Guest Post by Thomas Fuller
It is not often that I get called a ‘denialist’ and a ‘troll’ for the dark forces of Al Gore on the same day, but it does happen.
It’s because I am a ‘lukewarmer,’ one who believes that the physics of climate change are not by theselves controversial, but who believes that the sensitivity of the earth’s atmosphere to a doubling of concentrations of CO2 is not yet known, but is likely to be lower than activists have claimed.
I suppose it should bother me that I am getting slammed at activist websites such as Only In It For the Gold, Deltoid and ThingsBreak because they think I don’t go far enough, and slammed again here and at The Air Vent because I go too far. Although I want to be liked as much as the next fellow, it doesn’t, because the reasons given for slamming me never seem to match up to the reality of what I write.
Critics here have focused on a lack of substance, so I’ll try and address that in this post. I’m a bit amused at one commenter who yesterday said I understood nothing of energy. (Shh! Don’t tell my clients–I just delivered a 400-page report on alternative energy, and they’ll be ticked off…)
And I’m equally amused that I have to acknowledge that Michael Tobis (at last) got one thing right in a comment yesterday, when he wrote that the real problem we face is coal–and Chinese coal at that. (More on that in a minute.)
The LukeWarmer’s Way
The operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is one of the least controversial ideas in physics. The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception.
We don’t know the sensitivity of the atmosphere to a doubling of CO2, so the effects of feedbacks are not know. Activists think it is 3 degrees or higher. Contrarians think it is very low–1, maybe 2, tops, some thinking it is even lower.
If activists are right we have a very big problem on our hands. If contrarians are right we don’t. If both are wrong, there is a lukewarmer’s way.
If you believe that about 2 degrees of warming is headed our way this century, it will be a problem–probably not for those reading this, because of our fortunate geography, but for those in the developing world, who will have to add droughts, floods and heatwaves to their current long list of miseries. And it’s not really the size of the temperature rise that worries me, although having a 2 degree average means it will be greater in some places, and again, probably in the least fortunate locales. But it’s really the speed of change that will make it tough to adapt to.
So as a lukewarmer I believe that if there are ‘no regrets’ options, by which I mean things that make sense for us to do no matter what happens to the climate, that we should move quickly to do them in hopes that it will a) help prepare for whatever temperature rise comes our way and b) may serve in some small way to lessen the total temperature rise and its impacts.
The devil is in the details, obviously, and a bigger devil lies in who should decide and how much authority we give them. And we probably don’t get to pick and choose at the right level of detail.
For example, I have no problem with the EPA actively encouraging power plants to shift from old coal configurations to combined cycle natural gas. It’s not a permanent solution but it’s a quick win. But I do have a problem with them classing a school with 3 buses as a major emitter of CO2 and getting them involved in the bureaucratic nightmare of emission control.
I do not want Maurice Strong to control our approach to the world’s environmental issues. I’m reading his book right now (‘Where On Earth Are We Going?, with a foreward by Kofi Annan), and it is horribly bad, and horribly wrong. I’ll give it a full review later, but suffice it to say that I wouldn’t trust him with any responsibility at all.
But there are some in both government and science who I do trust. And I’m willing to work towards helping them get to where we need to go. If a panel composed of both Pielkes, Judith Curry, Mike Kelly, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and a few others were to work on proposed solution, I’d be pretty happy. I might be alone in my joy, I realize.
Another no regrets option I’d like to see is a review of building planning, permitting and insurance in areas that are already vulnerable to tropical storms and floods. We are in the silly situation right now where middle class workers in the Midwest are subsidizing rich people who rebuild ruined but rich second homes in Florida or Malibu Canyon.
We could also allow planes to use modern technology to choose the most fuel efficient routes, descend directly rather than in stages and unblock no-fly spaces left over from the Cold War.
I’d like to see greater use of X prizes to stimulate innovation, as it did with private spacecraft. I’d love to see prizes for utility level storage or better use of composites for distribution, or improvements to HVDC transmission. Prizes almost always work.
I’d like to see more base research done on superconductors, for example, and other technologies that are threatened with being trapped in the Valley of Investment Death.
And I don’t think that list of no regrets options is too controversial, either here or with the activists. (I’m sure I’ll hear about it if it is.)
