Facts, Myths, and Givens in Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) 36

[zdas04]

I have been repeatedly accused of refusing to accept the basic "facts" of Anthropogenic Cimate Change (ACC nee AGW, nee Global Warming, nee Global cooling). I think we really need to define terms.

In the following I'm going to rely heavily on The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the "Greenhouse Effect". I've linked the article in for anyone who wants to check my interpretation of the story. It has an extensive bibliography at the end for further reading.

Greenhouse Effect
The basic idea of a greenhouse gas comes from Arrhenius' in 1896 representing (some say misrepresenting) the work of Fourier from 1827

"Fourier maintained that the atmosphere acts like the glass of a hothouse, because it lets through the light rays of the sun but retains the dark rays from the ground."

In other words, visible light can traverse the atmosphere more easily than infrared can traverse the atmosphere back into space. Fourier actually said nothing of the kind, but it has entered our collective culture that he did.

This idea ignores the fact that in greenhouses, the glass acts to prevent the heated air from mixing with the ambient air outside the box (i.e., prevents mass transfer) and has nothing to do with different wave lengths of light. The ACC concept says that the heating is due to energy absorption and disregards the fact that hot gases rise and there is no physical barrier to how far they can rise.

The linked article ends with:

In the real physics of thermodynamics, the measurable thermodynamic properties of common atmospheric gases predict little if any influence on temperature by carbon dioxide concentration and this prediction is confirmed by the inconsistency of temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations in the geological record. Moreover, when the backradiation "Greenhouse Effect" hypothesis of Arrhenius is put to a real, physical, material test, such as the Wood Experiment, there is no sign of it because the "Greenhouse Effect" simply does not exist. This is why the "Greenhouse Effect" is excluded from modern physics textbooks and why Arrhenius' theory of ice ages was so politely forgotten. It is exclusively the "Greenhouse Effect" due to carbon dioxide produced by industry that is used to underpin the claim that humans are changing the climate and causing global warming. However, without the "Greenhouse Effect", how can anyone honestly describe global warming as "anthropogenic"?

If the thermodynamic underpinning of the "Greenhouse Effect" is absolutely missing, ACC does not have a leg to stand on.

Carbon Dating
Much has been made about the "fact" that atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] must have come from geologically old sources because of the lack of Carbon-14 in the atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub]. The idea of carbon dating is the result of very creative work in 1946 by Willard Libby at the University of Chicago. His concept is that Nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere is bombarded by solar radiation and that some proportion of the impacts will cause the stable nitrogen to lose a neutron and become radioactive Carbon-14 (radiocarbon). He further postulated that the number of collisions is relatively constant and that as animals breathed the C14 a portion of it would be absorbed into their systems and decay to Carbon 12 over time. This means that as long as the animal is breathing they will be ingesting C14. When the animal stops breathing they will stop ingesting C14 and the inventory of radiocarbon in their bodies will decay with a half life of 5730 years. So if you find a sample with 1/4 as much C14 as you expect then it is something like 11,460 years old. There are a large number of assumptions that go into this calculation, and many of them are invalid for any given biological sample, and the uncertainty in dating cam be millennia.

The big question is what sources of fuel have zero C14? Of course hydrocarbons that haven't been alive for 300 million years likely have zero C14. Same with CO[sub]2[/sub] from volcanoes. What about biological material that has been frozen under the permafrost since the last ice age (2.58 to 0.012 million years ago)? That stuff has been through a lot of half lives of C14. So if the climate is warming, and if the permafrost is retreating, then biological action on the newly thawed material would have zero C14. This means that C14-free CO[sub]2[/sub] in the atmosphere does not necessarily have to come from industrial activity.

Temperature Record
The temperature record is not just one thing.
[ul]
[li]Data from 2005 might be from digital instruments that self-report or from satellite surrogates.[/li]
[li]Data from 1970 likely comes from analog instruments manually recorded[/li]
[li]Data from 1900 likely comes from spotty coverage at universities and on ships.[/li]
[li]Data from 1800 comes from ice cores, sea floor samples, and tree ring analysis[/li]
[li]Data from thousands of years ago to about 1.5 million years ago come from ice cores[/li]
[li]Data older than that comes from analysis of the fossil record (i.e., what kind of plants were growing? how big were they?)[/li]
[/ul]

