Download The Climate Change Controversy

The Climate Change Controversy – Some Reasons for the
Debate and the Consequences of Disagreements
as seen by Aleksander Samarin
“How often have I said to you that when you have
eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however
improbable, must be the truth?”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859 – 1930)
If we scrutinize the scope of total scientific knowledge accumulated by
humanity five hundred or even three hundred years ago, there were, in my
opinion, some remarkable sagacious, learned individuals, whom we usually
label geniuses, whose knowledge of the then perceived scientific laws of
nature, which were considered to be indubitably true, was universal.
I would not hesitate to place Galileo Galilei (1564 – 1642), his successor
Sir Isaac Newton (1642 – 1727), who was born the year when Galileo died,
and also Baron Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646 – 1716) into this category.
There may have been some notions in the related fields of science, such as
biology or medicine, the knowledge of which for these sages was somewhat
marginal, but I am sure, that the fundamentals of all these concepts did not
escape their perceptions of the actuality of nature, as it was known at that
time.
By contrast, during the past hindered years or so the total human scientific
knowledge was amassed at such a remarkably fast rate, that it became
humanly impossible, no matter how intellectually brilliant a scientist might
have been, to attain not even very deep, but just a superficial understanding
of some of the scientific conceptions outside the area of his or her particular
area of expertise. This is, again to my way of thinking, is one of the main
reasons for the radically different opinions between scientists, who are
considered experts in their specific fields of knowledge, which recently
became apparent in the ongoing debates on the causes and the consequences
of the climate change.
The next, and possibly the most deep-seated reason, is the inability of human
beings to grasp, to comprehend the reality of the space-time-matter, the
reality which is infinitely stranger than any science fiction creations of
human imagination. It was Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington (1882 – 1944) who
once said: “Not only the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger
1
than we can imagine”. This incongruity of our inevitable world is at beast
replicated in the fundamental scientific concepts of quantum physics and
cosmology. For example, according to the latest cosmological notion our
universe was created from a singularity some 13.7 billion years ago in the
event known as the Big Bang. Singularity is a mathematical representation
of a point of zero dimensions at which the gravitational field has infinite
strength or, to put it differently, this zero dimensional point contains an
infinite mass. This cosmological theory also implies that prior to the Big
Bang neither the space nor the time existed. I challenge any human being to
visualize the absence of space and time, in which only the singularity exists.
Yet another important factor in the climate change controversy is the failure
by almost all of those who make predictions of the “inevitable” outcome of
this problem to realize that many of the systems affecting climate change
phenomenon are non-deterministic. According to the classical, Newtonian
mechanics all the processes in the universe were highly orderly, proceeding
like Swiss clockwork, and therefore unquestionably predictable, provided
the initial conditions of a particular system were known.
The unpredictability which exists not only in the phenomena on the
subatomic scale – in Quantum physics, but also on the macro-scale, on the
scale of our daily life, in the so-called Chaos theory is now evident. I must
stress, however, that it is impossible to synthesize these two theories, as the
Quantum theory has a scale which is set by the Planck’s constant, but the
fractal character of the chaotic dynamics means that it is scale free.
The non-deterministic character of many events which take place in the
universe was originally very difficult to accept even by the most eminent
scientists, such as Einstein. On December 4th 1926, in his letter to Max Born,
Einstein wrote: “God does not play dice with the universe”, to which Max
Born apparently replied: “Don’t tell God what He can or cannot do”.
The term chaos was first used in the Theogony of Hesiod (8th century BC) in
reference to the gap resulting from the separation of heaven and earth during
the creation of the world from a state of disarray, but subsequently it was
widely used to describe a disorder of extreme complexity. However,
mathematical theory of chaos is defined as the dynamic system with
stochastic behaviour under deterministic conditions. This sounds like a
paradox as stochastic, of course, means random. Hence, in layman’s terms
chaos can be described as “the lawless process governed by the law”. The
above definition, I think, can also accurately describe judicial systems in
2
some political structures. In relation to the mathematical chaos, expressed
somewhat differently, it means that certain conditions must be maintained
for this randomness to develop.
The behaviour of chaotic dynamic systems is regulated by the following
properties: these systems must be extremely sensitive to the initial
conditions, they must evolve over time in such a way that any given region
or open set of their phase space will eventually overlap with other given
regions, and last, but not least – their periodic orbits must be dense.
In recent decades a diversity of natural phenomena have been studied, and
despite seeming relative simplicity of some and the fact that the forces
involved in their dynamics are well known, it was discovered that they are
indeed chaotic. I shall list but a few examples of chaotic dynamic systems.
They were found in many highly diverse observable events, such as
irregularities of heartbeat, turbulent flow of fluids, chemical reactions,
dynamics of satellites in the solar system, population dynamics, the
dynamics of economics, and something that we should be particularly aware
of – in the chaotic dynamics of weather and climate.
Examining the majority of recent arguments about the causes of climate
change one gets the impression that this is a relatively recent, anthropogenic
(i.e. generated by humans) incident which became evident only since the
rapid increase in the use of fossil fuels. However, from the geological
history of the Earth it is evident that there were constant, cyclic climate
changes ranging from the periods of extreme hot weather to the Ice Ages
since the Earth was formed some 4.5 billion years ago. There are several
theories about the exact nature of these variations, but no one will argue that
they have suddenly seized to exist. The factors which are apparently
responsible for the millions of years of cyclic climate changes include the
chaotic dynamics of the quasi-periodic movements of the Earth around the
Sun, the so-called Milanković hypothesis, which was later modified and
improved by a number of scientists, the changes in the intensity of radiation,
of the energy which the Earth receives from the Sun, and also resulting from
the variations in the internal radiation from the core of the Earth itself.
The difficulty of establishing the exact effect of this complex, multifaceted
system is exaggerated by the chaotic dynamics of each of its components.
I also get the impression that the current argument about the causes and
effects of climate change, at least amongst politicians and economists, is
revolving around extend of the emissions of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide
3
is one of the four main greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases, as the name
suggests, have similar effect to that of hothouse used for growing plants in
cold climate. The most abundant greenhouse gas, and the one which is
practically impossible to control, is water vapor or clouds. Each one of us
experienced the effect of clouds on weather. Cloud cover during the day
prevents part of the Sun radiation to reach the surface of the Earth, resulting
in the reduction of temperature. However, the greenhouse effect of water
vapor becomes evident during the nighttime cloud cover, which acts like a
blanket preventing some of the heat loss from the surface of the Earth and
consequentially producing somewhat warmer night temperature. The current
meteorological models indicate that water vapor is responsible for between
36% and 70% of the total greenhouse gas effect. By contrast, carbon dioxide
possibly causes as little as 9% and apparently not more that 26% of the
radiated heat capture from the Earth surface. The remaining two greenhouse
gases are methane (estimated 4% to 9% of the total) and ozone (estimated
3% to 7% of the total). Control of the emissions of the later two is at best
doubtful.
I must also stress that carbon dioxide is the most important cause of the
growth of all vegetation on our planet. It is absorbed by green plants and
then synthesized into their organic components. There are biological models,
which imply that marginal increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
should result in better yields of crops, provided other essential factors of
growth (such as availability of water) remain abundant. There is also some
disagreement between atmospheric scientists as to the magnitude which
reduction in carbon dioxide will influence the total greenhouse effect.
One of the reasons for very different climate forecasts, although majority at
present predict climate warming, results first of all from the randomness of
chaotic dynamics. There were quite recently very eminent scientists who
anticipated that the next climate change will be the initiation of new Ice Age.
One such prediction was made by Sir Fred Hoyle, FRS, who was appointed
Plumian Professor of astronomy at Cambridge University in 1958 and
became the first director of the Cambridge Institute of Theoretical
Astronomy in 1967. In 1981 he published a book: “Ice – a Chilling
Scientific Forecast of a New Ice Age”. There is also large number of recent
and incredibly contradictory reports by very reputable atmospheric scientists
as to whether or not the average temperature of the Earth is increasing or
decreasing. The most likely explanation for this controversy, in my opinion,
is uncertainly in the behavior of chaotic dynamic structures of climate
change.
4
Should this change be towards the reduction of temperature, which can
ultimately result in the onset of the new Ice Age as was envisaged by
Sir Fred Hoyle, then increase in the greenhouse gases may delay, although
not avert, this calamity. If, on the other hand, the average temperature of our
planet is increasing, in spite of human input of greenhouse gases into
atmosphere, then the reduction in the use of fossil fuels world wide may be
beneficial. It should be remembered that regardless of whichever scenario of
the climate change is factual, that coal, oil and gas are not renewable
resources, and new forms of energy must be developed for the future
generations, if humanity will be able to survive that long.
Whilst taking into consideration dynamic systems, one more theory, again
according to my judgment, is important and should be of concern in the
process of evaluating human responses to the climate change. This is the
so-called Catastrophe Theory, developed in the early 1970-s by Dr. René
Thom. In his 1972 book: “Structural Stability and Morphogenesis” Thom
describes several different ways in which dynamic systems can undergo an
abrupt change of large magnitude, a change to which he coined the term
catastrophe and which takes place under steady, uniform influence of the
control factors in these systems. Classical example of this phenomenon is
buckling of a slender, steel column under the uniformly applied load. Other
examples include myocardial infarct (or heart attack) and a sudden crush on
a stock exchange. One possible development under the steady increase of the
average Earth temperature, as and if it occurs, is very swift release of huge
undersea deposits of methane gas – one of the four major greenhouse gases,
which are stable at the present submarine temperatures. This may lead to the
prompt, “catastrophic” increase of global warming. Such rapid changes in
the Earth climate occurred in the past. For example, some 12,800 years ago
in just one month all of Europe was engulfed in a “Mini Ice Age”, or “The
Big Freeze”.
In conclusion I would like to emphasize, that the only constructive human
response to the climate change is possible if it is based on the rational
economical considerations. But economical models can only be practical, if
they in turn are founded on the reliable scientific data. However, bearing in
mind that scientific theories deal with chaotic dynamic systems of climate
change, the solution to these problems remains extremely challenging.
These problems are further complicated as a result of intentional distortions
of scientific data by some politicians and even scientists in order to achieve
political or financial gains.
5
Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and
Engineering since 1988, Dr. Aleksander Samarin is Professor at the Centre
for Built Infrastructure Research at the University of Technology, Sydney.
His other interests include solutions to the problems related to the
sustainability of human civilization and Philosophy of Science.
30th of November 2009
6