Determining the extent of possible global warming is not as simple as plugging a few numbers into your home computer.  It involves some truly awesome steps, steps which are truly beyond the capabilities of mankind.

Step 1 is to know accurately the interactions among the Earth’s various components.  Examples:  How does a volcanic eruption in Washington effect the reflectivity of clouds in Australia eight months later?  How does the sulfur balance in the oceans effect the formation of fog?  How much carbon dioxide will one square mile of hardwood forest absorb in Malaysia in January?   These and many other issues are extremely complex and impossible to know accurately.   They are far too complicated for mankind to understand and quantify.  If you think I am incorrect, then see if you can solve the following problem, a problem chosen for someone such as you with far, far less background in global warming than experts have:  Determine how much heat it takes to enable the growth of one inch of one blade of Bermuda grass.

Step 2 is to transform what you accurately know into algebra and calculus.  For example, develop mathematical equations to relate global wind patterns, volcanic dust particle size, shape, and color, with how these characteristics effect water evaporation and condensation, and the whole to how much sunlight clouds will reflect in Australia after eight months.  You can’t do that?  I can believe that:  Nobody can.  If you think I am incorrect, then you, the untrained should be able to solve this fantastically simple problem by algebra:  Mix one cubic foot of air/dust mixture containing 1% dust by volume with three cubic feet of air/dust mixture containing .9% dust by volume.  What percent dust is there in the final mixture?  (The answer is .925% by volume.)

Step 3 is to transform the correct algebra and calculus into a correct computer program.   Nobody can.  The reasons are simple.  First, the mathematics are far to complex for mankind to transform into programming without making mistakes.  Second, such complex programming can’t be checked for accuracy.  Simple programming can be checked.  For example, if you were to write a program to add all the numbers from one to ten, you could verify the answer on a calculator.  However, if you were to write a program to add numbers from one to 1,000,000 except that every time a multiple of six appeared you would add the square root of that instead, you wouldn’t be able to check the answer.  So if a scientist says the Earth will warm up by .1 degrees Celsius by whatever time, can you believe him? 

Of course not.  No one can do step 1 accurately; no one can do step 2 accurately; no one can do step 3 accurately.

Here is a challenge for you: Solve the following problem.  If you can’t, then don’t believe there is global warming.  This is why:  This problem is incredibly, fantastically, amazingly simple compared with global-warming determinations.  So if you can’t solve this, believe that no one could possibly evaluate global warming.

I am very qualified to give and solve this problem:  I have written 108 problems for use in licensing chemical engineers worldwide.  This is the problem, and it is an air-warming problem just as global warming is an air-warming problem:

Blow air at 100 pounds per hour at 6 psi gage pressure and 0 degrees Fahrenheit into a 100 foot long carbon-steel pipe having an inside diameter of 2.067 inches and an outside diameter of 2.375 inches.  Cover the pipe with 2 inches of fiberglass insulation, and cover that with a sheath of tarnished galvanized steel.  The ambient air pressure at the pipe location is 14 psi absolute.  If the wind is blowing at 10 miles per hour perpendicular to the pipe and its temperature is 120 degrees Fahrenheit, what will be the temperature of the air leaving the pipe on a dry day?  (The answer is 116.689 degrees.  Did you get that right?)

Here are some hints to solve the problem:

Step 1: Determine the physics of the problem.  What factors effect the warming of the air in the pipe and how do they effect them?

Step 2: Write down those factors in terms of algebra and calculus.

Step 3: Write a program to translate the mathematics into a final number, the temperature.  Do not treat the entire length of pipe in one overall calculation, but divide it up into many sections, perhaps 10,000.  You decide how many.   Use a quadratic equation to represent the thermal conductivity of the insulation versus the temperature along its radius at each point along the pipe.

My program to solve this problem is 125 lines long.  This, of course, excludes recycling of calculations within the program.  Programs used to calculate global warming are in the order of 12,500 lines long not counting recycling.  This is 100 times longer than mine.  Can you see why you can’t trust those who say we have global warming?

Besides that, if mankind can’t even design home computers and software that work without constant attention from tech service and consultants, how can mankind determine possibly global warming?

Still not convinced?  Then try this much simpler test:  For 30 days write down the fifth day of the five-day weather forecast for your area.  These forecasts are made by a super computer.  Then, for the 30 days the forecasts are for, write down what the weather actually was.  Compare.  You will probably find the forecasts accurate 50% of the time.  That’s what the Director of the National Weather Service said they are, the same as a flip of a coin.  Now answer this question: If the extremely experienced National Weather Service can’t predict the weather in the small corner of the world you live in for just five days from now, how can you believe that anyone can predict the weather for the whole globe in the coming years?