Chemist Provides Explanation for Early Life, Without the Need for Intelligent Design May 14, 2009

In a paper to be published on Thursday in Nature, Dr. John D. Sutherland solved a puzzle about the origin of RNA, which is necessary for life.  Dr. Sutherland was able to combine the constituent parts of RNA, thus demonstrating that these structures could arise naturally.   The New York Times discusses it here.

 

This discovery is important for several reasons.  First, it solves a major question in chemistry and will likely provide the basis for valuable future research.  Second, it is yet another piece of evidence indicating that natural processes can give rise to life.  Much to the dismay of the creationist intelligent design crowd, a process that was previously thought a “miracle,” and hence thought to be impossible through laws of nature, was recreated using these very laws of nature and only those organic substances that we have here on Earth.  The foundation of the intelligent design argument is essentially that there are processes in life that are too difficult for us to understand which cannot have occurred naturally, so the only other possible explanation is that a supernatural being caused them.  Dr. Sutherland’s research demonstrates that while we may not be able to explain certain things about our universe, we should not stop trying.

The Ridiculousness of Cap-and-Trade as a “Carbon Tax” May 6, 2009

 

I’m hearing a lot of talk from Republicans critical of the Waxman-Markey global warming legislation who are claiming that the cap-and-trade scheme contained in the bill is a “tax” on energy.  The whole idea of cap-and-trade arises from the notion that a free market is the best way to determine the prices for things of value. 

 

Yet, what this issue comes down to is that those who oppose a cap-and-trade system view carbon emissions (and the energy making process in general) as free.  So, when they see that the government is going to put a price on what was otherwise (and in their minds) completely free, they shout and scream and try to commit political homicide by calling it a tax. 

 

But, the shrill “carbon tax” critics are wrong about a critical assumption in their argument.  Carbon emissions are not free.  They are like commodities in the sense that they have value, and their value derives directly from the fact that their production has costs.  Those emissions are contributing to our increasingly warming planet, which affects health, coastlines, fisheries, wildlife habitat, and communities devastated by fierce weather. 

 

The traditional process of electricity generation emits a great deal of carbon.  The energy companies cannot expect to use a valuable commodity for free.  They don’t expect that they won’t have to pay for the coal they use to produce the electricity.  Why should they expect to not have to pay for the right to emit the carbon that is essential to the traditional production of electricity? 

 

When it comes down to it cap-and-trade is not a tax.  It is merely a method of allowing the free market to put a price on something that has value to the business community.

New Advances in Seeing Deep Space May 1, 2009

According to Reuters, a new fiber-optic system will create a network linking seven astronomical observation locations in England, enabling astronomers to see deep into space.  The new system will allow us to see farther than we’ve ever seen before and will be much more efficient.  We’ll be able to look into deep space to see what happened billions of years ago.  One person familiar with the new network said that the system will enable astronomers to collect in one day the data that traditionally takes three years to collect.   You can watch a short video about this new network here.

 

 

Gamma Ray Explosion

In other deep space news, NASA’s Swift satellite recorded the oldest gamma ray explosion that we’ve ever seen.  The explosion occurred more than 13 billion years ago, when the universe was relatively quite young.  As Natalie Angier related in her wonderful book The Canon, it is from giant stars like the one that created this gamma ray burst that the universe gets much of its heavier elements.  It’s awe inspiring to think that the elements that we have on Earth today were made from these giant stars.  It’s also quite impressive to consider the immensity of the universe, as evidenced by this gamma ray burst:  the light from this gamma ray burst has been traveling at 186,000 miles per second for more than 13 billion years to reach us.

Chert of the Marin Headlands April 29, 2009

 

Radiolarian Chert in the Marin Headlands

On a recent trip to the Marin Headlands, I had the wonderful opportunity to see radiolarian chert up close.  Radiolarian chert is rock that was formed around 200 million years ago from the skeletons of microscopic organisms called radiolaria.  The radiolaria died and fell to the bottom of the ocean floor, where their skeletons piled up.  The particular radiolaria that ended up in the Marin Headlands died near the equator, as evidenced by the fact that they are very similar to present day equatorial radiolaria. 

 

At around the same time as this trip, I came across a website apparently created by Creation Ministries International, a young Earth organization that seeks to undermine evolution.  I was interested to see that one of their webpages dealt with radiolarian chert.  In it, the author uses radiolarian chert to attack the geologic concept of uniformtarianism all the while seeking to explain the presence of radiolarian chert by pointing to the great biblical flood.  Essentially, the author argues that we must accept the flood as the explanation for the development of radiolarian chert because radiolarian chert is not being formed in the present at the levels it was in the past. 

 

Uniformitarianism states that the same natural processes that have shaped the world in the past continue to so shape the world.  Existing processes acting in the same manner and with the same intensity will produce the same results.  This is all about the processes.  And the processes that created the radiolarian chert in the headlands also created all sedimentary rocks in the world.  The concept of uniformitarianism isn’t put into question simply because radiolaria aren’t present today in the same quantities that were necessary to produce the chert that we can see today.  That’s not a process.  That’s a volume of biological organism.  If it makes sense for the creationists out there, it’s the same as saying, “Jesus isn’t alive today, so we can’t explain our lives through the teachings of Jesus today.” 

 

San Francisco from the Marin Headlands

The flood could not have produced the radiolarian chert.  It is basic geologic knowledge (and basic logic) that fast running water will carry all but the large rocks and heavy pebbles away in its rush.  Alternatively, stiller water will allow fine sediments to settle on the water bed.  The flood would have been fast running water which would not have supported fine sediment deposition. 

 

Additionally, the radiolarian chert formed between 100 million and 200 million years ago.  It took a long time for the radiolaria skeletons to settle and form into rock.  The flood story does not support such a timeframe.  In fact, in the flood story, humans were supposedly washed away, with the exception of Noah and his ark.  Yet, humans weren’t around on earth until only about 4.1 million years ago.  The flood story just doesn’t fit into the timeline. 

 

If you’re ever in the Marin Headlands area, I highly suggest visiting these chert outcroppings.  They are a marvel of our natural world.  

Voracious Global Warming Denier Bachmann Named to House Republican Panel April 29, 2009

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), whose name will be immediately familiar to anyone who has been tuned into the recent spate of increasingly paranoid and outrageous rantings of the Republican Party, has been named by House Republicans to a panel designed to deal with the nation’s energy policies.  Rep. Bachmann has a few bills in the energy field, as is described in her website statement on the appointment to the Republican energy group. 

 

One reason this is important to note is that it demonstrates the House Republicans’ desire to maintain the “drill baby drill” mantra, although perhaps a bit less vocally.  Three of the four energy bills Bachmann describes in her web announcement would basically fast-track drilling.  One would even take away the government’s power, either judicially or administratively, to review any leases once they were reviewed by the President or a designee.  Another bill would require the government to waive regulations with respect to existing leases if the price of oil exceeds $100 per barrel.  This kind of focus on drilling and fossil fuels is simply a continuation of the current, non-renewable, globally dangerous energy policy that the United States has had for years. 

 

Another reason this is important is because it highlights the House Republicans’ desire to impede efforts to find a solution to global warming.  If the House Republicans were serious about helping to combat global warming, they would not appoint a member of Congress to a working group to help craft energy policies who said this:  “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax.  It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.” 

 

I think it will be important to remember this when, as the debate over our federal response to global warming increases, we see more and more Republicans and conservatives raise red herrings and try to delay our efforts to green our economy.  

Renewable Requirement in Global Warming Bill Will Not Dramatically Increase Energy Costs April 29, 2009

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report developed in response to a request by Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) evaluating the effect that the 25% renewable requirement, contained in the global warming bill now being considered by Congress, will have on electricity prices.  The report found that there will be about a 2.9% increase in the cost of electricity around 2025, dropping down to about 1% by 2030 and after. 

 

Two of the big objections to the bill (and in fact objections to taking any far-reaching actions to combat global warming now) are that the current economic situation cannot afford such measures and, relatedly, that it will hurt business interests.  (In fact, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA) said that the cap-and-trade provisions of the bill, which would cap the level of greenhouse gas emissions that polluters can produce and create a market-based system trading scheme for the right to emit greenhouse pollutants, were “an economic declaration of war on the Midwest.”) The EIA report directly undermines those arguments, albeit in the particular context of mandating renewables.  The reality is that we have to act now.  Arguments such as these should be seen for what they are—scare tactics aimed at delaying progress in the effort to combat global warming.  

Another Evolutionary “Missing Link” Found April 25, 2009

A new study from the journal Nature concludes that a fossil found in 2007 is a “missing link” between former land-based animals and current seals and other pinnipeds.  The animal, named Puijila darwini, had longer legs, more reminiscent of those of land mammals, yet also had webbed feet.  The animal existed about twenty to twenty-four million years ago.  The study suggests that the animal lived in freshwater lakes, but turned to the oceans after the lakes froze over.

This find is yet another piece of the evolutionary puzzle that plugs a gap between land and water based animals that creationists tend to over-emphasize as a means to diminish evolution.  Yet, this find demonstrates the beauty of a scientific theory in action.  A “theory” in science is not the same as a “theory” in common linguistic usage.  In science, a theory is a logical explanation of a group of observed phenomena which essentially explains our world.  When a hypothesis rises to the level of a theory, it can be routinely used to predict what we should find if we encounter new evidence.  With  evolution, we can use that theory to predict just how a “missing link” should look.  And that’s precisely what happened with this newly found fossil.

Barton Misconstrues Carbon Dioxide Levels April 24, 2009

Yesterday I posted about Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the current ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and his introduction to plate tectonics.  During the Committee’s hearings on a global warming bill, Rep. Barton expressed disbelief when Energy Secretary Steven Chu informed him that there are continental plates on which landmasses travel around the globe. 

