"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such trifling investment of fact." Mark Twain.
"It is a human tendency to represent as perpetual what is only
frequent, or as constant what is really casual." Samuel
Johnson.
It has become difficult to discuss global warming or many other subjects in an objective manner. Misinformation and media hyperbole have played on the fears of the public so that politicians are faced with increasing pressures for action on an increasing number of problems. It makes sound management virtually impossible. All the problems are not going to be dealt with immediately or even in the short term. Obviously priorities have to be established and this is the challenge for the politician.
This paper will not attempt to present the arguments in favour of global warming and its potential impact, they have already received extensive attention. Rather, it will present the side that has not received the media attention, but is essential if governments are to make the most informed decisions.
It is a side that has not received adequate academic attention either because it questions prevailing wisdom. It is difficult to obtain funding for ideas that are not considered to be 'conventional'. Applications for research funds are judged by other academics who have achieved that role by representing the mainstream thinking. They tend, therefore, to reject requests that do not fall within that framework. Similarly, the practice of peer review of articles submitted for publication has the inherent danger that research and ideas that are logical and sound, but not within the current thinking, are rejected.
A herd mentally has taken over about global warming. Just fifteen years ago the herd was convinced that global cooling towards another ice age was occurring as temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980. Now the herd is headed in the other direction as temperatures apparently warmed in the 1980's. Notice that I did not say they warmed. Variations increased, but there was no trend. The stampeding herd is trampling the voice of reason and logic and running roughshod over the evidence.
Some scientists have made very definitive predictions on very little evidence; these have been selectively amplified by the media and special interest groups. I accept the genuine concern about the environmental conditions developing on our planet. However, it is a very dangerous game if the intent is to scare the public towards a particular perspective, especially with climate. There are too many uncertainties including a serious lack of knowledge about global climate and its mechanisms to make definitive predictions, yet they are being made. The public tend to accept information as absolute, especially if it comes from scientists and appears in the media. It is not. Science speculates and then tests that speculation, unfortunately this becomes prediction. People should remember Arago's (17861853) admonition that never, no matter what may be the progress of science, will honest scientific men who have regard for their reputations venture to predict the weather. Never might be too strong, as politicians know, but the comment holds over 100 years later. I will delineate the problems with these widely publicized views and provide some evidence of the uncertainties.
Governments are not going to deal with all the environmental problems that confront us. They have to establish priorities and direct funding to those issues that will solve the most severe and immediate problems. Impact on the economic and social order must be limited. This paper is written within the context of these realities.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently A leaked a draft report to the media via the Internet. Why? How does a United Nations supported agency let a draft document of such political, economic, and emotional impact out to the public? The panel advises governments which are currently debating reduction of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. Leaks are 99% political. What was the agenda?
Contrary to general belief politicians do listen, but today they are denied objectivity by appeals to emotion. Hysterical, inaccurate headlines appeared as the media took the IPCC bait. Unfortunately, only headlines stick in the public memory, but in this case that was probably the objective.
Ironically many media pundits were not fooled. (The adage don't con the con man leaps to mind.) Their articles were victims of the headline grabbing syndrome. What did pundits say? Why did so many question the report? The Globe and Mail wrote an editorial counseling delay on actions to alleviate global warming?
The IPCC report says warming of the last century and especially the last few years, is unlikely to be entirely due to natural causes and that a pattern of climatic response to human activity is identifiable in the climatological record. Tom Wigley, a major architect of the report says it is not yet known how much of the last century's warming can be attributed to human activity and how much is part of the earth's natural fluctuation that leads to ice ages at one extreme and warm periods at the other. Truth is, there is no proof of human contribution.
All climate changes affect Canadian agriculture, so they concern agribusiness. Contrary to the IPCC report, accurate prediction is simply not possible. We can't say if temperatures will rise or fall or over what period; precipitation changes are even less certain.
Global warming predictions are based on computer models that don't work. (Model error is ten times larger than any possible human effect.) All results are achieved by unrealistically doubling carbon dioxide; most causes of change are excluded completely. Each time the models are run they give different results.
A multitude of factors, both real and apparent, cause temperature change. For example records, mostly from northern hemisphere urban areas, showed a warming from 1920 onward. It was caused by heat from cities expanding to surround airport weather stations.
IPCC reports have been consistently wrong. The world is colder than previously predicted. Carbon dioxide from human sources increased most between 1940 and 1980 but temperatures declined. Short but more comprehensive satellite global temperatures show cooling not warming since 1979. Arctic temperatures were predicted to show most warming but satellite and standard surface stations show no change or in some areas such as eastern Canada, dramatic cooling. Some small glaciers have retreated others advanced, but Antarctic and Greenland have increased. The Great Plains of North America have become wetter not drier.
Previous changes were to occur by 2040, now we are told 2100. Truth is the models cannot predict when. Predictions have consistently decreased, some as much as 90%; the latest are no exception. IPCC says inclusion of aerosols (tiny droplets of chemicals and dust) has corrected the model. What nonsense. Tom Wigley, executive member of the IPCC said we were looking for the needle in the wrong haystack. We need to look at the haystack not the needle.
IPCC is made up of scientists from around the world, can they all be wrong? Yes, they are all hand picked, especially those from Canada. (Environment Canada would never let me attend.) They need to convince governments that funding must continue. It is time to stop the charade. Environment Canada say they are unable to provide accurate 6 month forecasts yet they are certain about what will happen 100 years from now! They said recent weather is due to global warming, but there hasn't been any warming. 1700 icebergs off Newfoundland were attributed to warming, but they are there because the water off the east coast is colder. Millions of dollars were spent on computers incapable of studying global warming at the expense of better basic weather service. Imagine having to tell Sheila Copps you were wrong; that global warming is not a big issue? It is a treadmill that results when bureaucrats do research.
Less than 20 years ago the concern was cooling, now it is warming. Reality is that climate varies a great deal in short periods. A November Scientific American article titled A chaotic climate says global temperatures have been known to change substantially in only a decade or two. Fine, but the authors add, could another change be in the offing? Even in a scientific publication they could not resist threatening impending environmental doom. It is the theme of the decade and feeds environmental hysteria. It produces publications and funds. It does not provide good science or sound decisions.
Several factors have created the situation. Science speculates, then tests the speculation. Unfortunately speculation becomes prediction between laboratory and headline, skillfully abetted by uninformed environmentalists, tunnel vision scientists, and sensation seeking media.
Research is essential and scientific responsibilities apply, however, when you go public there is a serious social responsibility. Rejected speculation is the norm in science; incorrect predictions essentially negate science. How many inaccurate predictions before momentum on other more important environmental issues is lost? For example, a 1995 United Nations report lists soil erosion as the number one environmental issue. It received no publicity at all.
Should we take heed of climate change anyway? Of course, but we must 1) understand how climate changes naturally, 2) stop the arrogance of believing we can manage climate, 3) know the basis of the predictions, 4) know the agenda of those presenting the information, 5) realize the extreme limitations of the data, 6) understand that climate changes significantly all the time.
The last is essential because it is a fundamental change in our view of the world. Science assumes that change is gradual over long periods. A brief look at the climate record shows this is not true.
The November 1989 issue of Scientific American included
a section titled "Not So Hot", in its "Science and the Citizen"
section. The author begins the piece with the following
statement;
When editors and newscasters routinely bandy about the term
"global warming" without bothering to explain it, then the idea
could be said to have entered the body of public knowledge,
accepted by most as immutable fact. Yet the public's acceptance
of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect belies the
fluid nature of the science. The conclusion that the buildup of
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases might lead to
catastrophic warming of the earth's climate continues to generate
debate among scientists.
This is a position I have been postulating publicly for at least ten years. It is only part of the difficulty, but aims at the problem of the social responsibility that scientists who go public must accept.
Public statements by James Hansen of the Godard Space
Institute and others about the global warming of the 1980's
created fear, particularly among farmers who are directly
dependent upon climate. Hansen's (1988) public claim that, "the
global warming is now sufficiently large that we can ascribe with
a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to
the greenhouse effect...", is unacceptable. As others have
attested we simply do not know enough about natural climatic
variability or its mechanisms for such distinctions and
definitive conclusions to be made. Indeed, the latest IPCC report
says as much. As the New York Times noted;
Dr. Wigley and others involved in the reassessment said it is
not yet known how much of the last century's warming can be
attributed to human activity and how much is part of the Earth's
natural fluctuation that leads to ice ages at one extreme and
warm periods at the other.
The case is not made that the warming is due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases. Equally, the case is not made there is an enhanced greenhouse effect because of those gases added by human activity. More important, it masks the important change in the 1980's which is not warming, but the dramatic increase in the variation of climate. Those who favour warming like to point to warmer winters, they choose to ignore the colder winters that we have also experienced. What Hansen also ignores is the degree of social responsibility that comes with public scientific statements.
Consider how Hansen's remarks were interpreted by Senator Wirth at the June 1988 Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere. "According to his (Hansen) studies, we can now say, with 99% certainty, that the greenhouse effect is upon us and that such events as the North American drought are increasingly likely to occur". The greenhouse effect has, in fact, been with us since the very early stages of the evolution of the earth and its atmosphere. Where did the notion come from that it is recently upon us?
There is no argument that the greenhouse effect exists. The average global temperature is approximately 15/ C, without the effect the temperature would be approximately 20/ C. The real question is how much has human activity altered the natural balance thus creating an 'enhanced greenhouse effect'. Wirth's interpretation illustrates ignorance from a person who claims that he was privileged to chair the hearings of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee which Hansen addressed.
Some have acknowledged the problems, but they tend not to be heard by the media, politicians or the public. Hansen claimed recently that the White House had urged that he add a portion to a submission to the United States Senate on the state of the environment. He protested about political pressures and interference, but the addition and request were reasonable. The White House merely noted that not all scientists were in agreement with him and that many other factors need to be considered in the complexity that is climate. It is the type of modification of unproven definitive statements that any reviewer could and should request. Unfortunately, we continue to see definitive and inflammatory statements about future climates being presented as absolute and inevitable.
We now have a situation in which the public believe that global warming is going to continue; that it is going to be detrimental to everything and everyone; that all scientists agree with the predictions; that we fully understand the mechanisms that cause climate change. Where does such misinformation begin? How has the data become so misinterpreted? Who or what is responsible? What are the dangers of such a situation?
