Monday, January 25, 2010

As Global Warming Continues?

I've been learning a lot about holistic ranching. Among other advantages, holistic ranching does seem to have considerable potential for major carbon sequestration. Because plants use carbon dioxide, now considered a pollutant by the EPA, we can sequester carbon dioxide whether or not we believe it to contribute to global warming. And we can use our methane generating cows to help. I only wish that we could simply spend more time with our cows and less time trying to be responsible, informed, voting citizens. Unfortunately, our government seems to be careening out of control and we ignore it at our own peril.

I got up last week in Virginia prepared for nasty freezing rain/ice/snow followed by a day of rain that had been predicted only 24 hours prior. No snow, no ice, no rain. Once again, the computer models had failed to predict with accuracy only 24 hours in advance. I am not complaining. But computer models for weather, demonstrably unreliable even in the short term, are being used to predict weather years or decades in advance. With the right fudge factors, of which they contain many, the predictions show us to be in deep trouble from man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions. Never mind that the most notorious model (Al Gore's hockey stick) cannot back predict and has code problems. If it is is not accepted as gospel, we become one of those "deniers" who arbitrarily disregard "settled science".


We have only to go to most of the major news channels to be assailed with the verbal equivalent of what we try to avoid stepping in when we visit our bull pastures. The last decade has had two of the hottest years in history, said politically correct talking heads just last week. That's scary. Delving a little deeper for the science--Last decade was hottest on record, says UK Met Office http://www.energyefficiencynews.com/i/2645/ “If we want to avoid dangerous climate change, this high sensitivity of the Earth to CO2 should be taken into account when defining targets for the long-term stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations,” says co-author Alan Haywood from the University of Leeds. Although the data isn’t in yet, early reports indicate that 2009 may be the fifth warmest year since records began.

That is really scary. But my perspective is a little different. 1.) Records referred to in the article began in 1860, so headlines did not mean the hottest temperatures forever, just the hottest temperatures that were recorded in the UK since 1860. Geologically speaking, that is not a very long time. Some recorded temperatures have even been questioned because recording devices were found in the exhaust from air conditioners, in big cities, etc. where they would not accurately reflect the correct temperature. 2.) findings were likely peer reviewed (from the leaked emails amongst leading UK scientists, we know that "peer reviewed" now also means politically correct, which means in turn that somehow carbon dioxide levels must be blamed). 3.) Global warming and man-caused global warming are two entirely different subjects. We can't do much about the first, and it has happened, possibly is continuing to happen. It has something to do with our own nearby star, the sun. And our orbit, as well as axis of rotation and who knows what else. 4.) Man can certainly make a contribution. Removal of rain forests, pollution, poor stewardship of our land, all would play a role as do volcanoes and unchecked forest fires.


Now for some inconvenient facts, in case you have listed your winter clothes on Craigs list or haven't ventured outside:

over 4500 new snowfall, low temp, and lowest max temp records set in the USA for Nov 10-Nov 18 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/18/a-cold-start-to-fall-over-4500-new-snowfall-low-temp-and-lowest-max-temp-records-set-in-the-usa-this-last-week/

As the "deniers" in Texas unfreeze their water lines and much of the US experiences frigid pre-winter cold (the new records shown above were from November, but this December has been pretty impressive so far), some of our representatives are busily considering how to pass Cap and Trade so as to protect us from global warming by shutting down our industry and fossil fuel production, exporting jobs and wealth to countries (India, China, Russia, Korea, Mexico) that do not impose these same restrictions, and doubling or tripling our energy bills. That certainly makes as much sense as taxing the methane from cattle exhaust. (Sound impossible. Take a look: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyZRCMik6To ) Or giving the government total rights to and control of every drop of water on our land, even in potholes http://www.epa.gov/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html . We all need to be concerned about the overwhelming potential consequences of government mismanagement and enchroachment, all of which is done for our own good, of course.

Gary

PS If we really want to worry about something else, try global cooling. Don't worry too much though, because is not likely to happen during the normal temperature oscillations of our lifetime. For perspective, the best data that incorporate geological time frames go back 420,000 years and are shown below. Common sense points to remember: 1.) Periodically the earth has warmed up and cooled down. 2.) The periodic warming and cooling have occurred even before mankind could possibly have had any significant impact. 3.) The earth has been consequentially warmer before than it is now; e.g., historically Greenland at one time supported farming (back before we had thermometers), and we're not close to being that warm yet. 4.) The overwhelmingly most significant but conveniently overlooked greenhouse gas is water vapor. (Suggesting that you would like to study the impact of water vapor on global warming is not likely to get you a government-funded grant.) 5.) One of the best rational common-sense presentations on global warming is that of Professor Bob Carter http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2HfLgk7A88

For additional reference, the following commentary is taken directly from the listed source.


http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html:

"We can continue the climate plot further back by using the records from Vostok, the Russian base in Antarctica, where another ice core was drilled. The last 420 thousand years of a deuterium measurement at Vostok is shown in Figure 1-5, with the most recent 100 kyr appended from the Greenland record (which is more detailed). The temperature scale was adjusted to agree with the scale on the Greenland record.



Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

Global warming in the Arctic

The Washington Post (Associated Press) printed the following scientific observations as reported by Dr. Adolf Hoel:

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds."

So there we have it; first hand reporting by a scientist of the disastrous impact of global warming. Could the warming be caused by the excessive amount of carbon dioxide that we are now producing? Certainly, based upon what the media reports as "settled" science! Should this make believers out of the "deniers" ? Perhaps, except that the source report of the Washington Post article on changes in the arctic is in the Monthly Weather Review for November 1922. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/ That report came out before the more recent scientific concern about global cooling which has been followed by the current scientific concern about global warming. Now it's the polar bears (whose population is actually increasing) rather than the seals for which the arctic is too hot.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Global Warming Primer

We hear repeatedly that scientists universally agree that global warming is caused by man through increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is NOT true. Scientists do NOT agree on the current cause of global warming or even that we currently have anything other than a transient/cyclical increase in temperature. Many have a vested interest in global warming. The scientists who believe to the contrary have trouble getting media exposure because their information does not lead to the global catastrophe popularized by Al Gore, a global catastrophe that would justify massive punitive economic changes to this country by capping our carbon dioxide emissions. To judge both the news media and the science, please take the time to just listen to the first two videos cited below. The first is a somewhat general presentation with a little bit of evidence thrown in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMDi_u0dcig&feature=player Youtube replies to this video would be entertaining if they were not so brutally inaccurate in terms of what we can reasonably expect to happen, but without perspective, how do we judge? Supposedly, they present the scientific view. But just supposedly.

The second video is presented by a scientist and is one of the best discussions of climate change versus carbon dioxide that I have seen. We produce carbon dioxide when we burn fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal). Are we truly impacting our environment and destroying earth through carbon dioxide emissions? That seems like a pretty important question to be able to intelligently answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=player This is Part 1. Parts 2-4 are similarly available on You Tube.

Why is any of this information important? Based on the assumption that carbon dioxide produced from the burning of fossil fuels leads to man-caused global warming, we are preparing to make political decisions in this country that will have a profound negative impact on our economy. By selling carbon credits from our ranch land, I will directly benefit. Most of you and this country will pay dearly. Please take the time to listen, evaluate, and judge for yourself so that you can help make the right decision.

The relevant legislation is currently camouflaged under the name of cap and trade and will soon be rushed through congress. Here is a brief explanation of cap and trade: http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/22006207/heated_issue.htm I believe the economic impact of cap and trade is grossly underestimated and that this legislation will result in pervasive economic and social changes that will prolong our recession and could even be the final straw that induces a depression. Shifting our energy production and manufacturing to countries with little regard for the environment (remember China and the Olympics?) might make some of us feel good, but does virtually nothing for planet earth at immense cost to the U.S. Rather than develop our own energy resources, thereby creating thousands of high paying non-government jobs (one estimate is that the creation of 2 1/2 million such jobs would be possible) and truly helping us become energy independent, cap and trade will put major taxes on virtually every item we purchase and has the potential to cripple our economy. I am totally in favor of having clean air and minimizing pollution. These issues can be argued on their own merit. Economically crippling our country under the guise of preventing global warming is a totally different matter. The evidence simply does not support carbon dioxide as a pollutant or as a causative agent of man-made global warming. We have stunning reserves of fossil fuels which can be intelligently developed and used while we aggressively support the research for advancing our wind and solar harvesting technology.

Just for good measure, here is another global warming video. This one deals with Greenland, which at one point was actually green land (hence its name) back when earth’s temperatures were much higher than they now are and polar bears became extinct because they couldn't take the heat :). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF_2bP9n3R0&feature=player

Gary A Howie

PS
I have become increasingly frustrated at the direction our federal government is turning and at the stunning amount of misinformation that we receive daily by the politically correct news media. We are making decisions for the wrong reasons, and often those decisions are very poor. For example, global warming is NOT man made. (By training I am a scientist--PhD chemist, although quite some time ago I abandoned academia for a career in real estate and now in ranching.) Carbon dioxide is the fuel for my trees and grass and does NOT cause global warming. Capping carbon dioxide emissions is foolhardy and so expensive that it could cause our economy serious harm. For those who might disagree, or even for those who agree without a firm basis for so doing, I have prepared and sent out the information given above. Unfortunately, my distribution is very limited, so if you think this has any merit, please send it to whomever might find it useful.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

My Scientific Publications--Definitely incongrous with "What we should know", but an important part of my life nevertheless.