We have no way to directly measure temperature. We can't do it today. We couldn't do it 100,000 million years ago. We can measure the impact of a given temperature on a material with very good accuracy and repeatability and very low uncertainty. That mercury thermometer that your mum stuck up your bum didn't measure your temperature, it measured the thermal expansion of the mercury in a constrained channel. All temperature data is the result of an evaluation of the impact on something physical to a temperature change. To turn ice core data into temperatures the scientist melts the ice then boils the water in a tightly controlled space and evaluates the gasses that come out of the sample. A computer model is used to convert the mix of gases into a temperature. These models are very clever and quite involved. If you assume that CO[sub]2[/sub] forces temperature change, you get one set of temperature numbers. If you assume that changes in CO[sub]2[/sub] are a result of temperature change you get a very different set of temperature numbers. When people plot CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration on the same graph as "temperature" data they are being purposely misleading since everyone with the ability to run this calculation knows that they have selected "cause" or "effect" before they generated the temperature numbers and in spite of having different scales they are actually the same number.

The oldest data has a temporal uncertainty of no less than ±10,000 years. The Ice core data is probably ±200 years. Data from the 1800's is certainly ±1-2 years. Data from the early 1900's is around ±6 months. More contemporary data has a better temporal uncertainty.

Contemporary data is collected from thousands of weather stations and stored in a database. The database (actually there are several, each its own format) contains one record per station per time period. No indication that the data is anything but true and accurate like scientific data is supposed to be. It is anything but that. "Everyone" understands that temperature on a blacktop surface is higher than temperature on a grassy field. As urban populations have expanded to formerly rural spaces, many weather stations have shifted from rural to urban. If you look at the data for the station, there is a step change in the output. To be able to compare a station that is currently urban to data from when it was rural, requires some "adjustments". These adjustments are done destructively without even a flag in the database. Also many of the stations have been broken for months or years and just receive "estimates", without any explicit definition of the estimating technique.

Finally, the historical record can be modified. Luckily several "outsiders" made copies of the databases at various times. Comparing those copies to the "official" records indicates some distinct trends. Several warm periods from the past are no longer included in the historical record. Data from 2000, show the 1930's to have been as much as 5°F warmer than the current string of "warmest on record years". Many of those record-breaking years were warmer by less than 0.05°F when the contemporary records have an uncertainty of ±0.1°F, but "Warmest Year on Record" gets headlines.

Impact of Climate Change
The list of things that ACC is going to cause has been widely published. It includes wildfires, more hurricanes, more tornadoes, floods, droughts, more deserts, reduced biodiversity, rising sea level, etc. This list was generated by a group of grad students sitting around a table throwing out ideas. Things like "when it is hotter it feels like the desert, I bet deserts will grow". In fact the geological record shows that in general during a warm epoch there is additional moisture in the atmosphere and deserts shrink--this is happening today all over the world. The list of consequences is not part of the "science" of ACC, but the scientists involved have rarely spoken out against the list. The scientific theories of ACC talk about physical reactions, but they can't even predict clouds or rotating systems let alone wildfires.

Consensus
Before you say you "believe" in ACC remember:

Belief is the acceptance of a theory in the absence of data

For every Michael Mann there is a Judith Curry. For every Al Gore there is a Jim Imhoff (U.S. Senator from Oklahoma). For every David Suzuki there is a Lord Monkton. For every Bill Nye there is a Jack-in-the-Box Clown. For every IPCC report there are contributors who claim their statements were misrepresented. The 97% consensus was made up from whole cloth. Before this subject got so political and began having so much money thrown at it, there were frank and honest discussions among the scientific community and people of varying views could get published or get on the podium at conferences. Not today. There are a large number of scientists who have actually lost tenure for holding opinions that the ACC story does not hold up to scrutiny, and getting published with papers outside the mainstream is nearly impossible. Not the "science" of my youth.

[bold]David Simpson, PE[/bold]
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[hokie66]

RVAmeche,
I think you have hit on the key issue here. The "97%" are those who are being paid to agree.

 

[SnTMan]

And really I'm not talking about "consumerism" as much as about having a reasonable amount of reliable, affordable electric power, lights at night, not cooking and heating with wood or water buffalo chips, etc.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[hokie66]

Available, reliable, and affordable. That's what we all want in terms of power. But even in the developed world, that is under threat from green politics.

