My kids' Dad

The ice caps are growing

We hear that now more than ever we need to combat global warming and the future administration is going to pour a lot of energy and money into it (as well as appointing a global warming fanatics as scientists in charge). A scientist would find this shocking since the science does not support this but any student of politics understands application of red herrings.

Our local meterologist Bill Steffen writes this:

I heard Matt Lauer say, “Next we’ll take a trip to the Arctic, where the ice is melting fast”. What followed some commercials was a story that said: “…the Arctic, where the climate is changing rapidly and not for the better.” The trouble with the above statements is that they’re not true. You can check the extent of Arctic ice at the University of Illinois Cryosphere website: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ You’ll find that the Arctic icecap reached a record (and we only have a 29-year record) low in 2007. The icecap has been growing at a fairly rapid rate since, gaining 7% in just the last year to bring it back to 2002 levels. Alaska is having one of their coldest years ever, and the ice is not “melting fast” it’s actually growing fast. Also, the Antarctic icecap reached a record maximum in 2007. The TV story also showed a graph of the loss of Arctic ice from 2005 to 2007.  Obviously, the story they wanted to tell was that the ice is “melting rapidly”  If they had included 2008, or done a graph from 2002 to 2008, or from 1989 to 2008, it would not have had the same dramatic effect as the graph that was shown.

USA Today has an article that attacks meterologists for espousing these views but if you read the comments you get a better picture.

I just read an excellent post by Andrew Freedman at Capitalweather.com about the puzzling disconnect between TV meteorologists and the climate science community. It's a balanced, reasoned assessment of what I've noticed is an unwillingness by weathercasters to embrace what the vast majority of climate scientists accept as a given.

Here was Bill Steffen's response (in 2006) to the USA Today piece:

I have been a TV meteorologist for over 32 years…my degree is from the Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison – double major, Physical Geography.

My observation is that TV meteorologists are more skeptical of two things…first the total emphasis on man/C02 to the almost total exclusion of anything else in this climate debate….and second the nightmarish scenarios that dominate media coverage and a very vocal part of academia. We are skeptical of these computer models, partly because we do deal with them on a daily basis and know their math and therefore their limitations…but we are also skeptical of some of the modelers who have a financial and political interest in policy decisions that would result from action taken in response to their alarm. TV meteorologists are not beholden to big oil/industry or to the government grants and far-left policies that drive many of the alarmists. We do think the Earth is warming…that there are a number of reasons for this. I think that TV meteorologists are in general more conservative/skeptical people. Conservatives tend to go into business and engineering, liberals to government and media, conservative meteorologists to broadcasting.

There is little talk about solar cycles (there are articles discussing the shrinking of the polar ice caps on Mars and the moons of Jupiter). There hasn’t been a decent volcano since Pinatubo in ’91…less volcanic dust means more solar radiation reaching the ground. Dozens of Arctic stations across the Dew Line in northern Canada (remember, to warn us if the Russians sent ICBMs over the Pole) were closed. Russia has also closed stations…that in a small way is going to upset the balance of ground stations that become the base for the computer models. Temperatures are only measured accurately over about 14% of the globe. Where these temperatures are measured most accurately (the U.S.), the warming is less pronounced. Over the oceans we rely on IR satellites. I can show you IR pictures from Lake Michigan that are 5 degrees off the actual surface temperature of the water. Methane is a five-times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2…but has no political consequences, so it’s hardly considered. There are MANY thermometer sites that were in cooler, rural – forested environments 50 years ago that are now sitting amid concrete and asphalt. These thermometers will be giving warmer readings now.

We as a group (and there are many of us) resent when the media announces that “no credible scientist denies that global warming is going to kill us all…etc, etc”. That is a total untruth and reporters who word their pieces that way are either ignorant or biased.

I can show you comments from Hansen back around 1990 when he said that he’d looked at every temperature and there was no warming going on…was he wrong then (and if so why should we trust him now)? The world worships Al Gore…heck, he’s got the hurricane rotating backwards on the poster for his movie! He has no meteorological training, yet he’s given instant credibility over PhDs.

If you look at the data for my town (Grand Rapids) there is hardly a difference between temperatures 100 years ago and now. We have had warmer late falls and winters of late…but we have also had FEWER 90-degree days in the last 10 years than at practically any time in the last century. Most people and animals would prefer a slightly warmer climate. We go to Florida on vacation, not Baffin Island! A longer growing season would be a positive, not a negative. The positive aspects of a small (and less than 2-degrees is small…we used to have palm trees growing in Grand Rapids) temperature rise are never discussed.

If these people really cared about the planet, they’d find a way to address the growing C02 problem coming out countries like China (40% of the growth in C02 is China!), India, Indonesia, Brazil, etc. It’s only the U.S. that has to shut down industry and drive weenie-mobiles.

Climatic variability is the natural norm and I remain unconvinced that man/C02 is a greater danger to me than mad dictators with nukes.

Bill Steffen
WOOD and WOTV4
Grand Rapids, MI

Which point of view is more convincing? And more importantly why would people give up so much liberty based on the word of those who are so blatantly political such as Al Gore or the folks at the U.N.'s IPCC?

Danish Sense

Some times you need to go to Denmark to find some common sense.  Flemming Rose, editor for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten and Bjorn Lomborg, professor at the Copenhagen Business School, contributed a commentary in today's Wall Street Journal titled Will Al Gore Melt?. In this well written piece they make three points:

1) Al Gore backed out of an interview with the paper at the last minute despite the paper acceding to his conditions showing us that Mr. Gore is unable to defend his positions and answer critics:

... he [Mr. Gore's agent] came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness.

2) The economic cost of countering global warming is devastating with the world's poor bearing the brunt:

... the U.N. Climate Panel suggests that if we follow Al Gore's path down toward an environmentally obsessed society, it will have big consequences for the world, not least its poor. In the year 2100, Mr. Gore will have left the average person 30% poorer, and thus less able to handle many of the problems we will face, climate change or no climate change.

3) The claims in "An Inconvenient Truth" are at the very least an exaggeration.

In his movie he shows scary sequences of 20-feet flooding Florida, San Francisco, New York, Holland, Calcutta, Beijing and Shanghai. But were realistic levels not dramatic enough? The U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century. Moreover, sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Does Mr. Gore find it balanced to exaggerate the best scientific knowledge available by a factor of 20?

Although they offer several reasoned examples of some rather inconvenient facts, a publication which is friendly to Al Gore has the same criticisms of these exaggerations aptly titled An Inconvenient Truth, Gore as climate exaggerator as well as exposing the heavy handed tactics more common in politics than science:

In An Inconvenient Truth, Gore makes a big deal about how his Harvard professor, oceanographer Roger Revelle, influenced his views about the dangers of global warming. However, Professor Revelle co-authored an article in the house journal of the Cosmos Club in Washington, DC in 1991 which concluded, "The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time." Professor Revelle died shortly after the article appeared. This conclusion apparently dismayed Gore whose staff worked behind the scenes to spread the rumor that Revelle's co-authors had taken advantage of a senile old man and that Revelle's name should be taken off the article. This sorry episode ended with a lawsuit in which another Harvard professor who had conferred with Gore's staff formally apologized for making his insinuations.

Reason Magazine also continues with:

What does Gore recommend? He focuses on policies the cut emissions, but largely ignores those that would enhance our ability to adapt to future temperature changes. So An Inconvenient Truth ends with suggestions for how viewers can personally cut back on their carbon emissions—install compact fluorescent light bulbs...

