Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet?

Posted on October 15, 2007. Filed under: Blogroll, Climate, Economics, Links, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Science, Uncategorized, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

~ H.L. Mencken

 

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

~Al Gore 

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

 An “over-representation” is a lie.  Lawyers call it a material misrepresentation.

Al Gore’s biggest whopper or lie in An Inconvenient Truth, both the film and book, is the 20 feet sea level rise by 2100.

This is in sharp contrast to the 2 feet maximum prediction of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Both Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 on October 12, 2007.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its report of February 2007 projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23 inches) by 2100 with temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8 Farenheit).

 An Inconvenient Truth Trailer

Charlie Rose – Al Gore

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCsbhvRJVAo

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 1 of 3 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noec6Xkx73k

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 2 of 3 

Michael Crichton on Global Warming, Part 3 of 3  

 “Considering all of these influences, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the global average sea level will rise by 7.2 to 23.6 inches (18-59 cm or 0.18- 0.59m) by 2100 (see Figure 1) relative to 1980-1999 under a range of scenarios.

Sea Level Rise Projections to 2100

This graph shows projected changes in sea level between the years 1990 and 2100 under six different emissions scenarios. Under the lowest emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 3.5 inches by the end of the century; under the highest scenario it is projected to rise 34.6 inches. The sea level rise projected under each of the other scenarios falls between these two extremes.

 Past and projected global average sea level. The gray shaded area shows the estimates of sea level change from 1800 to 1870 when measurements are not available. The red line is a reconstruction of sea level change measured by tide gauges with the surrounding shaded area depicting the uncertainty. The green line shows sea level change as measured by satellite. The purple shaded area represents the range of model projections for a medium growth emissions scenario (IPCC SRES A1B). For reference 100mm is about 4 inches. Source: IPCC (2007) 

To the Future Sea Level Changes page.

Note that these estimates assume that ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica will continue at the same rates as observed from 1993-2003. The IPCC cautions that these rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if ice flow were to increase linearly, in step with global average temperature, the upper range of projected sea level rise by the year 2100 would be 19.2 to 31.6 inches (48-79 cm or 0.48-0.79 m). But current understanding of ice sheet dynamics is too limited to estimate such changes or to provide an upper limit to the amount by which sea level is likely to rise over this century.”

http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/futureslc.html#ref

Observations:

Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level  

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch05.pdf

Sea level rise  

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

“…17. Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm.

Sea level change is difficult to measure. Relative sea level changes have been derived mainly from tide-gauge data. In the conventional tide-gauge system, the sea level is measured relative to a land-based tide-gauge benchmark. The major problem is that the land experiences vertical movements (e.g. from isostatic effects, neotectonism, and sedimentation), and these get incorporated into the measurements. However, improved methods of filtering out the effects of long-term vertical land movements, as well as a greater reliance on the longest tide-gauge records for estimating trends, have provided greater confidence that the volume of ocean water has indeed been increasing, causing the sea level to rise within the given range.

It is likely that much of the rise in sea level has been related to the concurrent rise in global temperature over the last 100 years. On this time scale, the warming and the consequent thermal expansion of the oceans may account for about 2-7 cm of the observed sea level rise, while the observed retreat of glaciers and ice caps may account for about 2-5 cm. Other factors are more difficult to quantify. The rate of observed sea level rise suggests that there has been a net positive contribution from the huge ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, but observations of the ice sheets do not yet allow meaningful quantitative estimates of their separate contributions. The ice sheets remain a major source of uncertainty in accounting for past changes in sea level because of insufficient data about these ice sheets over the last 100 years. …”

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/19.htm

Al Gore’s ‘nine Inconvenient Untruths’

“…The nine alleged errors in the film

  • Mr Gore claims that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”. The judge said: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s “wake-up call”. He agreed that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water – “but only after, and over, millennia”.”The Armageddon scenario he predicts, insofar as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.”
  • The film claims that low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming” but the judge ruled there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
  • The documentary speaks of global warming “shutting down the Ocean Conveyor” – the process by which the Gulf Stream is carried over the North Atlantic to western Europe. Citing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the judge said that it was “very unlikely” that the Ocean Conveyor, also known as the Meridional Overturning Circulation, would shut down in the future, though it might slow down.
  • Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed “an exact fit”. The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts”.
  • Mr Gore says the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro was directly attributable to global warming, but the judge ruled that it scientists have not established that the recession of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is primarily attributable to human-induced climate change.
  • The film contends that the drying up of Lake Chad is a prime example of a catastrophic result of global warming but the judge said there was insufficient evidence, and that “it is apparently considered to be far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and over-grazing, and regional climate variability.”
  • Mr Gore blames Hurricane Katrina and the consequent devastation in New Orleans on global warming, but the judge ruled there was “insufficient evidence to show that”.
  • Mr Gore cites a scientific study that shows, for the first time, that polar bears were being found after drowning from “swimming long distances – up to 60 miles – to find the ice” The judge said: “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.”That was not to say there might not in future be drowning-related deaths of bears if the trend of regression of pack ice continued – “but it plainly does not support Mr Gore’s description”.
  • Mr Gore said that coral reefs all over the world were being bleached because of global warming and other factors. Again citing the IPCC, the judge agreed that, if temperatures were to rise by 1-3 degrees centigrade, there would be increased coral bleaching and mortality, unless the coral could adapt. However, he ruled that separating the impacts of stresses due to climate change from other stresses, such as over-fishing, and pollution was difficult. …”
  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/10/11/scigore111.xml 

     UK Gov’t Helps Teachers Deal With Gore’s Climate Errors 

    political issues)

    No wonder a judge in the United Kingdom found nine errors including Al Gore’s big whopper in his ruling on An Inconveniet Truth:

    “…The High Court has indicated that schools can lawfully show AIT to pupils without breaching ss. 406 or 407 of the Education Act 1996, but that, in doing so they must bear in mind the following points: AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about those views; in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore.s view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion; where the film suggests that viewers should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view. …”

    teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote 

    http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/sustainableschools/upload/CC%20Final%20guidance%204oct.pdf

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200710/INT20071012a.html

     The bigger the lie, the bigger the prize.

     Al Gore has at least been consistent on warning about global warming for twenty years. He also has a propensity to quote Winston Churchill.

     Here is one quotation from Winston Churchill that he appears to have overlooked. 

    “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” 

    ~Winston Churchill 

     Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was best described by Paul Johnson, British author and historian, and Presidential Medal of Freedom award recipient:

    Beware of those who seek to win an argument at the expense of the language. For the fact that they do is proof positive that their argument is false, and proof presumptive that they know it is. A man who deliberately inflicts violence on the language will almost certainly inflict violence on human beings if he acquires the power. Those who treasure the meaning of words will treasure truth, and those who bend words to their purposes are very likely in pursuit of anti-social ones. The correct and honourable use of words is the first and natural credential of civilized status.”

    ~Paul Johnson

    THE ENEMIES OF SOCIETY

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer) 

    Addendum

    Stossel To Gore–“Give Me A Break”

    Looks like John Stossel is going to rain on Al Gore’s Nobel Prize parade/panic attack for a global warming planetary emergency.

    Watch the 20/20 show Friday, October 19, 2007 at 8 P.M. Eastern time on ABC.

    John Stossel Exposes Global Warming Myths

    “…In a release from ABC previewing Stossel’s report on Friday’s “20/20,” the veteran newsman and Newsmax pundit – who won 19 Emmys exposing scammers and con artists – says:

    “This week on ‘20/20’ (in our new 8 p.m. Eastern time slot) I say ‘Give Me a Break!’ to our Nobel Prize-winning Vice President.

    “Mr. Gore says ‘The debate is over,’ and those who disagree with his take on global warming have been ‘purchased’ in order to create ‘the illusion of a debate.’ Nonsense. It’s as if the Vice President and his allies in the environmental movement plan to win the debate through intimidation. I interview some scientists who won’t be intimidated, even though one has had his life threatened for speaking up.

    “The Vice President’s much-applauded movie, ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ claims warming is man’s fault and a coming crisis! While the earth has certainly warmed over the last century, plenty of independent scientists say scientists cannot be sure that man caused the warming or that warming will be a crisis.

    “They say the computer models that are used to predict the disasters don’t include important variables because scientists don’t fully understand them. For example, warming may cause cloud formations that reflect sun and cool the earth. The computer models cannot know. These scientists call global warming activism more of a religious movement than science.”

    Gore’s film is filled with “misleading messages,” says Stossel. …”

    ….

    “…I suspect that next year’s government boondoggle will be massive spending on carbon-reducing technology.

    “It reminds me of George Mason University Economics Department Chairman Don Boudreax’s suggestion that such schemes really mean ‘government seizing enormous amounts of additional power in order to embark upon schemes of social engineering – schemes whose pursuit gratifies the abstract fantasies of the theory class and, simultaneously, lines the very real pockets of politically powerful corporations, organizations, and “experts.”’

