Ice Age (not the movie)

It's been over a year since I wrote Stupid Letters, The Global Warming Scam, and Science? I Think Not! As you may recall, I've noted that the best predictor of Earth's climate is not CO₂, but solar activity.

So, since a noble squirrel friend pointed me towards this article in the UK Daily Mail, I thought I'd make a quick post about it.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

of course, this can't be right, can it?

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

So we have the battle of astronomers and climate scientists using actual data, against climate "scientists" who cling to their computer simulations. The points I think are worth learning from all of the brouhaha are:

1. The Earth's climate is constantly changing. Global warming Climate Change is not something new.
2. Despite our desire to have everything about us, not everything is about us.

That's not to say that I don't think we should respect the environment or conserve energy (I do), but simply that alarmist propaganda is just that - a manufactured crisis in order to create an opportunity to push an ideological agenda.

Read More

CEASE Procreating

OK, I've been blogging about population control, especially my most recent one on the WHO's (World Health organization) and it's time to tell you some things that they, and the UN FPA (United Nations Population Fund) don't want you to know about. In fact, the current administration, the EU, Planned Parenthood, the global warming climate change disruption people and lots of other groups don't want you to know this.

There is no overpopulation crisis. If anything, there is a coming underpopulation crisis. I know, I didn't believe it myself, until I did the research and the math. I'd had it drummed into my head for decades that the world was overpopulated and that was the cause of all human woe. I believed what I'd been taught.

But I'm also Pro-Life (if you haven't guessed by now) and at some point I had to be able to answer the question "if women don't have abortions what are we going to do with all the babies we can't feed?" The answer is that we will feed them, and love them as the gifts they are.

But don't take my word for it. Watch this overly cute video (and if you are so inclined videos 2 and 3 in the series):



How could Malthus be so wrong? As I mentioned earlier, his assumptions were wrong. First off, food production doesn't increase geometrically. Food is alive. That means it too reproduces, and at rates faster than people. In a free market economy when food becomes scarce, the price goes up, and that encourages more people to invest in, you guessed it, food production. It all works out!

Secondly, as our level of technology improves, so does the amount of food we can produce. Mechanical harvesters made a huge difference in the 19th century, and even today, satellite technology is improving crop yields and allowing us to farm land that wasn't usable just a decade ago.

As for the video's "outrageous" claim that the world can live in Texas, here's the math:

Texas has a land area of 268,820 square miles. That's 7.5 trillion square feet. Divide that by the current world population of 6.8 billion and you get 1100 square feet per person or 4400 square feet per family of 4. That's a 44x100 foot lot, which is about the size of the lot I grew up on (which was 50x100).

OK, we can house them, but how would we feed them? Look at India. India is self-sufficient in terms of food (it exports grain), feeding it's 1.1 billion on a land mass 1/3 the size of the USA. How many people could the US feed with existing farm land and existing technology?

The total area of the US is 3,794,101 square miles, of which 18.01% is arable. That's enough to feed 3.5 billion people using "standard" methods. That's using existing numbers for land use and for technology. If we wanted to we could farm more land than we do now. And that's not counting other countries. Russia could feed 7 billion alone (based on existing arable land in Russia).

Yes, I understand, some of us like meat, and that takes more land, but in this scenario the entire world (outside of Texas) is available for food production. Then again, considering how much I like steaks, perhaps we'd better move the people out of Texas and use it for beef!

Read More

CEASE Pollution

Matt Archbold, over at the National Catholic Register, wrote an article "Anti Baby Science" about a Scientific American article "Will Birth Control Solve Climate Change?". This brings up a topic I've been meaning to blog about for a long time, population control. As I pointed out in "When you're holding a hammer", the solution to all problems is CEASE - my acronym for "Contraception, Euthanasia, Abortion, Sterilization and Eugenics".

First off, let me say I disagree with Mat ton one important point. This is not science. If you read the article, the "work" is funded by science grants, and is done by "scientists", but it is not science. They run population simulations based on their assumptions of what people will do, and come up with resulting levels of greenhouse gas emissions. That is not science, that is speculation.

It calls to mind the work of an earlier "scientist", Thomas Malthus. With just as little data and just as few facts, he produced a simulation that showed the world's population running out of food in the next generation. The problem is Malthus made his prediction in 1798. Needless to say it didn't happen, because his assumptions were flawed.

Likewise, the models these "scientists" are using for their "science" is flawed. I don't have space here for (nor are you probably interested in reading) a blow-by-blow critique of the article, but let's look at a couple of major flaws.

The first flaw is the assumption is that global warming is caused by people. You can read "Science? I think not!" for my take on that. The second is the assumption is that technology will not change, and no scientific advances can be made. It boggles the mind that the same people who make predictions about future societies based on applying Moore's Law to information technology fail to be able to admit any progress can be made in agricultural or industrial technology.

Ultimately though, the purpose of this "science" is not to advance human knowledge (how can it? As the saying goes "garbage in, garbage out"), but to justify a political socioeconomic agenda of CEASE. In that regard, they are doing a fine job. More on this as time permits.

[NB I apologize for using so many Wikipedia references. I have found Wikipedia to be biased, incomplete and downright wrong on just about every subject on which I have enough knowledge to intelligently critique it.^* For that reason, I generally try to reference original sources rather than Wikipedia's. However, time did not permit finding better references for this post.

* For those of you who think I am just a crank, the subjects I am referring to are things like photography, physics, optics, astronomy, and computer science.]

Read More

The Global Warming Scam

H/T Adrienne's Corner:

No doubt due to my excellent arguments in my blog post "Science, I think not!", Professor Emiritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara resigned from the American Physical Society, stating (emphasis mine):

For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

You can read about it in the Telegraph, the San Diego Examiner or on CBS News.

Read More

Real Climate Research

If you recall my recent post "Science? I think not!" I presented links to data showing how climate was affected by solar radiation way more than any human controlled factors. Well, more evidence is on the way. According to NASA scientists in the article "Getting to the SORCE of Climate Change":

...the phenomenal interconnectedness of each aspect of our world leads to misconceptions and incomplete notions regarding climate change. On Jan. 25, 2003 NASA will be launching the SOlar Radiation & Climate Experiment, or SORCE spacecraft...

More info about the SORCE (SOlar Radiation & Climate Experiment) satellite can be found at NASA's web site. A good summary is found at Ar Technica's post about a recent paper in Nature [link to the paper is with the article but you have to pay to read it - boo]:

In a recent issue of Nature, Joanna Haigh and colleagues report that the largest deviation from predicted activities of the solar cycle occurred between 2004 and 2007, when the Sun’s activity was in a decline. Data from the Spectral Irradiance Monitor (SIM) instrument showed a four- to six-fold larger decrease in ultraviolet irradiation, and an increase in visible irradiation, compared to predictions from a leading solar model. A second instrument on the SORCE satellite, the Solar Stellar Irradiance Comparison Experiment (SOLSTICE), also observed the drastic variations in the ultraviolet region.

The wavelength of solar irradiation determines what part of the atmosphere is affected the most. Ultraviolet irradiation leads to chemical reactions that produce more ozone in the stratosphere and warm up the stratosphere and mesosphere. Irradiation in the visible wavelengths penetrates further, leading to heating of the Earth’s surface, troposphere, and lower stratosphere.

Of course, this is still data gathering, but it will be nice to have some actual facts inserted into the climate debate, rather than computer simulations.

Read More

Science? I think not!

My son came home on the second day of school with a science project assigned - to give a talk about "controversial science". Of course, I began salivating immediately, as we began to discuss ideas. In the course of our discussion, it became clear that this science teacher was promoting ideas that, while politically popular, were not supported by fact. My son said he was a bit confused because I exhibit some behaviors that would lead him to think I believed in the junk science, while in fact I oppose it. So I explained a whole lot of things to him, and thought I might do the same here.

For instance, I know that anthropogenic global warming er, I mean climate change um... anthropogenic global climate disruption is a load of hooey. If you look at actual scientific data (which is hard to find, by the way - our governments have done a good job of repressing it) there are two conclusions which can be drawn.

First, there is no data that supports the theory. There is no correlation in historical climate data between human influence and temperature. In fact, there is a strong correlation between solar activity and temperature. This makes sense when you think of the vast amount of energy delivered to Earth by the sun (174,000,000,000,000,000 or 174 petawatts) versus the minuscule changes in the greenhouse effect that humans have made. Even a tiny fluctuation in solar output has a large effect on our climate.

Secondly, there is no science involved. The climate models that have been publicized are computer simulations that are just plain wrong. The code that was published does not even properly handle historical data (e.g. if you plug in data up to 1950 it predicts we'll all die by now). Instead the authors have written the code to throw away the output of the model on historical data and simply output its input, so it appears to follow the Earth's actual climate to date. As Climategate has shown us, the "scientists" who promote the theory are biased and doing bad/no science, just politics.

On the other hand I do recycle, compost and try to reduce my energy consumption where possible. Why? Because of my faith. I want to be a good steward of the natural resources God has given me. Just because we are not going to die from melting glaciers in 10 years doesn't mean I should needlessly squander God's creation.

I read somewhere that Americans make up 5% of the Earth's population, but consume 25% of the available energy and raw materials. I believe that everyone should be able to live the best lifestyle possible, and in that regard it is up to those who have to at least allow for that possibility. That means either generating five times as much energy/pollution/waste/etc. or using 80% less of it ourselves.

Granted, not using a resource doesn't put it in the hands of someone else, but on the contrary, using a resource does keep it from someone else. In other words, I do not take the position "you must stop your CO2 emissions so that I can drive my SUV". I would rather say "I will forgo my SUV so that you can drive a car if you want." (guess where I stand on "cap and trade"?). I use this as an example not because I believe in global climate whatevertheyaresellingthisweek but because gasoline is a resource. I could say the same of paper, aluminum, steel, or any other thing I consume.

I bothers me when people I respect and consider intelligent, like Jeff Miller or Jimmy Akin post stories about how they are against "going green" or tweet that they are going to leave lights on or turn up the AC to protest those who conserve. I agree that too many people go too far, or push their own "too much of you, just enough of me" agenda, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for crunchy Catholics, or those of us who, like me, fall somewhere in the middle of things.

Read More

Junk? Science?

I recently stumbled upon a "60 Minutes" (for those abroad "60 Minutes" is an hour long weekly news show) video segment from April 22, 2009 (my anniversary! Yay!) about Cold Fusion. "Isn't that just junk science?" you might ask. Well, check out the video and come on back for the rest of this post.

I remember the day 20 years ago sitting in my Bell Labs' office, pondering with my office mate whether or not the discovery would be confirmed. "I'd bet against it" he stated, matter of fact-ly. That way if it's fake at least I win the bet, and if I lose the bet at least we'll have cheap energy. I wasn't such a pragmatist. I really wanted it to work. My friend and I actually spec'd out palladium, so if the experiment were confirmed we could grab some before the price went through the roof and start experimenting with our own cells.

Alas, it was not to be. When the news came that results could not be duplicated, I was crushed. But some people didn't give up hope, and it seems for 20 years they've been trying to duplicate the experiments of Pons and Fleischman, with varying decrees of success. Now, according to 60 minutes, there are a number of experimenters who have results that are indisputable. Of course, most scientists still dispute it, and I would hardly consider 60 Minutes to be my weather vane for science. Still, I hope the effect turns out to be something real, although I'm not pricing palladium this time.

If there's any moral to this story it's this. We are taught in science class, and indeed even in history class that scientific discoveries are absolute and empirical, and that they are based purely on observation, hypothesis, prediction and test, using reason and logic only. The truth of science is it is filled with as much faith, doubt, and uncertainty as the religion some scientists spurn.

So, don't hold your breath, but you might want to look into deuterium futures. What do you think?

Read More

e-book bash wrap up.

OK, I promised to blog more on e-books, and never did. If you remember the list I did not address.

1. E-book readers suck.
2. E-book readers are hard to use.
3. Professors wanted to be "on the bandwagon".
4. Batteries die.

Quite frankly I'm not sure how much addressing this needs. We've been promised fuel cells and all sorts of batteries that will run for many many hours and can be recharged instantly. The technology isn't there. The long last batteries are proprietary, and batteries I can change quickly and find everywhere don't last.

I have used a Kindle, and although I think it is probably the best e-book reader out there, the speed with which I can turn pages and find an arbitrary spot in a book is pitiful. Not to mention the need to use the tiny keyboard.

Paper is cheap, easy to manipulate, and a pencil is a great annotator. e-books are a solution looking for a problem they can solve better than existing solutions. So for all I would like one, I don't want to give up the convenience of books.

And with that I'm going to go on to other stuff...

Read More

White is Green

In keeping with my Use Paper and Save Trees post, I came across this article today. It talks about how Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, wants to "paint the world white" to fight global warming. In fact he feels so strongly, he says "I think you should regulate." Does this make sense?

At first glance, this is a stupid idea. The average albedo of the Earth is 0.367. Pavement has an albedo of 0.05 to 0.4, and gets lighter as it ages. So one might consider 0.1 a pessimistic average albedo for paving. Using all light colored paving (0.4, rather than 0.05) would reflect about 35% more light. How would that change the average albedo of the Earth? Barely at all. The same argument can be made for roofs.

However, let's consider some other aspects of the change. The heaviest concentration of roofs and paving will be in urban areas, where the heat from all those buildings and roads has a disastrous effect on local climate and comfort. Certainly making buildings and roads a lighter color would improve life for city dwellers.

But that's just the start of it. Lighter colored buildings will absorb less heat, requiring less energy for air conditioning. Lighter colored roads will require less lighting at night which will also save energy. Saving 35% off an air conditioning bill is a significant change. Heating and air conditioning is the second largest consumer of energy in this country (after automobiles).

So the science is sound (as the native Americans of the American Southwest or the inhabitants of Saharan Africa or the Mediterranean could tell you). Light colored buildings and road make sense. Should this be a matter for federal regulation, however? There I have to disagree. Simply publicizing the cost savings should be enough for businesses and municipalities to want to take part. If needed, local building codes could be changed. Putting federal regulation in place is just a grandstanding waste of my money. So I guess we'll be regulatin' then.

What do you think?

Read More

Use Paper and Save Trees

I just read an article "6 Lessons One Campus Learned About E-Textbooks" by Jeff Young (AFAIK, no relation to Jeff Young), and had some thoughts about e-books to share.

First off, let's briefly go over the 6 lessons:

1. E-book readers suck.


2. E-book readers are hard to use.


3. Professors wanted to be "on the bandwagon".


4. Batteries die.


5. Some subjects' E-books are worse than others.


6. E-books save trees.

Now I am a techie kind of guy, and I wold love to have some sort of E-book, if they had even most of the benefits of a paper book, but sadly that is not the case. Here are my pet peeves about E-books. Since they are long, I'm going to cover one lesson/peeve per blog post.

E-books kill trees?

Yes, I know they just said in that learned article that they save trees. By "trees" I mean "The Environment", just to be clear. A search on the internet leads me to believe one tree produces 8,000-9,000 sheets of copy paper (which goes to show that I'll believe almost anything). Let's say I'm taking 5 courses and each textbook is 800 pages. Ignoring the fact that textbook pages are thinner and smaller than copy paper, I am using about 1/2 a tree per year. Of course, the average textbook will last more than a year (I have some from my college courses mumbly years ago). Assuming some the textbooks get sold back to the campus book store and resold until they fall apart, we'll be picky and say the average textbook will last 2 years. So the environmental cost of the books is 1/4 tree/year.

Now let's say I throw out those pesky textbooks and get a laptop. I say laptop because of the problems with an E-book reader (which I'll get into later). That laptop takes something like 2000 KWH of energy to produce (hard to find figures online, mine were actually based on energy cost of manufacturing a desktop computer, which I'm assuming is similar. A laptop has less plastic and steel, but also has batteries and more exotic materials, so I'm guessing the numbers are comparable). Electricity is produced at the rate of 2460 KWH/ton, so the laptop uses about 1600 pounds of carbon. A tree absorbs 13 pounds of carbon/year, so that laptop consumed the equivalent of 125 tree years, or about the equivalent of 6 "paper" trees (assuming trees grow for 20 years before being made into paper).

Of course that laptop lasts more than just one year. Again hard to find numbers, but averaging a bunch of sources the laptop can be expected to last 3 years. So we have manufacturing environment impact for the laptop of 2 trees/year. Oh yeah, the laptop also has other uses, but since we're a student, we're going to spend as much time in class, studying, reading, etc. as we are playing games/music, etc. (most of the time we're doing both), so I'll reduce that by a factor of 2 and call it 1 tree/year.

So, just by manufacturing, the books are ahead by a factor of 4. We still haven't considered the electricity used to run the laptop. Assuming it's on for 6 hours a day (class time plus homework plus study time) and uses 50 watts we have bout 200 pounds of coal or 3/4 of a tree/year in electricity to run the laptop.

Final score:

	Paper Books	Laptop
Tree equivalent	0.25/year	1.75/year

Now, let's consider that we eventually throw out the textbook and the laptop. The textbook is almost entirely recyclable (except for the ink) at very low energy cost. The laptop is difficult to recycle, and requires lots of energy to do so. And when it gets into a landfill, the textbook is biodegradable, whereas the laptop will ast for centuries, leaching chemicals into the soil.

I agree the numbers would be closer if we were talking about a dedicated E-book reader, like the Sony or Amazon readers, but I don't think you can get below (or even meet) the tree-friendliness of real books. Stay tuned to see the next exciting blog post on this topic.

Read More