Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Hydrogen]

Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness

So they won an award for predicting the future?

Must be alot of pissed psychics out there.

Others may disagree, but I think the evidence indicates global warming. This is all fast becoming what Robert Merton once termed, "reaction(s) based on negative reference."

Climate cools, climate warms. It's been going on for a long time. There is no "normal" climate in terms of average temperature. There has been a slight warming since 1980 to 1999. From about 1939 to the late 1970's there was a slight cooling trend. Before that, a warming trend. And so on. To say that there is a slight warming trend does not prove that it is caused by human activity. Besides, there has been no increase in the globally averaged temperature since about 1999. Some months ago, NASA quietly revised its statistics to indicate that 1934 was the warmest year of the century.

I don't recall Clinton on Gore signing Kyoto when they were in office. He's never answered as to why.


I agree with cacruden, I'm not sure what this has to do with peace. As the inventor of the interweb, Gore is culpable for at least some the nastiness that goes on there.

 

[Hipster Duck]

I guess I'm in the minority here; I really think that Al Gore deserved the prize.

Al Gore has done more than just make power point presentations and look good in a suit, he has reached out and brought climate change to millions of would-be disinterested middle class people, who could never wrap their head around the sophisticated jargon and, well, "scientific-ness" of the hundreds of scientists and talking heads out there. This is significant. It has implications for peace in the future because rising sea-levels,desertification and a fight for dwindling resources will prompt humans to act violently in the near future.

"Losing" the 2000 Presidential election was, in retrospect, the best thing to happen to Al Gore. The presidency is very unforgiving to men with good intentions and, not unlike Jimmy Carter, he would have gone down in history as a lame duck president who probably just had the misfortune of being in the wrong person at the wrong time. Instead, he has the Nobel Prize and he can watch the Chickenhawk chief make all the mistakes.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I'd say he's more worthy than the guys who won last year for giving out Bangladeshi microloans.

 

[Zephyr]

At this juncture, I am not interested in the politics of Mr. Gore and/or Mr. Clinton, or whether Gore 'deserves' the Nobel Peace Prize or not. II've said all I need to on that in prior posts. But I will defend the global warming end of this, because it is not an invention out of thin air by one man, nor a small band of people with some kind of conspiracy lurking. This issue has been under observation for some time, and many of the world's best scientists have weighed in on it, and more of them seem to agree than disagree, that global warming is an authenic issue.

Besides, there has been no increase in the globally averaged temperature since about 1999.

Not true. Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that 2005 is now the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.

CLICK HERE

Some months ago, NASA quietly revised its statistics to indicate that 1934 was the warmest year of the century.

Quietly revised?

From a NASA standpoint, not quietly nor loudly, simply per normal: the distribution to the outside media was not delayed nor handled in a special or unusual manner.

Not surprisingly for those that saw this as a major flaw to the global warming theory – namely, FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, and the other usual suspects – attempts were made to get the repackaged and misleading information out there. Thus far this effort has had little traction, except among those who were already in tow. I believe this is referred to cynically in political circles as “rallying the baseâ€.

But let us not leave it there. The source of the NASA revisions was James Hansen. Mr. Hansen supported before, and still does support the thesis of global warming. When asked about the significance of the revisions, his response was essentially the following:

• The revisions were not made to the global chart but rather to the US charts
  
• The global charts still show that 1998 is the warmest year on record when averaged for the world, not 1934. (Gavin Schmidt updates this to 2005 - see first section.)
  
• The US chart revisions, when properly updated, do not demonstrate significant differentials to the trends.

US chart (top)
compared to
Global chart (bottom)

Is this Mr. Hansen’s view and no one else at NASA? Is he in effect blind to his own revelations? I don’t think so. Mr. Schmidt also reports that the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 in the United States (before and after the revisions by Hansen) is not statistically significant.

If one were to bypass Hansen and Schmidt and go directly to NASA’s global charts, it shows the following trend: 10 of the warmest years globally in the instrumental record have occurred after 1989. The key word in all this is the GLOBAL trend, not the US trend! Watch how that point will be lost again by someone submitting another post.

CLICK Here to see NASA’s GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index

 

[Hydrogen]

Not true. Gavin Schmidt, a prominent climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies reports that 2005 is now the warmest year globally in the instrumental record, followed by 1998.

I would not count on blogs such as this for information. At RealClimate, neither Schmidt nor Mann are constrained, strictly speaking, in terms of their professional responsibilities as scientists. They are free to state points of view over and above the limits and restraints scientific expression. These sites tend to reflect their personal opinions on these matters. Concerning James Hansen, in the 1970's he and Steven Schneider were publically complaining about an impending return of glaciers. Oh, how times change.

As for globally averaged temperatures, the idea is quite poor when assessing temperature, as any slight change to how that average is measured changes averages. Airport-based surface measurements are, more often than not, surrounded by suburbs, increasing the effects of the urban heat island. Satellite measures of the troposphere extend back to 1980. They show heating and cooling distributed over different portions of the planet. The planet isn't an average.

With respect to the ever amplified concerns over warming, the Southern Hemisphere experienced one of the coldest springtime periods this past year. The Antarctic ice sheet is quite stable. There is presently no full understanding of the complex effects of ocean occilations on climate. Ocean levels rose more quickly before 1940 than today. How do changes in solar output affect the climate on a fine level? Does anyone really know yet to what degree? As for the consensus that a small variation in temperature has been caused exclusively by human activity, there is simply no proof of this. Global temperature increases have always been followed by increases in carbon dioxide due to warming oceans absorbing less carbon dioxide. The world experienced a little ice age some 400 years ago. It's now warming up. Is that actually waht we are seeing now?

One could go on with asking many more questions concerning the climate, but all it would do is to continue to underline the point that a slight increase in temperature is neither the end of the world, nor does it automatically suggest that it is a direct product of human activity. Nor does is suggest that it will last forever.



Either way, I think this thread is about Al Gore and the peace prize. I'm not interested in turning it into a slog-fest debate over global warming, or climate change. Hope you are not, either.

 

[Zephyr]

I would not count on blogs for information. On RealClimate, neither Schmidt nor Mann are constrained in terms of their professional responsibilities. These sites reflect their personal opinions. Concerning Hansen, in the 1970's he was publically complaining about an impending return of glaciers. Oh, how times change.

Hydrogen, I branched out from the NASA citation because you introduced it into this discussion. I tried to put flesh-and-bone onto the revision, because most of the discussion to-date in the media has been erroneous at best, and willfully manipulative.

Please examine the anatomy of my post again:

• Mr. Hansen was part of this discussion because he was specifically responsible for the revision. This is simply putting a face with an action. I happen to think that his opinions on the revisions are invaluable, and most of what I reference is also his professional opinion as it has come down through NASA pipelines.
  
  
• Next, I used Schmidt in another area of NASA to corroborate the Hansen information. Schmidt is not some unknown working in NASA, but a highly respected resource for information on global climate topics.
  
  
• Finally, I ending with a NASA chart, that was not compiled by either Hansen or Schmidt, but rather by a number of NASA personnel and is cited internally as well as available to the public, including the scientific community. If we would had begun the discussion there it would still be a question of how your comments about 1934 can be reconciled with the charting that is extrapolated from the different data syncs at NASA.

Actually, I think I anticipated what you are now taking issue with, but I can only surmise that it was not sufficient enough for you. If this is a matter of citing publications only to build a case, I will do so. Not a problem. I won't give Hansen or Schmidt's opinions unless NASA officially sanctions them; you won't cite the kangaroo proceedings of the British court as you did earlier in this thread. The points that are there, however, are not far removed from what the data clearly indicates, and much closer than the repackaged and manipulated rubbish we get from those over-stimulated political organisations.

As for globally averaged temperatures, the idea is quite poor when assessing temperature, as any slight change to how that average is measured changes averages. Airport-based surface measurements are, more often than not, surrounded by suburbs, increasing the effects of the urban heat island. Satellite measures of the troposphere extend back to 1980. They show heating and cooling distributed over different portions of the planet.

Besides, the Southern Hemisphere experienced one of the coldest springtime periods. What does that mean? The Antarctic ice sheet is stable. What does that mean. There is no full understanding of the effects of ocean cycles. What does that mean? Ocean levels rose more quickly before 1940 than today. What does that mean? How do changes in solar output affect the climate on a fine level. Does anyone really know yet?

One could go on with asking many more questions concerning the climate, but all it would do is to continue to underline the point that a slight increase in temperature is not the end of the world, nor does it automatically suggest that it is a direct product of human activity. Nor does is suggest it will last forever.

If you continue to think that global information is too unreliable, then maybe global warming is not a good subject for you to focus upon. That is usually how the more technical discussions are built as well, from global data, or built up from data and compared to global findings.

The Antarctic sheet may not be as stable as you think. All those valid questions that you asked are not out there in the ether. There have been attempts to address these questions - there are many intelligent people in the various fields that are attempting to examine the increasing evidence of accelerated warming in all areas including the polar caps, and this being the largest mass of glacial ice of the two polar caps has not escaped the purview of those seeing this trend that you do not believe exists.

I don't see global warming as an end-of-the world fear mongering, it is recognition of a dangerous development that can be addressed in stages by the world community, and monitored relentlessly with the tools we have at our disposal. The fragility of this planet should not be dismissed as the preserve of psychic musings, over-wrought pessimism or simply those that are lost.

 

[Hydrogen]

Well Zephyr, as to the first portion of your post, fair enough. The press, blog sites, political pundits and the like are generally poor sources for information a complex issues. My apologies then for introducing the BBC article (regardless of how kangaroo you find the British courts). It was intended to be an aside against Mr. Gore's presentation that all in his motion picture is fact beyond question. My point is that knowledge on the subject has moved on, and that all things presented by Gore in his books and film are certainly not beyond questioning or refutation. The film is highly political in nature, and in my opinion, has no place in a science classroom.

If you continue to think that global information is too unreliable, then maybe global warming is not a good subject for you to focus upon. That is usually how the more technical discussions are built as well, from global data, or built up from data and compared to global findings.

Actually, I spent many years working for Environment Canada and have more than a glancing familiarity with this topic. I do have a background in science, education and philosphy and worked in the field of public policy. Those are my credentials on the topic, should you have wanted to know. Frankly, however, the subject of climate change is rather tiring to me these days because it has been so politicized. The two words have become synonymous with human activity, and no longer reflect the well established fact that climate is always undergoing change. There is considerable research that suggests the concerns of the IPCC are considerably overamplified. Even that body (a political body) has indicated, report after report, that there are still low levels of understanding with respect as to how certain things such as the sun, cloud cover and ocean oscillations affect climate. If they can say it, so can I.

As for the Antarctic and Al Gore's fears concerning its melting, I think a quick application of some fundamental thermodynamic principles will show that it is going nowhere soon. Previous interglacial warm periods have been considerably warmer than the one we find ourselves in presently, and the Antarctic ice sheet persisted through those. Other previous interglacials, some lasting 28,000 or years or so, also did not bring about the melting of that structure. It has been there for thirty million years, a period of time where geological records clearly show a continous drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to the historically low levels found today.

I don't see global warming as an end-of-the world fear mongering, it is recognition of a dangerous development that can be addressed in stages by the world community, and monitored relentlessly with the tools we have at our disposal. The fragility of this planet should not be dismissed as the preserve of psychic musings, over-wrought pessimism or simply those that are lost.

The planet is far more robust than given credit for. It has, and will endure, much worse than we can throw at it. That being said, there is certainly no excuse for stupidity or waste on our part (human beings). But generating appropriate or useful environmental policy will not happen if we identify the wrong problems as a starting point. Agonizing over what incomplete, highly paramaterized computer models predict about climate one-hundred years out is a truly poor approach to developing environmental policy.

 

[Zephyr]

Thanks for sharing that information about your background. I have to admit, your positions on this have continued to surprise me, but as you will note, neither of us have descended into the proverbial name-calling that so often visits these forums when people disagree.

I am just a plain old fashioned structural engineer, with a particular set of specialities that are computer-related. In a former life I taught at University and still have associations with that past. While I am not an expert, just simply an interested observer, I believe that there are no unimpeachable positions on this particular topic. After a healthy skepticism toward receiving any and all information, one can nevertheless begin to see things one way, and yet acknowledge that others can just as readily view the same information in an opposite direction. I am not dismissive of those that don't accept the global warming theory, just upset at the way every element is twisted and contorted to get the upperhand.

I don't think I have to tell you that the global warming theory can get quite obtuse, very fast, if that were the route we were to go, debating our differing viewpoints to the nth degree. 'The planet is robust or the planet is fragile,' that is precisely the point at which this whole matter tips. But there are nuances before one gets to that point. Are we really debating about the robustness or fragility of the planet, or rather the robustness or fragility of us as a species? Yes, Earth has been here a long time, and relative to the Earth's age, we humans have been here but a brief moment. We have been frequently careless and destructive like no other force native to this planet. And as we have evolved the stakes have been raised. If one would take the other side and assume the Earth were robust with or without us, we are very capable of diminishing it enough that at the very least we could destroy the quality of life as we can envision it, and at the very worse, be the greatest threat that can face mankind - himself.

As for me, I think this is an appropriate point to make this hopefully my last post on this thread. This might be rescinded, of course, if some unforeseen post forces me to reconsider . Life is short, and the issues are basically out there now. There are at minimum, two different directions to go on global warming, and my current allegiance is only to one.

 

[Hydrogen]

I have to admit your positions on this have continued to surprise me, but as you will note, neither of us have descended into name-calling, and that is what often happens when people disagree on this and other forums.

I'm glad that I can still surprise people.

Your concerns for the environment are noted and respected. I have no issue whatsoever with any individual who has concerns with the environment, or with the impact that human activity can have on it. Nevertheless, from my perspective, there are issues that are of much greater concern than a gas like carbon dioxide. But as this is my perspective (others share it), I certainly would not expect absolute agreement on the subject. All that I ask (and you appear to be doing the same) is that this should be an informed perspective - and one as free as possible from demagoguery and political extremism.

 

[allabootmatt]

If anyone is under the impression that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet (or convinced by any of the other pernicious myths about him that became truth via the right wing spin cycle) I would suggest checking out the recent article in Vanity Fair by Evgenia Peretz on the media coverage of his 2000 campaign. Apparently quite a few American journalists are feeling like their savage treatment of him then, and willingness to swallow/ignore/excuse some of the worst warning signs about what kind of a president Bush would be, might not have been the best thing for the country.

 

[Canuck]

I'd say he's more worthy than the guys who won last year for giving out Bangladeshi microloans.

Everything I've heard thus far talks about the positive effects these loans have on the poor - specifically women.

How was this win 'less worthy'?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Yes, I know they have positive effects...I never suggested otherwise.

Perhaps I should have quoted others, but what I said was in reponse to comments such as: "The Nobel Peace Prize is becoming a joke. If they believe in what he was doing and wanted to give him a prize, they should just have created a Nobel Environment Prize..."

I think Gore's equally or more worthy of a "peace" prize than several past recipients...if Gore should get an environment prize, then the Grameen Bank should have gotten an economic prize.

 

[cacruden]

Yes, somewhere along the line -- the people awarding the award -- forgot what the award was for. Al Gore is just the latest, greatest to receive the award.

Al Gore has been running around the world telling everyone else that the sky is falling, and that we should all become much more environmentally friendly -- and yet he is not ready to lead by example. He regularly takes flights to other population centers using private air travel, which is apparently one of the worst offenders (from what I have been told). I have no problem with people travelling -- but if air travel is bad -- jets are bad -- private jets are really really bad.

Now, he says that he is environmentally friendly since he buys "carbon offset" credits to balance it all out.

This was a summary of how I view carbon credits:

By buying "carbon credits" you can offset your increased "carbon footprint" and making it "carbon neutral" (netting out the effect to zero). The place to buy carbon credits is from some organization that has a negative "carbon footprint" which is then unitized and sold to [suckers/politicians], so that they can claim to be "environmentally friendly" while doing nothing to really "help" the environment.

In hollywood, it is a way to not change your lifestyle (of the rich and famous) -- while being able to claim that you are environmentally friendly. An example (assuming I was a rich hollywood type): I spend $20USD a day and hire three really poor people in a third world country to plant trees for me [who on their spare time clear cut some rainforest for farming -- but that is another story], which allows me to get in my private jet and fly to NY on monday, LA on tuesday, Australia on thursday, and back to LA on Sunday. When I get back on Sunday -- I will be interviewed -- and I will be telling everyone that they have to be more environmentally friendly by taking public transit and showering every third day (and I will feel so positive about my contribution to the environment).

 

[Hydrogen]

Some critics have compared the purchase of offsets to Medieval indulgences - akin to buying your way into heaven.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

i sometimes wonder if all the global warming hype is a form of secular eschatology.

i'm not talking about the issue of global warming its self but rather how it's being handled.