July 4, 2018
Dear Friends and Family,
This is Segment 5 of the Climate Change Series. The segment focuses on points of agreement and disagreement on the Global Consequences of Global Warming in a format of an advocate point of view followed by a skeptic counterpoint view, subject by subject. This is the same format as was used in Segment 4 and utilizes the same two books.
Question 6: Are there severe consequences predicted?
Counterpoint: No. Despite the recent warming of the earth due to natural causes, actual data shows both floods and drought are decreasing.
Counterpoint: No. Data since 1940 does not show more hurricanes or hurricanes of greater intensity, despite the recent warming trend due to natural causes.
Counterpoint: No. 90% of the world’s ice is in Antarctica and satellite altimetry measurement from 1992 to 2003 shows its total mass increasing by a half trillion tons.
Counterpoint: No. Coral reefs are extremely resistant even surviving the massive extinction event 65 million years ago that killed the dinosaurs. The bleaching effect or graying of the coral reefs does not mean they are dying it is part of nature’s symbiont shuffling natural process.
The next segment will focus entirely on Dr. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, an important, but controversial piece of the IPCC’s Climate Change conclusions. All of the excerpts will come from Dr. Mann’s book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (2012).
Happy Learning,
Harley
Dear Friends and Family,
This is Segment 5 of the Climate Change Series. The segment focuses on points of agreement and disagreement on the Global Consequences of Global Warming in a format of an advocate point of view followed by a skeptic counterpoint view, subject by subject. This is the same format as was used in Segment 4 and utilizes the same two books.
- Advocate points are from A Global Warming Primer by Jeffery Bennett
- Skeptic counterpoints are from Global Warming Alarmists, Skeptics, and Deniers by Dedrick Robinson and Gene Robinson
Question 6: Are there severe consequences predicted?
- First, are there any points of agreement? Yes: Since 1880 the global sea level has increased 7 to 8 inches
- Point of disagreement #1: Drought and Flood Consequences
Counterpoint: No. Despite the recent warming of the earth due to natural causes, actual data shows both floods and drought are decreasing.
- Point of disagreement #2: Hurricane Consequences
Counterpoint: No. Data since 1940 does not show more hurricanes or hurricanes of greater intensity, despite the recent warming trend due to natural causes.
- Point of disagreement #3: Sea Level Rise
Counterpoint: No. 90% of the world’s ice is in Antarctica and satellite altimetry measurement from 1992 to 2003 shows its total mass increasing by a half trillion tons.
- Point of disagreement #4: Ocean Acidification
Counterpoint: No. Coral reefs are extremely resistant even surviving the massive extinction event 65 million years ago that killed the dinosaurs. The bleaching effect or graying of the coral reefs does not mean they are dying it is part of nature’s symbiont shuffling natural process.
The next segment will focus entirely on Dr. Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick, an important, but controversial piece of the IPCC’s Climate Change conclusions. All of the excerpts will come from Dr. Mann’s book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars (2012).
Happy Learning,
Harley
CLIMATE CHANGE – Segment 5
FUTURE GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES – EXCERPTS
ADVOCATE POINTS are from: A Global Warming Primer by Jeffrey Bennett
COUNTERPOINTS are from: Global Warming by Dedrick Robinson and Gene Robinson
OVERVIEW OF EXPECTED GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES:
ADVOCATE POINT: The vast majority of scientists reject the skeptic claims and instead conclude that the threat of global warming is every bit as bad as the models suggest. The predicted rise in global average temperature of 4 to 9 degrees F by the end of this century might not sound so bad. But the expected consequences go far beyond a change in average temperature.
SKEPTICS COUNTERPOINT: Earth history clearly teaches that a static earth has never existed. Our planet is one of the most active bodies in the solar system. All kinds of things constantly change, including weather patterns and climate. Still, natural change does not preclude the possibility that human activities might also cause change. With this in mind, I began to study the scientific literature. To my surprise, I found very little direct evidence that humans were influencing climate. Most of what was offered as evidence was based on the predictions of computer climate models, rather than actual observed data or experimental results. The predictions can only be as good as the information concerning the various controls that are programmed into the computers. Some of this we think we know well, but others are poorly known, or not known at all. To geologists like me, something vital is missing in this procedure, what we know happened in the past. A vast amount of this sort of data is available, but computer models use none of it to churn out their predictions. Real information, won at great cost and effort, is ignored in favor of predictions. This is not how science is supposed to work. We must honor the data, treat it impartially, let it lead us where it will. This new method of science elevates computer predictions above real data. if the data doesn't agree with the computer forecast, the something must be wrong with the data.
DROUGHTS, FLOODS, WILDFIRES AND DISEASES
ADVOCATE POINT: The changes in weather patterns cause some regions to become drier and others to become wetter. You can understand these changes by recalling that warmer temperatures cause more evaporation of water. This extra evaporation tends to make dry places even drier and therefore more prone to drought, while at the same time making more total moisture available to fall as rain (or snow) thereby increasing the likelihood of floods. Wildfires: Drier and hotter conditions in turn lead to greater danger from wildfires and significant increases in wildfires already have been seen in many places around the world, including the American West, Alaska, Canada, Australia, and Russia. Diseases: Global warming is probably contributing to increases in the spread of insect-borne illnesses. For example, diseases such as Zika, Dengue fever, and chikungunya are transmitted by mosquitos.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: Global warming alarmists argue that a warmer earth will cause both drought and flood. The actual data, however, shows that U.S. flood damage has been decreasing. The same is true for drought. Princeton University research found in a 2008 study that "drought characteristics are predominantly decreasing," along with "an overall increasing trend in global moisture." An important study in 2007 examined severe global droughts from 1901-2000. Among them was the famous Dust Bowl of the Midwest in the 1930s, the Sahel drought in Africa during the 1960s, southeastern Australia in the late 1930s and the northeastern China drought of the 1920s. Twenty-two of the thirty most severe and persistent droughts took place during the first six decades of the century, but only eight occurred during the final four decades, and just three during the last two decades. This is exactly the reverse of the time distribution that would be expected from what global warming alarmists assert. Wildfires: If there were a relationship with fires and global temperature, there should be fewer now because the earth has not warmed in several years. Other studies have found no increase in fires in recent years between 1981 and 2000 using data from NOSS's Pathfinder satellite. Diseases: Few people realize that diseases such as malaria were widespread in the U.S., Europe and Russia during the Little Ice Age when the climate was cooler than today. Tropical diseases are rare today in these areas despite warming because of better public health, better insect control and advances in medicine.
STORMS AND EXTREME WEATHER
ADVOCATE POINT: Global warming really means an increase in energy in the atmosphere and oceans, and energy is what drives weather. With more energy, we expect hurricanes, and other extreme weather events to become more numerous, more severe or both.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: From the 1940s, the data does not show more hurricanes or ones that are becoming more intense. A number of peer-review studies reach the same conclusion.
MELTING OF SEA ICE and SEA LEVEL RISE
ADVOCATE POINT: Measurement of the change in sea level since 1880, indicates an overall rise of more than 8 inches. Based on scientific understanding of how sea water expands with rising temperatures, it is thought that much of this increase has been due to thermal expansion. Assuming that global warming continues as predicted, ongoing thermal expansion is expected to cause a rise of another foot by 2100. The second contribution to rising sea level comes from melting of glacial ice, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica. Scientists cannot yet predict ice melting very well, but many experts expect it to increase sea level by at least three feet by the end of this century. This would have severe consequences along coastlines.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: The sea level is rising. It started rising about 20,000 years ago as the climate changed into the current interglacial period. The climate began to warm and the glaciers stated to melt. The total sea level rise during the 20th century was about 7 inches. As introductory college geology textbooks makes clear, 90% of the world’s ice is in one place, Antarctica. The thickness of the ice is expanding on the mainland of Antarctica. Satellite altimetry measurement found that the ice sheet covering eastern Antarctica increased in mass by an average of 45 billion tons each year from 1992 to 2003, or nearly half a trillion tons in ten years. A safe bet for sea level rise this century would be 7 inches, the same as the 20th century, not the amounts the IPCC predicts based on computer climate models.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
ADVOCATE POINT: Ocean acidification can have devastating consequences for ocean ecosystems, including killing coral reefs. It can therefore damage our civilization through both direct effects like reductions in fish stocks and indirect effects stemming from the way these changes in the oceans may affect other Earth systems, including the climate. I won’t say much more about ocean acidification, partly because it has been less well studied.
