35 Flaws in Gore's Movie

[iceaura]

He did all predictions that came to his mind, regardless if there was any science backing his claims. Which prediction didn't he do?

The ones you spuriously attribute to him, among others.

Meanwhile: suppose Gore's movie were all garbage, and actually did espouse falsehoods and commit errors,

so what ? It's just a movie.

edit in: for comparisons of actual sea ice cover in the Arctic, try this: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=14&fy=2000&sm=02&sd=14&sy=2008

The recent very cold, weather has brought sea ice back to "near normal" range - not quite average yet, for an average winter, and this is a colder winter, but hey - - - -

 

[pjdude1219]

to all the people saying that saying that the earth can be warmed by other things beside humans and than act like thedisproven climate change are wrong the problem natrual causes happen far more grudually than the changes we make and nature is better able to evolve to meet tbe changes the effect we have on the climate is real and is a problem

 

[halo07guy]

As I've said before, this is probaly just the periodical warmng of the Earth that happens every few years. Its to be expected.

Here are links about them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o

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

That should explain it. Its a natural process. I honestly don't see why scientists ignore these two. One could of caused the Global Cooling panic, and another the Global Warming panic.

 

[Edufer]

to all the people saying that saying that the earth can be warmed by other things beside humans and than act like thedisproven climate change are wrong the problem natural causes happen far more gradually than the changes we make and nature is better able to evolve to meet tbe changes the effect we have on the climate is real and is a problem

Please study what happened during the Younger Dryas, and see if ALL climate changes are gradual, or take a look at those Dansgaard-Oeschger events... A 0.7ºC increase in 150 years seems quite gradual to me.

But then we should go into discussing how useful statistics are for describing the physical concept of "temperature", and what's worse, "global temperature". There are polar temperatures, and tropical temperatures, but "global"? It seems easy to add up of temperatures recorded and find the average, and call that "global" temperature". That's only a statistical trick not having place in the world of physics. Even inside a room you have many places with different temperatures.

You could add up all phone numbers in a telephone book and find the average. Would you call it the "average phone number" in the book, and that by dialing it you would talk to anyone and all people in town?

 

[spidergoat]

Don't be stupid. An average temperature increase in ocean temperature and world temperature means something. It's rising all over, but disproportionally in the arctic. How can you think that returning greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere in the quantities we have been doing would have no effect?

 

[Edufer]

The ones you spuriously attribute to him, among others.

Such as...?

Meanwhile: suppose Gore's movie were all garbage, and actually did espouse falsehoods and commit errors, so what ? It's just a movie.

A movie being promoted as an educational (misinforming) tool in schools, and used as the basis for a Nobel Prize intending to give Gore and his junk movie credibility under the eyes of ignorant and/or gullible people. A master act in politics.

for comparisons of actual sea ice cover in the Arctic, try this: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=14&fy=2000&sm=02&sd=14&sy=2008

The recent very cold, weather has brought sea ice back to "near normal" range - not quite average yet, for an average winter, and this is a colder winter, but hey - - - -

Yes, for comparison see the same site: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=14&fy=1990&sm=02&sd=15&sy=2008

So we're back to 1990 --and going back to the 1700s.

 

[Edufer]

Don't be stupid. An average temperature increase in ocean temperature and world temperature means something. It's rising all over, but disproportionally in the arctic. How can you think that returning greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere in the quantities we have been doing would have no effect?

And what a decrease in ocean temperature and land temperature means? You tell me. We are seeing it right now. The PDO has reversed to cooling phase, and CO2 had nothing to do with the reversal. Southern Hemisphere seas have cooled and CO2 was not the cause. The cause for the famous "first time Brazilian hurricane" was precisely caused during this cooling of the southern oceans, and a decrease of wind shear in the area -not related to CO2 levels.

Have you ever heard about turning cycles on PDO, NAO, QBO, sun cycles, etc?

What its under discussion is precisely the alleged effects of manmade emissions, and the extent of those alleged effects, and amount of temperature increase this CO2 increase had or will have on temperature.

Something that is not any longer a matter of discussion is that CO2 increases have always lagged temperature increases --caused by other natural, non human factors.

By the way, your calling "stupid" to others, may invite others to call you "nazi" or "commie". It doesn't help the argument and does not advance the science.

 

[Edufer]

More Ice Than Ever

... Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month. At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.

Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed towards its annual low point, there should be about seven million square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois' web publication Cryosphere Today shows, that there is nearly 30% more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.

 

[iceaura]

As I've said before, this is probaly just the periodical warmng of the Earth that happens every few years. Its to be expected.

It wans't expected. And it has no apparent precedent in the past few thousand years. And there's all this CO2 around, to explain it. What is the explanation otherwise ?

The ones you spuriously attribute to him, among others. ”

Such as...?

You first. You've been dealing a lot of disparagement without specifics, except to misrepresent the purpose of the glacier footage and the like, so it's time for you to deal with the actual arguments and claims Gore actually made in the movie. I found them scientifically supported and unexceptional, whether right or wrong. How exactly did you find them otherwise ?

And what a decrease in ocean temperature and land temperature means? You tell me. We are seeing it right now.

One year of anything means nothing.

The PDO has reversed to cooling phase, and CO2 had nothing to do with the reversal. Southern Hemisphere seas have cooled and CO2 was not the cause. The cause for the famous "first time Brazilian hurricane" was precisely caused during this cooling of the southern oceans, and a decrease of wind shear in the area -not related to CO2 levels.

The climate models that predicted the famous first time Brazilian hurricane - right down to its track - were based on CO2 boost effects. One of the most startlingly accurate bits of weather forecasting in history, wouldn't you say ?

Something that is not any longer a matter of discussion is that CO2 increases have always lagged temperature increases --caused by other natural, non human factors.

Until the latest one, you mean. Great: So if you can find anyone who is saying any different, you would have a successful argument agaisnt them. But no one here is, so why bring it up ?

So we're back to 1990 --and going back to the 1700s.

Or back to the beginning of what happened after 1990, only with a little more heat energy fed in. How would you bet your own money ?

 

[Edufer]

Iceaura: I should have known you are Walt Bennet. Goodbye!

No use in discussing with someone who knows nothing about weather, climatology and bases most of his arguments in Real Climate and Hansen/Gore mythology.

 

[Myles]

You guessed wrong. I am not jealous of anybody or anything. And the last thing I would ever want is a liberal award. No thanks.

The only reward I'm interested in is from God. :worship:

Don't hold your breath !

 

[Myles]

More Ice Than Ever

... Thanks to the miracles of modern technology, we can also look at the departure from the average for ice mass in a given month. At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.

Around now, because it's summer down there and the ice is headed towards its annual low point, there should be about seven million square miles of it. That means, as data in University of Illinois' web publication Cryosphere Today shows, that there is nearly 30% more ice down in Antarctica than usual for this time of the year.

Why not pop down there and put the scientists who are working there right ?
Next , off to the Arctic and tell the Polar bears they have nothing to worry about. Just because things are changing faster than ever before according to measurements of ice-core samples, why be concerned ?

 

[halo07guy]

Remember the Little Ice Age? That was a massive climate reversal that wasn't man-made. So when theres another one, why do people instanly assume its man-made. The planet goes therough periodical droughts and freezes every so often.

In fact, I don't think Co2 has much to do with it. Volcanism has been spewing tremendous amounts of Co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centurys, and the climate has remained (mostly) stable the whole time. So why do people think that people think that the recent rise in temperature is because of Co2 emissions? I betting that after this little warm period is over, they'll be a period of cold again.

As for why the change in ocean temperature matters: It matters because ocean temperature pretty much decides the global climate. In fact, were IN an El Nino period right now. Once La Nina comes around, things should return to normal. And the shifts don't happen every 5 or so years. They happen gradually, over a decade or more.

 

[iceaura]

In fact, I don't think Co2 has much to do with it. Volcanism has been spewing tremendous amounts of Co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centurys, and the climate has remained (mostly) stable the whole time.

When volcanos kick out enough CO2 to affect the atmospheric concentration, and enough sulphur dioxide and soot likewise, they do affect the weather worldwide - short term boosts, short term effects.

What people have been doing is boosting the CO2 steadily for more than a hundred years, enough to boost the stable concentration of it by more than a third. That's going to have a lot bigger effect long term than any volcanos of this eon.

So why do people think that people think that the recent rise in temperature is because of Co2 emissions?

Two reasons: the accumulation of CO2 is there and doing something, and the warming is there without any other visible cause (if something else is warming the place, we have two mysteries: what it is, and what happened to the expected CO2 effects).

 

[Myles]

Remember the Little Ice Age? That was a massive climate reversal that wasn't man-made. So when theres another one, why do people instanly assume its man-made. The planet goes therough periodical droughts and freezes every so often.

In fact, I don't think Co2 has much to do with it. Volcanism has been spewing tremendous amounts of Co2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for centurys, and the climate has remained (mostly) stable the whole time. So why do people think that people think that the recent rise in temperature is because of Co2 emissions? I betting that after this little warm period is over, they'll be a period of cold again.

As for why the change in ocean temperature matters: It matters because ocean temperature pretty much decides the global climate. In fact, were IN an El Nino period right now. Once La Nina comes around, things should return to normal. And the shifts don't happen every 5 or so years. They happen gradually, over a decade or more.

Change is happening faster than ever before. as I have already said. That has been shown to be true by analyising core samples ath the North Pole. The results have been published but I canot remember where I saw them.

Don't forget there is also something called the Atlantic Conveyor when you talk of El Nino and La Nina.

 

[pjdude1219]

Please study what happened during the Younger Dryas, and see if ALL climate changes are gradual, or take a look at those Dansgaard-Oeschger events... A 0.7ºC increase in 150 years seems quite gradual to me.

But then we should go into discussing how useful statistics are for describing the physical concept of "temperature", and what's worse, "global temperature". There are polar temperatures, and tropical temperatures, but "global"? It seems easy to add up of temperatures recorded and find the average, and call that "global" temperature". That's only a statistical trick not having place in the world of physics. Even inside a room you have many places with different temperatures.

You could add up all phone numbers in a telephone book and find the average. Would you call it the "average phone number" in the book, and that by dialing it you would talk to anyone and all people in town?

i never said that all climate change is gradual i said natural climate change tends to be more gradual than when we have an effect on it. you can straw man all you want still doesn't make you right

 

[swivel]

Not sure if this has been posted here or not, but it simply must be watched.

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

The entire man-caused global warming movement is based on a correlational observation and nothing more.

 

[iceaura]

Not sure if this has been posted here or not, but it simply must be watched.

It's been posted, and thoroughly debunked, at least a half a dozen times.

It's total bullshit, OK? That means it's BS whether or not the recent CO2 boost is warming, cooling, modifying, or anything, the climate. If Gore's thesis is completely wrong that movie is still BS. If all the CO2 gets absobed by dinoflagellates tomorrow and we freeze in a new ice age that movie was BS. If the entire claim that CO2 concentration was rising proves to be instrumental error in common software used by all researchers that movie is still BS.

As you can see by rereading the conclusion you drew from it: that only correlational evidence exists for the effects of the recent CO2 boost. Even a moment's thought should tell you that the whole argument has always been based on lab verified mechanisms - the heat trapping effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, the amplifying effects of water vapor, the contributing effects of methane, etc etc etc, have all been lab tested and modeled and so forth.

If you want to see a purely mechanism-free argument, look at the most common one against the alarmists: that past warmings have had natural causes, therefore the recent one does too.

 

[Andre]

The problem is the past warming events can neither be attributed to be caused by CO2 nor enhanced by CO2. The "laboratory proved" back radiation effect of doubling is around one degree celsius or less. Therefore the effect of CO2 on future warming is grossly exagarated. We call this noble cause corruption or groupthink.

 

[swivel]

The problem is the past warming events can neither be attributed to be caused by CO2 nor enhanced by CO2. The "laboratory proved" back radiation effect of doubling is around one degree celsius or less. Therefore the effect of CO2 on future warming is grossly exagarated. We call this noble cause corruption or groupthink.

I think I'm starting to lean that way as well. It doesn't even look like our contribution to CO2 is significant. It doesn't look like CO2 is the greenhouse gas to be worried about. And I question the motives of this usual cast of anti-Capitalism characters.

Finally, I haven't heard the great arguments for why global warming will be a bad thing. Slowly-rising water is something you can combat with technology, ingenuity, and hard work. The glaciers which carved out the Great Lakes are something you could not combat. Cities would be slowly pushed over. It is a scenario that far-distant generations will have to deal with. I hope they don't blame us for not taking the "long-view" while we think we are doing just that.

Let's talk about real problems, like getting some of our eggs out of this single basket.