I love Elon Musk (is there an Engineer who doesn't?) and Tesla remains one of the biggest holdings in my stock portfolio, but in this post want to show you that Teslas are not green cars at all.
Just because a Tesla run on electricity they can't be called green cars. In making the Tesla car itself, the company buys loads of metals and materials and components. How are they made? Unless they are all made by environment friendly (solar or wind) energies, a Tesla can't be called a green car at all! There is more though-you must consider the transportation of all these materials, the infrastructure involved (highways, ships, aeroplanes, trains, etc) involved in transporting them. You can't just look at the way the Tesla runs (electricity, clean energy) to decide whether it is a clean car; you must consider how the car is made, the materials involved, and how energy is supplied to make the car and it's components. Everything is interrelated in economics.
Unless Tesla the car itself can be made out of 100% clean energy, it can't be a green/environment friendly thing to buy it. A car is a giant piece of machinery, and a lot of energy is used to make it. If fossil fuels have been used to make the car, then by buying more Tesla cars, you may end up helping Exxon Mobil more than you can imagine, because almost every industry used large amounts of oil, directly or indirectly.
You must also consider the highway system and the streets and the bridges which Teslas drive on-they are all made of and maintained by energy, which is primarily derived from oil and coal. Highways are expensive to build, because there's a lot of Energy content in them. Unless Teslas can run on thin air, and as long as they will run on a Highway system which has a large carbon full energy component to it, they cannot be called green cars. They need a lot of supportive infrastructure to run. And that infrastructure is a very heavy user of oil and coal based energies.
In many ways, Tesla is an option on the oil industry. If oil prices were to suddenly rise up and stay high (if for example the solar lovers were to suddenly shut down the oil industry), the costs of all the materials used to make a Tesla would become high as well, and you may find that producing a Tesla car would cost much much more. The reason the Tesla costs what it costs is because of the oil industry, which makes it cheap to wrought up the metals used to make it, to transport the materials and metals from all over the world to Tesla's factory, to run the factories of all the suppliers at a reasonable cost, etc. A scarcity of oil (or a rise in price, which is the same thing) would push up the costs of all materials. Because oil industry is still the biggest producer of energy in the world, by a very large margin (over coal and nuclear-wind and solar are negligible), any massive scarcity of oil will cause prices of all goods to increase considerably, and Tesla the car might become too costly to make, and very costly to operate, if you consider how the cost of infrastructure like roads, highways, bridges, etc. will go up. In other words, even if it runs on clean electricity using solar or wind, the car itself is really made and run by a massive help from the oil industry.
Some numbers. An average American spends about $1800 per year on gasoline. If cost of something is an indicator of it's carbon foot print (I believe it is), then you can see that a Tesla which costs $80,000 is a far more expensive item that the gas used in a gasoline car for 10 years ($18000). Therefore, the carbon footprint in making the car is far more than the carbon emissions in 10 years by burning fuel. However, the energy used in making the car is not very obvious.
Another example is of a massive high-rise in NYC or Dubai. Because it is not using any oil to run the building, can it be called it is an oil-free building??? The building itself is a standstill object, and clearly uses no oil to "run"...so if Teslas are green cars, so are all massive buildings in the world! Clearly you much consider how the building is made at the first place-how the materials are processed from the mines (ores, raw materials) to make the finished slabs of concrete and metal girders etc. which are used to make the building. If this were true, all static buildings, houses, etc. are all green, because they are not using "oil" to move! The making of a skyscraper used massive amounts of oil...and that's the most important part of a Tesla car as well. A Tesla is as green as a building, i.e. it isn't.
Another similar case is of hand dryers which are electric powered (they blow hot air on your hands)-they are supposed to be "green" because they eliminate the use of paper towels, which are from trees, and trees should not be cut down, etc. etc. etc. Well the hand dryers themselves are solid pieces of metal, and in making them, probably a lot of energy was used. Most forests are renovated quickly by the lumber companies who sell cellulose (it makes sense, they sell the pulp, they will take care of the trees) and it is very difficult to imagine that using an electric blow dryer is less or more harmful for the environment/for the trees than using paper towels.
I like Teslas because they are a great machine, noiseless, fast, clean, easy to maintain, etc., but not because they are green or good for the environment, etc., because they are not. Making the car itself has consumed a lot of fossil fuel energy, and the highway system the car runs on is massively dependent on cheap energy from oil and coal.
Sanjay
Showing posts with label global warming crap. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming crap. Show all posts
On Stress Induced Illnesses (there are none!)-Psychological Illnesses don't exist
It is common to hear that stress is causing us to lose sleep, get fat, have headaches, ulcers, cancer, etc. etc. etc. Modern life is more stressful and different than before (as I mentioned in a previous post. This fascination for today's life being faster, more hectic etc. is because you are alive in it! Reasons given are presence of cell phones, internet, cars, etc...in 1550 AD the reasons were different, but I am certain that people at that time thought that they also are moving very fast....everyone feels that the period they live in is somehow special) and stress, like global warming, is blamed for all kinds of physical and mental illnesses.
That's quite okay- I don't expect the common man to be very smart in their conversation, but what bothers me is when serious professionals in medicine start using stress as a cause of illnesses. Causality is a difficult thing to establish and physicians and medical professionals should be smart enough NEVER to attribute any illness to stress. Because we don't even scientifically know how to define stress. Definitions like I am stressed out because I just lost my job, just moved to a new city, divorced my wife, had a family member pass away, have an irritating neighbor, classmate etc. don't say anything. At any point in life, everyone has a number of things which are not perfect, and any and all can be, and are, attributed to causing stress. This tells us nothing.
A few years ago I went to a dentist because I was grinding my teeth while sleeping (bruxism). The doctor quizzed me about all the new stuff happening in my life (new city, new job, etc. etc.) and concluded that the bruxism was caused by stress. The remedy was right-an apparatus between my teeth while sleeping, muscle relaxants, and pain relievers, but the cause was not. Saying something like bruxism is caused by stress is saying nothing at all. The doctor's experience with this illness made her prescribe the right remedy-but she is not a very logical person and is not able to reason out things from first principles of science and mathematics, and the causal attribution is not correct.
Stress is imaginary, undefinable, and ascribing it to the cause of an illness is just a play of words in the end. One of the most absurd examples is when stress is the cause and the effect of a disorder or illness...e.g. loss of sleep. You often hear stress being caused by you not sleeping well at night these days, and the reverse-that you are not sleeping well these days because of stress in your life. You seem to go into a negative feedback loop of more stress-worse sleep-causing still more stress; not a good situation to be in....
Bruxism or ulcers in the stomach have unknown causes. Stress doesn't cause these conditions. If you believe like I do that human body, or any animal body, is an extremely robust system, then real causes are external or internal, and have certain characteristics. External factors, if causing an illness, have to manifest themselves in a physical (e.g. radiation causing you damage to skin or eye), chemical (e.g. ingesting a poison, getting in contact with sulfuric acid) or biological form (e.g. bacteria, viruses). Internal factors in the organism can be a deterioration in the organism spontaneously or with age, genetics, etc. All psychology related stuff can be safely thrown out of the window for real causes of illnesses. The psychologist and psychiatrist can still prescribe the right remedy-but they have little clue about true causality.
