The Dappled Planet

Sigh… It just keeps on getting more and more ridiculous… Now some scientists with nothing better to do with the funding they must be receiving to continue to prop up the (what should be ailing) global warming debate have concluded we should be eating our dogs rather than having dogs or cars – as one dog can do as much damage to the environnent with its carbon footprint as a giant SUV…

Lets take this apart… First the concept of a Carbon footprint. Carbon, is a sooty grey substance which used to most commonly found in pencils. You may know it as graphite. It is the given the chemical formula of “C” for Carbon – no latin translation neccesary! Heat it up under pressure – a lot – and you get diamond. Carbon is a solid – both as graphite and diamond. All these calculations about ‘carbon’ footprint should be about the CO2 or Carbon Dioxide Footprint. Carbon Dioxide (or CO2) is two oxygen molecules bonded to a carbon molecule and is a gas. Yes, there is carbon in the formula, but for a true scientist and probably even more so for a chemist, is it highly inaccurate to talk about carbon-footprints of all lifeforms on this planet when you are talking about carbon dioxide footprints.

Secondly – so now… How do you think some of those non-pet loving SUV-owning people are going to feel after reading that? You got it! They probably jumped in their SUV and drove all around town hollering and whooping that they could now justify having this vehicle because they don’t own a largish dog.

In fact, how long before the (rich but silly – because why would you drive in London anyway) Londoners all jump in their SUVs and drive to their local politican and DEMAND that the tax on large vehicles be removed because they don’t own a dog – or two dogs, so their ‘carbon’ footprint is negated and therefore there is no need to impose the grotesque, government income generating tax on them anymore!

And on the darker side, how long before environmental zealots sneak out under the cover of night and start poisoining all dogs larger than a chihuahua because they are terrified the dogs breath and meat consumption will cause the sea levels to rise by 5cm thus grossly jeopardising human life on this planet? (Since sea levels rising by 5cm seems to be worst case scenario for rising temperatures this century, I have to assume that is what the people who fear global warming are worked up about…).

First we had to divert food for the world’s poor to fill up the SUVs and now we have to start killing our pets – other animals and with every much a right to be on the planet as us – to try and curb the small portion of a gas in our atmosphere.  This is taking environmental zealotry too far and if its this kind of stuff which will cause people to start questioning where is the over top regulations being imposed on CO2 going to end, then good! And… (one can hope) is it necessary anyway to worry about rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?

But meanwhile, we at the Dappled Planet despair someone can get a book publishes with shock suggestions about doing away with our pets because they impose too great a burden on our climate while authors with books trying to desperately introduce some balance to the debate on climate change have a hard time finding publishers (the book referred to is the supurbe “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer – if you really want to know what the scientists are thinking, we highly recommend this book!.

October 26th, 2009 | Tags: comment, dog, eat, environmentalists, policy, political | Category: Animals, Disasterous Solutions, global warming | Leave a comment

It was intriguing to read a Reuters news article about using ‘high tech’ (actually old tech which has been around a few decades now…) to pinpoint risk associated with Antarctic ice melting. As noted in the article, if all the ice was to melt on Antarctica, sea levels would rise by over 50m and if the Greenland ice melted, sea levels would rise by 6-7m. This would obviously, as duly noted by an IPCC representative, have a devastating impact on many settlements along coastlines, including the much talked about Bangladesh and lesser talked about New York.

The article then goes onto describe various tecniques they are using to try and predict the rate of ice melt. The fascinating bit comes from a comment about why they are going to use this new technology:

“Studies indicate that in the Eemian about 125,000 years ago, for instance, temperatures were slightly higher than now, hippopotamuses bathed in the Rhine — and seas were 4 metres higher”

A British Antarctic Survey scientist then went onto say it was important to drill the ice to bedrock in Western Antarctica because:

A sample of rocks beneath the ice would reveal if and when they had last been exposed to cosmic rays…. If the ice had collapsed in the Eemian or during other warm periods between Ice Ages, it would set off global alarm bells about risks of a fast rise in sea levels, Vaughan said. A finding that the ice had been stable would be a huge relief.

An observation has been made here that at a time when man had no impact on the climate whatsoever, indeed, barely even existed as Homo Sapien, the sea levels rose.

If anything, if the drill hole actually found that the West Antarctic ice sheet was stable 125,000 years ago, it does rather beg the question, what melted then to allow the sea levels to rise by 4m 125,000 years ago?

