About

Can you use this piece which was prepared for a seminar on global warming? It includes a review of James Lovelock’s “The Revenge of
Gaia”?

SOME MAJOR CLIMATOLOGICAL FACTS
First, let’s review some pertinent facts to put this book into a larger context than the current “Global Warming Problem”.
Fact #1) The most important fact that may surprise most of you is that we are still in what should be the early part of an ICE AGE, one which began just 40 or 50million years ago, following the EOCENE EPOC, which was a very warm period.
Fact #2) We need to differentiate between ICE AGES and GLACIAL PERIODS.
a) During the ICE AGES, which typically last between 200 and 400million years, there are cold GLACIAL PERIODS, often mistakenly called Ice Ages, and cool INTERGLACIAL PERIODS, such as we are now experiencing. The length of a complete cycle of Glacial and Interglacial Periods varies, but has usually been of the order of 100,000 years; and there has been much variation in the lengths of the cold and cool periods within the cycles. It is likely that so far in the present ICE AGE, the polar ice sheets have advanced and receded more than 50 times. But throughout an ICE AGE, there is persistent ice and snow at both poles.
b) The INTERGLACIAL period we are in now began about 10,00 years ago. Some “global warming skeptics” say we shouldn’t worry about the possibility of still more warming in the future because the Interglacial periods typically last only about 12,000 years, so within only about a couple thousand years, we’ll be entering another glacial period, they say.
c) In fact, average temperatures did start on a downward trend about1000 years ago; but that trend leveled off about 200 years ago and has more recently begun to rise more and more rapidly. (Remember the “Hockey Stick” pattern of the chart of temperature and CO2 shown in a recent National Geographic article).
Fact #3) The trend of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is a leading indicator of the likely future temperature trend. What is most alarming is the fact that the burning of fossil carbon at an increasing rate during the past 200 years has raised the CO2 Concentration nearly to a level last reached 50 million years ago during the very warm EOCENE Period. There was a high level of greenhouse gases at that time also, apparently because of undersea volcanoes, or possibly meteorite impacts, which caused the release of much methane from the layer of ice-like methane
hydra te which lies under most of the oceans. Because the EOCENE was so unusually warm, there were major evolutionary changes in the flora and fauna during that period. The only animals that survived the Eocene were rather small – which is beneficial under such conditions. During the Eocene Period, a combination of processes gradually returned the temperature to the Present Ice Age conditions. These processes included oxidation of the methane to the less-potent CO2, then removal of the CO2 by its absorption in rainwater to form carbonic acid, which then is the main agent causing “weathering” of exposed rocks and soil, thus “fixing” the CO2 as carbonates.
Fortunately, we won’t be around to see what dire consequences result from our current excesses. But we should feel a responsibility to do whatever we can to postpone that possible – or even likely –catastrophe.

To be effective we need a good understanding of how the earth’s temperature is controlled – what are the factors involved, and how do they work? That is what “The Revenge of Gaia” is about.

“THE REVENGE OF GAIA” by JAMES LOVELOCK
(Basic Books, NY, 2006)
(Whence the name “GAIA”? Gaia was an ancient Greek Goddess of the Earth)
This is not just another book on global warming – although that problem is what worries Dr. Lovelock. Here he explains that the problem is more than just the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, although that is a major part of it. He was one of the first scientists to become concerned by this global warming. James Lovelock is a PhD biochemist and an MD, but he is more widely recognized as an influential environmentalist. He has been called “a scientific visionary” and “the scientist who has changed our view of the earth”. He was the founder of the “Gaia Theory”, which holds that the entire earth –- atmosphere, oceans, biosphere, and land, interact with each other, so that together they function in a way resembling a single living super-organism, regulating its chemical balance and temperature so that the environment is maintained within the range required for the many forms of life within it, as a living organism would do. What actually happens, of course, is a rate of change that is slow enough that the existing life-forms can adapt or evolve fast enough to continue their existence through the repeating cycles.
In this new book, the fifth in a series detailing his and others’ contributions to the development of “Gaia Theory”, he presents evidence that, as judged by the geological evidence, plus more recent information on the variations in the abundance of life in the biosphere, the optimum temperature for the earth is the relatively cool conditions prevailing during “ice ages”. Gaia has cycled through a number of ICE AGES during the past 2 billion years. (During only the most recent several million years of our present ice age, has our own form of life, the Genus “Homo”, developed and flourished).
Within the several hundred million years of an ice age, there are many cycles of periods with glaciers spreading extensively away from the poles, the “glacial periods”, and the interspersed “interglacial periods” when the glaciers retreat to the polar areas and the mountains. Gaia’s controls of the temperature and other conditions during this cycling are provided by the many chemical processes and life processes ongoing in Gaia. These processes provide feedback, both positive (or intensifying), and negative (or moderating), during this cycling, which in turn limits the extent of variations from the norm. The result is a cycling around a mean between extremes, that is, between “glacial periods” and “interglacial periods”, the last one of which we are now experiencing.
He also presents in this book data on temperature variations over the past one thousand years that indicate that the mean temperature prior to about 1800 was on a slight downward trend, which he suggests might have led to another ice age in about 10,000 years. But then the Industrial Age began, with its copious and ever- increasing use of fossil fuels – the carbon that Gaia had previously cached (along with much calcium carbonate, as well) while removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during the Carbonaceous Period, about 300 million years ago.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, we have been both increasing a major positive feedback effect on the temperature by increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere, causing the temperature to rise. At the same time, people have been decreasing the negative feedback effect which was provided by the originally extensive forests over most of the land. This clearing or burning for farming, has exposed the land to greater solar heating, and caused still more temperature rise. A further effect has been the melting of much of the north polar ice cap, and the adjacent permafrost areas, diminishing the snow cover which normally would be reflecting a significant portion of the sun’s radiation back into space –- a desirable negative feedback that is being lost. Instead, that radiation is absorbed, warming the earth still more. In addition, a very worrisome consequence of the melting of the permafrost is the releasing of the methane and CO2 which was trapped within and under it. The cumulative effect has been the unprecedented global warming we are now experiencing.
It is becoming quite evident that the fundamental cause of the warming that we are increasingly being made aware of is the current population explosion, especially since about 1800. That population explosion is largely a result of learning to use fossil fuels as an energy source – not just for space heating. This increasing energy availability empowered the unprecedented growth of engineering and technological innovation that has made possible today’s life style. That includes the improvements in agriculture and food supply, medicine, life expectancy, and the like. The resulting huge increase in our population is having an increasingly detrimental effect on our environment.
In other words, it is we – mankind – that are messing up our own nest – our world, our Gaia. And we are only recently beginning to realize the extent of our “messing up” and its possible consequences.

What to do? Reduce the amount of carbon dioxide pollution being generated, of course. The usual solution proposed is more dependence on renewable, or “green” power sources which do not cause a net increase in greenhouse gases. But in Dr.Lovelock’s analysis of the available possibilities – wind, biomass, solar, hydro, geothermal – and the potential utility of each one, he finds they all have serious limitations: small scale, unavoidable extreme variation in availability or dependability, or else a competition between food crops and biomass for farmland — at a time when the population continues to increase. This leads him to the conclusion that “green power” at best can supply only a partial replacement of our present use of coal and natural gas for electricity, and oil for transportation. It can never be depended upon to provide the base load, 24/7, dependable power which is so essential. However, to the extent that “green”, or “renewable” power can be used, it is beneficial.

So is there an alternative? Dr. Lovelock, based on these considerations, has abandoned his previous objection to nuclear energy, and so has joined with many other scientists in concluding that a major move to building more nuclear power plants is essential – even unavoidable, if we are to both continue to have adequate power, and also stop increasing global warming.
So, what are we likely to do about it? As I see it, the three possibilities are:
1) We “stay the course”, and eventually end the possibility of continuing our present lifestyle, although our descendents would no doubt adapt some-how. (Perhaps they’ll become like Pigmies – or even Liliputians.)
2) We do partial measures that may postpone that dire future somewhat.
3) We take drastic action that might prevent that catastrophe.

I think we’ll probably settle on the partial measures, but the consequences will be nearly insignificant for these reasons:
1) Already there are so many people to feed that the forests can never be replaced, and it’s getting worse. The effect on the price of tortillas in Mexico from our making ethanol from corn in the U.S. is evidence that deriving energy (or “biomass”) from land used for food crops is not a good alternative.
2) The many coal-fired power plants, and the petrol-burning cars and trucks now in use will still be in use or on the road for many years – and are increasing in number worldwide.
3) Something like a trillion dollars has been wasted on war, munitions, space station, “star wars”, the “man-on-Mars” project, etc., so our resources are now limited, and made even more unavailable by an unwillingness to pay for funding anything, especially something like the Mega-Manhattan Project that would be required to accomplish those things I believe are essential.

A possible strategy for that Manhattan Project, if it could be initiated, would be to make electricity the primary power source, with no CO2 pollution generated in the production of the electricity. This can be done by quite a number of possibilities, some of which still require further development. A possible progression is as follows:
a) Build many new nuclear power plants, some used to generate hydrogen. This would be much better than building the many coal-fired power plants presently planned.
b) Use coal only with gasification – the IGCC process – integrated gasification and combined cycle, with sequestration of the CO2.
That will also require developing the infrastructure necessary to permanently dispose of a huge amount of CO2.
c) Convert nearly all heating and cooking to electrical.
d) Develop batteries suitable for “plug-in” cars, so that use of fossil hydrocarbons is greatly reduced.
e) Develop sturdy fuel cells for heavy-duty use in trucks and locomotives (those not electrified), with hydrogen or methanol fuel.
f) Develop a hydrogen supply infrastructure, based on nuclear power, with the hydrogen being made either by electrolysis or by high temperature catalysis.
g) Build more power trunk lines to distribute all that additional electricity.
h) Start NOW to plan, develop and execute these strategies.
i) Institute a CARBON TAX to discourage use of fossil fuels, with the proceeds used to promote the development of more clean energy alternatives.
Our generation is the first to be aware of the potentially serious consequences of continuing our profligate lifestyle. What is the likelihood that we will change our ways sufficiently to avoid the ire of our descendents?

Personally, I agree with Dr. Lovelock, that we must begin to cut back on or at least minimize anything which causes a net increase in CO2.
THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT IS BY DEPENDING PRIMARILY ON NUCLEAR POWER.

WE MUST ALSO BE AWARE OF THESE LIMITATIONS ON “ALTERNATIVES” OR “RENEWABLES”:
1) Biofuels are not a significant option as a diesel fuel substitute
because we cannot displace enough food cropland, as would be required.
[ So it may well be that the investment now going into ethanol would better be put into nuclear power, to replace the present substantial use of natural gas for power, then use the natural gas instead to make methanol for fuel, rather than ethanol, which is already causing prices to increase down the food chain.]
2) Wind and Solar Power have some potential but only in a relatively small way, mainly limited by variability and frequent lack of availability. NIMBY is also a problem.
3) Improving efficiency in transportation fuel use, i.e., gas mileage, can have a significant effect, because it can be mandated by governments. Increasing efficiency of electrical use may help a little in reducing the rate of increase in electricity demand, but its effectiveness is greatly limited because it must be voluntary.

MY CONCLUSIONS FROM THE ABOVE: WE NEED TO PURSUE WITH MORE URGENCY THESE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY:
1) Find a satisfactory way to dispose of carbon dioxide permanently.
2) Scale up the socalled UREX Process for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. That is the core of the GNEP Project, and which is developing a process which separates the plutonium from the spent fuel in a mixture with other transuranic elements such that it cannot be used in bomb-making. This would greatly increase the storage capacity of Yucca Mountain, and also lessen the concern about long term storage, because the fraction from the reprocessing that must be stored is much shorter-lived, and is much reduced in volume, as a water-insoluble, glass-like frit. That solves the “spent fuel storage problem” which is
often cited as the major objection to nuclear power.

William Klapproth, 149 East Side Dr. #255, Concord, NH 03301 (603)228-6442