Global Warming - Are We, Humans, Responsible?
Yes, the Earth is warming. That is about all we can completely agree on. It is not opinon based, because we can measure it. Over and over again. But when it comes to why and who is responsible for this, the experts and scientists seem to be somewhat at odds. Let me also say this up front that science is not a democratic process. It is based on facts, observations, measurements and data collected. It makes no difference whether one scientist believes one thing and all the rest believe something else. Read about Galileo below. The politicans of the World have clearly made up their minds based on political agendas, and follow the statement, “Don’t confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind.” But watch the wording carefully of those who are pushing their doctrines. They put in enough weasel words that you really can’t trap them. Some of them, at least. Those who are politicans without science training (and some who do) who have an agenda, have attempted to make the issue black or white. Science is about discovery, learning, running experiements, collecting data, observing, and presenting all the facts including those that seem in conflict with your hypothesis. We are far from that today. Why?
The big issue that continues to cause world-wide concern is, are we humans repsonsible for the warming? If we are, is the Earth on a path that can not tolerate our desire to improve life through our habitual desire to use fossil fuels for everything that requires energy? Have we, as humans, put the Earth, which has “fixed it self” over millions of years, in jepordy of survival as we know it? I don’t know but let’s explore some of the observations.
Galileo Model
I do not think the jury is out, to say absolutely yes or no. But another fact to consider in science is how can so many be so right, yet so wrong. Galileo was the father of astronomy in 1600’s and he defended heliocentrism which was the belief that the Sun was fixed and the Earth revolved around it. The masses, mostly the politically centered Catholic Church believed this was not possible and claimed it was contrary to the Scripture passages. As a result Galileo was sentenced to prison, which he was commuted from but remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life. He was condemned as "formally heretical." Is “correct” always correct? Not when politics gets into it, whether it is at the UN or in the Church. But the scientific method is what must be applied and that is for scientific researchers to propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. They do it over and over to be sure it captures all the possible outcomes. I feel we may have lost sight of science in the name of political causes. Can political and “business” political processes and agendas influence the direction science moves? It was estimated (again I don’t have real data) that $50B has been spent in global climate warming research since 1990. Some to prove it is not caused by humans (blamed on the oil industry money) but more to prove it is (blamed on liberal politicans and environmentalists.) How do scientist, who are not politicians react to someone offering money to prove something. Sounds like a good research job to me. Then there is the media. Do you sell your news by printing everything is ok, keep up the good work, or do you sell more saying there is an apocalypse about to occur. They hound the scientists who can almost be lead down any path the reporter wants to lead them and the scientist gets recognition for doing good work (something most scientist don’t get, just ask Galileo.) What a nightmare to figure out.
What I want to do. I want to show some data that has been presented that in objective terms does not satisfy the hypothesis. I am looking at issues I believe the average person needs to understand.
What are PPM?
As of January 2007, the earth's atomspheric CO2 concentration is about 383 ppm. Does this sound freightening? How about comparing it to 280 ppm in 1750, the pre-industrial average? That’s a 35.7% increase. More frightening? But on a total GHG standpoint, it is very, very small increase. What does this mean? Little or zero explanation has been given. It means about 0.0383% by volume or 0.0582% by weight of the total green house gases (GHG) are CO2. Note: while we are not widely informed, ppm is parts per million. In this case it is CO2 parts(molucules) per million green house gas parts (molucules). This represents about 2.996×10E12 tons. To non-scientists, 3×10E12 is 3 million tons times a millons times, pretty large number but still small to total GHG weight. My question is can something that small in quantity be so responsible for something as large as global warming. Reporting one number without explanation of its relevance is not to increase understanding but rather mislead others to one’s premise.
It was suggested to me to run out immediately and buy Joseph Romm's book, “Hell and High Water.” I read most of it but gave up on his hypocrisy. Wow what a crazy angry man! Why is he so angry at this world! His first part was supposed to be science but it was not at all. He says if you want facts go to www.realclimate.org. Which I did and was not impressed with their interpretation of science even though they tried. I am skeptical about everyone in this arena, on both sides and only want to understand the facts. Romm is so prejudice, he does not even begin to understand the scientific method. He confuses global warming, which is almost unilaterally agreed to, that it is happening because of us humans. The total argument is based on the fact that Artic core samples show a “correlation” of increases in CO2 with increases in temperature. Although the data he sights states that the CO2 rise is after the temperature rise by 400 +/- 200 years (these numbers come from his source realclimate.org) His total argument is destroyed by the vary facts he shows. But he has a strong political agenda to pitch so he drops certain facts.
How can something so small cause something so large?
The other issue I have a personal problem with and I am still researching for an answer is nowhere do the people that are spreading this fear ever, ever explain in scientific terms why CO2, which is being measured in ppm or particles per million and is quoted as 380 ppm or 0.038% of total green house gas, is so significant. This is a very, very small amount that is never mentioned, all that is mentioned is the giga-tons of CO2 we are adding (remember giga is 10E9 and current CO2 is measured in tera-tons a 1000x larger, but the percentage is what matters not the delta we are adding. Put a cup of salt into a pitcher of water and it seems extremely salty, but if that cup is added to a three 55 gal drums of water it is hardly noticeable (same as 380 ppm). I don't see scientifically how this CO2 concentration can influence anything. There is data about CO2’s ability to reflectivity of infrared light back to Earth To add to that, CO2 is basically a non reactive gas that occurs naturally in nature. How does increasing this small percentage of gas cause major chemical changes to the atmosphere which results directly in more insulating value to the atmosphere and global warming? CO2 will dissolve into the atmospheric water vapor and what does that do? There appears to be more going on than Romm and others want to admit or understand. His basic claim is that we are approaching levels of CO2 never seen before. That is inaccurate; all they really say is that it is higher than any previous levels “that can be reliably measured” in the last 450,000 years. Scientists have never made measurements in ice cores that estimate CO2 levels higher. The process of measuring in ice cores is the "best we have" but is subject to so many, many variations going on over 100's of thousands of years. The assumptions are huge and the potential error is high. You certainly can not pick up short term variations on a year by year basis. CO2 gas is known to migrate in ice for thousands of years until the snow is compacted into ice by all the snow above it. Al Gore's little elevator trip to his slide is so over done, but he is a great politician telling a “story”. If he plotted CO2 as an actual percentage of the total green house gases and not ppm’s, he would be crawling on the floor with a magnifying glass. By expressing CO2 in ppm’s he is actually multiplying the amount by a 1,000,000 times. But that would not have fed the fears they were trying to create. Is this the proper use of science or is it people with a political agenda to accomplish?
What is difference between “correlation” and “cause and effect?”
There also appear to be a mixed up of the fact that what drives what. Gore and others express there is “correlation” that as CO2 levels go up so do temperatures go up. But what is not expressed is that the ice core data shows (and Gore’s slide, if he bothered to point it out) a time delay of 400 +/- 200years (see this at www.realclimate.com ) between rise in temperature and rise in CO2. In plain words, CO2 rise occurs about 400 years later than the temperature rise. The quoted scientific evidence does not support the conclusion. The issue is expressed as the difference between correlation and cause and effect. They are very different. It is like plotting the deaths of people with lung cancer (let's do it in ppm because it makes the small number of deaths look frightening large) with age. There a clear correlation with age and death from lung cancer. Can you properly draw the conclusion that as you get older your chances greatly increase of dying from lung cancer? According to what Romm has drawn, absolutely! But we know that the correlation has nothing to do with the cause and the cause is smoking and the effect which is lung cancer develops over time and effects more people as they get older. Do you understand what I am saying? This is a critical point that is missing. Climate scientists own data says temperature rise occurs first and them it is followed by CO2 increases. There is a lot more to this but the point is, were these facts presented for you to understand and reason with?
I skipped some of Romm's political sections because I could not take his distortions to attempt to prove the other side of his opinions was out to get the rest of the scientific world. I went to read something that I have knowledge of and that is the auto industry section (Chapter 8). While some of his points are valid, so much is mindless angriness over anything that is currently in place. CAFE is not the answer to anything and it has NOT reduced consumption in 30 years. Does it not make sense that as bigger cars use less fuel, people will buy even bigger cars and drive them more? What will stop them? The answer is not are we better today with CAFE, but will changes in the future amount to anything significant. I agree that a hydrogen economy is stupid, at least short-term, but I also disagree that it should be dropped completely. His argument for ethanol is also full of holes. Burning ethanol only reduces GHG by 20% and if it is only used half the time as straight gas (actually, today it is used about 1%), then it is 10%. I can get that by just driving smarter when I drive. I don't think the 20% even considers the energy spent and CO2 released in the process of getting it to your fuel tank! It is almost a total waste unless you are one of the huge corn farming conglomerates. Ethanol does one good thing and that is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Romm supports plug-in hybrids that are another step but also does not address the problem in the US...people drive too much, waste too much energy and don’t really care. That is the problem that needs to be contained. The only way to change consumer behavior is to change their cost model. Higher price fuel absolutely needs to be discussed in Congress. Read my JEDI Fund?
Can the Earth fix itself?
How can a real scientist say that the Earth is not capable of fixing itself? After 3 billion years it seems to have done a pretty remarkable job. Although, I do remember walking through the National Parks out west and telling my kids, “millions and millions of years ago this was all under water.” Who caused that and what are we to do today and tomorrow? I personally believe we and most of the Nations of the world have a problem with dependency on oil and fossil fuels. Someone told me (and I have not researched this, so don’t take it as fact, but it seems reasonable) that we are burning oil, natural gas and coal at the rate of one million years of vegetation growth per year! We as a world need to look at alternative energy forms. We are company committed to electric drive technology. Our product, EcoV has no emissions, noise, odors, releases no CO2 in operation, requires no trips to the gas station and is nearly maintenance free. It is recyclable, too. If you charge it off the Sun, it has almost zero environmental impact. We are committed to two things, dependency on foreign oil and air quality in our cities. EcoV does not require sacrifices to be made when used in the right application, it is both environmentally and budget friendly. There are no other technologies, available today that can do that. Politicians are supposed to represent the people, but they don’t know how to guide their constituency to unpopular, but healthier choices. This is not leadership but an abdication of responsibility. All solutions in society require industry, government, and the public who uses the goods and services. All three need to have a role and work together. It is not a popularity contest, it is about changing our lives for the better.
Convince me that 0.038% of the atmosphere, 380 ppm CO2 can really influence global climate change? The question more important is can we, the humans on this planet, do anything about it? I believe we can but not for global warming, but to be better stewards of Planet Earth.
As a person with a strong scientific background (Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering) I am not convinced the small amount of CO2 in our green house can scientifically cause significant change. This I need to research more. But as far as Romm and his arguments, he is a sad and angry man and that has no part in trying to help the world. As far as Al Gore is concerned, you owe yourself to read the facts yourself, not someone’s political interpretation of those facts through their glasses. Science is about facts, not opinions. Anytime someone talks about math models to predict things, if they don’t go through the assumptions made in detail, don’t believe it. If you want to, then I have this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you! You need to think clearly about what is going on and be objective about the facts. All of us, including me can be wrong. If I am convinced, I will be the first to say thank you and admit I am wrong. What about you? One last suggestion, watch the BBC documentary “Global Warming Swindle” not as fact but as the other side of the argument. It made me look much closer at this issue which I was convinced after Gore’s movie was an absolute truth. It is not that way anymore.
The big issue that continues to cause world-wide concern is, are we humans repsonsible for the warming? If we are, is the Earth on a path that can not tolerate our desire to improve life through our habitual desire to use fossil fuels for everything that requires energy? Have we, as humans, put the Earth, which has “fixed it self” over millions of years, in jepordy of survival as we know it? I don’t know but let’s explore some of the observations.
Galileo Model
I do not think the jury is out, to say absolutely yes or no. But another fact to consider in science is how can so many be so right, yet so wrong. Galileo was the father of astronomy in 1600’s and he defended heliocentrism which was the belief that the Sun was fixed and the Earth revolved around it. The masses, mostly the politically centered Catholic Church believed this was not possible and claimed it was contrary to the Scripture passages. As a result Galileo was sentenced to prison, which he was commuted from but remained under house arrest for the remainder of his life. He was condemned as "formally heretical." Is “correct” always correct? Not when politics gets into it, whether it is at the UN or in the Church. But the scientific method is what must be applied and that is for scientific researchers to propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. They do it over and over to be sure it captures all the possible outcomes. I feel we may have lost sight of science in the name of political causes. Can political and “business” political processes and agendas influence the direction science moves? It was estimated (again I don’t have real data) that $50B has been spent in global climate warming research since 1990. Some to prove it is not caused by humans (blamed on the oil industry money) but more to prove it is (blamed on liberal politicans and environmentalists.) How do scientist, who are not politicians react to someone offering money to prove something. Sounds like a good research job to me. Then there is the media. Do you sell your news by printing everything is ok, keep up the good work, or do you sell more saying there is an apocalypse about to occur. They hound the scientists who can almost be lead down any path the reporter wants to lead them and the scientist gets recognition for doing good work (something most scientist don’t get, just ask Galileo.) What a nightmare to figure out.
What I want to do. I want to show some data that has been presented that in objective terms does not satisfy the hypothesis. I am looking at issues I believe the average person needs to understand.
What are PPM?
As of January 2007, the earth's atomspheric CO2 concentration is about 383 ppm. Does this sound freightening? How about comparing it to 280 ppm in 1750, the pre-industrial average? That’s a 35.7% increase. More frightening? But on a total GHG standpoint, it is very, very small increase. What does this mean? Little or zero explanation has been given. It means about 0.0383% by volume or 0.0582% by weight of the total green house gases (GHG) are CO2. Note: while we are not widely informed, ppm is parts per million. In this case it is CO2 parts(molucules) per million green house gas parts (molucules). This represents about 2.996×10E12 tons. To non-scientists, 3×10E12 is 3 million tons times a millons times, pretty large number but still small to total GHG weight. My question is can something that small in quantity be so responsible for something as large as global warming. Reporting one number without explanation of its relevance is not to increase understanding but rather mislead others to one’s premise.
It was suggested to me to run out immediately and buy Joseph Romm's book, “Hell and High Water.” I read most of it but gave up on his hypocrisy. Wow what a crazy angry man! Why is he so angry at this world! His first part was supposed to be science but it was not at all. He says if you want facts go to www.realclimate.org. Which I did and was not impressed with their interpretation of science even though they tried. I am skeptical about everyone in this arena, on both sides and only want to understand the facts. Romm is so prejudice, he does not even begin to understand the scientific method. He confuses global warming, which is almost unilaterally agreed to, that it is happening because of us humans. The total argument is based on the fact that Artic core samples show a “correlation” of increases in CO2 with increases in temperature. Although the data he sights states that the CO2 rise is after the temperature rise by 400 +/- 200 years (these numbers come from his source realclimate.org) His total argument is destroyed by the vary facts he shows. But he has a strong political agenda to pitch so he drops certain facts.
How can something so small cause something so large?
The other issue I have a personal problem with and I am still researching for an answer is nowhere do the people that are spreading this fear ever, ever explain in scientific terms why CO2, which is being measured in ppm or particles per million and is quoted as 380 ppm or 0.038% of total green house gas, is so significant. This is a very, very small amount that is never mentioned, all that is mentioned is the giga-tons of CO2 we are adding (remember giga is 10E9 and current CO2 is measured in tera-tons a 1000x larger, but the percentage is what matters not the delta we are adding. Put a cup of salt into a pitcher of water and it seems extremely salty, but if that cup is added to a three 55 gal drums of water it is hardly noticeable (same as 380 ppm). I don't see scientifically how this CO2 concentration can influence anything. There is data about CO2’s ability to reflectivity of infrared light back to Earth To add to that, CO2 is basically a non reactive gas that occurs naturally in nature. How does increasing this small percentage of gas cause major chemical changes to the atmosphere which results directly in more insulating value to the atmosphere and global warming? CO2 will dissolve into the atmospheric water vapor and what does that do? There appears to be more going on than Romm and others want to admit or understand. His basic claim is that we are approaching levels of CO2 never seen before. That is inaccurate; all they really say is that it is higher than any previous levels “that can be reliably measured” in the last 450,000 years. Scientists have never made measurements in ice cores that estimate CO2 levels higher. The process of measuring in ice cores is the "best we have" but is subject to so many, many variations going on over 100's of thousands of years. The assumptions are huge and the potential error is high. You certainly can not pick up short term variations on a year by year basis. CO2 gas is known to migrate in ice for thousands of years until the snow is compacted into ice by all the snow above it. Al Gore's little elevator trip to his slide is so over done, but he is a great politician telling a “story”. If he plotted CO2 as an actual percentage of the total green house gases and not ppm’s, he would be crawling on the floor with a magnifying glass. By expressing CO2 in ppm’s he is actually multiplying the amount by a 1,000,000 times. But that would not have fed the fears they were trying to create. Is this the proper use of science or is it people with a political agenda to accomplish?
What is difference between “correlation” and “cause and effect?”
There also appear to be a mixed up of the fact that what drives what. Gore and others express there is “correlation” that as CO2 levels go up so do temperatures go up. But what is not expressed is that the ice core data shows (and Gore’s slide, if he bothered to point it out) a time delay of 400 +/- 200years (see this at www.realclimate.com ) between rise in temperature and rise in CO2. In plain words, CO2 rise occurs about 400 years later than the temperature rise. The quoted scientific evidence does not support the conclusion. The issue is expressed as the difference between correlation and cause and effect. They are very different. It is like plotting the deaths of people with lung cancer (let's do it in ppm because it makes the small number of deaths look frightening large) with age. There a clear correlation with age and death from lung cancer. Can you properly draw the conclusion that as you get older your chances greatly increase of dying from lung cancer? According to what Romm has drawn, absolutely! But we know that the correlation has nothing to do with the cause and the cause is smoking and the effect which is lung cancer develops over time and effects more people as they get older. Do you understand what I am saying? This is a critical point that is missing. Climate scientists own data says temperature rise occurs first and them it is followed by CO2 increases. There is a lot more to this but the point is, were these facts presented for you to understand and reason with?
I skipped some of Romm's political sections because I could not take his distortions to attempt to prove the other side of his opinions was out to get the rest of the scientific world. I went to read something that I have knowledge of and that is the auto industry section (Chapter 8). While some of his points are valid, so much is mindless angriness over anything that is currently in place. CAFE is not the answer to anything and it has NOT reduced consumption in 30 years. Does it not make sense that as bigger cars use less fuel, people will buy even bigger cars and drive them more? What will stop them? The answer is not are we better today with CAFE, but will changes in the future amount to anything significant. I agree that a hydrogen economy is stupid, at least short-term, but I also disagree that it should be dropped completely. His argument for ethanol is also full of holes. Burning ethanol only reduces GHG by 20% and if it is only used half the time as straight gas (actually, today it is used about 1%), then it is 10%. I can get that by just driving smarter when I drive. I don't think the 20% even considers the energy spent and CO2 released in the process of getting it to your fuel tank! It is almost a total waste unless you are one of the huge corn farming conglomerates. Ethanol does one good thing and that is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Romm supports plug-in hybrids that are another step but also does not address the problem in the US...people drive too much, waste too much energy and don’t really care. That is the problem that needs to be contained. The only way to change consumer behavior is to change their cost model. Higher price fuel absolutely needs to be discussed in Congress. Read my JEDI Fund?
Can the Earth fix itself?
How can a real scientist say that the Earth is not capable of fixing itself? After 3 billion years it seems to have done a pretty remarkable job. Although, I do remember walking through the National Parks out west and telling my kids, “millions and millions of years ago this was all under water.” Who caused that and what are we to do today and tomorrow? I personally believe we and most of the Nations of the world have a problem with dependency on oil and fossil fuels. Someone told me (and I have not researched this, so don’t take it as fact, but it seems reasonable) that we are burning oil, natural gas and coal at the rate of one million years of vegetation growth per year! We as a world need to look at alternative energy forms. We are company committed to electric drive technology. Our product, EcoV has no emissions, noise, odors, releases no CO2 in operation, requires no trips to the gas station and is nearly maintenance free. It is recyclable, too. If you charge it off the Sun, it has almost zero environmental impact. We are committed to two things, dependency on foreign oil and air quality in our cities. EcoV does not require sacrifices to be made when used in the right application, it is both environmentally and budget friendly. There are no other technologies, available today that can do that. Politicians are supposed to represent the people, but they don’t know how to guide their constituency to unpopular, but healthier choices. This is not leadership but an abdication of responsibility. All solutions in society require industry, government, and the public who uses the goods and services. All three need to have a role and work together. It is not a popularity contest, it is about changing our lives for the better.
Convince me that 0.038% of the atmosphere, 380 ppm CO2 can really influence global climate change? The question more important is can we, the humans on this planet, do anything about it? I believe we can but not for global warming, but to be better stewards of Planet Earth.
As a person with a strong scientific background (Masters of Science in Mechanical Engineering) I am not convinced the small amount of CO2 in our green house can scientifically cause significant change. This I need to research more. But as far as Romm and his arguments, he is a sad and angry man and that has no part in trying to help the world. As far as Al Gore is concerned, you owe yourself to read the facts yourself, not someone’s political interpretation of those facts through their glasses. Science is about facts, not opinions. Anytime someone talks about math models to predict things, if they don’t go through the assumptions made in detail, don’t believe it. If you want to, then I have this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you! You need to think clearly about what is going on and be objective about the facts. All of us, including me can be wrong. If I am convinced, I will be the first to say thank you and admit I am wrong. What about you? One last suggestion, watch the BBC documentary “Global Warming Swindle” not as fact but as the other side of the argument. It made me look much closer at this issue which I was convinced after Gore’s movie was an absolute truth. It is not that way anymore.
Labels: BBC, EcoV, global warming, Gore, objective view
posted by Rich Marks at
10:48 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home