Climate Feedback

I salute the judge.

The movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," is in fact a "Convenient Untruth" that is being used for political gain.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://www.omatumr.com

To downplay these "scientific inaccuracies" and "exaggerations" shows double standards. You could have written that the "swindle" documentary had already pointed out these errors and so has been largely vindicated by this judgment. The truth doesn't have an agenda and it's the truth we need, not spin.

James G

I absolutey agree that scientific inaccuraccies should not be downplayed, but what we're talking about here is mostly slight departures from the mainstream consensus on climate change or minor misrepresntations that don't change the overall message, rather than the sort of gross misrepresentation of climate science that takes place in the GGWS. For more details on what I'm talking about see the update on the Great Beyond as below and the link to the Deltoid blog:

Over at the Deltoid blog Tim Lambert (who pops up in the comments section here) is taking a number of journalists to task, including me. "There were nine points where Burton decided that AIT differed from the IPCC and that this should be addressed in the Guidance Notes for teachers to be sent out with the movie. Unfortunately a gaggle of useless journalists have misreported this decision as one that AIT contained nine scientific errors," he says.

When he talks of errors, Tim points out, the judge is

just referring to the things that Downes alleged were errors. Burton puts quote marks around 'error' 17 more times in his judgement….Burton is not even trying to decide whether they are errors or not. So what is Burton assessing in his judgement? Well, [the relevant law] says that where political issues are involved there should be "a balanced presentation of opposing views" so Burton states that the government should make it clear when "there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view". Burton calls these "errors or departures from the mainstream".

Burton’s point is thus that the “errors” are not necessarily incorrect, just that their distance from the mainstream requires that they should be balanced in the context of the applicable law. Happy to clear that up.

Olive
Thanks for responding. There's a mix. Some are clear errors, some are speculations that have been since disproven and some are unfounded exaggerations. Who does the gross and who does the minor misrepresentation I'd say depends on one's own biased opinion.

Swindle presented the views of several dissenting scientists who were not at all misrepresented. Both it's sun-as-driver theory and the effect-not-cause of CO2 in the past climate have recently been upheld via research by Stott and modeling from NASA GISS and it always largely agreed with Solanki's work. So it is only perhaps a misrepresentation for the last 20-30 years - quite a short timescale for climate. Of the other supposed misrepresentations in "swindle" there was a poorly transcribed graph that didn't change the conclusion and the unedited words of one scientist which were placed out of context. The dvd has been thusly corrected. All this doesn't seem gross to me and is somewhat less gross than telling us to soon expect 20 feet of sea rise or implying that CO2 unequivocally drove the past climate.

Regarding the alleged error to do with sea level rise, the Times (linked above) has:

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.
The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”
The judge is incorrect in suggesting that huge sea level rises could arise “only after, millennia.” There are suggestions in some quarters that a time scale of millennia may apply for complete collapse. For example, see http://www.sigmaxi.org/about/news/UNSEGReport.shtml
which on page 93 states: “A complete collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet, projected to take roughly 1,000 years once local warming reaches about 3°C (which is expected by late this century), would increase global mean sea level by about 7 m. The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS), which would likely take a comparable amount of time, would add another 4 to 6 m. While the IPCC’s 2001 estimates do not anticipate significant loss of ice mass from either ice sheet during the 21st century, accelerated retreat of some ice streams has recently begun in Greenland, and some parts of the WAIS also seem to be nearing destabilization (Vaughan and Spouge, 2002; Schiermeier, 2004; Dowdeswell, 2006.)”

If the judge considers the evidence carefully, it should be appreciated that “nearing destabilisation” is the important point on which the finding of error turns. Destabilisation may give partial collapse, and the judge should be well aware, for example, that climate experts were taken by surprise in 2002 by the collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf.

The judge should reconsider the potential for partial collapse of ice sheets, such as the WAIS and the Greenland ice sheets. For example, James Hansen suggests that the business-as-usual may give rise to “Huge sea level rises” of 5 metres plus http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19526141.600-huge-sea-level-rises-are-coming--unless-we-act-now.html

If the judge considers that Hansen and other experts are incorrect, the judge should point to the evidence on which the judgement has been made. The IPCC did not address the issue of nonlinear behaviour of the ice sheets, and so the judge should not rely on the IPCC in that regard.
Hansen writes in the above-linked article “I find it almost inconceivable that "business as usual" climate change will not result in a rise in sea level measured in metres within a century. Am I the only scientist who thinks so?”.
My answer to Hansen’s question is no. I have met ice scientists and ship masters who have personal experience of visiting the ice sheets over many years and their concerns and estimates are little different from James Hansen’s.
Has the judge visited the ice sheets to see for him/herself what is happening?

Or perhaps the judge is relying on historical data. If so the judge needs to make clear why that is the case because the earth system has never in its history been subjected to the massive pulse of greenhouse gas emissions that the human race has induced. Which past data are being used to project what might or might not happen over the coming decades under such unique forcing conditions? The judge should state very clearly why pheonomena such as Meltwater Pulse 1 (MWP1), and its associated rapid rise in sea level, are not relevant in terms of serving as precedent of huge sea level rises on a short timescale.

Or is the judge relying on models?

If so, where are the models of ice sheet disintegration that the judge is relying on?

Where are the models of ice sheet disintegration that contain the physics of ice streams, effects of surface melt descending through crevasses and lubricating basal flow, or realistic interactions with the ocean?

Where are the models predicting the sizes of mini-Meltwater pulses that may be expected through the next few decades as the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets begin to disintegrate?

Quite frankly, there are no decent models of the ice sheet systems in question currently available.

It is only when such models do become available that more realistic assessments of the potential impacts on other systems (eg industrial dynamics, economic circuitry, life-support systems) can be made.

It should be noted that much of the critical infrastructure on which the global economy is built is located next to the sea, which means that during the coming decades, if Hansen and so many other experts are correct, much of the globalised infrastructure and networks that are currently taken for granted may be submerged. The risk is real.

On the business-as-usual matter of potential ice sheet disintegration and huge sea level rises on timescales (eg decades) much shorter than millennia, the judge should reconsider what has been alleged to be an error.

MG
The judge ruled on the testimony of scientists who described the current state of knowledge. He is unqualified for judging anything else. If he had asked them about the Hansen hypothesis the answer would have been that it is pure speculation. In any event Hansen's major amplifier is soot, not CO2. Ok, so let's reduce soot - that's not too difficult! But how much of that water would be held back by Greenland's ring of mountains, forming large lakes and hence not reaching the sea? A model of that would be useful.

JamesG

In systems which are highly nonlinear, suggestions about what pathway the system may take are speculation, of course. The current state of nonlinear dynamical systems is quite inadequate, which is why humans do not have sensible models of ice sheet disintegration. Even the models of artic sea ice have not predicted the collapse of artic sea ice witnessed this summer.

The situation that is being faced is that the IPCC did not properly address the potential for ice sheet disintegration. They said effectively that it was too complicated to contemplate and so just ignored it.

However, there are significant nonlinear happenings taking place now, which may affect both the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets. The rate of growth of ice quakes on the GIS is alarming, growing at something like a 5th power. The scientists who gave testimony to the judge should have brought that to his/her attention and offered counsel on what that might mean in terms of expectation of ice sheet stability or otherwise. In the southern oceans, the formation of large scale oceanic mills, which have been observed this year, has the potential to destabilise the antarctic circulation. Again, this is a reflection of a highly nonlinear system. Interactions between the ice sheets and the oceans are an important element of the overall coupled systems.

Hansen is not alone is his suggestions of huge sea level rises this century if we carry on with business as usual, as I mentioned in the earlier post.

As far as the potential for huge sea level rises this century are concerned, I am not aware of any study anywhere that provides an assessment of what the community of climate scientists thinks regarding such nonlinearities.

To my knowledge there has never been published the results of a questionnaire to climate scientists asking them to state what each regards may be the potential sea level rise this century if we carry on business-as-usual. Answers to the question “What sea level rise in metres by 2100 might you expect if we carry on business as usual” may well give a distribution of answers ranging from about 1 metre up to 5 metres plus.

The scientists who gave testimony on this point to the judge could only have made assertions about something for which they have little or no evidence and which could only have been nothing more than a personal view. For them to suggest that nonlinearity of ice sheet response is effectively negligible would have been speculation on their part, and in any case runs counter to observations, such as those mentioned above.

The judge has come to a judgement which is unsound, since no evidence of deviation or otherwise from mainstream view could have been offered or estimated. Specifically, the judge has not sought out and determine what is the mainstream view, whatever that may be, with regard to continuation and potential exaccerbation of nonlinear behaviour of the ice sheets during the coming decades.

The process used by the judge constitutes a failed legal process based on unsound testimony and inadequate representation. What has been demonstrated also is a failure to carry out due diligence in the legal process of discovery.

The judgement should be struck.

"A complete collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet, projected to take roughly 1,000 years once local warming reaches about 3°C (which is expected by late this century),..."

Who expects a warming of 3 deg C by late this century? And what year is the warming of 3 deg C relative to...1890 or 1990...or 2007?

This is in response to JamesG's post dated October 12, 2007 02:58 PM.

Your second and last paragraph is at one point incoherent and in it's entirety incorrect:

Swindle presented the views of several dissenting scientists who were not at all misrepresented. Both it's sun-as-driver theory and the effect-not-cause of CO2 in the past climate have recently been upheld via research by Stott and modeling from NASA GISS and it always largely agreed with Solanki's work. So it is only perhaps a misrepresentation for the last 20-30 years - quite a short timescale for climate. Of the other supposed misrepresentations in 'swindle' there was a poorly transcribed graph that didn't change the conclusion and the unedited words of one scientist which were placed out of context. The dvd has been thusly corrected. All this doesn't seem gross to me and is somewhat less gross than telling us to soon expect 20 feet of sea rise or implying that CO2 unequivocally drove the past climate.

I assume that you mean that the Swindled view regarding CO2 is that it the effect-not-cause of rises in temperature. Your sentence as stated has the opposite effect. You are unclear as to which of the two theories (sun-as-driver and CO2-as-effect-not-cause) are supported by Stott and which is supported by NASA GISS.

Regarding Stott, I presume you are refering to his cosmic ray theory, which has been around for a very long time and predates his support of it. This cosmic ray theory has virtually no support in the scientific community as no mechanism has been proposed by which cosmic rays could seed the formation of clouds as there are already more than enough nuclei which already perform this purpose, cosmic rays have been flat for the decades that we have been measuring them, the particles are two small to perform this role and as such would require a causal mechanism, and no empirical evidence has been provided in support of this theory.

Regarding CO2-as-the-effect-not-cause of rises in temperature, such claims cannot even be regarded as mistaken since it has been the broadly based view of the scientific community that what exists is positive feedback between CO2 and temperature as higher temperatures will result in the ocean becoming saturated with CO2 (and be unable to absorb more) or supersaturated such that it will become an emitter, and yet CO2 is opaque to large parts of the infrared spectrum in which the earth radiates thermal energy into space and higher levels of CO2 renders the atmosphere more opaque to this radiation such that it can radiate enough thermal energy only by increasing its temperature. You may have noticed a somewhat similar phenomena at some point in your life when wrapping up with a blanket on a cold winter's night. Moreover, this is something that we have understood for well over a century as the result of lab experiments, with the spectra of CO2 falling out of the equations of quantum mechanics.

