Cincinnatus BLOG *** Political Commentary - Social Commentary

How much confidence do we have in the science?

Researchers use the scientific method to search for cause and effect relationships. This method requires that a hypothesis be constructed. Scientists then design an appropriate well-controlled experiment to test that hypothesis. The results must be statistically significant and reproducible in order to be considered valid. There are a number of techniques that can be used to enhance the objectivity of a study as well as increase its statistical reliability.

In prospective medical research for example, we often use double blind, placebo controlled studies so that neither the researcher nor the patient knows if they are receiving the active drug or a placebo. This eliminates observer bias. Some times we cross the patient’s over, so that the same patient takes both the active drug and the placebo at different times. This allows us to compare effectiveness not only between patients but also within the same patient thus, increasing the statistical power of the study. For lack of a better description I will designate this genre of science as, “Hard Science”.

There is another branch of science where we have identified many, but not all of the variables, and have an imperfect knowledge of how those variables interact with one another in a complex system. Controlled studies of the entire system are impossible, but we can look at subsets of controlled data and try to construct a unified theory of how these complex systems work. To bring some order to such disciplines we build models and then test those models, often retrospectively, to see if in fact we are describing reality. Economics is an example of this second groups of sciences which I will designate “Soft Science”.

Climatology falls into to this later group because we cannot conduct a controlled experiment on the one and only climate we have and must therefore construct a model based on the limited bits and pieces of experimental data available to us. Even more troubling from the point of view of a “hard scientist” is that unlike economics, where we can at least perform controlled prospective studies, this is not possible with the climate. For example, to learn how different variables will interact in economics we can raise or lower taxes or increase the money supply and measure its effect on a defined endpoint such as GDP.

In climatology, we can for the most part, only observe either prospectively or retrospectively changes without being able to control the variables. This leads to the real possibility that the “cause and effect” relationships we observe can be influenced by other variables that we don’t fully understand. Worse still, in such a complex system, there is the potential that compensatory mechanisms that we may not have as yet identified influence the results.

What do we really know and what is conjecture? The dominant greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO₂) and methane. These greenhouse gases act as a radiative blanket causing the lower atmosphere to be warmer and the upper atmosphere to be cooler. The trace gas, carbon dioxide (CO₂), is clearly the greenhouse gas that engenders the greatest public interest. The common measure of CO₂ in the atmosphere comes from the relatively isolated Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. Data from Mauna Loa clearly demonstrates that CO₂ levels have risen from 316 parts per million (ppm) in 1958 to approximately 387 ppm today (i.e. for every million molecules of air 387 of them are CO₂₎. Other CO₂ monitoring stations around the world show the same upward trend.

Why do we classify carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas?  In a somewhat oversimplified model visible sunlight easily penetrates the air and warms the Earth’s surface. In return, the Earth’s surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, which also easily penetrates the air and dissipates some of the Earths excess heat back into space. Even trace amounts (ppm) of CO₂ in the middle levels of the atmosphere will absorb a part of the infrared radiation that rises from the Earth’s surface. Thus, some of the infrared energy is trapped in the middle levels of the atmosphere rather than escaping into space. Not only is the air in the middle levels of the atmosphere warmed but some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the Earth’s surface, and thus warming it. The higher the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere the greater is the effect.

In fact, infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some of which is trapped at each layer. After absorbing the infrared energy the greenhouse gas can either radiate the energy back out in a random direction or collide with other air molecules thereby, warming the layer in which it sits. Since the radiation is released in a random fashion, some will be radiated back to earth and some will be radiated up to thinner colder layers until it reaches levels that are so thin that it is possible for it to escape into space.

As CO₂ concentrations increase, the higher layers of the atmosphere will add more greenhouse gas and thereby absorb more of the infrared radiation. This causes a shift to higher and colder levels of the atmosphere before it is possible for infrared radiation to escape into space. These higher colder levels are less efficient at radiating heat into space and so the earth takes in more energy than it radiates. As the higher levels radiate some of this excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up.

Numerous investigators have calculated that if all other variables were constant a doubling of the carbon dioxide level from its preindustrial level of approximately 250 ppm, which will probably happen late in the 21st century, would result in a modest 1⁰F increase in the average surface temperature. I believe that virtually every “hard scientist” would accept this hypothesis with the caveat - all other things being equal. If this were all that was involved in potential climate change, we would probably all agree it was a modest problem and we could easily adapt by taking controlled steps to limit our production of carbon dioxide.

In a complex system life is never that simple and the ultimate answers are less certain. Those that argue that climate change will be dramatic take the position that the direct effect of carbon dioxide is only the tip of the iceberg and that CO₂ will interact with other variables to cause an amplification of the warming trend. Water vapor is the 800-pound gorilla in global warming theory because it is the dominant greenhouse gas accounting for as much as 70% of the greenhouse effect. Global warming theory holds that the warming tendency on the Earth’s surface caused by increasing levels of carbon dioxide will result in faster evaporation of water and hence, humidification of the atmosphere.

Climatologists take all of the variables they can identify, CO₂, methane, water vapor, clouds, volcanic activity, ice formation and melting, wind patterns, the capacity of the ocean to absorb CO₂ etc. and make computer models of how these variables will interact and alter the climate. This is a very difficult task because the number of combinations, permutations of interactions of the known variables is complex, to say the least, and they are not aided by the usual large body on prospective controlled experiments that scientist normally rely on. Confounding the problem, it is not clear that we have identified all of the variables that will either amplify or compensate for global warming.

It is this uncertainty that gives rise to the vastly different interpretations of the magnitude of the warming effect. If this is not enough to leave you scratching your head it is even more difficult to interpret the real global temperature data. The earth warmed between 1910 and 1945, and then it appeared to cool from the mid 40’s to the mid 70’s followed by a second warming trend from 1975 to 1998. Since 1998 the earth does not appear to be warming. All of this happened in the presence of continually rising levels of CO₂. The Gods, they must be crazy. Many “plausible” theories have been presented to explain the data, but fortunately for those prolific writers of “papers” no experimental data is available to explain these changes, which give everyone the opportunity to promote his or her pet ideas. Admittedly some of them are fascinating, but unless you can present hard data they belong more in the realm of science fiction than science.

Just one note of caution when trying to evaluate “consensus pronouncements”- No gathering of “scientists” where they come together to drink green cocktails and form a consensus is worth the value of a single well-designed and controlled experiment.

Politics and Economics

In an era of uncertainty about the magnitude of the warming effect, how many politicians can resist getting their face on television with demagogic predictions of the end of the world? And presumably by divine revelation, won’t you know it; the politician is the one with all the answers that will save us from almost certain doom. For example, we have all seen the sensational headlines that predict sea levels will rise 20 feet and most of the coastal United States will be underwater.

The reality - sea levels will probably rise 6 inches to 2 feet between now and 2100 with the most common estimates around one foot. To but this in perspective, we have already seen a 12-inch rise in sea levels over the last 150 years, so the rate of increase has only accelerated slightly. If the forecasts are correct we have the technology to deal with changes of this magnitude and should begin to make those preparations now.

There is concern is that excess carbon dioxide production will cause the oceans to become somewhat more acidic, and that this will have a negative effect on marine life. The oceans will become more acidic because CO₂ when combined with water (H2O) will create carbonic acid, but its effect on marine life is exaggerated. The oceans teamed with marine life a million years ago when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were 50 to 500 times greater than they are today. There is no doubt there will be changes, as Darwin has taught us species that prefer a more acidic ocean will thrive and those that don’t will probably disappear. But that is the nature of evolution.

Perhaps in may come as a bit of a shock to many, but thoughtful people such as Bjorn Lomborg see some “benefits” from global warming. Researchers have estimated that there will be 400,000 heat related deaths due to global warming but the corollary to that is there will be 1.8 million fewer deaths from cold. The primary reason appears to be that global warning is more likely to cause warmer winters than hotter summers. Additionally, we can minimize the heat related deaths by making more water and air-conditioning available.

Global warming is a real problem and we should take steps to ameliorate its effects but the proposals that are being made often range from the sublime to the ridiculous.

1. “Let’s make carbon-emitting fossil fuel so expensive people will use alternatives.” Making carbon fuels more expensive will only unduly burden the middle class with a regressive tax unless you actually develop an efficient and relatively inexpensive alternative. Corn alcohol for example, is the wrong answer. At the moment the United States is utilizing 25-33% of our most important food stock, corn, to produce ethanol for transportation. The energy inputs in the ethanol cultivation and production process are so high that there is little if any reduction in carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions. Whatever burning ethanol in a motor vehicle saves is more than offset by CO₂ creation during the growing and manufacturing process.