 

I checked the congressman’s website, particularly about his positions on global warming and the environment, and learned that Barton has posted some facts taken from the journal Science and other respected sources to downplay the harmful effects of carbon dioxide in global warming.  Rep. Barton’s argument seems to be that carbon dioxide makes up less than one percent of the total composition of the atmosphere, so global warming must not really be a problem.  Thus, again it seems that Barton is attempting to use science without understanding it to prevent progress on combating global warming. 

 

On his website, Barton says:

 

Relevant Facts to Put the Theory of Manmade Global Warming Into Perspective:

 

1) The air we breathe is composed almost entirely (99.88%) of Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), and Argon (Ar).  Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and other variable gases including water vapor (H2O and clouds), Ozone (O3), and other trace gases make up the remainder. 

 

…

 

3) As a percentage of the total atmosphere, carbon dioxide represents only 0.0386% [ii]. The entire increase in CO2 since before the industrial revolution represents only .0091% of the total atmosphere.  Not very much, is it?  Laid out on a 100 yard football field, this would equal a distance of less than 3/8 of an inch.  It is also important to remember that CO2 is not a pollutant; it is an indispensable part of life.  Your body creates and emits CO2 every time you take a breath.   

 

Rep. Barton is focusing on the small percentage and is arguing essentially that because the number is small what that number represents can’t be important.  By focusing on the number itself, Barton is ignoring the number’s context.  The atmosphere is a complex system that has developed in its current composition.  By altering the amount of one of the components, the delicate system can be thrown out of whack, which is exactly what is happening due to the increase in man-made carbon dioxide levels. 

 

Let’s look at some other areas where the actual number, in and of itself is small, but where adjusting that number can have dramatic effects.  First, think of carbon monoxide.  It naturally occurs in the atmosphere, too, albeit in only trace amounts.  Yet, when carbon monoxide builds up in a home or other confined space, it can actually kill people.  What starts out small and inconsequential becomes very serious when the amounts in the system are changed. 

 

Another example is iron.  The human body consists of about one-tenth of an ounce of iron.  That’s an exceedingly small amount—making up just 0.004 percent of our weight.  Yet, that iron is essential to life.  It’s how our bodies transport oxygen to our cells.  Without it, we wouldn’t be alive.  So, again, what starts out as small and inconsequential becomes very serious when we understand the system and how that system functions. 

 

By posting about the small amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Rep. Barton is attempting to obfuscate the issue of global warming.  I certainly hope people will see through it.  

Oil in Alaska = No Human-Influenced Global Warming? April 23, 2009

 

One member of Congress seems to think so. 

 

During this week’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings on a bill to combat global warming, introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Edward Markey (D-MA), some Republicans have voiced a refrain often heard from many of the global warming deniers—that the Earth is merely experiencing a period of warming from natural, rather than man-made, causes.  Yesterday, the Committee heard testimony from Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, among others. 

 

During the questioning period, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), the top Republican and former chairman of the Committee, asked Secretary Chu to answer in the remaining 6 seconds that Barton had available for questioning where oil comes from and how the oil got to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean.  Secretary Chu responded that oil is a result of millions of years of geology and shifting plates.  Rep. Barton suggested that it is obvious that at one time “it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole” because obviously a large pipeline didn’t bring the oil from Texas to Alaska.  After Secretary Chu explained that continental plates have been drifting around during the ages, Rep. Barton asked incredulously, “So it just drifted up there?” 

[Note that Rep. Barton seems to be so proud of this question that he posted it to his YouTube page, as shown above.  Rep. Barton clearly has the wrong impression of who is "puzzled" here.]

 

Rep. Barton was relying as a foundation for his question on the argument that our current warming period is merely a natural occurrence, so we don’t really need to be worried about global warming.  After all, if it was once warm enough in Alaska and near the Arctic Ocean to produce oil, then the world has experienced dramatic fluctuations in temperature in the past, right?  That’s not entirely shocking.  What is absolutely shocking is that someone who seems to know the natural genesis of oil apparently has no knowledge at all of plate tectonics. 

 

While the underlying premise is true—that the Earth experiences periods of natural climatic variation—that doesn’t mean that humans are not also contributing to the current warming of the Earth.  So, even if Alaska had always been right where it is now, that by no means ensures that humans have not contributed to our current warming period. 

 

Barton’s apparent ignorance of plate tectonics leaves me with one question.  How does he explain earthquakes?  

House Committee Begins Hearings on Global Warming Legislation April 22, 2009

On April 21, 2009, the House Committe on Energy and Commerce conducted the first of four days of hearings on the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (or ACESA), legislation to combat global warming.  The first day is limited to opening statements, but the following three days will be testimony.  And there are a number of high profile witnesses, including former Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.  The entire schedule is listed here.  A video of the first day of the hearings can be found here.   This should certainly be a very interesting set of hearings to watch.