Mr. Trump and the Astrophysicists

January 8th, 2017

When I woke up this morning it was very cold, only 256…

Okay, that’s the Kelvin scale, which starts at absolute zero, the point where atomic motion stops, -459 degree (Fahrenheit) or -273 (Celsius). (256K equals 4 Fahrenheit.)

To put that in perspective, the temperature in deep space (between the stars) is about 3K.

Which raises an interesting question: what would be earth’s surface temperature if there were no sun? There’s some heat from the core of the planet, but it would be pretty cold. The temperature on Pluto’s surface is about 45K on average; so, let’s just say the temperature on earth’s surface if the sun went away would be about 50K (-370F). So, the rest of earth’s surface temperature, equivalent to about 235K, is provided by our proximity to the sun.

Our sun pours out a huge amount of energy; the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun is about 170,000 trillion watts per second. By comparison, the amount of oil consumed per second (world wide) would produce the equivalent of 6 trillion watts, substantially less than 1/100^th of 1% of the sun’s energy reaching earth. 

Interestingly, the sun operates in a series of cycles, with fluctuations in its electro-magnetic field, which reflect changes in the amount of energy the sun is producing. The sun is now entering a new cycle, what’s referred to as a “solar minimum,” a period of lower strength in its magnetic field and, if the astrophysicists are correct, the beginning of a period of reduced energy output. (Why exactly these cycles exist is a subject of debate; the cycles exist, but we don’t know why.)

In any case, if the astrophysicists are correct – and there’s virtually no debate that suggests they are in error, perhaps as soon as the next few years we’ll see a drop in the amount of energy hitting the earth by ½ to 1%. That the main-stream media has chosen to ignore this, unfortunately, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

So?

Well, back to the point above about the temperature on earth if there were no sun (maybe 50K): a 1% drop in the energy from the sun reaching earth would equate to roughly a 4 degree Fahrenheit (2.4K) drop in the average temperature of our planet. This would be potentially catastrophic.

For more than a century earth has benefited from a “Goldilocks” moment (not too hot, not too cold, just right) that allowed, as a whole, ever-larger crop yields, resulting in a world population that grew by 500% in just over 100 years.

While some worry about a rise in earth’s temperature, a drop would be far worse. Rising temperatures can be difficult, but, for example, the Dutch have shown we can deal with rising sea levels. But, a drop in sea level, an increase in glacier size, a reduction in rainfall, a drop in river levels, and all the other consequences of cooling, would be even worse. Colder temperatures would mean shorter growing seasons, in some areas the elimination of winter crops, and a reduction in total arable lands worldwide.

Which leads us to Mr. Trump.

While much of the world has hurried to plan for the possibility of a warmer planet, little has been done to prepare for a colder one. A colder planet would lead, more quickly than a warmer one, to a fight for resources: food, fuel and water. The national security implications would be severe.

Mr. Trump might want to put a small task in front of his planners – particularly from the departments of Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Commerce and Interior: consider steps that might be taken to help the nation in the event of a mini Ice Age. Not only in energy (oil and natural gas, perhaps research in thorium reactors), but food production (tax credits to farmers to experiment in higher yield and more durable winter crops), completion of unfinished reservoir systems in the west, expansion of existing reservoirs across the country, a new look at the strategic grain stockpiles; that’s just a short list of things that should at least be discussed in our contingency plans.

At the same time, planning should consider how other countries might react if their survival was threatened. Our national security would be at risk. We need to be able to help where and when we can, but protect our interests when and where we must. And that begins with good planning; good planning includes asking the “what if” questions no one else is asking.