Hi folks,

The usual disagreements with an "Inconvenient Truth" have been pretty lame. Instead of arguing facts and data, obscure nut case "scientists" are cited or we get a big dose of anti-environmental nonsense. These are so easy to spot that I automatically move on. But recently there was a court case in England challenging an "Inconvenient Truth" and this is the first time I've seen criticism that has some merit.

There were nine specific findings and though some of them are silly, "Snows of Kilimanjaro" was an example of glacier mass loss world wide, others have more merit. Yet curiously, nothing has been brought here for discussion. So the nine finding were:

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

We are hindered because we don't have the transcript. So we don't know if the defenders sent a low-level, civil servant, a Mr. Bean character, or a serious advocate. Regardless, the film will be distributed to the classrooms with some updated teacher guides, which I agree with.

Bob Wilson

 

John Stossel takes on Al Gore's movie tonight (10/19/2007) on 20/20

 

Bob,
The main problem with lone term climate prediction science is that it is extremely new,and that particular branch of science has no record of correct predictions. Now that isn't their fault, but it is the fault of any that overstate the certainty of their predictions.
The usual response to this is,"but can we afford to wait until their predictions are validated before we do something?" Well the obvious answer is we just don't know, what we just don't know!
On the bright side, conservation and efficient use of resources is always a good idea,so we can push for that. In this country we could boost the economy by pushing for-more efficient houses,lighting,cars, transportation, manufacturing ,water use etc. Frankly I don't know why folks in dry western states don't use their waste water to grow trees that would shade their houses.A simple bypass with a device that would separate most of the solids would allow them to put 100 gallons of water a day on the tree of their choice.Screw the grass lawns-if there is adequate water/nutrients all that sunlight will give fast growing shade trees.Some of the water will be a bit basic(soap-detergent), but it can be made neutral easily enough.
Charlie

 

Hi Charlie,
I'm used to dealing with natural science where we acknowledge what we don't know yet still come to useful conclusions. Sure there is the occasional "opps" but they are notable because they are so rare.

I'm not in the "sky is falling" crowd but over time, the greenhouse gas hypothesis has been tested and retested and it looks more and more plausable. Even in Huntsville, one of the early detractors, Christie, was on TV happy about getting some of the prize money because he had corrected his earlier data and now acknowledges it is happening.

Efficiency is what drove me to towards hybrids and remains a life-long goal. As for suggestions to use brown water, I'm reminded of a visit to Las Vegas and having to walk by a water stray and wondering . . . "Where did this water come from???"

I have no problem with 'drip' distribution of 'brown water' but I sure don't cotton anything that might make it airborne. <grins>

Bob Wilson

 

Here in central Texas there is a mini self contained water treatment system that replaces the old septic tank and field. Most use the POTABLE water that comes out of these systems to water their trees and grass. Currently they cost about $2000 more than a septic system. The health departments are moving toward these systems because the requirements for the traditional septic systems are getting very tight.

I have a real concern that all the facts about greenhouse gasses are not being told like water vapor is by far the number 1 GHG co2 is a very small % of the atmosphere. Geologically co2 has been MUCH higher in the past and bottomed out 10,000 years ago. I do not believe man is a significant cause of the warming.

That said, we are very foolish for not using technology that we invented to produce cheap, clean, abundant power. We created the petroleum economy and we got very rich doing it. Now lets create a new cleaner source and make even more money. But we are going to need to build many more MODERN nuclear power plants to generate the hydrogen we will need as fuel. As I see it power plants generate hydrogen. Fuel cells power our cars and houses. Fuel cells make some of the water we drink. Say good by to power lines. Hybrid cars are a transition technology.

 

Some get it, some don't. I really hope those who get it are the ones in decision-making positions.

 

Bob,
No I wouldn't do any sprays. The spraying in Las Vegas/Phoenix/ in strictly for show,and to cool folks walking by.It isn't essential,and it doesn't add anything in respect to growing plants.Those places are so hot/dry in the summertime ,and the spray is so fine that it doesn't even make it to the ground.
I would run underground lines from the "house's" exhaust pipe(or better yet a collector/settling basin).Run them directly to the tree.You would have to do it carefully,so you don't have to add any electric pump.Heck-lots of folks go to health clubs-if you need a pump, use a man driven one-get some free exercise.
Long term Climate Prediction Science is a lot less developed than Chemistry/Physics.It is even waaaaay behind the Biologic sciences.Medical science is fairly new-50-150 years depending on your point of view-and there are plenty of examples of very bright people being very,very wrong.Ulcer treatment is one prominent example.From 1955-1985 1,000,000's of high risk operations were done for ulcers.It wasn't until about 1990 that the correct treatment was accepted-antibiotics for H. pylori.Suitable antibiotics were available from 1950 on(maybe earlier since it might have been sensitive to the earliest penicllins initially).
There were plenty of studies done showing that these surgeries(cutting the vagus nerve,and bypassing the bottom of the stomach) were "good."In hindsight they were BS,but the best and brightest accepted them at the time.Of course,and new disease-GERD- immediately sprung up to use the meds-acid suppressors of one sort or another- that had been developed to treat the ulcers.The low fat/high carb diet is another example of science by polling.
Smart folks can be dead wrong. The weather science folks have a lot of suggestive numbers, but since they can't do experiments we won't know for sure for several hundred years.
On the bright side, conservation-energy efficiency-alternative energy-water conservation are win win situations that can produce jobs that can't be outsourced(someone has to actually install insulation,solar panels).Using power plant CO2 to increase plant growth is another idea being worked on.
We'll see(well,we will be dead, but...)
Charlie
PS-Better warming than cooling if we are forced to choose one.

 

I don't know the exact reasons but it is illegal in the Boulder/Denver area to use brown water for your plants. When there were water restrictions a few years back people were doing that and getting fined. My guess is because water from your home use is essentially reused down the line after treatment.

Recovering all of your waste water takes it away from the next user down the line. Eventually people near the end of the line get nothing.

That's why I don't see the benefit of a low water flush toilet unless there is extreme water shortage (which hasn't been the case), all the water is reused anyways and it's easier to treat a more diluted waste.

 

The lack of "experimental verification" is one straw the creationists continue to grasp. They are happy with 'unnatural selection' when breeding critters while they continue to harp on the absence of a species change, one that results in critters that can not breed. Of course it always reminds me of the St. Bernard in heat and Chihuahua stud. But the creationists continue to rail against evolution.

I have a little different take on global warming based upon the finite limits of fossil fuel. IMHO, our human populations are sustained by the availability of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. Regardless of the average earth temperature, when fossil fuels peak and begin declining, our ability to produce and distribute food will significantly fall off.

From what I can tell, evolution seems to advance in spurts from isolated populations under stress. Whether that stress is from higher global temperature and loss of food production (or any other disaster,) the effect will be to toss "God's dice" and we may see a species change.

In the meanwhile, efficiency has always been my favorite goal. Fighting the 2nd law of Thermodynamics is a never ending task . . . even if it does win in the end.

Bob Wilson

 

Pretty much my view as well, except that once we deplete the hydrocarbons I add the fact that a stressed population without a fuel source will implement other ones, even if they represent a threat to species besides our own... and the obvious one is atomic power. The best and safest approach to it will fail at some point, and even if it doesn't we have a waste disposal problem. Then we will see who or what emerges as a dominate species.

Unless we can somehow change our lust for power and drastically reduce the amount required so that it can be satisifed with solar or geophysical (Geothermal, Tidal, Wind, ect.) sources, I fear the that the above is the easy course, and thus the one most likely to be taken.