| « | An Anti-Obama Nuke… |
»
|
|
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Air Is Free
ISN’T IT? In all of his science fiction, Robert Heinlein writes about this fallacy on myriad occasions. Air isn’t free. Beyond planetary atmospheres, the cost of air—which needs to be imported or manufactured at great expense—is a significant limiting factor to the carrying capacity of the environment. However, on Earth we don’t have a specific line-item on an invoice from a Municipal Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide Works, so we assume there’s no cost to providing us the breath of life. But it is there, nevertheless. Not in the development of the resource or the infrastructure, to be sure, but in the maintenance and continuation of the “service.”
Now, granted, the cost of air for a single individual on Earth is infinitesimally small and very diffuse. I doubt even dealing with a universe of 6 billion people over a century, an honest accounting would provide a cost figure accurate to within ten decimal places. But it’s there. And I think people realize it instinctively. They also realize that, as any commodity becomes rarer, it becomes more precious—more dear. And, since air is vital to life, a near panic can set in when some unscrupulous sort comes along and implies that—due to the activities of the Devil of the Week—a shortage of air might eventuate.
So maybe, one might say in a fog of FUD on hearing such dire predictions, a tax on carbon dioxide isn’t such a bad thing? In order to ensure the continued flow of our life’s breath?
Right?
Well, in a word, no. Wrong. Wealth, as experience has proven, is the best protector against environmental degradation. No tax ever produced one denarius of wealth. All taxes can do is destroy wealth—diminish it. A tax on carbon dioxide, given the size and complexity of the environment in relation to man’s affect on it, is an utterly meaningless gesture, designed more to have a deadly effect on the economy than to ameliorate any real or imagined damage that animals’ breathing might do to the atmosphere. If anything, it will make that infinitesimal cost suddenly become measurable.
But how is the ordinary citizen to know that?
…
Whenever I get going on this topic, I marvel at the incredible hubris of the environmentalists, to think that anything humanity can do can have a permanent and deleterious effect on the planet. And my mental tape deck rewinds, then stops, and hits “Play” on the Voice of Moses reading from Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park on the Rush Limbaugh show.
You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity! Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away—all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive gas, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
I always say that people who think we can damage the environment don’t really have sufficient imagination or mental scope to appropriate the vastness of the problem. They see a 120mm photo of the earth taken from space, and think that the atmosphere, which appears as a fingernail paring in that tiny photo, is a small and fragile thing. They cannot or will not step out of their tiny, apartment-dweller minds and into the real world. Go outside and look up at the sky. Appreciate that you cannot see the end of it. Appreciate that all of humanity would fit in a small fraction of Texas—infrastructure and all—with room left over. Appreciate that termites alone outweight humanity by an order of magnitude, and have a far greater impact on the environment.
Most, if not all, of this lack, I think, is due to the destruction of the American public school system by progressive followers of John Dewey during the 20th Century. Hard sciences are not taught with any real rigor. Math requirements are watered down, and diffused with socially-correct nonsense and fuzzy thinking (that whole New Math thing). And most children are discouraged from pursuing their natural curiosity, from expanding their mental worlds to include such things at the wonder and complexity of a thunderstorm. Boys are henpecked into metrosexual submission and girls are told to express their feelings about the value of the square root of negative one.
Which leads to such nonsense as the virulence with which the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax has taken hold. There’s no reason for it. Elementary weather science debunks the AGW conjecture. The models rely too much on sophisticated (and sophist) computer models of dubitable statistical analyses and not enough on common sense and empirical observation. If only such were taught in schools, the whole farrago would have gained exactly zero traction with the public, because the overwhelming majority of citizens would know AGW is utter bullshit. Instead, we have a raging public “debate,” consisting of the warmistas tantrumming, “Is SO!” and the skeptics calmly pointing out, “Actually, Old, Man, it isn’t so by half.”
Yet, when I set out to research the skeptics’ position, even the simplest expositions I found seemed to involve esoteric discussions of methodologies and statistics, and high-order physics…
There are six equations that describe a gas dynamics problem: the equation of state and five nonlinear differential equations expressing the conservation of mass, momentum and energy. Key to these for the atmosphere are: 1. the future flow of heat from the sun as a function of time and space and 2. the absorbent and reflective nature of the atmosphere as a function of time and space.
We don’t have a clue about these. For any computer model to produce answers, many extremely questionable assumptions must be made. As McAllister noted, “why can’t the current scientific models accurately predict next week’s weather?”
