Scott Pruitt--Hero in the War on Global Warming
Nov 1, 2017 18:43:11 GMT -8
Origanalist and willie with tan lines like this
Post by acptulsa on Nov 1, 2017 18:43:11 GMT -8
Back during the great push for ecological awareness of the late 1960s and early 1970s--the movement that led to the creation of the EPA--global warming was the furthest thing from people's minds. The big fearmongering threat of the day was global cooling, and the catchphrase of the day was 'a new ice age'. Take a book of essays one John Holdren of, naturally, the University of California, edited in 1971:
www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
On the one hand, this is amusing in the modern age because it runs 100% counter to the current Official Line coming unanimously out of all of the Approved Science Outlets. On the other hand, the fearmongering tone, and the obvious conclusion that we must let government micromismanage us 'for our own good', is absolutely identical to what we're hearing in the modern age. It's an interesting thing to observe--and the Government Supported Science Business clearly doesn't want us to observe it at all. It smacks of the days when Big Tobacco sponsored science which 'proved' that tobacco is good for people.
An even more revealing comparison is the question, 'is red meat good for people?' On the one hand, clearly fatty burgers fried on a well-seasoned griddle can lead to clogged arteries and all sorts of coronary hazards. On the other, a lean buffalo steak smoked over charcoal is clearly a far more benign--and more delicious--source of protein. In short, if you look past the simple yes-or-no question that the media inevitably tries to force the issue into being, you find the real answer--both those scientists back then and these scientists today were right. Neither was wrong at all. The answer could be--and indeed, the answer is--yes and no.
So, what about these conflicting reports on man-made climate change? Do our activities tend to warm the globe? Or are we heading for another Ice Age--one of our own creation? Again, trying to make a yes-or-no answer out of this may be a useful tool for those who are trying to help the powerful become more powerful. But the truth is yes and yes.
The boogeyman in the late 1960s had been the boogeyman for some centuries. London in the eighteenth century was not a healthy place. Unique weather events, not unlike the electrical dust storms of the Texas panhandle and western Oklahoma of the Dust Bowl 1930s, even came to pass. This was a direct effect of pollution, specifically particulate air pollution. Particulate pollution is not a good thing, exactly. Particulates can lead to ailments like emphysema in extreme cases. But, of course, a potential rise in emphysema was not what led to calls of a New Ice Age. Global cooling was said to be the inevitable result because particulates in the atmosphere block sunlight. This is a known and proven thing. When Krakatoa blew, it sent such a mass of particulate matter so high into the atmosphere that summer basically didn't happen in much of the world that year. Particulates high in the atmosphere does reflect sunlight--a source of considerable energy--back out into space.
The greenhouse effect is also real. And this makes the burning of coal an interesting conundrum. Normally, burning coal produces both carbon dioxide and particulate matter. More carbon dioxide does make the atmosphere retain more heat. Particulate matter blocks sunlight, so less heat energy gets in. So, does burning coal set us up for a rising temperature or a falling temperature?
Could the answer be, 'Yes?'
For the last fifty years, there has been a war against particulates in the atmosphere. Coal fuel is bad. Wildfires are bad. Using less coal and putting out more fires have been the order of the day. Indeed, there are probably fewer particulates from wildfires in the atmosphere today than at any point since the last real ice age, just because we keep putting them out. It's unnatural. If the globe really is warming, could it be the cause has less to do with humans releasing carbon in the form of carbon dioxide to power our 'civilization', and more to do with us squelching the natural release of particulate matter into the atmosphere by putting out those very wildfires which were once part of the natural order of things?
Regardless of that, the ongoing war on particulate matter in the atmosphere is depriving us of an obvious counter to the greenhouse effect. Block some of the sunlight entering the atmosphere, and there is less energy for the greenhouse to contain.
Now the question becomes one of balance. Can we balance the one effect against the other? It smacks of playing God. It also begs the question of what alternatives we might have. Are we going to stop powering our civilization and go back to the Middle Ages? Are we really going to abandon our trucks and trains for mules and oxen? Are we likely to go back to sailing our goods around the world on Clipper ships? What is the alternative? Well, the alternatives put forth so far tend to run toward splitting more atoms. This certainly smacks more of playing God than trying to find a balance between particulates and carbon dioxide. It also requires electricity storage in more vehicles and devices. Given the current state of battery development, this involves digging up more rare earth elements like lithium, which may ultimately prove as hard to safely dispose of as uranium. I'm can't say definitely which requires more God-like wisdom of us. But given the threat of having to dispose of excess carbon, which plants love to absorb, or having to dispose of more uranium and lithium, I definitely have a preference.
Governmental Hegel games of creating a problem to provoke a reaction so they can play God with their powermongering solution is irritating enough. But when they create problems with the planet by waging their war on even natural atmospheric particulates, that is just a bit much. Scott Pruitt, thank you for letting us burn at coal. It isn't a perfect solution. Arguably it isn't a solution at all. But if ever there was a lesser evil, coal fuel has got to be it.
www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=873
It seems, however, that a competing effect has dominated the situation since 1940. This is the reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about .2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by .8°C. We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants. A final push in the cooling direction comes from man-made changes in the direct reflectivity of the earth’s surface (albedo) through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts.
On the one hand, this is amusing in the modern age because it runs 100% counter to the current Official Line coming unanimously out of all of the Approved Science Outlets. On the other hand, the fearmongering tone, and the obvious conclusion that we must let government micromismanage us 'for our own good', is absolutely identical to what we're hearing in the modern age. It's an interesting thing to observe--and the Government Supported Science Business clearly doesn't want us to observe it at all. It smacks of the days when Big Tobacco sponsored science which 'proved' that tobacco is good for people.
An even more revealing comparison is the question, 'is red meat good for people?' On the one hand, clearly fatty burgers fried on a well-seasoned griddle can lead to clogged arteries and all sorts of coronary hazards. On the other, a lean buffalo steak smoked over charcoal is clearly a far more benign--and more delicious--source of protein. In short, if you look past the simple yes-or-no question that the media inevitably tries to force the issue into being, you find the real answer--both those scientists back then and these scientists today were right. Neither was wrong at all. The answer could be--and indeed, the answer is--yes and no.
So, what about these conflicting reports on man-made climate change? Do our activities tend to warm the globe? Or are we heading for another Ice Age--one of our own creation? Again, trying to make a yes-or-no answer out of this may be a useful tool for those who are trying to help the powerful become more powerful. But the truth is yes and yes.
The boogeyman in the late 1960s had been the boogeyman for some centuries. London in the eighteenth century was not a healthy place. Unique weather events, not unlike the electrical dust storms of the Texas panhandle and western Oklahoma of the Dust Bowl 1930s, even came to pass. This was a direct effect of pollution, specifically particulate air pollution. Particulate pollution is not a good thing, exactly. Particulates can lead to ailments like emphysema in extreme cases. But, of course, a potential rise in emphysema was not what led to calls of a New Ice Age. Global cooling was said to be the inevitable result because particulates in the atmosphere block sunlight. This is a known and proven thing. When Krakatoa blew, it sent such a mass of particulate matter so high into the atmosphere that summer basically didn't happen in much of the world that year. Particulates high in the atmosphere does reflect sunlight--a source of considerable energy--back out into space.
The greenhouse effect is also real. And this makes the burning of coal an interesting conundrum. Normally, burning coal produces both carbon dioxide and particulate matter. More carbon dioxide does make the atmosphere retain more heat. Particulate matter blocks sunlight, so less heat energy gets in. So, does burning coal set us up for a rising temperature or a falling temperature?
Could the answer be, 'Yes?'
For the last fifty years, there has been a war against particulates in the atmosphere. Coal fuel is bad. Wildfires are bad. Using less coal and putting out more fires have been the order of the day. Indeed, there are probably fewer particulates from wildfires in the atmosphere today than at any point since the last real ice age, just because we keep putting them out. It's unnatural. If the globe really is warming, could it be the cause has less to do with humans releasing carbon in the form of carbon dioxide to power our 'civilization', and more to do with us squelching the natural release of particulate matter into the atmosphere by putting out those very wildfires which were once part of the natural order of things?
Regardless of that, the ongoing war on particulate matter in the atmosphere is depriving us of an obvious counter to the greenhouse effect. Block some of the sunlight entering the atmosphere, and there is less energy for the greenhouse to contain.
Now the question becomes one of balance. Can we balance the one effect against the other? It smacks of playing God. It also begs the question of what alternatives we might have. Are we going to stop powering our civilization and go back to the Middle Ages? Are we really going to abandon our trucks and trains for mules and oxen? Are we likely to go back to sailing our goods around the world on Clipper ships? What is the alternative? Well, the alternatives put forth so far tend to run toward splitting more atoms. This certainly smacks more of playing God than trying to find a balance between particulates and carbon dioxide. It also requires electricity storage in more vehicles and devices. Given the current state of battery development, this involves digging up more rare earth elements like lithium, which may ultimately prove as hard to safely dispose of as uranium. I'm can't say definitely which requires more God-like wisdom of us. But given the threat of having to dispose of excess carbon, which plants love to absorb, or having to dispose of more uranium and lithium, I definitely have a preference.
Governmental Hegel games of creating a problem to provoke a reaction so they can play God with their powermongering solution is irritating enough. But when they create problems with the planet by waging their war on even natural atmospheric particulates, that is just a bit much. Scott Pruitt, thank you for letting us burn at coal. It isn't a perfect solution. Arguably it isn't a solution at all. But if ever there was a lesser evil, coal fuel has got to be it.