30,000 Scientists to Sue Al Gore for Fraud

[Dan Robinson]

Folks literally will just ignore what they don't want to believe.

And this is exactly the attitude that alienates many who are presently AGW-neutral. There is plenty of evidence and support in the scientific community against AGW for a reasonable person to have doubts:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

On a personal level, I'm simply interested in the truth -but I feel that there is currently too much uncertainty and politicization to make an educated conclusion on the issue. So I'm in a wait-and-see mode.

 

[Brian Emfinger]

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/

The sun is the biggest player by far in everything to do with climate...there is certainly is no disputing that. Obviously, just as our temperatures are somewhat lower/moderated now because of solar minimum - they were higher during solar max. Just because the temperatures went up because of the solar max doesn't mean they weren't enhanced because of GW.

My biggest gripe is that people continue to deny our increasing of CO2 well beyond the normal cycles that are seen in Earth's past - are from human activity. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing of CO2 means more solar radiation is trapped than otherwise would have been thus temperatures are higher than they would have been. The increasing CO2 (above the normal) when looking at Earth's history (through many different methods - ice cores, etc) is only increasing through one possible source - human activity. Things would be fine if the extra CO2 was being absorbed by some source (ie the Oceans) but they aren't or they aren't to a level thats enough to keep CO2 at a constant amount.

Just look at the history. I don't especially care about the temperature aspect of the above graph at this point but look at the CO2. The cycles are there plain to see. What cycle is responsible for the significant increase in CO2?

I am not 100% sure what effect the increase CO2 will have BUT it seems likely temperatures will rise and climates will change. I believe that Earth's cycles/climates are more fragile than we think and there is just no telling how GW will play out. I suppose a wait and see approach at this point is acceptable. There is not much at this point we could do anyway even if we all believed without reservation that the main aspects of GW are true.

 

[Mike Smith]

Brian,

Excellent post.

This skeptic certainly believes that additional CO2 has some effect on temperatures, but it appears to be much smaller than originally hypothesized.

If, as an example, the effect of doubling CO2 is an increase of 1° in 100 years it would likely be a net benefit to mankind.

If the sun continues in its current funk one can legitimately be concerned about a Maunder-type minimum as some are predicting. That might lead to extreme cooling that would be far worse for humanity than the effects of warming. The increased CO2 might mitigate that type of catastrophic cooling.

I wish to make clear, I am not predicting a Maunder minimum as that is not my area of expertise. What I am saying there is a level of concern among some experts and my sense is no one really knows.

If we take some of the proposed measures against global warming (putting iron in the oceans to absorb CO2 at a greater rate or the proposal to put tiny mirrors in space) and cooling is the problem, we will have made a bad situation worse.

So, it is vital we treat this with all of the scientific rigor it deserves.

Mike

 

[Brian Emfinger]

I was going to add this on to my last post but it got too long:

It all comes down to CO2. Do you believe the increases in CO2 are from a natural source or human activity? If from a natural source, what source? If you believe then that CO2 is increasing from human activity then what is the likely result? Higher CO2 = Higher Temperatures. Look at the above image... CO2 and Temperature are obviously linked. Now look at a zoomed in view:

I have added my extremely un-scientific / rough estimate of where the past cycles seem to indicate where the CO2 and Temperature levels should be.

The main question I have is when will the temperatures "catch up" to the increase in CO2 or is it possible that the increase in CO2 is simply preventing the natural cool down. The only problem there is that we are continuing to increase the CO2 levels so it seems an almost certainty that at some point in the near future the increased CO2 will "overwhelm the system" and temperatures will increase.

Also I go back to this for any doubters of human activity causing the CO2 rise:

IF the cause of the CO2 rise were anything other than human activity then it wouldn't look like that. It would be very variable. Volcano eruptions and whatever else are variable non-consistent events and thus while the overall tendency of the graph (if it was non human related) could show increase - it definitely would not increase at such a consistent pace. The graph instead shows a constant increase (although the CO2 level is increasing faster as time passes). Only human activity which is constantly releasing CO2 can make that graph. The constant accelerating increase also matches nicely with mans increasing releases of CO2.

 

[Mike Smith]

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.

For comments on the models and their accuracy, please see (published yesterday):

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/gavin-spins-with-spaghetti-diagrams/

Here are Steve McIntyre's thoughts on the models' skill forecasting tropical temperatures: www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687#comments

 

[Dave Gallaher]

And this is exactly the attitude that alienates many who are presently AGW-neutral. There is plenty of evidence and support in the scientific community against AGW for a reasonable person to have doubts:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

On a personal level, I'm simply interested in the truth -but I feel that there is currently too much uncertainty and politicization to make an educated conclusion on the issue. So I'm in a wait-and-see mode.

Couldn't have said this better...

 

[Jim Saueressig]

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”

Myers is the second CNN meteorologist to challenge the global warming conventions common in the media. He also said trying to determine patterns occurring in the climate would be difficult based on such a short span.

“But this is like, you know you said – in your career – my career has been 22 years long,” Myers said. “That’s a good career in TV, but talking about climate – it’s like having a car for three days and saying, ‘This is a great car.’ Well, yeah – it was for three days, but maybe in days five, six and seven it won’t be so good. And that’s what we’re doing here.”

“We have 100 years worth of data, not millions of years that the world’s been around,” Myers continued.

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.

“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”

More......

 

[Rob Wadsworth]

That's a fair post, Jim.
But isn't it also a bit arrogant for Chad Myers to say that we will acidify the oceans too?!?
LOL!
I think the drinking water problem is pretty real, though. A steadily growing population needing larger quantities of potable water and also vast amounts of water are needed for industry to match growth. The amount of needed water overall is rising at an exponential rate. But that is another kettle of fish...

When it is all said and done, man will have eventually polluted the earth. So long as man's numbers will increase, so will the quantities of waste in all of its various forms.
As for global warming is concerned, it looks as though it is presently taking a vacation from Al Gore. Maybe Al should go on a ski trip - now that there is an early abundance of snow everywhere - if he can find a way to get to the snow safely.
And Al: get some snow shoes and take some pictures for all of us to see...

Gee; only a few days before Winter is officially here.
It looks like it is going to be a tough one - too...

 

[K Johnson]

Is global warming and climate change the same thing? I am far more inclined to believe that human CO2 emissions are at least in part responsible for climate change... Not GW.

Jason and Brian - You are wonderful! Keep up the good work! If I was as eloquent as you I would be posting more.

 

[Brian Emfinger]

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

Just as it was stupid for the gw extremists to go nuts when there was warm weather spells in the past it is equally stupid for the other side to say the current cool spell is a sure sign gw is not real. Any time a current weather event is brought into a global warming debate it makes me cringe. Its even worse when the anamalously cool weather was predicted by many (due to the longer than normal and ongoing solar minimum).

With that said... I do believe extreme weather is more likely do to gw.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

That's a fair post, Jim.
But isn't it also a bit arrogant for Chad Myers to say that we will acidify the oceans too?!?
LOL!

I think that both sides are more than arrogant.

I think the drinking water problem is pretty real, though. A steadily growing population needing larger quantities of potable water and also vast amounts of water are needed for industry too. The amount of needed water overall is rising at an exponential rate.

We have serious pollution issues make no mistake about it, lets look at MTBE killing people by poisoning and destroying our water supply... Oh wait, we are too entangled in the global warming controversy to worry about something a million times more deadly than Global Warming.

As always we find something extreme to fill up the news with controversy about the future rather than a more immediate doom.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

So in 2012 when the world ends or the magnetic poles flip will it be global warming that changed the ice vs tropics regions? LOL

Seriously, no one really knows what the world is going to pull out of its hat, the one thing we know is that there has been massive extremes from one side to the other over the centuries and our one minute worth of record keeping out of the years of earths life will not tell us what will happen for sure tomorrow. If you want to fight an anti pollution battle then blame it on the things we know for a fact like cancer, death and possible extinction if we poison the rest of the water etc, etc. Why fight an unsure battle for a cause when we have so many facts to argue rather than myths or possibilities.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

So in 2012 when the world ends or the magnetic poles flip will it be global warming that changed the ice vs tropics regions? LOL

Seriously, no one really knows what the world is going to pull out of its hat, the one thing we know is that there has been massive extremes from one side to the other over the centuries and our one minute worth of record keeping out of the years of earths life will not tell us what will happen for sure tomorrow. If you want to fight an anti pollution battle then blame it on the things we know for a fact like cancer, death and possible extinction if we poison the rest of the water etc, etc. Why fight an unsure battle for a cause when we have so many facts to argue rather than myths or possibilities.

I think that it is that, for the most part, the data surrounding GW are pretty well known, it's just that a small handful of loud people refuse to accept them or the conclusions that they point to.

 

[Jim Saueressig]

LOL WUT?[

You know, one of the many theories that the world ends with 2012 via the Mayan Calender, Planet X, Edward Cayce, Nostrill Dumass lol, etc so why worry about the future??

I think that it is that, for the most part, the data surrounding GW are pretty well known, it's just that a small handful of loud people refuse to accept them or the conclusions that they point to.

I disagree, there is nothing to conclude with so little evidence to go with. Again lets focus on what is fact rather than a speculative conclusion. There is too much bogus info called data in the GW argument.

There are just too many issues that could be dealt with all the energy and money being used to debate an uncertainty and what it might do to the future.

The only truth in this whole argument is that "If we spent 50% of the energy and money we are currently wasting on the GW controversy cleaning up the pollution problems of the NOW we would have already taken care of the pollution issues that will supposedly cause our future demise according to the GW arguement."

Drop all talk of future GW issues and focus on pollution now and all the ammo for GW is long gone before it gets here.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

I disagree,

I know, as do some others -- but data tends not to care whether people agree or disagree. If the data say the world is hotting up, then it probably is. If it's hotting up in a way that strongly suggests that humanity is a key factor, then we probably are.

To me, the argument seems a bit moot; mankind has neither the incliniation nor the ability to manage the world's resources in a sustainable fashion. We can sit here and argue about whether or not a train is coming, but in the end we're still handcuffed to the tracks. All the "there's nothing wrong, this is totally normal, the sky always sounds like a train whistle" nonsense is nothing more than a sad afternote in the last measures of a failed song.