Honey I Fried the Planet
By Scott Kirwin Posted in Economy — Comments (66) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday I visited the local Borders bookstore to pick up a magazine or two but left emptyhanded. The current issue of Scientific American has an essay on the "Undeniable Case For Global Warming." Nearby Newsweek's front page blared "Global Warming Is a Hoax*" - with the qualification being that if you believe that you are part of a conspiracy funded in part by ExxonMobil.
I've gone over this topic numerous times - most recently at my blog where I slid off the deep-end only to claw my way back to sanity thanks to a few commenters and my own nagging doubts. However I'm old enough to remember when the same magazine warned of the coming ice age in a 1975 article (Newsweek issued a correction last year). In that article scientists urged government action to stop the impending catastrophe of global cooling.
The author of that article admits that the scientific consensus for global warming is much bigger today than it back then for global cooling. What he doesn't say is that a flip-flop in 13 years (from the time the article was published until the 1988 Newsweek cover that posited global warming) doesn't engender faith in climate science.
Pro-warming advocates like to compare the science behind global warming to evolution, yet fail to recognize that evolution has withstood 150 years of challenges without significant modification (gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium is perhaps the biggest change to the theory over the years.) I suppose it's natural for believers in a new theory to try to get the patina of a long-established and tested theory to rub off, but that's not Science - that's Politics.
These advocates also don't address another crucial difference between evolution and global warming: no one is demanding that we spend trillions of dollars as well as monkey around with the some of the most complex processes on the planet to halt evolution. They also ignore the fact that had we heeded their demands in the 1970's and worked to fight global cooling, we most likely would have made things much worse.
What's different today thirty-two years later? Why should we act upon the "consensus" today when it may change tomorrow?
The good news for those of us so called "deniers" is that there's really nothing we can do - as Robert Samuelson noted in Newsweek a week later.
The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb emissions growth.
Samuelson doesn't believe that we can stop global warming by simply curbing emissions either.
One way or another, our assaults against global warming are likely to be symbolic, ineffective or both. But if we succeed in cutting emissions substantially, savings would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. The McKinsey Global Institute projects that from 2003 to 2020, the number of China's vehicles will rise from 26 million to 120 million, average residential floor space will increase 50 percent and energy demand will grow 4.4 percent annually. Even with "best practices" energy efficiency, demand would still grow 2.8 percent a year, McKinsey estimates.
Science is very good at explaining our world. It runs into trouble when it's passive role turns active and it is used justify action. As KMaher notes in Is Paris Burning, the "Big Government Overreaction" offered by these advocates might be a "cure" that is worse than the "disease."
I don't know why, or whether, Al Gore actually believes this. But here's my take on it: Global warming hysteria could lead to a massive overreaction on the part of Big Government, and Big Government Overreaction, as our forefathers could tell you, is just about the worst Worst Case Scenario you can imagine. I mean, when you talk about Big Government Overreaction, you're talking about Hitler, Stalin & Mao. Che, in my opinion, is grossly overrated.
Worse than Big Government Overreaction could be the reaction of the planet itself. If we can't fight global warming by reducing emissions, we will have to turn to more active and aggressive solutions.
Changes to a complex system will always have unintended consequences. In computer programming these "unintended outputs" are often called "bugs." While these bugs can down a system, they are rarely fatal. However by attempting to intervene in our planet's climate, the consequences could be catastrophic.
Take for example Al Gore's attempts to compensate for his huge carbon footprint by planting trees. It turns out that if these trees are planted in the northern hemisphere, they decrease the earth's reflectance (albedo) and absorb heat. While planting trees seems so logical to most environmentalists, the consequences of this action in a complex system undermine its rationale. Had Gore been president and used the power of the government to plant millions of hectares of trees in the northern hemisphere, the "inconvenient truth" would have been that he would have made global warming worse.
Other active methods to fight global warming are just as controversial. In its July 21, 2007 issue, the New Scientist carried an article about combating global warming by spewing sulphur dioxide high into the atmosphere to block sunlight and cool the planet. This method would mimic what large volcanic eruptions do, as global temperatures dipped most recently after the eruption of Mt. Pinotubo. Just two issues later, the New Scientist posted letters questioning the safety of this method, warning that such action could disturb rainfall patterns and cause global droughts.
So what is an informed public supposed to do? In essence what it has been doing for decades: ignore the scientists. It's been doing an extremely good job so far.
PS: To ExxonMobil: I'm still waiting for my check!
We're all out to get you.
Really.
We're trying to flood your home personally by melting Chilly Willy's iceberg onto your home. We hate Chilly Willy, as we hate all good and cute things.
Coordinated blitzkrieg?
Got paranoia?
so why not stop or at least curtail the injection of human greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, when there are also additional benefits?
For several reasons.
First, "stopping" is not possible. Even the sudden extinction of our species on the planet would not stop global warming for at least 50 years.
Second, curtailing, as Samuelson notes is also not possible. He argues that we don't have the capacity as a society to work towards a long-term benefit, plus as we curtail our emissions China (and India) will increase theirs.
Third, as Samuelson mentions, there is no technological fix on the horizon that will allow us to curtail our emissions for free.
That leads to the active methods (e.g. sulphur dioxide) discussed above. If global warming is as great a threat as proponents believe, then we can't save the planet by simply wiping our butts with a single sheet of TP or driving a Prius.
We will need to actively intervene in the climate.
But messing around with complex systems will result in unintended consequences. Is our understanding of the climate deep enough? Are our climate models accurate enough to justify this intervention?
There are "additional benefits" to creating vehicles that get better gas mileage. However even these benefits rely too much on Big Government to work (e.g. ethanol - a fuel that I personally champion.)
First - you're right no stopping for 50 years
Second - when I say we I mean the global collective we, China has to play too.
Third - not true, stabilization wedges are all existing technologies - see my one and only blog post here. For free, maybe not, but they certainly won't be on the scales of destroying the world economy and at least according to one study by Price Waterhouse Coopers be cheaper than paying for the consequences. The consequences of doing nothing aren't free either.
Most scientists think that if we stabilize CO2 at double preindustrial concentrations we won't have any major feedbacks (e.g. Greenland melting). By stabilizing (eventually) at preindustrial levels we will have the climate of one hundred years ago. That's what people are trying to accomplish. I think the active ones will only be employed if things get really desperate. Nobody is seriously calling for those, so don't worry.
As far as the dreaded Big Government, did the Clean Air Act work? What has been the "official" loss of GDP in China due to pollution? Another example non-free consequences avoided (at least in the US) thanks to Big Government.
I think corn-based ethanol is a bad idea, but other ethanols might work.
By stabilizing (eventually) at preindustrial levels we will have the climate of one hundred years ago.
Of course the earth's climate has never changed, it's always been static, until evil man started burning oil in the 1930s. All those NATURAL cycles of heating & cooling throughout history never really happened.
www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.
there have been natural cycles and will continue to be, but that's not what we're talking about here. If it's natural what is causing it?
Just a guess that. The same things that cause the earth to be better than 20 degrees warmer than it is now (with a dimmer sun no less) or caused it to nearly freeze up (snowball earth, yes I am aware of the dispute)
But hey why go for simple explanations that don't require any invention.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Second - when I say we I mean the global collective we, China has to play too.
We have a hard enough time getting them to ship us toys painted with lead-free paint, or to strong-arm North Korea, and you think that anyone could convince them to forgo national economic growth for an international benefit?
Nationalism may be dying amongst certain circles in the West, but it's alive and well in China.
said it would be easy...although remember China is already ahead of us in auto fuel economy standards.
And they have a lot of people there that don't even have cars. That's one of the big advantages of such a poor standard of living. If only we could match that in the US.
P.S. It also helps if this kind of crash performance is considered perfectly acceptable:
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
and most of the people that have cars in China have a higher standard of living than I do.
Car safety is a red herring. The Toyota Highlander Hybrid has the same safety as the non-hybrid version. Just wait until the plug-ins come out. And then carbon fiber autos (we'll have to save our oil to make those).
Cool video though...
and most of the people that have cars in China have a higher standard of living than I do
I find that very difficult to believe. Unless you live in your mom's basement. A lot of middle class people own cars in China and they spend a very large percentage of their income on a car that is cheaper than anything you can even buy in America. I guess I'm not seeing the high standard of living there.
Car safety is a red herring.
If you cut materials to reduce weight, you will cut safety, unless you add money to compensate. Guess what the ChiComs are doing? You need to reduce weight to get real fuel economy savings. Just sticking some batteries and an electric motor in there doesn't get you a whole lot.
The Toyota Highlander Hybrid has the same safety as the non-hybrid version.
And you get a whopping 20mpg with a Highlander. There are no EPA numbers on a Highlander Hybrid, but they are guessing 26 at the moment. Big deal. That's real save the earth material right there.
Just wait until the plug-ins come out.
It's a good thing the electricity that runs those is free and isn't generated by a coal fired power plant, then, right?
And then carbon fiber autos (we'll have to save our oil to make those).
You can have one right now if you are willing to pay the price. Heck, you could build one out of aluminum or titanium alloys and save weight too. Get out your checkbook.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
but...we heard the same kind of gripes from opponents of catalytic converters and PCV valves, seat belts and air bags. But now all that stuff is standard issue on automobiles. There will be initial pain to other changes also, such as the inevitable CAFE changes (right or wrong, it'll happen), lighter-weight vehicles and further injection of hybrid technology. But it'll happen and eventually no one will care.
>>>Just sticking some batteries and an electric motor in there doesn't get you a whole lot.<<<
My Prius gets an average of 47MPG in combined highway/city. Depending on where I'm driving, I get up to 55MPG in a trip. Haven't ever seen 60, but we did average about 57 on one tank...had to do with where we drove that week. I routinely drive the Prius 550-600 miles on a 12 gallon tank. The wheelbase on the Prius is exactly the same as my 2000 Camry, so we have sacrificed virtually nothing for size and comfort, and we get about 2.5x better mileage as the Camry. I bought the Prius as an insurance policy against $4.00/gallon gas, and even though we're sitting at about $2.45/gallon here in STL right now, it's still a good deal (I got a substantial discount on it) and a good car.
26MPG vs 20MPG for the Highlander - that's almost a 33% improvement in mileage... nothing to sneeze at. You gotta start somewhere.
Actually, I think the real interesting developments will start when all-electric cars begin to emerge. Earlier generations were pretty lame, with very short charge-spans, but cars like the Tesla are quite intriguing. Teslas are outside the budget of just about everyone, but what if you apply that technology to a car the size of a Ford Focus/Toyota Yaris/Honda Fit? Very interesting possibilities, especially for families like mine that do most of their driving in town, within 10 miles of home.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
26MPG vs 20MPG for the Highlander - that's almost a 33% improvement in mileage... nothing to sneeze at. You gotta start somewhere.
You'd save about 25% of your fuel costs. Less if you drive all highway. More if you drive all city. Or you could just buy a different vehicle without the hybrid gear and save more. The hybrid highlander is a glorified station wagon. You are not supposed to take it off road and it has reduced towing capacities. 26MPG is not impressive mileage for a station wagon. And that's assuming they even manage to hit their 26MPG target in the EPA tests, which is a big assumption.
I've got nothing against people who want to buy hybrids, but I don't think I should be forced to buy one. I don't think I should be forced to pick up the tab for someone else who wants to buy one, either. I don't think anybody should be forced to produce them, either.
There's a lot more that goes into choosing a car than mileage. Initial cost and repairs are big expenses that have to be considered. Hybrids lose on those both of those counts, because of their redundant systems. I never hear anybody talking about the environmental impact of the production, replacement, and disposal those extra parts, either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
47mpg in a Prius?
Why waste the money?
You have an amazingly light-weight car in the Prius, a huge pricetag to useability ratio (you can't fit more than 3 passengers in it comfortably, it has no cargo capacity, can't go offroad, is fundamentally unsafe on snow or ice...),
And all at the same time you can get a Non-hybrid Civic that'll do 40mpg.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I paid approx. the same for the Prius as for a similarly equipped Camry or Accord. I am 6'3", and my two sons are 6'2" and 6'1", and both of them ride comfortably in the back seat (my wife is 5'5", so the taller one rides behind her). And this past weekend, I had 3 in the back seat (my wife in the middle between two other adults) and two in the front. The car easily rides four adults comfortably. I can put enough luggage in the back to accommodate a weekend trip, and it even holds a full set of golf clubs laid sideways across the back.
I'm sure the Civic will do 40mpg on the highway, but I'd be surprised if it could do a combined city/highway at that level (I used to have one, so I'm familiar with their mileage profile). I live in the midwest, and I'm not too worried about snow/ice, as a) I don't commute, and neither do my kids/wife, and b) snow & ice are rare due to global warming normal weather in these parts...
The Prius is ranked as one of the highest "we'd buy it again" cars, and from what I've seen so far, I'm not surprised. It's a superb vehicle, and I am strongly tempted to sell my Camry and buy another one.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
I'll say the people in China that I know who have cars have a higher standard of living than I do. That's not most Chinese, so maybe you're correct, I admit I didn't look at the car buying demographics before saying that, just personal experience.
You can reduce weight also by using better materials and design. And yes, those materials may cost more in the short run, in the long run I don't know.
The Japanese version of the Highlander is a four cylinder and gets around 40 mpg. Admittedly it has less power, but it is not any less safe.
You can also run plug-ins on nukes or coal if the carbon is sequestered.
The Japanese version of the Highlander is a four cylinder and gets around 40 mpg. Admittedly it has less power, but it is not any less safe.
If it actually gets 40mpg, there is no way it has the same body style and 4500lb curb weight that the American version has. The Prius only gets 46mpg and it has much, much better aerodynamics and weighs in at under 3000 lbs. Engine size is a pretty small component to fuel economy.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I'm full of crap, you caught me. I can't find any sources to back me up. But I thought I remember hearing the Japanese version was made more efficient by sacrificing torque. Kind of the opposite of the Lexus hybrid which has much more torque than its non-hybrid counterpart, but about the same mpg.
Congestion in Japan has forced regulations on the length, width and weight of vehicles.
The Japanese Highlander is not much bigger than that Suzuki SUV people like to make fun of. Biggest difference is you can actually fit americans into the backseat comfortably in the Highlander.
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
None of the people that I know in China have the standard of living that the janitor of my office building has... weird.
They must be; they come with a guarantee that if you get killed in one, the plant manager will kill himself to save face.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. - David St. Hubbins
since they don't run anyway, there's no way to get hurt in them.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Nah, just a consensus.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
I seem to give you 5s a lot, Darin. Quickly becoming one of my favorite commenters.
And it only took 2 and a half years! Just watch out for the next 2.5 years :)
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Maybe I should start hitting up RS when I get home at 2100 EST...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
in an undisclosed conference room at the Hay-Adams in Washington DC.
The initiated are welcome to attend. Tell the gatekeeper (aka Joliphant) the secret password: "HALLIBURTON"
In addition to debunking GW, we also make climate projections using a more reliable analytical tool. Dick Cheney is bringing the Ouija board this week.
That's the same time my chapter of the Vast Scientific Conspiracy(VSC) meets. The funny thing is, our password is also Halliburton!
-jb
is showing big holes in AGW dogma?
That your first reponse requires a conspircy should set off warning bells about how far away from reality you have drifted.
Are you really so blind as to ignore the problem with temp stations, the discovery of a negative feedback system where apositive one was posited, and of yet another set of bad data presentations for a major AGW promoter?
Should we who are skeptical of wild claims about climate just be quiet in the face of this and more?
Should we who do not believe in the climate apocalypse allow your side to silence us and call us conspirators and traitors?
You are being used.
Many of us - more every day, choose to not be used.
I'm recommending to see if we can get the top 10 to all global warming all the time. Is that wrong?
Also, given how the algorithm works for recommending, we'd have to have a real-life flood of climate diaries (what? no intelligent design? no immigration?) in short order, recommended en masse at roughly the same time, to make that work.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
just to tick you off... ;-)
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Hm... RedState Of Fear? RedHotState? Make a RedStatement against GW? I don't know I'm not coming up with anything good.
I'd go write a diary real quick but sadly I don't think mine would get any recommends.
-jb
Oh, man, that merits a ™, don't you think? Brilliant!
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
so GW posts have to fill the vacuum. And Newsweek did run that story saying all GW skeptics were in the pay of the Evil One.
Furthermore, it's been a slow Paris Hilton summer as well. We have to talk about SOMETHING.
It's Newsweek that fired the first salvo, pj.
I hear a lot said about how this article had scientists forecasting action, and demanding government action. Well, here's a chance to back that up. The article is here or here. See if you can find a single named scientist or body actually predicting an ice age or calling for action (see OP)? Sure, the journalist, Gwynne, managed to get people to say that there would be problems if the climate got cooler, and he makes sweeping claims about what unnamed scientists believe. But all the named scientists are saying is either that there is evidence of recent cooling (and in 1975 there was), or that climate change could be bad if it occurred (also true).
it was not just newsweek. There were other science articles and publications.
And if I recall, Columbia U is prominently mentioned.
The Orwellian imperative of you AGW believers to edit history to fit your apocalypse is predictable.
is the one quoted here, and is the one most often mentioned. But it just doesn't say what people seem to remember it saying. Don't know about the others - I'd need more details.
I've seen this article mentioned probably a dozen times on here, helps a lot to see what it actually says.
-jb
As a bonus, here is the 1974 Time article, also often quoted. It talks about recent cooling, but is more circumspect than the Newsweek journo about the future. In fact, the only quoted prediction is:
Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/freeman_dyson_climate_heresies/
"I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests," writes Dyson.
Dyson is developing a bit of crazy old scientist syndrome, but I also agree in hopeing we always have "heretics" in science, those willing to question the consensus. I think we're hitting a home run in that regard when it comes to GW though, heh.
-jb
Dyson is pretty old, but I saw him speak in Seattle some months ago, and he was very eloquent and quick witted. He gave an intersting talk, and then answered a very wide range of questions from the audience.
He's always been out there, with things like the nuclear Orion propulsion system.
is old (84), but following your link through, the talk is excellent. I think, though, that the latest models are better than he gives them credit for.
Or pliny whose credentials I do not...
Dyson's opinion on the climate models
or pliny's opinion on the climate... Wait...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
to opine on a blog ... gosh, the silence
But you can't go past these people for credentials.
Most people have no idea how much training and experience is needed to really understand complex scientific problems. I don't mean someone who can wave their hands and talk about thermodynamics at a cocktail party, I mean people who actually comprehend partial differential equations and numerical methods and the various relevant Earth sciences.
I studied physics up to the graduate level at Caltech, and I have a masters in computer science from Princeton, but I would never claim that I'm an expert on climate science or global circulation models. I don't know anyone who is, and I'm tired of reading the extended opinions (on both sides) of people who just see global warming as an ideological problem.
Well, OK, if we're swapping credentials, numerical pde and numerical analysis have been my business for many years. I was head of a research computational fluid dynamics group for 15 years, and wrote a commercially distributed PDE solver used for CFD. I've spent most of my working life as an applied mathematician in Australia's government research organisation (CSIRO), collaborating with the atmospheric research and mineral divisions, among others. I was around, trying to help, in the early days of GCM development there. So yes, I have some idea of what is needed.
You don't even have to be human so long as you can conect to the website...
To challenge an established, well-known, world-wide respected scientist's opinion of something in his field?
Yeah, I'd recommend you allow the people to whom you are opining to see what is in your background that would help your opinion to stand up to said scientist's...
"It's a book about a man who doesn't know he's about to die, and then dies...
...But if the man does know he's going to die and dies anyway. Dies, dies willing, knowing he can stop it, then...
Well, isn't that the type of man you want to keep alive?"
Karen Eiffel, Stranger Than Fiction
I have a huge respect for Dyson, and I think that showed in my post. But his field is theoretical physics and quantum mechanics, and I doubt that he has done much with numerical pde.
I'm not even overly challenging his opinion.
Given his longevity I would bet the numerical algorithms you implemented as computer codes, he used by hand.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
his talk was excellent. You might like the bit about his advice to Crick. He doesn't claim infallibility.
I hope the worst denunciation I ever receive is that I did the things I was supposed to do very well, but didn't do the things I wasn't supposed to.
(which I only watched because I was waiting for my Local on the 8s) they brought up the Newsweek cover story and talked to the editor of the magazine who basically came right out on the air and said that they couldn't present both sides of the topic because it would... (are you ready?) "CONFUSE PEOPLE"!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I hadn't laughed that hard in a while.
Confuse people!
Wow.
Really?
--
Marc Bublitz
Thinking will not be required of the masses. They don't do it well and it causes unwelcome levels of discontent. The selected BIG THINKERS will do everybodys thinking for them. This will cause increased productivity, decreased redundant effort and a generally more orderly society.
After all, Imagine what the world would be like if everybody had their own opinion ?? Chaos I tell you. Utter and complete chaos would result.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
to look like a coordinated blitzkrieg of climate skeptic diaries. Why the sudden desperation?
Exactly (although catastophic is a bit alarmist), so why not stop or at least curtail the injection of human greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, when there are also additional benefits?