the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

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.


19 Responses to “Latent Decision Potential”

  1. omanuel said

    [nope, we can fight if you want but I’m done with the neutron stuff. I’ve asked nicely already.]

  2. jinghis said

    The only solution is to make the government officials personally accountable and responsible for their actions. Lying or misrepresentations should have mandatory prison sentences. They need to be held to a higher standard than the governed masses. Bounties should be given to whistle blowers and aggrieved parties. Of course it won’t happen, the corruption runs too deep, but one can dream.

    About the ocean, Trenberths diagram is total bs, the ocean absorbs over 80% of the energy from the sun and cools primarily by evaporation not radiation. Clouds cool twice, once by blocking radiation from the sun from entering the ocean and secondarily by emitting long wave radiation that causes the surface of the ocean to evaporate (and cool). Clouds control the environment, it is that simple.

    • Jeff Id said

      Clouds are the unknown feedback, my opinion is that oceans are too big even for the clouds to affect in a large way.

      • Jeff Id said

        even for the clouds to affect ( in a reasonable temperature regime) in a large way.

      • jinghis said

        Each day every square meter of ocean in the Tropics and Subtropics absorbs 35 to 40 Megajoules unless interrupted by a cloud. And the Climate ‘scientists’ think that they can measure a 30 or 40 watt difference because of CO2? Huh?

        This is an interesting chart.
        Showing an interesting relationship between tropical cloud coverage and air temperature.

        • Frank said

          Jinghis: Megajoules (energy) and watts (power) are different things. Even 1% change in degK is significant and it is a 4% change via the S-B equation

      • jinghis said

        I also need to point out that downwelling atmospheric radiation can only penetrate the top couple of microns of the ocean and that the very thin surface is always cooler than the water just below it, because the surface is always evaporating away and carrying the latent heat with it.

        Evaporative cooling.

        Also moist air is less dense than dry air, so the moist air rises and that is what causes low pressure systems.

        • Frank said

          Jinghis: OLR is emitted from the same top couple of microns of ocean that absorb DLR. Since the surface that emits OLR generally warmer and has higher emissivity than the atmosphere that emits DLR, the top few microns are net losers of LWR even before their loses via evaporation (which is experienced by the top monolayer of water molecules). When temperature is stable, the difference is provided by SWR, which is absorbed mostly below the top few microns. Heat from below reaches the top few microns by conduction and convection.

  3. Gary said

    Nixon ruled at the peak of US success — as typified by the Apollo space program — and it all went down hill from there thanks to his creation of the EPA and effectively finishing off the gold standard. Both acts planted the seeds of economic sclerosis and made us subservient to the bureaucracy’s rules. Watergate is what he gets blamed for.

  4. stan said

    Jeff, I assume you are familiar with public choice economics.

    If only we could liberals to understand the concept of ‘government failure’.

    • stan said

      In climate science, we see this, big time, when alarmists attack a sceptic for accepting grants from a private source on the assumption that the money affects findings. Accepting enormous sums from the government, however, magically avoids any possibility of affecting a scientist’s objectivity. Of course, any rational person would be struck by the extraordinary stupidity of arguing that government cash, as opposed to private cash, has no impact on objectivity. But rational people don’t worship at the church of global warming.

      • DD More said

        Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
        An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists. The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local Universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities (e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, NASA, and NOAA (U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) facilities; U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories; (and so forth).

        This brief report addresses the two primary questions of the survey

        1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
        2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

        With 3146 individuals completing.

        In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.

        One of the 97 percent agree studies. Do you see any private sector people in their database, because I do not.

        If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.

        Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

        From –

        You, and most all of us, have been programmed for 80 years to fall for the Good Group/Bad Group thinking. The Green Blob are not really good and want to either kill or put us back in caves. Just look at their ‘optimum population’ estimates.

  5. j ferguson said

    Hi Jeff,
    When you first wrote about it, I thought employees overdoing it was not part of my experience, but then remembered my many campaigns over my years in architecture to control embellishments on the drawings.

    This was never a problem on structural, electrical, or HVAC drawings but it was on architectural drawings. The drawings needed to show where things were intended (well, hoped) to be located and how they were to be connected to each other. Anything beyond that was embellishment. You would think that people would want to get it over with, not prolong the agony particularly in the ’60s and ’70s when there were other projects in the backlog. But no, I had constantly to admonish my good-hearted colleagues not to detail all of the internal extrusion details of the aluminum window systems. My mantra was that if the thing came that way, and what they were drawing wasn’t needed to understand how to assemble them, time was being wasted.

    There were a couple of things which drove this need to embellish. Decorating parts of the drawing was easier than the thinking which was needed to devise the information required by the field to build. It also made the drawing look more impressive.

    I tried workshops where we’d take drawings from a friend’s office (we all had the same problem) and highlight the elements which actually conveyed information. It was amazing how often less than a third of what was on a drawing was actually useful.

    While we were still drawing by hand (pre-cad) I cajoled my colleagues into trying as best they could to draw something only once and then reference that detail wherever it appeared in the set. It might take ten or twelve sections to adequately describe how to put the walls together. Each section would show details peculiar to the place it was taken, but also a lot of stuff that was the same on all of the sections, parapets, flashing, foundations, etc. My idea was to show these things completely the first time they were needed and in subsequent sections just ghost them in with an outline and refer to the section where it was shown completely. You can guess that this didn’t save as much time as I expected, but it did save some.

    But then we ran into problems in the field. The construction guys were perplexed by this “missing” information. They complained that they couldn’t have sheets which didn’t show everything because they’d take the drawing sets apart and carry individual sheets around with them.

    We were screwed. When CAD came in in the late ’80s, this problem went away because it was easy to repeat completely detailed sections. then we started having the problem of details being repeated which didn’t occur in subsequent places. And there was a lot more, but to get into that would be to drift aimlessly.

  6. gallopingcamel said

    As usual I find myself nodding in agreement. It is not just governments that create procedures stifling productivity. It happens in companies too…………..the big difference is what Peter Drucker called the “Market Test”. Private companies that become hidebound with elaborate procedures lose competitiveness and eventually go out of business. In the case of government procedures the “Market Test” does not apply so there is no antidote.

    I could give a dozen illustrations from my personal experience. Here is one of them. My boss put me in charge of a marine electronics company operating in Rotterdam and Antwerp. The company had 140 people but its losses had been mounting for five years so liquidation was under consideration.

    I found a company that was superbly organized with a well trained multi-lingual staff. What was killing it was too much attention to detail. Every component was accounted for and billed to the customer. All I had to do was eliminate most of the cost accounting system. Instead I instituted a fixed repair charge for each type of equipment based on a “Swap” concept. Instead of repairing a piece of equipment and then presenting the customer with an itemized bill we would replace it no questions asked.

    This approach had an unexpected consequence because we started winning new customers who would come to our office to swap out a piece of equipment and then install it themselves without any help from our technicians. We reduced our administrative headcount by five people and increased sales at the same time!

    • Jeff Id said

      That is an interesting and surprising example. I’m often amazed at how a process change in our own company results in improvements down the line. It is quite difficult for people to recognize the hidden costs of operation.

      We once had an “engineer” tell us that cost savings for mounting our product on their vehicle didn’t matter because they pay piece price rather than hourly labor. Meaning that their labor was a fixed cost no matter how hard the lamp was to install. Trying to explain that a higher installation rate meant that you could pay a lower piece price seemed like beating a kitten with a bat. We never won that discussion.

      • gallopingcamel said

        The swap out fee was 25% higher than our historical average repair cost for each type of equipment. Our techs became more productive (with improved morale) as they did not have to fill out forms listing every resistor!

        Customers loved it as there was no waiting around while our techs repaired their equipment which sometimes took weeks.

  7. ArndB said

    GREAT Jeff to hear from you: „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“.

    Keeping the climate definition issues aside, although a major topic in about 42 pages essay “CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE WORLD CLIMATE AS SEEN BY A SEAMAN AND LAWYER” presented at the GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht / Hamburg on December 4, 1992 discusses this matter already in-depth: , naming: The 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention – the ClimateTreaty (Ch.IV, p.33), this time I merely reproduce from “D. Final Remark” (p.41) the first four paragraphs:

    Problems can be viewed from one point or another. When this writer attempted before the Rio Conference to interest a newspaper in an article, he received a rejection letter with the remark: “I share your skeptical evaluation of the current environmental policy debates, even though I also believe that the attempt to reduce CO 2 emissions will not cause any great damage. After all, this will sooner or later lead to a reduction in the use of energy.” As acceptable as this statement is, the sense of proportions and the relationship to the problem upon which this statement (which, thankfully, was made) and the previous climate discussion have been based are just as askew.
    Perhaps it was “continental thinking.” Perhaps it was because the meteorologists are only interested in the atmospheric form of the phenomenon, the weather, and consider climate only as a sub-division for the statistical description of weather events. Perhaps it is one of the reasons why the small group of marine scientists, split into many different directions, believe that climate is a part of meteorology and this science already knows what it is all about. Finally, it could also be because a group of scientists has presented their knowledge of the greenhouse effect, calculated in the laboratory and at the discussion table without adequate consideration of the practical events, to the general public and politicians as having the highest degree of probability. One thing, with some few exceptions, can certainly not be said about the previous climate discussion, namely, that “oceanic thinking” has found suitable echo.
    This has, as far as the seaman “understands the world,” not been the case. According to his opinion presented above, the ocean is responsible for the climate to such an extent that one can speak of them being synonymous. Even if other causes not arising in the oceans could be considered as having an influence on the climatic phenomena, it would still depend on the reaction of the oceans as to how the climate would be af¬fected.
    If climate can be spoken of as the continuation of the oceans by other means, then research and protection of the climate can only be promising if we first concentrate fully on the oceans. At the moment, we do not even have an “inventory” of the oceans that is of the least use, much less the beginnings of an observational system. Instead, data fragments are stored in computers and statistics celebrate triumphs. Faith in the ability of computer simulations to make serious statements continues unbroken[127]. The oceans are much too large and complex to base everything on these simulations, and the question does not aim at normal climatic changes, but at those caused by humankind; but this means that it will be too late by the time statistics register the change. …. (cont.)

    In resume it seems difficult to see that substantial progress has been made since the Rio Conference in 1992.

    More actual is recent writing by RON CLUTZ at “Science Matters” for example:

    • Jeff Id said

      I have a serious problem with the reduction of energy consumption as a goal. I think we should instead be increasing net energy use and availability. It leads directly to prosperity and we have hardly found the peak advantages of cheap energy. Energy production has done very minimal damage to the environment, and will continue to reduce its overall footprint without government intervention. It is in NO way a benign or unharmful thought process that we should be reducing energy usage. Note that reduction is different from increasing efficiency, which I am all for. There are a ton of cost-effective ways to increase efficiency, and by definition none of those involve government.

      For the cost adding efficiency increases, government mandate is the only avenue, but these are by definition net-harmful as there is no known benefit to increased energy efficiency where cost is increased.

      • hunter said

        ” I think we should instead be increasing net energy use and availability.”
        Your comments and insights are greatly missed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: