Science Communication and the 2018 Australasian Astrobiology Meeting

Earlier this week I presented a talk at the 2018 Australasian Astrobiology Meeting, with the objective of showing where life might be found elsewhere in the Universe, and as a consequence I shall do a number of posts here to expand on what I thought about this meeting. One presentation that made me think about how to start this series actually came near the end, and the topic included why do scientists write blogs like this for the general public? I thought about this a little, and I think at least part of the answer, at least for me, is to show how science works, and how scientists think. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of topics where the gap between what scientists think and what the general public think is very large. An obvious one is climate change; the presenter came up with a figure that something like 50% of the general public don’t think that carbon dioxide is responsible for climate change while I think the figures she showed were that 98% of scientists are convinced it does. So why is there a difference, and what should be done about it?

In my opinion, there are two major ways to go wrong. The first is to simply take someone else’s word. In these days, you can find someone who will say anything. The problem then is that while it is all very well to say look at the evidence, most of the time the evidence is inaccessible, and even if you overcome that, the average person cannot make head or tail of it. Accordingly, you have to trust someone to interpret it for you. The second way to go wrong is to get swamped with information. The data can be confusing, but the key is to find critical data. This means that when making a decision as to what causes what, you put aside facts that can mean a lot of different things, and concentrate on those that have, at best, one explanation. Now the average person cannot recognize that, but they can recognize whether the “expert” recognizes it. As an example of a critical fact, back to climate change. The fact that I regard as critical is that there was a long-term series of measurements that showed the world’s oceans were receiving a net power input of 0.6 watt per square meter. That may not sound like much, but multiply it over the earth’s ocean area, and it is a rather awful lot of heat.

Another difficulty is that for any given piece of information, either there may be several interpretations for what caused it, or there may be issues assigning significance. As a specific example from the conference, try to answer the question, “Are we alone”? The answer from Seth Shostak, from SETI, is, so far, yes, at least to the extent we have no evidence to the contrary, but of course if you were looking for radio transmissions, Earth would have failed to show signs until about a hundred years ago. There were a number of other reasons given, but one of the points Seth made was a civilization at a modest distance would have to devote a few hundred MW power to send us a signal. Why would they do that? This reminds me of what I wrote in one of my SF novels. The exercise is a waste of time because everyone is listening; listening is cheap but nobody is sending, and simple economics kills the scheme.

As Seth showed, there are an awful lot of reasons why SETI is not finding anything, and that proves nothing. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but merely evidence that you haven’t hit the magic button yet. Which gets me back to scientific arguments. You will hear people say science cannot prove anything. That is rubbish. The second law of thermodynamics proves conclusively that if you put your dinner on the table it won’t spontaneously drop a couple of degrees in temperature as it shoots upwards and smears itself over the ceiling.

As an example of the problems involved with conveying such information, consider what it takes to get a proof? Basically, a theory starts with a statement. There are several forms of this, but the one I prefer is you say, “If theory A is correct, and I do a set of experiments B, under conditions C, and if B and C are very large sets, then theory A will predict a set of results R. You do the experiments and collect a large set of observations O. Now, if there is no element of O that is not an element of R, then your theory is plausible. If the sets are large enough, they are very plausible, but you still have to be careful you have an adequate range of conditions. Thus Newtonian mechanics are correct within a useful range of conditions, but expand that enough and you need either relativity or quantum mechanics. You can, however, prove a theory if you replace “if” in the above with “if and only if”.

Of course, that could be said more simply. You could say a theory is plausible if every time you use it, what you see complies with your theory’s predictions, and you can prove a theory if you can show there is no alternative, although that is usually very difficult. So why do scientists not write in the simpler form? The answer is precision. The example I used above is general so it can be reduced to a simpler form, but sometimes the statements only apply under very special circumstances, and now the qualifiers can make for very turgid prose. The takeaway message now is, while a scientist likes to write in a way that is more precise, if you want to have notice taken, you have to be somewhat less formal. What do you think? Is that right?

