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

Skeptics and Deniers: "The Failure of the Greenhouse Theory"

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.

Skeptics and Deniers: Let's Talk Global Warming

First of all, I'm terribly sorry for such a late post. A lot of things are happening lately and I was just caught in the midst of a storm of deadlines, assessments, etc. I can truthfully say, though, that this post took a long time to write. Climate skepticism is one big issue, so quite a lot of research and thought went to this post. 

As written on the previous post, this series is going to be about the book written by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years which was published in 2006. Over 16 chapters, the authors argue that the current rise in global temperature is not due to greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activity but part of natural cycles in the Earth's climate. Instead of trying to reduce gas emissions, they say, we should prepare for the effects that follow. 

Honestly, I began reading with a little doubt - how far could anyone challenge something that persists and prevails in education systems, political conversations, and scientific research? Climate skepticism wasn't a concept that I was greatly familiar with; as a firm believer in the influence of human activity on global warming, I decided to read this book to see what the other side was thinking about.

After a couple of hours of reading, I could see why it had caused such a sensation.  It quoted 'Greenhouse Warming Advocates" and "alarmists" and then directly refuted the details. This was a truly effective way to get the readers to question everything they had learned through primary and secondary education, newspapers and presentations. I began to realize that there may have been imperfections and flaws in the explanations for human impact on global warming. However, I noticed some serious errors and flaws in the book as well. Here's an example of a point that I found to be misguided or unfounded:

- What the book says: The rise in temperature caused by human industrial activity is insignificant. There has only been a few degrees increase. 
  What I noticed/realized: Nowhere in the book is ocean acidification mentioned. A huge bulk  - 25%, according to Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory - of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is dissolved in oceans and other water bodies like rivers and lakes. The reaction with water forms carbonic acid which eventually gives a bicarbonate ion and hydrogen ion, increasing the water's acidity. This is a reason why the actual number of degrees increase in temperature has not been increasing as much...although this may change when the threshold for the maximum carbon dioxide for absorption is reached.

As you can see, there are some aspects of the story in the book that I cannot agree with. Throughout the series of these blog posts, I will give a glimpse of what the book says, as well as my own opinions and questions that I had while reading this book. 

Now, I will talk briefly about the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, a point that the authors make early in the book. Remember, the opinion in this book is that big alterations in our climate are not due to human activity but through inherent cycles of change that the Earth goes through anyway. It will give you a hint as to how they set out their story, as well as the science that is important to know in understanding how the Earth's climate system works. 

One crucial "linkage" between the Earth's climate and the changes in the sun is cosmic rays. Under normal conditions, the sun emits a "solar wind" that shields our planet from cosmic rays that "bombard the rest of the universe". When the sun is weak, more cosmic rays reach the Earth's atmosphere. Here is a direct quote from the book: "... more of the cosmic rays get through to the Earth's atmosphere. There, they ionize air molecules and create cloud nuclei. These nuclei then produce low, wet clouds that reflect solar radiation back into outer space. This cools the Earth."

We must consider another aspect which, of course, concerns the ozone layer in our stratosphere. According to climate models mentioned in the book (Ah, climate models! Another matter that has to be discussed, maybe in the next post), "a 0.1 percent change in the sun's radiation could cause a 2 percent change in the Earth's ozone radiation, affecting atmospheric heat and circulation." When the sun is in a more active state, there is an increase in the ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth. Below is a diagram of how ultraviolet rays break oxygen molecules, some of which turn into ozone. 

Image from Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Derivative work by Smartse

What do you guys think? Do you think factors such as the sun's cycles of change give enough reasons for believing that we aren't really responsible for global warming? Why do you think our teachers, politicians and non-governmental organizations tell us otherwise? Why are some people so adamant on denying our impact on the Earth's system? 

If you would like to share your ideas, please post comments below! 

Next post will be on the authors' reasons why the "Greenhouse Theory fails". 

Read part of the book here: 

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/unstoppable_global_warming_by_s_fred_singer_and_dennis_t_avery.html

Reading "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years"

Recently, I was strolling through the library aisles when I came across "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. From the cover, I could immediately see that the book was about how mankind isn't responsible for "global warming" - or, the recent surges in global temperature. In fact, according to the book, the climate change phenomena are a result of 1,500-year climate cycles that the Earth has been going through for 4.5 billion years.

The book expresses its doubts about the Greenhouse Effect - the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and N2O; the emission of GHGs from human activity cannot have an effect as large as a global temperature surge. The writers of this book assert that instead of trying to cut down on the production of such gases, we should try to develop the adequate technologies and other measures to prepare for the changes in climate for the years to come - inevitable, because that is how the Earth's system has always been, going through repetitive circuits of warm periods and little ice ages. 

* Anyone who's been following my blog will know that what I believe in doesn't agree with what the book says. I've talked extensively about global warming, greenhouse gases and climate change, all from a point of view that is quite the opposite of that of the book. But in the last few years, I've met people who share the book's ideas - surprisingly not a very small number. Investigating what the book says is a way of figuring out what they believe in and clarifying or reinforcing my own knowledge.

For the next few months, I'll be posting about my reading of this book, with picture and weather posts in between. I hope it will interest you as much as it did to me; after all, global news are often scattered with articles about climate change, and in order to interpret them in the most accurate or balanced way, we should be armed with the appropriate knowledge. 

Cheers :)