Who's Afraid of Global Warming?

American Thinker ^ | February 16, 2007 | J.R. Dunn

[neverdem]

Science works by means of prediction. Once data is collected and evaluated, and a hypothesis formed, scientific method requires that certain predictions be made to act as tests of the overall theory. If the predictions work out, we can regard the hypothesis as proven. If not, we vow to do better next time.

Take general relativity, for instance. (Full disclosure: this example is stolen in toto from Rush Limbaugh's program of February 2nd.)  Einstein's theory was dismissed as lunatic by many classical physicists on its introduction in 1905. But he proposed a series of simple and straightforward tests, among them that starlight close to the sun's rim would be seen to bend during a total eclipse. In 1919, just such an eclipse was carefully photographed by Arthur Stanley Eddington, not yet the dean of British astrophysics. The photos showed that the stars closet to the sun had shifted a small but measurable degree, and the world was never quite the same thereafter. (When later asked what he'd have done if the photos had shown anything else, Einstein said, "I'd have been sorry for the Good Lord Almighty.") 

There exists today a large and growing class of theories on subjects that are either too vast, too small, too remote, or too complex to allow adequate testing. These include such abstruse concepts as string theory, brane theory, and dark matter. So critical has the situation become in some fields that there has been talk of "the end of physics", or even the end of science as a whole - surely a premature diagnosis.

Among all the cutting-edge ideas not susceptible to testing there's one that's quite familiar  - global warming. The earth's climate, we're told, is far too large and complex (in both the mathematical and common meanings) a phenomenon to be subject to any conceivable form of testing. All the same, the dangers presented by climate change are so great that we cannot wait for actual evidence. The risk is infinite, so we have to act now, while there's still time.

But is that in fact the case? It's quite true that a planetary climatic system exceeds any test that we can design. The best we can do is model it, through computer simulations that are by their very nature incomplete (not to mention contradictory). Wouldn't it be nice if we had access to some natural example comparable to what's occurring now, so that we could analyze it and get some idea of what we're facing?

It so happens that we have exactly that. This isn't the first time warming has occurred on earth - it's a commonplace and recurring phenomenon. As we've seen previously, one such episode took place in relatively recent historic time - the Little Climatic Optimum, better known as the Medieval Warming Period. During the LCO, worldwide temperatures rose by 1 to 3 degrees centigrade for a roughly three-hundred-year period beginning in the 10^th century and ending late in the 13^th century. Records from the era are abundant and easily available.

Warming advocates have made a series of predictions concerning climatic effects over the coming century. Do they pass the LCO test?

Sea Level Rise

This is one of the most popular topics among global warming advocates, probably because it lends itself to spectacular visuals: maps of Florida "after the warming" are commonplace, while the honest and well-researched film An Inconvenient Truth features scenes of an underwater New York City. Speculations as to the height of the inundation vary from roughly a meter in the 2000 IPCC report to twenty feet from filmmaker Al Gore to double that from Australian activist Tim Flannery.

And during the LCO? Over three centuries, the highest oceanic level was eighteen inches above the previous norm. That foot-and-a-half may sound like quite a lot, but the damage it caused appears to be minimal. There are no records of massive flooding either in Europe or elsewhere. No seacoast villages were relocated that we know of. Florida was certainly not overwhelmed.

It may only be a coincidence that the IPCC's new report has halved its estimate of sea level rise to the same range as occurred during the LCO. While such a rise may cause some problems, it is not Noah's Flood, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Eroding Beaches

A related matter, one that plays very well in places like Hawaii,  involves fears that beaches worldwide will be swept away in the deluge. This appears to be based solely on the experience of Tuvalu. A small cluster of atolls in the South Pacific about 600 miles north of Fiji, Tuvalu (formerly the Ellice Islands) was widely featured in the news a few years ago due to claims that it was being "washed away" by rising sea levels. Suggestions were made that the entire population of 11,000 be settled elsewhere. Grim lessons for seacoast communities were drawn.

It developed that Tuvalu's beach erosion was caused by overbuilding. Putting too many houses on a beach upsets shoreline dynamics, literally pushing sand out to sea (the same phenomenon can be found all up and down the New Jersey shore). Tuvalu has not been evacuated and, if its web site  http:// can be trusted, has just elected a new prime minister.

What does the LCO tell us about beach erosion? For that we can turn to the Furdustrand, literally, "wonder strand", so named by the Vikings who were the first Europeans to come across it about A.D. 1000. The Furdustrand, a white-sand beach close to forty miles long and in places 200 feet wide,  is in truth spectacular, and would be a lot more widely known if it was anywhere on earth more accessible than northern Labrador.

The point is that Furdustrand today looks exactly the way it did when the Vikings first grounded their ships on its sands. The rising sea levels of the LCO, the retreating levels of the Little Ice Age, and the return to higher levels since 1850 appear not to have harmed it one iota.  Fears of disappearing beaches can be dismissed.

Coral Reefs

The idea that coral reefs will be wiped out by global warming is an oddity, thriving as coral does in the warm waters of the tropics. The best known is the Great Barrier Reef off Australia's tropical northeastern coast, and of course, the entire South Pacific is dotted with atolls that began their careers as exactly such reefs. (Tuvalu itself is comprised of several coral atolls.) You will look long and hard for any such islands in the cold waters of the Arctic or the Southern Ocean.

For some years, large stretches of coral in the world's oceans have suffered "bleaching" as the living coral dies and leaves only the basic skeletal structure. The contention that warming is to blame appears to arise solely because it's happening at the same moment: the earth is warming, coral is dying, therefore, warming is killing the coral.

But the same coral reefs existed during the LCO, and appear not to have been affected by the large-scale warming that occurred at the time. There are no beds of dead ancient coral visible, no legends of mass die-offs by Melanesians or other native peoples (dying coral would have deprived fish of a safe environment, leading to a drop in the food supply). We have to conclude that no such thing happened.

And in fact, recent research has clearly demonstrated that sewage runoff   is the actual culprit, poisoning reefs off both Australia and the United States. Runoff of fertilizer, pesticides, and other chemicals may also have an adverse effect.

It comes as no surprise to note that many environmentalists are attacking sewage dumping while still playing the warming angle.

Animal Extinction

Mass extinction is another favorite of warming advocates, with figures of up to "one-quarter" to "one-half" of all species disappearing, though there's no concrete evidence of a single species actually being threatened by warmer temperatures. As with much warming rhetoric, this seems to be sheer speculation, based on the premise that certain "niche" organisms will die out as their marginal environments are changed.

The problem with this thesis is that no species appears to have vanished as a result of the LCO. While it's certainly possible that a marginal species limited to a single locale might have suffered, the simple assumption cannot be made. Certainly no massive die-off as predicted by the more hysterical Greens and their media allies ever took place. Warming and cooling has occurred continually throughout the geological history of the planet earth. It's safe to assume that most organisms have developed means of dealing with them.

Increasing Storms

Severe storms are mentioned for pro forma reasons as much as anything. We're all aware (much as the media has chosen to neglect the fact) that last fall's hurricane season, predicted to be second only to the Day of Wrath in violence, was a complete washout, with not a single serious hurricane troubling American shores. This was a grave disappointment to Greens after 2005's wild roller coaster ride.

The run amok storm thesis is a result of junior high science: the atmosphere is a heat engine, so if you add more heat, there will be more activity, with storms growing in frequency, duration, and violence with no perceptible upper limit. (At least two disaster novels have already been written using this premise, both of them truly lousy, so don't even think about it.) In truth, most warming occurs at higher latitudes, effectively erasing differences in atmospheric temperature and meliorating weather.

