We have examined the difference between accuracy and precision. Defining accuracy is up to the participants. Any data can be given a consensus opinion as being accurate so long as everyone agrees on how loose the parameters will be. We cannot make precise conclusions true by using imprecise data and yet it happens all the time in climate science. In simple terms, if I prove that my slingshot can hit the broad side of a barn with accuracy, I cannot claim that it will hit a fly with accuracy. Conclusions formed about the climate millions of years ago have too high a fudge factor to be useful for present day predictions.

When we look at systems, we tend to look at snapshots. But in reality, systems are dynamic, especially living ones. A person will react differently toward a parked car than moving cars on a highway. A person could apply a heat gun to a parked car to warm up a spot but not much heat will hit a car going by at a high rate of speed. This is also true with air. Our atmosphere is dynamic, with air moving both on a molecular level and moving in streams we call wind and currents. It all works together to cool our earth. Heat energy is carried from the lower warm areas and is lifted to the upper and is dissipated to space. Water is the biggest player in this process. Its properties are fascinating. But to look at a CO2 molecule, a mere .00039 piece of air as being a contributing factor to climate doesn’t make any sense. If it could affect climate, the affect would be additional efficiency carrying heat away from the earth to the thin air of the upper atmosphere thus better cooling.

I would like to get into details about the difference between convection and radiant heat, the fascinating properties of water concerning heat; maybe that would be a good book subject. In the name of keeping this interesting, the next blog will be a quick summary and a look at possible motives. Here we question convention, not out of malice or agenda but to enjoy the freedom of examination….