Monday, November 28, 2005
Pollution...
As always, there is plenty to talk about in this space this week, but there are two important stories on which I want to focus. The first is this one:
If you take a poll and only report the answers of the people you interview, you have a reasonable margin of error. If; however, your poll consists of one person and you ask them what all their friends think too, the margin of error is considerably larger that the standard 3%.
Well, measuring CO2 levels in the atmosphere directly, when speaking on a planetary basis has a pretty big margin of error. The sample size alone necessary to describe the entire planet is daunting. To get a good average, you would have to take measurements at a huge variety of locations and altitudes. That is unless, of course, you used some indirect measurement technique, which is the scientific equivalent of asking a poll about what your friends think, it introduces a margin of error all it's own.
So, we can see that contemporary measurements are not necessarily all that dead-nuts on. Now imagine we are looking back in history half a million years, using an indirect technique, based on an unproven model at a single place on the planet. Now what do you think is happening to the margin of error? So why aren't those margins and other data reliability information included in the breathless story reported above?
The other story is the legitimate environmental disaster that occurred in China over the weekend and is creeping into Russia. It's an enormous spill from a chemical processing plant/refinery. Here's reporting from the AP -- The BBC -- The BBC again -- the Guardian -- and even the World Wildlife Federation.
This is a catastrophe. Apparently, roughly 100 tons of gasoline and gasoline derivaties were released, primarily into a river that is a source fo drinking water for both Chinese and Russian cities, not to mention wildlife. But, there is some need for perspective. This is only 0.2% of what was spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.
As with most environmental disasters of this sort, the initial panic is generally far worse than the actual outcome. Most large disasters from the Exxon Valdez to Chernobyl, have, in the final analysis, been remarkably well managed and contained - the damage relatively limited. These are miniscule occurences in comparison to the weather and tectonic related disasters of the last 12 months.
Environmental groups will decry this as "the greatest disaster of all time." Russia is already considering legal action against China. Which speaks volumes. There is enormous amounts of money to be made in a situation like this. Some of it will be purely extortive like the Russian threats of litigation. Some of it will be well earned -- companies that participate in the clean-up, or improve safety at various Chinese plants. Some of it will be punitive; I'm betting the UN will demand monies. And some of it will be hyperbolic, all those environmental causes will use this as a fund raising bonanza, even though their access to China is limited and of minimal effect. (Compare that to yours truly who has actually installed a pollution control system in a factory in the PRC, but I brag.)
Anyway, I urge caution as you read the reporting on this disaster. Look for data, avoid hyperbole. Be sober, don't hyperventilate and panic. In the words of Gene Krantz when Apollo 13 had it's disaster - WORK THE PROBLEM PEOPLE! - Ignore the circus.
Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.That's quite a claim, isn't it? But let's consider it for just a moment. Let's do so by analogy. In polling data we are all used to "margins of error." Most polls you see reported in the press are good to +/- 3%. Well such margins exist for any measurement, including historic levels of CO2.
That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.
If you take a poll and only report the answers of the people you interview, you have a reasonable margin of error. If; however, your poll consists of one person and you ask them what all their friends think too, the margin of error is considerably larger that the standard 3%.
Well, measuring CO2 levels in the atmosphere directly, when speaking on a planetary basis has a pretty big margin of error. The sample size alone necessary to describe the entire planet is daunting. To get a good average, you would have to take measurements at a huge variety of locations and altitudes. That is unless, of course, you used some indirect measurement technique, which is the scientific equivalent of asking a poll about what your friends think, it introduces a margin of error all it's own.
So, we can see that contemporary measurements are not necessarily all that dead-nuts on. Now imagine we are looking back in history half a million years, using an indirect technique, based on an unproven model at a single place on the planet. Now what do you think is happening to the margin of error? So why aren't those margins and other data reliability information included in the breathless story reported above?
The other story is the legitimate environmental disaster that occurred in China over the weekend and is creeping into Russia. It's an enormous spill from a chemical processing plant/refinery. Here's reporting from the AP -- The BBC -- The BBC again -- the Guardian -- and even the World Wildlife Federation.
This is a catastrophe. Apparently, roughly 100 tons of gasoline and gasoline derivaties were released, primarily into a river that is a source fo drinking water for both Chinese and Russian cities, not to mention wildlife. But, there is some need for perspective. This is only 0.2% of what was spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.
As with most environmental disasters of this sort, the initial panic is generally far worse than the actual outcome. Most large disasters from the Exxon Valdez to Chernobyl, have, in the final analysis, been remarkably well managed and contained - the damage relatively limited. These are miniscule occurences in comparison to the weather and tectonic related disasters of the last 12 months.
Environmental groups will decry this as "the greatest disaster of all time." Russia is already considering legal action against China. Which speaks volumes. There is enormous amounts of money to be made in a situation like this. Some of it will be purely extortive like the Russian threats of litigation. Some of it will be well earned -- companies that participate in the clean-up, or improve safety at various Chinese plants. Some of it will be punitive; I'm betting the UN will demand monies. And some of it will be hyperbolic, all those environmental causes will use this as a fund raising bonanza, even though their access to China is limited and of minimal effect. (Compare that to yours truly who has actually installed a pollution control system in a factory in the PRC, but I brag.)
Anyway, I urge caution as you read the reporting on this disaster. Look for data, avoid hyperbole. Be sober, don't hyperventilate and panic. In the words of Gene Krantz when Apollo 13 had it's disaster - WORK THE PROBLEM PEOPLE! - Ignore the circus.
