9 Errors in Al Gores Climate film'nuff said

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmax9 Errors in Al Gores Climate film'nuff saidindeed

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: rmax9 Errors in Al Gores Climate film'nuff saidindeedEven without SEEOHTWO, we are doing all right making a mess. Prost. Soon no more fish in the sea...

Researcher: Global Warming Began 250 Years Ago long before the industrial revolution, and its resultant greenhouse gas emissions.

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmax9 Errors in Al Gores Climate film'nuff saidYou haven't said much.

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: rmax9 Errors in Al Gores Climate film'nuff saidindeedEven without SEEOHTWO, we are doing all right making a mess. Prost. Soon no more fish in the sea...Agreed - don't get me wrong - I don't think we should rape our natural resources with no thought, it is just the global warming bandwagon irks me.

agreed rmax

Nine Errors in Gore’s Movie/Book? Well, sort of, but not really, and so what? None of this is a reason to dismiss Al Gore’s entire movie/book (An Inconvenient Truth), which on balance, IS scientifically accurate, IS a needed wake-up call that global warming is a serious threat, and IS a responsible and optimistic statement that we can mitigate this threat. Although the nine points raised by the judge are indeed the weak points scattered among the THOUSANDS of points that are scientific consensus and that are correctly reported in Gore’s movie and book, the nine points are NOT egregious errors. For example, Gore says in his movie/book that IF the Greenland and/or Antarctica ice sheets were to melt, THEN the sea level will rise dramatically (cf: pages 190 and 196). Note the hypothetical IF-THEN construction. Gore’s statement about rising sea levels, given the IF clause, is true. We can’t rule out the possibility that substantial Antarctic/Greenland glacial ice sheet melting may happen – anomalous melting has been seen, although the situation is complicated. The 2007 IPCC report does not include this possibility in its numerical estimates in this century due to the uncertainties, although it does discuss the issue over long time scales. If substantial melting does happen in spite of the uncertainties – and there are good reasons to believe that complex ice dynamics are leading to considerably more rapid ice sheet decay than the current models indicate - Gore’s depiction of the disastrous consequences will be basically correct. A summary of the published research from the 2007 IPCC full Impacts report, Chapter 19, pages 793-794 concludes that: there is medium confidence that at least partial deglaciation of the Greenland ice sheet, and possibly the WAIS [West Antarctic ice sheets], would occur over a period of time ranging from centuries to millennia for a global average temperature increase of 1-4°C (relative to 1990-2000), causing a contribution to sea-level rise of 4-6 m or more (Meehl et al., 2007 Sections 10.7.4.3 and 10.7.4.4; Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004, 2005; Hansen, 2005).The issue here really involves a discussion of time scales, which are uncertain. Under the IPCC hypotheses, with “medium confidence” large sea-level rises will occur, perhaps on the order of centuries. Maybe longer – or if we’re really lucky, never. Or maybe we will get large sea-level rises in times shorter than centuries, if the increase in temperature is above the IPCC 1-4°C figure, or if complex ice dynamics lead to faster glacier decay than predicted by the current models. Similar discussions could be held for the other eight points.RealClimate’s Review of the movieRealClimate’s review is at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=299 and it says: How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought…There are a few scientific errors that are important in the film…For the most part, I think Gore gets the science right... The small errors don't detract from Gore's main point, which is that we in the United States have the technological and institutional ability to have a significant impact on the future trajectory of climate change.Bottom Line So, was Gore in error to bring up the possible scenario of a substantial rise in sea level along with showing the various landmaps that would have to be redrawn? No. In the book (p. 194-195), Gore shows pictures of Greenland ice melting from 1992 – 2005 and then jumps to the above much more severe IF-THEN scenario. Was this a leap of logic? Yes. Should the movie/book have mentioned the probable centuries-long or greater time scale for this scenario (and did this omission bother me)? Yes. Were the movie clips of ice walls crashing into the sea put in for dramatic effect? Yes. Could the movie/book have mentioned all the details and caveats in the IPCC reports? No way. Does any of this mean that Gore’s movie/book is on the whole misleading and scientifically incorrect? Certainly not. Is it the most accurate widely-popularized account of the science, impacts, and mitigation of global warming? You bet. Go see the movie and read the book.If you want more information in depth, read the IPCC reports. The real issue is that global warming exists, humans are causing global warming, global warming has serious impacts that are going to get worse, and we can do something about global warming if we act now. Al Gore has been at the forefront for communicating this message. Bravo Al Gore!-------------

it wouldnt hurt if NY was a little warmer in winter

QuoteOriginally posted by: playeragreed rmaxPerhaps you've finally found a calling???QuoteWhat kind of person makes a good Climate Change Champion?You have to be:A permanent resident of England. Between the ages of 11-18 (on 9 November 2007). Passionate about the environment and climate change. Have a basic knowledge of the facts behind climate change (don't worry, I'm sure you can read up a bit). Charismatic, enthusiastic and interested in making a difference. Brave, outgoing and a team-player. Happy talking in front of others (don't worry, we're not looking for professional TV celebrities and you'll receive training!) And above all, have a willingness to get 'stuck in', and have a great sense of humour! C'mon palyer! If you can dream it .... [You could be the next Al Gore!!]

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWDNine Errors in Gore’s Movie/Book? Well, sort of, but not really, and so what? indeed, truth and accuracy have never been a hallmark of climate extremists such as yourself.Yours is a political/religious movementWhy would you care if the propaganda in your hero's film is factually incorrect

Let’s compare movies The contrarian propaganda machine is on full throttle. To get some perspective, it might be helpful to compare Al Gore’s movie to the contrarian movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Here are the reviews from RealClimate, the scientifically accurate website run by climate scientists:RealClimate’s review of Al Gore’s movie: How well does the film handle the science? Admirably, I thought…RealClimate’s review of the contrarian Swindle movie: … it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time.Ref:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... .php?p=299 ---------

QuoteNine Errors in Gore’s Movie/Book? Well, sort of, but not really, and so what? None of this is a reason to dismiss Al Gore’s entire movie/book (An Inconvenient Truth), which on balance, IS scientifically accurate, IS a needed wake-up call that global warming is a serious threat, and IS a responsible and optimistic statement that we can mitigate this threat. Jan,How can we now believe that he is correct on balance. Are you saying he told 9 little white lies?

QuoteOriginally posted by: JWDit just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the timeSure, warming didn't lead rather than lag CO2 in Al's correlation chart. For that to be true, Al would have to be either dumb or dishonest.

Nine “errors” in Al Gore’s movie? No, says RealClimate. RealClimate, the scientifically accurate website run by climate scientists, has just issued some commentary on the so-called “9 errors” in Al Gore’s movie. Their bottom line is that the 9 points are not "errors" at all, and the usual climate change contrarians are exploiting this confusion. Convenient UntruthsGavin Schmidt and Michael MannLast week, a UK High Court judge rejected a call to restrict the showing of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) in British schools. The judge, Justice Burton found that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate" (which accords with our original assessment). There has been a lot of comment and controversy over this decision because of the judges commentary on 9 alleged "errors" (note the quotation marks!) in the movie's description of the science. The judge referred to these as 'errors' in quotations precisely to emphasize that, while these were points that could be contested, it was not clear that they were actually errors (see Deltoid for more on that).There are a number of points to be brought out here. First of all, "An Inconvenient Truth" was a movie and people expecting the same depth from a movie as from a scientific paper are setting an impossible standard. Secondly, the judge's characterisation of the 9 points is substantially flawed. He appears to have put words in Gore's mouth that would indeed have been wrong had they been said (but they weren't). Finally, the judge was really ruling on how "Guidance Notes" for teachers should be provided to allow for more in depth discussion of these points in the classroom. This is something we wholehearted support - AIT is probably best used as a jumping off point for informed discussion, but it is not the final word. Indeed, the fourth IPCC report has come out in the meantime, and that has much more up-to-date and comprehensive discussions on all these points.A number of discussions of the 9 points have already been posted (particularly at New Scientist and Michael Tobis's wiki), and it is clear that the purported 'errors' are nothing of the sort. The (unofficial) transcript of the movie should be referred to if you have any doubts about this. It is however unsurprising that the usual climate change contrarians and critics would want to exploit this confusion for perhaps non-scientific reasons. In the spirit of pushing forward the discussion, we have a brief set of guidance notes of our own for each of the 9 issues raised. These are not complete, and if additional pointers are noted in the comments, we'll add them in here as we go along. [n.b. see RealClimate’s post for the details]* Ice-sheet driven sea level rise[n.b. The points made by RealClimate here are essentially the same as in my post of Sat Oct 13, 07 06:50 PM on this thread]* Pacific island nations needing to evacuate* Climate impacts on the ocean conveyor* CO2 and Temperature connections in the ice core record[n.b. See my next post Tue Oct 16, 07 09:16 PM]* Kilimanjaro* Drying up of Lake Chad* Hurricane Katrina and global warming* Impact of sea ice retreat on Polar bears* Impact of ocean warming on coral reefsOverall, our verdict is that the 9 points are not "errors" at all (with possibly one unwise choice of tense on the island evacuation point). But behind each of these issues lies some fascinating, and in some cases worrying, scientific findings and we can only applaud the prospect that more classroom discussions of these subjects may occur because of this court case.Ref: http://www.realclimate.org/ [n.b. URLs in this RealClimate post can be followed from their site.]Deltoid: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10 ... _thing.php -----------