CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR
OF THE WORLD CLIMATE
AS SEEN BY A SEAMAN AND LAWYER
Paper presented by
Dr Arnd Bernaerts
Attorney-at-Law in Hamburg
at the GKSS Research Center, Geesthacht / Hamburg
on December 4, 1992
I. Climate as an Offshot of Meteorology GO!
II. Research into Greenhouse Gases as an Abstract Discipline
III. United for Rio GO!
IV. Defining the Problem GO!
1. The Second Step - Writing the Laws GO!
2. The First Step - The Facts to be Considered GO!
V. Note GO!
B. Conditions for Planning - The
I. Statistics on Rising Temperatures GO!
II. The Distant Ocean GO!
1. Facts or Feeling GO!
2. Krakatoa - A Climatic Once-in-a-Century Event? GO!
a) State of Affairs GO!
b) The Observations after Krakatoa and the Stabilizer GO!
c) The Missed Opportunity GO!
3. The Events from the Depths GO!
a) The Event from Nothing - The Cold
Period 1940 – 1965 GO!
b) The 1940 Event from the Depths of the North Atlantic GO!
c) The Warm Period Beginning in 1920 - Result of World
War I? GO!
d) The Undiscovered Chance GO!
4. Other Events - Constant Dropping
Wears the Wake? GO!
a) Poiseners of the Sea GO!
b) Eight Times a Day to the Moon – Warming in the Wake?
III. CO 2 - Drastic Effect or Drastic
IV. The Phenomenon – Climate GO!
1. The Statistical Starting Point GO!
2. What is Climate - The Place of Climate in the Natural
3. Further Points of Argument - Further Question Marks GO!
a) Climatic Data from Prehistoric
b) The Chicken or the Egg - Atmospheric Winds and Ocean
c) The Rise in the Level of the Sea - Cause from Above
or Below GO!
d) Temperature Measurements - Land and Sea GO!
e) Beginning of a Warm or Cold Age GO!
V. Result - The Situation GO!
C. Bodies of Regulations for the Climate GO!
I. Climate Convention of Rio - A Beginning? GO!
II. Legislature – Science GO!
III. Global Climate Protection - The International
1. Overview GO!
2. Comparison and Importance of the Regulatory Content GO!
a) The Regulatory Content of the
Individual Conventions GO!
b) The Relevance of the Conventions for the Climate GO!
IV. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention -
the Climate Treaty GO!
1. Introduction - No Climate Without
the Ocean GO!
2. Basic Factors Involving the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty GO!
3. The Major Regulations Relevant for the Climate in the
Individual Sections GO!
a) Regulations Concerning Marine
Environmental Protection GO!
b) Scientific Marine Research GO!
c) Development and Transfer of Marine Technology GO!
d) System for Settlement of Disputes GO!
4. Problem Management - Legal Claim or
D. Final Remarks GO!
A. Introduction top
For the last 150 years, two areas of
modern science have been concerned with the climate:
meteorology and the scientists who have studied questions of
geophysics in its widest sense. These include among their
number the physicist Svante Arrhenius, who was awarded the
Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1903.
I. Climate as an Offshoot of Meteorology top
In briefly summarizing the contributions
of meteorology, a notable starting point is the first
article in the Meteorologische Zeitschrift, which has been
appearing since January 1884. It was a report of the
volcanic eruptions of the year 1883, particularly that of
Krakatoa in the Sunda Strait, Indonesia. The first sentence
in this venerable journal was written by Director Neumayer
of the German Sea Observatory and reads: "The year 1883
will take a remarkable place in the history of earth with
respect to the effects of the earth's interior on the crust
and everything found upon it." He meant that the
effects of volcanic activity on the atmosphere surrounding
the earth would be of particular interest.
Although the eruption of Krakatoa caused a notable reduction
in the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's
surface for a number of years, meteorological interest soon
dwindled away. The weather continued just as it had before.
Since the concept of climate was defined at that time, just
as today, as the average weather over a long period of time
and the Krakatoa eruption did not cause a major disruption
in the statistics, the flurry of scientific advance which
Neumayer expected failed to occur. Meteorology did not
recognize important relationships between the events.
II. Research into Greenhouse Gases as an Abstract
But the atmosphere is not the domain of
meteorologists alone. Since the beginning of the last
century, a number of natural scientists in other fields have
been studying the effects of carbon dioxide on the warming
of the earth's atmosphere; as early as 1827, the effects of
gases in the atmosphere were compared with shielding by
glass. In 1956,
Plass stated that a century of scientific work had been
necessary to calculate with any accuracy the amount and
effect of CO 2. He
expressed the opinion that a doubling of the CO 2
concentration in the atmosphere would raise the temperature
of the air by 3.6° C. and that the evidence currently
available indicated that the concentration of CO 2 was a
significant factor for climatic changes.
Nonetheless, the theory did not begin to
find general recognition
until it was seen that a cold period which had begun in 1940
came to an end in the middle of the 1960s and that the
warmest summers of this century was recorded since 1980,
that the Sahara began to expand, that the El Nino did not
maintain its seven-year rhythm, and that beginning in 1985
North America had to suffer through drought periods. More
and more scientists saw a relationship between CO 2
emissions and the warming of the atmosphere. But it was not
until the Chief Climatologist of the NASA, James Hansen,
stated on June 23, 1988, before a US Senate Committee that a
greenhouse effect was beginning to develop and that he was
99% certain of this,
that the greenhouse theoreticians won general recognition.
III. United for Rio top
To the great joy of environmentalists
and, for a while, to the annoyance of many meteorologists,
the greenhouse effect became an omnipresent topic for the
press, a worried public, and frightened politicians. Never
before had a scientific problem risen to such dominance in
the political arena, it was said
and no one wanted to be left out in the cold. Science was
united. The forum was the "Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change" (IPCC)
organized by the United Nations. In little more than a year,
a report was prepared through the co-operation of virtually
all researchers who had made important contributions to the
study of climatic changes
and presented to international politics at the Second World
Climate Conference in Geneva in November 1990.
In January 1992, the IPCC confirmed these results.
Even the IPCC report of 1990 left little room for scientific
doubt with respect to the relevance of CO 2 for the climate
and declared that it was no longer a question of if, but at
the most of how fast the climatic changes would occur. The
conclusion of a climate convention with the primary goal of
permanently reducing the greenhouse gas emissions was
At the Environmental Summit in Rio de
Janeiro from 3 to 14 June, 1992,
this demand was made the centerpiece of international
politics. During the Summit itself, 154 states signed the
"United Nations Framework Agreement on Climatic
Change." Nevertheless, the criticism of the agreement
could not be overlooked. But this criticism was not aimed at
the "whether" or "how", but at the fact
that politicians were unable to agree on more decisive
measures to reduce greenhouse gases.
The extreme stumbling blocks in the negotiations were
basically a result of the unwillingness of the USA to agree
to a binding determination of CO 2 quotas. The General
Secretary of the Conference, Maurice Strong, remarked:
"The weight of evidence is that the climate is in
danger, but the Convention is not enough. The real test is,
will it soon lead to reductions in the polluting gases that
threaten the atmosphere".
German Environmental Minister Klaus Töpfer intends to act
to ensure that the climate convention serves a purpose.
"Our first goal is a follow-up conference to the
Climate Convention where we can get down to serious
business," he declared at the end of the Earth Summit
As other voices have also commented that
while the results were not optimal, at least they were a
beginning and it
was now only necessary to continue steadfastly along the
road chosen, it appears as if climate history has already
been written and only a determination of the amount of the
quotas for the reduction of greenhouse gases, binding on
all, is lacking for the protection of the climate. But this
could prove to be a dramatic mistake.
IV. Defining the Problem top
1. The Second Step - Writing the Laws top
When a problem has been recognized, the
desire for a solution begins to grow. A plan must be made.
The plan must be feasible. The legislature, i.e., the jurist,
must step into action. Plans for the protection of the
climate can be made only if the situation is described
precisely and the goals and the extent of rights and
obligations are set. This is done by means of applicable and
enforceable laws and rules. Laws and international
agreements are therefore the ultima ratio for overcoming
conflicts and problems. It was therefore only natural that
scientists at the Second World Climate Conference in Geneva
in November 1990 should demand that the nations begin
immediately with negotiations on a climate convention so
that such a document could be signed in 1992. Legislative
action is therefore a substantial element of working out
problems, and there is no need to explain why an evaluation
from the viewpoint of a lawyer is offered here.
2. The First Step - The Facts to be Considered top
Just as an attorney cannot properly
represent his client unless he has been given detailed - and
accurate - information about the situation, the quality of
laws is as a general rule dependent to a considerable extent
on how well, how precisely, and how extensively the
legislature has been informed of the situation being
regulated. To the extent that scientific opinion represented
in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was
able to show that greenhouse gases, global warming, and
climatic change are joined to one another in a causal
relationship, the Climate Convention of Rio could serve as
the foundation of a suitable instrument.
This presumes, however, that the
description of the situation was an adequate representation
of the problem. Yet there are considerable reservations
about precisely this point. After acid rain and the ozone
hole were recognized some years ago as serious environmental
problems, now the weather is supposedly in danger. As
everyone has always been intensely concerned with the
weather, the general public was seriously frightened and
politicians came under heavy pressure. Within a year after
James Hansen's famous appearance before the US Congressional
Committee, the government leaders of the seven
industrialized states formulated the following in Paris in
1989: "The increasing complexity of the issues related
to the protection of the atmosphere calls for innovative
So even top levels of politics were
quickly convinced that the climate was an atmospheric
phenomenon. But this description of the situation is too
vague to allow for effective climate protection. From the
"point of view of a seaman" - sailors are known to
be more concerned with the ocean than with the atmosphere
over the seas - there should first be a discussion as to
whether the situational conditions described at the Rio
Conference were concrete enough to allow a long-term
resolution of the climate problem. Although it has been more
than twenty years since this writer sailed the seas as a
captain, it is perhaps still correct to apply the following
remarks of Neumayer from the year 1884 to him: "These
notes should be valued all the more highly as they come from
seamen whose years of observations at sea have accustomed
them to recording and describing by simple means natural
phenomena, while, being temporarily isolated as they are,
cannot be influenced in their observations and descriptions".
This is perhaps applicable, as the basis
for his understanding of the climate from the "viewpoint
of a seaman" had already been established more than
thirty years ago, when he was a young deck officer. Even
though he was no more able than others to avoid the euphoria
of the opening of the age of space exploration, he regarded
the harnessing of technical advance for research into the
oceans as the greater necessity. For long-term and reliable
weather forecasts can only be achieved on the basis of
thorough knowledge of the seas. As this is still lacking, it
was possible for the London "Times" only a few
months ago to remark sarcastically in an editorial:
"Absolute unpredictability is weather's defining virtue.
Perhaps that is what our unintelligible forecasters are
trying to say".
The first part of the following
discussion will be concerned with determining the factors
which appear necessary for climate protection, and then
there will be a probing of the legal components.
V. Note top
To begin with, a basic assumption must be
stated to avoid possible misunderstandings. The damage to
the environment caused by gas emissions into the atmosphere
is not being questioned. Efforts to conserve energy by
reducing CO 2 are also not protection of the climate are
adequate as a basis for convincing plans or whether further
steps are required.
B. Conditions for Planning - The
I. Statistics on Rising Temperatures top
There are lies, damned lies, and then
there are statistics, complained a statesman and author.
But they are unavoidable,
and when one looks at the history of the greenhouse
discussion, there are so many statistics involved, not to
mention computers and simulations, that a short recital of
statistical basic values should not be lacking here.
If the sun were "turned off",
the temperature of the atmosphere would be only 28° C above
absolute zero, i.e., at -245° C. With the sun, but without
water, the average temperature on earth would be -11° C,
resulting from a daytime temperature of approximately +135°
C and a nighttime temperature of approximately -155° C.
If we continue to work with average
figures, we could get the impression that even including the
global water masses would not change much. The oceans have
an average temperature of +5° C and the atmosphere
registers -17° C. If you take the average of these, then
you have -6° C, a value which is not very far removed from
the -11° C. of a waterless planet. If we wanted to draw
conclusions from this situation, it would appear logical
to argue that water has little to do with the warmth of the
earth. But in doing so, we would have allowed ourselves to
be "drawn in" by statistics. Taking another
standpoint, the world looks completely different.
The starting point is that the oceans are
huge and deep. If all of the continents were leveled off to
a depth of 3000 meters and the excess dumped into the deep
seas so that the land surface all over the globe were
equidistant from the center of the earth, the globe would
then be covered by an ocean with a depth of almost 3000
meters. The ocean is a factor which cannot be ignored, even
if it has withdrawn from 1/3 of the earth's surface,
For one of the principal elements in
climatic activity is the capacity of water to store heat.
Whereas the seaman hardly notices any difference between
daytime and nighttime temperatures, the Bedouin in the
desert regularly has to contend with a drop in temperature
of 20° C. and more every night. Neither land nor dry air
are capable of maintaining a constant temperature even for a
short periods of time without replenishment of energy by the
sun. The best-known phenomenon which demonstrates this is
the land wind which begins only a few hours after sunset.
The day-to-day experience is only one of a change back and
forth, because as soon as the sun has been above the horizon
for only a couple of hours, the sea wind begins, i.e., the
cooler air above the ocean is pulled in over the land masses.
But in explaining the functions of the natural systems, the
examples are helpful starting points to aid understanding.
For we can come to the conclusion that, from a climatic
point of view, the oceans dominate the land masses, here
over a very short period of time.
If the atmosphere is divided into its two
warmth or energy bearers, water and greenhouse gases (CO 2,
methane, etc.), then the atmospheric humidity has as much
warmth capacity as a two-meter layer of ocean water, the
greenhouse gases as much as a one-meter layer. In practice,
this means that that a rise in the temperature of the
atmosphere of 1° C. must cause a drop of the same amount in
the upper three meters of the ocean.
The elementary dimensional relationships
of the upper 240 meters of the oceans, the atmosphere, and
the land have been worked out in impressive fashion by A. S.
Monin. After determining the mass relations of 16.4 to 1 to
0.45, he defines the warmth capacity ratio for the oceans as
68.5, for the atmosphere as 1, and for the land as 0.45.
As 2/3 of the warmth capacity of the atmosphere is accounted
for by humidity, there is a ratio between CO 2, methane,
etc., and the upper 240 meters of water of 1:215. Based on
an average ocean depth of over 3600 meters, the ratio is no
doubt far above 1:2000.
