Follow-up question to the global warming thread

[allvol123]

I should preface this by saying that I haven't read all of the literature out there, by any means. However, no, I have not seen any scientific papers from field leaders (or in the leading journals) that can discredit the IPCC's most recent report where they say global warming is very likely (>90% probability) attributable to man. Now, as recently as 10 years ago, that wasn't the case. Many world-leading climatologists were not willing to accept the issue of attribution as scientific fact. However, a one of the climatologists (Prof. Ron Prinn) has told me that he knows of only one leading climatologists who still refutes this, and that is Professor Lindzen. The reason for the change was more and better data as well as better models that were not plagued with many of the bad assumptions that the earlier models were plagued with. The models back in '95 era were too crappy to base any kind of decision-making on, apparently.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I am very interested in learning what the opinions on this issue are and where they come from. If you know of credible dissenting opinions, I would be very interested in reading them - I want to understand both sides of this issue...to see how much credit is due each side.

You can try Bill Gray and Roger Pielke. You may be interested in Pielke as he has a weblog on climate change. Seems like you are really interested in this subject. I believe they are both associated with Colorado State.

 

[TennTradition]

You can try Bill Gray and Roger Pielke. You may be interested in Pielke as he has a weblog on climate change. Seems like you are really interested in this subject. I believe they are both associated with Colorado State.

I am pretty familiar with Bill Gray as a hurricane forecaster, but I haven't read any research by him on global climate change. I read a quote from Bill Gray in the Economist ("The Heat is On", September 9th, 2006) where he states that he doesn't trust the methods of climatoligists in predicting weather beyond 10-12 days (again....because of Professor Lorenz's chaos theories). However, that seemed to be in direct relationship to more intense hurricane seasons ... that is, the prediction that global warming will lead to more intense hurricanes (as some models have shown). I did not take this to mean that he was a person who did not agree with attribution of global warming to man. That science is not in predicting the future through weather...it is through analyzing the past...so I don't think his quote would apply there.

Also, Gray and Klotzbach issued a joint statement in July of 2006 where they said that they are conficent that continued research will resolve the controversy over the effect of climate change on hurricanes. From that, it made me think that they were more in the class of people who doubt our ability to predict the impact of global warming on weather events and...more importantly...by mentioning global warming in this way, it seemed to implicitly acknowledge the existence of global warming (but obviously not the issue of attribution to man). Have they actually come out and said they do not agree with attribution (or even that there isn't enough evidence for attribution)?

And, yes, Gray and Klotzbach are from Colorado State. I've been a big Bill Gray fan for years and it looks like Klotzbach will be taking his place. I'll have to look at their stuff and see if they address attribution...something just makes me think that they don't really have a defined research position on this since it is more of a climate issue than hurricane issue.

 

[volinbham]

I would think that going back to 1990 emission levels would have an impact. What is the debate?

Here's the short version from the old Wiki - I can provide the sources if needed.

The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.[69] They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.[70]

Add to that, the Kyoto provisions have been modified (downward). In short, it is not clear that the changes even if fully implemented would have much impact.

Notice the argument - Kyoto won't do much but it will essentially make it easier to get more meaningful changes later.

 

[TennTradition]

Here's the short version from the old Wiki - I can provide the sources if needed.



Add to that, the Kyoto provisions have been modified (downward). In short, it is not clear that the changes even if fully implemented would have much impact.

Notice the argument - Kyoto won't do much but it will essentially make it easier to get more meaningful changes later.

OK, thanks. I know that 1990 emission levels won't prevent more global warming, but it seems like they would make it less severe. My speculation is that through the bargaining, the real target levels are no longer really 1990 levels.

 

[utvolpj]

You can try Bill Gray and Roger Pielke. You may be interested in Pielke as he has a weblog on climate change. Seems like you are really interested in this subject. I believe they are both associated with Colorado State.

Just read thru them a few days ago. I'll also throw out Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science @ MIT.

OpinionJournal - Extra

 

[volinbham]

OK, thanks. I know that 1990 emission levels won't prevent more global warming, but it seems like they would make it less severe. My speculation is that through the bargaining, the real target levels are no longer really 1990 levels.

I've seen varying info about it - some shows lower targets (easier to hit), some show lower than 1990 level targets.

Big criticisms still include the wealth redistribution approach. Less industrialized countries are exempt and receive credits for CO2 sinks (e.g. forests). Industrialized countries that fail to reach the limits must buy credits from these countries. Ironically, these payments could be used by countries like China and India to more rapidly industrialize thus increasing their own emissions!

Many advocates of Kyoto acknowledge that the primary effect will be symbolic.

 

[TennTradition]

Just read thru them a few days ago. I'll also throw out Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science @ MIT.

OpinionJournal - Extra

I am familiar with Professor Lindzen's work to some degree. He was cited by a climatologist to me as the only remaining "world-leading" climatologist who does not accept attribution of global warming to man (well..he wouldn't mention him my name...he just said that he was in the same department as him...and it was pretty obvious from there). I think that Gray et. al. fall in a separate category of meterologists who disagree with the use of climate models to predict weather trends far into the future (such as suggesting hurricanes will get much worse) I need to read more of all of their stuff though. We will be getting to Lindzen in the course I am taking..or so I am told by the professor.

 

[OWB]

If global warming isn't real, how did it get an Oscar?

 

[GAVol]

If global warming isn't real, how did it get an Oscar?

Well that settles it then.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Well that settles it then.

Exactly. Validation beyond reproach.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Little man Lenardo said so.

 

[vader]

Little man Lenardo said so.

And he's king of the world.

 

[utvolpj]

How silly of me to not take the oscars seriously...

 

[hohenfelsvol]

And he's king of the world.

:dance2:

 

[vader]

One of my conservative friends (my industry is full of them) sent me a document that was too large to attach. I will try to copy and paste. At the end of this document is a link to this story.

Competitive Enterprise Institute

They are quite long but I thought they were applicable to the discussion.

Al Gore's "Truth"
ONE-SIDE, MISLEADING, EXAGGERATED, SPECULATIVE, WRONG
by Marlo Lewis, Jr.
Editor's Note: One of the most powerful political speeches we've seen in recent years, if ever, is the passionate critique of the media leveled by Al Gore. This "other" latest cause of the esteemed former Vice President is unerring in its truth, and unsparing in its victims. Gore quite accurately presents today's media as lapdogs of the entertainment industry. In the same speech, Gore goes on to correctly indict technology for enabling marketing and manipulation as much as it has enabled communication and enlightenment.
Al Gore is a man whose spirit has been reforged and hardened in the crucible of great aspiration and cruel disappointment. Had he shown such genuine soul back in the year 2000, he might have won big, instead of losing a close Presidential race on technicalities. But is Gore's great other cause, where he demands from today's media renewed accountability, skepticism, independent verification, in-depth analysis, integrity and relentless investigation, something in conflict with his greatest cause, his campaign to convince us to curtail CO2 emissions?
Global warming skeptics aren't saying Al Gore is wrong, or if they are, that isn't all they're saying. They're simply asking everyone who jumps onto this bandwagon, uncritically generated by the credulous, sensation-addicted media who Gore decries, to think carefully about all consequences of anti-CO2 policies.
Is the emphasis on eliminating CO2 distracting us from other environmental problems? What ever happened to the Aral Sea, drained nearly dry in the years since it was the poster child for Al Gore's first major environmental book, "Earth in the Balance?" What about the oceans whose fisheries are being strip mined to exhaustion by fleets of factory ships with sonar and driftnets 50 miles long? What about forests from Indonesia to the Amazon to the Congo, who are being urgently felled so "carbon neutral" biofuel might grow?
There is never too much skepticism in the world according to Al Gore, media critic. Al Gore, the anti global warming crusader, might remember this, and celebrate healthy debate not only as to how much and why the earth warms, but what to do about it. From that perspective, this spirited rebuttal to points Al Gore makes in his book "An Inconvenient Truth" are welcome and necessary. - Ed "Redwood" Ring
Al Gore's "Truth" - One-Sided, Misleading, Exaggerated, Speculative, Wrong
by Marlo Lewis, Jr., December 23, 2006



Al Gore's book on "The planetary emergency of global warming and what can be done about it," purports to be a non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science and moral common sense. In reality, An Inconvenient Truth is a colorfully illustrated lawyer's brief for global warming alarmism and energy rationing.
It is a J'Accuse hurled at fossil fuel energy-based civilization, especially the United States, and above all the Bush Administration and its purported allies in the U.S. oil and auto industries.
We do not expect lawyers to argue both for and against their clients, nor do we expect "balance" from political party leaders. However, although Gore reminds us - in the film version of An Inconvenient Truth - that he "used to be the next President of the United States," and concludes both the book and the movie with a call for "political action," he presents AIT as the work of a long-time student of climate science, a product of meditation on "what matters." He asks his audience to expect more from him than the mere cleverness that can sway juries or win elections.
What we get instead is sophistry. In AIT, the only facts and studies considered are those convenient to Gore's scare-them-green agenda - and in many instances, Gore distorts the evidence he presents.
Nearly every significant statement Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or just plain wrong. The present OnPoint summarizes my findings. An Inconvenient Truth does the following:

continued

 

[vader]

ONE-SIDED
· Never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in alleviating hunger and poverty, extending human life spans, and democratizing consumer goods, literacy, leisure, and personal mobility.
· Never acknowledges the environmental, health, and economic benefits of climatic warmth and the ongoing rise in the air's carbon dioxide (CO2) content.
· Never acknowledges the major role of natural variability in shrinking the snows of Kilimanjaro and other mountain glaciers.
· Never mentions the 1976 regime shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a natural ocean cycle, which is a major cause of recent climate change in Alaska.
· Presents a graph tracking CO2 levels and global temperatures during the past 650,000 years, but never mentions the most significant point: Global temperatures were warmer than the present during each of the past four interglacial periods, even though CO2 levels were lower.
· Never confronts a key implication of its assumption that climate is highly sensitive to CO2 emissions - that absent said emissions, global climate would be rapidly deteriorating into another ice age.
· Neglects to mention that, due to the growth of urban heat islands, U.S. cities and towns will continually break temperature records, with or without help from global warming.
· Neglects to mention that global warming could reduce the severity of winter storms - also called frontal storms because their energy comes from colliding air masses (fronts) - by decreasing the temperature differential between colliding air masses.
· Highlights London's construction of the Thames River flood barrier as evidence of global warming-induced sea-level rise, but does not mention that London is sinking two to six times faster than global sea levels are rising.
· Ignores the large role of natural variability in Arctic climate, never mentioning either that Arctic temperatures during the 1930s equaled or exceeded those of the late 20th century, or that the Arctic during the early- to mid-Holocene was significantly warmer than it is today.
· Cites a study that found that the number of recorded wildfires in North America has increased in recent decades, but not the same study's finding that the total area burned decreased by 90 percent since the 1930s.
· Fosters the impression that global warming can only be good for bad things (algae, ticks) and bad for good things (polar bears, migratory birds) - depicting nature as a morality play.
· Cites a study by Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, of the University of Colorado, that found an overall loss in Antarctic ice mass during 2002-2005, but ignores a study by University of Missouri professor Curt Davis and colleagues that found an overall ice mass gain during 1992-2003. Three years worth of data is too short to tell anything about a trend in a system as vast and complex as Antarctica.
· Cites a recent study by John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey that found a 0.5ﾰ Celsius (C) to 0.7ﾰC per decade wintertime warming trend in the mid-troposphere above Antarctica, as measured by weather balloons, but fails to mention that the same study found much less warming - about 0.15ﾰC per decade - at the Antarctic surface, or that NASA satellites, which also measure troposphere temperatures, show an Antarctic cooling trend of 0.12ﾰC per decade since November 1978.
· Misanthropically sees "success" not in the fossil fuel energy-based civilization that has enabled mankind to increase its numbers more than six-fold since the dawn of the industrial revolution, but in the recent reduction of global population growth rates.
· Compares Haiti - which suffers from deforestation - unfavorably with neighboring Dominican Republic - which enjoys lush forest cover - to illustrate the impact of politics on the environment, but ignores another key implication of the comparison: Poverty is the environment's number one enemy.
· Notes that "much forest destruction" and "almost 30%" of annual CO2 emissions come from "the burning of brushland for subsistence agriculture and wood fires used for cooking," but never considers whether fossil fuel energy restrictions would set back developing countries both economically and environmentally, by leading to more such burning.
· Neglects to mention the circumstances that make it reasonable rather than blameworthy for America to be the biggest CO2 emitter: the world's largest economy, high per capita incomes, abundant energy resources, markets integrated across continental distances, and the world's most mobile population.
· Impugns the motives of so-called global warming skeptics but never acknowledges the special-interest motivations of those whose research grants, direct-mail income, industrial policy privileges, regulatory power, prosecutorial plunder, or political careers depend on keeping the public in a state of fear about global warming.
· Castigates former White House official Phil Cooney for editing U.S. government climate change policy documents, without ever considering the scientific merit of Cooney's decisions to delete certain passages as "speculative."
· Waxes enthusiastic about cellulosic ethanol, a product with no commercial application despite 30 years of government-funded research, and neglects to mention that corn-based ethanol, a product in commercial use for a century, is still more costly than regular gasoline despite oil prices exceeding $70 a barrel.
· Misrepresents the major auto companies' position in their lawsuit to overturn California's CO2 emissions law by neglecting to mention that CO2 standards are de facto fuel economy standards and that federal law prohibits states from regulating fuel economy.
· Blames Detroit's financial troubles on the Big Three's high-volume production of sport utility vehicles, even though U.S. automakers probably would not exist today had they been "ahead of their time" and pushed hybrids during the 1990s, contrary to consumer demand. AIT says nothing about the biggest cause of Detroit's falling capitalization - unaffordable payments for employee benefit packages negotiated decades ago.
· Touts Denmark's wind farms without mentioning any of the well-known drawbacks of wind power: cost, intermittency, avian mortality, site depletion, and scenic degradation.
· Never addresses the obvious criticism that the Kyoto Protocol is all pain for no gain and that any policies far-reaching enough to noticeably slow warming would be a "cure" worse than the alleged disease.
· Claims a study by Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala of Princeton University shows that "affordable" technologies could reduce U.S. carbon emissions below 1970 levels even though the authors specifically note that their study does not estimate costs. AIT also neglects to mention that Socolow and Pacala's study is a response to a 2002 study by Martin Hoffert of New York University and 17 other energy experts who concluded that, "CO2 is a combustion product vital to how civilization is powered; it cannot be regulated away."

continued...

 

[vader]

MISLEADING
· Implies that a two-page photograph of Perito Moreno Glacier in Argentina shows that the glacier is melting away, even though the glacier's terminal boundary has not changed in 90 years.
· Implies that, during the past 650,000 years, changes in carbon dioxide levels preceded and largely caused changes in global temperature, whereas the causality mostly runs the other way, with CO2 changes trailing global temperature changes by hundreds to thousands of years.
· Belittles as ideologically motivated the painstaking and now widely-accepted methodological critiques by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph in Ontario and Steve McIntyre of the Hockey Stick reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere climate history.
· Cites increases in insurance payments to victims of hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and other natural disasters as evidence of a global warming-ravaged planet, even though the increases are chiefly due to socioeconomic factors such as population growth and development in high-risk coastal areas and cities.
· Distracts readers from the main hurricane problem facing the United States: the ever-growing concentration of population and wealth in vulnerable coastal regions, which is partly a consequence of federal flood insurance and other political subsidies.
· Ignores the societal factors - such as poverty - that typically overwhelm climatic factors in determining people's risk of damage or death from hurricanes, floods, drought, tornadoes, wildfires, and disease.
· Implies that the 2006 tropical cyclone season in Australia was unusually active and, thus, symptomatic of global warming. In contrast, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) describes the season as "near average."
· Re-labels as "major floods," a category defined by physical magnitude, a chart of "damaging floods," a category defined by socioeconomic and political criteria.
· Re-labels as "major wildfires," a category defined by physical magnitude, a chart of "recorded wildfires," a category reflecting changes in data collection and reporting, such as increases in the frequency and scope of satellite monitoring.
· Conflates the Thermohaline Circulation (THC), a convective system primarily driven by differences in salinity and sea temperatures, with the Gulf Stream, a wind-driven system energized primarily by the Earth's spin and the lunar tides, exaggerating the risk of a big chill in Europe from a weakening of the THC.
· Presents a graph showing the number of annual closings of the Thames River tidal barriers from 1930 to the present, even though the modern barrier system was completed in 1982 and became operational in 1984. This apples-to-oranges comparison conveys the false impression that London faced no serious flood risk until recent decades.
· Blames global warming for the decline "since the 1960s" of the emperor penguin population in Antarctica, implying that the penguins are in peril, their numbers dwindling as the world warms. In fact, the population declined in the 1970s and has been stable since the late 1980s.
· Implies that a study finding that none of 928 science articles - actually abstracts - denied a CO2-global warming link, shows that Gore's apocalyptic view of global warming is the "consensus" view among scientists.
· Reports that 48 Nobel Prize-winning scientists accused President Bush of distorting science, without mentioning that the scientists acted as members of a "527" political advocacy group set up to promote John Kerry's 2004 campaign for president.
· Implies that the United States is an environmental laggard because China has adopted more stringent fuel economy standards, glossing over China's horrendous air quality problems.
EXAGGERATED
· Exaggerates the certainty and hypes the importance of the alleged link between global warming and the frequency and severity of tropical storms.
· Hypes the importance of NOAA running out of names (21 per year) for Atlantic hurricanes in 2005, and the fact that some storms continued into December. The practice of naming storms only goes back to 1953, and hurricane detection capabilities have improved dramatically since the 1950s, so the "record" number of named storms in 2005 may be an artifact of the resulting data. Also, Atlantic hurricanes continued into December in several previous years including 1878, 1887, and 1888.
· Never explains why anyone should be alarmed about the current Arctic warming, considering that our stone-age ancestors survived - and likely benefited from - the much stronger and longer Arctic warming known as the Holocene Climate Optimum.
· Portrays the cracking of the Ward Hunt ice shelf in 2002 as a portent of doom, even though the shelf was merely a remnant of a much larger Arctic ice formation that had already lost 90 percent of its area during 1906-1982.
· Claims that polar bears "have been drowning in significant numbers," but this is based on a single report that found four drowned polar bears in one month in one year, following an abrupt storm.
· Claims that global warming is creating "ecological niches" for "invasive alien species," never mentioning other, more important factors such as increases in trade, tourism, and urban heat islands. For example, due to population growth, Berlin warmed twice as much during 1886-1898 as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates the entire world warmed during the 20th century.
· Blames global warming for pine beetle infestations that likely have more to do with increased forest density and plain old mismanagement.
· Presents a graph suggesting that China's new fuel economy standards are almost 30 percent more stringent than the current U.S. standards. In fact, the Chinese standards are only about 5 percent more stringent.
SPECULATIVE
· Warns of impending water shortages in Asia due to global warming but does not check whether there is any correlation between global warming and Eurasian snow cover (there isn't). If Tibetan glaciers were to melt, that should increase water availability in the coming decades.
· Claims that CO2 concentrations in the Holocene never rose above 300 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times, and that the current level - 380 ppm - is "way above" the range of natural variability. Proxy data (leaf stoma frequency) indicate that, in the early Holocene, CO2 levels exceeded 330 ppm for centuries and reached 348 ppm.
· Claims that a Scripps Oceanography Institute study shows that ocean temperatures during the past 40 years are "way above the range of natural variability." Proxy data indicate that the Atlantic Ocean off the West Coast of Africa was warmer than present during the Medieval Warm Period.
· Blames global warming for the record number of typhoons hitting Japan in 2004. Local meteorological conditions, not average global temperatures, determine the trajectory of particular storms, and data going back to 1950 show no correlation between North Pacific storm activity and global temperatures.
· Blames global warming for the record-breaking 37-inch downpour in Mumbai, India on July 26, 2005, even though there has been no trend in Mumbai rainfall for the month of July in 45 years.
· Blames global warming for recent floods in China's Sichuan and Shandong provinces, even though far more damaging floods struck those areas in the 19th and early 20th centuries.
· Blames global warming for the disappearance of Lake Chad, a phenomenon more likely stemming from a combination of regional climate variability and societal factors like population increase and overgrazing.
· Claims that global warming is drying out soils all over the world, whereas pan evaporation studies (which measure the rate of evaporation from open pans of water) indicate that, in general, the Earth's surface is becoming wetter.
· Presents one climate model's projection of increased U.S. drought as authoritative even though another leading model forecasts increased wetness. Climate model hydrology forecasts on regional scales are notoriously unreliable. Most of the United States, outside the Southwest, became wetter during 1925-2003.
· Blames global warming for the severe drought that hit the Amazon in 2005. However, RealClimate.Org, a web site set up to debunk global warming "skeptics," concluded that it is not possible to link the drought to global warming.
· Warns of a positive feedback whereby carbon-induced warming melts tundra, releasing more CO2 locked up in frozen soils. An alternative scenario is also plausible: The range of carbon-storing vegetation expands as tundra thaws.
· Claims that global warming endangers polar bears even though polar bear populations are increasing in Arctic areas where it is warming and declining in Arctic areas where it is cooling.
· Blames global warming for Alaska's "drunken trees" - trees rooted in previously frozen tundra, which sway in all directions as the ice melts - ignoring the possibly large role of the 1976 PDO shift.
· Blames rising CO2 levels for recent declines in Arctic sea ice, ignoring the potentially large role of natural variability. AIT never mentions that wind pattern shifts may account for much of the observed changes in sea ice, or that the Canadian Arctic Archipelago had considerably less sea ice during the early Holocene.
· Warns that meltwater from Greenland could disrupt the Atlantic thermohaline circulation based on research indicating that a major disruption occurred 8,200 years ago when a giant ice dam burst in North America, allowing two lakes to drain rapidly into the sea. AIT does not mention that the lakes injected more than 100,000 cubic kilometers of freshwater into the sea, whereas Greenland ice melt contributes only a few hundred cubic kilometers a year.

