Doses of Reality

For once, I totally agree with you. This bill is...

2009-12-18T00:06:45.444-05:00

For once, I totally agree with you.

This bill is impotent and will please no one but some corporations that already benefit from the current system. But if you've ever watched Sicko (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THa_oJG8MIo starting around the five minute mark), you'd see why.

Great Post - I really like your blog!! Common Cen...

2009-12-17T19:14:45.654-05:00

Great Post - I really like your blog!!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange???

Hi Phil, I just wanted to apologize for not having...

2009-12-05T17:22:41.699-05:00

Hi Phil,
I just wanted to apologize for not having responded so far, and I am currently quite busy until later in the month. But I haven't forgotten, and I will get respond to this particular post soon.
Cheers,
Sarah

Great Post! I really like your blog!! Common Cen...

2009-12-02T19:25:15.955-05:00

Great Post! I really like your blog!!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange??

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium? ...

2009-11-20T13:22:31.841-05:00

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

Cracked.com just said something similar.

2009-11-19T18:49:28.624-05:00

Cracked.com just said something similar.

See above. Thanks for your responses.

2009-11-16T10:37:34.255-05:00

See above. Thanks for your responses.

(they informed me my comment was too long so here ...

2009-11-14T22:00:10.094-05:00

(they informed me my comment was too long so here is the 2nd part of it. :) )

I hope these answers have clarified your questions about the carbon cycle. I think it's easier for people to believe that we aren't the problem, because then there is no responsibility to do anything about it. But really the evidences are very solid behind human caused global warming, and it's not really a matter of what you believe or not. It's a matter of the evidence.

Of course there are dissenting views, normally from non-climate scientists, which is good for any scientific study, as all the data must be scrutinized and combed for any other possible interpretation. However the vast majority of climate scientists agree this is a real effect that humans are causing and a real problem. And, speaking as a scientist, we aren't here to scare the population or drive politics by using bad data to achieve some end. Scientists are just curious people who want to know the truth as shown by objective evidence. I think every climate scientist wished the data for global warming weren't so bleak, but unfortunately it is.

I hope you rethink your position on this issue. As a blogger you have an strong influence and I think you can be a strong witness in the Christian community.

Best wishes,
Sarah

Hi Phil, Sorry it's taken me a while to get to thi...

2009-11-14T21:59:27.288-05:00

Hi Phil,
Sorry it's taken me a while to get to this as I had a family emergency a few days ago. But here are the answers to your questions.

1. Excess CO2 absorbed by oceans.

The article you linked actually has the answer to your first question, so I'll just copy the relevant section:

Since CO2 is an acid gas, the uptake of anthropogenic CO2 uses up carbonate ions and lowers the oceanic pH. The carbonate ion concentration of surface sea water will decrease by an estimated 30 percent with a doubling of cean has the potential to take up approximately 85 percent of the anthropogenic CO 2 that is released to the atmosphere. As long as atmospheric CO 2 concentrations continue to rise, the oceans will continue to take up CO2 . However, this reaction is reversible. If atmospheric CO2 were to decrease in the future, the oceans will start releasing the accumulated anthropogenic CO2 back out into the atmosphere.

"The ultimate storage place for anthropogenic CO 2 must be reactions that bind the CO 2 in a manner that is not easily reversed."

Essentially, the time scales are too long for our situation. Another source on the Ocean Carbon Cycle says, "The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years."

Essentially it goes back to the thing I mentioned before, on long geological time scales Earth has a great capacity to keep a temperate climate, but these time scales are longer than human ones.

Also from that blog site I mentioned, realclimate.org, they also go into how the ocean becomes less effective as a carbon sink as the concentrations go up in more detail.

The take home message is yes, the oceans due take up CO2 but to get it to the deep ocean where it is really removed from the atmosphere is 1000 years or so. And even then, there is a limit to what the oceans can take in.

