Skeptics and Deniers: Global Warming and Mass Extinction

The impacts of global warming on species outlined by the World Wildlife Fund:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/impacts/species/

Polar bears, sea turtles, clownfish, flamingos. These are only a few of the species that are known to be "threatened by climate change" and "endangered by global warming". We're aware that human activity has been contributing to global warming, driving many towards extinction. But what if someone told us that we're not, in fact, responsible for this? 

Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, in Chapter 6 of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, present the view that there is no proof animals become extinct due to rise in temperatures. As they support the idea that the current temperature trend is not anthropogenic, they state that we're not bringing about extinction of various organisms, at least not through warmer climates. They add that the development in certain technologies is the key to the protection of wildlife. They also criticize the sensationalist ways of some politicians and environmentalists in building their support for their work. This blog post will be exploring some of their ideas as part of the on-going Skeptics and Deniers series.


Have there actually been any cases of extinction?

In 2004, the international journal Nature published an article: Extinction Risk from Climate Change. It warned that global warming, caused by human activity, would wipe out approximately one million species of flora and fauna in the next half-century. Climate models predicted rapid changes in the ecosystem and ecological processes; the shifts in the Survival Envelope would lead to the elimination of many species. This article reflected the difficulty for most species to adapt or move habitat in time during the abrupt changes in the environment. The book, however, claims that this is contradictory to findings in other research.

Citing research in other scientific journals and literature, the book says that most of the world's animals formed the current physical forms in the Cambrian period, which was part of the Paleozoic era. The writers use this as a reason why it would be reasonable to assume that these animals, which survived more extreme climate cycles and conditions throughout all this time, would be able to survive the current climate change. They say that this intrinsic ability to adapt and evolve in new conditions is why we do not have to worry about extinction.

Here's a question. Have there been any recent instances of extinction due to the rise in temperatures? The writers' answer is "none". Some researchers anticipate the extinction of 20% of the world's wildlife species in the next forty years, which will likely show a 0.8°C increase. After this piece of information, the writers inform us that the last 150 years, which showed 0.6°C increase, resulted in no extinction of any species due to the rise in temperatures. 

When I read this part, something  sprang up to my mind. We cannot treat the change - rise in temperature - as itself alone. For example, if it was the increase in CO2 levels that brought about a warmer climate, we need to take Ocean Acidification into consideration. So, when the writers said that the rise in temperatures threatened no species towards extinction, I wondered: "How did they figure out the influences of just one factor - a warmer climate?"  I do assume that the researchers and writers would have studied all the influences and conditions before reaching their conclusion. Still, when I read a sentence later in the chapter - that no evidence that global warming kills coral reefs means the two are "not related in any way" - made me doubt whether the book was accurate, unbiased, and scientific. 

I'll be continuing my comments on Global Warming and Mass Extinction in the next post! Cheers :)

Skeptics and Deniers: Concerned about 'Sea Level Rise'?

We've all been there. Worrying about coastal floods penetrating our mega-cities, sinking tropical islands, breaking down our historical monuments, swallowing entire nations, forcing the new climate refugees to desperately seek shelter in already over-populated settlements. Throughout school, we've learned about global warming and the consequent thermal expansion of oceans and the melting of icebergs, causing sea levels to rise. Simply, it's something that's understood. 

This post is part of the series "Skeptics and Deniers"; you can read the previous posts here, here, and here. This post is about the claims that Fred Singer and Dennis Avery make on the rise of sea levels. In Chapter 4, they state that there have been greatly exaggerated estimates of sea level rise; that there are no reasons for us to anticipate 'big' increases in sea levels; and that we do not have to spoil our coastal wetlands to fortify our coast lines. We will explore some of their ideas in detail below.

1. The book takes issue with the findings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.* The writers point out that the IPCC has modified its forecasts on sea level rise over the years. For example, the 1990 estimate of 30~100cm increase by 2100 changed to to 9~88cm in 2001. This statistic has 'a wide range of uncertainty'. 