SKEPTICS COUNTERPOINT: Global warming alarmists argue that the pH of the oceans has already dropped about 0.1 pH unit, and that such a sharp drop like this has never happened before. If it continues, they say, it will produce dire consequences. Aa peer-reviewed study in 2005 found that pH had varied since 1710 over a range of about 0.25 pH units. A study published this year using boron isotopes to determine the pH history of corals from the South China Sea back to 7000 years. The scientists found the pH continually oscillated during this time over a range of about 0.4 pH units. Alarmists say coral bleaching is an early example of the danger posed by warmer, less alkaline ocean water. Bleaching refers to the gray appearance coral has after the algae symbionts are lost. The coral looks dead, but appearances can be deceiving. The “symbiont shuffling hypothesis” is now well supported. This hypothesis holds that beaching is a survival mechanism that allows coral to weather changing environmental conditions by replacing one set of algae symbionts with another. Recovery of bleached coral through such a replacement process has been observed in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans. Experimental evidence also supports the hypothesis. Coral seems to be much more resilient that global warming alarmists imply. After all, coral did survive the massive extinction event 65-million years ago that killed the dinosaurs. The same can be said for the poster child of the alarmist’s movement, polar bears. They lived through the warmer-than-today temperatures of the two previous interglacial periods and seem to be doing just fine now.
WRAPUP
ADVOCATES POINT: The bottom line is that the longer we continue adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the more detrimental to human life and civilization we should expect the consequences to be.
SKEPTICS COUNTERPOINT: The way government and the media treat the theory of global warming is exactly the sort of thing Galileo faced. Those in power told him with sincere belief and conviction that it was 100% certain the sun goes around the earth. Galileo insisted the opposite in his books, which recounted his own telescopic observations proving the consensus theory wrong. Galileo naively thought facts and data would be of greater importance than dearly held politically and religious views. His works were placed on the list of forbidden books. The only reason consensus is discussed at all in relation to global warming is that the theory has been move from the realm of science into the political arena. Consensus finds no place in science. Science does not progress by consensus, popularity or government edict. Instead, facts and data are paramount. The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right.
Are there any well-known environmentalists not in agreement with the consensus view? Perhaps the best known is Lawrence Solomon, the founder of several environmental organizations including Friends of the Earth Canada and the World Rainforest Movement. His 1978 book The Conserver Solution, became the bible of the environmental movement at that time. The one-time advisor to President Carter became interested in why any real scientist would dissent from the “settled science” of global warming. He started to look into it, expecting the few he would find would be either in the pay of energy companies or kooks. To his surprise, he found a large number, many leaders in their fields, whose credibility is beyond question. In a 2008 interview he said, “Many scientists believe that CO2 is a problem. Many others, perhaps the majority of scientists, believe CO2 is not a problem. Many scientists believe that CO2 is actually a benefit. To date, we have not had compelling evidence that climate change is either man-made or harmful.
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
FUTURE GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES – EXCERPTS
ADVOCATE POINTS are from: A Global Warming Primer by Jeffrey Bennett
COUNTERPOINTS are from: Global Warming by Dedrick Robinson and Gene Robinson
OVERVIEW OF EXPECTED GLOBAL CONSEQUENCES:
ADVOCATE POINT: The vast majority of scientists reject the skeptic claims and instead conclude that the threat of global warming is every bit as bad as the models suggest. The predicted rise in global average temperature of 4 to 9 degrees F by the end of this century might not sound so bad. But the expected consequences go far beyond a change in average temperature.
SKEPTICS COUNTERPOINT: Earth history clearly teaches that a static earth has never existed. Our planet is one of the most active bodies in the solar system. All kinds of things constantly change, including weather patterns and climate. Still, natural change does not preclude the possibility that human activities might also cause change. With this in mind, I began to study the scientific literature. To my surprise, I found very little direct evidence that humans were influencing climate. Most of what was offered as evidence was based on the predictions of computer climate models, rather than actual observed data or experimental results. The predictions can only be as good as the information concerning the various controls that are programmed into the computers. Some of this we think we know well, but others are poorly known, or not known at all. To geologists like me, something vital is missing in this procedure, what we know happened in the past. A vast amount of this sort of data is available, but computer models use none of it to churn out their predictions. Real information, won at great cost and effort, is ignored in favor of predictions. This is not how science is supposed to work. We must honor the data, treat it impartially, let it lead us where it will. This new method of science elevates computer predictions above real data. if the data doesn't agree with the computer forecast, the something must be wrong with the data.
DROUGHTS, FLOODS, WILDFIRES AND DISEASES
ADVOCATE POINT: The changes in weather patterns cause some regions to become drier and others to become wetter. You can understand these changes by recalling that warmer temperatures cause more evaporation of water. This extra evaporation tends to make dry places even drier and therefore more prone to drought, while at the same time making more total moisture available to fall as rain (or snow) thereby increasing the likelihood of floods. Wildfires: Drier and hotter conditions in turn lead to greater danger from wildfires and significant increases in wildfires already have been seen in many places around the world, including the American West, Alaska, Canada, Australia, and Russia. Diseases: Global warming is probably contributing to increases in the spread of insect-borne illnesses. For example, diseases such as Zika, Dengue fever, and chikungunya are transmitted by mosquitos.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: Global warming alarmists argue that a warmer earth will cause both drought and flood. The actual data, however, shows that U.S. flood damage has been decreasing. The same is true for drought. Princeton University research found in a 2008 study that "drought characteristics are predominantly decreasing," along with "an overall increasing trend in global moisture." An important study in 2007 examined severe global droughts from 1901-2000. Among them was the famous Dust Bowl of the Midwest in the 1930s, the Sahel drought in Africa during the 1960s, southeastern Australia in the late 1930s and the northeastern China drought of the 1920s. Twenty-two of the thirty most severe and persistent droughts took place during the first six decades of the century, but only eight occurred during the final four decades, and just three during the last two decades. This is exactly the reverse of the time distribution that would be expected from what global warming alarmists assert. Wildfires: If there were a relationship with fires and global temperature, there should be fewer now because the earth has not warmed in several years. Other studies have found no increase in fires in recent years between 1981 and 2000 using data from NOSS's Pathfinder satellite. Diseases: Few people realize that diseases such as malaria were widespread in the U.S., Europe and Russia during the Little Ice Age when the climate was cooler than today. Tropical diseases are rare today in these areas despite warming because of better public health, better insect control and advances in medicine.
STORMS AND EXTREME WEATHER
ADVOCATE POINT: Global warming really means an increase in energy in the atmosphere and oceans, and energy is what drives weather. With more energy, we expect hurricanes, and other extreme weather events to become more numerous, more severe or both.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: From the 1940s, the data does not show more hurricanes or ones that are becoming more intense. A number of peer-review studies reach the same conclusion.
MELTING OF SEA ICE and SEA LEVEL RISE
ADVOCATE POINT: Measurement of the change in sea level since 1880, indicates an overall rise of more than 8 inches. Based on scientific understanding of how sea water expands with rising temperatures, it is thought that much of this increase has been due to thermal expansion. Assuming that global warming continues as predicted, ongoing thermal expansion is expected to cause a rise of another foot by 2100. The second contribution to rising sea level comes from melting of glacial ice, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica. Scientists cannot yet predict ice melting very well, but many experts expect it to increase sea level by at least three feet by the end of this century. This would have severe consequences along coastlines.
SKEPTIC COUNTERPOINT: The sea level is rising. It started rising about 20,000 years ago as the climate changed into the current interglacial period. The climate began to warm and the glaciers stated to melt. The total sea level rise during the 20th century was about 7 inches. As introductory college geology textbooks makes clear, 90% of the world’s ice is in one place, Antarctica. The thickness of the ice is expanding on the mainland of Antarctica. Satellite altimetry measurement found that the ice sheet covering eastern Antarctica increased in mass by an average of 45 billion tons each year from 1992 to 2003, or nearly half a trillion tons in ten years. A safe bet for sea level rise this century would be 7 inches, the same as the 20th century, not the amounts the IPCC predicts based on computer climate models.
OCEAN ACIDIFICATION
ADVOCATE POINT: Ocean acidification can have devastating consequences for ocean ecosystems, including killing coral reefs. It can therefore damage our civilization through both direct effects like reductions in fish stocks and indirect effects stemming from the way these changes in the oceans may affect other Earth systems, including the climate. I won’t say much more about ocean acidification, partly because it has been less well studied.
SKEPTICS COUNTERPOINT: Global warming alarmists argue that the pH of the oceans has already dropped about 0.1 pH unit, and that such a sharp drop like this has never happened before. If it continues, they say, it will produce dire consequences. Aa peer-reviewed study in 2005 found that pH had varied since 1710 over a range of about 0.25 pH units. A study published this year using boron isotopes to determine the pH history of corals from the South China Sea back to 7000 years. The scientists found the pH continually oscillated during this time over a range of about 0.4 pH units. Alarmists say coral bleaching is an early example of the danger posed by warmer, less alkaline ocean water. Bleaching refers to the gray appearance coral has after the algae symbionts are lost. The coral looks dead, but appearances can be deceiving. The “symbiont shuffling hypothesis” is now well supported. This hypothesis holds that beaching is a survival mechanism that allows coral to weather changing environmental conditions by replacing one set of algae symbionts with another. Recovery of bleached coral through such a replacement process has been observed in the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific oceans. Experimental evidence also supports the hypothesis. Coral seems to be much more resilient that global warming alarmists imply. After all, coral did survive the massive extinction event 65-million years ago that killed the dinosaurs. The same can be said for the poster child of the alarmist’s movement, polar bears. They lived through the warmer-than-today temperatures of the two previous interglacial periods and seem to be doing just fine now.
WRAPUP
ADVOCATES POINT: The bottom line is that the longer we continue adding CO2 and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, the more detrimental to human life and civilization we should expect the consequences to be.
SKEPTICS COUNTERPOINT: The way government and the media treat the theory of global warming is exactly the sort of thing Galileo faced. Those in power told him with sincere belief and conviction that it was 100% certain the sun goes around the earth. Galileo insisted the opposite in his books, which recounted his own telescopic observations proving the consensus theory wrong. Galileo naively thought facts and data would be of greater importance than dearly held politically and religious views. His works were placed on the list of forbidden books. The only reason consensus is discussed at all in relation to global warming is that the theory has been move from the realm of science into the political arena. Consensus finds no place in science. Science does not progress by consensus, popularity or government edict. Instead, facts and data are paramount. The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right.
Are there any well-known environmentalists not in agreement with the consensus view? Perhaps the best known is Lawrence Solomon, the founder of several environmental organizations including Friends of the Earth Canada and the World Rainforest Movement. His 1978 book The Conserver Solution, became the bible of the environmental movement at that time. The one-time advisor to President Carter became interested in why any real scientist would dissent from the “settled science” of global warming. He started to look into it, expecting the few he would find would be either in the pay of energy companies or kooks. To his surprise, he found a large number, many leaders in their fields, whose credibility is beyond question. In a 2008 interview he said, “Many scientists believe that CO2 is a problem. Many others, perhaps the majority of scientists, believe CO2 is not a problem. Many scientists believe that CO2 is actually a benefit. To date, we have not had compelling evidence that climate change is either man-made or harmful.
The unabbreviated version of the above can be found in the pdf document below.
| 05_cc_long_global_consequences_--_segment_5.pdf |