tirsdag 23. januar 2018


”As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1."

“Well isn’t this convenient. If Gore doesn’t invest in green energy companies, you call him a hypocrite who isn’t willing to put his money were his mouth is. If he does, you accuse him of having a conflict of interest. Either way, you get to avoid actually considering what he’s saying.”

I don’t give a crap what politicians and the media think or say. Both of them are repeatedly wrong about the science (on both “sides” of the topic). So I don’t care what Al Gore said or thinks, I don’t care what erroneous claims CNN has made, etc. I care about the science, and the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows that climate change is happening and it is our fault. Can people spin that for personal gain? Sure, but that doesn’t make the science any less true.

Using politicians and the media to attack science is a guilt by association fallacy, because what they think, say, and do is completely, 100% irrelevant to whether or not the science is correct. I care about what peer-reviewed studies have found, not what politicians and news anchors say.

La meg bare stoppe deg hardt og brutalt. For å være helt ærlig, så driter jeg i hva politikere og media tenker eller sier om klima. Disse har ofte feil om vitenskapen (på begge sider av emnet). Så jeg bryr meg ikke om hva Al Gore sier eller mener, jeg bryr meg ikke om hvilke feilaktige påstander CNN har kommet med, eller VG, eller en annen avis. Jeg går direkte til vitenskapen, og den er veldig tydelig på at klimaendringer skjer, og det er vår feil. Kan enkelte folk spinne dette for personlig gevinst? Javisst, men det gjør ikke vitenskapen noe mindre sant. At noen tjener penger på å selge globuser betyr ikke at Jorden er flat.

Bruk av politikere og media til å angripe vitenskap er en - guilt by association - fordi det de tror sier og gjør er 100% irrelevant for om vitenskapen er riktig eller ikke.

Jeg bryr meg om hva fagfellevurderte studier har funnet ut, ikke hva politikere, journalister og nyhetsankere sier.


Gore's Law states, as coined by Terence of blog "Long Ago And Not True Anyway" in March 2008:
”As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches 1."
Immediately after making the post, commenters proceeded to nitpick at Gore — thus proving his point. Why Gore's Law is relevant
The problem with attacking Al Gore is that he has absolutely fuck all to do with the science of climate change, no matter his carbon footprint, PMRC involvement, Manbearpig, etc. You really can't find a better instance of poisoning the well. He could live in a mud hut and walk everywhere and they'd call him a hypocrite because the aglets on his shoelaces were made of plastic, a petroleum product.  
Michael Jordan Fallacy
This one can be used to impugn the motives of anyone in the world, in an effort to prove they are driven by greed and don't care about anyone else's problems:
Bombo: "Just think if Michael Jordan had used all his talents and wealth to feed third world children, rather than to play a sport."
Of course, you can say this about anyone, famous or not:
Bombo: "If your doctor really cared about people's health, he'd sell everything he owned and become a charitable frontier doctor in Africa."
Common examples and the reasons they are fallacious include: 
Al Gore is a Democrat.
Even if this was a problem, association fallacy. It's the equivalent of a leftie rejecting calls for alternative energy because T. Boone Pickens wants it too. 
Al Gore stands to profit from climate change mitigation. Conflict of interest! This old saw. If money drove the science, then the Koch brothers would make it rain all over the science world, and this debate would have ended a long time ago. Also, if you see Al Gore making money as a bad thing, this is an appeal to motive and an argument from adverse consequences.  
There are X number of errors made in Al Gore's film.
Fallacy fallacy. Just because a sub-set of his arguments could be proven wrong doesn't mean that anthropogenic global warming isn't happening. Gore is a politician with zero academic expertise in climatology; all he did was put the scientific consensus into Hollywood format.

