Guest post by Kevin D. Knoebel
How much stupidity is needed to win a Pulitzer? The competition is fierce, apparently certain writers are piling it on high and deep in the attempt.
For example, there is a sterling example of post-modern post-journalistic brilliance that just popped up at Salon by David Sirota, Would we give up burgers to stop climate change? As will be seen, the heaping begins with the subtitle: “A new report suggests that adjusting our diet can slow global warming. Now let’s see if our politics will let us”
The first paragraph is quite revealing:
In case you missed the news, humanity spent the Earth Day week reaching another sad milestone in the history of catastrophic climate change: For the first time, measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.
On the NOAA/ESRL Mauna Loa Observatory CO₂ measurements page, currently the last released monthly atmospheric concentration mean was March 2013, 397.34 ppm. Where the “surpassed 400” came from is quite unknown, not revealed. And overall not that important, as about now is when the annual cycle is peaking. The annual mean is far more scientifically relevant, and was 393.82ppm in 2012. The 2013 mean will not be breaking 400ppm. There may indeed have been a recent daily measurement above 400ppm, which shows why they use monthly means due to the range of daily variations. It will be quite surprising if the final April mean breaks 400ppm.
And how has the ecosystem responded to the “earth-shattering” increase? Crop yields up, the Sahel is greening, etc. Perhaps the ecosystem is having the equivalent of a surge of manic behavior right before a nervous breakdown. Sure, it looks great now, but soon it’ll all come crashing down. Yup, any decade now. No longer away than the next century, certainly.
BUT, there is hope! A new report, just as it says, done by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, former advisers to the World Bank, shows us the way. All we have to do, is give up meat. Bold added:
If you find it demoralizing that we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers, here’s that good news I promised: In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved “by replacing just one quarter of today’s least eco-friendly food products” — read: animal products — “with better alternatives.”
Does this sound like something you’ve heard before? Guess what, it is! The World Watch institute has the report (pdf). It was published at the end of 2009. For 3 ½ years now, this report has been chewed up, digested, rendered into the appropriate final form. Even a major vegan site found their numbers way too high.
Now, suddenly, Mr. Sirota has become aware of this amazing new report which, in the shadow of a nigh-impossible atmospheric CO₂ measurement of currently unknown origin which clearly shows the ecosystem has been broken, gives us the hope of avoiding planetary incineration by switching to great-tasting better-for-us non-animal foods. Which we would gladly do IF we could only overcome the politics!
Forget the Pulitzer, this stuff is GOLD. This is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize of Journalism. Please, feel free to send your recommendations in to Al Gore, I hear he has some pull with the Nobel Committee.
Also notify the publishers of Roget’s Thesaurus, as Mr. Sirota has revealed two previously unknown synonyms for politics, which is that which must be overcome to avert planetary incineration: physiology and instincts.
“G P Hanner says:
May 6, 2013 at 6:47 am”
True. However, the station is at ~4200m above sea level, and as I recall CO2 is pretty thin up there.
Obviously, he’s on the take from those Chick-Fil-A cows.
Interesting stuff, I would note that the meat in our hamburgers already comes from not very smart vegetarians.
So, instead of a burger we can have the joy of a veggie “burger” or BEANS or simply water.
I just hope Sirota adopts the water only diet.
For the good of the planet.
“This is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize of Journalism. Please, feel free to send your recommendations in to Al Gore, I hear he has some pull with the Nobel Committee.”
Why did all these scientists get the Peace Prize? Shouldn’t it have been for physics? We haven’t had a dividend of peace through their work – indeed we are engaged in a guerilla world war to save science from the heavily armed verdant forces. I looked up some synonyms for “Green” and got this….
” bosky, budding, burgeoning, callow, developing, flourishing, foliate, fresh, grassy, growing, half-formed, immature, infant, juvenile, leafy, lush, maturing, pliable, puerile, pullulating, raw, recent, sprouting, supple, tender, undecayed, undried, unfledged, ungrown, unripe, unseasoned, verdant, verduous, youthful”
I won’t be trading my juicy cheesburger toute garni for a chartreuse sandwich soon. Won’t the flatulence of a world of vegetarians warm the planet? or even blow it up?
“In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved “by replacing just one quarter of today’s least eco-friendly food products” — read: animal products — “with better alternatives.””
Nutritious food does not harm the environment. High yield cultivars, agricultural advances, and domestic animals such as cows and chickens provide optimal diets with the very least invasion into the wildlife and forests for hunting and cultivation. It is totally irrational to say that cows are bad for the environment or the Earth. It assaults reason and common sense to argue that the children of our country, or of the world, would benefit from less dairy and meat, cheese, milk, and butter; any one with a modicum of understanding and simple decency knows that in fact vitamin A and other micronutrient deficiencies are a far worse specter than trace gases in the atmosphere.
And it appears we owe a debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives, who refused to fund this doltish, worthless attack on our economy, culture, and diets:
Thank you to those who did the right thing and deflected this pernicious argument against cows, ranchers, and mothers around the world who want to give their children all the milk, cheese, butter, and beef their children need in their growing and maturing years. If it comes to pollution, I suggest what is really toxic is the fear and doubt scientists and politicians try to inject into every thing that is necessary for human life, in order to frighten people who do not know better.
Here’s reading material for those curious about the Mauna Loa CO2 recordings.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide &
Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
with a link to:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
About CO2 Measurements
From pages on the main site one can find the reason for the use of this data series, mostly related to length of record and its isolated location.
“. . . Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 . . .”
I think Buffett said it best
richardscourtney says:
May 6, 2013 at 6:05 am
Richard: I believe DonV was asking specifically about volcanic activity on/around the island of Hawaii and its effect on CO2 monitoring there. I believe your response is applicable to the volcanic activity in the oceans in general, not just in the vicinity of Mauna Loa.
The placement of atmospheric CO2 sensors on Mauna Loa was made after extensive consideration of all the factors affecting results. You can start with this write up on NOAH. There are further references off that page. Strange as it may seem, measuring atmospheric CO2 at the top of Mauna Loa is less contaminated by other sources than seemingly better locations.
Many of the same factors make Hawaii ideal for optical observatories on the top of Mauna Kea.
You are all taking this far too seriously. If you look at Salon you will see that the articles are all focused on showing that the “Eternal Republican” is the cause of all the evil in the world. I am not from the US but Sirota just seems to be saying that only Republicans eat hamburgers. Of course if you elected Democrats the planet would be saved.
Patrick says:
May 6, 2013 at 7:25 am
G P Hanner says:
May 6, 2013 at 6:47 am”
True. However, the station is at ~4200m above sea level, and as I recall CO2 is pretty thin up there.
Patrick, it’s an active volcano and it had been inflating and deforming, although it is currently considered to be of no serious concern.
The wind does howl on top where the weather station is, but it is the lagest mountain on the planet. And it is an active volcano.
Gary Pearse says:
May 6, 2013 at 8:14 am
“Why did all these scientists get the Peace Prize? Shouldn’t it have been for physics?”
They have never discovered anything.
Except for what wiggles the computer output makes.
Gary Pearse says:
May 6, 2013 at 8:14 am
“Why did all these scientists get the Peace Prize? Shouldn’t it have been for physics?”
Oh, and Gary, calling them scientists does an injustice to the Greenpeace activists and public officials that are part of the IPCC and got the Nobel peace price as well.
ed mister jones says:
May 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm
I asked Mr. Sirota why The Planet wasn’t incinerated when the North American Bison covered the Continent.
When I hear Crickets, I’ll know it is his response
===========================================
When the phone don’t ring, you’ll know who it is.
Sriota: “… measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million…”
WUWTblogger: Aaand, humans emitted 3, no, I’ll even give you 5, percent of that. That means that the U.S. emitted 1 TEN MILLIONTH [http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17763 (by Joe Bastardi)] of the total CO2. So, your point is?
S: “…we are incinerating the planet …”
WUWTB: Oh, come on, S! Who in the WORLD is going to take you seriously?
S: [bares teeth in facsimile of a grin] The Nobel Peace Prize Committee, that’s who.
WUWTb: Haw, ha, haaaa, whatever. Here. [digs in purse — heh, heh, gotcha 😉 — for a “Rewards” coupon for local grocery store and hands it to S] This is, a, uh, a MERIT badge for… uh…. for Most Likely to Succeed in show business. Congratulations, you won.
S: [brightening] COOL!!! This is a really important award. [skips off merrily in the direction of the MEAT department (of course) happily singing the theme song from his favorite science TV show, “Meet George Jetson!… .”
Coca Cola and Pepsi to blame for catastrophic manmade global warming which is now melting the Arctic and endangering polar bears from their rise in canned and bottled carbon dioxide sales spread around the globe. Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from billions of cans and bottles every day.
Coca Cola’s rise in sales over the same period of catastrophic global warming:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/cocacola.htm
“During 1886, Coca Cola’s first year, sales averaged a modest nine drinks per day. In 2004, over 1.3 billion beverage servings are sold each day. Although Coca-Cola® was first created in the United States, it quickly became popular wherever it went. Today, they produce nearly 400 brands in over 200 countries. More than 70 percent of their income comes from outside the U.S., making The Coca-Cola Company a truly global company.”
Their rivals for a hundred years in the war to get bigger sales and spread further around the globe Pepsi now sell in 190 countries.
Fizzy drinks drive global warming.
Shouldn’t they be banned?
Newsflash! “Coca Cola and Pepsi to Blame for Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming ” [Myrrh @1538 on 5/6/13]
Hmm, Myrrh, that’s a frankly sensible idea. Aaaaaand, remember that ad slogan? “Coke is IT” !!!
And before that, they said it was “the REAL THING.”!!!
AAAAAND, they mislabeled their bottles in China for awhile (Chinese characters said something like “Drink the stale lizard”), so nobody would drink it so…. THAT’s why CO2 in China wasn’t very much until they finally found out (around 1990) that it was delicious (and safe).
And Pepsi has had its Burger King franchises ALL OVER THE WORLD selling……. CHEESEBURGERS!!!!!!!!
AAaack, Myrrh! Who do we call?
Not Mayor Bloomberg. He’s up to his neck trying to save the planet in New York City. From all he’s been up to lately, I think his strategy is to kill NYC in order to save the rest of the world or something like that.
Mighty decent of him, I’d say. Greater love hath no man… .
Bison!
I had been a little out of touch with this stuff until one day about 7 years ago I sat with my Mum to watch a show in Aus called ‘Country Hour’. I just could not believe what I was seeing. Here they were, cows with large containers on their backs with ‘scientists’ measuring the emissions!? Then I realised straight away we were in trouble with the common sense factor. Bisons, yes but what about all the animals in Africa. What about the over 100,000 wildebeest who march across the continent every year? Today!
Where do these people come from?
“ed mister jones says:
May 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm
I asked Mr. Sirota why The Planet wasn’t incinerated when the North American Bison covered the Continent.
When I hear Crickets, I’ll know it is his response.”
I think you may find. It sort of goes like this….
Bison is a native species. Their methane GW farts don’t count. Only ‘evil’ humans farming cattle. Only those GW farts count!!!
The same applies to Wildebeest.
Thanks, mwhite. Excellent article.
I read it, but I don’t get it. They don’t seem to draw the same conclusions from their data that I do. (Maybe I am not sophisticated or trained in statistics enough to understand their conclusions. That is entirely possible.) I’m kind of bothered though, by what seem to be biases implied from the start.
First, they indicate that they have data going all the way back to 1958, but only use 1975 on . . .?! Huh? Does the 1958 data some how change the results? (I have a funny taste of cherries in my mouth.)
Second, I don’t see any hockey sticks, does anyone else.
Third I see LOTS of negative slopes in the DT/dt data. I also see a lot of very flat lines, OOPS!
Fourth – curious – I see no overlay graph that plots daily CO2 concentration and Temp vs time. No need to average or slice and dice the data, just a simple graph plotting CO2 and Temp vs time will paint the picture nicely. You’ll see daily variation, annual variation, and any significant short term and long term trends. You’ll see CO2 steadily rising, but Temp NOT keeping pace.
That graph alone would help one draw the proper conclusions instead of all the bogus statistical manipulation. More importantly one will be able to resolve whether CO2 leads or lags Temp! Ergo what change “causes” the other to change?
With all the data they must have it would also seem logical that someone would have thought of using a DOE program like Design-Expert from StatEase to look for relationships between Temp, CO2 concentration, air pressure, sunlight intensity (at different wavelengths even), volcanic activity, sea surface temp, ocean pH, relative humidity, cloud cover, sun spot activity, PDO etc. etc. vs time (short term, long term) in an unbiased fashion. Draw “causation” guesses from what the DOE program automatically tells you is the most highly correlated data.
(PS. I am not a climate scientist. I am an old biochemical engineer. Call me a sceptic. Personally, IMHO CO2 is NOT the evil incarnate that the EPA makes it out to be. This planet badly needs the global CO2 level to increase even more if we are going to feed the world in the next century. We also need a lot more cow and chicken dung for fertilizer for the same reason. And I completely agree with Willis E’s assertion that we and underdeveloped nations need cheap energy to have any hope of improving our/their lot. NOTHING has the energy storage density that fossil fuels have! I, like him, grew up on the other side of the planet. In my case on a remote station on the southern edge of the Sahara. Growing up there, I saw first hand the impact that well bred cows and chickens (both egg/milk and meat producers), diesel engine agricultural equipment, sanitary disposal of human waste and the sanitary use of grey water, the routine use of DDT to kill mosquitos, and simple acts of kindness had on a desperately poor culture. These things were all GOOD and proved their value to the advancement of the society we lived with/in.)
@Don V — “I am an old biochemical engineer. Call me a sceptic. …”
I’d call you a thorough, thoughtful, intelligent, decent, fellow.
In honor of all this silly thinking, I’m going to have a hamburger for lunch tomorrow. Then I’ll go outside and watch the plants grow faster. ;-))
Mauna Loa measurements are a joke. Keeling went there because he had tons of carbon dioxide to play with from the cherry picked low he and Callendar began with – in less than two years Keeling proclaimed he had detected a trend of rising CO2 from man-made sources. What?
In less than two years he could establish a trend?
In less than two years he could tell the difference between man made and volcanic?
Total and utter codswallop.
Hawaii is one of the (the biggest?) carbon dioxide producing areas in the world, a hot spot creating volcanic island. The measurements are taken from the top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes, venting, thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas.
They cherry pick how much. They arbitrarily decide what they will call volcanic and what they will call man made – all they have done, knowing the high numbers around the world from over a hundred years of measurements, is add a bit every year to get their “Keeling Curve” – to prove this non existant trend he decided he’d found in less than two years on the active volcano.
Where is the science in that?
This was deliberate fraud for their anti coal ideology or something, he had never shown how he established that there was a “well-mixed” background, he just announced that it existed and and could be measured anywhere in the world, so he chose sitting on top immense volcanic carbon dioxide production to prove it.
It’s ludicrous.
AIRS concluded that to their astonishment carbon dioxide was not at all well mixed, but lumpy.
They still have not released the top and bottom troposphere measurements they are making from which they concluded this.
Carbon dioxide is heavier than air so will always separate out and sink in air unless work is being done to change that, and its not always windy and winds don’t cross hemispheres, and, carbon dioxide is a real gas not the imaginary ideal gas AGW uses, so it has attraction and it is very attracted to water in the atmosphere – all rain is carbonic acid, it it continually being washed out of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not readily rise in air because it is heavier than air, most carbon dioxide will be found where it is produced, locally, in local wind and weather systems. Plants breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide just as we do, they only reverse this in photosynthesis for a few hours a day.
