Kicking the Climate Change Cat Further Down the Road... 43

[ewh]

What is the reputation of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a organization of 50 "top" scientists) in the engineering community? I really don't know how reliable they are, but a study (Climate Change Reconsidered II) produced by them and published by the Heartland Institute (an organization which espouses other ideas I disagree with) claims to be "double peer reviewed" and presents a seemingly well-founded arguement that AGW is a political red herring.
I am not a climate scientist, but thought that this was a good example of one side of the differing dogmas surrounding the issue. Just how is a layman supposed to make sense of these opposing arguments?

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

or the summary

http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

 

[GregLocock]

Well, that's interesting. The average temperature of the oceans is 4 deg C (roughly), curiously this is the max density temperature. The greater depths are typically 2 deg C. So if we can warm the deep ocean up a bit sea level should drop. This is quite a nice graph, illustrating that whatever sea level changes we get, the coefficient of expansion of water is not much of a contributor. For instance if we were to heat the oceans from 4 to 6 we'd see just about zip. If we heated them from 4 to 30 we'd see about 0.5%, or 15m.





Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[hokie66]

I'm glad the climate is changing. Who wants everything to remain constant? No adaptive challenge in that.

 

[cranky108]

Can we get a graph of the proposed regulations vs the political climate change? And include on that the increased tax revenue.

 

[rconnor]

beej67, perhaps I should use another analogy, closer to your view. A government decides to enact measures to converse a 25 km by 25 km area of forest, while the status quo of deforestation continues everywhere else. CATO performs a “study” that concludes that no species that would have otherwise gone extinct, will be saved from extinction by these measures. Would you still conclude that:
1) The measure should not have been done,
2) By extension, any subsequent efforts to conserve natural habitats should not be done?

Oh, and these measures will have an average net domestic benefit of ~$66 Billion. But you can choose to ignore this if you wish, surely the ridiculousness of the two conclusions still remains.

Now to you dichotomic view that funding can either go to emission reduction or other positive ventures such as conservation, it’s a fallacy. This view is so common amongst discussion on discretionary spending. Well we can either save the environment OR help the poor. We can either fund after school program for inner-city kids OR we can fund NASA. The “OR” is a fallacy in each case because it ignores the vast sums of money wasted in other areas, namely defense budget and the coddling of corporations (which is hideously juxtaposed by apathy, even vilification, towards the most vulnerable members of the society).

Zdas04, can I strike a deal with you? We won’t use references from EPA, Huff Post, Greenpeace etc. if I never have to address any nonsense from CATO, GWPF, NIPCC, WUWT, etc. Let’s stick to peer-reviewed publications, ok?

GregLocock, how would the theory be proved to you? Thousands of published papers? Agreement from all major scientific institutions? Various lines of empirical data that all agree with the theory (and we’ve talked about this before, you never addressed my post at 4 Apr 14 12:26)? Perhaps a time machine to the future to see, first hand, what future climate will be like? Build a 2nd Earth and magically speed up time to see how the system reacts to different CO2 emission levels (well you'd actually need to build more than one extra Earth in that case). Last we talked about what constituted “proof” for you, you almost verbatim described what is currently happening in climate science today. See my response to your ideal test at this thread at 12 Mar 14 12:58 (second last post). You never replied.

While surface OHC (0-700m) has been rather steady during the “pause”, deep OHC 0-2000m has continued to increase. From Abraham et al 2013:
[image

http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/gallery/16/Abraham_2013.png

]

You also seem to forget that we discussed the that deep OHC (below 750 m) warm faster than surface OHC (0-300 m) during La Nina dominated periods and the opposite is true during El Nino dominated periods. This is exactly what would be expected. This is exactly what we are currently seeing in a La Nina dominated period. This should come as no surprise to you given your research into ENSO. From Meehl et al 2011:
[image

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Hiatus.png

]
(you responded by saying that the ocean is deeper than 2000m, I responded that abyssal OHC is also increasing (citing 3 papers), you did not respond)

I should note that one cannot claim victory in the absence of a rebuttal, and I certainly don't, but it is certainly difficult (and frustrating) to have to address the same arguments again and again without the other side addressing the counter-argument.

