Hurricane damages could reach $23 billion 04 October 04

Hey, thanks for the mention in your entry here! I’m still blushing!

Gray’s wrong about GW having no effect on hurricane seasons, but he IS pretty good at analysing hurricanes. (Which is likely to change in years ahead if he doesn’t work GW into his calculations, but that’s another story.) At this time of the hurricane season, storms are less likely to come out of W. Africa and more likely to develop in or near the Caribbean/Gulf of Mexico area. I remember that in 1998, Mitch formed off the North Coast of South America, and didn’t look like much…at first. Nothing much brewing in either body of water as of today, but that can change rapidly—NOT something the insurance companies want to hear! We shall see, but there’s an awful lot of season left to go and say there won’t be any more storms. (A tropical wave the other day seemed aimed at Jamaica/Caymans, and they all started quaking in their boots. Not normal behavior for a “mere” tropical wave, except for their previous visit by Ivan last month…) This all has repercussions, because federal aid to farmers affected by the long-standing US drought may not be what it might have been ‘cause it has to be spent on hurricane damage-and, of course, bringing liberty to Iraq (roll eyes). This kind of thing will be happening more and more as climate change brings more and more damaging weather conditions, be they storms or drought. I shudder every time the cash register rings-part of the “curse” part of knowing what’s coming, I guess.

I read Mr. Lynas article in the Outlook section of your paper on September 19. I too, have been tracking the debate on global warming for several years, approximately 12 years.

I found some places where his rendition of the facts stopped short of revealing details that might have proven embarrassing to his interpretation. I also found many places where his text and fact diverged.

In the former category, Mr. Lynas acknowledged that hurricanes are heat engines and that the latent heat of water evaporating from warm surface waters fuels them. He failed to mention that the temperature difference between the tropics and the Polar Regions provide the driving force that causes hurricanes and that the net effect of hurricanes is to transfer heat from the tropics to the colder Polar Regions.

This is important because all General Circulation Models that IPCC and others use predict that the Poles and high altitude locations will warm faster and more than the tropics. The result will be a lessening of the difference in the temperatures of the tropics and Poles; thus lessening the impetus for formation of hurricanes.

The colder Polar temperatures are important because they provide the dry air that the hurricane needs to absorb moisture and its latent heat. If the air surrounding the hurricane is moister because the Poles are warmer, less water will evaporate into it and the hurricane will have less energy.

He finds, “buried deep within the Web site of the NOAA, a graph that shows how tropical Atlantic surface temperatures have steadily risen between 2000 and 2004”. Yet he does not find the statements that NOAA and NWS experts have made to the effect that the present apparent increase in hurricane activity is a return to historical frequencies that has nothing to do with climate change. He cites the statistics that show that the highest frequency of storm activity was in the 1940s and notes that the frequency was low during the 1970s through the 1990s.

He does not tell us that the frequency in the 1940s was twice as high as the frequency in the 1970s (23 vs. 10) and that the frequency in the 1990s (the decade of the most rapidly increasing temperature in history, if you believe IPCC) had fewer land falling hurricanes (14) than in the 1980s (16). Nor does he mention that the temperature rose as rapidly between 1900 and 1940 as it did between 1960 and 2000 and that the total number of hurricanes in the US was 67 in the earlier period vs. 57 in the latter period. How can increasing warmth cause many hurricanes in one 40-year period and few in a second 40-year period?

Mr. Lynas also failed to mention that the highest hurricane frequency of the 20th century occurred during the 20-year period between 1960 and 1979, when IPCC records indicate that the climate was cooling.

His most egregious omission is the fact that warming surface waters in the tropical Atlantic cannot be the result of carbon dioxide-induced climate warming. The greenhouse gas hypothesis of IPCC predicts that the warming will actually be a lessening of the severity of cold temperatures in Polar and high-altitude locations. The tropical Atlantic is neither a Polar nor a high-altitude location.

His statement that climate models predict an increase in hurricane frequency and severity is a divergence from fact. The climate models predict no such thing; some climatologists speculate that, but many others speculate that the reverse – fewer, less severe hurricanes – is more likely.

Mr. Lynas quotes a pair of Princeton climatologists who said that warming “may” bring more and more severe hurricanes and then embarks on an eight-sentence long romantic voyage of speculation about what might have happened during the recent hurricanes. Hardly the stuff of sound scientific reason. More like the stuff of an activist journalist with an axe to grind.

His next two paragraphs contain only his speculation about what might happen; he has provided no evidence or supporting comments from climatologists to support any of it. He then winds up with a description of some of his personal observations of sandstorms and the like. This vignette concludes with another of his departures from fact, his claim that floodwaters are drowning Tuvalu. It seems that there is a sea level monitor on Tuvalu and that the maximum, minimum and mean sea level in Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu, are the same now as they were in 1980.

Mr. Lynas mentions Prime Minister Blair’s speech, which challenged the US to participate in the efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He did not mention that the Europeans have not reduced their carbon dioxide emissions. They all pay lip service to the Kyoto Protocol, but none of them has even come close to meeting their commitments under the agreement. In fact, British carbon dioxide emissions have increased since they signed the agreement. The American response has at least been honest. The European response has been hypocritical.

