|
Lomborg-errors:
"Cool
it!"
|
| Temperatures on Greenland and Antarctica
|
|
| Home
Cool it |
Comments to pages 78 - 86 in Cool It!
To those who want a recent overview of
the subject, I may recommend:
A. Cazenave & W. Llovel (2010): Contemporary sea level rise. Annual
review of marine science 2: 145-173.
I. Allison et al. (2009): Review: Ice sheet mass balance and sea level.
Antarctic science 21 (5): 413-426.
I will also recommend reading the
chapters on Greenland and Antarctica in Howard Friel (2010): The Lomborg Deception.
Lomborg´s
text on Greenland and Antarctica is very misleading. He tries in all
possible
ways to downplay the increasing contribution of melting ice masses on
Greenland and Antarctica to the rise of the global sea water level. At
the time of his writing, it was still somewhat uncertain if ice melt
was really accelerating. Papers of more recent origin, as those
referred to above, give a more unequivocal picture of accelerating net
mass loss from Greenland, and a net mass loss from Antarctica that may
also be accelerating.
Even on such a small detail as the populations of Adélie
penguins,
Lomborg does not pass the chance to bias his text, citing information
about a population that is increasing, but omitting what he has read
about another population that is declining. This once more corroborates
how pervasive Lomborg´s bias is.
| JAMES
HANSEN´S PROJECTIONS: |
Lomborg misrepresents James Hansen´s claims about possible future
sea level rise. Hansen says
that the last time that the Earth was 3° C warmer than today was
three million yeras ago, when sea level was about 20 m higher than now.
So he - correctly - draws the conclusion that when man-made global
warming increases the temperature by 3° C, then there may
eventually be established a situation with a similarly high sea water
level. The question is then how fast the sea level could rise up to
that level. Again referring back to events from Earth´s history
he says that at the end of the last ice age, sea level rose by 20 m in
four centuries, i.e. 1 m for every 20 years, so this represents a
possible upper limit of how fast things could happen.
What arguments does Hansen have that sea level rise could be so much
bigger than projected by nearly all scientists? His main argument is
that existing model studies on the mass balance of ice sheets consider
only the local transfer of heat energy. This is also true for those
models that include dynamic glacier responses. However, Hansen´s
argument is that melting does not require local heat transfer. If melt
water enters the base of the ice sheets and lubricates the underside,
then ice sheets could move faster, and much more ice would break off
and drift into the ocean, without having to receive heat to melt. When
they drift southward, they could receive heat from ocean water there,
and melt only then. That is, the logical flaw made by other scientists
is that they assume that melting must happen locally, when in fact
melting could happen much further south, after the ice berg has drifted
away. Hansen argues that the imbalance of heat transfer to and from the
planet is sufficient for melting the icebergs.
Hansen´s projections are discussed by Allison et al. (2009, p.
421), referred to above. Here it is stated that a 5 m sea level rise in
a century would require that outlet glacier flow rates increased to
rates that are glaciologically infeasible. Hansen, being no
glaciologist, has not been aware of this limitation, and therefore has
bot paid due regard to the fact that the number and size of glaciers
now is smaller than at the end of the last ice age. Instead of 5 m, it
is argued that sea level rise by 2100 might be in the range 0.8 to 2.0
m, with 0.8 m regarded as the most plausible. Still, this is much more
than the 0.3 m estimate that Lomborg favours.
| TEMPERATURES
ON
GREENLAND: |
Lomborg writes (p. 83) that 1941 is still the varmest year recorded
on
Greenland, and that the 1930s and 1940s still are the two warmest
decades there.
In response to this, John Cappelen,
meteorologist at the Danish Meteorological Institutet, DMI, says
that the truth is more complicated, because Greenland is large,
and the trends are not the same at the seven stations where
temperatures have been followed. He also says that at the east coast,
2003 is the
warmest year on record, whereas at Nuuk (the "capital",
situated in south west Greenland), 1941 and 2003 were equally
warm. Altogether, the record year is 2003 rather than 1941.
The temperatures for three weather stations at
the west coast of Greenland are to be found on the internet here. The
average for Nuuk was +0.83° in 1941, and +0.51° in 2003, i.e.
slightly lower. So Lomborg is right as to the west coast of Greenland,
but not as to Greenland in total.
