Haha, I was sincerely hoping this would link to an Onion Article or something with a sardonic tone such as this...but I guess the fox news link is just as humorous.

But for those that actually think there is anything of merit in this vapid piece of drivel (…ok, it wasn’t as bad as the Telegraph piece), there isn’t, as is shown:
- Here
- Scientists predicted this here (not as a result of global cooling)
- good data on Artice Sea Ice volume
- papers that link Arctic Sea Ice loss to anthropogenic, non-natural influences

The Article that Fox News References (the Met Office) states that ice Artic Ice extents have decreased annualy over the past decades (figure 14), illustrates the increasing of the surface temperatures (figure 2)... Not really sure where Fox News got their information, but i am sure they are not biased in their assessment or opinion on the matter.

A variation in any data series does not justify global temperature change as incorrect, we all know elementary statistics here.

A better article than Fox News is in the Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/clima...

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

By "better" I certainly hope you mean "more humorously (on the brink of depressingly) inept journalism".

The telegraph talked about a "crisis meeting" (in addition to the other nonsense describe above) that even Fox News had the integrity not to include...because it lies between an intentional obfuscation to pure fabrication. This meeting was set in 2009 and can be found on the IPCC website, which includes a handy-dandy schedule of meetings as well. As Ed Hawkin indicated, they appear to be a little confused about the term “crisis”, even when given an explanation.

So, as sometimes sarcasm can get lost in type-form, I wanted to make sure that everyone knows that “better” was clearly meant to be sarcastic.

Oh, for crying out loud. I'm not convinced that Arctic Sea Ice change is a result of anthroprogenic CO2 emissions. Soot? Maybe. Natural causes due to ocean circulation changes as part of a regular cycle? Possible.

But to make a claim of a change in trend based on one year. That's just stupid. It's about as responsible as attributing every tropical cyclone or tornado to man-made climate change. (That's sarcasm, just like rconnor's...).

However, speaking about one-year trends, and hurricanes and tornados - where's the Atlantic-basin hurricanes? The US is having it's longest drought of major hurricane landfalls in recorded history, and there almost wasn't even been any actual hurricanes in the entire Atlantic basin yet this year (until Humberto strengthened into a Cat 1 fish-churner today). Accumulated Cyclonic Energy is quite low YTD. Total US tornado count is also on the -3 sigma side of low...

==> The US is having it's longest drought of major hurricane landfalls in recorded history, and there almost wasn't even been any actual hurricanes in the entire Atlantic basin yet this year
Shhhh!!!!!

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

The lull before the storm (excuse the pun)...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

My opinion, it is quite facetious of the human race to believe that we have as much affect as we think we do. I don't believe sufficient correct data exists, together with a truly coherant understanding of cause and effect as it relates to the nearly infinite variables, to definitively say that, "Yes, it is human induced change".

On that note, is a butterfly's flap of the wing in the Canary Islands responsible for the hurricane related destruction of New Orleans?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

I think it's totally reasonable to think that mankind may be having an effect on our climate. Maybe even warming it. In some way or another, which might include carbon, direct heat, albedo changes, and the changes in microclimates associated with agriculture and urban sprawl.

I think it's completely ridiculous to think that letting Goldman Sachs manipulate an artificially created "Carbon Trading Market" does any good for anyone other than Goldman Sachs. And their stockholders.

Where I have issue, is how the pundits go "Globe is warming therefore Carbon Trade/Tax." There are quite a few intermediary steps there, that responsible people would investigate.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

"it is quite facetious of the human race to believe that we have as much affect as we think we do"

But is it correct to assume that humans have NO effect on the earth overall? There are people who believe that all of man's activity has had NO effect on the earth's climate.

No, I would not say that we have had no effect. However, heat island, which would be an obvious contributor, has more to do with paved surfaces (heat storage) than does any immediate effect of carbon. Higher humidity rates associated with a concentrated population also must have a significant effect on localized heat storage capacity. There are figuratively a million variables exclusive of carbon that are having an effect. And then the shocker . . . . the earth has gone through periods of widespread tropical conditions alternating with arctic conditions long before the prevalence of a large industrialized population. Hmmmmm, how does one explain such outliers? Coal deposits = ancient tropical forests? Present day ice fields covering ancient tropical regions. Seems to me that the only constant is change. Temp goes up, temp goes down, temp goes up, temp goes down, ad nauseum.

As for carbon and pollution credits, these are an incredibly ridiculous notion. But someone figured out how to make a lot of money out of them, so I don't see those going away any time soon. I try to boycott companies that offer a more expensive "carbon conscious" option, be it shipping or merchandise. Just one more way to fleece stupid people out of their cash.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Perhaps "stupid" was a little harsh. "Gullible yet well meaning".

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

"As for carbon and pollution credits, these are an incredibly ridiculous notion."

Not ridiculous at all. it's a brilliant scheme by investment bankers and wall st types to make billions of dollars being the middle men, trading paper, so that people can feel better about themselves. The only thing it accomplishes is to make the middle men lots of money, but, hey, our whole society is based on the premise that the wall st/investment types are the most important people in the world, and we need to use tax money to ensure they get bonuses.

So if we all pay taxes to fund forest managment, to which the goverment appears to do poorly at, and the trees suck up carbon. Who gets the carbon credits for the forest that we pay taxes to manage?

Looks to me that we should all be getting a tax credit for federal forest carbon credits, based on the amount of tax we pay. And just maybe we should get something for state forest managment.

And while we are at it, when do I get credits for the trees on my land?

Looks to me the whole carbon credit thing is a scam with the goverment taking my property value without compensating me for it.

During the lifetime of my mother, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 300 ppm to 400 ppm. An increase of this magnitude over such a short period of time is unprecedented in the history of the planet. Where did this CO2 come from? Is it reasonable to believe that an increase this great would have no effect?

Johnny Pellin

Is warming a result of co2, I mean, has this been definitively proven? Coincidence does not necessarily mean correlation. Furthermore, could it be that CO2 rise follows temperature rise? Is the horse pulling the cart or is the cart pushing the horse? Temp and CO2 graphs overlayed can be interpreted either way, can they not?

What caused the cyclical temperature rises of the past eons of time? The earth has been hotter in previous times than it is now.

I believe the short answer to this is "the jury is still out". There is so much pseudo science and rabid politicking on both sides of the story, global warming is more of a religion than a science at this point in time. There is a scant flavor of fact interspersed in a sea of emotion and rhetoric.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Maybe a direct tax on carbon emissions is the better idea. It is certainly simpler to implement and easier for the public to understand.

Trick is how to make sure the money collected goes toward some credible solution to the problem and not general fund stuff.

Is carbon the problem?

I'm reminded of a quote from Michael Crichton: Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Yes carbon is a problem. The matter is settled among the scientific community.

And no... We engineers are not qualified to fully critique what science has been done. We all know our specific
areas fairly well I am sure but there is virtually no overlap with climate science.

There are reams of science demonstrating the CO2 greenhouse effect. How this trapped heat is eventually distributed
and the effects of it are far less certain, although it seems reasonable that it will eventually cause civilization
serious problems.

As far as the economics of the issue, all that is discussed is the economic damage from more expensive energy. When I look
around at the energy waste evident everywhere I question this reasoning. Energy is so cheap that it is
wasted in huge quantities every day where a minor effort would fix it.
How many unloaded and squeaky clean high capacity pickup trucks run up and down the road at 70 mph just for the childish
emotional needs of the owner.
I see machines left running where i work for days with nobody considering at all to just push the stop button. The money
is not an issue.

I think we could do much better without serious pain if only there were an economic incentive, -> TAXES

OK let the beatings begin.

2dye4 - for a tax of $30/tonne on CO2 emissions, your share (and mine, and every other human on the planet), just for the privilege of breathing, would be about $120/year. That may be chump change for you or me, but there are more than a billion people on this planet that subsist on less than that a year.

Plus, to anyone who claims that a carbon [sic] tax will work, I pose this question to you: what is the price elasticity of energy that produce CO2? Sure, you can generate billions of dollars a year - but how much will it change consumption.

I remind you that in the last 40+ years, the world has seen oil prices change from sub-$20 to plus-$100 (constant 2010 dollars - see http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm), and yet for a few small wiggles, the consumption has only increased. In fact, it one were to infer a correlation between price and consumption (see http://chartsbin.com/view/oc2), one could infer a negative price elasticity - as prices increase, so too does consumption. If that's the case, then either we haven't found the ceiling against which the consumption reacts in a "normal" way - imply that we would need a VERY high tax to curb consumption, or we can conclude that consumption is insensitive to price.

I am completely willing to lay aside my reservations about a CO2-temperature correlation for a moment, if someone knowledgeable about economics can make a cogent argument describing how a carbon tax (or one of the other variants) would effect temperature.

"Yes carbon is a problem. The matter is settled among the scientific community."

Hence the Michael Crichton quote in my previous post. "It's settled" = game over, I'm right, you're wrong, no talking.

"There are reams of science demonstrating the CO2 greenhouse effect."

I don't doubt there are reams of data, but I would question how scientific it is. Weren't 600+ weather stations just decommissioned for inaccurate readings? Hotter periods in earth's pre-industrial history?

Not trying to be a jerk, I just think a good dose of skepticism is healthy whatever the (controversial) subject may be. To reiterate my opinion, I think the jury is still out on much of the climatology research. In a field with such a vast array of variables, I believe we are decades away from meaningful understanding.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

I just tried to find my Lomborg book, but I can't. Someone must have broken in and stolen it, wiped the place clean too.

- Steve

2dye4 - equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is the matter. I agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with an ECS of between 0.8°C and 1°C per doubling. I think that science is pretty much agreed upon, no doubt. This can be experimentally-demonstrated.

But, that doesn't create catastrophe. You need to triple or quadruple that with positive feedbacks to get catastrophe. The magnitude (heck, even the sign) of the myriad of feedbacks is most definitely NOT settled and has virtually no consensus.

Throw in natural cycles, and will simply roll my eyes at you if you think that we (the scientific community) know what's going to happen in 50-100 years.

[rant]
BTW, carbon is not a problem. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Black carbon, when in the troposphere and stratosphere can decrease solar irradiance. Black carbon on snow melts it much quicker. Anyone who argues about carbon being a problem are being patronizingly and possibly deliberately vague. Carbon is not a problem. You mean to say that "carbon dioxide is a problem". Black carbon on snow may be a problem. Carbon in the form of graphite in pencils is not a problem. Crystallized carbon (diamonds) is not a problem, unless your spouse wants more than you can afford. Please keep your terminology accurate, precise, and relevant.
[/rant]

Wow did I ask for it....

TGS4
The developing countries use far,far,far,........far less fossil fuel per capita. The tax would not effect them.
If the tax doesn't change consumption then I would have to say why all the opposition, after all the economy would have to go unscathed for this to be.
If the tax doesn't change consumption then let it generate enough money for the research that is needed to assist the problem.

""But, that doesn't create catastrophe. You need to triple or quadruple that with positive feedbacks to get catastrophe.""
No disrespect, but I really don't think you can support this claim.

Carbon becomes CO2 through oxidation and biological activity with only insignificant exceptions ( diamonds...etc ).

Ornerynorske
""Weren't 600+ weather stations just decommissioned for inaccurate readings?""
So was this date kept in the models uncorrected or not, big question, do you know the answer??

Skepticism is warranted sometimes for individual opinions, but one would be foolish to ignore the advice of 5 doctors who all told you the same thing is needed for your health.

2dye4, I do not know the answer to that. The event, or rather the discovery, was fairly recent, perhaps < 3 months if memory serves, so I doubt much of the data has been "re-crunched" yet.

Time will certainly tell. The one thing I am confident in, all skepticism aside, is that bad data and emotion will be eventually culled from the equation as real scientific discovery and understanding continues to progress.

Thanks for all of the input so far everyone!

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Quote (2dye4)

If the tax doesn't change consumption then I would have to say why all the opposition, after all the economy would have to go unscathed for this to be.
If the tax doesn't change consumption then let it generate enough money for the research that is needed to assist the problem.

Tell me please, what is the purpose of this tax? Is it to generate revenue? If so, then just say so, and don't make it a "save the planet" tax. If it doesn't change behaviour, then I can counter that "it's just a money grab".

Oh, yes you are correct that the developing countries create far less CO2 per capita than we do. But I wasn't talking about CO2 created by energy usage - I was talking about BREATHING.

Quote (2dye4)

No disrespect, but I really don't think you can support this claim.

Absolutely - sure can. Bear with me while I get some answers from you. What is the temperature threshold at which catastrophe will ensue? What is the current rate of increase in CO2 concentration?

Past excursions in temperature are pretty well understood. Increases in solar irradiance cause temperature increases which cause CO2 increases because of melting perma-frost and off-gassing of hotter ocean water. Periods of increase volcanic activity produce higher CO2 levels and increase temperatures because of the greenhouse effect. When the earth was covered with ice (snow ball earth), CO2 levels increased because the natural weathering removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by rain stopped. A forest is not the solution. Once it reaches equilibrium, it gives off as much CO2 from decomposition as it consumes. Human or animal breath is not the problem because that CO2 was removed from the air just a few months ago by the plants we ate. The CO2 increase comes from the burning of fossil fuels. If we do nothing to change that, we will not solve the problem. It may be true that the solution is impossible (practically or politically). But, it does not feel right to do nothing.

Johnny Pellin

The IPCC models are wrong.

Wrong.

They are proven false.

And not even a single one of those models showed how "carbon trading" or "carbon taxing" would change the warming trend they were predicting, even presuming that trend was in fact true and was 100% due to CO2.

If you presume that all of warming is due to CO2 (it's not) then the only way to stop global warming is to not to trade carbon at all, it's to eliminate it completely.

Never in my life have I heard anyone estimate how much less warming we'd have due to carbon trading. You'd think that piece of information would be a cornerstone of the Kyoto treaty or something, but it's not there. It was conveniently omitted. What's the supposed ROI of carbon trading even if warming is all due to carbon? Nobody knows.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

beej67

""The IPCC models are wrong.""
Elaborate??

""And not even a single one of those models showed how "carbon trading" or "carbon taxing" would change the warming trend they were predicting""

Climate models for CO2 forcing do not incorporate economic models.

""Never in my life have I heard anyone estimate how much less warming we'd have due to carbon trading.""

Well it would come down to TGS4s point about it reducing consumption. To the extend that the CO2 forcing models are correct then one could easily change the expected temperature based on reduced CO2 emission if the economic part were worked out.

Would you be happier with it if it were just a straight tax on carbon emissions???

"" What's the supposed ROI of carbon trading ""
What's the ROI of having ones cancer treated ???

It's not all about ROI, how about preserving a livable planet for our grandchildren.

So, what is the price sensitivity of carbon-based energy whose oxidation creates the dread gas CO2?

Quote:

""The IPCC models are wrong.""
Elaborate??

How about this interview with Hans von Storch:
Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

I see this is going no where.

And no one has said a thing about my tree credits.

If it makes you happy cranky I'll give you credit for keeping trees, one of our 3 appears to have died.

Alright, it's settled then! Everyone (in the US anyway) file a schedule C with your taxes this coming year and claim depreciation on "organic cellulosic carbon sequestration vessels".

Basis of $5000 per and a 15 year write-down sound about right ???

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Thanks.

This sounds the most fair thing for those of us use older carbon capture technology.

Also if garden consumes as much carbon as I breath, can I be exempt from the breathing tax?

Interesting article CC, thanks.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote:

Elaborate??

Every single one of the IPCC models predicted increased warming, and increased rate of warming, over the last 15 years. Instead, temperatures have been flat over the last 15 years. No rise. All of them were wrong. All wrong.

And even if they were right, which they weren't, but even if they were, carbon trading wouldn't have mattered. If you believe the premise that global warming is only related to CO2, then the only way to stop it is to stop CO2 emissions. Entirely. Not trade them, not tax them, stop them. Entirely.

So even if the climate scientists were right and CO2 was the only boogy man, the carbon trading idea still doesn't work.

But it sure does make Goldman Sachs a lot of money.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

It is not necessary to stop all CO2 emissions. Natural systems remove CO2. Emissions need to be reduced to a rate that these systems can keep up with.

Johnny Pellin

JPellin - true, but I worked out that all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere since 1750 pretty much matched the total fossil fuel usage since then, allowing for conversion from C (or CH2) to CO2. As coincidences go that is too big a one for me to swallow. The implication is that the natural part of the carbon cycle (ie CO2 to C fixing) doesn't appear to be even close to keeping pace with fossil fuel burning.

If this is true then the next steps are obvious - if you think CO2 is not a particularly large part of GW then you do nothing, if you think CO2 is the bogeyman then you issue heartrending messages and make poor countries poorer and make the finance people richer.

Incidentally I see that the next IPCC report has reduced its estimate for GW fom 0.2, to 0.12, and increased its confidence that AGW is responsible for 50% of that from 0.90 to 0.95. In other words they are much more confident that AGW is a smaller issue than they thought before. I don't suppose they'll be trumpeting that one from the rooftops.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

... and then there is this paper

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Clim...

Figure 1 is almost funny.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

JJpellin -
Presuming CO2 wasn't increasing before mankind came along, natural systems remove CO2 at the same rate that natural systems emit CO2. The entire Global Warming Panic Brigade's argument is that anthropomorphic CO2 isn't in balance, which means in order to stop it, we must stop all CO2 emissions. Not trade them on an artificially contrived derivatives market that allows Goldman Sachs to manipulate all global industrial production in the same way they manipulate mortgage rates and other investment vehicles. This is why "Globe is Warming Therefore Carbon Credits" is an empty argument. The logic isn't there - even if you presume the givens are right, the conclusion doesn't make sense.

But back to the science .. So JJ, at what rate do natural systems remove CO2? Do you know? Does it change? Does it perhaps increase with increased CO2 level? Nobody knows. The modelers have picked numbers out of a hat to throw into their models, and then tuned the models against historical data. They don't know either, but they think they know once they get their model calibrated to show the same trends they see in history. But their models leave out everything else that mankind is doing to warm the environment, so in the end they get a model that's simply correlating population expansion with warming, not necessarily CO2 to warming. They could build a different model that correlates length of roads to warming, or number of buildings to warming, or birth rate to warming, and get a similar level of correlation. In fact, if you abandon the early temperature record, which is bunk, and instead look at glacial recession as your marker of warming trends, which is well recorded, the warming trend we're in didn't start with CO2 at all. It started about 50 years earlier, with the human population expansion associated with the invention of mechanized agriculture. Just correlating warming to population growth actually correlates *better* than correlating with CO2.

This is why the whole thing is wrong. The modelers have jumped straight from correlation to causation without checking against other anthropomorphic causes, and then instead of defending their conclusion with good science, they defend it with hostility and obfuscation. I'm a dedicated environmentalist. I'm very serious about my positions on saving and preserving our environment. And I am terrified at the horrendous damage the CO2 Cult is going to do to environmentalism as a whole when this whole lie is finally exposed for the bunk science it is. Models are not proof of causation, they only indicate correlation.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Like it's the only bunk science in town? That's the problem with bad science, the champions can be so convencing to those who don't dig deep into the facts.
So for those of us who may have little spare time, how would we know?

The problem is many of us require facts to make a decision, where most of the population does not require any facts what so ever to make up there mind.

Here's an idea: if carbon offsets are a way to reduce our carbon foot prints, why not give tax breaks for planting trees?
I just might anyway, because the price of food keeps going up, which is an indication of a shortage.

I've been around this block with this group of people too many times already. So I won't argue. All I'll do is point out a few things that we have agreed on, to save time, in case anybody out there runs contrary and wastes yet more of our time:

At least everybody agrees that fossil fuels should be conserved and not wasted. Regrettably, it seems that nobody thinks that we should do so if it costs money rather than saves money.

Everybody, except David perhaps, agrees that we've very significantly increased atmospheric CO2 as a result of burning fossil carbon- pretty hard to argue with it, since it's based on actual measurements. At least the lie that this increase is due to natural processes such as volcanoes has been put to bed- this lie is still popular in the anti-AGW "press", despite the fact that it can easily be disproven.

Few here would argue that CO2 has IR absorption and emission spectra that make it a greenhouse gas. But some even argue with that.

Some continue to see water vapour emissions as no different than CO2 emissions. They're confused about physical chemistry and the water cycle in my view.

But as to whether or not the increased and continuously increasing CO2 concentrations are significant enough of a risk to the climate to merit doing something about it, it appears that you either take the word of the people qualified to offer an opinion on the subject (I'd argue that this extends to pretty much nobody on this forum), or you don't for whatever reason.

I'd argue that the predominant underlying reason that many technical people don't accept the climate scientists' view on this particular piece of science is not because they know better, but because it would be much easier and cheaper for everyone if it weren't true, and doing anything about it will be hard.

I'm going to be honest here: these discussions take the whole engineering community down a few notches in my esteem, and make me even more concerned for my kids' futures.

The problem is that asking scientists to solve a political problem isn't going to work. How do you tell 5 billion people who don't have cars, freezers or air conditioning that your grandchildren's convenience requires that they carry on without those things? CO2 emissions are a global effect, and the various expensive antics of the first world are not even close to keeping pace with the developing world's contribution.

Lomberg says adaptation is going to be cheaper and more practical, and IPCC is about to announce that global warming will actually be beneficial to mankind as a whole until 2080.

So, stuffing pandora back into the box by reducing first world carbon emissions is a dead end for several reasons, let's think of ways of exploiting the improvement in the Earth's climate.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I've been staying out of this discussion to see where it whet without a stalking horse, and then moltenmetal had to say "except David perhaps" and I had to clarify my actual position. Modern CO2 levels represent the only objective, and unassailable data in this whole damn discussion (although some of the statements above above about the rate of change during the 20th century being "unprecedented" are groundless hyperbole). The AGW discussion revolves around computer models and "adjusted" (I spell that "adulterated") data. The link the Greg provided a couple of posts back is the essence of the problem--Figure 1 purports to be data, but the text describes it as an average of the outputs of 17 "independent" models. Somehow, model output as data is more palatable if you take the average of 17 meaningless values. Separating measured parameters from model output is impossible in this "science" (and I contend that any field of study that needs to include the word "science" isn't science at all). That makes it "mutual masturbation via algorithm" to me.

I categorically refuse to ever accept computer models as "proof" of anything. They can be really helpful in many ways, but "proving" a future state is simply not one of them. I could (almost) accept that the original data without adjustment no longer exists in any form if I had any confidence that the adjustments had been done without bias. I don't have that confidence.

It was once "settled" that the sun revolved around the earth. One day the society will put AGW in the same bucket as Eugenics and Heliocenterism. That bucket can be labeled as "Pre-scientific prejudice".

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Oh jeez, there we go again, confusing "risk" with "proof". Models certainly ARE useful for estimating risk, David! But there I go, talking to the wall again. I promised myself I'd try to stop doing that.

Greg's argument is that the risk of serious, irreversible harm is small- so small that adapting to the consequences is cheaper than even trying to mitigate the root cause. I certainly hope that he's right, because nobody is really going to do anything effective about the root cause. Imagine the sheer impossibility of doing that on a global scale, if you can't even convince rich, educated technical people in the 1st world that we should TRY... Whatever the cost of adaptation is, we're going to be paying it, and will do so for a very, very long time.

I can't think of any other effluent we permit to be dumped for free, except for emissions to the atmosphere. We tried that with lakes and rivers and look where that got us. As immense as they are, we even had to try our best to stop doing that to the oceans. One thing seems very likely to me- we're going to collectively pay big time for these "free" atmospheric emissions one day. If it isn't AGW, it'll be something else. And we'll be fighting a losing battle against entropy to do anything about it.

Do you ever "listen". Models are incredibly useful at estimating risk. If that was the discussion, I would be happy. IT IS NOT THE DISCUSSION. In this field models are first used to "prove" an hypotheses, and then the same self-fulfilling models are used to quantify risk. My son last tried that when he was 8. "Climate scientists" still try it every day.

Other uncontrolled effluents? How about control air? We dump that into the atmosphere by the thousands of tonnes/year without controlling it. CO2 fits into the same category.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

zdas

Would you object less if the official statement was something like this.

""
There is a 95% chance that unchecked CO2 emissions will eventually severely alter the Earths climate and require
massive changes to the way we live on the planet that will be very very costly.
""

So this would not be a 100% exact 'proof' statement only a statement of very likely outcomes.

I would guess that if your doctor told you that unless you got X treatment there would be a 95% chance you would
pass away in 5 years you would pay the bill.

Quote:

The link the Greg provided a couple of posts back is the essence of the problem--Figure 1 purports to be data, but the text describes it as an average of the outputs of 17 "independent" models.

I find that is common in modern science, people release 'studies' that are simply an agglomeration of other studies and models, and suddenly, instead of 5 studies 'proving' something, you now have 6.

Original actual research is taking a back seat to reading other papers and summarizing them. Not just in the field of climate research, but many other fields, medical research is one of the biggest where this happens.

==> I would guess that if your doctor told you that unless you got X treatment there would be a 95% chance you would
pass away in 5 years you would pay the bill.
Actually, I get a second opinion before handing my money off to that physician. And I'd bet that so would you and almost everyone else as well. One of the issues with respect to climatology is from whom do you get that second opinion?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

2dye4,
I have 95% confidence that if a compressor measured parameters are more than 10% different from the model, there is a mechanical problem with the compressor. I don't have the same confidence in a multi-phase pipeline model (closer to 95% that it is wrong). I certainly don't have any confidence that a massive CFD model of the earth can "predict" last week let alone next decade. Anyone who says they have more than 1% confidence in a climate model is lying to themselves, you, or both.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

"" Models are incredibly useful at estimating risk. If that was the discussion, I would be happy. IT IS NOT THE DISCUSSION. In this field models are first used to "prove" an hypotheses, and then the same self-fulfilling models are used to quantify risk""

A model is nothing more than a mathematical relationship whether implemented on slide rule, calculator or computer.
Some common models.

F=MA (force)
V=IR (volts)
E=MC^2 (energy)
V=AT (velocity)

Models are created to allow prediction. Now whether you consider the prediction a 'proof' is up to you.

Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.

If I say my turkey cooks with an exponential time/temperature response because that is what heat transfer predicts
and then I hypothesize that this 'model' can be used to predict how long it takes the turkey to cook given temp and mass
am I really doing anything fundamentally different than climate modeling. You can argue about accuracy but there is no
justification to conclude that model giving way to prediction is invalid.

==> Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.
I think climate models are woefully inadequate because climate systems are far more complex than any current climate model technology.

==> I really doing anything fundamentally different than climate modeling.
The fundamental difference between your cooking model and climate models lie in the completeness of the model, the number and significance of unknown factors that are in play, and in subjective assumptions being applied to the base model. There are considerably more of all three items in climate models than exist in the cooking model.

My concern is the amount of confidence and certainty being placed in the models, despite the awareness of incompleteness, the recognition of unknowns, and the acknowledgement of subjective assumptions. That's the red flag to me. If you will, it's akin to thou protesting too much.

==> You can argue about accuracy but there is no justification to conclude that model giving way to prediction is invalid.
How much inaccuracy is acceptable before the model is considered invalid?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

actually, models are not strictly a mathematical relationship, they are a series of algorithms. They are much different, as some of the steps in the algorithm may have little or no basis in mathematics, statistics or science. So, the results of a "model" are not the same as the results of a mathematical equation. And certainly, some of the equations used in some "models" are based on "scientific" relationships which may or may not have been fully vetted.

one of the hallmarks of "good science" is that a fully objective view must be maintained. The fact that some "Doth Protest Too Much" indicates a lack of objectivity.

(take this opinion with a grain of salt, since I may not be fully qualified to render one...)

moltenmetal and 2dye4 - I am going to make a wild-a$$-guess here, but it sounds to me like you don't work with numerical simulations (FEA, CFD, etc) in your working career. These are the types of numerical simulations that we are talking about with the "climate models". cvg hits the nail on the head in that regard. These models discretize the simulation space (on our case, the atmosphere, the surface, and by some measure the oceans). In each discretized volume (if I were creating a climate model, I would use a control volume approach, rather than a Galerkin-method discretization), there is stuff that goes on inside the cell, and there is flows across the boundaries: both energy and mass transport terms. A reasonable model should be able to simulate such large-scale features as Hadley Cells, the Jet Streams, the Antarctic Polar Vortex, etc. However, small-scale features such as thunderstorms (and even smaller, such as clouds) are not directly simulated, but are somehow accounted for by what I can only describe as fudge-factors. These models are started with a set of initial conditions and assumed boundary conditions (volcanoes, CO2 concentration change assumptions, etc). Then, these simulations march off in time.

Sure, the models have F=ma, temperature/specific heat capacity relationships, buoyancy, conservation of mass, conservation of energy, etc. Those are the fundamental equations also included, but are not the sum of the "model". The algorithms have assumptions (clouds, for example) that, while perhaps based on a relationship between temperature at height, RH, etc, is still not well understood. We don't even have a fundamental understanding why clouds form discrete entities...

If you don't work with numerical simulations, I can understand why you may put some measure of faith in them. To almost a person, everyone that I know that works with numerical simulations is rather critical of the "climate models". Sort of a situation of "it takes one to know one".

And don't even get me started on discretization error...

We all know that atmospheric simulations are coupled, non-linear, 3D, partial differential equations and no amount of computer fire-power or clever formulation/programming will ever get us better than perhaps an overview of general behaviour. It's kind of sad that we try really.

- Steve

...every simulation engineer or climate scientist should be forced to create a simulation of the Lorenz Attractor

- Steve

The truth is that we have been lied to by the goverment so many times, that I would disagree with any position they take. Carbon or no carbon.

Goverment provided data is little more than a lie. So are the tax crusaders who want to tax it.

I was addressing zdas point about models not 'proving' things. Most of you seem to agree that they can be very reliable under proper circumstances as does zdas himself a couple of posts down. I just don't understand how he can say "models don't prove things" or even really what he means by that.

Others bring up good points about models inadequacy to predict past the point of chaos. Of course no disagreement.

But is it really necessary to track every molecule in the atmosphere so to speak to know the warming will happen???

""models are not strictly a mathematical relationship, they are a series of algorithms.""

Nope, the models of climate science are partial differential equations, their solution on a computer is through the use of an algorithm which is itself based on a mathematical discretization of the domain using numerical analysis to accommodate finite sampling, again a model.


TGS4
It simply isn't necessary to model to the level you have described. Look up the 1980 Hansen paper where he proposed a PDE model of CO2 forcing which did very well to date.
Remember the important number is the overall climate temperature. It is by nature an averaged value so the swings of heat around the globe, which are zero sum transfers when taken together are just not necessary to proclaim an expected mean forcing due to CO2.

""...every simulation engineer or climate scientist should be forced to create a simulation of the Lorenz Attractor ""
Low brow old news to the mathematicians that do this work, guaranteed...
BTW a Lorentz attractor is a particular solution to the Lorenz equations.

TGS4,
Great description of the difficulties. As you say, F does equal m*a. That is a mathematical model of the force of an impact. Now run that for every droplet of water in a hurricane (oh yeah, you have zero basis for the number of droplets in a hurricane, so make something up). Now add a random interaction between droplets at random angles and random velocities. Now predict how many of those droplets will coalesce and how many will become aerosols. Now include the buoyant forces on the aerosols. Now include the F=ma term for a coalesced droplet hitting a buoyant aerosol droplet and coalescing, or maybe exploding (there are statistical models to help predict the likelihood of either). Run it a hundred billion times until it converges with your pre-defined results. Run the simulation 24 hours a day for 30-40 days and then multiply the result times zero and add the right answer. And these guys have the effrontery to argue over whether the warming will be 1.8 or 1.85 C in 40 years. Yep it is just like basting a turkey.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Moving into my area now. Hate the politics, but love the maths. Specially when they spill into simulation.

- Steve

or to dumb it down

"all computer models are wrong, some are useful"

 

cvg,
That is a quote I can get behind.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

2dye4 - so you don't do numerical methods/numerical simulations. Understood.

I don't think that you even understand how they work, let alone what it takes to get a correct answer. I have run numerical simulations for all sorts of things, both FEA and CFD. No, you don't need to model every single molecule - not only is the suggestion absurd, we DON'T KNOW the physics responsible for the transition from individual molecules to a continuum fluid.

These climate models are NOT just discretizations of PDEs. Not even close. Sure, some of the physical processes contained in the control volumes may be described by PDEs, but many of the processes cannot. The cloud example is perfect - we (the current state of science) doesn't really understand why clouds form into discrete fluffy-white cloud (think cumulus clouds on a summer day). Some may point to Lorenz attractors in chaos space, others have other opinions, but the reality is that we don't know.

But, since you, 2dye4, have no knowledge of the kind of computational simulation that I am talking about, I think that you are a little outta your league. There's a reason that people with real-world computational simulation experience are so skeptical of the "mainstream" climate model-worshipping. But, I get it - you don't really know what I'm talking about - some of these concepts may be a little over your pay-grade.

So, why my focus on clouds? Well, the albedo difference between tropical clouds forming at 1pm vs 2pm is sufficient from a W/m² perspective to overwhelm any "forcing" from CO2. If any simulation can't get clouds right (and even the IPCC puts the confidence level in understanding clouds as "low"), well then it's error margin must be pretty high.

zdas04

Dave, Just add a third order term.

- Steve

excellent dissertation on hydrologic models and accuracy

http://books.google.ca/books?id=yVmdTLBzG0wC&p...

Quote (2dye4)

Remember the important number is the overall climate temperature. It is by nature an averaged value so the swings of heat around the globe, which are zero sum transfers when taken together are just not necessary to proclaim an expected mean forcing due to CO2.

I'm going to assume that you, as an engineer, have some training in thermodynamics/heat transfer. Focusing solely on the atmosphere first, we have air temperatures that range between -89.2°C (Russian Vostok Station in Antartica on July 21, 1983) and 56.7°C (Furnace Creek Ranch (formerly Greenland Ranch), in Death Valley, California, United States on July 10, 1913). At the extreme end of that temperature range, the air is likely quite dry. However, in the intermediate range, the RH can vary from ~7% to 100%. The specific heat capacity of humid air is thus 1.005 + 1.82H where 1.005 kJ/kg*K is the heat capacity of dry air, 1.82 kJ/kg*K the heat capacity of water vapor, and H is the specific humidity in kg water vapor per kg dry air in the mixture. In a strict sense, knowing the temperature and RH, we can measure the heat (in J) contained in the atmosphere. Calculating that by an average temperature does not achieve that end. And yet, somehow, that is the measure used. Does this not trouble you in the slightest?

The other issue that I have with your statement is that the outward radiation loss is governed by the absolute temperature to the fourth power. Using an average temperature totally destroys the nuances in this heat transport. No, swings of "heat" around the globe are not zero sum. There is continual transport of energy into and out of the system. Your "average temperature", in fact varies quite a lot over the seasons - the higher proportion of landmass in the northern hemisphere being responsible for a less-stable condition. Do you really understand that the reason that temperatures are presented as anomalies is because if they were presented as actual quantities (not seasonally-adjusted), the "signal" would be lost in the noise.

This static/stasis assumption on your part is so unbelievably wrong, all I can do is shake my head. For all the climate models have wrong with them, at least they are trying to not make this mistake.

Perhaps we should focus on the facts that can be demonstrated without the use of any models:

CO2 levels are rising drastically.
The CO2 increases are a result of the combustion of fossil fuels.
CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.
The temperature of the atmosphere is increasing.
The temperature of the oceans is increasing.
Ocean levels are rising because of the expansion of water as it gets hotter and because of ice melting.
Glaciers are receding.
Ice volumes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are dropping.
Oceans are becoming more acidic.
Permafrost is melting which releases Methane which is also a very strong greenhouse gas.

In combination, all of this makes sense. It fits together. It would be difficult to say that these points are true, but unrelated. All of these are demonstrable facts that do not require any climate models. As climate models get better, they may be very useful to help us understand what changes we should expect and how quickly those changes will occur. But, the climate models did not generate the facts that I have listed above. Global warming is a fact. It is occurring.

Johnny Pellin

Johnny,
Let's take your "facts" one at a time

• CO2 levels are rising drastically. They are rising. "Drastically" is a bit of an overstatement.
• The CO2 increases are a result of the combustion of fossil fuels.Nonsense, see below
• CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas.So say the computer models. I don't accept that the computer models can prove anything and i find the greenhouse gas model to be seriously lacking.
• The temperature of the atmosphere is increasing.No it is not
• The temperature of the oceans is increasing.No they are not
• Ocean levels are rising because of the expansion of water as it gets hotter and because of ice melting.Mass of ice has increased this year at the fastest rate recorded. Ocean levels are not demonstrably increasing. Hell, the "climate scientists" can't even agree on how to state the sea level
• Glaciers are receding.Not really, many of them are advancing
• Ice volumes in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are dropping.Increasing
• Oceans are becoming more acidic.Not according to the data I've seen
• Permafrost is melting which releases Methane which is also a very strong greenhouse gas.OK, so there is your vector for increasing atmospheric "greenhouse gases", it isn't mankind, but it is a powerful positive feedback loop in nature--temperatures rises, the permafrost melts, the captured organic material begins decomposition, the byproducts of decomposition feed the greenhouse effect, temperatures rise, more permafrost melts, we all die of boiling atmosphere in about 4 iterations of this loop. What poppycock. The organic mass in the permafrost is simply the strongest argument against greenhouse gases causing global warming that exists.

I find your list of "verifiable facts" to be anything but either "verifiable" or "facts". Most of them are the output from computer models, not the input. "Global warming" is anything but a fact and it is clearly not occurring. It is a media wet dream and is a fantasy that you and too many others have bought into. Consensus does not make it true, it just makes it "widely believed", which is as far from a proof as it is possible to be.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

JJPellin, they may not require models but they do require believing data sets that some believe have been adulterated.

CO2 is only believed to be a greenhouse gas because of computer models? This has been proven in laboratory experiments for over a century. Any of us could verify this in the lab with simple instruments. Have you heard about the clock that struck 13?

Johnny Pellin

"•CO2 is a very strong greenhouse gas."

Depends how you measure it. It doesn't dominate the earth's greenhouse effect because there isn't very much of it. Water vapor is far more important (by a factor of 4 or so) due primarily to mass.

Other gases are much stronger greenhouse gases than CO2, but since they are present in even smaller quantities they don't matter as much.

As contributors methane and ozone and NOx are at least in the ballpark. That is, if you account for the 5 gases I've mentioned then you pretty much have the chemical side of things covered.

The global warming potential of water vapor per unit is only 1/10 that of CO2, but 1.96% of the atmosphere is water vapor, and 0.04% is CO2. So crudely we'd expect 5 times the contribution from water vapor than from CO2.

But this is all a bit silly, because the atmosphere is so thick that all the relevant incoming wavelengths get absorbed before they hit the ground, so adding more GHG to the mix has only a smaller (second order) effect, which is why the headline rate of CO2 contribution is quoted as a temperature change per doubling of CO2 level, rather than a linear relationship.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

JJPellin,
Are you saying that a lab-scale experiment will automatically scale up to global scale? There are a lot of things I've done in beakers that didn't work so well when I tried them in evaporation ponds. That is only a scale up of a few thousand times.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

How about coming at it from the other side.
CO2 is known to absorb infrared energy. Solar radiation entering the atmosphere is absorbed by CO2 making
it hotter. It absorbs infrared from the ground on its way out to space, again making it hotter.

What case can anybody make for CO2 not warming the atmosphere, and by obvious extension the surface of the Earth.

How could the Earth temperature be stable despite an increase in a gas in the atmosphere that absorbs IR energy and is warmed in the process.

BTW it is well known that if the Earths atmosphere did not trap heat it would be significantly cooler and we likely would not
be living here.

==> What case can anybody make for CO2 not warming the atmosphere, and by obvious extension the surface of the Earth.
Here is just such a case from climate experts:
UK Meteorology Office numbers show Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years
From that article:

Quote:

Professor Judith Curry agrees. She is one of America’s most eminent climate experts and works at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

"The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings," Curry said. As for the lack of warmer in the last 15 years, she said that many scientists "are not surprised."

"When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled," Curry said. "The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years."

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists underestimate the importance of water cycles when considering global temperature trends.

"Doing so means admitting that the oceans - not CO2 - caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997," Brekke said.

It's clear, to me at least, that we don't know nearly as much as we think we do.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Cajun

that is not what I meant. I mean from first principles ( physics and math ) explain how it could be that 100% of warming of the greenhouse gasses escapes back into space and therefore creates no warming.

I mean as we are engineers we are all experts at physics and math right ??

2dye4 - two words for you: feedback processes.

Your statement should be prefaced with "All other things being equal..". In which case, I would agree with you. But all else is not equal. In case you haven't noticed, our atmosphere is a rather dynamic system.

Of course, that's not something that your simple little, poorly-discretized simulations can model, either.

of course, certain gases, water vapor and other compounds absorb infrared energy. I dont think anybody is arguing that. however, with increased absorption you will have less energy reaching the ground which could reduce warming and reflectance. First principles are fine, but you need to consider all of the interactions, not just a few to get a complete picture. of course, this is one of the major drawbacks to every model I have seen. Algorithms are simplified because a) lack of data or b) lack of understanding of the process or c) lack of time or d) lack of computing power. Simplified models are easier to construct and run. However, the degree of simplification is often directly related to the degree of accuracy of the output.

Quote:

Do you really believe climate models are designed to fit the data and not engineered from basic principles.

Absolutely, they are. It is impossible to build a mathematical model of the global climate based on 'basic principles', since even the scientists involved admit that they don't fully understand how one factor influences the global scheme, because it is so complex and not well understood. Models are developed, then tested by using existing data, then refined to give results that match observed data.

TGS4 and cvg

Any situation that you can imagine that would result in no net increase in heat absorption by the planet will do.
Just pick one that explains how 100% of the heat absorbed by an additional increment of GHG leaves the Earths system.
I am interested in light of ZDAS4 questioning whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Of course is you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does contribute to some warming then never mind.

Sorry i hurt your feelings TGS4, but it is time to get over it please...

"" It is impossible to build a mathematical model of the global climate based on 'basic principles'""

Hansen 1980, its on the net..

actually here

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~schmita2/ATS421-521...

What a messed up ball of twine this discussion is. Gasses in the atmosphere interact with incoming energy. Some is scattered, some is absorbed. The energy that is absorbed never reaches the earth

A greenhouse acts to allow light energy in, and then not allow long wave length heat energy out. That is a very different effect and like the glass in a greenhouse the trapping mechanism does a better job at passing short wave length energy than it does at passing long wave length energy.

You can't have it both ways. Either CO2 grabs the incoming energy or it reflects the outgoing energy back to earth (or it does neither), it can't do both. I can certainly accept the real, unadulterated data that I've seen on CO2 interacting with incoming energy. I think that that creates a negative feedback loop that helps to keep the planet livable. The GHG and AGW arguments require a positive feedback loop (e.g., the sun's energy gets to the earth and then can't escape into space due to the dome of GHG, which warms the planet, melting the permafrost, releasing untold tonnes more GHG from the rotting organic material, further restricting radiation until we all boil).

The requirement for a positive feedback loop is a powerful argument that AGW is nonsense and that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging indicator not a leading indicator. We are seeing increasing atmospheric CO2 several years after the warming trend stopped. That looks like a strong indication that CO2 is an effect, not a cause.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

The only thing that offends me is being obstinate in the face of data/information contrary to your opinion. And not answering questions. 2yde4 - do you or do you not have experience in thermodynamics/heat transfer and numerical methods? A simple yes or no to both questions will suffice.

Quote (2dye4)

Any situation that you can imagine that would result in no net increase in heat absorption by the planet will do.
Just pick one that explains how 100% of the heat absorbed by an additional increment of GHG leaves the Earths system.

Easy - the additional heat creates increased cloudiness (small amount of increased evaporation, coupled with an initially higher temperature creates strong convective upward currents) one half hour to one hour earlier than it might otherwise occur. The increased albedo decreases the incoming energy rate (power), resulting in a net decrease in the total energy in the system.

This has been hypothesized that this is how the ENSO cycle works, but there is insufficient data to test it.

You do understand that this is not a static system, right? The earth, being a spherical oblate that spins on its axis, exposing itself, daily, to a varying insolance. There is no such thing as a steady-state, so even your question fails, because it assumes a static scenario.

Try again.

I know you guys like talking science and all, but I'm still waiting to hear how letting Goldman Sachs trade carbon emissions on a completely contrived derivatives market is going to stop all carbon emissions.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Quote:

"" It is impossible to build a mathematical model of the global climate based on 'basic principles'""

Hansen 1980, its on the net..

It is to laugh, as they say. That article doesn't claim to be a model of the global climate, and makes the specific disclaimer that 'Second, the predicted global warming for a given CO2
increase is based on rudimentary abilities to model a complex climate system
with many nonlinear processes.'

But hey, if you want to stake your life on a model that is incomplete and inaccurate according to its creator, by all means, go ahead.

"" Either CO2 grabs the incoming energy or it reflects the outgoing energy back to earth (or it does neither)""

It actually does BOTH ..

Incoming energy warms CO2 molecules. Warmed CO2 molecules emit increased IR both downward and spaceward. Heck I know this and I am miles away from being a climate amateur much less scientist.


TGS4

Well there certainly does seem to be some debate on cloud formation and whether this will cause a net increase or decrease in reflected energy in the atmosphere.

This is interesting.

http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris/presentations/Cal...

I knew that CO2 was a really special molecule, but I didn't know that it was perpetual motion and a net energy generator--Second Law of Thermodynamics be damned. Are you actually saying that CO2 absorbs energy from the sun and then radiates more energy back towards the earth than it absorbed? You are joking right?

CO2 seems to work as a trailing indicator of climate change.

CO2 seems to work as a damper of climate change (i.e., it does absorb some amount of incoming energy, so the IR emissions are slightly less than the amount that came in, and radiates those emissions in all directions so something like 80% of the radiated IR goes into space--in other words when a unit of solar energy hits a CO2 molecule a small portion of that energy is used to change the state of the CO2 and 20% of the rest heads towards earth). CO2 net contribution is to LOWER the energy from that particular energy packet by about 80%. Darn good thing that there isn't a lot more CO2 in the air or we'd all freeze to death. [For those of you who don't read sarcasm, that was some.]

The evidence is piling up that CO2 does not work as a cause of climate change.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

2dye4 - how could you read the presentation in the link that you provided and yet still have "faith" in GCMs?

Interesting article tangentally related to the topic at hand.
http://www.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-disc...
The author seems to be pro AGW, but the knife can cut both ways.

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

And the sun is going through a period of lower numbers of sun spots. Could that be the cooling you are looking for? Or would that make you admit the sun is more important to the earths tempetures than many of you clame?

Does this matter much when we are just one crop failure from a world war? Have you looked at the political tempeture?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/19/new-stu...

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

I went back and looked in detail at 2dye4's link. I found a lot of really interesting things. The correlations in the Southern Hemisphere are an order of magnitude worse than that Northern Hemisphere. Grid blocks for some calculations are 250 km X 250 km X 1 km, but by others the grid blocks are 10° X 10° on the surface. How do you ever reconcile that data.

The most telling item was the summary slide on feedback:

Uncertainties in Feedbacks

• general theories do not exist for quantifying most individual climate feedbacks
• observations lack sufficient detail and comprehensiveness
• competing climate processes cannot be distinguished using observations
• global climate models have insufficient spatial resolution to simulate climate processes

In other words they are making most of this crap up.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

"In other words they are making most of this crap up."

there's a quote I can get behind!

I don't recall saying that climate models that attempt fine resolution are reliable.

My point is that they are not truly necessary to understand that CO2 will warm the Earth.

Now the paper I linked on clouds does raise a possibility that TGS4s idea that warming will create clouds that
will mitigate the warming through reflected energy. I dunno, not a climate scientist.
Won't we all become severely depressed with the cloudy days and start joining the republican party ...:)

I also look at it from a strictly phenomenological point.

CO2 was hypothesized to warm the planet over 100 years ago.
The 2000 year temp reconstructions from multiple sources have only one 100 year period of significant warming.
One 100 year period out of 20 possible 100 year periods.

And guess what, that 100 year period corresponds to same period as industrialization.
If mans influence was negligible for warming then this current warming period could have occurred in 19 other 100 year slices.
Yet it 'chose' the one with large CO2 emissions. Kinda funny eh ??

"The 2000 year temp reconstructions from multiple sources have only one 100 year period of significant warming."

What about the Medievel warm period? I believe there is evidence of a significant warming trend from ~900 to 1300, or thereabout?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

"...2000 year temp reconstructions..."

I would like to see the specifications on one of those 2000 year old temperature recording devices....

Quote:

CO2 was hypothesized to warm the planet over 100 years ago.
The 2000 year temp reconstructions from multiple sources have only one 100 year period of significant warming. One 100 year period out of 20 possible 100 year periods.
And guess what, that 100 year period corresponds to same period as industrialization.
If mans influence was negligible for warming then this current warming period could have occurred in 19 other 100 year slices. Yet it 'chose' the one with large CO2 emissions. Kinda funny eh ??

I call that cherry picking the sample size.

Let's look at a much broader range, say, 500,000 years:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dav...
When you look at that graph, it's clear that there four time periods where the temperatures were as warm, if not warmer than they were today. There is no debate that man had no influence on those prior warming periods. That graph also clearly shows that CO₂ concentration growth trails temperature increases. The graph shows that very recent temperatures are stable despite considerable growth in CO₂ concentration. The chart also shows that the earth's climate systems have the means to dissipate the heat and gasses as necessary, because it has done so in the past. Additionally, one cannot help but notice the striking regularity of the cycle.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

@ewh - That is a very interesting study. Thanks for sharing.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Cajun

The time interval between vertical bars on that chart is 50000 years. I don't think its useful for comparison.
For my question the resolution would need to be something like 10 years. The issue is that the climate changed
dramatically in a single 100 year period and this type of event is not identifiable from such a long range
chart. It is entirely possible that if you had the higher resolution there would only be very rare instances where
the temp climbed as much over a 100 year span. Or they could have been regular, we don't know about that far back.

We do know something of the last several thousand years, and no I do not believe I have cherry picked data because that
is all we have. Are there temp reconstructions that are known with the same low expected error for any other periods?
If so are there dramatic warming events in 100 year slices.


As far as the data showing CO2 follows temperature that is a well known phenomena. But there were no SUVs back then to
cause the CO2 to go first. What mechanism would first release CO2 without warming.
The result is that the record may only record temp first events because that is all that could happen.

Let me get this straight. The data before industrialization is worthless because the only pre-industrialization driver for increasing CO2 was warming. Therefore the only data that matters is the last 150 years or so. [I have to wonder why are the climate scientists spending so much taxpayer money investigating ice cores that go back a bit before 1863].

I don't understand. It sounds like you are saying that "of course CO2 in the ice records was lagging, but conditions have changed" and my Land Rover has introduced a previously unknown, unseen dynamic of CO2 rising without preliminary warming so we just can't know how horrible it will be, but dang it will be horrible unless Goldman Sachs can get a handle on it. That is a totally new argument to me and I'm having trouble getting my head around it. Could you elaborate please?

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Quote:

I don't recall saying that climate models that attempt fine resolution are reliable.

My point is that they are not truly necessary to understand that CO2 will warm the Earth.

Ok. Sure. I'll buy that. But that's not the question at all. These are the questions:

1) By how much?
2) And how much of the warming is due to other causes?
3) And how much of the warming will be eliminated by letting the same nitwits who crashed the US economy in 2008 create a Carbon Derivatives Market?

Until we can get a clear answer to the last question, we should not be implementing policy framed around carbon trading. There's a lot of argument about the modeling, but I've never once seen a model that supports the policy alluded to in #3. Even if the world is being warmed in some part by carbon, that still doesn't mean we jump to #3.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

I figured out that the reason we are only concerned with the last 2000 years is because it's all the fault of that Jesus guy.

Zdas

""The data before industrialization is worthless""
Never said that...

Any data that has low enough error variance related to modern warming will do.
I don't think the data past 2000 yr ago has this feature but I dunno, I am not a climatologist.

Yes your land rover is the sole cause of the whole mess....jis kiddin..
""previously unknown, unseen dynamic of CO2 rising without preliminary warming""
Yup this is what I said, but again I am not a climatologist, it was just a thought related to drawing inferences about
the chicken and egg conclusion from looking at the graph cajun linked.

I really don't think you guys would be a tiny bit happier if carbon was just plain taxed so really the paranoia about wall street
making out is irrelevant to the discussion.

BTW Carbon trading was considered the free market alternative to just taxing carbon. Those who could innovate their processes to
reduce emissions could do so as far as their capabilities allow and profit from their work.
But if you want just a straight tax....OK...

beej67

Your questions are almost certainly addressed in the vast literature on climate change science. Use Google and choose only the reputable sources and start getting your answers.

Which brings me back to my earlier point. If the purpose of a straight carbon [sic] tax is to reduce consumption and hence generation of the dread gas CO2, what is the price/consumption response of carbon-based energy? What magnitude of taxation would, therefore, be required to achieve the "desired" reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions?

Has anyone seen any studies on the increased growth of plants with the now higher CO2 levels? How much carbon has the increased plant growth captured?

How many more trees need to be planted to become carbon neutral in the US? any numbers? Detroit has some baron land now.

"Detroit has some baron land now."

What? Have the English landed again?

Yes and they want to build houses there.

Quote:

beej67, Your questions are almost certainly addressed in the vast literature on climate change science.

No they aren't. That's the problem.

In an area such as wetlands, we can easily identify what is and isn't a wetland, and make developers buy "wetland credits" from a wetland mitigation bank which creates new wetlands, to compensate for any wetlands they fill up. This is something we can point to. We know who does and doesn't have a wetland on their property. But when you do Kyoto style carbon cap and trade, who starts with the "credits"? How many does GE start with? How many does Southern Company start with? Who gets to sell them to whom? Etc. All these things would become highly manipulated by lobbyists in DC, and highly manipulated by bankers at Goldman Sachs, and used to build fortunes and destroy economic value, and for what?

Where is there any proof anywhere that such an amazingly intrusive and complex system is going to arrest global warming? If the alarmists are right, and that's a big If, then the only way to stop our contribution to global warming is to eradicate carbon emissions entirely. And even that wouldn't stop the warming trend. The warming trend started well before CO2 emissions started, and will continue tomorrow even if we ended all CO2 emissions tomorrow, just at a lesser rate.

What rate?

Nobody knows.

The IPCC models certainly don't know, because they predicted the global ice caps would be gone by now, and instead temperatures have been flat for the last decade and a half. If climate change were completely, or mostly, or even half driven by CO2, then the globe would have warmed over the last decade. It would have warmed. But it didn't.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Global warming has not stopped. Because of natural variations in El Nino / La Nina patterns, more of the heat has been absorbed by the oceans rather than the atmoshere. This has occurred a number of times in the past 75 years. In every instance, the cycle has shifted again and the warming of the atmoshere has resumed.

Johnny Pellin

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88jEdz7OGx0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

What nonsense. Did you notice that every single model output that was shown as proof has a hockey stick just after the end of the "hindcast"? Every time. The hindcast data shows a flat to slight incline and the projection turns sharply upward. I was really impressed with their ability to shovel this dreck with a straight face.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

So, instead of bickering back and forth, have you thought about a solution that might be more palitable to me and the other voters?

If the only solution being offered is more goverment, than you don't have much of a chance of my support of your solution (let alone any perceved problem).

Sorry I don't believe marginal numbers, and political hacks.

Global warming may have stoped, but political warming hasen't.

my firm belief is that you always need to fully define the problem before attempting any solutions. So offering solutions when there is still robust debate on symptoms of a potential problem is putting the cart before the horse. And certainly, handing over money to politicians will not solve anything.

Quote (cranky108)

If the only solution being offered is more goverment, than you don't have much of a chance of my support of your solution...

Let's hope you're not thinking that the private sector, i.e. capitalism, will somehow provide a solution because if you do, you're a lot more naive than we'd expect you to be.

If there is NO short-term opportunity to make a profit for the investors/owners of capital, there will be NO incentive whatsoever for them to do anything. In fact, one could argue that those people controlling any company which voluntarily, on their own, pursued a course of business activities which while they were environmentally positive and appropriate, but were shown that these actions reduced the return on investment for the stockholders or reduced the value of the assets of the company, that the management team of that company could be sued for not meeting their fiduciary responsibilities. It is only when there are government imposed regulations which all corporations must comply with does this force public corporations to do anything which they would be barred, for whatever reason, from doing WITHOUT government intervention. That's the only way for a capitalistic society to survive longterm without evolving into a total oligarchy, not saying that certain groups in our society whouldn't be perfectly happy with the development and in some cases it appears that they're actively pursuing that course of action as we speak.

Case in point: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-...

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

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Privately held companies on the other hand...

“Know the rules well, so you can break them effectively.”
-Dalai Lama XIV

John makes a point. Which, of course is the rationale behind the carbon [sic] tax movement - to somehow monetize the cost to the collective/society by emitting CO2. In that environment, then certainly unbridled capitalism will most certainly find the most effect means. That, in turn, result in not more government, but really less government involvement. Should be a win-win.

However, in the event that the cost to "stop" global warming is greater than the cost to adapt to the consequences, then the collective/societal cost is greatly reduced. This link demonstrates that even IF the science is settled, the adaptation costs are 50 times less than the costs to stop the warming from occurring.

Word of advice to the "warmists"/"alarmists": you're not going to win by arguing for a complete de-industrialization of the world (which is what "stopping" global warming, if the science is true, would take). However, selling a pay-to-play system where all funds raised are dedicated to adapting to the warming, would be a much easier sell. Then, there's no cap-n-trade where the bankers are the only ones making money, there's no additional five levels of government (including the UN) expanding at rates vastly exceeding inflation, there's none of that. I don't understand the insistence on demonizing energy and prosperity.

Now, you may ask, why, after all my harping on the (lack of) scientific rigour, and the insistence on having a carbon-consumption-price sensitivity, why I would submit to a taxation on carbon [sic]? Well, the fact of the matter is that the globe has warmed in the last century - whether that's man-made or not is not the point. There are most certainly costs associated with that - some may argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, which may be the case. But, we can have some measure of accounting of this, on an ongoing basis. If there are net costs, then someone has to pay for them. I'm not categorically opposed to figuring out some measure to pay for real, incurred costs. We do that with other aspects of our civil society: infrastructure, education, health care, defence, etc.

I just don't see that

The two issues are entirely separate.

1 Is there sound science to strongly suggest that CO2 emissions are going to warm the planet significantly and drastically modify the environment that we have build civilized society into.

2 What to do about it??

We can discuss 1 without considering 2 at all if we are honest and have courage.

We may well arrive at a position of " to hell with future generations " but at least we will be honest.

Because the two points always seem to be tied togather, I have little option but to consiter both as one issue in real terms. I am being asked to pay more taxes.

1. Weather things are warming or what the cause dosen't matter. I'm being asked to accept a new tax.

2. My point is why aren't other options being discussed?

The debate hasen't ended on GW, however what to do about it seems to have been ended with rasing taxes (If I pay the goverment, UN, or Goldman Sacks, it still smells like a tax to me).

Debate GW all you want, the political types have already decided you are going to pay more in taxes. Why aren't you debating that? Are we devoid of possible solutions? Are we that disfunctional?

Good point that maybe the benifits of GW might outweigh the down side. If so the do nothing option is a possible.

==> We can discuss 1 without considering 2 at all if we are honest and have courage.
There is no point in discussing question 2 unless the answer to question 3 is "yes". In fact, the existence of question 2 almost assumes the answer to question 1 is "yes".

I think the answer to question 1 is "we don't know". If you look at just recent data, then you can make as case for the answer to question being "probably". However, if you look at the more inclusive long-term historical data and trends, the you can make a case for the answer to be "not likely".

In my mind, the only questions that have a consensus answer of "yes" are:

Is the earth warming (the last 15 years notwithstanding)?

Are CO₂ emissions drastically increasing?

But correlation doesn't mean causation. What the data does strongly suggests is that man is largely responsible for the CO₂ levels increasing. But the science is not there to connect the second with the first and "strongly suggest" that the warming is the result of increased CO₂. That part we just don't know.

There are two scams in play. The first is that it doesn't make sense is to say that the emissions are bad if they come from country A, but they're okay if they come from country B. That does two things: it moves money from country A to country B, and it changes the location of the emissions. What it doesn't do is reduce global emissions. But when money moves, people get rich, so that is a course of action advocated by many.

The second scam is using the alarmist FUD rhetoric to fleece the people to find a cure. Pay me today or this crisis will kill us all tomorrow.

I think it would be far more practical for humanity to lose the emotional baggage of global warming and climate change and all that "the sky is falling" alarmist rhetoric. Stop trying to justify actions by trying to show a causation connection that isn't supported by the historical data. Instead, let's step back and focus on just the 2^nd issue. Let's focus on just dealing with increased CO₂ emissions and look for practical and cost-effective means to reduce global CO₂ emissions.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

"warm the planet significantly"
"drastically modify the environment"

Put some numbers on that, quantify it like, well, an engineer.

My point is that regardless of whether anthropogenic CO2 is the sole culprit of warming, if there is indeed warming (or even cooling as some may predict), there will be costs and benefits. Claiming catastrophe so dire that adaptation is impossible is disingenuous at best and lying at worst. Quantify it - make a definite list of the winners and losers. Assign costs and benefits to those. Raise the funds post-facto.

What's being currently promoted is a means to stop said catastrophe 70-100 years+ in the future. The sole promoters of the catastrophe are the "models", which are showing less and less skill as time marches forward. So, if the models are wrong, then no catastrophe. If no catastrophe, then nothing to stop - we can take a cautious wait-and-see approach of ongoing investigation and adaptation. If nothing to stop, then no immediate need for additional funds, because there are no costs.

I don't have a problem with a wait-and-see approach. We'll have much more data in 30 years. Maybe by then the models will have advanced to the point where they show some ongoing skill... If I'm wrong, well then cook me some crow and I'll gladly eat - plus we'll still be 40-70 years+ away from the hypothetical catastrophe. If I'm right, we won't have sacrificed civilization for nothing.

Why the hurry?

Why hurry? The shelf life on this particular brand of sepsis is expiring. If the Chicken Little's of AGW are going to make their personal fortunes like Al Gore did then they simply must hurry.

The last time the earth significantly warmed was called (in retrospect) The Renaissance. Warmer temperatures lowered the amount of effort required to gather heating fuel, they extended the growing season so food required fewer resources to be expended, and they created a class of people with leisure time which resulted in an explosion of art and science. A significant portion of the world is still very close to subsistence (i.e., all of the available hours in the day are committed to acquiring food and fuel) and global warming would improve their quality of life measurably. Some islands will disappear. Water levels in Amsterdam, Venice, and New Orleans will rise, but so what? Two of the three did real well last time. The third will or it won't. An infinitesimal portion of the earth's population will be adversely affected (they'll have to move, I've done it 26 times, it is survivable). So the downside of us hardcore "Deniers" being wrong is improved quality of life for mankind. I can live with that.

The only possible scenario that warming is not good is temperatures increasing without bound. With the size of the oceanic heat sinks, that arithmetic just doesn't work. That silly video that JJPellin linked above used oceanic la Nina and el Nino to explain the last 16 years (via a reference to the only one of 35 climate models referenced in the video that predicted flat) so even the Chicken Little's can acknowledge the the gargantuan impact of the heat sink created by the 310 million cubic miles of water in the earth's oceans.

Without the politics, nepotism, and the criminal mentality of politicians, this whole discussion would have been an interesting academic exercise conducted in obscure journals and second-tier universities and the AGW Hypotheses would almost certainly have been discarded by now. But the politicians smelled an opportunity. Think about it, the U.S. Congress cannot agree to a budget for 2009 (let alone 2014), but they are quite willing to implement taxes and mandatory subscriptions to a "private" trading scheme to prevent a nebulous "catastrophe" in 2113. The only explanation for that kind of prospective action is personal gain and the certainty that they'll be retired by the time the true scope of their malfeasance comes to light.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Thanks David. I'm wondering what 2dye4, JohnRBaker and moltenmetal will have to say...

Nothing that has been posted since my last contribution has in any way undermined my position, that is, without some sort of external pressure, it's naive to assume that capitalism will respond in any way except that which results in the largest return on investment to the owners/investors. So whether so-called Global Warming is real or imagined, corporations will, without government interference, continue to do what makes them the most money in the short term. And if Global Warming does turn out to be real, this will in NO way change their behavior if nothing else changes.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Fair enough, John. But, why the hurry with those who believe in CO2-based global warming to implement a "solution".

A distant problem, if you wait too long before responding, might suddenly become an impending threat. Sort of like that old adages, "A stitch in time saves nine".

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

"A stitch in time saves nine" is often good advice, but basing major economic and social policy on the predictions of computer models that can't tie their own shoelaces and tend to eat the paste in art class, doesn't seem like a strategy for a successful outcome either. Correct me if I'm wrong but the /only/ 'evidence' for CO2 kicking above its weight GW wise is those very same models that have consistently overpredicted the total temperature rises over the rather short period of time where the idea of a global temperature has been measurable with any accuracy. If CO2 is in fact behaving as direct measurement and calculation suggest it should then any CO2 mitigation efforts will be even less effective than anticipated.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Here's an easy to understand graph showing the consistent failure of the models over the last 20 years

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-m...

and I've attached a graph that draws the same sort of conclusion from the paper I posted earlier.

So exactly how bad do these models have to be before engineers, presumably more skilled at the analysis of rubbery correlation data than the average journalist or politician, conclude that they are not telling us predictions with enough usefulness?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

• http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=fb8ae2e7-9cbb-48ac-a8ba-4c

Wow who would have thought that just asking for conservation of a limited resource would cause so much hand wringing and prediction of doom.

One would think the MMGW skeptics are being asked to do without air..

All that is being asked is that the industrialized countries give up driving mammoth SUV and pickup truck for no reason other than
vanity and ridiculous indulgence. Along with industry taking energy conservation seriously.

One would think it just might be possible to expand our standard of living from reducing waste, there is vast precedent for this no??

Heck the economy would likely be boosted from the increased savings, well not everyones economy, those in the fossil fuel business would
take a hit but that happens every time efficiency is increased. The economists call that creative destruction.

Now the science.
Many people do not want to gamble with the climate. The skeptics say show us the proof. Well of course there is no perfect
certainty and there never will be. All we know for sure is that we are digging up millions of years of stored carbon and
injecting it into our atmosphere in a geological instant. Some are worried about this, and there is some minor chance that
this will damage our planet severely. No there is no proof, but it is possible, and we will of course do nothing to stop it.

So for those who want cheap energy so they can waste it we will go on re arranging the deck chairs on the titanic and hope for the best.

FWIW I know nothing will ever be done about this issue, because people believe what they want to and there will always be someone who will take to a podium and tell the public it's junk science, don't worry, be happy. And the public will follow them.

Further question for Greg.

Do the IPCC models predict absolute temperature of just the CO2 forcing of temperature.

The difference is very significant.

Sadly, David's explanation here also accounts for (in my opinion) significantly more than half of everything politicians in the US do every day, if you include sleeping and eating. If you exclude those activities, I believe the percentage approaches 95%. That final 5% is when instead of working for their own glory, they are using their position to protect the backsides of other elected criminals just in case they need a favor some day.

"Without the politics, nepotism, and the criminal mentality of politicians, this whole discussion would have been an interesting academic exercise conducted in obscure journals and second-tier universities and the AGW Hypotheses would almost certainly have been discarded by now. But the politicians smelled an opportunity. Think about it, the U.S. Congress cannot agree to a budget for 2009 (let alone 2014), but they are quite willing to implement taxes and mandatory subscriptions to a "private" trading scheme to prevent a nebulous "catastrophe" in 2113. The only explanation for that kind of prospective action is personal gain and the certainty that they'll be retired by the time the true scope of their malfeasance comes to light."

That last clause of this quote from David, bolstered by the belief that they won't be exposed while in office in any way that cannot be managed by media manipulation, is why they get away with it year after year.

Am I cynical? Am I skeptical? Yes. After watching the transformation of our former republic of the United States of America into the People's Republic of Big Brother, I tend to distrust anyone who believes they have a right to take what I have earned for my family.

Quote:

So, instead of bickering back and forth, have you thought about a solution that might be more palitable to me and the other voters?

A solution to what?
Climate change? If you want a 'solution' to climate change, you'll have to die, because there's nothing you can do to prevent the climate from changing. If you want a solution to man-made climate change, you'll have to kill all humans, so that there is no human activity.

Other than that, you'd have to explain what problem you are looking for a solution to.

2dye4,
I am a Veteran. My son is a currently serving member of the U.S. Military. I have a lot of respect for service members. I'm not sure what your status is, but with a discipline tag of "Military", I'm pretty willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and then you say:

Quote (2dye4)

All that is being asked is that the industrialized countries give up driving mammoth SUV and pickup truck for no reason other than
vanity and ridiculous indulgence. Along with industry taking energy conservation seriously.

and realize that you have zero knowledge of either human nature or economics, in addition to your total lack of understanding of the computer models you are defending.

I've spent about half this year in Australia. That country implemented a carbon tax last year. I first learned about it in December when a Lease Operator refused to purge the air out of a pressure vessel we had just installed because of the carbon tax. That was a really dangerous thing to do and I'm not sure that the politicians would sanction killing a few dozen workers in the name of "Climate Change". The last time I was there (last month, before the recent election), I happened to step into a SUV dealership and they had no new cars on the lot. I asked the salesman and he said that every vehicle that comes in is already sold and paid for. He hasn't done a test drive on a new vehicle this year. When I asked how the Carbon Tax was impacting his business he said that he hopped that Labor wins the election so the carbon tax won't get repealed--the tax is really good for the SUV business. Seem counter intuitive? It may be fear of an outright ban is driving the marketplace. It may be a major nose thumbing at the Labor Party. I don't know. I just know what I've seen.

I was in Stavanger, Norway a few years ago and was amazed at the number of bicycles on the road (and at the cost of a taxi ride). Then I noticed the posted price for petrol. When my mom was a girl (in the 1930's) a gallon of gasoline cost about 3 times the cost of a gallon of milk. When I was a boy in the 1950's that ratio was still pretty close. In Stavanger, a liter of petrol was just under 3 times the cost of a liter of milk. This seemingly appropriate price caused people to adjust their habits to keep their energy costs in proper proportion to their food costs. Current cost of a gallon of milk in my town is $3.39. Cost of a gallon of regular gasoline this morning is $3.43. If you want to impact behavior you would need to raise that to around $10. Not happening.

Starting in about 1978 our spineless, criminal politicians passed some laws in the US that let motor fuel prices float on world markets. Generally a good idea. The unintended consequence was urban sprawl, shopping malls that can only be accessed by privately owned vehicles, public transit systems that are mostly a joke, supermarkets, super stores, death of downtowns, death of railroads. That is all because of Jimmy Carter's wrong-headed "leadership". Now we're way more than half pregnant and properly priced motor fuels in the US would cause a global depression that would be nearly certain to end in general chaos.

Why the hell should industry take energy conservation seriously. I've done dozens of analysis of energy saving and it is rare for one of these projects to pay out prior to the end of the expected life of the added equipment. Fuel is just too inexpensive. A government energy policy in 1970 that forced motor fuel prices to move with US CPI instead of the whims of the Saudi Sheikhs and Russian criminals would have allowed the prices to walk up with the economy and allowed people to adjust their consumption organically over time. A 40 year transition from $2.80/gallon (in constant 2011 dollars) in 1969 to $10.70/gallon in 2013 would have seen a very different infrastructure development than we've seen. It didn't happen. Now we have what we have. All indicators are that motor fuel prices will decline sharply from here. Laws passed during the Arab Oil Embargo that make exports of hydrocarbons illegal without an exception from the EPA will keep the output from the new Shale Oil and Tar Sands fields from hitting world markets and will be a glut on the US market, driving prices down.

Our outrageously low fuel prices are bringing energy-intensive industries back from overseas. If natural gas is $22/MMBTU in Poland and $6/MMBTU in Milwaukee or Detroit, then the difference in labor costs becomes trivial in an energy-intensive industry. That is happening today. Shale Gas is the cause. Even if you throw a $30/tonne tax on CO2, the result is still a bargain on the world market. "Fixing" this "problem" requires more integrity than our politicians have exhibited since that little meeting in Philadelphia in the 18th century that told King George that we were mad as hell and not going to take it any more. A band-aide would simply be wealth re-distribution from workers to speculators and elected officials. An amputation would end civilization as we know it. Doing nothing allows market forces to bring a series of temporary balance points that are all better than any "managed" alternative.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

""The plural of anecdote is not "data" ""

Gee now where did I get that from...

By paragraph.

1 Only an insult, I need not respond.
2 The fear of fuel cost rising would have exactly the opposite effect, not sure what is going on down under.
3 Not sure why the ratio of milk/fuel cost per gallon really needs to be a universal constant.
4 You say generally a good idea then tear it down. Should the price have been fixed and thus higher ??
5 As I said energy is too cheap for improvements to make economic sense, raise the cost to make it make sense.
6 As I said also there is no political avenue to fix this problem. Let's just be honest as say we are going to **** the environment
and stop hiding behind wishful and fantasy theories that it will all just go away.
6 Since it will take society a long time to readjust why not try to get started now. The climate skeptics don't want to ever start
the process of restructuring society for reduced energy consumption.

And why should being military make me have any preconceived idea about energy waste??

Quote (2dye4)

Do the IPCC models predict absolute temperature of just the CO2 forcing of temperature.

The difference is very significant.

Huh? I am really convinced now that you have absolutely no idea what a General Circulation Model (GCM) or Climate model does or how it works. It's not a linear mathematical equation whereby the contribution from one component (CO2) can be teased apart from the contributions from the other components. These things are highly non-linear, particularly with feedback mechanisms, that are also highly dependant on the initial and boundary conditions. Have you ever even looked at the Navier-Stokes equations, in spherical coordinates, involving multi-species reacting components, with phase changes and radiation/convection/conduction heat transfer? I have (had to derive the conversion from Cartesian coordinates to cylindrcal and then spherical coordinates). Have you then tried to create a spatial discretization of that? I have.

Conserving a finite resource (and energy conservation) is something that, I think, both zdas04 and moltenmetal (although both on opposite sides of the CAGW-spectrum) can agree on - I know that I certainly do. But going about it through the backdoor of some imagined crisis - CAGW - is fundamentally dishonest. You wanna talk energy conservation - please do. You wanna talk conservation of fossil fuels - please do. Just don't bring in some imagined fantasy of catastrophe on a planetary scale due to geologically-insignificant warming supposed linked to anthropogenic emissions of CO2. You wanna talk about energy pricing in the context of conservation - please do. You wanna talk about changing a taxation system from one fundamentally based on income and move it to a consumption tax basis, with a primary focus on energy consumption - please do. These are all grown-up discussions that we really should be having, but NOT in context of CAGW.

In addition to you having no clue about numerical simulations, I am quite convinced that your understanding of economics is on the same level. And that's not an insult (although you are, of course, free to take it as such), it is merely an observation based on your posts. I would be happy to be demonstrated to be wrong, but I won't hold my breath.

Gents, I am (almost) starting to regret posting this thread. It's clear that this hot topic is more emotional than guns, religion, and politics. There have been some very good points made along the course of discussion, but it's quite apparant that our collective strongly formulated opinions are, indeed, the irrestible force meeting the immovable object. Time to agree to disagree, and if you can't agree with that, there's always Godwin's Law.

Nazis, Adolf Hitler.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

If I may quote 2dye4:

"6 As I said also there is no political avenue to fix this problem. Let's just be honest as say we are going to **** the environment
and stop hiding behind wishful and fantasy theories that it will all just go away."

This is why skeptics say "prove it" instead of reaching for our wallets to hand over our family's bread. This may be a case of projection on your part because (to me) it is the climate model theories that appear to be wishful, since we don't have an observable set of accurate measurements over a significantly long period of time to validate the model theories. Otherwise the model theories would have accurately predicted the last 15 years of stagnation in the temperature rise. The chart presented by GregLocock (using available, verifiable data) shows that they didn't. This to my mind means they are not sufficiently trustworthy for use in formulating major policy decisions by any government.

Remember that we didn't in the past and still don't have a calibrated and trustworthy set of global measuring devices. We have a few devices in a few places, but many of the first generation set of instruments are compromised by poor placement.

My point is that we can mamipulate the charts and the statistics all day long but we don't have validated data sets from which to begin. The attempt to get a global set of measuring devices in place was a good start but it is still a long way from reality, and it would take centuries of accurate recording to have any kind of confidence in long term trend modeling.

ornerynorsk I just saw your post after I posted mine. I am not capable or qualified to overcome Godwin's Law, thus I yield and will not post on this thread again.

ornerynorsk - that was actually one of the cornerstones of the previous bunch of threads where we reached 400+ posts in each one. As much as we disagree, I don't think that any of them invoked Godwin's Law. For that, I am very thankful - we engineers must be doing something right . (Heck, most of them didn't even bring up Trofim Lysenko...)

So have we found any new solutions, or are we just going to argue more?

We have more CO2 in the air, and plastic in the land fills then we did yesterday, and what have we solved?

tgs4

If you cannot tease out the factor that CO2 contributes how can you claim that the pause in recent warming indicates failure of the models. How do you know that one of the other factors didn't cause the halt in temperature rise??

Surely it is certain that CO2 has an independent impact. Meaning if you could run the experiment many times with varying levels of CO2 some repeatable result would come out relating CO2 concentration to new steady state temperature conditions with all other factors held constant...

Your point is that the science isn't there to validate MMGW, if so then it isn't there to invalidate MMGW based on the last 15 years.
Essentially nothing can be concluded then.

So what do we have then. We have the 100 year old theory of greenhouse gasses which has been verified as correct. We have a warming
trend ( the hockey stick ) measured from relatively modern equipment showing an unusual spike in the Earths temperature corresponding
to the exact time that we are digging up millions of years of stored carbon and putting it into the atmosphere.

The above evidence is circumstantial but even circumstantial evidence is considered occasionally based on the likelihood of events.

So as long as I think this circumstantial evidence is impelling and you think a precise and verified scientific model is required before any conservation activities are undertaken then we are pretty much done discussing the issue.

ornerynorsk
I think progress is being made, I have tentatively accepted TGS4 explanation of why detailed modeling may be necessary to predict
the amount of heat trapping. But in the long run I know the issue is unsolvable because the public will not vote itself pain in the form of higher energy costs even thought the long term effect may be positive. We can no more cooperate on this that the individual virus cells can agree to not kill the host.

How does plastic in the land-fills differ that much from oil under the seas. In geological times?

- Steve

2dye4,
The milk/fuel ratio is far from a universal truth. What is a universal truth is that there is little incentive to manipulate the price of milk (beyond the amount of manipulation that happens with all agricultural products) so the price of milk is a reasonable surrogate for a global CPI. A gallon of milk is the currency I use for most comparisons (e.g., a luxury vehicle should cost around 20,000 times the price of a gallon of milk) over time and across currencies (e.g., if I know a pair of shoes in my town would cost 30 gallons of milk, then if the same shoes in Brisbane cost 40 gallons then they are expensive, if they cost 25 gallons in in London then they are cheep, if they cost 10 gallons in Singapore then they are knockoffs). I also use a 1 lb loaf of bread, but it keeps getting harder to find a 1 lb loaf so the ratios get messy. I know it sounds strange but it works for me.

I can't explain why the reaction to the carbon tax was increased sales of fuel-inefficient vehicles, it was just an observation not intended to be data.

There are places where market forces can lead to societal inefficiencies. Free market hydrocarbons should not have been one of these, but it was. Probably because the market was never really free. By banning exports, local surpluses have had a downward force on prices. In the short term that is good. In the long term it has led to decisions that were not in the public interest. Now "solutions" that treat symptoms (generally by forced re-distribution of wealth from producers to speculators) will not be effective. They never have been, never will be. I would like to see a repeal of the bone-headed anti-export laws to allow US producers to access world markets. $4/MMBTU wellhead price for natural gas in the US and $20+ in Europe and $30+ in parts of Asia are simply not supportable long term. Repealing the stupid laws would stabilize the world price somewhere around $15/MMBTU with long-term contracts around $10/MMBTU. At those prices many coal-fired plants go away instead of being retrofit with emissions equipment.

My prejudice is that people in the military tend to be somewhat less bone-headed on most topics than the population at large. It is obviously not true, but I still hold the prejudice.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

2dye4,
You were posting your latest while I was writing my latest. The point that everyone is trying to make is that NOTHING in the atmosphere is independent. Nothing. Nothing at all. If a CO2 molecule is hit by a photon and heats up and then radiates the heat and boils a water droplet, the latent heat of vaporization will result in a net zero temperature change. It is all interrelated.

Quote (2dye4)

So what do we have then. We have the 100 year old theory of greenhouse gasses which has been verified as correct. We have a warming
trend ( the hockey stick ) measured from relatively modern equipment showing an unusual spike in the Earths temperature corresponding
to the exact time that we are digging up millions of years of stored carbon and putting it into the atmosphere.

Models with a bias to show AGW have "verified" the theory of GHG, data collected (and manipulated) over 100 years has failed miserably to support this theory. The hockey stick always has the sharp left turn NEXT YEAR. Then next year the new graph has the hockey stick bend NEXT YEAR. JJPellin's video was vivid on this point. The models from the late 1990's show the left turn in 2000. The 2013 models show it in 2014. Same sharp left turn.

Methane is the single most renewable energy source on the planet. Eventually we will do a better job of capturing it. Estimates have indicated that it is physically feasible to supply all of the world's non-transportation energy requirements from recovering biogenic gas. Farmers are doing it all over the world today. I wouldn't be too worried about "digging up millions of years of stored carbon". The sooner it is gone the sooner we will have energy prices that will encourage conservation.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Quote (2dye4)

If you cannot tease out the factor that CO2 contributes how can you claim that the pause in recent warming indicates failure of the models. How do you know that one of the other factors didn't cause the halt in temperature rise??

Surely it is certain that CO2 has an independent impact. Meaning if you could run the experiment many times with varying levels of CO2 some repeatable result would come out relating CO2 concentration to new steady state temperature conditions with all other factors held constant...

The models have made predictions. Yes, the predictions have been made on varying levels of CO2 concentration increases. The predictions have substantially over-predicted the OBSERVED temperature. Prediction ≠ Observation = failure. My whole point has always been that the feedbacks that are hard-coded into the models, combined with a lack of inclusion of natural cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc), all thrown together in a simulation that has a discretization that is woefully inadequate is bound to fail - and lo and behold they have.

As I have stated before, the zero-feedback effect of CO2 concentration is (more or less) 1°C/doubling. That's from experiments and fundamental physics and 100+ years of study. There aren't that many people who disagree. It's in the discussion of natural cycles, and feedbacks that we get the disagreement. In fact, if you drill right down to it - that is exactly the heart of the matter: natural cycles and feedbacks.

What I find interesting is that if the "pause" from 1998 to present is due to natural cycles, then what does that mean about the "rapid warming" in the 1980's up to 1998? And what about the long-term trend from the Little Ice Age?

Quote (2dye4)

But in the long run I know the issue is unsolvable because the public will not vote itself pain in the form of higher energy costs even thought the long term effect may be positive. We can no more cooperate on this that the individual virus cells can agree to not kill the host.

Why is this the only solution that you can foresee?

David's anecdote of fuel prices in Stavanger, Norway is somewhat interesting for me, but largely irrelevant. It has a population of ~130,000 people on 27 sq. mi. My city has 1,100,000 people on 320 sq. mi. Bicycling is an option for only the most fit, and then only for the 5.5 months that it is not winter-y. Plus, in the winter, it gets really cold - and burning fossil fuels is how ALL of the houses are designed to stay warm. Increasing the price of energy will result in the poor (or those on fixed incomes) having to choose between staying warm or eating. So, while Stavanger is more northerly than I am, it is much warmer in the winter, and would not have the same issues.

Furthermore, to be totally selfish, I welcome some measure of warming. Every winter, most people here spend $2k-$4k/person to travel to a location that is 40°C-50°C warmer - for a week or two. And people wonder why we balk at spending that much every year to AVOID 1-3°C of warming in 100 years!

I’m getting into this late, so I’ll avoid addressing individual responses but I’d like to touch on a few general topics.

Carbon Tax
I’m not sold on the concept of cap-and-trade, especially if it’s traded as a financial commodity through Goldman Sachs. It will lead to the commodification of the environment to an even greater extent and is likely to be damaging to both the environment and the financial world.

While a carbon tax appears to be a better solution than cap-and-trade, a revenue neutral carbon tax appears to be a better (or more agreeable) solution than a straight carbon tax.

We have a fairly large scale, real-world example going on in BC right now. The program is in its 6th year and is showing great results. Fuel consumption in BC has fallen 17.4 % per capita (18.8% relative to the Canadian average) since it took effect in 2008. BC’s GDP has kept pace with the rest of Canada over that period and the tax shift has allowed for lower income tax rates, the lowest in Canada (even lower than the conservative, oil rich Alberta). It also has seen an increase in approval rates in the program from 54% in 2008 to 64% in 2012. So it’s (1) effective at reducing emissions, (2) is not damaging to the economy and (3) the people that live with the tax seem to like it more and more.
Information regarding the rebate
2012 Study
2012 Report
2013 Report
Desmog Article
Economist article
Talk on carbon taxation

Models: The Worst Thing Since Unsliced Bread
This is, to me, the second most frustrating topic (next to the ubiquitous attempt at explaining how greenhouse gases work to one poster), so I’ll be brief.
(1) Models aren’t 100% accurate
(2) Models aren’t 0% accurate
(3) Models can’t be used in isolation to prove a theory
(4) The forecasting accuracy of models diminishes with increasing system complexity and intrinsically sporadic, yet influential, events (volcanoes, El Nino/La Nina, etc)
(5) Models can be used to gauge the response of complex systems by alternating certain variable and attempting to extract their influence on the system.

(Also, a good article here)

I feel that models are more useful in studying the influence of certain variables to try to extract the physical mechanism behind a change in a complex system. This is key and I will touch on this more in a later section. But for now, see this very interesting new study that attempts to isolate and understand the effect of El Nino/La Nina cycles on global temperature. Through this method, it was able to reconstruct global temperatures with quite remarkable accuracy. A good article describing it here.

Seamless Transition into “The Pause”
Now, some on the other side may see this as more proof that the warming is natural (maybe a few links to Judy Curry’s blog). This I find is a strange stance because all this appears to show is that El Nino/La Nino has an effect on global temperatures in the short term. However, it cannot explain long term trends as it is merely the storage and release of energy, not the driver behind the increase/decrease in the long term energy imbalance. See this great article for more details.

In fact, it works against the “pause” argument because it develops a natural cause for a temporary slowing in warming. In other words, the “pause” seems to suggest that anthropogenic effect is still high but the short term natural effect of La Nina is counterbalancing it. If there were no anthropogenic effect (or other unknown effect), the negative natural forcings as of late (low solar activity, double dip La Nina) would have cooled temperatures. This also matches up nicely with the research that suggest the oceans are continuing to accumulate energy despite the surface temperatures staying relatively constant.

There is a ton of research on this:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here (no models)
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

Physical Mechanisms
All this snide finger-wagging about “being a good scientist/engineer” from the other side is a little hypocritical. We all agree that climate is changing. Yet the reaction is commonly, “yes, but it’s always changed”. True. However, climate does not magically change, there are ALWAYS physical mechanisms behind physical changes (usually a complicated chain of mechanisms and feedbacks). So you can’t say “it’s changed before” and assume you’ve just rendered the vast majority of research in the area invalid; that’s gravely illogical and unscientific. What natural processes can account for the recent change in weather? How have these natural processes changed global temperature historically?

Like it or not, the body of evidence suggests that anthropogenic CO2 is the leading candidate for the increase in global temperatures. There are obviously other influencing factors (the sun, orbital cycles, massive singular events strong enough to flip climate trends, etc.) but there is also a body of evidence that compares their influence against that of CO2 and anthropogenic CO2 continues to be the most predominate.
For example:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

To change this, another (natural) process, or collection thereof, needs to do a better job accounting for the recent change in climate.

On a closing note, can we stop with the broad sweeping, unsubstantiated claims that offer no reference or data to back them up? Declaring something authoritatively does not make it any more valid.

TGS4,
That anecdote was not intended as a value judgement, just an observation. There is a fuel price where behaviors will change. They found it in Norway. We have not seen anything like the same prices in the US. I have no idea what the unintended consequences of their fuel price are. I'm confident that there are some, but don't know what they are.

rconnor,
I suppose I'm the "one poster". Please assume a response that is far more profane than profound.

I do want to take exception to one point--models are not "accurate" at all. Models either match observed hindcast data or they don't. If they do match hindcast data, they may provide useful predictions of the future or they may not. They simply represent the mind and biases of the author so are exactly as valid as the "broad sweeping, unsubstantiated claims that offer no reference or data to back them up" that you complain about.

I must say that I haven't yet read the links that you provided. I skimmed a half dozen of them and don't have an opinion on their contribution to the discussion. Not the kind of stuff you read quickly.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

http://thingsbreak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/imp...

Quote:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L01704, doi:10.1029/2011GL050226, 2012

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived
using 160 years of temperature observations
N. P. Gillett,V. K. Arora,G. M. Flato,J. F. Scinocca,and K. von Salzen

Received 4 November 2011; accepted 28 November 2011; published 10 January 2012.

[1] Projections of 21st century warming may be derived
by using regression-based methods to scale a model’s
projected warming up or down according to whether it
under- or over-predicts the response to anthropogenic
forcings over the historical period. Here we apply such a
method using near surface air temperature observations
over the 1851–2010 period, historical simulations of the
response to changing greenhouse gases, aerosols and
natural forcings, and simulations of future climate change
under the Representative Concentration Pathways from
the second generation Canadian Earth System Model
(CanESM2). Consistent with previous studies, we detect
the influence of greenhouse gases, aerosols and natural
forcings in the observed temperature record.

just proves that you can use any model, alter it somehow and then "detect" anything you desire. What hogwash!

"All that is being asked is that the industrialized countries give up driving mammoth SUV and pickup truck for no reason other than
vanity and ridiculous indulgence. Along with industry taking energy conservation seriously"

The onus is on you to do the sums, as that is at first sight an unlikely proposition, but do you really think that those three actions alone will reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions below current levels, in a world where 0.3 billion Chinese want to buy cars who currently ride pushbikes, and where that country is building two new coal fired power stations every WEEK?

"Do the IPCC models predict absolute temperature of just the CO2 forcing of temperature.
The difference is very significant. "

Supposedly everything they can think of. That's why there's a dip when a volcano goes off, the negative effect of the smoke outweighs the additional CO2. I gather you haven't got the faintest idea about GCMs? Why do you trust them then?

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Quote:

John makes a point. Which, of course is the rationale behind the carbon [sic] tax movement - to somehow monetize the cost to the collective/society by emitting CO2. In that environment, then certainly unbridled capitalism will most certainly find the most effect means. That, in turn, result in not more government, but really less government involvement. Should be a win-win.

However, in the event that the cost to "stop" global warming is greater than the cost to adapt to the consequences, then the collective/societal cost is greatly reduced. This link demonstrates that even IF the science is settled, the adaptation costs are 50 times less than the costs to stop the warming from occurring.

Word of advice to the "warmists"/"alarmists": you're not going to win by arguing for a complete de-industrialization of the world (which is what "stopping" global warming, if the science is true, would take). However, selling a pay-to-play system where all funds raised are dedicated to adapting to the warming, would be a much easier sell. Then, there's no cap-n-trade where the bankers are the only ones making money, there's no additional five levels of government (including the UN) expanding at rates vastly exceeding inflation, there's none of that. I don't understand the insistence on demonizing energy and prosperity.

Now, you may ask, why, after all my harping on the (lack of) scientific rigour, and the insistence on having a carbon-consumption-price sensitivity, why I would submit to a taxation on carbon [sic]? Well, the fact of the matter is that the globe has warmed in the last century - whether that's man-made or not is not the point. There are most certainly costs associated with that - some may argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, which may be the case. But, we can have some measure of accounting of this, on an ongoing basis. If there are net costs, then someone has to pay for them. I'm not categorically opposed to figuring out some measure to pay for real, incurred costs. We do that with other aspects of our civil society: infrastructure, education, health care, defence, etc.

I just don't see that

This is a very interesting post, with a very interesting point. Allow me to rephrase it:

"Whether the carbon tax would fix global warming or not is technically irrelevant. We need to spend money preparing for, and dealing with, global warming regardless, so why don't we just raise money for that through the carbon tax. Either it helps on one end or it helps on both ends."

I think that would be a valuable position if the UN collected taxes, and the UN was responsible for civil projects across the globe. But it's not. In fact, its track record with parallel programs (oil-for-food anyone?) has been abysmal, and wrought with graft.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

rconnor, I appreciate you putting some effort in, but if we have somewhat reliable data for CO2 and temperature for 150 years that is used to calibrate the models, and then they run free for 15 years, and diverge significantly from reality over those 15 years, in a way that contradicts the main findings that they have been used to 'prove', why on Earth is anyone worrying about their predictions for 2080 and beyond? The models are broken. They have no predictive power so far as we can tell from 15 years . The parrot is deceased.

Of those articles I thought the ars technica one was condescending tripe. Lots of pretty pictures and assurances that they are gobsmacked by the resulst. I'm not gobsmacked, see the two graphs I posted before.

The El Nino one is interesting, showing that if the models can be made around one order of magnitude more complex then they might be more useful. That is, by including the effect of the oceans, which is a lot bigger system than the atmosphere, and directly intersects with 70% of it by area, then they might be onto something.

Now, the great news is that on Friday the IPCC will announce that the models need to be drastically improved.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

GregLocock wrote:

Quote:

rconnor, I appreciate you putting some effort in, but if we have somewhat reliable data for CO2 and temperature for 150 years that is used to calibrate the models, and then they run free for 15 years, and diverge significantly from reality over those 15 years, in a way that contradicts the main findings that they have been used to 'prove', why on Earth is anyone worrying about their predictions for 2080 and beyond? The models are broken. They have no predictive power so far as we can tell from 15 years . The parrot is deceased.

I spent some time reading text books on developing mathematical models for investments, using historical stock market data to 'prove' the accuracty of the model. There is a lot of explanation that many iterations and adjustments can be made, and in the end, you wind up with a model, based on, say 150 years of data, that perfectly 'predicts' the current state, and is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS to predict anything in the future.

Look at this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temper...

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart.
If this was a graph of some industrial variable that we engineers were monitoring I am pretty sure we would conclude
that something changed and the process is going out to an unusual place.

The chart is NOT a model. It is a reconstruction of temperature combined with recent industrial era measurements.
If you don't believe the measurements due to some other issue related to placement of sensors or ........ then look at the
satellite data.

Greg, I don't think you answered my question.

["Do the IPCC models predict absolute temperature of just the CO2 forcing of temperature.
The difference is very significant. "

Supposedly everything they can think of. That's why there's a dip when a volcano goes off, the negative effect of the smoke outweighs the additional CO2. I gather you haven't got the faintest idea about GCMs? Why do you trust them then?]

Are you saying that model predictions must factor in future volcano eruptions ???
That would be a really hard thing to do.

I believe you are trying to say that the IPCC models projections are for absolute temperature and not just CO2 forcing.
And then I would disagree, but please chime in and clear up your position.

Why do the skeptics insult others much more frequently than the concerned side ?

Quote (2dye4)

Look at this chart.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temper...
The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart.

Yes, unprecedented on that chart.

But look at this chart: Ice Core Data
There are four (4) hockey sticks on that chart, each of chart which is considerably more profound and pronounced than your hockey stick of the last 150 years. The hockey stick of the last 150 years is so tiny and minuscule in comparison that it cannot be identified. And yet, that's the "definitive sample size" that we're being asked to accept as the standard to predict the future of earth's climate.

That's my issue. With respect to earth's climate, the chosen sample size is tiny. And yet, the amount of faith that we're being asked to put in that tiny sample size as a predictive base is one of "all in". Our very future depends on it.

==> Are you saying that model predictions must factor in future volcano eruptions?
How much effect do volcano eruptions have on the global climate? If the models are to be comprehensive, then wouldn't it prudent to estimate to whatever degree possible and necessary those effects? Agreed, it would be extremely difficult, but then, the earth's climate is an extremely complex system.

==> Why do the skeptics insult others much more frequently than the concerned side ?
I don't think either side has clean hands when it comes to tossing out insults.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Quote:

Look at this chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temper...

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart.
If this was a graph of some industrial variable that we engineers were monitoring I am pretty sure we would conclude
that something changed and the process is going out to an unusual place.

The chart is NOT a model. It is a reconstruction of temperature combined with recent industrial era measurements.
If you don't believe the measurements due to some other issue related to placement of sensors or ........ then look at the
satellite data.

With all due respect, if the chart is not a model, what instruments measured the temperatures in the year 1000, and where were they recorded?

Did you actually read any of the underlying references?
"(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). "High-resolution Palaeoclimatic Records for the last Millennium: Interpretation, Integration and Comparison with General Circulation Model Control-run Temperatures". The Holocene 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956"

Do you understand what 'interpretation' means? How about 'integration'?

TenPenny,
I started to write your post (in a bit snarky'er tone) when I saw your post.

I've seen some of the hard copies of those "objective" records from the 1800's and it is really difficult to read the handwriting, hard to puzzle out the time gap between recordings and some of them change between Fahrenheit and "Centigrade" without indication (I saw one "98" followed by a "40" three weeks later, was it a cold snap or a change in units?). The data coverage was kind of sparse too. Many of the old temperature records were from sailing ships at sea (where the weather is of critical importance, but combining location fixes with temperature data on the report was a lower priority), during my time at sea I was always amazed at the 20-30F temperature change you would see over a few minutes as you crossed one of the major circulation systems or entered a rain squall. Rigor in that old data was lacking. Integrity in the new data is lacking. In both cases, the gaps are filled with computer models.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Quote (2dye4)

The hockey stick started around 1900. The rate of rise is unprecedented on the chart. If this was a graph of some industrial variable that we engineers were monitoring I am pretty sure we would conclude that something changed and the process is going out to an unusual place.

The chart is NOT a model. It is a reconstruction of temperature combined with recent industrial era measurements.

Well, I am going to have to add paleo-climate reconstructions and time-series evaluations to the list of things that you don't understand.

As an engineer, if I had an industrial variable that was first passed through a low-pass filter that filtered out any variation less than 50-years (actually, these are basically 50-year running averages, but essentially the same thing), and then looked at the last few data points that provided data on a daily or weekly basis, and thought that I could conclude anything from that, then I would be an idiot. Oh, and especially if the 50-year running average data wasn't actually data, but an interpretation of secondary or tertiary information that may or may not have a direct causal link to the variable that I am interested in, and when these variable are compared to the actual data that I have in the time-span that they overlap actually show divergence... You've probably heard the line "hide the decline", but accepted some charlatan's explanation of it. Go and research Steve McIntyre's assessment of paleo-proxies and all of their inherent problems.

Quote:

Why do the skeptics insult others much more frequently than the concerned side ?

Have you actually been paying much attention to the "concerned side"? We've been compared to Holocaust Deniers, Alcoholics, Abusive Spouses, Racists, Homophobes, and that's just in the last week. I have just as much disdain for the "Sky Dragons" brand of skeptics, so on that account, no, you're not that special. Exactly what kind of engineering do you do, anyway, that you can profess to have any credible opinion on this topic?

Oh - and will any on the "concerned side", please call out one of your most vocal proponents, Dr. David Suzuki, after his masterful appearance on ABC in Australia (transcript here). He didn't know what UAH, HadCRUT, RSS or GISS were.

Really puzzled here....

Greg and Cajun both seem to require climate models to see into the future and account for volcanic eruptions.

I am at a loss how to understand..

1 How a trained engineer could expect climate scientists to divine future unknown events..

2 What is wrong with our language that makes this glaring example of disagreement on such a fundamental issue so difficult to resolve.

To predict future volcanic eruptions is entirely impossible, the people that study this sort of thing for a living will tell you
they can do it at most weeks out from the event.
Why do people expect climate modellers to do it decades out..

OK maybe the chart is the result of a model, an inference type of model and not a future predictive type of model. Essentially it is not plagued by the run into chaos that fluid dynamic models suffer.
The reconstruction models have statistical error bands in their results that are far lower than the hockey stick spike. Read their analysis methods.

==> Greg and Cajun both seem to require climate models
Please do not put words in my mouth. What I said was that IF you want to claim that you have a comprehensive model, then you need to factor in as many of the parameters, to whatever degree possible, that impact what the model is trying to predict.

==> 1 How a trained engineer could expect climate scientists to divine future unknown events..
Volcanos are part of the total climate equation, are they not? Or do you believe they don't play a role in the earth's climate? But if you believe they're part of the equation, (which I do for both short-term and long-term cycles) then you would, as you would for any intended predictive model, study past events, frequency, severity, climate impact, etc., etc., and extrapolate those trends and effects, consistent with how much effect they have, into your predictive model. In other words, you do it in the same manner than a trained engineer would expect a climate scientist to divine future unknown catastrophic hurricanes. They do claim they're going to increase both in number and intensity, do they not? In the same manner that a trained engineer would expect a climate scientist to divine future unknown temperature fluctuations.

No one is expecting the model to indicate on which day a volcano is going to erupt, but neither are the models trying to say even which year is going to be a bad hurricane year, nor what the temperature will be even for a specific year. These are macro level predictions, and that's what you expect from a future looking climate model. Macro estimates. However, these macro estimates are based on a small microscope window of historical data. That's a disconnect.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Bloody hell, this is better than "Who's on first" !!! Someone should copyright and publish for the comedic entertainment of future generations!

Now that we've determined that climate change won't kill us tomorrow, or even the day after tomorrow (no pun regarding the movie intended) let's tackle which came first, the chicken or the egg.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Quote:

I am at a loss how to understand..

1 How a trained engineer could expect climate scientists to divine future unknown events..

When I was a lad at University, I was taught that the point of a scientific model used to predict future behavior was to, well, PREDICT FUTURE BEHAVIOR.

Now, if your contention is that climate scientists are NOT expected to predict the future, then hey, let's all agree that there is NO POINT to all of the climate change discussion, since climate scientists can't, and therefore shouldn't be expected to, predict the future.

""Bloody hell, this is better than "Who's on first" !!! Someone should copyright and publish for the comedic entertainment of future generations!""

It is very funny, somebody is a little bit crazy here. It is completely irrational to expect climate scientists to predict volcanic eruptions of course.

Cajun says that they must to form a comprehensive model.

WHICH IS THE **** POINT.

Climate models are not designed to predict climate decades ahead no matter what the heck happens.

They are predicting the CO2 forcing part. Meaning among the many variables this one adds Y heat per X input.
Now I have been informed here that this is impossible to do, I dunno, I'm not a climate scientist.
But if this is true it renders the entire field of climate prediction an impossibility and we might as well just
forget the whole issue. Maybe that is what they want....

How many of the climate skeptics here earn a significant part of their living either directly from the carbon energy industry or
secondarily through providing goods or services to them??
There has to be some explanation for why they frame this problem into impossible corners..

Quote:

They are predicting the CO2 forcing part. Meaning among the many variables this one adds Y heat per X input.
Now I have been informed here that this is impossible to do, I dunno, I'm not a climate scientist.
But if this is true it renders the entire field of climate prediction an impossibility and we might as well just forget the whole issue.

I can't quite understand your point. Are you suggesting that climate scientists are trying to create models, using past data, to predict what will happen in the future, as long as we have NO natural occurrences, such as volcanoes?

What, pray tell, would be the value of such a model, since it would be based on having volcanoes in the past, while assuming there will be none in the future?

==> Climate models are not designed to predict climate decades ahead no matter what the heck happens.
That clears it up. Thanks.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

==> Climate models are not designed to predict climate decades ahead no matter what the heck happens.

And this why I want politicians to keep their bloody hands off my wallet. They don't know the future because the climate researchers don't know the future. But politicians know that climate researchers have given them charts and statistics they can use to legislate stealing from my family to enrich carbon credit traders.

A star for you debodine! Why is it that all solutions, especially solutions to imaginary problems and potential falling-sky events ALWAYS involve the further fleecing of taxpayers and/or the further reduction of personal liberties. This is not about climate at all, it's about the further securing of the general populace more securely under the thumb of the powers that be. Fascism dressed in any other coat is still fascism.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Seriously ???

Everyone would like a crystal ball to know what is coming. Yes there might be a meteorite strike the Earth, massive volcano, thermonuclear war..... the list is endless as to what might alter the climate severely.

"" Are you suggesting that climate scientists are trying to create models, using past data, to predict what will happen in the future, as long as we have NO natural occurrences, such as volcanoes?""

Slow down and listen... NO they are not making absolute predictions.. How could they..

Does this mean give up ???

There is one facet that we stand a tiny chance of fixing, actually not really because too many people "think" like some of
the opinions posted here, but still the truth is necessary even if we decide to ignore it.

Quote (@2dye4)

It is completely irrational to expect climate scientists to predict volcanic eruptions of course.

I invite you to take a loot at this: The Physics of Climate Modeling

Quote:

Since then, ever more components have been added to climate models — land, oceans, sea ice, and more recently, interactive atmospheric aerosols, atmospheric chemistry, and representations of the carbon cycle.

(emphasis mine)

Quote:

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines produced sulfate aerosols that affected climate for years and offered climate modelers an unprecedented opportunity to compare models with observations.

So yes, the climate scientists ARE factoring in volcanic effects.
And there is this: Modeling the climatic effects of large explosive volcanic eruptions
The article on Volcanoes discusses volcanoes and climate.
And here is an section from the AR4 report from the IPCC that talks about volcanoes and climate models: 8.7.2.3 Volcanoes That speaks to both the need to incorporate these activities as well as the unknowns involved.

So clearly, it is not nearly irrational as you think. To reiterate what others have already said, I'm not sure you really have a good handle on what the current climate models can do and what they can't do, as well as in what aspects they are continuing to evolve.

The bottom line is that the observed temperature of the last 15 to 17 years does NOT match the predictions of the models. The models are missing something, or many things. Further, I submit that it no small part, it's the incredibly small data sample size that is a core problem. There is still much that we don't know, so now is not to time to start taking drastic actions. We need to continue to study and learn.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment, nor that we shouldn't be more judicious in our use of fossil fuels. It also doesn't mean we that we need to throw a hail mary.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

They could factor in average volcano effects in the future. I can live with that. What I can't believe is that a model that is calibrated for 150 years and let run for 15 further years and that overpredicts temperatures consistently is taken seriously when it predicts calamitous temperatures (they aren't) 60 years and more out. I'd love to be the investment advisor for someone who can swallow that logic. The parrot is an ex-parrot.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

The last video I posted a link to did not describe the true situation as well as this one. Many factors show that global warming is continuing.

Johnny Pellin

• http://youtu.be/047vmL6Q_4g

Ummmm - so these scientists have hung their hat on atmospheric temperatures as being the cornerstone of their warming hypothesis. Then, when that measure stops indicating warming, they move the goalposts and now start to use ocean temperatures, of which we have somewhat reliable measurements for all of, what, ten years.

Oh, the stupid - it burns.

Quote:

Slow down and listen... NO they are not making absolute predictions.. How could they..

Does this mean give up ???

There is one facet that we stand a tiny chance of fixing, actually not really because too many people "think" like some of
the opinions posted here, but still the truth is necessary even if we decide to ignore it.

Slow down and listen. What exactly is it that we "stand a tiny chance of fixing", since by YOUR OWN statements, we can't predict what is going to happen, so we don't really know what the future problems will be?

The truth is, indeed, necessary. That's why I support ongoing research and discussion. But you, and your ilk, have decided that the future is cast in stone, and want to radically change our economy based on that, while at the same time, you state repeatedly that you don't actually know what will happen, or what the causes are.

The truth is necessary, but going off half cocked simply because everyone doesn't like 'big oil' and the energy industry is completely nonsensical.

The truth is necessary, and the more ANYONE claims that 'no more discussion is necessary', the more people with intelligence will question. 'I'm a salesman, trust me' has been replaced by 'I'm a climate scientist, trust me, the science is settled'. The more I hear that, the more I recoil in horror.

Here is more of an example of populace fleacing.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/epa-admits-new-coal-... News&utm_source=foxnews.com&utm_medium=feed

Regulations that won't solve the problem they were intended to solve. But what can you expect from people who can't hold down a regular job.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57604784/u.n-p...

"They're as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe."

Funny stuff. You can't make this up. Let's emphasize our level of surety by relating it to yet another no-proof, highly debatable subject. The would-be scientific community continues to make a farce and a spectacle out of themselves, the media, and all of the Kool-aid drinkers who want to virtually enslave the population of the developed world over their perceived sense of value and ideals. Fools.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

No comments on the BC carbon tax? A real world example of significant scale isn’t worthy of commentary? I guess we prefer unsubstantiated comments like the following:

Quote (deboline)

But politicians know that climate researchers have given them charts and statistics they can use to legislate stealing from my family to enrich carbon credit traders

Quote (ornerynorsk)

…ALWAYS involve the further fleecing of taxpayers and/or the further reduction of personal liberties…Fascism dressed in any other coat is still fascism

(I could include a litany of other quotes from post before mine but I’ll give them the excuse of ignorance)

In the light of real world examples, that speak to the contrary, this is frustrating. It speaks to irrational fears and the refusal to even acknowledge evidence when presented. There’s plenty of issues to discuss in the debate but the absurdity of relating carbon taxation to fascism is beyond comprehension. The even crazier part is that orenerynorsk made a joke about Godwin’s Law then brings fascism into the mix (maybe you’re trolling your own thread…).

But onto more debatable points…

GregLocock – After a nice nod to my post (appreciated), you start off with categorically rejecting my references (well, climate science in general) because of the models discrepancy with observed temperatures. Then you refer to Kosaka & Xie 2013 (which I appreciate) that demonstrates a possible source of error and demonstrates that when that error is addressed, the results match the observed data extremely well. See the Tamino article again. Yet this works against your (and others) dismissal of climate science because it’s an example of (successful) efforts to improve the accuracy by accounting for sources of error. Specifically, it illustrates the reason why models over the last 15 years (your period in question) have been overestimated temperatures.

Furthermore, it’s an example of how the “pause” could be due to a temporary, natural effect (namely La Nina). Again, ENSO cannot be used as a physical mechanism behind climate change because it is a temporary effect that, as historically evidence shows, has no long-term trend. It is the storage (during La Nina’s) and release (during El Nino’s) of energy in the oceans. It doesn’t influence the energy imbalance and any feedback effect of ENSO (cloud coverage for example) would oscillate between the EL Nino’s and La Nina’s; therefore, it doesn’t affect long term climate.

See papers/articles on the effect of ENSO:
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here
Here

I’ve also already linked 11 articles relating to the “pause”, plus a few new ones in this post. If you want to keep bringing it up then you best start by addressing my counter-points (papers and articles).

Now, back to models. A good break down of the history of climate models can be found here or a good FAQ on climate models here (part 1) and here (part 2) (also, Cajun’s link is a good read as well). I want to start by saying that models are not perfect and there are improvements to be made. Feedbacks, sensitivity and forcings are in constant research. As new information comes in, they are added to the models. This is not an admission of climate science being wrong, it is being scientific. This is a double standard that is frustrating when reading through skeptic blogs. IPCC is adjusting forcing values (to show marginally less anthropogenic effect or marginally increased natural effect)= GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS DEAD. IPCC is not adjusting other aspects = CONSPIRACY THEORY. Models show warming = MODELS/DATA ARE JUNK. Models show steady temperatures = GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS DEAD. Hurricanes in New York = YOU CONFUSE CLIMATE AND WEATHER (I’d agree in part). La Nina’s causing slowing of global temperatures = GLOBAL WARMING THEORY IS DEAD.

Beyond anything else, my point in these posts is to demonstrate that climate science is a robust and developing field of study. It’s the reason why I’ve included link after link, paper after paper, to show this is not some scam by the UN. I want to expose you to the good science that is being done that can otherwise be carefully avoided by sticking to news outlets/blogs that just support your viewpoint.

Now let’s begin clearing some confusion when it comes to predicting volcanoes (and, possibly more importantly, ENSO for that matter).
- Models and climate scientists CANNOT PREDICT VOLCANOES AND ENSO EVENTS.
- Instead they try and use historical data to estimate the effect of both and put an average effect into the models
- Therefore, if tomorrow we had a massive volcano eruption, don’t expect models to accurately predict next year’s temperatures.
- However, as the effect of a volcano is temporary, temperatures soon recover back to normal trends (unless it’s a catastrophic eruption that flips the climate trends)
- The same applies for ENSO. Models can’t (and don’t try to) predict a double-dip La Nina or any SPECIFIC ENSO event.
- Strong single events or long streaks of just El Nino’s or just La Nina’s will affect the accuracy of models (note: the pause started during a very strong El Nino and has carried through two consecutive La Nina’s)
- Again, this is fine because they don’t affect long term trends and will average to the normal trends over long periods.

Volcanoes temporarily effect the energy balance. ENSO temporarily effects the distribution of energy around the planet. Neither has long-term effects on the energy balance which is what drives a long-term change in climate. I also really like this from the Real Climate article found below:
“And a reminder: The warming trend of the 15-year period up to 2006 was almost twice as fast as expected (0.3°C per decade, see Fig. 4 here), and (rightly) nobody cared. We published a paper in Science in 2007 where we noted this large trend, and as the first explanation for it we named “intrinsic variability within the climate system”. Which it turned out to be.”
Temporary effects cut both ways. Clear?

No? Well, see more articles/papers below:
IPCC Models comparing natural and anthropogenic effects against observations (from the 3rd assessment report, so a little outdated but still relevant and a good illustration)
An analysis of the IPCC 4th Assessment
RC article on ocean heating (and some discussion on ENSO effects)
RC article on scientific error (yup, a “pro” AGW blog talking about error…how very…scientific of them)
McIntyre – desmog (because McIntyre was brought up as a case-closed argument against temperature data/models/climate science in general)
BEST data – relates to Eschenbach and McIntyre
(Yes this is a SkS article. I’m done pandering to upfront rejections. If you don’t like it, let me know what’s wrong with it. See my last point in this post.)
BEST data – Watts before and after
More McIntyre commentary re: hockey stick
Montford and McIntyre re: hockey stick, temperature records
Dessler 2011 paper (cloud cover) in response to climate sensitivity
Dessler 2011 video (cloud cover)
Surface Temperature Measurement article at SkS
Information relating to changes made to GISS
History of surface temperature measurements from Tamino

It’s this categorical rejecting of all things climate science (well except when it’s about cooling temperatures or arctic sea ice “recovery”) that I find incredibly unscientific. This is made even worse by hypocritical acquisitions of “true believers” being blind to the “real” data. Yes, there are both on either side that outright reject data/information that doesn’t support their view. There is however middle ground where debates can be had. Start off by addressing why the references I provided are false or misleading. Use other references to back up your statements.

A quick comment about references, specifically blogs. A lot on my side scoff at WUWT articles, while the other side does the same with SkS articles. I read both (and a few others on either side). In both cases, you have to look past some rhetoric and name calling (I really think WUWT is especially bad for the latter). Both can make some good points and both can have some weak arguments. Reviewing both sides gives you a balanced approach to reviewing and interpreting the data. However, I suggest doing two things when reviewing blog posts:
(1) Critique the reliability of the information. Are papers referenced and linked? Is the source of data referenced and linked? Are the methods used in the calculations available? What sort of scales and sample periods are selected of the analysis? Does this match up with the papers linked or is it a small section of the data? If the latter, why?
(2) Look through the comments (yes, sometimes they are a cesspool of dogma and childish banter…read the comments of a Monkton article on WUWT for a great example of this). A lot of times, good arguments about the article with appear in the comments. The communities have some very educated people that will detail counter-points to the article and others will provide a rebuttal to those. You can, sometimes, learn a lot more about the articles strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments.

rconnor, what, precisely, would YOUR definition of fascism be?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Just so I have a clearer understanding, if we were to accept a tax on carbon, where would the money go?

If the money goes to the goverment general fund, then my elected official has a vote on how to spend it (assumption).
If the money goes to wall street or the UN, then I have no directly elected official that has to vote on how it is spent (we already had a war over this).

So if the first one is true, we can eleminate the income tax (correct)? Or part of it?

If the second be true, we should all buy guns (correct)?

What exactly is the end game?

rconnor, I respectfully take exception to only one point in your post. When you quoted from my post and gave your evaluation of my comment, the only real disagreement I have with you is your use of the word "irrational". The last 100 years of US government encroachment into far more areas than allowed for by the US Constitution (I am 58 so I will state that I have personally witnessed the last 40 years of the encroachment), and constant legislative tactics to force my family to pay for it makes my fear rational even if you believe such encroachment is for the better.

We can disagree on everything else but I am unalterably convinced that no matter how noble any cause is, I don't believe the US government can possibly do it right and they will try to bankrupt me to pay for their errors in judgment.

Quote:

It’s this categorical rejecting of all things climate science (well except when it’s about cooling temperatures or arctic sea ice “recovery”) that I find incredibly unscientific.

I don't think there are any people on this forum 'rejecting all things climate science'. Lots of questioning, but let's face it, if you have people claiming that 1000 year old temperature readings are 'data', you deserve some questioning. If you have people claiming that predictive models shouldn't be expected to predict the future, you deserve some questioning. If you have people claiming that anyone who doubts what you say should be silenced, you deserve some questioning.

Actually, I find this point the most amusing: Cap and trade was the conservative republican, free-market solution to traditional emissions limits. It was a concept created by the hard-core, free-market, Reagan republicans to get the government out of the business of telling each company how much they could emit. Instead, the companies could trade credits amongst themselves (company to company, no involvement by Wall Street) so that the emissions reductions occurred wherever they could be accomplished most efficiently. But, if exactly the same solution is proposed by the current president or by Democrats, they declare it to be government mandated fascism.

Johnny Pellin

rconnor - a very level-headed and reasonable post with lots of references - thank you. I will address some of the science and pseudoscience that you linked to later (work, you know...). However - here's a good rebuttal to your BC Carbon Tax point.

There's something at the end of your post that I wanted to address:

Quote (rconnor)

Look through the comments (yes, sometimes they are a cesspool of dogma and childish banter…read the comments of a Monkton article on WUWT for a great example of this). A lot of times, good arguments about the article with appear in the comments. The communities have some very educated people that will detail counter-points to the article and others will provide a rebuttal to those. You can, sometimes, learn a lot more about the articles strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments.

Three of the blogs that you reference (SkS, RC, and Tamino) all have very aggressive moderation approaches, whereby posts that disagree with the blog owner are removed, or in the case of SkS, even changed without the writer's consent. In the end, they are echo chambers without any "good arguments". This intolerance for dissenting opinions is why I would classify all of those blogs as "untrustworthy". I have submitted very reasonable (in my opinion - no claims of fascism or subterfuge, etc) questions (not opinions, just questions) directly pertaining to facts and opinions offered by authors in both SkS and RC. My questions never saw the light of day. Why? Because they were counter-dogma, or at least questioning the dogma.

I can't "learn more about the articles [sic] strengths and weaknesses by reviewing the comments" because counter-arguments are disappeared from the blog.

Sorry - try again.

Love him or hate him, at least Anthony Watts' blog wattsupwiththat.com is very tolerant of a variety of opinions. And he lets some total whackos post there, and they are, rightfully, taken down. His experiments that are complete takedowns of the Principia/Skydragon movement are exactly how science should be done. His demonstration of the fraud perpetrated by Bill Nye during Al Gore's 24 Hrs of Reality "explaining" how CO2 works was also fantastic, real science.

So, who do I trust - blogs that have disappeared my questions (not comments, not diatribes, not threats, etc), or blogs that don't?

I'll take that as a swipe against my post JJPellin. Please do not think that I am a republican or in favor of republican policies just because I absolutely abhorr what the democrats are doing. Our ENTIRE government is so far off mark that I truly doubt the ability of the United States to stand as a sovereign nation for more than a few more decades. Boy, do I hope I'm wrong!

I stand by my assertion that our system is fascist. If not, what is it?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Quote:

Actually, I find this point the most amusing: Cap and trade was the conservative republican, free-market solution to traditional emissions limits. It was a concept created by the hard-core, free-market, Reagan republicans to get the government out of the business of telling each company how much they could emit. Instead, the companies could trade credits amongst themselves (company to company, no involvement by Wall Street) so that the emissions reductions occurred wherever they could be accomplished most efficiently. But, if exactly the same solution is proposed by the current president or by Democrats, they declare it to be government mandated fascism.

Indeed. Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits from, I have always thought that was the whole point, and that's why the usual suspects were, and still are, so much in favor of them.

And when the whole thing collapses, more taxpayer money will be needed to bail out those poor investment bankers who are struggling to feed their habits.

Climate model predictions are to give the forcing component of CO2.
They are essentially results expected given all other factors unchanged.
How could they be anything else??

Cajuns post about volcanoes actually refers to studies of the effects of eruptions and how to model them when they occur.
Eruptions certainly change the climate but the event of eruptions cannot be predicted.

As rconnor said not every event that effects the climate can be predicted.

Now the skeptics may well think this is a get out of jail free card for climate modellers. It is not.
Climate modellers should and do go back and review atmospheric events and model assumptions and correct them.

Where does this idea come from that CO2 emission limitations will destroy the economy??
Since when does conservation of a limited resource become an irresponsible activity??
What effects do skeptics expect if CO2 emissions are curtailed??

One note about increased government. As a society becomes more densely populated each individuals activities causes
effects on other individuals. This is why government gets into your lives as population density increases.
It is inevitable that it does so to preserve fairness. Does government also like this so it can grow and control, of course it does.
We have to always watch for overreach.

To me it is funny how the public is afraid of government control of their lives and give no though to
corporate control of their lives as the fortune 500 steer us into bad behaviors and buy policy with money through
lobbying.

Where does this idea come from that CO2 emission limitations will destroy the economy??
-I expect it has to do with the fact that if we make limit CO2 emissions, it will be more expensive to eat, heat/cool houses, transportation will be more expensive, all manufacturing will be more expensive, recreation will be more expensive, industries involved in the energy sector will scale back, large numbers of jobs will be lost, etc etc. I can't think of a single facet of daily life that would not be affected significantly. Can you?

Since when does conservation of a limited resource become an irresponsible activity??
-In what way does anything you have ever posted have anything to do with conservation of a limited resource?

What effects do skeptics expect if CO2 emissions are curtailed??
If we curtail CO2 emissions, we'll have to stop generating most of our electricity, stop travelling or transporting anything anywhere, stop manufacturing anything, stop growing food on a commercial scale, etc etc.
I don't know about you, but those effects seem a bit much.

So we want to have goverment regulations that China won't even consiter? I don't think so.

1. consitering the air quality problems China has, they will adopt some regulations, or mandates, to inprove there air quality. There is no doubt of that, the question is when.
2. consitering how much the carbon requirments will slow down any any economy, it is doubtful that China will adopt the level of controls we are asking for in the US.

Enviromental regulations have already limited the timber industry, and jobs therein. The whole question is how much the American public is willing to take before there is a large enough push back.
We already see some of it, but how much more will it take to form a majorty of people who say enough. That's the tipping point question.

Besides the timber industry really should be a part of carbon capture movment, as a large part of the timber is used in applications that won't decay for several decades (judging from the size of present land fills). And those cut tries make room for new trees to grow. I'd think true carbon capture people would want more timber cutting here, vs imported timber. However, I've been wrong before.

The BC carbon tax link (esp. the 2013 report on results) is interesting. The charts show that the biggest contribution to decreased carbon usage in BC is from a decrease in the use of home heating oil, presumably to cheaper natural gas (which is apparently not included in the carbon tax - it's not listed in the charts so I assume so) which has been abundant in BC for some decades now. The sales of petroleum transport fuel has however only dropped a few points. I'd argue that it probably has not dropped much at all, given the number of BC plates at the gas stations here in Washington state, but I have no real desire to dig out that data. Just anecdotes from people living in towns close to the border, reported in local news.

Also, while us Yankees are debating the benefits/costs of shipping Canadian coal from our Pacific coast ports and Canadian/Northern tier US oil and gas from Gulf ports via pipelines...the BC government just quietly builds coal shipment terminals and merrily shovels as much of the stuff over to China as the market can bear. From this website: http://www.coal.ca/transportation/ the following quote: "By early 2013, western-based Westshore, Neptune and Ridley Terminals will see over $1 billion invested in improvements to the efficiency and capacity of their terminals. This includes the addition of more than 20 million tonnes in coal handling capacity."

One wonders if the Chinese and other Pacific Rim countries are paying the BC carbon tax for this exported carbon-heavy fuel?

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/27/un-clima...

Of course they dismiss it, it doesn't fit their agenda. These people are nothing but self-serving autocratic bullies. But yet they continue down the merry road of trying to force penalty and behaviour modification at all levels.

Cranky, you alluded to the "tipping point". I also wonder how much bs people in general are willing to put up with before the whole thing snaps. No singular item is enough to break the camel's back, but you combine the NSA spying, the meddling in the middle east, supporting islamic terrorists to overthrow their own secular government, the atrocity of doing nothing in Benghazi, the oppressive taxation, forcing healthcare insurance or penalties upon the people who can least afford it, etcetera ad nauseum! I have a vivid image of Scotty from the old Star Trek in my mind - "I can't hold her Captain, she's breaking up". Time will tell.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Quote (TenPenny)

Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits...

Yep, there's no question about it; this had to have been the brainchild of a bunch of free-trade, Right-wing Republicans.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Why, because bleeding heart liberal democrats never had an idea that didn't originate from Karl Marx? See, the pointless label nonsense cuts both ways.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Business didn't/doesn't like the CO2 tax in Australia. Too much paperwork, too much uncertainty. It was imposed by the Labor/Greens mob, and will now be difficult to get rid of.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/trade-and-industr...

The Australian tax was critically flawed from the get go. Whatever you think about zdas' across the board massive tax for gasoline I don't think anyone would argue that it wouldn't 'work', that is, raise money and reduce consumption of gasoline. The reason that it works is that the wiggle room is small. There would of course be unintended consequences as well.

The Australian tax had so money get-out clauses that in the end it was both expensive to the economy and fairly ineffective at reducing CO2 emissions, not exactly a smart combination.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

I don't advocate that massive motor fuel tax, I'm just saying that as much as people bitch about $4/gallon gasoline it hasn't changed anyone's behavior because it is still a very small part of the average person's budget (even if you factor the fuel surcharge that is implicitly added to every product, the inflation that that adds is really quite tiny). Consumption would become price sensitive in the US at about twice the current price. A 100% jump over a short period would devastate the world economy, and would be a very bad thing. Small annual changes starting 40 years ago would have led to prices that impacted choices, but that ship sailed empty and there is no way to bring it back.

One of the big indicators of this is public transit. Public transit proposals were regularly voted down in places like Denver, CO because people didn't see the problem that was being fixed. When downtown parking costs started rising rapidly, people started noticing that the cost of their daily commute was becoming too large a portion of their disposable income and started yelling for light rail, but it was still voted down two more times before it was finally funded. Had gasoline prices tracked inflation that system would have been funded 20 years earlier, the suburbs of Denver would not extend to Colorado Springs on the south and Wyoming on the north, and the packed highways would not have been necessary. But motor fuel price was increasing at a very small fraction of the CPI and in constant dollars actually got less expensive with time. Doubling the tax on motor fuel (from about $0.70 to around $1.40 would only raise the price around 18% and would cause a brief downward blip in consumption, and might get a number of politicians thrown out of office, but would provide no long-term change in behavior.

Motor fuel was expensive in Australia (around $6 USD/US gallon, compared to around $3.50 the U.S.), but when I asked people why they take public transit the answer was either "too much traffic" or "parking too expensive". No one complained that the price of motor fuel was a significant factor. Even a $23 AUD/tonne of CO2 tax is too small to change behavior. I was encouraged to see the Labor/Greens coalition (that felt like the Greenies owned policy making) tossed out. The first moves of the Liberals looked good to an outsider and the level of outrage in the mainstream media over dissolving the department responsible for keeping people frightened is a good indicator that he's moving in the right direction.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

Looks like gasoline consumption is falling since 2005.

http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2013/h...

ZDAS

I agree that small fuel price increases wouldn't change behavior much, the only puzzle for me is why fuel cost
hasn't risen given the opportunity for profit.

Quote:

JohnRBaker

Quote:

Quote (TenPenny)

Since they were first conceived, I saw them as a way for Wall St to find yet another vehicle to skim off profits...

Yep, there's no question about it; this had to have been the brainchild of a bunch of free-trade, Right-wing Republicans.

You think all the Wall St types are free trade right wing Republicans? If they are, why are they sucking off the teat of government bailouts?

I think they're mostly sociopaths who do whatever they can to get the most money in their own pockets, whether it's ethical, legal, moral, or not, and the ones who know what they are doing suck up to whoever they think will be controlling the flow of government largesse, no matter what party they come from.

I actually think both sides are attempting to suck money out of my pocket. Is that another tax or just a fee to help pay for the war of 1812?

What we need is a much smaller goverment that can't afford giveaways. There are thousands of ways the goverment can trim there money need. They just don't want to.

On the other hand, if you don't like what corporations are doing, don't buy from them.

Quote:

Looks like gasoline consumption is falling since 2005.

actually, the drop in gasoline consumption began in 2008, correlating nicely to the global financial crisis. vehicle registrations show the same correlation. The cause is likely tied to under or unemplyment, not to fuel cost.

With respect to automobiles there's another trend that's even more scary, at least here in the states. Less and less 16 year olds are even getting drivers licenses let alone cars. More and more families are living in urban environments where auto ownership and even driving is less important than it once was. Of course, this runs head-first into the requirement that people must show a government issued (and in many states this does NOT include student ID's) photo-ID to both register to vote and when you actually show-up to vote. The assumption has always been that every voting-age American just naturally has a drivers license. Wrong assumption, and it's trending in the wrong direction...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Quote:

Less and less 16 year olds are even getting drivers licenses...

any data to back that up John? I have not seen any anecdotal evidence of 16 year-olds not getting cars or licenses. And since when do they vote?

Please stay on topic, ENG-Tips is definitely not the place for a "debate" on voter ID laws.

I heard this at a conference earlier this summer from a GM executive talking about the trends impacting the global automative marketplace.

While I don't know for sure, I suspect that this is the study (or one very much like it) which might have prompted the comments which were made at the conference:

http://www.frontiergroup.org/reports/fg/transporta...

Here's a recent item from the Washington Post (which if you follow the imbedded links in the article you'll eventually find the above study as well):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/20...

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

That's just dumb, because most states can issue a state ID, or even a US passport. You can't even take a air flight without an ID.
Maybe it has to do more with a lower number of burths in the 90's (just a guess).

However it will have an effect on things like number of cars sold, and energy usage.

Has anyone noticed that the last big rise in electricty usage, which was predicted to be PC's, have become more efficent?

Yes, but passports, drivers licenses are NOT free, and in some states a basic 'photo ID' is not free either. Which means that people are in essence being forced to PAY for the right to vote. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that 'Poll Taxes' are unconstitutional.

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

On the same vain, TSA won't take any goverment ID either. It must be a driver licence, or passport. It seems that in many places the drivers Licence has become a defacto national ID.
I went to renew my drivers licence, and they asked for something showing my address, like a utility bill. So much for on-line billing.

I think in some places they allow other forms of ID. Military ID, school ID, etc.

Besides taxes are not the same thing as Fees, or so the goverment officials will say.

I know this is off topic, so, to get back on topic, I believe any carbon taxes will be unfairly applied, because of unmeasurability, and goverment allowed exemptions. Sort of like the road taxes I par to run my lawn mower, and that electric cars don't pay.

If you really want to reduce fuel consumption, you can start by fixing iddling at stop lights, when no cars are in the cross way. I just hate seeing 30 cars waiting on a stop light for no reason other than the light hasen't changed.

I think that's an unreasonable stretch to call a drivers license fee a poll tax. Are you OK with non-citizens voting, or posers coming and voting in your name? Nothing wrong with having to identify yourself in order to cast a vote.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

ID requirements are:
(1) A North Carolina drivers license
(2) A special identification card for nonoperators
(3) A United States passport.
(4) A United States military identification card
(5) A Veterans Identification Card
(6) A tribal enrollment card

Residents who don't drive could obtain a state-issued ID from the Department of Motor Vehicles free of charge.

The whole voter ID thing is a transparent attempt by Republicans to suppress votes and lower turnout among certain groups.
If there was some actual voter fraud it would be different, but there isn't.
The North Carolina law also includes reducing early voting hours and no voting on Sunday. If it's about fraud, why include these provisions?

Do you actually believe there is no voter fraud? What network of news to you aleage to?
It exists, we all know it, and in some places it is joked about. To what degree it exists we can debate, but to say it dosen't exist is burrying your head in the sand. The fact is we don't know how much voter fraud exists, because we can't verify without some type of ID system.

As to North Carolina, I can't say I am an expert as I have never been there, but no voting on Sunday sounds like a cost issue to keep the pooling stations open when there maybe few voters looking to vote.

In fact there is a joke, vote early, vote often, which eludes to voter fraud by one party. However, not being of either major party, I don't trust either one to give me an honest answer.

But why don't we take this discussion to a different forum, because this is off topic for this forum.

"The whole voter ID thing is a transparent attempt by Republicans to suppress votes and lower turnout among certain groups."

Oh, you mean groups that are unable, for some reason, to obtain an ID of any kind. Such as illegals and people who don't wish to be identified because of criminal history, perhaps? Oh yes, we want these people to vote, don't we ?!?!

Besides, how did this get to be a R vs D thing? Or is it possible that the scurvy dogs that Democrats are want every possible vote to further support their insane socialist Utopia?

Why don't we just give all of the illegals ID cards and that will immediately solve (the myth of) AGW.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Ah yes, this whole thing again. So the Republicans try passing voter ID laws, stating the exact reasons that ornerynorsk echoed. On the surface, it sounds kind of reasonable…but then you start to look into it a little closer and it starts to unravel very quickly.

There are two main charges against voter ID laws:
1) There are very few cases of voter fraud that would be stopped by voter ID laws (i.e. they are unnecessary and/or ineffective)
2) It’s discriminatory against certain groups, namely younger demographics, students, minorities and the poor
Regarding the first charge, what a voter ID law would protect against is people claiming to be someone who they were not and voting under that person’s name, aka voter impersonation (this is important to understand as there are certainly other forms of voter fraud). This endemic issue of voter impersonation, that is destroying the democratic process, has been tracked in a number of places. A extensive database found 2,068 cases of voter fraud...over the entire country...since 2000...of which only 10 were voter impersonation fraud.

Or another study that showed that in the 2004 election in Wisconsin there was one reported case of voter impersonation fraud...which turned out to be a clerical error. In New Jersery in 2004, the fraud rate was 0.0004%, none of which would have been prevented by voter ID at the polls. Missouri in 2000, a similar story; a fraud rate of 0.0003%, none of which would have been prevented by voter ID at the polls. (note these particular locations were studied due to the close margin of victory, i.e. would voter fraud have flipped the successful party).

I could go on...

According to Lorraine Minnite, professor of public policy and administration at Rutgers University, “The fraud that matters is the fraud that is organized. That’s why voter impersonation is practically non-existent because it is difficult to do and it is difficult to pull people into conspiracies to do it”.

The second charge is much more damning and also less black and white (quite the unintentionally ironic pun there). The concept of voter suppression is much more difficult to isolate from numerous other factors that affect voter turnout. For example, Georgia, after passing a strict voter ID law, saw an increase in voter turnout amongst African-Americans in 2008. However, this just so happened to be when Obama was running and coincided with a general increase in voter turnout across the nation. But still, this could be used as an example against the voter suppression argument...although it’s not well supported by other research on the topic.

Given the complexity of the issue, some serious research has gone into it. According to a study by Shelly de Alth, in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, “voter ID laws impose a real burden on millions of voters”. The study says “that states with voter ID laws experienced a 1.6 to 2.2 percentage point decline in 2006 voter turnout, 3 to 4.5 million voters were disenfranchised by the laws”.

A similar study finds that the “expansion of Voter ID statutes has demobilized Democratic-leaning individuals including young adults, renters, the poor and African Americans using individual voting records over a series of four elections (2004-2010).”

As an aside, 8% of Caucasians of voting age do not have photo ID while 25% of African Americans of voting age do not have photo id. source. Another survey shows that 18% of elderly citizens, 15% of voters earning less than $35,000/yr, 18% or citizens aged 18-24, 10% of voters with disabilities and 25% of African-American citizens of voting age don’t have government issued photo ID (source). The numbers jump around from study to study but they all paint a similar picture. The number of people without photo ID is significant and it affects minorities more than Caucasians.

At best, it can be said that voter ID laws are ineffective against fraud at large and lack significant data to say they are blatantly discriminatory (it’s quite the accomplishment to say “this law is likely ineffective but, hey, it’s maybe not racists...that’s a plus!”). At worst, it’s a simple ploy by Republicans to suppress students’, minorities’ and the poor’s right to vote which, surprise, surprise, trend towards voting for the Democrats.

I agree this has nothing to do with the original topic but given how the original poster added a comment in support of restrictive (and arguable discriminatory) voting laws after claiming that a left leaning tax was fascist, I felt compelled to respond. That’s right folks:
- Laws that makes it more difficult to vote, specifically for minorities and the poor = democracy at work
- Tax on carbon by a left-of-center government that uses the revenue to give tax credits to low income families = fascism

I happen to know someone who had some difficulty getting a valid ID. His apartment burned down and he lost his ID and birth certificate. He could not get a replacement drivers license without a birth certificate and he could not get a replacement birth certificate without a valid photo ID (Post 9/11). It took him 6 months and lot of trouble to get his ID back. If an election had occurred during that time, he might have been turned away even though he was a legal resident and entitled to vote.

Voter fraud is like big foot. Lots of people claim it is real, but no one has any evidence to prove it. Every example I have ever heard (felons casting votes, a lady with dementia trying to vote twice,) would not have been prevented with voter ID. And, if anyone wanted to vote fraudulently with voter ID in place, all they would have to do is vote absentee. It attempts to solve a non-existent problem. And it still fails.

Johnny Pellin

Oh...and one more thing in regards to the “how did this get to be a R vs D thing?” question. Besides the fact that the groups affected by the laws are specifically supporters of democrats (as stated above), consider the fact:

- In the Supreme Court case that overturned part of the Voting Rights Act, the 5 republican-appointed judges voted for the motion and the 4 democrat-appointed judges voted against it. (here)

So, ya, it’s kinda a “R v D thing”

As a non-American, I just shake my head at both sides of this argument. Y'all have had voter turnout around 55% for the last 100 years. Between this and Gerrymandering, it's all so odd. The so-called paragon of democracy worldwide can't get much more than half of your eligible voters out.

So, stop yer partisan bickerin' and figure out how to engage the perpetual 45% of yer peoples out to exercise their rights.

Or maybe these folks see the "reality" that many of us feriners see, and that the choices currently being presented are bat shit crazy and bat shit insane (sometimes I can't tell who is who, most time it doesn't seem to matter...). Y'all have been led to believe that it's a left-right thing. From a much broader perspective, I can tell you that this is a false choice that you've been brainwashed into accepting.

Now, get back to yer Nascar and NFL and ignore the true and real mess that your politicians of both/every stripe have put you in.

(For those of you who don't appreciate it, there's a fair bit o sarcasm here - well, maybe just a bit...)

TGS4,
Looks like yours is trending the same way. Or is that just a (ice)hockey stick?

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

One of the big reasons that voter turnout is low (in Canada and the US) is because many people see no point in voting. Everyone elected is an idiot, a crook, or both, and the end result is a government full of bickering thieves, who are funnelling money to their friends and themselves.

So what's the point in voting? What will it change? Nothing.

Yup - we have the same issue. We have local (city) elections coming up in two weeks. Some pundits are predicting turnout on the order of 30%. (Shakes head)

On a global scale of right-left, our right-most party still would be left of the Democrats. They passionately believe in universal healthcare, paid for by the taxpayer. So, I do laugh when R supports call D supporters "commies" - they likely have never actually known communism, not would they know a truly otherwise leftist party if it smacked them in the face. We have a very leftist party - and yet even they take care to stay far enough away from Marxism. Perspective...

(As an aside, how many R supporters actually grew up in Eastern Europe and experienced real communism?)

==> Everyone elected is an idiot, a crook, or both, and the end result is a government full of bickering thieves, who are funnelling money to their friends and themselves.
Absolutely, and contrary to what others want to believe, that is NOT an R/D thing. Regardless of where you stand, just don't vote for an incumbent. Let's replace everyone.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

Voter ID is discriminatory???? Against whom? Your examples are simply preposterous. They are the very people who need ID's anyway, so they can obtain their other entitlements! Yes, I actually just said that. No apologies.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

So the franchise is now an 'entitlement', eh?

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

They even ask for an ID to pickup your mail at the postoffice. You can't get Social Securty with out a social securty card. And most job applications ask for your identification (at least the fast food places). Most schools need to know your state of residence to know if you are in-state, or out-of-state.

And to tell me that students don't have ID's for college, or don't work so they don't have ID's. That retired people don't have ID's and don't collect Social Securty. There is no way your numbers about how many people don't have ID's can be correct. And I say this from a non-R or D perspective.

Besides, if these people were really interested in voting, just have them bring in there last income tax form, a utility bill (like the DMV requires), or other paper work.

The greatest voter supression is not counting military mail ins. Or black panthers standing outside the polling place, and apperently that is legal (no processucations yet despite the vidio).

And someone was right, why do I vote when the choices I have are crap. At least by writeing in Mickey Mouse I know I am voting for something I can believe in.

I say, if they don't have an ID, it's because they don't want one, not because they can't get one.

Regarding the “R v D thing”,

I should clarify that I was not saying that this should be discussed from an R v D standpoint and I certainly don’t want to reinforce the false dichotomy that is prevalent in the US. However, the fact of the matter...ok my opinion on the matter is that the rationale behind voter ID laws are, unfortunately, a political R v D thing. Conservative activist Phyllis Shlafly, in a column she wrote, stated “The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game”.

Furthermore, if there was some actual merit to the law (besides being effective at disenfranchising Democrat voters) then it would actual have to be effective at preventing significant voter fraud. No one has addressed anything that I said in the first charge so it remains an ineffective solution to relatively non-existent problem (10 cases over 12 years of major elections). Even without debating any of the “counter-points” to the second charge, I’ll concede to you that “this law is likely ineffective but, hey, it’s *maybe* not racists...that’s a plus!”.

I do agree with people that this should not be an R v D thing. The democratic process should not be a partisan issue but it abhorrently has become one. Look at the recent government shut down as another example. The republicans have been attempting to undermine Obama at every turn, throwing the entire country under the bus with him. The democrats, and Obama, have shown they will promise all these nice things and then switch to “business as usual” once they get in office (and I was a big fan of Obama in 2008). It’s time to, like Cajun said, toss them all out. Vote independent! Tell the oligarchic state you’re down with the BS.

However, don’t skip over the biggest issue which is the corporate control over government due to campaign financing. A great rundown of this issue is given by Lawrence Lessig in “Republic, Lost” (a talk on the subject can be seen here). The issue is not about politicians or parties, the issue is systemic.

(Also, a little side note TGS4, Stalin’s Soviet Union was not communism; it was totalitarianism. It was proclaimed as communism in the west to create a fear of far-left ideology (and it worked amazingly well…I mean look at this thread). It was pronounced as communism in USSR to blind the citizenry to the fact the government was actually creating a totalitarian state)

Without a voter ID requirment, there is a belief that voter fraud is possible. That in itself is a discuragment to some voters (why wasen't that studied as a percentage of population?)

So when we talk about discurageing some voters, we should also talk about voters that are being discurged by the present system (45%???)
My feeling is people who can't take basic steps to get a free ID, probally don't have any business voting.

Question: Why does the DMV take two pictures, if only one is on my drivers licence? I would assume to verify who I am in case I loose it, but apperently not.

Is it really corporate control over goverment, or billinare control? PAC's and non-profits should be banned from political contributions, because that is how they get around the disclosure laws.

Back to the carbon thing, why is the goverment limiting lumber cutting on federal lands, and cutting back on funding for fighting wild fires? Maybe one can pay for the other, and provide more access roads for fire fighters.

rconnor - very good point in your aside. Tyrants do a really good job of creating an us-vs-them mentality in the populace - in order to keep increasing their control over the populace to protect from the "them". It doesn't happen overnight, but takes time - Stalin wasn't an overnight tyrant.

I sure am glad that my American friends will never ever give up their hard-won freedoms and liberties in exchange for protection against a "them". They know much better that such is the path to tyranny. And certainly no one would vote for anyone who would suggest or do such a thing.[/sarc] Oh wait: the Axis powers, Communism, Drugs, Islamic Terrorism. Damn it - does nobody follow history?!?!?!?!?

For curiosity - although the term gerrymander(ing) has been used, is anyone else familiar with the history of it?

You want to see where the real outrages are in this whole issue of 'voting' here in America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_(voter_suppres...)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

John,
That one seems to have been suppressed. I didn't do it.

It appears that Eng-Tips does not like links which with a closed-parenthesis, ")".

The see the article copy and paste the string below and then remove the "***"...

http:***//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_(voter_suppression)

John R. Baker, P.E.
Product 'Evangelist'
Product Engineering Software
Siemens PLM Software Inc.
Industry Sector
Cypress, CA
Siemens PLM:
UG/NX Museum:

To an Engineer, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be.

Perhaps this deserves its own thread over in one of the plastics forums, but I just saw this on weather channel this morning. I had never heard of it before. Quite interesting. Relevant to the carbon sequestering/capture aspect of the discussion.

http://www.rdmag.com/award-winners/2013/08/carbon-...

http://www.newlight.com/air-to-plastic-process.php

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

Frankly, the very mathematics of First-Past-The-Post means it will always be R v D, gerrymandering will always be a valid tactic, voter turnout will always be pathetic, and therefor we'll always be incapable of solving our most basic problems.

Quote:

It’s time to, like Cajun said, toss them all out.

"Throw the bums out" isn't mathematically possible. It's isn't a question of will. Or a question of overcoming stupidity. Ironically, FPTP means that voters doing the "smart" and "safe" thing, leads to exactly the disaster we see.

Quote:

Oh wait: the Axis powers, Communism, Drugs, Islamic Terrorism. Damn it - does nobody follow history?!?!?!?!?

I suspect a lot of people follow it, and are concerned about it. But what do you do?
Write your representative? He isn't.
Vote? The math means it doesn't matter.
Armed rebellion? No sane individual wants to be the first to start shooting.

imcjoek, the UK has first past the post for national parliamentary elections and they have more than 2 parties, though historically there have usually been 2 dominant parties at any one time. Now I'm not throwing the UK out at a panacea but just a datum point.

Quote:

Frankly, the very mathematics of First-Past-The-Post means it will always be R v D, gerrymandering will always be a valid tactic, voter turnout will always be pathetic, and therefor we'll always be incapable of solving our most basic problems.

If more people understood this, then we could start to actually solve our problems. If our Founding Fathers had known what we now know about game theory, they could have avoided this. As it is now, nobody is in a position to fix it except the people who've risen to power out of its brokenness.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

Ornerynorsk, carbon capture by making plastic out of CO2 is silly concept similar to making gasoline from CO2. Sure it can be done but it is completely illogical. We only have a CO2 "problem" because we need energy and thus use fossil fuel. To make plastic from CO2 will consume more energy than was obtained from the fuel that made the CO2 in the first place. It really bothers me when universities start promoting perpetual motion. It seems to be happening a lot lately. There is no peer review with press releases, but that seems to be part of the problem with the global warming discussion.

Why not make coal out of CO2?

Just wish we could make wood out of CO2.

Quote (cranky108)

Just wish we could make wood out of CO2.

We can. The technology is called "trees"

So few people realize that wood burning stoves are "carbon neutral."

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

I wonder if you could get a petition signed for endorsing widespread forest fires simply by phrasing it as "the largest carbon neutral project ever attempted."

They're carbon neutral assuming the mass of foliage burnt is replaced by equivalent mass of new growth.

No, they're carbon neutral because every atom of carbon released into the atmosphere by burning wood originated in the atmosphere in the first place.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com

That is just a timing issue. The carbon was extracted over some number of years (decades in many cases) and is released in hours, absolutely carbon neutral on a geologic time line, maybe not so much in a single year.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

"Belief" is the acceptance of an hypotheses in the absence of data.
"Prejudice" is having an opinion not supported by the preponderance of the data.
"Knowledge" is only found through the accumulation and analysis of data.
The plural of anecdote is not "data"

"No, they're carbon neutral because every atom of carbon released into the atmosphere by burning wood originated in the atmosphere in the first place."

Wouldn't the same apply for fossil fuels - at least on geologic time scales?

I mean by that logic the only major non carbon neutral process is volcanic activity that emits CO2?

Volcanoes are part of the carbon cycle; it just takes much, much longer to “restore” the carbon (to magma) than it does to emit it.

So by beej67’s logic, every natural and anthropogenic action is carbon neutral, outside of sending matter into space (assuming he’s putting the control volume around the planet). So chop and burn away, it will just replace itself!

So what timescale do you select as an appropriate one? I'm guessing several decades.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

Thanks for that Compositepro. Don't mean to be trolling here, but my opinion exactly, I'm glad someone else came out and said it. I do believe most forms of "carbon sequestration" are going to be negative return, just like the ethanol debacle.

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

There maybe a good result of the ethanol thing, in that it does reduce some smog components. But as a fuel, it is over priced, compaired to gasoline.

I also remember saying something about looking into all fuels, not just the favored few. Each has a place, and each excells at something the other don't. And by using mulitible fuels, it reduces the impact of shortages on any one.

A good example is wood. By me cutting down dead trees around my home, I lower the impact of a fire, and the wood heats my house, and not ends up in a land fill. I don't heat all my home with wood, but enough to reduce the usage of other fuels. However if saw mills were cheeper, and there was a market, I could also cut those trees for lumber.

My next step is to look into planting new trees, in areas where the trees died. But that may not work as the trees died from something.

The hell?

Plastic made from atmospheric carbon is somehow "carbon neutral" and fuel made from atmospheric carbon isn't?

Wood is fuel made from atmospheric carbon.

All those guys trying to make algae biofuels for their carbon-neutral-ness are no more carbon neutral than burning wood. It's the same thing. Actually, burning wood is much much better because it takes energy to make the algae biofuel (or fancy plastic) but it takes zero energy to grow a tree. Not only does it take zero energy, it absorbs energy from the very same energy balance equations all those atmospheric chemists are claiming support global warming. There's an 'albedo' term, remember? Yeah. There's the 'conservation of energy,' remember?

Wood is completely perfectly neutral. And not on some kind of insanely geologic time scale, it's perfectly neutral over the length of time it takes to grow a tree, which is much less than my lifetime. You guys are doing some serious back flips to get out of that one.

If the atmo chemists were correct, and the ONLY thing warming the earth was anthropogenic CO2, then we could stop global warming tomorrow by generating all our energy from burning wood, and replanting all harvested wood with more wood to be burned in the future. Completely carbon neutral over a reasonable time scale. If the atmo chemists are correct, the ONLY thing that causes warming is the burning of carbon that used to be interned deep in the earth in some manner. Not wood.

If that's un-intuitive, it should perhaps highlight the errors fundamental to the "CO2 boogeyman" case.

Hydrology, Drainage Analysis, Flood Studies, and Complex Stormwater Litigation for Atlanta and the South East - http://www.campbellcivil.com