The more things change

Climate change is hardly a new issue. Here's an example from 31 May, 1947, of a scientist expressing alarm about rising temperatures in the Arctic.

 Here's the text:

Warmer Arctic Climate May Raise Ocean Levels
LOS ANGELES, May 30
(A.A.P.).-
Mysterious warming of the Arctic climate held a potential threat to people living in lowlands, Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said yesterday.
Dr. Ahlmann was speaking at the
geo-physical Institute of the University of California. He said an increase in the climate was manifesting itself steadily, and melting the Arctic ice regions, and the major Greenland icecap.
If these ice areas continued melting at thc present rate, oceanic surfaces would rise to catastrophic proportions, and people living in low lands along ocean shores would be inundated, he said.
Dr. Ahlmann said that temperatures in the Arctic had increased 10 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900, an "enormous" rise from the scientific standpoint.
Waters in thc Spitsbergen area in the same period had risen three to five degrees in temperature, and an
inch in level in 25 years.
"The Arctic change is so serious that I hope an international agency can speedily be formed to study conditions on a global basis," he said. Dr. Ahlmann pointed out that in 1910 the navigable season along western Spitsbergen lasted three months, while now it lasts eight months.



 http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/27900594
 

Precautionary principle problem

The argument for taking action now to prevent climate change is premised primarily on the precautionary principle. One group that expressly cites the precautionary principle in advocating public policies is SEHN (Science and Environmental Health network). They describe the principle this way:

“When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html

Stated this way, the precautionary principle is an aphorism. It's the application of this principle that leads to disputes. Some argue that the consequences of catastrophic climate change are so great that we should take all precautionary measures possible, even if the risk of climate change is small, and even if the link between CO2 and other anthropogenic causes is not well established. The mere possibility that any given human activity could lead to catastrophe requires us to curtain that human activity.  

It seems self-evident that this application of the precautionary principle could lead to irrational decisionmaking. So how do we limit, or constrain, or apply reason to the precautionary principle? 

One approach is applying a cost/benefit analysis. Bjorn Lomborg and others have advocated this approach. http://www.lomborg.com/ Essentially, this is an empirical approach. It means evaluating the science and recognizing that, by separating out emotional appeals, the most rational policy options are to promote technological and economic development, improve human standards of living, and generate sufficient wealth (which can be termed "excess" wealth) to improve the environment and mitigate the problems caused by human activity. The worst approach would be allocating massive resources in a futile attempt to prevent global warming and thereby impede scientific and economic progress.

Professor Sutter at Troy University has a nice explanation of the cost/benefit approach here:  http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/climate-consensus-do-little-for-now#axzz2GC2dfLk0

The graphic I used is from this site: http://www.climatereview.net/movie_screenshots.htm

Fossil fuels

In a new Policy Analysis released by the Cato Institute, Indur M. Goklany argues that fossil fuels saved humanity from nature and nature from humanity.  

Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity
The analysis is available here:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa715_web.pdf

I highly recommend his paper. Goklany provides essential data and analysis, much of which should be generally known but is not. At least, it is not taught in the schools or presented by the media. Maybe people take fossil fuels for granted, or maybe it's just easier to criticize than to deal with facts, but the concepts Goklany articulates here must be widely understood by the citizens and politicians if we are to make informed, wise policy decisions.

However, to some degree the paper is premised on a straw man attack. One commentator expressed it this way:  That fossil fuels are bad for people and the planet is a cardinal tenet of both mainstream and radical environmentalism. 

If this is, in fact, Goklany's premise, then I disagree. I'm unaware of any serious commentators who argue that fossil fuels are bad for people. The attack on fossil fuels, such as that from 350.org, is premised on the argument that burning fossil fuels is bad for the planet, and, by extension, eventually will be bad for people. Ironically, they also complain that fossil fuels are nonrenewable, which is an admission that they are good but we just don't have enough of them. That's a discussion for another day. But Goklany, in addressing the straw man, takes his argument too far when he argues that an increase in carbon dioxide by three orders of magnitude is an improvement. Why not recognize that the utility of fossil fuels is accompanied by a detriment that needs to be better managed?

This leads to my second criticism of Goklany's work. He largely overlooks a fundamental point: the political system, and the ethical approach it represents, is determinative.

Fossil fuels alone don't account for the improvement in human longevity and standard of living. This should have been apparent from the fact that the Soviet Union and Maoist China (not to mention most of the Muslim world) had access to fossil fuels for decades while their citizens' standard of living did not improve significantly (or at least not as much as in the western world). Still today, there is tremendous disparity among countries with respect to standard of living, health, and longevity, even though fossil fuels are ubiquitous.

In Figure 11, Goklany includes a graphic titled "The Cycle of Progress" that omits any reference to political systems or ethics.

He does allude to this, however: 

But ideas are not enough. They need to be translated into practical technologies that are adopted and used, and can be sustained in the marketplace. Equally important, for every “good” idea there is at least one or more “bad” ideas. For example, a spectacularly bad idea is that the state should control the means of production. Yet, despite access to significant levels of human capital, some societies have tried to implement this bad idea.

Maybe it's a good idea to focus on the data instead of the politics, but in my view, Goklany errs in giving too much credit to fossil fuels themselves. Still, here are a few key quotations I hope motivate people to read his paper.

Fossil fuels helped transform the human world from one that was dependent on living nature for virtually its entire well-being, and thereby trapped in nature’s Malthusian vise, to one that escaped that vise.

Virtually every indicator of human well-being—such as levels of hunger, infant mortality, life expectancy, education, economic freedom, and child labor—improves as income rises.

In 2008, fertilizer made from from synthetic nitrogen was responsible for feeding 48 percent of the world’s population.In 2007, the global food and agricultural system delivered, on average, two and a half times as much food per acre of cropland as in 1961.

Humanity’s reduced susceptibility to weather and climate is confirmed by the longterm decline in aggregate global mortality from extreme weather events, including droughts, extreme heat and cold, floods, landslides, waves, wildfires, and storms of all kinds.

Not only are biofuels unable to pay for themselves (hence the subsidies and mandates), but these subsidies
and mandates have helped increase food prices, which has added to hunger and poverty worldwide.

The earth is full

One of my pet peeves about the news media is the perpetuation of phony fears. A good example is Malthusian theory.

Ever since Malthus, doomsayers have claimed human population will outgrow food production. Instead, we produce too many calories! We've gone from a world in which starvation and malnutrition were major public health problems to one in which obesity has become one of the most serious public health problems in the world.
If there was any risk of food shortages, would we burn around 40% of our corn crop as ethanol? Would we feed vast quantities of grain to animals, thereby losing even more calories? Would we continue to use productive farmland to grow tobacco or crops for beer and other alcoholic beverages?
A new study mentioned in dot.earth demonstrates that agricultural technology has decoupled acreage from human appetites. The authors claim that "humanity has reached Peak Farmland, and that a large net global restoration of land to Nature is ready to begin."
This reflects my own observations over the last several decades.

Here's a graphic from dot.earth (http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/)
Population and Development ReviewAs agricultural production becomes more concentrated, growth in acreage devoted to food production has dropped far below projections, according to authors of a new paper. The graph shows how much land conversion has been avoided through this trend.

The authors of the study begin with this observation:

Expecting that more and richer people will demand more from the land, cultivating wider fields, logging more forests, and pressing nature, comes naturally. The past half-century of disciplined and dematerializing demand and more intense and efficient land use encourage a rational hope that humanity’s pressure will not overwhelm nature.
 
Here's a link to their lecture: http://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Peak%20Farmland%2018%20Dec%20lecture%20Ausubel(1).pdf

There are many reasons for optimism regarding environmental issues. The recognition of peak farmland is crucial for policy makers and citizens to remember.

IPCC Dec 2012

The IPCC continues to work on its Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/

As usual, there are conflicting reports about the science. 

Some claim the IPCC projections have been accurate. For a detailed analysis, look here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/contary-to-contrarians-ipcc-temp-projections-accurate.html
 
Others disagree. The Wall St. Journal published an editorial by Matt Ridley that evaluates early reports from Nic Lewis. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html?mod=opinion_newsreel#

I found Mr. Ridley's concluding paragraph reasonable and consistent with my own views, to an extent. Excerpts from his piece are in Georgia font.

The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.

Contrary to Mr Ridley's rhetoric, though, I think it's important to subsidize renewable energy projects, purely to advance the science. Certainly the corn-ethanol program has been a fiasco, and the mandates to utilities are creating unjustified windfalls and inefficiencies. Still, I think scientific progress requires investments that are not necessarily economically viable at the present. It's the forced commercialization of intermediate technology that is irrational and counterproductive, like the many windmills I've seen that have been abandoned long before their projected useful lives because maintenance costs are too high and the equipment itself is obsolete.

Here are excerpts from Mr. Ridley's comments on the science. Obviously, since the information is not yet public, I can't comment on the accuracy of these statements, but they do seem consistent with the actual data that has been made public over the years, which is inconsistent with the IPCC's projections:

In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.

The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).

This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F)....

Next he brings up a point made by Cass Sunstein years ago. Sunstein observed that global warming will benefit North America and China, which was one reason why the U.S. and China were not focusing on climate change as much as other countries. Some people were skeptical of that. Now, with years of observational evidence, it appears there's a factual basis for Sunstein's conclusion (which is not really his, but given his political affiliation, he attracted considerable attention to this view). 

A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on....

In my view, the IPCC has long reflected more of a focus on environmental justice than on pure science, and the observational data bears this out. While the precautionary principle is a valid consideration, it has been stretched to the breaking point by exaggerated claims and predictions (see Al Gore). I do think there's a legitimate argument for policies that promote economic and environmental justice, but to base the argument on faulty science is a huge mistake. So I like the way Mr. Ridley asks the bottom line question:

The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC's existing 2°-4.5°C "likely" range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization's record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong....

It will be fascinating to see how the IPCC treats the observational evidence. To date, they haven't done a very good job acknowledging evidence inconsistent with their projections, let alone adapting their official statements to reflect this evidence. 

Sustainability course

There are several free college courses related to environmental issues. I've signed up for one titled "Introduction to Sustainability" offered through Coursera from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.

Video description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=og7325sQJTU
Here's the syllabus:
Week 1: Introduction. Pessimism vs. optimism.

• Neo-malthusians, J-curves, S-curves and the IPAT equation

Week 2: Population. Demographics and the disappearance of the third world

• Demographics, population trends.

Week 3: Tragedy of the Commons.

• Fisheries, pastures, public vs private solutions

Week 4: Climate Change. The climate of the near future: hot, hotter, or hottest?

• Weather vs. Climate, Proxy and data climate evidence, Climate projections

Week 5 : Energy. What happens when we reach “Peak Oil” Renewable energy: is there enough to make the switch?

• Peak Oil/Fossil Fuel, Energy survey, availability, and density, EROI

Week 6: Agriculture and Water. Is there enough water and food for the 21st Century?

• GMOs and the Green Revolution, water stocks and flows - physical and social constraints

Week 7: Environmental Economics and Policy. Can economists lead the way to sustainability?

• Environmental Evaluation, project and policy evaluation, Incentive policies

Week 8: Ethics and Culture and Measurement. The long view.

• NeCarbon Footprints, Energy and water efficiency metrics, Sustainability Ethics, Environmental ideology and conservation movements

There's more information here:  https://www.coursera.org/course/sustain

Chasing Ice

Last night (Dec. 5, 2012) I attended a screening of Chasing Ice, followed by a Skype with the Director. It was a wonderful film. The time-lapse photography was stunning. They didn't have any from Antarctica, but the Director said James Balog is making arrangements to take his cameras down there.
I recommend everyone see it.
http://www.chasingice.com/

Here are some photos to show how stunning the film is. Click on the photos to view them full size. My favorite is the river of melted ice flowing through the ice sheet in Greenland, although this is also the most disturbing image as it demonstrates how the ice sheet is collapsing there.

Do the Math

On Monday (Dec 3, 2012), Beverly and I attended a stop of the "Do the Math" tour from 350.org. This is Bill McKibben's movement.
http://math.350.org/

Salt Lake City was the final stop in the tour, so I was glad we could attend. He had some guests, including Terry Tempest Williams, and did a good job presenting his material. However, he was misleading his audience in several respects.
One incongruity I'll mention here was that he blamed the drought in the Midwest for the rise in food prices, but didn't mention the corn-based ethanol mandates that have consumed 40% of more of the corn produced in the U.S. That was a bizarre omission that led me to wonder if his audience was ignorant of the impact of this disastrous program. Then he demonstrated the problem of burning fossil fuels by using beer as an analogy. He showed how many beers it takes to become too drunk to drive, then showed several cases of beer to represent the excess CO2 we're putting into the atmosphere (i.e., above the 350 ppm level).

Field of Barley

The irony may have been lost of McKibben himself, but beer alone consumes huge volumes of both fresh water and grain. Worldwide, over 35 billion gallons of beer are sold each year. Considering it takes about a pound of grain to produce a gallon of beer (depending on the grains used), that's a lot of grain--and a lot of gallons of fresh water. For example, a productive acre produces about enough barley for 84 barrels of beer.

So I was sitting there wondering if McKibben had "done the math" about the impact of beer on world food prices. It far exceeds the impact of drought from year to year. (Not to mention the amount of CO2 emissions attributable to beer production, which is around 10 million tons annually.)
This isn't to say that we should ignore the impact of climate change, but it is important to recognize that the Earth produces far more calories than humans can safely consume already. Would it make any difference to these college kids to think about the people starving in Africa every time they open a can or bottle of beer? Probably not. But that's a consideration far more relevant than complaining about big corporations producing fossil fuels.

So I suggest that to the extent McKibben focuses on the impact of climate change on agriculture, he should do the math on aspects of human activity beyond just burning fossil fuels.
:)

Field of Hops

Calculation on CO2 emissions from beer thanks to Pablo:
http://www.triplepundit.com/2007/06/askpablo-co2-from-beer/