Al Gore: Climate of Denial

[WeatherRusty]

Doesn't matter what they think, or what I think, regarding AGW.....conclusive science within the realm of physical reality can only be achieved through the scientific method...if you do not abide by the scientific method you cannot validate your hypothesis.

And who are you calling a "know-it-all" Mr I-have-no-education-in-climate-or-physics?

Could you explain why studying paleoclimate to help determine the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity does not follow the scientific method. How is this study any different from how science is conducted in many other branches of science involving complex systems?

[BethesdaWX]

Could you explain why studying paleoclimate to help determine the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity does not follow the scientific method. How is this study any different from how science is conducted in many other branches of science involving complex systems?

Yes I can. It helps determine climate, but not climate sensitivity to certain forcings, because you can only assess a limited number of drivers from paleoclimate reconstructions, and CO2, is one of many drivers that in include cloud cover and stratospheric ozone

concentration...and if you don't think plate tectonics do not affect cloud cover you ate sadly mistaken.....possibly, that is.

And to speak with any certainty on the matter of climate sensitivity to CO2 you need to know this. If you assert that you know climate sensitivity to CO2 without knowing this, you have blown the scientific method.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes I can. It helps determine climate, but not climate sensitivity to certain forcings, because you can only assess a limited number of drivers from paleoclimate reconstructions, and CO2, is one of many drivers that in include cloud cover and stratospheric ozone

concentration...and if you don't think plate tectonics do not affect cloud cover you ate sadly mistaken.....possibly, that is.

And to speak with any certainty on the matter of climate sensitivity to CO2 you need to know this. If you assert that you know climate sensitivity to CO2 without knowing this, you have blown the scientific method.

The question is not how sensitive the climate is to CO2, it how sensitive it is to an energy perturbation. How sensitive is global temperature to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2?

[BethesdaWX]

The question is not how sensitive the climate is to CO2, it how sensitive it is to an energy perturbation. How sensitive is global temperature to a forcing the equal of 3.7W/m^2?

You asked me why paleoclimate reconstructions cannot be used to determine climate sensitivity, And follow the scientific method at the same time, but here.

Before feedbeck/modulation it is about 1.18C after full response thermally.

The climate system can only be represented through a greybody formula, and we will not come close to achieving the final number until we understand all of the processes at hand... exactly when, why, and how much radiative energy we lose between RF peak & trough.

We're getting something wrong based on satellite measurements, increasing ORL, more energy lost on an earlier timeable with a RF cycle, and a warming profile that does not match GHGes. Then we see the flat trend over the past decade despite the supposed increase in RF. Then the whole "missing energy" debate, wondering where it could be...can you see something in common here?

[skierinvermont]

Doesn't matter what they think, or what I think, regarding AGW.....conclusive science within the realm of physical reality can only be achieved through the scientific method...if you do not abide by the scientific method you cannot validate your hypothesis.

And who are you calling a "know-it-all" Mr I-have-no-education-in-climate-or-physics?

Again, I will let peer-reviewed journals decide what does and does not follow the scientific method, not a know-it-all teenager with absolutely no science background on the internets.

[BethesdaWX]

Again, I will let peer-reviewed journals decide what does and does not follow the scientific method, not a know-it-all teenager with absolutely no science background on the internets.

Again, that is fine, but if the scientific method is not followed then don't bother mentioning it. Science can be adequate ideologically but not in reality.

I already have more scientific background than you...when I have my PHD (if all goes as planned), how will you be talking to me? Do you respect scientists or disrespect them...because they disagree with you even though many are smarter?

[skierinvermont]

Again, that is fine, but if the scientific method is not followed then don't bother mentioning it. Science can be adequate ideologically but not in reality.

I already have more scientific background than you...when I have my PHD (if all goes as planned), how will you be talking to me? Do you respect scientists or disrespect them...because they disagree with you even though many are smarter?

Wow. Just wow.

[BethesdaWX]

Wow. Just wow.

Where did you take atmospheric science and particle physics? And what what year? Middlebury?

[skierinvermont]

Where did you take atmospheric science and particle physics? And what what year? Middlebury?

You have not taken atmospheric science or particle physics at any accredited institution. Not two months ago you told the whole forum you had only just enrolled in college and were pursuing a degree in landscaping or something like that.

And yes, I did take a climate change class in college.

[BethesdaWX]

You have not taken atmospheric science or particle physics at any accredited institution. Not two months ago you told the whole forum you had only just enrolled in college and were pursuing a degree in landscaping or something like that.

And yes, I did take a climate change class in college.

"a climate change class" lol

Yes...for my minor, agriculture. Am in the process of attaining the BS in atmospheric science. Am also taking particle physics. So you are wrong again as usual.

You did not take particle physics nor atmospheric science, you do not have a degree there. In about 2 years I will, and hopefully will be moving onto higher levels.

One day you may be referring to me as "PHD" bethesdaboy.

[skierinvermont]

"a climate change class" lol

Yes...for my minor, agriculture. Am in the process of attaining the BS in atmospheric science. Am also taking particle physics. So you are wrong again as usual.

