Al Gore finally gets called on the carpet

**Updated–See Below**

Al Gore’s Oscar-winning and Nobel peace prize contributing An Inconvenient Truth contains a number of important errors. But scientists didn’t call Gore on the carpet. That experience left me with a bad taste in my mouth about the honesty of many climate scientists. Yesterday Al Gore promoted a bold claim that seemed to be quite a stretching the truth again. He claimed that polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years:

“It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this,” said former U.S. Vice President Gore, who joined Scandinavian officials and scientists to brief journalists and delegates. It was Gore’s first appearance at the two-week conference.

This was obviously crazy talk. Here’s a graph that shows the sea ice extent of Arctic ice for 2002 through 2009:

AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent[1]

The red line is 2009’s data. As you can see 2009 was a bit lower compared to 2002-2006, but there was more sea ice in 2008 than in 2007 and more ice in 2009 than in 2008. This is still lower than the 1979 to 2000 mean sea ice extent, but the data do not point to zero Arctic sea ice in 5 to 7 years.

Unlike with many of Gore’s claims, the press called him on the carpet with this distortion. The Times reports:

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Hopefully journalists will do a better job of fact checking Gore’s claims in the future. A week ago he tried to defuse the ClimateGate letters scandal by saying that the most recent emails were more than 10 years old. Al Gore is just not credible when it comes to matters of science.

**Update**

It appears that Al Gore had a basis for his claim.  The claim is still nuts, but at least in this case he wasn’t just making stuff up. The paper that Gore was likely relying on is here. The graph looks like this:

Fullscreen capture 12152009 25454 PM

Al Gore Isn’t Connected to Reality

When rational person watch this video, they come to two conclusions 1) there must be some kind of climate crisis and 2) this guy is bat sh*t insane.

Number 2 is undoubtedly correct–Al Gore is nuts. But we are not in a “climate crisis” we should see some serious increase in temperature. Here’s a temperature chart from the satellite data for the past 12 years:

Looking at the graph you notice that there has only been a slight increase in temperature for the past 12 years. So where’s the crisis? There was only a slight increase in global temperature (and decrease since 1998) even though worldwide carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 30%.

Al Gore wants us to ignore our domestic energy supplies because of a crisis that doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make a ton of sense.

Why does Al Gore exaggerate climate change?

I don’t understand Al Gore. Why does he continuously exaggerate his claims about man-made global warming? Why does he feel it is necessary to exaggerate?

Pat Micheals explains some of Gore’s recent exaggerations:

Gore: “Scientists . . . have warned that there is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [North Polar] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months.”

Fact: The Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is now for several millennia after the end of the last ice age. We know this because there are trees buried in the tundra along what is now the arctic shore. Those trees can be dated using standard analytical techniques that have been around for decades. According to Glen MacDonald of UCLA, the trees show that July temperatures could have been 5-13°F warmer from 9,000 to about 3,000 years ago than they were in the mid-20th century. The arctic ice cap had to have disappeared in most summers, and yet the polar bear survived!

Gore: “Our weather sure is getting strange, isn’t it? There seem to be more tornadoes than in living memory. . . .”

Fact: The reason there “seems” to be more tornadoes is because of national coverage by Doppler radar, which can detect storms that were previously missed (not to mention that every backyard tornado winds up on YouTube nowadays). Naturally, the additions are weak ones that might, if lucky, tip over a cow. If there were a true increase in tornadoes, then we would see a definite upswing in severe ones, too. If anything, the historical record indicates a slight negative trend in the frequency of major tornadoes, based upon death statistics.

Gore: “ . . . longer droughts . . . ”

Hogwash. The U.S. drought history, given by the Palmer Drought Severity Index, is readily available and extends back to 1895. There’s not a shred of evidence for “longer droughts” in recent decades. The longest ones were in the 1930s and 1950s, decades before “global warming” became “the climate crisis.”

Do Carbon Offsets Reduce Carbon Emissions?

When celebrities who raise the alarm about global warming fly around the world on private jets, or use proflagate amounts of energy, they justify their carbon emissions by stating that they buy carbon offsets. The problem is that carbon offsets might not offset much carbon emissions. The Washington Post has a very interesting story about the U.S. House of Representatives’ efforts to reduce emissions through carbon offsets.

The House of Representatives has presumably learned that money cannot buy love or happiness. Now, it turns out it’s not a sure solution to climate guilt, either.

In November, the Democratic-led House spent about $89,000 on so-called carbon offsets. This purchase was supposed to cancel out greenhouse-gas emissions from House buildings — including half of the U.S. Capitol — by triggering an equal reduction in emissions elsewhere.

Some of the money went to farmers in North Dakota, for tilling practices that keep carbon buried in the soil. But some farmers were already doing this, for other reasons, before the House paid a cent.

Other funds went to Iowa, where a power plant had been temporarily rejiggered to burn more cleanly. But that test project had ended more than a year before the money arrived.

The House’s purchase provides a view into the confusing world of carbon offsets, a newly popular commodity with few rules. Analysts say some offsets really do cause new reductions in pollution. But others seem to change very little.

To environmentalists, the House’s experience is a powerful lesson about a market where pure intentions can produce murky results.

“It didn’t change much behavior that wasn’t going to happen anyway,” said Joseph Romm, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress who writes a blog calling for more aggressive action on climate change. “It just, I think, demonstrated why offsets are controversial and possibly pointless. . . . This is a waste of taxpayer money.”

These results are typical of many government programs. It is sad to waste resources on activities that people would have engaged in anyway.

The real point is this–good intentions do no lead to good outcomes. Global warming policy needs to be rooted in actual positive outcomes, not merely good intentions.