Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

A World to Come Home To: Ending Global Warming in Our Lifetime
A World to Come Home To: Ending Global Warming in Our Lifetime
A World to Come Home To: Ending Global Warming in Our Lifetime
Ebook646 pages8 hours

A World to Come Home To: Ending Global Warming in Our Lifetime

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

THE LAYMAN’S GUIDE TO THE TRUTH ABOUT
GLOBAL WARMING AND HOW WE CAN END IT
This book is written for the general public, and explains the politically-charged and oftentimes confusing topic of global warming in terms that the average person can readily understand. It cuts through what is frequently self-serving propaganda and twisting of facts so that clarity can prevail.
This book deals straight-on with this life-threatening crisis in which we now find ourselves. Because the global warming situation can end civilization as we know it (and do so in relatively short order), this book is not light or superficial.
This book outlines specific strategies and actions we can take at the individual, local, and national levels to not only help mitigate global warming and advance sustainability ourselves, but also to induce our federal government to implement a national energy policy that can render our nation fossil-free before 2050 and defuse the global warming time bomb.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherBookBaby
Release dateDec 15, 2014
ISBN9781941827017
A World to Come Home To: Ending Global Warming in Our Lifetime

Related to A World to Come Home To

Related ebooks

Environmental Science For You

View More

Related articles

Related categories

Reviews for A World to Come Home To

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    A World to Come Home To - Craig R. Hover

    possible.

    Prologue

    WE CAN END GLOBAL WARMING in our lifetime… because we need to. As will be detailed in the pages ahead, not only is global warming a real phenomenon, it is more severe, imminent, and devastating in its consequences than is being currently portrayed. In addition, the fact that there is actually a solution available to us right now is being virtually ignored.

    If the global warming phenomenon is left unchecked, we are setting ourselves up for a runaway catastrophe so far-reaching in its effects that it will be a game-ender for our planetary civilization.

    Simply put, to prevent this catastrophe, we must abandon the use of fossil fuel by no later than 2050. If we do not, we stand to cross an irreversible Point of No Return by midcentury, wherein an unstoppable, self-sustaining global warming event would ensue, with the likely result that as much as 90 percent of the world’s population could perish by 2150.

    If we have not abandoned the use of fossil fuel by 2050, conditions on this planet will noticeably and inexorably deteriorate as the years proceed. As we proceed closer and closer to the end of this century, conditions on the planet will become increasingly unbearable. Our very own children and grandchildren—who are alive today—will witness and experience firsthand the beginning of mankind’s full-on descent into oblivion.

    Man is creating global warming. As such, man can stop it. Through full deployment of the renewable technologies that already exist, we can render fossil fuel obsolete before 2050. The necessary rate of deployment of these technologies has already been demonstrated in the opening decade of this century. This can be done while still retaining our modern technological civilization, complete with all the creature comforts we have come to expect as normal. Further, this implementation will produce an era of prosperity and widely enjoyed affluence, the likes of which have never been seen before.

    Politicians and big business will not save us. Through their collective self-serving wrong actions, they have proven themselves hopelessly corrupt and morally bankrupt. To solve the global warming problem, we’re on our own. Our future is in our own hands.

    Fortunately, we can do this. Individual actions collaboratively executed can free us from the tyranny in which we now find ourselves and can reclaim the earth and mankind.

    For our children to have a world to come home to, the time to act is now.

    BEYOND BELIEF

    Do you believe in global warming?

    It has been my observation that most people perceive global warming as a belief structure, like a religion or a political philosophy. Further, this perception does not seem to depend on education level. Many well-educated people, even with multiple college degrees, have this same perception.

    Just reading or saying the words global warming tends to elicit an emotional reaction. In our society’s present context, these two words almost always immediately galvanize any conversation in which they surface.

    There has been a persistent tendency over the last decade to refer to the climatological phenomenon we are encountering as climate change. This term first came into use during the 1990s when the United Nations was undertaking the analytical work that would come to be known as the Kyoto Protocol. This term later became widely popularized in 2003 by political consultant Frank Luntz in an attempt to help distance the George W. Bush administration from the public’s perception that that administration had lost the environmental battle. The strategy was to create the impression that there was no scientific consensus on the subject of global warming. Thus, if there was no consensus, the voters would not be concerned and their views would soften and change accordingly.

    That initial strategy worked very well. In fact, it worked so well that by the 2012 presidential election there was virtually no mention of the environment, climate change, or renewable energy at all—not by the Republicans, the Democrats, or even the media.¹ As of this writing, the concern over climate change appears only in sporadic flurries in the popular press, and occasional attempts to do anything significant on the subject are not only woefully inadequate, the subject is treated as just another political football to kick around the field—a subject that is met with endless debate and posturing rather than any concerted effort to do anything useful.

    As far as our leadership is concerned, it appears that the threat of global warming is of no consequence. My goal here is to change that.

    Also, so as to not hide behind or leave any doubt about the impact of what we’re doing to our planet, I will use a term that more accurately describes the consequences of our actions here in the present and recent past. Global warming is a more clear description of what is happening to the temperature of our planet. There is no equivocation in the term global warming. It’s getting hotter—all over the planet. And it will continue to do so until we stop it.

    The amount of misinformation, disinformation, opinions on (usually uninformed), ignoring of, and baggage associated with this topic is staggering. The overwhelming majority of the population of this country is distressingly uninformed (or misinformed) as to what this phenomenon is about, or even whether it is, in fact, an actual phenomenon rather than something made up.

    A popular context is that global warming is associated with a political or social philosophy of some kind. Most notably, if one is concerned about global warming and what it may be doing to the fate of our planet and our society, this person is automatically assumed to be of a liberal political persuasion.

    This knee-jerk and unthinking perception occurs automatically, without forethought, and frequently sets up the opposite reaction: If one is of a more conservative political stance, then it is assumed this person would also tend to deny or refute the whole notion of global warming.

    The topic of global warming also seems to carry with it an age-related component. At one end of the spectrum, say the World War II generation, global warming tends to be viewed by these individuals (though not always) as being unreal. So they just deny or ignore it.

    At the other end of the age spectrum is the college-age generation. To this group of people, global warming isn’t even a question—it’s a given. Not only is it a given, global warming is seen by this generation as the most pressing and immediate issue of our times—something that must be dealt with now.

    The reality is that belief has nothing to do with global warming. It is simply a phenomenon of the earth’s physics that is being driven by fundamental forces: We do certain things to the earth system, and the earth system responds. It is nothing more than physics and numbers—not unlike the laws of gravity, inertia, and thermodynamics.

    My objective in this book is to demystify the subject of global warming and what needs to be done to put an end to it. The basic concepts of global warming reduce to first principles that anyone with even a basic education can grasp. If you are educated enough to read this book, you are educated enough to understand this topic.

    The Earth Does Not Care About Us

    One thing we need to constantly remember on this topic of global warming is that the earth does not care about us. It does not care what we think or what our politics are. Nor does it care about our economics, social issues, desires, squabbles, or anything else. The earth does not negotiate. If what we do here on its surface affects the earth’s processes, it will respond accordingly. Bottom line.

    CRITICAL MASS

    People concerned about global warming are plagued by the immobilizing effect that tends to be elicited when they acknowledge both the magnitude of the problem and the forces that must be overcome. The task seems impossible.

    In league with this is the idea that solving the global warming problem requires that everyone finally acknowledge the problem and then support the efforts needed to get this phenomenon under control and bring it to an end.

    This is not true. It does not take everyone. It does not even take a majority. All it takes is enough. A so-called critical mass of people acting in a unified manner can shift the momentum and induce the necessary action. As little as 10 percent of the adult population of this country, acting with one mind, can overcome the forces that are systematically and willfully destroying the earth.

    This requires us to awaken from the trance under which we have been living. What we are not aware of controls us. To reach the achievable bright future requires that we individually and collectively see and then confront the barriers to that future. Fortunately, these barriers can be overcome.

    Awareness is half the battle. And with awareness comes power—the power to consciously choose rather than blindly follow. This battle will not be won in some Herculean contest. It will instead be won in how we each choose to think, act, and feel in the routine of our day-to-day lives.

    In the days and years ahead, each of us will migrate into one of two camps: One camp will be comprised of those who are concerned about the future of the earth and mankind and who will act accordingly. The other will be comprised of those who don’t. And it will be crystal clear which camp each of us are in.

    This book is about perspective, the big picture, and the long view. So much clamors for our attention today that it is very often difficult to know what is important, what is hype, what is genuine, and who you can trust. This book tackles head-on the hot-button issues that revolve around this topic. It cuts through what is often intentional obfuscation and self-serving propaganda so that clarity can prevail.

    This book is both a wake-up call and a call to action.

    Craig R. Hover

    Los Angeles, California

    September 10, 2014


    ¹   This was the first time since 1984 that none of the topics of the environment, climate change, or renewable energy were included in the debates.

    PART I

    Two Futures

    CHAPTER 1

    A Fork in the Road

    Our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.

    No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings.

    ~ JOHN F. KENNEDY

    A NEW VISION

    ONE OF THE BASIC TENETS in the late Stephen R. Covey’s very popular book The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People is to Begin with the End in Mind. While we associate Covey’s book with personal development and achievement, the tenet of having a clear goal in mind, upon which we can focus our plans and our actions, also applies to society as well. Historically, we have been a nation that has preferentially catered to individual effort and achievement, so the idea of a singular national focus may, at first blush, seem somewhat at variance with that historical perspective.

    However, if we are to effectively deal with the threat of global warming, it becomes clear that such a singular national focus is required. We need to have a clear, specific vision in front of us to act as a blueprint so that we know what it is we need to do and by when we need to do it. Without such a goal in mind, we will not know where we’re going, we will wander about as if we were lost in the desert, and we will waste the precious little time that we do have for solving this problem.

    Regardless of the endless rhetoric we hear coming from Washington, today we have no encompassing vision to propel this nation forward, first in acknowledging that a global warming problem even exists, and second in having any kind of coherent plan—any plan at all—for dealing with this problem.

    When the nation does embrace a vision, remarkable results can transpire. There are two examples from the twentieth century that illustrate what happens when the nation grasps a vision.

    One of these examples is Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal Administration. While one may or may not agree with the man’s politics or the policies that were initiated during his time, what he was able to do was break the attitude of despair that gripped the country and inspire the people of this nation to roll up their sleeves and go out and build an infrastructure with dams, highways, and bridges. And we did. And we still enjoy the fruits of those efforts today.

    The other example is President Kennedy’s famous speech to Congress and the Nation in 1961 in which he said, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. This visionary statement came at a time when the American people were reeling from constantly being second to the Soviets in exploring the new frontier of space. This instilled a sense of mission in the American people. It challenged and inspired us with a goal that was so difficult, so outrageous, that it fired the imagination of scientific progress in a way we have not seen since. Furthermore, the scientific advances that were made in that time resulted in many products we take for granted today: Products such as Teflon, photovoltaic solar cells, and highly efficient insulating materials (that have made lightweight cold-weather clothing possible).

    Today we are beset not with a vision but a nightmare. The nightmare from which we are suffering tells us that global warming is inevitable and that we need to prepare for its impending effects. Intertwined with this inferred inevitability is the notion that abundance can be had only by the endless exploitation of others and decimation of the planet.

    The global warming phenomenon, along with its attendant disastrous consequences, is being made by man’s egregious behavior. And, because it has been made by man, man can correct it.

    Our longstanding extractive economic model equates abundance with ever-increasing consumption, wastefulness, pollution, human exploitation, and the burning of fossil fuels, and it posits that the now-recognized global warming trend is an inevitable (and necessary) consequence. If we want prosperity and affluence, we have no choice but to accept global warming as part of the package.

    This dichotomy has created a sense of guilt and shame within our collective subconscious. We all want a free-flowing and abundant life. But having prosperity at the expense of the very earth upon which we depend has set up a largely unrecognized and irresolvable internal conflict within us.

    Abundance at the expense of decimating our planet is a false view and one that is part of the lie and the trance under which we have been living for centuries.

    Attendant to this belief is the notion that there are insufficient resources for each of us to have what we want and that we must compete for this perceived lack of sufficient means for us to survive and to provide for ourselves and our families. In other words, we believe in scarcity. Because we believe in scarcity, we believe that some will have enough, and some will not. To protect ourselves against the perceived possibility that we might run out of resources, we try and take others’ resources even though it may cause suffering.

    This view belongs to the old and outdated paradigm of endless competition for survival—one of combat, struggle, violence, hatred, and exploitation.

    In complete contrast with the above is the notion that nature is inherently abundant. We see this all around us constantly, and yet most of us have been trained to not see it. Every living thing, whether it is plant, animal or human, can produce hundreds to millions of times more seed material than is needed to simply reproduce itself. Nature veritably gushes in its ability to produce more than is needed for its mere continuance.

    This is the framework from which the earth system operates. It can provide us with more than we can ever use—by a long margin. Everything we need is already here in an unending supply—if we choose to see it and avail ourselves of it. And we can enjoy this free-flowing abundance without having to decimate or devour our planet in the process.

    Where abundance flows, aggression recedes, and peacefulness prevails.

    In league with the postulate that nature is inherently abundant is the view that an abundant, free-flowing, and affluent society is within our reach right now. By applying technologies that are available today, we can unleash a virtually zero-impact, inexhaustible, and planet-friendly torrent in our lifetime that could provide us with more abundance than we could ever use—both for now and into the unlimited future.

    The earth is inherently abundant. Everything we need is already here in an unending supply—if we choose to see it and avail ourselves of it.

    In Jeremy Rifkin’s book The Third Industrial Revolution, he makes the case that major industrial revolutions occur when there is a convergence between a new communications vehicle and a new means of producing energy.

    With the advent of computers and the Internet, a new communications vehicle has been created. It is a lateral network, meaning that people can easily communicate with each other directly across a wide variety of media (email, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Pinterest, among others) through PCs, iPhones, tablets, the cloud, and so forth. We can do this in real time through handheld devices with anyone on the planet through a communications grid comprised of telephone cables, microwave dishes, cell phone towers, and satellites. Even though this lateral network is still in its infancy, it is proving itself to be a force to be reckoned with—both positively and negatively. The communications side of this revolution is moving at a breakneck pace.

    In league with this lateral communications vehicle, a new lateral means of producing energy has also arrived. I am a nuts-and-bolts mechanical engineer, and this book is about the mechanics of the infrastructure we have alluded to above.

    I spent nearly two decades working in the field of electric power generation. I was part of the engineering team that built the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Clemente, California, and this has given me a wide familiarity with the energy field, what it takes to get power from one point to another, and the complexities involved in working with regulatory organizations.

    As we move forward, I see solar power (photovoltaics and others) and wind turbines as very viable technologies for establishing this new, laterally oriented energy base. These energy sources are laterally oriented because they can form a distributed (or diffuse) energy structure that does not rely on a relatively few centralized power stations such as those that have dominated in the past. Energy can be produced by anyone and used by anyone. Power generation is no longer restricted to a few large companies—it can be produced ubiquitously. Furthermore, this renewably generated power can also be distributed through a larger version of the pervading power grid that exists today, one comprised of transmission lines, substations, transformers, and meters. This kind of energy format relies solely on sunlight and wind—energy sources that are inexhaustible. It is possible for our energy base to finally be sustainable into the indefinite future—not to mention that it is completely non-polluting.

    PATTERNS

    As an engineer, I tend to be oriented toward the practical side of things. As it pertains to the behavior of our climate over the long term, I have found it useful to study and pay attention to the various patterns of phenomena that have been observed rather than focusing primarily on theories.

    Theories are derived as a guess as to what someone thinks should happen. And these theories can be based on either observation or on a pre-existing bias or view of the person conceiving the theory. Sometimes these theories closely approximate reality in that they have been tested again and again with similar results. In other instances, theories can become ingrained in our social and (so-called) scientific fabric and remain unquestioned, sometimes for centuries, even when they have very little correlation to reality.

    In contrast to theory, the study of patterns is empirical, in that it is based on observation rather than on what one may think should happen. The empirical method is primarily focused on observing what happened and in identifying the precursors that led to the occurrence of that event. It simply says, This occurred, and it did so here and here and here. And it was preceded by this and this and this. By studying the pattern, the conditions that led to the event (or events) can also be seen. From this it can be derived that, if certain conditions arise, then certain results can be expected.

    In league with looking at patterns of phenomena, there is less emphasis on explaining why something occurred (or occurs) and more emphasis on simply acknowledging that the pattern exists.

    The study of patterns stems from the notion that everything moves in cycles. Cycles are studied all the time. In fact, whole organizations exist that are exclusively dedicated to the study of patterns. These cycles are studied to see if we can divine the future.

    We see the repetition of patterns all the time. Day turns to night and then day again. The seasons are seen to progress in a predictable pattern. The course of our lives proceeds in largely typical patterns. For example, we grow from infants to adolescents to adults to elders. We tend to marry, have children, work, and retire in largely predictable ways. Insurance companies study such patterns rigorously. We even study the movement of the markets to see if we can predict future movements based on what is occurring in the present (this is the whole domain of stock and futures traders).

    Once seen, patterns of phenomena become obvious. It doesn’t take someone with a PhD degree to figure them out. Anyone of average intelligence can see the pattern. This demystifies what is occurring and takes the phenomenon out of the realm of conjecture.

    The global warming debate is fraught with conjecture and endless talk about what is happening and what will (or might) happen. By simply looking at previous patterns of phenomena and seeing the results of what happened, we can look at current conditions that are developing now and conclude that certain results will transpire if those conditions continue.

    A MATTER OF RECORD

    The first such pattern we will look at is not related to global warming. However, I have included it here for two reasons. First, it is an example of this process of observation of patterns of phenomena in action and that there is no theory behind it. The second is that it establishes a precedent for the credibility of what I present in this book and why it might be a good idea to seriously consider the future described herein should we stay on our present fossil-driven course, ignoring the renewable option.

    The pattern we will look at pertains to the long-term behavior of our economy. Briefly stated, by using the aforementioned process of simple observation of patterns of phenomena, I predicted in the 1970s (more than 30 years ago) the Great Recession from which we are now recovering. Not only that, I correctly anticipated all of the major up-and-down swings that have occurred in our economy, along with their magnitudes and their approximate timing, from the 1990s to the present. This pattern is still manifesting itself—just as I saw it more than a generation ago.¹

    This is not an idle claim, and I don’t make it lightly. At the time that I investigated this phenomenon, I was a young engineer and not long out of school. I was working for Southern California Edison on their San Onofre nuclear project. Our economy was suffering from high inflation at the time, and I was concerned about where that might be taking us. To gain insight in this area, I began researching our economic history to see if there was any observed link between inflation and economic turmoil. What I saw was so convincing that I was compelled to write and publish a book about what I discovered.

    That book was published in 1979 under the title The Coming Depression. At the time I published it, I sent a copy to the Library of Congress, where it has resided ever since. (The last time I checked their website, the book is on file in the Jefferson Reading Room.) Ergo, what I claim here is a matter of historical record, one that is verifiable.

    Simply stated, it has been my observation that our economy moves in a relatively predictable long-term pattern, one that takes approximately 60 years (or two human generations) to complete. The first half of the cycle (about 30 years) is relatively stable, with general prosperity prevailing. The second half (also about 30 years) is generally unstable and is where significant economic dislocations occur. We have now completed five of these patterns since the colonial days in the 1700s, and we are now embarking on the sixth such cycle.²

    At interest here is what I have dubbed the unstable portion of the cycle, the part during which the booms and busts (depressions and major recessions) occur. In the 1970s, I predicted that our economy would go through a period of significant turmoil somewhere near the end of the century. I was prompted to look at this pattern again after having not made any consideration of it on my part for nearly 30 years.

    In looking at it now, I have frankly been stunned at the uncanny accuracy of what I had predicted so long ago. Figure 1.1 offers a pictorial. The value of the stock market has long been used as a metric of economic activity. The dashed line on the graph is the prediction I made in the mid-1970s concerning our nation’s long-term economic activity. It is a composite of the unstable portion of the four long-term economic cycles our economy had experienced previously in its history, has been adjusted to reflect an average 2.5 percent inflation rate we have experienced from the 1990s to the present, and is derived from my 1979 book The Coming Depression. The solid line on the figure shows the actual trace of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (or the Dow) from the early 1990s to the present (2014).

    As you can see, the two patterns are virtually identical. The patterns I had predicted all transpired exactly as I had laid them out in the late 1970s. The timing was a little different than I had anticipated, but the pattern was exact. This realization has been quite humbling—and a bit unnerving.³

    This pattern was laid out long before we even knew about things such as personal computers, the Internet, the dot.com bust, the great real estate boom (and bust), the mortgage meltdown and international banking crisis, the emergence of China, or the current oil and gas boom. All of this was determined simply on the observation of patterns of phenomena. There was no theory involved.

    FIGURE 1.1

    US Economic Activity - Projected vs. Actual

    Compare this to the predictions from the 1990s of noted economists such as Harry Dent. He predicted that the Dow Jones would soar to more than 40,000 by 2011. He became so popular in his predictions that entire mutual fund families were named after him. Well, we know how that went. This is not to speak ill of Mr. Dent. It is simply to point out that there can be a difference between theory and simple observation, with no preconceived notion of how things are supposed to go.

    I had no crystal ball in predicting the course our economy would take. Nor do I claim any special paranormal abilities in looking forward from here as pertaining to the earth’s climate patterns. The things I see developing over the next several generations on the subject of the global warming phenomenon are based simply on observation and simple principles.

    THE KISS PRINCIPLE

    We’re all familiar with the KISS Principle—Keep It Simple and Straightforward.

    In coming to be familiar with not only the global warming situation but also in the true state of the renewable energy technologies, one of the things that stands out in my mind is that the average citizen is hopelessly confused about the myriad claims and counterclaims that are made in these arenas.

    One of my objectives is to present the salient material in such a way that it is not the obfuscation, misrepresentation, and twisting of facts that is so often seen but is instead presented so that it can easily be followed by the average lay reader.

    We saw above how simply observing patterns of phenomena can be quite insightful in understanding the world. In addition, we will make use of other very simple techniques throughout this book to understand and gain clarity on these topics. These are:

    First Principles: Much of what is occurring surrounding the topic of global warming can be understood using what I refer to as first principles, meaning that it can be described and understood with fundamental processes or characteristics of the physical world, i.e., things we experience in our day-to-day lives.

    Simple Math (arithmetic): Here, we will make use of the simple arithmetic you learned in elementary school and apply it to the first principles to see the global warming phenomenon (as well as other processes we will touch on) in action.

    Orders of Magnitude: One of the things I find most confounding and aggravating in the global warming arena is the almost complete lack of any sense of scale, meaning that, in anything that is discussed or written about the subject, there is almost never any perspective provided as to how important, or not, the particular thing is to the larger picture. An order of magnitude is a factor of ten times—either larger or smaller. This is important because it instantly gives an idea of scale: How big or small something is as compared to something else. In the context of this book, working in orders of magnitude tells us quickly if a proposed technology or action is actually going to make a difference to the situation or if it is just a distraction.

    Back of the Envelope: The problems and solutions explored in this volume are done as first-order approximations—and that’s good enough. As you proceed through this work, you will encounter my estimates and first-order approximations time and again. This is a feasibility study, not a final design. The point is to be practical. The primary task is to find out how we can get close to understanding this problem and fixing it while we still can. It doesn’t have to be exact. It just has to be close enough.

    QUESTIONS

    As I began working on this project, there were two questions that drove my inquiries. We will answer these two basic questions in this book.

    The first question pertains to global warming itself. And the question, very simply, is, Is this so-called global warming a problem in our lifetime, in our great-grandchildren’s lifetime, or perhaps never?

    Is global warming a problem in our lifetime? And if it is, can we stop it?

    The other basic question is driven by the answer to the first. If the answer to the first question is that global warming is a problem now (and we acknowledge that the fundamental driver of the problem is the burning of fossil fuels), then the second question is, Can we replace our fossil-driven energy sources with more earth-friendly energy sources in time to avoid the disaster revealed by the first question?

    What also comes up in finding real-world solutions are more questions. For example:

    Just from real-world considerations, can ethanol really replace gasoline and diesel as our motive fuel? How much of the land area of the United States would be required to do that? And do we really want to do that if we could?

    With all the attention being paid to water conservation (particularly at the residential level), how close can we really get to solving the water problem using those techniques?

    Can solar really replace all fossil fuel (i.e., coal, oil, and natural gas) in generating our electricity for the entire country?

    Given any developed battery technology available today, what percentage of our energy needs can really be stored with batteries?

    These are just a sampling of the real-life questions that must be addressed and answered if we are to have any hope of actually solving the global warming problem. And if we don’t really explore them, then we’re just playing a fool’s game.

    These questions and many, many more are addressed and reconciled in this book. In doing so, it gives a good first cut at what we need to do and where we need to put our attention in ending global warming.

    TWO FUTURES

    In the next two chapters, I will describe two possible futures that we could find ourselves in based on the choices we make here in the present. We will create one or the other of these—not both.

    One future is the path of least effort. It is the one in which the status quo remains king and people complacently let themselves be led into whatever life those in power wish to put upon them. It is a catastrophe of the first order, one that can end civilization as we know it and annihilate most of the world’s population. The chapter that describes this path is titled The Disaster Movie for a reason. It is the default scenario.

    The other future is the one in which we finally stand up and say enough. It is the one that requires us to do something different than we have ever done before. Thanks to the shifts in our collective consciousness and the technologies we have developed, we can actually usher in a new era for mankind. That future could truly give us a world that we would want to live in.

    It’s our choice—individually and collectively—and our choice alone.


    ¹   According to the pattern I saw, there is an 83 percent probability that the economic expansion we are now seeing is just the beginning of a very long period of prosperity, one that could easily last to the middle of this century.

    ²   This is not the so-called Kondratieff Wave. Though I came to know about this theory during my early research, the long-term cycle I identified in The Coming Depression does not bear on the Kondratieff Wave at all.

    ³   Even the magnitudes of the market movements were similar. In the initial contraction shown, I estimated it would be 35 percent—actual was 41 percent. I estimated the ensuing expansion to be 95 percent—actual was 100 percent. And finally, I estimated the market collapse we have come to call the Great Recession at 48 percent—actual was 57 percent.

    CHAPTER 2

    The Disaster Movie

    IMAGINE THAT YOU GET A POT, fill it with ice, put it on the stove, and then turn the fire on under the pot. We all know that the ice in the pot will melt. And if you turn up the fire under the pot, the ice will melt faster.

    This is obvious to anyone. It is also the first illustration of first principles in action as they relate to our discussion of global warming. This obvious reality—that of heat transferring from a warmer object (the fire on the stove) to a cooler object (the ice in the pot)—is endemic to our everyday experience. We all recognize it; it does not take someone with a PhD to explain it to us. Nor can someone else confuse us about what is occurring: fire, heat, melted ice. It is simple and straightforward—a fundamental process of physics.

    This simple reality occupies an entire branch within engineering and physics. It’s called Heat Transfer and comes complete with a plethora of complex equations, coefficients, textbooks, and myriad other things. To navigate in this arena, a PhD degree is useful.

    When I undertook my own investigation of the global warming question, I approached it as a simple heat transfer question. And I did so as a scaled-up version of a pot of ice on the stove.

    If we know how much ice we have in the pot, and we know the rate at which we are adding heat to the ice, we can easily determine how long it will take for it to melt. We don’t need complex equations or computer programs; we can do it using simple grade-school arithmetic.

    For purposes of the global warming question, if we know how much ice we have on the planet, and we know the rate at which we are adding heat to the surface, we can easily estimate how long it will take to melt all the ice on the planet.

    Notice how the ice-in-the-pot question is exactly the same as the global warming question. The only difference is how many zeros are involved. The arithmetic is exactly the same. We can reduce the entire issue to something so basic that virtually anyone with even modest intelligence can understand it. This is important. While there are scientists and physicists genuinely working to (as accurately as possible) determine the particulars of global warming in a rigorous sense, there are the naysayers who are using the complexities in these approaches to confuse and cloud the issue.

    THE SEQUENCE

    As we continue to burn fossil fuels (or any other hydrocarbons), we continue to add carbon dioxide (a so-called greenhouse gas) to the air, thereby heating the planet’s surface and atmosphere. If we continue in this vein, how long will it take to melt all the ice on the planet? To estimate that, here are some basic, easily found facts.

    The ice:

    We know there are approximately 5.7 million cubic miles of ice on this planet.

    About 90 percent of this is contained in the Antarctic Ice Sheets.

    The remaining 10 percent is distributed predominately in the northern hemisphere. Almost all of this is concentrated in the north polar ice cap, the Greenland ice cap, and other permanent glaciers in the northern hemisphere such as the Himalayas.

    So, the total volume of ice is a known quantity, as is its location on the planet. This is essentially the ice in the pot.

    The heat:

    From basic physics we know that it takes approximately 144 Btus (British thermal units) of thermal energy to melt one pound of ice at 32°F to liquid water at 32°F.¹

    Using simple arithmetic, we can calculate that it will take approximately 750,000 quads² of energy to melt the ice in the northern hemisphere, including the north polar ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet.

    It will take an additional 6.75 million quads of energy to melt the Antarctic ice sheets.

    How fast will the ice melt? That is, how big is the fire on the stove?

    At the beginning of the Industrial Age, around 1800, the CO2 concentration in the air was about 280 parts per million (ppm). That concentration had remained relatively constant for the previous 1,000 years, not varying by more than about 10 ppm one way or the other during that time. The planet was in relative equilibrium at that time—meaning that no excess thermal energy was accumulating—and so we can define this as our starting point.

    We know how much CO2 has been building up in the atmosphere since 1800.

    The differential between these two concentrations of CO2 is the excess CO2 in the atmosphere and is directly proportional to the rate of energy accumulation on the earth’s surface.

    In 2005, a group of 14 scientists from six different scientific institutions published a report in Science in which they reported that they calculated that the earth is absorbing 0.85 +/– 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the sun than it is emitting into space. That’s about 0.27 Btu/ft²/hr.

    Using simple arithmetic, that translates into an additional 18 million billion Btus of thermal energy every day. That’s 18 quads per day as of 2005.³

    Because the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is continuing to increase exponentially, this rate of thermal energy accumulation in the atmosphere will continue to increase accordingly—unless we stop it.

    Figure 2.1 illustrates what happens when you run the numbers using an Excel spreadsheet and plot the results. The conclusions that can be drawn are somewhat disquieting.

    FIGURE 2.1

    Surface Excess Thermal Energy Accumulation

    *1 quad = 1 million billion Btus

    A number of conclusions can be derived from Figure 2.1.

    The solid part of the curve is the calculated total excess thermal accumulation to date (2013) as correlated with the actual airborne CO2 history.

    To date, the planet’s surface has accumulated approximately half of the energy necessary to melt all the ice in the northern hemisphere—a feat accomplished in 212 years.

    Per NASA data, excess thermal energy is preferentially accumulating in the northern hemisphere at this time.

    Half of the north polar ice cap has disappeared since 1980—a mere 30 years.

    At the current exponential rate that CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere, the planet will have accumulated enough thermal energy to melt all the ice in the northern hemisphere, including the north polar ice cap and the Greenland ice sheet by approximately 2050. This is what I have called the Point of No Return.

    The dashed portion of the curve that starts at 2013 and then continues off the chart is the calculated continuation of excess thermal energy accumulation based on the trends we have seen to date. It presumes that what we are doing as far as burning fossil fuel (and other hydrocarbons) will not change significantly from what it is now.

    If these trends are allowed to continue, the surface will have absorbed enough energy to melt all the ice on the planet by approximately 2150—not much more than one century from now. The melting of this planetary ice is a reflection of the additional thermal energy that is being imparted to the earth’s surface. This additional thermal energy will manifest itself in at least three major ways:

    Higher surface and air temperatures

    Higher sea levels, and

    Increased and more frequent severe storm activity.

    UNCERTAINTIES

    Figure 2.1 is not absolute. Two things we can say for certain is the amount of CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere to date and the resulting thermal energy accumulation. This is represented by the solid part of the curve.

    Another thing we can say for certain is that, if these current trends are left unchecked, the surface of the planet will eventually accumulate enough thermal energy to melt all the ice on it.

    What we don’t know is exactly how fast or slow this accumulation will proceed. The dashed portion of the curve in Figure 2.1 is a projection as to how long it would take to accumulate the necessary energy. It is a first order approximation. That’s all it is intended to be.⁴ Figure 2.1 shows that even without resorting to the complexities of sophisticated computer programs and their involved equations, it is a relatively simple task to ascertain that we have an imminent civilization-ending problem that needs to be attended to immediately.

    There are a number of factors that can speed up or slow down this accumulation rate. The projections labeled sooner and later are to acknowledge these variables.

    Thermal energy accumulation can be slowed by factors such as:

    the increase in surface temperature will increase the rate at which the excess energy is radiating back into space, and

    airborne CO2 will eventually be reabsorbed into the overall environment.

    This accumulation can be accelerated by factors such as:

    increased quantities of water vapor in the air due to increasing air temperature;

    continued deforestation, which releases large quantities of CO2 when forests are burned, and the subsequent loss of CO2-absorbing foliage;

    CO2-saturated oceans that can no longer absorb more carbon dioxide could start actually regurgitating CO2 back into the atmosphere; and

    the initiation of

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1