* An Inconvenient Movie, some doubts about Al Gore on global

Topics: Regulation
10 Aug 2006

From: Ervan Darnell









With global warming back in the news, I find myself arguing with
liberals about their reasoning (more so than the fact of warming). It
seems impossible to distinguish "I think your reasoning is sloppy and
incomplete" from "I think your conclusion is wrong." Let me try some
of that here.

-------------------
Some reasons I dislike hearing liberals talk about global warming:

"There is no other side to this debate." I have heard this numerous
times from liberals on the subject of global warming. It's a tidy
encapsulation of much of liberal philosophy: we will use the government
to shove our solution down your throat. It applies to everything from
forcing you to participate in their Ponzi-scheme retirement plan to
(trying to) force you to participate in their socialist health care
scheme. There is no longer any substantial scientific opposition to
the fact of global warming, but there is much legitimate debate on the
magnitude of the forcing effect of CO2, and still more legitimate
debate on what to do about it. Liberals seem to confound these three
things, trying to imply there is no sensible debate on what to do
simply because there is no debate on the fact of the occurance.

'Bush is in denial' -- The Whitehouse statement on global warming has a
lot to say about steps it is taking to reducing global warming:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html
These aren't sufficient, they are political handouts, and some are just
do nothing plans meant to look good. But, it is clearly not denial
either. When the topic comes up in a discussion the refrain is always
that Bush denies global warming is occurring. I'm not defending
Bush's record here, but only making the point that the liberal version
of the argument starts out by a wild misstatement of easily verified
facts and then proceeds to claim "no other side of the debate" on facts
that are much less certain. This is not a clear-headed scientific
argument, it is a policy seeking justification.

"Something is better than nothing" -- not necessarily. This is the
same argument heard in the case of affirmative action: racism merits
some response, even if that response makes it worse, the symbolism of
the gesture matters. That argument is even weaker when applied to
global warming than racism. A response that makes us feel like we have
done something when we have not, and removes our negotiating power to
get other countries on board is worse than useless.

"The deniers all work for oil companies" -- Even if this were true, it
proves less than it seems to. If you are a credible scientist with
doubts about global warming, oil companies obviously have some interest
in your findings, and are willing to fund your research. Yes, that
should make one skeptical, but it's not a reason to just ignore their
results, as the Gore crowd wants to do. Here is the irony: liberals
claim a politician (surely one of the most polished liars to be found)
is credible on science, but scientists who happen to work for oil
companies are not.


-------------
Some doubts on the particulars:


0) We just don't know how much CO2 will change the temperature.
Estimates for historical temperatures (which are used to calibtrate
expectation) are quite wide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
(this is referenced from realclimate.org, which seems credible). The
data is worrisome for sure, but the error bars are also substantial.
When Gore presents a perfect correlation graph between CO2 &
temperature, it's worth keeping all of this uncertainty in the data in
mind. Is it 2 degrees or 20 degrees by the end of the century?
If we shoot for lowering the temperatue 11 degrees and it's only going
up by 2, we could be making a big mistake.

The simulations all show that it is not
possible to explain the
anomalous late 20th century warmth without including the contribution
from anthropogenic
forcing factors
,
and, in particular, modern greenhouse gas concentration increases. A
healthy, vigorous debate can be found in the legitimate peer-reviewed
climate research literature with regard to the precise details of
empirically and model-based estimates of climate changes in past
centuries, and it remains a challenge to reduce the substantial
uncertainties that currently exist. Despite current uncertainties, it
nonetheless remains a widespread view among paleoclimate researchers
that late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth is anomalous in a
long-term (at least millennial) context, and that anthropogenic factors
likely play an important role in explaining the anomalous recent warmth.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7


0.b) The movie showed glaciers falling off of Antarctica and suggested
that was proof. But, this is much less obvious than it seems:
The pattern is broadly compatible with retreat
driven by atmospheric warming, but the rapidity of the
migration suggests that this may not be the sole driver of
glacier retreat in this region.

Science 22 April 2005:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5721/541?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=vaughan&searchid=1114170075528_4017&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=4/30/2005


We hear about Antarctic melting being evidence of global warming, but
yet much of the Antarctic is cooling (the edges are melting, but the
interior is cooling):
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=18

The movie talks about the shrinking Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets, but I heard somewhere that scientists have found
that the ice is actually gaining mass. Which is correct?


WALT: It is true that both Greenland and
Antarctica have gained mass, but only at the high elevations in their
interior. This is because of increased snowfall, which even though it
may seem counterintuitive, is actually expected under warmer
conditions. However, both have been losing ice at the coast at
increasing rates in recent years. In Greenland, it is becoming apparent
that there is a net loss of ice. In Antarctica, the data are
inconclusive, although the most recent results point to a loss. Under
continued warming conditions, a net loss of ice is assured and rising
sea levels would follow.



http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/news/press/20060706_goremoviefaq.html
(this site has several good comments on the accuracies, and limits, of
the movie).

This doesn't necessarily prove the point one way or another about
global warming, but it does tell us the Gore crowd is playing fast and
loose with the evidence when they show calving glaciers and say "see,
look, it's getting worse"



1) Global Dimming, estimated at 50% damping of global warming. If
accurate, global warming models have been off by 50% for this factor
alone. It means the problem is worse than we thought, but it also
means that existing models are fraught with uncertainty.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/


2) Too much: some estimates are that we already past the tipping
point. If it's too late, then let's stop worrying about it.


3) No feedback: plankton, where is it?
http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=1925FD7D-C1FE-4168-9E85-08522E97DB7
In theory, plankton should bloom with more CO2 and absorb a large
amount of it. Maybe this takes more time to happen. Maybe it won't
happen. Absent more data, one possibility is that this natural
stabilizer will kick in. If we somehow managed to cut CO2 emissions at
the same time that plankton started absorbing CO2, it might push things
too far the other way (the positive feedback albedo effect can go
either way, continued warming or continued cooling, as happened in ice
ages). This seems an unlikely scenario, but one that it would be
nice to know more about.


4) How bad is it really? The forecasts of economic catastrophe are
from people who cannot predict GDP growth next year, and they are
forecasting catastrophe in 100 years? Put another way: liberals have a
litany of bad things, but no good ones, that come out of global
warming. Are they all bad? Really? For instance, crop yields likely
rise with higher CO2 levels.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htmA skeptical take on the
whole of it (though I'm not sure I agree with all of this piece):
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6548

That's not to say that, net, global warming isn't a bad thing, maybe
even a catastrophic thing. It's just to say the prophets of doom are
not presenting an accurate picture.


4b) Liberals love global warming as it's an excuse to regulate
everything in sight. Conservatives hate the specter of such
regulation, and thus overcorrect by retreating into denial. It biases
all of the conclusions.


5) Is CO2 cause or effect? While the argument for effect is obvious in
terms of anthropogenic sources, over longer periods of time it bears a
little more thought. Maybe warmer client led to a change in ocean
current that reduced the viability of carbon sinks, thus increasing
CO2. This could be happening on a feedback scale too small to measure
from the geological data (dating ice cores and measuring the gas
concentrations to estimate temperature). If cause and effect is
backward over geological time, then the impact of anthropogenic sources
must be reconsidered since the CO2 temperature correlation over long
periods doesn't prove what it seems to.

Maybe there is good evidence as to cause and effect here, and I don't
have it. But the simple argument that is offered just overlooks this.

Here's an interesting article on CO2 being effect (rather than cause)
due to astronomical events, but also with some dire data on how it is
now way out of line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

but then there is this, showing that over millions of years it has been
much higher than it is now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png


6) Kyoto: Lots of problems with this. Here are a few:
i) The EU is missing the target anyway:
http://www.unwire.org/unwire/20021004/29395_story.asp
so what good is it if not enforceable?
ii) Exempting China, and other (sometimes) developing nations, only
moves the problem offshore as manufacturers seek CO2-ignoring havens.
iii) For the U.S. to sign now would limit our ability to negotiate
China into signing it as well.
iv) Even if CO2 emission did not move countries, and the U.S. signed
it, and the everyone met their targets, it's not clear it would make
any difference (since it stipulates 1990 CO2 levels).
v) Reducing CO2 emissions to pre industrial levels is more or less
politically impossible. Hopefully there is a techno fix with better
sinks in some fashion.


7) Global cooling: whatever happened to that? In the 70's, that was
the catastrophe we faced. Okay, the evidence for that was very weak
and the evidence for global warming is now quite good. But anyone
listening to Gore-type advocates, would have been impressed with the
same sense of urgency in either case. It causes me to discount
anything said by someone who starts with "According to Al Gore..."






_______________________________________________
Ragnar mailing list
Ragnar@ragnar.kelvinist.com
http://ragnar.kelvinist.com/mailman/listinfo/ragnar
Home