Sunday, June 12, 2005
Blowin' Smoke & Global Warming...
If you worked in a restaurant with a dining room encompassing about 1000 sq. ft, you might not notice one person smoking a cigarette sitting on the other side of the dining room from you. Especially if it was one customer who smoked a cigarette for a brief period of time, say about a half hour, and then leaves. There would be an area of effect around the smoker in which the odor would be noticeable.
The smell of the smoke might linger in the air for about a half hour after the customer left. The odor from the smoke would still be detectable by guests and employees for a short period of time, and then it would dissipate and be unnoticeable.
If only one smoker in a given day smokes a cigarette in a restaurant, it would probably not be unbearable to patrons and employees. Chances are most would just endure the smoker for the short period of time the smoker smoked, and then go on with their restaurant experience.
Now suppose that the smoker remained in the restaurant, sitting in a corner and smoked all day. The odor from the smoke would taint the walls, the tables, plants, and nearby things. It would take a a good cleaning to remove the odor.
Lets go the next step and say the smoker continues to smoke in the restaurant 24 hours a day, every day for a year. The odor from the smoke would most likely be noticeable in all parts of the restaurant, except for parts that are relatively sealed off from the dining room. (Like the kitchen, or bathrooms.)
If I added a companion to the first smoker, who also smoked 24 hours a day, every day for a year, the rate of smoke in the environment would double, the quantity would double, and so forth.
If every patron in the restaurant smoked simultaneously for 24 hours a day, every day for a year, the level of toxicity would become dangerous for human habitation. I'm not sure it would kill a human outright, but I'd wager that prolonged exposure to such an environment would generate ill health in the patrons and restaurant employees exposed to the environment.
(I'm basing this on the following phenomenon: I've walked into bars and restaurants where the level of smoke was so dense it made my eyes water, burn, and in some cases I've had to leave just to be able to see. I know that I'm not alone in this phenomenon.
I've went to one jazz club where the smoke was so thick, my lungs ached and I couldn't keep my eyes open they burned so much. Add to the fact, that even the cigarette smoker with my group had to leave it was so toxic in there, because even her eyes were watering. You know its bad if a smoker notices the smoke.)
Bottom line, the restaurants air filtration system can only handle and clean a given quantity of air in the restaurant at any given time. If the pollution rate of the air is greater than the filtration rate, toxicity results. (ie. a saturation of smoke toxins lingers in the air after filtration.)
So, what does this have to do with global warming?
"The Earth’s ecosystem is not fragile, and humans are not capable of destroying it"
-Rush Limbaugh, Source: See, I Told You So, p.189-90 Jul 2, 1993
I've listened to Rush Limbaugh say that its impossible for humans to alter the environment. He claimed the earth is just too big for humans to have any effect. Looking at the data and evidence available, its apparent that humans are altering the environment, and we're most likely the primary culprit for global climate change over the last 150 years. (181% more CO2 in the air and 400% more methane.)
Even if the human factor is a small one, its a constant one.
I used the analogy of a smoker in a big restaurant as a metaphor for industrialization. One smoker is not going to alter or change things drastically, and it would take quite an effort for one smoker to really alter the restaurant's environment.
Two smokers are more damaging to the restaurant's environment than one smoker. A roomful of smokers is devastating to the environment.
Granted this is a hypothesis, but I'd bet I could find statistical information online (or I could research this myself) and it would prove my hypothesis. What I'm attempting to show with my restaurant analogy is that one smoker effects a restaurant's environment, and when you keep doubling the number of smokers, the environmental damage increases more rapidly, and the level of damage increases based on the filtration rate of the restaurant.
A restaurant is a micro environment. The earth is a macro environment, and it would take a big event to alter it, or in the case of industrialized humanity it would take a chronic small event that increases in effect over time.
Industrialization has increased drastically since the 1750's when coal was first used in an industrial method. The earth's population was less than 1 billion, and very few countries were using coal in the mid to late 18th century.
By the beginning of the 20th Century, the human population was nearing 1 billion, by the end of the 20th Century, there were just over 6 billion people.
Does Rush Limbaugh expect any rational person to believe that humans used the same amount of resources per capita from the beginning of the century toward the end. (In other words, by the end of the century, humans were using 1/6th the number of resources per capita they used at the beginning of the century.)
In the US, Americans went from primarily an agrarian society with dirty industrial cities to a nation of suburban sprawl, major metropolises, and vast economic power in a century's time. Add to that fact that various Third World nations have begun to industrialize and are now having their economies drastically expand, which is increasing the number of people using and burning fossil fuels.
Essentially, industrialization has expanded in proportion to the rate of population expanse. Even if Third World countries like China & India weren't expanding their economies, the rest of the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Asia would be increasing their pollution levels over time.
If, as Limbaugh claims, the Earth's ecosystem is so robust and vigorous why do we need clean air and water laws? Why regulate and limit pollution in the environment.
Now, Mr. Limbaugh is from Missouri, the show me state. Apparently, the D average high school student never read newspapers growing up. He didn't read anything about the Cuyhoga river catching fire in the 60's, or hearing about Lake Erie being pronounced a dead lake, or how the Ohio River was so multi-colored from all the chemicals dumped into it from the Kodak company. Guess he missed the news about how the manufacture of plastics to make Barbie dolls in New Jersey were also environmentally hazardous. The list goes on, and you can see the reasons environmental laws were passed.
If, as Limbaugh claims, industrialized society is so clean, why is China's environment going to hell in its industrialized zones? I think he misses the point about industrialized society and a clean environment.
You only get a clean environment in a democratic society where the citizens have the right to speak up and complain about dirty skies, dirty water, and dirty land.
Maybe its unfair to pick on Rush's lack of knowledge in regard to the environment. Perhaps he sprinkles plutonium on his Big Mac during a quick lunch break. Maybe he drinks down cool refreshing organochlorines to wet his pallet.
Rampant, unchecked industrialization would kill us in a short number of generations. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just Rush hammering against things like global warming and environementalists, its' the entire right wing media doing so. Hannity, Coulter, Fox News, and all the rest constantly berating environmentalists and global warming at every opportunity.
I know Republicans that care about the environment. They're divers, hunters, fishermen, and people that enjoy the outdoors. Anyone that ventures into nature can see signs of harm when we don't do our part to clean up our toxic messes.
Fishermen notice when they can't fish in restricted areas, hunters notice sick game, and divers can see waste up close and personal underwater.
The reason the US has a clean environment is not due to the compassion of corporate executives in the boardroom, its due to the government taking action and enforcing laws.
All the Limbaughs are doing is creating a smoke screen which could have drastic effects on humanity, its future generations, and all life on Earth. Either global warming is a real problem, as the growing evidence indicates, or its a bunch of Chicken Little-ism. Either way, would it hurt to actually work on being cautious and concerned for life on Earth and for how we effect the environment and ecosystems around us?
If you worked in a restaurant with a dining room encompassing about 1000 sq. ft, you might not notice one person smoking a cigarette sitting on the other side of the dining room from you. Especially if it was one customer who smoked a cigarette for a brief period of time, say about a half hour, and then leaves. There would be an area of effect around the smoker in which the odor would be noticeable.
The smell of the smoke might linger in the air for about a half hour after the customer left. The odor from the smoke would still be detectable by guests and employees for a short period of time, and then it would dissipate and be unnoticeable.
If only one smoker in a given day smokes a cigarette in a restaurant, it would probably not be unbearable to patrons and employees. Chances are most would just endure the smoker for the short period of time the smoker smoked, and then go on with their restaurant experience.
Now suppose that the smoker remained in the restaurant, sitting in a corner and smoked all day. The odor from the smoke would taint the walls, the tables, plants, and nearby things. It would take a a good cleaning to remove the odor.
Lets go the next step and say the smoker continues to smoke in the restaurant 24 hours a day, every day for a year. The odor from the smoke would most likely be noticeable in all parts of the restaurant, except for parts that are relatively sealed off from the dining room. (Like the kitchen, or bathrooms.)
If I added a companion to the first smoker, who also smoked 24 hours a day, every day for a year, the rate of smoke in the environment would double, the quantity would double, and so forth.
If every patron in the restaurant smoked simultaneously for 24 hours a day, every day for a year, the level of toxicity would become dangerous for human habitation. I'm not sure it would kill a human outright, but I'd wager that prolonged exposure to such an environment would generate ill health in the patrons and restaurant employees exposed to the environment.
(I'm basing this on the following phenomenon: I've walked into bars and restaurants where the level of smoke was so dense it made my eyes water, burn, and in some cases I've had to leave just to be able to see. I know that I'm not alone in this phenomenon.
I've went to one jazz club where the smoke was so thick, my lungs ached and I couldn't keep my eyes open they burned so much. Add to the fact, that even the cigarette smoker with my group had to leave it was so toxic in there, because even her eyes were watering. You know its bad if a smoker notices the smoke.)
Bottom line, the restaurants air filtration system can only handle and clean a given quantity of air in the restaurant at any given time. If the pollution rate of the air is greater than the filtration rate, toxicity results. (ie. a saturation of smoke toxins lingers in the air after filtration.)
So, what does this have to do with global warming?
"The Earth’s ecosystem is not fragile, and humans are not capable of destroying it"
-Rush Limbaugh, Source: See, I Told You So, p.189-90 Jul 2, 1993
I've listened to Rush Limbaugh say that its impossible for humans to alter the environment. He claimed the earth is just too big for humans to have any effect. Looking at the data and evidence available, its apparent that humans are altering the environment, and we're most likely the primary culprit for global climate change over the last 150 years. (181% more CO2 in the air and 400% more methane.)
Even if the human factor is a small one, its a constant one.
I used the analogy of a smoker in a big restaurant as a metaphor for industrialization. One smoker is not going to alter or change things drastically, and it would take quite an effort for one smoker to really alter the restaurant's environment.
Two smokers are more damaging to the restaurant's environment than one smoker. A roomful of smokers is devastating to the environment.
Granted this is a hypothesis, but I'd bet I could find statistical information online (or I could research this myself) and it would prove my hypothesis. What I'm attempting to show with my restaurant analogy is that one smoker effects a restaurant's environment, and when you keep doubling the number of smokers, the environmental damage increases more rapidly, and the level of damage increases based on the filtration rate of the restaurant.
A restaurant is a micro environment. The earth is a macro environment, and it would take a big event to alter it, or in the case of industrialized humanity it would take a chronic small event that increases in effect over time.
Industrialization has increased drastically since the 1750's when coal was first used in an industrial method. The earth's population was less than 1 billion, and very few countries were using coal in the mid to late 18th century.
By the beginning of the 20th Century, the human population was nearing 1 billion, by the end of the 20th Century, there were just over 6 billion people.
Does Rush Limbaugh expect any rational person to believe that humans used the same amount of resources per capita from the beginning of the century toward the end. (In other words, by the end of the century, humans were using 1/6th the number of resources per capita they used at the beginning of the century.)
In the US, Americans went from primarily an agrarian society with dirty industrial cities to a nation of suburban sprawl, major metropolises, and vast economic power in a century's time. Add to that fact that various Third World nations have begun to industrialize and are now having their economies drastically expand, which is increasing the number of people using and burning fossil fuels.
Essentially, industrialization has expanded in proportion to the rate of population expanse. Even if Third World countries like China & India weren't expanding their economies, the rest of the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Asia would be increasing their pollution levels over time.
If, as Limbaugh claims, the Earth's ecosystem is so robust and vigorous why do we need clean air and water laws? Why regulate and limit pollution in the environment.
Now, Mr. Limbaugh is from Missouri, the show me state. Apparently, the D average high school student never read newspapers growing up. He didn't read anything about the Cuyhoga river catching fire in the 60's, or hearing about Lake Erie being pronounced a dead lake, or how the Ohio River was so multi-colored from all the chemicals dumped into it from the Kodak company. Guess he missed the news about how the manufacture of plastics to make Barbie dolls in New Jersey were also environmentally hazardous. The list goes on, and you can see the reasons environmental laws were passed.
If, as Limbaugh claims, industrialized society is so clean, why is China's environment going to hell in its industrialized zones? I think he misses the point about industrialized society and a clean environment.
You only get a clean environment in a democratic society where the citizens have the right to speak up and complain about dirty skies, dirty water, and dirty land.
Maybe its unfair to pick on Rush's lack of knowledge in regard to the environment. Perhaps he sprinkles plutonium on his Big Mac during a quick lunch break. Maybe he drinks down cool refreshing organochlorines to wet his pallet.
Rampant, unchecked industrialization would kill us in a short number of generations. It wouldn't be so bad if it was just Rush hammering against things like global warming and environementalists, its' the entire right wing media doing so. Hannity, Coulter, Fox News, and all the rest constantly berating environmentalists and global warming at every opportunity.
I know Republicans that care about the environment. They're divers, hunters, fishermen, and people that enjoy the outdoors. Anyone that ventures into nature can see signs of harm when we don't do our part to clean up our toxic messes.
Fishermen notice when they can't fish in restricted areas, hunters notice sick game, and divers can see waste up close and personal underwater.
The reason the US has a clean environment is not due to the compassion of corporate executives in the boardroom, its due to the government taking action and enforcing laws.
All the Limbaughs are doing is creating a smoke screen which could have drastic effects on humanity, its future generations, and all life on Earth. Either global warming is a real problem, as the growing evidence indicates, or its a bunch of Chicken Little-ism. Either way, would it hurt to actually work on being cautious and concerned for life on Earth and for how we effect the environment and ecosystems around us?
Physics vs. Economics
book review of: "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy"
by Peter W. Huber
I've only skimmed through most of the book, and read a couple chapters, but from what I've gathered, the authors of this book summarize energy like so:
First, the energy supply that can be found on the Earth is infinite, we shouldn't worry about the loss of energy supplies because human ingenuity and knowledge has saved us numerous times in the past.
Secondly, human demand for energy increases and never decreases. Creating energy efficiency increases demand for more energy. Essentially, the demand will never go down.
Thirdly, gas prices don't matter.
In principle I agree with the authors. There is an infinite supply of energy on Earth, and if we ever fell short, we have a very energetic star nearby which spews forth virtually limitless energy, not to mention some massive gas giants a few billion miles away which kick out some serious levels of radiation and energy.
From this perspective, the future looks bright, hopeful, and optimistic.
But...
The author fails to take into account economics.
Physics is the science dealing with energy in nature. (The author is a physicist.) Economics is the science of common sense. Economics teaches us the principle of scarcity, which essentially can be boiled down to this slogan, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Not surprisingly, economics has also been called the "dreary science", and with good reason, it tells us what we can't do and that there are limits to what we can do.
The authors claim that energy prices don't matter. From a physics perspective that might seem true, but from an economics point of view price can make or break economies.
Prices are dictated by the availability of desired goods, services, and resources. (scarcity) At present, the world oil production is nearing peak capacity. This will present a grave problem for the world's major economies. Why? When peak oil occurs it means that the ability to produce oil will never be able to exceed demand, and at some point demand will surpass supply. Reserves will be used to offset the shortfall in supply, until a new energy source is put in place, or we just plain run on empty.
In the case of oil, price does matter. If a week from now, Americans had to start paying $10/gallon at the pump instead of $2/gallon things would become drastic for the American economy. Now, the authors are correct in stating this would not decrease demand, but it does curb demand, and in essence could effect the price even greater. High gas prices will drastically effect the price of other goods and services. (The price of shipping will effect the price of goods that are shipped, manufactured, and produced. This will effect the price of goods that are bought and sold. Not to mention the spiraling inflation and the rampant job loss that would result from such a drastic change.)
So, if our price jumps suddenly people would demand cheaper fuel prices or alternate sources of energy. They would demand government action. It wouldn't be surprising if Americans were eager to go to war for cheap gas/energy prices. (We're doing it now in Iraq.) Eventually, a new source of energy would be implemented, but it takes time and energy to create a new energy infrastructure. Gasoline didn't replace coal overnight.
The interim between peak oil and the new energy economy will be painful, and the disruption of the American economy would have disastrous results globally.
Human economies aren't efficient engines, they're primarily driven by emotion. Angry and unhappy people in dire situations become violent and revolutionary. So, in that aspect, I'd say the price of oil is quite relevant.
On the plus side, if the human race survives, we'll probably build a better energy infrastructure.
Quarks and photons may be devoid of emotion, but humans can be quite emotional. We'll need optimism, determination, ingenuity, and fortitude to change our infrastructure. This is why its good we have authors talking about infinite energy supplies, but we also need to be grounded in reality. Optimism is great, but the power of positive thinking can't change things with the flick of a switch.
One more side note... regarding the book and the authors idea of efficiency increases demand. I looked at a chart from the US department of energy. Apparently, the average per capita usage of energy is less today than it was in 1970 during the OPEC oil embargo. That would be one little statistic which disproves Hubert's notion. We're more energy efficient, therefore we are using less energy to do more work.
book review of: "The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy"
by Peter W. Huber
I've only skimmed through most of the book, and read a couple chapters, but from what I've gathered, the authors of this book summarize energy like so:
First, the energy supply that can be found on the Earth is infinite, we shouldn't worry about the loss of energy supplies because human ingenuity and knowledge has saved us numerous times in the past.
Secondly, human demand for energy increases and never decreases. Creating energy efficiency increases demand for more energy. Essentially, the demand will never go down.
Thirdly, gas prices don't matter.
In principle I agree with the authors. There is an infinite supply of energy on Earth, and if we ever fell short, we have a very energetic star nearby which spews forth virtually limitless energy, not to mention some massive gas giants a few billion miles away which kick out some serious levels of radiation and energy.
From this perspective, the future looks bright, hopeful, and optimistic.
But...
The author fails to take into account economics.
Physics is the science dealing with energy in nature. (The author is a physicist.) Economics is the science of common sense. Economics teaches us the principle of scarcity, which essentially can be boiled down to this slogan, "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."
Not surprisingly, economics has also been called the "dreary science", and with good reason, it tells us what we can't do and that there are limits to what we can do.
The authors claim that energy prices don't matter. From a physics perspective that might seem true, but from an economics point of view price can make or break economies.
Prices are dictated by the availability of desired goods, services, and resources. (scarcity) At present, the world oil production is nearing peak capacity. This will present a grave problem for the world's major economies. Why? When peak oil occurs it means that the ability to produce oil will never be able to exceed demand, and at some point demand will surpass supply. Reserves will be used to offset the shortfall in supply, until a new energy source is put in place, or we just plain run on empty.
In the case of oil, price does matter. If a week from now, Americans had to start paying $10/gallon at the pump instead of $2/gallon things would become drastic for the American economy. Now, the authors are correct in stating this would not decrease demand, but it does curb demand, and in essence could effect the price even greater. High gas prices will drastically effect the price of other goods and services. (The price of shipping will effect the price of goods that are shipped, manufactured, and produced. This will effect the price of goods that are bought and sold. Not to mention the spiraling inflation and the rampant job loss that would result from such a drastic change.)
So, if our price jumps suddenly people would demand cheaper fuel prices or alternate sources of energy. They would demand government action. It wouldn't be surprising if Americans were eager to go to war for cheap gas/energy prices. (We're doing it now in Iraq.) Eventually, a new source of energy would be implemented, but it takes time and energy to create a new energy infrastructure. Gasoline didn't replace coal overnight.
The interim between peak oil and the new energy economy will be painful, and the disruption of the American economy would have disastrous results globally.
Human economies aren't efficient engines, they're primarily driven by emotion. Angry and unhappy people in dire situations become violent and revolutionary. So, in that aspect, I'd say the price of oil is quite relevant.
On the plus side, if the human race survives, we'll probably build a better energy infrastructure.
Quarks and photons may be devoid of emotion, but humans can be quite emotional. We'll need optimism, determination, ingenuity, and fortitude to change our infrastructure. This is why its good we have authors talking about infinite energy supplies, but we also need to be grounded in reality. Optimism is great, but the power of positive thinking can't change things with the flick of a switch.
One more side note... regarding the book and the authors idea of efficiency increases demand. I looked at a chart from the US department of energy. Apparently, the average per capita usage of energy is less today than it was in 1970 during the OPEC oil embargo. That would be one little statistic which disproves Hubert's notion. We're more energy efficient, therefore we are using less energy to do more work.
What this would indicate is that scarcity of resources dictates and controls energy consumption. The demand is still high, but we've learned to get a little more bang for our buck. (Not much more, but a little.)
Thursday, June 09, 2005
"Stupidity is not a survival trait."
