The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity

by Simmons, Allen

  While it is true that warmer temperatures and wetter weather may be beneficial to some pests, they also favor the natural predators that feed on them. If natural pests have been spreading across the world in recent years, it is more likely the result of invasive species (page 102). Around the world Formosan termites, African bees, fire ants, kudzu and zebra mussels are on the rise. This can be blamed on human beings, but not on global warming.

  The IPCC admits that rising levels of CO2 and increased precipitation can lead to increased global food production. This is projected for temperature rises of 1-3°C, which are most probable. This prediction comes with medium confidence—a 50/50 chance of being correct. William Kininmonth, speaking at a global warming debate at the University of Tasmania, summed up the situation saying, “In the context of pestilence, famine and warfare it is ludicrous to suggest that global warming might be considered the biggest threat that humankind faces in the 21st century.” We agree. Even with six and a half billion people on the planet, there is more than enough food to feed us all. The harder problem is distributing that food to the hungry around the world. Famine, at least famine caused by global warming, doesn't seem to be a problem.

  When examined in detail, all the predictions of disaster prove false—exaggerations seized on by activists and the media. The ocean will not rise suddenly, there will be no abnormal increase in hurricanes and tornadoes, and species will die out no faster because of global warming. The level of misery in the world due to plague, pestilence and famine will not increase. There are even indications that the warming may be beneficial.

  A Sudden Shock to the System

  Faced with a diminishing prospect of catastrophic temperature rise, environmental alarmists have come up with something new to terrify the public. The new terror is the threat of a sudden halt of the “ocean conveyor belt,” casting the northern hemisphere into a sudden ice age. A mechanism that can cause large sudden change, triggered without notice by minute changes in temperature, is called a tipping point.

  While a number of “tipping points” have been postulated, the one that gets the most attention is a shutdown of the ocean current that moderates temperatures in northern Europe. This theory was first proposed by Wally Broecker to explain the onset of the Younger Dryas cold snap at the beginning of the Holocene (page 144). There is good evidence for periods of rapid climate change linked to the ocean thermohaline circulation, also known as the meridional overturning current (MOC). But there are a number of reasons to think that such circulation shutdowns are not as easy to trigger as the alarmists suppose.

  The proposed cause of the Dryas periods is the sudden dumping of huge quantities of fresh water into northern ocean regions. There is geological and climate proxy data that support this hypothesis. Along with Lake Agassiz, which triggered the Younger Dryas by emptying into the Arctic sea, evidence pointing to the existence of other glacial lakes has been found. Geologist J. Harlen Bretz, theorized that titanic floods, originating at a colossal lake in the area of Montana, were responsible for etching the Channeled Scablands of eastern Washington state. First proposed in 1923, Bretz's theory took decades to gain acceptance, but today, the existence of glacial Lake Missoula, and other ice-dammed bodies of freshwater at the end of the last glacial period, is widely held. Part of the supporting evidence consists of sand beds hundreds of feet thick, a thousand miles off the northern Pacific coast, carried there by the flood waters.

  Ice-dammed glacial lakes releasing huge floods are now seen to be a normal part of the transition from glacial to interglacial conditions. High-resolution sonar images of the English channel have revealed a deep scar in the seafloor limestone. It is thought that a torrent of water, 400,000 years ago, sliced through a natural chalk ridge at what is now the Dover straits, forming the English Channel.512 Prior to this event, England's southern coast was reachable from France by a broad land bridge. A similar flood widened and deepened the Channel during the Eemian interglacial, 125,000 years ago. Given the magnitude of these cataclysmic events, it is understandable that they could disrupt normal ocean circulation. And that is the point—there are no gigantic, ice-dammed glacial lakes on Earth today, waiting to trigger a sudden shift in climate.

  All the solid examples of ocean current disruption are related to significant forcing events. The conditions necessary to cause such disruptions do not exist today. Recent studies have found that the thermohaline circulation is much more robust than previously thought. Evidence has been found that the MOC diminished significantly during the depths of the Pleistocene, but did not stop. The ocean conveyor belt still functioned with a third of the planet covered with ice. At the end of the previous glacial period, Earth's climate resumed its warming trend, despite several, sudden shocks to the system. According to the IPCC, no climate models predict “an abrupt reduction or shut-down.”513 Those who claim that disruption of the MOC can occur suddenly without a major trigger event, and that such disruptions cause “irreversible” climate change, are on very shaky ground.

  Climate scientists fear that the Arctic has entered an “irreversible” phase of warming. They believe global warming is melting Arctic sea ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating. The loss of highly reflective sea ice, which has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years, is another form of tipping point. Yet Earth has been ice-free in the past and has returned time and again to frozen ice age conditions.

  Other tipping points involve thawing Siberian peat bogs, bleaching coral reefs, and a release of methane from the ocean floors. Some reports say the tipping point has been passed and others say it is ten years in the future. There is scant scientific evidence to support any of these claims. A sudden, catastrophic event is always possible—Earth's past is littered with them. Such events could happen again, mankind has no control over them. Add meteor strikes, the Sun suddenly swelling, and a Corillian death ray514 to the list of Chicken Little scenarios. Such claims are more science fiction than science.

  Global Warming Summarized

  After examining the science, the IPCC's claims and predictions, and the possible impact realistic levels of global warming could have on our world, we conclude that there is no imminent threat—not to nature, people or human civilization. While it is possible that there will be continued mild warming in the future, this may not come to pass. Our climate may take a turn for the colder—no one really knows (those who claim they do are lying). Earth is still in an ice age, and will remain in an ice age until all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica have melted. This has happened before and will happen again, with or without the meddling of Homo sapiens. Weather patterns will continue to shift, ocean levels will change, storms will come and go, species will go extinct. In short, things will go on as they always have on planet Earth. If humanity wishes to survive, it must take a lesson from the penguin and the polar bear—adapt.

  Given the probable moderate level of temperature rise between now and 2100, we can expect milder winters, extended growing seasons, more precipitation and a few inches of sea level increase. Most of these changes will be beneficial to mankind, while those that are not, like sea level increase, can be handled with modest expenditures and a bit of forethought. The Netherlands is already planning to update their ocean dikes to deal with any increase in sea level.

  It is amusing how those who dislike technology and science the most also attribute technological civilization with powers far greater than it possesses. Humanity does not control Earth's climate. We do have an impact on the ecosystem, as do termites, blue-green algae and every other life-form on Earth. Pollution is an ongoing problem, and that includes the reckless consumption of fossil fuels that releases vast quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. But the truly global, earthshaking changes to our climate are beyond our control. With all the talk about human-caused global environmental disaster, it's worth remembering that the real glo
bal disasters—the mass extinctions and ice ages—had geological and astronomical, not environmental, causes. We can certainly be better stewards of our planet, but this irrational, anti-technology panic must cease—before we do the planet, and ourselves, serious harm.

  The actions proposed by the IPCC and other international organizations would not only be ineffectual, they come with a high monetary and human cost. Bjørn Lomborg, former director of Denmark's Environmental Assessment Institute, has estimated that, if Kyoto was fully implemented, fewer than 4,000 people would be saved from premature deaths due to higher temperatures. Noting that the media rants about heat-deaths, while ignoring the larger problem of deaths caused by cold weather, Lomborg summarized the cost of Kyoto this way:

  “We cannot just change the thermostat where temperature impact is on the whole negative. We also end up changing it in all the other places—in the United States, Europe, Russia, China, and India. Here the effect of Kyoto on lives lost directly from temperature impacts would mean an increase in deaths of about 88,000 annually. Thus, to save four thousand people in the developing world, we end up sacrificing more than $1 trillion, and eighty thousand people. Bad Deal.”515

  The human-caused global warming crisis, while it is not a crisis, should serve as a wake-up call for our civilization. Carbon dioxide emissions could become a major problem in the future if we don't take corrective measures starting today. But there are other forms of pollution that are as important to global warming and more damaging overall than CO2.

  Aerosols and other emissions are rapidly degrading the environment in large portions of the developing world. Development and slash-and-burn agriculture destroys ecosystems. Deforestation and destruction of ocean habitat diminish nature's capability to sequester CO2 released into the atmosphere. All of these problems can be directly linked to ongoing human development, particularly in the poorer parts of the world. As the less developed nations catch up with the developed nations, the only humane way to ease the environmental impact is to develop affordable, clean energy technologies.

  It is time we get serious about the true pending crisis—the worldwide energy shortages that will soon be upon us. Because that is what this crisis is really all about, energy. This will become very clear in the next two chapters, when we present the IPCC's mitigation strategies and then our own suggestions for the future.

  This is a problem that cannot be solved by panicky immediate action, no matter how drastic. Only rational, long-term planning will preserve the environment and secure humanity's future. The best immediate course of action an individual can take is to tell the grasping politicians, the fruitcakes and fanatics, where to get off. In the meantime, treat the recent warming in global temperatures as it should be treated—as a blessing. In the words of author, Orson Scott Card,516 “‘global warming’ is just another term for ‘good weather.’”

  Mitigation Strategies

  “Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”

  — Carl Sagan

  Though the future impact of global warming will not be as devastating as the prophets of doom would have us believe, it does not mean humanity is off the hook. Our species does have an affect on climate and ecology of Earth. It is in our best interest to take care of the planet we live on. What is the best path forward? We will start by examining the IPCC's proposed actions to reduce human-caused greenhouse gases—in IPCC speak, these actions are called mitigation strategies.

  The IPCC Suggestions

  The suggestions made by the IPCC are contained in the Summary for Policy Makers report generated by Working Group III. According to the report, stabilization of atmospheric GHG levels is possible at a reasonable cost. The IPCC states that to achieve significant GHG reductions would require a “large shift in the pattern of investment, although the net additional investment required ranges from negligible to 5-10%.” We think this is a significant understatement of the total cost, if all the proposed strategies are implemented.

  The IPCC estimates that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases between 445-535 ppm CO2 equivalent would result in a reduction of average annual GDP growth rates of less than 0.12%. If stabilized at 535 to 590 ppm, would reduce average annual GDP growth rates by 0.1%, while stabilization at 590 to 710 ppm would reduce rates by 0.06%.517

  They also concluded that it is often more cost-effective to invest in energy efficiency improvement than in increasing energy supply. Energy conservation through improved efficiency has been talked about for decades. This was suggested by President Jimmy Carter as a fix for the energy “crisis” of the late 1970s.

  The specific suggestions made by the IPCC in the AR4 Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) are shown in Table 9. Listed are the key mitigation technologies and practices identified by the IPCC to help slow the advance of human-caused global warning. Note that these are the short-term, immediate strategies. The strategies suggested for the year 2030 are all based on speculative technologies, so we will ignore them for now. This table is taken from the SPM report.

  Table 9: The IPCC AR4 mitigation strategies.

  There are a number of suggestions in the IPCC report that are eminently sensible; higher fuel economy using hybrids, more efficient airplanes, replacing incandescent lighting with fluorescent or LED based lighting, use of co-generation and more efficient building design are all reasonable things to pursue. However, most of these steps will take time as new, more efficient technology replaces older, worn out units, be they lights, cars, household appliances, or airplanes.

  There are several energy sources mentioned in the report that, though they get great press coverage, won't prove very effective in curbing global warming. These sources can be broken into two broad categories; alternative fuels for transportation and renewable energy for generating electricity.

  Biofuels

  Foremost among the greener alternatives for transportation are biofuels, mainly ethanol and biodiesel. As popular as these “carbon neutral” fuels are with the media and corn belt politicians, they promise much more than they can deliver. In 2005, global ethanol production was 9.66 billion gallons, of which Brazil produced 45.2 percent and the United States 44.5 percent. American output of ethanol, based primarily on corn (maize), is rising by 30% a year. In 2006, the United States produced about 6 billion gallons of ethanol. World leader Brazil is pushing ahead as fast as it can with the expansion of its sugarcane crop, from which its ethanol is made. China has built the world's biggest ethanol plant, and plans more. Global production of biodiesel, made mostly from oilseeds, was almost one billion gallons in 2005. In Europe, Germany is the biggest producer of biodiesel, with output expanding 40-50% a year. Even so, there are problems with biofuels.

  In 2006, corn was grown on 70 million acres in the US. If the entire corn crop was converted to ethanol, the amount produced would replace only 12% of US gasoline consumption. Unfortunately, only about 20 percent of each gallon of ethanol made from corn is “new” energy because current ethanol plants use fossil fuels to power part of the production process. As a result, the energy gained would be very small—the equivalent of less than 9 days of oil imports. Car tune-ups and proper tire air pressure would save more energy.518 Biofuel proponents' solution to the marginal energy contribution is to put more land into production. Even if biofuel production could be expanded enough to make a significant dent in fossil fuel use, there is an environmental cost.

  Since the corn crop is already used for human food and animal feed, the rapid expansion of biofuels proposed by some will mean that large tracts of land will have to be converted to agricultural use. The most fertile lands are already dedicated to food production, so the acreage used to grow biofuel feedstock will be lower yielding marginal land. The land that would be used is currently natural grassland or forest, which would have to be cleared before planting, further diminishing the carbon reduction effect of biofuels. Increased runoff and use of fertilizers will add to the en
vironmental damage caused by ramping up for biofuel production. Environmental impact aside, there is also a human cost for biofuels.

  As demand for both food and energy increases, competition for arable land could raise food prices enough to threaten the poorer peoples of the world with undernourishment. In late 2006, the price of tortilla flour in Mexico, which gets 80 percent of its corn imports from the United States, doubled. Half of Mexico's 107 million people live in poverty and rely on tortillas as a main source of calories.519 The Mexican people took to the streets in protest. Do we really want people competing with automobiles for food?

  Recognizing that ethanol made from food crops will not make an appreciable dent in solving the fossil fuel problem, and that it comes at a high human price as well, advocates have turned to a more experimental source of biofuel—cellulosic ethanol. Instead of using corn or sugar cane, the cellulose locked up in plants' cell walls is extracted, broken down into its component sugars, and fermented into ethanol. Sources that might provide the raw material for cellulosic ethanol include trees, grasses, and waste organic matter.

  The Departments of Energy and Agriculture estimates that the United States could produce 1.3 billion tons of plant matter that, if turned into cellulosic ethanol, could reduce the nation's petroleum needs by 30%.520 To reach that goal will take more than merely gathering up agricultural waste. High cellulose crops like switchgrass, wheatgrass, and poplar, must be grown specifically for ethanol production. But the main problem is that production of ethanol from cellulose is still in the early experimental stage and has not been demonstrated on a commercial scale.