Definitive Guide to Global Warming Issues

Global Warming is (Partially) Due to Human Activity

Despite last month being a degree cooler than average for the entire 20th century (according to the official NOAA website) I still believe we ARE in a definite global warming period. One snowflake doesn’t make a winter and one cool April doesn’t make for a cooling trend.

Yes, I do accept the scientific consensus that average global temperatures have risen and the trend will continue for some decades into the future. I also believe that human burning of fossil fuels is partly responsible for this trend.

OK, I’ve said it, I BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING.


Carbon Footprints Should be Reduced

We should each do what we can to reduce our carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. My wife and I use an electric golf cart and bicycle for most local travel. For three years our only car has been a hybrid Prius (around 45-50 MPG). Our home thermostat is set to allow inside temperatures to rise to 78 degrees and fall to 64 degrees and our home is well insulated and so on and on.

I favor goverment policies that lead to a larger proportion of carbon-free power. This includes nuclear as well as wind, water, and solar energy.

Despite Joel’s “Corny Schemes” Topic, I believe biofuels are a partial solution to reducing CO2 levels. We need to recognize that corn-ethanol is our first serious foray into biofuels. Brazil has made much progress with sugar cane-based biofuel. Once the technology and US infrastructure are developed, we will transition from corn to switchgrass and agricultural, industrial, household, and sanitary wastes as the raw materials for biofuels.

I have long been in favor of a punitive “carbon tax” on all fossil fuels as a way to finance renewable power technology while encouraging more economical use of oil and coal. Senators McCain and Clinton are pandering to the public with their proposal to reduce federal gasoline taxes this summer. Senator Obama has it right (on this one issue :^) and Senator Kerry had it right many years before he ran for president when he suggested a 50-cent a gallon carbon tax.

This past month, as gasoline approached $4 a gallon, usage dropped a bit for the first time in a decade or more. The numbers of commuters car-pooling and using public transportation is increasing rapidly. Had we taken Senator Kerry’s (and my) advice ten years ago, and imposed a punitive carbon tax, we would now have much better public transportation and more energy-efficient and economical cars and houses and factories, and a much lower carbon footprint.

I wish there was public support for a carbon tax. Sadly, there is not. It is political suicide. However, since I am not running for office, I can give my opinion. I would start the tax immediately at a dollar per gallon and increase it a dollar each year until usage dropped by 25%. I would impose a carbon tax on all other carbon-based energy, including coal-fired electric power, in proportion to the carbon emissions levels. The best way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel and increase carbon-free energy usage is via the pocketbook, not by government mandate and a “shell game” of trading of carbon credits.


Why We Should Limit Carbon-Based Fuels

There are three principal ways carbon exists on Earth (see figure at the head of this Topic):

a) AIR – As CO2 (carbon dioxide) and other atmospheric gasses including CH4 (methane).
b) SURFACE – In the carbohydrates and other molecules that make up living plants and animals.
c) UNDERGROUND – Sequestered as carbon and hydrocarbons in the form of coal and oil.

For millions of years, the UNDERGROUND carbon has remained pretty much undisturbed. It is a sequestered storehouse of energy absorbed by the Earth from the Sun over eons.

The AIR and SURFACE carbon is regularly exchanged between plants and animals. Plants absorb carbon-based gasses from the air and produce airborne oxygen for animals to breathe and food for animals to eat. The animals, in turn, return carbon-based gasses into the air and, when they defecate or die and decompose, return nutrients to the ground as fertilizer for plants.

The whole process is powered by energy from the Sun. Evaporation of surface water heated by sunlight lifts water vapor into the air and it later falls as rain and makes our rivers flow. Sunlight is also required for plant photosynthesis.


In recent times, particularly the past couple hundred years and especially in our lifetimes, this nice balance of Nature has been disturbed by the large-scale burning of UNDERGROUND carbon. The scale of this de-sequestration of carbon is without precedent.

The advantage of biofuels is that, while the sugar cane or corn or switchgrass is growing, those plants draw carbon out of the atmosphere, absorbing the present energy of the Sun to create fuel. While it is true that biofuels return the carbon they have absorbed back to the atmosphere when they are burned, they do not increase the total amount of free carbon. Burning of coal and oil, in contrast, adds old, formerly sequestered carbon to the atmosphere.


Do Al Gore’s Claims Have Scientific Merit?

One of the most dramatic moments in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth movie is when he mounts a motorized platform and is lifted high on the stage to demonstrate how much he expects CO2 to increase in coming years. The sharp rise in CO2 (the upper red curve on his graph) resembles a “hockey stick” in shape. The implication he leaves in the minds of the audience is that the temperature (the lower blue curve on his graph) will experience a similar “hockey stick” increase in coming decades.

What is the scientific reasoning behind this implication? Well, according to the ice core data that provides a measure of the CO2 and temperature levels over the past 600,000 years or so, temperature and CO2 are related. When one goes up, the other tends to do the same. When one goes down, the other goes down as well. You can see the relationship in the portion shown in the above photo, going from 150,000 years ago to the present.

Gore’s argument is that increasing CO2 is associated with increasing surface temperatures. It is true that, as temperatures increase, the CO2 dissolved in the oceans tends to outgas (like warm soda that loses its fizz) and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere acts as a “greenhouse gas.” More CO2 in the atmosphere traps more of the infrared radiation from the Earth and that leads to further heating of the surface which leads to more CO2 coming out of the oceans, and so on and on. Surface heating melts the ice cap and causes the oceans to rise, flooding large areas on Earth now used for agriculture and human habitation.

Any additional CO2 due to human burning of fossil fuels will add to the process, and, Gore concludes, lead to a “tipping point” within the coming decades. Once we go over that tipping point, large portions of the Earth will become uninhabitable and that will be a disaster for all mankind.

I agree with much of the above argument, but I do NOT believe there is any scientific evidence – certainly NOT from the ice core record – that human activity is the principal cause of the global warming observed so far, nor that we are headed for any tipping point.


What Humans are Responsible for and What We Can Do

Even if humans were the principal cause of global warming, no matter what we do (short of killing half the world population in a nuclear war or genetic engineering disaster) there is no way we will reduce CO2 worldwide in the coming decades. With China, India, Russia, and other countries rapidly increasing their standards of living as they adopt something like capitalism, they will inevitably burn more fossil fuels and emit more CO2. All we can do is slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.

Despite Al Gore’s movie, there is no scientific evidence that we are approaching anything like a “tipping point” anytime soon. Despite his emotional claims that rising CO2 levels will cause global temperatures to shoot up at what he calls a “hockey stick” curve, the very ice core data he used to make his point demonstrates the very opposite.

I’ve taken the same ice core data Gore used and expanded the portion from about 150,000 years to the present.

Look at the last strong warming period that hit its peak about 130,000 years ago. Notice that it was the temperature (orange curve) that started to rise and the CO2 (blue curve) followed about 600 to 1000 years later. If you look at the other periods of rising temperature, you will also see that the temperature rises before the CO2 in every case. Thus, the ice core data provides absolutely no evidence that rising CO2 causes temperatures to rise. It is clear the causality is in the exact opposite direction. Rising temperatures, due to some other cause, namely the distribution of Solar energy on the Earth, is what causes CO2 to rise.

In fact, look at the period after the peak warming at about 130,000 years ago and you will see a rapid drop in temperature over a 10,000 year period while the CO2 remains high! If high levels of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming, how on Earth could the temperatures drop consistently for 10,000 years while CO2 remained high?

The most recent warming period started about 25,000 years ago and, for about 15,000 years continued to climb. CO2, as expected, followed suit. However, about 10,000 years ago, temperatures stabilized, while CO2 continued to rise rapidly!

Humans did not burn a significant amount of fossil fuel until the industrial revolution, a few hundred years ago. Therefore the CO2 rise must have been due to some other factors.

Thus, the ice core data displayed by Gore and other global warming alarmists gives no scientific support to the idea that human activities are a principal cause of the current warming trend. All the historic ice core data shows the opposite, namely:

1) Temperature rises BEFORE CO2 rises. Therefore the causality is in the opposite direction (temperature change causes CO2 change), or both are caused by something else.

2) Temperature fell rapidly while CO2 remained high for 10,000 years, so high CO2 does not cause temperature to rise. You could make the opposite claim that high CO2 caused the temperature to fall!

3) Fast rising CO2 does not cause temperature to rise in proportion, if at all. In fact, all the periods of rapid temperature drop on the above graph are during times of steady or increasing CO2 levels!

It’s the SUN, Stupid!

Energy radiation from the Sun varies on several cycles, the best known of which is called the "Sun spot cycle" and happens every eleven years. There are longer cycles of variability that extend to centuries and millennia.

According to U Montana there are three major cyclic components that affect the Earth's orbit around the Sun: (1) Eccentricity of ~100,000 years, (2) Axial Tilt of ~41,000 years, and (3) Precession (or "wobble") of ~23,000 years.

These components do not affect the total amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, but rather energy distribution between the polar and equatorial areas and seasonality. That, in turn, affects the build up and melting of polar ice. Based on the ice core data, the combination of these cycles triggers cooling and warming periods.

Therefore, when the orbital and solar radiation cycles happen to coincide, which may occur around every 100,000 years, a global warming cycle is initiated. The warming causes more CO2 to be driven out of the oceans and, over an 800 year period, CO2 levels rise and stay high until the solar radiation high point passes. At that point, cooling begins and, a thousand years or more later, CO2 levels decrease as more of the CO2 gas is again absorbed into the cooler oceans.

Summary

We are definitely in a global warming period.

Human activity, namely burning coal and oil that have been sequestered underground for eons is definitely responsible for a portion of this global warming.

Therefore, to the extent practical, we humans should reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels. However, no matter what we do, human-caused CO2 emissions will continue to rise in the coming decades. We may be able to slow the rise, but there is no practical way to stop it that will be acceptable to the forces at work in human civilization.

The global warming period we are in is mainly due to natural, uncontrollable variation in our Earth’s orbit around the Sun: orbital eccentricity, axial tilt, and wobble.

BOTTOM LINE: Get used to it! We are going to have to use technology to cope with steadily rising temperatures and sea levels for the coming decades. It will be bad, but nothing near what the alarmists are predicting. There may be an average increase of a degree and a foot or so over the coming fifty years. Many low-lying agricultural lands and cities will be flooded. Some sea walls and levees will prove to be inadequate and will be washed away or have to be torn down. Human habitation and permanent buildings will be banned on most land below high water level. Building codes will restrict new construction in low-lying areas to protect life and property. Life will go on!

Ira Glickstein

Click HERE for my novel predictions about life on Earth fifty years from now.

Lessons L- and C-minds Draw from the Tuskegee Experiment

Without getting into partisan politics it is instructive to consider the "lessons learned" by L- and C-minds from the horrid 1932-1972 Tuskegee experiment where hundreds of black men were told they were being treated for their syphilis when, in actuality, they were simply being observed as the disease progressed without any attempt at treatment.

The issue has surfaced because Rev. Jeremiah Wright recently claimed “the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” He backed up his claim by saying the U.S. government “purposely infected African-American men with syphilis.” He also said: “Based on this Tuskegee experiment ... I believe our government is capable of doing anything.”

According to Jonah Goldberg, many present-day Americans, including some prominent conservative commentators, believe the Tuskegee experiment involved purposely infecting the experimental subjects with syphilis. Until I read the linked story, I also believed that.

As awful as the experiment was, it absolutely did not involve purposely infecting the men - they were recruited because they already had syphilis. As for the lack of treatment, at the initiation of the study, in 1932, penicillin was not available. Into the 1940's and '50's, it was not medically established that penicillin was a safe treatment for men in the latter stages of the disease. Thus, the un-ethical aspect of the Tuskegee experiment consisted of: 1) Lying to the subjects when telling them they were being treated for syphilis and 2) Not providing penicillin to those still alive when it was known to be an effective and safe treatment.

Lesson of Tuskegee for L-Minds:

According to Goldberg, "I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard guilt-ridden white liberals say ... 'Considering what we did at Tuskegee, who can blame them [black people] for being distrustful of government?' ...”

"Liberals like to invoke Tuskegee as if it’s solely an indictment of what other people did, proof that we need more progressive government."

Lesson of Tuskegee for C-Minds:

Goldberg adds: "as a conservative, I have no problem with distrusting government, nor can I fault the descendants of slaves or the victims of Jim Crow for distrusting government more than most. But why blacks remain the most reliable voters for the party of ever-expanding government power is something of a mystery. Indeed, it’s worth noting that the Tuskegee study, launched under the New Deal, was symptomatic of arrogant liberal government. The study ... emerged out of a liberal progressive public health movement concerned about the health and well-being of the African-American population.”

"... Tuskegee was in fact the poisoned fruit of progressive government."

OK, L- and C-minds on this Blog - what do YOU think?

Ira Glickstein

Corny Schemes

The cover of Time Magazine shows an ear of corn sheathed with dollar bills instead of leaves. See: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975-1,00.html

Some seem to be finally willing to write about, what some of us engineers and scientists have been saying, since ethanol biofuels were first proposed. It won't save anything. It will cause inflation and world famine. It will increase the carbon in the atmosphere. Now the bandwagon may be impossible to stop or the ethanol financial bubble will burst. The cover of Time may be an early warning. Hopefully that's the case. Reverberations from the collapse may not be too drastic. There are big bucks and big egos invested in this concept that will fight to preserve this bad idea. Fortunately, President Bush has hopped on the ethanol bandwagon, thereby making it a fair target for the media.

The philosophical question is why does this happen? We know that individuals make bad decisions because of bad information, bad models, bad motivation, bad execution, etc. One would imagine that a large group of people could somehow average out their defects and come up with fewer failed decisions. It doesn't seem to work that way. Why?

As you know, I prefer anecdotal evidence over statistical evidence. I believe most of all (not exclusively) what I personally experience. I testified once before the Hawaii Senate Committee on something or other. I testified that the Senate needed to do a better job finding disinterested parties to make recommendations concerning technical proposals before it. Most proposers were only interested in funding dollars not actual progress on solving a problem. I cited ocean thermal conversion and hydrogen energy as examples of a waste of time and tax payer money and gave my reasons. The senator from the Big Island angrily cut me off with some nonsense about "we would never have half the progress that we have in this world if people listened to nay-saying scientists and engineers." I found out later from a friend in the senate that the Big Island resort owners who the senator represents, were benefiting from the world hydrogen conference held each year in Kona.

That's a long way of saying that I think we make bad decisions in part. because of corruption and because people just don't want to hear that something won't solve their problem. Nobody likes nay-sayers and thereby short circuit the critical judgment capacity of human beings that normally (?) saves us from walking off cliffs. With respect -Joel

[09 April 2008 - Edited by Ira to add image and make link clickable]

Writing a Novel

They say everyone has the makings of a novel in themselves.

What better way or day to introduce my science-based, near-future novel to the world than here and now!

2052 - The Hawking Plan is my free online novel. Please read it and pass it on!

Stephanie Goldenrod strives to save human life and civilization for an infinite future. Amorality, amore and deep ethical and philosophical issues.

What will life, liberty and technology be like several decades in the future?

• A peaceful world where large-scale military conflict is absent.
• A political economy dominated and effectively ruled by transnational corporations.
• A civilization where reason is trusted and faith is suspect.
• A "positive ID" regime where religion-based terrorism has been suppressed, along with virtually all anonymity and privacy.
• A society where most people, including ministers, priests and rabbis are not literal believers.
• A post global warming world where humanity has been decimated by genetic engineering disasters.
• A population served by Intelligent Robotic Agents, certified intelligent at the average human level.

A brilliant plan to spread human life and civilization far and wide into space as insurance against further disasters here on Earth. 2052 - The Hawking Plan

Ira Glickstein

L/C Good Vibes vs Good Deeds

Do liberals earn less money that conservatives? Nope - liberal's family income averages 6 percent MORE than conservative families.

Do conservatives give less of their income to charity than liberals? Nope again - on average, conservative headed households give 30% MORE!

This surprising (to me) statistic throws new light on our ongoing L/C discussion. For the details, see Washington Post columnist George Will's recent column at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html

Perhaps "compasionate conservative" is not an oxymoron? Perhaps liberals like to talk about helping the poor and downtrodden, but when they take action it is by taking higher taxes from the rich and giving it to the poor while keeping a bit for themselves in the form of bigger government with more social services jobs for them and more votes "bought" with government help programs paid for by us taxpayers?

The data in Will's column are from a Syracuse University professor's book and include the following:

• Conservatives give more blood and donate more time.
• Do you REJECT the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality"? If so, you belong to a group that give FOUR times more than those who accept that statement!
• People who live in the reddest states give nearly twice the percentage of income to charity as those in the bluest states.

Also mentioned is the strong correlation of altruism with being associated with an organized religion. Perhaps religious belief is the "The God Delusion" (Dawkins) http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2008/03/god-delusion.html and "god is not GREAT" (Hitchens) http://tvpclub.blogspot.com/2007/12/god-is-not-great.html, but that type of faith leads to actual, personal giving while the opposite leads to talking about it and getting "good vibes."

Ira Glickstein

Voting and Notions of Fairness

In our continuing discussion of L/C (Liberal/Conservative) mindset differences, let us consider the relative importance attributed to fairness versus effectiveness. It is my belief that conservatives tend to rate effectiveness more highly than do liberals, and the reverse applies to fairness.

The current controversy over seating the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Presidential party conventions is what got me thinking about this issue. (I do not intend to stray into partisan politics that favors Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama or the Republicans or the Democrats. Please try to keep any comments clearly on the issue of fairness and effectiveness and L/C differences.)

Both political parties made an attempt this year to discourage states from "jumping the gun" and holding their primaries prior to February 5th. Exceptions were made for the traditionally-first New Hampshire primary and caucuses in Iowa and a few other states. As a result, some 26 states complied and scheduled their primaries or caucuses for February 5th, named "Super Tuesday," and most other states scheduled for after Super Tuesday.

1) Fairness of Penalty for "Jumping the Gun"

To discourage states from going before Super Tuesday, both parties imposed penalties. This provides us with the first example of notions of fairness.

The Republican C-minded penalty was loss of half the delegates. The Democratic L-minded penalty was far more strict. Any offending state would lose all their convention delegates. Any candidate campaigning in those states would lose all party funding.

At first glance, The Democratic Party penalties seem more fair. We would be appalled if a rule-breaking racer was given half credit for winning the race! Imagine if the "halfies" rule was applied to criminals - the robber who was caught would be allowed to keep half the haul!

On the other hand, Florida and Michigan are important states when it comes to winning the general election in November. Any political party that upsets the voters in those states risks losing them. In that light, the "fair" penalty seems harsh. Indeed, the Democratic Party is scrambling to give Florida and Michigan some kind of representation at their convention. Schemes for a re-vote seem to have failed (see next item).

On second thought, the less fair C-minded "halfies" penalty seems more effective and less divisive than the more fair L-minded strict penalty.

2) Fairness of a "Do-Over"

Clinton, who won both Florida and Michigan, would like the Democratic Party to recind the penalty, or, failing that, allow a "do-over" primary in June.

A revote would cost tens of millions of dollars that would have to come from the state or national Democratic Party coffers since the taxpayers of Florida and Michigan have already paid for one primary. A less-costly mail-in primary was considered in Florida but had to be dropped because five counties are under legal restrictions against changing voting rules due to previous racial discrimination. Here is another case where fairness (preventing future racial discrimination) runs into effectiveness (re-doing the primary at reasonable cost). The Michigan legislature seems to have failed in their attempts to schedule a "do-over".

So, why not simply recind the penalties and give Clinton and Obama the delegates they won in the original primary? Clinton would love that because she won Florida. Obama removed his name from the ballot in Michigan and Clinton also won there. Quite understandably, Obama, who leads in elected delegates, opposes that plan. Why not just split the delegates evenly between Clinton and Obama? Quite understandably, Clinton objects.

Once again, it appears that L-minded fairness (representation of the Democratic primary voters in Florida and Michigan) will take a back seat to the C-minded idea of not changing the rules in the middle of the game.

3) Fairness Schemes for Scheduling Primaries

Fairness advocates favor some national rule for scheduling primaries. One idea is to schedule a primary in a different geographic region each month. To make that fair, the order of regions would be random each election so no one region would go first each time.

The traditional early-primary states object to that idea. It would also be hard to get the various interest groups to agree on how the regions would be designated.

On second thought it seems this L-minded fairness idea is dead on arrival.

4) Proportional vs Winner-Take-All

In winner-take-all primaries, the candidate who gets, say, 51% of the popular vote gets 100% of the convention delegates. That seems unfair to the candidate who got 49%. L-minded fairness advocates are rightly concerned about this and favor a proportional system where convention delegates are awarded by county or proportionately by state.

Nearly all Democratic primaries and caucuses are run on a proportional system, confirming their generally L-minded attitudes. The reverse is true of most Republican primaries.

As a result, the Republicans settled on a presumptive candidate in February. This is quite effective but it seems unfair to deprive the late-primary states of any voice in the selection process.

It appears the Democrats will be going at it until June or perhaps even at their convention. The candidates will continue spending heavily and attacking each other. This seems less effective, but it does give a voice to Democratic voters in late-primary states.

On second thought, it appears L-minded fairness may lead the Democrats to "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory." (Advocates of eliminating the Electoral College process or requiring all states to award Electoral College votes proportionately might want to rethink their positions based on this example.)

6) "Superdelegates"

This is an ironic example of where the Democratic Party has taken what I consider a more C-minded approach than the Republicans! The voice of the people as expresssed in primaries and caususes counts for 80% of the delegates to the Democratic convention, while the remaining 20% are seated automatically on the basis of the offices they hold. This system was put in place in 1982 after some convention disasters to assure that people with demonstrated knowledge and experience would help select the party's Presidential nominee. (The Republicans have a similar system, but with far less power.)

It appears the superdelegates are Sen. Clinton's only hope to reverse her deficit in elected delegates. She is trying to convince them she is the more experienced and safest candidate with the best chance to win. Most superdelegates will probably follow the will of their constituencies, but it will only take a hundred or so to flip the Presidential candidate selection to Clinton.

I generally favor a system where the raw vote "voice of the people" is tempered by something like the old "smoke-filled room" expertise of political pros.

7) "Open" vs "Closed" Primaries

Many states and counties are so "Blue" or "Red' that whoever wins the primary of the dominant party is virtually assured of election. For example, most inner-city counties are Blue and many suburban counties are Red.

L-minded fairness advocates are rightly concerned that members of the minority party, and independents, have no say in the election of their representatives. Therefore, many primaries are "open" - allowing independents and members of the opposite party to change their party affiliation at the last moment or vote in whichever party primary they choose.

Most Republican-dominated states have closed primaries. Of course, anyone can register in either party and some members of the minority party do register in the majority party to get a voice in the primaries. However, the decision to switch party affilliation must be done well before the primary date.

L-minded independents and Democrats generally favor open primaries. Ironically, some conservative talk show hosts have exploited the open primary system and asked their listeners to switch parties and vote for Sen. Clinton to increase the chaos and extend the Democratic primary contest.

I generally favor closed primaries. I don't like the idea of people flipping parties at the last minute. However, if I lived in a jurisdiction where the other party was dominant, I would change my party affilliation to that party to get a voice in their primary.

I'd be interested in your opinions on these issues. Please don't be partisan. Try to stick to the philosophical issues of fairness vs effectiveness.

Ira Glickstein

Toffee, RIP

Today it was my sad duty to take our devoted golden retriever, Toffee, for his last visit to the veterinarian. Over the past year he's lost strength in his hips, a common malady for dogs of his size, breed and age. He was 13, over 84 in human-equivalent years.


Despite shots, special food and medication he got to the point where he could not get up by himself and, once up, could not walk very well or more than ten or twenty feet without lying down. The NSAID medication necessary to keep the inflamation under control caused him to lose his appetite which is what convinced me to do the compationate thing.


Toffee was (at least in our opinions) the world's best and nicest dog. We went through obedience training, tracking, and agility together.


He knew lots of tricks. In the morning he would fetch his collar, my pool shoes, and the newspaper. He would follow hand signals or voice signals and stay, come, sit, roll over, and so on.


One of his best tricks was balancing a dog biscuit (or four, see photo) on his nose until you snapped your fingers.







I wrote to our daughter that "Toffee was so smart he must be partly Jewish!" She wrote back that she thought Toffee was telling his dog friends that his master "Ira was so smart he must be partly golden retriever."



Our granddaughters loved him and called him "uncle Toffee". Vi made him a food dish with that appellation. We were "mommy" and "daddy" to him.

Although I am not a literal believer, I have no doubt Toffee is now in a beautiful park just outside of Heaven, restored to his youthful vigor and playing with all the other dogs.


Every once in a while, one of the dogs stops playing, sniffs the air and perks up his ears ... and then runs to greet his master. Together, they cross the crystal bridge into Heaven.

God be with you Tof - See you on the other side

Ira Glickstein