In Chapter 3, authors Fred Singer and Denis Avery of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years explain why they believe the "Greenhouse Theory" is flawed. Here, they use a particular format that they adapt throughout the entire book: directly quoting those who spread "rumors" about the Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part A) and then those who refute it (Part B). I will state the reasons that they outlined and analyze the information and statements that they gave.
* I read the Korean translation of this book. I won't be quoting often, but when I do, please be aware that the words that I selected may not be the same as those used in the book.
1. Are Polar Bears in Danger?
Part A: www.worldwildlife.org/climate/index.cfm, 2004
According to the World Wildlife Fund, we must reduce emissions of gases from burning fossil fuels in order to stop Global Warming. It articulates that slight changes in the increases of Earth's temperature may pose a huge threat to wild animals like polar bears.
Johan Olsson in "The Effects of Global Warming", 12 January 1996
According to Olsson, most of the electricity that we use is produced by burning coal. We must begin by trying to save electricity through efforts such as improving the efficiency of air conditioners or heaters.
Part B: John Tierney, "The Good News Bears," New York Times, 6 August 2005
He says that numerous newspaper articles profess Global Warming will melt the icebergs of polar regions, possibly causing the extinction of polar bears before the 22nd century. He adds that there has actually been a recent increase in the number of polar bears spotted by inhabitants of the Resolute Bay. In Canada, for example, where most of the world's Ursus maritimus live, the number increased by at least 20 percent during the ten years up to 1996. Right after providing this piece of information, there is a single sentence that mentions that a major reason for this change may be the ban on hunting polar bears. This is followed by another sentence: in the 1930s, the North Pole was as warm as 1996; before 1930s, the temperature was even higher than 1996.
In my opinion, Part B is highly misleading. Without reading carefully, one can gain the impression that Global Warming may not be affecting the population increase/decrease of polar bears. Although it includes the idea that the apparent rise in polar bear numbers may be due to prohibiting the bear hunting, it only fleetingly mentions it in just one sentence. Without a proper connection, there is a comparison of the temperature between the 1930s and 1990s. Instead of simply stating that the polar bear population increased largely due to the banned hunting (which is what I think it is), the added information in the conclusion brings about the idea that the alleged cooler climate have increased the number of polar bears. Moreover, it does not state by how many degrees the climate was warmer in the 1930s. Is it by 1°C? Or 0.4°C? Without this specific information, can the readers see a definite relation with the temperature decrease?
2. Are Icebergs Melting?
Part A: The Nansen Environment and Remote Sensing Center, University of Bergen, March 1995
The effects of Global Warming will appear first in the melting of icebergs in the North Pole. The warming of the atmosphere will result in changes of ocean circulation, reduction the volume of ice on land, etc.
Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1992), 22~23
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is still rising, along with the Earth's temperature. Icebergs in the polar regions influence the weather of the entire planet; when they melt, a major calamity will definitely strike.
BBC News, "Rapid Antarctic Warming Puzzle", 6 September 2001
According to British scientists, part of the South Pole is warming much faster than other regions on Earth. They believe that this warming phenomenon is the strongest in at least the past 2000 years. Researchers say that 75% of ice cores show an increase in temperature over the past 50 years. The rapid warming has melted seven Ice Shelves over the same period.
Part B: "Antarctica: To Melt or Not to Melt?" Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Project 5, no. 3 (7 February 2001)
According to the Year 2000 'Journal of Climatology' Issue 13, icebergs in the South Pole are showing changes that are opposite to climate model predictions - their surface area is actually increasing. Warming and cooling of approximately 5 degrees can change the iceberg volume by 1~1.5%.
"For Land's Sake," <www.worldclimatereport.com> (17 March 2004), Geophysical Research Letters 31: 105204, doi:10.1029/2003GL019024.
Some researchers say that the information released by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is highly inaccurate. The materials do not include the data on decades of slight cooling in the South Pole.
When I read this part, I was reminded of another book that I read: 'Weather Science' by Gerhard Staguhn, published in 2012. (Again, I read the translated version I found in the library) I read in chapter 14 that the warming occurs much slower in the South Pole than the North Pole or Greenland due to its great surface area. However, there have been observations of significant changes. The ice of the South Pole are continuously moving out to the oceans. Icebergs on the coastal line are breaking off and flowing across the water. According to satellite data, the volume of ice in the southern pole has been decreasing by 150 cubic meters every year.
How should we compare the information provided in Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years with others (ex. another book like 'Weather Science')? How can we, as readers, evaluate the reliability of the sources? For now, all I can say is that I have been led not to accept seemingly objective pieces of data - such as increase in volume, temperature, etc. right away. Additionally, when I read about the increase in surface area of ice in Part B, I realized this did not necessarily mean ice was actually increasing. When ice melts, breaks off and floats away, its surface area may increase, but not the volume when it begins to melt further.
Edited: The next 'Skeptics and Deniers' blog post will be about the book's views on rising sea levels.