The overarching omission from Mr. Lynas’ discussion of global climate change is the fact that full implementation of the original Kyoto agreement would have no discernable effect on the computer predictions of future warming. The attainable reduction would have been about 0.1 Fahrenheit degrees. Even that would be unattainable under the document that the negotiators finally produced.

In the last paragraph, Mr. Lynas repeats the oft seen and heard saw that the US emits 25 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. That is just not true. Mother Nature emits 96 percent of carbon dioxide; mankind emits 4 percent. The US emits 25 percent of the 4 percent, or about 1 percent of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. Lynas failed to mention that the US economy constitutes about 25 percent of worldwide economic activity. An economy that comprises 25 percent of the worldwide economy should emit 25 percent of the worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide, after all, most carbon dioxide emissions are from energy production, and energy fuels economies. Perhaps, Mr. Lynas is most concerned about the last statistic, that the US economy is 25 percent of the worldwide economy.

Referring to the latter part of your letter to Mark Lynas, I would be genuinely interested in your viewpoint about what we should do about Global Warming.

Not everyone sees Global Warming as a major threat? With your 12 years study of Global Warming, do you see it a major threat, or not?

If you do, what approaches should we adopt to tackle it?

Which countries seem to be following the best route?

Would you be concerned if all the world’s inhabitants emitted an equivalent amount of human-induced greenhouse gases as citizens in developed countries are doing?

Bearing in mind your final paragraph, would you recommend the US approach to other countries around the world? Do you see dangers from adopting this model?

“Mr. Lynas failed to mention that the US economy constitutes about 25 percent of worldwide economic activity. An economy that comprises 25 percent of the worldwide economy should emit 25 percent of the worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide, after all, most carbon dioxide emissions are from energy production, and energy fuels economies. Perhaps, Mr. Lynas is most concerned about the last statistic, that the US economy is 25 percent of the worldwide economy.”

I can absolutely assure you that I am not anti-American. I think it highly likely that some of the best approaches to dealing with this issue (huge problem, in my view) will come from the US. This would be from original thinkers, concerned individuals, acedemic institutions and companies. Quite a number of my environmental heroes are Americans (Rachel Carson etc.)!

Yet, over the last few years, I think the feeling over this side of the pond is that the US state is disinclined to adopt a collective approach. I was involved in a study in 1992 about reactions to the Earth Summit in Rio, and there was resentment amonst British delegates that the US was strongly opposed to setting targets within the Climate Treaty. I believe this would not have changed much with the US being opposed to the Kyoto agreement.

Any insights / comments on this would be most welcome!

Regards,

Peter Winters

Mr. Winters,

Your questions assume that carbon dioxide-induced climate warming is demonstrated fact.  I disagree.  In fact, I think that we have enough data to know that the concentration of carbon dioxide does not affect our climate to any significant degree.

Carbon dioxide concentrations apparently have risen from about 250 ppm in the early 1800s to approximately 380 ppm now. (I say apparently, because we have no way to know with high accuracy what the carbon dioxide concentration was 200 years ago.) During that same period it, appears that the climate has warmed by approximately a Celsius degree. (Here I say apparently because there is considerable doubt about the accuracy of the temperature record that IPCC uses when making that claim.) However, the temperature increase has not tracked well with the carbon dioxide concentration.

At least half of the total increase occurred before 1940. A 30-year temperature decrease followed during which the carbon dioxide concentration increased far more than it did before 1940. The next 30 years we saw temperatures increase again but at a rate faster than the increase in carbon dioxide concentration. For the past 5 or so years, temperatures have decreased in spite of continuing increases in carbon dioxide concentration. I also note that the most recent temperature increase coincides with steadily increasing solar output and that solar output appears to be decreasing now.

Further complicating the conclusion that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions cause climate warming is the observation that the satellite and high altitude balloon data agree that the atmosphere has warmed far less than the IPCC models predict and far less than the IPCC surface temperature record implies. In addition, carbon dioxide-induced warming must happen first at high altitudes and high latitudes, and neither of the Poles nor high altitude locations have warmed. I have downloaded the temperature data from all of the Jones, et al. rural stations that lie north of 75 degrees North Latitude and found that they show little or no increase in temperature. The station at the South Pole shows steadily decreasing temperatures while Mauna Loa shows steadily increasing carbon dioxide concentration.

The warming that we see appears to be the result of a warmer planet surface warming the atmosphere. That is consistent with increasing solar output. It is inconsistent with carbon dioxide-induced warming.

Most of the stations reporting high temperature increases during the past century or so are those in urban areas. I believe that IPCC has based its claim of rapidly increasing global temperature on the temperature increases in urban heat islands. I realize that IPCC claims to have corrected the record to account for the heat island effect, but I also know that they correct only for population and that they have not corrected for the rapidly increasing per capita use of energy.

I do not know if the warming climate will create a major threat. A thousand years ago, when the climate was as warm as it is now was a time of prosperity for humanity. Growing seasons lengthened, crop yields increased, disease waned and people celebrated the end of the dark ages, which were a period of relative cold. Temperature reconstructions of periods of up to a million years ago reveal several periods of warmth approximating that we no experience, but none significantly warmer. I tend to believe, but cannot know, that this warm period will not differ from previous ones.