 

[zdas04]

I didn't read most of your post, but I did see that you put the United Stated Environmental Protection Agency in the same category as the Huffington Post and Greenpeace (who by the way have sponsored hundreds of peer [nee "pal"] reviewed papers). I think that that grouping is simply hilarious. You cited the EPA "fact sheet" for your cost and benefit numbers, not me.

I have two papers currently in the peer-review process and the comments I got back from the peer reviewers on the first one was that I had a typo on page 3 and some hand-drawn arrows in three figures looked hand drawn. Doesn't give me a really warm fuzzy feeling about the whole "peer review" process.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[beej67]

Oh, and these measures will have an average net domestic benefit of ~$66 Billion.

I'd love to see their math on how a 0.02 degrees Celsius difference over 100 years produces 66 billion dollars worth of "net domestic benefit." I can tell you right now, whatever assumptions they made to brew up that number for their PR group, they're wrong.

Now to you dichotomic view that funding can either go to emission reduction or other positive ventures such as conservation, it’s a fallacy. This view is so common amongst discussion on discretionary spending. Well we can either save the environment OR help the poor. We can either fund after school program for inner-city kids OR we can fund NASA.

Sure, just print enough money for everyone! While we're at it, lets throw another ten billion at CO2 and lower it another 0.02 degrees!

/headdesk

The “OR” is a fallacy in each case because it ignores the vast sums of money wasted in other areas, namely defense budget and the coddling of corporations (which is hideously juxtaposed by apathy, even vilification, towards the most vulnerable members of the society).

Well if we want to talk about actual budget, then lets talk about the deficit. The beltway clown show has the blue shoe'd clowns claiming that borrowing/printing any less than 42 cents on the dollar is "draconic," and the red shoe'd clowns claiming that borrowing/printing 38 cents on the dollar will balance the budget, and they both hang their hat on the idea that all we have to do is maintain a certain debt-to-GDP ratio and the world is rosy.

Well if that's the case, I've got a better idea. Cut the budget by 60%, borrow or print the other 40%, and do away with taxes. We wouldn't be accumulating debt any faster than we are now, and our GDP would go through the roof. And if that sounds ridiculous, it's because it is, even though it's only half as ridiculous as what we're actually doing.



Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[GregLocock]

You moved the goal posts again. You explicitly said that I had suggested using sea levels, I did not. Now you are back to heat capacity. Yes you are right, it will be difficult to prove the heat capacity dog ate my homework theory. In fact I dare say that within any useful timeframe it will be unfalsifiable. And what do scientists say about theories that cannot be disproved? They are not science.

Incidentally where are the error bars on those graphs?

Now, if the DAMHW theory is correct, the missing heat for the last 12-18 years should show up in that graph. Yet if anything the 0-700 OHC gradient has flattened since 2005, and the 0-2000m marches on at exactly the same rate as before. Now, whatever is happening below 2000m is unknown so we have a complete magic pudding of an untestable theory, because it explains everything while explaining nothing.

I didn't respond to that post because your post was just obvious trolling. If I say something is unknown to me then it is unknown to me.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[zdas04]

beej67,
You are spot on but don't go far enough in a couple of areas.

The US Constitution clearly and explicitly prohibits the Federal Government from doing things that are not explicitly allowed. For example, the Department of Energy, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and federal ownership of most of the west are things clearly in the purview of the various states and the federal versions are patently Unconstitional. So to bemoan the plight of the "most vulnerable members of the society" is disingenuous. That sector of society most vulnerable are universally harmed by federal handouts and would be much better served by community, county, state providing the needs. The Federal government has failed miserably (I saw a sign in a gas station today that said "We now accept EBT cards for Lotto Tickets", that is a failed system).

