One of the most common attacks that Lomborg and his supporters make is to accuse people concerned about global warming of being “alarmists.” Take the case of global sea level rise, to which he devotes considerable space to in his book Cool It.
Lomborg writes he is relying on the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Using the IPCC’s findings, Lomborg wrote that: “... sea-level increase by 2050 will be about five inches—no more than the change we have experienced since 1940….”[p.61]
Lomborg presents this finding as if it were rock-solid fact. What readers do not know is that Lomborg has omitted the IPCC’s own qualifications about this estimate. And when Lomborg attacks Al Gore and others for suggesting scenarios of much greater rises in sea level, Lomborg mentions Gore’s predictions are based on hypotheticals, but then goes on to condemn them nonetheless as “so dramatically removed from the best science.” (p.62)
Here’s how Lomborg’s critique gets refracted through the mainstream media, from a news story in the Vancouver Sun. The Sun reporter writes:
“Gore and others have been guilty of hyperbole, if not outright deception, in their attempts to raise red flags about climate change…A good local example was the set of alarmist maps created by the Sierra Club of B.C. last year that purported to show how Victoria and Vancouver would look after being flooded by a rise in sea level of six to 25 metres.”
What Lomborg (and this Sun report) does not tell his readers is that the IPPC acknowledged that there was an important uncertainty in this estimate. Here’s the IPCC’s disclaimer:
“An important uncertainty relates to whether discharge of ice from the ice sheets will continue to increase as a consequence of accelerated ice flow, as has been observed in recent years. This would add to the amount of sea level rise, but quantitative projections of how much it would add cannot be made with confidence, owing to limited understanding of the relevant processes.”
And what are scientists finding as they look closer at the flow of ice in Greenland and Antarctica? The emerging evidence points in the direction of ice melting at faster rates than were used in calculating the IPCC’S estimates, findings which only further highlight how misleading Lomborg’s omission of the IPCC’s qualifications can be.
A study published in January 2008 found that “recent warm summers have caused the most extreme Greenland ice melting in 50 years.”
Meanwhile down in Antarctica, another study published in January, 2008 found that record amounts of ice were melting into the sea. The leader of this study, Dr. Eric Ringot, told the New Zealand Herald:
"We have also established that most of this loss, if not its entirety, is caused by glacier acceleration. The IPCC focused on the surface mass balance component. We find this component is not indicative of the true mass balance."
The acceleration in ice loss over the past 10 years could increase in coming decades, he added.
"As some of these glaciers reach deeper beds, their speeds could double or triple, in which case the contribution to sea-level rise from Antarctica could increase quite significantly beyond what it is now."
The sound you hear is not just the sound of glaciers crumbling increasingly quickly into the sea: it is the sound of Lomborg’s fragile methodological apparatus falling apart under the pressure of these new findings.
Comments
New York Times on Sea Level Rise
The Sunday <i>New York Times</i>published the following editorial on the report by Dr. Eric Ringot discussed above on the accelerated melting of the western Antarctic ice sheets. It's good to see the Times staying on top of these reports showing that the ice is melting faster than previously forecast.
New York Times
January 20, 2008
Editorial
"No Place to Hide"
Exuse my ignorance if I'm not informed
Is there a rebuttal to those who claim other planets in the solar system are increasing in temperature as well as earth?
Some say the temperature changes have to do with the Sun's output, Solar energies and the earths "shield" being reduced, allowing the sun to have more of an impact on the earth.
Or what about the ice core samples showing CO2 change lags after Temperature change, rather than the opposite that was shown in Al Gore's film.
When I saw an Inconvenient Truth, I was scared and alarmed and it got me thinking! But recently, I've heard some counter arguments and I'm not sure where these issues stand.
Regardless, I think Peak Oil is a serious subject and we should be moving away from oil and towards relocalization!
