The Science of Climate Change

M. R. Islam, M. M. Khan

• Publisher: Wiley-Scrivener
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9780470626122
• eBook ISBN: 9781119522843
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Physical Sciences
• Subtopic: Chemistry
• Index: Chemistry

It has long been recognized that science is the pursuit of knowledge, knowledge is power, and power is political. However, the fantasy of science being apolitical is a hallmark legacy of the enlightenment era, an era that romanticized pursuit of knowledge, disconnected from the baggage of power, politics, and dogmatic assertions. Yet, while the age of information has exponentially increased our access to knowledge, we can see, as clearly as ever, that scientific knowledge is neither apolitical nor dogma-free, and it certainly is not disconnected from power. It is hard to imagine another era when the separation between science and politics has been this blurred as it is today. At the same time, it is true that no other topic than climate change has been so politically charged, with one side dominating the scientific narration and branding anyone opposing the mainstream as a "climate change denier, " and the other standing in staunch defiance that climate change exists. In an age of political and scientific turmoil, how can we navigate out way to coming towards a more objective understanding of the scientific issues surrounding the climate change debate?

This book presents the current debate of climate change as scientifically futile, on both sides of the scientific, and often, political, spectrum. The climate change debate has become like obesity, cancer, diabetes or opioid addiction, which is to say that the debate should not be if these maladies exist, but rather, what causes them. Instead of looking for the cause and making adjustments to remove those causes from our lifestyle, a combination of the capitalist drive towards mass production and a lack of identifying the roots of the problems, new solutions, or substitutes, have been proposed as "quick fixes" to the problems. This book identifies the root causes of climate change and shows that climate change is real and it is also preventable, but that it can be reversed only if we stop introducing pollutants in the ensuing greenhouse gases. The book brings back common sense and grounds scientists to the fundamentals of heat and mass transfer, while at the same time disconnecting politicking and hysteria from true scientific analysis of the phenomenon of global climate.

Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Opening Statement

The evolution of human civilization is synonymous with how it meets its energy needs. Few would dispute the human race has become progressively more materially advanced with time. Yet, for the first time in human history, an energy crisis has seized the entire globe and the very sustainability of this civilization itself has suddenly come into question. If there is any truth to the claim that humanity has actually progressed as a species, it must exhibit, as part of its basis, some evidence that overall efficiency in energy consumption has improved. In terms of energy consumption, this would mean that less energy is required per capita to sustain life today than, say, 60 years earlier. Unfortunately, exactly the opposite has happened. We used to know that resources were infinite, and human needs finite. After all, it takes relatively little to sustain an individual human life. Things have changed, however, and today we are told, repeatedly: resources are finite, human needs are infinite. What’s going on?

Some Nobel Laureates (e.g., Robert Curl) and environmental activists (e.g., David Suzuki) have blamed the entire technology development regime, except certain disciplines of their choosing. For instance, Robert Curl would not see anything wrong with chemicals and David Suzuki would actually make living out of selling solar panels, calling them ‘renewable’ (it is these panels that guzzle cancer causing SiO₂ fume that are far worse than car exhaust). Others have the blamed fossil fuel and chemical industries. It was a common saying over a century ago, that we would run out of coal; therefore, coal needs to be replaced with petroleum. Ever since the politics-related oil crisis of 1970s, we have heard the declaration that the end of the global reserve is near. It was widely believed that oil price would rise to $200/bbl by 2000 and we must seek an alternate source of energy because petroleum will soon become out of reach. The opposite happened during the Clinton era, with peace dividend due to cessation of the cold war (due to dismantling of the Soviet Union), economy flourished and oil price hovered around $10/bbl. A new crisis had to be invented. Starting from the Clinton era, another concern has been added; that is, the environmental concern. With former Vice President, Al-Gore’s newfound contempt for fossil fuel and love for anything not carbon (including nuclear technology, which was curiously synonymous with Tennessee – a state Al Gore¹ once represented), the world started to believe carbon was the enemy. This drumbeat against petroleum continued even during the Bush 43 era and President George W. Bush talked about ‘oil addiction’ (Islam et al., 2010). Even his most ardent detractors embrace that comment as some sign of deep thinking. Then came the Obama era – the era of contradictions and paradoxes (Brown and Epstein, 2014). If President Clinton gained notoriety by admitting to doing drugs but not inhale, Obama could admit to get ‘high’ and yet maintain his saintly aura. The Obama era is marked with unprecedented surge in oil and gas production activities that catapulted USA to energy solvency (Islam, 2014), looking to an unprecedented position of net exporter of energy (CNBC, 2018). In a paradoxical move, however, Obama increased investments in so-called renewable projects, painting the US administration as environment-friendly, with the fundamental premise that oil is not sustainable but renewable energies, such as solar, wind, biofuel are. The president who ran on the slogan ‘yes we can’, invested heavily on promises of a vast network of high-speed rail, a “smart” electric grid, a million electric cars on the roads, a “clean energy economy” creating millions of new green jobs. The ‘yes we can’ slogan turned out to be ‘no he cannot’ after spectacular failure of his promises (Editorial, 2017). After spending over $105 billion on a road system he called the “largest new investment in America’s infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System,” the American Society of Civil Engineers graded the state of the nation’s overall infrastructure when from a “D” to a “D+.” In other words, it went from poor to only slightly less poor. In fact, the Transportation Department reports (USDT, 2018) that highway congestion was worse in 2016 (4 hours 43 minutes) than it was in 2008 (4 hours 20 minutes). It is the same for electric cars that saw heavy subsidies and generous tax breaks only to see a $8 billion investment see only a tiny niche market, subsidized by millions of taxpayers who have no interest in owning one (Editorial, 2017). Similarly, Obama’s high-speed rail fantasy that was supposed to take root in 10 regions ended up being a ‘California’ dream with a price tag of $8 billion in stimulus package and $3.5 billion in grants from the federal government. This is the same California ranked no. 32 in overall ranking among 50 states (USNews, 2018), the same California that became a national disgrace for its ‘cruel’ and ‘inhuman’ homelessness crisis (Bendix, 2018). Obama’s most spectacular failure was in renewable energy spending. He spent billions of taxpayer dollars subsidizing windmills and solar plants as part of his vision of a “clean energy” future. However, despite his repeated claims about a huge increase in renewable energy production, renewables today make up just 11% of the nation’s total energy production, according to the Energy Information Administration. Figure 1.1 shows how it was oil and gas production that met the bulk of the energy need of the USA. In mid-1983, the share of energy production comprised of renewables was 11%. The biggest shift in energy under Obama came not from a government program, but from fracking, which vastly expanded the supply of domestic oil and natural gas. But, what all these have to do with the science of climate change?

Figure 1.1 Primary energy production (from EIA, 2018).

One would think scientists are the first ones to recognize inherent flaws in political decisions, involving billions of public funding. The sad reality is that scientists have abandoned objective research. In this case of energy policy and climate change strategies, 97% of scientists have pandered the liberal line, that is carbon is the enemy and as long as an energy source is not carbon, we are safe (Nuccitelli, 2018). Before we talk about the 3% who at least opposed the 97%, let us review some of the public reaction to Obama’s no-carbon policy. Biello (2015) painstakingly described how Obama’s energy policy was actually a ‘seed of clean-energy revolution’. Biello proudly displays a picture of a giant collection of 5.2 million solar panels, A blue-black field of 5.2 million solar panels (Picture 1.1) turning 300 megawatts of silicon photovoltaics (PV) into electricity. He (Biello, 2015a) connects to equally glamourous feat of a giant wind farm equipped with wind turbines (Picture 1.2) to green energy, totally oblivious of the facts that these technologies are not renewable, efficient (Chhetri et al., 2008) or safe for the environment (Islam et al., 2015). To cap it up, the loans from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office (LPO) is flaunted as if this public fund that made the projects possible is a testimony that the project is a scientific marvel. To be clear, this loan program was attached to innovative technologies, defined as “new or significantly improved technologies as compared with commercial technologies” (with commercial defined as used in three or more other projects over more than five years). Some $16 billion was available before September 2011 on top of the $56 billion already available – all in name of innovative technology. So, one must wonder what great innovation these huge loans were connected to? Those innovations range from the basic layout of solar farms of more than 100 megawatts to storing sunshine in molten salts and using lens to concentrate it and improve photovoltaic efficiency. Translation? As long as it does not involve petroleum, it is innovative. Inherent to all these is the premise, is that anything related to carbon is unsustainable whereas anything related to solar, wind, or so-called ‘renewable’ is sustainable or ‘green’. As pointed out by former President Barack Obama, “There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change,” President Barack Obama said in unveiling the administration’s Clean Power Plan at the White House on August 3, “The science tells us we have to do more.” All of a sudden, a president with law degree sanctifies ‘science’ and none of the 97% scientists could ask the research questions:

1. What is the long-term consequences of the ‘renewable’ energy?
2. What is the real cause of global warming?
   Instead of seeking to answer these research questions, the debate now moves on to the phase, where the research question become
3. How the economics of ‘renewable’ energy can be improved?
4. How can we reduce our ‘oil addiction’?

Picture 1.1 This big solar project in Arizona is just one of the large clean power plants enabled by the Energy Department’s Loan Program Office. Credit: Courtesy of NRG.

Picture 1.2 Few realize wind turbines are inherently unsustainable and nowhere close to being renewable.

Not surprisingly, the solution becomes Carbon tax, so the ‘oil addiction’ is minimized and with added revenue more can be spent to offset the poor economy of ‘renewable’ energy sources or worse, some absolutely preposterous idea. What could be more preposterous than taxing people to offset so-called renewable energy sources that account for less than 20% of the total energy? Well, it seems scientists lived up to the insanity that would make flat earthers look logical. In 2018, Smith and Wagner came up with the ‘brilliant idea’ that the solution to global warming is to spray the stratosphere with aerosol, containing sulfates – the very kind that contributed to the current crisis. It is reminiscent of Stephen Hawking’s claim that the solution to global crisis that is a fruit of colonization is to colonize the Mars. But, at least Stephen Hawking didn’t have an axe to grind. He wasn’t waiting to cash in a large grant out of his insane comment. For Smith and Wagner, it is a lucrative business. They propose developing a new, purpose-built high-altitude tanker with substantial payload capabilities. That’s a great ticket to instant cash considering that a 15 year span for the spraying project is proposed. These are the scientists that give credibility to politicians, who have been vocal about academic ‘corruption’ akin to corporate greed². As Sen. Rick Santorum said, “If there was no climate change, we’d have a lot of scientists looking for work. The reality is that a lot of these scientists are driven by the money that they receive,” if one consensus that’s worth a mention it is the fact that scientists have made funding to be their primary motivator.

The response of the 3% ‘disbeliever’ scientists have been first denial that global warming exists, then challenge the prospect of replacing fossil fuel with a workable alternative, arguing that the economics of scale offered by fossil fuel cannot be overcome with alternative energy sources. This line of argument buries the possibility of answering pivotal Questions 1 and 2.

This book brings back real science to answer the most important questions regarding climate change. These questions have eluded both sides of the Climate change debate. Because one side of the debate (the 97%) starts off the premise that ‘Carbon is the enemy’ and this book starts off the premise that carbon is essential to life, this book may appear to be taking side of the 3% ‘climate change denier’. T...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Foreword
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: State-of-The-Art of the Climate Change Debate
• Chapter 3: Forest Fires and Anthropogenic CO2
• Chapter 4: Role of Agricultural Practices on Climate Change
• Chapter 5: Role of Biofuel Processing in Creating Global Warming
• Chapter 6: Role of Refining on Climate Change
• Chapter 7: Scientific Characterization of Petroleum Fluids
• Chapter 8: Delinearized History of Climate Change Hysteria
• Chapter 9: The Monetization the Climate Science
• Chapter 10: The Science of Global Warming
• Chapter 11: Conclusions
• Chapter 12: References
• Index
• End User License Agreement