Sunday, March 22, 2009
Earth Hour
Earth Hour is on March 28th this year, at 8:30 PM PST. If you'll click on the title of this post, you'll be taken to a page explaining how Las Vegas is planning to celebrate. My editor over at Living Las Vegas wants a post from everyone about it, but I don't think I can provide one. Not that I don't think it's a good idea if we stay aware of how we impact the environments on this planet. In fact, I teach Biology, and I've been aware of such things since the late sixties. The reason I probably can't is that LLV tries to always put a positive spin on things, and frankly, this event seems to me to represent all of the things I dislike most about "everybody" doing something.
In short, if "everybody" is doing something, it makes me extremely suspicious.
Maybe Earth Hour will spur more people to be conscious of the possibility of using renewable energy sources, in which case it's a good thing. Maybe I should not complain about it, but I just have this inherent suspicion that people will enjoy the moment and go back to watering their over-fertilized lawn by the light of security lights at 500 watts a pop. Okay, I'm cynical. So sue me.
All of the talk about environmentalism, from both staunch advocates as well as from conservative poo-pooers, is mostly hooey. As a biology teacher, I do know a few things that maybe might bring some perspective into the room, except of course nobody ever reads a little blog like this one. Okay, I didn't mean that the three (maybe four) of you are nobodies. Sorry. Now, here are a few things that are true about biology that maybe you wouldn't learn from listening to the debates on global warming.
First, global warming was first reported in the scientific literature in 1854. That is one-hundred fifty-five years ago. Anybody who tells you that there is controversy over global warming amongst scientists is lying. There isn't. I learned about it in college. So, if he had gone to college, would have my grandfather. It's a fact, pure and simple.
Second, a lot of information gets made up by columnists, particularly those vehemently opposed to the idea of global warming. Think John Stossel. John exemplifies the tendency we all have to study until we find something that reinforces our prejudices, then to stop and study no more. John notes (correctly) that CO2 levels increase following an increase in global temperature. He uses this as an argument that the idea that our putting more carbon into the atmosphere raises global temperatures is false. What John doesn't say is that, while higher average temperatures do tend to increase carbon in the air, due to more life expelling CO2 at higher latitudes, CO2, along with Methane and other gasses, really do contribute to a "greenhouse effect" that raises average global temperatures. The effect can be a viscious cycle.
No less than the folks on Mythbusters, a series about science that's on Discovery Channel, have tested whether CO2 and Methane cause atmosphere to warm more rapidly. Guess what, both gasses do. You can hate Al Gore (because you listen to guys on Fox, I suppose) but he wasn't wrong when he noted that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is higher than it's been in about a billion years. The record high levels started developing right at the start of the Industrial Revolution. That could all be a coincidence, but it stretches credulity a bit to think so. We are, as a group of scientists reported not too long ago, about ninety percent certain to be the cause of the recent acceleration in the rate of global warming.
Then there's the cold winters. Yes, some places have gotten colder lately. The key word is average. The average is what weather guys like to call normal, which it may not be. But what it is is what you get if you add up all of the temperatures all over the planet and divide that sum by the number of temperature readings you just added up. That's an average. It can be colder than heck in one spot, but the average temperature could be rising steadily. In fact, a warmer planet tends to make more snow in the winter, because the extra heat evaporates more ocean water. Not that one season means anything, on average. (A little statistical humor there.)
It is a fact that the ice on Greenland is melting faster in summer than it refreezes in the winter. Eventually, if that keeps up, the arctic ocean will be open in the summer, and Greenland might be, well, green. To the south, it is true that some ice sheets on the continent of Antarctica have gotten thicker, but in general the amount of ice in the surrounding sea has thinned out considerably. Again, the reports you hear are the result of incomplete research.
It is a fact that sea levels will rise eighteen inches to three feet or more if all of the ice on the poles melts. Simple arithmetic can do that calculation.
Now, since I've been beating those who would deny global warming, let me turn my attention to the doomsayers. You know, those predicting the end of life as we know it if global warming isn't reversed.
Mostly global warming is a problem if it happens too fast. Already some parts of the world support cities and agriculture in areas that are below sea level and coastal. If the sea level rises slowly, we can deal with it. If it goes up two feet over next weekend, we'll have a disaster on a global scale.
Too much fresh water in the North Atlantic at one time moves the gulf stream far to the south. That shuts off a lot of the heat transfer from the equator to the polar regions, and when it has happened in the past, it has set off an ice age. No kidding. It's true that global warming could result in an ice age. And, if the ocean currents cut off completely, tremendously violent weather would result, because that energy would still want to get from the equator to the poles. It's the first law of thermodynamics that energy travels from hot places to cold ones.
However, again this is only a problem if the ice melts really fast. If it takes it's time, we can deal with it. Climate will change, but globally speaking, we can deal with it. It is highly unlikely that the ocean currents will be stopped by melting ice. The last time it happened was when an ice dam let a huge freshwater lake in central Canada drain into the ocean all at once. That would take probably more melting than is even possible on the Greenland ice sheet. While doomsday could come as a result of global warming, that scenario really isn't very likely. But, it wouldn't hurt to slow down the amount of carbon building up in the atmosphere, just in case.
Which brings us back to the Earth Hour. I suppose getting Americans, who are the best there is in putting carbon into the air, to slow it down a tad is a good thing. For the record, I hope it works. I remain, however, skeptical as always.
So, good luck to us all. Until next time,
Steve
In short, if "everybody" is doing something, it makes me extremely suspicious.
Maybe Earth Hour will spur more people to be conscious of the possibility of using renewable energy sources, in which case it's a good thing. Maybe I should not complain about it, but I just have this inherent suspicion that people will enjoy the moment and go back to watering their over-fertilized lawn by the light of security lights at 500 watts a pop. Okay, I'm cynical. So sue me.
All of the talk about environmentalism, from both staunch advocates as well as from conservative poo-pooers, is mostly hooey. As a biology teacher, I do know a few things that maybe might bring some perspective into the room, except of course nobody ever reads a little blog like this one. Okay, I didn't mean that the three (maybe four) of you are nobodies. Sorry. Now, here are a few things that are true about biology that maybe you wouldn't learn from listening to the debates on global warming.
First, global warming was first reported in the scientific literature in 1854. That is one-hundred fifty-five years ago. Anybody who tells you that there is controversy over global warming amongst scientists is lying. There isn't. I learned about it in college. So, if he had gone to college, would have my grandfather. It's a fact, pure and simple.
Second, a lot of information gets made up by columnists, particularly those vehemently opposed to the idea of global warming. Think John Stossel. John exemplifies the tendency we all have to study until we find something that reinforces our prejudices, then to stop and study no more. John notes (correctly) that CO2 levels increase following an increase in global temperature. He uses this as an argument that the idea that our putting more carbon into the atmosphere raises global temperatures is false. What John doesn't say is that, while higher average temperatures do tend to increase carbon in the air, due to more life expelling CO2 at higher latitudes, CO2, along with Methane and other gasses, really do contribute to a "greenhouse effect" that raises average global temperatures. The effect can be a viscious cycle.
No less than the folks on Mythbusters, a series about science that's on Discovery Channel, have tested whether CO2 and Methane cause atmosphere to warm more rapidly. Guess what, both gasses do. You can hate Al Gore (because you listen to guys on Fox, I suppose) but he wasn't wrong when he noted that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is higher than it's been in about a billion years. The record high levels started developing right at the start of the Industrial Revolution. That could all be a coincidence, but it stretches credulity a bit to think so. We are, as a group of scientists reported not too long ago, about ninety percent certain to be the cause of the recent acceleration in the rate of global warming.
Then there's the cold winters. Yes, some places have gotten colder lately. The key word is average. The average is what weather guys like to call normal, which it may not be. But what it is is what you get if you add up all of the temperatures all over the planet and divide that sum by the number of temperature readings you just added up. That's an average. It can be colder than heck in one spot, but the average temperature could be rising steadily. In fact, a warmer planet tends to make more snow in the winter, because the extra heat evaporates more ocean water. Not that one season means anything, on average. (A little statistical humor there.)
It is a fact that the ice on Greenland is melting faster in summer than it refreezes in the winter. Eventually, if that keeps up, the arctic ocean will be open in the summer, and Greenland might be, well, green. To the south, it is true that some ice sheets on the continent of Antarctica have gotten thicker, but in general the amount of ice in the surrounding sea has thinned out considerably. Again, the reports you hear are the result of incomplete research.
It is a fact that sea levels will rise eighteen inches to three feet or more if all of the ice on the poles melts. Simple arithmetic can do that calculation.
Now, since I've been beating those who would deny global warming, let me turn my attention to the doomsayers. You know, those predicting the end of life as we know it if global warming isn't reversed.
Mostly global warming is a problem if it happens too fast. Already some parts of the world support cities and agriculture in areas that are below sea level and coastal. If the sea level rises slowly, we can deal with it. If it goes up two feet over next weekend, we'll have a disaster on a global scale.
Too much fresh water in the North Atlantic at one time moves the gulf stream far to the south. That shuts off a lot of the heat transfer from the equator to the polar regions, and when it has happened in the past, it has set off an ice age. No kidding. It's true that global warming could result in an ice age. And, if the ocean currents cut off completely, tremendously violent weather would result, because that energy would still want to get from the equator to the poles. It's the first law of thermodynamics that energy travels from hot places to cold ones.
However, again this is only a problem if the ice melts really fast. If it takes it's time, we can deal with it. Climate will change, but globally speaking, we can deal with it. It is highly unlikely that the ocean currents will be stopped by melting ice. The last time it happened was when an ice dam let a huge freshwater lake in central Canada drain into the ocean all at once. That would take probably more melting than is even possible on the Greenland ice sheet. While doomsday could come as a result of global warming, that scenario really isn't very likely. But, it wouldn't hurt to slow down the amount of carbon building up in the atmosphere, just in case.
Which brings us back to the Earth Hour. I suppose getting Americans, who are the best there is in putting carbon into the air, to slow it down a tad is a good thing. For the record, I hope it works. I remain, however, skeptical as always.
So, good luck to us all. Until next time,
Steve
Labels: Reviews, Social Commentary
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Watchmen
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Chapter One
This is from my other blog, the one I almost never post to, but I wanted to let everyone know that I just posted the latest version of chapter one of my first published novel. You can see it here, or by clicking the title to this post.
-- Steve
-- Steve
Labels: Info
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Oh, Those Darn Democrats
I just read a news analysis that suggested that the Democrats are trying to have a bit of fun and keep the Republican party divided against itself by going after that bastion of reasonable and thoughtful dialogue, Rush Limbaugh.
Gee, do you think so?
Know what? I'll bet they're trying to groom new people to get elected in the '10 off-year elections, too, and probably wondering who will be ready to run for the White House in '16. Darn those guys! Actually acting like a political party? How dare they?
Or, better question: what color is the sky in the world of anyone who expects politics to be any different? I mean, really.
Steve
Gee, do you think so?
Know what? I'll bet they're trying to groom new people to get elected in the '10 off-year elections, too, and probably wondering who will be ready to run for the White House in '16. Darn those guys! Actually acting like a political party? How dare they?
Or, better question: what color is the sky in the world of anyone who expects politics to be any different? I mean, really.
Steve
Labels: Politics