If the audience has been denied first-year algebra, or the construction of proofs, or quadratic equations, how in the world can they understand gas dynamics?
But some understanding of the science involved is vital to debunking the AGW conjecture. So: where to begin?
…
Over time, as I’ve tried to tease out a thread of explanation the layman can grasp, it’s occurred to me that I may be able, even with my imperfect understanding of the subject matter, to convey some of the reasons why one should be skeptical, and how strong those reason are in militating against the warmistas’ sometimes-rabid defense of their delusion.
So this past week, when Our Curmudgeon approached me to contribute at Eternity Road, I had already been flailing around on this question and looking for some focus. How can I approach this to make matters comprehensible to graduates of government schools—and, by extension, those perhaps more scientifically literate who nevertheless have little patience with what Rush calls “numbers on the radio” kind of explanations, which are very hard to follow in the context of reading a blog over morning coffee? Sure, you probably could get it, but demands on your time and attention militate against that happening this morning, so…
::click:: DONE!
NEXT!
So here’s the proposal. I will attempt to explicate an AGW skeptic’s position—note: not THE skeptic’s position, but A skeptic’s position—i.e., mine. I will attempt to boil it down to bite-sized pieces, explaining why you should be skeptical of the AGW conjecture (and why I refuse to grant the whole mess the formality of being called a theory), and where the AGW position falls down on the merits and cannot get up.
And, with a little luck and some good management, I might even get it done before the millennium.
Psst! Alger! The millennium came seven-and-a-half years ago.
Sure. The last one.
Oh. OH! I see.
There’s no telling how fast the installments may come. I can tell you this: so long as it holds my interest, the project will assume the shape of a mania, and I won’t let it go. When it begins to bore me—and by extension, you, my readers—I will drop it like an ex-girlfriend, never to be spoken of again.
First up, temperature, the basic dynamics of weather, and why even the satellite watch box is too large to provide meaningful data on global temperatures.
Cross-posted at BabyTrollBlog.
Comments
"If the audience has been denied first-year algebra, or the construction of proofs, or quadratic equations, how in the world can they understand gas dynamics?”
Truly, a quixotic hope, but there’s something virtually every audience can understand that will usually serve: the immanence and inexorability of equilibrium.
In the physical world, all tendencies are toward equilibrium: balance. There’s no force, no natural process, and no point-phenomenon tht tends, over a macroscopic interval, toward unbalance. One of the cleanest demonstrations is Lenz’s Law in electromagnetism. The evening-out of temperatures in a bowl filled with ice and room-temperature water is perhaps the simplest.
Earth isn’t a blackbody radiator, but it comes acceptably close—and the emissions from such a radiator are proportional to the five-fourths power of the temperature difference at its limn. That’s faster than linear, so input is required to keep Earth’s temperature steady. We have such input—thank You, God—and a natural regulator for it that masses in the millions, if not billions of tons.
Earth’s albedo—its aggregate reflectance of incoming radiation—has been studied for decades. Atmospheric albedo is another equilibrium phenomenon: it rises in proportion to the intensity of radiative input. If ‘twere otherwise, the solar constant, which varies by about four percent between its maxima and its minima, would have risen enough to incinerate our entire biosphere several times just this past millennium (the Second one, not the one that began 7.5 years ago).
What can humans do to affect Earth’s atmospheric albedo? Two things:
1. By reducing our emissions of particulates, we can slightly decrease the maximum albedo, as radiative reflectance depends largely on suspended particles and large molecules.
2. By increasing our emissions of particulates, we can slightly increase the maximum albedo, for the same reason.Thus, the warmistas are counseling a course that would take us in precisely the opposite direction they claim to want us to go. But even here, there is a sharp limit to our ability to affect matters, because suspended particles and large molecules tend to stay very close to the Earth!
Most persons, even victims of government-run “education,” can understand this argument.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 06/10/2008 at 05:49 AMOf course, you know that the watermelon agenda is a red herring. That’s part of my agenda—to reveal that, not through first-order effects, but through—all irony intended—proxies. Not through the warmistas’ own words, but through the remarkably consistent effects their nostrums have had and will have in the future.
But I fear that even the seemingly fundamental notions of black body radiation and albedo would draw a blank expression from my imaginary “Dicky Flatts” testor.
As Phil Gramm used to claim, I’m putting these ideas to a test: I imagine telling real person of my acquaintance and adjust my explanation according to his reactions.
