Arctic

No, Greenpeace did not predict an ice-free “Arctic” by 2030

by Marlo Lewis on August 25, 2009 · 1 comment

in Global Warming

A factoid is rapidly making the rounds in climate skeptic circles. By a factoid, I mean “A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented to the press as factual . . . and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition.”

On the BBC program HARDtalk, reporter Stephen Sackur, in a combative interview with Gerd Leipold, retiring Executive Director of Greenpeace, accused Greenpeace of peddling exaggeration and alarmism about global warming. I think that’s true, but Sackur, however unwittingly, built his case on false evidence. And now the unfounded claim that Leipold confessed to misleading the public is making the rounds at skeptical blog sites and conservative newspapers.

Sackur cited a July 15 press release in which Greenpeace warns that, because of global warming, ”we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.”

Sackur pounced on this statement, pointing out that ”the Arctic” includes the Greenland Ice Sheet, which is 1.6 million square kilometers in area, is 3 kilometers thick in the middle, and has survived previous warm periods over hundreds of thousands of years. “There is no way that ice sheet is going to disappear” in 20 or 30 years, he said.

Indeed, according to the self-anointed “consensus of scientists,” the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it would take four times the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide (CO2) — roughly 1100 parts per million (today it’s about 387 ppm) — sustained over 3,000 years to melt all of Greenland’s ice. See the figure below, which comes from Ridley et al. (2005), reviewed in Chapter 10 of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (p. 830).

greenland-ice-melt-ipcc-75

Pressed by Sackur, Leipold said he did not think the Greenland Ice Sheet “would be melting by 2030.” Leipold allowed that “there may have been a mistake” in the press release, “although,” he added, ”I don’t know this specific press release, I do not check every press release.”

Some skeptics were quick to spin this exchange as a confession of error or even dishonesty by Greenpeace’s leader. It is not. First, Leipold said he did not recall the press release at issue, so he neither affirmed nor denied that it said what Sackur says it said. Second, and more importantly, Sackur took the sentence he quoted out of context.

Anyone who actually reads the press release, especially in conjunction with the NASA study to which it is linked, can see immediately that the warning of ice-free summers ”as early as 2030″ soley concerns floating polar sea ice, not Greenland ice (which is grounded). Here’s the pertinent passage:

Bad news is coming from other sources as well. A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it’s getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030. They say you can’t be too young or too thin, but this unfortunately doesn’t apply to Arctic sea ice.

I don’t usually defend Greenpeace and don’t plan to make a habit of it. My point is not that Greenpeace is a reliable source but that we skeptics must exercise due diligence.  If something looks too good to be true (in this case, a confession of fraud by a political adversary), it probably is.

Stick to exposing true lies and do not peddle factoids. Alarmists are gunning for us everyday. The last thing we need to do is shoot ourselves in the foot!

One Down, Six to Go!

by Fred Smith on April 8, 2009

in Energy, Environment, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources, Trade

Oh the Worries of Our Modern Malthusians! In Washington this week, the Anarctica and Arctic Councils met for the first time.  Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, used the occasion to discuss the problems that global warming was “causing” in these areas.  Among the myriad disasters is the possibility that the region’s energy resources will become available and that an all-year passage around the pole might open.  

As I recall my history, European explorers spent centuries searching for a Northwest Passage.  Given the massive increases in global trade, the efficiencies that this would provide could give our flagging global economy a significant boost – and reduce energy use also.  And increasing access to new secure energy reserves (especially given that Norwegian and Alaskan activities have already shown we can extract such resources safely) would do much to address energy security concerns.  But to our Modern Malthusians, these are problems! 

As I remember geography there were seven continents – North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/New Zealand, and Anarctica.   Since humanity never reached the latter continent, it had no real defenders and, thus, in 1959, the global Antarctic Treaty, transformed it forever into a ward of the United Nations.  The treaty suggests the global goals of our Modern Malthusians. 

There is a total ban on economic activity, even though continental drift over the eons has meant that Anarctica might well have extensive fossil fuel reserves.  The treaty forbids almost all economic activities but does authorize residency by “scientists.”  This illustrates another bias of the left – “Research good, technology bad!”  In her speech however, Hillary went further calling for tourist restrictions (so much for eco-tourism).  One begins to understand – to protect the planet, we must wall it off from humanity!  

An ambitious goal but one that shouldn’t be ignored.  Malthusians have now captured one continent – only six to go!

Alarmists turn blind eye to global warming benefits–again

by Marlo Lewis on March 23, 2009

in Energy, Global Warming, International, Natural Resources

Tomorrow, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on the national security threats from melting Arctic ice. Greenwire (subscription required), the Online environmental news service, explains the rationale for the hearing:

 In a report last year, the European Commission warned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be prepared for an intensified “scramble for resources” as melting glaciers and sea ice open up previously inaccessible areas to exploitation. The report explicitly expressed concerns over “long term relations with Russia,” (ClimateWire, April 2, 2008).

Now, opening up ”previously inaccessible” areas to oil and gas development could also be a font of economic and national security benefits. One thing we know for sure about Arctic mineral resources–they aren’t owned by Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Venezuela, and never will be controlled by OPEC.

Yes, there will be competition for those resources, but since when is competition an automatic negative for the USA?

Clearly, there are opportunities here as well as risks–opportunities to create thousands of high-paying U.S. jobs, boost GDP by tens to hundreds of billions of dollars, and generate billions in deficit-reducing tax revenues and royalties.

More pertinently, exploitation of previously inaccessible resources could significantly diversify U.S. oil and gas–a longstanding objective of U.S. energy security policy.

But Gorethodoxy demands blind obedience by its votaries. Discussing the potential benefits of global warming is strictly verboten.