30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud

I believe global warming is caused by....


  • Total voters
    118
Jason I would not be surprised if all of the ice melted from Alaska or Greenland etc. Remember Greenland used to be all Green and at one time had no snow. That there proves that our planet has gone through this warming and cooling period before. Remember the global warming in the medieval period before the little ice age? It was very warm then and how do we know it was not as warm or warmer then? Then came another global cooling period with the little ice age that killed hundreds of thousands because it was to cold. I think we will be heading into global cooling before our planet becomes to warm.
 
Matt and Mike: this issue of past warming/cooling cycles goes to the heart of what I don't understand about climate change discussions like this. Of course there have been other cycles, but what's the mechanism for warming right now? Scientists have already established that we continued to warm in a period where the sun would have suggested cooling (solar minimum)--which eliminates the sun as a variable for the current warming. (see earlier posts as well as what's below). Let's not talk past the specific data or only focus on one small detail and then pretend the rest of what's there doesn't matter.

We're going in circles. Just seems like there's no piece of evidence so many folks will accept.

I'm sorry that people can't trust the credentials of people who monitor our planet and get rockets into space, but in my book a climatologist has more expertise on these subjects, just like I'd go to a dermatologist if I had a seven-headed dog growing on my thumb (or maybe a sorcerer, heh).

But again, look the data indicates that when you factor in the natural influence--take the sun in this case--it's only "25%" to account for the warming over the last century:

--
Over the past century, Earth's average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change, according to computer modeling results published by NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies researcher David Rind in 2004. Earth's climate depends on the delicate balance between incoming solar radiation, outgoing thermal radiation and the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Even small changes in these parameters can affect climate. Around 30 percent of the solar energy that strikes Earth is reflected back into space. Clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, sand, ocean surface and even rooftops play a role in deflecting the incoming rays. The remaining 70 percent of solar energy is absorbed by land, ocean, and atmosphere.
---
Here are some more important parts of the article (from May 2008 involving Nasa studies): I encourage everyone to go to the link to read the rest--something for everyone since it talks about nonhuman influences and further study going on.
---
"For the last 20 to 30 years, we believe greenhouse gases have been the dominant influence on recent climate change," said Robert Cahalan, climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.


For the past three decades NASA scientists have investigated the unique relationship between the sun and Earth. Using space-based tools, like the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE), they have studied how much solar energy illuminates Earth, and explored what happens to that energy once it penetrates the atmosphere. The amount of energy that reaches Earth's outer atmosphere is called the total solar irradiance. Total solar irradiance is variable over many different timescales, ranging from seconds to centuries due to changes in solar activity.

The sun goes through roughly an 11-year cycle of activity, from stormy to quiet and back again. Solar activity often occurs near sunspots, dark regions on the sun caused by concentrated magnetic fields. The solar irradiance measurement is much higher during solar maximum, when sunspot cycle and solar activity is high, versus solar minimum, when the sun is quiet and there are usually no sunspots.

"The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum," said Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder. "The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."
---
Are there any climatologists on Stormtrack? Maybe they could bring a lot to this thread or explain things more clearly. But again, the data indicates you cannot blame the sun for the majority (75%) of recent warming this last century and that rather starting in 2012 we should expect a natural enhancement of human-influenced climate change.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm
 
What is Earths average temperature? How would we know when the earliest we would have reliable data would be the early 1900's and our planet has been around for billions of years? We may know the average for the last 100-150 years but beyond that how would we know what the average was? Maybe this is average for the US. Like I said it has been very warm before and I believe Earth has gone through warm spells just as warm as this if not warmer. I am waiting for Global Cooling. That will close this arguement for good.
 
My question is this - is global warming really bad in the long run, especailly when you consider the population growth of the world. There is alot of land that is not very hospitable to human living and extracting natural resources.

2nd thing is this world will die sooner or later (which doesn't mean we shouldn't take care of it), but the only way there will be any legacy of this planet is to develop technology of galactic travel and exploration. But it looks like our politicians are more worried about bailouts than science.
 
still ice at North Pole, I saw it, I was there

hey btw, I was at the North Pole last July 25, on a russian icebreaker, and there was still lots of ice, no way a normal ship could have gotten there , see images and videoclips here :

http://www.klipsi.ch/at_Northpole/at_Northpole.htm

now, we had EXTREMELY good weather at the North Pole, as you can tell from the photos. All days sailing north and sailing back south were in fog or stratus and clouds and overcast and more fog, except on the day we are at 90°N ( and on eclipse day, too) , we had unbelievable luck with clear skies and almost no wind. Our expedition leader said this was his 14th trip to the North Pole and he never had this kind of lucky sunny weather. But it was just ONE day. He as been at the North Pole 3 times this year and only once was it so clear, on our lucky trip.
 