This fellow is not unsophisticated. He’s a professional lithographer—someone who understands intimately, through years’ long use—the physics of light and the chemistry of photosensitive coatings, the geometry of cylinders, the map-fold problem. He is a master jack-leg geometer, a draughstman par excellence, a photographer, and an artist of the highest type—a commercial artist.
But he has been ill-done by the education system. He don’t know much about fizzix. He uses algebra almost instinctively, but couldn’t solve a quadratic equation to save his life—or that of his beloved son.
I figure if I can explain it so he gets it, then I may have done the world a service.
Eh, wot?
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 06/10/2008 at 10:11 AM“Which leads to such nonsense as the virulence with which the whole Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax has taken hold. There’s no reason for it.”
I beg to differ Mark. The AGW/Enviro hoax has been seized upon by the political class as a means to increase its power. Mrs ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ has just returned from a visit to her native totalitarian Sweden where washing ones own car is unlawful (not a joke!). The “pollution” from the residue must be filtered by an approved carwash facility in order to prevent the “contamination” from entering the enviroment. The ordinary Swede now expends copious man hours and resources “recycling” virtually every household product. This is the future the enviros intend to force on us all.
Posted by ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ on 06/10/2008 at 02:26 PMOne step at a time, Leo. You’re getting ahead of me. The politics come later.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 06/11/2008 at 07:51 AMLeo;
Homerun… It is about power, plain and simple. Like I wrote over at another blog recently, the “scare du jour” is always there, always hanging over our heads, in order to give them leverage against us.
Commies, arab terrorists, global warming… It’s always something. Go back 100 years, and you’ll find the “yellow scare” and many other interesting scares du jour.
Sometimes, the scares are things we really ought to be afraid of, like the Commies, for instance. However, the scares, and subsequent fears, are almost ALWAYS overstated, and are almost ALWAYS used in ways to keep us subjogated.
Take the USA Patriot Act, and the scare that caused it’s passage. I cringe at the idea of minimizing the pain of terrorist victims, and that is not my intent. Losing a loved one is a horrible thing, and I wish that I could state this in a way to exclude all indication that I am minimizing their loss. However, a quick tally of the total loss of American civilian lives to terrorists in the last decade ends up being about 3,000, give or take.
For this, we have allowed the passage of an act that greatly erodes our rights, as guaranteed in the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Bill of Rights, just to name the glaringly obvious ones.
I have friends who claim to be libertarian that look at me funny when I tell them that the USAPA basically nullifies their right to council, and their right to be secure in their effects and possesions against unreasonable search and seizure, amongst a few other things.
All of this for a little (false) security against a 4th century gang of thugs willing to die in order to kill.
Granted, this is a VERY REAL threat, but when this is pointed out, I cannot help but respond with the following conjecture:
The average number of American Civilians killed over the last decade on our highways is approximately 46,000 PER YEAR!!! That means 460,000 people have died from automobile accidents in the same period of time the terrorists have killed 3,000.
SO, I ask them, would you willingly give up these 5th and 6th amendment rights in exchange for GUARANTEED safety on our public highways?
Not a single one of them would. Not one. Possibly, I might find a taker here on Eternity Road. Anyone?
Remember, this is GUaRANTEED safety, not an illusion of safety, as provided by the USAPA, and a guaranteed safety for a risk well over a hundred times higher than the risk that the USAPA was written to “protect” us against.
What of promises that the USAPA will only be used against terrorists? They have already been broken. A baby-food smuggler in New England, a drug dealer in Texas, and Eliot Spitzer from New York are just three examples of non-terrorist uses of the USAPA that have already occured. And these are just the ones we know about, remember, the USAPA has articles prohibiting anyone from talking if they are under USAPA investigation, under penalty of felony. THIS INCLUDES TALKING TO YOUR LAWYER! So how many times has it been used that we don’t even know about?
The scare du jour gave them much, much more power over us. They can send anyone to jail, anytime they want to, without muss or fuss over it, and all of this legislation was passed amidst thunderous applause and jingoistic cheers.
Just think of what they can do with Global Warming? That is supposed to kill US ALL, not just 3,000.
Posted by on 06/11/2008 at 04:41 PMDon’t miss Michael Crichton’s Remarks to the Commonwealth Club entitled Environmentalism as a Religion... The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda.... Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.
There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.
And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them. That’s just an excerpt.
I highly recommend it.
Posted by Rose on 06/13/2008 at 12:51 AM
