Terrestial Planets
Of the four innermost terrestial planets, only Earth has the ideal concentration of carbon dioxide to assure a temperate climate suitable for the widest spectrum of life.

Electric Cars and the Goldilocks Planet

Iconoclastic libertarian writer and physician sees electric cars offering vehicle to stop global warming

By Ed Ward

The climate involves many facets of complex science and those wishing to mislead for blood moneys are more than happy to make it even more technical if it supports their uncaring, greedy and biased objectives. The objective of this article is to find the unbiased truth in a format that most can understand.

No one knows every minuscule aspect of what produces our climate, but the major reactants are known. Almost all of the references are from studies that are unrelated to Earth's industrial global warming and are almost universally accepted.

While researching our solar systems three CO2 planets' atmospheres and temperatures, Johnson's "Goldilocks and the Three Planets" popped up. This short, entertaining, and informative article is highly recommended for a brief overall view of the climates of Venus, Earth, and Mars, the Greenhouse effect, and the CO2 cycle (including volcanic action for the "no SUVs" history majors). It's amusing title seemed unique until it was Googled and 73 other references popped up. One of which was an informative 10 minute video with a slightly different perspective.

It is extremely important to note that the Greenhouse Effect of CO2 on Venus and Mars are virtually undisputed. The CO2 molecule is a greenhouse gas because of its dipolar characteristics which absorb and radiate the infrared energy (1/3 the wavelength of a microwave). The effects of infrared energy on dipolar molecules are also virtually undisputed. Apparently, no 'scientist' was able to gain personal blood or grant money for disputing these facts.

The current atmosphere of Venus is about 96% CO2 at 90 times the density of Earth's (93 million miles from the sun) atmosphere which is about 100 times the density of Mars' atmosphere. Venus (67 million miles from the sun) has an average temperature of 855 F, while Mercury's (36 million miles from the sun with virtually no atmosphere) temperature ranges from -300 F to 870 F. Venus is hotter than Mercury in spite of being almost twice the distance from the sun which should make Venus (if it had no atmosphere) about 200 F cooler than Mercury.

The current thin atmosphere of Mars (142 million miles from the sun) contains 95% CO2 with less than 1% of the atmospheric pressure of Earth. The temperature range is from a high of 98 F to a low of -190 F. This sparse compaction of the greenhouse gas CO2 by Mars' weak gravitational force is only enough to raise the surface temperature by 9 F.

"The Discovery of the Greenhouse Effect" (1820) on Earth (93 million miles from the sun) is also virtually undisputed. Without the greenhouse effect of the gases of our current atmosphere, Earth would be a very inhospitable planet and about 90 F cooler (also a good article for basic climate information). CO2 is a proven planet warmer. CO2 has increased from less than .03% (280 ppm) to .04% (390 ppm) in the last two decades without any signs of decreasing. Earth is rapidly approaching the CO2 effects of Mars which is responsible for at least 9 F without the effects of other greenhouse gases - water vapor, methane, N2O, various hydrocarbons - all of which add their warming effects. Once, like Venus, these compounds reach a concentration where more heat is retained than removed, as is the current situation, a runaway greenhouse effect is started. There is one proven way this effect has stopped of its own accord - the melting of all of the ice on the planet. Will it be enough to prevent the formation of another Venus? The facts say that Earth will start finding out by the year 2040.

While it is believed that Venus and Earth started as very similar planets, Venus suffered a "runaway" greenhouse effect. This event occurred sometime between four billion years ago when the sun was 30 to 40% cooler (this process continues daily at an imperceptible level - to such a small degree that it might take a century to notice a measurable change in the massive amounts of energy released) and now. The slightly smaller gravitational force and closer proximity to the sun explains why Venus would runaway prior to Earth. An average surface temperature of 80 F is believed to be the temperature range at which the runaway effect would start on Earth.

The basic properties of the gaseous components of the atmosphere are fairly standard science and are further illustrated by the current temperatures/climates/atmospheres of Venus and Mars. The blanket analogy for greenhouse effect is an excellent one. If one compares the amounts/density of greenhouse gases to the thread count of a blanket/sheet, the effects are very similar and more easily understood. Mars' blanket has a thread count of one with minimal greenhouse effect, while the Venus' blanket has a thread count 9,ooo and retains 99.9% of the heat that reaches its surface. Currently, Earth is in between those two climates. One day, hopefully millions of years from now as the sun continues its normal star progression, Earth will become Venus long before the sun reaches a red giant phase. However, basic chemistry and physics clearly show that mankind's actions may drastically shorten the length of time for that to happen.

In the billions of years it took for life to develop on Earth, complete/incomplete meltdowns of Earth's ice sheets has happened several times, without a runaway greenhouse occurring. So far, the article has only dealt with the 'positive feedback' loops of global warming. There are many 'negative feedback' loops that exist in nature to cool the earth, but history has shown that the negative feedback loops will not be significant enough to stop the complete meltdown of all natural ice sheets on Earth under the circumstances that existed in the past or in the present.

Second verse, same as the first... but a little different. So far the article has not included is the destruction of rain forests by the shifting of weather patterns, the acidity of the oceans decreasing the removal of CO2 in our normal carbon cycle, and the 900 billion tons of CO2 (90 times the amount of yearly CO2 production - as well as tons of methane) awaiting dispersal from it's resting place in the ice that is melting.

There is nothing we can do to control the solar cycle, animal production of methane, and the physics of water vapor. But, there are existing easy methods of dealing with CO2 production and more difficult methods for dealing with methane production from refuse.

Complete melting of all natural ice on the planet will result in 200 to 300 feet of sea level rise based on previous occurrences. When this happens (some have evidence of its occurrence prior to 2040 and being beyond the point of no return - the most accurate assessment of our current situation, although it is slightly optimistic in this reporter's opinion), there will certainly be some 'negative feedback' loops placed on global warming. The surface area of more reflective water will be dramatically increased - although this will be counteracted by the loss of more reflective ice sheets. Millions of coastal area inhabitants will be displaced or killed like the residents of New Orleans that were murdered by covering up the rising sea levels of global warming. Fertile farmlands will be drastically reduced by rising tides. Starvation will assure that there are far fewer sapiens to worry about or to pollute the environment. Salt water will contaminate many of our water sources that are not already drained, polluted by radiation or toxic chemicals. We will not have to drive nearly as far to get to the beach. Hydro power sources will be much more available and there will be far fewer people requiring energy by the time they can be built.

There is no doubt that some on the global warming issue have finances influencing their actions. There is no doubt that most of the global warming 'debunkers' have financial reasons for their actions. However, there is a vast difference between supporting science facts for the continuance of all of mankind, and ignoring/hiding/distraction of science facts for the destruction of mankind for the sake of blood money. Just as there is a vast difference between creating a study to evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion, creating a conclusion for the cherry picking of any evidence to support that conclusion or deliberately censoring all information in scientific articles contrary to amassing huge profits.

Anyone in the past that has denied greenhouse effects, or the fact this planet is warming - the solar cycle still accounts for about the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 C since 1980 (It's the heat being retained that is causing the temperature rise), or has taken money to prove a conclusion with some facts rather than taking all the facts to form a conclusion, should at the very least be read with skepticism of their motives.

The Kyoto pact - A Slight Division of NWO Agendas for Cash and Power. While the Bush Administration denies and classifies (at least until very recently denying, but probably still classifying the real facts) global warming for expansion of corporate and personal greed in his NWO agenda of the ineffectual buying and selling of pollution credits. The UN uses global warming for its NWO agenda of 'savior' for gaining control of countries with its trivial reductions of CO2 decades from now. Both of these scenarios promote the continuance of the problem rather than a complete shift from the problem - an oil driven economy with corporate and government control.

Current hydrocarbon conversion to electricity wastes between 30 and 60% of the potential energy with the majority wasting as much as the process converts. Transfer of electricity over a great distance further degrades the conversion effectiveness. Even without further development of alternate energy sources there are currently more than adequate ways to completely change our delivery of needed energy without 'living in a cave' as the debunkers like promote. These current technologies are not cost effective because this government has supported the creation of massive profit corporations, instead of supplementing self sustaining individual energy creation and usage and alternate existing transportation.

Personnel solar, wind and water energy converters and vehicles get no subsidies, credits, or adoption by this government. Instead, the government prefers to subsidize the corporations and let alternate energy die on the vine. Tesla Motors already has an impressive electric performance roadster with plans to produce a vehicle more along the lines of a transportation car. GM and Toyota had electric cars and NiMh- Lithium batteries that were allowed to die on the vine. If any of these already existing technologies had been given a chance to compete with the destructive forms of hydrocarbon energy usage by subsidy, incentives, or taxing, they would have the volumes of production required to lower the manufacturing costs to where they would be directly competitive with our existing vehicles - similar to the reduced costs of computers and calculators. The technologies are already here. They just need to be granted the opportunity to compete instead of insuring the current corporation-government symbiosis - all without losing any of our energy requirements.

Billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear reactors which currently already have millions of tons of radioactive waste contaminating water, air and earth without any way of getting rid of them. Our current cancer rate may be as high as 10 times the pre-1950 rates. Billions of dollars have been spent on harvesting a hot fusion reaction - because it's a way to get funding for nuclear weapons' advancements without the pesky truth. Virtually nothing has been spent on zero point energy, Aquygen, or cold fusion, except to denounce it by this government, despite continued advancements and partial technology working models.

More of Ward's Essays

Times Article Viewed: 26385
Published: 24-Feb-2007


blog comments powered by Disqus