Thursday, February 01, 2007

UN should do my local weather put out a story today with the headline Global temperature set to rise 1.8-4.0 C by 2100: UN Breitbart thinks this is pretty certain as they said "set to rise". It gets watered down some in the story where they say "The earth's surface temperature will probably rise", and say it's according to a "best estimate".

Have you ever asked yourself why your local weather man/gal doesn't use words like "best estimate" or "probably"? Even though they don't use qualifiers on their forecast we know it's just that, a forecast, and we expect it to only be sort of close to right. Monday this week the local television meteorologist I watch in the morning said I would see close to 65 degrees and partly cloudy sky's today (Thursday)...nope...more like 52 and complete cloud cover. His temperature was off by 20% and just 4 days out.

Meteorologists can't predict weather to single digit precision in a small area but yet we are willing to believe some UN meteorologist and scientists have a model with infinite more precision over hundreds of years? Why? The nature of black holes is universally recognized as a THEORY. That the earth's dinosaurs became extinct due to a prolonged winter caused by a meteor strike is an universally recognized THEORY. But man causing our recent (according to Al Gore since 1940) global warming of about 1 degree C is a CERTAINTY?
Maybe the UN should start doing our local weather as they have apparently found the holy grail of temperature forecast models unavailable to our average weatherman! Come on people, apply some logic and reason to what's being reported. What is the motivation of those who report theories on both sides? I'm all for alternative energy, lowering fossil fuel dependence and so on. But ask why your pals in D.C. don't want to develop more nuclear energy or harness wind energy off their pretty summer home shores.

Also, I'm reading some material on how the planet has seen warming cycles every 1500 years, and that CO2 levels are at a historic low over the Earth's history, and that the warming each 1500 years shows no correlation to CO2 levels which have been much higher than we have at present. I will post on this later.

No comments: