The Last Frost

So Called "Myth" #2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: The hockey stick graph is incorrect because it failed to record several known dips and spikes in temperature. Also that it's a flawed 'computer construct'. [Read their original argument here - Myth #2]

The Truth: This argument is so completely incorrect I'm not sure they're even talking about the same 'hockey stick' graph. The hockey stick is a temperature graph covering the past 1,000 years in the Northern Hemisphere. It's also one of the key compilations of scientific data that shows recent temperature increases.

They give examples of several periods of known climate variation that are left off the graph. The Medieval Warm Period they say was left off which I see as clearly marked, they also mention the Little Ice Age, which I also see clearly marked.

Hold on a second now, they also mention a 30 year period from 1940-1970 when the globe was actually cooling, which then resulted in a global cooling scare. I don't know about you guys, but I see a clear dip during the period they were talking about and that part of the graph is based on actual temperature readings… so it damn well better be accurate.

As for the whole global cooling scare, keep in mind this was before we knew jack about the complexities of the environment we live in. In the early 40's we didn't even know that radiation was bad for you. Environmentalism didn't exist, environmental science was practically unheard of. So arguing that a global cooling scare some 35 -65 years ago has some bearing on current global warming trends, which are based on hard scientific data, is just plain irresponsible. 

But is the graph inaccurate?
The data is estimated, yes. But inaccurate to the point of irrelevancy like they want you think? Absolutely not.

Since accurate temperature records don't really exist before the mid 19th century, scientists have to use other methods to estimate the average temperature across the globe during these periods. Using what are known as proxy methods, climate scientists study things that have a correlation with temperature to then estimate actual temperatures. For instance, the width of tree rings has a correlation with temperature, as do the composition of trapped air bubbles in ice core samples. By studying these things, scientists can indirectly measure temperature where that data would otherwise not exist. That's how we end up with 1,000 years of temperature data and hence the hockey stick graph. It's simple scientific method, it's how we know about the dinosaurs and the concept of evolution.

The graph is not the result of a computer model like they suggest when they refer to the graph as a 'faulty computer construct'. They are miss-informed or they are lying, probably the later. 

Common misconceptions about global warming – [Friends of Science]

Friends of Science My Ass, more like friends of the devil! By devil I mean fossil fuel based energy companies. So these guys have a page on their site listing 10 global warming 'misconceptions', and all 10 are either phrased to mislead or are flat out bullshit… so I'm calling them out.

One myth debunked per-post, for a total of 10 posts. It's like the 12 days of Christmas and the 8 days of Hanukkah… averaged! Anyway, here's part 1 of 10. Read on…

These so called Friends of Science claim that the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is incorrect. Well in their own words, "we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of the Kyoto Protocol and present alternative causes for climate change." Alright, so they are against the Kyoto Protocol, yet they acknowledge that climate change is occurring, just that it's not caused by people? Fair enough, they don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, so let's jump right into their bullshit global warming myths.

So Called "Myth" #1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

Their Argument In A Nutshell: That there has not been, "any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures" in the last 30 years. Warming has been shown in readings from ground stations, but those readings are invalid because the increase is within the range of natural variation. The ground stations also tend to be placed in areas which are increasing in population and therefore are subject to 'heat island' effects. [Read their original argument here - Myth #1]

The Truth: This is a carefully crafted argument that is designed to guide the reader towards a false conclusion while not actually saying anything false. They argued that there has been no "significant change in the long term RATE of increase". What they say is actually partially true, there hasn't been a significant change in the RATE of warming in the last 30 years, but there HAS been statistically significant warming. Even if the Earth were warming by 10 degrees per year their statement would still be true, that's why it's so misleading and that's why it's bullshit.

They then focus their energy on invalidating ground based data on the basis that they are not uniformly placed across the globe. This also might be a decent argument, but what they fail to recognize is that there is much more data available to climate scientists than just ground based measurements and they all point towards the same conclusion. Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. There are ice core samples which help correlate atmospheric composition with past warming trends dating back thousands of years. There is now loads of satellite data rolling in which give us accurate big picture measurements which also point towards the same conclusion.

So pick on ground based measurements all you like, but it's not the whole truth.

Common misconceptions about global warming – [Friends of Science]

'Smokey' Joe Barton, a beady eyed rat of a politician that I'm ashamed to share a birthday with, has been a long time proponent that global warming is bullshit. He's entitled to his opinion sure, but when you're a freakin' congressman it might be a good idea to at least attempt to stand up for the truth, but I digress.

Think Progress has recently suggested that part of the reason congress hasn't done a single thing to address global warming is because of Joe Barton and people like him. It's hard to argue that it's not true when you consider some of his statements about the issue.

He is the source of probably the single stupidest statement uttered seriously by a human being, "I cannot imagine any objective finding that CO2 is a pollutant," he said. "If that's true, God is a polluter." I wonder if he considers Mercury, Lead, or Arsenic pollutants, they're all made by god too.

So Barton, just in case you read this, here's an explanation of why your statement is stupid and wrong. Just because C02 occurs in nature doesn't mean it can't hurt us or our climate. There are lots of things in nature that are harmful if there's too much of it or if it's in the wrong place. Don't believe me? Next time you go swimming dive as deep as you can and then inhale as deeply as you can. Then if you survive, you'll understand that even water can be harmful to life. I'm sorry to break it to you like this Joe, but it's true, god isn't just a polluter, he's also trying to drown you.

Here's another gem of wisdom that he uttered in 2001, "as long as I am chairman, (regulating global warming pollution) is off the table indefinitely. I don't want there to be any uncertainty about that." Which is basically saying, "I will never consider any argument suggesting global warming is real, ever". What an intelligent and logical position to take! Especially when it's concerning an emerging science, with new data rolling in every day, with implications for the survival of every living thing on our planet.

So where does a human being with no background in climate science, get the nerve to say most of the world's leading climate scientists are wrong? If you're buddy buddy with big oil, I guess the nerve comes in the form a check. Opensecrets.org reports that he has received over a million dollars from oil and gas companies and another million from other energy companies, check out the full breakdown of his recieved contributions here. At least now we know who Joe Barton is really working for.

Barton has been in office since 1985, he's also (unfortunately for humanity) the chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee. He has fought every attempt by congress to acknowledge the existence of and possibly start to remedy the effects of climate change. He has even been accused of harassing and intimidating climate researchers by both the Houston Chronicle and the National Academy of Sciences. Who would have thought that a Republican from Texas could be so backwards?

Joe has worked very diligently to earn this award, Senator Inhofe was a close runner up but he's just a bumbling twit so we let him off the hook this time. If any of you live in Texas, do the world a favor and fire this fool of a man, even if you have to wait until 2008 to do it. It's probably one of the most important things you could do for our country and the world as a whole. If you can't wait or you just want to tell the guy off, contact him here: Contact Joe Barton.

And the article that spawned this rant: 

'Smokey' Joe Barton Calls Global Warming Science ‘Absolute Nonsense,’ Vows To Fight CO2 Caps – [ThinkProgress.org]

Here's part II of my previous article on why vegetarianism can help save the world. I ended the last article just as I was about to explain what the power of 10 rule has to do with global warming. So here it is:

Large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by our food industry. I've heard estimates that up to 17% of our fossil fuel use goes towards food production in the US. Vegetable production is no exception, you need all sorts of mostly gas powered vehicles to plow, sow, harvest, and distribute much of the plants we eat.

CO2 is released during the production of crops, although some if not all of it is offset by the plants themselves which remove CO2 from the atmosphere during their growth. Though we still need to transport the fresh plant matter to processing plants or distribution facilities which then create greenhouse gas emissions themselves. Then we can either transport the plants to supermarkets, or we can feed the stuff to animals which will go on to produce our meat in addition to Methane gas among other things which contribute to global warming. Then the animals need to be processed and the food transported yet again to our supermarkets, which we probably drove to in a gas guzzling car. Finally we need to cook the meat which will take even more energy and most likely result in even more greenhouse gas emissions. 

Although it's not perfectly accurate, there's a concept out there that helps to illustrate how a vegetarian diet can help save the world.  I'm not talking about health issues here because that's not the point of this blog. I'll also mention that I'm not a vegetarian myself, although I would love to be. My girlfriend on the other hand is, and maybe one day I'll join her among the ranks of the ultra efficient energy eaters. That being said, if I start to sound preachy I'm not trying to be, I'm just passing the hard truth onto you.

So here's my attempt at an explanation of the power of 10 rule:

Basically, the rule roughly estimates that as you climb the food chain, you only preserve 1/10th of the original energy input. The main energy source on our planet is the sun and some of the sun's energy goes towards growing plants. Some animals eat the plants and some animals eat other animals. The most efficient use of the solar energy, or energy in general, is to eat the sunlight, but hey that's what the plants do. The second most efficient option for us as walking talking creatures is to eat the plants.

Though when we eat the plants, we are unable to make use of 100% of the energy the plant absorbed itself. Some of that energy went towards the plant growing, reproducing, other biological processes, as well as heat emission. Plus our digestive systems are not 100% efficient, thus some of the energy is lost there as well. In the first stage, it is estimated that the plants only make use of 10% of the energy they absorb. Then when we eat the plants, we only make use of 1% of the original energy. Now let's say you get eaten by a crazed carnivorous animal, sucks for you. The creature who was so lucky to have had such a tasty vegetarian for dinner will only make use of .1% of the original energy input from the sun. The energy transfer starts at 100%, plants get 10%, vegetarians get 1%, and carnivores get a measly .1%. 

On and on it goes up the food chain of energy loss. So, let's now put it into a context that's really easy to understand. You can either eat 10 pounds of grain yourself, or you can feed that 10 pounds of grain to a vegetarian creature and net yourself about 1 pound of meat. Which do you think would feed the most people?

It's a grossly simplified analogy and again the math isn't 100% accurate, but the loss is real and significant, and it's good to be conscious of the energy footprint your next meal will have on the world. I won't even go into how many more people our planet could feed if we stopped feeding perfectly edible people food to animals just so we can harvest their meat.

What does this have to do with global warming? Check out part II of this article and I'll explain, I promise.

The oceans naturally absorb carbon dioxide, one of the primary greenhouse gas emissions. As the carbon dioxide dissolves, it creates carbonic acid which in turn increases the acidity of the water, which is then dangerous to sea life.

This will come around and bite us if we don't do something to solve the problem. Human activities are altering the chemical makeup of our world in ways that will alter or end the lives of the creatures that depend on the stability of those systems, including us. It's a flaw in our civilization that may prove fatal for life as we know it. 

Expert Says Oceans Are Turning Acidic » [Physorg.com]

We've got another blame-it-all-on-the-planet type of guy and he's just begging to be argued with. He says, "There is no such thing as human-caused global warming". Alright, I'm listening, now let's hear why.

He argues that since the Earth was once hotter that it is today, before we had this little thing called the Industrial Revolution, the current warming trend must be a natural cycle. How does he figure that just because the Earth was warmer in the past, our actions today can have no effect? It sounds like he's leaving out some of the alternative theories here, namely the realistic ones. If I may use his own logical reasoning against him, the Earth used to be a lifeless volcanic rock; does that mean that if we nuke it back to that state it's not our fault? No Mr. Eickstadt it doesn't.

To his credit he at least acknowledges that global warming is a grave issue. Yet not grave enough to avoid pointing a few fingers before we all get toasted. At one point he says, "all fingers point to a natural global warming cycle – one we cannot escape from or do anything to stop." Bullshit, take some responsibility even if it's only partial responsibility. There are things we can do, we have the ability to be quite resourceful as a species when we want to be.

Probably the most disturbing sentence in the article, at least to me, is this one, "This year’s hurricane season – or lack of one – is another testament to debunking the theory of human-caused global warming." Keep telling yourself that pal, this hurricane season was a bit milder than some but there were reasons for that. According to this Wikipedia article, the atmospheric pressure over the Atlantic was higher than normal this year, trade winds were blowing stronger than normal, and ocean surface temperature anomalies were less common. All of these things and more could have led to a mild hurricane season. The jury may be out on whether the 2005 season was fueled by global warming or not, but let's not jump the gun and say global warming has no effect whatsoever, that's just reckless.

This guy's entitled to his opinion afterall, but he should seriously consider getting an opinion that's based in reality, backed with fact, or at the very least, based on logic. 

Human made global warming not real » [The Daily Evergreen Online]

I came across this horribly retarded blurb about a study conducted by a so called think tank on the benefits of coal power. I have never before seen such a blatently one sided, and self serving argument.

They argue that coal-fired power plants are good for the public health and evil-bad environmental regulations that result in a reduction of coal usage is what we should all really fear. Come to think of it, nothing makes me feel better than a nice deep breath off a fresh coal fire. Later in the article they try to do a little ass-covering by saying that what will really do the public harm is the damage to the economy if coal plants were not built and used. 

What's so freaking annoying about jackasses that make this sort of argument is that they never ever mention the countless jobs that will be created at newer better power plants that don't require the use of such dirty fuels. New technologies will lead to new economic opportunities which will lead to bigger better things… good things.

It's called change and people who actually believe this kind of shit are afraid of it. If we let people like this rule our world we'll all end up like the dinosaurs and heck maybe in 60 million years some new species can pump our fossilized remains out of the ground and make the same mistake all over again. Now that's bad for public health.

Economic and public health benefits of coal-based energy » [NCPA.org]

So California has filed a suit against six major automobile manufacturers for creating a public nuisance with their product. They stipulate that cars create greenhouse gases (they do), they lead to the warming of the globe (they play a part), and the manufacturers don't give a shit (they don't). So it's seems like the lawsuit is based in reality to me. Besides, the US is a litigious society and sometimes it's the only way to get things done in our country. Otherwise people get too complacent with their paychecks and just want to chill out and watch Sunday Night Football.

So I whole heartily agree with this suit because if they win, it will force automakers to get off their fat lazy asses and start developing a product that isn't such a pain in the globe. Fuel efficient, eco-friendly, and affordable transportation; is it really too much to ask? It's been a hundred years since anyone's done anything significant with 4 wheeled transportation… the vehicles just got faster, more rounded, and more plentiful. 

So anyway, I'm taking a shot at a fellow blogger so please forgive me, but dude this guy is drunk from the cool-aid and needs to be edumacated. His arguments followed by my response:

1) There is no smoking gun evidence that points to humans as the cause of global warming.

Well dude… you can hide behind this argument and you'll probably be successful because it's a very convenient and subtle red-herring. The argument is good because it admits that the globe is warming. It's a crappy argument because there is a shit-load of evidence supporting human-induced global warming, but what about the natural warming and cooling cycles of the earth… yeah… there's that too. So global warming is induced by human activities as well as natural cycles. Who ever said that these or any other cause of warming act independent of each other? You're busy distracting people with this silly argument, the only goal of which is to place blame on one or the other while a serious problem gets worse. I bet when you fart you point to the guy next to you and blame it on them too.

2) Why is it just the auto-industry that gets blamed? Why not the consumers who buy them? Isn't that like blaming gun companies for crimes committed by gun owners?

(more…)

Anytime a big corporation (especially big oil) says, 'It's not about market share, it's about doing the right thing.', bullshit alarms should sound — loudly.

According to this article, British Petrolium is declaring a war on global warming. I'm all for big corporations getting down and dirty with the environmentalism movement, but this is like Budweiser sponsoring an AA meeting. Then again, whenever people declare war on something the job gets done right? Like the war on drugs and/or the war on terror. Hey BP, if you're listening, please stop feeding us your PR bull-crap and do something worthwhile… like go out of business.

BP declares war on global warming » [News from Channel 4]