Sorry, but Al Gore sounds like he’s a flabbergasted 12-year-old trying to sound smart.
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Reducing pollution means more global warming, as we see when volcanic eruptions cool the planet.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
People asking for a debate completely misunderstand how science works and makes these decisions. These issues have been debated before by scientists themselves ad nauseum, and pointing out blogs by people looking to poke holes in a well established theory for political reasons or monetary reasons.
#53 points out a blog about the effect of sunshine on temps, yet the wikiarticle pointed out by #57 actually takes that into account and points how scientists have already taken that into account. The effect of the sun should actually be lowering temps.
The holes the deniers keep trying to poke are the same ones scientists have considered extensively already. The deniers are consistently exaggerating these effects, not bothering to mention that scientists have already considered them, and either dismissed them, or incorporated them into the models already.
It is pure political bandstanding on the AGW denier camp. They have an outcome they want to achieve and cherry pick their data to fit it. Science does not work that way. The vast majority of scientists have no political agenda, and could be ostracized if they did. They are tired of the AGW deniers constant accusations, that are only true if they look in the mirror.
Science is a never ending debate, so stop calling for a debate, its been going on for years.
Ariane B,
As a solar physicist, I invite you to cite real references to your statement:
The effect of the sun should actually be lowering temps.
Although solar activity is currently at the 11 year minimum, it’s just an 11 year minimum, and so far, a Maunder minimum affects climate centuries after, not during, even assuming a Maunder minimum is occurring.
I just go it from what someone else posted. From the footnotes:
Hegerl, Gabriele C.; et al. (2007-05-07). “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change” (PDF). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 690. http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-05-20. “Recent estimates (Figure 9.9) indicate a relatively small combined effect of natural forcings on the global mean temperature evolution of the seconds half of the twentieth century, with a small net cooling from the combined effects of solar and volcanic forcings”
^ Ammann, Caspar; et al. (2007-04-06). “Solar influence on climate during the past millennium: Results from transient simulations with the NCAR Climate Simulation Model” (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (10): 3713–3718. doi:10.1073/pnas.0605064103. PMID 17360418. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713.pdf. “However, because of a lack of interactive ozone, the model cannot fully simulate features discussed in (44).” “While the NH temperatures of the high-scaled experiment are often colder than the lower bound from proxy data, the modeled decadal-scale NH surface temperature for the medium-scaled case falls within the uncertainty range of the available temperature reconstructions. The medium-scaled simulation also broadly reproduces the main features seen in the proxy records.” “Without anthropogenic forcing, the 20th century warming is small. The simulations with only natural forcing components included yield an early 20th century peak warming of ≈0.2 °C (≈1950 AD), which is reduced to about half by the end of the century because of increased volcanism.”.
The estimates of solar effects are based on outdated measurements, another contradiction within the IPCC report, as they themselves say these measurements are questionable in another part of the report.
http://tinyurl.com/solout
>It is pure political bandstanding on the AGW denier camp. They have an outcome they want to achieve and cherry pick their data to fit it.
Sounds like the global warming alarmists to me.
If it’s hot today, it’s because of global warming; if it’s cold, just don’t mention it.
Folks,
you have to realise the global position we are in now.
THE DEBATE IS OVER.
No politician will despute this position. Politics has never been about truth, it is about perceived truth, as presented by the mainstream media, which is TOTALLY brought into the ideology. Cut and pastes of other ‘denier propaganda’ just will not be viewed let alone decided upon.
What will happen next? Fortunately (or unfortunately for the climate/what ever is left of the global economy) there has been a period of low sun spot activity which (watch the orginial source doco) is the best climate predictor. Therein lies a sick, cold joke about to be pulled on silly mankind.
>The effect of the sun should actually be lowering temps.
That’s reasonable, and temperatures are lower.
What’s whit these link names? Didn’t it used to be just 14652?
I’ll watch the vid and read the comments in a minute or two … but I must ask … Why would any politician debate scientists? Shouldn’t they get James Hansen for climate change if they want a fair debate?
My Climate Scientists can beat up your Climate Scientists and theirs a lot more of them. A whole lot more.
The big picture,,,
CO2 IS a green house gas, no one credibly debates that. We are taking CO2 that has been locked out of our atmosphere for eons and releasing it back into the atmosphere. Last time that much CO2 was in the atmosphere it was warmer and plant life spent many centuries sequestering it for us.
What will happen? common sense says it will get warmer common nonsense says are releasing all that CO2 back into the atmosphere will have no effect.
To bad its not a closed system you guys could could have fun betting on this, but the sun can trump all bets by slacking or getting busy.
Hey guess what if we live long enough we will all get to see because this train has already left the station and its a coal burner.
Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).
Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect.
Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
I say watch both movies and figure the truth out for yourself, both movies have questionable backing and tell half-truths to get their point across.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2009/03/Don_Easterbrook1.017.php
compare sun vs temperature and co2 vs temperature
Global Warming/Climate Change has been Politicized, Polarized, Monetized and Merchandised.
Follow the money folks, both side of this issue have $$$ in their eyes.
Science has always been corrupted by politics and money. ALWAYS!
This issue will never be settled because neither side is listening to the other, all you guys do is argue and try to one-up each other…
I see the the term “denier” has now entered into the lexicon. Typical tactics, label the opposition, thus pigeon-holing them and undermining any credibility.
We’re all screwed…
#76–HereNow==”Science has always been corrupted by politics and money.” As a true believer in the Church of Science, surely this can’t be true?
Science is pure and devoid of curruption by definition. It is just a process. Any corruption is identified by SCIENCE thru the requirement of repetitiveness.
No, I think you are confusing the ultra pure ideology of science with the politics/money/greed that surrounds it. Not it, itself.
Close but no banana. How can we tell? Read the studies and wait longer. Science has no time requirement.
#65 ArianeB
In order to be convinced to do something about some potential problem I would have to know one thing, does CO2 cause warming. All of the proponents for Anthropogenic Global Warming either try to prove or just assume that rising levels of CO2 are the reasons for atmospheric warming. For me here’s what you’d have to overcome in order say that it does:
1-The greenhouse signature is missing. As you know from science, greenhouse warming follows a known pattern or signature. All the satellite and weather balloon data don’t reveal the greenhouse pattern. So, if there is warming then there’s something stronger causing it than CO2.
2-At first the ice core samples were very impressive but with a closer examination there is a time lag between the temperature change and the rise in CO2. This shows that if CO2 was the driver of warming then it should run away but that never happens, warming always stops and cooling begins even with high and rising levels of CO2. Something stronger than CO2 is at work.
3-Um, it’s not warming now. Since 2001 the temperatures have been going down but C02 is still rising. Something else has changed the trend that is stronger than CO2.
4-CO2 is doing all the warming that it can do. The absorption rate of CO2 is logarithmic, the first molecules matter a lot. But even doubling the amount of CO2 now doesn’t do that much.
The bottom line is that something affects the climate more than CO2 but no one knows what it is yet.
debate? hahahaha good joke.
The one, hahahaha good joke…
#78–gooddebate==once again, that name. If you don’t STOP IT, you’re gonna get stretch marks. I’ve given up arguing AGCC because it is outside my common sense and I find articles that do tend to contradict one another. Still, nonsense like yours is still fun to pop==like packing bubbles, its a nice sound.
A. Co2 is a greenhouse gas. Many experiments prove this. Many websites recite this. Do you have a single authority otherwise?
1. No signature. We need supercomputers to run the models because there are many variables. Do you have a single authority as to the nature of this signature concept as it applies to phenomenon with over 50 known variables?
2. “if CO2 was the driver” /// Well, its not “THE” driver–just one of many. Here is a nice website that says just the opposite of what you say: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
Likewise: “if CO2 was the driver of warming then it should run away but that never happens” /// who says it should “run away?” Thats the many variables factor again. Co2 goes up, plants grow, after a few 1000 years, the co2 gets sequestered as beat bogs and so forth.
“Something stronger than CO2 is at work.” /// Yes, many things but CO2 is the man made one that we can/might/should control. See why its focused on?
3. Correct. Ask yourself this. How can you drown in the desert?
4. “But even doubling the amount of CO2 now doesn’t do that much.” /// Your basis for this is exactly what? The number 350 parts per million Co2 is considered a tipping point to destruction by many and there is even a website or two devoted to that issue: http://350.org/
“The bottom line is that” – – good debates are not formed by making shit up and blowing it out your ass without common sense or links.
6 more nonsense posts like this and I will start a petition that your IP address no longer be allowed to post as “gooddebate.”
What subject are you capable of legitimately discussing in the form of a good debate? – – we could go there. Starwars Memorabilia?
Actually, it’s a prayer, bob.
A. Greenhouse gas makes up just less than 2 percent of the earths atmosphere. The rest is nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other gases. The two significant greenhouse gases are water vapor and CO2; the others are Methane, nitrous… Do I really have to list them? Of the CO2 portion, humans contribute 3.4 percent and 96.6 percent is naturally occurring. So, the human contributed greenhouse gas is .28 percent of the total amount of atmosphere gas.
1. Fortunately, we have the IPCC supercomputer which should be reliable, right? They have published a graph of the predicted greenhouse gas signature. But you won’t find anywhere on the IPCC site that they’ve found the signature in actual temperature readings. The best the IPCC has is a claim by Santer (an IPCC scientist) that there is ‘fog’ in the temperature data.
2. The implication by AGW’s is that CO2 is the cause. CO2 is the gas with the highest contribution from humans so if the climate is being affected then it would be CO2. Are you implying that CO2 is a minor player and that we should look somewhere else?
3. Holy quick sand batman (dying in quick sand is considered drowning).
4. Ok, I slogged through the ‘science’ on that page. Let me point out that they do try to prove the tipping point but they use other evidence to do it. One prominent evidence that 350 parts per million of CO2 is a tipping point is to show the polar ice caps melting photos. Other than that it’s just ‘scientists say’. There is nothing about the rate at which CO2 absorbs light (ie heat potential). There is no attempt to show from the current data how reaching 350 ppm has an affect on climate.
Bob, bob, bob or should I say ‘The Riddler’; don’t make it hard to take your extraneous comments as anything but good natured ribbing, you can do better than that.
#82, Guyver,
76, Hence why you cannot rely on Wikipedia or the IPCC.
Yet you post unsigned blogs as proof and dispute articles backed by research? Instead of refuting anything from Wikipedia, you just dismiss them and lead us to WorldNetDaily. That someone would prefer a right wing nut political agenda blog over the IPCC, which is comprised of scientists actually studying the issue shows YOUR agenda.
Geeze, talk about a wacko.
84, 🙂 My agenda is that I’m a skeptic. And somehow I’m a “right wing” nut because of that? LOL. Got it. This just reminds me of the environmentalist wackos who screamed bloody murder back in the 80s about the hole in our atmosphere. Then later we discovered that Mars had a hole in its atmosphere. Ooops. I suppose the Right Wing wackos were responsible for that one too? LOL. I don’t care either way.
IPCC has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is nothing more than a public blog which cites sources like a grade school kid does writing up a report using cited sources to impress the teacher.
You’re using broad brush strokes to discredit ALL blogs. It’s a genetic fallacy to do so. I’m merely using a very big grain of salt on Wikipedia and the IPCC due to their past behavior or their clear conflict of interest.
And although I would caution anyone using a blog as a source, that doesn’t mean that what is written on those blogs is without merit. On the flip side, there has been plenty bandied about over the credibility of Wikipedia and the IPCC.
The problem is when anyone presents anything that dissents with your opinion of what you believe to be the facts, then everyone else is a bunch of right-wing nuts.
Where are the facts PROVING CO2 is in fact the driver and that humans are the CAUSE of all this?
BTW, what EXACTLY was I disputing? Science embraces dissenting opinions. Until I see a formal debate between the IPCC and the dissenting experts, then the debate IMHO is not over.
If I was disputing anything, it is that there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence to support the claims of man-made global warming. Am I a “denier”? Nope. Just show me something overtly biased or something that doesn’t have a conflict of interest. I’ll come to my own objective conclusions (no matter how wacky they may seem to be in your eyes).
The IPCC report has the scientists giving a 90% confidence level. That is the highest level on which the scientists made forecasts. So even in their most probable forecasts, there is a 10% possibility of error.
Have experiments been conducted to verify that industrial CO2(weight 44) reaches the upper atmosphere?
The time lag of 700 years between temperature increase and CO2 increase is explained away under the logic that there is a large time scale of 4200 years of warming, so CO2 explains 83% of the warming, that is first the planet warms up and increases the co2 level, then this co2 warms the planet. However, they haven’t explained the initial NATURAL CO2 increase. It could be that most of the increase in CO2 is naturally caused by the temperature increase, and only some of the warming is due to positive feedback.
If the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is natural, then any industrial policy is a waste of time, and we should be focusing on adapting to a warmer world. The chart I posted above doesn’t have an endpoint in mind for the linear increase in temperature.
#85, Guyver,
This just reminds me of the environmentalist wackos who screamed bloody murder back in the 80s about the hole in our atmosphere. Then later we discovered that Mars had a hole in its atmosphere. Ooops.
It seems like you still don’t understand that.
IPCC has a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is nothing more than a public blog which cites sources like a grade school kid does writing up a report using cited sources to impress the teacher.
I see. The IPCC can be dismissed out of hand and Wikipedia ridiculed. But when you post blogs and the World Net Daily, they are expected to be taken as honest. You can’t point out where Wikipedia is wrong, only that they are.
On the flip side, there has been plenty bandied about over the credibility of Wikipedia and the IPCC.
Such as ???
The problem is when anyone presents anything that dissents with your opinion of what you believe to be the facts, then everyone else is a bunch of right-wing nuts.
If the shoe fits wear it. And most readers of the World Net Daily are right wing nuts as are most who read the Kos fall into the extreme Liberal mold. And I don’t read either.
Where are the facts PROVING CO2 is in fact the driver and that humans are the CAUSE of all this?
Well, you just disputed the best sources for that. I don’t know what would satisfy you.
BTW, what EXACTLY was I disputing? Science embraces dissenting opinions. Until I see a formal debate between the IPCC and the dissenting experts, then the debate IMHO is not over.
Well, you dispute Wikipedia is a good source for information. You dispute the IPCC is being honest. You dispute that man made CO2 might be causing irreversible effects on earth. Well, here, why don’t you go and reread your own posts to see what you dispute.
Am I a “denier”? Nope.
Wrong. You are.
#82
Yup. You’re a denier.
Okay, so where’s the e-mail link to get a hold of a site administrator so I can undo the spam block on my recent post? Seems like it has too many URLs. 🙂
#89, Guyver,
When that happens to me, and it does, first I call the spam filter a few names. That has yet to work though. 🙁
Just a suggestion, when I am adding a lot of links or copy/paste, I write in a word processor and c/p it into DU.
Also, I found that using three links trips the spam filter, sometimes. Try three or fewer links and if that doesn’t work, two links. Break up your comment into sections small enough to get by the spam filter. Well, unless you like calling it names.
When I have to do this I add a note at the start of the first post then add another with each section just to explain what it is I’m posting.
Also, don’t post them too fast or you will get a “slow down cowboy” message. Leave a minute or two between each post.
Good luck. I have to take off now but will return to see your rebuttal.
#83–gooddebate==about as well as could be done.
Gives me a headache too. Thats why I became agnostic on the subject.