It may be added that the extent of ice melting on
Greenland is steadily increasing, see here and here.
The
most
recent
information
is
that
the
extent
of
melting
reached
a
new
record
in
2007,
and that air temperatures above the ice are have
increased by about 4° C since 1991, see this
link.
Remember that melting consumes heat
energy and tends to lower temperatures. If you put a clump of ice
in a jar and supply a heat source to melt the ice slowly, the
temperature in the jar
will remain constant - at exactly 0° C - as long as there is
still ice left in the jar. It is only when all ice has melted that
water
temperatures start to rise. So if there is a lack of local
temperature rise at the weather stations at the coast, this cannot be
used as an argument that there
is no increase in ice melting.
The temperature trends for Greenland are not typical for
the whole arctic region, as is evident in Przybylak (2000), cited by
Lomborg.
A recent overview over changes in Greenland in air
temperatures,
precipitation and melting is found in a report by Hanna
et
al.
(2007).
Lomborg writes (p. 84) that the only part of Antarctica that is
warming is the west Antarctic peninsula which makes out only
4 % of the total land area; the remaining 96 % has become
colder. But this is not true.
Temperatures for those Antarctic weather stations
with the longest time series are found at this link.
It is seen here that since the mid 20th century, annual temperatures
have increased significantly at the west Antarctic Peninsula and in one
coastal station on mainland Antarctica. At all other weather stations,
including the South Pole, there is no significant trend. In a few
stations there is a significant negative trend for autumn temperatures,
but not for annual temperaturs.
Others have said the same as Lomborg, viz. that 96 %
of the Antarctic continent is cooling. This information goes back to a
paper by Peter
Doran et al. in 2002 in Nature (link). They found (by a different type of analysis)
that 58 % of Antarctica had
cooled from 1966 to 2000, especially regarding autumn temperatures,
whereas the rest, i.e. 42 %, had
warmed, including the west Antarctic peninsula that makes out 15
% of the area.
The cooling of parts of the continent is partially
due to the ozone hole. According to Doran, as the ozone hole
heals - thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals -
all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet.
The summary of the paper in Nature pointed out
how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic
climate. American newspaper and television reports focused on
this part of the paper, and claimed that these scientific
findings ran counter to the theory of global warming. Since then,
climate skeptics have cited this information over and over again.
Although the scientists have written rebuttals and explained that
the media have misunderstood the information, the
misinsterpretation has quickly become legend among skeptics, and
is cited ever more often. A refutation written by Peter Doran in
The New York Times may be read here.
Critics pose that the breakup of
ice shelves is not due to
man-made global warming, because these ice shelves have disappeared
before. This criticism is unjustified. The Larsen-B ice shelf has
existed without interruption since the ice age (Domack
et
al.
2005, Curry
&
Pudsey
2007), and its breakup is ascribed to man-made global
warming (Marshall
et al 2006). Also the IPCC report (4AR wg1 paragraph 4.6.3.4) says:
" . . the ice
shelf changes have resulted from environmental warming . . "" Before
the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, local air temperatures had
increased by more than 1.5°C over the previous 50 years ..
increasing . . formation of large melt ponds on the ice shelf. These
likely contributed to breakup . . ".
Lomborg criticises p. 86 the way that
the decline of a population of emperor penguins is presented in Al
Gore´s book "An Inconvenient Truth". However, as
explained on the Lomborg-errors page
on
Al
Gore, for page 178 in Gore´s book, there is very little
flaw in Al Gore´s text. On the basis of data from G.L. Kooyman,
Lomborg infers that there may have been increases in certain emperor
penguin populations on the Ross ice shelf; however, a new paper
co-authored by Kooyman states that the colonies referred to have had no
significant changes up to now, except that one out of six colonies (one
not referred to by Lomborg) has had a small increase. Also, new
information from 2009 says that the studied colony of emperor penguins
is expected to decline very much during this century because fo changes
in sea ice (Jenouvrier & Caswell (2009): Proceedings national
academy of
sciences USA 106(6): 1844-1847).
As to Adélie penguins, which require winter pack ice, Lomborg
only talks about increase, referring to a site in east Antarctica. But,
according to WWF, the species is severely declining in some places and
increasing in others (link).
One
of
the
references
that
Lomborg
has
read
(Vaughan
2001)
talks
about
a
colony that has persisted by at least 600
years, but which is now declining. Lomborg omits to mention that.
Flaws on
particular
pages in
Lomborgs text:
| TEMPERATURES
ON
GREENLAND
|
FLAW
Page 78 bottom: "However, as the world warms, Antarctica will not
noticeably start melting . . . actually be accumulating ice . . .
"
Flaw: This is not true,
and it relies on Lomborg´s selective reading of his sources. See
the
review articles at the top of this page for better and more recent
information.
FLAW
Page 79: "The longest studies from the early 1990s till 2002 show that
. . . "
Flaw:
The reader gets the impression that it is good to have a long study (so
that random variations from year to year cancel out). However, this is
not so in this case. The evidence is that the Greenland ice cap was
approximately in net balance during the 1990s, but that the net mass
balance became increasingly negative during the years from 2000
onwards. That is, the process of net loss of ice has been rapidly
accelerating during the most recent years. The "longest study" referred
to covers the period 1992 to 2003, that is mainly the period before ice
loss accelerated. The results are therefore no longer representative of
what happens today.
(COMMENT)
Page 79: "(actually slightly gaining mass)"
Comment:
In spite of increased precipitation on south-central
Greenland, which causes an increase in the thickness of the ice of
about ½ m per year, all the most recent studies, dealing with
the situation in the 2000s, agree that
this does not
compensate for the increased melting of glaciers at the coast. The
overall mass balance is negative. Lomborg refers in his note 398 to two
studies (both utilising the same primary data) indicating that during
the 1990s, there was slight mass gain overall. For a discussion of
these studies, see
this
link. The studies used a method where changes
in ice
thickness in the coastal
ranges could not be fully reliably estimated. Thinning of the margins
of the
ice are very important for the overall mass balance, and it is probable
that ice loss along the coasts was underestimated.
(COMMENT)
Page 79: "However, this estimate is only for two years . . . "
Comment:
After having written that the Greenland ice was slightly gaining mass
during the 1990s, Lomborg goes on to say that during the years
2002-2005, there was a net loss of mass. But he tries to downplay the
significance of this fact. First by stating that this situation lasted
only for two years, and that it is difficult to say if it indicates the
start of a long-term trend (his note 401). Second by pointing out that
the accelerating glaciers had decelerated again by 2006 (note 402).
Third by stating that the latest estimate is that the contribution to
the rising of the sea water level is only small (note 403). And fourth
by citing a reference (note 405) that the present high level of
melt-off will not be sustainable on the long term, for lack of ice that
can melt.
A comment to this is that the sudden large discharge
of ice in 2004 and 2005 was due to some rearrangement of the structure
of the largest glaciers in southeast Greenland (Helheim and
Kangerdlussuaq)*. The rate of ice discharge from these glaciers
returned
in 2006 to "near the previous levels" (Howat et al. 2007, note 402),
which means that there was still a net mass balance like in the years
between 2000 and 2004. But ice disappears not only by the calving of
icebergs at the mouth of glaciers; it disappears also by runoff of
meltwater, and this runoff contributed a relatively large mass loss in
2006 (link).
And
in
2007,
the
melt
extent
on
the
Greenland
ice
sheet
broke
the
2005
summer
melt record by 10 percent, making it the largest ever recorded (link).
When
the
weight
of
the
ice
is
reduced,
this
causes
some
uplifting
of
the
land upon which the ice rests. Measurements of this uplifting in
southeast Greenland indicates an increased disappearance of ice
for the whole period 2001 to 2006 (Khan
et al 2007). If the trend seen during 2001-2006 continues,
disappearance of the Greenland ice will contribute 60 cm to the sea
level rise during this century (link),
i.e.
6
mm
per
year,
which
is
much
more
than
the
most
recent
estimate
cited by Lomborg.
Nobody knows what will actually happen. What
we know is that there has been a marked acceleration in recent years of
ice discharge into the sea from glaciers, and a slightly rising trend
in meltwater runoff. This acceleration is just what would happen if the
climate predictions came true. Although there will of course be some
variability from year to year, the long-term trend must be affected by
the reduced icecover on the Arctic Sea adjoining east Greenland, which
will tend to increase air temperatures and glacier flow rates. Up to
now, as is evident from the papers referred to at the top of this page
(Cazenave; Allison), the contribution form Greenland to sea level rise
has been accelerating all the time.
