Global Warming And Arrogance

The world has been around for billions of years. At least that's what I've read. I can't testify to it personally. I haven't been around for quite that long.

I've also read that there have been changes over time. Darwin and others have expounded on evolution and how plant and animal life have varied, and life on earth has been severely impacted by extraterrestrial phenomena, sometimes with severe effects on the mortality of our terrestrial life forms. A good example is the extinction of dinosaurs (and who knows what else) following our being hit by a meteor. Things can happen, and they do.

We are now entering a period characterized by increasing temperatures – Global Warming – that has provoked great debates. Many believe that human actions are responsible for what is happening, and they're focusing their attention on what steps we must take to repair the world. Without any intent to question their concern, I think their view is a little narrow, and there are several questions that need answers:

1. How do we define such “warming?”
2. Should we be concerned about it?
3. What causes it?
4. Does human action contribute to it?
5. Can we stop it or at least limit it?
6. At what cost?
7. What are the likely effects of our actions?

It's a lot to consider, but I thought I'd start with a quote from the Wikipedia article on the subject:

The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years. Is there a difference between current climate, and the natural cycle? For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages. This shifting in and out of warm periods and ice ages is correlated strongly with Milankovitch cycles.

I don't pretend to understand the subject all that well – especially Milankovitch cycles – but it's clear that warming happens. It's an anticipated feature related to the earth's position relative to the sun and happens without human actions. According to NASA, the earth has warmed 0.9^o Celsius since 1880 – almost 140 years. It seems like a small number, and it's below the peaks in some other periods of warming, but it's significant, and how much higher the peak it will go if it continues to rise is uncertain. There is certainly justification for concern.

And we're concerned. But many think that we're responsible for global warning. It's just like us humans to be so arrogant, so chutzpadik. We weren't around billions of years ago, but everything went on without us. Including global warming. We're not to blame for it.

But we're not off the hook altogether. We ought not wallow in hubris, but we do have some effect on the heavens and on earth. There's much argument about the existence of global warming and its cause(s). Some think that over the long haul we're in a period of cooling. Not likely, but it doesn't change anything. We don't cause cooling either.

There's much evidence, however, that we can affect the degree and the rate of warming. Without debating all the scientific equations and computer models – especially since I don't understand them – it's hard to ignore the predominant opinion of the scientific community that some of what we're producing is driving up the temperature. Whether what we do results in increased levels of carbon dioxide, an enlarging hole in the ozone layer, or something else, they're convinced that we can cause harm. How much? I don't know. I certainly wouldn't postulate on behalf of those who fear cooling that we accelerate programs that cause warming in order to fend off another ice age. Thinking that we can do so is more arrogance.

Recognizing the disagreement, it appears that our approach should be prudent. Proposals to change the nature of those products that appear to be contributing to warming are reasonable. But the changes should themselves be reasonable. Disruption of our lives and industries in the hope of an improvement in the situation is not the answer. (It is not arrogance to suggest that we're able to make many aspects of our situation worse. We've proved we can do that.) Improved utilization of natural forces (eg wind power) is expensive, but perhaps that is only in the short range. Substitution of products less likely to disrupt our earth and its environment makes sense as well.

What makes less sense is the mandate for rapid changes that will greatly unsettle our lives and industries. Inducements for improvements are warranted, but rapid, unthought-out, actions often lead to harmful results. It is presumptuous to believe that we can change the course of global warming quickly – or even at all. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

With humility.






May 22, 2017

Harebrained Schemes 8

Floods occur. Harvey is a striking example and offers a severe warning. Numerous homes were ruined – especially the lowest floor – and the cost of rebuilding will be enormous. More so, the lives lost or changed make the situation far worse. The problem cannot be solved, but it can be ameliorated. As houses are rebuilt, and existing houses repaired, it is ridiculous to suggest raising them – especially houses that preexisted the disaster – because foundations, pipes, electrical connections are still in place and they would be difficult to move.

The obvious answer is to lower the ground around them. Every house should have a deep moat with the area around it cleared of earth. The earth, itself, could be used elsewhere, or even nearby, for the building of dams and dikes. It would be a valuable commodity, and any trees existing on it could be sold for their wood. In addition, the clearing of the land would provide jobs for those put out of work by the flood. And it would provide a place to store rescue alligators.

