The War on Climate Change

I, like many others, are merely observers in the global warming (aka climate change) debate, and not neck deep in the peer-reviewed articles. But some of us observers can and do think for ourselves. I would like to believe that my engineering background provides me with some critical thinking tools. As has been pointed out by many of the naysayers, there are many variables to take into consideration, not just CO2. The hysteria over global warming is just another in a long line. It bothers me that people think so statically and are immediately prone to extremism when things change. We saw the same thing in the 1970s with global cooling.

Are we contributing to climate change? Some of the warming can be attributed to our actions, but certainly not all of it. You are foolish to think that we, as a species, do not have some impact on our environment. Do we have that much of an impact that such an extreme Algorean-type reaction is needed? No.

Are all the weather extremes we see today a result of global warming? No. We have a little more than 100 years of good data. That is an awfully small window when compared to the age of the Earth. We also tend to have a short time perspective. We also forget that we are our own worst enemies when we change our landscape to suite our needs. When we channel streams and rivers, pave land, do not manage our forests properly, and build our houses on steep slopes, in flood plains and below the mean sea level we pretty much guarantee that we will suffer at the hands of Mother Nature. We also tend to forget that when a severe storm hits a highly populated area there is a higher probability for misery. Why blame a nameless and faceless threat like climate change when we should blame ourselves for being so arrogant and stupid in the first place?

Is it a pending disaster as folks like Al Gore would have you believe? Probably not. I am definitely not willing to bet the house on long-term modeling forecasts. I have enough problems with simple groundwater models at work that I find it hard to believe that climate models can be accurate. In fact, climate change may actually benefit some people.

Can we actually do anything about climate change? Probably not. We cannot even provide clean and safe drinking water to 1.1 billion people. How exactly do you expect to change the climate? How do you change the mind set of billions of people. How do you reduce CO2 emissions without nuclear power? How do you reduce CO2 emissions without stabilizing or reducing population? Are Al Gore and his merry band of hypocrites going to stop flying private jets and go commercial or do away entirely with using air planes? Are you going to stop eating meat and drinking bottled water? It is folly to think that merely increasing the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks and getting rid of coal fired power plants will result in “positive” climate change or reversal of current “trends”. The same arrogance and stupidity that had us build in areas where we should not, will have us “burn” money for the sake of a tenth of a degree.

What should we do then Mister Smarty Pants? Let’s change the debate from the War on Climate Change to economic prosperity and security. Let’s cut the use of oil to get us out of the Middle East and stop us from providing cash to sociopaths like Chavez and Ahmadinejad. We should be the leaders of alternative energy research and innovation. Let’s be honest, there is not enough oil and coal to last us forever, so let’s make sure that when supplies tighten up we are ready with answers. Being leaders in alternative energy makes economic sense. Let's provide incentives for people to be their own energy suppliers. Stop touting this ridiculous notion that we need to save the polar bears. Sure they are cute and cuddly, but they would just as soon sink their teeth into an environmentalist as a baby seal. And no, they do not drink Coca Cola.

Sure, I drive a fuel efficient car and I will do what I can to reduce my emissions without going overboard and becoming a vegan and wearing hemp-only clothes. And I do think we need to use and find reliable alternatives to oil and coal for security and economic reasons, not merely environmental. But am I worried? Not in the least. There are other things going on right now that I am much more worried about; for example, a clueless democrat or republican getting elected President of the United States of America. Now that scares the living bat crap out of me.

The Arrogance and Hypocrisy of the Global Warming Crowd

We can't eliminate HIV/AIDS, malaria, or tuberculosis, but we think we can control the climate.

We can't feed every person on this planet, but we think we can control the climate.

We can't provide everyone on this planet with safe drinking water, but we think we can control the climate.

We can’t make sure that every boy and girl in this country can read and write and do arithmetic, but we think we can control the climate.

We can’t make sure that every man, woman, or child in this country has health insurance, but we think we can control the climate.

We can’t win the war on drugs, but we think we can control the climate.

We can’t win the war on terror, but we think we can control the climate.

Do I really need to make any more points?

Interesting how all of a sudden the gloom and doom of climate change trumps all of our other societal woes. Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, it is getting warming. Yes, it will affect people, but when has change not affected people? No, we do not need to make this priority number one. The climate is not static just as forests are not static (they do tend to burn every now and then – it is healthy for forests to burn – preservation is a myth). Take a geology class and you might learn about the billions of years of change that has already come before us and our minute snap shot in time.