    “He is so right. The abstract fantasies of the theory class will soon send huge chunks of your money to politicians, friends, activist scientists, and politically savvy corporations.

    “The debate is over? That makes me say GIVE ME A BREAK!”
    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/10/17/41855.html

    Background Articles and Videos

     

    New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

    “…Writing in the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society, professor David H. Douglass (of the University of Rochester), professor John R. Christy (of the University of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson and professor S. Fred Singer (of the University of Virginia) report that observed patterns of temperature changes (“fingerprints”) over the last 30 years disagree with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability.

    The conclusion is that climate change is “unstoppable” and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.  …”

    http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/12/10/55974.html

    The Great Global Warming Swindle

    http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

    An Inconvenient Truth

    Gore as climate exaggerator

    Well, the “consensus” of climate scientists as represented in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea level is likely to rise between 4 inches to 35 inches with a central value of 19 inches. Nineteen inches is not nothing and is 3 times greater than the sea level rise the world experienced during the 20th century, but Manhattan and most of Florida will most likely still be above water in 2100. A new study in Science concluded if temperatures rose steeply that the Greenland ice sheet might melt away in 500 to 1000 years. So fortunately we don’t have to worry about the impact of 100 million people fleeing relentlessly rising seas all at once, though it would be a good idea for builders and insurance companies to keep the projected rise in sea level in mind. …”

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/116471.html

    Global Warming-Doomsday Called Off is the documentary that should have gotten the Academy Award for Best Documentary!

    Part 4 of 5 below covers Sea Level Changes

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (1/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (2/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (3/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (4/5) 

    Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off (5/5)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 1/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 2/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 3/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 4/9)


     

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 5/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 6/9)


     

    v

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 7/9)

    The Great Global Warming Swindle (part 8/9)

    Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 1

    Climate Change – Bob Carters 5 Tests of CO2 part 2

    “Professor Bob Carter uses the scientific method on the popular theory with global warming being linked to CO2 levels.

    He examnines the hypothesis and it fails the test. Does this surprise you?…”

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 1 of 4 

    Climate change – Is CO2 the cause? – Pt 2 of 4 

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause? – pt 3 of 4

    Climate Change – Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4

    There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998
    By Bob Carter

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml

    David Evans – Why CO2 cannot be blamed for Global warming

    Global cooling not warming

    Unstoppable Solar Cycles

    Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 1

    Professor Fred Singer on Climate Change Pt 2

    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 1)


     

    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 2)


     

    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 3)


     

    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 4)


     

    Henrik Svensmark on Global Warming (part 5)

    (4 of 14) MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY DEBATE: PETER HUBER

    Global Warming Hoax

    Another Global Warming Hoax exposed 

    James Hansen concerned IPCC ignores danger of ice sheet melt

    NASA’s Hansen Reaches Escape Velocity

    “…Dr. Hansen is a math modeler in the climate change game. How does he get Planetary Doom from a math model? It’s very simple. You build in “positive feedback loops.” That is, you look in the vast toolbox of climate variables to find just two factors that might reinforce each other in a catastrophic loop. For instance, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might create a greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, which causes more water evaporation, which causes more greenhouse effect, which causes more heating, etc., etc. Keep looping that, and you raise world temps by just one degree Centigrade, so the polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise, up to 25 meters. See? It’s easy.

    The big problem with this scenario is that the climate system almost certainly has negative feedback loops, i.e., causal connections that work to bring temperatures back to a rough baseline. The climate is likely to have self-regulation mechanisms in much the way that our bodies have self-regulating loops to stabilize our temperature, blood sugar, and a hundred other variables. Why does that seem likely? Because the world hasn’t burned up or drowned in quite a long time, even though temperature variations and greenhouse gases have existed for many millions of years. Such factors as clouds and air particulates are believed to lower temperatures. With a little imagination we could easily build math models for self-regulating loops that would tend to stabilize temperatures. (But it might be hard to swing the federal grant support for those models.) …” 

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/nasas_hansen_reaches_escape_ve.html

    IPCC Member: NASA’s Hansen Moving ‘Dangerously Away From Scientific Discourse to Advocacy’ 

    http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/27/ipcc-member-nasa-s-hansen-moving-dangerously-away-scientific-discours

    Sea Level Rise, After the Ice Melted and Today

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

    Gorey Truths
    25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore. 

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFiZDAyMWFhMGIxNTgwNGIyMjVkZjQ4OGFiZjFlNjc=

    Al Gore Debates Global Warming

    Authors@Google: Bjorn Lomborg

    Climate is too complex for accurate predictions 

    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12833-climate-is-too-complex-for-accurate-predictions.html 

    SCIENCE: Earth climate is too complex to predict 

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/10/science_earth_climate_is_too_c.html

    Statement: Thinning of West Antarctic Ice Sheet Demands Improved Monitoring to Reduce Uncertainty over Potential Sea-Level Rise

    The consensus view of the workshop:

    • Satellite observations show that both the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelves of the Amundsen Sea Embayment have thinned over the last decades.
       
    • Ongoing thinning in the grounded ice sheet is already contributing to sea-level rise.
       
    • The thinning of the ice has occurred because melting beneath the ice shelves has increased, reducing the friction holding back the grounded ice sheet and causing faster flow.
       
    • Oceanic changes have caused the increased ice-shelf melting. The observed average warming of the global ocean has not yet notably affected the waters reaching the base of the ice shelves. However, recent changes in winds around Antarctica caused by human influence and/or natural variability may be changing ocean currents, moving warmer waters under the ice shelves.
       
    • Our understanding of ice-sheet flow suggests the possibility that too much melting beneath ice shelves will lead to “runaway” thinning of the grounded ice sheet. Current understanding is too limited to know whether, when, or how rapidly this might happen, but discussions at the meeting included the possibility of several feet of sea-level rise over a few centuries from changes in this region.
       
    • The experts agreed that to reduce the very large uncertainties concerning the behavior of the Antarctic ice in the Amundsen Sea Embayment will require new satellite, ground, and ship-based observations coupled to improved models of the ice-ocean-atmosphere system. Issues include:
       
    • The recent changes were discovered by satellite observations; however, continued monitoring of some of these changes is not possible because of a loss of capability in current and funded satellite missions.
       
    • The remoteness of this part of Antarctica from existing stations continues to limit the availability of ground observations essential to predicting the future of the ice sheet.
       
    • No oceanographic observations exist beneath the ice shelves, and other oceanographic sampling is too infrequent and sparse to constrain critical processes.
       
    • Current continental-scale ice sheet models are inadequate for predicting future sea level rise because they omit important physical processes.
       
    • Current global climate models do not provide information essential for predicting ice sheet and oceanic changes in the Amundsen Sea Embayment; for example, ice shelves are not included.

     

    Resolving these issues will substantially improve our ability to predict the future sea level contribution from the Amundsen Sea Embayment of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
    http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/walse/statement.html

    Changes in Sea-Level associated with Modifications of the Mass Balance of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets over the 21st Century  

    “Abstract

    Changes in runoff from Greenland and Antarctica are often cited as one of the major concerns linked to anthropogenic changes in climate. The changes in mass balance, and associated changes in sea-level, of these two ice sheets are examined by comparing the predictions of the six possible combinations of two climate models and three methods for estimating melting and runoff. All models are solved on 20 and 40 km grids respectively for Greenland and Antarctica. The two temperature based runoff parameterizations give adequate results for Greenland, less so for Antarctica. The energy balance based approach, which relies on an explicit modelling of the temperature and density structure within the snow cover, gives similar results when coupled to either climate model. The Greenland ice sheet, for a reference climate scenario similar to the IPCC’s IS92a, is not expected to contribute significantly to changes in the level of the ocean over the 21st century. The changes in mass balance in Antarctica are dominated by the increase in snowfall, leading to a decrease in sea-level of $ \sim$ 4 cm by 2100. The range of uncertainty in these predictions is estimated by repeating the calculation with the simpler climate model for seven climate change scenarios. Greenland would increase the level of the oceans by 0 – 2 cm, while Antarctica would decrease it by 2.5 – 6.5 cm. The combined effect of both ice sheets lowers the sea-level by 2.5 – 4.5 cm over the next 100 years, this represents a $ \sim$ 25% reduction of the sea-level rise estimated from thermal expansion alone. This surprisingly small range of uncertainty is due to cancellations between the effects of the two ice sheets. For the same reason, the imposition of the Kyoto Protocol has no impact on the prediction of sea-level change due to changes in Greenland and Antarctica, when compared to a reference scenario in which emissions are allowed to grow unconstrained. …”

    http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/reports/055/JPfuture.html 

    Recent Sea-Level Contributions of the Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets

    Andrew Shepherd1 and Duncan Wingham2* 

    After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth’s ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

    1 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, EH8 9XP, UK.
    2 Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, WC1E 6BT 

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5818/1529

    GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L01602, doi:10.1029/2006GL028492, 2007

    On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century

    S. J. Holgate

    Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Liverpool, UK

    “Abstract

    Nine long and nearly continuous sea level records were chosen from around the world to explore rates of change in sea level for 1904–2003. These records were found to capture the variability found in a larger number of stations over the last half century studied previously. Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). Over the entire century the mean rate of change was 1.74 ± 0.16 mm/yr.

