How or Why we will reverse global warming

[PJ_Godzilla]

I want to touch on the solar issue briefly. As Herr Skuzzmeister accurately indicated, photovoltaic solar panel mfg is a bit of a dirty beast.

About a decade ago, back when I was working in Ford's sustainable mobility engineering group, I ran across a little company in Kennewick, Washington called Infinia. I went out there. It was a long and involved business case, but the gist of their viability was two-pronged: on the one hand, they had some fairly well-developed free-piston Stirling engine technology, on the other they had an huge order bank for solar power generators. This order bank was -no lie- in the billions, largely courtesy of the governments of Spain and FRG. The company was thus in the position, perhaps enviably ( but perhaps not, if you think a little and know a thing or two about capital-intensive industry and the risk you assume when you start putting units in the field) of having a bank of orders whose maturity exceeded that of the technology for sale.

That was part of the reason they were talking to yours truly, for their straits were dire. Imagine, if you will, putting thousands of approx 20k purchase price units out in the field, all with some form of warranty, as stipulated by a couple of governments ( against whom you can only expect to lose in a civil court).

In any case, their technology was advanced and pretty well developed, though their 3kw Gensets ( a solar dish, at whose focus was the heat reservoir for the small free piston Stirling engine, which, as I recall, ran with a pleasing hum) had loooong payoff periods, which only made the quality and durability issue more critical.

Later, Spain went broke... The Spanish portion of their orders were suspended, and I lost track... But suspect they ran afoul of the cost-volume death spiral.

A few points:
1.PV solar isn't the only solar game in town, though it has a much lower hurdle to entry than Infinia's approach.
2. As Bustr (pbuh) notes, just because some clowns in a lab can make a prototype do something, that doesn't mean it is suitable for widespread adoption.
3. While some will allege otherwise, the Ford Motor Company -and probably all other OEMs-are intensely interested in new energy technologies, but that doesn't mean any of those OEMs are about to put something out in the field that hasn't been thoroughly validated, not just for function, but also for the entire suit of validation hurdles we impose. Most people have no idea how long it takes to prove out a new technology to the point that you can confidently stick it in a consumer product that will be used per design but also summarily abused, spindled, mutilated, and smashed into a bridge abutment.

Regarding that last point, I recently broke ties with this idiot savant inventor who was doing a little work with cold combustion. He seemed to think that an automotive application for his crudely-developed idea ( which had some basic merit, in power density terms, as I found when I analyzed it) was a mere year or two away. He didn't like my attitude and all this talk of at least a decade of development and testing, never mind the issues of billions in required capitalization.

No. We don't just slap things together and strap them on to a drunken teenager. If we did, the lawsuits would be crippling. The world is thus. Thus have we made the world.

[SysError]

I’ve been back/“around” for the past few days.  I re-read the thread and I saw some low hanging fruit here and there to pick at.  (OK, I’ll admit it, for some of you I had to go up a rung or two on a step ladder).  I have written some draft responses off-line, I think that I can get almost all of them out real soon.

In short, play the ball and not the man.

Short and to the point, that is an excellent idea.

My current thoughts:

If you see a foul, call a foul.
Let’s not clear out the benches and meet in mid field for a brawl.  Sometimes people just don’t see the implication(s) or impact(s) of some of their statements.  It happens to me, it happens to you.

On the issue of playing the man:  Sometimes, an association that someone has with an organization, a funding source or some other monetary gain is just too great to ignore.  And from time to time with specific people or organizations it seems obvious that one should challenge the motivations of some.  I am not against someone making a lawful living.  I think that if you suggest that someone is acting out of ulterior motives, then I think that you must also provide an argument and proof of your claim.    And by-the-way, you can list as many links as you want, but unless the links are there to provide proof for your argument or, if the link itself contains its own substantive argument that proves your point, don’t bother.  I too can use the Google machine to find caustic rants on just about any cause celebre.

As an example, let me use a, I guess now former, politician who is said to be raiding our treasuries and stealing candy right out of the grasp of babies as they lie sleeping in their prams.

The critics of An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) couldn’t help tripping over each other trying to get to a camera to Opine about this or that, or to design some eye candy for click throughs.

Now I am a firm believer that reviewed work only strengthens it.  Peer reviews in science are a must.  And usually newly presented work goes through several peer review processes (at least stuff meant for publication).  So some ask how did (AIT) make it through a peer review process and so isn’t this just proof of their “junk” science.

Well, AIT is not a science paper, it is a presentation made by a communicator to an audience.

Having said that, I do think that it is important to be vigorous when reviewing documentaries and instructional material.  AIT is no expectation.

I remember watching several years ago some “expert” on I guess Fox go on about the personal assets liquidation process that the owners of AIT would have to go through to pay off damages if it was ever taken to court.  (I do remember wondering who the injured party would be, but never mind).

It did go to trial however.  That is AIT the film was challenged in court.  In England a local school official sued the English secretary of Education to stop distribution of the film.  The short of the long of it is that a judge found 2 “errors” and said that nine “errors” were in effect frivolous.  (BTW it was the judge who put quotation marks around the word error).  What did the judge think AIT got wrong?

1. AIT said that Mount Kilimanjaro glacier is shrinking due to Global Warming.  In fact it appears to be caused by deforestation.

2. AIT mislabeled a chart.  The chart was right, wrong person was cited.

The thing about Mount Kilimanjaro is that the deforestation trigger was determined after AIT had been out.  And the deforestation finding does not disprove Global Warming.  What it is saying that on Mount Kilimanjaro deforestation is by far the leading cause of the melt.

As I have said before, science is not infallible.  The reason that science will also tend to win out is that it says, if you think I am wrong, bring me evidence, if the scientific community agrees with you, then if appropriate, a correction or modification needs to be made.

Denialists, far from really understanding this point, believe erroneously that if they find one error that a whole house of cards will tumble down like the Walls of Jericho.    Of course when that doesn’t happen, they express in frustration that the rest of the world has been fooled.

BTW: What were the other nine errors?  The judge in effect called then opinions.  The strongest argument that I have heard (and I am not saying that I totally agree) is that AIT went just a little too Hollywood.

If you are interested in considering other errors in AIT try here:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/Goreacknowledgederrors.htm

So why did I spend so much time on AIT?  Well for one I’m sometimes a wind bag, but really to try to force home a point?  If you think that someone is acting out of ulterior motives, then provide proof.  We can then discuss, evaluate and assess the point.


One other issue I want to put out there. Unless you are the lawyer or the mother of a defendant on trial for murder, anyone who covers up, excuses or rationalizes a murder or mass murders, for a fee or not, is in my mind a vile human being and I will not deal with them.  (I was prompted to say because of a reply that I have almost finished for Brooke).  (And no, I am not saying that Brooke is vile.)


On review of your post, I guess that I should say that the following sums up my assessment of my own education and credentials.



cont...

[SysError]

As to your highlighting of satellite data and REMSS issues; yes it is worthy of discussion.  What I want to mention though is that your last two paragraphs have had me thinking for the past two weeks.  I’ll need some time, (yes I am a very slow person).  Besides replying to the satellite data issues, I think that I am going to try to go off in a bit of an esoteric direction a express some thoughts that you could call the scientific “path of skeptic”.

After all, every idea we have ever had, was at one point, only believed by one person.

So let me get this out.  As well as the handful of other almost ready replies that I have.

Right now there are these people around here who keep coming into my field of vision and they look vaguely familiar.  It is a bit creepy.    Anyway they keep talking about what I guess is some sort of an organization called a family.  So apparently, within the sociological construct of this organization I have certain roles, responsibilities and I guess what you might call a series of sacrament like acts that I am responsible for.  It is not entirely clear to me what sort of sanctions might be imposed on me if I refuse carry out all or any one of my tasks.  But I should say that right now there is some sort of an intuitive inner voice that keeps telling me in a firm manner that “You had better get the hell get out of that chair and attend to your personalized to do list”.  And in point of fact, there actually is a person right now outside of my office warning me that “You had better get the hell get out of that chair and attend to your personalized to do list”


Before I hit reply, I wanted to re-post something that is very relevant here.  I’m not sure how many people actually read and then watched the video, and I do not know if you did or not.  But anyway the following is from a post a little while ago,

I want to say at the outset that I do not engage in these community posts with any delusion that minds are going to substantially change.  White middle aged (or older) western males, (or perhaps just all mature men worldwide, I do not know) rarely publicly acknowledge a change in their positions.   If they do, it is usually because the issue is inconsequential to them, or, they find themselves trying to find a face saving eddy to shelter in until the storm passes.  A consequence of Argument as War where learning equals losing perhaps?

https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_h_cohen_for_argument_s_sake?language=en

For me anyway, I tend to think that because writing is a “linear” process, whereas thinking is not, that writing helps me to organize and sharpen my thoughts.  In other words, it is a pretty selfish endeavor.

[SysError]

In the 70's we were warned of impending doom from global cooling. 

Good question.  Go ask the 1970s editors of Time and Newsweek why they ran those stories.  You can always find someone to quote or misquote in your pursuit of a need to satisfy an ever larger circulation target. 

BTW, ask yourself, how many scientists (verifiable), universities, government agencies like NASA or the Pentagon or the CIA, or international bodies in the 1970s came out to unequivocally and repeatedly say that there was a “impending doom from global cooling” on the way?

In the 90's it was global warming.  Now it's just called climate change.

You are right in the sense that many journalists have started to just call everything as Climate Change.

Their meanings in the scientific community, however, has been pretty consistent:

•   Global warming refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature,

•   Climate change refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature.

There is a really fascinating back story into why possibly some people started to refer to just Climate Change, but I don’t have the time here.  I promise to post about it soon.

What is the RIGHT temperature for earth?

This is actually a great question. But first, can you tell me how much of say, Florida, you could tolerate being under water in say perhaps 50 to 100 years?

I have seen some models where Florida goes from its current donkey sized phallic symbol to something resembling our hamster’s pride and joy.  It is all possible, and in the opinion of many, probable, in 50 to 100 years.

[SysError]

It amazes me how the UN and IPCC want to dictate the world economy based on 40 years of climate data.  When that is almost the exact length of the Sun's activity cycles.

I think we are less than a decade away from a major milestone in fusion, and maybe two decades away from commercialization.  It will be a game-changer.

I believe that you are mistaken.  The awareness of Global Warming and the scientific analysis that that awareness sparked goes back “40 years”   (Actually a little bit more, but it is OK for now).

The data on Global Warming goes back, decades, centuries, thousands, tens of thousands to millions of years ago.

If you want one visual diagram of the recent history of climate work:



If you want to read up on the history of the study of Climate Change see here:
https://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

[SysError]

Good to see the Conservatives stepping up and debunking the horse shaat of the lefties.  <S> Eagl, Caldera, and the rest

What an interesting statement you make.

So I guess that my thoughts are that I’ll just leave it up to individuals to decide if there has been a “debunking the horse shaat of the lefties. “  (As I have said elsewhere, I think that everyone in this community has made up their minds on just about everything and they are not going to change.  We are here just having some fun – Hopefully  )

So are there any “horse shaat” of the righties, or really I should say, climate deniers, that we should perhaps think about?

Do you know who one of the largest non-profit foundation groups that funds climate denier activities is?  It is the Heartland Institute.  They fund papers, seminars, pay for speeches, even fund colleges and universities all to try to show that Global Warming is not happening and that it is some sort of liberal hoax.

If you want to make a living denying that climate change is happening, then the Heartland Institute is your sort of place.  They do other stuff, I am just focusing on one issue.

In fact they very proudly boast of their image as:
The Heartland Institute is "the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change.”
— The Economist, May 26, 2012

https://www.heartland.org/

Here is someone from their leadership circle, Jay Lehr, educating us on the Fukushima incident:

“I can tell you with the utmost confidence there will not be a health impact of anything that is going on at the Fukushima power plant.”

http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2011/03/14/are-fears-catastrophic-nuclear-meltdown-in-japan-warranted/

They are against things like tobacco laws, and well, you name it and if you can fund them, there is a good chance that they will be in your corner.

See here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute


On Global Warming, they have their usual set of explanations and accusations that has people like me having a good laugh from time to time.  They got your standard conspiracy theories about how agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are suppressing “true” climate data and trove of other beauties.  (Thinking about it, I am wondering what they think has happened over at the Pentagon and the CIA?)

But I have to tell you, the Heartland Institute gets my Crazy Climate Denial Explanation Award  of perhaps all time.

In reacting to the Pope’s encyclical on climate change, the Heartland Institute suggested that the Pope is now under Pagan influences!  That’s right, the Pope could be a Pagan.

I am not making this up!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=behch3XrH1E

I guess that from now on, the seminal construction of the greatest metaphysical question of all time, “Is the Pope catholic?” should be replaced by asking “Is the Pope a Pagan?”


I should say that I when I first saw your post the use of the term “Conservatives” annoyed me somewhat.  Globally most conservatives and conservatives groups believe that Global Warming is happening and that it is caused by humans.  The ONLY substantial group of conservatives that take exception to this are US conservatives.

It was put to me the other day that the only government in power today in the world that does not believe in Global Warming is in the US (well a section of it anyway).  And given the recent changes in leadership in Australia, I’m thinking that that might be a true statement.

Here is another way of recognizing that US conservatives have just gone off some deep end on this issue.  Every oil company in the world has come out and said:

•   That Climate Change is happening

•   That humans are the cause of, or, (for a small number of these companies) contribute to, Global Warming

•   That changes in human activity can stop or reverse the current trends.

Here, for example is what Chevron says on their web site:

“Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere. We believe that taking prudent, practical and cost effective action to address climate change risks is the right thing to do. Mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change and continuation of scientific and technological research should all be considered.”

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/


Well, there is one exception  to the above three statements.  Almost all US based subsidiaries or components  of these oil companies do not wholly or completely endorse the above statements.


Want more information on this?  See here:
http://www.uwosh.edu/es/climate-change/oil-company-positions-on-the-reality-and-risk-of-climate-change


Conservatives around the world have actually put forward well-reasoned arguments on Global Warming, -- what to focus on – what to do …Some of them are actually quite interesting and convincing.

Please do not associate what can more accurately and more truthfully be described as a carnival show within current US conservatism with the vast majority of conservatives around the world.  It is an insult to most conservatives to do so.


If you are interested in the encyclical see here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/06/18/read-pope-franciss-full-document-on-climate-change/

[FLS]

Same info on both charts.  And again let's ask what the temperature should be. 

[WWhiskey]

Around 4960 feet above our current sea level was the waters edge about 100 million years ago.





I'm thinking we could do without Florida all together.

The black marks on the map are locations of dinosaur tracks, so life was being sustained at that point just fine!

[SysError]

Same info on both charts.  And again let's ask what the temperature should be. 

I don’t know.  How well do you swim?

[SysError]

I'm thinking we could do without Florida all together.

“Holy Polar Ice Sheet Batman!”
    - Robin

We may have stumbled on to perhaps one of the few things that you and I agree on.

[ghi]

I like this images;  Sears Tower, Chicago  and CN tower Toronto compared with the icecap once covered this places and was same with most of northern Europe Asia; warming is good, this places would be still uninhabitable.
 

[FLS]

I don’t know.  How well do you swim?

Do you really think that picture shows the sea level rising from global warming?
 

[PJ_Godzilla]

As to your highlighting of satellite data and REMSS issues; yes it is worthy of discussion.  What I want to mention ... {ETC}

Well, now you're talking a language I understand, Sys. I'll pick up on a couple of quick points, because, yes, I too have a life and obligations (who are these people who play all day?). This too I find eminently understandable - as well as the assertions regarding the opinions of aging males. Regardless, even, or maybe especially, aging males hate to be simply dismissed as loonies without a hearing.

Regarding the impeachment of a source: clearly some sources will seek a particular finding. However, this bias will invariably show in their work. Consider the case around the Mann hockey stick and its subsequent debunk at the hands of Guelph's McKittrick. Both have funding sources that might lend taint - as could be said of just about anyone (consider that most Michael Moore films are basically games of six degrees of separation). In the end, the only thing to be evaluated is the work itself.

I too have read the court findings from the British case. I interpret somewhat differently, and source here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimmock_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Education_and_Skills

Of particular note to me was the judge's finding regarding what amounts to the central thesis of AGW (number 4, I think); that CO2 emissions are driving temp. Per the judge's eval, not so fast - and that's is where I'm at. Even AGW advocates will admit that CO2 lags temp changes, although the lag period is only about 1/6th of the temp change, period, generally.  No, I do not believe a single error necessarily causes the whole case to collapse, but CO2 as driver is central to current AGW thinking. The torture of the theory to gloss over this lag is counter intuitive, at best.

My own take, though, on what causes IPCC climate modeling (a separate topic, clearly) to fail is failure... these models repeatedly fail to correlate and have no predictive value, as has been shown. Back when I used to run Vehdyn sims with ADAMS, failure to correlate meant you missed something significant... and this is easy to do, even in a system of 10-20 degrees of freedom, much less and entire climate system.

As for changing my mind, I pledge: If IPCC can show me solid correlation of their predicted values to actuals, I'm there. Why? Because I need to see it to believe it, as opposed to the other way around.

[bustr]

See Rule #14

[ghi]

Run  amigos run!   !
"The Strongest El Nino in Decades Is Going to Mess With Everything "
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-21/a-huge-el-nino-is-spreading-all-kinds-of-mayhem-around-the-world?cmpid=yhoo.headline

cat 5, Hurricane Patricia, 180mph winds approaching Mexico Pacific coast;
https://twitter.com/search?q=hurricane%20patricia%20cat%205&src=corr

But if gets worst they'll open a portal at CERN in days, move all of us in a parallel universe, without global warming ; I read this one and ..... ; me ..no understand English,... how,...how to understand "parallel universe" 

"Scientists at Large Hadron Collider hope to make contact with PARALLEL UNIVERSE in days "
http://www.newshour.com.bd/2015/10/18/scientists-at-large-hadron-collider-hope-to-make-contact-with-parallel-universe-in-days/