Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]]]]]] THE GREENHOUSE CONSTITUENCY [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
by Petr Beckmann (3/30/1989)
A speculative explanation for a slight warming is being
given the status of a verified scientific theory.
(From CHIEF EXECUTIVE Magazine, New York, March 1989)
Yes, we are now experiencing a slight warming trend that has
raised the average global temperature by about 1.5F since 1850
(EIGHTEEN-fifty).
Yes, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, now about
340 parts per million (0.034%), has increased by some 14% over the
last 100 years.
And yes, there is such a thing as a Greenhouse effect; it is
misnamed, but demonstrable in the laboratory.
To explain the warming -- by Greenhouse or other effect --
honest science untainted by politics or ideology would accept a theory
that explains many observed phenomena, is contradicted by none, and
surpasses its rivals in simplicity.
The theory that attributes the warming to carbon dioxide due
to fossil-fuel burning rests on shaky data, is contradicted by the
historical record, and has some rival theories to contend with; its
overriding advantage over the others is that it gets all the publi-
city.
The Greenhouse effect consists of the following. White sun-
light contains all the colors of the spectrum. If it falls on a red
Stop sign, the red is absorbed, the rest is scattered back into the
sky or to other objects. Stop signs warm up during the day, but at
night they cool, releasing their heat as infrared radiation. If the
atmosphere were perfectly transparent, as much energy would be radi-
ated back out into space as arrived from the sun, and the earth's heat
balance would be maintained. But some gases, notably carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane and ozone, absorb infrared (heat) radiation. They let
in most colors of the spectrum except infra-red; but these other
colors are then changed to infrared, and trapped between earth and
sky.
No serious scientist doubts the existence of this effect,
which can be demonstrated and measured in the laboratory. But this is
by far not the only effect that can lead to heating of the atmosphere,
and the unresolved question is the extent, if any, to which the Green-
house mechanism is responsible for the warming.
It is not, for example, responsible for the warming of a
Greenhouse. Experiments conducted as early as 1913 showed that the
temperature difference between Greenhouses with glass and (heat-trans-
parent) quartz roofs was insignificant: greenhouses do not get warm by
the Greenhouse effect, but by lack of ventilation (as one can also see
by opening a window in a moving car that has been standing in the
sun).
Quite similarly, there are competing theories explaining the
warming trend. J. Lovelock, an eminent British scientist, has long
pointed to the interaction between climate and biosphere: as the
plankton and other living organisms thrive in a warm climate, the
earth and its oceans reflect more of the incoming sunlight, that the
climate cools again and a slow oscillatory process sets in. (This so-
called "Gaia" theory is now gradually gaining acceptance.) Dr Hugh
Elsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory points out
that convectional heat transfer far exceeds the radiative effects of
the orthodox Greenhouse theory. Dr S.B. Idso of the DoA's Research
Service in Phoenix maintains that the selective opacities of CO2 and
water vapor will screen out so much of the incoming solar radiation
that it overcompensates the orthodox Greenhouse effects and leads to a
net COOLING of the planet. And then, of course, there are scientists
like W.S. Broecker of Columbia University, who push no particular
theory, but point to the lack of knowledge in this area and who call
for research by a scientific organization "isolated from immediate
political pressures."
But the alternative theories have little chance of being dis-
cussed in public: if they do not preach doomsday or accuse industry,
they have little chance of making it into the Sunday supplements.
Comparing the relative importance of the Greenhouse effect with
these alternatives is not easy. Carbon dioxide circulates in nature:
it arises in photosynthesis, burning and other processes, and it is
absorbed by the seas and decomposed by plant respiration. If we knew
the exact amounts circulating through each channel, the carbon budget
would be balanced; in fact, no less than 30% of it is still unknown or
under dispute. Suppose your company were losing money; could you pin-
point the causes if your income statements and balance sheets had
blanks amounting to 30% of the total?
Nor can we, as in the laboratory, run control experiments (to see
what happens WITHOUT fossil fuel burning). But we can do the next best
thing: look at the historical record.
And that does not support the Greenhouse theory. The natural
temperature fluctuations over the centuries and millennia are clearly
not caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Ice core drillings and
analysis of marine sediments show sudden, unexplained jumps of the
atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last 16,000 years, and it does
not correlate with the temperature cycles. For more recent times, ice
drillings in the Himalayas reveal a high CO2 content in the late 17th
century --just about the time when the earth went through the "little
ice age" (including the harsh winter of 1683-84, vividly described in
Blackmore's novel LORNA DOONE). And more recently still, fossil fuel
burning INCREASED during the COOLING period of 1950-70.
But these are not the only difficulties. Carbon dioxide (and
other "Greenhouse gases" such as methane) is produced by a variety of
sources other than fossil fuels (including those used in transporta-
tion). About as large is the contribution by deforestation -- the
destruction of a CO2 sink -- in the Third World. (This has been known
to scientists for decades, but is only recently being admitted by the
"environmentalist" lobbies, whose main thrust is anti-industrial.)
More important, it seems unlikely that ANY man-made activity
could be significant in comparison with the vast quantities of CO2 and
methane released by volcanoes, swamps, animals and other members of
pristine nature. For example, the CO2 released in the digestive pro-
cess of termites alone is estimated some 10 times higher than that due
to fossil fuel burning. This criticism is sometimes rejected on the
grounds that termites are normal participants of the carbon cycle who
have always been there, whereas fossil fuel burning now artificially
releases CO2 from hydrocarbons formed millions of years ago. But apart
from the illustration of the quantities involved, the argument does
not hold for the methane produced in the digestive process (belching)
of ruminating animals, which again is estimated to be of the same
order as fossil-fuel burning. The world's cattle population has NOT
"always been there:" It has been boosted by man, and in the industrial
countries of the Free World has been rising much faster than its popu-
lation.
Now beef-eating is clearly a luxury that could be dispensed with
far more easily than the energy now obtained by burning fossil fuels;
in addition, the crusaders for energy conservation would have to
notice that beef production (especially of grain-fed beef) is energe-
tically vastly more inefficient than the production of cereals, vege-
tables or even fish. In its fear of the alleged dangers of the Green-
house effect, the environmentalist lobby would therefore more logi-
cally have to advocate the extermination of cattle than the abolition
of fossil fuels (and in their love of petty arguments they would have
to point out that the grass consumed by cattle is a CO2 sink); the
fact that they do not do so is one of the many signs that the campaign
against fossil fuels is waged by anti-industrial social engineers
using environmental concerns as a cover for their agenda.
But better proofs of that point are available. Foremost among
them is the campaign against nuclear power. It is easy to demonstrate,
not by computer simulations, but by readily available statistics, that
per energy produced, nuclear power and its entire fuel cycle is vastly
safer than the burning of fossil fuels or hydropower in terms of
deaths and disease incidence, whether by slow causes or sudden disas-
ter. This fact is covered up by the environmentalist lobby (with the
inadvertent help of the nuclear industry, which does not want to
offend their best customers, the coal-burning utilities). Environ-
mentally, nuclear power is overwhelmingly more benign than fossil
fuels; for example, with reprocessed and bred nuclear fuel, the same
amount of electric energy is produced by disrupting 5,000 times less
land than by burning coal.
Even in the case of the alleged greenhouse dangers, nuclear power
is superior, since it does not produce any of the Greenhouse gases (or
the emissions allegedly responsible for acid rain). Yet the so-called
environmentalists continue to oppose it. A single hot, dry summer has
thrown them into panic: they now shower us with articles "Why nuclear
power will not save us from the Greenhouse Effect," in which they no
longer use the "we cannot afford to wait until we are sure" line.
Instead, they suggest conservation by coercive (not market) forces as
well as ``alternative'' sources that, because of their inherent and
unavoidable diluteness, cannot substitute for large-scale energy pro-
duction.
More realistic opinion leaders suggest "another look at nuclear
power." However, nuclear power should be used above all because of its
superior safety and healthfulness compared with other sources, and
also because, when unobstructed by scare-mongering and costly delays,
it is cheaper than coal (let alone oil).
It does not need shaky arguments like the Greenhouse effect.
----------------
Figure Captions:
Fig.1. Small temperature variations with durations of centuries
are superimposed on the large variations between ice ages probably
linked to the precession of the earth's axis (a 25,700-year cycle).
They were present long before the introduction of fossil fuels and
have not been harmful to mankind as a whole, though they slightly
favored or harmed individual geographical regions.
Fig 2. Carbon dioxide concentration in th eatmosphere over the last
150,000 years, as determined from organisms in marine sediments (thin
line) and from ice core drillings (heavy lines). By the logic of the
environmentalist lobby, the sudden sharp increase about 16,000 years
ago was presumably caused by the Public Service Companies of the Plei-
stocene Epoch.
Fig.3. Methane should account for 20% of the Greenhouse effect, as
against 50% due to CO2. However, while the CO2 concentration has in-
creased only by some 14% over the last century, the atmospheric
methane concentration has DOUBLED within the last 200 years, after
being roughly constant over the preceding 3,000 years. The reason for
this sudden increase is unknown. Hundreds of millions of tons per year
are produced by bacteria-mediated fermentation of organic matter in
low-oxygen surroundings, which includes termites' guts, rice paddies,
cows' stomachs and natural wetlands. There is also a contribution from
natural gas leakage and biomass burning. None of these sources are
attractive targets for the ideologically motivated environmental
lobbies.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page