This reminds me of an issue I have brought up with those enamored of the 'global warming crisis' which is how does replacing incandescent lamps with fluorescent lamp actually help? After the movie I mentioned in a previous post I brought this same point up to my Rabbi who has also been unable to get an answer from those promoting the film and advocating such action. My explanation (please let me know if I am missing something here) is that reducing the power consumption of a light bulb will have no impact upon CO2 gas emissions (certainly in Michigan) where like most of the nation a base level of electricity is generated regardless of demand. The excess electricity that is not used is not stored - it simply is wasted - changing light bulbs will not change that formula. Even more specifically peak electricity is typically required during the middle of the day when most light bulbs aren't even being used - in my home my incandescent lights are used for a few hours at night and for a few minutes in the morning. This simply does not add up to saving the planet. I have tried going to 'green' sites to get answers to this example and have come up empty handed. This bit of nonsense is not just hyped by Al Gore but by many others including high profile ads by Chevron (I have sent them the same queries as well as their green site to no avail.) I also wonder how much extra energy goes into producing compact fluorescents as well as the more toxic elements (plastics and electronics) that are a source of pollution. I suspect that the CO2 savings effects of lights was calculated using a false assumption: CO2 emissions per hour from a coal fired electricity plant divided by electrical capacity (in watt hours) equal CO2 emissions per watt hour. The fallacy is that the emissions vary per watt consumed.

Don't think that I advocate waste - I do not and if anything I am personally bothered by my wasting anything. The cost of lamp replacement is not justified when I factor in my usage and the problem of breakage which is more frequent with young children and pets in the house. If I believe something is more economical for me then I gladly adopt it - that's me - sensible economics is far more reasonable than jumping on the latest trend.

I heartily support the line of inquiry that the Danish authors put forth:

Getting answers to hard questions is not an unreasonable expectation before we take his project seriously. It is crucial that we make the right decisions posed by the challenge of global warming. These are best achieved through open debate...

Amen.

From Red Supergiant to Pebbles

Thanks to my little Blog Barrel.com widget (lower right corner of blog) I found Bryce Zabel's blog For What it's Worth. Bryce has an amazing post on the relative size of certain heavenly bodies. Pluto first caught my eye due to the recent debate about the introduction of some new planets (too bad he doesn't show how small Charon is!) but then it is something to see how small Earth is relative to Jupiter. (I guess Charon isn't so puny after all!)

Check out Bryce's post - the photos are striking!

Global Warming Hysteria

With many countries experiencing heat waves this summer the media is fixated on global warming with an oft heard comment about this being a perfect example of how global warming is affecting us. 

I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming but I have read on many occasions that weather is not climate and it is wholly inappropriate to equate specific weather events as proof of climate theories. Another refrain I hear is that our more volatile weather is a symptom of global warming however I understand that the reverse is considered true - global warming should lead to milder weather.

The scientific evidence just doesn't seem to support wild claims about the human impact upon global climate change so it is difficult to get worked up about about the topic which seems to now be firmly in the grasp of emotion driven by politics and pseudo-religion. This has led to fear mongering, blame and silly proposals that will in all likelihood do more harm than good.  The facts suggest that humanity survives on a razor's edge - the average global temperature for this planet (let's say over the last billion years - or even over so many million years) is far too warm to support us. (The natural state of this planet is sans ice caps and glaciers.) And if our fate is to see an end to the current interglacial and return to the normal ice age temperature that the planet has grown accustomed to over 1.8 million years then humanity's fate is similarly bleak (but perhaps more survivable than the alternative).

Now I do indeed care about humanity, as clinical as these observations may sound, and the solution resides in humility and a state of peace. Our arrogance leads us to believe that we are in greater control of our destiny than we really are and being frantic and desperate will lead to really bad decisions. Understanding that we live in both a material and spiritual world helps us to be pragmatic yet hopeful, we can be both scientific and religious (and not the impostor religions that worship nature or are founded in emotion or superstition). Let's not bow down at the false idols of global warming (and perhaps even are we to perish by global warming we still say that we won't bow down).

Precolumbian Geography

Holidays are a great time to indulge in my vice of watching BookTV, today I have so far caught two of several very intriguing presentations.

1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles Mann is a discussion about the forgotten civilizations of the Americas before the arrival of Columbus. Mann refutes the notion that the Amazon is fragile and virgin, but that perhaps as many as 100 million indigenous peoples lived throughout the Amazon basin at any time within the last several thousand years. He shows evidence of the aggressive land management techniques used to tame these now wild places and how the civilizations were quickly laid waste by disease as Europeans engaged in trade with these civilizations. Mann also notes that the lack of available domesticable animals led to culture that had little resistance to disease since the great pandemics have typically been the result of disease mutations where the sicknesses have jumped from an animal species to human.