Al Gore had nothing to do with it:
It all started with Nixon:
Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol (to ban ozone-depleting pollutants), George H W Bush introduced cap-and-trade (to deal with the acid rain problem).
And what about George W Bush?
Well Dubbya of course ran against the single politician--Al Gore--who is most closely associated with the cause of climate action in modern U.S. history.
So I suppose it isn't too surprising that we heard lines like this spoken on the campaign trail:
“As we promote electricity and renewable energy, we will work to make our air cleaner. With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time. And we will provide market-based incentives, such as emissions trading, to help industry achieve the required reductions.”
What might be surprising for you to learn, however, is that it wasn't Al Gore--but George W Bush--who made that statement in the run-up to the election. It was Bush who had committed to combat climate change through the regulation of carbon emissions.
PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON’S 1965 “Restoring the Quality of our Environment report”.
Fifty years ago: The White House knew all about climate change
On November 5, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s White House released “Restoring the Quality of our Environment”, a report that described the impacts of climate change, and foretold dramatic Antarctic ice sheet loss, sea level rise, and ocean acidification.
That 1965 White House report stated:
Carbon dioxide is being added to the earth’s atmosphere by the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas at the rate of 6 billion tons a year. By the year 2000 there will be about 25 percent more CO2 in our atmosphere than present. This will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.”
On the 50th anniversary of the White House report, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are indeed at 399 ppm: 25 percent over 1965 levels, exactly as predicted 50 years ago.
Trump's 2018 National Climate Assessment. ️
Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”
For the warming over the last century,
there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

For tusende gang. Det startet ikke med Al Gore.

Det var ikke Al Gore som started Environmental Protection Agency i 1970. Det var Nixon. Det var ikke Al Gore som signerte Montreal-protokollen om redusering av ozonlag-skadende gasser på 80-tallet. Det var Reagan. Det var ikke Al Gore som introduserte cap and trade avtalen om sur-nedbør problemet.Det var George Bush senior.


“As we promote electricity and renewable energy, we will work to make our air cleaner. With the help of Congress, environmental groups and industry, we will require all power plants to meet clean air standards in order to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide within a reasonable period of time. And we will provide market-based incentives, such as emissions trading, to help industry achieve the required reductions.”
Kom ikke fra Al Gore. Det kom fra George Bush junior.

"Based on extensive evidence … it is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,”

Kom ikke fra Al Gore. Det kom fra Trumps 2018 National Climate Assessment. ️

Her er Ronald Reagans 1989 EPA REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE


Så vær så snill nå. Prøv å les litt klimavitenskap, ikke bare namedrop Al Gore, som dere er politisk uenig med, og tro at det "det hele startet" med ham.


Gore snakket om SOMMER-isen. Ordet SOMMER er alltid utelatt når amatør-fornektere resirkulerer denne irrelavante løgnhistorien. Amatørfornektere har bare hjemmelagde barnslige memes med falske sitater på.
Gores predictions about artic ice was about SUMMER ice. In the artic. The word SUMMER is always left out when denier bloggs recycle this lie story. And it was only about "some of the summer months". The NASA report was about Antartica ice. (Misrepresented by deniers). Thus the meme in question is also comparing a quote on north pole ice to Antartica. Another lie.
Here is the 100% accurate quote:
"..Some of the models suggests to Dr Maslowski's that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice free within the next 5 to 7 years".
Thats just very very different from the denier meme.
The Navy researcher that leads this "new study" team that the former vice president alludes to is Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California. The team's research was funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Maslowski also did not say "by 2013" in his original research in 2007 or when it was republished in 2009. This grandstanding about sea ice and Gore, for whatever reason, is a huge and egregious deception. The actual prediction from Maslowski's 2009 publication is, "Autumn could become near ice free between 2011 and 2016."
One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years.

So in reality, Gore tried to echo one of Maslowski's prediction predictions. Maslowski's prediction, originally made in 2006, was that Arctic sea ice would decline to <1,000,000 square kilometers extent (with no ice at the North Pole) by the end of the September melt by 2016, +/- 3 years. So 2013-2019...and still valid today.

When scientists do make their predictions, its based upon reports from many researchers all around the world. Not one group of researchers or individuals. Using politicians and the media to attack science is a guilt by association fallacy, because what they think, say, and do is completely, 100% irrelevant to whether or not the science is correct.
Go directly to the scientists and to the peer reviewed science.
Using Gores "failed" predictions about polar ice is a major red herring used by deniers to look away from the fact that artic ice is at a record low:
From NOAA's December 12, 2017 Arctic Report Card:
Sea ice loss "is beyond the range of natural variability, implying a human component to the drastic decrease observed in the records."
"This time series shows the Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometers over the past roughly 1,500 years. Scientists use climate proxies like sediment/ice cores, tree rings, and fossilized shells of ocean creatures to extend the sea ice extent records back in time. These records show that while there have been several periods over the past 1,450 years when sea ice extents expanded and contracted, the decrease during the modern era is unrivaled. And just as importantly, it is beyond the range of natural variability, implying a human component to the drastic decrease observed in the records.
"The minimum sea ice extent, which occurs each summer, is influenced by the atmospheric circulation, air temperature, and variations in the amount of warm water that flows into the Arctic. Since 1900, waters that enter the Arctic Ocean through the Fram Strait have increased by 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit). Meanwhile, proxy records show that the current warming trend in surface air temperatures has not been observed in the Arctic over at least the last 2,000 years."
Gore picked the worst scenario and didnt even refer to it accurate. 
Oil giant Shell made a similar film on AGW in 1991, 15 years BEFORE Gore. He was only recycling AGW science that even oil companies today agrees on.

Just like Exxon, Shell oil knew about the danger of c02 emissions.

Co2 has a special feature naturally. It absorbs heat radiation very efficiently. It has to do with the actual vibration and rotational properties of the molecule. We can easily measure their properties in laboratories, and derive them from quantum physics. Nature gave C02 that ability, not Al Gore.


Pretty accurate. “A+” student material given knowledge at the time. “A” in retrospect.
Hurricanes: 90%
Prediction: could fuel worse and more Atlantic hurricanes - no specific timeframe
Result: Worse yes, not more so far. Asia has seen both increased severity and frequency of typhoons.
Ocean circulation: 80%
Prediction: Could shut down Gulf Stream conveyor belt bringing warm water to northern Europe - no specific timeframe
Result: slowing, but not stopped. Circulation model has been refined and is understand to be more complex. Less likelihood of a significant icing for Europe.
Conflict: 100%
Prediction: Climate change would exacerbate drought contributing to regional conflict - no specific timeframe
Result: Syrian conflict caused in part by climate change exacerbated drought
Arctic ice: 100%
Prediction: The Arctic could see its first sea ice–free summers in the next 50 to 70 years
Result: Massive ice loss in summer in Arctic. High probability of 100% summer ice loss by 2052
Antarctic ice: 80%
Prediction: Warming waters will be melting the Antarctic ice sheet (ice on both land and floating on ocean) - no specific timeframe
Result: Mixed in short term. Major ice sheets have broken off Antarctica. Majority of studies show reduced Antarctic ice. One major study shows increased ice with predictions of loss by team. Serious cause for concern due to ocean-side ice dams holding back land glaciers.
Sea level rise: 100%
Prediction: Melting ice and expanding seawater are raising global sea levels
Result: Melting ice and expanding seawater are raising global sea levels and it’s accelerating
Extreme temperatures: 100%
Prediction: Warming temperatures will cause more frequent and more deadly heat waves
Result: Warming temperatures will cause more frequent and more deadly heat waves in multiple parts of the world
Looks like an A student to me in retrospect, and while An Inconvenient Truth did lay out significantly bad scenarios, Gore didn’t attach timeframes to them.
Proviso: Gore made some more specific statements about possible timeframes for Arctic ice free summers years after the movie, but not in the movie itself.
Most of the stuff that ‘skeptics’ attribute to Gore is not an accurate attribution. Always check the sources.