But the real problem is counting to 3,000. Because a straight line extension of energy consumption gets us to 3,000 quads (quadrillion BTUs) by 2075, with 9.1 billion people developing at present trends and GDP growing at 3% per year.
If those 3,000 quads are supplied by burning coal, we’ll choke on the fumes, no matter what it does to temperatures. China has doubled its energy use since 2000, it may do so again by 2020, and 70% of their energy is provided by coal. The massive traffic jam into Beijing a couple of weeks ago, 90 miles long and lasting three or four days, was composed primarily of small trucks bringing coal into China’s capital. And the pollution and soot that is caused by China’s coal travels–to the Arctic, hastening ice melt and over the rest of the world, as small particulates and just general haze.
So I also advocate pushing for renewable and nuclear energy. I think we’ll need them both. Nuclear is ready to roll right now, but it’s expensive and time consuming to put up as many plants as we’re going to need. Solar is on the verge, and I’d like to give it an extra push. Natural gas is a temporary solution in terms of emissions, but at current prices we can’t ignore its advantages.
We also need to push piecemeal solutions that will not solve our problems by themselves, but are important contributors at a local level, such as geothermal power, or small hydroelectric and run-of-river installations.
No matter what you or I believe about climate change, we face an energy issue that we need to address today. Our coal plants are dramatically cleaner than they used to be. China’s are not. If we don’t want the air we breathe to taste of China’s coal, we need to work on better solutions.
And the worst of all possible worlds is where we don’t do the right thing on energy because we are at war with each other about climate change.
I’m a firm believer in markets, and I like free markets better than the other sort. I also think they work better with light regulation. I think it’s legitimate to nudge the energy market in the direction we want it to go, without giving the reins and the saddle to government bureaucracy. And I do think it can and probably will work.
So I’m not a ‘denialist.’ I’m not a ‘skeptic.’ I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.
Thomas Fuller http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Thomas Fuller
There would be no global warming without new technology. And that’s not because new technology uses so much energy.
It’s because new technology has allowed us to measure new phenomena, and old phenomena with radically more powerful tools.
Mike Smith gives us an example in his book ‘Warnings’, a great story about how technology addressed the warning system for U.S. tornadoes (and which is advertised here on the right hand column). He notes that many tornadoes that are called in to reporting centers today would never have been noticed before, thanks to a growing American population and the ubiquity of mobile telephones.
The same is more or less true of hurricanes. Before satellite coverage began in 1969, we really didn’t know exactly how many hurricanes actually happened in a given year, nor how strong they were. If they didn’t make landfall, they would only be catalogued if planes noticed and reported them, and they would only be measured if specially equipped planes basically flew through them and charted their strength.
It’s certainly also true of measurements of ice extent, volume and area, which would not be possible without satellite imagery.
New technology has had a radical effect on the time series of measurements made for extended periods before the technology was adopted. Sailors used to measure sea surface temperatures using a thermometer in a bucket lowered into the sea. When Argos buoys began providing a network of more accurate measurements, there was a break in the timeline. When surface stations converted to electronic thermocouples on a short leash, the adjustments required caused another break in the data series. (I guess readers here might know something about that already.) Scientists have worked hard to make adjustments to correct for the new sources of data, but the breaks are still pretty noticeable.
The sensible thing would be to give the new technologies time to develop an audited series of measurements long enough to determine trends, rather than grafting new data on top of older, less reliable series. But there are two objections to this: First, who’s to say another new measurement technology won’t come along and replace our brand new toys and resetting the clock to zero? Second, and of more concern, there is a whole scientific establishment out there saying we don’t have time to wait for a pristine data set. Some say we’ve already waited too long, others say that if we start today (and they really mean today), we just might avoid climate disaster.
And if you start to muse on the remarkable coincidence that warming apparently started at the same time as we got all this new-fangled technology, why that makes you a flat-earth denialist. Or something.
As it happens, while serving in the U.S. Navy I took sea surface temperatures with a thermometer in a bucket. There were not many detailed instructions involved. Should I have done it on the sunny side or the shady side? Nearer the pointy end of the ship (that’s technical talk) or the flat back end? How long was I supposed to leave the thermometer in the water?
I wouldn’t want to make momentous decisions based on the quality of data I retrieved from that thermometer, which wasn’t calibrated–I think the U.S.N. stock number was like 22, or some other low number indicating great antiquity. I much prefer what comes out of Argos.
But there are times I wish all those fancy instruments on the satellites were pointing at another planet.
Thomas Fuller href=”http://www.redbubble.com/people/hfuller
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bart Verheggen says:
September 17, 2010 at 3:04 am
RW makes a cogent argument: “No-one has ever produced a model with a sensitivity of 1°C or less that can reproduce the recent rise in global temperatures as well as reproducing historical and geological temperatures to a tolerable accuracy.”
This statement does not reflect an understanding of how models cited by the IPCC achieve a high degree of model fit to estimations of past temperatures. Such an achievement would not be possible without the use of dummy variables. These variables are values for aerosols, and the introduction of these variables — whose values tend to be conveniently and arbitrarily chosen — enable model fit.
Actually, I have seen much better fit by use of AMO and PDO as drivers rather than Greenhouse gases without aerosols.
….including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception….Pielkes, Judith Curry, Mike Kelly, John Christy, Richard Lindzen….
Richard Lindzen with some thoughts on global warming alarm science, and 1/10ths of a degree forecasting:
As a, what some people may call “warmist”, I find myself actually agreeing with much of this article. I think many “warmists” will agree that, although” the physics of climate change are not by themselves controversial,”, there is much uncertainty in climate sensitivity. As Tom Fuller states it here however, it looks to me to be much whishfull thinking: “sensitivity…is likely to be lower than activists have claimed.” Which activists? Or does he actually mean scientists? I don’t care what activists claim, but there are very good reasons to believe that climate sensitivity is quite high (otherwise we would not have experienced ice ages for example). But indeed, the truth is: we don’t know for sure.
So the question then becomes: Given the uncertainty in climate sensitivity, what will we do? Only going for “no regret” options, as Fuller wants, can surely lead to much regret if climate sensivity is indeed as high as most scientists believe. This arguing for “no regret” policy is really just like continuing smoking when your doctor says you have a strongly increased risk for lung cancer. What a regret it would be if I didn’t die from long cancer and I gave up smoking for nothing. The reason that Fuller is by some AGW proponents referred to as a “troll” is, I believe, his refusal to admit that climate sensitivity could very well be high.
“The probable reason that that hasn’t been done is that it’s not possible to do so with a physics based model.”
That sounds extremely unlikely, Bart, to say the least. I’ve no doubt the models do a very good job in dealing with the physics that is well understood, but this is unlikely to be true for the rest, let alone any factors not modelled at all. Not to speak of the numerous well-documented problems the models have in explaining some of the real-world data. I see from your link, Bart, that you are an atmospheric scientist working in the Netherlands, and this certainly gives me pause for thought. But with all respect, I find statements of certainty such as this even more bothersome than I find statements that reject the GHE altogether.
Surely, everyone knows that the condition alluded to above is multiple personality disorder and not schizophrenia. Before responding with disagreement, please Google it.
I have a question regarding the effect on the Earth’s temperature of doubling the concentration of CO2:
Skeptics think the effect will be significantly less than the AGW advocates. The fact that CO2 can cause a rise in temperature, “all things being equal,” is pretty well accepted, but how much?
Well, if the population continues to grow and energy consumption with it, how about a quadrupling of CO2 in the atmosphere? Is that out of the question? Isn’t that likely to have a signficant effect?
The operation of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is one of the least controversial ideas in physics. The calculations that show a temperature rise of between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius if concentrations double is also widely accepted, including by all skeptic scientists without (AFAIK) exception.
I have seen calculations by credible experts that the temperature rise (based on radiation physics) would likely be in the range of only 0.3°C. And don’t forget that radiation is not the only way in which energy is transported up from the earth’s surface. Evaporation of water and subsequent convection to high altitude has been attributed (by some) for 60-80% of the heat transfer.
Don’t get caught in the trap of attributing everything to radiation, as El Gordo seems to.
IanM
Anthony, you wrote:
“But there are some in both government and science who I do trust. And I’m willing to work towards helping them get to where we need to go.”
Oh – oh! Follow the brilliant intellectuals, huh? That way lies danger. Because today the brilliant intellectuals are trying to create the world’s first successful socialist society, right here in River City.
Roger Carr says:
September 17, 2010 at 5:22 am
All the value I find in this post is from the comments.
Well, is there not also value in that which prompts valuable comments?
I have distilled my understanding of the CO2 issue in global warming down to three main ideas. They are in no order of importance the following:
1. Not logical. In logic for something to be the true logical answer it must be necessary and sufficient. As has been shown by the ice core difference with an 800-2000 gap from when temperature rises and CO2 rises and with the drop in temperature from 1940-mid 1970’s , CO2 is not necessary nor sufficient as a root driver of temperature change or climate.
2. There are no experiments, of which I am aware, done under STP nor standard conditions that show CO2 increases the temperature. All of the real world evidence I encounter show gases as a heat dissipater not a heat increaser. Fans, radiators, hairdryers, electric heat, etc but none increase the heat.
3. There are no products on the market that take advantage of the claimed property of CO2 to increase temperture. No blankets, home insulation, thermos bottles, etc none. This propery is claimed to be known for over 100 years yet not one person has been able to become wealthy because of it.
No, I am not a skeptic I say CO2 cannot do what is claimed for it.
A perceptive man, Mr. Fuller, would not have committed the faux pas of assuming that either the internet, or WUWT, has some sort of geographic periphery.
Those of us who come here regularly have probably made a greater investigation of physics than since they last took any interest in the subject in High School. The trouble with that is that the physics give one the barest glimmer of what the feed backs might be and without positive feedbacks there seems to be nothing to worry about.
The biology gets much less attention. Every ounce of that coal, not only the nasty dirty variety in China, but also the nice clean stuff in the U.S., originated from biological activity which took vast amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere. When we burn it, we return it, at least temporarily, to the atmosphere. Over time, that CO2 will again be sequestered. Down on the seashore, we can see evidence of the same process when we look at the shells and the shingle. One can argue that the process will be slow, too slow perhaps, but no one has yet tried to predict timings to me. Surely this must come since the long suit of climatologists seems to be extrapolation.
Ironically, Using Munch’s “The Scream” is rather appropriate. Munch was watching
a sunset clouded by the eruption of Krakatau in 1883.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/about/pressreleases/3308421.html?page=1&c=y
The Earth does not care, indeed….
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 17, 2010 at 6:34 am
“I knew about the traffic jam. I did not know it “was composed primarily of small trucks bringing coal into China’s capital”. This is what I want proof of.”
Just going by the news: http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Beijing+%22traffic+jam%22+trucks+coal&FORM=BNFD
These are things that all living things have always, and will always, deal with. It’s part of living on this planet. And there simply isn’t any evidence that such things are getting worse. There is evidence, however, that we’re more alarmed at such things than we used to be.
May I join Mike in noting how polite all the comments have been. Long may it continue. Let us discuss physics; not have ad hominem attacks. I see Ian McQueen posting here. If I may make a suggestion to you, Thomas Fuller, if you are really interested in what real skeptics think. Find your way the the Yahoo group climatesceptics, and post your ideas there. I am sure people will be as polite as they have been here, but, IMHO, that is where you will get comments from the real climate skeptics.
Mr. Fuller,
Since everything else has been said, all I can say is I appreciate your articles and viewpoints.
With due respect: That’s what all schizophrenics say when admitted at the asylum. 🙂
And….”If it walks like a duck….”
No possible diversion tactics here. It’s a too trascendental matter to give in.
The problem with Anthony’s publishing schedule is that this post has attracted close to a hundred comments before I have finished my first cup of coffee. So I don’t know where to start.
Just briefly, although I am not a scientist, I have read extensively in this field and believe I understand what the scientists are saying. From the IPCC to Christy, Pielke Sr., etc. I may not succeed in communicating what I believe I understand, but that’s perhaps a lack of writing skill.
I had hoped that being a bit light-hearted about this would take some of the sting out of my message. My last sentence was intended as humourous. Mr. Thomas, I appreciate your attempt at journalism skills. For the record, I worked for two years at IPT in a separate division doing market research. My consulting with UK government was while I was with another company altogether. I have no ties with any government at all, have no business with any government currently (although I have one proposal outstanding with the public sector–but in an unrelated field). Others here are more appropriately focused on whether I’m right or wrong–I have no objection to you digging the details out on my professional life, have at it. But I assure you there’s nothing to find. I’m not on anyone’s payroll.
Thomas Fuller, you are a lukewarmer. That doesn’t mean reasonable nor rational, but rather a fence rider. First, “If both are wrong, there is a lukewarmer’s way.” Way to rationalize! Either CO2 is our doom or it isn’t. They both can’t be wrong. One is wrong and the other is correct. You say, “Natural gas is a temporary solution in terms of emissions, but at current prices we can’t ignore its advantages.”……What? Gas, currently is an attractive currently, but that because coal is still widely used. If gas is to replace coal then we’ll run into that tricky supply/demand thingy. I do agree, we should pursue nuclear generation as much as possible, but your assertion solar is anywhere close to a viable alternative leaves me wondering where you get your information? Go here, http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/ElecCostSUM.pdf
I’ve said this before, as have many others before me, but apparently it needs repeating. The most destructive condition to humanity, in terms of civil, social, economic, health and welfare is poverty.
Thomas, by your “lukewarmer” label that you’ve applied to yourself, you are seeking to compromise with people that choose to ignore the difficulties of the day, indeed, choose to exasperate our greatest challenge today to fix an imaginary difficulty of tomorrow. Were it me, I would distance myself from those people without seeking to compromise with them. Reading your moderate, middle of the road, compromising words, I can’t help hearing the words of Barry Goldwater, while rhetorical, truth nonetheless…….”Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
Thomas, you seem like a nice intelligent person. However, by your statement, “Solar is on the verge,…” You can’t be serious. You’re a believer in markets? Please refer to the document I linked. LOOK AT THE COST!! By your advocacy, you are advocating further impoverishment of many of the world. Understand the ramifications of your “lukewarmistness”.
Most importantly, your statement “If a panel composed of both Pielkes, Judith Curry, Mike Kelly, John Christy, Richard Lindzen and a few others were to work on proposed solution, I’d be pretty happy. I might be alone in my joy, I realize.”, seems to be advocating an acquiescence of our individual rights and liberties to an oligarchy. I don’t care how well meaning, intelligent and informed these people are, we don’t need panels of any kind. The EPA was a well-intentioned thought. Now it is a bureaucratic throttle to wealth generation.
“Compromise is never anything but an ignoble truce between the duty of a man and the terror of a coward. ” ——————–Reginald W. Kaufman
“Compromise is but the sacrifice of one right or good in the hope of retaining another–too often ending in the loss of both.” ——————–Tryon Edwards
“All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take.”————————————————Mohandas Gandhi
“I’m a lukewarmer–and I’m right.” Call it what you will, but in the end of the day, it is clear that CO2 isn’t the real issue. Figure out why they don’t call it “global warming” anymore. Floods and droughts simultaneously! The real issue is totalitarian socialism. Feel free to stay on the fence for as long as you can. At some point, you will have to choose.
Thomas, some of your post is reasoned. I concur with some of your conclusions. But you seem to agree with much of the “consensus AGW view” concerning the magnitude that CO2 is contributing to warming. I am not so convinced. The magnitude of concentrations of CO2 vs water vapor alone convinces me that water has a far, far greater effect than the miniscule role of CO2. And the beneficial effects that the increase in CO2 has had on plant growth and the further “greening” of the planet is far more beneficial than any adverse miniscule average temperature change.
I have a few questions for other WUWT commenters (and lurkers like me):
1) Why is it that in order for us to arrive at a number for the average change in the “temperature” of the earth we have to measure it at thousands of locations ALL over the planet (but more in the US than anywhere else), homogenize it, average it, adjust it, and then statistically masticate all of this data in order to spit out an official “global temperature anomaly”, ie a “significant number” that we should believe (sarc/on With all that “science” it must reflect the actual TRUTH after all sarc/off), while the official (ie. believed to reflect truth) CO2 value for the whole world is measured at just one location on a mountain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? Is it not true that the value of the concentration of CO2 changes from location to location? and from month to month in even one location? and from lattitude to lattitude and altitude to altitude depending on the weather? just as much as the temperature does, and influenced just as much maybe even more by urban effects as temperature? How can either sets of data (temp and CO2) actually have any degree of credibility when the degree of certainty of any measured value has so much uncertainty when compared to the supposed change that is reported?