Mann also describes the diversity of cultures within the Americas, the Incas were very centralized and rigid - whereas tribes in the North East of North America were libertarian in nature.

Why Geography Matters: Three Challenges Facing America -- Climate Change, the Rise of China, and Global Terrorism by Harm de Blij is a powerful discussion of the impact of geography upon human fate. He tries to show us that despite all of the debate today we are living in a golden age.

Harm de Blij warns us of the coming global cooling and that he has great faith in the ability of the Earth to recover from most types of events whether human induced or through some externality such as an asteroid. He states simply that climate change has been part of the planet's life for 460 million years and that we are in the middle of a 35 million year ice age, which in the last 450,000 years features 4 periods of global warming (called interglacials) lasting each around 10,000 years separated by glaciations (cooling periods) of around 100,000 years each. The current warming period has lasted 13,000 years so we are due for a sudden and prolonged cooling period.

But Harm de Blij is also brilliant as he discusses topics such as the spread of global terrorism, which he states is fostered by failed nation-states and inaccessible terrain (such as the Pakistani mountain ranges). Just like Tom Barnett, he warns of the spread of terrorism into sub Saharan Africa due to these conditions.

Better stock up on blankets.

Fortune's America - The 97 lb weakling?

Sorry for the lapse in posts... I am on vacation and it's been difficult to find the time to compose a post. Being on vacation, I am also relatively unplugged from things, which is the way it should be, a good time to appreciate family and get out of regular patterns.

Fortune has a well written article about the relationship between technology and future prosperity. A key section is:

The No. 1 policy prescription, almost regardless of whom you ask, comes down to one word: education. In an economy where technology leadership determines the winners, education trumps everything. That’s a problem for America. Our fourth-graders are among the world’s best in math and science, but by ninth grade they’ve fallen way behind.

Although some reference is made to private schools with 'better' education the real issue is the parents' involvement. Parents used to sacrifice for the sake of their children's education. Parents demonstrate their appreciation of education by their own commitment to reading and continual learning. If we want to maintain our leadership in the world we can't get lazy and expect others to pull the weight for us. You don't inspire your kids by telling them to get educated or just footing a large tuition bill - you inspire them by participating in their education.

Perhaps this is a problem of the feminization of our educational system. As I wrote in an earlier post, our synagogue is losing membership and the most dire indicator is the lack of a committed future generation. The synagogue has a variety of popular programs but the most important, IMHO, is a strong educational program that involves the youngest. I have heard for instance that young children don't need to be taught Hebrew. I consider that a death wish. When our kids are young they are most receptive to learning. Not wanting them to miss this opportunity, my wife and I are teaching them Hebrew and Jewish heritage (in home school fashion) since our synagogue is either unable or unwilling to provide the appropriate education. Some parents lament that they don't possess the necessary background to teach this material but I don't buy this excuse. The material is readily available to teach children and the parent learns in the process. (We also experienced this with teaching our son chess.) A phrase that is similar in evincing this reaction is "you are so lucky to know Hebrew", actually it wasn't luck it was simply some hard work. As I mentioned in my previous post, there are attributes that may be considered feminine or masculine, one may be a relativist versus an absolutist perspective. The same mind set which is driving men out of churches may be driving men out of education. An aggressive approach to developing technology that encourages a feminine as well as a masculine mind set is essential.

Movers and shakers

Mark at ZenPundit posts a great piece on horizontal thinking.

We often hear about the need to think and act strategically especially if we want to keep our jobs. We typically think about strategy in a future state sense, how do we get someplace? But an important component is assessing where we are today and what our environment looks like. Often we have blinders on and we fail to see the context of where we are.

Horizontal thinking helps us to look at our position from a different perspective. We look at a successful analogue in another field and we attempt to apply it in ours - perhaps yielding a breakthrough. John H. Holland did it with genetic algorithms in the field of computing and Thomas P.M. Barnett did it with economic theory in global security.

Horizontal thinking requires that we understand our field and another field sufficiently enough to apply those principles often by means of engaging experts in the other field. This also implies a dissatisfaction with solutions in our own field as well as the ability to work with others. Definitely not for those who prefer the status quo.

Electricity is the future

Peter Huber gave a remarkable presentation on the nature of energy resources and energy consumption. He basically states that increases in energy efficiency engender higher energy consumption, as an example he describes the difference in computing power and energy efficiency between the ENIAC in the 1940's with Sony's PlayStation 2. The PS2 is far more powerful and uses a fraction of the energy, but the aggregate usage for the PS2 is much higher worldwide today than the former had consumed. He submits that the only way to curb consumption is to decrease energy efficiency and that is simply not going to happen. He also mentioned that we can extract oil from vast reserves of 'sludgy' deposits for around $20 per barrel.

However his main focus is on electricity which is far more efficient than oil/gas combustion and is the energy source of today and the future. Our national energy policy will embrace electricity creation and distribution. (Hybrid cars are in our future too not because they are efficient but because the motors are more economical to produce, the vast majority of trips is under 5 miles - which is perfectly suited to battery storage capacity and recharging opportunity.)

For those who protest that we will be running out of energy sources, Huber offers rational evidence that refutes that intuitive notion. He also offers that our high energy consumption yields great results for humanity - from medicine and technology to security.

Health and drugs

Just read TM Lutas post referring to Russell Robert's piece on drugs and politics. The topic compares drug approvals held up by length FDA approval processes against those that should not have been approved. A quantitative comparison would be great, but I think this misses a greater view. In the zeal of pharmaceutical companies to market their product, we need to consider the amount of drugs that aren't fatal but are unnecessarily prescribed.

Two hot drug categories jump to mind - ADD drugs and statins (the most widely prescribed class of drugs today). We have all heard about the controversy of whether kids are being over medicated. When it comes to statins it seems the controversy is less publicized. The evidence shows that statin use leads to liver damage (and the need for more medications) and in some cases sudden debilitating memory loss. I learned that heart disease is the major killer in the U.S. and is wholly preventable - articles in the Wall Street Journal and JAMA have shown the beneficial role that Omega-3 fatty acids can have in our diets, in fact Consumer Reports only recommends Omega-3 dietary supplements. Bottom line is if you want to statistically improve your lifespan and quality of life you should consider taking Omega-3s. I buy a pharmacological grade at N3 Oceanic (yeah the web site is cheesy) and even my young children take it (it quickly took care of my child's eczema).

Back to the topic - yes, we should reduce FDA approval processes (leverage market forces) and consider a serious transparency effort to disclose effectiveness, mortality rates and side effects of all drugs as well as comparisons to drug alternatives (whether supplements, exercise, diet, whatever). We should also expect a health care system that rewards people that work on maintaining their health (without penalizing those who are struck by illness through no fault of their own). We are starting to see the beginnings of this in some HMO and health care plans. I get additional benefit dollars from my company for agreeing to be part of a good health program. I say take it a step farther: the company would benefit by paying half of the regular health care plan costs of all employees and doubling that for people who maintain their weight within AMA guidelines, don't use tobacco and don't drink heavily. This should be easily verified during doctor visits. You don't want to participate - fine. You want the extra benefits paid, then join the program. This would be an incentive to create health programs that really work, since you expect that the overall health care costs would drop as the workforce becomes healthier and needs less medical care or medications. In today's system people don't usually have a hard incentive to stop killing themselves.

Rosh Hashanah 5765

It seems appropriate to start the "new year" with perspectives I would like to present on this blog for the coming year. These are topics that are at the forefront of my thoughts right now.

Currently the U.S. presidential election campaigns are in full force. Although I don't want to get sucked into the rhetoric coming from all sides, I do want to cover the longer term issues that have surfaced and stirred the passions on various sides.

In talking to people of various political opinions it becomes obvious that most Americans share similar and compatible core values. We cherish our children, try to respect those we encounter and shun violence. Yet when it comes to political debate some of the nicest people lose reason and civility. This line of thought leads me to consider my own positions which defy the simplistic categorizations. This led me to look up the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" at Webster Dictionary's online site. The result is fairly long winded and thorough. The site takes care to point out that terms such as "conservative" and "right wing" are not synonymous and can in fact be opposites. Oddly enough the "conservative" page has a list of prominent popular conservatives and the "liberal" site does not. The material that seems most relevant is:

In the United States and western Europe, conservatism is generally associated with the following views:

Personal responsibility.
General opposition to "big government" policies or state economic interventionism .
Anti-communism, including a belief that the former Soviet Union was an "evil empire".
Support for Judeo-Christian religious and moral values.
Support for strong law enforcement and strong penalties for crimes.
Restraint in taxation and regulation of businesses.
Support for a strong military, and well-defended protected borders
Support for drug prohibition.
Restraint in many state-run social programs such as welfare and medical care.
Opposition to abstract and allegedly unequitable policies such as affirmative action and progressive taxation.

The key characteristics of classical liberalism are:

The importance of the individual
Freedom
Reason
Justice
Toleration and diversity

Both definitions contain a respect for the individual and freedom from excessive government interference. The whole definitions also call out that political liberalism is about reform and change whereas political conservatism is about preserving the 'best' in society and resisting radical change. From this perspective I embrace both sides, culture is slow changing, but there is a need for change. History teaches us that some of the radical changes such as Nazism and Soviet Socialism were 'sold' as positive reforms but were monsterous creations that sought to crush the human spirit. We have to consider how to safeguard ourselves from similar outcomes, modern day programs have similar dangers. I have seen first hand how the good intentions of welfare programs have destroyed families and created a culture of dependency (upon drugs and the state).

It is also obvious that 'classic liberalism' is not being promoted by the 'Left', the modern term 'progressive' is a thinly veiled reference to socialism and state domination which I believe most Americans (rightly) reject. My experiences on Kibbutz gives me pretty good insight into the potential of communism and socialism. In a small society such as a Kibbutz or even a family, these systems are able to work, in a larger society the corruption of power is too hard for rulers to resist. (Personally I believe this is due to the personal nature of interactions in a small group, you know and respect the people too well.) I don't feel threatened by the 'Right' since they as a group don't seem to be interested in wielding power. The success of our government seems to be in the balance of power between the conservative and liberal perspectives. Right now we seem to be out of balance because the two major parties are not representing these two forces. The Democratic party is struggling with their identity, are they liberals or are they socialists? The current drive toward the 'popular vote' and away from the two party system is a mistake. Look at other democracies which have more popular representation, such as Israel, and notice the unequal influence of niche parties, most citizens there recognize the undue influence those small groups have and see a need to reform their system.

It is no wonder that the majority of our population does not vote, most people just don't have an interest in politics and realize that politics is full of corruption and deceit. It is our civic duty however to engage our minds and to ensure that our children develop critical thinking skills.

Other things I would like to cover:
Reviews and thoughts of books, presentations and various concepts that I come across.

I am currently reading Ben Stein's "Can America Survive?",
studying French, (we'll see how helpful this was when I go to France this weekend)
and pondering Thomas Barnett's works. (right now considering the parallels in Info Sec)

The broadcasts on BookTV on the weekend of Sept 11 provided an interesting juxtaposition:
Eric Brende - Better Off: Flipping the Switch on Technology
(goes off grid - time saving devices consume our time - limit technology - life better with less technology)

Paul Driessen - Eco-Imperialism
Starts out with a treatise on the benefit of technology, especially the need to help Africa combat malaria and disease using DDT and the death and impoverishment 1st world environmental activists have wrought.

Also:
Underlying causes of antagonism toward globalization
- Muslim's fear of women turning into our MTV images?
- US concerns about losing jobs?

The conflict between faith and science (Tower of Babel syndrome?)