Bargaining With The Denial Machine
When I read stuff like this my first reaction is a tightening in my gut. Then I start thinking that if it weren't for this latest denier we, of the community that understands and accepts the sober reality of global climate change, would have free sailing toward a wonderful US government led solution.
Yet most of us know what many a scientist has reminded us of; if we stopped all human-induced greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow we would still have 40 to 50 years of "effect" in the "pipeline" before we see any climatic stabilization and reversal. The polar ice would continue to melt, feedback loops would become more active, we'd move further into critical thresholds, and very possibly we (or our younger friends, and children) experience a phase change in the cryosphere, the oceans, and possibly worse.
Hansen and Lovelock both say that we've probably passed some serious "tipping point" with climate change. This is exactly the kind of "catastrophic news" that Kubler-Ross wrote about in her seminal paper on "The Five Stages of Reaction Upon Hearing.. " it. Most of the climate activists that I've spoken with and come in contact with seem to have a lot of hope that humanity will somehow skate past catastrophe. I think Kubler-Ross would call that bargaining.
The time for action to prevent serious climate change problems probably passed while we were in school or even before we were born. So let's just skip over to acceptance and keep on doing our best to reduce GHG emissions. We cannot do more than our best. And since climate change is uncertain we would do well to avoid leaping to conclusions. None of us really knows how this part of the human situation will unfold.
While we're at it, we might also do well to step out of our reductionist thought tendencies to take a look at a few other "problems" that are chugging merrily along at the periphery of our concern. After all, Matt Simmons wants to remind us that a more present danger is peak oil, and that it has the potential to trump climate change within a decade. And it doesn't stop there, unless you're really overwhelmed. So I'll go lightly on national security, the Middle East, water and topsoil depletion, the hijacking of American democracy (or whatever you call it), and other terrors.
Please don't forget to breath; deeply now, and, another.
Was it Schumacher that said, if we think it will be OK we'll become complacent, if we think not we'll despair? "The question misleads." So let's roll our sleeves up and get back to work, forging more alliances, forming more coalitions, and recruiting new activists with the truth spoken to power. Nature is our ally in this and will likely attract global attention to the problems we face. It could do it as early as the end of the Austral summer, or in the far northern hemisphere just before the big election... or both.
We can take advantage and follow this up with some creative local action and fervent prayer. And for inspiration, let's reread Bucky Fuller's Utopia or Oblivion. As Royal Dutch Shell's Jeroen van der Veer stated in the paper he recently read at Davos, 2100 looks pretty rosy, but depending on our choices today, the trip could be a real heart-stopper. I pray we choose well.
Larry Menkes
ECLA PA
"You must be the change you want to see in the world."
(m. gandhi)
Fighting Denial on Climate Change and Peak Oil
Larry,
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. The psychology of dealing with the global climate crisis is indeed as complex as you describe. The environmental movement has long struggled with whether telling people about the crises to come was the best method to motivate people to action. As you note, bad news can also just cause people to throw up their hands.
Peak Oil and climate change are very much intertwined. The city of Spokane, Washington has recently become the first city to take on climate change and Peak Oil together, an approach that we are very much dedicated to here at Post Carbon Institute.
It may be true that we have already passed some "tipping point" in the planet's temperature, but we don't know that now. That's why we're pushing as hard as we can in all of our programs to find ways to cut back on our use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, both to reduce the danger of adding even more CO2 to the atmosphere, and to prepare our economy to absorb the shock of rising prices for oil in the coming years.
The case for allowing, and indeed encouraging, global warming
I can't help but notice that you say preliminary data states that glacial flows are likely to increase the impacts of global warming, but you do not give any kind of figure for it.
Even based on the New York Times article cited above, it appears that Al Gore's 5 foot to 20 foot figures are entirely false. And yet people who are against global warming continue to discuss that film as though it is accurate in every detail.
I would be very interested in discussion of these points:
1. Life outside of the tropics is ALWAYS more pleasant when the temperatures are warmer. Therefore, global warming offers genuine benefits that are being ignored.