The Federal Government in general and the EPA in particular are standing in the way of the greatest economic boom this country has ever seen. As we transition from importing 70% of our energy needs to being a net exporter of Oil & Gas we stop a $500 million/day drain on the economy. Even a $15 trillion debt can be paid off if you turn that kind of drain into a similar magnitude cash infusion. With the debt gone, the amount of disposable income in the economy becomes staggering and cheep energy is the very best counterweight to that disposable income becoming a driver for inflation. The EPA response to this Renaissance is to keep the economy jittery by proposing stupid controls on existing infrastructure while standing in the way of building replacement infrastructure. Without the "green" drain on the economy, budget deficits go away by 2020 and the debt by 2030 or so. On the other hand, with the AGW scam (yes, I mean "scam" since profanity is frowned on at this site) the US loses its status as the global reserve currency in the next few years, and it becomes impossible for us to ever pay off the debt and some politician is pretty certain to cancel the debt by fiat within the next decade or so, which starts a global depression that doesn't end till the 5 million or so survivors are reduced to living in caves and snarling at each other.

The AGW discussion is really about the survival of civilization (such as it is). The stakes are pretty high on this one and all of rconnor's pretty graphs of adulterated data manipulated by computer models and pal-reviewed papers evaluating the drool on the chin of the tick on the tail that is trying to wag the dog don't mean squat.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[hokie66]

beej67, great post.

zdas04, best post ever.

 

[cranky108]

The statment that " A government decides " is wrong, because a goverment gets it's power from the people. The people must decide, not a goverment.

Present your case to the people, not to the goverment.

 

[zdas04]

Oh would that that were true. Some non-elected bureaucrat makes basically every decision that can be labeled "government". I've seen polls that say that fewer than 19% of the nation approve of what the IRS is doing and the number is in the same range for the EPA. That would say that the will of 80% of the people is being subverted by these two septic organizations.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[beej67]

Sorry for "not going far enough," I was just trying to keep base politics out of the discussion. But statements like this:

Now to you dichotomic view that funding can either go to emission reduction or other positive ventures such as conservation, it’s a fallacy. This view is so common amongst discussion on discretionary spending. Well we can either save the environment OR help the poor. We can either fund after school program for inner-city kids OR we can fund NASA.

...simply can't stand in a discussion about policy. Every policy decision is an OR decision. If not, we could just give everyone a million dollars and a new Maserati. The fact that we chose to spend 8 billion or whatever on lowering the projected year 2100 temperature by 0.02 and we also chose not to give the Audubon Society 99 times more money than they already have reflects a policy choice. A choice that will do nothing to save anything in our environment.

Now, if the discussion turns to government in general as opposed to government specifically related to environmental policy, then yes, I have opinions, which are many, and are strong, and which will heavily derail the thread. I feel no need to share them, since I can already list who will agree with them and who will disagree purely from the comments above. And the agreement or disagreement goes back to a fundamental schism in this country over what government is, and what it's supposed to be doing. No amount of discussion board argument is going to bridge that schism.

But even if you start with the premise that:

A) government has a responsibility to protect the environment, and
B) government's resources are not completely limitless, and
C) the EPA isn't lying to us with their models,

..then Obama's most recent emissions gambit is a completely pointless waste of money. And that's not a political opinion, that's just math.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

That's sort of a point, that the math just dosen't seem to add up. It looks more like a political power grab, or tax grab.
You can argue over the first part, but the result just dosen't make since. Fix the political games first.

You just can't replace coal power with wind power.At least at this time. And the difficulty and problems will only increase as you increase wind power.

 

[beej67]

You could replace the whole dang thing with gulf stream turbines though. 100% of US base load could be provided by those things. Basically for free. Just need to figure out a way they won't chop up all the whales and whatnot. But we don't spend our R&D dollars on that because political donors are positioned in other corners of the sector.

Politically, the entire country just boils down to which pile of money can outspend another pile of money to vote themselves more money. That holds especially true in energy policy, with both the blue hats and the red hats.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

Zdas

"" That sector of society most vulnerable are universally harmed by federal handouts and would be much better served by community, county, state providing the needs""

Can you point me to any modern first world country that operates this way as a basis for your assertion.

""We now accept EBT cards for Lotto Tickets", that is a failed system""

So you saw a gas station with this sign up in the window and this indicates we need to dismantle our government and reform it according to concepts that
have never been fully implemented in any modern industrialized society ??