Because all illnesses from external (outside the body) causes should be traceable to physical, chemical and biological reasons, it becomes easier to see that all cures for these illnesses must also have a direct physical, chemical or biological impact on the organism. The cause and the cure of an illness are very similar in this sense-you can think of the cure as another input into the organism-to get rid of a previously inquired illness. Therefore, I also don't believe in talking cures (freudian kind, you talking about your childhood problems etc.) or cures from prayer, meditation, etc. Unless of course some illness might be cured simply by resting the body, with you being on a comfortable sofa (while talking to a PhD psychologist) being the real cause why you feel better, or you taking a comfortable cross legged position and doing no hard work being the real cause of you feeling better (e.g. in meditation). I have not much respect for psychologists (having studied several years of psychology myself) or Meditation/Yoga therapists for their professional abilities-even though I may like them personally.
Stress together with it's cousin anxiety are often blamed for eating disorders, generally people getting fat. The people who sell treatments for getting slim often use stress and anxiety as an all-encompassing cause for obesity. Stress and anxiety cause people to eat more and get obese, they say-so the trick is to reduce stress in life. In the end it is a game of words with nothing being said-and the poor patient keeps seeing these quacks for their obesity problems. And stress is also the effect of getting overweight, i.e. you are more stressed out these days because you are eating more. The word games go on and on.
Another example is smoking and stress. Smokers say that stress causes them to smoke more, and also, when they smoke more, they get more stressed. The absurdities with stress go on and on.
Even Mayo Clinic has a bunch of pages on stress induced illnesses:
and many others.
I rest my case.
In my younger (student) days I studied psychology for many years. From Freud to Skinner to Cognitive psychology, I studied it all (together with my Engineering, thankfully). After a few years, I realized how bad the whole thing was. Most of psychology is a play of words-causes of illnesses are some elaborate stuff like Depression, Anxiety, or funky acronyms like PTSD. There is no real information-just like astrology, the psychologists are playing their own game of words without anything to do with reality (many others examples exist-Financial Engineering, most of Economics, all of ergonomics, chiropractic, kinesiology, oncology, heart specialists, etc. etc...see other posts of the blog).
I am of the strong opinion that there are no psychological illnesses, that all illnesses are somatic. Ultimately what you qualify as Schizophrenia is also a somatic illness. Chemical and Physical problems in the body are the result of the symptoms of psychological illnesses. They are the real causes-putting a cause as Schizophrenia or Stress doesn't do me any good. Unless you actively intervene to try to change the chemical and physical imbalance, the patient with not get better. This intervention need not be medical-a move from a cold weather to a warm weather may cure depression, for example. But the real underlying cause of the illness is somatic, is the point to remember. If you agree with this, then life becomes a lot simpler. You are just like your dog or your buffalo, you need the right input of chemicals (or sunlight etc) to get better. They can be injected in you, you can eat something which will give you certain chemicals, you can have a physical problem with a part of your body which can go away by resting, etc. etc...but attributing the illness to somatic cause, just like you do for your car or scooter, makes the problem solvable in concrete terms. The solutions are repeatable, not subjective, and hold internationally. They also hold for animals and humans alike-as a good somatic based solution to any illness should.
See this post for the myth of alternative medicine.
That's quite okay- I don't expect the common man to be very smart in their conversation, but what bothers me is when serious professionals in medicine start using stress as a cause of illnesses. Causality is a difficult thing to establish and physicians and medical professionals should be smart enough NEVER to attribute any illness to stress. Because we don't even scientifically know how to define stress. Definitions like I am stressed out because I just lost my job, just moved to a new city, divorced my wife, had a family member pass away, have an irritating neighbor, classmate etc. don't say anything. At any point in life, everyone has a number of things which are not perfect, and any and all can be, and are, attributed to causing stress. This tells us nothing.
A few years ago I went to a dentist because I was grinding my teeth while sleeping (bruxism). The doctor quizzed me about all the new stuff happening in my life (new city, new job, etc. etc.) and concluded that the bruxism was caused by stress. The remedy was right-an apparatus between my teeth while sleeping, muscle relaxants, and pain relievers, but the cause was not. Saying something like bruxism is caused by stress is saying nothing at all. The doctor's experience with this illness made her prescribe the right remedy-but she is not a very logical person and is not able to reason out things from first principles of science and mathematics, and the causal attribution is not correct.
Stress is imaginary, undefinable, and ascribing it to the cause of an illness is just a play of words in the end. One of the most absurd examples is when stress is the cause and the effect of a disorder or illness...e.g. loss of sleep. You often hear stress being caused by you not sleeping well at night these days, and the reverse-that you are not sleeping well these days because of stress in your life. You seem to go into a negative feedback loop of more stress-worse sleep-causing still more stress; not a good situation to be in....
Bruxism or ulcers in the stomach have unknown causes. Stress doesn't cause these conditions. If you believe like I do that human body, or any animal body, is an extremely robust system, then real causes are external or internal, and have certain characteristics. External factors, if causing an illness, have to manifest themselves in a physical (e.g. radiation causing you damage to skin or eye), chemical (e.g. ingesting a poison, getting in contact with sulfuric acid) or biological form (e.g. bacteria, viruses). Internal factors in the organism can be a deterioration in the organism spontaneously or with age, genetics, etc. All psychology related stuff can be safely thrown out of the window for real causes of illnesses. The psychologist and psychiatrist can still prescribe the right remedy-but they have little clue about true causality.
Because all illnesses from external (outside the body) causes should be traceable to physical, chemical and biological reasons, it becomes easier to see that all cures for these illnesses must also have a direct physical, chemical or biological impact on the organism. The cause and the cure of an illness are very similar in this sense-you can think of the cure as another input into the organism-to get rid of a previously inquired illness. Therefore, I also don't believe in talking cures (freudian kind, you talking about your childhood problems etc.) or cures from prayer, meditation, etc. Unless of course some illness might be cured simply by resting the body, with you being on a comfortable sofa (while talking to a PhD psychologist) being the real cause why you feel better, or you taking a comfortable cross legged position and doing no hard work being the real cause of you feeling better (e.g. in meditation). I have not much respect for psychologists (having studied several years of psychology myself) or Meditation/Yoga therapists for their professional abilities-even though I may like them personally.
Stress together with it's cousin anxiety are often blamed for eating disorders, generally people getting fat. The people who sell treatments for getting slim often use stress and anxiety as an all-encompassing cause for obesity. Stress and anxiety cause people to eat more and get obese, they say-so the trick is to reduce stress in life. In the end it is a game of words with nothing being said-and the poor patient keeps seeing these quacks for their obesity problems. And stress is also the effect of getting overweight, i.e. you are more stressed out these days because you are eating more. The word games go on and on.
Another example is smoking and stress. Smokers say that stress causes them to smoke more, and also, when they smoke more, they get more stressed. The absurdities with stress go on and on.
Even Mayo Clinic has a bunch of pages on stress induced illnesses:
and many others.
I rest my case.
The real causes of all illnesses are somatic or physical, not psychological
In my younger (student) days I studied psychology for many years. From Freud to Skinner to Cognitive psychology, I studied it all (together with my Engineering, thankfully). After a few years, I realized how bad the whole thing was. Most of psychology is a play of words-causes of illnesses are some elaborate stuff like Depression, Anxiety, or funky acronyms like PTSD. There is no real information-just like astrology, the psychologists are playing their own game of words without anything to do with reality (many others examples exist-Financial Engineering, most of Economics, all of ergonomics, chiropractic, kinesiology, oncology, heart specialists, etc. etc...see other posts of the blog).