The current discussion does not involve
the general warmth capacity of the atmosphere, but has to do
with the importance of the increase in greenhouse gas values.
In 1990, the concentration of CO 2 was about 25% higher than
around 200 years ago (increase from 280 ppmv to 353 ppmv).
If it is a question of a statistical valuation of the warmth
potential, we could think about taking the effect of a layer
of sea water of just 0.25 meter depth for comparison. But
this would be an undervaluation of even this thin layer.
After all, the sun is involved in the process every day, and
"approximately 80% of the solar energy intercepted by
our planet enters the atmosphere over the oceans".
As a considerable amount of the heat
energy absorbed by the oceans is released immediately, only
a few centimeters of the ocean's upper layer can have a more
long-lasting effect on the average air temperature than
other factors. But the world of statistics will hardly be
able to provide an answer as to whether this is really the
case, no matter how many comparisons we make. Nevertheless,
such comparisons indicate that the rise in temperature known
as "global warming" is not necessarily in essence
an atmospheric event.
II. The Distant Ocean top
1. Facts or Feeling top
When in "The Encyclopedia of
Climatology" we read the sentence: "The ocean is
closer to a state of dynamic equilibrium than the atmosphere",
or when GraBl/Klingholz state that the oceans are very, very
slow to react,
the question arises as to what led to these determinations.
Are they based on "feeling" or on logical
conclusions based on observed conditions? The physical
dimensions of events in nature show a different face in any
case. For if a cubic meter of water contains more energy
than an air column several kilometers high, than even a
hurricane with winds of 100 km/h is not much more dynamic
than an ocean current traveling only a few km/h. If the
oceans did not contribute their part to heat stability of
the atmosphere second for second, hour for hour (land wind),
etc., the world would look much different. The quoted
statements are relative and indicate that the oceans have
not been really taken into account in science's observations.
The conceptual world so strongly formed by daily experience
of atmospheric activities appears to hinder "dimensionally
correct" comparisons with the oceans.
Even the director of the German Sea Observatory quoted above,
Neumayer, spoke only of interest in the effects of the
volcanic eruptions in 1883 on the layers of air surrounding
the earth. At
that time and until the recent past, the oceans were hardly
taken into account in the effort to understand atmospheric
phenomena. Even in 988, James Hansen (see above) and the
representatives of the greenhouse theory relied on the
analysis of statistics to support their theses. Statistics
aided by computer simulations celebrated hitherto unknown
By maintaining an observational
standpoint aimed at the atmosphere and ruled by statistics,
it is possible that a whole series of opportunities to
describe concretely the mechanics of the global natural
system under unusual circumstances have been allowed to slip
by. This will be shown in the following examples, as they
could play an important role in describing the climatic
situation. The nature of this paper means that these can
only be theses. They must be proven in another place. At the
same time, it could be of help to localize important points
which are essential if climate research and climate
protection are to be successful.
2. Krakatoa - A Climatic
Once-in-a-Century Event? top
a. State of Affairs top
In the year following the three volcanic
eruptions in 1883, including Krakatoa in August 1883, the
circulation in the atmosphere was above normal and then sank
to a powerfully developed minimum in 1888, wrote Artur
Wagner in his discussion of climatic change in 1940.
At the most, a reduction in solar energy could be caused
only by fine dust at high altitudes. Other authors also
refer to Krakatoa only from the standpoints of blockage of
sunlight and as a cause of ice ages.
Even today, the discussion of large-scale volcanic eruptions
is limited to the determination that it can become colder
for a short period of time.
Little is left of Neumayer's euphoria of January 1884 and -
as it appears - there have hardly been any advances for
science. Did Krakatoa really leave behind so few traces, or
were they simply not recognized?
b) The Observations after Krakatoa and
the Stabilizer top
Only a short time after the main eruption
of Krakatoa on 21 August, 1883, unusual observations were
reported, which were compiled by Neumayer.
Here are some examples from ship logs
from all over the world in 1883:
3 September: During the past few days,
there has been a fairly even gray cloud mass, normally
covering the entire sky, above the cumulus and stratus
3 September: At midday hazy gray air.
Hazy, gray air condensing into dew towards evening;
5 September The air appears yellow
7 September: The atmosphere appeared
to be filled with very small, evenly distributed clouds
13 September: The yellowish "haze"
continues in the upper atmosphere;
11 October: Fiery atmosphere,
5 November: Pale atmosphere;
10 December: The air was very clear
and looked like the air in the southern Indian Ocean
during the typhoon season;
13 December: Lead-colored sky.
The observations were continued,
collected, evaluated, and thoroughly discussed.
Five years after the eruption of Krakatoa,
the scientific work on the events of the year 1883 were
temporarily brought to a close with the "Report of the
Krakatoa-Committee of the Royal Society." A summary by
J. M. Pernter was given in the Meteorologische Zeitschrift
of 1899. The following information is derived mainly from
The most amazing aspect of the report is
that it does not contain any mention of possible relevance
of the oceans. Furthermore, the question of a possible
change in the average temperature of the atmosphere does not
appear to have interested anyone. Although it was quickly
determined that the amount of solar energy received was
clearly reduced for a period of several years, little
attention was paid to the development of the atmospheric
temperature. The blockage must have fluctuated strongly and
have varied greatly, depending on the observation point. In
total, the blockage effect has been calculated at an average
of approximately 10% over a span of four years, whereby the
reduction of solar energy in the northern hemisphere (Paris)
was at its greatest in fall of 1885, reaching a value of 25%.
It would seem that a reduction of solar
radiation of such proportions would necessarily have a
long-lasting effect on atmospheric dynamics. But supposedly
the average temperatures fell only slightly
and the atmospheric circulation in 1884 was above normal and
did not sink to a strongly developed minimum until 1888.
While the equilibrium of the world of statistics may not
have been disturbed by Krakatoa, events were rather
different in the world of nature. Without the stabilizing
effects of the ocean, the effect of Krakatoa would have been
catastrophic. A person sitting in warm bath water does not
experience any discomfort when the heating is turned off -
at least, not right away. But what can possibly happen to
the higher latitudes of the earth if the warm water from the
tropics is already on the way? A cooling-off effect will
only become noticeable after the passage of some time and
continued blockage of solar radiation. The influence of the
oceans was shown clearly by the fact that coastal areas had
above-average temperatures in 1884, whereas continental land
masses such as Russia, Siberia, India, China, Canada, and
the USA (inland areas far from the Atlantic) recorded very
cold winters in the years up to 1888.
This could be dismissed as coincidence if
the time until 1886 had not been accompanied by another
phenomenon, a "hazy fog", a strange, smoky
cloudiness in the atmosphere which was observed both in the
tropics and in other areas. When Pernter further states (P.
410): "The hazy fog appears as a constant companion of
the extraordinary optical phenomena in the atmosphere during
the entire period of the atmospheric-optical disturbance",
then one can say - speaking non-technically - that Nature
had "popped a lid over it" and so protected the
oceans from cooling off too quickly. The lid consisted of
ingredients provided by Krakatoa and water vapor provided by
the ocean. As a result of the "dirtying" of the
atmosphere by the volcano's eruption, the atmosphere
displayed characteristics and behavior deviating from the
norm. Just as fog over a water surface sharply limits the
transfer of heat energy, the hazy fog must have had a
long-lasting effect. The dispute at the time as to whether
Krakatoa had provided the water vapor (Pernter, P. 414)
would most likely not have occurred if it had been assumed
that the upper ocean water level (statistically speaking)
was about 30° C. warmer than the atmosphere. The fact that
the air circulation did not reach its minimum until 1888 is
not surprising. From the middle of the 1880s on, a "weakening"
of the oceans in the higher latitudes must have become
noticeable. The less heat energy the ocean feeds into the
atmosphere, the weaker become the dynamics in the atmosphere.
This also becomes clear when it is seen that three years
after Krakatoa the temperatures above land rose more sharply
than above the oceans.
c) The Missed Opportunity top
If climate is explained by average
weather conditions and the oceans are allowed only a static
place in events in Nature, as was the case until recently,
then we really could go on with our daily affairs and regard
Krakatoa as no more than an interesting event in Nature
which gave us some beautifully dramatic sunsets. But when
the oceans temporarily cool off, it does not mean that heat
is withdrawn in equal measure everywhere from the upper
ocean layer. As the oceans comprise a chaotic system,
it must be assumed that the tendencies in the entire system
change when an event such as the eruption of Krakatoa takes
place and has an effect over a period of three to four years.
The fact that the sum of the statistical values (particularly
the global average temperature) showed little or no
deviation cannot be proof that the event did not have any
climatic quality whatsoever. An event which reduced the
solar radiation by about 10% for more than three years
cannot have failed to influence ocean currents and must have
had to one extent or another short- as well as long-term
consequences. In addition, the possibility that the oceans
reacted in some way to a three-year "cleaning of the
sky" of volcanic ash, pumice dust, and sulfuric acid,
more than 2/3 of which landed in the seas, cannot be
After the eruption of Katmai in 1912, the
temperatures in the low and middle latitudes also rose by up
to 1° C. and even more in the higher latitudes. Wexler of
the US Weather Bureau wrote of this in 1951: The warming in
the middle and lower latitudes can be a result of clearer
air and increased transport of solar energy, but the warming
in winter in higher latitudes during the Arctic night will
have to be explained in another way.
Naturally, someone should have thought of the oceans.
3. The Events from the Depths top
a) The Event from Nothing - The Cold
Period 1940 - 1965 top
It is a fact that a notable warming
period began in 1920, which in 1940 changed into a
cooling-off period lasting until about 1965. Referring to
this, the German Parliamentary Investigative Committee
(1990) had nothing more to say the following explanation:
"Unusually great temperature
increases were observed in the northern hemisphere in the
1920s and in the 1980s, during which the average temperature
rose by more than 0.1" C. per decade. This great
temperature increase is balanced by a cooling off of the
ground-level air masses of about 0.4" C. between 1940
and 1965. These great temperature fluctuations, limited to
the northern hemisphere, are attributed to the interaction
of various climate parameters which are particularly strong
over the continents and thus in the northern hemisphere".
The reader is allowed to guess what these
“various climate parameters” might be. J. Murray
Mitchell becomes more concrete when he states: The warming
of the global climate during the 1920s and 1930s can in part
be explained by the fact that during this time there were no
volcanic eruptions, whereas the cooling-off, which reached
its zenith in the 1960s, can be explained by a renewal of
volcanic activity, including the giant eruption of Agung in
Mitchell's explanations only serve to make the confusion
complete. Agung was the first large volcanic eruption in a
long time, Agung is in Indonesia, and in 1963 the cold
period was almost at an end. Furthermore, the cold wave in
1940 came abruptly.
b) The 1940 Event from the Depths of the
North Atlantic top
In 1940 and the following years, the
North Atlantic, particularly from the Norwegian coast to
Iceland and up to Spitsbergen was the location of countless
underwater explosions and extensive sea battles.
Although enormous amounts of explosives were also set off
under the ocean's surface in the Pacific, the sea area south
of Spitsbergen, where the waters of the Gulf Stream flow
over difficult seabed terrain into the deep oceans, is
particularly sensitive to disruptions.
Considering the significance of the Gulf
Stream for heat conditions in the northern hemisphere and in
Europe in particular, it is surprising that no one has
looked into the influence of conducting war at sea on the
temperature drop beginning in 1940. The origin of this
thought is the fact that only a very thin upper layer of the
oceans displays high temperatures, while 75% of the oceans'
water is colder than +4° C.
In general, water temperatures fall as
depth increases. If warm surface water is exchanged with
that from lower water layers, the "bath water effect"
of the ocean water must decrease and the temperature of the
air above it will also fall. On the other hand, the "heat
which has been pushed into the depths" must some day
come up again, and then the average measured air temperature
will raise more than expected. This could explain the
greater temperature rise since the beginning of the 1970s.
For all of the heat held by the oceans under the surface
remains stored until it is transferred to the atmosphere. In
addition, there must be effects on current relationships
from extensive underwater explosions. In the North Atlantic,
all the way up to the Barents Sea, any disruption can have a
particularly powerful effect.
c) The Warm Period Beginning in 1920 -
Result of World War I? top
In 1920, a warming period began rather
abruptly. It was found that in the peripheral regions of the
northern Atlantic (and only in the Atlantic) the water
temperatures suddenly began to rise strongly as of 1920.
These conditions continued in the waters off Greenland until
about 1930 and around Iceland and north of England until
Optically, the change could clearly be seen in an unusually
extensive withdrawal of the ice line in the Barents Sea as
of the beginning of 1920, reports Wagner.
He also points out that in the years between 1912 and 1918
there was a median deviation from the average water surface
temperature in the Barents Sea of -0.7° C., but that in
1920 the deviation was almost +1° C., which is a
temperature increase of +1.7° C. within a very short period
of time. The following quote from Wagner is also interesting:
"Finally, Scholasky notes that the
warming of the polar area began in 1921 and writes: The
branch of the North Atlantic current which enters the Arctic
Ocean at the edge of the continental shelf near Spitsbergen,
has so increased in strength that the covering layer of cold
water which at Nansen's time was 200 m thick has not been
reduced to less than 100 m".
It was not necessary to wait for the
explosive fire power of the Second Word War to create "disorder"
in a surface layer of several dozen meters. The sea war in
the North Atlantic from 1914 to 1918 was more than just a
few skirmishes. As it is clear that during this time there
was a drop in the average air temperatures, it is possible
that this was caused by the water exchange described above.
In addition, the water explosions could have had such an
effect on the ocean current conditions that there was a
long-term warming of the northerly part of the North
Atlantic and the Barents Sea.
d) The Undiscovered Chance top
Neither in 1940 nor in 1918/20 was there
an atmospheric occurrence which could explain the
temperature fluctuations for the periods from 1920 to 1940
and from 1940 to 1965. There were no large volcanic
eruptions. CO 2 cannot be the cause of the cold period. But
because of the suddenness of the change, the greenhouse
effect cannot be a direct cause of the warm period, either.
There is also very little place for a significant indirect
involvement. It was determined that in the Barents Sea the
warm water masses expanded from the depths to the surface,
i.e., the 0° isotherm moved upwards.
In conclusion, it should be noted here
that the climate changes of 1920 and 1940 can be evaluated
only when the two sea wars of this century have been
thoroughly investigated with respect to their relevance for
4. Other Events - Constant Dropping Wears
the Stone top
a) Poisoners of the Sea top
This was the title of an assessment of
the condition of the oceans published by K. A. Gourlay
But neither he nor other scientists have considered the
influence of the enormous ocean pollution on the heat
relationships or on the relationships among the ocean
currents in particular. If serious thought is given - and
this is undoubtedly necessary - to the fact that emissions
into the atmosphere can cause a shift in the natural
equilibrium of nature, then the industrial influence on the
dynamics concentrated in the oceans can most certainly not
be ignored. The sinking process of the Gulf Stream in the
northeast Atlantic could in the long run also be affected by
the water from the North Sea or other ocean pollution,
whether with or without the pinch of salt which has recently
become a topic of discussion (cf. Footnote 52).
b) Eight Times a Day to the Moon -
Warming in the Wake? top
It was described above how every exchange
of water between upper and lower layers can have very sudden
effects. There are over 30,000 trading ships registered. If
half of them travel about 275 nautical miles (about 500 km)
every day, then the waters of the oceans are "churned
up" to a width of about 30 meters and a depth of about
15 meters over a path which is equal to eight times the
distance from the earth to the moon or 1500 times the
distance from the English Channel to the east coast of North
America (all of these figures rough estimates). In a year,
this would mean that the Atlantic from Iceland to the Ross
latitudes is "plowed up" to a depth which contains
as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere. As a general
rule, warm water is exchanged for cold in this process.
No one can say today what really happens
and what the effects are. There are virtually no series of
measurements which would permit acceptable conclusions about
the isotherm structure and its development over a long
period of time for the upper layer of the ocean to a depth
of at least 50 meters. An on-location investigation series (apparently
one of the first) by Caspar (among others)
showed - although in general it was no secret -that the
temperature difference between the surface and a depth of 15
meters can amount to more than 3° C. When there is a mixing,
the surface temperature can sink by 1.5" C. In the long
term, this can cause a warming of the ocean surface and thus
an increase in the air temperature.
It would be nice if it could be proven
that there is no effect on the climate resulting from the
wakes of the world's trading fleets. But it cannot be
excluded, and this effect is just as much in need of
clarification as the greenhouse theory.
III. CO 2 - Drastic Effect or Drastic
Bitter and confusing, the debate over the
greenhouse sheds more heat than light. The science is shaky
but there's reason to act anyway, commented Newsweek on the
start of the Rio Conference in June 1992.
Such criticism is rare so far. Ruling opinion is convinced
that the steps taken in Rio point in the right direction.
It would be absolutely impossible for
this paper to take up a full survey of the contributions to
the topic of greenhouse gases. It also does not intend to
suggest that the greenhouse gases have nothing to do with
the warming process, just as the "butterfly effect"
for events in nature's systems is not being called into
However, the dimensions of the standards
on which these statements are based should be questioned.
This question was in principle mentioned above in the
section on statistics. Of course the emissions of greenhouse
gases are a more concrete danger than the flight of millions
of butterflies. Even if an otherwise dry layer of air
completely filled with greenhouse gases experiences a
temperature drop of about 20° C. per hour after sunset, the
concept itself cannot be completely negated.
Nonetheless, there are reasons, from a
climatic viewpoint, which justify doubts in granting CO 2 (as
well as other greenhouse gases) a prominent place in the
efforts to protect the climate, e.g., the following:
1. Atmospheric dynamics come about
principally from the varying concentrations of heat. While
water vapor has the characteristic of appearing in various
concentrations throughout the atmosphere, CO 2 is
distributed evenly. To this extent, it is a substance which
is neutral for the climate and can appear of importance only
indirectly in connection with water vapor. The following
explanations refer to this:
a) Figuratively speaking, the
distribution of the greenhouse gases can be compared to a
gridiron whose meshes are the same distance apart. The only
variable is that the mesh network can be drawn tighter (e.g.,
by more CO 2) or loosened. This net, by the way, changes
only in accordance with the seasons and never by more than
b) Water vapor, on the other hand,
appears in varying concentrations. A saturated cloud has
stored within a certain volume many, many more times the
amount of energy as the same volume of the gridiron. A
hurricane, which derives its energy from the ocean, produces
about 300-400 billion kw-hours daily and releases 10-20
billion tons of water.
While there is an active exchange of
water and energy between the ocean and the atmosphere,
the greenhouse gridiron does not change.
It would be interesting to know how many kw-hours and how
many tons of water the greenhouse gridiron contributes to a
hurricane as it develops and moves through a region. As the
development, strength, and maintenance of a whirlwind is
dependent on the condition of the ocean, such as in the case
of a hurricane, it seems unlikely that the greenhouse
gridiron makes a significant contribution - except perhaps
in computer simulations - to this process.
c) To this extent, it is difficult to
understand how any significant amounts of heat energy could
be transferred from this gridiron to the ocean, thus leading
to a rise in the level of the seas. Practical experience all
shows that when the air is dry the land heat does not come
from the air, and when warm air encounters cold water, the
ocean immediately protects itself with a protective shield
which can sometimes be recognized as fog. Admittedly, the
interaction between ocean and atmosphere requires
persistence if it is to be explained plausibly. But it is a
mystery how anyone can explain with any conviction that the
seas can be heated by a cloudless sky at night, for example.
The oceans will steam up any argument, just as the bath
water steams up the air in the bathroom.
2. More important than the arguments
above is the starting point for the greenhouse debate. Put
simply, it can be stated thus: Because the concentrations of
the greenhouse gases and the air temperatures are rising,
there cannot be any serious doubt that these events are
somehow connected. To emphasize this, reference is made to
the rising level of the sea, the series of warm summers, and
the rising intensity of weather events.
Viewed by a seaman, the following
questions would come to mind: Are the air temperatures
rising because the ocean is warming for reasons other than
those attributed to CO 2, causing the oceans to expand, the
level of the sea to rise, the recording of warm summers,
more intensive occurrence of atmospheric activity, changes
in ocean currents, a more frequent appearance of El Nino,
the expansion of desert regions, etc. Unfortunately, there
is no answer to this question. Just as one hundred years ago,
the oceans are still a climatic frontier.
Although a widespread basic awareness of
the particular role of the oceans is present, they remain
for many people, for reasons which are difficult to
understand, "very far away," as if we were talking
about the "obvious" which did not need to be
investigated in any more depth.
Even the marine biologist Rachel Carson, whose book Silent
Spring is unquestionably one of the most famous (and one of
the first) environmental books, does not award the oceans a
Only singly and hesitantly is mention made "here and
there" that more attention must be paid to the oceans.
Only recently have clear warnings been
heard. John Spiesberger of Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution declared in April of this year at the convention
"Oceanology International 92" in Brighton: "We
won't understand global warming until we understand exactly
how important a role the oceans play".
IV. The Phenomenon - Climate top
1. The Statistical Starting Point top
It is noteworthy that in the climate
debate so far the oceans have been granted only a peripheral
importance, which leads to the question, "why".
The forefathers of the greenhouse theory, such as Svante
Arrhenius and the mathematician Plass (Footnote 3) attempted
to explain the beginning of the ice ages on the basis of
rising CO 2 concentrations. They displayed no recognizable
interest in the function of the global natural system.
Even the Second Climate Conference in Geneva in 1990 and the
preparatory negotiations for the Rio Conference could not
yet extract themselves from this abstract observation method.
Without the least hesitation or doubt, greenhouse experts
use the definition provided to them by meteorology: Climate
is the average weather over a long period of time.
As a result of this definition from the
last century, climate has been only of secondary interest
for meteorologists, seeing as how it meant no more than
adding up all the collected observations for a given period
of time and a given region and dividing this figure by the
number of years involved.
It was not until the middle of the 1970s,
when the danger to the ozone layer caused by CFCs entered
the discussion, that meteorology began to show an interest
in chemical processes in the atmosphere
and to make extensive use of computers and the new world of
statistics. The definition of climate from ancient times fit
like a glove. A rejection of a climate concept based on
statistics did not take place; in fact, it was just the
opposite. The "dry-as-dust bookkeeping" (Footnote
73) was transferred into the fascinating world of computer
model simulations. It is truly astounding how credible
science has been in accepting the evidence and proofs
provided by this aid. Yet it is nothing more than a
continuation of the recording of statistical values once
used as a basis. Even if it could be assumed that all the
relevant basic data for the oceans had been entered (which
is considered impossible), the natural system is still too
variable, complex, and chaotic for computer models to be
able to provide a reliable extrapolation. The US Environment
Protection Agency (US EPA) also took this stand in a report
to Congress in 1989.
Speaking of the atmosphere, the former English Prime
Minister, Lady Margaret Thatcher, who was educated as a
chemist, also denied that the natural system could be
researched in a laboratory.
2. What is Climate - The Place of Climate
in the Natural System top
The present climate discussion is being
held because there is serious reason to fear that there
could be changes. As this would result in shifts and changes
of weather conditions, it would seem to be self-evident that
climate cannot be defined as the result of average weather
conditions. Climate is a cause of weather and not its result.
This reversal of cause and effect has blocked the way for a
suitable treatment of the climate problems in the climate
discussion so far.
Even if climate is used only as the term
for the description of a current set of circumstances, this
assumes that it be defined in a way which clearly refers to
its causal nature. The definition of climate used so far
does not satisfy this condition. For one, it takes into
account only a partial aspect of the global natural system -
the weather - and, for another, ignores the dimensions of
the influential and decisive forces within this system.
An event such as Krakatoa, the cooling
off in 1940, but also the generally known statistical ratio
data concerning the heat energy levels of the earth indicate
that process here under discussion can be defined as follows:
Climate is the continuation of the oceans by other means. If
we wish to avoid this paraphrase of Clausewitz' famous
reliable definition of climate is, with some restrictions,
only possible if it permits us to see immediately that the
oceans play a central role in determining climate.
Climate is not itself a cause, but arises from the condition
and the effect of the oceans on the atmosphere.
This becomes particularly clear in areas
where cold water from the deep oceans rises on the edges of
continents, such as in Chile and Namibia. Here, the waters
of the ocean assure that climate and weather are identical.
A further example is the climatic categorization of the
poles. In general, these ice masses are "deep-frozen"
climate. While not wishing to question their relevance for
the daily atmospheric influence, their particular climatic
significance is based on the release of melting water (cold
fresh water) into the oceanic system.
3. Further Points of Argument - Further
Question Marks top
Other points also play a role in the
discussion of climate. Some of them should be mentioned
a) Climatic Data from Prehistoric Times top
There is some doubt as to whether even
good research results on the climate in the past (e.g.,
during the ice ages) are of any particular help for the
problems of today. The conditions of the ocean do not repeat
themselves. The historical condition of the oceans at a
particular time or time period cannot be reconstructed with
an exactness which would in any way be of help for the
present-day situation. Even if this were possible, it is
difficult to see how this would be of any use in overcoming
the present climatic problems.
After all, we must look for and stop the processes by which
industrial society interferes in the "natural"
course of events. The way the oceans have reacted for
centuries or even longer becomes irrelevant for this
b) The Chicken or the Egg - Atmospheric
Winds and Ocean Currents top
The previous discussion is dominated by
the idea that climatic changes will have an effect on the
oceans. The thought that the danger should arise and be
determined by the oceans has found little support.
An example of this line of thought can be seen in the
literature, which often indicates that the currents in the
upper levels of the oceans are caused by winds.
As the last link in a chain of causes, the winds are
certainly of importance. However, the earlier causes in the
chain, i.e., the condition of the ocean or of an ocean
region are much more decisive. Based on the former viewpoint,
it would be difficult to explain the frequency of occurrence
of El Nino with changes in the atmospheric wind conditions.
But this is done by stating that the winds had changed due
to a warming of the atmosphere. El Nino is a phenomenon from
the depths of the ocean, and the atmosphere follows its
c) The Rise in the Level of the Sea -
Cause from Above or Below top
The rise in the level of the seas has
played a major role in the discussion, as it underlines the
dramatic nature of the climatic changes. In addition, it is
used as evidence to prove that the greenhouse age has
already started. The idea that the oceans could be expanding
because a warming not initiated by the condition of the
atmosphere is originating in them has not yet been a topic
of discussion. Written material has been concerned either
with the collection of data of water mark measurements or
with determining the expansion coefficient of water masses,
dependent on the assumption of various degrees of warming.
As far as can be seen, little thought has been given to the
question of how the layers of ocean water (to a depth of 20,
100, or 500 meters?) could be warmed by the atmosphere. This
is simply assumed.
d) Temperature measurements – Land and
Although there are interesting
differences between temperature measurement series on land
and at sea (whereby the maritime data is more than scarce as
it is), a trend to pass over these differences can be
e) Beginning of a Warm or Cold Age top
In the primary occupation with the
greenhouse effect as an atmospheric problem, one aspect
tends to be given short shift: even if the global-warming
theory should prove to be justified, it will not necessarily
have such a great effect. Even slight shifts in the ocean
can quickly bring about conditions which will remind people
that the oceans have an average temperature of only 5° C.
The examples given above are meant to
indicate that many of the contributions to the discussion
and the work done in this area show that the independence
and importance of the oceans have not been shown adequate
consideration. One of the reasons for this is presumed to be
the fact that until the second half of this century, science
studied climate only as a question of statistics and was
otherwise involved, at first with "feeling" and
later with the memory capacity of computers, in improving
weather forecasts. Even after three decades of use of these
aids, the results have been mediocre, to say the very least.
This will not be surprising when one considers that the
weather is dependent on the climate, the climate on the
oceans. Without extensive knowledge of the oceans and
continual up-to-date and detailed descriptions of the state
of the oceans, weather forecasts and climate predictions
will continue to be dubious.
Furthermore, the basic factors for the
development of the global climate are sketched out in the
seas on a time scale ranging from a few seconds to a
thousand years. Because of its size, the ocean could be used
by humankind as a kind of magnifying glass for long-term
tendencies. In addition, it is possibly the only medium
which could help us to find causes which are completely
unknown today. The establishment and exploitation of a
suitable observation network can hardly be carried out
without the cooperation and work of all states.
But this requires first of all the
understanding that the climate is the continuation of the
oceans by other means and that the latter determine how the
effects of the civilized and industrialized societies will
make themselves felt in the climate.
V. Result - The Situation top
The relevant situation for the protection
of the climate is closely associated with the oceans. This
criterion has not been worked out clearly and adequately,
neither in the past nor during the latest discussion of the
climate. This has meant failing both to concentrate on the
essential nucleus of the climate problem and to mobilize the
necessary forces as well as to direct the limited scientific
and monetary resources to the central problem.
In speaking of the relevance of the
oceans for the climate, it is not adequate that several
directed ocean research programs have also been initiated.
In order to develop and successfully carry out good
practical and legal strategies, the primary need is for
recognition and understanding that climate research and
climate protection are synonymous with ocean research and
C. Bodies of Regulations for the Climate top
I. Climate Convention of Rio - A
Through the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change,
an international agreement has for the first time taken a
direct stand on the climate. It includes 26 Articles and 2
Appendices. The agreement can be sub-divided into the
- Description of the problems and tasks
- Obligations and tasks (Art. 4-6)
- Measures for supervision and further
development of the convention’s goals (Art. 7-13)
- Settlement of disputes (Art. 14)
- Administrative regulations (Art. 15-26)
One of the main points of dispute which
was fought out towards the end of the two-year period of
negotiations between the United States and the "rest of
was the question as to whether the agreement should set
binding obligations for the reduction of greenhouse gases or
only call upon the parties to work towards a reduction. The
United States carried the day. Article 4 now establishes
that attempts should be made to reduce the greenhouse gas
emissions to the level of 1990 by the year 2000. A
discussion of further details of the agreement, particularly
with respect to the balance between the industrialized
countries and the developing countries, follow-up
conferences, supervisory mechanisms, or concepts such as
"sustainable economic growth and development"
cannot be discussed here at all.
The question which must be in the
foreground is whether the starting point which was chosen in
the form of the Climate Convention offers adequate chance of
handling the climate problem effectively. This is described
in the Convention in the articles on principles (Art. 3) and
goals (Art. 2).
Among other things, Art. 3 determines
that the parties are to protect the climate system for the
benefit of present and future generations. Furthermore, they
should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent,
or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its
These principles are therefore of a very general nature. The
legal definition of climate change according to Article 1,
No. 2 does little to clarify the situation. According to
this, climate change is to be understood as follows:
"Climate change" means a change
of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of the global
atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate
variability observed over comparable time periods."
Article 2, on the other hand, sets out
the actual goals of the Convention, which are then defined
in Article 4, Paragraph 2 a) as concrete actions.
The ultimate objective of this Convention
and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the
Parties may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the
relevant provisions of the Convention, stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere at a level
that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with
the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a
time frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally
to climate change, to ensure that food production is not
threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in
a sustainable manner.
The goals as described make it more than
clear that it basically affects only the greenhouse gases.
The Climate Convention does not make direct use of the
traditional definition of climate, according to which
climate is the summation of the average weather over a long
period of time, but the last half-sentence in "climate
change" reverts to the usual statistical basis.
The Convention now uses the concept
"Climate System" and defines it in Article 1, Item
3 as follows:
"Climate system" means the
totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and
geosphere and their interactions."
This definition does not make sense. To
begin with, it is amazing that the word "system"
is used, as climate is neither a thing nor does it consist
of material, but is rather a result and phenomenon of other
substances. Furthermore, the description of what is meant by
climate is so all-encompassing that it would have been
enough to write: "Climate system is nature working in
all of its forms." A definition which does not serve to
make a situation more concrete is not only superfluous, but
also allows everyone to interpret it as he may please.
Perhaps the only point is to serve as a basis to allow
everyone to open his area of specialization for climate
research. Even if the present definition now indicates that
a change from the traditional definition is taking place,
the present description of "climate system" (particularly
when this definition is read together with "climate
changes") is a sign that the understanding of climate
is still vague. The definition points out considerable
uncertainty on the part of the legislature and the advisors.
But a clear definition of the problem is an important first
The evident weaknesses in the description
as defined in the Convention can hardly avoid having an
effect on the following regulations of the convention.
According to Article 7, Paragraph a (ii), for example, the
Parties are to promote the development and introduction of
programs for education and instruction about climate changes
and their effects. Since the convention mentions exclusively
the greenhouse gases as the only concrete starting point,
there is reason to fear that such rules and duties for the
Parties will institutionalize a program of action which will
delay and hinder the path to effective climate protection.
Finally, it should be noted that the
Climate Convention does not show signs of having encompassed
the basic characteristics of the climate problems; the only
concrete starting point mentioned is the emissions of
greenhouse gases. To this extent, concrete (although not
obligatory) measures for the avoidance of emissions have
As these requirements do not give the
impression that they are adequate for the organization and
execution of efficient climate protection, the following
considers the problem on a broader basis, referring to the
Climate Convention of 1992.
II. Legislature - Science top
In spite of Houghton's statement that
science and politics had worked together in the climate
question in a way that had never been done before,
the question still arises as to whether this was not a false
conclusion or, if true, if it really served as a substantial
help. At the end of the day, the question will be why
something worked well or went wrong and who was responsible.
One side believes, for example, that international politics
and the legal system are too poorly equipped to offer
solutions which could ensure the preservation of the earth's
others see the need to criticize science.
In particular, the suspicion has been voiced that some
scientists are using the global-warming debate in order to
gain influence in the public debate on climate changes.
The initial position is certainly complicated. The
environmental situation is making international demands for
which neither science nor politics are prepared. It could
well be that the problems will affect the very substance of
man's basis for existence. We still lack the knowledge,
international co-operation, and globally binding regulation
mechanisms necessary to evaluate, block, or even eliminate
the dangers. A particular difficulty arises from the fact
that a cost-benefit-analysis of the suitability of the
continuation of economic and industrial growth in
comparison with the dangers arising from intervention in the
natural system is very difficult to carry through. Since a
return to the pre-industrial period is out of the question
(on the contrary: around three-fifths of humankind is still
waiting to become part of a modern industrial society), a
breakneck balancing act will be difficult to avoid. The
principal task for politics will be the development of an
effective legislative, executive, and judicative, which
includes planning, strategies, and enforcement mechanisms.
In any case, this is not the task of
science. Categorically, scientists do not enjoy a more
favorable position in political decision-making processes
than do other interest groups and lobbyists. After all, only
proven arguments should become integrated into a political
decision-making process. The case of the climate, there is
all too often a lack of basic knowledge. In the place of
knowledge and logic is faith,
and because the scientific argument is lacking, the desire
to act directly on the tasks of the legislative is almost
One cannot help suspecting that science
was less interested in making up for lost opportunities
(such as Krakatoa, cold change in 19AO, and rethinking the
definition of climate) than in first talking, demanding, and
intervening in the legislative process, if necessary by
overstepping its own limits of authority, all before coming
up with definite information. Hypotheses have been put
forward without sufficient investigation, and now there is a
danger that their supporters will cling to them in spite of
considerable doubt on their own part.
There is also talk of the "noble lie",
which is justified with the argument that if we wait until
we are absolutely certain it will be too late to avoid the
changes caused by humankind.
A discussion as to when lies are "noble" or when
someone is being alarmist would be out of place here.
Cooperation between science and politics can be fruitful
only if each area fulfills the tasks assigned to it
Through the Climate Convention of Rio,
science has in principle received exactly what it demanded
from politics at the Second World Climate Conference in
Geneva in 1990. To this extent, we now have a situation
which needs clarification in two points:
(1) Are the problem descriptions provided
by science for the Climate Convention concrete enough to
allow for regulation? This writer does not believe so. His
reasons are given in the first part of the discussion above.
(2) There should be an attempt made to
determine if there are not already applicable international
regulations which would provide for research and protection
of the climate. This question will be discussed in the
III. Global Climate Protection - The
International Regulations top
The emergence of a global policy for the
protection of the environment was neither desired nor
fact that the oceans were the first object for a global
in 1954 indicates where pacemaker functions could have been
centered. But the great initiative for global environmental
conventions really began with the Environment Conference in
Stockholm in 1972. At the Conference itself, no new
international conventions were drawn up. But the
however, provided strong impulses for international
environmental law. Among the international conventions which
were prepared after 1972 and which could be relevant for the
climate, the following agreements are particularly
Convention on Long-Range Transboundary
Air Pollution of 13 November, 1979,
in effect since 16 March, 1983, and amended by protocols of
1984, 1985, and 1988
United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea, 1982;
the Convention is not yet in force.
At the end of 1991, ratification by nine states was still
lacking in order to reach the number of 60 states required
for the entry into force of the Convention.
Vienna Convention for the Protection of
the Ozone Layer of 22 March, 1985. The Convention has been
in force since 22 September, 1988; it has been amended by
the following protocols:
- Montreal Protocol of 16 September,
1987, on materials which lead to the destruction of the
ozone layer, in effect since 1 January, 1989
- London Amendment, Amendments and
Adaptations of 29 June, 1990 to the Montreal Protocol.
Climate Convention of Rio 1992 (see above)
2. Comparison and Importance of the
Regulatory Content top
a) The Regulatory Content of the
Individual Conventions top
The Convention on Air Pollution of 1979
determines in Article 2 that humankind and the environment
are to be protected from air pollution. Air pollution is
defined (Art. 1 a) as: the direct or indirect introduction
of substances or energy by persons into the air which causes
If the concept of pollution is
interpreted in a wide sense, then it might certainly be
possible to include the greenhouse gases. The convention was
actually intended to reduce the "visible"
resultant phenomena of emissions, such as "acid rain".
The Law of the Sea Convention of 1982
determines that the oceans as a whole are to be protected.
According to Article 192, the decisive principle reads:
States have the obligation to protect and preserve the
The Vienna Ozone Layer Convention sets
down in Article 2 obligations serving the protection of
human health and of the environment from harmful effects
which are caused by human activity which changes or probably
changes the ozone layer. In addition to a definition of the
term "ozone layer," "harmful effects"
are defined as the change of the living or non-living
environment, including climate changes, which have
considerable negative effects on human health (etc.). The
modifications contained in the agreements of Montreal and
London include measures which regulate the the reduction of
certain gases which are particularly harmful to the ozone
layers (particularly CFCs).
The regulatory content of this convention
is basically aimed at protection of the ozone layer. The
inclusion of "climate changes" is the basis of the
obligation of the Party States to make provisions for
research and systematic observation (Art. 3c).
The Climate Convention of 1992 aims at
the reduction of CO 2 and other greenhouse gases to the
extent that such gases were not included in the Montreal
Protocol (Art. 4, Paragraph 2a).
Just as the Air Pollution Convention of
1979 is restricted to certain substances (defined in
protocols), the only concrete regulatory goal of the Climate
Convention is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. To
this extent, it would be correct and adequate if the
convention were named accordingly. In terms of substantive
content, the Convention for the Protection of the Climate
offers little more than the Ozone Layer Convention, namely
the promotion of research and international cooperation.
b) The Relevance of the Conventions for
the Climate top
No one can deny that each of the
Conventions has some importance for the protection of the
climate. In the case of the Climate Convention, this is
solely a question as to whether CO 2 or other greenhouse
gases actually make a significant contribution to the
warming of the earth's atmosphere. At this time, there is
more presumption rather than actual proof that these gases
in any way directly or indirectly act on climatic events (e.g.,
dissolving of CO 2 in the seas). The statements about the
greenhouse effect above apply equally as well to the Ozone
Layer Protection Convention. In addition, there could be
indirect relevance for the climate because the increase in
ultraviolet radiation could damage organisms which have an
effect on climatic events (e.g., sea plankton could be
considered). In speaking of the Air Pollution Convention of
1979, we can assume that there is a supportive effect. But
today there are still very narrow limits set on an exact
Of these three conventions, however, the
Air Pollution Convention is the closest to being well enough
conceived to serve as a law for the protection of the
climate. It aims to avoid air pollution in general and so to
maintain the natural condition of the atmosphere. The
Climate Convention of 1992 and the Ozone Layer Convention of
1985 are aimed at the cause (CO 2) and the object of
protection (ozone layer), respectively.
We can also easily observe the progress
of the climate debate by looking at the three conventions of
1979, 1985, and 1992. While the concept "climate"
does not appear at all in the convention of 1979, there is
mention in the 1985 convention, and the 1992 agreement
pretends to be a climate convention, although a protocol to
the Air Pollution Convention of 1979 could have achieved the
same goal in comparable quality. Even though a legislature
is free to define situations in need of regulation and to
give names as he pleases, the manner in which this has been
done in this case is an indication that co-operation between
legislature and science has managed to blur the distinction
between the proper tasks of the two disciplines, namely a
presentation of the situation on the one hand and political
action on the other. After all, enacted law is one of the
most powerful manifestations of power relationships in the
real world and one of the most important grounds of
decisions for social behavior.
But this can be achieved only if the outlines of the
situation which is to determine social behavior have been
clearly defined beforehand. These conditions were not met
during the preparations of the Climate Convention.
Although the 1982 Law of the Sea
Convention does not contain any reference to the climate,
the situation is well defined in this convention and this
alone perhaps makes it far and away the most important legal
instrument for protecting the climate and efficiently
bringing the community of states together in this task.
IV. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention -
the Climate Treaty
1. Introduction - No Climate without the
A legislature cannot provide required
legal regulation until the matter to be regulated has been
clearly defined. The word climate alone does not satisfy
this condition; climate change is not a specific idea if
climate in general has not previously been defined.
Apparently, not even the authors and advisors of the Climate
Convention of 1992 dared to set down the traditional
definition of climate, according to which climate is the
average weather over a long period of time, in an
international treaty. The path taken instead, that of
defining and using the concept of "climate system"
(Art. 1, Para, c) is little help in describing the concrete
situation. In place of this concept, it was suggested above
that climate be defined as the continuation of the oceans by
other means or to select a definition which shows where the
main points or essential causes of climatic conditions
originate. These criteria do not result from weather
statistics. Instead, the climatic components in the global
natural system are to be found in the heat storage capacity
of water, its present condition (e.g., warmth, salt content,
density) and the differences in distribution around the
globe. This automatically puts the oceans at the focal point
and is therefore an essential component for defining the
situation in terms relevant for the climate.
It is not necessary to determine whether
the situation as described here -protection of the oceans as
protection of the climate - will need modification in the
future. Whatever other factors may be considered as relevant
causes of climate, they will not be decisive of themselves
for the climatic events, but will act primarily on the water
masses, which will then in a transformation process
“determine” how these components affect the condition
and the dynamics of the atmosphere. Further details to be
taken into account in the determining the situational
description relevant for the climate can be seen in the
2. Basic Factors Involving the 1982 Law
of the Sea Treaty
The 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty is the
first international agreement which has the qualities of a
global constitution. With its more than twenty regulatory
areas and more than four hundred individual statues, it
includes all aspects relevant to the oceans which were
recognized as such by the Third UN Law of the Sea Conference,
which negotiated the treaty between 1973 and 1982. No one
thought of the climate. Nevertheless, the following sections
stand out in importance:
- Part XII, Protection and Preservation
of the Marine Environment (Art. 192-237)
- Part XIII, Scientific Marine Research
- Part XIV, Development and Transfer of
Marine Technology (Art. 266-278)
- Part XV, Settlement of Disputes (Art.
While the sections dealing with the
marine environment and the settlement of disputes are
categorically of obligatory nature, the parts concerning
research and transfer of technology should be regarded as
guidelines in the nature of a program.
In comparison with other international
treaties (with the exception of the UN Charer of 1945), the
1982 Treaty enjoys particular significance which is not
discernable from the text alone. Due to the extent of the
regulatory spectrum and its conceptual claim as being "all-encompassing,"
the Party States are prevented from choosing the regulations
which they like and ignoring the parts less pleasant for
them ("pick and choose"). This gives the 1982
Treaty a dynamic quality which other treaties dealing with
this problem do not have. Thus states which wish to make
claims on the basis of the regulations of the Convention
regarding the rights of coastal states (e.g., fishing rights,
economic zone) or the right of passage for trade ships must
also accept the obligations to protect the marine
environment and assume responsibility for marine research,
transfer of technology, and - last, but not least - accept
the judgments of the maritime judiciary.
The new law of the sea is noteworthy for
a fundamental change in comparison with previous
international treaties. The leading principles are not the
rights of the parties, but the obligations for marine
If it were only a question of the ratification of Part XII,
then the chances for entry into force in the near future
would be poor indeed. The disinclination of the states to
accept the obligations of a strong international law and a
loss of their cherished sovereignty as well as modification
of national state thought would be too great. There is even
less reason to suppose that the Rio Conference could have
agreed to anything even remotely comparable. The Stockholm
Environmental Conference was twenty years past in 1992.
3. The Major Regulations Relevant for the
Climate in the Individual Sections top
The following discussion concentrates on
pointing out a number of aspects of the importance of the
Law of the Sea Treaty for the climate and does not claim to
be complete or a detailed analysis.
a) Regulations Concerning Marine
Part XII is in itself a complete
constitution for global environmental protection within the
Law of the Sea Treaty. It is in this respect the best
conceived and, in its magnitude and coverage, the most
extensive law for global environmental protection. It
includes all areas which could be held accountable for
marine pollution, the most detailed being the section affecting
trade shipping, for which a number of exact regulations are
proposed. Otherwise, the treaty limits itself to basic
principles which provide a catalogue of obligations for the
party states. This covers the following causes for marine
pollution; from the land, by activities on the sea bed, by
dumping, by ships, and from or through the atmosphere.
With a certain amount of generalization,
it can be said that the obligations for the party states can
be divided into five groups:
- Guiding Principles
- Obligation to adopt and implement laws
- Special regulatory areas
- Individual regulations (particularly
If these five groups are compared with
other international treaties, the legal quality of the first
three groups is considerably higher than the usual standard.
Particularly noteworthy is the obligation of the states to
adopt laws under the guiding principle of protecting and
preserving the seas. The standard comparable to other
treaties is found first at the level of the special and
individual regulations. One of these is the definition of
the "pollution of the marine environment" found in
Article 1, Item 4 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty.
According to this definition, pollution means, among other
things, "the introduction by man, directly or
indirectly, of substances or energy into the marine
environment, including estuaries, which results or is likely
to result in such deleterious effects as harm to living
resources and marine life, hazards to human health, . . .
and reduction of amenities".
In comparison, the Ozone Layer Conventions formulates "harmful
effects" as "changes in the living and non-living
environment, including climate changes, which have
considerable harmful effects on human health or on the
composition, resistance, and productivity of ecological
systems or materials useful for humankind, whether in their
natural state or influenced by human beings." This
definition is confusing and does little to clarify the
situation. In the Air Pollution Treaty, "air pollution"
means (excerpt): "the direct or indirect introduction
of substances or energy by human beings into the atmosphere
which could result in harmful effects such as a hazard to
human health, damage to living resources and ecological
systems or property, and a reduction of the amenities of the
The concept of the law of the sea is
characterized by the fact that, aside from the comparable
level with other international treaties, additional
guidelines and principles are set down, such as the
regulation by which the party states are obligated to adopt,
implement, and adapt to changing situations laws and
regulations in all areas affecting the environment. The
following example should make this clear.
The Montreal Protocol of 1987 is often
quoted as a sterling example of the ability of international
politics to take charge of a problem even in the absence of
particular obligations to do so.
It is relatively certain that damage to the ozone layer can
also have a major effect on marine plank ton.
Art. 212 of the Law of the Sea Treaty determines that the
states shall adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce,
and control pollution of the marine environment, which
includes hindrance to marine activities, including fishing
and other legitimate uses of the sea, from or through the
atmosphere. If not interpreted too narrowly, the agreements
reached in Montreal can be regarded as an obligation as
provided by Article 212.
The overriding principles of Art. 212,
particularly the guideline of the environment chapter
already mention, whereby the states are obligated to protect
and preserve the marine environment, means that the states
cannot rely on a narrow interpretation. Since, according to
the assumptions and definition given above, the climate is
the continuation of the seas by other means, this guideline
can also be read so that it means: The states are obligated
to preserve and protect the climate.
From the viewpoint of this seaman and
lawyer, it cannot be emphasized enough how important it is
to establish first exact knowledge of the true situation.
Without this knowledge, all measures will fall short of the
goal, remain helpless, and involve the danger of even
greater damage if the wrong route is taken. The situation
for the protection of the climate can be clearly, definitely,
and briefly stated with the words: "the ocean."
Considering the importance of this principle, the lawyer
cannot do more than underline this sentence several times in
recognition of its significance and point out that it is
comparable with Article 1 of the Basic Law of the Federal
Republic of Germany, which provides that the dignity of a
human being is inviolable. This sentence stands at the head
of several thousand pages of laws and regulations, and every
one of these is to be interpreted and implemented in the
light of the guiding principle. The guiding principle for
the protection of the marine environment cannot yet claim to
preside over thousands of pages of laws, regulations, and
standards. This could possibly have been different even
today if science had long ago recognized and expressed the
fact that the climate can be understood and protected only
if the oceans are understood and steps taken to preserve
b) Scientific Marine Research
The concept and quality of the Law of the
Sea Treaty have not been reached anywhere else. Generalizing
a little, this body of regulations can be described as one
of the most modern and extensive.
As the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty was
being negotiated during the 1970s, the scientific community
for the most part reacted negatively because of the concept.
In particular, they feared they would be hindered in their
work by the introduction of the so-called economic zones.
The coastal states are supposed to establish economic zones
reaching out as far as 200 nautical miles into the ocean,
and they can claim a right of co-determination for
research activities in this sea area. But as the sum of
these coastal areas make up only about 16% of the total
surface area of the earth, over 50% of the globe still
remains under the banner of "freedom of the seas and
research." Even the other points of the expressed
criticism show little thought. Co-operation based on
partnership with the coastal states cannot help but serve to
expedite the extensive and rapid exploration of the seas.
Forcing co-operation is one of the most
valuable characteristics specific to the Law of the Sea
Treaty. These characteristics result from the status of the
seas, which are in principle "exterritorial", and
their physical structure, which make claims of possession
and rule by states impossible. These factors result in a
series of consequences, providing a position for the seas
which differs fundamentally from that of the continents. The
following aspects are particularly noteworthy:
The seas are almost totally removed
from the thought of sovereignty of states;
The supervision and control of
environmental restrictions can be conducted
by anyone in front of anyone's door, (almost) without
Co-operation between rival national
states is easier to bring about when it takes place on
These points would be particularly
favorable for extensive climate research.
c) Development and Transfer of Marine
This body of regulations, which was
negotiated in the 1970s under the influence of the Stockholm
Conference of 1972 and the first oil price shock, also
enjoys particular prominence. The significance of this
particular regulatory concept is especially a result of the
fact that extensive marine research can be achieved only
through the efforts of all states. About two-thirds of the
community of states have their own coastlines. Requirements
of practicality and economical use of research resources
demand that each state be given the opportunity and
encouraged to explore the sea area in its immediate
neighborhood and to obtain, analyze, and feed back into a
global observation system the required data and measurements.
d) System for Settlement of Disputes
Although the regulations for the system
of dispute settlement are now ten years old, they remain the
most modern concept for dispute settlement
which the community of nations has ever developed. All of
the environmental protection regulations set down in the
1982 Law of the Sea Treaty fall under the jurisdiction of
this system. This means that any state can take any other
state to court for violation of rights laid down by the Law
of the Sea Treaty and demand that the other state fulfill
the appropriate obligations. Thus one could imagine that if
the Maldives or other Pacific Ocean island states succeed in
proving that CO 2 is the cause of the rise of the level of
the seas they could sue one or more industrialized states,
forcing them to reduce emissions and pay damage compensation.
But there are countless less dramatic cases imaginable which
could certainly find a way into the process of international
maritime law dispute settlement. This would give
international environmental protection laws, protection of
the oceans, and protection of the climate a new dimension
and new impulses. The maritime judiciary could become one of
the most important promoters for efficient climate
4. Problem Management - Legal Claim or
As described above, scientists have been
attempting since the Ozone Layer Protection Convention of
1985 to establish the conditions for "legal
authorization" to do research on the climate by
including the problems of climate change in international
treaties. They believe that they have succeeded by means of
co-operation with politics such has never existed before.
But this does not mean in any way that the matter itself has
been well served by this process.
It was not necessary for either interest groups or
scientists, either legislatures or states to set out on such
a bold venture. International politics concluded in the form
of the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty a treaty which in its
range and quality would not under current conditions be at
all attainable among the members of the community of nations.
The difficult negotiations before the beginning of the Rio
Conference were a prime example. Scientists, environmental
protection groups, and other interested groups, including
the states (such as those who fear they will be swallowed
up) have had the option since 1982 of fighting for the
generally binding implementation of the 1982 Law of the Sea
Treaty and then demanding from the states and their
political leaders the strict implementation of the Treaty.
The effects for the protection of the climate would have
been far greater than anything that has come out of the
climate discussion since 1982, when, on 10 December, 119
states signed the Law of the Sea Treaty.
D. Final Remarks top
Problems can be viewed from one point or
another. When this writer attempted before the Rio
Conference to interest a newspaper in an article, he
received a rejection letter with the remark: "I share
your skeptical evaluation of the current environmental
policy debates, even though I also believe that the attempt
to reduce CO 2 emissions will not cause any great damage.
After all, this will sooner or later lead to a reduction in
the use of energy." As acceptable as this statement is,
the sense of proportions and the relationship to the problem
upon which this statement (which, thankfully, was made) and
the previous climate discussion have been based are just as
Perhaps it was "continental thinking."
Perhaps it was because the meteorologists are only
interested in the atmospheric form of the phenomenon, the
weather, and consider climate only as a sub-division for the
statistical description of weather events. Perhaps it is one
of the reasons why the small group of marine scientists,
split into many different directions, believe that climate
is a part of meteorology and this science already knows what
it is all about. Finally, it could also be because a group
of scientists has presented their knowledge of the
greenhouse effect, calculated in the laboratory and at the
discussion table without adequate consideration of the
practical events, to the general public and politicians as
having the highest degree of probability. One thing, with
some few exceptions, can certainly not be said about the
previous climate discussion, namely, that "oceanic
thinking" has found suitable echo.
This has, as far as the seaman "understands
the world," not been the case. According to his opinion
presented above, the ocean is responsible for the climate to
such an extent that one can speak of them being synonymous.
Even if other causes not arising in the oceans could be
considered as having an influence on the climatic phenomena,
it would still depend on the reaction of the oceans as to
how the climate would be affected.
If climate can be spoken of as the
continuation of the oceans by other means, then research and
protection of the climate can only be promising if we first
concentrate fully on the oceans. At the moment, we do not
even have an "inventory" of the oceans that is of
the least use, much less the beginnings of an observational
system. Instead, data fragments are stored in computers and
statistics celebrate triumphs. Faith in the ability of
computer simulations to make serious statements continues
oceans are much too large and complex to base everything on
these simulations, and the question does not aim at normal
climatic changes, but at those caused by humankind; but this
means that it will be too late by the time statistics
register the change.
In addition to the starting question as
to what we really mean when we talk about protecting the
climate, achieving such a goal requires a legal framework
describing rights and obligations and setting out the means
of implementation. In the three treaties concerning air
pollution, the ozone layer, and the greenhouse gases of
1979, 1985, 1992, science and politics co-operated in the
attempt to address concrete problems and, at the same time,
to include the problem of climate change in an international
treaty. These efforts have not led to recognizable progress
in protecting the climate. Aside from the basic doubts as to
whether a close relationship between climate change and CO 2
can even be established, alone the fact that the term
climate could not be given a substantial definition and the
problem specifically described means that the efforts have
failed to reach the target. The "average weather"
has been the basis of the climate discussion for too long.
The paraphrase "climate system" now used in the
Climate Convention displays a certain amount of helplessness
and lack of understanding (or a lack of will to make
knowledge understandable) of the basis of the phenomenon
known as climate.
Some of the gaps and exaggerations in the
previous climate discussion have been justified by the claim
that immediate action is necessary. The reputation and
importance of science has risen from one conference to the
next and from press article to press article. The ocean has
been given prominence only because a rise in the ocean level
was helpful as a threat. The possibility of the oceans being
the cause of the average increase in atmospheric
temperatures was not a point.
The interested circles could have
achieved much more for the protection of the climate. A
strict law is the very least that is needed. For more than
ten years we have had the chance to use an
once-in-a-lifetime treaty in international law to protect
the climate. All that was needed was for someone to
determine that we cannot understand and protect the climate
unless we understand and protect the oceans. We cannot
exclude the possibility that with an adequate understanding
and overview of the condition of the oceans we would be able
to see today what the climate would be doing in the next
ten, fifty, or two hundred years. What is the point of
raising the level of the dikes today if tomorrow there will
be a cooling-off brought about by the oceans and the ocean
level falls? In order to establish reliable aids for making
decisions in this and dozens of other questions affecting
humankind, there is only one solution, and that is to
implement soon, fully, and efficiently an instrument such as
the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty. To this extent, neither
scientists nor other interested parties need to beg and
plead with "high politics." All that is needed is
the entry into force and global implementation of the 1982
Law of the Sea Treaty, then the demand can be made that the
states fulfill their obligations arising from Article 192
and protect and preserve the oceans.
The best possible international
instrument for the protection of the climate could be
implemented immediately. Then we can only hope that all the
fears with respect to climatic changes and climatic
catastrophes were exaggerated fears. If not, and if they
turn into reality, then someone, in politics or science,
will have to explain why important years which could have
reduced, prevented, or in some other way balanced out the
extent of such a catastrophe were wasted.
Neumayer, Report on the Volcanic Eruptions of the Year 1883,
Describing Their Effects on the Atmosphere, Meteorologische
Zeitschrift, January 1884, P. 1
Cf. Wexler, H., On the Effect of Volcanic Dust on Insolation
and Weather, Bulletin American Meteorological Society, Vol.
32, Jan. 1951, Pp. 10-15 and Pp. A8-51, containing further
references; Wagner, Artur, Climatic Changes and Climatic
Fluctuations, Brunswich 1940, P. 42.
For details, cf. Plass, Gilbert N., The Carbon Dioxide
Theory of Climate Change, Tellus, Vol. 8, 1956, Pp. 140-154
Ibid, P. 140. F. Möller was critical of this viewpoint ven
then: cf. On the Influence of Changes in the CO2
Concentration in Air on the Radiation Balance of the Earth's
Surface and on the Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 68, 1963, Pp. 3877-3886.
Plass, op. cit., P. 154. Today, the amount of literature on
the CO2 effect is overwhelming. Cf. for example Crutzen,
Paul J., in: Crutzen/Muller, The End of the Blue Planet?,
Munich 1989, Pp. 25-43; Investigative Committee of the llth
German Parliament, Protection of the Earth, Bonn, 1990,
Pp.139-240; Kondragyeo, K. YA., New Assessments of Global
Climate Change, Atmosfera, 1991, Pp. 177-188; Elsom, Derek
M., Atmospheric Pollution, Oxford 1992, Pp. 132-165.
S. H. Schneider, for example, twenty years ago denied any
elevance of CO2 for the warming effect, declaring that it
was "highly unlikely for the next thousand years",
cf. Rasool, S.I., & Schneider, S.H., Atmospheric Carbon
and Aerosols, Science Vol 173, 1971, P. 138. Cf. also the (hidden)
reference in his book: Global Warming, San Francisco 1989,
Footnote 17 in Chapter 4, where he backed down from his
Cf. Schneider, S.H., Global Warming, San Francisco 1989, Pp.
lbid; cf. also Henderson-Sellers, A. Greenhouse Guessing:
When Should Scientists Speak Out, Climate Change, Vol 16,
1990, Pp. 5-8 (8): "Many of my colleagues in the
meteorological community argue that no statements should be
made until we are absolutely certain!"
Houghton, John, World Climate Needs Concerted Action, in
Financial Times, 11 November, 1990. Houghton was the
Chairperson of the Scientific Committe on Climatic Change of
The Panel was established by the UN Environment Programme
(UNEP) and the World Meteorology Organisation (WMO) at the
end of 1988.
Houghton, op. cit. (Footnote 9); Cf. Andresen, Steinar, The
Climate Negotiations: Lessons and Learning, International
Challenges, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1992, Pp. 34-43 (40)
Jager, J., & Ferguson, H. L. (ed), Climate Change:
Science, Impacts and Policy. Proceedings of the Second World
Climate Conference, Cambridge 1991; this is a summary of the
various work groups of the IPCC.
Financial Times, 28 May, 1992, with reference to: IPCC:
Climate Change, Cambridge 1992
In summarizing the results of the IPCC, Bert Bolin wrote in:
Jager/Ferguson (ed), op. cit. (Footnote 12), P. 19: "There
is a greenhouse effect, that is at present being enhanced by
man due to emissions of a number of the so-called greenhouse
gases" and "we can tell with confidence that (climate
change) is going to be significant if present increse of the
emissions continue without constraints." One of the few
critical voices was, for example: Thomas, David, The Cracks
in the Greenhouse Theory, Financial Times (Weekend FT) 3/4
November, 1990; furthermore, Lunde, Leiv, Science and
Politics in the Greenhouse. How Robust is the IPCC
Consensus? in: International Challenge, Vol. 11, 1991, Pp.
48-57, with additional references.
Jager, J., & Ferguson, H. L. op. cit. (Footnote 12), P.
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development
(UNCED); the preparatory conference was called on the basis
of a decision by the UN General Assembly on 22 December,
1989; cf. Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 20, 1990, Pp.
72-73 and Pp. 96-97.
The negotiations for the Climate Convention were concluded
after almost 18 months of work on 9 May, 1992 (The Int.
Herald Tribune, 11 May, 1992, Global-Warming Pact Without
Targets Gets U.S. Approval).
The Guardian, 15 June, 1992 (Brown/Rocha, World Leaders Put
on Probation by Rio Organiser)
In: Frankfurter Rundschau, 16 June, 1992 (Wille, J.:
"At the Beginning of a Necessary, Dramatic Process");
cf. also Brown, Paul, who wrote in the Guardian (15 June,
1992): "But Europe and Japan regard the convention as
weak, ducking specific promises on carbon dioxide reductions
to accommodate the United States. Politicians have repeated
many times in the main conference, however, their hopes that
this is only the beginning of the process."
Cf. for example Int. Herald Tribune (The New York Times), 16
June, 1992: "But now, after the Earth Summit, there is
a road"; Nature, "Two successful weeks at
Rio", Vol. 357, 18 June, 1992, P. 523.
Minutes (No. 45, 1st sentence) of the Summit of the Arch, 16
July, 1989, printed in: The New York Times, 17 July, 1989,
P. A7; US State Bulletin, September 1989.
op. cit. (Footnote 1) Pp. 3/4.
The Times, 29 February, 1992, (Questioning weather).
Disraeli, S. (1804-1881), Engl. Prime Minister, noted by A.
Henderson- Sellers, op. cit. (Footnote 8), P. 6.
Monin, A. S., writes in An Introduction to the Theory of
Climate, Dordrecht 1986, P. 6: "We don't have to know
the individual chronological sequence of states of the
atmosphere-ocean-land system. Rather we must have statistics
of the states, that is their limits of variation and their
frequence of occurrence over a long time
interval." Cf. the discussion of the nature of the
climate in this paper.
For the temperature effect of water, cf. Gross, M. Grant,
Oceanography, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, 1990, P. 87;
Monin, A. S. op. cit., Pp. 114-120.
Weischet, W.: Einfuhrung in die Allgemeine Klimatologie,
Stuttgart 1988, P. 121, explains this as follows: "This
is due to the fact that the nightly cooling affects a layer
of only 300 to 500 meters, whereas the warming effecting
during the day affects 1000 to 1500 meters."
Stanton, B. R., Ocean Circulation and Ocean-Atmosphere
Exchanges, Climate Change, Vol, 18, 1991, Pp. 175-194 (176).
Monin, A. S., op. cit. (Footnote 25), P. 2.
According to W. Weischet, op. cit. (Footnote 27), Pp. 73-74,
the ratio of the specific warmth for (still) water and air
is 1:0.24, and one cm3 of water requires 10,000 times as
many calories for warming as the air near the earth.
Cf. Siegenthaler, U. & Sanhueza, E., Greenhouse Gases
and Other Climate Forcing, in: Jager/Ferguson (ed), op. cit.
(Footnote 12), Pp. 47- 58.
Woods, J. D. quoted in: Houghton, John T. (Ed), The Global
Climate, Cambridge, 1984, P. 142.
Kraus, Eric B., in: Fairbridge, Rhodes W. (ed), The
Encyclopeida of Climatology, New York 1987, P. 639.
Gra61, Hartmut, & Klingholz, Reiner, Wir Klimamacher,
Frankfurt 1990, P. 123.
Regarding this point, Keith Clayton, Scaling Environmental
Problems, Geography 1991, Pp. 2-15 (5) notes sarcastically:
"We are remarkably land-centred. Even Ron Johnston
(1984) seemed to have forgotten where oysters actually grow!
Yet the oceans play a critical part in the world climatic
system and cursory reading of the national curriculum
suggests they are neglected everywhere, and almost totally
neglected within the geography syllabus."
The directors of the German Sea Observatory wrote an article,
"The Magnificent Twilight Manifestations in the Period
from 26 to 30 November, 1883", when Krakatoa began to
have effects on the sky in the northern hemisphere three
months after the eruption; Neumayer, op. cit. (Footnote 1).
Wagner, Artur, op. cit. (Footnote 2), Pp. 41-42.
Cf. Wexler, H., op. cit. (Footnote 2); Bradley, R. S., The
Explosive Volcanic Eruption Signal in Northern Hemisphere
Continental Temperature Records, Climatic Change, Vol. 12,
1988, Pp. 221-244.
Cf. for example Investigative Committee, op. cit. (Footnote
5), Vol. 1, P. 220; GraBl/Klingholz, op. cit. (Footnote 34),
P. 61, write: After a powerful volcanic eruption, "it
will become colder for a short period of time, but after a
couple of years the disturbance has passed. Only in
exceptional cases will there be a natural climatic
catastrophe." S. H. Schneider, op. cit. (Footnote 1),
P. 45, continues (P. 91): Recent theories linking climate
and atmospheric opacity from volcanic eruptions are not
confirmed and this connection is physically better based."
Cf. also Gentilli, J-, Present-Day Volcanicity and Climate
Change, The Geological Magazine, Vol, 85, 1948, Pp. 172-175,
who denies any connection whatsoever. So does Mitchell, J.
Murray Jr., in: Singer, Fred (ed), The Changing Global
Environment, 1975, Pp. 149-173 (171).
Neumayer, Report on the Volcanic Eruptions of the Year 1883
with Respect to Their Effect on the Atmosphere,
Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 1884, Pp. 49-65 (Continuation
from previous issue, cf. Footnote 1).
Pernter, J. M., The Krakatoa Eruption and the Resulting
Phenomena, Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 1889, Pp. 329-339,
Pp. 409-418, Pp. 447-466; cf. Neumayer, op. cit. (Footnote
1), P. 3, concerning the beginning of work by the Committee
of the Royal Society in London.
Cf. Wexler, op. cit. (Footnote 2); Pernter, op. cit. (Footnote
41), P. 412.
Cf. Gentilli, J., op. cit. (Footnote 39). According to the
graph reproduced in "Protection of the Earth", op.
cit. (Footnote 5), P. 194, a drop in temperature cannot be
determined, but is mentioned on page 220. On the
corresponding graph from the IPCC report (Ja'ger &
Ferguson, op. cit. (Footnoe 12), P. 72), it is at least
mentioned that this is the avera^i" temperature
measured over land.
Wagner, Artur, op. cit. (Footnote 2), P. 42.
Gentilli, J., op. cit. (Footnote 39), Pp. 173-174. The
following general observation of W. Weischet, op. cit. (Footnote
27), P. 70, could be taken into account as an inverse
conclusion, according to which the northern hemisphere
receives about 10% less shortwave energy than the southern
hemisphere. It should be considered that the southern
hemisphere came under the "blockage" 2-3 months
earlier and presumably more strongly (it was never measured)
than the northern hemisphere.
Cf. Jones, P. D., Wigley, T. M. L., & Wright, P. B.,
Global Temperature Variations Between 1861 and 1984, Nature
Vol. 322, Pp. 430- 434.
Cf. Curt Covey, Chaos in Ocean Heat Transport, Nature, Vol.
353, 1991, Pp. 796-797.
Wexler, H., op. cit. (Footnote 2), P. 14.
Op. cit., (Footnote 5), P. 195. If this statement is
compared with the graph on page 194, then it is striking
that the downward trend in the southern hemisphere after
1940 is sharper than in the northern hemisphere. Cf. also
Folland et.al., Worldwide Main Temperature Fluctua¬tion,
Nature, Volume 310, 1984, Pp. 670-679. Folland & Parker,
in: Schlesinger, M. E. (ed), Climate-Ocean Interaction,
1990, Pp. 21-52.
Mitchell, J. Murray, in: Oliver, John E., & Fairbridge,
Rhodes W. (ed), The Encyclopedia of Climatology, New York,
1987, P. 326.
ln World War I, for example, over 300,000 blockade mines and
in World War II over 800,000 mines were laid; cf. Monin,
Tsymbal, Schmelev: Damage to the World Ocean as a Result of
the Armaments Race, in: Peace to the Oceans, Newsletter
2-90, Pp. 26-29.
For details, cf. Aagaard, Knut, in: Parker, S. P. (ed),
McCraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences,
1980, Pp. 21-26; among other factors, Aagaard refers to the
importance of the salt content. This was recently described
in expositions by Walter Frese on NDR 3 on 1 August, 1992,
"Ocean Salt: Anti-Freeze for Europe"; Hamburger
Abendblatt, 22/23 August, 1992, "A Pinch of Salt Makes
the Difference"; Siiddeutsche Zeitung on 27 August,
1992, "How the Oceans Determine the Climate".
Note: Salt content plays a major role everywhere in the
oceans, and changes have decisive effects. If the Strait of
Gibralter, through which the North Atlantic receives its
high salt content, were blocked up, it would not be long
before the ice line would be at Scotland. For an explanation
of the "flow mechanism" between Iceland and
Greenland, cf. Whitehead, John A., Giant Ocean Cataracts,
Scientific American, Vol. 260, 1989, Pp. 36-43.
Bjerknes, J., The Recent Warming of the North Atlantic, in:
Bolin, Bert (ed), The Atmosphere and the Sea in Motion,
Oxford, 1959, Pp. 65-73. Cf. also Wagner, A., op. cit. (Footnote
2), P. 49.
Wagner, Artur, op. cit. (Footnote 2), Pp. 46-47, who also
gives information about the mediation deviation (D) of the
ice line (in km) in the East Spitzbergen Sea for late summer
of the years 1898 to 1934, e.g.: 1914 = D +120; 1915 = D
+30; 1916 = D +320; 1917 = D +100; 1919 = D -30; 1920 = D
-140 (all other values through 1934 are also minus).
Wagner, Artur, op. cit. (Footnote 2).
Cf. also the references given by Wagner, Artur, op. cit. P.
Cf. also GESAMP, The State of the Marine Environment, UNEP
Report 115, 1990; OECD, The State of Environmnet, 1990 Pp.
Gaspar, Phillipe, Andre, Jean-Claude, & Lefevre,
Jean-Michel, The Determination of the Latent and Sensible
Heat Fluxes at the Sea Surface Viewed as an Inverse Problem,
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 95, 1990, No. C9, Pp.
Newsweek, 1 June, 1992, P. 20.
The Int. Herald Tribune (New York Times) 16 June, 1992:
"Rio Sketched the Road" (But now, after the Earth
Summit, there is a road); The Guardian, 15 June 1992:
"Rio: the Bucks Stop Here" (Rio has set up some
machinery for effective cooperation); Financial Times, 15
June, 1992: "Many Roads from Rio" (The Rio
conference was worth having - once).
The meteorologist Eward Lorenz published a paper in 1972
with the title, "Can the Beating of a Butterfly's Wings
in Brazil Cause a Tornado?", cf. Palmer, Tim, in: Hall,
Nissa (ed), Guide to Chaos, London 1991, Pp. 69-81.
The possibility that the CO2 thesis could be a flop is
mentionened in: Newsweek, 1 June 1992, Pp. 23-24. Excerpt:
"Greenhouse theory suggests that warming should peak on
summer afternoons: the worst time, Karl's (of the US
National Climatic Data Center) work suggests nature is doing
Gross, M. Grant, op. cit. (Footnote 26), P. 119.
A series of other factors which cannot be discussed here,
such as plankton, salt, dust, and particularly the direct
effect of the solar radiation on the oceans, also play a
significant role in this process.
For example, it was mentioned in Umwelt-Weltweit, Report of
the UNEP 1972-1982 (Volume 88A - Discussions of
Environmental Development), P. 53, that the CO2 effect
appeared to act differently than had been expected.
Cf. Jager & Ferguson, op. cit. (Footnote 12), there:
Bollin P. 19;Houghton, P. 23; others as well. Cf. also GraBl/Klingholz,
op. cit. (Footnote 34), P. 14.
This phenomenon could be labeled "continental thinking",
which would include the weather. To this extent, meteorology
has to this day not been able to free itself from a
As an example of this attitude, cf. the following sentence
from the report of the UNEP 1972-1982, op. cit. (Footnote
65), P. 25: These experiments indicate that regions in the
ocean may have a significant influence on atmospheric
processes over the land - with a temporal shift of 4-8
months. Cf. also, for example, the speech held by the great
man of the sea, Jacques-Yves Cousteau, before the UNCED Full
Assembly on 4 June, 1992, in: Die Weltwoche, 11 June 1992,
E, g., Svendrup, H. U., Oceanography for Meteorologists, New
York 1941, P. 223 (. . . one cannot deal independently with
the atmosphere … but in meteorology it has not yet
received sufficient attention). Namias, J., The Sea as a
Primary Generator of Short-Term Climatic Anomalies, in: WHO
Proceeding on Long-Term Climatic Fluctuation, Norwich 1975,
Pp. 331- 333. Clay ton, Keith, op. cit. (Footnote 35).
The Guardian, 10 April 1992, Booth, Nicholas, How to Tune
into an Ocean Wave.
In this respect, and as an indication of the attitude of
meteorology, cf. Lamb, H. H., The New Look of Climatology,
Nature, Vol. 223, 1969, Pp. 1209-1215: "But for the
physical scientist it has seldom had a depth of interest to
rival dynamical meteorology and the great strides forward in
the development of numerical forecasting."
Cf. Houghton, J. T. et al. (ed.), Climate Change, The IPCC
Scientific Assessment, Cambridge, 1990, P. XXXV; Harries,
John E., Earthwatch -The Climate from Space, Chichester UK,
1990, P. 30.
Cf. Lamb, H. H., The New Look of Climatology, Nature, Vol.
223, 1969, Pp. 1209-1215 (1209): "Climatology was
generally regarded as the mere dry-as-dust bookkeeping end
GraBl/Klingholz, op. cit. (Footnote 34), P. 90. One of the
"greats" (and until recently a critic of the
greenhouse debate, cf. Andresen, op. cit. (Footnote 11)) in
climatology, S. Fred Singer, came up with the following
statement about climatic influences in 1975: "The four
most important factors are: chemical changes in the
atmosphere, particularly changes in CO2 concentration;
presence of dust and aerosols; changes in surface albedo,
including ice and snow, clearing of land, inundation,
building of cities, etc.; and generation of heat." In:
Singer, S. Fred (ed), Introduction, op. cit. (Footnote 39),
Smith, Joel B., & Tirpatz, Dennis (ed), The Potential
Effects of Global Climate Change on the US, US EPA, December
1989, P. 21: "In many sciences ... it is possible to
investigate new phenomena by doing research in a laboratory.
In the field of climate, this is not possible. One cannot
bring the earth's climate system into a room and perform
experiments on it, changing the trace gas concentration or
increasing the amount of sea ice. It is not possible to have
two identical systems, one a control that is changed to
compare the outcomes."
From a speech held on the occasion of a "Royal Society
Dinner" on 27 September, 1988: "In studying the
system of the earth and its atmosphere we have no laboratory
in which to carry out controlled experiments. We have to
rely on observations of natural systems." Cf. also Lamb,
H. H. op. cit. (Footnote 73), P. 1215: "The computer
models of atmospheric behaviour in other climatic eras may
be too unrealistic, and may therefore proceed too far and
too fast on faulty basic assumptions." Cf. also
Peterman, R. M., et al, Statistical Power Analysis and the
Precautionary Principle, Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 24,
1992, Pp. 231-234, with further references; Ghan, Steven,
J., The GCM Credibility Gap, Climate Change, Vol. 21, 1992,
Pp. 345-346, according to which there are great
discrepancies between the results of various GCMs regarding
the greenhouse warming.
"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
Klaus Hasselmann, Ocean Circulation and Climate Change,
Max-Planck-Institut fur Meteorologie, Report No. 58, 1990,
P. 3, stated: "The dynamics of climate is strongly
controlled by the ocean", but only allowed for an
influence of the oceans over a period of time of a few weeks
up to a thousand years. In Report No. 57, P. 8, a reaction
time of hundreds up to a thousand years for the oceans is
allowed for "external forcing." It is not made
clear that the oceans "bear", second by second,
the climate or the air temperature. Eric B. Kraus in: Oliver
& Fairbridge (ed), op. cit. (Footnote 33), P. 639, also
declares: "The ocean is truly the flywheel of the
climate system," but then hedges. But the trend -
albeit very slowly -is moving towards the oceans, cf.
Stephens & Slingo, who recently wrote: "With the
oceans assuming an ever greater significance in our
understanding of climate, . . . ." in: Nature, Vol.
358, 1992, P. 369.
when it cannot be seen that logical conclusions have been
drawn. There is a lot of discussion about the fact that
climatic changes could be caused by changes in currents in
the deep ocean (cf. Watts & Morantine, Rapid Climatic
Change and the Deep Ocean, Climatic Change, 1990, Pp.
83-97), but no one pays any attention to the possible
effects of polluted river water and many other factors on
the ocean currents.
Cf. Bernal, Patricio, Consequences of Global Change for
Oceans, Climate Change, Vol. 19, 1991, Pp. 339-359.
Cf. Wunsch, Carl, in: Houghton (ed), The Global Climate, op.
cit. (Footnote 32), P. 195; Kennish, Michael J., Marine
Science, Bocan Raton, 1989, P. 4: "Ocean circulation is
inextricably linked to the atmosphere. Winds and density
differences which drive circulation in the ocean largely
depend on atmospheric conditions."
Cf. for El Nino: Glantz & Katz & Krenz, Climate
Crisis, UNEP/NCAR 1987.
Cf. GESAMP, op. cit. (Footnote 57), P. 80; van der Veen, C.
J., Projecting Future Sea Level, Surveys in Geophysics,
1988, Pp. 389-418; Wigley, T. M. L., & Raper, S. C. B.,
Implications for Climate and Sea Level of Revised IPCC
Emissions Scenarios, NATURE, Vol. 357, 28 May, 1992, Pp.
293-300; the same in NATURE, Vol. 330, 1987, Pp. 127-131;
Smith & Tripatz, op. cit. (Footnote 75), Pp. 123-147;
Oerlemans, J., A Projection of Future Sea Levels, Climatic
Change, Vol. 15, 1989, Pp. 151-174 (165); Elsom, Derek M.,
Atmospheric Pollution, Oxford 1992, P. 162. For heat from
the deep ocean, cf. the report of Roemmich & Wunsch,
Apparent Changes in the Climatic State of the Deep North
Atlantic Ocean, Nature, Vol. 307, 1984, Pp. 447-450; Rind
& Chandler, Increased Ocean Heat Transports and Warmer
Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, D4, 1991,
Pp. 7437-7461; cf. also quote of Wagner (Footnote 55 above).
Cf. Jones, E. D., Wigley, D. M. L., & Wright, P. B., op.
cit. (Footnote 46), Wright, Peter B., Problems in the Use of
Ship Observation for the Study of Interdecadal Climate
Changes, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 114, 1986, Pp.
1029-1034; Folland & Parker, op. cit. (Footnote 49). Cf.
also GraBl/Klingholz, op. cit. (Footnote 34), P. 196.
Folland & Parker, for example, simply ignored all
daytime measurements. A seaman would have outraged. Jones/Wigley/Wright
continued to "adjust" the sea temperatures to land
temperatures until they could identify the statistical final
result as a long-term warming trend. The fact that the small
differences might have been much more interesting was
apparently not even considered. Under these circumstances,
it is hardly surprising that the presence of great eddies in
the oceans was not discovered until the end of the 1960s, cf.
Robinson, Allan R., Eddies in Marine Science, Berlin 1983,
Pp. 3-4, P. 10, and Spill, A. E., Pp. 442-445.
Cf. the following dialogue before the Select Committee on
Science and Technology of the House of Lords concerning the
Greenhouse Effect, 6th Report, 1989 (HL Paper 88-11), P. 11:
Question from Lord Clitheroe to Prof Wigley: "40 years
ago, my tutor . . . was saying at that time the probability
was that the raising of the temperature would alter the
currents of the sea to make the climate of England colder
rather than hotter"; the following reply from Prof.
Wigley: "I think that is extremely unlikely, although
that is one of those stories that still crops up every now
and again in the press" (referring to the work of
Wigley, cf. Footnotes 46 and 83).
This opinion is not exactly widespread. Many scientists seem
to have no problem admitting that weather computers cannot
provide reliable forecasts for more than a week in advance,
as a tiny mistake in the current weather observations can
quickly grow to a large one. Nevertheless, they are
convinced that the climate computers produce usable results.
Cf. Schnei-der, S. H., op. cit. (Footnote 7), P. 93; GraBl/Klingholz,
op. cit. (Footnote 34), Pp. 21-22 and Pp. 118-123. Cf. also
Footnotes 75 and 76.
Cf. Baker, D. J., World Ocean Circulation and Climate
Change: Research Programmes and a Global Observation System,
Pp. 195-202, in: Ja'ger & Ferguson, op. cit. (Footnote
This paper is based on an Advance Copy of the
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework
Convention on Climate Change, 15 May, 1992 (A(Ac.237/18(Part
Vidal, John, America versus the World, The Guardian, 30
April, 1992; cf. TIME, 30 March, 1992, P. 42; Die Zeit, The
Glass House in the Greenhouse, 17 April, 1992; Der Spiegel,
Festival of Hypocrisy, 21/92, P. 224.
Cf. Beckermann, Economic Growth and the Environment, in:
Development, Vol. 20, 1992, Pp. 481-496.
Excerpts from Article 3, PRINCIPLES: In their actions to
achieve the objective of the Convention and to implement its
provisions, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the
1. The Parties should protect the
climate system for the benefit of present and future
generations ... on the basis of equity . . . the developed
country Parties should take the lead ....
2. The specific needs and special
circumstances of developing country Parties should be
given full consideration.
3. The Parties should take
precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize
the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse
4. The Parties have a right to, and
should, promote sustainable developoment. (cont.)
5. The Parties should promote
sustainable econoimc growth.(cont.)
"For a true understanding of environmental conflict
there must be a true understanding of the environment,"
writes An Painter, The Future of Environment Dispute
Resolution, Natural Resource Journal, Vol. 28, Winter 1988,
Pp. 145-170 (150); cf. also Miles, Edward L., Science,
Politics & Int. Ocean Management, Berkley, 1987, P. 154.
Cf. Footnoes 9 and 11.
Wirtb, David A., Climate Chaos, in: Foreign Policy No. 74,
1989, Pp. 3-22 (P. 3).
One (of the few) criticisms of science comes from the
developer of the GAIA-Theory, James A. Lovelock:
"Science must abandon its genteel posturing and come
down to earth again, quite literally. This is no easy task.
It requires scientists to recognize that science has grown
fat, lazy, and corrupt and, like an obese atherosclerotic
man, imagines that more rich food will cure his
condition." In: The Guardian, 27 September, 1989, P. 63
(The Greening of Science). Recently, George F. Wille
reminded readers that twenty years ago many scientists were
predicting an ice age in the near future, in: Int. Herald
Tribune, 3 June, 1992, The Eco-Pessimists Among Us Are a
Cf. Andresen, Steinar, & Ostreng, Willy (ed),
International Resource Management, London/NY 1989, there:
Young, Oran R., Science and Social Institutions, Pp. 7-2-4
(P. 10); and Boehmer-Christiansen, S., The Role of Science
in the International Regulation of Pollutions, Pp. 143-167
As stated by Michael Haller, Warner, Windmaker, Scientists
in Die Zeit, 23 March, 1990, including other truly
convincing analyses, such as: "As is always the case
when exact relationships cannot be discerned and - just as
with the tip of the famous iceberg - very little data is
known, faith moves in and takes the place of knowledge";
and, "It was scientists . . . who transposed the simple
causal models from the laboratory to nature, without taking
into account the complex interaction of the various natural
processes. They opened the scenario game, the concrete
description of calculations; they drew more and more
Cf. Buttel & Hawkin & Power, , From Limits to Growth
to Global Change, Global Environment Change, December 1990,
Pp. 57-66 (P. 65): "They have entered the policy arena
in an unprecedented way and are now willing to stand behind
data that are not entirely conclusive, but which have
awesome potential implications for humankind." John S.
