The Resilient Earth: Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity

by Simmons, Allen

  While the frequency of hurricanes has not been noticeably affected by global warming, most experts expect the strength, or intensity, of tropical storms to increase. This is because the energy that drives cyclonic storms comes from warm surface water—the higher the sea surface temperature (SST) the more intense the storm. That is the theory, but so far there is no indication that this is happening either. There has been a noticeable shift in rainfall patterns over the past century. The increase in rainfall in some areas has been credited with increased forest growth in some areas. A worldwide average increase is harder to detect because of the impact of the same climate cycles that affect the hurricane pattern.

  The other severe weather phenomena frequently seen in North America and elsewhere, are tornadoes. In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore makes the claim that 2004 was the most active year for tornadoes ever in the United States, and that there has been a steady trend in increasing tornadoes as the globe has warmed. Again, the data presented by climate change activists are not accurate. During the time from 1950 to 2000, the technology and network for detecting tornadoes improved vastly. According to NOAA: “With increased national doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency.”

  A better understanding of the tornado activity trend in the US can be gained by looking at the most violent tornadoes in the past. These strong to violent tornadoes, rated from category F3 to F5 on the Fujita scale, are more likely to have been reported in the past, thus providing a more accurate indication of historical tornado frequency. As the bar chart in Illustration 145 indicates, there has been no discernible trend in the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years.

  Illustration 145: Frequency of strong tornadoes since 1950. Source NOAA.

  Climatologists need to show that other, related aspects of climate such as winds and moisture levels are also changing as a result of GHG emissions. Climate scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, have studied satellite measurements of atmospheric water content. They found that total water vapor over the oceans had increased since satellite records became available in 1988,493 but whether this was due to human activity remains an open question.

  Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Goddard Space Flight Center used five years of rainfall observations collected by the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission satellite to identify the strongest influences on global rainfall patterns. The two major factors in global precipitation are presented in the maps in Illustration 146. Seasonal variation is shown in the top map and the effect of El Niño-la Niña cycles in the bottom map. Blue and red areas are opposites in terms of rainfall variation. When one area is wet, the other is dry. The green areas show the smallest changes from season to season and year to year.

  Illustration 146: Rainfall pattern changes due to seasonal change (top) and El Niño-la Niña cycles (bottom). Source NASA.

  As stated earlier, changes in weather and rainfall patterns are cyclic. Some areas become dryer and others become wetter. In terms of crop production, areas in the temperate latitudes have been getting wetter and having better harvests. Areas around the equator have experienced drought conditions. But overall, moderate global warming should mean an increase in global average rainfall. Given the world's ever-increasing population, this might not be a bad thing at all.

  Mass Extinctions

  One reason so many environment organizations have jumped on the human-caused global warming bandwagon is the reported link to species loss. The poster children for this concern are polar region animals, specifically, penguins and polar bears. There is no doubt that these two species are being affected by environmental changes. But since climate is always changing, it is hard to say whether the changes are due to global warming or other factors. Regardless of the source of change, the question becomes, are penguins and polar bears at risk?

  Illustration 147: Penguin evolution and radiation in Antarctica starting 40 mya. Source Baker, et al, 2006.

  Penguins are aquatic, flightless birds that live almost exclusively in the Southern Hemisphere. There are between 17 and 20 living species of penguin, depending on which authority is consulted. The largest living species is the Emperor penguin, Aptenodytes forsteri, which average 42 inches (1.1 m) in height and weigh about 75 lbs. (35 kg). Penguins are popular around the world, noted for their tuxedo-like coloration, waddling gait and curiosity about humans.

  Penguins have been on Earth much longer than people. According to fossil evidence, the earliest penguins appeared between 130-65 mya, originating in the core of the ancient supercontinent Gondwanaland. At that time, Antarctica was still attached to both Australia and South America, with New Zealand close by. By 70 mya, the part of Gondwanaland where penguins originated had drifted much further south. This movement carried penguins to a cooler climate than the one in which they evolved.494

  During the late Eocene and early Oligocene (40-30 mya), several species of enormous penguins appeared. These man-sized, prehistoric giants stood as tall as 6 feet (1.8 m). The interesting thing about these penguins is that their remains have been found as far north as Peru—they didn't need ice to survive.495

  Over time, continued continental drift and global cooling helped transform the penguin into the cold loving birds we have come to know. In Illustration 147, the climatic transformation of Antarctica from a temperate continent to an ice covered land is depicted. Starting 40 mya Antarctica had no ice cover (a), but, as the circumpolar current formed 25 mya it became partially (b–c), and then fully covered in ice (d–f). The locations of the oldest and biggest penguin fossils are numbered 1-6. As Antarctica became ice-encrusted, modern penguins expanded to islands nearby, and later to the southern continents.

  Penguins only reached the cooler tropical waters surrounding the Galapagos Islands about 4 mya. It is thought that the warm water around the equator has prevented them from spreading to the Northern Hemisphere.496 Clearly, penguins have been able to adapt to changing environmental conditions in the past, and there is good evidence that they remain robust and flexible today.

  Illustration 148: Tux, the Linux mascot, by Larry Ewing.

  Adélie penguins, Pygoscelis adeliae, are the smallest of the penguins living on the Antarctic continent. Adults average about 28 inches (70 cm) tall and weigh about 8 to 9 lbs. (4 kg) —much smaller than their larger cousins, the emperor penguins. Named after the wife of French explorer Dumont d'Urville, in the 1830s, they are the most studied of all the penguin species. There are over 2.5 million breeding pairs living in the Antarctic region. These penguins nest and breed on rocky, ice-free beaches in large colonies, numbering tens of thousands of birds. Though Tux, the mascot of the open source Linux computer operating system, does not represent a single species of penguin, many believe that he resembles an Adélie Penguin.

  Studies of the eating habits of Adélie penguins have uncovered some surprising results. It seems that the diet of Adélie penguins in Antarctica changed significantly about 200 years ago.497 Scientists have attributed the shift in diet to whaling and other hunting in the region during the 19th and 20th centuries. The population of krill in southern seas exploded after Antarctic fur seals and krill-eating whales were hunted nearly to extinction. Man's removal of krill's natural predators enabled the tiny crustaceans to proliferate.

  Chemical analyses of the penguins' eggshells indicate that the birds' primary diet shifted from fish to krill, previously a secondary food source. Why an abundance of krill would cause penguins to suddenly change from eating fish is a source of speculation among scientists. Charles H. Peterson, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina, commented: “It's a cosmic irony of foodweb ecology that a rare species is only rare because it's kept in check by predators,” adding “Maybe krill was one of [the penguins'] favorite foods all along.”498 The Ad�
�lies seem to be thriving on their new diet, penguin populations have risen by 40% over the past twenty years.499

  Krill are amazingly prolific, when measured by biomass they are the most successful animal on the planet, totaling some 725 million tons. There have been recent warnings that krill are threatened, not only by global warming but by human harvesting. Fishing fleets were projected to catch 764,000 tons in 2008.500 This “over fishing,” a catch totaling 0.1% of the world's krill, stands in comparison with the 300 million tons of krill eaten by penguins, fish, seals, and whales each year.

  If penguins are the stars of the Antarctic, then polar bears are the headliners for the Arctic. Modern bears have been around for a much shorter time than penguins. Bears are large, omnivorous mammals that first evolved around 5 mya, though some of their distant relatives were in Asia during the late Eocene, 37 mya. Modern bears are a widespread, successful species, appearing in a variety of habitats throughout the Northern and parts of the Southern Hemispheres. The white bear of the Arctic is an even newer resident of planet Earth.

  Our knowledge of the development of polar bears is well-documented by fossil transitions. Scientists theorize that between 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, during the mid-Pleistocene, a number of brown bears (Ursos arctos) became isolated by glaciers. While many probably perished on the ice, they did not all die out. The survivors offspring underwent a rapid series of evolutionary changes in order to survive. Some think this was possible because of the small population, and extreme selection pressure. The end result was a new species of bear adapted to harsh Arctic conditions—the polar bear.

  Illustration 149: A mother polar bear with cubs. Source www.firstpeople.us.

  The first “polar bear,” Ursus maritimus tyrannus, was essentially a brown bear subspecies, with brown bear dimensions and teeth. Over the next 20,000 years, body size reduced and the skull elongated. As late as 10,000 years ago, polar bears still had a high frequency of brown-bear-type molars. Only recently have they developed what biologists call polar-bear-type teeth: smaller molars and stouter canines that reflect a more carnivorous diet.501

  There are claims that polar bear numbers have been plummeting because of melting polar sea ice and that the polar bear will soon go extinct. This claim is hard to substantiate, as New Scientist stated:

  “There are thought to be between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears in 19 population groups around the Arctic. While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.”502

  Many experts think that hunting and threats to habitat are much more important factors than global temperatures. While estimates of polar bear losses due to global warming are about 15 animals a year, hunting losses are 49 bears per year.503 There are few accurate numbers available, and there are many reasons for polar bear populations to decline—but are they?

  Mitchell Taylor, a polar bear biologist with the Canadian government, confirms what Inuit hunters have said for a long time: polar bears who live along the southeast coast of Baffin Island, in northern Quebec, and the northern coast of Labrador are healthy, and growing in numbers. “The Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears,” Taylor said, in an interview. Writing in the Toronto Star, in 2006, he stated: “Of the thirteen populations of polar bears in Canada, eleven are stable or are increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

  Global warming might actually be helping polar bears in that area. A reduction in ice cover creates better habitat for seals, which are the bears' main food, while on land, blueberries, which the bears adore, become more plentiful. Taylor says he's seen bears so full of blueberries they waddle. “Life may be good,” said Taylor, “but good news about polar bear populations does not seem to be welcomed by the Center for Biological Diversity. It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.”504

  What can we learn from the penguin and the polar bear, species that, like Homo sapiens, are products of the ice age? For one thing, they continue to adapt to changes in their environment. Penguins opportunistically changed from fish to krill as krill became more abundant. Polar bears are now building their winter dens on land instead of on pack ice. Both polar bears and penguins instinctively know what humans native to Earth's coldest regions also understand—you have to adapt to survive.

