Posted on 07/27/2005 5:59:53 AM PDT by BJClinton
Global warming is always a hot topic in liberal media circles, where the political and scientific consensus is that global climate change is occurring, it is a danger, it is caused by mankind and we need to start doing something serious about reversing it.
For a little balance, we called up Fred Singer, aka "the godfather of global warming denial." An expert on global climate change and a pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology, he holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and happens to be the guy who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone. Now president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group (sepp.org), his dozen books include "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate." I talked to him by telephone from his offices in Arlington, Va.:
Q: Here’s a line from a recent Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true? A: It’s completely unsupported by any observation, but it’s supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.
Q: What’s the best argument or proof that global warming is not happening? A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight -- a great deal less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with observations of the surface.
Q: An epic New Yorker series said unequivocally that the permafrost, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland glaciers are all melting. Is that true and is it because of global warming? A: The Arctic temperatures have been now measured for a long time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were around 1940. Then it cooled. And it’s warming again, but it hasn’t reached the levels of 1940. It will continue to oscillate. That’s the best prediction.
Q: What is the most dangerous untrue "fact" about global warming that’s out there in the media-sphere? A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.
Q: If you had a 12-year-old grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you tell him? A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared to natural fluctuations of climate.
Q: How did you become "the godfather of global warming denial"? A: That’s easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference called "The global effects of environmental pollution." At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to cool. That was the situation.
Q: Climate is extremely complicated -- is that a true statement? A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It’s just too complicated.
Q: Give me a sample of how complicated just one little thing can be. A: The most complicated thing about the atmosphere that the models cannot capture is clouds. First of all, clouds are small. The resolution of the computer models is about 200 miles; clouds are much smaller than that. Secondly, they don’t know when clouds form. They have to guess what humidity is necessary for a cloud to form. And of course, humidity is not the only factor. You have to have nuclei -- little particles -- on which the water vapor can condense to form droplets. They don’t know that either. And they don’t know at what point the cloud begins to rain out. And they don’t know at what point -- it goes on like this.
Q: Is this debate a scientific fight or a political fight? A: Both. I much support a scientific fight, because I’m pretty sure we’ll win that -- because the data support us; they don’t support the climate models. Basically it’s a fight of people who believe in data, or who believe in the atmosphere, versus people who believe in models.
Q: Is it not true that CO2 levels have gone up by about a third in the last 100 years? A: A little more than a third, yes. I accept that.
Q: Do you say that’s irrelevant? A: It’s relevant, but the effects cannot be clearly seen. The models predict huge effects from this, but we don’t see them.
Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way? A: It’s a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with, and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don’t deny that there’s some effect of human activities on climate. We need to learn how important they are.
Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way? A: It’s a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don’t deny that there’s some affect of human activities on climate. Cities are warmer now than they used to be. We have changed forests into agricultural fields. That has some affect on climate. We irrigate much of the Earth. That affects climate. And so on. We are having some influence on climate, at least on a small scale. So we need to know these things. We need to how important they are.
Q: And global warming is something we should study but not get panicky about? A: The thing to keep in mind always is that the natural fluctuations of climate are very much larger than anything we can ascribe – so far – to any human activity. Much larger. We lived through a Little Ice Age just a few hundred years ago. During the Middle Ages the climate was much warmer than it is today. So the climate does change all the time. We need to understand the scientific reasons for natural climate change. Most of us now think it’s the sun that is the real driver of climate. It has something to do with sun spots, but the mechanism is not quite clear. That’s what’s being studied now.
Belly Girl lives!
So what let's do?
Let's pass laws and spend several gazillion bucks based on the computer models!
D'OH!
Same with second hand tobacco smoke: the most extensive and rigorously scientific studies show no connection between second hand smoke and "threat to the public". But neurotic little old ladies in tennis shoes feel differently about it so let's pass laws based on that. All over the place.
By the way, I would buy a couple of dozen of those tee shirts if a teeny modification is made:
Just. wonderful.
ping
It's true! Every morning I get out of bed and emit noxious greenhouse gases. Sure enough the temperatures rise 20 degrees by afternoon causing the severe ice melting....IN MY FRIGGIN GLASS OF ICED TEA!
BUMP!
Michael Crichton's State of Fear is a great read on this topic.
I'll bet some of the environmentalist wackos mentioned in the item below post on FR's Darwinism religion threads, or soon will. LOL
San Jose Mercury News, United States
Posted on Tue, Jul. 26, 2005
Researcher puts cows in a bubble to measure emissions
KATHLEEN HENNESSEY Associated Press
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12226712.htm
DAVIS, Calif. - In a white, tent-like "bio-bubble" on a farm near Davis, eight pregnant Holsteins are eating, chewing and pooping - for science.
"The ladies," as they're called by University of California, researcher Frank Mitloehner, are doing their part to answer a question plaguing one of California's largest agricultural industries: How much gas does a cow emit?
The findings will be used to write the state's first air quality regulations for dairies and could affect regulations nationwide.
But before he explains how it works, Mitloehner wants one thing to be clear.
"We're not talking about flatulence," he says.
He emphasizes the point because his research has been dismissed as "fart science," a label he says doesn't do justice to the seriousness of his work.
There are more than 3 million cows in California, the vast majority living in the booming Central Valley, home to some of the most polluted air in the country. How much to blame the cows and how much to blame the cars for the bad air is no small concern.
Mitloehner's research has suggested that cows are responsible for far fewer of the compounds that contribute to smog, known as volatile organic compounds or VOCs, than previously thought, perhaps as little as half the amount.
That puts the air quality specialist and animal emissions expert in the middle of a heated dispute coming to a head Aug. 1, when the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District will announce its new emissions factor for cows_ the amount VOCs, in pounds, that a cow releases each year. The number will eventually determine which dairies must apply for air quality permits and invest in mitigating air pollution equipment.
"This is a multibillion decision," said Mitloehner. "It's not just a number."
Currently, regulators assume that a cow produces 12.8 pounds of VOCs a year.
But regulators, environmentalists and many in the $4 billion dairy industry agree that the current emission factor, which is based on a 1938 study, is out of date.
A regulator for the air control district has proposed an increase to 20.6 pounds per cow. Industry groups estimate that number is around 5 pounds.
Mitloehner says he just wants to make sure the new number is based on science.
His solution was to recreate a cow's living conditions in a modern dairy and then seal it off.
In one experiment, eight cows spend two days in the space-agey, air-conditioned "bio-bubble." The large white structure houses a typical dry-lot corral, blanketed with dirt and, by the end of the experiment, manure. The cows are left to eat, chew and emit compounds while their every move is caught on video and the air is monitored by machines so sensitive they can detect one molecule out of a trillion others.
A similar test is conducted in a smaller environmental chamber simulating a typical stall with a concrete floor.
To Mitloehner's surprise, the first results from that study show the presence of smog-causing compounds dropped significantly after the cows left chamber, even though they left fresh manure behind.
"We thought it was the waste that would lead to the majority of emissions, but it seemed to have been the animals," he said.
The chief offender appears to be the ruminating process. After a cow eats, the food is briefly deposited in its bathtub-sized stomach. There it mixes with bacteria, begins to break down and produces methane, a greenhouse gas. About 20 minutes later, the food comes up again as cud. As the cow chews it, the methane is released into the air. The process also emits methanol and ethanol, both VOCs.
For some in the industry, the results indicate that dairy farmers who may be forced to mitigate pollution may be trying to fight nature.
"Is this something that we really want to do, try to regulate a living thing?" said J.P. Cativiela, a program coordinator for Dairy CARES, an industry-funded environmental group. "All living things have emissions, plants animals, even, people. It absolutely makes sense to regulate the industrial part of a dairy, are we really seriously talking about regulating animals?"
Cativiela said changing a cow's food may prove to be more effective than expensive technologies. He and other industry advocates are concerned that regulators will call for expanded use of methane digesters. The digesters cover a dairy's lagoon of diluted waste, trap pollutants and create electricity. They also cost about $1 million a piece, and industry groups argue their effectiveness is unproven.
Meanwhile, environmentalists contend that the import of Mitloehner's research has been exaggerated. They note that it tests only one of the many polluters on a modern, large-scale dairy.
"It doesn't take into account the lagoons that store the waste or the decomposing feed, the decomposing corn stored on a dairy," said Brent Newell, an attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment.
San Joaquin regulators say Mitloehner's research just one factor in the decision.
"The district's assessment is based on all of the science in total," said spokeswoman Jaime Holt. "It is not based on any one study, or any one process being measured."
Mitloehner agrees that his research should only be one of several factors being considered by regulators. But he's recently criticized the other studies being used by regulators, as well as how the district, which funded part of his research, is interpreting his findings.
He and other scientists have written letters to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control Officer David Crow expressing their concerns.
But for now, Mitloehner has returned to his bio-bubbles to continue researching other cow-related air quality problems, like dust and ammonia.
Someday, he and his students joke, he may like to use the bio-bubble to measure emissions from another polluter: the car.
*
MyMotherLode.com
Researcher Puts Cows In A Bubble To Measure Emissions
http://www.mymotherlode.com/News/article/kvml/1122415503
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 - 03:30 PM
Sabrina Sabbagh News Anchor
Davis, CA -- Researchers are trying to answer a question plaguing one of California's largest agricultural industries; how much gas does a cow emit?
The findings will be used to write the state's first air quality regulations for dairies and could affect regulations nationwide.
[]
There are more than 3 million cows in California, the vast majority living in the booming Central Valley.
On August 1st, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District will announce its new emissions factor for cows; a figure that will eventually determine which dairies must apply for air quality permits and invest in mitigating air pollution equipment.
*
San Luis Obispo Tribune Wed, Jul. 27, 2005
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/news/12234552.htm
Researcher puts cows in a bubble to measure emissions
KATHLEEN HENNESSEY Associated Press
[snip]
Got it right next to me. I can't seem to find time to finish it but it makes a great paper weight.
I got it unabridged at Audible.com. Got a free pager-size player with my subscription that carries about 18 hours worth of audio, and carry it everywhere I go. Finished listening to it in about 2 or 3 days.
She's cute...
Wow.
CO² levels have increased by 1/3 in the past 100 years." How much has the earth's pop. increased in the past 100 years, fartface?
Why are we having a heatwave? Well, for starters, it's SUMMER. It gets HOT in SUMMER...but it was hotter in the 1930s...remember the Dust Bowl? I suppose that was Bush's fault too? Or the blizzards the last few years in the East?? The WARMING caused the BLIZZARDS too? OK, it all makes sense now...
Did she just say "Global Warming" or was it "SUV induced global warming"?
Where do you buy one of those?
According to surface temperature measurements, the 1990s were hotter than the 1930s.
Yes but the summer heat waves in the Central Plains have yet to be beaten
Global warming is the biggest hoax since Piltdown Man.
Due to the "Dust Bowl" drought, which might not get as bad now because of better water management and land-use practices. Notice I said "might". It's been dry out West lately, though this year was a little wetter.
bump for review prior to next lib attended cocktail party.
I meant her.
Great article, featuring one of the foremost scientists of our time, Singer.
Thanks
`
Bump
I hate to sound jaded, but do ya think they're real? Takes half the fun away, just wondering that.
I know you were being sarcastic.
I want to see them take these same computer models and turn them around and "predict" the past with some accuracy before we start a huge global redistribution of wealth in the name of the environment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
