Day Thirteen (final day): Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"13) Almost everyone wants to hear good news. They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax. They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics. This is a problem for all of us."

I might suggest that not everyone wants to believe it's a hoax.  The good news I would like to hear is rather that there are some countervailing feedbacks or other factors that will lessen the impact of climate change.  Or that unintentional errors have been found that indicate it will not be the catastrophe that many scientists are predicting.  I think that if we learned it was an actual hoax, that would create problems for many other issues that are reliant on science.

So, agreed that people want to hear good news.  Agreed that people don't want climate change to be as bad as predicted.  Agreed that hearing the bad news from the scientists is unpleasant.  Disagreed that people want to believe it's a hoax necessarily, but agreed that they would like to believe it won't be so bad.

Agreed that this is a problem for all of us.

If you would like to see any of the other posts in this series, search on the word Grantham for a list of all thirteen posts.
----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Twelve: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"12) Almost no one wants to change. The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its deficiencies. But for this problem we must change. This is never easy."

photo by fouro on flickr

Change is hard, as Mr Grantham points out.  It's hard even when the positive outcomes are apparent and the sacrifices are small or non-existent.  It's even harder when the outcomes are less clear and the apparent effort, cost or sacrifices seem large.  No wonder taking action on climate change is so difficult.  Also, throw in the fact that the changes require worldwide cooperation to at least some degree, an enormous variety of differing interests, possible threats to the well being of some industries and politics and it's easy to see why action is not taking place.

Unfortunately, I do not have good answers for how to get people of governments to take action.  I suppose if I did, I would have more influence that what I am able to exert with this blog.


----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Eleven: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

(from Wikimedia)

"11) Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: 'Have they no grandchildren?'"

Thank you, Mr. Grantham.  There is little I can add to this.
----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Ten: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

One of the nuttiest skeptics - Christopher Monckton

"10) Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for … what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results."

It is amazing how often one reads on the web that people actually believe that global warming is some elaborate hoax.  Arrhenius predicted that the atmosphere would warm by adding more carbon dioxide way back in the late 19th century.  Aha!  But have you ever seen Arrhenius and Al Gore in the same room at the same time?  Conspiracy!!

Mr. Grantham's opinion that perhaps the people and industries with billions of dollars on the table would be more likely to bend the truth seems way more plausible.

I have two previous postings on this same topic:
Explain me to me
Scientists are corrupt (say the deniers)


----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Nine: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"9) Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians. Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market. And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists, who lead finance theory, attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market efficiency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was manmade.  Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers."

Just like Jim Inhofe, the last flat earther--according to the Washington Post last year.  There is not a recognized scientific society left on the planet that is not on board with climate change--or at least not taking the opposing point of view--as pointed out here.


----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Eight: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"8) A special word on the right-leaning think tanks: As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise. In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation. Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science. Not a good idea."

Some have written that climate change is the "ultimate tragedy of the commons." (Peter Jumars, Jeffrey Simpson and others).  Many of the think tanks mentioned above take an anti-science viewpoint on climate because of their ideological stance. In the end, though, should climate change be as severe as seems likely if we continue on our current path, then more oppressive government is almost certain to be the outcome.  People will be clamoring for governments to save them from the effects of storms, floods, droughts, etc. as well as protect them from the political chaos that is likely to result.  Not only that, but once it's clear how bad it's going to be, the only possible realistic, good response is for governments to get stronger and work more closely together.  So those opposed to a worldwide government are more likely to get one if the climate goes all weird on us.  Ironic, eh?


For more on that, read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, particularly Chapter 33 - 2084: The Carbon Dictatorship.


----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Seven: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity. This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless."

This is one of the greatest weaknesses of economics.  In general, when economics has trouble placing a value on something, it just assigns it a value of zero.  Nothing skews the results more than that.  In this case, biodiversity is valued at essentially zero in economic analyses, but its actual value is incalculably large.  Talk about a discrepancy!  E.O. Wilson's book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth may not be the best book on this topic, but it comes from one of the greatest minds to ever think about biodiversity. . .or nature in general, for that matter.


[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Six: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.” In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important. Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: definitely life changing, possibly life threatening."

Not only are the costs very reasonable, but the first half or so of the emissions reductions we need to make here in the US can be done so at a profit.  It's my opinion, in fact, that by the time we make those investments and start reaping the benefits, that technology improvements and overall shifting of the economy to cleaner business will make a lot more of the emissions reductions profitable, too.  And. . .if we take into account the value of some of the other things Mr. Grantham mentions above, like increased domestic employment, reduce dependency on energy in general and foreign energy specifically, and decreased pollution--then the positive returns are even greater.
----------------------------------------------
[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Five: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"5) Skeptics argue that the wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?” But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued."

Most debate over human-caused climate change centers around the science.  But most of us are not equipped to discuss the details of the science.  The question should really center around the idea of risk management, which is what Mr. Grantham is getting at above.  Here is the best way of thinking about the question from that perspective that I have seen to date.




[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Four: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"4) The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system. It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise. But, the past can be measured. The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased. But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century.

A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, floods, and other extreme weather events."

Most of the scientists now agree that the low end of the range Mr. Grantham suggests here is unlikely and that the high end is more likely.  The biggest question mark is not the physics and chemistry, though: it's sociology.  So much depends on if we humans can slow emissions enough to stop concentrations at 450 ppm or 560 ppm (double pre-industrial levels) or if we end up with concentrations closer to 1000 ppm.  Right now, the odds of slowing and reversing emissions fast enough or significantly enough seems small.  The human factor, then, is the most important variable that will effect the eventual amount of climate change humans will experience--not the science.  The science, in  fact, keeps getting more and more dire.

[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Three: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"3) Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major influences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured. They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years."

As many others have debunked (see climate.org for instance), solar activity cannot explain the rise in temperatures that have been experienced over the last one hundred years.  Especially lately, because temperatures are setting new high records while solar activity has been at historic lows.  Nor can any other non-human factor.  The only way to explain the rise in temperatures that has been experienced is through the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations from the emissions from us humans.


[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day Two: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

"2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is just physics. (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.)"

I like this statement, because it is just so simple.  CO2 holds heat.  Here's a simple experiment showing that very effect:



More CO2; more heat.  Simple.  We humans are adding many millions of tons of CO2 to our atmosphere each day, so it's not a hard stretch to expect that eventually our world would retain more heat.  Which it has.  It's about 1 degree Celsius warmer now than at the beginning of the twentieth century.

[This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

Day One: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 13 Days

"1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year. This is certain and straightforward."

[This is the first in a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.

In his summer newsletter he wrote an essay called Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Five Minutes.  He made thirteen bullet points.  I will reprint each bullet point one per day (see above) and comment on it.  Enjoy.]

No one debates the rise in CO2--even the harshest skeptics.  The Keeling Curve is probably the most well known graphic regarding global warming.Current CO2 atmospheric concentrations are above 390 parts per million.  Pre-industrial levels were approximately 280 parts per million.

Mr. Grantham's point that it is rising each year is correct.  What is more concerning, however, is that the rate of increase is also increasing--that is, the rise in concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is accelerating.