Back to the conference, in the case of SETI. Seth will not be proven wrong, ever, because the hypothesis that there are civilizations out there but they are not broadcasting to us in a way we can detect cannot be faulted. So for the next few weeks I shall look more at what I gathered from this conference.

Advertisements

How Earth Cools

As you may have seen at the end of my last post, I received an objection to the existence of a greenhouse effect on the grounds that it violated the thermodynamics of heat transfer, and if you read what it says it is essentially focused on heat conduction. The reason I am bothering with this post is that it is an opportunity to consider how theories and explanations should be formed. We start by noting that mathematics does not determine what happens; it calculates what happens provided the background premises are correct.

The objection mentioned convection as a complicating feature. Actually, the transfer of heat in the lower atmosphere is largely dependent on the evaporation and condensation of water, and wind transferring the heat from one place to another, and it is these, and ocean currents, that are the problems for the ice caps. Further, as I shall show, heat conduction cannot be relevant to the major cooling of the upper atmosphere. But first, let me show you how complicated heat conduction is. The correct equation for one-dimensional heat conduction is represented by a partial differential equation of the Laplace type, (which I would quote if I knew how to get such an equation into this limited htm formatting) and the simplest form only works as written when the medium is homogenous. Since the atmosphere thins out with height, this clearly needs modification, and for those who know anything about partial differential equations, they become a nightmare once the system becomes anything but absolutely simple. Such equations also apply to convection and evaporative transfer, once corrected for the nightmare of non-homogeneity and motion in three dimensions. Good luck with that!

This form of heat transfer is irrelevant to the so-called greenhouse effect. To show why, I start by considering what heat is, and that is random kinetic energy. The molecules are bouncing around, colliding with each other, and the collisions are elastic, which means energy is conserved, as is momentum. Most of the collisions are glancing, and that means from momentum conservation that we get a range of velocities distributed about an “average”. Heat is transferred because fast moving molecules collide with slower ones, and speed them up. The objection noted heat does not flow from cold to hot spontaneously. That is true because momentum is conserved in collisions. A molecule does not speed up when hit by a slower molecule. That is why that equation has heat going only in one way.

Now, suppose with this mechanism, we get to the top of the atmosphere. What happens then? No more heat can be transferred because there are no molecules to collide with in space. If heat pours in, and nothing goes out, eventually we become infinitely hot. Obviously that does not happen, and the reason becomes obvious when we ask how the heat gets in in the first place. The heat from the sun comes from the effects of solar radiation. Something like 1.36 kW/m^2 comes in on a surface in space at right angles to the line from the sun, but the average is much less on the surface of earth as the angle is at best normal only at noon, and if the sun is overhead. About a quarter of that is directly reflected to space, and that may increase if the cloud cover increases. The important point here is that light is not heat. When it is absorbed, it will direct an electronic transition, but that energy will eventually decay into heat. Initially, however, the material goes to an excited state, but its temperature remains constant, because the energy has not been randomised. Now we see that if energy comes in as radiation, it follows to get an equilibrium, equivalent energy must go out, and as radiation, not heat, because that is the only way it can get out in a vacuum.

The ground continuously sends radiation (mainly infrared) upwards and the intensity is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. The average temperature is thus determined through radiant energy in equals radiant out. The radiance for a given material, which is described as a grey body radiator, is also dependent on its nature. The radiation occurs because any change of dipole moment leads to electromagnetic radiation, but the dipoles must change between quantised energy states. What that means is they come from motion that can be described in one way or another as a wave, and the waves change to longer wavelengths when they radiate. The reason the waves representing ground states switch to shorter wavelengths is that the heat energy from collisions can excite them, similar in a way to when you pluck a guitar string. Thus the body cools by heat exciting some vibratory states, which collapse by radiation leaving them. (This is similar to the guitar string losing energy by emitting sound, except that the guitar string emits continuous decaying sound; the quantised state lets it go all at once as one photon.)

Such changes are reversible; if the wave has collapsed to a longer wavelength when energy is radiated away, then if a photon of the same frequency is returned, that excites the state. That slows cooling because the next photon emitted from the ground did not need heat to excite it, and hence that same heat remains. The reason there is back radiation is that certain frequencies of infrared radiation leaving the ground get absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere when their molecular vibrational or rotational excited states have a different electric moment from the ground state. Carbon dioxide has two such vibrational states that absorb mildly, and one that does not. Water is a much stronger absorber, and methane has more states available to it. Agriculture offers N2O, which is bad because it is harder to remove than carbon dioxide, and the worst are chlorocarbons and fluorocarbons, because the vibrations have stronger dipole moment changes. Each of these different materials has vibrations at different frequencies, which make them even more problematical as radiation at more frequencies are slowed in their escape to space. The excited states decay and emit photons in random directions, hence only about half of that continues on it way to space, the rest returning to the ground. Of that that goes upwards, it will be absorbed by more molecules, and the same will happen, and of course some coming back from up there with be absorbed at a lower level and half of that will go back up. In detail, there is some rather difficult calculus, but the effect could be described as a field of oscillators.

So the take-away message is the physics are well understood, the effect of the greenhouse gases is it slows the cooling process, so the ground stays warmer than it would if they were not there. Now the good thing about a theory is that it should predict things. Here we can make a prediction. In winter, in the absence of wind, the night should be warmer if there is cloud cover, because water is a strong greenhouse material. Go outside one evening and see.

Climate Change Horrors

By now a lot of people are probably getting sick of hearing about climate change, but it needs to be continuously emphasized because the problem is not going away any time soon. People are now starting to realize that global warming means stronger storms, but that is the least of our problems. Worse than that, most people don’t actually know what many of our problems are going to be. Let us forget about storms and look at what else could happen.

The most frightening is if warming gets out of control and melts the Arctic tundras. We have to be careful about this, but we know that about 252 million years ago there was the most massive mass extinction ever. What happened? We cannot be entirely sure, but one account has it that global warming of about four degrees caused the release of Arctic methane, and 97% of life on Earth died. Now, of course we cannot be sure of what happened and the Earth is not like what it was then. The continents are not even the same, and those land forms that were there then are not in the same place now. Nevertheless, we can be sure that if the Arctic methane is released due to warming, there will be a very serious enhancing of temperature. Amongst other things, for the first two decades methane is 87 times worse than carbon dioxide.

The most obvious consequence is from the heat. Already there are parts of the world where heat becomes a problem for people working, and this is not helped by humidity increases. In 2003 there was a European heat wave that killed as many as 2000 people every day it maintained its high temperatures. If we add 2 degrees to the average temperatures, cities in the middle east, like Bahrain, and further east like Karachi and Kolkata will be almost uninhabitable, and for Muslims, the hajj would be impossible. We could try air conditioning, but with what fuel? Our current energy systems would simply add to the problem.

Warming of agricultural areas reduces crop yields. At present, most crops are grown in as near ideal conditions for them, and most foods are produced in quantities to feed the population, but not with a huge excess. So the biggest problem is starvation. You may say, move the agriculture away from the equator to newly warmed regions. That is possible to some extent, but what we forget is that the current colder regions do not have good soil. Trying to grow crops in Greenland is fine, until you discover that most of the newly exposed surface is stone.

There are also secondary issues, thus the recent flooding in Bangla Desh that covered almost half the country with water also largely destroyed the crops being grown there. Other places may suffer droughts, with the same result. My view is this is uncertain, because I do not believe that modeling is good enough. You will hear that in Jurassic times temperatures were significantly warmer than now. Yes, but much of the land was desert, the continents were also in a greatly different configuration, and mammals were not predominant.

Everyone now knows that as the ice melts, the sea levels will rise. Depending on how much ice melts, the seas could rise by seventy meters. At present, about 600 million live within ten meters of sea level. Given that even modest sea level rising predicts a seven to fourteen meter rise, you can see that an awful lot of infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, and perhaps a billion people moved and rehoused, followed by somehow finding them employment. That means more carbon dioxide emissions. Cement manufacture alone produces about three billion tonne of carbon dioxide per annum now, and if we have to rebuild the entire coastal infrastructure, a huge amount of additional cement will be required. If the sea absorbs too much carbon dioxide, and a lot of organic matter gets trapped in it, parts may go anoxic and emit large amounts of hydrogen sulphide. Excessive hydrogen sulphide is the agent that is believed to have enhanced the great extinction in the late Permian. Higher levels of carbon dioxide are often used to explain coral bleaching, but the problem is much worse. Shellfish that depend on aragonite, one of the two crystalline forms of calcium carbonate, will not be able to form shells if the oceans absorb significantly more carbon dioxide because aragonite will no longer crystallise.

The removal of ice from the poles will also alter weather patterns. Wind changes may lead to greater air pollution in certain areas if we try to maintain current industries. China has recently suffered from this. Places that are now livable will become desert, or near desert, and this will force people to move. The problem, is, where to? Where will they get work? Which countries are going to accept them, particularly bearing in mind the numbers also displaced from the shores? With few options, various wars are more likely to break out. Unless we solve the energy crisis, what next? If we stop burning fossil fuels, how will our economies progress? The real driver of economic growth since the mid 19th century has been cheap energy from fossil fuels. However, if we do not stop such burning, and if we do not find alternatives, GDP will drop significantly, which will make it more difficult for a large fraction of the population to earn a living. To survive, one outcome is enhanced war and a proliferation of crime.

Scary? Hopefully these consequences are sufficient to persuade those in power to do a lot. I am far from convinced that current politicians recognize what the problem even is, let alone how to address it.

The future did not seem to work!

When I started my career in chemistry as an undergraduate, chemists were an optimistic bunch, and everyone supported this view. Eventually, so it was felt, chemists would provide a substance to do just about anything people wanted, provided the laws of physics and chemistry permitted it. Thus something that was repelled by gravity was out, but a surprising lot was in. There was a shortage of chemists, and good paying jobs were guaranteed.

By the time I had finished my PhD, governments and businesses everywhere decided they had enough chemists for the time being thank you. The exciting future could be put on hold. For the time being, let us all stick to what we have. Of course there were still jobs; they were just an awfully lot harder to find. The golden days for jobs were over; as it happened, that was not the only thing that was over. In some people’s eyes, chemicals were about to become national villains.

There was an element of unthinking optimism from some. I recall in one of my undergraduate lectures where the structure of penicillin was discussed. Penicillin is a member of a class of chemicals called beta lactams, and the question of bacterial tolerance was discussed. The structure of penicillin is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicillin) where R defines the carboxylic acid to that amide. The answer to bacterial tolerance was simple: there is almost an infinite number of possible carboxylic acids (the variation is changing R) so chemists could always be a step ahead of the bugs. You might notice a flaw in that argument. Suppose the enzymes of the bug attacked the lactam end of the molecule and ignored the carboxylic acid amide? Yes, when bacteria learned to do that, the effectiveness of all penicillins disappears. Fortunately for us, this seems to be a more difficult achievement, and penicillins still have their uses.

The next question is, why did this happen? The answer is simple: stupidity. People stopped restricting the use to countering important infections. They started to be available “over the counter” in some places, and they were used intermittently by some, or as prophylactics by others. Not using the full course meant that some bacteria were not eliminated, and since they were the most resistant ones, thanks to evolution when they entered the environment, they conveyed some of the resistance. This was made worse by agricultural use where low levels were used to promote growth. If that was not a recipe to breed resistance, what was?

The next “disaster” to happen was the recognition of ozone depletion, caused by the presence of chlorofluorocarbons, which on photolysis in the upper atmosphere created free radicals that destroyed ozone. The chlorofluorocarbons arose from spray cans, essential for hair spray and graffiti. This problem appears to have been successfully solved, not by banning spray cans, not by requesting restraint from users, but rather by replacing the chlorofluorocarbons with hydrocarbon propellant.

One problem we have not addressed, despite the fact that everyone knows it is there, is rubbish in the environment. What inspired this post was the announcement that rubbish has been found in the bottom of the Marianna trench. Hardly surprising; heavy things sink. But some also floats. The amounts of waste plastic in the oceans is simply horrendous, and only too much of it is killing fish and sea mammals. What starts off as a useful idea can end up generating a nightmare if people do not treat it properly. One example that might happen comes from a news report this week: a new type of plastic bottle has been developed that is extremely slippery, and hence you can more easily get out the last bit of ketchup. Now, how will this be recycled? I once developed a reasonably sophisticated process for recycling plastics, and the major nightmare is the multi-layered plastics with hopelessly incompatible properties. This material has at least three different components, and at least one of them appears to be just about totally incompatible with everything else, which is where the special slipperiness comes from. So, what will happen to all these bottles?

Then last problem to be listed here is climate change. The problem is that some of the more important people, such as some politicians, do not believe in it sufficiently to do anything about it. The last thing a politician wants to do is irritate those who fund his election campaign. Accordingly, that problem may be insoluble in practice.

The common problem here is that things tend to get used without thinking of the consequences of what is likely to happen. Where things have gone wrong is people. The potential failure of antibiotics is simply due to greed from the agricultural sector; there was no need for its use as a growth promoter when the downside is the return of bacterial dominance. The filling of the oceans with plastic bags is just sloth. Yes, the bag is useful, but the bag does not have to end in the sea. Climate change is a bit more difficult, but again people are the problem, this time in voting for politicians that announce they don’t believe in it. If everybody agreed not to vote for anyone who refused to take action, I bet there would be action. But people don’t want to do that, because action will involve increased taxes and a requirement to be better citizens.

Which raises the question, do we need more science? In the most recent edition of Nature there was an interesting comment: people pay taxes for one of two reasons, namely they feel extremely generous and want to good in the world, or alternatively, they pay them because they will go to jail if they don’t. This was followed by the comment to scientists: do you feel your work is so important someone should be thrown into jail if they don’t fund it? That puts things into perspective, doesn’t it? What about adding if they question who the discovery will benefit.

Geoengineering: to do or not do?

For those interested in science, and in global warming, a recent issue of Nature (vol 516, pp 20 – 21) showed some of the problems relating to geoengineering, which involves taking action to change the climate. Strictly speaking, we are already doing it. By burning fossil fuels we are warming the planet through the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The question is, can we reverse this warming in a controlled fashion? The argument behind geoengineering is simple: we can either try it or not try it. If we do, we have the potential to create massive new problems; if we do not, sea levels will eventually rise somewhere between 20 – 50 meters, drowning all our coastal cities, destroying a surprising amount of some of the most productive farmland, and altering rainfall distributions quite dramatically. Then, of course, there are more violent storms. So, what are the options?
One is to try to increase the amount of light reflected to space, which can be achieved by forming more clouds. One way to do this is to spray salt water into the air. This has the advantage of being easy to do, and easy to stop doing. It is harder to know the consequences, but we should be able to predict to some extent because volcanic eruptions will do something similar to what is being proposed. Climate scientists, however, complain that this may reduce rainfall in some regions and possibly worsen ozone depletion. Of course they also warn that rainfall will be reduced anyway. Meanwhile, a computer simulation produced results that indicated changes in rainfall consequent to geoengineering “could affect 25 – 65% of the world’s population”. Charming! No comment that the changes could be beneficial. No comment either about the fact that any given model has consistently failed to predict details of weather.
However, from my point of view, the most bizarre outcome came from the proposal to seed the oceans to grow microalgae, which grow very rapidly and take up carbon dioxide in doing so. When the algae die, they should sink to the ocean floor and trap carbon. Trouble was, in some of the few experiments, it seems they did not, possibly because the algae did not die, or possibly because the experimenters did not count it properly. One other outcome might be that they get eaten by fish, thus improving the world’s food supply, and another might be that they give off dimethyl sulphide (and use up quite a bit of solar energy in doing so) which goes to the atmosphere, gets oxidized by absorbing more light, and then forms clouds, which reflects light. Ideal?
As a potential means of fighting climate change, I admit to liking this idea, nevertheless there is a problem, but not what you might think. Or maybe you would. Yep, it is financial embarrassment. Entrepreneurs decided to seed the oceans this way to generate large volumes of carbon credits, which could be sold to those who wanted to burn more coal, a sure way of reducing greenhouse gases! Yeah, right! Anyway, that was headed off by an international treaty, in which this activity was stopped by labeling it “ocean pollution”, and no further experiments have taken place. Talk about useless politicians!
The problem is as I see it that the politicians cannot seem to recognize that a technical problem needs a technical solution. The economists cannot solve this, as shown by that response to an emissions trading scheme noted above. The problem is, changing the prices of forms of energy cannot in themselves generate energy. Conservation may be encouraged, and that is good, but ultimately our lifestyle requires a very high fraction of what we currently use. Worse, there is no point in denying the fact that the planet is warming, and the only solution is to cool it. Cutting emissions is definitely desirable, but it is not enough to retain our previous climate because the gases currently there produce net warming, and this extra warming would continue for at least a hundred years if no further gases were emitted during that time. If we do not want to do something, who pays the price for what happens?

Another Wellington storm

Yet another storm hit Wellington; this time winds were a mere maximum of 165 k/h (about 100 mph). Is this climate change? Whatever, it is interesting that climate change is now a major concern, which raises the question, what can we do about it? Suppose we answer, “Stop burning fossil fuels,” what would the effect be? Currently, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is about 400 parts per million (compared with about 280 ppm at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution). If we are concerned about the effects of such atmospheric carbon dioxide, then if we stop producing it right now, the 400 ppm remain. Now, as noted in the last post, the climate shows strong signs of what physicists call hysteresis. This is when the effect is something depends on how you got there, where the system has “memory” of previous times. In this aspect, the Greenland ice sheets are actually the last remnants of the last great Ice Age. As we heat the planet, all that happens first in some places is that ice melts, the extra heat being absorbed by the melting ice without any temperature increase. In other words, for a while what you see is not what you are going to get!

In my opinion, the major problem civilization is going to face is rising sea levels. If the Greenland Ice Sheet melts, then the sea will rise about 7 meters. Take a look at Google Earth and see what goes. Amongst other places, a significant fraction of Bangla Desh, and essentially all Pacific islands based on coral reefs (as opposed to the volcanic basalt peaks, but you cannot live on the side of them). So, how do you defend against that?

 One suggestion is to build sea walls. These would have to be around all the land, including alongside riverbanks, and they may have to last tens of thousands of years. And, of course, while you are making all the required concrete and moving rock, you are probably generating massive amounts of further carbon dioxide, which will lead to more of the Antarctic ice melting, thus cancelling any value from your efforts. You could build walls of up to fifty meters high, and that would certainly be adequate for as long as the walls last.

 You could try removing the carbon dioxide from the environment. At first sight this seems futile; there is just too much there. However, at least some can be removed without much effort if we regrow forests. You would have to start planting them, but once underway, they would happily consume carbon. Even more spectacular would be to grow marine algae. The kelps such as Macrocystis pyrifera are extremely fast growing, and you can harvest them by mowing them. I rather fancy collecting such kelp and using it to make either biofuel or other chemicals. The key is to ensure that the carbon is removed from the ocean.

 Currently, we produce about 10 billion tonne per annum of carbon dioxide. That means we have to remove 10 billion tonne per annum just to break even. It is unlikely we can do that, although what we can do, we should, so what other options are there? A massive deployment of nuclear power would slow the fossil fuel burning, but it would not remove any of the current 400 ppm, and who wants nuclear power?

 The simplest answer is for every tonne of water melted by the ocean currents, we deposit a tonne of snow into the ice sheets. That involves geoengineering, and the problem is, when you interfere like that with nature, the effects are probably not that readily calculated. Such proposals in the past have been met with opposition. The problem is, some countries are going to be adversely affected by the geoengineering, and these are the ones that, in the first place caused the problem. Of course if we do nothing, it is the Pacific Islanders and the Bangla Deshis who pay. Do we know what will happen if we intervene? No, we do not, but we know what will happen if we do not. Of course there is another problem: how do we decide, and who decides?

Climate Change

In the previous post, I showed why certain gases in the atmosphere acted as a blanket, and slowed down the cooling of the ground. The next question is, is there any observational evidence that this is happening? After all, there are a number of people who view statistics and argue that this is not happening because the temperatures are not rising the way you might expect from the models. So, what is the truth? The critical evidence is from the oceans, which have been measured as receiving 0.64 Watt per square meter. That may not seem to be much, but consider the number of square meters in the oceans. Without any doubt whatsoever, the planet is receiving a net heat input.

Some may protest that statistics show there has been none of the expected temperature raise since 2000 AD. This is difficult to account for with certainty. Temperatures fluctuate greatly from year to year, and arguments that there has been little net temperature rise since 2000 may simply mean that a negative fluctuation has been cancelled with net heat. The second reason might be that the ice caps are melting. If you heat a mix of ice and water, as long as you stir, there is no net rise of temperature until all the ice melts. The heat goes into melting the ice. The heat may be lost to the deep oceans. Finally, some places may get a significant rise in temperature but others do not, and statistics at one place may be misleading. It is very easy to get stupid answers from the misuse of statistics. It also may not matter. After all, if the Sahara or Death Valley get twenty degrees hotter and everywhere else stayed the same, would it matter? Even if the world got a few degrees hotter, would it matter? That depends on what happens to the spare heat.

So, the ground gets hotter, but what happens next? I mentioned in the previous post that the absorption of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases does not, in itself, heat the gas. There is an indirect method by which it can, though. If the excited state molecule undergoes a collision with another molecule, there can be an exchange of energy, and now neither molecule is in a stationary state, and this results in the energy being dissipated, usually as heat. Whether this happens depends on a quantum probability, and as far as I am aware, this probability is unknown, so I cannot answer whether this happens. The probability of a collision during the lifetime of the excited state depends on the overall gas pressure, and Earth’s pressure is such that whether a collision occurs is a bit of a toss-up. On the other hand, Martian pressure would be too low, and Venusian pressure would almost guarantee a collision. However, the reverse also happens. If a gas molecule collides with a molecule of greenhouse gas, heat may be converted to excited state vibrational energy, again with a certain quantum probability, and that may be radiated away. The very top of Earth’s atmosphere, called the thermosphere, has an absence of such molecules, and an effective temperature of something like 1400 degrees. The thermosphere of Venus, which is mainly made of carbon dioxide, and which receives twice the sunlight as Earth, has a temperature of a mild summer’s day.

Three are two mechanisms to warm the air. Contact between ground and air heats the air and cools the ground, whereupon the warmer air rises and mixes with the general air. A more effective mechanism is where ocean water cools by evaporating water, and when this condenses as clouds, heat is transferred to the air. It also tends to be dumped in one place, which raises the pressure of the local air, which in turn leads to air movement. The more water being condensed in a small volume, the more likely a storm will eventually result.

However, the biggest cause of temperature differences is ocean currents. Everybody knows that but for the Gulf Stream, Europe would be a miserable place, and ice ages are probably accompanied by a redirection of that Gulf Stream. And herein lies our real problem. The oceans are carrying sufficient heat to melt very significant amounts of polar ice, and this will led to major sea level rise. However, the issue regarding greenhouse gases now becomes more confused, because in the last four interglacials, there is clear evidence that without our industrial output of greenhouse gases, the Greenland ice sheet melted and sea levels were about 7 meters higher. Our problem is, if this is really inevitable this time, and with even more net heat input, more of Antarctic ice should melt. Now, look at Google Earth, and check the location of major coastal cities and see how much of their area is less than 10 meters above sea level. See how much prime agricultural land is less than ten meters above sea level. Now, work out how civilization can continue in our current ways if we continue to keep our population expanding the way it is?

See how difficult it is to get the future right in your novels?