You ask what we can do about the warming climate. I think that the answer is nothing other than to prepare to deal with it. We cannot control the sun. I am convinced that a period of falling temperatures will follow this period of relative warmth. I also believe that cold is a far more formidable enemy than warmth. More humans die of hypothermia in winter than suffer hyperthermia in summer, even with our recent relatively mild winters and warm summers.

I do not believe that it is possible for all of the world’s inhabitants to emit carbon dioxide at the rate that we in the USA do; global supplies of fossil fuels will not sustain such emissions. The most real and present threat to continued prosperity and health is diminished supplies of energy. We must find alternative means to supply the energy that the population of the planet will require in order to bring the poorer countries to parity with the richer countries.

None of the known viable alternative energy sources, nuclear fission nuclear fusion and dry rock geothermal emits carbon dioxide. I say known sources because I dare not presume that I can know what future technology will bring any more than Heisenberg knew when he said a turn of the century Nobel ceremony that the work of physicists was done; that all that remained was to add precision to the values of the known constants.

I do not share your positive opinion of Rachel Carson.

I believe that the US is rightfully hesitant to join any club that will force a crippling of its economy, which is what Kyoto would do. The extreme folly of Kyoto is that by itself it has no effect on the output of the IPCC models; that the only way to effect a reduction in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is to reduce emissions by 90 percent. We cannot do that without forcing all of humanity back into the Stone Age. Our best bet is to use the remaining fossil sources to fuel our economy until some better and longer-lasting technology appears.

Dear Norbert,

I would take the time to respond to your points on hurricanes, but I don’t think it’s worth my trouble: your beef is with the entirety of atmospheric physics, not with me. If you don’t believe in the reality of global warming (and saying that we have no record of past CO2 concentrations is just silly – there’s ice core records going back 500,000 years) that’s up to you. But there’s about as much point in talking about it as there is in discussing evolution with a creationist: i.e. none at all.

Mark

If you will read what I said carefully, you will see that I wrote that we do not know the carbon dioxide concentration 200 years ago with “high accuracy”. Do you dispute that?

The ice core data actually go much farther back than 500,000 years and those data show several periods of carbon dioxide concentrations higher than present concentrations. No evidence exists that the temperature increased to dangerous extremes during any of those periods.

I did not say, as you claimed, that I do not believe that the climate is warming. I said that the facts do not support the conclusion that the increasing carbon dioxide concentration contributes significantly to the trend.

Have you looked at the actual data or have you merely listened to and believed the media-favored climate experts and ignored other, equally competent climate experts who disagree?

Please do take the time to respond to my points. I look forward to reading your response.

Dear Mr Zangox,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I have a couple of immediate thoughts. First is, I hope you are right about human-induced climate change!! My second is, that I do not think you are, and that we are placing the health of the planet in grave jeopardy.

But good science benefits from debate. It is all to easy to have a belief about something and then find the facts to support your opinion. It happens far far too much! So, do you have any references (preferably, peer-reviewed) I could consider that supports your opinions?

I would be happy to do the same thing.

BTW, I do believe a Contraction and Convergence approach has strong promise, which does require developed countries to reduce their output of greenhouse gases.

One thing I think we can agree on is the need to look for alternative energy sources. I thoroughly recommend the book (though somewhat with a UK perspective) “Renewable Energy : Power for a Sustainable Future”, OUP, Open University, ed. Godfrey Boyle (2004)

Yours,

Peter Winters

The figures at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm provide pictorial renditions of the concentration history of carbon dioxide in the air. Of particular note is that the carbon dioxide concentration appears to peak approximately every 100,000 years at levels that are similar to those we see now (Figure 4d).

You can find a reasonable rendition of the land surface temperature record since 1860 at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/052.htm#222. This link displays the complete record of the MSU satellite temperature data, http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html. This link will provide you with the complete surface temperature record, http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/station_data/. You can click on an area of the map to find a list of stations in that general area. For example, when I click on northern Greenland a list of stations appears (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/update/name_or_map.py). Note that this page gives the latitude and longitude of the station and gives a general description of the area. The first entry is for Alert, NWT, a rural area. A click on the word Alert takes me to http://www.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/update/gistemp/show_station.py?id=403710820000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1, where I see a graph of the temperature at that station from 1950 through 1991. Below the graph, you will see a link to the actual numerical data, at http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/TMPDIR/tmp.403710820000.1.1/403710820000.1.1.txt. If you choose, you can plot a few stations to see what their temperature trends look like. Plot a few; the results are surprising if you expect to see warming.

At the bottom of the page at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222 you will find a yellow box in which IPCC rationalizes their approach to adjustment of the surface record for the urban heat island effect. Note that they adjusted their correction factor upward from 0.05 Co to 0.06 Co to account for the change in the effect during the 20th century. Do you think that is enough? The passage includes no mention of increasing per capita energy consumption. The passage does acknowledge that the heat island effect is not representative of the climate as a whole, but fails to acknowledge the effect of the high percentage of urban stations in their measurement set.

Thanks for this. I am now travelling for the rest of this week, but intend to review by early next week.

