U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking 19

[zdas04]

Yesterday the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee published Minority Report Critical Thinking on Climate Change. The Senators in the minority party saw the hearings being held in a somewhat different light than the majority. Starting on Page 12, they list 5 "Questions for Critical Thinking".
[ol 1]
[li]If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors? Should potentially economically crippling policies be put in place before those errors are resolved?[/li]
[li]If global warming has truly been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim?[/li]
[li]As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?”[/li]
[li]Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions?[/li]
[li]Given Earth’s long history of a changing climate, why does the public discussion only tend to focus on the last 70 years or so?[/li]
[/ol]

I think that these questions are excellent. Anyone want to take a shot at them?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[Maui]

These are excellent questions. I'd love to see their fellow Senators provide honest and direct replies, but don't expect to. To answer these questions honestly would derail the agendas they have set.

 

[2dye4]

""If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors?""

Of course they have been inaccurate to some degree. What would the Senators like to hear regarding the very detailed mathematical procedures currently in the
works to improve. What makes them think they would understand.

""As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years""
Not at all recognized. As has been pointed out here the oceans may well be absorbing a lot of heat and capping temperature rises.


""will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change""
What the f difference does this make unless political distortion is the entire goal.

""shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions""

Somebody should really try to get across to the public and Senators that MMGW is not the only factor in the Earths temperature estimate. But it is the only factor
that can be reasonably assumed to have the quality of a continual rise proportional to CO2. Other not man made are cyclical or zero mean except on time scales that
are inconsequential.

""Given Earth’s long history of a changing climate, why does the public discussion only tend to focus on the last 70 years or so""

If you need an answer to this question you are beyond hope of understanding much.




Assuming the problem is real. What could be expected of other countries given the most prosperous and most wasteful country would not implement any
policies to reduce carbon fuel usage. Obviously if the USA does nothing then no one else will either.

 

[rb1957]

geeze ... who wants critical thinking about climate ? and who wants critical thinking from the government ??

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

 

[zdas04]

2dye4,
You really should read the paper before you start slamming it. Many of your points are addressed in extracts from scientific literature (whose links are provided in the paper). And your points are on the wrong side of the line between smart and stupid.

""shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions""

Somebody should really try to get across to the public and Senators that MMGW is not the only factor in the Earths temperature estimate. But it is the only factor
that can be reasonably assumed to have the quality of a continual rise proportional to CO2. Other not man made are cyclical or zero mean except on time scales that
are inconsequential.

OK, there are other factors involved. Factors that will not be impacted by regulations to minimize man's CO2 emissions, so why is this discussion always about man's contribution and reducing it? What point were you trying to make? Read the paper, the authors did a very good job of combining testimony before Congress with literature searches.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[2dye4]

Zdas

Well you listed the questions and I answered them as I see the issue.

These trite questions are just that. Political oversimplifications designed to move emotions.

As for reading a this report I can find a lot of better things to do such as burning myself with a soldering iron.

I glanced at it. Nothing but political theater.

Really... Listing the benefits of CO2 to life... Astoundingly ignorant or as I prefer political theater.

I bet scholars of the future will study this debate intensely. It is the first 'existential' public debate over
limits to human prosperity regarding an extremely subtle ( at this point ) effect with a largely uniform scientific
consensus and deeply seated emotions driving all the participants. ( yes climate scientists too ).
With a large unacknowledged religious factor I suspect. After all a large percentage of the people on this planet take the existence of an active
supreme being who watches over us as a literal fact. With this in mind how can we use up our resources or pollute ourselves.



The positions supposedly educated and rational people will take up are truly fascinating.

 

[rb1957]

i think we should recognise that this is a political document written by politicans. clealry the authors have a viewpoint, for me it's a little too stridently anti-ACC; eg "an honest answer" on pg v, "EU disaster" ... well, as reported by some ... is it universally (even widely) accepted ?

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

 

[cranky108]

It is a political document, to address some political people into thinking. The fact that the political people won't think, and already have in mind a more socialist agenda won't be changed by this document, or any facts. If the people really want change, they need to change goverment (or the people in it).

