One of the most enduring joint scientific and political debates in
recent times has been the debate between those who believe that human
influences on climate are warming Earth, with consequences that may be
detrimental to humankind, and those who believe that Earth dynamic systems
are too large to be significantly influenced by human activities. It is
unfortunate that the debate was initiated by political action before
scientific research had formulated, constrained, and backed up the concept with data.
The present U.S. debate was initiated in 1988 from testimony of
one scientist before the U.S. Congress, who argued that human activity
was changing climate. International political action resulted in the Kyoto
protocol, signed by the executive branch over the objections of the U.S.
Senate, which holds absolute authority to ratify international treaties
(95-0, Byrd-Hagel resolution,1997).
Many sincere scientists and nongovernmental environmental
organizations have participated in the debate. All have good intentions,
working to advance their positions. The problem remains the lack of
science to substantiate either side of the debate. Science must progress
unhampered by politics if it is to be effective in helping shape public
policy. The writer has no vested economic interest in the eventual outcome
of the debate, but requires that all data and theory be carefully
considered before the debate is considered resolved. The debate can be
likened to a complex forest ecosystem. Identifying a few trees cannot
characterize the forest.
What is the basis of the scientific debate? Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been rising since the
end of the Little Ice Age, circa 1850. Best estimates of initial
concentration are about 280 PPM (parts per million). Current Mauna Loa
measurements are about 356 PPM. Since the late 1800s, the global
temperature is estimated to have risen, perhaps 0.6 degree Celsius. The
coincidence of the two events is the basis of the argument that human
greenhouse emissions are driving the climate. Computer models of several
groups project that Earth temperatures will rise anywhere from 2 to 6
degrees Celsius over the next 100 years as a consequence of these
emissions.
Laws of physics require that increases of greenhouse gas in the
atmosphere increase temperature. The same laws require that if greenhouse
gases are driving climate, the effect must be seen first in the upper
atmosphere. Satellite data, now vetted, do not show that effect.
Therefore, on that basis, any current climate change cannot be attributed
dominantly to greenhouse gas increases.
Carbon dioxide levels of the Late Precambrian (600 million years BP) are
estimated to be 18 times present concentration and the Cretaceous (63 million years BP) concentration was 3 to 4 times present concentration. Low estimates
during glaciation are around 170 PPM. Recent research has demonstrated
that there is historically up to a 400-year lag between temperature
changes and consequent carbon dioxide concentration changes (Fischer, et
al, 1999). That hypothesis requires climate drivers other than carbon
dioxide.
The single most important basis for human impact on climate is
computer modeling. Current general circulation models are sophisticated
compared with former efforts, but they are still primitive compared with the
complexities of real climate control. The computer models are as yet
unable to simultaneously back-model 1500 years, encompass modern
measurements, and project the same temperature predictions. Computer
models result in hypotheses, not information. Placed in a petroleum
context, if computer models were real information we would never again
drill a dry development well.
The general consensus of those who do not subscribe to human control
of Earth’s climate is that the climate changes observed are natural
variations in climate, well within range of recorded geological history.
Although artificial increases in greenhouse gas concentrations will have
some effect on climate, the argument is that any such increases will be
overwhelmed by natural variations, so that any human effect will be masked
and not measureable. Solar and orbital controls on climate are frequently
cited as being the most likely large-scale natural climate controls.
Climate change tends toward regional change, not global change. Even
the current computer projections are truly Northern Hemisphere
predictions, not global. There are disconnects between north and south and
between regions. Many of these are oceanographic disconnects, as the
oceans are the major heat transfer device. At any time in history, it is
clear that some regions warm, others cool, and others may see little
change. We do not yet understand why.
Geological, archeological, and human historical records demonstrate
that climate is naturally unstable. It is constantly changing. Climate
science has not progressed far enough to predict those natural changes,
either in direction or magnitude. There is hope that computer simulation
of orbital, solar, and oceanographic dynamics may shed light on some
natural climate change drivers and effects. Natural climate change
demonstrated in geological and archeological records has been much greater
than any reasonable forecast of human-induced change. Whatever the human
component of climate change may be, it is likely dwarfed by the amplitude
of natural change.
Ice core data suggests that there has been long-term cooling over the
last 8000 years, interrupted by large- and small-scale thermal events that
rapidly increase and then more slowly decrease temperature. Human
historical records show the same patterns of large-scale change, with
pockets of little change or negative change.
There is much study and research to do before this debate is settled.
Against this backdrop of incomplete science there are several major
issues that dominate the public debate about climate change. Since the
public debate was initiated in a political setting, we must deal with
public perception.
In the last few decades, public perception of the importance of
humanity in Earth processes has changed. Evolution of the perceived
importance of humankind has come full circle, from a Ptolomeic geocentric
universe (the sun orbits around the earth), to the science-based
heliocentric universe (Earth orbits around the sun), to the latest,
the "humanocentric universe," in which the universe revolves around
humankind. Belief systems drive opinion on science issues. Because the
current climate paradigm is based on a belief system, it has ignored data
that conflicts with belief, and promulgates those information sets and
models that sustain the belief.
For example, recent reports illustrate anthropogenic warming of the
global climate by a graph showing that global temperature is rapidly
rising. The same report that provided that graph (Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, 1999) also provided the climate chart for the United States
that shows that the United States today is cooler than it was in the 1930s. The
first is cited as evidence of global warming. When both are viewed
together, however, there are several other interpretations. The
data clearly show that the United States is cooler than it was during the
1930s, the previous "sawtooth" jump. Therefore, one conclusion is that a
"heat island effect" is shown in the global data; however, the United
States has placed its thermometers so as to minimize the heat island effect of
cities, but much of the rest of the world has yet to do so. Another
interpretation might be that there is no global climate - each continent
and ocean has its own climate, and some are warming while others are
cooling. When all the data are examined, the conclusions may change and
the debate be fundamentally altered.
Selective use of data is also an issue. The draft IPCC report
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international governmental
body) uses Mann et al.’s (1999) tree ring temperature analysis for the last
1000 years. The draft report, normally not quotable before an official
release, was released in draft form near the end of the last U.S. national
election. The Mann et al. result is the well-known "hockey stick" diagram
that shows slight cooling for most of the last thousand years with an
abrupt and large warming only since about 1930. Most scientists recognize
that the "Medieval Climate Optimum" multi-century rapid warming event,
followed by the Little Ice Age, hampers computer modeling of future
climate change because models can't back-model through these historical
observations and still maintain current climate projections. The IPCC
draft report disposes of this inconvenience by using the Mann et al. paper
to explain that the Medieval Climate Optimum never existed. There is
overwhelming well-documented evidence that it did exist, such as the
voluminous historical record of Lamb (1996). All other temperature curves
show the same event (Bluemle et al., 1999). To take the IPCC position is to
ignore the Viking agricultural settlements on Greenland, restriction of
alpine glaciers, advent of wineries in England, and distribution of Native
American cultures, among many other well-documented events. Daly (2000)
discusses the Mann hypothesis in detail. All data must be presented in a
scientific argument, not just selected portions that support a specific
viewpoint.
On the other side of the debate, some still insist that Earth
temperature is stable and has not been rising. The crux of their debate
lies in temperature data that they assume is biased by proximity to heat
islands and inaccurate measurements.
Other arguments raised by contrarians are mostly about relative
benefits of climate warming and the inability of proposed policies (Kyoto) to
mitigate any human induced change. In some ways this debate has become
more philosophical than scientific.
In reviewing scientific arguments, an explanation that best fits all
the evidence is the most likely. An explanation that accounts for only
part of the evidence is likely to be fallacious.
Political spin is also present in the debate. For instance, after
using standard scientific notation of degrees temperature in Celsius for
its last two reports, the IPCC has been widely quoted in the media as
issuing statements about its latest report in degrees Fahrenheit. This
makes the forecast making nearly double, 9/5 greater, than if they had
continued standard Celsius notation. Readers may recall the uproar after
the last report because the consultants to the project issued an executive
summary that differed from the original scientific text.
As for the reason for the climate issue,it may be simply economic. The nations
most favoring a carbon tax to reduce use of fossil fuels are the oil-
importing countries. The climate issue may be useful for reducing imports
that are economically damaging, and for raising revenue. In 1980 the
United States had a $400 billion net positive foreign investment position.
By 1997, latest data available to the writer, the United States was in a
negative $1.3 trillion position. That change results in foreign ownership
of United States assets and means of production. Recent buyouts of United
States corporations by foreign investors illustrate the issue. Daimler
Benz bought Chrysler, British Petroleum bought Amoco and Arco, the
concrete industry is dominated by foreign enterprises, the pharmaceutical
industry is heavily internationalized, and foreign investors now own much
farmland. The list continues to grow. The United States is being bought
with its own money, the result of profligate spending for imports, a
significant portion of which is imported oil and the cars to burn it.
According to U.S. Energy Information Administration figures, a
carbon tax of about $348 US per ton of carbon would be necessary to
increase the price of oil and other fossil energy sufficiently to reduce
demand and thus carbon emissions. This translates to an annual tax of
about $325 billion US on oil alone, about $42 new tax per barrel, on oil
that now sells at the relatively high price of $33 per barrel. Oil would
then cost the consumer $75 per barrel. Coupled with taxes on natural gas
and coal, I estimate that the new federal tax revenues would be
about $750 billion per year. Nearly all countries favoring the Kyoto
Protocol plan increased energy taxes to enforce the agreement. The climate
debate becomes an economic debate, of governmental revenues versus
consumer expense. The reader may recall that one of the earliest programs
of the current (1992-2000) administration was to enact a carbon tax, prior
to the debate over climate. The proposed solution to a hypothetical
climate problem is a carbon tax.
Some of the intended consequences of forced climate change mitigation
appear to be to raise revenues and to decrease the nation's reliance on
imported energy. Intended consequences may have little to do with any
environmental issue or climate change. European governments push the United States to reduce energy consumption, not for environmental reasons, but for
competitive economic advantage.
Many public policies and laws have unintended consequences. Despite
the best efforts of legislators, unintended consequences frequently make
problem solutions into new problems. Saving sand on your beach from
longshore drift by building a groin solves your problem, but down-current
erosion removes more sand from a neighbor. The loss of sand from your
neighbor's property is an unintended consequence.
The unintended consequence of the current paradigm of human induced
climate change is to make people believe that humans can control climate.
By raising false hope, the result is that people will believe that
changing energy use habits can ameliorate the rising sea level, and a
future cold period. But sea level is going to continue to rise naturally,
as it has episodically since the end of the Wisconsin Glacial Stage, and
there will be another very long, very cold period. When that happens, how
will we feed people? By failing to recognize true climate drivers and plan
for natural change, the current paradigm may condemn humans to
homelessness and starvation.
There is a bright side to the debate. The ferocity of the debate has
caused much more research in climate science, computer modeling, and
geologic analysis of past climates than otherwise would have been
accomplished. Science that is being published today contains better data,
much of it avoids taking sides in the debate, and sheds much light on
climate stability and drivers. The laws are applicable equally to all
sides of the debate. It is my hope that the laws of physics will drive
the debate, linked to observations, measurements, and better analysis of
apparently conflicting data.
Belief systems are appropriate to politics. They are less so to
science in the public interest. Beliefs drive agendas, and the agenda of
science should be to seek the truth. The common belief system argues that
the world is unchanging. Climate changes all the time, in both directions
at many scales; there is no "flat line" in climate. Earth’s climate is
always either getting warmer or cooler. Data clearly show that natural
variability greatly exceeds any potential human-induced potential
temperature change. One of our biggest jobs is to separate natural change
from human change. To believe that humans control climate is to make
people believe that humans can prevent sea level from rising, and climate
from changing.
If economics and revenues drive the climate debate, it should be
acknowledged. If not, then a much better scientific case must be made for
significant anthropogenic climate modification. Those who are unconvinced
of human impact on climate are willing to accept the results of impartial
and full scientific scrutiny of the entire climate change issue, wherever
it leads.
Collapse of the recent climate treaty implementation talks in Europe
creates an opportunity for enhancing climate science and rigorous testing
of hypotheses about climate change before embarking on additional efforts
to manipulate earth dynamic systems.
Yannacone (1999) argued that scientists have a nondelegable duty to
use their special skills and special knowledge for the good of humanity.
The scientific method demands no less. Are we meeting the ethical
standards society has a right to expect of us?
References cited:
Bluemle, John P., and Joseph M. Sabel, 1999, Various types of
evidence delimiting the rate and magnitude of past global climate changes:
Environmental Geosciences, v. 6, n. 2.
Daly, John L., 2000, The ‘Hockey Stick’: A New Low in Climate
Science: http://www.microtech.com.au/daly/hockey/hockey.htm
Fischer, H., M. Wahlen, J. Smith, D. Mastoianni, and B. Deck, 1999,
Ice Core Records of Atmospheric CO2 Around the Last Three Glacial
Terminations: Science, v. 283, p.1712-1714.
Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 1999, Global Temperature Trends:
Continued Warmth in 1999: National Aeronautical and Space Administration,
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/GlobalWarm1999/.
Lamb, H. H., 1995, Climate, History, and the Modern World: 2nd Ed.,
Routledge, NY, 433 p.
Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes, 1999, Northern
Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences,
Uncertainties, and Limitations: Geophysical Research Letters, v. 26, n. 6,
p. 759-762.
Yannacone, Victor John, Jr., 1999, Science, Ethics, and Scientific
Ethics in the Modern World: Environmental Geosciences, v.6, n. 4, p.164-
171.
E-Letters: ![[Read E-Letter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
