Why are global warming claims so exaggerated?

Question

Even scientists who believe in global warming are not happy about the exaggerated claims. Al Gore's movie had many of them. I see the same claims being repeated in answers here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4923504.stm
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/wunschaha2007.pdf

Hans von Storch and Carl Wunsch are trying to get scientists to be more responsible. What can you do to help cut the exaggeration?

There are some pretty amusing answers on here. Perhaps some of the answerers did not know about the nine errors in Gore's movie. You can't blame Gore for those errors. He got them from climatologists first. Of course, now even the alarmists have backed away from those claims but evidently Gore did not get the memo. The problem is these exaggerations are still being repeated. What can be done about it? What can you do?

Dr. Blob, yes, greenhouse gases are increasing at a faster rate than previously thought, but that is actually a problem for global warming catastrophism. Let me explain. If the gases increase more quickly than predicted, but the temperature does not go up - then it proves the climate is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as once thought. Your belief in the cause and effect is so great, you do not see how the real point here. Take Hanson's predictions. They were based on three scenarios of increasing CO2. Up until now, climatologists have claimed we were in the mid-range prediction and that Hanson was actually pretty close. Now that we know CO2 has risen faster than previously thought, we can see that Hanson dramatically overestimated the impact of rising CO2. In fact, it is possible the increasing temp is more natural than anthropogenic. So, don't get confused. Just because CO2 is going up does not mean temperature is rising.

Trevor, perhaps you did not read the link Dr. Blog provided. The key quote is here:

"An international team of researchers has found that, since 2000, the rate at which CO2 has been pumped into the atmosphere is 35 percent greater than most climate-change models have allowed for."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304272,00.html

Unless I am wrong, that puts the CO2 increase into Hanson's top tier scenario. The warmest year is still 1998. Have you bothered to read Steve Schwartz's paper estimating climate sensitivity using ocean heat content? He comes up with a much lower sensitivity.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Answer 1

Because by exaggerating global warming claims, they get your attention, and cause you to act faster than if they weren't.

Classic child psychology.

Answer 2

The popular press always misrepresents science. Cold Fusion made it all the way to the McNeil Lehrer Report.

Your first cite is a year and half out of date. The second cite makes as much of a case for the alarmists as it does for the denialists and proves nothing. Do you understand its implication? Bad science is bad science and scientists are subject to the same biases as everyone else.

"Being overly conservative is thus a major problem as well – leading to rejection of an important new conclusion. A conspicuous public example of such failure was the rejection by NASA scientists of observations demonstrating the ozone hole–the values seen by a spacecraft were deemed so low as to be erroneous. It was only later, with the detection of the ozone hole by ground-based measurements, that the NASA data were resurrected, and it was clear that the ozone hole could have been discovered much earlier (see references in Solomon, 1999). Fortunately, someone had the good sense to retain the data."

There are many examples technologies and interventions being oversold and the risks downplayed. Nuclear energy would be “forever”, “clean” and “too cheap to meter”. Whatever your opinion of nuclear, it’s none of these things. We were warned of the ozone problem in the late 70’s. The authors were vilified and discredited, that is until the hole was found, and found to be worse than the conservative predictions.

Now we are being told that the risks of global warming, if any, are tiny, and the predictions are overblown.

But what about this, reported in Fox no less, that the conservative estimates of the growth of greenhouse gasses are already proving to be understated?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304272,00.html

Edit:
I see your point. We'll have to wait and see if the temp. follows.

Answer 3

Some claims are exaggerated and much of the blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of the media. By their very nature, the media focus on the dramatic and more often than not adopt a sensationalistic approach to their coverage; not just with global warming but with many issues - it's what gets viewers and readers and is what sells papers and magazines. I've had my own findings grossly distorted by the media and I would estimate that 60 to 70% of popular media reporting based on my work has been exaggerated or distorted in one way or another.

There are some exaggerations emanating from climate scientists themselves, but not that many - it's unfortunate but it's human nature. It happens in all professions, climatology is no different.

There is a rigorous consultation and review procedure that is followed by climate scientists before information is published or released. Over 1000 major reports have been published, perhaps ten times as many minor reports. It all adds up to many millions of pages. Despite this vast amount of information the number of errors is very small indeed.

Climatology is a relatively new science and is one which is constantly evolving. New technology and techniques frequently become available and this, coupled with greater computing power, mean that changes are sometimes made to previously published data. Our understanding of the climate is constantly being expanded and improved.

Note, the science behind global warming is a long-established scientific theorem and does not contain any 'grey areas'.

It's also worth keeping things in perspective. Some things may have been exaggerated but in many cases things are played down. Scientists by their very nature tend to err on the side of caution. Take the global temperature itself as an example. For a long time scientists have assigned a range to the expected temperature increases; the instrumental record now shows that those early predictions were too low and the world is warming faster than previously thought (0.0177°C per year as opposed to 0.0156°C). Similarly, it was cautiously stated by scientists that the Arctic Ice would remain intact for about 100 years, it now looks like 40 years is the longest we can expect it to remain and if the recent net loss of ice becomes a trend then the Arctic Ice will be gone each summer in as little as 23 years.

- - - - - - - - - -

You state there are nine errors in Gore's movie. I assume this is based on the High Court ruling in London a few weeks ago. Under UK law the plaintiff's claim is automatically upheld if the defendant doesn't present a case. The defendant in the hearing (the UK Government) didn't present a case in respect of those nine points.

It's worth keeping this in perspective as well. The plaintiff lost his case, the Judge refused to ban the movie and ruled it was fundamentally scientifically accurate. The issue wasn't so much about the movie but about politics - political indoctrination in UK schools is an offence and in order to prevent this the Judge ordered that an accompanying leaflet be made available along with the movie so as to allow the skeptics of global warming to have their say as well.

You state "You can't blame Gore for those errors. He got them from climatologists first". He may have got the basis for his movie from published papers but one of the biggest complaints climatologists have is that we weren't consulted prior to the movie being released. Had Gore done the sensible thing and had the script checked by an expert then many of the errors and exaggerations could have been removed.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Unfortunately much of your comment to Dr Blob is inaccurate. The relationship between atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and their contribution to global warming is a well understood one (I've explained it in detail in previous answers) and the atmosphere is behaving exactly as we would expect it to. I'm not sure what sources you used to ascertain that CO2 levels are rising faster than predicted, they're actually increasing pretty much in line with what was expected. I dare say there is the odd report that gives uncorroborated figures but they're exceptions to the rule.

<< So, don't get confused. Just because CO2 is going up does not mean temperature is rising.>> That's a physical impossibility unless there are extenuating factors that over-ride the warming caused by increased levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). The ability of greenhouse gases to retain heat within the atmosphere is the basic physical property that distinguishes them from all other gases and is one and then can be easily be demonstrated (one of my recent answers explains how it can be done at a basic level in a school science lab).

<< In fact, it is possible the increasing temp is more natural than anthropogenic>> How?

Answer 4

There are exaggerations on all sides of the issue.

I am careful with my sources, and take all information as it comes, with a grain of salt. Most of the scientists involved are responsible. It is easy to come to differing conclusions by studying the same set of data. What's hard is to look at the information out there, use it to direct further research that provides even better information, and then use that to direct a positive course of action.

There is no one of any education who will argue that humans have not had a significant impact on the planets resources since the Industrial age, and most will acknowledge, given an impartial presentation of facts, that humans have impacted climatic conditions locally and worldwide. I believe that based on the body of evidence that to try to predict what will happen in 50 years is unrealistic. To use the evidence to direct action, and change, that will improve the health of the planet for current and future generations is a win-win situation.

Some people just like to argue. That's not for me. Right now we've got a chance to take action in this country, and get past the Gore frenzy, the inaccuracies of the movie he made, and all the junk science, and start moving forward by affecting positive change. Please check out the proposed bill below.

From the conclusion of one of your links: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong” (Bartlett, 1968). That's very profound, but I'm leery of waiting this out, so extrapolating the data we've gathered to date to produce a viable course of action seems wise at this juncture.

Answer 5

So your examples of exaggerated claims are a movie and a news article?

The IPCC is actually very conservative about their projections, because politicians require them to be and because science by nature tends to be conservative. That's why we're seeing arctic sea ice melting and atmospheric CO2 concentrations increasing faster than the IPCC worst case scenario.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlLCMvlu8ufMjZIJnBJ.trbty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071009144014AAo7okq

Sorry, but I trust empirical evidence over the claims of 2 scientists. And you question should read "Why do von Storch and Wunsch think that global warming claims are exaggerated?".

Answer 6

Of course some exaggerate the problem. But van Storch and Wunsch underestimate it.

The consensus view is enough to justify serious action. Forget the extreme or strained details.

The exact rise can be argued, but coastal flooding will be sufficient to cause very costly damage in coastal cities. In countries like Bangladesh, many low lying agricultural areas will be ruined by salt water intrusion, causing famine and a massive refugee problem. Where crops grow best, and where precipitation falls, will change, requiring massive and costly changes to farms and irrigation systems. More here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

It's easy to find people making exaggerated claims. Or to pick at uncertain areas like amphibian populations or hurricanes. But the solid reality is bad enough. In rich countries this will be a huge economic problem. In poor one, it will exacerbate resource issues. The proper balance between reduction of global warming and coping is a worthy topic of debate. But simply coping is not a viable option.

Answer 7

Global warming claims are not actually exaggerated. They just seem that way to some ppl because they dont belive in the cause as strongly as other do. It is a very serious matter and because most people dont take it seriously, its also exaggerated.

Answer 8

My favorite is when people say that the human produced CO2 is "trapping" or "blocking" heat from leaving the atmosphere. IF CO2 is the ONLY cause of the .7º C temperature increase of the 20th century, it is causing a .5% restriction to heat leaving the atmosphere. If you had a room that had a 10" diameter duct supplying heat and a 10" diameter duct exhausting heat, a .5% restriction would be comparible to sticking a wad of chewing gum on the inside of the exhaust duct.

Answer 9

There is a reason why Al Gore when the Nobel prise. There are reasons why the earth is heating up and why we need to reevaluate how we get our energy. Like it or not, that is the way it is. It is time to evolve, not stay the same and die.

Answer 10

When people like Al Gore can exaggerate about global warming they can make a lot of money from it. Gore needed to make extra money to try and keep his son from going to jail.

Answer 11

most feel if you really want to get your point across, rouse up the mobs. Look at Hitler, millions to action. In the US, the Boston Tea party, in France, the revolution. Get the mobs up in arms then you get results, Its don't matter if the results are good or not, just so they get them.