This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

10,201 Members

Publication

Climate and Energy, Part 3: Mitigating Climate Change , Rev b

This is a major update, or the "Climate and Energy" three-part series that I originally posted about a year ago (starting in June of 2018). Part 3 of this series is on negitave greenhouse gas emissions technology.

These will be referenced in Part 2 of a new post (Climate Change: Two Challenges and Five Solutions). that I started (with Part 1) yesterday. I will post Part 2 of this new post early next week.

I need to update two more series, also referenced in Part 2 of Climate Change: Two Challenges and Five Solutions.  I will update these tomorrow and Thursday.

Publication

John Benson's picture

Thank John for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Bob Webster's picture
Bob Webster on Jul 18, 2019 9:27 pm GMT

Are you aware of this just-reported (Sunday) Finnish study?

"Finnish Scientists: Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant" article in the Helsinki Times.  http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html

Summary:  "A new paper published by researchers ... in Finland suggests that even though observed changes in the climate are real, the effects of human activity on these changes are insignificant. The team suggests that the idea of man made climate change is a mere miscalculation or skewing the formulas by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

Essentially, the paper suggests the impact of natural factors (clouds, cosmic radiation, solar cycles, etc.) is significantly downplayed by the IPCC to artificially enhance the claimed effect from GHGs.  This is in agreement with Dr. Christy's (UAH) finding that explains the consistent overestimation of temperature by the CMIP5 models (consistently "run hot" by over-estimating GHG contribution to temperature).

These findings are consistent with an examination of the records for annual changes observed for global averages of atmospheric CO2 (from all sources) and surface temperatures during 1880 through 2018.  The relationship between the two is indistinguishable from chance.  That indicates the two measures are entirely uncorrelated (as the data confirm) over meaningful timeframes.  The GISP2 ice core record of Holocene interglacial atmospheric CO2 and surface temperature similarly reveals their relationship is inconsistent with IPCC theory that claims growing atmospheric CO2 causes  climate warming and falling atmospheric CO2 causes climate cooling (just the opposite is revealed by the ice core analysis).  Further, over the most recent 550 million year geologic record, there is no correlation between 25-million year increments of changing atmospheric CO2 and changing climate (r = 0.1).

How does an unpreven theorized relationship manage to trump real world evidence in nature that is strongly and unambiguously contradictory to the theorized relationship?

Is so much invested in an invalid theory that truth must be sacrificed at the altar of political correctness?

Matt Chester's picture
Matt Chester on Jul 19, 2019 12:11 pm GMT

The problem is that the IPCC isn't the only organization or group of scientists who agree about the human causes of climate change. One paper certainly deserves additional scrutiny, but not throwing out the conclusions reached by 98% of scientists who have studied the issue. 

Bob Webster's picture
Bob Webster on Jul 19, 2019 1:48 pm GMT

Matt,

Are you aware the 97% figure claiming scientists in agreement is bogus... scrutiny of how it was arrived at revealed  that the figure was arrived at by deliberate deceit (misuse of information).  It was based on a study of scientific paper abstracts and a subjective determination of "agreement" without actually polling scientists.  Certainly, the 98% figure is just as nonsensical, though I suspect that was just a slip and was intended to be 97%.

Regardless of the invalidity of such "consensus" figures... two factors for you to consider:

1. Science is never determined by "consensus"... it is determined by careful, honest use of The Scientific Method that requires every theory to be fully scrutinized for consistency with scientific laws, experimentation, and agreement with observations in nature (what happens in the real world).  GHG climate change theory fails scrutiny by The Scientific Method and, therefore, no matter how many scientists believe it, it must be rejected as invalid.

2. Appeals to authority are no more viable than consensus.  Other "organization[s] or group[s] of scientists who agree about human cuases" tend to base their agreement on accepting the assumptions that drive the IPCC "studies."  Inevitably, they reflect the IPCC by relying on its assumptions to drive their own studies.

Are you aware that the CMIP5 array of climate simulation models all share a common base?  They are modeled on the theory advocated by the IPCC.  Bear in mind that the IPCC was never chartered to scrutinize its theory; it was chartered to accept the theory and show the effects of a theory-based future.  We cannot fault the IPCC for following its charter, however, we do not have to agree with the premises behind the IPCC's chartered mission.

Ironically, the CMIP5 array of simulations have never agreed with what happens in nature (their results defy The Scientific Method).  In fact, Dr. John Christy (UAH), while reviewing IPCC working group materials for the IPCC AR5 report, discovered the IPCC's own models proved the theory upon which they are based is bogus.  They agree with nature only when atmospheric CO2 is reduced by the amount claimed to be contributed by humans (itself a figure that is an order of magnitude higher than scientist have determined to be appropriate, 40% of total vs. 4% of total).  When actual atmospheric CO2 is used, the models consistently vastly overpredict temperature.  Why?  Because the theory upon which the models are based is invalid.  Bad theory => bad results.  Yet when Christy brought this to the attention of the IPCC, they buried his finding in a working group report using a graphic that actually obscured the finding.  The did not mention that significant theory-defying discovery anywhere in the Summary Report.  Is this behavior consistent with honest reporting?  How many other inconvenient flaws in IPCC theory have been buried over the years?

I hope this helps you better understand there is a lot more to this issue than what the IPCC and related groups claim.

I wouldn't lightly dismiss the Finnish study either.  Many others have independently come to the same conclusion.  Unfortunately, Google has begun hiding such material in search results.

Over the three plus years of research for my coming book (which arrives at a similar conclusion as that of the Finnish research), many datasets and studies that were easily found several years ago are either impossible or very difficult to find today.  I no longer use Google for searching because they are no longer reliably inclusive of all material.

We all must be prepared to re-examine our premises and scrutinize theory, otherwise we lose the credibility to call ourselves scientists.

When I began research for my coming book (Looking Out The Window), I did so with the willingness to accept wherever the records led.  If worldwide data supported theory, that was a perfectly acceptable outcome.  However, when records fail to support theory, then there is an obligation to report such failure.  Sadly, today that approach is not "politically correct" and gets a lot of unscientific pushback.

I hope this information is helpful.

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on Jul 19, 2019 10:20 pm GMT

Bob, you act as though any theory can be verified or disqualified solely by simply plugging it into a machine called The Scientific Method, which will spit out a paper with either TRUE or FALSE printed upon it.

Distinguishing fact from fiction doesn't work that way:

"Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles. Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order. Some philosophers and scientists have argued that there is no scientific method; they include physicist Lee Smolin and philosopher Paul Feyerabend (in his Against Method). Robert Nola and Howard Sankey remark that 'For some, the whole idea of a theory of scientific method is yester-year's debate, the continuation of which can be summed up as yet more of the proverbial deceased equine castigation. We beg to differ.'"

You may not like it, but fact is determined by consensus - with agreement of the most qualifed, recognized scientists given more weight than right-wing grad school dropouts. Though they're certainly entitled to have an opinion on the subject, who cares?

Anthropogenic climate change is real. Q.E.D.

Bob Webster's picture
Bob Webster on Jul 23, 2019 10:21 pm GMT

Bob M.

You put words in my mouth that I don't, and then assail those words.  Clever tactic, but I've seen it before.

The Scientific Method is a sound approach.  At it's core, it has three requirements that every theory (or hypothesis) must conform with: (1) known scientific laws (not suppositions), (2) valid experimentation designed to reflect that theory or hypothesis, and (3) observations in nature.

These requirements ARE NOT a "fixed sequence of steps", they are absolute requirements.  Failure to agree with any one of the three pillars of The Scientific Method is sufficient to render a theory invalid (something that any scientist can understand).

Certainly, experimentation is difficult when climate change based on changes to the quantity of a trace atmospheric gas is a practical impossibility.  However, there are a number of valid records of what has happened in nature.  Geologic evidence, ice core evidence, and contemporary measurements dating to the late 19th century.

Yes, one could argue there is no Scientific Method, particularly if one doesn't really understand what it is.  In essence, it provides a rational requirement that scientific theory must conform with and that provides for a rational process by which theory can be scrutinized.

There is no such thing as "settled theory"... only scientific laws are "settled."

When theory is contradicted by observations, then that theory is invalid.  Violation of any one of the requirements of The Scientic Method is sufficient to invalidate any theory.

It's really a simple concept.

To suggest otherwise is grasping at straws.

Another reality you don't seem to understand is that (1) there is no "consensus" of scientists on human-caused global warming, no matter how many times you repeat the claim.  Your appeals to authority and consensus are no substitute for The Scientific Method and the fact that GHG climate change theory is contradicted by the evidence found in nature over every meaningful timeframe for which data exists.

Your anger is reflected in you name-calling about yet something else you know nothing about.

Science is science.  Politics has no place in science.  Neither does dogma.

Anthropogenic climate change is real in the fertile fantasies of those who know no better.

Trying to deny The Scientific Method while appealing to authority of consensus (that doesn't exist) is really quite pitiful.

GHG climate change theory claims changing atmospheric CO2 will lead to corresponding changes to global average temperature (or climate, long term).  But any rational examination of the data shows the relationship between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing global average surface temperture is one of pure chance.  The data reject the theory.  The opinions of your "consensus" are irrelevant when stacked up against what actually happens in nature.

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »