Al Gore: Climate of Denial

[WeatherRusty]

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".

Write up a paper and submit it to peer-review showing that not only do those things have the potential to cause the change we need to explain, but in fact have done so. Then explain how the physics of the greenhouse effect is flawed while you're at it because whether to realize it or not you still have to account for the energy confining properties of CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

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).

No one is claiming that, now you're going to fabricate? Sorry dude, gig is up.

[tacoman25]

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.

A lot of concepts can be neatly summarized and make perfect sense in theory. However, the real world has proven time and again that it is often more complicated than science originally thought.

[WeatherRusty]

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

I don't care if there are a million. They are wrong. The science speaks for itself. Someone's opinion is just that and means nothing. It's not who says what, it's what they say.

[BethesdaWX]

Write up a paper and submit it to peer-review showing that not only do those things have the potential to cause the change we need to explain, but in fact have done so. Then explain how the physics of the greenhouse effect is flawed while you're at it because whether to realize it or not you still have to account for the energy confining properties of CO2.

There have already been numerous peer reviewed papers on the problem regarding the Earth's reflectors and radiative release. If you're going to deny the physics behind clouds' influence on the climate, then you have to deny CO2's as well.

Energy behavior through CO2 increase/forcing is different than that of clouds. With CO2 you're trapping LW energy, and there is a high chance more heat escapes than we think possible...thus the increase in OLR...does that make sense? Cloud Decrease will also increase OLR. Any warming that is CO2 caused will not increase OLR.

Guess what...your climate models cannot explain why the warming has halted, why the surface has been out-warming the LT as a whole, and why one Pole has been Warming While the Other has been cooling. But Natural Factors can.

I'm not saying Co2 has no impact, it does have an impact, but you are throwing it around like gospel as if there cannot be any other drivers at work, which is silly, and contradicted by the evidence.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't care if there are a million. They are wrong. The science speaks for itself. Someone's opinion is just that and means nothing. It's not who says what, it's what they say.

That would be true if the science actually did speak for itself...it doesn't. Increasing OLR, a warming profile that does not Match GHGes, warming leveling off while CO2 increases ever-higher, Global ST's dropping...what else does it take?

[The_Global_Warmer]

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.

If what you say is true an just about everyone agrees here.

Why is this allowed?

[WeatherRusty]

A lot of concepts can be neatly summarized and make perfect sense in theory. However, the real world has proven time and again that it is often more complicated than science originally thought.

It is almost always more complicated than science thinks. That does not negate fundamental conclusions, it allows for deeper understanding and a tweaking of established theory. We understand how objects warm and cool very well and can predict with great precision the outcome of an exchange of energies between two or more bodies. Very basic tried and true physics describes these interactions. They make the big impact. Smaller in importance nuances of a system won't change things much.

[BethesdaWX]

If what you say is true an just about everyone agrees here.

Why is this allowed?

It is not true, very few people here agree, and it is allowed because people are free to express their opinions in this nation, and point out facts/flaws where they are missed.

Does that help?

[BethesdaWX]

It is almost always more complicated than science thinks. That does not negate fundamental conclusions, it allows for deeper understanding and a tweaking of established theory. We understand how objects warm and cool very well and can predict with great precision the outcome of an exchange of energies between two or more bodies. Very basic tried and true physics describes these interactions. They make the big impact. Smaller in importance nuances of a system won't change things much.

Bingo, right on the money. None of this is the point though, basic physics are one thing, but that doesn't mean we understand the complexities of the climate system and it's various forcings.. processes within the climate system handle the different mechanisms of energy budget change differently...circulations in the oceans, how much Radiative energy we can lose in a given timeframe of response, how sensitive the climate system is to RF change based on how quickly we lose Radiative energy...all are OPEN DEBATE.

Now yes ISCCP has huge error bars, but this graph shows a surprisingly good correlation to tropical Cloud Cover and Global Temperature. Obviously within 5 years the ISCCP will be capable of measuring long term trends to a higher accuracy, but still this here is interesting to even look at.

So if these satellite measurements are correct, then what does this tell you about tropical cloud cover?

[WeatherRusty]

There have already been numerous peer reviewed papers on the problem regarding the Earth's reflectors and radiative release. If you're going to deny the physics behind clouds' influence on the climate, then you have to deny CO2's as well.

Energy behavior through CO2 increase/forcing is different than that of clouds. With CO2 you're trapping LW energy, and there is a high chance more heat escapes than we think possible...thus the increase in OLR...does that make sense? Cloud Decrease will also increase OLR. Any warming that is CO2 caused will not increase OLR.

Guess what...your climate models cannot explain why the warming has halted, why the surface has been out-warming the LT as a whole, and why one Pole has been Warming While the Other has been cooling. But Natural Factors can.

I'm not saying Co2 has no impact, it does have an impact, but you are throwing it around like gospel as if there cannot be any other drivers at work, which is silly, and contradicted by the evidence.

I don't deny clouds' influence on climate. Don't put word in my mouth. Clouds both intensify the greenhouse effect "trap longwave" of the atmosphere and cool the surface by reflecting shortwave radiation to space.

There are lots of climate drivers, just none shown to be actually causing the rapid warming we are currently experiencing. Just because something is possible does not make it a reality.

[Tropopause_Fold]

well in the spirit of the thread title:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/Concerns-Global-Warming-Stable-Lower-Levels.aspx

the first graph is pretty telling (could also make some inferences there - interesting spikes on that graph) which is this issue just doesn't change for people.

people care about their health, their family and their wallet.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't deny clouds' influence on climate. Don't put word in my mouth. Clouds both intensify the greenhouse effect "trap longwave" of the atmosphere and cool the surface by reflecting shortwave radiation to space.

There are lots of climate drivers, just none shown to be actually causing the rapid warming we are currently experiencing. Just because something is possible does not make it a reality.

I never said it was a "reality", since we cannot prove they have increased or decreased to an exact extent, but it is possible they are largely responsible.

We can measure them, but the question is what causes the changes? Note that they Actually precede temperature change. Probem is the error bars here are over 2%.

[WeatherRusty]

well in the spirit of the thread title:

http://www.gallup.co...wer-Levels.aspx

the first graph is pretty telling (could also make some inferences there - interesting spikes on that graph) which is this issue just doesn't change for people.

people care about their health, their family and their wallet.

Yet some people manage to spend several hours every day on this forum. So at least we care.

[Tropopause_Fold]

The link does not work in my Firefox.

Yet some people manage to spend several hours every day on this forum. So at least we care.

well yeah...that's sort of my point.

for such a polarizing issue that seems to breed such vitriolic responses from people...it is amusing to me that the masses when polled feel essentially the same way they have for the last 22 years. only half the public claims to even worry about this issue...and when it's ranked among 10s of other issues...it comes in very very low.

just the way it goes.

i get a kick out of coming into this part of the forum because you have some really good posters just posting some factual information / numbers / where we stand type of stuff - not really taking a side but just posting the monthly anomaly or whatnot - then you have a handful of folks who seem to (at least in their internet life) live and die on this issue.

imho, some people are too wrapped up in this...or minimally, they act like it on the internets.

[BethesdaWX]

well yeah...that's sort of my point.

for such a polarizing issue that seems to breed such vitriolic responses from people...it is amusing to me that the masses when polled feel essentially the same way they have for the last 22 years. only half the public claims to even worry about this issue...and when it's ranked among 10s of other issues...it comes in very very low.

just the way it goes.

i get a kick out of coming into this part of the forum because you have some really good posters just posting some factual information / numbers / where we stand type of stuff - not really taking a side but just posting the monthly anomaly or whatnot - then you have a handful of folks who seem to (at least in their internet life) live and die on this issue.

imho, some people are too wrapped up in this...or minimally, they act like it on the internets.

I care about the Planet, I drive a Hybrid, have solar panels installed, and buy the most fuel efficient power equipment I can find for my work. I get all riled up sometimes not over the politics, but the lack of objective science and the abandonment of the scientific method. When I get out into the field I'm gonna make a big difference.

[WeatherRusty]

I care about the Planet, I drive a Hybrid, have solar panels installed, and buy the most fuel efficient power equipment I can find for my work. I get all riled up sometimes not over the politics, but the lack of objective science and the abandonment of the scientific method. When I get out into the field I'm gonna make a big difference.

I just hope you go where the science leads you rather than along some predetermined pathway.

[Tropopause_Fold]

I care about the Planet, I drive a Hybrid, have solar panels installed, and buy the most fuel efficient power equipment I can find for my work. I get all riled up sometimes not over the politics, but the lack of objective science and the abandonment of the scientific method. When I get out into the field I'm gonna make a big difference.

i'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

with respect to what you said, i'd bet you'd find that a lot of "skeptics/deniers/whatever-else-name-calling" are pretty environmentally-minded folks like yourself.

it's just that you can sense the anger in people's posts about this issue and, again IMO, it just seems like a lot of wasted key strokes. 1) nothing's going to be solved on this internet weather board and 2) it doesn't need to get so personal all the time. a lot of posters turn into major know-it-all DBs over this conversation.

arguing for hours on end over .5C over 20 years or 1C over 50 years or whatever....that seems like a lot of time spent on something that currently doesn't make all that much of a difference...and seems like it won't for quite some time.

again, just my opinion on the matter and i'm sure it'll evoke some type of pissy response from someone. LOL.

[BethesdaWX]

I just hope you go where the science leads you rather than along some predetermined pathway.

Definitely not a pre-determined pathway, I wouldn't be here if the science didn't bring me here, I am an independant politically.

[BethesdaWX]

i'm not pointing fingers at anyone in particular.

with respect to what you said, i'd bet you'd find that a lot of "skeptics/deniers/whatever-else-name-calling" are pretty environmentally-minded folks like yourself.

it's just that you can sense the anger in people's posts about this issue and, again IMO, it just seems like a lot of wasted key strokes. 1) nothing's going to be solved on this internet weather board and 2) it doesn't need to get so personal all the time. a lot of posters turn into major know-it-all DBs over this conversation.

arguing for hours on end over .5C over 20 years or 1C over 50 years or whatever....that seems like a lot of time spent on something that currently doesn't make all that much of a difference...and seems like it won't for quite some time.

again, just my opinion on the matter and i'm sure it'll evoke some type of pissy response from someone. LOL.

It makes me odd I guess, I am a "Skeptic", and people constantly question me, was asked today "Why do you have solar panels on your porch roof if you're a denier of global warming"...seems politics is what people care about, not the science, and the fact that there are other reasons to lower emissions.

[yhbrooklyn]

If you guys don't cut it out, I'm going to ban all three of you from this forum.

[BethesdaWX]

If you guys don't cut it out, I'm going to ban all three of you from this forum.

I didn't say anything to anyone, I was unecessarily attacked.

[OHSnow]

It makes me odd I guess, I am a "Skeptic", and people constantly question me, was asked today "Why do you have solar panels on your porch roof if you're a denier of global warming"...seems politics is what people care about, not the science, and the fact that there are other reasons to lower emissions.

Strongly disagree. If global warming isn't real, there is absolutely no reason to spend trillions of dollars to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

[BethesdaWX]

Strongly disagree. If global warming isn't real, there is absolutely no reason to spend trillions of dollars to cut emissions of greenhouse gases.

Of course there is, we have maybe 100yrs at best to supply the world with viable fossil fuel supplies and Nuclear is not ready to run the worlds power yet. Vehicles present the biggest problem.

[WeatherRusty]

Bingo, right on the money. None of this is the point though, basic physics are one thing, but that doesn't mean we understand the complexities of the climate system and it's various forcings.. processes within the climate system handle the different mechanisms of energy budget change differently...circulations in the oceans, how much Radiative energy we can lose in a given timeframe of response, how sensitive the climate system is to RF change based on how quickly we lose Radiative energy...all are OPEN DEBATE.

Now yes ISCCP has huge error bars, but this graph shows a surprisingly good correlation to tropical Cloud Cover and Global Temperature. Obviously within 5 years the ISCCP will be capable of measuring long term trends to a higher accuracy, but still this here is interesting to even look at.

