Oh, my, where do we start?
Here's a link to a wonderful rebuttal of the myths Al Gore put out in his Science Fiction movie.
Errors Covertly Corrected by the IPCC After Publication and Uncorrected Errors by Al Gore - PDF
Highlight include:
- Gore, aiming to undermine the significance of previous warm periods such as that of the Middle Ages, promoted the 1,000-year “hockey stick” temperature chart(McIntyre & McKitrick, 2005).
- Gore showed heart-rending pictures of the New Orleans floods and insisted on a ink between increased hurricane frequency and global warming that has no basis n scientific fact (IPCC, 2001, 2007).
- Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while gnoring that Arctic temperatures in the 1930s and 1940s were as warm or armer (Briffa et al., 2004).
- Gore did not explain that Arctic temperature changes are more closely correlated ith changes in solar activity than with changes in atmospheric CO2 oncentrations (Soon, 2005).
- Gore did not explain that the Sun has been hotter, for longer, in the past 50 ears than in any similar period in at least the past 11,400 years (Solanki et al., 2005).
- Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only rue of a small region and the vast bulk of the continent has been cooling and aining ice (Doran et al., 2004).
- Gore mentioned the breakup of the Larsen B ice shelf, but did not mention that he maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.Pudsey & Evans, 2001, 2006; Vaughan et al., 2001).
- Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing. In act its thickness has been growing by 2 inches per year for a decade Johannesen et al., 2005).
- Gore falsely claimed that global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro’s icecap, ctually caused by atmospheric dessication from local deforestation, and pre-0th-century climate shifts (Cullen et al., 2006).
- Gore said global sea levels would swamp Manhattan, Bangladesh, Shanghai and ther coastal cities, and would rise 20ft by 2100, but the UN estimate is just 8in o 1ft 5in. (IPCC, 2007; Morner, 1995, 2004).
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
The best thing that can happen to the world is unbiased reporting and research based on the environment. Those who claimed "victory" that the debate on global warming was over haven't even begun to hear the end of it.....
Solanki? Here's the press release about it from the Max Planck Institute:
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/
Note this quote:
"The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth's temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time."
Not quite what Monckton said. Apparently not just one side is given to misstatement here.
An abstract of Solanki's paper:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/solanki2004/solanki2004.html
That same point again:
"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."
Apparently the statement about the UN halving its sea level projected rise is correct.
http://www.valleyair.org/Recent_news/News_Clippings/2007/In%20the%20News%2002-12-07.pdf
Monckton makes a good point that pollutant particles in the air will reflect sunlight back into space before the light can cause its full warming potential.
Morner appears to have been skeptical of sea level rise for quite a while. Maybe for good reason. I haven't noticed it. Have you?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=Morner+sea+level+rise&btnG=Search
http://pcstupidity.com/WordPress/?p=35
Quote:
"Morner says: "The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order of 1.0-1.1 mm/year," but that "after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al., 1989; Morner, 1973, 2000)." This stasis, in his words, "lasted, at least, up to the mid- 60s." Thereafter, "the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency." Most important of all, in his words, "There is a total absence of any recent 'acceleration in sea level rise' as often claimed by IPCC and related groups."
He concludes: "When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes involved and the last century's data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is +10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm." See also Morner (1995); INQUA (2000)."
The statement about CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa is correct.
http://www.ph.unito.it/~ferrares/2003_localization_of_source_and_sink_regions.pdf
One thing that does puzzle me is why ANYONE would use the area of an active volcano to measure general atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Active volcanos are KNOWN CO2 emitters.
These authors calculate the same percentage increase but over a much longer period- -1958 to 2004. They also give a reason for the Mauna Losa choice I still find hard to believe.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
More later.
Actually, it is possible to determine what the climate was during periods prior to the 1600s, by looking at historical accounts and geological (and other scientific) evidence. Interestingly, such evidence suggests that a period known as the "Medieval Warm Period," was at least as warm, if not warmer, than the current period, and that it was a global (not local) warming event lasting several centuries. There were of course no fossil fuel emissions during that period.
See, for example, the following link, which has a detailed refutation of the global warming proponents' "hockey stick," and which discusses the evidence of global warming during the Medieval Warm Period:
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Another month or two and real scientists won't be able to distance themselves from Gore aka 'the fraud' fast enough