"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith
Reading Between The Lines 06/25/09 9:59am You know, if someone really
wishes to know the truth about Global
Warming™
or whatever they are calling it these days
(come to think of it, maybe it's "Climate
Change"™ now - hard to hit a moving target)
all you have to do is keep a relatively open
mind. The bits and shards of proof are all
over, popping up in the damnedest places
when you least expect it. Once you start
noticing these things and start adding them
up
Recently I was following a news
lead completely unrelated to climate when,
on the page that I was on (I think it was
the LA Times) these was a small feature
link. Low on the page and illustrated with a
small half-inch by half-inch graphic, it was
a "10 things you probably didn't know about
Southern California's coast" photo feature.
I clicked on it and rumbled through,
reading the micro-facts that I didn't know
about SoCal's coast. Then, right there at
the
tenth selection the copy said: "The
level of the sea is rising at about 3
millimeters per year — and it's been rising
for the last 18,000 years." Huh? Wait.
I thought that sea level rise was all the
fault of human activity, pouring tons of CO2
into the air every minute since the
industrial revolution. Clearly by this
source, the LA Times - not exactly a bastion
of anti Climate Change™ skepticism, the sea
has be rising far longer than man has been
"spewing". I assume the writer consulted
some fact source before committing those
figures to screen rather than invent them
out of whole cloth. I wonder how that got
past the liberal dogma enforcers at LAT?
There's no hiding to my thoughts on
Climate Change™, this blog is dedicated to
my
thoughts on it after all. The climate has
been changing since the earth was created
and it will be changing, getting hotter and
cooler, far into the future and anything
that man is doing CO2-wise has little to do
with it. Proof has been coming out for years
now that the sun's activity is more the
cause than us and just because the eco-Nazis choose
to ignore the reports doesn't make them any
less true. But also let me reiterate, only
because the eco-wacko left tries to tar
climate skeptics as polluters: That is not
to say that we shouldn't be good stewards of
our environment (no peeing in the rivers and
dumping your old sofa in the creek). CO2
however, is the plant food in the symbiotic
relationship between man and the earth. We
expel what they need and they expel what we
need. Cozy. I like it.
How Much Carbon Anyway? 04/22/09 3:59am
You see the numbers all the time. Carbon dioxide emmisions of mankind into the atmosphere. Expressed in metric tons it looks pretty ruinous (for the record man releases around 27,245,758
metric tons, by fossel fuels, a year
depending on economic activity). But how
much IS that anyway. Really. How much
CO2 are we adding to the atmosphere? After
all, the earth is a pretty big place and the
atmosphere takes up a huge amount of area
around it. The figures I have are that of
the total earth's atmosphere, 2% of
that is greenhouse gasses. Of that
percentage, 3.67% is the CO2 that everybody
talks about. Of that percentage,
3.97% is CO2 that man contributes. But how
much is that exactly? It is an
obviously a small percentage of a small
percentage of a small percentage but what
does it look like? Big as a house or the
size of the sun? A pimple on a bull's butt?
What? It's hard to visualize and, you know, visuals make things much easier to
understand.
So show me the money.
So I busted out the old TI-1795 (solar powered) and a drawing program to see what 3.97 of 3.67 of 2 percent looks like. Below is what I got, illustrated as best I could figure out. Take a good look. (copy continued below)
So you see what we've got here? The end result is that little black square in the middle of the yellow square (directly above). That my friends is man's contribution of CO2 into the earth's atmosphere. I had to break it down in this way because, at the starting scale (the blue square up there), man's contribution would show up as an area
much, much smaller than a period (.) on this page.
This
is why I say that nothing about Anthropogenic Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever they are calling it these days) passes the common sense test when you look at any of the real numbers. This also reinforces the much more commonly held view (among the real adults) that the sun and the oceans are the primary drivers of climate temperature.
Perfectly natural.
Big Question For All Comers REPOST FROM 07/17/2007 5:26 pm
There's one question about our climate that I have been seeking an answer on and even the eco-wackos can't seem to help me out. First a little climate background. The climate of the earth has been hot and cold and everything in between since the creation. Look, the Vikings didn't name that big island they settled "Whiteland". They called it "Greenland" for very good reason . . . it was green. Obviously is was a lot warmer then, the Vikings were farming the place.
So that kind of begs the question: With all of the radical temperature fluctuations through the ages, which climate is the best? At one point they were growing wine grapes in Britain. At one point glaciers covered our (North America) northern tier. At both of these extremes mankind got along quite well as did animal kind. So, what makes this climate so important that it must be preserved at all costs? What makes the climate we have now the right one?
The Best Kind Of Environmentalism 07/30/08 9:52am
This is the kind of environmentalism I like. Financed by private investors, tested by private firms, bought by private individuals and firms for private use to benefit them and the world in general. No government subsidy. No government mandate. No government punishment (because it doesn't benefit a preferred social group or lobbing entity). No government tax to kill it.
This is "SkySails" [Link To Article], a propulsion boosting sail that can be retrofitted onto ocean going ships (or built into new I suspect) to tow them along using wind power thereby saving fuel. Tested on 13 identical ships, Sky Sails says:
". . . savings of more than 15% can be achieved. 'Wind is always cheaper than oil and in the light of oil prices going up every day and new emissions regulations, more and more shipping companies are convinced of the performance capability of the SkySails propulsion,' . . . "
The captain of the ship in the video above estimates a savings of 4 tons of fuel a day. SkySails also says that some 60,000 of the approximately 100,000 existing ships worldwide are suited for retrofitting with SkySails propulsion. Just an idea whose time has come.
The only gripe I have with the article is near the end where SkySails proclaims: "With SkySails technology employed systematically throughout the world, it would be possible to save over 150 million tons of climate-damaging CO2 emissions every year." There still is no proof that CO2 emissions from man are damaging the climate. In fact the opposite opinion has been growing from previous "climate alarmists" (see my "Global Warming™ — Grab Your Gloves And Galoshes"
post just below). Obviously SkySails feels that they are unable to make a case on just the fuel savings and speed benefit alone (which they should easily be able to do), so they mindlessly perpetuate an untrue and unsubstantiated claim. Shame on them for that, it hurts us all but you gotta give props where props is due . . . viva SkySails!! PERMALINK
Global Warming™ — Grab Your Gloves And Galoshes 07/22/08 9:52am
I started to smell some reports on this about nine or ten months ago (maybe as long as 18 months) and the facts are fast starting to build to an obvious crescendo. The planet is cooling. And fast.
One the latest articles has been written by Dr. David Evans, a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005. Dr. Evans, previously a Global Warming™ alarmist (his term not mine), now points out that since 1999 the evidence of CO2 being the cause of Global Warming™ has weakened. The money shot from Dr. Evans:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Rather than me take away all of Dr. Evan's fun you can read the full article [here]. Meanwhile a few months ago a Canadian outfit (the National Post) layed out a number of facts that have been cited by the more level-headed among us but derided by the eco-facists [Link]. Some of the points:
~ In one year we've had the fastest temperature change ever recorded, up or down [Link].
~ Record cold temperatures in January and early February all over the globe.
~ Arctic ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker than at this time last year.
~ Oleg Sorokhtin, at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." and based on the new evidence is advising people to "stock up on fur coats."
Meanwhile, DailyTech, a very good science blog, is reporting that a "Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming". Read that [Here] or a NOAA report here [Here].
It's no secret where I stand on the Global Warming™ or the Climate Change™ issue (the eco-facists keep changing it to suit the argument). I believe that Global Warming™ from man's activity is a bunch of hooey. That is not to say that we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment (no peeing in the rivers). Just on the face of it doesn't make common sense. For example, C02 is only 2% of the total of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and of that portion, man contributes .28%! I find it hard to fathom that a quarter of a percent wreaks the havoc the enviro-facists subscribe to. Just on that fact alone, the theory of Human Induced Global Warming™ is crazy. Add to that inaccurate climate modeling, facts not matching the statements (enviro-fascists like Al Gore say that C02 levels cause temperature rises when they actually follow by as much as 800 years), evidence that Global Warming™ is caused simply by the activity of the sun and you have a theory that is starting to come apart at the seams.
So where do we go from here? Who knows. At this point the politicians, always behind the curve, and their sycophants on the political left with skin in the game (Al Gore for example), are trying to ride Global Warming into controlling every aspect of your life. From the cars you drive (and how far) to stuffing you into block apartments to where you buy food to how you carry it home. If they are left unchallenged the top down control of society that the book "1984" outlines will be a mere walk in the park in comparison. PERMALINK
Easy To Read Primer On Global Warming™ Published 02/19/08 9:27am
Quite a few people have a hard time getting their brain around Global Warming™. I admit that it took me a time to grasp the facts of it, as opposed to the dribs-and-drabs sound bites we get from an essentially ignorant media. In my darker moments I smell a media conspiracy but that's another subject altogether.
But this next bit is important. The National Center for Policy Analysis has produced a very simple to understand Global Warming Primer. Go here: [Link]. The primer is based on a review of currently available scientific data.
I suggest that anybody who is even minutely interested in GW to peruse it. It is simple to understand (using graphs and charts) and the facts are unimpeachable. I found pages 5-8 interesting with page 8 being the payoff.
Obviously, this primer was compiled before the recent research that is signaling that we are now entering a cooling period (reduced sun activity) that could end-up being quite cold. More on that later. PERMALINK
Columnist Responds To My Big Question™ 02/16/08 10:27pm
Well, I finally got a Global Warmest (Human Induced variant) to answer my Big Question™. For those of you who are not familiar with my Big Question Quest™, I have distilled, what I believe to be the seminal question about Global Warming™, into a few easy to understand sentences that most any moron can answer. If they know the answer that is (I sure don't know what it is). No mind numbing twenty-five cent words from academia. Just some common sense. I have been asking this question around quite a bit, to different journalists and pundits, through postings on blogs or direct communication vie e-mail. And have yet to get an answer . . . until a few days ago from a columnist working for Seattle’s preeminent leftist daily - the Seattle P.I. From none other than (drum roll please) politics and public affairs columnist Joel Connelly. Mr. Connelly has written a number of times about Human Induced Global Warming™ and frankly, the guy doesn’t really get it, apparently parrotting whomever/whatever sounds good to him. But the important part is that he thinks he gets it. Without further ado, my e-mail to Joel:
Joel, The climate has been warming and cooling since the dawn of time. Nothing we are experiencing today hasn't happened before. At one space in time they were growing wine grapes in the UK. At another space in time the Brits were skating on the Thames. Through it all mankind, human kind and plants got along just fine. It is also fact that humans, animals and plants survive warmer weather much better than cold.
So, knowing that long term variations in climate are a given what makes present day environmentalists like yourself, so sure that this climate we have right now is the right one? Knowing that nothing we are experiencing today climate-wise hasn't happened before, what facts show that this climate should be preserved at all costs?
Sincerely,
Lo and behold, Mr. Connelly (quite quickly, must have got him at a good time) responded in typical leftist fashion, not with facts or logic but name calling (I'm a “new Holocost denier”):
Extreme arrogance does not excuse ignorance. Just take a look at our forests and glaciers, at recent fires and heat waves and early season storms, at the melting of the polar ice cap and the movement of species. Global warming deniers are the new Holocaust deniers, but more dangerous . . . One group denies what's about to happen, the other refuses to acknowledge what has happened.
Jc
Some of you may notice that Joel didn’t answer the question. I responded directly:
It seems that you cannot read. Or if you did read it you did not understand. I have not denied anything about global warming. We have also had the coldest temperatures on record. The Antarctic ice pack is the thickest since records keeping began. Any scientist will tell you that wild fires have little to do with global warming. You need to use proper examples. Will you answer the question or not?
Regards,
So here I sit. A few days now, waiting for Mr. Connelly to respond. When he does I will update this post. I'm hopeful. Maybe he'll get some big wig at the university to give him some ammunition.
UPDATE: As of today, 6/20/08, Mr. Connelly hasn't replied. Not that I really expected him to at this point. As soon as I get some spare time I will pester him again and see what he says.
UPDATE: On January 15th I once again sent another e-mail to Mr. Connelly asking him the same question. This column, over at soundpolitics.com, prompted me to write to Joel again and ask The Big Question again.
©
