Search This Blog

Sunday, March 30, 2014

Global warming is a threat because...What if?

When you read the scare stories about global warming, they're mostly about flooding. Taken in toto, they're about violently active storm systems, droughts, diminished crop returns, and flooding. But mostly flooding. Surprisingly, the IPCC mentions every scary scenario imaginable concerning the catastrophic threat of rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, but they left one horrifically terrifying threat completely unmentioned.

If AGW—Anthropogenic Global Warming—really is really real, folks we're in—or possibly might really perhaps be in—serious trouble. Now I realize that no actual or factual evidence exists—at this time—which in any way tends to even imply that this threat of rising global temperatures is actually real, but what if? If you don't take this threat seriously because no actual and measurable increase in global temperatures has been recorded for nearly two decades, then I say: What if?

What if the computer models are wrong because they're wrong? Follow me here ... what if the computer-model programmers all have some kind of bug in their programs? you see? The global warming science could be 100% on-target but because the modeling applications are filled with mistakes and flaws, they generate all these flawed models. If the IPCC were to emulate a particularly brilliant Harvard-educated president, they'd start by going back to the proverbial chalk board and hire themselves the top computer experts in the industry. That way they could figure out why none of these climate models are representative of actual environmental conditions.

This is simple logic folks! Furthermore, what if stepping on a crack really did break your mother's back? Now hold on there. I'm not saying it happens every time, but what if? What if the act of stepping on cracks in sidewalks posed a genuine life-threatening risk which could be avoided if people would simply abstain from tromping carelessly on the dangerous interstice found between two concrete slabs? I didn't just make this stuff up you know. This is a very real theory, and while it doesn't have the traction of global warming, there are a lot of people working on this theory all over the world. It's the theory of Similarity and Contagion, and you can pretend that it's just voodoo or hocus-pocus but I bet you won't be laughing when you wake up inside a coffin buried six-feet under!

None of the preceding even matters however, because the most dangerous threat of man-caused climate change lies in the possibility of a catastrophic release of perhaps the most dangerous chemical ever before encountered. I'm not going to lie to you, this lethal chemical compound has killed more people than atomic bombs, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes combined.
What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.
For more detailed information, including precautions, disposal procedures and storage requirements, refer to one of the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) available for DHMO:


  1. LOL, but if you actually want to see what has driven average global temperature since before 1900 with 95% correlation and credibly back to the depths of the LIA, search keywords AGW unveiled. There are only two drivers and CO2 change is not one of them.

  2. Hi Dan. I haven't looked yet, but before I do I'm going to guess changes in the sun' activity, i.e. sun spots and solar storms, and then the reverse,. Things live volcanic eruptions. BRB.

  3. Ok it's a little technical for me, I have to admit. A cursory reading seems to say that sun spots as well as ocean oscillation combine to cause unusual warming. If that's not correct, let me know. I noticed that volcanoes were also mentioned as mild ecological modifiers, so I give myself a 75 on this pop quiz. Thanks for the feedback!

  4. Jack - The main thing that I did that is different from what doesn't work is to take the time-integral (that's like a running total) of the difference between the average daily sunspot number for each year and the average daily sunspot number for a huge number of years (1610-1940). This defines a long term trend as shown in Figure 2. The net effect of all ocean oscillations (dominated by the PDO) oscillates above and below the long term trend. The combo is shown in Figure 3.

    The volcanoes are to show that there doesn't appear to be any consistent effect from them and none was included in the calculated trace.