Logic Times
Posted by Jim Baker, 1/5/05, 9:52pm. Comments (4)
I am a geophysicist, although not by education, and I process seismic data mainly for oil and gas companies. I am interested in the recent earthquake and subsequent tsunami in offshore Sumatra. While I am presently occupied by the human disaster, I would like to see some discussion about the environmental magnitude of this seismic event. I will start by throwing out a few snippets.
I have long attempted to talk to people about the very limited impact of human activities on the global environment. I am usually ignored on the subject because so many folks have a religious faith in the politics of the environment. In fact, I'm sure most of those people have already stopped reading this. I guess people need to have faith in something, but I have seen more concrete evidence of God than of global warming. On the subject of God, I am agnostic. On global warming, to put it mildly, I am underwhelmed.
Many people believe in a gathering global warming Armageddon. It could happen, but in our lifetimes we have better odds of winning the lotto. Lets all go out and buy more tickets to improve those odds. The government gets improved odds of winning too. Then the government can afford expensive global warming studies. Oops, substitute extensive for expensive. Or not. Either way is okay. Better yet, lets all just pay more taxes. That way the government doesn't have to run a gambling operation to collect money. Then the government can get down to serious spending to find ways to reduce the odds of global warming, the day after tomorrow. Maybe we could all just ride bicycles and wear sweaters instead. Oh, that means we will have to get up earlier to get where we are going and we are going to get soaked on rainy days. Have you ever tried to bring home groceries on a bicycle? It looks like no matter what we do, we will get a soaking. But I digress a lot.
One seismic event may have just impacted the global climate more than all of the human activity in history. More energy has been released. Mt. St. Helens put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in one day than has all of the automobile emissions ever released into the atmosphere.
By the way, prairie grass is far more efficient at photosynthesis than rain forests. Correlating statistical weather data is not science. There has always been global warming and global cooling and our best geological data indicates that the only constant in the climate is change.
{Aslan: Jim, I agree that global warming is about as scientific as UFO sightings. I also agree that people hold certain “scientific” dogma to be true, such as Darwinism, the most egregious scientific misadventure of the last millennia (note here that I decry Darwinism, which is without much merit, not evolution, which has some merit – this is a subject for another post).
The heightened basis for global warming concerns was the Mann et all (1998) data that showed a historic trend rapidly reversing itself coincidental with the industrial revolution. This data was incorrect (read here), with a curious “programming error” in bias of depressing historic global temperatures, creating the infamous hockey stick chart (a long series of flat temps [the hockey shaft] followed by a sharp recent rise [the blade]). Now historic records indicate that temperatures were dramatically higher during the late Middle Ages than during the industrial revolution. Here is the chart with the Mann data and the correction -
However, I have a curious view on this issue. I would like to first invite comment on Jim’s observations.}
Comments
1: Bob Springer
January 6, 2005 09:11am EST
You people amaze me. You think the correction of the data that revises 14th century estimates is somehow significant. Focus, if you can, on the recent, clearly measured trends: the last half century, where the average temperature is up 1 degree!
Eight of the ten warmest years in the last century occurred in the 1990s, for #*(!)! sake.
{Aslan: I will let Jim answer, but to set the record straight, the temperature over the last half century is up 0.5 degree Celsius and seven out of ten of the hottest years were in the 1990s, not eight (see here). Jim?}
2: William
January 12, 2005 05:13pm EST
"You people?" I am curious, what exactly is "you people" by the way?
Don't you think your HOT AIR might being responsible for that 1 degree Bob?
{Aslan: Now William, this is a civil forum. Bob's comments would never heat the Earth a whole degree! Maybe 0.5 degree.}
3: Martin Lyle
January 13, 2005 03:15pm EST
I too think much of the science behind global warming is not very reliable. What we do know, is that the planet gets hotter, and the planet gets cooler. Man's impact on that or the speed of change is what is in question, and I tend to think that man's impact is not much.
However, I don't think that negates man's responsibility to be better stewards of the planet then we are being now. I don't charge that you should be going to the grocery on a bike, but must you go in a Hummer? Sure, it would be nice to have a new Wal-Mart a half-mile away, but I also kind of like that 50 acres of trees that are there right now-- and it sure seems like the air around that new parking lot is a little warmer and smells funnier than the field that was there a couple years ago. Can't we just leave a little greenery and clean air for our grandkids?
{Aslan: Martin, I could not agree more. The "curious view" I mentioned at the close of Jim's comments on global warming is that while we may be right that global warming is more fiction than fact, conservatives need to put forth their own, coherent vision of conservation. This is the subject of tomorrow's essay, Conservation vs. Environmentalism.}
4: Jim Baker
January 14, 2005 12:55am EST
I hope to write again later with some discussion of frequency analysis of temperature data. This should support my view that the monitoring of weather data has not revealed any predictable information for the future. The use of this data to support the creation of the Kyoto Accord was as preposterous as was the use of conjured up documentation to support the theory of 'George Bush the AWOL guardsman.' The agenda is strictly political and is evidenced by the advocate's apparent need to predict dire consequences for the near future if we don't take remedial action now. The motivational tool, as usual, is misinformation.
So far it appears that committed enviros will try to ward off any skeptics with evangelical assertions that 'Since we have measured a recent increase in temperature, then global warming is a fact and it shouldn't happen.' In response, I should call my that 'Since my speedometer has measured a recent decrease in my car's average speed, then the fact is that I am slowing down and it shouldn't happen.'
{Aslan: Bob?}