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

 

[2dye4]

""What you listed as global measurements are ad hoc, post hoc, attempts to reconstruct a global average from a desperate network of heterogeneous stations that where never intended to be used for that purpose. Again while this is something that while useful, like a climate model, would never fly in engineering as a gold standard or even very reliable.""

[ Non sequitur is a Latin phrase that means “that which does not follow” ]

Have you read the papers such as this one.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf

Explain your analysis of the error bands from combining these disparate sources of data and why they are larger than those of the authors.

 

[hokie66]

beej67,
You have been very patient, but I don't like your chances of getting a sensible answer. The AGW folks have never seen a tax they didn't like.

 

[GTTofAK]

2dye4,

Bottom line your forgot that you had posted it earlier and you put your foot in your mouth. Your attempts to back track now aren't just 'tacky wordsmithing' they are flat out bad wordsmithing. Better to say nothing at all and let your mistake rest.

Well I listed one 'high carbohydrate diets' but how far back do you want to go?

The earth is the center of the universe.(seems pretty straight forward when you don't realize that you are spinning.)

The liver is what circulates blood.

Phlogiston

Aether

Hystaria

Heavy objects fall faster

Alchemy

The continents don't move

Most cancers are caused by viruses

We are 5 years a way from nuclear fusion, a stretch I know but every few years there is some new study that always says we are just a few years away. Been that way most of my life.

It goes on and on. There failure of the consensus is too numerous to count. Science is usually wrong and it advances through falsification and paradigm shifts not consensus.

Its becoming clearer and clearer to me that you aren't an engineer. You learn about a lot of these failures in school or just general reading.

"Have you read the papers such as this one.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shar...

Explain your analysis of the error bands from combining these disparate sources of data and why they are larger than those of the authors."

First thing I would say is why a paper that is a purely statistical exercise was written by a bunch of non-statisticians who had no expertise what so ever in the purely statistical exercise they were attempting to do, and was then was published in a natural sciences journal that had no expertise what so ever to review the purely statistical exercise written by a bunch of non-statisticians who had no expertise what so ever in the statistical exercise they were attempting to do, was so unquestionably accepted by people who had no statistical expertise to understand the statistical exercise in the article published by the natural science journal that had no expertise who so ever to review the purely statistical paper written by the non-statistician authors who had no statistical expertise what so ever to in the purely statistical exercise they were attempting to do?

That and why was it so accepted when the ultimate result of this purely statistical exercise written by non-statisticians published in a natural science journal without the statistical expertise to review it, looked like a graph from a bad late night infomercial.

Before using our proven money making solution ... after using our proven money making solution. TAH DAH!

Conmen use hockey stick graphs all the time in the real world. The moment you see on your bullshit sensors should go off with a red light and siren.

 

[cranky108]

Now we are back to taxes, because the AGW people don't have any better ideas (wonder if they have any other ideas).

Big goverment supported by taxes on things we suspect, because the data is skechy.

Bottom line seems to be tax it because we don't like it (or believe in it, or pray to it).

 

[GregLocock]

I don't know that it is my favorite theory, but there is no doubt that ocean heat storage is the elephant in the phone box. Until that gets sorted out then the GCMs are a waste of time. The entire atmospheric warming in the 20th C, 1 degree C, would change the average temperature of the oceans by an unmeasurable 0.001 deg C. So until you have a model of the ocean's heat content and how it drives the atmosphere, you haven't got even the beginnings of a useful climate model.





Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[mendinho]

@beej67 The selection of economic, legal and political actions to take into account externalities such as the AGW is broad, difficult and open to different disciplines. As I said before, it seems that all socioeconomic models have shown great difficulties in finding the best ways to incorporate externatities (f.ex. tobacco, alcohol, pollution, violence, accidents....) but the more we wait the more difficult it is going to be.

@GTTofAK We live in democracies and you can always publish your doubts online for everyone to read like David Simpson (zdas04) gently did. If you created an alternative climate evolution theory that explained the measure data better no doubt your theory would replace the current generally accepted AGW. It seems to me that anti-AGW are better at disseminating doubts rather than creatig a competing climate theory.

http://notonlybridges.blogspot.com

 

[rb1957]

but greg, it (ocean heat storage) has been sorted out, so we've been told and ppt'd to death.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[beej67]

@beej67 The selection of economic, legal and political actions to take into account externalities such as the AGW is broad, difficult and open to different disciplines. As I said before, it seems that all socioeconomic models have shown great difficulties in finding the best ways to incorporate externatities (f.ex. tobacco, alcohol, pollution, violence, accidents....) but the more we wait the more difficult it is going to be.

Oh stop dodging. Someone gives you 8 billion dollars to spend on protecting the environment. Pick which will have the most impact:

A) Preserving 75,000 square miles of rain forest, or
B) Curbing 0.02 degrees of warming in the 21st century.

Pick.

In particular, lets be very clear that (A) isn't fanciful, it's an actual number that could be actually realized without leaning on science some people find questionable, and (B) outright presumes that the EPA and AGW camps are correct in their modeling.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[2dye4]

beej

Where do your numbers come from. The cost and the resulting reduction in temps.

 

[cranky108]

What Socialist woulden't love the AGW theory? We have a problem, we need to fix it now, and socialest methods are the only way to solve it. Carl Marcs would be smiling.

Offer other suggestions to fix the suposed problem.

Preserving 75,000 square miles of rain forest dosen't need AGW theory to make it a good decision. What happens in rain forests when you remove trees, the soil washes away. No trees grow in the rocky ground and it's lost. So why is this being debated?

 

[GTTofAK]

mendinho,
"@GTTofAK We live in democracies and you can always publish your doubts online for everyone to read like David Simpson (zdas04) gently did. If you created an alternative climate evolution theory that explained the measure data better no doubt your theory would replace the current generally accepted AGW. It seems to me that anti-AGW are better at disseminating doubts rather than creatig a competing climate theory. "

"We don't have another explanation", that is called argumentum ad ignorantiam, its just one logical fallacy after another with you warmists. Look we know that the theory is wrong. The models are way off. We knew that Newtonian Physics was wrong well before a Swiss Patent Clerk showed why.

Your argument that I have to provide an alternate theory is totally fallacious. And intended for no other purpose to stop debate and dissection of your obviously flawed theory.

 

[2dye4]

""Your argument that I have to provide an alternate theory is totally fallacious. And intended for no other purpose to stop debate and dissection of your obviously flawed theory. ""

He didn't say you HAD to provide a new theory he outlined the option that you could do so.

GTT ya make a lot of unproven assertions. If you are so skilled in debating shouldn't you try to cover these better.

Start with this one.

""Look we know that the theory is wrong. The models are way off""

What theory. Greenhouse gasses causing warming ??
What models specifically and why what did they predict that isn't bearing out. Note the models were predictions of CO2 forcing and not weather.

 

[rconnor]

beej67, I drafted this about a week ago but didn’t really want to engage in what I think is a silly framing of the problem (and to hinge your argument on an unrepeated CATO study is problematic). However, given the ridiculousness of the recent endless stream of definitions of (inappropriately applied) logic fallacies, it is now the lesser of two evils.

Your argument continues to miss the point. You, and CATO, are looking at the situation in complete isolation from anything and everything else. In reality, such a vacuum doesn’t exist. Small steps toward emission reductions add up and act as catalysts for further reductions. Both China and India have made statements that they will keep their emissions per capita below the US. Emissions reductions need to start with the developed world first. They’ve started in Europe, now the US is starting to get on board. Once Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumb 2, in Canada and Australia (respectively), get out of office then I’m sure they will catch up. In fact, US action puts even more pressure on them. The path to minimizing the future impacts of climate change are won a ton of carbon at a time.

I have to ask if you’ve even read/researched the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (frankly, I’m not sure CATO did either), as the answers are right there in the report. Or is your adamant rejection of the plan purely based off some under-referenced CATO analysis?

Some reading material for you is linked below. Your answers are there.
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines
Technical Support Document: Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis
Memo: Emission Reductions, Costs, Benefits and Economic Impacts Associated With Building Blocks 1 and 2

To your specific choice between forest conservation or Clean Power Act, it’s a false choice (GTTofAK, what’s the latin phrase for this one?). They are spending $8 billion on the Clean Power Act to net $66 Billion, it is not that they have $8 Billion burning a hole in their pockets. Forest conservation is incredibly important to minimizing climate change, however reducing coal fired generation is also very important. A clean energy supply means that you can reduce emissions per capita without relying on reductions in consumption. Don’t get me wrong, reductions in consumption are very important but in a capitalist consumption-centric framework, can be difficult to achieve. But again, let me be very clear to you (as we share a lot of common ground), forest conservation is vital. My issue is that you create a false choice between the two. Heck maybe the benefits from the Clean Power Act can be used for forest conservation!

