the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Ignored Heat Capacity

Posted by Jeff Id on August 25, 2015

Something that has often bothered me about climate models and rain water is how the energy transfer to the rock is handled.   Each climate model I’ve read seems to address the problem in similar ways with bulk conductivity parameters that appear to ignore anything but conductive energy transfer to significant depths with basic flows of energy at shallow depths.   The result is that there doesn’t appear to be much effective thermal mass in our land area on Earth.  The consequence of this is that  land thermal mass holds nothing of great effect with respect to global warming.   Climate models are absolutely missing something important here.

I’m not sure what reference would best illustrate the point,  Trenberth has a powerpoint presentation up at this link which summarizes the complex parameterization of climate model land usage.  The reference is pithy but explains quite clearly how modern science interprets ground thermal mass.

 

The rock is treated as a solid non-moving mass

Land:  Small heat capacity, small mass involved (conduction)

Water storage varies: affects sensible vs latent fluxes

Wide variety of features, slopes, vegetation, soils

Mixture of natural and managed

The heat capacity is treated as small which on the surface (some pun intended) seems reasonable.   However, conduction is almost always a minimal factor in a situation where fluids are present and physical mass flow exists.   In the surface of the ground on earth, we have significant physical thermal mass flow —>downward.   Always downward.. well nearly always anyway.

The magnitude of heat capacity

Did you know that a century of today’s worst case global warming heat can be stored in the deep oceans with only an approximate 0.1C rise in temperature and that 0.1c is leaves the oceanic mass very near freezing in temperature?

Did you know that the huge oceanic thermal mass is only 10% of the water in Earth’s crust?

In effect, the only thing which conceptually allows our temperature to measurably rise with today’s minimal CO2 forcing is the lag in thermal transfer to these huge thermal masses.  Oceans are said to mix on over-century timescales.  Water and ocean, conduction and convection effects are stated by modern science to be too slow and therefore dangerous warming can occur.  Interestingly, land thermal mass seems to have a very high transfer rate and is quite nearly ignored.   I don’t believe this very significant aspect of global warming has been vetted thoroughly and you shouldn’t either.

While we do have a huge amount of water on Earth and contrary to public schooling, will not run out due to human usage, we have a lot more rock in the Earths crust than we have water.

This is how modern climate science thinks of land:

Moreover, heat penetration into land is limited by the low thermal conductivity of the land surface; as a result only the top two meters or so of the land typically play an active role in heat storage and release (e.g., as the depth for most of the variations over annual time scales). Accordingly, land plays a much smaller role than the ocean in the storage of heat and in providing a memory for the climate system.

This type of paragraph is surprisingly common argument, presented as a mere handwave rationale to define the necessary land depths used in climate models.   While annual temperature invariance of deeper soils sounds like a reasonable rationale to cut off the depths of modeling layers, it fails to take into account the relatively lower thermal mass of water passing through the soil on an annualized basis, and the continuing nature of the increased energy input to that same soil caused by warmer atmosphere.

Another example of a climate paper which discusses only conductivity of soil without discussion of net flow.

It seems really obvious to me that the heat from rain, and the slow but regular downward convection of fluid through the massive amount of rock will lead to little seasonal temperature change of the soil but a very large heat storage device.   The capacity for this storage can easily eliminate the higher frequency seasonal variations and yet ignore the conductive heat transfer of decadal term climate signals.  The result would be vastly underestimated thermal absorption by the thin surface layer conduction models used in modern climate science.   As an example, California’s rain has to pass through hundreds of feet of rock before it reaches ground water.   Does anyone expect a few inches of rain to affect the seasonal temperatures of rock?  I don’t, but over time the heat from 0.6C warmer than average rain will certainly be stored there.   The heat will have a great deal of difficulty conducting upward due to low rock conductance and a continuing downflow of new rain water percolating through the rock material.  Yet conduction is what climate science recognizes and a few meters of surface material seems to be the critical part of land thermal mass modeling.

This is wholly inconsistent with the much better known science of hydrogeology.  Here is an article showing the age of water in a typical well. The oldest being ~ 300 ft deep and 30 years old.   So gradual down-flowing rain has been pushing extra heat from globally warming temperatures into this rock for at most 30 years.  A hundred meters of rock over 30 years as a typical measure of land mass thermal absorption.  The water went through the rock, the heat definitely reached equilibrium with the rock over that time and the water holding the global warming heat is still contained within the rock!

Of note, while the wells in the paper seem to stop at 100meters, the water certainly didn’t.

Do you think climate models take into account this massive heat storage capacity?

Here is what GISS had for ground layers in 2005

Continents: each 4×3 cell is
either all ocean or all continent
1. Resolution: fixed
fractions of continental cell are
ground, land ice, or lake,
ground can be partially covered by snow,
lake can be partially covered by lake ice;
ground has 4 layers plus fith layer for snow,
ground layer thicknesses: .0625, .25, 1, 4 (m);
land ice has 4 layers;
liquid lake has 2 layers,
lake ice is treated like sea ice

So we know from my link above that water can regularly get into a 100 meter well in 30 years or less, yet this climate model only calculates the first 1.4 meters, and apparently only for thermal conductivity.  I’m just not seeing the convection parametrization you would expect for downward water flow, not that I couldn’t have missed something in this model while reading another, but it does not appear to be there.

Numerous modern climate models suffer the same lack of depth (again some pun intended – sorry):

Our latest version, CRCM4.2 is even more in-line than CRCM 3.7 with the CCCma GCM3 package (Scinocca and McFarlane, 2004). The most important change consisted in the implementation of GCM3’s multi-layer surface scheme CLASS 2.7 (Canadian LAnd Surface Scheme; Verseghy, 1991; Verseghy et al., 1993) in the CRCM to provide a more realistic description of water and energy exchange between the land surface and atmosphere. Starting from the surface, CLASS uses three soil layers with thicknesses of 0.1 m, 0.25m and 3.75 m, corresponding approximately to the depth influenced by the diurnal cycle, the rooting zone and the annual variations of temperature, respectively. CLASS includes prognostic equations for energy and water conservation for the three soil layers and a thermally and hydrologically distinct snowpack where applicable (treated as a fourth variable-depth soil layer).

I know that in our house, we have a cracked basement wall, and after a very hard rainstorm our wonderful finished basement can get water in that particular corner.   The wall is 2.5 meters underground at the base and it takes literally hours for the water to reach that depth. We have had some specialists out twice for the problem and they will be coming back again.   However, 1 day isn’t an unreasonable expectation on any percolating soil to over 2 meters depth.    The increased heat added to the ground of a single rain at that depth is going to take months to measurably influence the rock, and if another rain hits, it will be dragged further downward instead of conducting up to the surface.  

The heat capacity of water is 4 Kj/kg-K  and the heat capacity of sand is 0.19 or about 21 times less than water.   However the density of sand is 1600 Kg/m^3 and water is 1000Kg/m^3.   If you get 0.1 meters of rain in a month, as we approximately do, an equal heat capacity layer of sand has a depth of 1.3 meters.  If the water is 1 C warmer, and was contained to 1.3 meters, then the land should warm by 0.5C at that depth and the water should cool by 0.5C.  In practice, the continuing downflow will carry that warmth to an even greater depth.  New rainfall continues the process, carrying the new heat ever deeper.

Of course we would expect very little monthly temperature variance at 3 meters depth because the thermal mass of the rock has dampened the variations in rain water temperature.  I hope I have explained well enough to show that while this thermal capacitance dampens high frequency signals, it does nothing to preclude energy from hundred year warming caused by CO2 from penetrating to great depths.

To me this is a very big problem with climate modeling.   It is not a minor issue to be brushed off as current modeling does, and this missing heat should be considered carefully.   Perhaps I’m missing something special here, it wouldn’t be the first time, but at this point I can’t imagine what that might be.

 

—-

Update per request from Mark Cooper.  A typical soil temperature range vs depth in winter and summer seasons.  The graph shows net power flow is upward in the winter and downward in summer.  For some reason the graph won’t upload to wordpress, so the link is the best I can do.I tried to make the point that the net direction of heat flow is not the important factor with respect to global warming but rather the change in magnitude of heat flow due to warmer temperatures is the critical factor.  That may not be clear in the post above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments »

NSIDC Polar Hole Correction

Posted by Jeff Id on August 14, 2015

Data is dangerous as many a paleoclimatology paper can demonstrate. Big data is statistically more dangerous, and the satellite sea ice data record is a multi-gigabyte set. Some years ago, your not-so-terribly-humble correspondent made a small error which was published here, and at WUWT.   I downloaded the global satellite data for sea ice and did not correctly apply the missing “hole” in the data for the entire time series.  The result was an inaccurate trend and associated conclusions.  It was of course, embarrassing, and I did apologize quickly and fixed the data set.  Any scientist would.   The reason for the problem was that the documentation at the NSIDC wasn’t really up to snuff and I was new to the data.  They very efficiently and quickly corrected the metadata record.  Grant Foster, who posts as Tamino on the inappropriately named “open mind” blog, took a couple hours of his day to write a teasing post on the error.

Well today, on perusing the NSIDC site, I received a little redeeming gift.  It turns out that even the NSIDC which is comprised of the literal best experts on the sea ice data, is capable of the exact same mistake I made on my first ever compilation of the massive dataset:

Correction in Application of SMMR Pole Hole for Daily Data and its Consequences

In March 2015, while editing the data processing code to apply the SSMIS pole hole mask, it was found that the Sea Ice Index processing code had been applying the SMMR pole hole mask over the entire Sea Ice Index time series when computing the daily extent numbers instead of using the SSM/I pole hole mask beginning in July 1987 as the monthly data processing does. Because it is assumed that the entire region under the pole hole mask is ice-covered and because the SMMR pole hole mask is relatively large, some sections of open water, regions with less than 15 percent ice concentration, were being unknowingly included as sea ice in the daily Arctic-wide ice extent number.

At the time of this mask correction, 132 incursions of open water into the SMMR pole hole mask had taken place in recent years. The first occurred in 1987. However, until 2007, all of these incursions had areas of less than .01 million km2 which is below the precision of these data. Between 1987 and 2013, the size of the open water in the SMMR pole hole mask ranged in area from 1800 km2 to 10,000 km2. Figure 19 shows the worst-case scenario, 22 September 2009, where approximately 10,000 km2 crept into the SMMR pole hole area (red area in Figure 19).

The version 1.2 release of the Sea Ice Index corrects this processing oversight. All concentration data up to the latitude of the appropriate pole hole are used in the calculation of Arctic-wide extent. As a result of this change, there are slight decreases in the corrected daily extent number for some days in the record. These small changes do not affect the monthly anomalies and trends, however, which are reported to two significant figures.

Again, they professionally and scientifically announced and corrected the record.  Kudos again NSIDC.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Dead Ice

Posted by Jeff Id on August 13, 2015

The Antarctic ice is melting and is well below average for the first time in 3 years.  Global sea ice is also below minimum. It looks like the death spiral has come to pass….

From Cryosphere Today

seaice.anomaly.antarctic[1]

Except that it is winter there and that means it is simply not freezing at a typical rate.   It still spells doom though, I’m just not sure how.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

Dual Title Day: Line up for your Brownouts. or Future America to Produce Energy by Harnessing Happiness.

Posted by Jeff Id on August 2, 2015

The most anti-industry president we’ve ever seen continues his rampage against success with his inexplicable anti-scientific and draconian cuts to CO2 emissions.  Why anyone liberal or otherwise doesn’t have the common sense to see the error of this policy is beyond my understanding.   We are violently attacking the very thing which makes us successful — energy.   The costs of these policies are so underestimated they are simply lies,  the consequences will be negative to the environment and the negative consequences to industry are intended to be dramatic.  From here:

By clamping down on power plant emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he’s seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.

The people who support this policy are comprised of complete idiots, power hungry politicians and anti-industry left-wing radicals who pretend to have knowledge.  Some of you read here so if you support this idiocy, you can find your own grouping.  Of course all of the pro-government nonsense is funded by theft of our money through unsustainably high government taxes.

The actual price is unknown until states decide how they’ll reach their targets, but the administration has projected the rule would raise electricity prices about 4.9 percent by 2020 and prompt coal-fired power plants to close.

Does 4.9% even begin to pass the smell test for costs created by stopping power generation from combustion – without the introduction of safe clean nuclear power?    NO it doesn’t, for those who can’t figure it out.   You need to be an idiot to believe that it might but plenty will ‘feel’ exactly that.   Rocks and feelings do not make good decision engines.

I’m not alone in this, America just does not have enough thinkers anymore to see clearly and overwhelm the political nonsense.

Posted in Uncategorized | 33 Comments »

John Cook – Missing the Point Again

Posted by Jeff Id on July 25, 2015

So a couple of days ago Lubos Motl of the Reference Frame blog discovered that his name was being used by extremist envirowhacko John Cook.   Lubos wrote a rather funny reply in an unserious tone which was then followed up on by a number of blogs including this one.   Lubos’s post was titled: Identity theft: the thief of Lubos_Motl turns out to be a well-known man.  I followed up with a rather angry post about Cook lying to people for his own gain.   Note the title I used:

John Cook Proprietor of SKS, Repeat Coauthor of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky Caught Red Handed Impersonating Lubos Motl for Purposes of a University of Australia Research Project

What am I saying in that?

Cook impersonated a known scientifically credentialed skeptic with fake bad arguments, showed those fabricated bad arguments to people (possibly changing the name on the comment beforehand) and planned to use their responses in another publication attacking reasonable climate skeptics.    In his own words:

As the second part of our experiment on science blogging, we’ll be showing 4 conditions to lab participants at the Uni of W.A. The condition for this thread is Skeptic Blog Post, Skeptic Comments. So would be great if a handful of SkSers could post glowing, very skeptic comments to our Denial blog post – posted here in this forum thread. We need exactly 10 skeptic comments.

Here are links to four versions of articles Cook put together so you can understand the tone of what he wrote: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4. These show the articles and the poorly contrived ‘skeptic arguments’.

This is what passes for a scientific study at the University of Western Australia.

The claim that his argument was a skeptic argument, is of course a lie because extreme advocates made the arguments in very poor fashion.  The claim that Cook has the scientific know-how to evaluate a scientific argument is a problem for me, but beyond basic competence it is quite clear that on climate science he has lost all objectivity.  Of real concern to me, did he get paid for the work, has it ever been used in print or will it be in the future?   I don’t really know but I do know that he intended to publish it from this comment.

Will definitely post about the experiment
John Cook Probably after it’s been accepted or published though, best not to pre-empt the peer-review process.Not sure if I’ll post the actual article and comments – that will be something to ponder way down the track. Could have a bit of fun with it.

That quoted comment was in a file where thoughts on the study implementation were discussed prior to beginning.   Interestingly Glen Tamblyn, expressed the same concerns that we all should have about this kind of chicanery. HIS bold, not mine.

Glenn Tamblyn Once your experiment is complete it might be good to actually do a post on it, showing all 4 versions and commenting prominantly that both warmist and skeptic comments were written by the same people

Also in that same file, another commenter Steve Brown expresses concern that the skeptic arguments were a bit too realistic.

Steve Brown It’s really got me wondering how many of the regulars at WUWT are genuine and how many are SkS contributors having a laugh after the pub.  Some of those skeptic comments were a bit too realistic.

Which is of course the point of what I’m writing.   The arguments are not realistic as they are made by and interpreted by advocates, biasing the study irreconcilably prior to it even being launched.  Cook is such an advocate though that he even suggested handing out a flyer to those who read the “denier” stuff such that too many don’t get converted by accident.

Why write about this again today?

So I was sent a link to a facebook post today.   John Cook wrote a ‘scathing’ reply to Lubos’s funny post.  John is peddling his debunked claim that skeptics believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories.  In it, he admits to moving forward with this above experiment.

Here is an excerpt of John Cook, unwittingly admitting to his gamesmanship.

The stolen private correspondance from 2011 involved Skeptical Science team members developing comment threads (both supporting and rejecting climate science) for use in a psychology experiment. In the private forum (only), I posted a few comments under the pseudonym Lubos_Motl (to signify that the comments were taking a contrarian stance). The username was changed to an anonymous name for the experiment. In other words, it was not used in the experiment and was never used outside of the private Skeptical Science forum.

Consequently, Motl’s accusations of identity theft are demonstrably false. Further, I find it extraordinary that Motl publicly posts comments about me being hanged, and allows public comments on his blog that approve of torturing and murdering me. I find it equally extraordinary that such misleading and venomous posts are uncritically endorsed by third parties such as Richard Tol, Anthony Watts and Roger Pielke Jr.

And this is where Cook missed the boat,  Starting with the fact that the allegedly ‘stolen’ correspondence quoted here was left on line where anyone who was interested could find it and could hardly be considered private.  Besides that, we only have his word that he didn’t share Motl’s name with his experiment victims, I do tend to believe this because he does take himself pretty seriously and you wouldn’t want to bias such a well-considered experiment, but we don’t really know do we.  In this episode, he admits actually performing the experiment where he and other advocates from SKS pretended to be skeptics, and then likely rated answers of his hapless victims who responded to the fake arguments he happened to conjure. Perhaps the reason we cannot find the results in the promised paper, is that they weren’t up to Skeptical Science(TM) well known standards for proper ridicule of non-advocate climate scientists (AKA normal folk).

Keep in mind that John is a man who is completely incapable of objectively recognizing that climate models are not matching observation.   In other words, he and other SKS’rs intended and initiated a scammed study, falsely claiming to be comprised of climate skeptic arguments, for their own purposes.  The study was likely funded by government tax dollars of some sort through UWA but we don’t know.  He did use Lubos’s name on a non-linked public forum on the internet, and may have used them in the actual study, however his protests of innocence on this miss the point and instead confirm the type of “statistical study” he and by association Lewandowsky prefer.

And he is so thoroughly confused on the matter that he doesn’t even recognize his own chicanery.

All for the cause.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

John Cook Proprietor of SKS, Repeat Coauthor of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky Caught Red Handed Impersonating Lubos Motl for Purposes of a University of Australia Research Project

Posted by Jeff Id on July 23, 2015

UPDATE:  Just to be clear to the crowd.  Nobody believes this had to do with LOG 12,13 or papers of the moon landing genre.  Not sure what the study had to do with.  Also, these Lubos posts were not initially visible to the public but were made visible to an unknown number of others by John Cook and eventually released to the public by someone else.  Not that I care either way, I just don’t want to be accused of saying something I didn’t say.   I was rather grumpy when I wrote the post and I suppose I still am, that is why it is called the Air Vent after all.

—————–

After being libeled in a journal by Lewandowsky and Cook in 2013: “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation” where Cook and Lew made claims which they knew from personal emials between us were false, I’ve learned today that none other than John Cook was apparently impersonating Lubos Motl for purposes of a UWA Experiment. An excerpt from his emails at this site is below but the link to the bitwise record of the mess is here.

Tom Curtis would you please stop posting as Lubos Motl.  There is reason to doubt his sanity, so I don’t like seeing his name.  Further, it is his name, and therefore one you are not entitled to use.

John Cook

Sorry about the Lubos thing

Was posting someLubos comments for theUWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you :-)

EDIT: one of the conditions now has 10 comments, so only 3 more threads (with 2 of them only requiring one more comment). So Lubos very close to being put to bed :-)

UWA being the University of Western Australia.

Now they have libeled me multiple times, libeled numerous other climate blog writers less obviously, violated basic ethics rules of psychology as a matter of habit, yet are very heavily government funded.  From Lewandowsky and Cook’s last paper:

A more extended variant of this hypothesis cited S.L.’s research funding available on his webpage (A$4.4 million
in grants) and drew attention to A$762,000 specifically for climate research. Moreover, the commenter argued
that this funding did not include A$6 million that the Australian Commonwealth Government provided S.L. and
colleagues to run ‘The Conversation’ [DC 122]. ‘The Conversation’ refers to an online newspaper (https://theconversation.
com/au/who-we-are) that is primarily written by academics and is funded by a consortium of major
Australian universities and other scientific organizations. (S.L. has no editorial role in this initiative but has written
numerous articles for TheConversation.)

And even better, for those of you who consider CNN to be a news source, CNN considers John Cook of enough credibility to publish this very article today:

Ostensibly to inform the audience of Cook’s idea of climate change denial.

———

So we now know with certainty that John Cook of Skeptical Science is a paid professional liar.  He should be deeply ashamed of himself.   This kind of activity is beneath the foundations of what liberalism is supposed to be, and matches every bit of what I see liberalism is.   CNN allowed him to publish an article on their news organization yet this same man is willing to lie for personal gain.  Untrustworthy, pathetic, small men.  I am a known skeptic, one disparaged by his CNN article, libeled by Cook and Lewandowsky, and I wouldn’t even consider for a moment acting in this manner to prove any cause.

He’s wrong on the science too.

I’m thoroughly disgusted with you Mr. Cook.  You have permanently spent your honor for a SKS blog with no credibility.

For the rest of the story, here is a link to Lubos Motl’s blog.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 44 Comments »

Pat Michaels Powerful Testimony

Posted by Jeff Id on July 23, 2015

Pat Michaels testimony at the Committe of Natural Resources was fantastic.  Very short but he really nailed it.  He mentions Nic Lewis who was a coauthor of our Antarctic rebuttal paper to Steig a few years ago.  Nic has been doing some of the best work on climate sensitivity for several years now.   He and Judith Curry released a paper which showed a much lower climate sensitivity is likely accurate, but more importantly, they narrowed the range of sensitivity.   It was great seeing it mentioned to congress.
.
Anthony Watts covered this yesterday at WUWT, apparently Dr. Michaels rewrote his speech right before he talked because of some denier rant by Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) another left-wing know nothing, just before he spoke.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

A Different Opinion

Posted by Jeff Id on July 22, 2015

What if global warming were reversed and the release of CO2 caused cooling.   Would that be better or worse than today?   Would we be happier as biological entities in a cooling world or would food have a harder time growing?  Would more snow, and more glaciers help the biosphere of planet Earth be stronger?  Would lower sea levels and increased glaciation make life generally better across the planet? I read a post at Judith Curry’s blog today that started with a single phrase that I disagree with:

We know that climate change is a problem

Climate change as we are now taught being global warming of course.   I’m feeling a bit like the slow kid today, because I’ve been studying this subject for a while and I flatly don’t see any of the problems from warming.  We aren’t seeing any more storms, rains, droughts, or weather extremes than we have seen in the past.   They are simply and scientifically not happening.   We have only seen very mild warming, vastly less than predicted, and ground measured temperature had no statistical trend in recent decades until the alarmist types inexplicably yet predictably tweaked upward the temperature trend of the incredibly confusing and weak quality oceanic data that makes up 70 percent of the record.  Even that new higher trend doesn’t match models.

BUT what if we had global cooling?  Now that would be frightening to me.   Plants don’t like cold, and nor do animals, especially furless pale skinned monkeys like me.  I like beaches and sunshine over cloud and snow. The next ice age is definitely coming if we trust the incredibly rhythmic history in ice core records, it is due, and it will surely be devastating and not the kind of devastating of a few C of warming, the kind of devastating that puts a mile thick glacier in my back yard for 80,000 years or so.  I would suggest that even 4C of cooling would be horrifically bad, and I would also suggest that every aspect of mainstream science suggests that we are overdue for a chill of greater magnitude than that.   Even without the big ice age, the vastly milder little ice age in recent centuries is powerful evidence that even a small temp change downward has a seriously negative consequences to life in general.  Less food production being right on the top of the list of bad things. If cold is bad, and it surely is, and extreme scientists claim that more than 2C warmer is death to the planet, we must be in the ideal life window!!

I wonder what makes scientists so sure that the planet Earth has achieved the best temperature for life in this exact millennia?  I’ve seen no case made for this argument.  No papers released which prove or even rationally demonstrate that today’s temperatures are the best ever!   I’ve only seen doom and gloom predictions in both temperature directions from government science, while us unfunded science practicing folk having no realistic expectation of Earth balancing at this exact temperature range over any kind of pseudo-permanent time frame.  The planet will be different no matter what we do.

And then there are those reasonable people who see warming as mild, yet still want to do ‘something’ to help poor unwitting Gaia.  The middle grounders.  With so much nonsense going on in the subject, it is quite relaxing to see a bit of pragmatism from someone, but I don’t think even this group has the right of it.

A different view:

I want to suggest something to you folks who are so certain that even moderate warming requires a ‘response’.  Especially those many of you who believe in the limitation of burning fuels.  Instead of making the assumption that change caused by humans is necessarily and absolutely a bad thing, as so many of you readers and self-declared moderates do, I want you to consider an entirely reasonable alternative.  Warming is net beneficial for life, humanity, weather, plants, animals, polar bears and penguins.  The evidence for this is not minor, it is in fact everywhere.  Observation ahead of theory.

We are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere and will have doubled the microscopically small pre-industrial CO2 levels in the near future no matter what we do with government policy.   Of course that atmospheric concentration is still vanishingly small as a percentage of the air, but it is unequivocally known that this gas will still cause additional warming.  It turns out that it is a small warming effect because even with the most aggressive warming assumptions, as the oceans can absorb literally a thousand years of the energy involved global warming with only 1C of temp change.  That fact is way too often overlooked in climate science, even by the most skeptical of scientists and bloggers.  More importantly though for this article, is that plant life generally experiences extreme reduction in growth at below 180 PPM concentration.  Basically, CO2 levels are near plant starvation levels and in pre-industrial days we were right on the edge.  Greenhouses respond to this known scientific fact by intentionally increasing the CO2 levels to as much as 1000PPM, to achieve better plant growth, which is a fact far too often overlooked in alarmist science.

So I would suggest something different for consideration.   I would suggest that instead of being a disaster, or a problem on any level, increased CO2 levels at the magnitude we have and will achieve in the next 200 years, are in fact the single greatest positive environmental improvement that humanity has been able to achieve for life on planet Earth.  More plants, greener oceans, more dynamic pole ice keeping oceanic currents flowing, powerful fertilizer, more land, slightly more humid air.  All of these effects are scientifically justifiable and likely more realistic than the more hurricanes and shrinking fish, acid water nonsense our delicate neurons have been assaulted with per the whims of our extremist ridden scientology class aka “Climate Science (TM)”.

The single best thing humanity has ever done for wildlife on Earth.   Greener, better, stronger, all because of CO2 and a bit of mild warming.   In net balance, this positive isn’t a minor effect either, because atmospheric CO2 fertilization of near critically starved plant life has a huge impact on growth, improved biodiversity in the long term and will impact animal life in the same manner for years to come no matter which new productivity choking regulation our extremist overlords imagine.

So to those who believe CO2 emission should be reduced in any way, I tell you that there is no scientific evidence to support your assertion.  By simple reason, we are very unlikely to be at the perfect temperature as a planet, by the same reason, colder is certainly worse for life.   It seems pretty obvious to me that warmer is better for humanity and all of the wildlife on Earth but the amount ‘warmer’ we can expect from CO2 process is highly limited due to oceanic thermal mass and the extreme coldness of that mass.

When we think we “know global warming is a problem”, I am stating to you that we know no such thing, those who claim to know it is a problem have mislead themselves.  I would suggest that we know global warming is not a problem, that it is nicely beneficial for all life on earth.  It is greener, better, stronger and if we are really lucky, might help us stave off that next ice age for a short spell, although I doubt CO2 will have that kind of power over the weather.

It really is the greatest travesty of the whole global warming meme, the assumption that the net outcome is a problem.  It is so easy to accept and so hard to objectively reject that a human induced change to planetary temperatures caused by various forms of combustion, is a bad thing.  In reality, fossil fuels are an absolute boon to plant life, wildlife, human life and our economy.  I urge those of you who fall into the category of ‘must do something’ to reconsider.  Scientifically, the combustion of fossil fuels, humanity is likely one of the most environmentally beneficial acts we ever performed as a species and stopping that combustion is expensive, environmentally ignorant, and fortunately for the ‘do something crowd’, impossible to stop.

Posted in Uncategorized | 17 Comments »

Lewandowsky’s Mess – A question of misrepresentation and scientific integrity

Posted by Jeff Id on July 15, 2015

With the endless continuation of Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky’s attacks on those skeptical of the conclusions of activist climate science, I don’t think I’ve made something clear enough in the past.  In his Recursive Fury article, Lewandowsky published a derogatory statement as a scientific fact, completely contrary to the facts he had in his possession (generally a scientific no-no)and I can prove it fairly convincingly.  The article in question was taken off line immediately in response to my complaint, the reference was changed to something else equally inaccurate but less derogatory and the article went back on line.  Others were still affected by the slash and burn tactics and the paper was eventually retracted in its entirety due to numerous complaints about ethics and statistics.  Now Lewandowsky is on line with the same ridiculous conclusions of his retracted article still boldly stated, and he is making as much publicity of it as he can yet the names of the subjects studied removed.  Below, I have clarified what Lewandowsky published inaccurately about me and what information he possessed at the time he published this retracted article.

In our first run in with Lewandowsky here he published a scientific article titled “MOTIVATED REJECTION OF SCIENCE NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science”, citing my name and ascribing a belief to me which I do not hold.  Citation of a subject by name, while ascribing what is basically a mental pathology to them as a form of diagnosis, is clearly unethical thing to do in a psychology paper, but that is beside the point I am trying to make.  I contacted him directly,  explained my beliefs and requested a retraction.

His inaccurate claim was:

Thus, AIDS denial has been linked to the belief that the U.S. Government created HIV; the tobacco industry viewed lung cancer research as an \oligopolistic cartel,” and climate deniers believe that temperature records have been illegitimately adjusted to exaggerate warming (e.g., Condon, 2009).

While the claim is inaccurate , it could be potentially interpreted as an honest mistake by an uncareful researcher.  I wrote the following to Lewandowsky personally by email which he received and responded to.  Basically he cannot claim to not have knowledge of this matter.

Surprisingly and unfortunately, your recent paper has garnered a lot
of attention in press which has created concerns on my part.  Besides
obvious ethics issues with respect to intentionally damaging the
reputations of those you “study”, you should be aware that upon
review, you have used my name and reference in this paper in
demonstrably misleading and libelous manner.  Your recent article has
falsely represented me as a global temperature trend denier amongst
numerous other inaccurate characteristics.  Specifically, you have
referenced an on-line article that I wrote about access to data (not
the result) to represent that I hold an anti-science position.  In
other words, your reference does not support or even address your
conclusion. Leaving the other ugly implications in this publication
aside, it is only a complete ignorance of station adjustments which
could legitimately lead you to conclude that my mention of these
substantial corrections was “anti-science”.  Had you contacted me, I
would have explained you that these large adjustments to temperature
are real and necessary, but every working scientist questions their
magnitude to varying extent.

My email continued:

Admittedly, it was rather shocking to be attacked with such stunning
inaccuracy when I have so often argued in support of the reality of
anthropogenic warming.  There are hundreds of examples of my
scientific opinions on line.

and:

I never have “denied” global temperature trends or the
anthropogenic component and have often argued their unequivocal
existence in print.

Lewandowsky acknowledged my email with a short reply that acknowledged the problem.

I don’t believe I cited you inaccurately given the context of what I was saying and referring to—although I agree that your  name was listed in a sentence with the noun “denier,” thereby creating a tacit association that was in fact not intended on my part. All I wanted to do is to cite an example of criticisms of adjustments that—like it or not—often involve conspiracist ideation.

Again, this of course does not appear to reach the level of intentional misrepresentation.   He’s arguing some kind of sophmoric nonsense possibly out of embarrassment and despite his apparent reasonableness in his first email, I eventually had to go to Eric Eich to get the matter resolved for THIS article.  As you can see, Lewandowsky was fully informed of my work and my opinions on the matter of global temperature trends by email.  He had plenty of time to check the veracity of my claims online if he somehow doubted my email and I had clearly stated my own belief in global warming directly to him personally.

So then a short time later Lewandowsky published another paper, this one claiming to study the supposedly irrational response of people to his fake Moon Landing article — “Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation.”

The paper contained the statement I believe we can accurately classify as intentionally misrepresenting his data:

“Conspiracist ideation is arguably particularly prominent on climate blogs, such as when expressing the belief that temperature records show warming only because of systematic adjustments (e.g., Condon, 2009) …..”

A more dishonest representation of my own repeatedly stated opinions is hard to imagine.  Dr. Lewandowsky was clearly aware of my blog as he linked two times to it and he had my opinions by email.  So those are the basic demonstrable facts (data in terms of a soft Psychology paper) which Lewandowsky had in his possession.  Since the facts directly contradict his scientifically published assertion, we can hypothesize as to the reasons for his repeated misrepresentations.   Ironically, the good doctor may have diagnosed his own condition in his recent republication (sans names) of the previously retracted recursive fury paper:

Several of those hypotheses were based on what we call unreflexive counterfactual thinking; that is,
the hypothesis was built on a non-existent, counterfactual state of the world, even though knowledge about the
true state of the world was demonstrably available at the time.

However, a second, somewhat simpler explanation is plausible.  Knowing Lewandowsky’s outspoken political extremism against free market capitalism, it could potentially fit our current state of knowledge about his reasoning as well (from here):

Fraud

A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

I suppose we will never know the truth.

After this unpleasant experience, I do wonder though if even that can reach the limit of an ‘ethical violation’ in some of these psychology journals. Considering that Lewandowsky, a government funded psychologist who is very much active in promoting governmental solutions, would publish and republish attack papers only loosely disguised as science without negative consequence to his reputation and continued funding, is a matter we should all be concerned about.  That multiple psychology journals have now carelessly passed several unethical and scientifically inaccurate articles of this type through their peer review process without negative consequence to their own reputation and funding is simply beyond comprehension.

Posted in Uncategorized | 18 Comments »

If you made six figures for writing nonsense, would you stop?

Posted by Jeff Id on July 9, 2015

I received an email today from a reader who generously shared some Lewandowsky related news on the climate front.   As you know, I haven’t exactly been energetic in my posting.  I’m rather disgusted with climate science and while I still read regularly, I don’t seem to be able to find the energy to actually give a crap about what the leftist Climate Science(TM) crowd says.   Still, I can be dragged from my grumpy shell.  Here is the article of interest, written by these luminary visionaries – bork!!
.
In short, Stephan Lewandowsky has published yet another piece of fake science, using yet more government money, stolen from productive free-market minions, for purposes of bashing on those of us who can read a graph.  AKA, climate skeptics.   At this point, even other leftist scientists like Dr. Ivar Giaever are bailing out of the climate science wagon.  You have to be a shill or a moron to not understand that climate science is a scam at this point.  Not that it stops the ever-less relevant Real Climate guys from diving on the constant grenades to cover the scam.
 .
Here is Steve’s real funding disclosure for his fake paper:
The first author was supported by a Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award from the Australian Research Council during
part of this research, and he has been supported by a Wolfson Research Merit Award from the Royal Society since 2013. In
addition, the research was supported by internal funding from the University of Bristol and the University of Western Australia.
The remaining authors have no funding to report.
I literally cannot imagine living in a world where the likes of Stephan Lewandowsky receive “outstanding researcher awards” (lc intended).   The man is the lowest form of life on this planet as history will certainly show.  There is no value in his publication other than to slander those who disagree with him.   Intellectually, and mathematically he doesn’t reach the kneecaps of the majority of readers of this blog and the man has reached high fame by slandering our group.
.
Anyway, I replied to the email as follows:
I’m trying to make myself care about this. Lew is a leftist political hack who will never give up.  Cook is tagging along with a moron, so what does that make him.
I read/skimmed most of the article because I found myself fogging out after a few paragraphs.  How does a “journal” publish something like that?   How do “scientists” take it seriously?
It ain’t much like engineering.
Publish away Lewie.   No matter how extreme you are, you cannot stop basic observation which contradicts theory.
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013[1]

Dr. Roy Spencer

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

Logical Egalitarianism

Posted by Jeff Id on June 9, 2015

I just want to highlight the names of the newly released yet surely seminal paper which claims to have reinstated global warming.   Karl et al. discussed repeatedly at ‘skeptic’ blogs.  Take a moment and read the names of these enlightened few climate scientist Illuminati as their names are intended for generational quotation.

Thomas R. Karl,Anthony Arguez, Boyin Huang, Jay H. Lawrimore, James R. McMahon, Matthew J. Menne, Thomas C. Peterson, Russell S. Vose, Huai-Min Zhang

Their paper starts with a humble title belying the incredible conclusions boldly permeating the article: Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus

What exactly is a global warming “hiatus” I wonder?  I wold assume it is a delay in a known continuous process. Perhaps a pause in warming otherwise not expected to pause.   Mirriam-Webster:a period of time when something (such as an activity or program) is stopped.

So they seem to assume that the warming must continue, said warming must absolutely exceed the natural variations of climate else it be cooling,and therefore must without question be net positive at all times.  How is it that a ‘climate scientist’, as opposed to any ACTUAL kind of scientist, doesn’t recognize that even in a climate warming process, flat or even negative periods of warming might exist?   Even IF models are right about warming, and  they are clearly not, the climate models would have periods of less than average warming.  It seems obvious to those of us who are NOT on the payroll of world governments, and ARE scientifically literate, that in a minimally warming world as we have observed, we MIGHT even see periods of cooling.  One literate in climate, and possessing a sufficiently unbiased mind would even expect substantial cooling on occasion.

But no, these amazing government-funded scientists have determined that we are in a hiatus of warming, and that hiatus is caused not by models being too high in trend as compared to observation or perhaps part of natural deviations from expected warming, or god-forbid part of a scientific truth that CO2 warming is far less severe than claimed.  No — these individuals make the bold claim that the thermometers are wrong.  All of them.

It reminds me of something “allegedly” controversial.  Bruce Jenner’s claim to be a woman.    Biologically, from written history, we all know what Bruce was born as a male.  Biologically and technologically, we cannot change his chromosomes out for female ones.  In fact, were we to do so, he would cease to be himself whatsoever and we would be forced to conclude differently.  Bruce’s own stated wish to be a woman changes very little with respect to this simple fact… I hold no ill will toward Bruce and hold no care whatsoever to what gender he wishes himself out to be.  Excepting the fact that he took the name of one of my girlfriends of past lives and hardly holds up to the memory.  However, Bruce is a man, a male, a boy with the typical side-effects thereof.  There is no controversy in my mind and the facts cannot be changed to favor or disfavor anyone’s opinion on the matter, because these are facts, and that is the point of this rant.  Even left-wing environmentally crazy progressives cannot change fact.  This matter is of course entirely separate from how you should treat a friend who wishes to be treated a certain way.  To that I say, to each their own and good for them etc….

Humans can wish facts to change though, and often do, and in my opinion that is what team Karl is guilty of.  A wish for different facts.  Better facts in their minds, which still fit the heyday of 10 years ago when climate models, while visibly still too high in warming rate, were not statistically separable from truth.

Truth is a funny concept in the days of saturated yellow journalism where the climate message approaches a level of brainwashing that even the resistant can hardly parse.   When Dr. Gupta is promoting “organic” food, as though there is any other kind, and he drops in casually that there is no doubt that such food is environmentally beneficial.  I wonder just how is the public supposed to internalize that message?  He is a doctor after all, but facts are facts and we do not get to chose which ones are actual facts.  It doesn’t matter that the inaccurately named ‘organic’ farming creates a massive environmental footprint and feeding masses of people this way is environmentally impossible.  It doesn’t matter because the doctor has a feeling!   Words like organic DO have meaning, and despite the Dr’s. feelings the consistency of that meaning is an important part of language.   Without consistency, we have no way to discuss anything.  For instance, what is the medical definition of male…..  Think about that.   What is it, what is the purpose of it, and why should a feeling on the matter have any influence whatsoever on the medical definition of male.  No question mark intended.  What will the coroner check on a death certificate?  Do the coroner’s feelings matter too?

Anyway, like Bruce, team Karl is clearly not happy with the facts, and their waste of parchment was not a simple matter of making a correction to the data, leaving others to make conclusions on the meaning.   The paper is instead rife with “WE SAVED THE CLIMATE MODELS” conclusion, starting from the abstract and continuing to the last sentence in the paper.  The paper has more “Feelings” than most any hippie bonfire could produce, unfortunately it is held out as modern cutting-edge science.

Unfortunately for team Karl (and Bruce), facts are facts, and feelings are not..  Even we rational thinking people (aka climate skeptics) are stuck with observation on which to base science.   Despite my best efforts to the contrary, imagined corrections to data are not part of my engineering world.   If temps warm, they warm, if they cool, they cool.  TRUE scientists who seek actual truth as a goal rather than proof of a dogmatic and false claim, are stuck with such mundane things.  That the climate world would accept such dogma is a symptom of the ongoing and wide-spread feelings-first illness in the progressive global climate science industry where friends always pass and non-believers are put out in the cold.

The scripture of their work is here….read it at your own risk.

I’ll leave you with an fun and perhaps apt video of what immediately jumped to mind while considering team Karl saving the day….

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Latent Decision Potential

Posted by Jeff Id on April 22, 2015

Too much EPA.  That is the Air Vent theme for Earth Day.  This business, and it is a business, was started by president Richard Nixon.  It has been a highly successful business on a large scale in that it initially resulted in one of the cleanest industrial countries in the planet’s history.   Today, the ‘published’ budget for the EPA is about 9 billion dollars per year and productive industry is being systematically eliminated.

No doubt should be given to the EPA effectiveness with respect to certain aspects of its existence but there is no limit to their function.  There are other federal agencies for compliance, and then state agencies by the ton. The dollar volume is astronomical simply to keep us from polluting.   There is no limit to environmental control.

Correlations to business

As a business owner, one of the key problems we face is not laziness of employees, it is rather employees trying to do too much.   I’ve been at this for a couple of decades, and I can tell you that people who work, want to work better.  The result is that they ADD work to themselves when they detect a problem.  It happens more often than you can imagine.  When an employee spots a problem they typically decide that an added procedure will correct it.  No management need be involved, in their opinion, and the new process begins.  Unless someone with a clearer head happens by, the process will become rock solid procedure.  The procedures pile up until you have big costs. This is such an ingrained part of human understanding that it is as much a law as the second law of thermodynamics. For cost reasons, in healthy companies, you are required to develop a strong culture for rejecting these sorts of procedure.   It must come from the top down, and MANY companies fail miserably at this.

QC departments are a perfect example.  Like environment, you can never have enough quality control.  No amount of procedure ever can give perfect quality and many companies find themselves buried in massive quality control procedures to the point where nobody can make money.   We won’t do automotive work for that reason.

In the case of government, there is literally zero resistance to added process, except for the fact that people don’t want more work and have little power to add more process.  Liberals don’t understand that this is a truly positive feedback loop.  For example, can you name the negative side for the EPA to add ANY item to their list of controlled environmental aspects?

No down side I know of…..

New EPA regulation has no downside and has even added tiny creeks across private property to their purview, seasonal puddles, and CO2 gas which has NO measured negative impact. It also has no known downside for over-predicting problems from any other item which can be ascribed to humans. Any item which can be claimed to have an intimated effect on the environment is fair game.  Fish shrinking, increased drought, reduced crops, meat-eating. The rule becomes, anything which can be popularly controlled, should be.

Like climate science, no negative feedback on any individual proposing a new rule — whatsoever

Rules instead are a positive feedback.  They exist for the pure purpose of revenue because more government people are necessarily required to manage new rules.  ANY rule you can imagine or sell is equivalent to more revenue.  ANY invention of need is a positive for the corporation titled EPA.

People  don’t understand math, they do not understand evolution, and they do not understand the power of an impetus across a large body of ‘latent decision potential’.

It isn’t my fault, but it is my blog so I’m writing about it.

Climate science is an opportunity for the epa (lower case as they now deserve) like any other.   It has grown into a monster with minimal basis in fact, and acquires existence through exaggeration. I’m tired of people who cannot parse its truths from its nonsense, and I’m equally tired of people who cannot stop pedantically arguing the nature of the minutia.  Climate models failed and oceans are big enough to absorb all of global warming energy…..period… There are a lot of smart people in the skeptic world who haven’t figured out that the oceans are truly dominant.   The oceans truly are.  A thousand years of global warming energy can result in literally 1 degree. Sometimes, when something is really obvious, it is still hard for humans to see.  That is something which has sat in my mind for recent months, but is the subject for a different post.

In the meantime, temperature observations failed to meet climate models again today. (in clear violation of strict EPA regulation)

Persuant to  EPA regulation  no. 543025.53 section 254,

No snow shall occur past April 15, as snow is not required after popular taxation.

Michigan experienced very poor visibility in our particular location due to an uncooperative Christian god who shall be fined $527.23 per regulation 543025.56 section 17.  Minority Muslim gods are exempt from rule 543025.56 per EPA affirmative action rule 125932.56.

This was the view while driving to lunch. 4-22-2015.

IMG_2533

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments »

Lewandowsky Strike 4?? Really….

Posted by Jeff Id on April 17, 2015

So a Stephan Lewandowsky interview deserves publication here.  H/T Barry Woods.

Turn your mental filter on, this will cause brain damage.

What a complete loser.  He should be pushing a shopping cart collecting cans.

Posted in Uncategorized | 19 Comments »

Is tax law complicated enough yet?

Posted by Jeff Id on April 16, 2015

What did your April 15 look like? This was ours.

photo

It costs a hundred dollars just to mail first quarter taxes.   While these are all checks to various branches of government, it is of course the huge amount on them that matters.   I’m thinking that the huge stack of electronically filed paperwork, massive fees paid to people just to calculate the pile and the ridiculous multiples of my take-home actually paid into the government, perhaps even a liberal could see reason for tax reform.  ….. maybe… maybe not.

Four times a year.

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments »

Entrepreneurs Regulation

Posted by Jeff Id on April 10, 2015

Kenneth Fritsch noted in the comments section of the Entrepreneur’s Experience post the following poignant reality:

I would suspect that besides taxes, a more hidden expense for small businesses and businesses in general is the cost of regulations.

He would need a federal license to be more correct — probably.  In fact, I think the FDA or the ATF or perhaps the EPA has some regulation to say as much.  Hard to tell which division holds responsibility.  I do know that the FDA (food and drug administration) seems to regulate the import of plastic ultra-sonic welders.   At least I know that on two occasions (at the FDA request) I’ve filled out an FDA form with a statement written on it that the form is not required as there is no regulation.   Of course the “form” has no space for such statements so I just write it in the ‘address’ block.   On two other occasions, no form was required.   Basically it is paperwork with no readers, that regulators don’t even know whether it is needed, but sometimes must be used.

So today I received a new shock.  It just crossed my mind that perhaps I should explain that I’m a middle class progeny.  No big money in my history, the spoon in my mouth was stainless steel rather than silver.  Not that I’m complaining, money is horribly unimportant in case you haven’t learned that lesson, until you have none of it of course.   So the shock was not the 20 pages of new employee manual compliance law we received yesterday, it was a notification from our customer that we must now comply with affirmative action law.

—-

xxxxx Company is a federal contractor or subcontractor subject to the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA), as amended, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Action of 1973, as amended (Section 503), and Executive Order 11246. As a federal contractor, xxxxx Company is obligated to take affirmative action to employee women, minorities, individuals with disabilities, and veterans. xxxxx Company is also required to inform everyone with whom it conducts business that they may have the same obligations.

This notification does not imply that your organization has the same affirmative action obligations under VEVRAA, Section 503, and Executive Order 11246, as referenced above. Your obligation under those regulations is based on a number of factors, including size of workforce and dollar amount of subcontracts. However, we are required to notify you of your potential obligations as a subcontractor.

We appreciate your cooperation in our effort to fully comply with these Federal requirements.

—-

Just another day, another pile of regulations….

I called our HR manager and found out that he wasn’t aware that we subcontract to the government through our customers.  I didn’t know he didn’t know and didn’t know that he needed to know.  Whatever… On brief reading, if we sell X amount of goods, to the government as a subcontractor,  SUB being the operative word, we must comply with affirmative action law.   I have no actual idea what that means at this moment.   I do know that we have NO idea how many of our products end up on government vehicles vs private.   Our customers don’t tell us which goes where and to whom….   Why would they?

I have not one clue when we ACTUALLY crossed the dollar thresholds to be a fully regulated govt subcontractor, but from what I’ve read online, we crossed the threshold some time ago…  I really don’t know how we would ever figure out when that actually happened.   Hell, I don’t even know if we haven’t crossed the line for some obscure reason.  We will ask lawyers, and they will tell us.

Anyway … reading this from Wiki:

The Executive Order also required contractors with 51 or more employees and contracts of $50,000 or more to implement affirmative action plans to increase the participation of minorities and women in the workplace if a workforce analysis demonstrates their under-representation, meaning that there are fewer minorities and women than would be expected given the numbers of minorities and women qualified to hold the positions available. Federal regulations require affirmative action plans to include an equal opportunity policy statement, an analysis of the current work force, identification of under-represented areas, the establishment of reasonable, flexible goals and timetables for increasing employment opportunities, specific action-oriented programs to address problem areas, support for community action programs, and the establishment of an internal audit and reporting system.

As a conservative SOB with no care what you have for your “personal engagement equipment”, our company hires the best people we can find.  Naturally, being conservatives, we are over 70 percent women, who apparently are deemed minorities?  Dunno really…   Do we have to increase the number of men, perhaps we need some artificial tanner, or perhaps some whitener?  Hard to really tell.   I have no idea if we pay the ‘right’ ratio, no idea if we comply with whatever new regulation, but I do know that our lawyers will be telling us soon — for $450/hr. — plus our time — plus our managers time—- etc..

Maybe there is some exemption for us that I don’t know.  I don’t know because I posted it at the moment learned about it to share the experience with tAV readers.  Even not knowing is a cost to us, because we have to PAY $$ to find out.

It’s just another day too, nothing special—  ever heard of California prop 65?   We got this notice just recently:

Back in February we sent a letter by fax requesting that you review the items they provide to us and identify if any of them contain the chemicals listed by the California Prop 65 legislation. We have not received a response to date. Please take a moment to review the letter and listing of parts. If your parts do not contain any of the chemicals then you just need to list the part number and state none on the reply form. We need to finalize our listing so we can reduce our legal risk and update the packaging accordingly.

We are still trying to figure it out because we have 2800 part numbers with thousands of subcomponents and with 800 chemicals, it takes a huge amount of time to figure out.  Here’s the link:

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/background/p65plain.html

Over 800 chemicals listed, which do you carry, which are exempt, how do you reply.  Lead has a dash though it but lead compounds don’t.  If you solder with lead, dashes are apparently exempt, but do you have the compounds in your product??  For Lead, you are also exempt if exposure is below a certain level, but exposure is in units of human absorption per day, yet the product lead percentage is in weight.  How can we actually know what absorption per day people would experience if the light is on the side of a truck? It doesn’t matter really because as a company we are guilty first anyway. Especially in California. Now we have replied to these requests many times, but the recent one above is pretty large terms of part qty and takes huge time.   If we blow disclosure, there are teams of lawyers ready to sue to make money based on imagined problems rather than actual ones.  What do you do?   You comply as best as you reasonably can …. but you really can’t.

Not that this cost individually would even scratch the surface of the taxes we pay.  Also not that that matters to most readers.   What we are experiencing at the very rare size private company we are, is immoral from a government and tax standpoint.     The system is designed to resist success for manufacturing in particular.  The tax and regulation load is so dramatic that I cannot find the words to explain.  All you need to do to see the truth is to look around at which country USED to be #1 in manufacturing, and now has so little manufacturing.  Of course, most of us simply look to what happened today, rather than what happened over time to the macro-economy.

Of course, liberals never listen, and I mean never, but it is good to vent anyway.   Better out than in, but as America’s economy continues to collapse, the sane voters ought to take note.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 159 other followers