Inconvenient Truth=9 acts of falsehood (according to Judge)

[Extremeweatherguy]

I thought this was an interesting article...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 2525.story

...what does everyone else think?

[HURAKAN]

The "9 errors" are mostly based on possible occurrances in the future that are impossible to accurately predict. Nonetheless, the heart of the argument is still very much beating and this errors are only skin-deep.

I believe Global Warming is a problem that should be address by the entire planet but much effort must come from industrialized countries like the United States and Western Europe. Most poor contries are contributing very little to Global Warming, with the exception of deforestation.

The facts are there for you to see. We can take some action now or wait until the problem hits us in the face.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

The "9 errors" are mostly based on possible occurrances in the future that are impossible to accurately predict. Nonetheless, the heart of the argument is still very much beating and this errors are only skin-deep.

I believe Global Warming is a problem that should be address by the entire planet but much effort must come from industrialized countries like the United States and Western Europe. Most poor contries are contributing very little to Global Warming, with the exception of deforestation.

The facts are there for you to see. We can take some action now or wait until the problem hits us in the face.

I do believe we are having something to do with some extra CO2 into the Atmosphere. But strongly disagree that its outside of the warm cycle we are in; this warm cycle started 11,000 years ago. With many little peaks followed by little ice ages, each time it reached it peak, humans had it better and grown more advanced. It was shown that the sun activity was the highest in over 2,000 years a few years ago, 1998-2005 time frame, these cycles are normal. In are strongly supported in the ice core data. Are we having some effect yes, but to blame the United states for it all is wrong, and is against true science thinking. We have some of the highest clean standards on this planet, with car standards that no other nation on this earth comes close. Look at China, in which you don't blame. They have rivers full of dead fish and pigs and other animals dieing in the fields. The air is so bad in part of there city's; most are 3-4 times the size of New york or La. That some reports have some of the dirt and garbage coming across the Pacific ocean, visible.

Do I think that we have a effect on adding Co2 to the Atmopshere, I sure do. But would you rather have something to eat on your table every night. In lights to read your weather books? I sure do. I think we should go to nuclear power to clean up more, that is what France does. We could cut our co2 output by 2/3rds if we did that. But no some people will still scream about that. But it is the cheapest and most effective way to make power. Also it takes energy to make other power sources to power our cars,buses, ect.

For what we produce we are really not that dirty. But we do add co2 to the Atmosphere. The question that is being asked, is how do we keep our selfs from going farward and how to make it work. That is the question.

China, they have super amounts of work to do before they come any way close to the cleanness to us. Intill then they will keep on becoming more dirty and pushing more Co2 into the Atmosphere. What is even more scarely is the fact that as the planet warms up the oceans and the perma frost can't hold as much co2, so you have more and more co2 into the Atmopshere. I believe the United states has done a lot in this fight, lets put our energy into cleaning up China and others.

That is all we can do. In a little praying that the sun go's back into a min can't hurt.

[MetSul Weather Center]

One huge mistake:

http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza. ... _texto=947

[P.K.]

Are we having some effect yes, but to blame the United states for it all is wrong, and is against true science thinking. We have some of the highest clean standards on this planet, with car standards that no other nation on this earth comes close. Look at China, in which you don't blame.

I'm not quite sure you are correct there Matt on car standards. When I've looked at the differing versions of the same car in Europe and the USA the engine size always appears far larger in the USA so they must be far less fuel efficient. It would be interesting if there is a website with the C02 emissions (Which are measured in grams of C02 per km) of cars in the USA anywhere to compare with the UK one. http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/ No idea about cars outside of Europe however.

[x-y-no]

One huge mistake:

http://www.metsul.com/secoes/visualiza. ... _texto=947

From the San Francisco Chronicle article:

Although he cautioned that the question is still debated among scientists, Gore said it may be connected to the gradual heating of the atmosphere caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. ``El Nino events have become much more common and much stronger,'' Gore told an audience of 2,000 at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. ``Whether that's connected to global warming is uncertain. But preparing for this one may well help us prepare for others in the future. We may look back at this as a turning point.''

(emphasis mine)

How is that a "huge mistake?"

[x-y-no]

I do believe we are having something to do with some extra CO2 into the Atmosphere.

Well that's progress,I suppose. In fact, isotopic analysis demonstrates unequivocally that practically all of the atmospheric CO2 increase in the past two centuries is due to fossil fuels.

But strongly disagree that its outside of the warm cycle we are in; this warm cycle started 11,000 years ago. With many little peaks followed by little ice ages, each time it reached it peak, humans had it better and grown more advanced.

Pointing out past variability proves nothing except that there is significant sensitivity to forcing in the climate. In fact, the more variable climate has been in the past, the worse it is for those who wish to argue that there should be little effect from the forcing we are introducing.

It was shown that the sun activity was the highest in over 2,000 years a few years ago, 1998-2005 time frame, these cycles are normal. In are strongly supported in the ice core data.

There is essentially no trend in insolation in the past 50 plus years. There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the hypothesis that the recent (i.e. past half century) warming trend has anything to do with change in the sun's output.

Are we having some effect yes, but to blame the United states for it all is wrong, and is against true science thinking.

This is a straw man argument. Nobody says the United States alone is responsible. But given that we consume far more energy per capita than any other nation, we surely play a significant part.

We have some of the highest clean standards on this planet, with car standards that no other nation on this earth comes close. Look at China, in which you don't blame. They have rivers full of dead fish and pigs and other animals dieing in the fields. The air is so bad in part of there city's; most are 3-4 times the size of New york or La. That some reports have some of the dirt and garbage coming across the Pacific ocean, visible.

Again a straw man. I know nobody who doesn't agree that China is a huge environmental problem.

Do I think that we have a effect on adding Co2 to the Atmosphere, I sure do. But would you rather have something to eat on your table every night. In lights to read your weather books? I sure do.

This is why Gore has been a huge advocate of carbon trading and offsets. And then he gets widely attacked as a hypocrite for doing exactly what he has advocated for decades. Go figure.

I think we should go to nuclear power to clean up more, that is what France does. We could cut our co2 output by 2/3rds if we did that. But no some people will still scream about that. But it is the cheapest and most effective way to make power. Also it takes energy to make other power sources to power our cars,buses, ect.

Nuclear power isn't a cure-all but I agree it's an essential component. It'll take some serious work to address the issue of safe transport and storage of waste, though.

... I believe the United states has done a lot in this fight, lets put our energy into cleaning up China and others.

I've long argued we're missing a huge opportunity to develop clean energy technologies and market them to the developing nations. Instead of continuing to bury our heads in the sand, that's what we ought to be doing.

[Aslkahuna]

If one were to look at the Solar Irradiance, it reached a peak during Cycle 19 which maxed in 1957-58 (not 1998-2005) and after a slight fall in 1960 it has been remarkably stable. The temperature curve responded very well to the Irradiance curve very well until the 1970's when it sharply decoupled and has been rising since. Based upon this, the Solar component of warming has dropped from about 50+% to now about 30% which leaves 70% unaccounted for. Based upon how much higher the current CO2 levels are above the natural limits of variability and the fact that the excess is from the use of fossil fuels, that contribution is about 35% now and rising. That leaves another 35% of the current warming to account for. Land use practices and livestock ranching could add another 15% at which leaves the antrhopogenic component at about 50% and nautral component at 50% with the anthropogenic component rising. Now if current speculation about an upcoming sharp downturn in the Solar component is correct, then in about 20 years time we ought to know if my supposition is correct. But basically, it seems logical to me that one can not go around altering the atmospheric composition and increasing its heat retaining capabilities without some sort of response.

Steve

[Ptarmigan]

I agree that Earth is warming up. If humans are impacting the climate, it would be on a local scale. No one points out about how concrete makes it hotter. Earth's climate changes and will always change because of Earth's axis position, Sun, ocean current, and continental drifts. Nothing lasts forever. Also, it overshadows other environmental problems like light pollution.

[x-y-no]

I agree that Earth is warming up. If humans are impacting the climate, it would be on a local scale.

Why? We've nearly doubled global atmospheric CO2 from the pre-industrial level. Why would the effect of that merely be local?

No one points out about how concrete makes it hotter.

That's simply false. The urban heat island effect has been richly discussed and researched since the early '90s and all temperature records used in estimating global warming include compensation for the effect.

Earth's climate changes and will always change because of Earth's axis position, Sun, ocean current, and continental drifts. Nothing lasts forever.

All of that is true, but has nothing to do with the issue of the large forcing we are introducing to the climate system. I'll again ask the question that nobody who makes this argument seems willing to address: does the fact that many forest fires occur naturally mean that humans do not cause forest fires or that there is no sense in attempting to reduce the number of human-caused forest fires? If not, why would the existence of natural climate cycles mean that humans can't change climate or that there's no point in trying to mitigate that?

Also, it overshadows other environmental problems like light pollution.

Are we confined to concern over a single issue?

[Aslkahuna]

Actually, there IS a relationship between the GW issue and light pollution that goes beyond merely being a reflection of humanity's total and utter disregard for the environment and the other lifeforms we share this Planet with. Light Pollution is the direct result of the needless, wasteful and extravangant use of energy in a vain effort to light up the surface of the Moon during the dark phases there. Up to 50% of our urban energy use goes into this effort and where does that wasted energy come from? Power Plants that use fossil fuels. Reduce energy waste by cutting back Light Pollution and you would have made a significant step towards reducing CO2 emissions since you would need either fewer power plants or they would not have to generate as much energy thus using less fuel. More significantly there's no major strain and no economic pain in such an effort-in fact, money spent on utility bills would be saved.

Steve

[x-y-no]

Gore's response is here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-che ... gor_1.html

Since the Fact Checker has afforded us the opportunity to respond specifically to the nine points at issue, we will do so:

# Ice-sheet driven sea level rise. Scientists agree that the melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels around six meters. The movie does not give a timescale for when that melting might occur. There are uncertainties in the scientific community about the timescale, but this uncertainty does not negate the need to seriously consider these scenarios when considering solutions to the climate crisis. IPCC estimates a sea level rise of 59 centimeters by 2100. However, they exclude any water contributed by the melting of Greenland or Antarctica because they don't know when either could happen. We hold our fate in our own hands. If we conclude a strong treaty--or if we pass strong legislation in the US to cut the pollution that causes global warming, it could make a real difference to our future and that of our children. Dr. Jim Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and someone whom we trust, has said that we may see several meters of sea level rise by 2100 if we do not act.


# Pacific island nations needing to evacuate. On December 6, 2005, The United Nations Environment Program announced that a small community living in the Pacific island chain of Vanuatu had to relocate due to sea level rise. In addition, in 2005, the people of the Carteret atoll in Papua New Guinea announced their imminent evacuation and the government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders. We acknowledge that the wording of the film here is unfortunate; however, the potential effects of global warming on human displacement as a broader topic is a matter of critical importance, which we believe warrants the attention of the global community. The IPCC estimates that 150 million environmental refugees could exist by the year 2050, due mainly to the effects of coastal flooding, shoreline erosion and agricultural disruption.


# Ocean Conveyor in the North Atlantic. Simulations described in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation by roughly 30 percent by 2100. Again, there are uncertainties, which were a bit lengthy to describe in a feature film documentary, but the future of the ocean conveyer really depends upon how quickly we take actions now to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. Multiple scientists have claimed that we cannot exclude the possibility of the disruption or shutdown of the Conveyor.


# CO2 Temperature connections in the ice core record. Greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice age signals have a complicated relationship but they do "fit." That is true. There is a much longer explanation. Rather than repeat it here, I will refer you to the more complete description included in the archive of http://www.realclimate.org.


# Kilimanjaro. Mr. Gore has, for years, relied upon the research of Dr. Lonnie Thompson and his wife Dr. Ellen Mosely Thompson. Dr. Thompson recently received the National Medal of Science and works at the Byrd Polar Research Center. It is not just Kilimanjaro. Every tropical glacier for which we have documented evidence shows that glaciers are retreating. The evidence has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (2006) as well as IPCC studies. As the movie states, there are other stresses on Kilimanjaro that are contributing to the problem. And this is a very, very important point--fundamental to our understanding of climate change: Global warming exacerbates the stresses that ecosystems (and humans) are already experiencing, such as drought, erosion, rising sea levels, and shifts in extreme weather events.


# Drying up of Lake Chad. This example is used to illustrate what the models are predicting which is the shift in rainfall across the Sahel region of Africa. As in the previous example, there are multiple stresses upon Lake Chad and again, human-induced climate change can and will make this situation even worse.


# Hurricane Katrina and global warming. The film is careful not to ascribe any single weather event to climate change. However, in the film Mr. Gore does state, "There have been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger." He based that claim on research published in peer-reviewed journals from Dr. Kerry Emanuel, and several others, who have found a link between an increase in sea surface temperature and an increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Since then, further research has strengthened the science in this area with regards to a link between human-induced climate change and hurricane intensity. Mr. Gore has never addressed the issue of climate change and hurricane frequency.


# Impact of sea ice retreat on polar bears. Polar bears only exist in the Arctic and hunt and live on the ice. Where there is not enough ice, they are required to swim. The US Minerals Management Service (part of the US Department of Interior) reported new research in December 2005 about increased polar bear mortality due to reduced sea ice. At the same time, a study by the US Geological Survey and the Canadian Wildlife Service was previewed showing a major polar bear population drop (22 percent) in Hudson Bay in Canada--which was also believed to be linked to sea ice decline. Since 2005, more research has emerged in this area. In addition, Arctic sea ice decline was the lowest ever measured for minimum extent in 2007. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is now considering an Endangered Species Listing for the polar bear in part because of the impact that human-induced climate change is having on their habitat.


# Global warming and coral reefs. The IPCC and other scientific bodies have long identified increases in ocean temperatures with the bleaching of coral reefs. Corals are also under stress from other factors like water pollution (agricultural runoff), overfishing, and ocean acidification (another direct impact of the release of carbon dioxide). These stresses have a synergistic effect. As I have made clear earlier, global warming places a further strain on an already burdened ecosystem.

[Squarethecircle]

Even though I may not agree with the end-of-the-world kind of prophecies people are making nowadays, global warming is too unpredictable to really be sure of anything on the subject. Even Nobel laureates make mistakes sometimes.

[Cryomaniac]

Even though I may not agree with the end-of-the-world kind of prophecies people are making nowadays, global warming is too unpredictable to really be sure of anything on the subject. Even Nobel laureates make mistakes sometimes.

That's pretty much my take on it too.

[Regit]

Even though I may not agree with the end-of-the-world kind of prophecies people are making nowadays, global warming is too unpredictable to really be sure of anything on the subject. Even Nobel laureates make mistakes sometimes.

I don't know anyone saying it will be the end of the world.

And hurricanes are also unpredictable. I don't know for sure that my area will have a hurricane in 2008. Does that mean I should not prepare? I don't know that someone will break into my house tonight. Should I leave the door open?

It is bizarre that we live in a country that is having a serious policy debate over an issue that polls have shown to be an important problem to nearly 80% of the population. I can't think of any other issue in American history that dragged on for so long after such strong support was garnered among the public.

[Cryomaniac]

I don't know anyone saying it will be the end of the world.

Search for 'global warming' on This site and i'm pretty sure you'll find someone

[Regit]

I don't know anyone saying it will be the end of the world.

Search for 'global warming' on This site and i'm pretty sure you'll find someone

I meant any serious person. Sorry for the confusion.