Commentary on Earth's Temperature

Commentary on Earth’s Temperature-Part I of II
November, 2009

I. INTRODUCTION
The issue of global warming is front and center in environmental circles these days. Also referred to as the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory, I will just stick to ‘global warming’, and note that the alarmists have become more politically correct by using ‘climate change’ recently in the face of their critics. Browsing on the internet currently yields more than 11 million hits (tremendous increase in the last 2 or 3 years) on this subject with wild cries of horror on the part of both sides of the controversy. The vast, vast majority of these comments are philosophical and political in nature without much real analysis or data that is precise. In fact, a brief review reveals only a limited amount of properly interpreted data, error analyses, and examination of the difficulties of predicting future earth temperatures. It really is beyond the layman without training to even understand the problems and difficulties inherent to interpretation and analysis. Nevertheless, my wife glimpsed one problem by observing the current temperatures on the marquees at the local banks next to my home and across the street from one another. They were 10 degrees different during the day, and 4 degrees different at night! My car gage generally showed an average between those two measurements. I cannot tell you which one is correct (or none!) without extensive examination and calibration which is costly. The issue as I define it is really quite simple:

Is the earth temperature increasing to the detriment of life forms on the earth?

As I will suggest below, this brings up multiple questions about what is temperature, temperature measurements, average temperature, heat balance on the earth, effects of atmospheric constituents, radiative transfer, analytical modeling and accuracy of temperature and heat transfer predictions, and the sources of heat transfer…there are many, not just the solar input. It is not helpful in philosophical debate about melting ice caps (mostly false information), extinction of polar bears, less snow in Colorado available for summer water needs in California, perceived causes of the perceived global warming, or increasing intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes, ocean currents and changes, etc. All this just adds confusion to real understanding, although all these may affect the earth temperature.

The factual analysis should consider all the multitude of parameters associated with the sun-earth system as a giant heat transfer problem. That is what it is, not just a question of whether or not adequate temperature measurements have been made, although that is an issue. This postulate emanates from this heat transfer problem:

... No one can predict with any certainty (at all) the future of the earth’s temperature.

The problem is just too, too complex. On top of this, some of us subscribe without reservation or second thought to that which most of the alarmists treat as extremists or right wing religionist kooks or uninformed idiots: My sovereign God is in control. In 1986, author Dr. Donald E. Chittick produced The Controversy: Roots of the Creation-Evolution Conflict. A chemist/scientist, he wrote on the background as well as the conflicting data with an orderly and logical layout of the thinking on the part of the antagonists. This way of thinking may be valid for the present conflict over global warming, and other controversies too. It goes like this as a belief system…a way of thinking…the way they operate and think:

Assumptions…held by faith!
|
Data...interpretation based on assumptions!
|
Conclusions

Regardless of where you come from, the Creationist and Evolutionist both start with assumptions held by faith. There is NO alternative. In their case one major assumption or presupposition by the Creationist is that GOD IS. Similarly, for the Evolutionist, the assumption is that GOD IS NOT. Everything precedes from there affecting other assumptions, interpretation of data (events, facts, testimony, numbers etc.), and, of course, the resulting conclusions. This way of thinking, beginning with faith assumptions, is the hallmark of the global warming enthusiasts, environmentalists, animal rights activists, atheists and agnostics, etc. We do not deny our belief system beginning with GOD IS, and react accordingly.

It is my suggestion or speculation that most (not all) of the adherents to global warming do begin with the GOD IS NOT assumption, and extends with their humanist/secularist worldview. It logically leads to the conclusion that man, and only man, can and must save the planet, regardless of the cost, and thus interprets the data on both a technical and philosophical basis to sustain the conclusion. My friend suggests that Romans 1 describes them as Asteroth (Mother Earth) worshippers, and turning to idolatry of all kinds…worshipping the creation and the creature, rather than the Creator. The result of such thinking is conclusions oriented legislation both nationally and worldwide for cap and trade laws, emissions reductions by regulations and severe penalties for violations, no more coal powered plants, and yes, animal and human population control ! Nevertheless, we demand of the GOD IS people that they too recognize the rights of the sovereign Creator in granting stewardships to man from the beginning. We are not free as men or nations to sinfully despoil the creation. We were instructed and commanded to care for and tend it…for the benefit of mankind, and to the glory of God. “For all things are from Him, and to Him, and through Him. To Him be the glory forever.”

But where does the actual data enter in? Is it valid? Are there error analyses to support the conclusion(s)? Generally, you cannot find comprehensive and realistic error analyses to support global warming. It does appear that among scientists who have examined the issue (and sometimes on a somewhat basis!) that the initial surge toward global warming is subsiding. There are claims now that “more scientists” oppose than support global warming. But the algore shouts that “It is real and indisputable”, or “Global warming is dead on arrival”, are both mostly the philosophy of men…which we should be warned and wary about. We propose to comment as a thermodynamicist with some 30 plus years of practical experience in the Aerospace/Defense Industry. My BS degree in Chemistry was at Eastern Illinois University, my MS in Engineering was at UCLA, and my Ph.D in Engineering was granted from the Univ. of California at Irvine. We will not establish that global warming is real, but add to the skepticism by pointing out thermodynamic features that must be considered. Lastly, we must not forget the political agendas of the United Nations, the Al Gores, the environmentalists, and poor 3rd world countries. The end result is already apparent: taxation for dubious activities to “save mankind”. One leader has referred to this as “Share the Wealth”.

Any consideration of the “giant heat transfer problem” should identify and establish characteristics of the variables involved. We will consider this under the title of Technical Considerations. The use of these variables, in addition to actual measurements of temperatures, constituents, radiation, atmospheric conditions, and time variations all play a part in analytic development of theories for predictions (the meteorologist calls it forecasting). Uncertainties in technical considerations add to the difficulties in making predictions. Then, we will comment briefly on the Requirements for Analytic Models for prediction from a semi-technical viewpoint. The difficulties here are illustrated in local meteorological forecasting from my family TV when the meteorologist says she uses 5 different models and chooses the “most reliable” to predict the next week weather. Short term trends are difficult, accurate long term forecasts are impossible. In all cases, the two topics chosen for discussion are highly interrelated and should be considered on that basis.

On a preliminary basis you might want to glimpse other current thinking from online sources:
Temp msts:
http://spacescience.spaceref.com/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast21jul_1m.htm
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/past-present-and-future.html
(calculating temp over time)
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14843043 (temps under earth surface)
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm (accuracy of satellite msts)

And check out some of the blossoming skeptics:
Refs to the likes of http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html?gclid=COzji-3J-ZECFQT3lgodmH_zyQ ……..the Climate Change Skeptic
http://weathereye.kgan.com/expert/warming/skeptic.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/?p=105;
also add: http://www.climatedepot.com/ …….many, many links

Other sites of interest:
http://xtronics.com/reference/globalwarming.htm ...........very good
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
http://www.nov55.com/logic.html
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011726.php
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA420.pdf ...some data, no real error analysis
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2004nov20_c.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060201_temperature_differences.html

If you receive this electronically, the above are direct links to online stuff. If you feel I am biased by referring to these, your browser has 11 million other places to look at! That includes all the supporters of global warming.