 

[IDS]

The lack of scepticism amongst the alarmists who believe that climate change is just a conspiracy is quite extraordinary.

As engineers we should:
Consider all the evidence available.
Make sure we don't dismiss evidence just because it is inconvenient, or doesn't fit with our preconceptions.
Include hidden and future costs, so far as is possible.
In the case of uncertainty, consider the consequences of the worst case.

That's all basic engineering.


Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[rb1957]

"The lack of scepticism amongst the alarmists who believe that climate change is just a conspiracy is quite extraordinary."

Not sure I get what you're saying Doug. I wouldn't've thought that "alarmists" believed "climate change is just a conspiracy".

Possibly ...
a) the lack of scepticism amongst the alarmists who readily accept climate change (as being solely driven by humans) is quite extraordinary. or

b) the lack of scepticism amongst "deniers" who believe that climate change is just a conspiracy is quite extraordinary. (ie, deniers are too invested in the notion of a conspiracy to question their belief).

I get your "basic engineering" tenets but the problem here is your last point "In the case of uncertainty, consider the consequences of the worst case." Obviously the worst case is extinction, obviously a bad thing for everyone involved. Thus your tenet would have us pay any price to avoid this. Unfortunately some/many think this would result in beggaring ourselves without changing the outcome (how can we enlist the other nations to make this a collective vision and action ?). Who do we choose to die ?

"what??" ... yes, who do we choose to die ? The changes required "to pay any cost" would be absolutely catastrophic to the world economy (hence most other nations wouldn't join in). Hence there would be a significant "trimming" of the global population.

there is, of course, a middle ground where we reduce our dependence on FFs for carbon neutral options (the best short term solution IMHO is nuclear, the best long term is fusion) and we can have "green" options filling niches and giving some "feel good" optics. It would be an interesting choice, to invest now is a "massive" nuclear PP building program, and at least some action, but to get the politics to align ...

One advantage of this course is that it is well scalable to the developing world, the idea being to jump over the "old" FF economy and to jump into the new, electricity based economy. The problems are, of course, making batteries for the world will really mess with the environment, but maybe we have time (whilst building these new PPs) to research this ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[snarkysparky]

jdmunno.

the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ??

https://www.conservapedia.com/The_Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine.

"The institute is founded and headed by Art Robinson, a noted conservative Christian scientist"

Really ?

 

[IDS]

rb1957 - I mean b), although I avoid the use of the word "deniers". People who don't think we should be spending any time effort or money on reducing GHG emissions are frequently alarmists and almost always totally un-sceptical about the information they quote.

Considering the consequences of the worst case includes considering the consequences of any proposed action, so self-evidently it rules out any extreme action that may have consequences just as bad as those you are trying to avoid. What that leaves as the best course of action is an extremely difficult question that requires rational discussion, which is what this forum is supposed to be about.

As for what action we should be taking, in my opinion we should focus on:
- Reducing demand for products with high GHG emissions by increases in efficiency and reduction in waste.
- Increased capacity for energy storage and adaption of processes to make best use of intermittent supply where possible.
- Making better use of the nuclear fusion plant that we have been orbiting for the past few billion years.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[RVAmeche]

hokie66,

Wrong. The 97% are the ones who actually study the science.

Fundamentally I don't even understand how you can believe a worldwide conspiracy on this magnitude. It's like saying the Illuminati is the ones behind it because "reasons". And you can't argue that fact because everyone is "in on it". Meanwhile in previous posts basic things like the greenhouse effect (outside of it's contribution to climate change, the fact that it exists) is being doubted. It's astounding. And the claim that no school/institution would be able to produce peer-reviewed articles refuting climate change because of "the system" are equally silly.

The entire concept of science is proposing a hypothesis, gathering data, and drawing conclusions. 97% of scientists who focus on this subject (climate) agree with the scientific consensus that this is happening. Geologists or any other type of scientists play a negligible role in determining whether or not this theory is accurate. China is producing tons of new coal power plants. If their scientists could publish peer-reviewed studies refuting what "they" say, of course China would do so. It's as absurd as the anti-vax movement.

We're all technical minded, intelligent people in this forum. However, as I mentioned before, almost none us study the climate. We have better grasps of physics and scientific principles, but to say all the experts who dedicate their lives to the study of this subject are wrong is laughable. It'd be like a Senior Mechanical Engineer, who's very knowledgeable and experienced within his field saying that power transmission lines are a scam because he doesn't understand the electrical principles.

