Dr. Gray Slams Gore

[Mikey Gribble]

Oh really Kevin. That doesn't make any sense. Well tell that to Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen and Bert Borlin, the former chairman of the IPCC because they're the ones that said it. Here is the quote...

"It looks like the warming today may be only about a quarter of what we would have got without aerosols," Crutzen told New Scientist. "You could say the cooling has done us a big favor."

Does it make sense now???

I am well aware of how they take ice core samples Kevin. What I asked though was whether or not we could accuratelly sample all, or even most, of the things that influence the earth's climate and establish records on them going back for an adequate period of time. That answer is a huge no, and it's convenient that you ducked the question. You may be able to sample the makeup of the air going back a thousand years with ice core samples, but that is only a very small part of what influences the earth's climate. That by itself means very little IMO. What about the dozens of other things that influence the earth's climate. Do you have test results on those going back a thousand years? If not, then we have no frame of reference.

If you found plenty of reputable explanations for why the temperature dropped for forty years, while we were polluting, then please share it.

I can't wait until ten years from now when we aren't on pace to meet the temperature increases that IPCC is projecting. Everybody will quietly back away then and reform their theories to fit reality. If it starts cooling next year they'll all say we reached the tipping point, and now man is responsible for global cooling. You can never be wrong if you adjust your theory to conform with the results. Weather = Anthropogenic Global Warming

I need to work on the chase day for the rest of the morning. God know's that's more important, unless we are going to turn into little Kingsford briquettes by this afternoon from CO2 emissions. We could actually use a little of that global warming today. All the chasers should be thankful today that we've warmed the climate as much as we have. Without it CAPE probably wouldn't even break a 1000 today.

 

[David Wolfson]

Crutzen's theses, if true, are actually pretty scary. They imply that the anthropogenic factors are much greater and being masked by natural factors and side effects of certain otherwise undesirable anthropogenic pollutants. He's one of many reputable, expert researchers and I'm all for more of that. Crutzen is in the great majority of reputable scientists that thinks anthropogenic effects on climate and weather are a Big Deal.

In the years I've been on Stormtrack, this thread has surfaced at least ten times. Meanwhile the global CO2 concentration has grown almost 20PPM and many predicted consequences are, alas, proving out. We can all hope the doubters and skeptics are proven right because the world could certainly use the "breathing space" to sort out how to accommodate all the natural and anthropogenic effects on climate.

Unfortunately some of the meters like arctic summer sea ice and permafrost depletion have been pinning to the high side lately. A future fraught with wars over fossil fuel, water, and arable land isn't science fiction; but a frightening possibility in our lifetimes. God, anyone of good will (including Al Gore) hopes the IPCC is wrong, but....

 

[Dave Gallaher]

Everybody will...reform their theories to fit reality.

Isn't this a good practical definition of science?

Eric, the 'invented the internet' quote has been demonstrated to have been just as innacurate as was the 'weapons of mass destruction' idea. It was inflated by Gore opponents for political gain and remains there as long as anyone refuses to 'reform their theories to fit reality.'

Off the subject---good luck chasing today! Our potential chase day will be Thursday and I'm booked all afternoon and night, and in Tuscaloosa to boot, which has been a convective hot spot lately. I'm taking the videocam along, though, just in case...

 

[Jesse V. Bass III]

I never said he doesnt need some sort of SS protection. But he doesnt need 3 gas guzzling armored SUV's and a police escort of 4 motorcycles. A small group riding in his SUV would do just fine. Its not like Bin Laden is after him. he is NO threat to terrorists. President Carter travels the world but only uses 5 SS guards total. And then ofcourse is the topic of his massive house which nobody can argue is not in any way GW friendly. So if he is soo concerned about energy use then why not sell it?

As for being respected in the rest of the world. thats only because they havent had to deal with him and his BS for near as long as we have.

And there was concensus on global warming way before he opened his mouth. The planet has been warming in general since the end of the ice age.. thats why it ended.. duh.. and there are natural cycles of warm/cold periods lasting from 10 years to 100 years BUT..That it is worse now than in previous warmups and that is is mostly manmade is still very much open for debate. His award was pure politics. Much of the data he cites has already been debunked but some people have agendas and use powerful organizations to help them seem legitimate. People you named that said he was crazy or uninformed didnt mean about GW itself but the cause of it. Gore is not any kind of scientists and has to go by what he hears from others and what his agenda is which has always been the environment and anything that can help his cause along those lines such as reduced oil use and reduced damage to the environment he will champion whether its based on facts or not.

well thought out post... could not agree more...

 

[Stan Rose]

Sigh...
I guess the good news is that little by little reality is forcing even the harshest critics to at least open their eyes to the possibility that we can actually influence our climate. I wonder how many of the skeptics (i actually was one of them at one time, until the overwhelming non-politicized evidence convinced me otherwise) would remain unconvinced even after they visited the arctic and saw first hand the dramatic changes that are taking place. I suppose they would still insist it's just a drastic natural cycle, even though we don't really have any historical precedent for that assertion. Oh well. I once asked a colleague who was a big GW naysayer what kind of a change it would take to convince him--5 degrees? 10? (over a certain time period). I think the answer i finally got was 20 degrees
Oh well, ive gotta go now to take some more photos of the pine trees outside, since 90% of them will be dead in the next few years due to the beetle epidemic (made much worse by the complete lack of frigid wx in recent winters).

 

[MatthewCarman]

Sigh...
I guess the good news is that little by little reality is forcing even the harshest critics to at least open their eyes to the possibility that we can actually influence our climate. I wonder how many of the skeptics (i actually was one of them at one time, until the overwhelming non-politicized evidence convinced me otherwise) would remain unconvinced even after they visited the arctic and saw first hand the dramatic changes that are taking place. I suppose they would still insist it's just a drastic natural cycle, even though we don't really have any historical precedent for that assertion. Oh well. I once asked a colleague who was a big GW naysayer what kind of a change it would take to convince him--5 degrees? 10? (over a certain time period). I think the answer i finally got was 20 degrees
Oh well, ive gotta go now to take some more photos of the pine trees outside, since 90% of them will be dead in the next few years due to the beetle epidemic (made much worse by the complete lack of frigid wx in recent winters).

We had a very warm period in the midevial times followed by a ice age. Then the earth got warm again. It will not cool down over one night. It will take time. Untill someone can explain to me why the very warm period and the ice age in the midevial times occured I will not jump on the GW bandwagon. I do not think we should say we are the main cause of GW without a better understanding of our earths natural life cycle.

 

[Marc Remillard]

the warm period in the medieval times has nothing to do with the actual warm period we are going into. Ours is bigger than medieval's, and we are helping this GW, for sure.

What's not sure is what will happen in the future. We know we are "helping" the GW, but we don't know if a bigger warm period will change something in the future...

So, I agree we don't know what will happen, but it's clear that we are causing the GW to be much stronger than it's supposed to.

 

[mrobinett]

In a month the big story will be the "coldest winter in history."
I cant wait. No one mentions GW during the winter months, oh, yeah, those are gone too!
Marc, if we dont know what will happen, how do we know we are the cause of it being stronger than.. its supposed to be?!? What?
What's next, puppies? Oh yeah, thanks Ellen!!

 

[Eddie Natenberg]

I haven't found too much information online that is quick and to the point about the climate change debate, so I thought this was worth looking at.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

 

[Mikey Gribble]

1 degree Stan. 1 degree... That's all we're dealing with here. I always here people talk about how devestating global warming is on ANY animal population that has found misfortune (one way or another). Somehow global warming always rears it's ugly head when animals dying comes up. It is the biggest scapegoat in history.

I may be ignorant, but I've never understood how animals manage to adjust just fine to average seasonal/annual temperature swings of several degrees, yet all these people claim that the 1 degree rise over the past century has been devestating to animals every where. They simply can't deal with it according to the global warming alarmists. What the hell is that all about? Can a racoon not live prosperously if the average temperature this spring is 77 degrees instead of 76 degrees??? I've always heard that the vast majority of animals prosper when it gets warmer.

 

[SteveCarter]

I truly admire Al gore, and the work he is doing. YES, there IS Global Warming, and the evidence is OVERWHELMING for anyone who wants to take the time to read about it, research it, and spend some time with the FACTS. Thanks for the heads-up on Dr. Gray though, I'll cross him off my list of people to listen to now. These forums are suppose to stay away from politics and religion. the reason I say that is because I would bet 90% of the anti-Gore people are Republicans, and 90% of the Gore advocates are Democrats. When bush divided the country, he REALLY divided the country, didn't he? Think about this though.....the people who are the most anti-Global warming are the people making profits off OIL, and other related products. HMMMMM. And as for Gore "starting the internet", he was instrumental in the advancement of the internet back when it was getting off the ground. It's almost '08, and we have survived this far, so just another year and a half until we have sanity again. I hope whoever is President WILL do something to stop the advancing Global warming NOW, before it's to late.

 

[MatthewCarman]

I truly admire Al gore, and the work he is doing. YES, there IS Global Warming, and the evidence is OVERWHELMING for anyone who wants to take the time to read about it, research it, and spend some time with the FACTS. Thanks for the heads-up on Dr. Gray though, I'll cross him off my list of people to listen to now. These forums are suppose to stay away from politics and religion. the reason I say that is because I would bet 90% of the anti-Gore people are Republicans, and 90% of the Gore advocates are Democrats. When bush divided the country, he REALLY divided the country, didn't he? Think about this though.....the people who are the most anti-Global warming are the people making profits off OIL, and other related products. HMMMMM. And as for Gore "starting the internet", he was instrumental in the advancement of the internet back when it was getting off the ground. It's almost '08, and we have survived this far, so just another year and a half until we have sanity again. I hope whoever is President WILL do something to stop the advancing Global warming NOW, before it's to late.

We are not supposed to get political at ST or I would have said something about your comment but Bush has nothing to do with GW. I do not see this overwhelming evidence. Show me some proof or evidence man is helping or causing GW. I think alot of GW talk is theory and not hard evidence. How far back do our records go? Can you say that 100% this is not just the natural life cycle of the earth?

 

[David Wolfson]

No one can guarantee 100%. But it's above two-sigma probability (90%) and climbing according to scientific consensus. That's plenty good enough for me.

 

[Jay McCoy]

No one can guarantee 100%. But it's above two-sigma probability (90%) and climbing according to scientific consensus. That's plenty good enough for me.

Thats according to the group of scientists you choose to listen to. There are just as many scientists who are on the other side of the fence and believe this is a natural cycle. Thats the whole point of this argument is the data can work both ways since our records dont go back far enough to compare past warmup events.

And Steve you showed your colors. It has nothing to do with global warming but politics. That is one of the biggest problems with Gore being a spokesman is he IS a political figure.Many people cant seperate him from that process. We all know he isnt a scientists so any information he gives is based on other peoples data which may or may not be accurate. You buy into it purely based on your political beliefs and the fact you liked him before he spoke about GW. Its sad you had to make a scientific argument a political fiasco which is not only against ST rules but shows a lack of credibility in your arguments.

Step off and allow the rest of us to have our scientific argument.

 

[David Wolfson]

Jay, with due respect, I think there're are far fewer and generally less credible scientists "on the other side of the fence." It's certainly not a political issue of course! Where the politics seem to creep in is that different mindsets frame the same facts and evidence (or lack thereof) quite differently -- and those mindsets do tend to divide along political lines lately. John Dean, a traditional conservative republican, and *ahem* Al Gore, a rather traditional progressive have each written books recently that cover this sociological territory pretty well, I think.