Breaking: Gore Wrong on Global Warming

[Hawkmoon]

Note to the Algore: Contrary to your predictions 6 years ago, arctic sea ice has NOT disappeared.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/14/earth-gains-a-record-amount-of-sea-ice-in-2013-earth-has-gained-19000-manhattans-of-sea-ice-since-this-date-last-year-the-largest-increase-on-record/



In fact, looking at the graph, I'd say there's fairly good documentation that changes in the amount of arctic sea ice are somewhat cyclical, and not entirely predictable. The net result seems to be akin to, "You win a few, you lose a few." Nonetheless, I'm confident that a resourceful spinmeister like the Algore will find a way to explain that when we lose arctic sea ice it's because of global warming, and when we gain (record amounts of) arctic sea ice it's STILL due to global warming.

[Boomhauer]

Its breaking news that he was wrong? I knew he was wrong back when his fucktarded movie came out

[robear]

EXCELSIOR!!!



Why won't anyone take me serial?!?!?

[drewtam]

Hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.

The moderate recovery of the sea ice does not "prove" that human caused global warming is wrong; anymore than record hot summer days prove it right.

Surely, it does hurt the confidence that they are on the right track, when a long term prediction based on the theory and models and consensus all said that the Northwest passage would be ice free by summer 2013 and its dead wrong on that prediction. I'll certainly agree to that, but as I said, hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.

[Fly320s]

Hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.

The moderate recovery of the sea ice does not "prove" that human caused global warming is wrong; anymore than record hot summer days prove it right.

Moderate recovery?  How about 33 years of cyclical activity with no trend in any direction?

[Scout26]

Da erf has been around for 4-5  billion years.  We have a little over 100 years of weather data and not all of it is truly accurate (for a variety of reasons).

Yet there are people claiming that will end up just like a planet that is 26 Million miles closer to the sun, has a completely different atmospheric make-up/content, using models that completely fail to account for the #1 greenhouse gas (water vapor), yet still go on and on and on about "Globular Woerming were all gonna die!!!, Women and Minorities hardest hit, film at 11."

Absolute and utter bull-cookies.

The only driver of da erf's climate is that big glowing ball of yellow in the sky. Period. The end. Full Stop.  (Okay, axial tilt and the magnetic poles might have a little something to do with it also, but mankin?  Pppffffftttttt.....)

[drewtam]

Moderate recovery?  How about 33 years of cyclical activity with no trend in any direction?

Seems like a downward trend in this plot...
Plot via wattsupwiththat.com
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/sea-ice-news-volume-4-2-the-2013-sea-ice-forecast-contest/


and 2013 looks like a moderate recovery back to 2009 levels.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/18/sea-ice-news-volume-4-number-4-the-maslowski-countdown-to-an-ice-free-arctic-begins/

[brimic]

All predictions are drawn from very limited samplings.
10,000 years is a mere blink of an eye in earth's age, most predictions are based on data from <1/100 of that length of time.

Climate science is a politically driven pseudoscience at best.

[Boomhauer]

Climate science is a politically driven pseudoscience at best.

When the people who lead and support the "climate change" movement start actually showing they actually care about what they are blabbering about vs. trying to extract the most treasure and power from it I will pay more attention to what they are claiming.

When the big name environmentalists give up their electricity hogging mansions, call me.

When the big name environmentalists give up their private jets, call me.

When the big name environmentalists give up their limos and SUVs, call me.

When the big name environmentalists decide to try to get me to change by convincing me with facts instead of using the government to force me to, call me.

[MechAg94]

When the people who lead and support the "climate change" movement start actually showing they actually care about what they are blabbering about vs. trying to extract the most treasure and power from it I will pay more attention to what they are claiming.

When the big name environmentalists give up their electricity hogging mansions, call me.

When the big name environmentalists give up their private jets, call me.

When the big name environmentalists give up their limos and SUVs, call me.

When the big name environmentalists decide to try to get me to change by convincing me with facts instead of using the government to force me to, call me.

That is one thing that is often ignored or forgotten.  None of the proposed solutions given by the lefty AGW crowd will actually help prevent it.  That has been true since Kyoto accords were first introduced.

[MechAg94]

Hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.

The moderate recovery of the sea ice does not "prove" that human caused global warming is wrong; anymore than record hot summer days prove it right.

Surely, it does hurt the confidence that they are on the right track, when a long term prediction based on the theory and models and consensus all said that the Northwest passage would be ice free by summer 2013 and its dead wrong on that prediction. I'll certainly agree to that, but as I said, hyperbole from the skeptic crowd is just as annoying as hyperbole from the doomer crowd.

I would stipulate that none of the accurate models or consensus said the Northwest passage would be ice free this soon.  That was a sensational prediction by politically minded people angling for more funding and new taxes.  The more honest models show either no change or predict a couple degree change in 200 years or so.  The scientists making wild predictions have to severely rig their models to get them to show any short term changes. 

These days you rarely see this discussed.  The pro-global warming crowd intentionally confuses the issue IMO.  It is still questionable 20 years later whether we are actually seeing warming.  The next step is proving mankind has caused it and they still can't do that because CO2 just isn't as big a driver of GW as they suggest.  This ignores the act that they have never proposed a real solution that would change anything they claim to be happening. 

[French G.]

I still contend that early industrial revolution power use created massive atmospheric particulate load and coincided or partially caused the little ice age. Then we stop burning wood, coal so much, and in general clean things up and we get a temp bump from the reduced particulate. Love to see it studied. 150years ago there were little to no trees in my home state. Cleared for farming, steam power, everyday cooking and heating. Britain rose to the top of the world burning Welsh coal all over it. We did the same in the northeast. Not an emission control one.
 
And I am too saddened by the hyperbole wars. I am inclined to be environmentally conscious but there is no common sense middle these days. Buncha screaming idiots.

[Hawkmoon]

I still contend that early industrial revolution power use created massive atmospheric particulate load and coincided or partially caused the little ice age.

Industrial revolution? Not hardly. Consider the Vikings' attempt to settle Greenland:

History of the Eastern Settlement

About a century after the Norse settlement of Iceland and after the point when land became scarce there, Erik the Red (also spelled Eirik the Red) was kicked out of Iceland for killing a handful of his neighbors after a land dispute. In 983, he became the first recorded European to set foot on Greenland. By 986, he had set up the Eastern Settlement, and taken the best land for himself, an estate called Brattahild.

Eventually, the Eastern Settlement grew to ~200-500 (estimates vary) farmsteads, an Augustinian monastery, a Benedictine convent and 12 parish churches, accounting for perhaps as many as 4000-5000 individuals. Norsemen in Greenland were primarily farmers, raising cattle, sheep and goats, but supplementing that regimen with local marine and terrestrial fauna, trading polar bear fur, narwhal ivory and falcons for grain and metals from Iceland and eventually Norway. Although there were recorded attempts to grow barley, they were never successful.

Eastern Settlement and Climate Change

Some paleoenvironmental evidence suggests that the settlers damaged Greenland's arability by cutting down much of the existing trees-mostly isolated copses of birch-to build structures and burning scrubland to extend areas of pasture, resulting in increased soil erosion.

Climate change, in the form of a slow cooling of the average sea temperature by 7 degrees centigrade by 1400, spelled the end of the Norse colony. The winters became very harsh and fewer and fewer ships made the trip from Norway. By the end of the 14th century, the Western Settlement was abandoned.

Source: http://archaeology.about.com/od/vikings/qt/eastern_settlement.htm

[French G.]

I realize Greenland was green when someone decided to name it Greenland. I was not talking about millenia of climate fluctuation. I was conjecturing about one very short term swing in the climate. In the TLDR I'd guess that human activity artificially depressed global temps a degree or two thus in part leading to the 20th century ZOMG the world's gonna melt rise.

I doubt the scale of the vikings tree-cutting impacted climate, your quote just says they were crappy farmers.

[brimic]

I realize Greenland was green when someone decided to name it Greenland

Some time ago, I heard that 'Greenland' was more of name made up by the Viking marketing department than reality.

[BlueStarLizzard]

That article says a shift occured. It doesn't state a cause.

To say that event A caused event 11 without proof of correlation is false.

Considering that the climate of northern hemisphere around the Atlantic is largely effected by the Gulf Stream, I'd say you'd have to look much further south for a cause.

[slingshot]

I think the amount of ice is cyclical and man has some impact, but things like volcanic eruptions and the cycles around them potentially impact the earths climate much more.

[Waitone]

An interesting exercise is to compare the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth during a year and then compare that figure against the total amount against all sources human generated energy during the year.  The term "vanishingly small" overstates it.

[Regolith]

Some time ago, I heard that 'Greenland' was more of name made up by the Viking marketing department than reality.

Not quite:

[HankB]

Looks like a British paper has seen the upcoming IPCC report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

A few tidbits:

"Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.”  (Climate Anomaly? Why not Warm Period?)

“Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations ... " (%&$! data doesn't fit our theory!)

“There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent."  (Oops - we don't know why we're wrong.)

“we need to look very carefully about what the IPCC does in future” (We're not sure how to spin this without looking stupid . . .)

Report goes on to say that despite being wrong, they still believe global warming is man's fault.

[drewtam]

An interesting exercise is to compare the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth during a year and then compare that figure against the total amount against all sources human generated energy during the year.  The term "vanishingly small" overstates it.

I don't understand why you think that comparison is relevant. Explain further.

[Marnoot]

An interesting exercise is to compare the amount of solar energy intercepted by the earth during a year and then compare that figure against the total amount against all sources human generated energy during the year.  The term "vanishingly small" overstates it.

The AGW-believers' claim isn't that we're creating the heat, but that we're creating conditions that trap the heat. Greenhouse effect.

[MicroBalrog]

The problem with AGW is not so much the science.

The scientific theory: "Human industrial activity causes warming".

Then we are given several charged assumptions, and are told to accept that they are part of the science, i.e. if you do not accept them, you hate science:

1. That warming is inherently a bad thing. Why? If I lived in a cold country that was slated to get warmer and more fertile, I don't know if I'd agree.

2.That warming is a bad thing we should act against. This is not the same as above. If global warming does, for example, 100 billion dollars' worth damage to humanity, and preventing it costs $100 billion dollars and one cent, it isn't worth doing.

3. That warming is a bad thing we should act against by reducing carbon footprints. Why? Why not geoengineering? But geoengineering is verboten.

4. Because atomic power is anathema to the usual suspects, the only meaningful way to reduce carbon footprint that remains is to reduce our quality of life, either by means of a carbon tax, or by various means persuading the public to give up prosperity such as cars, large televisions, etc. This is already ongoing.


In 95% of the public discussion on global warming, 'global warming' is a stand-in for 'you must accept AGW and therefore 1-4, or you hate science'.

But of course, science doesn't work that way.

[Boomhauer]

the only meaningful way to reduce carbon footprint that remains is to reduce our quality of life,

The proponents of the AGW movement are all about reducing your quality of life but not theirs, of course.

[MicroBalrog]

The proponents of the AGW movement are all about reducing your quality of life but not theirs, of course.

And if they would reduce their quality of life, why would I accept a reduction of mine?