Saturday, October 04, 2008
I've taken a few body blows this week, so I figure, why not take on more?
I belong to that category of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptic that is skeptical of all sides in the debate.
A better way to put it is that I'm interested in anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change and what to do about them.
I remember that the fear in the 70s was of "global cooling". A very interesting page on wikipedia is on Global Dimming. Stop reading me now, go read that, it's interesting, trust me, regardless of what you think of carbon credits.
I'm distressed that the satellite temperature data we have only starts in 1979, right after that cooling period, and frustrated that even the satellite data seems to be inaccurate and subject to revision.
The ground station temperature data is almost hopelessly polluted by the urban heat island effect, the changes in tracking methods (whitewash, siting and paint problems) over the last century are disturbing, and Hansen's methods and data adjustments nearly impenetrable.
Really good work on the ground station issue and temperature tracking methods is being done by volunteers at: http://www.surfacestations.org/. This particular chart of measured error in the surface station data is really interesting:
There's even a google earth mashup and photo gallery of every station surveyed, and a howto on how to join the effort. My hat is off to the amateurs in this project.
There is an open source effort going on that is trying to pick apart the software that is being used to analyze global warming. (I can't find it this morning, but I am very happy that the code is out there, being independently analyzed, even improved. More science needs the input of the open internet and open source programmers)
I have tried hard to find sites that seem reputable that are doing non-consensus research. I like:
Real Climate, Watt's up with that and Climate Audit.
... because alternate and falsifiable hypotheses are what science is all about.
Update: When I first wrote this I committed a cardinal sin in not posting any pointers to non-global-warming-skeptical sites. New Scientist, a nearly complete convert to AGW, tackles many myths with great success. As always, I enjoy the comments, and the ongoing research into bad data behind the 45-79 cooling trend.
At the moment I'm willing to defer judgment on the amount of global warming that is anthropogenic until the middle of Solar Cycle 24, which will be a few years yet. Sunspots do seem to correlate with the earth's temperature, although research is ongoing. See: Maunder Minimum.
Cycle 24 is quite delayed.
The controversy over the effects of Sunspots can only be resolved by more data and time. The whole climate change field needs more data and time and less politics.
Secondly I've concluded that many major valleys in global temp are related to catastrophic events such as asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions. It will take just one wayward asteroid to render this whole debate moot. I wrote a piece once, trying to be morbidly funny, about encouraging more volcanoes to blow. It turned out to be a somewhat valid approach...
It's harder to figure out the peaks. I buy that we are in a long term warming period, with periodic downticks. Based on the solar data, I think a downtick is coming up, moderated by AGW only somewhat. How moderated remains to be seen, but I've moved to the tropics because I prefer heat over cold.
For the record, I don't agree with the hockey stick theory of runaway global warming.
This makes the whole GW debate much-less-life-threatening and great fun, and you'll find me arguing in favor of AGW with a Republican and against with a Democrat simply because I believe in the primacy of doubt.
As for CO2 levels, I'm concerned but not alarmed. (I hate that the most commonly published graph starts at 280 ppm and ends at 380 ppm, which shows a much more alarming slope than reality) CO2 is good for plants. We need more plants. And less people. And nuclear power. And solar/wind/geothermal energy. I'd favor all these things even if global warming didn't exist. Flattening mountains/polluting rivers for coal, and going to war in the Middle East for oil has no appeal.
And that said, I have difficulty buying into CO2 as the major GW cause. Other compounds and processes are potentially far more potent for heating and cooling.
Meanwhile... the decline of life in the seas is well documented and world threatening. Peak fishing was in 1988. I'd like it if there was someone of the stature of an Al Gore - or better Jacques Cousteau - talking coherently about it... because we'll be down to eating plankton and jellyfish before long if we don't do something about it.
The pirates in Somalia got their start in the early 90s because they needed to defend their fisheries from international fishing fleets.
Lobster used to be food for the poor.
A crash of the economy would be good for Mother Earth, methinks.
Bonus link: Some debate about alternative energy
(This post started as a failed comment on Doc's blog. Hopefully I've figured out trackbacks now)
I've been closing out a lot of pieces lately with song lyrics, because, well, because - poetry and music carry feeling that is impossible to express in numbers and graphs.
Today's tune-age comes from The Door's "Strange Days" record. The final track was When the Music's Over... a portion of which goes:
What have they done to the Earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences
And dragged her down
I belong to that category of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptic that is skeptical of all sides in the debate.
A better way to put it is that I'm interested in anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change and what to do about them.
I remember that the fear in the 70s was of "global cooling". A very interesting page on wikipedia is on Global Dimming. Stop reading me now, go read that, it's interesting, trust me, regardless of what you think of carbon credits.
I'm distressed that the satellite temperature data we have only starts in 1979, right after that cooling period, and frustrated that even the satellite data seems to be inaccurate and subject to revision.
The ground station temperature data is almost hopelessly polluted by the urban heat island effect, the changes in tracking methods (whitewash, siting and paint problems) over the last century are disturbing, and Hansen's methods and data adjustments nearly impenetrable.
Really good work on the ground station issue and temperature tracking methods is being done by volunteers at: http://www.surfacestations.org/. This particular chart of measured error in the surface station data is really interesting:
There's even a google earth mashup and photo gallery of every station surveyed, and a howto on how to join the effort. My hat is off to the amateurs in this project.
There is an open source effort going on that is trying to pick apart the software that is being used to analyze global warming. (I can't find it this morning, but I am very happy that the code is out there, being independently analyzed, even improved. More science needs the input of the open internet and open source programmers)
I have tried hard to find sites that seem reputable that are doing non-consensus research. I like:
Real Climate, Watt's up with that and Climate Audit.
... because alternate and falsifiable hypotheses are what science is all about.
Update: When I first wrote this I committed a cardinal sin in not posting any pointers to non-global-warming-skeptical sites. New Scientist, a nearly complete convert to AGW, tackles many myths with great success. As always, I enjoy the comments, and the ongoing research into bad data behind the 45-79 cooling trend.
At the moment I'm willing to defer judgment on the amount of global warming that is anthropogenic until the middle of Solar Cycle 24, which will be a few years yet. Sunspots do seem to correlate with the earth's temperature, although research is ongoing. See: Maunder Minimum.
Cycle 24 is quite delayed.
The controversy over the effects of Sunspots can only be resolved by more data and time. The whole climate change field needs more data and time and less politics.
Secondly I've concluded that many major valleys in global temp are related to catastrophic events such as asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions. It will take just one wayward asteroid to render this whole debate moot. I wrote a piece once, trying to be morbidly funny, about encouraging more volcanoes to blow. It turned out to be a somewhat valid approach...
It's harder to figure out the peaks. I buy that we are in a long term warming period, with periodic downticks. Based on the solar data, I think a downtick is coming up, moderated by AGW only somewhat. How moderated remains to be seen, but I've moved to the tropics because I prefer heat over cold.
For the record, I don't agree with the hockey stick theory of runaway global warming.
This makes the whole GW debate much-less-life-threatening and great fun, and you'll find me arguing in favor of AGW with a Republican and against with a Democrat simply because I believe in the primacy of doubt.
As for CO2 levels, I'm concerned but not alarmed. (I hate that the most commonly published graph starts at 280 ppm and ends at 380 ppm, which shows a much more alarming slope than reality) CO2 is good for plants. We need more plants. And less people. And nuclear power. And solar/wind/geothermal energy. I'd favor all these things even if global warming didn't exist. Flattening mountains/polluting rivers for coal, and going to war in the Middle East for oil has no appeal.
And that said, I have difficulty buying into CO2 as the major GW cause. Other compounds and processes are potentially far more potent for heating and cooling.
Meanwhile... the decline of life in the seas is well documented and world threatening. Peak fishing was in 1988. I'd like it if there was someone of the stature of an Al Gore - or better Jacques Cousteau - talking coherently about it... because we'll be down to eating plankton and jellyfish before long if we don't do something about it.
The pirates in Somalia got their start in the early 90s because they needed to defend their fisheries from international fishing fleets.
Lobster used to be food for the poor.
A crash of the economy would be good for Mother Earth, methinks.
Bonus link: Some debate about alternative energy
(This post started as a failed comment on Doc's blog. Hopefully I've figured out trackbacks now)
I've been closing out a lot of pieces lately with song lyrics, because, well, because - poetry and music carry feeling that is impossible to express in numbers and graphs.
Today's tune-age comes from The Door's "Strange Days" record. The final track was When the Music's Over... a portion of which goes:
What have they done to the Earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences
And dragged her down
Labels: global warming, science
¶ 11:52 AM
Comments:
<< Home
The following was anonymously in my mailbox this morning. I am reposting it so I can address it...
-----------------------
In short, dropping the plate breaks it. Picking up the pieces doesn't fix it. This is a one-way function.
You don't think we've fucked up the planet, or rather, you think we are 'fucking up' the ocean, but the rest is just chicken-little noise? Well, go and dig up the JASON reports from the 70s and read those. Then read the political mechanisms that picked up on the JASON reports, and how the 'we must, absolutely must discredit this work, sooner is better than later' work that began immediately.
I am not a scientist, I am a generalist. I've been poking around in the woods, some of the same woods my whole life. I work with and play with natural resources scientists all the time. I've WATCHED FIRST HAND the climate change my whole life. I don't
really give a fuck what folks who are proxies for the energy companies have to say.
You think there there is disconnect between the decline of the oceans and climate change. Sure, on the one hand, the haber-bosch process that lends to us the ability to totally destroy our soils and waterways with staggeringly huge amounts of ammonium-nitrates, depleting the soils, and creating the dead-zones, driving the phytoplankton colonies into expand and collapse cycles the likes of which we are only just beginning to comprehend, the very source of the oxygen that we breathe is in jeopardy.
It's also true that the oceans are becoming more acidic, causing the phytoplankton to have their calcium dissolved. The carbonic acid is killing the oceans. Oh, but that has no bearing on climate change.
Sorry, I'm seeing it all happen right before my eyes.
I don't give a shit about satellite data, charts and graphs.
I am watching it.
Solar cycles my ass.
We dropped this plate.
We, and the rest of life on this planet will have to make good on these debts.
I have hundreds of examples. But, as you said, you are fixed in your opinion on this matter. That's fine. I was a bold blog entry, and I salute you for it.
Me, again, I'm a generalist. I know what I am watching happen is real.
Take care, keep it up.
-----------------------
In short, dropping the plate breaks it. Picking up the pieces doesn't fix it. This is a one-way function.
You don't think we've fucked up the planet, or rather, you think we are 'fucking up' the ocean, but the rest is just chicken-little noise? Well, go and dig up the JASON reports from the 70s and read those. Then read the political mechanisms that picked up on the JASON reports, and how the 'we must, absolutely must discredit this work, sooner is better than later' work that began immediately.
I am not a scientist, I am a generalist. I've been poking around in the woods, some of the same woods my whole life. I work with and play with natural resources scientists all the time. I've WATCHED FIRST HAND the climate change my whole life. I don't
really give a fuck what folks who are proxies for the energy companies have to say.
You think there there is disconnect between the decline of the oceans and climate change. Sure, on the one hand, the haber-bosch process that lends to us the ability to totally destroy our soils and waterways with staggeringly huge amounts of ammonium-nitrates, depleting the soils, and creating the dead-zones, driving the phytoplankton colonies into expand and collapse cycles the likes of which we are only just beginning to comprehend, the very source of the oxygen that we breathe is in jeopardy.
It's also true that the oceans are becoming more acidic, causing the phytoplankton to have their calcium dissolved. The carbonic acid is killing the oceans. Oh, but that has no bearing on climate change.
Sorry, I'm seeing it all happen right before my eyes.
I don't give a shit about satellite data, charts and graphs.
I am watching it.
Solar cycles my ass.
We dropped this plate.
We, and the rest of life on this planet will have to make good on these debts.
I have hundreds of examples. But, as you said, you are fixed in your opinion on this matter. That's fine. I was a bold blog entry, and I salute you for it.
Me, again, I'm a generalist. I know what I am watching happen is real.
Take care, keep it up.
You don't think we've fucked up the planet, or rather, you think we are 'fucking up' the ocean, but the rest is just chicken-little noise?
No, I'm certain we're fucking up the ocean. I'm also reasonably certain that mitigations exist that have been demonstrated in the field - establishing ocean reserves, limiting the size of the take, increasing the allowable size of the fish, eliminating destructive fishing practices, fish farming, and lowering nitrate/ammonia run-off - are all methods that can be implemented better than they are today.
I am considerably less certain as to the causes of global warming, and the cures.
Although the JASON report made headlines recently, I have not found a copy.
Given the level of computing technology of the time of the study, and the isolation of the analysis to CO2 only in the very complex climatic system, I tend to think that more recent models are probably worth paying more attention to.
More recently, the EPA issued an excellent report on climate change that I highly recommend be read by everyone.
I don't really give a fuck what folks who are proxies for the energy companies have to say.
I haven't had an energy company send me a check ever. I must be a tool, huh?
You think there there is disconnect between the decline of the oceans and climate change.
Climatic effects are a part of the decline of the ocean's productivity, but may not at present be the primary cause. I'm open to more data, but I would like to see the proven solutions get implemented soon.
It's also true that the oceans are becoming more acidic
To be pedantic, the oceans are
becoming less alkaline. I agree with you on the calcification issue, and worry about that quite a bit.
See for example this study (performed on too little data, IMHO)
You are fixed in your opinion on this matter.
Huh? I cast aspersions on some of the raw data, suggested a few drastic solutions, tried to point to the ocean problem as being something easier to solve, and I made two definitive statements - 1 - that I didn't buy into the hockey stick and 2) was willing to wait a few years for the sunspot cycle (and more data on all the other avenues of research on global warming) to come in.
Lastly, I note that I sometimes write to cheer myself up. I too tend to think the population of homo sapiens has overshot.
No, I'm certain we're fucking up the ocean. I'm also reasonably certain that mitigations exist that have been demonstrated in the field - establishing ocean reserves, limiting the size of the take, increasing the allowable size of the fish, eliminating destructive fishing practices, fish farming, and lowering nitrate/ammonia run-off - are all methods that can be implemented better than they are today.
I am considerably less certain as to the causes of global warming, and the cures.
Although the JASON report made headlines recently, I have not found a copy.
Given the level of computing technology of the time of the study, and the isolation of the analysis to CO2 only in the very complex climatic system, I tend to think that more recent models are probably worth paying more attention to.
More recently, the EPA issued an excellent report on climate change that I highly recommend be read by everyone.
I don't really give a fuck what folks who are proxies for the energy companies have to say.
I haven't had an energy company send me a check ever. I must be a tool, huh?
You think there there is disconnect between the decline of the oceans and climate change.
Climatic effects are a part of the decline of the ocean's productivity, but may not at present be the primary cause. I'm open to more data, but I would like to see the proven solutions get implemented soon.
It's also true that the oceans are becoming more acidic
To be pedantic, the oceans are
becoming less alkaline. I agree with you on the calcification issue, and worry about that quite a bit.
See for example this study (performed on too little data, IMHO)
You are fixed in your opinion on this matter.
Huh? I cast aspersions on some of the raw data, suggested a few drastic solutions, tried to point to the ocean problem as being something easier to solve, and I made two definitive statements - 1 - that I didn't buy into the hockey stick and 2) was willing to wait a few years for the sunspot cycle (and more data on all the other avenues of research on global warming) to come in.
Lastly, I note that I sometimes write to cheer myself up. I too tend to think the population of homo sapiens has overshot.
well Dave;
I think what yer anonymous coward was saying, neatly parallels my own experience. To his(her?) comment concerning your fixed opinion, I think that was kinda mean spirited. I personally have some respect for your sense of rigor. And yes, a sense of rigor when it comes to the climate debate, is tricky. As the proxy comment, I think you took that wrong, though understandably. I think your coward meant that the numbers are being munged, and have been pretty much from the outset. There is a lot of talk about how the 'climate skeptic science' is being quashed, when in fact, the pressure in the other direction began immediately, when the hard science started to draw high confidence trends. From the Reagan years forward, the push has been to supress anything that might upset the growth at any cost applecart. I'd put it in Nixons lap, if it weren't for some pretty compelling signs that Nixon actually expressed interest in objectivity. Hence his founding of the Office of Technology Assesment, the OTA which Reagan gutted. The Jason stuff is out there. The push back against the findings of Jason began immediately.
Going into the ocean de-alkaline-ing, or whatever. Acidification is actually -near as I can tell- the correct term. Few months back, in conversation with a fellow who does water quality analysis for a living, as an organic chemist, I posed the question, "How on earth, do you measure Parts Hydrogen correctly? I've tried to get real numbers on the pH of water for years, and I've found my results to be so inconsistent that I just don't trust any of the methods currently being used by the run-of-the-mill field sampling techniques out there." (note, I'm one of those certified fresh water stream monitoring technicians). He responded that measuring parts hydrogen is actually pretty tricky, and is parts hydrogen what I really wanted. "Yeah, of course. Powers of Hydrogen, Parts Hydrogen, Potential Hydrogen, whatever you call it. That's what all the measuring stuff is calibrated in. Those nifty ubiquitous Oakton digital meters that /everyone/ uses, and such, are scaled in pH, and again, I see very inconsistent results. Results that don't make sense. I ain't no scientist, but I ain't stupid neither. I don't trust the standards." Well, says he, there is a lot to it.
as you know, your work sheets ask for temp, pH, and conductivity as a minimum. And pH isn't what anyone is really looking at. What we need to know, for the most part, is the Acidity. "huh?, isn't that kinda the same thing?" Nope. It isn't. the pH of the water is just a point of reference, what's in the water is much more important. Water that is clear, very very cold, but has gigantic amounts of dissolved calcium and hydrochloric acid may have a neutral pH, but you don't want to make your iced tea with it, cause when it warms up, , ,
Anyway, more to the point acidification, or the addition of acids, is the subject at hand. Acidification, and decreasing alkalinity *can* be the same thing, but aren't necessarily the point.
Moving along.
Anthropogenic climate change.
Lemme give you a micro example.
Up here in West Virginia. For the benefit of others, (as always) The Backbone Mountain Wind Farm or Mountaineer Wind Energy Center or whatever ya wanna call it, went online in 2002. On the windward side of wind farm, there have been 3 significant 'rain events' since they started putting up the turbines. These are rain events that have no precedent. The lack of precedent is evidenced by the significant stream bed damage done by these rain events. Remediation of which has been only partially successful, and have had a large taxpayer, or public expense. I know the folks who designed and contracted some of the stream bed restoration along the tribs to Horseshoe Run, down near Leadmine WV. Now. Common Sense tells me, that the windfarm essentially raised the ridgeline some 300'. Skeptics will say that no man made thing can have any effect. I counter, oh yeah? Well, where did all that power come from then? If there was no effect on the prevailing winds, then there would have been no power harvested. Maybe it's an artifact, maybe it's just coincidence, but I find that very unlikely. The ridge was raised up, the weather changed. The rainfall, while not necessarily predictable, did, in fact change. More rain fell here, less rain fell there. The documented stream bed erosion is factual. Stream bed erosion, increased turbidity, soil loss, benthic macroinvertebrate populations depressed, or outright killed off. More to the point, changed. Where one population is artificially depressed, others exploit the gap. The trout leave/die. The trout's place in the ecosystem is lost. The water quality degrades. The 'trend' of change downstream is reinforced. The oceans suffer.