    Received 17 October 2006; accepted 21 November 2006; published 4 January 2007.  ”

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028492.shtml

    Carbon Dioxide and Global Change:
    Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion
    A critique of the 26 April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to
    the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming
    of the United States House of Representatives entitled
    “Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate”
    Prepared by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso
    Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, 6 June 2007

    “…After a careful study of the claims made by James Hansen in his testimony of 26 April 2007 to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the US House of Representatives, we find that much of what he contends is contradicted by real-world observations.Although Hansen speaks of a sea level rise this century measured in meters, due to “the likely demise of the West Antarctic ice sheet,” the most recent and comprehensive review of potential sea level rise due to contributions arising from the wastage of both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets suggests a century-long rise of only 35 millimeters, based on the results of 14 satellite-derived estimates of imbalances of the polar ice sheets that have been obtained since 1998. In addition, whereas Hansen claims that the rate of sea level rise is accelerating, century-scale data sets indicate that the mean rate-of-rise of the global ocean has either not accelerated at all over the latter part of the 20th century or has actually slowed.Another of Hansen’s claims that is at odds with reality is that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are “skyrocketing,” for several studies of methane (which has historically provided a climate forcing equivalent to approximately half that provided by CO2) have demonstrated that its atmospheric concentration actually stabilized several years ago and has ceased to rise further. This development – which was totally unanticipated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time of its last major report, and which was vehemently denied to even be occurring when it was first observed – effectively repudiates Hansen’s contentions about the need to act immediately to curtail anthropogenic CO2 emissions, for this unforeseen circumstance has already done more than humanity could ever hope to do in the foreseeable future in terms of reducing the atmosphere’s radiative impetus for warming; and it has thereby given us considerable extra time to determine what the true status of earth’s climate really is, as well as what we should, or should not, do about it. …” 

    The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’

    Some facts about greenhouse and global warming

    JunkScience.com
    Updated August 2007

    http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

    Suggested additional reading:

    The Global Warming Scare

    David Pratt

    November 2006

    Contents

    1. Introduction
    2. The ever-changing climate
    3. IPCC pseudoscience challenged
    4. CO2 fixation, Kyoto and beyond
    5. Sun and climate
    6. Modelling fantasies
    7. Global alarmism
    8. New science and technology
    9. Sources

    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/warm.htm 

    The Global Warming Hoax

    http://wnho.net/global_warming_2007.htm

    Dennis Miller unloads on Al Gore, other greens 

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruuux4AuHfQ

    So what is the “true status” of earth’s climate? It is perhaps best understood by noting that the earth is not any warmer now – and is possibly a fair amount cooler – than it was at many other times in the past. These warmer-than-present periods include much of the Medieval Warm Period of a thousand years ago, most of the Climatic Optimum that held sway during the central portion of the current interglacial, and significant portions of all four of the prior interglacials, when – in all six cases – the air’s CO2 concentration was much lower than it is today. …”

    http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp 

    Man vs. Nature

    Challenging Conventional Views About Global Warming

    glaciers

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3751219&page=1

    Should be on YouTube shortly for those who cannot catch the show in the USA.

    Now the report is on YouTube!

    Make up your own mind. 

    “What you think is true may not be so.”   

    20/20 Stossel- GMAB – Al Gore Global Warming Debate
     


    Make a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google photo

    You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    81 Responses to “Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet?”

    RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] Al Gore’s Big Whopper–Sea Levels Rise By 2100: Gore 20 Feet vs IPCC 2 Feet? […]

    […] from a documentary so devoid of truth that it was ruled by British courts to be propaganda. Algore has claimed the seas will rise by 20 feet unless we go back to an 18th century lifestyle.  Algore, the […]


    Where's The Comment Form?

    Liked it here?
    Why not try sites on the blogroll...

    %d bloggers like this: