We're almost sure of... something or other!

By Joseph Walther

 

A bold, black, 5/8^th inch headline screamed at me from the top, right panel, front page of The News Journal last Friday, February 2, 2007.

 

“Panel: Man to blame for global warming.

Report says it’s 90% certain humans harm planet.”

 

Yep, there it was in black and white, except that the scientists didn’t actually use a percentage. A scientific group called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the report and what they said was that global warming is “very likely” man-made. So, did the Associated Press pull the “90%” chance out of its collective butt? No!

 

            I wrote a column last year concerning global warming. I’m not going to rehash it here. However, I based that column on chemical reactions, not my gut feelings. Gut feelings, no matter how educated, are subjective. Chemistry and chemical reactions are not. Let me reiterate some basic chemistry as it applies to global warming.

 

            Humans breathe air. It’s all around us. The air we breathe consists of about 20% oxygen. The atom, oxygen, uses the symbol, O. We don’t breathe this. We humans breathe molecular oxygen. Its symbol is O₂, which means two oxygen atoms bound together.

 

            Ozone is nothing more than another way for oxygen atoms to bind together. When three oxygen atoms (O) bind together, they change into Ozone, which is O₃. Now, the thing about oxygen atoms (O) is that they are chemical predators, always looking for some molecules to hook up with, which they find in abundance in the chemical singles bar we call the air around us. But, they can’t just sashay up to a hot-looking molecule and get it on. They need a third party to sort of introduce them and pave the way. This third party, called a catalyst, doesn’t get to share in the binding “fun,” at least not in a “threesome” sense, but they’ll be NO binding “fun” without a third-party introduction.

 

            By far, the most popular third-party introducer is molecular nitrogen; but others exist. The scientific symbol for any catalyst is (M). So, chemically, what happens is that an (O) combines with an (O₂), made possible by a catalyst (M), and changes into an (O₃), only the catalyst (M) is now hanging out with the O₃. If you were taking a basic chemistry course, you’d show it this way: O + O₂ + M à O₃ + M (The arrow means becomes.)

 

            The process keeps repeating down here on Earth’s surface. It comes from automobile engines, a myriad other industrial/human processes, and Nature, herself—an erupting volcano is a prime example. Ozone (O₃) surrounds us down here at Earth’s surface. When it gets too bad, we find ways to reduce it. Too much ozone is not a catastrophic problem at Earth’s surface. But, too little of it, way up there in Earth’s atmosphere, IS. So, what’s causing all of the commotion up there?

 

            CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), that’s what. About 80-years ago, well-intentioned scientists discovered that if they took some Carbon (C) atoms and attached some chlorine (Cl) and some fluorine (F) atoms, we’d be able to do all sorts of things to make ourselves more comfortable, not to mention more socially confident in the BO sense, if you get my drift.

 

            First, we built refrigerators. We then began building air-conditioners. Now we have aerosol-spray underarm deodorants so we don’t offend others, aerosol-spray hair products so the wind doesn’t destroy our hairdos, making us look like dorks during our PowerPoint presentations at business meetings. We’ve added aerosol-spray medicine, aerosol-spray breath fresheners, and a host of other things we humans find convenient and neat. But, it has all come at a price.

 

            The chemical process is both simple and nasty. On the simple side, about 16 or so miles up in our atmosphere, nature produces, AND destroys ozone. However, ultraviolet light (UV) from the our Sun then breaks O₂ molecules down into Oxygen (O) atoms, which then combine to reform more Ozone (O₃). It’s so simple, and we members of the human race don’t have to do a thing to help, either.

 

            On the nasty side, particularly over the past 50-years, we’ve been sending up tons of CFC molecules—we created these, NOT Mother Nature. They can survive up there for about 100-years. Chlorine, like molecular nitrogen is a catalyst. It’s the hit man, so to speak, for ozone; except this hit man never misses. After the killing, it hangs around up there for about 100-years or more before the Sun’s ultraviolet light forces it back down into the lower atmosphere and the rain washes it out of our climatic system.

 

            Absent human restraint, it’s a devastating chemical reaction. A SINGLE chlorine atom can destroy around 110,000 ozone molecules. For each occurrence, a CFC molecule destroys two ozone molecules and creates three oxygen molecules. Meanwhile, the catalytic chlorine atoms just keep hanging around, repeating the reactions on and on. Don’t doubt it; we’ve contributed to the process in a big way over the past 50-years.

 

Humans love to define things. However, we need to be very careful that we do not assume that our definitions are absolute. To us, a minute consists of 60-seconds, but only because we’ve agreed on this way of measuring the passage of time.

 

This agreement has nothing to do with a cosmic definition of time, however. In cosmic terms, time exists with or without us. Entropy gives birth to time in both its reality and direction. Entropy means less distinctive, less separate. It’s what scientist call disordered, in the uniform sense of the term. In other words, time comes from energy moving from where there is more of it to where there is less of it. Our universe’s propensity toward balance and uniformity is what creates time, not our clocks!

 

Our definitions concerning climate are no different. We define things to suit ourselves. In fact, the difference between an every-day citizen and an astute politician is the fact that the politician has learned how to redefine definitions to suit a particular bias or prejudice regarding a point of contention. This is what’s happened with the entire global warming issue.

 

            It’s become a pissing contest between the extremes. Being right and proving the other side wrong has become the prime directive and there is no shortage of pseudo-scientists willing to join either side of an issue for the right price.

 

            There are many eminently qualified scientists attached to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, like all large organizations, plenty of pseudo-scientific whackos have managed to infiltrate its ranks. So, there now must be an “acceptable” code to describe potential disaster. One that’s a bit obfuscating relative to simple facts. Here’s a little insight into that code.

 

            When this group states that something is “likely” to have been caused by humans, it translates to a 60% certainty. Their use of, “very likely,” translates to a 90% certainty. The ever-rare term, “virtually certain,” translates to a 99% certainty. Linguistically, it’s semantic bullshit, designed to appease morons and confuse the rest of us. Humans have contributed greatly to global warming over the past 50-years. PERIOD!

 

            We’re not going to cut our living standards, nor do we have to. We do have to find more ecologically suitable ways of making ourselves comfortable though. And business has to redefine its long-term profitability cycle from next week to a significantly longer period.

 

            The universe, more specifically our own solar system, does not give a flying damn about our human definitions. To Mother Nature, global warming is the result of chemical reactions. To her, there’s nothing particularly special about the human race. If we don’t find a way to solve the problem, she’ll do it for us. It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature. In fact, it’s impossible over the long run. I’m 100% certain of this, as opposed to the Intergovernmental Panel’s impotent “likely”, “very likely”, or “virtually certain.”

 

            Remember, time will continue to carry on with or without humans. It will continue to carry on until the universe reaches that ultimate level of entropy, if it ever does. If it does, though, who knows what’s going to happen then. Maybe another CABLAM! And, the entire process begins again. Then again, maybe not.

 

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.