You did not take particle physics nor atmospheric science, you do not have a degree there. In about 2 years I will, and hopefully will be moving onto higher levels.

One day you may be referring to me as "PHD" bethesdaboy.

in the process = just enrolled

congratulations and good luck

[BethesdaWX]

in the process = just enrolled

congratulations and good luck

1 down 3 to go

[CAD_Wedge_NC]

Where did you take atmospheric science and particle physics? And what what year? Middlebury?

You have not taken atmospheric science or particle physics at any accredited institution. Not two months ago you told the whole forum you had only just enrolled in college and were pursuing a degree in landscaping or something like that.

And yes, I did take a climate change class in college.

"a climate change class" lol

Yes...for my minor, agriculture. Am in the process of attaining the BS in atmospheric science. Am also taking particle physics. So you are wrong again as usual.

You did not take particle physics nor atmospheric science, you do not have a degree there. In about 2 years I will, and hopefully will be moving onto higher levels.

One day you may be referring to me as "PHD" bethesdaboy.

in the process = just enrolled

congratulations and good luck

1 down 3 to go

Wow......that's all I can say. I feel a little less intelligent just from reading all this "mud slinging"........... I will add one thing constructive: Our planet is complex (as we all know) The science concerning CO2 being a greenhouse gas is settled. What has thrown everyone a curve ball is the fact that global temp changes have not reacted as modeled. This should be the focus of our studies. This should be where the science leads us. Find out how and why the earth has "bucked the trend".

[skierinvermont]

Wow......that's all I can say. I feel a little less intelligent just from reading all this "mud slinging"........... I will add one thing constructive: Our planet is complex (as we all know) The science concerning CO2 being a greenhouse gas is settled. What has thrown everyone a curve ball is the fact that global temp changes have not reacted as modeled. This should be the focus of our studies. This should be where the science leads us. Find out how and why the earth has "bucked the trend".

Well I apologize.. I was not intending to mud-sling. It is just obnoxious to be told by a 19 YO high-school graduate that I don't have a science background and that he is an expert because he just enrolled in college. This kid is driving everyone here up the wall with his arrogance and lies and we are all just sick of it. None of this is constructive or relevant anyways. Peer-reviewed journals are vastly more qualified to decide what is and isn't good science than any of us are. That is all I was trying to say.

[WeatherRusty]

Wow......that's all I can say. I feel a little less intelligent just from reading all this "mud slinging"........... I will add one thing constructive: Our planet is complex (as we all know) The science concerning CO2 being a greenhouse gas is settled. What has thrown everyone a curve ball is the fact that global temp changes have not reacted as modeled. This should be the focus of our studies. This should be where the science leads us. Find out how and why the earth has "bucked the trend".

It is not so much the Earth "bucking the trend" as the net forcing from all sources being closer to neutral. The Earth doesn't "desire" to be at any particular temperature, it is forced to the temperature it is at by the balance of input/output radiative energy. Things such as total solar irradiance, aerosol loading of the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions and coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations enter the mix to affect the flow of energy throughout the system. .

The idea is, these other factors are not expected to change much on balance over longer time frames. Since climate models can not anticipate the direction and strength of these cyclic/oscillatory factors they are treated as having negligible impact longterm. The one thing we can be quit certain of, is that the impact of human emissions will continue to grow in one direction only, toward that of warming.

[BethesdaWX]

Well I apologize.. I was not intending to mud-sling. It is just obnoxious to be told by a 19 YO high-school graduate that I don't have a science background and that he is an expert because he just enrolled in college. This kid is driving everyone here up the wall with his arrogance and lies and we are all just sick of it. None of this is constructive or relevant anyways. Peer-reviewed journals are vastly more qualified to decide what is and isn't good science than any of us are. That is all I was trying to say.

I didn't sat that, you called a " know-it-all" teenager, in respect to what you were trying to convey, is inaccurate In an educational sense. If I were some 30yr old uneducated douchbag sitting on my ass all day debating you that'd be one thing, but this is not the case.

[BethesdaWX]

It is not so much the Earth "bucking the trend" as the net forcing from all sources being closer to neutral. The Earth doesn't "desire" to be at any particular temperature, it is forced to the temperature it is at by the balance of input/output radiative energy. Things such as total solar irradiance, aerosol loading of the atmosphere, volcanic eruptions and coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations enter the mix to affect the flow of energy throughout the system. .

The idea is, these other factors are not expected to change much on balance over longer time frames. Since climate models can not anticipate the direction and strength of these cyclic/oscillatory factors they are treated as having negligible impact longterm. The one thing we can be quit

certain of, is that the impact of human emissions will continue to grow in one direction only, toward that of warming.

You also should know that with OLR increasing and a profile not reflecting CO2 RF, CO2 is probably only partially responsible for warming since the satellite era Began.

[bobbutts]

same circular argument from all the threads.. hopelessly off topic

you guys might want to learn let it go once in awhile.. getting the last word in is impossible when the other person is equally stubborn.. it's like when people play "chicken" by driving towards a head on collision.. when two unflappable drivers meet up the result is death for both.

[Hambone]

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.

The AGW movement has become a "Political Cult". If one is a "liberal" one is by nature, anti-business, pro tax on the wealthy and business, pro environment. wealth redistributive, big government favoring, broad social agenda promoting and act impetuously. It's the nature of the beast.

AGW fits the political mindset of liberals to a T.

Those who are conservative seek to preserve wealth, reduce regulation, shrink government, proceed cautiously on any issues and in general look before they leap.

It's the nature of a conservative to be a skeptic when it comes to policies that impose a liberal agenda, based on science that is clearly incomplete. The earth may very well be warming and manmade Co2 may well be playing a role, but we don't understand the process well enough to alter the future of our economy and economic competitiveness in some Quixotic quest to right the world's climate.

This basic political dichotomy, just like the debt ceiling debacle, will continue to the detriment of real science. That said, I'm not a scientist, but I am paid to make decisions based on available information, abnd I'm far from convinced that we are at the point where we make the giant leap of faith economically on what is unclear science at best.

[bobbutts]

The AGW movement has become a "Political Cult". If one is a "liberal" one is by nature, anti-business, pro tax on the wealthy and business, pro environment. wealth redistributive, big government favoring, broad social agenda promoting and act impetuously. It's the nature of the beast.

AGW fits the political mindset of liberals to a T.

Those who are conservative seek to preserve wealth, reduce regulation, shrink government, proceed cautiously on any issues and in general look before they leap.

It's the nature of a conservative to be a skeptic when it comes to policies that impose a liberal agenda, based on science that is clearly incomplete. The earth may very well be warming and manmade Co2 may well be playing a role, but we don't understand the process well enough to alter the future of our economy and economic competitiveness in some Quixotic quest to right the world's climate.

This basic political dichotomy, just like the debt ceiling debacle, will continue to the detriment of real science. That said, I'm not a scientist, but I am paid to make decisions based on available information, abnd I'm far from convinced that we are at the point where we make the giant leap of faith economically on what is unclear science at best.

so in short you are saying all conservatives and conservative ideas are brilliant and all liberals are idiots?

A classic conservative when faced with uncertainty, would likely do what it takes to ensure their (the nation's) wealth given either outcome. I don't believe the popular "conservative" directive to dismiss climate change based on lack of knowledge qualifies as conservative behavior very well.

I'm not disagreeing with you about discontent for cap/trade as a remedy or conservatism as a concept, but I'm also not buying what supposedly 'conservative' popular politicians are saying.

[Hambone]

so in short you are saying all conservatives and conservative ideas are brilliant and all liberals are idiots?

A classic conservative when faced with uncertainty, would likely do what it takes to ensure their (the nation's) wealth given either outcome. I don't believe the popular "conservative" directive to dismiss climate change based on lack of knowledge qualifies as conservative behavior very well.

I'm not disagreeing with you about discontent for cap/trade as a remedy or conservatism as a concept, but I'm also not buying what supposedly 'conservative' popular politicians are saying.

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the AGW movement has reached cult like status based on political midset as opposed to hard science. I never said there is no climate change. The climate is always changing. However, I've yet to read sufficient evidence, worthy of committing billions to trillions of dollars for a "remedy" to a problem we cannot define.

[WeatherRusty]

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the AGW movement has reached cult like status based on political midset as opposed to hard science. I never said there is no climate change. The climate is always changing. However, I've yet to read sufficient evidence, worthy of committing billions to trillions of dollars for a "remedy" to a problem we cannot define.

You have won the political battle, now you need to brush up on the science. Those of us who have been convinced by the science would like to do something about the situation. Your political stance against this attempt has succeeded. Hope you're happy.

[bobbutts]

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the AGW movement has reached cult like status based on political midset as opposed to hard science. I never said there is no climate change. The climate is always changing. However, I've yet to read sufficient evidence, worthy of committing billions to trillions of dollars for a "remedy" to a problem we cannot define.

I was just trying to understand your position better and I generally agree. It still leaves the question though, if we reject current remedies what should they be replaced with? Inaction seems like a pretty big gamble to me. I think one of the big problems is that while the issue itself isn't particularly political, the current political parties have too many outside influences, e.g. oil and green movements..

[NEOH]

Don't put words in my mouth. What I said is that the AGW movement has reached cult like status based on political midset as opposed to hard science. I never said there is no climate change. The climate is always changing. However, I've yet to read sufficient evidence, worthy of committing billions to trillions of dollars for a "remedy" to a problem we cannot define.

Excellent point. I believe the globe has been warming since the last ice age. Who is to say this warming is not part of the "normal" cycle? Is it a problem just because some scientists say it is? Nothing lasts forever (animal species, humans etc). Change is part of "normal" the cycle. Climate change is big business though.... I guess the more this topic is debated the more it stays relevant.

[LocoAko]

Excellent point. I believe the globe has been warming since the last ice age. Who is to say this warming is not part of the "normal" cycle? Is it a problem just because some scientists say it is? Nothing lasts forever (animal species, humans etc). Change is part of "normal" the cycle. Climate change is big business though.... I guess the more this topic is debated the more it stays relevant.

Great point!