The logic of using corn ethanol, which increases the volatility of gasoline, seems to be, to put it mildly, flawed. Due to its volatility, ethanol significantly increases air pollution when added to gasoline specifically, Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and NOx (nitrogen oxides). When NOx and (VOCs) react in the presence of sunlight, they form photochemical smog.

Corn ethanol is an economic disaster A) Corn production is subsidized: B) Ethanol production is subsidized (mce_marker.51 per gallon federal blenders credit): C) The most insidious tax results from the fact that 25% of the U.S. corn crop in 2008 will be used to produce ethanol thereby, driving up the cost not only of corn, but all of the food products derived from corn feed such as chicken and cattle.  (Corn is also an ingredient in 75% of processed food.)

As a recent World Street Journal Editorial on August 5, 2008 pointed out, “The U.S. has a great deal invested in fossil fuels not because of a political conspiracy or because anyone worships carbon but because other sources of energy are, right now, inferior”. The rationale policy would be to invest the money we’re wasting on corn alcohol in “hard science” to develop high-energy intensive alternative fuels.

In the interim the key to producing less carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels is to use the fuel with the lowest carbon to hydrogen ratio. Coal is the least desirable because there are roughly 2 carbons for each hydrogen; oil is cleaner because it has the inverse ratio of approximately one carbon for 2 hydrogen molecules; and best of all is methane (CH₄), with 4 hydrogen molecules for each carbon molecule. Although natural gas is primarily methane, it does contain, some longer chain hydrocarbons such as ethane, propane, butane, pentane etc. that make it slightly less desirable than pure methane. Thus, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions when natural gas is substituted for gasoline in an automobile is about 25-30%. Natural Gas has only three things going for it - it’s Clean, Cheap and American.

2. “Cap and Trade” - When the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. In other words, there is no problem that a bureaucrat can’t solve, if only we would let them pass another regressive tax. That may well be the sum total of the creative thinking that has gone into the Obama Cap-and-Trade plan. The Obama Administration proposes that companies buy a permit for each ton of carbon emitted, at an estimated cost, to start of $13 to $20 per ton. The permits could then be bought and sold. The theory behind this convoluted scheme is that it will somehow miraculously increase energy efficiency and renewable energy development.

Rather than focus on available technological solutions, let’s burden hard working American consumers with another ill-conceived regressive tax! Who will ultimately pay for this brilliant plan? Consumers of course! It is estimated that under the Cap-and-Trade plan, gasoline will go up by $.12 per gallon and the average electricity bill will increase by about 7% nationally. This burden, however, will not be shared equally. The already economically hard-hit middle of the country, which is dependent on coal-fired plants for electricity, will be disproportionately taxed. The White House talks the talk when it comes to helping the economically challenged States of the “Rust-Belt,” but they sure don’t walk the walk.

We could solve this problem in any number of ways that would not unduly burden the consumer. Let me give you a few examples.  In the United States we emit over 24 metric tons of carbon dioxide per person; in France they emit a little over 6 metric tons per person. So, let’s do it the French way and cut our emissions by nearly 75%. The centerpiece of France’s green strategy is of course clean nuclear power. France generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. All the power you want 24/7 and no carbon dioxide. The excess energy produced in off-peak times can be used to charge electric vehicles at night or generate hydrogen from water as a means to power the future hydrogen economy.

The technology to replace carbon dioxide-belching cars and planes with high-speed inter-city mass transportation has existed for more than three decades. Continuing on our French green theme, there is, of course, the TGV (Train a Grande Vitesse) high-speed train. Following the inaugural TGV service between Paris and Lyon, in 1981, the TGV network, centered in Paris, has expanded to connect cities across France and adjacent countries. TGVs link with Switzerland, and through the French Thalys network with Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. The Eurostar network links France and Belgium with the United Kingdom.

3. “Solar Energy” - While I believe will solar energy will play a positive supplementary in our clean energy future, it is fundamentally a small idea. The average American uses 250 kilowatts of energy per day. In order to supply that much energy we would need to deploy 480 square meters (5,167 square feet) of solar panels for each and every one of the 300+ million Americans.

Solar power is also expensive at $.15 to $.30 per kilowatt-hour, as compared to $.04 -$.06 for coal, natural gas, or wind. Technological breakthroughs such as artificial silicon or an inexpensive replacement will be needed to bring the cost of solar into line with traditional power generation. Solar power plants have also been criticized because extensive tracks of land are needed to generate utility scale electricity. The Japanese, for example, are trying to overcome solar’s earthbound limitations by entering into a 20-year project that would place solar panels in space and beam energy back to earth with either a laser or microwave system. In space, without the limitation of the atmosphere, solar irradiance is 5 to 10 times greater than on earth’s surface, so generation is more efficient and can be collected 24 hours a day regardless of the weather.

The limitless power of the sun will make a significant contribution to our clean energy future. But if it is to supply more than 5-10% of our requirements, research is needed to develop cost-efficient, land-sparing systems that are attached to energy storage facilities.

4. “Wind” - To deliver enough wind power to meet all our needs we must build wind farms with a surface area 6 times the state of California. Wind power, which has grown rapidly, still only, provides about two-thirds of 1% of all U.S. electricity. The Energy Department calculates that ramping up to 20% of U.S. energy needs by 2030 would require more than $2 trillion investment to install turbines across the Midwest “wind corridor,” along with multiple offshore installations. And we’ll need a new “transmission superhighway system” of more than 12,000 miles of electric lines to connect the wind system to population centers, at a yet to be determined price. Unlike conventional power plants that can be located near the end user, wind and for that matter solar must be generated in special locations and then transported sometimes a 1,000 miles or more to where it is needed.

What the above illustrates is that even ardent supports of wind energy must recognize its inherent limitations and a realistic view must be factored into an overall plan. Wind can at best play an important clean supportive role. Can wind produce 20% of our energy needs over the next two decades? Yes, but only if we build at least three times that capacity, at a very high cost and make provision for its quirky nature.  It should also be noted that if we devote such a significant portion of our limited financial recourses to use wind to supplement our electricity needs, it would not save us $1.00 in oil imports. We would be replacing either domestic coal or natural gas. Clearly, one could make a rationale argument for replacing carbon dioxide intensive coal but why would we spend $2 trillion, plus build a massive transmission system to replace the cleanest fossil fuel, natural gas? On the other hand if wind were added to the energy supply rather than substituted for older carbon dioxide intensive power sources i.e. coal, then the excess electricity generated could be used to power hybrid plug-in vehicles cleanly and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
5. “Nuclear” - Coal-fired plants produce approximately 50% of the electricity in the United States and 82% of power-generated carbon dioxide emissions.  If electric vehicles are charged exclusively by coal-fired electricity they produce more greenhouse gases than a traditional gasoline-powered combustion engine car. In the future, electricity must be generated cleanly if we expect automotive electric-drive technologies to reduce our carbon dioxide burden. Clean energy alternatives like Wind and solar power will probably make a significant contribution to clean energy generation, but realistically, we cannot count on these two sources for more than 20-30% of our electricity needs in the next 20 years.

France generates more than 75% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. In the United States, the 104 commercial nuclear generating units produce 20% of the nation’s electricity. It has been 20 years since a new nuclear plant has been proposed in the U.S, but interest has increased recently because nuclear power is one of the few proven ways to produce utility-scale electricity without concurrently increasing carbon dioxide emissions. One benefit of a nuclear power plant is that it can run at peak capacity 24 hours a day. The excess energy produced in off-peak times can be used to charge electric vehicles at night or generate hydrogen from water as a means to power the future hydrogen economy.

Despite the obvious problems that must be overcome, there are no utility scale alternatives to clean nuclear power and so it must be kept on the table if we are to reduce our carbon footprint. Without increased nuclear power it is virtually imposable to achieve the promised reduction of carbon dioxide emissions as electric-drive technologies come on line. If in 10 to 20 years we are still using coal to generate half our electricity, there is no benefit to investing large sums in electric-drive vehicles.

6. “Clean Coal” - Despite the introduction of wind, solar and other clean technologies, the Department of Energy in its Annual Energy Outlook 2008 projects a small, 0.03% annual increase, in coal utilization through 2015. Surprisingly, maybe shockingly, they expect that growth rate to accelerate to 1% from 2015 to 2030 unless there are restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions or new clean technology replaces inexpensive coal.

Can coal be used cleanly? Coal gasification could be the answer. In a modern gasifier, coal or any carbon feedstock is exposed to steam and carefully controlled amounts of air or oxygen under high temperature and pressure. Under these conditions, molecules in coal break apart, initiating a chemical reaction that produces “syngas” a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide and other gaseous constituents. Sulfur impurities in the feedstock are converted to hydrogen sulfide and carbonyl sulfide, from which sulfur can be easily extracted, typically as elemental sulfur or sulfuric acid, both valuable commercial byproducts. Nitrogen oxides, another potential pollutant, are not formed in the oxygen-deficient (reducing) environment of the gasifier; instead, ammonia (NH₃) is created by nitrogen-hydrogen reactions. The ammonia can be easily stripped out of the gas stream.

Efficiency gains are an additional benefit of coal gasification. Higher efficiencies mean that less fuel is used to generate the rated power, resulting in better economics and the formation of fewer greenhouse gases.  A 60%-efficient gasification power plant can cut the formation of carbon dioxide by 40% when compared to a typical coal combustion plant.

7. “Carbon Dioxide doesn’t have to be a tax on the economy” - The wonders we could create with this fundamental building block of life. Worse still, government bureaucrats with their limited intellectual toolbox want to treat this incredibly useful natural material as a harmful pollutant and tax it. Imagination, have we American’s lost our capacity to think and innovate? Have we become mindless automatons who only see gloom and doom and ignore the opportunities right in front of our eyes? Carbon dioxide (CO₂) doesn’t have to be a tax on society; there are countless ways it could be turned into useful products for the betterment of mankind.

For example, researchers with the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have now found that nano-sized crystals of cobalt oxide can effectively carry out the critical photosynthetic reaction of splitting water molecules. Photooxidation of water molecules into oxygen, electrons and protons (hydrogen ions - H⁺) is one of the two essential half reactions of an artificial photosynthesis system - it provides the electrons needed to reduce carbon dioxide to a fuel.

The basic concept is to integrate light-harvesting systems that can capture solar photons and catalytic systems that can oxidize water, then to combine this water oxidation half reaction with a carbon dioxide reduction step in an artificial-leaf type system to produce a liquid hydrocarbon, such as methanol (CH₃OH), that can be stored, transported, and used as transportation fuel.

Imagine carbon-neutral liquid fuels produced from the carbon dioxide emanating from smokestacks. While it may take many years to commercially develop such a system, it is clearly a better use of our limited resources than taxing the economy and impoverishing the middle class.

8. “The Obama administration has set a new standard that new cars must average 42 miles per gallon by 2016″ - I will probably surprise you and say this is not at all a difficult goal to meet. In fact, it may present no challenge at all. For example, Toyota is readying a limited run of a plug-in Prius with its proven power train, which can average 100 miles per gallon (mpg). The regular 50 mpg Prius relies more on its gas engine, switching to use of the electric motor in slow traffic, to maintain cruising speed, or when idling or backing up. The regular Prius doesn’t have to be plugged in because its battery stays charged by the gas motor and by the motion of the wheels and brakes. The new plug-in version will primarily use its electric motor, allowing commuters to go to and from work every day on the electric charge, saving the gas engine for longer trips that exceed the distance the car can go on electricity alone.

The truth is we don’t even have to develop more sophisticated hybrids or plug-in vehicles to meet the 2016 standards, newer more efficient combustion engines will do most of the job by themselves. One example, Ford’s new engine works by using turbo-charging to deliver more air to the fuel burning chamber, variable valve timing to fully flush exhaust gas after combustion in the chamber and then direct injection to overcome any knocking issues. This and other advances will make the internal combustion engine more efficient and less polluting.

My greatest concern about climate change politics is that it distracts us from more immediate problems, such as the lack of potable water. Five million people die annually either because of insufficient water or diseases contracted because of polluted water. In addition, water-borne Trachoma causes 5.9 million cases of blindness annually. Climate change politics may be blinding us all to the very real problems we face today.