You can read more on IPCC's findings here.

Suddenly, after such little background information on the work of IPCC, the book says that according to INQUA, the IPCC has ignored the research conducted by scientists on sea levels and coastal development. The IPCC, instead, uses the results from computer models that are not yet verified. The writers move onto the claims from the former president of Sea Level Commission: that the IPCC has inaccurate reports; that there have been no such indications of the sea level rise in the past 300 years; and that satellite images have shown no change in the past 10 years. He says that there is no reason for us to fear massive floods in our future. 

The writers add that the IPCC proposed 0.09~0.88m of sea level rise from 1990 to 2100, whereas experts from the Sea Level Commission suggested a 10cm(±10cm). The EPA, the US Environmental Protection Agency, reported that there is 50% chance for 45cm and 1% chance for 110cm increase in sea level by 2100. The writers assume that such statistics would have been partly intended to produce news reports that concentrate on the latter statistic. The concluding paragraph states that the scientists studying sea levels have anticipated no rise in sea levels in the 21st century.

I believe this was one of the sections  where I realized that this book holds so many overstatements, generalizations, and manipulations of facts. I was startled at the progression of information and the specific quotes used by the book. After such meager details on the findings of the IPCC, the writers use very strong words to present the idea that the IPCC has been unreliable, ignorant, imprecise, and scheming. Besides the IPCC's modifications, there are no other aspects of IPCC's faults explained in the writers' own words. Singer and Avery were sometimes very vague in their explanations e.g., not stating exactly what the IPCC has ignored in the research conducted by other scientists, not elaborating on the lack of evidence in the past several centuries. I wondered why the intellectuals that Singer and Avery are did not report findings or facts of their own. I was stunned at the extreme ways in which the writers led to their apparent conclusion: that the findings of some scientists that contrast with those of the IPCC mean ALL scientists studying sea levels do not forecast ANY rise in sea levels. 

*The IPCC is an international body of scientists that advises the UNFCC on the state of climate science. It creates periodic assessment reports on climate change, which are subject to four rounds of review by experts and government representatives. 


2. There are examples of specific regions that have shown little or no increase in sea levels. The book states O.W.Mason and J.W.Jordan's findings in 2002 show only a 0.25mm/year increase in the Chukchi Sea during the past 6,000 years. According to the aforementioned research team at the Sea Level Commission, the sea levels of the Maldives have actually demonstrated an approximate decrease of 20~30cm since 1970. Australia's National Tidal Facility has found no evidence that sea levels are increasing in Tuvalu. 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12651486

I was quite surprised at this information. Maldives and Tuvalu are some of the most common examples used to demonstrate the dangers of rising sea levels. The Maldives Profile of the BBC News begins with the words "None of the coral islands measures more than 1.8 metres (six feet) above sea level, making the country vulnerable to a rise in sea levels associated with global warming." The Washington Times in April 19, 2009 stated that "Estimates released at the Copenhagen International Climate Congress in February say the sea could swallow most or all of the islands by the year 2100." The Tuvalu government for the 64th Session of the UN General Assembly stated that "there is a potential that the entire land surface of Tuvalu could disappear as a result of sea level rise." 

This brings us back to the issue mentioned in the previous post. What is the right thing to do when there are conflicting reports on the same issue? Before we are armed with all the knowledge and expertise for us to carefully evaluate the way the research was conducted, we cannot be hasty in making our own conclusions. So what should we do in the meantime? Is it reasonable to dismiss the reports on the dangers these areas are facing for the simple reason of lack of evidence? 

I will be putting up three more posts for this series in the next three weeks. I hope you have enjoyed the discussions on this topic so far. :) 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-12651486

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/19/rising-sea-levels-in-pacific-create-wave-of-migran/

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/ga-64/cc-inputs/Tuvalu_CCIS.pdf