Carlin Economics and Science

In recent years interest in geoengineering has centered on the possibility of substituting it for reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions widely promoted as a solution to hypothesized global warming/climate change. Although it could be both more effective and cost-effective than GHG emission reductions for this purpose, a more fundamental question needs to be answered before geoengineering is seriously considered: Is it likely to be needed and under what circumstances?

I presented a paper at a conference in Moscow in 2011 on this topic. I explored the likely causes, primarily astronomical in nature, of climate change, summarized new observationally-based forecasts of future global temperatures based on recently proposed solar cycles which provide amazingly accurate hindcasts over the last 10,000 years, and then used these forecasts, as well as previous knowledge of ice age cycles, to suggest when geoengineering might be useful in avoiding climate destabilization. I argued that a new Ice Age is inevitable over the next few millennia unless humans undertake counter measures using geoengineering given the minor effects of changes in CO₂ levels. A new ice age would be catastrophic both environmentally and for human welfare, particularly for countries in the northern latitudes such as Canada, Russia, and the US.

Although the causes and timing of ice ages need to be still better understood, Greenland ice cores indicate that Earth’s temperatures have been dropping for over 3,000 years, as in previous interglacial periods. I proposed that the next ice age is most likely to start when the cyclical temperatures are likely to be lowest–near the middle of each millenial solar cycle. It is therefore vital that we better understand these cycles and formulate plans to reduce the chances of a new Ice Age onset before this catastrophe happens. Together with an analysis of temperatures during previous interglacial periods, this suggests that the next ice age may start between about 500 and 2,500 years from now.

My presentation can be found on pages 24-34 of a section of the conference proceedings, which became available last week. The 2011 Moscow Conference was on Problems of Adaptation to Climate Change and sponsored by the Russian Fedeation Government. The reference for the section proceedings is Yu. A. Izrael, A. G. Ryaboshapko, and S. A. Gromov, editors, Investigation of Possibilities of Climate Stabilization Using New Technologies, Proceedings of International Scientific Conference, “Problems of Adaptation to Climate Change” (Moscow, 7–9 November 2011), Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 2012.

On November 8 I made a presentation on climate change causation and its implications for geoengineering at a conference sponsored by the Russian Service for Hydrometeorology and Environmental Monitoring (Roshydromet) in Moscow and supported by various United Nations organizations including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was attended by the Panel’s Chairman and Deputy and roughly 800 other presenters and attendees.
My presentation, which can be found under Section 3 here, has since been supplemented by a list of sources and notes attached at the end of it. Some of the major points made in my presentation were the following:

Amazingly similar cycles. There is an amazing similarity between solar system, sunspot, oceanic, and global climate cycles. These similarities are so striking that they suggest possible cause and effect relationships, perhaps in the general order shown. In other words it may be that solar system cycles influence solar sunspot and oceanic cycles, which influence global temperature cycles.
Most major cycles appear to be entering their downward phase. Some important common cycles appear to be 20, 60, 200-210, and 1,000 years in length. Although there is some uncertainty with regard to the length of the 200 year cycle and the current phase of the 1,000 year cycle, evidence is presented that all except the 20 and possibly the 1,000 year cycles have passed the peaks of their current cycles. This means that most of the cycles may be starting on their downward phase after recent peaks.
Explains observed climate changes. This provides a natural, non-anthropogenic explanation for most if not all the observations concerning global temperatures over the last two millenia and possibly during the Holocene as a whole, including the upward movement of global temperatures over the last few centuries, the apparent end of the recent upward phase of a 60 year cycle of oceanic and global termperatures, why we now appear to be in a negative PDO, and the current plateau in global temperatures, and suggests that the next major change may be towards lower global temperatures.
Possible mechanism established. As a result of research by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Henrik Svensmark, and others there is now known to be a mechanism by which solar variations can significantly influence Earth’s climate, namely, by changing the intensity of cosmic rays impacting the Earth and thereby cloud cover and thereby the reflection of solar energy back into space and thereby global temperatures. There may be other mechanisms that we do not yet understand.
Implications for Climate Stabilization. This astronomical hypothesis has substantial implications for the optimal approaches to promote climate stabilization. In particular, the proposal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions appears to have even less promise than under the AGW hypothesis; geoengineering approaches that allow control of both adverse global warming and cooling, on the other hand, look even more attractive. Particular attention is devoted to a geoengineering approach called Solar Radiation Management using the insertion of particles into the stratosphere and to the possible use of geoengeering to prevent the next ice age, which also appears to be governed by astronomical cycles.

