timeimmortal

Renewable petroleum…kinda.

“Ten years ago I could never have imagined I’d be doing this,” says Greg Pal, 33, a former software executive, as he squints into the late afternoon Californian sun. “I mean, this is essentially agriculture, right? But the people I talk to — especially the ones coming out of business school — this is the one hot area everyone wants to get into.”

He means bugs. To be more precise: the genetic alteration of bugs — very, very small ones — so that when they feed on agricultural waste such as woodchips or wheat straw, they do something extraordinary. They excrete crude oil.

Unbelievably, this is not science fiction. Mr Pal holds up a small beaker of bug excretion that could, theoretically, be poured into the tank of the giant Lexus SUV next to us. Not that Mr Pal is willing to risk it just yet. He gives it a month before the first vehicle is filled up on what he calls “renewable petroleum”. After that, he grins, “it’s a brave new world”.

It kinda reminds me of Red Planet, a movie that came out in 2000 (if memory serves) — except that in the movie, there were insects that ate the terraforming algae that humanity had sent to Mars and excreted oxygen after doing so.

These petroleum-producing bacteria are, admittedly, both a) somewhat different, and b) real. It’s a fascinating development, though, and certainly something that sounds like it was ripped out of a sci-fi novel.

Now…is it workable in the long term, and in the large scale? If so, the most interesting aspect of the technology might just be the shift of the balance of power. Oil-poor nations with large agricultural industries could potentially become major players in the world oil market, and the idea that any nation which is a net exporter of agricultural product could refine waste from those industries into oil for its people to use would, one can only hope, have the side effect of shattering the power of the Middle Eastern oil barons.

Although, to be fair, there’s still the issues of a) cost of implementing the program on a wide scale, and b) how much oil can actually be produced from a given quantity of raw material. If an entire farm’s worth of agricultural waste will only net the farmer a barrel or two of good crude, this development won’t exactly be the miracle cure that it kinda sounds like.

Which leaves unanswered, I suppose, the question of why warming trends analogous to trends observed on Earth have been observed on other planets in the Solar System, most notably Mars. It also leaves unanswered, one must note, the question of why most of the observed global average temperature increases have been undone in recent months, corresponding to the observation that the Sun, having finished one sunspot cycle, has not begun another one (contrary to expectations).

The article’s headline is a bit misleading, methinks. The specific solar radiation under discussion is what are called cosmic rays, the really intense radiation that the Sun gives off. Most of that stuff gets blocked by the Earth’s magnetic field anyhow — one of those beautifully-designed things, you know? Of course, cosmic rays are not the only sort of radiation emitted by the Sun, and radiation in other parts of the spectrum can penetrate the magnetic field (ultraviolet radiation would be an easy example to point to here).

The fact is, we can be fairly certain that what solar radiation does penetrate the magnetic field must be responsible for warming the Earth, because we are fairly certain that were the Sun to suddenly stop emitting said radiation, the Earth would become a frozen wasteland. Whatever solar radiation gets through the magnetic field is responsible, in large measure, for the fact that the temperature in most places on the Earth’s surface is in a range that humans find liveable. It still seems reasonable, even in light of findings which suggest that Henrik Svensmark may have been wrong in his theories about cosmic rays, that variations in the Sun’s output in other spectra still do produce changes in the Earth’s climate and average temperature.

Especially, I note again, since similar trends have been observed on other orbital bodies in the Solar System which, last time I checked, were not home to advanced, industrialized societies.

Count Roland writes in again with some follow-up regarding my previous response to him.

Agreed.

But the hypothesis was looking at the methane produced by large swaths of putrifying organic matter, as in vast rice paddies. Also, the period of NA buffalo depopulation coincides with the tail end (1700-1850) of a deepening mini ice age between ~1300 and ~1900. At the begininng of that, likely somehow related, the bl;ack death eliminated populations in Eurasia, likely impacting rice production among other things, reducing methane as well.

Also, it did not say that human induced methane production caused global warming - it said that such production slowed global cooling such that by now, given solar output, a pivot point for the commencement of an ice should be well past but we have not arrived at it, yet. But then again, perhaps the sun is acting a little differently this cycle.

However, a point that can be gleened from this hypothesis. If it is solar activity that is the principal factor and is in a ‘downward’ general cycle with some upticks (we are talking 1000’s and 100’s of years respectively) our human global warming, as little as it may be, may be the only barrier between us and and ice age which would cover most of the developed world with ice. Another way to say this is to remember that the last hundred years’ supposed “hockey stick” is but a fraction of an average glacial cycle let alone the longer solar cycles we have yet to gather the data for. Last time I checked, looking at the smallest fraction - a prooftext, of data and giving a conclusion is not good science.

I think the maxim “correlation does not imply causation” is relevant here with regard to the observation of the correlation between buffalo depopulation (1700-1850 AD) and the “tail end” of a “mini ice age” (1300-1900 AD), especially since a) the aforementioned “mini ice age” was already long in progress by the time buffalo depopulation began, and b) while significant, buffalo were not the only source of methane production in the world, and it seems suspect to suggest that even as catastrophic a decline in population as they underwent would precipitate sweeping changes in global average temperature, especially since by the time the buffalo were being hunted to the brink of extinction, the rice paddies would have been back in action.

There is also to be considered the observation that post-1850, the “mini ice age” came to an end (i.e. temperatures began to rise), even though the buffalo herds were no longer churning out massive quantities of methane (and at the time, cattle farming wouldn’t have made up the shortfall; it doesn’t even manage to do that today). One could potentially point to the Industrial Revolution as the culprit in this case, although given the analysis that has been done about the insignificance of CO2 and other industrial emissions as a driver of global temperature change, that thesis also falls deeply into question.

It serves to note that the Sun is only now coming to the end of an unusually energetic cycle that has, among other things, triggered warming trends on other planets in our solar system, Mars and Neptune to name but two. That diminishment in solar activity has already triggered a downward shift in global average temperature that has more or less undone the warming trend that Al Gore et. al. were so up in arms about, as one would expect if one accepts the theory that CO2 does almost nothing to affect changes in global average temperature, and that the Sun effects profound changes in same.

I also question whether it is humanity’s minimal contribution to changes in the average global temperature that stave off a coming ice age; personally, I tend to think that even under the most carefully controlled conditions, nature will do whatever it damn well pleases. Yes, there are cyclical patterns in climate, as there are in many things, but those patterns can shift for any number of reasons. The Sun has been unusually active for the last while, and is now entering a phase where it is much less energetic than it has been. This may trigger a mild drop in the global average temperature, or it may trigger an extreme drop in same, thus ushering in a new ice age. Either way, I don’t think anything humanity does, in terms of emissions, will offset the results to any meaningful extent. It has been said that even if humanity ceased all CO2 production (even from out of our own lungs), we would have an effect on the global average temperature that one would need percents of percents to measure properly — i.e. statistically and quantitatively insignificant. Even if methane had a hundred times the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere, cutting all our methane emissions would still only result in a change in global average temperature of a percent, or perhaps a few percent (if we were lucky).

If humanity wanted to really stave off a coming ice age, we’d find a way to maximize our production of water vapour, since it is vapour that contributes the most to the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat. But even then — next to the natural water cycles of the planet, our contribution at present is almost meaningless, and it would be a mighty effort indeed to change that.

Jim Whalley writes in, presumably in response to this article concerning a possible correlation between global warming and reduced numbers (and diminished violence) of hurricanes.

I’ve edited Jim’s message a bit, inserting paragraph breaks where it seemed appropriate. Also, in a departure from my norm, I’ll be spacing my replies in a more “interlinear” fashion, between paragraphs as it were.

The chief point appears to be that for the Eastern USA the incidence of hurricanes appears to be dropping as the Northern Atlantic grows warmer as it approaches thermal equilibrium with the tropical and equatorial water masses. What it doesn’t mention is the increase (or decrease) of hurricane (or typhoon) activity worldwide. The temperature differential between polar and equatorial is what is responsible for the winds that make up hurricanes and typhoons.

I’m going out on a limb, not having taken any studies in fluid dynamics or weather patterns, but based on what I’ve learned about things like tornados here in Alberta, the violence of the storm is proportional to the magnitude of the temperature differential. Assuming, then, that the same holds true for hurricanes, a diminished temperature differential between polar and equatorial currents would result in fewer, or less violent, hurricanes.

In other words, it seems logical to conclude that increased warming brings diminished quantities or violence of hurricanes.

The other consequence of warming polar oceans is the sea level change when the polar icecaps melt, with the catastrophic consequences for the millions of people who live within 80 - 100 feet of current sea level. The displacement of coastal populations will be felt even in the US and Canada with large portions of the Atlantic coast under 40 - 80 feet of water, and near sea level areas like the Gulf coast states or the Canadian Maritimes flooded and their resident populations displaced and homeless.

This doesn’t even begin to address the possibility of a catastrophic climate change that would turn most of equatorial Africa into desert, and kill off most of the indigenous plant and animal species in the rest of the world, due to the cascading effect of the elimination of polar icecaps and snow (which reflect a substantial portion of heat back into space).

The problem with any good debate about climate change is that scare numbers inevitably get hauled out by proponents of the various climate change “solutions” being proposed by the likes of Al Gore and the IPCC. Even assuming that the polar ice cap melted in its entirety (which would take centuries to happen, and which did not happen even when, thousands of years ago, the Earth was (in places) as much as 8 degrees warmer on average than it is now). Back then, forests crept as much as 1000 km north of their present limits, and every glacier below 5 km elevation melted.

Notable exceptions included the Greenland ice sheet and, presumably, parts of the polar ice cap. Earth would have to get catastrophically warm — i.e. reach temperatures that could only be caused by the Sun in its death throes — for all polar ice to melt.

And if I do recall correctly, although I seem to have lost the link to the calculations, even if the entire polar ice cap did melt, sea levels wouldn’t rise as far as Jim would have us think. To achieve that rise, the Antarctic ice cap would have to melt entirely as well. And Antarctica is currently cooling, for the most part.

That warming period thousands of years ago also addresses Jim’s comment about equatorial Africa becoming a desert, with the attendant mass death of most plant life. If it didn’t happen back then (and if I do recall correctly, the fossil record doesn’t show evidence of mass extinctions of plant life, or of the animals that would have thus been deprived of food, in that time period), why would it happen now? Especially since the current warming trend falls far short of the 4 to 8 degrees C that happened back then?

Secondary effects of global ocean warming, such as the blooming of toxic bacterial strains which presently live near volcanic undersea vents is possible, but presently still conjecture. If we have to find this out the hard way, it’ll be too late. It may be too late already, as we have set forces into motion which will take at least 200 years to reach a state of equilibrium if we could stop all future CO2 emissions and go back to a pre-industrial level.

Even if humanity stopped all industrial carbon emissions, the warming trend would be affected by less than one percent…less than a percent of a percent, in fact.

Almost all of the atmosphere’s ability to trap heat comes from water vapor, which we do not (and, more to the point, cannot) regulate the emission of. And most of the current warming trend has nothing to do with human industrial emissions anyhow, but with the Sun — we know this because other planets in the Solar System, such as Mars and Neptune, have also experienced warming trends proportional (adjusting for their increased distance from the Sun) to what has been observed on Earth.

I could go on about how our judgment, ethics, and responsibility have taken a beating at the hands of ego and greed-driven capitalism, but that would take a discussion of its own to do it justice.

I think sentences like this, when they are found as a part of any environmentalist’s argument, are telling, because what such sentences reveal is that the professed environmentalism is really just a front, a cover, for a desire to see global socialism become a reality.

If for no other reason than that, it is worthwhile to oppose environmentalism and climate change alarmism. But equally, it’s worthwhile to oppose the use of scare numbers (see above) and shoddy science( see above as well, though not as distantly) in an effort to advance those causes.

Italian political leaders have expressed their dismay that a noisy protest at La Sapienza university in Rome prompted Pope Benedict XVI to cancel his planned appearance there.

Italian president Giorgio Napolitano released a statement condemning the “inadmissible intolerance” shown by the campus protestors, who had planned to greet the Pope with loud rock music, anti-clerical posters, and parades of militant homosexuals. Prime Minister Romano Prodi said that the protests had “provoke unacceptable tensions and created a climate that does not honor Italy’s traditions of civility and tolerance.”

Rome’s Mayor Walter Veltroni added his perspective that the Pope’s appearance on campus would have been “another great opportunity for the city of Rome to show itself as the center of civil dialogue.” While intellectual debates are welcome, he said, the “intolerant behavior” of a minority at La Sapienza was “bad for democracy and liberty.” The former Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, went further, saying that the incident was “humiliating” and a “shameful day” for Italy.

Pope Benedict withdrew from his scheduled appearance on January 17 after a group of about 100 leftist students occupied to office of Dr. Renato Guarini, the dean of La Sapienza, demanding a withdrawal of the invitation extended to the Pontiff. Earlier a group of 67 professors– a small minority of the faculty– had signed a statement charging that a papal appearance would be inappropriate because, they said, the Pope is hostile to science.

What is it about left-wing students that makes so many of them act like arrogant brats?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favour of freedom of expression…but that’s where I part company, and cannot agree, with the arrogance of these students. Ultimately, they were denying someone else (the Pope, in this case) his legitimate right to freedom of expression by their actions, and what’s more were distorting facts in order to advance what appears, on its face, to be a secularist agenda that seeks to drive an unnecessary wedge between science and religion. The actions of the students were an act of freedom of expression as much as they were an act of censorship.

The Pope is called, above, “hostile to science”. The reason for this charge stems from a comment that Joseph Ratzinger made in 1990, in which he quoted Paul Feyerabend’s statement that the Church’s handling of the Galileo affair had been “rational and just”. Feyerabend was very critical of naive falsificationism, and one of his more oblique examples in defence of his critiques was that of Galileo (his argument was that in Galileo’s time, optical theory was unable to explain some phenomena that could be observed by telescope (this is true: think, for example, of the convoluted explanations that were concocted for explaining the reason why Mars appears to loop backward on itself in its orbit, when observed from Earth) — the conclusions drawn by astronomers were, therefore, based at least in part on “ad hoc” assumptions. In the specific case of Galileo, the “ad hoc” assumption made was a rejection of the Aristotelian notion that the stationary nature of the Earth could be observed by the fact that objects fell in a straight line toward its surface. Theories of gravity, which would fully explain away Aristotelian assumptions, did not emerge until about a century later.

All of which, Feyerabend concluded, meant that in a certain sense, the actions of the Church at the time were justified — while later theories would prove Galileo right, at the time all that Galileo had to go on was a guess, an assumption, and the Church was not willing to stake what were, in its view, the serious theological implications of heliocentrism on a guess. Of course, heliocentrism was eventually shown to be no serious theological issue at all…but I’m not sure that anyone living almost 400 years ago could be faulted for not having the same level of education — nor could the world at large 400 years ago be faulted for not having had the advantage of as many scientific discoveries — as we in this modern era possess.

(And at any rate, in 1992, the Pope at the time (Pope John Paul II, not Benedict XVI), articulated the Church’s regret for the way the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a formal apology on behalf of the entire Church.)

Now, interestingly, let’s compare here. This is not the first time, incidentally, where Joseph Ratzinger has quoted the writings of another philosopher and had his citation misinterpreted as his own opinion (for example, consider the Regensberg lecture). But I think it’s nevertheless worth observing that at the time the statement was made, Joseph Ratzinger was merely a cardinal — no utterance from him carried the weight of law or doctrine within the Catholic Church. Indeed, two years later, a statement that did carry the full weight of infalibility was uttered, and that statement (from the Pope of the day, not from a cardinal) came down on the side of Galileo. That is the official Church teaching on the matter, and Joseph Ratzinger — as Benedict XVI — must uphold that teaching.

To call the man hostile to science is, at best then, specious and misleading. At worst, it’s an outright lie.

But then…when did left-wing secularists ever let truth get in the way of the Very Important Statement [tm] they are trying to make?

Not only are the actions of the students and faculty that engaged in militant actions to block the Pope speaking an affront to freedom of expression, but they are also a lie and a travesty, and promote a false dichotomy between science and Religion. As
has been previously discussed, that is not the Catholic view of the relationship between science and faith. And to call the #2 man in charge of such a church “hostile to science” is very far from the truth. The actions of the students and faculty were the height of intolerance, and should be condemned as such.