Interesting quote from Andy Revkin buried deep in his comments section at dotearth:
////quote
There's utter logic in concluding that if there is, as the IPCC concluded, 90-percent confidence that more than half of recent warming is greenhouse-driven, that implies a substantially higher level of confidence (well up toward, if not precisely 100 percent) exists that some greenhouse warming is under way.
But the IPCC -- outside of the questionable line in this chapter -- never stated there was no doubt about human-driven warming. Again, that doesn't mean there's no doubt, given the breadth of evidence. It just means they never formally said it.
I actually had prolonged discussions with both Susan Solomon and Michael Oppenheimer of the IPCC about this after some IPCC authors expressed concern over that very phrase in an update we ran on the latest climate science just before Copenhagen. http://j.mp/noCO2doubt
Using that logic, I wrote that the panel “...concluded that no doubt remained that human-caused warming was under way and that, if unabated, it would pose rising risks.”
They both disagreed:
Dr. Oppenheimer: "The 'no doubt' or 'unequivocal' refers only to the warming part, not the human-caused part."
Dr. Solomon: "This could be true but it's not something that we said."
////endquote
Time they reminded some of their colleagues and disciples who regularly use that phrase cavalierly. The trouble is, the fact of warming does not suggest the cause of it. The warming of the last century though has been a linear trend with fluctuations. We think we know the fluctuations are down to ocean cycles but the trend is not so easy. It could be just another long term fluctuation - as suggested by Avery and Singer in their book "Unstoppable warming every 1500 years". Certainly if 50% of it was natural last century and the trend in the 2nd part is the same as in the first part then the rest of it has a good chance of being natural too, in the form of a natural recovery from the little ice age. The idea that it was manmade was based on a false assumption that we could tease out the natural component from 1985 to 2000 so what was left must be man-made warming. It was a ridiculously optimistic or misleading idea - no doubt entirely to influence policy. The significant pause in recent warming put paid to the idea that natural fluctuations were predictable on these shorter timescales. So to really answer the question of what caused the warming, we really need to first ask the questions a)- what caused the little ice age, and b) what caused the medieval warm period before it, because these were 100% natural and seem to have been global. When we know that long-term natural component then we can tease out the manmade contribution and not before.
Of course several solar theorists have said the long term trend seems to match solar activity. One that springs to mind was Scaffeta and West who compared solar reconstructions with Moberg's proxy reconstruction. A bit iffy mind you but interesting. The exchange between Scaffeta and Rasmus on realclimate.org was quite entertaining. To me Scaffetta won on points and Rasmus gave up. It didn't help that he got the Stefan-Boltzmann equation wrong; somewhat of a howler for a man in his position. Neither did it help that he was pretending that the now utterly discredited and even disowned hockey-stick reconstructions were better than Mobergs effort. Nor that his main defense for that was the utterly illogical canard that if natural variation proved large then that is even more reason to worry about CO2 rises.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
unequivocal warming, but not unequivocally human
Saturday, February 06, 2010
Science as a blunt instrument
No doubt anyone who's followed the debates on global warming that occur on the blogosphere have noticed the reference to tobacco industry scientific studies and in particular that S. Fred Singer and perhaps a few others were involved in downcrying the science that second hand smoke causes cancer. What I'm wondering though is why anyone needed a scientific report to call on any ban for smoking? As I just read a lawyer repeating, "my right to swing my fist ends just before it touches your nose". Well substitute blowing smoke for swinging fists and you have all the justification you need. For all the blather that selfish smokers make about society impinging on their liberties they don't ever consider for one second that us non-smokers find smoke offensive and that our right to not breath their pollution far outweighs their rights to do it. The case is this simple; you can smoke as much as you like as long as you don't blow any over anyone else. It doesn't even matter whether it causes cancer or not, the mere fact that it is disgusting is sufficient reason to send the buggers outside.
A similar report was recently released on the health effects of Diesel. Apparently long distance lorry drivers are showing certain signs of something or other. This is no doubt another effort to undermine fossil fuel use in some way. That I saw it on the green car congress blog confirms the audience for this stuff. But again it wasn't necessary because everyone agrees that diesel smoke and soot is particularly disgusting and I'd have thought pedestrians are more at risk than anyone. So who needs a report? Answer - absolutely nobody. People get bogged down arguing on scientific reports that show spurious correlations and talk about statistical significance (a phrase that should be outlawed in my opinion) in order to invoke some health law. Yet they don't need that - they can turn to civil liberties laws instead.
And of course the upshot is that even smokers prefer to be in a smoke free environment. This is why they blow it out so far in the first place. Now that discos have become smoke free zones, my smoking friends remark that it's much more pleasant and they are quite happy to go outside to prevent the inside getting smoky.
I guess I'm particularly cranky about smoke because one of these 2000 poisons gives me a migraine from time to time. It took me a while to narrow it down to smoke but then I narrowed it down even further to US cigarettes. Ah the US free market economy - allows you to consume all the junk you like and a lot more you didn't know about! Have some growth hormones with that steak won't you? By the way, did anybody ever tell you you're beginning to resemble a bullock? What happened to the science that investigated that anyway? Maybe the entire grant went towards investigating truckers lungs. Or maybe the fossil fuel industry is fair game but the food industry gets a free ride for some reason.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Insourcing; think about it!
There was an interesting segment on French TV last night. Apparently some companies who had outsourced their labour to foreign countries were scuttling back after it all went wrong. Both companies featured complained about the lower quality costing them customers and the first explained that the cheap labour cost in Roumania wasn't all it seemed: ie Although the cost in France was 30 euros per hour versus 6, there were hidden costs, such as low productivity, transport, more management staff, etc that put the full Roumanian cost at 36 euros per worker. These were all things they just hadn't thought of. Meantime the manufacturer who'd gone to China complained about only having two colour options - both gray - and the hand-finishing causing fit-up problems. As Jeremy Clarkson would say, "hand-built is just another way of saying the door won't shut right", which is fair comment on metal objects at least. A 3rd businessman made an all-out effort to have a made in France label as a matter of pride. Let's face it a prestige manufacturer with a made in China label is just not possible. But in order to do that he needed to squeeze his suppliers. Well there's no better time than a crisis to try that. We need to take risks and make strong partnerships to survive. The Japanese though used to pay extra to ensure good suppliers but it's changed days now. I'll bet they are feeling the Chinese bite too.
Contrast this with the Ross Perot/Al Gore encounter about NAFTA where Perot correctly predicted all jobs would go South and Al disagreed. Well besides the jobs argument, just how much of the collapse of the US car industry is down to poor quality? Customers are difficult to get and even more difficult to get back when they've been let down. Short-termist thinking needs to be rooted out of managers heads. The best way to do that is probably to put engineers in charge :) like they do in France, Germany, Japan and China. France wavered a bit with US hire-em-fire-em ideas but the law stopped them and Germany had a short-lived experiment with US management but this crash has ended all that. Now they know they were right all this time.
The car industry is my benchmark for business generally and it seems that they survive due to protectionism, national pride in engineering, good management and single-union, no-strike deals. If Japanese manufacturers can manage to build and sell quality cars in the US and UK then clearly the idea that unions or workers were to blame for a car industry closure is a total red herring: It is perforce the management at fault. And that is from making decisions on a short-term quarterly return basis rather than thinking about long-term customer satisfaction. Blindly outsourcing your product is a perfect example that will come back to haunt many. Sadly on their return, one of the French manufacturers discovered that the workforce they'd abandoned had moved on and there was a shortage of skills necessary to run the machinery.
Finally I read a lot of whining from US and UK fund managers about European work hours and regulations that stop you firing people on a whim. But when it's easy to fire people, what kind of workers do you get? Answer: ones who won't tell you when you are wrong. And if it's easy to get people to work long hours routinely then are you getting the best work done in the best way - or are you getting a horses arse of a job produced by an overtired, overstressed worker? If you've ever worked in the oil industry you'll know the latter is the case.
There should be a compromise position and I for a while thought that the UK employment laws were best in that respect; reasonable protections, no impediments to startup. However for some reason it doesn't work as well as you'd think. Why? Well I've found that the worst problem in the UK is late payment. I'm pretty sure that's what kills most businesses and I'm also sure that's the intention of the accountants who keep this practice up. It goes like this; get the job done from small supplier on credit, refuse to pay, supplier goes out of business, ergo no need to pay. Even government departments practice this. My own uncle was forced out of business when after he'd done a lot of work for the local council, the Labour party decided to abolish county councils and replace them with regional councils instead. The old council couldn't pay and the new one said it was not their bill. Many, many businesses were lost in the same way because the only redress was via expensive court proceedings. Don't tell me that the Labour party is about workers. A whole bunch of accountants should be in jail for that scam. Of course any excuse works for late payment and if you've done the job already then you are shafted.
So if you are starting a small business in the UK the lesson is clear: NO CREDIT EVER. Personally I'm quite insulted when a company sends a purchase order. It's so second nature to them that they don't seem to even realize they are actually rudely assuming that I'll give them credit rather than politely asking for it. If someone ever tries that one on then send a pro-forma invoice and explain in clear terms that you don't ever give credit, because of bad experiences with late payers. That way they might actually realize that they've been begging for credit like a street urchin while pretending to be a world class company. They'll whine about their systems not being set up for that but it's all just toss. Be firm and you'll discover they can pay up front very easily when they feel like it!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Good news: The planet can cope!
"By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster."
And for all you people who say well it can't hurt making sure we stop deforestation then you clearly haven't seen this PBS documentary: I urge you to do so!
http://www.pbs.org.news-channel.org/frontlineworld/stories/carbonwatch/moneytree/
That comment from anonymous below the film clip was from me. Ignored completely of course by the self-righteous - in complete line with the Stiglitz think tank who I'd alerted about reality not being quite the same as the models, before they went and made an arse of themselves at Copenhagen. Seems like they've dropped off the radar anyway - still using up public cash though and producing flawed reports that nobody seems to read. Oddly though they'd asked for comments on their reports and supplied an email to do so which is why I bothered. I'd even harboured a notion that they might at least acknowledge me (they didn't) though I'd known beforehand that they wouldn't say "thanks we'll think about this". And of course when the Sunday Times gets around to investigating the deforestation fiasco then they'll say that nobody informed them. Frankly it's not up to me either - it's up to Dr Steve Running who did the fine satellite work. Funny that he hasn't received funding for it since 2003 when he reported the good news isn't it? Almost like they didn't really want to know that deforestation wasn't a problem!
Stiglitz of course is one of the few economists who predicted the current financial fiasco - a Keynesian, he was predisposed to be skeptical of the Washington Consensus version of free-market strategies, and has written fine words in condemnation of the world Bank and IMF policies in Latin America. He really should know what it's like to be against the crowd but correct and he should realize the vital value of using real data to validate hypotheses because he was that man; resigning his position at the World Bank when they failed to listen to him.
So we have the tyranny of good intentions, the herdlike nature of humans to believe exactly what they want to believe, the failure to appreciate unintended consequences and plain old follow-the-money. Sure the planet can obviously take it but it's the poorest humans that suffer. Can't we at least learn to listen to them this time around?
Friday, January 22, 2010
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
I've discussed the first part of Einstein's famous phrase above in "Simple is Efficient" but the second part is just as important. If the recent meltdown of the financial markets is a guide to anything it's about how we search for ways to over-simplify something we truly don't understand, in order to make predictions that have no solid foundation. I'll use the dismal science as an example. I could have used engineering but that's too obvious: When a bridge falls down you are forced to do things better next time, but with economics they can just swap out one failed or untested theory with another.
The current economic dogmata owes much to the opposing Chicago School and Keynesian schools of thought. The Chicago school, of whom Milton Friedman is the most famous were a bunch of revisionists who reverted to a free market concept which they ascribed to the "invisible hand" metaphor of Adam Smith. Likely they hadn't even read Smith or they'd have known better. In truth Smith wasn't lecturing anyone, he was trying to understand the market and in several places he honestly admitted when he just didn't get it. The simplification made was that people are rational, markets work perfectly by themselves via the "invisible hand" and government regulation is therefore automatically bad. Of course the absurdity of the assumptions ridicule the conclusion - but only to a rational thinker. There's the rub; they thought they were rational people (rather than ivory-towered, hubristic chumps who couldn't run even a toffee shop) so their assumptions must perforce be correct.
Well the simple theory-confounding reality is that a truly free market is also free for the criminals. The only real test of the Chicago School theory was in Yeltsin's Russia, where all the economists straight from college suddenly became government advisors. Yeltsin naively assumed that what was being taught in US Universities was how America became rich. In truth America became rich thanks to staying out of the World War for long enough to sell vast amounts of arms and materiel to the combatants. No real secret there; but crucially the huge booms felt in the fifties in the West owed abolutely nothing to free market ideas either. It was Keynesianism apparently. But Keynes pretty much changed his mind all the time, so you might say it wasn't really his doctrine - it was his own savvy. Keynes of course knew how to run a business that made money and that is done by learning from mistakes, ie being adaptable, rather than sticking to ideas that have manifestly failed. Russia paid a heavy price for believing US academics by having a huge slump and being dominated by criminals. They only recovered when statism returned under Putin.
In the 70's Keynesianism, or rather the simplistic version of it invented by Samuelson, was blamed for the lack of growth and Friedman became the new guru. Thatcher then experimented with these Friedmanite free market ideas - basically changing taxation from income to consumption and removing state subsidies and regulations. Initially this lead to a massive recession in the UK but eventually - thanks to deregulation of the markets (and North Sea oil) the UK began to look lean and fit. It had certainly been shorn of much of it's manufacturing capability. But while the poorer 60% became poorer, the richer 40% became richer so it was all deemed a big success by the right-dominated newspapers. Everyone was in fact happy that the overly-powerful unions had been quietened, it was just a shame it took massive unemployment engendered* by a ruthless, bloody-minded, destructive and immoral harridan to achieve that end.
Reaganomics didn't really come from Reagan as he he didn't really bother himself much with government at all - or indeed with anything that required any thinking, or even with turning up for work. His puppeteers copied Thacherism, which in truth wasn't really like anything Friedman had advised (Thatcher had already abandoned monetarism as a proven failure) and renamed it the Washington Consensus. This doctrine was applied by the World Bank and IMF in a one-size-fits-all manner: Privatise everything, cut government spending, remove subsidies. The result - as reported by the economist Joseph Stiglitz and others - was a complete disaster for any country who asked for IMF or World Bank help. In effect these organisations who were supposed to be helping poor nations become less dependent on aid, had turned into tyrannical loan sharks, destroying economies for the profit of their friends on Wall street and various other corporate criminals based offshore.
Now Samuelson's Keynesianism is back but not in the manner Keynes would have liked. Keynes decried the idea of casino capitalism and that's almost exactly what is being tried now. There is no actual plan behind the massive spending except the vague idea that it worked before. But previously there had been the realization that to make money you have to add value to raw materials and sell the finished product at a profit. Somehow now, we have a strange mix of massive spending from that psuedo-Keynesianism combined with the sunny Chicago School optimism that markets, if left alone, will absorb this cash injection and magically produce economic growth. A double-whammy of stupidity! Only in the 3rd strand of economics; the Austrian school of Von Mises and Hayek, is there the realization that if too much debt caused the problem then more debt will make it worse. Of course the Austrian School followers have somewhat oversimplified beliefs too (stemming from Ayn Rand) but at least they were the ones who predicted this depression coming. Strangely this wasn't enough qualification to allow them to be employed by governments to fix the mess. Likely their fix - let the banks fail - was a bit too much for the revolving door mentality of politicos. After all that's their next job they'd be making disappear. Even Nouriel Roubini's softer ideas of mark-to-market mortgage reassessments were rejected. At any cost the huge mistakes made by the bankers seemingly had to be rewarded by the taxpayer. What are the chances then of this lot fixing anything? After all they are the same ones who broke it.
The point is that all strands of the original economic thought, have been over-simplified by others, removing all the important caveats and uncertainties of the originators, to the point where they do more harm than good. This is only one illustration of the process. One could mention the oversimplification of CO2 as the major climate driver, or of psychotherapists eager to blame parents for every misdeed done by their children, or indeed of any number of other social sciences that ignore the wondrously unpredictably chaotic nature of life on Earth. Good grief they've even over-simplified natural chaos into a chaos theory. Isn't that an oxymoron? If you ever need an illustration of the real, natural chaos that confounds us then you'll see it the next time you pick up a cable that seems to have tied itself in knots all by itself after you had neatly stacked it away. Now that's an allegory worth remembering!
*It was the late Paul Foot's theory that Sir Keith Joseph and Maggie had deliberately conspired to increase unemployment so as to reduce inflation. The swingometer of high unemployment=low inflation was a trendy concept at that time so it's possible. Conservatives truthfully didn't give a rats arse about anyone who had to dirty his hands to work so it's plausible too. After all how can you not realize that if Asia and Europe subsidize their industries and you remove your subsidies then you will lose your industries. It's not a difficult concept! So it's either gross stupidity, which is also plausible, or downright evil or the blinding dogma of the free-marketeers (which to be fair also goes in the stupidity box).
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The science is worse than we thought!
There was a link from a recent article in the Independent (about the met offices abysmal prediction record) that showed some of the arithmetic trickiness employed by the IPCC to present the case that climate change is worse than we thought.
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ipcc
Now i'd noticed before the inability of the IPCC to properly add up error bounds, ie it is impossible for individual components to a total to have a larger error bound than the total. And I'd noticed the IPCC got the 20% deforestation number totally ass-backwards because the planet has actually been officially greening according to the peer-reviewed NASA satellite data http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/. It might very well be 20% REforestation. If that was included int he carbon sink summation then there is less missing sink to search for. The missing sink argument is that we stick roughly 7 Gt (Gigatonnes)) in the air, 1.5 Gt is added by deforestation, 3 Gt stays in the atmosphere and 2 Gt is removed by land and sea.The remainder is unaccounted for. Of course the error bars on these numbers are quite high. The numbers also vary according to who does the calculation.
Ref: IPCC + http://www.greencollar.org/employer/the-missing-carbon-sink-ads-7868.html
Values in gigatonnes:
Existing idea: 7 (fossil fuels) + 1.5 (deforestation) - 3 (remains in atmosphere) - 2 (oceans) = 3.5 Gt missing sink.
More plausible idea?: 7 (fossil fuels) - 3 (remains in atmosphere) - 2 (oceans) = 2 (reforestation).
Of course the whole sink/source argument is inexact science to say the least, as this report shows:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070621140805.htm
They really don't in fact have a clue as to what is a sink and what is a source in nature. In fact the sea should be a net source too by Henry's law, since it is warming up. The reason it is treated as a sink is because then either the sea contributes to the total that we observe in the atmosphere which is politically incorrect (in my opinion) or there is an even greater missing sink, meaning our scientists are even more clueless about the carbon cycle. There isn't really a scientific justification for a warming sea being a net sink - there are some hand-waving arguments and iffy models but no real evidential numbers so it's mostly a politically convenient decision.
And I'd of course noticed that the 90% certainty figures in the summary was presented as scientific, ie based on evidence when in fact it was no more than a show of hands, ie 100% unscientific and misleading.
But it's even worse than I thought. Things are added after the reviews are complete. This is brought to light becuase the review comments were eventually - after much pressure - released in this "open process". And they reveal that Kevin Trenberth and Phil Jones clearly thought the case wasn't strong enough so they just made things up and added them later - unreviewed.
The IPCC is always used as the yardstick to judge alarmism, eg by the UK judge who lorded it over the courtcase that identified 9 serious innaccuracies in "An inconvenient truth" and ordered schools to mention these when the film is shown. However, we no longer have that yardstick because the IPCC report was shaped by these two lead authors after everyone else had gone home. I'm reminded that several of the authors; Paul Reiter (malaria), Richard Lindzen (feedbacks), Chris Landsea (hurricanes), Roger Pielke Snr (land-changes) had of course resigned because of this post-review chicanery and had been summarily ignored by the press. In addition just about everyone has criticised the millenial reconstructions of temperature including Briffa the actual lead author of the report, who according to the "climategate" emails firmly believes that there was a medieval warm period as warm or warmer than today. Crazy! Science will recover because people have short memories but we really have to redefine peer-review procedures now that we have the chance.
Now some might think that it's all for the greater good. Wrong! Being honest is for the greater good! If you are dishonest in your summary of the science then you are more than likely dishonest in all of your science and you dishonour your profession. In engineering this type of chicanery would quite literally cost lives.
An alternative bathtub model:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Other peoples money
Disclaimer: I'm not socialist or conservative but I do defend both of these points of view. Obviously most systems in Europe are a strong mixture of both. But this post does deal with politics-led economics, concluding that it's all based on bad dogma.
Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Now Thatcher was sometimes right and sometimes wrong but mostly she didn't have a clue what she was doing from one moment to the next. However that was actually an essential part of her credo. She like Reagan, believed that government can't possibly ever do anything right so we need to leave the free-market to try to solve everything by using a hands-off approach. She lived up to both parts of that credo. Let's reflect on what she achieved impartially:
Good parts;
.Reduced inflation to record lows,.
.Controlled the trade unions, who had previously been totally destructive.
.Deregulated the credit process. Eventually this led to cheap credit. The engine of economic recovery must start with cheap credit surely.
.She was right that the tax regime was barmy. By reducing the top tax she actually got more overall tax revenue.
Bad parts:
.Inflation reduction was achieved by massively increasing unemployment in a very bad recession where Britain lost virtually all of it's traditional manufacturing base; ie the thing that made Britain rich in the first place. Workers were too afraid of being out of work to strike. One might ponder which situation is better; the slow stagnation effect of the left or the rapid descent and start again effect of the right.
.Actually making things and selling them was replaced by the city of London selling reams of worthless paper. Boom and busts were made worse. The cheap credit led to a housing boom because flipping a house was more profitable than working and sometimes the only alternative in a job-free marketplace.
.Homelessness rocketed upwards.
But back to the original socialist put-down phrase "other peoples money". Now you might be thinking, like me, that it's capitalism that seems to rely on other peoples money rather more than socialism. And you might even notice that "eventually running out of other peoples money" is a perfect description of the current financial crisis. But it gets even odder than that. The US and the UK, the followers of Thatchers faith, grounded as it is in the utopian Chicago economics* of regulation-free markets and rational decision-makers, are the ones in deep debt and they got most of that debt from the most socialist regime on the planet who just happen to have all the money now: China. Oh irony of ironies! Another irony appears by realizing that China got all that wealth by building and selling things - just like Britain had! Lesson learned? Not yet it seems!
*You know the crowd - they used Smith's mere metaphor of an "invisible hand" as a godlike doctrine. One presumes this is a reflection of our soundbite world where a phrase has more meaning than an entire book. Clearly none of them actually even read Smiths book.
Monday, December 21, 2009
End qwerty domination!
A perfect example of an innocent early design mistake becoming important later:-
The qwerty keyboard was originally introduced to slow down typists because they were too fast for the first typewriter mechanisms to keep up. Yet it's still with us, even for computers used largely by two-fingered typists. This is where standardization can lead us (except for the French who, always striving to be just a little different, chose to use an azerty* keyboard instead). Yet there was a chance to change it when mobile phones were used for texting. Nobody who uses their thumbs for typing would want to use anything other than an alphabetic system. Alas now we have full keyboards on our phones though we still need to use our thumbs and --aaaargh! ---they are all qwerty. The only remaining hope now is that we get an option to change the touch screen keyboard to alphabetic. That would be really easy to do I imagine. Is there one?
*I had to change my French azerty for a Spanish qwerty. It wasn't so much the qw/az confusion (bad enough) but the numbers at the top: The French use the shift key for typing numbers while the rest of the world can type a number with just one touch. So frustrating... The Spanish keyboard bridged the Franco/Anglo divide and gives me all the funny keys I need too like ñ and Ç. So Spanish is not only easier spelt and easier pronounced but also easier typed.
Monday, December 07, 2009
Climate model sensitivity
“There is no doubt a small ‘sociological convergence’ effect, that tends to work here (individuals and their managers hate to be the outlier). The biggest problem is that doubling CO2 leads to a 1 deg C warming (I think even Lindzen agrees). If water vapor doubles it, we are at 2.0 (Lindzen differs here, but I do not know of anyone else). Are there any other feedbacks? It is hard to dismiss ice feedback, but it might be small. Clouds are positive in most models — I have always taken them to be neutral, but with no substantial reason (it’s just easier that way).”
“I do not think there is enough thinking going on. Just plugging in the numbers or running the simulations. Dick [Lindzen] is clearly right on this one.”
“I believe the ocean simulations are very primitive and quite variable from one group to another. The underlying reason is this: How much of the deep layers of the ocean are really participating in the warming?”
“There are pitifully few ways to test climate models.”
“[Models] sort of fake it (we call it ‘parameterization’). They do it in very crude ways such as if the temperature profile of the atmosphere is unstable, they make the whole column overturn, etc.”
“[The models’ treatment of feedbacks] could also be sociological: getting the socially acceptable answer.”
“I go back to my old position: we need more time, maybe a decade to get a better grip on aerosols, water vapor feedback, cloud feedback, ocean participation.”
“We have only a very loose grip on aerosols.”
“[The models] treat the ocean differently. Somehow, they are fudging the parameters that govern ocean coupling so that they get the right ocean delay to agree with the data in spite of their differing sensitivities.”
“The set of available models may share fundamental inadequacies, the effects of which cannot be quantified.”
- IPCC, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 805.
The car of the future
A while back I wrote that I didn't rate the internal combustion engine much. Ever since I did a project on gas turbines I've been wondering why the gas turbine car was stillborn. The advantages are so numerous but mainly the idea of using rotary motion rather than converting reciprocating motion is the killer. It makes everything else so much simpler. The pistons in an IC engine are actually based on a cyclists legs.Why then, I've often asked myself, do we push down at top dead centre (TDC) rather than at 10 past the hour as we do on a bike. Actually the answer is probably because it was always done that way, or because of space. I did find out that the new air car by some French inventor does push down at 10 past the hour and increases the efficiency by about 40%. ie as we've seen so often, when you are limited then you are forced to find a solution. That may be the ethos of the idea behind carbon limitations too. After all, high fuel prices in Europe forced the development of small Diesel engines.
This drivetrain was the brainchild of George Westinghouse. The engine powers the generator, which creates a large magnetic force field be-tween the engine and drivewheels. There's no mechanical transmission. The driver moves a rheostat through four quadrants — a lot easier than shifting, and grinding, the straight-cut gears of the day — and the car moves ahead progressively, giving occupants that odd feeling you get when you try to push similar-pole magnets against each other. Both Enrico Caruso and John McCormack drove Owen Magnetics."
*Well it might be unheard of in the USA but the new Diesel Jaguar can achieve 1000miles on a single tank - as proven on Top Gear "Basle to Blackpool on a single tank" challenge.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Beware of fitness fashions; short term gain = long term pain
Oh no, not another skepticism confirmed. It's a bit depressing realising that skepticism about any fashionable idea is usually always justified. Another one I've just read about is high impact aerobics and step aerobics. The unfortunates who did it in the 80's all have arthritis now:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/27/earlyshow/contributors/emilysenay/main3207440.shtml
I'd had an inkling of this because a friend who was a radiologist in the 80's kept saying that joggers and marathon runners were causing a huge upsurge in knee problems. Funny how many people have knee problems isn't it? My own knee pain arose largely from playing football. Though I admit it was mainly people kicking me after I'd dribbled past them but I also have a suspicion I'd screwed my knees up by those ever-odd stretching exercises and the continuous impact pounding. Now that I've largely given up all exercise (apart from walking a fair amount that is) my knee has completely healed. It took a long time mind you, but finally, no longer do I get these sudden, excruciating pains when I put pressure on it.
Isn't it also odd the number of fitness freaks who succumb to heart attacks? My cyclist neighbour has just succumbed too. The conventional wisdom was that exercise was good for the heart. But the heart is a muscle and you can strain it. Good grief, the Queen mother lived to 100 without doing apparently any exercise at all.
The secret then to good health and a long life? Eating well and walking rather than running. Ask the French!
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Green programming
In my tradition of nabbing useful comments - largely as a diary. I've got one from "TheRegister". The original question is why do we need a full copy of Windows in every VMWare virtualization session, ie can't we just share the OS code because 40% of the server is being used up in dealing with this bloat. Well all the obvious answers were there; by using Solaris Zones or FreeBSD Jail then you can but then you don't have Windows. It goes back to the code bloat theme and someone called Captain Thyratron et al summed it up in a rant:
Monday, November 16, 2009
Peak Oil Baloney
a) It makes cheap imports more expensive and allows local economies to redevelop their own manufacturing base, which gives real GDP growth from added value, rather than artificial growth from debt.
b) It encourages investments in extraction or gasification of shale oil and extraction of heavy oil, which are both hugely abundant, as even M. King Hubbert [the originator of the peak oil movement] noted, and which in turn ensures a future supply of oil.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
UK Energy Policy
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Western manufacture decline
The causes are many but let me detail some of the high points.
In the mid-1990's, China was allowed to join the World Trade Organization with its currency, the renembi, pegged to the dollar and undervalued by about 30%. (For why this was done, you might enquire to the husband of our current Secretary of State, or to Al Gore.)
With an undervalued currency, labor paid at rates on the order of $1.50 PER DAY, no union work rules and no environmental rules worth mentioning, the leadership of China made mercantilism their national policy and export earnings were the order of the day.
American manufacturing firms were soon putting thousands of man-hours of engineering into their proposals, presenting their best, most finely-honed price, only to be told that they had to meet the "China price". That is, unless they cut their best price 30% to match what the Chinese, with their undervalued currency, could do the job for, the work would go overseas. (For documentation please see Business Week and Fortune articles all through the late 1990's and early 2000's)
US firms who met the China price, hoping to keep business and cash flowing in the door, ended up going bankrupt. I believe I am correct that every single major auto parts supplier in this country has been through bankruptcy.
This attack of the "China price" came on top of twenty years of steady erosion of profitability in the manufacturing sector, due to litigation costs, union work rules and the capital requirements of installing pollution control equipment. America led the world in mandating pollution control all through the 1970's and 1980's, at a time when our competitors faced no such requirements. It came at a price; the hollowing out of America's manufacturing infrastructure.
America's steel industry, once the world's strongest, is just a vestige of its former self. What happened? Steel mills had to put their capital into flue gas scrubbers; Asian mills did not. Union wages made America's steel workers the highest paid in the US, paid 47% more than comparable jobs in other US industries. Until the mills went bankrupt, that is.
Every one of those wind turbines will need a tall steel tower to hold it up in the breeze. The Chinese steel industry is now the world's largest, with huge over-capacity, so they sell their steel cheap. It's not very good steel, but boy is it cheap.
Little critical detail items stopped being made here because of high labor costs, the cost of legal liability and the cost of environmental compliance.
Take fasteners, for instance. Big deal, they're just bolts and nuts, right? Well, Boeing is losing customers for their 787 Dreamliner because there are no domestic suppliers of fasteners to hold the wings on, and the foreign suppliers didn't deliver on time.
Every single blade of every wind turbine will be held on by a circle of about 50 high-strength steel bolts. China makes tons and tons of bolts. They are not very good bolts, and a shocking number of them are of cheap low-strength steel but "decorated" with markings to make them look like high-strength steel bolts.
When cheap bolts are installed in a wind turbine they will fail by metal fatigue and their blades will fly off and impale whatever cow or coyote or farmer happens to be passing by. But you can buy Chinese bolts and you can't buy American bolts any more.
Literally thousands of small forges and foundries have shut down in the last 20-30 years. Zinc and chromium plating shops have been particularly hard hit because of the environmental costs of disposing of the chemical plating baths. All of those steel wind turbine towers will need to be coated or plated; otherwise the towers will buckle in 10 or 12 years due to corrosion damage. Where would we do that here in the US? The Chinese don't do a good job of zinc plating but they do it, and nobody cares much what gets dumped in the rivers.
Finally you will need three very long very stiff fiberglass blades for each turbine. (Dow Corning was a pioneer in glass fiber manufacture, but they were driven into bankruptcy here in the US, over the bogus silicone breast implant lawsuits.)
You need epoxy or polyamide resin to soak the glass fibers in to make fiberglass. The resins are petrochemicals. There has not been a new oil refinery built in this country since 1976, and only one new chemical plant in the same time. Oil and chemicals are bad, right? Lots of lawsuits, no building permits."
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Perils of modelling: initial assumptions 1
I just thought I'd nick this quote from solar scientist Douglas Hoyt on another blog as it is a succinct summary of what can go wrong with models that have too many adjustable and vague parameters and relying on hindcasts as validations - which I touched on before with respect to fatigue calculations. "The climate modelers introduced a large upward trend in global aerosols because, without them, their models ran too hot, predicting a global warming of circa 2C in the 20th century, as opposed to the observed 0.6C warming. As I have pointed out, there is no evidence that the claimed global trend in aerosols existed. At best there were a few regional aerosol clouds covering less than 1% of the globe. The proper solution to their problem would have been to lower the climate sensitivity to 1C or less. In fact. Lindzen has a convincing paper out recently showing the climate sensitivity is about 0.6C for a CO2 doubling. The scientific solution to the problem: No large global trend trend in aerosols and low climate sensitivity. The political “solution” is: Unsupported claims of large aerosol increases which allows the fiction of a high climate sensitivity to be maintained, leading to alarming and false predictions of catastrophic future warming." Douglas Hoyt I added. "I wonder if a 3rd party review might have fixed it. There are times when you get a weird modeling result and you can't find the problem so you rationalize it or add a fiddle factor. Only later do you see where the mistake was. Also sometimes throwing money at a group to investigate a problem can fail due to an over-riding need to justify the money and claim more of it." There's no conspiracy here - just hubris, group-think and self-preservation. Normal science in fact. Just to be fair I'll pick on a few other fields later. Update: Here is a quote from Lindzen on modelling where he describes the 0.5 feedback: ////////beginning of extract "IPCC ‘Consensus.’ It is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions. How was this arrived at? What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid seventies through the mid nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and that the forcing must have been due to man. The argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being ‘demanded’ by science. Equally ironic, the fact that the global mean temperature anomaly ceased increasing by the mid nineties is acknowledged by modeling groups as contradicting the main underlying assumption of the so-called attribution argument (Smith et al, 2007, Keenlyside et al, 2008, Lateef, 2009). Yet the iconic statement continues to be repeated as authoritative gospel, and as implying catastrophe. Now, all projections of dangerous impacts hinge on climate sensitivity. (To be sure, the projections of catastrophe also depend on many factors besides warming itself.) Embarrassingly, the estimates of the equilibrium response to a doubling of CO2 have basically remained unchanged since 1979. They are that models project a sensitivity of from 1.5-5C. Is simply running models the way to determine this? Why hasn’t the uncertainly diminished? There follows a much more rigorous determination using physics and satellite data. We have a 16-year (1985–1999) record of the earth radiation budget from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE; Barkstrom 1984) nonscanner edition 3 dataset. This is the only stable long-term climate dataset based on broadband flux measurements and was recently altitude-corrected (Wong et al. 2006). Since 1999, the ERBE instrument has been replaced by the better CERES instrument. From the ERBE/CERES monthly data, we calculated anomalies of LW-emitted, SW-reflected, and the total outgoing fluxes. We also have a record of sea surface temperature for the same period from the National Center for Environmental Prediction. Finally, we have the IPCC model calculated radiation budget for models forced by observed sea surface temperature from the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Program at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory of the DOE. The idea now is to take fluxes observed by satellite and produced by models forced by observed sea surface temperatures, and see how these fluxes change with fluctuations in sea surface temperature. This allows us to evaluate the feedback factor. Remember, we are ultimately talking about the greenhouse effect. It is generally agreed that doubling CO2 alone will cause about 1C warming due to the fact that it acts as a ‘blanket.’ Model projections of greater warming absolutely depend on positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds that will add to the ‘blanket’ – reducing the net cooling of the climate system. We see that for models, the uncertainty in radiative fluxes makes it impossible to pin down the precise sensitivity because they are so close to unstable ‘regeneration.’ This, however, is not the case for the actual climate system where the sensitivity is about 0.5C for a doubling of CO2 . From the brief SST record, we see that fluctuations of that magnitude occur all the time." Richard Lindzen Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT /////////////////////end of extract Now just to summarise: 1) It is universally agreed that basic warming from a doubling of CO2 should theoretically be 1 degree C. 2) Model runs say it could be between 1 and 6 degrees C. The extra above the 1 degree number is from a supposed positive feedback where evaporated water vapour from the sea adds to the CO2. 3) This extra warming was needed to match up the recent warming in the Hadley temperature graph with Hadley model output. 4) For this match-up, Hadley modellers had assumed that natural variability had minimal warming effect over the period of study, hence any remaining anomaly must be manmade warming. However they couldn't actually model natural variability - they just pretended that they could. 5) Subsequent non-warming has been blamed on natural variability by those same Hadley scientists which is an admission that the previous assumption has zero foundation. 6) So Lindzen finds out if this supposed positive feedback from water vapour is present in the real, measured satellite data. He finds a sensitivity of 0.5 C from real data, indicating that there must be a negative feedback, not a positive one. One might postulate that this is due to formation of clouds (as Lindzen suggested and as Dr Roy Spencer has obs and published papers to back up). That's what the real science tells us, ie comparison of the theory with observations - remember that? It's how science used to work. It's not true to say that the models couldn't achieve the same result. In fact they could - all they need to do is adjust the natural variation to reflect real world observations. However, the latter number implicitly assumes that extra warming is from the CO2 and it is not actually another long-term natural trend. This is fair but not necessarily so because there is a well known descent into a "little ice age" at least in Northern Europe which has not been adequately explained. If that cooling was natural and we started from that natural low point then the heating can be natural too. That said, Northern europe is quite tiny so it's politically correct and probably sensible to assume that man is warming the planet by a small amount. In any event the planet has warmed by mostly natural 0.4 degrees since 1950, the IPCC cutoff date. So what are the implications? For a future post.