I didn't vote, as I don't believe that I'm qualified to jump into this debate. However, some unsolicited advice to the gentleman who cited the United Nations...I wouldn't trust the United Nations for anything. Period.
 
Not surprisingly, no one has come up with the major cause for recent warming that they have evidence for that is an alternative to the human influence. I could keep repeating "what's the mechanism" and still get the empty void.

Meanwhile, Olivier, your observation of ice at the North Pole doesn't discount anything (though pretty interesting trip to take): the argument isn't that there's no ice there now, it's that it's melting faster than predicted (2013-2030 instead of 2100 for ice-free summers), as these articles that came out in 2007 and now Dec. 16, 2008 explain--notice the Navy is in on this too as well as the US Snow and Ice Research Center:

--[earlier article, 2007]
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

[. . .]
Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.

"Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.

"The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.
[. . .]
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
[. . .]
The US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) collects the observational data on the extent of Arctic sea ice, delivering regular status bulletins. Its research scientist Dr Mark Serreze was asked to give one of the main lectures here at this year's AGU Fall Meeting.

Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.

"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
--
And yes, of course the media hypes the more threatening date: 2013 instead of 2030. That's what sells papers.
"Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'" By the way, Olivier's pics clearly demonstrate the North Pole is as comfortable as any unheated swimming pool. :)


here's the more recent article:
"Scientists have found the first unequivocal evidence that the Arctic region is warming at a faster rate than the rest of the world at least a decade before it was predicted to happen."
[. . .]
The Arctic Ocean warmed more than usual because heat from the sun was absorbed more easily by the dark areas of open water compared to the highly reflective surface of a frozen sea. "Autumn 2008 saw very strong surface temperature anomalies over the areas where the sea ice was lost," Dr Stroeve told The Independent ahead of her presentation today.

"The observed autumn warming that we've seen over the Arctic Ocean, not just this year but over the past five years or so, represents Arctic amplification, the notion that rises in surface air temperatures in response to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will be larger in the Arctic than elsewhere over the globe," she said. "The warming climate is leading to more open water in the Arctic Ocean. As these open water areas develop through spring and summer, they absorb most of the sun's energy, leading to ocean warming.

"In autumn, as the sun sets in the Arctic, most of the heat that was gained in the ocean during summer is released back to the atmosphere, acting to warm the atmosphere. It is this heat-release back to the atmosphere that gives us Arctic amplification."

Temperature readings for this October were significantly higher than normal across the entire Arctic region – between 3C and 5C above average – but some areas were dramatically higher. In the Beaufort Sea, north of Alaska, for instance, near-surface air temperatures were more than 7C higher than normal for this time of year. The scientists believe the only reasonable explanation for such high autumn readings is that the ocean heat accumulated during the summer because of the loss of sea ice is being released back into the atmosphere from the sea before winter sea ice has chance to reform.

"One of the reasons we focus on Arctic amplification is that it is a good test of greenhouse warming theory. Even our earliest climate models were telling us that we should see this Arctic amplification emerge as we lose the summer ice cover," Dr Stroeve said. "This is exactly what we are not starting to see in the observations. Simply put, it's a case of we hate to say we told you so, but we did," she added.

Computer models have also predicted totally ice-free summers in the Arctic by 2070, but many scientists now believe that the first ice-free summer could occur far earlier than this, perhaps within the next 20 years.
---
from:
just yesterday 912-16-08)--
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/arctic-melt-passes-the-point-of--no-return-1128197.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is Earths average temperature? How would we know when the earliest we would have reliable data would be the early 1900's and our planet has been around for billions of years? We may know the average for the last 100-150 years but beyond that how would we know what the average was? Maybe this is average for the US. Like I said it has been very warm before and I believe Earth has gone through warm spells just as warm as this if not warmer. I am waiting for Global Cooling. That will close this arguement for good.

These are all good questions. The idea is to ask questions like this, acknowledge that you don't know the answers, and then find books, journals, and documentaries to answer these questions. If you ask these questions and then invent a bunch of answers in your head and end the quest there, then it is likely that you will rarely arrive at conclusions that will be useful to your or others.
 
The sun and volcanoes were responsible for past cycles. That's why it's important that data indicates the sun (which has been at a MINIMUM while warming has continued!] and volcanoes (look at Brian Emfinger's graph on page 2 when he points out "We release more CO2 per year than the years that included the Tambora and Krakatau eruptions...") aren't the issue now but green-house gases from people. Read the previous articles. We're going in circles.

I give up. Folks literally will just ignore what they don't want to believe. Here's the article from earlier when I made the mechanism comment with another quote that sums things up:

--
Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth's climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

"Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth's climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before."

[the guy's a NASA climatologist, and climatologists have the most authority on this subject]
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080512120523.htm

And since it seems to prove impossible for people to accept those studies, maybe pollution studies are better to focus on as just killers:

--
from national geographic:

---
"Air pollution is estimated to cause approximately two million premature deaths worldwide per year," said Michal Krzyzanowski, an air quality adviser at the WHO Regional Office for Europe.

Krzyzanowski worked with WHO to look at costs and casualties of pollution across the globe. He helped the group develop new air quality guidelines that set out global goals to reduce deaths from pollution.

Deadly Air

Damaging air pollutants include sulfur dioxide, particulate matter—a mixture of extremely small particles and water droplets—ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. China accounts for roughly one-third of the global total for these pollutants, according to Krzyzanowski. (See a map of China.)

In neighboring India, air pollution is believed to cause 527,700 fatalities a year. In the United States, premature deaths from toxic air pollutants are estimated at 41,200 annually.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070709-china-pollution.html
 
I give up. Folks literally will just ignore what they don't want to believe.
You should have done that days ago.. as I did!

Some of the comments in this thread are simply amazing. I think a lot of it has to do with GW becoming a political issue and Al Gore's involvement obviously helped that along. Once this got into the political issue world people began to lose reasoning and common sense. I think at this point I don't really see any scenario where the causes behind GW will be believed by some - even with the ever increasing, painfully obvious, and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. I suppose its easier to live oblivious to the obvious rather than to be open to the possibilities that our world may become a much more difficult place to live in...maybe within many of our lives.
 
To Brian and Jason,

Please read this and then tell me you believe it is scientifically proven that the sun was not behind the warming that appearently ended in the late 1990's. Here is the article (citing NASA by the way) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/16/earths-magnetic-field-has-massive-breach-scientists-baffled/

And, if you tell me the 'models' have this correct, please point me to the specific model that forecast the magnetic reversal.

I think anyone would take NASA at its word that this has everyone baffled. Taken with the Ap index tanking and the two-year delay of Cycle 24, I'm surprised that anyone can consider the sun a virtual non-player in climate change.

I respectfully believe you have science backward. In science, a hypothesis is advanced. It is then reviewed and tested. If it passes the testing, it becomes a theory. But, if anyone can find one example where the theory does not hold up, the theory/hypothesis is rejected. It the role of the person or entity advancing the hypothesis to defend it.

In 1988, Jim Hansen went before Congress and presented a hypothesis involving global warming. He made specific forecasts. His forecast of CO2 increase ("Scenario A") was quite good. This temperature forecast, after doing well the first few years, was far too high. Hypothesis rejected.

Subsequent forecasts (as recently as the IPCC's 2004 version) have also been too high, with the most recent outside the 95% confidence interval on the cold side. Again, hypothesis rejected. (c.f., http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ipcc-central-tendency-of-2ccentury-still-rejected/ ).

Jason, you claim the warming has continued through a solar minimum but you cite no evidence. If you cite the GISS numbers, fine, but I would advise extreme caution. They have been widely questioned for what appear to be good reasons (at least to me) and are often an outlier.

On the other hand... The Hadley Centre's numbers (to which I linked earlier) show cooling. So do the RSS and UAH numbers. These three tend to move together, so I trust them far more than NASA GISS. Cooling may indeed be occurring with the lessening of solar activity.

The scientific burden is not on me or on any other skeptic. It is on Dr. Hansen and the IPCC to show their theory works 100% of the time. Otherwise, hypothesis rejected and the experimentation and quest for knowledge continues.

Mike
 
Back
Top