What happened to global warming?

[spursncowboys]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/printer_friendly/news_logo.gif
What happened to global warming?


By Paul Hudson
Climate correspondent, BBC News
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.
So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.
They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?
During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.
But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.
The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.
And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.
Ocean cycles
What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

“ In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down ”

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.
But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.
These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.
Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.
They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.
The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.
In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.
In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.
What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.
To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.
But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.
So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.
It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).
Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.
One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

[Shastafarian]

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.
He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Piers Corbyn = Wild Cobra. I can't wait to read about some high school graduate showing up to a Global Warming conference with a diorama of the earth and sun and a 4 slide power point on why the Sun is causing Global Warming. Can't wait.

[Wild Cobra]

Piers Corbyn = Wild Cobra. I can't wait to read about some high school graduate showing up to a Global Warming conference with a diorama of the earth and sun and a 4 slide power point on why the Sun is causing Global Warming. Can't wait.
What proof do you have otherwise?

There is ample proof that CO2 is not the cause of warming.

Now the article is in essence correct. I noted two things immediatly that were wrong. It's not 98% of the heat that comes from the sun, it's nearly all. I use > 99.9%. The number is something like 99.998%, but I'd have to look it up again. The second thing is that he is going by Hanson's falsified data adjustment for the 1998 being the hottest year on record. After they discovered the error, the hottest year is farther back, sometime in the 30's if I recall. 1998 was something like the 3rd hottest year.

Maybe you should read the material from someone else who does a better job at explaining the same things I have talked about:


CO2 figures, cycle, solubility, GHG effect, oceanic scale, and biosequestration (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm)

As the ocean temperature rises, the equilibrium is changed. From Lance Endersbee: Sea Surface Temperature and CO2 levels (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Endersbee.htm):

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/CO2/Endersbee-21yrLL.jpg

Maybe you shpuld start here:

Arthors "My Story," (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/MyStory.htm) part of link:


I was an environmentalist who believed in Global Warming.

I saw Al Gore's film and was convinced by his science that is built on the work of Roger Revelle and others, and the beliefs of most scientists today. I was convinced by his statement, backed up by a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes, that there was consensus among scientists, and that only "kooks or crooks" now differed. Al Gore showed a very serious picture - threatening our whole future - unless we drastically lower our carbon dioxide emissions, and unless we act quickly. James Hansen, high up in NASA, showed even more alarming scenarios possible.

I then joined Transition Towns and learned about Peak Oil as well. I checked and checked the official science of Global Warming, the "greenhouse effect" of CO2, and the many "rebuttals of skeptics' arguments" at New Scientist, BBC, Gristmill, Royal Society, Skeptical Science, Met Office, and RealClimate. They all said, in effect "... there are a very limited number of objections or attacks on what is really very sound and well resolved science" :-

* Our CO2 emissions were the cause of the "unprecedented" rising CO2 levels,
* since "nothing else" could have caused this.
* And the rising CO2 must have caused the "unprecedented" global temperature rise,
* since, again, there was "nothing else".

I was then challenged by contradictory evidence -
- that steadily rising CO2 does NOT fit cooling periods as well as warming periods -
- that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is bad science and even outright fraud -
- that no runaway "tipping points" are even possible -
- that there is no science "consensus" -
- many have done two "U-turns", ignorant skeptic > AGW believer > informed skeptic

* Global temperatures have been falling for ten years, yet CO2 is rising as steadily as ever
* Carbon Dioxide is the foodstuff of plants, and cannot cause more than a tiny amount of global warming
* Global warming is not bad for life; cooling is far more hazardous
* Global temperatures have been changing at all times, in both recorded history and geology
* there is no consensus - and any claim that "the debate is over" is at best unscientific, at worst fraudulent
* Most scientists are only familiar with their particular discipline and, doubting their ability to assess the whole global warming thesis, often say "I believe in Global Warming... except in my speciality"
* Climate Science has been taken over by people with political agendas, headed up by the UN IPCC
* Seriously suspect "alarmist" science has arisen, some directly sponsored by IPCC
* All the the media and science publications are putting out the alarmist science
* All the major science bodies have "refutations" of the skeptics' science - but the refutations do not hold up
* Activists and much of the media have been engaged in libellous slander against all the best skeptics
* People are now in grave danger of making blunders of a size never seen before, based on bad science.

Who pays me: I'm not now, nor ever was or will be, in the pay of any big business to promote their position. I wish I had more money.
I wish I didn't have to put in this disclaimer - especially since almost all the slush funding now goes towards AGW support.

It took me a solid month of study to be sure which side was correct.
Some basic issues have been skewed or ignored; some areas are still unclear.
Checking and counter-checking both sides was essential.
For evidence and references to back all this up, please see the full story (http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm)

[Shastafarian]

What proof do you have otherwise?What proof do you have? Have you ever actually done RESEARCH? No, because you don't even have a bachelors.


There is ample proof that CO2 is not the cause of warming.No there isn't. There isn't conclusive "proof" either way.


Now the article is in essence correct.This outta be good.

I noted two things immediatly that were wrong.Was your spelling of immediately one of those things?

It's not 98% of the heat that comes from the sun, it's nearly all."Nearly all". Such scientific verbage.

I use < 99.9%.50% is < 99.9%. Your designation is not scientific.

The number is something like 99.998%, but I'd have to look it up again. Please do and link to a significant number of studies that offer proof of that percentage.

The second thing is that he is going by Hanson's falsified data adjustment for the 1998 being the hottest year on record.Falsified? Are you claiming a known scientist falsified data? Link?

After they discovered the errorDo you know the difference between "falsified" and "erroneous"?

, the hottest year is farther back, sometime in the 30's if I recall. 1998 was something like the 3rd hottest year.Link?


Maybe you should read the material from someone else who does a better job at explaining the same things I have talked about:Maybe you should stop acting like a scientist.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I'll do what WC does: Provide something that proves 100% that global warming is a farce or that CO2 is not the cause. 100%...

[CosmicCowboy]

"Global Warming" is an outdated term anyway. The politically correct term now is "Climate Change". That covers their ass no matter what. Earliest snows ever in Colorado? Yep..there's that damn climate change...Record low temperatures in New England? Yep..damn climate change again...there is just WAY too much money in the climate change scam...Academics and Researchers live on grants, and all the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of grants go to "prove" climate change...it's a self perpetuating scam with the end goal of politicians ultimately controlling, allocating, and taxing energy. The "winners" in climate change legislation will be those that pay the biggest bribes to the political aristocratic ruling class. Climate change legislation isn't about saving the planet, it's about politicians looting it.

[spursncowboys]

wc is the only one using facts. There is a reason why gore doesn't debate global warming or discuss his nine major mistakes of his movie.

[George Gervin's Afro]

wc is the only one using facts. There is a reason why gore doesn't debate global warming or discuss his nine major mistakes of his movie.

facts that don't answer the question dummy!

[spursncowboys]

"Global Warming" is an outdated term anyway. The politically correct term now is "Climate Change". That covers their ass no matter what. Earliest snows ever in Colorado? Yep..there's that damn climate change...Record low temperatures in New England? Yep..damn climate change again...there is just WAY too much money in the climate change scam...Academics and Researchers live on grants, and all the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars of grants go to "prove" climate change...it's a self perpetuating scam with the end goal of politicians ultimately controlling, allocating, and taxing energy. The "winners" in climate change legislation will be those that pay the biggest bribes to the political aristocratic ruling class. Climate change legislation isn't about saving the planet, it's about politicians looting it.
I find it hypocritical how they term cooling as temperary, but not warming]

[hope4dopes]

Piers Corbyn = Wild Cobra. I can't wait to read about some high school graduate showing up to a Global Warming conference with a diorama of the earth and sun and a 4 slide power point on why the Sun is causing Global Warming. Can't wait.
Well it seems he is far more educated than you are, he has a degree in pyschics and astro psychics,which it seems makes him credible to speak upon weather patterens. I mean Obama is a community organizer,who accomplished jack and squat and you voted for him to be president, this corbyn seems to have far more credibility to forecast weather than Obama has to run an economy, and yet you give Obama your blind trust.
And it's not like he's some corprate shill. The guy ran for political office in England as a Marxist, I mean that must buy him some crediblity with you.

[Shastafarian]

wc is the only one using facts. There is a reason why gore doesn't debate global warming or discuss his nine major mistakes of his movie.

What would those be?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I find it hypocritical how they term cooling as temperary, but not warming]

i find it hypocritical to ignore the drastic examples of climate changes..

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

Looking at other things, and several replies since my last.

I'll respond later to them, looking at other things at the moment, but thought I'd post this comical video:

qJUFTm6cJXM

[spursncowboys]

facts that don't answer the question dummy! hey shasta the spelling bee champ, where are you?

[hope4dopes]

Piers Corbyn = Wild Cobra. I can't wait to read about some high school graduate showing up to a Global Warming conference with a diorama of the earth and sun and a 4 slide power point on why the Sun is causing Global Warming. Can't wait.

Well it seems he is far more educated than you are, he has a degree in pyschics and astro psychics,which it seems makes him credible to speak upon weather patterens. I mean Obama is a community organizer who accomplished jack and suqat and you voted for him to be president, this corbyn seems to have far more credibility to forecast weather than Obama has to run an economy, and yet you give Obama your blind trust.
And it's not like he's some corprate shill. The guy ran for political office in England as a Marxist, I mean that must buy him some crediblity with you.

[Shastafarian]

Well it seems he is far more educated than you are, he has a degree in pyschics and astro psychics,which it seems makes him credible to speak upon weather patterens.And I eagerly await his findings. Until then, there's nothing to believe or disbelieve about his work.

I mean Obama is a community organizer,who accomplished jack and squat and you voted for him to be president,What does this have to do with Obama?

this corbyn seems to have far more credibility to forecast weather than Obama has to run an economy, and yet you give Obama your blind trust.No I don't.

And it's not like he's some corprate shill. The guy ran for political office in England as a Marxist, I mean that must buy him some crediblity with you.I never grow tired of people not knowing the differences between socialism, marxism, fascism, etc.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow...

Looking at other things, and several replies since my last.

I'll respond later to them, looking at other things at the moment, but thought I'd post this comical video:

qJUFTm6cJXM

i can't wait for you to provide me 100% evidence that all of this is a scam..in other words the answer to global warming..100%

[Shastafarian]

hey shasta the spelling bee champ, where are you?

Right here big guy.

[spursncowboys]

What would those be?
sorry jackass. i don't do your work. if u are uneducated in something, i think you should utilize your resources available to you and edumacate yourself.

[George Gervin's Afro]

sorry jackass. i don't do your work. if u are uneducated in something, i think you should utilize your resources available to you and edumacate yourself.

why don't you get back to u when know what socialism,facsism,marxisism..mean dumbass...

my god you're a deuche and a hypocrite

[spursncowboys]

I never grow tired of people not knowing the differences between socialism, marxism, fascism, etc.
toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe

[Shastafarian]

sorry jackass. i don't do your work. if u are uneducated in something, i think you should utilize your resources available to you and edumacate yourself.

:lol It's on you actually. "I won't do your homework for you" is such a tired excuse.

[Shastafarian]

toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe

No, the difference between those is not pronunciation. Try again.

[spursncowboys]

why don't you get back to u when know what socialism,facsism,marxisism..mean dumbass...

my god you're a deuche and a hypocrite what does that have to do w/ global warming hoax?

[George Gervin's Afro]

toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe

so you don't know the difference...:lmao

[spursncowboys]

No, the difference between those is not pronunciation. Try again.
sorry dueche bag, you already played this card w/ me. way to regurgitate nonsense.

[George Gervin's Afro]

what does that have to do w/ global warming hoax?

Because hypocrite you can't tell others to do their homework when you obviously don't!

[Shastafarian]

sorry dueche bag, you already played this card w/ me. way to regurgitate nonsense.

It's nonsense that the difference between marxism, socialism, and fascism is not pronunciation? Ya sure about that?

[hope4dopes]

And I eagerly await his findings. Until then, there's nothing to believe or disbelieve about his work.
What does this have to do with Obama?
No I don't.
I never grow tired of people not knowing the differences between socialism, marxism, fascism, etc.

What do you mean "In the 1977 GLC election he was the International Marxist Group candidate for Lambeth Central." Mr. Corbyn's marxist" bone.. a.. feedes"make him and excellent canidate for a czar post in the Obama whitehouse

[Shastafarian]

What do you mean "In the 1977 GLC election he was the International Marxist Group candidate for Lambeth Central." Mr. Corbyn's marxist" bone.. a.. feedes"make him and excellent canidate for a czar post in the Obama whitehouse

That's what I mean.

[CosmicCowboy]

*yawn* This is like watching the special olympics.

[jack sommerset]

There is no proof. A bunch of fools running around yelling "The sky is falling"

This just in. Phillies vs Rockies postponed because of snow.

[spursncowboys]

It's nonsense that the difference between marxism, socialism, and fascism is not pronunciation? Ya sure about that? Why are you so set on talking about the differences of three socialist ideologies in a global warming post? What are you trying to point out? Are you politicking for a socialist govt? Which one is the one you would base it on? China, Russia, Vietnam, Burma?

[Wild Cobra]

What proof do you have? Have you ever actually done RESEARCH? No, because you don't even have a bachelors.

LOL...

My God man. Do you realize how stupid it is to judge a person's ability to learn by what schools they attend?

I choose not to waste my time. I'm an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)!


No there isn't. There isn't conclusive "proof" either way.

I would disagree, but it's obvious that you don't know enough of the basics to teach you the truth. It is a simple reality if you study enough of the geosciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoscience) to know that the alarmists are full of shit. Please note that a Climatologist is on;y one discipline of the geosciences, and in most universities, only require one or two more classes to get a BS in Climatology once you have the lasses to be a Meteorologist.

How often are Meteorologists right?


"Nearly all". Such scientific verbage.
50% is < 99.9%. Your designation is not scientific.

Yes, I hit the wrong key. I edited and corrected that.


Please do and link to a significant number of studies that offer proof of that percentage.

Why? What other source of power is there that heats the Earth to any significant amount? There are two other sources of energy. They are tidal forces generated primarily by the moon, and radioactive elements in the earth. Both these are insignificant compared to the radiant energy of the sun. Even if we use 98%, it changes very little any calculations of solar changes. If you don't understand that, then you won't understand any facts that are contrary to your bias anyway.


Falsified? Are you claiming a known scientist falsified data? Link?
Do you know the difference between "falsified" and "erroneous"?
Link?

For your pleasure, we will call it erroneous if you like. I don't recall all the facts except that it was Hanson was responsible for the calculations, he is a global warming alarmist, and he works for NASA. Gavin Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt) is another alarmist that works for NASA. You know the site RealClimate that people like to reference? It's his! Funny how his co-authored and peer reviewed NASA work disagree with his RealClimate work...

Shindell et al. 2001 (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/Shindell_etal_1.html):


We examine the climate response to solar irradiance changes between the Blate 17th century Maunder Minimum and the late 18th century. Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions.

Wow... That's at least half the global warming right there! Outside his job, he publishes alarmist material end de-emphasizes the sun, but if he lied for a NASA paper, he could lose his job!

OK, I did a quick search. Here's a bone on the temperature correction:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html)

Fox's Angle misrepresented NASA correction to claim 1934 is now "hottest year" on record; August 12, 2007 2:49 pm ET (http://mediamatters.org/research/200708120001)

I'll do what WC does: Provide something that proves 100% that global warming is a farce or that CO2 is not the cause. 100%...
I don't claim that CO2 does not warm the earth. Only that there are other causes to, and that at the most, it contributes to maybe 25% of the warming. If we didn't have warming from the sun, we would have less CO2 also because the ocean absorbs 98% of the CO2 we emit. Problem is, the ocean is not in balance when it is warming, so the equilibrium changes.


wc is the only one using facts. There is a reason why gore doesn't debate global warming or discuss his nine major mistakes of his movie.
What would those be?
Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-judge-attacks-nine-errors-in-al-gores-alarmist-climate-change-film.do)

[Shastafarian]

LOL...

My God man. Do you realize how stupid it is to judge a person's ability to learn by what schools they attend?My God Man!!! I'm not judging a person's ability to learn. I'm judging you pretending to be a scientist.


I choose not to waste my time.Like doing research. Waste of time that research.

I'm an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)!We know you didn't go to college.


I would disagree, but it's obvious that you don't know enough of the basics to teach you the truth. It is a simple reality if you study enough of the geosciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoscience) to know that the alarmists are full of shit.So says the fake scientist.

Please note that a Climatologist is on;y one discipline of the geosciences, and in most universities, only require one or two more classes to get a BS in Climatology once you have the lasses to be a Meteorologist.Says the fake scientist.


How often are Meteorologists right?Probably more often than fake Meterologists.


Yes, I hit the wrong key. I edited and corrected that.


I use > 99.9%. The number is something like 99.998%

100% is > than 99.9%. Your designation is still unscientific.


Why? What other source of power is there that heats the Earth to any significant amount? There are two other sources of energy. They are tidal forces generated primarily by the moon, and radioactive elements in the earth. Both these are insignificant compared to the radiant energy of the sun. Even if we use 98%, it changes very little any calculations of solar changes. If you don't understand that, then you won't understand any facts that are contrary to your bias anyway.I guess I should've called this to attention earlier. We get the vast majority of heat from the sun, yes. But why don't you ever show how much heat retention we have now because of various gases in the atmosphere? You think that hasn't changed?


For your pleasure, we will call it erroneous if you like.No I mean call it "falsified" all you like. I just don't think an actual scientist will like it very much when fake scientists claim they falsified data.

I don't recall all the factsI'm shocked!

except that it was Hanson was responsible for the calculations, he is a global warming alarmist, and he works for NASA. So you are claiming he knowingly falsified data. Fake Scientists Unite!!!
Gavin Schmidt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt) is another alarmist that works for NASA. Ok.

You know the site RealClimate that people like to reference?Nope.

It's his! Good for him.

Funny how his co-authored and peer reviewed NASA work disagree with his RealClimate work...Not funny. I'd call it interesting.



Wow... That's at least half the global warming right there! Outside his job, he publishes alarmist material end de-emphasizes the sun, but if he lied for a NASA paper, he could lose his job!Do fake scientists read the entire article or just the abstract? I'm curious.


OK, I did a quick search. Here's a bone on the temperature correction:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html)

Fox's Angle misrepresented NASA correction to claim 1934 is now "hottest year" on record; August 12, 2007 2:49 pm ET (http://mediamatters.org/research/200708120001)So basically Fox lied and this real scientist, Schmidt, was correct. Thanks.


I don't claim that CO2 does not warm the earth. Only that there are other causes to, and that at the most, it contributes to maybe 25% of the warming. If we didn't have warming from the sun, we would have less CO2 also because the ocean absorbs 98% of the CO2 we emit. Problem is, the ocean is not in balance when it is warming, so the equilibrium changes.You're ok with contributing 25% of the warming to the earth?


Judge attacks nine errors in Al Gore's 'alarmist' climate change film (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-judge-attacks-nine-errors-in-al-gores-alarmist-climate-change-film.do)

So the first "error" is based on knowing the future. Gore said a 20ft rise in sea level could occur in the "near future" and this Judge (another fake scientist?) said it would take millennia.

Second error was Gore said some Pacific atolls have been evacuated. Judge says there's no evidence of that. Nothing to do with the science.

Third is Gore said the Gulf Stream would "shut down". It's likely he didn't mean there would be no more Gulf Stream but that it would cease to exist as we know it. Maybe he didn't mean it that way. It's impossible to know what exactly would happen. Judge says it won't shut down but might "slow down". Still, not a fatal error because even if it merely shifts, that would alter the global climate dramatically.

Fourth error is based on a graph Gore showed. I think he said it was an exact fit of CO2 concentration and aggregate temperatures. There was a correlation but the Judge says it doesn't show what Gore asserts. I would need to see the scene in question.

Fifth "error" is that Gore said the snows of Kilimanjaro disappeared because of global warming. Judge, like the genius he is, says there's no way to prove that's why the snow disappeared. No shit, really?

Sixth error is along similar lines. It's about Lake Chad drying up and the cause. He said, she said.

Seventh error was Katrina made stronger by global warming. It's entirely possible the hurricane was strengthened while it was over warm water. Is there any way to prove anthropogenic global warming caused that water to warm? No. But hey, let's use that non-proof as proof someone is wrong. Makes sense to me!

The eight error is about Polar Bears. Oh lonely and cuddly polar bears. Gore said there had been polar bears found dead that had drowned because they were swimming longer than usual distances because of melted ice. Judge claims there were no recent reports of that.

Whoops:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article767459.ece

The last error was about coral reef bleaching. Bleaching is caused when the photosynthetic organisms living inside the coral are ejected when temperatures are too high. Judge claims there's no way to tell what causes coral bleaching. He's full of shit.

[spursncowboys]

Shasta either got a degree in english or psychology. He wants to put his diploma in his room but his mom wants it in their family room.

[Shastafarian]

Shasta either got a degree in english or psychology.Wrong and wrong. You can keep guessing if you like.

He wants to put his diploma in his room but his mom wants it in their family room.
It's actually in a cabinet in the dining room I think. Maybe I can get a fake scientist diploma too and flaunt it here!

[spursncowboys]

physical education?

theatre arts?

[NoOptionB]

Nothing but a tool to give government more control.

Ya'lls hearts are in the right places. I get it, I loved Captain Planet as a kid as well. Government is just doing what Government do; pulling at your heart strings for their own agenda.


Whatever though. Drive your prius, some of us will continue driving 10 mpg V8's. We will all be dead in 80 years. It really doesn't matter.

[Shastafarian]

physical education?

theatre arts?

Nope and nope. Not even close.

[hope4dopes]

Shasta either got a degree in english or psychology. He wants to put his diploma in his room but his mom wants it in their family room.There is no way you can convince me that Shasta is still not in high school or that Shasta is a sexually active adult.Just sounds too immature.

[Shastafarian]

There is no way you can convince me that Shasta is still not in high school or that Shasta is a sexually active adult.Just sounds too immature.

Your fantasy of 1) me being underage and 2) my sex life, is getting pretty disturbing.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Nothing but a tool to give government more control.

Ya'lls hearts are in the right places. I get it, I loved Captain Planet as a kid as well. Government is just doing what Government do; pulling at your heart strings for their own agenda.


Whatever though. Drive your prius, some of us will continue driving 10 mpg V8's. We will all be dead in 80 years. It really doesn't matter.

god you're an idiot..i leave for the day and now come back to your idiocy..

[spursncowboys]

god you're an idiot..i leave for the day and now come back to your idiocy..
You mean you woke up because your mom has come home and is cleaning up your mess and you are running to get your happy sock before she picks it up.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL...

My God man. Do you realize how stupid it is to judge a person's ability to learn by what schools they attend?

I choose not to waste my time. I'm an autodidact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidact)!

I would disagree, but it's obvious that you don't know enough of the basics to teach you the truth. It is a simple reality if you study enough of the geosciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoscience) to know that the alarmists are full of shit. Please note that a Climatologist is on;y one discipline of the geosciences, and in most universities, only require one or two more classes to get a BS in Climatology once you have the lasses to be a Meteorologist.

How often are Meteorologists right?

I'm not going to bother pointing out the irony here. I'm just going to quote it so that those who are capable of finding it do so.

You WC, are a treasure trove of bullshit and hilarity.

Feel free to continue.

[101A]

It's actually in a cabinet in the dining room I think. Maybe I can get a fake scientist diploma too and flaunt it here!

Your cabinet, or Mommy's?

[Shastafarian]

Your cabinet, or Mommy's?

Why are the board republicans so obsessed with fantasies of underage boys?

[101A]

Why are the board republicans so obsessed with fantasies of underage boys?

I never suggested you were a boy.

[Shastafarian]

I never suggested you were a boy.

So you regularly refer to other people's mothers as "mommy"? Creepy.

[DarrinS]

It's quite obvious that the 3% human contribution to a gas that makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere is reponsible for all the warming that were NOT observing.

Time to move to higher ground.

[Wild Cobra]

It's quite obvious that the 3% human contribution to a gas that makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere is reponsible for all the warming that were NOT observing.

Time to move to higher ground.

No kidding.

I'd like to remind people of the amount of carbon we introduce into the atmosphere. Wiki: Carbon Cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Carbon_cycle-cute_diagram.jpeg

Please note that the forests, earth, etc produce 120 GtC annually. The oceans 90 GtC. Mankind, only 7.1 GtC through industry and land use. This is a total of 217.1 GtC of sourced carbon emission with man contributing to 3.3% of it. Now add a volcano every now and then...

The problem isn't the added CO2 we are responsible for. The problem is that nature is being natural. Things change. Even if we didn't contribute any carbon to the carbon cycle, with the oceans warming, their equilibrium has changed to the point we would have almost as much CO2 in the atmosphere anyway.

[Yonivore]

cf-fzVH6v_U
I'll bet Algore doesn't make that mistake again. Funny how the microphone got killed, eh?

[Wild Cobra]

I'll bet Algore doesn't make that mistake again. Funny how the microphone got killed, eh?
Well, I agree that one person shouldn't be able to monopolize the time, but Gore should have given a proper answer also.

Just proves Gore couldn't. I say the guy should have said something like "OK, I see you cannot answer that one without lying or flip-flopping." Put him on the spot that way.

[sabar]

Attacking someone's education level is low-brow and ad hominem fallacy.

You need no degree to be a scientist or to perform research. You will find that a 9 year old child is more than capable of performing tests on a set of samples with a control group and drawing a statistically significant conclusion. A scientist is one who uses the scientific method, not one that earn degrees.

Speaking of which, this is the problem with "climate change" (indeed usage of this term is rising these days over global warming). Specifically, that people are attempting to draw conclusions on geological timescales based on a few decades of data. Some extend this to a few centuries, but of course the instrumentation that measures the temperature or whatever is not the same in each test. Anything past that uses more fuzzy data such as ice core samples.

Combine this with the fact that we have no real idea how the sun and earth cycle over millenia and you have a political "science" in which millions of dollars are at stake for each party involved. Yeah, we have an idea on SOME cycles, but nothing so sure that we could predict the temperature at some given point in time based on things like eccentricity, solar output, cloud cover, water vapor, and so forth. We can only guess and we are extrapolating into the future on a half-baked scheme of how everything works.

You don't see this with other sciences. Computer scientists have no problems agreeing on theory and meteorologists can predict hurricane movement and air mass movement with little variation. Physicists all agree on the path a body will take if launched out of Earth and under the effects of many other bodies. Yet in climatology we have many models disagreeing in how the temperature will increase with time. Simplistic models that only account the components of air can see the effects of increasing some component, but what model can take into effect carbon sinks and solar variation and so forth? Few, which is why there is so much discrepancy and why you have scientists that speak out against global warming.

In my opinion you can take a "better safe than sorry" approach or an economical one. No one has any clue as to how much man-made global warming exists without hundreds of more years of data. It has been proven right here many times where two people with graphs and science debate both sides without reaching any conclusion because of contradicting models on something we don't quite understand yet.

[Wild Cobra]

In my opinion you can take a "better safe than sorry" approach or an economical one.
Yes, but when there is confidence to a range of information, one clearly outweighs the other.

No one has any clue as to how much man-made global warming exists without hundreds of more years of data.
I disagree, but that depends on what level you wish to quantify it. If you want absolutes, then you are right. It is scientifically clear than man's impact is far less than at first thought.

It has been proven right here many times where two people with graphs and science debate both sides without reaching any conclusion because of contradicting models on something we don't quite understand yet.
That's the problem with using models based on what you believe to start with. Such models give you the results you already believe.

I think you agree with me that Global Warming is far more complex than what the discipline of Climatology alone can explain. Climatology is only one of several disciplines of the geosciences. Solar is a clear aspect. The sun is the source of nearly all the Earths heat, and mankind can only have a small effect on the feedbacks of different systems. The energy the earth receives from the sun is an aspect that can be clearly identified. The alarmists dismiss solar changes, and only focus on the "radiative forcing" in the atmosphere for it's changes. What you never read of their calculations, because they flat out ignore them, is that the oceans are about 70% of the earth and they absorb about 92% of the solar power they receive. They absorb it deep, so you don't have the type of energy redirected skyward like the land does, which absorbs a global average of about 70% and reflects about 30%. It's that 70% that is re-emitted as IR skyward. Regardless how you make the calculations from there, the oceans are a long term storage of radiant heat, and minor changes in the suns output make notable difference.

Show me an alarmists research that takes that actually takes the ocean heat into account. I will gladly be open to their work. The others are a joke.

[DarrinS]

From http://www.surfacestations.org/

This pie chart shows that the surface temperature measurements in the US aren't very reliable. A majority are reading too high because of urban heat island effects.

61% of surface stations are reading >= 3.6 degrees too high (Fahrenheit)
8% are reading >= 9 degrees too high :wow (Fahrenheit)

These guys have surveyed about 80% of all surface stations in the US

http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Watts_fig23.png

[DarrinS]

Whatever happened to global warming? How freezing temperatures are starting to shatter climate change theory (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1220052/Austria-sees-earliest-snow-history-America-sees-lowest-temperatures-50-years-So-did-global-warming-go.html)




In the freezing foothills of Montana, a distinctly bitter blast of revolution hangs in the air.

And while the residents of the icy city of Missoula can stave off the -10C chill with thermals and fires, there may be no easy remedy for the wintry snap's repercussions.

The temperature has shattered a 36-year record. Further into the heartlands of America, the city of Billings registered -12C on Sunday, breaking the 1959 barrier of -5C.

Closer to home, Austria is today seeing its earliest snowfall in history with 30 to 40 centimetres already predicted in the mountains. Such dramatic falls in temperatures provide superficial evidence for those who doubt that the world is threatened by climate change.

But most pertinent of all, of course, are the growing volume of statistics.

According to the National Climatic Data Centre, Earth's hottest recorded year was 1998.

If you put the same question to NASA, scientists will say it was 1934, followed by 1998. The next three runner-ups are 1921, 2006 and 1931.

Which all blows a rather large hole in the argument that the earth is hurtling towards an inescapable heat death prompted by man's abuse of the environment.

Indeed, some experts believe we should forget global warming and turn our attention to an entirely differently phenomenon - global cooling.

The evidence for both remains inconclusive, which is unlikely to help the legions of world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December to negotiate a new climate change deal.


There is no doubt the amount of man-made carbon dioxide, the gas believed to be responsible for heating up the planet, has increased phenomenally over the last 100 years.

For the final few decades of the 20th century and as the atmosphere's composition changed, scientists recorded the planet was warming rapidly and made a positive correlation between the two.

But then something went wrong. Rather then continuing to soar, the Earth's temperature appeared to stabilise, smashing all conventional predictions.
The development seemed to support the view of climate change cynics who claimed global warming was simply a natural cycle and not caused by man.

Some doubters believe that the increase was actually down to the amount of energy from the Sun, which provides 98 per cent of the Earth's warmth.


Previously, the fluctuating amount of radiation given out by the sun was thought to play a large role in the climate.

But Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, who was part of the team to win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change, studied solar output - the heat leaving the sun's surface - and cosmic ray intensity over the last 40 years, and compared those figures with global average surface temperature.

He told the BBC: 'Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity.'

Scientists have intensified the search for alternative explanations

Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University believes the key to the connumdrum may be the temperature of the world's seas.

Figures show the Pacific Ocean has been cooling over the last few years, and Easterbrook's research shows a correlation between this and global temperatures.

He says the oceans have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically, known as Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

And after a 30-year heating cycle in the 1980s and 1990s, pushing temperatures above average, we are now moving into a cooler period.

Professor Easterbrook said: 'In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

'The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.'


His figures show that the global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), stressed the impact of the ocean currents in the North Atlantic - a phenomenon called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation.

He believes we may be in a period of cooling - but that it will be temporary before global warming reasserts itself.

He said the NAO may have been responsible for some of the rapid rise in temperatures of the last three decades.

'But how much? The jury is still out,' he said.
So is the sun really going down on global warming?

The Met Office is not convinced.

They incorporate solar and oceanic cycles into their models, and they say that - even if there are periods of slower warming, or temporary cooling, the long-term trend in global temperatures is still on the up.

[RandomGuy]

Attacking someone's education level is low-brow and ad hominem fallacy.

You need no degree to be a scientist or to perform research. You will find that a 9 year old child is more than capable of performing tests on a set of samples with a control group and drawing a statistically significant conclusion. A scientist is one who uses the scientific method, not one that earn degrees.

Speaking of which, this is the problem with "climate change" (indeed usage of this term is rising these days over global warming). Specifically, that people are attempting to draw conclusions on geological timescales based on a few decades of data. Some extend this to a few centuries, but of course the instrumentation that measures the temperature or whatever is not the same in each test. Anything past that uses more fuzzy data such as ice core samples.

Combine this with the fact that we have no real idea how the sun and earth cycle over millenia and you have a political "science" in which millions of dollars are at stake for each party involved. Yeah, we have an idea on SOME cycles, but nothing so sure that we could predict the temperature at some given point in time based on things like eccentricity, solar output, cloud cover, water vapor, and so forth. We can only guess and we are extrapolating into the future on a half-baked scheme of how everything works.

You don't see this with other sciences. Computer scientists have no problems agreeing on theory and meteorologists can predict hurricane movement and air mass movement with little variation. Physicists all agree on the path a body will take if launched out of Earth and under the effects of many other bodies. Yet in climatology we have many models disagreeing in how the temperature will increase with time. Simplistic models that only account the components of air can see the effects of increasing some component, but what model can take into effect carbon sinks and solar variation and so forth? Few, which is why there is so much discrepancy and why you have scientists that speak out against global warming.

In my opinion you can take a "better safe than sorry" approach or an economical one. No one has any clue as to how much man-made global warming exists without hundreds of more years of data. It has been proven right here many times where two people with graphs and science debate both sides without reaching any conclusion because of contradicting models on something we don't quite understand yet.

Quite frankly, I would be VERY happy if all the CO2 we were producing had little to no effect on our climate. Fossil fuels are easy to get, and if you can control the nastier side-effects of their production/refining/usage I am all for them.

They are making and improving the predictive models that grow ever more complex as time goes by with more data. Hopefully we can get to better answers as we go forward, and I am sure that we will, one way or another.

Until we know for certain one way or the other, mitigating our usage of something so potentially harmful should be a no-brainer. You don't have to know for 100% certain that smoking will kill you to cut back and raise your odds.

The problem with so many people is that this stuff has to be black or white, on/off, 100%/0%. It is possible to mitigate potential risks without knowing exact data.

[DarrinS]

They are making and improving the predictive models that grow ever more complex as time goes by with more data. Hopefully we can get to better answers as we go forward, and I am sure that we will, one way or another.






The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

[xrayzebra]

What ever happen to rough-n-read. Our resident Aussie Scientist in waiting......who
could tell you how much he saved the earth by cutting off his laptop...or whatever.

[Wild Cobra]

What ever happen to rough-n-read. Our resident Aussie Scientist in waiting......who
could tell you how much he saved the earth by cutting off his laptop...or whatever.
I think he realized he is unable to counter my points very well.

Where have you been?

[spursncowboys]

Ft8LfE7AI2w

[Yonivore]

What ever happen to rough-n-read. Our resident Aussie Scientist in waiting......who
could tell you how much he saved the earth by cutting off his laptop...or whatever.
Maybe he went totally native and is living in the outback on recycled urine and dingo testicles.

[Ya Vez]

weather happens...

[Shastafarian]

"If the number of polar bears increased, surely they're not endangered."

Genius.

[Sec24Row7]

What ever happen to rough-n-read. Our resident Aussie Scientist in waiting......who
could tell you how much he saved the earth by cutting off his laptop...or whatever.


He's saving it right now... by not having his laptop on and posting he has allowed us to have this cooling trend.

[DarrinS]

"If the number of polar bears increased, surely they're not endangered."

Genius.


If there's some logic to this post, I'm missing it.

[Shastafarian]

If there's some logic to this post, I'm missing it.

Do you know what defines a species as being endangered?

[DarrinS]

Do you know what defines a species as being endangered?

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





An endangered species is a population of organisms which is at risk of becoming extinct because it is either few in numbers, or threatened by changing environmental or predation parameters.




So, are the polar bear few in numbers? Is their changing environment threatening their population? The data suggests otherwise.

[Shastafarian]

So, are the polar bear few in numbers? Is their changing environment threatening their population? The data suggests otherwise.

What data?

[Shastafarian]

In one region:


There was an estimated 0.3 percent annual decline in the polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea between 2001 and 2007, with the total numbers likely hovering between 1,397 and 1,526 animals, according to the draft assessments.

A larger estimate:


The worldwide polar bear population is generally believed to be about 20,000 to 25,000, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which lists the species as "vulnerable".
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE55I06C20090619

[DarrinS]

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/upload/2007/01/polarbearpopulation.gif

[Shastafarian]

So they've possibly been declining. Thanks.

[DarrinS]

Polar bear expert barred by global warmists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5664069/Polar-bear-expert-barred-by-global-warmists.html)





Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

[Shastafarian]

Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change.


The arctic climate has warmed for the last ten years and that has caused a reduction in sea ice. In fact, the two are related. The reduction in sea ice has actually caused the arctic to warm. That has caused difficulties for at least two populations, and we know of nutritional effects in two others. Other populations don’t appear to be affected or at least are not as affected. They are still abundant and productive. So the effect has been different among the world’s 19 populations.


Yes. I’m quite worried about the future of the polar bear but not because I believe anthropogenic carbon dioxide is going to cause uni-directional climate change. I’m worried because the last ten years have seen a warming trend in the Arctic that has already impacted a couple of populations, and I don’t think we really understand the root cause for that warming yet. I’m really worried that by insisting that all populations are being affected at the present time, when they’re not, that researchers are alienating our strongest allies in conservation … which are Inuit that have harvest rights to polar bears. So we’re hurting ourselves when we really need their help and we may be missing something that’s going to become really important in the future. It’s just not productive.