Ever take a long trip, driving hundreds or maybe even thousands of miles? How does that compare to a short drive to a local store? I’m sure preparation and logistics for each would be different, not to mention the drive’s impact in each case. Imagine if you reversed the readiness for both and stocked the car for a long drive just to reach a local convenience store or the reverse and instantly jumped into a car to reach South America? Neither would make sense. The extent of preparedness for each trip lies in two different
Orders of Magnitude determined by driving distance.
The literal definition of ‘Order of Magnitude’ is to increase a quantity by a factor of ten, and multiple orders of magnitude increase the original sum exponentially. That’s the mathematical definition, but we also handle such size differences in how we perceive issues and tasks in our everyday lives, including individual opinions. I’m sure advice would be given to someone not to load up a car for a ride around the block, in our driving example.
The driving exercise is easy to fathom along with the decision of how to prepare for each. Most would engage each trip differently, with a longer trip’s distance being on an order of magnitude much larger than a short one, the longer trip requiring a much larger investment of material, planning and time. Also, the chance of success decreases as the size of the project or endeavor increases. A project may fail due to unforeseen problems such as financing, physical limitations, improper construction or some other obstacle or snag when an idea is scaled up. Moreover, is the massive undertaking worth the investment? In the long trip scenario, would it be worth driving to South America for a soda?
Similarly, the feasibility or degree of viability of a massive project may not be known when an idea or small technical achievement becomes the basis of endeavors on a scale many orders of magnitude larger. For instance, a small piece of metallic super-conductor can seem to defy gravity, known as quantum locking, and hover over a strong magnet. This will only work for small objects but not for larger objects or ones being orders of magnitude larger. So, forget about levitating cars anytime soon.
This is a straight-forward example of an idea clearly not worth the undertaking of a massive project to produce an infrastructure of levitating vehicles. However, some ideas did go ahead with dramatic and unforeseen outcomes when introduced on a massive scale. Rubber from rubber trees was once a highly sought after commodity. Why not plant them in one place to maximize production and efficiency? Henry Ford cleared massive lands in Brazil and planted scores of rubber trees. On orders of magnitude much larger than a few trees, the huge mono-crop grove became a magnet for certain pests and fungi attracted to the trees. The project failed tremendously and not a drop of rubber was produced.
Ideas that seem promising or applicable on paper or in thought must also pass the muster of implementing them on orders of magnitude that dwarf our personal reality. Deciding on a policy or planning a project on a canvas comprised of variables which outnumber our ability to fathom all their effects can result in a nebulous prediction about success. For instance, a tax reduction or increase might seem positive but how will it affect macroeconomics? Ideas affect most of our civilized lives from economics to social to public policy on orders of magnitude up to a level as big as the whole world.
Though discussion of these subjects and factors is important, the rest of this article will limit consideration of ideas and projects concerning our physical environment. In particular, the subject of our atmosphere, the elements presumed to affect or change it, pertinent atmospheric systems evaluated, and mankind’s ability to "fix" it in some eyes will be examined.
The Earth’s enveloping atmosphere is a very large and complex system. Factors, modifiers and influences affecting the atmosphere are abundant, nearly unlimited, over a wide spectrum. To the degree they are impactful, each has an effect commensurate with each modifier’s order of magnitude. For instance, cutting one’s lawn has an impact on the atmosphere though its sway is obviously less than significant, an order of magnitude virtually zero in the grand scheme of things. Yet, any scientist would be forced to say it does have an impact in absolute terms. So, what are some factors on an order of magnitude large enough to have a significant effect on our atmosphere?
Obviously, the most publicized and debated factor concerning our atmosphere today is the level of gaseous CO2 and anthropogenic amounts being added. In the lawn cutting example, any ethical scientist, in the strictest terms, would need to agree that it does have an atmospheric effect, though completely negligible. Considering this framework, it is no surprise that the vast majority of scientists agree that the current rise in CO2 levels has had a modifying effect on the atmosphere. However, the big question is to what degree; scientists disagree when asked what the order of magnitude of climate modification from added CO2 has been. Some say it is negligible while others on the other side of the spectrum think it is catastrophic. To get a handle on this disparity, let us exam the physical aspects of the matter.
Let us start by examining the micro-physics of increased CO2 on a micro-scale, which supports the direst climate forecasts. The basic molecular principles have been widely publicized: CO2 readily absorbs heat by infrared radiation, infrared photons, which warm, energize the CO2 molecules followed by its warming of its molecular surroundings through its release of heat or bumping nearby air molecules. The cycle is repeated in a runaway function and heating the air like a "greenhouse." Given different concentrations of CO2, a parcel of air can be assessed to reveal the effect of CO2 on the surrounding air in the lab, but do these findings translate directly to the atmosphere’s much larger order of magnitude?
Considering current levels of atmospheric CO2, how much does increased CO2 influence our global atmosphere, which exists on a much larger order of magnitude, compared to a lab experiment? Is it direct? Skewed? This is where scientists’ opinions diverge quite dramatically. We have all heard the doomsayers froth about death and destruction soon to come as shock media stokes fear, but what of those at the other end of the spectrum who see much less of an effect and are less concerned. What inferences or facts support those that claim the state of increased CO2 has had little, slight or a modest effect at best?
Consider, the atmosphere weighs 5.5 quadrillion tons, or 55 followed by 14 zeroes, and that’s tons (1 ton equals 2000 lbs. so add a few more zeroes). On an order of magnitude this vast, the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is almost negligible in size. So, how much can our human released, or anthropogenic, CO2 change temperatures? Does it make a difference on a planetary scale? Let us contrast the Earth to a nearby counterpart.
Mars has roughly 23 times more CO2 by mass than Earth, yet Mars is fridged. Some science experts say it functions on a different system, but the fact of Mar’s CO2 remains. If CO2 is so efficient at trapping heat, then why a cold Mars? How efficient is this molecule at transmitting its warmth to its surroundings or the rest of the atmosphere?
Atmospheric CO2 can either radiate heat or bump into neighboring cooler molecules increasing their temperatures. Because most of our atmosphere is transparent to heat as infrared radiation, most of the warmth transmitted to the air by CO2 molecules is spread mechanically, from molecular bumping or thermal. However, there are roughly 2,500 air molecules for every 1 of CO2, so how much warming havoc can it make to the much larger whole of the atmosphere before its heat is lost or dispersed?
Some models anticipate CO2 re-radiating heat back to the ground, where it is reabsorbed, but there are efficiency problems with this also. It surmises that half will do so but that might be incorrect within the turbulence of atmospheric flow. Also, some may radiate heat rays at high angle back toward the ground losing efficiency in the same manner as the setting sun, not hot.
Considering some anecdotal evidence, let us look at some instances when CO2 had been released in copious amounts, so thick in some cases it killed people by suffocation. For example, in such events as the Nyos disaster in Cameroon (1986) or the Sataria, Mississippi incident (2020), the concentration of CO2 gas was so great it poisoned, suffocated people (don’t be concerned since the CO2 levels there were at least 375,000 times current atmospheric levels). In those cases, did we see a commensurate or massive increase in the ambient temperature or even any temperature swing at all? In all news accounts, no one complained that things got too hot or any change in temperature for that matter, look for yourself.
Yes, if we examine the characteristics of a static parcel of air containing various amounts of CO2, all sorts of extrapolations can be made in orders of magnitude much larger and in reference to the general atmosphere and changes within. How correct are these extrapolations based upon physical mechanics seen in the lab? For instance, in an enclosed, contained parcel of air in the lab, CO2 tends to sink to the bottom of the container because it is heavier than other air molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen, if that air is kept at a constant temperature. However, besides the law of diffusion of gases tending to keep those molecules mixed even in the static lab air experiment, the atmosphere is dynamic and mixes molecules through wind, or adiabatic lifting, tending to equalize CO2 throughout.
Wind also has a stabilizing effect on atmospheric temperature, a clear calm night is colder than a breezy night aside from wind chill. How does wind and turbulence affect the impact of trace amounts of atmospheric CO2? Is it a mitigating factor?
Now, considering the massive order of magnitude of our global atmosphere, what are some of the earthly systems that operate to stabilize climate on such a massive scale? I can think of a few, out of an endless list, large enough to make a noticeable modification to something as expansive as climate. For one, CO2 increase generally benefits plant growth. This is not only a CO2 sink, a carbon capture, but while plants process CO2 to enhance their physical growth, they also absorbs energy from the general atmosphere, lowering temperature.
This happens in our familiar plants and trees we see every day on land, but I will go one step further. What about phytoplankton or ocean plants? I find scant literature exploring this aspect. The oceans are a vast piece of the climate puzzle. Besides oceans being a carbon sink themself, how much of a role do ocean plants and phytoplankton play in absorbing CO2 through growth and thus absorbing energy and reducing temperature? This is still under investigation. Good luck you guys!
The oceans are just one prominent piece of a global climate system. Many other dynamic systems on an order of magnitude large enough to influence global climate can also be scrutinized. As mentioned before, this list is long.
Amongst many pertinent systems, high latitude snowfall is an interesting one. A warming globe means more evaporation or moisture in the air. This moist air transported toward the poles and colder realms through weather can increase snow at high latitudes, increasing sun reflection and thus reducing temperature. Or consider this function, particulate matter in the atmosphere has increased which might block a certain percentage of the solar energy reaching the ground also reducing temperature.
Possible effects from natural systems expansive enough to affect earth’s climate are near limitless, though I believe we can disregard the front yard lawn mowing influence. Also consider this theory, the Earth may have a fixed budget of energy being received from the sun anyway and the only discrepancy is how it is distributed upon the Earth. This would almost make our discussion mute.
Variables and variability in any climate model are many. The big question currently being: have additional CO2 emissions been on an order of magnitude large enough to change climate significantly, or is there a multitude of variables that have combined to change things? For instance, does deforestation of tropical zones rise to a level of serious impact? What about the huge area, in total, civilization has plowed over and placed blacktop, concrete or roofing changing heat dynamics? Is agriculture modifying the land? What about the heat island effect? Overall temperatures of cities have increased due to our direct warming of our civilized enclaves, cities. The human impact on Earth’s environment is unquestionable, but to what extent? If human activity has had a noticeable influence on climate, are CO2 increases the main driving force behind it? Or are most changes we observe in climate mostly natural?
So, what of our endeavor to control CO2 levels in our atmosphere? Some say it is an existential threat and radical changes in energy sources must be made immediately! A complete switch to electrified machinery running on so called "green renewable energy" must happen yesterday. Yet, has anyone considered the ramifications of trying to implement such "fixes" on an order of magnitude large enough to significantly influence a global climate system?
The amount of raw material needed to replace all combustion engine vehicles would be massive! Remember, EVs (electric vehicles) weigh much more than current vehicles and such raw materials must be mined on a hyperbolic order of magnitude. Plus, at the current numbers of manufacturing, it would take centuries to complete the task, based on 250 million vehicles to be replaced in the US alone. Just mining the raw materials needed would inflict a terrible environmental impact on an astronomical order of magnitude.
On the other side of the equation, electricity must be generated. In those mechanisms considered as renewable power sources, wind and solar are touted as a cure for those power plants using hydrocarbons and their CO2 byproducts. However, these "green" systems are not created in a vacuum. How much mining and manufacturing will be required to produce enough of these on an order of magnitude large enough to affect global climate?
Solar panels inherently include some toxic chemicals which are safely contained during use, but many more toxins are created during their manufacturing process. After their useful life, these panels are most often discarded in landfills where their toxins will eventually leach out. Recycling is an option, but it is much cheaper to manufacture new ones. So, we must either face stacked landfills leaking toxins or instill laws requiring recycling and thus increase costs dramatically. Also a cost, let us not forget all the wiring needed to hook up a solar field, which must also be mined and manufactured.
Turbines also suffer some of the same drawbacks, especially if we consider numbers on an order of magnitude large enough to affect climate. These are huge machines! They appear nicely minute when observed from a distance, sitting on a hill, but their bodies can be bigger than a train and wind blades can reach over a football field in length. Again, these machines must be manufactured and their raw materials mined on a massive scale. They too have a lifetime of usefulness and will end up in a landfill most likely, and don’t forget the lengths of manufacturing wiring need to hook all of them up!
Since our main topic is ‘Orders of Magnitude,’ could there be unforeseen environmental effects when these "renewable" systems are scaled up significantly? CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere at best; its atmospheric increase is considered a catastrophe by some, though it is still a trace gas. What would be the impact on the land if large swaths of territory were covered by solar panels? What happens to the lands' biosphere of the earth when starved of sunlight? I’ve seen plants struggling to grow around solar panels.
Wind turbines are detrimental to fauna, especially birds. They also extract energy from wind thus slowing it. Wind stabilizes temperature and less wind would mean more exaggerated temperature swings or even changing weather systems themselves. Yes, arguments can be made about detrimental effects from "renewables" considering the orders of magnitude we are considering upon building and using them.
So, is it worth the effort to invest massively in "renewables" on a global scale? Virtually all accredited scientists agree that a change in CO2 concentrations will affect climate but to what extent varies among their predictions. Mowing a lawn has a climatological effect but negligible obviously. On the CO2 question, scientific opinions range from nearly negligible to hysterical. As in the original example, do we begin stocking a car for a trip to another continent or just ignore preparation like a ride to a local convenience store? Are we being hypochondriatic about the global effects of CO2?
In my experience, I hearken back to what was considered the environmental calamity unfolding in the late-1800s by most scientists then. Most everything was powered or heated by the burning of wood while forests were being cut down dramatically. In fact, almost every square inch of the East Coast of America has been cut down at some point. Besides the environmental impact of mostly bare land, where would the direly need supply of wood come from? Well, we all know what happened; technology moved on and produced our oil-based economy. Will our intelligence lift us out of this perceived problem now?
No one wants to see mankind pollute nor is it a good idea to just ignore it when it happens. Progress is ongoing and our environment has improved as a result. The Donora Smog disaster seems like it would be the basis of a science-fiction story today. The U.S. has made great strides in reducing CO2 emissions over the last 2 decades. I see this continuing, and as technology advances, new systems may neutralize the apparent CO2 problem.
Answers might lie in the nuclear field where safer, modernized technologies continue to evolve, or new ones, such as helium3 reactors, which could be used to manufacture more neutral fuels such as hydrogen to burn. By the way, whatever happened to cold fusion? Wind, solar and other technologies should be further explored as well as ideas such as carbon capture and plant expansion. I’ve my own conception of a machine to capture lightening energy, and I’d be glad to comment on that, just ask.
In my research, I have become aware of many variables that affect our globe and climate. I’ve touched on only some in relation to the CO2 question here while volumes more could easily be added. To say that one of those variables is the one that will control how the atmosphere behaves would be ignorant or blinded. Just identifying all the global variables and how they interact is a task itself, on an order of magnitude beyond my ability or any one person’s comprehension. In my opinion, a hasty decision to invest everything in one "solution" may NOT be very prudent indeed. I vote for more understanding first before we jump.
The CO2 issue is only one of many challenges facing our planet, population down to each individual. That issue was chosen to be discussed in this blog to best illustrate the concept of 'Orders of Magnitude.' The point is to encourage a broader comprehension of the concerns which challenge us personally to globally. Can we mentally grasp the myriad of intricacies of a topic to elevate our decision making? Can we as individuals expand our mind to encompass concepts on a grand scale? Perceive thoughts on a universal order of magnitude? Lets try!
Don Defreeze, B.S. meteorology.
Comments