Steven Milloy isn't a reporter, he's a lobbyist who's worked for the tobacco industry (arguing that second-hand smoke is a myth) and the oil industry (ditto for global warming). This is an op-ed, not a news article.
Milloy has spent much of his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisoning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute).... NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups....
NEPI was also associated with the AQSC (Air Quality Standards Coalition) which was devoted to emasculating Clean Air laws. This organisation took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label science not beneficial to the large funding corporations as "junk"....
If you think the Economist is "leftist", I think we've run into the parallel-universe problem. (For other readers: the Economist is business-oriented and free-market, although not stupidly so; it was founded in the 19th century to argue for free trade.)
Forget the models, just look at current and historical CO2 levels. We know that CO2 traps heat (this is uncontroversial). From looking at Antarctic ice cores, we know that atmospheric CO2 has never been higher than 300 parts per million at any time in the last 800,000 years. It's currently at 380 ppm and rising steadily; it'll be at 800 ppm by 2100, and still rising.
It's my web page; I've included references there. The graph of current CO2 levels is taken from Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming." The graph of historical CO2 levels and temperature for the last 400,000 years is taken from the Vostok ice core in the Antarctic.
There's definitely been discussion of the economic costs of trying to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm or so. (If we proceed with business as usual, it's predicted to hit 800 ppm by 2100; it's never been higher than 300 ppm at any time in the previous 800,000 years.) According to the Economist:
... Sir Nicholas [Stern] has tried to assess the future costs of climate change--drought in Africa, floods in Europe, hurricanes in America, rising sea levels around the world--and has set them against the costs of cutting fossil-fuel usage enough to stabilise carbon-dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. His answer to the second part of this calculation is fairly uncontroversial. The costs of switching away from carbon should not be huge because of the rise in fossil-fuel prices and the fall in alternative energy prices. Sir Nicholas reckons that the world could stabilise concentrations at a reasonable level at a cost of 1% of GDP by 2050. Many other economists have looked at the matter, and most agree with Sir Nicholas.
If you think climate change is just pseudoscience, you may want to take a look at Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.
Regarding the Antarctic ice sheet: the article was from 2002.
More recently (March 2006): NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss. "The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005."
"Beyond that, we must look at 'proxy' records, chiefly tree-ring sizes and the molecular composition of ice-cores, which go back 2000 and 8000 years respectively."
A quick correction: the ice-core data goes back 800,000 years, not 8,000.
"The most common omission I find is the error level on charts. Take the ice core samples, what is the error level? Most I have seen have stated that the current PPM of CO2 is at an all time high! It has been stated that the current CO2 levels are 330+ ppm and from ice cores we know it has never been higher, or do we? What is the error level of the ice cores? +/- ??? If it is +/- 500ppm than the charts are junk, if it is +/- 2ppm then they may mean something. To date I have not been able to find anything that states the accuracy of the reading or the error level of the ice cores."
I did a quick Google search. The uncertainty in the Vostok ice core data is plus or minus 2-3 parts per million by volume.
"CO2 and CH4 measurements have been performed using the methods and analytical procedures previously described (Barnola et al., 1987, Chappellaz et al, 1990). However, the CO2 measuring system has been slightly modified in order to increase the sensitivity of the CO2 detection. The thermal conductivity chromatographic detector has been replaced by a flame ionisation detector which measures CO2 after its transformation into CH4. The overall accuracy for CH4 and CO2 measurements are ± 20 ppbv and 2-3 ppmv respectively. No gravitational correction has been applied."
If anyone wants to see what the Vostok ice core data looks like, here's an open letter I sent to the Canadian environment minister, including a graph of the ice core data: http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/greenhouse. html
You may not be too worried about a CO2 level of 370 ppm, but it's still rising. If we proceed with business as usual, by 2100 it'll be at 800 ppm. (Again, looking at the ice core data, it's never been higher than 300 ppm at any time in the previous 400,000 years, which includes several ice ages. In comparison, settled civilization based on agriculture is less than 10,000 years old.)
If we make a serious effort to stabilize and reduce CO2 emissions in the next ten years--if the EU countries can do it, why can't we?--then we should be able to stabilize CO2 levels at about 500 ppm. There'll still be warming, but it'll be slow enough to adapt.
Slashdot Mirror
Steven Milloy isn't a reporter, he's a lobbyist who's worked for the tobacco industry (arguing that second-hand smoke is a myth) and the oil industry (ditto for global warming). This is an op-ed, not a news article.
From SourceWatch:
That's great news. A minor point: the title of the post is incorrect. It's the level of methane in the atmosphere which has stabilized, not emissions.
If you think the Economist is "leftist", I think we've run into the parallel-universe problem. (For other readers: the Economist is business-oriented and free-market, although not stupidly so; it was founded in the 19th century to argue for free trade.)
Forget the models, just look at current and historical CO2 levels. We know that CO2 traps heat (this is uncontroversial). From looking at Antarctic ice cores, we know that atmospheric CO2 has never been higher than 300 parts per million at any time in the last 800,000 years. It's currently at 380 ppm and rising steadily; it'll be at 800 ppm by 2100, and still rising.
I thought the fact that the extra CO2 comes from fossil fuels and burning forests was well-established, by comparing carbon isotopes.
It's my web page; I've included references there. The graph of current CO2 levels is taken from Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming." The graph of historical CO2 levels and temperature for the last 400,000 years is taken from the Vostok ice core in the Antarctic.
There's definitely been discussion of the economic costs of trying to stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 550 ppm or so. (If we proceed with business as usual, it's predicted to hit 800 ppm by 2100; it's never been higher than 300 ppm at any time in the previous 800,000 years.) According to the Economist:
If you think climate change is just pseudoscience, you may want to take a look at Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming.Regarding the Antarctic ice sheet: the article was from 2002.
More recently (March 2006): NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss. "The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005."
Personally, what I find most convincing is graphs of current and historical CO2 levels.
"Beyond that, we must look at 'proxy' records, chiefly tree-ring sizes and the molecular composition of ice-cores, which go back 2000 and 8000 years respectively."
A quick correction: the ice-core data goes back 800,000 years, not 8,000.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592"The most common omission I find is the error level on charts. Take the ice core samples, what is the error level? Most I have seen have stated that the current PPM of CO2 is at an all time high! It has been stated that the current CO2 levels are 330+ ppm and from ice cores we know it has never been higher, or do we? What is the error level of the ice cores? +/- ??? If it is +/- 500ppm than the charts are junk, if it is +/- 2ppm then they may mean something. To date I have not been able to find anything that states the accuracy of the reading or the error level of the ice cores."
I did a quick Google search. The uncertainty in the Vostok ice core data is plus or minus 2-3 parts per million by volume.
Here's the data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/ vostok/vostok_co2.html
From the description:
"CO2 and CH4 measurements have been performed using the methods and analytical procedures previously described (Barnola et al., 1987, Chappellaz et al, 1990). However, the CO2 measuring system has been slightly modified in order to increase the sensitivity of the CO2 detection. The thermal conductivity chromatographic detector has been replaced by a flame ionisation detector which measures CO2 after its transformation into CH4. The overall accuracy for CH4 and CO2 measurements are ± 20 ppbv and 2-3 ppmv respectively. No gravitational correction has been applied."
If anyone wants to see what the Vostok ice core data looks like, here's an open letter I sent to the Canadian environment minister, including a graph of the ice core data: http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/greenhouse. html
You may not be too worried about a CO2 level of 370 ppm, but it's still rising. If we proceed with business as usual, by 2100 it'll be at 800 ppm. (Again, looking at the ice core data, it's never been higher than 300 ppm at any time in the previous 400,000 years, which includes several ice ages. In comparison, settled civilization based on agriculture is less than 10,000 years old.)
If we make a serious effort to stabilize and reduce CO2 emissions in the next ten years--if the EU countries can do it, why can't we?--then we should be able to stabilize CO2 levels at about 500 ppm. There'll still be warming, but it'll be slow enough to adapt.