Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
Several climate scientists have now examined the alleged errors in An Inconvenient Truth. At RealClimate Gavin Schmidt (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies) and Michael Mann (director Penn State Earth System Science Center) write:
First of all, "An Inconvenient Truth" was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how "Guidance Notes" for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support - AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. ...
Overall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not "errors" at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point).
William Connolley (British Antarctic Survey) responds to Schmidt and Mann:
I think its too kind; e.g. on SLR and Katrina Gore is misleading; on evacuation he is simply wrong. But the lake Chad bit was interesting.
Michael Tobis (University of Texas Institute for Physics) writes:
I've watched the relevant scenes, and though I find the polar bear sequence a bit silly, I can find nothing whatsoever wrong with what Gore says in substance or in emphasis in eight of the nine cases.
The troublesome case is where Gore says:
"that's why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand"
There is certainly no case where all the inhabitants of a nation have evacuated, to date, although the prospect does not seem remote. This astonishing fact does not seem to faze the critics of the movie in the least. ...
Arguably, there is some subset of Pacific Islanders who have 'all evacuated' in the loose, emphatic sense of 'all'. I can certainly imagine a context in which the statement, with a little slack for Gore's vernacular, would be reasonable. ...
Other than that out-of-context evacuation comment, I can see nothing wrong with what Mr. Gore said or how the film presented it.
In fact the judgement systematically refers to "errors" (using inverted commas, which the media have generally ignored), and has some wise words to say on the distinction between presenting and promoting partisan views, and the balanced presentation of controversial issues (which he decides does not require equal "air-time" for views which are held only by small minorities). However, in his analysis of the "errors"the judge has also expressed unwarranted confidence on several issues which are still the subject of considerable uncertainty among the scientific community. It would be fair to say that Al Gore presents the more extreme (concerned) end of the range of scientific opinion on several issues, and implies stronger evidence than is fair on several others. However, overall the film still achieves an exceptionally high standard of scientific accuracy, and it is regrettable that the judge has triggered a media storm by the injudicious use of the term "errors". Lawyers know not to rely on ordinary commas to make their meaning clear; now judges must learn not to rely on inverted commas either. ...
Overall evaluation from John Shepherd: In only three cases [lake Chad, Katrina, drowning polar bears] can it realistically be argued that the film presents an overstated or unreasonable argument, and in only one case (hurricanes) is that in relation to a major issue. In no case is there a scientific "error" as such. In three cases [sea level rise, thermohaline circulation, Kilimanjaro] Gore presents a view which represents the more extreme end of the range of scientific uncertainty. In the remaining three cases the Gore presentation is essentially correct. To refer to "nine scientific errors" is therefore itself a very considerable misrepresentation of the facts.
Endorsement by Chris Rapley: The view of climate scientists with whom I have spoken (and my view also) is that Al Gore's grasp of the climate change issue is remarkable, and his ability to communicate it quite exceptional. Having said this, there are some points Al makes in Inconvenient Truth which a scientist would generally hedge with caveats or avoid, because they are scientifically controversial, uncertain, or too complicated to explain accurately and succinctly. The snows of Kilimanjaro are a good example. As is the case for almost all localised or regional climatic changes, the loss of the ice cap has not formally be attributed to human actions. That does not mean that it is not - simply that convincing evidence for the link has not been presented. Even so, expert scientists working on the issue have their views, and it seems that in this case Al's comments may have been influenced by these. The other issues raised in the court case are to a greater or lesser degree of the same nature. The bottom line, as the judge noted, is that the message delivered by Al, that climate change is real, now, and driven mainly by humans, is "broadly correct". John Shepherd's excellent detailed analysis of the issues addressed by the judgement comes to the same conclusion. I am pleased to endorse and recommend John's evaluation.
Stung by the criticism he received for not doing any fact checking on the judge's decision, Michael Dobbs did what he should have done in the first place and checked with a climate scientist, Martin Parry (Co-Chair IPCC, Working Group II). Parry felt that the judge was right about Kilimanjaro, lake Chad and thermohaline circulation, and "technically correct" on Katrina and coral bleaching. Dobbs also had a comment from a NOAA coral reef scientist who backed Gore on coral bleaching.
While there is some disagreement amongst the scientists, if you look at the details, much of the disagreement is not about the science, but about what Gore said, and what counts as an error. This was not helped by the media misreporting the judge's findings as "AIT has nine errors", when the judge actually found that there were nine points which were either errors or departures from the mainstream. (The judge doesn't say which were which, but a little reading between the lines suggest that he thought that sea level rise and evacuation were errors and the other seven were departures from the mainstream.)
