New Scientific Findings Cast Doubt On Global Warming

[Timber Loftis]

Good arguments, Thorfinn. For fairness, I will post a retort:
Source: Eileen Claussen, Pew Center for Climate Change, Speech.

What I'd like to do this morning is lay out some of the new realities thrust upon us by global warming. And I'd like to do that in part by examining - and, I hope, dispelling - some common myths about global warming. These are persistent myths, and I believe they are persistent for two reasons: first, because some people, including some people of influence, would rather deny the realities than face up to them; and second, because there are some modern-day dinosaurs who are not prepared to evolve. These relics thrived under the old realities, and they think the key to their survival is persuading us that these old realities still hold. Instead, I think, they are hastening their own extinction.

Before taking up some of these myths one by one, let me share with you a brief example. It comes from the Wall Street Journal. I have to say that on its news pages the Journal does a very good job with this issue. Its reporting on climate change is fair and it's insightful. But when it comes to the editorial page, I am afraid the Journal has distinguished itself as one of the most persistent and most powerful purveyors of climate change mythology. My example comes from an editorial that ran last July. It takes the form of a question. "Why," the Journal asks, "Why require the nations of this planet to spend the hundreds of billions of dollars necessary to reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions when we don't even know if the earth's climate is getting permanently hotter or if that temperature change is caused by human activity or if that change is even dangerous?" Before reading this, I didn't know it was possible to squeeze so many myths into a single sentence.

So allow me to begin unpacking them. Our first myth: We don't really know if the climate is changing or, if so, why. Here's the reality: there is overwhelming scientific consensus that the earth is warming, that this warming trend will worsen, and that human activity is largely to blame. Certainly you can find scientists who will argue otherwise. But these are the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body that draws on the expertise of hundreds of climate scientists around the world. President Bush was among those who doubted the science, so he asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a special review. The NAS established a very well balanced panel, including some well-known skeptical scientists, and then came back with the very same conclusions: the planet is warming and we are largely responsible.

How significant is this warming? The earth's temperature has always fluctuated, but ordinarily these shifts occur over the course of centuries or millennia, not decades. The 1990s were the hottest decade of the entire millennium. The last five years were among the seven hottest on record. Scientists project that over the next century average global temperature will rise two to ten degrees Fahrenheit. A ten-degree increase would be the largest swing in global temperature since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. In some communities, this is no longer a theoretical matter. The impacts are being felt right now. Just ask the people of Alaska, where roads are crumbling and homes are sagging as the permafrost begins to melt.

Which leads me to the second myth: Even if the earth is warming, that may actually help us more than hurt us. Here's the reality: In the short-term there will be winners and there will be losers. For instance, farms and forests will be more productive at some latitudes, but less productive at others. In the long term, though, any possible benefits from global warming will be far outweighed by the costs.

You may have heard about a new climate report that the United States submitted recently to the United Nations. The President tried to distance himself from the report, even though the White House had approved it, because some of his supporters didn't like its implications. But the "bureaucracy," as the President put it, actually did a very credible job of presenting what we know about the likely impacts of global warming here in the United States.

We face both increased flooding and increased drought. Extended heat waves, more powerful storms, and other extreme weather events will become more common. Rising sea level will inundate portions of Florida and Louisiana, while increased storm surges will threaten communities all along our nation's coastline. New York City could face critical water shortages as rising sea level raises the salinity of upstate aquifers and reservoirs. And a good chunk of lower Manhattan that's built on landfill could again be submerged. We can adjust to some of these things, if we're willing to pay the price. But many of the projected impacts are irreversible - when we lose a fragile ecosystem like the Everglades or Long Island Sound, it can never be replaced.

Let's turn now to a third myth: There's so much uncertainty - about the science, about the economics - that we need to wait for better information before we can decide how to respond. The reality is that there are several very compelling reasons that we must begin to act right now - and uncertainty itself is one of them.

It's important to understand the long-term nature of this challenge. There's a lot of inertia in the system, in both the economy and the climate, and overcoming it is going to take time. The greenhouse gases we've already placed in the atmosphere will continue to warm the planet for many decades if not centuries. Right now, there is about 40 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. The CO2 concentration is projected to reach twice the pre-industrial level by the middle of this century. This doubling of CO2 is the scenario most scientists have relied on in projecting the likely impacts of global warming. But here's what's really troubling: If we continue with business as usual, by the turn of the century greenhouse gas concentrations will be approaching three times the pre-industrial levels. In other words, we may be facing consequences far more severe than those already projected.