The important recent trends - marked acceleration of
ice loss - is downplayed so much by Lomborg that the reader will think:
There is nothing to fear. It may have been Lomborg´s attention
that the reader should think just that.
*Note: In many internet articles,
there is a confusion between Kangerdlugssuaq, which is the large
glacier in east Greenland, and Kangerlussuaq, which is the main airport
in west Greenland, with the nearby Russell Glacier.
FLAW
Page 79 bottom: " . . . the 0.7 mm result - which, as we shall see, is
an absolutely extreme outlier . . "
Flaw:
The paper by Chen, Wilson & Tapley (2006) states that estimated
total ice melting rate over Greenland is -239 ± 23
cubic kilometers per year, mostly from East Greenland.
According to the authors, this estimate agrees remarkably well
with
a
recent
assessment of
-224
±
41
cubic
kilometers per
year,
based on satellite radar interferometry data. That is, this
estimate is not a lonely outlier. More recent
information is that after 2004, the loss has been about 300 cubic
kilometres per year, a relativley new estimate of Greenland´s
contribution to see level rise is 0.5 mm per year, see this
link. And a very new article has 0.75 mm per year after 2006
(van
den
Broeke
et
al.
(2009):
Science
326:
984-986.)
ERROR
OF
CALCULATION
(IN
LOMBORG´S
DISFAVOUR)
Page 79 bottom and note 404: " . . . this would still mean that
his 20 feet of sea
level increase would take a thousand years."
Error:
Note 404 has: "0.7 mm per year in a thousand years is 7 m." But no - it
is 0.7 m. So a correct calculation would tell that the 7 m rise would
take ten thousand years. Apparently, this makes Lomborg´s
argumentation ten times stronger. Actually, however, this just
illustrates that the idea of this calculation is wrong, because it
presupposes that the rate of
melting would be constant at the present level. But we expect the rate
of melting to accelerate, a process that has only just begun.
FLAW
Page 80 top: " . . . this high level of melt-off would not be
sustainable for longer periods . . . "
Flaw:
The reader must understand from Lomborg´s text that a rate of 0.7
mm per year is not sustainable for longer periods. However, the paper
referred to in note 405 deals with a scenario extending over 3,000
years, and in the first part of that long period, there will - under
certain circumstances - be a contribution to the sea water level of 5
mm per year. It is this high level of 5 mm per year that is not
sustainable for a period of several thousand years, simply because in
the end of the period, little ice will remain.
FLAW
Page 80 top: "In an overview of the main models, Greenland´s
contribution over the coming century . . . . "
Flaw: Lomborg refers to a paper by
Oerlemans et al.
(2005). It reports runs with five climate
models, few or none of which are AOGCMs (i.e. they do not include both
atmosphere and ocean). They are all performed on IPCC´s B2
scenario, in which the emission of CO2 grows
considerably more slowly than what is actually the case at present.
More importantly, "the dynamic response of glaciers is not considered",
i.e.
the types of acceleration of glaciers that is seen recently are
disregarded. Therefore, the model outputs have less melting than what
may actually be expected. Lomborg´s term "all the major models"
suggests to the reader that all likely outcomes are covered by the
study, which is not the case, as it deals only with the B2 scenario.FLAW
Page 80: "Hansen has gone publicly
on the record . . to say that with the business-as-usual scenario we
will see a collapse . . . causing a sea level rise . . . "
Flaw: This
is not precisely correct.
Hansen
wrote as
follows: "How much will sea level rise with five degrees of
global warming? Here too, our best information comes from the Earth's
history. The last time that the Earth was five degrees warmer was three
million years ago, when sea level was about eighty feet higher." . . .
and "The only question is when the collapse of these sheets would
begin. The business-as-usual scenario, which could lead to an eventual
sea level rise of eighty feet, with twenty feet or more per century,
could produce global chaos . . . ". So Hansen says that the
business-as-usual scenario could lead to an eventual rise. Lomborg
changes Hansen´s words to become that we will see a rise.
FLAW
Page 80: "Hansen reviewed Gore´s book very
favourably in New York Review of
Books . . . "Flaw: Lomborg
suggests to the reader that Al Gore
and James Hansen work closely
together. However, in Hansen´s review of
Al Gore´s book, he tells nearly the opposite (near the end of
the review). By the way, there is an error in Lomborg´s
reference. The reference Hansen (2006) should end with . . .
articles/19131.
