CO2 will kill the oceans!

Reading some of the blogs and discussions re global warming one “learns” that the real danger is that CO2 will kill the oceans, thus killing us all. So claim many who want you to think they’re in the know.

Funny how all of these experts can’t google. My understanding, although I’m just a layman, is that in ages past the CO2 level was far higher than today, and there were in fact living creatures. And in the ocean no less. e.g. In less than 10 minutes one can locate cool stuff like this —

phanerozoic carbon dioxide

… which is a graphic proving the point.

So…. where were we again?

12 amps is better than 8, right?

Ever shop for a vacuum cleaner?

Three observations:

1. The advertising of 12 amps… what does that mean? Obviously they’re trying to imply that a 12 amp vacuum is better than an 8 amp model. But… is it? Seems to me the relevant measurement is the amount of suction available over how much surface area. Amps is merely how much current the motor draws. For all I know the impeller or whatever they’re using for the generation of vacuum is so poorly made that it takes 7 amps and assistance from your pet ferret to make it even go around. I’ll bet that if the relevant measurement was published, we’d all be surprised.

2. We’re all into energy conservation. Some of us because we’re green. Me, because I can’t see paying $2/month to run a vacuum if the $1/month model does the same job. I’m cheap. I’d rather have a super high efficiency 5 amp model that will last than the highly touted 12 amp model. I still can’t figure out how it is that in today’s tech age they can still advertise amperage. Good heavens.

3. Don’t even think of buying a modern cleaner that uses a bag. You can’t find them. At least I can’t. They’re all the newer fancier bagless models. I’m going to bet that sooner or later some enviro-type will determine that bagless vacs are all inefficient as hell and that it’s *my* fault for greedily supporting the BigEvilPowerWasters… no different than being blamed for the inefficiencies of SUV’s because you are limited to buying what’s being sold. I sure scratch my head at the contention that we consumers “ask for” or “demand” things (like bagless vacuum cleaners) when the truth is that I like my elderly vacuum cleaner — bags are easy to dispose and keep clean, whereas bagless units are filthy — and I can’t find one that isn’t bagless. Sigh.

Computer Models

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right? Since Mr. Gore and others of his belief claim the seas will rise by 20 feet within a hundred years, this seems like an extraordinary claim. It seems that since the climatologists think they know what needs to be known about the climate of the recent past via ice cores and tree rings and such, the much touted computer models used to predict imminent doom ought to be put to the test.

Specifically, gather up the already known and proven data of 50 years prior to the Medieval Warming Period, which was warmer than now, back when the Vikings had vineyards growing in Greenland. Then, feed this to the model, and have the model simulate the next 100 years. If it works the MWP warming ought to show up; it proves the model. One would think that if the model can predict the future then the way you prove it is to have it “predict” the past.

That would be extraordinary proof. It would immediately silence all dissent. This hasn’t been done. This tells me that the models don’t work. None of them.

Evil Corporations

One of the recurring themes in the various blog (e.g.) discussions surrounding global warming is the accusation that Evil Corporations are funding skeptical studies and “funding disinformation.” I have two observations regarding this, and as far as I’m concerned, these observations nullify said accusations.

First, “Big Oil” funds a *lot* of geological studies and university earth sciences departments. I can’t say I recall hearing the accusation that the science is tainted. Thus it strikes me that the “tainted science” accusation is specious; were it real, all science studies receiving corporate funding or backing would be suspect, and at least some of these would show some sort of pattern. But this is not the case. Hence the accusation is merely that — an accusation — and those leveling it are relying on a certain emotional appeal.

Second, this emotional appeal is designed to trigger a response to the sympathetic ear, that is, to people who believe that corporations are evil (or dishonest, etc.) to start with. That would be the more socialist leaning types. It’s odd that the supporters on the Anthropogenic GW bandwagon tend to be left leaning, whereas the skeptical crowd tends to be on the right. Fervent left leaning types claim that this is due to the right being anti-science due to equating the republican party with fundamentalist christian sects (hence the claim from many lefties that they’re scientific and intellectual and so on.) The possibility that they’re having innate anti-corporate feelings exploited seems to not occur to them. The irony is amusing.

Fermi Paradox

OK, so I have the answer, and it’s simpler than you think.

The Fermi Paradox is Dr. Enrico Fermi’s 1950 rejoinder to the contention that using a little math one can calculate a million or more alien civilisations in the galaxy: “so, where are they?” The idea is that if there are that many then surely if they’re not here then we’d be able to detect at least ONE. And yet… we haven’t done so.

And nor will we. The proponents of this thinking make assumptions. Drake is the guy who formalized the equation for calculating the count of alien civillisations. Kardaschev postulated type I thru IV based on how much energy they require to exist; his scale says that a civilisation has to be close to the point of eating every watt of energy output from the host star before it goes interstellar. Look up Fermi Paradox on wiki and you’ll see a boatload of arguments based on resources, like eco disaster, pollution, squandering all of the native fossil fuels, etc. All of the arguments for and against are based on the assumption that civilisations need raw materials (resources.) These assumptions are probably wrong.

Here’s why. In the 1980’s IBM made news by making an IBM logo on an IC chip. It was atomic. Individual atoms were moved into place. Not too long ago there was a science news article regarding manipulation of atoms, and another was about techniques of forcing atoms to bond to desired targets by blowing off outer ring electrons. You see where this is going. It won’t be that long (25 years? A century? Two? Who knows?) before someone figures out how to marry computer software horsepower to atomic manipulation. Sure, it requires a bit more than we presently know. But this is something that will happen. The question is when.

What that means is that when the technology is mature, you can have a machine where you dump in dirt, leftovers, and used car parts… and out comes hamburger or a gold necklace or a better remote control than the one you lost last week. Atomic construction. Unless said construction requires the energy of the sun, that means the resource argument is moot. There would be no need for us to scour the asteroid belt for metals, mine lunar H3, and so on. In other words, resources themselves would be moot.

Now, where this thought meets Dr. Fermi, consider the assumption that galactic expansion is driven by the necessity of gaining increasingly more resources. Ummm, No. Liebensraum? Probably. Resources? No. My guess is that once a civilisation acquires this technology, it will take decreasing energy to make all the widgets and food desired — which is precisely the opposite of what Kardaschev postulates. And what energy *is* needed can probably be supplied by advanced energy technologies anyway (e.g. fusion.) There wouldn’t be a need to expand into the galaxy save for the sheer sense of adventure of doing so and of course to provide a place for the inevitable latter day equivalent of Mayflower pilgrims.

A new article from Russian scientists says that metallicity of the sun happened later than anyone thought, suggesting that the argument of “in 10 billion years we ought to have had a civilisation appear” is wrong as well; the time frame is considerably shorter. We may be the first or the only or among the first, and if *we* can figure out how to turn rocks and leaves into usable stuff and food, meaning *we* won’t need to colonize the galaxy for the resources, then this discovery is probably de riguer for all civilisations advanced enough to seriously consider colonisation as a viable option in the first place. Atomic manipulation pretty much trumps almost everything. We won’t go to alpha centauri unless we want to do so. Going beyond some reasonable limit, say 250 LY, is improbable.

In short, if they exist, they’re at home, or close to it.