Let me also remind you that, in your repeated attempts to bring up this point, all you are actually arguing is that emission reduction initiatives haven’t been strong enough. That makes us strange bedfellows.

If instead, you claim that your issue is that such measures aren’t required in the first place, fine, then we should return to debating the science.

 

[rb1957]

i guess you place a lot of faith in statements governments make ...
"Both China and India have made statements that they will keep their emissions per capita below the US." ... i'd have more faith in this if they weren't building coal fired power stations, but were investing money on other power schemes (solar, nuke).
"spending $8 billion on the Clean Power Act to net $66 Billion" ... where is this $66B ? paying down the debt ?? or is it some notional savings (like, you get with 5S improvements, cost avoidance) ?

"reductions in consumption are very important but in a capitalist consumption-centric framework, can be difficult to achieve." ... disagree with that one, i think it's very easy ... double the price of gas, what happened in the 80s ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[GTTofAK]

"GTT ya make a lot of unproven assertions."

Name them. This is an engineer forum. If I say that CO2 helps O3 more efficiently radiate heat that should be more than enough information for an engineer to know how and why and use their own intellect and research skills to fill in any gaps they have.

Given the forum its not my job to take you by the hand and lead you through concepts like a child. I expect engineers on an engineering forum to behave like engineers. Are we engineers or are we children that need every small detail explained to them?

 

[2dye4]

So, what is the Latin phrase for making assertions you cannot support and then denying any need to support them??

Surely there is one somewhere to cover this kind of weasel behavior.

""Look we know that the theory is wrong""

Which theory ? and why is it wrong.

Incidentally I am just curious about this one.

"" We knew that Newtonian Physics was wrong well before a Swiss Patent Clerk showed why ""

Will you enlighten me about this. I always thought that the Swiss Patent Clerk invented the theory to deal with a paradox he
needed to work out and only then was it tested.

You made two statements that seem to contradict each other.

"" I easily gave an example of a massive scientific consensus that was not only wrong but dangerous to the public health. It required no conspiracy just massive group think.The heavy pushing of high processed starch diets in the late 80s and 90s ""

""There was no massive conspiracy that pushed to people eating lots and lots of starchy carbs just stupid people pushing something that seemed reasonable at the time and ignoring science to the contrary.""


So was the science "contrary" or was it "massive scientific consensus"

You are indeed a disciple of the Gish Gallop.

 

[beej67]

(and to hinge your argument on an unrepeated CATO study is problematic).

ahem...

Throwing a Cato analysis out the window purely because it comes from Cato, when all Cato did in the analysis was run Obama's policies as stated through an EPA climate model as provided, is the very definition of "poisoning the well." It is not logic, it is fallacy.

Period.

so..

I have to ask if you’ve even read/researched the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (frankly, I’m not sure CATO did either), as the answers are right there in the report. Or is your adamant rejection of the plan purely based off some under-referenced CATO analysis?

My rejection of the "benefits" listed in the EPA fact sheet is based on the glaring omission of how much temperature rise their plan was going to avert, followed closely by the fact that the only people willing to actually do the math on it were Cato, followed closely by the fact that their results, using EPA methodology, showed no effective change in AGW due to the proposed 8 billion dollar policy.

Your argument continues to miss the point. You, and CATO, are looking at the situation in complete isolation from anything and everything else. In reality, such a vacuum doesn’t exist. Small steps toward emission reductions add up and act as catalysts for further reductions. Both China and India have made statements that they will keep their emissions per capita below the US. Emissions reductions need to start with the developed world first. They’ve started in Europe, now the US is starting to get on board. Once Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumb 2, in Canada and Australia (respectively), get out of office then I’m sure they will catch up. In fact, US action puts even more pressure on them. The path to minimizing the future impacts of climate change are won a ton of carbon at a time.

Last week you were saying that the policy wasn't actually intended to decrease global warming significantly anyway, even though Obama said exactly the opposite of that. This week you're now saying that it will reduce global warming because applying the policy will create some unspecified amount of carbon reduction from some other countries, pending changes within their political leadership.

And how on earth are we supposed to calculate an ROI from that? 8 billion dollars, which will have no effect unless other poorly people do other unspecified things, and that's good policy?