The issue here is how do I get mine. Not if any thing of the enviroment matters to those in our goverment.
Or goverment for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[rconnor]

1. If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors? Should potentially economically crippling policies be put in place before those errors are resolved?

See my post at 4 Apr 14 17:45 debunking the claim that models predictions have “failed”. This claim is 1) inconclusive and insignificant, 2) fundamentally and demonstrably false, 3) a non-sequitur and 4) actually validates the antitheses of its original assertion.

2. If global warming has truly been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim?

I’m sorry, can someone elaborate on what data has been suppressed?

3. As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?”

Huzzah! The “pause”! See this thread at 23 Jan 14 14:43, 19 Dec 13 18:10, 14 Feb 14 17:18 or the most recent thread at 18 Aug 14 14:06 or any of the other 12 times. And, yes GregLocock, while it is an interesting area of study (hence all the studies I reference), absolutely nothing suggests that it counters the ACC theory. And the whole “change in terminology” thing…goodness.

4. Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions?

It’s as if they think that models haven’t been updated since AR1…

5. Given Earth’s long history of a changing climate, why does the public discussion only tend to focus on the last 70 years or so?

Huzzah! It’s Changed Before(/It’s Natural)!
It’s as if they think that nothing before 1940 is ever studied…
It’s as if they don’t know that, since 1970 aerosols have increased, solar activity has decreased, geothermal flux has remained the same, yet temperature and OHC have continued to rise…

 

[IRstuff]

Amazingly, for a group of people hell bent on declaring government to be incompetent and inept, they persist on claiming that there is a well-oiled, well-organized government conspiracy that has yet produced a single defector that can demonstrably show that any conspiracy or even collusion exists at all. And, obviously, it must be a socialist or communist conspiracy, since it's so obviously anti-American. When are those Un-American Activities panels going to start back up?

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[IRstuff]

As well, it is also the only gas the federal government has ever tried to regulate that humans exhale at a greater rate than they inhale. Given both these facts, the claim that CO2 is a “pollutant” deserves further scrutiny

Ignoring that absurdity, humans ingest way less feces and urine than they generate, so feces and urine shouldn't be considered to be harmful at all. We should do away with sewer lines and just dump out our toilets into the water supply and save some money by shutting down all our sewage treatment plants.

Everything in modern society, from computers, laptops, solar panels, iPads and flat screen televisions, to advanced medical equipment and all our nation’s critical infrastructure is built out of fossil resources and their derivative products

Oh, wow, so there used to be silicon-based lifeforms from whence came fossils in the form of silica that we use to make solar panels? Seems to me that these silica fossils also deserve further scrutiny, since this was clearly never properly covered in my engineering classes. Maybe that was taught in the political science class? Oh, and I guess there must have been all sorts of metal-based lifeforms as well, whose fossils we used to make steel and aluminum.

1984 is finally upon us; doublespeak disguised and claimed to be actual science. Either that, or the minority party in the Senate, who spend gobs of taxpayer dollars on this, failed to include even a single real scientist to proofread this "report." And this is even before page 3.



TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[rb1957]

"I’m sorry, can someone elaborate on what data has been suppressed?" ... my sorry, but from my reading it is clear that apparently the EPA hasn't provided the panel with data requested, ie "asked EPA to “provide the best available data that EPA would rely upon to support the President’s assertion”" and "yet she did not provide any of the requested data relating to average global temperatures." (refer pg4)

now you can say "OMG, it's readily available" ... sure, but why didn't the EPA comply ?

and as i said, i think question 5 is quite "funny". both sides of the "debate" have used sensationalism, usually with -ve effect (in that ridiculous claims are met equally with incredulity and ridiculous counter claims).

part of the problem is, i think, that the free market isn't charging a true cost for FF, in that no-one knows the true cost of using FFs. therefore when FF costs go up, people predict the end of the world (face it, one time they'll be right !) and the opposition "we'll reduce prices when we get in".

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

 

[zdas04]

rconnor,
I felt like I had plenty of energy on a Friday afternoon to tackle your first link. I was wrong. The fundamental error in the nonsense you posted is a belief that an average of random numbers can ever mean anything at all. Taking the low estimates of a couple of hundred model runs and averaging them gives you colorful and pretty pictures totally without meaning. You keep saying "there ain't no pause" and "the models predicted the pause outcome" and showing graphs of ±0.5 C data on a 0.01 C scale. It is just fun with numbers. Now I'm tired.

Words have meaning. When a director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn says in 2005

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today.
Janos Bogardi

then we have a right to wonder in 2010 where these 50 million displaced people are at. And we wonder again in 2014 where they are.

EVERY SINGLE FORWARD LOOKING PREDICTION OF BAD EFFECTS has failed to materialize. Every one of them. Go back to the 1978 and we are in an ice age (see Leonard Nimoy for a serious piece on the coming ice age that will make you laugh). Increased "extreme weather?" Hasn't happened. "Climate refugees" by the million? Haven't seen the first one yet. etc. We have Nintendo predictions of future climate that don't match reality. We have predictions of doom that haven't come to pass. Stop it. Just stop.

At what point do the acolytes of this religion pack up their kit and go on to the next scare story?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[zdas04]

IRSTUFF,
You must be AMAZING. Both your urine and feces are gases? That sounds really comfortable. Read the quote that you provided. "the only gas..." not "the only substance...".

Do you know what Photovoltaic elements are mounted in? It isn't glass (or any other silicon-based product). It is conformal coatings made from hydrocarbons that have historically had a problem with offgassing volatile organic compounds (VOC). How about the wire coatings? Shock mounts? Kind of hard to find a product today that doesn't have plastics in it today.

Did you read about the Social Cost of Carbon in the report? If not, here's a couple of paragraphs that seem to be on point

Acquiring data from the EPA has also proven to be challenging when the requests are related to the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC). In May 2013, the Administration quietly convened an Interagency Working Group (IWG) to update the 2010 estimate for the SCC. Senator Vitter targeted this estimate and the IWG responsible for its development because the SCC is a critical component of the Administration’s climate change agenda due to the number’s direct correlation to the benefits attributed to costly environmental regulations. The estimate was developed in secret, lacked stakeholder involvement, and also failed to fully comply with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) existing guidance.

In June 2013, Senator Vitter was joined by Senators Blunt, Sessions, Barrasso, Inhofe, Wicker, and Boozman, in initiating a series of inquiries to the relevant agencies (EPA, Department of Energy, and OMB) that are responsible for making, reviewing, or defending certain environmental regulations’ benefits claims based on the Federal government’s assessment of the SCC. The Senators challenged the transparency and openness in the development and revision process, focusing on requesting the names of the members of the anonymous IWG and how the group justified the increased estimates. After receiving only a vague, unsatisfactory response from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the seven Senators followed up with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, focusing their questions on how the estimates will be used in Agency rulemakings, as well as repeating their request for names of the IWG participants.59 Administrator McCarthy failed to respond to the letter.

When Senators are unable to require administration officials to reveal the names of the people who prepared a policy document I'd say there was something damned "Un-American" going on. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[IRstuff]

"an average of random numbers can ever mean anything at all"

Where is the evidence that these are "random" numbers? People keep talking about "pauses" and while there have been several "pauses" pointed out in the past 30 years, at the end each of these "pauses," the trend continues inexorably higher. So this "pause" and all the others pointed out are red herrings, because they mean nothing in the long run, because the counterargument is either it's a natural increase in temperature or it's actually naturally getting cooler. In either counterargument, a pause is irrelevant, because it is counter to the counterargument as well. The only plausible relevancy of a "pause" is if there is never going to be any change at all, and the temperature will stay where it is now, for the foreseeable future, which is clearly an absurd position to take.

One would think, given the amount of money that's been spent on ludicrous "reports" and continual bashing about "tuning" and "pauses" that someone would have simply come up with a climate model that shows that there's absolutely and irrefutably nothing going on. There are supposedly all these climate scientists who claim that climate change isn't real, so mano a mano, let's see a Shaolin showdown of models that match the historical record and predict cooling, or whatever the claim is. Seems like a Kickstarter campaign or a proposal to Cato Institute, or Heartland, or even the Koch brothers is in order. Seems like this could be a few million Koch dollars that could be well spent. Or is the "socialist" conspiracy so entrenched that even Koch brothers can't buy a few scientists to drum up a half dozen models that show the opposite is happening?



TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[IRstuff]

As for glues and plastics, the quote says: "Everything in modern society, from computers, laptops, solar panels, iPads and flat screen televisions, to advanced medical equipment and all our nation’s critical infrastructure is built out of fossil resources and their derivative products" Doesn't say SOME, it says, EVERYTHING and ALL. So, maybe not bad science, but at least BAD ENGLISH, and extreme HYPERBOLE.

Sounds pretty similar to the arguments against climate change.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[zdas04]

IRstuff,
OK, here is a computer model that absolutely proves that the man made portion of climate change is insignificant. You ready? OK, here goes

ΔT=0
Do i=1,1,1000000
dT_i=ΔT+0.00000001*Rand()
End
Write dT_i

There's your proof. A million time periods where the dT is about zero. It doesn't consider the physics, you say? Neither do the IPCC models. It doesn't consider the fluid mechanics, you say? Since global fluid dynamics are quite random and chaotic, the Rand() term does as good a job as all the IPCC models. It doesn't consider ENSO events, you ask? So what? ENSO events have an impact on today's weather and there is no assurance that the next one will ever happen. Or that it will happen on the historical average schedule. ENSO events are just a really fancy way of saying "weather happens" and all the ACC adherents are very fast to say that "weather is not climate" when it fits their narrative.

As to the statement about fossil fuels, I can't remember the last manufactured product I purchased that didn't contain plastics. So every product I can think of has components made from fossil fuels and their derivatives. The "built out of fossil fuels" is a bit of hyperbole, but not all that much. "Built with components derived from fossil fuels" would have been more accurate. I can't speak to their writing style. Condemning the paper based on writing style feels kind of small, but knock yourself out.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[IRstuff]

Your presumption that it's a string of random numbers only goes to prove that you are unwilling to seriously consider the subject. That's fine; it's the same opinion of the best party money can buy. Just don't spend time in any tall buildings in an earthquake zone, because every tall building is built and designed with engineering models. And, oh, same goes for all pipeline calculations too.

TTFN
faq731-376

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529

Of course I can. I can do anything. I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

 

[dvd]

And your points are on the wrong side of the line between smart and stupid.

The fundamental error in the nonsense you posted is a belief...

You must be AMAZING.

Please add my name to the list ....

 

[zdas04]

DVD,
I'm really not sure what you mean. You put a lot of work into that post to not communicate very well. Which list do you want to be on?

IRStuff,
I really resent the implication that my opinion is the result of payment to say something I don't believe. I'm not sure where you got that personal attack, but I do resent it.

As to models. I do a lot of work that computer models make more effective. No doubt about it. I put in a pipeline modification to a calibrated model and evaluate what that change might do to the effectiveness of a piping system. The forward looking model results often more or less match the state of the system after the modification. More or less. Close enough to justify continuing that practice for the next debottlenecking exercise. Same with bridges and high rises. The designer puts in the range of external forces that might influence the ability of the structure to keep standing and then looks at the model output and makes a decision about both the credibility of the scenarios and the predicted ability of the structure to withstand it. These are all reasonable ways that computer modeling can assist a designer in understanding how his design might work, leaving the decision in the hands of the designer. They are all quite far from a CFD or FEA (or FDA as far as that goes) model that is predicting outcomes decades into the future with a very weak handle on the physics, chemistry, or fluid mechanics and an even weaker handle on how those forces play together. The climate models do not aid understanding the replace understanding. That is unacceptable.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. —Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist