http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052506C
Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer : BIO|
25 May 2006
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 globalwarming 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
virtuallyno 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? It is 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.
Your "Good Friend,"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer (aka 'Phil Jones')
Posts
1 comment:
Mr. "eX-spurt" Al Gore is a classic legend in his own mind! Ex - is an old has been & a spurt is a drip under pressure!
Mr. Tom Harris, in a letter to the Canada Free Press, has taken the time to give us a far more accurate picture of "global warming" and all the hot air it has produced in the form of "Al Baby".
alt
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karlén clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karlén concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karlén explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karlén
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
Post a Comment