News stories from time to time raise the specter of anthropogenic global warming that must be arrested and/or retarded to prevent the death of all mankind.
My business is measurement and control, sometimes for production processes, most of the time for indoor climate control systems, and a growing business sector of self-funding energy retrofits.
The proponents of the supposed anthropogenic global warming/climate change declare a rise in average temperature.
In my business, if there is to be a measurement of airflow through a large aperture, say an air handling unit, we know in advance there is no single-point measurement that will accurately represent the average rate of airflow.
Typically, across the face of the aperture, the opening through which air flows, we require a minimum of one sample per square foot. If the aperture is a large filter bank of some dimension, we mark off a grid where grid lines cross at one-foot intervals. For example, if the filter media surface is six feet high by 20 feet wide, the total number of samples will be 180, one per square foot of area.
Assuming the surface area of the earth to be 197,000,000 miles2, and each mile2 accounts for 2,878,400 feet2, what will be the number of samples I would measure and record to derive an average global temperature? Let’s do the math.
197,000,000 miles2 X 2,878,400 square feet per mile = 5.4920448 X 1015 square feet of surface area, therefore this same number of samples. Naturally, the samples must all be collected in real time, therefore there must be one sensor per square mile. The reader immediately recognizes the astronomical cost to place precise temperature sensors and supporting electronics over such an area.
If you compare one sensor per square mile, you will readily see how the accuracy is very low. Yes, I know, NOAA uses NASA satellite data. But the data is highly inaccurate because it derives from infrared temperature (IR) observations. Without telling you how to build a watch, let it suffice to say IR is not a good means to accurate measurements.
The alarmists like Al Gore attribute global warming to human activity. How does the sum of human activity compare to the heated core of the earth or, better still, that blazing ball of fire 93 million miles distant?
Given 7.5 billion people and an average weight of 137 lbs./person, the sum of all human flesh adds up to approximately 1.0275 X 1012 pounds of flesh. How does the sum of all human flesh compare to the mass of the nearest star (our sun) that is 1, 300,000 times the mass of the entire earth?
Consider a USA Today news story titled California’s endless winter: 8 feet of snow still on the ground in June (7 June 2017). From this story I quote, “the amount of snow on the ground in the central Sierra region was twice as much as usual, marking its biggest June snowpack in decades”.
Next, from The Next Grand Minimum (7 June 2017), Solar Update June 2017–the sun is slumping and headed even lower. I quote: “The F10.7 flux shows that over the last three and a half years the Sun has gone from solar maximum through a bounded decline to the current stage of the trail to the minimum. Solar minimum is likely to be still three years away.”
One would have to have an ego as large as Al Gore’s houseboat to believe a mere man can affect the global temperature of the earth.