Guest Rant of the Week: Climate Change

My coworker, an anthropogenic climate change denier, forwarded me this article about a climate change scientist:

No smoking hot spot

This guy contends, “by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.” Since I’m not exactly knowledgeable in climatology, I asked for by best friend Micah’s reaction. (Micah’s one month away from a PhD in physics from UW). Here’s his response:


My position is that WE DON'T KNOW about the feedback mechanisms that control global temperature.

Cartoon picture: keep track of all the energy coming in and going out. In the (quasi-)steady state, these must be equal. Obviously solar radiation and geothermal energy heat the earth surface; energy is lost by reflection or re-radiation. The loss mechanisms become more effective at higher temps (the heating mechanisms do not depend on temp), and the avg. temperature is the one at which the incoming power is balanced by outgoing power.

The problem is the loss mechanisms are very complicated (the incoming solar flux is pretty easy to deal with). The global climate system is too complex to simulate (ever wonder why your cat is about as good at predicting the weather as the TV weatherman?). So we don't know what is going to happen, but CO_2 levels are higher now than they have been for a very long time, and headed up. Our choice now is to choose whether or not to run the experiment that will show us what happens when you increase CO_2. If we want to see, we can just keep flying, burning coal for electricity, and running our F350s and reading 'Auto Trader' in the store parking lot while our wives are inside chatting up the cashier.

I would not believe any predictions regarding temperature from anybody regardless of their political tendencies, b/c the science is not there. In science you have to be skeptical. To my mind, the pressing problem is not temperature but atmospheric composition, which is not controversial. Neither is the source. It has been widely believed for a long time that increased CO_2 means greater temps via the greenhouse mechanism (the surface cools more slowly b/c long- wavelength radiation is less likely to escape the atmosphere). I assume the 'hot spot' he is talking about is due to the deposition of this radiation in the CO_2-rich atmosphere (at 'normal' CO_2 levels the energy escapes. But it is a complicated system with many factors (e.g. cloud formation, ocean currents, polar ice, etc.). I'm not sure how well the greenhouse effect is understood in real systems (e.g. I don't think we could accurately predict the surface temp. of Venus from knowledge of its orbit and atmospheric content -- but we could say with confidence that it is higher than it would be w/o such a dense atmosphere).

In the same vein I do not believe that failure to observe the 'hot spot’ is definitive evidence that the greenhouse effect is not raising temps. It could be there and unobserved (experiments are really hard -- it took forever to observe the neutrino, with many failed attempts, but, holy shit, it turned out to be real!!). Or the greenhouse mechanism could be working but not exactly as expected. OTOH, if an anomaly was predicted and then observed, I would take that as strong evidence that the theory making the prediction had some validity. I think the public has difficulty dealing with uncertainty in science. Which is too bad, b/c that's mostly what you get.

Oh yeah, and by the public, I mean Al Gore. I thought it was immoral (almost evil) and almost certainly unproductive to insinuate a link between large storms and CO_2 emissions in his movie. It's not that I don’t think such a link is likely (seems very plausible to me), but there is no data yet. When Gore promises that we can avoid trouble by cutting emissions, he is making an assertion that he can not support with anything but a gut feeling. Now every year that doesn't produce a cat 5 storm we will have to listen to a bunch of morons tell us how it’s stupid to conserve energy.

Who knows what will happen as CO_2 levels increase? Personally, I would prefer not to find out.

Some specific responses to the article:

The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

I'm not sure what the scientific consensus is, but I thought warming was still observed and not controversial. I could be wrong. The IPCC report will have a reliable answer (with error bars) to this one.

The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Is he implying that new ice core data contradicts the old data? The dates were very accurate on the old data b/c they were counted BY HAND, and there were many stratiagraphic markers. How did they measure the CO_2 concentrations way back? I bet it is some complicated deductive process with lots of assumptions originating from some isotopic analysis of the ice, and I am quite skeptical that they could say anything definitive about which precedes which. Also, how does one explain the temp. rise associated with large eruptions w/o invoking the greenhouse mechanism?

Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses.

Ummm... what we want to measure is the actual temp. The 'micro-
climates' near urban areas contribute to the global average, too.

Cheers,

Micah

Professional Rant of the Week: Sarah Palin gender card

John Stewart on the double-talk of the Right. Brilliant stuff. I love how he tries, but just cannot contain his anger and disgust.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

Rant of the Week: RNC

So you guys might not have watched much of it, but I did check out a few speeches during the Republican National Convention. One must know an adversary’s positions to counter them, right? Well, it was tough to stomach and I almost blew chunks a few times, but I did manage to learn a few things. Here are a few thoughts.

I know the Democrats came out attacking, but the attacks paled in comparison to the sewer-dwelling lies and fear peddling of the right. It was downright astonishing, even when I fully expected these Rove tactics. Fred Thompson, Rudi Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin offered lie after vicious attack. The Republicans have shown that they want to conduct their campaign just like they conduct their foreign policy: Attack, mock, and bully.

Sarah Palin’s speech had to be the biggest disgrace to American politics I’ve ever seen (okay, maybe I’m forgetting a Bush speech or two). I wanted to come away from Palin's speech with an idea what she stood for. What policies does she advocate? How would these policies bring about the change even the Republicans admit we need? Instead, I saw that Sarah Palin stands for insults, smears, and attacks. Fear Obama! Your taxes will go up (despite his tax plan). Terrorists will win! Gas prices will skyrocket and Saudis will win! FEAR OBAMA! This was the same drivel levelled at the Democrats speech after speech. Please, America. Not this time. Let's make sure the fear peddling and lies doesn't work this time. Not this time.

(One more side rant about Palin. It absolutely cracked me up that the right is pointing both barrels at the media and Democrats for “degrading attacks” on Sarah. First off all, the Obama campaign tactfully had no comment on Palin’s 17 year old pregnant daughter. Not one word from his campaign or any prominent Dem. As far as the press goes, this is a vice presidential candidate you dumb cocksuckers! Is this not news worth covering? If not, what is? The press digs into every single detail of Obama’s life, including his former pastor, his wife, his former acquaintances, people he talked to once, and his house pets. During this pitiful digging, much of which was negative, the right still railed on about “liberal media.” Now when the press does 2 minutes of basic reporting on a vice presidential candidate, the right again plays the “liberal media” card. What were they expecting, the media to ignore a woman that could be our next president? The media is not spreading lies here, this is basic news. What a joke. Drives me completely nuts.)

McCain’s speech was better than Palin's. I was hoping McCain would utilize the same sleazy gutter tactics as his running mate did Wednesday night. While her speech "energized the base," the below the belt attacks did nothing to gain their ticket more votes, only to sicken everyone but hard core Repubs. McCain's delivery wasn't dazzling, of course (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz), and the content was light, but there was more than Palin's (um, that’s not hard). I think the McCain speech was the only thing that saved the RNC from a complete disaster.

The Republicans NEEDED to acknowledge the failure of their party the last 7 years. To continually attack the Democrats for spending and fiscal responsibility run very hollow and hypocritical. McCain's honesty about the failed Bush administration was just what those undecided voters needed to hear. McCain showed some of the McCain of old, the Maverick, who had been in hidding since the campaign started.

Now that the Republicans have co-opted the Dem's theme of change (which is wise), will the public really turn to the same party for change? The same party that has pretty much been right in line with Bush policies, or the party that at least has shown some effort to change things the last few years?

McCain wants to return to the Maverick of old. If he does, that’s great, but he’ll have to flip-flop BACK to his original positions, which he left aside a while ago. If McCain is serious about change, why are his policies all the same as the Bush administration? Why is he still insisting on 100 years in Iraq? Why did he move away from opposing Bush’s tax cuts for the richest Americans? Why does he discount diplomacy is a viable foreign policy tool? Why is he in lock step with Bush on energy issues? Sorry, John, but one speech isn’t enough, and it’s not consistent with the policies you now support. Unless you actually show some real change and change your views to be different from George W. Bush’s why should we really trust you to change Washington?

In addition, if he is indeed tired of the political rancor, then he needs to put a muzzle on his attack dogs. Really, how hypocritical is it to talk about stopping the division and fear, why did his running mate do little but peddle fear and lies Wednesday night? So John, are you going to release the Karl Rove campaign team now that you’re tired of partisan bickering? I doubt it. And I’m not upset about it, as this will once again expose him as a hypocrite.

McCain is going to have a hard time living up to that speech. I feel the GOP is going in two directions at once, with McCain wanting to push his Maverick image while other interests in the party want nothing to do with change. This is going to be hard sell.

Rant of the Week: GOP think tank does not error in Sarah Palin choice

At first when I heard that GOP presidential hopeful John McCain picked Alaska governor Sarah Palin for vice president, I thought it was a stupid move. “Do you really think you’re going to get former Hillary supporters to vote for a woman with very opposite values and political views?” However, after some more thought, I think it was a smart pick by Karl Rove and McCain’s campaign committee.

It’s common knowledge that picking a VP doesn’t buy a presidential candidate many votes. At the most, you might pick up a few more votes in the VP’s home state. Palin has the potential to gain McCain more votes than any other would be VP candidate. What would a pick such as Mitt Romney get McCain? A few votes in Massachusetts still aren’t going to win that liberal state for McCain. He probably would gain a few votes in Utah and the other Mormon states, but he’s got those in the bag already. Sarah Palin, however, creates an opportunity for McCain to pick up quite a few women throughout every state.

Some women are rightfully screaming “how dare you insult us like this? You think you can run ANY woman and get our votes?” No, that’s not what McCain/Rove think. They don’t care about the offended liberal women—their votes aren’t up for grabs. These liberal, thoughtful women, whether they originally supported Hillary or Obama, are now solidly behind Barack Obama. Fortunately for the Dems, polls are showing that the party is not as divided as the media was pushing. However, there still are some really pissed off bitches out there who continue to swear that they will not vote for Obama. Let me give you an example of a post of one such woman:

valwayne wrote:
Hillary last night showed why she should be the nominee of the party. She showed what an enormous mistake "The Obama' made in not offerring her the VP spot. And she showed how a true stateman/woman behaves even in the face of a continuous barrage of contempt and humilation for "The Obama. Rather than a huge party nominating Hillary who would be ahead 20 points in the polls the party is stuck with an inexperienced, incredibly arrogant, and sexist man with a messiah complex. Even in victory he can't treat Hillary and Bill with respect. There is nothing in this world more ugly then a bad winner who insists on rubbing it in your face. The rest of Hillary's supporters can bow down and worship at the altar of "The ONE they've been waiting for”, but I will never vote for him. Hillary 2012

Okay, here we clearly have a psycho Hillary supporter who obviously could give a shit about the values that Hillary stood for. Despite the fact that her candidate Hillary gave a very convincing speech for Obama and frankly asked her supporters to vote for him, they are undaunted in their hatred of Obama. Despite the fact that Hillary’s platform is nearly identical to Obama’s and very different from McCain’s, these women could give a flying ****. They never were true Democrats, never were true Hillary supporters, and they never were voting for values or issues. There's no other logical answer besides that they want a woman in the White House. Period.

Some of these women could be bluffing, and could actually end up holding their nose and voting for Obama. However, if people like the woman above are dead serious, they are debating whether to not vote at all or vote for McCain. McCain’s pick of Palin could tip the scales, resulting in some of these women voting for his ticket.

One could argue that these people he picks up would be offset by those he could lose in picking such an inexperienced (or insert your other critique) VP candidate. Maybe the new news that Palin’s 17 year old daughter is pregnant will hurt them. Frankly, I doubt it. As far as I’m concerned, regardless of how unhappy everyone is with Bush, Karl Rove and the Republican think tanks are the champions until defeated. Once again we see why.

Recipe of the Week: Thai Green Curry

Thai Green Curry Paste

6 – 10 jalapenos, seeded and chopped
2 T. chopped garlic
1/4 c. chopped shallots or green onions
1 T. chopped ginger
1/4 c. cilantro
1.5 t ground coriander
1 t. caraway seeds
3/4 t. ground black pepper
1 t. ground cumin
1/2 t. ground nutmeg
1/4 t. ground cloves
2 t. grated lemon rind
3 to 4 T. vegi oil

Puree the ingredients in a blender to a smooth paste, adding oil as needed. Makes around 1 cup of paste.

Mix the curry paste with coconut milk for a killer green curry. I’d mix 1 cup paste with about 1.5 cups coconut milk. Add 1 T fish sauce (or some salt), 1 pound chicken, beef, pork, and/or vegis, a couple teaspoons lemon juice, and a bunch of fresh basil and mint.

Rant of the Week: Olympics (or “I'll zuke if I see one more gymnastics routine or beach volleyball match”)

So the 2008 Olympics have come to an end. As usual, I have some thought to impart.

On NBC and Olympics coverage: My biggest grips with the Olympics were the primetime content and the marathon of commercials. There were many exciting events that went uncovered by NBC, at least during their primetime schedule. I was really looking forward to watching some Olympic soccer, but alas, it was completely ignored. After being spanked by Brazil in the world cup, our women’s soccer team was not expected to beat Brazil in the finals. They pulled off a great win, which didn’t seem to interest the network in the slightest. Our men didn’t do so well, being knocked out in the group stage, but we didn’t see the great semi-final matchups of Argentina and Brazil and Nigeria and Belgium, or the final when Argentina beat Nigeria by one goal. That irks me more than anything. I was also looking forward to watching our softball team kick ass. Unfortunately, Japan surprised us with a 3-1 win. But you had to read the news to find that out, as NBC could have cared less about the sport. That night we saw BMX racing and even MORE fucking gymnastics (even though the medal events were over it was merely the gymnastics’ own closing ceremonies where we get to see all our cute stars do meaningless performances. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.)

Yes, I saw enough gymnastics to vomit uncontrollably. Sure, I can understand showing the team competition and individual events, but why do we have to see all the qualifying bullshit too? Same goes for swimming and track and field. How about a diversity of events on primetime instead of filling up 75% of primetime with three events: swimming, gymnastics and track. We saw every freaking time Michael Phelps entered the pool but nothing of judo, badminton, handball, or hockey. Of the other 25% of programming, 15% was taken up by beach freaking volleyball. As SI.com’s Dr. Z said, “When I die and go to hell, hell will be beach volleyball -- for all eternity.” I’m not sure if lots of perverts tune into this sport just because the female athletes’ uniforms are composed of all of about 6 square inches of fabric or what, but it’s definitely wrong.

Of course NBC’s choices comes down to catering for the market. I’m sure they’ve done a bunch of surveys that show that Midwest families eat up gymnastics like Wonder Bread. I guess my tastes are out of line with most Americans. So I can’t really fault NBC with their primetime coverage, but that doesn’t mean I can’t rant about it. Plus, I didn’t watch the daytime programming although I could have taped it and watched it later. Additionally, supposedly the Olympics has a great website where you can watch soccer matches in their entirety and other sports dissed by NBC. The endless litany of commercials, however, squarely falls on the shoulders of NBC. I truly hope many Americans got so sick of the advertisements that they turned off their televisions. Unfortunately, I doubt this was the case. Any NFL fan can tell you that the commercials are insane, but at the same time, football enjoys greater viewing than every before. Thank God for DVR/Tivo.

Track and field: Not a lot of words here, just a huge congrats going out to Jamaica. What an impressive showing for the small island nation, and what a fun thing to watch. While some Americans cried and whined about their silvers and bronzes, the jamacans were busy kicking our asses. Hopefully this serves as a bit of humility for the States (even though, despite all the headlines about us choking on a few events, we still ruled track).

Usain Bolt’s antics on the 100 meter race didn’t sit well with me. It’s not that he disrespected his competitors, it’s that he disrespected a sport, where an athlete is supposed to give it their all, not prance down the last 20 meters thumping your chest like you’re T.O. headed in for a touchdown. I would suspect he was talked to about this ego problem, and was happy to see that Bolt took this criticism into account. He ran the 200 meter all out, and was a good sport in the 4x100 relay as well. (One of the coolest moments in the Olympics for me was to watch how absolutely and honestly ecstatic Michael Johnson was about Bolt breaking his record. See the celebration on You-Tube here.) Anyway, huge “big-up” to the Jamaican track team. Thanks for some of the greatest Olympic moments of 2008. I really, really hope all of them are drug free.

China gymnast age controversy: Lots of things I could say about China, including non-games related issues such as Darfur or the romantized Tibet; lots of stuff I could say about its behavior during the games, such as detaining protesters and denying visas to athletes. But what I want to rant about is the issue of these young Chinese "woman" gymnasts. While I was watching the Olympics with my parents, we weren’t immediately aware of the 16 year age limitation. We thought several of these Chinese girls were around 11 or 12. You’ll hear a few people talk about “how dare you make judgments on their age just from their appearance!” Yes, gymnasts look younger anyway, but give me a freaking break, a few of these girls look a few years off puberty and one girl is missing what appears to be a baby tooth. Despite China’s effort to erase all evidence, there are documents indicating that He Kexin is 13 and Jiang Yuyuan is 14. I know, I know, innocent until proven guilty, but my money is on China cheating. If they are caught, of course all medals obtained by under age gymnasts should be stripped, including their team gold. Never mind that it’s debatable how much being young is actually an advantage. Rules are rules, and 14 year-olds living in Kansas, Russia and Japan were denied the opportunity to compete because of these rules. I can’t see any other option here.

First of all, the US needs to quit screaming and crying about it. First of all, we had the opportunity to beat this Chinese team if it weren’t for several bad chokes. The Chinese deserved to win and I don’t want to hear any excuses for taking silver. Secondly, I don’t want to hear any righteous, holier-than-thou talk from Americans about using children and subjecting them to lots of stress too early in life. Did we forget 6-year olds in beauty pageants, 5th graders in spelling bees, and 11-year old boys playing little league games that come out on top of national TV sports ratings?

My final point is this: This age issue is an all-around sad situation for EVERY gymnast involved, from China and the US. If China gets caught, my heart goes out these young girls, who undoubtedly didn’t have any say in the matter whether they competed or not. These girls will pay the price of getting their medals stripped for what? Powerful, greedy men, who care only to brag of their nation’s victories.

Slacker Rant of the week: More on energy

Been too busy this week to write a real rant. I need some help from you guys. I'll be bothering you this week to fork out a guest rant. You guys have a lot of stuff you can school people on. I want to hear it.

I did take a few minutes to reply to Micah's comment on last week's rant. This will have to serve for now.

once we get some realistic system to control CO_2 production, the cost of the oil will not be the limiting factor. smoke 'em if you got 'em, cuz it's gunna be a different world. just my opinion.

Never thought of that. That's not surprising—after the last 10 years, regulation was the farthest thing from my mind.

on a different note, i've often heard oil companies blame the lack of refining capacity for high gas prices. this seems like utter bullshit (why wouldn't some entrepreneur just build a new refinery and sell for less??).

Definitely. Many refineries are running near capacity. So why aren’t more being built? According to a comprehensive report on the state of the US refining industry conducted by Senator Ron Wyden, 24 refineries have been closed down between 1995 and 2001. Why? From the BBC article:

US environmental laws have made it near impossible to build refineries close to residential populations. But the primary motive behind the lack of US refinery new builds is a basic one, a lack of profits for oil companies.

Wyden uncovered several memos and internal documents from major oil companies. These charted the way that capacity in the US refining industry was reduced to maintain higher profits.

Wyden received one such memo from oil company Texaco, written in 1996. The company felt it was quite clear that petrol supplies needed "reducing."

"The most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity," said the memo.

"The same situation exists for the entire US refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing the demand for gasoline."

Interesting stuff. Maybe I need to go back and amend my rant about how rising gas prices aren’t the fault of oil companies….

i like you idea of an apollo-style effort in AE. BUT i think there has been a pretty sustained effort for about 30 years w/o much real success (e.g. we have a national lab in your home state dedicated to renewables: http://www.nrel.gov/). nobel laureate walter kohn (UC santa cruz) has spent much of his career working on AE. he says that solar and fusion are the only reasonable alternatives. fusion still has echnological problems, and solar still costs more than dead dinosaurs.

I’ve heard this before, but this is the first time I’ve heard it from someone with a credible background in science with left-leaning views. This usually comes from folks who say “nothing packs the punch that oil does, therefore we should stop waiting time and money on renewables.” My answer is twofold: well then what do you plan to do when gas becomes too expensive for you to buy it and not enough R&D has been done to make that determination yet. It’s pretty scary to think that might not be the case. Do you think incentives, subsides, and pouring more government money into research will yield any advancements or do you think Kohn and company’s work is about as definitive as it will get? If many renewables aren’t economically feasible with $4/gallon gas, are they more competitive when gas gets to $8 a gallon?

personally, i think there is no "alternative". the answer is to (drastically) reduce the amount of energy we use. i propose doing this by designing our society to be efficient: live in moderate climates, don't travel much, don't transport things long distances, don't support such a large population of humans. if we cut our pop. to 500 million our environmental problems would quickly disappear....

Well that should be easy, Prange. ;-) But I agree that conservation must play a huge part. Even if we can’t transition to these societal changes right away, we can start doing somethings now.