I know that in the Northeastern United States, the environment is extremely hostile to human life during the winter. Increasing temperatures even a few degrees in these frigid wastelands would be an enormous benefit. Likewise, we are seeing plant growth in formerly frozen Greenland, which obviously benefits everyone there.
Warmer weather saves lives overall, makes people happier overall, and causes people to exercise and become healthier. Cold weather creates bad moods in people. It also encourages bad joints, colds and ill health in general. It seems to me that ignoring the enormous benefits of warmer weather is irresponsible to the extreme.
The very reasonable question, then, is to find out how we can take these benefits and mitigate the bad news that you guys talk about incessantly. This is just what Lomborg says in his book, and I believed it intuitively before I even read Lomborg. Actually, Lomborg still says that global warming has bad consequences but after reading his book I am puzzled as to why he doesn't want to encourage it, like I do.
2. Temperatures in the tropics are unlikely to change significantly as a result of global warming. Winter temperatures and nightime temperatures will be affected far more than daytime temperatures. So global warming in terms of temperature appears to be a win/win for all involved.
3. It is true that species will die out as the world gets warmer. But even a short visit to the tropics should show that the warmer the weather, the more diverse the living environment. If we wanted to maximize species diversity, there is only one thing to do: Heat the planet to a constant 80degF. Cold weather species will die out, and warm weather species will replace them with blinding speed. The net effect will be far more species and a more hospitable habitat for humans. Of course it's not possible because of how the climate system works, but it's still worth chewing over that fact: Warmer weather means more species diversity, more rainforests, etc.
4. I find it remarkable that whenever someone is interviewed about the impacts of perceived global warming in their community, it's always the negative side. "Business is way down in our ski resort because of warmer weather!" Why not interview the boating people? "Our season is months longer! Business is booming and people are buying new boats for the new longer season!" How about the swimming pool operators? "We have more people swimming and they all love it!"
5. We are being asked to perform huge sacrifices to prevent global warming, while paradoxically almost all of us will benefit from it. I see that as an act that seems remarkable for its stupidity and cluelessness.
6. Why not simply remove the melting ice before it impacts our sea levels? What if we simply took a bunch of tankers, filled them with antarctic ice, and brought it to Dubai to make a new lakeside real estate development? I know that sounds silly but it sounds a lot LESS silly than changing the cars we drive, frying in the summer and freezing in the winter, and so on. And the Dubai people would pay for it all - the good publicity would be worth billions, and the waterfront homes would start at a million dollars a unit. Everyone benefits!
In short, why are we wringing our hands when we should be looking at the economic opportunity all changes bring?
7. I am not a total troglodyte. I am all for reducing our dependency on fossil fuel energy for OTHER reasons, such as lowering dependency on Arab oil, reducing pollution and so on. I think projects like the Tesla Roadster are great ideas. But this change is not going to happen overnight, no matter what we do.
8. A reasonable review of the evidence would show that stopping global warming is impossible. We are not going to be able to convince ourselves to lower our standard of living that much. Note that Kyoto has been fudged by every single country that signed it, and per Lomborg Kyoto would only postpone our evil future by a couple of years.
I think that we should accept that global warming will happen, and as problems occur due to it, we should take a small fraction of the money we were going to spend on Kyoto, and use it to solve those problems. In other words, I'm sold on the Lomborg book's premise.
Or will it? I've just read a new article that suggests decreasing solar activity might cause a new ice age. Can we all agree that would be a bad thing?
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Co...
Maybe we shouldn't give up those SUVs just yet.
Your thoughts?
D
PS Lomborg and his friends may be funded by oil companies and the like but that doesn't make him wrong, just as being funded by environmental foundations doesn't make you right. I'm not going to be impressed by personal attacks on him, since to me they mean you have lost the argument and have nothing to counter him.
Post new comment