The key thing to remember there is Humans had no effect AND no control over that sea level rise, 125,000 years ago.

Sea level changes, rapid or slow are absolutely guaranteed on planet Earth. At the Dappled Planet, we have no issue with scientific investigations on Antarctica to better help us understand the climate. We just hope that the information is used to help make informed decisions about adapting to climate change rather than thinking it can be controlled by regulating our rather small contribution of one gas to the atmosphere.

However, we are not encouraged that this article, of course, chose to end with the IPCC’s worst predictions with rises of 18-59cm in the next 90 years, as well as other people’s arguments that the entire Greenland ice sheet will collapse in the next 300-1000 years…

Maybe this is so, although there is enough geologic evidence to suggest the Greenland ice sheet will not collapse with a 2C temperature rise. But that aside, sea level change in inevitable and we cannot control it by controlling our CO2 emissions as even this article hints, other things (cosmic rays – cause cooling) can cause the ice to melt.

If sea levels are to rise, then there is probably very little we can do to prevent it. Think of the little dutch boy with a his finger in the dyke… So the most important thing here is not to sit back, say we can hold back climate change by regulating CO2 emissions – then waiting 70-100 years to see if we did actually succeed in that! We need to be accepting and planning for possible changes in the sea level now!

And that is going to be very hard with most of the human population now located in permanent settlements called cities, and most of those cities are located along a coast line which will, in the event of a large rise in sea level, be negatively affected.

Sea level change is just one result from climate change. We shouldn’t wait a 100 years to see if regulating our CO2 emissions will keep the climate steady. The geologic record rather suggests it won’t, so we need to be planning – and planning now – for the inevitable changes that come with climate change.

October 2nd, 2009 | Category: global warming | Leave a comment

It has been achingly and painstakingly documented by geologists that over an incredibly long time, first Africa broke off from Antarctica about 200 million years ago, then India ripped away at a blistering pace around 100 million years ago… then Australia began to separate from Antarctica around 70 million years ago. About this time, the ice sheet began to form on the eastern side of Antarctica, its cold position at the bottom of the world and surrounded by cold hostile seas of great assistance.

And then finally around 35 million years ago, South America and Antarctic went their separate ways – South America to warmer climates and Antarctica to stay wrapped in its cold grey foggy blanket of mystery at the bottom of the world. With nothing but open ocean now surrounding a continent hovering over the south pole, enduring a 6 month night with no sunshine, it was just the penguins and snow – and the ice began to pile up and spread to cover the rest of Antarctica.

That has probably been accepted in the geologic community now for about 20-30 years (oddly despite its now utter acceptance in geologic law, Plate Tectonics still took 40 years to gain universal acceptance – the final nail in the coffin for skeptics possibly being satellites measuring the movement of the plates on the earth in the 1980s?. Or maybe one would argue the geologists were also thinking at the human equivalent of geologic time…).

And then suddenly, some scientists, keen to get funding for something, come blazing out of Tanzania and say “Yahoo! We’ve found that CO2 was linked to the formation of the Antarctic ice sheet!” Or at least, that is what an article by a ‘Climate Change Correspondent, Asia” recently detailed to the world media. No mention of the collision of India into China at that time causing massive amounts of CO2 being locked up in the formation of the Himalaya’s… no mention of the completion of the coldest ocean in the world finally being able to complete its express circuit around the inner circle of Dante’s Hell – Antarctica. No. Clearly the ice sheet of Antarctica expanded (expanded – remember folks, that ice sheet had been pootling away gathering strength on the east side for a good 35 million years before when Australia toodled off to the tropics…) because CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere fell.

Now… it may indeed be possible, nay even probable, CO2 concentrations fell in the atmosphere at that time. But they fell because of 2 rather cataclysmic geologic events which dramatically affected the compostion of the atmosphere (India/China) and the climate around the South Pole (Antarctica becoming a free agent). Geologic events of such a mind boggling scale, I’m afraid if such a thing were to happen today, we human would have somewhere in the ballpark of zero power to control it.

This is an important point – because if the scientists were hoping to garner accolades for proving CO2 concentrations fell and the Antarctic ice sheet formed, its misleading. The ice sheets formed because of geologic events beyond CO2’s control – but those geologic events certainly affected CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere! Furthermore, the formation of mountain ranges and oceans are things which are likely to affect CO2 concentrations and climate in general far far above and beyond anything humans can do burning – or not burning – fossil fuels.

And to add a level of hysteria to the article which gave its somewhat miselading claims even more invalidity, the scientist from  Cardiff University in the UK, Paul Pearson, then goes on to say, “Those models could be used to predict the melting of the ice. The suggested melting starts around 900 ppm (parts per million),” he said, a level he believes could be reached by the end of this century, unless serious emissions cuts were made.

Did you really Professor Pearson? Did you really add that last half of the scentence, not written as a direct quote? I hope not because 900 ppm is awfully high given we are only at 387ppmv right now! You are asking for a near trippling of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the next 90 years and it would have to be at the extreme exteme high end of the most catastrophic mathematical modelling that would predict that! You certainly seemed more rational in your earlier years according to this BBC Online article (or the journalist knew where to stop quoting you and add their own interpretation without dragging you down into their way of thinking)

Admitedly, it would appear the highly contraversial and scorned-by-many-in-the-science-community IPCC has said CO2 concentration could be between 540ppm and 970ppm by 2100 – but most climate scientists don’t get it up above 700ppm – and thats only if we continue to increase our use of fossil fuels exponentially over the next 90 years, which seems unlikely in light of the diminishing reserves out there and a great desire to find alternative, cleaner sources of energy.

Looking at your university profile, Professor Pearson, it seems you are a bonafide Earth Scientist with an interest in paleooclimate. But that means you of all people should recognise the entire picture of all the factors which influence paleoclimate. I can only hope the journalist in this article, how shall we say, embellished your beliefs and underneath, you remain a scientist dedicated to finding the truth and not exaggerating and misleading with your results in order to obtain NERC funding.

It is interesting to note CO2 fell at the same time the Antarctic ice sheet spread to cover the continent. But it is bad science to not point out that was not the sole cause of falling temperatures. Just as a rise in CO2 is not the sole cause of rising temperatures.

September 16th, 2009 | Tags: antarctica, co2, ice, sheet, tanzania | Category: global warming | Leave a comment

Only in America…

This article came across our desk. Apparently the US Chamber of Commerce feels that if the AGW movement (as they call the people who strong advocates of Anthropegenic Global Warming) wish to use billion of dollars of taxpayers money to ’save the world’ then lets establish if there really is a threat. More details below:

It comes as no surprise that this request is being firmly resisted by the many groups that make their daily bread by reaching into the pockets of taxpayers for their share of the tens of billions in government grants doled out in the insane effort to save the world from a non-existent global warming threat.

Dr. Brian Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy wrote a letter, posted on the ClimateWatch website, that challenges the intellectually indefensible resistance of the AGW crowd to ascertaining the truth in a public forum. And I quote…

[Guest Essay by Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and professor at University of Maryland, who has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems. Dr. Valentine is featured on page 188 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Global Warming. Below is a August 25, 2009, note Dr. Valentine sent to Brenda Ekwurzel of the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists.]

Dear Dr Ekwurzel,

According to the American Bar Association, the purpose of any “trial by legal authority” is to “establish the truth.”

I note with interest your skepticism over US Chamber of Commerce’s petition of the EPA to carry out a “trial” to examine the facts behind EPA’s interest in regulation of greenhouse gases as “a danger to the public.”

What, if anything, do you and your organization have to fear about Chamber of Commerce’s proposed trial idea?

Do you fear exposure of the idea of “man-made” global warming for the abject fraud that the idea is?

You know yourself – exactly none of the predictions related to AGW made over the past 20 years by AGW advocates have actualized. You also know there is exactly zero evidence to support any claims that “humans” have influenced the natural global climate in the least – and that means, since the dawn of Human Civilization.

If the US Public were to be made aware of these facts – at the testimony of a trial involving the EPA – then only those with religious convictions of the idea would continue to hold any support for AGW. That is in fact a very small number of people.

Falsehood cannot be sustained indefinitely – and the EPA might as well get it over with and let the facts come to light before all eyes.

I’d be interested in your response to me.

As well as quite surprised. In general, people seem to find themselves “too good” to bother to respond to me when I call AGW the fraud that it is.

Brian G Valentine PhD PE
US Department of Energy
Washington, DC

Related Link:

Exposed: Climate Fear Promoters Greatest Fear — A Public Trial of the ‘Evidence’ of Global Warming Fears! – August 25, 2009

August 28th, 2009 | Category: Good Solutions, global warming | Leave a comment