The climate change movement cares more for some lonely polar bear floating on a chunk of ice than for the woman with HIV that has been shunned by her village or the little boy dying from dysentery. And you would call me a flat-earther because I see the woman and little boy and not the polar bear? Don’t get me wrong. I try to do what I can for the environment. I am an environmental engineer after all so I know better than most about environmental damage.

It is the height of arrogance to think we can control Mother Nature. Mother Nature will punish us one way or another; with or without increasing the level of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere. Addressing cars, trucks, airplanes, and coal fired power plants is a miniscule part of the problem. Are you a vegan? No? Even if you ride your bike to work everyday you won't impact the climate if you continue to sit down and eat chicken, beef, and pork every night. Do you only buy locally grown food? No? Think about the carbon dioxide emitted to bring you those fresh fruits and vegetables that are out of season here not to mention the majority of your groceries. Are you willing to take the drastic role of stopping and even reversing population growth? No? More people consume more releasing more carbon dioxide. Are you willing to look at all energy alternatives including nuclear power? No? Then again, some of the rich elite do not want to have a wind farm seen from the posh living room of their palatial estate. There is more to this issue than the silly little idea of Kum Ba Yah at a stadium. Interesting how Al Gore’s Seven-Point Pledge does not specifically call for specific changes like becoming a vegan. Eat meat lately Al?.

Having a concert series where you fly people in to "entertain" people around the guise of indoctrination in the global warming religion is the another sign of hypocrisy in action. Just because all the “artists” drove a Prius from the airport to the concert does not make it an environmentally friendly affair. Just serving veggie burgers next to regular burgers does not make it an environmentally friendly affair. Buying carbon offsets does not make it an environmentally affair. If you really want my attention then have it all online without a single person having to fly or drive anywhere. We do have the technology for that nowadays. That would be groundbreaking. Instead you just told me you are a bunch of hypocrites. Do as I say and not as I do. Al Gore is the top ring-leader in this church of hypocrisy. The man makes millions off of his “religion”. More or less, another evangelical who does not practice what he preaches.

Now they want to levy a carbon tax on us. Nice. And how do you suppose the money collected will get spent? Are you going to put it into a “lock box” Al? Give me a break. Trust the federal government with more of our money? I do not think so. The federal government will just waste it on some frivolous pork barrel project to make a senator or representative look good in his or her district. A use tax such as the carbon tax will only hurt the poor. But when has that ever stopped the liberals? There is not a tax increase they wouldn’t vote for unless it is right before an election.

You would get more people on board for reducing carbon dioxide emissions if you took a broader approach. Not everyone believes that global warming is such a threat. What they do see is that we are stuck in the Middle East in part to maintain our access to oil. Sell carbon dioxide emissions reductions through increasing the fuel efficiency of vehicles and work to get us off oil and out the Middle East (by the way, that whole biofuel thing is not the answer – in fact, it is probably the dumbest boondoggle ever). Work on researching carbon sequestering from coal fired power plant emissions. You still need power to surf the net and cool your Red Bull. If you want something done you have to work with people instead of just ramming your ideology down everyone else’s throats. What are the commonalities of your cause to other causes? Take concrete small steps instead of immediately going for the whole enchilada. But of course that would make too much sense and I know that when it comes to ideologues the last thing they want anything to do with is common sense.

Photo by KCThinker, Doorway, San Juan, Puerto Rico

Global Warming: Real Crisis or Fashion Fad?

In case you have not heard, there is a global crisis. It is not HIV/AIDs. It is not malaria. It is not hunger. It is not lack of clean drinking water. It is not lack of basic sanitation facilities. It is not lack of access to basic health care. It is the earth’s climate changing.

The United Nations has provided a report that suggests that we need to immediately do something about this crisis. Not all the other ones I mention above, but climate change. I find it interesting that of all the global crises, global warming seems to be the only one we should get motivated about; maybe because this “crisis” has no face. When you think global warming, you do not think of a starving child in Africa. When you think global warming you do not think of a village in Haiti without clean drinking water. When you think global warming you do not think of the children orphaned because of HIV. When you think of global warming you do not think of the person dying from a mosquito bite. When you think of global warming you think of ice bergs melting and palm trees in the Artic. Sure some polar bears are having a tough time, but you rarely think of a child in need or the gaunt face of a struggling mother.

Everyone, it seems, is on the global warming bag wagon. From Al Gore to Hollywood (the biggest hypocrites of them all) to politicians to scientists everyone is jumping aboard and purporting that there is consensus in the global warming debate. The science is infallible they say. The computer generated models are very accurate they say. Just look at the trend and the delta they say. Say something contrary to what the global warming aficionados think and you are liable to receive death threats and become black listed by those with an “open” mind. The whole attitude of these elitists makes me think the whole fiasco is akin to Big Climate Change; another all powerful, but secretive entity, that is intent on controlling humanity.

I am not disputing the trend of overall global warming. I am disputing the cause and I am trying to be rationale – not something the elite snobs want when so much funding is on the line. I will give you a few things to think about:

1. Ice core data indicated that in past warming cycle’s temperature increases before carbon dioxide levels increase. What then caused the increase in temperature if it was not carbon dioxide? Could it possibly be other factors?

2. The ice core data shows temperature and carbon dioxide increases but then the temperature and carbon dioxide levels decrease again. I thought that once you had an increase in CO2 levels there was no return. The aficionados claim that we will burn up. What caused the decrease of temperature and carbon dioxide in the past? Remember these records come before man had invented the SUV. How did those intrepid cave men fight global warming in the past – maybe there is a missing link and a missing solution on a cave wall tragically demolished due to our ignorance. That mural was not depicting a hunt; it probably was the formula to stop global warming.

3. In the 1970’s, scientists were worried about global cooling. Yes, global cooling. The levels of CO2 did not decrease during this time period. On the contrary, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing for more than 50 years. Those scientists were quite certain of the crisis and crazy ideas were brought forth to stop global cooling. Now crazy ideas are being proposed to fight global warming.

4. If CO2 is really to blame, can you really do anything to curb CO2 emissions without controlling population? As I have said before, more people require more resources, and more resources results in more CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as methane being emitted.

5. The Earth’s climate has changed without human intervention many times over thousands upon thousands years. Glaciers have been receding for thousands of years. What makes us think we are that special to cause it this time? Our science? Our computer models? Our infallible knowledge that only man can control the Earth?

There are lots of good websites like RealClimate.org that think that the rise in greenhouse gases is a cause for alarm. You can sift through all their editorials and resultant comments by scientists. I have spent many an hour looking through their website, but for some reason I do not find myself convinced. They present many plausible ideas and studies to support their stance, but I feel like something is missing. My bullshit meter is in alarm mode when I read it. Just when I think they may have a point because it is in the 80’s in Kansas City in March, the following week it gets to below freezing in Kansas City. Mother Nature can be fickle; another reminder that the climate can change at the drop of hat.

Photo by KCThinker, water tap in batey, La Romana, Dominican Republic

Al Gore’s Dirty Little Secret

Assume global warming is a result of more carbon dioxide (CO2) being released into the atmosphere thereby trapping more heat. Global warming is caused by people then. The more people, the more CO2 is emitted. To reduce global warming you need to reduce the number of people, not just the cars and trucks and coal fired power plants. That is the dirty little secret, or inconvenient truth, Al Gore does not want you to know about. If you truly believe that people cause global warming then carbon caps alone will not address the problem.

Imagine for a minute that you replace all the cars and trucks on the road right now with hybrids. That would make a remarkable difference where air pollution is concerned. At some point, assuming we have not kicked the oil habit, the CO2 emissions from the increase in the number of hybrids over a certain period of time due to population increase will equal that of the current emissions. Then what? My hope is that technology will have improved by then that we will not be reliant on fossil fuels. But if you think beyond cars and look at the overall impact of people just consuming to live, the picture becomes much worse.

More people require more resources. Whether you live in Brazil, Germany, Japan, Senegal, or the United States of America, more people consume more. More food needs to be grown, more food is consumed, more energy is expended for cooking food, more energy is expended to cloth people, more energy is expended to house people. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is claiming that our hunger for meat requires more cows. More cows means more methane which contributes to more global warming.

In 1900 the estimated world population was 1,650,000,000. In 2005 the estimated world population is 6,453,628,000. In 105 years the population has increased by an estimated 4,803,628,000. That is a huge impact on the system. Even at the base level, more people emit more CO2 just breathing. According to a study by the USDA, an average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of CO2 per day. That is approximately 1.98 pounds per person per day. On a global scale we have increased the amount of CO2 emitted annually, just from us breathing, by 3,478,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 per year (that is 1.739 billion tons of CO2 annually). With the current population at 6.453 billion we emit roughly 4,673,000,000,000 pounds of CO2 annually (2.336 billion tons of CO2 of annually).

You can demand that the Kyoto Treaty be implemented. But the reality is that we will never be able to meet the Kyoto goals if we do not address population. And that is the reality that a leer jet environmentalist, who won an Oscar for a questionable documentary, can not comprehend or does not want to address. It does not fit nicely into his little box of understanding. It is easier to blame big business than to look in the mirror. You really want to achieve the Kyoto goals? Plant billions of trees, stop flying around in jets, and replace cars with the horse and buggy. That in my opinion is the only way to “stop” global warming if it is indeed the result of human activity.

I agree with some of Al Gore’s recommendations like using energy efficient products and living in energy efficient homes. I, for one, am tired of being beholden to Islamic fundamentalists and communists for our energy supply. You also cannot complain about saving money, can you? But instead of investing in dubious schemes like carbon trading, let’s invest in the research into technology that will increase energy efficiency in the home and at work. We need to further the science and engineering of energy if we are going to make a difference. Such an investment will be good for our economy as well. We also need to embrace technologies like wind and solar power; even it that means that your “precious” views are spoiled by wind and solar farms. Sacrifices need to be made folks – although sacrifice is sadly not in many people’s dictionary nowadays.

Now, let's assume that there are other factors responsible for global warming, I mean climate change. The other thing the leer jet environmentalist crowd cannot accept is that climate changes and has changed over millions of years with and without humans roaming the surface. Glaciers have formed and receded. That pesky science called geology gives us this knowledge. The leer jet environmentalists (let’s lump the dopey Hollywood crowd in there) think we can keep the earth static. These are same people that want to “preserve” the old growth forests – even when it is not healthy for the forest to do so. Nature changes. Climate patterns change. Our sun’s output changes. We change.

There are so many variables with regard to our climate that is folly to think we can model it accurately enough to foretell the future. I am by no means an expert in computer modeling, but I did take a computer modeling course in graduate school and I do use computer models in my work. I would argue that I have more of a perspective on modeling than an average person does. Modeling is as much art as science in my opinion. Even simple models, a groundwater model for example, can be difficult to get right. The interactions of complex models, like our climate, are very hard to figure out (we are still uncertain of how clouds form and interact with the climate). In order to use a model you need to calibrate it against real data – you need to figure out how it compares to a known data set and tweak it until the model correlates reasonably well with the known data set, only then can you make predictions of how it would react under other inputs. We only have about 150 years of decent data for calibration of a climate model (I do not consider ice core data as valid for model calibration mainly because it is interpreted data). That, in my opinion, is not enough for such a complex model. The models out there are much better than the ones that were used in the 1970’s when global cooling was a concern, but they still lack sophistication in my opinion. The current models predict global temperatures rising anywhere from 1 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. That is a huge spread.

If CO2 is inexorably linked to temperature increase, why were we so concerned with global cooling in the 1970s? The amount of CO2 emitted did not go down in the 1970’s. It has steadily increased along with population. Why was there a warming period several hundred years ago that allowed grapes to be grown in England? We were not emitting nearly as much CO2 back then. I am not convinced that CO2 emissions by man are solely to blame for an increase in global temperatures. We think we are so smart that we can deduce without a doubt that man is solely responsible for this trend in global temperatures. I say that we are not very smart and cannot jump to that conclusion no matter how you massage the data in a slide show. Don’t forget that CO2 is only part of the “problem”. There are also other chemicals such as methane and the chemicals that replaced CFCs that contribute to more warming than just CO2 on a pound for pound basis.

Another “impact” of global warming is a supposed increase in “extreme” weather. There is growing fear of more massive mudslides and floods due to global warming. Is it really due to global warming or is it due to poor land use planning? More population means you end up building where you are not supposed to. New Orleans and southern California come to mind. In New Orleans communities were flooded when a major hurricane hit that city. The city is below sea level, what do you expect to happen? It was not global warming it was just that the likelihood of this event happening was foretold decades before it did. In California, poor land use planning results in mudslides during heavy rain. I see it here in Kansas City as well. Poor urban planning has resulted in flooding during heavy rain events. Even without global warming you are going to have heavy rainfall events that exceed design parameters. There is a certain amount of risk accepted during design and construction. Designing to the 1,000 year rainfall event would be cost prohibitive. Do I need to mention that there were no major hurricanes to hit the United States in 2006?

In the end global mean temperatures may or may not continue to rise whether we do something to curb CO2 emissions or not. Honestly, even if we wanted to I doubt we can do anything about it in the next 50 years. It requires a global political will. We can not see eye to eye on even the most basic issues. More people means more CO2 emitted from their overall actions. China and India are growing by leaps and bounds and everyone wants to live like an American. We need to take the next 50 years and invest heavily in energy research; a Manhattan Project type effort if you will. Blacklisting scientists who do not agree with your point of view in a McCarthyian effort will not solve this problem.

One also has to step back and wonder if man can truly reverse or control what he has supposedly set in motion. Maybe it would be better for the world if man leaves it. We have thousands of years of history that illustrate that we behave like little children and never grow up. Maybe global warming is Nature’s time out for mankind.