Don't cry when nature serves you water. Make ice cubes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I recently suggested the building of robotic companions to keep the lonely entertained. The more I think about it, however, the more it occurs to me that this may not be enough. The robots I proposed would speak back, and even it their views corresponded to your own, that might be a distraction for you.

Better, or at least in addition, work should begin on the design and construction of robotic service animals. They need not have artificial intelligence so they likely would present less of a challenge. The animals would attend to all your needs and desires – at least as far as animals can. Lap or non-lap settings could be included in the plans, as well as controls that determined if stomach rubs were required. The animals would be of whatever species you wished, and whatever age you required. They'd be able to bring in the newspaper and, with intelligence options, they could read it to you.

If you turned on their sound systems they could be used as guard animals, protecting your house. If so programed, they would bite and otherwise maim intruders. Bullet-proof construction would protect them from vicious villains exercising their second amendment rights. The animals would be “loving” to the degree you found satisfactory. And they should allow you in places reserved for those with service animal – although they would not be of interest to live and dirty pets. No feeding would be needed.

And their breath would not smell.

They would accompany you if you chose to go for a walk, but walks at all sorts of bizarre hours wouldn't be necessary. Nor would cleaning up after them.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final concern that requires attention is global warming. Whether you attribute it to natural causes or believe that human activity is involved, there is ample evidence both of its existence and its effects. Although there are numerous proposals as to how to minimize those effects, and even to limit its progress, the phenomenon remains.

Fear of warming exists, but perhaps global warming has features that can be harnessed and used to advantage. Perhaps it's not a problem but an opportunity. If there is excess heat or winds it would be helpful if we could recycle that excess into energy using some kind of converter. There are certainly many inventors who could come up with such an apparatus.

The energy so provided could be used to power air conditioners, cleanup services, or other projects in need of juice. We might even be able to make money out of it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'll try to be more realistic next time.

September 4, 2017

Various Revelations/Ideas V

Boy am I arrogant. I viewed my ideas and the various thoughts I have as “revelations.” They're not, of course. Merely my uncertainties. That's the reason for the placement of “Ideas” along with “Revelations.” Next time around I'll drop the latter altogether but I thought I'd keep it for this transition piece – also, as usual, a hodge-podge of thoughts that I'm too lazy to convert into full essays.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On the back page of the first section of yesterday's New York Times is an ad for the “Nest Learning Thermostat.” it reads: “Global warming is a lot of hot air.” That's true, but a little misleading. From the point of view of denotation it's absolutely correct, but “hot air” has a connotation – “false bluster” – that strikes me as totally inappropriate to the message of the ad which is

Today and every day, our mission at Nest is to create a home that takes care of the people inside it. And the world around it.

Sounds noble, but the debate is political as well as scientific, and mixing metaphors, or whatever Nest is doing, doesn't help. But it may sell thermostats. And, after all, that's the reason they invested in a full-page advertisement.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also in yesterday's Times was a 35 column-inch (actually it was much larger when you add in the headlines and pictures) on the race for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska – a city of great importance to New Yorkers. Featured in the story were Heath Mello, the Democratic candidate, and Bernie Sanders who, though not a Democrat, involves himself greatly in Democratic politics and prides himself on his populist approach to party members. The article focused of abortion and the economy, two subjects of interest to Nebraska voters.

Interestingly, the article, which began on the front page of the Times (above the fold) neglected to mention the name of his opponent, Jean Stothert, Omaha's mayor, and the winner of the first round of the election. I suspect that in an article as long and as prominently placed as this one the editors could have found room to include this information for their readers.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A final thought relates to Jewish law. A group large enough to pray together is called a minyan. It consists of ten male Jews above the age of thirteen. How this definition came about is not the point of my mental maunderings and I won't pursue it.

Imagine, though, a situation in which the rabbi walked into a synagogue and saw a woman sitting among the men. Her outfit was tznius (modest) and her sheitel (wig) lovely. All appeared to be in accordance with Jewish law. But she was sitting in the men's section and counting her and the rabbi there were ten. When questioned “she” insisted that she was a man by birth but identified more with women than men, and dressed accordingly. No surgery had been performed and “her” sex could be confirmed. No one else came.

Because of the requests to say Kaddish (a prayer in remembrance of the dead) a decision has to be made as to whether there is a minyan present. At most non-orthodox synagogues women are counted, if there is a requirement for a minyan at all. But not here and the question exists. Should the “woman” be counted? She is certainly a man and eligible according to law, but her dress suggests a rejection of her status. And the question of maris ayin ("appearance to the eye") has to be considered as well.

I suspect this idle thought has already been considered by those in the know but I'm not one or them. So, in the meanwhile, I can imagine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A few more IDEAS next time.

April 23, 2017

Hot Flash

 

There are those who hold that global warming results from a regular cycle the earth goes through periodically, while others attribute changes to human behavior, such as damage to the ozone layer. As the story goes, they're both right.ⁱ

For some the only way to end the world's problem would be to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and chemicals that may destroy ozone, and if we don't follow those principles we are all doomed. For others, the perceived crisis is a political contrivance, the result of “junk science”; the measures proposed will destroy industry and take us back to the nineteenth century. And, of course, they are both wrong.

But what they have in common is a belief – or even stronger, a conviction – that Truth is on their side.ⁱⁱ They loudly proclaim the virtue of their positions and reinforce the values of their supporters, claiming that they are the path to salvation. They decry the views of their opponents as self-serving, and rally their forces to pursue the only policies that can save our planet. They denigrate the words of those whose ideas are contrary to their own. They are both deaf.

There is no disputing the general worsening of our weather. In some instances this results directly from a warmer climate and the melting of icebergs, while in others the problems seem to be based on other severe weather conditions resulting – floods, winds, waves, and the like – which our meteorologists tell us are themselves all based on the global warming that we are undergoing. There does not seem to be any dispute of the contention that warming is occurring, but there is disagreement about the cure. So I'll answer the question once and for all.

There is no cure.

That's not to say that we should throw up our arms and ignore what is happening around us, only that we recognize that much of it is beyond our control, and rather than overreact to what we cannot master we are better off preparing as best we can for the problems we realistically anticipate. To the degree that we can minimize the human contribution to global warming by lowering fossil fuel use and converting to other energy sources, we should do so. But we should have no illusion that this will solve the problem. And because it will not provide “the cure,” we should not view it as the stick to break the back of the “evil” ones.

What can we do? Apart from seeking what are usually called “alternative energy sources” – and it will be decades before they are of significant help if that ever happens – are we powerless to govern our fate? It's hard to know. Our understanding of the earth's normal cycles – cycles which may last hundreds or thousands of years – is tentative. We may have been through it all before, but there was no analysis of it at the time. We're left with the views of our scientists – views that are at times more political than scientific – that things are going to get worse unless (that itself is political – things are going to get worse even if) we take immediate and draconian steps to avert the crisis. And we should not lament a missed opportunity in the belief that had we taken such steps earlier everything would be fine now. Nothing momentous would have changed. Things are bad and they're going to get worse.

We're left with the knowledge that our best defenses against the inevitable involve improved prediction of problems while putting better warning systems in place, and steps aimed at the prevention of some of those effects. Following Katrina, levees are being constructed in Louisiana, but shouldn't such barriers be built wherever flooding reasonably can be anticipated? And shouldn't building codes be upgraded before stronger buildings are needed? The current economic downturn has resulted in limited construction, but perhaps some of the money being invested in saving industry and creating jobs would be well spent in the building of places to which large numbers could retreat at the time of severe storms or other disasters. Such buildings should be designed to have alternative uses – offices, factories, schools, meeting halls – during the majority of the time when there is no disaster. In the meantime, however, the construction industry would benefit as would those who would get construction jobs. And perhaps there should be an attempt to relocate people away from areas where damage from nature is recurrent and can be anticipated. Right now all we do is subsidize their insurance.

The placement of power lines and other cables underground, in addition to minimizing the likelihood of power losses during major storms, would provide additional jobs, as well as enhance the appearance of areas now decorated by those lines. It is also likely that car radio reception would improve and that people who fear radiation would feel safer if power wires were no longer visible.

It's a start but it's not going to eliminate the difficulty no matter what we do. The planet is warmingⁱⁱⁱ and the weather is changing. Turning the problem into a political one – one designed to gain points for the next election – helps no one. Neither does struthious^iv inaction, but we may be able to mitigate some of the effects if we build for the future rather than bury our heads; if we act rather than accuse.

Next episode: “Wasting Money On Women” – Health care costs cost us all.

 

i    You're right, too.

ii   “Green” is not a color but a religion. But so is its opposition. No evidence is as important as the belief each side has, and evidence that disputes the belief is of no importance. Indeed, it must have been falsified.

iii    At least for now.

iv   Look it up.