In order to stabilize concentrations anywhere within this range - two to three times the pre-industrial level - we must significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the decades ahead. That will require major new technologies. Developing those technologies and turning over the existing capital stock will take time. We need to figure out the right mix of approaches to move us to a climate-friendly economy as cost-effectively as possible. And we'll do a better job at that if we allow ourselves time to learn by doing. All of these are reasons we need to start now.

But perhaps the most compelling reason is uncertainty itself. Uncertainty cuts both ways. It's possible the impacts of warming will be less severe than projected. They could also be worse. For instance, most of our computer modeling assumes a linear relationship between rising temperatures and impacts: as the planet warms, the impacts grow proportionately worse. But there's evidence that some parts of the climate system work more like a switch than a dial. That is why some scientists worry more about the non-linear event - the catastrophic event - like the breakup of the West Antarctic ice sheet or the collapse of the Gulf Stream. So, for me, uncertainty is hardly a reason to delay action. Quite the contrary - it's a powerful argument for acting right now.

Myth number four: We can't afford to address climate change. Well by now you can probably tell that as far as I'm concerned, we can't afford not to address climate change. But let's take a closer look at the cost question. Let's start with the numbers. They're all over the place. For every study you can cite showing that a serious climate program will mean certain economic ruin, I can cite one showing that it will be an economic boon. The point is: You shouldn't believe any of them. There does not yet exist an economic model capable of simulating the real costs and benefits of significantly reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Over the past few years, we have been working with top economists from some of our leading universities to methodically dissect the models and expose their weaknesses. Most models, for instance, do a poor job of projecting how rising energy prices will lead producers or consumers to substitute other goods and services; how price signals will drive new technology and innovation; or how businesses will respond to changes in policy. The models also have a difficult time weighing the near-term costs of emission reduction against the long-term benefits of avoiding climate change impacts. Some projections look only at the cost side and don't even consider the benefits. Our goal now is to build a better model, and we're getting close. But until then, I suggest you be very wary of anyone claiming to know precisely what it will cost to tackle climate change over the long term.

There is another source of data that I believe is instructive, though, and that is the experience of companies that are taking serious steps right now to reduce their emissions. A growing number of companies are voluntarily committing themselves to greenhouse gas reduction targets. At last count, we had identified more than 40, most either based in the United States or with significant operations here. Some of you may have seen the television ads being run by BP touting its success. The company has cut emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels - eight years ahead of target - and now has pledged to keep them there at least until 2010. Alcoa is aiming to reduce its emissions 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. DuPont is aiming for a 65 percent reduction.

We recently studied several companies that have taken on targets and found that they are motivated by several things. They believe the science of climate change is compelling. They know in time the public will demand strong climate protections, and they can get ahead of the curve by reducing their emissions now. They want to encourage government policies that will work well for business. The companies also cited one other important motivation: To improve their competitive position in the marketplace. And that, in fact, has been the result. The companies are finding that reducing emissions also helps to improve operational efficiencies, reduce energy and production costs, and increase market share - all things that contribute to a healthier bottom line. I'm not going to argue that addressing climate change is necessarily profitable. But I think the evidence so far suggests that it is certainly affordable.

Finally, our fifth myth: Even if climate change is real, and even if addressing it is affordable, the issue is so big and so complex, and the threat is so far off in the future, we will never motivate people to do anything about it. As to whether we can get people to move fast enough, or far enough, I think the jury is still out. But the reality is: people are beginning to act. And some who may not be prepared to act will soon be forced to.

Exhibit A is Kyoto. You'll notice I've gotten this far without even mentioning the Kyoto Protocol, but that's not because it's no longer relevant. In fact, it's more relevant than ever. True, President Bush rejected Kyoto. But the result was even stronger support among other nations. The negotiations are now complete. Japan and the European Union have already ratified it. All that is needed to bring the treaty into force is for Russia to ratify, and odds are that will happen next year if not sooner. Now the U.S. may be out of Kyoto. But U.S. companies are not. Any company producing or selling in a Kyoto country - and that includes all of Europe - will soon know what it means to operate in a carbon-constrained world. U.S. business has a direct stake in ensuring that Kyoto, and any domestic requirements that flow from it, are implemented sensibly and fairly.

There are promising signs of action closer to home as well. The President's rejection of Kyoto not only helped save the Protocol - it elevated this issue in the United States. Climate change has become a political story and the press is keeping it alive. The recent report to the United Nations is a good example. The report contained no new information, it outlined no new policy initiative, and the administration made no announcement of it. Yet it made network news and page one of the Times.

In Congress, meanwhile, members of both parties suddenly seem eager to demonstrate their interest in climate protection. Nearly twice as many climate change bills were introduced in Congress over the past year as in the previous four years combined. The energy bill passed in April by the Senate includes two bipartisan climate provisions - one establishing a new office in the White House charged with developing a long-term climate strategy, the other establishing a system for tracking and reporting greenhouse gas emissions that is voluntary at first but after five years could become mandatory. These are only modest first steps, and there's no saying they will wind up in the final energy bill, if there is a final energy bill. But I think some form of reporting bill will probably be enacted by the end of next year. And some lawmakers are already looking much further down the road. Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, an interesting bipartisan duo, plan to introduce legislation later this year to cap greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and establish an economy-wide emissions trading system. It is, frankly, hard to imagine such legislation being enacted anytime soon. But the fact that it is even being drafted shows that this issue is taking on a new political potency.

For real action, though, you need to look at the states. At least two-thirds of the states have programs that, while not necessarily directed at climate change, are achieving real emission reductions. For instance, Texas and 13 other states have enacted renewable portfolio standards, requiring utilities to generate a share of their power from renewable sources. A growing number of states are tackling climate change head on. New York, for instance, just adopted a state energy plan that sets a goal of reducing emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The New England states have agreed to the same target as part of a compact with neighboring provinces in Canada. Some states are going beyond target-setting and establishing direct controls on carbon. New Hampshire recently became the third state to enact mandatory controls on carbon from power plants. And California, of course, is out ahead of everyone with a new law regulating carbon from cars and light trucks. The new law is headed straight to the courts. But whether or not it survives, it has already sent a powerful message: With or without Kyoto, and with or without Washington, there is growing support in the United States for getting serious about climate change.

So let's recap. Five myths: We don't know if the earth is warming or, if so, why. If it is warming, don't worry - climate change will do us more good than harm. With all this uncertainty, we just don't know enough to act. We can't afford to act. And even if we could, people will never be motivated enough to tackle a problem so big and so complex. And five realities: The earth is warming, largely because of human activity. In the long run, any benefits from warming will be far outweighed by the costs. There are plenty of reasons to start acting right now - and uncertainty is one of them. The companies that understand this are demonstrating that we can afford to do it. And people are in fact beginning to act - internationally, in statehouses, in corporate boardrooms, and maybe even in the U.S. Congress.

More can be found at: http://www.pewclimate.org/

[Dude 77]

i was actualy watching a show and it said that we should continue to pump out green house gasses but not quite as many because if we stopped in a few hundred years there wouldn't be enough carbon dioxide to keep plants alive killing of trees and flowers meaning that we would only have about 100 years untill all oxygen would be gone and no trees to filter it back out

[Thorfinn]

Dude, I would be a little hesitant about accepting that at face value. The world got along just fine before the Industrial Revolution. It got along just fine before humans even existed. There is a pretty good argument that the angiosperms are too good at photosynthesis, and that animals did not increase in abundance and diversity as fast as the plants did, and that plunged the CO2 levels below about 190ppmv, which would have killed off lots of plants, changing the albedo of the world, and resulting in an ice age, but we are currently well above that level, around 375ppmv or so, and not in any danger of losing plant life, at least not in the near future. There may be an argument for intentionally releasing CO2 if we approached the 250ppmv level, but, fortunately, we don't have to worry about that.

Timber, Pew is not one of the better sources to use for global climate change, they being one of the principal NGOs that allegedly got the IPCC Summary for Policymakers reworded after having been reviewed to include that "unmistakable anthropomorphic signature" phrase, a conclusion which is curiously missing from the IPCC Technical Summary.

Anyway, on to the specifics of her argument. She begins by citing the NAS paper. Clearly, she expects people to accept as fact her explanation of the paper, and not bother reading the paper itself, as she has gravely mis-represented the paper. One of the report's authors, Richard Lindzen, wrote of the misunderstanding of the report,

Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). ` But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.

This is not her representation of the report at all. But don't take my word for it. Here is the report itself:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309075742/html/

Clearly, what Pew did was read the first paragraph, then run to press breathless with the news that their pet cause was proven correct. Here is that paragraph:

Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs.

It does indeed sound damning, but the rest of the report goes on to explain that the magnitude of the uncertainty for most forcing factors is greater than the amount of the forcing itself. There is also a large negative forcing factor, shown on page 13, which is basically a slush fund. We don't know what it is, but it is larger than any of the other forcing factors. It just has to be there, since the weather has not been nearly as bad as the forcings predicted, but we have no idea why. So we just invented a large variable of unknown origin to make the books balance.

The state of the science at this point is that anthropogenic CO2 probably does affect climate, but there is some unknown effect masking most of it, and it will take more research to determine whether it is easier and more cost-effective to find a way to increase the effect of that unknown forcing than restricting the CO2 output, or even whether reducing CO2 output will make that unknown factor decrease, or even whether we would want to...

[ 04-09-2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Whew, you big college science types sure can make things complicated...the sum total of both sides is, that "we don't know" the Green side says yeah but just in case lets cripple the economy, the other side says "no there is no need to worry". All I know is that in the 1970's we were told that due to global warming the entire state of florida would be under water in 30 to 40 years....well....we have 6 years untill florida sinks..if the eco-nuts were right.

The end result is, we should continue to make our processes cleaner and more efficient period...don't worry about the theory of global warming and just concentrate on doing things right and as clean as feasable.

In the mean time quit argueing about theories untill you have conclusive data one way or the other without having to resort to fudging the numbers to prove your point. (no using "unexplained" variables). [img]smile.gif[/img] That is MagiK's global environmental policy

[Timber Loftis]

Throfinn, I went to PEW for a retort exactly because it *is* considered credible. Accusing Eileen Claussen, the speaker, of not reading the report is a bit of a rude attack at a source you might not be familiar with. She worked at the State Department for years and helped negotiate a lot of treaties that required a very delicate balance and an appreciation for trying to consider/please all involved parties. Not the least of these accomplishments was that she helped negotiate and invent such terms as "sustainable development." She is an advocate in the area, yes, but is not business unfriendly - else she would not have been able to get so many companies to agree to voluntary commitments. She steers PEW to the middle of the debate, as best she can, and once told me "If it weren't for the Sierra Club, PEW would not be 'middle-of-the-road.' "

So, maybe you discredit PEW, but the majority of folks consider it one of the few reliable honest sources on the subject. I assure you, she read that report several times.

On the report, two points. (1) The portions of it you quote seem to coincide with her representation of it. I don't see the big deal you're making of it. (2) To quote the political backpedaling the administration performed after Big.Oil.Co and Big.Auto.Co called Bush and blessed him out is misrepresentation, perhaps albeit unintentional, at its finest. Even if it's not, the three "certainties" the scientists found that you quoted represent a *huge* change in the administrations point-of-view.
(Well, except possibly the "we're adding carbon" part.)

Regarding your desire for more CO2 and a warmer earth, and your homicidal tendancies toward angiosperms (just joking! [img]graemlins/kidding.gif[/img] ), it's as creative a comment as I've heard in the past 4 years on the topic. Kudos for not following a herd. However, it is the *rate* of change that is of concern. A slow change in climate is natural - hell, the Earth flip-flops its axis every few tens of thousands of years, so climate of course is cyclical as all things are. But, being as you know so much about plants (apparently), I am sure you are aware that ecosystems simply cannot travel very quickly. The boreal forests of Canada, for instance, may would be better off further north. However, Boreal forests can only "migrate" about 2 miles every 50 years. If the climate moves faster than their rate of reproduction, the Boreal forests will simply cease to exist at all.

Anyway, this bone were fighting over is showing, once again, how we know a lot on the subject, but barely the tip of the iceberg. Being a "conservative," would that not dictate we try to maintain the status quo. And, I mean environmental status quo, not "status quo" as used by business (which means ever-churning factories, and is a fine example of industry hijacking a concept to confuse the issues).

