Pots & Kettles

Ernest Thoughts

By Ernest ⋅ December 11, 2009 ⋅

Tags: climate change, Copenhagen, Peak Oil, prediction, weather

There has been some recent furor in climate change circles about the science behind predictions of massive global warming. Because of the vast sums that proposed regulations or taxes would cost the fossil fuel energy industry, this sounds like a case of pots and kettles discussing the color black. A very conservative email correspondent has forwarded what is purported to be an expose of scientific fraud behind predictions of anthropogenic global warming. This seems to be a preemptive public relations strike to defuse the scientific basis for American action at the Copenhagen meeting and the recent power to the EPA to restrict carbon dioxide release. Americans tend to believe in conspiracy theories, but this time he conspiracy appears to be on the part of extreme conservatives, the same people who politicized science during the Bush administration.

Weather prediction is hard enough, but climate change is much harder. To paraphrase Geology Professor Giegengack puts it: There have been warmer periods and cooler periods on the geologic time scale. But only in recent times have humans been putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. Of course, only in very recent times have scientists gone around with thermometers to measure temperatures of air and water. However, temperatures and atmospheric composition from prehistoric times do leave traces for modern scientists to analyze. There was a lengthy article in Science (the weekly publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) November 27, 2009, “Global Signatures and Dynamical Origins of the little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly” PP 1256-1259, trying to improve the resolution in both time and space of past temperature estimates.

Besides thermometer readings, which skeptics claim have been fudged, there are other indicators. We ate two raspberries from our plants this month; the first time we have had our own raspberries in December. We have heard similar news from northern New Jersey with regard to tomatoes. Some amateur scientists in England have been charting natural events, and spring things now come earlier, and fall things come later. Similar measurements of ice cover and glaciers show warming, even though the propaganda I received makes false claims with regard to these measures.

Trying to convince a politically conservative skeptic that Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) is real is about as futile as trying to convince a Biblical literalist that Intelligent Design is not scientific.

One of the points claimed in the material sent me by the ACC skeptic is that a famous photo of a polar bear mother and cub on a small ice flow was misleading because it was actually taken near the shore, and the two bears are happily relaxing. The original attribution was sloppily handled. I could imagine a similar photo from Conservative critics of ACC showing laid off Chrysler workers walking the streets and not mentioning the bad management of Chrysler, and ignoring new job openings at the new transit rail car factory nearby. Similar comments can be made about the photos of cooling towers used by antinuclear power critics. The laws of thermodynamics mean that any power plant using steam turbines, regardless of the fuel used, must get rid of a lot of heat, and cooling towers are generally better for the environment than just dumping it in a nearby river.

Another point the ACC critics make is that the famous “hockey stick” curve predicting a rapid and very large rise in global temperatures commencing in a few decades is not supported by historical data. Predicting the future from past trends is always a very tricky business. You have to first understand causes of the past trend, and whether these factor will still hold in the future. If we went back in American history almost 150 years, people were tracking the westward movement of the frontier. A naive extrapolation of that data would predict homesteaders building cabins and plowing fields in the Pacific Ocean, an obvious absurdity.

Similar points can be made about the “Peak Oil” predictions. But there is no question that conventional petroleum production in the lower 48 has long since peaked, and is never going to attain the previous level. When I first was employed in the petroleum industry in 1970, I was intrigued that tankers were off loading foreign oil in the Gulf Coast of Texas. Then, I realized that is where many American refineries were located. Reducing oil consumption is good now, and may become essential in the future. How much anti-American activity is funded by our dollars going to unfriendly nations: Russia, Venezuela, and Arab States? Reducing coal consumption will do a lot to protect West Virginia from mountain top removal. So the same steps that will be required to deal with ACC in the long run, are desirable now in the short run for other reasons. Of course these steps will reduce the profits and jobs of the energy industry in the short run, but the world will go on, and Americans, as well as others, can live happy and creative lives without destroying the Planet. So let’s continue the climate research and get our facts right, rather a deluge of political polemics.

The Conservative doctrine of optimizing the short term bottom line as the only criteria for action is very destructive. We must do what is best for the people, for our country, and for the Planet in the long run.

Ernest B. Cohen & Elaine H. Cohen
ernest.cohen@ieee.org

Bookmark It