I need someone to explain this to me: There have been something like a few thousand reports of sudden unintended acceleration on all of the ~30 million Toyota vehicles sold since 1999. That's something like 0.00667%. Let's be generous and say there are 10x as many problems as reported. That's still 0.06667%. That is, there are about 70 incidents for 100,000 vehicles, with a much lower rate of injury and even lower rate of death.
Why are we wasting our time on this but not bothering to deal with real problems? What are we doing to fix human-induced climate change? What are we doing to fix problems with access to clean water? What are we doing to fix the 40,000 gun-related murders in the US every year? What are we doing to deliver better, cheaper health care to our citizens? What are we doing about Darfur? What are we doing about the five million people injured or killed due to alcohol-related vehicular accidents?
In short, why is everyone freaking out about such an irrelevant "problem" when there are real problems to deal with?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Monday, December 21, 2009
I'm Sorry, Son.
The Copenhagen Accord is an unmitigated disaster. Sure, it looks reasonable, the two largest polluters have agreed to take a look at their emissions and possibly decide on a target sometime in the future.
As I've said before, the international community has just a few years to agree to, engineer, and implement a full solution. We're expected, on our current course, to hit 650 ppmv CO2 by 2100. That's without all possible feedbacks included, such as methane release from the ocean bottom, or sudden and complete melting of the permafrost.
If we can't even agree to our limits until 2020, there is no possibility of reducing them enough to avoid 2 or 3 degrees C warming. I've hinted at problems associated with various warming scenarios before, but here are a few that we are going to see. Not "might" see, but going to see because of the failures of vision at the Copenhagen summit.
This is what's going to happen as we hit 2 degrees C warming, which was avoidable ten years ago, mostly avoidable five years ago, and is completely unavoidable now:
Those states with a "*" after them are declared or undeclared nuclear states. We need to plan on Pakistan and North Korea failing or worse within the next 50 years. India's inability to provide clean water to its 1.1 billion people is going to make it unstable in the next few decades as well. China may be able to weather most of the problems, but its lack of clean water is going to be a huge problem to its 1.3 billion people. In 1997, Israel was withdrawing 287 cubic meters of water per capita. It's available resources were only 265 cubic meters per capita. The extra 8.3% came from other countries.
At 3 or more degrees C warming, we will see the following (in fact, some of this is happening already--we don't fully understand all of the feedback mechanisms):
Since the Copenhagen Accord doesn't commit anyone to cutting emissions 80% by 2020, but instead commits nations to talking some more, we have guaranteed 3-4 degrees warming, and that means that feedbacks will almost guarantee 5-7 degrees of warming by 2100. With the last, best hope having faded, we need to start talking about large-scale adaptation in addition to mitigation. See the blue arrow in the graphic below? That assumes that next year we'll start cutting emissions, not just talking about it, but actually cutting. So, we're looking at the orange or, more likely, the red arrows.
So, let me just say, son, that while we love you, we didn't think your future is important enough to protect by sacrificing any of our own comfort. Sorry. We hope that some of you will forgive us, but understand if that's difficult to do. Also, those morons who thought it would be a good idea to dump billions of tons of chalk into the oceans in 2025? We didn't do anything to stop them because, well, we just couldn't be bothered.
[edit]
See this video of a talk at AGU last week.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml#
As I've said before, the international community has just a few years to agree to, engineer, and implement a full solution. We're expected, on our current course, to hit 650 ppmv CO2 by 2100. That's without all possible feedbacks included, such as methane release from the ocean bottom, or sudden and complete melting of the permafrost.
If we can't even agree to our limits until 2020, there is no possibility of reducing them enough to avoid 2 or 3 degrees C warming. I've hinted at problems associated with various warming scenarios before, but here are a few that we are going to see. Not "might" see, but going to see because of the failures of vision at the Copenhagen summit.
This is what's going to happen as we hit 2 degrees C warming, which was avoidable ten years ago, mostly avoidable five years ago, and is completely unavoidable now:
- Dramatic changes to weather patterns worldwide
- Elimination of fresh water for 1/3 of world's land surface
- Permanent drought in US southwest, Australia, and Africa
- Much of inner Australia will burn
- Aquifer levels under the US Great Plains, Saudi Arabia, and Northern China are falling fast, without replenishment.
- Rise of sea levels by at least 1.2 meters (2.75 billion people affected)
- Food & water shortages will cause unstable States to fail:
- African states, Pakistan*, North Korea*, Somalia, Iraq,
- India*, China*, Afghanistan, Israel* Sudan, Lebanon*, ...
- 1 degree of warming: wheat, corn, rice yields drop 10%.
- Global food reserve was at less than 62 days and declining in 2008.
- Disease epidemics will become worse and last longer
- Over-Consumption is worse than high population.
At 3 or more degrees C warming, we will see the following (in fact, some of this is happening already--we don't fully understand all of the feedback mechanisms):
- At or above 2 degrees of warming, positive feedback systems become active.
- Permafrost will begin to melt more quickly, releasing CO2.
- Methane will be released from the seafloor bottoms, adding more GHG to atmosphere.
- Composting rate of organic matter increases, CO2 release.
- Amazon forest, grasslands die & burn, releasing CO2.
- Plants begin to release CO2 instead of absorbing it.
- At 3 degrees warming, run-away permafrost melting will begin, releasing more and more CO2.
- 3-4 degrees warming is avoidable if we cut emissions by 80% by 2020.
- At 6 degrees warming, hydrogen sulfide gas makes up a large part of the atmosphere.
- We will hit 5-7 degrees of warming by 2100 at current emission growth rate of CO2.
So, let me just say, son, that while we love you, we didn't think your future is important enough to protect by sacrificing any of our own comfort. Sorry. We hope that some of you will forgive us, but understand if that's difficult to do. Also, those morons who thought it would be a good idea to dump billions of tons of chalk into the oceans in 2025? We didn't do anything to stop them because, well, we just couldn't be bothered.
[edit]
See this video of a talk at AGU last week.
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml#
Monday, December 14, 2009
Population Control a Solution to Human-Induced Global Climate Change?
No.
I've seen more than a few suggestions that population is the problem to global warming/global climate change and therefore The Solution is population control.
There are three, surprisingly unrelated issues in the above statement.
First, the world is probably overpopulated. There are all kinds of discussions of the carrying (PDF) capacity (PDF) of the Earth. Most conclude that we've met that carrying capacity and that we're living on borrowed time. How much time is, of course, not clear.
As some examples of the idea that we've reached the limit of our ecosystem's carrying capacity:
In 1999, it was estimated that the world had about 116 days of food reserves stored. That is, if all food production stopped, we'd have about 116 days of food available to feed everyone in the world. As of 2006, those reserves had shrunk to 56 days.
Many people (PDF) agree (PDF) that we've reached the peak of oil production and that oil and its derivatives will become more and more difficult to acquire. That matters because all kinds of quality of life issues are directly related to availability of (cheap, easy) energy supplies. That is, we can extend the carrying capacity of an ecosystem by introducing external energy sources.
Human-induced global climate change is due, basically to resource utilization. There are too many of us and we're consuming too much energy making too much stuff.
From those three examples, I'm going to move on with the assumption that everyone agrees that we've reached (some kind of) carrying capacity of our ecosystem. That is, the earth is overpopulated by humans.
Can we solve that last example by limiting births? First, we have to understand the problem. I've posted several times about the problem of human-induced climate change. The biggest problem with our releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere is that there is a lot of inertia in the atmosphere. We're at 385.99 parts per million by volume CO2 (ppmv) in the atmosphere. During the Cretaceous, the atmosphere was at 340 ppmv but was 5 degrees C warmer (on average). Why aren't we this warm yet? Because it takes time for the atmosphere to respond. We may not get that warm this time, but even if we cut all CO2 emissions to 0, we'd still warm at least 1 to 2 degrees C over the next few centuries.
That's where the problem comes in. The scientific publications and the press are talking about 2050 (or something similar) as a target date for limiting CO2 concentrations, but we're already above the concentrations that will push us to 2 or more degrees C of warming and all of the associated problems. Those problems will not be slight, nor will they be easy to adapt to, but they will not be completely catastrophic for the entire human race. Some people in some places will suffer a lot more than others.
Now, with that in mind, let's go back to the idea of population control. We're expected to hit seven billion people within the next decade. For this little thought experiment, let's go with something simple and say we have no (0) births for 10 years. That is, we leave the world population at 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est.) for the next 10 years. Our emissions of CO2 are growing at a rate of about 2-3% per year. Assuming all of that is due to population increases (which it isn't) and we would stop increasing our CO2 emissions (but not stop emitting), we'd still be emitting about 1.8 ppmv per year. So, we'd still be increasing our CO2 emissions over the 10 years of no population additions (and some population decreases, which I'm ignoring for the moment). So, we wouldn't stay at 385.99 ppmv over the decade of no births. We'd still be increasing, and we'd still be causing irrecoverable harm.
I ignored deaths in the above estimates. Let me correct that here. Let's assume, for a second, that the 1.8 ppmv of CO2 emissions per year is evenly distributed to all humans (it's not--more in a bit). Let's also assume the CIA estimate for death rate (8.2 per 1,000 people) is an accurate average. First, there is an average of 56 million deaths per year (assuming no increase) for the decade of no births. That's a decrease in the world population of 560 million people. Out of 6790 million people. We'd be down to 6230 million people (6.23 billion). Let's now go back to emissions. 1.8 ppmv per year for all 6790 million people is about 2.7 x 10^-4 ppmv per person per year. If we had "only" 6230 million people at the end of the decade, we'd be down to 1.65 ppmv per year. Or a rather slight decrease in emissions by the end of the decade of no births. We'd still be emitting too much, and it would be too late to do anything about it!
There's a huge problem with all of the above: Emissions are not equally divided. In fact, the five largest energy users (68%) account for only 36% of the world's population. That means that controlling population will only have an effect on emissions after many generations, by which time it would be way too late.
We need to control emissions, not population. At some point we'll have to deal with population, but it's NOT the solution to human-induced global climate change. It's not even A solution. It's a solution to exceeding carrying capacity, but it would be too little, too late to affect climate change... Unless people are advocating the removal of the 36% who pollute the most, which I'm sure is not the case since most of the people advocating population control are a part of that 36%. Even if we killed off "the other" 64% of the population as a "solution" we'd only buy ourselves a few decades at our current consumption.
I've seen more than a few suggestions that population is the problem to global warming/global climate change and therefore The Solution is population control.
There are three, surprisingly unrelated issues in the above statement.
First, the world is probably overpopulated. There are all kinds of discussions of the carrying (PDF) capacity (PDF) of the Earth. Most conclude that we've met that carrying capacity and that we're living on borrowed time. How much time is, of course, not clear.
As some examples of the idea that we've reached the limit of our ecosystem's carrying capacity:
In 1999, it was estimated that the world had about 116 days of food reserves stored. That is, if all food production stopped, we'd have about 116 days of food available to feed everyone in the world. As of 2006, those reserves had shrunk to 56 days.
Many people (PDF) agree (PDF) that we've reached the peak of oil production and that oil and its derivatives will become more and more difficult to acquire. That matters because all kinds of quality of life issues are directly related to availability of (cheap, easy) energy supplies. That is, we can extend the carrying capacity of an ecosystem by introducing external energy sources.
Human-induced global climate change is due, basically to resource utilization. There are too many of us and we're consuming too much energy making too much stuff.
From those three examples, I'm going to move on with the assumption that everyone agrees that we've reached (some kind of) carrying capacity of our ecosystem. That is, the earth is overpopulated by humans.
Can we solve that last example by limiting births? First, we have to understand the problem. I've posted several times about the problem of human-induced climate change. The biggest problem with our releasing of CO2 into the atmosphere is that there is a lot of inertia in the atmosphere. We're at 385.99 parts per million by volume CO2 (ppmv) in the atmosphere. During the Cretaceous, the atmosphere was at 340 ppmv but was 5 degrees C warmer (on average). Why aren't we this warm yet? Because it takes time for the atmosphere to respond. We may not get that warm this time, but even if we cut all CO2 emissions to 0, we'd still warm at least 1 to 2 degrees C over the next few centuries.
That's where the problem comes in. The scientific publications and the press are talking about 2050 (or something similar) as a target date for limiting CO2 concentrations, but we're already above the concentrations that will push us to 2 or more degrees C of warming and all of the associated problems. Those problems will not be slight, nor will they be easy to adapt to, but they will not be completely catastrophic for the entire human race. Some people in some places will suffer a lot more than others.
Now, with that in mind, let's go back to the idea of population control. We're expected to hit seven billion people within the next decade. For this little thought experiment, let's go with something simple and say we have no (0) births for 10 years. That is, we leave the world population at 6,790,062,216 (July 2009 est.) for the next 10 years. Our emissions of CO2 are growing at a rate of about 2-3% per year. Assuming all of that is due to population increases (which it isn't) and we would stop increasing our CO2 emissions (but not stop emitting), we'd still be emitting about 1.8 ppmv per year. So, we'd still be increasing our CO2 emissions over the 10 years of no population additions (and some population decreases, which I'm ignoring for the moment). So, we wouldn't stay at 385.99 ppmv over the decade of no births. We'd still be increasing, and we'd still be causing irrecoverable harm.
I ignored deaths in the above estimates. Let me correct that here. Let's assume, for a second, that the 1.8 ppmv of CO2 emissions per year is evenly distributed to all humans (it's not--more in a bit). Let's also assume the CIA estimate for death rate (8.2 per 1,000 people) is an accurate average. First, there is an average of 56 million deaths per year (assuming no increase) for the decade of no births. That's a decrease in the world population of 560 million people. Out of 6790 million people. We'd be down to 6230 million people (6.23 billion). Let's now go back to emissions. 1.8 ppmv per year for all 6790 million people is about 2.7 x 10^-4 ppmv per person per year. If we had "only" 6230 million people at the end of the decade, we'd be down to 1.65 ppmv per year. Or a rather slight decrease in emissions by the end of the decade of no births. We'd still be emitting too much, and it would be too late to do anything about it!
There's a huge problem with all of the above: Emissions are not equally divided. In fact, the five largest energy users (68%) account for only 36% of the world's population. That means that controlling population will only have an effect on emissions after many generations, by which time it would be way too late.
We need to control emissions, not population. At some point we'll have to deal with population, but it's NOT the solution to human-induced global climate change. It's not even A solution. It's a solution to exceeding carrying capacity, but it would be too little, too late to affect climate change... Unless people are advocating the removal of the 36% who pollute the most, which I'm sure is not the case since most of the people advocating population control are a part of that 36%. Even if we killed off "the other" 64% of the population as a "solution" we'd only buy ourselves a few decades at our current consumption.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
An Earth-Like Exoplanet With a Very Alien Atmosphere
Some time ago, I missed posting about the discovery of a (large) Earth-like planet discovery. COROT-7b was discovered earlier this year. It's about 1.7 times the diameter of Earth, and has about the same density. That is, it's made of rock. Most exoplanets we've seen are made of gas, so this was a cool discovery. I dropped the ball on posting about it. I apologize.
Now, however, some people whose modeling (PDF) work is exemplary decided to have a little fun with this planet. See, it orbits its star with a year that is about 20 hours long. That's very, very, very close to the star. Mercury's orbital period (its year) is about 88 of our days. The closer you are to the sun, the faster your orbit.
So, this rocky planet is very close to its sun. That means that it is so close that its daytime temperatures reach 1800 to 2600 Kelvins (there is no "degrees kelvin", it's just Kelvins). That's hot enough to vaporize rock. Therefore, rock will likely be vaporized from the surface of this planet.
Now, whether this planet has a day-night cycle or is tidally locked so one face always sees the sun is unclear. And not particularly relevant to this discussion. See, if the planet has a diurnal cycle, then the nighttime comes for the area that had rock vaporized. If it doesn't, then the hot atmosphere moves to the cold side due to density (and other) differences. Either way, this hot atmosphere of minerals will condense out as it moves to the cold side of the planet. That is, you would see molten rock falling from the sky. Then (possibly very short-lived) rivers of molten rock flowing on the surface. In some instances, you might even get pebbles raining out (think hail) if the winds are strong enough and the temperatures low enough.
Not only that, but because of the atmospheric temperature differences, you'd have different layers of mineral vapors at different heights. Quite a view, I would imagine.
Now, however, some people whose modeling (PDF) work is exemplary decided to have a little fun with this planet. See, it orbits its star with a year that is about 20 hours long. That's very, very, very close to the star. Mercury's orbital period (its year) is about 88 of our days. The closer you are to the sun, the faster your orbit.
So, this rocky planet is very close to its sun. That means that it is so close that its daytime temperatures reach 1800 to 2600 Kelvins (there is no "degrees kelvin", it's just Kelvins). That's hot enough to vaporize rock. Therefore, rock will likely be vaporized from the surface of this planet.
Now, whether this planet has a day-night cycle or is tidally locked so one face always sees the sun is unclear. And not particularly relevant to this discussion. See, if the planet has a diurnal cycle, then the nighttime comes for the area that had rock vaporized. If it doesn't, then the hot atmosphere moves to the cold side due to density (and other) differences. Either way, this hot atmosphere of minerals will condense out as it moves to the cold side of the planet. That is, you would see molten rock falling from the sky. Then (possibly very short-lived) rivers of molten rock flowing on the surface. In some instances, you might even get pebbles raining out (think hail) if the winds are strong enough and the temperatures low enough.
Not only that, but because of the atmospheric temperature differences, you'd have different layers of mineral vapors at different heights. Quite a view, I would imagine.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
There is no climate debate among scientists.
I find myself, once again, having to respond to lies and misunderstandings about climate science. This time, a good friend forwarded an email that supposedly was written for some newspaper or other. The junk is at the bottom of the post. My response is first.
There is no debate among scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
The physics and chemistry is well understood. The models are not perfect but every single one, all independent, agree to within a few per cent. The physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorbing re-radiated energy from the ground is well understood. The feedback mechanisms (glacial melting, permafrost release of CO2, etc.) are not as well understood, but we've consistently been predicting slower than-reality-feedbacks.
Their first claimed "PhD" on the list is someone who believes in Intelligent Design; these people are not scientists and do not understand science.
The earth's climate is changing faster than it ever has before and it is due to humans. If we don't get our heads out of the sand, all of us are going to be irrelevant. I didn't know that I should even bother refuting the points, as they've been refuted time and time again. But, I will because I assume nobody who reads this is completely lost to reality.
1) The average temperature of our earth has been unchanged for the last 10 years, and in fact is now trending downward.
Not true. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html . There was a slight dip in 2008 compared with 2005-2007, but that does not constitute a trend.
2) CO² is only 3.6 percent of the total greenhouse gasses, when water vapor, the largest greenhouse gas is included. Only ..117 percent of this CO² is manmade. This small amount of CO² makes little difference in our global temperature.
Currently, CO2 concentration is 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That's 35% (100 ppmv) higher than it was in 1832. Most of the increase is due to the industrial revolution and modern-day use of fossil fuels--humans. I don't know what "..117 percent" means. I assume they mean one of 0.117%, 1.17%, or 11.7%, none of which are true. During the Cretaceous (146 to 65 million years ago), the average CO2 concentration was 340 ppmv. That's less than what it is
now, but the average temperature was about 5 degrees C higher than it is now. Why? The difference is that the cretaceous had 10 million years or so for CO2 to stabilize at 340 ppmv and begin decreasing, and for temperatures to increase. We've had since 1832 for the CO2 concentration to increase 100 ppmv. The temperatures have not yet begun to increase significantly.
The Earth is not going to melt because of our activities, but things are going to change, and the rate at which natural systems will have to evolve is increasing and those systems are falling behind. For an example, see here:
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/05/guest-column-a-world-out-of-time/
CO2 concentration absolutely makes a difference in global temperature. The physics of how it works is relatively simple, and the Venusian atmosphere is a perfect example of a runaway greenhouse atmosphere. Water vapor, methane, ozone, and a few others are also significant
greenhouse gases. Water vapor and methane are actually stronger greenhouse gases than CO2. If it weren't for these greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the earth would be about -18 degrees C (0 F). Because of greenhouse gases, the average temperature is 15C. However, in the past 200 years, we've warmed approximately 2 degrees C
3) In fact the earth has only warmed 1/10th of a degree due to CO² since the industrial revolution, and has=2 0warmed only one (1) degree in the last 150 years from all causes.
The average temperature from 1906 to 2005 has increased by 0.74 degrees C. The rate of warming over the last 50 years of that period was almost double the rate for the whole period.
Here are some things that happen at ~2 degrees C warming:
Back to answering these points:
4) The primary reason that CO² is ineffective in warming our earth is because the CO² absorption band in the atmosphere is almost saturated, so adding more CO² has little effect.
This makes no sense. The CO2 absorption band cannot BE "saturated". It's just a frequency of light that CO2 absorbs. The re-radiated energy from the Earth's surface and the sun provide that light, and there's not enough CO2 in the entire earth to "saturate" that band. This is nonsense.
5) CO² is not a harmful gas to humans, even though it has been declared a pollutant. It is a vital fertilizer to plant life. To be harmful to humans the concentration would need to be 6,000 parts per
million. We are at 380 PPM at present. The average CO² concentration
in submarines is 4,000 PPM and this does not make the submariners
sick.
What does a submarine have to do with the earth's atmosphere. We're not talking about toxicity. We're talking about energy absorption and retention, something completely different from toxicity. Plants need it, yes, but they evolved to use CO2 in concentrations of around 200 to 300 ppmv, not 400+ ppmv. At too high a temperature, plants start to release CO2, not absorb it.
Toxicity of CO2 from: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11170&page=47
6) Remember that greenhouse gasses act by absorbing heat, then reradiating it back to earth. The greenhouse alarmists have developed a computer model that predicts, due to the action of gasses, there
will be a “hot spot” in the atmosphere at a height of 12 kilometers.
Actual balloon measurements show no such “hot spot.” This and other
alarmist models have proven to be wrong and erratic.
He's talking about the tropopause. This report: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1087910 , of which most of you will only be able to see the abstract, shows that he's wrong. There has been an increase of 0.22 to 0.26 degrees C per ten years, consistent with climate models.
7) If we can’t predict next week’s weather, how=2 0can we predict the climate years in the future?
Weather and climate are very different. We cannot predict what any one person will do at a rock concert (go to the bathroom, watch the show, make out with a stranger), but we can predict that the crowd will be watching the show.
8) Polar ice melts and refreezes on a regular cycle with the low point occurring in September in the Northern Hemisphere and March in the Southern Hemisphere. All the melting reported by alarmists in the
Northern Hemisphere in September will be restored in March, year after
year!
Umm. No. The thickness and coverage of the arctic ice has decreased dramatically over time, even during its annual maximum extent. Yes, it melts and refreezes, but each time it refreezes, there's less and less, with a linear trend of -8.7% per decade. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/
Polar bear populations rebounded after restrictions on hunting. This has nothing to do with global warming. The loss of their habitat does.
10) Melting floating sea ice causes sea level to decrease, not increase. Try this: Fill a glass with ice then add water to the rim. When the ice melts, the water level in the glass drops!
Try this: Freeze pure water. Put those ice cubes in a glass of salt water. Measure the level of the water. Let the pure ice melt. The level of the water will be higher. Salt does not stay in sea water as it freezes.
http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html
Next, try this: Put a bowl of salt water in your sink, measure the height of the water. Put ice cubes on a dish rack drainer so that it drains into the bowl of water. Let the ice cubes melt. Watch the water level in the bowl increase. This is what is happening when glaciers and antarctic ice melts. They're on land, not in the sea.
11) If the water level were rising, the angular velocity of the earth would decrease, like a spinning skater who extends her arms. This velocity can be measured precisely and is not changing!
The angular velocity of the Earth HAS decreased: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4530/287 , and the observed melting ice accounts for about 3/4 of the reduction in the angular velocity since 1940.
12) Al Gore tells us that arctic ice cores show that heating occurs after CO² increases. In fact the opposite is true. Ice cores clearly show that temperature decreases are followed by CO² increases and this has happened for hundreds of thousands of years, even without SUVs and
smoke stacks.
This is untrue.
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/historical-trends-in-carbon-dioxide-concentrations-and-temperature-on-a-geological-and-recent-time-scale
14) The cooling scare in the 1970s, reported by the media as the Coming ice age,” came during a sunspot dip.
There was no cooling scare. There was a single paper about a possibility of cooling, the media (and recent head-in-the-sand deniers) took up the rest. The greenhouse gas problem has been known since at least 1859.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Sunspot activity is on an ~11 year cycle. We do not see a 11 year cycle in the warming and cooling of the Earth. We see an exponential trend toward higher temperatures. We're in the middle of another solar minimum right now, during which we've experienced the highest globally averaged temperatures on historical record.
15) Sunspots set up an ionized layer around the planet which blocks
incoming cosmic radiation.
Umm... Not really. Increased sunspot activity is also often accompanied by increases in outflow of matter from the sun (an increase in the solar wind). Charged particles in the solar wind
affect the upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) and mess up communications. Sometimes, the atmosphere is warmed by these interactions and becomes slightly larger, which also affects communications satellites.
16) Cosmic rays cause cloud formation which in turn cools the earth. So, few sunspots — cooler earth. More sunspots — warmer earth.
There is no correlation between cosmic ray activity and cloud formation. There is no evidence that cosmic ray activity has decreased over the last few decades.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001JD000560.shtml
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm
17) We are in an historic sunspot low. That’s why winters are colder
and longer.
Winters are NOT longer, nor are they colder. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
Go to the Seasonal Mean Temperature Change most of the way down the page.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.E.lrg.gif
The same trend seen in global average temperatures is seen in winter temperatures. Temperatures are increasing.
18) If sunspot cycle 24 does not start soon in earnest, blow more insulation in your attics! It is also clear that in periods of high sunspot activity, the climate is warmer.
Except the trend for higher temperatures matches a trend for LOWER sunspot activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
I find it interesting that they started this with denying that there is any warming. Then they moved to arguing that CO2 can't be the cause for the warming we see, then they started arguing that the warming we do see is natural, then they began making up stuff. And they end with conspiracy theories.
Anthropogenic climate change is real. It's happening now, and if we don't stop it, it's going to cause some serious problems for our children and their children.
The rest is just scare tactics. "They're going to eat your babies and
euthanize your grandmother. And also take away your Lincoln
Navigator."
One more thing, though. Stopping the emission of greenhouse gases is actually pretty darn cheap. Especially if you consider the easiest thing to do is not use as much energy.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/economicanalyses.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/316/5828/1181
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=2
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/the-textbook-economics-of-cap-and-trade/
http://blogs.edf.org/innovation/2009/09/24/giving-a-green-light-to-greenhouse-gas-savings/
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/18/cbo-debunks-beck/
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1243120
http://www.atypon-link.com/AEAP/doi/abs/10.1257/aer.98.2.1 (PDF)
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=361
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=1
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/17/cbs-twitternomics-flat-wrong/
There is no debate among scientists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The physics and chemistry is well understood. The models are not perfect but every single one, all independent, agree to within a few per cent. The physics of CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorbing re-radiated energy from the ground is well understood. The feedback mechanisms (glacial melting, permafrost release of CO2, etc.) are not as well understood, but we've consistently been predicting slower than-reality-feedbacks.
Their first claimed "PhD" on the list is someone who believes in Intelligent Design; these people are not scientists and do not understand science.
The earth's climate is changing faster than it ever has before and it is due to humans. If we don't get our heads out of the sand, all of us are going to be irrelevant. I didn't know that I should even bother refuting the points, as they've been refuted time and time again. But, I will because I assume nobody who reads this is completely lost to reality.
1) The average temperature of our earth has been unchanged for the last 10 years, and in fact is now trending downward.
Not true. http://earthobservatory.nasa.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/
2) CO² is only 3.6 percent of the total greenhouse gasses, when water vapor, the largest greenhouse gas is included. Only ..117 percent of this CO² is manmade. This small amount of CO² makes little difference in our global temperature.
Currently, CO2 concentration is 384 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That's 35% (100 ppmv) higher than it was in 1832. Most of the increase is due to the industrial revolution and modern-day use of fossil fuels--humans. I don't know what "..117 percent" means. I assume they mean one of 0.117%, 1.17%, or 11.7%, none of which are true. During the Cretaceous (146 to 65 million years ago), the average CO2 concentration was 340 ppmv. That's less than what it is
now, but the average temperature was about 5 degrees C higher than it is now. Why? The difference is that the cretaceous had 10 million years or so for CO2 to stabilize at 340 ppmv and begin decreasing, and for temperatures to increase. We've had since 1832 for the CO2 concentration to increase 100 ppmv. The temperatures have not yet begun to increase significantly.
The Earth is not going to melt because of our activities, but things are going to change, and the rate at which natural systems will have to evolve is increasing and those systems are falling behind. For an example, see here:
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.
CO2 concentration absolutely makes a difference in global temperature. The physics of how it works is relatively simple, and the Venusian atmosphere is a perfect example of a runaway greenhouse atmosphere. Water vapor, methane, ozone, and a few others are also significant
greenhouse gases. Water vapor and methane are actually stronger greenhouse gases than CO2. If it weren't for these greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the earth would be about -18 degrees C (0 F). Because of greenhouse gases, the average temperature is 15C. However, in the past 200 years, we've warmed approximately 2 degrees C
3) In fact the earth has only warmed 1/10th of a degree due to CO² since the industrial revolution, and has=2 0warmed only one (1) degree in the last 150 years from all causes.
The average temperature from 1906 to 2005 has increased by 0.74 degrees C. The rate of warming over the last 50 years of that period was almost double the rate for the whole period.
Here are some things that happen at ~2 degrees C warming:
- Weather patterns worldwide will change (unpredictably, and happening now)
- Fresh water will be lost for ~1/3 of the world's land surface (aquifer
- levels in US southwest, Saudi Arabia, China are crashing right now)
- Permanent droughts in the US southwest, Australia, and Africa (happening now)
- Sea levels will rise 1.2 meters or so (some due to temperature
- increase of the oceans, and a lot due to melting ice; sea levels have already risen.)
- Wheat, corn, rice yields are dropping by about 10% (global food reserve was at less than 62 days and declining in 2008)
Back to answering these points:
4) The primary reason that CO² is ineffective in warming our earth is because the CO² absorption band in the atmosphere is almost saturated, so adding more CO² has little effect.
This makes no sense. The CO2 absorption band cannot BE "saturated". It's just a frequency of light that CO2 absorbs. The re-radiated energy from the Earth's surface and the sun provide that light, and there's not enough CO2 in the entire earth to "saturate" that band. This is nonsense.
5) CO² is not a harmful gas to humans, even though it has been declared a pollutant. It is a vital fertilizer to plant life. To be harmful to humans the concentration would need to be 6,000 parts per
million. We are at 380 PPM at present. The average CO² concentration
in submarines is 4,000 PPM and this does not make the submariners
sick.
What does a submarine have to do with the earth's atmosphere. We're not talking about toxicity. We're talking about energy absorption and retention, something completely different from toxicity. Plants need it, yes, but they evolved to use CO2 in concentrations of around 200 to 300 ppmv, not 400+ ppmv. At too high a temperature, plants start to release CO2, not absorb it.
Toxicity of CO2 from: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.
CO2 is a simple asphyxiant and lethal asphyxiations have been reported at concentrations as low as 110,000 ppm (Hamilton and Hardy 1974). Loss of consciousness can occur within a minute of exposure at 300,000 ppm and within 5-10 minutes (min) of exposure at 100,000 ppm (HSDB 2004). The effects of concentrations of CO2 between 7,000 and 300,000 ppm in humans and animals are discussed below and include tremor, headaches, chest pain, respiratory and cardiovascular effects, and visual and other central nervous system (CNS) effects.
6) Remember that greenhouse gasses act by absorbing heat, then reradiating it back to earth. The greenhouse alarmists have developed a computer model that predicts, due to the action of gasses, there
will be a “hot spot” in the atmosphere at a height of 12 kilometers.
Actual balloon measurements show no such “hot spot.” This and other
alarmist models have proven to be wrong and erratic.
He's talking about the tropopause. This report: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/
7) If we can’t predict next week’s weather, how=2 0can we predict the climate years in the future?
Weather and climate are very different. We cannot predict what any one person will do at a rock concert (go to the bathroom, watch the show, make out with a stranger), but we can predict that the crowd will be watching the show.
8) Polar ice melts and refreezes on a regular cycle with the low point occurring in September in the Northern Hemisphere and March in the Southern Hemisphere. All the melting reported by alarmists in the
Northern Hemisphere in September will be restored in March, year after
year!
Umm. No. The thickness and coverage of the arctic ice has decreased dramatically over time, even during its annual maximum extent. Yes, it melts and refreezes, but each time it refreezes, there's less and less, with a linear trend of -8.7% per decade. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_
9) Polar bear populations are now four times greater than 50 years ago, even though they are declared an endangered species.
Polar bear populations rebounded after restrictions on hunting. This has nothing to do with global warming. The loss of their habitat does.
10) Melting floating sea ice causes sea level to decrease, not increase. Try this: Fill a glass with ice then add water to the rim. When the ice melts, the water level in the glass drops!
Try this: Freeze pure water. Put those ice cubes in a glass of salt water. Measure the level of the water. Let the pure ice melt. The level of the water will be higher. Salt does not stay in sea water as it freezes.
http://www.physorg.com/
Next, try this: Put a bowl of salt water in your sink, measure the height of the water. Put ice cubes on a dish rack drainer so that it drains into the bowl of water. Let the ice cubes melt. Watch the water level in the bowl increase. This is what is happening when glaciers and antarctic ice melts. They're on land, not in the sea.
11) If the water level were rising, the angular velocity of the earth would decrease, like a spinning skater who extends her arms. This velocity can be measured precisely and is not changing!
The angular velocity of the Earth HAS decreased: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/
12) Al Gore tells us that arctic ice cores show that heating occurs after CO² increases. In fact the opposite is true. Ice cores clearly show that temperature decreases are followed by CO² increases and this has happened for hundreds of thousands of years, even without SUVs and
smoke stacks.
This is untrue.
http://maps.grida.no/go/
13) Historically, whenever we have a sunspot low we also have a lower temperature. The Little Ice Age in 1600 coincides with a 60 year sunspot low called the Maunder Minimum.
14) The cooling scare in the 1970s, reported by the media as the Coming ice age,” came during a sunspot dip.
There was no cooling scare. There was a single paper about a possibility of cooling, the media (and recent head-in-the-sand deniers) took up the rest. The greenhouse gas problem has been known since at least 1859.
http://www.aip.org/history/
Sunspot activity is on an ~11 year cycle. We do not see a 11 year cycle in the warming and cooling of the Earth. We see an exponential trend toward higher temperatures. We're in the middle of another solar minimum right now, during which we've experienced the highest globally averaged temperatures on historical record.
15) Sunspots set up an ionized layer around the planet which blocks
incoming cosmic radiation.
Umm... Not really. Increased sunspot activity is also often accompanied by increases in outflow of matter from the sun (an increase in the solar wind). Charged particles in the solar wind
affect the upper atmosphere (the ionosphere) and mess up communications. Sometimes, the atmosphere is warmed by these interactions and becomes slightly larger, which also affects communications satellites.
16) Cosmic rays cause cloud formation which in turn cools the earth. So, few sunspots — cooler earth. More sunspots — warmer earth.
There is no correlation between cosmic ray activity and cloud formation. There is no evidence that cosmic ray activity has decreased over the last few decades.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
17) We are in an historic sunspot low. That’s why winters are colder
and longer.
Winters are NOT longer, nor are they colder. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
Go to the Seasonal Mean Temperature Change most of the way down the page.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
The same trend seen in global average temperatures is seen in winter temperatures. Temperatures are increasing.
18) If sunspot cycle 24 does not start soon in earnest, blow more insulation in your attics! It is also clear that in periods of high sunspot activity, the climate is warmer.
Except the trend for higher temperatures matches a trend for LOWER sunspot activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I find it interesting that they started this with denying that there is any warming. Then they moved to arguing that CO2 can't be the cause for the warming we see, then they started arguing that the warming we do see is natural, then they began making up stuff. And they end with conspiracy theories.
Anthropogenic climate change is real. It's happening now, and if we don't stop it, it's going to cause some serious problems for our children and their children.
The rest is just scare tactics. "They're going to eat your babies and
euthanize your grandmother. And also take away your Lincoln
Navigator."
One more thing, though. Stopping the emission of greenhouse gases is actually pretty darn cheap. Especially if you consider the easiest thing to do is not use as much energy.
http://www.epa.gov/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.
http://blogs.edf.org/
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/
http://www.atypon-link.com/
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=361
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.
Global warming: Analyze the facts
By GUNNAR C. CARLSON JR.
Colonel, U.S. Army, Retired
With all the debate about Global Warming and Cap and Trade, I think a close examination of the facts is appropriate and badly needed.
The average temperature of our earth has been unchanged for the last 10 years, and in fact is now trending downward. CO² is only 3.6 percent of the total greenhouse gasses, when water vapor, the largest greenhouse gas is included. Only ..117 percent of this CO² is manmade. This small amount of CO² makes little difference in our global temperature. In fact the earth has only warmed 1/10th of a degree due to CO² since the industrial revolution, and has=2 0warmed only one (1) degree in the last 150 years from all causes.
The primary reason that CO² is ineffective in warming our earth is because the CO² absorption band in the atmosphere is almost saturated, so adding more CO² has little effect. CO² is not a harmful gas to humans, even though it has been declared a pollutant. It is a vital fertilizer to plant life. To be harmful to humans the concentration would need to be 6,000 parts per million. We are at 380 PPM at present. The average CO² concentration in submarines is 4,000 PPM and this does not make the submariners sick.
Remember that greenhouse gasses act by absorbing heat, then reradiating it back to earth. The greenhouse alarmists have developed a computer model that predicts, due to the action of gasses, there will be a “hot spot” in the atmosphere at a height of 12 kilometers. Actual balloon measurements show no such “hot spot.” This and other alarmist models have proven to be wrong and erratic. If we can’t predict next week’s weather, how=2 0can we predict the climate years in the future?
Polar ice melts and refreezes on a regular cycle with the low point occurring in September in the Northern Hemisphere and March in the Southern Hemisphere. All the melting reported by alarmists in the Northern Hemisphere in September will be restored in March, year after year! Polar bear populations are now four times greater than 50 years ago, even though they are declared an endangered species.
Melting floating sea ice causes sea level to decrease, not increase. Try this: Fill a glass with ice then add water to the rim. When the ice melts, the water level in the glass drops! If the water level were rising, the angular velocity of the earth would decrease, like a spinning skater who extends her arms. This velocity can be measured precisely and is not changing!
Al Gore tells us that arctic ice cores show that heating occurs after CO² increases. In fact the opposite is true. Ice cores clearly show that temperature decreases are followed by CO² increases and this has happened for hundreds of thousands of years, even without SUVs and smoke stacks.
Historically, whenever we have a sunspot low we also have a lower temperature. The Little Ice Age in 1600 coincides with a 60 year sunspot low called the Maunder Minimum. The cooling scare in the 1970s, reported by the media as the “Coming ice age,” came during a sunspot dip. But why?
Sunspots set up an ionized layer around the planet which blocks incoming cosmic radiation. Cosmic rays cause cloud formation which in turn cools the earth. So, few sunspots — cooler earth. More sunspots — warmer earth. We are in an historic sunspot low. That’s why winters are colder and longer. If sunspot cycle 24 does not start soon in earnest, blow more insulation in your attics! It is also clear that in periods of high sunspot activity, the climate is warmer.
31,000 physical scientists have signed a petition denying any manmade effects on our climate. These are people having no government grants or tenure, so they won’t lose their jobs.
Why would anyone want to convince us that we are causing climate change? This is so they can control:
— What you can eat
— What you can smoke
— What kind of car you can drive
— How much you can drive
— The temperature of your home
— What we can manufacture
— Your power sources
— How many cows you can own
— What light bulb you can use
— What appliances you can use
— Your hot water use
— Your air travel
— Your type of house
— Carbon tax
— Carbon credits
All these things amount to billions of dollars in profit. Follow the money!
$79 billion, and billions of hours of labor and effort have been squandered so far in the USA. The Carbon Market cost will be $2-$10 trillion in the near future if “Cap and Trade” becomes law.
This money and=2 0effort could be used for:
— Reducing real pollutants
— Fighting poverty
— Treating aids and malaria
— Providing adequate drinking water and medical treatment
Public policy which attempts to correct this nonexistent problem could literally cause millions of people to di e.
Considering all of the above, it is clear that climate is changed by nature and not man.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Pride
Tonight, at bedtime, after all the fuss and all the wringing of hands and stomping of feet, I experienced the proudest moment, to-date, of my fatherhood.
My son (six and 3/4 years old) was finally in bed when he called his mom for something and since I was there I opened the door. He wanted one of his pillows, which was down stairs.
He was sitting on his bed, next to the window, with the blinds open, in the fading light, marking his place in the Harry Potter 1 book, and wanted the pillow to prop himself up just a bit more so he could read until the light had died completely.
I learned to read before we had any electricity at home and put myself to bed reading with a kerosene lantern (or a dieing flashlight when everyone else wanted to sleep) and have the sharpest vision (20/15 on the Snellen scale) of anyone I know. Yes, I know that a "statistic" of one is completely unscientific, but I have no concerns for his eyesight.
I gave up on the HP books after the third one because the story was boring and repetitive. I hear that it gets better later, but...meh. I have so many other things to read and I'm just not that interested. However, just about anything dear son wants to read is fine with me. He wants to read HP1, he reads HP1. He wants to read it in the faintest light, he reads it in the faintest light.
My son (six and 3/4 years old) was finally in bed when he called his mom for something and since I was there I opened the door. He wanted one of his pillows, which was down stairs.
He was sitting on his bed, next to the window, with the blinds open, in the fading light, marking his place in the Harry Potter 1 book, and wanted the pillow to prop himself up just a bit more so he could read until the light had died completely.
I learned to read before we had any electricity at home and put myself to bed reading with a kerosene lantern (or a dieing flashlight when everyone else wanted to sleep) and have the sharpest vision (20/15 on the Snellen scale) of anyone I know. Yes, I know that a "statistic" of one is completely unscientific, but I have no concerns for his eyesight.
I gave up on the HP books after the third one because the story was boring and repetitive. I hear that it gets better later, but...meh. I have so many other things to read and I'm just not that interested. However, just about anything dear son wants to read is fine with me. He wants to read HP1, he reads HP1. He wants to read it in the faintest light, he reads it in the faintest light.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Travel to Australia
This is not a science post. I am decompressing figuratively and literally (my spine is probably several millimeters shorter than before my over-seas trip). Right now, it's a complaint post. Perhaps in a few paragraphs it'll become better. Certainly in a few days I'll post something worth reading, with pictures.
Let me preface these whines by saying that I had an absolutely wonderful time.
I've been awake going on 28 hours with only a few hours sleep before then. I have done longer stretches of wakefulness, often enjoying them, but those 28 hours were not doing something enjoyable, they were spent stuck in a box with... well, read the rest. I really did have a great time. I just like to whine first then talk about the fun stuff later.
1) people who wear perfume suck more than people who smoke, and in my book smokers are the ultimate in antisocial. Why? Because:
A) It isn't killing them, so they'll continue to do it until they're dead, and they'll wear more and more as the years drag on.
B) It is legal in airplanes, restaurants, etc.
C) It stinks as much as and sometime more than cigarette smoke.
D) Petuli wearers: I'm a self-described hippy, but I could easily convince myself that the life-sentence would be worth washing that stench from your body with nitric acid followed by a copper bath (google it). Especially when that crap is worn inside a closed space, and especially after being awake for more than an entire day. You stink. A lot.
E) Perfume DOES NOT EVER smell good or attractive or sexy or any other such crap. Just disgusting. And the same goes for the perfume men wear. They all smell like a chemical factory, not a human being.
F) Those of us who are allergic don't get relief except through a drug like benadryl.
2) Airport Customs hallways must be designed for bleakness. If you have never seen the movie Joe Vs. The Volcano, go see it. Think of the opening office scene(s), but magnified in bleakness and then compressed into tighter, more airless hallways. I have yet to encounter a pleasant customs area. "Welcome to our Wonderful Country. DO NOT ENJOY IT. Also, Do not bring in nuts; we hate nuts." And there are always perfume wearers.
3) Airplane seats that are leather or faux leather or fake leather or nagahide are not plush, they're not high society, they're not chic, they're not special, they're just uncomfortable. I slip, I slide, and I cannot find a comfortable position. I refuse to lean my seat back if someone is behind me because I always feel like applying the nitric acid-copper bath (see above) to people who do it to me.
4) Americans cannot make a salad. The worst purchased salad I had in Australia was leagues above the best salad I've purchased in the USA. Seriously. Well, okay, that's not entirely true, but it is certainly true that the worst Aussie salad (being just "rocket" and tomatoes) was much, much, much better than the shit people call salad at most take-outs and many sit-down restaurants here in the US. Iceberg? Doesn't exist in the rest of the world. We apparently invented that to complete our descent into tastelessness.
5) Traveling with a young child and not losing it (the mind or the child) is amazingly difficult. I've done it domestically a lot, but I truly feel for those fools who go overseas with more than one. Seriously, how in the world can you keep track of more than one? Maybe that's the trick: if you bring more than one, you can afford to lose one or two.... Hmmm...
6) People in other countries are much nicer to travelers than are people in the US. I have heard of the southern hospitality but haven't actually experienced it when I've traveled to that side of my country. In Aus, people were either genuinely happy to have you staying/eating/visiting/whatevering with them or they were the best actors I've ever seen. The same goes for Switzerland. I'm willing to bet that I've just been lucky, but I'm a pessimist.
7) Big cities are pretty much all alike. There are a few places worth visiting, those places usually charge some sort of entrance fee, and the locals don't want the tourists to find out about their favorites, which are free. The public transportation system always has its own convoluted logic but usually works once it is understood. Finally, the very best places to go are out of the city, but they're a pain to get to from the city. Don't get me wrong, Sydney has some very interesting sites to visit, but next time we're going to the small towns or where there are no towns at all.
8) Skivvy dipping in the Tasman Sea in the middle of southern winter is quite an experience. It's cold out there.
View Larger Map
9) Seeing little penguins coming out of the Tasman sea onto the beach at night to nest is pretty cool.
10) Platypus(es) are smaller than I thought they would be, but they're pretty cool to see.
11) Oh, right, I'm supposed to be whinging.
12) Tasmanian locals are insane drivers. First of all, I am certain that there is not a straight 10 km stretch of road anywhere in Tasmania. Their "highways" are two-direction country roads without shoulders to us. They have maximum speeds of 100 km/hr (62 mph), which I usually stayed well under by at least 20%. The locals drove faster by at least 20%. They also don't know which side of the road they're supposed to on. Seriously. I only had one or two times in parking lots where I found I was on the wrong side of the road (because there weren't any stripes so I couldn't keep a stripe to my left), but on the main roads, I would have locals come around a corner entirely in my lane, take their sweet time (at 120 km/hr; ~75 mph) getting back into their lane, and look at me like I was at fault. Also, they pass on wet, blind turns.
13) In the southern hemisphere, the sun is always in the wrong place. I knew this would be the case, but it still screwed me up. Orienteering or rogaining in winter down there would be a nightmare for me. I really, really, need to get a good compass if I plan to go back for some hiking.
That's all for now. I'm home. I'm glad I went, and I'm glad to be home.
Let me preface these whines by saying that I had an absolutely wonderful time.
I've been awake going on 28 hours with only a few hours sleep before then. I have done longer stretches of wakefulness, often enjoying them, but those 28 hours were not doing something enjoyable, they were spent stuck in a box with... well, read the rest. I really did have a great time. I just like to whine first then talk about the fun stuff later.
1) people who wear perfume suck more than people who smoke, and in my book smokers are the ultimate in antisocial. Why? Because:
A) It isn't killing them, so they'll continue to do it until they're dead, and they'll wear more and more as the years drag on.
B) It is legal in airplanes, restaurants, etc.
C) It stinks as much as and sometime more than cigarette smoke.
D) Petuli wearers: I'm a self-described hippy, but I could easily convince myself that the life-sentence would be worth washing that stench from your body with nitric acid followed by a copper bath (google it). Especially when that crap is worn inside a closed space, and especially after being awake for more than an entire day. You stink. A lot.
E) Perfume DOES NOT EVER smell good or attractive or sexy or any other such crap. Just disgusting. And the same goes for the perfume men wear. They all smell like a chemical factory, not a human being.
F) Those of us who are allergic don't get relief except through a drug like benadryl.
2) Airport Customs hallways must be designed for bleakness. If you have never seen the movie Joe Vs. The Volcano, go see it. Think of the opening office scene(s), but magnified in bleakness and then compressed into tighter, more airless hallways. I have yet to encounter a pleasant customs area. "Welcome to our Wonderful Country. DO NOT ENJOY IT. Also, Do not bring in nuts; we hate nuts." And there are always perfume wearers.
3) Airplane seats that are leather or faux leather or fake leather or nagahide are not plush, they're not high society, they're not chic, they're not special, they're just uncomfortable. I slip, I slide, and I cannot find a comfortable position. I refuse to lean my seat back if someone is behind me because I always feel like applying the nitric acid-copper bath (see above) to people who do it to me.
4) Americans cannot make a salad. The worst purchased salad I had in Australia was leagues above the best salad I've purchased in the USA. Seriously. Well, okay, that's not entirely true, but it is certainly true that the worst Aussie salad (being just "rocket" and tomatoes) was much, much, much better than the shit people call salad at most take-outs and many sit-down restaurants here in the US. Iceberg? Doesn't exist in the rest of the world. We apparently invented that to complete our descent into tastelessness.
5) Traveling with a young child and not losing it (the mind or the child) is amazingly difficult. I've done it domestically a lot, but I truly feel for those fools who go overseas with more than one. Seriously, how in the world can you keep track of more than one? Maybe that's the trick: if you bring more than one, you can afford to lose one or two.... Hmmm...
6) People in other countries are much nicer to travelers than are people in the US. I have heard of the southern hospitality but haven't actually experienced it when I've traveled to that side of my country. In Aus, people were either genuinely happy to have you staying/eating/visiting/whatevering with them or they were the best actors I've ever seen. The same goes for Switzerland. I'm willing to bet that I've just been lucky, but I'm a pessimist.
7) Big cities are pretty much all alike. There are a few places worth visiting, those places usually charge some sort of entrance fee, and the locals don't want the tourists to find out about their favorites, which are free. The public transportation system always has its own convoluted logic but usually works once it is understood. Finally, the very best places to go are out of the city, but they're a pain to get to from the city. Don't get me wrong, Sydney has some very interesting sites to visit, but next time we're going to the small towns or where there are no towns at all.
8) Skivvy dipping in the Tasman Sea in the middle of southern winter is quite an experience. It's cold out there.
View Larger Map
9) Seeing little penguins coming out of the Tasman sea onto the beach at night to nest is pretty cool.
10) Platypus(es) are smaller than I thought they would be, but they're pretty cool to see.
11) Oh, right, I'm supposed to be whinging.
12) Tasmanian locals are insane drivers. First of all, I am certain that there is not a straight 10 km stretch of road anywhere in Tasmania. Their "highways" are two-direction country roads without shoulders to us. They have maximum speeds of 100 km/hr (62 mph), which I usually stayed well under by at least 20%. The locals drove faster by at least 20%. They also don't know which side of the road they're supposed to on. Seriously. I only had one or two times in parking lots where I found I was on the wrong side of the road (because there weren't any stripes so I couldn't keep a stripe to my left), but on the main roads, I would have locals come around a corner entirely in my lane, take their sweet time (at 120 km/hr; ~75 mph) getting back into their lane, and look at me like I was at fault. Also, they pass on wet, blind turns.
13) In the southern hemisphere, the sun is always in the wrong place. I knew this would be the case, but it still screwed me up. Orienteering or rogaining in winter down there would be a nightmare for me. I really, really, need to get a good compass if I plan to go back for some hiking.
That's all for now. I'm home. I'm glad I went, and I'm glad to be home.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
