New or revised pages:
(latest at top)
18 July 2009
|
|
If I were to say that this book was unique, I would be accused of
using a hackneyed technique of criticism. However, this time, I
really do believe that there is no other work on the subject matter
which can compare with Dr Pittock's Magnus Opus. You would be
perfectly justified in asking me why I believe this and I shall try
to explain my position.
As the subtitle of the book explains, it is divided into three
sections with several well-referenced chapters in each. The first five of them deal
with the science. As could be expected from the author's background,
the subject is based largely on the IPCC 2007 Report. This has been updated
with a great deal of research, bringing it to 2009. There is also a
certain amount of anecdotal information. However, the great emphasis
is not what is known about climate science, but rather the
uncertainties and the risks. Unlike the many other books I have read
on the subject, the points of view of the naysayers, the sceptics
and the ignorant (grouped as 'contrarians') are also discussed with
their pros and cons. Dr Pittock does not hesitate to discuss the
pros and cons of the ayesayers, as well, and the IPCC position, into the
bargain. This is one good reason why I say the book is unique.
Another good reason is the way that the author, as I have already evoked,
treats the questions of uncertainties and risks. In fact, one of the chapter
headings, " Uncertainty is inevitable, but risk is certain" gives an
excellent insight into the problems that some contrarians, while
promoting the lack of certainty, cannot acknowledge that there is an
element of risk that must be faced. Until that risk is assessed, no valid
decision can be made to deal with it. As an illustration, Dr Pittock wrote
the following paragraph:
"In a more extreme case, most of us prudently
insure our house against loss by fire, even though we believe that it is very
unlikely that our house will burn down. We know that the total loss of house
would be disastrous, and the premium we pay the insurance company is
relatively small, so we insure against the low probability of a fire.
Whether we insure depends on the relative size of the premium versus the
size of the potential loss, as well as on the probability of a fire."
His argument is therefore that even contrarians, by
analysing the uncertainties, should realise that there is a risk that
anthropogenic climate change may cause some damage, even a great deal of
damage, to living conditions on our planet. The question therefore does not
lie on whether humankind is changing the climate but what to do about it if
that were the case. Do we pay the insurance premium on the off chance?
Whereas the science, even with its uncertainties,
is fairly well understood, the potential impact of climate change,
either globally or regionally, can be judged only according to
hypothetical scenarios. These depend upon which of the many models
have been used. There is little doubt that the models have been very
well refined with increasing numbers of variables incorporated, from
both direct and indirect data. People are often confused by various
terms used to characterise future climate changes, namely
"predictions", "scenarios" and "projections". To add to the
confusion there are the probabilities of events happening. When the
fractile or percentile probability is translated into text, this may
be even more confusing. It is therefore very difficult to forecast
the impact of climate change. It is possible to determine the
statistical probability of any particular type of event from the
models. However, there are numerous variables that cannot be
predicted, such as major volcanic eruptions or sudden changes in
ocean currents. What is interesting is that the latest data would
seem to indicate that the impact will probably be greater than was
foreseen in the IPCC 2007 Report. Have we underestimated the impact?
Nobody can answer that for sure, but it is far from impossible. (I
will add a personal note here by adding that we seriously
underestimated the impact of ozone depletion in the 1980s, for
similar reasons.) So, do we know what the global or regional temperature is likely to
be in 2050 or 2100? Do we know which regions are likely to have more
or less rain? Do we know the impact of temperature changes on
permafrost? Do we know to what extent deep ocean temperatures and
carbon dioxide content are likely to change? Do we know how much the
sea level is likely to rise in any given place? Obviously there is
no categorical answer to any of these questions, but the likely
range, taking into account the known uncertainties, of each is
given, as are much more data.
The solutions that Dr Pittock offer obviously
include most of the common ones. However, there are many that are
somewhat theoretical at this time and I would even say that the
author displays a certain amount of optimism which may not be fully
founded. It is probable that he is less pragmatic, which may be
expected of a scientist, at least to some extent. On the other hand,
he does mention the great majority of possibilities, however
remote they may be in our current level of technology. As a number
of examples, let me cite much emphasis placed on unknown carbon
capture and sequestration, fusion technologies, compressed air
vehicles (these are highly energy-inefficient), clean-coal etc.
Furthermore, a number of his opinions may even be open to
discussion. This does not mean that this section is of no interest;
far from it, it is an excellent base on which to start a dialogue,
if only for its completeness. It is clear that mitigation is very
controversial at this time and I do not deduct any points in my
opinion of the value of this book because I cannot agree with every
word that is written in this section.
The solutions must also include the political decisions necessary to
implement them. These politics can vary from "business as usual" to
green extremism. In order to achieve fossil fuel stabilisation,
politicians and businessmen must put their heads together at both
national and international levels. The interests of countries like
Bangladesh and the United States are possibly diametrically opposed
and different again from those of small island states, such as Malta.
It is difficult to conceive a global solution to what is almost
certainly the hardest task that confronts us in the 21st century.
There are some subjects that have been glossed
over, such as waste-to-energy conversion and the impact of fossil
fuels and climate change on human health.
This book is very well written in clear, concise
English and one feels that every word has been chosen individually
to convey the exact sense that the author intended. There are
very few cases of ambiguity. Having read it in detail, I found
only one error of fact, probably more a lapsus than anything else,
because he did not make the same error in the later chapter (on page
7, he stated that, "HFCs are manufactured gases once widely used in
refrigerants and other industries, but which are largely being
phased out of use because of their potential to destroy atmospheric
ozone."; of course, Dr Pittock meant CFCs and not HFCs!). There
is a slight sense of Australian parochialism, but is this surprising
when his work over decades was carried out 'down under'? It is not
sufficient to detract from the global reach of the book.
It is probably easier to say who should not read
this book than who should read it! If you do not have at least
a reasonable knowledge of high school science, then you will
probably get lost off with some of the explanations, despite the
extensive glossary. It is not light
bedtime reading, like an Agatha Christie. It requires concentration
because the text itself is highly concentrated. However, if this
subject is of interest, then you will find the book fascinating. It
is certainly, up to this moment, the most up-to-date, factual work
on the subject
that I have ever had the pleasure of reading through. It should be
required reading for every politician in every country to understand
the problems that we are being confronted with. It should also be
required reading for anybody who has even a remotely indirect
connection with the energy industry -- remembering that most of us
have a direct connection through the nearest light switch! Coming to
think of it, just read it! You will not find a better impartial
discussion of the subject in any other book that I know of.
|