This is real anthropogenic climate change. This is ocean decline.
I'm a fan of wind turbines (heh). However, wind farms are being built /not/ to displace coal, but rather to augment, in order to 'fuel the country's need for growth'. Growth, which by the way, resembles a cancer more than a move towards maturity.
This is one tiny example, I have hundreds. Dozens that are my personal tiny observation from a short lifetime of observing change. What the pros in the field of natural biology call 'the decline'.
Sure, you can argue it. You can say it's not happening. (not you personally, but you metaphorically) You can say that it's all silly, I can only say I saw what I saw, in my short lifetime. I saw the affect, I may be wrong to attach causality to my common sense take on what happened to horseshoe run. And i know the logic of proving a negative. However, sit there and tell me that nothing happened, that it is coincidence, not artifact; and I'll assume not skepticism, but denial.
Yeah, yer anonymous coward wasn't showing respect for your sense of scientific rigor, and assumed things about you that just aren't backed up well. If I were you, I'd have been hurt. I think they owe you an apology.
That said, I hear what they are saying, and I agree with the point of view, though not the sentiment, which was probably just lashing out due to fatigue over the destructive, and suicidal nature of the 'debate'.
--me
I think what yer anonymous coward was saying, neatly parallels my own experience. To his(her?) comment concerning your fixed opinion, I think that was kinda mean spirited. I personally have some respect for your sense of rigor. And yes, a sense of rigor when it comes to the climate debate, is tricky. As the proxy comment, I think you took that wrong, though understandably. I think your coward meant that the numbers are being munged, and have been pretty much from the outset. There is a lot of talk about how the 'climate skeptic science' is being quashed, when in fact, the pressure in the other direction began immediately, when the hard science started to draw high confidence trends. From the Reagan years forward, the push has been to supress anything that might upset the growth at any cost applecart. I'd put it in Nixons lap, if it weren't for some pretty compelling signs that Nixon actually expressed interest in objectivity. Hence his founding of the Office of Technology Assesment, the OTA which Reagan gutted. The Jason stuff is out there. The push back against the findings of Jason began immediately.
Going into the ocean de-alkaline-ing, or whatever. Acidification is actually -near as I can tell- the correct term. Few months back, in conversation with a fellow who does water quality analysis for a living, as an organic chemist, I posed the question, "How on earth, do you measure Parts Hydrogen correctly? I've tried to get real numbers on the pH of water for years, and I've found my results to be so inconsistent that I just don't trust any of the methods currently being used by the run-of-the-mill field sampling techniques out there." (note, I'm one of those certified fresh water stream monitoring technicians). He responded that measuring parts hydrogen is actually pretty tricky, and is parts hydrogen what I really wanted. "Yeah, of course. Powers of Hydrogen, Parts Hydrogen, Potential Hydrogen, whatever you call it. That's what all the measuring stuff is calibrated in. Those nifty ubiquitous Oakton digital meters that /everyone/ uses, and such, are scaled in pH, and again, I see very inconsistent results. Results that don't make sense. I ain't no scientist, but I ain't stupid neither. I don't trust the standards." Well, says he, there is a lot to it.
as you know, your work sheets ask for temp, pH, and conductivity as a minimum. And pH isn't what anyone is really looking at. What we need to know, for the most part, is the Acidity. "huh?, isn't that kinda the same thing?" Nope. It isn't. the pH of the water is just a point of reference, what's in the water is much more important. Water that is clear, very very cold, but has gigantic amounts of dissolved calcium and hydrochloric acid may have a neutral pH, but you don't want to make your iced tea with it, cause when it warms up, , ,
Anyway, more to the point acidification, or the addition of acids, is the subject at hand. Acidification, and decreasing alkalinity *can* be the same thing, but aren't necessarily the point.
Moving along.
Anthropogenic climate change.
Lemme give you a micro example.
Up here in West Virginia. For the benefit of others, (as always) The Backbone Mountain Wind Farm or Mountaineer Wind Energy Center or whatever ya wanna call it, went online in 2002. On the windward side of wind farm, there have been 3 significant 'rain events' since they started putting up the turbines. These are rain events that have no precedent. The lack of precedent is evidenced by the significant stream bed damage done by these rain events. Remediation of which has been only partially successful, and have had a large taxpayer, or public expense. I know the folks who designed and contracted some of the stream bed restoration along the tribs to Horseshoe Run, down near Leadmine WV. Now. Common Sense tells me, that the windfarm essentially raised the ridgeline some 300'. Skeptics will say that no man made thing can have any effect. I counter, oh yeah? Well, where did all that power come from then? If there was no effect on the prevailing winds, then there would have been no power harvested. Maybe it's an artifact, maybe it's just coincidence, but I find that very unlikely. The ridge was raised up, the weather changed. The rainfall, while not necessarily predictable, did, in fact change. More rain fell here, less rain fell there. The documented stream bed erosion is factual. Stream bed erosion, increased turbidity, soil loss, benthic macroinvertebrate populations depressed, or outright killed off. More to the point, changed. Where one population is artificially depressed, others exploit the gap. The trout leave/die. The trout's place in the ecosystem is lost. The water quality degrades. The 'trend' of change downstream is reinforced. The oceans suffer.
This is real anthropogenic climate change. This is ocean decline.
I'm a fan of wind turbines (heh). However, wind farms are being built /not/ to displace coal, but rather to augment, in order to 'fuel the country's need for growth'. Growth, which by the way, resembles a cancer more than a move towards maturity.
This is one tiny example, I have hundreds. Dozens that are my personal tiny observation from a short lifetime of observing change. What the pros in the field of natural biology call 'the decline'.
Sure, you can argue it. You can say it's not happening. (not you personally, but you metaphorically) You can say that it's all silly, I can only say I saw what I saw, in my short lifetime. I saw the affect, I may be wrong to attach causality to my common sense take on what happened to horseshoe run. And i know the logic of proving a negative. However, sit there and tell me that nothing happened, that it is coincidence, not artifact; and I'll assume not skepticism, but denial.
Yeah, yer anonymous coward wasn't showing respect for your sense of scientific rigor, and assumed things about you that just aren't backed up well. If I were you, I'd have been hurt. I think they owe you an apology.
That said, I hear what they are saying, and I agree with the point of view, though not the sentiment, which was probably just lashing out due to fatigue over the destructive, and suicidal nature of the 'debate'.
--me
I have seen, also, great improvements in my lifetime. In the 70s, you could rarely see across the Ben Franklin Bridge in Philadelphia. Thanks to the Clean Air Acts, today that air is clear.
Yet, there has been a marked deterioration in the air quality in California, slowed briefly by the crash in 2000. The last time I was back there, the Valley was terrible.
China adopted drastic measures just to get through the Olympics, I kind of hoped that they would continue. I got a kick out of the odd/even license plate scheme, and thought it would do wonders for Los Angeles and other smog bound cities.
As for the post-hoc alarmism about the Jason report - every idea, every inconvenient fact that has ever challenged the established order has always met with opposition from the established.
Take the decades long battle about smoking, for example.
While I point to the decline of intelligence in America to the takeover of cigarettes from pipe tobacco, and the subsequent decline in smoking, I'm glad that fewer are getting hooked, and more living longer.
I miss William F Buckley's erudition and stabbing smoky cigars...
I resent the overwhelming focus in America on "Growth" and "Price", when I would prefer our attentions be focused on "Quality". I have spent my life in search of Quality, wherever I could find it, ever since I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.
