An Inconvenient Truth - Al Gore is Phony

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
and in fairness the response

So, you actually think that the response of a partisan hack from the GOP means anything in a discussion on science?!?

[Solly]

I will make here a very simple suggestion: if IPCC or others want to use “multiproxy” reconstructions of world temperature for policy purposes, stop using data ending in 1980 and bring the proxies up-to-date.

Let’s see how they perform in the warm 1990s – which should be an ideal period to show the merit of the proxies. I do not believe that any responsible policy-maker can base policy, even in part, on the continued use of obsolete data ending in 1980, when the costs of bringing the data up-to-date is inconsequential compared to Kyoto costs.

For example, in Mann’s famous hockey stick graph, as presented to policymakers and to the public, the graph used Mann’s reconstruction from proxies up to 1980 and instrumental temperatures (here, as in other similar studies, using Jones’ more lurid CRU surface history rather than the more moderate increases shown by satellite measurements). Usually (but not always), a different color is used for the instrumental portion, but, from a promotional point of view, the juxtaposition of the two series achieves the desired promotional effect. (In mining promotions, where there is considerable community experience with promotional graphics and statistics, securities commission prohibit the adding together of proven ore reserves and inferred ore reserves – a policy which deserves a little reflection in the context of IPCC studies).

Last week, a brand new multiproxy study by European scientists [Moberg et al., 2005] was published in Nature. On the very day of publication, I received an email from a prominent scientist telling me that Mann’s hockeystick was yesterday’s news, that the “community” had now “moved on” and so should I. That the “community” had had no opportunity to verify Moberg’s results, however meritorious they may finally appear, seemed to matter not at all.

If you look at the proxy portion of the new Moberg graphic, you see nothing that would be problematic for opponents of the hockey stick: it shows a striking Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a cold Little Ice Age and 20th century warming not quite reaching MWP levels by 1979, when the proxy portion of the study ends. (I’m in the process of examining the individual proxies and the Moberg reconstruction is not without its own imperfections.) In the presentation to the public - see the figure in the Nature article itself, once again, there is the infamous splice between reconstruction by proxy (up to 1980) and the instrumental record thereafter (once again Jones’ CRU record, rather than the satellite record).

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=89

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Re: Re: Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

Originally posted by chegitz guevara




So, you actually think that the response of a partisan hack from the GOP means anything in a discussion on science?!?

Actually no. I thought the dissection of the article was a better means to rebut the useless piece.

[Caligastia]

Of interest:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
95% of all climatologists agree

Can you provide some evidence for this claim?

[chequita guevara]

Nothing from the CATO institute is of interest.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Actually no. I thought the dissection of the article was a better means to rebut the useless piece.

What part of partisan hack for the GOP don't you understand? If the GOP tells you the sky is blue, grab your umbrella. They are inveterate liars.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


What part of partisan hack for the GOP don't you understand? If the GOP tells you the sky is blue, grab your umbrella. They are inveterate liars.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant my dissection not some Senate press release . I mean come on. 100 called a few respond all of a sudden there is unananimity across all the experts. What a complete junk srticle that never should have been written .

[Ramo]

Seems even peer reviews of peer reviews get completely fouled up.

A review generally has to be published in a peer reviewed journal for it to be considered peer review. Peiser's hackiness didn't get into Science, and Lambert's site (a "peer review" by your criteria) thoroughly pwned him.

[Ramo]

Sorry for the confusion. I meant my dissection not some Senate press release . I mean come on. 100 called a few respond all of a sudden there is unananimity across all the experts. What a complete junk srticle that never should have been written .

No one said "a few." All we know is that it's less than 50.

[Ramo]

Scientists cant check out the claim of higher CO2 levels? Wtf are you talking about?

No, they can. Most people who study this thing think that CO2 levels and temperature are closely coorelated. Again, the anonymous guy that Olberman cited apparantly had a methodology that differed with the consensus.

And it's not a matter of fact checking like looking up in an Atlas what the capital of Zaire is. The people who disagree with the consensus argue that there is no such Atlas.

Gore didn't even have the decency to say he would look into the issue because he didn't know, instead he did what? Made a bald assertion about the integrity of his critics.

Gore didn't say he would look into it because he doesn't have a Ph.D. in Geophysics. He's not qualified in comparing the validity of various climate models.

What he was qualified in pointing out was that the consensus is that CO2 is coorelated with the temperature, and that many opponents of the consensus are funded by industries that find this consensus problematic.

[Berzerker]

That's like claiming the WTC collapsed due to gravity on 9/11.

Did Muslims fly planes into the glacier shown calving in Gore's movie?

In summer yes, but in winter, the northern latitudes get more sunlight than they do now. Less tilt = less pronounced seasons. In summer, things are tilted towards the sun, and in winter away. Regardless of the ammount of tilt, the average sunlight recieved by our planet is the same.

In winter the northern latitudes get more sunlight than they do now? What does that mean? Less tilt = less pronounced seasons?
Less tilt = cooler summers in the northern hemisphere where ice sheets grow. The amount of sunlight recieved by our planet is the ~same, but not the amount of sunlight hitting the northern latitudes because the Earth's tilt changes over time. Once winter hits those latitutdes, its cold enough to snow even now. But there's only so much water available to turn into snow each year, so the variable that drives ice advances is the amount of snow that is melted during the summer. Cooler summers means less melted snow.

thx Ogie, so much for Gore's accuracy

[Berzerker]

Most people who study this thing think that CO2 levels and temperature are closely coorelated. Again, the anonymous guy that Olberman cited apparantly had a methodology that differed with the consensus.

Its the chicken and the egg problem, temps rise and CO2 follows, temps go down, CO2 follows. If CO2 leads, then there must be a mechanism other than modern humans to explain why CO2 rose in the past causing global warming. Why would CO2 rise after temps rise? Less land, water and air locked up in ice sheets, more life consuming and expelling CO2.

So whats the mechanism causing variations in CO2? Volcanoes? But the mini ice age saw 5x the volcanic activity we see now. Volcanoes dont cause global warming, they lower temperatures.
Massive fires? That would release CO2 into the atmosphere, but the pollution has a cooling effect like volcanoes. And our mechanism is cyclical, not some random event(s). What could it be? Cyclical variations in Earth's orbital characteristics most likely, but why would that cause an increase in CO2? We know how those variations would cause increases in temps, but not CO2.

[Ramo]

No Berz, the overwhelming consensus in the climate modeling community is that humans contribute significantly to global warming. There is no significant scientific debate on the matter.

[Ramo]

but you also fail to take into account that most scientists won't go see it because it doesn't tell them anything they don't already know.

I'd say that most climate modeling people haven't seen the movie largely because it's only been out for a short period of time and is only showing in a relatively limited number of theatres.

Incidentally, "A Brief History of Time" is a ****ty book on laymen cosmology. You don't learn anything, except being able to write a bunch of nonsense physics in an internet forum. Something like the Wheeler and Taylor book is far better in this regard.