Kind regards,

Peter Winters

PS. Actually, while I think about it, I would like to ask you a few questions about risk. Answer them if you like.

Q1. How strongly do you believe that you are right, with a scale of 0 to 10, where?

0 = It’s a hunch 10 = I am completely convinced

and/or:

Q2. If we follow your advice with regard to fossil fuels, what percentage chance, if any, will the planet suffer “bad effects” from Global Warming as a consequence of doing so?

Q3. What do you consider an acceptable level of chance that the planet should suffer “bad effects” from Global Warming?

PS. I will get back to you about the first thing. Got to run!!

Yes, I think ice core records are highly accurate. Sure, they can never be as accurate as measurements straight from the atmosphere, but they cross-correlate well, and both Greenland and Antarctic cores show clearly that current levels are unprecendented. See IPCC TAR graph: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm At what period do you think that CO2 levels were higher than present? The IPCC also suggests that levels are probably higher than for 20 million years: “Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, they are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years.” (Again from TAR, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/107.htm#331) I humbly suggest that the IPCC is not composed of “media-favoured” scientists – they represent the consensus of people competent in the field, of which you are clearly not one.

Several scientists have suggested that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations inferred from ice cores are inaccurately low. At http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ you will find a letter that Zbigniew Jaworowski submitted to the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Jaworowski mentions depletion of the carbon dioxide from the gas bubbles trapped in the ice through formation of gas clathrates with the liquid water in the ice. Note that the error increases with depth (age of ice) so that the older data is subject to greater lessening of the apparent carbon dioxide concentration than are more recent samples.

Jaworowski also mentions selective inclusion of data points to satisfy preconceived notions of how things ought to be as an additional influence that depresses current estimates of historical carbon dioxide concentrations. Jaworowski also discusses an apparently improper date shift in the Siple record of carbon dioxide that completely changes the interpretation of the data.

Wagner et al. at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5422/1971#RF23 using a leaf stomata frequency index, found carbon dioxide concentrations as high as 350 ppm 9,400 years BP, a time at which the ice core records show carbon dioxide concentrations to be about 280 ppm. Wagner concluded his article with the statement “Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were >300 ppmv could have been the rule rather than the exception”. Others have objected, but none have positively refuted Wagner.

It seems that the ice record is not as absolute and precise as you believe it to be.

I think (keeping in mind the probable error in the ice core data) that the carbon dioxide concentration was as high as or higher than it is today during 4 different periods. Those times are about 120,000, 240,000, 320,000, and 410,000 years BP. It appears that we get a brief warm spell about every 110,000 years and that for most of history the earth has been too cold for comfortable human habitation. The figure also shows that the current warm spell has already been longer than the other four. Let’s hope that it continues to be relatively warm.

I also notice that the figure shows the temperature to have been about one-half of a Celsius degree warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today. Could the Medieval Optimum that IPCC so vigorously denies existed have been real?

I have one additional observation. I have looked at the figure that you linked several times before and it always has seemed to me that the temperature increase precedes the carbon dioxide increase. If that is true, it puts a hole in the carbon dioxide-induced temperature increase hypothesis.

I disagree with your contention that the IPCC is not composed of media-favored scientists. The media like some (but not all) of the IPCC scientists because they provide the material upon which to build a good scare story. Other scientists have fallen from favor because they cast aspersions at the scare stories.

Can you provide a link to a survey of competent climate scientists that shows that a consensus or even a majority of those scientists supports the media-favored version of the climate issue? Or is the consensus merely another media-generated legend?

I think that two issues exist: one is climate change; the other is anthropogenic forcing of climate change. I believe that it is clear that our climate is warming. (10) On the other subject, I am certain any anthropogenic forcing is insignificant (7).

I think that the probability that the planet will suffer irreversible “bad effects” from global warming is minuscule. (10) I added the word “irreversible” to your question because I believe that we can deal with the consequences of warming and that the earth will recover; it always has.

Your third question is not so straightforward. You asked, “What do you consider an acceptable level of chance that the planet should suffer ‘bad effects’ from Global Warming?”

I believe that our first responsibility is to humanity. I believe that should we embark on a Quixotic and hopeless quest to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that we will debilitate the world economy and thereby eliminate any chance that we will have sufficient resources to deal with warming should it come.

Implementation of Kyoto would cause widespread economic and social harm and when IPCC plugs full implementation into its computer models the output temperatures decrease by less than 0.1 Celsius degree.

The natural question is “Well, if full implementation of Kyoto would create only a trivial hypothetical benefit, how far do we have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to cause the IPCC models to lower their output by 2 Celsius degrees?” The answer to that one apparently is 90%. I cannot imagine how we could do that and survive. Can you?

I look forward to your reply.

Dear Norbert,

REASON FOR THIS RESPONSE

I have been spending some of the part week mulling over what you have written. Too much time probably!

I have printed out what you have written to me, Mark and Lynn; and I have been thinking about how to respond. You are clearly knowledgeable about climate change and have made your points well. However, for the most part we believe quite different things and I think, realistically, we are not going to change each other’s opinions.

What is the value writing this response? I think the value is probably in helping to clarify one’s own thoughts. Also, since this is an open forum, it is interesting to share references and books that we have found persuasive.

What I am going to do is outline a number of propositions relevant to what you have written, provide an outline of my thoughts, and provide certain references, which have coloured by thinking. I have also been grateful for some of the other recommendations of books others have made on this site.

IS HUMAN ACTIVITY CHANGING CLIMATE?

I believe you question whether climate change is really changing due to human activity, and also the science of the IPCC in their assertions about this.

Personally, the natural science of proving that humans are causing climate change is not my forte. My eyes glaze over when I get into the nitty-gritty of the chemistry. However, there do seem to be many institutions involved in studying this, apart from the IPCC, and it is my understanding that it is generally accepted that there is strong evidence of human activity impact on the climate. In the UK, these institutions include the Climatic Research Institute (CRU) created in 1971, the Hadley Centre (1990) and The Tyndall Centre for Climatic Research (2000). A review in the June 2004 edition of the Geographical Journal by Mike Hulme and John Turnpenny describes the major UK institutions involved in climate change.

Just this evening I was looking at the report by the Hadley Centre of “Recent research on climate change science by the Hadley Centre, December 2003” which describes further evidence of how human activity is changing climate (page 8; see reference below).

I would also expect the impact of human activity to be non-linear. I like the idea of James Lovelock in his Gaia hypothesis that the Earth has mechanisms, which keeps things in balance (something he calls homeostasis), particularly with the changed outputs from the sun. He developed his Daisyworld experiments to demonstrate this. (Yet, James Lovelock appears to be very concerned about global warming, so perhaps he believes we are punishing the Earth too much with our greenhouse gases?)

But, as a natural science question, it should be possible to research these things. Perhaps you are right that human activity is not changing the climate. Could you think of a scientific study/experiment which could validate your proposition? If you did so, surely you could get an audience for your thoughts?! One of my favourite scientific stories is about the American experimental physicist, Robert Millikan, who thought Einstein’s theories of light quanta was nonsense, and set out to prove it. “In a long series of difficult experiments he succeeded only in proving that Einstein was right, and along the way derived a very accurate measurement of Planck’s constant, as 6.57×10-27. In the best traditions of science, it was this experimental confirmation of Einstein’s hypothesis (all the more impressive since it was obtained by a sceptic trying to prove the idea wrong) that established clearly, by about 1915, that there was something in the idea of light quanta.” (Gribbin p.511, ref. below).

Sources for this section: Hadley Centre report http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/pubs/brochures/2003/global.pdf

James Lovelock : “The Ages of Gaia” (1988)

“Understanding and managing climate change : the UK experience” Mike Hulme and John Turnpenny, June 2004, The Geographical Journal

John Gribbin : “Science : A History 1543 – 2001” (2002)

MANAGING RISK

Let’s say that the natural scientists tell us that there is a degree of uncertainty about whether humans are causing global warming. How should we manage this risk?

For something so important as the future of life on Earth, we should be extremely cautious!! Earth holds the only known life in the Universe, and it would be a terrible thing to lose it. I have visions of us becoming similar to Venus – a planet ravaged by greenhouse gases.

A few years ago I enjoyed reading a book by Peter Bernstein called “Against the Gods – the remarkable story of risk”.

Back in 1662, a Frenchman called Pascal wrote that “Fear of harm ought to be proportional not merely to the gravity of the harm, but also to the probability of the event”. (p.71). In the case of climate change, it is not so much a case of “probability”, as perhaps “uncertainty” (as you believe) – but we should still be in great fear! (How can you be so certain that the probability of climate change from human activity is so insignificant that you are not concerned by climate change?). Pascal also helped us to draw a useful distinction about whether or not to act on something based on future consequences rather than certainty about the current situation. This helped pave the way for the insurance industry!

I haven’t studied this in great detail, but isn’t the insurance industry now taking a great deal of interest in global warming? I wonder what approaches they are using.

Source : Peter Bernstein : “Against the Gods” – the remarkable story of risk”.(1996)

COLLABORATION VERSUS COMPETITION

I get the feeling that you are not positive about international agreements, and that they would not be in the US’ best interests. Am I correct? Here are a couple of passages from your letter in response to Mark Lynas’ Washington article:

“Mr. Lynas mentions Prime Minister Blair’s speech, which challenged the US to participate in the efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He did not mention that the Europeans have not reduced their carbon dioxide emissions. They all pay lip service to the Kyoto Protocol, but none of them has even come close to meeting their commitments under the agreement. In fact, British carbon dioxide emissions have increased since they signed the agreement. The American response has at least been honest. The European response has been hypocritical.”

“Mr. Lynas failed to mention that the US economy constitutes about 25 percent of worldwide economic activity. An economy that comprises 25 percent of the worldwide economy should emit 25 percent of the worldwide anthropogenic carbon dioxide, after all, most carbon dioxide emissions are from energy production, and energy fuels economies. Perhaps, Mr. Lynas is most concerned about the last statistic, that the US economy is 25 percent of the worldwide economy.“

(I have in front of me a chart on UK emissions of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases, which does not support your statement. From 1990 to 2002 there was a decline of both a basket of greenhouse gases and CO2. Britain was supportive of the climate change treaty at Rio in 1992. Between 1998, when Britain signed the Kyoto agreement, and 2002, the basked of greenhouse gases continued to fall whereas CO2 emissions flattened off – but has not risen. P111 of Hulme and Turnpenny article referenced above. What has happened in the US during this time period? How has the relative share of CO2 emissions changed, if at all? Of course, what we really would like to know is what would have happened without Kyoto and that is rather difficult to prove.)

One of the most interesting books I have ever read was on game theory by Axelrod. It convinced me on the potential of collaboration to achieve end results – such as reduce greenhouse gases. This does not always mean giving in! A powerful strategy is called “tit for tat”, whereby, in a relationship (it doesn’t work if it is a one-off deal) if one party does not collaborate, the other party should also not collaborate for that one occasion.

I have personally taken the message home for many areas of my life – particularly in business. I think I can achieve a great deal more if I collaborate rather than go it alone. It strikes me that this is the overall theoretical reason why the go-it-alone approach of the US with respect to climate change conventions (amongst other international treaties) is so disastrous. The Europeans (after the disasters during the first part of the 20th Century) seem to be learning how to collaborate better within the European Union. This is also the promise and potential of the United Nations.

I am sure there would need to be some tough negotiations – but the US should engage with other nations on climate change. During the time that the world has woken up to the problems that climate change present us with, from about 1990, the US has consistently avoided commitments to climate change treaties.

I am not sure what the arrangements should be exactly. There are some who advocate that “Contraction & Convergence” is the only solution (e.g. Mayer Hillman – How we can save the planet); but I think there are always many ways to resolve a situation, given common purpose. I think we will not solve the global warming problem without international agreements and common purpose between nations.

I fully support a Kyoto-type agreement, but if there is fundamental problem with that, let’s collaborate and get something effective in place. The UK signed the Kyoto agreement in early 1998, nearly 7 years ago now, and we cannot wait that long for future treaties on global warming to come into place!

I am grateful to one of the contributors to this site to recommend a recent book called “Environment & Statecraft” by Scott Barrett who examines the Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (2001). I just received it today and will be interested in what he recommends!

Sources : Robert Axelrod “The Evolution of Cooperation” (1984) Riane Eisler “The Power of Partnership” (2002) “Environment & Statecraft” by Scott Barrett who examines the Strategy of Environmental Treaty-Making (2003). Jared Diamond “Guns, Germs and Steel” (1997)

SWITCHING FROM FOSSIL FUELS

I sense a contradiction in your attitude towards our reliance on fossil fuels.

On the one hand you imagine that a significant reduction in our CO2 emissions would have a devastating impact on our economies. Also, that the attempts that we currently make at reducing our CO2 are trivial.

Yet on the other hand you believe that in 100 years, the usage of fossil fuels will be a subject for history classes.

Does that mean that in 100 years our economies will be in ruins?

For myself, I strongly believe that it is perfectly feasible to switch to renewable energy at a reasonable price. It is mainly a question of infrastructure change – and for that we particularly need vision from business and political leaders. Amongst Europeans I think there is greater support for governments to get involved in spending tax money in support of social projects than there is amongst Americas. Specifically, in a study for the Conservation Foundation following the 1992 Earth Summit, there was support amongst British people involved in the environment that the British government should a) Lead by example, b) Legislate for a ‘green market’, c) Set sustainable development strategy goals and d) Provide appropriate finance.

I might also mention, again, that I am not anti-American. Indeed, a high proportion of the references I have sited in the letter are from Americans.

Since you mention wind-power, it is my experience that some people make some extremely misleading statements about the expense of wind energy. Certainly at the prototype phase it has been much more expensive than fossil fuels, but prices have come down enormously. In this way, wind power is similar to a number of other sectors (such as pharmaceuticals, mobile phones charges, Internet research) where high initial capital investment, and a certain degree of risk, mean that prices of the end-product is initially quite high. Once the infrastructure is in place, the price of the end product (for wind power, the end product is electricity) can reduce enormously. It also has the potential to produce a significant proportion of the electricity that we need, particularly in the UK.

As regards making an impact on our CO2 emissions, for most houses it is perfectly possible to make huge reductions in CO2 output. The main question is how to do that most cost-effectively. Currently, I am considering a heat-exchange from the garden, and PV electric option on the roof. Given this specification, at a reasonable cost, I should be self-sufficient in energy, and would have an arrangement to sell any surplus to my energy provider through the National Grid.

As regards other energy sources, I think we need to avoid both developing coal energy sources (which could last beyond the 21st Century) and also I do not favour a nuclear option to replace fossil fuels. As regards the argument against nuclear energy, I have been impressed by a (UK) Royal Commission Report on “Nuclear Power and the Environment” chaired by Sir B. Flowers (1976).

Flowers was very negative about the potential impact of nuclear power, and ends with a plea for scientists to develop alternative energy sources so that the problems inherent in a plutonium society might be avoided. Yet he concedes that:

“.. the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the combustion of fossil fuels .. could yet provide a powerful argument for nuclear development” (Flowers, 1976 : Para 510)

In those days, it did seem as though we were on the horns of a dilemma, since the major choice seemed to be between the two evils of “fossil fuels” and “nuclear power”. It is not only that both energy sources are a threat to our environment, they both incur social risks. With a reliance on oil, the world needs to be concerned about the stability of regions such as the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. With nuclear power, as the Flowers report warns us, we are at greater risk from terrorist activity and of threats to our civil liberties.

That was then, in the 1970s and early 1980s! Renewable energy now offers the world a genuine third alternative.

SOURCES : “Renewable Energy : Power for a Sustainable Future”, OUP, Open University, ed. Godfrey Boyle (2004) Jeremy Rifkin “The European Dream” (2004) “Royal Commission Report on “Nuclear Power and the Environment” chaired by Sir B. Flowers (1976) “The Road from Rio : A Survey on Reactions to the Earth Summit”, Published by the Conservation Foundation (1993)

THE POWER OF IDEAS

In your discussion with Lynne you strongly disagree with her religious reverence for our environment. Lynne touches on something which I think is terribly important if we are to make a difference. Here is a quote from a recent book on branding called “Lovemarks”.

“The essential difference between emotion and reason is that emotion leads to action while reason leads to conclusions” (p.42). Lovemarks

I work in market research and we take into account emotional factors in understanding consumer decisions – the “halo effect”, “post-purchase rationalisation” and so on. If we want to understanding why people drive cars, or like a particular car, we should not be mislead by the “rational” decisions of where they decided to buy a BMW rather than a Mercedes. We need to know about how these things make people feel, and so on. There is more than a little truth about the notion of “retail therapy”. A lot of branding is about the emotional gratification of doing something; and the emotional distress of doing other things. A little while ago, Mark Lynas was talking about how he hated cars, and this seemed an emotional reaction against anything to do with cars given their current environmental impact.

There is probably something within each of us individually, that causes us to act in the way we do. Lynne has a “religious” feeling about helping the environment. Perhaps Mark’s relationship with his father, and visiting that glacier in Peru 20 years ago has something to do with why he is so motivated to work on Global Warming. For you, maybe the have role models and emotions in your life which causes you to think and write about climate change in the way you do? (For example, for which, if any, of these personalities do you admire – John Wayne, Bill Clinton, Billy Crystal, Rachel Carson etc.)? For myself, I remember as a primary school boy being worried about “pollution” without knowing much about it.

As societies, we can be even more extreme – look at the power of ideas in Germany over the last hundred years; and how those ideas have changed! It also helps to demonstrate the negative power of ideas.

Overall, if there is anything which gives me optimism for the future, it is that people can adapt to a new challenges with new ideas. This is why Mark Lynas’ book, High Tide, on Global Warming is so useful. It touches our emotions and makes us think that we need to do something about Global Warming which any number of scientific journals will not! This website, www.marklynas.org, is a powerful mechanism for channelling that emotional energy (as I spend half the night writing this piece!!).

SOURCES: Kevin Roberts “Lovemarks” (2004) Mark Lynas “High Tide” (2004)

DETAILED UNDERSTANDING & RATIONAL SOLUTIONS

Yet if we should admire emotion and ideas to drive our actions, we need to make sure that we learn enough detail to define our thoughts, and come up with rational solutions. We should also be very wary of seeing the world through biased lenses, and selecting evidence which supports our theories (though I am a little sceptical about whether it is ever possible to be completely objective on many things!).

From an environmental perspective, I believe the key problems we now face are dealing with climate change, and ensuring continued bio-diversity on the Earth.

One thing which you wrote was that “richer societies have cleaner environments”.

This strikes me as an insupportably broad statement. Certainly, some richer societies have been able to make great improvements in many aspects of their local environment in the last 30 years, but would it still be a valid statement if CO2 is shown to cause global warming? (Wouldn’t it be like having a no-smoking policy in the first-class cabins on the Titanic?)

Also, doesn’t it depend on which rich societies, and which technologies they use. Can we compare tram-riding, cycle-using Basel with car-driving Los Angeles? (I haven’t read it, but isn’t that the idea behind the Natural Capitalism book which Lynne recommends?)

Over the history of human civilization, different human civilizations have had different impacts on the environment. Sometimes they have lived in a reasonable balance with nature, and sometimes they have had a catastrophic impact on the local environment. I found Clive Ponting’s “Green History of the World” (1991) a very powerful and disturbing story on how we have denuded certain parts of the world at certain times (and makes particular play on how the society on Easter Island collapsed after they cut all their tress and so could no longer construct boats).

I liked E.O. Wilson’s “The Future of Life” (2002) for a detailed perspective of what can be done about the dangers of mass extinctions in the 21st Century. He talks about “the race is on between the technoscientific forces that are destroying the living environment and those that can be harnessed to save it. We are inside a bottleneck of overpopulation and wasteful consumption. If the race is won, humanity can emerge in far better condition than when it entered, and with most of the diversity of life intact.” “ In order to pass through the bottleneck, a global land ethic is urgently needed. Not just any land ethic that might happen to enjoy agreeable sentiment, but one based on the best understanding of ourselves and the world around us that science and technology can provide.” (page xxiii).

I would also very strongly recommend John McNeill’s “Something new under the sun : an environmental history of the twentieth century” (2000) which describes the global environmental challenges we face, with relevant detail that aids objective understanding of the challenges we face and the options we genuinely have.

Sources :

Edward .O. Wilson’s “The Future of Life” (2002) John McNeill’s “Something new under the sun : an environmental history of the twentieth century” (2000) Clive Ponting’s “Green History of the World” (1991)

Yours,

Peter Winters

I believe in reductions, recycling, living lightly, but isn’t overpopulation the basis of all our pollution & global warming problems?

Isn’t over-population the underlying problem here? There are a multitude of problems resulting from the “success” of the human species the past 10,000 years or so, especially the past 1,000, and especially the past 100. I may be simple-minded, but I find it a waste of time to debate CO2 facts 100,000 years ago. Of course we are polluting at an unsustainable rate now. We need to focus on doing something about it.

In my view, over-population is certainly a big part of the problem.

To a certain extent, over-population isn’t just a case of the total number of people, but also to do with the types of technology available, how people live together and so on. Historians tend to think of Europe in the early 14th Century, before the Black Death, as a time of over-population when there were many less people than there are today. Nowadays, we are much more concentrated in cities, and our technologies allow us to manage living to a very high standard.

The population issue tends to be quite “political” and so not discussed as much as it should be, in my view. It wasn’t really covered in the Rio summit of 1992, and some commentators felt that this was a mistake.

However, it does seem as though fertility rates are declining rapidly in most parts of the world. A good thing – though we do have to be careful of environmental pressures over the next 100 years.

I really liked the theme behind this article by George Monbiot of a few months ago (see link below)

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/05/15/just-fade-away/

I read that article on the link you gave. Makes sense: over-population + affluent technology cause most of the damage.

I will try to live lightly on the land, and not have too many children.

Peter,

I read your incredible response to norbertzangox.

At one time I wanted to respond to him on what he wrote but did not do so. I am glad because you did a better job of it than I would have done.

Thank-you for taking the time to write this essay. What you wrote was awesome and you are awesome. I may have got more out of reading your thoughtful response to norbertzangox than he did.

I think it is correct to answer people who are critics especially when they take the time to state their thoughts publicly. I think that responding to critics help us understand better our own assumptions and sometimes can make us test our assumptions which cause us to either confirm our own thoughts or modify them. They can always help us articulate better by responding back therefore improve our ability to communicate and educate.

I am glad you mentioned nuclear power because I want to touch base on this in the future and I will consult your references. I think that nuclear power may still be a viable option and I have read an article on advanced technology such as using the pebble bed approach to nuclear power which seems to eliminate many of the potential problems that traditional reactors can create. I will be curious to see if your reference takes into account this new technology.

At the moment, I think that success in mitigating climate change is preferable to the risks of nuclear power but I will do my homework on this at a later time with further reading on the subject. I am keeping an open mind and appreciate the good references you provided to follow up on.

In the USA, most everyone I know seems to have a low sense of understanding about global warming and the people here cannot connect the dots to their own contribution of emissions. I can almost call myself an expert based on the knowledge I currently have compared to most people here in the USA. Lynn is a noteworthy exception and I think she has contributed much to this site.

It is an honor for me to be in such good company. You articulate your ideas very well and you are a very good writer. I am so impressed with your response. I appreciate it.

The more I read on this website, the more I realize I do not know and the more I need to learn.

Many Thanks!

You are too kind!! Thank you.

This blog can certainly be very motivating; perhaps rather addictive! ;-)

Kind regards,

Peter

Hi Peter,

I am addicted to this site which currently has become a full-time occupation. I get my emotional fuel from here.

And, I am not too kind. I am motivated to the extreme and it is because of people like you Peter. Glad to return the favor and that makes me happy.

I recently posted a blog about reducing the greenhouse gas methane.

I am just not as knowledgeable as you are Peter. If you could read my blog when you get a chance, I would love to hear anything you have to say.

Later, I will post a blog on compact fluorescent light bulbs and address the mercury content of these bulbs and the need for widespread recycling efforts to help keep mercury out of the environment. Then, at some point, I may post a blog about nuclear energy sparking I hope a good-natured debate as I mentioned in another response to you.

I have so much to follow up on lately and so much to read to increase my own knowledge and awareness.

For me, and as an engineer, I think all ideas have equal merit until one idea proves to be more viable than another idea. I hope I can instill the important need for objectivity in others. I believe you are of that mindset. And, all ideas have their problems as well.

It would be awful if the climate got out of control because we let a good idea get by without objectively researching it or from lack of vision or from lack of funding.

I think you have an objective probing mind based on what I have read in your bio and in your own blogs. So, if you have any thoughts about my methane gas blog, I would be excited to hear them.

FYI, Lynn just now gave me an informed response about organic methane use while I was writing you for your input!

However, I still think you have some thoughts to add. Take Care

I’d love to, Dan. Rather swamped with work at the moment; but I’ll try and find the time.

Warm wishes,

Peter

...testing your HTML capabilities on comments…thank you…

aa<font>^1</font>aa

<font>test</font>

&#208an&#216

<font>qw3ertuy</font>

lots of html is possible here: most inline formatting, links, simple tables, that sort of thing. there’s a filter that strips out anything that isn’t allowed or looks malicious.