Interesting Commentary on Global Warming

[wlagarde]

Here's an interesting commentary on the issue of Global Warming in reference to Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
The questions that Dr Spencer poses may deserve answers.

Questions for Al Gore By Dr. Roy Spencer

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth,"
about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done. As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me: I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie).
And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea.

Yet, you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted.... I have a number of such articles in my office!). You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer- generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice?
Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? Is it because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view? Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so.
You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy. I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming.
I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Sincerely,
Your "Good Friend,
Dr. Roy W. Spencer "

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change.
Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

[jeffnsa]

great post, i always like to see both sides of the story and then draw my own conclusions.

[Sk8r]

Dr. Spencer's credentials are certainly respectable, but I submit there are gross oversimplifications on both sides, since both are vying for the loyalty of Joe Sixpack, and Joe doesn't do technicalities on certain matters that get really complex. On the polar bear matter, what I have heard is that they have a significant increase in drowned polar bears. And Inuit villages are finding their hunting curtailed and the winter cold significantly shorter.

In very fact, we once thought as a matter of scientific theory that all big geologic events moved slowly: the long battle over the Missoula Floods [aka Spokane Floods] are a case in point, where geologists didn't want to hear the evidence of catastrophic, land-altering flood. [Say 'flood' anywhere near an early-20th-century geologist and he'd groan and expect another Noah-seeker.] But the floods were real, about 12,000 years ago, when the last Ice Age gave up, and ice dams gave way in Missoula MT and in the Hudson Valley, I think the other one was,---or maybe the St. Lawrence--- loosing an immense wash of fresh water into the oceans, and incidentally setting up life as we know it. Coral reefs date from about then, as oceans became pretty much what we know now.

Now we have identified at least one hypothetical trigger that could cause a global freeze or meltdown---and here's the kicker---cause it to happen with astonishing speed, according to some number crunchers. This trigger is disruption of the thermohaline conveyor, the turnover of warm/cold water up at the edge of the Arctic. It operates due to rising and sinking of salt water as it is warmed and then cooled, and it loops clear around the world, taking centuries to complete its journey. When disrupted, however, the effect is well nigh instant, according to theory. It stops. The current doesn't move. Warm water gets warmer where it is, and cooler water doesn't replace it. As the warm surface currents, warmer than the latitude average, no longer pass England and our West Coast, that's going to do a very rapid cooldown. Past interruptions of the Conveyor seem to be temporally related to ice ages: this is still under discussion. One concern is that the melting glaciers and ice packs ARE currently impacting the Conveyor by flooding fresh water in and changing the specific gravity in that area, and we don't know how sensitive the putative trigger is, or at what point it gets tripped. Math helps, but only experience will solve the debate, and we up here in the north get to wear parkas if our warm current stops. London saw the result of a little disturbance in the conveyor, which produced the Little Ice Age---which is why we Yanks have all these mental images of snowy winter London. We colonized here and left there still in the tail end of that period.

What many people find confusing is how global WARMING can lead both to ice in one place and heat and drought and desertification in another. This is because the planet as a whole has a 'heat budget', and what is triggered to happen in one area, eg, a cold snap in England, means that England is colder, by reason of its warm current not arriving, but it may also mean hot spell somewhere else as ITS ocean doesn't get the cool part of the current...sort of like a large building in which the thermostat has gone bonkers, and one room is baking while another is freezing cold in air conditioning, even while the average of the two temperatures is within tolerance. You talk about a few degrees of difference in the GLOBAL temp, but when it impacts locally, it's much more than a few degrees here, because something else is going on elsewhere, neither event comfortable for the locals.

SOme interesting buzzwords to look up: thermohaline conveyor; hadley cell; Missoula Floods; Columbia Basin---geologic history; Little Ice Age, Vineland settlements, etc.

[wlagarde]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html

[wlagarde]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/sc...=1&oref=slogin

[Sk8r]

Interesting and well-taken.
I'll tell you what worries me in the whole debate:
A. granted there may be a trigger the sensitivity of which we don't know...[see my post above]...that can bring on violent climate change inside a decade...
B..and granted we've been pushing the environment hard by our alterations, particularly in the area of fossil fuels...
C...I have every confidence that eventually we can figure out how to adjust to the naturally changing cycles of the planet---which is the prevalent view: that there ARE natural cycles---but I am worried that, if the trigger, once pulled, gives us that short a time, virtually instant in geologic terms, we may not be able to adjust quickly enough.

IE, I'd never dispute natural cycles; but I sure don't want to hurry one into action. We've got a lot more study to do before we really get a handle on how this works. Could we kick-start the Conveyor by using solar heat? Could we get enough solar heat under those circumstances? Should we try, or just let the planet correct itself? These are all big questions, with a lot of impact, this being the only planet we've currently got.
Try this question: IF we get the clear evidence of a Conveyor shutdown that we may have hastened, should we act to try to remediate?
There's the chance it's just a tic in the graph. There's a chance it isn't. Humankind has records of prehistoric conditions and weather built up in the ice sheets, when we read the ice cores---but even they only go back to the last glaciation, and we are losing that record as the ice melts at the north pole and big chunks of Antarctica break off---
It's certainly one of the most interesting events going, with a lot of scientific questions that shouldn't get shoved aside in the rush to political position.

[Genral72]

I honestly believe that at this current moment "Global Warming" is a "political" problem. It could become a problem in the future and should be prevented, however there are more important, immediate problems such as deforestation. Why does global waming get all the hype? Simply because hurricane sounds better than deforestation.

What I honestly don't understand is why don't we use Nuclear power? It clean its cost effective and safe. Sure there were some explosions but planes crash as well yet they are incredibly safer than automobiles. Also we should be conserving energy in any way we can. However as we have seen Al Gore doesn't set an example. Buying carbon offsets(actually he didn't buy them they were essentially an employee benefit) is great but go beyond that Gore.

Genral72

[RichardS]

Originally posted by Genral72
What I honestly don't understand is why don't we use Nuclear power? It clean its cost effective and safe. Sure there were some explosions but planes crash as well yet they are incredibly safer than automobiles.

Genral72

Yep, the doom and gloom global warming advocates won't even discuss nuclear energy. This is very odd since it has proven to be safer than fossils fuels (compare all nuclear incidents to all the damage from oil/coal). If GW is truely such an immediate danger caused by man, then why is a current technology that can have a huge reduction in our use of fossil fuels left off the table?

[scottras]

First up I should say that I am completely against nuclear energy with my current knowledge of it. But just a few question to fill the gaps I have:

Why is it so clean? I understand there are no greenhouse gases (apart from water vapour), but there is still highly dangerous waste.

What is being done about the nuclear waste?

That being said, it is very expensive thing to do and maybe that holds a lot of people back. Also there is the question of enrichment leading to nuc weapons.

Personally I feel there are many alternatives to fossil fuels, but not one best method. Maybe nuclear power is one of them, but it certainly is not the best solution.

Just my thoughts.

[Ninong]

Dr. Roy Spencer's views on global warming are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists just as his views on evolution are not shared by the vast majority of biologists. According to Dr. Spencer, "classical evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith." Dr. Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design."

[Ninong]

Interesting reading: The 18-page summary of the 2007 IPCC report on climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer's views on climate change are in the minority. His views are not shared by the American Association of Meterologists or the World Meterological Association. Dr. Spencer does not dispute the fact of global warming but rather he argues that the causes are unknown. The report I linked above summarizes some of the causes that are attributed to human activities. Dr. Spencer's argument is that it is impossible to separate the effects of human activity from natural causes. His position is not shared by the vast majority of climatologists but it does make him a frequent guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

Dr. Spencer has written articles on a wide variety of scientific topics and his views are consistently at odds with the majority of scientists. Besides climatology, his views on cosmology are at odds with the majority of cosmologists. As a proponent of "intelligent design," Dr. Spencer rejects the big-bang theory.

In spite of the dozens of transitional fossils that have been discovered, Dr. Spencer makes the claim that "the fossil record is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional fossils." Like most creation-I.D. proponents, Dr. Spencer rejects the scientific evidence for macroevolution. He argues that there is no evidence for macroevolution and that evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith; which is why he argues that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools. His argument is absurd on it face. He is arguing that both evolution and "intelligent design" are faith-based and therefore both should be taught in schools. If that were true, then neither should be taught, at least not as science.

I wonder if Dr. Spencer's "beliefs" somehow influence his scientific conclusions?

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by Ninong
Dr. Roy Spencer's views on global warming are not shared by the vast majority of climate scientists just as his views on evolution are not shared by the vast majority of biologists. According to Dr. Spencer, "classical evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith." Dr. Spencer is a proponent of "intelligent design."

This is an editorial comment and does not address his points.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by wlagarde
This is an editorial comment and does not address his points.

I believe I addressed his points by linking to the 2007 IPCC report summary. You should read it. It's quite interesting.

Not being a climatologist myself, I don't feel qualified to dispute each of his points individually but it is quite easy to find the arguments put forth by actual climate scientists that do exactly that.

For starters, the information on the mass of the world's glaciers today compared to their mass 20 or 50 years ago is readily available online. Dr. Spencer's review of An Inconvenient Truth seems to dismiss this argument with some flippant comment about snow falling and glaciers flowing.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by Ninong
Interesting reading: The 18-page summary of the 2007 IPCC report on climate change.

Dr. Roy Spencer's views on climate change are in the minority. His views are not shared by the American Association of Meterologists or the World Meterological Association. Dr. Spencer does not dispute the fact of global warming but rather he argues that the causes are unknown. The report I linked above summarizes some of the causes that are attributed to human activities. Dr. Spencer's argument is that it is impossible to separate the effects of human activity from natural causes. His position is not shared by the vast majority of climatologists but it does make him a frequent guest on Rush Limbaugh's radio program.

Dr. Spencer has written articles on a wide variety of scientific topics and his views are consistently at odds with the majority of scientists. Besides climatology, his views on cosmology are at odds with the majority of cosmologists. As a proponent of "intelligent design," Dr. Spencer rejects the big-bang theory.

In spite of the dozens of transitional fossils that have been discovered, Dr. Spencer makes the claim that "the fossil record is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional fossils." Like most creation-I.D. proponents, Dr. Spencer rejects the scientific evidence for macroevolution. He argues that there is no evidence for macroevolution and that evolutionism is based almost entirely on faith; which is why he argues that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools. His argument is absurd on it face. He is arguing that both evolution and "intelligent design" are faith-based and therefore both should be taught in schools. If that were true, then neither should be taught, at least not as science.

I wonder if Dr. Spencer's "beliefs" somehow influence his scientific conclusions?

The link is broken - Please provide a working link.

While I beleive evolution to be true based on the scientific evidence available, the fossil record is not relevent to this discussion.

"The report I linked above summarizes some of the causes that are attributed to human activities"...I beleive this statement should be revised to say "The report I linked above summarizes some of the correlates that are attributed to human activities

...again these are editorial comments and do not address the points or answer the questions Dr. Spencer raises.

and finally, you try to make it appear that you are not biased by "your own beleifs" when infact you are. correlates

[Ninong]

The link is a working link. It just happens to not be working at the moment. You can find it on the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change website: www.ipcc.ch That link is not working right now either but it was working a few minutes ago. Maybe Switzerland is under attack? (P.S. -- The link is now working. )

Let me point out that you opened this thread with a review of Al Gore's documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, by a noted critic of Global Warming who is a frequent guest on right-wing political talk shows.

When the link to IPCC comes back up, please check out what they have to say. You may find it impressive.

I'm not about to get into a "discussion" of whether global warming is caused by human activities because in my mind there is no doubt that it is and any such "discussion" is likely to become political in nature.

I needn't remind you that discussion of politics is not allowed in this forum so it may not be possible to continue a "review" and "criticique" of that review of a film by a former Vice President of the United States known for his advocacy of environmental issues without it turning political.

I'm sorry, but this is as far as I'm going in this discussion. I think I have made my point that Dr. Spencer's views are not in the mainstream and do not represent the scientific consensus on global warming or other issues upon which he has seen fit to publish.

[RichardS]

Ninong, clean and safe are relative terms. Obviously nuclear energy has to be very carefully regulated because there are dangers if not done right. If you compare all the damage (environmental & health) caused by fossil fuels to nuclear energy then you have to say that nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than fossils fuels. Now if you attribute GW to our use of fossil fuels and say that GW will be a true disaster for the planet then you have to say nuclear is a much much safer alternative than fossil fuels.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by RichardS
Ninong, clean and safe are relative terms. Obviously nuclear energy has to be very carefully regulated because there are dangers if not done right. If you compare all the damage (environmental & health) caused by fossil fuels to nuclear energy then you have to say that nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than fossils fuels. Now if you attribute GW to our use of fossil fuels and say that GW will be a true disaster for the planet then you have to say nuclear is a much much safer alternative than fossil fuels.

Richard,

I don't believe I discussed nuclear energy at all in any of my posts above. I was merely trying to make the point that the author of the review of Al Gore's documentary film, An Inconvenient Truth, is known to have views that are outside the mainstream of the scientific community on a variety of topics.

I don't intend to get into a discussion of global warming at all because I believe the internet is full of resources that are available to anyone interested in researching the topic. I just want to point out that when someone opens a thread with "Questions for Al Gore by Dr. Roy Spencer," it behoves us to consider Dr. Spencer's background.

Dr. Spencer co-authored a 2003 global warming study with John Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Their report, which concluded that the troposphere had not warmed in recent decades, was ultimately found to have significant errors. When their miscalculations were taken into account, the data used in their study actually showed warming in the troposphere.

Dr. Spencer has ties to the George C. Marshall Institute, which Congressional Quarterly has described as "a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming as a threat." Beyond his criticism of global warming theory, Dr. Spencer has also taken up another cause that places him well outside the scientific mainstream -- his view that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism."

There are several critical reviews of An Inconvenient Truth that have been published lately and a check of the authors will reveal an interesting association. To say that they are not in the mainstream is an understatement.

P.S. -- The Exxon-funded American Enterprise Institute will pay scientists to write articles critical of the findings of the IPCC. They will also pay all travel expenses and accomodations, plus a handsome speaker's fee, to anyone willing to give a talk critical of global warming.

[scottras]

Originally posted by RichardS
Ninong, clean and safe are relative terms. Obviously nuclear energy has to be very carefully regulated because there are dangers if not done right. If you compare all the damage (environmental & health) caused by fossil fuels to nuclear energy then you have to say that nuclear energy is cleaner & safer than fossils fuels. Now if you attribute GW to our use of fossil fuels and say that GW will be a true disaster for the planet then you have to say nuclear is a much much safer alternative than fossil fuels.

Obviously Fossil Fuel power has caused much more environmental problems than Nuclear, of that there is litle doubt. But do we need to switch to a power source that we will have problems with in the future? I do not belive that nuclear is one of the best options, there are alternatives that are cheaper, safer and cleaner.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by scottras
Obviously Fossil Fuel power has caused much more environmental problems than Nuclear, of that there is litle doubt. But do we need to switch to a power source that we will have problems with in the future? I do not belive that nuclear is one of the best options, there are alternatives that are cheaper, safer and cleaner.

...and what would those alternatives be?

[Ninong]

Originally posted by wlagarde
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/sc...=1&oref=slogin

In that article it mentions the recently released international study that predicts that sea level will rise by seven to 23 inches by the end of this century. The article fails to make clear that that estimate is based on the volumetric increase in the ocean's waters due to rising temperature alone. It does NOT factor in melting glaciers and polar ice caps, nor does it factor in accelerated temperature increases due to the reduction in reflected sunlight from diminishing ice and snow cover.

In fact, estimates that include all of the possible factors affecting the rise in sea level predict a minimum rise of 3 to 5 feet by the year 2100 with the possibility of a much larger increase.

It is obvious that the N.Y. Times science editor either didn't read the report or didn't understand it. More likely he relied on the criticism of the "experts" he cited. Experts such as Richard Lindzen of MIT who recently appeared on Glenn Beck's TV show and agreed with Beck's false claim that in the last century "temperatures here in America" are "pretty much flat," responding: "Well, yes, as far as we can tell."

Another "expert" cited in the NY Times article is Bjorn Lomborg, the author of a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. In January 2002, Scientific American ran a series of articles from four well-known environmental specialists that lambasted Lomborg's book for "egregious distortions," "elementary blunders of quantitative manipulation and presentation that no self-respecting statistician ought to commit," and sections that were "poorly researched and...rife with careless mistakes."

The Union of Concerned Scientists reported that Lomborg's findings and methodology "fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis."

Roy Spencer is another expert cited by the Times article. I have discussed him previously in this thread.

Benny J. Peiser, "a social anthropologist in Britain," is cited as "having challenged the claim of scientific consensus" but Peiser is on record in an October 2002 letter acknowledging that he does not "doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

I imagine it's rather difficult to write an article attempting to report the "other side" of the global warming issue without resorting to dubious sources. That's because there are so few credible scientists left who question global warming or the obvious conclusion that human activities represent a major contributing force behind this change.

[wlagarde]

Originally posted by Ninong
...I'm sorry, but this is as far as I'm going in this discussion...

Since your going to continue on, please address the 8 points raised in the initial post please. The link is now working now and it does not address these.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by wlagarde
Since your going to continue on, please address the 8 points raised in the initial post please. The link is now working now and it does not address these.

You posted a review of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth. I haven't seen it.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by wlagarde
Questions for Al Gore By Dr. Roy Spencer

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth,"
about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done. As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me: I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming?Nobody thinks that these phenomena are only because of GW, even after watching the movie. You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie).
And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea.I don't think Gore would argue with this.

Yet, you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
The first argument isn't really an argument, as he makes the claim that Gore was trying to dupe people into believing GW created hurricanes, tornadoes, etc, which won't be believed by anyone. However, the severity of hurricanes has increased the last 40 years, but not necessarily the number of hurricanes. Whether or not it's a purely natural increase in severity, I don't know.
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted.... I have a number of such articles in my office!)I believe Gore made the claim that there weren't any articles that REFUTED anthropogenic GW, there's a big difference. There are plenty of articles that attribute some warming to natural causes, as there should be, but nobody has evidence that humans aren't impacting the climate.. You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?
He doesn't sound like much of a scientist to me, not with an argument like this.
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
I'll steer clear of this one.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. CO2 isn't seen as a GW trigger, it's seen as part of a feedback loop, hence the lag in CO2 and temp increases. This view actually fits in quite well with other natural causes of GW (which there are, no doubt), such as solar variation.It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of yearsWhy not?. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Again, why not? This one really confuses me. Why would the impact of CO2 change just because humans are putting it into the atmosphere? Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
He's making a lot of assumptions here that I simply don't understand.
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?
I see his point on this one, but at the same time, health care doesn't equal pollution. The only part I remember about this was when Gore showed that car emission standards in China are higher than here. Asia in general, really. That's why they're beating the pants off of Ford and other US car makers. The future of industry is green, and the US better realize this before we get left in the dust in other sectors.
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer- generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice?
Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? We knew there were giant squid in the ocean because they would wash up on shorelines too , but the first video of them alive was just recently captured. Did he doubt the existence of giant squid before the video was shot? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
The 30's were almost as warm, but short term variations in one part of the world don't mean much either way.
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.
Maybe if we all did it TOGETHER, like we were supposed to, the other countries wouldn't be as pressured to cheat in order to stay competitive with the US. But, again, look at the damage that was done to Japan's auto industry. Oh, wait, it was actually good for them. Not to mention all of the other benefits that come with reduced emissions.
8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source.Nuclear power already is an energy source. New nuclear tech is pretty safe, but can you imagine all of the waste generated by all the plants needed to replace fossil fuels? That's not even feasible. We should invest more in fusion, not fission. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? I don't think Gore would object to technological advancement, but why is he trying to link nuclear power and tech advancement together? It's not the same thing. Is it because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view? Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so.Why would he agree to reduce CO2 if it wasn't a problem?
You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy. I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming.
I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.Why would he call it a "moral issue" if he didn't believe humans were responsible? Something is awry.

Sincerely,
Your "Good Friend,
Dr. Roy W. Spencer "

Everything in pretty colors is mine. Overall, the article is a weak "argument". Spencer's credentials are good, but his professional connections, which have been brought up, are suspect. Also, with risk of resorting to ad hominem, his rejection of evolution further illustrates his apparent tendency to reject science, and partially explains his stance on GW.

[scottras]

Originally posted by wlagarde
...and what would those alternatives be?

Sorry I thought everyone new what alternative energy source are.
Hydro, wind, solar, geo-thermal, wave, tidal and the best, fusion. There are plenty more that are out there as well. Some of these are very old technologies and some are fairly new. They all have pros and cons. They all need more research spent on them.

[RichardS]

Ninong - sorry my previous comment was in response to scottras.

In that article it mentions the recently released international study that predicts that sea level will rise by seven to 23 inches by the end of this century. The article fails to make clear that that estimate is based on the volumetric increase in the ocean's waters due to rising temperature alone. It does NOT factor in melting glaciers and polar ice caps, nor does it factor in accelerated temperature increases due to the reduction in reflected sunlight from diminishing ice and snow cover.

In fact, estimates that include all of the possible factors affecting the rise in sea level predict a minimum rise of 3 to 5 feet by the year 2100 with the possibility of a much larger increase.

This is the type of prediction that I would think would have GW proponents screaming to switch towards nuclear energy asap. Only 93 years before all this happens? Now that isn't a very long time. Certainly not long enough to develop technology that doesn't exist (like fusion) and switch the world over to it. I'm sorry, I just don't see Los Angeles or New York being powered by windmills and solar panels. If you make cars 50% more efficient but the population increases 50% over the next 50 years well you really haven't reduced anything.

I'm not debating global warming. Honestly I'm not sure what to believe about it. The thing that doesn't make sense is to say that we have 93 years until the earth goes down the drain so let's not use an alternative energy source we already have instead let's take our time and see if we can invent something else.

If a guy is hanging off a cliff by his fingertips you don't say "Hey man, I could throw this rope I have around you and pull you up but you might get a rope burn so just hang on while I go invent some anti-gravity boots for you".

It doesn't make sense to me and makes me wonder if there isn't an agenda behind the GW camp other than the "science". So for now I'll just hope that the ability of science to predict the climate a hundred years from now is no more accurate than the ability of science to predict a really active hurricane season like last year or tto even tell me what the weather is going to be like in 2 weeks.