Articles

Why is IEEE Spectrum quoting Nick Tredennick as an expert on global warming? Since when does designing the 68000 microprocessor qualify him to speak as an expert on this subject? A google search finds Mr. Tredennick spouting unsupported and unscientific claims from under the shady wing of neocon pundit and Discovery Institute founder, George Gilder. And this, in the same issue of Spectrum that claims some journalistic high ground in technology writing and criticism. Shame Spectrum, shame.

“Vattenfall’s expensive carbon-­capture experiment is one of the many costs of the global-warming fad.” —Nick Tredennick

--Len Layton (Audio DSP engineer, not climate scientist, not masquerading as an expert, but willing to background check my facts.)

No mention is made in this article of the several parts per million of mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium fluorine and chlorine, respectively, that are found in varying proportions in all coal. Where do these immutable species become sequestered and who plays to manage the waste containing them?

High levels of sulfur oxide removal typically parasitize 12 to 25% of the generation capacity of a coal fired generating station. If oxy-tech drops that level of waste significantly it is a step ahead in theoretical cost effectiveness.

However, because most of the world does not require and then enforce strong sulfur emission limits on coal fired plants, it is a bogus comparison to make unless retrofitting old style coal plants to meet the same standard on a cost per MW production basis is included.

Wow! A personal attack for expressing an opinion. Nice going Len. I was asked my opinions on articles in the issue. I don't recall claiming to be an expert in any of them, but why should that foreclose the possiblilty of having an opinion? I have read several books and perhaps thousands of pages of papers on global warming and I have formed an opinion. You also obviously have an opinion that you were willing to express even as you admitted to not being an expert. Instead of attacking me, perhaps you will let me know what you think of a short paper I wrote on the topic. You can find the "Carbon Crazies" at: http://www.tredennick.com/ftp/pub/documents/Publications/

When a quote is prominently presented within an article in IEEE Spectrum under the heading “What the experts say,” any reasonable person would assume that the “expert” has actual expertise in the field in question, as judged by peers in that field. The way Tredennick’s self-confessed “opinion” was presented as expert commentary was misleading and harms the credibility of IEEE Spectrum.
Dr. Tredennick in fact is simply an opinionated chip designer, utterly devoid of qualification in this highly charged and critical area of public policy debate.
Has IEEE Spectrum become politicized? Should we IEEE members now question every article we read as potentially pushing some special-interest agenda?
Oh, on global warming, there are only two numbers you need to remember: 280 and 385. The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 parts-per-million. By 2000 it was 385. An increase of more than one third. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.
As for Tredennick’s opinion piece on the subject, it appears to be a totally unscientific rant unworthy of detailed criticism, but I am sure climate scientists would make short work of it if he had the guts to send it to a peer-reviewed journal.

From a post by Len Layton: “Oh, on global warming, there are only two numbers you need to remember: 280 and 385. The pre-industrial level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 parts-per-million. By 2000 it was 385.”
I disagree that only two numbers are needed; correlation is not causation. Here’s a statement logically equivalent to Mr. Layton’s: The pre-microwave-oven level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 parts-per-million. By 2000 it was 385. Recalling and destroying all microwave ovens is unlikely to affect levels of atmospheric CO2. There must be some demonstration of a cause-and-effect relationship between the two.
Looking a little deeper into history presents an interesting story. In the Cambrian Period, for example, atmospheric C02 levels reached 7000 ppm (more than eighteen times the values people fret over today). For more than a hundred million years during the Paleozoic Era, atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 3000 ppm. This work was published in the American Journal of Science (Vol. 301, Feb 2001, p. 182-204) by Robert Berner and Zavareth Kothavala from the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Yale University. This paper is available at: www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf.
While temperatures were generally high during this time, there were also periods of temperatures as cool as Quaternary Period temperatures. For a climate history of the earth, see the work of Christopher Scotese (www.scotese.com/climate.htm) with the PALEOMAP project at the University of Texas at Arlington. This web site has a six-hundred-million-year climate history.
The overlay of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, and the source for the figure in my opinion piece is: www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html. Even though Mr. Layton refers to my opinion piece as “…totally unscientific rant unworthy of detailed criticism…” it contains pointers to work published in peer-reviewed journals.
If we track atmospheric CO2 starting a hundred years ago and looking at today’s levels, it appears that atmospheric CO2 is rising. If we track atmospheric CO2 starting 550 million years ago, it looks as if it is trending toward zero. Over the long period, there does not appear to be a simple cause-and-effect relationship between atmospheric C02 and global average temperature.

Harry L. (Nick?) Tredennick, has already had way more of a platform than he deserves on this subject. I suppose all you can say is that "if you give a man enough rope..."

Has IEEE Spectrum or Tredennick ever heard of a little international panel called the IPCC? Are they all off with the fairies? Are they all in on some grand conspiracy?

How much longer can IEEE Spectrum carry on with this guy spouting this stuff? I say again: it seriously harms the credibility of the entire organization. Fire this crackpot.