×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

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

U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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




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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

Quote (2dye4)

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

Somebody should really try to get across to the public and Senators that MMGW is not the only factor in the Earths temperature estimate. But it is the only factor
that can be reasonably assumed to have the quality of a continual rise proportional to CO2. Other not man made are cyclical or zero mean except on time scales that
are inconsequential.
OK, there are other factors involved. Factors that will not be impacted by regulations to minimize man's CO2 emissions, so why is this discussion always about man's contribution and reducing it? What point were you trying to make? Read the paper, the authors did a very good job of combining testimony before Congress with literature searches.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Zdas

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

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

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

I glanced at it. Nothing but political theater.

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

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



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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Quote:

1. If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate, what strategies are being implemented to correct these errors? Should potentially economically crippling policies be put in place before those errors are resolved?
See my post at 4 Apr 14 17:45 debunking the claim that models predictions have “failed”. This claim is 1) inconclusive and insignificant, 2) fundamentally and demonstrably false, 3) a non-sequitur and 4) actually validates the antitheses of its original assertion.

Quote:

2. If global warming has truly been “worse than predicted,” why won’t the federal government provide the data supporting this claim?
I’m sorry, can someone elaborate on what data has been suppressed?

Quote:

3. As it continues to be recognized that the Earth has not warmed for at least the past 15 years, will we see the term “global warming” abandoned and replaced in its entirety by “climate change?”
Huzzah! The “pause”! See this thread at 23 Jan 14 14:43, 19 Dec 13 18:10, 14 Feb 14 17:18 or the most recent thread at 18 Aug 14 14:06 or any of the other 12 times. And, yes GregLocock, while it is an interesting area of study (hence all the studies I reference), absolutely nothing suggests that it counters the ACC theory. And the whole “change in terminology” thing…goodness.

Quote:

4. Given that many of these models predicted warming trends well before China surpassed the United States as the largest GHG emitter, and given the fact that emissions continue to grow at a pace beyond what was originally incorporated into the models, shouldn’t the warming be far worse than what was predicted in the worst case scenarios rather than well below predictions?
It’s as if they think that models haven’t been updated since AR1…

Quote:

5. Given Earth’s long history of a changing climate, why does the public discussion only tend to focus on the last 70 years or so?
Huzzah! It’s Changed Before(/It’s Natural)!
It’s as if they think that nothing before 1940 is ever studied…
It’s as if they don’t know that, since 1970 aerosols have increased, solar activity has decreased, geothermal flux has remained the same, yet temperature and OHC have continued to rise…

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Quote ("report")

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

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

Quote ("report")

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

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

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

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

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

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

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

Quote:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today.
Janos Bogardi
then we have a right to wonder in 2010 where these 50 million displaced people are at. And we wonder again in 2014 where they are.

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

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

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

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

Quote:

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

In June 2013, Senator Vitter was joined by Senators Blunt, Sessions, Barrasso, Inhofe, Wicker, and Boozman, in initiating a series of inquiries to the relevant agencies (EPA, Department of Energy, and OMB) that are responsible for making, reviewing, or defending certain environmental regulations’ benefits claims based on the Federal government’s assessment of the SCC. The Senators challenged the transparency and openness in the development and revision process, focusing on requesting the names of the members of the anonymous IWG and how the group justified the increased estimates. After receiving only a vague, unsatisfactory response from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, the seven Senators followed up with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, focusing their questions on how the estimates will be used in Agency rulemakings, as well as repeating their request for names of the IWG participants.59 Administrator McCarthy failed to respond to the letter.
When Senators are unable to require administration officials to reveal the names of the people who prepared a policy document I'd say there was something damned "Un-American" going on. Where is Joe McCarthy when you need him.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

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

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

Sounds pretty similar to the arguments against climate change.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

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

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

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking


Quote (Zdas)

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

Quote (Zdas)

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

Quote (Zdas)

You must be AMAZING.

Please add my name to the list ....

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

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

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

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

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

As for the models, that's a presumption; CFD and FEA are based on discretizing the differential equations relevant to the problem at hand. If the models are FEA, then they are using discretized equations that are relevant, otherwise, they are not FEA, by definition. And, there is no way to predict the future, much less even come close to matching the past.

If hundreds of scientists are all fudging the evidence and fudging the models, one would think, again, that someone would have spilled the beans by now, yet, there is no evidence, only innuendo and downright insults against people simply because they are producing results that are contrary to someone's party line.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

2
i guess "climategate" doesn't count as an example of scientists making data conform to their expectations.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Have we convenced anybody yet?

I've seen the same graphs, the same data, and the same propaganda over and over, with no answers to to my questions. So I am thinking this is just a talking points argument with no real depth.

However the solution is very left wing, and if we ignore how we get there (as my questions have), then we are becoming the ones behind the wall.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Quote (rb1957)

i guess "climategate" doesn't count as an example of scientists making data conform to their expectations
...because, despite as much as "skeptics" want it to be, it wasn't.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

(OP)
If you say that often enough someone may believe it, right?

A preponderance of organizations with a vested interest in Climategate being false all concluded that it was false. Sorry for my lack of confidence in the University of East Anglica determining that scientists working for that university "did no wrong" in manipulating data, selectively ignoring data that didn't fit their narrative, and "adjusted" computer models to better fit the ACC narrative. I hope that if I'm ever investigated it is by an organization that needs be to be without blame.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

and destroying the original data.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

If a member of any credible institution was (erroneously) charged with scientific dishonesty, then that institution should and would launch an independent investigation. That's exactly what happened. In all cases, the charges where meritless. See the list below:
Penn State, Inquiry Report - "there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data"

Penn State, Final Investigation Report - "there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann"

International Assessment Panel, established by University of East Anglia - "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit"

UEA Independent Climate Change Email Review Report - "we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt"

Furthermore, numerous third party investigations were conducted, all with the same result. See below:
UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee - "Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community"

UK Government - "The evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process."

EPA - "found this was simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets"

Department of Commerce Inspector General - "no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data" (Please explain to me the "vested interest" the Department of Commerce has in this matter?)

National Science Foundation - "Finding no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed"

Like any conspiracy theorist, zdas04, you've conveniently ignored or blindly rejected any and all credible evidence that invalidates your conspiracy. While, at the same time, blindly accepted any and all evidence from the sketchiest of blogs and "think tanks" with the most obvious vested interest. And you have the gull to portray yourself to be some sort of paragon of true skepticism and attack us as being "religious zealots". Amazing.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

(OP)
"Conspiracy theorist?" What an easy, blanket attack. Kind of like calling a person a racist prior to 2008, the charge is so damning that it completely derails discussion.

I said absolutely nothing about any collusion among those esteemed institutions. It isn't required. Penn State, East Anglica, UK government, EPA, and for god's sake the National Science Foundation? The NSF report is simply forwarding "The University" (without ever saying which university, I find that interestingly incompetent for a national science foundation). Every single one of them has a huge vested interest in the outcome of the investigation and the reports that you linked all smell very much like rotting offal.

The Penn State analysis is particularly telling. The only person interviewed by the entire committee was Dr Mann

Quote:

In an interview lasting nearly two hours, Dr. Mann addressed each of the questions and follow up questions
Several other "interviews" were reported second hand by individual members of the committee talking to former colleges of Dr Mann (no transcripts were kept, just the committee member's recollection of the conversation). The committee also independently evaluated 47 e-mails after deciding the other 290 e-mails that Dr Mann participated in were not germane to the inquiry. I'm sure that there is a lawyer at Penn State who could have counseled the committee on the rules of evidence. They chose not to bother. This is a "foxes and henhouse" whitewash that truly does more harm than good. It even went so far as to provide a committee rationalization of the term "Trick".

I don't know if Dr Mann did anything wrong or not. The problem is that after this whitewash, no one else will ever know whether he did anything wrong or not. In my estimation this report does much more harm than good. Believers applaud it as "proving" the absence of misconduct (much like computer models prove future hurricanes). Deniers see it as interested parties protecting their own. This particular discussion will never be settled because the facts will forever be buried in the mists of self-serving rhetoric.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

(OP)
I'm sorry, I missed your question about the Department of Commerce's "vested interest".

They work for a President that has proclaimed that "Global Warming is the single most important issue of our time". I was in meetings on the subject of greenhouse gases with senior EPA officials and after Mr. Obama's first major address on Global Warming the attitude of those officials changed dramatically. Topics that had been resolved in previous weeks were reopened with less of a willingness to reconcile differences. Same with BLM. I'm sure that if Commerce had been in those meetings they would also have been emboldened by their leader's clear position statement.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

my belief is that Mann did not intentionally subvert his analysis to obtain the result required.

I believe that he allowed his analysis to arrive at the result he wanted, and felt satisified.

I fault the peer reviewers who IMHO obviously didn't interogate the analysis methodology as thoroughly as M&M.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Penn State... Now, where have I heard about that esteemed institution self-policing itself before...

Oh right, they protected a known child-molester because he was bringing in lots of money to the esteemed institution. And when the molester was finally investigated by outside resources, it was revealed that many layers of upper management protected this molester - all the way up to the President of the University.

But ya, sure, if you want to say that Penn State exonerated one of their own, who was bringing in millions of dollars of research money, after examining a single witness - the accused, then more power to ya. I'm sure that you would have said that same thing if Enron has performed in internal audit of its finances, too...

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

It's so funny what people will do to protect there job, event sell arms to,... No that's another topic.

We even see it in the power industry, the heavy hand of goverment trying to do the bidding of our goverments leaders.
Don't get me wrong, some of it is good, but we need so many more people to handle the paperwork.

I do believe people in universitys are under pressure to meet the goals of there grants, and that's all you need to know about "any collusion among those esteemed institutions".

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Zdas04, you’ve both implicitly and explicitly accused climate scientists (well pretty much the entire climate science community) of academic dishonesty and professional misconduct. You’ve made numerous claims of data manipulation and suppressing the uncertainty of results. Furthermore, you’ve claimed that these actions were done purposefully and knowingly by these scientists. You’ve justified how such (supposedly) corrupted research passed through peer-review by claiming that it’s “pal-review” and that the reviewers are in on the game. This is a conspiracy that you’ve theorized . However, you’ve provided almost no evidence to support besides states like “the reports that you linked all smell very much like rotting offal” (aka “I can’t disprove it but I will nevertheless blindly reject this reality and replace it with my own”). This is pretty well the definition of a conspiracy theorist.

And can you not see the irony of your first comment? Allow me to help you by slightly changing it.
“”Conspiracy theorist?” What an easy, blanket attack. Kind of like calling a person a climate “zealot” that “bow[s] to the altar of AGW”, the charge is so damning that it completely derails discussion.”

TGS4, good for a chuckle but completely irrelevant to a discussion on scientific misconduct. But ok, let’s blindly reject (which seems very popular) the Penn State review. What about the other 7?

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

A second rate TV actor is a valid source for climate science? Valid, peer reviewed science has been offered to prove that the dominant scientific position in the 1970's was that the planet was likely warming.

Johnny Pellin

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

University of East Anglia inquiry - reviewed 11 self-selected papers, reviewed the papers only, and interviewed only the authors. Didn't find any smoking guns, although:

Quote:

...Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.
2. We cannot help remarking that it is very surprising that research in an area that depends so heavily on statistical methods has not been carried out in close collaboration with professional statisticians.
Yup - total exoneration.

The Muir Russel report -

Quote:

But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to the credibility of UK climate science.
and

Quote:

On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for FoIA and EIR compliance.
But, of course...

Quote:

The team did not carry out interviews other than with CRU and other UEA staff (apart from preliminary discussions with ICO and the police and interviews with two relevant IPCC Review Editors). We recognise that natural justice requires that those in respect of whom findings will be made should have an opportunity to be heard: this does not apply to the authors of submissions and other parties, in respect of whom the Review has made no findings.
Ummm - Where have I heard about these internally-focused reviews before?? (cough-Penn State)

Even the NSF investigation, which you quoted, also said:

Quote:

Regarding the University's first Allegation (data falsification), however, we concluded that the University did not adequately review the allegation in either its inquiry or investigation processes. In particular, we were concerned that the University did not interview any of the experts critical of the Subject's research to determine if they had any information that might support the allegation.
And then they failed to interview any of the experts critical of the Subject's research themselves. Fail.

Need I go on...

One quick personal question to rconnor, if I may, regarding peer review: do you have any papers/publications that have gone through a journal/conference peer review? How many papers/publications have you acted as a reviewer for in a formal peer review sense? I'm trying to understand your reverence for the peer review system and disdain for the term pal-review.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

A proper peer review selects people who are knowledgeable in the subject AND who can give an unbiased review. This is often not the case, either intentionally or unintentionally, and can often occur when papers are submitted to journals that are not directly in the mainstream of the paper's subject. What can then happen is that no subject matter experts (SMEs) are found to review, and the review becomes cursory, as in the case of a recent paper claiming to debunk climate change. Upon proper review, it was clear that the authors used both bad math and bad science, and the paper was withdrawn, and the editor of the journal resigned.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Just out of curiosity , how does one go about debunking climate change?

What exactly needs debunking?
That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Pretty much non-controversial.
That, all things being equal, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a higher lower tropospheric temperature? Again, pretty non-controversial.
That, with feedbacks, the average global surface air temperature will increase by 3 Deg C with every doubling of CO2 concentration? That seems to be a major point of contention.
That the sole source of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is man made, primarily from the burning for energy of fossil-fuels? Two years ago I may not have considered that as particularly controversial, however, we are learning more about natural fluxes within the carbon cycle that vastly overwhelm our contributions. So, maybe...
That an increase in the global average surface temperature of 2-3 deg C would be catastrophic and must be avoided at all costs? Again, more than somewhat controversial.
That the solution to this "problem" involves higher taxes and more government control over day-to-day living? Yup, very controversial.

So, what exactly was being "debunked" exactly?

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"What exactly needs debunking?" ... my 2c ...
"That CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Pretty much non-controversial." ... sure
"That, all things being equal, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a higher lower tropospheric temperature? Again, pretty non-controversial." ... the rub here is "all things being equal", but yes with all other things being equal, wouldn't any increase in CO2 lead to a run away ?
"That, with feedbacks, the average global surface air temperature will increase by 3 Deg C with every doubling of CO2 concentration? That seems to be a major point of contention." ... yes, i believe this is contentious, now that you're bringing real world climate into the problem ... do we Know every climate interaction ?
"That the sole source of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is man made, primarily from the burning for energy of fossil-fuels? Two years ago I may not have considered that as particularly controversial, however, we are learning more about natural fluxes within the carbon cycle that vastly overwhelm our contributions. So, maybe..." ... that AGHG are the sole (or at least overwelmingly most significant) contributor to present day CC is contentious, i believe 'cause the only "proof" are the models ... yes, the models.
"That an increase in the global average surface temperature of 2-3 deg C would be catastrophic and must be avoided at all costs? Again, more than somewhat controversial." ... yes, this too is contentious ... would it melt a significant portion of the polar ice ? would it lead to significant sea level change ?
"That the solution to this "problem" involves higher taxes and more government control over day-to-day living? Yup, very controversial." ... i think there are three elements here ... a) there are examples of taxation helping the economy, there are examples of Carbon taxation schemes being labelled "an economic disaster"; b) some distrust governement control (N.A.), some seem to tolerate it (Europe), some don't have much choice (China); c) the problem can't be addressed by individual governments.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

IRStuff - just keeping you honest with your terminology. Using the pause (or hiatus or whatever you want to call the lack of increase in lower tropospheric air temperatures as foretold by "the models") to invalidate the CIMP5 coupled ocean-atmospheric models and their tales of catastrophe as foretold by the book of IPCC, does not "debunk climate change". It merely discredits (invalidates) said models and their prediction/projection/tale of forthcoming doom.

One need not take the Mann-ian attitude that unless one agrees completely with everything the IPCC says (so it is written, so let it be done), one is an anti-science denier. There are far too many nuances for such a scorched earth approach.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"It merely discredits (invalidates) said models and their prediction/projection/tale of forthcoming doom"

That's a pretty strong statement for data with no theory to back it up. In the last 40 years, there have been about 4 "pauses," with this one being the longest, and yet, the overall trend is still upward. So, while the deniers gleefully pounce on each and every "pause" they neglect the overall trend, which is still upward, while all the natural forcing functions are supposedly trending downward.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

To rb1957:

Higher levels of CO2 will lead to higher temperatures. An increase in CO2 would not result in a run-away even with no feedbacks at all. It would result in a new equilibrium temperature, higher than before. We have discussed this. It is not a closed system.

The source of the CO2 is humans burning fossil fuels. No models are needed. The distribution of isotopes in the CO2 matches the burning of fossil fuels. The changing concentration of O2 in the atmosphere matches the burning of fossil fuels. It does not match volcanic CO2. It does not match CO2 exhaled by animals. It comes from humans burning fossil fuels.

Johnny Pellin

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

(OP)
JJPellin,
Statements like you made usually end with "end of story" to indicate that you are truly the final authority on the subject and that further discussion cannot add to your perfect statement. It doesn't make it true.

I'm assuming that the "isotopes" you are talking about is the C12/C13 mix. That analysis is absolutely dependent on a computer model with a few thousand assumptions that have been tweaked towards a specific conclusion. The warming of the previous decades has caused the permafrost to retreat a bit. The organic material that thawed with that retreat is now undergoing biological processes that were retarded when it was frozen. Those biological processes put CH4 and CO2 in the air that are indistinguishable from smoke-stack CO2 or gas-well CH4. Or do you mean that "natural" processes put green CO2 molecules in the air and evil humans burning vile fossil fuels put out the black CO2 molecules and at Mona Loa they count the green ones separate from the black ones? What about the 500 lbm that the average person exhales each year, would that be black or green CO2?

Just curious, what is that feedback mechanism that would cap the temperature at a new higher normal instead of increasing without bound? Would that new normal happen before we got to 3-7 C increase for each doubling (without bound)? That is the IPCC number. At 1600 ppm CO2 (a number considered by many greenhouse operators as optimum for plant growth) the IPCC says that global temperature would be 6-14 C higher than it is today. They also say that at 3 C increase all the ice in the world would melt, so 600 PPM is the death knell for the polar bear (if they really will die if the Arctic sea ice melts) and Florida is just a hazard to ocean navigation. What, in your opinion would make the temperature increase less than the learned folks at IPCC predict? Inquiring minds want to know.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"the overall trend is still upwards"

Not only that but when you actually compare ENSO neutral years to ENSO neutral years (more of an apples to apples comparison), the trend during the "pause" is similar to that of the past 30 years (excel file with data sources). This simple analysis demonstrates that the majority of the “pause” is the artifice of selecting a period heavily influenced by El Nino events (among other things such as a decrease in solar activity and a lack of temperature coverage in the Arctic). In reality, there remains a strong warming trend in spite of natural drivers working in the opposite direction.

As for how the ACC theory could be debunked, I’ve already said, numerous times, what very reasonable, plausible observations would cast doubt on the theory in my mind:

Quote (rconnor)

  • If ENSO neutral years showed a notable decline in temperature trends over a significant time-span --> they don't, they show a very consistent warming trend, even during the “pause”
  • If both ocean heat content and surface temperatures showed a notable decline over a significant time-span --> they don't, OHC shows an increase, especially in the deep ocean, during the “pause”. This is exactly what you’d expect to happen in an La Nina dominated period.
  • If during the next positive PDO/IPO period, the temperature trend does not resume warming --> we’ll see

I’m not nearly as stubborn on this issue as some would believe. However, the issue is that I need credible evidence that is actually contrary to and unexplainable by the current ACC theory. When you understand the science, you very quickly realize that the “pause”, “it’s natural”/”it’s changed before”, “it’s the sun” and other “skeptic” tropes just aren’t that.

I acknowledge that there is uncertainty with climate sensitivity but I have yet to read any substantial credible evidence that sensitivity should be much lower than the IPCC range. In fact, almost all of the research tends to hone in on values well within, if not slightly above, that range.

I acknowledge that there is uncertainty with what impacts 3 deg C vs 2 deg C warming will have on the planet but I know one thing for sure – the natural world cannot adapt fast enough to what we throw at it. This kind of temperature change over this kind of time scale will upset the ecosystem. The stance that “I don’t like the IPCC therefore I don’t believe in their conclusions about environmental effects therefore they probably won’t happen” is betting a heck of lot on nothing but ideological preferences, all while the very best science we have is saying the exact opposite.

This is the key point for me – “Skeptics” have nothing but doubt. When you talk with them long enough, eventually you get to a point where they are backed into a corner and use some jet-pack argument that boils down to “I don’t believe the data/evidence” or “I don’t believe there’s enough data/evidence”. They don’t need to substantiate these claims, because they are unsubstantiated opinions.

They don’t have scientific research (BECAUSE OF PAL REVIEW! – source?), they don’t have a plausible counter-theory (BECAUSE THE ONUS IS ON YOU! – hence the thousands of peer-reviewed papers supporting the theory), they don’t have an expert consensus (BECAUSE GALILEO! – sigh…). They just have doubt that conveniently is in line with their ideological preferences and requires no further proof. When faced with the overwhelming body of scientific evidence or ideologically derived doubt, I’m far too much of a skeptic to side with the latter.

A relevant quote to ponder as one looks back at the discourse of these threads:

Quote (Miguel de Unamuno)

The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Simply put, I don't believe your conclusion rconnor. Not that some or all of your theory is wrong. I don't think more goverment/taxes is a correct conclusion.

Sell your solution, not force us to comply. The borg solution won't win you many friends in the voters. And it is a solution that Hitler tried to use to control people.

Sell your solution as something the people want. Or you could make new solutions that are more acceptible to the people.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

2
(OP)
Oops, the first corollary to Godwins Law has been invoked. Looks like we're done.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"Or you could make new solutions that are more acceptible to the people"

That presumes there are solutions that are more acceptable. Assuming for the sake of argument that you agree with the climate projection, what solution is acceptable to you? You say you don't like the "solution," so isn't the onus on you to propose a more acceptable solution to you?

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Rconnor - you wrong to say that skeptics must provide a counter-theory. What happened to the ability to say "we don't know"?

It's been, what, 30 years between IPCC 1AR and 5AR. What's the estimate for equilibrium sensitivity to CO2? Same now as then - the range hasn't changed nor the mean/mode/median. And that range is still slightly above zero with a so-called fat tail beyond 5C. You mean to tell me that in 30 years of research, we haven't been able to even narrow the range a teensy-tiny bit?

Doubt - indeed. Warmists would be much better served if they started showing a little bit of doubt instead of doubling down on the certainty. As we have discussed time and again, the data that probably really matters is OHC. And we have reasonable data to depth since 2007!!!! Seriously, how much certainty can you get from that?

Since you have dodged the questions, I'll ask them again - how many peer review papers do have have authorship of and how many papers have you reviewed? And nice dodge on the "exonerations"!

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Zdas04,
Now I am supposed to defend statements I didn't even make, because you thought I should have made them? You don't believe that isotopes exist or that we can directly measure them? You don't understand the concept of thermal equilibrium, so I need to explain it to you? I really don't have time for this. If anyone else has a rational question about a statement I actually made, I will be happy to answer it.

Johnny Pellin

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

(OP)
JJPellin,
I don't really expect anything. This is a free site and all of us put the time into it that we feel comfortable contributing. Do what you will. I don't understand either your post or your outrage. Maybe the person who gave you the star for it can explain it to us since you lack the time.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"The skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found." ... that's a definition i can live with; i'd paraphrase as "a sketic investigates or researches as opposed to making assertions".

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

IRSTUFF, if you will kindly read through the past history on this subject, I have suggested several ideas, which apperently were ignored.

Saying there are no new ideas won't work. It's a bogus statment by people with no vision.
It's like saying we can't sell quality, because people don't want quality.

Given that during WWII, the people in the US were encuraged to plant a small garden so that more food could be sent to those overseas to fight the war. And you can't find any new ideas to reduce carbon emissions.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

2
Maybe its just me, but the stated rationale for nearly all politically based decisions seems to be based on fantasy or magical thinking or just plain BS. Facts and logic do not seem to be the basis of any modern political decision that I can remember ( unless you consider the hidden facts of financial gain ) - apparently there are "other considerations" being used for the decisions and the publically stated reasons for the decisions appear to be pure BS and meant only for the major part of the public that appears to be lobotomized. The displayed actions of our gov't seems to be just one great big TV show.

"Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad "

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

davefitz,
You observations would be consistent with the realization that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was simply an infomercial for his carbon offset business in Europe. I think he made about $180 mil.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

So many tinfoil hats, so little evidence.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"The displayed actions of our gov't seems to be just one great big TV show." ... sit-com ? rom-com ?? action (let's nuke the suckers) ? reality (let's vote on what the govt should do next) ?

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Still nothing new. And we are waiting.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

rconnor - did or did not Al Gore make $180+ million in the carbon offsets business? Are you seriously going to sit there and day that EVERYTHING in AIT was true and factual? Even after a court in the UK banned it from being shown in schools there because of the numerous errors, omissions and other falsehoods?

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Ya guys! I bet Al Gore used that $180 million to pay off NASA, NOAA, Science, Nature, National Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, etc. to publish forged evidence that climate science is real! The conspiracy is real!

Al Gore has nothing to do with whether climate science is accurate or not. The only reason he gets brought up by "skeptics" is to further this illusion of distrust that they try to fabricate around climate science. It's nothing more than games played by those that don tinfoil hats.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

No, he used that money to buy stuff - like multiple properties and to fly around the world. And to pay for energy - lots and lots of energy.

So, according to you, the "Climate Science TM" is accurate, whether or not what Al Gore spews is correct or not? But, wasn't he (and his lies) awarded half a Nobel Peace Prize for "Climate Science TM" work? And didn't he use the "power of office" to set the groundwork for making a tidy little fortune for himself? He's truly the posterchild for distrust of authority figures, and he also happens to have tied his mast to the good ship "Climate Science TM". That the practitioner of "Climate Science TM" have not chosen to cut him loose but to embrace him shows their true characters. You can think that is tin-foil hat stuff if you like - whatever helps you sleep at night, I guess.

You would certainly gain a lot of credit from me if you would cleanly and clearly repudiate Al Gore, including his little cinematic thriller.

And again, what exactly is this "Climate Science TM" that you keep talking about. Or is it ACC? Or is it Global Warming? Or CAGW? Or Climate Disruption? Or whatever? Unless you can put numbers and facts down, you're even more tin-foil hat than us skeptics.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"to further this illusion of distrust that they try to fabricate around climate science" ... no illusion of distrust in my mind, i do distrust the certitude that they exude.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"no illusion of distrust in my mind, i do distrust the certitude that they exude."

As opposed to the certitude exuded by the deniers that climate science is nothing more than a left-wing Commie conspiracy to tax everything to death?

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

2
(OP)
I give up. We have been talking at each other over a couple of thousand posts and no one has given a single inch.

My (early) New Year's Resolution is to not talk about this subject again until 1/1/2016, all of my opinions can be found in the paper I published at ENGINEERING.com in case anyone (from either side) wants to reference my opinions. 15 months should be enough (especially since weather prognosticators are suggesting this will be a tough winter in the Northern Hemisphere) to move the discussion in some other direction.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

I did not read all the report yet, but if I may comment one point because its formulation triggered me:

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

is an example of how arrogant can be the intellectual posture of scientists and technical community on the issue because of the word "if". on the other hand, still the question has the merit of existing.

to illustrate what I mean by arrogant, I would delete "if" and re formulate :
"what if computers models and predictions were correct".
"we know as matter of fact the challenge of the task to build such a model and prediction"
"we know how hard is to support the prediction with empirical evidence, in view of the number of interconnected variables"
"we probably face a cognitive limit in understanding and building of models that requires breakthrough thinking"
etc.

As I see it, this is an issue that should be treated with the help of scientific epistemologists and ethics than finite difference model....because of the inherent need :
1/ to tackle this specific category of problems (large number of variable, large interactions between variables, etc.) and
2/ to set up special warranties and enforce by rules "scientific neutrality" on this particular topic research activities

"If you want to acquire a knowledge or skill, read a book and practice the skill".

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"climate science is nothing more than a left-wing Commie conspiracy to tax everything to death"

I like that. Where are the new ideas to prove it wrong?

Climate science is one thing, but to attempt to combine it with an anti-free market theme just proves the above.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

zdas04, debate is healthy. It is one of the few things that keeps us from killing each other. It's good, even if nothing comes from it.

The whole debate is like killing one bird dosen't matter because there are so many of them. The sky is so big what does it matter.
Wind farms kill a few birds, power plants release a little CO2. If ones good so is the other.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

(OP)
Debate is healthy, and I enjoy it. That is why I hung in for several years. This thread is just making me tired (note: I'm talking about "debate" not the subject I forswore to not discuss)

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

It gets even more tiring when the ad hominems start appearing.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"If the computer models and predictions have been inaccurate"

Just to say that a model is "inaccurate" is meaningless; all model are, by definition, inaccurate, since they abstract a real physical process into a simplified mathematical construct. We know that GPS position finding is an inaccurate model, because there are things like ionospheric propagation errors that cannot be completely accounted for by the algorithms, but, millions of people and thousands of planes can use them sufficiently well to not have accidents, iPhone maps not withstanding.

Purely inertial navigators like those on ICBMs, Apollo, and Pioneer, carry models of classical motion dynamics, and worked well enough that aside from units conversion problems, delivered their payloads to their intent destinations.

The question should be, "how accurate does the model really need to be?" Is it necessary to accurately predict El Ninos?

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

i think there are three key inaccuracies of the models ...
1) their completness ... do they model all (or all necessary) climate interactions,
2) how they model the interactions, and
3) the grid size ... possibly a "fatal" flaw in attempting to match well understood interactions.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

and
4) GIGO

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

GPS for example, works well to find my house if you know coordinates. But if you type in the address it will lead you 30 miles off.

Computer models can only be as good as the information and programming going into them. Trust them only to the point of usefuleness, and no more.

Strange anomilies occur all over the world that effect local weather. 14,000 ft or greater mountains, magnetic zones, follage, which can make long term models off the mark. So for predicting the future that is an ever increasing error, so a probibality should exist that allows an ever increasing range of outcomes. So we should ask about the confidance factor of those probalility estimates.

Is there a reason to be scepticle? Yes, because we don't have enough facts, or the right facts. Everyone should be sceptical because we are pridecting the future.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

There is no such a thing as a computer model.
There are models of physical phenomena that are too complicated for hand calculation, that is all.

There are models that are only solvable by a numerical method. These predate the existence of computers.

It kinda drives me nuts when the phrase 'computer model' is thrown out as though that means something sinister or incriminating.

And I still don't think we have to model the weather globally decades into the future to predict a warming planet due to solar heat capture.
Does anyone doubt December will be colder than July in the northern hemisphere? The only difference is the incoming solar flux angle
to the Earths surface. We don't need stinkin computer models to believe this.

Although climate is more complicated the change in heat due to the atmospheric gas molecular composition is easy to calculate isn't it.
Wasn't it done over 100 years ago by Fourier. He was a smart guy.

To me there are two parties in the debate.

1 Those who are concerned and do not like the discussion skewed by irrelevant issues, poor science, emotional propaganda...etc.
2 Those who just don't like the idea of limits to our well being provided by the Earth or limits to their professional outlook implied by the solutions.

I think the first party is rational more or less. But you already knew that if you read my posts.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

2dye4 - we can call it a numerical model/simulation, if that takes the sinistrality out of it for you...

I'm probably going to go ahead and guess that you have never done numerical simulations of complex phenomenon, such as those governed by the Navier-Stokes Equations. I say that, because you really don't seem to fathom the actual level of complexity that exists in these simulations.

Insofar as "climate" is merely the integral of "weather", indeed we do need to be modeling it out for decades.

Even if the soothsayers of doom are correct about the average magnitude of the coming warming, we know from the last ~150 years' worth of data that the warming will not be uniform. Any adapting to future changes (warm or cold, for that matter) is done on a local level - I think that is something that we can agree on. And the current generation of numerical simulations are worse than chance when it comes to regional predictions. Sure, I harp on the fact that, on a global average basis, they've been consistently predicting warmer than reality. And it's starting to be acknowledged in the literature. However, even the IPCC puts a low confidence in these exact same models (CIMP5) with respect to regional prediction accuracy. So, then what's the benefit of these numerical simulations even if they were to exactly predict the global average temperature?

One party that you left out of that final list:
3 Those who are concerned and do not like the discussion skewed by cargo cult science, grant-seeking me-too science, groupthink, emotional propaganda... etc.

We're not that far apart. If you would disavow the "emotional propaganda" of the warmists (350.org, Jim Hansen's "flooding streets of Manhattan", etc), then I'll leave Mr. Nobel Peace Prize out of it, ok?

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

regional vs global climate ... i think there's some merit in the idea (from chaos theory, and probability) that whilst you can't predict specific events (regional climate, or whether the next throw will be heads or tails) but you can make prediction on a mass of events (global climate, or the expected result of 1000 tosses of a coin).

i too thought 2dye4's objection to the term "computer model" to be pedantic, but if it's preferred i'll use "numerical simulation" in the future.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"But if you type in the address it will lead you 30 miles off."

that's not GPS doing that, that's a mapping program doing that, which is rife with human interactions and mistakes. GPS doesn't know addresses from a hole in the ground, only lat, long, alt.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

For 2dye4's sake I'll run through the litany

1) atmospheric CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2) much of the increase in CO2 since 1850 is anthropogenic, largely from the burning of fossil fuels
3) greenhouse gases make the atmosphere warmer

So far as I am aware those 3 are reasonably non controversial tho (2) may be arguable

Now we get onto the slippery slope and tumble off the cliff.

4) Any substantial increase above 2 deg C from baseline? in in average global surface temp is bad
5) CO2 has a greenhouse effect substantially greater than that that can be calculated from its properties due to undefined positive feedback effects and an absence of undefined negative feedbacks
6) Cloud cover can't be modelled and we have little historical data so it doesn't matter despite the albedo effect
7) Deep ocean effects can't be modelled and we have little historical data so they can explain anything.





Cheers

Greg Locock


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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

And does not modeling involve human interaction? Human interaction in maping is some how different than humal interaction in modeling?

So lets start with, what is the goal in studying and modeling the earth's CO2 level? Why was it started, and not look at other gases? Why was CO2 picked out?

Now why is the only solutions proposed govermental overlord in nature? And why has no other solutions proposed?

Three gueses:
1. The people who believe in this man-made change, are mindless people with no ideas. (non-thinkers).
2. Other solutions don't meet there agenda. (We only like these solutions).
3. This is a farce and we want to control people. (big goverment is the only way).

So if I believe 1 is wrong, because I don't like calling people mindless, then the real deal is either number 2 or 3.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

i think it's mostly 2 with a sprinkling of 3.

i think some climate scientists were genuinely worried by climbing CO2 levels (you asked why CO2 ... 'cause it's a GHG and some say responsible for our habitable globe today ... apparently the earth is about 20degC hotter than it "should" be and CO2 is supposed to be the reason why). I think this got sensationalised, then somewhere along the line GreenPeace (and the bulk of the "green" movement) saw this as a way to push their agenda (they, the general population, are not listening to us; we need i) a more urgent message, and ii) a bigger bogie monster to threaten them with). As for government control, well, some distrust it, some accept it, some welcome it, and some have no say in the matter.

and i think it has been pretty clear that there are several different threads to this debate ...
1) conservation of resources, efficient use of resources, and respect for the environment is one matter,
2) population control is another (most i think realise that a smaller human population would probably mean less of a problem, but i think the story will always be "make the numbers of those guys over there smaller"),
3) that AGHG is chiefly responsible for the current CC, and
4) if CO2 production continues unabated, or expands as projected, then the globe will become uninhabitable (or at least will support a much smaller population).

1) i believe is a widely held belief, at least with engineers.
2) probably isn't worth talking about.
3) is a big bone of contention.
4) is a possible outcome, how likely ? to what extent ? when ?

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

I agree with 1., 2 is achievable in the long term with increased education in the third world (In the short term is possible, but nobody wants that). 3. is conflected with some bogus numbers. 4. maybe, and maybe not, but this is a slow thing that will take time either way.

I keep asking for new ideas, and I have suggested a few some time ago, with no responce. So with no new ideas offered, which is it agenda, or control?

I see arguments for the easy things, but an expectation that we will slide past the hard things. Give me a reason to think this isen't just a control thing.

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"Give me a reason to think this isen't just a control thing."
some here will write you off as an anti-vac paranoid psychotic for suggesting that this is a "control thing" which implies that the underlying "science" is just that ... "science".

i've asked a similar question ... which came first, the science or the politics ?

it does seem odd that in a forum of hard technical numbers types we have such strongly held polar opposite opinions. i've even gotten into yelling matches with friends over this (and boy, did i get from the wife ... in fact i think all three of us did !); fortunately we'll still friends. amongst the responders on this forum i suspect that 80% don't have a strong opinion and 10% are hard line for one side or the other and as we've noticed just about nobody has changed sides (ok, there's at least 1 acknowledged changer).

what on earth is "joe public" to make of this ?

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"And does not modeling involve human interaction? Human interaction in maping is some how different than humal interaction in modeling?"

Yes, but only in creating the models, and the maps are basically only differentiated by whether it's water or land, and we've got great satellite-based digital elevation maps. The models are expressed as differential equations, etc., and errors tend to be immediately apparent, particularly if the model is compared to history.

Street maps, on the other, have quirks like Crystal Court, Crystal Street, Crystal Avenue, etc., street that stop for a couple of blocks and then resume, streets that change name or change from E to W to N, etc., etc., etc.



"which came first, the science or the politics ?"

The science, of course. To assume otherwise is to assume that all the governments that are portrayed as inept and incompetent were and still are able to stay on track over more than half a century, and that even when the opposing parties got into power, nothing changed. That would require a bigger conspiracy that the faked Moon landings.

TTFN
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

Need help writing a question or understanding a reply? forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

if by "politics" you include the green agenda then that was there first, and co-op'ed climate science as a means to their ends.

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

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

Weather I believe or not is of little importance. I'll go along as long as the changes are reasonable and achievable. But when offered a goverment mandate that you will make changes, then I have reason to question the science, the mandate, and the cost.

Example: recycleing is a good thing, but now that there are no places to do so easly, I not inclined to go out of my way.
No stores buy aluminum cans, or take glass bottles any more (at least here). No one wants paper. But clothes, household items I can give them to Goodwill.

To me it looks like the enviroment thing is going from reasonable to unreasonable, and from I can make a difference to you will comply. It going backwards in my view.

And what will happen in the future when these solar panels are failing? Can they be recycled, of just land filled?

RE: U.S. Senate Minority Report Questions for Critical Thinking

"weather" ... pun intended ? bigsmile

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

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login



News


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close