How Peter L Bernstein’s work helps us make the safest decision with regard to global warming.
Probably like me you hadn’t heard of Peter Bernstein. He was instrumental in understanding risk and that alone makes him worth knowing about. Here’s the entry from Wikipedia:
Peter Lewyn Bernstein (January 22, 1919 – June 5, 2009) was a financial historian, economist and educator whose development and refinement of the efficient market theory made him one of the country’s [USA] best known authorities in popularizing and presenting investment economics to the general public.
Watch the YouTube video before reading on:
You could not have missed a fundamental message in the interview – if the consequence of something is critically harmful then don’t take ANY risks. Bernstein’s book on risk is Against the Gods.
Some weeks ago, we started a debate on Learning from Dogs about Climate Warming. It was between Prof Alan Carlin who is sceptical about the evidence being presented and Patrice Ayme, (a nom de plume) a mathematician and scientist, who is certain that mankind is harming the global climate. You can read both sides of the debate by clicking on the On Climate Warming theme link. If you do, you can see that there was some pretty vigorous ball play between both gents which is all very well but it isn’t helping the common man work out what to do.
The challenge for ordinary thinking persons is that we have to make a judgement as to which ‘side’ is right. We don’t have the tools or the knowledge to review the core science and come to an independent decision. Acknowledging this, the author sent an email to both Alan and Patrice:
It seems to me that there are some fundamental, rational questions that need asking and I hope that each of you wise men, in a final contribution to this topic, will address them.
1. Is mankind having an effect on the atmosphere of this planet which will be harmful?
2. Is there any room for error in your answer to Q.1.?
3. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than has ever been known by science. Is that a correct statement?
4. Are the activities of mankind causing the increasing levels of acidification in the oceans of the planet?
5. Are the activities of mankind causing the rising sea levels of the planet’s oceans?
6. Is man-made global warming happening: yes; no; unclear?
7. Is there a rational argument for assuming global warming will threaten mankind’s existence on the planet?
Unfortunately Alan Carlin replied saying:
Paul,
I have now concluded that I do not currently have time to respond to your seven good and interesting questions and still meet my high standards for documentation and references. I could, of course, simply express my current opinions based in some cases on limited research on those topics that I either have not researched or have not recently done so. But I do not think that would help anyone. The issue is really not my opinions but rather how and why I arrived at them. That takes time and research, which I cannot currently undertake because of other continuing obligations.
Thank you for your interest and much needed concern to better illuminate the current wide differences between alarmists/warmists and sceptics.
These are the answers to the questions supplied by Patrice:
1. Is mankind having an effect on the atmosphere of this planet which will be harmful?
Two degrees Celsius warming globally, planet wide, in the average, may mean twenty degrees Celsius warming at the poles, on current trends, extended linearly (non linear effects ought to make the situation even worse, quicker). Thus Alaska would become tropical. Amazingly, not only did it happen before, but it seems to be the Earth preferred climate. Our present BIOSPHERE is not adapted to this though: crocodiles could swim to tropical Alaska, but where are all temperate and polar fauna and flora going to go?
2. Is there any room for error in your answer to Q.1.?
Not really: when the plane is going to hit the mountain, it does not matter where if it’s a few degrees higher or lower.
3. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than has ever been known by science. Is that a correct statement?
It is correct for the last 15 million years, according to the latest (2009) research, when CO2 concentration was limited to 300 ppmv (except for possible transient peaks; extreme volcanism can rise and lower CO2 quickly). It is not true for the warmest geological periods (which were much more extensive than the glaciated periods)
4. Are the activities of mankind causing the increasing levels of acidification in the oceans of the planet?
Half of the increased CO2, so far, has gone in the ocean, some reacting with water to make carbonic acid. Latest research suggests that plankton will start dissolving by 2100. A lot of CO2 was just dissolved, as in a carbonated soda, (e.g. Perrier), and may, most likely will, come out if warmed up and shaken (as is now happening in the Antarctic ocean).
5. Are the activities of mankind causing the rising sea levels of the planet’s oceans?
The giant icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica are, overall, melting. Since some Antarctic temperatures have gone up 4.5 degree Celsius, if one ascribes that spectacular rise to man, then so it is.
6. Is man-made global warming happening: yes; no; unclear?
The warming is just a degree of freedom of the system in which increased energy is flowing, as the lower atmosphere warms. Warming can involve the oceans, or the ground itself. When one looks at the temperature gradient in the latter, by digging holes and measuring the temperature gradient, the signs of irresistible warming are blatant. As the warming proceeds, new sinks for the increasing heat open up, slowing down the apparent warming, as they suck up the energy. So looking only at a temperature gauge is a mistake. So far, the temperature rise in the temperate and tropical areas has been tiny, but the effects in the polar areas, where the refrigerators and sun shades are, have been tremendous.
7. Is there a rational argument for assuming global warming will threaten mankind’s existence on the planet?
The problem is more global carbon than global warming per se. Global carbon threatens an imminent collapse of the food chain in the ocean. This has happened before, and was caused by volcanoes (which belch SO2 and CO2). Mankind’s ongoing existence is a military problem. As the biosphere collapses, nuclear world war has a high probability of occurring. As the defeat of Britain and France in May-June 1940 showed, and the victory at Midway confirmed, one time extraordinary events, not easily reproducible in war games, do happen in real war. So it is not clear that civilization will survive. But it is clear that billions of people will die.
So back to Peter Bernstein. I do not know if Alan Carlin or Patrice Ayme represent an accurate scientific understanding of the future of our climate and world. Probably the majority of the Learning from Dogs readers are in the same camp.
Governments are no help at all because the cynic in me thinks that anything that assists the taxation of people (and global warming is a great ‘sales’ pitch) won’t generate impartial evidence. Even independent research centres that spend government monies may be loathe to ‘bite the hand that feeds it’.
Bernstein gives us the answer. If the probability of global warming/excessive global carbon were happening then the consequences for all the children and grandchildren on this planet would be critically damaging. On that basis, there is no choice.
We must step up the political force across the world’s governments to make sure the next generations have a viable planet on which to live.
By Paul Handover
Learning from Dogs 
3 thoughts on “Consequences and probabilities”