Recently after some conversations with a former chemical engineer who provided me with some insight, I’ve come to the conclusion that many engineers have difficulty with many of the premises of AGW theory because in their “this has to work or people die” world of exacting standards, the AGW argument doesn’t hold up well by their standards of performance.
Today I was surprised to learn that one of the foremost and world famous engineers on the planet, Burt Rutan, has become an active climate skeptic. You may be familiar with some of Rutan’s work through his company, Scaled Composites:
Thanks to WUWT reader Dale Knutsen, I was provided a PowerPoint file recently by email presented by Mr. Rutan at the Oshkosh fly-in convention on July 29th, 2009 and again on August 1st, 2009. It has also now been posted online by an associate of Mr. Rutan’s.
There were a number of familiar things in the PowerPoint, including data plots from one of the USHCN stations I personally surveyed and highlighted, Santa Rosa, NM. Rutan had an interest in it because of the GISS adjustment to the data. For him, the whole argument is about the data. He says about his presentation in slide #3:
Not a Climatologist’s study; more from the view of a flight test guy who has spent a lifetime in data analysis/interpretation.
In the notes of his PowerPoint on slide #3, Rutan tells us why he thinks this way(emphasis mine):
My study is NOT as a climatologist, but from a completely different prospective in which I am an expert.
Complex data from disparate sources can be processed and presented in very different ways, and to “prove” many different theories.
For decades, as a professional experimental test engineer, I have analyzed experimental data and watched others massage and present data. I became a cynic; My conclusion – “if someone is aggressively selling a technical product who’s merits are dependant on complex experimental data, he is likely lying”. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.
Now since I’m sure people like foaming Joe Romm will immediately come out to label Mr. Rutan as a denier/delayer/generally bad person, one must be careful to note that Mr. Rutan is not your average denier/delayer. He’s “green”. Oh horrors, a “green denier”! Where have we seen that before?
From his PowerPoint, here’s his house, note the energy efficient earth walled design.
In his PowerPoint notes he says about his green interests:
My house was Nov 89 Pop Science Cover story; “World’s Most Efficient House”. Its big advantage is in the desert summer. It is all-electric and it uses more energy in the relatively mild winters than in the harsh summers – just the opposite of my neighbors.
The property has provisions for converting to self-sustaining (house and plug-in hybrid car) via adding wind generator and solar panels when it becomes cost effective to do so.
Testing Solar Water Heat in the 70s at RAF; the Rutan Aircraft Factory was converted to solar-heated water in the 70s, when others were only focused on gasoline costs.
My all electric EV-1 was best car I ever owned. Primary car for 7 years, all-electric with an 85 mile range. I was very sad (just like the guy shown) when the leased cars were recalled and crushed by General Motors. I will buy a real hybrid when one becomes available (plug-in with elect-range>60 miles). The Prius “hybrid” is not a hybrid, since it is fueled only by gasoline. A Plug-in Hybrid can be fueled with both gas and electricity. You might even see a ‘plug-in hybrid airplane’ in my future.
Interest is technology, not tree-hugging
Well that right there is reason enough to put all sorts or nasty labels on the man. Welcome to the club Burt, we are proud to have you!
Rutan’s closing observations slide is interesting:
And, in his notes he makes this mention:
Is the debate over? – The loudest Alarmist says the debate is over. However, “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry”.
I think by the “loudest alarmist” he means Al Gore.
And his final slide:
Rutan’s PowerPoint file is posted at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
For those that don’t have PowerPoint, I’ve converted it to a PDF file for easy and immediate reading online which you can download here.
I wonder if in conversations with his biggest client, Virgin’s Richard Branson, he ever mentions Gore and their joint project? I’d love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation.
“That’s the difference between real world Engineers and ivory towered Academics. Our designs have to work. Otherwise companies fail and worst case, people die. (Managers take a dim view of this) In academia, you adjust the data, apply for another grant and go on your merry way. Worst case, you blame it all on the engineers. (been there)
Eventually we will have alternates to fossil fuel. Academics may talk about it. Engineers like Rutan will make it happen.”
Thank you.
RW (05:00:42) : Stop exhaling CO2…if you can!
Burt Rutan is an engineering genius. I’ve been a fan of his for many years, and more so now!
“RW:– Statements that “CO2 is not a pollutant” also amuse me, particularly when they make use of patronising bold face. The easy response is to invite the claimant to spend just a few minutes in a room filled with pure CO2.”
I would hate to be in a room full of N2, although 76% of the air consists of it. I would not want 100% O2 (23% of air) either, remembering Gus Grissom. So your response is easy because it is dumb.
Roger Sowell (07:40:49)
Which engineer will treat a machine entirely as a black box, if even just partial reconstructions of sketches and blueprints are available? We have a combination of solar, aerosols, land use and change thereof and GHGs forcing, accompanied by orbital forcing and continental drift over longer time scales, plus a few feedbacks like biological systems. Who would assume, that temperature is tied only to CO2? Nice straw man, if a bit old.
BTW, any comments on the issues I raised with Rutan’s talk or is your reply just a “engineers know better” claim of authority?
RW (05:00:42) :
“Burt Rutan’s ‘observations’ are quite fatuous.
– Of course humans can code a computer model to predict global temperatures, and we’ve been doing so for three decades. The models have been pretty accurate.
– The effect of human greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures is obvious.
– Statements that “warm is good, not bad!” amuse me. It’s like saying “food is good, not bad!” – that is, basically it’s meaningless.
– Statements that “CO2 is not a pollutant” also amuse me, particularly when they make use of patronising bold face. The easy response is to invite the claimant to spend just a few minutes in a room filled with pure CO2.
– if he believes ever-rising claims of reserve size, I’ve got a bridge he might like to buy. If he believes there will be a ‘gradual switch’ then he doesn’t understand maths. When use of a finite resource is exponentially increasing, there will be nothing gradual when the end comes.
And yet simultaneously he almost gets the point. He just about acknowledges that current global temperatures are unusual in the context of the last several centuries. He offers no explanation of why he thinks that is, or why the simple, well-established radiative properties of CO2 should somehow not be working”.
RW,
Please come up with some serious arguments and skip the BS you have written down.
You show all the symptoms of an AGW extremist.
@ur momisugly Charlie (07:54:54) :
“A good engineer distinguishes between “certainty that the ‘A’ in AGW is a non-entity” and “there is no certainty that the A in AGW exists”.”
Yup. That is why engineers have the certainty. Fundamentals of process control are inviolable. For atmospheric CO2 to be the driving force behind the gradual climate warming since 1850, the Little Ice Age, would violate fundamentals of process control. That is why my engineering audiences never, not once, have disagreed with the point that CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature.
We build sophisticated refineries and chemical plants and power plants and other processes to make modern life possible. Process control systems are key to making these things work, and work safely, and work efficiently. There is a reason that many (perhaps most) of the process explosions occur when control systems are disabled. When engineers get it wrong, people die and equipment gets broken.
Millions upon millions of process control loops operate every day, and have done so for many thousands of years. Some are automatic, but many are in manual control mode. An example of manual control is heating a pot of water over a fire. To heat the water faster (without making the fire bigger), one places the pot closer to the fire. To heat the water more slowly (as in simmering a soup or stew), one places the pot farther from the fire. That is a simple yet fundamental control system. The manipulated variable is distance from the pot to the fire. The controlled variable is rate of heating of the water in the pot.
The key is that placing the pot closer to the fire increases the rate of heating, every time. Farther from the fire decreases the rate of heating, every time. In addition, for a constant fire, the rate of heating will be the same for a given distance, every time. (for the purists out there, I am simplifying by omitting ambient air temperature and wind effects, and postulating a constant fire or rate of heat from the heat source).
CO2 exhibits none of those characteristics for controlling global temperature.
There may be other variables responsible for the gradual global warming, such as aerosols, atmospheric fine dust, clouds, Milankovic cycles, sunspots, and others. Some may be subject to man’s control, others clearly are not and never will be. But whatever it is, we know with absolute certainty that it is not CO2.
A commenter above mentioned that he thought Fred Dyson had been cited as being among those who doubt AGW. Perhaps he did. If we are referring to the creator of the bagless vacuum cleaner and other appliances; that Dyson is an engineer of sorts (industrial designer in effect), but I wonder if the comment did not in fact refer to another Dyson; Freeman Dyson (I don’t know if they are related in anything other than surname). If one wished to familiarize oneself with a remarkable refutation from someone who is widely recognized as one of the most perceptive of modern polymaths, Freeman Dyson’s recent interviews and articles on this subject would be the ones to use.They have casued some controversy.
Dyson, by the way, chooses to call himself a “heretic” which is a noble descriptive in the way he uses it, and in stark contrast to the “orthodoxy” or the environmental religion that has assumed the position of leadership in the forum (with a little help, of course, from the media monkeys who seek only increased viewership and the resulting profits). Dyson is very much in favor or a world where nature is valued, cherished and protected and draws attention to a number of what he considers greater threats (cosmic impacts including)…so it’s not as if he doesn’t believe, but that he believes differently, and that extends evidently to the inclusion of Cap and Trade as the ONLY acceptible means by which we can address it. Dyson is in favor of reducing CO2 by using genetically designed ‘trees’ and no-till farming, etc..
Anyhow, wonderful to see Rutan’s perspective and I hope it can extend its well reasoned view to those beyond the choir of engineers and people like me who would love to see a clean and environmentally benevolent world, including polar bears,and suggest we do something that will help such as fusion research or space based solar energy. Increasing the complex beaurocracy at incredible cost with little to show for it, does no body I know any good.
bluegrue, I invite you to read my 08:52:16 response.
My goal at this time is to stop the madness and certain destruction that will result from Carbon reduction laws. As far as I know, CO2 is the target of those laws, and not aerosols, etc.
Pointing out the absurdity of controlling the globe’s climate by reducing CO2, and having the engineers in agreement will go a long way toward stopping the madness.
You refer to a strawman, yet that is in error. It is not straw, but iron-clad substance in the various global warming laws such as AB 32 in California. Other states have similar laws, and federal legislation is in the works.
This is not a game. It has become deadly serious, with enormous consequences for survival and quality of life for the survivors. To achieve CO2 reductions on the scale required by Obama and California’s AB 32 is to reduce fossil fuel use by 93 percent by 2050, compared to the business as usual case. The increase in cost of fundamental utilities, transportation, and goods and services will cripple the economy and put millions out of work.
For the AGW crowd to hold on to the proven falsity that CO2 reduction will prevent global warming is the problem. Engineers solve problems.
“RW: And yet simultaneously he almost gets the point. He just about acknowledges that current global temperatures are unusual in the context of the last several centuries. He offers no explanation of why he thinks that is, or why the simple, well-established radiative properties of CO2 should somehow not be working.”
Current temperatures are NOT UNUSUAL at all. It was quite a bit warmer during the Medieval Warming (or Greenland would not have been green) and it was colder during the Little Ice Age (or else the glaciers would not be retreating). And nothing indicates that CO2 had anything to do with it; there is no correlation.
Most people are missing the fact that Rutan is 100% behind any effort to green up our energy supply regardless of global warming. Many (and I’d like to think most) engineers would agree with that position. And unlike the wannabe planet-savers he doesn’t wait for government to mandate a tax or start a trading scheme/scam, he just goes ahead and does his best with the funds available. If more of those angst-ridden doom-mongers would just go out and buy green products instead of waiting for tipping points, carbon limits, hurricane counts or continuously repeating “we need to do something” then progress would be possible and skeptical engineers like Burt (and me) would be only too happy to take on the challenges of improving the technologies.
But it’s blindingly clear that Cap and Trade is wrong wherever you stand on AGW (well except for Goldman Sachs and their ilk). A small carbon tax is much more preferable and it’s even sensible. And all of it should go towards renewable energy research. Even Exxon agrees with that approach. For a tiny proportion of what we spend on military escapades, government bureaucracy or banking bailouts we could fund a lot of viable alternative energy projects. If you seek common ground rather than conflict then there is where it lies.
“RW (05:00:42) :
Burt Rutan’s ‘observations’ are quite fatuous.
….
– Statements that “CO2 is not a pollutant” also amuse me, particularly when they make use of patronising bold face. The easy response is to invite the claimant to spend just a few minutes in a room filled with pure CO2.”
The same could be said of any other gas besides oxygen (nitrogen, helium, argon) or a variety of other substances (sand, coffee, molasses, dihydrogen monoxide) which displace oxygen and don’t support normal mammalian respiration. Should all of these substances be labeled as pollutants also?
Jerome:
“They have been retrofitted to account for all sorts of anomolies we do not pretend (unless we are arrogant beyond belief) to understand. Still they fail to predict. That is not accurate.”
Did you follow the link I gave? Model predictions have been pretty accurate. Merely to say otherwise, without offering any supporting evidence, is pure denialism.
“What is this ‘obvious’ effect that transcends natural (and therefore chaotic) variability? How can it definitely be attributed to CO2? Has it ever been, irrefutably?”
Did you look at the link I gave? It seems unbelievable that you might be unable to see the obvious correlation between CO2 going up and temperatures also going up. How can it be attributed to CO2? Well I think you may need to go all the way back to Tyndall for the answer to that one.
“Warm periods in our civilisation have been definitely beneficial. Cold periods have been definitely detrimental.”
Yes, it’s easy to say, isn’t it? Strange that you provide no examples. Ever wondered why countries at 60N are far, far more prosperous than those at the equator? How does that observation fit your “warm is good” theory?
“We are talking about 0.038% of the air – that is 0.00038 as a decimal. That is not ‘full’. Even the most dire scenario gives us less than 1% CO2 in total.”
Do you understand the meaning of the word ‘pollutant’?
“The only constant about climate is change. We are recovering from a bad cold period, very slowly if at all right now (less than 0.01C a year). Good thing, too.”
Unfortunately you seem not to have the first clue about climate science. The climate never ‘recovers’. If it is getting warmer, it’s because something is acting to make it so. 0.01°C = rapid climate change, and in fact the rate over the last thirty years has averaged double that.
Alexej Buergin:
“Current temperatures are NOT UNUSUAL at all. It was quite a bit warmer during the Medieval Warming”
Strange that you don’t cite your data.
“(or Greenland would not have been green)”
Ever read the Saga of the Greenlanders? To say what you have just said requires appalling ignorance of history.
“And nothing indicates that CO2 had anything to do with it; there is no correlation.”
There is a strong correlation; basic physics indicates why. To say there is no correlation is, once again, pure denialism – like saying there is no blue colour in the sky.
In response to those of the mindset of Hans Verbeek who stated:
“Apparently he doesn’t realize that a finite space (Earth) can only hold finite amounts of coal and oil. (we will run out someday)… And uhh …. planes don’t fly on coal, Bart!”.
Burt’s point is that there has always been scarcity fear mongers like science advisor, John Holdren . No one debates whether the earth (or even the Milky Way) is finite. Science knew this since they discovered the earth was round. However, the environmental advocates need to understand that we can extract/convert fuels like oil from many carbon based forms such as deep ocean, tar sands, shale oil, algae, corn, and even coal using the Fischer-Tropsch process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process.
The above processes all involve varying degrees of viability and environmental consequences not to mention a cost per barrel needed to justify them economically. A pie in the sky guess as to how much oil there is in known and accessible oil from shale tarsands and coal is in the vicinity of hundreds of years of supply in North America, and bio-fuels from renewable resources can go longer than that. So don’t Panic, real scientist and engineers have time to work on the problem.
And Hans, Planes CAN fly on coal: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS228002+05-Aug-2009+BW20090805
“RW: And yet simultaneously he almost gets the point. He just about acknowledges that current global temperatures are unusual in the context of the last several centuries. He offers no explanation of why he thinks that is, or why the simple, well-established radiative properties of CO2 should somehow not be working.”
Temperature (measurements) over the last several centuries? Let’s examine that point from a scientific view. Just HOW were these measurements made (if at all?)? Let’s go back just a hundred years. The high end temperature measuring devices were not even close in sophistication and accuracy as they are today. Nor were they readily available. The calibration of them out in the field was extremely rare or non-existant. And, who is to vouch for the accuracy of the people taking the measurements? In short, the devices in 1909 were not as accurate as today’s instruments, and the lack of planned calibration would, in today’s scientific world, would throw all of the observations out the window. What about devices in 1809, 1709, 1609? How on earth does one determine what the temperature variations were in the “last several centuries?” Guess?–oh, I’m sorry, the word is estimate. In 1609 Europeans were still determining the extent of land on planet earth. They weren’t concerned at all with taking accurate temperature readings from all points on the globe. Anyone how can say with “certainty” what global temperatures were hundreds of years ago is daft.
A man goes into a store to buy a suit. The salesman is trying to get rid of one suit that is a complete mess. The man tries on that suit and first notices that the right sleeve is about two inches longer than his left sleeve. The sales man says, no problem, just dip your right shoulder down and so your arm will reach the end of the sleeve. He then notices the back of the suit is longer than the front. Again the salesman says, “just stick you butt out in the back. Finally he sees the pants are about two inches too long. Again the salesman says just bend you knees and walk like that.
The salesman give the customer a terrific price so the mans buys it and walks out of the store wearing the suit. Two older ladies notice him walking out, when the first one says, “That poor man. He so deformed.” The second woman says, “Yes, but do you notice how nice his suit fits?”
Watch alarmist try to explain why there is not hot spot (use wind speed rather than thermometers to measure that), or why there’s been no heating in the ocean since Argo was launched (the alarmist who first noted this finally realized the error when he said the equipment must be malfunctioning or you have to believe the ocean has stopped warming), or why June 2009 according the Hansen was the second warmest June in 130 years while UAB satellite data shows it was the 15th hottest in the last 30 years, is like watching the guy in the suit. “That poor theory, it’s so deformed.” “Yes but look how nice the data fits when we massage it.”
dorlomin wrote:
“No mention in this article whether Rutan is a ‘its not warmingist’ a “its warming but its the sun” a “its warming but its the PDO” or a ’svensmarkian’.”
Why should he have to? There are still plenty of open questions and, frankly, it is probably best to remain somewhat open right now. The key thing is realizing that the AGW story has serious holes at nearly every point in the whole process (initial theory, data collection, analysis, reporting, policy, proposed solution). Recognizing this does not require that you also have your own theory to propose.
Better man up folks. Get yer battle rattle on. CNN and Newsweek (among others ) have already started pumping the Copenhagen conference, and it will just get more and more strident the closer it gets. I know those two outlets are not highly thought of among skeptics, but they do have a pretty big following. Better be paying attention and doing something constructive to derail this besides posting on blogs. This is going to be one hell of a fight. It will make the Health Reform business look like nap time in the day care center.
TG (10:14:20) : Well-said, and that is precisely the point Dr. Latour made in his article published in Hydrocarbon Processing in January 2009.
In control parlance, If you cannot measure it, you cannot control it.
Well Government Peon. how would you like to spend a few minutes in a room filled with nothing but pure Oxygen (O2).
As any scuba diver can tell you; that would simply not be a good idea; you would be poisoned just as surely as if the room was filled with CO2.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what specific polluting reaction comes from CO2 in the atmosphere; at present levels of 385 ppm, which the AGW alarmists assure us is much too high.
Consider the following two situations. Situation (1) takes place in an arid tropical desert that might be 120 deg F during the day; but drops to 40-50 deg F overnight; and yields spectacular clear views of the milky way and the rest of the seldom seen ni9ght sky.
Situation (2) perhaps takes place in the Florida Keys with a day time temperature that might only be 90 deg F but with high humidity that stifles; and at night the temperature remains at 75 deg F still with excessive humidity; and the night sky may be impeded by high wispy cirrus clouds that hide those desert stars.
Now both of those scenarios happen to contain the exact same amount of atmospheric CO2; your universal pollutant for which you are willing to destroy the economies of the entire developes world.
So how come in situation one; your pollutant failed miserably to perform its AGW mandated task of heating the globe; even though it started with a 30 deg F advatage over the balmy Florida Keys.
Seems to me that it is H2O that is the dangerous pollutant that is cooking the planet; not the CO2.
Do you know that the old time treatment for a drowning victim in polynesia, was to hang them by their heels over a fire smothered with green banana or coconut leaves to create thick white smoke. Evidently the increased CO2 pollution level in that white smoke was all that it took to trigger the breathing response in the nearly drowned victim. Try it yourself; take a breath and hold your breath for five minutes (if you can), and see how long you can resist the CO2 “pollution”.
George
RW: CO2 correlation is not great. Oceanic/atmospheric oscillations have a much stronger correlation.
It is indeed plausible that CO2 has an underlying fingerprint and has contributed to a slow, steady rise. But the proximate ups and downs seem to match AMO/PDO (etc.) better.
The question centers somewhat less on the direct effects of CO2 than on the proposed positive feedback effect which is projected to be several times greater than the direct effect.
If positive feedback theory is not valid, then there is no emergency, and we can study/deal with CO2 effects carefully and without undue overhaste.
Stipulating that the PDO is in negative phase, it will be interesting to see how far temperatures decline. That will be an important part of the observation.
Perhaps my note to Government Peon was meant for RW
“”” Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem “””
From that compendium of all knowledge; Wikipedia.
CO2 is a part of the environment; ergo not a contaminant.
CO2 isn’t causing instability.
CO2 isn’t causing disorder.
CO2 isn’t causing harm or discomfort to the environment.
Therefore CO2 is not a pollutant.
Human beings do all of those above things; therefore human beings are a pollutant; and must be eliminated.
Roger Sowell, thanks for the process control view of carbon dioxide as a climate regulator.
RW, thanks for the laughs.