Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.
3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.
4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.
Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?
What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?
The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.
So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.
And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.
P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.
More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
Related on HufPost:
A. Siegel -- Global Warming Knowledge: "Perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion."
Kevin Grandia -- On Global Warming is it Harold Ambler or the Royal Society?: "It appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Virtually all of the "scientific" criticisms this author makes have been debunked by climate scientists. For an excellent discussion of the points this author and other deniers make go to www.realcl
Realclimate? a Little tip for you. These are the so call scientists who invented the Hockey stick( MBH98) and are also Al Gores and J Hansen friends.
If they are "so call" scientists then please define your criteria for accepting someone's scientific credentials.
"And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day."
It's interesting to me that the AGW skeptics, who deny that "the science is in" on the phenomenon are unanimous in their assumption that treating carbon dioxide as a pollutant will have a cataclysmic impact on economic growth both here and in the Third World. Why isn't there an equal amount of skepticism applied here? Are economic models more reliable than climate models?
Excellent article and I commend HuffPo for putting it on the site. Man-made global warming is a myth that has been thrust upon us by Gore. I would ask for an apology from Gore also, but he will never admit he is wrong. He is making millions and millions of dollars off of people blind faith. It's funny.
It is a myth because you say so? How can you so conviently ignore the National Academy of Sciences (see below)?
"Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1). Greenhouse gases, such as
carbon dioxide, have increased significantly since the Industrial Revolution, mostly from the burning of fossil
fuels for energy, industrial processes, and transportation. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in at least
650,000 years and continue to rise."
An interesting and informative post. I am wondering if the author has been peer reviewed within this specialized area of science? And, not having any educated opinions about climate change one way or the other, I am curious how the author's claims stack up against the scientific community that does see a human caused relationship to our current climate. And, what is the current general consensus within the whole climate science community?
I might also add that records of CO2 were not kept 800 years ago. Because as the author states climate always changes if its effects are not recorded with sophisticated equipment to monitor the changes then one can't accurately speak to what the changes were or were not by lack of factual data. So all of the above assumptions are simply that assumptions based on what he and others of this mindset believe happened but can't verify it. For example, the author states that increased temperatures are preceded by increased CO2 measurements in the atmosphere - if the proper tools were not invented yet to measure those things 800 years ago then at best he is making an educated guess.
Actually, we have good records of CO2 from ice cores around the globe. They tell us that the level of CO2 has been stable for the past few thousand years--and the current level is the highest in at least 650,000 years.
But the 800 year lag is a nonsense argument, since we know that the CO2 in the atmosphere is from burning of fossil fuels. Isotope ratios show that it did not come from the ocean (though there is some mixing.) Moreover, climatologists have known about the lag for about two decades and it fits in well with the theory of AGW and the theory of ice ages. Further still, CO2 is an undisputed greenhouse gas, which will cause warming when added to the atmosphere.
In short, Mr. Ambler does not know what he is talking about.
Yes! Very good point! Climate has changed dramatically and rapidly in the past.
Curiously though these periods also coincided with mass extinctions.
Oh well ... nothing we can do ... Besides, doing something would be bad for business.
Right on the money there.
Honestly, though: Our soil is polluted, our waters are full of plastic, the very air is toxic to breath in many parts of this world -- and these would be the places with the densest populations. Hum, hum.
Denial, indeed, is not only a river in Egypt. What do these anti-envir
Anti-envir
Let's protect our environment. Let's not throw science under the bus in the process.
It was from T-Rex driving his SUV.
No we shouldn't be burning coal. We also shouldn't be jogging and riding our bicycles in traffic exhaust. We shouldn't dump poop in the ocean. Most of what we shouldn't do doesn't take a scientist or a genius to figure out.
There is one thing I have been wondering about lately. What is the process for re-activating or re-using atomic waste, till it's used up? I heard some people talking about breeder plants over a decade ago, but I was just listening-since I didn't know anything about it. If you know anything about it contact me at dgswilson.
In the last paragraph, Mr. Ambler says, "...your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make."
How can a contention about something to happen five years in the future be demonstrably false now?
Heck of a parting shot there Mr. Ambler. Actually, it is a fitting last bit because it amplifies, IMO, the rather hysterical tone of the entire piece.
Even if Gore is wrong, he still deserves credit for the sensitization of the public to the problems of pollution and our need to take up responsibility.
Even if organizations and companies are jumping on the climate-change wagon with solutions that are marketed as environmen
I don't mind If it takes unfunded fear-mongering to get people to move. People will grow up over time and learn the truths from the falsehoods.
Agreed, charlesgres, but the new generation has to have informed teachers - not fear mongers.
Um, good luck with that, and all the other counter-re
Mr. Ambler offers one interpretation of some of the evidence on global warming. That's fine. Now can we hear from one of the many world-class climatoligists who do believe that man's injection of carbon dioxide is having a significant effect? (By the way, what are Mr. Amber's scientific qualifications?)
The first tip-off that Mr. Ambler doesn't entirely understand the science of global warming is his assumption that high temperatures are what we have to worry about. The reality is that extreme changes percipitation, its locations. and storm energy levels will probably result from relatively small increases in the global sea temperature. We will suffer from those changes long before ordinary folks notice any increase in air temperatures.
Picture, for example, what would happen if any of the great grain-growing regions aroud the world in the middle latitudes became long-term drought regions. What would happen, for example, if the millions of people living near sub-tropical coasts began to experience a two or three fold increase in hurricanes every year? Both of these and other impacts would cause population displacement and political stresses (read armed conflicts).
Anyone who has lived in a coal-burning area like Kentucky and Tennessee can tell you the effects it has upon the environment. The air is smokey, dirty, caustic to breathe.Yo
If you magnify that effect to a world who uses coal and fossil fuels, you can see there is good reason to reduce carbon burn-off in the atmosphere
There is nothing political about one's need to breath clean air and have clean water.
As for the effects of global warming, ask farmers about the changes they have seen over the last 10 years or so.These aren't imagined.
Google sez he is a writer, editor and musician. Hmmm...oh well everyone is an 'spert.
In isolation the writer has explained some things but I tend to think that with the amount of humanity now in existence and all the personal and industrial waste generated, there has got to be truth to Gore's argument. But even if there is no such thing as climate change, I don't give a hoot, there is no substitute for recycling, clean air, clean water, clean power...th
There is some info on 4th generation nuclear in the blogosphere. Most recently a letter from a noted scientist (sorry forgot the name, but article was on Huffington) to Obama's Scientific Advisor. The guy argues that with research a breeder reactor can be built and be used to dispose of all the current waste now being buried underground. If they can make it happen, I can dig it! As for coal, let it stay in the ground until science has found a way to use it without the potential for a disaster like what happened recently in Tenn. Take a look at some of those photos then think alternative energy!
He was just riding the coattails of the Nostradamus and the Mayans.
December 21, 2012
Big solar, galactic and planetary events set for that time frame. Grab your lawn chairs people!
Well, I admit I was wrong. I really though Al Gore would flourish for at least another decade before being irrefutably debunked. However, it didn't take ten years; only three. Guess there's a silver lining in every "disaster".
Al Gore just wanted to matter....
Al Gore has been an advocate for the environment long before "losing" the 2000 election. Get your facts straight.
So we can all feel good now about strip mining and burning more coal?
Hell, let's give the oil companies some more tax breaks! That's what this disinformation is all about ...
This has nothing to do with that. This is about bad science and what happens when it gets mixed in with politics.
We should be reducing our fossil fuel consumption for a variety of reasons. Just that global warming isn't one of them.
More anti Gore anti progressive Democrat media coverage. Does it ever end?
Kind seems like certain people want to feel better about burning more coal, huh?
You hit the nail on the head!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