There is no such thing as “well mixed background”. Keeling was making up the figures and his son continued in his father’s footsteps with the Scripps measuring.
Some background from Timothy Casey, looking at how they deliberately downplay volcanic input, and can’t and don’t tell man made from volcanic, and more:
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
And, carbon dioxide cannot trap heat. It is physically impossible. It has a heat capacity even less than oxygen and nitrogen; carbon dioxide practically instantly releases any heat it absorbs.
Water can trap heat, it has a huge heat capacity and takes in vast amounts of it before it shows any change in temperature – that’s how we get the Water Cycle cooling the Earth from the 67°C it would be without water.
That’s why a pan of water is a simple air conditioning system, the water taking the heat out of the room, and conversely, why in damp climates heating a room is more efficient by using a dehumidifier to extract the water.
And, we do not exhale carbon dioxide because it’s a waste product, we exhale what we don’t use for the transport of oxygen. We produce our own to keep optimum levels in our lungs. Each lungful of air contains around 6% carbon dioxide, it is dangerous to drop much below that.
When someone is hyperventilating for some reason, he is expelling too much carbon dioxide too quickly for his body to replace and his body will go into defence mode – will limit breathing in to conserve carbon dioxide levels in the lungs because without sufficient carbon dioxide in the lungs oxygen can’t be utilised by the body. The immediate remedy for someone ‘gasping for air’ is to give them carbon dioxide; take one paper bag and breathe in and out in this until the lungs are again at optimum carbon dioxide levels. Every out breath contains 4% carbon dioxide.
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html
” Furthermore it’s administered in the form of medical gas (1% to 10%) for many medical conditions to stimulate respiration. For example, people with asthma require from 3% to 5% for therapeutic effect.
Studies suggest that a lower level than this but somewhat higher than present atmospheric levels would prevent the attacks in the first place and prevent subclinical symptoms associated with asthma such as anxiety, insomnia, immune dysfunction and excessive sensitivity to pain. CO2 levels higher than 5 per cent are used for extreme cases such as for treating victims of asphyxiation and to stimulate breathing of newborn infants as well as speeding recovery of patients who have been anesthetized.
ı The majority of us have some degree of lung impairment, which affects the more critical function of the lungs in regulating the proper level of CO2 in the alveoli (tiny air sacs). Metabolic syndrome alone includes approximately 20 – 30 % of adults in the U.S. and Europe. Then there are smokers, asthmatics, and people with miner’s lung, emphysema and scarred lungs due to previous bouts of pneumonia, old people, and many more conditions. Furthermore, a wide range of medical conditions and infectious diseases manifest in pulmonary symptoms. All these conditions can require medical gas because the present atmospheric level is not optimum and appears to lack a safety margin for people with lung impairment. Breathing is a tricky business. We have to breathe fast and deep enough to get the O2 we need but not so fast as to hyperventilate and lose control of our blood’s CO2 balance (pH). Over the last 50 million years the O2 level and CO2 level have both dropped as well as atmospheric density, which puts us into the same predicament as the mountain climber who must acclimatize to a higher altitude. Even healthy mountain climbers reach a level at which they cannot further adapt. People with lung impairment are like the climber who has reached that level. Either an increase in the O2 level or an increase in the CO2 level would be a benefit. It is for good reason that people hospitalized are fitted with air tubes to their nostrils providing them very high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide. (Typically, 4.5 times the oxygen but, more importantly, 130 times the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere)”
We are Carbon Life Forms. We around around 20% carbon and the rest mainly water. Carbon dioxide is our food source through plants able to create carbon out of visible light and carbon dioxide and water.
The Mauna Loa and the mythical “man made well mixed background measurements” are as fake as the Hockey Stick and One Tree Yamal and UHI science frauds.
oops, sorry. There should have been a close bold after “And, carbon dioxide cannot trap heat.”