Garbage In-Garbage Out

Climate Change Modeling Is Erroneous By “Only” SIXTEEN PER CENT As To Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Absorption By Plants?

News Analysis: ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’ (GIGO) is alive and well as evidenced by the latest Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Absorption Rates of Flora around the world. Climate Change Modeling is erroneous by “Only” SIXTEEN PER CENT as it concerns this aspect of the Earth’s Environment. Many Scientists would think that number to be evidence of “Blowing It Wholesale” by Computer Modeling ‘Experts’. How would these same Computer Experts like their paychecks short by a ‘mere’ sixteen per cent?

One would be hard pressed to envision another area of Science where the Computer Outputs are ‘so far off the mark’. In Astronomy, Biology, Physics, etc. that percentage would most likely be considered “Egregious Error”. For Climatologists to under play the significance of this blunder says, by offering effete explanations, little for them.

Now the question, many International Businessmen who might be considering investments in Environmental Related Industries is: If the data is so bad, what other incorrect ‘facts’ are being disseminated by the Media? What negative implications might there be for the viability of investments in this area?

While Politicians and other publicity seekers grant interviews about “Global Warming”, which will have the integrity to admit how far off they have been regarding Carbon Dioxide Absorption Rates by Plants?

Reality.

Reference: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644

☆ Has Mother Nature “Stepped On The Brakes”, For 18 Years, As To Global Warming?

News Analysis: The Latest Accumulated Scientific Actual Measurements indicate that in October, the Earth will have met its eighteenth year without Instrumented Evidence of Global Warming!

It appears that the “Experts'” many Computer Models, that predicted ‘Catastrophic Temperature Rises’, evidence the well-known Principle of ‘Garbage In, Garbage Out’ [“GIGO”]. The models missed the mark by a ‘long shot’. However, they did induce many Politicians to demand funding for control of ‘Global Warming’ [to the benefit of Business Allies, Charlatans, and the Mass Media (of Journalism Majors)].

Through the many centuries of Man’s Explorations of this Glorious Planet, the “Money Seekers” are nearby, like Hyenas near Carrion. In this case, a former World Political Leader optimized his employment by engaging in the Clarion Call to ‘Save the Planet From Global Warming’. From this effort, many people made much money [as he may have].

Rather than EVERYONE waiting for ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENTS to be taken and scrutinized, Computer Modeling was used to stir up the thundering herd of Wildebeests.

The Mass Media, wanting for a subject to write about, jumped in with ‘both feet’ and created their ‘Holographic Reality’ of “Global Warming leading to the destruction of Mankind”. Even those in the Mass Media may have earned salary increases from gained readership of this ‘Pending Catastrophe’ [which never occurred]. That ‘Climate Change’ could be a mere ‘Natural Process’ was of NO interest to them. Today, both the North and South Poles have gained increased ice expanses and depths. The “El Nino” Phenomena is largely effete.

Solar flares are much more of a potential problem than “Man’s Greenhouse Gases” ruining the atmosphere. In fact, Natural Processes on Earth contribute more to “Greenhouse Gases” than that created by industry.

Next, the Charlatans can “Computer Model” systems for control of Solar Flares and sell them to a very gullible public [inspired by news releases by the Mass Media]?

The Principle of A.F.A.B. [Anything For A Buck] is alive and well in Corporations, Governments, and certainly Universities [with their Professors seeking grants from the naïve].

The “Aroma of Money Making” is as alluring to some Professors and Scientists as the nasal enjoyment derived from walking into a Bakery making its delights.

Reality.

Reference: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/upcoming-anniversary-october-1st-will-mark-18-years-no-global

☆ Shale Oil Reserves In America: Are The Estimates Accurate?

News Analysis: “Shale Oil Reserves In America: Are The Estimates Accurate?” is a question Petroleum Engineers ask presently. The ‘Jan Arp Formula” has its equations taken from “Liquid” Oil Production and applied (with minor Adjustments?) to Oil Shale Rock Production. To analogize: “Is a Grapefruit a Tangerine?” Both are Citrus Fruit; both have peels; both have seeds; both have pulp. However, these Fruit are different in Sizes, Sugar Contents, and pH (Acid) Levels.

Any Oil Field in the World needs greater numbers of holes drilled in it for attainment of more accurate estimated Reserves therein.

In estimating Oil Shale Rock Reserves, one has more problematic elements to contend with. Perhaps the biggest difficulty is to fracture the Oil Shale Rock ‘Most Properly’ so Oil And Gas can escape the strata and be recovered maximally. A  difficulty is having to drill deeper and then be “Lucky Enough” to Horizontally Drill to the Mid-Point (Up-Down, Left Right) in the Shale Deposit (possibly a great distance from the drilling rig). This process can then be continued with other drilling to maximize the extraction. Another perhaps lesser element is the proper Chemicals/Pressures utilized to fracture the Shale; there will be some variations in both Chemical Composition and as well Compaction of Shale in the same ‘large’ deposit over the distance.

As with ANY Formulation, the “Garbage In-Garbage Out” Principle applies; even to adaptations of Jan Arp’s Equation.

It does not take too much imagination to envision Vested Interest Groups wanting to “Hype” the Price of Petroleum Company Related Stock(s) by using  “Creative Equations” for large ‘Estimated Reserves’ to impress the “Freiers” who would buy into it.

Unfortunately today, there are not too many Oil Company leaders with the Integrity the likes of George Franklin Getty; amongst some of the current lot “Anything For A Buck (AFAB)” ‘Contamination permeates the Strata’.

“Caveat Emptor”; especially in the Petroleum Industry.

Reality.

Reference: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-03/old-math-casts-doubt-on-accuracy-of-oil-reserve-estimates.html

☆ A $391 Billion Dollar F-35 Aircraft Program To Serve Three Masters May Be Expected To Serve None Well

News Analysis:  The 35% Composite F-35 Aircraft is based on the Pentagon’s wishful thinking that Three Different Versions (with Varied Operational Parameters) can be combined into one Basic Aircraft Design. This $391 Billion Dollar Program, the most expensive Aircraft Program ever, displays the Military-Industrial Complex’s Mutual Onanistic Efforts.

The F-35 Cost Savings which were to be realized by this “Three-Into-One” Design Approach from the outset was questionable, at best. The Cost Overages are abundant now while the purported ‘Light-Weight Construction’ has each of these Versions allegedly at or above design limits.

Cracking of Structural Componentry, which is presently occurring in this Aircraft,  may be expected of stressed Carbon Composites may people think. Until the U.S. Air Force reveals if this was Composites or Metals Failure (or both) it will not bode well for an Alleged Super-Maneuverable Aircraft which this was Promoted to Be.

The Public Cannot see how a $391 Billion Dollar Aircraft have so many various ‘permanent’ and temporary problems; as the F-35 Pilots complain that the Aircraft Design does not allow them to see Enemy Aircraft Approaching from the Rear of their F-35’s (due to poor obstructed Fuselage Design).

As for the Air Frames’ Vaunted Cad/Cam Design Capabilities perhaps “Garbage In; Garbage Out” (GIGO) applies to their Multifarious Incorrect Engineering Assumptions. These errors have now been evidenced by these many problems such as “Structural Cracks” and “Shorter Aircraft Life Spans”.

Reality.

Reference: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-28/lockheed-f-35-develops-cracks-pentagon-s-tester-finds.html?cmpid=yhoo

★ Computer Climate Warming Models: Garbage In; Garbage Out (GIGO)?

Premium News Analysis: Computer Climate Warming Models: Garbage In; Garbage Out ‘GIGO’ is debated by many familiar with Software Information ‘Frailties’. A Computer digests and expounds conclusions from inputs received based on its Programs which  contain Processing  Algorithms. As such, problems immediately arise as to data input by  Computer users.

When NO ONE agrees on a Starting Point to be used as a ‘Baseline Number’, how can  “Downstream” data regurgitated by a Computer be held to be Inviolate? For example, does one start a Baseline date for Weather Change at 2000 BC,1000 AD, 1560 AD, 1970 AD, or when? How are naturally occurring Methane releases by plants in to the atmosphere to be valued? What about Methane released by cows? The Variables which contribute to weather change are Innumerable. To aver that inputs for a Computer Model have been correctly deduced for ALL of the possible interacting numerical variables of World Weather CORRECTLY is Laughable. Only Politicians, many of whom do not know any better, can sign up to such brash Ignorance.

Science is based on the “Principle of Refutation”. While different Arguments may lead to the Same or different Conclusion or the Similar Arguments lead to the Same Conclusion, the Validity of the Conclusion may still be Suspect. The Conclusion derived from the Facts are where men Error. The aforementioned Arguments may be based on a Misinterpretation of the Facts. Science continually: Tests the Facts; the Assumptions that were used to establish an Argument as to what the Facts really mean;  and, the Veracity of the Conclusion itself. If the Epistemology is wrong, Science will refute the Conclusion and start over again. That is the beauty of the Scientific Method. Brilliant Scientists do not take themselves too seriously; they are Always Learning, so they remain Humble.

Many people are suspect about “Climate Change” or “Global Warming”  as being anything other than Natural, nothing more.  The Debate will continue since Man does not yet have enough evidence to conclude: if it is ONLY a Natural Process; a Man-Made Process; or Both.

In the Long Term, the Scientific Method will deliver the Truth to Mankind about this Important Subject.

Nothing is Constant In Nature.  Reality.

Reference: http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/03-12-2013/126293-global_warming_fraud_science-0/

Global Warming Appears to be Slowing per Latest Actual Measurements; Not Consistent with Computer Models

News Analysis: Voluminous computer models have “established” that the earth is warming at a hazardous rate formerly unknown to man. This heating has been “proven” to have been caused by Hydrocarbon buildup in the atmosphere. ‘The ice at the Poles would be totally gone in several years’ according to Computer Models conducted by ‘Scientists’ globally.

It appears, from the latest Instrument Measurements, that this heating  may only be impacted in part by man’s industries; But perhaps, more by Natural Earth Processes [NEP’s], occurring from Time Immemorial. Temperature fluctuations, if NEP caused, will  rise, and  decline. Perhaps as evidence of this Earth System is the fact the in Siberia, vast areas had been covered with meadows that presently do not exist. A posteriori, it must had been warmer years ago. 

Obviously, man’s industries are having an effect on the environment; But perhaps to a much smaller degree than the Computer Models indicate. If so, people must re-think common assumptions from such equipment; The “Garbage In-Garbage Out” Axiom may be more true than the public realizes.

Precise temperature measurements, in situ, OVER TIME, will bear out the truth of the “Global Warming” Conundrum; with a much higher accuracy than that provided by Computer Modeling.

Reference: http://tinyurl.com/m26jve6