So if these satellite measurements are correct, then what does this tell you about tropical cloud cover?

Clouds are a reflection of temperature over the tropical oceans. Cloud amount oscillates with ENSO and MJO for example. In other words, clouds follow temperature. Clouds are a feedback. The only way around this for your theory is to embrace the hypothetical cosmic ray cloud seeding hypothesis so that clouds come before temperature...

[skierinvermont]

ISCCP data is issued with the disclaimer "NOT TO BE USED FOR LONG-TERM TRENDS"

But that won't stop some people from trying.

[BethesdaWX]

ISCCP data is issued with the disclaimer "NOT TO BE USED FOR LONG-TERM TRENDS"

But that won't stop some people from trying.

Yes the product is not specifically designed to measure long term trends yet according to the Leadins Scientist, and there is significant error potential asociated with the data...much higher than most scientists will be willing to use by a long shot...but this doesn't mean it is wrong. It means the potential error is higher than one would typically accept for a long term dataset.

And I noted this as well, so you are re-stating what I said:

Now yes ISCCP has huge error bars, but this graph shows a surprisingly good correlation to tropical Cloud Cover and Global Temperature. Obviously within 5 years the ISCCP will the be capable of measuring long term trends to a higher accuracy, but still this here is interesting to even look at.

So if these satellite measurements are correct, then what does this tell you about tropical cloud cover?

You need to readf and relax.

[skierinvermont]

Yes the product is not specifically designed to measure long term trends yet according to the Leadins Scientist, and there is significant error potential asociated with the data...much higher than most scientists will be willing to use by a long shot...but this doesn't mean it is wrong. It means the potential error is higher than one would typically accept for a long term dataset.

And I noted this as well, so you are re-stating what I said:

You need to readf and relax.

If you want to be taken seriously by anybody involved in scientific circles you will have to learn not to use bogus data.

The data comes with the specific disclaimer that it should not be used for the exact purpose you are attempting to use it for. It was never designed for that purpose. If it were even remotely accurate at capturing the long-term trend it would be pure coincidence.

There are numerous other data sources out there which contradict it. But because you are a denier you have chosen the one source which you want to believe.

[BethesdaWX]

If you want to be taken seriously by anybody involved in scientific circles you will have to learn not to use bogus data.

The data comes with the specific disclaimer that it should not be used for the exact purpose you are attempting to use it for. It was never designed for that purpose. If it were even remotely accurate at capturing the long-term trend it would be pure coincidence.

There are numerous other data sources out there which contradict it. But because you are a denier you have chosen the one source which you want to believe.

The only other measurement system for clouds is surface based (Measured from Ships over the Oceans & on land), and these have much less coverage, especially over the oceans. And it does not contradict ISCCP significant. The IPCC report mentions both Cloud Datasets in the report, and the divergence is exactly when the trend/drop begins.

Again there are error bars, but that again references error potential, the possible error is larger than most scientists would prefer to use, it is recommended not to be used in scientific analysis/peer reviewstudies due to high risk of rejection. If want to publish and the error bar in your analysis is up to 3/4 of the trend at hand, you are going to be rejected.

We had a good way to measure Clouds we would have peer reviewed studies everywhere on it...but we don't. But ISCCP is the best we have at the moment, it simplymeasured reflected SW radiation.

Again none of this means the data is wrong...it means the error bars are large.

[BethesdaWX]

Clouds are a reflection of temperature over the tropical oceans. Cloud amount oscillates with ENSO and MJO for example. In other words, clouds follow temperature. Clouds are a feedback. The only way around this for your theory is to embrace the hypothetical cosmic ray cloud seeding hypothesis so that clouds come before temperature...

Well this is where ISCCP comes in handy...for short term trends.

Cloud Changes PRECEDE temperature in the ISCCP dataset, and that is what it was actually put in place to determine. Easy way to see this is in the 2008 La Nina, Clouds began Increaseing before temperature increased...this is the case throughout the Dataset.