The Resilient Earth
Science, Global Warming and the Future of Humanity
Doug L. Hoffman
Allen Simmons
Copyright © 2007 by Doug L. Hoffman and Allen Simmons
All rights reserved.
Published by
The Resilient Earth Press
http://resilientearthpress.com
Preface
The Resilient Earth had its genesis in a number of events spanning several years. The authors have been friends and colleagues for more than three decades and, while they have often discussed writing a book together, the timing never seemed quite right. Then, at the start of 2007, the debate surrounding human-caused global warming reached a crescendo. Those who questioned the extent and causes of global warming, other than human CO2 emissions, were labeled “climate criminals,” “industry stooges,” and “traitors” by ecological activists. Those on the other side of the issue used terms like “hoax” and “scam.”
The shrill level of the “debate” was driven home when Hoffman attended a business meeting. A co-worker asked a seemingly innocent question: “Doug, you're a scientist, what do you think about this global warming thing?” Hoffman framed a fairly neutral reply—“I don't think it's as bad as portrayed in the media, certainly we shouldn't ruin our economy in a panic.” Hearing this, the senior executive present made a sarcastic, scatological remark regarding the offered opinion and stormed out of the room. Taken aback by this emotional reaction, Hoffman resolved to look more deeply into the subject of global warming.
In a matter of days, Hoffman was on the phone to Simmons suggesting that the time to write that often talked about book had arrived, and the topic should be the science of global warming—the real science, not the pseudo-science being reported in the popular media. Simmons immediately agreed and a long distance collaboration, linking coastal Texas and a log cabin in Arkansas, began. The more deeply we delved into the “facts” portrayed in the media the more concerned we became—not from fear of impending ecological disaster, but from the total lack of scientific objectivity, rationality and detachment exhibited by those on both sides of the global warming issue.
As the months past, the viciousness of the rhetoric used by activists and deniers continued unabated, reaching almost religious proportions. News anchors, never noted for their deep scientific insights, deliriously reported wild speculation about global ecological catastrophes as though they were established scientific fact. Also troublesome was the use of the term “scientific consensus” as a debate stopping argument by both overzealous fanatics and people who should know better.
Having both worked for years on numerous engineering and scientific projects, we resolved to uncover the actual scientific underpinnings of climate science and communicate our findings to a non-scientific audience. During the process of researching and writing The Resilient Earth, we were continually amazed with how little of the real science made it into the public debate. Further surprise came from the lack of knowledge among the general public and scientists, some of whom were involved in climatology. We discovered that global warming is a topic much discussed but little understood.
In conversations with colleagues about our progress writing The Resilient Earth, we found them astounded when told certain facts―facts such as the Earth had no ice caps for much of its history―or, who was the first person to comment on global warming due to greenhouse gases. At a dinner with colleagues, several participants expressed astonishment when the actual facts and figures regarding CO2 and greenhouse warming were revealed. “I didn't know any of this!” exclaimed one senior and very respected scientist. How can the public clamor about global warming be so omnipresent while not only laymen, but even scientists seem to be unaware of the facts?
As the facts unfolded, the form and tone of The Resilient Earth changed many times. We were constantly amazed by the complex and interrelated nature of Earth's environment. We learned how fundamentally incomplete humanity's actual level of scientific understanding is regarding how our planet's climate system works. We have tried to maintain an even-handed approach while presenting the information contained in this book—to present an undistorted view of the science behind Earth's changing climate. We hope that our passion for both science and protecting the natural world are evident in our words.
Units and Measurements
This is a book about science, and that makes the presentation of facts and figures a necessity. Most of the measurements in this book are given in metric units, since all measurements and quantities found in the scientific literature are expressed using metric units. Since a sizable portion of our target audience resides in the United States we have also frequently stated measurements in the more familiar American units; pounds, feet, miles and temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit (°F). In most cases we give metric translations in parentheses, except when the number of alternate measurements would detract from the readability of the text.
Dealing with scientific subjects ranging from the life-cycle of stars to the chemistry of carbon on an atomic scale, very large and very small numbers must frequently be dealt with. In most situations we have managed to avoid scientific or engineering notation by using common prefixes. These prefixes are used to indicate powers of ten:
On occasion we have had to fall back on scientific notation, but only rarely.
About The References
Throughout this book you will find numbered references. Many of these references are to scientific articles from refereed journals that are the source for statements and assertions made in the text. Were this book a scientific treatise all the references would come from such sources. However, The Resilient Earth is intended for a wider, general readership audience so we have also included references to sources that non-scientists may find more accessible—magazine and newspaper articles and URLs for online web sites.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Terry Talley, Professor Amy Apon, Dr. Rik Faith, Brandon Willis and Alan Rainey for reading over the many early versions of this book and for their helpful comments and criticisms. Thanks to Bob Arrington for his many emails and data sources. We would also like to thank NASA legend, Dr. Rudolf Hanel, for his comments and advice on Chapter 7, Changing Atmosphere Gases, regarding the absorption spectra of CO2. Thanks also to Dr. Nir Shaviv for kindly answering our inquiries regarding cosmo-climatology. Though we have sought the advice of many, we are solely responsible for any errors or inaccuracies in the text.
Special thanks to Eleanor Simmons for her diligence in editing and reediting the raw text. It took endurance handling two authors 650 miles apart. The cover art is a composite of two photo images; a NASA Hubble Space Telescope image of the giant nebula NGC3603, one of the most massive young star clusters in the Milky Way Galaxy, and an image of Earth and the moon, taken by the Galileo spacecraft while on its way to Jupiter. The composite was made by Hoffman using the GIMP.
Allen Simmons, Rockport, Texas
Doug L. Hoffman, Conway, Arkansas
December 5, 2007
Introduction
“Scientists observe nature, then develop theories that describe their observations. Science is driven by nature itself, and nature gives us no choice. It is what it is.”
— Meg Urry
A million years after the birth of our sun, the violent explosion of a nearby supernova nearly ended life on Earth before it began.1 Over the next four and a half billion years, forces of nature shaped our planet and the life it harbored. Barely survi
ving the traumatic birth of the Moon, buffeted by supernovae, and bombarded by asteroids, the resilient Earth endured. And despite planet-freezing ice ages, devastating mass extinctions, and ever changing climate, life not only survived, it thrived.
Today, we are told all life on Earth is threatened by a new peril. Some say people are the cause of this impending crisis: human activity creates an increase in the amount of certain gases in the atmosphere, mainly carbon dioxide (CO2), which cause the Earth's temperature to rise.2 The catch-phrase for this is human-caused global warming and we are warned, if something is not done immediately to stop it, our planet is doomed.
Earth is doomed, and science tells us how our world will end. In a billion years, the Sun's output will have increased by ten percent above today's levels, causing runaway greenhouse heating and the end of life on Earth.3 In 5 billion years, the Sun will start to run out of hydrogen and begin to swell. In 6 billion years, the Sun will become a red giant, engulfing Mercury, Venus and Earth. Finally, in 7 billion years, the Sun will eject its outer layers and slide into retirement as a white dwarf. The Sun will spend its final days quietly cooling—a dimming ember in space. Earth, and its vibrant ecology, will have long vanished.4 This happens to stars and their planets all the time, it is the fate decreed by the laws of nature.
The prophets of ecological doom are not warning of truly apocalyptic events, such as those outlined above. They say humans are destroying Earth's ecosystem on a much more immediate and personal scale. Their tale of impending destruction goes something like this:
The average temperature of the Earth has been rising in recent decades and will keep rising in the future. Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Anticipated effects include rising sea levels, repercussions to agriculture, slowing of ocean circulation, reductions in the ozone layer, increased intensity and frequency of hurricanes and extreme weather events, lowering of ocean pH, and the spread of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.
The statement above summarizes the main points being made by those backing human-caused global warming. Some of the terms used sound technical and scientific, particularly the phrase “anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” What the statement means is: people are adding so much carbon dioxide to the air that Earth's climate is affected. Is this the truth? How can a non-scientist winnow fact from fiction, truth from exaggeration?
Science Obscured
The debate over global warming and its possible human causes has become the defining scientific controversy of our time. Opinions vary regarding the severity of the problem among both scientists and lay people, though there are some who claim the threat is so immense and so immediate that all doubters should be silenced. The arguments presented to the public are mostly simplistic and cursory, usually accompanied by images of calving glaciers, melting icebergs and smokestacks belching clouds of pollution. The public debate has become vicious and nasty, filled with personal attacks and insults. As disturbing as this shift from reasoned scientific discourse to acrimony is, it is not the most troubling aspect of the global warming debate.
The most troubling aspect of the global warming controversy is what it reveals about the level of scientific understanding among the general populace. There is a growing disconnect between the scientific community and the general population. This is a consequence of the ever-widening knowledge gap between scientists and non-scientists. Even the separation between engineers and the public has grown to the point where the workings of everyday devices has become incomprehensible. For comparison, consider the state of technology fifty years ago.
In the United States, during the late 1950s, the shift from the war time economy of the 1940s was complete—a new, consumer driven economy was in full bloom. Every American family worked to own a house, a new car, modern appliances and a television set. But the inner workings of all these shiny, modern marvels were still understood by the average consumer.
Most people performed simple maintenance on their own automobiles. Changing the motor's oil and filter, replacing the spark plugs, and rotating the tires were part of car ownership. Many owners tackled more complicated maintenance and repair work; rebuilding the brakes, changing a water pump, or cleaning a carburetor. Today, most people never open the hoods of their autos. If they do, they are greeted by a featureless engine cover that effectively prevents any owner maintenance more complicated than checking the fluid levels.
A new wonder of the modern age was the television set. In the 1950s, these were large pieces of furniture filled with wires and softly glowing vacuum tubes. Since tubes had a rather short life expectancy they were installed in sockets for easy replacement. When a TV set malfunctioned, a thrifty and enterprising TV owner could remove any suspicious looking tubes and take them to the local supermarket where there was a testing unit available. Any tubes that didn't pass the tester were replaced with new ones. Today, no one works on their own TV set when it breaks. More than likely, if it is out of warranty, the unit is discarded and a new one is bought.
Even a 1950s era telephone could be disassembled and its parts examined. There was a recognizable speaker and microphone in the handset, and simple circuitry in the body. Today, a modern cellphone contains a color display screen, a camera and an electronic memory for storing addresses, ring tones, and mp3s. It is no longer connected to the phone system by wires, and the consumer can talk, send images, text message and even browse the Internet. Opening up a cellphone would gain the owner nothing, other than a voided warranty.
The point is that all of these “high tech” devices—cars, televisions and telephones—were accessible and understandable by their owners. Most people could describe how an internal combustion engine, a telephone, or television set worked. Perhaps not all of the details, but the general principles involved. Can the same be said today? In an age of high tech miniaturization, tubes are replaced by integrated circuits and flat-screen displays, carburetors by electronic fuel injectors and engine management computers, and everyone owns a multi-function cellphone. We all use these devices, but do we understand how they work? Modern life is filled with increasingly sophisticated devices that are increasingly incomprehensible. Even scientists don't work on their own cars and hardly any engineers try to fix their own television sets. As Arthur C. Clarke5 said, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
If we are befuddled by everyday technology, imagine the confusion surrounding modern science. Five hundred years ago, Earth was still believed to be the unmoving center of the Universe. Two hundred years ago it was accepted that Earth circled the Sun, but the Sun was surely the center of all things. In short order, it was discovered that the Sun was just a star, and not a particularly remarkable one. Just an average star among the hundreds of billions in the Milky Way galaxy, which itself was one of billions of galaxies in the Universe. Also during this time, the Earth's estimated age changed from a few thousand years to a few million, and then to over four and a half billion years. And we now know that mankind has existed on Earth for such a short time that we can scarcely claim residency.
In chemistry, amazing new materials are now invented, not discovered. Advances are being made in organic synthesis, computationally aided molecular design, nanotechnology and space chemistry. In biology, scientists thought they had life figured out when they discovered DNA in the 1950s, and mapped the human genome at the end of the twentieth century. Now, they have discovered that RNA may play a role in biology as important as DNA. Hybrid plants and transgenic animals abound. Physics has moved from the certainty of Newton and Descartes to the warped space-time of Einstein and the quantum uncertainty of Heisenberg and Bohr. Instead of atoms, physicists talk about quarks, gluons, quantum gravity and string theory. Astronomers ponder black holes and quasars, the life and death of stars, and the ultimate fate of the Universe.
Most people
struggle with science during their basic schooling and gladly abandon it to others upon graduating. For a while, this approach seemed to work: what did accountants, businessmen and lawyers need to know about science? But science has infiltrated every aspect of human existence. More and more, business means science and technology. As a result, judges and lawyers are faced with increasingly complex cases rooted in technology. Major criminal cases are decided by DNA evidence, and fingerprints seem so old-fashioned. Governments struggle to keep pace with scientific development, wrestling with the rights of frozen embryos, human cloning, genetically engineered crops, network neutrality and email spam. Science and technology cannot be avoided or ignored—our world is built on them.
This technological bewilderment is an indication of fundamental problems in modern education. Even in technologically advanced countries, the knowledge gap is growing, leaving average citizens adrift in a world that is becoming harder and harder to understand. Closing this knowledge gap was one of the main motivations for writing The Resilient Earth. Without knowledge, citizens cannot make intelligent decisions about technological problems; without knowledgeable citizens democracy cannot function. A case in point is the global warming debate.
Climate science is one of the most complicated fields of study in the history of science. Comparing Earth's climate to the workings of a star like the Sun is like comparing the workings of a formula one racer with a forest fire. A forest fire is large, dangerous and impressive but the processes involved are fairly simple and well understood. A race car engine is also based on fire, but it contains many individual parts, all interacting to turn expanding gas into linear motion and then rotational motion. Some of the rotational movement is transferred to the cam shafts, which translate that motion back to linear motion of the valves. The rest is passed through the transmission to the wheels to be translated into movement of the vehicle. A complicated and improbable machine where the relationships among the various parts are not straightforward or obvious.
The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity Page 1