FLAW
Page 80: "Yet, his own central reference on the matter claims
. . . "
Flaw: No, the
paper referred to is not Hansen´s central reference. On the
contrary, Hansen mentions that the paper projects an extra sea level
rise of only 0.6 - 6.6 cm, whereas he himself gives arguments why the
rise would be larger.
FLAW
Page 80 and note 411: ". . . claims that Greenland will contribute to a
sea level increase of 0.6-6.6 cm till 2100"
Flaw: Lomborg´s
main
text
is
wrong, but his note has it more correct: the 0.6 - 6.6 cm
rise is an additional rise on top of what is projected from mass
balance studies. It is unclear if Hansen has read it wrong, his text is
not completely clear on that point.
FLAW:
Page 80 bottom and _Figure 21: "If we look at Figure 21 we see the
results of all models . . ."
Flaw: Figure 21 is taken
from the reference Gregory & Huybrechts (2006). However, this
paper suffers from the shortcoming that it does
not include dynamical responses of glaciers. It says in the first
paragraph: "Such accelerated flow leads to increased ice discharge into
the ocean, but the relevant dynamical processes are not properly
understood nor included . . . This therefore represents an important
uncertainty for predictions of sea level, but one which is beyond the
scope of this paper to address." So the Gregory & Huybrechts paper
does not deal with all contributions to sea level rise. Actually, the
present state of knowledge (2010), as stated in the papers cited on top
of this page, is that Greenland as well as Antarctica give a net
contribution to sea level rise. Lomborg is aware of this. His note 414,
which refers to page 1727 in Gregory & Huybrechts, reveals that.
And a few lines further above, in his note 411, he has stated that on
top of this there is an additional contribution due to dynamic glacier
responses on Greenland, which in a 2X CO2 scenario may
be 6.6 cm per century, or 0.66 mm per year, and which could very
well be even larger, if the present trend in CO2
emissions continues. When we study the vertical scale in the figure, we
see that such an extra contribution would change Lomborg´s
conclusions. Because Lomborg is aware of the caveat, but does not
include it or mention it, this is deliberately misleading.
Furthermore, it gives a wrong impression to use the term "all models",
because the reader will easily misunderstand this to imply all
plausible scenarios. But the models have been run only on the A1B, A2
and B1 scenarios, and thus have omitted the A1FI scenario which seems
to be closest to what actually happens.
The vertical scale in the figure has -2 where it should read -1.
FLAW:
Page 80 bottom - page 81: " . . . but this is only possible in a model
where CO2 rises between two and four times higher . . ."
Flaw: Here
Lomborg
refers
to
a paper by
Parizek
&
Alley that estimates the possible extra melt of Greenland ice that
may occur if dynamic response of glaciers turns out to be important.
The estimate is that this may contribute with up to 20 cm of extra sea
level rise in this century. There are three scenarios, with temperature
increases over Greenland by 2130 of 3.2°, 5.8° and 8.4° C,
respectively. The scenario with the highest temperature rise
corresponds roughly to the most C-intensive IPCC scenario (A1FI). The
actual rate of increase in CO2 concentrations by now is
actually a little higher than this worst IPCC scenario (links here
and here),
that
is,
if
present
trends continue, the situation will correspond to
more than an 8.4° C temperature increase over Greenland, which will
yield the 20 cm extra sea level rise referred to above. However, the
paper states (p. 1020) that the climate computer model used falls
toward the low end of sensitivities. So in reality the rise could
possibly be even larger.
FLAW:
Page 81 bottom and note 415: "On Figure 21 that would be 40 times
higher than the absolutely highest model estimate . . . "
Flaw: Note
415 has 7 m rise per century, whereas Hansen talks about 5 m rise per
century as the highest that has occurred in the Earth´s known
history. The curves in Figure 21 do certainly not include the absolute
highest estimates, because they do not include runs on scenario A1FI,
and they do not include the extra melt due to dynamical glacier
response, which Lomborg is aware of. So the figure of 40 times has been
deliberately inflated in
several ways.
FLAW:
Page 82, Figure 22: "The estimate of Al Gore/Hansen . . . "
Flaw: It
is not true that Al Gore/Hansen estimate or expect a rise of 609 cm.
