One engineers perspective on global warming 33

In forum1554 MVP members of eng-tips.com develop articles for publication on the Internet. This informal peer-review process has resulted in several articles being published thus far. Early indications make this seem to be an effective way to make information available to the engineering profession.

One of the articles was on my perspective on global warming. It was published today.

I would be very interested to participate in a discussion here about the article or the subject in general. There were several conversations that were started and then cut short in the Engineering Writers Guild because that group is intended to promote publication, not debate points of view. If anyone want to take up those conversations, this is the place to do it (although it is too late to correct formatting, grammar, or punctuation errors).

The article is available at: One engineer's perspective on global warming

Thank you to all of those who worked hard on this article to keep me more or less honest. I had a lot of help, but at the end of the day any errors and/or omissions are mine. I'll share the credit for the good stuff, but I own the mistakes.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[cranky108]

Something you had in your article got me thinking. If C + O2 = CO2, for each carbon atom burned it consumes one Oxygen molicule. And for each CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + H2O, not looking at the heat produced by each reaction, but by the formulas both coal and natural gas form CO2, but that natural gas also forms water vapor, or liquid, which if vapor adds to the theory of run away green house. If the water is liquid then it would at some point add to the rise of the seas.

So why is natural gas perfered by the warmests?

 

[ZeroSeq]

Absolutely excellent article.

I cannot understand how people fail to see the economic detriment of forcing / subsidizing green energy, price fixing, carbon taxing, etc., which in turn will only delay the free market ability to produce sustainable energy.

 

[prost]

I don't know if this is of interest to anybody here--there was a "Climate Change Statement Review" published online, written by the Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee of the American Physical Society (APS), dated Dec. 20, 2013 which outlines a number of questions that the committee thinks need to be answered, all related to the inconsistency of the data and/or models. I thought it was interesting that such a well respected professional group as APS (mostly academics), which you would think could be counted on to fall in line with the "warmistas," but is instead openly questioning many of the statements made by the warmistas. It appears to me that only isn't the science 'settled' that a lot of academics (scientists and engineers) are starting to publically raise questions and express doubts. I don't know what the end result of this debate will be, but thank goodness SOMEONE is asking the right questions. In case it's not obvious, I am not a denier, but I am highly skeptical of the conclusions being reached by the climate simulators.

 

[dawei87]

Why did you include a link to the 'hockey stick' when you were referring to a positive feedback that 'will' happen? The hockey stick portrays past temperature change, not what is predicted to occur in the future. Why didn't you link to a model-based temperature projection into the year 2100, of which there are many examples?

 

[charliealphabravo]

@dawei87,

It looks like the author was intending to provide an example of apparent positive feedback in nature. He states in the same paragraph that the 'hockey stick' can be extrapolated, which is what you referenced, but a projection is not the same as a demonstrated example.

 

[zdas04]

The hockey stick has 3 years of projection on the end. I thought it made a strong argument that taking historical data and projecting it even 3 years yielded pretty biased results. I like the idea of showing a "projection" made in the past that failed to match reality compared to actual data. Projecting 90 years is just ludicrous and I would be accused of cherry picking the one that looked the stupidest (which I probably would have been guilty of). Sticking with a graph so prominently featured in IPCC documents and Gore's Inconvenient Truth seemed like a way to make the point without as much bombast.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[Theophilus]

David, considering the high degree of controversy with this topic, I think you did well in hitting your target of remaining objective (and revealing/stating your bias where applicable). Well done!



Jeff Mowry

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

A people governed by fear cannot value freedom.

 

[rconnor]

zdas04, thanks for opening up this thread; I appreciate that you have provided a venue to discuss the technical aspects of your paper. I wanted to address prost’s post.

prost, the only ones that think that there are no open questions left in climate science are “skeptics” when purposefully misrepresenting the state of climate science. They do so to make climate science seem dogmatic. This sentiment is usually coupled with unsupported claims that any research that goes against the ACC theory is blocked by “pal review”. zdas04 does a nice job at illustrating this and, as is typical, offers absolutely no references to support it.