2. Can CO2 vary across the globe?

Yes it does vary across the globe, and it also varies seasonally, as seen in the Hawaii chart. However, variations across the globe can't account for 100ppm of concentration increase. Plus there is a global network measuring CO2 concentrations and they all measure increasing CO2. NASA also has a new mission this year that will get a better estimate of global fluctuations in CO2. The poles have the highest CO2 abundance, and so Hawaii is actually measuring values much less than the high end extremes. As well that atmosphere does mix fairly well on month timescales.

Another friend of mine is an atmospheric chemist, currently looking at the global fluctuations of CO2 (so exactly your question). And she sent me a link to her advisor explaining their most recent results on youtube. It's only 1 min 30 secs and sums up your question nicely.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5ivBzeNYkY

As you can see in their figure on the video, the CO2 levels fluctuate from around 380ppm to 396ppm. So yes, you are correct in that there are global fluctuations, but nothing that would account for the overall increase of over 100ppm that we measure.

I think I might continue the discussion by asking ...

2009-11-10T23:30:52.621-05:00

I think I might continue the discussion by asking a question or two.

I just read and interesting article HERE about how excess CO2 is absorbed into the oceans. What do you think about this?

Also, another blog mentioned that the graph charting increasing CO2 levels is always from the weather station in Hawaii. Do CO2 levels vary across the globe like temperature?

Hi Phil, For those of you who didn't read my post...

2009-11-10T13:54:47.319-05:00

Hi Phil,

For those of you who didn't read my posts on the previous entry to this blog, I am the astronomer to which he referred. I encourage anyone to read the actual post as though Phil did a fair job in summarizing my words, it is always best to read everything in context.

I don't have a lot of time this moment as I have a meeting in 30 min, but I did want to point anyone interested in learning about global warming from a scientific perspective to www.realclimate.org. This blog is moderated and run by active climate scientists. They write everything in a very accessible format, and provide links to more in depth articles should you want to learn more.

RealClimate.org for example goes through the hockey stick controversy:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

They provide a great introduction to climate in general in their "start here" section:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Also you mentioned the Great Global Warming Swindle, which I watched several years ago when it first came out. After watching it, I looked more into it and found some fallacies they presented. I don't remember where I originally searched, but the magazine New Scientist has some articles on it and some of the fallacies appear to be written in someone else's blog (obviously one should trust the science magazine over a blog, but I think that's where he got his information but again, I haven't looked at this recently):

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/03/rebutting-errors-in-great-global.html

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/environment/2007/03/climate-change-who-is-swindling-who.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325955.900-fake-fights-are-not-helping-climate-science.html

Also I'd like to refer to the title of this blog for today in that warming effects are not uniform across the globe, and just because there is cold days/months does in no way debunk a general warming trend.

And I would like to thank Phil again for your comments, which have always been respectful and fair.

See HERE for further discussion.

2009-11-10T11:08:38.762-05:00

See HERE for further discussion.

I would also like to mention that before I really ...

2009-11-07T01:32:41.452-05:00

I would also like to mention that before I really understood more about climate science, I was also skeptical of Global Warming. Since it's become so politically charged, it's difficult to look at unbiased reports on it and everyone and their mother has their own opinion supposedly backed by "science". Climate is a very complex system, and there are many unresolved questions, such as the amount of predicted warming, the rate the ice sheets will melt etc. But there are a few things that remain sure 1) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It has in the past, it does so now, and it will warm the Earth and 2) human activity has added substantially to the carbon concentration since the industrial revolution. This is independent from volcanic activity or other non-human sources.

I would first like to ask you, why (philosophicall...

2009-11-07T01:09:13.685-05:00

I would first like to ask you, why (philosophically) are you opposed to the idea that humans are influencing climate. Isn't it possible that with our technological advances we are having a far greater impact on the Earth than before the industrial revolution? Also you admit you don't really understand the science behind the issue, however you claim the science is bad or misinterpreted. Upon what basis?