Hansen says that the fastest known rise that has occurred in the
Earth´s prehistory is 5 m in a hundred years; but he does not
predict or ecpect that precisely that will happen. The range of 1 cm to
15 cm, taken from Figure 21, excludes the effect of dynamic response of
glaciers. According to IPCC 2007, WGI, paragraph 10.6.5., the dynamic
response may probably add another 10-20 cm to the output from static
models.
FLAW:
Page 83 top: ". . . but maximally contribute 55 cm in the following
centuries and decline thereafter . . ."
Flaw: The text is written so that it
is invariably misunderstood. The reader will understand that instead of
Al Gore´s 20 feet, melting of Greenland ice will maximally
contribute 55 cm to sea level rise in total. But what was meant is that
the contribution will be 55 cm in each century, each contribution being
added to the previous one, and that later on each new century will see
a contribution of somewhat less than 55 cm.
(COMMENT)
Page
83 bottom: " . . . the warmest year in Greenland was 1941.
. .
"
Comment:
In response to this, John Cappelen,
meteorologist at the Danish Meteorological Institutet, DMI, says
that the truth is more complicated, because Greenland is large,
and the trends are not the same at the seven stations where
temperatures have been followed. He also says that at the east coast,
2003 is the
warmest year on record, whereas at Nuuk (the "capital",
situated in south west Greenland), 1941 and 2003 were equally
warm. j
The temperatures for three weather stations at
the west coast of Greenland are to be found on the internet here. The
average for Nuuk was +0.83° in 1941, and +0.51° in 2003, i.e.
slightly lower. Also this link
gives a survey of record temperatures, indicating that on the east
coast, but not the west coast, 2003 was the warmest year on record. So
Lomborg is right as to the west coast of Greenland,
but not as to Greenland in total.
It may be added that the extent of ice melting on
Greenland is steadily increasing, see here. Remember that melting consumes heat
energy and tends to lower temperatures. If you put a clump of ice
in a jar and supply a heat source to melt the ice slowly, the
temperature in the jar
will remain constant - at exactly 0° C - as long as there is
still ice left in the jar. It is only when all ice has melted that
water
temperatures start to rise. So if there is a lack of local
temperature rise, this cannot be used as an argument that there
is no increase in ice melting.
The temperature trends for Greenland are not typical for
the whole arctic region, as is evident in Przybylak (2000), cited by
Lomborg.
ERROR
Page 83, Figure 23
Error: The curve does not
agree with the data source. It seems that there is an error in the
scale on the vertical axis. This original source is found at this
link.
| TEMPERATURES
ON
ANTARCTICA
|
ERROR
Page 84: "Al Gore focuses exclusively on this 4% of Antarctica."
Error:
This is not true. In the film, he also focuses on the
Ross ice shelf. In the book, he furthermore focuses on East Antarctica.
ERROR
Page 84: "The vast part of Antarctica has cooled."
Error:
Lomborg writes that the only part of Antarctica that is
warming is the west Antarctic peninsula which makes out only
4 % of the total land area; the remaining 96 % has become
colder. But this is not true.
Temperatures for those Antarctic weather stations
with the longest time series are found at this link.
It is seen here that since the mid 20th century, annual temperatures
have increased significantly at the west Antarctic Peninsula and in one
coastal station on mainland Antarctica. At all other weather stations,
including the South Pole, there is no significant trend. In a few
stations there is a significant negative trend for autumn temperatures,
but not for annual temperaturs.
The information that 96 %
of the Antarctic continent is cooling goes back to a
paper by Peter
Doran et al. in 2002 in Nature (link). They found (by a different type of analysis)
that 58 % of Antarctica had
cooled from 1966 to 2000, especially regarding autumn temperatures,
whereas the rest, i.e. 42 %, had
warmed, including the west Antarctic peninsula that makes out 15
% of the area.
The cooling of parts of the continent is partially
due to the ozone hole. According to Doran, as the ozone hole
heals - thanks to worldwide bans on ozone-destroying chemicals -
all of Antarctica is likely to warm with the rest of the planet.
The summary of the paper in Nature pointed out
how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic
climate. American newspaper and television reports focused on
this part of the paper, and claimed that these scientific
findings ran counter to the theory of global warming. Since then,
climate skeptics have cited this information over and over again.
