Global warming is all hype and gore is wrong?

Question

Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer
25 May 2006

Gore's Inconvenient Truth....

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India , your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China ?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe .

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer

Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama . ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.

Answer 1

Do you seriously believe that any global warming proponent will read through your presentation, and then think about it? I note that it was published over a year ago, and am surprised that you have not already received many answers that Dr. Spencer has been "discredited"

Global warming is real, albeit minor, but Mr. Gore by his own admission has made a career of using propaganda over it to gain political power. That is perhaps the single believable point made in his "documentary".

Answer 2

What is the correct answer? My husband is adamant that GW is just complete hype, my sister-in-law is radically for Al Gore. Our holidays end in chaos with the two of them in heated arguments. I myself can see both sides.

First off, I believe GW could have been presented to the public in a different way. As you preach gloom and doom, most people do not want to hear it. They fear that their comfortable lifestyle will change and they are correct. Most will become defensive and little will be accomplished. Yes, there are discrepancies in the Al Gore movie that Dr. Spencer highlighted. They tried very hard to get their point across sometimes making 'it look good' for the argument of GW. It is their perspective.

On the other hand, it has been a mere 100 years that our society has advanced from the industrial revolution. There has been phenomenal advancements in transportation, medical treatment, recreational activites, and lifestyles. We have came along way in a short period of time. I believe this is probably the best time to be alive on this Earth. We are peaking! Humans have this ignorance that they can consume and abuse the environment without significant consequences. We are wasteful, unappreciative of our natural world. Materialism and capitalism have won out as a priority. Our biggest problem is the result of modernization - a healthy, exponential increase in population (increased vitality, decreased mortality). For every new life carbon will be utilized for heat, food, and energy. Every single one of us add to the LOAD ON THE ENVIRONMENT. And I can tell you now with certainty that neclear energy IS NOT the answer.

If GW turns out to be factual it will not matter if we are resonspible so what is the point of arguement. The subject of GW should, at the very least, make us aware of our responsibilty to care for our planet. Men just have this destructive mentally, I guess they think it looks powerful and tough. Being a tree-hugger is a good thing. I would rather hug a tree rather then a nuclear energy rod laced with uranium.

Answer 3

While it may not have been mentioned in the movie, many liberals have come to recognize that Nuclear power must be part of the solution to the global warming problem - if only because solar and wind energy are only available intermittently.

I am no expert - but I would find it hard to believe that all the CO2 being poured into the atmosphere doesn't have some kind of effect on the climate. - even without objective evidence.

You mention economic pain that would be caused by signing onto the Kyoto protocol- but we have done so little compared to other countries - In Europe, gas costs $6.00 to $7.00 per gallon and people use public transportation more and drive smaller cars. Why can't we have $6.00 per gallon gas here? - If a $3.00 per gallon gas tax were phased in over a period of years, people would learn to live with it.

Answer 4

1) For higher occurancy of the phenomenon, just ask statistic divisions of insurance companies

2) Not all scientific agree on GW... you´re right... and most of those disagreeing are from prestigious universities ranging from Nebraska to Louisiana and around...
So, basicly worldwide 80% in the "Bible Belt" (I´m not insulting christians, I fight myself global warming based on my faith).
hmm I think I´ll rather believe japanese scientists.. I don´t know why.

3) Ok good point pedagogy doesn´t consist in killing your oponent...
But like I repeat, GW doubters are welcome on the IPCC... simply they are less than 10% of the scientists.

4) A movie can´t explain the relation between natural capture, storage and release of CO2 right... but what matters is that we have an abnormal level.

5) It´s true, I work for CO2 reduction projects in China and for a certain number of industrial fields their carbon intensity is lower.

6) good point... budget ? but they earned a lot now.

7) FALSE. Don´t insult the UK, Germany, Denmark and Sweden as they are fulfilling their targets.
Sweden produces 4 times more wealth than the US per quantity of CO2 released as your president likes to speak about "carbon intensity". Know it. Kyoto is furthermore a goofy "US-made" market design... it is nevertheless a first important step since for the first time in history some countries unbundled GDP growth and higher CO2 emissions.

8) YES AND NO... YES for the nuclear power plants... and NO, the actual administration has been mostly investing in token solutions which are not viable under the short term like hydrogen... misleading the public by not explaining that it will be produced by fossil fuels and that´s the carbon separated will be used anyway (we´re not going to burry the carbon part while we still extract coal at the same time... think about it).
Major technological advancement are beeing made, but also a necessary adjustement and a rationalisation. And that happens mostly in Europe.

Answer 5

I know my opinion is going to sound meek, but, many studies have found that humans are contributing quite a bit to speeding up global warming, not causing it, just helping it along significantly, and personally I'm not sure I care if it's just hype, or if the threat is real, because it's promoting helping the earth and larger advances in technology (recycling, finding cleaner fuels, planting trees, etc.) I just wanted to throw in my opinion..

Answer 6

here is my answer to your question
•1.The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution
•2.CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks
•3.Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
•4.over the past 800,000 years the Earth has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000 year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively short-lived periods of glacial retreat.
5.While ground-level temperature measurements suggest the earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1850, global satellite data, the most reliable of climate measure-
ments, show no evidence of warming during the past 18 years.
•6.Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.
•7.Mars, it appears, has also been experiencing milder temperatures in recent years. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide 'ice caps' near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun."
•8.Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there
•9.Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age.
•10.from m an historical perspective, global warming has saved us, at least temporarily, from an Icehouse Climate, although humans can hardly take the credit. Science is clear on what controls cycles of climate change. Global warming (and cooling) cycles are controlled primarily by:
•a) Cyclical variations in the sun's energy output
•b) Eccentricities in Earth's orbit
•c) The influence of plate tectonics on the distribution of continents and oceans
•d) The so-called "greenhouse effect," caused by atmospheric gases such as gaseous water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, which help to trap radiant heat which might otherwise escape into space.
•11.The oceans are heating up, and the atmosphere is not. The result is polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth's core heating the oceans, not human activity.
•12.Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate.

Answer 7

It is easy for you to say that because by the time it happens you will be dead. Did you know that we have been due for another ice age for hundrids of thosands of years. And if you think gore is so wrong than why are you making a big deal about it? it almost looks like your offended by it. Hmmmm