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

 

[GTTofAK]

No it could not. The only thing that will stop the pot from warming is phase change to gas, boiling.

The arguments being posted here by you and rconnor are not arguments designed to convince engineers and other scientifically educated people. They are arguments designed to fool laymen who dont know any better. They are propaganda for the masses nothing more.

 

[2dye4]

""No it could not. The only thing that will stop the pot from warming is phase change to gas, boiling.""

I wonder about U.

Is it possible you are pulling our leg..

Surely you could imagine a state where " 7 " is not enough heat transferred to boil the water.

My stove goes all the way up to 100. So 7 is quite low. I bet you don't have a stove that goes as high as mine..

In case you are serious spend more time looking in the mirror before casting insults about knowledge.

 

[GTTofAK]

Really we your argument is going Spinaltap.

You aren't even trying to make reasoned arguments anymore. You are just trolling.

 

[rconnor]

2dye4,

I think he was joking. For his analogy to work the sun would have to be “off” (i.e. the earth would have to be receiving no energy from the sun) prior to turning to “high”. Furthermore, for this analogy to work, the earth would have to be continually warming until it approached the temperature of the sun. He’s far too strong a debater to use such a comically bad analogy, so I’m pretty sure he said it sarcastically as a joke. Made me laugh.

 

[GTTofAK]

No rconnor saying "I have a stove that goes to 100" is the joke.

And no you are dead wrong. I think you are assuming that the earth's climate has no lags and is always at equilibrium temperature which is profoundly ignorant. Im sorry I work in the real world, everything is lagged.

 

[rconnor]

So to salvage your analogy you'd need a some magical 50+ year lag between Earth's energy balance and solar activity, that all but washes out any correlation over that 50+ year period, that never existed before. Please do explain how this works! You may use this graph, from the Stanford Solar Center, for reference (most folks here are getting tired of seeing it but I figure you may not have):
[image

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

]

 

[2dye4]

""
Yet more proof that Ritson is an ignorant boob who didn't read the papers or any of the supporting material before making his comment. M&M carried their PCA all the way to PC4. So m=1 is wrong on its face. He clearly never read any of the papers or supplementary materials. Almost everything Dr. Ritson says from the number of PCs used, to what PCA is sued for is on its face wrong. That man is clueless.
""

The two Mc's absract.

""
The ‘‘hockey stick’’ shaped temperature reconstruction
of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) has been widely applied.
However it has not been previously noted in print that, prior
to their principal components (PCs) analysis on tree ring
networks, they carried out an unusual data transformation
whichstrongly affects theresulting PCs.Theirmethod,when
tested on persistent red noise, nearly always produces a
hockey stick shaped first principal component (PC1) and
overstates the first eigenvalue. In the controversial 15th
century period, the MBH98 method effectively selects only
one species (bristlecone pine) into the critical North
American PC1, making it implausible to describe it as the
‘‘dominant pattern of variance’’. Through Monte Carlo
analysis, we show that MBH98 benchmarks for significance
of the Reduction of Error (RE) statistic are substantially
under-stated and, using a range of cross-validation statistics,
we show that the MBH98 15th century reconstruction
lacks statistical significance.
""

Now who didn't read the relevant material -> GTTofAK maybe ??

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
You keep rolling that same tired graph out. Look at it. CO2 data from before 1960 gets so very smooth. That is kind of an indication that the granularity dramatically changed in 1960. They pretty much made that data up to fit a script.

How rigorous were the sunspot counts in 1860? Did they have the same threshold as today? There is no way to tell. This is just like the dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricanes after 1994--prior to 1994 they counted hurricanes that made landfall. After 1994 they started counting the occurrence of rotation, and every few years after that the instruments used to detect the onset of rotation improved and more rotating storms were counted. It doesn't mean that there really are more, just that the definition has changed. Same with sunspots.

And then there's global temperature. In 1860 there were not very many high quality weather stations, and those that did exist had analog instruments that were read by people with varying interest in reducing uncertainty. But still the authors of the graph put that data on -0.4 to +0.4 C scale. The chance of that data being read to ±1 C is exceedingly small, reporting it a couple of orders of magnitude finer than it was recorded is just dishonest.

I am so sick of that particular piece of creative writing that I could spit.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[rb1957]

this has gotten past silly.

Mann published the original article. M&M analyzed it and found it wanting. Ritson et al critiqued the critique. and so it goes.

some accept Mann and his supporters; others accept M&M. in both camps the other is an anathema. and so it goes.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[zdas04]

I'm in a similar discussion in the comments under my paper at ENGINEERING.com an one of the pro-ACC guys was singing the praises of Berkeley Earth Project being able to get to raw data. So I looked. Here is an example of their "raw data"

Annual Data[/img]. These guys have spent years and many millions of dollars to "fix" the data in many of the world's data repositories.

Look really hard at the variability in 1850 on the Berkeley data. -1C to +0.3C. That is a bigger range than you entire cartoon allows.

I have never once claimed any particular relationship between sunspots and temperature. I would not be surprised if there were one, but I think we are drawing conclusions form data made up to fit an agenda. What I said above is

How rigorous were the sunspot counts in 1860? Did they have the same threshold as today? There is no way to tell.

You say that the theory was not fully developed until 1948, what standard was used to identify a sunspot in 1860?

My response to him was:

Interesting link. I especially like the almost honesty in the statement "Whenever possible, we have used raw data rather than previously homogenized or edited data" I say "almost" because they don't really say if "possible" was 99% or 1% of the time.

Glad to see that they are finally flagging "dubious data" instead of overwriting it with "corrected" data like was done on the datasets that they are accessing.

There are still editing fingerprints in statements like " in a significant number of cases the presence of pre-existing data manipulations inhibited our tests for data duplication"

Don't get me wrong. These guys look to have done a fantastic job at trying to back out the sins of the past, but when you start with highly manipulated data, trying to back out ALL the nonsense is actually impossible. They did not "get the raw data from weather stations around the world". They went to the data stores and tried to identify and eliminate the more egregious data manipulations of the past.

This entire tedious discussion is predicated on pure belief in the Nintendo games that scientists have played to support their tenuous hypothesis.


David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[GregLocock]

I can't believe that pasting the same graph 3 times in the same post is anything other than wallpapering. Try shouting instead, see what that gets you.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[zdas04]

It has three lines. Just be happy it didn't have a dozen lines.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[2dye4]

""Look really hard at the variability in 1850 on the Berkeley data. -1C to +0.3C. That is a bigger range than you entire cartoon allows. ""

Would you mind taking a stab at an explanation as to why this matters at all..

Take a segment of data in this range and calculate the mean and variance.

Then calculate from this the probability that the same process would exceed two standard deviations above this mean
*continually* for half a decade ( which it does from visual inspection of the graph at the end of the series).

""This entire tedious discussion is predicated on pure belief in the Nintendo games that scientists have played to support their tenuous hypothesis. ""

Hey GTTofAK if you are still here. Isn't this above quote some sort of latin enumerated logical error.

BTW Zdas where did you meet GTTofAK.

 

[zdas04]

2Ddye4,
The reason it matters is that the Berkeley data is still highly processed (but is making an attempt at honesty) and shows a lot more variability than the cartoon. The wallpaper cartoon is taking some version of this highly processed data and smoothing it temporally and in magnitude and then taking moving averages of the processed data. This is the equivalent of plotting inconvenient data on 5 decade log-log paper in college. It implies less uncertainty than the data supports. I think the Berkeley data also shows less uncertainty than the data supports, but they are making an effort at cleaning up the sins of the past (while doing little about today's sins).

