An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by BlackCat
About greenhouse gasses. I guess that you think that CO2 is the great monster and the prime source of heating, well, news for you, it's actually one of the minor. CO2 is only hyped because it's one that humans has an impact on due to fossile fuels. Now, you seem to be an expert on this field, so please tell me what the real heavy greenhouse gas is.

Isn't it methane?

[Kuciwalker]

And dihydrogen monoxide.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And dihydrogen monoxide.

Oh no the horror! Teh greenhouse effect is overwhelmingly natural!

Unbelievable!

[BlackCat]

Nah, no cookies yet, VJ shall have a chance to do a little research.

[Odin]

I'm going to knock sensless the next dope who says that humans can't affect the climate.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Arrian
Leaving Gore aside for a moment, I am curious about the interaction between global warming caused (in whole or in part) by humans and the ice age cycle (we're getting due for one, yes?).

We are in a long interglacial (every forth interglacial lasts much longer then normal ones), we have at least 10,000 years.

[MRT144]

showing a common natural phenomina to illustrate a hyperbolic point doesnt ivalidate the point.

[pchang]

I guess no one looked my chart

The point of that was that long term fluctuations are controlled by the earth's passage through space. That effect overrides CO2 levels. Thus, a scientist who makes comparisons between CO2 levels only during that long a timescale is either willfully attempting to mislead people or grossly incompetent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Climate change is natural, but I don't doubt that humanity is accelerating what would otherwise be naturally occuring.

Death is natural. That doesn't mean we should ignore murder.

[Berzerker]

VG

Smearing is a strong word to use for pointing out that someone has an ulterior motive for pushing his point of view.

But Gore didn't offer any evidence these 2 men have an ulterior motive, nor did he offer any evidence to refute them, he simply accused them of being corrupt and ignored their criticism...thats a smear...

That would depend on whether or not I were taking money from special interests to push my views, now wouldn't it?

If your views were arrived at honestly, the fact someone gives you money to make your views better known doesn't make you dishonest even if the donors have an "agenda". What if the claims about global warming are overblown and we discover the cycle preceding our industry is driving the warming? Would that make all of you dishonest for pushing an "agenda"? And I still haven't seen any evidence these 2 guys are even getting money from big industry, but given how much money business does give to education, it wouldn't suprise me if people happy with their research give their schools money. It happens all the time... And politicians do it too, with our money.

Jr

I don't understand why the use of calving footage upsets you so much. It's just a dramatic illustration, nothing more. I've seen such footage since about 5th grade. It's called imagery. Filmmakers use this technique routinely.

Because it aint evidence of global warming? And when a scientist pointed that out, Gore went on national TV and smeared the guy. Damn right that upsets me, nor do I like it when right wingers go on national TV and smear scientists for making claims they dont like. Thats politicisng science...

Arrian

I am curious about the interaction between global warming caused (in whole or in part) by humans and the ice age cycle (we're getting due for one, yes?).

I heard astronomers studying this very subject have identified a time period ~400,000 years ago as the one most similar to today wrt orbital characteristics. Many interglacials are shorter (4-8,000 years) than ours (~14,000 years) but the one 400,000 years ago lasted 28,000 years.

Now, I figure there is a lag time that follows the Earth's changing axial tilt just as there is a seasonal lag time. Its warmer on the fall equinox than the vernal because the latter follows winter and the former follows summer. This means the higher latitudes absorb heat and retain it longer than it takes to warm those latitudes. Seems obvious, but does this also happen with the Earth's changing tilt? It seems to me the potentially warmest periods match up with periods when the Earth's tilt is nearing the maximum (24.5 degrees) or over the hump on the way down to the minimum. We're at 23.5 heading for the 21.5 degree minimum, so that roughly corresponds to ~1/3 of a season past the summer solstice - July 21st.

The fall equinox would be when we arrive at a tilt halfway between the two extremes (23 degrees). It stays warm here in Kansas well into the fall season (mid November) about a month before the winter solstice, so we shouldn't be getting into the next ice age until the tilt nears the minimum (maybe 22 degrees) and it'll last well into the next cycle as the tilt starts increasing. There's just so many cycles involved because I'd think interglacials would last longer and ice advances would be shorter roughly matching our seasonal changes. But it appears the ice comes and stays longer than the warmth on average, enjoy it while it lasts

Sava

I think you misunderstand something - the issue was the man. Specifically, his credibility. I don't like Gore, but when this "critic" of his is purely a wh0re for the oil industry, it's not really a smear campaign to just point out the fact that the guy is on the payroll of the oil industry. It's not a personal attack if it's true.

You repeat that just like Gore, can one of you actually offer evidence?

Ramo

I haven't read any peer reviewed research on calving, so did not refer to it. Again, I was talking about the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. From the quote above, there isn't even a name.

And I would hope that these scientists published their work in a peer reviewed journal and are not simply talking out of their ass. Again, without reading about their methodology, it is impossible to refute them. Due to the lack of information, I can't even find this paper.

Gore couldn't refute the claim calving is not evidence of global warming, it is evidence of gravity. So Gore ignored the criticism and smeared the messenger. But the guy who said CO2 was 10x higher 450 mya is obviously making a claim that can be checked out if he isn't already using existing research. Thats how science works, someone comes up with an explanation for something and others join the investigation and if the first claim is false, others show it scientifically, not by accusing them of being corrupt and ignoring their claim.

No one said that they were lying or on the take from special interests.

Gore did, and several people here did too

BC

About Venus, as you quoted, the question is still valid. CO2 may be the driving force now, but noone knows what send the planet into the current balance.

I suspect it got smacked and didn't survive too well, its upside down and a day is longer than a year (doesn't spin), and the magnetic field is nill. So where did all that CO2 come from? Volcanic activity and leeching of surface rocks by an acidic atmosphere and radiation. To use Venus as an analogy to the Earth ignores Venus is dead in the water and we're not, and CO2 has nothing to do with that.

Odious

I'm going to knock sensless the next dope who says that humans can't affect the climate.

Then here's what you do because so far, you're the only one who said "humans can't affect the climate".

[Victor Galis]

Re: I guess no one looked my chart

Originally posted by pchang
The point of that was that long term fluctuations are controlled by the earth's passage through space. That effect overrides CO2 levels. Thus, a scientist who makes comparisons between CO2 levels only during that long a timescale is either willfully attempting to mislead people or grossly incompetent.

I suppose Venus's temperature also has absolutely nothing to do with its athmosphere, and is based solely on its position relative to the sun

If your views were arrived at honestly, the fact someone gives you money to make your views better known doesn't make you dishonest even if the donors have an "agenda".

Holding views that were arrived at honestly doesn't make them right either. Some people still honestly believe there is a God and that the earth was created in 7 days. They're not believing this for some ulterior motive.

What if the claims about global warming are overblown and we discover the cycle preceding our industry is driving the warming?

We'd have to do what the administration did with Iraq after the WMDs failed to materialize, and start shifting our arguments to something like: even if global warming isn't real, reducing the overall pollution levels will reduce respiratory ailments!

And politicians do it too, with our money.

Except most of that funding isn't targetted to people who agree with their views since it's indirectly spent, i.e. given to say the NIH first.

Because it aint evidence of global warming? And when a scientist pointed that out, Gore went on national TV and smeared the guy. Damn right that upsets me, nor do I like it when right wingers go on national TV and smear scientists for making claims they dont like. Thats politicisng science...

But global warming can cause calving just like other natural causes. What, do you want him to only use imagery of stuff that can't possibly happen any other way?

Now, I figure there is a lag time that follows the Earth's changing axial tilt just as there is a seasonal lag time. Its warmer on the fall equinox than the vernal because the latter follows winter and the former follows summer. This means the higher latitudes absorb heat and retain it longer than it takes to warm those latitudes. Seems obvious, but does this also happen with the Earth's changing tilt? It seems to me the potentially warmest periods match up with periods when the Earth's tilt is nearing the maximum (24.5 degrees) or over the hump on the way down to the minimum. We're at 23.5 heading for the 21.5 degree minimum, so that roughly corresponds to ~1/3 of a season past the summer solstice - July 21st.

But wouldn't the tilt just affect the variation in temperatures between the tropics and the poles and seasonal variations in the poles? (Granted, this variation drives ocean currents)

[Ramo]

But the guy who said CO2 was 10x higher 450 mya is obviously making a claim that can be checked out if he isn't already using existing research. Thats how science works, someone comes up with an explanation for something and others join the investigation and if the first claim is false, others show it scientifically, not by accusing

No. It can't be checked out. For the umpteenth time, Olbermann didn't cite references. Science does not work by making bald assertions.

Gore did, and several people here did too

No, Gore didn't. I just read the transcript and he did not accuse the two guys cited of either thing.

The point Gore made is simple. The vast majority of the scientific community studying climate change have come to the conclusion that humans have a significant effect on global warming. That can be shown in reports by the IPCC, the NAS, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union. This can also be shown in a study by published in Science (by Naomi Orsekes) that searched through ISI for abstracts that mentioned "global climate change," analyzed a large random sample, and as she put it,

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

The tiny minority who disagree with the scientific consensus get amplified by industries that find the conclusion of this consensus inconvenient.

[civman2000]

Re: Re: I guess no one looked my chart

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I suppose Venus's temperature also has absolutely nothing to do with its athmosphere, and is based solely on its position relative to the sun

I don't actually know anything about this, but I think the difference is probably that Venus has enormously more CO2 than Earth has or ever will have. Thus relatively speaking, position relative to the sun has much less of an effect on Venus.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ramo

Gore did, and several people here did too

No, Gore didn't. I just read the transcript and he did not accuse the two guys cited of either thing.

Really what does this mean then?

Well you know, there are a few of these outliers that are given a megaphone by the groups that are put out as front groups and many of them get lots of money from the small group of polluters that want to confuse people.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yup. The National Academy of Sciences has completed a report that says there is good evidence that we humans have been causing global warming.

If anyone had been following NAS news they would understand the latest report is actually a fatal blow at the MBH model. They conclude the Northern Hemisphere is the warmest on record for 400 years but agree that models employing bristlecones data is inherently flawed and alarmist.

The causality of CO2 levels on global warming wasn't really addressed, merely the appropriate use of proxies to determine historical regional temps. It is quite rational to assume pre industrial CO2 levels to be caused by natural means (volcanic action ) or via biological action via natural global warming and not necessarily vice versa. * Points to pchang. So to imply global temperature change as a pure function of CO2 levels seems a bit backwards.