 

[hokie66]

RVAmeche,
This is becoming the common theme in the debate/discussion about climate change. When anyone doubts that the alarmists are correct, they are in turn called "wrong" because of the "97%". But thanks for the lecture.

 

[IDS]

This is becoming the common theme in the debate/discussion about climate change. When anyone doubts that the alarmists are correct, they are in turn called "wrong" because of the "97%". But thanks for the lecture.

It doesn't matter what "alarmists" say, no matter which side of the debate they are on. How about responding to the non-alarmist discussion?

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services

http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

 

[Mongrel]

I suggest that the biggest problem that many have, is the perception that little effective change (in terms of pollution control) is actually seen to be happening. Which is fair, it was always going to have to be a slow change to avoid damaging economies.
But we're seeing things like carbon taxes, making plenty of money for certain types, and having little real effect other than to drive up costs.
And we're wondering, what's the point? We're told it's to combat the carbon bogeyman, totally ignoring almost all other "greenhouse gases".
And yet, the biggest polluters appear to be allowed to continue unabated, while the rest of us must struggle to pay for the climate change religion's vision.
So can you blame people for being skeptical? It appears most are happy with the general idea of reducing pollution and waste in general. But with the amount of self-satisfied "climate warriors" ramming carbon emissions down the throats of the general public, and the glaringly incorrect predictions of the past, I don't see how you can argue that the predictions are definitely so correct!
Yes, we need to reduce our pollution in general. Including items such as waste plastic wrappers. This would be far better accomplished through meaningful education devoid of hyperbole, and encouraging, more than punitive, measures. Right now, "global warming" looks far more like someone's get-rich-quick scheme to me. And many others...

 

[RVAmeche]

hokie66,

That's because among the actual scientists there is NO debate. It's amongst people like ourselves in this forum and the politicians. So the "non-alarmists" are, frankly, the people who don't understand the science. I don't pretend to be a climate scientist and I don't pretend to know more about their area of expertise either. Much like those 32,000 "people with degrees in science" by the Petition Project that carries zero weight on the topic.

 

[moltenmetal]

RVAmeche: almost, but not quite true. Among the actual scientists there is MUCH debate- but it's debate about the severity, how quickly it will be felt, where/in what ways it will be felt worst, and what to do about it which will be effective. There is no meaningful debate about the origin of the CO2 nor about the resulting climactic forcing. And the lack of meaningful debate on those topics doesn't arise from an unwillingness to consider other theories- it arises because the existing theory is consistent with our measurements (multiple cross referenced measurements), and has a strong theoretical underpinning (i.e. we understand not just that it is happening, but also why).

Again, it's important- as this thread apparently sought to accomplish- to distinguish between what we theorize based on strong evidence, and what we merely suspect.

 

[moltenmetal]

"We're told it's to combat the carbon bogeyman, totally ignoring almost all other "greenhouse gases"

Not true, at all. We're focusing on CO2 because it is the GHG with the longest environmental persistence which has increased by the largest amount. We're not ignoring methane, NOx etc., nor are we ignoring water vapour either.

"And yet, the biggest polluters appear to be allowed to continue unabated, while the rest of us must struggle to pay for the climate change religion's vision."

We are the consumers of fossil fuels, hence WE are the the "biggest polluters" in that sense. The characterization of concern over anthropogenic climate change as "religion" is hyperbole and belies the real issue in your commentary- you think the evidence isn't solid enough to justify the necessary response. Why not? Because the change is gradual- the planet has a lot of "inertia" to what we're doing to it, so the problem seems less urgent than it otherwise would.

As to the assertion that global warming is making people rich: as someone who helps clients develop new technology, I can say that the assumption that we'd get serious eventually about dealing with global warming has led to a lot of people betting the farm, so to speak, and losing it as a result. The notion that we can have a non-emitting suite of technologies compete- and win- against a suite of existing emitting technologies with NO PREMIUM on those emissions in economic terms, flies in the face of basic economics and elementary commonsense. I can also tell you that I daily see the result of the efforts of people like the Koch brothers, who profit from the status quo and want it to stick around for as long as possible- at very least until they're in the ground- sowing discord and disinformation- preaching controversy where there is none.