[Kaltia]

A while ago I saw a guy on the news, and when he was asked what he thought about global warming, he replied, "Gee, I think it'd be great, it means I can walk around with my shirt off!"
I was moderatly surprised to say the least [img]smile.gif[/img]
( [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/shooter03.gif[/img] )

[Thorfinn]

Timber Loftis, I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but Pew is not considered a reliable source within the scientific world. Pew is a policy group, not a science group. You will never see an article in the major publications like Nature or Science nor the field specific publications like Journal of Experimental Biology or Global Change Biology reference Pew as a source. Eileen may be a wonderful treaty negotiator, or policy wonk, or whatever, but if she were able to play in the same hard science league as Lindzen, Kyle, Idso, Singer, Ciceroni or Hansen, she would have been a part of the science team preparing the technical papers.

Please note that I was not the only one suggesting she did not understand the thrust of the paper -- one of the paper's authors, Richard Lindzen, said she misunderstood it. Now it seems to me that if the author says his work was not read correctly, you ought to give that some credence. I can see why you might see it as backpedaling, but only if you do not actually read the report. It is pretty clear in the report that Lindzen et. al., did not change the report to suit Big Oil or whatever is the Conspiracy Theory du Jour. They merely explained that the policy wonks apparently don't have the attention span to read more than the first few paragraphs of a paper before going off half-cocked.

And I cited only the first paragraph merely to place the best possible construction on her interpretation of the report. I meant to give her the benefit of the doubt -- if you read only the first part, you can definitely come to the conclusion she did. But if you read beyond the first page (there are 41 others, after all) you can see that she did not faithfully represent the report. Either it was a good-faith mistake after reading the first page, or it was a gross misrepresentation of the entire report. Take your choice -- ignorance or malice.

Seriously, don't take my word for what the report says, or what Eileen says it says, or heck, even what the paper's author says it says -- read it for yourself. It is intentionally left very non-technical, so that pretty much anyone can follow it.

As for the migration of the climate, that may be. It certainly would not be the first time that climate change outran the ability of plants to migrate. It happened both before and after the Medeival Optimum, and is well documented through the Little Ice Age. The big difference this time is that we have the means and ability to plant forests, and not wait for nature to slowly invade the new areas. We can and have implemented massive reforestation projects, the largest being in the US, Canada and Australia. Our affluence has given us the means to help nature out as needed. The danger of natural mass extinctions of the past climate fluctuations is mostly or completely eliminated by modern human assistance.

[ 04-09-2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

I thought you would say something about the ability to replant forests, and dang it I almost addressed it. My objection is simple: expense.

When I was referring to the 3 "certainties" I meant those you quoted as a statement by the author, not those in the report. I think those statements alone support my position.

When I was at the 4th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Buenos Aires, I took the opportunity to see all sides of the science. Even the "poo poo" side (heck, Exxon served caviar at its functions, so why not go - a student NEVER turns down a free lunch [img]smile.gif[/img] ). This was during the time of the interim IPCC report. I simply found a TON of credible scientists on the "chicken little" side of the debate. Being cautious, I think we should try to reduce emissions until we KNOW the change won't harm us.

Oh, I forgot - check your PMs.

[ 04-09-2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Thorfinn]

MagiK, that is a pretty good summary, I guess, except that for the most part, the other side is not so much "no need to worry" as "let's be reasonably sure of ourselves before we start cutting off appendages."

The "crises" the alarmists predict have not come anywhere close to fruition, often because of advances in technology, and I am hard pressed to recall a single crisis that actually came about, despite ignoring the advice of the alarmists.

[EDIT]
Um... How do I check my PMs? Never mind. Figured it out.

Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but Kyoto-style limitations would not make a significant difference in CO2 output, but would cost at least 5% of GDP, and slow growth about 1-2%. Replanting massive areas of forests may cost in the low billions, but Kyoto would suck off at least $10 billion per year. It seems to me the expense argument is in favor of ignoring the alarmists, too...
[/EDIT]

[ 04-09-2003, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

[Timber Loftis]

You check your PMs by clicking "my profile" up top.

I put the business numbers above many issues, but never above the environment - unless it gets ludicrously high.

Plus, the damage to business done by "command and control" regulation AFTER the fact has happened is always worse. Look at the Clean Air Act - up to $25,000 per day in penalties for failing to get a permit. [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] Economy-based incentives on the front end and a little bit of foresight would have been cheaper, don't you think? If we work to learn about and meaningfully address concerns ahead of time, we can lessen our use of the "command and control" stick.