APS reviews it’s statements every 5 years, this was just standard practice. In order to provide a voice to the other side they brought in Christy, Curry and Lindzen. The gesture to have climate change skeptics say their bit should not be seen as APS shifting their view on the issue but just trying to be balanced. However, a more accurate balance would be 90 scientists in support of the theory and 10 that are skeptical of it. Nevertheless, there really is no point here – of course Christy, Curry and Lindzen are going to say the same-old, same-old but that doesn’t mean that it becomes APS’s position.

Your final statement, regarding climate science hinging on models, shows a misinterpretation of climate science that is commonly pedaled by “skeptic” outlets and echoed in zdas04’s piece. See my post at 28 Mar 14 16:55 which outlines which aspects rely on models and which don’t. While certainly future projections rely on models (this is rather tautological), the basis of the ACC theory only requires review of empirical evidence. The fact that the troposphere is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, the fact that nights are warming faster than days, the fact that outgoing longwave radiation is reduced along bands associated with CO2, the fact that downward infrared radiation is increased along bands associated with CO2, the fact that the tropopause is rising, the fact that the ionosphere is cooling and contracting and the fact that anthropogenic contributions to the increased CO2 concentrations vastly outweigh natural sources all go to provide a causal link to anthropogenic CO2 being the main driver for recent climate change. The open question is – how bad will ACC become? This is where the uncertainty in climate models comes in (a point I do respect from people such as zdas04). However, the literature continues to hone these estimates closer to those of the IPCC and not to the fringe voices claiming low sensitivity.

Many “skeptic” arguments from blogs and libertarian think-tanks sound appealing on the surface, especially to those of us with an education in science but no specialized training in climate science. Their points are made even more appealing if you have a strong belief in the free-market as you will have an apriori rejection to the proposed solutions. However, it’s important to remove any bias imposed by the latter, as it has nothing to do with climate science (which comes before climate policy) and dig deeper into the actual science. Reviewing peer-reviewed literature and articles from credible, relevant scientific institutions like NOAA, NASA, Royal Society and the American Academy of Sciences is a good place to start. Doing so, with as little ideological baggage as possible, will likely allow you to spot the sort of misrepresentations and sophism that I spoke of above (and will speak about regarding the article). I was once a skeptic and ate up the articles on WUWT but the more I researched, the more my opinion changed. It was easier for me than most as I do not share a strong belief that the free-market is the solution to all our economic and sociologic problems but I certainly sympathize with people when they don’t see through the gimmicks.

Also, I really wouldn’t mind being referred to as “warmistas”; it makes us sound like we are some sort of climate cartel. Peer-review journals and credible scientific institutions are Warmistas territory and ain’t no Skepticos going to move in!

 

[zdas04]

"Empirical evidence"????? To construct the temperature "record" ("story" might be a better term) prior to 1900, requires ice core and tree ring analysis.

Ice core analysis feeds the ratio or hydrogen and oxygen isotopes into a computer model to try to assess what the global temperature must have been to cause the evaporation that is evidenced in the sample. People tweak the computer models to force a story.

Tree ring analysis looks at the thickness of the rings across a (hopefully) consistent time period and uses a model to predict the possible scenarios of moisture and sunlight that could have created the observed rings.

Both of these are amazing bits of work. If this subject hadn't become so politicized I would be applauding their work. The problem is that the stories that come out of these models represent just one possible scenario from an infinite number of possible scenarios. We simply don't know what the global temperature was in 1800 AD or 2,000 BCE. We have models. Without models not one single conclusion from this "science" would be anything but an opinion. Oh yeah, with models every single conclusion from this "science" is simply an opinion accompanied by reams of fiction called "model output".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[mendinho]

Thanks for the article and the links to the threads. It is very interesting to see the debate from the other side of the Atlantic and also it is shocking to see the Cartesian doubts of our American colleagues from a European mindset.

In the US global warming seems to be a partisan political issue with corporate lobbies in the arena. In the EU this is not the case. In Western Germany the notion of human influence on climate change gained popular acceptance since the 80s. Many Europeans see CO2 emissions as a sign of the former Soviet heavy industry. Given that Germany leads the EU, the main European countries took some actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before the 90s. Even O&G companies and automobile manufacturers assummed the reductions of emissions without lobbying too much.

I am afraid those different ways in which the US and the EU tend to see the environment could be a point of cultural controversy between both sides.

http://NotOnlyBridges.blogspot.com

 

[charliealphabravo]

@rconner

You could save yourself and the rest of us a lot of time by just stating that you believe whatever the established scientific consensus tells us. That position certainly has some value in terms of setting policy but it makes no primary or necessary demands on scientific inquiry. Frankly, your blanket dismissal of critics with ad hominem and other fallacies does as much to undermine your own credibility as anyone else's.

 

[rconnor]

charliealphabravo, firstly welcome to the climate change debate. I can understand how you think these are "blanket statements" if you are unfamiliar with the past threads where I've repeatedly provided supporting evidence to the background behind these statements. If you have a specific issue with anything that I said, please mention it and I might be able to point you to the relevant literature that was used to support the comment.

As to the ad hominem, I'm unsure of what you are referring to. Possibly the statement "zdas04 does a nice job at illustrating [the claim that skeptic research is blocked by "pal review"] and, as is typical, offers absolutely no references to support it"? I fail to see the ad hominem. The author doesn't provide any supporting evidence to these fairly damning claims, making it a statement, not an ad hominem. These claims require an international, inter-governmental, inter-decadal conspiracy involving every major relevant scientific journal, NASA, NOAA, and 197 national academies of science. I, myself, am a little skeptical of this position in absence of any supporting evidence. But maybe we differ on that front.

 

[dawei87]

You could save yourself and the rest of us a lot of time by just stating that you believe whatever the established scientific consensus tells us.

A little blown away by the arrogance of that statement. As if someone can't objectively look at the evidence and reach an independent conclusion that also happens to be generally consistent with the scientific consensus?

 

[globi5]

Let's just assume that climate change is a hoax invented by the majority of scientists to conspire against oil sheiks, gas oligarchs and what not.
What's wrong with reducing dependence on costly fuel imports and invest more money in the local economy?

Also, if we don't need more efficient machines, devices, cars, electric cars, trains, aircrafts, efficient heat pumps and if we don't need photovoltaics, inverters, wind turbines, waste-incineration-plants etc. the engineers who develop and design these things are not needed either.

Not too long ago I read an article about how bad electric cars supposedly are in IEEE. Does this magazine even realize that many electric engineers would be out of work if electric cars were not being developed?

 

[btrueblood]

"This sentiment is usually coupled with unsupported claims that any research that goes against the ACC theory is blocked by “pal review”. zdas04 does a nice job at illustrating this and, as is typical, offers absolutely no references to support it."

What published, peer reviewed papers could be referenced to indicate that contrary theories are blocked from publication?

 

[zdas04]

I've wondered about that every time rconnor has said it. The articles are on CFACT, WUWT, Cato, etc. Whenever anyone cites any of those sites the warmists go nuts. "Nature" or "Science" is not going to publish it.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[cranky108]

globi5 I agree we should be more efficient, and electric cars do make jobs for electric engineers, however ther crusade agenst coal can cost a lot of jobs. And coal that is used now to power those electric cars is being asked to be turned off. And when I ask with what, I seem to always get the responce wind and solar.

Sounds like a limited thought process to think wind and solar can replace coal.

 

[rconnor]

btrueblood, first I’ll address your little quip then I’ll address the opposite to that - what published, peer reviewed papers could be referenced to indicate that contrary theories are NOT blocked from publication?

I asked for references and supporting evidence, not peer-reviewed literature specifically. The issue is that nothing was offered in support of the claim. The claims were made as if they are so obviously factual that no support is required. However, when these claims require an international, inter-governmental, inter-decadal conspiracy involving every major relevant scientific journal, NASA, NOAA, and 197 national academies of science, then I don’t feel it is so obviously factual as to not require supporting evidence. These claims, and the lack of supporting evidence for them, are not unique to the article but appear continually in climate change threads.

Now, to the opposite claim, here’s a list of a few published, peer reviewed papers that should have been blocked had this conspiracy been true (and skeptics should feel free to use such papers to support their claims in this thread and others!).
- Idso 1980
- Pielke Sr. 1991
- Lindzen 2001
- Chou & Lindzen 2005
- Spencer & Braswell 2008
- Lindzen & Choa 2009
- Spencer & Braswell 2011
- Lindzen & Choi 2011
This directly counters any claim of conspiracy. So not only has no evidence been provided in support of the widespread conspiracy but now direct evidence has been provide to counter these claims.

One recent example of the difference between bad science being rightly rejected from publication and good science that goes against the theory being wrongly blocked from publication was with regards to the recent Lennart Bengtsson paper. Bengtsson attempted to publish a paper but it was rejected by the journal Environmental Research Letters. Conservative media outlets (The Times) and “skeptic” think tanks (GWPF and CATO) jumped all over the situation as an example of the good science being wrongly blocked. Logic and reason, on the other hand, show that it was clearly just bad science being rightly rejected.

The paper was rejected because it was not a good paper. Pure and simple. The publisher of Environmental Research Letters, IOP Publishing, released a statement addressing the fabricated accusations put forward by the Times and GWPF. They even went so far as to release the referee reports. Here are some highlights (my bold):

Referee One:
“The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”
“The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining our understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments…What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognizing and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.”
“And I can’t see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.”

Referee Two:
“On the second point [regarding developing an “understanding why any apparent inconsistencies and differences might exist”], the manuscript has little to offer”
“the authors have only superficially demonstrated possible inconsistencies. Moreover, in addressing the question of “committed warming”, the authors have inexplicably used the wrong equation”
“Even before making this error, there is a troubling shallowness in the arguments describing apparent discrepancies in estimates of forcing and equilibrium climate sensitivity.”

The difference between bad science being rightly rejected and good science being wrongly blocked is something I feel skeptics need to understand. Just because you like the paper (because it agrees with your position) doesn't make it good science. Just because I don't like a paper (because it disagrees with my position) doesn't make it bad science. Both sides can meet in the middle by providing supporting evidence to justify their claims.

 

[globi5]

cranky108
150 years ago the whaling industry was even the biggest economic sector in the US-Northeast. Does this mean the whaling industry should have been saved, because it was under pressure due to the growing petroleum industry? And would the US be better off today if whaling was still a major economic factor?

I agree electric cars do currently consume some coal power. Which is at least not imported costly fuel and since electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines they are also using less of it.
Since the US electricity sector is only getting 35% from coal, one wouldn't need to replace 100% with Wind and PV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_United_States

Having said that, even with Onsite Solar power alone (0% Wind, 0% Hydro, 0% Geothermal, 0% Offsite Solar, 0% Biomass) one can produce enough electricity to power an electric car: A solar parking roof with a projected area of 3*6 m^2 tilted by 30 degrees has an area of 20.8 m^2. With a PV efficiency 15% and 4.5 kWh/day one receives 5125 kWh per year.

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/map_pv_national_hi-res.jpg

5125 kWh is enough to travel over 27000 km per year with an electric car.
(EV consumption: 0.188 kWh/km.

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/models/facts

)

By the way, if some power does come from Wind it is interesting to note:

http://www.aweablog.org/blog/post/f...are-lower-than-those-for-other-energy-sources

Texas grid operator data show that the integration costs for conventional power plants are far larger than the integration costs for wind generation
In addition, Wind power and PV complement each other:

http://www.q-cells.com/uploads/tx_a...Wind-Complementarity_paper_PVSEC_preprint.pdf