  Ecological activists are always saying we should learn from the wisdom of indigenous peoples. During an NPR story on the residents of Barrow, Alaska, the northern-most village in the US, geologist Richard Glenn was interviewed. When asked about the impact of climate change on the Eskimo's way of life Glenn, who is half Inuapiat, said “yeah it's changing, but it's our job to know these changes, and so we live with change.” He added, “I think MTV has more affect on us than global climate change.”505

  Species go extinct all of the time—the ultimate fate of all species is extinction. Instead of agonizing over the fate of the penguin and the polar bear, we should worry about the fate of our species. If we don't learn from nature—which dictates that the future always belongs to the adaptable—humans won't outlive penguins or polar bears, let alone evolutionary superstars like the cockroach and the crocodile.

  Plague, Pestilence and Famine

  Climate scientists have noted that severe weather in the climate record is closely linked to calamities in the past. Disastrous floods in China, in 1331 and 1332, killed 7 million people and rank among the worst weather disasters in history. Those floods have been linked to subsequent epidemics of the bubonic plague both in China and Europe. In Europe and China, in the 14th century, the population was cut in half by plague, famine and war. Storms also increased during these intervals. Climate history is clear, it suggests that times of global cooling, not warming, are more perilous. Yet, warnings of plague, pestilence and famine caused by global warming are posted around the world.

  The diseases most frequently projected to spread because of global warming are called vector-born diseases. These diseases are not transmitted to new hosts directly, instead they depend on a carrier organism called a vector. Most prominent among vector-born diseases is malaria, a sickness caused by parasites carried by mosquitoes. Each year malaria infects 500 million people, causing more than a million deaths. According to Pim Martens, writing in American Scientist:

  “The spread of this disease is limited by conditions that favor the disease vector (the malarial mosquito Anopheles) and the protozoan parasite (Plasmodium). The malarial mosquito is most comfortable at temperatures of approximately 20 to 30 degrees centigrade and at a relative humidity of at least 60 percent.”506

  This seems a cogent argument, linking the spread of disease to global warming. But Martens' statement isn't totally accurate. Although today, malaria is thought of as a tropical disease, historically malaria has been found most everywhere around the world. According to entomologist Paul Reiter, the first major reported outbreak of malaria occurred in Philadelphia, in the 1780s. Endemic malaria reached 68°N latitude in Europe during the 19th century, where the summer mean temperature rarely exceeded 16°C.507 As recently as the 1880s, malaria was a serious problem throughout all of North America and was present as far north as Finland. It is only since 1950 that malaria has been eliminated from Europe and North America and from large areas in Central and South America. History proves that malaria can flourish in colder regions when the mosquitoes that carry the disease are not kept under control.

  Reports that malaria is on the rise throughout Africa, South America and elsewhere have been attributed to a decrease in DDT use by those countries, not global warming.508 Tony McMichael, Professor of Epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said of the future threat from diseases such as malaria, yellow fever and dengue fever, “There may or may not have been rece
nt influence of climate change but if there has been, we certainly can't detect it against the background noise.”509 The most disturbing thing about the vector-borne disease/global warming link is just how ill-informed the so-called experts were who first made these claims in the IPCC reports. As Reiter told the BBC, “The bibliographies of the nine lead authors of the health section show that between them they had only published six research papers on vector-borne diseases.”510

  Sidney Shindell, Professor Emeritus at the Medical College of Wisconsin, has fought disease in Western Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, the Caribbean, Central Africa and the Pacific Rim—thirty-five countries in all. After studying disease patterns around the world for over 50 years, he was asked to evaluate the potential risk of plague from global warming as part of a study by the American Council on Science and Health (ACHS). The ACSH based its work on the assumption that the IPCC's predictions are correct. Summarizing the report's conclusions, Dr. Shindell stated:

  “The global burden of disease is formidable. Well understood public health measures could significantly decrease the current incidence of premature death, but resources for applying these measures are currently inadequate. Thus, work toward increasing these resources is prudent, regardless of the prospect for climate change.”511

  Dr. Shindell concluded that “nearly all of the potential adverse health effects of the projected climate change are significant, real-life problems today that have long persisted under stable climatic conditions.” In short, global warming will not appreciably change the world's health outlook and any preventative steps we might wish to take, should be taken anyway. No increase in plague is foreseen.

  The threat of pestilence conjures images of swarming locusts, stripping crops bare and causing disaster on a Biblical scale. The news media breathlessly reported on the vast swarms of locusts that were eating Africa in 2004, only to have the ravenous insects inconveniently disappear, as they always do, after swarming. In 2005, the Independent reported, “Freak swarms of locusts devouring vineyards in and around the northern Italian province of Alessandria... threatening this year's production of a venerable wine.” The locals had no doubt the locust outbreak was linked to global-warming.