Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Al Gore film

Recommended Posts

I've asked you who the 'alarmists' he refers to are, please answer.

Alright - no need to get stroppy. I should imagine the "Alarmists" would be Al Gore (who could arguably be described as such) and his ilk.

It is worth noting that there are AGW Supporters who do not like, or disagree with, Al Gore's film.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things that caught my eye.

End of part two closing written words:

"the summary [AR4] reduced it's most likely future warming to 3 degrees C and cut it's prediction of 21st century sea level rise in half to 17cm"

At best misleading, the TAR SPM said this "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100"

the AR4 SPM said this "Best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM.3. For example, the best estimate forthe low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C). Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span quoted in the TAR (1.4°C to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable (see Figure SPM.5). The Fourth Assessment Report is more advanced as it provides best estimates and an assessed likelihood range for each of the marker scenarios. The new assessment of the likely

ranges now relies on a larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism, as well as new information regarding the nature of feedbacks from the carbon cycle and constraints on climate response from observations."

Sea level. This is a common charge. There is a refutation somewhere on the net, I haven't time to find it now.

Moving on the film says " The summary also dropped, without explanation, the hockey stick graph which had been prominent in it's 2001 report."

No it did not. See chapter 6 page 467. The hockey stick is now one of several reconstruction all pointing in the same way.

Incidentally, I tend to agree with Al Gore - you could say I'm of the same ilk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some things that caught my eye.

End of part two closing written words:

"the summary [AR4] reduced it's most likely future warming to 3 degrees C and cut it's prediction of 21st century sea level rise in half to 17cm"

At best misleading, the TAR SPM said this "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100"

the AR4 SPM said this "Best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM.3. For example, the best estimate forthe low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C). Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span quoted in the TAR (1.4°C to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable (see Figure SPM.5). The Fourth Assessment Report is more advanced as it provides best estimates and an assessed likelihood range for each of the marker scenarios. The new assessment of the likely

ranges now relies on a larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism, as well as new information regarding the nature of feedbacks from the carbon cycle and constraints on climate response from observations."

Sea level. This is a common charge. There is a refutation somewhere on the net, I haven't time to find it now.

Moving on the film says " The summary also dropped, without explanation, the hockey stick graph which had been prominent in it's 2001 report."

No it did not. See chapter 6 page 467. The hockey stick is now one of several reconstruction all pointing in the same way.

Incidentally, I tend to agree with Al Gore - you could say I'm of the same ilk...

I'll get back to you in a short while - I've got to nip out for a few minutes right now. However, if you tend to agree with Al Gore then I concede that perhaps he is calling you an alarminst.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some things that caught my eye.

End of part two closing written words:

"the summary [AR4] reduced it's most likely future warming to 3 degrees C and cut it's prediction of 21st century sea level rise in half to 17cm"

At best misleading, the TAR SPM said this "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100"

the AR4 SPM said this "Best estimates and likely ranges for global average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM.3. For example, the best estimate forthe low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C). Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span quoted in the TAR (1.4°C to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable (see Figure SPM.5). The Fourth Assessment Report is more advanced as it provides best estimates and an assessed likelihood range for each of the marker scenarios. The new assessment of the likely

ranges now relies on a larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism, as well as new information regarding the nature of feedbacks from the carbon cycle and constraints on climate response from observations."

So it's fair to say that the TAR gave a range of projections between 1.4 and 5.8C, which would give a mid-range value of 3.6C. The 4AR gave a similar range from 1.8 to 4.0C, giving a mid-range value of 2.9C. Even with appropriate rounding of these figures (to 3.5 and 3.0C respectively) there is a reduction in the mid-range (so arguably "most likely") projection.

Sea level. This is a common charge. There is a refutation somewhere on the net, I haven't time to find it now.

From The Telegraph last December, "The IPCC has been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise by 2100, one of the key threats from climate change. It says improved data have reduced the upper estimate from 34 in to 17 in." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../nclimate10.xml

There is a comment in the 4AR SPM that estimates of sea level rise in the 20th century are around 17cm - perhaps there is some confusion over the claim, since the Telegraph states 17 inches, not 17 centimetres. 17" equates to about 43 cm, which is the upper limit of the B2 scenario. I shall have to check the TAR to compare these estimates.

Moving on the film says " The summary also dropped, without explanation, the hockey stick graph which had been prominent in it's 2001 report."

No it did not. See chapter 6 page 467. The hockey stick is now one of several reconstruction all pointing in the same way.

The IPCC no longer make specific reference to the MBH1999 graph - it is incorporated into the group of past climate reconstructions, but it is neither specifically identified in the text, nor printed by itself in numerous different places in the report. Although you could argue that it is "pointing in the same way" as the other reconstructions, it is one of the most distinctively extreme reconstructions. It is interesting that a graph featured so prominently in the last assessment report should be so buried in the most recent.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It is interesting that a graph featured so prominently in the last assessment report should be so buried in the most recent.

CB

The flak was effective.

I'll get back to you in a short while - I've got to nip out for a few minutes right now. However, if you tend to agree with Al Gore then I concede that perhaps he is calling you an alarminst.

CB

All I do is accept what Al Gore, Hadley, NOAA, CRU, NOAA and the IPCC say. Oh, I get it...

Btw, I appreciate the concession ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The flak was effective.

Nonetheless, it was quietly dropped as the Poster child of AGW.

All I do is accept what Al Gore, Hadley, NOAA, CRU, NOAA and the IPCC say. Oh, I get it...

You seem very hung up on this "Alarmist" nonsense.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonetheless, it was quietly dropped as the Poster child of AGW.

You seem very hung up on this "Alarmist" nonsense.

CB

Just like the film maker...he did it for a reason, to convey an impression. It puts those so named on the defensive.

I'm not an alarmist. I concede at times I'm alarmed - that's not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just like the film maker...he did it for a reason, to convey an impression. It puts those so named on the defensive.

What?

I'm not an alarmist. I concede at times I'm alarmed - that's not the same.

I said you were hung up on this "Alarmist" thing - I did not say you were an alarmist.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What?

I said you were hung up on this "Alarmist" thing - I did not say you were an alarmist.

CB

Humm, where did I say you did :)

Now, if I get time I'll try to delve a bit deeper into the film - we'll see how the day pans out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Dev,

How are you doing with your delving? :rofl:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore has won the Nobel Peace Prize along with the IPCC. The skeptics are going to happy with this heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife is a science teacher at a secondary school.

I have advised her not to show this film and to make it clear that it is possible that other factors are at play. It's up to her what she does.

Al Gore's treatment of the Vostok ice core data is simply a lie.

What she does tell me however is that the kids are scared sh*tless by the over the top predictions made by the climate change brigade.

Al Gore has got his longed for wish after his humiliating US election defeat : red carpets at film premieres and nobel peace prizes ... what a devaluation of a once great accolade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are lucky , Mr S., that your influence is so very limited then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are lucky , Mr S., that your influence is so very limited then!

She never listens to me anyway :) She'll probably do the exact opposite - she calls me Victor Meldrew :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My wife is a science teacher at a secondary school.

I have advised her not to show this film and to make it clear that it is possible that other factors are at play. It's up to her what she does.

Al Gore's treatment of the Vostok ice core data is simply a lie.

What she does tell me however is that the kids are scared sh*tless by the over the top predictions made by the climate change brigade.

Al Gore has got his longed for wish after his humiliating US election defeat : red carpets at film premieres and nobel peace prizes ... what a devaluation of a once great accolade.

Why is it people think they can go around calling people like Al Gore lairs without a word of explanation why they do? Show me why someone is a liar I'll accept it, simply call them one and I wont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it people think they can go around calling people like Al Gore lairs without a word of explanation why they do? Show me why someone is a liar I'll accept it, simply call them one and I wont.

Hi Devonian, just gently to intervene here for a second. You got yourself all wound up with something similar to this when I suggested that some AGW protagonists were similar to religious people and that AGW bore certain similarities to a cult. Now you appear to be similarly upset about Gore being a liar. But if you look carefully Mr Sleet is simply pointing out that Gore's treatment of the Vostok ice core data is lying. What is actually wrong with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Devonian, just gently to intervene here for a second. You got yourself all wound up with something similar to this when I suggested that some AGW protagonists were similar to religious people and that AGW bore certain similarities to a cult. Now you appear to be similarly upset about Gore being a liar. But if you look carefully Mr Sleet is simply pointing out that Gore's treatment of the Vostok ice core data is lying. What is actually wrong with that?

Because lying is intentional deception and we've seen not a jot of evidence Al Gore is setting out to deliberately decieve. Or can you show that he is - get into his mind. He might, I'll concede, be wrong but lie? No, that is ad hom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it people think they can go around calling people like Al Gore lairs without a word of explanation why they do? Show me why someone is a liar I'll accept it, simply call them one and I wont.

Afternoon Dev,

In the film Al Gore shows the Vostok ice core graphs, temp versus C02 level - he then mock ironically tells the audience something like " well obviously no relationship there then" to laughter from the audience, having just espoused how C02 controls climate. What he doesn't say is that the CO2 level rises well after the temperature change- to me that is misleading and effectively lying.He could have shown detail which would have shown that. He didn't.

The High Court judge shot his fox on that yesterday.

Intentional deception? - it's a matter of opinion. Gore is a politician.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gore is a politician - need I say more ? In my opinion this was intentional deception to reinforce his point.

Devonian isn't easy to argue with in that sort of mood, because one would have to prove that Gore deliberately set out to deceive. In the sense that nothing is ever provable (no, not even so-called scientific empirical fact) I accept his point. But as you say, Gore's a politician. I've never heard of a single politician who doesn't lie.

He seems a reasonable enough bloke to me. But I'm sure with hindsight that he did distort some things in that film, and it was a bit of an Al Gore fest. I suspect that someone with as big an ego as his couldn't take defeat easily and so rummaged around for another cause to bring himself significance, security and self-worth. AGW fitted the bill, but his attempts to show he was always a bit of a GW guru were a little desperate I felt.

Ho hum. I was seduced by it when I saw it.

By the way, antarctic ice levels are at a record high. Not seen any reports on this in the media yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not have yet another debate over the exact meaning of words, or what individuals mean. I really think if people want to call Al Gore a liar, that's up to them. Let's just debate the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, antarctic ice levels are at a record high. Not seen any reports on this in the media yet.

Just like the climate models predict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore and the IPCC :D Nobel Peace Prize.

Is it April 1st? Is this a joke and I'm too dim to see it?

Tell me it isn't true.

Please.

If it is true, then I absolutely give up on the World, I really do.

I am almost lost for words.

Shameful, absolutely shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, antarctic ice levels are at a record high. Not seen any reports on this in the media yet.

Now you must have read the 'current state of the arctic reply that A.F. and I provided West! Just to re-cap. there seems to be only one, University based, site purporting to say that there has been 'record ice levels' (according to their own system of measurement). The guys that they buy their info off to do their 'approximations' of ice extent make no such claim. In fact all the 'big guns' in the field (NSIDC,JPL,NASA.NOAA) have nothing to report about the Antarctic, all of their focus is on the continuing record ice decrease at the north pole (including the break up on Oct 1st of the 'ice island' that is bigger than Manhattan island and used to be part of Alaska until it 'dropped off' last year).

From all of this I guess you've heard nothing because, as of yet, there is nothing to hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...