How Venice Rigged the First, and Worst, Global Financial Crash

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/pbgbardi.htm
by Paul Gallagher

The Global Warming Conundrum

The Global Warming Conundrum
by Chetan Sahai (March 18, 2009)

Before starting, and illustrating my doubts, I want to be very clear that I do believe we are negatively impacting our environment and need to take action to protect it, from ourselves. However, while I do not disbelieve Global Warming, I still do not have sufficient elements to believe that it is as serious at it is being claimed to be. The picture is clearly, unclear. I am not trying to prove a point but only to stimulate people to think with their own minds. I welcome any comments to the questions below; especially if you are a staunch believer that global warming is the most serious issue we are facing today.

***

What is your opinion on global warming? Do you think we should do something about it urgently?

Well, if you’re not thinking about it you should. Because if you don’t, your great-grandchildren, in 2100, will be only 2.7x richer instead of 2.6x![1] You heard well – 2.6x instead of 2.7x. Even taking the worst-case scenario developed by the IPCC and referred to in the Stern Review, which are considered to be the authorities on this topic, this is what the issue is about.

Is global warming really occurring?

Temperature measurements

In order to answer that question we need to look at the data. Global Warming is being measured, in the month of January, as the difference in temperature, for example in 2008, as compared to the average in the 30-yr period 1961-1990. So if the temperature was 14.4C and it was 14.0C during the 1961-1990 average, then the reported delta is +0.4C.

Here are the facts (and I don’t know why these are not 30yr periods): from 1900-1920, the average temperature was 0.3 degrees colder; trend stable); 1920-1940: average temperature was 0.5C higher; trend slightly rising. But from 1940-1975: there was actually a cooling of 0.2C; trend stable. From 1975-2000: it has been higher again by 0.4C; trend rising. Oh, by the way, the average temperature has gone down to +0.3C above average in 2008.

One way to look at it is that the temperature has kept rising in this past century, and another is that it could be fluctuating. Overall, the temperature has been between –0.3 and +0.4 during the past 100yrs. One could argue that 100yrs is not a sufficient time to get a sense of the trend; after all the earth is 4.5 billion years old. I totally agree. So for argument’s sake, let’s use some estimates that have been done since 1000 AD. This is what Al Gore showed in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. According to that, temperatures have roughly been constant over a long period and then substantially increased only after the 20th century, like a hockey stick. (The movie has been discredited on various points due to incorrect scientific statements)

However, we do know that there was a cooling period, referred to as the Little Ice Age, during the 17th-18th century period and there are evidences of commercial vineyards in the UK (Northamptonshire) during the Roman Empire, which would suggest that temperatures were higher in that period. I don’t know what is the truth – but I can assert with relative confidence that the Roman gladiators were probably carrying weapons thinking how to conquer the world rather than carrying a little thermometer measuring the temperature around them.

In fact, humans only started recording temperature from the mid-1800s. Data covering previous periods are reconstructed using different methodologies, validity of which I have no element to support or confute, but the point is they include error margins that range from –1C to +0.5C, in which current temperature differences would comfortably fit.

This is important: we said above that the temperature range in the past 100 years was between –0.3 and +0.4 and we have just said that the error margin in the methodologies is –1.0 to +0.5C, which is larger than the change observed. Therefore, simply from a methodological perspective, this does not seem to be conclusive evidence that Global Warming is happening.

Hurricanes

There have been quite a few arguments regarding the sharp rise in the intensity of hurricanes, especially after Katrina 2005. However, in 2006, the World Meteorological organization concluded that: “the main conclusion we came to was that none of these high-impact tropical cyclones could be specifically attributed to global warming”. The 10 most severe hurricanes since 1900, 5 occurred in the first half, and 5 in the second. Seven out of 10 occurred before 1975! Which is before the current warming period began. Therefore, neither causation nor correlation seems to be proven.

Glaciers

The melting of floating polar ice cannot cause any rise in sea levels. The issue is solely about the land-borne ice at the poles, and the 2 most important ones are Greenland and Antarctica. In terms of net ice loss, there is no evidence that Greenland is melting. In fact, the warmest decades in Greenland were the 1930s and 1940s. On the other hand, in Antarctica, the West Antarctic sheet is showing evidence of melting and glacier retreat. However, this accounts for only 10% of Antarctic land-borne ice and has a different climate from the rest of Antarctica. In most of the other 90%, the ice sheet appears to be growing.

Is it really that bad if the planet is warmer?

We’ve understood how global warming is measured, but we still don’t know what global warming is. For that we need to understand what greenhouse gases are. How many people think they are good? How many people think they are bad? Who knows what greenhouse gases actually are?

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are actually good. Without them, Planet Earth’s surface temperature would be minus (18)-(19)C and not +15C. Greenhouse gases help to retain the sun’s rays, and heat, within the earth’s atmosphere and thus promote life on earth.

By the way, what is global warming?

One definition of global warming is “the enhanced greenhouse effect expected to result from an increase in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases resulting from emissions associated with human activities.” In other words, this refers to humans’ role in emitting CO2 and other elements.

These do not contribute more than 20-25% in the overall warming of the planet.

Carbon dioxide is only the second most important greenhouse gas, and by quite a distance. The first one is…water vapor, yes, clouds. Water vapor forms about 70% of all greenhouse gases. As of today, our scientific understanding of clouds is limited.

Given our limited understanding of the science of clouds, and that it accounts for 70% of greenhouse gases, how come the role of carbon dioxide is considered so high and why the debate is settled, is not clear to me.

Is CO2 in the atmosphere bad?

There is no doubt that atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide increased in the 20th century (+30%) and have continued in the 21st century. There is little dispute that this is largely man-made, due to carbon-based energy consumption (coal, oil, gas).

However, “to describe carbon dioxide as pollution is as absurd as it would be to describe the clouds as pollution”. In general, the more CO2 there is, the better the development of plant life on the planet. This is referred to as the ‘fertilization effect’, and is not really a bad thing.

Could something else be affecting global warming?

It’s not just CO2! And, concentration of particles is different from their contribution to global warming. Methane, nitrous oxide, CFC and other miscellaneous gases are 0.6% of total concentrations, but together comprise 28% of total contributions to total non-water vapor greenhouse gases. This is because, as a group, they are 50x more potent than CO2. Another source indicates, “the combined effect of methane, nitrous oxide, ozone and CFCs is now almost as large as that of carbon dioxide”. Even if global warming were happening, all the focus seems to be on curbing CO2 emissions.

Is there a way to reduce man-made methane? There is – but we would need to ask the 1.5 billion cows on the planet to fart less. According to a 2006 UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation.

That said, methane does not seem to be increasing, unlike assumptions included in models on which IPCC’s conclusions are based.

In summary, here are my doubts:
- Why are we so convinced that the climate is changing, when supporting data is limited and current models are not predicting accurately?
- There seems to be misinformation around as melting of glaciers and increase in hurricanes are not at all proven
- How can we be so sure that carbon is the main reason, when 75-80% of greenhouse gases are explained by non-carbon elements?

***

Leaving all that aside, and assuming it is a serious threat, how bad can it get?

Given the impact of what may happen, it is better to err on the side of caution. Let’s assume global warming is happening and that man-made CO2 emissions are the main factor behind it.

What would happen if we don’t act?

It is important to know 3 things:
1) When talking about climate change, policy makers refer to the research from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a UN body specifically made to understand climate change)
2) The IPCC offers no predictions, only a set of 6 what if scenarios and all scenario are equally possible
3) The Stern Review uses the more pessimistic IPCC scenarios (scenario A2) as its base case[2]

According to the 2007 report, what they say is that in 2100, under the optimistic scenario, average global temperature will be +1.8C above the 1980-1999 average temperature (somehow ignoring the 1961-1970 cooler decade) and in the worst case, it will be +4C.

An accepted way of measuring impact on people is the impact this will have on GDP per capita. Under the optimistic scenario, an increase in 1.8C in the temperature will reduce global GDP by 1% in 2100. The impact is 5% under the pessimistic scenario.

As a side note, our modelling capabilities to capture impact of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere only go back about a hundred years. Our current models from 1998, which are being used to project temperatures in 2100, have failed to predict the temperature stabilization during the recent 2001-2008 period. If the models have not been good at predicting the next 10 years, why should they be better at predicting the following 100?

How is the impact on GDP calculated?

The IPCC seeks to assess the likely impact of projected global warming over the next 100yrs in 2 ways:
1) it looks at 5 major headings: water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health
2) it adds these impacts together to prove an overall cost figure

I won’t get into the details but suffice it to say that the impact of CO2 on water scarcity, ecosystems, coasts and health has not been clearly established. According to the IPCC itself, some its conclusions have “medium confidence”. “Medium confidence” is defined as 5 out of 10 chances of the conclusion being right. So they are saying it is 50% right and… 50% wrong, not much different from flipping a coin!

It is worth spending a moment on the impact on food. According to the IPCC, “Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperatures over a range of 1-3C, but above that it is projected to decrease”. Think about it, they are saying that global warming could actually improve our ability to produce food!

Net net, the impact on GDP of 1% or 5% is the sum total of the effects described above, but there does not seem to be any conclusive evidence that CO2 emissions are affecting any of the areas considered. “It is clear, on the basis of the IPCC’s own methodology, there may be no net cost at all from the global warming over the next 100yrs; it may even be beneficial.”

This is not to say that these are not huge areas of concern, because they are, but it may well indeed by erroneous to attribute them to man-made CO2 emissions.

Why should you be concerned?

If man-made global warming may not be happening, why should you be concerned? At present, the UK taxpayer is paying nearly 35 billion GBP in green taxes, which is equivalent to 1,200 GBP per taxpayer. In the worst-case scenario, the cost of the UK Climate Change Bill could put a net cost of £10,000 on each UK household. We are already paying cash today for a problem that may not even exist.

Governments are providing subsidies to companies and industries that reduce their carbon footprint, at the expense of other industries and companies.

Ethanol was promoted as a carbon-reducing fuel, and in the process increased deforestation and the price of food. The emphasis on ethanol is now much less than a few years ago.

I believe we all need to have informed opinion on the topic to ensure taxpayer money is not wasted, policy mistakes are avoided, and resources are allocated to issues that really matter.

We should worry about carbon emissions, but without ignoring crucial omissions.

***

[1] If you were in the developing world the impact is 8.5x richer instead of 9.5x

[2] in which there is the lowest rate of technological advance, and highest projected growth of world population (15 billion by 2100, which is 65% higher than the UN’s ‘medium’ population forecast for 2100, and almost half as much as the UN’s highest projection), with a resulting world GDP in 2100 of $250T (vs $550T; pop at 7B in the A1 scenarios; for reference 2008E is $60T). According to this scenario, living standards (measured as GDP/capita) would rise, in the absence of global warming, by 1% a year in the developed world and 2.3% in the developing world.
Sources available upon request

Hi