Today my new paper on climate change science and economics was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, a peer-reviewed journal. The paper is unusual from a number of different perspectives.

Some Unusual Features

· The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting.
· The costs of CO2 emissions reductions are perhaps an order of magnitude higher than usually estimated because of technological and implementation problems recently identified.
· CO2 emissions reductions are economically unattractive since the few benefits remaining after the corrections for the above effects are quite unlikely to economically justify the much higher costs unless much lower cost geoengineering is used.
· The risk of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming appears to be so low that it is not currently worth doing anything to try to control it, including geoengineering.

From a historical perspective, the paper builds on my Comments on Draft Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency in early 2009, by presenting an expanded version of a few portions of that material in journal article format, incorporating many new or updated references, and explaining the implications of the science for the economic benefits and costs of climate change control. It is also particularly noteworthy for appearing in a peer-reviewed journal rather than the “gray literature,” such as a report to EPA, where many skeptic analyses end up–something that warmists never fail to point out. Although this article was not written for EPA, it has major implications for the scientific validity (or lack thereof) of the December 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding and the economics that EPA and many economists have used to justify current efforts to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, cap-and-trade schemes, and other approaches to controlling climate change.

From a scientific perspective, the paper starts with a detailed examination of the scientific validity of two of the central tenets of the AGW hypothesis. By applying the scientific method the paper shows why these two tenets are not scientifically valid since predictions made using these hypotheses fail to correspond with observational data. (See primarily Section 2.)

From an economic perspective the paper then develops correction factors to be used to adjust previous economic estimates of the economic benefits of global warming control for these scientifically invalid aspects of the AGW hypothesis. (See primarily Section 2.) It also briefly summarizes many of the previous analyses of the economic benefits and costs of climate control, analyzes why previous analyses reached the conclusions they did, and contrasts them with the policy conclusions reached in this paper. (See primarily Section 5.) It also critically examines the economic costs of control. (See primarily Section 3.)

From a methodological perspective, the article argues that economic analyses of interdisciplinary issues such as climate change would be much more useful if they critically examine what other disciplines have to say, insist on using the most relevant observational data and the scientific method, and examine lower cost alternatives that would accomplish the same objectives. (See primarily Section 1.) These general principles are illustrated by applying them to the case of climate change mitigation, one of the most interdisciplinary of public policy issues. The analysis shows how use of these principles leads to quite different conclusions than those of most previous such economic analyses.

Some may have wondered how I reconcile my skepticism about the United Nations hypothesis that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have an important effect on global temperatures fits with my interest in stratospheric geoengineering as an attractive alternative to reductions in CO2 emissions? This interest is shown in four of my previous publications in climate science under publications. If there is no real risk of a significant global temperature rise due to CO2, we may not need geoengineering after all. My view is that we still have much to learn about Earth’s climate and that the history of interglacial periods suggest that we could be faced with global cooling within a few thousand years. It would therefore appear prudent to be prepared for the eventuality that significant global warming or cooling could occur.

For reasons explained in my geoengineering papers, CO2 emissions control is unlikely to be effective in controlling global warming and useless for global cooling. For a comparatively modest cost, however, we could acquire the capability to carry out stratospheric geoengineering. Chances are very good that it would not be advisable to actually use it, but acquiring the capability would appear to be a wise precaution. It might also reassure those who believe in the UN hypothesis that possible potential warming could be stopped if there should ever be agreement that something needed to be done.

So in summary, I believe that significant global warming is unlikely this century, particularly as a result of increasing CO2 levels, but if it should start to occur it might be useful to be prepared to deal with such warming or the slightly more likely global cooling if necessary through stratospheric geoengineering. One other advantage of being prepared to use effective geoengineering techniques is that we would no longer have any need to undertake extremely expensive efforts to reduce CO2 emissions on the chance that there might be damaging global temperature increases or other adverse effects until the effects actually started to occur.