Al Gore on C-Span

CSPAN webcast of House Energy Subcmte hearing on Global Climate Change starring Al Gore – starting 9:30 ET today.

128 Comments

  1. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 7:28 AM | Permalink

    I wonder whether anyone will ask Al Gore whether he considered the purchase of carbon offsets by Generation Investment Management on his behalf (offsetting his own large electricity consumption) as part of their executive compensation program to be taxable income and whether it was declared in his prior returns as taxable income.

  2. John A
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    I wonder if anyone could ask Al whether he’s heard of Johann Tetzel.

  3. Jeremy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    I’m wondering whether or not he’ll throw down and agree to debate Lord Christopher Monckton. I could use a good televised reputation smackdown. They could even have ring girls for it.

  4. welikerocks
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:48 AM | Permalink

    Hope this works:

    Gore continues to demand special treatment

  5. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    Oh Gawd. He’s citing the Stern report.

  6. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:08 AM | Permalink

    Where is he getting this stuff about this winter is the warmest on record ?

  7. Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    “Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense.”

  8. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:37 AM | Permalink

    “Thar’s a hole being burned …. ” LOLOLOL!

  9. STAFFAN LINDSTRÖM
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    ….IⳭ recording it all so if any changes
    are made to the archived RM-file Iⳬl notice…
    Only OLD JIM and AL G thinks 2005 is the hottest
    globally am I right? I wonder now as Al is talking
    about sequestering in Norway or Iceland…Perhaps
    thatⳳ why Al G is here in Scandinavia so often??
    Joe Barton asked about CO2 lagging temperature…
    sometimes says Al…Can you find one or two
    examples of that be my guest, Al…

  10. Mick
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    #6, That would be NOAA, http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm

  11. L Nettles
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    Where is he getting this stuff about this winter is the warmest on record ?

    That’s the wonderful thing about records in a warm trend. You can slice it how you want it. Not “2006 is the warmest year ever.” but the warmest “winter” on “record” and of course it depends on who can adjust the records.

  12. Ian Blanchard
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    Whilst North America has been pretty normal and the SH has had a disappointing summer, the UK and
    western Europe have been having a particularly mild (and wet) last few months. Southern England is usually between 5-10 deg C daytime max in Jan and Feb, but this year it has rarely been in single figures. We’ve been stuck in Atlantic south-westerlies pretty much permanently since about October.

    Last week London temperatures were up to about 17 deg C. This week it’s been down below average (daytime max as low as 5 deg C) and we’ve had a few snow flurries, with very stiff northerly winds. Obviously though, this is going to help skew the averages for the globe upwards because of the large number of readings from western Europe.

    (If I was cynical I would suggest that this gives HadCRU the opportunity to calculate this year as being unusually warm globally as no-one in the UK would be able to object based on their own observations).

  13. Troy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 10:36 AM | Permalink

    #10
    Interesting, NOAA did not include Alaska which has been having record breaking, or near record breaking cold temperatures and snowfall accumulation in different areas in the State.

  14. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 10:53 AM | Permalink

    Thanks, Mick. I thought lots of America was having a cold time of it this winter, with Hollywood having its first snow since the 60s or some such ? (Shame it didn’t coincide with the Oscars…)

  15. JP
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    fFreddy,
    Here’s a NOAA/NEDIS link:

    http://tinyurl.com/yo8esp

  16. JP
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    fFreddy,

    Here’s a NOAA/NEDIS Link:

    http://tinyurl.com/yo8esp

    Troy,
    According to NOAA, most of Alaska had a “warm” winter.

  17. Armin
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 11:19 AM | Permalink

    Something serious about Al Gore’s story. Of course he started out with a set of recently discovered new disasters. Of course there was some more serious ice melting and fires and of course the CH4 couldn’t be left out. But he mentioned that – forgive me for missing the exact quote – because of the current condition of Greenland, the earth is shaking? He mentioned shocks on the Richter scale?

    Does anyone know what he refers too? I’m curious. I know that there are things like ice load induced earthquakes, which are earthquakes that occur due to the heavy stress and strains from the weight of an ice sheet on a certain peace of the earth’s mantle. Does he refer to that?

  18. Troy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 11:33 AM | Permalink

    #16

    JP – please refer to –

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/SixCities/Anchorage/index.html

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/SixCities/Barrow/index.html

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Fairbanks/index.html

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/SixCities/Juneau/index.html

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/SixCities/KingSalmon/index.html

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/SixCities/Nome/index.html

    Yes we have had “warm” periods, but overall, it has been colder and snowier then normal.

  19. Troy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

    JP (#16)

    For example, here is the charts for Juneau, which we consider the warm SE part of the state.

    http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/SixCities/Juneau/index.html

    Upper right hand corner is a box where you can see the data for other cities in the state.

    Wonder if NOAA reference to a warm winter is meaning more snow then usual ?

  20. Jim B
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    I believe the data he is using for temperatures is the current UAH Climate Data:

    http://climate.uah.edu/dec2006.htm

    http://climate.uah.edu/jan2007.htm

    but the MSU Satellite data shows no such trend.

    http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

  21. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    RE: #19 (and some earlier ones) – NOAA’s “data” are, in my book, rubbish, so long as the issue with the surface record we’ve detailed in gory detail here at CA remain. I’d also add that their 13 month surface temperature outlooks in monthly slices are also rubbish, based on the fact that there appears to be an assumption that IPCC are correct in their decade scale climate models.

  22. Reference
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    Al Gore’s testimony before the House today

    Bjà¸rn Lomborg testimony – later today

  23. Basil Copeland
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:06 PM | Permalink

    Troy, nice links you posted. Based on HDD, it looks like AK is having a fairly “normal” winter, with normal being 1971-2000 if the HDD’s are based on a standard climatological norm.

  24. Lee
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    re 19 – that chart clearly shows a warmer than average DJF. One cold excursion in January, but for most of that period the highs are near or clearly above normal highs, and lows are well above normal lows – and often near or above normal highs.

  25. Jim B
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

    Which is now updated to dec 2006 and still shows a downward trend and certainty does not show Dec 2006 as the warmest month ever, not even the warmest December. 2004 1997 both beat it.
    Next:

    http://climate.uah.edu/dec2006.htm

    “2006 tied as the fourth warmest of the past 28 years and was the 12th
    consecutive year with global average temperatures warmer than baseline
    (1979-1998) norms, according to data released today by Dr. John Christy,
    director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in
    Huntsville (UAH).”

    “2006 finished the year 0.27 C ‹ almost one half of a degree Faherenheit ‹
    warmer than seasonal norms, basically tied with 2003,” Christy said.

  26. JP
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    Troy,
    What is interesting is that I remembered Barrow, for instance, being between -20 and -35 deg F for
    most of Jan/Feb. Yet, Barrow, according to NOAA had a warmer than average (1960-1990 mean) Winter.
    I’ve seen this before in the areas where I live. We had a colder than average September (2006). Yet, NOAAsaid we had a September that was average to a little above. The reason I remember last September so well was our hardwoods were changing color before Labor Day, and my kids were wearing sweatshirts in the morning.

  27. bernie
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 12:49 PM | Permalink

    #24
    Lee,
    The chart is hard to read, but assuming that the normal band is the shaded grey area, I would be hard put to agree with your assertion that Juneau was warmer than average for the season with November and February trending colder and December January warmer. Most emphatically there is no evidence that Alaska or the US in general had a very warm winter. The reality is that one would expect to break roughly 4 to 10 100 year records in any given 12 month period merely by chance. An upward trend would require a higher frequency of record high temperatures being broken. This is not the case – especially given the number of record lows broken.
    Gore alas remains a “D” student.

  28. Troy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    #24 (and others who have replied),

    Clicking on the charts will provide a larger image view. Your right, the shaded gray area is the normal band of high and low temps.

    I

  29. Troy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    Sorry, my post that said #24 was a reply to bernie(#27)

  30. Darwin
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:09 PM | Permalink

    #24 — and Nome, Anchorage, Barrow, etc? Look before you leap.

  31. Lee
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:17 PM | Permalink

    bernie, November is NOT PART OF the December, January, February boreal winter, which is what NOAA announced, and what we are discussing.

    For the boreal winter of DJF, DJ are warmer, with one short cold spell in Jan. The first half of Feb is above average to normal. The latter part of Feb is normal to below average.

    NOAA’s preliminary release very near normal overall average temps for the continental US for the boreal winter, with record global temps for that period.

    I didn’t see Gore’s presentation, but it appears he accurately reported this NOAA release.

  32. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    RE: #27 – Sadly, the average vidiot at large (who also happens to be both the “average” voter and consumer) fails to comprehend the notion of some innate number of records always being broken, simply due to the rules of chance. The same clowns get sucked into gambling when they hear of various jackpots being won.

  33. L Nettles
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:27 PM | Permalink

    Inhofe has the floor now

  34. Troy
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:44 PM | Permalink

    Gore (and others) talk about how the rapid warming is affecting the Arctic.

    As a resident of Alaska, a favorite betting sport we have is when does winter end, known as the Nenana Ice Classic. We bet on day and time the ice breaks. I went to their website and looked over the range of ice thicknesses from 1989-2007. I kept the date to as close to 20-Mar as I could, since that was the latest ice reading for 2007, and here is a simplistic graph with a simplistic linear trend of ice thickness.

    “ooopps – could not get the graph in, which showed a gradual increase in ice thickness since 1989, despite all the claimed warming and melting.”

    If anyone is interested, here is the site – http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/Ice%20Measurement.htm

    Oh well, I am FAR from being well informed on climate science issues but as a “hats-off” to Steve McIntyre, this site is one of the best, well-rounded, and informative ones around for the exploration of, and the search for, the truth in the facts.

  35. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:52 PM | Permalink

    Debating surface temperatures is a waste of time. The data (and long term prognostications) of NOAA are utter rubbish.

  36. Lee
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    re 35 – what a convenient way to dispose of inconvenient data.

  37. bernie
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

    Lee:
    With all due respect, the issue is surely not deciding whether or not we are talking about NDJF or simply DJF. I thought we were both talkiing about the pattern of the data and not arbitrary starting and stopping points. Given that historically the N and F temperatures are moreorless equivalent the distinction is clearly somewhat arbitrary.
    More to the point, the temperatures for DJF average out to be in the normal zone, following a remarkably cool fall!!

  38. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

    re: #37 & others

    The interesting thing in graphs, at least the one I looked at is how narrow the highs and lows were in DJF. I suspect this is caused by it being cloudy, and probably snowy. When heat can’t escape through the clouds highs and lows are much the same. What’s interesting is both how much wider the spread is when it’s cold and that there were periods last fall with very warm days and very cold nights. These were probably very cloudless days.

  39. Lee
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    bernie, with all due respect, the issue is global averages, not local. NOAA presented global anomalies in their claim about the global boreal winter temperature, and the Alaska data was disputed.

    I was simply responding to an argument that the NOAA claim for DJF for Alaska was not supported by the data, and pointed out that the graph actually does support that claim. For that, it very much DOES matter that we are talking about DJF, because that is the period for which NOAA was making a claim. And again, Gore accurately reported that NOAA claim.
    And those local variations are essentially irrelevant to the questions of whether the global temps are up. Some areas are warmer, some are cooler, overall there is a warming trend.

  40. bernie
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    Lee:
    Point acknowledged on the precise statement made by NOAA – though why Gore could not have acknowledged the complexity of the issues be alluded to by referencing the variances in regional temperatures is another issue. As to the overall trend that I believe is a matter that touches on a wide array of mother measurement issues which people frequenting this board are reassessing. By all accounts Europe and China had a very mild Winter. How this all balances out I do not know. However, I am certain that Gore is an extremely poor spokesman for this issue – given his affinity for hyperbole.

  41. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 3:48 PM | Permalink

    RE: #40 – only the part of China close to the coast north of a certain latitude had a mild winter. Inland areas, Guangdong Province and Hainan have had a cold winter. Hongkongers were still wearing overcoats through much of March. In Kunming, it was brutally cold for most of the winter (as well as the second half of last fall).

  42. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 4:19 PM | Permalink

    That fact that there are people still trying to deny that the earth is warming gives great hope to all snake oil sales men out there. Only the most ignorant types (like religious types) could dismiss what is in front of their own eyes. I’m sure all those skeptics are dumping petroleum stocks and selling any coastal assets they own. Once they are divested from those holdings they will be the loudest supporters of GW. Typical Hypocrites

  43. Darwin
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 4:22 PM | Permalink

    Re 35, 36: Lee the point that Steve made was the same that was made by Pielke Sr. et al last December, only Pielke is a little more polite. There is a data problem, and that is what is inconvenient to everyone. Eugene Gerhart, a New York lawyer back in the 1940s, made several points in analyzing facts that should not be overlooked:
    First, assuming a set of facts or conditions does not give them the existence of proof. A single experiment may prove a hypothesis or conclusion wrong.
    Second, apparent contradictions of a theory should be examined, not ignored.
    Third, an advocate must not fail to catch any taint of inherent improbability in his client’s plausible recital of facts.
    Four, Evidence that tends to support preconceptions should be more critically examined than otherwise. It is so easy to be “reasonable men” — we can believe so easily what we want to believe.
    Five, a lawyer, like a scientist in his analysis, must sit down before facts, as Huxley said, like a little child and learn what those facts have to teach.
    Six, Not all facts are created equal. They must be separately weighed, evaluated and classified.
    Seven, Wishful thinking and rationalization must be suppressed. What do the facts prove? Is there another or a more reasonable inference that we can draw from these facts?
    Eight, A good lawyer will not only argue from the facts, but he will disclose to the court the true facts.
    Nine, A good lawyer will not weaken his argument or presentation by stating inferences as facts, or by citing evidence for a fact it does not prove.
    Ten, One of the most damaging mistakes a counsel can make in his synthesis of his case is to overstate the facts. What is more devastating than to be found exaggerating or in error on an important date, quantity or speed? His hearers either believe that he is intentionally misrepresenting, or that he is insincere, or, if sincere, his powers of observation should not be trusted too far.
    Sorry I went on so long. But I found these things taught to me by my lawyerly father hard principles to live up to, but worthwhile to pursue — for lawyers and scientists or just about anyone.

  44. bernie
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    #42
    Why so hostile? Those who have looked at the data are bot arguing that recent years have not seen a general upward trend in certtain temperatures, the issues are the scope of the change and the cause. These are open issues, regardless of what Mr Gore says.

  45. MarkR
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    Lee Did you actually see Gore’s testimony?

  46. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 5:14 PM | Permalink

    That fact that there are people still trying to deny that the earth is warming gives great hope to all snake oil sales men out there. Only the most ignorant types (like religious types) could dismiss what is in front of their own eyes. I’m sure all those skeptics are dumping petroleum stocks and selling any coastal assets they own. Once they are divested from those holdings they will be the loudest supporters of GW. Typical Hypocrites

    Actually, there are not many people in the world that deny the world has warmed. In fact, many of us are quite glad it has warmed because the problems encountered during, say, the Little Ice Age, would be devastating today (as they were then). The magnitude of said warming is certainly questionable, and whether or not it is due to anthropogenic influence is dubious at best.

    As for the rest of your slur, Pot.Kettle.Black.

    Mark

  47. Follow the Money
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    Waterworldsoon interupts,

    I’m sure all those skeptics are dumping petroleum stocks and selling any coastal assets they own. Once they are divested from those holdings they will be the loudest supporters of GW.

    Yep, I did that. And I’m investing my profits in future Keven Costner projects. Smart move, eh?

  48. Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 5:46 PM | Permalink

    To all the alarmists. I live under the shadow of Mount Taranaki in New Zealand, a dormant but certainly not dead volcano. If the world heats up by two degrees C my tomatoes will grow better and I will be able to grow olive trees. If the volcano blows which we are reliably informed is overdue, the whole of the Taranaki region, which is one of the best dairy production regions in the world will be ruined. I have an emergency kit at the ready at all times as any warning period will be short. Guess which scenario bothers me the most?

    What can we do about stopping an eruption? Nothing. But we sure can control the temperature of the earth. Yeh – right.

  49. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 6:19 PM | Permalink

    Can one degree F change the world? Yes it can and is. Changing the oceans temps even slightly will divert ocean currents and that will lead to changes in rain fall patterns and could drastically reduce the snow pack. You remember the snow pack? It’s what provides drinking water to 60% of the world population. Snow packs also provided 90% of the water used for hydro electric plants. If it’s only 33f in the mountains that means the snow that falls from a higher altititude will melt and run off in winter not in summer. If you devert rain from areas that are below 32f they still wont get snow and wont have water in the summer.

    There is no study that does not show Co2 as a green house gas. There is no study that does not show huge amounts of Co2 being produced by human activity. There is no study showing the earth is not warming. Therefore it is not rocket science to say human activity is causing a warming effect on the Earths ecosystem.

  50. Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    Ahhh, long time, no post..

    I just wrote a long post re: Al Gore, then realized it was more politics than science. I deleted it, not wanting to fall to the level of my opponents (sorry, needed to get in one jab….)

    I didn’t get a chance to watch the hearings – did anything come up about solar forcings, sunspots, etc? This seems to be getting more attention, especially in light of the BBC documentary.

    What is the hockey team’s current position on the weight of solar forcings on climate?

  51. Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

    RE: #50

    Sun! What Sun??????

  52. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 7:43 PM | Permalink

    I’m sure all those skeptics are dumping petroleum stocks and selling any coastal assets they own. Once they are divested from those holdings they will be the loudest supporters of GW.

    Actually, I’m a “skeptic,” and I’m moving TO the coast. The only time I divest myself of petroleum stocks is when my mutual fund managers choose to do so. But since this is an Al Gore thread, I guess it’s worth asking (because maybe an expert like you would know the answer): did Gore become “one of the loudest supporters of GW” before or after he divested himself of Occidental Petroleum stock?

    Changing the oceans temps even slightly will divert ocean currents and that will lead to changes in rain fall patterns and could drastically reduce the snow pack.

    I didn’t know rainfall brought snowpack, nor have I ever witnessed it. I always thought rain and snow were different forms of precipitation. Do you have this documented on film, or possibly at least in a journal somewhere?

    There is no study that does not show Co2 as a green house gas. There is no study that does not show huge amounts of Co2 being produced by human activity. There is no study showing the earth is not warming. Therefore it is not rocket science to say human activity is causing a warming effect on the Earths ecosystem.

    Not only are you clearly not a scientist, but you also seem to be lacking in the logical progression department. Your bizarre phrasing and misplaced use of buzzwords also suggests you’ve been reading too many pamphlets and internet propoganda and simply spout what you’ve been programmed. Why not learn to think a little more critically for yourself?

  53. W Robichaud
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

    hear the Preacher.

  54. _Jim
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:43 PM | Permalink

    Can one degree F change the world?

    First off, this is entirely an “artifical construct”; this ‘warming scorecard’ that seeks to have _one_ number that represents the complex actions of the sun (primarily) and the Earth’s reflecivity, and absoprtion, and re-radiation (secondarily) represented as if it was as personal as your wall-thermostat or thermometer in your study or living room.

    No one, nowhere, will ever experience this “one degree F change”.

    What _will_ be experienced, perhaps, is a shift in the range of temperature experienced at any one given location. What will this mean? Effectively, I think, this means a shift of a day or two in seasons; I hardly see this as having a great, devastating effect, lessening the snow pack, et cetera.

    Changing the oceans temps even slightly will divert ocean currents

    How?

    The currents, I presume, are driven, in part, by temperature differentials from region to region. Can you provide the basis on how and why the Arctic region will become as warm as the Equator thereby killing off the flow of these ocean currents? (Short of the sun breaking apart into a dozen or so orbs and providing near-equal irradiation of the Earth from zero degrees Latitude through to 90 degrees Latitude that is.)

  55. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

    Re # 49 **There is no study that does not show Co2 as a green house gas. There is no study that does not show huge amounts of Co2 being produced by human activity. There is no study showing the earth is not warming. Therefore it is not rocket science to say human activity is causing a warming effect on the Earths ecosystem.**
    You missed one – ” There is no study that measures the amount of the heating that is man-made”.

  56. Pat Frank
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:09 PM | Permalink

    #49 “Therefore it is not rocket science to say human activity is causing a warming effect on the Earths ecosystem.

    A rocket scientist would know that correlation is not causation. You demonstrate the problem rife in climate apologetics, wws, namely an addiction to hand-waving histrionics. Look up “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” It’s the classic mistake of a scientific naif.

    By the way, has anyone told you that asking and answering your own questions is to argue like Donald Rumsfeld? Surely that self-similitude should give you goosebumps of horror.

  57. tom
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 9:21 PM | Permalink

    RE 42 WATERWORLD

    The best estimate of current and long standing, nearly linear rise in sea level is between 1-3mm/yr. Many studies come to this
    conclusion. There is no indication the rate is increasing. It has been rising at this rate arguably for over 2000yrs. This is
    easily managable and not due to mankinds actions. Even the IPCC has halved their previous 100yr forecast. ‘HALVED’ you say? Yes.
    The IPCC now says between 7 and 17 inches rise in 100yrs now seems likely. I think we can manage.

  58. Nicholas
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 10:05 PM | Permalink

    I had a look at Lomberg’s testimony. Why is he using a graph of model output to “prove” that AGW is “real”? At least, that’s what it seemed to me he was trying to do. The graph took up over half a page. Have I gone insane? Since when did the output of a computer model prove anything about the real world?

  59. Gerald Machnee
    Posted Mar 21, 2007 at 10:06 PM | Permalink

    And if you watched Global News in Canada this evening, the English are worried (panicking?)about the tides on the Thames due to Global Warming.

  60. T J Olson
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 12:46 AM | Permalink

    Nicholas (re #58)-

    I asked myself that question too. But reading deeper into Lomborg’s piece, it’s a setup: he uses “officialdom” to indict their conclusions.

    Furthermore, I notice that the IPPC projection (page 2) does not have the MSU-satellite data showing no global temperature change since 1998. So, despite being sourced to FAR (2007), apparently dodgy surface temps are being used in this graph – not real global measurements.

  61. Larry Huldén
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 1:12 AM | Permalink

    Comment on Waterworldsoon:
    1: “That fact that there are people still trying to deny that the earth is warming gives great hope to all snake oil sales men out there.”

    — I don’t think there are any such people here. We are, however, interested in all data and methods which have been used to prove the level of warming claimed by IPCC. So far these data and methods are not public property. We are only asked to believe in the claims.

    2: “There is no study that does not show Co2 as a green house gas. There is no study that does not show huge amounts of Co2 being produced by human activity. There is no study showing the earth is not warming.”

    — You forgot the forth critical thesis: There is no study showing Co2 is the basic cause of the measured warming. It occurs only as the basic hypothesis in the models used by IPCC.

  62. Nicholas
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 2:07 AM | Permalink

    T. J. Olson,

    Now that I think about it, I guess Lomborg is being smart. If you can’t convince these people that the science “proving” AGW is weak at best, then perhaps it suffices to show that, assuming it does happen, the impacts are being way exaggerated. If that will mean cooler heads prevail and we avoid a head-long rush to do all sorts of crazy things to mitigate effects which will never happen, all the better. Once people are thinking rationally again, then perhaps it makes sense to discuss the evidence or lack of it.

    Still, Lomborg’s evidence makes me uncomfortable, if only because he makes no attempt to refute many of Gore’s points which are simply not supportable by any scientific evidence (and in some cases, directly contradicted by same).

  63. Tom Vonk
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 2:50 AM | Permalink

    There is no study that does not show Co2 as a green house gas. There is no study that does not show huge amounts of Co2 being produced by human activity. There is no study showing the earth is not warming. Therefore it is not rocket science to say human activity is causing a warming effect on the Earths ecosystem.

    Science at its best and worthily appearing in a Gory thread .
    Gory trying to emulate Savonarola but let us hope that he doesn’t finish burned like his model .
    That could be a warming effect exagerated a bit too far .

    We could also say .
    There is no study that does not show CH4 as a green house gas. There is no study that does not show huge amounts of CH4 being produced by cows’ activity. There is no study showing the earth is not warming. Therefore it is not rocket science to say that the cows are beasts of Apocalypse bringing Death&Pestilence upon the Planet .

  64. TAC
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 4:38 AM | Permalink

    I was initially surprised and disappointed to hear Lomborg accept IPCC findings without reservation. However, in his sitation, it was the smart thing to do; Capitol Hill is not an appropriate forum for debating science. The purpose of testifying on the Hill (Gore excepted) is to inform (i.e. influence) policy, and I think Lomborg made a good case for a measured response to GW.

    Also, it may be worth recalling what the IPCC (Summary for Policy Makers) found:

    Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations

    As I read it, this means that the IPCC believes there is a substantial possibility (one-in-ten chance) that most of the warming is not due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

  65. MarkW
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 5:01 AM | Permalink

    Don’t feed the troll.
    It’s quite clear that he is a religious fanatic, who is scared of any kind of change. He’s convinced that any change, no matter how
    small will result in disasterous consequences.

  66. MarkW
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 5:09 AM | Permalink

    TAC,

    Another weasel word is “most”. Technically it just means more than half. Translating, all the IPCC said was that there is a 90%
    chance that more than half of the warming that has been measured, is due to AG gasses.

    ———————

    Lomberg’s whole bit is that since he’s not a scientist, he’s not going to try and comment on the science. He states clearly that his
    economic analysis is based on a reasonable worst case IPCC scenario.

    That’s the power of his testimony, he starts with the alarmists assumptions, then proves that their answers are the wrong answers.

  67. Steve N
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 5:26 AM | Permalink

    I’m a long time lurker here. An engineer not a scientist, and I’m happy to say certainly not a climate scientist. I watched AlBore and Dr. Lomborg yesterday. It went about as I expected. AlBore is smooth you have to admit. He knows how to push the buttons of all these other politicians. Lomborg did a great job I thought. He stated that he accepts the IPCC 5 deg warming by the year 2100, which I felt was unfortunate but probably necessary. Fine. His economic analyses should get some attention. This got me thinking what this about 5 deg. warming means. I found a site with U.S. city average temperatures. Minneapolis by 2100 will warm to the average temp of Chicago today – scary. San Francisco will warm to the temp of Redding Ca today. You can pick your own city pair. It puts this whole issue in a little different perspective, at least for me. I might even be able to convince my Democratic family that they can stop Chicken Littling now.

  68. bernie
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 5:46 AM | Permalink

    Waterworldsoon:
    I think you need to think seriously about how you present your arguments an dhow much you actually know. First, how does one measure the temperature of the earth? Scond what is the average temperature of Antartica, where 80% of the frozen water is located? Third, what is a standard error? Fourth, what is the standard error of global mean temperature measures and how would one go about sizing the error. Fifth, what is the UHI and how does it impact our attempts to measure GMT. Come back with reasonable answers and we can continue.

  69. Paul Linsay
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 5:55 AM | Permalink

    Al Gore is just one in a long tradition of apocalyptic American preachers and should be understood as such. His moment will be over soon simply because people get tired of gloom and doom all the time.

  70. Basil Copeland
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 7:06 AM | Permalink

    #65 and #67

    You’ve brought up question I’ve had on my mind since I started looking more deeply into the debate over climate change. Are the definitions of uncertainty used by IPCC common in other fields, or is this language unique to climate scientists? The notion that a 10 percent level of significance establishes a “very likely” result is not how I was trained in economics. The “conventional” level of significance for reporting “significant” results would be 5 percent, and 10 percent would reported, but considered “weak support” for a hypothesis, not “very likely!” Back when I peer reviewed for a couple of economic journals, if someone had reported results falling below a single standard deviation as “probable” I would have thought they were crazy, or results between a standard deviation and 1.67 times standard deviation as “likely,” I would have laughed at them, and would have seriously panned the article.

    Here is language that I think is more consistent with conventional usage, compared to IPCC (in parentheses), when testing hypotheses:

    Less than 1 s.d.: impossible to say (probable)

    Between 1 and 1.67 standard deviations: maybe (likely)

    Between 1.67 and 2.0 s.d.’s: possible (very likely)

    Between 2.0 and 2.3 s.d.': likely (extremely likely)

    Between 2.3 and 2.6 s.d.’s: very likely (none)

    Above 2.6 s.d.’s: extremely likely (virtually certain)

    The IPCC language seems specifically intended to find confirming evidence, rather than to use the language of uncertainty to test the falsifiability of hypotheses. I wonder what Karl Popper would think about this?

  71. bernie
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 8:16 AM | Permalink

    These “looser” levels of significance are useful for exploring data especially when the measures are relatively unrefined. It makes absolutely no sense to use them when one is trying to be definitive and very, very precise. Fractions of a degree on a Kelvin scale is an unimaginable level of precision for most human endeavors. Precision requires very reliable data. The emphasis here on cleaning up the measurement system reflects an important priority in this debate.

  72. John Stubbles
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 8:59 AM | Permalink

    Gore talks about the hottest temperatures ever seen in recent decades, but clearly ignores the USHCN data for the 30’s. Is Gore using global surface data,which does not corroborate the USHCN data, and why does no-one ever discuss comparisons with the satellite data? The 80’s and 90’s saw some of the coldest years in th U.S., but I cannot find graphical USHCN data beyond 2000. And 1998 was an anomaly due to El Nino. Since surface and tropospheric temperatures are the core issue in the GW debate, won’t someone step up on TV and raise these issues.

  73. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 9:21 AM | Permalink

    RE: #49 – This is a serious science, engineering and maths site. If all you are going to do is write slogans, you will add little value here. Of course, we heartily welcome non technical and non scientifically trained people here who are either savvy via life experience or willing to learn. Have a good day.

  74. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    RE: #73 – The “Dust Bowl Years” (which my operational definition of, is, from the Crash of ’29 through the turn around in the War in ’42) are an inconvenient truth for those promoting the hockey stick. The end of them spelled doom for Hitler’s Russian misadventure. Furthermore, the existence of such benign conditions during the 30s tricked all European leaders, at the time, into believing they did not need Arctic gear to fight during winter. Quite a contrast to the situation during WW1, where the ground was snow covered quite a bit, at some points far to the West and near to the North Sea and English Channel. This is not, to leverage a term used by Waterworldsoon, rocket science. It is all very well documented in numerous field logs kept by scores of officers.

  75. Chriscafe
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12 AM | Permalink

    Re #59. Easter tides on the Thames were causing minor flooding when I rowed for Oxford in the late 60s. Nothing to do with AGW.

  76. JP
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 11:27 AM | Permalink

    #75
    Steve,
    This is where I have the biggest problem with NOAA derived temp series. If Steve M is correct, there seems to be an effort to cool the period of 1928 to 1939. These adjustments may in fact be based on good statistical or scientific reasoning; however, every time adjustments are made, it appears a hockey stick comes into view.

    I know that NOAA/HadCRU has to perform certain quality adjustments to raw instrument readings, but what is being performed to this data goes beyond quality control.

  77. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

    You people are very amusing and fit the analogy of “cant see the forest thru the trees”.

    Have you ever been to a forest, a mountain top, under sea?

    The earth is warming and only a fool would deny this proven fact. Tropical glacier melting is accelerating and vast ecosystems are in danger from lack of water. This is a deadly scenario for vegetation that can’t simply walk out of inhospitable habitat.

    The warming could be the earths normal cycle, but it seems more likely from viewing historical data that it’s much more than normal.

    No one really knows what the point of no return is for AGG, but there’s no arguing that there is a maximum amount of AGG the earth can tolerate before catastphic climate change occurs. Long before the earth reaches the maximum AGG level life on earth would be in chaos. Lets hope if we do error it’s on the side of prevention not on wait and see.

  78. Follow the Money
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    #78

    Waterworldsoon

    I bow to you. You are the master. A+

  79. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 12:50 PM | Permalink

    Have you ever been to a forest, a mountain top, under sea?

    All the time. I regularly ski and camp, and I used to live 2 blocks from the Atlantic ocean.

    The earth is warming and only a fool would deny this proven fact.

    Show me where anyone in here is denying this? It would serve your purposes better if you didn’t sling insults, btw.

    The warming could be the earths normal cycle, but it seems more likely from viewing historical data that it’s much more than normal.

    Since our “historical data” only goes back with reasonable accuracy about 50 years, that’s a pretty hard statement to back. Add into the mix the fact that we have recently discovered that the scientists responsible for this data are tinkering with the data, the record becomes dubious at best.

    Mark

  80. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 2:31 PM | Permalink

    You people are very amusing and fit the analogy of “cant see the forest thru the trees”.

    The saying is an idiom, not an analogy…and it’s technically “can’t see the forest for the trees,” but close enough.

    The earth is warming and only a fool would deny this proven fact.

    Nobody is denying it. It’s the factors behind it and their magnitude that are under dispute. Only a fool would keep misrepresenting this fact.

    No one really knows what the point of no return is for AGG

    “AGG?” Now that’s “amusing.” Combining AGW and GHG to get AGG?

    Lets hope if we do error it’s on the side of prevention not on wait and see.

    We’d have to “err” on the side of prevention. I guess if you throw enough buzzwords and catchphrases out there, you expect one of them to stick?

    Doo you have anything of substance to add to the discussion? There are dozens and dozens of threads on this site where people would be glad to discuss the technical aspects you are so convinced about but which we have questions of. Go ahead and educate us.

  81. Follow the Money
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    #1 Steve,

    Speaking of fishy financial arrangements, Gore, with little doubt encouraged by his Goldman Sachs retinue, proposed yesterday a Fanny Mae scheme but for carbon – “Connie Mae.”

    Wow, those B-School whizzes are sure creative! Galling, if one understands what they’re up to.
    Next they’ll monetize and create wild financial instruments for…who knows!

  82. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 3:33 PM | Permalink

    AGGs overall effect on climate change is still arguable, the point Gore is very effectively making is AGGs combined with development, de-forestation, and ocean pollution are having an accumulative negative effect on the planet. The earths current warming period could be natural and prompt a counter measure by Earth’s ecosystem to balance the AGGs.

    The problem is , what if the other human related environmental damage impedes the Earth’s natural ability to balance the AGGs. This is the X factor you don’t hear the GW skeptics explain away.

    As china and India expand the use of coal and oil and produce more AGGs it seems like we would three times more forest and more marine plant life to help convert AGGs in non-AGGs. Instead the Earth will have to try and counter the AGGs with less plant life then it have during past warming cycles.

  83. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

    re: # 82

    Next they’ll monetize and create wild financial instruments for…who knows!

    I’m voting for the Leaf Standard. You know, the one created by the people Ford Prefect called “…a load of useless bloody loonies!”

  84. bernie
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    Waterworldsoon
    Good grief, how on earth did you find this site? Do you seriously think that cliches and platitudes without data are going to persuade anyone on this site? You do understand that the way you talk about this topic reinforces the general view here that Gore (and the IPCC) has seriously misled a large fraction of the population about the nature and scope of the current apparent warming trend.

    P.S. What does AGG stand for? Some are building a glossary of acronyms and this is apparently a new one.

  85. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    What does AGG stand for?

    AGG =

    Authentic Gore Girl
    Actual Grade-school Graduate
    American Graffiti Guru

  86. Jim Edwards
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

    #87

    AGG = Anthropomorphic Global Goring

  87. Lee
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 6:46 PM | Permalink

    re 57:

    Tom says:

    “Even the IPCC has halved their previous 100yr forecast. HALVED’ you say? Yes.
    The IPCC now says between 7 and 17 inches rise in 100yrs now seems likely. I think we can manage.”

    This is false. The TAR estimate for sea level rise included an estimate for ice dynamics. Estimates of effects from dynamics have since then become much less certain – with the uncertainty on the high side.

    In AR4, IPCC removed the estimate of ice dynamics from teh calculated potential sea level increase becasue of the uncertainty (thus the lower reported number) but state that the possible effects are large. The base melting effects are the same, the uncertainty is much greater, and the increase in the uncertainty is all on the high side.

  88. Wang Dang
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

    Re # 83 Waterworldsoon

    You’re making this up as you go right? I don’t want to stifle your creativity, but I think you need some remedial global warming alarmism reprograming. I would recommend that you start with Gore’s climate crisis site. Once you’ve mastered the basics, you should spend a couple of months at Realclimate, they can answer any questions you might have. Then once you’re sure you know everything there is to know about the climate past, present, and future, you can come back here and learn that climate science is not as simple as many would have you believe.

    Along the way, you might also want to look into physics, chemistry, biology and statistics. I’m guessing you’re a little short there too.

    Good Luck

  89. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    RE: #90 – “I can’t quite grasp the concept of them derivative and integral thingamajiggies…. oh, the pain, my head hurts …. when do they offer that Creative Studies course?” ….. ;)

  90. tom
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 9:04 PM | Permalink

    re #89

    The rate of sea level rise remains static. It is postulated to increase its rate. However Antarctica is not cooperating as it’s
    overall mass may be increasing not to mention Greenland;

    Source: European Space Agency
    Date: November 7, 2005
    More on: Global Warming, Geography, Climate, Environmental Issues, Weather, Earth Science

    Satellite Survey Shows Growth Of Greenland Ice Sheet Interior

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107080830.htm

  91. DaleC
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 9:33 PM | Permalink

    re #73, John Stubbles,

    You can obtain plots of USHCN daily data at

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/usa.html

    As time series, it seems that the only resolution is annual.

    There are a few state-wide comparative time series plots and other items here.

  92. Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 10:29 PM | Permalink

    “Al Gore is just one in a long tradition of apocalyptic American preachers and should be understood as such.”

    It was said about another politician, holds for him … HE PREYED UPON OUR FEARS!

  93. Joe Cool
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 11:36 PM | Permalink

    The simple fact really is that if mankind cannot handle a 1-2C per century change in *either* direction whether caused by *us*, *the sun*, *aliens* or *cows* then we are simply going to deservedly go the way of the Dodo (whether such creature actually existed, is actually extinct or simply likes to keep a low profile is another matter altogether and I make no claims WRT it’s current/past/future status at this time).

  94. xfir01
    Posted Mar 22, 2007 at 11:43 PM | Permalink

    #94

    Might help if fear wasn’t the only motivator strong enough to get anything done in politics.

  95. MarkW
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 5:07 AM | Permalink

    #96
    It only takes fear to motivate people when the thing in question is hard to see (usually because it isn’t there in the first place.

    #95,
    Even worse, the change in the last century has been only 0.6C, and there’s no reason to think that the change in the next century will
    be more, and much reason to think it will be less.

  96. Jeff Norman
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    I posted this up at Debunkers and thought there were people who visit here who might enjoy this.

    Here is a quote from a New York Post article:Al’s Warming Lies & The Real “Inconvenient Truth”

    Addressing the House and Senate on global warming, he put forth a litany of half-truths that he twisted into a morality tale. But the facts tell a different story. The former veep is a master politician, not a prophet or a planetary savior.

    Gore’s biggest rhetorical trick is saying that the Earth has a fever. He says that 10 of the hottest years in history came in the last 11 years, and this proves we must do something, because, “If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor.”

    Let me think about that one. If a parent randomly measured a baby’s temperature orally, aurally & rectally and continually raced off to emergency every time the temperature deviated by 0.7°C, I would hope that the doctors involved would call Children’s Aid to protect the baby from the parent’s Munchausen by Proxy problem.

    In MBPS, an individual – usually a mother – deliberately makes another person (most often his or her own preschool child) sick or convinces others that the person is sick. The parent or caregiver misleads others into thinking that the child has medical problems by lying and reporting fictitious episodes. He or she may exaggerate, fabricate, or induce symptoms. As a result, doctors usually order tests, try different types of medications, and may even hospitalize the child or perform surgery to determine the cause.

    Typically, the perpetrator feels satisfied when he or she has the attention and sympathy of doctors, nurses, and others who come into contact with him or her and the child. Some experts believe that it isn’t just the attention that’s gained from the “illness” of the child that drives this behavior, but there is satisfaction gained by the perpetrator in being able to deceive individuals that they consider to be more important and powerful than themselves.

    Why does this seem to fit Al Gore like a glove?

    Anyway the whole “If your baby has a fever” thing got me thinking about a duet between an AGW “alarmist” and an AGW “denier” based on the song Fever by Peggy Lee et al.

    Never know how hot’s the planet
    Never know gas in the air
    When you put your facts before me
    I give you theory
    that is barely rare

    I give you theory
    When you dis me

    Theory that I say’s not right
    Theory
    In the morning
    Theory all through the night

    Sun warms up the day time
    Clouds warm up the night
    I heat up when I see your game
    and you know I’m gonna set you right

    I give you theory
    When you dis me

    Theory that I say’s not right
    Theory
    In the morning
    Theory all through the night

    Everybody sees the weather
    It’s a thing you can’t forego
    Climate isn’t such a new thing
    Climate happened long ago

    CO2 collects the IR
    Methane it will do the same
    Water vapour makes the feedback
    And humans are the ones to blame

    That is my theory
    Won’t you listen
    Theory with that blame on you
    Theory

    You’re a liar
    Theory yeah I’m learnin you

    Mr. Stern and Doctor Hansen
    All agreed with what I said
    When deniers tried argue
    We sent them off to jail instead

    And gave them theory
    That dismisses
    All that science says is right
    Science
    I’m it’s witness
    Science that puts up a fight

    Now you’ve gone to see the movie
    Seen the media’s big rave
    Seen the Oscar’s shining trophy
    And the scary global warming wave

    They gave me fever
    When you fry up
    Data with that Gaia myth
    Theory
    That is half baked
    And really just hypothesis

    It’s really just hypothesis
    It’s only just hypothesis
    Yeah only a hypothesis

  97. JP
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    #95

    If you would follow the preMBH98 reconstructions, you would see have varied our climate has always been. It is pure fiction that our climate enjoyed a “neutral period”, where global temps hovered around some subjective mean. The MWP, and LIA are just 2 recent examples. But you go beyond them and see that there was both warming and cooling during the reign of Rome. The 14-16th Centuries observed a departure of over -1 deg C from mean. The 8-11th Centuries saw an departure of almost +2 deg C from mean.

    You are correct that these swings can see dramtic changes in regional synoptic weather patterns -esp during periods of global cooling, but how mankind can control this is still a mystery.

  98. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    #90

    I’ve worked with many of your types over the years, you know the type of person who works over data or a design to the point where it’s either too costly to produce or the deadline is missed along with the marketing opportunity.

    Practicality is missing from your discipline. As you point out, climent science is complex and I don’t think western science can understand things this complex.

    It reminds me of the DNA hoax pulled off from the publicly funded Anglo-U.S. Human Genome Project. Great claims where made about solving every disease known to man. What came out of it was an understanding that they didn’t understand.

    I expect the same from the goofy world of climate study. The truth is… neither side of this pointless area of study will ever understand the global climate. I would guess without boring myself with the details that anyone making a living off this must be mooching off tax payers. You know claiming to be a teacher yet really spending all their time doing meaning less research that if they are lucky DARPA might pay for.

    So, I will take my Computer Science degree which helps me earn more money than I need against your “ I will predict the weather for food” life style any day.

  99. Follow the Money
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    “So, I will take my Computer Science degree which helps me earn more money than I need against your “ I will predict the weather for food” life style any day.”

    Have you thought about writing? You’re good.

    The repetition of “AGG”, and my expectation how it would confound some — just about the funniest thing I’ve read in a long while.

  100. fFreddy
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    Ref 41-100, Waterworldsoon
    Rather a quick conversion …

  101. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 23, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    RE: #103 – Al Gore considers AGW to be a greater threat than thousands of nuclear bombs, increasing amounts of illegal chemical and biological weapons, and the rise of millennarian anti Western radicals with apocalyptic visions, in many corners of the world. Yah, right dude!

  102. rhodeymark
    Posted Mar 24, 2007 at 6:14 AM | Permalink

    I’ve worked with many of your types over the years, you know the type of person who works over data or a design to the point where it’s either too costly to produce or the deadline is missed along with the marketing opportunity…. So, I will take my Computer Science degree which helps me earn more money than I need against your “ I will predict the weather for food” life style any day.
    Maybe they were just adding cheat codes to your video game – kinda like the HT.

  103. Wang Dang
    Posted Mar 24, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

    Re #100, waterworldsoon
    I’ll give you one more, for fun.

    climent science is complex and I don’t think western science can understand things this complex.

    I’m in Minnesota, so I guess I practice mid-western science. What direction does your science come from? My guess, up.

    It reminds me of the DNA hoax pulled off from the publicly funded Anglo-U.S. Human Genome Project. Great claims where made about solving every disease known to man. What came out of it was an understanding that they didn’t understand.

    A strange tangent. I don’t know what hoax you are refering to, but I was at the AAPS Biotechnology conference last year and I can tell you that some amazing science is being done in genetics. I’m sorry that the progress has not met your timelines. It may take decades before this work reaches the level where you can see some benefit. Who knows, maybe they will find a cure for ignorance. By the way, understanding that you don’t understand is a very good thing, and if you are doing science, it will happen frequently.

    So, I will take my Computer Science degree which helps me earn more money than I need against your “ I will predict the weather for food” life style any day.

    I guess your degree is heavy on the computer and light on the science. My degrees are in Chemistry and Environmental Science. When I was in school there were two environmental degrees. Environmental Science required a second scientific major, we learned about collecting and analyzing data and dealing with complex systems that often cannot be controlled in a laboratory. Environmental studies on the other hand required very little science. These students learned to attach poster board to a stick, how to chant in unison, and how to make paper mache effigies of conservative politicians. Maybe the world of computers should make a similar distinction.

    For what it’s worth, with my chemistry degree I earn more than I need, but less than I want.

    So can we get back to you theory of how AGGs get converted to non-AGGs and how the earth will respond with less plant life? What was that X factor?

    As King Arthur once said to Sir Bedevere the wise, “This new learning amazes me!”

  104. mccall
    Posted Mar 24, 2007 at 9:44 AM | Permalink

    Some AGW acronyms for your list:
    AGGs – Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gasses; MBH – Mann-Bradley-Hughes; MBP – Man-Bear-Pig; PMBP – Piltdown-Man-Bear-Pig; IS – I’m serial!

  105. Posted Mar 25, 2007 at 6:15 AM | Permalink

    From The NYT Editorial Board:

    “Representative Henry Waxman of California has signed up 127 co-sponsors for a very tough bill he proposed last week that seeks to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by midcentury, which is close to what Mr. Gore wants.”

    I will go on record and predict that this:

    The Safe Climate Act freezes U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2010, at the 2009 levels. Beginning in 2011, it cuts emissions by roughly 2% per year, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020. After 2020, it cuts emissions by roughly 5% per year. By 2050, emissions will be 80% lower than in 1990. These goals are comparable to emissions reduction goals adopted by many states and called for by leading American companies, small businesses, religious organizations, environmental advocates, and others.

    will be just as effective as this:

    Also in 1990, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) created the Zero Emissions Mandate (ZEV) in accordance with the Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) Regulations which required an increasing percent of Zero-Emission Vehicles to be sold in California.

    BTW, what is the projected effect of such reductions on The Global Average Temperature?

  106. mccall
    Posted Mar 25, 2007 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    BTW, what is the projected effect of such reductions on The Global Average Temperature?

    I will go on record as predicting this!

    1) Barely measurable — it’s affects will be lost in the noise of three inevitable negative feedbacks to any warming.
    a. Natural TSI reduction, and the associated increase of Cosmic Ray induced cloud cover of Solar Cycle 25 and beyond
    b. Tech-enabled cost and energy efficiencies/reductions (refer Kurzweil and Feynman among others).
    c. Other technology (both anticipated and un), that render Rep. Waxman’s action as meaningless as if he claim legislative credit for the sun rising — something I’m sure he would have done, had he been born in the dark ages, when the masses were susceptable to such religious zealotry.

    In other words, however we choose to measure it, Earth temps will be cooled by non-legislative mandated actions beyond AGW-religious control anyway!

    2) There is no physical meaning to GAT, so who cares?

    3) Because of 1, the proud but misguided descendents of Rep. Waxman and VP Gore claim sainthood for their prophets of doom — since they can now claim credit for the sunset, ‘er sun setting on global warming! It one of the reasons legislation must be passed now — one can’t claim credit for the coming natural cooling in temps, if Gaia-religious whack-wing of congress passes nothing before natural cooling begins.

  107. mccall
    Posted Mar 25, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Perhaps the “three inevitables” should be called “negative forcings!

  108. MarkW
    Posted Mar 25, 2007 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    There’s some dude who still works for the British govt keeps claiming that by 2100 the only humans left alive will be living on antartica.

    There are people out there who will believe anything.

  109. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 26, 2007 at 3:36 PM | Permalink

    To Minnesota milk fed…the process is called photosynthesis, I remember it from 1st grade. Another AGG reduction factor of plants is storing water that might become water vapor.

    Some X-factors :

    Other man made AGG like refrigerants
    Heat adsorbing asphalt, cement, roofs
    Clear cutting
    Water diversion projects, Dams, canals, dikes

    Computer science makes great strides each year thus enabling all other areas of science to process vast amounts of data in decreasing amounts of time, it seems you are still stuck dissecting Bo Weevil turds to see how the weather might be in the next millennium.

    I will stick to looking at ones and zeros.

    Engineers do and Scientist dream.

  110. Bartleby
    Posted Mar 26, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    Engineers do and Scientist dream.

    Longtime lurker, never intended to post, I’m just a lowly Engineer (I’m Not A Climate Scientist,INACS), but waterworldsoon, man you take the cake. I’ve seen some pretty hokey comments on this site, but yours take the cake.

    Dude if you’re so sure that catastrophe is imminent, you should purchase some land at the highest altitude and live out your life in security, knowing that your smarter than all us “skeptics”. You should bask in your immenseness.

    And while your up on your mountain top, looking down on all of us, please take a couple of engineering text books so you can understand what the rest of us are talking about.

  111. bartleby
    Posted Mar 26, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    Engineers do and Scientist dream.

    waterworldsoon, Dude you take the cake. I’ve seen some hokey responses on this site and yours take the cake. Being an Engineer, I would be ashamed if you held the title of Engineer. Although Computer Engineers don’t have to be registered do they?

    If you’re so sure of the second coming, you should buy some land on a high peak, and you can look down on all of us skeptics.

  112. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Mar 26, 2007 at 7:01 PM | Permalink

    Sometimes posts show up immediately, sometimes it takes a half hour or so … electrons on strike, or just taking an electronic coffee break? Who knows. No edit function, unfortunately. Welcome to the blog, Bartleby.

    w.

  113. ET SidViscous
    Posted Mar 26, 2007 at 8:13 PM | Permalink

    “My God, it’s full of posts!”

  114. bruce
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 5:38 AM | Permalink

    Re #113, 114: What he said is worth saying twice!!

  115. Jonathan Schafer
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 9:56 AM | Permalink

    #114,

    I’ll get worried when I see reverend Al building an Ark and gathering a diversity of plants, insects, and animals on board 2 x 2 :). Until then, I will continue to learn as much as I can to make an informed opinion.

  116. Waterworldsoon
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

    Behind every made failed engineering endeavor there is usually some slide rule sniffing scientists who falsified research to save funding.

    How many climate scientist does it take to screw in a light bulb? None they are still studying the process!

    Who are the worlds most boring people? … dendrochronologist

    What the world needs is more people out boring holes in trees, this will allow the creation of thousand of new jobs, because someone needs to fill in all those holes.

    It will be called the dendrochronologist revelation and once completed the data can be studied until the sun super novas and with any luck save the world.

  117. bernie
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 4:14 PM | Permalink

    That Kevin Costner should have created this much bad karma – Waterworldsoon, take a hint.

  118. Wang Dang
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 6:25 PM | Permalink

    Since the topic of this thread is a guy who speaks very loudly, in spite of an obvious lack of knowledge, I will continue with waterworldsoon.

    You are right, plants will convert CO2, which can be an AGG or a GG, into carbohydrates which are not only non-AGGs but also non-Gs. When those carbohydrates combine with oxygen, which is a G, they will become CO2 once again which is now a GG, but not an AGG. Unless they were burned or consumed by a human in which case they will of course be AGGs once again.

    BTW, adsorption and absorption are two different things.

    I thought you were a computer scientist, are you also an engineer?

    An electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a chemical engineer and a computer scientist were all riding in a car. The car died and they discussed what to do. The electrical engineer suggested that they check the battery, alternator and plugs to make sure they had spark. The mechanical engineer wanted to check the fuel pump and make sure it was delivering the proper fuel pressure. The chemical engineer suggested they check the fuel and the make sure they were getting the proper fuel:air ratio. The computer scientist said, “before we do any of that, lets close all of the windows, get out, get back in, and see if that solves the problem.”

  119. brian
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 9:28 PM | Permalink

    waterworldsoon reminds me of my old neighbors, educated professionals. one day they gave me some beers and started talking politics. me being in the water business, they in the law business, it quickly moved to the environment. as a climax of their argument, they told me they think Bush’s economic policies are going to kill all the polar bears. i asked them to get me some data and i have not heard back, yet. (this comment is based on an actual incident).

    thanks for your science, numbers and graphs.

  120. Mark T.
    Posted Mar 27, 2007 at 11:22 PM | Permalink

    Notice now that it has been revealed that polar bear populations are on the incline we no longer hear about them. :)

    Mark

  121. JP
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 8:07 AM | Permalink

    #119

    Theoretical scientists have had a PR problem going all the way back to Socrates. Their crime? Doing useless things that have no bearing on the “real world”. Jonathan Swift made a career out of lapooning The Royal Academy. Climate Science, not to long ago was one such sleepy discipline. It was and remains a very subjective, wide open science. Twenty years ago, there was probably not one climate scientist that had a national reputation. Of course this all changed, and now a day doesn’t go by that does not feature some climate scientist getting national ink. Tom Wolfe once described bond traders as “Bond Bores”. It wasn’t that what they did was unimportant, but compared to commodity traders, currecny speculaters and stock traders, they were a very boring lot. Climate Scientists use to be the Bond Bores of the atmospheric sciences. They were content to study thier bore holes, tree rings, and perhaps find an interesting thing or two. They knew that at the end of thier careers, they would know only a little more than what they did at the beginning. Anyone who opened one of thier trade journals could see how specialized and escoteric thier studies were.

    Now that climate science is all the rage, the subjectivity is gone -it is very relavant. According to ALGORE thier work is akin to that of the CDC. The entire world depends upon them. Terrorism, disease, and war play second fiddle. Now thet all of the questions have been answered, we can implement the solutions. Any of the old time, more conservative scientists who demand precision of thier studies must be labled “deniers”. Science for Science sake is passe.

    The problem with Climate Science is not that is so irrelavant, but that it has become too relavant.

  122. tom
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 9:36 AM | Permalink

    Jonathan Swift made a career out of lapooning The Royal Academy.

    I have indeed observed the same Disposition among most of the Mathematicians I have known in Europe; although I could never discover the least Analogy between the two Sciences; unless those People suppose, that because the smallest Circle hath as many Degrees as the largest, therefore the Regulation and Management of the World require no more Abilities than the handling and turning of a Globe. But, I rather take this Quality to spring from a very common Infirmity of human Nature, inclining us to be more curious and conceited in Matters where we have least Concern, and for which we are least adapted either by Study or Nature.

    These People are under continual Disquietudes, never enjoying a Minute’s Peace of Mind; and their Disturbances proceed from Causes which very little affect the rest of Mortals. Their Apprehensions arise from several Changes they dread in the Celestial Bodies. For Instance; that the Earth by the continual Approaches of the Sun towards it, must in Course of Time be absorbed or swallowed up. That the Face of the Sun will by Degrees be encrusted with its own Effluvia, and give no more Light to the World. That, the Earth very narrowly escaped a Brush from the Tail of the last Comet, which would have infallibly reduced it to Ashes; and that the next, which they have calculated for One and Thirty Years hence, will probably destroy us. For, if in its Perihelion it should approach within a certain Degree of the Sun, (as by their Calculations they have Reason to dread) it will conceive a Degree of Heat ten Thousand Times more intense than that of red hot glowing Iron; and in its Absence from the Sun, carry a blazing Tail Ten Hundred Thousand and Fourteen Miles long; through which if the Earth should pass at the Distance of one Hundred Thousand Miles from the Nucleus or main Body of the Comet, it must in its Passage be set on Fire, and reduced to Ashes. That the Sun daily spending its Rays without any Nutriment to supply them, will at last be wholly consumed and annihilated; which must be attended with the Destruction of this Earth, and of all the Planets that receive their Light from it. They are so perpetually alarmed with the Apprehensions of these and the like impending Dangers, that they can neither sleep quietly in their Beds, nor have any Relish for the common Pleasures or Amusements of Life.

    Jonathon Swift, 1667-1745, Gulliver’s Travels, Part III, Chapter II.

  123. Steve Sadlov
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 9:49 AM | Permalink

    RE: #125 – Indeed, as of the early 1700s, the Royal Academy beleived comets were on fire and did not have an inkling that they were actually frozen and their tails made of ionized gas, not flame. What grave errors do they entertain today?

  124. bernie
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 10:16 AM | Permalink

    Tom:
    My God, there’s a thought. How would the good Dean have described Al Gore? Your quotation is an admirable starting point, though methinks Swift needs to be handled carefully because of the potential for “blowback”.

  125. tom
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 10:52 AM | Permalink

    bernie: how about Tolstoy:

    I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.

  126. bernie
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 1:05 PM | Permalink

    Tom:
    If you are as adept with multiple regression and factor analysis as you are with apt quotations, I am deeply impressed.
    I assume that this one pertains more specifically to the HS team. Gore and the greatest complexity hardly belong in the same sentence.

  127. Kahlessa
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 9:40 PM | Permalink

    Regarding Gore’s remark during the Senate Hearing:

    If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say I read a science fiction novel that says it’s not a problem.’ You take action.

    I assume he was referring to Michael Crichton’s novel State of Fear. But at least Dr. Crichton’s novel contains footnotes and a bibliography to back up his claims. Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth has no footnotes, no bibliography, and no list of references. Perhaps Gore believes the science on global warming is so certain, he doesn’t need to document his claims.

    Global warming for dummies.

  128. Harry9000
    Posted Mar 28, 2007 at 11:19 PM | Permalink

    Kahlessa,

    Not to mention the fact it was a crudely worked in cheep shot at a critic without bothering to address specifics.

3 Trackbacks

  1. By Al Gore » Al Gore March 22, 2007 4:06 am on Mar 22, 2007 at 2:39 AM

    […] bush administration, countdown, Environment, global warming, inhofe, Keith Olbermann, oil …Comment on Al Gore on C-Span by Larry Huldén Comment on Waterworldsoon: 1: ?That fact that there are people still trying to deny that the earth […]

  2. By Al Gore » Al Gore March 22, 2007 5:37 pm on Mar 22, 2007 at 3:37 PM

    […] People Are Saying Comment on Al Gore on C-Span by Waterworldsoon AGGs overall effect on climate change is still arguable, the point Gore is very effectively making […]

  3. By Al Gore » Al Gore March 23, 2007 3:31 pm on Mar 23, 2007 at 3:48 PM

    […] today. No, not terror, but global warming. Al Gore has been travelling the world with an …Comment on Al Gore on C-Span by fFreddy Ref 41-100, Waterworldsoon Rather a quick conversion ?Comment on Al Gore on C-Span by Follow the […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,381 other followers

%d bloggers like this: