Crystal’s View

32 Comments »

1. 

   Kyle Said:

   on March 25, 2008 at 6:14 pm

   I find it funny how scientists can predict what’s going to happen years into the future with climate change, but yet they can’t tell what tomorrows weather is going to be. Of course the world is going through climate changes. Every thousands and thousands of years it does; it’s a pattern. We’ve had the ice age, we’re going to have another one. No time soon, not in our lifetime, but we will have another one. It’s just the cycle of our earth.

2. 

   LiquidFireIce Said:

   on March 25, 2008 at 6:23 pm

   I too just have to ask myself, if there’s an
   INVISIBLE hole in the atmosphere, then how can we be shure it’s really there?
   Anyways, responding to Kyle’s comment, I do think there will be a second ice age. Just not anytime soon, we hope.
   Please visit my site at http://www.theballoonsarehungry.wordpress.com, it will mean a lot to all of us there.

3. 

   Todays Current Events in the Environment » Alert - “global warming” Said:

   on March 25, 2008 at 6:26 pm

   [...] Global Warming: Fact or Fiction By crystalsview I don’t know whether to believe global warming really exists or whether it’s all a bunch of hooey. My husband has been saying all along that it’sa crock and just another way for the media to scare people. And, he has some valid points. … Crystal’s View - http://crystalz.wordpress.com [...]

4. 

   lrbinfrisco Said:

   on March 26, 2008 at 8:10 am

   I think that the truth is that there is orders of magnitude more that scientists don’t know and/or don’t understand about the climate than what they do know and do understand. We only have a little over 150 years of scientific 1st hand observations of temperature, most of those don’t have a high confidence of accuracy above what is said to be the increase in global average temperature over the last century. We have less than 30 years of the more accurate satellite measurement of global temperature. Almost everyday new studies are becoming available shedding new light on the climate that we don’t understand. And yet we propose to somehow magically grow our world population by billions while switching over to some either physically unproven or economically unproven alternative energy source that drives our modern economy. We haven’t come close to solving world hunger, yet we have the audacity to think that we can regulate the earth’s temperature.

   We’re better off investing an economically substainable amount of our economy in learning more about climate before making any rash changes to our economy. Let us learn to tackle world hunger and diseases that wipe out millions each year before we seek to build the modern day equivalent of the tower of babel.

5. 

   Deva Said:

   on March 26, 2008 at 8:24 am

   I’m kinda in the same boat as you; I’m not really sure what exactly to believe about this whole Global-Warming-Climate-Change fiasco. But regardless of what name is attached to whatever the situation may be, I do believe one thing:

   The massive consumption of natural resources and all of this insane pollution needs to stop. Or at least slow down considerably - or else there definitely WILL be a problem in the future. The stuff that pollution/cutting down trees does to the environment is real.

   At this point in the game (of life, I guess), we need to take more preventative actions with this environmental stuff before we really mess things up. Lately, the US has had a really bad trend going: we wait until things screw up, then we try to fix it.

   Now, I’m not suggesting that we all “go 100% green” or whatever that fad may be… but depending on where one lives, there are little things that can be done to make a difference - whether there’s a global-warming-climate-change crisis or not.

   There’s my 2 cents

6. 

   Karen Said:

   on March 26, 2008 at 8:55 am

   I’m with Kyle— the whole Global Warming thing is a load of crap!!! You married a smart guy, Crystal!

7. 

   Dan Pangburn Said:

   on March 26, 2008 at 11:04 am

   If you are actually curious about findings funded by neither government nor industry see http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/pangburn.html .

   Significant recent warming of planet earth ended in 1998. If it wasn’t for the 22 year period from 1976 to 1998 when the atmospheric carbon dioxide level and average global temperature happened to increase at the same time, the term ‘greenhouse gas’ would be virtually unknown and Kyoto and the rest of the Global Warming Mistake would never have happened. It is going to take a long time to un-brainwash much of the public and get some climatologists and the IPCC to abandon their self serving agenda.
   .

8. 

   M.B. Said:

   on March 26, 2008 at 2:23 pm

   I’m always startled when I hear people questionning whether the Earth is warming or not. Of course, the planet’s climate has cycles and its variations are partly chaotic, making it impossible to precisely calculate future temperatures. However, we DO KNOW FOR SURE that carbon dioxide in an atmosphere exposed to sunlight increases its temperature, and we DO KNOW FOR SURE that carbon dioxide levels are increasing right now because of massive combustion (oil and coal) and because its entrapment by photosynthesis is decreasing (destruction of forests everywhere in the world). Therefore, we must conclude that Earth’s climate will be unnaturally hot in the future, and it’s our fault.

   Now let’s stop sitting there, stupidly wondering if something is really happening. We have an obvious, precise and grave problem. Our problem is carbon dioxide; CO2 is produced by combustion and trapped by plants; knowing this, let’s try to burn less fuel and plant new trees to replace the forests we destroyed.

   Those who don’t take action because they don’t know what’s going on are just ignorants, but those who know and pretend it’s not true because they don’t wanna make an effort are genuine idiots.

9. 

   dougrogers Said:

   on March 26, 2008 at 4:40 pm

   try here too http://www.realclimate.org/

10. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 26, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    M.B. seems to demonstrate the typical approach of those who believe the sky is falling because we’ve knocked it down…If you question, you are a heretic. You are too lazy to get off your duff to fix what we must fix RIGHT NOW!!!!!!

    It is amazing how, in the last 20 years we have totally abandoned a millenia old scientific precept (coined in Roman times)…A theory is a theory almost forever…even if a trillion controlled observations support a theory, the instant a single (repeatable, controlled) observation disproves it, the theory is destroyed…Amazing how we “DO KNOW FOR SURE that carbon dioxide in an atmosphere exposed to sunlight increases its temperature,” when none of the independently-created atmospheric models use the same value for the variable they call “CO2 Forcing.” If we actually DO KNOW FOR SURE, shouldn’t they be using (close to) the same number??? Hmmm…

    If you really want to see friggin’ huge numbers comparing our effect, try the following…

    Add up the U.N. numbers for human CO2 production, and add the effects of human respiration
    (20 breaths/min * 21% atmospheric O2 concentration * 20% O2 to CO2 conversion per breath * 500mL lung tidal volume * 6 billion people + 60 Minutes/Hour * 24 Hours/Day * 365.25 Days/Year * volume to mass conversion for CO2)

    Compare this to a tiny little critter…Termites…A generally accepted adage (less disputed than human caused global warming, but I still refer to it as a theory) is that the total mass of all termites is ten times that of the total mass of humans. The Journal of Insect Physiology (talk about a geek rag, sorry I don’t have proper citing. I’ll flog myself later) reported a study that on average, a termite produces 50 mL of CO2 per hour per gram of body mass.

    Assume the Termite biomass is
    45Kg (assumed average weight of a human) * 6 Billion people * 10

    Then calculate the rest of it
    (biomass * 50mL/g/hour * 24 hours/day * 365.25 hours/day * volume to mass conversion for CO2)

    ====
    When you come up with these numbers and compare them, you’ll see that we’re a really small drop in the bucket. It’s amazing that greens will brush this off by saying that “termites are in equilibrium with their environment…” Maybe so, but if they are, shouldn’t they respond to our emissions by reducing theirs…are they really smart enough to know what they created as opposed to what they created?

    …a similar belief is that ants outnumber humans 1 million to one…yeah, they’re small, but they’re biologically close to termites…I wonder what their effect would add up to be…

    I strongly believe that we should be good stewards of what we’ve been given. Good stewardship includes (truly) educated and responsible actions, not just doing something for the sake of doing something. Of course, we should seek to reduce our “footprint,” but not at the expense of collapsing our economies…Imagine the utter horror if we have to go back to campfires and oil lanterns…The global warming advocates are suggesting totalitarian controls, silencing debate as heresy, and forcing it on the nations of the world they HATE! How much pressure is being applied on China/India/Middle East as opposed to the western world?

    A couple of years ago, one of the founders of Greenpeace admitted he committed a phenominal FUBAR in opposing nuclear power in the ’70s. He now sees that his call to immediate, irrational action actually led all of us to do more damage via fossil fuels than we would have via nuclear power…Something to ponder.

11. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 26, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Millions of Americans believe humanity did not evolve from other terrestrial fauna. This is not for lack of compelling evidence. DNA analysis provides a staggering array of confirmations for findings drawn from analysis of the fossil record in the context of studying biological evolution. Even before DNA was understood, those fossil record findings were overwhelmingly consistent with mainstream scientific opinions on the origin of species.

    The problem is that mid-level zoology, never mind fossil analysis or molecular biology, demand specialized knowledge that even most educated people never acquire. With so many deep emotional attachments to creation narratives and so few instances of genuine expertise in the applicable science, it should come as no surprise that every little misinterpretation in the field of evolutionary biology is widely trumpeted as “proof” Charles Darwin got it wrong. Even flawless work that merely reveals surprising or unusual developments in natural history may be twisted into an indictment of evolution.

    Resistance to the facts is in large part a function of the reality that those facts require complex nuanced understanding that most people are not equipped to cultivate. Even those who believe in the conventional scientific explanation are much more likely to do so out of faith in the voices of authority championing that view than a personal investigation that involves studying and dating many fossils, comparing the genomes of various organisms, etc.

    Those three paragraphs are relevant because global warming brings to us a similar phenomenon. All we need to do is read the buffoonery in one of the above links to see proof of my assertion. The author may actually be a mechanical engineer, or he may just be another political blowhard who believes readers will tend to be less skeptical in the face of that particular credential. (After all, if real world engineers were as idiotic as the average “engineer” posting on the Internet, I imagine the life expectancy of the nation’s bridges would resemble that of common houseflies.) Understanding global climate involves expertise in a mix of disciplines, including some that are veritable newborns, in academic terms.

    Overwhelmingly, beliefs about global warming are determined by trust in voices of authority. Just as it is wrong to look to priests to explain a complex biological question, it is wrong to look to politicians and pundits to explain a question like this. Yet few are stopped by that obvious wrongness, as the Rush Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys of this world have much bigger audiences than even the most popular of legitimate climate scientists. It might also be relevant that they cultivate a culture of orthodoxy through appeals to hate and fear, while people with actual information about climate science will tend to favor other methods of influencing the public.

    In any case, my point is that most thinking on global warming is driven by faith. Most who believe the phenomenon is real place their trust organizations like NASA and the United Nations, not to mention assorted mainstream media outlets. Most who believe the phenomenon is not real place their trust in personalities who make a living out of denouncing mainstream views that clash with life inside a particular political panopticon. With their own special newspapers, magazines, and even a full scale television channel; it is not hard to look in every direction and see only confirmation of a preferred narrative.

    It is a quirk of our times, with politics having taken such a turn for the horrible, that passions run so high. Believers and skeptics both stick to their positions with unrelenting stubbornness, yet precious few justify such conviction by looking beyond unscientific sources in the search for answers to a question of science. A mechanical engineer prone to Manifesto Capitalization may not be funded by government or industry, but that hardly justifies treating him as an expert on climate science. The same is true much more sane and popular sources of opinion, be it Andy Rooney or Bill O’Reilly.

    That said, shrugging with indifference may be no more practical than cultivating personal scientific expertise. Many of us will participate in elections and/or discuss public policy. Some of us will manage the activities of a business or charity. Nearly all of us will make consumer choices, from picking off the lunch menu to installing new home heating and cooling systems. Fortunately, there are alternatives to the extremism of unshakable blind faith. One of the marks of a truly rational person is the capacity to admit to the limitations of personal knowledge.

    Crystal, simply by admitting you don’t know what to think, you’ve demonstrated a level of wisdom very few writers addressing this subject can muster. Perhaps I should bow to that, considering I’ve written, “Ehst You Should Think About Climate Change.” That said, as you form an opinion (and assess the opinions of others” be wary of emotion and zeal. Ultimately this is a scientific question. How one feels about any particular public figure or public policy or even the Earth itself is immaterial to the underlying scientific facts.

12. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 26, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    As an addendum, we can all do much better than to listen to Ender there. The idea that getting away from fossil fuel consumption would wreck economies is irresponsible fearmongering. That only makes it all the more ironic when discussion of climate science is branded with such a label. Never mind the possible economic impact of global warming — our soaring fuel prices still utterly fail to reflect the real costs of filthy habits passed down to us from previous generations of industrialists. Countless oil and coal sites are laden with toxins that profitable energy companies happily ignore and abandon. Cancer, not to mention a host of respiratory ailments, are made much more common for the pollutants we spew in the name of “cheap” energy.

    Real costs are paid whether or not we have the good sense to moderate demand by associated some financial cost with those real costs. We could expand alternative energy development tenfold without bringing about any sort of economic ruin. Given sufficient achievement in that area along with a stronger push for energy efficiency, turning our backs on fossil fuels could lead to excellent economic growth along with an overall improvement to the American quality of life. Now there may be some sound arguments to make on the other side of that issue, but to simply state that moving away from fossil fuels would “collapse our economies” is a profoundly ignorant appeal to unjustified fear.

13. 

    Rick Murphy Said:

    on March 26, 2008 at 9:21 pm

    Wal-Mart Causes Global Warming

    http://whyisgreenlandgreen.blogspot.com/

14. 

    Sergejs Said:

    on March 26, 2008 at 11:36 pm

    I believe that global warming is just another step for the future, when you will need to pay tax for air/breathing.

15. 

    pKay Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 7:14 am

    I also am a bit skeptical on global warming (the can’t predict the weather analogy posted above says it all)

    But global warming or not,, it is nice that more people are aware about the environment and realize that with more people, more strain on the environment (etc etc etc)….. Global warming (real or not real) is leading to cleaner fuel methods, more efficient technology, etc. If there was no global warming scare, things would get worse a lot quicker!

    Anyway thats my 2 cents…

    Kind regards:)!
    pKay.

16. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 9:06 am

    Briefly, the deal with climate vs. weather is like the difference between predicting a spin of the roulette wheel vs. predicting that a million wagers will result in a substantial loss. The fact is that very small and effectively unpredictable events can change the course of storms and fronts. It is the proverbial “a butterfly flaps its wings . . . ” scenario.

    However, in the big picture, all that randomness averages out. In part it is the law of very large numbers applied to those countless individual influences over a long span of time. Also in part it is the limitations of the system. A butterfly’s flight path may influence the course of a storm, but the overall level of energy in the global climate system is not meaningfully changed by those localized variations.

    I can’t jump on pKay for that comment, because taking a layperson’s knowledge and being “a bit skeptical” is perfectly reasonable. However, it does irk me when fanatical skeptics make the same argument — if someone doesn’t understand the difference between long term global climate modeling and short term local weather forecasting, obviously that person is in no position to speak authoritatively about the prospect of global warming.

    Though there is more too it than this, the simplest explanation does mesh with the casino experience. Predicting the outcome of a small number of wagers is an uncertain business, but a huge number of wagers on a skill-free game like roulette transcends the randomness of individual events and converges with ever-increasing certainty on losses consistent with the house advantage.

    Respectable climate scientists do still quibble about the fine points of this “house advantage” as rising greenhouse gas concentrations nudge a majority of the world’s regional climates toward a warmer state, but neither its existence nor the idea that industrial emissions are a non-trivial contributing factor is controversial among honest informed experts. Precisely how severe it will be, the likely extent of the economic damage it will do, and the merits of proposed remedial actions are all still open questions. However, the more time we spin our national wheels denying what is concretely known, the longer we delay advancing our awareness to clear up these legitimate areas of uncertainty.

17. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 11:19 am

    I defend my statements. Running the numbers, comparing humans to a single type of insect shows us to be a minimal impact (in this arena)…in fact, this is one of our smallest contributions/detriments to the earth. We have a much larger, more tangible effect on the planet in other ways. Why is CO2 being pushed as the 800 pound gorilla?

    Humans produce 2.78*10^10 metric tons of CO2 through all non-biological processes (United Nations, 2004 figures http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_co2_emissions.htm)

    I’m being kind to the greens by acknowleging that the UN probably does not include human respiration in their figures, so I’ll add it -
    2.60*10^9 metric tons. This adds up to 3.04*10^10 tons
    –The termite numbers come to 2.32*10^12 tons.

    Termite:human = 76.6:1
    That means we contribute only 1.3% as much as termites.

    –I find it interesting that Demonweed calls (my) statements irresponsible fearmongering, while the greens call our CO2 emissions a crisis that demands immedtiate action, at the expense of destroying our planet. How is it possible that my (possibly wrong) assesment of the massive negative effects of “do something disease” is naught but ignorant fearmongering, while the green assessment that the sky is falling is not? This illustrates the tendency to attack the person, rather than the data. (Quoting Al Gore, from An Inconvenient Truth) “The climate crisis is, indeed, extremely dangerous. In fact it is a true planetary emergency.” Some might see this as fearmongering as well.

    “neither its existence nor the idea that industrial emissions are a non-trivial contributing factor is controversial among honest informed experts” - At what point does our contribution actually get seen as non-trivial? Does it have to be less than 1/2 of one percent (compared to termites)? NASA’s Goddard Space Center released a report, stating that there are indications that solar output is changing. They admit that it is still very much in question, since our historical data that accurately and completely measures all aspects of solar output are just in their infantcy…A minor shift in the mean emissions frequency, or change in the UV/IR/visible/X-Ray/Gamma Ray intensity might have an effect on global temperatures as well, and could easily overshadow anything we could realistically conceive of doing…

    “the likely extent of the economic damage it will do, and the merits of proposed remedial actions are all still open questions” NO THEY ARE NOT! Politicians the world over are declaring CO2 a pollutant, and are on the cusp of implementing things like “Cap and Trade,” where every industry will be bound to upper emission quotas (Cap). If an industry can’t meet the criteria, they’ll have to buy the unused quota from other industries/companies (Trade). What happens when the cost of business goes up? The price to the consumer goes up. When things cost more for the consumer, the consumer suffers. Who will be first injured by a (nearly) uniform increase in prices? The poor. Who are more likely to lose their homes in economic upheval? The poor. Who won’t hesitate to use a campfire when out in the cold? Anyone with a brain and a functioning survival instinct. Is it really so far-fetched that campfires and oil lanterns are a possible result of the pending regulation? And for what? 1.3 percent?

    California was a hair’s breadth away from passing a law to mandate the use of “smart” thermostats. These thermostats are designed to be accessed by the power companies through radio links. If they felt your set temperature was unacceptable, they could change it “for you,” and you’d be subject to fines for changing it back. The only reason it failed in the legislature (Schwarzenegger was going to sign it) is that the people got wind of it and stopped it. Here was the “do something” disease in action.

    “more time we spin our national wheels denying what is concretely known, the longer we delay advancing our awareness to clear up these legitimate areas of uncertainty” WE NEED TO spin our wheels. Right now, the brakes are locked up, and we have a freight train of regulations and fees coming straight towards us! How is it concretely known that our tiny (PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE MY NUMBERS ARE WRONG!) contribution is of “legitimate” concern?

    “Countless oil and coal sites are laden with toxins that profitable energy companies happily ignore and abandon. Cancer, not to mention a host of respiratory ailments, are made much more common for the pollutants we spew in the name of ‘cheap’ energy.” On this, I agree with Demonweed! (read stewardship in my previous post). It’s amazing how Demonweed redirected from a specific subject (human contribution to CO2 forced global warming) to another (cancer, respiratory ailments and general pollution)…Kind of how “Global Warming” has changed to “Climate Change.” This is yet another tactic used by the greens in this debate…provide a distraction when the argument doesn’t go their way, but keep moving in the same direction.

    Always keep in mind that in the 1970’s the fear was that an ice age was coming…how would that have evolved if it had the same communications mechanisms we have now? What regulation would we be under if it caught on like “climate change?” The recent rise in temperature (I don’t dispute a probable warming trend, merely the mechanism) would “prove” to solidify that the regulations were working, and would exist for as long as all other governmental bureaucracy and regulation.

18. 

    The Highwayman Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 11:20 am

    Try following the money, Demonweed.

19. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 12:51 pm

    To help with Highwayman’s thought…

    –What was the state of funding for Environmental Sciences before “Climate Change?” What is the state of it now?

    –What is the proportional allocation of (”evil” energy company directed) money supporting studies that may disprove or minimize human impact and CO2 forcing compared to (”warm and fuzzy” United Nations and bureaucratic governmental) money supporting studies proving (possibly inflating) human impact. What motivations could be in play here?

    –Many people decry Dick Cheney for merging his political ties (Regan era, as well as VP) with his business ties (Haliburton). It is referred to as incestuous, greedy, and even evil…I am willing to accept that one half will influence the actions of the other half of himself…that’s human nature. What needs to be assessed is where the line of inpropriety begins, and it needs to be made hard and fast. Any changes to the line need to be applied universally.

    –Is it possible that Al Gore is getting a pass for the same “incestuous” actions? As co-founder and board member of Generation Investment Management (http://generationim.com/), he has real skin in the game regarding Carbon Offset trading. As a former Vice-President, doesn’t he pretty well have an open invitation from Congress (and the IPCC)? Interestingly, Generation is mum as to how their board members are paid…Could it be that Mr. Gore stands to make a lot of money through lobbying? If he convinces Congress to impose Cap and Trade, Generation stands to make massive amounts of money. Do you really think that Congress isn’t going to create a Securities and Exchange Comission bureaucracy that will mandate Carbon trading to be conducted through “licensed” brokers? Really, when was the last time you (or anyone you know) bought company stock from an individual rather than a broker (legally)? Granted, Generation isn’t planning on directly trading Carbon Credits (they invest in companies that do trade, as well as other possible “get out of jail free” companies, who plant trees, etc. which can be used to “offset,” thereby raising the cap a little), but their business will explode if (when) Cap and Trade is implemented.

20. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm

    Yeah, people who see the work of the IPCC as legitimate are driven chiefly by greed. While we’re at it, let’s remind readers that John Kerry was a craven coward who shirked his duty to his country while George W. Bush was one of the greatest war heroes of his generation. As long as we’re going bizarro on this, perhaps we should also remember that slashing high end taxes is the only way to promote economic growth, and suspending all regulations on business is a shortcut to utopian bliss, right?

    For those of us who prefer reality to bizarro talking points, it is obvious that by far the stronger of financial forces in play here supports the skeptics’ camp. Never mind whatever is spent by environmental advocacy groups — the sum total of expenditures on climate science itself is still small change compared to the deluge of profits flowing into the coffers of fossil fuel concerns today. The only real surprise here is that they aren’t doing even more to muddy the waters and keep millions of Americans befuddled about the underlying realities.

    That said, I repeat my appeal to cease reaching scientific conclusions based on political inclinations. Whenever you see “greens” tossed about like that, you can be you’re dealing with someone who is more interested in political mudslinging than scientific dialog. Then again, if I harp enough on this point I wind up falling into the very same trap.

    To his credit, Ender does not appear to be one of those “Al Gore iz poo. So I know global warming is all baloney” sort of commentators. He presents us with some points of fact to consider. It is true that human industry, in spite of the almost unthinkable volume of emissions produced, falls short of various natural phenomena when it comes to adding carbon to the atmosphere. However, it is also true that even a small adjustment can be enough to upset a balance.

    An analogy I have made elsewhere simplifies without oversimplifying. Imagine a bucket with a pinhole in the bottom and a steady drip falling in from above. Our imaginary bucket is crafted to maintain a relatively constant level of water over thousands of years. A new drop arrives just as one leaves, and ripples always slosh at the same level in the interior. Then imagine someone comes along with an eyedropper and occasionally tosses an extra drop into the bucket. Perhaps one hundred or even one thousand drops fall from the pre-existing tap for each added by the human agent. Yet no additional water escapes the pinhole. Little by little, the level in the bucket would rise. In time it would even overflow.

    It is no sleazy trick on the part of climatologists to argue that the human addition to atmospheric carbon, while not at all large compared to the pre-existing natural carbon cycle, is nonetheless substantially responsible for a dramatic rise in CO2 levels observed in recent times. To the contrary, it is misleading (though perhaps in Ender’s case, not deliberately so) to argue that a balance cannot be upset by a relatively small change to one side of the equation. Industrial emissions are a proverbial drop in the bucket, but over time and without any compensatory increase in atmospheric carbon loss, those emissions add up.

    As it happens, that accumulation pushes global CO2 levels through a range of concentrations that is particularly critical to the retention of radiant energy. The relationship between the human element and the big picture is not one of equality. Yet even non-experts should understand that it doesn’t require adding a second child to one side of a balanced seesaw to set it in motion — a featherlight touch is enough to produce a significant and dramatic effect. Our impact on the carbon cycle is that featherlight touch, and ongoing changes in atmospheric chemistry are the dramatic swing thus effected.

    Where I see Ender’s comments as being disingenuous is this attack against the talk radio straw man of anti-growth policies. It is as if he believes readers are so simple-minded that they must accept the worst carbon reduction strategies as the only carbon reduction strategies. Again, it is no sleazy trick to point out that there are many ways of responding to this situation. A truly clever alliance between American businesses and government could hasten the fruition of alternative energy technology development (and this might be as simple as once and for all ending the grotesque corporate welfare presently enjoyed by already profitable fossil fuel concerns in the U.S.,) then leverage that new technology to promote low carbon industrialization in parts of the world where economic productivity is still very low.

    The idea that the Kyoto Protocol would cost America trillions is spawned by the sick and twisted notion that American innovators are too impotent to show leadership in the realm of alternative energy. It relies on absurdly pessimistic assumptions about progress in other areas while relying on the status quo’s enormous distortion of the real costs of utilizing fossil fuels. Certainly this area is fraught with enough speculation that healthy debate is warranted, but it is not healthy debate to simply assume we are such a backward primitive people that meaningful innovation is an unthinkable prospect.

    To the degree people are concerned about anti-growth responses to rising levels of atmospheric carbon, it is good to suggest alternatives. It may also be good to engage in honest exploration of the consequences to growth for proposed emissions reduction policies. However, there is nothing honest about cherry picking the most ill-conceived appeals from environmentalists and refusing to engage in clash about the best of proposals related to reigning in carbon emissions. Likewise, it is dishonest to treat the blatant propaganda of the current Presidential administration (not to mention a plethora of pundits) that dwell upon radical worst case scenarios when projecting the consequences of proposals like Kyota.

    Not so long ago, the United States was in an excellent position to show world leadership and motivate nations like China, India, and Russia to restrain emissions growth while pursuing their own economic growth. To some degree, bad politics has caused that opportunity to be squandered. Competitiveness is now a more difficult issue to address while formulating policy that may minimize the economic damage ongoing global climate change will cause. Yet the fact that it is difficult is no reason to admit defeat before ever making any sort of earnest effort.

    In order to succeed in implementing just such a policy, as a nation we must dispense with pseudoscientific denials of the ongoing phenomenon and engage in real debate that recognizes the best available approaches to weening humanity off the fossil fuel habit. Like mother’s milk, the low tech convenience of fossil fuel energy was a boon to the rise of infantile human industry. Like mother’s milk, reality offers much better alternatives to nourish mature and technologically advanced industry. Sure, no physical force prevents us from sucking the Earth dry of useful oil and digging up every bed of coal we can find. Yet there is also no physical force preventing us from cultivating these advanced alternatives and growing into a set of industrial practices that are sustainable over a much longer term.

    I understand that with maturation come growing pains, but I do not understand why anyone should live in such fear of them as to actively oppose the transition from industry in its infantile forms to something cleaner and more sophisticated. Minimizing the human role in raising levels of atmospheric carbon may not be the only reason to make this transition, but I hardly think it is sensible to critique such a response on the grounds that it also has other benefits. To the contrary, the other advantages of such a switch should generate some appeal even for people who feel absolutely devoted to the idea that global warming is a left-wing hoax.

21. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    “Generation Investment Management and Kleiner Perkins
    Caufield & Byers Create International Alliance to Accelerate
    Global Climate Solutions”

    “Al Gore Joins KPCB as Partner and John Doerr Joins
    Generation’s Advisory Board”

    http://generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-kpcb-12-11-07.pdf

    How much does a Partner at KPCB earn? What’s that tied to?

22. 

    Pinkey2we Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    everyone please go to http://www.muskysuxs.wordpress.com

23. 

    illusionalsagacity Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Global Warming… what a load of bs.

    http://junkscience.com/Features.html

    This guy offered $150,000 to anybody who could successfully prove the existance of global warming a while ago. afaik nobody has claimed the prize.

24. 

    crystalsview Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    Just saw this article and wanted to post it since this seems to be such a hot topic. http://www.elynews.com/articles/2008/03/26/news/news05.txt

25. 

    seegatez Said:

    on March 27, 2008 at 6:55 pm

    I Think global warming is a fact! I saw flood everywhere.

26. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Demonweed, you’re being childish. Stop it. This is supposed to be a discussion, and you’re trying to present me as a cook to shut me up. Stop the personal attacks.

    I made no comments about Kerry or Bush, and I don’t appreciate your attempt to put words in my mouth. I did mention Cheney and Gore, and for very specific reasons. I illustrated how one Vice President’s business connections, and possible (probable) influence on policy are perceived as completely improper, while another Vice President’s similar entanglement is excused off-hand (or not known). You seem to be assuming that I am forgiving Cheney. I am not. It is true that I don’t think he is evil, but I don’t think that Gore is evil. I’m using the word evil because I have personally heard people call him so.

    Forgive me for using the word “green” like a slur. Would you prefer “Eco-American?” It was a term of efficiency, not insult. I do have a bit of prejudice, because I live in Olympia, Washington. The environmentalist groups that frequent the State Capital are, in large numbers, condescending jerks who treat anyone not driving a Prius (or a bicycle) like a leper. They refuse to actually engage in debate. Instead, they try to paint anyone who doesn’t immediately bow to their point of view as a Right-wing zealot, a tool of large corporations, or someone who is too stupid to waste their time on. My favorite tactic is the little chuckle and rolling eyeballs…Honestly, what self-respecting person wouldn’t resist someone like that when they try to convince the State Legislature to regulate their life?

    I have studied the lives and writings of many of our America’s founding fathers, and I agree with their philosophy on governmental entities. I also recognize that power corrupts. It appears that you also agree. I always question the motives of large bureaucracies, and would suggest everyone to do the same. While it hasn’t received a lot of news coverage, there is a large number of scientists who defected from the IPCC report, and the IPCC refused to remove their name from that report. Why would that be? Why would a scientis want to withdraw his/her name, and why would an organization refuse to remove those names? Was there a possible disagreement? Did the IPCC refuse to remove their names because the removal might reduce the political weight of the report, making it harder to institute changes?

    I get your point in regards to the bucket. You still don’t seem to get my point. I used termites as an example because I could find all numbers required for the comparison (look up the respiratory stats on a Bengal Tiger…). I came up with 1.3% just with termites…How many millions of other species of animal, insect and bacteria live on this planet? If we assume that termites represent 1% of the total non-human respiratory effect (I’d guess I’m giving them a lot of credit), then humans would represent 1/10,000th of the total CO2 produced through (animal) respiration. Then, we have to consider geologic effects. Since it has lasted for ~3 billion years, and has continuously supported life (granted, through sweeping feast and famine) for more than 300 million of them, I have a hard time believing that the earth is really teetering that close to the edge…And if we are, what is that number? Based on current trends, what year will we hit it? If we “know” we are actually that close, how’s that possible to know if we don’t know what the numbers are?

    Any time global warming (climate change) predictions don’t come true, we’re told it’s because of an unanticipated feedback mechanism…Wasn’t 2007 supposed to be the worst hurricane season in history? When they are wrong on so many extremely visible indicators, why am I unreasonable in questioning their larger conclusions? Why am I accused of blindly following a right-wing mantra when I question, and it’s not OK to accuse someone of following a “green” mantra when they don’t question it? Sounds pretty hypocritical to me…

    What other feedback mechanisms are out there, that will have an unanticipated effect? Please, explain to me where I’m off base with this…If CO2 increases, plants will have easier access to a critical part of their needs. Won’t this increased CO2 result in plants becoming more productive? Isn’t this one likely mechanism by which termites “are in equilibrium with their environment?” Granted, we have clear-cut and fire-cleared huge tracts of land, but there’s still a lot left. And if it is getting warmer, won’t the shorter winters in the North and South extremes allow the plants in those areas process more CO2 throughout the year?

    I agree that “clever alliances” are a good thing, but that takes time, and companies are coming around. Bureaucracies are as hesitant as companies to form these alliances. Al Gore isn’t talking about “alliances.” The Kyoto Accord isn’t talking about “alliances” (with companies, that is). The group I so vocally oppose is the group that seeks to impose limitations on my life through regulation, fines and possible jail time, but refuses to engage in real debate and discussion of all the significant questions. Science is supposed to be subject to peer review and critique. When did that change? Have I said anything in opposition to the DOE’s Solid-State Lighting Project? No. I fully support (really) informed moves towards better energy efficiency. I fully support government assistance in funding research for alternative energy sources.

    –As I said, the fear in the 1970’s was an ice age. Now it is global warming. Current trends would validate that our actions were working, so would remain intact, probably indefinately…Isn’t warm better than cold?

    –The Founder of Greenpeace admitted that he believes he caused more harm than he was trying to prevent, through opposing Nuclear energy (the only platform capable of supporting Fusion [CLEAN] research, by the way). Because he prevented the growth of Nuclear power, we remained “addicted” to fossil fuels.

    –Eco-Americans prevented logging companies from thinning forests because they thought that would be good for the animals. Instead, they allowed the undergrowth to pile up, triggering some of the most devastating forest fires in the last 50 years.

    –Eco-Americans are preventing research and possible harvesting of Methyl Hydrate deposits (basically Methane Ice) on the sea floor. One theory for the end of the last ice age is the collapse of one of these large deposits (isn’t methane a worse greenhouse gas than CO2?) There is a deposit off the Oregon coast (dubbed Hydrate Ridge), believed to be in the range of millions of tons. If this gives way (note that it is an undersea ridge on the “ring of Fire”), what damage will that cause? How many square miles will be suffocated when that blows on-shore? How big of an explosion and fireball would this generate? What would that kind of event do to the atmosphere? This sounds like a real win-win to me…we tap an energy source that, if left alone, could wreak massive havoc on the environment. It looks to me like Eco-Americans want me to consider their alternatives, but refuse co consider my alternatives for a single moment. They have the same blind faith I’m being accused of.

    Normally, when a person thinks about alternatives for their life, those alternatives have to exist, and they have to be tolerable. Solar is a crap alternative in Washington State. In general, thanks to cost, right now it’s a crap alternative (I have been following information on some studies focusing on organic LEDs and researching spinach as a possible breakthrough in photovoltaics, since spinach is one of the most efficient photosynthetic plants). There has been a lot of oppostion to wind farms (by environmentalists, afraid of the effect on birds). Per Washington State, hydroelectric power isn’t a renewable energy source…Huh? Hydrogen fuel cells don’t exist yet from a practical standpoint.

    I heard a quote that I really love. I loved it before I heard who said it, and any intelligent person capable of seeing its beauty through possible blind hatred can appreciate it. “It’s not that they don’t know anything. It’s that they know so much that isn’t true.” How much of what we KNOW isn’t actually true? How much is unproven theory? How dare you (or anyone, or any organization) limit my freedoms because of unproven, REALLY indisputable theory?

27. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 28, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    In the global picture, which is the worse evil? CO2 or Mercury?

    I am actually a HUGE advocate of Solid-State Lighting (LED technology). There have been massive efforts to improve this technology, and the performance (color temperature and lumens per watt) has improved exponentially.

    It is true that many governments (United States and Great Britain most generously) have provided funding to accelerate research, but that only goes so far…It pays to create the product, but what good is it if no one wants to buy it? Even though governments have dangled a carrot, that carrot has to be held over solid ground…Who would reach for if it if it were over a precipice?

    The solid ground is people, bureaucracies and corporations like me. The biggest stable (probable) market is corporate. Yes, some is out of P.R. attempts to look “green,” but the majority is the same greed that is sometimes seen as evil. They want to cut their costs! Solid State Lighting is in some areas exceeding the lumens/watt of fluorescent bulbs. They surpassed incandescents nearly a decade ago. They also blow away all the competition in operational and replacement cost. Granted, a SSL bulb or fixture costs a lot more than the current alternatives, but they last (with extreme reliability) on the order of 10 years. I can’t get a CFL to last 6 months. The reduced replacement frequency saves the company money by not needing a “light crew,” (my company has a full-time crew of six people for this for just my site, and at last count we have 50+ sites) and saves them money on electrical costs (my site pays more than $1M per year for power, my girlfriend’s company (one site of nearly 100) pulls 6 Megawatts continually. Granted, lighting is a small, but noticable fraction of that.

    If I can be motivated to pay more for the bulb (actually a LOT more, in the range of 20 to 100x the price) out of wanting to reducy my energy bill (NOT my “footprint” and my dislike of replacing burned out bulbs, can’t others be? YES! Will it be immediate? NO! Am I helping these bulbs enter the mainstream? Maybe insignificantly, but YES! Am I a conceited jerk, treating others who don’t follow my lead like morons? NO! I find it’s easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar…

    Since my girlfriend’s nephew is autistic, I’ve been exposed to the whole thimerosol debate. That is (was) a common preservative in vaccines, and is as heated as the global warming debate. Some people say the debate is over, others say the data is anecdotal at best. The key to the concern over thimerosol? Mercury. The fear of eating too much tuna? Mercury. The number two threat to sharks (after hunting)? Mercury.

    The concern over Mercury is to the level that some parents aren’t getting their children vaccinated. They consider Mercury to be a bigger risk to their childrens’ safety than the diseases they help prevent. I’m not sold on how effective they actually are or are not, but since I don’t have kids, I have time for the research to catch up.

    A parent has the right to not vaccinate their children, which puts the entire surrounding community at risk by increasing the possibility of epidemics, potentially leading to drug-resistant strains of otherwise controlled diseases. The exponentially growing motivation for this decision? Mercury, not (theistic) religion. But in 2012, a parent won’t have the right to buy a 100-watt incandescent bulb. Those who can’t afford SSLs will have to buy a CFL. As a parent, you’d be drawn and quartered for having Lead paint, but you’re a hero for having CFLs…wow!

    …I digress…but it shows a heated peripheral discussion.

    From what I remember of Mercury from high school chemistry, it’s some REALLY nasty crap! Even the slightest use should be weighed EXTREMELY carefully. For that, I am thrilled to know that Mercury thermostats and thermometers are impossible to come by (possibly, probably illegal). We have researched the reproductive and brain function effects of Mercury for decades, and none of it looks good. Thanks to the decades of research, I think this debate can be categorized as over. I am unaware of anyone who is saying that it isn’t nasty crap.

    …Except for global-warming advocates…That’s a strange perspective…I’m not saying that they are warm and fuzzy over it, but they are minimizing the concerns. They recommend recycling them, and handling them with gloves. Interestingly, only three of the 39 counties in Washington have the mechanism to recycle CFLs.

    Are we maybe entering the same arena as timber thinning? In an effort to protect the animals (see Spotted Owl), timber companies were prohibited from clearing deadfall and sick trees. After some of the worst fire seasons in decades, some of the environmentalists are acknowledging that they missed something…In trying to protect the animals, they harmed them. The timber companies (in their evil, greedy approach to sustaining their business) were performing the same function as naturally-occuring forest fires. They were clearing out the flammables, which rejuvinates the forest. In the past, forest fires happened when and where needed to perform this clearing, but since adjacent land was also subject to the same fire effect (at different intervals), there were natural fire breaks. The natural clearing process kept the fires to a much smaller scale. This allowed proper “housekeeping,” while providing the animals refuges to escape to.

    In the attempt to control one possibly damaging aspect, we have ramped up the use of another. Mercury was for a couple of decades nearly nonexistent in the American home (a good thing, I think). Now, it is in the preferred (thanks to environmentalist pressure) slot for home and commercial lighting. We are accepting one form of damage in lieu of another. If we have decades of data pointing to reproductive and brain damage, and a truly minimalized (if not dead) debate over its toxic nature, why have we accepted it over a gas (that surrounds and is CREATED BY us all), whose “tipping point” is still the source of heated debate?

    Solid State Lighting is an alternative that is rapidly evolving to being feasible. Within a couple of years, I believe it’ll catch on like a fire storm. Is delaying a couple of years really worth the possible effects of spreading mercury into every home in America? Is CO2 really so close to the edge to justify that? If so, we’re screwed if Mt. Rainier (or any other volcano) erupts. Of course that is an exaggeration, but by how much?

28. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 28, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    It is true that we should not be dwelling on the politics of individuals to reach conclusions about a question of science. A casual review of my comments here should make it clear that has been my position all along. I dragged in some obviously bogus conservative media talking points because so much of this “skepticism” is -nothing- but mindless regurgitation of obviously bogus conservative media talking points. Let’s review a few of those.

    Dittohead claptrap: The 2007 hurricane season repudiates climate change science behind global warming.

    Reality: Mainstream climate scientists predict a general trend of more severe storm activity as the Earth’s atmosphere harbors increasing amounts of thermal energy. Focusing on a single hurricane season is just slightly less stupid than reacting to an unseasonably chilly morning by saying “it’s might cold today. Guess there is no global warming eh?” This argument only has resonance to the degree self-styled “skeptics” display a profound failure of skeptical ability when it comes to the words of hacks in conservative media (or the worse yet, little clubs of online fools dedicated to reinforcing such lies amongst one another.) It hard to believe anyone would really be that simple-minded if the matter was given a good bit of circumspect thought.

    Ditthohead claptrap: Climate scientists in the 70s warned of a pending new ice age. So they cannot be trusted when it comes to the modeling efforts of today.

    Reality: The “science” on old warnings of an imminent ice age amounts to a dash of wild speculation and a scattering of high profile works of sensationalist journalism. Only in the sewers of politically-motivated propaganda do those silly articles get overblown into something on par with the tremendous amount of concrete scientific study supporting the mainstream consensus on global warming. Besides which, there is very little connection between the grandstanding speculators involved in the imminent ice age story and the vast array of serious climate scientists involved in the modern consensus. That alone makes this argument as silly as taking the position that no Presidential administration should ever be trusted when speaking about matters of national security because one particular administration was profoundly wrong about the facts framing a decision of historic consequences. If I were to oppose all future military action based on that isolated and extreme example of misinformation, I would be just as wrong as those who oppose taking action in response to climate science because, once upon a time, some bogus climate science information hit the mainstream. Incidentally, this reasoning also applies to several other arguments, like the critique based on Greenpeace’s anti-nuclear stance or the forestry policies of the late 20th century.

    Ditthohead claptrap: Natural systems are self-correcting, and in time other organisms will fix this problem for us.

    Reality: The science of “global greening” is about where climate modeling was several decades ago. The very idea of a global carbon cycle was not subject to deep study until the link between industrial emissions and global warming started to hold up under the scrutiny of legitimate skeptics. Perhaps, in theory, such a mechanism will ameliorate the harms of climate change and/or generate some accompanying benefits. However, there is one relevant fact that should not be overlooked here. The measured increase in atmospheric carbon around the world demonstrates that any such equalizing effect must operate on a fairly slow time frame. CO2 concentrations have risen swiftly by a double-digit percentage, pushing the atmosphere through a critical range of enhanced radiant energy retention. Even if Mother Nature has some ability to swallow our proverbial crap, do we really want to incur vast economic losses waiting around for natural forces to clean up our mess? Never mind the possibility that equalizing mechanism might not actually work at all, or it might only exist at levels insufficient to bring about much harm reduction. (For example, many plants respond to warmer temperatures with moisture-conserving adaptations that also cut back on CO2 consumption. While it is unfair to claim that the science isn’t “in” on the broad strokes of global warming, it is entirely fair to claim that the science isn’t in on global greening.)

    I can appreciate a libertarian stance on government, though not the sleazeball trickery that links libertarian policies with the Founding Fathers. The Internet is full of apocryphal quotations attributed to men like Franklin and Jefferson because rabid anti-government commentators cannot make due with the actual language of those men. The beauty of the American Revolution was that it paved the way for people to choose for themselves how they will be governed — it did nothing to invalidate specific choices a democratic process might produce in the realms of taxation, business regulation, environmental protection, et al.

    Many times I have written, “there is no choice that is not a choice.” Citizens have every right to vote against policies that they believe are a bad idea. A lack of regulation and control is no more sure to be good than an excess of regulation and control. In some instances the facts do support assertions that smaller government is better government. In others they simply do not. Sane informed people usually have no trouble accepting a legitimate, even crucial, role for government in developing and maintaining infrastructure, funding educational institutions, and so on. Adopting a strict emissions reduction policy is a burden to be sure. Yet failure to adopt any emissions reduction policy is likely to also impose a burden by failing to protect the nation (and the world) from a host of tremendously painful consequences.

    It is the act of a good citizen to search out the best possible information and support policies that will provide the best possible response to that information. Failing that, it is the act of a good citizen to shut the heck up and spare political dialogs (and elections) the taint of ignorant prattle. To the degree Ender’s view rests on thoughtful analysis of information taken from places other than http://www.algoreizpoo.com, perhaps his civic duty has been honored. Yet to the degree this question of science is addressed by politics — incriminating global warming through guilt by association with Al Gore, fueling a “boy who cried wolf” phenomenon regarding much less legitimate environmental alarms from the past, and confusing the legitimate self-regulatory capacity of a free society with an exercise in fascism — that duty is not merely neglected but also violated.

29. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 29, 2008 at 2:09 am

    We have deviated from the original issue…

    Is global temperature increasing - Yes
    Is CO2 increasing in the atmosphere - Yes
    Do humans produce a noticeable amount of CO2 - Yes, on a relatively small (compared to animal, insect and bacterial biological processes) but detectable order of magnitude

    We have debated he-said/she-said, and likely/possible sources of passion and talking points, and put out some numbers.

    I’d like to return to the fundamental question. Sorry, Crystal for rephrasing your question for you, but correct me if my clarification is wrong…

    There are actually two questions:
    1. Are human Carbon Dioxide emissions causing global warming?
    2. Is airborne Carbon Dioxide a cause of global warming, is it an effect of global warming, or is it coincidental to global warming?

    We must answer the second question first. If Carbon Dioxide is coincidental or an effect, then the answer to the first must be No. If Carbon Dioxide is a cause, then we can and should address the first, but must be honest in being as thorough as possible when quantifying all sources. Our actions must be reasonable per what we can actually control vs. the sum of all sources. Let’s split up the second question.

    1. Is airborne Carbon Dioxide a cause of global warming? Some say yes, some say maybe, some say no, many say they don’t know.

    I’m investigating the sources of the numbers (referred to as CO2 forcing in discussions of the computer models) that describe the causal effect of atmospheric CO2 on heat retention (greenhouse effect). Any honest person must admit that this relationship (that CO2 CAUSES global warming, as well as to what degree) is a THEORY, not a fact, no matter how passionate they are on the subject, or how indisputable they believe their observations are.

    2. Is it an effect of global warming? You can probably reverse names for ‘yes’ and ‘no’ above.

    3. Is it coincidental to global warming? I haven’t seen this seriously discussed, so can’t give an assessment.

    I’d like to focus on the second part of question 2 for this post, adding another massive sink/source of CO2…
    Carbon Dioxide’s solubility point (per 100g of water) is 0.355g at 0°C (32°F), 0.232g at 5°C (41°F), 0.126g at 30°C (86°F), an inverse parabolic (exponential) curve. This explains why your soft drink “goes flat” faster on hotter days.

    Now, since the oceans are so huge, it takes a while to warm or cool them. The oceans lag the atmosphere by about ten years, therefore momentary spikes (the scale of a couple of years) are profoundly flattened. Of course, the surface responds faster than deeper waters…the ten years to respond is upper level (less than 1 km) response time, not response at depth.

    Since CO2 dissolves in seawater, it is subject to the standard interactions of gas and liquid. Without mechanisms to force supersaturation, CO2 will naturally dissolve to its solubility point. Just like gas will evenly distribute itself in a container, it will evenly distribute itself in a liquid solution. As dissolved CO2 reaches deeper water (higher pressure and lower temperature), it transitions to solid. Dry ice exists on the sea floor, just like Methyl Hydrate (Methane ice). I haven’t found data on the amount of solid CO2 on the sea floor, but estimates for Methyl Hydrate are in the scale of hundreds of Gigatonnes…Methane solidifies at -182.5°C, and CO2 at -57°C. If Methyl Hydrate exists in the gigatonne range, needs to be that cold to “freeze” and is less than 1/100th as soluble in water, one can imagine how much solid CO2 exists on the sea floor (I’ve not found data on this quantity). Regions off the coast of the SE United States just North of the Bermuda Triangle are actually bubbling methane due to the “melting” of Methyl Hydrate. This melting is occuring at depths less than one mile.

    If the temperature decreases (like in an ice age), a larger amount of CO2 will dissolve in the sea water. Since the water is cooler, it reaches the conditions for CO2 to solidify at a shallower depth. This results in a more rapid deposition of solid CO2 on the sea floor.

    As sea temperatures increase, CO2 at the surface will come out of solution and enter the atmosphere. Deep dry ice that reaches its sublimation point thanks to temperature rise will form bubbles in the deep, but the gas will dissolve into the water by the same process that supersaturates a soft drink. Water currents and the different density of the solution will spread this supersaturated solution. The spread will supersaturate a larger volume of water, proportional to the mixing effect, so by the time it reaches the surface and can return to the solubility point, the seawater won’t bubble like a soft drink. It will, however, follow the laws of Chemistry by releasing the excess CO2 until it reaches the saturation point.

    There are a large number of warming and cooling trends in the last 2000 years that cannot be explained by human sources. These trends would have an effect on sea temperatures, and would trigger absorption and release of CO2, delayed by decades, centuries, or even millenia.

    While this doesn’t clearly answer the cause vs. effect question, it does clearly demonstrate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be dramatically affected (with a built in significantly delayed reaction) by atmospheric temperature trends spanning decades or centuries. In addition, it provides yet another source of CO2 that dwarfs human CO2 emissions through industrial and biological processes.

30. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 29, 2008 at 9:30 am

    You make an argument about solubility while invoking the existence of hypothetical reserves of dry ice. Just in case you really didn’t know this already, reserves as you suggest they exist would not be is a state of solution with the ocean. This is very much the same mistake as confusing water vapor with snowfall sitting squarely on the ground. Never mind glossing over assorted other relevant details like the influence of pressure (I hear there can be quite a bit of that in deep ocean water) or the mechanism of achieving equilibrium (provisionally granting everything else in that analysis, is it really wise to conclude all of the discarded CO2 surges up into the atmosphere rather than forming new compounds with ocean minerals, settling to the bottom, and/or becoming incorporated into vast microbial blooms?)

    Perhaps this is just a very odd series of coincidences, but otherwise it seems we have the same pattern produced by others with a passionate desire to believe there hatred for certain political figures is supported by a particular finding of science. “Hey, look, there is interesting news about the Sun — obviously solar activity is driving global warming,” “did anybody consider that maybe it is mysterious radiation from the medium through which our galaxy moves that might be the real culprit?” “do you know how much cow flatulence contributes to the greenhouse effect? Clearly it is the fault of beef eaters everywhere!” . . . the flimsy dodges go on endlessly, because there purpose never was to shed light on hard science. Instead they provide a security blanket. Even if today’s desperate refuge from reality is debunked, an opportunistic scoundrel will have another in circulation by morning.

31. 

    Ender Said:

    on March 31, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    Of course, what a fool I am! What a misguided, moronic approach to provide hypotheses based on standard gas-liquid chemistry when discussing global warming. I guess that’s my “opportunistic scoundrel” side.

    Responses to the global warming theory (specifically, that human activity is the single biggest contributor to global warming) will have the greatest impact on the lives of every individual since the theories that unleashed nuclear fission and fusion. Demonweed has yet to acknowledge that it is theory, the same being true for nearly every other public advocate for immediate action.

    I clearly stated that a notable portion (intended but not stated vast majority) of the sea-borne CO2 reserve would not exist in solution, that it would exist as ice (and this kind of ice sinks). I think we’d all agree that there is significant “acreage” of the sea floor that is shallower than a mile, subject to evolving circulation patterns spawned (in less than millenia time scale) by increasing water temperatures. The hypothetical existence of dry ice on the sea floor isn’t whether it exists, the hypothetical is quantity. Discoveries of deposits have been found on the sea floor, and that spawned (I think) misguided schemes to intentionally pump a liquid/solid CO2 slurry into deep ocean trenches, as a means of sequestering it (yes, liquid CO2 does exist, but only in extreme pressure/temperature conditions, such as human-engineered mechanical processes or deep water). I see this as misguided, in that geological events (the origin of deep ocean trenches) will eventually (could be years, could be epochs) stir it up, merely delaying whatever effects may occur as the result of it’s atmospheric presence. Note that some in-situ experiments (evaluating sequestration) demonstrate a tendency of CO2 ice in deep water to recirculate. The water-ice envelope that forms to encapsulate the dry ice fractures due to extreme pressure, and partial sublimation occurs during the rupture, forcing the CO2 to shallower depths. This process continued in-situ for as long as the experiments supported observation. Larger chunks at shallower depths will survive better, since the pressure will not exceed the strength of the water-ice envelope…Kind of dangerous to sequester at shallow depths, since temperature changes will occur much faster in shallows than depths (excluding the unknown probability of geological/microbial activity).

    No matter how many times Demonweed tries to say it, I don’t hate Al Gore. I am skeptical of his words and motivations, as I am skeptical of the words of any politician (Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Socialist, Libertarian). I did point out his personal financial investment in Carbon Offset Trading, because he is as subject to the same influences that so many believe have corrupted Dick Cheney, and I “invoke” Cheney only because he is the closest peer to Gore (being a Vice President with the governmental connections of the Post, as well as private sector investments and commitments that can be influenced by governmental and international actions), and he IS hated passionately because of it. Once again, the invocation of Cheney’s name isn’t a sign of approval or disapproval, it is an illustration of similars.

    I have been accused of “sleazeball trickery” for pointing out views of our founding fathers. I have, in fact read the entire series of Federalist Papers, many writings by Jefferson (thanks to books purchased at Monticello), the entire Declaration of Independence and US Constitution many times. To a man, they were extremely cautious in conferring powers from the people to Government. “The beauty of the American Revolution was that it paved the way for people to choose for themselves how they will be governed” This is absolutely right! It also pointed out their firmly-held belief that power is best controlled (safest for the people) in the hands of the people, rather than king or even elected government. This is why the limitations of power were imposed (via the Constitution) on the Government, not the people. They believed this so strongly that they committed high treason, risking absolutely everything (life, liberty, property and taint of blood), to gain little more than a position of service rather than authority and privilege…and freedom from opressive regimes. They did create a mechanism to change the balance of power, but ensured that the mechanism required long, soul-searching, passionate debate and discussion before that change could be implemented, to ensure that changes were made only after the heat (no pun intended) of the immediate situation had the opportunity to cool. They cleverly created a balance that protects every person from the tyrrany of an individual or a regime, while protecting from tyrannical passion of the majority as well.

    This discussion is a good illustration of why “the debate is over.” Three times now, I have been painted as a hateful idiot. Why would I want to continue, since no matter what data is uncovered in this discussion, no actions will be reconsidered. Why would I want to continue defending against personal attacks when nothing will change?

    I agree that we should wean ourselves off of petroleum. As I said in an early post, I believe that we should be good stewards of this planet, and petroleum is a very dirty tool. The actions proposed (and many already adopted) span so much more than just our use of petroleum. Our individual and collective existence is a filth on the planet, since our very breath perpetuates the worst sin humanity has ever committed against this planet.

    Demonweed and I agree that “clever alliances” are a positive mechanism for fostering change. Oddly, patience is advocated by Eco-Americans, to allow ethanol to evolve from its current state (which is now a negative-sum gain from a Carbon standpoint…see planting, harvesting, transporting, fermentation, distillation and combustion…somewhere between 1.8 to 3.5x the carbon footprint per BTU as petroleum), and allow wind farms to bloom (which have been most vocally opposed by environmentalists…see bird in a blender), and wait for a breakthrough in solar power (which at absolute best has a 50% functional cycle…see “night”), but there is no patience offered for the evolution of solid state lighting. There is no patience offered to allow a natural course spawned by positive motivation rather than mandates, fines and jail time.

    It is surprising how Demonweed can brush aside previous environmentalist mistakes as bygone trifles. He minimizes their effects, since the intention was positive. Never mind the damage (CO2 emissions, animal deaths, erosion, property damage) caused by fostering devastating wildfires, or our thirty years of continued reliance on oil and coal thanks to a total ban on expanding and researching Nuclear energy. He is dismissing (or not addressing) similar venues for potentially devastating response. He jokes about cow flatulence (which was hilighted by environmentalists) and cosmic forces (in 1989, a single solar flare sent such a burst of additional energy into the Earth’s atmosphere that it almost took down the power grid for the Eastern half of Canada and the Eastern corridor of the United States). He is dismissing that (even though they and I admit the data is preliminary), Goddard Space Center, the keepers of the SOHO solar observatory program, indicate a possible change in solar output, and they (Goddard) would like more time to validate their findings and assess possible implications. He is dismissing that the sun operates on cycles of about 11 years, about 400 years, and about 11,000 years, and that we’re only barely beginning to understand them. He is dismissing that this planet is a wonderfully complex construct, and we have only scratched the surface in really understanding it. He is dismissing many of the “inconvenient truths” in this discussion, which I do see as relevant, as examples of prematurely regulating something before fully understanding the mechanism, contributing factors and peripheral effects.

    Faith in a single theory and our need to act without further discussion is driving us towards regulation that will limit an uncontainable byproduct of human life. This faith is blind to the possible incorrect assumptions embedded in the millions of cohabitating variables (which themselves are independent theories) that work together to generate climate models. This faith is blind to the dual advantages of harvesting Methyl Hydrate (access to a domestic energy source, which would reduce the threat of releasing massive quantities of a poisonous, flammable, suffocating greenhouse gas that is far more impactful than CO2). This faith is blind to the potential future effect of returning Mercury into nearly every home on the planet (fluorescent lighting and the 2012 ban on 100 watt incandescent bulbs), with almost nonexistent containment mechanisms (recycling programs). This faith is unwilling to accept any middle ground, except theirs. We are told that this is a global crisis, that we are standing at the edge of a precipice, but they can’t agree on where the edge really is.

    I am impressed by an interesting contradiction. Corporate job cuts are frequently presented as the act of selfish bastards who wish to pillage the efforts of the employees and consumers. In my corporate life, it has been a common theme to cut head count for two reasons: A market segment failed, at the unrecoverable expense of millions or billions of dollars, or to force reconstruction of business practices…If the people who remain cannot support an inefficient process, they’ll be motivated to rapidly adapt the process to a more efficient state. Once the process evolves, the employees will be able to be more productive (and they can be proud of that ability). Once the process evolves, the corporation as a whole can be more efficient, providing better goods and services to the consumer quicker. Isn’t this the same tactic being recommended by environmentalists? Attempt the creation of a whole new market segment from scratch and cut the energy supply before a viable alternative is proven and available. Remove the energy-wasting items from the market before more efficient replacements exist. Place devices that report back to the government in people’s homes to force their conservation (California’s Smart Thermostat legislation). Once all these changes are in place, the market and the people will have no choice but to respond. Who cares if the first several generations of alternative energy or more efficient items cost too much? That’s just the (new) cost of being human.

    Just to be clear, I evaluate the actions and motivations of ALL bureaucracies, corporate or government, with a skeptic’s eye. I believe that corporations have the potential to be benign or tyrannical or indifferent, just as I believe governental bureaucracies can range from tyrannical to benign to indifferent. I have never seen any bureaucracy at the outermost extreme. They are all somewhere near the middle. Their position is dicated by the motivations of the people who are the cogs of the machine, and the fundamental purpose, goals and methodology of the bureaucracy.

    Does anyone doubt that once regulation takes hold, it will impact every aspect of your daily life, and will continue to impact us for decades or centuries? Are we really willing to accept that scale of regulation, knowing that it is based on a theory, where believers personally attack those who question as heritics? Are we willing to accept it, knowing that an organization like the IPCC has denied the very scientists who provided the data the right to defect from their reports? Are we willing to accept it knowing that the most impactful and visible spokesperson (who won the Nobel Prize) has freely admitted to exaggerating facts and figures to give it more of a “punch?” Demonweed has acknowledged that it will have large impacts on the global economy, therefore standard of life, but is willing to accept it freely because he firmly believes the intentions are purely noble.

32. 

    Demonweed Said:

    on March 31, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    I suppose we both see that this clash isn’t going to be much more productive. However, I did want to touch on the biggest misconception in the previous post. I do not forgive the errors of past environmental activism because they were well-intentioned. Some are simply fictions created to stoke the fires of hostility. Those that are real (like ill-conceived forestry policy in the 70s and 80s,) certainly do deserve criticism.

    Yet the argument I made earlier continues to stand. Guilt by association is an ineffective path to reliable conclusions. This isn’t just about having a negative attitude about specific advocates (though at least it appears in this instance there is a balance of negativity.) It is also about having a negative attitude toward a realm of ideas.

    I think war is horrible. People die. Stuff is destroyed on an industrial scale. Economists count is as a positive in GDP metrics, even though modern warfare typically consumes tremendous resources without producing material gains for the victors. The recent history of warfare contains much more unwarranted aggression than justifiable combat. It should not take long to make a substantial list of wars that were disasters from start to finish.

    Yet if the United States were headed toward another war today, I would not cry out, “Viet Nam was attrocious, and Iraq is the greatest blunder of the 21st century. Therefore we must not go to war in this instance.” Instead I would look at the facts as best I could ascertain them. Is there a real threat to the U.S.? Are alternative ways of neutralizing this threat more effective and/or less painful to us? Are we ready with the capabilities needed to achieve victory if the conflict is not delayed?

    Absolute pacifism may be noble, and it may even be sustainable on a personal level. On a national level, in the world we inhabit, it is definitely not a sustainable position. However wrong many wars through history have been, the decision today must be anchored solidly in the facts about the state of the world today. Environmental issues are no different. If we become uniformly hostile to these sorts of reforms, then we become uniformly vulnerable to any hazards that might degrade the ecologies that sustain us.

    To say, “global warming is a theory” is a little odd seeing as how the globe (well, the atmosphere around it anyway) actually has warmed in measured ways. If I look out the window and catch sight of a bright moon in a dark sky, I will not formulate a theory that it is nighttime. I will conclude soundly that the present nighttime conditions are a fact. However many nutbars write half-baked criticism of the instruments and methods used to gather this data, the body of knowledge is sound enough to conclude that global warming is a real ongoing phenomenon.

    It may be that Ender is making the case that anthropogenic global warming is theoretical. That area is fuzzy, but only slightly. Dispute about the role of atmospheric carbon in bolstering the greenhouse effect is widespread, but the negative case offers up a horde of nonsense and nothing at all compelling in terms of scientific value. Likewise, while honest competent scientists may quibble about the specifics, those quibbles do not amount to a sound repudiation of the correlation between recent CO2 increases and the general warming trend during that same time.

    Likewise, there is no disputing that meeting the energy needs of a prosperous industrialized society produces tremendous carbon emissions. While Ender makes arguments invoking some real phenomena, the arguments themselves do not accurately depict a known reality. The thought that the Earth will somehow restore itself may be comforting, but the assorted bases for that thought rest on speculation in the best cases and deception in the worst.

    Of course there are some bureaucrats (some of whom are involved in scientific organizations) as well as a few inept scientists, a few pseudo-scientific hucksters, and a vast legion of media personalities all vigorous in their denunciations of the idea that human activities are warming the Earth. As their misinformation reverberates throughout assorted media outlets and online venues, it is often given parity (or even preference) to the real science on this issue. Standards of veracity even on major commercial television networks have fallen so low that, were this contention about the shape of the Earth, editors and reporters would still tend to give equal treatment to “both sides of the story.”

    Thirty or perhaps even twenty years ago, the science on global warming was far from certain, even if some of the alarms it raised were not too far from facts to be established later. Now the level of actual uncertainty is reduced to the sorts of things Occam’s Razor should handle. I don’t know for certain that there isn’t a Burger King at the exact center of the Sun. However, I feel it is reasonable to hold firmly to the belief no such restaurant exists. Likewise, I don’t know that a change in the intergalactic medium isn’t wafting over the planet and driving atmospheric change. However, I do feel that in the absence of anything other than the hopes of global warming skeptics to support that belief, I do well to carry on believing that it is not a driving force in the climate change process.

    After all, if conclusions about scientific matters can be reached without evidence, we might as well just relax and let the Oompa Loompas inhabiting the Mohorovicic Discontinuity work the climate-restoring magic one random talk radio caller is sure that they will perform in the year 2013. Our thinking on climate policy needs to be guided by climate science. Our thinking on climate science needs to be guided by empirical evidence. As such, it is understandable that people might doubt global warming based on the “well, if this and that and the other thing are like our hunches suggest” speculation of decades ago. Yet that is no excuse for countering the sound science available today with similarly ill-constructed arguments.

    It is also imperative to keep in mind that this isn’t a “do nothing and there will be no consequences” sort of situation. Yes, until we reverse the polarity on energy subsidies (i.e. wind down the free ride for petrochemical giants while vigorously kickstarting the next generation of energy technology) we simply won’t have the hardware it takes to cut emissions without paying an economic price. Yes, putting a precise dollar value on the economic damage global warming will cause, never mind the specific fraction that emissions reduction could mitigate, is going well beyond the bounds of what can be established with hard science.

    However, the hard science does establish an extraordinary danger level associated with inaction. Even a honest conservative approach to the damages question has humanity gaining new Arctic shipping lanes while losing much more valuable real estate to rising oceans. The effects on regional climates are not subject to specific forecasting, but a roll of the dice seems like an extremely undesirable outcome for an agricultural powerhouse like the U.S. This is not just a choice between making economic sacrifices to fulfill a policy goal or saving money and doing nothing. It is a choice between making economic sacrifices to fulfill a policy goal or facing the full force of economic threats that are literally incalculable.

{ RSS feed for comments on this post} · { TrackBack URI }

Leave a Comment

• All About Me!

  Call me a journalist at heart. I just want to get to the bottom of any story, learn the truth and tell it to you. News and everything about it is who I am. But, I am also compelled to share my insights about many other things in life, like what it's really like to live in Las Vegas. On a more personal note, I love my family, friends, animals and life itself. I often talk about those subjects, along with other topics that interest me, such as how bad television programming is today, how much I despise litter, graffiti, reckless drivers and people who have poor manners and a lack of respect for people and the law. Welcome to Crystal's View.

• Authors

  • crystalsview
• Subscribe to Crystal's View by Email

• Subscribe to Crystal's View

• Recent Posts

  • School Dress Codes Absurd
  • Busy Bee
  • National Tourism Week Tour
  • Las Vegas Showgirls in Denver
  • Cabo and Some Good Memories

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008

• Blogroll

  • Brian Allen’s Blog
  • Capture Las Vegas
  • Classic Las Vegas
  • Kyle’s Life
  • Las Vegas Sharps
  • Life on the Wasatch
  • Vegas Know it All
  • Very Vintage Las Vegas
  • WordPress.com

•  

  March 2008

  S	M	T	W	T	F	S
  « Feb				Apr »
  						1
  2	3	4	5	6	7	8
  9	10	11	12	13	14	15
  16	17	18	19	20	21	22
  23	24	25	26	27	28	29
  30	31

• Top Posts

  • School Dress Codes Absurd
  • Busy Bee
  • On a More Personal Note...
  • Lake Mead Excursion
  • National Tourism Week Tour

• MSNBC

  • Clean-air rules for national parks may be eased
  • China shifts to grim work of burying quake dead
  • Vitamin D may save breast cancer patients
  • Squeezed shoppers start downsizing
  • Gay marriage ban overturned in Calif.

• KLAS

  • I-Team: The Killing Fields
  • Stretching Your Dollar
  • What's Cool at School
  • Hepatitis Cases Prompt Federal Recommendations
  • Local Teen Nominated for National Award

• Las Vegas Review-Journal

  • Cleanup begins for home project
  • Reid supports $175 million to acquire water in farm bill
  • Term limit court fight probable
  • Senior judges 'a bang for our buck'
  • Standing Up For Veterans

• Flickr Photos

  More Photos