Continued...

 

[vader]

· Warns that global warming is destroying coral reefs, even though today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during periods substantially warmer than the present.
· Warns that a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels to 560 ppm will so acidify seawater that all optimal areas for coral reef construction will disappear by 2050. This is not plausible. Coral calcification rates have increased as ocean temperatures and CO2 levels have risen, and today's main reef builders evolved and thrived during the Mesozoic Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels hovered above 1,000 ppm for 150 million years and exceeded 2,000 ppm for several million years.
· Links global warming to toxic algae bloom outbreaks in the Baltic Sea that can be entirely explained by record-high phosphorus levels, record-low nitrogen-to-phosphorus levels, and local meteorological conditions.
· Asserts without evidence that global warming is causing more tick-borne disease (TBD). A 2004 study by Oxford University professor Sarah Randolph found no relationship between climate change and TBD in Europe.
· Blames global warming for the resurgence of malaria in Kenya, even though several studies have found no climate link and attribute the problem to decreased spraying of homes with DDT, anti-malarial drug resistance, and incompetent public health programs.
· Insinuates that global warming is a factor in the emergence of some 30 "new" diseases over the last three decades, but cites no supporting research or evidence.
· Blames global warming for the decline "since the 1960s" of the emperor penguin population in Antarctica based on a speculative assessment by two researchers that warm sea temperatures in the 1970s reduced the birds' main food source. An equally plausible explanation is that Antarctic ecotourism, which became popular in the 1970s, disturbed the rookeries.
· Warns of "significant and alarming structural changes" in the submarine base of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), but does not tell us what those changes are or why they are "significant and alarming." The melting and retreat of the WAIS "grounding line" has been going on since the early Holocene. At the rate of retreat observed in the late 1990s, the WAIS should disappear in about 7,000 years.
· Warns that vertical water tunnels ("moulins") are lubricating the Greenland Ice Sheet, increasing the risk that it will "slide" into the sea. Summertime glacier flow acceleration associated with moulins is tiny. Moulins in numbers equal to or surpassing those observed today probably occurred in the first half of the 20th century, when Greenland was as warm as or warmer than the past decade, with no major loss of grounded ice.
Presents 10 pages of before-and-after "photographs" showing what 20 feet of sea level rise would do to the world's major coastal communities. There is no credible evidence of an impending collapse of the great ice sheets. We do have fairly good data on ice mass balance changes and their effects on sea level. NASA scientist Jay Zwally and colleagues found a combined Greenland/Antarctica ice-loss-sea-level-rise equivalent of 0.05 mm per year during 1992-2002. At that rate, it would take a full millennium to raise sea level by just 5 cm.
· Forecasts an increase in U.S. renewable energy production during 1990-2030 more than twice that projected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Continued...

 

[vader]

WRONG
· Claims that glaciologist Lonnie Thompson's reconstruction of climate history proves the Medieval Warm Period was "tiny" compared to the warming observed in recent decades. It doesn't. Four of Thompson's six ice cores indicate the Medieval Warm Period was as warm as or warmer than any recent decade.
· Calls carbon dioxide the "most important greenhouse gas." Water vapor is the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect.
· Claims that Venus is too hot and Mars too cold to support life due to differences in atmospheric CO2 concentrations (they are nearly identical), rather than differences in atmospheric densities and distances from the Sun (both huge).
· Claims that scientists have validated the "hockey stick" reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperature history, according to which the 1990s were likely the warmest decade of the past millennium and 1998 the warmest year. It is now widely acknowledged that the hockey stick was built on a flawed methodology and inappropriate data. Scientists continue to debate whether the Medieval Warm period was warmer than recent decades.
· Assumes that CO2 levels are increasing at roughly 1 percent annually. The actual rate is half that.
· Assumes a linear relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures, whereas the actual CO2-warming effect is logarithmic, meaning that the next 100-ppm increase in CO2 levels adds only half as much heat as the previous 100-ppm increase.
· Claims that the rate of global warming is accelerating, whereas the rate has been constant for the past 30 years - roughly 0.17ﾰC per decade.
· Blames global warming for Europe's killer heat wave of 2003 - an event caused by an atmospheric circulation anomaly.
· Blames global warming for Hurricane Catarina, the first South Atlantic hurricane on record, which struck Brazil in 2004. Catarina formed not because the South Atlantic was unusually warm (sea temperatures were cooler than normal), but because the air was so much colder it produced the same kind of heat flux from the ocean that fuels hurricanes in warmer waters.
· Claims that 2004 set an all-time record for the number of tornadoes in the United States. Tornado frequency has not increased; rather, the detection of smaller tornadoes has increased. If we consider the tornadoes that have been detectable for many decades (category F-3 or greater), there actually has been a downward trend since 1950.
· Blames global warming for a "mass extinction crisis" that is not, in fact, occurring.
· Blames global warming for the rapid coast-to-coast spread of the West Nile virus. North America contains nearly all the climate types in the world - from hot, dry deserts to boreal forests to frigid tundra - a range that dwarfs any small alteration in temperature or precipitation that may be related to atmospheric CO2 levels. The virus could not have spread so far so fast if it were climate-sensitive.
· Cites Tuvalu, Polynesia, as a place where rising sea levels force residents to evacuate their homes. In reality, sea levels at Tuvalu fell during the latter half of the 20th century and even during the 1990s, allegedly the warmest decade of the millennium.
· Claims that sea level rise could be many times larger and more rapid "depending on the choices we make or do not make now" concerning global warming. Not so. The most aggressive choice America could make now would be to join Europe in implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Assuming the science underpinning Kyoto is correct, the treaty would avert only 1 cm of sea level rise by 2050 and 2.5 cm by 2100.
· Accuses ExxonMobil of running a "disinformation campaign" designed to "reposition global warming as theory, rather than fact," even though two clicks of the mouse reveal that ExxonMobil acknowledges global warming as a fact.
· Claims that President Bush hired Phil Cooney to "be in charge" of White House environmental policy. This must be a surprise to White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chairman James Connaughton, who hired Cooney and was his boss at the CEQ.
· Claims that the European Union's emission trading system (ETS) is working "effectively." In fact, the ETS is not reducing emissions, will transfer an estimated ﾣ1.5 billion from British firms to competitors in countries with weaker controls, has enabled oil companies to profit at the expense of hospitals and schools, and has been an administrative nightmare for small firms.
· Claims U.S. firms won't be able to sell American-made cars in China because Chinese fuel-economy standards are stricter, even though many U.S.-made cars meet the Chinese standards.
Conclusion: Vice President Gore calls global warming a "moral issue," but for him it is a moralizing issue - a license to castigate political adversaries and blame America first for everything from hurricanes to floods to wildfires to tick-borne disease. Somehow Gore sees nothing immoral in the attempt to make fossil energy scarcer and more costly in a world where 1.6 billion people still have no access to electricity and billions more are too poor to own a car.
Nearly every significant statement that Vice President Gore makes regarding climate science and climate policy is either one sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, or wrong. In light of these numerous distortions, "An Inconvenient Truth" is ill-suited to serve as a guide to climate science and climate policy for the American people.
About the Author: Marlo Lewis, Jr. is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (Competitive Enterprise Institute: Advancing Liberty, Public Policy Research, CEI), where he writes on global warming, energy policy, and other public policy issues. Originally published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute on September 28, 2006, this is a brief overview of author Lewis's critique of An Inconvenient Truth. Republished with permission. For further documentation, please read the Lewis's upcoming full-length monograph, "A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth."

Done

Sorry about the outrageously long posts.

 

[allvol123]

TennTradition, Dr. Roy Spencer is another dissenting opinion on man made global warming, if you are still looking for some.

 

[TennTradition]

TennTradition, Dr. Roy Spencer is another dissenting opinion on man made global warming, if you are still looking for some.

Cool, thanks allvol. I'll check him out. Is he a climatologist, meterologist,...? I'm taking a course this semester called Global Climate Change: Economics, Science, and Policy....which is a great course...but I am a little worried that we won't discuss too many dissenting opinions. There really aren't that many among the leaders of climatology, though, I guess. Thanks, again!

 

[TennTradition]

Vader, thanks for the posts man. I don't disagree with a lot of what was said. I think that Gore was often a little too "loose" with some of his words. Although I do have an issue with this one...

"Calls carbon dioxide the "most important greenhouse gas." Water vapor is the leading contributor to the greenhouse effect. "

I don't think that there is any way that you can classify CO2 and a less-important greenhouse gas than water vapor when your context is global warming. We can pump water vapor into the atmosphere all day long from the ground and we aren't going to change the concentration to any detectable levels. The vapor pressure of water is nothing compared to CO2..thus why we don't see oceans of CO2. Processes that just boil water (like nuclear energy) don't add any new water to the atmosphere...and processes like combustion that will form water vapor don't really add it to the atmosphere...it condenses very quickly. In the context of global warming, you can't call H2O a more important GHG than CO2, IMO.

 

[vader]

I will admit that I am very conflicted on this issue.
I find it hard to support those who totally disregard the idea that humans contribute to global warming and bash those who support that idea. On the other hand, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that Gore has totally altruistic reasons for championing the issue. Maybe because I see this stuff...

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'

Come on man, at least try to walk the walk.

Despite my uncertainty, I think Milo made some very good points in post 5 of this thread :hi:

 

[TennTradition]

I will admit that I am very conflicted on this issue.
I find it hard to support those who totally disregard the idea that humans contribute to global warming and bash those who support that idea. On the other hand, I have a hard time swallowing the idea that Gore has totally altruistic reasons for championing the issue. Maybe because I see this stuff...

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'

Come on man, at least try to walk the walk.

Despite my uncertainty, I think Milo made some very good points in post 5 of this thread :hi:

Well, I don't think you have to accept that Gore is doing this for altruistic reasons. You can leave Gore out of it if you want ... the issue of whether or not man has contributed to global warming obviously has nothing to do with Gore's opinions on the matter...or why he has championed the issue. Where Gore can be easily attacked is when he begins enumerating all the bad things that will happen as a result of global warming....the scientists are still trying to figure that out...and he probably exagerated a lot.

As for milo's post...I agree with the reasonsing..however, my point is that the technology is not ready for large-scale implementation without serious economic impact...unfortunately.

 

[therealUT]

My point is that I just kinda realized recently how asinine this whole debate is. Why shouldn't we be passing regulations to reduce pollution anyways?

To those who believe global warming is man-made, do you really need that argument to persuade that we need to control emissions?

To those who believe that global warming isn't man-made, does that mean you are against environmental regulations? There are plenty of technologies being developed that would curb emissions while allowing to maintain your current level of comfortable living.

I just don't see either side's point in the debate. Emissions such as excessive CO2 do have negative effects on some level (maybe they didn't put a hole in the o-zone), so why not try to lower them?

All the global warming debate is, is a giant worldwide pissing contest. Shake it off and zip it up.

Just a point of view I got in the last couple days that I haven't really seen before.

I guess I will take a stab at this. It really boils down to a fundamental argument of basic liberties. People (remember, corporations are people) should have the freedom to do as they please as long as they are not harming others. There is no proof (there are hypothesi, theories, etc.) that man has contributed in the least to global warming. The earth has warmed and cooled over billions of years...IT IS DYNAMIC! Any effect man has on this process is negligent at most.

Therefore, people should not be kept from pursuing the most cost effective means to their own personal happiness. If you believe in the cause, then don't buy from vendors who are not "environmentally friendly." If enough people believe in the cause, then the "environmentally friendly" vendors will drive the rest out of business.