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.

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.

  • Ice-sheet driven sea level rise Gore correctly asserted that melting of Greenland or the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea levels 20ft (6 meters). In the movie, no timescale for that was specified, but lest you think that the 20 ft number is simply plucked out of thin air, you should note that this is about how much higher sea level was around 125,000 years ago during the last inter-glacial period. Then, global temperatures were only a degree or two warmer than today – and given that this is close to the minimum temperature rise we can expect in the future, that 20 ft is particularly relevant. The rate at which this is likely to happen is however highly uncertain as we have discussed previously.
  • Pacific island nations needing to evacuate Much of Tuvalu is only a few feet above sea level, and any sea level rise is going to impact them strongly. The impacts are felt in seemingly disconnected ways – increasing brine in groundwater, increasing damage and coastal erosion from tides and storm surges, but they are no less real for that. The government of Tuvalu has asked New Zealand to be ready to evacuate islanders if needed, and while currently only 75 people per year can potentially be resettled, this could change if the situation worsened.
    In the movie there is only one line that referred to this: “That’s why the citizens of these pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand”, which is out of context in the passage it’s in, but could be said to only be a little ahead of it’s time.
  • Climate impacts on the ocean conveyor The movie references the Younger Dryas event that occurred 11,000 years ago when, it is thought, a large discharge of fresh water into the North Atlantic disrupted the currents, causing significant regional cooling. That exact scenario can’t happen again, but similar processes are likely to occur. The primary unresolved scientific issue regards how quickly the circulation is likely to change as we move forward. The model simulations in the latest IPCC report show a slowdown in the circulation – by about 30% by 2100 – but there is much we don’t understand about modeling that circulation and future inputs of freshwater from the ice sheets, so few are willing to completely rule out the possibility of a more substantial change in the future. Further discussion on what this really means and doesn’t mean is available here and here.
  • CO2 and Temperature connections in the ice core record Gore stated that the greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes over ice age signals had a complex relationship but that they ‘fit’. Again, both of these statements are true. The complexity though is actually quite fascinating and warrants being further discussed by those interested in how the carbon cycle will react in the future. We’ve discussed the lead/lag issue previously. A full understanding of why CO2 changes in precisely the pattern that it does during ice ages is elusive, but among the most plausible explanations is that increased received solar radiation in the southern hemisphere due to changes in Earth’s orbital geometry warms the southern ocean, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, which then leads to further warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect. Gore’s terse explanation of course does not mention such complexities, but the crux of his point–that the observed long-term relationship between CO2 and temperature in Antarctica supports our understanding of the warming impact of increased CO2 concentrations–is correct. Moreover, our knowledge of why CO2 is changing now (fossil fuel burning) is solid. We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that the carbon cycle feedback is positive (increasing temperatures lead to increasing CO2 and CH4), implying that future changes in CO2 will be larger than we might anticipate.
  • Kilimanjaro Gore is on even more solid ground with Kilimanjaro. In the movie, the retreat of Kilimanjaro is not claimed to be purely due to global warming , but it is a legitimate example of the sort of thing one expects in a warmer world, and is consistent with what almost all other tropical mountain glaciers are doing. There is indeed some ongoing discussion in the literature as to whether or not the retreat of ice on Kilimanjaro is related to the direct effects (warming atmospheric temperatures) or indirect effects (altered patterns of humidity, cloud cover, and precipitation influencing Kilimanjaro’s ice mass) of climate change, and that argument isn’t yet over. But these arguments would be of more relevance if (a) we were not witnessing the imminent demise of an ice field that we know has existed for at least the past 12,000 years and (b) most of the other glaciers weren’t disappearing as well.
  • Drying up of Lake Chad It is undisputed that Lake Chad has indeed shrunk rapidly in recent decades. While irrigation and upstream water use are probably contributing factors, the dominant cause is the reduction of rainfall across the entire Sahel from the 1950s to the 1980s and with rainfall today still substantially below the high point 50 years ago. There is substantial evidence that at least a portion of this drying out is human-caused. A few recent papers (Held et al, PNASChung and Ramanathan and Biasutti and Giannini) have addressed causes ranging from Indian Ocean changes in sea surface temperature to the increase in atmospheric aerosols in the Northern hemisphere. Gore uses this example to illustrate that there are droughts in some regions even while other areas are flooding. Unfortunately this is exactly what the models suggest will happen.
  • Hurricane Katrina and global warming Katrina is used in the film as a legitimate illustration of the destructive power of hurricanes, our inability to cope with natural disaster, and the kind of thing that could well get worse in a warmer world. Nowhere does Gore state that Katrina was caused by global warming. We discussed this attribution issue back in 2005, and what we said then still holds. Individual hurricanes cannot be attributed to global warming, but the statistics of hurricanes, in particular the maximum intensities attained by storms, may indeed be.
  • Impact of sea ice retreat on Polar bears As we presaged in August, summer Arctic sea ice shattered all records this year for the minimum extent. This was partially related to wind patterns favorable to ice export in the spring, but the long term trends are almost certainly related to the ongoing and dramatic warming in the Arctic. Polar bears do indeed depend on the sea ice to hunt for seals in the spring and summer, and so a disappearance of this ice is likely to impact them severely. The specific anecdote referred to in the movie came from observations of anomalous drownings of bears in 2004 and so was accurate. However, studying the regional populations of polar bears is not easy and assessing their prospects is tough. In the best observed populations such as in western Hudson Bay (Stirling and Parkinson, 2006), female polar bear weight is going down as the sea ice retreats over the last 25 years, and the FWS is considering an endangered species listing. However, it should be stated that in most of the discussions about polar bears, they are used as a representative species. Arctic ecosystems are changing on many different levels, but it is unsurprising that charismatic mega-fauna get more press than bivalves. In the end, it may be the smaller and less photogenic elements that have the biggest impact.
  • Impact of ocean warming on coral reefs Corals are under stress from a multitude of factors; overfishing, deliberate destruction, water pollution, sea level rise, ocean acidification and, finally, warming oceans. The comment in the movie that rising temperatures and other factors cause coral bleaching is undoubtedly true. Bleaching episodes happen when the coral is under stress, and many examples have been linked to anomalously warm ocean temperatures (Australia in 1998 and 2002, all over the Indian Ocean in recent years). Corals are a sobering example of how climate change exacerbates existing vulnerabilities in eco-systems, potentially playing the role of the straw that breaks the camel’s back in many instances.

Overall, 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.
While there are minor errors in An Inconvenient Truth, the main truths presented - evidence to show mankind is causing global warming and its various impacts is consistent with peer reviewed science.

Lambert goes on to look closely at the nine contended points. His conclusion:
Overall, there are a couple of points where I wish Gore would have talked about timescales and probabilities (sea level rise and thermohaline circulation), and a couple of examples that could have been better chosen (Kilimanjaro and Lake Chad). Burton was mistaken on the other points where he felt that Gore went past the consensus. I don’t think that there is any harm in the Guidance Notes on Burton’s nine points, but the usual suspects will, of course, ignore the fact that the judge found that Gore was “broadly accurate” and try to make it look as if there are serious problems with AIT and climate science.
Out of this — a judge rejects the suit, but finds nine points in the film he thinks differ slightly from the consensus, and it turns out he’s wrong about several and the others were at best matters of interpretation, omission, or insufficient context — the mainstream media pulled, in the words of an AP headline I saw earlier this evening, “Judge Says Gore Movie Not Scientific” (it has since been changed).

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Magnetic poles / Earth's magnetic field

While the Earth's magnetic axis is shifting somewhat, Earth's rotational axis shifts only a little bit, mostly in response to th...