This is clearly seen in the LCO, a period of generally calm and predictable weather, with lengthy summers, gentle winters, and fierce storms relatively rare and all the more striking for that. This calm literally lasted for centuries, enabling the Vikings to carry out their explorations in open boats at very high latitudes, areas afflicted with horrible weather even to this day. Numerous violent storms reappeared when the climate cooled in the late 13^th century, with terrifying results. Consider the fate of Winchelsea, an English port swallowed by the waves of the Channel during a days-long rainstorm in 1297. Even worse were crop failures caused by dismal weather all across Europe that resulted in repeated general famines. Clearly it's cooling that leads to foul weather. Which may prompt us to wonder exactly what's behind the past few weeks' spate of killer blizzards.

Melting Ice Sheets

The melting of the world's major ice sheets - those of Greenland and Antarctica - is nearly pure fantasy. It would take a millennium of continuous hot weather to make a dent in either. Certainly the LCO, which lasted a little over three centuries, failed to leave much of a mark.

It's possible that warming may actually add to the thickness of the continental ice sheets by increasing evaporation, which then falls as snow. This seems to be happening to both ice sheets. Is this part of a planetary homeostatic system that keeps things in rough balance? We simply don't know. Perhaps James Lovelock can ask Gaia about it.

(For what it's worth, Iceland has seen a lot more pack ice this winter in its western fjords - those opposite Greenland - than for many years previously.)           

Disease

Warming is predicted to bring about a vast increase in disease, particularly tropical diseases taking advantage of newly-opened ecological niches - yaws in the Midwest, hookworm in Nova Scotia, altogether an ugly picture. (Some claims have been made that this has already occurred. A sometimes deadly tropical fungus has apparently transplanted itself to Vancouver Island, with global warming to blame. It's difficult to see what the mechanism for this could have been, unless the fungus is capable of reading the IPCC report. Certainly there's no reason to believe that Western Canada has suddenly turned tropical. It is, like nearby Washington state, one of the wettest areas in North America, making it homey for any number of fungal diseases, which could have easily hitched a ride on any ship or aircraft heading north.)

What's the testimony of the LCO? While by no means disease-free, the medieval warming period was as close to it as any era before the pre-modern world can show. The black plague, the chief dread of the period, completely retreated from Europe to its original home in central Asia (evidently, rodents in the Caucasus have adapted to the plague bacillus and serve as a steady, living reservoir). There are no outbreaks of plague on record during the LCO and few of other diseases. This was the direct result of a combination of gentle weather and good harvests - well-fed people tend to have robust immune systems.

It could be argued that the modern era is different, with cheap jet travel allowing easy and quick transmission of disease, as we saw with the SARS outbreak in 2003, which leapt from China to Toronto in a matter of days.

But in truth, movement during the LCO was considerably freer than in many later eras (the late 13^th century was Marco Polo's epoch). Along with the Vikings, there are the Mongols, who burst into Europe just before the era drew to a close. A curious fact about these episodes is that they were not followed by massive exchanges of diseases, which normally occurs when cultural bubbles are broken after long periods of isolation. (Consider the varied and deadly plagues that killed much of the native population of Mexico after the Spanish invasion.) Whether this is due to the influence of the LCO is impossible to surmise, but it's a telling sign.

Destruction of the Economy

It's difficult to discern the exact nature of the purported relationship between warming and economic performance, and Green rhetoric offers little assistance. I would guess that the specter of a crashed economy is simply added on as a matter of course, as a kind of Fifth Horseman armed with pink slips and foreclosure notices rather than scythes or swords. Certainly there's nothing inherent in any warming scenario that would lead to the economy going south. It must be all those plagues and storms.

It's not easy to compare a modern economy with that of the feudal epoch, except to say that the LCO appears to have encompassed an era of general good fortune. A peasant culture requires little more than plentiful food and roofs that don't leak, and the LCO had both.

That ended when the cooling came, at the close of the 13^th century. The encroaching cold was accompanied by the medieval depression, which lasted for over two centuries. (Consider the 1930s in light of that.) The trigger was declining harvests and the plagues that followed. All of which suggests that we should hope for warmer weather, if anything. Bulls are associated with hotter climates, while bears don't mind the cold.

Comparisons to the LCO are certainly not kind to the global warming thesis. In an earlier day, we'd have patted the advocates on the shoulder, handed them a calculator, and told them to start over. But these, of course, are not ordinary times.

A close study of the LCO would prove valuable, not only as regards warming but as an example of human beings living in an environment subtly but definitely different from the one we're used to. But don't expect it anytime soon. The debate, we're told, is over, and the cost of understanding has gotten very high.

J.R. Dunn is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

[edsheppa]

This is not a reasonable way for a physicist to look at it.

Well, it seems reasonable to me but then I'm not a physicist - probably a good thing.

[edsheppa]

So, he got the year wrong

No, he doesn't know that there are two theories of relativity about different things, both revolutionary.

[expatpat]

So, he got the year wrong. No, he doesn't know that there are two theories of relativity about different things, both revolutionary.

Not true. Everything he said relates to general relativity except the date.

[edsheppa]

OK, I'll admit that's another way to look at it but I bet you're wrong.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[LeGrande]

Newton's equation GmM/r^2 is accurate to one part in 10^7

I don't see how that can be true, that the discrepancy can be no larger. The masses can presumably be increased without limit and I bet that for a given r there's some large mass that the error would be larger. As the masses increase the error increases proportionally. The proportion of the error doesn't increase (excluding relativity effects).

But there are errors in kind too where Newton would predict zero effect but Einstein predicts non-zero and in such a case the error is infinite.

If I understand correctly, you are talking about a limit, which does not go to infinity.

For example, if a mass is rotating, it actually makes spacetime rotate too. A test mass falling toward the "equator" of the rotating one would appear to a distant observer to move laterally. Newton would have the test mass fall straight toward the other.

Your example is indicative of relativistic masses and speeds, spinning black holes, etc. At non relativistic speeds and masses, Newtons equations essentially agree with Einsteins.

[LeGrande]

An error of 43 out of 5557 is nearly one part in 10^2. So I guess I'm not sure what you meant.

First my statement that Newton was accurate to 1 part in 10⁷ came from Penrose's, The Road to Reality, pg. 390. And second your estimation of accuracy is not very accurate, it would be more accurate (I am fudging a little) if you took into account all the revolutions that Mercury makes in 100 years (apx. 415) and used that to provide a percentage (43/1,494,000= .0000287), not 1 part in 10⁷ but closer.

The problem with that particular example is that because of the mass and proximity of the Sun to Mercury relativistic forces are in play and it was one of the examples that Einstein used to support the Theory of Relativity : )

An interesting web site on the differences and problems with the two theories is, http://www.coolissues.com/gravitation/gmetric.htm

[LeGrande]

Could be. Increased clouds without an increase in water-vapor level (hard to get, but comic rays or dust could do it) will lower the temperature, I think. Increased water-vapor without clouds, possible at lower dew-points, should increase temperature.

I basically agree with your conclusions above. What I have been having trouble finding out though is if an increase in normal clouds is positive or negative forcing for temperature. It may be that over water they decrease the temperature and over land they increase the temperature because of the relative albedo effects of the ocean compared to land.

It may be that increasing the size of the forests contributes to global warming : ) because the vegetation absorbs the radiation.

[neverdem]

Scientific laws are derived from observation, they are straight forward extrapolations of those observations. They are not explanatory in the way that hypotheses and theories are. So I'm not sure why you bring these two up when clearly we are talking about hypotheses and theories.

A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. (Next to last paragraph of section IV)

Folks at Rochester, don't bother asking which Rochester, appear to disagree with you.

[edsheppa]

And second your estimation of accuracy is not very accurate

No, it's very nearly right although I guess I should have expressed it as a fraction of the observed value of 5600 seconds of arc per century.

And anyway, you can tell yours is wrong because the value you compute is not dimensionless.

[edsheppa]

What can I say? Thay're wrong.

A scientific law, or empirical law, is a general principle that is very well supported by evidence such as experimental results and observational data. Typically scientific laws are limited sets of rules that have a well documented history for successfully predicting the outcomes of experiments and observations. The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. Typically scientific laws are more limited sets of rules for making predictions about the world than scientific theories.

Contrast this with

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

So you see the difference is fundamentally whether the phenomena are simply described (a law) or explained (a theory). Another way to view the relation is that theories use laws as their axioms.

[edsheppa]

OK, I see kind of what you mean although I think you miscalculated the number of arc seconds in 100 years worth of revolutions. I'll have to think about whether your description is more appropriate for the application at hand.

[kipita]

Has there really been a trend toward politicization? Eugenics and Lysenkoism are two, far more political cases from earlier times that come immediately to mind. Science is a human activity and not immune to fads and hijacking for political purposes. I'd say it's far less prone than many other areas, education being a prime example. And these pernicious tendencies don't tend to last long in science.

Good points but I'm speaking realistically about science in America.

Okay, the limits of knowns has lead to the "philosophical" string theory and gaia theory.

Since the 1970s, the best American minds have gone into business and law. This has lead the American business community to fund "science" to justify business interest. Currently, most of the best scientist in America are foreign born. The Indian Institute of Technology has surpassed MIT in many areas of science and the European Institute of Technology is set to start. With these trends, America can no longer use science objectively. We could not answer yes or no on Iraq WMDs (the science was ignored), we cannot answer yes or no on global warming, we cannot objectively implement sound environmental policies (asbestos/fiberglass--what's the difference), etc. It seems non-scientist will determine the future of science in America. A Republic..............if you can keep it.........

[neverdem]

If I want to impress someone, I try to avoid citations from Wikipedia. Folks have empirical facts on the ground. I could care less for the terms used used to explain them, whether it's hypothesis or law. Its ability to predict future events is all that counts, IMHO. Scientific law is a hypothesis that's been tried and true without fail within experimental error.

There's Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment

They found that now they have exceptions to Mendelian genetics.

Global variation in copy number in the human genome

Mendelian genetics works most of the time, just like Newtonian mechanics. Good night

[AFPhys]

You misunderstand what I'm saying to some degree - my fault. The major reason for the (almost :-) zero chance of a big US science effort has very little to do with the Washington, DC crowd. It is the science community itself that squashes such an idea! When I make such comments as, "The US has the ability to do this by ourselves..." to the very good scientists around here, they unfailingly look at me as if I must be drunk! Research scientists seem to lack any confidence in the United States' ability for accomplishment in the absence of major international support. (Three examples where I've seen this relatively recently: Missile defense, Fusion, Large Acclerators)

[NicknamedBob]

I really don't have an answer to that. One expects smart people not to be so stupid.

It wouldn't help to ask them how we were able to do the Apollo program before, almost by ourselves -- they're wearing emotional blinders and habitual straightjackets.

[edsheppa]

I'm speaking realistically about science in America.

OK, Lysenko isn't directly related, but eugenics is. It's funny to think of Gore as being a modern day Sanger.

On "philosophical" string theory, have you read Smolin's The Trouble With Physics. Not great literature but interesting. On the whole I think he's too hard on the String Theorists. My view is that all this time they've been struggling to build a theory that connects with reality but just haven't managed.

Really, I think you're much too pessimistic.

[edsheppa]

I've found Wikipedia to be very reliable on topics unrelated to political disputes. The difference between scientific laws and theories isn't so far as I know. But be that as it may, SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES has a very good discussion and quotes many sources.

BTW, I spoke too hastily about your source. It's not wrong, just off point. They're focusing on the similarities between theory and law, not the differences. So yes, both make predictions and can be invalidated by contrary findings.

[thinking]

if the liberals keep pushing this topic....it will crash the economy, and lead to world wide depression...