Although the scientists have written rebuttals and explained that
the media have misunderstood the information, the
misinsterpretation has quickly become legend among skeptics, and
is cited ever more often. A refutation written by Peter Doran in
The New York Times may be read here. It is unacceptable that Cool it writes
something which is denied by the leading author of the source paper.
Therefore, this is a case of deliberate
misleading either by Lomborg himself or by his possible
secondary sources.
ERROR
Page 84, figure 24.
Error:
As explained above, this figure is not correct. There has been no
significant decline in annual temperatures anywhere on Antarctica
during the indicated period.
FLAW
Page 85 top: " The significance of this break-up relies on us believing
that Larsen-B has been intact from time immemorial. . . . . "
Flaw:
The Larsen-B ice shelf has
existed without interruption since the ice age (Domack
et
al.
2005, Curry
&
Pudsey
2007), and its breakup is ascribed to man-made global
warming (Marshall
et al 2006). Also the IPCC report (4AR wg1 paragraph 4.6.3.4) says:
" . . the ice
shelf changes have resulted from environmental warming . . "" Before
the 2002 breakup of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, local air temperatures had
increased by more than 1.5°C over the previous 50 years ..
increasing . . formation of large melt ponds on the ice shelf. These
likely contributed to breakup . . ".
FLAW
Page 85: "While it probably led to ice shelves floating
more quickly . . . "
Flaw: This is an
understatement. After the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf, the
movement of inland glaciers behind the ice shelf accelerated by a
factor of 2 to 8 (Rignot et al (2004): Geophys res. lett. 31(18):
L18401; Scambos et al. (2004): Geophys
res.
lett.
31(18):
L18401;
Rignot
(2006):
Phil-
trans.
Royal
Soc.
A
364:
1637-1655.)
ERROR
Page 85 and note 438: "Precipitation on the Antarctic Peninsula is
large and increasing . . . and this likely outweighs the melting "
Error:
Lomborg´s use of the references is very selective here. For
instance he cites Zwally et al. (2005) in which there is a single
station on the peninsula showing net accumulation of ice, whereas the
same study shows that West Antarctica in total has a large net loss of
ice. Morris and Mulvaney (2004) indicate a net increase of ice
on the peninsula with future warming (which gives more precipitation),
and state that for each degree of warming, the effect on global sea
level will be ÷ 0.006 mm. However, warming will also increase
the discharge of glacier ice by ablation, that is melting, sublimation
and calving, and for each degree of temperature rise, this will
contribute + 0.07 mm to global sea level, provided that meltwater can
find its way into the sea. Thus, the net effect of melting may be much
greater than the net effect of snow accumulation. Although Lomborg
touches on this aspectin his note, he avoids the crucial circumstance
that precipitation will probably not outweigh melting. This is deliberate distortion of the
information he has read.
FLAW:
Page 85: " . . . the Antarctic Peninsula is probably causing an overall
lowering of sea
levels."
Flaw: There are
indications to the opposite. Firstly, Morris & Mulvaney (2004)
indicate that the removal of ice by various processes, especially
melting, may possibly outweigh snow accumulation in the future.
This was explained above. In addition, however, there is an effect of
accelerating glaciers. Because glaciers are thinning at their ends,
they
are now moving faster towards the sea than before. This is described in
Pritchard & Vaughan (2007): Journal of geophysical research 112
F03S29. They estimate that the net contribution of the Antarctic
Peninsula to global sea level from this glacier acceleration and other
processes is + 0.16 mm per year. Also van de Berg et al. (2006):
Journal of geophysical research 111 D1104 find that the mass balance of
the peninsula is probably negative. This is directly opposite what
Lomborg
states.
GROUNDLESS
DEROGATION
Page 85: "That is, despite the spectacular pictures that Al Gore
can show us of Larsen-B . . . "
Error: As
is evident from the other comments given here, Lomborg is completely
wrong on all aspects of the issue, and his derogation of Al Gore here
is therefore also completely unjust.
ERROR
Page 85: "This, of course, is the story of the much bigger continent
writ large."
Error:
No, it is not. For instance, Lomborg has cited Zwally et al. (2005) as
a source for accumulation of ice and snow on the peninsula. But in the
same source there is a total estimate of mass gain or loss on
Antarctica. There is an estimated total loss of 47 gigaton ice on the
whole of west Antarctica, which is not fully conuterbalanced by an
estimated gain of 16 giga ton on east Antarctica. This gives a net loss
of 31 giga tons per year, which contributes to sea level increase, not
decrease. When Lomborg has read this, but nevertheless says the
opposite, he is deliberately
misleading. Many other references likewise indicate a net loss
of ice on the Antarctic continent.
ERROR
Page 85: " . . . a decrease
in sea levels in all models. "
Error: This
is contrary to the contents of the 2007 IPCC report WG 1, according to
which Antarctica gives a net positive contribution to sea level rise.
not include dynamical responses of glaciers. It says
in the first
paragraph: "Such accelerated flow leads to increased ice discharge into
the ocean, but the relevant dynamical processes are not properly
understood nor included . . . This therefore represents an important
uncertainty for predictions of sea level, but one which is beyond the
scope of this paper to address." So the Gregory & Huybrechts paper
does not deal with all contributions to sea level rise. Actually, the
present state of knowledge (2010), as stated in the papers cited on top
of this page, is that Greenland as well as Antarctica give a net
contribution to sea level rise. ERROR
Page 85 before bottom: " . . . all models predict ever more net
accumulation over
this century. "
Error: This
is contrary to the trends right now, when there is probably an
increasing net contribution to sea level rise (see for instance Allison
et al. 2009, cited at the start of this page). Lomborg does not
indicate which models he is
talking about, so
it is impossible
to check his source.
FLAW OF OMISSION:
Pages 84-85: Flaw: Elsewhere, whenever it
fits into Lomborg´s agenda, he is keen to write about future
trends, often writing as if future scenarios were known facts. However,
concerning temperatures on Antarctica, he omits doing that. The paper
by Chapman and Walsh, which he has read, projects a steadily increasing
air temperature during the next decades over all parts of the Antarctic
continent. This is probably a deliberate
bias.
(COMMENT)
Page 86: "PENGUINS IN DANGER?"
Comment: Lomborg criticises the way that
the decline of a population of emperor penguins is presented in Al
Gore´s book "An Inconvenient Truth". However, as
explained on the Lomborg-errors page
on
Al
Gore, for page 178 in Gore´s book, there is very little
flaw in Al Gore´s text. On the basis of data from G.L. Kooyman,
Lomborg infers that there may have been increases in certain emperor
penguin populations on the Ross ice shelf; however, a new paper
co-authored by Kooyman statesthat the colonies referred to have had no
significant changes up to now, except that one out of six colonies (one
not referred to by Lomborg) has had a small increase. Also, new
information from 2009 says that the studied colony of
emperor penguins
is expected to decline very much during this century because fo changes
in sea ice (Jenouvrier & Caswell (2009): Proceedings national
academy of
sciences USA 106(6): 1844-1847).
ERROR
Page 86: "Moreover, the other main Antarctic penguin, the Adélie
. . . not telling the full story.
"
Error: The
full story about the Adélie penguin is that populations decline
in some places and increase in other places (link).
Lomborg
refers
to
a report from a place in east
Antarctica where the
species is on the increase. Lomborg has also read a short paper by
Vaughan (2001) which has the following text: "Adélie penguins,
which
require access to winter pack ice, are declining around Faraday,
whereas chinstrap penguins, which usually require open water, are
increasing. The rookeries vacated by the Adélie penguins seem to
have
been occupied continuously for ~644 years, and there is no evidence
that chinstrap penguins were present more than 20 to 50 years ago." So,
when Lomborg sees two papers on Adélie penguin populations, one
declining and one increasing, he mentions only the one that is
increasing. Clearly, populations at the Antarctic Peninsula are
shifting as a result of global warming (more open water). Considering
that Lomborg criticizes those that do not tell the full story in the
same sentence where he himself does not tell the full story,
this is counted as an error.
(COMMENT)
Page 86: ". . . underscoring the problem in simply blaming
global warming and not telling the full story."
Comment:This is not a fair criticism of
Al Gore. First, Al Gore says that it is uncertain if global warming is
the cause of the decline. Second, the trends in Adélie penguin
populations are mixed - there is a trend for a general shift towards
the south (i.e. polewards), concomitant with rising sea surface
temperatures. This means that the southernmost colonies of
Adélie penguins are increasing, whereas the northernmost
populations are decreasing. Lomborg fails to mention this, so he, too,
does not tell the full story.