So let's look at the score on each of the nine points:
Sea-level rise: Four votes for Gore. Shepherd and Rapley say he has scientific support but at the extreme end of uncertainty, while Connolley thinks that Gore is misleading on this point. The difference of opinion here seems to be about what Gore said or implied. The judge and Connolley think that although Gore doesn't say it, he implies it will happen in the immediate future. While I would have preferred that Gore had said something like: "We don't know how long the ice sheets will take to melt, maybe it will be 100 years, maybe it it will be a 1000", I don't think that it would have made much difference to the impressions gained by viewers of the movie. In any case, all the scientists agree that this is not an scientific error.
Island evacuation: Five votes for Gore. Tobis says it's an editing error, while Connolley thinks that Gore is simply wrong. The differences here aren't about the science but about how to interpret what Gore said. Connolley takes the strictest interpretation, while the others are more generous.
Thermohaline circulation: Three votes for Gore. Shepherd and Rapley say he has scientific support but at the extreme end of uncertainty, Connolley thinks that Gore is misleading on this point, while Parry says the judge is correct. Again, the difference is not about the science, but how to judge what Gore said. The people voting for Gore say that he is correct to say that it's a possibility, while the ones saying that he is extreme/misleading think that his presentation makes it appear more likely than it is. I would have preferred that he had said that this was a possibility and not something that is likely, but I suspect that this would have made little difference to viewers. In any case, this certainly is not an scientific error.
Graph of CO2 vs temperature: Unanimous agreement that Gore is right and the judge is wrong.
Snows of Kilimanjaro: Three votes for Gore. Shepherd and Rapley say he has scientific support but at the extreme end of uncertainty, Connolley thinks that it is uncertain that the receding glacier is because of global warming, while Parry says the judge is correct. Once again the differences aren't about the science, but how strictly you judge what Gore said. They all agree that mountain glaciers are receding worldwide because of global warming, and that there is scientific evidence that Kilimanjaro is also receding because of global warming. I think that there were better examples he could have chosen, but it makes no difference to his main point. In any case, this certainly is not a scientific error.
Drying lake Chad: Four votes for Gore. Shepherd and Rapley and Parry say that the judge is correct. Again, everyone agrees that there is scientific evidence that global warming is partially responsible for the drying -- the differences seem to be about whether the evidence is strong enough fir Gore to use it as an example. In any case, this certainly is not a scientific error.
Katrina: Three votes for Gore. The other four agree with the judge. This one is also about how you interpret Gore. He never says that warming caused Katrina. Katrina is used as an example of the damage that stronger hurricanes could do and of the consequences of ignoring warnings from scientists. The scientists voting for the judge think he implies it. In any case, this certainly is not a scientific error.
Drowning polar bears: Five votes for Gore. Shepherd and Rapley agree with the judge, but they don't seem to be aware of the study that supports Gore here. In any case, this certainly is not a scientific error.
Coral bleaching: Six votes for Gore. Parry says that the judge might be technically correct. I think that this one goes for Gore.
Overall, there were only three points where a majority felt that the judge was right: thermohaline, Katrina and Kilimanjaro, and none of these were scientific errors, but rather cases where Gore should have said a little more about what was going on.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
But ... but ... I'm sure all seven voted "yes" when asked:
Is Al Gore fat?
Posted by: dhogaza | October 18, 2007 2:20 PM
If this is the same Dr. Mann who constructed the "Hockey Stick" graph that was subsequently broken by Canadian's Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, then who the hell cares what he says. His fraudulent work disqualifies his opinions.
The "warmers" have to stop the lies and obfuscation.
Posted by: Mark Gray | October 18, 2007 2:47 PM
"Mark Gray" illustrates a cardinal principle of the deniers: When you cannot construct an argument based on facts, just smear, smear, smear.
Posted by: meatbrain | October 18, 2007 3:23 PM
The "skeptics" need to "stop the lies and obfuscation." For example, "the Hockey Stick was broken by McIntyre and McKitrick."
Posted by: cce | October 18, 2007 3:23 PM
Mark Do you often walk around in public with the word moron tattooed across your forehead?(cause that is the equivalent of bring up the "broken hockey stick" on a ScienceBlog)
Posted by: elspi | October 18, 2007 3:31 PM
There's now a response in the WaPo from Gore's spokesperson that perhaps clarifies their side of things a little.
Posted by: stefan | October 18, 2007 3:40 PM
"His fraudulent work disqualifies his opinions."
I believe that applies more to a person from outside an area of expertise who paints an error by an expert as immoral behavior negating all the rest of the individual's work.
Posted by: z | October 18, 2007 4:29 PM
Now can we get back to the important business of discussing the policy implications to follow from "State of Fear"?
Posted by: z | October 18, 2007 4:32 PM
I thought the movie did a decent job of maintaining plausible deniability. The worst propagandistic excesses were cases where a literal reading of the script doesn't really show a problem - it's what you see combined with what is said that creates a predictable false impression in the mind of the viewer.
Take sea level rise. To illustrate the effect of a 20-foot sea level rise we are presented with graphics showing water rising by 20 feet in New York. Somebody has created a static model of the existing New York skyline and we get to see that how that static model looks against rising waters.
The fact that the New York skyline doesn't change at all - for instance, no new skyscapers show up - implies not much time is passing. Nobody can guess what New York will look like in a thousand years, but it's certain it won't look exactly like it does now. Nobody explicitly claims "this process will take less than thousands of years" but the visual context implies it. We think we've seen waters rise over the current skyline.
Another director might have chosen to put a timeline on that animation or changed it to more strongly indicate the passage of time. For instance, show the wobbling of the tides and the movement of the sun, slow at first and then speeding up faster and faster until you've reached the nessessary million-to-one speedup. The editorial choice to leave off that sort of indication creates a false impression in the viewer.
Posted by: Glen Raphael | October 18, 2007 6:35 PM
I am disappointed by the direction that the sane end of the blogosphere is taking on this. I read the judgement and I thought it was very sound and level-headed. In some parts it may not have been entirely in accord with the science, but I suspect that is the fault of the evidence presented by the Government. The judge is clearly a very intelligent man, a layman in climate science doing his best with the specialist evidence presented to him.
Above all, I think it is a mistake to concede to the deniers that the judge opposed AIT. That's almost the opposite if what happened. Focusing on points of disagreement with the judge plays into the hands of the deniers. Rather, our focus should be "Court says AGW is real, AIT supported by judge, to be shown in secondary schools, deniers lose case". That should be our headline here, the correct response to deniers who say "AIT rubbished by judge".
The upshot of the case is that teachers will get a printed guidance note with the DVD, rather than a link to a website, and the guidance note will have more detail on these particular points. There's basically no way this outcome can be viewed as a bad thing. So the reality-based community should be welcoming it.
The guidance notes are good, too. I've lost the link to them; can someone please repost it?
Posted by: Nick Barnes | October 18, 2007 7:13 PM
Hi all
Elspi, this site is not about science. And yes the HS is well and truely shattered. You warmers are as gulible as Jews at a concentration camp, 'off for a nice warm shower yid.'
All the shit about the pacific islanders coming to New Zealand is bull.
Regards for New Zealand Peter Bickle
Posted by: Peter Bickle | October 18, 2007 7:24 PM
Warning: Thread Hijack in Progress:
I just got a flier from the Sierra Club today, in which they state that GW is occurring much faster than anyone predicted. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I know you will, but this does seem like a crock of shit.
/hijack
Posted by: ben | October 18, 2007 8:14 PM
Well, certainly the artic ice melt this summer has raised a few eyebrows.
What exactly did the flyer say, and who was it from, the national organization or your state chapter?
On the sierra club's national site their lead for global warming is:
Which is in accord with mainstream scientific thought AFAIK.
Posted by: dhogaza | October 18, 2007 8:49 PM
You must know something that the [US] National Academy of Science does not know, then. I do hope you'll contact them with your exciting news soon!
Posted by: dhogaza | October 18, 2007 8:51 PM
I'm with Tim and Nick barnes. Scoring it as the Judge 9, Monckton and twits nil
Posted by: frankis | October 18, 2007 9:13 PM
I'm sure we can't connect a single storm to global warming. But I haven't heard a reasonable hypothesis as to why global warming would not increase cyclone intensity. Is there a physics speed limit?
Posted by: Lee A. Arnold | October 18, 2007 9:29 PM
"Nobody can guess what New York will look like in a thousand years, but it's certain it won't look exactly like it does now."
Of all the stupid complaints...
The reason to use the current skyline is that people have some idea of the scale involved.
A bunch of unknown, unfamiliar buildings of unknown size would be of little use.
It's the same as diagrams that show a dinosaur next to a human and a bus, in order to help the reader visualize the relative sizes. Dinosaurs, humans, and buses never existed at the same time, but we have a good idea how big a person or a bus is.
Posted by: Jon H | October 18, 2007 10:08 PM
But if they had shown a future skyline, they could have had people with jetpacks! And who can argue against the notion that jetpacks would have made the movie better?
Posted by: Davis | October 18, 2007 10:50 PM
The claim about evacuations from Tuvalu is not supportable. In fact, it's nonsense.
Tasmanian scientist John Hunter (in a study sponsored by Greenpeace) estimated a sea level rise at Tuvalu of 0.8 ± 1.9 mm/year relative to the land (i.e. a rise smaller than the uncertainty).
A more recent estimate from the SEAFRAME project indicates a rise of 5.7 (95% CI ± 5.0) mm/year. (Again the estimate is close to the uncertainty).
Even taken at face values, such purported sea level rises are not going to cause anyone to "evacutate".
Posted by: James | October 19, 2007 12:48 AM
Using the current skyline as a point of reference is fine if you make it clear that's what you're doing, but the movie didn't make that as clear as it could have. There was nothing in the visual to suggest "we expect this to take a thousand years" and it looked kind of real, so vast throngs of moviegoers left with the impression they'd seen something that was actually going to happen soon.
Anyway, if you think that was a stupid complaint, you haven't heard the one that irked me the most, which was: the frog.
That a frog won't jump out of slowly heated water is an urban myth. AIT reinforces this myth with cute cartoony graphics of a frog that gets "rescued". Strangely, that one didn't make the top 9 points of contention... :-)
Posted by: Glen Raphael | October 19, 2007 12:54 AM
Mr. Gore recons the debate is over and those who disagree with his ideas on global warming have been 'purchased' in order to create 'the illusion' of a debate. Nonsense - it's as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation.
Interesting comment from James (#19) "sea level rise....relative to the land". I just wonder how much subsidence occurs on some small island atolls which are often made entirely of broken coral and have had many decades of quarrying, building roads, houses, traffic etc etc. Can we assume that these are all rolled into the sea level equation - I doubt it!
Posted by: IanP | October 19, 2007 1:01 AM
Nick: Link follow a link or two deep to get to the actual material sent out. I thought it was pretty good material, and I wonder how the US equivalents compare, given the larger variability over here.
Posted by: John Mashey | October 19, 2007 1:16 AM
This piece by Davids Edwards and Cromwell from 'Media Lens' accurately explains the underlying motives behind the attempt to discredit Gore's film in the UK:
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=14066§ionID=56
Posted by: Jeff Harvey | October 19, 2007 3:30 AM
Thanks, John. The PDF of the guidance pack is here.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | October 19, 2007 6:33 AM
THERE ARE MORE THAN NINE ERRORS IN AL GORE'S OSCAR-NOBEL BOOK AKA CONVENIENT LIES
1 (p.25). "Carbon dioxide is the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases"
Water vapor (H2O) is larger by volume, and methane (CH4) is larger in forcing per ppmv.
2 (p.27) "The problem we now face is that this thin layer of atmosphere is being thickened by huge quantities of human-caused carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases".
The quantities are not "huge": the gross emissions of carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels in 2006 (7.6 GtC) were less than one per cent of total atmospheric carbon dioxide (760 GtC in the 1990s); the net emissions were less than 0.5 per cent of the total (Source: IPCC, TAR, Land Use etc, CUP, 2000:30). If half of one per cent is "huge", what would count as small?
3 (p.27). "As a result, the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere (sic) - and oceans - is (sic) getting dangerously warmer".
It seems likely that Gore Blimey meant to say "surface" rather than "atmosphere", as the atmosphere includes the troposphere (getting a bit warmer) and the stratosphere (a bit cooler). But when you win an Oscar and a Nobel, what's in a sphere, as Shakespeare might have said. A year has passed since the publication of AIT, but Gore Blimey would not be able to cite any place in the world that "is" now "dangerously warmer" than it was last year (not a single Australian state or territorial capital city has had any day this year that was the warmest ever. Source: daily weather reports in The Australian).
4 (p.28) "... water vapor is a natural (sic) greenhouse gas that increases in volume with warmer temperatures, thereby magnifying the impact of all artificial (sic) greenhouse gases".
It is not clear why Blimey considers water as "natural" and CO2 as "artificial". But it is good news for swimming pool owners worldwide that global warming means that they will now need to spend less on topping up from the mains water supply in the summer. Blimey also swims in his pool(s) blissfully unaware that if implemented Kyoto would mean less atmospheric water vapor - and so less not more rainfall. Thanks to his AIT, English schoolchildren will never learn that burning of fossil fuels results in (in the case of jet fuel) 3.15 kg CO2 per kg fuel burned and 1.26kg H2O per kg fuel, IPCC, TAR, Aviation & the Global atmosphere, CUP 1999:33). Even the Nobel IPCC admits (TAR) that the residence in the atmosphere of water vapor generated by fossil fuels is at most 10 days, meaning that it descends to earth as rain (aka precipitation). That is why global rainfall is more now, not less, than it was in 1900, as Australian and South African data show clearly.
Enough for now, I will continue my excursion through AIT, but trust me, the above four incontestable gross errors in just the first four pages of the main text are par for his course. Thus when we reach his pages on coral reefs, Blimey shows total ignorance that without CO2 in the past there would now be no coral, and that without any in the future, as he proposes, there will be none ever again. Corals are living organisms for which CO2 is their lifeblood. Not only that, Blimey is unaware that although as he admits CO2 is not merely the safeguard against the excess freezing of Mars or the big heat of Venus, without CO2 we would all be dead from lack of food. Everything we eat derives from the photosynthesis (a word that is not in his book's vocab) that derives from atmospheric CO2, and the abolition Blimey proposes condemns us all to death. Targets for emission reduction of 60% of the 2000 level by 2050 ineluctably imply mass starvation and an incipient new Little Ice Age by c.2050, as shown by the basic math in Hansen (yes he of NASA-GISS) with Sato (2004). Atmospheric CO2 of less than the 1750 level by c.2050 as advocated by the Oscar and Nobel committees guarantees widespread extermination of most of the human race.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | October 19, 2007 7:32 AM
Just a quick one, but is there any reason why you did not mention atmospheric half life in your first point Tim?