Seeing ever bigger houses filled with ever more valueless stuff from Wall-mart, garbage dumps filled with stuff that could be recycled, the endless fashion driven obsolesce of everything from mp3 players to cars depresses the hell out of me.
People do want quality - back in the 70s a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty on a new car was unheard of, and thought to be impossible.
I wish there was a better measure of what we all want from life than GDP, call it: ANP - Appropriate National Product, focused less on industrial output and financial flows, and more on a good sunset, a peaceful heart, and the company of good friends.
Everything man does has a side effect, some good, some bad. Your point about a negative side effect of windfarms is well taken, I have the same concerns about coating the deserts with solar cells. We are all well aware of the problems nuclear power brings, and yet despite my trying for nearly a year now, I have yet to get a straight answer on the requirements of nanosolar's technology. It is important to move forward and at the same time be aware of what can go wrong.
I applaud recent efforts to make more energy efficient devices, which tackles the problem from the consumption side. There is plenty left to be done about consumption - I'd start with turning the description of "consumer" into a four letter word!
I also have hope that during this downturn, more people pay more attention to quality rather than price, and take care of their stuff.
When I lose heart, I close my eyes and channel the endless optimism of Bucky Fuller, who wrote endlessly about how "We can do more with less".
Some favor Malthus - "Less of us can do more" - and that outcome may well be upon us - but I retain hope that forty years for now, as some machine generates new lungs for me after a lifetime of abuse, that we can look upon the 80s, 90s, and 00s as only a temporary aberration of sanity in the bulk of humanit.
Post a Comment
Yet, there has been a marked deterioration in the air quality in California, slowed briefly by the crash in 2000. The last time I was back there, the Valley was terrible.
China adopted drastic measures just to get through the Olympics, I kind of hoped that they would continue. I got a kick out of the odd/even license plate scheme, and thought it would do wonders for Los Angeles and other smog bound cities.
As for the post-hoc alarmism about the Jason report - every idea, every inconvenient fact that has ever challenged the established order has always met with opposition from the established.
Take the decades long battle about smoking, for example.
While I point to the decline of intelligence in America to the takeover of cigarettes from pipe tobacco, and the subsequent decline in smoking, I'm glad that fewer are getting hooked, and more living longer.
I miss William F Buckley's erudition and stabbing smoky cigars...
I resent the overwhelming focus in America on "Growth" and "Price", when I would prefer our attentions be focused on "Quality". I have spent my life in search of Quality, wherever I could find it, ever since I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence.
Seeing ever bigger houses filled with ever more valueless stuff from Wall-mart, garbage dumps filled with stuff that could be recycled, the endless fashion driven obsolesce of everything from mp3 players to cars depresses the hell out of me.
People do want quality - back in the 70s a 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty on a new car was unheard of, and thought to be impossible.
I wish there was a better measure of what we all want from life than GDP, call it: ANP - Appropriate National Product, focused less on industrial output and financial flows, and more on a good sunset, a peaceful heart, and the company of good friends.
Everything man does has a side effect, some good, some bad. Your point about a negative side effect of windfarms is well taken, I have the same concerns about coating the deserts with solar cells. We are all well aware of the problems nuclear power brings, and yet despite my trying for nearly a year now, I have yet to get a straight answer on the requirements of nanosolar's technology. It is important to move forward and at the same time be aware of what can go wrong.
I applaud recent efforts to make more energy efficient devices, which tackles the problem from the consumption side. There is plenty left to be done about consumption - I'd start with turning the description of "consumer" into a four letter word!
I also have hope that during this downturn, more people pay more attention to quality rather than price, and take care of their stuff.
When I lose heart, I close my eyes and channel the endless optimism of Bucky Fuller, who wrote endlessly about how "We can do more with less".
Some favor Malthus - "Less of us can do more" - and that outcome may well be upon us - but I retain hope that forty years for now, as some machine generates new lungs for me after a lifetime of abuse, that we can look upon the 80s, 90s, and 00s as only a temporary aberration of sanity in the bulk of humanit.
<< Home