First I ever heard of GTTofAK was in this thread, but I admire his tenacity in the face of personal attacks from adherents of the religion of ACC who have nothing new to say beyond "The high priests have spoken, thus it is so" and "the magical model sees all and knows all, don't disparage the Oracle".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

 

[2dye4]

""Berkeley data is still highly processed ""

Meaning what ?? Should it be unprocessed or lightly processed , just how processed should it be.

""highly processed data and smoothing it temporally and in magnitude and then taking moving averages of the processed data. This is the equivalent of plotting inconvenient data on 5 decade log-log paper in college
""

I am sorry to inform you but this is gibberish. meaningless in a mathematical or logical sense. I know you feel strongly about this but you cannot
sway opinion in this engineering forum until you express your doubts in the language of mathematics with support.


""First I ever heard of GTTofAK was in this thread, but I admire his tenacity in the face of personal attacks from adherents of the religion of ACC who have nothing new to say beyond...
""

Shall I go back in this thread and count personal attacks made by GTTofAK and others to form a score.

I admire any skeptic who raises issues and is prepared to back them up with mathematics. But I feel disdain for those who throw up
*ISSUES* without any ability to discuss them within the depth they pretend to have knowledge.

 

[rconnor]

Excuse me Wolf Numbers were 1848, not 1948. That was a typo on my part (but you would have known that had you bothered to read the reference).

And GregLocock, I admit, the sole purpose of reposting the image 3 more times was just to "poke the bear", so to speak. (By the way, are you ever going to offer a defense to your whole "it's natural" argument? Or, just like the "pause", are you going to ignore my debunking and then re-bring up the same, undefended, argument again and again?)

 

[GregLocock]

'Poking the bear', aka trolling?

So far there are more than 30 possible explanations of the pause, sounds like a lot more people are working on this than would be justified if it had actually been debunked in their minds. Given that if it is associated with ENSO then it might continue for 30 years then there will be many more theories in the future no doubt, all as unfalsifiable as the ENSO one in any realistic timeframe. If I had to take a punt I'd say the long term >100 years errors are driven by cloud cover, and the short term ones 1-50 years by ocean currents, but I haven't looked at all the hypothesese, there may be better ones.

The UK met office certainly treats the pause as a real thing

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[EdStainless]

If you have interest in this subject try reading the op-ed piece in the Saturday WSJ.

Climate Science Is Not Settled
We are very far from the knowledge needed to make good climate policy, writes leading scientist Steven E. Koonin

http://online.wsj.com/articles/clim...143565?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

As Mr. Koonin has worked in this field for decades he has some well informed comments.
I won't try to summarize here, he does a much better job than I could.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[rb1957]

"As Mr. Koonin has worked in this field for decades he has some well informed comments." not so sure you can make this statement, based on the article (i haven't googled him to see what he's published) ... "My training as a computational physicist—together with a 40-year career of scientific research, advising and management in academia, government and the private sector—has afforded me an extended, up-close perspective on climate science. Detailed technical discussions during the past year with leading climate scientists ..."

mind you i agree with the sense of the article, it's clearly a counter-point to the UN meetings this week.

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

 

[2dye4]

""The science is urgent, since we could be caught flat-footed if our understanding does not improve more rapidly than the climate itself changes.""

Yet not urgent enough to enact caps on fossil fuel waste I would guess.

Wikipedia says

""In 2004, Koonin joined BP plc serving as their Chief Scientist where he was responsible for guiding the company’s long-range technology strategy, particularly in alternative and renewable energy sources""

Koonin says

""Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.""

Seems like he believes in the trend otherwise there would be nothing for the ""natural influences and variability"" to counteract.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that ""natural influences and variability"" are zero mean processes over long periods of time, otherwise they would likely have run off in magnitude and destroyed life on Earth. If so then these natural phenomena are only masking the pain.

Amazing we are having this wildly heated debate over nothing more than conserving a limited resource.

Question: How many would be happier with direct government mandated limits on emissions, no market, no flexibility, just jail time and property siezeure of offending facilities.
Or any other solution that limits fossil fuel usage for crankys sake.