Junk Science & Global Warming (or is it Climate Change?)

I'm impressed that both camps in the Global Warming debate have factions that call the other side "Junk Science."  It's not constructive for either side.  Here's how it breaks down for me...

There is no doubt that 380 ppmv CO2 is high, based on measurements over several hundred thousand years, and I think it's hard to dispute that the recent trends since 1950 have been driven largely by anthropogenic sources.  Where it gets fuzzy is the conclusion that warming is driven by CO2 concentrations.

The ice core data suggest that temperature increase leads the increase of CO2 (and CH4) by several hundred years, and we've seen several cycles (ice ages too) over the last several hundred years where CO2 and temperature oscillate with a curious frequency.  If temperatures rise before CO2 mixing ratios, then we should be concerned--not so much by the amount of atmospheric CO2, but instead what happens when the temperature load dissipates.  Recent solar observations suggest we are headed into an unusual quiet period for sunspots, which indicates cooling.  If the sun is the main driver of global temperatures, and we've had ice ages where most of the CONUS was covered in mile thick glaciers, then it seems a bit over-reacting to legislate our global economy into a punishing retreat in order to ward off future warming.

Either way, I wish the intelligence of the scientists could somehow rise above the attacks, and bring about helpful, creative debate on which way the climate is going.  It seems to always come down to big business (conservatives) versus big government (liberals) fueling the fire that turns into labeling the other's arguments as junk science.

Maybe a 3rd party makes sense?

I'm Roy Obadiah and these are my rants.

The Dipsea Demon

I'm impressed with Christopher McDougall's book "Born to Run." Being a self-taught efficiency expert, I often grapple with misplaced efficiencies, like the often sub-optimal applications of Six Sigma techniques. What often happens, is that our natural need for efficiency often forces us to lose sight of a larger system. Making sub-systems efficient usually wrecks big organizations.

The classic example is manufacturing, where the goal of "economies of scale" drives the rational purchase of large specialized machines, which do one thing extremely and efficiently well. These require maintenance, and worse, increase the need for buffers of inventory. This overhead even changes organizational thinking, which now values inventory to the extent that cost-accounting treats it as an asset.

I like "Born to Run" because it takes us down a beautifully groomed running trail to justify that humans evolved to our current state because of our ability to run--not faster than our prey, but longer. The theory presented is that our brains evolved to track, and our lungs and legs evolved differently than Neanderthals, in such a way that we could keep a nice 10K pace and run a deer to exhaustion.

But our brain evolution conflicted with our physical evolution in this way: "...we have a body built for performance, but a brain that's always looking for efficiency."

That strive for efficiency is our downfall. We optimize small parts but ignore it's impact on the whole. I know Lean experts who make a lot of money because they know how to easily spot badly applied efficiencies. They tell me as soon as you lose line-of-sight in a process, waste will creep in, unnoticed by anyone within the system--all due to the quest for "efficiency."

So what does this have to do with the Dipsea Demon? Jack Kirk (1906-2007) was a loner and a curmudgeon who ran up until he was 96 years old. He had a quote in "Born to Run" that kicked off this rant:

"You don't stop running because you get old, you get old because you stop running."

That's the kind of holistic thinking that is missing today. It's missed because of our genetic need to optimize and make efficient everything in sight. The problem is that we lose sight of what we impact if we can't see the whole.

I'm Roy Obadiah and these are my rants.

Rolling ankles through the cow paddies

So, even though I'm a farmer, I still like to run. Problem is, when I'm done, stuff hurts. I saved up to get some "good" running shoes, but they don't help. Running through the fields in those wide-soled motion-control running clods is a great way to roll an ankle. Wonder if my boots would be better?

I am Roy Obadiah and these are my rants.