Note that most of my writing will not be related directly to my areas of graduate and postdoctoral research. Scientific training is, however, extrapolable to other areas. Usually I will include sources of information when I write. If you disagree and think your sources are better, please feel free to send them.

Potential antitumor agents. Synthesis of bifunctional. alpha.-methylene-....
Publication - Google Scholar
pubs.acs.org

Synthesis of alkyl-substituted. alpha., . beta.-unsaturated. gamma.-lactones as...
Publication - Google Scholar
pubs.acs.org

Synthesis and structures of dilactones related to anemonin. IK Stamos, GA Howie, PE...
Publication - Google Scholar
pubs.acs.org

Structural requirements for biological activity among antileukemic glaucarubolone...
Publication - Google Scholar
pubs.acs.org

Simplification of epoxide and lactone proton magnetic resonance spectra using tris...
Publication - Google Scholar
pubs.acs.org

Tumor inhibitors. 124. Structural requirements for antileukemic activity among the...
Publication - Google Scholar
pubs.acs.org

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

31,478 scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by mankind

My objective in a number of recent emails has been to present important information that the news media mostly neglects. Global warming has become political, and even the Bush administration eventually swallowed the "man-caused global warming and we must do something about it" pill. Al Gore's "An inconvenient truth" has been shown throughout our classrooms and has been viewed hundreds of thousands of times on the internet. He has received international acclaim for this film. Any challenge to his presentation has been largely ignored. Sadly, the film contains glaring scientific inaccuracies, most notable of which are the critical premises that increases in carbon dioxide levels cause global warming and that carbon dioxide levels have never been higher. Both scary, both wrong. Carbon dioxide levels increase after rather than before the rise in temperature, so can't possibly cause the temperature increase. Carbon dioxide concentration, currently less than 400 ppm (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html ), has been as high as 7000 ppm (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html ). John Stossel has had several of the limited number of media reports disputing man caused global warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZcp_wcDXec and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUlGoaAOzqA&NR=1 Here is an excellent presentation by several environmental scientists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU and several prominent scientists who are now skeptics: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id

Scientific issues are never properly resolved by taking a vote or by counting the number of advocates. Nonetheless, we are constantly reminded by the news media and by many of our politicians that the overwhelming majority of scientists believe in man-caused global warming. If almost every scientist believes it to be true, global warming caused by man must be pretty much an established fact. You have undoubtedly heard that. But are you aware of the results of the global warming petition found at http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php ?You can click on this site and see a current state by state list of 31,478 persons (as of May 25, 2009)with degrees in science who do NOT believe that global warming is caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide or that global warming is caused by mankind. A detailed scientific presentation is also given at this site. Isn't it fascinating that our news media can ignore these 31,478 signatures while reporting extensively on the 1,600 persons who projected global catastrophy, many of whom had no scientific training or did not even agree with the stated conclusions?

Cap and trade legislation before our Congress at this very moment is about to place a severe tax on carbon dioxide emissions under the pretext of protecting the planet from man-caused global warming. We will all pay this energy tax; the second Stossel video referred to above contains some opinions as to the magnitude of how much we might pay. Here is a very recent reference wherein one Ph D economist discusses an anticipated $3,100 per year per household additional cost (very definitely not limited to households earning more than $250,000 per year): http://townhall.com/columnists/RobertMurphy/2009/05/02/the_cost_of_cap_and_trade Predicting the cost exactly is nearly impossible. A scholarly attempt with various models is given at http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/636.pdf One of the models predicts job losses of 0.85 -1.86 million jobs in 2014 and 3.04-4.05 million jobs in 2030 (page 19 of the cited document). Is this a change our media has presented well or a change that we want?

If enacted, cap and trade legislation will have the unintended consequence of slowing down our economy at a very critical time and encouraging our businesses and jobs to move elsewhere. Raising your energy costs is not an unintended consequence but is actually an intended consequence that is expected to add 366 billion per year (some estimates are as high as 650 billion per year) to government coffers. Politicians are not renowned for understanding science, but they do understand votes. It is very easy to email or call your representatives and courteously register your informed opinion http://www.visi.com/juan/congress

The following (in bold) is copied directly from http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php )
Purpose of Petition
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.
Publicists at the United Nations, Mr. Al Gore, and their supporters frequently claim that only a few “skeptics” remain – skeptics who are still unconvinced about the existence of a catastrophic human-caused global warming emergency.
It is evident that 31,478 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,478 American scientists are not “skeptics.”
These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.