Just for turds and giggles, I pulled up your links. Lots of talk about how much it's going to cost us when the ice caps melt, and no talk about how much ice caps are saved by the 8 billion dollar outlay. Not a chart in there states that 50 billion dollars worth of additional land will be flooded by the 0.02 degree difference between the 8 billion dollar plan and status quo. One neat thing from the second link, though, backs up my premise above. Almost all of the 'savings' they're showing from the 8 billion dollar plan is from claimed healthcare related savings from NOX and SOX reductions. I do find that hard to believe, but even if I were to believe it, then the same savings could equally be had by shifting to cleaner burning fossil fuels, or cleaner methods of burning coal.

To your specific choice between forest conservation or Clean Power Act, it’s a false choice (GTTofAK, what’s the latin phrase for this one?). They are spending $8 billion on the Clean Power Act to net $66 Billion, it is not that they have $8 Billion burning a hole in their pockets.

1- The money could have been spent elsewhere, therefore it's not a false choice.

2- The reports linked are trash. They're not netting $66 billion by lowering the global temperature 0.02 degrees centigrade. They're claiming a huge net based on reduction of health costs, but anyone who's applied actuarial principles to our health care system knows that that's a horrid way to approach the data. It's as if we can avoid the cost of someone dying from lung cancer, that we'll somehow not ever have to pay for whatever they end up dying from later. When you run the math, smokers actually save the taxpayer money by dying early. The guys who brewed these reports up intentionally avoided certain facts to only gather money from half the story. Or, in the case of claimed "climate benefits," none of the story.

Forest conservation is incredibly important to minimizing climate change, however reducing coal fired generation is also very important. A clean energy supply means that you can reduce emissions per capita without relying on reductions in consumption. Don’t get me wrong, reductions in consumption are very important but in a capitalist consumption-centric framework, can be difficult to achieve. But again, let me be very clear to you (as we share a lot of common ground), forest conservation is vital. My issue is that you create a false choice between the two. Heck maybe the benefits from the Clean Power Act can be used for forest conservation!

Oh for the love of God and/or Darwin.

In your engineering company, computers are important, and paperclips are important. Each has a function. If you could buy 20 new computers for your company for $500 per computer, or you could by a Golden Paperclip for $10,000, which would you pick? It's not a false choice, it's a real choice. The computers do something, the paperclip does nothing, and they cost the same.

The CO2 reduction does nothing, the conservation does something, and they cost the same.

Let me also remind you that, in your repeated attempts to bring up this point, all you are actually arguing is that emission reduction initiatives haven’t been strong enough. That makes us strange bedfellows.

I'm absolutely arguing that the emissions reduction initiatives proposed thus far have not been strong enough to achieve your stated goal. I'll go a step further. The insanely draconian ones that only the loonies of people are proposing also will not achieve your stated goal. This is why the anti-carbon crowd never produces a study showing cost-benefit, unless it's completely faked and totally fraudulent, like the ones you linked.



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

http://www.campbellcivil.com

 

[cranky108]

Lets stop pretending this is just a socialist ploy and you keep going on and on with complicated figures to justify it.

You have no options, and you have to make things up to explain why it stoped. A bunch of rubish by people with a socialist bent.

 

[GTTofAK]

"So, what is the Latin phrase for making assertions you cannot support and then denying any need to support them??

Surely there is one somewhere to cover this kind of weasel behavior."

There is none. I made a statement of known facts, the stratosphere is warmed by O3 absorbing shortwave radiation, extra CO2 in the stratosphere increases the rate at which the stratosphere can radiate this absorbed short wave radiation. I even conceded the GCMs model this known effect quite well. On any engineering forum this is simple enough to be common knowledge and proof enough. What you are doing is a logical fallacy called "raising the bar" demanding proof beyond what is required, to the point of it being intellectually insulting given the nature of the forum. On an engineering forum such things as O3 absorbing shortwave radiation and radiative properties of gases need not be so thoroughly explained.

Now lets get into the logical fallacy you are really engaging in. So far I have been refuting claims by rancoor and others. It was rconnor who volunteered stratospheric cooling as being proof of AGW, I only provided a counter argument. Rconnor so far has provided almost nothing to prove this claim other than an easily refuted run on sentence from some guy named Santer that is easily shown to be a deceitful parsing of words. Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat the burden of proof is on he who makes it not he who questions it. The burden of proof is on Rconnor has been since he made his claims it cannot be shifted.

 

[rb1957]

the CEO would opt for the Golden Paperclip !

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati