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]

Sounds like the science is not settled, and the goverments are on a power grab.

Argue more and prove my point.

 

[mendinho]

@granky108 I am afraid no scientific theory can be considered totally "settled” but it seems reasonable enough to provide a scientific theory supported by >90% of the community to the policymakers. The problem is that many engineers are trying to compare climate science with hard engineering sciences like classical mechanics. Mind that many other new sciences would not resist a pure Popper's falsifiability criterion including quantum mechanics, neuroscience, biological evolution, dynamics of illness, plate tectonics,... Policymakers cannot wait for a Popper's approach and the 100% certainty before taking action.

Also, claiming that a scientific theory is not settled because of debate in the US media or in engineering forums... as far as I understand from Thomas Kuhn idea of "consensus" a new competing theory must appear, gain acceptance among the scientific community and replace the previous theory. For example, if someone claimed that significant global warming exists even though the anthropogenic factors were not present, in order to create an alternative theory the natural drivers that would be more important than the anthropogenic drivers must be unveiled and the resulting system explained.

http://notonlybridges.blogspot.com

 

[rconnor]

Even by your standards that is a non sequitur

Again, skeptics seem to have issues with their latin phrases. How is this a non-sequitur? You say that there's nothing unusual about the GLOBAL warming since the 1950's because the same warming rate occurred in ENGLAND in 1700's (speaking of a non-sequitur...). But there is something unusual because in the 1700's natural drivers worked to warm the planet while since the 1950's natural drivers worked to cool the planet. This makes your claim that "it's natural"/"its changed before" a non-sequitur because while warming WAS natural in the 1700's, it WAS NOT natural since the 1950's. This does require a mechanism to explain the difference. I'm asking what your explanation is because I have mine.

which of your mechanisms is active over 13 years?

Seriously? You need me to explain the "pause" to you a 15th time?

ACC is still active. OHC has increased throughout the "pause", specifically the deeper ocean (700m-2000m) which is exactly what you'd expect while in a negative PDO cycle. (and before we hear TGS4's "OHC data wasn't good before 2005", sure but look what it's done SINCE 2005, all during the "pause")
[image

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

]
[image

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

]

ENSO is still active. We are in a negative PDO where La Nina's dominate. The "pause" started with the largest El Nino on record (1998) which creates an anomalously hot starting point (cherry picked). It was followed by La Nina or neutral years, except for 2010 which was a El Nino year. And (surprise, surprise) 2010 was the hottest year on record. Furthermore, when you compare La Nina years with La Nina years, Neutral years with Neutral years and El Nino years with El Nino years, they all continue to warm at similar rates than before the "pause". The "pause" is nothing more than a cherry-picked period caused by ENSO events.
[image

http://i.imgur.com/ia6y4ZR.png?1

]
[image

http://s17.postimg.org/4strkru73/ENSO_GISS_Trend_Pause.png

]

When you account for ENSO events, which are stochastic, by inputting actual ENSO values into models, then models track observations incredibly well. (POGA-H = with actual ENSO data input, HIST = without actual ENSO data)
[image

http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/files/2013/08/KX1.gif

]
The inability to predict ENSO is rather irrelevant because ENSO is purely about the short term, cyclical storage (La Nina) and release (El Nino) of heat stored in the pacific ocean. It has no affect on long term trends which is demonstrated by my analysis of La Nina years, neutral years and El Nino years. All three trends continue to warm, despite the short term noise of the non-separated data.

I've got my explanation, which is not only unchanged by the "pause" but is actually strengthened by it. So, back to you GregLocock, "which of your mechanisms is active over 13 years?".

 

[cranky108]

Agreed that the science is not settled, shall we 'kill the messanger' for getting it wrong?

The facts are the several socialist and communiest countries don't feel the need for any action, and we as a non-socialist, non-communuest country are willing to take a play from one of there playbooks to fix a problem. That make us more like them and presumability as we approch there standards, we will be less willing to fix this problem (Maybe because we won't have any money).

If you want more people on board, then you need to propose another method other than more taxes (I keep saying this, but never hear any new ideas). This sounds like a broken record because that's what I keep hearing, "more taxes".

 

[2dye4]

Cranky

The aim is to control behaviour. Traditionally the most even handed way to do this was with a financial penalty of some sort.

I guess we could jail offenders who exceed carbon limits. How about public floggings.

I know, property seizure of offending facilities, hows that.

Drone attacks ??

Guantanamo bay for the violators??

Stiff fines equal to one year of the productive potential of the facility, it has to be severe enough to make it not a tax.

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can whine about a market solution to a pollution problem as communist.

What then except carry on as usual.

 

[rb1957]

so you want to off-shore all your industry ?

how about cars ? ration gasoline ? prohibit everything over 100Hp ?

how about your home ? ration power ?? prohibit AC (as a luxury the planet can't afford) ?
home ? why do you want a single family dwelling, you elitist !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TGS4]

rconnor - thanks for acknowledging my concerns about data coverage of OHC prior to full deployment of the ARGO floating buoys. One of the interesting aspects about recent OHC change is that it is NOT global, but strongly hemispheric - see

http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2013-10/14_Global_averages.pdf

on Page 12, where the presenter says "All of the heat gain during the Argo era is in the southern latitudes", noting that the linearized slope from January 2006 until December 2012 is as follows:
20°N-60°N: -0.4*10^22J/decade
20°S-20°N: -0.1*10^22J/decade
20°S-60°S: 5.7*10^22J/decade

How does your magic CO2 explain that?

(BTW, my assertion regarding OHC is that we should probably have 1.5-2 cycles of PDO and AMO worth of good data before we start making any assessments. We have almost 10 years of data - only 100+ more years of data to go. Until then... But any data pre-ARGO data has such dismal geographic coverage that it really is a stinking pile of bull manure.)

2dye4 - your comment may be tongue-in-cheek, but we've had recommendations of:
The death penalty - here
Jail - here
"Arrest and Punish" - here
Stabbed - here
If you are a utility owner of a coal-fired power plant, new CO2 emission limits may be effectively a seizure of the plant.

Stiff fines equal to one year of the productive potential of the facility, it has to be severe enough to make it not a tax.

Sounds a bit like cap-and-trade to me... Here's what US President Obama had to say about that - here

A couple of questions about a "tax":
1) What is the future rate of warming as a function of projected CO2 emissions?
2) What is the current rate of warming as a function of current CO2 emissions?
3) What is the "target"/ideal temperature of our planet that we should aim for? How should that temperature be distributed?
4) What is the price elasticity/sensitivity of energy from CO2 emitting sources?
5) What tax rate, based on the elasticity from 4) will get us from where we are today 2) and where we are going tomorrow 1), given that we want to get from where we are today temperature-wise to our target 3)?

Understanding that additional tax burden on the taxpayer is unwise (and to possibly further what some might call a re-distributive scheme), it is generally accepted that such an approach would need to be essentially revenue-neutral (see the Canadian Province of British Columbia as an example). How does such a revenue-neutral approach effect 4) above?

If a taxation approach is not revenue-neutral, then what is done with the added revenue? How does that added revenue compare (on a time-value of money with a reasonable discount rate) to a do-nothing approach on time-scales of 10 years, 50 years, and 100 years (or more)? What are the potential costs and benefits of the warming predicted in 2) and 1) above on time-scales of 10 year, 50 year, and 100 years (or more)?

Seriously - someone please walk me through this to understand how a tax will solve the problem. Some math to back that up would be appreciated.

 

[GregLocock]

The trouble with using ENSO as a mechanism is that yes, it is active over the 1-50 year time span, but it isn't powerful enough to drive a 1.1 degree change in 13 years, from memory. I vaguely remember 0.6 deg max. if that is wrong, fine, I'm happy with atmosphere/ocean interactions as an explanation for all sorts of weirdness, but bear in mind it is an unprovable theory in any realistic timeframe from now.

2dye4 - no there is no particularly indisputable temperature record over 500 years, before 1660 it's all proxies and models (and of course CET is not a proxy for the whole globe, but it is all we have that is a direct temperature measurement in a recognisable form) . Why do you need 500 and not 350?

The global temperature reconstructions between say 1750 and 1980 are partly based on thermometer readings around the world, but not in a statistically reliable sampling in time or location, for obvious reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years

is a fairly gullible take on the problems, I detect Mr Connelly's dead hand. (eg if you raise a problem with the reconstructions you are labelled a contrarian in the lede of a supposedly neutral article?). Incidentally they start talking about tree rings. Go and talk to a forester about that, he'll probably die laughing. Average annual temperature does rate as a factor, as it is a proxy for the actual parameter of importance which is the length and intensity of the growing season.

http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/667.full

for a bit of a discussion on the factors that affect tree growth, including this rather odd observation: "Warmer trees were taller and skinnier" which is a bit counterintuitive.












Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[mendinho]

@cranky108 Of course there are more uncertainties and controversies in the socioeconomic field but, again, that does not mean that policies in line with the >90% scientific consensus can be delayed. All the socioeconomic models have shown great difficulties in finding the best combination of solutions to incorporate externatities (see externalities of tobacco, alcohol, pollution, violence, accidents....). Policies implemented today, even if they are not totally successful and we learn by trial and error, will serve as lessons learned for the future.

http://notonlybridges.blogspot.com

 

[2dye4]

Greg

"" Incidentally they start talking about tree rings. Go and talk to a forester about that, he'll probably die laughing""

What to do with this ??

It is equally invalid to claim a data source unreliable without proof as it is to claim it reliable without proof.

Skeptic language is littered with innuendo and blind appeal to simpler emotions.

Where is the statistical analysis of a temp proxy reconstruction that provides expected error bounds significantly different than those
provided by the authors of the proxies. Without it no claim can be made against their stated reliability.

mendinho is exactly right in his post. This issue is difficult for engineers because it is and always will be "uncertain" to some degree.

All that can be done is a calculated expected damage as a function of various policy implementations. I agree there is a fair amount of
uncertainty as to where this ends up in 50 years but then again what is so dmnd hard about deciding to waste less fossil fuel.

Note the positions staked out by skeptics.

1 There is no reliable record of global temperature prior to industrialization. ( With this it always possible to claim the rise is normal )
2 Computer models must model the climate essentially in a detail similar to weather forecasting on a global scale and decades into the future.
( So totally impossible to do EVER, barring some development in computing power that ups the present capability by 10000 times or more )

There the debate is framed as impossible to ever resolve. How convenient.

The experiment can only be done once so correlating results is not possible.

So skeptics align automatically with a policy that favors risking the potential future environment damage to avoid limiting wasteful fuel usage today.

I say that i find no trouble with the reconstructions and they show no dramatic rate of change similar to the industrial era.
I also say that any temperature records of only an isolated region cannot by themselves be very useful no matter what method captured them.

 

[rb1957]

which came first, the science or the politics ?

i think must of us object to "global warming" 'cause we think that the science has been hijacked by the politics.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

2dye4, Yes I believe we can use the death penility for violators.

Are you just not enough of an engineer to come up with another solution other than taxes or personal harm (or personal attacks).

Give me an option, not a mandate.

And from what I see you perfer to hide your taxes (or mandates) in the electric bills of consumers, and not convence consumers to use less.

Has anyone consitered that earthship homes are more efficent, yet there is no market for them.
Why not use a little of that proproganda to promote more efficent housing, and not taxes are the only solution.

 

[TGS4]

So skeptics align automatically with a policy that favors risking the potential future environment damage to avoid limiting wasteful fuel usage today.

Woah woah woah woah. That is quite the big leap there, and part of the smear campaign against the non-catastrophists. I think that if you were to poll the non-catastrophists (skeptics, deniers, whatever you wanna call them), you would find that they have, in their personal and professional careers been rather involved in energy efficiency, energy usage reduction, and similar.

In a prior thread, I discussed with moltenmetal about how the use of liquid hydrocarbons in stationary installations was a waste of a precious and potentially finite resource. One that deserves conservation on its own merits. But conserving it through the back-door of a non-problem (catastrophic ACC/CAGW) is deceitful and duplicitous.

I will also note that Anthony Watts (denier evil incarnate /sarc) has solar power panels on his house and drives a Prius. :-O

I say that i find no trouble with the reconstructions and they show no dramatic rate of change similar to the industrial era.

Interesting that you should say that. Do you mean the truncated reconstructions, or the ones that, when they overlap with the instrument record show a significant divergence?

 

[beej67]

Note the positions staked out by skeptics.

1 There is no reliable record of global temperature prior to industrialization. ( With this it always possible to claim the rise is normal )
2 Computer models must model the climate essentially in a detail similar to weather forecasting on a global scale and decades into the future.
( So totally impossible to do EVER, barring some development in computing power that ups the present capability by 10000 times or more )

3 Even if all the computer models are right, it takes 8 billion dollars to avert 0.02 degrees of rise, and that 8 billion could be used to protect a lot more of the environment if it was used in other ways.

The ROI simply isn't there, if your goal is to actually protect the environment in some meaningful way.

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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

TGS

Any conservation measures if successful are... well awesome. But I think you would agree they are not denting our CO2 output.

What instrumental record are you referring to ?

 

[TGS4]

2dye4 - how about MBH98 (and MBH99) as a start? They spliced the proxy reconstruction with the instrumental record just prior to the proxy record significantly diverging from the instrument record (1950's or so). Not to mention that they smoothed the proxy record with a long (40 or 50 year) smoothing to remove most of the interannual variation, yet did not do the same with the spliced instrument record.

 

[rb1957]

not to mention that their statistic processing is so thorough that you get the same hockey stick result with a noise input !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[moltenmetal]

Sigh...

Nope, not doing it. Not going to change any minds, so no point re-stating what I've already said on the subject. It can be found and read, but won't be.

To those who have the energy to keep fighting the good fight, I salute you. Best of luck convincing those who may lurk and who haven't made up their minds. I just don't have the time or energy to help you out this go-round.

 

[GregLocock]

2dye4- i gave you actual measured temperature data that that showed a temperature rise of equal amplitude and gretaer rate. What more is needed? I also gave you a link to an article that backed up my observation.

Here's another one

http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/669.full

" The median values for height, stem diameter and all biomass measurements at elevated growth temperatures were always near 1 for evergreens, indicating that for every study that found increased growth with warming, there were a similar number that found a decrease (Figure 2A, B and F)."

That is to say that in some studies warmer trees would have narrower tree rings. I do not know the implications of this for dendroclimatology, but it certainly looks problematical. There is obviously significant interactions between the growth factors for trees, stem diameter, and hence ring width, is mostly affected by coolest overnight temperature during the growing season, which is rather adrift from annualised global average surface temperature.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[GregLocock]

OK, so here's what you need to do. Choose your temperature proxy/proxies, then analyse each one up to the present day, and then manipulate them mathematically, and then see if the temperature rise in the late 20th century was unusual.

If you don't compare like with like then you haven't demonstrated anything.



Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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