Al Gore: Climate of Denial

[bobbutts]

Just came across this article:

Al Gore: Climate of Denial

You guys will enjoy this one..

Only made it through the first page so far but that's probably enough:

In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.

[weathafella]

He raises issues worth discussing.

[bobbutts]

It's tiresome though.. What exactly is the scientific "consensus" that he's so strongly pushing? Is it the part that really is consensus (co2 is a greenhouse gas)? or is it this made up consensus of avoidable man made global disaster?

From what I'm reading, it's the latter, that we'll all be underwater and in drought and should subscribe to some scheme which coincidentally will funnel huge amounts of money to the Gore estate to create a market for carbon that will somehow save us?

The fallacy of this sell is that the future consequences he's pushing are not a fact, they're a theory, and a thin exaggerated one imo. I also believe that not matter what happens, humans will burn all the carbon fuel regardless. It's a brilliant plan to ensure that you collect when people burn carbon fuel.

[Sunny and Warm]

He raises issues worth discussing.

Which issues Jerry? The ones that involve real science, of which Al knows naught and is likely just mimicking what others are writing for him, or the ones that involve the need to invest in solar and wind energy, which Al's investment company knows a lot about (hint). It's impossible to take anything he says seriously when you know he's grabbing at the bag of money under the dais as he is speaking on the issue. He's not a neutral observer in any form.

[weathafella]

Which issues Jerry? The ones that involve real science, of which Al knows naught and is likely just mimicking what others are writing for him, or the ones that involve the need to invest in solar and wind energy, which Al's investment company knows a lot about (hint). It's impossible to take anything he says seriously when you know he's grabbing at the bag of money under the dais as he is speaking on the issue. He's not a neutral observer in any form.

I think we need to look at everything. True Gore is not an unbiased observer nor is he a scientist. But we are all erudite enough to comment on some of these issues. Most of science is pretty clear on GW. It's less so on etiology.

[Alpha5]

The worst part about this whole debate is how politicized its become.

It should be an issue debated by scientists and people who actually know what there talking about.

Not politicians

[valkhorn]

The worst part about this whole debate is how politicized its become.It should be an issue debated by scientists and people who actually know what there talking about.Not politicians

Most people are blissfully unaware as to what the overall consensus is:

1. The Earth is warming

2. There is no known natural cause to the current warming trend.

3. Man has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

4. This is likely the cause.

We don't know the full extent of how bad things will get or how much warmer we're going to make it for ourselves, but nobody is going to save us from ourselves but us. Earth doesn't care about who we are or where we are, and it's up to us to do what we can to keep this planet sustainable.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, but they do, and they often post in this forum.

[WeatherRusty]

Most people are blissfully unaware as to what the overall consensus is:

1. The Earth is warming

2. There is no known natural cause to the current warming trend.

3. Man has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

4. This is likely the cause.

We don't know the full extent of how bad things will get or how much warmer we're going to make it for ourselves, but nobody is going to save us from ourselves but us. Earth doesn't care about who we are or where we are, and it's up to us to do what we can to keep this planet sustainable.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, but they do, and they often post in this forum.

Those who question the above points of scientific consensus can bring a seemingly infinite assortment of arguments as to why it "ain't" necessarily so. Stick around, you will hear them all.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Those who question the above points of scientific consensus can bring a seemingly infinite assortment of arguments as to why it "ain't" necessarily so. Stick around, you will hear them all.

I think it was handled very effectively today.

Iv'e had enough of a couple posters polarizing on both sides when 95% of us are to follow and learn the facts of this situation. The "Rush" Limbaugh types intentionally polarize and sabotaging what we are doing here to just push an agenda.

It has to stop. If we stop engaging the perpetrator or put them on the spot to be accountable for there claims. It will put an end to it and save this place.

I don't care if every person here has an opposite viewpoint to me as long as they are intellectually honest and try to treat others with respect.

I was sucked into the vile debate by vile posters...no more. Today made things pretty clear.

hopefully we have more of the same.

[ORH_wxman]

Those who question the above points of scientific consensus can bring a seemingly infinite assortment of arguments as to why it "ain't" necessarily so. Stick around, you will hear them all.

Thats a funny way to put it to make it sound bulletproof from the AGW alarmist point of view. But in reality, none of those points address the magnitude of AGW component. We have so much uncertainty.

There is a legit reason why the debate has heated up in the last decade and not in the 1990s...because the obs are not consistent with the "theory". Usually in science, that creates doubt and leads to better science being done to figure out why the obs do not match theory. However in this particular science, all it creates is politicized garbage since large money is involved. So we end up having to dig through lots of B.S. to try and figure out what is happening. Climategate showed some dark sides to the peer reviewed process...and the politics have shown their face more than they ever should have in science.

The dirty little secret that most alarmists usually do not acknowledge is that a majority of skeptics believe in AGW, its the magnitude they disagree on. Most skeptics believe there are such large error bars with our knowledge of the climate system that people claiming we will warm by 3-4C by 2100 are off base and that the "science is not settled".

I'm not sure how that is very difficult to comprehend. Yet, every single skeptic (even those mild skeptics) are treated as if they are some sort of three headed alien. But I guess eventually the obs start making more and more headway.

Year 9 of global temps pretty flat and OHC not increasing. Trenberth's missing heat is almost at a decade now. I guess we should probably just blame the instruments and never question the theory of the magnitude of AGW in our climate system.

[BethesdaWX]

I think it was handled very effectively today.

Iv'e had enough of a couple posters polarizing on both sides when 95% of us are to follow and learn the facts of this situation. The "Rush" Limbaugh types intentionally polarize and sabotaging what we are doing here to just push an agenda. .

hopefully we have more of the same.

Oh just stop with the political crap. If you are so interested in the facts why aren't you willing to learn?

[WeatherRusty]

Oh just stop with the political crap. If you are so interested in the facts why aren't you willing to learn?

He wants to learn. Why the hell do you feel he should learn from you? All you bring is uncertainty to the debate. Is some of the stuff you throw out relevant? Possibly, but by no means does any of it undercut the known primary drivers in our current installment of global warming and climate change.

[WeatherRusty]

Thats a funny way to put it to make it sound bulletproof from the AGW alarmist point of view. But in reality, none of those points address the magnitude of AGW component. We have so much uncertainty.

There is a legit reason why the debate has heated up in the last decade and not in the 1990s...because the obs are not consistent with the "theory". Usually in science, that creates doubt and leads to better science being done to figure out why the obs do not match theory. However in this particular science, all it creates is politicized garbage since large money is involved. So we end up having to dig through lots of B.S. to try and figure out what is happening. Climategate showed some dark sides to the peer reviewed process...and the politics have shown their face more than they ever should have in science.

The dirty little secret that most alarmists usually do not acknowledge is that a majority of skeptics believe in AGW, its the magnitude they disagree on. Most skeptics believe there are such large error bars with our knowledge of the climate system that people claiming we will warm by 3-4C by 2100 are off base and that the "science is not settled".

I'm not sure how that is very difficult to comprehend. Yet, every single skeptic (even those mild skeptics) are treated as if they are some sort of three headed alien. But I guess eventually the obs start making more and more headway.

Year 9 of global temps pretty flat and OHC not increasing. Trenberth's missing heat is almost at a decade now. I guess we should probably just blame the instruments and never question the theory of the magnitude of AGW in our climate system.

First of all, the science is not bullet proof. New information comes in every day giving the potential to tweak the science and reduce the uncertainty.

What observations are not consistent with the theory? I'll tell you this. The temperatures are going to rise because the basic physics demands so. You are correct, it is a question of magnitude. It does not matter if temps don't rise for 20 years, eventually they have to. Taking geometry into effect, TSI would have to reduce it's value by 22W/m^2 to negate a doubling of CO2.

What if climate sensitivity is on the low side of what is deemed most likely from studies of past climate change to known forcing, volcanic eruptions and modeling? Would you be content with the theory then? The fact is we don't know exactly what the sensitivity is, it could range from 2C to 4.5C for a 3.7W/m^2 forcing to our best assesment. Are you willing to bet on the 2C rather than the 4.5C? How about 3C?

[Tropopause_Fold]

Thats a funny way to put it to make it sound bulletproof from the AGW alarmist point of view. But in reality, none of those points address the magnitude of AGW component. We have so much uncertainty.

There is a legit reason why the debate has heated up in the last decade and not in the 1990s...because the obs are not consistent with the "theory". Usually in science, that creates doubt and leads to better science being done to figure out why the obs do not match theory. However in this particular science, all it creates is politicized garbage since large money is involved. So we end up having to dig through lots of B.S. to try and figure out what is happening. Climategate showed some dark sides to the peer reviewed process...and the politics have shown their face more than they ever should have in science.

The dirty little secret that most alarmists usually do not acknowledge is that a majority of skeptics believe in AGW, its the magnitude they disagree on. Most skeptics believe there are such large error bars with our knowledge of the climate system that people claiming we will warm by 3-4C by 2100 are off base and that the "science is not settled".

I'm not sure how that is very difficult to comprehend. Yet, every single skeptic (even those mild skeptics) are treated as if they are some sort of three headed alien. But I guess eventually the obs start making more and more headway.

Year 9 of global temps pretty flat and OHC not increasing. Trenberth's missing heat is almost at a decade now. I guess we should probably just blame the instruments and never question the theory of the magnitude of AGW in our climate system.

good post, will.

[Tropopause_Fold]

First of all, the science is not bullet proof. New information comes in every day giving the potential to tweak the science and reduce the uncertainty.

What observations are not consistent with the theory? I'll tell you this. The temperatures are going to rise because the basic physics demands so. You are correct, it is a question of magnitude. It does not matter if temps don't rise for 20 years, eventually they have to. Taking geometry into effect, TSI would have to reduce it's value by 22W/m^2 to negate a doubling of CO2.

What if climate sensitivity is on the low side of what is deemed most likely from studies of past climate change to known forcing, volcanic eruptions and modeling? Would you be content with the theory then? The fact is we don't know exactly what the sensitivity is, it could range from 2C to 4.5C for a 3.7W/m^2 forcing to our best assesment. Are you willing to bet on the 2C rather than the 4.5C? How about 3C?

what is the bet? that someone's great great great grandchildren are going to live in a world that is 2C warmer than today?

one of the entertaining parts of the whole AGW debate is when we step back from all of the back-and-forth....this argument is treated as though it exists in a vaccuum....as though the world - all of it's spheres, complex biological communities, human ecology etc etc - has a static existence. but obviously it does not. everything is dynamic and evolutionary - be it in on a scale of minutes or millennia. there are so many pieces, and literally moving parts, to the existence and future path of humanity, the environment, the lithosphere/hydrosphere, etc that sitting down in front of a keyboard and monitor and discussing global temperature anomalies a century + into the future is a fruitless, time-wasting effort.

[tacoman25]

Most people are blissfully unaware as to what the overall consensus is:

1. The Earth is warming

2. There is no known natural cause to the current warming trend.

3. Man has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

4. This is likely the cause.

We don't know the full extent of how bad things will get or how much warmer we're going to make it for ourselves, but nobody is going to save us from ourselves but us. Earth doesn't care about who we are or where we are, and it's up to us to do what we can to keep this planet sustainable.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, but they do, and they often post in this forum.

No, we don't know the details. But what we do know is that humans have a history of over-estimating their impact and making dire "scientific" predictions. The doomsayers have been around many times before. But their predictions have almost always been too extreme.

[VAwxman]

Most people are blissfully unaware as to what the overall consensus is:

1. The Earth is warming

2. There is no known natural cause to the current warming trend.

3. Man has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

4. This is likely the cause.

We don't know the full extent of how bad things will get or how much warmer we're going to make it for ourselves, but nobody is going to save us from ourselves but us. Earth doesn't care about who we are or where we are, and it's up to us to do what we can to keep this planet sustainable.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, but they do, and they often post in this forum.

Points 1 and 3 are dead on correct. Point 2 mostly is, in that we don't know how all the natural factors play into our climate. All we can say is that something is going on that has us basically flat in temps over the last 10 yrs or so, despite predictions that this would not occur. That does NOT disprove AGW. It just means there is more to the equation than we know, which also means point 4 is up for debate. We know the science is real as to WHY increased CO2 leads to warming. We just don't know the magnitude and what percentage of global warming is due to that.

[BethesdaWX]

He wants to learn. Why the hell do you feel he should learn from you? All you bring is uncertainty to the debate. Is some of the stuff you throw out relevant? Possibly, but by no means does any of it undercut the known primary drivers in our current installment of global warming and climate change.

Tell me, when did I mention myself? Your quote, not mine. And the primary "drivers" of climate include much more then TSI, CO2, and Volcanism, and that is that.

[BethesdaWX]

Most people are blissfully unaware as to what the overall consensus is:

1. The Earth is warming

2. There is no known natural cause to the current warming trend.

3. Man has increased CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

4. This is likely the cause.

We don't know the full extent of how bad things will get or how much warmer we're going to make it for ourselves, but nobody is going to save us from ourselves but us. Earth doesn't care about who we are or where we are, and it's up to us to do what we can to keep this planet sustainable.

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that, but they do, and they often post in this forum.

1) Yes

2) Not Really

3) Yes

4) Up for debate.

There are other factors that must be factored in that cannot be measured, biggest being tropical cloud cover, and where a 1% change equates to between 1.1W/m^2 and 1.2W/m^2 of increased RF into the oceans if it is a low LL based change (as it would be anyway). So 3-4% decrease over 50-70yrs (or on any timescale), equates to 3.6W/m^2 to 4.8W/m^2 in tropical LLCC change.

Stratospheric ozoe depletion is also a big deal in regards to how much UVA/UVB can get into the Oceans, and UV rays will warkm the oceans easily due to their very high frequency.

[WeatherRusty]

Tell me, when did I mention myself? Your quote, not mine. And the primary "drivers" of climate include much more then TSI, CO2, and Volcanism, and that is that.

You're the one doing all the teaching around here.....FYI, as you would emphatically say!

The primary drivers are TSI, albedo and the greenhouse effect. Together they account for better than 99.9% of global temperature.

[WeatherRusty]

good post, will.

Why? Because he agrees with you? The points of uncertainty have been acknowledged and gone over repeatedly, neatly summarized by the concept of equilibrium climate sensitivity. It falls on deaf ears around here.

[BethesdaWX]

You're the one doing all the teaching around here.....FYI, as you would emphatically say!

The primary drivers are TSI, albedo and the greenhouse effect. Together they account for better than 99.9% of global temperature.

No they don't, you cannot say this because it cannot be backed up, and if it were true then we'd have continued warming steadily in the pst 10-13yrs, when we have flat-lined, and excluding the Arctic, we've cooled. I'm not teaching anyone, I'm stating scientific facts. TSI and Volcanism are minor drivers with little to no measurable effect trend wise.

The primary drivers of the climate system (RF power wise) are 1) Clouds, 2) GHG concentrations, 3) Stratospheric Ozone depletion/concentration 4) AMO/PDO/IPO/QDO/IOD oscillations, 5) Fluctuations in surface albedo via ocean circulations/solar NAO infuence, 6) TSI, 7) Volcanism.

We have increasig OLR, A warming profile between the surface/LT that does not reflect GHG warming, and yet you choose to ignore these facts presented before you. In this case, yes, you should be taught...taught alot.

[BethesdaWX]

Why? Because he agrees with you? The points of uncertainty have been acknowledged and gone over repeatedly, neatly summarized by the concept of equilibrium climate sensitivity. It falls on deaf ears around here.

No, because he is correct, the deaf ears are your own unfortunately, you are politically motivated. Climate sensitivity is based off faulty assumption that 1) 1.6W/m^2 from CO2 is the only primary RF increase since 1850, and 2) the warming mechanisms, regarding how quickly Radiative energy is lost before Radiative Forcing peak, and exactly where to distinguish radiative and non-radiative responseus & measurements.

Just sillyness on your part, to the extreme.

[WeatherRusty]

what is the bet? that someone's great great great grandchildren are going to live in a world that is 2C warmer than today?

one of the entertaining parts of the whole AGW debate is when we step back from all of the back-and-forth....this argument is treated as though it exists in a vaccuum....as though the world - all of it's spheres, complex biological communities, human ecology etc etc - has a static existence. but obviously it does not. everything is dynamic and evolutionary - be it in on a scale of minutes or millennia. there are so many pieces, and literally moving parts, to the existence and future path of humanity, the environment, the lithosphere/hydrosphere, etc that sitting down in front of a keyboard and monitor and discussing global temperature anomalies a century + into the future is a fruitless, time-wasting effort.

You can pour cool water into a heating pan of water on the stove. The water will temporarily cool in the pan. If the flame or heating element remains at a constant temperature or increases the water will eventually return to or surpass the temperature it was before the addition of the cooler water. It just takes time.