Posted by: jodyaberdein | October 19, 2007 7:53 AM
Tim,
Can you expend your considerable audit energy on actual science papers, rather than a movie?
See, the world has moved on, declared AGW real (so has Lomborg), and is debating action. So, Tim, please save the world from itself. Audit the science Tim and stop wasting your time on non-science. The decision-makers have been briefed on the science, see, and thus are deluded into action.
Save the world, Tim. Audit the science. Audit the science Tim. Auuuuudit the sciiiiiience...auuuuuuudit the sciennnnnnnnnnnce...auuuuu....
Best,
D
Posted by: Dano | October 19, 2007 8:15 AM
"this site is not about science."
That certainly applies to comments like: "CO2 forcing is decreasing is it not as every new molecule added adds less warming the the previous". Since each molecule of CO2 emitted now has 73% (to the nearest per cent)of the warming power of a CO2 molecule emitted in 1750, perhaps the person who made that comment thinks that 73% is practically the same as zero.
"And yes the HS is well and truely shattered"
Yes, trees suddenly changed their behaviour in 1428.
Posted by: Chris O'Neill | October 19, 2007 8:18 AM
Hi jodyaberdein.
Climatologists are not aware of the economists' word "fungible". While I love to think that the CO2 breathed out by my ancestors since say 1200 is still up there (according to Houghton of the IPCC, in his 2004 book), I fear I cannot place their names on each of their molecules. Probably recently released CO2 jumps the queue to get absorbed in the photosynthesis process that the IPCC largely ignores or downplays (becuse it is lower in the troposphere), but in general atmos. CO2 is deemed to be "well mixed" so who knows whether it is your gran's or mine that is currently fertilising your/my tomatoes? So your question is really irrelevant. At least half of current CO2 emissions equal annual uptake by the earth's biome and/or ocean (the jury is still out on which is the more significant).
Going beyond that, to anticipate my page by page dissection of the Gore Blimey twaddle, why is it that AGW has caused Lake Chad to shrink, but not any of Lakes Nyasa, Tanganyika, Victoria, Michigan, Superior, Geneva, or even Lakes Eyre and George here in Australia, both wetter now than for about the last 4 years? Likewise if AGW has caused the glacier on Kilimanjaro to shrink (as it has since 1900, ie before AGW), why is there now double the ice on Mont Blanc than there was just 10 years ago?
Posted by: Tim Curtin | October 19, 2007 8:33 AM
Is 25 a joke? Please tell me somebody is spoofing.
Posted by: Boris | October 19, 2007 8:34 AM
A year has passed since the publication of AIT, but Gore Blimey would not be able to cite any place in the world that "is" now "dangerously warmer" than it was last year (not a single Australian state or territorial capital city has had any day this year that was the warmest ever. Source: daily weather reports in The Australian).
Dear Tim Burton,
let me advice you to NOT speak about the topic of "CLIMATE CHANGE" as long as you have not managed to understand the major difference between CLIMATE and WEATHER.
thanks,
sod
Posted by: sod | October 19, 2007 8:40 AM
Atmospheric CO2 of less than the 1750 level by c.2050 as advocated by the Oscar and Nobel committees guarantees widespread extermination of most of the human race.
every now and then, i am convinced that a more stupid comment is impossible. this one brought me one of those moments.
dear Tim Curtin,
how exactly are all those evil Gores an climate scientists trying to filter all the CO2 out of the atmosphere? exterminating the human race as it happened before in 1750???
yours,
sod
ps: sorry for misspelling your name before.
Posted by: sod | October 19, 2007 8:58 AM
BTW: Gore responds
Posted by: Sir Oolius | October 19, 2007 10:23 AM
"Is 25 a joke? Please tell me somebody is spoofing."
While it is tempting to think that Tim C.'s contributions to this blog are a joke, if they are they're an extremely long-running joke with no punchline in sight.
Posted by: Ian Gould | October 19, 2007 10:49 AM
Just briefly replying to #25, so we can stop discussing it: 1. As we all know, radiative forcing is the important quantity, here. And the latest IPCC FAR tells us that CO2 is responsible for 1.66 W/m2, while CH4 is responsible for 0.48 W/m2. While the FAR does call water vapor "the most abundant and important greenhouse gas", it's also careful to point out that water vapor is reactive, and its effects are included in the forcings for other gases.
The 20th century contribution changed CO2 concentrations from 275 ppm to 375 ppm - is 36% huge enough for you? CO2 produced by fossil fuels accumulates, obviously.
This seems a linguistic quibble at best. Since we don't live in the stratosphere, it's fair to say that the atmosphere is warming. And most of it is, except for the stratosphere, so what's your problem?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, exactly. More linguistic quibbling? If there's a scientific point here, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe that "more rainfall = better"? Or that Kyoto would produce dangerous droughts? Anyway, your attribution of more rainfall to the H2O contributed by burning fossil fuels seems like it must be a joke. Was it?
Posted by: saurabh | October 19, 2007 11:28 AM
Double the amount of ice on Mont Blanc? Some things are arguable, but that one isn't. Thus we discover that Tim C. believes everything he reads in the right-wing blogosphere. Apparently he's beyond embarassment about that sort of thing.
Posted by: Steve Bloom | October 19, 2007 11:35 AM
What exactly are 'inverted commas'?
Posted by: AS | October 19, 2007 12:42 PM
Peter Bickle,
You comment was extremely distasteful.
Posted by: Boris | October 19, 2007 12:44 PM
Presuming nobody thinks justice Burton is dishonest, if his judgement has been so wrong as depicted it must have been the fault of the experts convened at the UK High Court. Evidently those experts were not knowledgeable enough to "show" to a climate-layman Judge what the science of climate change is at the moment.
If that is the case, instead of wasting time in blogging and interviews about it, people and especially scientists convinced that justice Burton's conclusions are wrong should contact the UK Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families offering their expertise to fight an appeal against the "9 Errors" judgement.
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | October 19, 2007 6:21 PM
39: why should we want to fight an appeal against the judgement? The upshot of the judgement was that the Government could send out AIT to schools.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | October 19, 2007 6:39 PM
Can anyone in this blog full of geniuses explain why the southern hemisphere had the most terrible cold winter in almost 90 years? (and a cooler fall and summer too).
Yes, I know. Global warming makes things hot and cold, faster and slower, longer and shorter, etc, all at the same time. Try to cool your beer in your oven.
Posted by: Edward | October 19, 2007 8:36 PM
No saurahb: the IPCC said. Absolutely burning so called fossil fuels does inject H2O in the atmosphere. Look:
... (in the case of jet fuel) 3.15 kg CO2 per kg fuel burned and 1.26kg H2O per kg fuel, IPCC, TAR, Aviation & the Global atmosphere, CUP 1999:33).
Now, relatively it doesn't mean much, as it doesn't mean much the 0.048% increase in CO2 levels in Earth atmosphere since 1760.
Posted by: Edward | October 19, 2007 9:45 PM
35: "1.The 20th century contribution changed CO2 concentrations from 275 ppm to 375 ppm - is 36% huge enough for you? CO2 produced by fossil fuels accumulates, obviously".
YET THE COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE CHANGED BY JUST 0.01%. IS THAT "HUGE"?
"2. This seems a linguistic quibble at best. Since we don't live in the stratosphere, it's fair to say that the atmosphere is warming. And most of it is, except for the stratosphere, so what's your problem?"
I PREFER SCIENTIFIC PRECISION TO LINGUISTIC SLOPPINESS. THE TOTAL RECORDED INCREASE NOW IN TEMPERATURE OF THE TROPOSPHERE SINCE SATELLITE MEASUREMENTS BEGAN JUST 28 YEAR AGO IS 0.4oC NH AND LESS THAN 0.2oC SH. WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM?
"3. ....If there's a scientific point here, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe that "more rainfall = better"? Or that Kyoto would produce dangerous droughts? Anyway, your attribution of more rainfall to the H2O contributed by burning fossil fuels seems like it must be a joke. Was it?"
NO. JUST A STATEMENT OF FACT. FOSSIL FUELS FORMED FROM COMBINING H2O AND CO2, AND THAT IS WHY THEIR MAIN EMISSIONS ARE H20 AND CO2. THEY ARE NEITHER POISONS NOR POLLUTANTS. USING SOLAR AND WIND POWER ETC WILL REDUCE BOTH H2O AND CO2. WITH NET TERRESTRIAL UPTAKE OF CO2 OF 3.6 GtC IN 2005 (AND GROWING AT 3.4% PA SINCE 1994), REDUCING EMISSIONS TO 90% OF THE 2000 LEVEL, i.e. 0.6 GtC(AS DEMANDED BY AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION AND PROD HOEG GULDBERG, UQ), WILL RAPIDLY REDUCE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 BY OVER 3 GtC P.A. NOW AND RISING FAST, TO PRODUCE AN ICE AGE LEVEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AS SOON AS 2046. LUCKILY THIS WILL NOT HAPPEN, AS THE CHINESE AND INDIANS ARE NOT AS STUPID AS THE ACF AND PROF. GULDBERG & CO.
MEANTIME I AWAIT YOUR EXPLANATION OF WHY LAKES GENEVA AND SUPERIOR ETC ARE NOT DRYING UP AS PREDICTED BY AL GORE? BTW, THE RETREATING GLACIERS ON KILI(WHICH I HAVE CLIMBED) ARE NOT, REPEAT NOT, pace BLIMEY, DUE TO NON-FREEZING TEMPERATURES, IT IS ALWAYS ALWAYS BELOW ZERO AT THE GLACIAL SUMMIT. FOR THE LIKELY EXPLANATION OF THE RETREAT TRY THE RECENT PAPER IN AMERICAN SCIENTIST.
Posted by: Tim Curtin | October 19, 2007 10:23 PM
I think people voting against Gore on Kilimanjaro are neglecting to actually consider the context. I watched the movie again before coming to any conclusions. Gore showed several retreating glaciers. The focus on Kilimanjaro as if it were presented alone is not Gore's.
I think the film can leave certain misapprehensions in the viewer. The Katrina and sea level portions may make a stronger impression than is warranted, but this is not due to any incorrect statements on Gore's part, so much as a decision to leave out describing the controversies in these matters.
On the whole, though, I would say that Gore is far more scrupulous in acknowledging uncertainties and complexities than his opponents usually are. This is always a judgment call. The important matter is to leave an impression that honestly represents to the general public the extent of the risk and the seriousness of the measures needed to address it.
This is a very difficult endeavor, and we are far better off that someone has made the attempt.
Posted by: Michael Tobis | October 19, 2007 10:30 PM
There should be a Darwin Award for "Blog comments so stupid they remove at a stroke the chance that sentient creatures will ever again see the poster's name without involuntarily thinking "fool" and starting to laugh".
How many stupidities are perpetrated by Tim Curtin in his one comment at #25 above? Here are just a few: 1. (As SOD or somebody said) thinks weather is climate 2. Thinks more water vapour in the atmosphere ipso facto means more rainfall (and goes without saying of course that rain should fall just where it's wanted). 3. Seems also to think that more water vapour in warmer air means less evaporation. (Should show working on this one). 4. Thinks that implementing Kyoto would reduce water vapour concentration (rather than slow the rate of increase). 5. Really does appear to think that it's the water created along with CO2 by burning fossil fuels, not the water evaporated by warmer temperatures, that is the issue to climate science. 5. Beyond stupid, but thinks that if we quit burning fossil fuels altogether then atmospheric levels of CO2 would drop toward zero. Truly has there been stupid of this level seen in Scienceblogs since, well, the last time Tim Curtin was here?
Enough already. Noboby should need more Darwin Blog Award credit points than this.
Posted by: dopey | October 19, 2007 11:21 PM
OK one more then: 6. Has taken to lecturing his huddled masses in All Caps.
Posted by: dopey | October 19, 2007 11:27 PM
Tim Curtin: Your parody of a AGW denier in Post #43 is hilarious but a little bit over the top! I've seen very few who are really ignorant enough to argue something like that if we don't keep pumping out the CO2 we will drop to something like that ice age CO2 levels in 40 years.
But still, your posts do provide considerable entertainment value! Keep up the satire!
Posted by: Joel Shore | October 19, 2007 11:47 PM
Tim Curtin,
you do notice that this sentence
YET THE COMPOSITION OF THE ATMOSPHERE CHANGED BY JUST 0.01%. IS THAT "HUGE"?
is contradicting this one:
WITH NET TERRESTRIAL UPTAKE OF CO2 OF 3.6 GtC IN 2005 (AND GROWING AT 3.4% PA SINCE 1994), REDUCING EMISSIONS TO 90% OF THE 2000 LEVEL, i.e. 0.6 GtC(AS DEMANDED BY AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION AND PROD HOEG GULDBERG, UQ), WILL RAPIDLY REDUCE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 BY OVER 3 GtC P.A. NOW AND RISING FAST, TO PRODUCE AN ICE AGE LEVEL OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 AS SOON AS 2046.
in one case you argue that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere was minimal. in the other you claim that even a reduction to 90% of the emission will lead to an iceage!
let me repeat again: the combined CO2 emissions by humans so far has been TOTALLY irrelevant. but if we reduce or emission by 10%, we cause an ICE AGE!
at this moment in time, i m actually more worried about some editors allowing Tim Curtin to publish in their papers, than about global warming.
Posted by: sod | October 20, 2007 2:24 AM
Joel Shore: try this arithmetic:
Terrestrial uptake in 2005 at 3.6 GtC growing at 3.4% p.a.(consistent with actual rates in 90s IPCC TAR and 2000s in AR4 and Hansen & Sato 2004) reaches 14.4 GtC by 2046, and with emissions down to 0.8 GtC by then (if there is universal adoption from 2008 of the ACF target of reduction to 10% of the 2000 level by 2050 (= 650 GtC), implying progressive annual emission reductions from 2006 level of 7.85 GtC at 5.75% p.a.), atmospheric CO2 is dropping by 13.6 ppm p.a. by 2046 and will have reached 280 ppmv, the level during the closing stages of the Little Ice Age in 1750. After all, it only requires a drop of 101 ppmv to get from today's 381 to reach 280. Other respondents here seem unaware that with world food production having increased by 60% since 1980 (FAO) there is a growing demand for CO2 for photosynthesis. Hansen & Sato recognized this and therefore called in 2004 for emission reductions only to the level of terrestrial uptake, i.e. 3.6 GtC in 2006, rather than Don Henry's 0.6 GtC. Or do all the abusive epithets hurled at me here also apply to dear old Jim Hansen?
Posted by: Tim Curtin | October 20, 2007 2:27 AM
If one really believes something wrong has been done in a court of Law, one should at least try to put it right. What kind of poor world we would live in if everybody caved in when confronted by an injustice?
But my feeling is that talk is too easy and too cheap and neither Tim Lambert nor any of the critics of justice Burton's decision really believe they can put together a case for an appeal.
"The upshot of the judgement was that the Government could send out AIT to schools"
This makes no sense as an "upshot". The Government had already decided to send AIT to schools.
The real upshot of the judgement is that pupils will be told by Teachers to think and not just take Gore's words for granted.
Hopefully they'll learn to apply a critical eye to the rest of their world too
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | October 20, 2007 3:35 AM
Apologies. my comment 50 was an answer to comment 40 by Nick Barnes but something went wrong in the formatting.
Kudos to Tim Lambert for allowing an open discussion here, unlike some "real" climate blogs elsewhere...
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | October 20, 2007 3:38 AM
50: I don't believe that something wrong was done in a court of law. Parts of the judgement may have been poorly phrased, but the order made by the judge is to purely positive effect (i.e.: the deniers lost, the right of the Government to use AIT in schools was confirmed, and the materials provided to schools were improved). I think that the majority of the reality-based community would agree with this.
Something has been done wrong, repeatedly, by the media in reporting the case. The funders of the case, who appear to include leading deniers such as Monckton, have got their money's worth in this regard, have been provided with fuel for their toxic attacks on the truth.
Some of the wording of the judgement didn't help in this. For instance, use of quotation marks to set off the word "errors", rather than (say) an equivalent phrase such as "alleged errors". More care would have made it harder for deniers to make such a noise. But one can hardly appeal against the phraseology of a judgement! And, frankly, deniers appear to be prepared to go to any lengths in their attacks, whether given additional fuel or not.
Posted by: Nick Barnes | October 20, 2007 5:12 AM
Terrestrial uptake in 2005 at 3.6 GtC growing at 3.4% p.a.(consistent with actual rates in 90s IPCC TAR and 2000s in AR4 and Hansen & Sato 2004) reaches 14.4 GtC by 2046
where exactly are those extra 10+ GtC going?
you are NOT seriously claiming, that the increase of CO2absorption will continue, when the concentration in the atmosphere is DECLINING?!?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/NewFlowFig2.gif
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carboncycle/carboncycle.jpg
Other respondents here seem unaware that with world food production having increased by 60% since 1980 (FAO) there is a growing demand for CO2 for photosynthesis.
are you trying to tell us, that e could NOT feed ourselves, if we hadn t been adding all that CO2 to the atmosphere?
the CO 2 - food production thing looks like a myth, btw...
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/CO2-fertilization.html
and again:
the burning of all those fossile fuels did NOT change the balance of CO2, but growing tomatoes will?
insane?
Hansen & Sato recognized this and therefore called in 2004 for emission reductions only to the level of terrestrial uptake, i.e. 3.6 GtC in 2006, rather than Don Henry's 0.6 GtC.
i am pretty sure that ALL emission reduction plans are trying to establish a pre-industrialisation CO2 balance.
your claim is, that people would continue to reduce CO2, while mankind was exterminating via an ice age?
Posted by: sod | October 20, 2007 5:43 AM
You cannot just walk into a court, you have to have standing which in this case looks like the plaintiff and the defendant only. At best someone could file a friend of the court brief. An amusing possibility might be for Gore to bring a separate libel suit against the plaintiffs depending on what was said, but neither thee or me could do so on his behalf.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | October 20, 2007 9:27 AM
Yeah, but, dude, we are producing precisely that amount of CO2. In real time. By breathing.
It's a cycle, dude.
Except for the fact that we are adding CO2 into the cycle by burning fossil fuels.
Posted by: David Marjanović | October 20, 2007 9:35 AM
Maurizio: The initial purpose of the court action was to stop the showing of AIT in the school system. This was rejected by the court. While I do not know the details, I suspect that at the heart of this action was some doubt of the science that the film shows. Again, the judge accepted that science as sound and strongly supported. So on the two most important points, the judge sided with AIT.
The only problem the judge had was that several examples that Mr. Gore used were apparently not supported by the IPCC. When it comes to these details, I tend to agree with you, presenting tham as an exercise in critical thinking would be good. To that end, I have sent an e-mail to the Board of Education stating that an excellent starting point for critical review of the "errors" can