CO2 and Temperature Correlation

Al Gore, in An Inconvenient Truth, had a two-story graph on CO2 buildup as the temperature rose. It does, but with one problem he didn't tell us about--the CO2 lags the temperatures coming out of glacial periods by 800 to 1300 years. I guess it was difficult to make a cause-and-effect case with this correlation.

This relationship is determined from ice cores drilled in Greenland and Antarctica. The graph shows two Antarctic core results, clearly showing temperature leading CO2 content. The interglacial or warm period between periods of glaciation shown is the previous one, named the Eemian. It started 132,000 years ago, then ended 118,000 years ago. Not only did CO2 lag the temperature rise, its high level did not prevent the drop back into a new period of glaciation.

 It won't prevent this interglacial period from dropping into another glacial period either. It might be noted this interglacial is aging and another glacial period may be near. We might well wish CO2 did have the capability of maintaining warmth.

In the meantime, we might better spend the tens of billions of dollars now expended to prevent global warming by control of CO2 in technology to grow food and keep warm during an ice age  -- economically. The need is inevitable.

Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity is an ecological concept concerning the population any environment can maintain. A maximum is determined by the availability of food, water, and shelter from adversity such as weather or predators. In a meadow with a stream, for example, the number of mice would be determined by the amount of food available.

In 1856, when the first commercial oil well was punched, world population was 1.2 billion. Today, 166 years later, world population surpasses seven billion, and for the most part people are better fed than the 1.2 billion in 1856. For example, 4% of the population of the United States are involved in agriculture, but American agriculture feeds 16% of the world. Considering United States population is 4% of world population, 1.6% of the world population is feeding 16% of world population. That's truly astonishing.

This is made possible by the energy liberated by that and follow-on oil wells. Perhaps this is best illustrated by the increase of GDP per capita in spite of the six-fold increase in population.  Note how well it correlates with bringing petroleum online after centuries of virtually flat or little progress.

In 1968, the book, The Population Bomb, became a best seller. It began "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..."

That, of course, didn't happen, and won't unless the greens realize their goal of de-developing the world. Almost every energy project, whether just another well or a major pipeline such as Keystone XL, meets opposition using any means possible.  The United States is already crisscrossed by numerous pipelines, so another hardly merits the attention it is getting. Note, too, many pipelines already cross the borders with both Canada and Mexico, so Keystone XL is nothing new.  The heavy oil of the Canadian tar sands is meant to replace the heavy oil now coming from Venezuela. Converting the refineries that now handle heavy oil would be difficult and expensive, and Canada would be able to receive an additional $30 per barrel they now must discount their oil because of the transportation difficulty and expense.

In other words, factual truth seems no impediment to stopping any energy project. Were the greens able to "get rid of oil," the consequent question would be "How do you intend to kill the six billion increase of population petroleum supports?"

Tyranny of the Immediate

I am aware of the tyranny of the immediate. We lived during the time Noyce, Moore, Grove, Hoff, et al, changed our futures and we could have, if nothing else, been employees of their company. They initiated stock sharing and options for everybody in Intel.

I contracted for a few months at Microsoft in Charlotte, NC. They have a help center there as well as Texas and Washington. Some of the long-term (10-15 years) employees were still making in the $20-$30 per hour range, but their stock sharing and options had long ago rendered them millionaires. One in the Excel group wasn't married (and never would be), had several dozen kids pictures over his desk. He was currently supporting them through various organizations all over the world at the then going rate of $19 per month each, basically his entire salary.

We indeed lived through a special time in history, and weren't really aware of it, mainly because of the tyranny of the immediate.

Another, more mundane example involves my experience with Chrysler. During the management of Lee Iaocca, Chrysler had dropped to near $1 per share when Iacocca was negotiating a special loan guarantee from the federal government. I thought to go down to the credit union of the company I was then working for, borrow a thousand or so, to buy 1000 shares of their stock. I got caught up in whatever were the tasks of the day, and forgot about it until sometime later. It was up to $10 per share. It finally peaked at $43 per share.

Yep, there is tyranny in the immediate.