain or snow events with minimum accuracy, even in recent years.  They do little better at forecasting temperatures aside from fairly accurate highs and lows in areas where they have abundant modern instruments.  Where they have infrequent stations, like the inland west, their record is also poor, often bested by local farmers, ranchers and school children.

Their ability to forecast extreme weather events like hurricanes, tornados or heavy rains and flooding is very poor. 

Their ability to do anything about the weather is non-existent.  Understanding climate, on a regional scale is thin, if it exists.  Understanding climate on a global scale is non-existent. 

For the past twenty years one of my jobs for the Department of Defense was to analyze and report on hundreds of scientific studies of the atmospheric physics of low and mid level air contaminants, natural and manmade.  More than half of the studies were seriously flawed or just bad science.  More than half of the remaining ones were inconclusive.  Most of the remainder drew no meaningful conclusions about global temperature trends.  None attempted to understand the complexities of airborne moisture, or the mechanism for cloud formation or its complex impact of ground temperatures even regionally, let alone globally.  

These people, these meteorologists, these atmospheric physicists are who we would be counting on to attempt to manipulate temperatures worldwide.

Are these really the people you want mucking around with global climate at the direction of government employees, self appointed zealots, or elected non-scientists?  

Don’t get me wrong, the unnecessary contamination of our atmosphere is to be avoided.  But the human contributions to greenhouse gases by all human activity is very low, probably 6 to 12 percent, the rest occurs naturally.  If all humans ceased to exist, virtually no detectable changes in global temperatures would occur for centuries, other than those of cosmic solar and planetary cycles and natural planet processes.  Incidentally, it is still questionable if greenhouse gases contribute to warming, or if warming increases green house gas releases.

Do you really want anyone, let alone those mentioned above at the direction of our government or the world community, mucking around with features of our atmosphere or processes they don’t understand well enough yet to even include them in their predictive models and algorithms?  Their models don’t work well enough yet to re-predict the measured temperatures recorded by reliable instruments of the past. 

If they can’t model the past, I don’t want them changing anything without several more decades of actual scientific study.  I certainly don’t want global changes attempted based on data from one Siberian tree’s rings or atmospheric measurements that NASA has collected but are not authorized to release.

That’s not how science works.  There is very little science that is thought of as settled and even it is subject to constant verification.  If there was “settled science”, we probably would have never heard of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Tesla, or many others now famous.  They all questioned well established thought, some paid high prices to later be proven more accurate. 

Global temperature change mechanisms and causes are not “settled science”; nor are they likely to be in the lifetime of anyone alive today.

Much less Charlatanism and hyperbole, and much more scientific study, are required.