By Robert C. Balling Jr. : Bio -
http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=242

6/24/2006

Inconvenient Truths Indeed


Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" opens around the country this week. In
the film Gore pulls together evidence from every corner of the globe to
convince us that climate change is happening fast, we are to blame, and
if we don't act immediately, our Earth will be all but ruined. However,
as you sit through the film, consider the following inconvenient truths:

(1) Near the beginning of the film, Gore pays respects to his
Harvard mentor and inspiration, Dr. Roger Revelle. Gore praises
Revelle for his discovery that atmospheric CO2 levels were rising
and could potentially contribute to higher temperatures at a global
scale. There is no mention
http://www.hoover.org/publications/books/fulltext/polscience/283.pdf
of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that
the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." /(S.F.
Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse
Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)/

(2) Gore discusses glacial and snowpack retreats atop Mt.
Kilimanjaro, implying that human induced global warming is to blame.
But Gore fails to mention that the snows of Kilimanjaro have been
retreating for more than 100 years, largely due to declining
atmospheric moisture, not global warming. Gore does not acknowledge
the two major articles on the subject published in 2004 in the
/International Journal of Climatology /and the /Journal of
Geophysical Research/ showing that modern glacier retreat on
Kilimanjaro was initiated by a reduction in precipitation at the end
of the nineteenth century and not by local or global warming.

(3) Many of Gore's conclusions are based on the "Hockey Stick" that
shows near constant global temperatures for 1,000 years with a sharp
increase in temperature from 1900 onward. The record Gore chooses in
the film completely wipes out the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000
years ago and Little Ice Age that started 500 years ago and ended
just over 100 years ago. There is evidence from throughout the world
that these climate episodes existed, but on Gore's Hockey Stick,
they become nothing more than insignificant fluctuations (Gore even
jokes at one point about the Medieval Warm period).

(4) You will certainly not be surprised to see Katrina, other
hurricanes, tornadoes, flash floods, and many types of severe
weather events linked by Gore to global warming. However, if one
took the time to read the downloadable "Summary for Policymakers
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm" in the latest
report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), one would learn that "No systematic changes in the
frequency of tornadoes, thunder days, or hail events are evident in
the limited areas analysed" and that "Changes globally in tropical
and extra-tropical storm intensity and frequency are dominated by
inter-decadal and multi-decadal variations, with no significant
trends evident over the 20th century."

(5) Gore claims that sea level rise could drown the Pacific islands,
Florida, major cities the world over, and the 9/11 Memorial in New
York City. No mention is made of the fact that sea level has been
rising at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years; the
IPCC notes http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/013.htm that
"No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during
the 20^th century has been detected."

(6) Near the end of the film, we learn of ways the United States
could reduce emissions of greenhouse gases back to the levels of
1970. OK. Assume the United States accomplishes this lofty goal,
would we see any impact on climate? The well-known answer is no.
China, India and many other countries are significantly increasing
their emission levels, and global concentrations of CO2 may double
this century no matter what we decide to do in the United States.
Even if the Kyoto Protocol could be fully implemented to honor the
opening of this movie, the globe would be spared no more than a few
hundredths of a degree of warming.

Throughout the film Gore displays his passion for the global warming
issue, and it is obvious that he has dedicated a substantial amount of
time to learning about climate change and the greenhouse effect. This
leads to an obvious question. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in
December of 1997 giving the Clinton-Gore administration more than three
years to present the Protocol to the United States Senate for
ratification. Given Gore's position in the senate and his knowledge and
passion for global warming, one must wonder why then Vice President Gore
did not seize on what appears to have been an opportunity of a lifetime?

"An Inconvenient Truth" is billed as the scariest movie you'll ever see.
It may well be, but that's in part because it is not the most accurate
depiction of the state of global warming science. The enormous
uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue are conveniently
missing in "An Inconvenient Truth."

/Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. is a professor in the climatology program at
Arizona State University, specializing in climate change and the
greenhouse effect./

wrote:
By Robert C. Balling Jr. : Bio -
http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=242

6/24/2006

Inconvenient Truths Indeed

Despite the fact that I happen to agree with Dr. Balling's observations on
the situation called "Global Warming" and his critique of Al Gore's film, I
question its being posted here. It is only marginally related to ponding.
It relates more to our quality of life in general, from a scientific,
social and political point of view. It opens the door to many other
off-topic posts.

Since I consider this to be an off-topic post, any of the moderators or
regular posters on this group is welcome to email me about this. Thank you.

--
Nick. Support severely wounded and disabled Veterans and their families!
I've known US vets who served as far back as the Spanish American War. They
are all my heroes! Thank a Veteran and Support Our Troops. You are not
forgotten. Thanks ! ! ~Semper Fi~

Interesting citation, given that Revelle died July 15, 1991.

"Balling is a declared "global warming skeptic." However, in Balling and Sen Roy
(2005) he writes: "There is substantial evidence that a non-solar control has become
dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse gases and/or some other
global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes in atmospheric water vapor, emerge
as potential explanations for the recent residual warming found in all latitudinal
bands."

It just takes a couple minutes of digging to find inconsistencies and contradictions.
The fact is, that 1000 of these people could be lined up and "SAY" they dont
"believe" in global warming and it doesnt MEAN anything. What matter is the
EVIDENCE. It is the scientists that actually do the experiments, like measuring CO2
and temperature in those 650K year old ice cores that matter.

It is also wise to separate the issues.
1. is there evidence of global warming
2. what is likely to happen if there is global warming
3. is this warming unprecedented
4. are humans to blame



On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:56:04 CST, wrote:
There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s concluding that
the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." /(S.F.
Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse
Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)/

wrote:

Interesting citation, given that Revelle died July 15, 1991.

"Balling is a declared "global warming skeptic." However, in Balling and
Sen Roy (2005) he writes: "There is substantial evidence that a non-solar
control has become dominant in recent decades. The buildup of greenhouse
gases and/or some other global-scale feedback, such as widespread changes
in atmospheric water vapor, emerge as potential explanations for the
recent residual warming found in all latitudinal bands."

...
It is also wise to separate the issues.
1. is there evidence of global warming
2. what is likely to happen if there is global warming
3. is this warming unprecedented
4. are humans to blame

Indeed. #1 is widely agreed, and #3 is incontrovertible. #4 is largely
irrelevant if #1 is true - _unless_ we can do something to reverse what
we're doing. otoh, we _can_ reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so perhaps we
should...

#2 is the really fun one. What was that other movie, where global climate
change resulted in a sudden ice age? "The day after tomorrow"? At least
one scientist really believed that's what happens if we have rapid
warming - but of course everyone thought Velikovsky was a kook, too.

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:56:04 CST, wrote:
There is no mention of Revelle's article published in the early 1990s
concluding that
the science is "too uncertain to justify drastic action." /(S.F.
Singer, C. Starr, and R. Revelle, "What to do about Greenhouse
Warming: Look Before You Leap. Cosmos 1 (1993) 28-33.)/

Good for you for doing some background. I read about that far, and
thought "so what?" a whole lot of scientists have changed their opinion
since then. That's science - sometimes you _have_ to change your paradigm.
--
derek

There have been numerous periods through the history of this planet when the
climate has warmed and cooled (I prefer warmer) The little Ice age (1450 to
1900) lasted 450 years. The medieval warm period lasted maybe 300
years....there have been around 60 glacial advances and retreats during the
last 2 million years. Isn't it obvious that the climate changes..Why is it
so terrible even if the temperature goes up a degree or two in the next
century..It has done so in the past and we are still here...How accurate are
these predictions anyway..They can not even tell us for sure what the
weather will be next week...yet they would have us believe there predictions
off doom and gloom....The seas will rise 20' and hurricanes of greater and
greater intensity...so much BS..If you believe this stuff, I have a bridge
in Brooklyn I can give you a great deal on. Back in the Seventies many of
the same people who now talk of global warming were then predicting a new
ice age. When have they ever been right?

The theory that man made Carbon Dioxide causes global warming just makes no
sense to me ....Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant at all, we breath it out,
plants breath it in and convert it to Oxygen...there would be no life on
this planet without carbon dioxide. CARBON DIOXIDE IS ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE!!!
Somewhere around 95% of all CO2 is emitted by nature.Something like 3% of
the atmosphere is greenhouse gas...95% of that is water vapor, only 3.6% of
greenhouse gas is CO2..Of this only about 5% comes from human activity..
Others would probably dispute these numbers, but the bottom line is, It just
really seems like there is a whole hell of a lot more that we do not know
about climate change than what we know...

At one time there was a consensus that the world was flat, and that the
earth was the center of the universe.....consensus is not scientific
fact...There are Thousands of scientists that do not buy into the theory of
human caused global warming. Human caused global warming is not a scientific
fact, it is a theory with a lot of holes in it..like if the increase in
human carbon production is causing this global warming, then why did average
temperatures drop about 1/2 degree between 1940 and 1975 (prompting the
predictions of a coming Ice age)
Think about it..if all human life ceased to exist, the climate would still
change from time to time. It always has and probably always will.

While most of the rest of the world think that "changing your mind" is some kinda
personality defect, scientists proudly have enshrined this as essential to scientific
methodology. Science and scientists dont start with a conclusion, and they are not
wedded in any way to any particular conclusion. The strength of science is that when
the facts change, so must the conclusion. Ingrid

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:31:33 CST, Derek Broughton wrote:
a whole lot of scientists have changed their opinion
since then. That's science - sometimes you _have_ to change your paradigm.