Yesterday, Time magazine said that Elon Musk's Starship crash was no big deal. Today: There's No Way to Make Space Travel Good for Planet Earth Right Now.
- SpaceX has bragged about their Falcon 9 rocket: 217 launches, with 61 in 2022 alone.
- The problem is that the Falcon 9 uses oxygen and fossil fuels, creating black soot injected directly into the stratosphere (7.5 miles to 31 miles high). This soot lingers for 5 years, absorbing heat, damaging the ozone layer and contributing to climate change.
- Of course, they are not alone, for there were 180 global rocket launches last year, and this will only get worse.
Mind you, the aviation industry contributes 100 times more, but the difference is that airplanes fly only up to 6.6 miles, and the pollutants precipitate out the the atmosphere much more quickly.- This is not a fair comparison, for there are so few, but a passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than a passenger aboard an airplane.
- In addition, another negative effect from rockets is that the result slows subtropical jet streams, worsening summer monsoons in Africa and India.
My fascination with Planet Venus began a long time ago when I regularly looked up before sunset and many times saw what I early on thought was a star. This was, I later learned, Venus. Next to the Sun and Moon, it is the next most prominent object in space.
Then when I wrote SIMPLE SOLUTIONS for Planet Earth, Chapter 6 brought up the matter of what I called the Venus Syndrome. While the world then and today only focuses on carbon dioxide as the villain, I felt that methane could have a more serious long-term effect on the fate of humanity. But first, a short history about CO2 in our atmosphere.
An early thinker of gases in the atmosphere was French mathematician/physicist Joseph Fourier, who was intrigued as to why the Earth was as warm as it was. In an 1824 paper he hypothesized that gases in atmosphere must trap the heat. He did not blame carbon dioxide, but in an 1837 paper thought that natural evolution and human activity played a role. Fourier ended up being famous for developing the science of heat conduction.
In 1856 Eunice Newton Foote, an amateur scientist and prominent suffragette, tested the heat-trapping abilities of difference gases. She found that the cylinder with carbon dioxide and water vapor became hotter than regular air. The eerie prophetic observation was that what happened in the jar could happen in our atmosphere. Women were not allowed to speak at scientific gatherings, worse she was an amateur, and also, an American (Europeans then did all the thinking), and her work was lost for decades.
Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859 and 1860 (note, around the time of our Civil War) created some ingenious equipment to test gases. He found that carbon dioxide could trap 1000 times more heat than dry air. The history is murky whether he "stole" from Foote, but in an 1861 lecture announced his findings.
In 1896 Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius, who was more interested in what caused ice ages, studied how carbon dioxide played a role.- He made hand calculation for a whole year, and found that if you doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it would raise the world's temperature by 9 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit (5-6 C).
- Today, this rough range still holds.
- But nearly 130 years ago no one thought that burning all that coal during the Industrial Revolution would do much.
- He thought that a warmer world would have big upsides. In his 1908 book Worlds in the Making, (you can get a paperback for $9) he said:
We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.
- Arrhenius himself calculated it would take 3000 years for CO2 levels to rise by 50%.
- Instead, we shot up by 30% in 100 years.
- Arrhenius was right....but so wrong.
- Molecule vs molecule, methane has more than 80 times the warming power of CO2 over the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere.
But there are 200 times more CO2 in our atmosphere.- At least 25% of today's global warming is driven by methane from human actions.
- However, when I looked into this comparison, it occurred to me that the real danger is all that methane in the bottom of the ocean (most are found near the coastline close to or over the Pacific Ring of Fire, where earthquakes and volcanic eruptions occur) or below the Arctic tundra and surrounding areas.
I won't go into what PgC is (you can read this article), but there are 750 PgC of carbon in our atmosphere.- 4,000 PgC of carbon are stored as hydrocarbons (fossil fuels) on land.
- 38,000 PgC of carbon are stored as methane clathrates at the bottom of the sea and Arctic tundra.
- Or there is almost ten times more fossil fuels, all in the form of methane at sea, than all the fossil fuels on land.
Except for we burning fossil fuels, and the increasing amount of methane leaking through hydrofracturing, the true danger is these methane hydrates suddenly being released into the atmosphere.- For one, all the bottom clathrates at equilibrium with the natural conditions. But global warming is occurring, and at some point something terrible can happen.
Much of these methane clathrates are found on top of the Ring of Fire. If 2% get suddenly ejected into the atmosphere by a series of volcanic eruptions or earthquakes in this horseshoe region around the Pacific Ocean, that would double the carbon in the atmosphere.
That is the Venus Syndrome.- Methane eventually oxidizes into carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
- The atmosphere of Venus is 96% CO2 and 3.5% nitrogen.
- What caused Venus to get that way?
- So read about how Planet Earth could become Venus. A good first article is my Venus Syndrome Revisited, published in the Huffington Post 15 years ago. Also Venus Syndrome (Part 1) and Venus Syndrome (Part Two).
Well, so much for the speculative science of how Planet Earth can become like Planet Venus. And, oh, by the way, I had begun to write a book titled The Venus Syndrome, and stopped because I could not find a satisfactory solution if the scenario described above began. For now, my two dates with Venus on the Seabourn Odyssey.
- You can read a NASA treatment of the Transit of Venus, so I'll just quickly summarize with some background.
- The science of the skies and oceans before American Independence was confined to Europe. For a century and more steeples of excellence jockeyed for prominence on a wide variety of subjects. One was that if a way could be found to physically track the transit of Venus across the Sun, a whole range of questions could be answered about the size of our solar system and such. Like how far is Earth from the Sun?
- Edmund Halley (of his comet fame) in 1716 reasoned that astronomers could calculate the actual
distance from Earth to Venus using the principles of parallax. The rest of the solar system would follow. - But Venus transits only occur in pairs, 8 years apart, separated by 120 years. An international team did try in 1761, but weather and other factors spoiled the data.
- It was determined that if a ship could be sent to near Tahiti in June of 1769, it could observe Venus gliding across the face of the Sun. If that failed, the next opportunity would be in 1874.
- Thus, England's Royal Academy actually sponsored such a trip, and in those days it was like a space mission. A second scientific experiment was to find a remedy for scurvy. This deserves another segue:
- It was later that this fact became known, but from the time of Columbus into the 1800's, scurvy killed at least 2 million sailors, more than storms, shipwrecks, combat and all other diseases combined. Let me stop by only saying the symptoms of scurvy led to death. It is gruesome.
- In all the Magellan and da Game expeditions scurvy killed more than those who survived. Around the mid-1770's, British Captan George Anson left with a crew of 2000 in a global mission. Only 335 survived.
- Humans are among only a few animals incapable of making their own vitamin C, ascorbic acid. Where do you get vitamin C? A half-cup of pear will give a woman about 4% of her daily requirement of C, but the same amount of kiwi gives 111%. Little C in eggs, cheese and muscle meat, but lots in liver and kidneys. Various vegetables provide sufficient vitamin C, and citrus has the most. But C is destroyed by cooking. This is why British sailors are called limeys, for they were provided lime and lemon.
- So along came Scottish physician James Lind, who on the HMS Salisbury in 1747 devised the first controlled experiments lasting two weeks. You can read the details, but citrus was the solution.
- So problem solved? Nope, he retired in 1748. He wrote a long 400 page book, and only five paragraphs around page 200 mentioned this experiment. He himself did not recognize the momentousness of his study.
- It took until 1795 for another physician, Gilbert Blane, who convinced the British Royal Navy to provide lemon juice to sailors. This decision alone saved Great Britain from Napoleon.
- But this knowledge was not widely known and scurvy appeared in Arctic explorations of the 1820s and the American Gold Rush in the mid-1800s.
- Later the pasteurization of milk worsened conditions because heat destroyed Vitamin C.
- There is still scurvy today in undeveloped locations.
- So returning to Cook's first mission in 1768, there was no announced remedy for scurvy.
- But a cook, the one who made the meals, just happened to bring sauerkraut, which is rich in vitamin C. Deaths were few. Cook lucked out.
- The Transit occurred on 3June1769 off Tahiti. Special telescopes were brought. But the ship's log entry did not mention much. A bit cloudy, but mixed measurements.
- The bottom line was Cook's mission largely failed, as did other attempts from 76 points around the globe.
- Astronomers did not get enough data until the next transit in 1874 when photography worked.
- So was Cook's mission a total loss? His first and most important goal was a secret order to leave Tahiti after the transit and search towards New Zealand for a great continent. He did crash into the Great Barrier Reef, but never in his report is any indication of that great new continent. He definitely saw Australia, and their history books sometimes still credit Cook for discovering Australia, but there was a lot of earlier history you can here read.
- So yes, his first expedition was a failure.
The cruise continues. We were moored off Atuona, Hiva Oa, an island slightly smaller than Lanai. The view from our veranda.
So that was my first date with Venus. Back to my cabin for a sunset view of Hiva Oa.
Dinner was a very special $250 (extra money paid) Dining Under the Stars extravaganza that had Planet Venus right in front of me at around 2:15, and three hours later up to around 1:45, never once clouding over. Venus was rising. The whole experience was a bit too warm, but was improved by wafts of cooler breezes, for the setting was aft, and the ship was moving.
The meal itself and wines had ups and downs, although the overall result was worthwhile. There were seven tables spread throughout this deck, and I was at one edge. All the others had two or three diners. I was alone. The entertainment was guitar music from one of The Trio, but he had difficulty getting his equipment operating. When 9PM came, he just abruptly left, with most of us still awaiting the final course, cheese and dessert. So at the beginning, an appetizer.
Champagne had begun the supper. The first item on the regular menu was Foie Gras and Morel Terrine, which I thought was terrible. Maybe I was expecting foie gras, but the actual name of this dish was Foie Grass and Morel Terrine. Maybe it was foie grass, something foreign to me. Anyway, the foie gras preparation on this ship has had in the past been terrific. I'd swear the white portion was chicken.
Next was Ahi Tuna Tartare, with Karuga caviar, mango and spicy gingered ponzu. I enjoyed this dish with a 2020 Pessac Léognan Chateau Smith Haut Lafitte Blanc, which was too dry for me.
The highlight of the night was something not on the menu, which was Lobster Cappuccino, for I am allergic to crustaceans. I had worked out with the chef and his staff a serving of tuna sashimi from the rather large fish he had purchased off one of the islands. They also were considerate enough to provide chopsticks. Served was a Perrier-Jouët La Belle Epoque Épernay Champagne.
Next, I ordered the Pan Seared Five Spice Duck Breast with orange chicory, spinach, parmesan gnocchi and black cherry glaze, which came with a 2021 Victoria Timo Mayer Pinot Noir. Much too light. There was also a white wine. After I made that choice, it occurred to me that I hate anything to do with five spice. Amazingly enough, when the breast came, there no hint of that Chinesey taste. This was the best duck I have had on this cruise.
Not a good walking day with only 768 steps, the lowest so far on this entire trip.
-
Comments
Post a Comment