Publication Date: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Guest Opinion: Global warming? It may be better than some alternatives
Guest Opinion: Global warming? It may be better than some alternatives
(November 02, 2005) by Mike Macartney
I was a bit unnerved by the recent Guest Opinion (Weekly, Oct. 26) concerning global warming in our Palo Alto area back yards.
The litany of imagined consequences from trillion-dollar economic collapse to old folks and babies keeling over in the heat was enough to send one running for the bathtub with pills and razor blades in hand -- to swiftly end it all before the campfire dies out and the creatures of the darkness edge even closer as the ring of light shrinks and flickers.
Not to mention no more ski trips to Truckee! Sheesh!
Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, humans -- neither scientists nor seers -- are not yet able to predict the weather on July 23, 2082 with the one-degree accuracy claimed by some.
Just being able to make accurate predictions of next year's hurricanes would make a prognosticator wealthier than Bill Gates on the insurance paychecks alone. Predicting the weather 100 years from now based on 300-some odd parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is even beyond the latest Hollywood "Weatherman" movie.
And, we know how that turns out.
If you are of the skeptical bent, or considering adjusting your investment portfolio to dump the beachfront property, check some of the Web sites that offer a different view: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm publishes a pretty good collection of temperature data; http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ is similar information from the United Kingdom; and http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php by Canadian Steve McIntyre has more statistical modeling discussion than you may ever want to see. (You can go to http://www.weatherwars.info/index.html for a chuckle and a respite from the numbers.)
The point being that there is not a scientific consensus that human generated CO2 will destroy our civilization and us.
Of course global climate warming is happening. It is important to understand it and mitigate the impacts when and where we can. But, there is no "correct" temperature for the earth or sea-level height -- or requirement that there be polar ice caps and marching penguins at all. No matter what the "intelligent design" people say!
That just happens to be the way the earth is right now and it will be different at some other time in the future. Better hot than cold, though. It is kind of pain to grow grapes in Napa with glaciers in the driveway from another ice age. They just never develop the right amount of sugar with all that snow.
The most interesting aspect of the debate is really the CO2, or more accurately that magical element carbon. It is becoming too rare and expensive. Everybody wants it. Not unlike apartments in Manhattan. China wants 32 percent more, India 14 percent, the whole world 4.3 percent more last year.
There is plenty to go around. Lord Browne, the CEO of British Petroleum, predicts 40 more years for oil and 60 years for natural gas. The bedeviling thing is that people at the Danish Board of Engineers look at the same International Energy Agency numbers and predict that the demand and supply curves could intersect as early as 2012.
This does not mean the wells run dry but rather that projected demand exceeds flat-out production and everybody from governments to individuals will have to "think outside the barrel." There are enough apartments in Manhattan, too. They just cost a rather large amount of money.
We are not running out of Manhattan apartments or oil anytime soon. It is just that carbon energy will cost a wee bit more every year from now until forever. The people who can afford those apartments will be the only ones able to afford them. De Beers may well be selling those engagement diamonds to burn for heat at that point.
The best case-in-point is the recent price of gasoline. We have all the oil we need, but only 148 refineries, down from 301 in 1981. Too much "not in my backyard" and misguided perception of what industrial infrastructure and wealth really means to a successful nation like ours. You always get to experience supply and demand irrespective of how you feel about it or the shortsighted decisions you made in the past.
The exciting part is that the CO2 playing field be level and unbiased: that the same rules apply to everybody everywhere. We cannot afford to keep dumping carbon into the air for much longer. Our children will have the challenge to reinvent and rebuild the entire world energy infrastructure in the 21st century to replace that CO2.
It will be an exciting, difficult and dangerous undertaking. It will take the best minds, new legal and societal constructs, new legislation and new looks at all the old technologies -- from automobiles to nuclear reactors to windmills to paving roads without asphalt.
It will be the most interesting of times and the earth they will build and pass on will be better for it.
The global-warming glass is half full, not half empty -- and the old folks and babies are safe.
Mike Macartney is a recovering rocket scientist residing in San Jose -- his sons attend Menlo Atherton High School. He is currently writing a book about the end of oil and the unpleasant realities of alternative energy. He can be reached at mike.macartney@sbcglobal.net.
E-mail a friend a link to this story. | 
