Global Cooling: Fear the Ice
by
Bill Walker
by Bill Walker
The Ice Ages
are not over. We’re still feeling the effects of the one that receded
12,000 years ago. I grew up on a farm in central Ohio, right on
the terminal moraine. I spent my formative years toting glacier-dumped
rocks from newly plowed fields, to put on the piles of rocks from
the efforts of the previous century’s farm boys. So I have been
meditating on the evils of Global Cooling since I was six or seven
years old.
In the 1960s
and 1970s, Global Cooling was all the fashion. Newsweek
warned of it. Popular books warned of the return of the ice. Aircraft
contrails, dust and sulfates from coal power plants, volcanoes,
desertification, solar variation, galactic dust clouds, fires from
global nuclear war (has everyone really forgotten Nuclear Winter?
Or is that meme still happily cohabitating with Global Warming in
millions of muddled minds?), etc., would all combine to freeze the
Earth. No political careers were built on fears of a milder Earth.
Fashions
change. As Michael Crichton points out in State
of Fear, one year it suddenly became unfashionable to look
at cooling factors in the Earth’s climate. Today’s academic climatologists
are forced to publish within the paradigm that the Earth is warming,
that this trend will continue regardless of natural events, and
that warming is bad. Major media is even more constrained; Newsweek
is not running any stories on the cooling effects of aircraft contrails
or the dust clouds from the nomads who yearly expand the Sahara
Desert.
The Earth
may well have warmed a tenth of a degree or two, if you pick the
right starting and ending year; climate fluctuates for many reasons.
But the other package-deal premises of the Global Warming meme are
completely without scientific basis. There is no scientific reason
to believe that the minuscule greenhouse effect from 20th
century fossil fuel burning can overcome the sun-shrouding effects
of a major volcano or asteroid hit. We know that either of these
types of events is going to happen sometime; we just don’t know
when (maybe 2036,
if you’re the betting sort). And either one will pitch the Earth
right back into an Ice Age.
Ice ages are
not fun. Even minor cooling events are hard on agricultural civilizations.
(You may think you’re living in a silicon civilization, but a few
months with no sunlight will radically change your food vs. RAM
preferences). Yes, if we were all living in concrete domes with
home Mr. Fusion units, maybe Ice Ages would just be long periods
of good skiing. But for now, we still depend on solar power for
our food.
In the April
of 1815, the Indonesian volcano Tambora erupted and spewed over
a million tonnes of sun-darkening dust. 1816 was the "year without
a summer"; the northern United States suffered crop failures and
frost damage. The year 535
was even worse, bringing a literal Dark Age to Europe and freezing
the crops of millions. These famines were caused by relatively tiny
events, nothing like the Yellowstone eruptions or the Chicxulub
asteroid impact. Major events would shut off outdoor agriculture
for years. Of course we can always use growlights, right? Sure…
if you use all the electricity on the planet for artificial lights,
you should be able to grow about as much food as the farms of… Rhode
Island. Everyone else will starve (well, except for the Mormons,
of course). And maybe a few cannibals.
During major
Ice Ages, most of the world’s ecosystems were displaced. There were
no California redwood forests in the Ice Age; they are a recent
development nurtured by the (natural) post-Ice Age global warming.
18,000 years ago, deserts
and ice sheets covered most of the world. There is absolutely
no scientific reason to think that it won’t happen again.
There is also
no reason to think that there won’t be inconvenient short-term warming
effects. But we can’t predict them; we can’t predict the weather
ten days in advance, let alone predict all volcanoes, ocean currents,
hydrates, asteroids, interstellar dust clouds, nuclear wars, solar
cycles, etc. etc.
The Kyoto Treaty
and other "anti-Global-Warming" efforts are not scientific guarantees
of "better" (better for whom? I live in Minnesota!) climate. They
are just sacrifices to the thunder gods, in the hopes that they
will grant us an unchanging world. That ain’t gonna happen. The
one sure climate prediction is that climate will fluctuate.
Ironically,
so far government interference with the energy markets has increased
Global Warming. The antinuclear movement in the US alone has caused
the burning of 400 million tons more coal. Was this a good thing?
We don’t really know, but the evidence is that the CO2
released from fossil fuel burning is wonderful for ecosystems.
During the
last Ice Age, CO2 levels fell to less
than half of the modern level. They had recovered to .028% by
the late 1800s. All our fossil fuel burning has raised the CO2
to a whopping… .038%. But we still have a long way to go to get
back to Jurassic levels. Back in the good ol’ days, when the ecosystem
was really seething with life, the atmosphere was .3% CO2,
about eight times greater than today.
These high
CO2 levels made life very easy for plants with the original
"C3" photosynthetic system. In addition to their direct
CO2 fertilization effect, higher CO2 levels
also help in droughts. With enough CO2, C3 plants
can close their "stomata" (pores) more, and lose less water.
As CO2
levels fell during the Age of Mammals (and Ice Ages), "C4"
plants (e.g., grasses) have tended to gain on older C3
species. Today, it is estimated that the optimum CO2
levels for agricultural productivity in C3 plants (which
include wheat and other important crops) would be at least .070%.
So we have to at least double the amount of fossil fuel that we
have already burned… or more, if we increase the area of Earth that
is hospitable to plant life.
Much of the
world is desert even today. In fact, there is less total life in
the sea than on the much smaller land area of our planet. Most of
the ocean is "desert," in the sense of having very low densities
of life. This is because most of the ocean suffers from a severe
mineral deficiency. Iron is the limiting factor on ocean life over
most of the world ocean. A tiny amount of iron will cause a huge
increase in plankton growth. If the oceans were privatized, sea
farmers would fertilize
with iron…. And then we would really need to burn more fossil
fuel to supply enough CO2. Fortunately, there is plenty
left.
To Stop
Global Warming
If one were
really afraid of Global Warming, one would support:
- Nuclear
power
- Privatization
of lakes, rivers and oceans
- Privatization
of the world’s deserts, most of which would actually support CO2-absorbing
crops if there were secure private property rights
- Elimination
of the FAA (aircraft contrails do have the net effect of cooling
the planet)
Has anyone
noticed any "Anti-Global-Warming" groups that support nuclear power?
Private property rights in the Third World deserts? Ocean farms?
Neither have
I. Maybe that means that they aren’t really worried about stopping
Global Warming so much as they are about stopping Global Free Enterprise?
The fact is
that we don’t know whether the world will cool or warm. If you feel
yourself believing confidently in Global Warming, remember that
you would have believed in Global Cooling just as strongly in 1975.
If Global
Warming Happens
If the good
ol’ boys that control the world’s governments (and fossil fuel companies,
and "environmental" organizations) continue to slow down the adoption
of nuclear power, then the CO2 levels will continue their
slow rise. CO2 will never be the most important greenhouse
gas (the main greenhouse gas on this planet is the sinister pollutant
dihydrogen monoxide. DHMO, as
it is commonly known, causes 95%
of the greenhouse warming effect. Government water projects
in the US have contributed to higher DHMO levels, and thus to Global
Warming.)
However, CO2
levels might cause a slight warming over the next thousand years.
(Or they might not;
we don’t know whether they will overcome other factors). The terrible
results of this would be that Minnesota, Siberia, Canada, and other
real estate would become "SantaMonicaformed," so that people from
California could live there. This would of course cause the collapse
of real estate prices in California.
The other effects
of a mild warming would be pretty benign. Both agriculture and wild
ecosystems would be more productive. Rainfall would increase. Sea
levels would rise, but the centers of the continents would be more
livable. (And people have been building dikes for centuries. If
the sea goes up a few feet, New York could just build dikes like
the Dutch. Just don’t put the Corps of Engineers in charge of watching
them…).
If Global
Cooling Happens
Global Cooling,
unlike warming, can happen as suddenly as the collapse of the California
real estate market. If a large asteroid or volcano strikes, there
will be no growing season in that hemisphere that year. Personally,
I plan to stock up on these,
just in case. (I’m already fully prepared if Global Warming hits
Minnesota… I’ll just take off one of my parkas).
Whether the
Earth warms or cools, the only way to produce the wealth and technology
to adapt to changing climate is through the free market. Shutting
down the economy through treaties and regulations is a guarantee
that we won’t have the resources to handle Nature’s little surprises.
December
28, 2005
Bill
Walker [send him mail]
works in HIV and gene therapy research in Rochester, Minnesota.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Bill
Walker: Archives
|