2) Suspected “greenhouse” gasses have known spectra: They have well characterized peak absorbing wavelengths, and wavelengths where they are relatively transparent to IR. Water vapor has many more absorbing peaks than CO2, and they are at different wavelengths. To get to an answer about the question of forcing and the magnitude of the “greenhouse” effect that any given gas plays in the retention of heat on the planet, has anyone ever “looked” at the planet from space with the appropriate set of filters on the camera to see what the IR picture looks like at gas specific (ie. relavent) wavelengths? In other words, has anyone looked at the IR signature of the earth at a group of IR wavelengths that are relatively transparent to CO2, Water vapor, (and other relavent “greenhouse” gasses) during times of high incident solar radiation (day time), and low incident solar radiation (night time), to get a baseline; then looked at these same locations with a set of “CO2” filter lenses, and then a set of “Water vapor” filter lenses to get a picture of just how much heating, and reradiating, and reabsorbing, and reradiating and cooling, and concentration changing is going on all over the earth in any given day? I’m sure that if a hurricane can take a huge amount of energy from the surface of the ocean, sweep across the planet and effectively “cool” large swaths of the ocean as it moves, that as it is redistributing energy by evaporating, moving, then condensing water, it must also be redistributing large quantities of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases along with the water vapor. Just as a picture of the planet from outer space at IR wavelengths transparent to “greenhouse” gases will show the redistribution of energy by showing significant radiative temperature changes from the surface, so too should pictures that correspond to the peak absorbing wavelengths for each suspected “greenhouse” gas.
3) Has anyone ever launched an IR laser beams of known intensity and predetermined wavelengths to correspond to peak absorbing and maximum transparency to assumed “greenhouse” gas spectra, at a satelite with the appropriate CO2, water vapor, etc filter sets to measure just how much absorbtion and reradiation is occurring? For that matter, has anyone done the same experiement, by launching this same laser at a balloon as it is ascending on a clear day, a foggy day, a cloudy day, and measured not only the amount of light that is transmitted up, but also the amount that is reflected, and the amount that is absorbed and reradiated at different altitudes?
If either of these experiments have been conducted, can anyone please point me to the website where I might see the pictures or point me to the article so that I can be better educated about the magnitude of CO2’s effects vs water vapor?
@RW “No-one has ever produced a model with a sensitivity of 1°C or less that can reproduce the recent rise in global temperatures as well as reproducing historical and geological temperatures to a tolerable accuracy.”
But that’s okay because nobody has ever produced a model with a sensitivity of more than 1°C which has proved capable of forecasting future temperatures to a tolerable accuracy either.
“We can’t make our models track historical temperatures without adding this CO2 fudge factor” does not constitute proof that it was CO2 what dunnit. Only that we really don’t understand climate at all.
To Tom Fuller and also to Lachlan at 12:19 am, who said:
“But I’m wondering if there’s any hard numbers to back up the “Chinese coal is going to choke us” claim?”
China actually has nine times the coal electricity generation capacity than does the US. WHOA! That is the main reason they now surpass the US in CO2 emissions. But what about black carbon and the nasty emissions Tom Fuller notes?
I think Tom Fuller is wrong when he implies that Chinese electric generation plants put out a lot of black carbon that gets to us and to the Arctic when he says this:
“Our coal plants are dramatically cleaner than they used to be. China’s are not. If we don’t want the air we breathe to taste of China’s coal, we need to work on better solutions.”
Chinese burning of coal is very dirty when used in industrial applications, and when burned in residences. However, since most of their electric generation with coal is in modern plants, like the US they burn the coal efficiently, meaning they utilize virtually all the carbon as fuel. My reference for this is T Bond et al., 2004, “A technology-based global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion” J Geophysical Research.
Table 15 in Bond et al. shows that worldwide, black carbon emissions from electric generation is about 7 parts per 7,950. Industrial use of coal is responsible for 642 parts per 7,950. Residential coal use is 480 parts per 7,950. On-road diesel is 792 parts per 7,950. Off-road diesel is 579 parts per 7,950. It is these sources which contribute the emissions that most harm human health, AND which contribute to global warming by warming the atmosphere and melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice when they land on it and decrease the reflecticity of ice and snow.
There’s more, but I’ll stop here.
My main problem with the article is the title. The public perception that schizophrenia represents a split personality is erroneous. The title suggests the author was looking for multiple personality disorder. Being that schizophrenia is the world’s most pervasive mental illness (its victims occupy more hospital beds than any other physical illness or mental disorder), it would be nice if the public became more informed about this terribly debilitating illness.
In my post anna v says:
September 17, 2010 at 5:05 am
the chapter and verse were lost due to html mixup
here it is
King James Bible,
“So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”
Revelation chapter 3 verse 16