From: tobis@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (Michael Tobis)
Subject: Re: Are there errors in Gore's book "Earth in Balance" ?
Message-ID: <1993May23.192523.3141@daffy.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 May 1993 19:25:23 GMT

In article <1tksuhINN30h@gap.caltech.edu>, brandt@cco.caltech.edu (William N. Brandt) writes:
|> 
|> I have been reading the book "Earth in Balance" by Al Gore and
|> would like to know if this book is considered to be factually
|> reliable (I remember all the errors that were in Dixy Lee Ray's
|> "Trashing the Planet" and am now a little wary of such books).
|> If there are errors, I would appreciate specific references to them
|> if possible.

In my opinion, Gore's book is a decent though less than inspired piece
of science journalism. There are only a few factual errors, but there is
some difficulty in nuance. It is obviously difficult for a politician
to advocate vigorous action in the face of large uncertainties, so he
has perhaps understated the uncertainties a bit.

There was a cover article in The National Review (Buckley's magazine)
about Gore's environmentalism (*) that tried to slant the book as a complete
misrepresentation, but the only significant error it could find was the
caption to the very stunning graph comparing CO2 to temperature on
the time scale of a single glacial cycle. Now, while this is certainly
the time scale on which the data looks most alarming, there is nothing
wrong with the graph itself, and there is definitely cause for alarm 
in my opinion and that of most (not all) climatologists.

However, the caption refers to a doubling of CO2 in 40 years, which is
wrong (the text, as I recall, refers to fifty years, an inconsistency
which leads me to believe that Gore didn't write the caption, but which 
is also a couple of decades too soon, even if the doubling is referred
to preindustrial CO2 concentrations.)

The error, however, is not one of gross exagerration as the NR tries to
make out, but of missing a subtlety. The radiative equivalent forcing of
ALL man-made greenhouse gases combined is expected to exceed the equivalent
of a doubling of CO2 ALONE by 2030 or 2040. Thus, while wrong in terms
of rigorous scientific fact, the actual implications for the general public
are exactly as stated.

Gore states on p.98 "when 98 per cent of the scientists in a given field
share one view and 2 per cent disagree, bith viewpoints are sometimes
presented in a format in which each appears equally credible". Now, if
such a statement were made my someone (like Michael Fumento for example)
who legitimately criticizes exagerrated environmental panics, I have no doubt
that the NR would rush to his defense. Here, though, they put words in his
mouth. The quote is given as 'share one view [about global warming]..
[see Ronald Bailey's article above for accurate statistics]'.

Said article on said subject reads
	Gore also implies that 98 per cent of atmospheric scientists
	believe we face an impending climate catastrophe. However,
	a recent Gallup poll found that of those scientists actively
	involved in global climate research, 53 per cent do not believe
	that global warming has occurred ond 30 per cent say they
	don't know, leaving only 17 per cent who believe global warming
	has begun. Even a recent Greenpeace poll found that 47 per cent of
	climatologists don't believe we face the risk of a runaway greenhouse
	effect.

First, please be aware that these two 'polls' address differnet questions
both from each other and from the words being stuffed into Gore's mouth.
Neither adresses the likelihood of disturbingly large climate changes in the
future. The first addresses the past record, while the second addresses the
possibility of total catastrophe. The second can be dismissed easily.
"Runaway greenhouse effect" is the phenomenon we see on Venus, where
greenhouse warming evaporates enough water that the vapor adds to the
greenhouse effect enough to evaporate more water until the boiling point is
reached and the oceans vanish. We should not be surprised that half of
greenpeace's selection of "informed opinion" believe in this fortunately
implausible scenario, of course. The other half of their informed informants
are fortunately better informed.

Now the first question has necessarily been misstated. Since there used
to be an ice age, no one doubts that global warming "has occurred". So
we need to find out 1) exactly what the question was and 2) exactly when
it was asked. Most scientists are reluctant to state that statistically
significant warming has occurred DUE TO ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING. That the
earth has warmed in the past century is generally accepted, but the causal
link doesn't yet satisfy rigorous statistical tests. Most climatologists
believe that the observed increase is PROBABLY due mostly to anthropogenic
warming, superimposed on natural variations of comparable amplitude.
Also, "recent" is suspicious, since the warmest years on record since
direct measurements began a century ago have occurred in the past decade,
so the balance of opinion on the significance of the observed trend is
shifting rapidly.

Neither question actually adresses whether the scientific community believes
significant warming is likely. I have heard that a poll at a meeting of the
American Meteorological Society showed that 70% of those present thought
such a change was likely. As for climatologists, a poll of leading figures 
in the field published in 1990 had 18 of 22 respondents agreeing with the
likelihood of significant climate change due to human induced forcing, with
two respondents uncertain. See "A Survey of Informed Opinion Regarding the
Nature and Reality of a 'Global Greenhouse Warming'", _Climate Change_ #16,
February 1990.

The only other "error" pointed out in the scathing criticism of Gore is
this one, in a sidebar by an anonymous "policy analyst at a politically
correct university:" 

	Interestingly, the senator, a Harvard political-science graduate,
	cannot read his own graph properly: his text notes that species
	"are now vanishing around the world _one thousand times faster_
	than at any time during the past 65 million years", though his 
	graph shows species loss of one per year through 1880 and 10,000 
	in 1992.

I have read this remarkable piece of sarcasm several times and still see
no inconsistency between the graph and the statement, and am utterly
puzzled by it, though I can see why 'Lucian' is reluctant to add his real
name to his diatribes.

In an article and two sidebars by three authors, this is the best the
National Review can do to discredit Gore's book, despite being obviously
highly motivated to do so. I take this as evidence that there are no serious
errors in the book in a league with Dixy Lee's nonsensical rationalizations.

The book is frankly broad ranging and political, and one could do better in
terms of researching any particular issue even within the pop science
bookshelves. But whether or not one agrees with Gore's prescriptions, he
has his facts about right, and I take the National Review's feeble effort
to discredit him as strong evidence in that direction.

mt
Michael Tobis
dissertator
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Madison

Opinions expressed here are my own, and not necessarily those of
the department or the university mentioned above.

(*) "Gore's Globaloney", _National Review_ 9/14/92.