I am of the strong opinion that there are no psychological illnesses, that all illnesses are somatic. Ultimately what you qualify as Schizophrenia is also a somatic illness. Chemical and Physical problems in the body are the result of the symptoms of psychological illnesses. They are the real causes-putting a cause as Schizophrenia or Stress doesn't do me any good. Unless you actively intervene to try to change the chemical and physical imbalance, the patient with not get better. This intervention need not be medical-a move from a cold weather to a warm weather may cure depression, for example. But the real underlying cause of the illness is somatic, is the point to remember. If you agree with this, then life becomes a lot simpler. You are just like your dog or your buffalo, you need the right input of chemicals (or sunlight etc) to get better. They can be injected in you, you can eat something which will give you certain chemicals, you can have a physical problem with a part of your body which can go away by resting, etc. etc...but attributing the illness to somatic cause, just like you do for your car or scooter, makes the problem solvable in concrete terms. The solutions are repeatable, not subjective, and hold internationally. They also hold for animals and humans alike-as a good somatic based solution to any illness should.
See this post for the myth of alternative medicine.
The myth of overpopulation and world resources running out
At the time of Smith countries liked to grow in population. Smith said that the most decisive mark of the growing prosperity of a nation is a growing population. Between 1776 and 2000 somehow pseudo scientists and economists brought about the idea of overpopulation, starting maybe with Malthus in 1810. What a pity.
An objective measure of overpopulation is population density rather than simply the total population of a nation. The Netherlands has been one of the richest countries of Europe for hundreds of years (roughly measurable by GDP per capita), and it is one of the most densely populated as well, with about 415 people per sq. km. In the last decades we have seen the spectacular rise of Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea, countries with very high density of people. Japan has been a very rich nation for several centuries at least, at par with the UK, The Netherlands and Switzerland. All these wealthy countries have the similar population density as India or Pakistan, and if high population density were a bad thing, they wouldn't be rich. To make this argument complete, we must recognize the other side of the spectrum-nations which are rich and sparsely populated, like the US and Canada, with densities of 33 people and 4 people per sq km respectively, which shows that there is no correlation between wealth and population density.
A higher density of people INCREASES their productivity-witness how people live so well in a big city within the same country in comparison to smaller towns or farms. Efficiency of exchange of produce and productivity goes up with proximity. Most humans live in cities for a reason. There's plenty of land left-even if you drive around in Taiwan or Japan you see that most of the country is largely not populated. People prefer to live in buildings and cities, and are not being "cramped" into a city as some land lover anti-urban people claim. People enjoy a better standard of life in big cities-which is why they keep moving to them. Big cities have more of everything in supermarkets and everywhere else you go. Small towns have scarcities.
Northern Europe and now some other countries of Europe are encouraging population growth, which is a good thing for the world. No matter where we live, a thriving nation can always buy things from us, whatever we produce, and it is great to see the number of humans on the planet increasing. The Chileans can sell them more Copper and the US more Starbucks coffee franchises to such a nation.
I do not have numbers from Malthus' times, but it should be clear that despite all his warnings, we have continued to increase in numbers, and in general live better than a few hundred years ago (measure by wealth, the overall consumable goods we have per person). In 1770 approx (data from Adam Smith), the English speaking North America was about 4 Million in population, UK was 8 Million, and France was 24 Million. Look at where we have come today! The United States is 300 Million people, the UK and France are 60 Million, and these countries are far richer today than before, with more consumable goods than those times, and people living much better.
We should stop buying into the false theories of alarmists of overpopulation. We have many more inhabitants than before, and probably will keep on growing-we shouldn't be whining about something which in reality, should be celebrated.
If you look at the list of countries by population density, as pointed out above, there is no correlation between wealth of the country and it being rich or poor (roughly measurable by GDP per capita). However, even the highest population density nations like Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore are nowhere near the population density of the world's most populous cities-the difference is about 10x! New York City has a density of 10000 people per sq km, and Osaka is about 5000 per sq. km. Japan and the Netherlands overall have a population density of only 400 people per sq km. What's going on?
It is clear that humans love to live close to each other, many times on top of each other as in high rise buildings. The future cities are increasingly vertical. Even the most high density population nations like Japan, India and Netherlands only have 400 people per sq km, clearly there's a lot more room for more people, given that people are living by choice in metro areas like New York City and Osaka, Japan and have population densities which are ten times more than the average density of the entire nation!
In summary, there's no scarcity of land for humanity, and we can increase our population a lot more overall without worrying about overpopulation.
An objective measure of overpopulation is population density rather than simply the total population of a nation. The Netherlands has been one of the richest countries of Europe for hundreds of years (roughly measurable by GDP per capita), and it is one of the most densely populated as well, with about 415 people per sq. km. In the last decades we have seen the spectacular rise of Taiwan, Hong Kong and South Korea, countries with very high density of people. Japan has been a very rich nation for several centuries at least, at par with the UK, The Netherlands and Switzerland. All these wealthy countries have the similar population density as India or Pakistan, and if high population density were a bad thing, they wouldn't be rich. To make this argument complete, we must recognize the other side of the spectrum-nations which are rich and sparsely populated, like the US and Canada, with densities of 33 people and 4 people per sq km respectively, which shows that there is no correlation between wealth and population density.
A higher density of people INCREASES their productivity-witness how people live so well in a big city within the same country in comparison to smaller towns or farms. Efficiency of exchange of produce and productivity goes up with proximity. Most humans live in cities for a reason. There's plenty of land left-even if you drive around in Taiwan or Japan you see that most of the country is largely not populated. People prefer to live in buildings and cities, and are not being "cramped" into a city as some land lover anti-urban people claim. People enjoy a better standard of life in big cities-which is why they keep moving to them. Big cities have more of everything in supermarkets and everywhere else you go. Small towns have scarcities.
Northern Europe and now some other countries of Europe are encouraging population growth, which is a good thing for the world. No matter where we live, a thriving nation can always buy things from us, whatever we produce, and it is great to see the number of humans on the planet increasing. The Chileans can sell them more Copper and the US more Starbucks coffee franchises to such a nation.
I do not have numbers from Malthus' times, but it should be clear that despite all his warnings, we have continued to increase in numbers, and in general live better than a few hundred years ago (measure by wealth, the overall consumable goods we have per person). In 1770 approx (data from Adam Smith), the English speaking North America was about 4 Million in population, UK was 8 Million, and France was 24 Million. Look at where we have come today! The United States is 300 Million people, the UK and France are 60 Million, and these countries are far richer today than before, with more consumable goods than those times, and people living much better.
We should stop buying into the false theories of alarmists of overpopulation. We have many more inhabitants than before, and probably will keep on growing-we shouldn't be whining about something which in reality, should be celebrated.
People love to live in high density areas, we are like bees
If you look at the list of countries by population density, as pointed out above, there is no correlation between wealth of the country and it being rich or poor (roughly measurable by GDP per capita). However, even the highest population density nations like Japan, the Netherlands and Singapore are nowhere near the population density of the world's most populous cities-the difference is about 10x! New York City has a density of 10000 people per sq km, and Osaka is about 5000 per sq. km. Japan and the Netherlands overall have a population density of only 400 people per sq km. What's going on?
It is clear that humans love to live close to each other, many times on top of each other as in high rise buildings. The future cities are increasingly vertical. Even the most high density population nations like Japan, India and Netherlands only have 400 people per sq km, clearly there's a lot more room for more people, given that people are living by choice in metro areas like New York City and Osaka, Japan and have population densities which are ten times more than the average density of the entire nation!
In summary, there's no scarcity of land for humanity, and we can increase our population a lot more overall without worrying about overpopulation.
Global Warming (climate change) and Going Green are Cults -not Science!
