Burt Rutan writes in via email about an exchange he had with the proprietor of the website Scholars and Rogues, Brian Angliss. Burt writes:
I recently read a treatise showing that CAGW theory is a fraud. I thought it was a good summary and agreed to have my name used as a supporter of the facts when it was published by the Wall Street Journal. You can find it here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Then, shortly after publication, an alarmist engineer wrote and “open letter to Burt”.
http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/
I usually ignore these diatribes, but found a few moments to respond:
Scroll down to comment #4 for my answer.
I’ve reproduced Burt’s answer here for all to see:
Brian,
In my background of 46 years in aerospace flight testing and design I have seen many examples of data presentation fraud. That is what prompted my interest in seeing how the scientists have processed the climate data, presented it and promoted their theories to policy makers and the media.
What I found shocked me and prompted me to do further research. I researched data presentation fraud in climate science from 1999 to 2010.
I do not have time here to define the details; if interested in my research, a PPT or PDF can be downloaded at:
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
In general, if you as an engineer with normal ethics, study the subject you will conclude that the theory that man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (a trace amount to an already trace gas content) cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor. You will also find that the real feedback is negative, not positive!
Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it. They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.
The failure of the IPCC machine is especially evident in the use of “models” to justify claims, so it might be worthwhile to just look at modeling and science.
Modeling is more correctly a branch of Engineering and there are some basic rules that have been flouted by CAGW _ CO2 modelers.
Firstly there has to be a problem analysis which identifies relevant factors and the physical, chemical and thermodynamic behaviors of those factors within the system.
Any claim that this has been done in the CO2 warming problem is PREPOSTEROUS.
There are perhaps a thousand PhD topics there waiting to be taken up by researchers.
We could start with work on understanding heat transfer between the main interfaces; eg Core to surface / surface to ocean depths/ ocean depths to ocean surface / ocean surface to atmosphere and so on, not having yet reached the depth of space at just slightly above absolute zero.
To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.
The whole point of modelling when done correctly is that it links accurately measured input of the main factors and accurately measure target output. Where you have major input factors that are not considered and poor and uncertain measurement of all factors then all you have is a joke or more seriously Public Fraud based on science.
You do not have science.
CO2 is not a pollutant. When the Dinosaurs roamed, the CO2 content was 6 to 9 times current and the planet was green from pole to pole; almost no deserts. If we doubled the atmospheric content of CO2, young pine trees would grow at twice the rate and nearly every crop yield would go up 30 to 40%. We, the animals and all land plant life would be healthier if CO2 content were to increase.
Do the study yourself. Look at how and why the data are manipulated, cherry-picked and promoted. I will bet if you did, you too would be shocked.
The mark of a good theory is its ability to be falsified by new data. The mark of a good scientist is the ability to accept that.
Burt
The Difference between an Environmentalist and a Denier.
You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized. He is one who celebrates when the recent climate data show the alarmist’s predictions of catastrophic warming might be wrong. The denier, if he is an eco/political activist, always denies new data that show the planet may be healthy after all. The Media usually defines deniers as those who deny the scientist’s computer model predictions. However, denying the measured climate data meets a better definition in the world of science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
David Ball says:
Oh, I was capable, but I had hoped (forlornly, as it turned out) that you would be capable of reading and understanding Tamino’s thread by yourself, and without someone else holding your hand.
As you have demonstrated that this is in fact beyond your capacity, I will summarise:
1) Rutan was incompetent in constructing (or in sensibly reproducing) and in interpreting the “January-to-May temperature change” graph.
2) Rutan seems to think (incorrectly) that a decreasing trend in January-to-May temperature change indicates a slowing or a cessation of global warming.
3) Rutan is apparently oblivious to the fact that a decreasing trend in January-to-May temperature change can occur whilst there are simultaneous and consistent increases in both January and May temperatures over time.
4) Rutan is apparently oblivious to the fact that a decreasing trend in January-to-May temperature change is predicted by the physics of ‘greenhouse’ gas-induced global warming.
It’s very interesting that all of these points completely escaped Burt Rutan, David Ball, and many other commenters here.
Bob B says:
January 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm
Erinome,
GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998…..
Speaking of GISTemp let’s take a look at some odd characteristics of GISTemp in recent years
Part 1
Part 2
KevinK says:
Ironically enough, the FLAW in the GHE HYPOTHESIS is actually more of an accounting error than a science error. When the energy returns to the surface from the “GHG” you cannot ADD it to the original energy arriving from the Sun and produce a CORRECT alleged “energy budget”. The energy returning from the “GHG” has already travelled once through the system leaving cooling (at the previous location it departed from) in its wake.
Consider this hypothetical scenario: Assume there is no GH effect, but there is a half-silvered mirror, facing downward, 1 meter above the surface of the Earth. All incoming radiation passes through it, but only half the outgoing radiation passes through it — the other half is reflected.
Question 1: Will the air beneath the mirror be warmer than it would be without the mirror?
Question 2: What does your theory predict?
Bernard J.
You are quite a character Bernard J.
You call one of the most brilliant minds on earth, Burt Rutan, “incompetent”. And you point us to Tamino, someone who’s positions have been proven to be faulty. You choose Tamino over Burt Rutan. What does this say about you Bernard J.?
Who is holding my hand Bernard J? If you knew anything about me, you would know I was taught to do MY OWN RESEARCH. So cram that idea.
Apparently the GHG theory covers EVERY possible weather eventuality. Take your myopic anthropomorphic blinders off and stop trying to redirect the discussion. Very transparent (and tired) debating technique.
kbray in california says:
The earth’s precession to an increased inclination can easily account for a changing climate with colder winters and hotter summers.
There are different precessions going on. One is that of the Earth’s elliptical axis, which is only 0.5 arcsec/century (1% that of Mercury). Another is the precession of its axis of rotation, which is 26,000 yrs with a small cycle (“nutation”) within it of 18.6 yrs. These combine, and there is another still, but all are of the order 1e4 to 1e5 yrs.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
You call one of the most brilliant minds on earth, Burt Rutan, “incompetent”.
Rutan’s graph indicates he *is* incompetent when it comes to climate science. It is easy to show that a steadily warming climate produces a decreasing trend for the parameter he choose to plot — just as Bernard J wrote and as I proved mathematically above.
Did you understand that proof?
Do you see a flaw in it?
If not, then do you accept its results?
David Ball says:
Erinome forgot to mention that scenario C is based on ZERO EMISSIONS. 8^D
Wrong. Look again.
Bob B says:
GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998.
So? The datasets all make different assumptions about how they handle the underlying data. Hadley choose to exclude polar regions; GISS choose to extrapolate across it as best they can. There is no correct choice — each analysis stands on its own.
Hansen et al have constantly modified the past and still does.
Aren’t scientists SUPPOSED to modify their results when the input data changes, or when analysis reveals there are more appropriate methods to be applied? Yes, they are.
Erinome Read ’em and weap. http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/17/hansen-scenarios-a-and-b/
KevinK says:
The GHE appears to cause some energy to travel through the system (bouncing as it where) between the gases and the surface all the while dissipating energy to Space via radiation. The end result is a slight delay to the energy as it travels from the Sun to the Earth through the Atmosphere to the Universe.
This is incorrect. Here is a simple example to illustrate what is going on (I’ll assume you know a little mathematics):
Let L be the energy from the Sun that strikes the Earth’s surface.
Let g be the fraction of that energy that is reflected from the ground.
Let r be the fraction of the ground’s radiation that is reflected by the atmosphere back towards the ground.
So the net energy E that is incident on the ground is
E = L + rg * L + (rg)^2 * L + (rg)^3 * L + …
Since both r and g are less than 1, this series can be summed to give
E = L/(1-rg)
Clearly E > L , that is, the net energy incident on the ground is greater than the incident energy. In a simplified fashion, this is what’s going on with the real Earth, except there both L and g are a function of the radiation’s frequency, and r is a function of altitude and r depends on GHGs and clouds and aerosols and all that. But you can still do the calculation, and at current values of all these parameters E > L (probably — clouds are a problem).
In any case, E > L is not impossible, as you seem to be claiming.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
I’ve provided data time and again to global warming believers. They don’t respect data. I suspect you will not either.
You’re wrong. In any case, provide your data.
Bernd Felsche wrote;
“Engineers give themselves a lot of “wiggle room” in their designs. As much room as they can get without compromising the function of the device.”
Correct, although we use the terms “margin” and “factor of safety” instead of “wiggle room”, but the basic concept is the same.
For example, if you design a bridge you first calculate the expected loads; static – the first step for a bridge is to hold itself up, dynamic – you have to predict the worst case loads (how many cars are on it at one time), and then environmental – how strong is the wind at the bridge’s location, future corrosion. etc. etc. After knowing the loads you design it with a factor of safety. Since bridges are fairly expensive assets nobody wants one that that just barely does its job. I am not a bridge designer but I suspect that FOS (factors of safety) of 2x – 5x are routine. THEN you add in some margin, this is where we consider that our calculations may be wrong by as much as +/- 25%. To correct for this we add some more strength to the design so the chances of failure are greatly reduced. But, even after these historically learned steps in bridge design we still have some that fail. It turns out that the one that fell down in Minneapolis a few years ago had a design error (reinforcing plates at the joints where too thin) which violated the FOS rules, and the extra ”wiggle room” known as “margin” was not large enough to accommodate this error.
My apologies in advance to Civil and Structural Engineers if I have (very likely) omitted or simplified some details, I am attempting to summarize a whole field of engineering in one paragraph.
For a commercial airplane a FOS of 1.50 (150%) is routine, that means that the plane is just as strong as it needs to be, plus 50%. Other systems have FOS even lower like 1.1 (110%) or even as low as 1.05 (105%), but you really have to be “on top of your game” to make successful products with that small of a “wiggle room”, but it does indeed occur.
Cheers, Kevin.
Erinome
You do agree that Tamino is a vociferous manmade global warming advocate, i.e., a true believer? You do also admit he has been caught red handed manipulating data for his rabid global warming ends?
Here, really, is one reason how warming is found in some data sets that is not found in others:
DROPPING TEMPERATURE STATIONS IN COLDER REGIONS OF THE EARTH FROM THE DATA SET MAKES THE DATA SUDDENLY SHOW WARMING:
Not zero. but very close. This is not what has happened to emissions, is it? Co2 is NOT driving temperature.
Smokey says:
Clearly, the increase in CO2 is beneficial.
It’s not clear at all. While it’s certainly true that the world is greening — but instead of your silly pictures see a real scientific study, such as “Climate-Driven Increases in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 1982 to 1999,” R.R. Neman et al, Science (6 June 2003) Vol. 300 no. 5625 pp. 1560-1563.
However, the devil is again in the details. A small minority of plants (the so-called “C4” plants) do not grow more with higher CO2. More importantly, the higher temperatures that accompany higher CO2 levels can lengthen growing seasons in some regions, but can harm plants in the tropics that are already at the limits of their heat tolerance. Higher temperatures also exacerbate ground-level ozone, which harms plants. Plants grown in higher CO2 may have higher yields, but the plant may also be less nutritious (their seeds contain less nitrogen). And there are more factors to consider, such as water and insects.
It’s a complicated picture that is not yet at all clear.
“In any case, E > L is not impossible, as you seem to be claiming.”
Not ever been shown that the atmosphere actually works that way, has it?
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
Here, really, is one reason how warming is found in some data sets that is not found in others:
DROPPING TEMPERATURE STATIONS IN COLDER REGIONS OF THE EARTH FROM THE DATA SET MAKES THE DATA SUDDENLY SHOW WARMING:
No it’s not, because global averages like GISS’s are not the average of all worldwide stations, but of the average across a virtual grid whose grid points are all equally weighted from the stations within them.
That is, just because the US has (say) 2000 stations and Africa has (say) 200 does not mean the US has 10 times the weight (per unit area). Roughly, the 2000 stations are averaged, and the 200 are averaged, and then those averages are averaged.
In other words, climate scientists thought of this problem long ago, and have corrected for it.
I have never seen an explanation for Hansens historic temperature downward adjustments. I’ve seen the formulae, but never any rationale for doing so. Same for recent temperature adjustments up.
Bob B writes.
“GISS temp is the only data set showing 2010 warmer then 1998”
Not so.
NCDC also shows 2010 warmer than 1998.
GISTEMP shows 2005 and 2010 warmer than 1998.
The next version of HadCRU, finally bringing in the arctic, may show 2010 warmer too.
Then there’s BEST. It’s a land-only record and so less affected by that 1998 El Nino spike, and it goes only through 2009. It does however show 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007 all higher than 1998, and 2009 only 1/1000th of a degree lower.
Scott Brim says:
how would we rate today’s climate science in terms of having a sufficiently robust and reliable knowledge base available for our simulation purposes, a knowledge base which would allow us to justify a belief that the climate simulation models are themselves reliable and trustworthy enough to be useful in supporting public policy decisions?
Who says climate models are the only factor that should support policy decisions? No scientist I know says that. They recognize that models have uncertainties and always will. Waiting until models are perfect means waiting forever. The decisions will necessarily have to be made with imperfect scientific knowledge, and incorporate values.
PS: Also, the climate is a lot more complicated than a car.
Erinome wrote;
“Consider this hypothetical scenario: Assume there is no GH effect, but there is a half-silvered mirror, facing downward, 1 meter above the surface of the Earth. All incoming radiation passes through it, but only half the outgoing radiation passes through it — the other half is reflected.”
Ah yes, the old GHE works like a mirror argument….
Well, let’s just jump right to the answer shall we;
“All incoming radiation passes through it, but only half the outgoing radiation passes through it — the other half is reflected.”
Well, this is a nice hypothetical construct you have created, BUT it does not exist in reality. If you create a “half silvered”mirror (i.e. it reflects 50% of the energy arriving at its surface) in the atmosphere it ALSO reflects half of the arriving energy away from the surface BEFORE it causes any warming………
The GHE effect exists, but IT DOES NOT CREATE A HIGHER EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE……
The “energy budget” has been calculated INCORRECTLY…..
The GHGs in the atmosphere do not act as a MLI (Multi Layer Insulation which only works (at maximum efficiency)) in a vacuum…….
The GHGs in the atmosphere do not act as a DIODE………..
Cheers, Kevin.
David Ball says:
I have never seen an explanation for Hansens historic temperature downward adjustments.
How hard have you looked?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/
“It’s a complicated picture that is not yet at all clear.”
Couldn’t have said it better myself. So , no need to ruin economies, spend billions on mitigation, tax people up the whazoo, ……