""With the debt gone, the amount of disposable income in the economy becomes staggering""

Well it first has to get in the hands of consumers before its effect becomes staggering. Now the working people are competing directly with
countries where wages are thin. I suppose those 1% might be willing to give up a bunch, maybe dropped from helicopters but I don't see it happening.

If MMGW is not a scam even China will find it in its interest to mitigate climate change to avoid problems, yeah I know that day is a little out from now
but they are currently spending some money to this effect.

Who gave your post 4 stars?

 

[zdas04]

2Dye4,
It is a slow day here and I can take a few minutes to do that.

"" That sector of society most vulnerable are universally harmed by federal handouts and would be much better served by community, county, state providing the needs""

Can you point me to any modern first world country that operates this way as a basis for your assertion.

How about the US prior to WWI? The federal government was small. Taxes were very low compared to today's rates. Innovation and entrepreneurship were increasing at an accelerating rate. Oh, you don't consider 1905 to be "modern". Then no, I can't. Every single economy I can think of has been infected by the do-gooder mentality that does so very much more harm than good. For a couple of hundred years, the US said "I really don't care how you monarchies and dictatorships do it, we are going to go our own way". Now all of the sudden we have to look to Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain to learn how to run an economy. Sorry, but I couldn't care less how the PIGS or even the marginally functioning other members of the EU deal with their indigent populations. The concept that the socialist governments of Europe have anything to teach anyone is laughable. Where the populace has admitted that the socialist model has failed, advances are being made. Those places are few and far between. I've spent time in several of them and what they call "freedom" I call "outrageous government interference". The cost of energy in Germany driving people to denude the forests to heat their homes is a really good example of your "modern first world country".

""We now accept EBT cards for Lotto Tickets", that is a failed system""

So you saw a gas station with this sign up in the window and this indicates we need to dismantle our government and reform it according to concepts that have never been fully implemented in any modern industrialized society ??

If I have an engineering failure, I evaluate it and determine if it can be fixed or needs to be replaced. EBT is a fairly new program that builds on decades of failed federal programs rife with corruption and mismanagement. I've stood in line at Wal-mart and seen EBT cards used for cigarettes, beer, whiskey, and lotto tickets. I have no problem with calling those things reasonable for a person to purchase, but if money I worked for is to be used for their purchase then I would like to get some benefit beyond increased occurrence of DUI, distracted drivers, and litter. Communities tend to provide assistance in kind (i.e., food, clothes, job skills training). The Federal Government gives money. It doesn't work in the PIGS, it doesn't work in the US. I can look to your "major industrial countries" and see their processes as something to avoid at all costs.

""With the debt gone, the amount of disposable income in the economy becomes staggering""

Well it first has to get in the hands of consumers before its effect becomes staggering. Now the working people are competing directly with countries where wages are thin. I suppose those 1% might be willing to give up a bunch, maybe dropped from helicopters but I don't see it happening.

Is there any Obama Propaganda that you will think about critically?

Look at Williston, ND where an entry-level fast food worker makes $20/hour. That hourly rate comes from a labor shortage. That labor shortage comes from corporations spending vast sums of money in the local economy. Same with Lake Charles, LA. I've seen several articles in the financial press (WSJ, Forbes, Bloomberg, etc.) about German companies relocating to the US and paying skilled-worker wages. When a corporation makes a dollar, they either have to spend it on dividends (after tax), salaries (before tax), capital improvements (after tax), or investments. Corporations do not have a nose through which to sniff cocaine, etc. Most dividends are paid to pension funds (which are not dominated by your outrageous "1% slur").

If MMGW is not a scam even China will find it in its interest to mitigate climate change to avoid problems, yeah I know that day is a little out from now but they are currently spending some money to this effect.

I don't even think that is a complete thought. I have absolutely no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Who gave your post 4 stars?

I don't know. It wasn't me, and site management has explicitly decided not to allow that information to be revealed. Maybe it was 4 people who liked what I had to say? Just a thought.

