Another LTE - The Spherical Earth Hoax

Note - this is in response to the Brunswick Post's reader poll question.

Those “scientists” are at it again. They told us that the “pandemic” was bad and that we should be vaccinated. We all know what a hoax that was. And the whole climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions is another big one. But the biggest hoax of all is that the earth is round.

Any thinking person with a reasonable amount of common sense knows that it is flat. Yet the supposedly learned men and women have been saying for years that us flat-earthers are ones who are wrong. Here’s the thing: we true believers can’t even get any traction on the news. So many times, we’ve tried to arrange debates with scientists about the true nature of the earth’s flatness. We’ve tried to start by saying, “You say the earth is spherical, and we say it’s flat. Let’s debate.” But they don’t even seem to want to bother with us.

Okay, let me get a little more serious now. This was in response to today’s Post Reader Poll, ‘Do you believe that climate change is real and caused by carbon buildup?’ Why are we even debating such a thing? We no longer debate whether the earth is round, whether a virus caused the pandemic, or whether electricity exists because those things, like climate change, are scientifically proven.

The debate ought not to be whether it’s happening. That’s a given. It needs to be about what we should do about it. 

James Baker’s column got it mostly right. It’s a global problem, and the United States can’t solve it alone. But we can and should provide leadership to the rest of the world in order to resolve it. And of course, Republicans must get on board and engage on the issue. By establishing markets and incentives, our climate leadership can also be a boon to our economy.

Fallback Position

 Okay, so maybe the climate is changing. Yes, it’s incredibly hot in some places at some times, but certainly not all. Yes, I suppose I have to admit that sea levels are rising, but what’s the big deal if you live away from the coast? Yes, firestorms and tropical storms are becoming more severe, but for a good part of the country, they’re of no consequence.

Now, even though I’m finally forced to admit that global warming is happening, I still have a fallback position! Want to hear it? The climate is always changing! This is just a blip that’s probably caused by the earth coming closer to the sun or something like that. Even the “experts” can’t seem to tie a specific weather event to human caused climate change.

These “scientists” claim that this climate change stuff is caused by the carbon monoxide and methane that we’re putting into the atmosphere and the resulting greenhouse effect. Even if that’s true, and even if these things are contributing to the warming (now I’m coming to my second fallback position), the climate scientists cannot tell us how much. They can’t give an exact percentage! They say, it’s as if you place a pot of water on the stove and turn on the burner, causing it to boil. How much of the boiling is caused by the fire beneath the pot?

Well, I’m not convinced. Now excuse me while I work on my third fallback position.

Ohio House Bill 175: ephemeral streams

 

According to a June 2 article in the Columbus Dispatch, House Bill 175, introduced by Rep. Brett Hudson Hillyer (R-Uhrichsville), would seek to remove environmental protections from ephemeral streams. These are streams that only flow after rain or snow melt. This follows a Trump Administration change that strips the federal law from protecting ephemeral streams as part of the U.S. EPA’s Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Ohio’s EPA protections would have still held protection in place. Until, that is, HB 175. After several hearings, the law could be headed to a committee vote in early June.

Several environmental groups, including Sierra Club Ohio, oppose HB 175. "They don't flow all year round, but they still have a bank, a bed and a channel. They still convey water and nutrients. ... They're really important for organisms, and they're extremely important for water quality,” said Mažeika Sullivan, professor of Ohio State University's School of Environment and Natural Resources.

We should urge Ohioans to contact their representatives to voice their concerns.

Getting to Zero

Picture a bathtub filled with water so much that it’s beginning to overflow. The problem is that water is still being added to the tub, even though it’s already full. If we reduce the inflow, it will slow the amount that’s spilling onto the floor, but it won’t stop it. The only solution is to shut the water supply off completely. Bill Gates uses this apt analogy for greenhouse gas emissions (the water) and our atmosphere (the tub) in his book, ‘How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need.’ It’s a simple illustration to show why we need to get to zero emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Carbon remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, so we may as well consider it semi-permanent. Reducing the emissions is good, but our goal (and our plan) must be to eliminate them completely.

It’s best to suspend any opinion you may have of Mr. Gates himself, now that details of his personal life in relation to his marriage and divorce are coming to light. Yes, it’s possible that his carefully crafted image of a smart but nerdy nice guy may be out of sync with reality. But what he and others tell us about climate change is important information. And it’s spot-on in terms of the scope of the problem and how to address it. But to avoid concerns about the person versus the message, we will consider other sources as well. One is a United Nations Report called, ‘The race to zero emissions, and why the world depends on it.’ Another is a report by the International Energy Agency called, ‘Net Zero by 2050.’ There are plenty of others.

Why is getting to zero so important? In simple, straightforward terms, the earth is now 1.1°C warmer than it was at the start of the industrial revolution. The results - rising seas, stronger storms, higher temperatures, and extreme droughts and fires - are already evident. We are not on track to meet agreed targets in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, which stipulated keeping global temperature increase well below 2 °C or at 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Even at those levels, the results will be nearly catastrophic. The effects of temperature increases beyond this will be even worse. We must, therefore, redouble our efforts.

But why zero? Doesn’t it help to simply reduce the emissions? Yes, it does help, and there has been progress in some areas. The use of renewable energy, burning natural gas in place of coal, substituting alternative fuels, employing better fuel efficiency in transportation and buildings, and using nuclear energy are just some of the ways that we can reduce emissions. But each item comes with its own set of problems and concerns, and none of them, by themselves, will get us all the way to zero. And remember the bathtub analogy? Lower emissions may buy us time, but zero must be our final goal.

Intermediate goals are fine, but only to an extent. As an example, if we replace all of our coal-burning power plants with natural gas ones, our CO2 emissions would be cut by a significant percentage. However, with natural gas use increasing globally by 2.6 percent a year and with increased emissions from it outpacing decreased emissions from coal globally, we need to reevaluate the role of natural gas as a bridge fuel. Where it replaces coal for electricity generation, it’s reducing emissions and improving air quality. But it still produces some carbon pollution, and therefore slows, but does not solve, the climate crisis. Since it’s now providing new energy and new emissions in some cases, and preventing zero-emission solutions from being deployed in others (new gas-fired power plants last for decades), it is hindering climate solutions. A better goal would be to simply replace all fossil-fuel burning facilities with clean (renewable or nuclear) ones. It would take time, and an intermediate part of the goal could be achieved when say, half the plants are replaced.

The problem becomes more complicated when we consider all of the sources of emissions. When asked the primary cause of climate change, most informed Americans will answer, carbon dioxide emissions produced by automobiles and by burning fossil fuels for the production of electricity. Indeed, transportation and power generation are two major areas of concern. But others are just as important. Agriculture, especially beef production (where the methane is also a greenhouse gas of concern), manufacturing, and production of building materials, particularly cement, contribute emissions as well. Any comprehensive plan for getting to zero must take all sources into account.

Yes, getting to zero will be difficult. But if we work together, it won’t be impossible. And it must be done. We have no choice.

We can get a great deal of the way to zero emissions with current technology. But to get all the way, we will need some technological breakthroughs. For example, renewable energy, like wind and solar energy sources is great and should be pursued. But wind and solar alone won’t get us to zero. Improved battery technology (for storage when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing) will help, but that also won’t get us all the way. Fission-based nuclear energy has improved significantly; it’s now much safer, more efficient, and there is far less waste. A real breakthrough would come if fusion nuclear energy becomes feasible. Yet there are those other areas as well. Meat alternative technology is emerging and may soon be more viable. Technology improvements in cement production, air transportation, and shipping appear to be further down the road.

How can we achieve the technological breakthroughs we need? Governments can encourage this kind of innovation by rewarding research and development efforts. Governments can also promote the use of zero emission technology once it is developed to make it more competitive.

Some countries, local communities like cities and states, and many companies have goals to get to net zero emissions. For some, the target date is 2050, and for others, it’s as early as 2030. Enacting such goals is a positive development, and they should be encouraged and rewarded. But if China as well as third-world and other developing nations continue to produce cement and build coal-fired power plants, emissions will increase instead of being reduced. First-world nations have no right to stifle economic development in the third world, and China’s growth won’t stop just because some may want it to. We need a complete and comprehensive plan to encompass all of humanity.

The thing is, we have one. It’s called the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. This accord, though far from perfect, represents mankind’s best hope of getting to the level of zero emissions. Although climate change action needs to be further increased to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the years since its entry into force have already sparked new markets and low-carbon solutions. More and more countries, regions, cities, and companies are establishing carbon neutrality targets. Zero-carbon solutions are becoming competitive. If we are ever going to get to zero, this will have been the way.

The Latest Climate Science Denial

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t and Why it Matters is the title of a new book by physicist Steven Koonin, a former under-secretary for science in the Obama Administration. Therein, Koonin argues that the impact of human influence on the climate is too small and uncertain to merit any costly action to reduce fossil fuel use. We humans, he says, will be able to adapt to any warming that does occur.

Marc A. Thiessen of The Washington Post writes about Koonin and his book in a May 17 article, An Obama scientist debunks the climate doom-mongers. Thiessen interviewed Koonin, who dug through U.N. and U.S. government reports to present some ‘inconvenient truths.’ He says the facts do not support the ‘doom mongering’ of climate alarmists.

Koonin was hired into his position by Obama’s first secretary of energy, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Chu precisely because he was willing to challenge conventional wisdom. Since leaving the administration, Koonin has gone on to argue that the impact of human influence on the climate is too uncertain, and probably too small, to merit costly action to reduce fossil fuel use. Humanity, he says, will adapt to any warming that occurs.

For context, it should be pointed out that Mr. Thiessen, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has written articles supporting climate science denial in the past. Mr. Koonin has now appeared on Fox News and its ilk to provide some scholarly sounding arguments to support their point of view. Some of those scholarly sounding arguments are:

“The warmest temperatures in the U.S. have not risen in the past fifty years.” Yes, they have. It’s true that if you cherry-pick data from 2014 government reports as Mr. Koonin has done, you may be able to twist the truth around enough to make a statement such as this. But the EPA Climate Indicators Report states that “Some parts of the United States have experienced more warming than others. The North, the West, and Alaska have seen temperatures increase the most, while some parts of the Southeast have experienced little change.” And data for the U.S. is not as important for the understanding of the impact of climate change as that for the entire planet. Here, the EPA states that “Worldwide, 2016 was the warmest year on record, 2020 was the second-warmest, and 2011–2020 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began.”

“Instead of droughts, the past fifty years have been slightly wetter than average” in the United States. This may be true in some parts of the U.S., but not others. The drought in California and other western states is fairly unprecedented. Historic western wildfires have many causes, but the underlying origin is climate change. Climate change does not apply itself evenly across the globe; there will always be areas that experience more or less heat, and more or less precipitation. But those dryer and hotter areas will be more extreme than ever.

The planet is warming, Koonin tells Thiessen, partly due to natural phenomena and partly due to growing human influences. Koonin says that scientists can’t untangle the two. But, Koonin argues, the terrifying predictions of increasingly violent weather and coastal cities drowned beneath rising seas are overblown. Yet the Union of Concerned Scientists stated in 2009 (and updated in 2021) that global warming is caused mainly by human activity. Despite Koonin’s assertions, scientists working on climate change compare the climate patterns they observe with patterns developed using sophisticated models of Earth's systems. By comparing the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can positively identify "human fingerprints” and attribute a proportion of observed warming to human activities. Regarding increasingly violent weather and rising seas, they’re happening, and they’re happening big. The UCC says, “While some types of events are more readily attributable to global warming than others, attribution science is becoming increasingly robust. Several authoritative scientific institutions and government agencies have confirmed both the rigor and the validity of attributing individual extreme events to human-caused climate change.” Sea level rise is well documented and is also directly attributable to human-caused climate change.

Koonin also argues that predictions of climate-induced economic devastation are delusional as well. Since this is an economic argument instead of a scientific one, Mr. Koonin is out of his realm. Even if the U.S. experiences less economic impact from climate change than expected, it will still be severe. Moreover, the effect will be uneven, with some developing countries – those that can ill-afford it – will absorb most of the economic impact. Ultimately, some will be able to adapt, and others will not. Regardless, it’s not a good thing for the U.S. to survive in an increasingly desperate world.

Koonin believes that it will be impossible to stop the climate from changing. “If we stop emitting CO2 today, it would still be there in the atmosphere for hundreds of years,” he tells Thiessen. “If we manage to reduce emissions a little bit, it’ll just accumulate at a slower rate but it’ll still go up.” Here, he is correct. But we have to try. How can we not?

We need to not just slow our climate-changing emissions, we have to halt them completely; we need to get to zero emissions. Although it will be complicated and difficult, this must be our goal. We will need to set the stage for possible innovative breakthroughs, and we need to work to use the technologies currently available to bring our net impact on the climate to zero. If we do so, we will not only save our planet, we will save our economy and position the U.S. to maintain its economic, technological, and moral leadership.

Reduce, Reuse, (and what was the other thing?)

This is a letter to the editor of the Brunswick Post regarding a Guest Column article about recycling in the City of Strongsville. Most is also applicable to Brunswick and other areas.

Thanks to Erin Lally for the informative Local Guest Column in Wednesday’s Post, ‘Let’s talk trash – and recycling!’ I live in Brunswick, where we also have curbside recycling (although there are a few differences from Strongsville). It’s good to be reminded about the importance and the protocol of recycling occasionally, and Erin Lally’s article did the trick.

In our part of Ohio, critics often gleefully point out two news items related to recycling. One is a report that the City of Cleveland is simply dumping recycling items in a landfill. This has been happening for at least two years, and the city still has not rectified the situation. Although this is a continuing problem for Cleveland, it doesn’t appear to be occurring in Strongsville, Brunswick, or other areas.

A second news item regarding recycling is the problem with plastic. Over a year ago, China drastically reduced the amount of plastic that it imports for recycling. This abrupt change is causing mountains of plastic trash to build up for U.S. recycling agencies. Our country and others are scrambling to find alternative approaches to the problem. There is no shortage of ideas, but scalability and economics are major concerns. It’s also the case that not all types of plastic can be effectively recycled. It appears that there is no fast and easy solution to the problem. I would also add that this plastic problem does not apply to paper, glass, metal, and other recycling.

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t recycle; we should. It’s far better for the environment to at least try to reuse material waste that would otherwise be placed in landfills. Please keep in mind Erin Lally’s and others’ mantra, “reduce, reuse, recycle,” and the priority should be in that order.

Clearing Snow off Solar Panels

 

When our solar panels were installed last summer, I didn’t think a whole lot about what would happen to them in the winter. I suppose I thought that snow would just slide right off, and we wouldn’t need to worry about them. Not quite. Now that the winter of 2020-2021 is raging, I would like to share a little of what I’ve learned.

Snow doesn’t always ‘slide right off.’ It does indeed slide off easier than it does from the asphalt shingles on the rest of the roof. And when there’s just a thin layer, it melts faster on the panels than it does on the rest of the roof. But if the snow is heavy, or if it turns to ice, it can last for a while on the panels. Is it worth the trouble to try to clear them off?

I gave this a little thought and also did a bit of research. On a bright winter day, the panels may produce power that’s worth a couple of dollars; perhaps three at most. Of course, it all depends on the panels’ angle, length of daylight hours, amount of cloudiness, etc. It also depends on how many panels you have. Then you need to multiply those three bucks by the number of days that the panels will retain their heavy snow covering. I decided to try to clear them off and purchased a “Snow Broom with 15 Ft Stainless Steel Heavy Duty Connecting Pole” from Amazon.

Although the foam head is light, and the stainless steel handle sections are light, when fully extended, the whole thing becomes awkward and difficult to use. I learned that I needed to still stand on a step ladder with the entire extended length to reach the highest panels. The ladder is mostly to provide the best leverage. I also learned that I need to clear the lower areas first, then work my way higher. As good as it all works, the work is very difficult. I become exhausted after just a few minutes.

I will say that it feels good to have the panels cleared off. But the work is so hard, I still wonder whether it’s worth it.