Is Al Gore's movie fact or fiction?

Question

It seems like it does'nt tell the whole story like it doesn't bother to mention any of the glaciers growing in Norway, New Zealand and even the United States. The U.S. Forest Service reports that the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska's Tongass National Forest is advancing so rapidly, it threatens to close off a major fjord.

Answer 1

“CapNemo” likes to go to all the global warming questions and paste in a statement pooh-poohing the threat. His statement is misleading and incorrect.

He says it’s only increased by 1 degree (F) in 125 years. This is a misleading number, because it is a global average: land and sea. We don’t live in the middle of the ocean and that’s not where the polar ice caps are melting. The temperature change over land surfaces has been twice that, and most of it in the last 40 years.

He says, “The average temperature in Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero.” If you go to his source, it says, “Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the interior in winter and reach a maximum of between +5 °C and +15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near the coast in summer.” OK, now the observation that the caps are melting makes more sense. It melts at the coast, in the summer, DUH! (Note by the way that his average number (-109) is only 3 degrees lower than one of the minimum numbers. I wonder, what kind of math did he learn?)

Then he says, “Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING”. All what hype? I was around then. I don’t remember any hype. And if you go to his source, it says, “This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting … The theory never had strong scientific support”. He tries to mislead us, by implying that a temporary flurry pf press reporting is comparable to what we are seeing now and that some hype without scientific basis is somehow similar to a consensus within the scientific community about global warming.

The truth is that those 2 degrees are HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. Scientists are predicting a temp 4 to 8 degree (F) increase over the next 75 years. “This may not sound like a great deal, but just a fraction of a degree can have huge implications on the climate, with very noticeable consequences." (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/5_predicting.html ). Yes, scientists predict, that's their job. They've gone to school years more than we have and spent their lives studying this stuff. This representrs humanity’s BEST GUESS at where this is all going. Of course, you can believe it snows in hell, or any other stupid thing you want. No one can stop you from believing what you'd rather hear, than what is the most probable outcome.

The link between CO2 and global warming is undisputed at this time. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 50% over the last 115 years (250 to 381 ppm, http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). In the last 30 years, it increased at a rate 30 times faster than at any period during the last 800,000 years. In other words, this change is totally unprecedented. (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). What else is totally unprecedented about the last 115 years? Industrialization and the population explosion. Duh. This is not rocket science; it is simple arithmetic!

"If Bert Drake is right, the good news is that, within the foreseeable future, Maine residents will be able to stop banking their foundations and to store their down parkas and snow blowers in the barn permanently. The bad news is that a lot of those barns will be underwater" (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). Yes, this is opinion. Who is Bert Drake? He's an SERC researcher who's been studying this for 17 years. If we aren’t going to believe our scientists, who then shall we believe??? Oh, I know. Let's believe CapNemo!!!

If global warming wasn't a real threat, why have 178 nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions? Why are the US and Australia the only two holdouts among the industrialized nations? (http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol_2.htm )

CapNemo’s statement reminds me about the frog in the pot on the stove that doesn’t move as the water gradually gets hotter and hotter. From this seemingly insignificant 2 degree change, we’ve already seen enormous consequences. (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/) How much hotter does it have to get for some people to wake up and face the music? And in the meantime, while you’re pondering all of this, be sure to check the dates on people’s references. Things are changing so rapidly that older information is no longer useful.

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

Answer 2

This is in response to rdenig_male, above:
Everything you just said is either wrong or misleading. First off, there is not very much data on the changes in the mass of the Antarctic ice sheets, and the conclusion of some growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet is so little that with the uncertainty, it might even be shrinking. And even if the ice was increasing there, it would not in any way affect global warming theory (in fact, you could almost say it would be expected).
Second, Greenland was never "green". The Vikings named it Greenland as a way of attracting new settlers. Think about it, Greenland's ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old and covers 95% of that island, so just how different could it have been only 1000 years ago?

Answer 3

Decide for yourself by reading this... The temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in the Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will.

Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there.

Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well.

I hope that helps...

Answer 4

"[But] it's likely these glaciers will follow the same pattern of those in Sweden and Norway, which were growing until 1999 due to increasing winter snowfall even as temperatures rose.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers_2.html

if you open your eye and ears , and learn about global warming rather than opening everything else to try to deny it, you might just realize what it actually means to specific areas of the world, and what warming does not mean. possibly, a more appropriate term for it is global climate change, so artists, law professionals, and politicians don't misinterpret what is going on just becuase of the word WARMING.

Al Gore's movie is niether and both.
that is what happens when you use fact to PREDICT something that hasn't happened yet. it is fiction until it does, but that doesn't mean the facts supporting the prediction aren't accurate.
Al Gore's movie though, doesn't even begin to touch upon the real scarey stuff we are facing. i guess he didn't want to start a panic.

Answer 5

Well, it is mostly a pessimistic prediction based on circumstantial evidence. There are many factors Algore left out. Like the temp of the sun in not a constant. The weather always cycles. Hurricanes have been just as bad as the past and the Global Warming is not consensus in the scientific community. There is something called the Oregon petition that a group of scientist signed to say they do not believe that we can conclude global warming is man made. And out of the 17000 scientist that signed only 2 have extremely limited ties to oil companies. By the way libs have you ever thought about how much money the "environmentalists" are making and why it would be as much in their interests to perpetuate the myth as it would the oil companies to debunk it? Remember your open-mindedness before you rush to answer...

Answer 6

Brilliant response capnemo! In addition, does he (Al Gore) tell you that Antarctica has been warming for 6000years and in fact is colling slightly now? That ice is increasing there? That the Vikings settled in Greenland in the 10th century because it was 'green' and they could grow crops? But that they had to leave in the 12th century as ice began to spread? I believe NOTHING politicians say about global warming/climate change - they tell you what they want you to hear and what best suits their spin of events at the time.

Answer 7

The examples you have provided are very acute. Al Gore's movie was on a much wider and general basis and commenting on the state of the Earth as a whole, not specific places. I'm sorry, I just don't believe your argument is valid.

Answer 8

Neither, it's propaganda, a well crafted use of facts constructed in a way to cause people to reach a predetermined but incorrect conclusion.

Answer 9

It's fact. He is right. The world is in disaster. It must be saved from anihilation.

Answer 10

Total fiction:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/190107warming.htm