Regarding both claims, neither is supported by any nameless modeling or research at GISS that I am aware of GISS and I am sure would come as a big surprise to Jim Hansen who is the head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies who gave a lecture this Monday in which he argued against the use of coal given its greenhouse properties. Our models, fundamental theories of physics, and all empirical evidence to date and the paleoclimate record strongly support the view that positive feedback exists between temperature, and there are numerous points at which higher levels of CO2 have been the effect of rises in temperature (driven by primarily increased solar radiation given the orbit of the earth) and the cause of increased temperatures, with the Permian Triassic Extinction (which resulted from a siberian supervolcano raising CO2 levels to roughly 3000 ppm) being one of numerous examples of the latter.

As for your claim that sea levels cannot rise to 20 feet in this century, the jury is still out. The IPCC most recently gave the figure of roughly half a meter in which they assumed a constant rate of increase, but noted that much higher rises cannot be ruled out as they were unable to take into account in their calculations the potential for significant positive feedback in the melting of both Greenland and Antarctica. However, Jim Hansen himself has stated on numerous occasions that given the positive feedback which we are observing so far and the paleoclimate record to date, five meters (a little over sixteen feet) is more realistic.

Your post and Swindled stand as shining examples of the efforts of a well organized and highly vocal disinformation campaign where it is well documented that the campaign itself is largely financed by Exxon. For those who are interested in the science of climate change, I strongly suggest www.realclimate.org. With regard to learning about the disinformation campaign, I would recommend www.desmogblog.com, www.exxonsecrets.org, and www.sourcewatch.org - although the latter isn't specifically devoted to the disinformation campaign surrounding climate change.

Mark Bahner wrote:

"A complete collapse of the Greenland Ice Sheet, projected to take roughly 1,000 years once local warming reaches about 3°C (which is expected by late this century),..."

Who expects a warming of 3 deg C by late this century? And what year is the warming of 3 deg C relative to...1890 or 1990...or 2007?

Mark, if you look at the post you were quoting from, he provided a link in the same paragraph to the following:

"It is still possible to avoid an unmanageable degree of climate change, but the time for action is now," said Holdren, chairman of the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The global-average surface temperature has already risen about 0.8 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and is projected to rise another 2-4 degrees C by 2100 if CO2 emissions and concentrations grow according to mid-range projections. Prudence dictates limiting the average temperature increase to no more than 2-2.5 degrees C above the pre-industrial level, and our report offers clear recommendations for achieving that goal."

Sigma Xi: The Scientific Research Society: News: Scientists Present Roadmap for Reducing Climate Change Risks
http://www.sigmaxi.org/about/news/UNSEGReport.shtml
(emphasis added)

Seek and ye shall find...

Timothy Chase.
If you excuse my incoherency then I'll excuse your pomposity.
1. Wrong Stott. I meant Lowell Stott who has actually investigated the effect of co2 on the past climate and concludes that it was not very much. Regardless of how many scientists supported the theory, it was still a theory which has been increasingly untenable and is now trumped by data.
2. Look at the NASA space observatory site for the model details if you must, but consider that the sun as driver in the past is now well established and accepted by everyone. Where is the controversy? I said only the last 30 years were in dispute which is entirely correct.
3. The number of scientists predicting huge sea level rises can be counted on one hand. If you value the mainstream view so much then you should reject their speculations as indeed most responsible scientists do.
4. With Exxon, as with everything else, you are out of date. They no longer fund sceptics and even when they did the amount of money was minimal. There is much more money available for non-sceptics. Exxon in fact, along with most oil companies, spend a lot of their cash on green fuel research.
5. Lastly. Have you actually looked at the "Swindle" documentary? It may go too far in some areas but in comparison to Al Gore's film it is rather more truthful and uses actual scientists. You may not like what they say but you should still respect them: It's not easy going against the mainstream.

PS. I actually respect Al Gore believe it or not. I am in fact an ardent environmentalist involved in alternative fuels and probably a lot greener than you are. However I like the truth, not spin. Only by looking at both sides of a story can one ascertain the real truth. Try it sometime!

There's a discussion of an amusing error in the Gore film ongoing at Climate Audit:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2335

Mr. Gore is standing in front of a graph he presents as "Dr. [Lonnie] Thompson’s thermometer", using it to refute "These global-warming skeptics - a group diminishing almost as rapidly as the mountain glaciers - [who] launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1000 year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as the “hockey stick”..."

Unfortunately for Mr. Gore's credibility, his graph turns out to be a garbled version of Michael Mann et al.'s original hockey-stick! Yes, the Hockey Stick confirms itself!

Very amusing, and sadly quite representative of the extent of Mr. Gore's technical knowledge.

Peter D. Tillman
Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

If we keep overpopulating Earth; if we keep conspicuously overconsuming limited resources; and if we keep endlessly expanding big-business activities and polluting the relatively small, evidently finite, noticeably frangible planet as we keep doing now, then a good enough future for our children cannot be assured, can it?

To the Naysayers:
Mr. Gore has been trying to garner support for action to combate GHG pollution for over 30 years. He wrote a book entitled "Earth in the Balance" in 1992. You can see film footage of his efforts as a US Senator during the 1980's in the PBS documentary "Hot Politics". Mr. Gore is NOT pursuing this role to position himself to run for US President again. He has accepted a position as a consultant in California to work towards developing the new green technologies the world will need to stop and reverse the GHG saturation in the atmosphere.

In Canada we have a very prominent science "elder statesman" by the name of Dr. David Suzuki. Dr. Suzuki has been a highly respected scientist for decades. I have seen him speak personally 3 times over the last year. Dr. Suzuki and Stephen Lewis hosted the "Montreal Protocol" in Montreal Quebec in 1988. The "Montreal Protocol" predated the "Kyoto Protocol" in attempting to deal with Climate Change/Global Warming.

There are MANY other highly respected scientists who have very clearly stated their findings. Why don't you check out Britain's Sir David Attenborough, the octogenarion naturalist who clearly agreees with Mr. Gore and through the BBC has produced a 2-part documentary on the subject.

Perhaps you should EDUCATE yourself by reading Australian Dr. Tim Flannery's explanation of the history of climate & issues related to climate change in his book entitled "The Weather Makers: How We Are Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth". After you read this book, you will understand the concern over the "tipping point" - humans as a species have inhabited this planet for a very brief time relative to the total time that life has existed on Planet Earth. As a paleontologist he lays out the data indicating the earth's climate over thousands of years, including how small the aerial ocean is that must hold all the pollution. This biosphere extends only 12 kilometers above the surface and is now saturated!

Former US Senator Bobby Kennedy's son, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental lawyer and activist for the protection of earth's water, air, forests, species, and climate. He has spoken passionately about the threat of climate change and condemned the current US administration for doing nothing to stop it! Take a look at his book, "Crimes Against Nature". You'll see on pg. 219 that United Nations Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix, in January 2005, declared that global warming dwarfs both war and terror an an international securtiy risk.

If you listen to the commentary by the producers of "An Inconvenient Truth" you will learn that Laurie David was the impetus behind making the documentary. She watched the short version of his slide show & approached Mr. Gore about doing a presentation in LA and New York. Invited to those slide shows, were several producers, whom she subsequently approached about making Mr. Gore's slide-show into a documentary so that more people could hear his presentation.

Mr. Gore was the former Vice President of the United States. I don't expect a man with such stature to live in a postage stamp sized home! The Gore's have applied to have the zoning by-laws changed impacting their home which doubles as an office. Having obtained approval, they are in the process of installing various "green" energy efficient technologies in their home (i.e. solar panels etc.) As far as the air travel is concerned, Al Gore cannot achieve the public awareness and global advocacy requried by sitting home in Tenessee, so unfortunately in oder to meet with the political leaders, scientists and corporate leaders of the world, he MUST travel.

So please back off - when things become really frightening and chaotic as climate change progresses, you will be the first screaming about "How could this happen?" "Why weren't we informed about it?" "Why didn't the scientists warm us about it?" "HELP!"

For "Mother Earth"!
Liz, from Canada