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.
Burt Rutan is evidently somewhat wealthy. He evidently got that way; by having other people pay him for what he knows how to do. Ergo, he must be quite smart; but that is not assured; because people pay lots of money to see Hollywood idiots perform like circus animals; and most of them are dumber than a box of rocks.
Rutan came up with an aeroplane; a one off special; that he predicted using compuetr models and other engineering skills, would fly around the world non stop without refuelling.
When they tried the experiment to see if he knew what the hell he was talking about, it worked first time, and without any subsequent readjustment of the data.
I’d believe him long before I would believe Dr James Hansen; who now has more than 10 years running on his wild eyed predictions to the US Congress; and after 105 of his predictive time scale he isn’t anywhere near 10% of the way towards his goal. So much for the idea of a linear trend.
No I’m with the Japanese; Climatology is akin to ancient astrology; and as for historical measurments from the past; rember the believable past only goes back to 1979/80 time frame, when polar orbit satellites and ARGO buoys began life.
RW is just another internet coward acting as foil. Burt Rutan is the real deal and unlike RW has the courage to put his name to what he believes.
Ignore him/her/it. Waste of bandwidth. – Anthony
In response to: “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.”…
…RW replies with this non-sequitor:
It is crystal clear that RW fails to understand the entire issue. CO2 is no more a pollutant than H2O. Both are beneficial and necessary for life.
This is the wrong site to post a fatuous analogy that assumes CO2 is a pollutant because a person would suffocate in a 100% CO2 atmosphere. They would also suffocate in a room filled with 100% H2O.
Just to keep the amount of atmospheric CO2 in perspective, look at the Roy Spencer graph: click. Look close or you’ll miss it.
It never ceases to astonish me that people actually believe that an increase in a *very* minor trace gas, from 4 parts in ten thousand, to 5 parts in ten thousand, will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But that is exactly what alarmists believe, even though they back and fill with new obfuscation like “climate change.”
CO2 is entirely beneficial. It does not run the climate. More CO2 is better. The climate naturally fluctuates without any necessity for explaining it by adding an extraneous and unnecessary entity like CO2:
“Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.”
— William of Ockham [1285-1349]
Very similar to the KISS principle.
Natural variability fully explains the climate, which is well within its historical parameters. Adding a new entity like CO2 only muddies the waters and promotes confusion.
If only the world had more Cal Poly SLO grads!
Rutan class of ’65.
Says me — class of ’94.
JamesG (09:19:19) :
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.
That all depends on what your definition of “green” is, doesn’t it? Does Rutan in fact make the claim that he’s “green”? And where, or where does he claim to be “100% behind the effort to green up our energy supply” (whatever the heck that means)?
How about instead of an ill-defined, nebulous “green energy” we instead support “smart energy”? Energy which is more expensive can almost never be smart, which is why Rutan will be “adding wind generator and solar panels when it becomes cost effective to do so “.
Carbon taxes, whether small or large are not smart either, since raising energy costs can only hurt our already-suffering economy, and because punishing carbon makes no sense.
Roger Sowell (09:03:17) :
Nitpick session: It’s not AB 32 (which only fixes reduction goals up to 2020 and leaves further goals up to the Governor and the Legislature in section 38551c) but Executive Order S-3-05 and more importantly it’s 83% of 2010 emission levels (or more precisely 80% of 1990 levels) by 2050, still a large chunk but not your 93%. You seem to posit that because this task is too daunting climate science must be wrong. I’m just asking, because apart from bold assertions you evade the science and go for the politics in all your arguments.
I’ve read your reply at (08:52:16) asserting that anthropogenic CO2 emissions causing AGW “violates fundamentals of process control”. How so? Have you figured in delayed response? Have you figured in other drivers of climate? How about fundamentals of physics? Why would increasing the global average CO2 mixing ratio by 30% (as we have done already) and more not raise global mean temperature and change climate in the process? After all CO2 is an IR absorber in windows not saturated by H2O. Are you contesting the magnitude of the influence of CO2 or the greenhouse effect in its entirety? So, in your own words, how does AGW violate process control?
Good presentaton from a very influential scientist. Another nail in the AGW coffin, I think.
Let’s hope Mr Rutan gets lots of publicity for his insight.
Burt Ruatan, his lifelong achievements and especially his successful pursuit of the X Prize has always been an inspiration to me.
Hans Verbeek (00:27:38) :
Rutan’s argument about complex experimental data being abused to sell an idea can also apply on the “estimated reserves” of coal and oil.
Apparantly he doesn’t realize that a finite space (Earth) can only hold finite amounts of coal and oil. (we will run out someday)
The cheaper alternatives he mentions are probably more expensive than the fossil fuels we used in the past decades.
And uhh …. planes don’t fly on coal, Bart.
The Russian theory of abiotic creation of oil has not, to my knowledge, been disproven. Planes may not fly on coal, but oil can be created from coal (http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/07/about_coal_liqu.html). Planes and rockets can fly on methane (as evidenced by John Carmack’s Armadillo Aerospace, one of Ruatan’s competitors for the next X Prize – http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/Armadillo/Home), and we’re not running out of that
T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner ought to be introduced to Burt Rutan. When these two smart rich guys are so far off-base on “devastating climate changes” it is hard to believe anything else they write.
See the following for the opinion piece that caused me to write the above statement:
Commentary.
New Priorities For Our Energy Future
By T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner
Our natural gas reserves contain more energy than Saudi Arabia’s oil.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574348432504983734.html
In the 5th paragraph, the write:
“ Climate security: Likewise, the clock is ticking on potentially devastating climate changes. We already are witnessing the disintegration of polar ice, melting glaciers, rising sea levels and altered weather patterns. But if we act now, we can prevent catastrophic human and economic impacts.”
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.
Surely quote of the week for pure stupidity!
RW,
“Strange that you don’t cite your data.”
And where did you cite any data in your posts?
RW (05:00:42) :
I invite you to spend an hour in a room filled with ANY gas, (including O2)!
By your reasoning, as O2 in excess is poisonous, it is a pollutant & must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs!
DaveE.
evanmjones:
“CO2 correlation is not great”
This is pure denial. Just look!.
Hmmm … I recognize that particular ‘callsign’ from another site; I think the dude just enjoys playing a professional contrarian … it’s just ‘theater’ anyway isn’t, RW?
.
.
RW (09:49:31) :
You wrote: “. . . like saying there is no blue colour in the sky.”
As with all else you have written, this too indicates you need to do much background reading in science and the physical systems of Earth. That blue colour is in your head, not in the sky. Likewise, all that CAGW caused by CO2 is in your head, not in the atmosphere. The good news is this can be fixed, if you try.
“”” John F. Hultquist (13:00:46) :
T. Boone Pickens and Ted Turner ought to be introduced to Burt Rutan. When these two smart rich guys are so far off-base on “devastating climate changes” it is hard to believe anything else they write. “””
Well ole’ TBoone is a bit of a snake oil salesman. He tried to get the gummint buy some big wind mills for him, and a lot of other get rich quick suckers too. Now he’s given up on the wind; and his favorite energy du jour is now Propane. Seems to me that Propane is still “fossil fuel” and will cause just as much catastrophic man made climate change global warming CO2 as any other fossil fuel; but evidently TBoone has cornered a pile of it.
And as for Ted Turner; didn’t he marry Jane “China syndrome” Fonda; that should give you some idea of just how smart ole’ Ted is. Ted got pissed off at Dennis Connor, because Dennis got serious about Americas Cup yacht racing, and took it out of the hands of the Ted Turner playboys, and turned it into an international phenomenon.
Amazing how the warmists are ready to Jump on Burt Rutan because he is not a “Climatologist”. That’s like all the lawyers who say Americans should read the Constitution of the USA, because they aren’t lawyers, and they are incompetent to understand what it says. Trouble is, the Constitution is written in English, and not that mediaeval Roman mumbo jumbo that lawyers talk; so anyone with an 8th grade education in English (outside California of course) can read what it says and understand it.
Seems like most “climate scientists” are NOT physicists; but statisticians; and they seem to average their way to some trend line even in quite random numbers, in the search for information where none actually resides.
I’ll believe Burt Rutan, long before I would believe Al Gore.
bluegrue: no time now for full response, but will do so in about 6 hours.
Basically, 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is 93 percent below business as usual. It depends on the population growth rate and economic growth rate one uses to extrapolate energy consumption in 2050. Not made up figures, and yes, I can and will discuss the science. Be happy to. Just remember that certain fundamentals are inviolable. Process control is one of them. Whatever mechanism scientists postulate as changing the climate, there must be conformance with process control fundamentals. All else is smoke and mirrors.
RW (05:00:42) :
You should lay off the [AGW] Kool-Aid; you’ve had way too much!
RunFromMadness (13:02:52) : I agree. But it would be cheaper and easier for Mr. RW to just suck on the business end of a fire extinguisher for a few seconds. What planet do people like this call home? Can’t be Terra. 😀
George E. Smith and Smokey,
Please re-read my earlier post – I am with you in pointing out the logical fallacies of RW’s flawed arguments.
I use a handle because AGW is accepted as holy writ by the higher ups in my local government office. Being publicly identified with something counter to the position of my department isn’t the best professional move. I figure I can do more good in the long run by staying employed, injecting some logic and common sense, and generally doing what I can to make sure that that the inmates don’t take over the asylum.
I’m agreeing with Anthony that RW isn’t worth another single keystroke. Signing off…
CuriousGeorge:
You say:
“There have been plenty of attempts to get thru to the policy makers, using rational arguments and scientific studies that debunk AGW, that so far have failed miserably. We complain that they are being hoodwinked by cooked data, yet expect them to understand opposing data? Perhaps it’s time to employ different tactics.”
I wholeheartedly agree. And Rutan, being an engineer, may like the “different tactics” I am suggesting.
Th JunkScience.com blog asked me to summarise my views on the alternative I have been suggesting for some years, and I understand that tomorrow morning they are likely to post the contribution I have submitted in response and that I copy below.
Richard
STOPPING CLIMATE CHANGE
There is need for a new policy on climate change to replace the rush to reduce emissions. The attempts at emissions reduction have failed but there is a ‘Climate Change Policy’ that would work.
Climate change is a serious problem. All governments need to address it, and most do.
In the Bronze Age Joseph (with the Technicolour Dreamcoat) told Pharaoh that climate has always changed everywhere and always will. He told Pharaoh to prepare for bad times when in good times, and all sensible governments have adopted that policy since.
But now it is feared that emissions from industry could cause additional climate change by warming the globe. This threatens more sea level rise, droughts, floods, heat waves and much else. So, governments have attempted to reduce the emissions of the warming gases, notably carbon dioxide.
The UN established the Kyoto Protocol which limits the emissions from developed countries until year 2012. But the Kyoto Protocol failed. It has had no detectable effect on the emissions which continue to rise. Now the pressure is on to get a successor to that Protocol for after 2012, and negotiations are being held around the world to decide the new treaty at a conference in Copenhagen in December.
But the negotiations have stalled. All industrial activity releases the emissions. Developing countries say they will not limit their emissions, and industrialised countries have problems reducing theirs. China releases more of the emissions than any other country, is industrialising, and says it is entitled to the same emissions per head of population as the US. So, China says it intends to increase its emissions more than four fold. India says the same. The US is having problems adopting a ‘Cap & Trade’ policy that would harm American industries and force industries from America to China. The EU adopted a ‘Cap & Trade’ policy that collapsed and has not affected the EU’s rising emissions. The Australian Parliament has recently rejected a similar policy.
Politicians have been responding to the failure of the Kyoto Protocol by showing they are ‘doing something’. They have adopted pointless and expensive impositions on energy industries, energy supplies and transportation. And the public is paying the large costs of this in their energy bills.
The Copenhagen Conference will provide a decision because it has to, but that decision will have no more effect than the Kyoto Protocol. And this will put more pressure on the politicians to be seen to be ‘doing something’ with further cost and harm to peoples and to industry.
There is as yet no clear evidence that the additional climate change is happening. But environmental groups are pressing the politicians to act “before it is too late”. And politicians are responding because of the fear of dire consequences from the additional climate change.
Politicians have decided how much additional climate change is acceptable, because they have decided that global temperature must not be allowed to rise to 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century. But they need a method to overcome the urgency which is forcing them to do things and to agree things which do not work.
There is an available solution to the problem. The urgency is because of fear that the effects of the emissions may be irreversible. However, the additional climate change can be reversed, quickly, simply and cheaply. This provides a complete solution to the problems.
There is no need for the Copenhagen Conference to reach a forced, inadequate, and premature agreement on emissions. The Conference needs to decide funding to perfect the methods to reverse the additional climate change if and when that becomes necessary. This decision would give politicians decades of time to conduct their negotiations about what to do to limit the emissions. So, the politicians can agree actions that work instead of adopting things everybody knows do not work.
The solution addresses the cause of the fear of the additional climate change. Every sunbather has noticed it cools when a cloud covers the Sun, and this is because clouds reflect sunlight to cause negative radiative forcing. The fear of the additional climate change is based on an assumption that global temperature is determined by net radiative forcing, and the emissions induce additional positive radiative forcing.
The forcing can be altered in many ways. An increase to cloud cover of a single percent would more than compensate for the warming from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the air. There are several ways to increase cloud cover, for example small amounts of sulphates, dust, salt or water released from scheduled aircraft would trigger additional cloud formation. And the carbon dioxide in the air is very unlikely to increase so much that it doubles.
And there are many other ways to reflect sunlight so it is not absorbed by the ground. Crops could be chosen for reflectivity, roofs could be covered with reflective materials, and tethered balloons could be covered in reflective material.
Each of these options would be very much cheaper than constraining the emissions by 20 per cent for a single year. So, any delay to implementation of emission constraints by use of these options would save a lot of money.
Global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 and has been stable since. But it could start to rise again. If it does then use of one or more of these options could be adopted when global temperature nears 2 degrees Celsius higher than it was at the start of the last century. This would be a cheap and effective counter measure while the needed emission constraints are imposed. Indeed, it would be much cheaper than the emission constraints. It could be started and stopped rapidly, and its effect would be instantaneous (as sunbathers have noticed when a cloud passes in front of the Sun).
Until then there would be no need for expensive ‘seen to be doing something’ actions such as capturing and storing carbon dioxide. Energy and financial policies would not need to be distorted, and developing countries could be allowed to develop unhindered.
Indeed, there would be no need to deploy the counter measures unless and until global temperature rises to near the trigger of 2 degrees C rise.
The various methods for reflecting sunlight need to be developed and perfected. They each have potential benefits and problems which need to be assessed. But if the problems are detectable they need not be significant. For example, the additional cloud cover could be induced over oceans distant from land. This requires much research.
Politicians know they need to be seen to be ‘doing something’ and they would be seen to be doing something worthwhile. Each counter measure experiment and demonstration provides opportunity for media coverage.
Well, Mr. Rutan has some competition on using canards methinks. Mr. Gore and Mr. Hansen’s canards are not aviation components, however.
And as a comment on RunFromMadness (13:02:52) :
Using your argument, H2O (or ANYTHING, including oxygen or even a pure vacuum) filling that room of yours could then be classified as a “pollutant.” In following the spirit of your own comment, I hereby submit your two sentences as QOTW…
RunFromMadness (13:02:52) :
Spend a few minutes in a room “filled” with pure anything. Please.
When you watch your children grow you are watching CO2 in action.
The amounts of CO2 the flaura and fauna of our fair planet have been exposed to for geological time periods are not dangerous and not anything to get hysterical about.
Hunter-killer and attack nuclear submarines are “allowed” to attain up to 11,000 ppmv of CO2 for entire sorties (lasting for months). Some of the crew get a little nauseous at higher levels so there is this sensible cutoff.
Any guesses how much “stuff” we would have to burn to reach such levels?
Patrick Davis (03:08:11) :
… I’ve seen politicians pass laws before without following proper “procedure” for instance Thatcher Thatcher the Milk Snatcher passed many draconian employment laws during the Falklands War while everyone else, including the media, were focused on the war.
Eh????? You need to provide the evidence of when and how Mrs Thatcher’s government managed to do that. I was wide awake and taking a good deal of notice of what was going on at that time. The Falklands conflict lasted for less than 3 months which simply isn’t time to pass any significant law in the UK if the opposition declines to co-operate. The Labour opposition at the time was totally opposed to any changes to employment legislation.
Even Blair, with a majority of over 150 had to follow the ‘rules’.
By the way, for anyone mentioning Richard Branson getting close to Al Gore, this doesn’t necessarily mean that he is a true believer. I’ve worked for a Branson company and I can assure you that he believes in one thing and one thing only; Richard Branson. He’s one of the world’s most successful self-publicists and has just spotted another way to help promote himself. He’s quite a nice guy really.
“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.
Surely quote of the week for pure stupidity!”
By that logic if someone spent a few minutes in a room filled with pure H2O they might think water is a pollutant too
/palm
/face