The story behind the 67 metres hoot

This in today from Marc Sheppard at American Thinker, who broke the original Gore story. Makes for fascinating reading.

Correction: Gore Did Not Predict 220 Foot Sea Level Rise in 10 years

Marc Sheppard

Last Tuesday, Arab Internet services company Maktoob.com posted the article Gore beats climate change drum in Dubai, which covered the speech our favorite greenhouse gasbag gave that day to the Leaders in Dubai Business Forum.

 

Here's a portion of Gore's rhetoric as reported in the original article on Tuesday: [my emphasis]

 

"Each one metre of sea level rise [SLR] is associated with 100 million climate refugees in the world," the Nobel laureate told a business forum in Dubai, which could see its famous man-made islands disappear under the waves if his predictions prove true.

 

"The North Pole ice cap is 40 percent gone already and could be completely and totally gone in the winter months in the next 5 to 10 years," he warned.

 

If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres, Gore said, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment"

Needless to say, there was just so much wrong in those 105 words I felt compelled to respond with this now recalled Friday blog entry, pointing out that, based on those figures, by 2020 the oceans could rise 220 feet and the entire population of the planet might be forced to wander the globe as "climate refugees." 

I challenged the statement that the North Pole ice cap is 40% gone, assuming he retrieved the figure from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2007 announcement that arctic sea ice extent was 40% below its 20-year mean.  I pointed out that NOAA also reports that the ice began recovering in 2008 and is now at about 32% below that same average.  (BTW – Joe D'Aleo at Icecap points outs that "actually the sea ice has increased in two years during the peak melt by 26% since 2007).

 

I wondered whether, had he been aware of these recent recoveries, Gore would have nonetheless forecasted that winter ice will be gone in 5-10 years?

 

For starters, the controversy over arctic ice has been of whether or not it may vanish in summer months. Ice extent variance is a seasonally cyclical phenomenon, retreating in summer and recovering in winter.

 

Yes, there have been alarmist projections of ice-free summers occurring as early as 2020, but even those predictions were recently walked back in a report from UK's Met office, which confirmed the ice to currently be in recovery and predicted that "the first ice-free summer [is] expected to occur between 2060 and 2080."

 

More importantly, even should the highly alarmist Met's highly unlikely 50 to 70 year predictions come true, melting sea ice has little or no effect on SLR as it displaces an approximately equal weight of sea water in either physical state.

 

I suggested that perchance Gore had conflated the floating polar ice cap with the land-based Greenland ice sheet.  The Met does predict it holds enough water to effect 7 meters of SLR should it disappear.  Of course that's only a fraction of the figure Maktoob claimed Gore predicted, but I was willing to cut the man some slack for rounding.  But there was still a problem -- according to Met, even "if man-made emissions are not controlled," Greenland melting "would take a few thousand years."

 

I pointed out that Gore's co-Nobel awardees at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) maintain a midrange prediction of 1.26 inches per decade.  And that even his fellow uber-alarmist James Hansen is only predicting 1.5 meters SLR by 2100!  And Joe D'Aleo helped out again:  "Holgate showed sea levels slowing the later part of the century and Topex showed sea levels stopped rising in 2006 in sharp contrast to Al's dire predictions."

 

So if Gore really made these statements, he was truly ratcheting up the terror way beyond even what had been his previously longstanding level of lunacy.

 

Which is why I also disclosed that my information came from one source and one source only, as media coverage of Tuesday's event appeared to have been somewhat sparse.  And added that Maktoob Business is a major player in the region, and that the author, Shakir Husain, boasts rather impressive credentials.  And that due to Gore's world-renowned large on shock-value, short on facts style, I was inclined to believe his words to be as reported.  But I also revealed that I had contacted Mr. Husain for further confirmation and that I'd update this entry should I receive relevant advice.

 

Yesterday, I received such advice from Mr. Husain, who wrote to me in an email: 

 

"In the second quote, it should be 6-7 metres… not 67… It has been rectified on the website."

It certainly had.  But that's not all that had been "rectified." 

In fact, they appear to have revisited a number of issues I brought to their attention.

 

The paragraph that originally stated "If the North Pole were to melt it could increase sea levels by 67 metres" was replaced with:

 

"Gore said if Greenland and West Antarctica, made up of massive ice sheets, were to melt it could increase sea levels by 6-7 metres, speaking in the heart of an oil-rich region not known for its regard for the environment."

 

"Greenland and West Antarctica are such massive amounts of ice each one of would lead to a six to seven metre increase in sea level if it were to melt. And both West Antarctica and Greenland are beginning to melt," he said.

So not only did they flub the measurement, they also got the location of the ice all wrong.  A crucial point, indeed.

 

Interestingly, Maktoob, which blames the blunders on tape transcription errors, stands behind its reporting that Gore referred to north polar ice disappearing in winter rather than summer months in 5-10 years, which still makes no sense even were the ice indeed in retreat. But by changing the originally reported SLR predictions from 67 meters to 6-7 meters and its cause from melting sea to melting land-based ice, Gore's North Pole Ice Cap predictions, while still nutty, become appropriately irrelevant to the SLR discussion.

 

Granted, the 6-7 meter figure isn't nearly as massive a whopper as the 67 Maktoob originally reported – but it's a howler nonetheless.  Remember, he bases that rise on the thawing of ice his fellow-alarmists at Met state "would take a few thousand years" even if we do nothing.

 

Let's face it -- had these words been attributed to any other person on Earth, they would have been dismissed as a reporting error right out of the gate.  But they were instead ascribed to the man who truly does warn of catastrophic 20 foot SLR this century.  Who did claim that warming could stop the Gulf Stream and throw Europe into an ice age. Who does attempt to blame everything from fictional polar bear extinctions and seasonal wild-fires to the misery of Hurricane Katrina and the thousands killed in a last year's Myanmar Cyclone on global warming. 

 

And who did, incidentally, state on Tuesday that each meter of SLR creates 100 million climate refugees and the North Pole will be ice-free in the winter within 10 years.

 

So then, it still appears that even faced with the reality that the public's disbelief in his hilariously impossible doomsday scenarios has likely played a major role in cooling the fear of the threat of global warming, Al Gore nevertheless continues to ratchet up the terror.

 

And that's still not likely to please more moderate anthropogenic global warming believers.  Just last Friday, Britain's Timesonline reported that "senior scientists" are quite concerned that such exaggerations from clueless politicians and activists undermine the efforts of serious researchers to get the word out:

 

"Excessive statements about the decline of Arctic sea ice, severe weather events and the probability of extreme warming in the next century detract from the credibility of robust findings about climate change."

I closed with this on Friday and I'll close with it again today, despite Maktoob's corrections:

 

So the incessant, insidious bloviating of the Gorebotic greenhouse gasbags might help impede drastic and disastrous action where no action at all is what's desperately needed?  Both in Washington and in Copenhagen?

 

Speak out, Al Gore.  And Barbara Boxer.  And John Kerry.  And Henry Waxman.  And Ban Ki-moon.  The lot of you!

 

Speak out loudly.  And speak out often.

 

One thing we can agree on – the future of the world as we know it may just depend on it

 

I should add that there has been some correspondence between Gore's people and Maktoob today, and Maktoob say they taped Gore's address and he definitely referred to ice disappearing in winter:

Former U.S. vice president warns global warming will create 'hundreds of millions of climate refugees'.

0

By: Georg Hoffmann

Posted: Nov 03, 2009 at 09:51

Thank you for your answer. I don't know then if it is worth to mention (might be even in the article) that is was in fact a lapsus by Mr Gore.

If you need a confirmation for this I can give you the e-mail address of someone in Mr. Gore's staff. He wanted to say "summer" but ... things happen.

0

By: Georg Hoffmann

Posted: Nov 03, 2009 at 01:56

I double checked with someone of Al Gore's staff. They confirm what I said above, i.e. that only summer ice makes sense and they continue to claim that this is what he really said, i.e. summer ice. Could you please (I know, a bit repetitive) check on tape again, and that it is really Arctic winter sea ice he is talking about. Thanks.

Editor's reply: We like our readers to want the truth - keep asking away.

Yes, we checked the tape. This is exactly what Mr Gore said.

Comments

[CM]

Unfortunately Ian, you didn’t make any mention of the ‘single source’ issue when you posted about it.

As for the Arctic Ice level, it’s ironic that they claim Gore hasn’t checked up on the latest, and then they show they haven’t. That ‘icecap’ link only goes until September 18. Whereas the National Snow and Ice Data Center has a daily analysis.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
As shown on their graph, the ice level has tracked (as of Nov 1) back down so that it’s almost the same as the record-low year of 2007. October 2009 had the second-lowest ice extent for the month over the 1979 to 2009 period. This year has steepened the linear trend for October slightly to -5.9 % per decade.

In terms of ‘winter’ versus ‘summer’, I think it’s pretty obvious that he mis-spoke.

As for when the Arctic might experience an ‘ice-free summer’ – as noted, the UK Met Office say that “It is unlikely that the Arctic will experience ice-free summers by 2020”. But then the Polar Ocean Physics Group (out of the University of Cambridge) believe data collected by the Catlin Survey team supports the viewpoint that the Arctic will experience an ice free summer within the next 20 years, with most of the decrease in ice taking place within the next 10 years. How can the UK Met Office ‘walk back’ predictions made by other people? The UK Met Office doesn’t ‘own’ the opinions of others.

Gore didn’t link the melting of Arctic sea ice specifically to sea level rise. The worst that could be said is that he talked about it within his discussion of sea level rise, so someone could think he implied it would contribute. But even then, it’s not unrelated. Temperature change in the Arctic is happening at a greater rate than other places in the Northern Hemisphere, and this is expected to continue in the future. As a result, glacier and ice-sheet melting, sea-ice retreat, coastal erosion and sea level rise can be expected to continue.

How is the ‘6-7 meter figure’ still ‘a howler’? He didn’t make it up himself. It’s a reputable figure.
Is there clear evidence that for every 1m of sea level rise, there won’t be 100 million climate refugees?

Sheppard still claims that “Al Gore nevertheless continues to ratchet up the terror” but with the corrections that doesn’t seem to be the case

[Shunda barunda]

"In terms of ‘winter’ versus ‘summer’, I think it’s pretty obvious that he mis-spoke."

Of coarse, whenever a left winger says something stupid it's a "mis-speak". ha ha! classic.

"How is the ‘6-7 meter figure’ still ‘a howler’? He didn’t make it up himself. It’s a reputable figure."

It is not!! only dishonest alarmist agenda grinders would talk such nonsense.

"Is there clear evidence that for every 1m of sea level rise, there won’t be 100 million climate refugees?"

You have got to be joking! Its ok for Gore to mindlessly pull figures out of thin air simply because he is Al Gore?

[AcidComments]

"Catlin Survey team supports the viewpoint that the Arctic will experience an ice free summer within the next 20 years, with most of the decrease in ice taking place within the next 10 years. How can the UK Met Office ‘walk back’ predictions made by other people? The UK Met Office doesn’t ‘own’ the opinions of others."

Catlin are a laughable excuse for an Arctic Survey Team!

No real credibility.

[CM]

>>>>Of coarse, whenever a left winger says something stupid it's a "mis-speak". ha ha! classic.<<<<

Judge each case on its merits. Why would he have said winter instead of summer on purpose? I don't see the benefit?

>>>>It is not!! only dishonest alarmist agenda grinders would talk such nonsense.<<<<

I've provided links to the literature. I haven't seen it disputed. Only the time frame is disputed (which is fair enough).
Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion?

>>>>You have got to be joking! Its ok for Gore to mindlessly pull figures out of thin air simply because he is Al Gore?<<<<

No, people are free to question him. But you've got to have SOME basis other than "that's crap". Otherwise it's meaningless.

>>>>Catlin are a laughable excuse for an Arctic Survey Team!

No real credibility.<<<<

Gosh, I certainly can't dispute that conclusive evidence.

All you guys seem to have is personal opinion? Are you all climate scientists? Or are you just repeating back what you read on right wing blogs?

[Shunda barunda]

CM, no matter which angle you look at crap, it is still crap.
Your argument against me is because I don't want to find out what type of crap it is.
Stop playing in poose CM, you might catch something.

[CM]

My argument is that you have no argument, just opinion (which appears not be based on any actual fact or evidence).

Gore could have lied about absolutely everything in his life, but if he says something accurate once, the fact that he lied before doesn't make the accurate statement a lie by association.

[Shunda barunda]

"the fact that he lied before doesn't make the accurate statement a lie by association"

Do you extend the same principles to you opponents? lets say Ian Wishart?
Please.
Lets be really honest, left wingers mis-speak, everybody else are liars and bigots.

And CM you know the interesting thing about crap? it has an odour to it that stops people (most people anyway) from swallowing it.
It is not hard to pick dual agendas, you just follow your nose.

[CM]

>>>>Do you extend the same principles to you opponents?<<<<

I certainly try hard to be honest and not a hypocrite.
I don't consider Ian an opponent (he's provided a platform for us to have this discussion, so above everything else he should be congratulated). I would be happy to agree with him when I think he is correct. I certainly wouldn't tell him he's factually wrong solely based on a personal opinion.

>>>>Lets be really honest, left wingers mis-speak, everybody else are liars and bigots.<<<<

G W Bush mis-spoke all the time. He's wasn't a left-winger. But when the intention is to deceive, well, that's not mis-speaking. When Gore said 'Winter' instead of 'Summer', I just can't see any motive to deceive. Can you?

>>>>And CM you know the interesting thing about crap? it has an odour to it that stops people (most people anyway) from swallowing it.<<<<

In my experience most people just believe what they read when it suits their existing opinion (whether it is crap or not). They seldomly actually take the time to do their own objective research ('follow their nose') as to whether something is crap or not.
Generally people who just post/speak in generalities and adhere to lazy conspiracy theories are more likely to be the ones who don't bother checking for themselves.

[CM]

Forgot to add at the end: And these people are the target market for online denialist distortion/cherry-picking/misrepresentation.
It's a complex area. Most people accept what they read/hear. And being against what 'the man' is telling you is worn as a badge of honour. People pride themselves on being skeptical because they think it makes them come across as more intelligent. Unfortunately, when it comes to a complex sucbject like climate change, most people don't know enough to be considered 'skeptics' and are in fact just uninformed deniers along for the ride.

[Shunda barunda]

CM, I used to believe in AGW before I did some research, it was only then that I found all the BS and convenient dual agendas, and oh how convenient!!
I am an environmentalist, I don't like dirty dairy, and I love trees.
One thing I don't like with a passion is people politicising the environment for their own selfish agendas.

[AcidComments]

"No real credibility.<<<<

Gosh, I certainly can't dispute that conclusive evidence.

All you guys seem to have is personal opinion? Are you all climate scientists? Or are you just repeating back what you read on right wing blogs?"

Because some of it's already been posted about on this blog anyway. Some of us can't really be bothered having to repeat ourselves!

[CM]

>>>>Because some of it's already been posted about on this blog anyway. Some of us can't really be bothered having to repeat ourselves!<<<<

True, there's really no need to keep repeating vague and unsupported conspiracy theory nonsense.

>>>>CM, I used to believe in AGW before I did some research, it was only then that I found all the BS and convenient dual agendas, and oh how convenient!!<<<<

Why did you "believe" in something before you did research?
Why not ignore the politics and just look at the science? Physically processes don't change or respond to politics. That's the beauty of it.

>>>>One thing I don't like with a passion is people politicising the environment for their own selfish agendas.<<<<

Again, ignore the side-show then and concentrate on the science.

[AcidComments]

"True, there's really no need to keep repeating vague and unsupported conspiracy theory nonsense."

CM.

It's you who're spouting nonsense.

I'd believe the German/Canadian science Actic Sea Ice measurements of 'twice as thick than expected' over Catlin's anyday!

Catlin is an Insurance Company making money out of Climate Change Insurance for frick sake anyway.

[CM]

>>>>I'd believe the German/Canadian science Actic Sea Ice measurements of 'twice as thick than expected' over Catlin's anyday!

Catlin is an Insurance Company making money out of Climate Change Insurance for frick sake anyway.<<<<

Has the Catlin research shown to be flawed?

More generally, the insurance industry is an interesting player in climate change, because it is inherently long-term focused. Now that the industry is reluctantly starting to address climate change, they are starting to model the risk of future climate change into their premiums, and thus handing on costs on to property developers, govts, etc - basically anyone who purchases insurance. For instance, climate change is a genuine risk to future GDP growth, so insurers are going to charge more for bond insurance, whether it’s corporate or government bonds. That increased long term risk makes it more expensive for governments and corporations to issue long-term bonds to raise short term capital. Unfortunately, this market mechanism isn’t working efficiently yet, because not enough markets participants are fully informed about the genuine financial risks of climate change. This is starting to change, however, as the insurance industry has now realised it needs to invest more money in climate research. After all, it’s the insurance industry’s business to try and understand future risks.

E.g. uncertainty regarding hurricanes is definitely significant not only in how government formulate policies but in how insurance companies formulate policies. They would be stupid to ignore the facts.

[CM]

Following on....

Climate change could (and probably should) be looked at as a risk-management problem. It’s not a question of whether global warming is true or false, or certain or uncertain, or whether there is a consensus or not. What matters is trying to understand the nature of the risk. There is a risk of global warming. That is undeniable. Just like there is a risk your house will burn down. That doesn’t mean your house burning down is a “fact”, just that the risk of it doing so is real. So when you buy insurance you need to assess that risk. Well, we need to intelligently assess the risk of global warming. We aren’t doing that because the public discourse (although not so much the serious scientific discourse) is full of misinformation. While the media and some figures (Gore) may sometimes be guilty of fear-mongering, I believe that the skeptics do a far worse job of muddying the waters with false information that is blatently aimed at misleading people. This is not true of all skeptics, but many. Consequently, many individuals, business and governments still underestimate the risk of global warming. I believe if we had a more intelligent conversation about the risks/benefits we’d all be conserving more energy and investing in cleaner technology AND making more money and we wouldn’t even need governments to make us, because we’d all the see the common sense of it.

[Thomas Everth]

Well said CM!

[Shunda barunda]

"Again, ignore the side-show then and concentrate on the science."

Don't you get it CM? AGW is the side show!!!
Copenhagen will do nothing to address the energy crisis, nothing to promote true sustainability, all it will do is create another market for the same bloody people that recently stuffed up the world economy!.
But most on the left don't care about that do they, ever wondered why?

[Ian Wishart]

CM the Catlin research was indeed flawed. Its comparisons were meaningless as it had no reference points to measure against, and their equipment broke, and data collection became highly sporadic, then they had to be rescued because it was too cold.

[Thomas Everth]

Shunda: "...all it will do is create another market for the same bloody people that recently stuffed up the world economy!"

So who do you imply stuffed up the world economy in relation to Copenhagen and GW? You are loosing us here!

What if the US (and others) had invested heavily in alternative energy and related technologies 20 years ago, where do you think we would be now? $150/barrel oil in 2008 or perhaps not?

[CM]

Re; Catlin, oh yes, of course, I had forgotten that was the one - debacle! Hope they were insured ;-)