Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

To transfer our economy OFF petroleum / hydrocarbon dependence is a Win-Win-Win

(1) To move to nuclear & solar & viable bio-mass (not ethanol!) reduces the leverage of the Arab oil weapon;

(2) To do (1) and then "pretend" that hydrocarbon warming is a real threat will assist in rallying the world against China. Once "we" go green on global warming China's coal burning could easily become the target de jure for the Leftie boycott movement in addition to outrage about unsafe products, etc. . .

Regardless of the science, by adopting an anti-hydrocarbon stance, we can enlist cross spectrum support for pummeling China; and

(3) Maybe global warming is real and maybe burning fewer hydrocarbons actually would help.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 07:51 AM

#2. Not going to work. Westerners could care less when 100 people die in a flood China, due to poor construction practices. The media sure as heck aren't going to care when China burns a couple billions tons of coal, or slaughters a few thousand protesters.

Posted by Brian at July 10, 2007 08:38 AM

Brian, we do care when Thomas the Tank engines trains arrive in America with lead paint and carbon dioxide from Chinese coal burning arrives "here" very quickly.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 08:45 AM

But that's because "think of the kids....". If it was 100 children dying a day in China due to lead poisoning, the media would play it as a footnote. Don't believe me? What about the hundreds of children in China who were being enslaved to make bricks? That story ran for about a day or two.

Stories about "rich people doing bad things" are far more profitable than "poor people doing bad things". Just ask Sally Struthers... :-)

Posted by Brian at July 10, 2007 09:00 AM

This is right; 'is' does not imply 'ought'. That increases in CO2 warm the globe would not automatically imply it is right to stop it from happening. You need additional axioms to reach that conclusion.

Having said that, it also follows that someone who claims that the scientific evidence supports the position that increases in CO2 will warm the globe is not also automatically advocating world government to control CO2 emissions, or something of that order. Some of us just like our science unadulterated, political implications some may not like be damned.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 10, 2007 09:34 AM

Yeah, because the Green Left is up in arms over the fact that China has already passed us to become to the largest "carbon polluter" on the planet (and I don't think that even counts the smoldering coal fires that I hear referenced from time to time).

As for nuclear--bring it on. But don't forget, you have to convince the Green Left that it isn't EEEEVILLLL first. Solar? Don't make me laugh. I just saw someone note this morning that California is looking it its biggest solar plant ever--a proposed 80MW. California uses 40GW.

The Cold Equations of scale can be truly cruel sometimes. Solar ain't gonna work until a) somebody invents super-cheap ubiquitous panels (Nanosolar and a few others show signs of promise), and b) somebody invents storage systems capable of efficiently storing TW-h of power (which ain't happening).

Or until somebody figures out how to make the economics actually work on SPS.

Posted by Big D at July 10, 2007 09:40 AM

> Brian, we do care when Thomas the Tank engines trains arrive in America with lead paint

Interestingly enough, the Chinese are executing govt officials associated with corruption that affects how their products are perceived in the US.

> carbon dioxide from Chinese coal burning arrives "here" very quickly.

So what? We're more affected by their soot.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 10, 2007 10:14 AM

...it also follows that someone who claims that the scientific evidence supports the position that increases in CO2 will warm the globe is not also automatically advocating world government to control CO2 emissions...

I agree with the point, but didn't I read something here about CO2 increases actually following warming, not preceding it?

Posted by Mac at July 10, 2007 10:15 AM

Check this link out...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

The explanations given for the answers are persuasive.

Posted by Mac at July 10, 2007 10:18 AM

I read something here about CO2 increases actually following warming, not preceding it?

This is one of the denial pseudoscience canards. The "argument" is that since CO2 levels began rising some centuries after the beginning of warming at the end of the last ice age, that therefore increased CO2 will not cause warming. You're supposed the ignore the howling non sequitur and just nod, I guess.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 10, 2007 10:53 AM

Interestingly enough, the Chinese are executing govt officials associated with corruption that affects how their products are perceived in the US.

Yup. the American consumer has more clout than American business or government.

When we whine about zillions of pirate DVDs flooding the market in violation of US intellectual property laws, the Chinese mostly yawn. When US parents fear that the toys they buy for their kids are dangerous, people get shot.

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 11:35 AM

Going to plug my own blog at this point....

http://www.woogieworld.org/archives/002244.php

Part of my MBA was a trip to Hong Kong to see how they do business in China. The professor we spoke with spoke with glee on how fun it was to circumvent IP and customs laws...

Posted by Brian at July 10, 2007 11:54 AM

It is far more than _one_ time where CO2 levels increased _after_ the temperature rise.

The argument is about causation. Things that happen second don't tend to be the things that _caused_ the thing that happened first.

That doesn't mean "can't cause" just "hasn't historically caused."

That's relevant because the exact same CO2 v. Global T data is used to show that T tracks ppm CO2... after you start using 'rolling averages' and other statistical techniques that happen to ignore which of the two started moving first.

The 'psuedoscience' comment is amusing.

Posted by Al at July 10, 2007 12:15 PM

The argument is about causation. Things that happen second don't tend to be the things that _caused_ the thing that happened first.

Yes, CO2 rising after temperature starts rising is evidence that rising temperature can cause CO2 to increase. This is even physically plausible -- for example, biomass may decay faster, ocean upwelling may change, and CO2 becomes less soluble in warm water.

The non sequitur is to then infer that this means rising CO2 can't also cause the temperature to increase. X causing Y doesn't imply Y can't also cause X. And since most of the end-stage warming occured after CO2 levels starting increasing, it's consistent with the evidence that a great deal of that warming was caused by the CO2, whatever other effect started it off.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 10, 2007 12:28 PM

For the _end_stage_ warming, I agree with you.

But the (well-respected, peer reviewed) articles _still_ claim that the ice-core records are the crucial piece tying the CO2 rise to the T rise. Ignoring the little problem of which went first historically.

There's a lot of other stuff that follows exactly the same 'end stage' trend as CO2 in the 1900s. It just happens to match solar flux as far as we can tell.

IOW: "it's consistent with the evidence" is a statement 'both these things are going up together' not 'This _caused_ that.' Delving into the citations of why exactly we think there's causation inevitably lead back to review articles of the summarized ice core data. Generally not back to the original articles with the raw data.

Posted by Al at July 10, 2007 12:57 PM

IOW: "it's consistent with the evidence" is a statement 'both these things are going up together' not 'This _caused_ that.'

But AGW doesn't depend on this as proof; it's the critics who are holding it up as disproof. And it is nothing of the kind; 'being consistent with' is enough to torpedo the notion that this is somehow evidence against the notion that CO2 can cause warming.

The case for AGW comes the physics-based modeling; paleoclimate is mostly a sanity check on the models, one that they pass.

BTW, perhaps you could point to the theories that explain ice ages without greenhouse gas feedback? Milankovich (earth orbital element driven) cycles, even with albedo feedback, don't appear to be enough.

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 10, 2007 01:06 PM

'Can cause' is a dramatic step back from 'is the primary cause.'

And 'can cause' isn't inflammatory. The current state of the models appears to be much more of an empirical 'this coefficient fits the observational data better, let's use it' types of models than anything I would describe as "pure physics." Not that there aren't a very large number of physical and chemical processes being included. Just the levels of assumptions required are not inconsequential.

I don't disagree with 'greenhouse gas feedback.' Just the _level_ that is required for current models. Anything that is open-loop unstable seems excessive given the pre-historical methane levels.

Posted by Al at July 10, 2007 01:45 PM

Some of us just like our science unadulterated, political implications some may not like be damned.

Yes, Paul, which is why some of us get annoyed every time you say scientists who do not share the beliefs of Paul Dietz are not part of the "world scientific community" or compare them to Nazi sympathizers.

That sort of vilification is not part of the ordinary scienctific process. Scientists who questioned general relativity were not accused of being evil villians in the pay of big oil companies. Fred Hoyle and Thomas Gold were not stripped of their academic credentials because they didn't believe in the Big Bang.

"Proof by vilification" is more often found among political scientists trying to prove a "theory" like Marxism.

Posted by at July 10, 2007 02:31 PM

'Can cause' is a dramatic step back from 'is the primary cause.'

It's a canard that CO2 has to be the 'primary cause' of changes in the past climate or else AGW from anthropogenic CO2 emission is in trouble. In case you didn't notice, there's an unprecedented release of CO2 occuring today. Why does CO2 have to be the primary cause for past episodes of warming, during which this massive CO2 pulse wasn't being injected, in order for this CO2 release to cause warming?

All that we can ask in science is that theories not be contradicted by the evidence. That is, they be consistent with the evidence. If they are, they've survived. You don't get 'proof' of a theory, except in the sense that the evidence becomes inconsistent with any other theory people come up with. In that vein, I repeat: where's the theory that explains past climate without CO2 having its predicted effect?

Posted by Paul Dietz at July 10, 2007 02:40 PM

> In case you didn't notice, there's an unprecedented release of CO2 occuring today.

Unprecedented? Are CO2 levels higher than they've ever been before?

I'm still waiting for the argument showing that we're currently at/above the perfect temperature. Heck, I'll settle for evidence supporting "higher temps would necessarily be a disaster".

I'll take global warming people seriously when it takes less than three years to take a nuke plant from an idea to first electricity delivery.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 10, 2007 10:21 PM

> Yup. the American consumer has more clout than American business or government.

> ... When US parents fear that the toys they buy for their kids are dangerous, people get shot.

White "forgets" that he's supposed to be supporting the position that said parents, or anyone else, usefully care about Chinese CO2. I pointed out that the parents don't care about Chinese soot.

Posted by at July 10, 2007 10:25 PM

Here's a few notes on CO2 and warming...

Over 95% of the greenhouse effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.

Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively.

Carbon dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppm). Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.

The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm.

According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

From Paul: In that vein, I repeat: where's the theory that explains past climate without CO2 having its predicted effect?

How's that?

Posted by Mac at July 11, 2007 05:42 AM

Mac:

The Ordovician Period was 475 million years ago - slightly over 10% of the age of Earth. Two factors were different; the configuration of continents and the luminosity of the Sun. I have found sources for the luminosity curve of the Sun over geologic time telling me that the Sun was 4% or so cooler at that time than now.

Conclusion; discussions about remote past ages are irrelevant to AGW.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at July 11, 2007 11:19 AM

...and in the Carboniferous Era 315 mya when the CO2 levels were as low as they are now and the Sun was a few percent dimmer, the Earth was obviously kept from freezing solid by the combined effect of all those giant dinosaur farts.

Posted by Ugly Bag of Mostly Water at July 12, 2007 05:10 AM

Conclusion; discussions about remote past ages are irrelevant to AGW.

Irrelevant such as ice core samples from a few hundred years ago? Irrelevant as ice core samples from a few thousand years ago? Should we conserve and protect our environment? YES! However, it should also be realized that the AGW push is not to save the planet, its to obtain power. If Al Gore wants to be Captain Planet, why does he drive around in a caravan of polluting SUVs? LiveEarth polluted heavily as well. AGW is a political ploy, based on fear mongering. We should conserve and be environmentally friendly, but not if we're forced to be.

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2007 05:41 AM

Mac:

Your comment is an example of a tactic of rhetoric called "poisoning the well".

Sure, Al Gore is a hypocrite. Sure, so are all the pop stars that contributed to Live Earth. This does not not mean that what they are saying is wrong.

As for wanting power: Well, sure. All the best intentions in the world are no damn good at all unless you have the clout to act on them.

There is a way that America can start being part of the solution instead of part of the problem. That is an import tax on crude oil, increasing year on year, coupled with an extraction tax on solid fuel such as coal. It would have to increase relatively slowly so as not to cause major dislocation, however.

What will this do and why will it help? Simple. It will increase energy costs, particularly the cost of automotive fuels, and therefore encourage the purchase and building of more energy-efficient buildings, equipment and vehicles, and encourage the saving of fuel by such simple means as installing flexible barriers in warehouse doors, and buying more energy-efficient domestic appliances and cars when it's time to replace them. Hence the gradual change.

I am not saying that you, or anyone else, should be compelled to buy a smaller car. I am saying that if you decide to buy a gas-guzzler you should pay - through the nose - for it, on a continuing basis.

There is no merit in wasting fuel. However, to outsiders (such as me), all too often it appears that Americans think there is.

Of course, there is always the other argument - less oil consumption, less petrodollars for terrorists to kill decent people with.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at July 12, 2007 04:16 PM

http://aqsrqeffawrew.host.com
desk3
[url=http://aqssqeffawrew.host.com]desk4[/url]
[link=http://aqsaqeffawrew.host.com]desk6[/link]

Posted by Brucebxk at September 28, 2007 03:13 PM

Post a comment