Tornados and Climate Change; and is it a MAD world again? More thinking about the unthinkable.

View 775 Tuesday, May 21, 2013

As Oklahoma digs out from under the most recent tornado, the Climate Change/Global Warming discussions heat up. Most aren’t discussions, of course; they tend to be “proof by repeated assertion”, and this applies to both sides. Weather observers will state that the Earth hasn’t been warming for the past few years; defenders of the Global Warming hypothesis will say, rightly, that a decade long cooling trend in the midst of centuries-long warming trends is to be expected, just as there were probably decade long periods of warming during the cooling between 1300 and 1800, and even during the most intensely cold period called the Little Ice Age (centered around 1500).

The result is a lot of shouting and considerable data massaging, but not many high confidence conclusions. Of course some things remain obvious. The Earth has been both warmer and colder than the present era during historical times. We can only estimate how much warmer and colder, in part because obtaining a single figure of merit to represent the annual temperature of the entire Earth is exceedingly difficult to do, and agreeing to a definition is even more so.

What we can be sure of is that during the Medieval Warm – Viking times – there were dairy farms in Greenland, grape vineyards in Scotland, longer growing seasons in Europe and in China, longer periods between the Spring Melt and the Winter Freeze of lakes, ponds, and brackish canals (many of which didn’t freeze at all), and generally indications of a noticeably warmer climate in the Northern Hemisphere; and archeologists are now discovering similar signs in South America.

We can also be certain that the Earth has been colder during historical times. In December 1776 the Hudson froze with ice thick enough to allow the guns captured by Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga (“in the name of the Great Jehovah and the Continental Congress”) to be dragged across the frozen Hudson to George Washington in Haarlem Heights, and the Thames had ice thick enough to support market stalls as late as 1835. Over the 19^th Century the climate continued to warm, and in 1896 Arrhenius estimated that cutting the CO2 in the atmosphere by 50% would probably produce a new Ice Age complete with kilometer thick glaciers in Scandinavia, which doubling the CO2 would warm the Earth by 5 or 6 degrees C. Computer models have made many other estimates since that time, but actual observations don’t fit the data observed much better, in part because CO2 isn’t really a primary warming gas; it’s the forcing effect (more water vapor in warmer air) that counts. No current computer model can take the input data from, say, 1900, and show climate trends matching the actual observed data of that period.

CO2 levels in 1800 were about 280 ppm. In 1900 they were about 300 parts per million. Current levels are about 400. The error rates are in the order of 10% for the earliest estimates, and about 3% now.

In all the controversy about Warming, it is important to note that (1) the Earth has been warming since about 1800, and (2) whether or not there is “excess” warming due to the surge in CO2 injected by the Industrial Revolution, the discussion concerns no more than about one half of one degree C in the “annual average temperature” of the Earth, which is an exceedingly complex number to come by: getting an 0.1 degree C accuracy number from thousands of measures themselves not accurate to more than 0.5 degree and some (older sea temperatures taken by hand with mercury thermometers in a bucket of water drawn from the sea) perhaps even less accurate.

What can we conclude here? CO2 levels rise with temperature (warmer seas hold less dissolved CO2) and that could have a positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures mean more heat, which probably mean larger storms – the energy has to go somewhere – meaning more roiling of the seas, which could lead to more CO2 being dissolved into the sea. We certainly can’t ignore rising CO2 levels forever; it would be prudent to invest in technology for reducing CO2 levels. (Grown lots of trees is one way of course. There are others.) But the connection between Climate Change and the Oklahoma storms is tenuous, and calls for increases in carbon taxes (http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/21/boxer-uses-okla-tornado-to-push-carbon-tax/) are not supported by any real science. The issue needs discussion, but the remedies if any are not agreed on.

For those who don’t usually read the Wall Street Journal editorial page, today there is a contribution well worth your time. “A Journalist Co_Conspirator” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324102604578495253824175498.html begins by saying

Ok, we’ve learned our lesson. Last week we tried to give the Obama Administration the benefit of the doubt over its far-reaching secret subpoenas to the Associated Press, and now we learn that was the least of its offenses against a free press. No attempt to be generous to this crowd goes unpunished.

The latest news, disclosed by the Washington Post on Monday, is that the Justice Department targeted a Fox News reporter as a potential "co-conspirator" in a leak probe. The feds have charged intelligence analyst Stephen Jin-Woo Kim with disclosing classified information to Fox reporter James Rosen. That’s not a surprise considering that this Administration has prosecuted more national-security cases than any in recent history.

The shock is that as part of its probe the Administration sought and obtained a warrant to search Mr. Rosen’s personal email account. And it justified such a sweeping secret search by telling the judge that Mr. Rosen was part of the conspiracy merely because he acted like a journalist.

In a May 2010 affidavit in support of obtaining the Gmail search warrant, FBI agent Reginald Reyes declared that "there is probable cause to believe that the Reporter has committed or is committing a violation" of the Espionage Act of 1917 "as an aider and abettor and/or co-conspirator." The Reporter here is Mr. Rosen.

And what evidence is there to believe that Mr. Rosen is part of a spy ring? Well, declares Mr. Reyes, the reporter published a story in June 2009 saying that the U.S. knew that North Korea planned to respond to looming U.N. sanctions with another nuclear test. That U.S. knowledge was classified. But the feds almost never prosecute a journalist for disclosing classified information, not least because reporters can’t be sure what’s classified and what isn’t.

Of course they weren’t looking for evidence to prosecute Mr. Rosen. They got what they wanted: a fishing expedition through Mr. Rosen’s personal email. They found some. He was looking for evidence to "expose muddle-headed policy when we see it—or force the administration’s hand to go in the right direction, if possible."

The Journal concludes

On the evidence of five years in office that isn’t possible, but trying isn’t a criminal motive. And if working with a source who uses an alias is now a crime, we’ve come a long way from the celebration of Bob Woodward and "Deep Throat."

Indeed.

At what point will North Korea have the capability to destroy America as we know it? I ask that seriously. From everything I have studied about EMP effects, it would not take more than one or two nuclear explosions at about 90 miles altitude above the US to cause serious disruption of our electrical grid, which would have cascading effects on our civilization. For a worst case scenario see Lloyd Tackitt’s A Distant Eden http://www.amazon.com/A-Distant-Eden-ebook/dp/B007ODDGUC, which is a sort of cross between a novel and an introduction to modern survivalism. It’s well written and quite readable.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has more on the subject of North Korea’s capabilities. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324482504578455451910706908.html?mod=googlenews_wsj The article is by James Woolsey, former CIA Director under Clinton (I can testify that Newt Gingrich thought highly of him) and Peter Fry, who advised Congress on EMP. Read it for details; the conclusion is that it won’t be long before North Korea can do it do us. It’s a frightening scenario. Yes, we could kill them back. But I grew up in a MAD – Mutual Assured Destruction – deterrence world, and one reason I worked hard for strategic defense was that I’d rather intercept missiles than avenge them. The current administration has no defense against a FOBS – Fractional Orbital Ballistic missile System – coming from the South Pole. Of course many countries, China and the USSR for that matter France and England – have the ability to mount an Enhanced Radiation weapon and launch it southward into a polar orbit, and detonate it when it is in position over the United States (which it inevitably will be if not on the first orbit then several orbits later). Of course advanced nations have good reason not to risk the devastation they would provoke, and their leaders are not stark raving mad. We assume that the leadership of North Korea is crazy like a fox, not stark raving mad. MAD preserved us during the Cold War, but it was an ugly policy, and many of us recommended SDI as the alternative.

The phrase “would it not be better to intercept those missiles than to avenge them?” came from Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars speech; it was inserted into our Council Report by the editor after it was proposed by Jim Baen, and apparently Mr. Reagan chose to use it in his speech. (Jim Baen was fond of saying “I preen.”) It remains true enough. To fully shield the US against a rain of ICBM’s is technically very difficult, but to defend against a smaller attack certainly is possible with current technology. Herman Kahn discussed this in the scenario “The Mad General with a Missile”. Of course we don’t do much thinking about the unthinkable now. Perhaps we should do so again. Apparently the current President does not.

On Apple, which pays $6 billion a year in income tax, leaving overseas profits overseas (which is quite legal):

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands."

Learned Hand

I would think that both correct and definitive.