35 Flaws in Gore's Movie

vital said:
325,000 years ago it was changing more and at a faster rate ”

? How was that established?
Click to expand...
You haven't spoken to that question.

Nothing in what you posted accounts for your claim that the temp changes 325k years ago were faster and larger (over the same time spans) than the measured recent ones.

In addition, your graph shows an extreme anomaly in CO2 accumulation recently - unprecedented in the past half million years. Apparently you think that this CO2 has not had and will not have the effects that ordinary physics and standard climate models predict. Why not?

vital said:
That is false. CO2 heat trapping is predicted to to cause many glaciers to grow, due to probable higher temperatures and increased snowfall in places like inland Antarctica and high altitude Greenland.

The CO2 prediction is that the Kilimanjaro snowcap should shrink, and so it has. That does not, as the judge pointed out, prove anything - other possibilities for the shrinkage exist. ”

No that's just blind speculations
Click to expand...
Predictions derived from climate models calibrated by measured data are not blind speculations.
 
iceaura said:
You haven't spoken to that question.

Nothing in what you posted accounts for your claim that the temp changes 325k years ago were faster and larger (over the same time spans) than the measured recent ones.

In addition, your graph shows an extreme anomaly in CO2 accumulation recently - unprecedented in the past half million years. Apparently you think that this CO2 has not had and will not have the effects that ordinary physics and standard climate models predict. Why not?
Click to expand...
Yes it did...

The tempeature today is actually COLDER than it was thousands of years ago (when there was no man-made CO2)...how could this be?

The graphs do show an increase in CO2 accumulation, which is obviously caused by man, what it DOES NOT show is any temperature increase matching that CO2 increase, nothing at all...why is it so much colder today than it was even 8,000 years ago?

The reason I think the CO2 has little to no effect is because of the graphs, if the temperature had been getting as hot as it should according to the global warming hoaxers, then maybe I would agree, but it isn't. New NASA data shows that the highest temperature was in 1934...again not matching with what the global warming hoaxers are saying

GlobalWarmingGraph1.gif

What's this, absolutely ZERO correlation? How could it be?

mann-corrected.gif

New data shows nothing at all alarming, rather just regular natural occurences, in fact the temperature rose faster in the 1450s, and it was hotter in the 1450s than it is right now, must be the 15th century man-made CO2

Look at all the new recent data and studies being done falsifying the global warming hoax:

Deep-sea temperatures rose 1,300 years before atmospheric CO2, ruling out the greenhouse gas as driver of meltdown, says study in Science - http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uosc-cdd092507.php

Just wait a few years, this massive hoax will be ruled out by the concrete empirical scientific evidence

iceaura said:
Predictions derived from climate models calibrated by measured data are not blind speculations.
Click to expand...
Yes they are, that's why the IPCC has said their models are likely to be unreliable and inaccurate
 
i disagree with any person who says global warming is a hoax because its ot almost every scientist will say that global warming is real and that it is destroying our planet
 
VitalOne said:
mann-corrected.gif

New data shows nothing at all alarming, rather just regular natural occurences, in fact the temperature rose faster in the 1450s, and it was hotter in the 1450s than it is right now, must be the 15th century man-made CO2
Click to expand...
I'm very suspicious of "corrected" information....... :rolleyes:
 
vital said:
The graphs do show an increase in CO2 accumulation, which is obviously caused by man, what it DOES NOT show is any temperature increase matching that CO2 increase, nothing at all...why is it so much colder today than it was even 8,000 years ago?
Click to expand...
The temp increase has been measured over the past hundred years or so.

It was warmer at the peak of the interglacial warming - we are on the cooling side of the Milankovitch cycle - for a variety of reasons essentially based (so the theory goes) on various features of the earth's rotation and orbit. And it isn't much colder now - not as much as one would expect, from past patterns.

And the warming now is different - it is most significant at night and during the winter, rather than during the day and in the summer. That appears to be from its anomalous cause, an accumulation of CO2 not seen since the dinosauers waded warm swamps north of Minnesota and Antarctica was lush and green.
vital said:
New data shows nothing at all alarming, rather just regular natural occurences, in fact the temperature rose faster in the 1450s, and it was hotter in the 1450s than it is right now,
Click to expand...
Your graph there is not "new data" - it shows a "correction" of Mann's famous hockey stick graph using Mann's data, that was undertaken by two statisticians with no experience in the relevant scientific fields. Some of their minor criticisms were valid, but their more ambitious corrections, undertaken without understanding of the data involved and apparently motivated by considerations not completely free of political influence, have been debunked pretty thoroughly.

You might notice, for example, that the Vikings were getting frozen out of Greenland about the time of maximum warmth on their graph.

btw: about your claim of faster and larger temp rises in the same time span 325k ago? Any luck with the data support on that?

bbtw: The problem with the satellites - a miscalibration of some replacement satellites - was fixed several years ago. Where are you getting this stuff?
 
You know, 35 errors is more than just a busted flush. Al Gore lost the entire card game. All I see now is spin doctoring.
 
metakron said:
You know, 35 errors is more than just a busted flush.
Click to expand...
There were no scientific errors in that movie, as far as anyone has shown yet.

As the judge introduced in the OP said, the case for human caused climate change via CO2 accumulation, and Gore's case that something can and should be done about it by humans, are well made.
 
This is probably nitpicking, but I notice flaws 7 and 11 (both involving Katrina) are the same. Beside that though, the reall problem is that if Gore is right, and Greenland does lose its ice, we will be dealing with isostatic uplift under Greenland, as the asthenospheric material seeps back under the continent after the removal of trillions of tons of ice. The rise of Greenland means the disruption of the crust for hundreds of miles in every direction, and the probable accelerated sinking of the Gulf Coast of the the southern US as a long distance effect.
 
Greenland geology

This image published years ago in National Geographic magazine shows Greenland’s geological structure.

Greenland-no-ice-small.jpg


The ice masses are well seated on a depression, so they cannot “slide” towards the ocean as suggested by Gore many times. The sheer amount of ice in Greenland would take several tens of thousand years to melt under temperatures 10ºC higher than now, and that’s a fact that even the IPCC has acknowledged.
 
edufer said:
The ice masses are well seated on a depression, so they cannot “slide” towards the ocean as suggested by Gore many times. The sheer amount of ice in Greenland would take several tens of thousand years to melt under temperatures 10ºC higher than now, and that’s a fact that even the IPCC has acknowledged.
Click to expand...
So we have at least given up on the alleged "35 errors", and are casting about for something else to stone Al Gore with.

Lessee: A lot of the ice on Greenland (including at least 16% of the main cap) is positioned so that it can slide into the sea (via several "outlet" glaciers) if it builds up a layer of meltwater underneath itself - some of these are the fastest moving glaciers in the world one average, and accellerating recently.

There was just as much ice on the continent south of Hudson Bay at the end of the last glaciation, and it all melted in temperatures apparently not too much warmer than today's - it didn't take "several tens of thousands" of years to do it, either.
 
Greenland ice melting or sliding into the ocean?

Iceaura,

Those "several outlets" to sea are on the western side of Greenland, as can be seen in my previous map. The glaciers on the east side are smaller and their elevations make them impossible to slide towards the ocean. There are mountains preventing that.

But this image from Arctic ice (Feb.13th, 2008) shows that ice is increasing at a faster rate than "previously thought."

http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
arctic-ice-FEB-13-2008.jpg


"...the global temperature anomaly in January 2008 was 0.12 °C, the coldest reading since May 1995 when it was 0.08 °C: Hansen's team hasn't seen a cooler month for more than 150 months, not even during the 1995-1996, 1998-2000, 2000-2001 La Ninas. Also, January 2008, the globally coldest January since 1989, was exactly 0.75 °C cooler than January 2007.", there are many indications that warming is slowing down and will be replaced by another cooling phase." (Lubos Motl blog)

No reason to become hysterical about Gore's Chicken Little predictions.

BTW, I haven't given up on 35 scientific "horrors" commited by Gore. I was just giving another piece of solid scientific evidence showing he is deeply, irreversibly and lethaly wrong. :D

And it took several tens of thousand years to partially "melt". Why didn't Greenland melt during the Medieval Warm Period? --the same one Mann claimed it never existed.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
Lessee: A lot of the ice on Greenland (including at least 16% of the main cap) is positioned so that it can slide into the sea (via several "outlet" glaciers) if it builds up a layer of meltwater underneath itself - some of these are the fastest moving glaciers in the world one average, and accellerating recently.
Click to expand...

Two things: First, how will water form underneath a 1500 meters thick ice cover that is at below freezing point?

Second: glaciers are not solid blocks of ice. They have plasticity. There are movements inside the ice blocks, at different levels and at different speeds. And a "moving" glacier is a growing or advancing glacier because it is getting lots of snow on their sources or "heads".

Gore showed images of a calving glacier in his movie as a support to his idea of "melting" glaciers. Actually, those images come from glacier Perito Moreno in Patagonia, a strongly growing glacier, along with Pio XI on the Chilean side of the Andes. A shot from Argentinean TV during the last breakup in 2006 -the same footage used by Gore:

perito.jpg


Perito Moreno had stopped advancing in the 1990s, but has resumed its advance at a increasing rate: in 2001 was "breaking its face" at 4 years interval, now it is doing it at two years interval. Next breakup is predicted in next March. The last one was in March 2006. (BTW: temperature shown in the TV screen is temperature in Buenos Aires, not in the glacier.)
 
edufer said:
Those "several outlets" to sea are on the western side of Greenland, as can be seen in my previous map. The glaciers on the east side are smaller and their elevations make them impossible to slide towards the ocean. There are mountains preventing that.
Click to expand...
At least 16% of the ice cover of Greenland is drained by rapidly moving glaciers, that seem to be accellerating recently. Agreed?
edufer said:
And a "moving" glacier is a growing or advancing glacier because it is getting lots of snow on their sources or "heads".
Click to expand...
Maybe. Glaciers accellerate for various reasons. The question is whether their delivery of water to the ocean is greater or less than the accumulation of it at their heads. In the Greenland case the answer is "greater". In the one of maybe three growing glaciers in all of Chile (as opposed to the dozens of shrinking ones),the answer is "less". Gore illustrated the "slide" potential of many glaciers with stock footage of a rapidly moving, active glacier - one that is receiving more snow than in earlier times, due possibly to greenhouse warming. How does that affect his argument?
edufer said:
Two things: First, how will water form underneath a 1500 meters thick ice cover that is at below freezing point?
Click to expand...
I do not know the record depth at which meltwater filtering down through cracks has been found to be greasing the skids on a glacier - perhaps 1500 meters is too deep for that mechanism. Perhaps not.

The fantasitic hydraulics at work under the last glaciations of North America have left traces all over - water trapped under a glacier is under enormous pressure, and has great erosive capability.
edufer said:
But this image from Arctic ice (Feb.13th, 2008) shows that ice is increasing at a faster rate than "previously thought."
Click to expand...
Large swings of temperature from year to year (and day to day, but not so much day to night) - greater than in the past - are among the predictions of the global warming alarmists. We note that at the peak of the solar warming after the recent ice age the winters over North America were colder than they are now. The summers were hotter. It was the overall balance that had changed.

The question is one of overall trend. One of the reasons the ice is forming faster is that there was more open water than ever before to form ice on.
edufer said:
No reason to become hysterical about Gore's Chicken Little predictions.
Click to expand...
No reason to claim he made predictions he didn't make, either, in countering his actual argument.
 
Edufer said:
...

Gore showed images of a calving glacier in his movie as a support to his idea of "melting" glaciers. Actually, those images come from glacier Perito Moreno in Patagonia, a strongly growing glacier, along with Pio XI on the Chilean side of the Andes. A shot from Argentinean TV during the last breakup in 2006 -the same footage used by Gore:

[image]

Perito Moreno had stopped advancing in the 1990s, but has resumed its advance at a increasing rate: in 2001 was "breaking its face" at 4 years interval, now it is doing it at two years interval. Next breakup is predicted in next March. The last one was in March 2006. (BTW: temperature shown in the TV screen is temperature in Buenos Aires, not in the glacier.)
Click to expand...

The Perito Moreno Glacier is one of only three Patagonian glaciers that are not retreating. [wikipedia]
 
Devildriver_rocks said:
i disagree with any person who says global warming is a hoax because its ot almost every scientist will say that global warming is real and that it is destroying our planet
Click to expand...


oy oy oy.....see confusion. Global Warming is real....you cannot deny it and no one really is even debating that Global Warming is real.....its the "man made" or "natural" part that is being debated.......The evidence supporting man made GW....is extremely poor.....beyond poor....
 
More open water available? Geeez!

iceaura said:
The question is one of overall trend. One of the reasons the ice is forming faster is that there was more open water than ever before to form ice on.
Click to expand...

Quoting Al Gore in his Oscarized PPS, "Silliest thing ever heard..."

Arctic Sea Ice Sees 'Significant Increase' in Size Following 'Extreme Cold'
(CBC – February 15, 2008)

Excerpt: There's an upside to the extreme cold temperatures northern Canadians have endured in the last few weeks: scientists say it's been helping winter sea ice grow across the Arctic, where the ice shrank to record-low levels last year. Temperatures have stayed well in the -30s C and -40s C range since late January throughout the North, with the mercury dipping past -50 C in some areas.

Satellite images are showing that the cold spell is helping the sea ice expand in coverage by about 2 million square kilometres, compared to the average winter coverage in the previous three years. "It's nice to know that the ice is recovering," Josefino Comiso, a senior research scientist with the Cryospheric Sciences Branch of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Maryland, told CBC News on Thursday. […] Winter sea ice could keep expanding. The cold is also making the ice thicker in some areas, compared to recorded thicknesses last year, Lagnis added. "The ice is about 10 to 20 centimetres thicker than last year, so that's a significant increase," he said. If temperatures remain cold this winter, Langis said winter sea ice coverage will continue to expand.


Too Much Ice: Polar Bears Starving

Excerpt: Apparently, according to a report, Svend Erik Hendriksen, a certified weather observer in the Kangerlussuaq Greenland MET Office, who is responsible for all the weather observations at Kangerlussuaq Airport (near to Sisimiut), says that the cause is too much sea ice: “Several polar bears located (at least 6) close to Sisimiut town on the West coast ...Too much sea ice, so they are very hungry...Error number 36 in the movie An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore says the polar bear need more ice to survive... Now we have a lot of ice, but the polar bear is starving and find their food at the garbage dumps in towns. It's also influence the local community, polar bear alerts, keep kids away from the schools and so on.... The first one was shot at February 1st.” Sadly, that “first one” is the poor female hung out in the newspaper photograp.

No reason to claim he made predictions he didn't make, either, in countering his actual argument.
Click to expand...

He did all predictions that came to his mind, regardless if there was any science backing his claims. Which prediction didn't he do? What escaped his feverish imagination?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top