I'm a Green Guy with Solar Panels and Wind Generators

I'm kind of a green guy myself. I erected a couple of 1KW wind generators on my property with a few 50W solar panels on a rooftop. I did the major mounting and assembly myself.

What I learned was two things: In Northern Illinois, you get a very low percentage of the peak rating of either. You can go an entire week at a time with no wind whatsoever and the same week may be overcast, which greatly reduces the power to the panels. For what it does produce, you have to fight the elements the whole time, with storms that can bring down the wind towers and mold and humidity that can damage the panels. I lost all my panels but next time I would consider buying a more rugged brand.

I saved a lot of money by doing it myself but it took months of nights and weekends. For a $3,000 investment in these technologies, after a year, I have lost about a third of that to the elements. Since the power is often either being generated when you don't need it (such as high winds during a violent storm), or is not available when you do need it (about any other time!) along with downtime, I have after a year only extracted ten dollars or so of electricity from the equipment. As my wind towers are down at the moment, I am not generating power, but the generators survived along with most of the blades and they will rise again! Spring is approaching.

It would have been too expensive and unreliable to have motors point the solar panels directly at the sun, so they are mounted at fixed angles and through most of the day, they are off-angle and not collecting the optimum amount of sunlight. Furthermore, the sun's angle is lower in the winter than in the summer. Shortcomings in the simple charging circuit cannot use the power when the voltage drops too low. Then there's the dust. Factoring in many cloudy days in this region, a 50 Watt panel collects about 5 Watts average during daytime hours when the sun is not low. And then you have dusk and nighttime, bringing the average to about 2 Watts.

A 1KW wind generator generates 1KW for perhaps 1 hour per year while you worry about the whole thing tumbling down. Other times when it is turning, you get ten watts or so, if the dip in the voltage stays high enough to charge the batteries. But most of the time, the power is zero with a breeze that is more often than not too strong to fly a $25 toy radio control helicopter but too weak to reach the necessary 7 MPH speed to spin the generator.

When I write that I am skeptical about man-made global warming, that does not prevent me from dabbling in alternative technologies and making attempts at sustainability. It's an interesting and challenging area. A bit too challenging for me, I would say at this point.

And when I write that I do green things, that also does not prevent me from questioning the connection between wordwide thermometers compromised by nearby pavement, between the CO2 cycle and our own use of fuel on a planet whose capacity for absorption is still not established, between CO2 in the atmosphere which has a small warming effect on clear winter nights and water vapor which has a large effect, between climate models predictions and their vast uncertainty in that prediction. A bit too challenging for climate scientists, I would say at this point.

Climategate's Greatest Legacy may be a Healthy Skepticism of All Science-Based Policy

Scientistst should not pout that they lack the compelling charm of a television spokesperson when raising the alarm about global warming.

The climategate scandal has brought into the stark light of day the tenuous connection between global warming -- and the facts. Both the temperature record and the climate computer models are so badly damaged that the hollywood touch, complete with makeup and special effects, cannot repair their image.

This is unfamiliar territory for scientists, most of whom prefer a smidgen of notoriety with a heavy dose of privacy over the heated and politically charged debate. The sparks fly when science enters an area where the discoveries do not produce direct economic value but has heavy implications for how people behave. Global warming regulations and taxes fit that description. Another example is evolution, where many religions depend on a certain outcome of the evolution/creation question. While evolution has little economic value, the moral credibility of many religions and therefore how their members believe and live depend critically on the outcome of the debate.

When a scientific study is primarily of economic value; for example, that a new radio frequency becomes technically feasible for a next generation of cell phone, the controversy is a relatively quiet one behind corporate doors: Will the new radio work? And will the success of the new product justify the investment? If the science is wrong, it is quickly found out (the radio has limited range through walls). In this environment, the science is self-correcting (either fix the problem or move on to a different product), and it happens quickly (in a matter of months to a few years). The emotional attachment is there for a few advocates of the technology, but for the most part, the choices can be made dispassionately.

Undoubtedly, we will continue to face more emotionally charged science in politics. Next up, health care is a technological, moral and economic matter. We develop more and more exotic ways to save lives, but they are getting expensive. An MRI scan can identify tumors that might not otherwise be detected, but the cost is so high to routinely scan every American, that it is dismissed as impractical. Today, that is. But it is routinely used on the elderly in senior care, some of whom are so near the end of life, they could not undergo an operation or treatment if a problem is detected. The test is useless for such a patient. We are already spending money without thinking about how best to spend it and it can only get worse as these services default to entitlements.

It can get pretty confusing, especially when the science is faulty in the case of global warming, where huge government policy implications depend on a certain outcome. What the Climategate scandal teaches us is to be skeptical of the science and to "Follow the Money". Scrutinize who has something to gain from the policy that the science advocates. It is from this "analysis" that the most clear-headed policies can be achieved. And that healthy skepticism will help us keep vigilant in other fields. Thank you Climategate.

Has the CDC Grown Beyond Usefulness?

The Center for Disease Control was set up to understand and control the causes of sickness. One measure of whether a government agency has grown too large is if it starts acting weird, doing things that seem far outside the original charter. The EPA has gone too far with the CO2 endangerment finding the timing of which was suspiciously political. It came after Congress shot down cap and trade and the UN IPCC Climate Summit at Copenhagen was beginning. Obama needed more clout so he leaned on the EPA to produce this finding that is not only not scientifically founded (see Climategate) but is well outside the charter of the EPA. Again it happened at NASA, where the work of James Hansen, a self-avowed green activist, set out to advocate the theme (with the thinnest of shoddy data) that the globe is warming and much funding must be raised to work on the problem.

Two agencies, one theme: A far-future catastrophe awaits us in the form of global warming if we don't do something drastic (pay a lot of taxes, anyway).

Shift gears to a third government agency, the Center for Disease Control. What weird things have they done? Search global warming or climate warming on the CDC site and around 800 matches come up, speculations that are based on flawed temperature measurements located on paved parking lots and airport tarmacs. The temperatures contain major errors, so it is no doubt that the speculated rippling effects of those temperatures are even more far-flung and unreliable. How much time is wasted on these bogus scenarios at the CDC?

But I digress. It is the scare about the Swine Flu, also known as H1N1 that I want to talk about. While technically classified as a pandemic, it is no different than any other flu if not a bit milder in total impact. What the CDC is unable to do is predict the extent and severity of the pandemic. While the disease has not spread to everyone, the scare has, causing individuals and corporations to dig in, cancel travel and take other actions in the interest of safety.

It seems that the CDC has notched up their own importance by maintaining a fever pitch of excitement over the looming disaster. Looming disaster? This sounds like a page taken from the global warming playbook. And when a department has wandered so far from their original purpose to promote alarmism, it is time for a downsizing.

NASA's Alarmist James Hansen's Credibility on Global Warming is Hovering Right at Absolute Zero

I've been a big fan of NASA all my life, but I know an overblown bureaucracy when I smell one. My Taxes pay for this scientist and I don't like the job he's doing. He is on the string of Barack Obama to promote cap and trade legislation, part of Obama's unconstitutional control of government policies here. In his most recent letter here, he reinforces his claims about global warming that have increasingly been shown to be supported by weak and flimsy arguments. We still have his dismal temperature database that John Coleman and Joseph D'Aleo reported on in segment 4, and that surfacestations.org surveyed, but Hansen has not cleaned up his act. So how does he respond to such weaknesses?

"We are continually burdened by sweeping FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, which reduce our ability to do science and write it up"

In other words, the complete documentation, which he has refused to provide in the past and which offers the only way to redeem his credibility (if it did not show such shoddy work and flawed data) is the very thing that he objects to addressing most of all.

Hansen's methods are closely tied to the climategate scandal and his refusal to recognize and act on what is most important to resolving credibility has one positive benefit. It will forever hamper his ability to promote his alarmist agenda.

We should downsize NASA since it has shown itself to have grown to a size that now produces irrelevent, conflicting work and has slid from the cause of science to that of advocacy. I previously talked of downsizing the EPA for passing the point of diminishing returns, and now we have another government agency that has proven itself to have grown beyond usefulness. Second best if we cannot downsize NASA immediately, we can make sure the dysfunctional department continues with the widely discredited James Hansen as the head so that we never forget that this organization has fallen from the true faith of the pursuit of science.

Obama's Unconstitutional Policies No Longer Under My Protection

I can defend him with my silence no longer. His unethical and possibly illegal methods to sidestep congress and push costly tax increases affect my blog too greatly. He has already influenced the EPA into issuing a CO2 endangerment finding, with new penalties and fees to corporations for use of carbon (the fees of which ultimately go to us). He is about to push through health care legislation that will cost us even more. Smaller fixes are long overdue and in all the flurry and earmarking to buy votes, many of the necessary fixes will be overlooked if not outweighed by the additional costs. Someone sent me the following diagram.

Now how do we fight unconstitutional acts? With constitutional challenges. Get ready for a long slog through the mud. Obama's shortcuts will prove to be long and drawn out. And maybe something good will come of it: This is practice for dismantling all the cumbersome government programs that Obama and others have put in place over many decades. Once we get going, who knows how far we can get.

Illinois Governor Quinn wants State Tax Raised 33%. Bad governor! Very bad governor!

The current tax rate is 3%, Quinn wants it raised to 4%, that's an increase of 1/3 or 33%. This is a downward revision of his unwinnable 50% hike. We need to make sure that this too is unwinnable.

He says it's for education. Wait just a doggone minute. That's why we pay a big part of our real estate taxes. Have I used up my minute yet? That's how the Illinois Lottery was justified. Still some time left? At a time when more people are considering enrolling their children in private schools, we should look at funding schools only on a basis of which students they actually have. This is a case where legislators completely lack the fortitude to foster quality education. They refuse to pay based on the appeal that the schools have because of their addiction to revenue, rather than focus on quality and positive/negative reinforcement of paying for results.

He also had the brainstorm of raising taxes to corporations by 1%. That will raise prices and therefore the cost of citizens living both inside and outside of Illinois.

A brief history of Illinois income taxes:

Year ............ Tax Rate
Big Bang to 1969 ... 0% (sales tax previously covered everything)
1969-1983 ........ 2.5%
1983-1984 .......... 3%
1984-1989 ........ 2.5%
1989-2010 .......... 3%
Proposed ........... 4%

During a recession, every company has gone through belt-tightening, but this is unheard-of in the government. It is clear that there is no fiscal responsibility in government, they can only grow. If this increase is approved, the legislators, will borrow and grow to the new maximum extent possible and come back to the Illinois taxpayers with their hand out again. Quinn's threats of cuts to education does not ring of sincerity either.

History shows that tax hikes are followed by more hikes and increasing debt. There is strong opposition to this irresponsible tax hike, but Quinn is doggedly determined. Let us hope is bark is worse than his tax bite. Let us hope he doesn't have "hydrophobie" (for a description, watch Old Yeller).

Ink Blot Rorschach Test: What do you see?

Graph of global temperatures as portrayed by Wikipedia.

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205.doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677.doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

Notice that the references are chock full of names under investigation in association with the Climategate scandal.

The most important feature of the Wikipedia graph is the upward spike on the right side, to be interpreted as rapid, out of control global warming.

Temperatures in the distant past were estimated by studying the signs left by nature. These are called "proxies" because they are not actually thermometers. We would expect thermometers to be the very best means to measure temperature.

Modern temperature records in the graph are heavily dependent on thermometer measurements made at stations all across many continents. They should be the most accurate, but they have been subjected to recent urbanization: Buildings, pavement and more. Here is a picture of a station that has been making measurements for a century but only recently surrounded by buildings and roads:


Here is the temperature recorded at this site since 1900. Of course the air conditioner, buildings and other hot surfaces were not present when this sensor was first installed. Notice the sharply rising trend.


The above graph shows temperatures rising by more than three degrees. But how much is due to global climate and how much from local urbanization? Unfortunately, how much change to the local terrain, and when are not documented. The accuracy of such sites are given a rank, as follows.


The above temperature station rates a 5, "worst". It is no exception. I photographed a station near my house in the country, but the station only qualifies as 4, "poor", surrounded by buildings and pavement, with errors that could exceed 2 degrees C according to the chart above. The majority of stations in North America have been compromised by urbanization effects to a comparable extent. In the below map, the desired color of sensors is blue. Unfortunately, blue is an all but nonexistent Waldo:

The country as a whole remains undeveloped. Yet virtually all sensors are located next to developed structures that get hot in sunlight. Returning to the original graph, how much can we trust the right side of the graph, the only time period which uses modern temperature sensors? The global warming graph at beginning of this article is attempting to show tenths of a degree increase. But urbanization can introduce up to five degrees. We don't have records of precisely how much the change is or when it happened, so the sensor record is fairly useless. It cooks the data and burns a big tall spike on the right side of the graph.

And we thought the temperature record based on thermometers would be the gold standard. It is next to useless for this purpose. Does that mean that farther in the past proxies are more accurate, say within tenths of a degree to match the accuracy implied in the graph? Not a chance! We have even more difficulty verifying their accuracy due to many confusing and contaminating factors. The entire graph is in serious doubt now.

All those errors assume people did the best job humanly possible to collect and analyze their results. But they did not, so the errors are likely much greater. A large percentage of the people who made the graph at the top of the page are under investigation for the climategate scandal and they are global warming activists, factors which seriously questions the science. At this point it is appropriate to throw all conclusions out the window and wait decades for new data to be collected. Just don't let it hit the sensor next to the building on its way out.

Putting it all together, the wikipedia graph says very little factually. About the only thing you can see here is whatever you expect to see. You either see warming or sure signs of misleading "noise", completely opposite conclusions depending on what is in your mind. Like an ink blot, nothing in the drawing is real, it's all about how you interpret it. The warming interpretation is incorrect.

Farmlands, Petroleum and Global Warming

A simple calculation shows that all the carbon generated by 100 million cars across North America operating at the same time generates about as much carbon as that absorbed by a patch of land measuring approximately fifty by fifty miles. As North America is the leading consumer of gasoline for automobiles, this is a reassuring statistic.

Fly an airplane over the American Midwest. The land is not covered with cities or forests, it is farmland. Farmlands are near carbon equilibrium, they absorb it in the summer when crops are growing and release it when they are harvested. Centuries ago, the countryside consisted of natural habitats, including forests and grasslands. Not only did we release carbon forests into the atmosphere by logging and burning over the last few centuries, but we replaced them with land that is dark and barren sunlight-absorbing dirt during the spring and fall when crops are not growing. What is the heating effect of all that farming and how does it compare to, say, petroleum usage?

In the winter, some of the fields are snow-covered, but not entirely and not all winter. The snow-covered fields reflect more sunlight than their forest counterparts, where the barren trees absorb more heat from sunlight. This leads to cooler temperatures in the winter.

Planting takes place in the spring, but for several weeks, the fields are essentially barren. The dark soil thus absorbs more heat than a natural green habitat. How much heat from sunlight are we talking about?

Calculation
If the sun is directly overhead and all the light is absorbed, the earth receives nearly 1400 watts per square meter or 100 watts per square foot. An incandescent light bulb per square foot. That translates to 2.7 gigawatts per square mile. If solar panels were 100 percent efficient instead of 10 percent, that would be enough power to run 270,000 electric cars at highway speeds (at 10 KW average), for each square mile of land.

That is a staggering amount of energy from sunlight. It would only take a square of sunlit land 19 by 19 miles to equal the power of 100 million cars on the road at the same time across the entire North American continent.

While the above calculation was based on an electric car, that is the same energy output required to operate a petroleum powered car of equal size. However, an internal combustion engine is not 100% efficient. It is about 15% efficient (By comparison, commercial solar cells are only around 10% efficient). 15% efficiency corresponds to 6.6 times more energy generated by the engine than it uses. This is released in the form of heat. How much total energy us used by internal combustion? Our 19 mile square grows to 6.6 times the area to a square that is 50 miles on a side.

The heat of 100 million internal combustion cars all operating equals the heat of the sun, directly overhead, falling on a dark square surface only 50 miles on a side, a miniscule fraction of the Earth's surface. The sun does not always shine but neither do that many cars always run. There is a peak at rush hour in each time zone and a minimum overnight.

Environmentalists are not concerned about the puny amount of heat produced from petroleum fuel, they are worried about the carbon in the form of CO2. How much carbon is that? Let us compare it with carbon grown on land. A rough calculation follows.

If plant life is fifteen percent efficient at absorbing sunlight and turning it into carbon capture [CD: this will be checked], that would again require a square of land 50 by 50 miles to match the carbon output of 100 million cars. The interesting thing here is that a lot of cars on the road do not produce a lot of carbon.

Barren farmland does not absorb 100% of sunlight because it is not black. The dark brown color does absorb well over half, which is more than green plant life in the forests. And while that warming is not year-round and in the northern United States it happens at a time of year when the sun's rays are slanting more, it does mean a definite warming of farmlands must be tolerated if we are to have agriculture. And it does seem to be completely tolerated, I do not see anybody arguing against farming.

The good news is the worldwide logging of forests has slowed to a near standstill as replacement trees are planted at about the same speed they are cut down. If any global warming has been due to farming, the rise has occurred over the last few centuries and has recently leveled off. The majority of the planet's surface is neither farmland nor forest, but oceans, mountains, deserts and other terrain.

Most of the earth's surface is capable of absorbing carbon: Mountains absorb it when rain and CO2 react with the rocks. In oceans, sea creatures grow, producing shells made primarily of carbon, which eventually turn into limestone. Once formed, limestone does not readily re-enter the atmosphere. Limestone cliffs are one dramatic example of these gigantic land forms. The stone quarries found all across the Midwest hint at the underground vastness of land-based limestone.

Whereas a 50 by 50 mile square of the ecosystem can absorb the same carbon as 100 million cars, the earth's total area is so large that it contains 78,000 such squares. The total area may not be able to absorb seventy eight thousand north Americas full of cars, but it will never have to. The carbon contribution of all the present and projected future cars is insignificant compared to the natural carbon processes found in the world. In short, we don't have to worry about it.

Every time we cut down a 50 by 50 mile area of forest for cities and highways, do we risk an equal effect? Every time we irrigate that much new land, do we relieve the pressure? In fact, these patches of land are small potatoes compared to the rest of the earth. The rest of the world is busily absorbing CO2 as it always has. If there is a bit more available, it will absorb a bit more, adding up over time, as evidenced by the enormous size of limestone deposits.

The question then remains is why was everyone so worried about petroleum producing high CO2 levels? There are 78,000 reasons not to worry.

Climate Scientists Should Stick to Avocacy. I Mean Science.

In chemistry, you try to isolate the variables. Hydrogen and oxygen plus a spark and POOF! You have water. You mustn't introduce impurities that might obscure what is going on, might bias the amount of heat generated and every other measurement. Only by being a careful, impartial observer can the untainted truth be learned.

The same is true with the scientific process itself. There are advocates and there are scientists. When the two are intertwined, they cease to be credible as either. The purity of the scientist is lost. And the advocacy falls into disrepute too, because the basis in science is no longer trustworthy.

It's entirely human to have a hunch, a purpose and follow one's convictions. These motivate scientists to dig deeper yet raises the probability of biasing them toward a preconcieved notion, especially if the community is already biased in the same direction.

Separating sciency and advocacy seems impossible, so the best we can hope for is checks and balances. Verifiability has been the most obvious one lacking in the climate debate. Work needs to be duplicated, not lost or destroyed. The other lacking piece has been the one-sidedness of the research. There wasn't much demand for verifiability, since the majority of climate work was slanted toward the warming thesis. There was no "market" for research of the opposite thesis. It's not quite as exciting so it wasn't missed. Now we see the error in our ways.

To continue the H2O analogy, we don't want scientists to say, "Hydrogen reacts with water and you are very bad people for those of you doing this. Too much heat is generated! And too much water! And it uses up valuable oxygen!" When we get science from scientists, we are eternally grateful. And I do mean eternally, since the purest truths are enduring, whereas opinions mixed in often contaminate the whole story.

Uber-Environmentalist Laments Green Corruption and Ignores Climate Record

Writer Johann Hari would not seem such a hyper-Alarmist if the underlying science were true. But it's clearly not. Set that aside for the moment and immerse yourself in his article that roasts every major environmental group. Why? Because they're not doing much at all, and,

If we exceed the safe amount of warming gases in the atmosphere, then the earth will release its massive carbon stores and we will have runaway warming. After that, any cuts we introduce will be useless.

Forget that at the present we have no skill or credibility at predicting future warming and that the past record only points to catastrophic cooling as a plausible scenario and enjoy The Wrong Kind of Green or here http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari and mentioned here The Real Climategate: How America's Conservationists Have Been Bought .

Environmental groups used to be funded largely by their members and wealthy individual supporters. But Jay Hair--president of the National Wildlife Federation from 1981 to 1995--was dissatisfied. He identified a huge new source of revenue: the worst polluters.
...
The Copenhaven UN climate summit ended with no binding agreement for any country to limit its emissions of greenhouse gases, and a disregard of the scientific targets. Given how little time we have, this was shocking. [David Donniger, the policy director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)] was indeed furious--with the people who were complaining. He decried the "howls of disaster in European media, and rather tepid reviews in many U.S. stories." He said people were "holding the accord to standards and expectations that no outcome achievable at Copenhagen could reasonably have met--or even should have met." This last sentence is very revealing.

He makes a case that the goals of the green groups are not achieved by the staggeringly expensive proposed cap and trade legislation. They don't go far enough he says because if it's too radical, it won't get the votes. In other areas of green activism, he shows that those programs are ineffective as well.

Although he decries local actions to protect a patch of forest here, a city's clean air there by green groups as too little too late, this is where we strongly disagree. Love them or hate them, it is the one area where activists have been proven to be effective and to abandon it is to render themselves completely irrelevant. We are misreading the signs in nature when the past climate record only points to cooling from the current temperatures and we can't explain why. Instead, scientists on the same bandwagon blindly predict temps rising evermore. For environmental groups to pursue lofty global carbon goals is to chase a fleeting phantom, with no possibility today of stating that this is the issue at all and no way to measure whether we had an effect after taking action.

CO2: EPA Endangerment Finding discovers EPA is a Danger to US

Looking inward at one's self is the best way for the EPA to find out what threatens Americans. Yes, the pollutant that stinks is the steaming entrails of the EPA itself. First, with the CO2 endangerment finding surprisingly coinciding with Obama's visit to the Copenhagen climate summit in December, obviously politically motivated and timed to bolster Obama's influence on the world stage (it did that, but worked about as well as a fashion malfunction on stage). Second, they pressed onward into the new year, even though every major premise of climate science was called into question by Climategate and other events around the same timeframe (just ram it through because Obama wanted it. Ram it through because you might have the votes. Ram it through quickly because support is evaporating faster than the glaciers).

What is needed here is akin to a lawsuit. Not only should the EPA downsize by an amount equal to the size of the department that handles CO2 (is each department named a gas or what?), but there should be punitive damages as well, the EPA should downsize a lot more as punishment (departments of liquids and solids?). As further public humiliation, their initials, EPA should be changed to lowercase, epa. That might seem too harsh but why stop there?

The regulations they've put in place to date are mostly good. The fact that this agency is now a political game piece overreaching its authority tells us it's time for the last person to turn out the lights of the EPA on their way out. Hey, we have great regulations, we'll just go on enforcing them without the EPA from now on. They have, by their own actions, illustrated that they have outlived their usefulness. Click!

RealClimate is good solid science-advocacy

I just got back to a far-out trip to realclimate, where fantasies can become a part of your life. The latest article is about sea level rise estimates out to the year 2100 and how these are actually conservative estimates and still nobody gets credit for doing good science.

Science has many examples of trying to make predictions that are tested far, far into the future. For example, Einstein's theory culminated in the atom bomb decades later. And another of his theories was much later confirmed in "frame dragging" of orbiting bodies in astronomy. And that's just one scientist. Others who have had their theories come true decades later include, er..., well there must be lots of them. It's the failures you don't hear about, the theories that were later disproved.

Today, climate scientists are advancing their theories and projections that may be proven decades up to a century hence (they could predict farther out, their models are flawless and limitless, but there's no darn market for it). While making predictions, they are also advocating doing something about it now, not waiting decades for action (Einstein was a fool!). Which if you think about it, is a very good idea! Because they could be wrong and who would pay anything then? And it doesn't look so good with every temperature database in question, and every computer model wobbly even with a good temperature database.

There has been an imperceptible shift from "we've got to act now to save the environment before it's too late!" to a new urgency, "We've got to act now before too many people discover the science is shoddy!"

But you've got to feel pity, because climate science is a lousy business to be in. People can't do anything good with their results, like come up with some new labor-saving device, or even a toy or military weapon. They can only be taxed to high heaven, just to "keep things from getting much worse". And they can't even be sure if they got it right in their lifetime, only to become another forgotten theory. Except if they're not sure, they don't get the job. Now they are sure!

Climate Alarmists, or How to Tell the Whole Truth about Half the Story

A convincing truth may be only half the story and that is the best advice climate alarmists seem to be telling themselves. Take the follow article, page 4, http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=154118 , here's an excerpt:

Jones was asked about average global temperatures since 1860: In general – including the period 1975 to 2009 – they've increased about 0.16 degrees Celsius per decade, he explained. Those measurements cover enough years, and the increase is large enough, to meet technical criteria for statistical significance. Over the past 15 years, the measured increase was 0.12 Celsius per decade. The shorter time and smaller change don't quite pass the test.

Deniers spun this detailed, cautious clarification into an admission of error. Typically, the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente wrote: "... he dropped a bombshell. He acknowledged there's been no statistically significant warming since 1995."

... The pattern repeated when Jones answered the question: "When scientists say `the debate on climate change is over,' what exactly do they mean?""I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this," he replied in part. "This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties."

To the likes of Lorne Gunter in the National Post this was a "dramatically" changed tone from the "alarmist" Jones; a "new willingness to concede doubt."But Jones' comment wasn't news: Doubt is inherent in true science. Put beside his main message, this is the scientist sensibly saying we don't yet know everything, but suggesting the evidence makes action prudent.

Although this is a convenient paraphrasing of Prof. Jones words, I'll accept it. This text indicates a relatively balanced view, something you might not have expected from an activist alarmist. You thought for them, the truth was only getting in the way of the agenda. But note the last phrase, the evidence makes action prudent. That's the whole point of the article. Not cleaning up the evidence, not re-evaluating poor practices, not checking whether this is the right action.

But this is not the whole story. Articles such as this, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial?page=4 demonstrate there are wide swaths of the story not being covered by the alarmists, for example,

Jones dealt the science-is-settled narrative a huge blow with his candid admission in a BBC interview that his surface temperature data are in such disarray they probably cannot be verified or replicated, that the medieval warm period may have been as warm as today, and that he agrees that there has been no statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years—all three points that climate campaigners have been bitterly contesting.

The alarmist only went after the disputable last point. Not that either side is wrong on this point (although I would side against the alarmists who have been pounding home the idea that the earth is warming and time is running out). But confining myself to the text itself, both sides make a valid point. Then there's the other point: What about the all important loss of data that probably cannot be verified or replicated? There is no way to tell if the data was valid or fabricated, the reported results upon which these pivotal actions are to be taken. The alarmists don't touch that. The skeptics fill a crucial role here. First of all, it's faster reading, one paragraph instead of three. Second, it gets to the real issue, which appeals to at least some people.

We have decades of work to do before we accurately measure how much warming exists (if ever. The air is wispy stuff. What about down to the frost line, three feet or so depth of earth and the entire depth of the ocean?), how much of that warming, if any, is human caused (and I'll allow the possibility that some of it is, though I am skeptical), and what to do about it (global government and taxes are a no-go. How about hanging out white laundry in vast fields?). None of the three steps of the argument are settled.

How-To: Secession of Texas

From time to time, I hear talk about Texas seceeding from the union. Why? Regardless of the reasons, here's a suggestion of how to do it:

Texas senators should modify every piece of federal legislation, every entitlement program to EXCLUDE TEXAS as one of the beneficiaries. Of course, that may require pulling some political strings, which means some of their votes can be used to buy the rewrites of bills so that Texas is written out of it. But fellow congressmen from other states will be favorable toward the idea anyway, since it reduces the cost of a new program if Texas is excluded. Everybody would be aware of what Texas would be trying to do, but incrementally, no one program could be blamed for losing Texas, so the legislation would speed ahead.

The short term effect would be a loss of federal programs. Texas would continue to pay federal taxes for programs they would not be the beneficiaries of. The difference would be small at first. But in a couple of decades, the gap would grow and the feeling would grow into a deep abiding resentment, akin to taxation without representation, although in this case the representatives were in on the ground floor. The effect would be to draw attention to all federal programs, "What are we getting, why are we paying so much." Fanning the flames of discontent, it would fuel the movement away from federal control in a way that would be unprecedented from any time before. And it could succeed.

Ironically, that would be the legislative action that all states should be taking today: To reduce, rather than increase federal spending. The problem they always run into is that the only spending they seem to be able to impact is that which affects their own state. How often does an earmark not affect a senator whose vote is needed? And when their own constituency is involved, the answer is always the same, "Give us our share." Today, Texas might be the only state that could have the fortitude to reject a greater federal presence. And in terms of eventual financial freedom as well as the political freedom that goes with it, the rewards are great for Texas, or anybody else that does that.

Would it work? It may not on the first secession attempt, but more years of time would allow more attempts to be made. Yes, it would work.

CO2 Global Warming: Firsthand Experience

In Northern Illinois, you get cold winters and hot summers. On some nights you can strongly experience firsthand the global warming effects of water versus CO2.

Some of us interested in amateur astronomy have long been aware that the best nights for viewing are in the winter. The humid summer nights add a milkiness to the sky when streetlights illuminate it. I do not recall a single summer night that was truly dry enough to lack this milkiness. But in the winter, the sky does lose moisture, allowing us to see more stars as well as faint nebulae and galaxies. These very dry nights are also the times that heat from the ground radiates directly into space, yielding subzero temperatures. This weeds out the weaker astronomers.

A cold nights can occur when we get a cold blast of Canadian air (the Canadians probably just call it 'air'). But on a clear, windless night, meteorologists point out that infrared heat will escape directly into space, leaving us with bitter cold temperatures. Yet many local residents I've asked are unaware of the connection. I recommend everybody take note of this effect, both on cloudy nights and clear nights. You will find the effect to be quite dramatic, differing by thirty or so degrees F.

The same thing happens in daytime, it gets colder than usual under clear skies, but the effect is lessened while the sun is simultaneously heating the ground.

Carbon dioxide blankets the earth evenly, it does not form "fronts" and "systems" the way clouds do, so a night without moisture still has plenty of CO2 present. Stepping outside, we learn that the effects of water vapor dominate temperatures while present levels of CO2 do little to counteract the absence of water.

Three Simple Questions

1. Does every question have an answer? - Put another way, is there an answer to every question even if no human knows what the answer is?
2. Is number 3 a question?
3. What is the answer to this question?

Are We Raising a Generation of Socialists?

Many of our kids grow up and live at home, unable to get the kind of job that pays for an independent lifestyle. They make the rational choice that the standard of living their parents provide is far beyond anything forseeable for them on their own. The path from a minimum wage job (especially in this downturn) to higher pay is not a straight line. Most of such work does not involve upward mobility, so the worker has to leave and find something better. The sharp turns seem to have nothing to do with the first job. So why head out into the world and try to support yourself? Why believe that capitalism works for them? They only see no good jobs and their best lifestyle comes from a shelter provide for by their parents.

I know several single mothers, every one intelligent and able-bodied. In some cases, they gave up on remarrying, sometimes after two tries, believing all men are pretty much the same. They live on their own, but only by state aid, which seems to allow such beliefs to continue, even encourages them. I'm not saying the mothers are wrong to choose public aid, I'm saying the system is wrong and that it pays people to believe in it. One reason the men are no good is economic, they don't provide, which brings us back to the minimum wage problem, which points back to the same government that both provides the state aid and sets the minimum wage. See the problem? Not to mention the broken families that resulted.

In short, we are seeing the flywheel of the economy slow down as more friction wears it down. But its going to need new, young energy to spin it up. The capitalists above the entry level (myself included) will not benefit if the bulk of Americans give up much of their freedom in exchange for a little handout of wealth. Giving up freedom opens the door to larger government. If funding is the key to influencing public opinion, then we have done a bad job of funding the workers with a decent wage. On the other side of the argument, the government is doing a great job of funding welfare.

test

this post will be deleted.

Why Climate Simulations Fail

As an engineer, I've written several computer simulations for electrical circuits and the behavior of networks in FORTRAN (the language used by climate scientists at the CRU), in BASIC (a FORTRAN-like language that is more interactive) and to a lesser extent in C (a more modular, reusable language than the other two). I don't have to know every detail of climate science to know there is something rotten in the simulation models that predict temperature rise a century from now.

My simulations taught me several things:

1. There is the feeling of exhilaration with getting the computer to actually do work for you and produce a result that you can use. It's an amazing feat.
2. Some simulations exhibit divergent behavior, that is, as you add more precision, they do not converge toward the same result. This is an important warning to those that would attach too much importance to today's early results.
3. Even a simple computer model involving less than ten variables, all of which are well understood, can quickly balloon into an vastly complicated and slow simulation that would take years to complete without shortcuts. By contrast, earth's climate involves millions of variables, some with small impact, others large, all of which are not precisely understood.
4. The computer is equally loyal about producing bad results as good (remember early programmable calculators and the popularity of biorhythms?). Unless the result is outrageous (such as a climate model generating millions of degrees or below absolute zero, both being impossibilities), it's impossible to discern good data from bad without further investigation. For example, the climate simulation will never tell you if you forgot to take into account the shapes of continents or clouds or mountains when formulating your conclusions. Independent methods of verification are needed, the best being a reality check against the climate itself.
5. A simple nonlinear system is hundreds of times harder to simulate than a linear one. An example of a linear system is a guitar amp where if you pluck the string twice as hard, the speaker plays it twice as loud. An example of a nonlinear system is the same amplifier driven to distortion. When you pluck louder, the amplifier puts out a fuzzier sound at almost the same volume, the exact details depending on how the system clips at the power limits, what kind of transistors or tubes are used, how the circuit is biased, the power supply and so forth. Climate simulation is a non-linear system on many levels, just one example being the idea of "tipping points", which by their hidden nature are obscure and not well understood. It is like predicting how pleasingly an amplifier distorts and exactly at what volume, without ever having played it so. Simulating small amounts of climate change is beyond our ability today. Simulating tipping points is hundreds of times beyond that.
6. Once the first simulation is done, a second one, known as sensitivity analysis is needed to avoid another important gotcha. Let's say you simulate a circuit, double-check it, build it and prove it works as expected. So you launch your new product, only to find the factory yield is dropping as none of the circuits seem to be working. On further examination, it turns out you needed capacitors with a precision of one tenth of a percent, which are simply not available. A sensitivity analysis proves to be an important practical part of any simulation. Sensitivity analysis also provides the best hope for climate change: A slight nudge here has a larger effect there. Expensive brute force efforts to control climate won't work, not only because we can't afford them (or stay sustainably focused on them), but it goes against nature itself. Nature gives us the secrets of the best ways to solve problems, we just have to find them, that is, understand the relationships between the variables.

Climate simulations lack the robustness that comes from being testable. In electronics, many a simulation has fallen by the wayside after failing the simple reality check. The only tests so far on climate have been the results of the last fifteen years, which already contradict the simulations that predicted significant warming. But notice that my article did not even depend on this fact. My point was that the climate simulations were incapable of generating worthwhile results at the current state of knowledge. I would have discredited the models even if the last fifteen years have been correctly predicted, since it would have been a roll of the dice.

In electronics, simulations of well-defined linear circuits of ten variables (components) took years to evolve and improve. Climate simulations have just begun. They have millions of variables, the variables are not well understood, are nonlinear and the testibility of the simulations is virtually nonexistent. In short, we have decades to centuries to go before we can say the simulations predict anything of relevence.

Mass Extinction believed caused by Dinosaurs Hitting the Yucutan Peninsula at 20 times the speed of a ballet

Most members of the small community of dinosaur scientists (terrible lizard scientists) now agree on what caused the mass extinction at the end of the cantankerous period, adopting a "consensus", which recently became available from climate scientists.

"The impact was so powerful," consensual scientists exclaimed, "It had a major impact." On the environment, "It would have caused forests for thousands of miles to burn. And itch." A variety of disciplines were used to find agreement, including long chains, precise rulers and canings.

Indeed, if the same cataclysm were repeated with humans today, the predicted outcome would also be the same: Predictably, cataclysmic. The latest thinking is that humans are much more intelligent than once believed. As a next step, according to freely available hacked emails, they will begin studying what the outcome would be if the same thing happened to grasshoppers or spiders.

While the majority of the scientific community believe that a consensus caused the extinction, not everybody agrees, "There are always a few outliers." Some of these out and outliers believe in the opposite scenario. Others lie somewhere in-between.

The small team emphasized that Americans have to act now because the lessons of history are clear: A consensus allows legislation to move forward faster than any global event. Especially important in today's world of increasingly competitive disaster scenarios. "There used to be one scare at a time. Now there's even talk of several global disasterists forming coalitions, or simultaneous multisasters to appeal to a larger audience." As of this writing, we had yet to see the list of demands from the dinosaur scientists.

Health Care Proposals Must Be Above Board and in the Light

What I would like to see in the health care debate is an analysis of a range of choices, the services (including how effective they are) and the costs. This can be done dispassionately enough, because if falls short of advocacy, which is the politically charged part of it. A similar breakdown can be listed for existing entitlements, such as social security and medicare, including how fast the various categories are growing.

What we get instead is a backroom tug of war that involves some well documented bribes as the tip of the iceburg, which implies many more hidden deals below the surface, invisible to us. A casualty of this process is visibility and dialog of what we are trying to achieve, what are the ways to get there and how much it costs. The 1000 page document is not only impossible to comprehend, it is voted before it sees the light of day.

We can't afford annual MRI scans for everyone each year (they cost $5000 apiece and diagnose a limited number of conditions. We have to put a price on care and seem to have lost the moral fortitude to stick with a realistic goal: Cut the costs of the most needed health services which expands the affordability and availability for an increasing number of people.

Proponents will say that complete disclosure allows people to organize against it. Then let's break it down into pieces and vote on them. There are many potential improvements waiting for all this to happen. And the big legislation risks real improvements themselves being a casualty of the process.

Stop the Smear Campaign About "Congress Spending Like Drunken Sailors"

People have compared congressional legislation to spending like drunken sailors. It's time to stop the name-calling. Drunken Sailors are nothing like congressmen. There are important differences:

• The drunken sailor spends all HIS money. The congressman spends other people's money.
  
• The drunken sailor spends ALL his money. The congressman spends more than even exists.
• The worst thing thing that can happen is the drunken sailor ends up with a big tattoo. When congress botches up, the taxpayer doesn't even get that.
  
• The drunken sailor is drunk. What's the congressman's excuse?

So the next time you hear that, just assume it is some political spin doctor trying to raise their stature a notch.

The Mad Scientist of the Fifties Movies meets Climategate

The mad scientists of the black and white fifties films: Wearing a white lab cloak, they worked madly (what else?) on some new obscene creation that, when completed, would help them control the world. The WORLD! Ha, ha, ha! But there was always a fatal flaw.

Did you ever believe that such scientists existed or was it just a convenient vehicle for a movie plot? Because if they existed in real life, wouldn't others spot them right away and stop them? In spite of the stereotype, I don't think the credibility of the scientific community was eroded by the movies. Scientists were making strides that improved our lives almost daily.

Fast forward to today, the Climategate scientists aren't like that at all. Their methods are different yet oddly, the idea of controlling the world resonates! It's no wonder people didn't spot them for the longest time. They wear cardigans. And that fatal flaw? You're soaking in it.

Hopeful NY Times Climategate article - dashed!

From yesterday's NYTimes: Scientists take steps to Defend Work on Climate there were a lot of great ideas floated, like admitting mistakes, making reforms in the process and opening up data.

If this had happened in the first place, I would never have started a blog. But all I saw for weeks was denial, deception and distraction that "Besides, all the rest of the science is good!"

While the article's ideas were good, the conclusion took off in a completely different direction,

“There have always been people accusing us of being fraudulent criminals, of the I.P.C.C. being corrupt,” Dr. Schmidt said. “What is new is this paranoia combined with a spell of cold weather in the United States and the ‘climategate’ release. It’s a perfect storm that has allowed the nutters to control the agenda.”

In other words, the accusers have become nutters, now that they are armed with more evidence than ever of badly conducted science.

This dismissive attitude and the substituting of name calling for problem solving is exactly the reason to keep pressure applied, when they see every revealed error as a risk to the progress of their galloping agenda.

A Democracy Too Large is Not a Democracy

When you work for a corporation, you often have input as to how things are done. But once the decision is made, you are expected to get to work supporting it and not speak against the plan. There are a lot of good things about corporations, such as the need to keep both feet based in reality and sell what is desired and do it competitively. But one thing they are not is democracies. Management tells you what is expected and you do it. No vote is taken. If you really want to be an outspoken critic, it might be better to find work elsewhere.

Some governments, by contrast, are democratic. However, within a government, like the corporate organization, you have managers and workers reporting to them. Decisions are passed down and the people are expected to follow them. While a good manager may listen to those that report to her before a decision is made, there is no such promise to do so and no vote is taken. The work being done within the government is not by democratic process.

Now let us explore government size at the hypothetical limit. If the government grew to 100% of the size of the economy, say by nationalizing every business, there would no longer be a democracy. This is because when all the people work for the government, they have a conflicted situation, needing to work uncritically for their managers while supposedly having the political freedom of dissent against government policies.

Today, the US government's size is around 37% and growing. Is loss of democracy a concern at this size? Most definitely. As polls show, a voting block as large as 37% is a very significant sector and has the potential to swing any vote except a landslide. Even more concerning is the limited freedom of expression of this group, comprising more than a third of the population, which becomes a further damper on the democratic dialog. Certainly they would have more valuable viewpoints if they did not sense the pressure to stay within the political agenda.

When should we worry that the government itself will swing voting in all but the largest landslides? At up to 37%, it is already happening and affecting voting results everywhere. When was the last time you saw a vote that just did not make sense to you? As if a block of voters just didn't have both feet based in reality? Then perhaps you've seen it too. As they grow further, it becomes even harder to un-ring this bell, harder to reverse policies set increasingly by the government that thrives on its own growth. When to be concerned about how large the government is? Begin now.