Global Warming? Part II

I have some exposure to some of the models used by climate researchers at NOAA. I can tell you, the models are frequently ad hoc and contain numerous fudge factors and corrections to massage the data, throw out outliers, adjust that term during this time period, this term during that time period, etc. Further, many temperature measurements are based on proxies--e.g. assuming tree rings are wider during higher temperatures, but there's simply no way to determine how much wider per degree C.

I'm not saying that their models are wrong, just that, having implemented models like these before, I understand enough of the math to know that a minor mistake in a fudge factor meant to allow dissimilar measurements to be used as if they were from the same dataset can make a huge difference in the validity of the model. Not to mention simple errors in implementation that can have the results "look right" but still be completely wrong.

For example consider the story told by the data that turned out to be wrong.

In this case, the scientists found out that their ERSST model was producing warmer results, by about 0.2C, than other instruments. It turned out that in 2001, the satellite providing the data was boosted to a different orbit, and the model failed to take that into account. It took 10 years before anyone thought that there might be a problem! Up until then, everyone apparently assumed the earth had warmed by 0.2C suddenly in 2001. Worse, they assumed that the data for 1971-2000 was wrong and massaged it to fit the 2001+ data. "In early 2001, CPC was requested to implement the 1971–2000 normal for operational forecasts. So, we constructed a new SST normal for the 1971–2000 base period and implemented it operationally at CPC in August of 2001" (Journal of Climate).

Just the abstract to that particular paper reveals how fragile the models are, being based on assumptions piled on top of assumptions, and unveiling a tendency to massage data.

"SST predictions are usually issued in terms of anomalies and standardized anomalies relative to a 30-yr normal: climatological mean (CM) and standard deviation (SD). The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) suggests updating the 30-yr normal every 10 yr."

How can a normal be updated--the data is the data, and its normal is its normal? This sentence implies that the data is somehow massaged every ten years or so. There may be legitimate reasons to do so, but anytime you massage data, there have to be questions as to the legitmacy of the alteration.

"Using the extended reconstructed sea surface temperature (ERSST) on a 28 grid for 1854–2000 and the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and SST dataset (HadISST) on a 18 grid for 1870–1999, eleven 30-yr normals are calculated, and the interdecadal changes of seasonal CM, seasonal SD, and seasonal persistence (P) are discussed."

This says that data is being assembled from widely disparate data sources, with different measurement techniques, and that some of the data was made with instrumentation that simply cannot be validated (data from 1854?).

"Both PDO and NAO show a multidecadal oscillation that is consistent between ERSST and HadISST except that HadISST is biased toward warm in summer and cold in winter relative to ERSST."

Now we see that different data sets, ostensibly of the same population, disagree. And the fact that one data set exhibits bias to the extreme (too warm in summer and too cold in winter) raises questions about the proper use of this data. One scientist may be able to make a valid claim that the more stable data is in error and "correct" it to be more in line with the more volatile data; another scientist may do the opposite. And their personal bias will play a role as to which way they go.

Global Warming?

I for one don't deny that the globe may be warming (or at least that the climate may be changing), nor even that man may have exacerbated this trend. And I am willing to do my part to help minimize my impact: I telecommute when I can, I minimize my driving (e.g. walk to lunch when I'm at the office), we have a garden, we compost, I drive a car with decent gas mileage (albeit 11 years old--trading the footprint to produce a new car vs the slightly better mileage I could get with my next car, which will be a Jetta TDI), and we're planning for our retirement house to be as off-grid capable a possible.

On the other hand, the earth has gone through severe climate shifts even within the last few thousand years--none of which were precipitated by man-made pollutants. 11,500 years ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered with mile-thick ice sheets. Yet that ice all melted. Why? Was the ice an aberration (no) or was the warming an aberration (no)? What is the earth's "correct" temperature? If the earth was cooling and glaciers were expanding and the seas retreating (as ice build-up captured more and more water) would these same scientists and politicians be recommending that we burn more stuff to put more CO2 into the atmosphere? Why is water vapor--the #1 grenhouse gas by a 7-1 margin--never mentioned? What caused the medieval warm period when olives last grew in England and Vikings last lived on the shores of Greenland and silver mines in Sweden were not covered by glaciers? What caused the subsequent Little Ice Age that saw the Thames freezing solid every winter for 200 years, and farms and villiages in northern latitudes were destroyed by expanding glaciers?

At Copenhagen, the AGW crowd lamented sea-level rise: "Just two years ago, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a worst-case scenario rise of 59 centimetres. But the accelerated melting of ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland caused by faster warming means the worst case is now put at 1.2 metres. " When? By 2200... Current satellite data going back to 1993 has sea-levels rising about 3mm per year. The average, based on a set of tidal measurements over the last 220 years is 2mm/yr.

Fifty-nine centimeters in 190 years is just 3.1mm per year; a rise of 2 feet over 200 years seems like something we could plan for and adjust to and not at all like a geologically recent event. About 8500 years ago the largest lake in the world, Lake Agassiz, which once covered almost half-a-million square kilometers (about 180,000 square miles) of central Canada simply drained, virtually overnight in the geologic timescale, into the Arctic ocean. "The last major shift in drainage occurred about 8,400 calendar years before present (about 7,700 14C years before present). The melting of remaining Hudson Bay ice caused lake Agassiz to drain nearly completely. This final drainage of Lake Agassiz contributed an estimated 1 to 3 meters to total post-glacial global sea level rise. Much of the final drainage may have occurred in a very short time, in two or one events, perhaps taking as short as a year. [emphasis mine]"

In India, we find that "Useful data on sea level fluctuations have been collected during the present expedition. Three wavecut benches were encountered at depths of 11.22 metres, 4.6 metres and 1.34 metres. The proto-historic city was built on the lowest bench, the early historic and the medieval townships on the higher benches. The island of Bet Dwarka, 30 km north of Dwarka, which is also famous as the pleasure resort of Sri Krishna, was connected with the mainland between Otha and Aramda. The reclamation referred to in ancient texts was made in this zone when the sea level was lower 3,500 years ago." The sea has risen 120 meters over the last 20,000 years, albeit with virtually all of that rise taking before about 5000 years ago. All without the help of man.

I'm not against "doing something" and certainly agree that pollution is bad. I'm just not willing to agree that the proposed so-called cap-and-trade legislation is going to do anything about pollution, and if it does have a minor impact on pollution and/or warming (by the bill's supporter's own admission), will it do so without crippling our alreadywounded economy.

And further, I think that the cap-and-trade bill expects some magic technology to spring into being simply because the bill mandates it--how else to get 65% reduction in emissions from coal-fired plants (except to shut them down). Why not mandate 500MPG cars (and $1M/year unemployement benefits to stimulate the economy)? So while I'm willing to "do something", I'm not willing to put my faith in a demonstrably ineffective Government, nor am I willing to live in a cave, naked and eating dirt (but my carbon footprint would be pretty low if I did), nor am I willing to cripple our economy.

Crazy Eddie

"The pattern was always the same. First they wished for the impossible. Then they worked toward it, still knowing it to be impossible. Finally, they acted as if the impossible could be achieved and let that unreality influence every act."

"The Mote in God's Eye"--Larry Niven and Jerry Pournell

This sounds like some liberal politicians to me...

45000 without insurance die?

I often see the proclamation that 45 thousand people die every year because they don’t have health insurance. This number comes from a Harvard study, so it is pronounced with great reverence and seldom questioned or considered. The study is widely available on the internet, and I suggest you read it. While reading it consider the point-of-view of one of the authors: according to the NIH website "Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler helped found Physicians for a National Health Program, a not-for-profit organization for physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals who advocate a national health insurance program."

Of course, the number quoted is the highest number in the study, and comes about only when using criteria suggested by the Urban Institute. The lower end of the estimated range is 27424, or a just about 50% less, albeit this covers only ages 25-64. Ignoring the Urban Institutes guidelines, the number provided is 35327 deaths annually for the non-elderly (ages 18-64), compared to the larger number 44789.

But the study also had several severe limitations.

First, the study relied on self-reported insurance status (unverified data). Further, the study only included insurance status at a single point in time, without determining whether the participants were actually insured at the time of their death. If a person had not been insured at the time of the initial interview, but got insurance later in the 6-year study period and may have actually had insurance at the time of death, they were counted as if a lack of insurance had contributed to their death. The authors have no information as to the duration of insurance coverage or lack thereof--only that the person was uninsured during the initial interview. To be fair, it may also be true that some people who reported having private insurance later dropped or lost their insurance, but the study does not consider either case.

Next, the study made no effort to determine that the cause of death was related to health insurance status. Deaths due to auto accidents, homicides, etc. were counted the same as deaths due to untreated diabetes. This is made more problematic because the study oversampled blacks and blacks are six times more likely to be victims of homicide than whites.

The study also excluded people on Medicare, which is reasonable as the study focused on the non-elderly. However, the study also excluded "nonelderly Medicare recipients and persons covered by Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs/Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services military insurance, as a substantial proportion of those individuals had poor health status as a prerequisite for coverage." These people were excluded because they were probably already sick and the fact that they had health care coverage, albeit government supplied, would likely have skewed the results. If they had died during the study, the hypothesis that lack of coverage is associated with increased likelihood of death may have been less strongly supported; also, it may well have indicated that having government-provided coverage is even more strongly associated with increased likelihood of death.

Although the study seemed to indicate that “uninsurance is associated with mortality,” it also points out that “uninsurance was associated with younger age, minority race/ethnicity, unemployment, smoking, exercise, self-rated health, and lower levels of education and income. Regular alcohol use and physician-rated health were also associated with higher rates of uninsurance.” Or, as the authors put it “unmeasured characteristics (i.e., that individuals who place less value on health eschew both health insurance and healthy behaviors) might offer an alternative explanation for our findings.”

Finally, it is worth noting that of all those who were included in the study, a total of 3.1% died. Of those who died, 83.8% had private insurance (but still died). The overall rate of death was 3.0% for the privately insured, and 3.3% for the uninsured. So, 97% of the privately insured were still alive after the study period ended, and so were 96.7% of uninsured.

In other words, there may be a 0.3% increased chance of death associated with instances of unverified periods of uninsurance (of unknown duration) and where cause of death may or may not be related to health-care related factors.

By way of comparison, in 2008 there were 43,313 deaths in auto accidents in the U.S. That number is typical for the annual loss of life on our roads. Each of those deaths was 100% preventable by simply banning automobiles. We could save many of them by simply lowering the speed limit to 25MPH on all roads. Are we willing to spend $1T to save those people over the next 10 years?

For further comparison, the CDC says that approximately 90,000 people die each year as a result of acquiring an infection while in a hospital. Almost all of those deaths could be avoided if doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff would simply wash their hands and use hand sanitizers regularly and properly.

P.S. According to the numbers in the Harvard report, being male had almost the exact same “risk” as being uninsured.

"8 years of Republican control"

On blog after blog, I read about “8 years of Bush” or “8 years of Republican control”. As if Pres. Bush and the Republican party in Congress had total control over the country. These statements often reflect either ignorance or complete denial of the facts.

First, we know that Pres. Bush did not have Congressional support in the final two years of his 2nd term, as the 110th Congress was controlled by Democrats (233-202 in the House, and 49-49-2 in the Senate with Leiberman and Sanders as “independents” who mostly joined Democrats when they voted). Any bill which passed the 110th Congress had to have Democratic support, and especially had to have the support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, they passed two bills that Pres. Bush vetoed and who’s vetoes were subsequently overridden. (Water Resources Development Act of 2007 and Food and Energy Security Act of 2007 (the 2007 Farm Bill)).

But even when Republicans held majorities in Congress under Bush, as they did in the 107th-109th Congresses, the majorities were slim, and especially slim in the Senate (often an even split). Thus whenever a bill was approved in the Senate, it had to be done with support of something close to 20% of the Democrats in the Senate (assuming 100% Republican support, which was not at all guaranteed). In light of this, anything that passed the Congress did so with something of a bipartisan effort, since Democrats could block the Senate on any issue simply by withholding cloture votes as a bloc (or something remotely like a bloc). Instead we saw one of the most “Bushy” bills, the PATRIOT Act, passed 99-1 in the Senate and 357-66 in the House. On the other hand, another big Bush bill, the Medicare Modernization Act, passed 220-215 with 16 Democrats voting Yea in the House (and 25 Republicans voting Nay) and 54-44 in the Senate, with 11 Democrats supporting it and 9 Republicans opposed (i.e., nearly ¼ of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the bill). In perhaps the most telling vote, the Iraq war was started with strong Democratic support, according to Wikipedia: “Introduced in Congress on October 2, 2002 in conjunction with the Administration's proposals, H.J.Res. 114 passed the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon at 3:05 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and passed the Senate after midnight early Friday morning at 12:50 a.m. EDT on October 11, 2002 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law as Pub.L. 107-243 by President Bush on October 16, 2002.” Eighty-two Democrats (40%) supported the action in the House and 29 Democrats (50%) in the Senate also supported the action. In fact, the Democrats+Jeffords(I-VT) as a bloc had a 51-49 majority in the Senate, yet they still passed the bill. Even the Bush tax cuts of 2003 could have been held up, but 2 Yeas from Democrats in the Senate counterbalanced 3 Nays by Republicans, leaving the final vote in Dick Cheney’s hands breaking the 50-50 tie.

It has been widely reported than Democrats in Congress (esp. Barney Frank) blocked attempts by the Bush administration to reform and regulate the mortgage industry in the part of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Even though in the minority party, they could block items in committees and by withholding cloture, because the Senate was so evenly split.

In the end, nearly everything in the Bush years, other than executive orders and other policy matters (e.g. rules set by Cabinet Secs.) was done with some measure of Democratic support. In particular, since only Congress controls the purse strings, all the money spent under Bush was spent with Democratic votes in support. Had Democrats held their party line, the “Bush years” would have come out differently.

"Tea Partiers don't get it"

ajc blogger: "Tea baggers are a small group of 6th grade educated morons. Anyone above a 6th grade education would know better."

First, you use offensive language, then you insult a lot of peoples' education.

I attended the April Tea Party at the Capitol with several members of my family (some of whom also attended the Tea Party in D.C. later in the year) and between the 5 adults we held a PhD, several master's degrees (plus a not-quite finished MBA), five bachelor's degrees in various disciplines. And yet, there we were speaking out.

It is oversimplifying the issue to say we are against taxes and government. When I say "we" here I cannot speak for all Tea Party attendees, but only those I know and spoke with.

The case is more that we are opposed to increased Federalism, especially so much of the federal government's actions that appear to be outside the limited powers provided for in the Constitution. And at the time, we were specifically opposed to and quite upset about TARP and the unread, pork-laden stimulus bill that many of us felt was simply not going to work. We didn't want the federal government to bail out the GM or AIG, let alone Fannie and Freddie. We believed that it was madness to socialize risk and privatize profit (which is what the bailouts did and will do next time). We believed that the housing meltdown was exacerbated if not precipitated largely by the federal government's policies and the fact that the federal government held more than $5T in mortgage loans through the auspices of Fannie and Freddie (even though there's was never a promise that the government would backstop Fannie and Freddie--nudge-nudge wink-wink, right?) We believed that all of these problems were not only foreseeable, but had been clearly foreseen and corrective actions actively fought by elements in Congress on both sides of the aisle.

We understand that government is necessary, and it has to be funded. But we also believe that, especially at the federal level, the Constitution provides a very specific set of powers and responsibilities. We are seeking a return to that limited government--we believe that the federal government ought not be everyone's mommy. We believe that the current situation (huge deficit spending) is unsustainable and it is better to deal with the problem now rather than face total economic collapse. We see a future when the Treasury will be forced to print money, when devaluing the dollar will be the only way to pay our debts. That will not be pretty. One way to stave that off is to start cutting the expenditures of the federal government. As it is much of the federal government actions are simply unfunded mandates to the States. We believe that these actions should be made at the State level anyway, and taking the federal government out of the loop is a good thing.

Ironically, in light of this article, we believe that transportation is at least partly within the enumerated domain of the federal government, I have no problem with Interstate highways as "post roads"; more so that I am familiar with the military aspects of the system as constructed. The notion that these post/military highways serve civilian needs (also known as "dual use") is just a bonus. And the gasoline tax is perhaps the single fairest and least complicated way to offset the maintenance requirements caused by civilian use of the system: the more you drive, the more you pay (and heavier and less efficient vehicles pay more).

On the other hand, the income tax system has been used as a mechanism for social engineering and class warfare. We have a system in which more than 40% (and every year we get closer to the 50% tipping point) not only pay no income taxes, but where a growing number have negative tax liability (aka tax welfare). When 141 thousand people pay more than 20% of all federal income taxes, when the top 5% pay more than 71% and then the bottom 75% pay barely more than 13% of collected income taxes, this system cannot be considered fair. Indeed the imbalance means that every day more and more voters will be freeloaders, paying nothing into the system yet sucking more and more out and voting themselves more and more largess. How quickly would the system fail if the top 5% simply stopped doing what they're doing?

So, we believe that government is a necessary evil, but that it must be limited to what is prudent, necessary, and affordable. We know that government must be funded to do those things and that taxes, equitably assessed, are necessary. What we disagree on is simply what we believe is the line for prudent, necessary, and affordable.

The Northeast and west coast are subsidizing the south and heartland

On ajc blog:

Re: Not Going To Use My Usual Name
"The Southern states take WAY MORE than they pay as a percentage of federal taxes. The Northeast and west coast are subsidizing the south and heartland"

Well, that's true and false, meaning you've made a generalization that has some truth in it, but is not the whole story.

It is also true that Alabama ($1.66), Mississippi ($2.02), Louisiana ($1.78), and Arkansas ($1.41) receive more than they pay (at least in 2005). But Georgia ($1.01) basically breaks even, North Carolina ($1.08) is a little on the plus side, and Texas ($0.94) pays in more than it takes out. On the other hand, we can look at New Mexico ($2.08), North and South Dakota ($1.68, $1.53 respectively) being big consumers of tax dollars, while Vermont ($1.08) shows that not all Northeastern states are paying in.

Some of the biggest dollars go to Maryland ($1.30) and Virginia ($1.51), proving that the government likes to spend money on itself. And the king of all the tax dollar money pits is D.C. ($5.55).

California ($0.78) and New York ($0.79) do payout much more than they receive, on the other hand they have by far more millionaires residing there than anywhere else (excepting Florida ($(0.97) and Texas ($0.94)) so maybe there's something to the whole "tax the rich" scheme----if all the evil millionaires live in California and New York, and you want to tax the rich, then it follows that those states (and their evil population) will be net payers to fund the desires of the government.

Which is what I thought Democrats want. So stop complaining about it.

Tyranny of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi

[My wife sent me a chain-email (see below) with a question: "So much of this internet email stuff is total crap - do you know anything about this?? D". This is my response...]

Go to this CNN link to download the document (http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/18/hcbill.pdf) which shows up in an CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/health.care/index.html. Once you have the PDF go to page 1020 in the PDF, starting on Line 7 that text indeed appears. This is the House bill that passed (HR3590). The Senate bill was essentially the same bill with 350+ pages of amendments (link to download http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/managers-amendment.pdf). It's somewhat harder figure out what the final bill looks like until you piece together the various snippets, but I see no amendments to Section 3403 that change this language. However, as I read it starting on page 184 in the amendment PDF file on line 20, the subsection (d) of Section 3403 has only minor tweaks that do not affect the language in question. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that this is indeed language in the bill.

I've copied the text in question and the amendments to it

HR3590 Section 1304 subsection (d)

‘‘(d) CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION.—
‘‘(1) INTRODUCTION.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—On the day on which
a proposal is submitted by the President to the
...[snip 3 pages of text]...
‘‘(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE
BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLA
TION.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or
the House of Representatives to consider any
bill, resolution, amendment, or conference re
port (other than pursuant to this section) that
would repeal or otherwise change the rec
ommendations of the Board if that change
would fail to satisfy the requirements of sub
paragraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
‘‘(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS
SUBSECTION.—It shall not be in order in the
Senate or the House of Representatives to con
sider any bill, resolution, amendment, or con
ference report that would repeal or otherwise
change this subsection.

(Senate) Amendments to Section 1304 subsection (d)

(2) in subsection (d)—
(A) in paragraph (1)(A)—
(i) by inserting ‘‘the Board or’’ after
‘‘a proposal is submitted by’’; and
(ii) by inserting ‘‘subsection
(c)(3)(A)(i) or’’ after ‘‘the Senate under’’;
and
(B) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ‘‘the
Board or’’ after ‘‘a proposal is submitted by’’;

"Be excellent to each other."
The most non-heinous of all golden rules.

---

From:
To:
Sent: Fri, January 15, 2010 7:56:10 AM
Subject: Fw: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me

So much of this internet email stuff is total crap - do you know anything about this??

D

----- Forwarded Message ----
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, January 14, 2010 8:59:50 PM
Subject: FW: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me

From:
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:53 PM
To: Uncle Myral
Subject: tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid - This scares me

All - Read this, then contact your federal representative (thanks, Pablo). What they are doing is unconstitutional. where the hell is the Supreme Court now? Dan T. SAN FRANCISCO Examiner Editorial: The impudent tyranny of Sen. Harry Reid Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light. Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid’s anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation. Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: “… it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section 3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise. Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time. No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept. True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors. The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate “procedures.” Why is that significant? Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate’s standing rules have required approval by two-thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid’s amendment received. Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is?