Vol. 25, No. 3 - Access to Energy Newsletter

The revolution in science and technology during the past 300 years has made enormous contributions to the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Billions of people are enjoying life today whose existence would have been impossible without modern technology. For those fortunate to live in the more developed countries, lifespan has doubled. As the 21st Century dawns, large numbers of people in the underdeveloped countries are beginning to lift themselves out of poverty, while population increases are slowing. Even using the high estimate of an eventual world population of 10 billion, there are clearly sufficient wealth and resources to provide long, enjoyable, and productive lives for all of these people.

An indication of the pace of this development is energy usage, since energy is the currency of technological progress. Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and most of the other necessities and conveniences of life are energy dependent. The Energy Information Administration of the U. S. Department of Energy predicts that world energy demand will rise 54% and electricity demand will rise 75% between 1995 and 2015. By 2015, the developing nations of Asia alone are expected to require more energy than the United States.

Against this backdrop of a need for more energy - energy that at present must be provided primarily by burning coal, oil, and natural gas and by nuclear fission, it is particularly troubling to note the political progress being made by those who call instead for world-wide energy rationing. Proposals under consideration for Kyoto in Decem-ber would roll back energy production by as much as 20% at a time when human needs require increases in production by 50%. The Kyoto treaty would leave the world with about half as much energy as it will require early in the 21st Century.

The more "moderate'' proposals for rollbacks by 5% or 10% in energy usage that President Clinton has now announced are almost as severe because the world needs 50% more energy - not 5%, 10%, or 20% less. Moreover, after mandatory global controls on energy production are in place, they can be gradually expanded to any level.

Although the buzzword of the present is "global warming,'' it is evident that this is just an excuse for rationing. Hydrocarbon fuels have endured three major campaigns - claimed looming shortages requiring rationing, claimed "global cooling'' requiring rationing, and claimed "global warming'' requiring rationing - with most of the same people making these three different claims. Energy opponents, again many of the same people, have also caused the rationing in the United States of nuclear energy. In each case, the science did not support the claims. Each, however, involved an apocalyptic scenario deemed to be so terrible that consideration of moderating facts or waiting for experimental evidence was characterized as irresponsible.

Ancient Aztec rulers and priests were also merchants of disaster scenarios. They taught the Aztec people that, if their altar stones were not kept continuously wet with human blood, the sun would cease to shine - a major environmental disaster. Modern day Aztecans have provided us with many new imagined disasters. Curiously, most of these seem to have only one solution - energy rationing - which also means the rationing of all technology that is energy dependent.

Even dabbling with small aspects of technology - far less pervasive than energy - can have disastrous consequences, as we have learned in the case of DDT. In 1970, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences stated that, "In little more than two decades DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria, that would otherwise have been inevitable.'' The "science'' underlying the claimed environmental disasters that could result from continued use of DDT was so poor that even the Environmental Protection Agency's own review board would not recommend that it be banned. Ah, but when dealing with disaster scenarios it is necessary to err on the side of caution. After all, DDT is just another noxious chemical. Right?

So, the EPA banned the use of DDT in the United States and did an effective job of reducing its use all over the world. Today, several hundred million people are afflicted with malaria, and one person, usually a child, dies every 12 seconds from this disease. Most of these deaths are directly attributable to the EPA ban of DDT. Just this one instance of rationing technology has killed several children while you have been reading this article.

If decreasing world energy supplies by 20% instead of expanding them by 50% reduces the human carrying capacity of the earth by only 10% - pushing people off the lower rungs of the ladder of economic existence - and these people die over a period of 20 years, then the carnage will be 100 people every 12 seconds.

Energy rationing looks great if your primary interest is political power. Control of energy supplies in a technological world bestows the power of life or death over most of the world's people. Energy rationing also looks great if your interest is in population control through population reduction, although there are less polite terms for this. Political power and population reduction are understandably not very popular, so fad and fashion dictates that they be cloaked in crocodile tears for the environment and concern about global disaster.

For the malaria victims, disaster is already here. Instead of talking about ways to increase the present killing rate by orders of magnitude, we should instead be talking about rolling back the DDT ban and other regulations that ration technology which is essential to the preservation and enhancement of human life.

Access to Energy has carried many articles about the nonscience of "global warming.'' Each of these has dealt with one aspect of this subject. These various articles - usually summarized by a graph or chart with the essential elements - are more understandable when they are all considered as a whole. Therefore, this issue of Access to Energy is largely devoted to a summary of the data about this subject.

All of the people on earth now face an imminent environmental catastrophe that, if it is not prevented, will probably cause more suffering and loss of life than all other recorded disasters combined. That looming disaster is the expected signing and possible ratification of a mandatory hydrocarbon rationing treaty in Kyoto, Japan, next month.

Sometimes it is not enough to say, "I did not do it; I was not responsible; or I was distracted by other things.'' Sometimes the human stakes are so high that all of us are responsible - whether we want to be involved or not. This, unfortunately, is one of those times.

There is no doubt that the carbon dioxide concentration of the Earth's atmosphere is rising. From levels of about 290 parts per million, ppm, at the beginning of the 20th century, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen now to about 360 ppm. Moreover, reasonable estimates indicate that this level may eventually rise as high as 600 ppm. (See S. B. Idso, Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Earth in Transition, IBR Press, Tempe, Arizona, 1989.) This rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is probably a result of human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, although this has not been established for certain. Carbon dioxide in the oceans and other natural reservoirs totals 50-fold more than that in the atmosphere, and movement between thesereservoirs is poorly understood. The observed rise corresponds, however, with the time of human release and is equal to the rise expected from about one-half of the amount known to have been released. Figures 1 and 2 show levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide vs. time. (See the book by Idso previously referenced and also Trends 93: A Compendium of Data on Global Change published by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.)

On the scale of Figure 2, the seasonal variation is also evident. Plants use carbon dioxide, so levels tend to fall in the daytime and in the summer and tend to rise at night and in the winter.

It happens that carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances in the atmosphere are "greenhouse gases.'' This means that, for reasons explainable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape from it. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not quantitatively understood.

Nevertheless, it was reasonable to suggest that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause rising atmospheric temperatures. Some people went so far as to predict "global warming,'' which has come to mean greenhouse warming of the atmosphere by large amounts accompanied by catastrophic environmental consequences.

It turns out that scientists have been able to carefully test the hypothesis of global warming during the past 50 years - without relying on arguments that are based on other hypotheses or on incompletely understood calculations. During the past 50 years, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen by a large amount, while, simultaneously, precise measurements of atmospheric temperature have been made. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere as predicted by proponents of "global warming'' is not taking place and is unlikely ever to take place. In other words, global warming has failed experimental test.

Figures 3 to 8 illustrate these results. Figure 3 provides a long-term perspective. (See L. D. Kegwin, Science 274, 1504-1508, 1996.) This graph of sea surface temperatures in the Sargaso Sea (a region of the Atlantic Ocean) was derived from isotope ratios in the remains of tiny marine organisms that are deposited as sediment at the bottom of the sea. At the left, labeled "Station 'S','' are recent direct measurements at the same location. As is illustrated, the Earth has been warming during the past 300 years as it recovers from a cool period known as the "Little Ice Age.'' Also seen is the period 1,000 years ago during the Middle Ages when temperatures were warmer than today - and weather was generally milder.

The more jagged line in Figure 4 shows temperatures during the past 250 years. The smoother line in Figure 4 records solar magnetic activity during the same period. (See S. Baliunas and W. Soon, Sky and Telescope, December 1996.) The close correlation between these two parameters strongly suggests that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the fluctuations during that warming have been caused by solar activity. In other words, when the sun is more active, the Earth is warmer and vice versa.

Figure 5 gives annual 20th century temperatures in the United States. As can be clearly seen, current temperatures are not at all unusual even when compared with the recent past. (See Brief No. 213, National Center for Policy Analysis, quoting from the original 1990 Oak Ridge National Laboratory Report.) Figure 6 shows global temperatures measured in recent years bymeans of modern instrumentation. Notice that the longer record of weather balloon measurements corresponds very closely to measurements during the past two decades made by orbiting satellites. This correspondence helps to mutually confirm the accuracy of these readings taken by entirely different methods - readings that show no sign of global warming. (See R. A. Kerr, Science 267, 612, 1995.)

Figure 7 gives an amplified view of the most sophisticated measurements available - those made by orbiting satellites since 1979. When the fluctuations are averaged, these measurements show that global temperature has actually been trending slightly downward during the past 18 years - a period with the highest global carbon dioxide levels on record. (See Eco-logic, 1-5, March/April 1997.) Finally, Figure 8 compares the temperature record of the 20th century with the temperature record expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide had caused the 0.6 degree Centigrade or 1.0 degree Fahrenheit rise during this century. The calculated line is proportional to the carbon dioxide rise. The temperature rise occurred prior to 1940, while most of the carbon dioxide rise occurred after 1940. (See Two Environmental Issues, George C. Marshall Institute, 1991.) Even if the two curves were correlated, it would not prove the global warming hypothesis, since correlation does not prove causality. It is necessary, however, for a cause either to precede or occur simultaneously with an effect. Since the temperature rise occurred before the carbon dioxide rise, it is impossible for the carbon dioxide rise to have caused the temperature rise. As shown in Figure 4, it is likely that this temperature rise was caused by the increase in solar activity that correlates well with it. This also agrees very well with common sense.

Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected. This hypothesis predicts that global tempera-

tures will rise significantly - indeed catastrophically - if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. During the past 50 years, a definitive experimental test of this hypothesis has been performed on the entire earth. It has completely failed this test. Not only have temperatures not risen significantly with carbon dioxide, they have not detectably risen at all.

Moreover, the historical record of global temperatures over periods ranging from as long as 3,000 years to as short as 18 years - temperatures measured with several different, reliable, and mutually consistent methods - shows that current temperatures are not unusual and would not be unusual even if they were to rise much more than can be caused by an experimentally reasonable (in view of the experience of the last 50 years) carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

In science, the ultimate test of any hypothesis is experiment. If a hypothesis fails experimental test, then the hypothesis must be discarded. There is no other rational and honest alternative.

Why then is there continuing discussion of atmospheric "global warming''? What possible support can it find - even among scientists who are willing to compromise their integrity in order to report results that the politicians and bureaucrats who fund them want to hear?

It turns out that there is a field of inquiry in which scientists are trying to use computers to predict the weather - even global weather over very long future time periods. This is valuable research. Even though global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to permit such predictions, it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually improve and become useful in many ways. At present, however, computer climate models are very unreliable, as is clearly seen in Figures 9 and 10. (See The Global Warming Experiment, George C. Marshall Institute, 1995.)

In the Arctic, where the computer models are supposed to be especially accurate, their predictions are even worse than those for the whole Earth. Whereas the models predict warming, actual measurements have shown cooling. This is not surprising. The weatherman still has difficulty predicting weather in a small locality for even a few days in advance. Global predictions over very long time periods are entirely beyond current capabilities.

Figure 11 illustrates one reason the computer models are inaccurate. The right hand bar shows the size of the effect they are trying to calculate. The three bars on the left show, on the same scale, the uncertainties in three parameters that are required for the calculations. (See S. Baliunas, Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors, testimony before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the U. S. Senate, 1996.) Where errors are so great with respect to the values being estimated, it is not surprising that the calculations are unreliable.

In fact, when computer models of this sort are so uncertain, it is easy to estimate the relevant parameters in such a way as to obtain whatever result the computer operator wishes to find. When the operator's funding depends upon government committees that have vested interests in a particular outcome, that outcome is likely to appear.

This phenomenon is illustrated in Figure 12. (See S. Baliunas, Is Global Climate at Risk?, DDP, 1996.) As resistance to the global warming hypothesis has grown in the scientific community and as measurements continue to find no warming, the degree of warming predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, has decreased. In other words, the computer models have been fiddled to predict a lower, more politically acceptable warming - but still enough to keep the global warmers in business. With greater reliability than the climate models, we could use this graph to predict that the issue will shift back to global cooling in 2003.

So what do the global warmers do to keep the IPCC ball rolling and their global warming treaty on track? They lie. This is illustrated in

Figure 13. (See B. D. Santer et al, Nature 382, 39-45, 1996, who published the data in the oval, and P. J. Michaels and P. C. Knappenberger, Nature 384, 522-523, 1996, who published the rest of the story in the data outside the oval.) The data in the oval, from a specific region in the Southern Hemisphere troposphere, was used to influence an IPCC report on global warming - by leaving out the points that would have led to an opposite scientific conclusion.

Global warmers also try to obscure the issue with further scare scenarios such as worldwide flooding from melting of the polar ice. This scare would be nonsense even if global warming were a reality - which it is not. Floating ice does not raise the water level when it melts.

As far as the nonfloating ice on the Antarctic continent is concerned, that ice melts only at the bottom, where it is warmed by geothermal heat from the Earth. At the top, it is so cold that no melting would occur even if the temperature were raised substantially. Moreover, the ice cap itself is such a thick insulator that it would require hundreds of years for any temperature change to be transmitted to the melting region - and even then the energy transferred would be negligible as compared to the geothermal heat that is already present.

Finally, even if, by some magic, unacceptable global warming were to begin to occur, there are several methods of reducing temperature by injecting small amounts of dust into the atmosphere as do volcanoes, which cause cooler climate periods. Use of these methods would cost less than 1% of the amount that the first phase of the global warming treaty would cost the United States alone. (See E. Teller, The Wall Street Journal, A22, October 17, 1997.) In any case, there isn't any global warming. Actually, this is unfortunate because many regions of the globe would benefit from higher temperatures and longer growing seasons.

There is, however, a pronounced beneficial effect already being caused by the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide - an effect that is going to accelerate in the years ahead and cause profound changes in our environment. This is illustrated in Figures 14 to 16.

Plant growth is accelerated by increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Plants use carbon dioxide as their source of carbon and are, therefore, fertilized by the atmosphere. For this reason, carbon dioxide is often added in greenhouses. Also, as carbon dioxide increases, plants require less water, since they lose less moisture from the pores through which they respire. This allows plants to grow in drier regions.

The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has stimulated much research in effects on plants growing in open natural environments. Sherwood Idso, Bruce Kimball, and their colleagues in Phoenix, Arizona, are especially prominent with their experiments on trees and on crops growing in open fields. Trees exhibit a very strong effect, while crops are fertilized to a lesser but still significant extent.

Figure 14 shows the amount of growing timber in the United States. There are now 120,000 pounds or 60 tons of timber for every man, woman, and child, and this is increasing at a rate of 600 pounds per person per year. It turns out that the increase in standing timber between 1958 and 1993 of about 25% was the same as the increase that can be calculated from data on tree growth as a function of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. (See Forest Statistics of the United States, 1987 and Access to Energy, 21, Nos. 3 and 4, 1993.)

Figure 15 shows this same effect measured by tree ring width in long-lived pine trees. Notice the sharp increase in growth rate during the past 50 years. (See D. A. Graybill and S. B. Idso, Global Biogeo-chemical Cycles, 7, 81-95, 1993.) Carbon dioxide growth enhancement is even greater when plants are grown under reduced fertilization or other conditions of stress as often found in nature. Figure 16 is based upon 279 research studies in which plants were grown under both stressed and unstressed conditions. The mixture of plants in these experiments as compared to that in the Earth's natural environment was such that Figure 16 actually underestimates the natural effect at 600 ppm - a doubling of growth rate. (See K. E. Idso and S. Idso, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 69, 153-203, 1994.) Since animals depend upon plants for food, their numbers also rise proportionately with increased plant growth. Moreover, it has been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are currently increasing their mass of plants and animals at a rate of one to two tons per acre per year. (See J. Grace, Science, 270, 778-780, 1995.) Throughout the northwestern United States, trees are expanding the areas in which they grow. This acceleration of tree growth is already so great that unrestricted human logging could not keep pace.

The people now alive on the Earth are going to live in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of carbon dioxide increases already under way. Our immediate descendants will enjoy an Earth with at least twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed.

The more hydrocarbons we burn, the more our natural environment will prosper. Coal, oil, and natural gas are turned into carbon dioxide; carbon dioxide is in turn used to make plants; and part of these plants is used to make animals. We are moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into plants and animals - a wonderful and unexpected environmental gift from the human Industrial Revolution.

Living things are made from carbon, and carbon dioxide is the principal substance by which carbon is transferred from the environment into plants and back and forth between plants and animals. Man uses the energy in hydrocarbons found underground when he burns coal, oil, and natural gas. He also uses the solar energy gathered by plants when he burns wood or utilizes other biomass such as food.

The release of this energy from the convenient forms in which it is stored is absolutely essential to continued progress for the human race. This energy is needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. If political events permit, it will eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, and productive lives. There is no other single technological factor more important to the increase in the quality, length, and quantity of human life than the continued and expanded use of the Earth's hydrocarbons - of which we have adequate proven reserves for more than 1,000 years. (See Access to Energy 24-11, July 1997.) Increased life and prosperity for humans and for plants and animals will result from continued increases in the use of coal, oil, and natural gas. Conversely, global death and poverty will result from the rationing of hydrocarbons called for by the international treaty that the Clin-ton-Gore Administration says that it plans to sign in Japan next month. If the Senate refuses to ratify the treaty - our last line of defense - then the Administration may try to implement it anyway, as they have done in other instances.

The science of this issue is completely clear, and the consequences of error are very obvious. If the politicians and bureaucrats ration hydrocarbons, it really is quite ridiculous to believe that science, rationalism, and common sense any longer have a significant role in world affairs. How long will it be before they notice that breathing human beings, too, exhale large amounts of demon carbon dioxide?

See also Access to Energy - 21-3, 21-4, 21-8, 22-7, 22-8, 22-9, 24-2, 24-3, 24-5, 24-9, 24-10, and 24-11 - for discussion and references.

In the September 1997 issue of Access to Energy, we made some calculations about the new "environmentally friendly'' car that is driven by a turbine powered by evaporating liquid nitrogen. We estimated that a similarly powered fuel truck carrying 40 tons of liquid nitrogen would have a range of about 500 miles and a fuel cost 1,000 times higher than the diesel alternative.

The tubular prototype liquid nitrogen car carries one man and its 48 gallon fuel tank with a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour and a range of 15 miles. It, therefore, uses 3 gallons of fuel per mile.

In comparison, a Boeing 747 aircraft traveling 575 miles per hour uses about 6 gallons per mile of jet fuel (on average during a coast-to-coast trip). Jet fuel costs, however, about one-third as much as liquid nitrogen, so the 747 fuel cost is less per mile than the one person car. You may have 500 people traveling in a 747 or one person traveling at 20 miles per hour in a go-cart at 50% greater fuel cost - take your pick.

"This Missile Defense Program Just Won't Fly'' by Angelo M. Codevilla, The Wall Street Journal, A22, October 22, 1997, reports that the Clinton Administration has committed $11 billion over the next 8 years to buy 7 Boeing 747-400 aircraft equipped with lasers to shoot down ballistic missiles early in their trajectories. The plan is thatthese airplanes will fly in areas where missiles might be launched and during times when launches are expected. The Pentagon claims that the airplanes could defend themselves with a laser that projects through the airplanes' nose.

The 747s are expected, therefore, to dogfight.

The Administration continues to cling to the defunct ABM Treaty, which precludes the construction of any missile defense that works. In order to be able to claim, however, that they are not leaving Americans undefended, silly make-work ineffective projects are implemented.
Scott Peters of the Nuclear Energy Institute, Suite 400, 1776 1 Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, reports that a freshman at Eagle Rock Junior High in Idaho urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical "dihydrogen monoxide,'' which: causes excessive sweating and vomiting; is a major component in acid rain; can cause severe burns in the gaseous state; can cause death when accidentally inhaled; contributes to erosion; decreases the effectiveness of automobile brakes; and has been found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients.

Of 50 people asked if they supported a ban of the chemical, 43 said yes, 6 were undecided, and only one knew that the chemical was water.

The point here is not just that most of these people do not know high school chemistry nomenclature. More importantly, most of them believed that it was their right to support this restriction of technological freedom even though they knew nothing whatever about the subject. The global warmers are betting that these same people can be brainwashed to support severe restrictions of carbon dioxide.
The Deweese Report 3, No. 9, p 3, September 1997, available from the American Policy Center, 13873 Park Center Road # 316, Herndon, VA 20171, quotes the following from the Teacher's Manual, Interactive Mathematics for grades 6, 7, and 8, published byGlencoe Division, Macmillan/McGraw Hill: "Traditionally, mathematics tests have questions with 'right' and 'wrong' answers. These tests reinforce the misleading image of mathematics as a subject with unique correct answers . . . Poor test scores often lead to students with poor self-images who believe they 'aren't good in math'.''

Longitude by Dava Sobel, published by Penguin Books in 1995, is a fascinating account of the history of technological efforts to develop a means of shipboard measurement of longitude. It is not generally remembered that great difficulties and much loss of life resulted from the inability of sailors to accurately determine their location. This problem was solved by John Harrison, who invented a clock that would keep precise time at sea.
Of Mice and Mandates: Animal Experiments, Human Cancer Risk, and Regulatory Policies, American Council on Science and Health, 1995 Broadway, Second Floor, New York, NY 10023-5860. This is an excellent article about the misuse of cancer data at very high doses in rodents to estimate low-dose risks to humans. About half of such tested substances are thus demonized.
"Happiness Is a Warm Planet'' by T. G. Moore in The Wall Street Journal, A22, October 7, 1997. Why impoverish ourselves preventing a global warming that is not occurring and would be good for the environment even if it did occur? As Moore says, "Global change is inevitable; warmer is better; richer is healthier.''
The Economic Laws of Scientific Research by Terence Kealey, Macmillan Press Ltd., 1996. This is a comparison between tax funding of science and technology and free market funding of science and technology - one more instance where freedom is superior to socialism.