Why does yeroc.us Look like this?

Like a vast number of other web sites on the Web, yeroc.us uses CSS (Cascading Style Sheet) technology to present the pages. Your browser either could not find or does not support the CSS code.

You can continue to use this page as it is, it will work fine. If you would prefer to have a better experience you can download the latest version of a modern web browser.

YEROC.US
Searching for Order in this World of Entropy

The Global Warming Spiel

The concentrated energy from fossil fuels has given human beings great power and an apparent reign over the universe and the laws of thermodynamics. With high-grade energy, no more is man tied to the light and heat of the sun and weak power of his own muscles. Unfortunately, fossil fuels also happen to be part of Earth's carbon cycle and its atmospheric mixture of thermally insulating gases. Fossil Fuels gave us the power to build and multiply as well as the capacity to mess up the only home we have.

Contents

For those who hate the anthropogenic global warming debate more so because of the politics than the actual science of it, you may skip the science section and at least read the last paragraphs. There is no need for long-winded discussion with ridiculous right-vs-left undertones.

Misguided Statement 1: "Water vapor is the most significant GHG."

Yes. But its concentration in the atmosphere is constant and the residence time is measured in days. Carbon dioxide's concentration is increasing and its residence time is measured in centuries.

Humans are responsible for only "X" percent of carbon dioxide emissions

Usually 3% is stated, though some comments have stated 0.97% as well. Odd. Is it not wonderful how one can cherry-pick facts to fit their personal agenda? Yes. But we are the straw that is breaking the camel's back. Fossil fuel combustion contributes about 6 billion tonnes of previously stored (in the ground) carbon per year, deforestation and land-use also contribute. Biological activity and chemical weathering contribute to far greater fluxes, but the sources and sinks are more or less balanced. This includes our breath being balanced out by the plants which grew the food that we eat. If there is a bathtub with equal amounts of water coming in as are going down the drain, it will be fine. Urinate into the tub, and it may seem insignificant. Get enough people to urinate in the tub and it will eventually overflow. Drink some beer (PARTY!) and the tub will overflow even faster. This is analogous to humans overloading the natural cycle with their useless byproducts (carbon dioxide = urine) with the help of technology (technology = beer).

CO2 is necessary for life.

Yes. Of course it is. What is not necessary for life is the virtually instantaneous (on a geologic time scale) reintroduction into the atmosphere of trillions of tonnes of carbon which has been buried for millenia.

Water is necessary for life, but is it good when a dam breaks and washes out a town?

CO2 increases/decreases without human intervention.

Yes. But not 100 parts per million in 100 years.

CO2 is only 380 parts per million. thats N O T H I N G!

Heard this one on a political radio show (you know the ones). Go live in a bubble with 380 parts per million of hydrogen sulfide, and tell me it is nothing. Oh yeah...nevermind.

Likewise, fill the same bubble with 380 ppm oxygen. Tell me how that turns out. The concentration at which a particular substance becomes problematic is completely dependent upon the situation, not if it superficially appears to be "nothing".

The climate has changed before.

Yes. But over millennia not decades.

Volcanoes spew more pollution than mankind could ever dream of!

No. Volcanic emissions mostly act to cool the climate (ash and sulfate aerosols). Carbon dioxide from volcanism amounts to less than 200 Mt per year and is in the current epoch naturally balanced by chemical weathering, compared with 6 Gt from fossil fuel use.

It was zero degrees outside this morning!

There's a serious difference between weather and climate, let alone global climate. A cool summer in the Northeast United States (for example) does not mean global warming is no longer happening.

The sun and orbit are causing it!

Yes. The actual energy causing the heating is from the sun. And yes, the sun can vary slightly in radiative output and the Earth's orbit influences climate over long-term, regular periods. But throwing a blanket over the planet at the same time surely does not help the situation!

The radiative output of the sun is a measurable quantity. We can detect changes in this. We can also detect and calculate changes in the orbit of the Earth and its wobble on its axis. We have detectors on satellites which cover the entire electromagnetic spectrum. It is very unlikely that some rogue radiation is coming in and heating the atmosphere without out knowledge.

The "scientists" refuse to debate! They say its over! Let me write out the scientific method for you...

There isn't really anything to debate, at least not concerning the things I described above. We can debate the timescales, consequences, and the feedback cycles and computer models and all of that other stuff...but the basic fact that we are wrapping the Earth with a little extra insulation can not be debated.

Global Warming is overblown!

All ecological disturbances have the capacity to severely affect life, which includes humans. The majority of the disturbances take place over fairly long (on human time scales) periods of time on a local basis right under our noses. It is not possible to definitely predict the time scales of global warming impact. Those in the the coal industry will give a different timeline than the members of Greenpeace, and there is then everything in between. Is it better to party now (go with the coal industry's prediction), let a few people get ridiculously rich, and then have to deal with a huge problem in the future (possibly serious global warming issues, definitely resource supply issues, pollution, and biodiversity losses)? Or is it better to begin getting our acts together now? I guess it's all a matter of whether you work for the coal industry, or are a member of Greenpeace!

Anyone who considers the current practices of rich countries in curbing carbon dioxide emissions to be "overblown" is mistaken, because emissions continue to rise! Obviously the system is not even close to being fixed. Anyone who considers the carbon-based consumer economy to be sustainable needs to go for a reality check. In addition, anyone who considers nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, renewables, or some elusive undiscovered energy resource (Zero-Point and antimatter reactors!) to be a drop-in replacement for fossil fuels needs to go for a reality check.

Harebrained practices such as cutting electricity supplies and restricting car transport are not solutions, as these will quickly backfire. Discouraging consumptive lifestyles over time is ultimately the ideal solution. Our culture currently applauds those who consume the most - that must change.

The enviro-wackos want to take away my freedom, turn off my lights, and make me live in a cave!

No one is looking to take away your freedom.

Some people define freedom as being able to consume as much of the Earth's natural resources as they desire. The problem with this ideology is that as more people populate the planet and start buying stuff, the fixed amount of resources that the planet has to offer is spread more thin. Is it your "right" to take some amount of a resource for yourself while denying someone else the "right" to their share? Is it your "right" to do this because you have little green pieces of paper in your hands and those other people do not?

Politicians, as we all know, rarely live spartan lifestyles. Even Al Gore, of Inconvenient Truth fame, has his fair share of square footage to heat and light. You will notice that Al Gore promotes an "ecoconsumerism" ideology where we solve this global warming problem with renewable energy (and possibly carbon sequestration from fossil fuels) and somehow go on happily running our consumer economy, car culture, and "Go Big or Go Home" mindset.

The people promoting more drastic changes in lifestyle have little if any political clout, and they are quite moderate people. They are not out to force anything upon anyone. They can, however, hold a lengthy educated conversation about why such changes are necessary. They have not eliminated all of the comforts of technology from their lives, rather they use them more moderately and with greater care and consideration.

Technology will save us!

Technology acts only to increase the consumption of natural resources. As great as technological achievement has been, it is the reason we are in this situation. More efficient and reliable engines and drive trains made big, consumptive automobiles affordable. The engineers made the engines more efficient, and with this efficiency we did not increase the amount of distance which can be covered on a liter of fuel - we added air conditioning, power seats, and more head room! Likewise, more efficient power plants made possible cheap and efficient electrical motors for machinery and reduced the cost of manufactured goods. This stimulated demand, and all of the efficiency gains made in the power plants were eliminated several times over.

Efficient technology allows more people to share the bounty of a resource. Technological efficiency gains must be properly directed in order to keep the overall consumption of the resource at a reasonable level. For example, directing the efficiency gain of a new engine into making the vehicle go farther rather than making it bigger.

Low technology has as much, if not greater, capacity as high technology to bring human society into equilibrium with the natural resource base.

I hope global warming turns out to be non existent, to teach all those liberal wussies a lesson!

I hope it turns out to not be a problem as well. That does not mean we can keep running the "shop 'till ya' drop" consumption orgy. The world may seem big to each of us, but think about economic growth - can we continue on expecting it to be infinite, manufacturing ever more useless crap and converting the earth's natural resources into garbage? Think about it.

For those who cringe at the idea of using carbon taxes (or worse yet pollution markets so the wealthy polluters can pay to pollute) and other political methods to reduce emissions and change consumption patterns, make changes in your own lifestyle and encourage others to do the same. If we all make small changes at our own pace, the issues can be resolved with little to no need for bureaucracy. I am not saying go out tomorrow and buy a hybrid car, install solar panels on your McMansion, and otherwise become a complete stuck-up "better-than-you" jackass. Don't WASTE energy. Think about stuff before you buy it - do you really need it? Do you really need a large house or large car? The less we consume, the better. Plant a garden. Compost your food waste. If you have the money and live in a cold climate, replace an aged heating system with a cogeneration plant. It will do far more than a photovoltaic solar system ever could.

Let's say we took an approach to the "global warming" issue similar to those proposed by Kunstler et. al. - relocalization and downsizing of the economy, bringing manufacturing back home, using railroads, cogeneration plants, learning to grow food, fix things rather than destroy and rebuild, and take care of ourselves on our own a little bit better (like we used to do, except now we have a few more things to help us out, not to mention one another), concentrating less on expanding and producing insane wealth and more on actually living - if we did all of that, and suddenly "global warming" turns out to not be an issue, it will be a wonderful day.

 

Last Modified: 10/27/2009
Created: 10/27/2009