In the last few years everyone in the world is worried about global warming (now has been rebranded as climate change, a catch-all for all changes. By covering everything, it says nothing (failing Popper's falsifiability test)). Al Gore, a politician, has turned into a scientist and has won lots of prizes. Leonardo Di Caprio, a Hollywood actor, has become an expert on global warming as well-maybe related to his starring in the doomed Titanic.
The goal of climate science is normally to blame CO2 for the earth heating up, and reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel to reduce global temperatures. This requires proving three different things:
1. That there is a warming going on in the earth
2. That the warming is due to increase of CO2, not other reasons
3. That fossil fuel emissions are the cause of this increase in CO2 (the CO2 increase may be caused by other factors-undersea volcanoes, etc.)
Let's now examine the science and more importantly, the statistics fudging going on behind all this.
The link to NRDC site on Global Warming Basics.
The link to NASA's Global Warming Page.
The greenhouse effect theory is ridiculous
Once you show some effect, scientists come up with many theories to explain that effect.
There are many experts and ultra-experts in greenhouse effects who publish a lot of complicated calculations and math, a few observations should be enough to crash their weak edifice.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (air) is less than 1000 ppm (or 0.1%)--around 400 ppm is the value most cited, which would be 0.04% . The greenhouse theory rests on this gas as the most important element to "trap" the heat of the earth. They claim that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from 400 ppm to 700 ppm in several centuries. To put this in perspective, most of the earth's atmosphere is nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%)and argon (0.9%). What they are claiming is that in a 1000 molecules of air, the one molecule of carbon dioxide is the most important in determining the average temperature of the earth. The other 999 molecules which not carbon dioxide are not important. You would think that we are talking about radioactivity...with such small concentrations of a gas in the atmosphere being completely responsible for determining the earth's temperature. The experiments I have seen to prove that this tiny amount of CO2 is responsible for controlling the temperature are not convincing-have simple errors like not replicating real life atmospheric conditions (because done in a lab setting). I am yet to come across an experiment which replicates real life atmosphere where they vary the concentration of CO2 from 100ppm to 400ppm and see if the temperature rises. Two identical glass cubes where you pump in some CO2 in these ranges would be a good experiment-always taking care to remove some N2 and O2 to keep the density or atmospheric pressure constant. Most of published research is computer models and hand waving approximations and data generation-bogus science.
More importantly, increased PPM concentration of CO2 in atmosphere does not mean total CO2 in atmosphere is going up. The climate change due to human caused CO2 emissions claim is dependent on total CO2 in atmosphere going up; which is not the same as CO2 concentration going up. There are many ways concentration can go up without total amount of CO2 going up. The concentration when used as a proxy for the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere assumes atmosphere has a constant mass; not necessarily true. e.g. one can have CO2 concentration going up if total O2 or total N2 goes down in atmosphere, with CO2 same, and many such scenarios. The O2 level can go down because of more humans and animals for human consumption, for example. This will push the O2 amount down and show as CO2 increase. The bottom line is that concentration of CO2 is not representative of the total amount of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.
CO2 concentration may also rise because of internal activities in the earth, causing in increase in oxygen for example (more plants, volcanoes especially undersea volcanoes which we can't even see, too many fish, sea changing, whatever). When some scientists attribute the miniscule rise in CO2 to man's use of fossil fuels, they jump another step in good science; because fossil fuels may have nothing to do with increase CO2 concentrations. Some hand waving calculations of net trees planted, carbon footprint etc. can't be called serious science. There are no experiments to prove anything-just theories and computer models.
Another supposed greenhouse gas, water vapor, is about 100 times more abundant than carbon dioxide. If greenhouse effect were real, shouldn't they worry more about water vapor than carbon dioxide?
It is easy to prove that water vapor is not very important for warming. Deserts have little water vapor, and are some of the hottest places on the planet. Think about the Sahara desert, the Arab countries and Rajasthan in India...all these are low water vapor deserts and get quite hot.
The radiation related absorption of heat by carbon dioxide, is an irrelevant factor in determining the temperature of the atmosphere. The heat transfer is from directly contact of the air with the hot object-and later the redistribution by convection. The composition of the air being mostly nitrogen and oxygen, they alone are responsible for the heating effect of all hot objects, liquid or solid, on earth.
The reason air temperature goes down as your go up in altitude is because of the falling density of the atmosphere, which itself is caused by the reduction of gravity as one moves away from the earth. Altitude and Latitude determine the temperature of a place; and while the latitude relationship is obvious (sun cross section exposure), altitude is often underestimated. Kilimanjaro in Africa and Quito are at the equator, but are still cold; this is because altitude dominates the temperature at these places. With some minor modifications (for winds, currents, etc), it is fair to say that latitude and altitude determine the temperature of a point on earth very accurately.
I find it silly when they say that that if all carbon dioxide were to be removed from the atmosphere, the earth would be much colder than it is-knowing that carbon dioxide is such a minor part of air.
In summary: when a statement like "need to cut down fossil fuel use to bring down global temperatures or take care of climate change" is made, there are many unproven assumptions: you have to prove that global temperatures are indeed going up. Even if the temperatures were going up, you have to prove that the temperature rise is due to CO2 and not something else. Even if temperatures were going up and CO2 were indeed causing it, you have to prove that the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels and not something else. There are many holes in the theory of fossil fuels causing global warming/climate change.
The sea level rise data, even if it were to be believed, has the same problem. There is no law that from internal processes of the earth the level should not rise. Attributing it to human activity is silly, one needs to prove that...not just propose and accept it as true. There may be thousands of reasons of why sea level goes up, glaciers melt, etc...and attributing all that to human activity related to fossil fuels is pretty bizarre science.
Vladimir Putin seems to get it. In 2003 at the World Climate Change Conference, President Vladimir Putin said "Russia is a northern country. It's not scary if it's two to three degrees warmer. Maybe it would even be a good thing. We'd have to spend less money on fur coats and warmer things." In general, Russia seems to not care about global warming, which is the right thing to do not for just Russia but for the entire world.
Even if the earth is rising in temperature gradually, while this may lead to a tough life for penguins and sea lions and all other animals which live in the poles and cold areas-but as Darwin explained to us so very well in The Origin, Life loves warm weather. The number of species of both plants and animals goes down as we goes away from the Equator. For every penguin dying in Antartica, there are maybe hundreds of deer and snakes and other tropical creatures who are born, and they will lead to the formation of new Species. For plants it is an absolute party as well-a warmer earth will lead to a REFORESTATION of the Amazon jungle in the long term (unfortunately I don't know what that long term is). But this is directly from Darwin, and some simple observations of life around us on our planet. Living things, both plants and animals, multiply better in warm weather, and a warmer earth is good for Life on earth. And come to think of it-what percentage of humans have actually seen a glacier or hung out with a penguin in Antarctica? There are plenty of penguin in zoos nowadays-and we can always raise them well there in case there is a complete melting of ice caps (we did domesticate dogs, cats, and all kinds of other animals, this one will be harder, but we have a long history of domesticating animals!). Warmer earth is also good for population of plants and animals in the sea-e.g. the number density of fish species goes down as you move away from warmer waters to colder waters.
Ocean levels rising even at a larger rate is not as catastrophic at these scientists want you to believe. They say that with the current rate of rise of ocean levels, assume all goes according to what all these climate scientists think, Maldives might disappear in 2100 (assuming their projections are true, which is highly doubtful, but let's just say the are). Maldives has a population of 300,000 today, and even if this happens as these scientists claim-do you think that humans are so brutal that large land mass countries around Maldives like India or Africa or even Europe will let these people just drown??? Of course not. Most countries would be happy to take these immigrants today-it is a very small number of people.
As far as the rise in sea levels on all coasts in major continents-people forget that The Netherlands has been below sea level forever, and human industry of the Dutch has kept it one of the finest, richest countries of Europe in the last 400 years at least. As long as there is a big land mass around, like the Dutch have (unlike Islands like Maldives) we can always reclaim land if needed.
Since the last ice age the earth has been getting warmer (a good thing!) but this present 100 or 200 years acceleration caused by human activity is highly doubtful.
Firstly, whether global warming as measured by a few decades of data, with rising sea levels etc. is not just a simple noise, a simple standard deviation of natural phenomena can't be discarded. It would be like saying that the earthquake frequency is going up in Chile right now, given that for 1 year we have been having a lot of them. There is not enough data to draw conclusions like that about the earth-geological and climactic phenomena are to be measured in thousands of years, not a few decades. A few decades of the earth's temperature rising and the sea level rising doesn't mean much at all.
Secondly and more importantly, I believe the earth is actually much greener today than a few hundred years ago, BECAUSE of the growth in human population. When you land in any airport in Europe or any developed country, or even developing countries in South America, it is a wonderful sight to see the farms and plantations of humans. To support a rising population, cultivation has increased considerably; and while we may have lost some rain forest and some other jungles in the world; the overall greenery in the world is much greater now than before. I doubt that in 1500 Europe or North America would be so green as they are today. The plantations of grains, fruits and vegetables, wines, etc. has lead us to massive reclamations of complete deserts-witness California and Nevada and Arizona in the US, or Mendoza in Argentina. Humans may have cut down forests to expand, but most forest has been cut down to plant more food, and NOT for cities. A dozen cherry trees are much better than a wild pine tree for the carbon footprint. And if we add the deserts and waste lands reclaimed, I believe it can be easily argued that we are much greener today than before.
Just as a farmer throwing seed in the ground would be called a madman by someone who didn't know that this seed will multiply many fold to give even more seed (example of Dr. Burns cited by Smith in Wealth of Nations); similarly, just because we lose a forest doesn't mean that by cutting it we will have less plants than before. If the cut forest is replanted with trees and crops for human use, and maintained green and productive all year round, you will come out much ahead. And I have first hand knowledge from a forest company that the lumber they cut down grows back 100% in some years-thanks to humans taking care of the land, putting fertilizer, supplying water, etc. Not to mention the desert and other lands you reclaim and agriculture-that's a real addition to greenery on the planet. You can see this plainly in California, Arizona in the US, and in Mendoza, Argentina. What was once a desert is now fully grown fields of crops-oranges, wines, olives, etc.
There is a theory on faster hurricanes because of warmer weathers (see links above). There are a thousand other effects of global warming published everyday, and all they are are theories to scare humanity, in my humble opinion.
What we are doing is restraining economic development by all these carbon caps etc. Energy is becoming expensive to produce-and since cheap energy is the CAUSE of economic development (just like all cheap raw materials) we are increasing the costs to humans because of bad science polluting the world.
This highly speculative but development retarding "science" of global warming should be dumped completely for more serious pursuits in physics, chemistry, and mathematics. That's where we want our kids to focus their minds on-and not on some "I am ruining the world by driving my car or drinking more chilled coke" ascetic guilt.
The goal of climate science is normally to blame CO2 for the earth heating up, and reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel to reduce global temperatures. This requires proving three different things:
1. That there is a warming going on in the earth
2. That the warming is due to increase of CO2, not other reasons
3. That fossil fuel emissions are the cause of this increase in CO2 (the CO2 increase may be caused by other factors-undersea volcanoes, etc.)
Let's now examine the science and more importantly, the statistics fudging going on behind all this.
The link to NRDC site on Global Warming Basics.
The link to NASA's Global Warming Page.
Averages or differences between averages don't mean much for highly variable distributions
NASA and other sites claim that the temperature rise is 1C for the mean earth tempetature in about hundred years, or for sea rising 1mm per year, or 100mm in 100 years. The range of temperature at any point in time (e.g. 1200 hours GMT) on the earth is at least 40C (Temperature of -5C to 35C) and of the sea level is 20cm to 30cm (200mm to 300mm). If something is varying so strongly, does it make any sense to worry about 1C of rise in 100 years or 100mm rise in the sea level in 100 years?
NASA is careful to not publish the standard deviation (S.D.) of their data. They are crazily averaging the temperature over the whole year for all places, and using "using elimination of outliers and homogeneity adjustment-as their website says"..talk about smoothing data to fit your models, something which a good mathematician would never do with data! They are plotting the deviation from the mean, which obviously has less standard deviation that the data itself. Here's the GIS temp data which they are using.
You can't talk about just the average for highly variable distributions-the average has no meaning, because it does not represent the population! It is an insult to statistics to talk about the average temperature of a place, let alone of the entire earth, where the temperature at any given moment on the earth is varying from -5C to 35C. The standard deviation is too high!
The global warming scientists are very careful to hide the variability of the data. In most publications, they will never answer a simple question like "what's the average temperature of the earth today vs. 10 or 20 years ago?". Instead, they will take the moving average, and take deviations from the moving average, as a data point. This is to confuse the naive observer into thinking that moving averages are something different and you NEED TO measure deviation from there..in reality, the simple data they have is a time series of temperature recordings. The data is massaged to only publish moving averages, and since no one talks about standard deviation of a moving average in statistics, the problem is "solved" by these wily statisticians. This happens also in the stock market (moving average of stocks is often used to see long term trends). But the deviation in the stock market is much less than the temperature data (per day), and that's where the statistical juggling by environmentalists is needed; and they oblige readily.
Some organizations in global warming do publish the average temperature of the earth. It is about 14.6C, see details here. Nowhere on this website (and there are many others) is there a mention of the standard deviation (variance) of the data. Apparently, the average temperature has gone from 13C to 14C in 100 years, or about 0.1C per decade. It is the same data as NASA data, but in a more clear to understand form.
For people who are trained in statistics, the right statistics test to use to analyse temperature data (and also sea level rise data) is Cohen's d value (or Eta-squared in ANOVA, one way ANOVA). Cohen's d is the difference of the means divided by the standard deviation, or the pooled standard deviation. The claim that in the average temperature rises by 1C in 100 years. Given that the range of the surface air temperature of the earth is at least -5C to 35C at any point in time on the earth, the standard deviation at any point in time would be about 10C (Range/4. See data for US here Some graphical data for the world here) . Let us take two points in time, e.g. 1200 hours GMT on June 13, 100 years apart. Cohen's d is 1/10, which is 0.1, a very low value, assuming the same standard deviation at these two points. Note that the results are statistically significant, but meaningless.
There are claims that the standard deviation is also going up with time with global warming-extreme weather, hotter summers and colder winters. This will make the Cohen's d value even smaller, and the case of global warming enthusiasts even weaker. After all, if global warming leads to ever larger extremes of temperature, you can never be sure of the warming, because it will get drowned out by the variance.
[The problem of statistically significant results being meaningless is a common problem in all fields of investigation. In medicine it is called 'statistically significant but clinically insignificant'. Having large amounts of data points gives you confidence in those numbers, that they are not due to chance alone, but that doesn't mean that the effect size is useful or relevant. An easy example is crime statistics in USA vs. India: USA has significantly more murders than India (per capita, per year) but you don't see people from India not moving to US because they are afraid of getting murdered there. They know that the difference is statistically significant; but not relevant in practical terms. Because even with the US's high murder rate, it is still a very safe country. Absolute numbers matter.
There are claims that the standard deviation is also going up with time with global warming-extreme weather, hotter summers and colder winters. This will make the Cohen's d value even smaller, and the case of global warming enthusiasts even weaker. After all, if global warming leads to ever larger extremes of temperature, you can never be sure of the warming, because it will get drowned out by the variance.
[The problem of statistically significant results being meaningless is a common problem in all fields of investigation. In medicine it is called 'statistically significant but clinically insignificant'. Having large amounts of data points gives you confidence in those numbers, that they are not due to chance alone, but that doesn't mean that the effect size is useful or relevant. An easy example is crime statistics in USA vs. India: USA has significantly more murders than India (per capita, per year) but you don't see people from India not moving to US because they are afraid of getting murdered there. They know that the difference is statistically significant; but not relevant in practical terms. Because even with the US's high murder rate, it is still a very safe country. Absolute numbers matter.
Interested readers can also do a Google search on "Effect size statistics" or "statistically significant but not meaningful" to learn more.]
If the temperature of all points or most of the points on the globe were going up, and going up considerably (after accounting for the standard deviation), you would have a strong case that there is global warming.
Digression: In general, I am a believer that good data shouts at you-I borrowed this phrase from Nassim Taleb. If you have to do a lot of data massaging and discarding, there's probably nothing inside the data, or at least nothing very strong. Good strong correlations shout at you-and if you are experienced with looking at numbers, you don't need to calculate statistical variables to prove the correlation. If you are doing so, the correlations are very weak, and your theories are very weak as well. Global warming theories are just an example of these types of weak correlations, which will show up by careful data massaging, or just due to randomness.
Can we even talk about the mean temperature of a place over a year??? Given that the temperature per day is varying about at least 5C, consider a place like Dallas, TX, USA-where the temperature is between 25-35 C in the summer, and 0-10C in the winter, can we even infer anything at all if we say that the average temperature of Dallas over a year was 20C? The deviation from the mean is so large that just talking about the average becomes meaningless. If you average the data over the whole earth it becomes even more meaningless, not less, as shown above (variances add).
Another problem with temperature data is that all of it is really the temperature of the air at the earth's surface, wherever the temperature data is being taken. The atmosphere is several kilometers in length, and the temperature of the air in the atmosphere decreases as we move up-we all know that it is about -40C at an altitude of 10 km. It is very cold as you start moving up. Can we say that the temperature reading we have just at the bottom of the atmospheric column represents the atmospheric air temperature? Note the dimensions here...you are taking a point measurement, and concluding the temperature of the air. Also note that this is not the temperature of the earth's crust at all, which is the solid matter below the atmospheric column. Things are more complicated when talking about the earth which has 75% of the surface as water. There can be no inference of the temperature of the atmospheric air, the water in the oceans, or the solid earth just from a point measurement of the temperature on the surface air. Not to mention that talking about the temperature of a massive solid ball which is thousands of kilometers in diameter sounds like a very foolish thing to me.
Another problem with temperature data is that all of it is really the temperature of the air at the earth's surface, wherever the temperature data is being taken. The atmosphere is several kilometers in length, and the temperature of the air in the atmosphere decreases as we move up-we all know that it is about -40C at an altitude of 10 km. It is very cold as you start moving up. Can we say that the temperature reading we have just at the bottom of the atmospheric column represents the atmospheric air temperature? Note the dimensions here...you are taking a point measurement, and concluding the temperature of the air. Also note that this is not the temperature of the earth's crust at all, which is the solid matter below the atmospheric column. Things are more complicated when talking about the earth which has 75% of the surface as water. There can be no inference of the temperature of the atmospheric air, the water in the oceans, or the solid earth just from a point measurement of the temperature on the surface air. Not to mention that talking about the temperature of a massive solid ball which is thousands of kilometers in diameter sounds like a very foolish thing to me.
The same problem is there with the sea level data-which they claim is rising 1 mm per year. The sea is in constant motion, and you can see waves of a meter or so everywhere...what is the sea level accuracy or noise in the sea level??? Again, bizarre averaging down without reporting standard deviations. The waves are 10cm to 20cm high even in a calm sea (i.e. the seal level itself has this noise of 100mm or 200mm), and we are talking about 1 mm average rises over a year. Once again, the effect size of the rise in a decade of 1cm, is only a tenth of the deviation in seal level, clearly this is not important (Cohen's d is 0.1 for 10 years, or 1 for 100 years). Also, rise in sea level does not necessarily mean that it is because of global warming-there might be other reasons. Glaciers have been melting since the ice age, and an accelerating in the melting does not necessarily mean that we will see an increased temperature of the earth or the earth's surface. Those are two different things-and you can imagine a scenario where the sea level is really rising without any global warming, for reasons not known to us.
And if there's something like a sea level rise, it should be noticed on ALL places, with the SAME AMOUNT (in mm) of rise. Otherwise it is local subsidence, nothing else. After all, if the whole sea is rising, why would only parts of the earth show this rise...it should be the same everywhere.
And if there's something like a sea level rise, it should be noticed on ALL places, with the SAME AMOUNT (in mm) of rise. Otherwise it is local subsidence, nothing else. After all, if the whole sea is rising, why would only parts of the earth show this rise...it should be the same everywhere.
Once you show some effect, scientists come up with many theories to explain that effect.
There are many experts and ultra-experts in greenhouse effects who publish a lot of complicated calculations and math, a few observations should be enough to crash their weak edifice.
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (air) is less than 1000 ppm (or 0.1%)--around 400 ppm is the value most cited, which would be 0.04% . The greenhouse theory rests on this gas as the most important element to "trap" the heat of the earth. They claim that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone up from 400 ppm to 700 ppm in several centuries. To put this in perspective, most of the earth's atmosphere is nitrogen (78%), oxygen (21%)and argon (0.9%). What they are claiming is that in a 1000 molecules of air, the one molecule of carbon dioxide is the most important in determining the average temperature of the earth. The other 999 molecules which not carbon dioxide are not important. You would think that we are talking about radioactivity...with such small concentrations of a gas in the atmosphere being completely responsible for determining the earth's temperature. The experiments I have seen to prove that this tiny amount of CO2 is responsible for controlling the temperature are not convincing-have simple errors like not replicating real life atmospheric conditions (because done in a lab setting). I am yet to come across an experiment which replicates real life atmosphere where they vary the concentration of CO2 from 100ppm to 400ppm and see if the temperature rises. Two identical glass cubes where you pump in some CO2 in these ranges would be a good experiment-always taking care to remove some N2 and O2 to keep the density or atmospheric pressure constant. Most of published research is computer models and hand waving approximations and data generation-bogus science.
More importantly, increased PPM concentration of CO2 in atmosphere does not mean total CO2 in atmosphere is going up. The climate change due to human caused CO2 emissions claim is dependent on total CO2 in atmosphere going up; which is not the same as CO2 concentration going up. There are many ways concentration can go up without total amount of CO2 going up. The concentration when used as a proxy for the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere assumes atmosphere has a constant mass; not necessarily true. e.g. one can have CO2 concentration going up if total O2 or total N2 goes down in atmosphere, with CO2 same, and many such scenarios. The O2 level can go down because of more humans and animals for human consumption, for example. This will push the O2 amount down and show as CO2 increase. The bottom line is that concentration of CO2 is not representative of the total amount of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere.
CO2 concentration may also rise because of internal activities in the earth, causing in increase in oxygen for example (more plants, volcanoes especially undersea volcanoes which we can't even see, too many fish, sea changing, whatever). When some scientists attribute the miniscule rise in CO2 to man's use of fossil fuels, they jump another step in good science; because fossil fuels may have nothing to do with increase CO2 concentrations. Some hand waving calculations of net trees planted, carbon footprint etc. can't be called serious science. There are no experiments to prove anything-just theories and computer models.
Another supposed greenhouse gas, water vapor, is about 100 times more abundant than carbon dioxide. If greenhouse effect were real, shouldn't they worry more about water vapor than carbon dioxide?
It is easy to prove that water vapor is not very important for warming. Deserts have little water vapor, and are some of the hottest places on the planet. Think about the Sahara desert, the Arab countries and Rajasthan in India...all these are low water vapor deserts and get quite hot.
The radiation related absorption of heat by carbon dioxide, is an irrelevant factor in determining the temperature of the atmosphere. The heat transfer is from directly contact of the air with the hot object-and later the redistribution by convection. The composition of the air being mostly nitrogen and oxygen, they alone are responsible for the heating effect of all hot objects, liquid or solid, on earth.
The reason air temperature goes down as your go up in altitude is because of the falling density of the atmosphere, which itself is caused by the reduction of gravity as one moves away from the earth. Altitude and Latitude determine the temperature of a place; and while the latitude relationship is obvious (sun cross section exposure), altitude is often underestimated. Kilimanjaro in Africa and Quito are at the equator, but are still cold; this is because altitude dominates the temperature at these places. With some minor modifications (for winds, currents, etc), it is fair to say that latitude and altitude determine the temperature of a point on earth very accurately.
I find it silly when they say that that if all carbon dioxide were to be removed from the atmosphere, the earth would be much colder than it is-knowing that carbon dioxide is such a minor part of air.
In summary: when a statement like "need to cut down fossil fuel use to bring down global temperatures or take care of climate change" is made, there are many unproven assumptions: you have to prove that global temperatures are indeed going up. Even if the temperatures were going up, you have to prove that the temperature rise is due to CO2 and not something else. Even if temperatures were going up and CO2 were indeed causing it, you have to prove that the CO2 rise is due to fossil fuels and not something else. There are many holes in the theory of fossil fuels causing global warming/climate change.
The sea level rise data, even if it were to be believed, has the same problem. There is no law that from internal processes of the earth the level should not rise. Attributing it to human activity is silly, one needs to prove that...not just propose and accept it as true. There may be thousands of reasons of why sea level goes up, glaciers melt, etc...and attributing all that to human activity related to fossil fuels is pretty bizarre science.
Negative effects of global warming are highly exaggerated
The other problem which these global warming enthusiasts are not telling the truth about is that even if there is global warming, it doesn't mean that it is bad for us. There is a lot of exaggeration on the bad effects of global warming and sea level rising.
Vladimir Putin seems to get it. In 2003 at the World Climate Change Conference, President Vladimir Putin said "Russia is a northern country. It's not scary if it's two to three degrees warmer. Maybe it would even be a good thing. We'd have to spend less money on fur coats and warmer things." In general, Russia seems to not care about global warming, which is the right thing to do not for just Russia but for the entire world.
Even if the earth is rising in temperature gradually, while this may lead to a tough life for penguins and sea lions and all other animals which live in the poles and cold areas-but as Darwin explained to us so very well in The Origin, Life loves warm weather. The number of species of both plants and animals goes down as we goes away from the Equator. For every penguin dying in Antartica, there are maybe hundreds of deer and snakes and other tropical creatures who are born, and they will lead to the formation of new Species. For plants it is an absolute party as well-a warmer earth will lead to a REFORESTATION of the Amazon jungle in the long term (unfortunately I don't know what that long term is). But this is directly from Darwin, and some simple observations of life around us on our planet. Living things, both plants and animals, multiply better in warm weather, and a warmer earth is good for Life on earth. And come to think of it-what percentage of humans have actually seen a glacier or hung out with a penguin in Antarctica? There are plenty of penguin in zoos nowadays-and we can always raise them well there in case there is a complete melting of ice caps (we did domesticate dogs, cats, and all kinds of other animals, this one will be harder, but we have a long history of domesticating animals!). Warmer earth is also good for population of plants and animals in the sea-e.g. the number density of fish species goes down as you move away from warmer waters to colder waters.
Ocean levels rising even at a larger rate is not as catastrophic at these scientists want you to believe. They say that with the current rate of rise of ocean levels, assume all goes according to what all these climate scientists think, Maldives might disappear in 2100 (assuming their projections are true, which is highly doubtful, but let's just say the are). Maldives has a population of 300,000 today, and even if this happens as these scientists claim-do you think that humans are so brutal that large land mass countries around Maldives like India or Africa or even Europe will let these people just drown??? Of course not. Most countries would be happy to take these immigrants today-it is a very small number of people.
As far as the rise in sea levels on all coasts in major continents-people forget that The Netherlands has been below sea level forever, and human industry of the Dutch has kept it one of the finest, richest countries of Europe in the last 400 years at least. As long as there is a big land mass around, like the Dutch have (unlike Islands like Maldives) we can always reclaim land if needed.
Since the last ice age the earth has been getting warmer (a good thing!) but this present 100 or 200 years acceleration caused by human activity is highly doubtful.
Firstly, whether global warming as measured by a few decades of data, with rising sea levels etc. is not just a simple noise, a simple standard deviation of natural phenomena can't be discarded. It would be like saying that the earthquake frequency is going up in Chile right now, given that for 1 year we have been having a lot of them. There is not enough data to draw conclusions like that about the earth-geological and climactic phenomena are to be measured in thousands of years, not a few decades. A few decades of the earth's temperature rising and the sea level rising doesn't mean much at all.
Earth is greener today because of agriculture
Secondly and more importantly, I believe the earth is actually much greener today than a few hundred years ago, BECAUSE of the growth in human population. When you land in any airport in Europe or any developed country, or even developing countries in South America, it is a wonderful sight to see the farms and plantations of humans. To support a rising population, cultivation has increased considerably; and while we may have lost some rain forest and some other jungles in the world; the overall greenery in the world is much greater now than before. I doubt that in 1500 Europe or North America would be so green as they are today. The plantations of grains, fruits and vegetables, wines, etc. has lead us to massive reclamations of complete deserts-witness California and Nevada and Arizona in the US, or Mendoza in Argentina. Humans may have cut down forests to expand, but most forest has been cut down to plant more food, and NOT for cities. A dozen cherry trees are much better than a wild pine tree for the carbon footprint. And if we add the deserts and waste lands reclaimed, I believe it can be easily argued that we are much greener today than before.
Just as a farmer throwing seed in the ground would be called a madman by someone who didn't know that this seed will multiply many fold to give even more seed (example of Dr. Burns cited by Smith in Wealth of Nations); similarly, just because we lose a forest doesn't mean that by cutting it we will have less plants than before. If the cut forest is replanted with trees and crops for human use, and maintained green and productive all year round, you will come out much ahead. And I have first hand knowledge from a forest company that the lumber they cut down grows back 100% in some years-thanks to humans taking care of the land, putting fertilizer, supplying water, etc. Not to mention the desert and other lands you reclaim and agriculture-that's a real addition to greenery on the planet. You can see this plainly in California, Arizona in the US, and in Mendoza, Argentina. What was once a desert is now fully grown fields of crops-oranges, wines, olives, etc.
There is a theory on faster hurricanes because of warmer weathers (see links above). There are a thousand other effects of global warming published everyday, and all they are are theories to scare humanity, in my humble opinion.
What we are doing is restraining economic development by all these carbon caps etc. Energy is becoming expensive to produce-and since cheap energy is the CAUSE of economic development (just like all cheap raw materials) we are increasing the costs to humans because of bad science polluting the world.
Energy and Oil, Oil Stocks, Hand Dryer and Hybrid Car Economics and Crap called Global Warming
Oil markets and oil stocks. Oil is up t0 $140 a barrel. Oil stocks in the US (good proxy is XLE) is up only 10% for the year, price sensitivity of oil producers to oil price is very high-markets seem to be significantly undervaluing oil stocks, especially because futures are in contango. But the general malaise in the stock market probably is pushing the oil stocks where they are-once the selloff of financials is done they will lead the market higher.
They say Oil is up by speculators. Need to get the basics of economics right--speculators make profits if the price of oil rises more in the future-they supply oil in the future at higher prices-and thereby add value to society. See Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations on "Digression on Corn Trade" for more on this. If price of oil falls they lose money. They help in controlling consumption of today and transferring it tomorrow, so oil wont rise as much tomorrow.
That someone who trades Oil futures is called a speculator while Exxon and Aramco are not (what's the difference-each is buying something-labor and capital for cheap, and selling the final product at a profit). Just because someone really "produces" something doesn't make them any less a speculator. Isn't Walmart a speculator-buying all this chinese stuff for cheap, hoarding it and then selling it to America for dear? Shouldn't they be shut down and we get all the Chinese stuff for cheap? Eliminate the middle man, and we will get everything from the farmer and the raw producers-take division of labor and expertise to cave men era. Then I will make my own bread, make my own clothes, build my own house, build my own tools-to eliminate all the speculators etc. who make money off me-and live happily ever after? Or die very very soon? They want to reverse human development and division of labor when they talk about eliminating speculators in oil.
It is irritating to see electric hand dryers in bathrooms. They dont save trees-we can't say that for sure-do a calculation of how much energy is spend in producing all that steel which the dryer is made of, how much coal is used to produce the electricity the hand dryer consumes-and u will see that it ain't that simple. I would rather chop a few trees down and get the simple paper towel. Just because I dont sin in using the final end product of trees doesn't mean that less trees are actually being cut. Steel industry and coal mining eliminate a lot of forest, and consume lots of energy, which is itself destroying the environment, which destroys, life, etc. etc.
Hybrid cars for cleaner environment make me laugh. They are expensive than oil using cars-and will remain so for 30 years. And the carbon dioxide and carbon residues released in electricity production are harmful to the environment, people forget that. Yes, nuclear, wind and solar are energy options-but they are 3-20x more expensive to produce a unit of energy than coal, the cheap king. Chinese and Indians are for the first time seeing the dream of 24 hour electricity-and they can't be bothered a bit about destroying the environment to have 24 hour electricity. This is like going into a poor neighborhood in Chicago and ask everyone to hire a gardener to mow their lawn so the neighborhood looks pretty.
Global warming leads to madness from Bono and Al Gore. Granted that there might global warming-even though the Science behind that statement is awfully bad-but that it causes any harm is doubtful. Sure ice is melting and species in the arctic and cold regions are being destroyed-but thousands more are being generated in the tropics, where it is on average warmer. Life is always more abundant in heat-read Darwin in "The Origin of Species". A warmer earth supports more species, more life. Global warming and green earth talk is not much different from Eugenics by Galton 100 years ago-this was a very respected scientist who was talking complete crap in one field-Eugenics (he discovered finger printing as an identification technique). Intelligence is domain specific-but most people are too dumb to realize that. Therefore Galton got famous selling "improving the human stock of England" ideas to the world. There was even a Fellowship of Eugenics in the Univ of London. So many good anthropologists and good scientists fell for it. Same with global warming talk right now-it is alarmist, the earth will be fine with a few degrees of temperature rise-true penguins and polar bears might go-but these are the big species-thousands more of the small ones are being generated in the warmer parts of the ocean and the land thanks to global warming. And the mammals in the warmer parts will multiply more and lead to more varieties and species of mammals in the future.
They say Oil is up by speculators. Need to get the basics of economics right--speculators make profits if the price of oil rises more in the future-they supply oil in the future at higher prices-and thereby add value to society. See Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations on "Digression on Corn Trade" for more on this. If price of oil falls they lose money. They help in controlling consumption of today and transferring it tomorrow, so oil wont rise as much tomorrow.
That someone who trades Oil futures is called a speculator while Exxon and Aramco are not (what's the difference-each is buying something-labor and capital for cheap, and selling the final product at a profit). Just because someone really "produces" something doesn't make them any less a speculator. Isn't Walmart a speculator-buying all this chinese stuff for cheap, hoarding it and then selling it to America for dear? Shouldn't they be shut down and we get all the Chinese stuff for cheap? Eliminate the middle man, and we will get everything from the farmer and the raw producers-take division of labor and expertise to cave men era. Then I will make my own bread, make my own clothes, build my own house, build my own tools-to eliminate all the speculators etc. who make money off me-and live happily ever after? Or die very very soon? They want to reverse human development and division of labor when they talk about eliminating speculators in oil.
It is irritating to see electric hand dryers in bathrooms. They dont save trees-we can't say that for sure-do a calculation of how much energy is spend in producing all that steel which the dryer is made of, how much coal is used to produce the electricity the hand dryer consumes-and u will see that it ain't that simple. I would rather chop a few trees down and get the simple paper towel. Just because I dont sin in using the final end product of trees doesn't mean that less trees are actually being cut. Steel industry and coal mining eliminate a lot of forest, and consume lots of energy, which is itself destroying the environment, which destroys, life, etc. etc.
Hybrid cars for cleaner environment make me laugh. They are expensive than oil using cars-and will remain so for 30 years. And the carbon dioxide and carbon residues released in electricity production are harmful to the environment, people forget that. Yes, nuclear, wind and solar are energy options-but they are 3-20x more expensive to produce a unit of energy than coal, the cheap king. Chinese and Indians are for the first time seeing the dream of 24 hour electricity-and they can't be bothered a bit about destroying the environment to have 24 hour electricity. This is like going into a poor neighborhood in Chicago and ask everyone to hire a gardener to mow their lawn so the neighborhood looks pretty.
Global warming leads to madness from Bono and Al Gore. Granted that there might global warming-even though the Science behind that statement is awfully bad-but that it causes any harm is doubtful. Sure ice is melting and species in the arctic and cold regions are being destroyed-but thousands more are being generated in the tropics, where it is on average warmer. Life is always more abundant in heat-read Darwin in "The Origin of Species". A warmer earth supports more species, more life. Global warming and green earth talk is not much different from Eugenics by Galton 100 years ago-this was a very respected scientist who was talking complete crap in one field-Eugenics (he discovered finger printing as an identification technique). Intelligence is domain specific-but most people are too dumb to realize that. Therefore Galton got famous selling "improving the human stock of England" ideas to the world. There was even a Fellowship of Eugenics in the Univ of London. So many good anthropologists and good scientists fell for it. Same with global warming talk right now-it is alarmist, the earth will be fine with a few degrees of temperature rise-true penguins and polar bears might go-but these are the big species-thousands more of the small ones are being generated in the warmer parts of the ocean and the land thanks to global warming. And the mammals in the warmer parts will multiply more and lead to more varieties and species of mammals in the future.