 

[IRstuff]

This is coupled with the aggressive sales of US oil from non-traditional sources, which has consistently led to a glut of low-cost oil, providing even less incentive to conserve and reduce consumption growth.

Ignoring AGC and other considerations, the "manifest destiny" approach to our own natural resources appears to be short-sighted, given that we ought to conserve our own natural resources, rather than pump and dump until our own wells run dry.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[WARose]

[blue](rb1957)[/blue]

there is, of course, a middle ground where we reduce our dependence on FFs for carbon neutral options (the best short term solution IMHO is nuclear, the best long term is fusion) and we can have "green" options filling niches and giving some "feel good" optics. It would be an interesting choice, to invest now is a "massive" nuclear PP building program, and at least some action, but to get the politics to align ...

I think nuclear is the answer as well. I'm not a big government guy.....but I would be willing to pay more taxes for a massive R&D project to get fusion off the ground.

[blue](SnTMan)[/blue]

Yeah, I know what you're saying, but we are told China is bringing on a coal plant a week. India not far behind. That's development. In terms of C02 emissions, it hardly matters what the US for example does.

I kind of disagree because I think we should do our part to reduce emissions....but I'm glad somebody recognizes this about China & India. The USA is only 15% of CO2 emissions.

 

[SnTMan]

WARose, I did not mean to imply the US should do nothing, just that the developed world can't make much difference acting alone.

EDIT: Probably should say "enough"

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[rb1957]

yes, but we don't want to "crucify" ourselves with excessive economic penalties if others aren't following suite.

and we don't want to suffer these penalties if they don't significantly change the outcome.

trading Carbon credits is just a scam ... the money is not (IMHO) being used to help resolve the problem.

we have a very difficult problem to solve. It is a global problem and needs a global solution.
The solution (IMHO) will require some stick (taxes, penalties for using FFs) and some carrot (incentives for using other sources). We should (IMHO) being trying to redirect the developing world (particularly China) towards more of an electric economy, but we have to recognise the problems with this approach (building the world's supply of batteries for one thing). We should be increasing fusion energy research. Higher energy consumption is an (almost) necessary corollary of increased development; we (developed economies) should not try to restrain development in other countries ... though we can nudge it towards a path we think is "better".

And possibly China is getting a bad rap here. I hear that for as much "harm" they're doing (building coal powered power stations) they are also doing developments in non-FF fuels/energy.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[JoshPlumSE]

One thing that has happened in recent years is an effort by some countries (in Europe mostly) to legislate cleaner energy practices for their manufacturing. This (like all regulation) drives the cost of manufacturing up. Justifiably perhaps. However, it has the unintended consequences of companies moving their manufacturing over to countries that are farther away and which use even less "clean" energy than was used originally. So, the efforts for to improve the environment through environmental regulation fails in this respect.

Now, I'm more pro "free market" and "free trade" than most people I know. However, it seems to me that the way to deal with this is to do the following:
a) Impose "tarrifs" on goods that are manufactured in a way that is problematic for the people of the USA. Not with the intention of singling out any one country or starting a trade war. But rather merely to increase the cost of those goods.
b) Use the money from those taxes / tarrifs to fund clean energy projects either at home or abroad. This could be done in a way that discourages a trade war. For example: if we're concerned about what percentage of some nation comes from burning coal, we can fund the construction of a replacement combined cycle gas turbine power plant in that nation (which produces a whole lot less CO2 per MegaWatt than burning coal). Obviously we could try for solar or wind or something as well, but it's probably more efficient use of funds (in terms of $$ per ton decrease in C02 emission) to switch from coal to natural gas.

 

[moltenmetal]

JoshPlum- you've nailed the reason that nobody wants to be the first penguin off the iceflow. Nobody wants their goods for export to be burdened with a penalty for doing something good for the world, i.e. taxing the fossil carbon emissions associated with those goods' manufacture. So any carbon taxing or other pricing scheme MUST be paired with tariffs on goods and services from nations who don't have a similar tax, or else the tax will be set too low to be effective or the public will not support it.

Canada would have had a carbon tax in place nationally two decades ago had the US done so- and free trade between the countries means that tariffing US goods and services isn't in the cards. So free trade does stymie climate action in that sense. I say "free trade", despite the illegal American tariffs on steel and aluminum- against the rules of the agreements America has signed with its neighbours- which persist despite the NEW free trade agreement.