{"id":1175,"date":"2013-02-27T12:59:52","date_gmt":"2013-02-27T12:59:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/?p=1175"},"modified":"2013-02-27T12:59:52","modified_gmt":"2013-02-27T12:59:52","slug":"global-warming-and-forensic-engineering-investigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/2013\/02\/27\/global-warming-and-forensic-engineering-investigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Global warming and forensic engineering investigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Subtitle: Climate change for intelligent people<\/span><\/h1>\n

(Following is a guest-blog by Gary Bartlett, P.Eng. on\u00a0global warming<\/strong>.\u00a0 I’ve added a few introductory remarks relating Gary’s concerns about what is being reported in the popular media to forensic engineering investigation)<\/p>\n

Introductory remarks: Global warming and forensic engineering\u00a0<\/span><\/h1>\n

A forensic engineering investigation of whether or not global warming is taking place might resolve the matter once and for all.<\/p>\n

The scientific method underlies both the forensic engineering investigative process and the scientific investigative process.\u00a0\u00a0A difference is that\u00a0the results of a forensic investigation are closely examined in a court of law\u00a0and rejected if found wanting.\u00a0\u00a0On the other hand,\u00a0the results of a scientific investigation, as sometimes reported, might not\u00a0have received the same kind of exacting scrutiny.<\/p>\n

This is particularly the case if the ‘scientific’ investigation is more in the nature of junk science serving the interests of the reporter rather than science.\u00a0 Or the results of the science are\u00a0modified to reflect the\u00a0personal interests of the scientist or his\/her employer.\u00a0 Or\u00a0simplied\u00a0by the media with their sometimes questionable motives.<\/p>\n

Articles in the Globe and Mail, Saturday, February 23, 2013, are relevant.\u00a0 The one by Elizabeth Renzetti on the muzzling of government scientists, page A2.\u00a0 A second\u00a0by Margaret Wente on the questionable effect of global warming on the polar bear population, page F2.<\/p>\n

Forensic engineering investigation must collect evidence – and follow the evidence where it leads, in resolving an issue objectively and with certainty.\u00a0 The opInion of\u00a0a forensic engineer is judged in a court of law for its objectivity.\u00a0 The certainty with which the opinion is held is also solicited of the\u00a0forensic engineer in assigning weight to the\u00a0engineer’s results and opinion.<\/p>\n

In a forensic engineering investigation, we\u00a0form a hypothesis based on what we know, develop and carry out tests of the hypothesis, and, based on the results, confirm, modify, or refute the hypothesis (Ref. 1, 2, 3, and 4).\u00a0 We\u00a0carry out more tests of a\u00a0modified or a new hypothesis. \u00a0An exhaustive implementation of that process solves the problem in most cases, if it can be solved, and enables an objective opinion to be rendered with considerable certainty.<\/p>\n

G. Dedrick Robinson and Gene D. Robinson III don’t seem to believe that process has\u00a0been followed to completion\u00a0yet in an evaluation of the fact or otherwise of global warming.\u00a0 For example, they believe that evidence such as the history of the earth has not been considered properly in an investigation of global warming.\u00a0 They state their views in their book, “Global warming: Alarmists, Skeptics, and Deniers; A geoscientist looks at the science of climate change<\/strong>“.<\/p>\n

If this is true – that the scientific method has not been rigorously followed in evaluating the fact or otherwise of global warming, it’s a serious omission.\u00a0\u00a0The evaluation\u00a0would not stand up to the\u00a0most gentle\u00a0of cross examinations in a court of law\u00a0never mind the aggressive examination to which\u00a0the results of a forensic engineering investigation\u00a0are sometimes subjected.<\/p>\n

What have Robinson and Robinson found in their look at the science of climate change that would not be tolerated in a forensice engineering investigtion?\u00a0 Some of their findings are reviewed below in a guest-blog.<\/p>\n

References<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. American Society of\u00a0Civil Engineers (ASCE), Guidelines for Failure Investigation <\/em>1989<\/li>\n
  2. ASCE Guidelines for Forensic Engineering Practice <\/em>2003<\/li>\n
  3. Steps in the forensic engineering investigative process.\u00a0 Posted October 26, 2012<\/li>\n
  4. What is forensic engineering?, published, November 20, 2012<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    (The following\u00a0guest-blog\u00a0of a recently published\u00a0book on global warming has been contributed to The Forensic Engineering Blog by Gary Bartlett, P.Eng**)<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Guest-blog: Climate change for intelligent people <\/strong><\/span><\/h1>\n

    A)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>INTRODUCTION<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    I think that most of us understand that we need to be somewhat careful about believing everything that we hear and read.\u00a0 Nonetheless, the media seem destined to accept verbatim the pronouncements of those with vested interests in perpetuating myths about the climate with little or no attempt being made to validate what they are told.\u00a0 The result is a never-ending stream of terrifying pronouncements worthy of Chicken Little based on no science or on junk-science or on deliberately manipulated statistics.\u00a0 That kind of stuff can wear a person down and truly cause one to wonder if maybe *they* are correct.\u00a0 Well I was getting nervous, in any case.<\/p>\n

    Herein is an attempt to dispel some of the myths regarding climate change.\u00a0 It is based on a 2012 book entitled \u201cGlobal Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers; A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change\u201d<\/em><\/strong> by G Dedrick Robinson and Gene D. Robinson III, available from http:\/\/www.amazon.com\/Global-Warming-Alarmists-Geoscientist-ebook\/dp\/B0070YUCXE<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    The major attributes of this book are:<\/p>\n

    a)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The authors do not enter any debate with those with other agendas, whether they be political or economic or media-driven.\u00a0 This book is a discussion of science as it impacts the climate of Earth, no more and no less; \u00a0and<\/p>\n

    b)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Conclusions reached in this book are based on scientific fact, historical data;, measurable trends, and peer-reviewed information.<\/p>\n

    B) PURPOSE<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    My purpose in summarizing the major facts contained in the reference is simply to encourage others to maintain a certain amount of cynicism when reading information found in the media on the whole topic of global warming.\u00a0 If what one reads is not, or it cannot be, supported by science, then it\u2019s best to move on.<\/p>\n

    C) BOOK\u2019S MAJOR POINTS<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

    Here is my attempt to provide a pr\u00e9cis of the major conclusions \u2013 all fully supported in the book to which I have referenced \u2013 which should cause most people to take and maintain an open mind whenever they hear prognostications on the topic of global warming.\u00a0 Readers owe it to themselves to obtain the book and read the detail to substantiate my summary.<\/p>\n

    1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 OMG, we are in a period of climate change!<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong> Guess what:\u00a0there has never been a steady state in climate since as far back as science has been able to infer temperatures.\u00a0 By no means can current changes in temperature be described as even slightly unique or unusual.\u00a0 Ignore the term entirely when heard used with the adjective *alarming*.<\/p>\n

    The more that one drills down into the details of planet temperature variations, the more that temperature variation profile begins to resemble a fractal.\u00a0 Trying to forecast the future based on the nano-dimensioned period of, say, 50 years of temperature records is roughly equivalent to trying to estimate the shape of Halifax Bedford Basin from close examination of a foot-wide section of beach at the foot of the Dingle Monument a few miles away. \u00a0\u00a0At high tide.<\/p>\n

    2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The Greenhouse effect will kill us? <\/span><\/strong>\u00a0Yes, there is a greenhouse effect.\u00a0 It has been known about for centuries.\u00a0\u00a0 Unfortunately one hears the term in a negative sense, but it is exactly the opposite.\u00a0 Without the greenhouse effect (it prevents solar heat from escaping back into space), this planet Earth would be entirely frozen and life would have never developed.\u00a0 The major controlling criterion (95%) that governs the extent of the greenhouse effect is water vapour, not carbon dioxide.\u00a0 Doubling the current amount of carbon dioxide is equivalent to less than a 2% change in the amount of water vapour.<\/p>\n

    3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Carbon dioxide is a pollutant?<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong> That\u2019s a strange way to view the product that all human life produces with every exhalation.\u00a0 It is even tougher to accept that negative connotation when carbon dioxide is of absolute fundamental criticality to photosynthesis.\u00a0 Plants demonstrate proportionally better results in an enriched carbon dioxide environment.\u00a0 While carbon dioxide may be increasing in the atmosphere (although blaming that rise on humans is grossly unfair), current carbon dioxide levels are roughly 1\/10 of what they have been for most of the history of the planet.<\/p>\n

    4)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Huge amounts of carbon dioxide are released from the burning of fossil fuels<\/span>?\u00a0<\/strong> Well, huge is a relative term, but fossil fuels as a carbon sink amount to a total 4,000 GigaTons whereas limestone as a carbon sink is estimated at 100,000,000 GigaTons.\u00a0 Carbon that enters the atmosphere from natural sources such as animal respiration and from the weathering of limestone greatly exceeds anything that humans are doing.\u00a0 One needs to study the system which processes and then circulates carbon dioxide around the planet (it is a closed system with a turn-around time measured in years!) to provide a better feel for how much guilt is really appropriate for you to feel after committing the sin of using the remote control to start the car and letting it warm up at idle on a winter morning.<\/p>\n

    5)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Earth\u2019s temperatures are being driven up by increases in carbon dioxide<\/span>?\u00a0<\/strong> That would indeed be unique since well-established history over millions of years shows that temperature increases (periods of global warming) were followed<\/span> by increased levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around.\u00a0 In the current scary environment, cause and effect are mistakenly being employed backwards.<\/p>\n

    6)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Global temperatures are rising<\/span>?<\/strong>\u00a0 Not for the past 17 years.\u00a0 See \u00a0http:\/\/www.thegwpf.org\/ipcc-head-pachauri-acknowledges-global-warming-standstill\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    7)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Computer models are the answer<\/span>?<\/strong>\u00a0 No, computer models are not (yet, if ever) the answer.\u00a0 The planet is a huge system which defies modelling to the degree at which confident predictions are credible.\u00a0 Most forecasts of impending climate horror are coming, not from a scientific analysis of historical facts, but are generated by\u00a0 inadequate models which suffer from many unknowns when they try to manipulate the data and peer into the future.\u00a0 Some of the unknowns in their algorithms are very critical in determining the final outcome of a climate predictive computer run.\u00a0 That is, a tiny change in the estimate of any one constant in the algorithm can cause huge variations in the resulting conclusions.\u00a0 The track record of general circulation model predictions of the past give no cause for confidence in their ability to predict the future, yet they are being heavily relied upon in the popular press (while more meaningful geophysical history is ignored),<\/p>\n

    8)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Data and graphs tell the story, right?<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong> No, that\u2019s not right.\u00a0 It is appallingly easy to manipulate data to support a forgone preferred conclusion by taking it out of context, or by playing with X- and Y-axis scaling, etc, just to identify too common distortions.\u00a0 Numerous well-known public presentations show conclusions that are not peer-reviewed and are not true except in the sense that they have been carefully selected and\/or carefully presented or are specifically defined in words intended to deceive — all so as to support the position the presenter has espoused.\u00a0 Run, if anyone uses the word \u201ccorrelation\u201d.\u00a0 Here we need the rigour of science from respected sources.<\/p>\n

    9)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ice; Two problems<\/span>:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. All the ice in the world is melting?<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0Everyone talks about the melting of all the Arctic ice to the north of Canada as if that were the end of the story; no-one talks about an off-setting gain in ice near the south pole; and<\/li>\n
    2. We shall die from rising sea levels?<\/span><\/strong> The sea level is rising already and has been for 18,000 years.\u00a0 The rise has been three-hundred and fifty feet so far over that period, and the world and the planet are coping.\u00a0 If all the ice in the Arctic were to melt and add to the oceans, the rise would be not be very exciting because most of the northern ice fields are already floating on water.\u00a0 If the Arctic ice were to melt, the oceans do not rise any more than does the water in a glass of sarsaparilla after the ice-cube melts. [The opposite is true of Antarctica but the ice pack is building there]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      D) GRATITUTOUS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

      The writers of the book from which I have been so freely cribbing, did not say any of the following things.\u00a0 They are mine.\u00a0 They are based on the qualifications that I claim below (which when added up amount to nearly zero):<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Sun spots<\/strong>:<\/span> Historical geophysical data would suggest that the climate (temperature) of the planet is greatly affected by sun spots.\u00a0 Current data suggest that the planet could be entering into a period of back-to-back low 11-year sunspot cycle periods similar to what is known as the Maunder Minimum which had been observed centuries before.\u00a0 Since good High Frequency communications propagation is directly proportional to the number of sunspots, this tentatively predicted period represents a prolonged bad-news situation for the amateur radio operator.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0It may also be bad news for the planet since global temperature can be shown as being related to the quantity, location, and characteristics of sun spots.<\/li>\n
      2. The Maunder Minimum<\/strong>:<\/span>\u00a0 The many scientists among amateur radio operators who specialize in propagation prediction have access to all known recorded history of sun spot numbers which they analyze for recognizable repetitive patterns.\u00a0 Others plot the data against the planet\u2019s temperature, and if history repeats itself as perceived from these patterns in these consolidated plots, there is a case to be made that the next equivalent to the Maunder Minimum will result in less heat reaching earth from the sun.\u00a0 Because of fewer sunspots (which are hotter than the normal sun\u2019s surface temperature), that will see the planet grow colder to the point that the earth could enter a mini ice-age. \u00a0\u00a0Freezing to death with no one to talk to is an unpleasant thought.<\/li>\n
      3. History <\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0A big contributor to the problem associated with current reactions to \u201cglobal warming\u201d is that people do not read history.\u00a0 Big storms are nothing new.\u00a0 A hurricane in Newfoundland in 1775 killed four-thousand (4,000) people.\u00a0 It made Hurricane Sandy look like child\u2019s play. The term \u201cmonster\u201d does not truly apply to Sandy when considered against previous storms.<\/li>\n
      4. Complicity<\/span><\/strong> People do not want to admit their own contribution to the catastrophic destruction that follows relatively common weather events.\u00a0 The severe damage from Hurricane Sandy was caused by bad human decisions when the consequences were easily predictable.\u00a0 Channels to incoming seawater waterways had been narrowed, thereby exacerbating tidal surges;\u00a0 private residents happily built things on known flood plains; \u00a0condos and apartment buildings and businesses installed emergency generators and their control panels \u00a0in their basements.\u00a0 And so it goes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        **Author\u2019s Apology<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

        **Gary Bartlett, P.Eng.<\/strong>\u00a0is not a geoscientist, astrophysicist, meteorologist, nor does he know anything about those hard topics.\u00a0 The closest he can come to claiming smarts in those areas is that he knows a guy\u00a0– a long-time friend, who specialized for years in consulting geotechnical and environmental engineering, and now practices forensic engineering (Eric E. Jorden, M.Sc., P.Eng.).\u00a0 Oh, but Gary has faithfully watched professional weathermen Monty, Rube, Peter and Kailin on CBC-TV.<\/p>\n

        Gary Bartlett, on the other hand, does recognize well-written material with a thorough bibliography from respected sources, he does understand the significance of terms such as \u201cpeer-reviewed\u201d, and he does value the demonstration of the proper scientific method as taught by UNB BScEE 1962-67.\u00a0 [His essential cynicism can be traced to a career spent exclusively in the aerospace industry, but that\u2019s a different topic]<\/p>\n

        He really, really hopes that readers of this blog will buy the referenced book (see more about the author in the attached, below) to find out all the other encouraging fact-based peer-reviewed science that is collected there. \u00a0And it\u2019s an easy read, too. \u00a0To top it off, Gene Robinson is personable and cooperative, too.\u00a0 To my surprise, he responded quickly to my request that he review the above pr\u00e9cis of his book for accuracy,\u00a0and his reply\u00a0caused me to repair a couple of incorrect statements, and allowed me to\u00a0 strengthen others.\u00a0 I release it with confidence.<\/p>\n

        Attachment:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

        From FORBES<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

        http:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/sap\/2013\/02\/08\/the-world-in-2033-big-thinkers-and-futurists-share-their-thoughts\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        The World In 2033: Big Thinkers And Futurists Share Their Thoughts<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

        On Global Warming: Gene Robinson<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n

        \u201cTwenty years ago, alarmists were already predicting calamitous effects in the near future from a warming planet due mainly to petroleum and coal combustion. The 1990 best-seller Dead Heat painted a nightmarish picture of our world in 2020-2030 when the temperature would average six or seven degrees greater. The first IPCC reports of 1990 and 1995 supported such scary scenarios, giving them an aura of scientific respectability. What actually happened is that the mean global temperature since 1993 increased about 0.2 degree C through 2012 with most of that occurring in the record year of 1998, at the peak of a thirty-year warming trend. Since then, the global temperature has plateaued with no clear trend up or down. Because the flattening is at the high point of a warming trend, each year has to be among the warmest recorded years, as the media tirelessly trumpets. What a convenient way to mask the fact that although CO2 has continued to increase, temperature has not, in spite of the computer models.<\/p>\n

        What, then, can we project for global warming in 2033? Instead of the abrupt warming that alarmists always say is about to start, my rather cloudy crystal ball says global temperature is more likely to continue showing no clear trend or to be at the beginning of a cooling trend. Alarmists will continue to blame every severe weather event on climate change and to oppose all energy projects except solar and wind. All studies supporting the alarmist view will continue to be publicized in the liberal media while all studies reaching conclusions in opposition will be ignored. Liberal politicians will still support schemes to tax carbon by trying to scare people of what will happen without them, even as the skepticism of ordinary people continues to increase. Grants will still be doled out to scientists whose previous results supported the politically correct view while proposals from skeptics go unfunded. In short, just as little has changed with regard to the politicizing of the global warming theory in the last twenty years, little is likely to change in the next twenty.\u201d<\/p>\n

        Dr. Gene D. Robinson is Professor Emeritus at <\/em>James Madison University<\/em><\/a> in Virginia<\/a> and author of Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers \u2013 A Geoscientist Looks at the Science of Climate Change<\/a>, available at Amazon and most book stores. He is also the publisher at Moonshine Cove Publishing, LLC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

        Subtitle: Climate change for intelligent people (Following is a guest-blog by Gary Bartlett, P.Eng. on\u00a0global warming.\u00a0 I’ve added a few introductory remarks relating Gary’s concerns about what is being reported in the popular media to forensic engineering investigation) Introductory remarks: … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1175"}],"version-history":[{"count":34,"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1216,"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1175\/revisions\/1216"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1175"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1175"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.ericjorden.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1175"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}