S.J. Rasool correctly and boldly drew attention to "... the growing problem of how to separate good science from good fiction, especially when the press coverage picks up the latter" in a 1983 editorial in Climatic Change. His warnings need to be restated and emphasized because the hyperbole and selective approaches continue unabated. For example, in his presentation to the Toronto Conference (June, 1988) on The Changing Atmosphere, R. J. Watson presented a theme paper on atmospheric ozone. He listed three basic theories to account for decreased ozone in Antarctica since the late 1970's. These were, human activities adding chemicals; changes in circulation, and solar activity cycles. The first was discussed at length, the second briefly, while the third was completely ignored.
I do not intend to be an apologist for polluters. I concede that some might attempt to use my arguments for that purpose, but it is a risk that must be taken. There is a greater danger in being wrong in the predictions because the polluters will be given the ammunition they seek. The risk of being wrong is even greater for political leaders.
As proof, notice how quickly people asked "Where is the Greenhouse Effect now?" after the cold spells of the winter of 1988/89 or the cool wet summers of 1992 and 1993. The cool wet summer of 1989 in eastern North America changed White House perspectives and caused them to reduce the pressures for tougher environmental regulations.
Some would like to see a total and complete commitment of all our efforts to cleaning up the environment. They would like to see rapid adoption of new policies and laws directed to recovering, conserving, and preserving. They would like to see pursuit and prosecution of those who despoil our world. Unfortunately, the reality is that a majority do not want to sacrifice material wealth. Those with a high living standard do not want to surrender anything and the remainder aspire to improve their standard. Most long for the doomsayers to be wrong. A few live for today and do not care if we destroy the future. The majority realize that we have problems and that something must be done. They are willing to pay for some action to be taken but want it to be directed and limited. They also want it to start with someone else, the "Not in my backyard" (N.I.M.B.Y) phenomenon. The politician is left with the dilemma of responding to the growing concern, but must spend money carefully and selectively on those problems that are considered the worst. They face the N.A.M.E (Not at my expense) syndrome. It means they must be reasonably sure they are tackling the right problems in the right order.
It is not possible to examine all the problems or present all the contrapositions in the debate about global climate. In addition to the earlier comments here are some of the more important points to demonstrate that our knowledge is extremely limited, likely flawed, and unworthy of the absolute predictions being made by so many people. It is particularly disturbing that people with influence on the public, such as David Suzuki, do not seem to be aware of the problems with the predictions of climate. They accept the information that suits their position without question. It might be good media, but it certainly is not good science. Maybe it is why Suzuki's credibility is slipping rapidly.
Some of the major points that need to be considered by any group attempting to understand the situation are:
1. There are large areas of the globe with very few weather stations. The oceans cover 70% of the earth's surface yet there are virtually no stations. Deserts occupy 20% of the land surface, and mountains another 19%, both have very few stations. The polar regions have only recently been explored and are gaps in our database, yet they are apparently crucial to the dynamics of the climate system. The type of data collected is usually very limited and most stations only record temperature, barometric pressure and wind.
Problems also confront Canadian measurements of upper level ozone. Until very recently Canadian measurements were done by beams directed upward from the surface. Evidence suggests that they varied as a function of the amount of dust, gases and other particles, but this has not been fully understood. This problem apparently accounts for a dispute between Canadian and American scientists. U.S. scientists, measured the ozone from U2 planes and satellites and claimed there was no hole in the Arctic ozone while Canadian scientists argued there was one.
Some say we still have enough sample points to determine climate patterns and trends, but this is not the case. We know that different regions can have significantly different climate changes. It is incorrect to assume that a change in one area will be paralleled by similar changes in another area. This variation can be quite extreme. For example, 8400 years ago the boreal forest extended into the western Arctic Islands while most of Ontario was still either under ice. In the 1980's western Canada was above average temperatures while eastern Canada, especially Labrador and Newfoundland were well below average.
2. Instrumental climate records rarely go back more than 100 years. There are some records over 200 years in length but they are mostly in Western Europe. Many of these are not continuous, for example Gordon Manley's 300 year temperature record for south central England is a blend of short records from various locations throughout the area. A few long records are available, but there has been little interest and therefore little research money available for developing them. This lack of interest also applies to reconstructing past climates from other sources.
The public hear reports like "this was the warmest day on record" and usually do not understand that this is only for the official record. As we reconstruct past climates from historical records, treerings and a variety of other sources we realize that climates vary considerably.
We have yet to document most changes of the past, let alone determine the causes of those changes. The Hudson's Bay Company had thermometers and barometers at Churchill, Manitoba in 1768. I have reconstructed daily weather for Churchill and York Factory from 1714 to the present using this information and weather reports from the daily journals. They show significant changes in the weather that occur long before any effects due to human activity. We must explain these natural variations before we can determine what variations are being caused by humans.
3. We do not have a paradigm, or general theory of global climate. Unlike physics which has Newton and Einstein, biology with Darwin's theories of evolution, or Geology with Wegener's continental drift, climatology has not achieved a synthesis of the major mechanisms of climate. During this preparadigm stage there is a tendency to look for one variable which controls the whole mechanism, thus we see the focus upon single factors such as carbon dioxide, methane, El Nino and many others.
We do not know all the natural factors that makeup or control climate or cause its variations. We do not understand how they interact. We do not know how variables change in their importance in a dynamic system. A variable that is insignificant at one level might be crucial at a different threshold. As Bucha (1988) expressed it, "...if we want to read an anthropogenic effect we have to be able to define the background of natural processes and the way in which the global environmental system operates."
A puzzling situation is the view of climatologists and
meteorologists about solar energy. It is still assumed that solar
energy does not vary. Consider the following statement;
remarkable in a scientific journal.
"Serious" meteorologists still prefer to dismiss any claim
that there is a noticeable relationship between the activity of
the Sun and events on Earth. And yet, to our own surprise, we
have found a highly significant correlation between the state of
the atmosphere and solar activity. (Van Loon and Labitzke,
1988)
Why do the authors present such an apologia? Why is it so startling to find that changes in the sun might have significant effect upon global climate? The answer is that we continue to believe that solar output is constant and that any variations are negligible with little effect. This is hard to understand. It has been estimated that temperature variation for the entire history of the earth can be accounted for by a 6% variation in solar electromagnetic output.
The same assumption of solar constancy has been applied to the ozone layer. It is accepted that ozone is created by photochemical interaction between ultraviolet radiation from the sun and gases in the upper atmosphere. If you assume that solar energy is constant you are left with no choice but to conclude that any variation you measure must be caused by something coming from below. An article in the January 1988 issue of Scientific American examines the Antarctic ozone hole and concedes the method of formation of ozone. It never considers solar variation as a factor to explain variation in ozone even though we know that the sun was very active in the 1980's.
4. We only consider heat and light, the electromagnetic spectrum, output from the nuclear reactor which is the sun. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the climate is modified by corpuscular energy (the solar wind) from the sun as well as by electromagnetic or radiative energy. Research in a variety of disciplines shows that the Canadian Indian's lore that appearance of the aurora borealis foretold climate changes has some validity. The relationship between sunspots, solar flares and the earth's magnetic field is gradually being measured and explained. The November 1995 issue of Scientific American reviews the results of recent satellite measurements of solar output. One scientist concluded that the Ulysses data confirm some of what we expected, but more than 50 percent of our models were wrong. None of this is included in any general circulation models of global climate currently in use.
The evidence gathered so far suggests that when the sun is
very active the world is warm and when it is inactive the world
is colder. A study by Bucha (1988) is one of the more recent in
this area:
Our results have shown the increase in temperature and
pressure to take place in the auroral oval even in the
troposphere at the time of increased corpuscular radiation
indicated by geomagnetic activity and to lead to the change of
the meridional flow into the zonal flow of the atmospheric
circulation in the midlatitudes on the northern
hemisphere.
The results of the correlations between variations in
corpuscular radiation and northern hemisphere climate were
that;
During enhanced corpuscular radiation the cyclogenesis
increases and a deep low is created in the polar region. This
leads to the intensification of the zonal flow, causing a
pronounced increase in temperature in Europe and eastern North
America. When the corpuscular radiation displays a marked
decrease, meridional flow again increases in intensity and Arctic
air penetrates into Europe and North America, where this is then
reflected in an abrupt drop in temperature.
Two classic examples of this pattern in history can be cited. The period from 1645 to 1715 A.D., is known as the Maunder Minimum, a reference to the lack of sunspots during the period. The same period was coincidentally one of extreme cold. For example, the Thames River had 60 cm of ice in 1683.
A conference on the climate of the year 1816 A.D., at the National Museum of Natural Sciences in 1988 brought together dozens of climate experts. Most came to the conference with the belief that this exceptionally cold "year with no summer" was a result of the volcanic eruption of the volcano Tambora in the preceding year. It became apparent that the cooling began about 10 years previously and the volcano happened to occur at the nadir of a 20 year colder period. This 20 years was also coincident with low sunspot activity.
Notice that I do not argue for cyclical climate due to sunspot activity, I simply point out that the coincidence between certain solar activity and temperatures on earth must be explained before we attribute the current warming only to carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases. The sun has been very active in the 1980's as reported in many scientific journals and to the public in Time magazine of July 1989.
5. The current predictions of warming in the next 100 years are based on simple linear projections of the trend of the last ten years. It is assumed that because it apparently warmed for the last ten years it will continue to warm. Most attribute this to increased carbon dioxide. Important facts are ignored, such as the decline in global temperature between 1940 and 1980, even though carbon dioxide increased. The fact that temperature has been increasing since approximately 1760 A.D., and had been cooling for some 300 years before that. It is simply not valid to take a trend of 10 years or even 100 years out of the overall record.
The cool period from approximately 1450 to 1850 is known as
the Little Ice Age. Idso (1988) asked if the warming since 1760
is a result of the demise of the Little Ice Age or carbon dioxide
warming. The summary to his article expresses the problem
succinctly.
A comparative analysis of longterm
(severalhundredyear) temperature and carbon dioxide
(CO2) trends suggests that the global warming of the
past century is not due to the widely accepted CO2
greenhouse effect but rather to the natural recovery of the Earth
from the global chill of the Little Ice Age, which was both
initiated and ended by some unrelated phenomenon, the latter
expression of which is the very warming generally attributed to
the CO2 increase of the past century
We need to explain changes of the past before we start attributing current changes to specific factors. The failure to put things into a philosophic and historic context is a major failure of our society, not just climatologists.
6. Global Circulation Models (GCMs) are based upon our very crude understanding of the mechanics of the atmosphere. They are mathematical models that interconnect over twenty smaller formula of different components of the earth's ocean/atmosphere, the problem is we don't know how these interact in nature.
They are limited by the capacity of computers which are unable to handle all but the most simple variables. For example, the most sophisticated model cannot cope with a complete full depth ocean/atmosphere interaction. None of the models can cope with any feedback that would naturally occur in the real world system. Partly because the computer capacity is inadequate, but also because we do not know how the feedbacks would work.
More disturbing, most models predict that a warming of 1/C should have occurred over the last 100 years. The actual increase has been approximately a half degree. The latest IPCC report said that this was corrected when they included sulfate from human pollution. Maybe, but does this mean that it is the cause? Not very likely, it just maintains the argument that the change is caused by humans. Despite this, most scientists continue to accept the prediction of global warming, while the public receive it as incontrovertible. One of the most confirmed Greenhouse people, Dr. Stephen Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, concedes "Most climatologists do not yet claim beyond a reasonable doubt that the observed temperature records have been caused by the greenhouse effect."
A major problem is that the models are based on the limited
amount of data discussed earlier. A model is only as good as our
measurements and understanding of the atmosphere. The level of
accuracy is crude because models can only handle a world divided
into approximately 5/ squares of latitude and longitude. At this
scale two squares almost cover the southern prairies and yet we
know that the climate varies considerably in this area. The Great
Lakes are considered to be dry land. A dedicated modeler concedes
the problems.
These model validation studies show that, although the GCMs
are the only type of model in the climate model hierarchy that
can simulate climate on the regional scale, they do so not
without error, particularly for the components of the
hydrological cycle such as precipitation. Therefore, further
improvement in the simulation of CO2induced
climatic change requires the systematic analyses of the factors
that contribute to the errors in the models' simulation of the
present climate, and the subsequent correction of those errors.
(Schlesinger, 1987, p. 42)
A study by Santer (1988) published by the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, tested the validity of the three major General Circulation Models. He states; "It is generally accepted that current GCMs show considerable disagreement in terms of important regional and seasonal details of their control run climatologies...". In an attempt to test the validity of the models against known climatic conditions Santer tested their ability to recreate conditions for the North American Atlantic European region. His results showed, "All three GCMs have large, systematic errors throughout the seasonal cycle in their simulation of AH/IL (Azores High, Icelandic Low) position and intensity, and all generate an unrealistic 'Greenland High'". These are major global pressure systems and should be reproduced accurately if the computer model is working. Clearly they are not.
The disturbing part is that these models are the ones being used to make the predictions of global warming that the world is taking for incontrovertible fact. There are five models considered to be state of the art. They are all based on the same simplistic assumptions of climate mechanisms and use essentially the same data and yet they produce totally different results and predictions. Some will argue that they are consistent in predicting a continued global warming. Of course! They are programmed to respond to an increase in carbon dioxide with a rise in temperature. It would be most surprising if they did not predict a rise. What they cannot do is simulate the reactions and feedbacks that would occur in nature.
Modelers argue that the results are qualitatively similar, overlooking the fact that the results are quantitatively dissimilar. They disagree dramatically in the degree of temperature change and how different areas will be affected. Precipitation predictions are more complex and therefore even more imprecise and yet precipitation is a more critical variable for agriculture, forestry and many other activities.
There is a place and a need to create models of climate. Problems arise when they are taken out of the laboratory and presented to the public as accurate predictors of future climates. I know from conversations with many government researchers using these models that they are unaware of the limitations. The difficulty is that they are the only models available and the Minister wants definitive answers.
7. We have been told that global warming is potentially catastrophic and most people have accepted that position. The world has been as warm in the past as the generally accepted predictions suggest and yet few have examined what happened during those times. The general answer is that only one region of the world would be severely damaged by warming and that is the western United States. Time magazine for October, 1987, acknowledges this point; their cover story concedes that Canadian agriculture could boom because of warmer climates, while the U.S. Midwest became a dust bowl. The major impact would be upon their agricultural capacity which has dominated the world in the post war period. It would aggravate their water supply problems, but those are in trouble regardless of climate change.
Actually most regions are better off with a warmer world. This statement is supported by a quick glance at history. The world was warmer from approximately 900 to 1200 A.D. than all global warming predictions. It was a golden age for most regions, consider the expansion of the Vikings as one example. Toward the end of the warmer period the U.S. Midwest became drier to the detriment of the Anassazi civilizations. Canadian aboriginal societies were better off, in fact the evidence is that the Anassazi migrated north to what is now Canada.
The reason for this pattern of warm climate impact is understood by a glance at a world map. The desert regions of the world generally lie between 15 and 30/ of latitude. When the world warms this zone expands pole ward, when it cools the zone narrows. The most significant place where this has direct impact is in the western part of the United States. More recent studies for Western Canada indicate there would be an increase in precipitation. The net effect would be about the same due to increased evapotranspiration. It is not true there would be more droughts. Studies show that these relate to a 22 year sunspot cycle, therefore it is unlikely that they would increase in frequency.
I am amused by scientists telling people on the Prairies that they are facing desert conditions in the next forty years. Something that occurred during a debate I had with two other scientists in Saskatoon. When I challenged one scientist to identify a region of the United States that currently has the type of climate that southern Saskatchewan would experience. I was told that South Dakota was appropriate. South Dakota is one of the major agricultural regions of the world. I failed to see the problem, as did the farmers present. The real problem would be that South Dakota would have a climate similar to Arizona.
Canada, Europe, the Soviet Union and China would all benefit from a warmer world as their capacity for agriculture and other activities would expand. The only limit would be the northern extent of soils. There would be little or no change in the southern hemisphere as there is little land south of 40 degrees.
It has been the history of climate change that one region gains while another loses. Unfortunately, we live in a world dominated by American science and media thus we have been convinced that warming is negative. We must examine the source as well as the message.
8. Most attention is on carbon dioxide as the greenhouse gas that is causing climate change. More recently attention has focused on methane, but it has not caught the attention of science or the media in the same way. It is difficult to understand why water vapour is ignored. Greenpeace acknowledge this in their book Global Warming: The Greenpeace Report: water vapour, because of its abundance, is by far the most important natural greenhouse gas. They then ignore it completely. It makes up approximately 2% of the atmospheric gases and can be as much as 4%, while carbon dioxide is only 0.035%. We know the effectiveness of water in retaining heat as we measure the temperature differences between clear or cloudy nights. At Insalah in Algeria the temperature went from 52.5/C to 3.6/C in less than 16 hours because of the lack of water vapour in the desert. We know little about the amount of water in the atmosphere, or if it is increasing or decreasing, therefore it is assumed to be constant. Cloud cover has increased in the last thirty years so it is possibly increasing.
Why does Greenpeace ignore their own graph that shows carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels have leveled off since 1979? Why did global temperatures decline between 1940 and 1979 when carbon dioxide from human sources increased the most? So many questions so few answers. So much selectivity by the extremists or those advancing careers. It is said that the bane of science is a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact.
Recent studies in Alberta and Southern California indicate that trees grow more rapidly as the carbon dioxide levels rise. The global biomass would undoubtedly increase thus absorbing some of the increased carbon dioxide. There are a multitude of other feedback mechanisms factors not being considered, however it is common sense to reduce human produced gases to save money or reduce demand on supply, not just the Greenhouse gases.
9. We have very little data of the actual conditions in the different layers of the earth's atmosphere. The percentage of gases in each level, how they interact with each other, and with energy or matter passing through them, are not understood. We know virtually nothing about the amounts of dust in the atmosphere and again assume that the levels are relatively constant.
The concept that volcanoes could affect climate has only been examined with scientific intensity since the 1970's. We have learned that many of the early assumptions about their impact were wrong. For example, we now know that latitude, time of year and the amount of sulphur are all important in the degree and extent of the climatic impact.
Beardsley (1989) identifies the problems when he
writes;
As investigators refine the computer models on which global
climate predictions are based, some estimates of probable warming
are being lowered. Moreover, new data suggest that human activity
may influence climate in ways that have previously been
neglected.
Items 1 and 2 pointed out the lack of spatial and temporal data but we must also consider the depth of the atmosphere. There is not space here to consider the difficulties posed by the lack of information about the structure of the upper atmosphere and how different layers interact. It is increasingly clear that we must understand the magnetosphere and all other layers down to the surface as each has a function in climate at the surface.
10. Ocean currents, particularly those of the deep ocean, are little understood and virtually unmeasured. We believe that large amounts of heat energy can be stored for millennia but do not consider these in explaining climate variation. Extremely large polynyas, areas of up welling of warm water, have been discovered in the arctic and antarctic. Some apparently can release sufficient heat to alter the global climate.
El Nino is touted as the newest climate fad. Few know that the dominant situation is called, La Nina. Both are presented to the public as something new, yet they were reported by the Spanish over 400 years ago and they learned about them from the Incas. Questions the public ask me indicate that they believed that this was some new phenomenon that was a result of global warming. Surface ocean currents are generated by the wind, therefore they are initially an effect not a cause of climate change as many, including Environment Canada, have argued. They in turn affect the climate in their latitudes, however it is incorrect to say they are the cause of climate changes elsewhere. Recent research indicates they vary as the quasibiennial oscillation (QBO) changes. It varies with changes in the upper atmosphere. These are the surprising correlations reported by Van Loon and Labitzke above. Tinsley (1988) found similar correlations between the QBO and the latitude of storm tracks in the North Atlantic.
11. Finally, most of the experts who now are convinced that we are headed to heated disaster were of a different opinion a few years ago. A National Defense University (NDU) study in 1978 asked 28 experts what they understood would happen to global climate in the next 40 years. Only 5 believed there would be global warming. At that time everybody was talking about the coming ice age. Deep snow in Buffalo and other bad weather conditions triggered the exodus to the Sunbelt.
A book was published in 1976 by Lowell Ponte titled The Cooling. A foreword by Senator Claiborne Pell states that Ponte's thesis is based on, "...the natural cooling of our planet's climate since 1945...". In the preface Professor Reid Bryson, Climatologist and Director of the Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin writes, "One would think there might be consensus about what data there is but there is not. There is no agreement on the causes of climatic change...There is certainly no agreement about what the climate will do in the next century..." The situation is not much better today. Ponte coined the word climatocracy. It refers to the ability of nations to produce food and the impact of cooling on the ability of nations to produce foodstuffs. Government agencies in the United States , including the CIA, did similar studies.
Now we are off in the other direction with precious little more information, but much greater public hysteria and misinformation rushing us to judgment. It will be difficult to remain calm and assess the situation. Many will argue that we cannot risk delay, that we cannot use the planet as a laboratory. I agree, but with limited willingness to pay for the cleanup and the need to be fair to underdeveloped countries we have to make the most informed and logical decisions. This will not be achieved without understanding the situation as it exists. It must include the scientific facts, some level of understanding of the natural mechanisms, and a balance between the various environmental problems that confront us.
I emphasize once again that I do not condone pollution of any
sort. I am a firm advocate of the move to reduction in any uses
or demands we place on our environment. We must spurn appeasement
and take remedial measures to offset damage already done.
However, we must ensure that science does not abandon its
principles. We must ensure that we make the right decisions, as
much as is humanly possible. We must also acknowledge the reality
of human nature that says it wants to change the situation but is
not willing to pay the price.
Sir Edward Bullard said there are no specialists of earth, we all dig our specialized holes and sit in them. One of the great dangers of specialization is that you tend to lose sight of the whole picture. The plethora of data and the jargon in each specialization makes it increasingly difficult to read and understand in other disciplines. Most climatologists do not read the journals of solar physics or any other subject. They usually only read those articles that directly relate to their own special area of interests even in their own journals.
Most are unaware of the studies of the impact of climate change or how various segments of the community are affected by climate. They are even less aware of the impact of public statements made by climatologists. For example, a measure of the concern was demonstrated in the Saskatoon debate that I referred to earlier which attracted 650 farmers from up to 300 km away.
I would like to say that the atmosphere is the most severe and immediate problem and that all the monies should be directed to climate research. I do not believe that this is true. There are atmospheric pollution problems and they likely will get progressively worse, however, the atmosphere is volatile and dynamic and would respond much quicker to remedial action than a problem such as toxicity in our water or soil.
A greater climate concern for Canada would be a cooler world. We operate at the northern limit of sedentary agriculture and could not adjust to cooler conditions very easily. For example, a half degree decline in Manitoba's average annual temperature would eliminate corn and threaten sunflowers. A year like 1816 would be devastating for the northern hemisphere, but especially for Canada.
We should establish a policy that prepares for current or cooler conditions. Warmer conditions would require very little adjustment, as Louise Arthur outlines in her study on the impact of global warming on Prairie agriculture. If the climate cools and we have prepared then we will be able to adjust. It is not a 'no lose' strategy, but it is better than preparing for warmer conditions.
I believe that the single largest problem facing the world is soil erosion. This is followed by toxicity in our water and then toxicity in our soil. In the spring of 1995 the United Nations issued a report putting soil erosion at the top of the list yet it received no media coverage at all. If we deal with these problems, that we know about, we would achieve the added benefit of cleaning up much of the atmospheric problem.
Soil erosion and alkalinity buildup have been the problems
that have undermined most agricultural based societies in the
past. We are apparently no different. We need to understand what
makes us continue to destroy the source of our sustenance. Plato
wrote of the erosion that followed the cutting down of the
forests; "...what is left now is, so to say, the skeleton of a
body wasted by disease; the rich, soft soil has been carried off
and only the bare framework of the district left." He elaborated
on this as it affected water;
...the soil got the benefit of the yearly "water from Zeus,"
which was not lost, as it is today, by running off a barren
ground to the sea; a plentiful supply of it was received into the
soil and stored up in the layers of nonporous potter's clay. Thus
the moisture absorbed in the higher regions percolated to the
hollows and so all quarters were lavishly provided with springs
and rivers.
I can provide endless quotations including those of Alexander Mackenzie or John Palliser who noted the erosion and sediment problems of prairie lakes. The point is, we have known of the problems but fail to do anything to resolve them. For example, in some ways PFRA has forgotten its mandate, etched out by the droughts and conditions of the 1930's. This type failure is at the basis of my recommendations.
We have to dispel the incorrect 19th century notion that primitive peoples have done what is right by the environment. If you study these societies you discover that man has always used, abused, and polluted his environment and then starved or migrated to new areas when its carrying capacity was reduced. We continue to starve in many parts of the world, the difference now is that we have little potential for migration. Also, there are many more of us to destroy the environment. Technology allows us to do the job with greater efficiency. Once we dispel this myth we have a chance to establish policies that take the true nature of humans into account. It is not innate in us to do what is right by the environment. We must establish policy that directs behavior. It must be primarily positive but should include retribution for those who do not follow the regulations. Strategies for medium and longterm methods, systems, and policies should be developed.
The major vehicle for change must be the incentive of the tax structure. I did not believe that a government was serious about cleaning up the environment as long as leaded fuel cost more than unleaded. A stroke of the tax pen changed the pattern of use. Those with cars burning leaded fuel could receive tax relief if they traded on a new unleaded burning car.
We have not examined or exploited the potential of the tax structure to direct environmental policy. I have no expertise in this area, but clearly it is the instrument that should be used most. For example, the individual farmer would retain potholes if there was a reward for doing so. A citizen would trade in an old pollution producing, energy inefficient vehicle if tax incentives for the price difference were introduced. It is a concept that must be introduced at the international level to offset the current policies of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs and the Free Trade Agreement that might lead to continued pollution of our global environment.
I believe private industry is the most efficient vehicle to resolve the environmental problems. I do not believe they have a social conscious they respond to profit potential, but they have never pretended otherwise. It is up to government to make it profitable to cleanup the environment. Using this philosophy, governments of the past have used cash prizes as a method for encouraging solution of specific problems. Governments should examine the possibility of offering rewards, beyond those of the marketplace, for those who solve defined problems. We have not tapped into the potential of individuals to solve some of our problems.
Finally, I believe that government should reduce its involvement in research. Government should concern itself with collecting data, monitoring conditions and ensuring that regulations are followed. The data gathered should be made available to anyone who needs it, at cost if necessary. The research being done by government agencies should be directed towards private operations by a new tax structure and carried out under contract where necessary. It does not eliminate politics from research, but it is less likely than with government research.
Few of these changes are possible in the current climate of
environmental hysteria. Management requires as many facts as
possible. It also requires a calm, objective space to be
implemented, this definitely does not exist at present.
From 1940 to 1980 the world had good conditions in the grain growing regions of the world. New technology, better seeds and increasing use of fertilizers led to increased yields and expanding economies. The global war was over and economies were growing in many parts of the world. In 1976 the climate started to change, with increasing fluctuations and unpredictable conditions. This was aggravated by the return of drought conditions around 1980 or 1981, depending on the region.
Legitimate concerns about the environment were placing increasing pressure on politicians. Each new issue led to demands for action as more and more problems were supposedly uncovered. This did not stop as extremists amplified by the media turned scientific speculation into prediction.
Some issues have been identified with a degree of certainty, most have not. Among the latter is the issue of global warming. The proponents have raised the pressure by arguing that we cannot delay. The rate of collapse is such that we must make decisions now or it will be too late. I disagree. There should be no rush to judgment. Even if we accept the arguments that global warming is a reality and potentially a serious problem, recent revisions of the timetable of warming suggests serious thresholds will not be reached for the next 50 to 70 years. Consider what has happened in the last 70 years and then think what changes will occur in the future. I have always held that problems are only problems if you are not aware of them. Once you are aware you can start to define the problem and take remedial action.
We must recognize that atmospheric problems will usually,
respond quickly to changes in our activities. The problems of
soil erosion and toxicity will take much longer and need greater
effort and must have priority. Fortunately, by dealing with these
problems we will also alter many of the conditions that can cause
atmospheric decline.
Beardsley, T., 1989, "Not So Hot, New studies Question Estimates of Global Warming", Scientific American November, 1719.
Bucha, V., 1988, "Influence of Solar Activity on Atmospheric Circulation Types", Annales Geophysicae 6, (5), 513524.
Eddy, J.A., 1977, "The Case of the Missing Sunspots", Scientific American 230, 8092.
Global Warming; The Greenpeace Report. Ed. Jeremy Leggett, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1990.
Hansen, J., 1989, Presentation to the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space. "Modeling Greenhouse Climate Effects".
Hansen, J., Johnson, D., Lacis, A., Lebendoff, S., Lee, P., Tind, P., and Russell, G., 1981, "Climatic Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Science, 213, 957.
Hargrove, E.C., 1989, Foundations of Environmental Ethics Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Herman, J.R., and R.A. Goldberg, 1978, Sun, Weather and Climate, NASA Sp426.
Idso, S.B., 1988, "Greenhouse Warming or Little Ice Age Demise: A Critical Problem for Climatology", Theoretical Applied Climatology 39, 5456.
Labitzke, K., 1987, "Sunspots, the QBO, and the Stratospheric Temperature in the North Pole Region", Geophysical Research Letter 14, 535537.
Labitzke, K., and H. van Loon, 1988, "Associations Between the 11 year Solar Cycle, the QBO and the Atmosphere. Part 1: The Troposphere and Stratosphere of the Northern Hemisphere in Winter", Journal of Atmospheric Terrestrial Physics, 50, 197 211.
Ponte, L., 1976, The Cooling PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Santer, B, 1988, Regional Validation of General Circulation Models Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, CRU RP9.
Schlesinger, M.E., 1987, "Model Projections of the Equilibrium and Transient Climatic Changes Induced by Increased Atmospheric CO2" Proceedings of the Impact of Climate Variability and Change on the Canadian Prairies, Alberta Research Council, 149.
Schneider, S., 1989, Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.
Shirley, J.H., 1988, "When the Sun Goes Backward: Solar Motion, Volcanic Activity and Climate, 19902000", Cycles May/June, 113119.
Tinsley, B., 1988, "The Solar Cycle and the QBO Influences on the Latitude of Storm Tracks in the North Atlantic", Geophysical Research Letter, 15, 409412.
World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford.