Jim Bullis — Nov 10 2008 01:43 PM

Much of the publicity about global warming leaves reasonable people with less than complete confidence in the science of global warming. Some of the anecdotal evidence has not been fully persuasive and metaphors are imperfect. However, there is a core problem that is explained by hard physics which is that there is a mechanism by which carbon dioxide holds heat in the atmosphere. Not only is it explained, equations are written and it can be understood quantitatively with the use of computer analysis. The actual physics is a complicated and not easily explained, so metaphors like "greenhouse" were provided. The computer analysis is complicated, and for most of us, the equations that are programmed into the computer are quite difficult to understand. But we have come to believe that radio and radar work based on Maxwell's Equations which very few understand and for the most part can only be solved by approximations and by enormously complicated computating. We also have to believe that Einstein's analysis predicted the explosive power of atomic bombs. Like in those fields, understanding of heat trapping by carbon dioxide will have to be understood through some trust in our scientific community. Of course, there will always be those who insist that the world is flat because they haven't yet fallen off it. One of the problems is that the scientific community relies on peer review to validate credibility of their papers. This is an imperfect process, but it is the only way that irresponsible and incompetent work can be weeded out. Those outside the scientific world tend to mistrust this process. In my judgment, the peer review process tends to moderate conclusions rather than inflate them. The more innovative thoughts tend to get suppressed, however, when there is general agreement it usually is quite reasonable.

At the same time it can be measured that carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere. These measurements are not smoke and mirrors, they are widely understood chemical measurements.

It is easy to understand the basic chemistry of combustion which provides heat to drive the heat engines that power the industrial world. This combustion produces carbon dioxide at a rate that can easily be calculated. There is no escaping that the industrial actvity and other burning of fuel of the last two hundred years has produced a lot of carbon dioxide. The fact that the rising amount of carbon dioxide came about from this fuel use can not be seriously disputed. Of course it is not the only source of carbon dioxide, but it is clear that that if the CO2 from human activity were subtracted, the overall concentration would go down.

So I think we should take seriously the problem at hand.

That being said, we should also recognize the limits of our understanding. The main point here is that the predictions of how fast things will deteriorate are not so clear. While it is inescapable that we have created a large imbalance in nature which has to be dealt with, the appropriate degree of panic is not so clear. Bear in mind, we did not understand the financial imbalances in our economy, and while many were uneasy about the things they could see, the fact that a crisis was inevitable was not acknowledged. Looking back, the crisis should have been seen to be coming, but just when or how bad would have been very hard to know. Climate scientist are working very intensively to make predictions of how things will play out, though I am not convinced that this is fully settled. This is my opinion, and there is certainly a range of such opinions.

As to the best solutions, that is another matter. From an engineering point of view, my opinion is that the scientific community should provide the understanding of the problem and provide analytical support to the process of working out the solution. That solution should come from innovative engineering thinking. This is why we have both engineers and scientists. The line between the two is often unclear.

I suggest that in working out the solution to global warming it is a mistake for scientists to prescribe the solution. I am particularly talking about where scientists insist that coal fired electric power plants must be shut down. This might seem like an obvious answer to the scientist, but the practical aspects of this are such that others of us think there should be a hard search for better ways. Of course, coal usage has to be curtailed, but the transition process is not to be taken lightly. Coal is simply too much a part of world civilization. We also have a rush to the obvious, new or sort of new, technologies like solar power and wind. These systems are not as ready for mass use as we would like. Huge subsidies have already been provided, but an evaluation of how these subsidies will carry through when these types of solutions are implemented on a large scale has not been addressed. Clearly very serious measures have to be implemented. Clearly the best use of our imaginations and our capability to adapt has to be a part of the solution.

The foregoing is the thought process I have used to get to my present thinking. My approach has been to attack the problem from the efficiency point of view with the aim to drastically cut consumption of energy. My search is for ways to do this that will enable continuation of our life styles as far as possible, and to keep cost as a critical consideration. I read the economic signs differently than some, but we already know that there are severe penalties for unbridled spending.

Studies have shown some results that seem promising and even attractive in some ways. Some are not costly at all, and can even have a significant net cost benefit to the overall population. While it all depends on the numbers which can change, at the present time it looks like wind and solar are not the right answers. I also have found that "plug-in" cars must be built such that they also operate with dramatically less energy usage, where electric systems do not necessarily bring the advantage we are sometimes led to believe.

The fact that cars can be made that go fast and still use very little energy is a realization I have come to based on my own work with the Miastrada car. (I have a hopeful interest in Miastrada.) (Others such as the Aptera, the Loremo, are well on the way to production.) It must be said that these cars require rethinking our ideas of how cars should look. Widespread public acceptance will have to come about; that will determine if any of these are to be meaningful solutions.

Other than cars, we also have significant potential progress to be made in the way we insulate and otherwise operate our houses. I am not thinking my list is complete; it is intended to be just some examples.

The key choices that we seem to be facing are (1) to place heavy penalties on coal based systems and whether these will impact electricity cost earlier or later, (2) to provide massive subsidies to new technologies that are not now cost effective on their own merits, (3) to provide large subsidies to enable homeowners to better insulate their houses, (4) implement a phase in increase in motor vehicle fuel cost, where this implementation could come about,in part, through elimination of the oil depletion allowance.

So while serious action is required, it seems appropriate to make sensible choices and to do these in such a way that the public will support and continue to support the outcomes.

I am curious if anyone will read this. Comments?