The flame or heating elements are the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. The water is Earth's surface. No matter what you do to temporally disrupt the equilibrium, the temp will always be working to restore the equilibrium. It does not matter whether the model is a simple pot of water or the complex Sun/Earth. The basic physics are the same.

[BethesdaWX]

You can pour cool water into a heating pan of water on the stove. The water will temporarily cool in the pan. If the flame or heating element remains at a constant temperature or increases the water will eventually return to or surpass the temperature it was before the addition of the cooler water. It just takes time.

The flame or heating elements are the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. The water is Earth's surface. No matter what you do to temporally disrupt the equilibrium, the temp will always be working to restore the equilibrium. It does not matter whether the model is a simple pot of water or the complex Sun/Earth. The basic physics are the same.

Yes, but it is the sensitivity to these physics that matter. Don't give me the crap that "Sesitivity is estimated between such and such", because again the most important driver that will determine how much of our warming is due to CO2 is cloud cover, a 1.5% change in Tropical Low Clouds equates to MORE RF Than CO2 has applied since 1850...that is 1.6W/m^2. Assuming a 3-5% decrease in clouds over time (indeed very possible with GCR's being low from 1930-2005), the +PDO/+AMO phase, the flushing of arctic ice, and the higher ocean heat content from less clouds as well as the increased UVA/UVB flux due to stratospheric ozone depletion can account for about 90% of the warming to date, the rest can be attributed to CO2 increase, Urbanization, and Land Use changes (3W/m^2 to 6W/m^2 depending on source regions) vs 1.6W/m^2...

I'm not saying this is what is happening, but it is reflected in the warming profile. And it is an odd Coincidence that GCR's were low from 1930-2005, when clouds decrease, it is like boiling a pot of water, the oceans will heat to equilibrium even if the Cosmic Ray Flux is Steady, despite no change in the "flame".

[Tropopause_Fold]

You can pour cool water into a heating pan of water on the stove. The water will temporarily cool in the pan. If the flame or heating element remains at a constant temperature or increases the water will eventually return to or surpass the temperature it was before the addition of the cooler water. It just takes time.

The flame or heating elements are the Sun and Earth's own atmosphere. The water is Earth's surface. No matter what you do to temporally disrupt the equilibrium, the temp will always be working to restore the equilibrium. It does not matter whether the model is a simple pot of water or the complex Sun/Earth. The basic physics are the same.

huh. not sure why that is a response to my post.

[WeatherRusty]

No, because he is correct, the deaf ears are your own unfortunately, you are politically motivated. Climate sensitivity is based off faulty assumption that 1) 1.6W/m^2 from CO2 is the only primary RF increase since 1850, and 2) the warming mechanisms, regarding how quickly Radiative energy is lost before Radiative Forcing peak, and exactly where to distinguish radiative and non-radiative responseus & measurements.

Just sillyness on your part, to the extreme.

You're full of it. You come here with a load of pseudo-scientific rubbish thinking you can demonstrate major flaws in science. You can't and you don't.

[WeatherRusty]

huh. not sure why that is a response to my post.

You are essentially claiming that complex system do not follow the physical rules of the Universe. I am telling you that it does not matter whether a system is simple or complex. The fundamentals of physics apply equally. Climate changes when forced to change and you don't get much more fundamental than the transfer of radiation/energy from one body to another. Radiative forcing accounts for more than 99.9% of Earth's temperature. (after the 2.7K cosmic microwave background).

[Tropopause_Fold]

You are essentially claiming that complex system do not follow the physical rules of the Universe. I am telling you that it does not matter whether a system is simple or complex. The fundamentals of physics apply equally. Climate changes when forced to change and you don't get much more fundamental than the transfer of radiation/energy from one body to another. Radiative forcing accounts for more than 99.9% of Earth's temperature. (after the 2.7K cosmic microwave background).

i understand the physics.

that wasn't my point. i was implying this discussion (the AGW debate) always has blinders on to the myriad of other things that go on in the world. and that's a huge part of why there is such a vast portion of the populace that doesn't care all that much.

[BethesdaWX]

You're full of it. You come here with a load of pseudo-scientific rubbish thinking you can demonstrate major flaws in science. You can't and you don't.

No good sir, you are full of it. I'm not demonstrating flaws in science, I am demonstrating scientific facts that you ignore. You realize there are thousands upon thousands of scientists skeptical of AGW? You pikc a side and call science settled because of your political views, you are by far the most absurdly biased poster on this forum