Ghost in the Machine?

11 Responses to Ghost in the Machine?

1. gregoryzaller says:

   June 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm

   I was disappointed the post disappeared because I wanted to reply to the thoughtful postings of Goodknight and Steele addressing my points that only good would come from developing renewable energy.

   Greg: My point wasn’t that I believe in greenhouse gas driven climate change. It was that because even though it is impossible for anyone to know for certain there are many many credible scientists that think it is a good theory and caution is advised as there is no going back and the consequences are dire. Certainly you must agree that CO2 is changing the pH of the ocean and threatening an ecosystem collapse. This is simple well known chemistry.

   Russ, interesting point about the methane hydrates. That might address questions about the cost of energy and geo-political issues into the foreseeable future IF it pans out. Then it might become more simply just an issue about the potential harm of CO2 in the atmosphere and oceans. True conservatives exercise caution. Humans have wrecked large swaths of the planet already, it easily conceivable that they could wreck the whole thing. That’s as serious as it gets.

   Reply
   • RL Crabb says:

     June 11, 2012 at 5:30 pm

     Greg – I’m sorry that the thread was interrupted. The problem has been traced back to the server, and not with this blog. Unfortunately, none of the previous comments can be retrieved. If those of you who were participating want to continue, by all means go ahead.

     Reply
   • Greg Goodknight says:

     June 12, 2012 at 9:15 am

     Computers happen.

     GZ, yes, ocean acidification is the next scare, and as long as science funding requires scaring politicians, scientists shopping for grants (the US government remains the primary funder of science despite Eisenhower’s warning of a technological elite in his farewell speech) will find something. The galactic cosmic ray link was only found 60 years after mankind first discovered there were things like galactic cosmic rays, and the great Atlantic and Pacific temperature oscillations (that are in sync with solar drivers) were only discovered in the past decade, despite thermometers being around for a few centuries.

     Ocean chemistry needs study, but it’s far from clear that current knowledge is to the level of “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”, required before the peoples of the earth should condemn millions if not billions of their fellow citizens to a shorter, more miserable life.

     Atmospheric CO2 was something like 2000ppm when mammals were first scampering around looking for dinosaur eggs to plunder (I had two this morning, over well) and we’ll run out of fossil fuels long before historic levels are reached.

     Reply
   • Greg Goodknight says:

     June 12, 2012 at 9:57 am

     “… addressing my points that only good would come from developing renewable energy” -Greg Z

     Only bad will come of forcing everyone to use them despite the energy costing perhaps six times as much. Renewable sources, like hydroelectric and wind, have been around for centuries, and all is good. They have found their niches. People around the world have had their burdens lessened because of them. However, the current generation of PV is many times more expensive than fossil, nuke or hydro, and as yet, no one has managed to design and build wind generators that pencil out as replacements once maintenance is factored in, even if you accept the occasional diced bald eagle or California condor.

     Huge amounts of borrowed money has been directed by politicians into the renewable energy industry. Solyndra built a Taj Mahal for their headquarters despite not having product to sell… I’m sure it was fun to drive to every day, for as long as it lasted. Only good? Hardly.

     Reply
     • gregoryzaller says:

       June 12, 2012 at 5:56 pm

       Greg, I said “developing” renewable energy.

       It is really quite simple: Energy that can be renewed will last for the life of the sun and energy that can’t will become extinguished.
       I never said that the technology has been perfected.

       No ever has been smart enough to have my confidence to say that dumping billions of tons of carbon irretrievably into the atmosphere is a justifiable risk in spite of a preponderance of claims to the contrary.

       Reply
   • Russ Steele says:

     June 12, 2012 at 9:23 pm

     I am wondering what role undersea volcanos have on the acidification of the ocean and the warming of the oceans waters. Science is discovering that there may be about 10,000 under sea volcanos or active vents.

     “We know more about the surfaces of Venus and Mars than we do about the bathymetry of deep oceans,” said David Sandwell from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the US.

     “This new mapping from CryoSat will revolutionize our understanding of ocean floor tectonics and reveal, perhaps, 10 000 previously uncharted undersea volcanoes.”

     Here is an example of some recent discoveries closer to California;

     In February of this year, MBARI researchers embarked on a three-month-long expedition to the Gulf of California, the long, narrow body of water between Baja California and mainland Mexico.

     In April, marine geologists studied the Alarcón Rise, an active volcanic region near the mouth of the gulf. Volcanic “spreading centers” such as the Alarcón Rise are hotbeds of volcanic activity, where underwater volcanoes spread lava across the seafloor and hydrothermal vents spout water heated by magma beneath the seafloor to over 550 degrees Fahrenheit. “The floor of the Gulf of California is full of these vents,” says the MBARI website.

     There volcanos spew gases including CO2. We have a lot to learn about the oceans that cover so much of our planet, before we state blaming humans for causing global warming or if you prefer climate change.

     Reply
     • gregoryzaller says:

       June 13, 2012 at 7:15 am

       “We have a lot to learn about the oceans that cover so much of our planet, before we state blaming humans for causing global warming or if you prefer climate change.”

       I completely agree, Russ. The oceans are a very reasonable explanation for where the CO2 is going, though.

       My only point has been that the only reasonable response to the possibility of an irreversible catastrophe is caution.

       Reply
2. Judith Lowry says:

   June 12, 2012 at 7:20 am

   I’ve got one word for you . . . plastic.

   Reply
3. Judith Lowry says:

   June 13, 2012 at 5:43 am

   So, 600,000,000 automobiles, being driven everyday on the surface of the earth, doesn’t have much effect?
   The radiative forcing caused by the contrails of the close to 20,000 passenger jets in the earth’s skies doesn’t add up to much?
   World wide industrial pollution not much of a factor?
   The planet’s filthy air, water and soil just sort of happened naturally?
   That’s a lot of denial.

   Reply
4. steve cottrell says:

   June 13, 2012 at 2:44 pm

   Bob:

   Disappearing blog posting, huh? Reminds me of a comic book story you wrote and illustrated in the early 80s about losing at least one sock every time you did the laundry. As I recall, you suggested then that there was a mysterious dimension where an individual sock goes once a load of clothes is put in the dryer. Maybe there’s a similar unexplainable dimension for blog postings?

   Reply
   • RL Crabb says:

     June 13, 2012 at 3:20 pm

     If you’ve ever had to do a “system restore” then you know how it works. You simply reset your computer to a date before the problem occurred. Apparently, my host had to perform this deed on his entire system for a virus on someone else’s blog. That’s what I was told, anyway. As for the case of the disappearing socks, the solution is to only buy the same kind of socks so you will never be mismatched. Or just quit wearing socks.

     Reply