Next, what is your source for the statement: "of the negative corrolation between temperature and CO2 over the last 10/50/100/500 years as opposed to the positive corrolation between temperature and solar activity over the same time?"

First, the solar activity is an 11 year cycle, so this is really unrelated to warming trends over longer time periods. Secondly, there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature -- it's a greenhouse gas. Physics and chemistry explain it quite well.

Pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 were around 285ppm (as measured from ice cores and since the 1960s directly in the atmosphere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg) Now the level is pushing 384ppm. That is a substantial relative increase of around 35%. The volcanic output of greenhouse gases has, on average, been constant on human timescales.

Secondly, there is a lag time effect of CO2 emissions and final CO2 concentration. In essence due to the residence time or "turnover time" of CO2, even if we were to suddenly stop ALL emission of CO2 into the atmosphere, we would still measure an increase CO2 levels in the atmosphere for the next 150 years before it reached a steady state (leveled out).

On geological timescales (~400,000 yrs), yes the Earth does regulate climate. Solar luminosity (energy flux) has increased steadily since the formation of Earth yet the climate has been relatively constant. This is due to the Carbon-Silicate cycle which is controlled by biology and geology. So yes, in 400,000 the Earth should resolve whatever damage we cause now. But are you willing to wait that long? We need to do something now, as this issue will directly affect our children and grandchildren.

Finally, my worst case scenario is not about money, it's about massive famines and millions of people dying. Do you think the wealthy nations (after causing a large part of this problem) are really going to help prevent the loss of agricultural land in poorer nations? How much do you monetary value do you put on each human life if dealing with the problem later is supposedly less expensive that reducing emissions?

I don't believe our planet will be "destroyed" just that we are not being the best stewards of the resources and Earth God gave us. And we are causing ourselves undo harm. Ironically, the environmental movement was originally Republican and from Biblical teachings, I'd expect Christians to be the most staunch supporters of being "green". Materialism (which is a huge part of the Global Warming issue ) is sure not on Jesus' priority list.

Thanks for your comment. You seem to know quite a ...

2009-11-07T00:11:00.617-05:00

Thanks for your comment. You seem to know quite a bit about climate science (certainly much more than me). What do you make of the negative corrolation between temperature and CO2 over the last 10/50/100/500 years as opposed to the positive corrolation between temperature and solar activity over the same time?

I don't doubt that our climate changes and cycles. What I disagree with is the idea that paople have anything much to do with it. Volcanos and the gas expelled by cows would surely register a larger (albeit tiny) effect.

Your worst-case scenario has us spending lots of effort and money to compensate for food shortages. Have you looked at pending climate legislation? The cost to "fix" the problem will cost just as much, if not more, effort and money. And if you like ethanol, we get food shortages on top of it!

I don't want to see our planet destroyed, but I also don't believe we could do that if we wanted to. And I certainly don't want to see our economy and standard of living destroyed based on misinterpreted science.

Please refer to my comment on August 7th, 2009 blo...

2009-11-06T13:58:50.826-05:00

Please refer to my comment on August 7th, 2009 blog post: "More Global Warming Nonsense" to answer the difference between the Sun affecting the temperature (of course it's does) but how global warming is still a very real effect due to various gases in our atmosphere such as water vapor, CO2 and CH4. Without the greenhouse effect, our planet would be frozen completely. With it we have a temperate climate, but adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will naturally increase the climate and can cause future problems.

I would like to address your comment: "Rather, it ...

2009-11-06T13:48:14.769-05:00

I would like to address your comment: "Rather, it argues both that particles/gases in the atmosphere would decrease the temperature and also that we should still worry about reducing particles/gases if they come from your car. Which is it?!?"

I am an astronomer and study climate on planets and would like to try to answer your question. It can be resolved simply by understanding a bit more of the details of the greenhouse effect. Clouds are made of water droplets, and do scatter sunlight and contribute to our Albedo (the amount of energy from the Sun that is reflected before reaching the Earth). Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (not droplets) let in visible light and trap re-emitted infrared heat from the earth. If Earth had no atmosphere, the average temperature would be very cold, around -19 deg Celsius. This can be calculated by balancing the incoming flux (energy) from the Sun by the outgoing flux, which is emitted in by infrared (thermal) radiation.

Because of our atmosphere, the average temperature of Earth is much warmer, around 15 degrees Celsius. So greenhouse gases are not bad in and among themselves. You are right, the Sun is the largest contributor to global climate, it accounts for 255 degrees of warming. BUT, greenhouse gases compose of that very important 33-34 degrees of warming that keeps us above freezing. So greenhouse gases are very important, but have negative consequences in excess.

Water vapor/humidity (not just clouds) in the atmosphere is the biggest greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and methane. Thus, injecting clouds in the atmosphere will increase the Albedo (amount of energy from the Sun that is reflected) of Earth will increase, and thus cool the planet. There is a good video by NOVA called, "Global Dimming" which goes into this. Adding more greenhouse gases, such as CO2 from driving your car, absolutely will warm the planet and contribute to global warming.

Therefore to stop global warming, we should have to do a combination of reducing emissions and environmental engineering (to reverse the effect we have already caused). Thus yes, it makes logical sense to stop driving your car so much and to look at possible geoengineering solutions at the same time for the most economical solution.

Why should we care?
Global warming is a serious issue, even for just a 1 degree rise of temperature. Melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is very worrisome as it most definitely will cause a rise in sea level, up to 7 meters. By some estimates, 1 meter rise in sea level is almost inevitable at this time. Consider, then, that 25% of the world's fertile growing regions are within 1 meter of sea level. Preventing 25% of our loss of food will take a huge effort and amount of money.

I hope this clarifies some of your questions. I come from a very conservative background in Montana, and notice that most people who are against global warming, are only against it because it's "the conservative thing to do" not because of any real understanding of the science behind the issue. Scientific literacy should be a concern for every voting American in making decisions on such issues. The main logical fallacy in your post is that all particles/gases are not equal in their effects on climate. Especially since particles often cool the planet (such as pollution or clouds) and gases often warm the planet (such as CO2 or water vapor).

This post makes me think you would really enjoy th...

2009-09-26T14:19:40.615-04:00

This post makes me think you would really enjoy this free magazine: Imprimis

Which I found though this forum for free magazines.

Most of them are consumer magazines given away by the publisher to increase readership and thus ad rates (and the best offers of this kind are through RewardsGold, FreeBizMag, ValueMags, and Mercury). But some, like Imprimis, promote an institution.

The thought of data theft has occured to me. Remot...

2009-09-16T14:28:13.562-04:00

The thought of data theft has occured to me. Remotely accessible databases are big juicy targets for hackers, no doubt about it. However, I think that the benefits of a doctor having access to a patient's full medical info outweighs the risk. And you know, paper files can be mishandled too.

As for health insurance being like car insurance, we are starting to see that in Massachusetts. Everyone is legally required to buy it and just like Geiko won't turn down your lemon, MA health insurance companies can't reject you or price you out for having a pre-existing condition.

And what if healthcare was subsidized by the government? We expect our tax dollars to protect our property via the police and our country via the army. Does health not deserve the same protection?

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/11/electr...

2009-09-15T22:31:18.802-04:00

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/11/electronic-medical-records-different.html

Those links just won't cooperate!

The link doesn't work. Would you mind trying again...

2009-09-15T20:03:32.473-04:00

The link doesn't work. Would you mind trying again?

A few thoughts on medical records: HERE "Competit...

2009-09-15T20:00:35.519-04:00

A few thoughts on medical records:
HERE

"Competition" with a highly subsidized government option is no competition at all. I just wish health insurance worked like car insurance and life insurance.

According to this AP article reprinted in AARP's n...

2009-09-15T19:46:24.747-04:00

According to this AP article reprinted in AARP's newsletter, the proposed healthcare bill would not create anything like a death panel.

And the article that you link to doesn't seem to indicate a "death panel" either. If you can't tell if someone's dying, who better to judge it than a team of doctors? Doctors are supposed to evaluate medical conditions. That's their job. And unfortunate but true, life and death are medical conditions.

I don't think that it makes a difference whether a doctor is employed by the government or a private hospital. No hospital or insurance company can pay for every person's end-of-life care either.

And honestly, I don't think money is the driving force here. Many people who want to keep a comatose loved one on life support are willing to go bankrupt for it. And many people who pull the plug do so for emotional reasons.

I think you're touching on an issue that's plagued every doctor who has access to technology that can keep a body alive long after it's given up the ghost.

While it's true that a doctor's perscription can usually be refused by the family, he is still very influential in this situation, and some doctors are uncomfortable with this power.

(and now I'm going to paraphrase something that I rememeber reading but can't find the source for...)

If a doctor thinks he sees the writing on the wall, should he read it aloud to the patient's family?

Some doctors will stay silent and let the family come to their own conclusions. However, this may result in years of uncertainty, emotional limbo, and intense guilt on the family's part when and if the plug is pulled.

This is why other doctors believe that it's their duty to call it as they see it. They'd rather take the blame for a bad decision than make the family shoulder a responsibilty that the family may not be emotionally equipped for.

(end paraphrase)

Of course, the ideal scenerio is for a patient to have written a living will beforehand. Who better to make the tough call? (or say, "Please keep me alive for as long as possible?" A living will can indicate either preference)

In an ideal world, the questions addressed by a living will would be ticked off on a driver's license or govt ID application/renewal, right before "Do you want to be an organ donor?" Answering the questions would be optional, but since most people know their own preferences, I think this would save a lot of trouble and sorrow.

I agree that tort reform is important. However, I ...

2009-09-15T18:28:37.939-04:00

I agree that tort reform is important. However, I think this cost could be attacked more directly by doing more to prevent malpractice in the first place.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the part of the Reform Bill that funds the electronic upgrading and standardization of medical records. Even in 2009, many doctors keep paper files that are difficult to access outside their office, and they expect pharmacists to decipher their chicken-scratch handwritten perscriptions.

When I had a check-up while briefly living in another state, the doctor only had my words to go by. All my old doctor did was fax him a darn cover sheet! And I can't answer the question, "Have you had all your vaccinations?" That info is probably rotting in file cabinets in four or five different states.

Thank goodness nothing bad has happened to me yet, because it would be so easy. Doctors are blind when it comes to their new patients!

It would cost millions of dollars to upgrade computer systems and scan old documents, but I (and the President) think it would pay for itself by reducing redundant treatments and preventing some malpractice.

And as someone who has lived in multiple states, I definitely agree with you on #2. While I haven't noticed much of a price difference, it is annoying to have to switch policies. However, keep in mind that insurance companies are state-based because healthcare regulations vary from state to state. So to have a nationwide choice of insurance, we would have to replace state healthcare laws with national ones. Which might make some people cry "State's rights!" in a way unheard since the Civil War, especially in states like Massachusetts where healthcare laws are significantly different from the majority of country.

Since you want health insurance to be open to more competition, does this mean you support the "public option"?

Prices are definitely a huge part of the problem. ...

2009-09-14T23:43:58.371-04:00

Prices are definitely a huge part of the problem. Here are my two solutions:

1. Tort reform: cap the amount of damages that can be claimed in a malpractice lawsuit. This would cut the insurance rate for doctors overnight. We would reap the benefits.

2. Remove the borders that protect insurance companies from competition. You should be allowed to shop out of state to get your insurance. This would be a huge cost-cutter.