The bottom line of my position on this piece of the discussion is that "The United States of America is unique in all the history of man, and that uniqueness has been facilitated by the Constitution. The further we stray from that framework, the farther we get from the concepts that have made our success possible". The 10th amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". The body of the Constitution does not mention welfare, education, Social Security, or ANY language that authorizes Obamacare. These unconstitutional activities should stop. History tells us that the further we get from the Constitution, the worse off we are (please don't bring up the Great Depression, it was caused by trade restrictions, an epic drought, and the government failing to prosecute fraud on a massive scale)--an argument can be made that the depression ended in spite of the New Deal instead of because of it).






David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[ornerynorsk]

"the depression ended in spite of the New Deal instead of because of it"

100% spot on. Comrade Roosevelt did his damndest, though. Unfortunately we've done nothing but add to his travesties instead of undoing them. We toil that government may multiply unchecked.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[beej67]

I happen to think that some elements of the New Deal, in particular the hydropower stuff that was built under it, did in fact help us get out of the recession, and make our economy more competitive in the decades that followed. I bet if we threw 8 billion dollars at gulf stream turbines (instead of CO2 reduction) we could experience the same sorts of benefits, and might inadvertently reduce CO2 in the process.

But nobody's interested in that, in a country who's politics boils purely down to which pile of money can outspend another pile of money to vote itself more money. Which is where the energy policy of our last two regimes (probably more) came from.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East -

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

Here is what happens.

When a society becomes densely populated or advanced enough for far reaching consequences an individuals actions
begin to impact his neighbors. It is the responsibility of government to balance individual
rights with the impacts the exercise of these rights have on others.

So every government will without fail be some mixture of socialist and capitalist tendencies.

When the world was sparsely populated and the USA in particular was a vast frontier of unharvested
natural resources the laws could of course be relaxed. If you decided to pollute your land and set
fire to your woodlot nobody else was harmed.

There are several things that dominate where society is taking us now.

1 Innovation at this point involves concepts and methods too advanced for 95% of the population to work with. New technology
will exclude those below the 95% level in intelligence, me included. This means very little new work coming on line for
a growing population and the number of existing jobs in this category being diminished daily by tech advances.

2 We are so large a population now that we can actually change our planets environment through by product of our activities.
My CO2 emissions are causing you harm whether you agree or not. Eventually it will be obvious.

3 People out of work are a growing percentage of the population per the first point above. What to do to keep these
people satisfied enough that they don't turn to anarchy no matter where they live is a serious problem. Some form
of social redistribution will absolutely be necessary.

That is why government WILL grow in the decades ahead no matter what we may want as individuals.

Lets hear some solutions that don't involve government and are actually practical.

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> Lets hear some solutions that don't involve government and are actually practical.
It is impossible to present solutions that don't involve government when excessive government is a big part of the problem.

==> i]It is the responsibility of government to balance individual rights with the impacts the exercise of these rights have on others.[/i]
Agreed. It is the primary function of government to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens and when there is conflict between those rights, balance is required. However, and this is the fundamental point of disagreement, it is not the responsibility to provide for our needs, especially when providing those needs comes at the expense of individual responsibility. It is the job of government to protect our ability to take care of ourselves and protect us from predators; it is not the job of government to put a roof over our head, food on our table, and relieve us of our obligations to take care of ourselves.

==> What to do to keep these people satisfied enough that they don't turn to anarchy no matter where they live is a serious problem. Some form of social redistribution will absolutely be necessary.
No, social redistribution is not absolutely necessary. What the government needs to do is provide an environment where people have the ability to provide for themselves and are thusly rewarded for doing so. In fact, social redistribution is often counter-productive. Providing food stamps to allow the alcoholic to buy liquor is counter-productive. Providing excessive unemployment to someone who is out of work is counter-productive to getting them a job. Taking away the rewards of productivity are counter-productive to intents of increasing productivity.

In short, it is the job of government to protect our rights, not provide our needs. Providing the needs relieves symptoms, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem. If you believe there is a practical solution that doesn't involve government, then you're failing to recognize a big part of the problem.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein