StreetScooby

Based on what I've read, and tried to show here, nothing going on today can be directly attributed to AGW model predictions. Al Gore is a huckster. Hansen is a decent scientist who's selling something. Spencer is an excited guy trying to point this out via the scientific process, but it's not working. And in the papers I've been reading, they say that, though not quite like that. Very true. When I was a chemical engineer, I was part of a 3 man team that modeled an entire chemical plant: reactors, compressors, separation processes, all down to the molecular level using proprietary equation of state models and full blown material and energy balances. Beautiful thermodynamics, man. We ended up with a system of 50,000 simultaneous highly nonlinear equations. We took that model and mated it directly to the plant in real-time. Once the plant was in a reasonable steady-state, we took in 500 measurements, solved the model "backwards" to fit the model parameters to the plant, then solved the model "forward" with 50 degrees of freedom. We took the bounded absolute values of numbers coming out of that model and used those as setpoints for the plant's higher level control systems. We didn't fudge the numbers. We nailed that plant. It reached the point where if the instruments didn't agree with our numbers, they went and fixed the instrument. Over the course of two years, the model moved the plant to it's optimum operating point, using an "objective function" put together by a committee of senior level production managers. It was one of the more satisfying experiences in my professional career to date. That was 20 years ago. There is no way they can model the earth's weather system to that level of detail, at least not at this point in time. But, from what I'm reading, they're not trying to do that. If you know the thermo, you can get a pretty good idea of where things are headed without modeling to that level of detail. You might not know how long it's going to take, but you'll know direction and magnitude. We are all engines of karma

Wonderful. Not only is the govt trying to run the economy, they're profiting from it, also. We are all engines of karma

It's widely accepted that the Taliban are a creature of the ISI. It's my understanding that during the Russian/Afghan war we were giving money to the ISI, which then passed it on to the Taliban. We are all engines of karma

And indeed they are a profit center these days. Good question. I don't know. We are all engines of karma

Tremendous article today in the WSJ by Ron Paul: Now we know why Ben and the boys are going to try and keep interest rates low for a long time. Here's the article: Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price, the price of time. Attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. By RON PAUL To know what is wrong with the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the nature of money. Money is like any other good in our economy that emerges from the market to satisfy the needs and wants of consumers. Its particular usefulness is that it helps facilitate indirect exchange, making it easier for us to buy and sell goods because there is a common way of measuring their value. Money is not a government phenomenon, and it need not and should not be managed by government. When central banks like the Fed manage money they are engaging in price fixing, which leads not to prosperity but to disaster. The Federal Reserve has caused every single boom and bust that has occurred in this country since the bank's creation in 1913. It pumps new money into the financial system to lower interest rates and spur the economy. Adding new money increases the supply of money, making the price of money over time—the interest rate—lower than the market would make it. These lower interest rates affect the allocation of resources, causing capital to be malinvested throughout the economy. So certain projects and ventures that appear profitable when funded at artificially low interest rates are not in fact the best use of those resources. Eventually, the economic boom created by the Fed's actions is found to be unsustainable, and the bust ensues as this malinvested capital manifests itself in a surplus of capital goods, inventory overhangs, etc. Until these misdirected resources are put to a more productive use—the uses the free market actually desires—the economy stagnates. Enlarge Image ronpaul ronpaul Bloomberg Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke The great contribution of the Austrian school of economics to economic theory was in its description of this business cycle: the process of booms and busts, and their origins in monetary intervention by the government in cooperation with the banking system. Yet policy makers at the Federal Reserve still fail to understand the causes of our most recent financial crisis. So they find themselves unable to come up with an adequate solution. In many respects the governors of the Federal Reserve System and the members of the Federal Open Market Committee are like all other high-ranking powerful officials. Because they make decisions that profoundly affect the workings of the economy and because they have hundreds of bright economists working for them doing research and collecting data, they buy into the pretense of knowledge—the illusion that because they have all these resources at their fingertips they therefore have the ability to guide the economy as they see fit. Nothing could be further from the truth. No attitude could be more destructive. What the Austrian economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek victoriously asserted in the socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 1930s—the notion that the marketplace, where people freely decide what they need and want to pay for, is the only effective way to allocate resources—may be obvious to many ordinary Americans. But it has not influenced government leaders today, who do not seem to see the importance of prices to the functioning of a market economy. The manner of thinking of the Federal Reserve now is no different than that of the former Soviet Union, which employed hundreds of thousands of people to perform research and provide calculations in an attempt to mimic the price system of the West's (relatively) free markets. Despite the obvious lesson to be drawn from the Soviet collapse, the U.S. still has not fully absorbed it. The Fed fails to grasp that an interest rate is a price—the price of time—and that attempting to manipulate that price is as destructive as any other government price control. It fails to see that the price of housing was artificially inflated through the Fed's monetary pumping during the early 2000s, and that the only way to restore soundness to the housing sector is to allow prices to return to sustainable market levels. Instead, the Fed's actions have had one aim—to keep prices elevated at bubble levels—thus ensuring that bad debt remains on the books and failing firms remain in business, albatrosses around the market's neck. The Fed's quantitative easing programs increased the national debt by trillions of dollars. The debt is now so large that if the central bank begins to move away from its zero interest-rate policy, the rise in interest rates will result in the U.S. government having to pay hundreds of billions of dollars in additional interest on the national debt each year. Thus there is significant political pressure being placed on the Fed to keep interest rates low. The Fed has painted itself so far into a corner now that even if it wanted to raise interest rates, as a practical matter it might not be able to do so. But it will do something, we know, because the pressure to "just do something" often outweighs all other considerations. What exactly the Fed will do is anyone's guess, and it is no surprise that markets continue to founder as anticipation mounts. If the Fed would stop intervening and distorting the market, and would allow the functioning of a truly free market that deals with profit and loss, our economy could recover. The continued existence of an organization that can create trillions of dollars out of thin air to purchase financial assets and prop up a fundamentally insolvent banking system is a black mark on an economy that professes to be free. Mr. Paul, a congressman from Texas, is seeking the Republican presidential nomination. We are all engines of karma

+1 We are all engines of karma

With all of your knowledge, maybe you can author a book along the lines of "Living in Trees for Dummies". I promise I'll pre-order it, and read it. We are all engines of karma

The next point I spent some time considering is the rate of increase of CO2.... I spent a decade as a chemical engineer modelling dynamic processes, so I'm pretty comfortable dealing with dynamic systems. Let's take a look at the IPCC statement quoted earlier: In order for the CO2 driving force to fully express itself in the units of measure being discussed here, the CO2 needs to double it's value. Right now, measurements are showing that CO2 has gone from 0.032% to 0.04% in the last 50 years. So, CO2 needs to reach a level of 0.064% in order to fully drive the new equilibrium value of the earth's temperature 0.6 degC higher, based upon the implications quoted by Hansen. That's predicated on an initial starting point of 0.032% CO2 for their measurements. Let's see... It's taken 50 years for CO2 to increase by 0.008%. If this rate of increase stays constant, we're looking at another 150 years before the CO2 driving force is really at the magnitude needed to produce the change being predicted here. Granted, one can debate whether that rate of change will increase or not, but the point here is it's going to be over 100 years before the driving force fully expresses itself in their model (assuming the starting point for their measurements is indeed 0.032%). Let's go back and look at the equilibrium climate sensitivity being 3. Keep in mind that number is being used to estimate how long the system will take to respond, i.e. when will the system reach 60% of it's final change once the driving force has reached the CO2 doubling. Let's look at Hansen's own words: if the equilibrium climate sensitivity is 0.75, it'll take 25-50 years for the system to reach 60% of it's final response; if it's 1.0 it'll take over one hundred years; i.e., a change of roughly 25% in that number doubled the amount of time it takes the system to respond. With the value now being estimated at 3, we're looking at a difference of over 300% in that value. If a 25% change caused a doubling in response time, how much is a 300% change going to cause? It seems reasonable to expect the response time is now going to be on the order of 100s of years, in their own words. If nothing else changes, it'll be over 100 years before CO2 reaches the level where it can drive the earth's temperature 0.06 degC higher (I would imagine that number has changed since the original estimate). Then, it'll be 100s of years later when the earth reaches 60% of that value. So, looks like it's going to be 100s of years before "we really start noticing" global warming. When a system has that kind of lag time, there's lot of time for 2nd-order forces, and maybe even 3rd order forces, to impact the system's response. Right now, reasonable scientists are saying they don't know what those forces are. Based upon the time frame being discussed here, we'll go through dozens of solar cycles. Entire forests can grow and die, multiple times, in this time frame. These are just the driving forces that immediately come to mind. How many others are out there that are relevant in this context? Stay tuned, more to come... We are all engines of karma

Based upon the quality and tenor of the papers I've looked up today from your reference, I'd have to agree that Spencer didn't come anywhere close to the professional presentation that's being used elsewhere. That doesn't necessarily refute what he might be saying, but he sure isn't trying to make his point in any standard sort of way compared to what the rest of the industry is doing. We are all engines of karma

Not that I saw. There are 38 papers referenced in Hansen's paper alone. The other paper that skiskyrock quoted this morning also has a slew of references, and it seems to have more meat in it that this particular Hansen paper. The skiskyrock reference also appears to be quite objective is saying there's still alot of work to be done to understand climate dynamics. Click on the link, and check out Hansen's paper. Take your time and read over it. He is rigorous with his vocabulary, and there's no ambiguity that I saw. After a couple of pass throughs, you'll start seeing what he's saying. Granted, I'm relying on my experience as a chemical engineer here, but the paper is digestable. We are all engines of karma

Just finished a rough first pass over the paper. A lot of information to digest, with lots of references to papers written by.... Hansen himself (not that there is anything wrong with that). There's alot of caveats in the paper, not unexpectedly. One thing that is noticeable: Basically, he's saying the ocean is going to warm up and stay warm, and that once it gets that way, it'll be a long time for it to change. Even if the ocean gets "rolling" in that direction, that's a bad thing. His estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity (a number they're using to reflect the impact of green house gases, basically) is 0.75 (units of measure excluded here), and at that value it'll take 25-50 years for the ocean to really get "rolling" in that direction. For the purposes of discussion, let's say that's the time we'll "really start noticing it". Let me bring your attention to this: As the climate sensitivity increases, it takes longer for the ocean to get "rolling" in the direction of "forever increased retained heat." At a value of 1.0 (units of measure excluded), it'll take 100 years (instead of 25-50 years) for the ocean to reach 60% of it's equilibrium response. Or, so to speak, for us to "really start noticing it". From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity So, the IPCC's best estimate seems to indicate that it's going to be well over 100 years before "we really start to notice it", i.e., not in our lifetimes nor in our children's lifetimes. Granted, from what I've quoted here, we don't know what the actual magnitude of the equilibrium response will be. The only estimate I've seen so far is what's quoted in the abstract: The author doesn't know what the actual magnitude of the change is, either. Still lots of stuff to look over. But, right now it seems to me we're going to be waiting a long time before "we really start to notice" global warming. And, based upon the author's 0.6degC estimate, we'll be noticing all of 60% of that, or about 0.36degC difference in avg temp. I think I'm still going to keep my coat handy for winters. I'll keep ya'll posted as I continue down my learning path. Feel free to point out things worth pointing out, preferably in a positive manner so we can all learn something here. That's really my interest here. We are all engines of karma

+1 We are all engines of karma

For those of you interested, here is one of Hansen's papers from 2005 discussing his concern about global warming. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5727/1431.full You may need to join AAAS, but it's free. Introductory paragraph targets an audience of "policy makers" Good gracious, what a starting point... We are all engines of karma

+1 +1 +1 +1 We are all engines of karma

Absolutely. We also need to restrict the amount of leverage obtained via "insurance product" transactions, IMO. When things get bad, that causes things to blow up even more. We are all engines of karma

Maybe Hansen should get out there and make that clear to the Al Gore's of the world? We are all engines of karma

lawrocket and mnealtx, By billvon's definition, those aren't serious scientists. billvon knows this stuff when he sees it. How folks like Al Gore and the EPA can tell this..., well that's probably more of a practical concern for our country than the increasing atmospheric levels of CO2.... billvon, You still haven't answered my question to you: Do you really think the AGW models' predictions merit the current EPA's push to shut down 8% of our electrical grid, especially considering that might make the whole system unstable? We are all engines of karma

Really? Doesn't surprise me. That was his agenda all along. We are all engines of karma

Thanks for sharing this. I haven't seen it until now. I've downloaded the paper, and will read it. We are all engines of karma

billvon thinks it's ok for Kallend, Amazon, and certain others to make their types of PAs, because he doesn't consider them to be full blown PAs. They're just "near-PAs". I don't think it's balanced, but that's how he's choosing to run the site. We are all engines of karma

I read back through my comments and found the quote I believe you're referring to: That's a casual summary I've found myself using lately. I can see where one could read I'm saying they're deliberately hell bent on doing so. I'm not saying that. Thanks for the feedback. As defined above, I was not saying "deliberately" hell bent on destroying our industry, as I'm guessing that's what you read. Again, not an unreasonable thing for someone to read into that statement. No, I don't think they're deliberately trying to do that. But, they most certainly aren't listening to those that are concerned they're on a path that will do just that. If that happens, whether they were deliberate or not in their attempts, the end result is the same. There has to be. That's my point. By "our" CO2 emissions, or you referring to the US, or to the human race? If you are referring to US emissions being the cause of a planet wide increase in temperature, that's questionable. If you're referring to the human race as being the cause of that increase in temperature, that's more believable. Should we do something about that? Absolutely. What should be done about that in practical terms? I haven't heard any ideas that will have any significant impact on the problem, other than going nuclear for our electrical grid. Even that won't have the impact desired with China and India massively increasing their footprints as their societies' quality of life increases. I haven't taken any position like you're describing. Nor have I subscribed to AGW alarmism. Since I don't subscribe to AGW alarmism, I'm deemed incompetent. Agreed, science will trump, if allowed to operate as it should. There's alot more science that needs to be done here before AGW alarmist "conclusions" should be acted on to the extent the EPA is advocating. Do you really think the AGW model's predictions merit shutting down 8% of our electrical grid in the immediate near term, especially considering that might make the whole system unstable? We are all engines of karma

Your question, as phrased, isn't amenable to a fair simple yes/no answer, IMO. We are all engines of karma

I've answered your question. I see them willing to destroy our industry to achieve their goal of protecting the environment in a way that's likely to be overkill on their part. Are you focusing on my use of the word destroy here? Where am I not being clear? We are all engines of karma

As I said, I don't think they phrase it that way to themselves. I do think they're zealots in pursuit of a goal that's of questionable real impact, and they're willing to sacrifice our industry as part of achieving their "goal". We are all engines of karma

Do I think they state it like that to themselves? No. Do I think they're properly considering the economics of their policies? No. Do I think they know that the economics of their policies are rightfully being called into question? Yes. Do I think they're adequately addressing those questions? No. Do I think they're knowingly not adequately addressing those questions? Yes. Long winded answer... We are all engines of karma