Gray fears: "There is a risk that the large and
powerful WMO will simply ignore the ocean or not give it the
scientific priority that it needs in the future." In:
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 22, 1991, Pp. 169-171 (P.
Buttel et al., ebenda
Henderson-Sellers, A., op. cit. (Footnote 8): "The
question is, 'Do most people understand that by the time we,
the scientists, are all absolutely certain it will be much
too late to avert most of the changes that mankind is
Manfred Hefner wrote in a letter to the editor printed in
Die Welt on 26 May, 1992: "Stephan Schneider, the
American climatologist, wrote in Discover Magazine in
October 1988 (!): "Scientists such as I need broad
support to arouse and influence the imagination of the
population. We must develop scenarios which cause fear, make
drastic claims, simplify, and whenever possible avoid
mentioning our own doubts. Each of us must decide what the
right relationship is between being successful and being
honest.'" (For the quoted works of S. H. Schneider, cf.
Footnotes 6 and 7).
A lot of work has been published in only a few years,
whereby the legal literature is more modest in extent and
strongly affected by the thesis that the climate problem is
mainly a result of COa. A selection: Randelzhofer, Albrecht,
On the Path to a World Climate Convention, Festschrift fur
Sendler 1991, Pp. 465-481; Hohmann, Harald, Int. Environ¬mental
Law and Global Environmental Politics, Spectrum der
Mssenschaft, 1991, Pp. 68-80; Solomon, Lewis D., &
Freedberg, Bradley S., Environmental Law, Vol. 20, 1990, P.
83-110; cf. Geoffrey Palmer, New Ways to Make Int.
Environmental Law, and: Stone, Christopher D., Beyond Rio:
"Insuring" Against Global Warming, American
Journal of Int. Law, Vol. 86, 1992, Pp. 259-283 and Pp.
445-488. For more political aspects, cf.: Skolnikoff, Eugene
B., The Policy Gridlock on Global Warming, Foreign Policy,
No. 79, 1990, Pp. 77-93; Hampson, Fen Osier, Climate Change:
Building International Coalitions of the Like-Minded,
International Journal, Vol. XLV, Winter 1989-90, Pp. 36-74.
Caldwell, Lynton Keith, Between Two Worlds, Science, the
Environmental Movement and Policy Choice, Cambridge, 1990,
P. 125; the same, International Environmental Policy,
Emergence and Dimensions, Durham NC, 1984, starting p. 82.
The International Convention for Averting Pollution of the
Sea by Oil of 1954, which has in the meantime been replaced
by the MARPOL 1973/78 and its protocols, which is
undoubtedly one of the "most highly developed" and
most efficient (practically and technically) international
Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment of 16 June
1972, printed in: UN Doc. A/CONF.48/14. Principle No. 6
reads (excerpt): "The discharge of toxic substances or
of the other substances and the release of heat, in such
quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of
the environment to render them harmless, must be halted in
order to ensure that serious or irreversible damage is not
inflicted upon the ecosystems." Principle No. 7 reads:
"States shall take all possible steps to prevent
pollution of the seas by substances that are liable to
create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and
marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other
legitimate uses of the sea."
For further details, cf. Cadwell, 1984, op. cit. (Footnote
103), P. 226, where he refers to the 1976 Convention on
Prohibition of Military or any Other Hostile Use of
Environment Modification Techniques, which was signed by 55
Cf. the detailed description of Flinterman & Kwiatowska
& Lammers (ed), Transboundary Air Pollution, Int. Legal
Aspects of the Co-operation of States, Dordrecht 1986.
After the First and Second UN Law of the Sea Conferences in
1958 and 1960, a Sea-Bed Committee became active beginning
in 1967, which then took over the preparations for the Third
Conference on the Law of the Sea. From 1973 to 1982, the
Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea held negotations
on the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The official text was published by the United Nations in
1983; printed with explanatory comments of the entire
Convention in: Bernaerts, Arnd, Bernaerts1 Guide to the Law
of the Sea, Coulsdon, 1988.
Art. 308, Paragraph 2 of the Convention; the names of the 51
states are printed in Law of the Sea Bulletin, No. 19,
October 1991, issued by the UN Office on the Law of the Sea,
Cf. Allot, Philip, Power Sharing in the Law of the Sea,
American Journal of Int. Law, Vol. 77, 1983, Pp. 1-30 (3)
Under the title, "Time to Adopt a Constitution for the
Oceans" (in: FAIRPLAY, Int. Shipping Weekly, 23 October,
1989, and Peace to the Oceans, Newsletter, 2-90) and in his
essay: Tribunal for the Law of the Sea - Deep-Sea Mining,
Recht der Int. Wirtschaft (RIW), 1991, Pp. 209-218, this
writer pointed out the relationship between the climate and
the Law of the Sea Convention. As far as he is aware, this
relationship has been mentioned elsewhere only in a Student
Note of Beth H. Horness, Research on the Role of the Ocean
in Global Climate Change: The Effect of Extended
Jurisdiction, Ocean Development and Int. Law. Vo. 22, 1991,
Pp. 71-89 (86): "Given that the 1982 Treaty is the
appropriate legal regime for oceanic global warming research,
the avenues to delays, disruptions, and added costs are
numerous". Cf. also the attempt to adapt the 1982
Treaty to an Atmosphere Treaty by Toufiq A. Siddiqi, Towards
a Law of the Atmosphere, Using Concepts from the Law of the
Sea, Honolulu 1988 (Environment and Policy Institute,
Working Paper 12).
Introductory Literature: Bernaerts, Arnd, Bernaerts' Guide,
op. cit. (Footnote 109); Churchill, R. R., & Lowe, A.
V., The Law of the Sea, 1988. For a discussion of the
acceptance of the treaty: Bernaerts, in: RIW, op. cit. (Footnote
112). A good overall view of the current state of the
discussion of the "value" of the 1982 Law of the
Sea Treaty can be found in: Panel on the Law of Ocean Uses,
U. S. Interests and the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea, Ocean Development and Int. Law, Vol. 21, 1990,
Pp. 373-410. Thanks to the election of the Democratic
Presidential candidates, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, on 3
November, 1992, it is to be expected that there will be a
return to policies on the law of the sea in line with those
of the Carter Administration during the 1970s. Particularly
President R. Reagan is responsible for the fact that the
1982 Law of the Sea Treaty did not meet with international
acceptance many years ago; he, along with Germany and
England, was of the opinion that the regulation of deep-sea
mining was not acceptable; these three countries are the
only industrialized nations which have not signed the 1982
Law of the Sea Treaty.
Cf. in detail: Boyle, Alan E., Marine Pollution under the
Law of the Sea Convention, American Journal of Int. Law,
Vol. 79/2, 1985, Pp. 347-372 (350).
Cf.: Ramakrishna, K., Environmental Concerns and the New Law
of the Sea, Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1986, Pp.
1-19; Kindt, J. W., Marine Pollution and the Law of the Sea,
6 Volumes, 1986; Lagoni, Rainer, The Thwarting of Dangers
for the Marine Environment, Berichte der Deutschen
Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht, Vol. 32, 1992, with further
references; Teclaff & Teclaff, Transfer of Pollution and
the Marine Environment Conventions, Natural Resources
Journal, Vol. 31, Winter 1991, Pp. 187-211.
If CO2 is supposed as having the attribute of the term
"substance" then it is imaginable that a court
could determine that CO2 is to be regarded as "pollution"
in accordance with Art. 1. According to Art. 212, 222,
together with Art. 192, the states would then be obligated
to act (presuming that CO2 caused a rise of the seas -
certainly a reduction of amenities). Art. 222 reads thus:
"States shall enforce, within the air space under their
sovereignty . . . their laws and regulations adopted in
accordance . . . with this Convention and shall adopt laws
... to prevent, reduce and control pollution . . . from or
through the atmosphere. . . ." For more details on the
topic of pollution through the atmosphere: Ash, George, W.,
1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea - Its Impact on Air
Law, The Air Force Law Review, Vol. 26, 1987, Pp. 35-82 (68
and following); Hailbronner, Kay, Freedom of the Air and the
Convention on the Law of the Sea, American Journal of Int.
Law, Vol. 77, 1983, Pp. 490-520 (510). Regarding
manipulation of the weather, cf. Davis, Ray Jay, Atmospheric
Water Resources Development and Int. Law, Natural Resources
Journal, Vol. 31, Winter 1991, Pp. 11-44.
Cf. NATURE, Vol. 357, 18 June 1992, P. 523; Nitze, William
A., in: International Challenge, Vol. 11, 1991, Pp. 9-16
These plankton influence a number of climatic factors,
particularly the formation of clouds (cf. Savoie &
Prospero, NATURE, Vol 339, 1989, Pp. 685-687; and Schwartz,
Nature, Vol. 336, 1988, Pp. 441-445), but also as
neutralizers of CO2, cf. the research results of the
Alfred-Wegner-Institut in: Siiddeutsche Zeitung, 5 November,
1992, P. 47 (The Ocean Has Many Ways of Storing Carbon
Charnock, H., Marine Science, Organising the Study of the
Oceans, Marine Policy, 1984, Pp. 120-136. Knauss, John A.,
The Effects of the Law of the Sea on Future Marine
Scientific Research, Louisiana Law Review, Vol. 45, 1985,
Cf.: Bernaerts, Arnd, The Influence of the UN Law of the Sea
Convention 1982 on the Marine Technolgy Development and
Perspectives for the Federal Republic of Germany, Verein der
Freunde and Forderer des GKSS-Forschungszentrums, Vol. 1,
Geesthacht 1988; Murthy, B. S., Transfer of Technology in
the New Int. Economic Order, The Indian Year Book of Int.
Affairs, Vol. XIX, 1986, Pp. 435-458; Pinto, M. C. W.,
Transfer of Technology under the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea, Ocean Yearbook, No. 6, 1986, Pp. 241-270; Boczek,
Boleslwa A., The Transfer of Marine Technology to Developing
Nations in Int. Law, Honolulu 1982; Wolf, Klaus Dieter, in:
Kohler-Koch, B., (ed), Technology and Int. Politics,
Baden-Baden 1986, Pp. 214-243; Soons, Alfred H. A., Marine
Scientific Research and the Law of the Sea, Deventer/NL (about
This requirement is absolutely essential. Due to
industrialization, there are today possibly already several
dozen causes - including perhaps CO2 -which affect the
"normal" processes in the ocean and thereby the
climate. It is quite possible that some of the causes
neutralize each other, but that others have a cumulative
effect. The decision as to the most reasonable and practical
actions must therefore be determined by results (i.e., by
the condition/trends of the oceans). Taking a real (or
presumed) cause as the starting point can turn out to be a
disastrous mistake. This should be considered only if there
were very few possible causes and it were really possible to
restore pre-industrial conditions. Note the remarks under
Cf. Birnie, P., Dispute Settlement Procedures in the 1982
UNCLOS, in: Butler, W. E. (ed), The Law of the Sea and Int.
Shipping, NY 1985, Pp. 39-68; Ripshagen, W., Dispute
Settlement, in: Ripshagen, C. C., & Stephanou (ed), The
New Law of the Sea, Amsterdam 1983, Pp. 281-301; Sohn, Louis
B., Peaceful Settlement of Disputes in Ocean Conflicts, Law
and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 46, 1983, Pp. 195-210.
Cf. Lagoni, Rainer, Maritime Law Discussions in the Hamburg
Representation in the Federation, Paper given on 9 April,
Cf. Bernaerts, RIW, op. cit. (Footnote 112), Pp. 215-216.
Skolnikoff, Eugene B. op. cit. (Footnote 102), for example,
points out that "greater understanding of the issue is
essential for policy formation." As for the
independence of the climate scientists, cf. Andresen, S.,
op. cit. (Footnote 11), P. 41. Solomon & Freedberg, op.
cit. (Footnote 102), P. 91, point out that "the problem
solving approach mandates that all rel¬evant information be
presented to the policymaker prior to the formulation and
adoption of a solution." A good overview of the problem
as a whole can be found in Andresen & Ostreng, op. cit.
(Footnote 96), cf. Pp. 10, 28, 120, 150. Cf. also
Nollkaemper, Andre, The precautionary Principle in
International Environmental Law: What's New Under the Sun,
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 22, 1991, Pp. 107-110. By no
means of help is the opinion of O'Rioradan & Rayner in:
Global Environmental Change, 1991, Pp. 91-108 (103) that
"the fusion of science and politics is inescapable if
major global change is to be averted before its discovery
proves that we have acted too late"; cf. Primas, Hans,
Re-Thinking in Natural Science, in GAIA, 1992, Pp. 1-15
(12): "A pact between state and science which
guarantees freedom of research and allows the closing of one
eye is dangerous for the continuation of our culture."
The fact that they "succeeded without really knowing it
or trying" only adds to the uniqueness of the situation.
It is precisely not a case where politics was once again to
blame, and one cannot agree with Skolnikoff, op. cit. (Footnote
102) when he says, as do many others: "The only real
prospect for a different policy outcome in the near future
would be if public consensus and international negotiations
overcome the stubborn nature of the policy process of
governments." The legislature cannot be blamed for the
lack of precision in defining the problem (cf. also
Skolnikoff, ebenda). The fact that the environmental law
concept behind the 1982 Treaty would never have been
achieved in such high quality if there had at that time been
any real "understanding of the ocean" or the
"understanding of the climate" shown here need not
be a cause of sleeplessness for someone who wants to protect
But at least there are now calls for a little more
differentiation. Cf. Katz, Richard W., & Brown, Barbara
G., Extreme Events in Changing Climate: Variability is More
Important than Averages, in: Climate Change, Vol. 21, 1992,
Pp. 289-302; "experiments using climate models need to
be designed to detect changes in climate variability, and .
. . policy analysis should not rely on scenarios of future
climate involving only changes in means."